...to be cross with this dog owner.

[EvilTwins]

Have just come back from our local park with my DTs (3.4) We went to feed the ducks, and go on the swings. Whilst we were feeding the ducks, an enormous dog suddenly appeared (it did seem to come from nowhere - the duck pond is in a dip, surrounded by bushes, so we didn't see it coming, and anyway, we were engrossed in conversation about the ducks) My girls are not used to dogs, as we don't have one, and none of our family do. They are usually a bit wary anyway, and I try to deal with it with as little fuss as possible. Anyway the dog in question was huge (I'm not a dog person, so couldn't say what breed, but it was nose-to-nose the same height as the twins, and, on hind legs, would have been taller than me) and the first we knew of its presence was when all the ducks suddenly scarpered. The dog then tried to get the bread that my one daughter was holding in her hand. Not surprisingly, she thought it was trying to eat her hand. Both twins were pretty hysterical, so I was holding them both tightly, trying to to calm them down (and prevent them from flailing around and falling into the pond) Meanwhile, the owner of the dog was nowhere to be seen. I then spotted two women standing on the path above the pond, obviously looking for something, so I shouted "Is this your dog?" They meandered down to the pond, and despite the fact that they could see the twins in a state, did nothing to take the dog away. In fact, rather than grabbing the dog's collar, she grabbed one of my daughters. I got really shirty then - told her to let go of my child and take her dog away. At this point, another woman, who'd seen what had happened, came past and told me that it was ME scaring the children, NOT the dog. I was speechless. All three women and the sodding dog then wandered off,complaining loudly about what a hysterical so-and-so I was. I was livid. The twins were really shaken and both crying.

On the way out of the park, I noticed that the sign by the gate said "Dogs must be kept under control. Do not allow your dog to frighten children" so I did feel slightly vindicated.

Sorry for long post. AIBU to be cross?

My DD liked dogs, but was wary of them as we don't have one ourselves. Then when we were playing on the beach one day, a dog came out of nowhere and knocked her over. It's taken us 2yrs of introducing her to a friend's dog and getting her used to them again, without her getting hysterical.

Then a few weeks ago the bloody same thing happened again, a young greyhound came bounding up, I couldn't pick DD up quick enough and she ran, being a greyhound the dog chased her. We are now back to square one, with DD clutching me hysterically when we see a dog not on a lead.

I certainly haven't made her like this, I love dogs, my Mum used to breed dalmations. It just makes me so fucking angry when people say "Oh, he was just being friendly". They haven't a bloody clue

I have to agree with Schilke, all that would happen with a £500 license is that rich, irresponsible people would own dogs and poor responsible people couldn't. My dogs are all very well trained, drop into an instant down on the commant 'flat' and have excellent recalls and response to the word 'leave', but I couldn't even keep one of them if such a license fee was introduced.

There is no easy solution. Dogs have been part of human society for thousands of years. It has been a mutually beneficial partnership for most of that time, but now that dogs are kept primarily as pets and population has become extremely dense, we are experiencing problems related to the differences in our species in terms of communication, control and discipline. Add to that the fact that a good many dogs aren't mentally stimulated or socialised enough and we're asking for trouble really.

Governments can't just legislate against dog ownership, as it would open the floodgates for all sorts of other draconian legislation to be introduced that would significantly impinge on civil liberties. As it is the Dangerous Dogs Act was rushed through and has since been found to be ill conceived and unnecessarily harsh in some cases, due to its vagueness in certain areas.

Some countries (and some towns in other countries) have introduced bans on certain breeds of dogs and/or restrictions on which 'zones' dogs are allowed in, but this legislation has resulted in mass destruction and abandonment of perfectly healthy, well adjusted family pets and still hasn't eliminated the problem of antisocial 'OWNERS'.

Realistically, some people will always find a way to cause distress and upset and even danger to others, be it through lack of respect, empathy, care or a total disregard for anything other than their own wants/needs/satisfaction. These are precisely the type of people that legislation can't protect us against. Just like the person who is caught drink driving, without a license or insurance and within a week is out doing exactly the same again without a care in the world.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. The only thing that I've come up with over the years is that, in addition to insisting that dogs are kept on leads in parks with childrens' play areas and on the highway and town centres etc. Perhaps an alternative sign could be introduced to alert parents to the fact that in certain areas dogs may be running off leash, which would then give them the option of choosing whether or not to walk there. Not ideal, but perhaps useful for people who are themselves or have children who are afraid of dogs?

By the way, ignore me if I am rambling too much - I have had a long, bad day.

With lots of parties canvassing for votes at the moment, it's a good time to write to your sitting MP and her/his political rivals and ask them what their attitude is to dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners. It's a problem that I am sick to the back teeth of. I did exactly that this week, after yet ANOTHER frightening incident when I was out running last week - and a huge rottweiler (that prob weighed more than I did) came from nowhere, jumped at me and knocked me to the ground.

My lib dem candidate sent me a very supportive email, which including this information:

The ?Dog Control Bill? tabled by Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Redesdale, received its second reading in the House of Lords on Friday.

The Bill, which could repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act, received support from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Peers on the basis that it is non breed specific and would do more to target irresponsible owners and better protect the public. Lord Tyler (Liberal Democrat) highlighted that the Dangerous Dogs Act is quoted to political students as an example of ?the dangers of knee jerk legislation? and added ?breed specific law is bad law; it simply doesn?t work?. Earl Cathcart (Conservative) stated that the DDA was ?hastily brought in? and that ?You wouldn?t arrest a human based on their looks so why dogs??

The Kennel Club broadly welcomed the second reading of the Bill which if passed, would introduce major changes to current dangerous dogs legislation. These changes include:

Legislation would no longer be breed specific - it is generally accepted that genetics (breed) plays only a part in the temperament of an individual dog and scientific studies from around the world show that environment and training have a far greater effect.
More emphasis on the owner, so that instead of banning specific breeds of dog, the dog?s behaviour ? as well as its treatment by its owner ? would be used to determine if it is a risk to public safety under the Dog Control Bill.
Attacks on private property would also become a criminal offence.
Following the debate, Lord Redesdale agreed to review various parts of the Bill, including removing a clause which would make it an offence to keep a dog that has injured another dog or animal. The Kennel Club had previously raised concerns that this could theoretically lead to the seizure of any dog which attacked a rat or rabbit for example, and had pushed for the Bill to be amended.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Communications Director, welcomed Friday?s response by the Lords: ?The debate which took place in the House of Lords is an extremely welcome one. Current legislation is severely flawed and has failed in its attempts to protect the public or reduce the number of pit bull terriers in the UK.

Wot Riven said.

I am sick to death of some dog owners who think we should all be enarmoured with their stinking mutts.

I like dogs but only in the increasingly rare event that the dog has been trained. If it is jumping up at people then it hasn't been trained properly.

EvilTwins, the woman did WHAT? Held on to YOUR child??

Apart from the fact she has no right to do so, she was asking for trouble. IF the dog had decided to become aggressive (though IME these are in the very small minority of cases), the bloody woman would have been effectively holding your child for the dog to bite. There's also no guarantee that a dog will be able to distinguish between his owner holding onto another human and tussling with one - if the dog had assumed the latter the situation could have got very nasty.

What a weird thing to do - surely she wouldn't have liked it had you held onto her dog (I bloody well wouldn't!) so why do it to your DD?

As for the other comments, it'll only raise my blood pressure if I answer the ignorant, anti-dog ones so I won't.

I will say though that Riven may have a good idea but I'd want those £500 license fees going to independent no kill rescue to save and protect the increased number of abandoned dogs which we would see. Sadly I can't see the government allowing that somehow.

Agree with all the people who are hacked off with irresponsible owners.

But, to be fair, we meet an awful lot of dogs every day on the school run and they are fine. Quite apart from the families with dogs, our route crosses a footpath which is a popular dog walking spot. And we've never met a horrible one. Most of 'em are only too happy to meet ds and to be petted and owners of dogs that are less happy about small children always tell me, nicely, in plenty of time.

Although there was the time I was chased by a ruddy Staffordshire down our road... all that bull people talk about 'oh, they are the nanny dog' doesn't actually help when you are being chased by a ruddy thing that keeps jumping up to your face and won't piss off. And then starts on an elderly lady.

The Spanish have a much better system than we do.

There is a list of about a dozen dog breeds that are classed as 'dangerous or potentially dangerous' and this also includes all large dogs that weigh over a certain amount. These dogs all have to be muzzled and kept on short leads in public.

All dogs have to be chipped and all dog owners have to take out a liability insurance.

What would happen to all the lonely OAPs whose only friend is their dog if there was a compulsory £500 license fee though? Very often it is these OAPs that take on elderly dogs from rescue centres and give them a home in their last few years of life. If the license fee was prohibitively high all these dogs would either be condemned to live out their days in rescue kennels or worse be pts. In fact, in reality they would probably be pts as there would be an excessively large amount of homeless dogs filling up the rescue centres already.

Iirc, license fees were ruled out as an option a few years ago, as they would have worse problems policing them than they have had policing the banned breed legislation.

Also, would the fee be a one-off when people first get the dog or would it be annual like the old dog license?

Riven, just because people responsible owners manage to pay for vets, microchips, pet insurance etc doesn't necessarily mean that they could afford more on top. In my case, I saved up for the initial outlay of vet checks, microchips and the cost of getting the dog each time and I have always had pet insurance precisely because I can't afford expensive veterinary treatment. Two of my dogs are rescues and if it had cost an additional £500 for me to have them, I'm afraid I would have had to leave them at the rescue centres where eventually these beautiful, gentle well-behaved dogs would have been destroyed.

The licence should definately be higher to make people think twice about having a dog.

There should also be more enforcement of laws surrounding dogs. A higher licence fee could fund that enforcement.

We've all come across thoughtless owners with out of control dogs, but who on earth can you go to to complain about it and who will actually do anything?

Unless a dog has caused serious harm it seems we have to just put with being bothered by them if an owner doesn't want to behave responsibly.

If I went round leaping at people and slobbering on them and being a general pia I bet I could expect some sort of visit from the police about it.

We have always taught the girls to be calm and stand still when approached by strange dogs. This was a particular effort with dd2 who used to shriek and make an absurd fuss - no actual reason for it - she'd never had a bad experience and we certainly hadn't encouraged that. This came to a head when on holiday a little westie bounced out at her and she screamed the place down, scaring the dog and it's poor owner. I must say I was very angry with her about that, pointing out she had no reason to be afriad of that dog (she was five times the size of it), it wasn't aggressive and her screaming only inflamed the situation. She was very upset about this but since then has made huge efforst to get over it and is now much more confident with dogs. So - if I can train my half grown child to behave sensibly - why can't people train their dogs to be the same? I would absolutely hate it if an animal my size jumped up at me and licked my face - let alone was aggressive. It is never ok.

YANBU. Riven summed it up nicely.

I don't dislike dogs, but this weekend we took my DS (age 4) on his bike and DS (age 1) in pram to a local National trust park.
During the course of one hour,

1. DS had been knocked off bike by large dog running with no leash.

1. My coat covered with dirt by a small dog jumping up at me.

1. My baby splattered with dog shit after a dog ran in front of us, did his business and then kicked his back legs through it creating a spray.

On the occassions that I could see the owner, (once), he laughed. our day was spoilt by disrespectful, ignorant people who should not own a dog as they obviously cannot look after it.

Making dogs more expensive would have no real positive affect round here.

People on low incomes who love and care for their dogs wouldnt be able to afford it.
Scummers who dont give a shite, wont give a shite. They smoke skunk in the street, they shoplift from the co-op, they ruck in the playground -all of these things can result in a fine and they dont care. They will keep their untrained dogs and done.

Those with the money - well it wont hurt them. So it will be the responsible, low income ones that lose out (as per).

I am a life long dog lover but even I am sick of untrained, powerful (and lets face it - thick) dogs taking over every green space in East London.

More than a few years ago, I was in the park with DS and a staffie ran up and bounced at him, scaring him to the point of meltdown.
So I ran and yelled and hauled the beast off him, and the owner sauntered up and gave me a mouthful about only being friendly and me over reacting and that my boy was a wimp and I was a lunatic.
(If DS had gone to full meltdown, he'd have started trying to dismember the object of his fear)

Then a little moppet bounced up squeaking 'Hello Mrs Goblin'
It was his daughter.
And I looked at him and gave a long, slow crocodile smile.
Then I said
'Hello, you're in my class next year aren't you? See you in September then'
And according to his wife he spent the summer bricking it, and worrying about the vengeance I would exact on his beloved baby. And wondering how he could undo what he'd done and said.

She was a lovely little girl and we had a good year together, but he never quite recovered around me.

I have to get this out...

DS1 has just started school. We live 2 streets away and so walk to school. It takes us 5 minutes. In that 5 minutes walk it is not unusual for us to see at least 10 dog shits on the footpath. Fresh ones virtually every day. We don't call it 'the walk to school' we call it 'dog poo dodging' and I am now known as the 'dog poo checker'.

It is not the scanky looking youngish blokes with several dogs who leave it or the middle-ages semi-retirerees, no its the apparently responsible well dressed working adults who are too busy to bother with clearing their own shit up and the elderly dog owners that apparently couldn't give a toss who let their dogs shit all over the place round here.

100% agree with Riven - dogs are animals and should be licensed

When I was little there was poo all over the place on the streets of Richmond where I grew up. Now when I go to stay with my mum and dad I notice that there is almost none, ever, though there are a lot of dogs. Why is this? In Switzerland where I lived for a while there was absolutely never ever any anywhere. It is clearly possible to educate owners in cleaning up - perhaps local councils should investigate how.

Pheebe - we only lived one street away from the dses primary school in England, and we used to call it the 'Dog Poo Slalom.'

The single biggest issue for me about getting a dog was whether I'd be able to pick up its poo. If I hadn't been OK with doing that, we wouldn't have got a dog. End of story.

I would love to see hefty fines and punishments for owners who don't pick up their dog's poo - perhaps making them empty and scrub out the dog poo bins in the parks!

I have the opposite problem i have to stop ds bounding up to dogs!

Oh Goblin, that must have been so satisfying!

Riven, I'm not against dog licensing and registration in principle, in fact as a dog lover myself, I think its a good idea as if there was such a system and it worked, it would protect both the dog and other people. I also think compulsory dog management and training classes are a great idea. I just don't think its a workable option. It would cost millions to administer and police such a scheme and I can't see any government committing their precious funding to it.

Having seen the total failure of the DDA (ie there are still thousands of 'pit-bull type' and other banned breeds on the streets) either due to flagrant ignoring of the law, or through the loopholes left wide open as a result of the act being a hastily drawn-up knee-jerk response to media hysteria. I honestly can't see how the same police force or even a specific government body would police new legislation any better. I just can't see a situation where police will stop their patrol cars to get out and check if a dog is licensed and insured.

In an ideal world all dogs would be registered, well looked after, trained and appropriately controlled in public places. People would be required to attend classes on dog ownership and training, perhaps having to re-take them if they fail to control or look after their dog properly and then face more serious consequences for more serious failures such as neglect or abuse of the dog and/or failure to 'protect the public safety' (sorry, couldn't think how to word that).

As a long-term dog owner myself, I would be more than happy to register, insure and attend training classes in order to be able to have dogs. But then I have already done all those things with my dogs, without them being a requirement of the law.

In all fairness the dog mess issue is no worse in OAPs than it is in any other group of dog owners. Round here its the professionals that rush their dog round the roads or park before and after work that tend not to pick up. Most of the OAPs are lovely people that make a point of cleaning up after their dogs.

I was pondering the OAP issue in bed last night actually and I suppose they could get some sort of reduction or rebate (a bit like council tax). I also think that attending dog training classes would be a good thing for many of them, as it would get them out of the house mixing with other people and possibly even help them to make friends with other dog owners who they could then go dog walking with, so would, to some small extent help to make them feel less isolated.

I should probably have those posts withdrawn!!!

Apologies for potentially offending the Swiss and I'm glad that they enjoy this free and democratic Europe.

The subject of dog ownership infuriates me and all these excuses for what is basically selfish behaviour makes me even more angry.