to think that dogs in park should be muzzled?

[hawkgirl]

I live in London where quite a few teenagers have fighting dogs in the park around babies and toddlers. Its been a bit scary at times and I know i'm not the only one who worries.

It must be hard to enforce some kind of police control on who can and can't have a certain dog breed, but thinking that around areas where small children play that all dogs should have a muzzle.

Utterly ridiculous.

The number of dogs who actually bite is so low in relation the the number of dogs around that suggesting all dogs are muzzled is just bonkers. There are plenty of places you can go with your kids that dogs can't, and rarely the other way round.

I am not saying dogs are more important, but I am saying that surely there is enough room for everyone.

Muzzling indeed, tsk!

And most of the time, when the news says that a child has been maimed / killed by a dog, it's usually a dog that they know, not one met in a park.

Good point!

Simple, lets keep them muzzled at home too then

I don't think you are BU. I'm a dog owner and I like to think I'm responsible, and tbh I don't walk my dog in places where there are lots of children, not because he's aggressive, but because the children's parents have no way of knowing if he's aggressive or not. Similarly, I have no way of knowing if the child is used to dogs, afraid of dogs, or if the child is likely to lunge at my dog or something like that. So when I'm walking him on the pavement and a child is approaching, I let the parent see that my dog is on a short leash and - wherever possible - I am between the child and the dog, so there's no possibility that the dog could get near the child. When I'm in the park I keep him away from small children and never let him off the lead near a children's play area. It's just basic safety and basic respect for others, isn't it?

I'm also in London and I think Ravenscourt Park (in Hammersmith) has got it right: there are two large, completely fenced off dog areas. Holland Park, on the other hand, is a total nightmare because the children's playground is right next to the only part of the park where you're allowed to let dogs off the lead. It seems to me that this is a recipe for disaster: loads of excited small children on scooters + loads of dogs off the lead in a small area

So anyway (sorry for the essay), I wouldn't be against tighter regulation of dog ownership or even compulsory muzzling if that makes life safer and better for everyone. It's not worth risking a child getting hurt. Simple as that.

as others have said yabu. My dogs are exceptionally behaved and muzzling them would cause them distress.

All dogs bred for a strong locking jaw and a fighting temperament should be shot dead on sight by the police when let out of their homes, and especially in to areas where children play. The risk of killing or, more likely, permanently disfiguring and traumatising a child far outweighs the rights of the dog or owner. Such beasts have no place in a civilised world.

Where on earth are you people taking your kids that you often come across snarling "fighting dogs" running amok?

I walk my two small placid dogs every day at the local country park, along with my 2 small children. WE meet LOTS of other dog walkers, as well as cyclists, joggers, tractors. I have NEVER, in my 15 years of daily dog-walking, met an aggressive, out-of-control dog that posed any kind of threat to me or my kids! And I have walked in many different parks in different areas over the years!

As I've said, the kind of dogs that tend to be involved in attacks like these are poorly socialised (ie never walked/ socialised) and neglected, rather than exercised properly.

I would be prepared to hazard a guess that if you took a survey of incidents leading to injury of children in parks, dog attacks would not come top. Recent newsworthy incidents in our local park that I can remember off the top of my head were- man dying falling down gully and child seriously injured in sledging accident.

I'm not saying that some dogs aren't dangerous, or that owners shouldn't be responsible for keeping their dogs under control- of course they should, and the Dangerous Dog Act can be used against those that are/ don't. But I do think there is a slight feelig of hysteria regarding normal dogs exercising in a park.

Only today I was walking in yet another park, both dogs at the side, old boy on the lead, next to a children's play area, when a grown man booted a leather football hard, and it narrowly missed my poor old 15 yo dog. Had it hit him, I'm pretty sure he would have been badly hurt. Equally had it hit a child in the playpark in the face, I'm pretty sure he/ she would have been badly hurt. Dogs are not the only menace in parks!

Our dog is a much loved member of our family and is very much loved by my children. A muzzle would cause her alot of distress and would be totally unnecessary.

Very VERY few people are killed by dogs in this country. Unless you read the tabloid papers!

This problem of status dogs would appear to be mainly a town/city problem. Dog wardens patrolling problem parks on a daily basis could help. Especially if they were able to get the police involved to tackle irresponsible owners BEFORE there's a problem.
That way, normal people wouldn't be affected. It's the thugs that need tackling, not every dog in the country.

Onagar I know what an analagy is thankyou, and I know a ridiculous analagy when I see one.

Guns are owned generally with the sole aim of shooting someone or something. Guns are not in the whole much loved family members who curl up in front of the fire with your children, guns are not something you can have fun with, throw sticks for, play games with, guns are not loyal, loving and hugely intelligent.

Someone in the park with a gun in his pocket is probably erranged and very dangerous.

Someone in the park exercising a family pet is not dangerous, and neither is the dog.

Don't really see what the point would be - if you said these people are letting their dogs into an area where dogs aren't allowed, what makes you think they'd abide by a law saying their dog must be muzzled?

I also think that would be one of the many problems with the silly insurance idea - the only people that would bother to do it would be responsible dog owners. Do they really think the type of person to get a dog for fighting would go and get insurance?!

I dont get how staffs have the dual reputation of being loveable dopy child friendly dogs, to being the usual suspect whenever a child is attacked.

I know people will say its the same for all dogs and its the owners , but really 9 times out of 10, if i pick up my local paper and the headline screams "child mauled", its usually a staff.

I agree its a town/city problem too. We came back from a weeks holiday in Cornwall and only realised we were back in London when the labs, border collies, and generally pedigree chum cute dogs, were replaced by staffs walking down the street with their idiot owners having those heavy chain leads in the hands, while the dog was free to wander the street till his owner caught up with him! If you've got a lead, why not bloody use it!!

And talking of pedigree chum, i know i dont spend my time watching dog food ads, as i dont have one , but i cant remember the last time i saw a cute "caesar" dog ousted and a staff replacing it as a cute little doggie. (cue someone watching every dog ad on youtube now, just to prove me wrong )

I can't believe some of the ignorance being bandied about on this thread. 'fighting dogs'...

It is highly unreasonable to think that all dogs should be muzzled in public. Dogs should be under control in public, be that on or off the lead, and if known to be aggressive or have ahistory of aggression to either humans or dogs should then be muzzled, but not all dogs should be.

Very, very few of the dogs in this country are any danger at all to humans. It is the small minority of idiot dog owners that give dogs a bad name. If poorly raised a Golden Retriever is as likely to attack a child as a Staffy or Rottweiler. The only reason there aren't more 'Golden Retrievr attacks' is because the sort of people who choose to own such a dog are most often sensible family homes who will socialise their dog well. The sort of idiot who wants a dog as a status symbol or protection or isn't going to walk, properly train or socialise it rarely wants a Golden and will go for Staffs, Rotties etc. The breeds themselves aren't a problem, the owners are.

Unfortunately there are a lot of unsuitable dog owners in London and the dogs are used as weapons
grim story

' but really 9 times out of 10, if i pick up my local paper and the headline screams "child mauled", its usually a staff.
' ~ and how many times has been a random dog in a park who mauled the child to death and not the uncles dog, or the grandmas dog? i.e a dog not raised around or socialised with children.

And how many times is it in the paper that the dog was 'usually always locked in the yard/garden' i.e. not being interacted with or cared for properly?

And how many times has the dog belonged to a family who think 'That's a nice respectable family'?

Like Midori says it's not the breed it's the eejits who buy them.

My nephew is scared of dogs so when he visits my dog does have to be locked in the yard. He cannot simply be put in another room as dd2 would let him in. However while my nephew is here I continually pop into the yard and give the dog some attention and a treat. If my nephew goes upstairs I let the dog in the downstairs of the house. Just locking him the yard and leaving him there for the duration would not only be cruel but would also serve as to breed resentment towards young visitors in the dog.

Do you think the owners of these 'headline' dogs bother to do the same?

Shot on sight? You're not civilised you twat

I think that maybe the response to this thread will depend on the part of the country you live in.

All this business about dogs hardly ever biting people doesn't seem quite right. I always avoid dogs quite carefully and have still been bitten on 2 different occasions.

Preaching to the converted - as per usual...

I muzzle my dog because he's prone to stealing food from picnickers, buggies, shopping bags etc NOT because I believe he would bite. He won't.
But I do think that a muzzled dog looks frightening and the reason for the muzzle could be easily misconstrued.

Also (and I know I am going to be shot down for being completely unreasonable) I, and other dog walkers, use the park EVERY SINGLE DAY, in all weathers - not just when the sun comes out. And I do get well pissed off with the few times a year park users believing that us regulars must take second place over them because they want to have a picnic and I have a dog.

Good point

But if the dog is not bothering the picnic people why are they getting stroppy?

He'll still run over and have a sniff.
He's not THAT clever...

Oh OK. Sorry I'm not a dog owner.

So is it considered OK for dogs to run up and sniff people?

Yes - they're dogs.

SearchingForMyInnerJoan- I admit to being guilty of feeling possessive about MY park too! I also know it is silly, but I resent the fact that I am there every single day, but feel I need to stay away if the weather is nice as somehow the twice-a-year park goers have more right to be there if it is sunny, judging by the way my family and dogs are looked at!

Ah well this is where I've been going wrong.

When people on here say they keep their dogs away from people I thought they meant literally that. I didn't realise that running up and sniffing was considered to be OK.