[CrunchyCripple]

That's the thing. "Unprovoked" seems to be a differing opinion to different people.

People are not going to agree.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

That's the thing. "Unprovoked" seems to be a differing opinion to different people.

People are not going to agree.

I'm reasonably certain that most people would agree, if your dog was being attacked for no reason and retaliated in response it could not be considered
"unprovoked".

Now, if your dog attacks someone or something because of a situation that only existed in the dogs mind, and not in response to an actual threat, that would be unprovoked.

It's really not that difficult. Either there is a legitimate threat, or there isn't.

[CrunchyCripple]

What if someone is jogging on the sidewalk and comes toward a dog on a leash and gets bitten while trying to jog by?

[rob666]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

What if someone is jogging on the sidewalk and comes toward a dog on a leash and gets bitten while trying to jog by?

That's unprovoked aggression.

That's on the dog, and the owner.

The dog should have a muzzle if it's prone to that type of behaviour.

[CrunchyCripple]

It's not unprovoked though.

The dog is threatened by someone charging at it.
Neither the owner, nor the jogger are paying attention to how the dog is reacting, before contact is made. Neither did anything to prevent it.

It's both the owner and the jogger's fault they were bitten. Someone needs to yield and neither does.

Some dogs will also bite because the person is acting like prey. The jogger has a right to jog and the dog owner has a right to walk their pet. It's possible the dog has never bitten anyone before or has never had this experience of someone running by/at it. Why use a muzzle if it's never been needed in the past?

Things aren't so black and white or cut and dry.

[lesslis2015]

Guess i see things different crunchycripple. If a owner has a dog that just lashes out and bites indiscriminately, especially a dog that can cause major damage, the owner knows about it and does not have any rights to endanger the public. It really is black and white imo. If you cannot, (typical problem), or will not have control of a dog you should not put the public at risk. Honestly, i dont think even a halfway stable dog looks at a human jogger as prey, and think most indiscriminate bites come from dogs scared of their own shadow. Actually feel sorry for such a animal and couldn't own one.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

It's not unprovoked though.

The dog is threatened by someone charging at it.
Neither the owner, nor the jogger are paying attention to how the dog is reacting, before contact is made. Neither did anything to prevent it.

It's both the owner and the jogger's fault they were bitten. Someone needs to yield and neither does.

Some dogs will also bite because the person is acting like prey. The jogger has a right to jog and the dog owner has a right to walk their pet. It's possible the dog has never bitten anyone before or has never had this experience of someone running by/at it. Why use a muzzle if it's never been needed in the past?

Things aren't so black and white or cut and dry.

It's pretty clear that if your dog bites someone jogging by that you and your dog are liable.

YOU are responsible for the actions of your animal, period.

Someone jogging down the road isn't a threat to you or your dog, and shouldn't need to worry about your dog biting them.

And the whole idea that the jogger is at fault because he/she is "acting like prey"?
No, sorry, that's complete bullshit. It's your dog, if you can't control it, then don't own one.

The bottom line is as the owner of the dog YOU are responsible for the actions of your dog. If you think that your dog biting a person jogging is an acceptable, normal reaction, you're part of the problem.

[dirty ike]

Originally Posted by rebel541 ↗

n a z i cat cook it and feed it to the dogs or bring it to your local chinese food house.

[CrunchyCripple]

I agree that the owner is responsible for the actions of their pet. I don't think the jogger is at fault.

I'm saying that the dog was provoked by the jogger. It's not an unprovoked attack/bite. The jogger isn't intentionally doing it, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Provoked/unprovoked means different things to different people.
I think they interchange the meaning with "undeserved".

[rob666]

Originally Posted by CrunchyCripple ↗

I agree that the owner is responsible for the actions of their pet. I don't think the jogger is at fault.

I'm saying that the dog was provoked by the jogger. It's not an unprovoked attack/bite. The jogger isn't intentionally doing it, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Provoked/unprovoked means different things to different people.
I think they interchange the meaning with "undeserved".

Jogging by a dog shouldn't cause it to respond by biting.

If your dog, or any dog, reacts that way it's a menace and shouldn't be out in public.