Do you really need a dog if you are a CC?

[calamity507]

I can assure you I woulnt allow my dogs to pee all over your ropes..I would guide them near to you.xx

[Spacebar]

No it's not - it's a reflection of a generally accepted understanding of how the use of the word 'tasty' applies to a dog.

 

You have dug a hole and worse you are still digging deeper and I suggest you do what Sir Nibble suggested in post #59 - it's good advice.

 

Now I'm pulling out of this because the last time a CWDF member adopted a ridiculously untenable position on an issue and a number of members tried to point it out we were all accused of being 'bullies'.

 

 

 

 

..

Dont worry I refuse to allow you to bully me so thats impossible.

If I truely believe that the term ''tasty'' to me means something that you or anyone else thinks is not the same that I think its acceptable both are correct despite the difference in meaning to the other.

Its a bit like reasonable force.

If someone thinks its ''reasonable'' to strike another in order to prevent harm being done to them then its reasonable for them.

But a by stander might turn round and say no its unreasonable as they hit 1st without knowing the threat the other felt that deemed their action ''reasonable''

So to lay this term to rest from my perspective a ''tasty'' dog is a dog large enough and powerfull enough to prevent two or more criminals robbing me at knife point in my boat for example.

Yeah great IM sure my sisters Jack Russel is a ''tasty'' dog the amount of times shes bitten me and had me running up the garden but I dont think that would be the case unless I allowed it.

She wont stop the above criminals even if she woke me up.

This is what the people who advised me think ''tasty'' means too so I suppose they must be wrong too.

But at the end of the day I dont need to be right or wrong my ego dont require it.

[cotswoldsman]

I can assure you I woulnt allow my dogs to pee all over your ropes..I would guide them near to you.xx

 

That shows what sort of dog owner you are. As you said "don't blame the dog, blame the owner" it is dog owners like you that make it hard for good dog owners.

[Spacebar]

Ah well that's ok then "they are only inquisitive!!" what a poor excuse. My space is my space. I had an argument with a dog owner this year (and dog was on a lead) who could not understand why I objected to her dog peeing all over my mooring rope.

 

 

 

So your original idea of getting a dog as a guard dog so I guess it would be ok for that dog to attack a child that put its head through the hatch.

Oh no dont be silly I dont need a guard dog for those I will just simply slap them on the nose!

[Sir Nibble]

Now I'm pulling out of this because the last time a CWDF member adopted a ridiculously untenable position on an issue and a number of members tried to point it out we were all accused of being 'bullies'.

..

Me too. Is it some kind of silly season? What next, "Boat" as a tracked vehicle? and if that's what I think it is it's as valid as any other definition. So there, I'm right.

[Spacebar]

That shows what sort of dog owner you are. As you said "don't blame the dog, blame the owner" it is dog owners like you that make it hard for good dog owners.

Nonsense.

[Offcumden]

Dont worry I refuse to allow you to bully me so thats impossible.

If I truely believe that the term ''tasty'' to me means something that you or anyone else thinks is not the same that I think its acceptable both are correct despite the difference in meaning to the other.

Its a bit like reasonable force.

If someone thinks its ''reasonable'' to strike another in order to prevent harm being done to them then its reasonable for them.

But a by stander might turn round and say no its unreasonable as they hit 1st without knowing the threat the other felt that deemed their action ''reasonable''

So to lay this term to rest from my perspective a ''tasty'' dog is a dog large enough and powerfull enough to prevent two or more criminals robbing me at knife point in my boat for example.

Yeah great IM sure my sisters Jack Russel is a ''tasty'' dog the amount of times shes bitten me and had me running up the garden but I dont think that would be the case unless I allowed it.

She wont stop the above criminals even if she woke me up.

This is what the people who advised me think ''tasty'' means too so I suppose they must be wrong too.

But at the end of the day I dont need to be right or wrong my ego dont require it.

 

What confuses me about this is the legal aspect.

Hes knowingly ripped you off.

Make him give you the money regardless of the law if he dont pay you hit his kness with a hammer till he gives it to you.

Sorry if I sound harsh but ive got no time for law when it protects dishonest people.

Barry Hawkins pray I never order a boat from you.

 

This post has been edited by Spacebar: 11 October 2011 - 01:18 PM

 

Nuff Said?

[cotswoldsman]

Nonsense.

 

Is that an opinion or a fact?

[calamity507]

As it happens Cotswoldman. A very responsible dog owner..as you would know if you knew me. Why do you have to ridicule people..because they are dog owners. I dislike people that drink alcohol.to excess...but I wouldnt ridicule them. This forum is.becoming a very nasty place..even more so than it was..thanks to a few

[cotswoldsman]

As it happens Cotswoldman. A very responsible dog owner..as you would know if you knew me. Why do you have to ridicule people..because they are dog owners. I dislike people that drink alcohol.to excess...but I wouldnt ridicule them. This forum is.becoming a very nasty place..even more so than it was..thanks to a few

 

I must have miss read your post

I can assure you I woulnt allow my dogs to pee all over your ropes..I would guide them near to you.xx

 

Can you explain what you meant by that?

[Spacebar]

Me too. Is it some kind of silly season? What next, "Boat" as a tracked vehicle? and if that's what I think it is it's as valid as any other definition. So there, I'm right.

If you think its right that everyone has to think the same in your life experience then yes your right (if you really feel the need to be)

My point is I dont need to be right or wrong its not an issue for me I dont see a ''tasty'' dog as an out of control aggressive beast unloved and mistreated ect ect as thats not my perspective and would not be a dog that I would have.

What you think is right only needs to be right if you feel the need.

Take smoking.

Smoking is legal but it clearly says on the side of the pack ''this will kill you''

So therefore smoking is wrong right?

It depends what your perspective is.

I dont smoke I dont care I dont need to be right or wrong.

So if you dont want a ''tasty dog'' what do you care dont have one whatever you think ''one'' is.

[Sir Nibble]

As it happens Cotswoldman. A very responsible dog owner..as you would know if you knew me. Why do you have to ridicule people..because they are dog owners. I dislike people that drink alcohol.to excess...but I wouldnt ridicule them. This forum is.becoming a very nasty place..even more so than it was..thanks to a few

If you would genuinely guide your dog to piss on CM instead of his ropes as you said, then you are not by any standards bar your own a responsible dog owner. In fact the idea that a complaint about your dog pissing on a moring rope deserves punishment by spraying the complainant with dog piss marks you as not only a poor dog owner but also as a very unpleasant person. No I've not met you I can only go on what you write so backpedal or prove me right.

[Pretty Funked Up]

How I speak to people carry myself ect like the brother in law above for example will not have any consequence of that kind of crime.

 

Theres an obvious consequence being over looked.

Dog gets knifed to death and you still get robbed and/or stabbed. If theyre any good at their chosen 'profession' this is the MOST likely outcome too.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Pretty Funked Up

[calamity507]

Did not the 2 xxs give you a clue..or is having a joke not allowed on this forum.

[Spacebar]

I must have miss read your post

 

 

Can you explain what you meant by that?

I can only explain what I get from that.

So for me its her level of disrespect for someone who feels its ok to hit a dog for being inquisitive.

Dogs are dogs children are children hitting either just because you feel someone else is not controlling them in that momment is unacceptable.

[frahkn]

My father in law shares his house with my brother in law who has a Rottweiler.

Hes a very gentle loving family pet.

One evening his very fit confident son in his late 20's walked up to the front door opened it and in a matter of seconds found himself knocked out laying on the floor in his door way awakened with one of the attckers/criminals pinned down by the dog who had saved his life as the criminal had a 12 inch kitchen knife in his hand.

Apparently it was a gang of three men going around robbing people in their homes.

There's a difference between confidence and arrogance.

So me being 6 foot work out 4 times a week 40 next year yeah IM confident in my abilities to look after myself but not in my sleep after a few glasses of wine ect.

How I speak to people carry myself ect like the brother in law above for example will not have any consequence of that kind of crime.

Ive read on here ages ago about a guy who woke in his boat to find he was being robbed at knife point!

I dare say hes confident too.

 

So, your original post need not have mentioned boating at all. You might as well have asked "do we think we need a tasty dog in order to open our front door safely". Well my answer is "no". Possibly this is arrogance but just possibly it is common sense.

 

Your folks have had an unfortunate experience but you should not allow this to colour your attitude to life in general. It will only ever happen to a tiny minority - in some of those cases the attackers will have a gun and a tasty dog will be no help.

 

Should we consider CCing without an attack helicopter?

 

Edited to add - how did you manage to edit Offcumden's post (No. 82)? I thought we could only edit our own.

Edited November 25, 2011 by frahkn

[greywolf]

I don't know what the furore is all about - its simples Have a read at this....

 

M n M

 

LOL that made me chuckle thanks

[calamity507]

Give up spacebar..its just not worth it.

 

LOL that made me chuckle thanks

Cheered me up too.xx

[Spacebar]

Theres an obvious consequence being over looked.

Dog gets knifed to death and you still get robbed and/or stabbed. If theyre any good at their chosen 'profession' this is the MOST likely outcome too.

In my experience thats not true.

Yes dogs can get hurt or stabbed in such an attack but its not a likely outcome as the old softer target mentality comes into play in one aspect.

How will someone attack you while being attacked by a dog is one thought.

Ive seen handlers play those sort of scenarios with security dogs using dummy knifes and sticks ect as I said exactly the same thing as you.

If you dont see the knife then you cant defend against it but in a crime of robbery a high level of threat is needed to be effective so you have to show the weapon to instil fear to get the goods so to speak.

Dogs also sense your intentions before you even go to do it so catch you.

Its amazing to watch.

I for one dont like it as your family pet can get hurt and thats far more important than material things but what can you do.

If some people want to live in a ''oh IM confident enough'' it will never happen to me bubble thats fine thats up to them.

 

Is that an opinion or a fact?

It depends what your opinion is on the facts of the opinion.

[Spacebar]

So, your original post need not have mentioned boating at all. You might as well have asked "do we think we need a tasty dog in order to open our front door safely". Well my answer is "no". Possibly this is arrogance but just possibly it is common sense.

 

Your folks have had an unfortunate experience but you should not allow this to colour your attitude to life in general. It will only ever happen to a tiny minority - in some of those cases the attackers will have a gun and a tasty dog will be no help.

 

Should we consider CCing without an attack helicopter?

 

Edited to add - how did you manage to edit Offcumden's post (No. 82)? I thought we could only edit our own.

I dont quite know how to repond to that really.

An attack helicopter?

Is having a ''tasty'' dog really as far fetched as that?

IM not letting that event with the father in law colour my life.

I was asking after talking to other boaters what peoples thoughts were.

Then found myself being personally attacked over a slang terminology which derailed a genuine question.

I suppose it will be a case of different strokes for different folks.

But to answer you yes I did need to mention boating as being out and about through towns and cities to someone who is not use to that lifestyle does throw up genuine consearns.

Take travellers on fair grounds who live life travelling they have dogs in there camps so to speak.

With a house you have a larger control over your surroundings as you probably own them but on a boat you dont.

IM not suggesting crime is higher in one or the other as I have no idea.

But sadly it seems people who do have boats seem more interested in arguing over the term ''tasty''

Well done folks thank you very much.

[calamity507]

Dont give up Spacebar..there are some really nice foll on here.

[Pretty Funked Up]

scenarios with security dogs

 

These arent pets though, they would not be 'wanting to play', 'just saying hello' or 'wont hurt you'.

If someone softens one up as a pet then they will easily be ditracted with some food or a toy.

"there you go tyson... have a treat while I rob your owner!" little smile and a pat on the head.

And off we go...

 

I dont give 2 hoots about the term tasty, I prefer it used when speaking about women though

Edited November 25, 2011 by Pretty Funked Up

[mayalld]

In your original post you gave the impression some dog randomly poked its head in your side hatch and slap!

Now you are telling me thats not the case as you feel from a side hatch your child was in immidiate danger from a dog.

Dont add up to me but that dont matter as it dont need to.

I accept reasonable force when needed is reasonable force if its reasonable.

 

Clearly, an inability to understand the fact that many people find your attitude to dog ownership to be suspect is accompanied by an inability to properly parse the written word.

 

Once you develop that ability, we might hope for an ability to understand that I was referring to TWO distinct incidents of irresponsible dog owners.

 

In the first, some random dog poked its head in through the hatch. No children were involved, but our own dogs became worked up about this intrusion. a smack on the nose rapidly persuaded the dog to withdraw. Given the attitude of the owner, telling me that it was alright (just who does she imagine she is, telling me that its OK that her dog has invaded my space), it seems clear that this was an appropriate response.

 

In the second, on the towpath, my grandson was frightened by two dogs that were not under control charging at him. Again, I have no doubt whatsoever that it was appropriate to warn the owner that if she didn't get the dogs away from him, I would most certainly do so.

 

Both actions were the minimum necessary to mitigate against the dogs continuing to cause me a problem, rather than a punitive action. Naturally any punitive action should be against the owners. I am, however a reasonable man, and refrained from throwing either of them into the canal.

[Spacebar]

Dont give up Spacebar..there are some really nice foll on here.

Thank you.

We all have our bad days I suppose and our tasty ones.

[Offcumden]

 

 

Edited to add - how did you manage to edit Offcumden's post (No. 82)? I thought we could only edit our own.

 

Sorry he hasn't edited my post.

I intially posted thinking Spacebar's OP had been misinterpreted, The highlighted sentences are both quotes of his which suggest to me that he would not be acquiring a dog for security as I had initally thought.

The quote below was his response to a forum member seeking his deposit back in another thread.

Make him give you the money regardless of the law if he dont pay you hit his kness with a hammer till he gives it to you.

Sorry if I sound harsh but ive got no time for law when it protects dishonest people.

 

Possibly the hammer is only required when the Tasty dog has failed

 

Dont worry I refuse to allow you to bully me so thats impossible.

If I truely believe that the term ''tasty'' to me means something that you or anyone else thinks is not the same that I think its acceptable both are correct despite the difference in meaning to the other.

Its a bit like reasonable force.

If someone thinks its ''reasonable'' to strike another in order to prevent harm being done to them then its reasonable for them.

But a by stander might turn round and say no its unreasonable as they hit 1st without knowing the threat the other felt that deemed their action ''reasonable''

So to lay this term to rest from my perspective a ''tasty'' dog is a dog large enough and powerfull enough to prevent two or more criminals robbing me at knife point in my boat for example.

 

Needless to say I have revised my thoughts on the gentleman