To think parents should teach their children how to behave round dogs

[Xihha]

There have been a few posts lately about people needing to control their dogs more (and I agree, if you cant control our dog and clean up after it then you shouldn't have a dog imo), but is it unreasonable to expect parents to teach children to be a bit more careful round dogs?

Whilst walking my dog (on his lead) a child who looked about 10 ran up and stuck his head in my dogs face to make a fuss of him whilst i was picking up doggys poo, without checking if it was ok, there have been other times kids have just walked up and started pulling doggy around, this sort of thing happens a lot, especially in the summer when there are more kids out playing and the parents rarely say anything about it.

It's not really an issue with my great soppy lump of a dog because he loves kids and will put up with anything for a bit of fuss but shouldn't these kids know that you should check with the owners before approaching strange dogs and that even a nice dog can get pissed of if you start pulling it around?

I find LazyJaneys attitude quite sad actually - it seems to indicate not only a complete lack of responsibility towards her own kids, but also a complete lack respect to living creatures. It's ok to let the kids do what they like because it will always be the owner's fault???

Do you feel the same about cars? It's perfectly acceptable not to teach your children how to behave on a busy road because even if the child runs out into the road and is hit, it will always be the driver's fault? After all, they are the one in charge of a killing machine.... Or do you in fact see that a child's behaviour might contribute to an incident and children therefore need to know the basics of keeping themselves safe? Like not running out onto a busy road, or not tormenting the dog.

Wow ok. Thankfully many dog owners are responsable and would do anything in their power to avoid dog bites but like many things in life it goes both ways. Even if Lazy truely believes she is right what harm does it do to have children that know how to act around dogs or other animals?

When my GSD was 1 yr old we were outside my local spar shop waiting for a family member. Dog was sat by my side and I was stroking his head. A girl of about 4 or 5 came from behind and straddled his back! She had her arms around his neck and was leaning/climbing on him. Dog twisted around to see what had jumped on him and I yanked her up by her arm. My dog made no motion to bite and was very calm about it really but I was livid. Parents were getting into a car up the road and the child said nothing and ran to them. By the time I had checked my dog was ok they had gone.

babybythesea I think she would blame the car based on her posts. (how you holding up btw)

canidae I have similar probs but cos mine is tiny and looks like a teddy bear so kids think its fine to run up and cuddle her. I gave yelled at several kids to leave heralone, esp in the heat and parents to control their damn brats and teach them to be careful. I know that 9 times out of 10 she wouldn't bat an eyelid if it was a child but its that 1 time I worry about. As for adults, as a dog who has been badly beaten she is terrified of men she doesn't know. I have to hold her tight to ne to reassure her before I let anyone touch her

"But having read a few other doggy threads this morning I've come to the conclusion that dog lovers get a sort of reality distortion field going in their heads that make it absolutely impossible for them to look at the world rationally."

It's ironic you say that because you are exactly the same around your children.

Pmsl @ crashdoll

Actually, I've just read the Dog Law website re the result of the Dangerous Dogs act, it pretty much agrees with everything Ive said:

This is a criminal offence which can be brought against the owner of a dog (and if different the person in charge of a dog) if a dog is:

- dangerously out of control
- in a public place

'Dangerously out of control' is defined as being 'on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person'. Generally, if a dog bites someone then it will be presumed to have been dangerously out of control

You all may want to re read that last sentence. There is nothing about provocation by a child, nor is a lead a guarantee of control. Anyway, onwards:

'Public place' is defined as including any place 'to which the public have or are permitted to have access'

As to the absurdity of the presumption on this thread about a child being blamed:

If injury is caused to a person, then there is a presumption in favour of destruction of the dog unless the owner can prove that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. If the Court can be persuaded not to impose destruction, then the alternative is a Contingent Destruction Order ie. a requirement that unless the dog is kept under proper control then it shall be destroyed. The Court has the power to impose conditions to such an order

I suspect LtEve's organisation is one that tries to help prevent dogs being destroyed (which I would agree with, as if the MN doggy threads are anything to go by it's the owners who are barking). But it is clear where the presumption of the law rests. As well as the dog being under threat of destruction, the owner will be liable:

For the owner and/or person in charge of the dog at the time of the incident the Court has the power to impose a prison sentence as well as a ban on keeping dogs. However, this is very rare and the more likely outcome is financial ie. a fine, compensation and costs

QED I think.

If a dog is on a lead and being walked at its owners heel then there are NOT grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person

A dog on a lead is NOT dangerously out of control. A dog on a lead is being controlled by its owner.

The law goes a lot further than the extract that LazyJaney has just posted. For example it stipulate that a dog being held on a lead by a child it NOT 'under control' if the child would be unable to hold onto it due to lack of strength. But a dog being held by its owner (what this whole thread is about) cannot be considered 'dangerously out of control'

Lazy, you are acting like a Goady fool and I for one have had enough. Your assertion that you are right, when you don't even have any experience of the issue demeans you. Thankfully the old adage "better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and prove it" sits comfortably with you, so I am satisfied that no-one will be daft enough to listen to you now.

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH !!!!!!

The law really is not the focus of this topic, so for my sanity and that of the other less batshit crazy posters on this thread, let's just pretend for a moment that you are right LazyJaney.

Even if the law is on your on side, why would not agree that teaching your children not to startle or hurt dogs is not a good idea? We are all in agreement, surely, that a startled or in pain dog is more likely to cause injury to someone than one who is being ignored or respected, yes?

So why not just teach your children to leave dogs alone, LazyJaney? Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the law, your children are unlikely to feel comforted by your assertion that the dog owner was at fault and you will press charges, whilst they are having their face sewn back together, are they?

Why not just limit the chances of any incidents occurring by teaching your children appropriate behavior? The same as you do with traffic sense. It's just common sense really.

Ohhh have been deleted for saying dogs on leads are under control...awww lazy can't hack the truth

I have lost count of the amount of times someone walking their dog has given me a dirty look because I have stopped daughter running towards their dog and made her walk beside me

Based on some previous threads, both on this and on other forums, about 'friendly' dogs approaching and accidentally hurting children some of the advice given could potentially be used here...

If a 'friendly', bouncy, uncontrolled dog child approaches your child dog with no owner parent in sight or no owner parent making an effort to recall said dog child , discourage the dog child by kicking it, shouting at it and pushing it away...

Or you could just train your damn dog child before letting them have free rein in a public place :)

Of course it is far less acceptable to do any of the things suggested to deter unwanted doggy attention in situations involving unwanted child attention... Damn speciesist society that we live in ;)

• these suggestions are not my own just ones I have been [shocked] to find suggested at some point or another

since we all share public spaces it would be wise to try and get along, don't you think?

Lazy janey, the law is open to interpretation, and there are also laws about cruelty to animals.
The law would be the least of your worries if one of your little prince or princesses goaded a dog into biting them and you succeeded in getting the dog put down.
As you can see dog owners are very fond of their animals.

What I find surprising about keeping dogs as pets is that people are prepared to go to all that effort to dissuade them from their natural behaviours, and then say things like..oh yeah well if there are too many children around (even if they aren't actually interacting with the dog) then of course natural instinct can kick in and someone may get bitten...but it isn't the poor doggies fault.

Too fucking right it isn't. The fault lies with anyone taking a killing machine out on a lead into a world of temptation and hoping their wafer thin veil of behavioural conditioning will hold.....

Dogs are dangerous. They are supposed to be. Taking them to places where they can interact with children is bonkers.

Um, no dog has a natural instinct to harm children.

Nor are they inherently dangerous. Dogs domesticated themselves by friendly with humans and trusting us. Their natural instinct is to work with us, seek out our company and affections and eat our food.

Oh joy, another one who hasn't got a clue what they are talking about.

Well there are several people on here posting in favour of dogs but making reference to the fact that they can still be expected to attack under certain circumstances.

This doesn't surprise me. They are dogs. What does surprise me is that people would chose to live with animals that can be expected to attack under certain conditions, regardless of training.

On MN I have seen pro dog posters say that a dog can't be expected not to attack if someone interrupts them while feeding, on this thread people have excused dogs biting unprovoked because there were 'a lot of people around'. Being in the dogs house (even when invited) is enough...so why keep the fecking things?

Sorry, only had time read 1/4 thread but wanted to respond. Yes children should be taught to behave around dogs but children can be unpredictable as well as dogs and of they have only come across friendly ones even warnings can be ignored.
Main point- care needed on both sides.