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 haven't read the comments, but the quiz on the Kennel Club site is really informative:
www.safetyarounddogs.org.uk/

Sorry if I've repeated someone's post!

curlew

I've never had a child run up and intentionally hurt my dog. But she probably could have done without the little girl who, very sweetly, beat her around the head. Said little wasn't being unkind,she just really wanted to pet my dog and didn't know how to do so properly. My dog's face was (to my mind) like . But I just gently told her how to do it properly. Parents were paying no attention whatsoever. Which is why it's so important dogs are well trained.

ICBINEG have you ever actually met a dog? You have some very very odd ideas about them. Of all the animals kept as pets they are probably the most suited to the role of 'pet'. I've said it already on this thread but you need to read about domestication.

Loads of kids approach my dog. I ask them not to touch him, usually this request is backed up by their (sane) parents.

LtEve, if you bring a puppy out and expect children not to run up to it then you are living in some sort of alternative reality. It's not fair to unsuspecting children or anyone else to bring an untrained puppy out and not even on a lead so that he can chew people at will with his needle-like teeth.

If you want evidence of the way dogs and puppies make people lose the run of their brains look no further than your own post.

Saintlyjimjams, why are you worried about children approaching if dogs are ideal pets?

If you are worried about the children's safety then maybe the dog isn't so ideal.
If you are worried about the dog's equilibrium then you have a skewed understanding of who has a right to be out in a public place and what is only suffered there conditionally.

LadyClarice (in absentia):
(1) I have already addressed this point above.

(2) To paraphrase your second point -- How dare I suggest a sane and reasonable solution to your problem?
And yes, suggesting that dogs not be walked past outdoor restaurants is a great idea. Or they could be made to keep a safe distance away.

(3) It is abundantly clear that you think the sun shines forth from your dog's backside. What you seem not to understand at all is the effect dogs have on many children. This is strange because you yourself are so besotted by your dog that you have lost the ability to think clearly when dogs are the subject of your thought and with a little imagination you could see that others are very likely to fall under its spell too.

(4) What you are asking of parents is a completely unreasonable effort so that you can exercise what is actually a privilege, as opposed to their right and their children's right to enjoy a public place in peace. What you want parents to do in the presence or potential presence of you and your dog is hover close to their child and direct his or her behaviour until you have passed. Then they must remain vigilant until they spot the next pooch arriving for its exercise so as not to discombobulate a dog or its nervous owner in any way.

(5) Again a preposterous expectation of parental vigilance so that you may exercise a privilege.

(6) Sweet suffering catfish... Seriously? You think a flippant comment on a non existent three-legged dog is worthy of a whole paragraph?

(7) Ditto.

Your definition of what makes a good pet is 'it's good with children'???? I don't think any animals are necessarily always good with/for children are they? Have you ever tried picking up a rabbit? Or a cat? Or a horse. I meant actually more in terms of the social nature of the dog - but any quick guide to domestication would provide insights to that.

I have no worries about any child approaching my dog if they listen to me. If they're incapable of that I expect them to be supervised, which except on this thread where a couple of posters seem incapable of supervising their children because it's all too difficult, is what happens in the real world.

And if a child petted him without permission I doubt anything much would happen. He doesn't particularly like being petted by strange children while he's on lead (probably because as I have explained he has a history of sore ears & a lot of kids don't know how to pet a dog - he adores every strange adult that talks to him). He shows that he's uncomfortable with the interaction so I halt it. Likewise when ds3 was 18 months and picked up a kitten by it's neck I made him put it down because it looked rather uncomfortable for the kitten. Similar to when I ride a particular horse that I know has a cold back I do up his girth in stages & spend a bit of time after mounting just letting him walk around without my feet in stirrups before doing another girth tightening. You live in a very odd world where you think it's acceptable for children (or adults) to do anything to an animal no matter how uncomfortable it is.

If your definition of a good pet is one that can always be relied upon 100% to never hurt a child then I don't think there is a single pet of any type in the whole world that would tick that box do you? Even a bloody chicken can deliver a decent peck. You'd probably get closer to a more or less guarantee of safety with more dogs than any other type of animal though? I'd rather pet a dog showing me he was relaxed & happy then pick up a strange rabbit put it that way.

Just teach your children how to interact around animals (any animal) fgs & supervise them until they can - it's not difficult. It means they can get pleasure out of the interaction with animals & the animals themselves can remain unhurt & comfortable.

Your definition of what makes a good pet is 'it's good with children'????

I don't know who that was addressed to but I can't imagine a responsible parent would choose a pet willy nilly regardless of how it could be expected to behave around children.

If you are choosing a pet whom you expect to take out and about to places frequented by children then you should also ask yourself whether it's good with children before setting out.

I don't know what picking up a pet has to do with ownership.
I had rabbits as a child and found they were easy to pick up.
The family cats could easily be picked up too.

Just keep your animal firmly in control and respect other parents and the job they do a bit more.
Nobody owes you any help in socialising your dog or allowing you to exercise the privilege of walking it, be it ever so well bred or well trained. If you are annoyed by the behaviour of children keep away from them with your dog.

If your dog has sore ears, you would be doing him a favour too.
I am actually aghast that you would choose to take him out at a time or in a place where his ears might be hurt. Respect your pet enough to not put him in a position where he might be hurt. Take care of him yourself and do not expect total strangers to know about his ears or whatever other problem he has. Be responsible for your own dog and do not expect others to be clairvoyant or to go out of their way to accommodate your privilege or your dog's health.

Your pov here is ridiculous and irrational. It consists of adamant insistence that everyone else owes you some duty when dog ownership has been a choice freely made by you in full knowledge of the nature of children, the area available to you to exercise your dog in and the problem your own dog has with his ears.

If your definition of a good pet is one that can always be relied upon 100% to never hurt a child then I don't think there is a single pet of any type in the whole world that would tick that box do you?

What a pet does or could do to my own child is something I myself take full responsibility for when choosing that particular pet.

When I choose to take my chosen pet out, however, I assume full and absolute responsibility for what my pet does to other people's children, including attracting them to me and to the pet, and with their safety and only their safety in mind I make my decision as to whether my pet is a suitable candidate to take out.

There is a huge difference between decisions I make about my own children and decisions I make that could have an impact on someone else's child. Because I value children greatly I choose to err on the side of safety and never endanger anyone else's child. Children are too precious for me to stand on my alleged rights and take a chance with the safety of anyone else's.

100% safety?
I have had a fluctuating population of goldfish in a tank for many years. They are a complete nuisance but imo pretty safe.
I had a cat whom I chose not to declaw and who stayed indoors at all times. My family and I were the only people affected by her claws. She was a great pet and companion to the DCs nevertheless. But I did not expose others to any danger posed by her.
Again, my children, my decision and my responsibility.
Other people's children -- my responsibility too and my decision must reflect concern for them above all other considerations just as it does when I am driving.

Well according to your logic math you shouldn't be out with your car because its handbrake is huge attraction to my vulnerable child. To a far greater degree than I've ever seen any child be attracted to any dog.

Poor cat never going out. Actually I work with cats & it depends. Some cats are fine never going out but it sends some loopy & makes them very stressed.

Not being too judgemental about the cat btw - I have had to keep a (deaf, disabled) cat in for his own safety but it did send him a bit crazy.

Surely declawing ( horrible thing to do) doesn't protect you from the most dangerous part of a cat?

You live in a very odd world where you think it's acceptable for children (or adults) to do anything to an animal no matter how uncomfortable it is.

I do not think it is acceptable to do anything to an animal. I live in a world where as a pet owner I look realistically at the chances of something or someone hurting my pet when it goes out. My first priority is the safety of children and others the pet might meet and then I have to think of my pet and the likelihood of it being hurt. If there is any likelihood of either children or pet being injured then it behoves me to rethink my route or my time for walkies.

I am responsible for my pet and therefore I do not make stupid, reckless decisions on where or when to take it out. I do not make an animal who has no choice about where it goes walk in some place where it would be uncomfortable or in danger. I am responsible for the safety of other people's children and therefore I do not make stupid, reckless decisions about taking my pet out amongst them.

Walking a dog on a lead is a 'stupid reckless thing to do'????? Oh puuuurlease. I'd love to know what you think about horses. And wild ones roaming free.

And yet you continue to drive despite knowing it might kill my handbrake obsessed child. Yep ridiculous argument I know but just substituting car for dog & using your argument.

I will never go anywhere near your child with my handbrake. I can guarantee that.

My cat had a long and happy life in the company of five children in a large house, which was far preferable to going out and fending for herself with raccoons, opossums, snakes and birds of prey. My decision to keep her in was a matter of balancing factors that would affect her wellbeing. Keeping her indoors was the solution to my particular conundrum. Balancing factors that affected the wellbeing of the children was something I did too and came up with my own household arrangements that kept everyone as safe, healthy and happy as possible.

Erm you just said that you don't take your pets out
And how are goldfish a nuisance ?
You are coming across here as both weird and cruel to animals

Are you that woman who put a cat in the wheelie bin in Coventry?

LtEve, if you bring a puppy out and expect children not to run up to it then you are living in some sort of alternative reality. It's not fair to unsuspecting children or anyone else to bring an untrained puppy out and not even on a lead so that he can chew people at will with his needle-like teeth

Seriously math, I don't know what your agenda is here, but frankly, I wasn't actually expecting to see any other humans, let alone children, on MOD land at 0530 in the morning. But you just carry on there, blaming the dogs and the responsible dog owners rather than the trespassing irresponsible parents. Bloody ridiculous.

Wild horses roaming free are not a problem for an owner. They are a problem for other people and potentially for a council.

Horses that are being ridden generally do not gallop about in playgrounds. If a rider did something like this then I expect he or she would be at least cautioned by the police.

Taking a dog out on a lead to a park is a stupid and reckless thing to do when you know your dog has sore ears and that children who do not know how to touch him gently are likely to come up and try to pat him. Spare a thought for your dog who doesn't get to decide where you take him for his walk. Be a responsible owner. Would you make your child do something likely to hurt him or place him in a position where others would hurt him?

Your argument about handbrakes and your SN child is a red herring. Your child's obsession is not a common one and is not the topic of this discussion, nor is it analogous since a SN child may require far more parental supervision at all times than a NT child and parents of SN children are used to providing this sort of constant supervision whereas parents of NT children do not have to be as hands on at all times and can watch from the corner of their eyes. It is unreasonable for you to expect parents of NT children to exercise the same amount of vigilance wrt their children as that which you need to exercise with your child. It is unreasonable for you to expect them to micromanage their child when you choose to walk through a park with your dog and facilitate your privilege.

But my child could run up to your handbrake if you have your car out in public. How would you stop him.

(Yes it's a ridiculous argument, but this is your argument just using handbrakes as that's what my child is magnetically attracted to. He's only approached a dog once in 14 years & only because it liked identical to ours)

Donnadoon -
I didn't let my cat out, no.
If it went out it faced raccoons, opossums, snakes and birds of prey. Raccoons are not as cute and cuddly as they look and they are often rabid.
You are going to have to take my word for it that the cat lived a long and happy life, was a great mouser, had all her necessary vet visits and appropriate and humane end of life care.

The goldfish live in a tank that requires frequent cleaning and changing of a filter. They swim around all day, eat and poop. In my honest opinion they do not have much going for them as pets. The DCs won some of them at a fair they were taken to, and some of their friends have donated theirs when their parents did not want to continue with the feeding and cleaning that goldfish need. I am opposed to the giving out of live animals as prizes at fairs to people who perhaps do not want them or can't take care of them, in case you are going to accuse me of harbouring some violent hatred towards carp.

LtEve -- thanks for the dripfeed about your choice of walking route and time. The safety of children is no less your responsibility whether dogs and children encounter each other on MOD land at 5 in the morning or the local park at 2 in the afternoon.

I'm finding some of the posts on here a little confusing.

It's as though the only animal a child might ever be expected to come across when out and about is a dog (no ducks, pigeons, cats, horses, cows, donkeys, squirrels, sheep, seagulls etc. etc.).

Also, I can't understand why somebody would argue that a child who wasn't yet able to say "Hello, that's a nice dog, is it OK if I stroke it?" and was impulsive enough to dart out and stroke a strange dog despite (presumably) having been told not to, would not be kept close to a supervising adult when out and about anyway. (Assuming dog has not approached child or brought into a child's space e.g. next to school/playground gates)

Incidentally my eldest son is extremely vulnerable - he will require 24 hour 1:1 care for the rest of his life. I risk assess all day every day, even at home I need to know where he is all the time & I have to remember to shut windows before he arrive home from school for example. When we go out I need to constantly scan ahead & predict what might happen next.

This means I have a finely tuned sense of 'danger' - I am used to taking evasive action at a moments notice & frequently do.

Never have 'dogs' or 'cats' featured on my 'danger' radar. We take no evasive action on seeing a dog or cat. If you actually did have to assess real dangers moment to moment for a very vulnerable child I doubt they'd feature on your radar either.

As an aside I've just had a friendly chat about dogs with a man walking a terrier in a service station. That's what I love about having a dog (only had one for 3 years as an adult) - do many friendly people to meet (& dogs)

It really is a ridiculous argument that you are making Saintly.
There is no analogy except insofar as both driving and taking a dog out are privileges.

I owe your child a duty to keep watch at all times while driving even though my car is in the place where it belongs when it is on the road, and even though that is a place where your child does not belong. I am reminded of this duty and of the potential for people to be in places they shouldn't be when I drive and see signs warning me of the presence of a school and children nearby.

I am supposed to drive carefully and that has been my habit since 1988 when I first learned to drive. Thanks to the recognised nature of children I am obliged to drive especially carefully near places where children gather. Driving is a privilege that requires complete attention to the safety of others at all times.

Your dog is always in places where human beings take precedence because it is an animal. Its presence is always subject to conditions. This is because a dog is considered a potential danger just as much as a car is. Looking at the issue from the pov of what your dog needs and how others can contribute to meeting your dog's needs is not the right way to look at this. It is the health and safety of people that come first. You as a dog owner exercising a privilege have to adopt the same attitude as a driver exercising hers.

Of course there is nothing to stop you as an owner deciding to take into consideration that your dog has sore ears and concluding that it's not worth running the gauntlet of children as it would hurt your dog too much. But overall, society recognises that it is children whose safety it values and not that of dogs.

Well there you are, Saintly -- you are expecting people who do not normally have to be as vigilant as you do to change their habits when dogs appear in a park or out on a path. To do so is unreasonable.

Math - are you american? Do you have leash laws? Not that it really matters but some of my american friends were surprised at the lack of leash laws in the UK. They also had issues with stray Pitbulls which was odd to me.

Merrymouse, children not yet verbal enough to put sentences like your example together could still be allowed freedom to roam a little from a parent depending on the location, size of crowd, etc.