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???

" What it is saying is "I'm unhappy with the situation and would like it to stop, either by you moving away, or by me being allowed to move away". So it's a defensive thing more often than aggression."

But he has no right to say that he is unhappy with me being there, does he? His owner should train him or not take him out. She shouldn't be expecting people to put up with that.

I don't think anyone is saying that any dog is justified in complaining about someone existing. The original thread was about a dog who was well behaved, and a child who wasn't.

Of course a dog shouldn't growl at you for just being there, but the thread has morphed somehow into many different 'what if' scenarios. If you were threatening the dog and it growled, fair play, but I wouldn't expect my dog to be growling at anything or anyone for no reason, and if he did, it is my responsibility to deal with it appropriately.

Nobody should be training their dog not to vocalise or growl - that's just plain dangerous.

However, if a dog growls at someone who's not really doing anything wrong in human terms, it's still communication - and the owner should be paying attention enough to help the dog by moving them away. It's not that the dog is saying they're unhappy with you existing, it's saying that they don't feel safe being near you.

A good example of that is high-vis clothing - all of our dogs have always had major problems with people wearing highly-reflective clothes, and I've subsequently discovered that it's highly likely because dogs can see into the UV spectrum. Nobody really knows, obviously, but it potentially looks to the dog like the person is on fire. That person isn't doing anything wrong, but really does look like a threat to the dog...so a growl is the dog saying "Whoa there, that's not natural, stay away!" and we get them well out of sight of that person, explaining if there's time.

If everyone ignores the growl, the next step is baring their teeth, then snapping at air, then a nip, then a bite. The onus is on the owner to pay attention to these things (or, preferably, not put the dog in a position where they're uncomfortable enough to growl, but not everything's under the owner's control). The growl itself isn't a problem, but it's an indication that something needs to be done.

"Nobody should be training their dog not to vocalise or growl - that's just plain dangerous.

However, if a dog growls at someone who's not really doing anything wrong in human terms, it'sstillcommunication - and the owner should be paying attention enough to help the dog by moving them away. It's not that the dog is saying they're unhappy with you existing, it's saying that they don't feel safe being near you."

She had obviously decided to bring her dog out with her so wouldn't be moving away - same as OP on the train I suppose. So the growling serves no purpose except to make me feel terrible when I've done nothing wrong!

Happily, in this particular instance, the OP's dog did not growl though. It was entirely the child unrestrained, out of control, and out of sight of its owner. It definitely should have been on a lead 😉

I don’t think dogs should be on public transport unless they are service dogs. And if they are it should be mandatory that they are muzzled at the very least. The tide needs to turn on this Covid nonsense in all of our spaces. Not everyone likes dogs or wants them near them. My kid has allergies and has to deal with them everywhere now including his school. It is getting beyond a joke.

That's a whole other discussion though. Actually, I think dogs on public transport is acceptable, maybe could be limited to certain carriages perhaps? It's having them everywhere else that has become very strange. I have a dog, and I love to take him places (why would I have one if I didn't?) however, I don't take him to restaurants, shops, museums etc. Who wants to buy clothes brand new with dog slobber / hair all over them?

Do you think it was Covid? I think it started before then.

Luckily, that is not reality. You would isolate whole loads of dog owners if they were unable to take them on public transport.,
And as much as allergies can be pain, they are your responsibility to manage, not other people.

The personal responsibility for allergies, or generally things which are bad for your health is an interesting question. I am not allowed to poison you by smoking there, why are you allowed to poison me by bringing the dog?

Yes, there is some difference, but in principle, people do both because it brings something to them, while it inconvenience and endanger others. If we protect others health against smokers, why don't we protect it against dog-owners?

Having a pet dog is a choice. Having an allergy is not.

I wish people would pay more attention to what their children are doing! A child of around 3 whacked my dog with a stick at the beach while his dozy mother was drawing on the promenade with chalk and paying zero attention to her child (around water!!) dog was a few meters from me sniffing around a rockpool and completely oblivious to the nearby child, but was obviously frightened to have been hit and knocked the child over (unharmed) when he ran away. I couldn’t have predicted that the child would pick up a stick and hit my dog with it so couldn’t recall him in time to avoid the situation.

Mum still didn’t notice until I called over to her, and was then cross with me that her child had been knocked over, I explained that her kid had hit my dog with a stick and wouldn’t have been able to do that if she’d been supervising him.

Smoking affects everyone. There is not some super race of people that are resistant to passive smoking. A dog allergy is specific, and therefore up to you to manage.

Dog/pet allergies are different, as are things like peanut allergies. I have never recalled boarding a train and there being a sign saying we can not eat a Snickers.

What do peanut allergy sufferers do on trains then? It's just silly to restrict the ability of some to move around in favour of others, we all share the same spaces and that is just life.

I love peanuts. I never eat them on public transport. I never eat them during a work shift. Because I've seen a child come very close to dying from peanut anaphylaxis, and I'd prefer not to be in that position again. Especially on a train with no kit or backup.

But if you did sit in a train carriage and enjoy a pea nut ridden bar.... you would not be held held accountable for bringing anyone else to harm.
Same as if I went onto a train with dog hair all over my clothing.

I might not be legally accountable, but I would be morally accountable. Which I happen to think also matters.

There is no such thing as moral accountability. thank fuck.

Why does everyone × someone matter here?
There are definitely people more or less susceptible to smoke, or at least more or less bothered. And the public transport is already somehow adjusted for people with (at least some forms of) physical disability, which is a special condition.

Why should a personal choice (having a dog, wanting to eat Snickers) take precedence before safe(r) environment for people with genuine health conditions while using public services?

If you have an allergy, you have to manage it yourself, You can not expect the world to pander to your condition.

If you have a dog, you have to manage it yourself. You cannot expect the world to pander to your pet.

YANBU .

Some parents are the worst.

I do the hand out block regularly

It's not fair because as you said you would have a conviction for something which actually wasn't your fault.
Although I think grabbing the child coat is a bit much just say the dog isn't friendly and put your hand up

I take my dog out, she does not bother anyone at all. She is well trained, and does not give a fuck about your kids or adults. She might try and sniff your dog's bum, but all dogs do that. She goes to our park, and goes back home.

Please tell me how I am somehow wanting the world to pander to her?

Dogs are allowed in this country
You don't make the laws and nobody needs to follow YOUR opinion
Don't like it, leave the UK simple

This thread of the discussion is about pets and public transport. No-one is denying it is allowed now, just debating the logic of it.

We adjust vehicles to support physically disabled, even if it means less seats for majority.
We have blue badges and priority seats for people with other needs.
Wouldn't it be the decent thing to support usability of public transport for people with diverse immunity(=allergies), just by banning non-service dogs and Snickers eaters from public transport (or limiting those to some train carriages where it is an option)?