I use to take Sheila to the dog park to run around off leash, but did it when there is either no other dogs around, or atleast no other bully breeds around. I have several dog parks (4 to be exact) within 10 minutes of my house so I'd just go to the first, too many dogs, go to the next etc.... Until I felt comfy. HOWEVER, after coming across this forum, and seeing dog fights first hand at the dog parks, I have not taken her back. I do take her to the local park where dogs are allowed, but have to on leash. There we walk the 3 mile track and then there is a back corner to the park, big open grass field where I train with and play frisbee with Sheila. I let her run around with her leash attached and keep an eye for oncoming joggers or dog walkers so I can get to her and put her in a down or just grab the leash. But dog parks I think are no more. Especially since taking her to the Shutz club, the director told me Sheila should not play with dogs that much, why, cuz I should be the center of her world, her favorite toy, her favorite thing to play with. Said it helps with the training etc...... Made sense what she said " there is no way a human can compare to another dog, another dog smells better, plays better, and that in the long run if done to often can hamper your training for shutz." Don't know if she was being crazy control freak, but it kinda make sense. The other things she mentioned are obvious, Dog parks increase the chances of your dog fighting (duh) and getting injured, and also increase the chances of getting sick from someone elses sick dog.

 

You should not ask for anything. You take on the risks when you bring a dog to the dog park.

Does this same logic apply to car accidents? You know the risks involved every time you leave your house driving a car. If someone hits you, they shouldn't compensate you because you KNEW the risks involved. I'm sure everyone will say "It's totally different!" (and I agree), but on the surface it sounds somewhat similar to the dog park risk thing to me.

Since we're using cars as an analogy think about it this way:

If your following to close and hit the car in front of you you're at fault.

If you dog sniffs anaother dog ass and gets bit for you guessed it, following to close, it's you're fault.

Make sense now? :wink:

 

Since we're using cars as an analogy think about it this way:

If your following to close and hit the car in front of you you're at fault.

If you dog sniffs anaother dog ass and gets bit for you guessed it, following to close, it's you're fault.

Make sense now? :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :-k :thumbleft:

 

You should not ask for anything. You take on the risks when you bring a dog to the dog park.

Does this same logic apply to car accidents? You know the risks involved every time you leave your house driving a car. If someone hits you, they shouldn't compensate you because you KNEW the risks involved. I'm sure everyone will say "It's totally different!" (and I agree), but on the surface it sounds somewhat similar to the dog park risk thing to me.

Since we're using cars as an analogy think about it this way:

If your following to close and hit the car in front of you you're at fault.

If you dog sniffs anaother dog ass and gets bit for you guessed it, following to close, it's you're fault.

Make sense now? :wink:

Not really. In the car example, the person following too closely hit the other car. In the dog analogy, the dog "following too closely" did NOT bite the other dog. The dog/car analogy would work better like this: Car 1 is following too closely to car 2; car 2's driver throws his car in reverse (ok, just imagine that this is possible on a busy street...LOL!) and purposely hits car 1 just for following too closely. No, car 1 should not have been following too closely, but that doesn't give car 2 the right to hit car 1 for doing so, and I'd argue that car 2 was to blame for the accident in this case.

Make sense now?

 

^^^^^^
cant get in a wreck if you dont drive. If you get my meaning.

 

You should not ask for anything. You take on the risks when you bring a dog to the dog park.

Does this same logic apply to car accidents? You know the risks involved every time you leave your house driving a car. If someone hits you, they shouldn't compensate you because you KNEW the risks involved. I'm sure everyone will say "It's totally different!" (and I agree), but on the surface it sounds somewhat similar to the dog park risk thing to me.

Since we're using cars as an analogy think about it this way:

If your following to close and hit the car in front of you you're at fault.



If you dog sniffs anaother dog ass and gets bit for you guessed it, following to close, it's you're fault.

Make sense now? :wink:

Not really. In the car example, the person following too closely hit the other car. In the dog analogy, the dog "following too closely" did NOT bite the other dog. The dog/car analogy would work better like this: Car 1 is following too closely to car 2; car 2's driver throws his car in reverse (ok, just imagine that this is possible on a busy street...LOL!) and purposely hits car 1 just for following too closely. No, car 1 should not have been following too closely, but that doesn't give car 2 the right to hit car 1 for doing so, and I'd argue that car 2 was to blame for the accident in this case.

Make sense now?

Man, some people never get it! The point is the dog that was bit should never been allowed that close to another dog without first getting the OK from the owner of said dog. If someone asks me if their dog can sniff my dogs butt, the answer is no. Because I realize my dog will bite the other dog. By askinf first or by refusal of contact the incident is prevented all together. :!:

People need to respect the personal space of others unless invited or request permission to enter. A little common sense (not so common) must be used here.

 

You should not ask for anything. You take on the risks when you bring a dog to the dog park.

Does this same logic apply to car accidents? You know the risks involved every time you leave your house driving a car. If someone hits you, they shouldn't compensate you because you KNEW the risks involved. I'm sure everyone will say "It's totally different!" (and I agree), but on the surface it sounds somewhat similar to the dog park risk thing to me.

Since we're using cars as an analogy think about it this way:

If your following to close and hit the car in front of you you're at fault.



If you dog sniffs anaother dog ass and gets bit for you guessed it, following to close, it's you're fault.

Make sense now? :wink:

Not really. In the car example, the person following too closely hit the other car. In the dog analogy, the dog "following too closely" did NOT bite the other dog. The dog/car analogy would work better like this: Car 1 is following too closely to car 2; car 2's driver throws his car in reverse (ok, just imagine that this is possible on a busy street...LOL!) and purposely hits car 1 just for following too closely. No, car 1 should not have been following too closely, but that doesn't give car 2 the right to hit car 1 for doing so, and I'd argue that car 2 was to blame for the accident in this case.

Make sense now?

Man, some people never get it!

Some don't, no. I don't know if you're talking about me or not, but I haven't really said anything about the dogs and the situation in general. I made an analogy about cars that you turned into an analogy that didn't even apply to the situation. But, it was a nice try.

 

You should not ask for anything. You take on the risks when you bring a dog to the dog park.

Does this same logic apply to car accidents? You know the risks involved every time you leave your house driving a car. If someone hits you, they shouldn't compensate you because you KNEW the risks involved. I'm sure everyone will say "It's totally different!" (and I agree), but on the surface it sounds somewhat similar to the dog park risk thing to me.

Since we're using cars as an analogy think about it this way:

If your following to close and hit the car in front of you you're at fault.



If you dog sniffs anaother dog ass and gets bit for you guessed it, following to close, it's you're fault.

Make sense now? :wink:

Not really. In the car example, the person following too closely hit the other car. In the dog analogy, the dog "following too closely" did NOT bite the other dog. The dog/car analogy would work better like this: Car 1 is following too closely to car 2; car 2's driver throws his car in reverse (ok, just imagine that this is possible on a busy street...LOL!) and purposely hits car 1 just for following too closely. No, car 1 should not have been following too closely, but that doesn't give car 2 the right to hit car 1 for doing so, and I'd argue that car 2 was to blame for the accident in this case.

Make sense now?

Man, some people never get it! The point is the dog that was bit should never been allowed that close to another dog without first getting the OK from the owner of said dog. If someone asks me if their dog can sniff my dogs butt, the answer is no. Because I realize my dog will bite the other dog. By askinf first or by refusal of contact the incident is prevented all together. :!:

People need to respect the personal space of others unless invited or request permission to enter. A little common sense (not so common) must be used here.

Good post.

 

But dog parks I think are no more. Especially since taking her to the Shutz club, the director told me Sheila should not play with dogs that much, why, cuz I should be the center of her world, her favorite toy, her favorite thing to play with. Said it helps with the training etc...... Made sense what she said " there is no way a human can compare to another dog, another dog smells better, plays better, and that in the long run if done to often can hamper your training for shutz." Don't know if she was being crazy control freak, but it kinda make sense. The other things she mentioned are obvious, Dog parks increase the chances of your dog fighting (duh) and getting injured, and also increase the chances of getting sick from someone elses sick dog.

Your trainer is not a crazy control freak (although i bet some people on this forum would disagree..lol). Your dogs world is only as big as you make it. Teaching your dog about all the other things in life that can be fun can be detrimental to your training. If you want a dog that is totally foucssed on you then letting them play with other dogs can ruin that...you taught them the other dogs are so much fun, why would your dog be excited to be with you? By reading your posts, It sounds like you are on the right track. May I ask who your trainer is and what club it is you are joining?

 

Man, some people never get it! The point is the dog that was bit should never been allowed that close to another dog without first getting the OK from the owner of said dog. If someone asks me if their dog can sniff my dogs butt, the answer is no. Because I realize my dog will bite the other dog. By askinf first or by refusal of contact the incident is prevented all together. :!:

People need to respect the personal space of others unless invited or request permission to enter. A little common sense (not so common) must be used here.

I agree with this all the way except in this situation. If you bring your dog to a dog park off leash and let your dog run around without you being next to it, then that is telling other people there that your dog is okay with getting its butt sniffed.

Now different situation... both dogs are on a walk leashed, this is when it is a MUST to ask the other owner first.

 

Man, some people never get it! The point is the dog that was bit should never been allowed that close to another dog without first getting the OK from the owner of said dog. If someone asks me if their dog can sniff my dogs butt, the answer is no. Because I realize my dog will bite the other dog. By askinf first or by refusal of contact the incident is prevented all together. :!:

People need to respect the personal space of others unless invited or request permission to enter. A little common sense (not so common) must be used here.

I agree with this all the way except in this situation. If you bring your dog to a dog park off leash and let your dog run around without you being next to it, then that is telling other people there that your dog is okay with getting its butt sniffed.

Now different situation... both dogs are on a walk leashed, this is when it is a MUST to ask the other owner first.

Then you are also giving the "ok" to accept anything that can & will happen at a dog park when you bring your dog there. Dogs growl & dogs bite. That's just nature. If you don't want to risk a scuffle, don't bring your animal to a disease ridden piece of ground where no one has control over their animals.

I'm sorry it happened, but don't try to place the blame on someone else. Accept responsbility & take the appropriate actions to prevent it from ever happening again.

 

Lets all say this together... "Dog parks are evil and they're an accident waiting to happen" Take the advice or pay the price. (hey they rhymed) That price may be your dog being put down even if the fight wasnt his/hers fault. Don't fu*k around.

 

Then you are also giving the "ok" to accept anything that can & will happen at a dog park when you bring your dog there. Dogs growl & dogs bite. That's just nature. If you don't want to risk a scuffle, don't bring your animal to a disease ridden piece of ground where no one has control over their animals.

I'm sorry it happened, but don't try to place the blame on someone else. Accept responsbility & take the appropriate actions to prevent it from ever happening again.

I dunno if your adding on to what I am saying or not. But I'm not sure on my position on this... I keep going back and forth for the same arguements that have been brought up here. I guess that is why I don't go so this just doesnt happen. I believe both are to be blamed in a way, but if your dog does not like other dogs coming up to it and is going to bite... don't take it to the dog park. But thats the #1 reason i dont go because those owners still do take their dogs there

 

I think that the other dog's owner should pay at least half of it. I know that if Kallie bit another dog I would want to and should pay. We took Kallie to the dog park when we first got her because we live in an apartment and don't have really anywhere close that she can run off leash. When we went it was so crowded and like everyone says on here it's an accident waiting to happen. So from now on we make sure we take her in the middle part of the day and there isn't hardly ever a dog there. So she is able to run and play all by herself and we don't have to worry about how other dogs act. If we see another dog coming we put a leash on her and talk to the owner about how their dog acts and we let the dogs sniff each other on their leashes. We never go to the park if there are more than 2 other dogs there because we don't want anything to happen.

 

A truly good dog owner does not take their dog to dog parks! JMO!

Some pet owners live in cities where they have no choice but to use a dog park...

But on the other side...this is why I live in the stix on 14 acres of my own dog park :wink: ..