Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So is the ice cream van still near the end of the cycle track? If so, then yeah dogs technically don't need to be on leads there. Although to be honest, that's probably the busiest area of the park in terms of traffic, so if I was the owner I think I would keep my dog on the lead around there.


When I used to walk my dog in that park I just stuck to the grassy verge around one side of the park (the bit that eventually backs on to the lordship lane estate). If near a road I'd get the dog back on the lead, because even if it had the right not to be, that would count for nothing if it ended up under a car.

spider69 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Yeah but there are cyclists, and they're far

> > worse!

>

>

> Wait for it to come back......



I'm hopeful that even the most militant pro or anti cyclist would realise that was a joke...


But given recent threads, that may be naive.

Well it looks like every word I have written has been dissected and analysed. Just to clarify -

The dog came charging at me and leapt at me and there was physical contact hence I felt I was being attacked.

Now, from what I have known all my life, the first natural reaction when a human being or animal attacks you is to scream. That's usually first way to defend yourself as well. Well, that's my understanding. Is that really called hysteria or sensationalism now? I'm surprised!


With regards the signs, I have always seen the signs right at the entrance of the park, hence my understanding has been that dogs should always be kept on a short lead. However, I have seen dogs off lead in the off road exercise area, which I have no problem with simply because I do not walk there. Others might have an issue with that.


I cannot clarify any further I think. I will post what the council thinks when they reply.

SueOrr0103,


Given that you say the dog leapt at you and there was contact then I can understand your fear and your anger. I very much doubt that the dog was behaving agressively, it sounds as though it was rambunctious. If the owner had apologised there and then and immediately put her dog on a lead, something most of us here would have done, I don't suppose you would have felt the need to complain.


It stands to reason that if you don't much like dogs and would prefer them to be at a distance from you that you are probably not adept at reading their body language and knowing what is aggressive and what is playful, though very inappropriate. I understand that you felt attacked but hope you might agree that in reality the dog was badly behaved and the owner was inappropriate in her reaction to your fear.


Having reread your first post I do see that you state that you had a terrible walk because you feared all the time that a dog would come charging at you. Prior to this you state that usually you don't mind dogs offlead, because they don't come charging at you. It is the case that dogs are allowed to be off the lead in certain sections of the park and although I think it is unlikely that you will be jumped on again that will not assuage your fear around dogs that are not on a lead. I think this is a dilemma for you and I don't think there is an easy solution.


That aside, I hope you appreciate that the majority of dog owners are considerate of others but that sometimes dogs and owners can fail to be as well behaved as they should be.


There are those in the council who would like to see all dogs on leads all the time and that would not only remove the pleasure of dog ownership but also impact on the welfare of the dogs. In general dogs are good for people and for children and bring many positives to our lives. Only today two toddlers stopped with their parents and asked if they could stroke my dog, which of course I let them do. The delight on the faces of those children was plain to see.

Appreciate that first mate and thanks for putting it well. As I mentioned in my very first post, I do know that not all dog owners are unreasonable/ rude.


But I get very annoyed when I'm told to be off parks, or that I'm insane or that I have some kind of a strange phobia/ disorder because I don't like dogs jumping on me. I can understand that dog owners find their dogs leaping/ jumping/ charging on to others very cute. But they should understand that some people in this world are actually scared of that kind of behaviour. And we have as much right over access to parks and public spaces as those. So while I don't go running after and jumping on people's dogs in parks I expect the same treatment.

I think the point people are making about phobias is that there are good and proven methods to desensitive people against fears - sometimes (pace also the discussion about aircraft noise) it is more effective and addressable to change yourself rather than change the world.

Sue, As I said before I would like to see compulsory training -owners first, dogs second :)- for those that let their dogs behave inappropriately. I sincerely hope though that you will give us dog owners another chance and not join the ranks of those that would like to see all dogs on leads all the time in any public place. I rather hope that the omwr of the dog who was rude to you might have had a chance to think things through too. You never know she might be a reader here.


Just one more point, jumping up is a normal dog behaviour, they want to get close to your face to greet you. Each and every dog owner has to train their dog not to do this. Teenage dogs, like teenage humans, are often the worst offenders and the effects of hormone surges and general joie de vivre can cause a formerly well behaved pup to suddenly go through a kevin stage. I am not for one minute defending this dog's behaviour but you might feel less nervous in future if you see the dog for what it probably is, an OTT, ill-mannered teenager. Believe it or not, it was most likely a really clumsy way of trying to greet you and get you to notice him/her, it almost certainly would not have wanted to harm you. A dog that wanted to harm you would not have stopped. Sometimes standing still, drawing yourself up to your full height, with a very stern face, and putting your hand out in a police-style stop signal at the dog, is enough to stop a dog in its tracks.


Finally, dogs that randomly attack people out of the blue in a public place are really rare, by that I mean leaving the safety of their owner and actively going after someone. People mostly get attacked by dogs in public places when they try to intervene in a dog fight and that is because the dogs are in such a high state of arousal that they are not thinking about what they are doing. If dogs are fearful of people to the point they are highly aggressive it would have to be a very odd owner that just let them off in the park to run around- though idiots exist for sure. A dog that is highly fearful of people is more likely to avoid rather than charge you. Most dog on human attacks happen in the home or around the territory of the home, or where a highly fearful dog is appraoched by a human without being able to escape. I only say this to put your mind at rest.


Anyway, I hope that helps.

There will always be the odd dog running wild, is there something you could carry to make you feel safer? I regularly go to parks, and occasionally get a friendly dog come up to me. I used to be a bit nervous of dogs, kept forcing myself to stroke and chat to owners, it helped.


good luck.

Sue

Dont let anyone tell you that you have a phobia. A fear of unknown dogs is entirely rational, and dogs should obviously be muzzled in public areas. Many on this thread completely miss the point about the reaction of the owner and will take a 'pro' dog atance whenever any thread is posted about dogs and try and pick at small bits of the post rather than the key points. the dog was not under control, was therefore potentially dangerous and therefore the owenrs reaction was very poor.

Mako, fear of the unknown is a normal biological instinct but learning about potentially harmful things enables us to give our fears a rational context, otherwise we would never step outside our home. Mortality stats show that the risk of death from a dog is lower than accidental drowning in the bath, being struck by lightning, being struck by a bicycle or car, or other vehicle, being attacked by a human, not to mention germs, viruses and other hidden nasties.


Again, unless the dog has something really wrong with it the culprit is the owner and I can assure you the really bad dog owners will be the ones that never muzzle their dog. A muzzle does nothing to stop a dog jumping up.

A fear of unknown dogs is entirely rational


Context is key here - unknown dogs in e.g. India or Africa may well be a threat (where rabies is endemic), but the vast majority of dogs in ED are owned responsibly and are people friendly (and not diseased).


My experience (I am not a current dog owner, and haven't been for more than 40 years) is that you are more likely to be bitten by a small dog than a large one. So being frightened of big, bouncy, dogs in ED (unless you are easily knocked over and have physical vulnerability) is, in fact, irrational (in the sense that there is a very high probability that you will be safe). A very small amount of self-training (with perhaps a dog trainer) will give you the appropriate mannerisms to communicate to dogs that you are not either a threat or a potential 'victim'.


Most people have phobias - it is whether you allow them to rule your life or find coping mechanisms to address then which is key. I, certainly am, and have been, phobic. Some I have addressed, some (those which are rarely encountered) I have learnt to avoid, but if I had a fear of dogs and wanted to visit London parks this is one phobia I would do something about.


An ability to be able to 'cope' with dogs will make park visits much more enjoyable for you. Equally, training will allow you to be more clearly aware of dog 'body language' so that you will be able to discriminate between the vast majority (in ED) of harmless mutts and the very few which may be a threat. [That will include 'good' dogs which may protect their owners against perceived threat as well as the very few rogue 'bully' dogs or ones actually trained to be aggressive].


[And, by the way, screaming is probably not a good tactic where dogs are concerned, although perfectly safe with mice or spiders]

a lot of very good points about phobias undermined sliiightly by this


" by the way, screaming is probably not a good tactic where dogs are concerned, "


if it was just a phobia, why would I be worried if I screamed (rhetorical question)


The chances of being attacked are of course miniscule - but not impossible and not inconsequential if it comes to pass. Telling people how to behave around dogs in a public space is wrong priority IMO


(I'm against dog muzzling btw, I'm not anti them in any real sense. But they aren't quite the no-danger-huggables portrayed by some)

a lot of very good points about phobias undermined sliiightly by this


" by the way, screaming is probably not a good tactic where dogs are concerned, "


Sorry - but screaming is likely to excite dogs (who have very good hearing) more - the OP said she had screamed when 'attacked'. Screaming if you are attacked by a person has the effect of calling attention to your situation for passers-by to assist, something a human attacker will recognise, but not a dog. So screaming, even if involuntary (as I assume it was) will not tend to quieten down a dog attack (or even being bounced by an over friendly dog).

What SJ said.


Also there was a post earlier that suggested that only abused dogs will bite. Total nonsense. We had a dog when I was a kid that hsd to be out down after taking chunks iut of my mum's arm. The arm that fed, walked and stroked him every day. Like people, some dogs are just wired wrong.

Once you think you are being attacked, philosophical discussion about where 'blame' should sit is irrelevant, you want (presumably) to avoid exacerbating the occasion, so if you can suppress screaming, it's a good idea, if attacked by a dog, to do that. Learning that most approaches by dogs (in ED) don't require a panic 'scream' response would also be sensible.


Dogs may not always be fully 'under control' - but the choices are not binary - 'in full control' or 'savagely mad attack dog' - most 'out of control' dogs in ED are still mostly harmless.

"Mortality stats show that the risk of death from a dog is lower than accidental drowning in the bath, being struck by lightning, being struck by a bicycle or car, or other vehicle, being attacked by a human, not to mention germs, viruses and other hidden nasties."


And with the exception of baths these are all things that people fear. If a car, person, cyclist or lightning strike directs itself towards a person at high speed, they are entitled to be very afraid. Death is not the only thing to fear of course. Maiming, or even getting muddy pawprints on a nice coat or trousers are things to cause legimate fear IMHO.

'Mako, fear of the unknown is a normal biological instinct but learning about potentially harmful things enables us to give our fears a rational context,'. I agree I learnt about potentially harmful dogs when my father in law was attacked by a jack russell last year whilst out running and as well as twenty stitches required he had 4 months of skin grafts. I still see no reason why all dogs shouldnt be muzzled in public areas.
I have every sympathy for you father in law. However, I still maintain that these kind of incidents are not the norm. Again, the kind of owner that would allow a human aggressive dog to run around off lead is unlikely to muzzle them. The only people who will comply are the majority of responsible dog owners and they own the dogs that do not need to be muzzled. As I said muzzling does not address jumping up or even poor recall.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...