Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just to clarify.


Case 1 involved dogs that bounded up to a child walking back from school- one dog was much larger than the child. One dog vigorously investigated the child's bag- presumably after food. Pushy, bad dog manners = more training necessary.


Case 2 Lively dogs on two separate occasions walked up to young child holding her teddy (not waving it around), took the teddy from the child and ran off. The child was, we are told, terrified and upset. Whether this was the manner in which the dogs took the teddy or that the toddler was frightened for his/her teddy's fate, is not clear. Either way, dogs need more training.


With the right approach either child should be okay about dogs in future. Children often respond very well when they see that they can get a dog to sit, or similar, under command (obviously under parental and dog owner supervision. It just seems to help restore the child's confidence.


I stand by my earlier comment. It is no longer a case of how we would like things to be, the law is pretty clear. A dog does not have to actually bite or nip someone to be in breach of the DDA, accidental injury is enough where a dog is deemed to be out of control- a dog impervious to owner command may be viewed as out of control. Whether trauma counts as injury is moot, but I would not be surprised if it surfaces at some point. There is also civil law with a lower standard of proof, so dog owners really need to wake up and smell the coffee.

MissMadMoo Wrote:

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

> I respect a whole load more the parents who

> approach me to ask if their kids can pet my dog.

> The reason they do this?. To avoid exactly the

> issues the OP has.

>

> Teach your kids how to respect dogs/ animals and

> interact with them rather than instil unwarranted

> fear?


Agree 100% - it has to be a 2 way thing though. Kids randomly petting dogs without permission is I guess no different to dogs randomly going upto people without being asked.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> It's about give and take rahrahrah. It's a shared

> space. Everyone needs to make the best of it. Dogs

> will run about because they need to exercise. They

> will occassionally pinch a ball or try to play

> with others. Dog owners should apologise if

> offence is caused, but similarly others should

> stop instilling fear into their kids, when there

> is no need of such.


I completely agree with this, but I don't think it's fair to assume that the parents in these cases have 'instilled fear' - or have responsibility for the child's response. A lot of kids will be naturally scared of a large animal which is jumping up at them. My children have grown up with dogs and are generally comfortable around them. But they have been frightened by large dogs running up to them, seemingly out of control. This is actually a pretty rational response IMO.

MissMadMoo Wrote:

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

> I dont think the give a hoot about my respect that

> not my point.

>

> The point is, i believe they are teaching their

> kids how to behave with animals rather than instil

> a fear of them.


Well I guess some do and some don't - my 2 boys love dogs and we often get talking to owners in the park and the kids and dogs interact....we always ask the owners if the dogs are ok with the boys stroking them (the dogs, not the owners...).

Dulwichdarling Wrote:

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

> Thanks for your insight rahrah but is it not

> important for the child to know the dog is

> playing? Therefore showing that there is no need

> to be scared


You think that the best time to introduce a dog to a child is when it's out of control and the owner is nowhere to be seen? You should apologies to the parent. Get your dog under control and then (if the child is calm) maybe try to introduce him. The problem is that you don't see that an off the lead dog jumping up around a young child, out of the blue, is not playful for the child.

Agree about the issue of parents also have to be more aware of how kiddies treat dogs. Running towards a cute puppy, shrieking at eye level, arms outstretched in predatory fashion, is in some pups likely to instil a lifelong fear oif children, so it does work both ways. I always ask children to stand sideways to my dog and to pet the chest or back and avoid the head, which is a socially sensitive area. Standing head on can look challenging.


I also think that society is much less animal-wise than it was, and kids even less so- all that knowledge is disappearing. More and more people wnat pets but have much less idea how to deal with them. Additionally dog breeds that are wholly unsuitable for an urban environment, unless in expert owner hands, are being kept. Working breeds often do not have appropriate outlets for instinctive drives, and this leads to overly rambunctious beahviour in park settings.

Azira Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Dog owners are all so freaking evangelical.

>

> So are parents to be fair.

>

> Signed, a cat-owning child-free person.



There are definitely parallels. A lot of dog owners think of their animals as 'their little baby'.

dwe Wrote:

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

> Well if my kids were quite far away and hassling a

> dog I would expect the owner to be cross with me.


Exactly. And when I caught up I wouldn't hesitate to apologise to the owner.

This. x 100



rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Unfortunately there are so many dog owners who

> just don't get it. Not everyone likes dogs - not

> everyone think it's cute to have one run at them,

> or jump up at them. Personally I don't like to be

> hassled, by strange dogs or strange humans when

> I'm just going about my business, strolling in the

> park. I think this is reasonable.

> Children should be able to walk and play in the

> park without a massive (to them) animal jumping

> all over them. Your dog isn't just 'saying hello'

> (if you are personifying your pooch in this way,

> you're delusional). It's 'intentions' are

> unknowable and irrelevant - it is intimidating a

> small child and you as an owner are responsible.

> If you choose to house an animal in a built up

> urban environment, then you should learn to

> control it.

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

    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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