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

Given the rising levels of childhood asthma and the fact that many asthmatics are triggered by animal fur it makes perfect sense to me. Carrying a dog, especially if it struggles, seems likely to dislodge more hair than if it is walking so definitely a ban should include carried dogs. Personally, one guinea pig hair on my clothing is enough to trigger an asthma attack, so the size of the dog is not relevant.

So if someone buys a dog when they are a sahm and have every intention of being at home full time with the dog but then let's say their H walks out on them and they have to go out to work to support their DC, they are very selfish?

Pretty much, if the dog is suffering because it isnt getting enough of the right kind of exercise. As 7 says thats what rehoming services are there for, there are even specialist services for families that have to go into refuges or emergency accomodation. Keeping it because you care more about your own feelings than the dogs welfare is monumentally selfish.

Our school has no dogs. There aren't loads of dog walkers but ones who are stay a respectful distance from gate (usually across the road where they can watch an older child walk up to doors but are not where the kids have to walk past them to get in) ones with infant kids seem to take turns dropping off/picking up.

No dogs should mean no dogs.

My son's school allows dogs tied at the entry way, but I often see puppies or small dogs carried in arms. The dogs are not going to pee/poo in their owners arms so it seems to accomplish the presumed objective.

Why on earth would 'no dogs' mean 'carry your dog'? Surely as a parent enough intelligence should be possessed to understand the meaning of the word no!

Of course Bogey is a dog lover! Being a dog lover means knowing that a dog being happy and healthy is priority in ownership. If you cannot provide that for a dog then you are not loving it.

If you own a dog you cannot care for it (walks included of course) then you are being cruel to it by keeping it cooped up and not meeting its needs. You are being selfish for putting your feelings before the well-being of an animal.

As I have said - being a dog lover is knowing to prioritise that dog's health and well being over everything else. I'd rather know someone like Bogey who doesn't have a dog because they know they do not like them and wouldn't want to care for one, than someone like you who clearly thinks putting their own feelings before the wellbeing of an animal is most important.

If you change the animal, to say, a horse and then said you could at one point care for the horse but now you cannot so you just keep it in its stable because its too sad to rehome it that would be seen as cruel. Its the same thing.

Its just like people who don't have the time for a dog so they get a chihuahua or some other tiny breed and say ''well it can exercise in the backgarden''. That's not how it works and is cruel.

We have no dogs because one of the children was disfigured for life in a dog attack and is terrified.

Oh and it's a school not a kennel.

If you cannot take a dog out you are not giving it the 'best life possible'. You are being cruel and not meeting the dog's needs. You need to rehome that dog somewhere you know it will be happy and healthy.

Up thread the argument was made that for some people the only time the dog can be walked is the school run and if they couldn't walk it then, then it wouldn't get walked at all.

Yes, and if a no-dog rule means the dog can't come and that means the dog gets no walks, what then? The dog should be rehomed if it can not get a proper walk in the day. (A ten min walk to the school is not enough of a daily walk for a dog.).

If a dog bites the a chold on school grounds - guess who gets the sued

I love dogs, absolutely adore them, volunteer at a Rescue, used to work with one, have done home checks etc. Currently have a rescue mutt covering my home in hair, mud and slobber and wouldn't be without her.

But no dogs means no dogs.

School yards aren't the place for dogs. Not on leads, not carried. Too many sacred, or allergic, or over excitable kids around to be sure that the dog would be safe. If the dog doesn't feel safe it can be dangerous. Not a good mix.

If you can't walk your dog outside of the school hours then get up earlier or go to bed later. When I was training dumped dogs I would take them over the fields at 0530 so only idiots like me would be around. When I fostered the dog aggressive mutt I walked her at 10pm so we didn't encounter other dog walkers. If there is no/one home to be with your kids - take your kids.

And if you can't do that, then find someone that can, whether that's a friend, an employee or a Rescue Centre. Dogs are for life - life changes - you change too.

Thank you for explaining my remark about 'dog besotted idiots' for NavyandWhite SoupDragon . That's exactly what I meant - wasn't able to answer before as was walking the dog, as it happens.

I just get fed up with the way some posters, on any thread about dogs, feel the need to make out that all dog owners think their dog are more important than anyone or anything.

Like the vast majority of dog owners, contrary to how a lot of posters seem to view dog owners, I have never referred to my dog as 'my fur baby', I don't allow her to annoy people, I don't assume she has a right to go everywhere regardless of the feelings of others, she's well trained and knows what I expect of her and although she's quite small I have never carried her in a handbag/dog carrier. She is treated with kindness, fed on a decent food, is walked/exercised regularly and is not left for long periods on her own.

Don't think that makes me a dog besotted idiot.

Rant over.

Is this like "no children at weddings - does that include my baby?"

As I said before: (my name was different so you might not have noticed)

I do. I have two now I have the time and money to look after them.

And about eight years ago after some major changes (I didn't see coming) in my life I had to rehome a dog I had owned for six years - I could no longer care for him adequately. It broke my heart to get rid of him but I still keep in touch with his new owners (although he's very, very grey now) and I know he is in the best place as he is being cared for properly; it would have been cruel for me to keep him in those circumstances.

I really can't continue talking to you about this, clearly its not going in. You just seem to think your feelings come before the well being of a dog.

Navy You need to read any post from DillyDingDillyDong about her dog situation with her SIL (or sister not too sure). That is what dog besotted idiots are like.