Should dogs be allowed in more places?

[Patchworkknitter]

I'm a bit hurt today but I don't know if I'm being completely unreasonable.

A friend and I were trying to arrange to meet up. We had sorted what we were doing and then she changed her mind and wanted to change where we did something which would have added another 90 minutes onto the day.

I couldn't do that as my dog would already have been left all day (with 2 dog walks from a dog walker). Even with the dog walker, he couldn't do another 90 minutes. My friend got a bit cross and said I should just get my parents to look after him but they're already looking after him the day before so it wouldn't be fair. I don't like to ask them too often, a bit like people don't like to look after their children too often.

It just seems we always do child friendly places (I'm not a Mum but I try my best to be understanding of her childcare needs). She says she can't afford any additional childcare to that which she already needs for work but I can't afford additional dog care either (I pay £400 a month and don't have a partner to share any costs).

It got me thinking how restrictive it can be having a dog as a single person. I wouldn't change him for the world but it's incredibly difficult. If it was childcare I feel people would be much more understanding.

If I was a mum I could take my children pretty much everywhere.
As a dog owner, I can no longer go to the cinema, to most pubs, to restaurants, to the theatre, shopping, etc without paying out for extra dog care.

I feel dogs should be allowed in more places, more shops, more cafes, more pubs etc. Aibu?

The fact is that regardless of whether your dog or my dog is on a lead, a dog that attacks is a dog that attacks. The owner is responsible for making sure a dog does not attack, and responsible for any damage done or injuries caused if it does. If you own a dog and think that your dog attacking someone could be anyone's responsibility but yours, you need your dogs removing from you, because a dog that attacks is not under control

I disagree (as does the law).

All dogs have the potential to attack, that’s why I think they should all be on leads in public spaces.

Lots of reactive dogs only attack other dogs when they feel threatened (eg when an off lead dog gets in their face and won’t go away). What’s your solution, have all dog-reactive dogs PTS?

A dog on a short lead is under control. A dog that bounds up to on-lead dogs to be ‘sociable’ is way out of control, a danger to itself and a nuisance.

If an on-lead dog feels threatened and gets hold of the harassing dog by the throat, there’s nothing a responsible owner can do other than order their dog to drop it, pull their dog away and hope the other dog doesn’t keep returning. And of course yell for the owner to intervene!

My dog was attacked by a pair of staffie-types when he was younger. So no, he’s not muzzled as if attacked he needs to be able to defend himself. Being a rescue he missed the crucial socialisation phase dogs go through (he was locked in a flat with young kids and no other dogs pre-rescue). So he often perceives a friendly charge from a strange dog as an attack.

And by socialisation I don’t mean letting your dog bound up to stranger’s dogs in the park. Socialisation is introducing your puppy to lots of dogs with CONSENT from the owners, so they learn to read canine body language and how to play (without annoying or frightening nervous dogs, and avoiding dogs they don’t know).

A dog that approaches another without invitation is the one not under control.

You're one of those bad owners that gives it "he is friendly".

My puppy is friendly, but I will not allow her to approach other people, dogs, horses etc. She is by my side and that's where she stays.

It's people like you that should not have dogs.

As previous PP says the on lead dog has the right to defend itself.

[quote TheFoundations]**@StrangeToSee* @LST* @Sadiecow

It really doesn't matter what you think or what I think. The fact is that regardless of whether your dog or my dog is on a lead, a dog that attacks is a dog that attacks. The owner is responsible for making sure a dog does not attack, and responsible for any damage done or injuries caused if it does.

If you own a dog and think that your dog attacking someone could be anyone's responsibility but yours, you need your dogs removing from you, because a dog that attacks is not under control.[/quote]
If you let your off lead dog approach another dog on lead then it is your responsibility. The law agrees.

A dog on a short lead is under control

A lead does not denote control. A dog on a short lead that attacks is an out of control dog, and the owner is responsible for the attack.

My solution has nothing to do with have dogs put to sleep.

My solution is that people like yourself who think that their dog's attack is the victim's responsibility need to have their dogs removed from them, and the dogs need to be rehomed with people who can keep them under control.

The law is not on your side. If you can find the legislation that says a dog on a lead is classed as 'under control', even whilst it's attacking somebody/another animal, please do post a link.

I agree that it's a good idea to train your dog no to go bounding up to others, but that's only because there are irresponsible owners like yourself around, who think that everybody else should be taking responsibility for your dog's behaviour.

It's a bit like saying that women shouldn't go out alone after dark; it is safer to abide by that guidance, but not because the women would be responsible if there was an attack.

If an on-lead dog feels threatened and gets hold of the harassing dog by the throat, there’s nothing a responsible owner can do other than order their dog to drop it, pull their dog away and hope the other dog doesn’t keep returning. And of course yell for the owner to intervene

You're right. That's why responsible owners don't allow this situation to occur in the first place, by making sure that their dangerous dog is appropriately muzzled.

@StrangeToSee

And by socialisation I don’t mean letting your dog bound up to stranger’s dogs in the park. Socialisation is introducing your puppy to lots of dogs with CONSENT from the owners, so they learn to read canine body language and how to play (without annoying or frightening nervous dogs, and avoiding dogs they don’t know).

This, whilst teaching them to ignore the majority of dogs including every strangers dogs. Puppy play mates should be well matched and well thought out in terms of temperament and size etc not just letting all load of random dogs charge about.

Just today I was walking my little 6 kilo dog to heel on a lead along the path and this huge doodle type dog comes bounding up to her. She lunged, snarled and barked but only when he approached so close that he was right in her space. Owner gasps and says disapprovingly 'he only wanted to be friendly' aarggghhhhh!!

Never had an issue with finding dog friendly activities myself, there's so many places you can take them, but then I have a well trained dog, whose fine left in the car (not in hot weather obviously) sits under tables in pubs etc and loves visiting people. If we had a special occasion we would leave plenty of food and water at home and leave him for a longer period (normally he was left 5 hours each day anyway) and he was just fine - we did try kennels but that stressed him out, he much preferred just being home alone but he's rather keen on he's own company anyway disappearing on his own even when we were home

@Sadiecow

A dog that approaches another without invitation is the one not under control.

You're one of those bad owners that gives it "he is friendly".

My puppy is friendly, but I will not allow her to approach other people, dogs, horses etc. She is by my side and that's where she stays.

It's people like you that should not have dogs.

As previous PP says the on lead dog has the right to defend itself.

Totally agree. Yet owners who don't do this and their dog gets bitten because of its own bad behaviour then try to blame others, as is evidenced on this thread. Rather than take responsibility to ensure their dog is well trained and has good recall. Far too many owners do the whole "he's just being friendly" as their out of control dog jumps over other dogs/people.

No it's not just being friendly. It's out of control and being allowed to be so by an irresponsible owner.

It's often the same with dogs caught by farmers sheep worrying. Some owners blame everyone apart from themselves if the farmer shoots the dog.

"agree that it's a good idea to train your dog no to go bounding up to others, but that's only because there are irresponsible owners like yourself around, who think that everybody else should be taking responsibility for your dog's behaviour."

A dog that bounds over to another person or dog is the one out of control. It's funny you say that it appears to be everyone else responsibility to ensure a dog on a short lead doesn't attack another dog, yet fail to see that it's also your responsibility to ensure your dog doesn't go near other dogs/people and has good recall or have said dog on a lead, rather than blaming everyone else if yours gets bitten due to your irresponsible behaviour by not ensuring it's trained properly or on a lead, to stop it jumping on others.

Out of the two posters debating this, I think you are the irresponsible one and not the one who keeps their dog on a short lead.

A dog getting up in the face of another dog risks getting bitten. Even the most placid dog could bite if frightened by an out of controlled dog. Take your own advise and be a responsible owner and either train your dog properly to not jump on others or keep it on a lead.

Out of the two posters debating this, I think you are the irresponsible one and not the one who keeps their dog on a short lead

The dog that attacks is a dog who attacks. It doesn't really matter if you think I'm irresponsible. I haven't abdicated my responsibility for anything, and you have quoted me saying it's good to train your dog not to bound up to other dogs.

I think the issue here is that there's a difference in what people think provocation is. Keep your dog away from mine if it's likely to attack, and I'll be making sure, as I have always, that my dog isn't actively provoking other dogs.

Don't try to lay the blame on me if your dog attacks another dog because it feels threatened by it walking past or offering a peaceful hello in the dog friendly area of the park, where the dogs are mostly off lead and enjoying playing happily together. Your dog needs a muzzle if it's likely to attack in these circumstances.

People are so black and white, and situations aren't.

Just find a trusted friend to have him or sign up to borrow my doggy!

Loads of options

@TheFoundations keep your dog under control and stop saying "it's socialising" it's not for a lot of dogs it's stress.

It's owners like you that have made me get a "I need space" jacket. I don't want your dog near my puppy. Keep it by your side or on a lead.

@TheFoundations you said it's good to train your dog but only because others are irresponsible. No. It is the mark of a responsible dog owner to train their dog regardless. Responsible owners ensure their dogs are not being a nuisance to others, be it human or animals. Failure to do so can have tragic consequences. Far too many owners seem to think others love their dog as much as they do.

Taking your analogy earlier of women going out in the dark. Should a man (or another woman) act in an aggressive manner then you have the right to protect yourself. Same thing. If a dog minding its own business is on a lead (or not) and another bounds over to it - then that dog can protect itself. It's the one not on the lead that is out of control. Not the one protecting itself from a strange dog it doesn't know.

I find your views very odd, and thankfully at odds with the responsible owners I know,

Turn it around. Your dog hasn't been well or is recovering from injury. They are not quite themselves so you are walking them on a short lead. Another dog, not on a lead comes bounding over and gets in the face of your dog. Your dog snaps and bites it. You ok with having your dog removed from your care? Because after all it's your fault as you are being irresponsible for walking your dog on the lead.

offering a peaceful hello in the dog friendly area of the park, where the dogs are mostly off lead and enjoying playing happily together

Your dog shouldn’t be offering any form of hello to an on lead dog - get it better trained and show some manners and understanding of basic etiquette. ‘Dog friendly’ doesn’t mean ‘off lead dog friendly’.

That's why responsible owners don't allow this situation to occur in the first place, by making sure that their dangerous dog is appropriately muzzled

Dangerous dog? 🤔 A dangerous dog is one that attacks humans, or actively seeks out other dogs to attack. Not a defensive, reactive rescue who is always on a short leash in public.
No responsible owner muzzles their dog ‘just in case’ another dog harasses it and gets bitten for invading their leashed dog’s space. An on-lead dog has limited means to defend itself. If it’s muzzled too then it’s vulnerable to being attacked and killed. And likely to get more anxious and defensive because the owner has taken away it’s only form of self defence.

A lead does not denote control. A dog on a short lead that attacks is an out of control dog, and the owner is responsible for the attack

Provided the lead is strong and the owner can hold their dog... and back off from the unwelcome intrusive dog... a short lead is classed as ‘close control’. A dog can’t move far on a short lead, but it can still bite and pin another dog down if that dog gets very close. The other dog would have to be within touching distance.

The responsibility for an attack that happens when the attacker is restrained on a short lead lies entirely with the owner who let their off lead dog get so close.

No

*Unless another dog (off lead or otherwise) attacks him, it's all on you, and it's unreasonable of you to suggest that dogs should be trained not to approach other dogs. It's one of the reasons we take our dogs out; so that they can socialise with other dogs.

And

I think the issue here is that there's a difference in what people think provocation is. Keep your dog away from mine if it's likely to attack, and I'll be making sure, as I have always, that my dog isn't actively provoking other dogs.*

Both the above stated by you @TheFoundations

Completely contradictory and you clearly let your dog approach other dogs!

@Sadiecow

Those things are not contradictory. No point me debating this any further - it doesn't really matter if we disagree.

Over to you for the last word, if it matters to you.

@TheFoundations next time someone runs up to you in the street, shouts in your face.... don't react, just let them do it!

Your posts are contradictory one saying you should not expect dogs to be trained not to approach other dogs. The other suddenly you decide you do!

I think you're going because your the only person agreeing with you.

I don’t know a single person in real life who doesn’t just leave their dog at home. Why all the drama? It’s a dog?

We used to pay for doggy day care whilst I worked (part time) and he hated going.
Then my mother came to stay. Mum is in her 80s and an old farmer. She was aghast at the day care and told me that the dog needed to step up and guard the house, like he was bred to do.
She said no wonder he Hayes going to day care he wants to stay in his home and keep it safe.
Amazingly we trialled leaving him home and he was far more settled, he has his radio, his cat for company and his toys.
My advice would be to try and get him used to being home alone for short periods, so you can get on with your life.

I think the issue here is that there's a difference in what people think provocation is. Keep your dog away from mine if it's likely to attack, and I'll be making sure, as I have always, that my dog isn't actively provoking other dogs

That’s why dog-reactive dogs are kept on short leads, to keep them away from other dogs! If I have to pass another person with a dog on a narrow path I take mine off the path and hold him tightly, giving them plenty of space. I don’t take him to dog parks. My friend owns a secure field and he enjoys running free with her large dogs, under our close supervision. He’s known her dogs for years and they all get on reasonably well (other than the odd quarrel over toys).

Even in a dog park you should never let your dog say a ‘friendly hello’ to strangers’ dogs, unless the owners agree. And never let your dog approach an on-lead dog and get in it’s face. It could be dog-reactive, injured, old, having a bad day or just feel vulnerable on a lead when yours isn’t. It’s surprising how many calm looking dogs will spin round on a lead and snap at approaching dogs.

As others have said, don’t let your dog off until it can be trusted to give other dogs and humans plenty of space. If she’s still at the stage of bouncing up to unknown dogs with a ‘friendly greeting’ she needs to be on a lead for her own safety.

My dog gives plenty of warning he’s not friendly to other dogs.
Other dog-reactive dogs aren’t as vocal and may not growl, bark, lunge or show aggressive body language until it’s too late.

I don't think dogs should be allowed in more places, no, I actually really dislike how commonplace it has become to see dogs in pubs, cafes etc.

But I do think your friend is being pretty unreasonable if she expects you to work around her circumstances, but she won't work around yours.

The dog that attacks is a dog who attacks

Any dog can attack. Even yours could. They’re animals and unpredictable.

All dog owners have a responsibility to make sure they take appropriate steps regarding their dog.

Nobody should be allowing their off lead dog to bound up to anyone or on lead dogs.
Equally, if a dog is liable to nip and bite then being on a shorter lead doesn't cut it. Anything could startle a dog that's particularly nippy and reactive. The owner can't take the appropriate of my dog was on a short lead so it being snappy isn't my responsibility