Raging Angry...

visidigi

they didn't nip, they didn't jump, they walked up to them to say hello - if they were on a lead we would allow them to do the same - we are often asked if the young kids can touch the dogs as they are such a nice size for young kids to interact with.

I asked the guy what he would do if an alsatian came up to him and this kid, and he said oh I would pick the kids up as its bigger that the kid.

This guy clearly had something again dogs (as others ont his thread clearly do too) but what if (and fortunately its not for me) but what if these were my 'kids' because I cant have kids? We meet plenty of dog owners in that very scenario.

Like I've said before, I would have put them on the lead if I had known the guy was there, the first thing he did was shout as the dog walked round his feet (the other half saw this) and the first I saw was him kicking a dog still walking at his feet.

Myrtle77

Perhaps you're correct Sambucus, and I've made some assumptions too - although you'll note that I said 'it seems', which is an acknowledgement of that. The reality is that the OP was there, and we were not. For that reason the tone you've taken when addressing the post seems highly judgemental, and you strike me as someone who just enjoys being argumentative for your own reasons - which is a shame.

nearlyrich

I don't dislike dogs and I would never hurt one and I am sorry your dog was kicked but I think that dogs should be on leads when other dogs and people are around, a friend of mine has a dog who is nervous of other dogs and other dogs running up with owners saying he/she only wants to play is a real problem.

I would also be really annoyed if a dog or dogs ran up and started pawing at me however friendly they were being and fora small child even a small dog is quite scary.

donnap83

I see everyones point, I don't like seeing dogs off their lead when i'm out walking my girl, i worry that it will bite her. Dogs that come up to me when i'm on my own don't phase me though. I think the old dude was of the same thinking, i.e. protecting his grandson. However, if someone did that to my dog, i'd have knocked him out.

I once took my girl for a walk through town. She was in her harness(poodle, but she pulls on a collar so prefer a harness), and kept on a short lead happily walking along sniffing at people coming towards her. Everyone was petting her, when one bloke walking towards us took umbrage to her sniffing in the vicinity of his wife, and smacked my girl across the the head. I went mental with him, as did a random couple behind them. He looked astonished that a female was having a go, and looked mildly alarmed as he clearly thought i was going to lamp him. Still makes my blood boil thinking about it. :mad:

Sambucus_Nigra

visidigi wrote: »

but what if these were my 'kids' because I cant have kids? We meet plenty of dog owners in that very scenario.

They would still be animals, capable of savaging a child. Which is why people get upset when they come bounding over at them as they have absolutely no idea why they are coming bounding over at them. Remember when they come bounding over, you see the ar.se but the person sees the teeth...and they have absolutely no idea why they are heading in that general direction. I've been attacked before by dogs that their owners have shouted 'he'll not hurt you' when all I could see is fangs bared and saliva dripping out. Luckily I dropped my bike and managed to get away with the owner stood there laughing.

visidigi

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

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.

I DID NOT state the dogs right to roam was more than a kid, thats utter rubbish and yet more stated assumption from you - what I sadi was they have an equal right to be int he park and an equal right to roam, I didnt say one was more important than the other.

Ironically in this scenario the kid wasn't free to roam, no he was being held by the hand and forced to walk alongside the granddad throughout the walk.

I said they were at the feet when I turned, the other half saw more than I did.

I did NOT threaten to kick a child, stop making this stuff up, I said to the guy how would he like it if I kicked his child, thats a question not a thread, stop making up poor assumptions for sensationalism.

A dog running round a wood and interacting with others in a calm way is fine, this guy instantly assumedhe was about to be cannibalised by two small jack russel dogs. The responded to the recall like ive said, but the guy kicked out as they did - I would like to point out the one dog he didn't swing for came right back to us and stood next to us no problem. The boy who got swung at couldnt wuite figure out what was going on.

Based ont he answers given so far I have to agree, you're making the most assumptions of anyone, most of which are, as proven above, inaccurate.

Sambucus_Nigra

Myrtle77 wrote: »

Perhaps you're correct Sambucus, and I've made some assumptions too - although you'll note that I said 'it seems', which is an acknowledgement of that. The reality is that the OP was there, and we were not. For that reason the tone you've taken when addressing the post seems highly judgemental, and you strike me as someone who just enjoys being argumentative for your own reasons - which is a shame.

Lol - you mean like having been attacked by a dog myself. And having an OH who watched his sister get mauled at a young age and who is petrified of dogs still.

Myrtle77

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Lol - you mean like having been attacked by a dog myself. And having an OH who watched his sister get mauled at a young age and who is petrified of dogs still.

You have my sympathies, as those must have been horrific experiences. However, not all dogs are alike - and one should be careful not to tarnish all with the same brush, as it serves no-one to do so.

Sambucus_Nigra

visidigi wrote: »

I DID NOT state the dogs right to roam was more than a kid, thats utter rubbish and yet more stated assumption from you - what I sadi was they have an equal right to be int he park and an equal right to roam, I didnt say one was more important than the other.

Ironically in this scenario the kid wasn't free to roam, no he was being held by the hand and forced to walk alongside the granddad throughout the walk.

I said they were at the feet when I turned, the other half saw more than I did.

I did NOT threaten to kick a child, stop making this stuff up, I said to the guy how would he like it if I kicked his child, thats a question not a thread, stop making up poor assumptions for sensationalism.

A dog running round a wood and interacting with others in a calm way is fine, this guy instantly assumedhe was about to be cannibalised by two small jack russel dogs. The responded to the recall like ive said, but the guy kicked out as they did - I would like to point out the one dog he didn't swing for came right back to us and stood next to us no problem. The boy who got swung at couldnt wuite figure out what was going on.

Based ont he answers given so far I have to agree, you're making the most assumptions of anyone, most of which are, as proven above, inaccurate.

You said that the children should stick to their own area - that is saying your dog has more right to roam than children.

Saying how would you like it if I kicked your child IS a threat!

And you've said yourself you were facing the other way before he kicked it so how could you possibly see how close the dog got?

visidigi

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

They would still be animals, capable of savaging a child. Which is why people get upset when they come bounding over at them as they have absolutely no idea why they are coming bounding over at them. Remember when they come bounding over, you see the ar.se but the person sees the teeth...and they have absolutely no idea why they are heading in that general direction. I've been attacked before by dogs that their owners have shouted 'he'll not hurt you' when all I could see is fangs bared and saliva dripping out. Luckily I dropped my bike and managed to get away with the owner stood there laughing.

So's a human.

Animal, Human, same scenario - I am not saying both ours behaved perfectly, but this guy didn't give them an opportunity.

I think to be fair no matter waht I would say you clearly have a preset judgement of animals, dogs specifically and that would explain your tone and absolute admonishment for the actions of this individual.