Raging Angry...

Person_one

Tropez wrote: »

The way I see it...

A dog, no matter how friendly, should not be off the lead in a public place unless it will stop and recall the moment it heads off towards someone or something else. Given my experience with dogs, if one is bounding up to me I can usually tell from its body language what its intentions are but studies have proven most people haven't a clue and many may assume the worst. The truth is dogs should not be bounding up to anyone who has not invited them to approach, and if they do, then the owners of the dogs must be able to get the dogs to return immediately. If they cannot do this they do not have the proper control of the dog.

Its completely unrealistic to expect this level of compliance. Human beings are regularly unpredictable, dogs are not robots either. Dogs that recall fine 95% of the time shouldn't have to spend their lives stuck on leads because of the 5% they don't if they are not aggressive.

Errata

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Actually, it was a total over-reaction because the op has stated that his dogs were not barking, jumping or nipping and therefore the man's reaction was disproportionate to the threat level. He hurt the dog out of his own irrational fears and even though the dogs shouldn't be running up to strangers, there is no justification whatsoever for kicking an animal which is NOT displaying aggression. What he should have done is stand still and calmly ask the owner to put the dogs on a leash because he (or the child) has a fear of dogs.

I have a phobia about spiders. If someone suddenly dumped their pet Tarantula in front of me, would I be justified in stamping on it? No! Because even though what they did was discourteous, the fact would be that my reaction would be a kneejerk one born of my own fears, rather than the ACTUAL threat.

I don't believe the OP has stated the dogs were hurt, only that a few hours later they were so fearful they wouldn't go anywhere near the OP's feet.

Paradigm

While I love to see dogs running free I also know that some people are nervous around dogs, especially big dogs & they can act in an unpredictable way. Out of courtesy I don't allow either of mine off the lead at any time when there may be anyone around. Over the years I've found it mostly saves any trouble.

I have 2 DDBs, nowhere near the size of Welshwoofs neo but still imposing dogs. I know their size can make others nervous (especially parents with children) so they stay on their leads.... to me it's just good manners!

Despite this, I've experienced many very similar scenarios to Welshwoofs...

Welshwoofs wrote: »

I've also experienced a woman screeching at me to 'keep my dog away' - again when he was on a lead at close heel, plodding along minding his own business - simply because we had the audacity to be walking towards her on the same path and she obviously had a 'thing' against big dogs walking past her brood.

Person_one

Errata wrote: »

I don't believe the OP has stated the dogs were hurt, only that a few hours later they were so fearful they wouldn't go anywhere near the OP's feet.

Well, why on Earth do you think that happened? Its because it hurt when they were kicked so they are now associating human feet with pain. They didn't just become scared of feet for no apparent reason!

globetraveller

sorry- wrongly quoted.

Tropez

Person_one wrote: »

Its completely unrealistic to expect this level of compliance. Human beings are regularly unpredictable, dogs are not robots either. Dogs that recall fine 95% of the time shouldn't have to spend their lives stuck on leads because of the 5% they don't if they are not aggressive.

Is it completely unrealistic? Perhaps, if people are looking to excuse their own failures as a trainer and owner.

The coursing club that I am a member of for my whippets has a very clear rule that a dog must recall on first command. If the dog does not, it cannot compete. Given that coursing involves utilising a sighthound's prey drive and therefore there is a need to get the dog to recall while it is in "the hunt", and given that participants do indeed recall, I'm not particularly convinced it is unrealistic to ensure that a dog will recall if it goes bounding off towards somebody that does not want it to.

Therefore, I stand by my comments. If it won't recall, it should be on the lead.

Tropez

Errata wrote: »

The reaction may have been due to the fact that, as the OP has stated several times, two strange adult dogs were round his feet.
I'm not in favour of dogs being kicked, but when they're not under the control and protection of their owner it is always a possibility. I hope the OP has taken his dogs to the vet to be checked over for any injuries caused by the kicks.

This is largely why I said, and indeed highlighted the point that it was based on the information provided that it appeared to be an overreaction. A dog being around somebody's feet is not necessarily a problem from the way that the OP perceived the situation, however, if the grandfather in this scenario did perceive the situation differently, or if in fact that OPs version of events are biased or missing some critical piece of information, then there could be justification at least for the grandfather's reaction.

orlao

In all of this let's not forget that dog owners have a legal requirement to keep their dogs under control at all times in a public place (DDA). If you don't - and I have no doubt that 99.99% of dog owners have failed to do so at some point including me - you risk being prosecuted.As a result you could lose your dogs and/or end up fined and with a criminal record.

You may think that this is unfair, that the dogs didn't do anything wrong, that nobody could possibly comply with this law all of the time but despite all that the fact remains that the law is in place even if not often enforced.While the issue grows with out of control/antisocial/status dogs and more and more people start to actively fear and dislike dogs IMHO it will be enforced more often in the future.

As the owner of a 'feared' breed I'm well aware of (some) peoples reactions to them and while I do all I possibly can to reassure them that my dog is no threat to them, there are a lot of people who are just anti - dog for what ever reason. I can't change that but I can make sure that I don't give them any ammunition against me.

OP, rightly or wrongly people who feel like that are well within their rights to demand that you keep your dogs away from them, they do not have to tolerate them and will not be capable or inclined to judge if the dog is a genuine danger to them. It is your duty to protect your dog from dog haters and the best way to do so is to have them under control - that doesn't mean always on a lead btw but they do need a solid recall.

I'm not unsympathetic to your rant because I too would want to lamp anyone who hurt my dogs but FGS don't let this happen to your dogs again as you are the only one who can protect them by training them...

peachyprice

Person_one wrote: »

Its completely unrealistic to expect this level of compliance. Human beings are regularly unpredictable, dogs are not robots either. Dogs that recall fine 95% of the time shouldn't have to spend their lives stuck on leads because of the 5% they don't if they are not aggressive.

The shouldn't need to spend their lives on the lead if their recall is 95%+. You see someone/something approaching, you call your dog, he comes, sits patiently on the lead for oh 30 seconds until they have passed, he's let off the lead. It's common courtesy.

And if you can't train your dog to comply, don't let it off the lead in public.

martinthebandit

peachyprice wrote: »

The shouldn't need to spend their lives on the lead if their recall is 95%+. You see someone/something approaching, you call your dog, he comes, sits patiently on the lead for oh 30 seconds until they have passed, he's let off the lead. It's common courtesy.

And if you can't train your dog to comply, don't let it off the lead in public.

And this is even more important if you have dogs that, for many generations, have been bred to be ferocious and aggressive and have a 'bad' reputation like, for instance, Jack Russell terriors.