Dog Walking *Rant*

[dirtydog]

My dog was not dangerously out of control.

In your opinion. How did the other person know that?

 

[MNuTz]

Yes, but you can't possibly test them in every single circumstance with every single person. It is a risk based approach, in that the risk of your dog attacking someone is extremely low, but not zero. For you to say that there is absolutely zero risk of your dog attacking anyone is simply unquantifiable.

i dont need to test them with everyone, if you get them used to dealing with such things they will be ok. Ive taught them to sit, wait, etc myself, i havent had to teach them everytime someone else wants them to do a command.

I do see where you are coming from, and if someone provokes them enough, with enough force then they may snap (although i believe they will cower away).

I am confident enough to say that under normal playing, rough & tumble, daily incidents that my dogs will not attack someone.

I think we should also stop referring attacking to cover every incident, it should be attack for an unprovoked attack and defense for when its being attacked and fights back.

 

[Third Opinion]

In your opinion. How did the other person know that?

What classes a dog dangerously out of control then?

 

[dirtydog]

What classes a dog dangerously out of control then?

I don't know and I expect nor did she. That's my point For me just seeing a powerful dog not on a leash in public is dangerously out of control but I'm sure the law and you don't see it that way.

 

[cloudy]

Definatly with the woman, dogs are completly unpredictable and even an angel could turn on someone at any time.

Keep your dog on a lead!

James

 

[dirtydog]

I think we should also stop referring attacking to cover every incident, it should be attack for an unprovoked attack and defense for when its being attacked and fights back.

What if the dog 'thinks' it is being attacked even if the person had no intention of hurting or attacking the dog?

 

[Vtec9k]

Geez some weird opinions here If you take into account the huge amount of pet dogs in the uk compaired to the tiny amount of attacks they are hardly ticking timebombs jsut waiting to explode the seconds a child walks within 10feet of every dog.

I'm also a great beliver in personal responsability. "oh what if the kid pokes it in the eye" well yes that could happen with really young kids but it's also the parents respnsability to ensure that their kids know that poing a dog in the eye is possibly not the best thing to do!

I've lived with pet dogs since i was tiny. Well trained and mild mannered dogs will put up with almost anything and are a world away from working\hunting or agrressvie breeds. A rescued or abused dog can be a wildcard but as could any human who'd been mistreated.

 

[~J~]

What classes a dog dangerously out of control then?

Some 'serious' advice that I really suggest you take on board.

Look under the dangerous dogs act, you will see quite categorically that if a member of the public is in fear of a dog, the owner can be charged and the dog destroyed.

Just because your dog hasn't attacked someone, doesn't mean it can't be classed as a dangerous dog.

Seriously, if you're in a public place, put it on a lead.

Despite all the arguments in this thread, there's also something else which I suggest you take on board.

It's actually illegal to not have proper control of your dog in a public place, you DO NOT have control over your dog if it isn't on a lead. So no matter what anyone says, no matter how much you protest, you are breaking the law on 1 account of not been in control, and a possible breach by having a dangerous dog. The latter of which could cost you dearly.

 

[Third Opinion]

I don't know and I expect nor did she. That's my point For me just seeing a powerful dog not on a leash in public is dangerously out of control but I'm sure the law and you don't see it that way.

To right I don't. If the dog acted aggressive in any which way such as, barked, growled, snarled I would take them straight down the vet to be destroyed.

Wagging it's tail and running is not what I would describe as a dog dangerously out of control.

 

[dirtydog]

To right I don't. If the dog acted aggressive in any which way such as, barked, growled, snarled I would take them straight down the vet to be destroyed.

Wagging it's tail and running is not what I would describe as a dog dangerously out of control.

Do you care if your dog causes members of the public to be fearful when it is off its leash?

 

[wordy]

Then why approach me?????

People who don't like spiders generally avoid them. She wasn't on a foot path she chose to walk right up to the area we were in. She could have easily have walked about another 30 yards out and the dog would have ignored her. It only became interested because she CHOSE to walk straight through the middle of the tiny area of the huge park we occupied. Then went ape about the dog. Blimey it was like walking through the middle of a football match and then complaining you are scared of being hit by the ball.

I appreciate people not liking dogs so why do they walk smack bang into them?

Don't ask me lol, that would have been the most sensible option

People don't like getting hit by cars but you get idiots walking straight out into the road in front of traffic.

Maybe she isn't very bright

 

[Third Opinion]

Do you care if your dog causes members of the public to be fearful when it is off its leash?

Of course hence why I apologised. But many other people had dogs off the lead and loads of other poeple walked past. Nobody else went mad.

 

[Wang Computer]

Some 'serious' advice that I really suggest you take on board.

Look under the dangerous dogs act, you will see quite categorically that if a member of the public is in fear of a dog, the owner can be charged and the dog destroyed.

Just because your dog hasn't attacked someone, doesn't mean it can't be classed as a dangerous dog.

Seriously, if you're in a public place, put it on a lead.

Despite all the arguments in this thread, there's also something else which I suggest you take on board.

It's actually illegal to not have proper control of your dog in a public place, you DO NOT have control over your dog if it isn't on a lead. So no matter what anyone says, no matter how much you protest, you are breaking the law on 1 account of not been in control, and a possible breach by having a dangerous dog. The latter of which could cost you dearly.

A very misleading statement…

Firstly, it's perfectly acceptable to control a dog which isn't on a lead. How can you possibly make such an assertion? Have you personally walked every dog in the country?

Secondly, the law refers to 'dangerously out of control dogs'. Granted, it does use incredibly ambiguous language, but it hardly constitutes that which you have implied.

I shall continue to let my dog off the lead in public places as people have done for centuries, thank you.

 

[Wossi]

I've got 2 dogs myself and whenever I take them out for a walk they both stay on the lead until I'm sure there is no one near, especially other dogs. I know my dogs are no danger but I don't know about anyone elses and I don't normally trust kids to be around them. Except for my mum's friends daughter, who, when she was still very young and round our house, my youngest dog used to follow her around making sure she was okay and taking the biscuits that were offered by her with her lips.

Some people in here really have no idea about dogs and are going on what the media have been saying about Dangerous dogs lately. Then there are some downright morons in here like ferretmaster I would happily shoot ignorant people like you if it were legal. In fact, if both you and a Boxer dog were on fire, I know which fire I'd put out first and which I could happily walk away from.

 

[~J~]

A very misleading statement…

Firstly, it's perfectly acceptable to control a dog which isn't on a lead. How can you possibly make such an assertion? Have you personally walked every dog in the country?

Secondly, the law refers to 'dangerously out of control dogs'. Granted, it does use incredibly ambiguous language, but it hardly constitutes that which you have implied.

I shall continue to let my dog off the lead in public places as people have done for centuries, thank you.

Anyone with an ounce of sense will agree that you CAN NOT control a dog that is NOT on a lead! It's a dogs instincts to do things that dogs do. Are you really trying to tell me that under that statement you would be willing to walk your dog next to the road, unleashed because you believe you'd have full control of it? Come on, be sensible here!! There's a huge difference between been able to command your dog AFTER the event, but common sense again dictates this is the preverble horse and barn door.

The amendment in the 1997 law does categorically state that if a member of the public believes they are in danger, then the dog can be classed as a dangerous dog. Again, I suggest you read the amendment and/or contact your local police station to confirm this.

Do continue to let your dog off the lead, the chances of nothing happening may indeed be high. But if anything does happen, i.e., the dog gets run over, chases another dog, is attacked by another dog (not your fault) attacks a member of the public then I really hope your memory is good enough to remember this thread.

Quote take from a recent edition of The Guardian regarding dangerous dogs:

This makes owners liable if someone is afraid that a dog might become dangerous. Action will be taken if a member of the public can "reasonably believe that any person or animal is likely to be caused harm". This means, says The Observer, that for the first time, Britain's 5 million dog owners may be liable for prison or heavy fines if their pet is considered to have behaved dangerously in their own home or garden

 

[Third Opinion]

Anyone with an ounce of sense will agree that you CAN NOT control a dog that is NOT on a lead!

Is this taken from your professional experience with dogs or what you have read in the Guardian?

I think many dog trainers and breeders may disagree and the law is still extremely vague.

 

[Wang Computer]

Anyone with an ounce of sense will agree that you CAN NOT control a dog that is NOT on a lead!

So you’re suggesting I lack sense? I beg to differ!

It's a dogs instincts to do things that dogs do.

Wow, the voice of insight! You really have no idea… Perhaps you even underestimate how much intellect a dog generally has. It’s a common misconception.

Are you really trying to tell me that under that statement you would be willing to walk your dog next to the road, unleashed because you believe you'd have full control of it? Come on, be sensible here!!

I regularly walk my dog next to main roads without a lead. I don’t recall any road accidents caused as a result. It really depends on the temperament of the dog. I just ask of you to stop generalising; it doesn’t help your argument much.

There's a huge difference between been able to command your dog AFTER the event, but common sense again dictates this is the preverble horse and barn door.

What on earth are you talking about?

The amendment in the 1997 law does categorically state that if a member of the public believes they are in danger, then the dog can be classed as a dangerous dog. Again, I suggest you read the amendment and/or contact your local police station to confirm this.

Do you know anything about how laws are exercised? Obviously not… Come on, wake up, laws like that are never enforced in such a draconian fashion. If you have dog which a) isn’t classified as dangerous and b) for all intents and purposes is not a threat to anyone, then the chances of prosecution are so unbelievably remote. There’s probably more chance of you demonstrating some humility in this thread.

Do continue to let your dog off the lead, the chances of nothing happening may indeed be high. But if anything does happen, i.e., the dog gets run over, chases another dog, is attacked by another dog (not your fault) attacks a member of the public then I really hope your memory is good enough to remember this thread.

Honestly, if you’re going to offer advice to people you don’t actually know, try not doing so with such fevered sanctimoniousness. It won’t win you any favours.

Quote take from a recent edition of The Guardian regarding dangerous dogs:

Says it all really!

 

[z0mbi3]

Haven't read anyone elses posts but quite simply you are in the wrong. End of.

Your dog, your responsiblity, you control it or lose it. People do NOT know what your dog is like, they do NOT know if it's friendly or not and some people do NOT like dogs.

Sorry for sounding flippant, but I really can't see why your livid over something that is your own fault.

Surely if his dog's not allowed in there unless it's on a lead then no ones should?

 

[InvaderGIR]

Dogs are not dangerous animals, they will only be dangerous if they are trained to do it and are prevoked.

The media really does BS and make things so much worse than they are.

You are more likely to get bitten by a hampster than you are a family dog like the OP's.

I really wish people would get off their high horses about how a bulldog, pitbull, doberman etc. are dangerous.

The OP's dog is obviously a perfectly fine dog, otherwise he wouldn't have taken it to the park, especially not off the lead.

The woman is overreacting on this, and so is the park keeper, they have no right to stop you enjoying a public park unless you have done something actually wrong, like the dog bit her or something (which it's been stated it didn't). You should write to the council about this, just because of the BS that the woman and the park keeper are spreading....you may have done this, I only read the first page, then started this post due to people's ignorant views.

If the dog ran towards me and my kids (if I had them), or me and my friends kids then I'd just pet the dog, they are such nice animals.

Just read some posts on the last page...omg the number of ****'s around is amazing, dogs will NOT attack, get over it, christ.

InvG

 

[Cybermyk]

My opinion is dogs should be on leads in public, especialy where there are children.