Control of dogs whilst out walking

SNAKEDOC

Walking at night is a risky business. First off i dont mean to sound narky or anything but no dog should be off a leash in the mountains so there should be no fear of him catching anything. Ive known some people who have nearly had to leave their pet behind in the mountains because they ran off chasing a deer or something. Its irrisponsible to let a dog run free like that no matter of the dogs temprament. Not to mention the rules about having dogs on leashes.

(Mod note in post no. 20)

beveragelady

I always find that the dogs stick closer to me when we're out at night so they're even easier to manage.

SNAKEDOC

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

First off i dont mean to sound narky or anything but no dog should be off a leash in the mountains so there should be no fear of him catching anything. Ive known some people who have nearly had to leave their pet behind in the mountains because they ran off chasing a deer or something. Its irrisponsible to let a dog run free like that no matter of the dogs temprament. Not to mention the rules about having dogs on leashes.

Hear hear, which makes me just a little concerned about...

beveragelady wrote: »

I always find that the dogs stick closer to me when we're out at night so they're even easier to manage.

Panda_Turtle

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Walking at night is a risky business. First off i dont mean to sound narky or anything but no dog should be off a leash in the mountains so there should be no fear of him catching anything. Ive known some people who have nearly had to leave their pet behind in the mountains because they ran off chasing a deer or something. Its irrisponsible to let a dog run free like that no matter of the dogs temprament. Not to mention the rules about having dogs on leashes.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hear hear, which makes me just a little concerned about...

beveragelady wrote: »

I always find that the dogs stick closer to me when we're out at night so they're even easier to manage.

Q.9 What does the Act of 1986 require of the owner of a dog in relation to keeping control over the same?

According to Section 9(1) unless a dog is in the premises of an owner or “such other person in charge” or in the
premises of a person where the consent of that person has been given, a dog shall not be in any other place unless
such owner or other persons in charge of the dog “accompanies it and keeps it under effectual control."

Nothing about keeping dogs on a lead there

http://www.ispca.ie/assets/legal.pdf

Tabnabs

If you are on Coillte land, then their bye-laws apply:

Dogs.
13. Subject to Bye-law 14 a person shall not cause or allow a dog to be on
Coillte lands without it being kept under effectual control as required under the
Control of Dogs Act 1986 (No. 32 of 1986).

14. A person shall not cause or allow a breed of dog specified in Article 4 of
the Control of Dogs (Restriction of Certain Dogs) Regulations 1991 (S.I. No.
123 of 1991) to be on Coillte lands.

http://www.coillte.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/BYE_Laws_2009.pdf

Panda_Turtle

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

Nothing about keeping dogs on a lead there

http://www.ispca.ie/assets/legal.pdf

The ISPCA have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues. This is not about concern for the dogs, it's about the rights of the landowners (particularly farmers) whose land is being traversed, and many of them do not like the thought of dogs being loose on their land but especially so at night time. If someone is walking through someone else's lands at night, they should have permission. If they don't they should at least ensure that they are not going to upset a landowner if spotted. If they insist on bringing dogs, those dogs should be on a leash. If a farmer is out at night and sees someone crossing their lands with a dog running around, they have every right to be annoyed, and that kinda spoils it for everyone. See the outright ban on dogs on the Reeks for an example. We walk other peoples lands with their express or implied permission, loose dogs can strain that relationship.

Panda_Turtle

Deleted User wrote: »

The ISPCA have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues. This is not about concern for the dogs, it's about the rights of the landowners (particularly farmers) whose land is being traversed, and many of them do not like the thought of dogs being loose on their land but especially so at night time.

Why don`t you read the document I linked instead of dismissing it, information in it about livestock etc

Panda_Turtle

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

Why don`t you read the document I linked instead of dismissing it, information in it about livestock etc

Its 65 pages.

You might be kind enough to point to the section about "bringing dogs onto other peoples farms".

What do you think about the outright ban in the Reeks?

Panda_Turtle

Deleted User wrote: »

Its 65 pages.

You might be kind enough to point to the section about "bringing dogs onto other peoples farms".

What do you think about the outright ban in the Reeks?

There are no page numbers but if you save the file to your computer and go to page 44 on the pdf document:

Q.10 Are there any requirements in relation to dogs who worry livestock?

Section 9 (2) states that the owner or person in charge shall be guilty of an offence if the dog in their charge worries
livestock. The only exception to this would be where it is shown that at the material time this was done
for the purpose of removing trespassing livestock, and
having regard to all the circumstances the action was reasonable and necessary.

Q.11 What can an individual do if he/she sees a dog worrying livestock or about to worry them?

Pursuant to Section 13(2) if a person has reasonable grounds for his/her belief he/she may seize the dog and bring it
to a dog warden. (This is without prejudice to Section 13(1) below).

Q.12 What are the penalties in relation to allowing your dog worry livestock?

The owner or person in charge of such a dog will be guilty of an offence and can be fined up to £1000 and given a
maximum sentence of three months in prison or both, Section 27 of the 1986 Act as substituted by Section 9 of the
1992 Act.

Note Section 9(3) which previously dealt with the penalties for allowing a dog to bother livestock has been
repealed by Section 11(a) of the 1992 Act.

The owner is also liable for the damage caused by his/her dog to the livestock.(Section 21) This liability is strict. i.e.
there is no need to show that negligence caused the attack or that there was a prior mischievous propensity to
commit such attacks. Therefore, as of right, the owner of the livestock may recover for the damage done to his/her
livestock from the owner of the dog which caused this damage.

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you think about the outright ban in the Reeks?

The reeks are a long way from home for me :pac:

But I guess if the land is privately owned, they can do want they like.

Panda_Turtle

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

There are no page numbers but if you save the file to your computer and go to page 44 on the pdf document:

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with private property and does not in any way amount to some authorisation to bring dogs onto lands, it merely deals with the owners responsibility after the event where a dog worries livestock. For example, the document completely omits to point out that the farmer may decide to shoot a dog where it has worried its sheep and is on the farmers lands (though they would want to be very sure before doing so, they can expect questions afterwards about it).

My concern is that when people see others on their lands with dogs off a leash, and particularly so at night time, they can get most annoyed and understandably so. And telling them that the legislation makes one responsible for any sheep worrying or that after the worrying the dog may be seized and handed to a warden will not sort out the problem.

Edit - not sure why a smiley appears at the top of the post!

Panda_Turtle

Deleted User wrote: »

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with private property and does not in any way amount to some authorisation to bring dogs onto lands, it merely deals with the owners responsibility after the event where a dog worries livestock. For example, the document completely omits to point out that the farmer may decide to shoot a dog where it has worried its sheep and is on the farmers lands (though they would want to be very sure before doing so, they can expect questions afterwards about it).

My concern is that when people see others on their lands with dogs off a leash, and particularly so at night time, they can get most annoyed and understandably so. And telling them that the legislation makes one responsible for any sheep worrying or that after the worrying the dog may be seized and handed to a warden will not sort out the problem.

Edit - not sure why a smiley appears at the top of the post!

I don`t see what the problem is my dog usually blends in grand with the sheep:



Jokin, I understand farmers concerns.

Well ever since the Dulux ads, I think Old English Sheepdogs are excused everything!

beveragelady

Deleted User wrote: »

Hear hear, which makes me just a little concerned about...

I can assure you that you have no need to be concerned.

I often see the Coillte signs which mention the bye laws, and use the term effectual control. My dogs are trained and obedient, the don't chase or worry any animals. They come when they're called, and do as they're told. This is effectual control. If I didn't have control over them they wouldn't be out with me at night off the lead. Obviously.

I would never take them at night over other people's private land. That would be weird and creepy, and while I am crepuscular at best (nocturnal given half a chance) I am definitely not creepy.

beveragelady

beveragelady wrote: »

I would never take them at night over other people's private land. That would be weird and creepy, and while I am crepuscular at best (nocturnal given half a chance) I am definitely not creepy.

Whatever about my concerns about dogs, I don't think it would be weird to go hiking along the Kerry way or camping in the Reeks at night time, people do it all the time.

Panda_Turtle

Regarding Dog Leads, people should use dog harnesses attached to a lead, this is much more comfortable to control, stops the dog from yanking on the lead (and all the horrible choking noise that goes with it).

SNAKEDOC

beveragelady wrote: »

I can assure you that you have no need to be concerned.

I often see the Coillte signs which mention the bye laws, and use the term effectual control. My dogs are trained and obedient, the don't chase or worry any animals. They come when they're called, and do as they're told. This is effectual control. If I didn't have control over them they wouldn't be out with me at night off the lead. Obviously.

I would never take them at night over other people's private land. That would be weird and creepy, and while I am crepuscular at best (nocturnal given half a chance) I am definitely not creepy.

Effectual control is having control of the animal which is to say you have direct control of the dogs movements. Dogs can be difficult if they want to be and any trained animal can become untrained very quickly. There is no real common ground in ireland so it is all privatly owned or controled by the national parks which require all dogs to be ON A LEASH at all times that is effectual control. Control effectively. Verbal comands are not 100% effective regardless of training.

You have to take into account other dog users who may have a dog who is not socialised. Or parents with children who could easily be frightened by a dog. Plenty of wild animals that your dog could surpirse too. I dont understand and get quite angry when i see dogs running round of a lead in the mountains. Its the owners responsibility to have their animal on a lead when on any property other than their own, end of.

beveragelady

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Effectual control is having control of the animal which is to say you have direct control of the dogs movements. Dogs can be difficult if they want to be and any trained animal can become untrained very quickly. There is no real common ground in ireland so it is all privatly owned or controled by the national parks which require all dogs to be ON A LEASH at all times that is effectual control. Control effectively. Verbal comands are not 100% effective regardless of training.

You have to take into account other dog users who may have a dog who is not socialised. Or parents with children who could easily be frightened by a dog. Plenty of wild animals that your dog could surpirse too. I dont understand and get quite angry when i see dogs running round of a lead in the mountains. Its the owners responsibility to have their animal on a lead when on any property other than their own, end of.

The unsocialised dogs should be on leads. Mine are socialised, and as I have proudly boasted before, they are trained and obedient. The parents who are raising cowardly children are unlikely to be out getting fresh air in the hills under cover of darkness, so I don't worry about them either.

Can somebody post a link to the bye laws where it specifies that dogs must be on leads? I would argue that my pair of radiant angels don't need leads to be under my control, but I'd have to reconsider that if I saw leads specified in the legislation. (Obviously I always carry their leads, just in case. I'm not a complete anarchist. Well, I am, but I don't want people to know.)

Sheep have an excellent sense of smell as well as excellent vision.

No matter how restrained a dog is, they don't have to wander far or do much to cause a sheep to abort a lamb with fear. Or try and jump through barbed wire. Its just nature. Unless someone is carrying their dog around in a sealed vacuum, I am not sure they can really gauge what effect the dog will have when they wander through farmland (I appreciate beveragelady doesn't, but so many do). And deer have even more heightened perception and can be even more skittish. I have seen deer nearly tear themselves in two trying to get through a fence to get away from a dog that, in fairness, was doing nothing at all and was staying near its owners on the Kerry Way...though they were those types who thought that their special pooch was exempt from the "dogs on leash" signs.

SNAKEDOC

beveragelady wrote: »

The unsocialised dogs should be on leads. Mine are socialised, and as I have proudly boasted before, they are trained and obedient. The parents who are raising cowardly children are unlikely to be out getting fresh air in the hills under cover of darkness, so I don't worry about them either.

Can somebody post a link to the bye laws where it specifies that dogs must be on leads? I would argue that my pair of radiant angels don't need leads to be under my control, but I'd have to reconsider that if I saw leads specified in the legislation. (Obviously I always carry their leads, just in case. I'm not a complete anarchist. Well, I am, but I don't want people to know.)

Unsocialised dogs need to be walked too or do you not agree there too.
Your statement about cowardly children is frankly offensive. I was attacked as a child and therefore was "cowardly" when it came to staring at an animal taller than me.!!!!
Check citizens information specifically control of dogs act 1986 section 9 all dogs must be under control or face a 100 euro on the spot fine. Is there in black and white.

Pat Mustard

Mod

Relevant posts from 'Walking mountain at night' thread copied to this new thread.

People can continue discussion on Control of Dogs here, if they so wish.

beveragelady

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Unsocialised dogs need to be walked too or do you not agree there too.
Your statement about cowardly children is frankly offensive. I was attacked as a child and therefore was "cowardly" when it came to staring at an animal taller than me.!!!!
Check citizens information specifically control of dogs act 1986 section 9 all dogs must be under control or face a 100 euro on the spot fine. Is there in black and white.

Yes, of course unsocialised dogs need to be walked too. On leads. Like I said in my post.

I'm sorry about your childhood experience. I was chased by an emu once when I was very young, so I know how these things stay with you. The whole thing turned me into a massive scardeypants for ages afterwards.

Back on topic: I have yet to see a specific reference in the legislation to keeping a dog on a lead. My argument, once more, is that my dogs are trained and obedient. They are under my control. I have successfully argued this with an overbearing Coillte employee. (I pointed out that he had chucked his sandwich wrapper into a drain, and he threatened to have an official impose a fine because my dogs were sitting at my feet, off the lead. I asked about the specific mention of dogs on leads, he couldn't quite remember the exact wording. I had a lovely walk, he had to fish his sandwich wrapper out of a boggy drain. It was one of those rare walks in daylight that was more fun than a nocturnal ramble.)

If it is indeed illegal to walk a dog off the lead, then has anybody told the many hunts who routinely lay waste the land with their packs of hounds? I really hate those feckers, it would be useful to know if they are actually flouting the law.

beveragelady

beveragelady wrote: »

If it is indeed illegal to walk a dog off the lead, then has anybody told the many hunts who routinely lay waste the land with their packs of hounds? I really hate those feckers, it would be useful to know if they are actually flouting the law.

I think there is a lot of confusion out there. And again it seems to be caused by conflating issues of private property with issues of control.

There is no requirement to keep a dog on a lead on ones own property or when on the property of a third party where they have permission. Nor, on the other hand, does it mean that once a dog is under control it is okay to cross land belonging to another.

So a hunt crossing land where they have permission or an easement such as registered sporting rights fall outside the requirement to keep the dogs on leads.

Tabnabs

beveragelady wrote: »

The unsocialised dogs should be on leads. Mine are socialised, and as I have proudly boasted before, they are trained and obedient. The parents who are raising cowardly children are unlikely to be out getting fresh air in the hills under cover of darkness, so I don't worry about them either.

Nope, sorry, you don't get away with posting something as offensive as that.

You are just reinforcing the image of uncaring and arrogant dog owners who believe their animals to be above any law and "radiant angels" as you put it. You only succeed in alienating yourself and responsible dog owners from the rest of the public.

ThisRegard

beveragelady wrote: »

Can somebody post a link to the bye laws where it specifies that dogs must be on leads?

I've debated this point many times with people. As you imply there's no requirement for dogs to be on leads, just to be under the control of the owner. If a dog stops, comes back etc at the command of its owner, that's effectual control.

Like beverage lady, I had a similar discussion as hers but with a Fingal park ranger. We were actually sitting at the back of the car having a picnic when he went out of his way to tell me to put the dogs on the leads, they were happily flaked out in the shade of the car. I didn't want to get snotty but still asked him why, his only answer was that it was because he said so, no reference to the parks bye laws or anything.

However, if I am around livestock, or knowing I'm going to be coming up to some, I will put my dogs on their leads. Mainly out of respect for the livestock and wildlife. But walking around the fire roads or big empty fields, I'll let them have a run around.

Tabnabs

Tabnabs wrote: »

You are just reinforcing the image of uncaring and arrogant dog owners who believe their animals to be above any law and "radiant angels" as you put it. You only succeed in alienating yourself and responsible dog owners from the rest of the public.

Walk through an area like Killarney National Park. Its just amazing. The amount of people who think the big "dogs on leash" pictures all over the place do not apply to them and let the dogs off to wander in an area where there are deer is just amazing.

And then, to add insult, every now and again, someone puts up a dog missing sign. So despite the fact that they ignored the requirements and as a result their dog is now lost, they want others to help. Its one of those ones where you nearly hope the park rangers sort out the problem quickly before the loose dog damages our deer stock, and ring the family to recoup the price of the bullet.

ThisRegard

Deleted User wrote: »

park rangers sort out the problem quickly before the loose dog damages our deer stock, and ring the family to recoup the price of the bullet.

While I do agree with your point, we have a problem with the over population of deer so we're a long way off a couple of loose dogs doing any damage in that regard.

ThisRegard

ThisRegard wrote: »

While I do agree with your point, we have a problem with the over population of deer so we're a long way off a couple of loose dogs doing any damage in that regard.

But the people who should make the decisions about population, control, the best means of culling and which deer to cull should be those managing the park. Not owners of dogs who believe their pampered pooches are somehow exempt from the rules. Again, it's down to land ownership, the person who owns the land has decided the rules, and they should be applied. Much as the person who owns land through which a hunt goes permits dogs off leash.

beveragelady

This is getting silly. Of course my dogs are on leads when we're approaching feral goats or a flock of wading birds or any wildlife. Of course they're on leads when we're walking on roads or through cities. In a busy national park, they're on leads. On the rare occasion when we're using a waymarked way that crosses private land they're on leads. When we're in the hills, or in the woods at night (which is where all this started on another thread) they're off the leads because they're not a problem.
I do not consider myself above any law, I am pathetically law-abiding in fact. My argument is that my dogs are under control because they're obedient. I had a very bold dog for a while while her owners were away long-term, and she was never allowed off the lead because she had selective deafness. The two I have now do what they're told, so they get to walk off-lead if the conditions are suitable. If somebody can show me a definition of 'effectual control' that mentions leads or leashes or harnesses or any physical restraint I'll have to rethink my position.

Sporting rights, my learned friend tells me, refer to the right to kill and remove wildlife. He is adamant that it's nothing to to with having dogs off leads on public or private land, that's down to the landowner. He says it like he knows what he's talking about, anybody know if he's right?

ThisRegard

Deleted User wrote: »

But the people who should make the decisions about population, control, the best means of culling and which deer to cull should be those managing the park. Not owners of dogs who believe their pampered pooches are somehow exempt from the rules. Again, it's down to land ownership, the person who owns the land has decided the rules, and they should be applied. Much as the person who owns land through which a hunt goes permits dogs off leash.

As I said, I agree with your general point, but to say some lost dogs are having a detrimental affect on the deer population is a bit extreme.

ganmo

beveragelady I know some dogs can be very well behaved and won't respond when spooked but my objection to having well trained dogs off the lead is that then other ppl think their less well disciplined dog will act like yours.
and if I was out walking at night then I would definitely have the dog on a lead!

I have seen the effect of dogs that got away numerous times, including last weekend

beveragelady

ganmo wrote: »

beveragelady I know some dogs can be very well behaved and won't respond when spooked but my objection to having well trained dogs off the lead is that then other ppl think their less well disciplined dog will act like yours.
and if I was out walking at night then I would definitely have the dog on a lead!

I have seen the effect of dogs that got away numerous times, including last weekend

I see what you mean, but I can't take responsibility for how other people manage their dogs, any more than I can take responsibility for their recycling habits or their taste in films. The path to madness, surely, is taking responsibility for things I can't control!

I know there are lots of 'shoulds' in this argument. People should always have their dogs under control, people should respect landowners' rights and the peace and quiet of the countryside. Dogs shouldn't be allowed to disturb wildlife. We should have regard above all for the safety of other walkers and the safety of our dogs. I do all these things, but I have been accused on this thread of flouting the law.

For absolute clarity: On Coillte land, which is covered by the parks and wildlife bye laws, dogs are required to be under effectual control. They are not specifically required to be on leads. If I was walking a flighty and headstrong eejit of a hound, I would keep him on a lead, because otherwise he would be out of my control. My dogs follow commands quickly, all the time. They are under my control. I am within the law in walking them off the lead.

When necessary I put them on leads. I tend to gravitate to the wilder parts of the countryside, often at night, so I generally don't meet people on my rambles. If people do approach, both dogs are so used to the drill that they alert me to the fact by coming to me to have their leads put on. I do this as a courtesy to other walkers because it's the nice thing to do. And I am nice.

beveragelady

beveragelady wrote: »

This is getting silly.

We agree on one thing anyway.

I would say more confused than silly. There seems to be much confusion about the correlation between control of animals outlined in the ISPCA document, and land law and proprietary rights.

beveragelady wrote: »

Sporting rights, my learned friend tells me, refer to the right to kill and remove wildlife. He is adamant that it's nothing to to with having dogs off leads on public or private land, that's down to the landowner. He says it like he knows what he's talking about, anybody know if he's right?

Now now, I didn't say what sporting rights entail at all in terms of the right to kill or remove wildlife...because that would be to get into the Wildlife Acts. I simply referred to it in the context of dogs on the property of another. I also think, to add to the confusion, you are now conflating public and private land...I'm not sure what is meant by "public land", do you mean town parks and the like?

It's really pretty straightforward. If you are on someone else's land (and all land belongs to someone, even if it's an authority like Coillte or the State) you have to abide by the rules they prescribe. So if they say dogs on leads, its dogs on leads. If they say no dogs, it's no dogs. If they say free for all, it's a free for all.

SNAKEDOC

beveragelady wrote: »

I see what you mean, but I can't take responsibility for how other people manage their dogs, any more than I can take responsibility for their recycling habits or their taste in films. The path to madness, surely, is taking responsibility for things I can't control!

I know there are lots of 'shoulds' in this argument. People should always have their dogs under control, people should respect landowners' rights and the peace and quiet of the countryside. Dogs shouldn't be allowed to disturb wildlife. We should have regard above all for the safety of other walkers and the safety of our dogs. I do all these things, but I have been accused on this thread of flouting the law.

For absolute clarity: On Coillte land, which is covered by the parks and wildlife bye laws, dogs are required to be under effectual control. They are not specifically required to be on leads. If I was walking a flighty and headstrong eejit of a hound, I would keep him on a lead, because otherwise he would be out of my control. My dogs follow commands quickly, all the time. They are under my control. I am within the law in walking them off the lead.

When necessary I put them on leads. I tend to gravitate to the wilder parts of the countryside, often at night, so I generally don't meet people on my rambles. If people do approach, both dogs are so used to the drill that they alert me to the fact by coming to me to have their leads put on. I do this as a courtesy to other walkers because it's the nice thing to do. And I am nice.

You have said before on this thread that one of your dogs ran for a chicken while you were camping and ignored all your calls amd whistles so at least once you did not have effectual control over your animal. Effectual control is a legislative word used to grey the law. To effect control of an animal it needs a lead. Even police dogs get out of control the most highly trained dogs on the planet. As for having courtesy for other walkers if you really had any you and every other dog owner walking dogs would have their dogs on a lead at all times. I have had dogs myself and ill believe a dog comes and stands beside you to have its lead put on when i see it. The issue here is control, proper control cannot be effected without a lead. The bye law is open to interpretation but any dog can have a crazy moment or off day.

dharma200

Where I live a lot of people walk their dogs. it never ceases to amaze me, each and every time, on numerous occasions, when it get a knock on the door fro a distressed dog owner who's dog has ran off after a bird or whatever..... Ofcourse when I say, did you have it on a lead the answer is oh noooo little pooch has never ever ran away before..... It only takes one time for your dog to run away and be shot, ran over , starve to death etc. I would never ever have my dogs unleashed unless in completely secure environment. I have little sympathy now for those people who knock at my door, only for their poor dogs.

beveragelady

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say what sporting rights entail at all in terms of the right to kill or remove wildlife...because that would be to get into the Wildlife Acts. I simply referred to it in the context of dogs on the property of another. I also think, to add to the confusion, you are now conflating public and private land...I'm not sure what is meant by "public land", do you mean town parks and the like?

It's really pretty straightforward. If you are on someone else's land (and all land belongs to someone, even if it's an authority like Coillte or the State) you have to abide by the rules they prescribe. So if they say dogs on leads, its dogs on leads. If they say no dogs, it's no dogs. If they say free for all, it's a free for all.

My friend (who is sometimes wrong) is adamant that sporting rights have nothing to do with bringing a dog, on or off the lead, onto land, and so are not relevant here.

It should be straightforward, but it's not. Land belonging to Coillte and some OPW sites are covered by the parks and wildlife byelaws. (To me it's best to assume that city parks are dogs-on-leads, but I rarely use parks like that.
I always thought those parks are covered by town ordinances that require leads, but I'm just guessing. Don't really know what I'm talking about there.)

The wording of the bye laws is not entirely clear, as 'effectual control' does not necessarily mean a lead. This is where the argument seems to be. I believe I'm following the rules, others are only dying to tell me I'm a criminal, a danger to children and wildlife and everything lovely and pure.

Farm land, urban green areas etc are simple enough - keep your dog on a lead. There are usually notices making it clear in parks, and I never trespass on farmland so that's not an issue for me. I suppose I'm looking for a definitive legal interpretation of the phrase 'effectual control'. It's the only thing that will shut me up!

beveragelady

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

One of your dogs ran for a chicken while you were camping and ignored all your calls amd whistles so at least once you did not have effectual control over your animal.

Different dog, deceased sadly. She's the 'bold dog' mentioned elsewhere on this thread that I had for a few months while her owners were away. She was a great dog really, but she had a terrier streak a mile wide. We were camping on private property with the permission of the owner, on an island of the coast of Donegal. the owner had assured me there was no livestock or anything to worry about, so I had let them off the leads. After that chicken incident (which ended with the dog humiliated and the chicken unruffled) the dog was kept on a lead.
Did you seriously look over my posts to find an example of a time when one of my dogs disobeyed me? Really?

At least you're acknowledging that there is a legal grey area. I am comfortable with my interpretation of the law. Let's just agree to avoid each other when we're out and about.

ThisRegard

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

To effect control of an animal it needs a lead. Even police dogs get out of control the most highly trained dogs on the planet. As for having courtesy for other walkers if you really had any you and every other dog owner walking dogs would have their dogs on a lead at all times.........The bye law is open to interpretation but any dog can have a crazy moment or off day.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Are you saying people who walk in state lands with dogs off their leads have no respect for others ? Absolute rubbish.

And it's not open to interpretation. The rules that pertain to restricted breeds explicitly say that these are required to be on a short lead, maximum length 6 feet I think.

For all other dogs there's no such requirement, it's not open to interpretation.

SNAKEDOC

For restricted breeds of dogs they need to be controlled on a shortened leash and by someone older than 16. The arguement for effectual control can be made very well so yes i think its open to interpretation.

Yea i think that someone who walks their dog of the lead is very disrespectful of others and only have themselves in mind.

And beverage lady i was simply reading back through this thread to see what others thought on the issue when i saw your post about your sog running off and remembered you saying how your dogs always obeyed you. Thats all well and good but dogs will be dogs and one day a whistle wont stop them from doing what they want. The extending leads on the market today allow your dog ample freedom but still under control why do owners feel the need to let their dogs loose. It boggles the mind.

ThisRegard

If all dogs were required to be on a lead, it would say so. It's that simple.

But there's no arguing with logic likes yours, you've made an eejit of yourself with the lack of respect comments.

beveragelady

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

And beverage lady i was simply reading back through this thread to see what others thought on the issue when i saw your post about your sog running off and remembered you saying how your dogs always obeyed you. .

There was nothing in this thread about the The World's Badassest Chicken. That was on another thread months ago...

SNAKEDOC

ThisRegard wrote: »

If all dogs were required to be on a lead, it would say so. It's that simple.

But there's no arguing with logic likes yours, you've made an eejit of yourself with the lack of respect comments.

Explain.
Its my opinion am i not entitled to my opinion. Not everyone is a dog owner. Those that do have dogs need to be considerate. I love the mountains and the wildlife the mountains support and it really annous me when dog owners let their animals run where they want, thats not having control of your dog.

beveragelady

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Explain.
Its my opinion am i not entitled to my opinion. Not everyone is a dog owner. Those that do have dogs need to be considerate. I love the mountains and the wildlife the mountains support and it really annous me when dog owners let their animals run where they want, thats not having control of your dog.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but you don't get to say it's the law.

ganmo

The only way to guarantee effective control is to have them on the lead, without it there will always be a chance the dog will spook/wander off

ThisRegard

ganmo wrote: »

The only way to guarantee effective control is to have them on the lead, without it there will always be a chance the dog will spook/wander off

No it's not, the only way to have effective control is to keep them at home, locked in a cage. Tripping over a lead can cause a nasty spill don't you know.

@SNAKEDOC, what skin is it off your nose if you meet me walking in a state forest with my dogs off the lead, how am I being so offensive and disrespectful to you ?

SNAKEDOC

ganmo wrote: »

The only way to guarantee effective control is to have them on the lead, without it there will always be a chance the dog will spook/wander off

Thank you. Finally someome with some sense.

ganmo

ThisRegard wrote: »

No it's not, the only way to have effective control is to keep them at home, locked in a cage.

there's your opinion...you don't have your dog under control unless they're in a cage

Way to shoot yourself in the foot!

SNAKEDOC

ThisRegard wrote: »

No it's not, the only way to have effective control is to keep them at home, locked in a cage.

@SNAKEDOC, what skin is it off your nose if you meet me walking in a state forest with my dogs off the lead, how am I being so offensive and disrespectful to you ?

Because your on private property in effect and i dont know your dog or what it might do. I walk with my wife or sometimes with kids in my family who are afraid of dogs and i dont want them scared cus you HAVE to have your dog of its lead. Have some respect for others not just yourself.

beveragelady

ThisRegard wrote: »

No it's not, the only way to have effective control is to keep them at home, locked in a cage. Tripping over a lead can cause a nasty spill don't you know.

@SNAKEDOC, what skin is it off your nose if you meet me walking in a state forest with my dogs off the lead, how am I being so offensive and disrespectful to you ?

Ah, ThisRegard, you go out there in the fresh air occasionally, seeing things and doing things and having adventures, instead of laying down the law on the internet. Can't you see why this is offensive?

dharma200

The problem with the term effectual control is that is is only defined when the control exerted over the dog is ineffectual... You only realise you have not had effectual control over your dog, when unleashed, when the dog runs away. I feel a responsibility to my dogs to not seek that definition, by having them under control, using a lead. I can never understand anyone who wants to risk their dogs life by thinking they have control over a dog that is unleashed.

ThisRegard

ganmo wrote: »

there's your opinion...you don't have your dog under control unless they're in a cage

Way to shoot yourself in the foot!

Way to miss that swoosh go right over your head.

beveragelady

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Because your on private property in effect and i dont know your dog or what it might do. I walk with my wife or sometimes with kids in my family who are afraid of dogs and i dont want them scared cus you HAVE to have your dog of its lead. Have some respect for others not just yourself.

I work with a lady who is genuinely terrified of birds. It's a crippling phobia, but she works around it. Should we wipe birds of the planet so she can walk without fear?
If somebody has a genuine fear of dogs, it makes sense to avoid places where people can legally walk their dogs off lead.