Firecrackers!

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Karen M., Jun 19, 2004.

  1. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected]othanks (James S. Prine) writes:

    >>Anyways, screw weapons!

    >
    > A strange way to end what had been an intelligent and reasonable opinion about
    > dogs, etc.


    Not necessarily. Weapons do much more harm than good.
    The last thing this world needs is to be turned into
    an arsenal. The first thing it needs is a global
    block party.

    As for weapons, it seems to me the average civilian
    (such as myself) who might once in a blue moon need
    'em, can't use 'em. All possessing a weapon does is
    add to the inventory. Oh, I've killed my share of
    upland fowl, and other delicious life forms such
    as various salmonids. I've never feared for my life
    from pheasants or grouse or trout, though. I also
    used to be into muzzle-loader, black powder target stuff.
    That wasn't weapon-oriented either; that was just about
    the sport of trying to shoot a 5-shot one-holer in paper
    at 100 yards w/ open sights -- which at one time in my
    youth, I was actually able to approach.

    In my previous post I mentioned how some folks might think:
    'a dog is a dog is a dog'. Up here in Canada, a gun is a
    gun is a gun, and they're all 'weapons'. So a li'l
    single-shot, swingable, slightly-modified-choked 4/10 is
    equiv to an M-16. But I've grown out of all that crap
    anyway (but not my taste for roast pheasant, or a mess
    of pan-fried brook trout for breakfast.)

    And the people who actually want weapons, don't really
    need 'em. And a lot of those people IMO /shouldn't/
    have 'em.

    I just think it's better to concentrate more on helpin'
    rather than hurtin'.


    klahowya,
    Tom

    --
    -- Powered by FreeBSD
    Above address is just a spam midden.
    I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
     


  2. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 2004-06-21, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 01:58:57 GMT, Mark Mitchell
    ><[email protected]> from BellSouth Internet Group wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>And a child throwing rocks/snowballs at cars is not malicious. It is usually play.
    >>
    >>It is wrong though. In the same way that a dog chasing a bicyclist is
    >>wrong. And it should be discouraged. If the owner is not willing to take
    >>responsibility for the safety (whether the threat is real or not) of
    >>others, I have no problem correcting the dog myself.

    >
    > A dog chasing you is instinct, The dog has very little choice in the matter.
    > If the instinct is strong enough, no amount of your "correction" is going to
    > stop it. The way we train dogs is to harness their instincts in more positive
    > directions.
    >

    I'm sorry, but you've just lost me here.

    A dog chasing is instinct, I agree. I disagree that negative reinforcement
    (correction) is inappropriate. Meditate on the primary defence of skunks
    and porcupines and then tell me that no amount of correction is going to
    stop an instinctive behavior.

    Mark

    - --
    Remove both wrongs to make the email address right.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFA1qiMLVmEOl6/PWERAgXGAJ9qTeGpipF0irnxTShLB6hJ5sgZOwCgqnyJ
    FIbZzj7A8gDDB7TpQZrwrrs=
    =3jwD
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
  3. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Mark Mitchell <[email protected]> writes:

    > I'm sorry, but you've just lost me here.
    >
    > A dog chasing is instinct, I agree. I disagree that negative reinforcement
    > (correction) is inappropriate. Meditate on the primary defence of skunks
    > and porcupines and then tell me that no amount of correction is going to
    > stop an instinctive behavior.


    Porcupines and skunks are such sociable critters.
    They don't set out to maliciously inflict barbs or
    stinks on anyone. Au contraire. They don't require
    'correction'. just because they have a defense, doesn't
    mean they're gonna use it as an offense, until they have to.
    What's really sad is, often they seek out human interaction
    and conversation and dialog, and they end up with hostility
    and fear instead. Same with domestic dogs.

    Since you disagree that 'negative reinforcement, or "correction"'
    is inappropriate (wow, what a compound negative), I invite
    you to kick at a skunk the next time one whiffs at your shoes.
    I've got one here. I've named her 'Sundown', after the Gordon
    Lightfoot song. Haven't seen her for a few days, 'cuz she's
    having babies. But she'll re-emerge, and when she and her brood
    does, I'd hope they'd take a liking to you.


    --
    -- Powered by FreeBSD
    Above address is just a spam midden.
    I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
     
  4. Max

    Max Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

    > I invite
    > you to kick at a skunk the next time one whiffs at your shoes.
    > I've got one here. I've named her 'Sundown', after the Gordon
    > Lightfoot song. Haven't seen her for a few days, 'cuz she's
    > having babies.


    When i was a young thailor living in orlando, i visited a pet shop in
    kissmee that sold de-stunk skunk babies. They were the cutest li'l
    things and i schemed for weeks on how to keep one in my barracks room.

    ob.bike: most of my trasport was via bicycle back then.

    ..max
    "how fortunate for her that i am me"

    --
    the part of <[email protected]>
    was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
     
  5. GABIKE

    GABIKE Guest

    >A dog chasing you is instinct, The dog has very little choice in the matter.
    >If the instinct is strong enough, no amount of your "correction" is going to
    >stop it.


    Protecting myself from a dangerous dog is my instinct and I also have little
    control in the matter.

    The way we train dogs is to harness their instincts in more positive
    >directions.
    >

    Would have replied sooner but couldnt stop laughing at this statement.
    WTF is that supposed to mean?
     
  6. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Michael J. Klein <[email protected]> writes:

    > I can only conclude that Kevin must have willed it to be so.


    Kevan's all right. He can be loud about stuff, but it's
    often counter-loudness when there isn't enough voices to
    balance a discussion.

    And whether one agrees with him or no, his argument-points
    always boil down to having a heart.

    And I'm pretty sure he's not gay. Neither am I
    (if that matters.) Sometimes I might put on the dog,
    just to disturb and scare off anti-bike trolls that
    occasionally crop-up in this newsgroup.

    If anybody really bugs you, just tell them you love them.
    They'll disappear into the woodwork like gas station
    washrooom cockroaches when you turn the light on. Then
    it's clear sailing after that. Until the next time.
    Then it's just a matter of starting over. Kind of like
    weeding a garden.

    Kevan'a kind of like a weed (wildflower) that ya wanna
    keep because it fills a niche -- one that needs filling.

    He also knows stuff about fixed-gear bikes.


    cheers,
    Tom



    --
    -- Powered by FreeBSD
    Above address is just a spam midden.
    I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
     
  7. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Max <[email protected]> writes:
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
    >
    >> I invite
    >> you to kick at a skunk the next time one whiffs at your shoes.
    >> I've got one here. I've named her 'Sundown', after the Gordon
    >> Lightfoot song. Haven't seen her for a few days, 'cuz she's
    >> having babies.

    >
    > When i was a young thailor living in orlando, i visited a pet shop in
    > kissmee that sold de-stunk skunk babies. They were the cutest li'l
    > things and i schemed for weeks on how to keep one in my barracks room.


    That would seem to be about the time you were cured
    of your lithp.

    Anyhow, skunks do have claws like garden rakes.
    Great for tearing furniture apart whilst seeking
    grubs. In that light, skunks are like literary
    artists you don't mind talking to, but don't
    necessarily want in your house.

    > ob.bike: most of my trasport was via bicycle back then.


    A skunk tethered to a parked bike might be worth a
    all kinds of other security measures.


    cheers,
    Tom

    --
    -- Powered by FreeBSD
    Above address is just a spam midden.
    I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
     
  8. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:34:24 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > Michael J. Klein <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> I can only conclude that Kevin must have willed it to be so.

    >
    >Kevan's all right. He can be loud about stuff, but it's
    >often counter-loudness when there isn't enough voices to
    >balance a discussion.
    >
    >And whether one agrees with him or no, his argument-points
    >always boil down to having a heart.
    >
    >And I'm pretty sure he's not gay. Neither am I
    >(if that matters.) Sometimes I might put on the dog,
    >just to disturb and scare off anti-bike trolls that
    >occasionally crop-up in this newsgroup.
    >
    >If anybody really bugs you, just tell them you love them.
    >They'll disappear into the woodwork like gas station
    >washrooom cockroaches when you turn the light on. Then
    >it's clear sailing after that. Until the next time.
    >Then it's just a matter of starting over. Kind of like
    >weeding a garden.
    >
    >Kevan'a kind of like a weed (wildflower) that ya wanna
    >keep because it fills a niche -- one that needs filling.
    >
    >He also knows stuff about fixed-gear bikes.
    >
    >
    >cheers,
    > Tom


    Well, as a result of this thread and some thinking overnight, I believe
    I've come up with the perfect dog counter-measure.

    It's silent, instantaneous, quick to deploy, extremely accurate, and should
    easily escape detection of its use by the dog owner, and should do no
    permanent harm to the offending dog. It's also effective on all dogs,
    unlike the sonic devices, or heh, a squirt of water.

    Other methods might be available, but IMO if the dog owner detects your use
    it could leave you open to retribution or other undesireable actions.

    -Badger
     
  9. Karen M.

    Karen M. Guest

    John wrote:
    > You say this was in Detroit? Then you're lucky to be
    > alive...regardless of the firecrackers or your bicycle.


    **Metro** Detroit. I have ridden in the city (when I worked for
    them last year) and had no problems; folks were friendly, waving and
    hollering "hi!" at me. No attmepted physical assaults and no hostile
    screaming.
    This was in Westland, a middle-class suburb just north of Metro
    Airport. I have never had so many shouts of "sidewalk!" as here.

    --Karen M.
     
  10. Karen M.

    Karen M. Guest

    Michael J. Klein misquoted me thus:

    > >[email protected] (Karen M.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >I've been thinking about picking up some of these to deal with dogs.
    > >Of course trying to light an explosive while dealing with traffic and
    > >dogs doesn't sound like too good of an idea, but I doubt it's much
    > >harder than trying to aim a can of Halt at 20mph.



    I did not write the above paragraph.

    --Karen M.
     
  11. Karen M.

    Karen M. Guest

    Badger_South wrote:

    > OK, having read the OP's 'dangers of ammonia', I agree, it's not cool to
    > use concentrated ammonia on animals for any reason....


    Er, OP is moi, and my thread is about FIRECRACKERS, not dogs nor ammonia.

    --Karen M.,
     
  12. Karen M.

    Karen M. Guest

    Claire wrote:

    > This story made me recall how someone threw a firecracker at my while I was
    > on my bike when I was about nine or ten years old. I was *so* frightened
    > from it. I rode to my friend's house which was only four more houses down
    > the street, and basically stepped over their threshold and burst into sobs.
    > Her mom was really nice to me, and helped me feel better. It's mean to throw
    > firecrackers at anyone, but at a kid is even worse. I had completely
    > forgotten that incident until reading this posting.
    >
    > Karen, you don't have a friend's mom to give you hugs, probably, so I'll
    > give you some of my virtual ones.


    You're a dear!
    I wasn't scared, just mightily PO'ed at these jerks and intent on
    getting them stopped before they try it again and hurt someone.

    --Karen M.
    eager for Independence Day to get here and be gone!
     
  13. Badger_South

    Badger_South Guest

    On 21 Jun 2004 10:30:14 -0700, [email protected] (Karen M.) wrote:

    >Badger_South wrote:
    >
    >> OK, having read the OP's 'dangers of ammonia', I agree, it's not cool to
    >> use concentrated ammonia on animals for any reason....

    >
    > Er, OP is moi, and my thread is about FIRECRACKERS, not dogs nor ammonia.
    >
    >--Karen M.,


    Correct. Apologies, KM.

    -B
     
  14. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:57:54 -0400, Badger_South <[email protected]> from
    wrote:

    >It's silent, instantaneous, quick to deploy, extremely accurate, and should
    >easily escape detection of its use by the dog owner, and should do no
    >permanent harm to the offending dog. It's also effective on all dogs,
    >unlike the sonic devices, or heh, a squirt of water.


    You're gonna fart on the animal? :)


    --
    Kevan Smith
    [email protected]
     
  15. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:35:42 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats) from
    wrote:

    >Chasing is one thing, but viciously attacking is quite another.


    And I have never claimed the two to be the same.

    The original post I responded to suggested spraying ammonia on dogs that
    merely chase. The whole attacking notion came from people who got their
    panties all up in a knot over my response.

    If you are attacked by a dog, do defend yourself. If you think you'll have the
    time and accuracy to squirt a dog with ammonia while being attacked, you're
    welcome to try, but I think you'll be better off using your bike as both
    shield and club.

    However, chasing is not attacking. Chasing is just following. And usually,
    chasing bikes is meant to be play, not attack. Even the dogs that look like
    they are going to attack are usually going to abandon the chase when you leave
    their territory.

    If people learned more about dogs, they would be less fearful of them.
    --
    Kevan Smith
    [email protected]
     
  16. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:10:18 -0700, The Real Bev <[email protected]> from
    wrote:

    >Kevan Smith wrote:
    >>
    >> "di" <[email protected]> from Cox Communications wrote:
    >> >>Kevan wrote:
    >> >> You're going from chasing to biting. If a dog is biting you, sure, defend
    >> >> yourself. Spraying a chemical that could blind or poison on a dog that is
    >> >> merely chasing is cruelty to animals. Most chasing dogs just do it for play,
    >> >> not to commit harm. And, as I said, a simple spray of water stops them. I
    >> >> have seen it work many times.
    >> >
    >> >Wait until he gets his teeth into your flesh to determine if it's merely a
    >> >chase or bite?

    >>
    >> No, spray it with water to make it stop chasing. Learn to freakin' read.

    >
    >Somebody said he'd tried water, to no effect. What about mixing a
    >LITTLE ammonia with the water? Or do you have a better suggestion?


    Ammonia eats away flesh. It's a caustic solution. That's why it blinds. Even a
    little bit is harmful.

    If you insist on a spray, jalapeno juice (not pickled) inflames nerve endings
    to cause pain, but it is otherwise harmless. It's cheaper than pepper spray,
    too.

    Do you have a size limit? I mean, if a Chihuahua were chasing you bent on
    attack, would you spray it with ammonia as readily as you might a pit bull? Or
    how about a friendliness limit -- say, a beautiful Golden Retriever, among the
    gentlest of dogs, were chasing you and barking, would you spray it with a
    caustic solution?

    If you are looking for a really humane solution to the dog chasing problem, I
    can think of three really good ones: 1) outrace the dog, or 2) learn to make
    dog friends, or 3) don't ride in that area.








    --
    Kevan Smith
    [email protected]
     
  17. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:16:17 GMT, Mark Mitchell
    <[email protected]> from BellSouth Internet Group wrote:

    >I'm sorry, but you've just lost me here.
    >
    >A dog chasing is instinct, I agree. I disagree that negative reinforcement
    >(correction) is inappropriate. Meditate on the primary defence of skunks
    >and porcupines and then tell me that no amount of correction is going to
    >stop an instinctive behavior.


    I've seen some dogs go after skunks time and again no matter how much they get
    sprayed. In fact, dogs love rolling in awful smells. Skunk spray, to them, can
    be a badge of honor. Further, neither skunk spray nor porcupine quills are
    generally harmful in the long run.

    Sure, enough training changes instinctive behavior into other areas, but the
    instinct remains. In terms of the chasing instinct, your one spray with the
    ammonia bottle would be enough to blind and maim the dog, but it's not nearly
    enough training time to change the instinctual behavior.
    --
    Kevan Smith
    [email protected]
     
  18. keydates

    keydates Guest

    I've heard that a little whack on the nose with a water bottle will do
    the trick. BTW, wasn't this supposed to be about firecrackers?



    --
     
  19. Raoul Duke

    Raoul Duke Guest

    "Kevan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > If you are looking for a really humane solution to the dog chasing

    problem, I
    > can think of three really good ones: 1) outrace the dog,


    While this may be possible for you, someone else may not have the physical
    ability, or even the desire, to do this.

    or 2) learn to make
    > dog friends,


    Not everyone wants dog friends and besides, not all dogs are friendly.

    or 3) don't ride in that area.

    I have a right to ride in any area I want; the dog does not have the right
    to chase me.

    It seems so simple to me. The dog's owner has the responsibility to keep
    his dog out of the street. If he can't or won't do it and his dog attacks
    someone, he, and the dog, must suffer the consequences.

    If a strange dog runs up to you barking and growling, how are you going to
    know if he's just "chasing" and not attacking, until it's too late. I don't
    want to get bit or knocked off my bike.

    Although I would never advocate using ammonia or any other caustic or
    poisonous substances on a chasing dog, I do think pepper spray is a good
    idea. It will cause no permanent damage to the dog and may teach both the
    dog and owner a valuable lesson.

    Dave
     
  20. On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:13:21 -0500, Kevan Smith
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >However, chasing is not attacking. Chasing is just following. And usually,
    >chasing bikes is meant to be play, not attack. Even the dogs that look like
    >they are going to attack are usually going to abandon the chase when you leave
    >their territory.
    >
    >If people learned more about dogs, they would be less fearful of them.


    And there are a whole lot of dogs that will nip when chasing, friendly
    or not (I have an Aussie that will do it if you get her herding
    instincts flowing). Nipping a cyclist can cripple. I actually know
    more cyclists that had permanent (two cases) and semi-permanent (five
    cases IIRC) damage from dogs nipping the heel than I know people that
    had serious injury from the oft-discussed helmet issues.

    IMO a person that can take action against a chaser, should. This is a
    dog, whether friendly or not, that can take out another cyclist if not
    curbed. Its enough that the dog chases - if the cyclist ends up off
    the road and injured from their reaction, it is irrelevant whether or
    not the dog was friendly. (I had a Doberman owner with three
    free-running Dobs tell me that his Dobs were 'friendly' and I was
    overreacting to the 200 plus pounds of dog and teeth - he got to tell
    the same story to the Maryland State trooper who seemed to have my
    opinion of the mutts.Never saw those dogs outside again.)

    And I worked at a vet for three years and have owned a lot of dogs
    myself. I know dogs better than most - I'm one of those people that
    they call a dog person, where even unfriendly dogs come up to me
    wagging their tails - but the only people worse than those that know
    nothing about dogs are those that assume they can read every dog that
    comes up the pike. I've had my share of stitches from dogs that both I
    and the vets misread (actually both thumbs have scars up their side
    from 30 plus years ago). And some large breeds are known for making no
    overt sign until they strike.

    Don't assume the Akita is just chasing for fun. You'll have about two
    seconds for your decision-making if you treat it as a chase (I think
    that was my left thumb, to the bone).

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...
     
Loading...