[Samarth 619]

Originally Posted by amol4184

Around 6am I woke up and was standing by my bed. This dude came from somewhere and grabbed my ankle! I was startled but realized it was just a play-bite did not try to wiggle away (a strict no). I grew up with dogs yet this was surprising as he ambushed me skillfully. I kept calm as he looked at me let go but remained sitting at my legs. Clearly no harm was meant but scary enough. Definitely did not expect this first thing in the morning. Later that day he did the same with my cousin as he was feeding cows. I have a feeling this breed needs training to curb their bite-y nature?

I tried to read around if someone mentioned this before, but I couldn't so here it goes...
Any dog from the age of 1-2 months to around 1 year will bite stuff. Its not hateful, and certainly nothing to be worried about. Its because their teeth settle during this age and they need positive reinforcement over it.
I don't know the exact term to use, but it happens with any dog I know, its got nothing to do with the breed.

The best thing you can do is get them a chewable bone from a good vetinary brand, and let them chew it all they want.
New puppy owners, please keep this in mind.

There're various pet behaviours which may not seem ideal, but that's how it is. A dog humping on your knees, a common thing in adult dogs, often causes embarassment in social circles. Yet, its important to remember to laugh it off and also, not to have human like expectations from your pet.

Originally Posted by NomadSK

If they could pen down the last message to their parent, it would probably go like this;

Unreadable, beyond the first 3 lines bro.
Not that its badly written, no, just that I've lost a pet too.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Samarth 619

Any dog from the age of 1-2 months to around 1 year will bite stuff.

And puppy teeth are like needles! I remember finding this out as a child, playing with a neighbour's pup.

Puppies will also identify with other young animals. This was wonderful for me, when my parents got their first Golden Retriever pup, and I was still young enough for this to happen, and we bonded as brother and sister. And I got leapt on, all the time. And chewed lots. I recall that she used to hold my arm in her jaws and shake her head! That was a bit painful! But as I mentioned before, it was all in play and she never spilt blood. But would that behaviour have gone down well with an overprotective parent? Absolutely not, and parents must consider all this before taking an animal into the family.

Cats nip too. Sometimes affectionately. And sometimes if the get cross. And they scratch. Their skin is actually very tough, and they expect ours to be the same but it isn't.

Some guy at work once asked me, "Weekend gardening?" I was mystified. He pointed to the scratches on my hand. I told him. "No: playing with my cat." He looked like he thought I was mad.

Of course, there is training. Especially for dogs. But those new to animals should know that living with them is not a sterile affair.

[keroo1099]

Originally Posted by Samarth 619

Its because their teeth settle during this age and they need positive reinforcement over it.
I don't know the exact term to use, but it happens with any dog I know, its got nothing to do with the breed.

It's called teething. Gums get irritated when teeth grow so they need to chew on stuff to ignore the discomfort.

[Sandy Damodaran]

Originally Posted by DIY410

But tell that to the victims. They will have none of it. People who lost their loved ones both humans and other dogs/cats, for no fault of their own.

That really is the problem. A dog is going to be as good as the owner. A lab or retriver can cause as much damage as a rott or pitbull if not socialized, abused and made aggressive by the owner.

What we need is a vetting system to see if the owner can take care of an animal. What we get is, if the owner is bad, and dog turns aggressive, kimit the damage a dog can cause.

Its rottweiler and pitbull today, once banned a pathetic owner will cause.mayhem with gsd/doberman/some other "aggressive " breed. We can add those to the ban list then.

Owning a dog, like getting a driving licence, should be a privilege and not a fundamental right.

Its the owner who is liable for bad behaviour not the dog.

[ruskinash]

Originally Posted by Sandy Damodaran

That really is the problem. A dog is going to be as good as the owner. A lab or retriver can cause as much damage as a rott or pitbull if not socialized, abused and made aggressive by the owner.

What we need is a vetting system to see if the owner can take care of an animal. What we get is, if the owner is bad, and dog turns aggressive, kimit the damage a dog can cause.

Its rottweiler and pitbull today, once banned a pathetic owner will cause.mayhem with gsd/doberman/some other "aggressive " breed. We can add those to the ban list then.

Owning a dog, like getting a driving licence, should be a privilege and not a fundamental right.

Its the owner who is liable for bad behaviour not the dog.

In the same vein, shouldn’t we have a vetting system for people as well? To see if they are able to raise a child responsibly.

Responsible parents/guardians “can” be responsible pet owners, and perhaps automatically qualify to own a pet.

[NomadSK]

I think rather than banning any breed, introduce "pet taxes" on similar lines as is prevalent in various countries. Remove the cow cess and introduce pet taxes.

For Germany;

The tax varies across cities and increases with the number of dogs owned. Certain groups, like dogs from shelters, guide dogs, police dogs and hunting dogs, are exempt from paying the tax.

This will be the source of revenue too for the local administration and the money generated from this can be utilized for neutering/spaying the strays, which will eventually eradicate the stray menace too.

Germany’s dog tax generated €414 million

[am1m]

Originally Posted by NomadSK

I think rather than banning any breed, introduce "pet taxes" on similar lines as is prevalent in various countries.

In an ideal scenario, yes.

But when Bangalore is struggling to collect all the property taxes it is due. And those are fixed, immovable buildings, in plain sight! How will the BBMP collect pet taxes?! Some conscientious pet owners will pay up. Those aren't the source of the problem anyway. Most people won't, especially illegal breeders.

That is why so many of our solutions start and end with blanket bans. Because the mechanisms to regulate those activities don't function as they should.

[lazy]

Having grown up with dogs at home and at neighbours, I absolutely love dogs. Actually a bit more than humans, on average.
And that's why I am pained to see what's happening with this pet dogs concept in most urban cities.

I cannot fathom this trend for keeping breeds that are so unsuitable for hot Indian weather, further displayed by folks living in apartments or so called villas that have barely a spot of green in the name of lawn/garden.
Most of these pets get 20 min walks twice a day, let alone run and spend time in open nature.
They're tied up all day coz of one reason or other. Most of these folks are scared of dogs, hence it stays tied up - maid, cook, tuition sir, children's friends, delivery person etc.

Don't think these are dog lovers by any stretch of imagination. These are cruel and selfish people, similar to circuses of 80s that had animals in cages for entertainment.

Unfortunately, this fancy show-off trend is here to stay.

cheers
lazy

[NomadSK]

Originally Posted by am1m

But when Bangalore is struggling to collect all the property taxes it is due. And those are fixed, immovable buildings, in plain sight!

That is why so many of our solutions start and end with blanket bans. Because the mechanisms to regulate those activities don't function as they should.

Blanket bans are just knee-jerk reactions, when administration don't want to use their grey matter. Happens when Babus are produced for attaining power, rather than having the vision to change the society for betterment, now this will go off-tangent. NGT ban for cars in NCR is the prime example.

I'm dead sure if this amendment comes pan India, the society people/neighbors who don't keep dogs and are averse to having pets, will be the first one to lodge complaint against, if taxes aren't paid and once a law is in place, society can intervene. When in place, such teething problems can be ironed out with time.

Agreed, for illegal breeders, they should be brought to justice, forget them about paying taxes.

[V.Narayan]

Caution: Dog lovers may not like this post.

Dog lovers are an aggressive lot as I have seen firsthand in my condominium set up when I headed the RWA for a couple of years. With some exceptions they are very aggressive when demanding rights and privileges {where to shit, which elevator to use etc} and most are rather lax on implementing their responsibilities {poop in the designated area, pick up the poop, don't bring your mooch to the garden where children/elders go etc}. Some of that attitude is visible on this thread too. Unfortunately a few honourable High Court Judges who are dog lovers pronounced judgements {can't recall when} putting the interests of dog lovers and strays above the safety of children and lay folks who get bitten by strays. In our neighbourhood dog lovers feed the strays, vehemently oppose removing them right down to threatening FIRs but will take zero responsibility to get them spayed, innoculated etc. Many on Team BHP who are not dog lovers I'm sure can identify with these issues and the rigidity put up by dog lovers.

If the Govt has banned a few dangerous species good for all of us who have to deal with dog owners short on civic sense.

Originally Posted by dhanushs

Simple. It's just like if you cant maintain a luxury barge, dont buy it, even though it feels good to own it and cheap to buy.

If a pet dog is causing harm, serious harm in some cases, to other folks in the neighbourhood then they are entitled to seek protection. They have a right not to be put in harms way just because a dog owner loves a Rottweiler. In a similar vein one would say "if you cannot handle your mooch and develop the necessary civic sense, don't become a dog owner and harass others around you. It works both ways.

The government, Instead of banning, need to enforce these rules.

Please could you spell out 7 ways in which a Government with several far far higher priorities can find the ability or means to police lousy dog owners? Why should the Govt be burdened with this. Why can dog owners not display higher civic sense which in my observation, with some exceptions, is often lacking.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Caution: Dog lovers may not like this post.

I love dogs, I've had dogs for most of my life, since I was a kid. And I completely agree with your post.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Dog lovers are an aggressive lot...

They don't really love dogs. That type of person wants to be seen supporting a cause, in this case dogs. Real dog lovers take responsibility, they ensure that neither their dog nor the people around it are disturbed.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

In our neighbourhood dog lovers feed the strays, vehemently oppose removing them right down to threatening FIRs but will take zero responsibility to get them spayed, innoculated etc.

Yep, these sort of people think it's really easy. All they do is walk through the neighborhood scattering food. No other responsibility. If the dogs get aggressive with other people who actually live in the neighborhood, not their problem. If the dogs keep multiplying and the puppies have a sad life with mange and other such health issues, not their problem. If rats multiply because of the food they scatter, not their problem.

[Gansan]

There are certain fierce dog breeds whether they are Indian or imported. There is no denying it. People in general are aware of them and will be anxious in their presence. The Rajapalayam, Kombai and Kanni breeds are native to TN and known for this. They can be very docile and friendly in a home setting, but that doesn't take away their nature. Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, bulldogs and mastiffs are similar. German Sheperds generally don't fall in this category but there have been exceptions. In general, all of them are suitable only for independent homes with sufficient running space inside the compound and not for apartments.

So if we are keeping them we have to follow required precautions in public spaces, though that applies to all dogs. And respect strangers' feelings if they appear very wary of the dog. Don't try to convince them saying "it is like a child" etc. Keep distance from them. If our dog snips at a stranger's child even playfully, all hell will break loose. A dog without leash playfully chased a six year old child on the terrace of an apartment building in Chennai some years ago, where some children were playing in the evening. The child climbed on the parapet wall to escape from it, fell down and died. The owner of the dog was a lady and an airline pilot. She was immediately arrested and taken away, I guess mainly to protect her from other residents.

In my opinion if the government bans some plant or animal species it is better to follow the ban. That doesn't mean to get rid of the dog immediately if we have it. The ban will apply from some future date. I have had dogs at home for over forty years, some native and some imported. The latter always sufferred from our weather, especially the Dachshund and German Sheperd. Those days we couldn't afford Ac at home. During day time in the summers, the latter will always lie down in the bathroom, panting. I will sprinkle water on him every now and then. The local ones took it in their stride. I finally gave up dogs when our independent house was converted into an apartment complex 24 years ago.

Look at the standing jump this Kanni dog takes! The video title says Chipiparai, but they are called by both names depending upon the shade of their coats. Let some imported breed match it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQBvFG9qt-U

[PreludeSH]

What's wrong with banning specific breeds ? There can be discussion on which breeds but not sure why the thread has become dogs vs no dogs ? Even in US they have some dogs that are banned from being used as pets.

I turn away while walking in some streets when there are multiple ones looking at you with interest even far away, please don't say they do so with love. Dogs should also owned by one and inside their house and our activists and some people who pass judgements are making it dangerous for people. There is no accountability with these people.

[dhanushs]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

...
If a pet dog is causing harm, serious harm in some cases, to other folks in the neighbourhood then they are entitled to seek protection. They have a right not to be put in harms way just because a dog owner loves a Rottweiler. In a similar vein one would say "if you cannot handle your mooch and develop the necessary civic sense, don't become a dog owner and harass others around you. It works both ways.

Sir, I completley agree what you have said, and infact, I too am trying to say the same thing. A dog is completely the responsibility of its owner. And any harm the dog does, the owner has to be accountable. In kerala, or atleast where I live, this is very clear.

...ability or means to police lousy dog owners?..

Enforcing doesnt always mean policing. Like, I have never had a policeman come in my house, but, local authorities were enough to get me the knowledge that "My Dog - I'm accountable". Along with the long paperwork that comes with a dog.

The problem is not many owners know how to own a dog or what to do. They just see the rosy side of it, which is either the cuddling and love, which breeds like labrador offer, or the masculinity breeds like Rottweiler offer..

[digitalnirvana]

Originally Posted by dragonfire

On the one hand they are are introducing African Cheetahs into the Indian forests and on the other hand they are banning dog breeds that has been around and has survived here for a long time. I sometimes fail to see the priority of these governments. If they really have to reduce dog related violence and deaths, they should do something about the dog menace on the streets. And if they really feel that they are into the business of saving lives, they should think about ways to reduce enemity between people, instead of fostering them. But then dogs don't vote do they?

Sorry but please name a SINGLE one out of the 23 breeds which are indigenous "that has been around and survived here for a long time".

Let me ask you, in what world is a Turkish Kangal or a Dogo Argentino or a Tibetan Mastiff justified to live in India? They were born and bred in a particular area (hint - see their names) and to do a particular job.

These breeds are NOT natural pets. They are livestock guardian dogs or hunting or guard/attack dogs. They're not supposed to be indoor dogs. Most countries in the West have bans on bully breeds for example.

I'm not saying a blanket ban is justified. But I can see the rationale behind it. And this is coming from an ardent animal lover. I don't see a single breed out of the 23 which can be called a first time pet. Perhaps a Rottie or a Staffie or a Pittie but for experienced owners.

And regarding stray dog "menace" I don't consider them a menace, I find their situation extremely upsetting. Instead of conveniently blaming "THEY aka the government" all animal lovers should try and contribute to the cause of spaying, neutering and vaccination so that generations don't suffer. I know I do my best. Do you?

Dogs don't care about their master's political symbol and all dogs, even the most damaged ones..... Can give unconditional love no questions asked, so I find your post with political overtones abhorrent. Please let this thread be free of such stuff.