Nå er det forbudt å ikke bruke bånd

Noen av de første tankene jeg gjør meg:

Sålenge man er den nye parten som kommer inn i bildet, ser jeg hvertfall for meg at syklister bør vurdere hvilke stier det erfaringsmessig er størst risiko for å møte på hunder. Andre moment kan f.eks være å rope til hundeeier og be personen sikre hunden før man setter fart på sykkelen og kjører forbi, noe som er å be hunden om å sette etter deg.

Fra hundeeiers side er jeg veldig enig med de som allerede har nevnt vurderinger om hvor man slipper hunden. Der det er tjukt med folk har en løs hund lite å gjøre i utgangspunktet, båndtvang eller ikke etter mitt syn.

Utgangspunktet mitt er som følge: Med mindre man kan sannsynliggjøre at en stor nok andel av hunder er farlige for andre brukere av marka, er hundehold med løse hunder noe man må regne med, og jeg ser lite poeng i å argumentere for en dramatisk utvidet båndtvang.

Et annet moment er at jeg har vanskelig for å tenke meg en bruk av marka som trigger flere hundekonflikter enn det du bedriver på vinterstid, og det er dermed veldig uheldig at du også framstår for meg som en person med en dels irrasjonell hundefrykt, noe som selvsagt er en ærlig sak. Jeg skal heller ikke sitte her og leke at din frykt er en bagatell, da jeg som hundeglad person neppe har særlig forutsetninger til å forestille meg hvordan du opplever hunder.

I apply the same level of caution in overtaking hikers regardless of body language.

Again, now you speak about dogs without owners. I have control over my dog as long as I dont let her out of sight. Which doesnt happen.

Mr. Wicked,

Those are two completely different scenarios, one being in a populated area, and one being in a remote wilderness area. In a populated area, she will act controlled, to the extent that even people who know her would have a hard time defining her appearance as being afraid.
In a remote location, suddenly coming upon a lone, aggressive canine, is a whole other situation, where shockeffect comes into play.

My point being that whether or not your dog is actually harmless, there is no helping the fact that a person with a phobia will not necessarily react any different. Using the leash is not merely for restraining the dog, but also for the visual appearance. It actually helps. A lot.

In the backcountry, where the other situation unfolded, having your dog off leash is fine by me, but this is where I hope your argument regarding common sense kicks in. The owner mentioned was obviously lacking resembling notions.

But still, they might be afraid. You dont know. Fact is that many hikers dont like bikers.

When I stop and ask complaining hikers what the problem is, I do get a verbal response that leads into a conversation on the topic. I have never tried this approach on a dog, but I am tempted to assume that the outcome would be vastly different.

I have not had hikers yell at me, though. If you frequently encounter this kind of behavior, you either ride in a different environment than mine, or you do not apply sufficient caution.

Yes I do, because that response was not directed at you.

No, but if I approach them with caution, I follow the law. If you walk your dog unleashed, you don't.

That is, in my mind, a significant difference.

I would have to see the first dog that starts a discussion with you, however, you would be surprised how many dogs would stop or even run away. Most dogs that bark are insecure and since your much bigger they will take off as soon as you stop.

Thanks for the explenation Raketmaskin. Then I understand your point.

So, your right during the sommer season, at least.

I don't believe every dog owner or cyclist has the same common sense. It is there your whole argument brakes down and it only comes to what you do and what you believe.


I don't believe that we should only care about the accidents. People have the right to be irritated before an accident happen.



Not, really. I was thinking about what I have heard was the case (mostly in the US I believe) where people didn't use the seat belt because they thought it was safer to be thrown out of the car in an accident.


Totally missing my point.

No, once again. I dont state that 100% of the dog owners thinks logic. I say that the biggest part of them does.(majority)



People have the right to be in any state of mood. But do we need rules to avoid that people get in a negative mood? In that case we get soon rules that you have to get of your bike when you pass a hiker and get back on it again when you passed him then meters. That is were we need tolerance, which I mentioned about 5 pages ago.



No, people were mainly against new rules. Specially in the U.S the freedom stands tall. The Americans also know that if they had a proper gunlaw there would be less violence. But the right to cary arms is holy and a law against carrying a gun will most likely never come.



Then explain one more time, please.

Why is this an argument for or against anything?

I have no idea. I just want to be able to ride my bike without being chased by dogs. I do NOT want dogs approach my kids without my oral permission. I do not want dogs to sniff my crotch or jump on me. I do not want to meet dogs with no owner in sight.

I don't care how it happens, but I do not think my request is unreasonable.

For the simple reason that it’s all about being socially accepted. (tolerance again)
If 90% of bikers would misbehave, biking would be forbidden. If 90% of dogs would attack, dogs would be forbidden. (and don’t start arguing about the number now, you know what I mean, the majority)

We do agree that we can’t forbid something just because a minority can’t behave, do we?

If not then we should forbid driving a car because some are speeding and cause accidents. Which would be totally ridicules .

So what? I don't care if 90% behave in a good way if I have problem with the 10% that misbehave. You are the person that talk about majority and common sense.



Also missing my point. I believe that some behavior can be criticized even though no accident happen. For example having a dog running around far from the owner in the most used skitracks should be criticized even though the dog didn't bit anyone. Some people don't like that behavior and I believe those people are correct.

I don't believe that we should listen to every angry person.

Rules might be necessary when many people don't act in a good way.



You are just speculating about the gun laws and what people thought about seat belts. I really can't see the connection with a seatbelt law that didn't exist and peoples choice of not using a seat belt given for example the reason I talked about above.




That you talk about the majority and common sense and when I draw that thinking to the extreme you just ignored the thinking and made a irrelevant point.

You should have stopped their and I would totally agree.



No, but as I said before. I have control over my dog so it would not happen with my dog.

I couldn´t agree more.

Martin

Why does it seems to hard to see the difference between your behavior and your dog and other peoples dogs and behavior?

It seems clear from your posts that you would not like the behavior of the dogs that Geir and I have encountered so why don't you just agree with us?

You seems to defend all dog owners because of your own behavior.

Mr. Wicked, are you aware of the details in the Norwegian "dog law"?
Everyone, can we at least agree that the law is sufficient, but the real problem boils down to the fact that some dog owners doesn't respect it?

Fredriks:

If I am missing the point then it might be that you should explain a bit better.

I think its funny that you state that we shouldnt listen to every angree person. Thats why some dog owners wouldnt listen to GeirK, and thats why car drivers dont listen to bikers getting pissed and cut off, and thats why some hikers dont give a rats ass if we slow down. There is a nice word for it, intolerance.

The fact that you draw that thought to the extreme makes it inrelavant by itself. I am talking about the situation as is.
Most people think logic, some dont. Thats daily life no matter how you twist it or turn it.

Agreed.

I do see the difference, I explained many times that dogs walking without owner or running after bikes are dogs out of the control of the owner.



I am totally not afraid of dogs so therefor will react different then GeirK. But it happens reasonable often that I have to correct somebody else their dog. And agree with that point.



No, not at all. I even stated that I would be glad if there was a license to get a dog. Again, I never defended ALL dog owners. The majority, which doesnt mean 100% but more then 50%, I am happy to defend.

How can you so securely say that you have "control" over your dog? I`m pretty sure it has instincts like every other dog.... in normal settings i can agree but when something unexpected happens then what? I bet many dog owner has said those words with control and then had the experience that in a given situation they didnt have control.

Ditt første innlegg på denne tråden (tror jeg) er meget interessant. Den form for frykt (patologisk sådan) du beskriver hos din samboer, må man ta på alvor, og personlig har jeg forståelse for at enkelte kan reagere slik, men jeg er usikker på hvilke tiltak som er best egnet. Din uforbeholdne sympati med Geir er også interessant, men etter mitt skjønn egoistisk, og et glimrende eksempel på hvordan man ønsker at omgivelsene skal tilpasses egne preferanser. Og ikke bare det, men egne preferanser som resultat av et unormalt reaksjonsmønster. Det finnes mange mennesker som opplever begrensninger på hvordan de kan leve sine liv pga fenomener de har vanskeligheter med å forholde seg til. Løs hund er et fenomen. Det å ta heis er et annet. Flyskrekk. Fremmedfrykt. Åpne plasser. Bakterier osv osv. Din samboer som er fagperson har sikkert en formening om hvilke tiltak som er best egent for å bedre en slik tilstand. Jeg blir svært overrasket hvis "forbud" er et av dem. Det å unngå å utsette seg for opplevelsen er kanskje symptomlindrende, men neppe kurativt. Kom gjerne med konstruktive eksempler på tiltak som kan tolereres av samfunnet genrelt og som er effektive. Jeg er oppriktig nysgjerrig.
Jeg er likevel overbevist om viktigheten av å identifisere konkret hva som er problemet for å få gjort noe med det. Og som du selv nevner, problemet er din samboers reaksjon på løs hund. Ikke "løs hund" generelt.

I guess he knows his dog better than you do.

I agree that some dog owners, which is the minority, doesnt respect it indeed. And indeed the law is sufficient.

Having that said, I have a working dog and then there are different laws.
If my dog approaches children it is because they are drowning.

One funny detail, and now I know it doesnt work with everybody, my gilrfriend was unbelievable scared for dogs when we met. There was a time in our relationship when we came to the point of living together. Which would be possible if she didnt get over her fear.

It took me some weeks but I teached her how you can read a dog. The stand of a dog, his ears, the way he walks around or stands still, it has everything to say about dogs. Dogs are, if you take the time for it, very predictable.

If everybody knew how to read a dog then only a handfull of fighting dogs would be risky for humans. Those dogs are forbidden however. Doesnt mean that you should always pay attention.

Sammenligningen din feiler.

Det finnes ingen lover som skal begrense konsekvensene av flyskrekk, fremmedfrykt, agorafobi eller redsel for bakterier.

Det finnes en lov, som hvis den følges, gjør det mulig å leve med redsel eller mistrivsel i selskap av hunder. Den håper jeg du har fått med deg.