Raging Angry...

Sambucus_Nigra

visidigi wrote: »

The guy was within 10 meters as previously mentioned, I turned round as he swung at the dog, the other half had turned round before me...

How could you see how close the animal was to the child if you were facing the other way?

visidigi

Myrtle77 wrote: »

Errata wrote: »

What a helpful response that is Errata.

Sounds to me like much of this has been blown out of proportion. He was probably an over-cautious Grandad, who overreacted to the situation.

Perhaps he was right to grumble, and you were quite right to admonish him for his treatment of your dogs.

It was the issue it was as the guy kicked the dog and I said do that againa and I will do it to him, I then called the dog and as he came back towards me the guy swung and kicked him again.

Sounds like im in the minority here, guess ill rant to myself elsewhere next time - Im not saying I was innocent, I wasn't given how close the dogs got, but I am certainly not one who hit anything or anyone.

Myrtle77

I'm not saying you blew it out of proportion visidigi. It seems that the chap in question did, and unfortunately (as the people responding weren't there, and so can't be sure of the chain of events), so are some of the responders to your original post.

Sambucus_Nigra

Myrtle77 wrote: »

I'm not saying you blew it out of proportion visidigi. It seems that the chap in question did, and unfortunately (as the people responding weren't there, and so can't be sure of the chain of events), so are some of the responders to your original post.

So how close would a dog have to be to a child before you decided it was too close? Or are small nips ok as long as no blood gets onto your carpet?

peachyprice

Sorry your dogs got kicked at, but you were in the wrong in the first place.

I regularly walk my dog off lead in a huge meadow/wooded area, he is put on the lead whenever anyone approaches, be it other dogs, walkers, cyclists, horses, doesn't matter, he's put on the lead until they have passed.

This is as much for his own protection as anyone elses, I don't trust skittish horses, I don't trust other peoples dogs and I don't trust children to not frighten him.

shellsuit

visidigi wrote: »

My point is why is the dog to blame? The dog didnt react, the dog didn't get within 6" of the childs face, they walked towards them - if you are not comfortable with your child being in the company of a dog then why take them to the biggest dog walking forest in the area? Dogs are never to blame. Owners are. I'd take the blame for my young son, as he knows no different. Dogs don't understand like humans do. And why should I be expected to know where the biggest dog walking forest is? Do you know where the biggest play centres and creches for children are?

If the dogs were in anyway threatening to anyone then we would have them on a lead - they are simply dogs which run around in the woods letting off steam. That's the thing with dog owners! How do YOU know when and where your dog might snap? You don't, that's the point. They can't tell you when they're angry or cross can they?

Ahh so kids should be allowed anywhere to run free and not be bothered by dogs? Right so where do I walk my 'kid', my dogs, am I not allowed to be in the same place? Oh come off it, your dog is a dog, not a 'kid'. You can be in the same place, but have the dogs lead/s on. You don't know if and when your dog is going to turn do you?

I never said the guy couldn't be in the same place, but if there was a concern he should pick his kid up, not kick an animal. And I agree with that. I've picked up my children plenty of times when a dog has come near us. If I did that though and thought the dog was going to harm my child, I'd do whetever to protect my child but I wouldn't lash out and kick a dog for sniffing around.

As for the kids on dogs question, Ive seen many youths treating dogs badly over the years thanks.

We're not talking about 'youths' though are we? I'd guess between the ages of 2 and 8??

Myrtle77

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

So how close would a dog have to be to a child before you decided it was too close? Or are small nips ok as long as no blood gets onto your carpet?

Please point out where I've stated anything of the sort.

You seem to enjoy making assumptions about people's meaning Sambucus. I'm not sure I understand why there is an underlying resentment to your posts.

Sambucus_Nigra

Myrtle77 wrote: »

Please point out where I've stated anything of the sort.

You seem to enjoy making assumptions about people's meaning Sambucus. I'm not sure I understand why there is an underlying resentment to your posts.

I'm not making any assumptions; I asked a question!

If you can't answer it then what are we to think?

And yes there is an underlying resentment of self-righteousness about dog owners who think their 'kids' are more important than other humans, especially when it comes to proper [not substitute] children.

Myrtle77

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

I'm not making any assumptions; I asked a question!

If you can't answer it then what are we to think?

And yes there is an underlying resentment of self-righteousness about dog owners who think their 'kids' are more important than other humans, especially when it comes to proper [not substitute] children.

I would think the answers were obvious, so why bother?

I don't recall at any point the OP saying that her dogs were 'more important', as you put it. Again, that's your assumption. You're reading what you want to in their posts so that you can start an unnecessary argument. And please try not to be so judgemental about how the OP views their dogs, that's really not your business and shouldn't matter to you.

Sambucus_Nigra

Myrtle77 wrote: »

I would think the answers were obvious, so why bother?

I don't recall at any point the OP saying that her dogs were 'more important', as you put it. Again, that's your assumption. You're reading what you want to in their posts so that you can start an unnecessary argument. And please try not to be so judgemental about how the OP views their dogs, that's really not your business and shouldn't matter to you.

The OP stated that their dog's freedom was more important than children's freedom to roam. The OP also couldn't actually see how close the dog got as they were facing the wrong way. The OP comes on here raging and threatening to kick a child. Hence asking the question about how close you think a dog should be allowed to get to a child before you'd react.

You said 'I'm not saying you blew it out of proportion visidigi. It seems that the chap in question did, and unfortunately (as the people responding weren't there, and so can't be sure of the chain of events), so are some of the responders to your original post.' but you don't know the chain of events so how do you know if the chap overreacted or not? I'd call that an assumption if assumptions are things that you are worried about.