Tandem, don’t forget that you have a very different idea of what “under control” is, due to your phobia, than the average person which means you generally react in the extreme in any of the dog threads.

That means ALL of the time

This is the problem that people don’t seem to get, so lets try a different approach.

Name 2 living things, that are 100% predictable, 100% of the time.

Yup richc – that the bit you don’t get. You have a legal obligation to keep your dog under control at all times.

Name two living things that are 100% predictable, 100% of the time

Oldest living tree 9,550 year old spruce tree.

Britains oldest tree, the 5,000 year old Fortingall Yew

I reckon that yew would have your face off in a minute

I notice from a prevoius post TJ that you state that you legally ride off road, and yet you can dimiss your “legal obligation” to obey the rules of the road when it comes to the red light debate. Whilst it may be different context, you chose to break the law because it suits you, however you cut it.

Can some-one hnd me a spoon?

Clong – yup – however I aknowledge I am breaking the law. Richc believes he does not have to keep his dog under control as do many other dogowners. Thats the difference.

also my RLJ inconveniences no one.

There’s not mushroom to debate, these fellows

Will have you off your face

So presumably, if richc (and other dog owners) admits to the legalty of letting his dog loose, but continues to do it thats okay then?

No because there is a victim, The dog is only out of control in relation to other people. RLJ as I do it is a victimless crime as I do not inconvenience anyone – infact it increases utility as I do it to avoid getting in the way of cars

So everytime a dog is let off the lead there is a victim? Come on, thats being a bit OTT, dont you think?

Got to log off in a mo so, time to go home and ride (Yay). Not trying to wind you up TJ, end of the day we all break laws every single day and we can all justify them somehow or another. We just apply a bit of reason to the situation, balance the risks v the outcome and generally do what we want based on our morals. I suspect the legallity of the action has little bearing on a majority of our minor transgressions.

No the other way about – the dog is only out of control if there is a victim – thats how it is defined. A dog running around an empty field is not out of control no matter what it is doing. A dog that jumps up on someone is. Your dog can do whatever it wants so long as it does not inconvenience or annoy anyone else (when livestock is around this alters)

dogs do not have to be on a lead – they have to be under control.

A dog running around an empty field is not out of control no matter what it is doing

Are you smoking crack TJ? If a dog is running around a field and won’t recall of course its out of control. Your argument is seems to be based around if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it doesn’t make any sound.

So just to clarify, you believe if a crime is victimless, then it shouldn’t be considered a crime? or should that be, if a crime committed by YOU, and YOU believe (not society) its victimless then its OK, for YOU (and no one else) to do it?

TJ in all seriousness, do you have mental health issues? As you seem to have a lot of symtoms for Dissocial personality disorder. Namely:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.
4. Persistent irritability.

You’ll never win this one Tandem until you learn that the world doesn’t revolve around you, and while the law is there to protect you, it comes with responsibilities which you apparenty don’t want to take.

richc – you really need to look up the legal stuff on this.

The dog is out on control (in a legal sense) in relation to other people and to livestock. If there is no other people or livestock around then it is not out of control in a legal sense. Its like assault. You cannot have an assault without a victim.

My argument is based around understand what the legal position is – not as you are doing sticking your fingers in your ears going “lalalalalala” and inventing all sorts of rubbish to try to justify your unwillingness to take responsibility for controlling your dog.

Can you have a victimless crime? Well thats a whole huge debate in its own right. there certainly is IMO a moral difference between doing something that breaks the law but has no effect on anyone else and doing something that does have an effect on anyone else.

however given how hard you seem to find understanding fairly simple concepts I really doubt a discussion of principles of jurisprudence and of moral considerations in relation to some fairly complex philosophy would be worthwhile.

The basic cornerstones of this sort of issue will have been well discussed by kant. Durkheim, Benthan and Mills I think.

with that I will stop teasing you – but please do have a we think about this and the kennel club has some useful bits for you to read about your responsibilities.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1052

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/

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. 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.
In using your access rights, you must keep your dog
under proper control. 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, your dog is a bit of
a daftie when it comes to understanding the
Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/C233791.pdf

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.

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 under control 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 avoid 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 under control at all times 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.

in such an absolute way as TJ makes out. I think it’s that daft absolutist attitude that iritates, personally.

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.

101% predictable

😆 😆 😆

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

102% predicable
and to be strictly correct 100% tedious

What is the precise definition of being under control? 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, so ensure that your dog is under control at all times.

Thats the kennel clubs interpretation from the link I gave above.

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, especially those who fear dogs.

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 not sure that your dog can do this the responsible 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.