Dangerous dogs running amok in society is one of my ‘pet peeves’.
There is a solution, which I will outline, however politicians are unlikely to implement it. Today I came across this article:
I come across horrific reports like this with monotonous regularity.
Let’s start with cats.
What have cats got to do with dangerous dogs?
A great deal, actually.
You see, I am speaking of big cats.
As recently as the 1970’s big cats were permissible as pets in the UK. I think they were also allowed in Australia until sometime during the last century too. What is for certain is that today, in the UK and Australia, you are not allowed to keep big cats as pets.
Big cats have a lot to do with dangerous dogs due to their PHYSIQUES.
One critically important reason why we cannot keep big cats as pets is due to their physical abilities.
In the UK and Australia we are not allowed to keep docile, house-trained and friendly big cats, even if they do have an apparent ‘heart of gold’ and would ‘never hurt a fly’. Period.
A dangerous dog is one which has the physical potential to do severely injure, maim, or kill people or other animals. Some dogs have tremendous biting power, which combined with other physical and mental traits make them highly dangerous.
Society should ban dogs based on physiques, as well as breeds. Just homing in on a breeds alone is not enough because there are so many cross-breed mongrels out there, some of whom are highly dangerous.
It’s simple. We can’t keep big cats due to the danger, so why should we be allowed to keep dangerous dogs?
There are many people who say that the problem is with a dog’s upbringing, training and relationship with people. Some of these people point out how loving their dog is around babies and more.
Let’s get down to facts. I like facts. Facts are reality. For many people however facts are upsetting.
- There are many reports of how apparently lovely, well raised, trained and cared for dogs turned on people one day, for no clear reason.
- A dog has a mind of its own. We might be able to control and influence it for good most of the time, however we cannot guarantee, or be sure, that a dog will never turn on people without provocation.
These basic facts destroy the argument that one can keep a dangerous dog provided it is well raised, trained, loved etc.
Ask yourself: Can I guarantee that ‘lovely doggie’ will never turn nasty?
You can’t. It’s science. A dog has free will and historical facts prove you can’t.
Here in Australia we ban many types of firearms, despite the fact that guns have no minds of their own and cannot do what they decide to do. A key argument for banning guns is that many people cannot be trusted with such firearms. Yet we trust people with dangerous dogs. I might add too that dangerous dogs often end up in the hands of extremely irresponsible unsavoury characters and criminals.
Irresponsible behaviour around dangerous dogs is not just limited to ‘unsavoury’ or criminal types of people. It’s really common among mothers with young children too.
I know of a woman who says she puts effort into managing and training her dogs. She has also commented that her children’s safety is an extremely high priority (in context of falling trees).
The couple is in my local area and have young children (babies at one point). They had an older Boxer who was euthanised due to health issues. He seemed relatively docile. A Boxer is a breed of dog with power and ability to do serious harm.
Then the couple adopted another large and powerful dangerous looking dog. I’m an intuitive and somewhat streetwise person and could tell immediately that this dog was dangerous and aggressive, even though it was not obvious. It’s hard to explain how I knew the dog was more dangerous than average. I warned my wife, and a friend who lives with us, to be especially careful in our garden due to the risk of the dog getting over a low fence. Whenever I was in the garden I had an especially ‘uneasy feeling’. I was careful however not to let the dog know of my concern, which could have exacerbated the situation (shielding oneself ‘psyche wise ‘ is beyond the cope of this article). The dog attacked someone out in the street and had to be euthanised.
Next, the couple got a Rhodesian Ridgeback. Another large and powerful dog. He had to be euthanised as well because…he attacked a neighbour’s child. I was wary of and uneasy about him, but not to the extent of dog number two above.
Now the couple have another Boxer. A new, and high, fence means that should the current dog go ‘rogue’, she will not be able to get at us. We can now relax in our garden. Our cat is no longer at risk either.
So…why in this case do I use the term ‘irresponsible’.
- There is no guarantee that any dog will not become aggressive and attack.
- Young children present (at one stage, babies).
- Dog’s physique is of a type where it can very easily maim or kill.
- Young children and babies can easily do things which a dog perceives as a threat, thus inviting attack.
- Two dogs had to be euthanised due to attacks on people.
- Woman is aware of need to protect children from harm – evidence is concern about falling vegetation.
- For dogs one, two and three, a low see-through metal fence was all that separated us and out cat from at least two known large and dangerous dogs.
So…when you have young children or babies mixing with a dog that has the physical attributes to pop a skull with one bite, you are relying on the animal’s goodwill, which you cannot of course guarantee. ‘Guarantee’ is an important word – hope that all will be well, your dog’s training and dog handling abilities or even expectations based on the dog’s past behaviour, is not good enough.
I have adjusted (changed and reduced) my walking exercise routines because I have on many occasions been menaced by powerful dogs out with their owners, despite my doing nothing to provoke them, or their owners.
Presence of mind and mental strength can help you avoid trouble, especially if it comes from your deep psyche. People and animals can sense, if only subconsciously, that taking you on will likely be dangerous. It’s not that one appears cocky, arrogant or ‘macho’ etc – it’s a quiet humble power and focus that does not draw attention to itself. Sensed unconsciously by many and rarely apparent (except to the discerning). My wife and I were walking in a park and a huge powerful dog circled past me and targeted her, growling and looking as if he was intending to bite – for no reason. The dog was being walked without a lead by two around 10 year old brats who were some distance away and of no help. I jumped into the dog’s path, between him and my wife, and stared him down – he stopped growling and looked at me for a couple of minutes before running off.
I honestly felt no emotional fear, though I did fear for our lives and health in that sense. I had focussed decision energy that the dog was not going to be allowed to kill, or severely maim, myself or my wife. I did not want to harm the dog and deeply hoped I would not have to, however had he attacked I may have had to kill him to stop the attack due to his size, aggression and power, before he inflicted severe injury or death. Once dogs like that lock on there’s a risk they won’t let go, or stop the attack. My wife followed my earlier ‘standing operating procedure’ instructions (SOPs) which include that if attacked or menaced by a dog, to get me between her and the dog, but not be too close in case I need to move back. Perhaps the dog sensed the calm focus of potential death and the strength of my energy. Who knows. Perhaps he didn’t feel lucky.
The brats laughed and of course had no idea of how close my wife and I, and their dog, came to disaster. They had no concern, for our welfare, or awareness that it was an extremely unpleasant experience.
Part of the reason why I was able to remain calm and clear-headed despite the severe threat to life and health is because I have spent time clearing my subconscious mind from hindrances. Besides Shamanism, which helps with this kind of thing, I also practise Ninjutsu; an aspect of which is affecting the mind of an enemy via thought and spiritual energy.
It’s disappointing that one has to avoid enjoying nature and walking in many public parks due to the dangerous dog menace. It’s sad that one has to be prepared to kill dangerous dogs in self-defence and fear of one’s life and health, or to save other people. I don’t want to have to do this. People with dangerous dogs are putting the rest of us in this horrible situation. And in some cases, their babies and young children.
I would love to be able to go for a walk in some parks and meditate/reflect upon nature without the need to go into a ‘combat readiness state’ as a dangerous dog approaches. I don’t go to those places anymore.
It’s sad that local councils are having to euthanise dogs which have attacked people – the poor dogs are victims of sorts also, and if they are banned, and no more bred, there would be a lot less compulsory euthanasia.
The politicians are unlikely to resolve the dangerous dog issue partly because it will be politically unpopular with people who do not, or will not, understand the facts/science and act accordingly.
We should not (be allowed to) own dogs with dangerous physiques because we cannot GUARANTEE their continued goodwill. Anyone who says we can is either a liar or deluded.
Who has to carry the risk of these lies or delusion? Your children? Old ladies? The public?
And why should we?
- Around 18 months ago, a neighbour’s cat sleeping in its own backyard was killed by a loose dangerous dog, which cracked the skull. At least death was quick. The dog has never been identified.
- Around a year ago I looked out my window and saw a dangerous dog menacing another neighbour in his mid 70’s who had picked up his little dog to protect it from the aggressor – in his own front yard! I ‘weaponised’ (not a firearm) and rushed over to save the guy and his dog. On seeing me coming, the dangerous dog came out of the neighbour’s yard and stood in front of me staring for a minute or so. The dog then ran off up the road and out of the street. A good result. No one was harmed, including the dog. The dog has never been identified.
- I have been menaced by dangerous dogs in public around 15 times in the last 4 years.
- The local council animal control and the police are, understandably, much too slow to respond to a dangerous dog attack. You could be dead or severely injured by time they, or other help, arrives.
- Besides some Ninjutsu, Jujitsu, Jeet Kune Do and Aikido (British Army) self defence training, I have also learned some from an ex 22 SAS Warrant Officer whose responsibilities included close combat training for British and allied special forces.
- I am not only an animal lover, I also do ‘mind healing’ for animals. I adopted a severely traumatised cat. Did a mind healing on a Wednesday. Wife noticed difference in the cat immediately. Friend was away in Canberra and saw cat a few days later on the Saturday. Did not tell friend what I had done, yet when he saw cat he said without prompting: “It’s a different cat”. Evidentiary. A key component of animal mind healing is being able to focus and channel love energy. You can’t fake it. All that said, if my life/critical health systems, or that of others, is endangered by a dangerous dog and it is necessary to kill the animal in defence, I would not hesitate to do so. Society with its lax dog ownership laws, and irresponsible dog owners, should not put us in this situation.
We can get more done by doing less. As long as it is the right things. And saying no to the right things.
“It turned out that some people who did less just accomplished less. But the top performers also did less, and seemed to have a knack for figuring out how to sidestep inessential tasks to obsess on a few important things.”
Have a think about how you can get more done by doing less. Learn more from this book:
Quote from Amazon:
“From the New York Times bestselling author of Great by Choice comes an authoritative, practical guide to individual performance—based on analysis from an exhaustive, groundbreaking study.
Why do some people perform better at work than others? This deceptively simple question continues to confound professionals in all sectors of the workforce. Now, after a unique, five-year study of more than 5,000 managers and employees, Morten Hansen reveals the answers in his “Seven Work Smarter Practices” that can be applied by anyone looking to maximize their time and performance.
Each of Hansen’s seven practices is highlighted by inspiring stories from individuals in his comprehensive study. You’ll meet a high school principal who engineered a dramatic turnaround of his failing high school; a rural Indian farmer determined to establish a better way of life for women in his village; and a sushi chef, whose simple preparation has led to his restaurant (tucked away under a Tokyo subway station underpass) being awarded the maximum of three Michelin stars. Hansen also explains how the way Alfred Hitchcock filmed Psycho and the 1911 race to become the first explorer to reach the South Pole both illustrate the use of his seven practices (even before they were identified).
Each chapter contains questions and key insights to allow you to assess your own performance and figure out your work strengths, as well as your weaknesses. Once you understand your individual style, there are mini-quizzes, questionnaires, and clear tips to assist you focus on a strategy to become a more productive worker. Extensive, accessible, and friendly, Great at Work will help you achieve more by working less, backed by unprecedented statistical analysis.”
I tend to pay some attention to people like Warren Buffet and this Financial Review article is a useful summary of some contemporary issues.
Reading the Financial Review helps me get smarter and I like the way it is written – no fluff, factual, easy to read, succinct and to the point. Here’s a tip: following the Financial Review on Twitter here @FinancialReview enables reading of some articles for which you would normally need a paid subscription.
Here’s another example of quality and useful journalism from the Financial Review:
There’s also an interesting comment down the bottom of the article, which I quote here:
“The Turnbull government has repeatedly said it won’t support a tax on sugary drinks on the grounds it will add to the family grocery bill at the supermarket.”
Party politics aside, that’s a barmy idea. Some people will continue to suffer poor health outcomes, their loved ones will witness and experience them vicariously, and Australia will pay more in healthcare costs. It seems that the government is probably concerned about losing votes from large numbers of (large) people who want their sugar fix. (Note that I did not say ‘need’ their…). It illustrates one of the flaws of democracy whereby a stupid, ignorant, wilful, selfish, and more, populace can arrange to get more of their particular ‘poison’; whether that be physical or philosophical.
Get my newsletter
Please don't miss out. Get my latest content by email.