Rehnagaede

I used to be one of those kids who went up to dogs and patted them without asking the owner, however I possessed the sense about me to let the dogs make the first move. As has been said above, you have no idea what this dog is capable of, yet you're putting your hand in a highly vulnerable position; with kids it also grows out to encompass their face. This, I think, is exactly why the owner has the right to keep people away from the dog. The distress that may potentially be caused the the poor pooch may push him/her over the edge, and that's when you get your arse sued and your dog put down because of how "dangerous" it is. Education, in this area is pretty much THE key element. For example, if you were a kid, would you go up to a stranger inviting you into their car? Hell no, you were taught about stranger danger. Why can't they have something like that with dogs? Not in the sense that the dogs are dangerous, more that the kids are putting themselves into a potentially dangerous situation. One could say for kids, it ultimately comes down to the parents, but I don't think so. Some parents can be quite lazy and not even bother to keep their kids on a (figurative, but sometimes literal) leash, which makes them run wild. Yet when there were important messages for the kids at school, everybody perked up. The stranger danger talk, the bicycle safety talk, etc. And then subtly place them into the anti-piracy ads they have on dvd's. *You wouldn't steal a car* *You wouldn't pat a strange dog* :p

I work at Hungry Jack's at the back making the burgers (heh, yeah, it's a real fun job /sarcasm) and I can see the drive through windows from my station, and I looked up the other day to see a woman with a tiny dog sitting behind on her shoulders and nestled between there and the back headrest. It looked highly dangerous, as the dog's head was poking out the open window, and I was thinking that if the woman took a sharp turn, the poor thing would have slid out the window. In hindsight, I should have told her off and threatened to call the police and RSPCA, but I didn't think of it at the time. The stupid things some people do with their dogs, risking their lives and not even realising it.

Those staffies never jumped out the window to attack the baby though. They jumped out to have a go at the dog. It was just a mishap that the carriage got knocked over. As I said before, if there were dog-aggressive dogs around, wouldn't your dogs be your highest priority? Her words clearly enunciated what the situation prescribed, which was for her to get her dogs the hell away from those staffies. Therefore, her choice of words were perfectly fine and your statement is invalid because of the fact that there were other people around to help. No it isn't as the baby was on the ground and possibly in danger of being caught uo in the attack etc and intially the man knocked out. My response was in reply to these words My Mum would not have been strong enough to hold Tyson... My mum tried to walk over to the man whilst still having Pixie on lead with her! I yelled at her to get back and come to me and by that time there were more than enough people there trying to control the situation. I'm sorry but my number one priority is protecting my own dogs. If the OP had worded the post slightly differently it would have made a difference to peoples responses. I don't think the OP did anything wrong. What part of other people around to help don't you understand? And what part of dog-aggressive don't you understand? People's responses will always have the ups and downs of the original post. No matter what you say SOMEONE is going to pick at it. I'm picking at yours because you're not looking at the description properly. I commend you on the fact that you don't think the OP did anything wrong, but I don't commend you for picking at the wording when there isn't anything wrong with it. As reference, you should look at:

Those staffies never jumped out the window to attack the baby though. They jumped out to have a go at the dog. It was just a mishap that the carriage got knocked over. As I said before, if there were dog-aggressive dogs around, wouldn't your dogs be your highest priority? Her words clearly enunciated what the situation prescribed, which was for her to get her dogs the hell away from those staffies. Therefore, her choice of words were perfectly fine and your statement is invalid because of the fact that there were other people around to help.

My Mum would not have been strong enough to hold Tyson... My mum tried to walk over to the man whilst still having Pixie on lead with her! I yelled at her to get back and come to me and by that time there were more than enough people there trying to control the situation. I'm sorry but my number one priority is protecting my own dogs. I consider human life, especially a baby more important than my animals. A BABY face planting the concrete in a pram with heightened dog behaviour surrounding it would turn on my overdrive ESPECIALLY when there were 2 adults with 2 dogs on lead who could have worked out a plan instead of squealing off down the road. If your mother was fit enough to run off, maybe you should have squealed off home and sent your mother to assist. geez it's so easy to judge someone else when you haven't been in that position yourself. I'm just glad opinions are just that, hopefully the OP knows this as well. I have been in worse That's all well and good for you to say, but you weren't in this situation. Why should you have expected her to help when there were already half a dozen other neighbours rushing to help? As it was told, the baby "faceplanted" after people were already coming to help. What more could she have done? Better to clear yourself of the area if there's nothing more you can do. Especially (emphasis on this) when she said that one of the staffies was coming after her dogs. To hell with human life when DOG-AGGRESSIVE dogs are coming after your dog. The baby probably only got scratches, whereas her dogs could have been killed. Putting you in this situation, you would have gone over with your dogs, and only exacerbated the problem. She did the right thing that was called for this situation, so don't you put her down for it.

Ooooh, this sort of inference may be too logical for the anti-oodles. And no, I do not own an oodle Just amused by the potential syllogism here. Let's see if I can frame it correctly - it has been a long, long time since first year philosophy in which we studied logic. All oodles are unpredictable Some oodles have a fleece coat Conclusion: Not all oodles definitely have a fleece coat I'm always amused at the people who say "all oodles are ugly" or "all oodles have a bad temperament" because I thought that the major downside of an oodle was that it was a cross-breed and therefore by its nature unpredictable, so all those who purport to generalise about the nature of all oodles are thereby contradicting the fundamental premise on which anti-oodlism is based because as an oodle is unpredictable, it could end up with a nice temperament or a nice appearance and it could also be ugly with a bad coat and temperament. Just saying... Again, I am not promoting oodles, just saying that the argument is more logically sound and robust when people simply say that an oodle is unpredictable. People undermine their own oodle argument if they purport to posit a theory of certainty of oodle characteristics. Just a question on that regarding defects/problems. Would there be the same predictability/unpredictability on the defects/problems that the oodles could potentially have? I'm not too clued up on what breeds have what problems, but if you cross a breed that has heart problems with a breed that has bone structure problems (I'm really only taking a stab in the dark here, so there may be no such thing; it's just an example), is it a foregone conclusion that the oodle would inherit both of those problems? I realise this question may contradict your statement about people postulating a theory of certainty in oodle characteristics, but I want to categorise this as something different to temperament and appearance, because I feel that it's of a different importance, as I regard health as a "physicality" and temperament and appearance as a "mentality". Specifically the importance in enabling those that have oodle dogs to be aware of and understand that the breeds with which their oodle has been crossed may have certain problems, and that these problems may develop, and multiply, in their oodle.

Thank you all very much for giving sound advice, I will surely take everything into consideration. The main reason for the country property was so there could be more than two dogs, but as said above, I'd have to check with council regulations. A clarification for the "country property"; it wouldn't be a huge property, so to speak, thinking about an acreage or thereabouts, but of course, there'd still need to be fence checks and so on. As for owning all four dogs at once, that isn't what I had in mind, and while I realise that I'm lacking in the experience of owning a dog, I've been around Pixie and Tyson for a while, and I'm getting used to them. Of course, that still doesn't mean I'm experienced much, and when I move out of home, I intend to research up on breeds to see what would be best for me. But it needs to be remembered that it won't be just me with four dogs. All the dogs will be desexed as well, since it's not really necessary to have them otherwise. Establishing the rules is another thing I will have to research upon, as I'm not quite sure of what would be necessary to do. I've observed eating time rules, where dogs aren't allowed to eat until their owners allow them to, and to always keep eye contact with their owner, so I will be taking those on board. @Esky: As far as I'm guessing, the dogs will be both inside and outside. @Poodlefan: The reason for the Lab and the German Shepherd, is that to start off with, a Lab would be good for an inexperienced owner like myself, or so I have read, and the German Shepherd is my dream dog, which I hope to get at a later date. @LizT: I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying there, because as much as I have been with Pixie and Tyson, I still need more time to get used to them, and vice versa. They already miss me and go hyper whenever I come over and visit, but I need to strengthen the bond I have between them and myself. I think the hardest thing is that I haven't been around them for long enough, and since they've already been taught the rules and know who the boss is, I'm sort of an outsider who only gets given a glance and the barest hint of acquiescence. That's not to say they don't listen to me; they do, it's just that on the whole I've only really scratched the surface.

Hi there. I've thought of a hypothetical scenario for the future for my girlfriend and myself if we were to live on a country property. The question is: what ratio of male/female dogs should we have? The background information is that we want to have around about four dogs, two for her, two for me; we'd just like to know if there's a special process or setup to have, whether more males or more females. For the amount of experience we have in regards to owning four dogs, I myself haven't owned a dog before, but would certainly like to, and my girlfriend has quite a lot of experience. I also realise that it might be difficult to hypothesise the ratio when considering the different breeds that go well to each type of ration, and it's also harder since we haven't named any particular breeds so you're unable to say right off the top of your head. If you've had any experience with this at all, it would be helpful if you were to tell us how you've fared. Any opinions are welcome, but please, constructive only.