Disagree. It's ridiculous that I can't have my dog in my own front yard without worrying about someone else. The home owners weren't negligent. The other person was. The dog was in his yard doing nothing wrong.
I get what you're saying but the problem I have with it is that one of my dogs is reactive and does not usually like other dogs. When I want to walk my dog in my neighborhood and someone else's is not leashed, they will try and run up to say hi. This freaks my dog out and he will start a fight. Then the "friendly" dog wants to fight back. All I want to do is walk my dog and I should be able to without worrying about others.
An unleashed front yard dog ran into the street and bit my husband as he was biking by. The owner looked dumbfounded—guess it was the first time. Seriously, fuck yo’ dog, unless it’s restrained in some fashion nobody can account for a break in character.
My golden retriever did this to a neighbor when I was a kid. He got out the front door though. Was a complete accident and totally unexpected. We brought him in to get him cleaned up and it was a clean puncture. Dogs can be unpredictable especially when they feel they are protecting their space
It seriously sucks when the dog escapes, and I consider that completely different intent than having a dog chilling in the front yard prior to an incident.
My Boston Terrier was never aggressive before, but we always keep her in her fence or on a leash. One day, the perfect storm happened, and my kid was petting another dog, and my dog somehow saw it, ran past me out the door, and tried to jump on the other animal. It was absolutely insane. Thankfully nothing happened but I am just saying, that was so stressful I legit had to go upstairs and deep breathe for about twenty minutes. I can’t imagine freaking tempting fate and just not having my dog in the house, behind the fence, or on a leash. Even now, two years later, I feel anxious just thinking about it.
No bro. I walk my dogs peacefully until off leash dogs run to us and my dog doesn't know if he is going to be attacked or not because it's happened too many times to him in the past.
It's like leaving a loaded gun in your living room because everyone in your house knows how to handle a gun. Yeah it will probably be fine most of the time, but there's no reason to risk it and the one time it's not fine could end very badly.
Equivocating here is insane. One person had their dog off-leash in their yard, which on its own a minor offence. It becomes major offence when the unleashed dog acts poorly. The other was doing the same thing, but when the dog tried to attack a kid it became 1000x more negligent and it elucidated something about that dog in particular. If your belief is ‘they are both as responsible because in theory dogs can attack people,’ then I don’t know how to help you. Moral judgement is not black/white.
Ex: if i’m a parent and let my teenage kid hang out at the mall past curfew im negligent, even if my kid behaves well. If he shoots up the mall 15 minutes past curfew, I am not simply just as negligent as any other parent who let their kid past curfew, i’m much more negligent because it also means I raised a kid with bad behavior and gave them an opportunity to unleash that behaviour on others.
When the dog attacks a deeper layer of negligence is revealed, the negligence associated with not raising an animal properly. That makes the act of not watching over the animal more negligent, because the negligence is compounding (and consequently the effect is as well). If I forget to feed my cat i’m negligent, but if my cat has a condition that means it could die if it misses one meal i’m even more negligent, despite my action being the same.
Nope, never said it’s fine. My argument was that we should be able to distinguish things that are minor and major offences without being lazy, throwing our hands up and saying ‘how about we all try and be less shitty.’ Having moral intelligence, now that’s a fucking crazy idea.
They aren't. In all likelihood yours is a sweet little cuddlebug. But im sure the person walking the dog in this video thought the same thing about their dog. They are animals, and you have a duty to keep a handle on them. You can't do that off-leash.
"The only way to control a dog is with a leash" is the kind of mindset that leads to out of control dogs in the first place. If you think physical restraint is the same thing as proper training you dont understand dogs.
A dog that can only be controlled through physical restraint is 1 escape away from doing something tragic. A dog that can be controlled through voice commands is still under control even if a leash is dropped or a fence is left open.
Id be willing to bet the owner of the black dog had the same thinking you did "ill keep him locked up and that means i dont have to teach voice control" and then the dog gets out and tried to attack a child and all the owner can do is try and chase it down to hold it down. Danger to everyone. If you cant control your dog off leash you cant control your dog, period.
Dogs do not understand the difference between private and public property. If you are in a situation where there is a reasonable chance that your dog might encounter a stranger or another domestic animal, you need to have it on a leash.
Also, there is a sidewalk and a road right there. "In public" is an apt description of this scenario.
No dog is aggressive until they are. No one should have to wonder if your unrestrained dog is aggressive. Every single dog attack story has some confused owner saying, "he was never aggressive, he wouldn't hurt a fly."
People like you who equate dogs to humans are a huge reason why so many ill trained dogs exist.
Dogs are not humans. A dog, even one whose been peaceful their entire life, is MUCH more likely to random bite a stranger (or even owner, ask my mother).
But to be fair, humans arw MUCH more likely to engage in genocide and do shit like use nuclear weapons.
A dog reacts on instinct without a moral compass or an understanding of legal repercussions, hence the lead. Can't believe this actually needs explaining.
The fact that an aggressive dog gets put down is the entire reason to keep it on a lead. It protects the public from being mauled, and it protects the dog from being destroyed. Leashes exist for prevention, just like the prospect of jail or fines exist for humans. It's not rocket science guys.
I mean we usually just execute them without trial (a bit excessive) and that whole process is reactive compared to the proactive leads. Be proactive: leash your humans
You can’t argue with children. They see things in very black and white terms. When they begin to have the ability to reason they will be able to use more nuance when forming opinions. There is nothing wrong with a trained dog in the yard while the homeowners are present.
It's astonishing how many people genuinely think the dog doesn't understand your yard vs not. Homeowners dog (OOP's, whatever you want to say) acted appropriately, never chased, and came back. Perfect
Training is not a one-and-done thing lol. It's a continuous, ongoing process that lasts the duration of the dog's life. And sometimes that prey drive switch can flip with even the best-trained animals.
That would be the case.... if the dogs were trained to stay in the yard like the home owner's dog clearly is. That and they appear to be on a walk anywho. Unleashed.
Yeah well if you had a fence you wouldn't have to worry about someone else. Just like having a pool on your yard. If there is no fence and someone else drowns in it you liable.
No really. I know too many people who think this way and then brush off every time their dog runs out of the yard because it doesn’t matter if they can be fine 99% of the time if they will still run off that 1%
Yea there was a lady in a neighborhood I lived in who thought like you. Until the day her dog decided he didn't like people walking past anymore and came running up. That dog got punted like a football, and if he was bigger, he would have been shot.
Keep gambling. One day your dog is going to pay the price.
Right? This thread is wild. A dog runs into someone else's yard in an attempt to attack a little kid and somehow people are also dog piling on that little kid's parents because their dog was in a position to protect? Wtf
I'd say that all depends on the law in your particular community. Is there a leash law in effect? then leash your pet. I don't care how well behaved you think it is. You may see no harm in it but people with PTSD from animal attacks have a huge issue with seeing unleashed pets even if they are behaving. If you're living in the country or in an area without leash-laws, by all means feel free to let them roam. Just abide by the laws of the community you live in that you presumably have agreed to by moving there.
If you have a dog you should have a fence tho. Random person walking down the street doesn't know if your dog is the good boy in this video or the other dog, and people walking down the street shouldn't have to feel like they're playing the dangerous dog lottery just walking down the road.
"It's ridiculous that I can't let my dog outside off leash because other people do too." That's what you just said lmao. Its not like the other dog just spawned out of nowhere, their owner was doing the same thing.
If you have a fence or invisible fence, I agree. But no matter how well trained you're dog is, there is always a chance they could get in trouble. God forbid it mauls a little kid and kills them. And yes, it can happen, even with your dog. It only takes a moment for something like that to happen, and the damage is already done by the time you notice that something just went down and try to intervene. Dogs are quicker than you, and it only takes one good bite to really mess someone up.
Thinking "it's ridiculous" is not a valid argument. Having dogs off leash and uncontained is asking for trouble. Dogs are unpredictable. Owners are both at fault
Whether your dog is unleashed on the sidewalk on in your front yard is irrelevant. It's unrestrained and in public. If you can't get with that logic then you have no business owning a dog.
Unless your front yard has a fence to keep your dog inside of, that is still an unleashed dog and yes it is dangerous. It may be your yard but you're not the only one who can cross in front of it.
If you have a fence - you do you. If your yard isn't fenced, restrain your dog. Even well trained dogs have the capacity to give into temptation. It's not always about protecting others but also for the safety of your dog.
That's not how it works for dogs. Dogs don't know or respect property lines or human law, and shouldn't be given the chance to bolt out unrestrained into public areas where they can cause harm.
You may think your dog means well, but you dog could easily interpret a passing pedestrian or a neighbour as a threat at any time.
They're both doing the same exact thing though, one shouldn't be reprimanded while the other let off the hook just because the circumstances are different.
What if there had been no child, or the OTHER owner had a kid? Rules need to be applied evenly, not "laws for thee, but not for me"
One dog is on their own private residence the other trespasses on to it. The dog that saved the child never left its yard or its area. the other intrudes onto it. I’m not saying the other dog should be reprimand I’m saying the owner is negligent for letting an untrained dog off its leash. The owner of the dog is lucky his dog didn’t bite that kid or it would likely be put down and the dog would lose its life because the owner put it in a situation it wasn’t trained for.
That’s not true at all. They just aren’t aware of human property lines. That shepherd absolutely knows that yard is his and that person is his, which is why he’s protective of them and why the other dog backs off when he realizes he isn’t welcome.
One dog is literally attacking a kid. The other dog isn't. If that dog injured the kid, you think a court of law is going to find both parties equally guilty?
No, but I think you got lost in the comments and don't really know what you're arguing.
Yes only 1 dog is guilty of attacking the kid, but we are talking about negligence of the owners for having the dogs off the leash in a neighborhood and BOTH parties are guilty of that.
No he wouldn’t have been. The shepherd was right to be on the defensive when a strange dog came bounding over to his people and his territory (and note that he was only warning the other dog off, not actually biting/attacking), but the other dog didn’t show any signs of aggression either. His behavior before, during, and after suggests he saw playtime and (inappropriately) wanted to join in, and he backed off when he was not welcome.
Well that's also moronic. Their dog was only able to save the kid because it was running around. There's nothing wrong with a well trained dog running around free, some dogs are dangerous but most aren't.
This comment thread has blown my mind. Somehow people are just straight ignoring the fact that one dog is literally about to attack a kid and the other one is protecting the kid on his own damn property. I think we just fell into an anti-dog chain
How does the story go the same but against them next time? Their dog goes onto someone else's property to attack their kid? Then yes, they are going to get in hella trouble for that
Dog in its own yard needs no restraints. It is quite literally their primary space that it is not required. Once it touches a sidewalk that is a different story.
The German shepherd never leaves the property line. Btw, you don't know what an invisible barrier is, do you? You can literally have a dog collar that shocks a dog that leaves a specified line
•
u/rjnd2828 16h ago
Both owners are negligent. Keep your dog restrained.