No dogs in school playground. Is it ok to carry your dog in?

[LtEsmeHansard]

As long as they don't touch the ground?

Lots of parents with dogs at our school - mainly small ones - we are in a large city. It's right next to a busy road too so can't really leave them outside. Some used to tie them up in a corner of the playground but now the caretaker patrols that area to prevent it, so some parents are now carrying their small dogs in. I have not by the way, my routine doesn't necessitate taking my dog on the school run. Just seen a parent be asked by the deputy head not to carry her small breed dog in as the rule is "No Dogs" on school premises - but the reasoning for this has always been unhygienic in school playground. If dog doesn't touch ground then not unhygienic surely? So no harm done. Anyway thought I would put it to MN as it's something that I have idly wondered about over the school run years

Just no to taking it into school. My toddler is petrified and it would make the school run a thousand times more difficult! (Selfish or what!!)

queen I'm sorry that happened to you, and I don't think you or your parents were at fault.

Don't you agree that children should be taught not to stroke strange dogs though? I also think they should be taught that they shouldn't feed random ponies or chase after pigeons.

I can see my previous post could have been worded better-I shouldn't have put my thoughts on children stroking dogs in the same post where I expressed sympathy for the child that got bitten after trying to stroke a dog.

Yes really barbarian. I wouldn't say it otherwise. Maybe it's just the crowd I personally hang with.

Fair do's, yes I definitely teach my kids my kids not to stroke strange dogs, but I think the ultimate responsibility is the owners.

Back to the op no dogs means no dogs and why do people bend the rules just to make their lives easier - it's so selfish.

^Fair do's, yes I definitely teach my kids my kids not to stroke strange dogs, but I think the ultimate responsibility is the owners.*

That was honestly what I meant-it really was badly worded (I'm blaming post election tiredness) and I'm sorry it came out wrong.

There are more reasons than just dog fouling for dogs not to be in school playgrounds.

Yes owners should be responsible, but not all of them are.

Yes parents should teach their children not to stroke strange dogs, but not all of them do.

I have a dog phobic child and the parade of over excited dogs waiting outside the school gate every afternoon is a trial for her to have to walk past. I actually wish people didn't take dogs on the school run at all, or if they really have to at least waited for their children in a place other people could avoid walking past.

If you disagree with the rule, raise it with the Head. But otherwise no dogs means no dogs. It doesn't mean no big dogs, no dogs off leads, no aggressive dogs or no dogs not wearing nappies. It means no bloody dogs.

No dogs = no dogs.

Although as my DH always says, there is always someone who assumes the rules don't apply to them

Personally I would ban all dogs on the school run and state that no family should bring a dog to school and impose a fine on anyone attempting to tie a dog to railings outside school. Not appropriate for dogs to be around schools - not fair on the DC or the dogs. A dog should not be reliant on the school run for its daily walks!

We had a lab when I was growing up, DM taught full time, between us we managed to give the dog two good walks every day without ever subjecting the poor creature to the school run.

No dogs is no dogs end of story even if they float across the playground in their own hot air balloon or rocket pack. Carrying dogs is still no dogs.

Bogeyface do you not think that people's circumstances never change just because they have a dog?

Not sure why that is relevant to what I posted when it was clear that my neighbours had the jobs before they had the dogs but ok.....

Yes circumstances do change, does that mean that its ok for the animal to suffer because of that? If you have pets that will not be cared for properly because you need to start working full time then those pets need rehoming with someone who can give them the care they need. As I said above, sometimes really loving animals can mean that you are not able to have any in your home as you realise that you are unable to provide them with the basics of what they need.

Having pets is not a right, no one needs a dog! Yes yes service animals excepted etc

I agree with the concensus, it's no dogs full stop.

When I was at school, the headteacher's daughter was allowed to bring her small dog into school with her, she was kept in her mum's office and paraded walked around the playground at lunchtime and the chosen few got the privilege of walking it with her. Ha! How times have changed thank fuck

#irrelevantschooldogstory

I think no dogs should mean no dogs. Its not just hygiene, some children people are scared of dogs. I don't get why they can't tie dogs up outside

No dogs is no dogs under any circumstances. Carried or not. ONLY exception is assistance dogs.

I work in a shop and we have a clear "no dogs except assistance dogs" sign on the door. Woman regularly comes in with a smallish dog, sometimes carrying it, sometimes on the lead and has to be told every time. Her reply is usually "it's just been to the toilet". As if that's relevant.

I think dog owners need to realise that you love your dog but no one else has to.

No dogs mean no dogs. If you allowed dogs in arms then the big dog owners would start arguing discrimination. Yes there are lots of responsible dog owners out there but there are also lots who are not.

Outside our primary school there is only a narrow pavement which gets crammed full of people crushing to get in and out at the same time. Once you eventually manage to get back out the school gates parents chatting or waiting outside mean there's another crush to get through. So not the place for dogs. They must feel really anxious. I'd never subject my dog to that.With some dogs, the first sign you get that they're feeling stressed is that they bite someone. I'd feel safer if dogs had to be muzzled if owners insist on tying them up to or hanging around the school gates with them.

Problem is people think
"Well no dogs can't possibly apply to my speckle, gorgeous, luvvy wuvvy woofie can it? Everyone knows that MY doggie is fine and no one could object."
And then are surprised to find other people don't think the same about their dog.
Much easier to say "no" to them all.

And "I'm holding it all the time" will soon morph into "I'll just pop it down for a couple of minutes while I put the book in the bookbag" to "no one said anything when I put them down yesterday and I'm sure no one really minds."

I think dog owners need to realise that you love your dog but no one else has to.

I agree with this. I don't see why it's a contentious statement, to be honest!

Lot of sweeping statements on here about how dog owner see their dogs in relation to the rest of society.

Yes I love my dog but I certainly appreciate that no one else does and no one wants to have my dog inflicted on them, in the same way I don't want other people's dog inflicted on me. I'm very careful to make sure my dog doesn't jump, bark or run at other people.

Not all dog owners are dog besotted idiots. Some of us are sensible rational people.

And when I see as sign saying 'no dogs' oddly enough I know that it applies to me as well as everyone else.

It may be, amongst many other issues, an insurance thing. I know some local venues that have been required by their insurance company to ban all dogs except assistance dogs.

No dogs, means no dogs.

They must have their reasoning so think you must take this one on the chin