Dog owners (rant)

Pross

monkimark said:

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.

Stop being so entitled, you should just go somewhere else apparently and should also feel honoured their dog likes you so much.

pinno

laurentian said:

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

Cutting a long story short, our Egyptian tabby mangled a Jack Russel. The JR ran at the cat and he turned on the dog and cornered it in our coal bunker and shredded his ears and raked all down it's back.
This damn JR was used for ferreting, rabbiting and ratting. Horrible, aggressive bloody thing.

The owner was hysterical whilst I crawled into the bunker and pulled the bleeding dog out.

1 week later, the owner arrived angrily banging on the back door presenting us with the (very hefty) vet bill.
We sought legal advice and the solicitor told us that the cat was not classed as a domestic animal and we had no legal obligation.

Said JR spent the rest of it's life a quivering, neurotic mess.
Funny, that woman's son (this was 40 years ago) never speaks or acknowledges me.

So cats have the legal right to do what ever they like and dogs need to be kept on a short leash.

ddraver

Blimey, I had no idea about that. Explains why cats are so up themselves...

rjsterry

Our cat gave a fox a slap for getting too close the other day. Fox legged it.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

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.

I know. Sounds like you problem is a combination of people not doing what they should and you being a bit sensitive about it.

Anyway, as you can see my two mutts are very vicious and intimidating...

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

.

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?

Whatever Pross wants it to mean I guess.

Stevo_666

monkimark said:

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.

About as much as it is to expect not to be bothered by other peoples unruly kids. Biggest risk we fame across in our last dog walk was a couple of kids swinging sticks around with no regards for anyone or anything passing. Nearly caught me on the shins. Maybe this thread is one for the 'trivial things that annoy you' thread though.

laurentian

pinno said:

laurentian said:

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

So cats have the legal right to do what ever they like and dogs need to be kept on a short leash.

This is what I don't get! (and I had a JR just like that!)

laurentian

Pross said:

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.

Fox 5h1t almost always has a "tail" on it . . . difficult to describe but once you know what you're looking for it's pretty unmistakeable

First.Aspect

It's reasonable to expect not to be unduly impeded whilst cycling on the road by a dog, to a much lesser extent on a shared path (though thst really is somehwere a lead is a sensible idea) and not to have a dog run up to you and jump etc, because not everyone wants that.

However, if you can't stand dogs generally running around, you are being intolerant. Similarly, you can't expect everyone who owns a dog to accommodate someone who is afraid of dogs - with the exception of the above.

Put another way, not liking or being afraid of dogs doesn't entitle someone to a large dog-free radius around them.

In my opinion.

rjsterry

laurentian said:

Pross said:

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.

Fox 5h1t almost always has a "tail" on it . . . difficult to describe but once you know what you're looking for it's pretty unmistakeable

No need to look, just sniff. Way stronger than cat turd.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

....

Put another way, not liking or being afraid of lions doesn't entitle someone to a large lion-free radius around them.

In my opinion.

Not sure that I can agree with your point.
See my mods for an extreme example to make a point.

If you swim with sharks you are fair game, if you walk thought the Serengeti you are fair game. The local park? Not so much.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

....

Put another way, not liking or being afraid of lions doesn't entitle someone to a large lion-free radius around them.

In my opinion.

Not sure that I can agree with your point.
See my mods for an extreme example to make a point.

Depends on the radius. My impression is that some people are so intolerant they would essentially wish people and dogs to leave or be placed on leads when they enter an area where they are present. Dogs have been human companions for 25000 years, and cats for about 10000. So they aren't a new problem.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

....

Put another way, not liking or being afraid of lions doesn't entitle someone to a large lion-free radius around them.

In my opinion.

Not sure that I can agree with your point.
See my mods for an extreme example to make a point.

Depends on the radius. My impression is that some people are so intolerant they would essentially wish people and dogs to leave or be placed on leads when they enter an area where they are present. Dogs have been human companions for 25000 years, and cats for about 10000. So they aren't a new problem.

This is why the local botanical garden and national trusts beat all other parks.

No dogs or at the very least, dogs on leads at all times.

First.Aspect

Now why did I know that you wouldn't like dogs?

Also surprised that you like Nat trusts or parks, because they contain some nature.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

Now why did I know that you wouldn't like dogs?

Also surprised that you like Nat trusts or parks, because they contain some nature.

Became quite the draw in lockdown, as you can imagine.

Munsford0

rjsterry said:

laurentian said:

Pross said:

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.

Fox 5h1t almost always has a "tail" on it . . . difficult to describe but once you know what you're looking for it's pretty unmistakeable

No need to look, just sniff. Way stronger than cat censored .

Was going to say the same; don't go worrying about the shape of the thing, the smell of fox $h!t is powerfully unpleasant. Especially so when your dog has rolled in it and is looking very pleased with herself and expecting to get in the car... And it seems to require hot water and some kind of degreaser to wash it out of a very fluffy border collie...

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

....

Put another way, not liking or being afraid of lions doesn't entitle someone to a large lion-free radius around them.

In my opinion.

Not sure that I can agree with your point.
See my mods for an extreme example to make a point.

Depends on the radius. My impression is that some people are so intolerant they would essentially wish people and dogs to leave or be placed on leads when they enter an area where they are present.

As demonstrated by this thread...

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

....

Put another way, not liking or being afraid of lions doesn't entitle someone to a large lion-free radius around them.

In my opinion.

Not sure that I can agree with your point.
See my mods for an extreme example to make a point.

Depends on the radius. My impression is that some people are so intolerant they would essentially wish people and dogs to leave or be placed on leads when they enter an area where they are present. Dogs have been human companions for 25000 years, and cats for about 10000. So they aren't a new problem.

Depends on where you draw the line between intolerant and a genuine fear.
Someone who has been attacked in the past has legitimate concerns imo.
FWIW all parks that I am aware of have rules for dogs being kept on leads which are ignored by a sizeable percentage of owners. This is the root of the issue.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

.

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?

Whatever Pross wants it to mean I guess.

Why? You're the one who use the word "bothered". I haven't used it anywhere on this thread as far as I can see. If you're going to make an argument at least be able to back it up when someone challenges your choice of words.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

.

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?

Whatever Pross wants it to mean I guess.

Why? You're the one who use the word "bothered". I haven't used it anywhere on this thread as far as I can see. If you're going to make an argument at least be able to back it up when someone challenges your choice of words.

I don't care tbh. Pangolin brought it up.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

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.

I know. Sounds like you problem is a combination of people not doing what they should and you being a bit sensitive about it.

Anyway, as you can see my two mutts are very vicious and intimidating...

Ah, yes - case won. A picture of your dogs in a single photo would be all the evidence you need. Luckily I have this one if I ever find my hound accused of being out of control so I'm covered too.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

.

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?

Whatever Pross wants it to mean I guess.

Why? You're the one who use the word "bothered". I haven't used it anywhere on this thread as far as I can see. If you're going to make an argument at least be able to back it up when someone challenges your choice of words.

I don't care tbh. Pangolin brought it up.

No... you bought it up, I asked what you meant by it.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

.

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?

Whatever Pross wants it to mean I guess.

Why? You're the one who use the word "bothered". I haven't used it anywhere on this thread as far as I can see. If you're going to make an argument at least be able to back it up when someone challenges your choice of words.

I don't care tbh. Pangolin brought it up.

No... you bought it up, I asked what you meant by it.

See reply to Pross above.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

.

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?

Whatever Pross wants it to mean I guess.

Why? You're the one who use the word "bothered". I haven't used it anywhere on this thread as far as I can see. If you're going to make an argument at least be able to back it up when someone challenges your choice of words.

I don't care tbh. Pangolin brought it up.

No... you bought it up, I asked what you meant by it.

See reply to Pross above.

You're saying it's entitled to expect not to be bothered by dogs. Stories on the thread include dogs jumping on kids, biting kids/adults, jumping onto people's food.

Is expecting that not to happen "entitled"? If not where are you drawing the line?

Most people have no issue with dogs but a big issue with crap dog owners.

webboo

The problem is there are rather a lot of sh*t people in the world and some of them own dogs.

surrey_commuter

Munsford0 said:

rjsterry said:

laurentian said:

Pross said:

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.

Fox 5h1t almost always has a "tail" on it . . . difficult to describe but once you know what you're looking for it's pretty unmistakeable

No need to look, just sniff. Way stronger than cat censored .

Was going to say the same; don't go worrying about the shape of the thing, the smell of fox $h!t is powerfully unpleasant. Especially so when your dog has rolled in it and is looking very pleased with herself and expecting to get in the car... And it seems to require hot water and some kind of degreaser to wash it out of a very fluffy border collie...

I would have left it behind and spent the journey home thinking up a plausible explanation

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

....

Put another way, not liking or being afraid of lions doesn't entitle someone to a large lion-free radius around them.

In my opinion.

Not sure that I can agree with your point.
See my mods for an extreme example to make a point.

Depends on the radius. My impression is that some people are so intolerant they would essentially wish people and dogs to leave or be placed on leads when they enter an area where they are present. Dogs have been human companions for 25000 years, and cats for about 10000. So they aren't a new problem.

Depends on where you draw the line between intolerant and a genuine fear.
Someone who has been attacked in the past has legitimate concerns imo.
FWIW all parks that I am aware of have rules for dogs being kept on leads which are ignored by a sizeable percentage of owners. This is the root of the issue.

I'm afraid of heights. Does this mean we should ban bridges? Sorry, but if society gives everyone everything they want then there's nothing left but All Bran, because nobody wants that.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

.

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?

Whatever Pross wants it to mean I guess.

Why? You're the one who use the word "bothered". I haven't used it anywhere on this thread as far as I can see. If you're going to make an argument at least be able to back it up when someone challenges your choice of words.

I don't care tbh. Pangolin brought it up.

No... you bought it up, I asked what you meant by it.

See reply to Pross above.

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

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.

I know. Sounds like you problem is a combination of people not doing what they should and you being a bit sensitive about it.

Anyway, as you can see my two mutts are very vicious and intimidating...

Ah, yes - case won. A picture of your dogs in a single photo would be all the evidence you need. Luckily I have this one if I ever find my hound accused of being out of control so I'm covered too.

It's important for dogs well being to be able to have some freedom to run and roam in my view. I'm going to prioritise that over what a minority of intolerant and over sensitive people want.

shirley_basso

You may find they might prioritise giving your dogs a good shoeing if they get too close, as an intolerant dog owner.