This question came about over a discussion my brother and I had about whether dogs should be on leashes when outside. We both agreed that yes, they should, for several reasons, but that’s not the point.
Let’s use a hypothetical to better illustrate the question. Imagine that there’s a perfume - vanilla, for example - that doesn’t bother you at all (you don’t like nor dislike it), but that is very upsetting to some people, and can even cause some adverse reactions (allergies or something). In this hypothetical, based on the negative effects, you agree that vanilla perfumes should be banned. Currently, however, they are allowed.
You’re walking down the street, and randomly smell someone passing you by and they’re wearing a vanilla perfume.
Would that upset you? Why, or why not?
My answer is yes, without a doubt. Even though the smell itself doesn’t bother me, the fact someone would wear that perfume and not only potentially upset others, but put them in danger, is upsetting.
My brother, however, would say no! He couldn’t explain his reasoning to me.
I know this is a little convoluted, but I hope I got my question across.
Right, OK, I get what you mean.
Well, other than this:
Why?
Getting shot in the head is worse than getting stabbed in the calf, but I still think you shouldn’t stab me in the calf! Obviously that’s a very extreme example, but these rules exist for a reason.
The dog may seem well-behaved for now, but what if it gets bothered by something random, as dogs do? The whole point of the rule is to prevent aggressive dogs from bothering people, because owners seem to always think their dogs wouldn’t hurt a fly. If you only complain about a dog being unleashed after a dog misbehaves, then aren’t you just asking for an issue to happen, instead of preventing it by enforcing the rule?
You get what I mean?
Then again, it does bother me when people don’t use crosswalks or cut in line lol
Aggressive dogs on leashes often pull themselves free or drag their owner close enough to start violence with other people and other dogs. Well behaved dogs tend to avoid confrontation.
It isn’t saying that any dog couldn’t be suddenly aggressive any more than saying any random person couldn’t suddenly become aggressive. Odds are higher that a dog who is frequently aggressive but on a leash getting close enough to bite or scratch than a well behaved one not on a leash.
While I am perfectly fine with the leash laws being enforced, not being on a leash when well behaved isn’t asking for trouble. Leash laws are there to address less well behaved dogs and the fact that it is impossible to know how well behaved a dog is the first time you meet them.
I used to think leashes should be optional until I had a dog who was perfect off-leash. I could be anywhere from a wooded path to a crowded sidewalk and that dog would be right beside me, but I only ever took her on hikes or through calm neighborhoods. Plenty of people knew my dog was friendly and would stop to pet her when I was out.
My boyfriend at the time had her just as long as I did, but couldn’t control her off-leash as well as me. He tried anyway. He walked her next to a highway, she got overwhelmed, went chasing someone across the street, through traffic. Both him and the dog almost got fucked up on the highway when he tried to get her under control.
After that I only let her off leash in places where it was safe and allowed because she’s a dog and it just takes one bad moment to get her or someone else killed.
Beyond that personal anecdote, if you look at pet insurance claims statistics there are hell of a lot of accidents and attacks that start with “Dog was off-leash.”