Walking german shephard around estate with no leash

FrancieK2 · 09-06-2015 1:35pm #1

Hi I'm looking for advice. There's a man in our estate in Saggart walking his german shephard around every day with no lead and no muzzle, as required by the control of Dogs act. It's an estate with a lot of young kids and toddlers around playing, and it makes a lot of the mums and kids very nervous to see this huge animal running around with no leash.

I don't want to chown the guy because first of all you have to deal with this tiger sized animal he has with him and secondly anyone walking a dog around like this is likely to be anti-social in my opinion.

What to do?

Kristopherus · 09-06-2015 1:37pm

How many kids/adults/other dogs has that dog attacked?

kylith · 09-06-2015 1:44pm

Yes, you are correct that GSDs should be walked on lead and muzzled as per BSL.

Personally I prefer seeing RBs off-lead like any other dog. I find it sad that all members of a breed should be condemned to never run free because of a very few unsocialised and badly owned dogs. In my experience far from being antisocial the people I see walking their dogs like this are friendly and approachable.

In my experience this 'tiger sized' dog (11' long? That's a hell of a Shep!) is unlikely to be a barrier to approaching this man and asking politely if he wouldn't mind keeping it on-lead when there are kids around.

FrancieK2 · 09-06-2015 1:46pm

I don't know. If it had attacked some child or another dog I'm sure something would have been done already. As it is, it's illegal and frightening for the residents who have small kids.

muddypaws · 09-06-2015 1:49pm

FrancieK2 wrote: »

I don't know. If it had attacked some child or another dog I'm sure something would have been done already. As it is, it's illegal and frightening for the residents who have small kids.

You're right, it is illegal. For absolutely no reason what so ever but yep, you're right unfortunately. So is speeding, and far more dangerous to small kids in housing estates, just as a matter of interest, do you approach speeding drivers, or report them?

Is it definitely a German Shepherd though? If its a Belgian Shepherd, then it isn't illegal.

Danjamin1 · 09-06-2015 1:50pm

FrancieK2 wrote: »

and secondly anyone walking a dog around like this is likely to be anti-social in my opinion.

What to do?

What an awfully judgmental opinion to have, why not try approaching the man politely?

FrancieK2 · 09-06-2015 1:50pm

kylith wrote: »

Yes, you are correct that GSDs should be walked on lead and muzzled as per BSL.

Personally I prefer seeing RBs off-lead like any other dog. I find it sad that all members of a breed should be condemned to never run free because of a very few unsocialised and badly owned dogs. In my experience far from being antisocial the people I see walking their dogs like this are friendly and approachable.

In my experience this 'tiger sized' dog (11' long? That's a hell of a Shep!) is unlikely to be a barrier to approaching this man and asking politely if he wouldn't mind keeping it on-lead when there are kids around.

I agree with you a large animal like that needs to run free, but a housing estate common area is not the place to do that. The animal probably isn't dangerous, unless I guess some kid grabs and bites it, as toddlers are sometimes do, even to other toddlers. But the potential to cause harm and the actual fear it causes in others are the reasons such animals are required to be on a lead and muzzled. I would have thought the owner of such an animal would not consider themselves above the law.

FrancieK2 · 09-06-2015 1:52pm

Danjamin1 wrote: »

What an awfully judgmental opinion to have, why not try approaching the man politely?

When I see someone breaking the law, I make a judgement about them - that they are lawbreakers, and laws are required to regulate society for the good of all. Awfully judgemental? Pretty logical I would have thought.

bbability · 09-06-2015 1:53pm

The dog should be on a lead in a housing estate especially if there are young children around. If the owner wants to excerise the dog off the lead he should go somewhere else with the dog like a field or a bog.

FrancieK2 · 09-06-2015 1:55pm

muddypaws wrote: »

You're right, it is illegal. For absolutely no reason what so ever but yep, you're right unfortunately. So is speeding, and far more dangerous to small kids in housing estates, just as a matter of interest, do you approach speeding drivers, or report them?

Is it definitely a German Shepherd though? If its a Belgian Shepherd, then it isn't illegal.

Yes, I have reported a driver speeding in the estate. It's extremely dangerous to do so. As a matter of interest, do you believe Dog owners should be above the law? Do you have young children?

Danjamin1 · 09-06-2015 1:55pm

FrancieK2 wrote: »

When I see someone breaking the law, I make a judgement about them - that they are lawbreakers, and laws are required to regulate society for the good of all. Awfully judgemental? Pretty logical I would have thought.

OK but in this case you've made the judgment of the person based on the breed of dog they own, that's why I consider it awfully judgmental. The dog should be kept on a leash but there's no need to presume the person is prone to anti-social behaviour because of the breed of the dog.

Danjamin1 · 09-06-2015 1:57pm

Actually my apologies, I may have misread the initial text, I thought you were presuming anyone with a German Shepherd is anti-social, I see you were referring more to the lack of a lead and muzzle more so than the type of dog

muddypaws · 09-06-2015 2:02pm

FrancieK2 wrote: »

Yes, I have reported a driver speeding in the estate. It's extremely dangerous to do so. As a matter of interest, do you believe Dog owners should be above the law? Do you have young children?

No, I don't think dog owners should be above the law, neither should other people, such as car drivers. More children are hurt by cars each year than by dogs, so its great that you have reported a speeding driver, and obviously have never gone above the speed limit yourself, as that would be putting yourself above the law. I ask again, are you sure it is definitely a German Shepherd dog, and not a Belgian Shepherd dog, as if it is a Belgian, then he is doing nothing illegal.

No, thankfully my kids are now grown up

I'm not sure why that is relevant, unless you think only people with small kids care about their health and well being?

Approach the dog owner, or phone the dog warden.

FrancieK2 · 09-06-2015 2:03pm

Danjamin1 wrote: »

Actually my apologies, I may have misread the initial text, I thought you were presuming anyone with a German Shepherd is anti-social, I see you were referring more to the lack of a lead and muzzle more so than the type of dog

No problem Danjamin, yes its the lack of lead more than anything, I'm not making any assumption about the owner just because of the breed.

FrancieK2 · 09-06-2015 2:08pm

muddypaws wrote: »

No, I don't think dog owners should be above the law, neither should other people, such as car drivers. More children are hurt by cars each year than by dogs, so its great that you have reported a speeding driver, and obviously have never gone above the speed limit yourself, as that would be putting yourself above the law. I ask again, are you sure it is definitely a German Shepherd dog, and not a Belgian Shepherd dog, as if it is a Belgian, then he is doing nothing illegal.

No, thankfully my kids are now grown up I'm not sure why that is relevant, unless you think only people with small kids care about their health and well being?

Approach the dog owner, or phone the dog warden.

The relevance of my question about young children is in respect to the lack of relevance of your comments about cars in a thread where I am asking for advice about dogs. A Belgian it is not.

tk123 · 09-06-2015 2:10pm

Ok so you have a bunch of people with an irrational fear of this man and his dog. If the dog is muzzled that fear will escalate - he must be dangerous because he has a muzzle on etc etc. Why not educate the kids on how they should/shouldn't interact with the dog - you'd be doing that man, his dog and every other dog owner a HUGE favor. I say that as the owner of a dog who has gone from bulletproof to terrified of some kids because of their inappropriate attempted interactions with her. She was on lead for all of them too btw - if only the parents had the same control over their kids.

https://suzcur.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/sy18x24greetpostersm.jpg

Tiddlypeeps · 09-06-2015 2:12pm

Any dog that will walk beside it's owner when off the lead instead of darting off to sniff everything in sight is a reasonably well trained dog. Your fears that the dog will fight back if a child bites it are only reasonable if the owner ever lets the dog get close enough to a child for the child to hurt it in the first place. If this is not something the owner ever lets happen then your fears are unreasonable.

You are right tho, it is illegal. But as far as I know it is not very well enforced so if you want anything to be done about it then your best bet is to politely approach the owner and ask if they wouldn't mind keeping the dog on a lead when it's near kids. They may not even be aware they are breaking the law.

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-06-2015 2:13pm

FrancieK2 wrote: »

Hi I'm looking for advice. There's a man in our estate in Saggart walking his german shephard around every day with no lead and no muzzle, as required by the control of Dogs act. It's an estate with a lot of young kids and toddlers around playing, and it makes a lot of the mums and kids very nervous to see this huge animal running around with no leash.

I don't want to chown the guy because first of all you have to deal with this tiger sized animal he has with him and secondly anyone walking a dog around like this is likely to be anti-social in my opinion.

What to do?

There's your problem right there.

Miaireland · 09-06-2015 2:13pm

Whether we like it or not, if the dog is required by law to be on a lead and muzzle then it should be. Whether the OP approaches speeding drivers or reports them is not relevant to this thread.

If there is a resident association you could request that they send him a note.

You could contact your local Dog Warden and ask that they have a word with him (I would guess your local city/county council would be able to give you their number)

You could also report this to the Gardai and ask them to have a word.

He not be antisocial person to be fair. He could just be one of those people who believe their dog would not hurt a fly.

andreac · 09-06-2015 2:52pm

I feel sorry for the poor dog and owner getting victimised for doing nothing wrong apart from go out on a little walk. Would be worse if the poor dog was kept locked up all day.

ForestFire · 09-06-2015 3:44pm

I know this is the animal form but:-

Kristopherus wrote: »

How many kids/adults/other dogs has that dog attacked?

It only takes one attack to serious injure/kill a toddler. There is a reason why there are laws for certain dog breeds, family members (kids) have been killed by dogs in the past that just turn for some reason (kids fault or not is irrelevant, kids are kids)

Not saying this dog would ever do this, but a dog can switch in a second for a number of reasons (Hit by a ball/protection of owner).

And someone else said, why not educate kids about how to interact with dogs...why does this always come up...people know that we live in a society were humans have the greater rights than dogs and while it is probably good to teach children about all sorts of dangers it should not be the "potential" victims onus to do this? Similar to - How not to get hit by a flying drone flying around the estate.

It should be the owners responsibility to ensure everyone is safe and to follow the law (Dogs and drones), and assume they do not all have PHD's in animal behavioral studies (or drone aerodynamics)

andreac wrote: »

I feel sorry for the poor dog and owner getting victimised for doing nothing wrong apart from go out on a little walk. Would be worse if the poor dog was kept locked up all day.

As others have pointed out it is illegal not to have the dog on a lease with muzzle ..should be as simple as that really?

ihatewinter · 09-06-2015 3:45pm

A few children get bitten, it's reported on every media outlet and them certain dogs are deemed dangerous. Then you have certain groups calling for them to be restrained or banned

When I was a child in the 90's early 2000's, dogs running wild in estates was rampant and normal. Now if a dog is without a lead, people are screaming for the dog to be banned.

Plus I have notice children are more afraid on dogs and animals in general. They scream and run away when they see a dog, could it be something to do with over protective parents instructing them not to go near a dog at all and all dogs are dangerous and will bite etc.

andreac · 09-06-2015 3:55pm

ForestFire wrote: »

I know this is the animal form but:-

As others have pointed out it is illegal not to have the dog on a lease with muzzle ..should be as simple as that really?

Yes but what im saying, the dog or owner hasn't done anything as such to warrant this worry? It's not like he has attacked or caused any issues with other dogs or people, so really, what is the problem?

tinytot1994 · 09-06-2015 4:02pm

I have a German shepherd and she is the most playful yet well behaved dog. Before I had gotten her I would never have thought of getting this breed but I am glad I did. They are a highly intelligent breed and it is slightly unfair that they have to be muzzled as if she is attacked she cannot defend herself or protect herself which is putting both me and her in danger. For example I was walking her on a quiet country road a few months back and a sheepdog and terrier came out of a field and attacked her resulting in her getting stitches and I ended up being attacked trying to protect her as she couldn't protect herself because she was wearing this muzzle. If they are making a few rules for every dog to muzzle then in my opinion every dog should have to wear a muzzle. People are very quick to pass judgement on this breed and it isn't fair. I don't see this man doing any harm in what he is doing yes he should have a lead on his dog and yes he should have a muzzle on this dog but I guarantee you that people wouldn't be so judgemental if it was a terrier or a smaller dog that was off the lead.

La.m · 09-06-2015 4:04pm

Just an FYI, if the roads and services for the estate haven't been taken in charge by the local authority then technically the german shepard owner isn't walking the dog on public property and so doesn't need to muzzle/leash the dog until he reaches the public road.

ForestFire · 09-06-2015 4:05pm

andreac wrote: »

Yes but what im saying, the dog or owner hasn't done anything as such to warrant this worry? It's not like he has attacked or caused any issues with other dogs or people, so really, what is the problem?

I don't make the laws or know if they are right or not, but it is a law.

I can't say, sure what have the speeding cars in housing estates done to warrant people worry. It's not like they have hit anyone yet? Lets just teach or kids to watch out for them.

Or similarly the poor drug dealers on the corner and there customers who keep to themselves, should they haven't bothered anyone.

And I know these are extreme examples and I am not comparing directly to dog owners, just used to make a point.

whupdedo · 09-06-2015 4:08pm

andreac wrote: »

Yes but what im saying, the dog or owner hasn't done anything as such to warrant this worry? It's not like he has attacked or caused any issues with other dogs or people, so really, what is the problem?

Your right the dog has done nothing wrong , but it's a big dog and if it attacks anyone will likely do a lot of damage , now I'm not saying the breed is dangerous but all it takes is for one to attack , I would personally be in favour of having a muzzle on all large dog breeds in public , after all they are animals and animals can do very animalistic things , no matter how well trained your dog is , and don't tell me it has never happened before

Their should also be a ban on owning dogs over a certain size if living in a built up area or apartments , why does anyone who lives in an apartment block need a pit bull or a german shepherd ? Is it a status thing to look tough ,every dog should have a minimum area in which to roam safely and if am owner can't provide this , then they shouldn't own a dog

Also I notice in there threads people saying about small breed dogs , I would rather be attacked by a 12 inch terrier than a 5 stone german shepherd any day , I own a westie and I've never left him off lead on walks unless I'm sure we're on our own , that way I have full control over him if other dogs or people come our way

muddypaws · 09-06-2015 4:09pm

ForestFire wrote: »

It only takes one attack to serious injure/kill a toddler. There is a reason why there are laws for certain dog breeds, family members (kids) have been killed by dogs in the past that just turn for some reason (kids fault or not is irrelevant, kids are kids)

As others have pointed out it is illegal not to have the dog on a lease with muzzle ..should be as simple as that really?

Can you please tell us what the reason is for certain dog breeds having extra legal requirements? I mean proper reasons, not just hearsay. Why are GSDs subject to it, but not BSDs? Is it only ever dogs on the RB list that bite?

Your argument about not teaching kids how to safely interact with dogs doesn't hold up, back again to cars and kids. Surely by your logic, it is ONLY the car driver's responsiblity not to hit a child, so why do parents teach their children the green cross code? If a child went into a field with cows and got hurt, would you say it was the cows' fault? The farmers?

I'm still not convinced it is a GSD you're seeing, as its as big as a tiger.

Blackbird00 · 09-06-2015 4:13pm

ForestFire wrote: »

I can't say, sure what have the speeding cars in housing estates done to warrant people worry. It's not like they have hit anyone yet? Lets just teach or kids to watch out for them.

Does this mean you don't teach your kids to watch out for cars and just leave them run riot near a road?

b_mac2 · 09-06-2015 4:16pm

You sound like you have too much time on your hands OP.

tk123 · 09-06-2015 4:17pm

ForestFire wrote: »

I

And someone else said, why not educate kids about how to interact with dogs...why does this always come up...people know that we live in a society were humans have the greater rights than dogs and while it is probably good to teach children about all sorts of dangers it should not be the "potential" victims onus to do this?

It is 100% the parent's responsibly. Worse case scenario - a dog bites or even kills a child and gets put down and the owner move on. Parent is left with a child who's scared for life or dead- who has more to lose here? What about kidnappers - it's ok don't bother educating the kids who as you put it are potential victims here - the kidnapper should be the one to do it.

Have you considered that the owner dog is confident in his dog - confident enough to let it off lead knowing it won't be interested in anyone else which is what's happening at the moment - nothing has happened but you want it muzzled and on lead. That dog could be the best trained in Ireland for all you know - why not approach the owner and have a chat with them? It could be a service or therapy dog for all you know which are exempt from BSL..

ForestFire · 09-06-2015 4:17pm

muddypaws wrote: »

Can you please tell us what the reason is for certain dog breeds having extra legal requirements? I mean proper reasons, not just hearsay. Why are GSDs subject to it, but not BSDs? Is it only ever dogs on the RB list that bite?

Your argument about not teaching kids how to safely interact with dogs doesn't hold up, back again to cars and kids. Surely by your logic, it is ONLY the car driver's responsiblity not to hit a child, so why do parents teach their children the green cross code? If a child went into a field with cows and got hurt, would you say it was the cows' fault? The farmers?

I'm still not convinced it is a GSD you're seeing, as its as big as a tiger.

Please see last posts, I Don't know hwy certain breeds are selected or not, but this one has.

Yes teach or kids how to interact with traffic, but should they also be responsible for traffic breaking the law?

just in general, is it not better to get on with your neighbors rather than cause worry etc. Even if you have to do somethings you don't want to and even a bit of comprise on both sides....

Same as playing loud music, parties, keeping your garden tidy etc??

Maybe everyone would be happy with just the lead? or just the muzzle? while in the estate

ForestFire · 09-06-2015 4:24pm

tk123 wrote: »

It is 100% the parent's responsibly. Worse case scenario - a dog bites or even kills a child and gets put down and the owner move on. Parent is left with a child who's scared for life or dead- who has more to lose here? What about kidnappers - it's ok don't bother educating the kids who as you put it are potential victims here - the kidnapper should be the one to do it.

Have you considered that the owner dog is confident in his dog - confident enough to let it off lead knowing it won't be interested in anyone else which is what's happening at the moment - nothing has happened but you want it muzzled and on lead. That dog could be the best trained in Ireland for all you know - why not approach the owner and have a chat with them?

So you are blaming the victims for someone else crime with no blame on the perpetrator, it doesn't matter who has more to lose when it comes to responsibility.

So if my child get run over by a drunk drive it is my fault?? the driver just walks away...please...

yes we teach our children as much as possible, but that dose not absolve everyone else to do what they want.

Yes approach owner and come to some sort of agreement, but it is the law.

muddypaws · 09-06-2015 4:26pm

ForestFire wrote: »

Please see last posts, I Don't know hwy certain breeds are selected or not, but this one has.

Yes teach or kids how to intact with traffic, but should they also be responsible for traffic breaking the law?

just in general, is it not better to get on with your neighbors rather than cause worry etc. Even if you have to do somethings you don't want to and even a bit of comprise on both sides....

Same as playing loud music, parties, keeping your garden tidy etc??

Maybe everyone would be happy with just the lead? or just the muzzle? while in the estate

You said there is a good reason, can you please tell me what that good reason is. You should look up dog bite statistics, I think you'll be very surprised at the breeds that feature heavily, and those that don't.

But, from what the OP has said, nobody has expressed any concerns to the dog owner, so how is he supposed to know that people are feeling this way? You're absolutely right, better to get on with people than not, but the OP doesn't want to approach the owner because they have made an assumption about them.

There is some question - see earlier post - about whether this is a public place, so whether legally the dog has to be muzzled and leashed or not.

Blackbird00 · 09-06-2015 4:26pm

ForestFire wrote: »

Yes teach or kids how to intact with traffic, but should they also be responsible for traffic breaking the law?

Yes, and common sense should tell you this. You don't just teach someone to blindly cross the road when the green man is showing as some drivers do break the red light. It will be the drivers fault if they hit someone but who will fare the worst in such a scenario? Children should be taught common sense and look at traffic approaching even if the green man is showing and if it looks like someone isn't stopping then they don't cross.

Personal responsibility seems to have gone totally out the window here considering the type of attitude you have. You seem to think that it is OK for a child to approach a strange dog in whatever manner they wish and you think you do not have to teach them otherwise. Whether the dog should or shouldn't be wearing a muzzle in public children need to be taught about how to approach them properly.

tk123 · 09-06-2015 4:28pm

ForestFire wrote: »

So you are blaming the victims for someone else crime with no blame on the perpetrator, it doesn't matter who has more to lose when it comes to responsibility.

So if my child get run over by a drunk drive it is my fault?? the driver just walks away...please...

Is it also a women fault if dressed in sexy clothes when they get sexually assaulted?

yes we teach our children as much as possible, but that dose not absolve everyone else to do what they want.

Yes approach owner and come to some sort of agreement, but it is the law.

What victims though - NOTHING HAS HAPPENED?!!? What an apt username :rolleyes:

DBB · 09-06-2015 4:34pm

ForestFire wrote: »

Is it also a women fault if dressed in sexy clothes when they get sexually assaulted?

Debate is fine, but please... Can we back off on this sort of hyperbole, please? This is most certainly not the forum for the above debate.
Do not reply to this post on thread.
Thanks,
DBB

ForestFire · 09-06-2015 4:34pm

tk123 wrote: »

What victims though - NOTHING HAS HAPPENED?!!? What an apt username :rolleyes:

Please read all my posts and all of them, and don't just select the bits in isolation.
I have used examples to illustrate points and counter arguments. I used victims in quote marks for a reason.

I have suggested compromise, but simple facts are it is against the law and the owner is breaking the law

Timberrrrrrrr · 09-06-2015 4:42pm

I had a long post typed out and then thought

Nah

He's not worth the ban

fires are not the only thing that need feeding to survive.

mordeith · 09-06-2015 4:42pm

tk123 wrote: »

It is 100% the parent's responsibly."

Seriously? 100%. So a parent is expected to teach their kids about every single possible interaction with dogs. Or should they tell their kids to just run a mile on seeing one?

Have you considered that the owner dog is confident .

Have you considered no matter how confident the owner is in his dog's behaviour there is no guarantee that the dog won't do something to endanger people/other dogs?

muddypaws · 09-06-2015 4:50pm

mordeith wrote: »

Have you considered no matter how confident the owner is in his dog's behaviour there is no guarantee that the dog won't do something to endanger people/other dogs?

Fair point, but what if it is a Belgian Shepherd Dog, or a Great Dane, or a Saint Bernard, or a collie, or a caucasian shepherd dog? Legally, they can all be walked off lead and unmuzzled, but there is no guarantee that they won't do something to endanger people or other dogs.

peasant · 09-06-2015 5:02pm

As the recent owner of a large dog (72 cm / >50 kg) that is NOT on the restricted breeds list and the most friendly and docile dope you could imagine I just work on the principle that where kids run free, my dog doesn't
Simply not worth the risk ...

I'm 99.99% certain that he would never harm a child, but he's strong and big enough to thoroughly frighten one with a false move/ knock one over / drown it in slobber ...and that's already too much

DBB · 09-06-2015 5:07pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I had a long post typed out and then thought

Nah

He's not worth the ban

fires are not the only thing that need feeding to survive.

Indirect digs like this are every bit as inflammatory as direct digs.
Please, everyone remember that posters don't have to agree with one another, but we do have to be respectful of one another.
Now please, everyone, cool the jets.
As always, do not reply to this post on thread.
Thanks,
DBB

tk123 · 09-06-2015 7:13pm

mordeith wrote: »

Seriously? 100%. So a parent is expected to teach their kids about every single possible interaction with dogs. Or should they tell their kids to just run a mile on seeing ?

I would have thought it was simple enough - if the parents are going to assume that every dog is going to attack their kid tell their kid not to go near dogs. If they're happy for kid to interact with dogs at the very least teach them to ask first.

YurOK2 · 09-06-2015 8:03pm

mordeith wrote: »

So a parent is expected to teach their kids about every single possible interaction with dogs.

YES.

ForestFire · 09-06-2015 8:17pm

YurOK2 wrote: »

YES.

This is what we are supposed to debate with?
Would you like to give any reasons why we need to teach our kids about an unlawful loose dog around a housing estate with kids playing?

ForestFire · 09-06-2015 8:24pm

tk123 wrote: »

I would have thought it was simple enough - if the parents are going to assume that every dog is going to attack their kid tell their kid not to go near dogs. If they're happy for kid to interact with dogs at the very least teach them to ask first.

The point is the op and other neighbours don't want to interact with this dig, if fact they are worried about the dog being loose and getting to close to their kids, a dog that is legally required to be on a lead and muzzled.

Why can't you see this and support the idea of not only getting on with your neighbours and even accomadating them by obeying the law.

And yes I realise they have not raised this with the dog owner, and maybe he is unaware of the worry. But once informed he should have no issues to comply with law and be nice to neighbours.

If he wants to leave dog loose then he can find a quiter area that is more suitable, not an estate green with loads of silly kids.

wicklow rider · 09-06-2015 8:29pm

What is it about big dogs? Would you be scared of a jack russle? Probably not. And if any dog deserves to be on the dangerous dog list its the jack russle. I have seen them attack kids for no reason. And when they bite they have to be pulled of they grip so hard.

scudzilla · 09-06-2015 8:34pm

FrancieK2 wrote: »

I don't want to chown the guy because first of all you have to deal with this tiger sized animal he has with him and secondly anyone walking a dog around like this is likely to be anti-social in my opinion.

What to do?

FrancieK2 wrote: »

No problem Danjamin, yes its the lack of lead more than anything, I'm not making any assumption about the owner just because of the breed.

You sound like a bit of an arse to be honest OP, never judge a dog by a few mindless idiots who tarnish the breed

tk123 · 09-06-2015 8:56pm

ForestFire wrote: »

The point is the op and other neighbours don't want to interact with this dig, if fact they are worried about the dog being loose and getting to close to their kids, a dog that is legally required to be on a lead and muzzled.

Why can't you see this and support the idea of not only getting on with your neighbours and even accomadating them by obeying the law.

And yes I realise they have not raised this with the dog owner, and maybe he is unaware of the worry. But once informed he should have no issues to comply with law and be nice to neighbours.

If he wants to leave dog loose then he can find a quiter area that is more suitable, not an estate green with loads of silly kids.

My issue is that the OP or their neighbours haven't bothered approaching the owner because they've made assumptions about the him and the dog and seem to be afraid of the dog based on their own misconception of the breed. Calling the guards/dog warden on a neighbour rather than approach them is not "getting on with them" in my opinion - you want this guy to get on with all the neighbours and accommodate them yet the OP is calling him antisocial - if I had neighbours like that I don't think I'd want to be social with them?

There's also no mention of the dog having any interest in any of the kids or being close to them at all - maybe the OP can clarify since they're the one who's looking for advise here? I'm just imaging what happens when my dogs are off lead - there may be kids down the other end of the park or across the field and river in the playground but my dogs are nowhere near them and have no interest in them.

DBB · 09-06-2015 9:12pm

scudzilla wrote: »

You sound like a bit of an arse to be honest OP, never judge a dog by a few mindless idiots who tarnish the breed

Folks,
After 2 on-thread warnings to try to get everyone to be nice and respectful towards one another, I have no option but to action this post, Scudzilla.
One more whiff of any personal jibes, and I will issue an immediate ban, and the thread will be closed.
I can't make it any clearer than that... it seems that my last 2 warnings were not clear enough.
Thanks,
DBB

Walking german shephard around estate with no leash

Comments