Lively dogs and little kids - Peckham Rye Park

[Earl Aelfheah]

Unfortunately there are so many dog owners who just don't get it. Not everyone likes dogs - not everyone think it's cute to have one run at them, or jump up at them. Personally I don't like to be hassled, by strange dogs or strange humans when I'm just going about my business, strolling in the park. I think this is reasonable.

Children should be able to walk and play in the park without a massive (to them) animal jumping all over them. Your dog isn't just 'saying hello' (if you are personifying your pooch in this way, you're delusional). It's 'intentions' are unknowable and irrelevant - it is intimidating a small child and you as an owner are responsible. If you choose to house an animal in a built up urban environment, then you should learn to control it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

dwe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well surely I am, by stating that dogs should be

> on leads in areas designated as such, and in areas

> that they don't need to be I am happy with that

> too.

>

> If those are the rules of the public space, and

> everyone adheres to them, what then is the area of

> concern?

Nice 'compliance mentality' - Just because 'the rules' don't require your dog to be on a lead, doesn't mean there is no obligation to keep an eye on your dog, to have it under control and be able to recall it should it be upsetting someone.

[first mate]

I would just repeat that, whether we like it or not, the law now provides the means for recourse where someone considers themselves to be unreasonably frigtened by a dog that is not under control.

A dog that is off lead and that goes up to a child, unbidden, and 'snatches' a toy out of that child's hand is not under control. A large dog might be very intimdating to a small child. A snatchy dog, in a state of high arousal, can quite easily and unintentionally graze a small child with its teeth or claws.

I do not want to see dogs banned from parks or orders requiring them to be on lead all the time in public parks, but if people continue to be so laissez faire around dog control those that want dogs out of parks will have a good case.

In this instance, the second woman said the dogs were not just offlead they 'snatched' a toy out of her child's hand. If this happens in your own home it is still highly undesirable but only impacts on the owner- in this case the child and mother were simply out an about minding their own business. Were another strange child to march up and snatch a toy I am sure it would be viewed as undesirable and efforts would be made to ensure this was not repeated. Equally many dogs would not be at all amused if a strange dog approached and attempted to grab their toy.

I do agree that parents staying calm will help the child not to develop a generalised fear of all dogs. I do despair of children that scream and cry as an on lead dog approaches on the street and they are comforted and shepherded by obviously, highly anxious parents, who probably do not help their child's anxiety. If I see this anxiety at distance and I am walking my dog I try to cross the road to give the child space, but perhaps parents with anxious children might also consider doing the same, occasionally.

[jctg]

Classic bants!

[Earl Aelfheah]

You are spot on First Mate.

[MissMadMoo]

The is a Dog of a thread...

[dwe]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> dwe Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Well surely I am, by stating that dogs should

> be

> > on leads in areas designated as such, and in

> areas

> > that they don't need to be I am happy with that

> > too.

> >

> > If those are the rules of the public space, and

> > everyone adheres to them, what then is the area

> of

> > concern?

>

> Nice 'compliance mentality' - Just because 'the

> rules' don't require your dog to be on a lead,

> doesn't mean there is no obligation to keep an eye

> on your dog, to have it under control and be able

> to recall it should it be upsetting someone.

Well if that is compliance mentality then so be it. As it shows from your post, the wording in itself is woolly as a well trained dog may well be under control without it being on a lead, or not as the case may be.

first mate's post above sums it up well for me.

[Earl Aelfheah]

May have misunderstood dwe's post, so apologies.

[Louisa]

I personally am more offended by someone who would even have an issue with a dog being near them if it is only being friendly and not causing a problem. If the child is upset it's more than likely due to a learned experience from the parent who dislikes dogs. A friendly dog approaching in a controlled environment with the parent nearby should be encouraged for both parties to create better interaction. Adults who have issues with dogs tend to be weird middle class pedants who just like to moan for no reason in particular. Those people should be banned from parks in my opinion, for the good of everyone else both human and animal.

Louisa.

[MissMadMoo]

If we could just ban them, Peckham Rye would be desolate....

[BrandNewGuy]

"Aaaand... cut! Thanks, everyone ? you wree terrific. You've all done really well. Now let's have lunch..."

Mike Leigh

[Dulwichdarling]

Hahaha brilliant

[dwe]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I personally am more offended by someone who would

> even have an issue with a dog being near them if

> it is only being friendly and not causing a

> problem. If the child is upset it's more than

> likely due to a learned experience from the parent

> who dislikes dogs. A friendly dog approaching in a

> controlled environment with the parent nearby

> should be encouraged for both parties to create

> better interaction. Adults who have issues with

> dogs tend to be weird middle class pedants who

> just like to moan for no reason in particular.

> Those people should be banned from parks in my

> opinion, for the good of everyone else both human

> and animal.

>

> Louisa.

clickbait.

[Otta]

For what it's worth, if a dog approaches one of my kids I'll sort of put my arms around the kid so she feels protected but I'll encourage her to interact with the dog.

I don't think people should have to keep dogs on leads at certain times of the day for fear of seeing a child.

[dwe]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For what it's worth, if a dog approaches one of my

> kids I'll sort of put my arms around the kid so

> she feels protected but I'll encourage her to

> interact with the dog.

>

> I don't think people should have to keep dogs on

> leads at certain times of the day for fear of

> seeing a child.

A Rottweiler bounded up to one of ours when he was on his tricycle and to be honest I grabbed him off the trike and had a go at the owner when he finally caught up with his dog. As the owner suggested to me the dog was harmless I guess I overreacted.

I didn't try and pet the dog either.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Don't think anyone is saying that dogs shouldn't every be allowed off the lead, but that when they are, they should be under control and the owner able to be recall them. What's clear is that a dog that runs up to a child and snatches a toy from it's hand is not under control.

[dwe]

It is probably the fault of the dogs only if they are Labradoodles or Cockapoos, eh Louisa.

[Otta]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't think anyone is saying that dogs shouldn't

> every be allowed off the lead,

OP Suggests that maybe they should be on leads at times when there will be lots of kids around (like school run).

> What's clear is that a dog

> that runs up to a child and snatches a toy from

> it's hand is not under control.

Agree. But how often does that happen.

I was thinking just yesterday (about an unrelated topic) that we are in danger of raising a generation of real soft useless people, not equped to deal with the world they live in because we wrap our kids in cotton wool too much. That's not to say I want big dogs flattening small kids, but I also don't want to take away anything in the environment that could possibly cause harm to our little ones.

And I dsay that as a parent who is probably also guilty of over protecting sometimes.

[first mate]

rahrahrah, exactly.

Let's be clear, young dogs, just like young children, are going to have moments when they go off piste and test the boundaries. If I were the owner of the rottweiler and this was the very first time ever it had bounded up to a child I would thenceforth, apologise to the parent, get the dog on a longline and do intensive training, until such time I could be pretty confident the dog would not do this again.

All this is normal dog behaviour and, as ever, I blame the owners for being absent in the moment and not taking training seriously. That said mistakes do happen and we cannot create a risk free world. On the other hand, if the dog had already behaved like this and was still being given unfettered freedom to bound up to people and children, then the owner deserves a real ticking off for potentially scaring a child and parent, but also for putting his/her own dog in harm's way.

Otta, just seen your post and I do agree but times have changed and, let's be honest, people are not so canny about animals in general. In days of old you'd often see pictures of a terrier hanging off someone's trouser leg (that's just the way terriers are)and it was brushed off. If a child got bitten for standing on a dog's tail, the child learned the hard way not to do that again. Today, either of these two incidents could get a dog put down as vicious.

My concern is with the reality of the law and what can/could be done with it should people decide to. Because I don't wnat to see swathes of normal dogs put down or kept on a lead all their lives, I urge owners to be realistic and train and supervise properly.

[dwe]

Well put first mate.

[steveo]

'collaring the owner' seems a bit strong Firstmate

[Earl Aelfheah]

All dog owners must be kept on a lead.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was thinking just yesterday (about an unrelated

> topic) that we are in danger of raising a

> generation of real soft useless people, not equped

> to deal with the world they live in because we

> wrap our kids in cotton wool too much.

I agree that we are in danger of doing this in many aspects of modern life, but dog owners having control of their dogs and generally being responsible isn't about wrapping kids in cotton wool, it's about consideration for others.

[Dulwichdarling]

It's not an easy thing to control though is it? Consideration is all very well but in a park where there will likely be dogs and children , including puppies and people afraid of dogs it's likely there will be these occurrences.

So if a dog runs up to a child is the owner then deemed inconsiderate? That's was what I got from the OP

[dwe]

If you take your dog off the lead, and it runs off ignoring your commands then I would suggest it is the owner being inconsiderate, as the dog isn't sufficiently well trained to be off its lead.