Just open you door to be greeted by that wagging tail.

a gentle, soothing response? For all you know he could have been bitten by a Jack Russell when he was a child.

At this point in my life I have 2 dogs, neither are aggressive and both have been to multiple obedience training.
We work with their social skills and training every day. Because I judge their recall to be less than 100%, I would NEVER let either one off leash in a public park. Even with 100% recall I wouldn't let them off leash for their OWN protection.

And they are big enough that jumping up or some other semi-excusable behavior could cause an injury of the person is not ready for it. I try to be consistent in order to avoid such problems. "Prevent the event" as they say.

People who refuse to correct their dogs in an effective way are not doing the dog any favors. When a human uses a begging, whiny voice to correct their dog then I, as another dog owner, know that behavior issues are likely.

I was attacked by a sweet "barking dog". A dog comes at me like that again, its not going anywhere after.

Jacks rarely bite what they run barking at (unless it's a rat) Keep them on a leash while walking, avoids a lot of problems. They'll still bark at exciting stuff, like a bumble-bee on a string.

I believe dogs are constructivists.

Constructivism (international relations)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(international_relations)

Theory

Constructivism primarily seeks to demonstrate how core aspects of international relations are, contrary to the assumptions of Neorealism and Neoliberalism, socially constructed, that is, they are given their form by ongoing processes of social practice and interaction. Alexander Wendt calls two increasingly accepted basic tenets of Constructivism "that the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and that the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature".[4]

Challenging realism

Because Neorealism was — during Constructivism's formative period — the dominant discourse of International Relations, much of Constructivism's initial theoretical work is in challenging certain basic Neorealist assumptions. Neorealists are fundamentally causal Structuralists, in that they hold that the majority of important content to international politics is explained by the structure of the international system, a position first advanced in Kenneth Waltz's Man, the State, and War and fully elucidated in his core text of Neorealism, Theory of International Politics. Specifically, international politics is primarily determined by the fact that the international system is anarchic – it lacks any overarching authority, instead it is composed of units (states) which are formally equal – they are all sovereign over their own territory. Such anarchy, Neorealists argue, forces States to act in certain ways, specific, they can rely on no-one but themselves for security (they have to Self-help). The way in which anarchy forces them to act in such ways, to defend their own self-interest in terms of power, Neorealists argue, explains most of international politics. Because of this, Neorealists tend to disregard explanations of international politics at the 'unit' or 'state' level.[5][6] Kenneth Waltz attacked such a focus as being reductionist.[7]

Constructivism, particularly in the formative work of Wendt, challenges this assumption by showing that the causal powers attributed to 'Structure' by Neorealists are in fact not 'given', but rest on the way in which Structure is constructed by social practice. Removed from presumptions about the nature of the identities and interests of the actors in the system, and the meaning that social institutions (including Anarchy) have for such actors, Neorealism's 'structure' reveals, Wendt argues, very little, "it does not predict whether two states will be friends or foes, will recognize each other's sovereignty, will have dynastic ties, will be revisionist or status quo powers, and so on".[8] Because such features of behavior are not explained by Anarchy, and require instead the incorporation of evidence about the interests and identities held by key actors, Neorealism's focus on the material structure of the system (Anarchy) is misplaced.[9] But Wendt goes further than this – arguing that because the way in which Anarchy constrains states depends on the way in which States conceive of Anarchy, and conceive of their own identities and interests, Anarchy is not necessarily even a 'self-help' system. It only forces states to self-help if they conform to Neorealist assumptions about states as seeing security as a competitive, relative concept, where the gain of security for any one state means the loss of security for another. If States instead hold alternative conceptions of security, either 'co-operative', where states can maximise their security without negatively affecting the security of another, or 'collective' where states identify the security of other states as being valuable to themselves, Anarchy will not lead to self-help at all.[10] Neorealist conclusions, as such, depend entirely on unspoken and unquestioned assumptions about the way in which the meaning of social institutions are constructed by actors. Crucially, because Neorealists fail to recognize this dependence, they falsely assume that such meanings are unchangeable, and exclude the study of the processes of social construction which actually do the key explanatory work behind Neorealist observations.

When I walk/jog with my four dogs, it's usually for about 2.5 - 3 hours. That's a lot of time to do observations.

If a person walking a dog approaches, and the dog is calm and under control, my dogs will respond in kind. If the dog is out of control, some of my dogs will bark in response (until I prove that I am a strong hegemonic leader.)

Your actions display your interests. If you're barking, you may be a threat. If you're simply following the regime, i.e. walking on the path, no conflict will occur.

If you don't want your oh so precious and loving little beast to be kicked, or pepper sprayed, by a jogger, don't let him out of your fucking control.

Sid - whose wife went through 12 rabies shots after being bitten, while on a run, by a "friendly" dog that the owner didn't control, even though it was on a leash

I do agree that domestic animals should be on a leash when taken in public, but the language was unnecessary.

I don't let my dogs out of the fenced yard because, in large part, of the hell us two-legs have made of the world. Those who don't own dogs are not going to understand how to be gentle and firm to calm an animal. Education is all well and good--really, it could only help--but please don't put your trust in strangers by losing control of your critter.

By letting their dog run after joggers while barking, they are training their dog to think that is what we do when we go to the park.

The owner takes the attitude that 'barking aggressively 24 inches form your heels is just what my dog does and I can't influence that.' Then looks for "science" to back up this foolishness.

Message to Jack Russell owner: YES YOU CAN influence the dog's behavior. Start with a leash. Then train the dog in alternative behaviors and show him how to approach people so that they can show him the same love you do.

The standard excuse for a lazy dog owner.

I had a neighbor tell me one time, "dogs bark, that's what they do" as an excuse for passing out drunk and leaving his dog outside barking all night.

That made me want to mount an air horn on the side of my house and tell him, "air horns make noise, that's what they do."

(!?). I was stunned; tongue tied. What the heck do you say to THAT ? The first thing that came to mind was "by coincidence, my right foot likes to kick people like you in the ass" but I was too busy getting between rocks and my dogs to say much except "ouch! please stop that..."

Someday that kid will harm an animal or a person and mom will be asking why.

I've had pets since I can remember and I can remember back 60 plus years and they've always been this way. Cats feel love too.

When I'm in the recliner, the younger of the two lays on my lap at smiles at me, gives me the slow blink for a few minutes while dozing off into cat dream land. She'll lay there as long as I do.

There are too many people in the world who would try to harm them otherwise.

However, I am responsible for my dogs' behavior when I'm in public with them. That's why they're always on a leash in public, and if another person is around or I'm approaching another person, I shorten up on the leash. Both dogs are super friendly, and would love it if anyone patted them on the head, but I don't make any assumptions about the other people, with or without dogs, I encounter.

If the dog barks at someone or another dog, it gets two orders from me: "Stop!" and "Sit!" It knows what those two things mean and does just that. I don't expect other people and other dogs to know my dog or want to be friendly with my dogs. So, I remain in control of the dogs.

It all works out just fine. My older dog, Dude, a slightly overweight beagle/basset mix, has an enormous affection for children, and children seem to be equally attracted. On walks, the children in the neighborhood all know his name and universally ask if they can pet Dude. They can. When children approach him, he wags his tail furiously and he stands stock still while they pet him, handle his long ears and otherwise interact with him. He loves it, they love it, and so it's a neighborhood ritual for me, Dude, and the kids.

But, at all times, I come up very short on Dude's leash, about a foot from his collar, and he knows it. I'm the alpha dog in this small pack, and Dude understands that. It's not some authoritarian thing. It's how humans and dogs relate.

The writer of this piece doesn't seem to understand that her Jack Russell can't be allowed to run after and bark at a jogger. She needs to understand that. It's her dog, and her responsibility. Not everyone loves dogs, and my dog or her dog has no particular right to approach, bark at, or do anything else with anyone. It's not anyone else's responsibility to interact in any particular way with my dog or her dog.

that i just need a gentle voice. use a leash.

and then there would have been no problem.

She has no more right to expect a stranger to treat her threatening dog gently than to treat her threatening child gently.

And so the point of her article was lost. And that's a shame. Doing more damage to her cause then good, by not socializing and controlling her dog and then whining about the real results.

Dogs have a strong predator-prey response, being domesticated for only a few thousand years, and in many breeds, herding/pursuit traits are preserved or even amplified by design.

What might be intended as a herding 'nip' is, to a human, a bite.
Herding barks are interpreted as an aggressive threat display.


I have dogs. I love dogs. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt even when I perceive their actions as aggressive. That said, the author of that piece is shifting blame. That dog's temperament and training is not suitable for off-leash outside a designated dog park.

is to get down lower than them. Of course, that gives them the opportunity to clamp down on my jugular but at least they feel more comfortable.

You don't leave dogs--especially terriers that will chase anything--off leash. She could have ended up with a dead dog instead of a kicked one if the dog went into the road and was hit by a passing car. You also don't expect total strangers to love your dog like you do.

Humans (polite ones anyway) don't go up to other humans yelling excitedly and yapping and nipping. Dogs shouldn't be allowed to do that either. Step One: LEASH. Step Two: "Owner" Training...because that writer hasn't a clue.

is that you can be startled and hurt yourself. A dog on a long chain once lunged at me and my daughter who was in a jogging stroller. I reacted by suddenly moving into the street. It was instinctive and I did not think, but if a car had been coming??? Even on a jogging trail I have been startled in the past and twisted my ankle. I could have easily fallen and hit my head or broken my arm.

"He will be afterwards if he attacks me."

Dogs whose owners are RIGHT THERE should NOT be allowed to run after humans.