A Big Dog Attacked My Toy Poodle X

[huski]

It was pretty obvious what this thread was.

I couldn't say why the difference in reactions as my stance is still the same, onlead or offlead, park or event or street or footpath, it isn't acceptable and the attacking dog/owner is at fault.

Although I would be less surprised at an attack while dogs are in an off lead park due to my own experiences and I do think they are very different environments.

Even when the attacking dog was minding its own business and was approached without warning by another dog?

IMO, it's not always the attacking dog who is at fault. If I've got my reactive dog on leash and under control, and someone lets their "friendly" dog run up to say hello, it's the friendly dog who is fault. And this was the case in the other thread. Big, friendly, well trained dog was allowed to approach a small, fearful dog. And yet it's the small dog's fault?

Doesn't make sense.

LMSWs dog did not "run up to say hello" to the small dog, it is all there on video and clear as day that isn't what happened, I don't understand why you keep trying to invent something that did not happen.

If this was the same as the other thread there would be a lot more posters in here calling Simply Grand antagonistic for making an "experiment" thread in the first place and trying to put fault on her for her dog being attacked and other such ridiculous things.

I feel the same as I did in LMSWs thread, the dog should not have been there in the first place.

[huski]

Where are the " it was the other dogs fault, not yours. You have the right to expect a dog to behave in a public place" relies? Instead, the OP is told not to take her dog to these places. Interesting given the other thread.

There were plenty of people blaming LMSWs in the other thread.

[bertie]

In that case, very nice work SG & glad your little fella is all good

It is definitely an interesting thread :laugh:

[~Anne~]

I read bits and pieces of the other thread and lost interest when it became about chest beating.

I think dog owners, just like parents, are prone to over analysation of everything their animals (or children do), including the reaction of others around them.

I think people will always generalise and I think that generalisations, particularly common ones, all have an element of truth. In this case the generalisation seemed to be that little dogs are untrained and anti social and owners of little dogs are ignorant to the negatives of this.

[Alison03]

I read bits and pieces of the other thread and lost interest when it became about chest beating.

I think dog owners, just like parents, are prone to over analysation of everything their animals (or children do), including the reaction of others around them.

I think people will always generalise and I think that generalisations, particularly common ones, all have an element of truth. In this case the generalisation seemed to be that little dogs are untrained and anti social and owners of little dogs are ignorant to the negatives of this.

We're not all like that, my little dog is neither untrained or antisocial, so while there might be some truth in the generalization you mentioned, you must also allow that there is some truth in the generalization that not all large dogs are well behaved and under tight control by their owners.

[~Anne~]

I think you missed the point of my post Allison. That's ok though. I don't always write things as clearly as I think them.

[bertie]

I think you missed the point of my post Allison. That's ok though. I don't always write things as clearly as I think them.

It was clear :) I think the words 'element of' may have been skipped over when read.

[minimax]

I read bits and pieces of the other thread and lost interest when it became about chest beating.

I think dog owners, just like parents, are prone to over analysation of everything their animals (or children do), including the reaction of others around them.

I think people will always generalise and I think that generalisations, particularly common ones, all have an element of truth. In this case the generalisation seemed to be that little dogs are untrained and anti social and owners of little dogs are ignorant to the negatives of this.

We're not all like that, my little dog is neither untrained or antisocial, so while there might be some truth in the generalization you mentioned, you must also allow that there is some truth in the generalization that not all large dogs are well behaved and under tight control by their owners.

You do understand what generalisation means, right?

[Simply Grand]

I don't agree with anyone who said that Roscoe in any way behaved inappropriately or provoked the other dog to attack him, any more than I would agree with anyone saying Saxon behaved inappropriately or provoked the other dog in my situation.

I think there were a number of people offering possible explanations for why the little dog may have reacted to Roscoe and why it may have been unwise to have Roscoe that close, just as there have been explanations in this thread for the dog's reaction to Saxon - prey drive kicked in in response to a small fluffy creature, especially when Saxon yelped and ran. Does that make it ok for the dog to bite another dog? No way, but it's an understandable dog reaction, just as I think it's an understandable reaction for a small dog to not like large dogs approaching it. LMSW and some others in the other thread continually refused to even acknowledge that, which I think is part of what frustrated me and others.

As far as owners making excuses for their dog's behaviour, I think it's a common reaction for a lot of people when their dog behaves badly regardless of the dog's size and saying that it is predominantly an issue with small dog owners is unfair and probably inaccurate. I doubt there are accurate figures but I suspect for every person who's heard an excuse for a small dog behaving badly there is a person who's heard an excuse for a big dog behaving badly.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Simply Grand

[Dame Aussie]

It was pretty obvious what this thread was.

I couldn't say why the difference in reactions as my stance is still the same, onlead or offlead, park or event or street or footpath, it isn't acceptable and the attacking dog/owner is at fault.

Although I would be less surprised at an attack while dogs are in an off lead park due to my own experiences and I do think they are very different environments.

Even when the attacking dog was minding its own business and was approached without warning by another dog?

IMO, it's not always the attacking dog who is at fault. If I've got my reactive dog on leash and under control, and someone lets their "friendly" dog run up to say hello, it's the friendly dog who is fault. And this was the case in the other thread. Big, friendly, well trained dog was allowed to approach a small, fearful dog. And yet it's the small dog's fault?

Doesn't make sense.

Are you actually serious?:laugh:

Please show me where he ran over to the small dog??? He just turned his head and sniffed.

Anyway that's another thread and this whole experiment thing is pretty ridiculous so I'm done.

Edited November 10, 2013 by Aussie3

[huski]

Does that make it ok for the dog to bite another dog? No way, but it's an understandable dog reaction, just as I think it's an understandable reaction for a small dog to not like large dogs approaching it. LMSW and some others in the other thread continually refused to even acknowledge that, which I think is part of what frustrated me and others.

I think had the small dog startled it would have been a normal reaction, but I find it extremely worrying that anyone would think that attacking another dog is an "understandable dog reaction" in response to being politely sniffed by a dog it had been standing next to for some time. That's not a reasonable reaction, it's aggression. It is not a normal reaction to a polite greeting from another dog.

Edited November 10, 2013 by huski

[Simply Grand]

Where did I say it was reasonable or normal?

[huski]

Where did I say it was reasonable or normal?

What else did you mean when you said it was "an understandable dog reaction"? That implies that it's ok, or appropriate behaviour.

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make with this thread/experiment. Are you trying to catch out certain DOLers for having double standards? LMSWs thread became heated for a number of reasons as threads can often do especially as this is a hot topic. IMO, in both threads the owners of the attacking dog were entirely in the wrong.

[Simply Grand]

I meant understandable literally as in can be understood. Understanding something is not the same as condoning it. Like I said, I understand that some dogs have high prey drive, that doesn't mean I think it's ok for them to bite my dog.

The point of the thread was to satisfy my own curiosity about how this thread would unfold compared to the other one, and to see whether anything came up that would change my own views on LMSW's incident. I certainly wasnt trying to catch anyone out as I thought it would be quite obvious that I was intentionally making a comparison, given that I used the same wording.

[Alison03]

I think you missed the point of my post Allison. That's ok though. I don't always write things as clearly as I think them.

I know the feeling. : )) Sorry if I misunderstood.