Dogs on Beach

arseagon

So should it also be their right to expect the wild horses on Mt Leinster to behave themselves and stay away from their precious kids too??

I never said that dog owners should get preferential rights, just that people with kids should use a bit of cop on. The ones that were mauled were left unattended which should NEVER be the case with dogs.

vicwatson

Quote:
In all, I would say common sense must prevail. Today we took our dog on a walk on a Wexford beach, and specifically came off the path designed for families/kids, into the woods. In the middle of a bumpy trekking tail designed for mountain-bikers, dog-walkers and joggers, we came across two couples, each with a buggy and a young child, who proceeded to chastise us for not having our dog on a lead. Some parents need to be kept on leads, and to exercise common sense about where they bring their children. As do some dog-walkers, who specifically let their dogs roam into crowded areas and poo and pee at random. Use your noggins people!

May I ask where this was?

Puma girl ?

arseagon

vicwatson wrote: »

Puma girl ?

With a post count of 1 I somehow doubt you're going to get an answer there

bmaxi

arseagon wrote: »

So should it also be their right to expect the wild horses on Mt Leinster to behave themselves and stay away from their precious kids too??

I never said that dog owners should get preferential rights, just that people with kids should use a bit of cop on. The ones that were mauled were left unattended which should NEVER be the case with dogs.

In your earlier post you said that people with prams should not have it all their own way in areas which are off the beaten track, I would infer from that, you think dog owners should have preferential rights to be there.
No, I don't expect wild animals to conform and dogs roaming loose are just that.
On the point of unattended children, in many cases the parents were just feet away, the time scale was very small. The fact you say children should not be left unattended with dogs can only mean you don't expect dogs to behave rationally and that is exactly my position, I think the parents or childminders were guilty of gross negligence. Unfortunately it is easy to be wise after the event and had the dogs been properly restrained, or better still, kept out of the area it wouldn't have happened. The fact remains however, that the dog owners were blasé enough to believe their dog was harmless and were proved wrong in tragic circumstances.
Dogs have basic instincts, food and sex, the problem with some dog owners is, they think their dogs have the ability to reason and know right from wrong.

vicwatson

With a post count of 1 I somehow doubt you're going to get an answer there

Do you know where she was talking about?

arseagon

vicwatson wrote: »

Do you know where she was talking about?

Nope not a clue..

vicwatson

Nope not a clue..

Hmmm as I thought.