You know, I’ve lived in places where dogs were allowed pretty much anywhere, and it wasn’t a big deal. However, they were also places where it was okay to throw a rock at any dog that scared or bothered you- and all it took was bending toward the ground to scare a dog off.
Anyway, I don’t have a huge problem with it. But lots of people are scared or nervous around dogs and I think that trumps your desire to drag the dog to Walmart.
If tomorrow dogs were allowed everywhere, what would happen?
Sure we can agree on that. We can also agree that no dogs anywhere means no dog issues anywhere, and no cars on public roads means no car fatalities on public roads. I question the utility of that sort of truism as either a practical policy or a line of argument. It’s certainly not what the OP is asking about.
When the previous poster said it, you said it wasn’t true. That’s why I said it would be hard to have a further discussion.
But okay, if you agree that no dogs in public places means no dog bites in public places, and if we agree that dogs in public places means some dog bites in public places (which I think we’d agree on), what is an acceptable level?
I posted my anecdote above about my cats and the idiot at the vet. You agreed that I encountered an idiot with a dog. Dog bites are caused by idiot dog-owners/handlers and idiots (or simply the ignorant) encountering dogs. So, does increasing the public exposure of dogs increase these encounters? If not, why not? If so, what then?
IMHO, a similar thing as happens here in my home town where although it is not legal to allow dogs in restraints and bars, the regulation is not enforced.
A small number of business owners would cater to that market and allow dogs, others would not allow dogs.
There may be a small increase in bites for a short amount of time but then as the dogs were socialized and people learned how to act around dogs I guess that overall bite numbers would go down.
But this is IMHO so I will answer your question and say I have no evidence except that the dogs that do go to places around here are extremely well behaved. And if not they are 86’ed.
Not really there would be more but it may be statistically irrelevant, unless you are trying to use negative re-enforcement or take food from a strangers dog which are the most common causes of bites in children as an example.
[
](PubMed)
But you are arguing the absurd or “Reductio ad absurdum”, even in places that have “bans” there are places with dogs in public, on sidewalks etc…and there are strays and escaped and feral dogs. That was the posters intent IMHO.
Again, I have zero idea why you are focused on the cause of bites unless you think that those causes will magically disappear once there are more dogs in public. You and I can agree on the causes of bites. We can agree all day long and all night, too. But unless the cause is “Dogs bite because they aren’t allowed in Applebee’s and they really want some appetizers” then it’s irrelevant why.
dog lovers are likely to propose leashes and mussles on kids.
I didn’t say it wasn’t true, though perhaps my meaning wasn’t clear. I was saying to that poster, as I’m saying to you, that it isn’t a valid or productive line of argument because we’re not going to eliminate dogs “from [all] public places”, which is an absurd, cruel, and unachievable objective. I particularly draw your attention to my post #62 which comes from personal experience and the bottom of my heart and soul.
I just think we should focus more on the real problems I’ve talked about and not some people’s irrational fears. I speak as someone who adopted a Bernese Mountain Dog as a puppy who turned out to have a genetic predisposition to fear aggression. He grew to about 120 lbs. and though he would certainly never “attack” anyone, in his early years he did have a propensity to snap at someone if he felt threatened, like if you were going to take away a favorite toy. I raised this dog with love and devotion and he mellowed in his later years and become my great friend and constant devoted companion and never harmed anyone. Small children would stop to pet him on our walks and tug at his collar he would gaze at them with his big doggie smile and sometimes make them giggle by licking their faces. If I can do this with a large dog that various “experts” in his early years actually recommended should be put down, then I think I’ve earned the right to have a certain amount of contempt for idiots who can’t even raise an ordinary dog to behave. That’s mostly what I’m saying.
Just as an aside, I just ran a quick trip to the grocery store and a woman was going in at the same time with one of those yappie little poodle lap dogs who she had put into the child seat of the grocery cart. When I came out there was no sign of any ambulances or SWAT teams so I gather that no deaths or major injuries had occurred. 
What I’m trying to stress here is an emphasis on a reasonable balance and perspective, and addressing some of the underlying problems in the long term, which is not “dogs” but bad breeders and stupid owners. Maybe one should need a certificate of qualification to own a dog, or at least an IQ greater than one’s shoe size.
You can have all the contempt you like. Does your contempt keep the idiots from being idiots?
No you set and absurd bar. You are focused on a rare event and are arguing that any bite invalid the idea. And yes I do believe that allowing dogs in public places would reduce the number of bites. Well socialize dog have less fear of humans and have an outlet for energy and mental stimulation. The other benefit would be that owners would work with their dogs so that they will act appropriately vs. just accepting that the dog is good to them in a what amounts to jail for the dog. The third benefit is that through more exposure to dogs more people would learn how to act around them.
It would be a win overall except by your absurd metric.
Yeah, I don’t think you are actually reading what I write.
What this?
Yes…I read it.
[
](http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/dog-bite-prevention)
Right there, well socialized dogs are less likely to bite, now where are your cites?
Did I not say it was the responsibility of both and that there should be legal and financial repercussions for those dogs do bite? Please refrain from trying force a strawman on me, the laws that cause those repercussions for dog owners already exist and are good in my mind.
FYI: Immediate hugging, pulling and getting in the face of a dog is tormenting it. Most dogs will tolerate it but they will show signs of stress like licking their lips etc…
My cites for WHAT?
Of course the dog owner has primary responsibility but it is more akin to letting your child walk strait up to strangers and giving them noogies and wet willies. If you did that to people most would run away or laugh nervously but some would probably smack your kid too.
Does that make their actions correct? No, but in this case there is a clear physical instigator, it is not victim blaming like you suggest. In fact if they did the same to humans in most of the US it would legally be assault. It is intentional physical contact with another person without their consent.
OK I am done here…I directly answered a debate challenge from you, it is clear that you are not being a serious poster on this debate.
You’re debating something, that’s for sure. You aren’t debating what I’m actually saying, but you’re debating something.
You might want to find a thread where people are arguing about the cause of dog bites. Then your cites will be relevant.
You did, and you’re wrong. A dog bite is the responsibility of the dog owner. Not the bitee, unless the person was actually physically attacking the dog, which of course is the case rather rarely.
“Getting in the face” of a dog should not cause it to bite.
In the world I live in, dogs are jumping up at people and nipping at people who didn’t touch them first pretty much all the time. Or some other idiocy; a few weeks ago I and my fiancee watched, agog, as a person walked their dog down a busy street in Oakville in such a manner whereby they were on one side of the widewalk, the dog was on the other given ten or twelve feet of slack on the leash, and the leash was stretched across the sidewalk tripping people. The master’s fault, of course, not the dog’s. “Oh, s/he won’t bite!” is the usual stupidity I hear as the dog knocks a small child down or, many times, actually DOES bite someone.
That’s what’s maddening. As with my encounter described upthread, the idea that these clueless fucks have any idea what their dogs will do, given their utter lack of concern about the animal’s training, and the idea that being bitten is the only possible bad outcome. It still makes me cross thinking about it.