[Closed] Inability to control dogs

I'm sure non fans were referred to as 'bed wetters' earlier. Hardly positive?

I should be clear incidentally, I'm not singling Gav out here, it's just that his comment was unfortunately the freshest. There were a couple of others further back, I've had a quick skim but can't immediately lay my hands on them and don't care sufficiently about Internet point-scoring to search any longer.

One example does not make a "they"

Seriously? Mate, that's even lamer than implying that you couldn't reply earlier because of some flim-flam about ban hammers.

Seriously? Mate, that's even lamer than implying that you couldn't reply earlier because of some flim-flam about ban hammers.

Hardly, you implied lots of people have said it when one had as far as any of us can be bothered to look.

that's even lamer than implying that you couldn't reply earlier because of some flim-flam about ban hammers.

You are hot on implication, but it seems its mainly when you decide to make something up.

I'm sure non fans were referred to as 'bed wetters' earlier. Hardly positive?

True but its not saying the that the owners werent at fault. Its just the way some go on here its like people cant leave the house without being confronted by dogs either jumping up to lick them or bite their face off.

Hardly, you implied lots of people have said it when one had as far as any of us can be bothered to look.

I didn't imply anything of the sort. That's inferring you're thinking of. Either that or you're mixing up my posts with that of others.

You are hot on implication, but it seems its mainly when you decide to make something up.

You said no-one had blamed the victims, I gave you an example of when someone had, then instead of going "oh yeah, sorry, I was mistaken" you came out with the frankly ludicrous reply that one person doesn't mean more than one... and now *I'm* making things up?

I give up, I'm going to go and make food. Just the one meal, so it probably doesn't count.

You can actually use they as a singular pronoun, just thought I'd point that one out

Cougar, I'm more referring to the fact that every time someone suggests something which could well mitigate against future incidents this is somehow victim blaming. That makes as much sense as suggesting that if you teach a kid the green cross code then drivers are off the hook.

Anyway, I'm done, clearly nobody is in a mood to be reasoned with, usual self congratulatory echo chamber circlejerk may resume.

You can actually use they as a singular pronoun, just thought I'd point that one out

Thats true, dont tell Couger though!

You said no-one had blamed the victims, I gave you an example of when someone had, then instead of going "oh yeah, sorry, I was mistaken" you came out with the frankly ludicrous reply that one person doesn't mean more than one... and now *I'm* making things up?

You need to go back and have a read, gavwhateverhisnamewas had already been discussed and you certainly suggest its been written by more than one so it shouldnt be hard to find.

I should be clear incidentally, I'm not singling Gav out here, it's just that his comment was unfortunately the freshest. There were a couple of others further back

This certainly makes out we have seen more than one, maybe I missed a few pages or something but all the posts I have read apart from the one shown have said the owners are at fault.

The sensible debate has probably run out of puff if people are reduced to debating pronouns and singular vs plural over the more substantive issues...

You need to go back and have a read, gavwhateverhisnamewas had already been discussed

So how come I knew about it and you didn't?

maybe I missed a few pages or something

You need to go back and have a read

I'm more referring to the fact that every time someone suggests something which could well mitigate against future incidents this is somehow victim blaming.

Can't comment on others' posts, but I've said at least twice on here now that that's not what I think.

Incidentally, who is "Couger"?

Can't remember the last time I was in either real or imaginary danger of being attacked by a horse.

Not attacked, but I've been in two situations where a nasty accident could have happened; first one I was riding along a quiet country lane, with a horse and rider in front, as I came up behind I called out "Is it alright to come past?", as instructed to do, because a human voice is more reassuring to a horse than a bell. Trouble was, the rider was off in a little world of her own, my calling out made her jump, tugged on the reigns and the horse shied and went sideways across the road, fortunately I was still just behind.
Second was on a section of Sustrans path going out of Chippenham, and some bloke was riding a horse along it when the horse got spooked by a low-flying Chinook chopper a little way away. The horse took off like a rocket, the rider had no control, he was like a rag doll on its back, basically a passenger.
There were two girls in front on bikes, riding two-abreast, and this big horse tore past them at full gallop, missing them by barely a metre, it was sheer luck there was about a metre of grass to the side, otherwise it would have gone straight through them!
One of the scariest things I've ever seen while out riding.
Also, one night I was riding back home on a stretch of Sustrans path across a playing field, there's a carved stone seat where young couples often sit and snog when it gets a bit dark, and I could see a couple of vague shapes sat there as I came up towards them, but not close enough for my light to really pick them out clearly.
All of a sudden, as I got level with the seat there was a bark and a whitish blur, and a small dog shot out towards me and went right under both wheels, making a loud yelp. I braked, but the dog had already disappeared across the field, and I wasn't going to stay around and get into a confrontation with its owners, but the point is an animal that isn't in full control is a danger, the dog would almost certainly have had me clean off the bike if it had been very much bigger, 6" of suspension on the front or not, and a ton of horse will kill.
Replaying that episode with the runaway horse still shocks me, those two girls will never know just how close they came to being terribly injured or killed.
There's some classic victim blaming here, I'm entirely with the OP, it's [i]not[/i] up to him to have to train his son how to deal with someone else's animal in a public place; it's their responsibility to keep their animal fully under control, preferably on a lead, but if not the animal should be properly trained to respond to commands to come when called.

Incidentally, who is "Couger"?

Some petty bellend.

Stay classy.

[quote=boblo ]The sensible debate has probably run out of puff if people are reduced to debating pronouns and singular vs plural over the more substantive issues...

Also, multi-quotes. Always a good indicator that the thread has descended into bollocks.

I actually very rarely get bother off dogs, but I live in a tenement in a city centre so don't hang out with suburbanites.
Once got bit by a collie off the lead on the Water of Leith so just jumped off, threw the bike at it and hoofed it in the puss with some SPDs. Owner was so far away I couldn't make out his whiny words but at least one of them learned a lesson cos that was not a happy doggie cos it bit the non-kicking leg.

However, if this thing happened often I would suggest that other bikers/walkers/parents carry a riding crop. A swift *thwack" to the nose will likely settle any mutt down. Or uppity owner.

(I only called it out because their spelling is usually immaculate and yet they get my name wrong. If that's intentional then I'm not the one being petty.)

do we have a winner yet?

I would suggest that other bikers/walkers/parents carry a riding crop.

Difficult to justify carrying on a bike if stopped though. Unless you were going to see your girlfriend I suppose.

"Dear OP sorry it happened. If you get your son to do x,y,z it wont happen again"

In other words if you'd have done dog training lessons already it wouldn't have happened, ie its your fault OP.

do we have a winner yet?

I don't think there are any winners here, dude.

I have seen as usual when we get these posts several post "victim blaming" ie saying - its your fault because you don't know how to behave around dogs"

this is utter nonsense. its always 100% the dog owners fault for not controlling their animal - they have a legal duty to do so.

[quote=Cougar ]I would suggest that other bikers/walkers/parents carry a riding crop.
Difficult to justify carrying on a bike if stopped though. Unless you were going to see your girlfriend I suppose.

See waxing thread pls

[quote=tjagain ]I have seen as usual when we get these posts several post "victim blaming" ie saying - its your fault because you don't know how to behave around dogs"
this is utter nonsense. its always 100% the dog owners fault for not controlling their animal - they have a legal duty to do so.

The law is an arse. One who I will spank with my crop!

this is utter nonsense. its always 100% the dog owners fault for not controlling their animal - they have a legal duty to do so.

How dare you sir? Riding in here after eight pages of unreasonable debate with your sensible post. This is an outrage. OUTRAGE!

I'll see you at noon sir.

[img] [/img]

 

I only called it out because their spelling is usually immaculate and yet they get my name wrong.

Your name is actually Cougar?

My spelling is usually shit.

I have seen as usual when we get these posts several post "victim blaming" ie saying - its your fault because you don't know how to behave around dogs"

Really? We've been shown one. I havent seen them.

Not enough dialectical thinking going on here to take anything seriously.

Be good to yourselves, and each other

[quote=CountZero ]
Also, one night I was riding back home on a stretch of Sustrans path across a playing field, there's a carved stone seat where young couples often sit and snog when it gets a bit dark, and I could see a couple of vague shapes sat there as I came up towards them, but not close enough for my light to really pick them out clearly.
All of a sudden, as I got level with the seat there was a bark and a whitish blur, and a small dog shot out towards me and went right under both wheels, making a loud yelp. I braked, but the dog had already disappeared across the field, and I wasn't going to stay around and get into a confrontation with its owners, but the point is an animal that isn't in full control is a danger, the dog would almost certainly have had me clean off the bike if it had been very much bigger, 6" of suspension on the front or not, and a ton of horse will kill.

Was out on an all night, social ride a few weeks ago. Riding along in a relatively spread out group. about 4AM - just getting light. A doe jumps out of the verge to the left, between me and the guy in front (3 metre gap?) and lands in the verge on the other side - didn't touch the tarmac once.

Scary as hell when you think back on it - that's a big beastie to get broadsided by

AA - on flicking thru the thread I saw more than one suggestion that if the child knew how to behave around dogs then it wouldn't have been bitten. Just usual bullshine from dog owners

thegeneralist--
But in the mean time, getting your son to interact with some nice dogs would be time well spent

gavtheoldskater - Member

with respect, teach your kid to deal with dogs. if he had known how to its very likely he wouldnt have been chased, and also from the initial post you did not see what caused the dogs to run after him so who is to say your kid didnt throw a rock at the dog.

dont blame a dog for a persons inability to deal with one.

But while being in the right is not in dispute, can you honestly not reflect that things are not as they should be and therefore as a parent you have a responsibility to equip your son with the skills to deal with an imperfect world. Whether that is poorly controlled dogs

,

to quote just a few posts from part of one page.

This is always the reaction from dog owners - its our ( the non dog owners) fault because we don't know how to behave around dogs. this is victim blaming and is utterly absurd. Your dog bites or annoys anyone its your fault - and the dog can be put down for merely scaring someone. If your dog cannot be trusted to react appropriately at all times then its your responsibility to control it either by a lead or by proper training.

couple more stating its the general publics need to learn how to interact with dogs

rsmythe - Member

I've not read all the posts but would like to echo the ones that have suggested you familiarise your kid with some friendly dogs again, and fairly soon. A similar thing must have happened to me when I was younger because I spent a lot of my childhood scared of dogs. It's not a good thing at all and I'm sure it could have been avoided if I'd socialised with some friendly dogs.

The main point I wish to make without provocation is that I see more & more parents & dog owners that are (over?) protective of their kids/mutts which makes them nervous of dogs which in turn leads to the dogs to be cautious of them, dogs have pretty high levels of sense & this can make them aggressive/protective.

So your child is playing on a beach and a carnivore approaches said child.

You respond by saying stand still (insert name) it won't hurt you because someone on stw said it won't.

F##k that, defend child and cause as much injury to the carnivore as possible.

Ps did I say that dogs are carnivores.

Thanks TJ. Just to preempt where this is going to go next though,

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/inability-to-control-dogs/page/3#post-8599613

I'm totally against victim-blaming and get where you're coming from, people have every right to go about their business without being slobbered on or worse [by] other people's pets, but there is an element of "we don't live in a perfect world" here too. It's a bit like arguing against self-defence classes because you've got a right to go around not being mugged.

Is it the OP's "responsibility" to ensure that their kids are aware of how to act around dogs? Of course not. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea just in case something goes wrong though.

Though,

This is always the reaction from dog owners

Rash generalisations aside it's certainly a common reaction, and what I was trying to discuss more recently (evidently not very well).

Only one of those suggests its not the owners fault. One even said whats right isnt in dispute.
As usual something shit happens and everyone then gets hysterical and start shout about victim blaming when some people make a few suggestions on how people could mitigate the risk.

the dog can be put down for merely scaring someone.

No it can be put down if the person has "reasonable grounds" for being scared. Being stw bed wetter might not be reasonable enough.

F##k that, defend child and cause as much injury to the carnivore as possible.

Oh look the internet hardmen are back!

Your the one calling everyone a bed wetter FFS.

A a no I'm not a hard man but would you not defend your child from an animal you don't know and could never predict how it behaves.
I'm sure someone like you would use the force or do a crocodile Dundee on the rottweilers.

Thanks for quoting me TJ, at least you have read the thread.
My point was exactly as I said, people have changed, their expectations have changed, dogs are obviously not so quick to evolve. For better or worse we live in a society that expects a basic animal such as a dog to behave the way they want it to, not in a way its nature suggests it should, dogs are dogs, even the most highly trained police dogs bite the wrong person every now & again, they are not infallible even given a fairly short brief in life.

TBF I think I bought the wrong breed based on the positive experience of the first one I bought, but then I have now realised that buying the same breed from working stock is not the same thing as buying one from show stock, you live & learn ehh, but that doesn't mean my dog needs to be destroyed.

Cheers.

I'm being quoted by TJ in at least one of those comments.

So I'll ask again. By the same token, do we suggest we don't warn our kids about stranger danger, because in the ideal world it doesn't exist? Or do we try to prevent it happening but at the same time give our kids the ability to deal with it in case it does. Why can't we do both without instantly calling it victim blaming, which insinuates a degree of fault.

The dog owner is 100% at fault. But if I came round a corner and saw a car heading towards me on the wrong side of the road I'd take mitigating action, not stand there being happy that it wasn't my fault.

I agree but I understand that this may not be applicable to a young child.

We're talking about a 7 y-o boy on a beach with family and friends. The friends even had a dog!

Can pictures calm things?

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7601/28102082361_4c12c7d8f9_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7601/28102082361_4c12c7d8f9_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/JPhw2p ]IMG_0539[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/94658862@N08/ ]Martin Robbo[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7110/27898939960_9a1a767406_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7110/27898939960_9a1a767406_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/JvkmSd ]dogs1 010[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/94658862@N08/ ]Martin Robbo[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7522/28180277525_13dd62c74a_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7522/28180277525_13dd62c74a_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/JWchHT ]dogs1 008[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/94658862@N08/ ]Martin Robbo[/url], on Flickr

No - its not up to the general public to do anything at all - its up to the do owners to control the dog - and yes AA - all these people are saying its the bitten persons fault for not knowing how to react around dogs. Its bullshine excuses.

Its like telling a woman that its her fault she got raped 'cos she wore a miniskirt - we all know thats ridiculous so why keep on with this stupid idea that its up to us non dog owners to learn how to behave around dogs.

Its victim blaming pure and simple - the problem is not people not knowing how to behave around dogs - the problem is bad owners with badly trained dogs and its their responsibility only.

AA - yo are also wrong about it a dog that scares - it can be put down and its only the effect on the scared person that counts go read up on the kennel club site. they have a very good section on the law.

[url= https://s4.postimg.org/oj3dyp9r1/IMG_1353.jp g" target="_blank">https://s4.postimg.org/oj3dyp9r1/IMG_1353.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

It is a criminal offence (for the owner and/or the person in
charge of the dog) to allow a dog to be ‘dangerously out of
control’. A ‘dangerously out of control’ dog can be defined
as a dog that has injured someone or a dog that a person
has grounds for reasonable apprehension that it may do
so. [b]Something as simple as your dog chasing, barking at or
jumping up at a person or child could lead to a complaint[/b], so
ensure that your dog is under control at all times

While in the OPs case it appears the owner are at fault that's not always the case as people don't take notice of dogs behaviour and approach dogs they shouldn't.

[img] [/img]

like telling a woman that its her fault she got raped 'cos she wore a miniskirt - we all know thats ridiculous so why keep on with this stupid idea that its up to us non dog owners to learn how to behave around dogs.

As wrong as it now is (and always has been as far as I'm concerned) it used to be a ligament defence, times have changed, dogs have not sadly.

For balance:

[img] [/img]

My family have always had dogs, and my mum still does. They're fantastic and my 3 and a bit year old loves them. I love dogs as a result of all of this.

But - I really hate, like others have said, dogs that are out of control.

My mum's current dogs are bouncy labs - they're well trained (will sit, stay, come properly all the time) but get enthusiastic quickly. Very quickly. So when people come round, they are shut away. When they are let back in, they are done so under control, and settle very quickly. And that's in the house [b]they[/b] live in. When they're out they're on a lead - not because they're dangerous but because they have tendency to slobber and jump up (less now, as they're old..). They basically behave correctly or are removed from the equation until they can.

Why is that so difficult? What's complicated? If you don't do that with your dogs I believe it's really just because you dont GAS about other people because it's otherwise so very easy to avoid.

I worked in A&E for a few weeks many years ago. There were a lot of admissions for dog bites, mainly children if I recall correctly. I do not remember anyone mentioning they knew the dog would bite, it appeared to be the same dogs that owners always say "oh he won't harm you", " oh he's only being friendly"... ad nauseum.
I don't wet the bed (yet), although I've known many people who do and I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of. I'm a certified coward, but I still don't think I should have to MTFU or whatever - keep your dog under control and away from me, is what I always request, but far too often this leads to being insulted.

Well said gaus1777

Yes the dogs should be kept under control by their owners. But they aren't always (or often so it would seem), that's likely to always be the case, so what are you going to do about it? Learn how to deal with it? Or don't and hide yourself away to avoid them? Complain on a forum, to the council, the police? Go after the owners?

I see a lot of folks don't like the idea of learning to deal with it or dealing with the owners but not seeing much in the way of alternative ideas other than it shouldn't happen which most people would agree with.

No different to many other aspects of life where inconsiderate/illegal behavior has a detrimental effect on your own activities but no realistic chance of any action other than your own making the situation better.

TJ

Dogs dangerously out of control (Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991) Under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act an owner, or a person in charge of a dog, commits an offence if the dog causes [u]reasonable apprehension[/u] to a person that they will be injured, whether or not they actually are injured.

So the dog cannot be destroyed for just walking along putting the fear into someone. Also if you could find a single case where a dog has been destroyed for jumping up and trying to lick someone I'd be amazed.

all these people are saying its the bitten persons fault for not knowing how to react around dogs

No they didnt, they just 100% didnt. All but one said its the owners fault, they should control the dogs and then gave some advice on how to protect yourself in the future and then you come along like a hysterical 10 year old and accuse them of something they havent done. You're a joke. You dont like dogs, fine we get it, you dont like irresponsible dog owners, great neither do we but why take some advice given by someone, quote it selectively and out of context to try and make a point that hasnt been made. No doubt some people, maybe a ****ing truck load out in the real world away from this internet chat bored, have the view you are trying to suggest has been made here so go argue with them.
You are quick ti give advice to new motorcyclists on how to mitigate risks caused by inattentive and careless drivers, yet anyone who does this same for inattentive or careless dog owners is treated like some sort of rape aplogist.

strong words, a_a, stronger than I'd have used but the sentiment is pretty similar here.

If honestly people on here think that me suggesting that they tell their kids that if a dog comes up to them the best action is to fold their arms and tuck their hands into their armpits, turn their head away and don't look at the dog, and use the loud command 'OFF!' if they try to jump up makes me akin to a rape apologist, they're wired to the ****ing moon.

Oh look the internet hardmen are back!

a short time later..

you come along like a hysterical 10 year old and accuse them of something they havent done. You're a joke.

ahem.

Good job there are no dogs trying to get hold of this particular bone - imagine how messy that might get.

the best action is to fold their arms and tuck their hands into their armpits, turn their head away and don't look at the dog, and use the loud command 'OFF!'

- Does this work for all dogs?
- How long has this been considered best practice?
- How often should I review what is considered best practice?
- Where should I find out this information?

Yes I'm being a deliberate arse with the above, but if us dog-agnostics are supposed to learn how to handle scenarios caused by other people's out of control dogs where are we expected to get this info....

Some people - like me, for instance - love dogs but don't particularly want to be covered in mud and drool, don't want the concern that with it running round erratically it might end under my back wheel, don't want the fear that it could be dangerous, and frankly just want to be left the **** alone to go about my business whilst others get on with theirs.

I get his all the time. Because I don't want mud and drool smeared all over my clothes I'm labeled as someone who 'Doesn't like dogs'.

At the same time the people who think I don't like dogs think the way to get me to like dogs is to put me in more situations where a dog is gonna smear it's muddy paws all over me thinking I'll 'get used to it'.

It drives me crazy. I don't walk up to people push them about a bit. Lick them and then say "What's the matter don't you like me?".

Horses, came up ^^^. Yes, horses are a terrific example. The rider is always in deirect contact exerting as much control as possible. I've never seen someone walk to a crowded beach with a horse, give it a slap and let it run free sticking it's nose in other peoples sandwiches.

If most dog owners were as responsible as most horse owners there just wouldn't be a problem.

Does this work for all dogs?
- How long has this been considered best practice?
- How often should I review what is considered best practice?
- Where should I find out this information?

I was taught it by my parents, and handed it on and it seems it's basically still being taught in schools / kids clubs, etc.

Will it stop you from a full on dog attack - possibly not, but at the risk of opening a new can of worms that's a different debate (although I'll tell you what I've told my kids on that too if you want). But (and again not apologising for bad owners) if a dog runs up to you and you wave hands or feet at it to shoo it away, or try to run, rightly or wrongly the dog MAY interpret that as a game and try to grab a hand, chase you, etc. Making it clear you aren't interested by acting like a tree sends body language to the dog that there's no game but also to the owner that you don't like the situation. And if you get the 'he just wants to play' you can answer ' but I don't, so please take him away' and you might get a better response that if you'd hoofed it in the slats first.

Again, and I know I'm labouring the point but in a perfect world all dogs will be fully under control and won't run up to random strangers and bother them. And if your dog does that, then it's your problem for not controlling it and platitudes like 'it's OK he's never bitten anyone' or 'he just wants to play' are a waste of oxygen, use it to control your dog better.

But, it's not a perfect world so a little helpful advice to your kids about how to deal with it, just as i have told mine how to never assume a car's seen them on a zebra crossing, or stranger danger, or not walking home from school down the footpath but use the longer route on the well lit road, or anything else similar...... can it not be seen that I'm not in any way being an apologist for the need for any of that advice, but being realistic that it is needed because the world isn't perfect.

Possible scenario then based on real daily events;

Our OES happily sits in our garden all the time when its sunny, the little girl next door is constantly trying to get her attention, shes around 3 now.

Pon always ignores her as I've trained her to so as shes a big dog and i don't want her to jump up at the fence the girl stands on, occasionally the little girl picks stuff up and throws them at her trying to get to play.

On one occasion she's picked up a sticks and started trying to hit Pon with them. I have explained to her several times not to do this and its cruel to Pon and she doesn't want to play and she could hurt Pon if she struck her. I've spoke to the parents to ask her to stop doing this i don't want her to a) fall off the fence or b) Pon to get hurt getting hit with sticks and stones, their response..."oh shes only playing" (how ironic).

Now, who would have been held responsible if Pon would have reacted with a bark/snarl - no chance of her biting as the fence prevents that. Would i be in the wrong for not controlling my dog on my property, or are her parents in the wrong for not teaching their child to hit dogs with sticks, letting her stand on the fence potentially provoking a dog.

[quote=anagallis_arvensis ]So the dog cannot be destroyed for just walking along putting the fear into someone.

I'm thinking this is a strawman, because the behaviour TJ is complaining about (chasing, barking at, jumping up at) is all stuff which could cause [b]reasonable apprehension[/b]. Anyway, not so long ago you were suggesting it would be sensible for me to stop running if I see a dog running nearby - it seems logical to me that any behaviour by a dog where the sensible response is to stop running falls into the category of reasonable apprehension, so that covers pretty much all dogs running free anywhere near somebody running.

the behaviour TJ is complaining about (chasing, barking at, jumping up at) is all stuff which could cause reasonable apprehension

Which would be true if thats what he said, but he said the dog can be destroyed if the dog scares someone which is only the case if you have reasonable grounds to be scared.

Anyway, not so long ago you were suggesting it would be sensible for me to stop running if I see a dog running nearby

If thats what you took from it then I wasnt very clear or you are being deliberately obtuse. I, at least thought I said, when the dog starts running at you it might be a good idea to stop. That doesnt mean any dog running about should inconvenience you by making you stop. IMNAL but I would imagine a dog simply running about is not reasonable groups to be worried, but one running at you is.

Dogs should be under control at all times.
Due to irresponsible owners, some dogs are not.
Because of this I choose to educate my children to not run away screaming when a dog is in their personal space.

Similarly, when approaching horses, don't stand behind their back legs and don't make any startling noises.
Therefore: rape is OK 🙂

[quote=anagallis_arvensis ]Which would be true if thats what he said, but he said the dog can be destroyed if the dog scares someone which is only the case if you have reasonable grounds to be scared.

Now you're taking what he wrote out of context - he mentioned kennel club advice in the same sentence, which he then quoted in his latest post (and gives examples of things which might cause reasonable apprehension). There's nothing fundamentally wrong with what he wrote - and I'm quite confident he knows the law here.

If thats what you took from it then I wasnt very clear or you are being deliberately obtuse. I, at least thought I said, when the dog starts running at you it might be a good idea to stop. That doesnt mean any dog running about should inconvenience you by making you stop. IMNAL but I would imagine a dog simply running about is not reasonable groups to be worried, but one running at you is.

Ah - well I was assuming you meant when I saw the dog running nearby, because (as is usual in these cases) I got very little warning of it biting. Given my experiences it's not at all unreasonable for me to be apprehensive about any dog running free nearby, and the only way I can work out to modify my own behaviour to prevent it happening again is to immediately stop running (or riding) upon seeing a dog not on a lead.

Now, who would have been held responsible if Pon would have reacted with a bark/snarl - no chance of her biting as the fence prevents that. Would i be in the wrong for not controlling my dog on my property, or are her parents in the wrong for not teaching their child to hit dogs with sticks, letting her stand on the fence potentially provoking a dog.

The dog would be considered under control on your private land (unless the only thing stopping him jumping the fence is his training). It would not be reasonable to feel threatened by barking and snarling from a properly-confined dog.
So the parents are in the wrong in this instance.
Having said that, In your situation I'd make sure that the fence is definitely dog-proof so there is no risk of the child provoking your dog into something more unpleasant. Dog behaviour is never 100% predictable (bit like human behaviour).

Now you're taking what he wrote out of context - he mentioned kennel club advice in the same sentence, which he then quoted in his latest post (and gives examples of things which might cause reasonable apprehension). There's nothing fundamentally wrong with what he wrote - and I'm quite confident he knows the law here.

No I'm not and advice from the kennel club is not law.

Given my experiences it's not at all unreasonable for me to be apprehensive about any dog running free nearby, and the only way I can work out to modify my own behaviour to prevent it happening again is to immediately stop running (or riding) upon seeing a dog not on a lead.

maybe, maybe not but I cant see a prosecution being successful or the dog being destroyed because of it which is what TJ said. Go back and look its what he wrote and is not out of context.
As an aside, if I see an offlead dog when out biking I stop mostly if its close by and have not had an issue, make of that what you will. I dont run though, its undignified!!

FENTON!!!!

*I've read page one and skipped to page nine, so hoping that that video has already been posted.

Aa - completely deliberate misquoting ./ misunderstanding from you and a basic lack of understanding of the law.

What I said was a dog CAN be destroyed for merely scaring someone - and the kennel club and law both agree - and that the "Reasonable apprehension" is what is reasonable to the frightened person not to you.

(Ca)nine pages? This place is off the leash.

While in the OPs case it appears the owner are at fault that's not always the case as people don't take notice of dogs behaviour and approach dogs they shouldn't.

Fascinating, non-dog owners are now expected to be experts in canine behaviour characteristics, to avoid getting hurt by a dog belonging to another party which they don't know and have likely never seen before.
Are there compulsory training classes for adults and children then? If there are, I must have missed the memo, and I don't recall ever hearing about such a subject being on the national curriculum, so how is such info to be obtained?
Is the government doing a national mail-out with these details on, or is everyone expected to go on the interwebz and download it?
Yeah, right. 🙄

I doubt anyone is going to winalot from this thread

The best behaved dogs always seem to be with runners and cyclists.
The worst behaved all appear to be called sorry.

Talking about this the other day. Not read from page one however...
Next to the compound where I store my camper van is a dog "minding" business. In the compound there are a number I'd black Labs, Collies and an Alsatian. When parking the 'van all the dogs stays barking as you would expect. Howeve, until the other day I did not engage with any of the dogs. On Mon whilst parking the van the business owner appeared, we had a chat and the dogs were very friendly but obviously being protective of the person in charge of them.
At home when young we always had Labradors. During the winter months my Dad was what was classed as a "wild fowler" i.e. he went out shooting geese and ducks. Labradors were his choice of retriever and he trained friends dogs.
My uncle was a shepherd.
Therefore I got experience of training both a gun dog and a sheepdog(Lab & Collie)
One of my earliest "scare" stories would when we were waiting on a school bus and friends were being chased by a stray dog. I put myself between them and the dog, hands down and basically looked the dog(Collie)in the eye and calmly shouted/used my uncles commands to calm the dog and avert a serious incident

mariner - Member
The best behaved dogs always seem to be with runners and cyclists.
The worst behaved all appear to be called sorry.

How can people(or whatever gender they wish to be called)on "benefits" afford to keep/feed/vet bills!!!!!???????

How can people(or whatever gender they wish to be called)on "benefits" afford to keep/feed/vet bills!!!!!???????

Daily Mail is over there, Trollster.

Absolute blame vs pragmatic solutions and never the twain shall meet. Bizarrely you lot don't actually disagree (mostly) you're just arguing parallel points. 😆

What I said was a dog CAN be destroyed for merely scaring someone - and the kennel club and law both agree - and that the "Reasonable apprehension" is what is reasonable to the frightened person not to you.

So why is the word reasonable in the law and obviously its not about whats reasonable to the dogs owner

asking an irresponsible dog owner what they feel is reasonable is not what I would be spending any time doing

asking an irresponsible dog owner what they feel is reasonable is not what I would be spending any time doing

Luckily its judges thar decide not some chav with an unruly hound