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?

A muzzle will not prevent unknown children rudely interrupting our walks and manhandling our dogs without our permission. It will not prevent our dogs being injured by ott children and does not negate the parent's obligation to parent their bloody child

It's crazy to take an object of children's fascination out to places frequented by children and expect children to keep away. If it happens a lot and if it's a problem for an owner, then walk at times when you are not likely to encounter many children or stick to places that are more out of the way.

While people all have rights and dogs are lovely pets, doen't it make sense that if children interfering in your outings with a dog is a problem, then keep away from them?

If you suspect your dog would ever nip or bite then I would hope you would go out of your way to avoid unpredictable people and prevent your pet hurting anyone.

It's not just a matter of rights. Common sense comes into it surely?

I have a right to enjoy public spaces without being harassed by other people's children, having a cute dog with me does not negate that right. Just be respectful, that is all I ask and in return I will make sure my dogs are respectful of your right to enjoy public spaces without harassment from them. [Dooin]

I honestly do not understand how you think you can go out with a dog whom you admit children sometimes follow and run up to because it is so cute, without asking yourself if perhaps you should go somewhere children are less likely to be encountered. Similarly, your account of being accosted while out running -- where are you running if people bother you so much?

I do not see much common sense there, or taking reality into account. Reality is you have a cute dog that children like and the result is enough interruption of your walks and runs for it to irritate you.

The phenomenon of children being led away to 'help' a stranger look for a dog or 'help' take a dog for a walk (you allude to this in your post) surely tells you something about how attractive dogs are to children, and also how children can completely forget every single thing a parent may have told them about strangers when dogs are thrown into the picture -- and by extension how quickly they may forget every single thing a parent may have told them about dogs.

At what point do you ask yourself if your choices and insistence on your rights regardless of reality are contributing to your problem here?

I would expect to walk down the street pushing a scooter, holding a balloon or dribbling a ball past children without them interfering with my property - why is a dog different?

Who has said children would not be interested in a scooter, balloon or ball? Who has said a dog might be different?

You have a right to walk down the street holding hands with a chimpanzee wearing a nappy and red wellies but would that be a smart thing to do if you didn't want to draw a crowd of children?

I would expect to walk down the street pushing a scooter, holding a balloon or dribbling a ball past children without them interfering with my property - why is a dog different?

balloons, scooters and balls by and large do not bite kids.

But I can walk along with a balloon on a string without children running over and pulling on the string or hitting my balloon because parents don't let them do that - so why should I just have to accept that when it's a dog tied to me instead of a balloon then children are allowed to touch it?

Not just stop and look or express an interest in, but actually walk over and touch it without asking if they can... Or am I supposed to assume that children will touch anything I own if I take it into public even though it's attached to me?

Lazeyjaney - the fact that a dog has teeth is nothing at all to do with whether it's reasonable to expect strangers not to touch my things while I'm walking along the street.

Can you, TabulaRasa?
Have you tried it?
Maybe they just can't reach your balloon? Is it a helium balloon? How tall are you?

How do you know that there aren't children salivating at the thought of your balloon who are begging their parents for a balloon just like yours as they are dragged home?

The fact that children love dogs and love touching them and petting them is such a cliche that it is used as a joke on TV comedies -- 'Can we get one, mum (dad), pleeeeeeeeeeeeease? I'll walk it and take care of it and you won't have to ever do a thing, I prooooooooooomise. I'll get a job to buy its fooood.... Pleeeeeeeeeease...' After encountering your dog out walking they are all going to dream about dogs and pester their parents for weeks.

The fact that your dog is
(1) a fascinating thing for children
(2) equipped with teeth and canine instincts
...are exactly the point of this thread to those who care about children.

If all you care about is the equilibrium of your dog than of course the part about the teeth doesn't matter.

You are walking about with what could be considered an 'attractive nuisance' anything that might attract children into danger or harm but you think it's somebody else's job to keep those attracted by it away? That is irresponsible and irrational.

I do understand that your property is private, but dogs are capable of making people go temporarily insane if the evidence of this thread is anything to go by, and children are no exception to the spell they cast.

cats can give the benefits of pet ownership without the risk of killing children....at least I haven't heard of a cat killing a toddler...but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention..

Tell that to my mother who ended up in hospital with a fractured cheek because of her cat, gave the police a good laugh though, apparently because of the type of injury the hospital had to inform them of possible domestic violence and mum had to make a statement to the police that she did not want to press charges against the cat.

Many cats also have a tendency to sleep on peoples faces/throats, more than once I have woken up to Tabatha cutting off my air supply.

For one thing if cats don't like the visitors you have brought into the house they just fuck off out of it....

My fathers beautiful cat will attack visitors, but since she is a cat no one believes us when they are told not to go near her. She has a huge sense of entitlement and will not leave her house due to her displeasure at strangers she will force the strangers to leave. Her last victim almost needed stitches according to dad.

We have never had a guest or family member injured by either of our dogs. Also a dog can be easily contained to keep them away from guests, a cat will not take this as well.

Sorry I clearly just do not get this italics thing.

Similarly, your account of being accosted while out running -- where are you running if people bother you so much?

Wait, so your suggestion is that they give up a healthy, rewarding pastime which they clearly enjoy because other people do not want to teach their children manners?

Do children have some sweeping rights to do what ever they like and be as rude as they like and if the rest of us don't like it we must give up doing things we enjoy?

The whole biting thing is getting this well off track, imagine dogs do not have teeth, or even mouths, and there was no possible way for a child to be bitten, it is still not ok to approach and play with a strangers property without permission.

Most of the dog owners on here are confident that their dog will not bite a child, but they still do not want to be approached as it is annoying and rude. How would you like it if you wore a fur coat one day and every fifth person you met just came up and started stroking you, you're not likely to bite but I bet you and those with you would get pretty bloody annoyed.

Also, if you do reply to this do you mind doing it with facts and not just slinging personal insults

Check out how many posts you have had deleted before you start flinging mud about LazyJaney. Pot, kettle?

I don't need to insult, troll or goad. I know I am right.

Children find fireworks fascinating, but most parents don't allow their child to run up and hug them.

They find ducks fascinating but most parents don't let their children jump into the local pond and start swimming after them.

If you take them to zoos they find the lions fascinating, but most parents are capable of stopping their from climbing into the enclosure for a hug.

This indicates that most parents, do in fact, have some element of control over their own children and could stop them running up to something they are fascinated by if it would be inappropriate to do so. To pester me when I am out walking, without first checking and without teaching them to handle my property in a safe and polite manner is not appropriate.

Also I run because I enjoy it and I need to improve my fitness and lose weight. I run with the dog because 1) he enjoys it 2) it is a good way to enhance our bond and thus ensure he is more likely to listen to me when I ask him to stay away from your children and 3) I don't always have time to run and walk the dogs, so often do both at once. I have as much right to run without harassment from children as any other runner in the park. If your child took to running after other runners and touching them/their things would believe this is the runners fault for being in the park in the first place? No. The same applies to my dogs.

I walk where there are children because children generally tend to occupy the spaces dogs love most i.e parks and beaches. It would be boring for them to have to pound the pavement just so other parents don't have to bother teaching their child manners when it comes to my private property.

Check out how many posts you have had deleted before you start flinging mud about LazyJaney. Pot, kettle?

Two. Turns out if I quote your insults to respond, I get deleted too.

Children find fireworks fascinating, but most parents don't allow their child to run up and hug them

Fireworks are massively regulated by law, and parents by and large don't have to deal with other people who run round in public places letting them off every day.

How do you go somewhere with no children? My friend used to try and avoid children because her severely autistic dd hated babies & toddlers and used to scream if she saw them or talk loudly about how ugly they were. It made going anywhere very difficult because there'd always be someone with a pram or buggy.

My dog doesn't approach children so if they're too young to understand me saying 'please leave my dog alone he doesn't like that' then they should be supervised by their parents.

And for those who believe it's a child's right to approach what they like because it doesn't harm others. My son doesn't give a stuff about animals but he loves handbrakes. They draw him & call to him, he watches hundreds of YouTube videos of them. He then started to approach cars to peer through the windows at them. I taught him very quickly - within a day - to look & not touch, & pull him away if the owner is getting irate. An extraordinary number of people cannot tolerate a teenager looking at their car you know :shrugs:

So if I can teach a severely autistic non-verbal teenager to look & not touch & drag him away from handbrakes when the owner shows signs of being pissed off please explain to me why neurotypical children cannot be taught this? Or be picked up carried away if they insist and are too young to understand. My son is taller than me, I will still physically remove him if someone uptight can't cope with him looking at their car.

And if you think dogs make children go do spellbound they can't possibly be responsible for their actions you have clearly never seen a severely autistic child with a handbrake (or shutter) obsession. If that child can be taught that he cannot do what he likes with handbrakes & shutters, without the benefit of language to help him learn that then yes I do expect NT children to be capable of understanding or being taught. Those with SN are given some leeway - it can be harder to teach a child with SN appropriate behaviour, but NT kids? Nah. I have two of my own - teaching even the one who has always loved animals to give animals space was a piece of piss frankly.

The only way to prevent children being run over is to prevent chance encounters with cars
We give cars roads of their own

The only way to prevent children being kicked is to prevent chance encounters with horses
We limit where horses can be ridden around people

The only way to prevent children falling off a slide is to prevents chance encounters with slides
in public places we put slides etc in specially demarcated zones so parents know where they are and where they can be avoided

The only way to prevent children drowning is prevent children going in swimming pools or the sea
So we fence off pools by law, define where people can swim on beaches, and appoint lifeguards where they swim.

If we were to manage dogs that way we would have dog paths and designated, fenced off dog walking zones in parks etc, and dog wardens to ensure compliance.

At the moment, we manage dogs by allowing them free access to public places but insist owners manage them safely, and the law ensures the dog and owner are liable if the dog hurts people.

Given the attitude of some dog lovers on this thread and huge the rise of dog attacks on kids in the last few years, I wouldn't be surprised if people start to demand designated dog zones in public places to protect their children (and limit the annoyance of dogshit )

Two. Turns out if I quote your insults to respond, I get deleted too

Don't lie any more LazyJaney, it was five, and I know why I was deleted - because I said "I was AMAZED that no-one had told you to yet" (asterisked so I don't have this post deleted). Which you didn't quote at any time, so is not be why you were deleted.

I'll hold my hand up when I am wrong - I was wrong to think that my careful wording of an ODFOD would mean I wouldn't be deleted, I should have given MNHQ more credit for seeing through my nefarious aims

But, I will take their advice (as a sensible regular), and leave you to this thread. I am quite happy, secure and content in my knowledge of the law and how it affects dogs. You don't need to be, as you are a nobody in the big scheme of things. Enjoy!

Do children have some sweeping rights to do what ever they like and be as rude as they like and if the rest of us don't like it we must give up doing things we enjoy?

If you can hurt them by doing what you enjoy, then yes. Actually it applies to all people, but children are the most vulnerable so there is a greater expectation of care.

Not sure where you live lazy but I regularly come across horses on the lanes and on the beach.

Don't lie any more LazyJaney, it was five

Five eh - and you went and counted - I'm flattered. MN have been busy overnight, clearly, but it was all quoting and responding to others' venom, of which there has been an astounding amount on this thread, all against those who think kids are more important than dogs.

Someone told me upthread that the MN dog lovers have an exceedingly high incidence of being thrown off MN, and I can well believe it reading this thread. I've never seen this level of irrationality and vitriol before, and I was on the alt.net years ago!

You don't need to be, as you are a nobody in the big scheme of things

I don't need to insult, troll or goad. I know I am right

And yet you did. Dogged to the last, eh?

Oh and the moors - wild ones - they could be anywhere messing up my walk (except they don't because their presence adds to it)