to have treated children with letting dog out

[beakerclub]

DH thinks I was OTT with this, I don't.

Basically as I was getting out of my car with my 2 year old child last night two kids, probably about 8 from their height, were stood right by silently in halloween masks whilst I was unclipping my son from his car seat.

I just rolled my eyes initially and completely ignored them but then as I walked toward my house and up my drive they followed me and at this point my little boy was starting to get upset. I told them to go but they didn't, literally followed me up my drive and to my door!!

In the end I said you have 3 seconds to get off my drive or I'll be letting my dog out to deal with you and you'll wish you had. They scarpered quick as I opened my door and shouted my dog outside.

Now my dog is pretty big and a bit barky and can be quite scary looking if he wanted to be, but he's actually soft as shit so there wasn't any real risk of him doing anything, still it did the trick and they ran off and my dog was confused as to what the commotion was ha.

DH thinks it was just kids messing about and I shouldn't have threatened to basically have my dog attack them (wouldn't have happened). I disagree, I think if you're going to be daft enough to make a toddler upset and follow strangers up their driveways then meeting a scary dog at the door is what you get and really all I did was just warn them I have a dog and was opening my door 🤷‍♀️

Plus if they were 8 they were well under the age of criminal responsibility so can't be seen to have done anything approaching a crime.

I mean, given the fact that the sum total of what they did seems to have been to have silently stood then silently walked...

For the love of God OP doesn't KNOW how old they are!
And quite frankly I have no idea how any court would've an issue with a dog injuring people who wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. As OP said - if you go where you're not wanted you might come across an animal that lives there too. That's a natural consequence.

Seriously. If your kid wandered onto a driveway then got bitten by a dog you'd just be like 'well shouldn't have been on the driveway then'.

Fucking sure you would. It'd be Daily Mail sad face all the way.

Also @ImADevYo she said in her OP they were 8 and is now like...oh they could be older short teenagers.

Yeah, sure.

This would have terrified me op. I've got a really irrational fear of people in masks. Although I know I haven't projected, my now teen ds is the same. I think his is because of the talk about the Killer Clown craze a few years ago, when kids were dressing as clowns and staring at people. The little shits knew what they were doing and trespassed, I wouldn't have wanted to risk my dog getting hurt as a result though.

maybe you’re unaware of the dangerous dogs legislation but dogs need to be under control even on private property. That means they should not be biting children on their drive.

Yep. Hopelessly stupid behaviour. Not much smarter than the kids in masks.

Good. I still think it wrong to use a dog attack as a threat.

Dogs and dog owners (the good ones) are facing a geniune struggle to show they take their responsibility seriously in keeping everyone safe.

Using a dog attack as a threat against children - regardless of how likely or not an attack really was - is not helping that. It's disappointing to find any owner attempting to use their dog in this manner, even in a scenario where the danger is 'only' in the mind of the target.

It teaches the dog that chasing children dressed up for Halloween is something his owner thinks he should do.

Yes, and when the dog looks at the calendar in a couple of weeks and realises it’s Halloween he’ll cause no end of trouble 🙄🙄🙄

I don’t see how there’s anything ‘dangerous’ about what the OP did.

Calling your dog to you is not dangerous. That’s literally all OP did.

The dog isn’t going to be thinking “I bet she wants me here as a prop to deter these kids.” Why would it?!

And what’s with all the abject horror at the idea of a dog as a protector of person and property? That is literally what people have done for hundreds of years.

Dogs and dog owners (the good ones) are facing a geniune struggle to show they take their responsibility seriously in keeping everyone safe.

Using a dog attack as a threat against children - regardless of how likely or not an attack really was - is not helping that.It's disappointing to find any owner attempting to use their dog in this manner, even in a scenario where the danger is 'only' in the mind of the target.
Agree with this.
It seems like a foolish course of action to threaten children with a dog attack, both in the moment and after.

Dogs aren't weapons. What was OP going to do if the kids didn't go?
Stand there like a lemon saying "I mean it. Go to I'll set the dog on you" ?
Have the dog close to the door, probably getting increasingly confused and wound up, and hope it doesn't push past or escape and go after the children?
In the event it does get out accidentally, hope the dog knew to be soft and fun with the children (after threatening them and telling them they'll be sorry if you let the dog on them)?
Let the dog out and keep fingers crossed that the dog got the memo that it's a fake attack situation so magically knows not to do anything rough?
In the event dog slips out unintentionally, just hope no child is harmed? Hope that "but my Fido is soft and lovely so I never thought they'd attack" is classed as a decent defence?

Say the area really is the sort of area where 8 year olds are likely to break into your house and harm a baby, do people really think threatening some primary school aged thugs with a dog is going to make the situation better? If these children are really that bad that threatening a dog attack is apparently justified, what will everyone say OP should do in the event that 8 year old terrors go and tell them which house had a woman threatening to set her dogs on them?

It's silly and irresponsible

The legislation is meant to protect people who are there legitimately. Like visitors. Not trespassers. Or burglars (as stated in some articles discussing the case law - I'd post the link but I can't seem to copy and paste on my phone).
Let's say your dog was running around your garden and someone jumped the fence - no protection there.

Quite a story you’ve invented there!

OP called her dog to her. The end.

Yes you really are, first you’re saying that OPs dog will learn to chase after children in Halloween masks, even though he didn’t see any children in masks running away, now you’re likening op and my own dogs to the ever increasing bully XL problem which is a completely different subject and set of problems, thinking that if you’re stood at the door and you call them to you they’d go straight for the visitors jugular!

you ARE being dramatic, and you’re comparing apples and oranges.

what OP did wasn’t a potential attack, it was a bluff .. and it worked, so fair play I say.

Slightly off topic but I also disagree with this:

Almost everyone whose dog has attacked a child has thought exactly that right up until it turned out they weren't "soft as shit".

People who own dogs who go on to attack children, generally don’t think an awful lot about anything, most KNOW those dogs have a reputation and aren’t safe to be around children and they KNOW they wouldn’t be able to control them if they did attack, but the have them anyway, because they CAN, you can’t lump sensible dog owners with regular, well trained family pets in with those idiots.

I guess you’re not a dog person.

Oh dear! 🙄

Can you explain?

What part of OP’s account seems to ‘encourage the dog to chase people dressed up for Halloween’?

To recap, OP spoke to the children, called her dog (who came out) and that was it. No chasing. No psychic communication whereby dog works out that if the children hadn’t gone, OP might have wanted him to chase them (for which there is no evidence in any case).

Go and roll your eyes somewhere else!

you ARE being dramatic, and you’re comparing apples and oranges.

No, you just want to minimise because the truth is making you feel uncomfortable.

I'm not comparing your dogs or the OPs to XL Bullys because I am not complacent enough to think that XL Bullys are the main problem. Every dog has the potential to cause serious injury when it is in the hands of owners who don't understand dog behaviour/potential behaviour.

I've been a dog owner for over 30 years myself.

most KNOW those dogs have a reputation and aren’t safe to be around children and they KNOW they wouldn’t be able to control them if they did attack

No dog is ever safe to be around children. Ever. That doesn't mean you can't have one around children, but that you must NEVER assume that is is safe. Your wording suggests that you haven't grasped that concept yet.

Anyway, you don't have to agree with me but I'm certainly not going to change my opinion of the OP's actions, or the opinions of those who have supported her. Threatening children with a dog attack is absolutely shameful behaviour and is certainly nothing to boast about on Mumsnet.

If you really can't work out what sort of actions might trigger the hunting instinct in a dog then it might be better to keep your opinions to yourself.

If you don't like people rolling their eyes at you, it is best not to roll your eyes at them don't you think?

What sort of actions are they, that might trigger a hunting instinct, in this particular case? Calling your dog?!

I rolled my eyes at you because you’re not making any sense!

Engage if you have a point.

I'd have done the same OP.

And if their parents don't like it, they can explain what their little shits were doing out alone, after dark, intimidating strangers and trespassing.

I rolled my eyes at you because you’re not making any sense!

Well to be fair, you were talking about dogs reading calendars so if we are using rolly eyes to indicate when someone isn't talking sense my use of them was more than justified.

Okay, since you seem to need it spelt out in words of one syllable, a dog's hunting instinct may well be triggered by something (in this case two children) running away. The instinct is to chase.

Whatever the ins and outs of exactly how the dog was called outside, or how far off the drive the children had got, it was a risk that it was entirely unnecessary for the OP to take.

I think it’s very evident that there are some posters on this thread who are very vocal about their perceived understanding of dog behaviour. Unfortunately their perception does not match reality, to comical extents.

I am not complacent enough to think that XL Bullys are the main problem.

you don’t think XL Bully’s are the main problem when it comes to dog attacks, but you think OP is? Okay gotcha.

Regardless of what I think, the statistics would disagree with you. not many family dogs “attack” children, or anyone else for that matter, you may get bites, scratches, nips, it’s extremely rare for a dog to “attack” a child, to assume most peoples dogs are poised to attack is, like I said, dramatic.

It's a wonder anyone feels safe to leave their dog off lead at all, anywhere, if some children running in it's vicinity might awaken it's hunt and kill "instinct" 😬

It was a stupid and immature thing to do tbh