anything I can do?

zaksmum

pulliptears wrote: »

Off lead time should be on private land if you cannot guarantee your animal will not approach another animal or child. Why should the parent take the child elsewhere because one person cannot put a large dog on a lead?



Full control of the child? Seriously? Is the child likely to attack the dog? Or is it more likely that the parent may just panic because a strange, large dog just came bounding up to their child, a child who has every right to be walking along a public footpath freely.



The bane of my life is owners of 'friendly off lead' dogs who seem to think its perfectly acceptable for their animals to come charging over to me and my on lead animal, its rude and aside from anything else its dangerous as OP has found. In this case the dog was kicked. Something that would have been easily avoided if, as I said earlier, the dog had been under control.

How many dog owners can walk their dogs only on private land? Yes, the child did have the right to walk along the footpath - so did the dog and owner. What if the dog was on an extending lead? It could still approach a child on a narrow footpath. If I was so paranoid about a dog coming near my child I would definitely avoid areas where dogs are likely to be.

The parent was well out of order to kick and hurt the dog.

charlearose

i have 4 douge de bordeauxs and two bullmastiffs

we never ever let ours of the lead because they are quite timid dogs inspite of there size and scare easily which can result in them possibly getting aggressive ( this hasnt ever happend but it could do)
the older two ddbs weighs 9st and the younger one is 8and a half stone and hes only just turnt one our puppies who are 5months are 28k -30 killos each

when we want them and the puppies to have a bit of free running/ play time we take them to a huge estate /openwoodland where live we can clearly see whats around us and who is around us and we put them on horse lunge leads so that they can have a run around but we still control them and keep them under control safely

i dont think that guy should have kicked your dog and if anyone did that to my dogs i would probably bloody set the dogs on him and get them to bite his !!!

but sadly there are a huge amount of anti dogs people out there who are especially scared of the bigger breeds and sadly rotties and the like get the raw deal of which is often ignorance im far more scared of a little jack russel or westie than i would be of a big breed dog

im always really pleased when small kids and there parents come up and ask if they can smooth our 4 ddbs when we are out with them one lady said her daughter was really really scared of dogs but she thought ours looked like her favorite teddy bear with all the wrinkles so wanted to pet them them which she did and gave them treats and her mother was so pleased that her daughter managed to do this she took a photo of her daughter with our four huge dogs to remind her daughter what she did

bobthedambuilder

Let's get some perspective on this debate. Have you ever seen a report that a dog has been mauled to death or badly injured by a child? It just beggars belief that you can equate a free-roaming dog with a free-roaming child - it's arrant nonsense to say that if one should be on a lead, then so should the other.

And to all the owners who say that their animal could never do such a thing. Please listen to what the owners of those dogs who have carried out these dreadful attacks say - "It's completely out of character, my dog has never done this before, its always been good with children" etc. It's only got to happen once, and a young life is taken or blighted.

The fact is that about 5000 people are treated in hospital in the UK for dog bites each year. If that statistic can be reduced by a law that says that all dogs should be on a leash in all public places, then bring it on.

krlyr

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

The fact is that about 5000 people are treated in hospital in the UK for dog bites each year. If that statistic can be reduced by a law that says that all dogs should be on a leash in all public places, then bring it on.

Vs around 39,000 hospital admissions for road casualities in 2009. 24,690 seriously injured - and how does the 2,222 fatalities compare to dog-related fatalities? Lets ban cars in public places to get those statistics down.

Also bear in mind that the "dog bite" statistics are not entirely accurate as they are classed as "bitten or struck" by a dog. Your overly friendly pet Labrador bowls you over and your knee swells up like a balloon, you go to A&E and mention the dog, and voila, one more tally on the "dog bite" statistics.

I am all for preventing dog attacks and making people take responsibility for their dog's behaviour but off-lead does not equal out of control or aggressive.

bobthedambuilder

krlyr wrote: »

Vs around 39,000 hospital admissions for road casualities in 2009. 24,690 seriously injured - and how does the 2,222 fatalities compare to dog-related fatalities? Lets ban cars in public places to get those statistics down.

Oh here we go - there's always somebody who will trot out the road accident or smoking or alcohol related death statistics to put down an argument that a simple piece of legislation could improve matters without adversely affecting anyone. I'm just waiting now for the free-choice brigade to chime in.

Many sensible dog owners, including a number who have already commented on this thread, already subscribe to the position that dogs should be on a lead in public places. Such legislation would only formalise a behaviour that many (most?) responsible dog-owners already adhere to. It would change behaviour and attitudes much in the way that dog-fouling legislation has done over the last couple of decades, and does anybody disagree that this is a good thing?

As to your comment regarding dog bite statistics being inaccurate, I would agree, as do the statisticians. The real figures are probably 10 times higher, but most are just not reported.

Sally_A

If figures don't reflect 10x the incidents that have happened, perhaps they relate to the parents that don't immeditely think their kids are 100% innocent and whiter than white.

I've been mostly bitten by my own dogs, as have immediate family members including my daughter when she about 2 years old. The only other dog that has bitten me was when I did volunteer walking at the home, she got bramble caught in her feet, and after I'd freed her, she bit me. It was a calculated bite, so I reported back to the home. I've also been nipped by a new collie that next door took on, it was excitement at being homed in a large garden, and attention seeking, there was no vicousness involved - even though my thigh/bum region would argue otherwise.:)

There is a major difference between a snap/growl/bearing teeth/nip and a full savage.

Anyhow.........getting down to the nitty gritty, I reckon parents need to train their kids, but unfortunately the last generation of parents seem to be a bit thick in understanding dogs, and despite how much a kid (Dwayne and Chardonnay can do no wrong) pi$$es off a dog and gets a warning nip - the dog will always end up worse off. if it goes to court.

Paradigm

orlao wrote: »

Back to my original point that dog owners are also members of the public who should be just as entitled to use the amenities available as anybody else - we really have to get past this perception that all dogs are instant child killers, it's not doing anybody any favours. A generation (at least) of children who have only bad perceptions of dogs because their parents over react before a dog gets within 10m, parents with their nerves on edge because they think every dog they see is going to savage their kid, dog owners feeling very defensive and meanwhile all these people who will miss out on the positive opportunities and experiences that being around dogs can bring. And the vicious cycle continues...

I can't say I disagree with any of this but...

Having seen how people can & often do overreact, how the legal system (should it ever come to that) sides against dogs & I'm sure I wouldn't be responsible for my actions if anyone were to ever kick one of mine then I'll take them & myself out of the firing line by keeping them on a lead.

walwin

If anybody had ever kicked any of my dogs they'd never have done it to another one

How bloody dare he :mad:

orlao

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

Oh here we go - there's always somebody who will trot out the road accident or smoking or alcohol related death statistics to put down an argument that a simple piece of legislation could improve matters without adversely affecting anyone. I'm just waiting now for the free-choice brigade to chime in.

Many sensible dog owners, including a number who have already commented on this thread, already subscribe to the position that dogs should be on a lead in public places. Such legislation would only formalise a behaviour that many (most?) responsible dog-owners already adhere to. It would change behaviour and attitudes much in the way that dog-fouling legislation has done over the last couple of decades, and does anybody disagree that this is a good thing?

As to your comment regarding dog bite statistics being inaccurate, I would agree, as do the statisticians. The real figures are probably 10 times higher, but most are just not reported.

The problem with legalising that level of intolerance just because it might just save one child from being attacked is that it then spreads to further reaches of intolerance...to use some of your own examples

Ban/severely restrict driving
Ban smoking
Ban alcohol
Ban DIY - badly done it can cause serious injury.
After all, why not - they all cause injuries and deaths of innocent bystanders who weren't indulging at the time but is that the kind of society that you want to live in? I'm happy to say I don't.Because it has been proved over the years that as soon as you remove one hazard another presents itself, that is the nature of life IMO.

I'm a pretty normal person who thinks that society should at least try and rub along together with tolerance and consideration to all who are law abiding. None of this nonsense about banning anything that isn't actually harming you just because you personally don't like it or fear it. While children in society (as fear for a child presumably caused the father in the OP to behave as he did) are entitled to special protection and consideration, parents in particular, have to also accept that the world still goes on around them and that while they can minimise the risk of living they cannot eliminate it.

Nor am I somebody who thinks that you should have to get within touching distance of my dogs unless you wish to do so. They will not approach you while I'm out with them. Your children are also perfectly safe because I will make sure that I'm between them and the dogs, nor do I let my dogs off lead in busy areas or where it is forbidden by by-law. However I do believe that my dogs benefit from off lead exercise both mentally and physically and I find it relaxing, healthy exercise for me also. I'm prepared to compromise by walking further or driving to a suitable less popular place where I can do this when, quite frankly I could stroll 5 minutes to a local park and just legally slip the leads there and say s0d the footballers, kids playing and families having picnics there - that would save me time and petrol but may make some people uncomfortable so I don't.

Please don't class me with the muppets who don't control their dogs or try and criminalise the dogs that I work very hard to train just because some people cannot/won't control THEIR dogs. In return, I won't demand that all drivers are treated as if they are homicidal lunatics in a 1ton metal jacket until they prove otherwise.

Remember tolerance is a good thing:beer: but it has to apply to everyone!

orlao

Paradigm wrote: »

I can't say I disagree with any of this but...

Having seen how people can & often do overreact, how the legal system (should it ever come to that) sides against dogs & I'm sure I wouldn't be responsible for my actions if anyone were to ever kick one of mine then I'll take them & myself out of the firing line by keeping them on a lead.

I do see your point but I'm afraid that I refuse to back down too far on this as I'm not prepared to pander to hysteria. I am very careful (and TBH I'm certain there are many occasions that I'm watching a child more carefully than their parent) and do keep the dogs close to me if there are people about - a combination of manners and concern for my animals.

However on more than one occasion I have had people march up and tell me that my (on lead) dog is a banned breed, dangerous, should be muzzled, shouldn't be allowed with no provocation on his part what so ever. Apart from being extremely rude it just shows that no matter what you do some people are not prepared to be reasonable. What happens next - widespread breed bans? Dogs unwelcome in urban areas? where does it stop? And the really sad thing IMHO is that it probably wouldn't prevent a single attack as 99% of these are either in the dogs home or where dogs have escaped from an insecure area. As Krlyr said the rest of the statistics are probably from people falling/been knocked over by a dog or breaking up dog fights neither which are really a risk to the non dog owner.