Kicking dogs doesn’t help

I love dogs and I usually stop my bike to say hello and have a little play with any friendly ones I meet while out riding.

But it’s a different matter entirely if a hapless dog owner is incapable of stopping his animal growling and aggressively chasing other countryside users.

In that situation I’m initially patient, but have resorted to booting a dog chasing me. And giving the owner a verbal dressing down.

Neither of those probably help the poor animal or ignorant owner, but that’s life I’m afraid.

Can you control your animals Mr Knob?

Don Simon – wrong I am afraid – if the dog puts me in fear the owner has committed an offense.

Not entirely true. For instance if you have a phobia, which is defined as an *irational* fear then the owner has committed no offence – assuming that the owner doesn’t know of the phobia. It’s back to the clapham ominbus for the definition of reasonable grounds for fear – that will be a judges take on the situation.

The failing in the arguements on both sides of this debate is the assumption that all humans are capable of rational thought. Nothing could be further from the truth – very few people have this ability.

Knowing how to behave around animals is part of trailcraft. If you don’t have it, you should stay off the trails.

haha – so when a dog comes running straight towards you at full pelt and jumps up at you, what kind of ‘trailcraft’ are you supposed to employ?

No TJ, I afraid that my undestanding of the law is a question of being reasonable, unfortunaly a fear of dogs would not fall into my definition of reasonable. Therefore a well behaved dog which is off the lead coming to say hello and play with you is not unreasonable and the owner has not committed any offence. In your eyes yes, but not if I introduce the idea of reasonable. If you tell me or demonstrate to me that you have a fear , which is a reasonable thing to do, and I don’t modify my behavior, then I’m being unreasonable. Easy no?

xherbivorex- not a god story, I hope there were no serious injuries. But in this case the responsibility is 100% with the owner and the law has been broken. Not sure I agree with your last comment though. 😀

Causing a nuisance is an offence tho – not just putting people in fear. Again back to the reasonableness test I guess. A dog that comes up to you even playfully when you don’t want that dog to do so is still causing an offense.

You often hear of people talking about dogs as being “part of the family”. If a person came up to you on the trail and started jumping up on you or biting you, you would knock them, or the owner, into the middle of next week. What is the difference here?

don simon, re my last comment; why not?
i’ve always taken action to avoid any injury to either myself, other trail users or indeed dogs just because i’m not a dick, however i still feel that it’s not my responsibility to do so. there’s a difference, you know..

Knowing how to behave around animals is part of trailcraft. If you don’t have it, you should stay off the trails.

haha – so when a dog comes running straight towards you at full pelt and jumps up at you, what kind of ‘trailcraft’ are you supposed to employ?

I imagine I would probably stop, as I said before, to diffuse the situation. Make sure the owner had seen me and give them a chance to control their dog. Here in Spain we don’t have enclosed fields, so the sheep and goats wander freely and are protected by large, agressive dogs. I have been chased by several. The best thing I have found to do is dismount and the dogs back off from the charge.
If there is enough distance between me and the dogs, I have been known to accelerate to get away from the threat.

I have never been bitten whilst riding.

Is that what you wanted to know?

grumm – Member

Knowing how to behave around animals is part of trailcraft. If you don’t have it, you should stay off the trails.

haha – so when a dog comes running straight towards you at full pelt and jumps up at you, what kind of ‘trailcraft’ are you supposed to employ?

fashion a canoe out of its bark?

mine’s the sombrio vapor, thanks…

Causing a nuisance is an offence tho – not just putting people in fear. Again back to the reasonableness test I guess. A dog that comes up to you even playfully when you don’t want that dog to do so is still causing an offense.

You haven’t answered my question about advising the dog owner of your fear

don simon, re my last comment; why not?

Live and let live. It is not the dog owner’s decision to let cyclists on the trail either. We all have to live with each other.

I think Smee has hit the nail squarely on the head.

It is not the dog owner’s decision to let cyclists on the trail either. We all have to live with each other.

no, but surely on a trail that’s known for having quite a lot of cycle traffic then the dog owner would be well advised to at least keep their dog under control… but i still stand by what i said, for the reasons i said so too.

Just think if it this way.

It is in your own interest to train and control your dog. If you dog attacks someone it is YOUR dog that will be put down. I’m sure you don’t want that because you love your dog (in more ways then one according to the tags!) A random cyclists / runner / walker, does not know the dog and most won’t have any issues reporting it if it is aggressive.

What ever way you look at it MTFU control your own dogs, a small scare heals quicker then the loss of a family pet, and I’m sure you will end up more hurt.

Can I have another rant about ninja dog walkers?

If you’re going to walk your dog, in the woods, at night, in total darkness, may I suggest you don’t dress entirely in black????

I do my best. I’ve got two headlights on my bars, one on my helmet, flashing red bands on my arms, two lights on my seatpost, plus reflective bits on my clothes.

Quite clearly, you can see me coming a mile off. However when you pop out from the undergrowth, it’s a bit of a surprise, and to be fair, it should be me having a go at you, instead of a tirade of abuse from yourself directed at me.

Presumably then dorsetKnob, if you get a kicking in the street at 11.30 pm by some drunks you’ll accept responsibility for not understanding the rules of da street man…..

FYI both I and my gf have been savaged by dogs (blood dripping), I’ll assume that as children we should have understood the fact and it was our fault.

Just out of interest if somebody says ‘Come here’ to you do, you run around aimlessly barking?

Top tip to dog owners, if your large red setter is running along barking right in the face of a small child on a trailer wheel bike (ie face level) and the small child is screaming and covered in tears you might just want to consider the possiblility that she doesn’t like dogs and she’s not enjoying the situation.

Don – I don’t really see your point.

I think this is perfectly clear.

A dog owner has an absolute duty to control their dog. A non dog owner has an absolute right not to be bothered by a dog in any way. That includes your “friendly dog” running up to to them.

The cyclists behaviour must be reasonable. I couldn’t find the bit in the Scottish access code but IIRC it talks about respecting others using the countryside. I think that warning the dog owner of your presence in enough time for them to get their dog under control is reasonable. Don’t go blatting past when you could scare a dog.

There are two things slightly different. Your dog must not make me afraid – but as you point out that would be subject to a reasonableness test – IE you should take the precautions that are reasonable and I doubt you have to allow for phobias. The dog must also not cause a nuisance.

However it is clear that when a dog does not heel or stop on command or is not on a lead when other people are around it is causing a nusance whether or not the person is afraid.

Please note I am not advocating all dogs on a lead at all times – just that all dogs be under control of its owner.

I have an absolute right not to be bothered by your dog in any way – and that includes the dog running up to me.

However it is clear that when a dog does not heel or stop on command or is not on a lead when other people are around it is causing a nusance whether or not the person is afraid.

Please note I am not advocating all dogs on a lead at all times – just that all dogs be under control of its owner.

+1

As the owner of a well trained dog that responds to commands each and every time without fail, any dog which needs to be put on a lead to be under control, shouldn’t be off in the first place.

Boardin Bob. Good.

One thing I really don’t understand is why some dog owners have dogs that they cannot or have not trained. It would seem to me that all dogs can be trained.

When I pass a dog and its owner if the owner gets the dog under control I always thank them. It all I ask is live and let live. Keep uyour dog away from me and I’ll keep away from your dog.

Let it run at me and the dog will be hurt. Let it bite me and I will have it put down and I will sue you for damages.

I f I see a dog and I want to meet it I will beckon it over, if I see a dog and don’t want to meet it I ignore it. However it annoys me when dog owner presume that because the know and love their dogs then everyone else should. I fdog owners are walking in an area where cyclists or other trail users go then they (By Law) should keep their dogs under control and not leave it up to the others to stop and wait nervously for them and their dogs to pass. Many children can grow to be scared of dogs for life because over eager dogs friendly or nasty can scare the life out of them, only for the pathetic dog owner to say don’t worry my dogs a big softie or friendly. Doh! to late harm done.

I know someone who’s dog was worring sheep the farmer warned the owners, dog worried sheep again so farmer shot the dog, the guy and his brother go around to the farm and beat the crap out of the farmer, ending hospital treatment then a suspended prison sentance for dog owner who beat up the farmer. Dog owners to have a sense that they have the moral high ground and are not responsible for there dogs behaviour. Would you let your children run up to strangers..I think not.

Trenchant viewpoints with no “reasonableness” shown on a forum, shocker.

I reckon this, and the Helmet wearing debate should carry a health warning

Some dog owners take some believing don’t they?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zrRQ8bn3-WE

I love these troll threads.

It is not the dog owner’s decision to let cyclists on the trail either. We all have to live with each other.

If it was the cyclists biting the dogs you might have a point.

OK, I’m a dog owner and MTB rider.
My dog is an English bull with a troubled past and can have a nervous disposition. He doesn’t tolerate other dogs and I consider it my absolute duty to control him and ensure that other dogs do not get hurt and as such I will put him on his lead. The problems come when some **** dog comes hareing up and ignores his “master” calling.
He is great with people (including kids) but he would be absolutely scared witless if a biker came speeding towards him at 30mph. I think we all know whet english bulls do when scared.
Again, it is absolutely my duty to ensure the safety of others from my dog but I think a polite warning to any (responsible) dog owner would solve some of the issues. I would not be put out by someone giving him a tap if he tried to bite them but would not respond well if I thought someone had ripped the arse out of it and tried to inflict injury.

no, but surely on a trail that’s known for having quite a lot of cycle traffic then the dog owner would be well advised to at least keep their dog under control… but i still stand by what i said, for the reasons i said so too.

The argument can be turned on it’s head there, cyclists who use trails which are also used by dog walkers….etc…

Let it run at me and the dog will be hurt.

That TJ, is not reasonable.

I think we are both singing from the same sheet, but from different points of view.

I love these troll threads.

Surely the ability to debate without resorting to insults isn’t trolling. Or is that beyond you? 😉

[/quote]Some dog owners take some believing don’t they?

Explain, please?

If it was the cyclists biting the dogs you might have a point.

See TJ’s contribution.

I was about to kick a farm dog yesterday who seemed keen to taste my leg. For some reason, I yelled at it to **** off instead. Luckily for both of us, this approach seemed to work. The highly percevetive hound must have realised that I am a black belt profanicator and backed off before I really insulted him where it hurts.

don, i was specifically talking about the Trans Pennine Trail in my post. a trail that is well known as being heavily used by cyclists. i’m sorry but i feel it is the absolute duty of dog owners to keep their dogs under control on this trail, and if that means keeping them on their lead then so be it.
we’re talking about a ‘trail’ that is around 10-15 feet wide at the point the incident i posted about took place, where there is no reason whatsoever that any incidents should occur. plenty of room for all of us, live and let live etc.
plus, based on my example, if you know your dog does not behave well with cyclists and you are on a trail that cyclists frequent, you’re remiss in your responsibilities if you let said dog roam about freely/uncontrolled.

“no, but surely on a trail that’s known for having quite a lot of cycle traffic then the dog owner would be well advised to at least keep their dog under control… but i still stand by what i said, for the reasons i said so too.”

The argument can be turned on it’s head there, cyclists who use trails which are also used by dog walkers….etc…
You still seem to be missing the difference between the two – that the cyclists have a right to ride without being molested – the dogs have no right to go round jumping up at people.

See TJ’s contribution.

Could you point out the post you’re referring to where he suggests approaching dogs minding their own business and attacking them?

The point is that the only reason there is ever a conflict at all is that the dogs are out of control – which is as TJ says breaking the law. If all dogs were on leads or otherwise under control then they wouldn’t ever come into conflict with cyclists, so the cyclists wouldn’t need to modify their behaviour at all.

(nested quotes don’t seem to work 🙁 )

Everyone needs to be reasonable. Don’t scare the dog by blatting past closely. Ring your bell ( you do have one don’t you or you are in the wrong)to alert the dog owner you are there giving time to control the dog. You have excised your duty of care if you do so.

Similarly any dog that must be under control – on a lead or heel / drop at command. If it is not under control in this way you are committing an offense – either causing a nuisance ( a very minor offence) or causing fear and alarm – an offense for which you can be jailed and the dog put down ( highly unlikely tho unless it actually bites)

All I want is for the dog owner to control their dog as the law says they must. I don’t want your dog to run at me and that is my right.

I have no way of knowing if the dog is friendly or not.

don, i was specifically talking about the Trans Pennine Trail in my post. a trail that is well known as being heavily used by cyclists.

Fair enough, if the trail is used by cyclists and it’s clear that cyclist use the trail then I, as a dog owner and intruder into the domain of cyclists must respect the cyclist.

I am looking more from my point of view, I live in a village of 400 people on the side of a mountain, I share the mountain with cows! It is an open and public area. No one has more or less rights than anyone else and everyone has to co-exist.
My dog is taken off the lead as soon as we get off the road, 10m from the house. If I see anyone else, ther dog goes back on her lead because I know people like TJ exist…. 😉
I don’t take the dog to cycle races.
I don’t take the dog to trail centres.
I do expect that cyclists give me the same respect as I give them…

Hmm. Some very good points, and well-thought out responses, here.

Hang on, sure this is STW???

No, hang on; There’s some stupid idiocy too! Phew!

Humans first, Dogs, second. Simple as that. if you don’t understand that, then you aren’t fit to be a dog owner.

As for a couple of ‘playful’ collies jumping up at people, well, they shouldn’t be, as TJ has pointed out. In fact, TJ has shown that the Law clearly states ‘dogs must be under control’. If your ‘playful’ collies are jumping up at people they don’t know, then they are clearly not under control.

Once again; I like dogs. I think they are lovely, wonderful animals, mostly. I can easily understand why people become so attached to them. But that’s what they are; animals. Not little humans, however cute and adorable they may be. Animals.

“no, but surely on a trail that’s known for having quite a lot of cycle traffic then the dog owner would be well advised to at least keep their dog under control… but i still stand by what i said, for the reasons i said so too.”

The argument can be turned on it’s head there, cyclists who use trails which are also used by dog walkers….etc…

You still seem to be missing the difference between the two – that the cyclists have a right to ride without being molested – the dogs have no right to go round jumping up at people.

See TJ’s contribution.

Could you point out the post you’re referring to where he suggests approaching dogs minding their own business and attacking them?

The point is that the only reason there is ever a conflict at all is that the dogs are out of control – which is as TJ says breaking the law. If all dogs were on leads or otherwise under control then they wouldn’t ever come into conflict with cyclists, so the cyclists wouldn’t need to modify their behaviour at all.

(nested quotes don’t seem to work [:(] )

I think you’ll find I actually agree with you. But I don’t accept that the cyclist has some god given authority over dog owners. A cyclist has a reponsibility to respect all other countryside users and dog owners also have the same responsibility. As I said in response to xherbivorex’s incedent, the owner of the dog was in the wrong. If the dog had been put on the lead after it had attacked the first time, then xherbivorex wouldn’t have had to kick it the second time. Problem….the dog owner.

Regarding TJ, he said that he has the right to attack dogs without justification.

TandemJeremy – Member

Dorset knob – wrong I am afraid. Legally and morally its the dog owners responsibility to control their dogs. That means stopping their dogs from bothering other folk. I have an absolute right to go about my daily business without being bothered by someones dog.

There is absolutly no need for the non dog owner to have to do anything – to modify their behaviour in any way. Its the dog owners responsibility. Dogs do not have rights, people do.

If you can’t understand that then you are not a fit person to own a dog. Typical selfish dog owner trying to weasel out of thier responsibilities.

Kicking dogs that attack you is perfectly acceptable morally and legally.

TandemJeremy – Member

A dog owner has an absolute duty to control their dog at all times. This means that they should either be on a lead or come to heel / stand still at command. If you don’t do this with your dogs you are committing an offense in law. If your dog runs up to me even to say hello / to play you are committing an offense and the dog could be put down.

TandemJeremy – Member

Boardin Bob. Good.

One thing I really don’t understand is why some dog owners have dogs that they cannot or have not trained. It would seem to me that all dogs can be trained.

When I pass a dog and its owner if the owner gets the dog under control I always thank them. It all I ask is live and let live. Keep uyour dog away from me and I’ll keep away from your dog.

Let it run at me and the dog will be hurt. Let it bite me and I will have it put down and I will sue you for damages.

So, in three posts TJ states that it is perfectly OK to do damage to a dog. TJ has, in my opinion, a special case in that he has a fear of dogs and reacts in a way that I think is unreasonable. He has taken a law and, in my opinion, applied it to his specific situation, which, in my opinion, is wrong.

How, in the name of the Sweet Little Baby Jesus, did ‘Pamela Anderson’ get to be one of this thread’s tags??? 😯

TJ has, in my opinion, a special case in that he has a fear of dogs and reacts in a way that I think is unreasonable

I think I can predict TJ won’t find it unreasonable 8)

Don simon reread that. I did not claim that dog owners need to account for phobic people. Infact I agreed with you that it might not be reasonable.

I only stated as is true that I am allowed in law to hurt a dog that runs at me. Several times on this thread I have said that if the dog is under control it is fine – keep it away from me thats fine – let it run at me and I have the right to do whatever I need to to protect myself.

Don’t put words in others mouths.

My position is clear – keep your dog under control as you have a legal responsibility to do so. Let an out of control dog run at me and I have the right to do whatever is needed to protect myself. At no point did I advocate hurting a dog that was not bothering me.

Boatman prediction wrong – I earlier posted
“There are two things slightly different. Your dog must not make me afraid – but as you point out that would be subject to a reasonableness test – IE you should take the precautions that are reasonable and I doubt you have to allow for phobias. The dog must also not cause a nuisance.

TandemJeremy – Member

Don simon reread that. I did not claim that dog owners need to account for phobic people. Infact I agreed with you that it might not be reasonable.

I only stated as is true that I am allowed in law to hurt a dog that runs at me. Several times on this thread I have said that if the dog is under control it is fine – keep it away from me thats fine – let it run at me and I have the right to do whatever I need to to protect myself.

Don’t put words in others mouths.

My position is clear – keep your dog under control as you have a legal responsibility to do so. Let an out of control dog run at me and I have the right to do whatever is needed to protect myself. At no point did I advocate hurting a dog that was not bothering me.

Sorry TJ, that was directed at aracer. But to a degree my point still stands. We have differing views as to what constitutes “out of control”. As I have already said people demonstrate fear when they see my dog even when she is on her lead and under control. Unfortunately, if you meet my dog and touch her, I would use the same law you wish to defend yourself to actually prosecute you. How do you measure fear?

A dog which is out of control, is out of control and needs to be controlled by the way you see fit.

But, as the OP said, and I have said, there are things you can do yourself to prevent this confrontation. If you feel, as a person, you have more rights than me, also a person and dog owner, then you are wrong. If a dog approaches you and you continue riding, I believe the dogs perceives this to be a threat and may attack. But, if you dismount and walk on by, I think you’ll find that the dog will change it’s attitude.

If you dismount and the dog continues to attack, then by all means defend yourself.

On a slightly sideways note, it’s coming up to lambing amd I can see there will probably be a few dogs shot for worrying ewes in lamb – theses are uncontrolled dogs intimidating another animal – farmers are entirely justified to shoot them on sight. In comparison, they get off rather lightly for scaring the crap out of a human.

Working dogs are the only dogs I have really seen under control, but still these have whims of fancy or can be flipped with a shoeing from a stranger.

And as for those extending leads…