he first few weeks with a new puppy should be spent going to the train station, busy streets, meeting livestock, other dogs, kids, walkers, cyclists etc.
Totally agree - when we got our newest pup 4 months ago, I was horrified to meet other puppy owners in various contexts who seemed to know sod all about the basics of dog behaviour and were at a loss as to how to socialise and train their dog. We made a list of places and people she needed to meet and be comfortable around.
I'm a big fan of dogs, but I get really pissed of with irresponsible owners who don't socialise and train their dogs, don't clean up after them and fail to take responsibility for their actions. That said, i meet loads of other dog owners every day out walking their dogs and the vast majority of them are, as far as I can see, committed to owning well-mannered dogs. There are, sadly, also one or two who clearly aren't.
My dog was socialized with everything I could think of between the ages of 8 and 20 weeks, I missed hovercrafts though.. oops.
I stroke EVERY dog I meet. Every. I even picked up a lads Staff once (without realising it). Even the staff cross that was growling softly towards me on a Calderdale ride the other week with Pook.
Yes I have been bitten and wierdly by Westies and my own fault. The Westie on the farmers wall that was warning me off- bit my hand so I rubbed said hand and stuck it out again (bit again!). Bugger must have thought I was mad 🙄
If you recoil, rear up etc etc- dogs can sense fear (as noted above)- this can also scare them/make them react.
Chill or go for them like I do 😀
+1 ditch_jockey, it amazes me that some dog owners know so little about them and their needs.
[i]so according to you he is stupid for taking his kid where he wants because irresponsible dog owners do not have their dogs under control? Blaming the victim again. [/i]
Ah missed this. No, not at all. You go to an open place where people walk their dogs, you take your kid. You expect all the dog owners to see you and go "Oo better get fido on the lead, there's a man with a child here"??
I say again, well duh!
Its akin to me taking my kid to a animal petting farm if he's scared of sheep.
Dez - that would be the dog owners obeying the law. the dog should be under control and not bothering anyone. clearly they were not undercontrol as they were bothering the little girl
If they are not under control off the lead then tehy should be on one.
TJ,
I think the clue was in:
Admittedly not one was acting in an aggressive manner
Hainey - that does not matter - they caused a nuisance and fear and alarm by "bounding up to her"
that is clearly against the law. this is one of the key things that dog owners fail to understand - even if the dog is friendly it should not be running up to strangers uninvited.
If your dog is under control then it does not do this.
I don't like kids, but when i go to the park i have little kids walking up to me, usually with snot dripping from their noses and ice creams ready to smear all over me or maybe a cricket bat in their hand thinking its funny to hit my legs with, but i don't **** kick them if they come too near to me. Perhaps their parents should have them on a lead???
Crikey TJ, in your world all cats, dogs, birds, kids, pretty much anything that moved that wasn't you would have a lead on it.
Hainey - I don't ask that all dogs be put on a lead. I ask that the law is obeyed and that they are kept under control. This means not causing annoyance fear or alarm to anyone.
the law is clear - please obey it. The law is as it is for situations like that little girl.
I don't kick them if they come too close as said amny times. Only if they have bitten me.
Stop being so precious about your mutts and keep the damn things under control
Lookmanohands - the law is clear as has been discussed ad infinitum on this thread.
Have a read and try to learn.
even if the dog is friendly it should not be running up to strangers uninvited.
Im with TJ on this, what if it was reversed and I person started running round, jumping up and down excitedly at strangers, pissing on every lamp post they came across, jestering and shouting.
The white van would soon be round 😉
i shall TJ, thank you. And them i shall sit down with my 2 dogs and explain the law to them as well.
The following should be reading the context of my earlier comments agreeing with the need for dog owners to control,and take responsibility for, their dogs. The problem with the law is that it doesn't discriminate between rational and irrational "fear and alarm". It may not seem important in the context of dogs, but it seems to me to be avoiding tackling the issue of whether we should accommodate people's phobias; dogs now, then what - cyclists, immigrants, black people?
Relating it to bikes, we may feel completely in control of our bikes, but some old dear sees us coming and freaks because [i]"he came hurtling towards me officer, clearly out of control and I thought he was going to crash into me"[/i].
TJ, you make David Cameron look like Lady GaGa.
it seems to me to be avoiding tackling the issue of whether we should accommodate people's phobias; dogs now, then what - cyclists, immigrants, black people?
I have an irrational phobia of urban folks coming out to the countryside to play with their shiny toys and knowing **** all about countryside stuff....
I'm also with TJ on this - I don't want your dog running up to me, it should be under control as the law states.
hainey - MemberTJ, you make David Cameron look like Lady GaGa.
😯
Insult or compliment? I do have a line in natty hats I must confess
Insult or compliment?
Lol, if you can't figure it out then there is no hope for you! 😉
I guess the practical solution for Hobo is to call the police before he leaves for the park and get them to ensure the law is obeyed so his kid can cycle round.
As Soul-2-Soul once said, back to reality.
As a dog owner I would be distraught if my dog bit some one/caused them to swerve and fall of their bike etc.
However if I see a cyclist/runner/people/horse when she is off the lead I always call her over and get hold of her because I know she will want to go up and say hello to them (which some people may confuse for aggression) If however I cyclist comes flying along and startles her then I'm sorry you would deserve to fall off, and I would sue you if you hurt her. (vet bills etc)
As to dogs that run along side and nip. If a dog did that to me I would confront the owner. If they are half decent they would apologise, and then I would expect them to put the dog on a lead when people around. I would also report it to the Police, and tell them thats what I was doing. Hopefully then the Police can combine info, and if a particular dog becomes a repeat offender then some thing should be done about it.
Bottom line is that dogs should be under control in public places.
It is the owner's responsibility to ensure that they are under control - on a lead, or come to heel when called.
Owners should also exercise awareness of how their dogs' behaviour may be interpreted by people who have not made the time in their lives to research the niceties of canine behaviour. It is not other people's responsibility to do so. Though it mightn't be a bad idea. Children in particular may struggle to recall how adopting a calm and authoratative demeanour may help them when someone's dog is bounding around them at head height, "just playing". In keeping their dogs under control owners should anticipate problems and bring their dogs under control before they cause nuisance, distress or danger to others.
Animal cruelty issues aside, people are under no obligation to show any consideration for others people's dogs. Though under some circumstances it may be sensible to do so. Nevertheless, if a dog bites it's down to the owner.
you'd be suprised how many dogs are scared of crutches, my own dog wouldnt come near me for the first day I was using mine at Xmas. A couple of other dogs I see regularly in the park growled at me too.
TJ the law states "reasonable" grounds for being in fear of harm from the dog. My dog could run circles around you annoying you but it wouldnt be dangerously out of control, just stupid.
Animal cruelty issues aside, people are under no obligation to show any consideration for others people's dogs
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Under the legislative framework that I use in my work, all domesticated animals are regarded as property. Damage to property is a criminal act.
If however I cyclist comes flying along and startles her then I'm sorry you would deserve to fall off, and I would sue you if you hurt her. (vet bills etc)
So what speed do you consider is not "flying" speed?
I would love to know just in case 😉
So what speed do you consider is not "flying" speed?I would love to know just in case
The same as for any other circumstance that you might meet - a speed at which you can stop under control. Anything else and you are not in control of the bike...
.... and for all the legalistic macho posturing on this thread about dogs being under control, I am sure that there are a lot of riders who are not in control of their bikes when they are riding on public trails - and therefore have an obligation to be able to give way. 👿
I stand corrected - "Animal cruelty and property issues aside...". Thanks rkk01
My point is that a chastising kick would not be an unreasonable response to being bitten.
And that [u]a dogs's behaviour is the responsibility of the owner[/u].
had an experience with our beardie. was getting him out of car and on lead when 2 dogs came bounding round the corner and ended up attacking him. After dragging them off him, and putting him back in car, the owner came round corner and demanded to know why I was manhandling her dogs. After a quick briefing , she started to blame us because we had our dog on a lead ???? and apparently this would of been a reason for her dog to attack. After pointing out to her this was stupid and that her dogs needed to be kept under better control, she told us that her dogs were perfectly under control. With that one of them ran off straight in to the path of a car ...luckily the driver managed to brake hard and it just glanced off it. She then tried to blame us for that too. Stupid c**t (yes I did call her that)
Some people are just so unbelievably ignorant
Somehow, this has reminded me of the old Guardian 'Points of view' TV advert...
[url=
clicky[/url]
See Singletrack in an issue or two for a feature on trail dogs...
I don't have a dog, but I like them and always approach them without fear for a pat. So far I've never been savaged...
anagallis_arvensis - MemberTJ the law states "reasonable" grounds for being in fear of harm from the dog. My dog could run circles around you annoying you but it wouldnt be dangerously out of control, just stupid.
Wrong
That is under the dangerous dogs act for a dog "dangerously out of control". As pointed out to you several times by me and others, other bits of law, case law and guidance from the kennel club and so on all make it clear that for a dog to be under control it must be on a lead or at heel or coming immediately to heel when called.
Two different things
"dog dangerously out of control" in which case the dog can be put down and "dog not in control" which is a lower level offence. The dog must not cause a nuisance or annoyance.
Sorry - you simply are wrong and your darling mutts should be under control - on a lead, at heel or immediately coming to heel ( or dropping on the spot) when called - or well trained so they ignore other people / bicycles.
So its simple - train your dogs prperly so they are not a nuisence or put them on a lead
TJ, are you making up your own laws here?
And we haven't even covered the subject of dogs shitting everywhere yet.
Nope hainey Have a read thru mine and druidhs posts on this thread. Everything is explained in simple words for the hard of thinking
I've read the posts but there isn't actually any laws quoted really is there? Just your interpretation?
TJ, are you making up your own laws here?
Actually, TJ's posts have been very enlightening - I interpret them thus...
...should TJ* be riding down a footpath across my land, it would be entirely appropriate for my large and defensive farm dog to be large and defensive towards him 😉
* aware that this would require a southwards border transgression....
Thats because its all derived from case law and codes of conduct. SLike the highway code - much of it is advisory but if you are not driving in accordance with the advise and come unstuck then you have damaged your defense.
You may not want to believe it but you have a clear legal obligation to keep your dog under control and that is usually defined as I state above.
Some legal stuff
[url= http://www.doglaw.co.uk/legal.php ]here[/url]
and some more [url= http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/Environment/AnimalWelfare/ResponsiblePetOwnership/ResponsibleDogOwnership/DogsLaw.htm ]here[/url]
Your legal responsibilities as a dog owner are:
•do not allow your dog to stray
•ensure your dog wears a collar with an identity tag bearing your name and address while in a public place
•keep your dog on a lead on all roads
•ensure your dog does not cause a nuisance to your neighbours by barking
•keep your dog under control at all times
•pick up your dog's faeces and dispose of it in the bin
•be aware of local byelaws within the parks - do not walk your dog in the "no dog areas" of the park.
that enough for you hainey
So its not law? And you are just cherry picking various bits of data from various websites. Ok, as long as we are straight.
Don't get me wrong, i completly agree that if a dog is being aggressive towards someone and does not come when called then that is clearly wrong, however there are a lot of people out there who have a sh*t fit when a dog comes within 10metres of them and are part of the problem. You sound like you are one of those people and maybe some councilling would help your phobia?
Bikepawl,
Not disagreeing with any of that, even if it is not UK law. I think that is just specific to Lambeth under the DCO agreements.
hainey - Member
So its not law? And you are just cherry picking various bits of data from various websites. Ok, as long as we are straight.
did you read any of the stuff from Lambeth council website
this looks to be like a law
Dogs Act 1871
The Dogs Act 1871 allows anyone to make a complaint to a magistrate's court that a dog is dangerous, or to report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that a dog is dangerous and not under proper control, it can order the dog to be controlled or destroyed. It is an offence for any dog not to be kept under control, not kept on a lead or muzzled. This applies where the incident happened, including on private land, and it protects trades people such as postal workers, who are regularly at risk from dogs.
The act is not commonly known, so if you want to make a complaint using the legislation it may help to mention the act to police officers.
Looks like there is a lot more but it is covered by local councils
Your right in one respect I'm not happy around dogs something to do with the lack of training from some owners so the dog appears to be an irrational creature, that and the arrogance of some owners when a polite request is made of them to keep their dogs under control. Oh and I'm allergic to them, it brings me out in anaphalatic shock.
Your right in one respect I'm not happy around dogs something to do with the lack of training from some owners so the dog appears to be an irrational creature, that and the arrogance of some owners when a polite request is made of them to keep their dogs under control. Oh and I'm allergic to them, it brings me out in anaphalatic shock.
Ok, so for you, its a big issue because of your own personal issues.
There is a clear distinction between a dangerous dog and a friendly dog and to go around assuming that all dogs are dangerous is just wrong and part of the problem.
You may not want to believe it but you have a clear legal obligation to keep your dog under control
I don't believe that anyone disputes the legal obligation for dog owners to keep their animals under control - the debate seems to be around what consitutes being "under control".
The undisputable state of "under control" is on a lead, and this is often what judges will consider. However, whilst that might be entirely appropriate in an urban park, circumstances on farmland, woodland, moor or mountain would be different, in practice, if not under the law.
It seems to me that some of the posters on here have a very strong liking for a self serving definition of what consitutes "under control".
I once went out with a girl who loved biting. She also wanted to be punched. Wierd girl. It didn't last as I didnt like the thought of entering a boxing ring at carnal-moment time 🙄
rkk01
It seems to me fairly clear that under control is on a lead OR at heel - or coming to heel/ stopping on command. A well trained dog does this
I don't want them on a lead at all times - but I do want that when I ring my bell the owner calls the dog and the dog responds to the call. I don't want the dog running up to me - friendly or not. I don't want it "playing" and chasing the bike - I want it to leave me alone as I leave it alone.
Yes it is a big issue, dogs coming running up to me sending dog hair down my throat, I like to keep breathing. So they should keep their dog away from me when I politely request them to. The usual reply is he's just being friendly, I don't care whether he's being friendly or trying to sell me a timeshare, I don't want them near me.