Dogs and Old Men!

[Trix]

If I kick a dog it is because it is snarling, baring its teeth and resisting being fended off.

 

My first course of action is to tell the owner to get their dog under control, whilst fending it off, keeping at a safe distance from my dog or kids.

 

The only dog I have ever kicked ran straight up to my kids snarling and Tommy, my lurcher, quite rightly, attached himself to it's throat, defending his pack.

 

Not only was the dog not on a lead, it didn't even have a collar on.

 

Johnny Wilkinson would have been proud.

 

The owner had a similar reaction to the one you allude to, until he realised that I was quite capable of defending my pack against human, as well as canine, attacks and they both ran off with their tail between their legs.

 

 

If a dog is attacking then defence is fine, but the posts previously are saying that its ok to kick just any dog for not being on a lead. With that in mind is it ok for a child to be kicked for not holding the hand of its owner/parent or do we have to wait until they run towards us screaming and shouting or do they have to be holding a knife, I know thats extreme but people are trying to draw lines here where its very difficult. No such thing as a bad dog just a bad owner/parent.

[casper ghost]

If a dog is attacking then defence is fine, "snip" or do they have to be holding a knife, I know thats extreme but people are trying to draw lines here where its very difficult. No such thing as a bad dog just a bad owner/parent.

What a stupid argument...

[carlt]

If a dog is attacking then defence is fine, but the posts previously are saying that its ok to kick just any dog for not being on a lead. With that in mind is it ok for a child to be kicked for not holding the hand of its owner/parent or do we have to wait until they run towards us screaming and shouting or do they have to be holding a knife, I know thats extreme but people are trying to draw lines here where its very difficult. No such thing as a bad dog just a bad owner/parent.

As I said, the first thing I do is tell the owner to control their dog whilst fending it off.

 

If The owner makes no attempt to do so, as frequently happens ("Oh he's only saying hello!") then I will tell the owner if they don't remove the dog, I will. This usually does the trick.

 

If that fails then I will remove the dog from my personal space as I believe I have the right to choose who invades it. If this means using force then so be it.

 

A child is different as it is not an animal and it doesn't have the ability to inflict harm but, like my dog, I do not inflict my children on other people, if they are misbehaving, and I expect other parents to behave likewise.

[Sunset Rising]

There seems to be an awful lot of people who have an inordinate amount of trust in their pets.

 

My son has a guide dog. Trained to walk at heal when off the lead ( if told ) and trained to ignore other dogs and people.

 

All of which it does... most of the time.... but it is a dog and sometimes it acts like a dog.

 

What I dont understand is why antone would think that their dog wouldn't act like a dog.

[Trix]

As I said, the first thing I do is tell the owner to control their dog whilst fending it off.

 

If The owner makes no attempt to do so, as frequently happens ("Oh he's only saying hello!") then I will tell the owner if they don't remove the dog, I will. This usually does the trick.

 

If that fails then I will remove the dog from my personal space as I believe I have the right to choose who invades it. If this means using force then so be it.

 

A child is different as it is not an animal and it doesn't have the ability to inflict harm but, like my dog, I do not inflict my children on other people, if they are misbehaving, and I expect other parents to behave likewise.

 

As I said its playing devils advocate and its all about opinions.

 

Casper most arguments are stupid because people are stupid and wont change their views. I know of people that dont like children and in their opinion (not mine) that really is not a stupid argument.

[Matthew Knowles]

What I dont understand is why antone would think that their dog wouldn't act like a dog.

 

And also, why would anyone want a dog that didn't act like a dog? If you want something to carry in your handbag then buy a stuffed toy. Let your dog sniff other dogs arses if he wants to, it's what dogs do!

 

Our dog spends as much time as possible off lead and I take my cue from other dog owners. If I am approaching someone it is usually clear by how they react with their dog as to how I should react. If their dog is on lead then I shall reciprocate but if they leave theirs off lead then I shall also.

[mayalld]

If your dog does not leave your side, in the presence of other dogs or people, then there is no problem and I would probably not even notice that it isn't on a lead.

 

The argument is, though, should a dog be allowed to invade a stranger's personal space and scare, harass, sniff or just annoy someone?

 

If you cannot prevent your dog from doing this then it should be on a lead.

 

I don't want a human standing an inch away from me, invading my personal space.

 

Why should I have to accept a dog doing the same?

 

Another cold day in hell!

 

I agree 100% with Carl

 

But you seem to regard it as all right for you to impose your view of what is acceptable on others:

What I do regard as silly is the over-reaction that says the authorities should be involved when someone does something you regard as unacceptable. What sets your view of what is acceptable above what others regard as acceptable? People are allowed to let their dogs off a lead on a canal towpath. They have every right to do so.

 

I don't wish to impose MY view on others.

 

I wish to assert my RIGHT not to have my personal space invaded, which trumps your "right" to have your dog off a lead.

[Matthew Knowles]

I wish to assert my RIGHT not to have my personal space invaded, which trumps your "right" to have your dog off a lead.

 

I never realised that there was a hierarchy to people's personal rights? Is there a scale against which a right may be measured?

[Trix]

 

I wish to assert my RIGHT not to have my personal space invaded, which trumps your "right" to have your dog off a lead.

 

Ummm 1939 I wish to assert my right to move into Poland which trumps your "right" to live there.

 

Take things to extremes and you can see how views and opinions can get out of hand. But still everyone has their view and believes it to be right, no amount of typing will change it.

 

Please don't take that personally its just an observation.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Trix

[Natalie Graham]

There is also the issue of whether the wishes of some individuals not to have dogs come near them in public areas where one might reasonably expect to find dogs being walked justifies curtailing the freedom of everyone with dogs to exercise those dogs without them being on a lead. I would say it does not.

[Timleech]

There is also the issue of whether the wishes of some individuals not to have dogs come near them in public areas where one might reasonably expect to find dogs being walked justifies curtailing the freedom of everyone with dogs to exercise those dogs without them being on a lead. I would say it does not.

 

Dogs on the towpath are required (by byelaws, I think) to be 'Under Control'. Make of that what you will.

 

Tim

[Trix]

Dogs on the towpath are required (by byelaws, I think) to be 'Under Control'. Make of that what you will.

 

Tim

And there is the problem.

 

If I walk along with my dog off the lead and someone says I am nervous of dogs can you control her and I bring her to heel make her sit and wait until said person has passed then I believe I have controlled her. However if I put her on the lead and she barks and jumps up and down then I would say I have not, as the person would be far more distressed. So someone with the opinion that a dog is under control on the lead in that case would, dare I say it, be wrong. So you could say that the question is if a dog is on a lead is it under control? I think in my opinion most dog owners are reasonable and will attach a lead when the need is there. Unfortunately some do not and it gives some people the wrong impression. Shame that people can not keep an open mind and aim there frustration at offenders rather than whole of dog kind.

[muddywaters]

can see both sides tbh.

Although the dog owner might know that their dog is friendly a stranger it may approach does not.

When we where on the Llangollen canal this year and we where walking back to the marina in Llangollen from the horseshoe falls a woman was on the towpath walking the same way as us with a dog and we where catching up to her.

She actually stopped and put her dog on it's leed while we passed her, funny thing was we would have been happy to pass without her doing that.

All it takes is a bit of common sense from everyone, as I said just because you know your dog is friendly does not mean everyone will know it is

[mayalld]

I never realised that there was a hierarchy to people's personal rights? Is there a scale against which a right may be measured?

 

Of course there is a hierarchy.

 

How else would situations where two people's right conflicted be resolved?

 

In the park, opposite work, there is a bench. I have a right to sit on the bench. If I arrive at the bench and you are sat there, does your right to remain seated without me on your knee not override my right to sit there?

[Matthew Knowles]

Of course there is a hierarchy.

 

How else would situations where two people's right conflicted be resolved?

 

In the park, opposite work, there is a bench. I have a right to sit on the bench. If I arrive at the bench and you are sat there, does your right to remain seated without me on your knee not override my right to sit there?

 

Oh! Would you! Please? Would I have to pay before or after?

[mayalld]

Oh! Would you! Please? Would I have to pay before or after?

 

I tend to find that most people who suggest that I might sit on their knee haven't properly checked up on how much I weigh...

[Matthew Knowles]

I tend to find that most people who suggest that I might sit on their knee haven't properly checked up on how much I weigh...

 

You are quite right...I'll guess that you are a big lad then!

 

The difficulty with the hierarchy of rights is that the hierarchy will vary from one person to another. I've seen people feeding a slot machine all night and then throw a tantrum when they step away, someone else puts a quid in and wins the jackpot. They believe that their right to continue feeding the machine all night is greater than anyone elses right to put a quid in when the machine looks abandoned.

 

In terms of your right to walk along a tow path compared to my right to walk along the tow path with my dog off lead I see those two rights as being fairly equal. As I said earlier if you had your dog on a lead or stopped to put it on then I would do similarly. If you were without a dog then I'd probably leave Twm as he was.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Matthew Knowles

[canaldrifter]

There is also the issue of whether the wishes of some individuals not to have dogs come near them in public areas where one might reasonably expect to find dogs being walked justifies curtailing the freedom of everyone with dogs to exercise those dogs without them being on a lead. I would say it does not.

 

Exactly. If you don't like dogs, avoid them.

 

Tone

[Sunset Rising]

When push comes to shove all dog owners have a legal obligation to keep their dog under control and stop it being a nuisence to others. ( unlike cat owners, strange anomaly )

 

and equally people have a right to protect themselves against a perceived animal attack by whatever means nescessary. ( unlike attacks by other people, another strange anomaly )

[ChrisPy]

When push comes to shove all dog owners have a legal obligation to keep their dog under control and stop it being a nuisence to others. ( unlike cat owners, strange anomaly )

 

as long as we avoid the temptation to keep mountain lions as pets, we can continue to hope that cats will avoid people, which is just fine by me.

[canaldrifter]

Like Sophie on the towpath, this thread will run and run....

 

Tone

[mayalld]

You are quite right...I'll guess that you are a big lad then!

 

The difficulty with the hierarchy of rights is that the hierarchy will vary from one person to another. I've seen people feeding a slot machine all night and then throw a tantrum when they step away, someone else puts a quid in and wins the jackpot. They believe that their right to continue feeding the machine all night is greater than anyone elses right to put a quid in when the machine looks abandoned.

 

In terms of your right to walk along a tow path compared to my right to walk along the tow path with my dog off lead I see those two rights as being fairly equal. As I said earlier if you had your dog on a lead or stopped to put it on then I would do similarly. If you were without a dog then I'd probably leave Twm as he was.

 

Well, as those who have seen me will vouch, I'm no 7 stone weakling.

 

Given what you say in the final paragraph, I don't think we are a million miles apart in our views (what would you do if I was there with no dog BTW)

 

The problem with discussions like this is that they don't take account of every possibility. There are SOME dogs that will always behave, and will never run off being "friendly". They have no need of a lead. However, unless a dog falls into this group, then the appropriate action is to ensure that he is on a lead whenever you encounter somebody else, and are not certain whether they would welcome your dog's attentions.

 

Exactly. If you don't like dogs, avoid them.

 

 

So, your position is that anybody who doesn't wish to suffer your mutt should get out of the way.

 

Good to see you gettin' down there wiv da kids and their "well 'ard" dogs.

[carlt]

There are SOME dogs that will always behave, and will never run off being "friendly". They have no need of a lead.

 

My dog falls into that category (though he has a habit of bumping into people, now he is 15).

 

He ignores other dogs, livestock and people, walks to heel with or without a lead and does not leave my side unless told to run.

 

He is, however, always on a lead when in a narrow, restricted space or when other dogs or livestock are present.

 

This is for his protection and out of respect for people who don't know how well behaved he is.

[Guest User]

 

<snip> ....The problem with discussions like this is that they don't take account of every possibility. <snip>

 

 

 

<snip>This is for his protection and out of respect for people who don't know how well behaved he is.<snip>

 

... thank you both for realising that there are other perspectives ... I have a brother with severe learning difficulties; a dog coming up to him, no matter how friendly, would and does send him into a state of panic.

[canaldrifter]

Well, as those who have seen me will vouch, I'm no 7 stone weakling.

 

Given what you say in the final paragraph, I don't think we are a million miles apart in our views (what would you do if I was there with no dog BTW)

 

The problem with discussions like this is that they don't take account of every possibility. There are SOME dogs that will always behave, and will never run off being "friendly". They have no need of a lead. However, unless a dog falls into this group, then the appropriate action is to ensure that he is on a lead whenever you encounter somebody else, and are not certain whether they would welcome your dog's attentions.

 

 

 

So, your position is that anybody who doesn't wish to suffer your mutt should get out of the way.

 

Good to see you gettin' down there wiv da kids and their "well 'ard" dogs.

 

I confess the remark was just a mischievous prod to get you going again, cos the arguments are getting repetitively boring.

 

Sophie is well flattered that she could be compares with a Rotty. She's still laughing.....

 

 

Tone