Rachael Ray's dog...

Chuffy

If your dog can ONLY survive and be safe in a completely idiot-free world, he's not suited to this one.  Sorry.  Just my 0.02.

I think the issue is these dogs will fight to survive and keep themselves safe in ANY world.  However, still the idiots and their dogs fault if something happens to them assuming I'm managing my dog correctly. 

Chuffy

I agree that, if you have your dog on a lead and someone else doesn;t, you still have a responsibility to manage your dog's behaviour.

And, if the dog is on leash the behavior is being managed. 

willowchow

And, if the dog is on leash the behavior is being managed. 

I don't believe that's always the case.

If you have a dog aggressive dog, and are walking near other dogs, it doesn't matter whether or not your dog is on a leash - what matters is whether or not it is being put in a position where it could bite other dogs. Just because an aggressive dog is on a leash doesn't mean that it won't attack if it's walked near another, also leashed dog. That is not managing the behavior. A leash is just *one* management aspect, out of many. (The most important being don't be in close proximity to other dogs.)

I totally understand those of you with aggressive dogs having a *huge* knee-jerk reaction to the thought of loose dogs, but there's nothing to show that there were any loose dogs in this particular situation.

It sounds like there were two leashed dogs who got in a fight while being walked near each other, in the city. That does not scream "management" to me.

I'm not saying that aggressive dogs can't be managed properly, just that it's very hard (if not impossible?) to do that in New York City.

denise m

All dog owners should have their dogs under control in public but as a DA dog owner I believe you totally liable if the unthinkable happens.

 

I think Denise has it nailed here.  If your dog has a history of attacks, your responsibility  is higher.  Even if the other owner is an idiot and letting their dog run up to yours.  You know your dog and are responsible for protecting others.  In the situation with Rachel Ray, her dog should have been wearing a basket muzzle.  The chance of coming close enough to bite another dog was absolute.  Her duty is to protect other dogs from hers.  Letting it walk the streets is negligence, at the least.  If it goes to court, her dog is dead, and she pays all damages and fees.
 

Cita

If you have a dog aggressive dog, and are walking near other dogs, it doesn't matter whether or not your dog is on a leash - what matters is whether or not it is being put in a position where it could bite other dogs. Just because an aggressive dog is on a leash doesn't mean that it won't attack if it's walked near another, also leashed dog. That is not managing the behavior. A leash is just *one* management aspect, out of many. (The most important being don't be in close proximity to other dogs.)

Right, and I've posted already that I don't think this dog should be in this situation. 

 The issue with loose dogs is also that they often are responsible for creating leash aggression in dogs who previously had no issues. Dgs who are repeatedly charged and jumped on, even in a playful manner by strange dogs often become defensive about strange dogs approaching them. I honestly can't imagine letting an irresponsible owner off the hook by blaming the person who's dog is under control and on leash but acted defensively when a loose dog ran up to them in a place with leash laws.

 I think the idea of carrying DirectStop and using it on approaching loose dogs is a real good idea.

 I have a young, VERY well socialized dog, from a breed not known for aggression, who now growls and air snaps at approaching dogs because I am not good enough at keeping her from being charged. She was raised, unfortunately, with a dog who would inflict damage, so while I was managing that dog, she was charged more than once (by well meaning, but not properly contained dogs). She no longer has that happy puppy "Yay!" thing going. I think that it's asking a lot of any mature dog to allow strange dogs to approach it on a leash.

willowchow

Chuffy

I agree that, if you have your dog on a lead and someone else doesn;t, you still have a responsibility to manage your dog's behaviour.

And, if the dog is on leash the behavior is being managed. 

Not necessarily - I've seen planty of on-lead dogs that were NOT under their owners' control, and it put other members of the public directly at risk.  I would say ongoing training, a sufficient level of control and pro-active behaviour on the part of the owner (avoiding likely triggers, being aware of the surroundings, etc.etc), possibly an additional tool (to inhinit biting or lunging for example, and/or increase owner's control)  are also very necessary.... Just a lead is not enough.

AgileGSD

 The issue with loose dogs is also that they often are responsible for creating leash aggression in dogs who previously had no issues. Dgs who are repeatedly charged and jumped on, even in a playful manner by strange dogs often become defensive about strange dogs approaching them. I honestly can't imagine letting an irresponsible owner off the hook by blaming the person who's dog is under control and on leash but acted defensively when a loose dog ran up to them in a place with leash laws.

 I think the idea of carrying DirectStop and using it on approaching loose dogs is a real good idea.

This is in reply to me, but it doesn't relate to anything i think I said, or tried to say.  Yes, I would hope the owner of the not-under-control dog would get the blame.  I did say that.  But I also think that it's not enough to say, "hey, MY dog was on a lead, so it's all your fault!".  Yes, you knew your dog was DA and you took him for a walk in a place where there would be lots of other dogs, at a very busy time, without a muzzle, and despite being on a lead he wasn't under control, hasn't had ongoing training and was able to lunge forward and practically pull you over to GET to another dog who got too close, AND you weren't carrying anything to deter any loose dogs which you KNEW your dog would react to.... That is a completely hypothetical situation, but it illustrates my point... that a lead is not enough, nor does it *completely* absolve the owner of a dangerous dog of blame should the worst happen. 

jennie_c_d

I think that it's asking a lot of any mature dog to allow strange dogs to approach it on a leash.

Me too, but there is quite a wide margin between "allow" and "maim, kill, rip the ear off or otherwise seriously injure."

I recall spiritdogs mentioning once about food aggression and kids; even if YOU don't have kids, they exist in this world.

The thing about kids is they do stupid things and can;t always be prevented.  It takes a lot to child-proof a dog to a reasonable level.  If a child does something stupid, it's still "the child's fault", but the dog should still have been kept from being put in that situation, to the best of the owner's ability.  Regardless of whose "fault" it was, the kid does not deserve to lose a face and the dog does not need a bite history.... That's why you "drive like everyone else on the road is an idiot".

Chuffy

"drive like everyone else on the road is an idiot".

I drive like everyone else is an idiot, and I still got rear ended last year. Not badly, no damage to any people or cars,  but it still happened. Despite my best efforts to compensate for the irresponsibility of others, it still happened. Despite the best efforts of the person attempting to manage the aggressive dog, there are sometimes where it just isn't going to be prevented. Unless you only drive on your own course, you can't completely prevent interaction with other vehicles, and unless the same is true about your area to walk your dog, and you have the vet come to you, you can't completely prevent your dog from having any interaction with any dog.

Chuffy

The thing about kids is they do stupid things and can;t always be prevented.  It takes a lot to child-proof a dog to a reasonable level.  If a child does something stupid, it's still "the child's fault", but the dog should still have been kept from being put in that situation, to the best of the owner's ability.  Regardless of whose "fault" it was, the kid does not deserve to lose a face and the dog does not need a bite history.... That's why you "drive like everyone else on the road is an idiot".

 This discussion is starting to sound like Sue Sternburg's temperament test - only dogs with docile, laid back, totally non-aggressive temperaments should be allowed to live.

 Again I am not defending what happened with Rachel Ray's dog, if the story is indeed true. I think she has made some really dumb choices considering she has known for years that the dog has serious aggression problems.

AgileGSD

Chuffy

The thing about kids is they do stupid things and can;t always be prevented.  It takes a lot to child-proof a dog to a reasonable level.  If a child does something stupid, it's still "the child's fault", but the dog should still have been kept from being put in that situation, to the best of the owner's ability.  Regardless of whose "fault" it was, the kid does not deserve to lose a face and the dog does not need a bite history.... That's why you "drive like everyone else on the road is an idiot".

 This discussion is starting to sound like Sue Sternburg's temperament test - only dogs with docile, laid back, totally non-aggressive temperaments should be allowed to live.

Don't do that please - I did not suggest or imply that was the case.  That is not my belief at all.  If you have a dog who is NOT docile, not laid back but DOES have a dangerously low threshold for aggression (I do not believe totally non-aggressive dogs even exist), you need to be savvy and pro-active enough to deal with that, with active management... that includes more than just keeping your dog on lead and then assigning blame afterwards.  If you can't or won't take all the necessary steps to keep your dog out of conflict and protect others, then rehome to someone who can and will.... or euth the dog.

AgileGSD

 This discussion is starting to sound like Sue Sternburg's temperament test - only dogs with docile, laid back, totally non-aggressive temperaments should be allowed to live.

 Again I am not defending what happened with Rachel Ray's dog, if the story is indeed true. I think she has made some really dumb choices considering she has known for years that the dog has serious aggression problems.

Agreed.

It is an owner's responsibility to manage his/her dog effectively, end of story. Chuffy, in your example, it is absolutely not "the child's fault" - it is the parent's fault for allowing the child into that situation, and the dog owner's fault for allowing the dog into that situation.

As the owner of a temperamentally-questionable dog, I take great offense to the idea that only "idiot-proof" dogs should be allowed to live in "this world." Should the same hold for humans? Should we start euthanizing every hothead who can't control his temper and gets into bar fights? Or what about cats - it is expected that cats will scratch and bite if put into an unpleasant situation. If cats are allowed to act like cats and defend themselves when in a bad situation, why is doing the same a death sentence for a dog? What about parrots? If you stick your finger into an unknown macaw's cage and get bitten, does anyone think the macaw should be euthanized?

Obviously, the important issue is proper management. If you own a dog with aggressive tendencies, you don't allow the dog to be in situations where it might behave aggressively. You also focus on training, desensitization, and redirection. The management aspect is what was missing in this particular situation.

For one, I would like to see some solid evidence that this even happened. As of yet the only source is..........radaronline?

Hello? a rag online magazine is being touted at the in the know? has all the info? not for the life of me can I imagine some of the major networks ignoring this considering the breed. The fact that they are ignoring it, tells me more.

I would like to see a credible source for the information before I get all riled up. I did find a sourch about her being bitten.....ummm....3 years ago...when she and others tried to defend their dogs from a loose dog that attacked her dog and other's. The article just say's she was bitten, but not by which dog.

No offense to anyone here, but really, the garbage people buy into from some of these crazy reporting sources baffles me.

Truley

For one, I would like to see some solid evidence that this even happened. As of yet the only source is..........radaronline?

Hello? a rag online magazine is being touted at the in the know? has all the info? not for the life of me can I imagine some of the major networks ignoring this considering the breed. The fact that they are ignoring it, tells me more.

I would like to see a credible source for the information before I get all riled up. I did find a sourch about her being bitten.....ummm....3 years ago...when she and others tried to defend their dogs from a loose dog that attacked her dog and other's. The article just say's she was bitten, but not by which dog.

No offense to anyone here, but really, the garbage people buy into from some of these crazy reporting sources baffles me.

  I said the same thing many pages back.  It's beyond me how anyone can believe they "know" anything about Rachel Ray's dog situation well enough to make these judgements.