Quote:
Originally posted by catress NO OFFENCE MEANT BUT - I feel that we are responsible for our dogs and our safety first and foremost... |
This is exactly my point! Part of being responsible for the safety of our dogs is taking into account their inclinations and their weaknesses when making decisions about the environments we expose them to. It's a safe bet that if we walk our dogs in a neighborhood, sooner or later we are going to come across a loose dog or 50. :D If we know that our dog is aggressive towards other dogs and is likely to strike if approached, even by a friendly dog, then isn't part of protecting them making sure that doesn't happen (a muzzle, another choice of location, less stress until they have demonstrated they can handle it, etc.), even though we may be "right" in the eyes of the leash laws? On the other hand, if our dogs are not inclined to strike unless truly attacked, some of that burden is lifted and the line where safety lies tends to shift a bit. So much depends on the nature of the dog and our knowledge of them.
The line between right and wrong may be pretty black and white in the eyes of the law. But, if everyone thought safety first we might find that where the line falls will put a greater burden on us depending on our knowledge of our own dogs and the characteristics of a given situation. We are then in a much better position to avoid many of these conflicts altogether. We don't have to be victims, which is how it seems that kimshiely sees the outcome of the situation she found herself in. It behooves all of us to take into consideration how we can better prepare for eventualities that can be anticipated and work with that. That's all I was getting at. :)