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?

Again, since you seem to be struggling to understand this...there is no route out of my house that can completely avoid people. To wait until the area in which I live is completely free of children means not walking my dog except between the hours of 10pm (later at weekends) and 6.30am. That, funnily enough, doesn't always suit my schedule or leave enough time to fulfill a dog's exercise requirements.

I am not concerned or anxious if an adult actually supervises children until they are of an age/level of responsibility that they could reasonably be expected to behave politely.

I am concerned and anxious if adults don't bother to supervise children when they are clearly too young/not responsible enough to behave politely.

I don't mind being delayed at all if it's done with good manners or even any acknowledgement that good manners could have been applied in this situation.

I tend not to even mind particularly if neither a child or the adult responsible for them asks if they can pat my dog, but patting is in fact what happens.

I do however mind a bit that I've been delayed if neither a child or the adult responsible for them asks if they can pat my dog and a child then goes on to hurt my dog and the adult responsible for the child also leaves it up to me to tell that child that poking/prodding/ear pulling isn't nice. If I'm having to give up my time to supervise a child that I don't even know because the adult responsible for them isn't even attempting to, then yes it does bother me a bit.

Strangely, I didn't realize that by virtue of owning a dog that I am in fact the responsible adult in charge of all children that I meet, even those with actual parents with them. Do my powers extend to giving them chores to do and teaching them how to skip while I'm telling them what is kind and unkind or polite and rude? Because then I might at least be able to have a bit of fun with it.

In fact, it doesn't matter - I've cracked it.

I have a dog with me, that makes me responsible for all the children I meet...so all I have to do if they're not behaving nicely towards my dog or me is tell them to go home and go to bed, and even if they have a parent with them - me having a dog trumps their responsibility for their child.

Thanks, now I don't care what parents do or don't do.

The expectation of politeness is unreasonable.

Children are renowned for lacking it and everyone except apparently the dog owners on this thread understands that they are 'works in progress' as far as maturity and acceptable behaviour go. Even the law acknowledges their immaturity and their lack of sense. It occurs to me that what it boils down to is you are annoyed that children are childlike.

You have chosen to own a dog with apparently significant exercise needs in a built up area where children live and you are not willing to adapt your schedule to avoid those children even though you have posted many posts over several pages and several days explaining how much of a pita it is when you and your dog are interrupted by children when you are out walking.

Instead of putting yourself out a bit you think children should change their fundamental nature, and other adults should be constantly on the lookout for the welfare of your dog when you take it out.

It is a topsy turvy world that you inhabit.

No, I absolutely understand that children are a work in progress as far maturity and acceptable behaviour are concerned...that's why adults are responsible for children.

I am not annoyed when children are childlike, I am annoyed when parents aren't parental.

I don't mind putting myself out a bit for a child, I do mind when it's because the adult who should be supervising the child thinks that I am more responsible for teaching that child how to behave than they are.

I also don't expect other adults to be looking out for the welfare of my dog anymore than I'd expect them to be looking out for my welfare or that my handbag is still on my arm - but there is a bit of a crossover if their child is hurting my dog or me or taking my handbag.

Oh and most dogs require more exercise than what could be put into a schedule that has to accommodate when children that you have no control over going to bed.

Is this thread STILL going? I gave up reading every post a few pages ago, so hope that no-one has said this before.

Surely it is patently obvious that it is every parents duty to ensure that their child does not put themselves into danger; whether that be crossing a road without looking, getting into a strangers car or approaching a strange dog (especially without the owners permission).

It is also the responsibility of every other person to ensure that their behaviour does not put other people at risk; so a car driver is responsible for driving safely, being aware of potential incidents, such as car in front braking suddenly, child running out in front of you etc. By the same token, a dog owner, needs to be aware of children approaching and anticipate what this child may/ may not do. Young children are unpredictable, and dog owners need to aware of this and be prepared to react if they need to. I don't really see why it is so hard for them to say "don't touch my dog" to any child that looks like they are going to do so. If the warning is given, and the child/ and or the parent ignores it, then that's a different story. However, I do think that if you have a "snappy" dog that is actually quite likely to bite if approached, then it should wear a muzzle when in public.

To continue with the car analogy, I teach my children how to cross the road safely, however I don't think that I should have to teach them how to react if a car mounts the pavement. Has anyone actually done so? In certain circumstances this could save their lives, but I rely on drivers to remain on the road, in control of their car as I should be able to rely on dog owners to keep their dogs under control. I know that the OP stated that she was talking about dogs that were under control, but all too often a dog owner's idea of being "under control" isn't mine.

I don't understand why anyone would think it wasn't their responsibility to teach their children how to behave around dogs. Makes perfect sense to me.

Of course dog owners should play their part and keep dangerous/snappy dogs under adequate control; but even the most mild-mannered dog will react if provoked enough, so ensuring that my child doesn't provoke it is MY responsibility.

Humans, especially small humans, and animals - no matter how well trained - can be unpredictable.

The most well trained dog can snap if it is in pain from an injury, too hot, suffering from a painful illness or all manner of reasons.

A normally well behaved child can suddenly act out of character because it is a child.

The important thing is to ensure that no child is bitten, no matter what the reason.

Surely the solution is for dogs to be muzzled when in public places. It would be a law that would be very simple to enforce.

What I don't understand is why you think telling your child something (even telling them numerous times) will have the desired effect. You assume parents have not told their children to keep away from dogs. This may or may not be the case.

However, you may probably assume they have told their children to keep away from strangers, not to go up to them or engage with them, and yet off they skip to you, a stranger, and spend (your precious) time right there up close and personal with you, perhaps chatting with you about your dog.

If they can throw caution to the wind regarding 'stranger danger' do you not suspect they have also completely forgotten anything their parents have told them about strange dogs?

Child molesters know how easy it is to overcome the lectures parents have given by using dogs, puppies, etc., to attract and lure children. The lesson to you should be obvious -- children find dogs fascinating to the point where they are very likely to lose their minds when faced with the chance to get close to one.

I saw a documentary where a seasoned sex offender said it took him approximately 17 seconds to persuade his average child victim to go along with him to another location.

That is how easy it is to get past the roadblocks parents think they are putting up.

The children who you find so annoying on your walks are really, really forgetful. Many of them have a hard time matching verbal instructions to real life situations. Refusal to take that into account is irrational.

Yes Math, but if your child runs off to greet a strangers dog, you follow them and remind them it's polite to ask, you don't saunter a few meters behind because your PFB can touch any dog they want and it's tough for the owner and dog if they don't want to meet your child or if your child has not yet understood that they need to be gentle.

A child running up to me with a parent right behind them would not bother me in the slightest. I would tell them they had to stop and wait for mummy or daddy and shouldn't run off from them in case they got lost, but that's it.

It's the parent's who let their kids run up while they dawdle behind or stand chatting with their friends, who bother me. For all they know I could be a child molester, so on that score alone it's not a sensible thing to do.

Supervise your child. If they run away from you, it is your responsibility to go after them, their safety does not become my responsibility just because you want to finish your chat with your friend and your child running off to me is actually quite convenient for you because it means they've stopped interrupting you.

And how far does my responsibility for your child's safety extend? What if you've chatted for 15 minutes while barely watching your child and I need to get away, but the child keeps following me? Or if after they've petted my dogs they want to climb in the beck to pet the ducks? Do I have to let go off my dogs and climb down after them to stop them?

This is getting silly. And the straw man arguments are getting even sillier.

Yes. Parents should teach their children how to behave around dogs. Yes, parts should supervise.

But dog owners should make sure that, should a child - perish the thought- be more than 10 feet away from their parent, and does something stupid, that they can prevent their dog reacting in a way that could cause severe damage. Yes, the bite would be largely the fault of the child/ supervising adult. But the child would still be bitten. Whoever's fault it was. And if you're talking relative damage, a dog could do far more harm to a child than a child could ever do to a dog. So you can argue responsibility til you're blue in the face- the crucial thing is to prevent anyone getting hurt.

Those parents who say that children won't listen to what you say or forget everything, do you then allow them to wander unsupervised near busy roads, knowing that they might just run in front of cars, if they see something interesting across the road? It's the drivers' responsibility to look out for dangers, after all.
If you don't and would maybe hold your toddler's hand and keep an eye on them at all times, why don't you want to do the same if you know they might run to pet or kick strange dogs?

"If you don't and would maybe hold your toddler's hand and keep an eye on them at all times, why don't you want to do the same if you know they might run to pet or kick strange dogs?"

So you have to hold your child's hand at all times in the park just in case somebody wants to walk a dog that might bite if a child approaches it?

curlew But the child would still be bitten. Whoever's fault it was

well exactly! So arguing that parents don't have to do anything and dog owners are responsible if something happens, like some people on this thread (not you, just to be clear), does not make sense to me - surely a parent should be at least a little interested that their child does not get bitten?

But it is ultimately the dog owner's responsibility. It is the dog owner who has introduced the potentially dangerous thing into the situation. Yes, of course the parent and the child should be responsible too- but the dog owner owns the thing with the teeth.

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.

Were you there? She was very relaxed and was a few steps behind the boy with her other kids. His dad was right next to him but on the other side so the little boy was the closest to me. If she was at all worried about a bit then surely she would placed either placed herself between us or the other path to leave so she wouldn't walk by me at all? I bet she was using my dogs as a reason to get little Jack to shut up but we still acknowledged each other and smiled.

As for alerting me she had a small child, I couldn't really miss him on a tractor and 4 of his siblings coming down a path!

To sum it up for me.

As a dog owner I have trained and socialised my dogs. They can and do walk by any number of people without issue. They have been to training classes and earned Kennel Club Good Citizen Awards. I am a responsible owner.

I would be happy to put them in sit and let children pet them if asked but children without clear supervision or ones that just run up would cause me to walk away. Even if I have to remove said child from my dog.

I have 100% responsibility to make sure my dogs do not hurt anyone. I do not have a responsibility to supervise the child so I would remove my pets from that situation.

Is that ok with everyone?

"
"I have 100% responsibility to make sure my dogs do not hurt anyone. I do not have a responsibility to supervise the child so I would remove my pets from that situation."

Yep. This.

Ok math - if my so happens to run up and stand right behind your car as you start it I'll leave him to it. After all if you run him over I can just explain that he is drawn magnetically to handbrakes and he doesn't understand much language and is really forgetful. And although I was fully aware of all that it's still 100% your responsibility and you can be prosecuted anyway. although that would never happen because I'm not an idiot and closely supervise him or any child who needs help understanding dangers and behaving appropriately

I have a dog with me, that makes me responsible for all the children I meet...so all I have to do if they're not behaving nicely towards my dog or me is tell them to go home and go to bed, and even if they have a parent with them - me having a dog trumps their responsibility for their child.

Annoying child hits my dog, i tell annoying child off, annoying child's parent can't say anything because by having a dog I'm responsible for the child... that works for me.

Math - why aren't you supervising your children if they can't remember anything or be trusted not to approach strangers, cars, horses, dogs. It takes one second for my handbrake obsessed teenager to be run over so I hold onto his hand near cars, or make sure someone else is. This is with caring for two other kids & a dog at the same time. When ds3 was younger and not trusted to stay away from dogs I held onto his hand near dogs. What is it that makes people with neurotypical children so incapable of proper supervision? I have had to closely supervise my eldest son for nearly 15 years - that means not taking my eyes off him unless we somewhere such as the middle of a beach or the moors (& I still grab him then if we see horses & I am always - everytime we go out - wherever we are - close enough to grab him.

I don't have to do that with my younger children but I am still close enough and keeping enough of an eye to tell them to not harass a dog. If I'm not there for some reason I would expect then to obey the owner & be livid if they didn't.

Curlew - I don't disagree with you that it's a owner's responsibility to prevent biting under normal circumstances and I include small children not understanding how to approach a dog or stroke a dog as normal circumstances.

I just don't think that extends to hypothetical rate extreme circumstances where a child might be violently assaulting a dog and I don't think it absolves parents of the responsibility to ensure their children are capable of behaving politely before letting letting them out alone or doing something to ensure their children are behaving politely when they're with them.

If a child is possibly going to go and fiddle with somebody's parked car - they're perfectly safe, but I wouldn't let them and if I knew it might happen I'd supervise them.

But if a child is "violently assaulting" your dog, surely you remove your dog? I certainly would. Or do you and the child's carer both just watch until the dog bites then have a debate about whose fault it is?

Nobody ever has, so yes I'd assume I'd move him...but earlier in the thread the example used was a child who poked a dog's eye out with a stick...in a split second thing like that, I have no idea if I'd react before my dog and I wouldn't think that was my fault for not supervising my dog properly or not assuming that's what the child holding a stick might be about to do and moving out of the way first.

I'm really not on about the poking and prodding that children are probe to doing just because they're children, that's just a very minor irritation that a parent isn't telling them to be nice.

Prone, not probe, lol

math

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

Er, yes. And I was expressing my opinion, as were you. Problem?

'Dog owners go around with what is essentially an attractive nuisance on a lead (and often off lead) and complain when people approach it?'

What the heck is 'an attractive nuisance'? I don't think that's what a dog 'essentially' is, I think that's your opinion of what a dog is. As such it's valid but not complete and not watertight. Dog owners are complaining not about people approaching their dogs per se but about when children approach their dogs unsupervised and don't give the owner a chance to secure the dog and explain how to touch it or that they shouldn't.

'You are wrong there about a right to take a dog out. It is a privilege.'

No more than anyone being able to walk out of their own house and around in public space is a 'privilege'.

'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.'

Parallels can be drawn between these limits and the limits that dog owners on this thread are talking about. The limits around dog-walking are dogs being trained, socialised and on leads. Many on this thread who are dog owners have stated that they work to and respect these limits. They are not doing the dog equivalent of leaving a dangerous rusty car out or having an unfenced swimming pool. Beyond these limits, there is a burden of responsibility on children's parents/supervisors. It was summed up very well IMO by curlew in:

'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.'

Finally, 'You have chosen to own a dog with apparently significant exercise needs in a built up area where children live and you are not willing to adapt your schedule to avoid those children'.

There is no need for anyone to adapt their schedule if everyone follows the simple principles above and doesn't forget basic manners.