I see lots of dogs out and about and many are trained properly – they don't chase things and return when called. I saw a chap the other day with 3 dogs – as I came past he called "down" and all three dropped on the spot.

Mine would "wait" under those circumstances easy enough, unless she shied away from the bike if you were going a bit quick, doesnt meen she'd not chase a bunny though and doesnt mean the chaps dogs you saw wouldnt either

There is also the worry about Racoons. Have people thought about them? Nasty critters.

those black and white things are badgers hora – 'ard as f00k 😳

Aa – Both statements are official guidance on what the law means – so whilst not the law itself it is the accepted and official interpretation of the law. Whilst you wouldn't be prosecuted for a breach wiothout a complaint, if someone made a complaint or raised a civil action you would have very little defence if you were not in accordance with the codes / advice. Same as the highway code.

No matter how you wish it your legal responsibilities are clear and you seem not to want to accept them.

Friend called me last week. He stumbled out of a club in SWest London and was attacked by a pack of rabid Wombles whilst crossing a park.

He promised me he wasnt drunk. High but definitely not drunk.

tj look at the link, find the mentions of dogs, read what it says about when a dog should be under close control then report back on your findings

Ski – in answer to your query, well ask my dog. I would say any speed that catches her unaware and startles. ie just like any other user of public areas, when you approach a dog you should make it aware of your presence

This Code has been approved by Ministers and the Scottish
Parliament. The detailed guidance in the Code should help to
ensure that few problems arise. However, if there is a
problem, the Code is expected to be a reference point for
determining whether a person has acted responsibly. For
example, where a dispute cannot be resolved and is referred
to the Sheriff for determination, the Sheriff will consider
whether the guidance in the Code has been disregarded by
any of the parties. In this sense, the Code may be said to have
evidential status.

Access rights extend to people with dogs, provided that the
dog(s) are “under proper control

A short lead is taken to be two metres and “under close control” means that the dog is able to respond to your commands and is kept close at heel.

TJ rather than cutting and pasting unrelated sections, go back and find out where a dog has to be under close control. You can just keep wriggling or you can admit your wrong I dont mind which.

oops

oops 2

Or you can admit you are wrong as you clearly are. I take your point – the code mentions "proper control" which is undefined and "close control" which is and is directly referred to for some places. Close control means the dog must be at heel.

However it still does not alter that many places define a dog under control as on a lead, at heel or coming to command – as in the earlier references I gave. If your dog is running around and does not come to command then it is not in control. Your dog is not allowed to scare or annoy anyone nor be a nuisence

Wriggle all you like – you know you are in the wrong. Open your mind and your eyes, train your dogs properly and be a responsible dog owner. Thats all I ask.

Dog should be under close control around livestock, should not shit on the carrots, not run onto football pitches or run around roads. It doesnt say it has to be under close control in all public spaces. Close control is how you define the dog should behave in all public spaces. So you are clearly wrong. The dog is allowed to scare you if you are scared of dogs and you have no reasonable grounds to be scared by what the dog is doing, so if its not running at you directly or jumping up or similar the fact that you dont like dogs doesnt make it illegal.

What does proper control mean? I dont think it means I have to call my dog from her lawful wandering just because your scared of her or dont want to give way to her on your bike.

Dog should be under close control around livestock, should not shit on the carrots, not run onto football pitches or run around roads. It doesnt say it has to be under close control in all public spaces. Close control is how you define the dog should behave in all public spaces. So you are clearly wrong. The dog is allowed to scare you if you are scared of dogs and you have no reasonable grounds to be scared by what the dog is doing, so if its not running at you directly or jumping up or similar the fact that you dont like dogs doesnt make it illegal.

What does proper control mean? I dont think it means I have to call my dog from her lawful wandering just because your scared of her or dont want to give way to her on your bike.

Way, way too many total idiots like you around with dogs. At best irritating, at worst downright dangerous.

Hows it dangerous if its not being dangerous?

I'm with AA on this. If you are scared of dogs then that is your issue to deal with. People have all kinds of phobias and have to deal with it.

If the dog is acting dangerously and barking and growling at you then that is the owners issues and the dogs needs controlling.

Badgers have a strict union code though. They are only allowed to attack at night.

FunkyDunc – Member

Ski – in answer to your query, well ask my dog

Next time I see you dog I will do FD 😉

btw, I have nothing agianst dogs or dog owners, most I pass are polite, keep there dogs under control and I always thank them when I pass if they do.

For me its the irresponsible owners that need the training, if all dog owners and cyclists for that matter, took responsibility for there actions, there would be no issues.

As for badgers, dont mess, hard as nails!

A Badger on a recent nightride

As I said earlier, I am not worried about my dog running up to cyclists, as I mainly walk him on footpaths, so I shouldn't see any bikes 😉

As for 'I am scared of dogs, so if one approaches me its out of control' argument, so if someone is scared of cars, does that mean that everyone driving past that person is driving without due care and attention? and should get 3-5 points?

If you are that scared of dogs, you really need to get some mental healthcare assistance as it ain't right.

What does proper control mean? I dont think it means I have to call my dog from her lawful wandering just because your scared of her or dont want to give way to her on your bike.

I have not said either of these things. It just suits your argument to make out I am behaving irrationally.

Clearly it is not lawful for the dog to wander freely without control, clearly I have the right not to be annoyed by your dog coming up to me friendly or not. Its not that I am scared of dogs – its I do not like nor trust them and I don't want your dog coming up to me and clearly in law that is my right. Your dog must not cause annoyance or be a nuisance. You keep using the definition of "dangerously out of control" as the only thing you need to do – that is not so. As well as this legal responsibility you also have a responsibility not to let your dog be an annoyance of nuisance.

As I have explained several times on this thread I give dog owners plenty of warning of my presence to allow them to get the dog under control

Dog owners on this thread keep on saying that I should learn how to deal with dogs. Thats simply not the way it works. I don't have to – you should have your dog under proper control and it should not cause annoyance or nuisance to anyone. This is not a criminal but a civil matter

From DEFRA

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

All I ask is that you behave within the law, keep your dog under control and stop it being a nuisance to others. Teh dog does not have the right to come up to me – conversely I have the right to go about my lawful business without being bothered by your dog in any way.

annoyance of nuisance.

How would you define that?

TJ, other people who have phobias get them under control with help, i am sure you can do the same. I have known Agrophobics and Arachnophobics who have both got their fears under control with the help of relaxation techniques. There are some good websites out there which offer advice.

In general, I'm in agreement with TJ, that dogs should be kept under control (disagree with the kicking the puppy though). But TJ, you do seem to expect everyone else to conform to your own definitions of "control, nuisance and annoyance."

Hainey – I don't know why you persist in this. It simply is neither the case nor relevant. I have the right not to be bothered by your dog – keep it under control and It won't bother me and you remain withing the law.

YOu want to label me as irrational so as to be able to dismiss my legitimate wish not to be bothered by your dog.

Taylor – that is the best definitions I can find as defined by case law and such people as DEFRA

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, 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.

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.