Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Control of dogs whilst out walking

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #33
    SNAKEDOC
    Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    dharma200
    Registered Users Posts: 998 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    beveragelady
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #36
    beveragelady
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    SNAKEDOC
    Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    beveragelady
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #41
    SNAKEDOC
    Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    beveragelady
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #44
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭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 ?


  • Options
    #45
    SNAKEDOC
    Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #47
    SNAKEDOC
    Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    beveragelady
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #49
    dharma200
    Registered Users Posts: 998 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    beveragelady
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    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.

    State land is private property ? Is it your private property ?

    I've no idea who you are, I've no idea what a strange man is capable of when I encounter them when I'm either running or walking though a forest. But I don't expect to get into a snot when I meet such a person as I have no right over it than anyone else.


  • Options
    #53
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭ganmo


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Way to miss that swoosh go right over your head.

    You're comparing being locked in a cage to being on a lead...?
    Nonsense!


  • Options
    #54
    ganmo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,748 ✭✭✭ganmo


    beveragelady wrote: »
    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.

    so the person's right to walk where you can walk is greater than the right for you to walk your dog off the lead?


  • Options
    #55
    beveragelady
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭beveragelady


    ThisRegard wrote: »

    I've no idea who you are, I've no idea what a strange man is capable of when I encounter them when I'm either running or walking though a forest. But I don't expect to get into a snot when I meet such a person as I have no right over it than anyone else.

    This is a really good point. I wish I had made it.
    We all share the few wild bits that are left in the country, and as long as we all stay within the law none of us has the right to dictate how we use them.


  • Options
    #56
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    ganmo wrote: »
    You're comparing being locked in a cage to being on a lead...?
    Nonsense!

    It's not that difficult. You could fall over a lead if a dog was on one, you couldn't if they were off one. They way some people go on about it you would expect them to be happy only if dogs were kept at home, locked in a cage, for fear of all the damage they could do otherwise.


  • Options
    #57
    beveragelady
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭beveragelady


    ganmo wrote: »
    so the person's right to walk where you can walk is greater than the right for you to walk your dog off the lead?

    Not sure what this means, the sentence is unclear.

    I stay within the law. I extend courtesy to others who do the same.


  • Options
    #58
    SNAKEDOC
    Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭SNAKEDOC


    beveragelady wrote: »
    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.

    That is completely rediculious. So because my nephew is afraid of dogs i cant bring him to the mountains. My god thats the stupidest thing i have heard. Why should other do without because you want to walk your sog of the lead. Go somewhere you can let your dog run free in a closed environment then walk in the mountains with your dog on a lead. What is the urge to have your dog off the lead anyway. I dont get it. And you have just validated my theory that dog owners who insist on doing so are the most self centered people on the planet.


  • Options
    #59
    SNAKEDOC
    Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭SNAKEDOC


    beveragelady wrote: »
    This is a really good point. I wish I had made it.
    We all share the few wild bits that are left in the country, and as long as we all stay within the law none of us has the right to dictate how we use them.

    Funny in the same breath you said that people afraid of dogs should stay away from areas where dog will be walked. Should they just stay in their home all their lives while they are at it to please you.


  • Options
    #60
    SNAKEDOC
    Registered Users Posts: 943 ✭✭✭SNAKEDOC


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    It's not that difficult. You could fall over a lead if a dog was on one, you couldn't if they were off one. They way some people go on about it you would expect them to be happy only if dogs were kept at home, locked in a cage, for fear of all the damage they could do otherwise.

    You could fall over the lead if the dog was on one. Is that your best arguement for having your sog off the lead. Surely you can do better than that. If that is all you have my point is proven


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    SNAKEDOC wrote: »
    That is completely rediculious. So because my nephew is afraid of dogs i cant bring him to the mountains. My god thats the stupidest thing i have heard. Why should other do without because you want to walk your sog of the lead. Go somewhere you can let your dog run free in a closed environment then walk in the mountains with your dog on a lead. What is the urge to have your dog off the lead anyway. I dont get it. And you have just validated my theory that dog owners who insist on doing so are the most self centered people on the planet.

    The opposite of the argument can be very easily made. Just because your nephew is afraid of dogs, dog owners are now reponsible for this as opposed to his parents?

    All you have to do is ask an owner would you mind putting the dog on the lead until you pass and explain why. But it's easier to go home seething about it instead of resolving it there and then.
    SNAKEDOC wrote: »
    You could fall over the lead if the dog was on one. Is that your best arguement for having your sog off the lead. Surely you can do better than that. If that is all you have my point is proven

    I'm honestly struggling to find any coherent point you've tried to make as to why you think such dog owners have no respect for you.


Advertisement