TJ, i think the problem stems deeper for you though. It sounds like you freak out as soon as you see a dog off leash even if that dog is not acting aggressively, barking, jumping up etc. This is your problem to deal with in the shared countryside and your phobia is the problem not the dog.
As already stated, if the dog is being agressive, being dangerous or jumping up at you then this is not acceptable and is the responsibility of the owner to keep that dog away from you.
There are a lot of people in the world who suffer with irrational fears such as the fear of cats - Ailurophobia. This doesn't mean though that they can insist on all cats been kept in doors or off the streets because they may encounter one.
I think everyone understands that you have issues, no one is critising the issue, but you need to learn that your irrational fear of dogs is not the dogs fault.
I liked the rule that (in Texas) that if you felt threatened by a dog whilst out in public you could report it and request it be put down.
It made dog owners very polite - unlike here where on numerous occasions a boot aimed at a nippy dog has then led to stand up arguments with the dog owner.
Hainey - stop inventing things about me. Its not a phobic fear.
I do not have an irrational fear of dogs. I have a dislike of dogs and I don't want them coming up to me. I don't have "issues" about this. I understand what phobias are.
I have an absolute right not to be bothered by your dog - and that includes the dog approaching me even in a friendly manner.
You are continuously inventing things and claiming I have said them in order to rubbish my arguments and to justify your stance to yourself.
You are mixing up too things - you must keep your dog under control as laid down in the dangerous dogs act and that is as you define. this is criminal law.
You also have a civic duty to keep your dog under control and this is civil law - under that your dog must not cause annoyance or nuisance to anyone.
TJ,
I'm not critising you, I'm trying to help you out here as you obviously have a problem with dogs, i have a dislike of next door neighbours kids but i don't go around kicking them when they approach me in their little police uniforms trying to arrest me. We live on a small island and share a lot of our public places and unfortunately if you are not able to admit to yourself that you have a problem then your issues will continue.
Have a think about it.
Hainey - don't patronise me.
I do not kick dogs when they approach me - another thing you have invented about me. I only kick then after they have bitten. Twice in my life IIRC
I do not have a problem here at all. I am not phobic or fearful or have problems here. I just don't want your dog to appracoach me as is my legal right.
Ok, you don't have a problem. Carry on as normal! 🙄
Hainey, I take it you are trolling? Like TJ I don't dislike dogs, in fact I like a well trained one with a non-numpty owner who has taken some time to discipline it. I just don't like strange dogs jumping on me/terrorising my young children/scratching my car etc, etc, even if it is having 'fun'.
This from the NFU website:
If your dog misbehaves you may be liable for a fine, and in some cases your dog may be destroyed, says Christen Mulingani from Roythorne and Co, an NFU Legal Panel firm.Dogs play an integral part in country life, whether as family pets or members of a working team. We are familiar with the financial and moral responsibilities that dog ownership entails, but what are the legal obligations?
Damage or injury caused by a dog is indirect. As such, liability is based on the law of negligence, that is, the failure to prevent damage that was reasonably foreseeable. In terms of injury to humans, dogs (other than specific breeds named in the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991) are categorised as a non-dangerous species. This means the starting point in law is that any injury they cause is unexpected and not foreseeable. Therefore, for an owner to be negligent, he must be aware that either the dog has specific behavioural characteristics or that particular circumstances exist that make it likely to behave aggressively.
The principles of negligence allow, however, that where a person has contributed to his own injury, by provoking the dog for example, then the negligence of the owner is reduced. Liability is also reduced where the victim, in full knowledge of the circumstances, voluntarily accepts the risk of injury. This does not extend to employees, where the risk of injury is incidental to their employment. A groom bitten by the yard's dog is not taken as having voluntarily assumed the risk.
These principles are well illustrated by considering a dog owner's obligations towards a stranger. If the dog is not characteristically aggressive and not kept specifically for protection of property or persons, then the owner is unlikely to be held liable for any injury caused to a stranger on the grounds that such damage could not reasonably have been foreseen.
Contrast this with injury caused by a guard dog, in which case the owner should be aware of the dog's heightened level of aggression towards any stranger. As the potential for injury can be foreseen, this owner is expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that he has sufficient control over his dog so its ability to cause damage is limited. He may be found liable for any injury caused, unless the person can reasonably expect a guard dog to be present on the land and the level of injury inflicted by the dog is proportionate to the circumstances. The owner should certainly warn people of the dog's presence, but this in itself will not release him from liability if the level of aggression is excessive. The Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 allows dogs that appear to be dangerous and not kept under proper control to be destroyed, and this extends to dogs on private property.
Appropriate control is the key to responsible dog ownership. In the countryside, it is reasonable to expect owners to be aware of the presence of livestock and of the heightened risk posed by their dog when not on their own land. There is specific legislation centred around the worrying of cattle and sheep. This is where a dog is at large (ie, not on a lead or under close control) in a field or enclosure and is running among livestock so as to alarm them. Actual pursuit need not be proved.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act of 1953 provides that the owner or person in charge of a dog that worries livestock is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000. The court may also order the dog to be destroyed and the owner disqualified from having a dog for a specified period. Owners should also be aware that where their dog trespasses onto another's land and poses a threat to his livestock, that person will have justification to kill, shoot or injure the dog. Interestingly, whereas one cannot shoot a dog for an attack on a human once that attack has ceased, it is a defence to shoot a dog that has been worrying livestock, has not left the vicinity, is not under the control of any person and where there is no practicable means of ascertaining to whom it belongs.
So what are our obligations as dog owners?
We should be aware of our dog's characteristics and any specific circumstances that could incite its natural aggression. If we have, or should have, reason to believe that our dog is a danger to others, we have the responsibility to prevent, as far as possible, such danger from occurring.Your dog should always be kept under appropriate control. You are expected to have regard for the type of damage your dog might inflict and its seriousness. A collar with your details inscribed is required in public places, and will prevent your dog being treated as a stray and seized, should it be caught trespassing.
Essentially, all the law requires is that we undertake to be responsible dog owners, and exercise awareness, foresight and common sense.
I've never kicked a dog either, although I have punched one in the face several times after it chased someone elses sheep into the Atlantic 😥
I don't think anyone can dispute that a dog jumping up, chasing, barking, growling, nipping, biting is unacceptable. The grey area is how close to you is deemed too close.
More often than not people I pass want to stroke my dog, this makes it difficult for her to know what she is meant to be doing, even though she goes to training most weeks. Do I say hello to these people or not?
I make a point of evaluating anybody coming towards us, any young children will have her brought to heel. Excited children and I will keep hold of her until they pass. Smiling cooing faces and I leave her be.
Dogs body language is so easy to read and I suppose I spend lot's of our walking time watching it. If she focuses on a jogger for example I whistle, she looks at me and fogets the jogger and gets back to sniffing.
As has been mentioned before it is deeply embarrassing if your dog misbehaves.
Bedmaker, not trolling no.
As i and a lot of dog owners have mentioned, aggressive, dangerous dogs who are out of control and jumping up at people are not acceptable and the owners of such dogs should be told so. I think everyone agrees on that.
But a lot of the problems also stem from peoples fear of dogs, for example there is a local National Trust area near to me where dogs are allowed off leash, its a great place for them, hills, rivers, mud etc. Some times at these places you get families who like TJ obviously don't like dogs, hate them in fact. There actions of screaming everytime they see a dog is inappropriate and is a cause of the problem.
Bagstard - thank you - you understand and you sound like a responsible owner with a well trained dog.
Some times at these places you get families who like TJ obviously don't like dogs, hate them in fact. There actions of screaming everytime they see a dog is inappropriate and is a cause of the problem.
No - its the dogs behaviour that causes the problem here - this is what you fail to see. The family has an absolute right not to be approached by your dog, you only have the right to let your dog run around free so long as it is not causing annoyance or nuisance.
Get your dogs properly trained and be a responsible dog owner
As i and a lot of dog owners have mentioned, [s]aggressive, dangerous[/s] dogs who are out of control and jumping up at people are not acceptable and the owners of such dogs should be told so. I think everyone agrees on that.
Hainey - corrected your post for you.
I have a dislike of dogs and I don't want them coming up to me.
TJ can you quantify this, how do you define coming up to you, heading towards you in general? and how close do you consider it unacceptable for a dog to be to you, 1 meter?, 10 meters?, 100 meters?
As if its over 5 meters, I think everyone is going to agree you need some professional help, under 5 meters and you are in a grey area (as the dog could be trying to get past you to see something interesting and you are in the way) < 1 meter and I feel you have a point.
Also from this statement
Get your dogs properly trained and be a responsible dog owner
I take it you have never owned a dog? they are not machines and hence are not 100% reliable or in control, as they are a living, breathing, thinking being with there own drives and urges. You can influence them, yes, but totally control them, no. and if you think you can you are a muppet. For example ask any responsible dog owner if they would leave their dog alone with a young child, regardless of how well trained it is.
1 m - its not so much the distance as the approach. Coming close to me as they pass - no issue - coming at me - thats the issue. I don't want it in my personal space.
Bump for the glitch
<1m seems reasonable to me, mine might run towards a cyclist/jogger/walker/horse rider, however it would only be to see if they have a dog.
The problems I have to deal with is strangers giving him treats (which makes him home in on strangers, incase they have food), or fluffing his head/ears then standing up quickly which makes him jump, which is scary as he can put his paws on most peoples shoulders. PITA really especially as I warn them and they still do it, as they are 'good with dogs'.
No - its the dogs behaviour that causes the problem here - this is what you fail to see. The family has an absolute right not to be approached by your dog, you only have the right to let your dog run around free so long as it is not causing annoyance or nuisance.
No, you are completly wrong, if my dog is running around minding its own business (not approaching a family) and they start freaking out and screaming because they see a dog, that is THEIR problem and they are startling my dog. Their irrational fear is the problem here. You wouldn't walk up to a horse and start screaming at it would you?
Just like the stupid brainless parents off the kids near me who openly say to their kids, don't pet the dog because it will bite you.
Congratulations you complete retards, you are now instilling in your kids your own irrational fear of dogs.
I'll give a couple of examples of the sort of thing that is a nuisance without the dog being dangerous.
Out for a ride and we stop for a picnic as we often do. Dog comes up ( Labrador) - no owner in sight a starts sniffing around us and our food. It got its muddy paws on the jacket I was sitting on and I had to act quickly to prevent it touching my food.
Now that is not a dangerous dog - not barking nor causing fear - but definitely causing annoyance and nuisance.
Out on the shared use path. Ring the bell - owner sees me and does not call the dog. I assume dog is OK around cycles. Slow to a reasonable pace and attempt to go past. Dog panics and darts about on the path. I have to stop hard to avoid hitting it. The owner knew I was there but didn't get the dog under control so the dog nearly caused me to crash. a less experienced rider might have either crashed or hit the dog - this was a little yappy thing that could have been killed by being run over.
Again - its the dog owners responsibility to contriol the dog - I had given them plenty of warning I was there and they chose not to.
+1 richc,
you can never have 100% trust in what your dog will do, I just do my best to try and anticipate situations and be ready to act quickly if need be. Like my dog I'm not infallable, but between us it is working.
What dog do you have by the way? It sounds rather large!
TJ,
1st example is of a dog trying to steal your food.
2nd example is of a dog acting dangerously almost making you injure yourself.
Agree that this is not acceptable.
Just like the stupid brainless parents off the kids near me who openly say to their kids, don't pet the dog because it will bite you.Congratulations you complete retards, you are now instilling in your kids your own irrational fear of dogs.
Actually hainey, I am quite happy that people do that, as it confuses my dog when he knows he isn't supposed to hassle strangers, but then they come and hassle/pet him. As he doesn't know who he is and isn't allowed to greet.
Also he is a dog, so I don't 100% trust him with small children, as they can (and have) poked him in the eyes, which can lead to him yelping loudly and if he can't get away mouthing (not biting, as there is only enough pressure to feel a gentle squeeze) their hands/arms to make them stop hurting him.
Hainey - you need to get real. People with attitudes like your that the dog has the right to run free and do what it wants cause a lot of friction between dog owners and non dog owners. Just 'cos you love your dog does not mean everyone else has to.
You really are a muppet of the highest order - blaming the victims all the time.
Hiney - neither is an example of a dog "dangerously out of control" as defined in teh dangerous dogs act.
So now you admit that actually your duty to keep your dog under control means preventing it causing annoyance or nuisance.
This is like groundhog day! We had EXACTLY the same debate last year, with the pretty much the same people involved saying the same things.
TJ has no dog problem that i can make out, but he has a reasonable expectation that dogs should be properly controlled in public places and it is the dog owners responsibility to ensure their dog is not causing a nuisance. The only thing i would say is that TJ is expressing this quite agressively (probably out of frustration) and some of the dog faction just dont seem to get it.
I really dont see what more there is to actually debate here. Dog owners seem to be taking this as some sort of personal criticism that they are not controlling their dog properly, when if they are doing as suggested by the various codes etc quoted, they have nothing to be annoyed about. You cant really factor for people with phobias, but a general consideration of others is appropriate. Its your dog, you should know how they behave, react and interact with other people, so you should control the dog accordingly. If you dont know how your dog will behave or react, then it should be on a lead.
This debate is not about cycling, but having a reasonable consideration for those around you.
TJ,
You're the one with the issues. I suggest you go and see someone about them.
So i go to a local area where dogs are specifically allowed off leash and my dog is running around in a field playing fetch and a family who have an irrational fear of dogs who are, well, about 10metres away from us start screaming at him. Get real, they have the problem, not my dog.
Thank you bigyinn. Well put.
richc, i disagree, having my dog on a lead and having him sit whilst children come up to pet him under my supervision is the IDEAL manner in which children can learn to interact with pets.
How else do they learn?
Idiotic parents who tell there kids that all dogs are dangerous and will eventually bite them is completly wrong.
Its your dog, you should know how they behave, react and interact with other people, so you should control the dog accordingly. If you dont know how your dog will behave or react, then it should be on a lead.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.
So now you admit that actually your duty to keep your dog under control means preventing it causing annoyance or nuisance.
Its your definition of annoyance or nuisance which is the issue TJ.
I fear that if you had things your way all dogs would be on a lead at all times or worse still they would never be allowed to leave their home.
TJ in your last post the dogs owners are clearly irresponsible but I still fail to see how the law was broken. If you feel the law was broken why didnt you call the police? I've read that cut and paste job from defra, I've read the scottish access code thingy and I just dont see where you think its written in law. Again has anyone ever been prosecuted because the dog annoyed them but didnt show any agression? I agree from a socially moral perspective if you ask for the dog to be taken away it should be, no doubt, no questions. I just dont see how you think you'd have any standing to take legal action if my dog didnt cause reasonable grounds for you to feel scared.
As if its over 5 meters, I think everyone is going to agree you need some professional help, under 5 meters and you are in a grey area (as the dog could be trying to get past you to see something interesting and you are in the way) < 1 meter and I feel you have a point.
This might be fine for walking pace but if I'm doing 15mph ish in a cyclelane & a dog starts running straight at me at full speed then the distance at which it is causing a nuisance is much greater as I'm having to assume its going to cause me to serve.
TJ is right here, dog owners are the ones who need to take the action to control thier dogs not everyone else pussy foot around to suit them.
What dog do you have by the way? It sounds rather large!
I have a Chesapeake Bay (which is essentially a heavier set working Lab) crossed with a Spinone, so he has the height of a Spinone and the bulk and intelligence of the Chesapeak, however he is very gentle, if a little bullheaded and hyper.
He's weighs around 40kg, and around 70cm(ish) to his withers (still growing though! as he is only 15 months old), which means that he can put his head onto a standard dining room table, no problem. Which can be embarrassing in Pub's when people give him treats (I ask them not to, but people still do) and then he helps himself to their food, if they aren't careful.
Obligatory dog picture 😉
[img] 
[/img]
Out for a ride and we stop for a picnic as we often do. Dog comes up ( Labrador)
I don't know about anyone else, but I see a picnic, I take my dog elsewhere as I have no doubt that he will take the punishment in the face of sausages/cheese/biscuits/apples etc, the crappy dry biscuits/gravy bones in my pockets can't compete.
TJ - your second example bothers me...
Out on the shared use path. Ring the bell - owner sees me and does not call the dog. I assume dog is OK around cycles. Slow to a reasonable pace and attempt to go past. Dog panics and darts about on the path. I have to stop hard to avoid hitting it. The owner knew I was there but didn't get the dog under control so the dog nearly caused me to crash. a less experienced rider might have either crashed or hit the dog - this was a little yappy thing that could have been killed by being run over.
Because it is a very frustrating circumsatnce that I come across every day that I commute by bike. Dogs in a Cardiff park where the main path is also Cardiff's main cycle artery. Most dog owners (and walkers) take the view that the council's signs for cyclists to give way applies carte blanche. It is a daily occurence for walkers to walk 2,3,4 or more abreast along the trail, eyeball you and still not move - becasue cyclists have to give way, right? Add a dog / dogs into the mix, and as you say, it's cover the brakes and expect an emergency stop at any moment.
As a rider I am very unsure about where liability would sit. My view in these sort of shared environments is that the dog should be on a lead to be in control - too much traffic, and it is a designated cycle commute trail. But as a cyclist I am under an obligation to give way (to the person, if not the dog). I had some very aggressive threatening behaviour aimed at me when I have narrowly avoided an off-lead Jack Russell.
The law may make no distinction, but for practical purposes this is a very different environment to, say, foresty. I ride and dog walk in a local FC forest - good DH and XC trails, and the dog can be off the lead. As a rider and a walker I expect to come across dogs that are not on a lead - and I expect both riders and dog owners to anticipate the same.
richc - he's ace!!!!!!!
This is actually becoming quite an amusing thread to keep tabs on - the only worrying aspect is that there are people able to quote DEFRA codes verbatim. I'm sure it's been done before, but this seemed appropriate the the present time...
[img] 
[/img]
I've followed this with interest over the past few days, and there's too much to read all over again.
TJ, I'll accept your definition of being under cotrol, but as far as I can see you haven't defined "nuisance or annoyance." You do though give me the impression that it would mean whatever you want it to mean. Having said that, this is what you're up against (and indeed what I/ responsible owners are up against).
I was walking along a shared use path with my GSD, along with another owner and her GSD. Some other people wanted to pass so I made my dog lay down until they were past.
When it was clear, I gave the signal that she could break and do what she wanted , at which point the other owner asked me:
"Do you make her lay down every time someone comes past?"
"Yes" I replied.
"Why do you do that?" she asked.
Now it's not that her dog was in any way a danger, it was just sniffing about, but I don't want to give anyone any excuse to complain about GSD's as they do unfortunately have a bit of a reputation (undeservedly so imo).
It strikes me that on that particular occasion, you wouldn't have been happy with her dog sniffing about - because you don't trust dogs. If it's all dogs that you don't trust, then it would seem that you do have some sort of issue despite what you claim.
richc, i disagree, having my dog on a lead and having him sit whilst children come up to pet him under my supervision is the IDEAL manner in which children can learn to interact with pets.
I guess ultimately, I don't care about how other people bring up their children, my dog is my responsibility and I don't want to confuse him. If people are convinced he is a rabid killer in a fur coat, and give him a wide berth, great, one less person I have to watch when taking him for a walk. Ultimately in my experience if you act weird, the dog thinks you are weird and gives you a wide berth anyway.
I have been asked if its OK for children to pet him, and is he safe? and I always reply, he is very gentle and big, but ultimately a dog so he isn't 100% reliable, and if they still want to pet him, I make him lie down, head on the floor, on a very short lead.
This might be fine for walking pace but if I'm doing 15mph ish in a cyclelane & a dog starts running straight at me at full speed then the distance at which it is causing a nuisance is much greater as I'm having to assume its going to cause me to serve.
Thing is a distance over 5-10 meters, the dog could be going anywhere, a ten meter radius exclusion zone move at 15 miles an hour is a bloody big area you are saying the dog isn't allowed to go into.
Just because a dog is running towards you, doesn't mean that its running at you!
People have to learn to live together, no single group has the overriding *right* to have their every whim granted, and it seems that some cyclists have a victim crisis going on in their head, which means that they think that the world and law should revolve around them.
Also, another thing to think about, if you polled most users of the outdoors asking which one group of people do they consider to the be biggest PITA in the countryside, which group do you think would be highlighted?
Im going over here >>> to talk to the wall
Nice pooch richc, lets lay this thread to rest and have a large dog pics one instead. I will have to sort my charger out before I can post the grey pig though.
Hey ho.
finally got the point over I think
A couple of wee issues to try to clear up
AA - the law in that case with the two incidents I mention is civil law not criminal. I could sue but its the sort of thing where you win the case and get 1p in damages as there is no damage!
Taylor - ita all dogs I don't know I distrust. I have no problem with dogs that I have got to know 'cos they belong to friends
As regards the undefined "out of control" ( rather than the defined "dangerously out of control) and annoyance and nuisance the definition would be I believe subject to the usual "reasonableness" test in law - which has various definitions but I like "as understood by the man on the clapham omnibus" - in other words as a normal reasonable person would see it - ultimatly as decided by a jury.
Rikk01 - in the example you quote again it comes down to being in control for both the dog and the cycle and what is reasonable. I doubt it reasonable for a well trained dog to be on a lead but it must be under control. It would also be reasonable for a cyclist to slow and take care.
Judas Priest! Is this thread still running!?!!!
Last touch!
As regards the undefined "out of control" ( rather than the defined "dangerously out of control) and annoyance and nuisance the definition would be I believe subject to the usual "reasonableness" test in law - which has various definitions but I like "as understood by the man on the clapham omnibus" - in other words as a normal reasonable person would see it - ultimatly as decided by a jury.
You want to be able to take owners to court and let a jury decide whether or not a dog is causing annoyance or nuisance?