Posted by
24
15 yrs ago
I was waiting for a taxi this afternoon at my building lobby and I witnessed a resident's dog bite a lady who was standing next to him for no reason at all. The lady happened to be one of the building cleaning ladies and she was literally just standing there, not even looking at the dog or even moving towards him when he took a hard bite at her leg. This was followed by her scream of pain and then eventually she told the security man that she was bleeding. The domestic helper who had the dog on a leash started to call the owner to tell what had happened. I did not witness what followed after that because my taxi arrived.
I was very disturbed by the whole incident but did not have a chance to report my grievance to the security staff. This dog is already notorious in our building for its hostile and aggressive behaviour and I imagine it is not the first time it tried to bite residents or other pedestrians. It usually barks agressively at most passer-bys and has happened to myself most times when I see him. The helpers are always with the dog and they try their best to keep him under control, usually by holding him rather than letting him walk on the ground on his own. The dog never has a muzzle on and it is a mid-size poodle (not small and not really big either). I am certain that the owner is aware of the agressive and hostile nature of his dog so am really surprised that he doesn't muzzle it.
I was quite disturbed by the incident because I have two small children and there are other kids in our building. It could have easily happened to one of the children.
I would like to know what type of action can be taken against this type of incident or the owner? Do dogs have to wear muzzles in public places in HK by law? Can a police report be filed if I am only a witness or does it need to be done by the person who is bitten? I don't think she did so because she is a cleaning lady from Mainland China.
Would appreciate any feedback if you know how best to deal with this incident. Thanks so much.
Please support our advertisers:
Certainly involve the police.
"Do dogs have to wear muzzles in public places in HK by law?"
No, muzzles are only required in certain locations like ferries, and that is probably a requirement of the ferry company.
In any case what would be the point? Only badly socialized and trained dogs would bite a human, and those such would normally not do so unprovoked.
The blame in this incident lies squarely with the owners in not providing the proper training and socialization. The problem is with this individual dog, not dogs in general.
As a dog owner myself, I am appalled by owners like this. They make the rest of us look bad. Our dog would is very friendly and calm. He would never dream of hurting anyone, even young kids who pull his tail. Unfortunately a lot of people are frightened of him as they are of any other dog, because idiots like the owners you mention have no clue and can't be bothered to properly commit the time needed.
Rather than a muzzle requirement that doesn't solve the underlying problem, I would like to see owner education.
Teach your kids how to interact with dogs, and how to tell if a dog is friendly or not. A blanket "dogs are to be avoided" doctrine like many parents have just instills pointless fear.
Please support our advertisers:
Simply ban them all. I am sorry for responsible owners but one disfigured or tramatised child is one too many and too high a price to pay. This incident will probably not go reported because of the victims social and employment status. not to mention pavement fowling, hookworm risk. Why do people need a dog in a built up area, anti-social, selfish and sometimes cruel. Ban them all simple answer.
Please support our advertisers:
cowleyp, using that logic, we should ban cars. There are certainly more children hurt in car accidents than in dog attacks.
"Why do people need a dog in a built up area, anti-social, selfish and sometimes cruel. "
Because dogs are such lovely companions. Well, at least I think so. My kids love our dog and as a side benefit they learn responsibility when dealing with other creatures.
As for anti-social, we meet lots of people "through" our dog. It gives us something in common with many people we would never say hi to otherwise.
Our dog is nothing but nice to people. We are responsible dog owners and are aware if someone is frightened. Why do you feel the need to punish us for what some idiot does?
What should be done: Educate the owners with good puppy classes and by all means punish those who cannot handle their dogs. For that matter, ban the sale of dogs in pet shops and ban puppy mills. Responsible dog ownership starts with choosing a good breeder. License breeders and ensure quality.
I urge you to learn more about dogs. They are not the creatures you seem to think.
Please support our advertisers:
Your logic is easy to follow; indeed more children are injured and killed by cars than by dogs. Cars carry compulsory training, insurance and other ownership responsibilities far in excess of those for dog ownership however and of course there are more cars than dogs so the ratio of injuries per dog/car would be a better example. Like it or not cars form an integral part of our society, too much so perhaps.
I said I feel sorry for responsible owners and I am sure you are one of them; sadly there are many who are not responsible. There are social presidents here, eating and drinking on public transport is banned for all for example because a few people are slovenly. One rotten apple can spoil the barrel.
Please support our advertisers:
Let's introduce licensing for dog ownership then. Far more reasonable than a blanket ban. Still a waste of resources (see below).
At the very least if there is a complaint against an owner it should be investigated with one of the possible consequences being removal of the dog. I don't know how this works in HK but certainly in most Western countries animal control or equivalent can and does remove dangerous dogs from their owners. No need for a ban, just enforcement of regulations.
On the list of "things that hurt children" dog attacks are barely a blip compared to drowning, fire, car accidents, suffocation, poisoning, falls, electrocution and so forth. If resources are to be expended on protecting children, let's at least expend them where they can do the most good before worrying about the once in a blue moon cases. Dog attacks make good press but the risk of one is pretty infinitesimal.
Please support our advertisers:
Dog licensing need not be a waste of resource if administered correctly, at a high enough premium it can even be a revenue generator. Oh and compulsory chipping, annual well being check-ups and 3rd party insurance.
Please support our advertisers:
As I read your post I remembered that dog licensing is already in place, as is compulsory chipping. And in fact so are compulsory annual health checks in as much as you need one to get the yearly rabies shot which you need for your dog license.
I'm fine with all of it but none of the above does a jot to address the behavioural problems which are at the root of dog attacks. The measures are there to control disease, not dog attacks. You are not solving the problem.
Third party insurance is not in place. Again, though, having insurance does not make a dog owner responsible.
Responsible dog owners (most of us) who pay their license and have their dogs checked regularly are not really the problem. The problem is idiots who get a dog from a pet store (bad idea!) without knowing where it came from, ignore the license, and then have no clue how to train their dog. I'm not talking "seeing-eye dog" levels. Just normal socialization, not biting and not pulling on the leash. Beginner stuff which my four year old has a pretty good handle on. These idiots then neglect their dog and have no control over it. Compare with having children and not fostering them. Will they turn out to be brats? Heck yes!
So again, owner education. Even a public information campaign focusing on dog behaviour awareness would raise the knowledge level in HK immensely.
Responsible dog owners (most of us) are as much against "idiot owners" as anyone else, perhaps even more so.
Please support our advertisers:
24
15 yrs ago
Thank you everyone for your feedback so far. I have written a letter to the dog owner informing him that I witnessed the incident and will file a police report about it unless he does something about his dog. I am thinking about informing all the tenants in our building as well so that they too are aware of the incident and can be on the alert when they see the hostile dog, especially if they are travelling in the tiny lift together with it.
Please support our advertisers:
most contributors have valid points. We live in the NT and got a dog as a companion for our child after 4 years of deliberations, and have never regretted it. We selected a small dog as we knew the added responsibilities of a big one.
Having said that, taking the dog for a walk is an absolute nightmare. You go across these helpers with 2-3 dogs on a leash 6 times their own body weight. There is no way even one of the dogs could be controlled if it went wild. None are on a muzzle which is mandatory if the dog is over a certain weight. I do worry if one of these BIG DOG's attacked our child or pet as to how would we enforce what we percieve is the law. Any one experienced such incidents should share them through these forums so responsible pet owners can learn from them.
WILD DOGS. Dont even start on them. IRRESPONSIBLE owners who buy trophy pets and then let their 50 kilo maids to walk them are the problem. They have led to breeding of the likes of the BOWEN ROAD Poisoner.
Please support our advertisers:
madtown, our dog is perfectly happy in our apartment. Granted, our apartment is bigger than 400 sq.ft. but that's not really what it is about. Some breeds can handle smaller spaces and some require more. It also depends on how much exercise they get. If you give most dogs a good hour or two of exercise per day they have no problem chilling out in a small apartment the rest of the time.
The problem, again, is idiot owners who only take their dog out to pee and don't exercise it more. Those dogs go nuts regardless of the size of the apartment or house.
Go after the owners, not the dogs.
"You go across these helpers with 2-3 dogs on a leash 6 times their own body weight. There is no way even one of the dogs could be controlled if it went wild"
I do feel sorry for those helpers. Their owners are "idiot owners" and your comment about "trophy dogs" is certainly true. However it has nothing to do with the dog's size. It is a matter of training. It is crucial to teach the dog not to pull. Our dog weighs twice as much as my five year old and yet she has no problems controlling him. He doesn't pull and there is no risk of him "going wild". Frankly if he pulled at full strength I would have a hard time controlling him myself but it just doesn't happen. There is a Great Dane in our neighborhood. He weighs more than I do, but the helper doesn't have the slightest problem walking him on the leash. Well trained.
As for attacks, small dogs can bite just as much as big dogs, especially as small dog owners tend to be more lax with training.
There is also this misconception that dogs who get off the leash will suddenly go and bite people at random. Why would they do that? Dogs aren't motivated that way. In the vast majority of cases, a biting incident occurs due to some provocation, typically territorial. It may seem like a random event but it is not. The owner's fault, for sure, but there are explanations.
"None are on a muzzle which is mandatory if the dog is over a certain weight. "
As far as I know there is no such regulation. Besides, muzzles do not solve the problem of an unstable dog. They address the symptom, not the cause.
As I said earlier, owner education is key. The "dog culture" in HK is very odd from a Western perspective, with owners who buy dogs and then walk them in a stroller. Dogs are wired for walking. Of course they go nuts if they have to sit on a cart. These owners need to understand that a dog is a dog, not a plush toy that has come alive. Owning a dog is not hard, but it requires commitment and understanding.
Please support our advertisers:
Please support our advertisers:
Dogs barking is another "idiot owner" problem. I'm totally ok with getting rid of those (owners and dogs). However this is a problem of individual owners, not dogs in general. By the same token as you there are lots of barking dogs, there are many who don't make a sound. Why penalize those owners.
Small apartments are only not good for dogs if the dogs aren't treated properly by their owners. Your "paper on the floor" example is a case in point. That person should never have a dog, regardless of living situation.
A dog can be just as miserable and "barky" in a house with a garden. Look at cara's example. That's a village house! Nothing to do with the size of the home.
"Are there estates/complexes that don't allow ankle biters??"
All of them, one would hope. However just because some dogs are ankle biters doesn't mean the others aren't good canine citizens. As I understand you, you're not annoyed at dogs in general, just the yappy and biting ones? Fine then, let's get rid of those and not bother the rest.
The problem here is twofold of course:
- Idiot owners.
- Management that doesn't take action against idiot owners.
Responsible owners are not the problem, and there is no need to take action against them.
Please support our advertisers:
"I don't think you can blame the noise disturbances in dense high rise living on idiot owners. I don't think you can blame the noise disturbances in dense high rise living on idiot owners. Dogs bark, that is a fact of life."
Of course I can blame the owners. Dogs do bark but most breeds can easily be trained not to bark at all. So, again, idiot owners. Get a non-barky breed and teach your dog to be quiet. It's not rocket science.
"While it is true that a good owner with a great dog can be quiet most of the time, that is an outlying case. "
This is not true at all. As I said, teaching a dog not to bark is pretty easy. It's a training issue like teaching him not to nip and not to pee inside and not to pull. For the record I can't even remember the last time our dog barked. The breed is not that "barky" but certainly he would bark all the time if we hadn't trained that out.
"Let the dog lovers live together in one block, and let those who value peace and quiet live in another"
Why should we responsible dog owners be forced to live with the idiot owners? We detest them as much as you do and it's hardly our fault. I may be a dog lover but I don't love "those" dogs.
If you don't want to live with dogs, there are plenty of buildings that don't allow them.
The gun analogy is flawed. Guns have little purpose besides being weapons. They are designed to wound and kill. Dogs are not.
Owner education is key. Train the owners to teach their dogs. And enforce regs against dogs that disturb, not dogs that don't bother anyone. After all, if the dog doesn't bother anyone, it doesn't matter.
While we are at it, license the sellers of dogs, ban pet shops and ban puppy mills. A responsible breeder vets customers and ensures they know what they are doing. A pet shop is just interested in selling product. Most pet shops in HK are a disgrace and should be closed down for animal abuse.
It is much easier and probably cheaper to address the root of the issue: irresponsible breeders, shops and owners than to make a blanket ban that will be ignored by so many. It also has the advantage of not penalizing those of us doing the right thing.
Please support our advertisers:
We do agree that barking and biting dogs need to go.
To summarize my view:
- The problem starts way before the dog comes home, with irresponsible breeders and shops. Better regulation is needed here, as well as real enforcement.
- Idiot owners are the problem, not all owners. Force idiot owner to get education and in some cases remove their right to own a dog.
- HKers in general have little knowledge about dogs, especially about behaviour and training. Education is needed.
- There are laws against disturbance, but they are unfortunately not enforced. The authorities seem to have no real teeth.
It is possible larger dogs tend to be more quiet, but I think it more a function of training. Owners of small dogs tend to be more lax with training, including training out the bark. There are also breeds that are more barky because of their background. For example some hunting breeds like Dachshunds bark as part of their "job" to drive prey. It is possible to train even those but much harder. Prospective owners need to be aware of these breed peculiarities.
For privacy reasons, I'd rather not tell you what breed we have. They are not that common in HK. I will say that he's just over 30 kg, needs a lot of exercise, but is totally cool about living in an apartment. Most dogs, even large ones, can handle a pretty small space most of the time as long as they get enough exercise and stimulation.
"Perhaps I needed to look around more, I did not find many estates that banned dogs. Can you give me some of them?"
One example is 37 Repulse Bay Road, a large apartment building.
Please support our advertisers:
You make some valid points. However I still think more long term good would come out of actually fixing the system.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on some points. And no, I certainly would not like to live near a constantly barking dog!
Please support our advertisers:
mdap
15 yrs ago
I have three dogs and I am totally against owners being allowed to take dogs and not have adquate housing for them. No dog should be kept indoors all day nor restricted to a cage and never walked etc. Dogs impact your life and unless you can afford them, and by this I mean housing them in a property with a garden or large outdoor space, then don't buy one! Tower block dwelling is not suitable for dogs (other then lap dogs) and bored, frustrated animals caged on tiny balconies or kept in kitchens become irritated and will snap and bite. The only idiots in this equation are those humans who get a dog for vanity, not understanding the commitment for life these animals require.
Please support our advertisers:
mdap, I disagree on some of that. As long as dogs get to go outside enough, they're just fine in apartments. But as you say yourself owners of dogs that are restricted to a cage and never walked are the problem. Those people just don't understand how much exercise dogs need to stay sane, even "lap dogs".
Just because a dog lives in an apartment doesn't mean you can't take it out and about for hours a day. Certainly, having a dog is more difficult and takes more effort in a flat, but it is by no means not impossible.
Please support our advertisers:
What ridiculous suggestions to ban dogs?
Argument 1 - barking disturbs others in confined buildings - agreed but what about crying babies - their noise is even more piercing to the ear. Shall we ban babies? What about children running around and shouting or playing musical instruments? Not to mention those that listen to their televisions or music too loud? According to that logic, babies, children, televisions, instruments and music players should be banned!
Argument 2 - Dog may attack a person - the risk of this is very low and is the fault of the owner/training. Equally so, bad drivers risk lives so we should ban all cars. Adults (people) attack other people more frequently, especially under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I don't see alcohol being banned. A few irresponsible people shouldn't mean everyone else is punished.
Please support our advertisers:
I used to live in Heng Fa Chuen (something like 50 blocks) where the Deed banned 'any animal of any description'. Of course, many residents ignored the ban and there were a few yipping dogs on my floor. With all the other annoyances that are routinely tolerated in Hong Kong (unneeded honking of car horns, talking way too loud on cell phones in MTR, etcetera) I don't see what the case is for a blanket ban on dogs in high-rise housing. There's even less of a case for banning cats like they do in Heng Fa Chuen (seriously!). By the way, there are lots of estates in Florida with signs that read 'adults only'. The first time I saw this I had no idea that it actually meant: 'no families with children'. I suppose it's really a question about the degree to which such a ban is prevalent in a given community. If there are only a few estates that ban dogs, children, cats, or whatever that's one thing but imagine if nearly every available form of housing placed a blanket ban on some annoying thing like children or dogs.
Please support our advertisers:
Madtown,
Is your complaint about noise pollution or not? Surely if you want to sleep, have some peace etc, being disturbed by a repetitive or irritating noise is annoying regardless of the source. A dog barking is annoying without doubt, but the pitch of a baby crying is known to be more disturbing! As for people playing musical instruments badly, listening to loud music, drilling, shouting etc are all equally annoying. The point is in an urban community where people live in close quarters, we must all learn to be tolerant towards others even if their preferences aren't to our liking.
Dogs have been companions to humans for thousands of years and lived harmoniously with humans in those years. Many dogs are well behaved and do not bark incessantly. Those that do bark a lot are normally poorly trained, not exercised adequately or suffering from separation anxiety. Many children on buses and the MTR are loud and annoying to others but we learn to tolerate them!
The comparison of a lion is just plain silly and shows the level of your intellectual argument! These are wild animals that have not been domesticated and can be dangerous - obviously highly unsuitable to live alongside humans.
Perhaps you feel dogs are dangerous and therefore should be banned. I think you'll find humans injure and kill more humans every year. I assume you are American and one of those hypocrites who would ban dogs but advocate people's individual rights to be able to own dangerous guns which are far more harmful to society than any dog?!
Please support our advertisers:
Madtown,
Do you understand the term CONSISTENCY?? A noise is noise!! If you don't like noise pollution - the source is irrelevant. Are you seriously telling me a dog barking disturbs 50+ people but wailing babies, construction work, musical instruments don't???? Why should anyone have to tolerate one type of noise pollution but not another? Who decides why one annoying racket is fine for others to have to listen to but another one isn't????
You refer to basic rights - what does that even mean? Is it my right to have children that may disturb other people? Is it my right to silence? Is it my right to do what I like in the property I have paid for and own? Is it my right to own a pet if not illegal? One individual right may and normally will affect the individual right of someone else - so what is a basic right?
I will happily stay out of America - shame you guys don't stay out of others people's countries with your guns impinging on their rights. Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Aghanistan - the list is endless - so don't even bother starting me on that topic!!
Please support our advertisers:
Fixer
15 yrs ago
24,
any news so far or update on the situation? Once the police get involved, then the AFCD will come knocking on their (dog owners) doors and most likely take a statement from the bite victim.
I must say that the thread's been interesting reading from all sides.
I seem to remember from the news last month, that the Government were about to introduce a blanket ban for all dogs (and maybe cats and all pets too) in public housing. AFAIK, no reasoning to this action was given, which seems a rather callous way of doing things, taking into account the number of dogs that will be abandoned and no doubt end up euthanized.
Please support our advertisers:
DOG OWNERS, good and bad (and there seem to be more bad than good in HK) this coulmn shows there is a real anti dog sentiment building in HK. In all walks of society if self regulation fails imposed regulation is sure to follow.
Please support our advertisers:
190k
15 yrs ago
Madtown is barking up the wrong tree. this is Hong Kong live it or lump it back to septic land
Please support our advertisers:
"dogs have been companions to humans for thousands of years" - but what percentage of those 'thousands of years' have humans lived in high-density housing in overpopulated cities?
Please support our advertisers:
the solution is to stop being selfish and forcing dogs to live in an environment that is totally alien to them. humans choose to live on top of each other and yet still find it aggravating. dogs have no choice, they are forced to. is it surprising that they lose it sometimes?
Please support our advertisers:
LotharvonSpatzhausen, dogs are remarkably adaptable. The issue is that idiot owners don't give them the training they need to handle the situation.
Please support our advertisers:
"axpat, how do you know that dogs are remarkably adaptable?"
I've seen plenty of dogs in HK that do just fine in apartments. This is directly correlated to the behavior and commitment of their owners. I've seen dogs that do badly, and it always seems to be with an owners who hasn't done the right things.
"what qualifies you to make that statement?"
I'm a dog owner. More specifically, I am the owner of a pretty large breed dog who lives in an apartment and is just fine. He is fine because he was given training that wasn't really that hard. My friend the dog trainer and my friend the dog hotel keeper are of exactly the same opinion, and they ARE experts.
"Your training argument is hogwash, that will never happen in HK and we both know it"
The fact that it won't happen in HK doesn't make it hogwash.
"If you can come up with a program to help hk dog owners to better train their dogs, lets hear it? "
It's about creating a real dog culture as opposed to a culture of dogs as "plushies". This is not an easy process.
Enforce disturbance regs and remove dogs that cause a nuisance from their idiot owners. This would "encourage" other people to improve. This works in cities like, say, New York.
The dogs themselves are not the problem. It is unprepared owners.
"Like I said, guns should be legal too. Its not guns that kill people, its irresponsible gun owners."
The problem with the comparison is that most people take a gun seriously, but too many people don't take dogs seriously.
Please support our advertisers:
xpat you seem to be equating suppressing dogs' natural instincts with happy adaptability (re: your arguments on teaching dogs not to bark). weird.
Please support our advertisers:
There's bark and bark. There's the occasional single bark to attract attention, for example if a toy has slipped under a piece of furniture. This is not an annoying behavior. On the other hand there's the incessant bark that is a sign of stress. That is very annoying and shows that the dog is unhappy.
Are well trained dogs unhappy because they don't get to bark when they want? Hardly. In fact, they are definitely happier than dogs who have "issues" and bark incessantly as a result. Dogs who are not allowed to bark simply find another way of expressing themselves.
Domestic dogs are happy if they are stimulated, get exercise, get attention from owners and yes, are trained. They thrive on pleasing their master(s), and knowing how to do so. This may include suppressing the bark. While we are at it, domestic dogs are taught a whole bunch of "unnatural" behaviors, like "sit" and "stay".
Are police dogs or customs dogs unhappy because they don't get to bark on the job? Hardly. They could not do their job unless they enjoyed it.
Please support our advertisers:
this is not about the types of bark.
this is about suppressing or rooting out instincts and claiming that it's completely natural and a path to happiness to deny an animal an opportunity to express itself in line with its instincts.
Please support our advertisers:
Madtown, have you ever been a dog owner? If you have, then you obviously were not a very observant one. Dogs DO show unahappiness on the outside ... tail between the legs, as opposed to being upright/wagging, ears down/back as opposed to being perky, head slouched down, as opposed to being upright, and of course, incessant barking, etc. Some also display signs of general lethargy ... lying down, and yes, actually 'looking' sad. Or even showing signs of unhappiness due to boredom or separation anxiety, such as chewing/destroying furnishings. These are all outward signs of unhappiness.
If you have previously owned a dog, and not observerd ANY of the above signs, then well done for having a VERY happy dog! Although I would find it a bit hard to believe that any dog has never, at some point in their lives, experienced unhappiness ... even if they've just been told off for doing something naughty!
I am the proud owner of two dogs, one large, one medium. The large one we brought with us from the UK many years ago. She had been used to living in a house with a large garden, and countryside on the doorstep. As axptguy said, dogs ARE very adaptable. As long as you take care of your dogs properly, feeding/watering them, regularly exercising them, showing them love and affection, they WILL be happy. And most wouldn't give two hoots whether they live on a farm or in an apartment as long as they are being cared for properly.
Dogs are sociable, affectionate creatures, and love human companionship. As long as they are looked after properly, by a caring owner, they will be obedient and happy. The ones that bark incessantly are the ones who aren't being properly cared for ... it's nothing to do with living in an apartment!
Please support our advertisers:
As Sapphire says, people who know dogs can tell whether a dog is happy or not. Dogs can actually be much more expressive than humans since they don't hide their emotions.
Please support our advertisers:
"Of course a dog can act happy and sad (for the moment). Its takes nothing but a bone to prove that."
If a dog is fundamentally unhappy, a bone will help, but it will still be clear that the dog is unhappy.
"Axpat, how do you know that your big dog is happy living in a 100 sq mt high rise? "
Because it is obvious from his demeanor. He's relaxed, playful, friendly, affectionate, enthusiastic. He does not bark, howl, growl or chew on furniture. And that's not just my assessment, but that of my friend the dog trainer, my friend the dog hotel owner, my friend the vet, another couple of vets, several friends who know dogs.
For the record, we don't live in a high rise, but we do live in an apartment building so the dog is indeed inside most of the time.
"However, you are kidding yourself if you think that dog wouldn't be happier on a 10 acre farm"
10 acre farm is certainly great, but most dogs are can be perfectly happy without needing that much space.
"Dogs as expressive as humans? Huh?"
I was unclear. What I meant was that dogs don't hide their emotions like humans do. If a dog is unhappy or not, it tends to be pretty obvious.
Please support our advertisers:
"A dog isnt going to walk into your flat and pout because its too small. However, you are kidding yourself if you think that dog wouldn't be happier on a 10 acre farm."
If my dogs were to live on a 10 acre farm, but were not properly cared for, as they are now, I'm certain they would not be as happy as they are now, living with me in an apartment, and being cared for properly.
I don't dispute the fact that if I lived on a 10 acre farm with my dogs, they wouldn't be happy. Of course they would be, because I'd be taking good care of them. However, this doesn't mean that dogs who live in apartments can not be happy. As I said previously, a dogs happiness all depends on how well cared for they are ... nothing to do with whether they live in a small apartment, or on a 10 acre farm.
Obviously, if you own a breed of dog who is known to need lots of exercise, then he's not going to be happy if he's couped up in an apartment all day without any nice long walks ... he's likely to be the dog showing unhappy signs such as incessant barking and destroying the furniture! ... This is because he is not being looked after properly as he's not getting the required amount of exercise he needs ... not because he's simply living in an apartment!
Please support our advertisers:
"I would guess about 98% of dog owners living in the D Flat on 44/F Tower 2 are bad/irresposible owners. "
And if I lived there, I would probably make the same assessment.
"And just because a dog is small, doesn't mean its not a dog. They still need to run. "
Absolutely.
"But please understand my point, I am not saying you are a bad person for owning a dog in a high rise. I am saying in general it is a bad idea and thus should be banned."
Why can't we just ban those owners who are bad? It is hardly difficult to judge.
I get the MTR example. I'm simply saying that there is much more room for control if you are a dog owner than if you are trying to eat on a crowded train. Heck, I don't think I can be trusted not to spill. ;)
Another thing: plenty of people in Europe and North America live in apartment blocks and own dogs. And yet I never hear of dogs having to poop on a newspaper in the apartment. In the US, incessantly barking dogs are removed. My theory is because many owners in HK are completely clueless while most owners in Europe and the US have some idea of what dog ownership entails.
If HK owners became educated most of the problems would go away, high-rise or not. This would be good for the dogs, the owners, and the neighbors.
Please support our advertisers:
"It would take a very dedicated owner in Hong Kong to provide that environment, but it is possible."
There are many dedicated dog owners in Hong Kong, but we tend only to hear about the bad ones.
"One or two walks a day on a leash is not responsible ownership. And just because a dog is small, doesn't mean its not a dog. They still need to run."
I totally agree!
"But please understand my point, I am not saying you are a bad person for owning a dog in a high rise. I am saying in general it is a bad idea and thus should be banned"
Not a bad idea for responsible, dedicated dog owners. There is no need for those of us who are resposible owners to be penalised due the actions of those who aren't.
"If HK owners became educated most of the problems would go away, high-rise or not. This would be good for the dogs, the owners, and the neighbors."
I think we can all agree on that!
Please support our advertisers:
Of course I get the concept. I got it the first time you mentioned it. But I still think people should be allowed to own dogs. If I'm on the MTR for 40 minutes a day and can't eat or drink, big deal. On the other hand if I couldn't have a dog at all, I'd be pretty sad.
"When 90% of dog owners can't responsibly handle their dogs, than rules need to be inforced."
Of course. Enforce them by banning banning those 90% from having a dog. But let the others. After all, if a dog is quiet, doesn't bite and doesn't foul where it shouldn't, it is not disturbing anyway.
"Again, I think dogs are allowed in Hong Kong high rises for the same reason Hong Kong has the worst pollution on the planet and nobody says anything.......Apathy."
HK has nowhere near the worst pollution on the planet but I see your point. And I agree on the fact that there is apathy. However if something is to be done a blanket ban seems so blunt. Going after the idiot owners would not really be much more effort.
I think we're going in circles.
Please support our advertisers:
i've been following this tennis match since the beginning, and have to say both arguments have merit. but to suggest that axpt is getting emotional, when you're not, is utterly ridiculous...he's easily the more objective of the two of you (even as a passionate dog owner!), you're the one throwing out veiled insults to anyone who disagrees with you...it seems you've realized this in your past few posts, as you seem to be steering away from the 'ranting yank' you usually are, and have been putting great pains into seeming 'reasonable', something axpt does naturally...
and yes, i've read all of your post and understand your position...it's really not as difficult as you might think
Please support our advertisers:
Madtown, it seems to me that you have been very unfortunate in your choice of place to live. After discussing this matter with many work colleagues (some of them dog owners, most are not), it appears that none of them have any problems in their apartments with incessantly barking dogs. It's highly unlikely that the powers that be will be changing the rules any time soon, on whether or not dogs should be allowed in apartments (most of them are probably dog owners too). Especially when you seem to be in the minority. Perhaps a change of address might do the job.
Please support our advertisers:
Well, good for you! No need to rant on about it any more then!
Please support our advertisers:
madtown, you are (still) being condescending and accusatory towards people who disagree with you, and then you tell ME that I should "remove myself and my emotions"? Let's debate the issue, not the person.
You also took my comment above out of context. I said: "If I'm on the MTR for 40 minutes a day and can't eat or drink, big deal. On the other hand if I couldn't have a dog at all, I'd be pretty sad."
I meant that giving up something you like for the time you are on the MTR is no biggie, but giving it up entirely is a whole other thing. I was not crying about anything. I expressed myself that way to to make a point. Let's debate the issue, not nitpick about wording when we both know what was meant.
madtown said: "Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you got defensive right from the beginning because perhaps you feel guilty about having a big dog in a small apartment. Perhaps you took this as an attack on you, which it isn't. And now you feel like you are defending yourself."
Where do you get that from? I don't feel in the least guilty. As I said before, our dog is perfectly happy. Let's debate the issue, not my emotional state.
Please support our advertisers:
I was making a point about length of privation. If I can't have a glass of wine during working hours, fine. If I can't have one at all, not fine. If I can't bring my dog on the bus, fine. If I can't have a dog at all, not fine.
Incidentally, in countries like Sweden dogs are allowed on buses and subways and there never seems to be a problem. Well educated owners who teach their dogs how to behave in a human environment are key.
"Your rights end when they infringe on mine....so to speak. "
If you cannot see or hear a dog, and it doesn't poop on the grounds, I would say it does not infringe your life at all, let alone your rights.
"Would you have a problem with a three tower estate complex designating 1 tower for allowing dogs/pets and the others not allowing them?"
It would depend on the reason. If it were for allergy issues, I might be fine with it. If it were for noise, I would think it was silly. As someone stated way up, there are plenty of other things in apartment blocks that can disturb.
Then again I doubt I would live in such a complex. You never know when they decide to ban dogs from the rest of it. ;)
I am against dogs that bark incessantly, just like you. I think they should be removed if the owner does not train the dog not to bark. All the other dogs are irrelevant in my opinion since they are not disturbing.
"public housing does not allow dogs. That is interesting. I wonder what the reason for that it? "
No idea. The cynic in me assumes that lazy administrators found this a simpler thing to do than to police "idiot owners". I have also heard that plenty of people break the rule. For the record, I would never break such a rule. If they don't allow dogs, don't bring in a dog. The dog and you are defenseless against legal action.
On a related note, I saw a note in a Bel-Air lift the other day. Apparently dogs have been pooping in the garage and other public areas. (There are even amusing signs banning dogs from pooping.) Apart from the usual admonitions, the management has organized free dog training classes, and had great attendance from residents. As I see it, that is a great way to "fix" the problem. Many of these owners simply need a little guidance.
Please support our advertisers:
Boys, boys, boys, calm down! At the end of the day, dogs are here to stay, whether you like it or not.
"As I see it, that is a great way to "fix" the problem. Many of these owners simply need a little guidance."
Or perhaps, many of the owners need to take more interest in their dogs rather than letting their helpers be the sole carers, who basically don't give two hoots whether the dogs soil in areas they are not supposed to ... and don't bother to clean it up ... and they don't walk them properly ... I see them often sitting on steps or at the corner of the road just chatting to friends!! Generally, the owners clean up ... helpers do not!! Sorry, that's really another issue, but one that gets right up my nose! Can't really blame the helpers ... people shouldn't have dogs if they haven't got the time to care for them properly! Rant over.
Please support our advertisers:
well i apparently spoke to soon madtown...your true persona is shining thru again...doesn't take a lot to push that button does it...better work on those emotions lol...
rant on dude
Please support our advertisers:
Sapphire, agreed about the helpers. Some take good care of the dogs, but too many do as you say, sitting around instead of walking.
"Generally, the owners clean up ... helpers do not!! "
I have actually observed this both ways. Certain places like Red Hill are notorious for all the dog poo lying around, only on Sundays.
Please support our advertisers:
madtown -
perhaps its you who needs a reading lesson...i didn't once sy you needed to control your emotions...what i said was that you suggesting axpt do so what ridiculous, as he was easily the more objective of the two of you (can't believe i have to explain that again...) with rational arguements for caring properly for one's pets, while you huff and puff in nearly every post about banning dogs, legalizing guns, etc...nothing moral about my position, just making an observation about your debating skills (which on other topics are quite good - PRD pollution for example, but here are obviously influenced by your emotions)..as for your judgement of my opinion as meaningless, you've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn about what you think of me (see, i can disregard your opinion out of hand too lol)
Please support our advertisers:
Please support our advertisers:
< Back to main category
You must be logged in to be able to reply.
Login now
Copy Link
Facebook
Gmail
Mail