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?

math
Children as humans have greater rights to be in public spaces.
No they don't.
Yes they do.

Why? Bearing in mind that dog owners are humans too.

tabula, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you I thought you were saying dogs should be allowed to behave badly if/as children are.

math again
'A fluffy dog? Too nervous to be out around children whom the owner has experience of yet taken out among children? Who is being unreasonable here, and putting his own dog in an uncomfortable position? Not just unreasonable, downright irrational.'

'taken out among children' makes it sound as though dog owners are deliberately taking their dogs to children's playgrounds or something, and actively parading them in a 'look at my attractive dog' way.

People have a right to take their dogs out. They have a right to expect that others will not touch their dog without asking, just as they have a right to expect that others will not touch them or their belongings without asking.

The person who is being unreasonable is the person who lets their child approach a strange dog without asking and without being deterred or supervised. Just as it would be unreasonable for a child's parent to let the child approach a strange person and try to touch them/touch or take their belongings without asking.

Please give it a rest with all the 'take your dog out after a certain time in case there are children around' stuff too. How dare you?

Curlew - I know that as a dog owner I have to ensure that he behaves in a way that doesn't impact negatively on other people.

I also think I should do the same with my children, although of course they're children so they may occasionally do something unexpected in which case I should deal with them, not leave it up to a random stranger to do it.

That's it, that's all the dog owners on this thread are saying...

The problem is that if a child does something complete unexpected around a dog, there is, frankly, nothing the parent can do and all that stands between the child and potential disaster is the dog owner.

I don't have any problem tell

Not really, not normally with most dogs...

If a young child makes a sudden dash towards a dog where they've never shown an interest before and all the parent can do is dash after them and tell them what to do instead that is dealing with it. If a young child pokes a dog in the face and the parent tells them that that's not nice and shows them what a stroke is, that's also dealing with it.

No-ones expecting anything other than basic manners, if I had a dog that would bite because of fairly normal but rough behaviour (because lets face it young children aren't exactly delicate with dogs) I wouldn't consider just walking on a lead to be me ensuring that he behaves.

Telling an unwanted approaching child to leave my dog alone (politely). But it is better if the parents are awake, available and reinforcing what I am saying.

So what then? Ban dogs? Or perhaps a dog curfew? Would it be okay if a child gets bitten during said curfew?

Or..scary idea..take some responsibility for your child? No no let them provoke a bite and then demand the destruction of the mad snarling beast.

BTW my brother's dog is fluffy as in wide standing out snow white hair - he's not a small dog and is only nervous when touched by strangers. He is an appealing looking dog, the kind that provokes cuddly reactions. So my brother keeps him on a lead when kids are about and asks people not to touch him. Sadly some kids don't listen and evidently have parents too stupid to care.

"Or..scary idea..take some responsibility for your child? No no let them provoke a bite and then demand the destruction of the mad snarling beast."

Just a thought- had you considered reading the thread?

Curlew yes I have read it - you may not have seen them but there are lots of posts suggesting that no matter what it is always the owner's responsibility of a dog snaps...and no I am not going back to repost them all.

OP YANBU.

I went to a park at 9:00pm last night and still met young kids!

This is what happened. The park has a main walking area with a path around the edge, grass in the middle and a fenced off childrens play area. Plenty of dog waste bins. I was coming in through the gate as a family was leaving. Mum, Dad and 5 children. The youngest (about 3) was on a ride-on tractor and making loud brumm brumm noises. I stepped off the path with my leashed dogs for them to walk past and the mum said 'Be quiet now Jack or you will scare the doggies.'

The little boy became quiet and slowly rode past and I smiled at him and his mum and said 'Thanks'.

I didn't ask her to do that. My dogs woun't have minded the noise but it was nice of her to be considerate. Just as I was by moving off the path for the family.

That is what this thread was about. Not rights, or dangerous beasts or the law. Just people having respect for each other.

Have a good evening. I'm off to walk my dogs.

Thats lovely Canidae it really is pleasant to encounter pleasant people when out walking but if little Jack had of deliberately crashed into your dogs on his tractor or bashed them with a stick...and God forbid your dog reacted then according to some YOU would be to blame

Seeing as little Jack's parents were right next to him I would expect them to make some attempt to stop him.

But that was before I realised some people on here would not view that as sensible and it would be my dog's fault as they are attractive kid magnets!

Hideous isn't it

Bloody hell, this is becoming groundhog day.

This is the way the law works

www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/overview

NoThing about children expected to learn how to handle dogs, nor parents expected to teach their kids how to handle them. If your dog bites the most obnoxious child in the world, parented by the worst parents in the world, you are liable.

"People on Mumsnet think its not my lufflie doggies fault because the parents didn't train their child and the child upset my doggie first" is not going to wash.

That is all.

Lazy

Your kids are going to have a great time growing up since it's everybody else's responsibility to watch out for them. Taking "it takes a village" a tad far no?

Yes it WILL wash
If a perfectly controlled dog was attacked by a child and say it was captured on film for evidence.
Yes it will bloody wash!
CHILDREN ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ABUSE DOGS
THEIR PARENTS CAN AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED

It is a bit groundhog day, isn't it lazy? Because you are also ignoring a relevant point.
If your child harasses a dog, then there is a higher chance of your child being bitten. Not a certainty, but a higher chance.
All the dog owners would, I think, agree with that. We have also, as far as I can see, have all said that we will and do take responsibility for our dogs.

We are still waiting for you to agree that as a parent you also have some responsibility by teaching your child some appropriate behaviour. That is bog all to do with liability, and in fact quite a lot of the last few pages haven't mentioned liability, but talked instead of responsibility.

And as another poster pointed out, knowing that there is a slightly higher risk to your child if you do not teach them to respect dogs, why on earth wouldn't you? Your child would be fine if it ran up and hassled my dog. But it might do the same to a dog who doesn't happen to belong to a mumsnetter and who really doesn't give a damn. Small comfort if your child has no nose left, whoever has the ultimate responsibility.

And this is the whole crux of the argument. Is it unreasonable to ask parents to teach children how to behave around dogs? Not "who is liable if a child gets bitten?" but "is it unreasonable to equip kids with a bit of knowledge that may prevent an accident?"

"If your dog bites the most obnoxious child in the world, parented by the worst parents in the world, you are liable."

If that is in fact how the law is enacted...why would there be a need for cases to go before a magistrate before any decision on guilt is made? Surely it would be as straightforward as, was somebody injured, yes, guilty and only in cases with no injury would there be a need to take it as far as a magistrate.

Also, there are other laws covering dogs - the animal welfare act for instance, if the child has broken that and by default the parent has also broken that, (because permitting somebody else to act in a way that breaks that law is also considered to be breaking that law) then at the very least you have an owner guilty of breaking one law and a parent guilty of breaking another.

It really isn't as simple as a dog injured somebody therefore it's completely the owner's fault no matter what the circumstances.

"1) Parents should teach their children how to behave around potentially dangerous things- ponds, cars, ovens, dogs, matches,chain saws,glass coffee tables.....

2. People who own said potentially dangerous things should behave as if children haven't been taught or have forgotten.

Sorted.

Agree with curlew completely.

If a child is bitten by dog off a leash then owners fault, if its on a leash still owners fault. Parents should teach kids to not just run up to touch a strangers dog, but still it shouldnt bite.if its easily scared then it should be wearing a muzzle or not out where there is going to be a lot of people .
If child attacks my dog hitting it with a stick etc though then i dont blame the owner or child i blame the parents.
Dog owners need to teach their dogs or dont take them out in public but parents need to teach their kids also.
Kids should be taught how to treat and respect animals. Animal absuse is never ok.
Parks are public place, meant for everybody not just children.
Btw im NOT a dog owner now i have cats but dont agree that the dogs always wrong.
I think dog law is going Ott. If someone is bit because they have been absusing an animal and it bites i have no sympathy for that person, if its a child then the parents are at fault, espically if its private property.
If you think your child cant be trusted around animals then you supervise them and dont let them touch the animals.
Im also the owner of a pygamy hedgehog, i tell my friends never to touch her on her back as she will puff up and stab you but some have still done just that. I blamed them, they blamed themselves. I warned them and my pet had been in her house.
One of my bfs rescue cats is also not stranger friendy. He rarely goes out the front but if he does he runs from people.
Bf gets guests in and they know not to touch him as he will scratch and his claws are sharp. I was warned when i first went over but still stroked him. I got badly scratched but it was my fault, the cat was in its own house and i knew it was wary of strangers. I know not a dog but there are similarities.

Damn phone. I just dont think everything is black and white. As Above i do think things are different when it comes to private property.
I dont think if you go to someones property and your bit or hurt then its the visitors fault however if you approach an animal that youve been told to stay away from or not to touch then that person should harbour some responsibilty for their actions. I dont let people who don't listen near my cat and hedgehog now.

Please give it a rest with all the 'take your dog out after a certain time in case there are children around' stuff too. How dare you?

Jeez, LadyClarice.
This is a public forum. It is AIBU no less.

Dog owners go around with what is essentially an attractive nuisance on a lead (and often off lead) and complain when people approach it? It's as insane as 'They're all out of step except our Johnny'.

People have a right to take their dogs out. They have a right to expect that others will not touch their dog without asking, just as they have a right to expect that others will not touch them or their belongings without asking.

You are wrong there about a right to take a dog out. It is a privilege. You are also wrong about private property and the responsibilities of owners. The concept of attractive nuisance exists because children are notorious trespassers and pokers of their noses where they don't belong. You can't put an unfenced swimming pool in your front garden. You can't put a trampoline out where children could get unsupervised access to it. You can't leave an old rusty car out where children can climb freely all over it and injure themselves even if your property is bought and paid for. There are limits to your rights as a property owner. Those limits reflect many considerations, including the known and accepted tendencies of children.

If that is in fact how the law is enacted...why would there be a need for cases to go before a magistrate before any decision on guilt is made? Surely it would be as straightforward as, was somebody injured, yes, guilty and only in cases with no injury would there be a need to take it as far as a magistrate.
This happens in order to prevent lynching.
It also means appropriate records of offenders, offences and judgements can be kept.
If there is no injury why the heck would you go before a magistrate... What problem would you want to discuss with him or her?

Canidae the woman who asked her young child to be quiet around your dogs didn't give a hoot about the equilibrium of your dogs per se. She wanted to make sure your dogs wouldn't be unnerved and bite her child. She was also alerting you to the fact that she had with her a small child and asking you to hold on tight to your dogs.

I agree with Curlew too.
I would like to add that the should behave with their care and concern primarily for the safety and welfare of the children and not the equilibrium of their pets, unless that had a bearing on the safety of children.

There has been so much mention of rights of dog owners here that I am wondering if the safety and welfare of children, annoying though they may be, is what many owners care about at all.

'If there is no injury why the heck would you go before a magistrate... What problem would you want to discuss with him or her?'

Because the being in control of a dog in a public place part of the dangerous dog act extends to more than just actual injuries. You can have an incident where a dog is considered to be out of control even if no-one is physically harmed.

'There has been so much mention of rights of dog owners here that I am wondering if the safety and welfare of children, annoying though they may be, is what many owners care about at all.'

It is entirely possible to care about many things all at the same time... I don't walk about thinking OH MY GOD - my dog might bite someone, because he's about as child friendly as a large clumsy adolescent dog can be. So what I'm caring about mostly is that he's not going to stand on a toe or lean in for a stroke because he's heavy, I'm then caring about whether the child is going to do something to hurt my dog because the chances are if nobody has thought to ask me or acknowledge that it would have been polite to ask then they're not that likely to care whether the child is being nice to my dog or not. I'm also mildly caring about the fact that I've still got things to do at home and this is adding time on to my walk, which will mean everything's knocked back by a few minutes for every child that comes over - because I'm having to keep my dog still so he doesn't stand on their toes and while I'm spending my time doing that instead of what I was so obviously doing before I was interrupted...the adult responsible for that child can't even be bothered to make sure their child is being kind to my dog.

I might also be simultaneously caring about whether that bit of dog slobber is going to hit someone...or in fact many other things that I'm not actually thinking of right at that precise moment because caring about one thing doesn't dislodge others.

Despite the fact that you are delayed by children and are concerned that children will hurt your dog you persist in taking the dog out where you frequently meet children? Nobody wins here. The dog gets patted by children, you are delayed and anxious. The word for that is masochism.