Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In the 5 pages of this thread it has moved away from the OP to speaking more generally.


My general point still stands that if you end up having to continually apologizing for your child's or dog's behavior then there is a fair chance the apology is pretty meaningless.


Of course in the OP it happened once, but we have no idea if it is the first time this dog has done this with its owner not on hand.


Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick - it really comes back to the a point made previously and that is consideration towards other park users.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> It's just a matter of mutual respect and tolerace.

> Try to teach your kids to respect dogs but not be

> afraid of them. Train your dogs not to approach

> strangers or jump up.


Whilst this is undoubtedly true - the thread wasn't about kids hassling dogs. And whilst parents ought to encourage their children to be relaxed around animals, in the situations being discussed, it is wrong to infer that 'bad parenting' has any bearing on the distress of the child. Responsible dog owners should not feel defensive.

I think the crux of the matter is what exactly does the OP mean by "bounded over", "jumped all around" and "vigorously investigating", and whether the fear that these actions aroused to the child means something on the dog, on the child or on the parents should be done, or any combination of them.


If a dog had actually knocked over the child, or have showed to be aggressively growling at the child, then this dog should be leashed and kept close to the dog owner, full stop. But it is not clear if any physical contact was actually made or aggressive behaviour shown. Coming for a sniff is what dog does. Rarely would the dog carry aggressive intention. Of course nothing is certain, but we don't leash a curious but unknown human being for approaching a child who then become frightened, even if he or she may be seen as a nuisance and the very real possibility that this human being has evil intention. In the park situation here, the parent has the full liberty to tell the dog to go away, and most of the time the dog will comply. The actual danger that an unknown dog poses to a child can only be known and put into a proper context if statistics on the probability of unprovoked dog attack is compared to the incidence of violence one may encounter on the street. This will inform us on what is the appropriate level of fear that a parent should teach the child towards an unknown dog coming up to him or her.

actuarygi Wrote:

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

> I think the crux of the matter is what exactly

> does the OP mean by "bounded over", "jumped all

> around" and "vigorously investigating", and

> whether the fear that these actions aroused to the

> child means something on the dog, on the child or

> on the parents should be done, or any combination

> of them.

>

> If a dog had actually knocked over the child, or

> have showed to be aggressively growling at the

> child, then this dog should be leashed and kept

> close to the dog owner, full stop. But it is not

> clear if any physical contact was actually made or

> aggressive behaviour shown. Coming for a sniff is

> what dog does. Rarely would the dog carry

> aggressive intention. Of course nothing is

> certain, but we don't leash a curious but unknown

> human being for approaching a child who then

> become frightened, even if he or she may be seen

> as a nuisance and the very real possibility that

> this human being has evil intention. In the park

> situation here, the parent has the full liberty to

> tell the dog to go away, and most of the time the

> dog will comply. The actual danger that an unknown

> dog poses to a child can only be known and put

> into a proper context if statistics on the

> probability of unprovoked dog attack is compared

> to the incidence of violence one may encounter on

> the street. This will inform us on what is the

> appropriate level of fear that a parent should

> teach the child towards an unknown dog coming up

> to him or her.


I'm really struggling with a solution to this. As a parent of 2 small children who absolutely love & trust a dog owned by a close relative, I hope we would all behave in a calm manner to a curious dog who bounded up, sniffing around. BUT my son has recently been out on a nursery trip, where the class 'encountered' six dogs all off the lead. The dogs jumped up at the nursery class. I'm sure they were all very excited, as I'm sure was my son & his classmates, probably a toxic mixture. However, it would appear that no-one (nursery staff & dog walker) was in complete control. As a result, my son is now anxious when we come across an unleashed dog, to the point where I think he invites more curiosity from the dog. We have pets at home, & he is totally relaxed. When I am out with him, I hope to anticipate & talk to him about dogs approaching, how we keep calm & relaxed, but never assume a dog is friendly.

However, as with all statistical analysis, the problem that you pose applies to the population as a whole & not to the individual. For them, it is an an all or none; it happens or it doesn't. Unfortunately that is chance. Further analysis bears meaning for the population at large but not for a random encounter in a park.

I would agree with previous poster's ; there is a responsibility on both parents & dog-owners to take responsibility for their charge's whilst out in a public space. By which I mean be vigilant & try to anticipate even the most random behaviour.

If a dog bothers you or your child and there's a hint of savagery about the beast, a swift but firm boot/stick to the jaw should send it packing. At the very least it should shock the irresponsible owner to keep their pet under control.


I am in no way advocating cruelty to animals (I was once vegetarian, for a time); Self-preservation is the aim.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> It's what the middle classes do. Vent. Moan.

> Mostly about stuff that wouldnt bother anyone

> else. I hate what this area is becoming.

>

> Louisa.



Must say, I find myself in agreement with Louisa.

Horsebox Wrote:

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

> If a dog bothers you or your child and there's a

> hint of savagery about the beast, a swift but firm

> boot/stick to the jaw should send it packing. At

> the very least it should shock the irresponsible

> owner to keep their pet under control.

>

> I am in no way advocating cruelty to animals (I

> was once vegetarian, for a time);

> Self-preservation is the aim.


Pretty much this. If it runs up to your kids uninvited give it a leathering.

Let's summarise the discussion to-date and identify the missing bits.


If 1 dog runs up to your kids uninvited,

then if the dog appears to be aggressive

then leathering

else

if the dog runs too fast or jump around or vigorously sniffs

then leathering

else do nothing

else if 2 dogs run up to your kids uninvited

then do ???


else if 3 dogs (and more) run up to your kids uninvited

then do ???


What about any difference to response for big / small / medium dogs ??

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

    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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