To get annoyed that some mumsnetters think dogs should be perfect all the time

[lesley33]

I try and be a responsible dog owner. I call my dog back if he is near anyone who looks uncomfortable with him, I move him over to the side of the path to let joggers by and clear up dog mess.

But some posters on here seem to think that dogs should alwa\ys be perfectly behaved, never run up to strangers and never bark at people.

Dogs are not robots. However much you train them no dog will always behave 100% perfectly all the time. Some dogs are harder to train. For example, dogs that are really really dim or dogs that have a very nervy and neurotic personality.

We all accept that DCs will not always behave in public. I think most dogs generally behave well most of the time - but it is unrealistic to expect them never to misbehave. So AIBU?

Ah yes, the people showing up in A&E are all about to phone their solicitors as soon as they get seen.

So not just grossly overreacting but only interested in the money of the dog owners and wasting the resources of the NHS while they're at it.

in 2007 -2008 1498 children aged 0 -19 were visted hospital with dog related injuries.

Far from ideal, admittedly, but nothing like the alarmist figures posted earlier.

Details taken from HES online so not just plucked out of my head.

Infact a related NHS website clearly sates 'Reports of serious dog attacks, usually involving young children, receive a lot of media coverage. However, such cases are very rare in England: in 2008, there were four deaths as a result of dog bites.'

Oh fgs, you are so intent on being the self-styled 'dogs' best friend' you can't possibly concede that maybe, just maybe there are some irresponsible dog owners out there who don't keep their dogs under control!

Heaven forbid a parent should be worried by 'just' a nip and take their child to hospital! Clearly they are the irresponsible money-grabbing ones, how dare they take their child to a park knowing full well there might be dogs there! How selfish to take their kids out for some exercise and fresh air! They should just keep their child indoors watrching cbeebies while the dogs roam the streets.

Oh fgs, you are so intent on being the self-styled 'dogs' best friend' you can't possibly concede that maybe, just maybe there are some irresponsible dog owners out there who don't keep their dogs under control!

Heaven forbid a parent should be worried by 'just' a nip and take their child to hospital! Clearly they are the irresponsible money-grabbing ones, how dare they take their child to a park knowing full well there might be dogs there! How selfish to take their kids out for some exercise and fresh air! They should just keep their child indoors watrching cbeebies while the dogs roam the streets.

No-one has said that irresponsible owners do not exist Cheese I can confidently say on her behalf that DBF knows only too well how many irresponible owners there are. She spends much of her days cleaning up their mess and trying to save their dogs.

But responsible owners out number the bad ones by far. Dogs of irresponsible owners are still highly unlikely to bite and/or cause serious injury.

Keeping all dogs on leads in public at all times is a massive over reaction. Just as banning all car travel would be a massive over reaction, even though the stats are shocking.

I never said all dogs should be on leads, just that IF owners can't control their dogs they should put them on leads, especially in areas where there are likely to be young children.

But the idea that a 'nip' from a dog can be justified or should not be taken seriously is ridiculous. As is the idea that parents would take their injured child to a&e just to claim compensation. It's just blaming the victim.

I never said all dogs should be on leads, just that IF owners can't control their dogs they should put them on leads, especially in areas where there are likely to be young children.

But the idea that a 'nip' from a dog can be justified or should not be taken seriously is ridiculous. As is the idea that parents would take their injured child to a&e just to claim compensation. It's just blaming the victim.

Not what I meant at all, Cheese.

I'll try again.

NHS figures - MASSIVELY over-quoted by one poster - include accidental nips. And nips per se as opposed to bites.

The comparison to RTAs from Dooin is a fair one, yet we don't have hysterics about cars.

Ergo, there are some who appear to be overreacting on here.

Now I'll leave this thread because I'm finding the urge to point and laugh almost too irresistable.

43,455 is the number of people injured by a another person with a sharp object in 2008 - 2009.

People and cars cause far more damage than dogs ever will. A little perspective is good, but, blimey if I continue reading that site I'll never leave the house again

Surely insignificant nips aren't going to be reported as they won't need treatment.As I said many go unreported so the figures will be far higher.

As I said the NHS direct figures were higher and more recent (last year).

I take exception to the term serious dog bite injury ie deaths-only 4.Any dog bite is serious for the recipient and totally unacceptable.So serious dog bites are far from in small numbers, more than 6000 is waay too many and indicates the NHS direct's claim that half of all children will have one during their childhood.

Thus desiring dog owners to keep their slobbery,germy,jumpy dogs away from children when out in public is a completely reasonable desire.

I haven't seen anyone being hysterical. Apart from the fervent dog-lovers who think that a 'nip' isn't serious. It may not cause long-term damage but would be seriously traumatic for a young child. (Though of course the parents would be rubbing their hands in glee- all that compo money!)

Dog owners- be sensible and try to keep excitable dogs away from young kids. If your dog does something wrong, apologise.

Child owners- be sensible and teach your kids how to behave around dogs. If your child does something wrong, apologise.

The end.

(Ps- apologies for stupid double-posts, blame my blackberry!)

I'm not sure it's really helpful to compare dog ownership to car travel.

Cars are useful, for a start - as are some dogs, and of course dogs are valid. But risks are inherent with travelling at speed which is, apparently a vital part of modern life. That's why these risks are accepted and everything is normally done (by good, responsible drivers) to avoid them.

Dogs ought to be as safely kept as possible, yes if you have a dog that's unlikely to injure or scare people then by all means don't use a lead.

If you have a playful, stupid, (in the nicest way!) or volatile dog, keep it on a lead unless there's no one around for it to attack.

It's just common sense isn't it? I always try to maintain a level head around dogs, if they look cross or sound very loud, or if their owner is acting badly/aggressively toward them I will cross the street and keep my kids close.

If it's a normal person with a sensible looking dog I will give the benefit of the doubt.

Sadly we were approached by a very playful dog on the beach one day when ds1 was about 2yo. It was a retriever I think or a lab, not sure, don't know much about dogs - anyway, soppy, harmless looking dog.

Before I could do anything it ran at ds, jumped up on him, on top of him, knocking him flying with no warning. As I helped ds up (who was very cared and upset) the owner approached and laughing, said that we were lucky, because the dog had broken someone's ankle last week.

ds was then terrified of ANY dog for about 3 years. I didn't encourage this, I did layman's CBT with him to try to retrain him into not being terrified.

It was hard work. I don''t think it was fair or justifiable tbh. That dog ought to have been kept to heel or on a lead. It was a busy area.

Will you keep your car away from children in public? There is a higher risk of your car causing injury to me and mine than there is of my dog causing harm to you and yours by far.

Or what about yourself? Will you keep yourself away from me and mine? Statistcs show that my children are more likely to be injured by being stabbed by another person than by a dog bite.

The figure of 6,118 is all hospital admissions, including that of adults. My figures would be far higher if I included adults, plus it gives no details of when or where the bite took place. The chances of it being a child bitten by a strange dog is slim, to say the least. I would risk betting my last £ that at least 90 - 95% of those reported bites were a dog handler who had been bitten by his own dog.

I can show you figures on how many people were killed by cars that were not their own if you like? It will be far higher than 6,118.

Oh and then he was growled at by a staffy/PBT/something like that which was owned by some homeless people off their heads, behind his school one day. I had to call it off as it squared up to him, he was 6 at the time.

That didn't help...the owner eventually wandered over and said 'Oh it's not his fault, he was brought up that way'. Great. Ds was sobbing and shaking.

I honestly don't see why this is a reasonable thing to happen.

I hate other peoples kids....Give me a dog anyday!

I don't mind if your dog is a good dog, a nice dog, a dog that is unlikely to be a risk.

If it is a risk, much like a high powered vehicle/fast motorcycle/truck, then of course, you should do everything possible to keep it from injuring people.

I'm not sure it's really helpful to compare dog ownership to car travel - why not?

It's about negating risk is it not? A certain few posters believe that dogs pose a disproptionate risk to themselves or their children.

My figures show the risk of cars is far higher, so if dogs need to be kept contained in public because of the slight chance one might bite a stranger (and it is slight) why are cars allowed in heavily populated areas? The risk from a car is far greater than the risk of a dog bite. The risk of being stabbed by another person is far greater than being bitten by a dog.

and since when did children present a risk of biting or knocking over strangers...well, probably some do, on bicycles and so on when they reach the age of about 10. But I think it's part of being a parent to teach them to avoid situations where their behaviour could hurt other people.

Have they? Sorry, I missed that being said.

The thing is, a car is not autonomous, it doesn't drive itself. Someone is in control of it. And there are dangerous people driving.

I don't think anyone is arguing that these people should be allowed to drive any more than an aggressive dog ought to be allowed off lead in a busy street.

Having four dsc and several dogs throughout their (dsc) upbringing, I can vouch that dogs do a lot less damage than children do to each other.

Bites - O
Serious accidents with a trip to A&E due to rough play etc - at least 4 that I vividly remember

My child presents a much higher risk of biting than my dog does. I would muzzle her in public but I have been told this would be cruel.

She also knocked over a boy twice her size not less than an hour ago. Although she was pretending to be a dog at the time, so I guess you could blame dogs, if you really wanted to. I shall ask her if she was a Staffy if you, like? I doubt it, though, she is normally a 'racing' dog.

rough play did not involve dogs btw

I'm not particularly worried about the DC being bitten by a dog, that is reasonably unlikely. I AM worried about them being jumped at, licked, barked at, which has happened several times and caused my happy go lucky toddler to squeal and hide behind my legs at the sight of a dog.

Why is it so unreasonable to suggest that owners of excitable dogs should keep an eye on them and call them back or put them on the lead when there are young children about? And apologise when their dog reduces a child to tears.

I know so many kids who are scared of dogs and it's all down to incidents like this.

Nothing is unreasonable about that at all cheese. I don't believe anyone has said it is.

My posts are aimed at those few posters who insist that all dogs should be kept on leads at all times because their dc are scared