Walking german shephard around estate with no leash

ForestFire · 09-06-2015 05:17PM

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 05:24PM

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 05:26PM

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 05:26PM

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 05:28PM

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 05:34PM

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 05:34PM

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 05:42PM

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 05:42PM

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 05:50PM

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 06:02PM

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 06:07PM

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 08:13PM

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 09:03PM

mordeith wrote: »

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

YES.

ForestFire · 09-06-2015 09:17PM

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 09:24PM

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 09:29PM

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 09:34PM

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 09:56PM

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 10:12PM

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

ForestFire · 09-06-2015 10:26PM

tk123 wrote: »

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.

I'm not the op and I'm not defending him but I think the anti social comment was clarified only in relation to this issue? if not then yes you should judge everything on one issue.

And yes I stated in my post they should talk to the owner first as he might not be aware, but I'm guessing they would not be worried if it was a park or large field and dog would be reasonable close in an housing estate.

borderlinemeath · 09-06-2015 10:46PM

I know so many dog owners that are completely judgmental about breeds for absolutely no reason other than scaremongering because of BSL. One is the same, has an impression about GSDs based purely on the fact that they're on a list than any action that one has ever done, they've never owned one, petted one or interacted with one because "they must be vicious" and that impression comes about because so many are seen muzzled. The same person has a similar impression of greyhounds who aren't on the RB list but because they're muzzled, again, the assumption that they are vicious.

The most people aggressive dog I know is a bichon frise, who snaps when approached by people he doesn't know, and of course because he's cute and white and cuddly looking, kids make a bee line for him and he's likely to snap if he feels threatened by them. Parents need to teach their children not only to not approach strange dogs, but also not to judge a book by it's cover, or in this case, a dog by it's size and it's unfounded reputation.

I'm not a fan of dogs off lead IF they are bothering others. Nor am I a fan of BSL but some owners don't do their breeds any favours either if they flaunt the law and have a dog that is out of control and bothering people or other dogs. It's hard to tell what is the case here because the OP has made a judgement call about the breed and it's owner so I would imagine any scenario might be biased towards the "tiger" of a dog being troublesome rather than minding it's own business.

09-06-2015 10:52PM

ihatewinter wrote: »

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.

I walk my well trained collie mix rescue dog off lead in the estate I live in. There are huge green areas and lots of dog owners let all sorts of dogs and breeds off lead for a run. I've never seen any out of control dogs. I always carry a lead to clip on her in case but there seems to be respect and understanding on all sides. I've never been asked to put my dog on a lead as most other dogs are off lead too.

I took my dog on her lead to a woodland park close by recently..... didn't let her off at all.... and a young mother with her little kids immediately screamed at her kids to come back to her and told them to stay away from the "bad" dog!!
She is a 12 year old sweet natured loyal dog who I reared my own kids with . This woman was training her kids to be afraid of dogs and that all dogs are bad!!

That's more damaging surely than innocent man walking his well trained GS in
Saggart .

celligraphy · 09-06-2015 10:53PM

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 one?

Parents should tell their kids to avoid strange dogs, it's not safe for either the child or dog . I tell my 2 year old and let's say if she's going on a walk with her nana or dad to never pet a strange dog unless owner says it's ok. Not worth the risk . Child could accidently hurt the dog and provoke it or the dog could be bad tempered .

roosterman71 · 10-06-2015 08:55AM

I'd hate to live in this estate

borderlinemeath · 10-06-2015 09:09AM

roosterman71 wrote: »

I'd hate to live in this estate

Me too. Imagine being judged by neighbours who assume you're a scumbag because of the dog breed you own.

andreac · 10-06-2015 10:48AM

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Me too. Imagine being judged by neighbours who assume you're a scumbag because of the dog breed you own.

Jesus, i must be really anti-social and an even bigger scumbag as i own and walk 3 Rottweilers!! :eek:

the beer revolu · 10-06-2015 12:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I walk my well trained collie mix rescue dog off lead in the estate I live in. There are huge green areas and lots of dog owners let all sorts of dogs and breeds off lead for a run. I've never seen any out of control dogs. I always carry a lead to clip on her in case but there seems to be respect and understanding on all sides. I've never been asked to put my dog on a lead as most other dogs are off lead too.

I took my dog on her lead to a woodland park close by recently..... didn't let her off at all.... and a young mother with her little kids immediately screamed at her kids to come back to her and told them to stay away from the "bad" dog!!
She is a 12 year old sweet natured loyal dog who I reared my own kids with . This woman was training her kids to be afraid of dogs and that all dogs are bad!!

That's more damaging surely than innocent man walking his well trained GS in
Saggart .

Right.
So man in estate should be allowed to flout the law because you met a stupid woman in a wood? Or am I reading you wrong?

Some of the arguments here are completely irrelevant.

Cars kill people. Yes they do. What has that got to do with the issue of a man breaking the law by having his GSD off lead and unmuzzled in public.

Children should all learn how to behave around dogs. It would be great if all kids (and adults) knew how to behave around dogs. But that has nothing to do with the fact that this man is breaking the law.

Personally, I'd have no issue with a well trained GSD walking off lead - but I'm not afraid of dogs. Many people are. Just like many people are afraid of spiders or mice. They just are afraid. The OP is uncomfortable with this man flouting the law. Whether you agree with the law or not, people have a right to expect their neighbours to obey the laws of the land - not just the ones that they agree with.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Me too. Imagine being judged by neighbours who assume you're a scumbag because of the dog breed you own.

andreac wrote: »

Jesus, i must be really anti-social and an even bigger scumbag as i own and walk 3 Rottweilers!! :eek:

It was clearly stated that the OP made a judgement on the man in question because he openly flouts the law, not because of the breed of dog he chooses to own.

Why do posters try to discredit the OP by suggesting that it was the breed of dog that prompted the anti social comment?

Is it a case of the fact that your argument holds no water so you will just discredit and defame the person on the other side of the argument.

Clearly, a lot of people here disagree with the Restricted Breed laws that we have. I have no doubt that there are many valid arguments against these laws but the fact remains that the laws do exist and the OP is suggesting that a dog owner in her estate should be subject to these laws of the land.

DBB · 10-06-2015 12:13PM

The beer revolu,
It is not permitted to scold other users for their on-thread behaviour on boards.ie. It's called back seat moderating.
If you believe that anyone is being abused, defamed, disrespected etc, report the posts, rather than taking matters into your own hands as you have done rather stridently here. You have not reported any posts.
As is pretty obvious, there have been multiple mod interventions in this thread to prevent/stop untoward posting behaviour, towards both the op, and towards other users.
Please do no try to moderate posting in this forum again.
Do not reply to this post on-thread.
Thanks,
DBB

YurOK2 · 10-06-2015 01:04PM

mordeith wrote: »

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

YurOK2 wrote: »

YES.

ForestFire wrote: »

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?

Well I was actually responding to a specific post that YES every parent should teach their child about every single possible interaction with dogs. I'm not sure what's so crazy about that. Why wouldn't a parent want to educate their child?

The situation described in the OP does not describe a vicious dog to me but what happens if an actual vicious dog manages to escape and is actually running around a housing estate, every child should be educated about what to do in that situation. I thought that was common sense to be honest.

Walking german shephard around estate with no leash

Comments