Government: Dogs and Cats are Health Hazards

Nothing a little training and watching where you are going can't take care of. Sure, there are some spills that can't be avoided, like when you have a Beagle and a Rhodesian Ridgeback circling you as you pull the black pudding out of the fridge, but that's just a part of life with dogs. Other times, you can watch where you are going and not do as I did once on a late night trip to the bathroom, and step on a critter just outside the bedroom door. The rest... walking injuries, can be greatly reduced by having control of the animal in the first place. After the first time my RR dragged me across a field, he went into obedience training to brush up on his backsliding social skills. That he was backsliding is something only I can take responsibility for.

There are certainly worse ways to get hurt. :P

The Virmin- I told you so...! They look so innocent, but meanwhile....!

So now they're declared a health-hazard.

Might I also suggest elderly people, young children and adolecents to be categorized health-hazards? Of course after thorough investigation in hospitals where causes of injury related to these groups are counted and categorized and put in horribly graphic graph's.

:-?

Isn't this a little late for April fools? Oh wait, this is from our government. Nevermind.

Wonder how many injuries and illnesses are attributed to having children?

I have been tripped when walking the dog. But it was a rabbit that hopped out from a hiding spot and the dog zipped right in front.
Same dog was running around inside the house. I was picking up items off the floor and *POW* smack dab into my head. K.O'd me and broke a tiny part of my nose.

It somes with the territory. Just like having kids, means there is a possibility of you stepping on legos in your bare feet.

Just last night my cat stealthily ran between my legs as I was walking. Suffice it to say, I didn't fall, but she got booted kinda hard.

The CDC also noted that half of all major accidents were caused by people who foolishly were attempting to 'walk' their cats.

They are not dogs people

Pets add to life.

Focusing on such a tiny negative element of pet ownership makes a distorted and disproportionate picture of a positive whole.

It's a bit like making a study showing how many people choke on vegetables every year.

Seriously? A relatively low number of accidents are caused by pets, and it's a "distorted and disproportionate" portrayal?

...Did you even look at the numbers?

What about the bigger picture? Walking your dog routinely is a form of exercise, which is good for your health. Besides, pets are known to reduce stress and blood pressure. I wonder if the benefits outweigh the risks...

Perhaps I could have worded it better, but yes, those low numbers distort the reality of pet ownership.

Thales explains it well.

I agree with Thales and Kalel. The benefits outweigh the potential for harm on this. I've had dogs all my life, as have a lot of people (dogs and cats), and it's not like we're dropping at epidemic proportions.

Were you aware that your chance of dying in a car accident goes up when you enter a car. Likewise the odds of you being strangled by the President of the United States also skyrockets when you are both in the same city. Thank God for these clever fellows for letting me know that having a pet had such associated risks as tripping over them, I have heard breathing has many ancillary dangers associated with it.

Well, if you're someone with two left feet this might be significant for you. If you're naturally clumsy, maybe you should get a hamster. For the rest of us, this is a non-issue.

No one should care about this, and I doubt most people will. Thales, Kalel et al. said it well. Who wasted money on that study?

Oh those sly dogs, sweeping the women off their feet.