To as you to teach your child how to act around dogs?

[ToBeOrNotToBee]

I'm gobsmacked, truly, still around an hour or so after this event.
Dog and I have had a busy day travelling and exploring the countryside.
On our way home, coming off train 3 of 3 on the return leg, having been out for 12 hours, I walk to the lift (which is around a corner and obscured by a stairwell) at the end of the platform with dog to heel besides me.
We're waiting with a few others when this 5-6 year old child appears around the corner, running towards us, hands outstretched, literally beelining for the dog. I see what's about to happen and immediately put the dog behind my legs and put my hand out telling the child a stern 'No'.
The child then tries to go behind to reach my dog, who is cowering between my legs. I have no choice but to grab hold of the child's coat and physically stop them, letting go when the child stops trying to reach my dog.
After a moment or two, the Dad appears and then screams at me for touching his child. As he's midscream, the lift appears and I go into it with a few others and doors close as everyone else looks awkwardly at their feet.
The doors close, we go on our merry wall.
But I couldn't stop this feeling that the child will one day do that to the wrong dog and end up a dog bite statistic.
Say for example, I wasn't as switched on, and my dog as placid as he is, or in pain that day, and the child did poke him painfully causing him to snap and bite. Child would have been hurt, my dog potentially put down, and I get a conviction for having a Dangerous Dog Out of Control.
It's something I've noticed over recent years, people treating strange dogs as public property and not animals with sharp teeth and their own minds.
So please, teach your children not to run whilst on busy train platforms (or any train platform), to not approach unknown dogs, and if someone says no, to respect it.

Is that too much to ask???

Then that is absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about, is it?

As to your "curiosity" - yes, I have an Akita, a Chihuahua and a medium-sized crossbreed. The breeds are irrelevant, they were dogs in need of a good home and we provided that to them. All of them can be scary to some people, and I keep my dogs away from those people to protect everybody concerned, because setting my dogs up to fail is a breach of their trust.

I cannot control other people's children, however, and that is what I'm talking about.

If a child ran up to you and pissed you off, even hurt you, would you bite the child, or maybe punch him/her in the face, or maybe give the child a right kicking?

No? Because you’re sensible? And you know that assaulting a child would be a very serious criminal action?

Your dog doesn’t know that. But you are solely responsible for your dog. So you carry the can.

Which part of my post didn't you understand? Because I'm talking about the situation where the dog has not bitten anyone, only growled, yet that poses a direct threat to the dog's life.

Seriously starting to doubt the reading comprehension capabilities of people on here.

Maybe we are approaching this the wrong way. We should require a law that says all children should be on leads?

Well, he's dead now but he never bit or showed aggression to anyone, adult, child or animal (he lived with our two cats) in his lifetime. He was responsibly bred, well socialised and trained, and had all his needs met, so had no reason to mistrust humans.

Out of interest what would you expect a dog to do in this situation? E.g being attacked by a child and being caused a lot of pain. It sounds like you would only accept no reaction at all which seems a bit much to ask from any living creature.

I don’t think anyone misunderstands. A growling, scary dog is a public nuisance and a potential hazard to children and others.

Any dog is a danger, growling or not, frankly. Which is why they should all have to wear a muzzle. (If your dog growls but has no teeth I might think differently.)

I can accept that a dog would react. But it should be wearing a muzzle so that its reaction can’t be to bite.

YANBU. The child shouldn't have approached your dog and should listen when you said no. Dad should have been more switched on and watching what his son was doing.
However you should not have grabbed the child at all because that will piss. off most parents. Also I'm a bit confused your dog goes on busy, noisy public transport but is freaked by one child. That doesn't really make sense.

So...tell me this: if you didn't misunderstand, then why were you talking about biting, punching or kicking a child when that is absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about?

Unless, of course, you think that a dog's warning vocalisation is the equivalent of maiming a child.

SMH

So to live in this “real world” of dog bites child, you think the best solution is to make nursery age children responsible for behaving in a way that puts dogs at ease instead of making adult dog owners responsible for keeping children safe by spending £10 on a muzzle and using it? Got it.

Why would a dog growl?

What would that signify?

Why do you not understand that a dog’s reaction might be upsetting to a child and alarming to an adult, however raucous the child and negligent the parent?

Why should dogs not be muzzled?

SMS, TTFN, RNLI

I've already explained several times what a dog's growl signifies - it's that the dog is extremely uncomfortable and that it wants it to stop. It's nothing more than that - it's certainly not an indication of aggression under those circumstances.

If you think it is, then you know far less about dogs than you think you do, which is kind of the point of the thread.

I've already said that muzzling makes no difference in this circumstance - muzzled or not, a dog growling to get the incoming behaviour to stop still potentially results in its death, even though it's done nothing wrong.

Still heavily doubting your reading comprehension skills, because I've been over all of this twice in the comments you've replied to.

Answer me this: if a dog can't growl, and can't physically stop the child (and neither can the owner), how is it supposed to get the child to stop assaulting it?

I'm finding the all dogs should wear muzzles argument really strange. Why do you think a dog with no history of aggression or biting should have to endure the discomfort of wearing a muzzle? And you might say all dogs have the potential to bite but lots of things we live with day to day have the potential to be dangerous - should we stop being allowed scissors and cars? I have the potential and physical ability to bite you but you wouldn't expect me to wear a muzzle (I hope).

Men rape. Let's muzzle all men's penises.

@TrailingLoellia All people are asking is that parents parent their child.

Children are taught from a young age how to cross a road safely, and not to step into the road if a car is coming. When young, parents act as their advocates, and tell them when to cross the road. Obviously, if cars were to be removed from the road, then car accidents wouldn’t happen. Problem solved. However, that’s not going to happen, so car drivers learn to look out for people crossing the roads. Both parties take responsibility.

Similarly, parents should teach their kids not to touch a dog, and dog owners should be responsible with their dogs.

I think the all dogs should have to wear muzzles is a great idea. It wouldn't stop them knocking people over, but it would avoid many of the maulings (not the ones that happen at home, but at least it would protect innocent bystanders).

Also, not all growling is a warning sign. My dog does a low growl when he wants to play.

True enough; I was talking about this specific context, though. And if any of my dogs did the play-growl while a kid I didn't know was around, I'd remove them from the situation right away!

I definitely wouldn't expect a non-dog-owner to tell the difference between a play-growl and a threat-de-escalation growl, though.

Sorry, but it is pie in the sky ideal world thinking to expect that nursery age children are all capable of learning how not to alarm any dog at any time. Most are still mastering potty training.

It is much more logical and realistic to expect adult dog owners to modify their behaviour and muzzle their dogs when out in public.

It shouldn’t be able physically to ‘stop’ a child. A dog can’t talk to a child or hold a child, it can only scare them off or attack them.

Neither of which is acceptable to any sensible person.

How would a muzzle stop the growling?

I've already said that muzzling makes no difference in this circumstance - muzzled or not, a dog growling to get the incoming behaviour to stop still potentially results in its death, even though it's done nothing wrong.

Sorry but this just isn’t true. Dogs can run amok, savage other dogs, kill cats and what not and will still not be put down because the dangerous dog act only requires the dog be put down if it has bitten a human. They certainly are not at any risk of death for merely growling with a muzzle on.

It's very true, and it has happened locally - a dog was issued a CPN for growling at a drunk who threw something near it and they reported it as being threatening. Then the exact situation I described occurred - a child yanking the dog's tail - and the dog growled while moving away (while muzzled), and it was seized and put down because that was a breach of the CPN.

The DDA is not the only law in play here.

OK, you're absolutely trolling here, or you've completely lost touch with reality in your desire to be Right On The Internet. The very post you've quoted says that a muzzle wouldn't stop the warning growl.

Muzzles aren’t that uncomfortable. Dogs are a species known for aggression and biting, much like other predators- wolf, cougar, bear- every dog is capable of both and no one should be put a risk because someone things their dog is a harmless fur baby.

Horses, donkeys and camels all wear bits for our convenience and those are uncomfortable so it’s not like we would be picking on dogs.