as someone who hates dogs, call it phobic, the one thing i hate with a passion is dogs running upto me, the dog MAY be being friendly but frankly i don't give a $hit! What really winds me up is that when i then proceed to disuade the dog the owner gets uppity. If i kick the dog it is your problem not mine. When i have a dog run my to me and try and bite my leg i will kick the $hit out of the dog to the point i am no longer concerned by the dog.

To many times i have had the "its never done that before" excuse. Keep your dog under control, you may be surprised to hear some people don't like dogs.

Dezb – unfortunately that is what the law is no matter how much you wish it weren't. You have a statutory duty not to cause alarm fear or distress and you can be fined and your dog destroyed if you do not. Read the dangerous dogs act.

practical matt

I agree that the owner should have called out to you asking if your dog was alright with other dogs or reassuring you that hers was a big dappy thing (assuming it was)

this is 100% wrong. The owner should only let them run free if she is sure it is OK.

Tandem- you read me wrong guvnor.

I'm assuming that she had control of teh dog and that it was not dangerours.

If anyone is scarred or distressed then yes the dog needs to be controlled, if you have it out and you can control it and it runs up to someone who is distressed the yes you call it back and put it on the lead. If it runs up and no-one says anything then you as a dog owner make the first move and ask if it is alright and act appropriately and if you're a **** who has a big dog and you can't control it then you don't deserve to have that dog – which I believe is the same as your point.

i dont like spiders coming near me, but when i asked myself what would TJ do….. the answer was obvious.

I called the police and misquoted some legal sounding stuff i found on a wiki.

all humans have an obligation to ensure that i have a happy and fulfilled life.

Matt – this is where you are wrong – it should not be running up to people unless invited. Its not good enough to call it away after it has caused distress.

soobalias – no matter how you wish it that is the law.

I let my dog off the lead whever I can, dogs who are sh1t scared of him may not be socialized properly (or they have been bitten by a bad dog). I dont really care if my dog scares another. If there are horses / children / TJ about I will try to get him under control, but he may be off chasing rabbittz and wont listen to anyone then.

Anyone mentioned dog sh1t in bags on trees yet?

Majority of the time its the owners of the precious pooches which are the problem, as already stated. Constantly picking them up and acting scared will instill the same issues in your dog. MTFU.

best of luck TJ, let us know how your test case goes wont you.

No need – go read the dangerous dogs act. Its statute and requires no precedent

mrmo

If i kick the dog it is your problem not mine

No you have accpeted that you are phobic it is quiote clearly your problem deal with it.

TJ – fair point.

I didn't express myslef clearly enough. I was thinking in terms of just generaly being in the same place at the same time, not running down strangers or trotting up to someone to sniff them.

It's not easy to prove H.A.D if there's a marked out rugby pitch between the dog and the IP which is what I had in mind when I meant going towards them, I wouldn't wait till they had a muzzle in their crotch.
Even if someone at this distcance was a bit wary then the lead should go on.

Matt – fair enough – some of the dog owners here seem to theink that the dog has a right to run around freely and its up to everyone else to learn how to deal with their mutts

soobalias

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/ukpga_19910065_en_1#l1g3

Keeping dogs under proper control

(1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place—

(a) the owner; and

(b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,

is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.

(2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it.

(3) If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there—

(a) it injures any person; or

(b) there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so,

he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.

just cos you are a scardey cat is not grounds for reasonable apprehension

"dangerously out of control"

allowing it to enter a space that isnt a public place, that doesnt include your over inflated sense of personal space.

like to hear you explain that a dog approaching you was that, to a judge, like i said good luck and let us all know so we can toast your legal victory.

TJ – manly handshake and say no more about it?

I get where you're coming from on that one, I spend my days trying to prove HAD and similar but in a more urban environment. Wish I could put some of our scroats on leads- it'd solve a lot of problems.

I'm leaving this thread well alone now.

toodle pip. 😉

TandemJeremy – Member

Can I resist this thread?

Its really simple – the dog must be under control and its a criminal offense if it gives someone reasonable cause to be scared. Just causing annoyance and nuisance is wrong but is not a criminal offense just a civil one.

Either way its an irresponsible dog owner

Edit :- Ta Matt. You obviously understand the law and your responsibilities unlike some of the muppets on here

TJ, just so you know- not everyone obeys the law all the time, whether its the REAL law or something you found on Wikipedia.

You obviously understand the law and your responsibilities unlike some of the muppets on here

You must label yourself in that bracket then too?

Clearly not Scruff. However it would be nice if dog owners did. That is real law – look at the source – directly copied from the statute

OT slightly… but I would be interested to know if the large and very scared looking pitbull that was roaming towards my local park yesterday ever got caught…

It came from inside the Police station opposite our house and disappeared towards the park… the worried looking WPC that was 'giving chase' 'gave up' after about 75 yards and retreated into the safety of the cop shop..

I understand the law clearly. Its not rocket science.

Statute – criminal offense – letting your dog harm or scare someone ( subject to being reasonable that it caused fear)

Against civil law / bylaws – letting your dog cause nuisance or annoyance

TJ, as long as you continue to cycle through red lights, as you openly admit to doing, don't bother lecturing anyone on following the law 🙄

I think that you think that you understand the law. But I think that you think that the law is equal to what you interpret it as. Which its not.

😉

TJ, this is law wot IZ about Rocket Science n'that-

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/index.html
😛

…had to lift my dog off the grounf and clutch him tight.

Oh dear…

+1 for size of the dog doesn't matter… Friends had a Chihuahua, they would laugh when it attacked people's ankles.. They didnt laugh when I threatened them and they certainly didn't laugh when it was put down as it was an agressive dog.

I haven't read all the comments, but to me those dogs seemed to be under control, didn't bark at you, didn't attack; you're dog on the otherhand, screaming at them/you and then lifting it off the ground, thats just wrong.. Although if an owner screamed at me, I'm not sure I would do exactly what they said, I might call them, I might not.. Either way if I call them or not, I would still call it "under control". Now if it was people who don't have dogs, I would call them straight away, as some people are scared of dogs.

Yes I'm a dog owner. I'm going now, before I get people angry and stir the pot even more!

Find so me evidence then – the statute is very clear, the civil stuff is less so and open to interpretation but appears pretty clear to me.

If you could actually find anything to back up your view you might have some credibility – I have posted numerous references to guidance for dog clubs and legal experts on previous threads – however you prefer to ignore the law to justify your inability or unwillingness to control your dog

Some people (my wife) are pretty scared of dogs, childhood memories etc, in my experience people who have dogs have absolutely no comprehension of this "he's only playing".

Yunki Are you SURE it was a pitbull? not sure I would be after catching a glimpse thats the trouble with the DD act arguing what is a pit and whats a staff cross etc

TJ,

You see things as very black and white in your eyes only. Any dog doing anything which pisses you off then the owner should be prosecuted. That is in your opinion only.

Lets be clear.

If a dog is off leash and runs up to someone and takes a massive chunk out of their leg then yes, you are right and i think everyone is in agreement. The owner is liable, should be prosecuted etc etc.

If a dog is off leash and runs up to another dog wagging its tail to say hello but because the owner of that dog (and lets be kind) is a complete ****wit and wants nothing more than to turn their pet rat into a quivering wreck of an anti-social dog by picking it up out of harms way then my friend i would fail to see how that is illegal?

Edit:

however you prefer to ignore the law to justify your inability or unwillingness to control your dog

– Again another TJ prejudiced assumption, my dog is under perfect control at all times.

Cant really be bothered to get involved and only skipped through the thread but the extract of the act highlighted by TJ i.e. Clause 3 subsection (b) reads as though it is only appilies to a place which is not a public place.

. Any dog doing anything which pisses you off then the owner should be prosecuted. That is in your opinion only.

And I have said that where and when?

All I want is to go about my business unbothered by your dog. I don't want it running up to me in any manner and that is my clear legal right

Ah this again

Well done elaine anne, you've managed a reasonable quality troll here although, given TJ's hair trigger reaction times to threads about dogs running about anywhere, it would have to be marked down as having a low level of difficulty to initiate a controversial discussion.

I'm now off to walk my dogs off the leash, with no 100% guarantee they'll come back when I call. I may even let them go near other dogs and people. Perhaps I should mug a pensioner and desecrate a church as well.

Enjoy your afternoon people.

Marcus – it does read like that – wrong subsection perhaps

TJ – Are you sub 5' and a parking attendant? Talk about officious jobsworth.

And C3 subsection (b) only applies to a non-public place. Off back to college with you till you can read statute properly.

it does read like that – wrong subsection perhaps

Perhaps you better phone your local MP to inform them the law as it currently stands is null and void due to an incorrect subsection classification.

All I want is to be left alone by your dogs – reasonable dog owners will ensure that this is so. I know STW is full of plonkers but the attempts to justify their dogs that are not under proper control are laughable as is the attacks on me for wanting dog owners to actually obey the law and control their dogs

I quoted the wrong subsection – try this

For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so, but references to a dog injuring a person or there being grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown.

is the correct subsection

junkyard, i do deal with it, i stay away from dogs i don't know. If a dog is as the law requires, under control in a public place no one has a problem.

The problem arises when dogs are not under control, somthing the law is clear about. As such i will do what i neccesary to get the dog to go away and for me to feel happy again.

on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so

Again you misread this. 'reasonable apprehension' will cover actual aggressive behaviour. A dog just running up to you is not aggressive behaviour. If that was the case, the courts would be chock-full of cases about dogs running up to people. I'd recommend hiring a solicitor to have them explain this clearly to you.

All I want is to be left alone by your dogs – reasonable dog owners will ensure that this is so

+1

but I've a strong feeling that people who own dogs as companion animals rather than working animals are very unlikely to be reasonable……

Dougal – I am not misreading that. It is clear that you must be in fear of being injured and that fear must be reasonable.

The dog running up to you with no aggressive intent is a different thing – thats causing annyance and nuisance. Differnt bit of law.

As I said earlier in this thread there are two different things – "dangerously out of control" and "not under proper control" ( there is also close control – but that is irrelevant to this particular debate)

Its the latter of these two that is the issue when a dog runs up to you without agressive intent – for example the dog that started sniffing around my food when I was having a picnic – muddy paws on the jacket I was sitting on and nose at my lunch. Now that dog is clearly not dangerously out of control but clearly is being a nuisance by not being under proper control

I know STW is full of plonkers

Of course you do! 😉