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?

If you have a child who ignores strange dogs/or checks with the owner before petting the dog nobody expects you to be vigilant around dogs. The dog is the owner's responsibility, not yours.

If you have a child that likes to touch strange dogs (or any other animal) despite being told not to you need to be vigilant when out and about, but surely if you have a child with this level of maturity, you would be anyway?

I am Irish but lived in America when I had my cat. Leash laws were a very pleasant part of life in America, as well as the sort of civic spiritedness that led to most people making a big effort to clean up after their pets.

Where I lived, any stray dog (not just a pitbull) seen wandering would be reported immediately by passers-by, and children would be quickly gathered to safety thanks to the threat of rabies. The local municipality would send a police car and the animal control van and officer to round it up.

It's not just about being verbal, it's about having the ability to follow orders and e.g not run across the road to see their friend and have impulse control.

In both cases, you presumably wouldn't let the child go out of voice range or further than you could quickly catch up with them.

So math according to you if your child is NT but too young to understand or risk assess danger they don't need supervising but if they're disabled they do? And it's okay reasonable to expect parents to supervise adequately of their child is disabled. Are you really saying that? Really??

Bonkers.

And my argument is exactly the same as yours just substituting car for dog.

Only reasonable to expect supervision from parents if the child is disabled. Really? Really???????? It's fine to expect us to get off our area but not the precious parents of NT kids??? FFS.

arses not area. So cross I can't type straight.

This from the person who told me to walk my baby in the dark saintly what did you expect?

Merrymouse, there is always a first time.

All five of my normally attentive children have done really dumb things long after I thought they had demonstrated they could be trusted to remember instructions I had drummed into them... 'Look left and right and left again before crossing the street ' (US traffic is on the right) 'Don't turn back when crossing even if you drop something important', 'Only cross at the intersection' (this is the law in the US), 'Don't run among parked cars', 'Hold onto me in the car park because drivers can't see you when they back out' (drivers were obliged to park facing forward and therefore always backed out where I lived and shopped), 'Don't ever climb out your bedroom window onto the front porch roof', 'Don't ever bring a glass into the bathroom', 'Don't jump down the stairs because the bottom step is only three feet from the wall and you will go through it if you stumble or jump from too high a step', 'Don't put your little sister on the old crib mattress and try to propel her into the dining room by jumping on the other end'.....

Yes you would be vigilant as a parent. But if you were a dog owner and you were as bothered by children as those on this thread seem to be, would you not consider walking when most children are in bed or finding a quieter spot for your walk? You are walking an animal that has an instinct to bite other creatures when upset or unnerved or feeling threatened after all.

Saintly, if you are not going to read what I posted then don't bother replying.

But math what about people with children who enjoy taking their dog out together as a family, are we really expected to walk in the dark as a family because your children can not be trusted or stopped by you from running over and antagonizing us?

I have read what you wrote. You said you expect people with disabled kids who don't understand danger to supervise their children. But you expect people with NT kids who do not understand danger not to have to supervise. In fact you said it was be unreasonable to expect them to have to closely supervise their children.

If you meant something else then so be it, explain again if you wish, but that's the only way I can see to interpret what you said.

So math according to you if your child is NT but too young to understand or risk assess danger they don't need supervising but if they're disabled they do? And it's okay reasonable to expect parents to supervise adequately of their child is disabled. Are you really saying that? Really??

No, and -- that is not what I said. Do you mean to be so obtuse?

Parents can and do supervise and they finetune their supervision according to their perception of danger to their own children and other factors such as -- they may or may not have other children on their hands, or they may occasionally rummage for a tissue for a snotty nosed child or they may sneeze, or blow their noses, or pay attention to a baby momentarily. For the split second it takes for children to run up and approach you they may have for perfectly good reasons had their attention elsewhere. Or their perception of danger may not have been activated by the sight of your dog. Children are capable of speed - they have been accused of running up waving their arms on this thread. They may or may not have a heavily pregnant mother doing her best to catch up with them. Or perhaps a granny is out taking care of the grandchildren in the park.

In other words, they are people out in a park where they have a perfect right to be, doing what they see fit to adequately supervise their own children or grandchildren, with every expectation of taking everyone home alive (statistics bear out that this is a reasonable expectation of parents with normal levels of supervision of NT children). It is only when you introduce your dog into the park that according to you, it becomes necessary for them to switch to hyper vigilance, and not for the sake of their children but because it puts your dog's nose out of joint to be touched by small children.
Who are predictably playing there, in the park where you choose to walk your attractive, loveable pet...

This is taking on the character of Groundhog Day.

Clearly you have to make your own judgement about how much supervision your children need regarding safety. However, I think 'check before playing with something that belongs to a stranger' isn't something that children usually make a mistake with if they are beyond the age that supervision is required.

Your privilege to enjoy your dogs with your family needs to be balanced against the rights of other families, yes, Donnadoon.

"For the split second it takes for children to run up and approach you they may have for perfectly good reasons had their attention elsewhere."

And you quickly notice that the child is approaching a strange dog and you say "Oh, I'm so sorry, DC, have you checked that its OK to stroke that dog" and you hold onto your child and pull them back if they are causing a problem, or you all proceed to stroke the dog and have a lovely conversation about dogs.

And there is no problem.

Merrymouse, There is no set age when you can safely say that supervision is not required. You can be distracted. You can find you assumed wrongly that a four year old who has been told about strangers runs straight up to one when she appears in the park with her dog. You can sit out with your picnic rug and let your toddler wander a little from the rug, get distracted by a wasp, look up and find the toddler is following a puppy half way across the park. There is always a first time for your child to do something they have been warned about or something you never expected them to do.

As I said I have no problem at all with children approaching my dog providing they respond appropriately to 'please do not touch the dog but come & say hello - and I might let them feed him a treat if they're sensible children'.

I know all about assessing risk - more than most - see my previous post on this. If a child is at danger from approaching my dog because they cannot respond to 'please don't touch the dog' then I would hazard a guess they're at far greater danger from wandering off, falling in water, being run over, falling off a slide & need a level of supervision that reflects that.

I'm a bit lost on the 'rights' argument. I'm not sure how my dog affects other family's rights - as we only ever visit places dogs are allowed.

Having been heavily pregnant with a toddler and a dog more than once myself I was still able to control my children, they have a voice no?

You said you expect people with disabled kids who don't understand danger to supervise their children. But you expect people with NT kids who do not understand danger not to have to supervise. In fact you said it was be unreasonable to expect them to have to closely supervise their children.

Nope. Didn't say that. See above.

Everyone needs to supervise, and everyone does. You need to supervise at a high level and constantly, and always will. You have determined for yourself how much supervision your child needs and concluded it it going to require the level you provide for the long haul. The parents of NT children have a similar decision making process to go through wrt supervision; they feel their way forward by testing how much freedom their children can handle. Whereas you may have the help of a doctor of SW or SN teacher to advise about your DS and what you may expect of him, parents of NT children go by their gut instincts, learn from their mistakes and expect their children to learn from theirs.
HTH.

You have no right to expect anyone to supervise more than they judge necessary. Introducing your dog into their lives with the expectation that everyone will jump to attention is unreasonable.

Good for you Donnadoon.

I have been heavily pregnant five times, with multiple toddlers in tow, out and about in parks. I have managed to control my own children and a dog too.

Do I win?

And you bring me back to cruelty again math, Have you any idea how much my gentle, very much part of the family collie cross would howl and cry if he seen his whole world of a family put on their coats and head off with the football up to the park and not take him too, as weve always done? CRUEL Just because you cant or WONT more like, restrain your children from running up to him whilst he is on his lead and pulling his ears FFS

Rights -- for people.

Privileges -- for people accompanied by dogs.
Dogs are suffered as long as certain conditions are met - they must be under control and must have required jabs. If restricted breeds they must be muzzled.

I weep for him and with him Donnadoon.

Why do you have a collie cross cooped up in an urban area when collies are a working breed who should be out herding?

Where is your concern for the needs of your dog, which are distinct from your feelings about him and your needs?

Dogs do occasionally bite unprovoked. It happens. If I say to a child "yes it's fine to make a fuss of my dog,she's fine" and she, completely out of character, bites, what happens then? I have never actually thought of that before........