Jump to content

A plea for more responsible dog owners

Lollipop

By Lollipop
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
Earl Aelfheah

Earl Aelfheah

Posted
Posted

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > keeping a dog in the city is generally

> antisocial

>

>

> That's a bit OTT. Many would argue the opposite.


OK. I casually overstated it. That said... my guess would be that a large number of people will have been kept awake by a barking dog at some point, trodden in their sh*t, or been intimidated by an aggressive canine whilst in a public place. Of course there are a majority of responsible owners, but unfortunately there is no restrictions on who can buy a dog.


Is it generally undesirable to have (at least large) dogs in a modern, densely populated city? It is a strange quirk of history / our culture that we don?t think it weird. Should someone want to keep a similar sized animal in a small flat, or terraced house (such as a pig, or a sheep) we?d probably question their good sense and it?s potential to cause a nuisance more freely.


That said, I wouldn?t want dogs banned, of course not. It would be good if people were generally a bit more conscious of how they affect others though. Most of the time, when a dog has jumped up at me whilst I?ve been out running or started licking my face as I sit in their owners home - I?ve been told things like ?he?s just saying hello?, or ?ah, he?s giving you a kiss?. Well no, no he is not giving me a kiss, he is being poorly controlled by someone who irrationally personifies their pet.


[Edited after reflecting on others comments]

Ron70

Ron70

Posted
Posted

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> first mate Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > keeping a dog in the city is generally

> > antisocial

> >

> >

> > That's a bit OTT. Many would argue the

> opposite.

>

> OK. I casually overstated it. That said... my

> guess would be that a large number of people will

> have been kept awake by a barking dog at some

> point, trodden in their sh*t, or been intimidated

> by an aggressive canine whilst in a public place.

> I would also bet that a significant number of

> ?urban dogs? don?t get two walks a day, don?t have

> enough company during working hours, or sufficient

> space to run around in. Of course there are a

> majority of responsible owners, but unfortunately

> there is no restrictions on who can buy a dog.

>

> Is is generally undesirable to have (at least

> large) dogs in a modern, densely populated city?

> It is a strange quirk of history / culture that we

> don?t think it weird. Should someone want to keep

> a similar sized animal in a small flat, or

> terraced house (such as a pig, or a sheep) we?d

> probably question their good sense and it?s

> potential to cause a nuisance, more freely.

>

> Dogs are bred to have characteristics we find

> pleasing and that are tradable (even where it

> leads to health problems for the animal). They're

> bought for many reasons (fashion, or

> companionship) but fundamentally for the owners'

> pleasure, no one elses. We all do things for the

> benefit of ourselves of course, sometimes causing

> inconvenience to others ? but let?s not pretend

> it?s anything else... It?s not socially beneficial

> to keep animals as pets.

>

> That said, I wouldn?t want dogs banned, of course

> not. It would be good if people were generally a

> bit more conscious of how they affect others

> though. Most of the time, when a dog has jumped up

> at me whilst I?ve been out running or started

> licking my face as I sit in their owners home -

> I?ve been told things like ?he?s just saying

> hello?, or ?ah, he?s giving you a kiss?. Well no,

> no he is not giving me a kiss, he is being poorly

> controlled by someone who irrationally personifies

> their pet.



This statement is up there amongst the most ridiculous things I've read for some time:


- Do you have any evidence to back up your "assumptions" on dogs getting enough walks or having enough room?


- How does our relationship with dogs have anything to do with "a strange quirk of history"?


- I was going to address all of the unfounded and subjective comments that you've posted but I can't be bothered...


Unbelievable!

LadyDeliah

LadyDeliah

Posted
Posted

Pets can appear to be beneficial to people's health, so saying it's not socially beneficial to keep pets is incorrect.


Benefits to people's health is always a benefit to society:


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130509163902.htm


http://www.docstoc.com/docs/48365516/THE-BENEFITS-OF-PET-OWNERSHIP


http://petsfortheelderly.org/research.html#5

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • march46
      Application for Londis Off-Licence next to Charter East Entrance

      By march46 · Posted

      Big Bellies didn’t have permission.  
    • CP_ED
      Application for Londis Off-Licence next to Charter East Entrance

      By CP_ED · Posted

      Link to petition if anyone would like to object: Londis Off-License Petition https://chng.it/9X4DwTDRdW
    • teddyboy23
      New Empanada Place on LL

      By teddyboy23 · Posted

      The lady is called Janet 
    • FellbriggSam
      Tree Killer – Seeking Advice on Dealing with Toxic Neighbours

      By FellbriggSam · Posted

      He did mention it's share of freehold, I’d be very cautious with that. It can turn into a nightmare if relationships with neighbours break down. My brother had a share of freehold in a flat in West Hampstead, and when he needed to sell, the neighbour refused to sign the transfer of the freehold. What followed was over two years of legal battles, spiralling costs and constant stress. He lost several potential buyers, and the whole sale fell through just as he got a job offer in another city. It was a complete disaster. The neighbour was stubborn and uncooperative, doing everything they could to delay the process. It ended in legal deadlock, and there was very little anyone could do without their cooperation. At that point, the TA6 form becomes the least of your worries; it’s the TR1 form that matters. Without the other freeholder’s signature on that, you’re stuck. After seeing what my brother went through, I’d never touch a share of freehold again. When things go wrong, they can go really wrong. If you have a share of freehold, you need a respectful and reasonable relationship with the others involved; otherwise, it can be costly, stressful and exhausting. Sounds like these neighbours can’t be reasoned with. There’s really no coming back from something like this unless they genuinely apologise and replace the trees and plants they ruined. One small consolation is that people who behave like this are usually miserable behind closed doors. If they were truly happy, they’d just get on with their lives instead of trying to make other people’s lives difficult. And the irony is, they’re being incredibly short-sighted. This kind of behaviour almost always backfires.  

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...