[Closed] Got bitten by a dog this morning.....

TJ leave it, you won't win.

You might also like to take a look at the scottish access code - considered by many to be best practice in managing access to the countryside.

PUBLIC PLACES: Keep your dog under close control and avoid causing concern to others, especially those who fear dogs.

http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/out-and-about/recreation-activities/dog-walking/

[b]However, dogs that aren’t kept under proper
control can be a real concern for some people,
including many land managers and visitors to
the countryside.[/b] Dogs can worry and injure farm
animals, disturb wildlife and alarm other people.
Farmers also have concerns about dogs
spreading diseases, especially if they’ve not been
regularly wormed.
[b]In using your access rights, you must keep your dog
under proper control.[/b] This leaflet sets out
your main responsibilities as a dog owner and
advises on what proper control is in everyday
situations. Please read it carefully and do what
it recommends. Because let’s face it,
as much as you love them, [b]your dog is a bit of
a daftie when it comes to understanding the
Scottish Outdoor Access Code.[/b]

Oh well richc doesn't seem to like my 100% predictable, 100% of the time living thing.
It's the beeches you really have to worry about, next time it is a childs face.

[img] [/img]

TJ leave it, you won't win.

Are you familiar with TJ's work at all? 😉

Thats one scary Mofo of a tree Pawl!

BikePawl, to go back to your examples, if those tree's (not a single specimen the whole species) are 100% predictable 100% of the time, why aren't all those trees identical even when the evnironmental conditions are the same? As TJ statement infers, that ALL dogs (not just one or two) should be predictable all all times.

And finally as I can't be arsed with TJ narrow mindedness any more, especially as he appears to be mentally ill. What legal qualifications do you have again TJ? As believe or not wikipedia, google and the Janet and John book for law doesn't count. If you had any you would realise that the fastest way to lose them is to talk in absolutes.

If you know any lawyers TJ, ask them what they think of litigants in person, as you are classic example of that kind of person.

As TJ statement infers, that ALL dogs (not just one or two) should be predictable all all times.

No - I said all dogs should be[b] under control[/b] at all times in a public place. This is your legal obligation.

Dear oh dear - you really do have trouble with your comprehension. don't you.

Ooops - I did say I'd stop teasing you. I will now.

TJ, just to clarify

I put

all dogs should be predictable (ie: under control) at all times.

and you put:

all dogs should be under control at all times

In what way, does the spirit of these two statements differ?

As for legal obligation, what are you legal qualifications or personal experience again?

And your legal obligation is to obey the highway laws but (your own spurious (il)logic aside) you decide not to. Smacks of the weakest convenient logic to me.

Nobody's argued dogs shouldn't be under control, just that there are circumstances / instances where they might, at times, not be despite owners being responsible. But as usual your idiotic and self serving black and white view on the world seems to make you incapable of grasping that.

I find it ironic that you bang on about the law regarding dogs and then bang on about the Scottish access code and associated information (not even guidance I imagine in a legal sense) which says:

Keep your dog under close control and [b]avoid[/b] causing concern to others, especially those who fear dogs.

"avoid" is a different thing to preventing at all times. Heavenforbid the folks who drafted that information might actuially not be such dogmatic buggers as you. eh?

Luckily the people who write and enforce the Laws of this country are intelligent logical human beings. TJ on the other hand appears to be a care in the community case, who rules his lego empire with a fist of STEEL!

TJ - time to walk away. What we have is an admission from the "pro-canine" lobby that a dog not on a leash cannot be guaranteed to be under control. That rather makes a mockery of most of the regular arguments.

Indeed they are richc - which is why you have a duty to keep your dog [b]under control at all times[/b] in a public place. Find one tiny shred of evidence that this is not so that you have not invented.

Geez, are you as sanctimonious as that makes you sound?

There's not much in life that can ever be

guaranteed to be under control.

My point TJ, is that nothing in the world is 100% predictable, so you deciding that it should be, doesn't make the reality of the situation change.

**** me, you're thick.

**** me, you're thick.

😆 😆 😆

Anyone who believes anything can be 101% (of 100%) can be automatically discounted as an idiot 🙂

What exactly do you think 100% means?

Dogs are NOT predictable, that is why it is the OWNERS responsibility to make them predictable around others.
richc, why can you not accept that? IMHO you've lost the argument with your generally abusive manner and comments.

can be automatically discounted as an idiot

What is the precise definition of being [b]under control[/b]? Is it under control to satisfy the expectations of the average person or to satisfy the expectations of someone who is scared of dogs? The blurb above doesn't make it too clear.

My point TJ, is that nothing in the world is 100% predictable

I beg to differ.

My dogs are 100% predictable.

They jump up at everyone and are guaranteed to poo within 60 seconds of entering a public place.

Don- I have been filtering and ignoring your comments generally - however I will attempt a serious answer to that one.

There is no clear legal definition that is enforced in statute. Its case law and interpretation mainly. Follow the links I gave above and look at various bits of law and advice from lawyers specialising in animal law

There is some stuff in the dangerous dogs act which I believe has a reasonableness test. However this is for a dog that is "dangerously out of control" not simply "not under proper control"

A ‘dangerously out of control’ dog can be defined as a dog that has injured someone or a dog that a person has grounds for reasonable apprehension that it may do so. Something as simple as your dog chasing, barking at or jumping up at a person or child could lead to a complaint, [b]so ensure that your dog is under control at all times.[/b]

The scottish access code gives a definition of under close control which while not statute makes it very hard for you to defend the actions of your dog if you are not managing it in accordance with the code.

PUBLIC PLACES: Keep your dog under close control and avoid causing concern to others, [b]especially those who fear dogs[/b].

Is there a legal definition
of ’close control’?
No. However, the Code defines ‘under close control’ to mean that your dog responds to your commands and is kept close at heel. If he can lie down or return to you on command, your dog would then be under close control. If you’re [b]not sure[/b] that your dog can do this the [b]responsible[/b] thing is to keep him on a short lead.Did you know?...A short lead is two metres or less.

So - my understanding is that in a public place the dog does not have to be on a lead but must respond to command. They must not scare inconvenience or any anyone who has a reasonable fear of dogs - now that IMO would include people who don't like dogs or are generally scared of them but not someone who has real phobia.

I have been filtering and ignoring your comments generally

Have you being doing that to me too?

Damn, that hurts 🙁

definition of being under control

well some dog owners seem very capable of training dogs not to chase and jump up at / yap / snap at cyclists (and runners) or knoock over small kids

i guess i expect to be able to ride (and run) without having to stop or take unreasonable evasive action - slowing down as you approach walkers with dogs fine - somebodies cuddly darling firing itself at you like an exocet from some distance isn't - having to decide if dog is playing rough with you or about to bite you isn't

Not to yours cheeky - I answered some.

I hadn't noticed that you were ignoring me. 🙄
As there is no clear definition it is impossible to implement your express requirement that a dog must be under control. I have experienced people who were nervous or apprehensive of my dog either when she was on the lead or indeed when she was in a fenced garden and no threat to anyone. But if the fear factor of the victim is enough to send them writing to the Daily Mail or frothing at the mouth here, then there is a problem.
EDIT:

So - my understanding is that in a public place the dog does not have to be on a lead but must respond to command. They must not scare inconvenience or any anyone who has a reasonable fear of dogs - [b]now that IMO would include people who don't like dogs[/b] or are generally scared of them but not someone who has real phobia.

Don - I think that is clear enough . There is no clear statute but the various bits of guidance seem pretty clear - on a lead, in your garden its under control. If it comes to command or lies down to command its under control.

Don - I think that is clear enough .

I hoped that there would be some point in carefully writing all that out - clearly there was not. Filter back on.

So you can't answer then? Head in the sand Tandem?

There's some great pics on page 2 of this thread I just noticed.

Im not going back there again, its too far away now!

You might also like to take a look at the scottish access code - considered by many to be best practice in managing access to the countryside.

code, considered by many to be best practice?so not a law then/Cant be bothered to argue with an idiot but codes are not laws the laws aout dogs concern livestock and dangerously out of control dogs, this is different from out of control. People have to have "reasonable" grounds to be in fear of attack

having said that as a dog owner myself I see the majority of dog owners near where I live as appalling, unsocial tossers. The things they do and let their dogs do are mind blowing

I hoped that there would be some point in carefully writing all that out - clearly there was not. Filter back on.

If all dog owners start keeping their dogs under control, will you stop RLJ'ing???

Don't bother wheeling out your "it's safer for me to RLJ argument". From one of your earlier posts

Problem is richc - on this one I am right and have at length given you the data to show this. [b]You have legal responsibilities.[/b]

As have you, to stop at red lights. You're so keen for dog owners to follow rules, yet you choose to flaunt rules that apply to you in another area of life.

So please, don't position yourself as some kind of people's champion, campaigning for everyone to follow the rules when your incapable of adhering to the rules when you're cycling on the road.

Anywho, I'm off down the park with the dog...

I hope you are going to keep it on the lead at all times, with a shotgun pointed to its head 'just in case' someone might get worried about it looking at them funny.

But that's TJ boardinbob - the epitome of hypocrisy.

And here come the dog owners - insulting and attacking me as they are unable to find any coherent counter argument. Because I occasionally ease thru a red light you don't have to keep your dog under control? 🙄

You really are laughable. Not one shred of evidence or argument that my position is wrong. I have backed mine up with all sorts of things even quotes from the kennel club - that notoriously anti dog outfit.

Its really very simple - keep your dog under control at all times. if you are unable to do this without putting it on a lead then put it on a lead. Thats your obligation

from the kennel club

Something as simple as your dog chasing, barking at or jumping up at a person or child could lead to a complaint,[b][i] [u]so ensure that your dog is under control at all times[/u][/i][/b]

TBH I still agree with TJs arguement, but he's undermined his credibility a little with the RLJ'ing. Although the relevance to this argument is surely irrelevant.

I've just joined this thread, and I'm not reading all of it - could someone explain how RLJ is of any relevance to anything here?

Thank you RM!

TJ - I don't think you're wrong. You are a hypocrite though.

Thats a tad harsh

"code, considered by many to be best practice?so not a law then/Cant be bothered to argue with an idiot but codes are not laws"

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act is the law governing public access in Scotland. The access allowed is responsible access. The code defines responsible access.

So the code does describe legal access to land. Whether the code is a law or not doesn't matter.

Here, read for yourself.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/section/10

Sorry. Here's my reasoning.
You will jump a red light when you judge it to be safe even though it is an offence. I think you have also in the past stated that you have broken the speed limit on your motorbike when you judge it to be safe, even though that is an offence. These things are ok in your book. But a dog owner who allows his dog to run up to people, because he judges that to be safe, even though he shouldn't, is not. I anticipate that you will pay that the dog will frighten and alarm you even if it is in fact safe. Well so might you when you break the rules on your bike or motorbike, even if it turns out no one is put in danger.

I had some idiots dog run after me,i called to the woman who seemed to be in charge of it but she was too thick to see what could happen.
Dog tried to run in front of me as i cycled along,almost like it was helping me slipstream along 😆 [keeping pace about 6" in front of my wheel] ,However if the damn thing had slowed down i would have run straight up his back and probably killed the bugger instantly and of course been thrown off to my injury.
Aberdeenshire terrier,so hardly a big dog,no way it would survive an impact.