Frustrated at lack of good off lead dog walks

[familyconflict]

I’m feeling so frustrated at restrictions being placed on free spaces for dogs. Trying to move and find a place with good access to walks in the South.

I have owned dogs for many years. Have excellent control, responsible owner, leads near livestock, pick up poo etc.

On a walk - for the majority of time, I want my dogs to run free. They are a breed that need to. It is not ‘dog friendly’ to say dogs on leads. It is the same as saying kids can only walk not run. It isn’t fair and doesn’t work. Dogs need to run and that is part of the joy of walking them. ( I have kids BTW)

I live near a town with very low ratio of square meters of green space per person. Thought I had found a location on the outskirts with good walks but the National Trust who own a small bit and council have decided that the main bit of accessible greenery ( that lots of people use) is going to have a few grazing livestock on for “wildflowers/eco” reasons. All going through and sign are going up demanding dogs will need to be on 2 m leads.

It is making me angry so I am trying to find info or a database with details of good spaces, free of restrictions. Just wondered if anyone is aware of anything online?

I agree with all of this.
One big problem here is that pet ownership generates large profits for the pet industry, anything which acts as a barrier to pet ownership reduces the profits of said industry and they will lobby hard against it.

The dog that was killed in the thread that has been linked above was killed by a dog who was on a lead but couldn’t be controlled by its owner.

Of course they don't provide control. The human on the other end is what provides control (or not, as the case may be).

You can have an off-lead dog at heel under control, and an on-lead dog lunging about causing chaos. Leads may provide an extra bit of security but they're far from fool-proof.

A few days ago, there was an awful thread (linked earlier) about a dog who yanked its' lead out of its' owners' hand and killed another dog. My own dog has been attacked several times by on-lead dogs who have yanked their owners across footpaths. I've known of dogs on lead lunge into the road and get struck by cars.

Leads break. They get dropped. They may help keep dogs safe but ultimately a dog on a lead isn't automatically less of a danger than one off a lead.

If an animal is too powerful to be controlled by a human then it's not suited to being kept as a pet.

@Pifo I;'m very sorry that you had such a horrible experience, but I don't think your response is logical. It's like saying, nobody should ever ride a motorbike because my friend was riding one and was killed by a car.

You (and your poor puppy) were both extremely unlucky. There is also evidence (I need to go and find the study) that dogs on-lead are more likely to be attacked than dogs that are off. Dogs kept on-lead also get very frustrated and that triggers aggression.

I've seen toy breeds of dogs lunge out into roads and narrowly miss getting struck by cars. It's not about the size of the dog, but the human on the other end of the lead with the control.

In order to be properly controlled a dog needs to be on a lead.
If being on a lead is not sufficient to keep the dog under control then the dog is not suited to being kept as a pet.
Large powerful breeds of dog, those with the ability to overpower, dismember, kill humans are too dangerous to be kept as pets.

yabu
too many dog owners who don't know what 'under close control' actually looks like.

I totally agree. But people are arguing that a lead provides control, and I don’t think that they do in lots of instances where people have large, powerful breeds.
I know 35kg Labradors who I’m sure would be capable of tanking off with their owners if they were minded to. As a relatively light woman, I wouldn’t want to own a dog that I knew I couldn’t hold back if I really needed to.

The size and power of the dog is one factor, the ability of the owner to keep the dog under control is another factor.

They provide a large degree of control until:
The dog pulls the owner around (I was almost tripped by an on-lead golden retriever earlier today, who span round past his owner who had limited control)
The lead or collar breaks (I've had that happen to me, more than once)
The dog yanks the lead out of the owner's hand (I've that happen to me, too; I wasn't holding the longline strongly enough and a hare got up practically under my dog's feet)

there is a lovely walk near me but ignorant dog owners allow their dogs off the lead and ignore the requests regarding nesting birds, so selfish

If a lead means proper control, then why do dogs slip their leads? Why do dogs on leads still manage to attack other dogs? Why do they still lunge into roads and get struck by cars?

Leads are an essential tool for dog owners but they're not foolproof and they don't (in and of themselves) mean a dog is under control.

This thread has got bonkers.
Why is there this massive urge to BAN things (off-lead dogs) rather than consider more moderate approaches like, oh, dunno, regulation?

Agree. I live in Scotland and it's a nightmare - dogs everywhere, rarely on leads. I'm terribly allergic and my son is scared of them after being knocked down by an off lead dog in a local park so I'm sure there are many, many options for dogs to be all over the place.

I just wish there was some sort of licensing requirement for off leading dogs safety. Agree plenty of them are fine, but a handful are not and it's genuinely awful to be scared so often. A dog leapt on me and grabbed my sandwich out of my hand while I was sitting on a bench with my kids having a picnic and the dog owner yelled at me for having food. In a park. My son was half hysterical as the dog was growling and the owners weren't close by at all.

What a depressing thread. I feel it’s become a let’s bash dog owners who want to let their dogs run. A few points

Space - someone said she’s annoyed at more dogs in local parks, and then in the same post happy for the council to prioritise cattle and wild flowers on the outskirts of a town area. My initial point was that on the outskirts of a densely populated town/area ( with more and more house building) we should have access to open free spaces for all. Taking it away causes more tensions. I don’t want to go to a recreational kids park.

Biodiversity/Wildflowers - there is load and loads of farmland with grazing animals locally and in the uk all of which encourages biodiversity. I am annoyed at councils having so little green space and deciding that is a priority for them. I think it ticks a green diversity box ( whilst using land for house building) at the expense of people living there.

Dog attacks/ dogs on leads. I’m sorry for a couple of the stories I read. My own dog was attacked, and the owner was talking to me with her dog on a lead. ( at a dog event) It happens. Actually some dogs are often more aggressive when on a lead. However, very rarely in my almost 40 years of dog ownership have I had issues out. Perhaps it is becoming more common but the issue is to tackle that - ownership and training. Not restrict everyone. It’s like saying let’s take all the cars off the road as people speed.

” Do more with my dog” - I do a dog sport. My dogs are highly engaged. That does not mean they don’t appreciate or need an off lead walk.

Statements like “ in order to be properly controlled a dog must be on a lead” - I’m sorry but that’s utter codswallop. I had a wild deer run from behind me, through my dogs. 1 went to chase, I called him and he turned and came straight back. It’s called training.

So many dog owners saying their dogs are happy with a lead walk - I understand a few of the genuine reasons and there have been quite a few mentioned here. However, I’m stunned by the amount of dog owners on this thread that appear to be genuinely happy to only walk their dog on a lead, not let it run AND think that’s where the UK should be aiming. I find that a very ignorant view and quite surprising.

It’s been an eye opener for me this thread. I will be very careful when I move and be aware at the potential restrictions that may come. I think I will be staying more rural away from mad people and controlling councils is the way to go.

It's a weird control thing IMO. It's definitely bonkers.

So why are you saying "in order for a dog to be properly controlled, it needs to be on a lead"?

Because that's quite clearly not true. Leads can (and do) help to control dogs. But they're not foolproof and don't automatically mean a dog is safe and not a danger to themselves or others.

@familyconflict I totally recommend staying rural. I have a Labrador and spaniel and they have an hour off lead every day around footpaths through agricultural fields in the middle of the countryside. I can count on one hand the number of people we have met at close quarters while walking this year.

I don’t love other dogs bowling up to mine uninvited, so I purposefully choose places where I know I can spot other walkers and give other dogs a wide berth.

I actually suggested more regulation up thread.

It's not a 'weird control thing' to want measures in place to keep dogs safe. It's what those measures look like which should be discussed.

But I don't believe that every dog should be allowed to be off lead, as they're simply not safe (IMO, they should be PTS if they're clearly aggressively reactive to every other dog they pass, on lead or not, but not every dog owner likes that suggestion!). I wouldn't want to live with an aggressively reactive dog, even if it was 'only' towards other dogs!

Could you imagine your whole life attached to a lead whenever you left the house? How awful. I understand of course that dogs with behavioural challenges do need to be kept on a lead. I think so many people own dogs because they want to and do not factor in their needs.

There's keeping dogs safe and then there's enforcing a rule that all dogs have to be on lead no matter what. The former is understandable - the latter is controlling and shows a massive lack of understanding of what control actually looks like, and what dogs need to be properly exercised and stimulated.

On-lead areas where rules are enforced would solve the problem. There's absolutely no need to subject every single dog in the country to a life on a lead though.

So many dog threads arguing about detail when it is pretty obvious that the core problem is that there are too many dogs. We just can't cope with this level of mass dog ownership. Of course individual dogs and owners shouldn't be penalised for the actions of a few, but that is inevitable - we all face restrictions because a minority can't be trusted.

The OP's council may well have decided that it is not in the public interest to facilitate dog ownership, indeed that making it more difficult to own dogs in densely populated areas is the way to go.

I have a close relative, lovely but laid back person, with a lovely but poorly trained dog. This dog regularly runs amok among wildlife and on farmland, and yet is still offlead because 'he doesn't mean to be naughty'. It will be a sad day when he finally gets shot by a farmer, but I won't blame the farmer.

We are letting dogs down by pretending mass dog ownership is working.

I can understand your frustration. However, I find it incredibly difficult to find on-lead dog walks. I've got a reactive dog (yappy, not snarly) and I'm very restricted especially in woodland where I can't see who's around....it's not fun having a big dog appear from nowhere with no owner in sight.

Irs so sad, this thred is proof -once again- that there are many dog owners people who have no idea what a dog actually is and what their needs are.