Dog owners (rant)

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

There is an argument that you shouldn't have a dog unless you have a dog friendly lifestyle. This includes time to train and walk them, and space to walk them, not on a lead. If you live in a way or in a place that makes this too hard, don't get a dog. It is that simple.

I live in an animal friendly rural location, but I don't think working long hours and cycling is particularly compatible with the needs of a dog, even though it would be nice to have one. So I don't have a dog.

I agree with most of that other than the 'not on a lead' bit. Most rural environments they should be on a lead as you'll be walking through fields with livestock. Mine gets to walk for hours in the countryside on a long lead and gets given the chance to sniff when he wants (good for calming him). He'll be joining me on runs soon as well now he's fully developed.

No one should be walking through fields of grazing animals with an off lead dog anyway. Neither is it reasonable for millions or acres of heath land sparsely populated by sheep to require dogs on leads. There is a balance to be struck, with a strong onus on having your dog under control.

Anyway, I can think of half a dozen places within 5 mins of here where dogs can run free without encountering a sheep. Same applies to most places I've ever lived. Perhaps part of being a responsible dog owner is showing judgement about where one self entitledly walks it.

This leads to quite a dead sheep each year because owners don't know how their dogs will react if they see something that looks tasty. As long as the dog owners compensate the farmers for the loss, it seems fine, but apparently that never happens.

There are a lot of sheep deaths blamed on crows and raptors as well. Farmers and facts are only passing acquaintances in some respects.

That said, if a dog owner is irresponsible enough not to get the animal used to new things, that's bad ownership.

Question - should all dogs be restricted because of some irresponsible owners?

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

There is an argument that you shouldn't have a dog unless you have a dog friendly lifestyle. This includes time to train and walk them, and space to walk them, not on a lead. If you live in a way or in a place that makes this too hard, don't get a dog. It is that simple.

I live in an animal friendly rural location, but I don't think working long hours and cycling is particularly compatible with the needs of a dog, even though it would be nice to have one. So I don't have a dog.

I agree with most of that other than the 'not on a lead' bit. Most rural environments they should be on a lead as you'll be walking through fields with livestock. Mine gets to walk for hours in the countryside on a long lead and gets given the chance to sniff when he wants (good for calming him). He'll be joining me on runs soon as well now he's fully developed.

No one should be walking through fields of grazing animals with an off lead dog anyway. Neither is it reasonable for millions or acres of heath land sparsely populated by sheep to require dogs on leads. There is a balance to be struck, with a strong onus on having your dog under control.

Anyway, I can think of half a dozen places within 5 mins of here where dogs can run free without encountering a sheep. Same applies to most places I've ever lived. Perhaps part of being a responsible dog owner is showing judgement about where one self entitledly walks it.

This leads to quite a dead sheep each year because owners don't know how their dogs will react if they see something that looks tasty. As long as the dog owners compensate the farmers for the loss, it seems fine, but apparently that never happens.

There are a lot of sheep deaths blamed on crows and raptors as well. Farmers and facts are only passing acquaintances in some respects.

That said, if a dog owner is irresponsible enough not to get the animal used to new things, that's bad ownership.

Question - should all dogs be restricted because of some irresponsible owners?

Should all guns be restricted because of some irresponsible owners?

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

There is an argument that you shouldn't have a dog unless you have a dog friendly lifestyle. This includes time to train and walk them, and space to walk them, not on a lead. If you live in a way or in a place that makes this too hard, don't get a dog. It is that simple.

I live in an animal friendly rural location, but I don't think working long hours and cycling is particularly compatible with the needs of a dog, even though it would be nice to have one. So I don't have a dog.

I agree with most of that other than the 'not on a lead' bit. Most rural environments they should be on a lead as you'll be walking through fields with livestock. Mine gets to walk for hours in the countryside on a long lead and gets given the chance to sniff when he wants (good for calming him). He'll be joining me on runs soon as well now he's fully developed.

No one should be walking through fields of grazing animals with an off lead dog anyway. Neither is it reasonable for millions or acres of heath land sparsely populated by sheep to require dogs on leads. There is a balance to be struck, with a strong onus on having your dog under control.

Anyway, I can think of half a dozen places within 5 mins of here where dogs can run free without encountering a sheep. Same applies to most places I've ever lived. Perhaps part of being a responsible dog owner is showing judgement about where one self entitledly walks it.

This leads to quite a dead sheep each year because owners don't know how their dogs will react if they see something that looks tasty. As long as the dog owners compensate the farmers for the loss, it seems fine, but apparently that never happens.

There are a lot of sheep deaths blamed on crows and raptors as well. Farmers and facts are only passing acquaintances in some respects.

That said, if a dog owner is irresponsible enough not to get the animal used to new things, that's bad ownership.

Question - should all dogs be restricted because of some irresponsible owners?

Should all guns be restricted because of some irresponsible owners?

I don't own either. But there's an argument that actually becoming a dog owner should be more difficult in the first place I suppose. Precluded by the cost of any way to administer that, whereupon restrictions for all become a proxy.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

There is an argument that you shouldn't have a dog unless you have a dog friendly lifestyle. This includes time to train and walk them, and space to walk them, not on a lead. If you live in a way or in a place that makes this too hard, don't get a dog. It is that simple.

I live in an animal friendly rural location, but I don't think working long hours and cycling is particularly compatible with the needs of a dog, even though it would be nice to have one. So I don't have a dog.

I agree with most of that other than the 'not on a lead' bit. Most rural environments they should be on a lead as you'll be walking through fields with livestock. Mine gets to walk for hours in the countryside on a long lead and gets given the chance to sniff when he wants (good for calming him). He'll be joining me on runs soon as well now he's fully developed.

No one should be walking through fields of grazing animals with an off lead dog anyway. Neither is it reasonable for millions or acres of heath land sparsely populated by sheep to require dogs on leads. There is a balance to be struck, with a strong onus on having your dog under control.

Anyway, I can think of half a dozen places within 5 mins of here where dogs can run free without encountering a sheep. Same applies to most places I've ever lived. Perhaps part of being a responsible dog owner is showing judgement about where one self entitledly walks it.

This leads to quite a dead sheep each year because owners don't know how their dogs will react if they see something that looks tasty. As long as the dog owners compensate the farmers for the loss, it seems fine, but apparently that never happens.

There are a lot of sheep deaths blamed on crows and raptors as well. Farmers and facts are only passing acquaintances in some respects.

That said, if a dog owner is irresponsible enough not to get the animal used to new things, that's bad ownership.

Question - should all dogs be restricted because of some irresponsible owners?

Apparently, the dog owners sometimes notify the farmers of the "accident" usually alongside a statement that it is so out of character.

Yes, all dogs should be restricted around livestock.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

Apparently, the dog owners sometimes notify the farmers of the "accident" usually alongside a statement that it is so out of character.

Yes, all dogs should be restricted around livestock.

They say that when the dog bites people (me) too.

ugo.santalucia

I have a neighbour who occasionally keeps his girlfrield's dog. Which means the dog gets dumped in the kitchen from 8 AM to 7PM. Depending on which dog he "looks after" (there are two) it can be relatively quiet all day, or the other can howl and cry for a couple of hours before it finally settles... Is this a matter I should report to RSPCA? The annoyance is trumped by my feeling of sadness for the poor animal, but I don't know where the boundary of animal cruelty lies... my understanding is that if there is no violence and the animal is fed, then there is no cruelty in abandoning it for hours at a time

pblakeney

TheBigBean said:

...

Apparently, the dog owners sometimes notify the farmers of the "accident" usually alongside a statement that it is so out of character.

...

Said all dog owners ever.
Including those who's dogs have killed people.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

My argument was that if you want a dog, make sure you have some places to take it to run around off a lead. So not a suggestion that leads are not needed, but instead a suggestion that dog owners make the effort to take their animals places where its safe for them to be off a lead. Too many dogs don't get this because the owners can't be bothered or don't have time.

Fiar enough, my misreading then. I thought you meant you shouldn't own a dog unless you could take it to be walked off the lead.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

...

Apparently, the dog owners sometimes notify the farmers of the "accident" usually alongside a statement that it is so out of character.

...

Said all dog owners ever.
Including those who's dogs have killed people.

It is very rare though isn't it? So, should there by cycle licences and dangerous cycling legislation for a similarly rare occurrence?

There's not a straightforward answer.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

...

Apparently, the dog owners sometimes notify the farmers of the "accident" usually alongside a statement that it is so out of character.

...

Said all dog owners ever.
Including those who's dogs have killed people.

It is very rare though isn't it? So, should there by cycle licences and dangerous cycling legislation for a similarly rare occurrence?

There's not a straightforward answer.

I used an extreme example to emphasise a point.
All dog owners think their dog is "good". Until it isn't.

Pross

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

...

Apparently, the dog owners sometimes notify the farmers of the "accident" usually alongside a statement that it is so out of character.

...

Said all dog owners ever.
Including those who's dogs have killed people.

It is very rare though isn't it? So, should there by cycle licences and dangerous cycling legislation for a similarly rare occurrence?

There's not a straightforward answer.

I used an extreme example to emphasise a point.
All dog owners think their dog is "good". Until it isn't.

Nah, mines a pain in the ar$e around other dogs which is why I keep him on a lead and try to go places where I can keep him at a distance. I've spent a small fortune on professional training and keep working hard at it which is why I get fed up with other owners who just leave their dogs to do what they want.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Your response is very Tory ‘I’m alright’.

Spare us the leftiebollox - we've got enough of those threads already. Same goes for Raver boy.

If leftiebollox means considering the impact of my actions on other people then count me in. Far better the the selfish ‘there’s nothing saying I can’t do this so if others don’t like it they can fvck off somewhere else’ attitude in my opinion. I’ve had dogs, often several dogs, for all but 2 years of my life and have never had an issue keeping them on a lead.

Leftiebollox means coming out with these tired old stereotypes about 'I'm alright Jack'. So tedious, espcially as you misunderstood me.

Maybe you can explain how only letting my dogs off the lead in places where it's OK to do so and keeping them on the lead where it's not is symptomatic of this mythical Tory ' I'm alright Jack' attitude?

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

My argument was that if you want a dog, make sure you have some places to take it to run around off a lead. So not a suggestion that leads are not needed, but instead a suggestion that dog owners make the effort to take their animals places where its safe for them to be off a lead. Too many dogs don't get this because the owners can't be bothered or don't have time.

Good point. If you're going to get a dog, do your homework beforehand and check there are suitable places to walk them.

If people are prepared to look and maybe drive a few miles there are usually places that are suitable.

Stevo_666

orraloon said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Your response is very Tory ‘I’m alright’.

Spare us the leftiebollox - we've got enough of those threads already. Same goes for Raver boy.

Very #toryscum rightieshite: 'I'm alright, fuxx everyone else'.

Read my posts again and try not do the leftie kneejerk reaction to any posts from someone who isn't left now centre. You'll need a bigger chip for your shoulder soon otherwise

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

My argument was that if you want a dog, make sure you have some places to take it to run around off a lead. So not a suggestion that leads are not needed, but instead a suggestion that dog owners make the effort to take their animals places where its safe for them to be off a lead. Too many dogs don't get this because the owners can't be bothered or don't have time.

Good point. If you're going g to get a dog, do your homework beforehand and check there are suitable places to walk them.

If people are prepared to look and maybe drive a few miles there are usually places that are suitable.

Also that you're home enough. Half the reason dogs go mental on their walks out is they're going out half the amount of time they should be.

Pross

The discussion was regarding letting dogs off their lead without having full control of them. If your dogs are under control off the lead then great but if they are running up to other people / dogs who may not want that and the response is 'they should go somewhere else then, I'm allowed to let them off the lead' that would suggest quite a high level of selfish behaviour wouldn't you say?

pblakeney

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

TheBigBean said:

...

Apparently, the dog owners sometimes notify the farmers of the "accident" usually alongside a statement that it is so out of character.

...

Said all dog owners ever.
Including those who's dogs have killed people.

It is very rare though isn't it? So, should there by cycle licences and dangerous cycling legislation for a similarly rare occurrence?

There's not a straightforward answer.

I used an extreme example to emphasise a point.
All dog owners think their dog is "good". Until it isn't.

Nah, mines a pain in the ar$e around other dogs which is why I keep in on a lead and try to go places where I can keep him at a distance. I've spent a small fortune on professional training and keep working hard at it which is why I get fed up with other owners who just leave their dogs to do what they want.

Fair.
I'm happy to downgrade "all" to "most".

laurentian

Why can't dogs have the same "rights" as cats?

shirley_basso

Bigger and more dangerous. Far less common sense.

Pross

I might let mine out in the front garden when I finally see the cat that keeps sh!tting on my lawn. The cat does bigger ones than my other dog (I assume it's a cat and no-one's dog is getting on there).

First.Aspect

.

Pross said:

I might let mine out in the front garden when I finally see the cat that keeps sh!tting on my lawn. The cat does bigger ones than my other dog (I assume it's a cat and no-one's dog is getting on there).

And this is the thing about cats. We have 3. Used to have 4. ;( but they have space to crepe in our garden or the neighbouring fields or bushes. We also have litter trays indoors which they chose to use a lot of the time.

Do all outdoor cat owners try to provide gravelly parts of their garden and indoor litter trays?

I very much doubt it.

rjsterry

Are you sure it's not a fox, Pross? They seem to go out of their way to sh*t in the most obvious place possible. Have had a few deposited on the back door step and one balanced on the handlebar of a child's scooter.

DeVlaeminck

.

rjsterry said:

Are you sure it's not a fox, Pross? They seem to go out of their way to sh*t in the most obvious place possible. Have had a few deposited on the back door step and one balanced on the handlebar of a child's scooter.

Fox ? I'd be going through my post history see who I've upset.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

The discussion was regarding letting dogs off their lead without having full control of them. If your dogs are under control off the lead then great but if they are running up to other people / dogs who may not want that and the response is 'they should go somewhere else then, I'm allowed to let them off the lead' that would suggest quite a high level of selfish behaviour wouldn't you say?

No. Mine don't cause that problem as mentioned.

If dogs are allowed off the lead in certain place and not in others then those that don't want to ever be approached by a dog can choose accordingly.

You however, appear to displaying a sense of entitlement as seem to you think you should be able to go wherever you want and never ever be bothered by a dog.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

My argument was that if you want a dog, make sure you have some places to take it to run around off a lead. So not a suggestion that leads are not needed, but instead a suggestion that dog owners make the effort to take their animals places where its safe for them to be off a lead. Too many dogs don't get this because the owners can't be bothered or don't have time.

Good point. If you're going g to get a dog, do your homework beforehand and check there are suitable places to walk them.

If people are prepared to look and maybe drive a few miles there are usually places that are suitable.

Also that you're home enough. Half the reason dogs go mental on their walks out is they're going out half the amount of time they should be.

True, this was also something we took into account when we were deciding whether to get one (or two in our case). Amount of outside space at home is also a factor as even if we don't walk ours on any given day they have a decent slice of enclosed garden for them to run/ roam/ sniff around in.

pangolin

.

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

The discussion was regarding letting dogs off their lead without having full control of them. If your dogs are under control off the lead then great but if they are running up to other people / dogs who may not want that and the response is 'they should go somewhere else then, I'm allowed to let them off the lead' that would suggest quite a high level of selfish behaviour wouldn't you say?

No. Mine don't cause that problem as mentioned.

If dogs are allowed off the lead in certain place and not in others then those that don't want to ever be approached by a dog can choose accordingly.

You however, appear to displaying a sense of entitlement as seem to you think you should be able to go wherever you want and never ever be bothered by a dog.

What do you mean by "be bothered by" in this context?

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

The discussion was regarding letting dogs off their lead without having full control of them. If your dogs are under control off the lead then great but if they are running up to other people / dogs who may not want that and the response is 'they should go somewhere else then, I'm allowed to let them off the lead' that would suggest quite a high level of selfish behaviour wouldn't you say?

No. Mine don't cause that problem as mentioned.

If dogs are allowed off the lead in certain place and not in others then those that don't want to ever be approached by a dog can choose accordingly.

You however, appear to displaying a sense of entitlement as seem to you think you should be able to go wherever you want and never ever be bothered by a dog.

It's the dog owners responsibility to ensure their dog remains under control at all times even if they are allowed off the lead. If they are running uninvited up to other people and / or dogs then they are not under control.

You should probably take a look at this

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public

Overview
It’s against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control anywhere, such as:

in a public place
in a private place, for example a neighbour’s house or garden
in the owner’s home
The law applies to all dogs.

You can report a dog that’s out of control.

Some types of dogs are banned.

Out of control
Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:

injures someone
makes someone worried that it might injure them
A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if either of the following apply:

it attacks someone’s animal
the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal

FWIW I think the bit in bold is classic Government website over-simplification as it suggests a dog could be deemed out of control if it barked at someone and they went running to the police to say they thought it was going to bite them. That said, it's easier to defend yourself if you have your dog on a lead than if you've allowed it to run up to them.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

The discussion was regarding letting dogs off their lead without having full control of them. If your dogs are under control off the lead then great but if they are running up to other people / dogs who may not want that and the response is 'they should go somewhere else then, I'm allowed to let them off the lead' that would suggest quite a high level of selfish behaviour wouldn't you say?

No. Mine don't cause that problem as mentioned.

If dogs are allowed off the lead in certain place and not in others then those that don't want to ever be approached by a dog can choose accordingly.

You however, appear to displaying a sense of entitlement as seem to you think you should be able to go wherever you want and never ever be bothered by a dog.

No. Mine don't cause that problem as mentioned.

If dogs are allowed off the lead in certain place and not in others then those that don't want to ever be approached by a dog can choose accordingly.

You however, appear to displaying a sense of entitlement as seem to you think you should be able to go wherever you want and never ever be bothered by a dog.


Oh, and this is just plain nonsense. I'm generally keen to avoid someone else's dog running up to mine and getting on the wrong side of him defending himself. The problem is that the person whose dog is running loose will then be the first to start whingeing.

monkimark

Is it that unreasonable to expect not to be bothered by a dog? How much bothering do I have to put up with - I am happy with a bit of a sniff but massive dogs bounding up to/jumping at my 5 year old daughter (and in one case biting her hand) seems like something I shouldn't have to expect if I have the audacity to go somewhere that dogs are allowed to be off lead.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Are you sure it's not a fox, Pross? They seem to go out of their way to sh*t in the most obvious place possible. Have had a few deposited on the back door step and one balanced on the handlebar of a child's scooter.

I did consider that but have never seen one around the houses here. I see them occasionally crossing the road about 100m away where the countryside starts and there is a little copse either side.