Anti-dog sentiments increase?

sillysmiles

With the new Fingal CC bye laws regarding dogs in parks, do you think anti-dog sentiment is increasing?
Or potentially becoming more polarised?

Personally I think that having dogs more a part of everyday life would make it more of a societal norm for dogs to be well treated and reduce the amount of badly behaved under socialised incessantly barking garden ornaments that currently exist as the Irish norm of dog ownership.

Personally, I just adore dogs, indeed all animals, as my username might suggest. I also love to travel and see in most European and other first world countries dogs are kept on leash, except in specified places. Indeed in Fingal there are doggie places, including a doggie café in Ardgillen estate. I do appreciate some people are terrified of dogs, and that dogs owners must be thoroughly responsible. All breeds with strong jaws and who have been bred for security purposes should be muzzled when out in public. The lurcher/long legged/sighthound breeds need to be kept on leash as they have small prey drive and will bound out at speed and may ignore owners’ commands, but are generally no threat to humans. Huskies are eager creatures and appreciate something to “pull”, but are generally extremely biddable, German Shepherds are wonderful dogs, but generally obey one master only and need a huge amount of training and interaction and must always under command of his master. It’s so important to choose the right dog. Far too many people choose a dog mindlessly.

Plumbthedepths

There wouldn't be as much anti dog feeling if owners cleaned up their dogs fecal matter, and maybe had better control.

sillysmiles

There is no excuse for people not cleaning up after their dog.

However, my point is more that, dogs being under socialised is often a key cause of the behaviours we don't want to see. Increasing socialisation often requires dogs to be around other dogs and people and places. Increasing the number and acceptance of well behaved dogs would make it more socially unacceptable for bad/lazy owners to allow their dogs to act like louts. My thoughts being that rather than having no dogs arpund that the dogs that are around aren't bothering people because they are calm and socialised.

tk123

The bye-laws annoy me because it's discrimination imo. Our park doesn't allow cycling at any times whereas dogs are officially allowed off lead during certain times. If DCC started telling kids over the age of 10 and people to get off their bikes there would be murder and they'd all be on to Joe Duffy etc etc . Pensioners have been clipped by bikes flying through the park as well as my own poor Lucy who was hit before Christmas so in our park at least some bikes can pose a danger... Yet it's dog walkers who get targeted because there's monetary gain from it. I keep my dogs under control, have licenses, clean up after them and generally avoid the park (ours is DCC) when there's going to be people/lots of other dogs around to annoy us - they're not running amok annoying anyone or savaging children or other dogs. If an area of the park is empty I don't see why I should have to keep the dogs on their leads when the other bye laws are ignored.

rom

Extendable leads are the most annoying thing ever invented. Dog on one side of path, owner on other side joined by 15 ft lead. Leads should be under 6ft.

PixelTrawler

rom wrote: »

Extendable leads are the most annoying thing ever invented. Dog on one side of path, owner on other side joined by 15 ft lead. Leads should be under 6ft.

As a runner, absolutely yes. The amount of times I've almost been tripped at night with owners with 3 to 4 metre leads, face buried in a phone, and the dog out at the edge of the path. Very dangerous hazard.

em_cat

I just read about the new by-laws, not sure there is much in it. Several of the parks in DCC, SCC & the piers in DLRC all have the same and additional for cyclists.

Point being I don’t see it as not anti dog sentiment it’s just bringing it in line with other parks. TBH I’ve never seen it enforced.

We use to go to a lot of parks but don’t now as Mr C seems a lot more relaxed walking else where. Also he is always on a flat lead and pretty much walks to heel.

em_cat

PixelTrawler wrote: »

As a runner, absolutely yes. The amount of times I've almost been tripped at night with owners with 3 to 4 metre leads, face buried in a phone, and the dog out at the edge of the path. Very dangerous hazard.

I always feel kind of sorry for runners, I either stop with our lad on my inside or step aside to let them pass.

Whelo79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I also love to travel and see in most European and other first world countries dogs are kept on leash, except in specified places.

Most of these other countries also allow dogs onto public transport, cafes, shops, airplanes etc, unfortunately Ireland is extremely anti-dog.

The cafe in ardgillan closed last year and the few cafes that were allowing dogs in were under threat from the health inspector. I know rules on this were relaxed last year and it is now under the decision of the premises owner (with certain rules applying) but owners are slow to change.

As another poster has said, many of the issues with dogs are down to the owners. Either no training has been done or the dog has been poorly socialised. For many dogs being on a lead causes them stress and anxiety, specifically when approached by another dog.

There is a lot of education still required in this country on dog ownership responsibilities unfortunately.

tk123

The issue they had in Malahide (according to the guy on the radio) was that the old bye laws weren’t being enforced and were then changed without any consultation adding more restrictions. I’ve was asked if I had a license when Bailey was a baby and the warden was knocking around doors in the area, and last year in St Anne’s 8 years later! When I called with the details I had to explain what a lifetime dog license was!

Whelo79

tk123 wrote: »

The issue they had in Malahide (according to the guy on the radio) was that the old bye laws weren’t being enforced and were then changed without any consultation adding more restrictions. I’ve was asked if I had a license when Bailey was a baby and the warden was knocking around doors in the area, and last year in St Anne’s 8 years later! When I called with the details I had to explain what a lifetime dog license was!

That's definitely a large party of the problem, there were laws in place that FCC say weren't working, but they only weren't working because FCC were not enforcing them.

FCC also say they carried out an extensive campaign over a number of months to get peoples opinions, yet they only managed to get just over 600 responses. I could have got more than that on my own in a week.

Out of those responses 51% voted for a change to the bye law and 49% voted to keep the bye law as it was. However, when you look into the actual responses, many of those who voted for the bye law to be changed only wanted it to be applied to specific dogs/situations.

FCC have also been continually stating that they are changing the law as they have received numerous reports of serious incidents/attacks by dogs in FCC parks. However a freedom of information act was applied for last month (which FCC charged €270 to compile) to receive record of these reports and what came back had not one single record of a reported attack in ANY FCC parks.

The law didn't need changing, it just needed enforcing.

sillysmiles

Whelo79 wrote: »

FCC have also been continually stating that they are changing the law as they have received numerous reports of serious incidents/attacks by dogs in FCC parks. However a freedom of information act was applied for last month (which FCC charged €270 to compile) to receive record of these reports and what came back had not one single record of a reported attack in ANY FCC parks.

I had read that too and found it bizarre in the extreme.



IMO the reality is that dog owners are the only people willing to walk through parks every day hail rain or shine. Having parks and public places more used makes them less likely to become "no go" areas and places associated with "anti-social behaviour".

Having more people using a park, makes it more usable I think.

tk123

sillysmiles wrote: »

I had read that too and found it bizarre in the extreme.



IMO the reality is that dog owners are the only people willing to walk through parks every day hail rain or shine. Having parks and public places more used makes them less likely to become "no go" areas and places associated with "anti-social behaviour".

Having more people using a park, makes it more usable I think.

+1

I'd assume its good for local businessness to have dog walkers around. Rain or shine..ok well maybe not torrential rain ... we're out having a coffee each week along with all the other dog walkers!

I actually had a toddler running at Lucy the other day - Lucy is afraid of toddlers... had let her off lead and call to my friend up ahead to call her so she could make her escape. Yet I'm in the wrong if the dogs looked at the kid sideways.. 'you never know when a dog will run over to somebody' etc etc :rolleyes::rolleyes: Normally if a parent asks can the toddler pet her I tell them that she's shy and to pet Bailey instead... if the kid is old enough to ask themselves she's generally fine with them.

sillysmiles

Thankfully our fella is quiet and likes kids but I have had kids land on him when we've been out. He has always been fine but I know that he also has spots of spondylitis in his back - not that you'd know to look at him.

I terms of animal welfare though, this country is appalling and I think all of these moves to make dogs seem dirty dangerous, not something that should be around people makes improving animal welfare harder.

eagle eye

I'm a dog owner, we currently have two, and I'm all for dogs being taken off people when haven't a clue what or are just bad owners.
Like every dog owner/walker should carry a pooper-scooper. If you are not willing to do this then give the dog to somebody who will do it.
Dogs that bark incessantly or bite do these things because the have bad owners.

lawred2

Well anecdotal it may be but I've definitely observed a significant increase in the amount of dog sh!t on paths and parks

So the bigger problem might be a decrease in the levels of responsibility owners are taking.

sillysmiles

lawred2 wrote: »

Well anecdotal it may be but I've definitely observed a significant increase in the amount of dog sh!t on paths and parks

So the bigger problem might be a decrease in the levels of responsibility owners are taking.

I do wonder if often that comes from the type that lets there dog out the front door but doesn't actually take them for a walk. I live in a rural area so I don't see that, but when I take my dog into town I tend to have multiple bags in my pockets and car.

lawred2

tk123 wrote: »

+1

I'd assume its good for local businessness to have dog walkers around. Rain or shine..ok well maybe not torrential rain ... we're out having a coffee each week along with all the other dog walkers!

I actually had a toddler running at Lucy the other day - Lucy is afraid of toddlers... had let her off lead and call to my friend up ahead to call her so she could make her escape. Yet I'm in the wrong if the dogs looked at the kid sideways.. 'you never know when a dog will run over to somebody' etc etc :rolleyes::rolleyes: Normally if a parent asks can the toddler pet her I tell them that she's shy and to pet Bailey instead... if the kid is old enough to ask themselves she's generally fine with them.

and why exactly did you do that in a public area?

tk123

Obey the bye laws of the park I pay for with my taxes you mean?

tk123 wrote: »

Our park doesn't allow cycling at any times whereas dogs are officially allowed off lead during certain times.

uck51js9zml2yt

tk123 wrote: »

Obey the bye laws of the park I pay for with my taxes you mean?

We pay a "tax" for our dogs. Cyclists pay nothing.

I'll get my coat
I'm a cyclist but not currently a dog owner!

sillysmiles

lawred2 wrote: »

and why exactly did you do that in a public area?

Because the there is no reason why a dog has to be on a lead - except now with the new by-laws

tk123

sillysmiles wrote: »

Because the there is no reason why a dog has to be on a lead - except now with the new by-laws

We were actually obeying our park's bye laws. They're allowed off lead one hour before closing and that's when we were in the park. We were off the path.. toddler came running to the strange dogs and I took responsibility and sent Lucy off towards my friend rather the have her afraid.

Dubl07

Certain non-European cultures regard dogs as inherently dirty and that has been an issue, even with guide dogs, in some situations. As Ireland becomes more multi-cultural it's important for us to educate new and indigent citizens about all of their and our responsibilities.

em_cat

I would think we have more of an acceptance, say more than in the US. Mr C goes to the pub, he gets a tiny pint and he goes into just about any place I go including pharmacies, GP, the NRH, cafes, shops etc.

tomoliver

i had a couple of bad experiences as a kid

i don't like walkers approaching with dogs off the leash

mattser

tomoliver wrote: »

i had a couple of bad experiences as a kid

i don't like walkers approaching with dogs off the leash

S***fest coming your way Tom.
They might even suggest you need to see someone.

eagle eye

I was attacked by an Alsatian when I was three years old, ran out on the road and was almost knocked down by a car.
I was bitten by a jealous sheep dog when I was four at my grandmother's house, that dog was put down.
I was attacked by three dogs at another relatives house when I was five.
I have two dogs myself at the moment. You can be certain that the owners are responsible for how a dog turns out. My two just want to love you and lick you whether it's the first time they've met you or it's any of the family.
Training is so important. The way you treat your dogs is so important.

I think you should have to do a course and be qualified in order to own a dog. I think there would be a lot less owners unfortunately but there'd be very little biting and attacks on people.

Cherry Blossom

mattser wrote: »

S***fest coming your way Tom.
They might even suggest you need to see someone.

Yellow Carded, trolling/derogatory comments against the users of this forum are not tolerated.

DBB

em_cat wrote: »

I would think we have more of an acceptance, say more than in the US. Mr C goes to the pub, he gets a tiny pint and he goes into just about any place I go including pharmacies, GP, the NRH, cafes, shops etc.

That just might be the most adorable thing I've ever read on this forum

em_cat

DBB wrote: »

That just might be the most adorable thing I've ever read on this forum

It was a surprise, my OH came back to the table with our drinks & the barman poped over to make sure Mr C was sound! He definitely prefers Guinness over the others...

peasant

DBB wrote: »

That just might be the most adorable thing I've ever read on this forum

Really?

Giving alcohol to a dog?

Adorable?

Really?

That might just be the most stupid thing I've ever read on this forum...and from a forum mod no less

em_cat

peasant wrote: »

Really?

Giving alcohol to a dog?

Adorable?

Really?

That might just be the most stupid thing I've ever read on this forum...and from a forum mod no less

Ehh, a bit ott. Our lad loves them & it’s not an everyday occurrence.

DBB

peasant wrote: »

Really?

Giving alcohol to a dog?

Adorable?

Really?

That might just be the most stupid thing I've ever read on this forum...and from a forum mod no less

Such a thundering disgrace indeed.
Better call the guards

Cherry Blossom

Alcohol is toxic to dogs. I had assumed it was that special dog beer you buy in some pet shops.

DBB

Alcohol is toxic to all animals, including humans. A tiny amount of fluid, itself containing a small proportion of alcohol, given once in a blue moon, is hardly going to do any more harm than any other occasional "treat" people give their pets.

To clarify, I posted in response to an image I had in my head of a small dog with a cap on his head, getting a thimble-sized "pint" of stout at the bar. I'm not particularly interested in defending that comment to anyone who fails to grasp this perspective, particularly those who drone out the hackneyed old "how dare you, you're a mod" chestnut. Once I hear that line, I'm out... I'm not playing chess with any pigeon!

Dubl07

DBB wrote: »

Alcohol is toxic to all animals, including humans. A tiny amount of fluid, itself containing a small proportion of alcohol, given once in a blue moon, is hardly going to do any more harm than any other occasional "treat" people give their pets.

To clarify, I posted in response to an image I had in my head of a small dog with a cap on his head, getting a thimble-sized "pint" of stout at the bar. I'm not particularly interested in defending that comment to anyone who fails to grasp this perspective, particularly those who drone out the hackneyed old "how dare you, you're a mod" chestnut. Once I hear that line, I'm out... I'm not playing chess with any pigeon!

My spaniel lived to almost 14 despite his penchant for Baileys as a pup. He slurped about three glasses of it before we figured out why my granny was going through it so quickly. She was setting her glass on the floor and he was sneakily imbibing. Not a bother on him. He also enjoyed an occasional saucer of lager or cider on a summer's day.

peasant

DBB wrote: »

To clarify, I posted in response to an image I had in my head of a small dog with a cap on his head, getting a thimble-sized "pint" of stout at the bar.

And that's exactly all that's wrong with this forum lately...adorable dogs with caps and coats and thimble sized crap.
If you are a responsible dog owner and don't want to spay or neuter your dog, you get strips ripped out of you...but if you put a cap on it and give it beer, you're adorable

DBB wrote: »

I'm not particularly interested in defending that comment to anyone who fails to grasp this perspective, particularly those who drone out the hackneyed old "how dare you, you're a mod" chestnut. Once I hear that line, I'm out... I'm not playing chess with any pigeon!

You don't have to defend that comment against me...I couldn't care less personally
But please defend your so called perspective in light of all the poor anthropomorphized dogs out there that have to wear silly costumes, perform stupid tricks, live in handbags, get shampooed and perfumed beyond recognition and have any dog-worthy behaviour clickered out of them with treats and a sheet metal frog.

If beer needs to be drunk while dogs are present...then please let's have it over a respectful discussion of dogs and their real needs...and let them have water and no caps please:D

em_cat

Good gracious never meant to start a mod fight, clothes on dogs is big business and tbh can make for some hilarious memes

Also it’s very clear @Peasant that you’ve never lived in a house with a soaking wet Yorkie or a Chinese Crested. If you did you would understand the struggle to get them out in the rain, snow, wind...

peasant

rather than drag this out, I'll just leave this here...sums up my thoughts pretty well

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109081343&postcount=3036

lawred2

Fine selection of assorted dog sh!t to avoid on the walk out to poolbeg lighthouse yesterday

em_cat

peasant wrote: »

rather than drag this out, I'll just leave this here...sums up my thoughts pretty well

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109081343&postcount=3036

Tombo2001

My first comment on the Animals & Pet Issues forum.

My own take is

Its not pets. Its not dogs. Dog owners have been doing the same things that they did for years; if anything they are way better that they used to be.

But dog owners are becoming the subject of more and more vitriol.

Where does this occur?

Social Media.

And I think that's the issue - I really think society needs to take a long look at how social media is making societies more polarized and more confrontational.

I'm a cyclist. And I feel exactly the same way about cycling as you do about owning dogs. The amount of abuse that cyclists get online is off the charts. There is a thread on boards.ie about a traveller woman who spent a night in a police cell with her kids as she was homeless - it has run to 4000 posts in 3 months, 99% of contributions vitriolic about travellers.

Its a defining feature of politics in North America. Without social media, there is no Trump.

I could go on and on.

One of the first posts on this thread says:
There wouldn't be as much anti dog feeling if owners cleaned up their dogs fecal matter, and maybe had better control.

I have a green in front of the house. Its a place where people come to walk their dogs. I have young kids. I am watching out constantly for dog poo as its dangerous if they are playing football for example and its on the ground.

And as a result, I can fairly confidently say because I am watching it all the time - that of the dog owners I see, the vast majority, 80%/90% clean up the mess.

10%/20% don't, and yes that's an issue......But the problem with Social Media - as above in bold - is that when people vent, everyone gets tarred with the same brush.

And then...
(I) it spills into other parts of the media. Ivan Yates will start making an issue of it, or some other punter - because they know the angry mob will love it.
(II) worse again, it spills into real life.

To be honest, I am getting really sick of this and its turned me off sites like boards quite a bit.

In short - dog owners, you are not the problem.

ganmo

I love dogs
Not so in love with the owners.

I'd echo some of peasant's views in that some 'adorable' things whether it's dog cloths etc can
be borderline cruel.

One interaction I've had stands out in my memory. We'd had a dog attack that day so I had walked up the hill to check on the flock. On my way back down I met a man walking a golden retriever, I asked him to put his dog on a lead explaining that a dog had attacked sheep earlier that day, his response was no, his dog was 5 and would never attack sheep.
Guess what age the dog that had attacked that day yup 5

Cherry Blossom

Peasant, Please don't disrespect the forum as a whole because youve had a disagreement with one poster. I yellow carded someone for dising the forum users as a whole just the other day, frankly a mod should know better than to do this.

With respect, the forum is whatever the majority of posters here make it. Also a lot of what you have said is blatantly untrue. I don't recall any threads on dogs wearing clothes for a very long time here. In fact I don't recall any instances of dogs being anthropomorphised lately at all outside of the instance in this thread. There is no reason why we can't have the occasional feelgood thread alongside all the serious issues that dominate this forum, and dominate it they do.

lawred2

Tombo2001 wrote: »

My first comment on the Animals & Pet Issues forum.

My own take is

Its not pets. Its not dogs. Dog owners have been doing the same things that they did for years; if anything they are way better that they used to be.

But dog owners are becoming the subject of more and more vitriol.

Where does this occur?

Social Media.

And I think that's the issue - I really think society needs to take a long look at how social media is making societies more polarized and more confrontational.

I'm a cyclist. And I feel exactly the same way about cycling as you do about owning dogs. The amount of abuse that cyclists get online is off the charts. There is a thread on boards.ie about a traveller woman who spent a night in a police cell with her kids as she was homeless - it has run to 4000 posts in 3 months, 99% of contributions vitriolic about travellers.

Its a defining feature of politics in North America. Without social media, there is no Trump.

I could go on and on.

One of the first posts on this thread says:
There wouldn't be as much anti dog feeling if owners cleaned up their dogs fecal matter, and maybe had better control.

I have a green in front of the house. Its a place where people come to walk their dogs. I have young kids. I am watching out constantly for dog poo as its dangerous if they are playing football for example and its on the ground.

And as a result, I can fairly confidently say because I am watching it all the time - that of the dog owners I see, the vast majority, 80%/90% clean up the mess.

10%/20% don't, and yes that's an issue......But the problem with Social Media - as above in bold - is that when people vent, everyone gets tarred with the same brush.

And then...
(I) it spills into other parts of the media. Ivan Yates will start making an issue of it, or some other punter - because they know the angry mob will love it.
(II) worse again, it spills into real life.

To be honest, I am getting really sick of this and its turned me off sites like boards quite a bit.

In short - dog owners, you are not the problem.

Except the 20% that are the problem of course

mattser

lawred2 wrote: »

Except the 20% that are the problem of course

Exactly. Akin to a classroom of 30 students where 6 of them are constantly messing ( pardon the pun ). That's a lot of trouble for the others who behave themselves.

<snip>

mod: I said no rescue politics, if you persist I will remove your posting rights to this forum permanently.

Dogs should be kept under control at all times but parents should also educate their kids about dogs and make sure that they have respect them and don't just treat a strange dog the same as their own.

borderlinemeath

mattser wrote: »

Exactly. Akin to a classroom of 30 students where 6 of them are constantly messing ( pardon the pun ). That's a lot of trouble for the others who behave themselves.

Except the normal thing to do is punish the 6 "messers". Detention or lines up to suspension or expulsion for the troublesome students.



Yet in the case of dogs and owners it's punishment for all by way of bye laws for all to adhere to rather than fine and punish the problem owners.



Your little analogy sums up just how unfairly dog owners are treated.

Choc Chip

I don't know how this got onto doggy clothes, but I have an admission. You see, I used to be 100% against dogs in clothes. I thought they looked silly.

Confession: I put waterproof coats on all my dogs today because I'm lazy and didn't want to have to clean them when I got back... One coat was actually pink.

....

Okay, okay, I also put antlers on the terrier at Christmas time. In my defence, he looks kinda-like a miniature reindeer already though.

em_cat

I love dogs in clothes!!!! There I said it & it felt good. Mr C has virtually no hair on his belly & a very thin layer on his head so yea if I want him to do his business outdoors he will be covered.