To not understand what this parent was thinking?

[Frequency]

While out with my rottweiler x this afternoon, I noticed he was panting more than I was comfortable with, so I abandoned our walk and took a detour to the nearest shop to buy him a bottle of water.

I crouched down at the edge of a very wide path to give him a drink. I wasn't paying attention to what was around me because I was watching the dog, and no one had any reason to be near us anyway. The pavement is about 8 feet wide on that street, if not wider. We were right at the edge, by the shop window.

The second I stood up, there was a toddler, eye-to-eye with my dog. He must have run up behind me while I was kneeling. He was literally nose to nose with the dog, reaching his hands out to grab/stroke the dog's face.

My dog is friendly but a little wary of small children, so I tend to keep him away from them.

Luckily, DD was with me and had spotted the kid and managed to hold his hands before he grabbed the dog's face and loudly told him, "Sorry, he's scared of kids, and he's just trying to have a drink, can you leave him alone, please?" She had to say it loudly because his mum and her friend had continued walking and were now a good 10 feet away from us. At this point, the mother then shouted at her other small child (around 7 or 8) to "get the baby," so the dog now had 2 kids to contend with while the mother kept walking away, ranting about how the young girl was supposed to be "watching the baby."

DD has anxiety and was really shaken by it, and can't stop thinking about how much worse it could have been if our dog were not friendly, or if the kid had managed to grab the dog's face and spooked/hurt him.

I still just cannot fathom what the mother was thinking, allowing her toddler to run up to a strange dog who was obviously eating/drinking, get nose to nose with him to try to grab him, and then send a second child over after she's made aware he is not a friendly dog?

Surely it is common sense to know that nose-to-nose with a strange, large breed dog, who is eating/drinking, is not a safe place to be, no matter how friendly the dog is?

Since you’ve brought up the comparison, im
curious how this might work for a horse and rider. I’ve been on the beach where there were horses, dogs and people, including kids. It’s quite common to see them on summer evenings and many of the dogs and indeed kids get very excited and sometimes get (imo) too close to the horses. They are usually calm and their riders/drivers alert, and when it’s busy they trot along, and only run/gallop when it’s quieter (usually early mornings). But on one occasion, a young teenage boy - 12, 13 maybe? - ran up behind a horse, and before anyone could do anything, the horse kicked him. Absolutely no-one blamed the horse or rider, the boy was an absolute idiot, deliberately being provocative to the animal and showing off. Luckily the kid wasn’t seriously hurt and I bet he never did that again, but I’m curious how anyone could have stopped that. Would you say the rider was at fault?

@Allisnotlost1 In that scenario and putting emphasis on his age, the boy got what he deserves in my opinion. Providing he had no additional needs then he’s old enough to know better however regardless of whether he deserved it and it taught him a well earned lesson, the rider is still responsible for her horse and shouldn’t have let that happen in the first place so is the one at fault. After years of owning horses and also working with top competition horses which are usually more hot to handle than horses who are given a basic diet, I can say you will always know the horse and the way it reacts. Any horse could suddenly kick when a dog or person runs up behind it but you would have an understanding of that particular horse. The last horse we had, he hated dogs and would most definitely always kick out at any dog that came up close to him. He also wasn’t keen on children but had never tried to kick a child but there’s always the possibility so we never let any child near him regardless even if they had been pre warned we still didn’t risk it. I doubt that rider didn’t know her horse could kick when startled from the back. It’s not something every horse does just because someone runs behind them but you would at minimum know if your horse is of that nature. She’s the one taking a horse to a beach and should anticipate that situation arising. You can’t take a horse out where there’s lots of people at the beach/ pub ect and expect them to change their behaviour because you chose to take the horse there. If you know your horse generally bites or kicks then you need to be paying extra attention to what is going on around you but regardless if you’re in a situation where there’s a lot of people especially vulnerable then you take steps to make sure nothing happens. She could have had a set of extra eyes walking behind her. It’s quite normal to have someone running along at the side or back of the cart if you’re going somewhere with heavier traffic or it’s a young/ fresh or particularly scatty horse. Extra hands to slow or warn traffic or if anything goes wrong with the horse.

@TryingToFigureLifeOut Thanks for replying. I get what you’re saying, and taking an animal somewhere it would not react well is obviously foolish. In the situation I witnessed it happened quite quickly and I’m not sure the rider could have done much. I think it’s a lot to expect any animal not to react to a deliberately aggressive or provocative human, however placid. And yes @Rotundra before you quote the law yet again, it’s true that the law (on dogs at least) is against the dog/handler. But the DDA is a famously poor piece of legislation, used in law and public policy teaching as an example of how not to do it. I don’t know what legislation applies to horses. It certainly doesn’t seem to prohibit letting them shit on the pavement!

I think the difference here is that toddlers, by their very nature, don't just 'appear out of nowhere', the mum had walked past them already too for the lagging behind toddler to be able to approach OP.

All this 'I wouldn't expect to find anyone there' is complete bollocks, any responsible dog owner is aware of their surroundings and would never let their 'child wary' dog come face to face with a child, and if it did happen they would recognise that it was their inattention that put their dog and the child at risk and act immediately to remove the dog.. standing just outside a shop is not a place to not be paying attention.

It's not OPs fault that the child approached them, but the whole way it was dealt with sounds ridiculous, grabbing the hands of and performatively lecturing the toddler so the parents heard, and then letting the other child come over to the dog as well (who is now showing clear signs of anxiety).. the parent should have been paying attention, but OP seemed more bothered about making sure the parent SAW the danger they were putting their kids in, rather than removing her clearly anxious dog from the situation, it's not something a responsible dog owner would do IMO.

Lots of legislation is 'poor', it's still applicable and OP would still be judged against it. I'm not defending or criticising it, it is what it is and I am simply pointing out the inevitable consequences of it. OP sits firmly foul not only of the DDA, but also the Animal Act and which imparts strict liability. Or would you like to dismiss that away too?

If OP cares about her dog, she needs to understand and adhere to the law as it is, not how she would like it to be to suit her opinion.

Once again, I suggest she should seek professional advice if she won't believe what's on this thread, because they will tell her the same thing - that her current hubris and lack of accountability for her negligence is only going to put her dog at risk if another 'unsupervised child' happens to be about.

You seem very strongly invested in the OP taking your advice. Yes, the law will tend to side with the injured party, even if they/their carer has behaved irresponsibly. You’ve said that approximately 15 times now. We get it. Nobody has to agree with you or ‘needs to understand’ what you’re saying, they can make an informed choice.

I'm not invested in giving 'advice', I'm correcting factual inaccuracies in flawed arguments. That's sort of how these things work.

I've replied directly to OP and posters who have challenged what I've said, yes - and the reason I've said the same thing so many times is because so many people have challenged it. What I'm saying isn't changeable, it's not an opinion, it isn't how I feel - it's just the reality of the situation. That doesn't change so I've just said it each time to each post.

An 'informed choice' can’t be made if the information being used is wrong or misunderstood. People are free to feel any type of way about how they 'think' it should be but when they present erroneous statements, especially in reply to me directly, it's entirely reasonable for me to challenge incorrect arguments.

Fundamentally the law and established mainstream moral codes prioritize humans over animals, and the protection of children (vulnerable humans) in particular. Any individual is free to disagree with this and follow a moral compass which treats animals as equivalent to humans, or even, if they are very odd, higher priority. But if you do, 1. Dont pretend it’s an established mainstream moral code. It’s extremist. You are an exception. 2. You’d better be vegan