Inspired by, and borrowing the graphic from, an earlier post from @LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
253 points (98.1% liked)
Dogs
7083 readers
302 users here now
A community about dogs.
Breeds, tips and tricks about training and behaviour, news affecting dog owners, canine photography, dog-related art and any questions related to dog ownership.
Rules
- Posts must be related to dogs or dog ownership and must not be void of content.
- This is a neutral space. No bigotry or personal attacks. Criticism should be polite and constructive.
- No automated content. This includes AI generated imagery, post body, articles, comments or automated accounts.
- No advertising or self-promotion.
- Illegal or unethical practices are frowned upon, and any comments or posts suggesting them will be removed. This includes, but is not limited to, backyard breeding, ear and tail cropping, fake service animals, negative reinforcement, alpha/pack/dominance theory, and eugenics.
- No judging or attacking community members who care for dogs with cropped ears, docked tails, or those from puppy mills or questionable sources. While we discourage these practices (per Rule 5), all dogs deserve loving homes and compassionate care regardless of their background or physical alterations.
- No breed discrimination, all breeds welcome. Our stance matches the ASPCA's official stance and is not up for debate.
- Citing your sources when making a claim is encouraged. Misinformation will be removed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You don’t need to know where someone lives to know doing certain things are responsible or irresponsible.
Doesn’t matter what the legislation is, you should have visible identification on any animal that can get outside.
It’s your public responsibility incase it causes damage for one thing.
But thanks for coming in with the ad hominem.
You've invented hypothetical scenarios so you can accuse the OP of being irresponsible without having access to all facts.
OP has stated dogs are always collared when they're taken out.
OP has stated dogs are secured at home.
You don't know what area OP is in or if it requires microchipping.
If, in your invented scenario that OP's dog escapes and causes damage, the dog isn't caught, then what practical difference does it make whether the dog has a collar or not?
In the case of a microchipped dog without a collar, you just take it to any veterinarian or whatever your local equivalent of an animal control office is.
This is obviously (I hope) a very irresponsible and negligent reasoning, no?
People always justify their negligence, tale as old as time.
Stuff can just be responsible or irresponsible without any additional context, sorry.
That's a false equivalence and a bad faith argument.
No, it’s about being prepared for the possibility.
Leaving your dog home uncollored because ABCDE, is the same justification. I don’t need an extinguisher, I have water, my dog doesn’t need a collar, I have a fence. Same things
It’s all about preventative measures and responsibility. If something happens, and your dog DOES get out, you’re now not being responsible, I think we can agree on this. So if the chance can happen, prevent it. Like having an extinguisher.
You only think that, because you don’t want to believe it’s irresponsible to have animals at large without visual identification.
Bad faith is saying all of my very real and things that have happened, are hypothetical. Yes I agree the chances are low, that doesn’t mean you can neglect it at your whim. Just like my house catching fire, it can hypothetically happen, so I have an extinguisher, and so should you!