Gibt es Hunde-Trainer, die beim Thema Gefahren-Potential des Hundes Tacheles reden?
Ja, da bin ich noch Mal. Aber vermutlich nicht lange. Was freie Meinungs-Äußerung betrifft, gelten hier ja nordkoreanische Verhältnisse…
Wollte nur einen hervorragend-differenzierten Hundetrainer empfehlen:
Steve Kaye.
Nicht deshalb genial, weil ich in allem mit ihm übereinstimmen würde und nicht, weil ich Hundetraining grundsätzlich für sinnvoll erachten würde und auch nicht, weil ich glauben würde, dass nur bestimmte Rassen ein großes Gefahrenpotential bergen.
Sondern, weil er an vielen Stellen einfach Tacheles redet und keine rosarote Hundebrille trägt:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
” Wer noch nie live gesehen hat, wie ein Hund sich in einen wahnsinnigen Messerstecher verwandelt und ein anderes Wesen einfach nur vernichten will, der soll einfach die Klappe halten! “
” Dass jeder Hanswurst einen Hund halten darf, ist ein inakzeptabler Zustand! ”
” Beiß-Attacken sind ein tagtägliches Phänomen.”
” Die Lage ist dramatisch. Es muss etwas passieren! “
(sinngemäße Zitate)
—> www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTsTundAbcc
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(1 votes)
Loading...
I’ll catch you. I’ve been tracking your posts for days, but I’ve always been too late. I also have a few questions to you and hope you’ll answer them honestly.
Before you suspect: I have no dog and never had one, and until a few years ago I also had panic fear of them. The fear of the unsightly encounter between me (now kindergarten child) and the two free-running painters of the neighbor was to be brought back. My fear has now been defeated and I like dogs.
Now my questions:
How do you feel about the danger potential of cows? Every year, more people die by cow attacks than by shark attacks. The cow is also not angling and weeping – especially in the mountains – without fence. https://www.meinbezirk.at/c-locales/gefaehrer-als-haie-wie-man-kuh-attacken-entied_a4760096
What do you want to do with your posts? Are you trying to explain or convince? Your motives don’t open up to me.
What do you want from the duty of linen? A fish-inter dog in front of the supermarket, is an angel. What do you think is to do?
In this respect, I would like to discuss with you and I am curious what you say.
But hurry up, it’s already known at GF and is locked quite fast…
How do you know I’m a male?
I can only wait for him now.
So the welcome set is not so great, but the rest surprised me positively from the form!
As far as your questions are concerned, I do not feel obliged to respond to all.
So to the cows, my opinion is as follows:
If you have read the article with the cows, you know that a common reason for cow attacks is an active provocation, namely the new folk sports frightening cows. And then there are still a few basic things that should be considered, which, however, should be so clear to every person with a common sense. And if you follow them, the probability is very low that something happens.
The comparison with the sharks seems to me to be huge – on the one hand, because there is no frightening about these folk sports, but also because you don’t just walk around sharks like that and don’t stand around quite often…
If there are attacks, of course, I am also in favour of building more fences.
Now on the topic “Angst”: It’s always gonna keep me under control here – that I’m panicked. So I don’t deny that I’m afraid: Sometimes very low, sometimes a really mulsy feeling. Nevertheless, at least once a week “voluntary” I go past a real big caliber, as I am walking a lot.
I had no dramatic traumatizing experience, which would have led to fear. I’ve just been bited a little once. Fear is nevertheless justified. In contrast, for example, to ordinary spiders in the house cellar. Whoever is afraid of them is unfounded fear. To what extent these differ from dogs became clear (latest) by dog trainer Steve Kaye.
That’s it.
Your greeting is also worthy of improvement, in this respect we must be even.
Too bad you don’t answer anything. What’s that about? Are you lacking the arguments or is it based on something else?
Since the shark was also mentioned as an example in the article, I also put it in my question. Nevertheless, statistics indicate that “only” 3.54 people (in Germany) die every year by a dog attack. https://de.statista.com/statistic/data/studie/157642/umfrage/todesfaelle- durch-hundebisse-nach-bundeslaendern-von-1998-bis-2007/
Compared to this, much more people die through contact with horses – with the lower statistics referring to Australia. However, Australians also hold dogs – or not?
https://de.statista.com/infografik/7662/pferde-sind-in-australia-toedlicher-als-schlangen/
And even if Statista puts the dog in this infographic in place 3 of the deadly animals, the mosquitoes – which are also present in Germany, with climate change also transferring more and more tropical diseases to us annually. Tiger mosquito. https://de.statista.com/statistic/data/studie/554329/umfrage/jaehre-sterbefaelle-weltwide-in succession-ein-begegnung-nach-tierart/
https://www.aok.de/pk/magazin/reisen/safe-reisen/tigermuecke-in-deutschland-risk-and-risk/#:~:text=Where%20precise%20s%20s, have%20sich%20 meanwhile%20Populations%20 settled.
So how do you feel about mosquitoes?
To your phobia or non-phobia: I often went to visit a friend who had a dog despite great dog phobia. I almost made my shirt every time, but I left anyway. That’s why I wouldn’t consider your walking as a counterfeit. In addition, homophobic people are also referred to as homoPHOB, although they do not necessarily fear homosexual people – but are abhorrent.
Last but not least: Thalassophobia – the fear of infinity and open waters is also justified – according to your logic. After all, countless people drown every year in rivers, lakes and seas. Nevertheless, many go there voluntarily. You swim, surf or drive by ship. In Germany alone, more than 300 people were suffering in 2023. https://www.dlrg.de/inform/die-dlrg/presse/statistik-ertrinken/
How do you feel about this danger?
Please excuse the long waiting period. As much as our debate also stimulates me, so much the last few days I also had a grip on everyday life. Where were we?
It probably sounds a bit harsh, but no one forces you to walk. In particular, forest paths or in general paths in nature (outside artificial green areas) are used by animal owners because of the lack of restrictions. I understand that this is unsightly for individuals – you, for example. But alternatively, you could look for a different route for a walk. Botanical gardens offer the green area, which you probably wish, as well as the linen obligation that you so expect.
As far as the danger potential of pets is concerned, I agree with you, but my focus is more on exotics that are escaped or kept completely without fulfilling their needs. And dogs without leash are just one of the many problems Germany has with pets. I’m just saying cats and surpassed animal shelters, animal suffering and as already called exotics.
By the way, a dog bite is not as dangerous as a cat bite – so if you look at the risk of infection.
And even if you only compare yourself with this person from the taz article – Don’t be at the same level as he… poison bait… so really.
No, I think if you want to move something, you should act differently. Your posts on GF are too teary to make or to explain. You better talk in your district, collect signatures or give seminars. Start small and work up. Right now, you’re screaming in the woods unfiltered and what that brings, you’re experiencing yourself.
Oh, a point seems to me still important, what the complete traceability of a proper portion of respect or Fear of dogs affects:
35 percent of dog owners go far too little Gassi
http://www.petbook.de/hunde/viele-hundeowner-go-weniger-als-one-hour-gassi
What consequences this has on the dog’s minds can be thought of.
I’m trying to be relatively short:
No one is forced to go to the zoo. Millions of gas siders, on the other hand, are constantly running right past me – against my will.
The same applies to swimming in any water.
If someone decides to run barefoot through the Antarctica as a test of courage, and he does not survive, that is in no way comparable to the problem I am talking about…
As regards horses and the “thicking time bombs”:
I think that any animal that is kept private must not risk the general public. In this respect, if I want to be consistent, I would also have to criticise riding on public roads. My feeling tells me, however, that it is an extreme rarity that a horse in such an encounter on a lossdoormt and a deadly.
I can’t prove it. However, I have never heard of such cases. After my first short research, the dead are primarily riders who are somehow unhappy. But I don’t know.
The term “thicking time bomb” is not originally from me, but from someone who has seen and experienced a lot more dogs than I (see: my starting thread) and who owns such a caliber.
By the way, you have to remember that horses are never fished. You may not imagine what would happen if from today on tomorrow all more than 5 million pet dogs throughout Germany would run without leash…
At present, according to statistics, there are 30 to 50 thousand bites per year (dark number most likely much higher).
But, as I said, it’s not about the pure numbers. I explained in detail what this is about…
By the way, if you want to see or read someone who really hates dogs, you can do this article here:
https://taz.de/Creatures-die-Welt-unused/%215196472/
Compared to this, my way of formulating is probably almost knigge-compliant…
Oh, and thank you for telling me what is true science.
Good
Even though I believe that certain small provocations belong to a good debate, I did not want to say anything in this direction to welcome. It was just about your account being deactivated each time before I even got to write.
As I have heard from several places, you already had over four GF accounts. Finding all your arguments in questions posted there is a pretty addiction. So look at it, I should ask questions you have already answered.
To concretize your statement is also extremely difficult for you as a reader. But I never told you you, you’d blew the dog. However, I do not agree with you as to your explanations about education and psychology, as I am studying pedagogy and confronted with these subjects daily.
The dog is, as you said, not a monster, but only an animal. Comparing him psychologically with people, I still think I’m wrong – keyword: gratitude. Comparing a dog psychologically with a human is simply due to the different brain structure. However, this was not the subject of our debate.
The horse is as innocent as the dog – yet it causes accidents – partly also accidents with death. Horses can bite, get up, die. If you see a horse coming to you, you never know what awaits you. Is it peaceful? Does it feel threatened by me? And to me, here in the countryside, horses meet almost daily while walking. So the comparison is absolutely perfect for me. They could also have “humane” tendencies. The same applies practically to all animals that the human has domed. Nevertheless, I would encounter it irrationally every horse and every chicken with the idea of interacting with a ticking time bomb. Znd yes, chicken. Because they are also partially grilled on illegal cockfights. The difference is the size. I’m sure a cock from a certain size could make a child bad.
Here again the Zoo question. Which animals are usually seen in the zoo? Wild animals – Exoten. Nevertheless, the petting zoo, with domesticated animals, is accessible to every visitor. Here, too, there would be goats and alpacas that could become extremely dangerous to people, especially children. Is the contact with these animals also regulated? Does a public ban or linen law have to be issued for each animal?
To the “angelical people” comment I say nothing. This isn’t even a debate for me.
But now again to the Phobie. I wanted to say that I don’t see a phobia with you, but your argument with the walking has not led to this conclusion. I think much more that you have a certain dislike against dogs. But even here I can only suspect. The problem for me is simple and perceptive as you deal with the topic “dog”. If you want to clear up, you need better sources. The articles you link are often not scientifically stable (and therefore I mean the general scientific standard, for example at universities. With references of this kind, I would fall through every subject in which I abbreviated them. The same applies of course to the GF-Post to horses I linked yesterday).
If you want to initiate a debate, I must unfortunately tell you that both your titles sound too teary. I expect such a thing from the BILD newspaper, and I expect it to be a serious conversation. Maybe try more clear statements like: “What do you think of a German-wide linen obligation for all dogs – with fine for non-respect.” You could show your sources and make your point of view clear.
Again on the Thalassophobia: I argue very well against you, because even waters must be regulated according to your logic to ensure the safety of all. Each lake is a “thicking time bomb” and must be locked. Who once saw a person suffer, would also have a legitimate fear of the water. Who tells me that a lake doesn’t suddenly develop strudel due to a sediment shift on the ground? That’s exactly your logic, but I don’t see a request on your part to shut down lakes completely.
At the pre-remark, of course, I meant:
” […] several Fields […] ” …
Now you could say that this is even a little more than in dogs. Yeah, that’s right. But, as I said, the pure figures and the animal is “more evil” are not at all.
With the mosquitoes, you only compare numbers with each other. It is obvious that mosquitoes cannot be taken consistently to the short leash and that large, strong and certain problematic breeds can be completely banned for the public.
Now, you could still compare the dog with the human being – which has happened several times in this forum – and point out that people also do a lot of bad things. There is, of course, the basic question:
Are dogs exactly as public life as humans? Then why are any animals locked in zoos and other facilities?
At this point, I have heard more of the demand, then all people must be taken to the leash. Then I would like to point out that if you put human animals on a level, you also need penal code and prisons for dogs. But still I ask the hypothetical question:
Would a world in which all human beings are trapped be conceivable? Don’t. Then we could close the whole world. However, is a world in which all dogs are always consistently short, conceivable?
I think definitely yes. As a result, practical problems such as dogs have so little run-off could be solved by the application of more dog free-running meadows – fenced naturally.
And even if the possible way is not easy to realize – the point is: a world where only angelic people (of whom?) run around is a crazy idea. Then no more.
### Dog-Phobie ###
What you want to tell me about the gang to your girlfriend doesn’t completely reveal me.
Once more: If I had a really pronounced phobia, I would always make a huge bow around dogs. On the other hand, I’m always going right past them.
With your linguistic reference, i.e. the literal translation of Phobie, I don’t know what your exact statement is. If it were that I’d scare dogs and not just fear what would that mean? What exactly is your point?
I think I have to point out to the house spine again: fear of the same is completely unfounded: Blessed escape when you get too close to them. And they have never attacked people and are in no way physically capable of doing so. I’m talking about non-toxic and non-slip spiders…
However, if I once saw a dog dressing a bloodbath and I know that there are a lot of reckless holders and “thousands of ticking time bombs” run through Germany – i.e. dogs that carry a great danger potential from their predisposition or who are groomed illegally for biting and killing, then fear is not only comprehensible, but even the normal reaction.
Fear is not basically a negative, but often a protective mechanism. In this respect, the one who has no fear or at least a proper respect is not healthy.
### Thalassophobia
The fact that people ignore dangers or talk small does not mean that this danger does not exist, what the numbers mentioned by you prove. In this respect, you argue for and not against me.
### Final word ###
So, I hope that my view of things has become quite understandable.
( Pre-Note: I have to write the answer for too many characters in a single field.)
– – – –
O.K., sorry, maybe I misunderstood your statement “I’m finally getting you” and you didn’t mean it sarcastic/provokant. Perhaps, however, you can tell me something that, due to the experience in this forum, I tend to understand such statements rather than a kind of humorous wording.
The question of whether the reason for missing an answer are missing arguments, you could also ask the experts of this forum at some of my threads…
The reason is, by the way, quite simple: I have already expressed my opinion on so many aspects in different threads – even as regards your specific question about the meaning of the leash – and simply no desire to repeat myself…
Now to the horses:
That you want to compare numbers here shows that my actual statement has not arrived. I’m not trying to prove that the dog is a very dangerous monster. Animals are – I have emphasized this several times – neither good nor evil in my view. You have no morality. And bleeding and killing is completely NORMAL in the animal kingdom.
Condemning this would almost be as if it were accused of raining that it would make a wet. If the animal were to be subjected to vicious intentions, there would have to be a penal code and prison for dogs. This, however, does not even require the so-called “dog hater” to be incarnated.
In this respect, in the case of fatal incidents in connection with dogs, I would not like to say, like Steve Kaye, that the dog “just wants to destroy”. This sounds far too much like a conscious decision and puts the dog on a stage with an ISIS terrorist who performs a bloodbath full of hatred and lust for the suffering and death of other beings. Rather, I believe that the dog does not make any conscious decision for such a behavior, but is driven by his instinct.
The decisive difference between horses and dogs is now that horses do not run around everywhere and that the likelihood of Otto-Normal walkers tends towards zero that he is attacked by a horse.
However, it is not exclusively and primarily about the concrete attacks themselves, but about that – and not just me – I passed by at least two, three times rather densely on a dog every longer walk and I do not know what awaits me, which leads to a more or less mulsifying anxiety feeling.
What I know, however, is – that the probability is not low that something happens – both in the case of angling animals and in the case of annoying animals. Dogs who grow and bark and pull the leash really hard and want to go in my direction, I am constantly experiencing.
In addition, I have no chance to defend myself against any medium-sized dog. Neither a self-defense course nor good sprint and endurance skills are useful to me. So it’s this complete delivery.
In responses in the thread you link, it is first noticed that the experts there take the horse in exactly the same way and react in a similar way to the experts in this forum on a critical question about the dog. Just one example: ” Brutal horses. Bad creatures from hell! “
Regarding the specific figures, I quote the local community experts StRiW: ” Death victims through active attacks will probably be the absolute exception, but would count on one for the 5 per year. “
Sorry, but that was irony.
Then no one would deny such a statement.
I can’t resist it.
You’re not a male, you’re a man.
Oh. No, it’s fine.
Hehn – the questioner // the OP (original poster). For the sake of formal simplicity, I used the generic masculine. Which pronouns do you prefer?
I wish you good luck. We are all excited so audience 😆
How nice for you to find information that confirms your own opinion on dogs. This is the nice thing on the Internet: if you googelt long enough, every opinion is confirmed.
Of course, dog trainer Tacheles talk about the danger potential of dogs. Go out into real life and stay with dog trainers.
With “Hundetrainer” I meant, of course, not only people who do practical exercises with dogs every day, but all people who think they are dog professionals.
What is noticeable is that you simply cover the statements of the dog trainer Steve Kaye, who, by the way, has a “beißhund” himself according to his own statement, as a “other opinion” and that you do not yet rethink them as possible.
I haven’t talked to dog trainers myself yet. But with a number of dog holders. And unfortunately, it is often noted that a factual and also only a differentiated discussion is not possible.
I would like to ask you not to interpret any statements in my answers that do not stand there and no words I have not written. “Other opinion” I didn’t write, and I didn’t mention the trainer’s statement.
I think we’ll talk a little bit past each other. But I still try to meet your request.
Then please quote directly among the answers. It’s gonna be confusing.
I’d like to ask you the same.
Showing signs are not only used in grammar to quote.
In this respect, they do not necessarily mean that I have quoted you.
Great, you’ve been in a new post. Congratulations. Nonetheless, no one will abolish the dogs, introduce a general linen obligation or anything else.
I don’t feel addressed.
But the fact that the facts of experts like Steve are “scratch” for you is worrying.
there are people who also think the Mexican dish washer for a “expert”
I’m not talking about your contribution, but your hatred.
To what extent my comment that has been deleted has been a “user performance” does not reveal to me. I still apologise for being able to formulate it a bit more mildly.
However, it would be nice if here were not measured with two measurements and diffamatory accusations such as “cooking” were just as well.
If you want to express your statement not only that nothing will change, but also that you do not see any need for it, then I cannot understand it differently than:
” It is one of the self-evident duties of a citizen to accept when a purifying, belly dog comes to him or touches him with his dirty paws or jumps him, picks him up or blows him up. “
(I’m not talking about injuries now).
If you say that, the basis for any further conversation is missing, as you scratch my privacy and human dignity with this basic setting.
If I’m strictly speaking to almost nobody here…
You’ve got brain spins. I never said that.
I’m saying this won’t happen. That’s my whole, completely worthless statement. No more and no less.
Another basic comment that is not specifically addressed to you:
Dog friends are angry with poisonous bait jigs. But if there’s someone like me who doesn’t come to the razor blade or to some fatal substance, hiding in a sausage, but telling them what he really doesn’t like, then you’re not satisfied…
The fact that it is sometimes heated – I think if you follow the political debates, it is not different, in some cases even more blatant…
Then please tell me what you’re saying so I don’t have to speculate anymore.
Your original comment sounded to me as if you don’t see any need. But you told me now that I misinterpreted you.
However, I didn’t blame you for this, but I put it in a “if” set (if = if ), because I was not sure about my interpretation.
In my last comment, by the way, I said that “I believe […]” and then again explicitly asked if that is true (“Have I right?”).
So definitely no claim.
And then only another question followed – no claim.
So would be nice if you could say something about jumping/vogel comparison now.
I also didn’t say there was no need to change anything.
Just as little as I say I’d have my dog completely under control.
I’m just reading constant claims here, you put things in your mouth that they never said.
Yeah, I know you didn’t say that. But it is the logical conclusion – if you say that there is no need for any changes to existing regulations regarding There are dogs.
But I still think I know why you don’t take this statement as your own, because you mean that you have your dog completely under control and that he would never do that.
Am I right?
So the question is:
Is for you a dog who does what I’ve described the same as in a bird who’s on your head… If you have bad luck?
That would be nice!
At some point, he’ll start the internet pages he can quote – hopefully….
You could just hold the sabble.
I’d rather call it an ornament. I had already explained what this is about:
The fact that I and many, many other people who just want to walk in peace, are constantly being put into more or less great fear by the perpetrators of pink dog goggles and danger harmless people like you.
And if you listen to the drastic words that even a dog lover like Steve Kaye uses ( “just keep the sabble!”), then you can also find in it a little ore.