Dog barked at someone who was afraid of dogs

average_runner

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Can you quote the specific legislation that states all dogs must be on leads and that it is the law? Not just the link but the specific wording that you think you are referring to? Not a specific park or CoCo legislation but the law that refers to all public places. Thanks.

Maybe not a law but there is bye-laws. By breaking these laws you can be fine. Obey the park rules if you want to use it!!!

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

Your argument is that because dog owners outnumber the dog-phobics, the dog-phobics should "sort that sh1t out".

Which conveniently aligns with the self-centred desire (which we all have) to not have to modify our own behaviour.

It's a post-rationalisation.

Ah yes, but just because it looks like post-rationalisation, doesn't mean it is.

You'd be right if walking dogs in public was a new phenomenon, some fad that appeared recently and will disappear again soon. But it's not.

You can't expect society to modify centuries of behaviour to accommodate the irrational fear of an individual. Even if the OP were to be "more careful", however that would manifest, the affected individual is still going to encounter others who are not.

TG1

ForestFire wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing in generally and nothing explicitly wrong happen in both situations but,

1) there is the risk something more can happen (Even if provoked from someone else).

2) If she did complain to the warden that your dog ran at her and her kids "aggressively" (Her possible opinion) and was not on a lead, who is the most likely to loose in this situation? There would be a natural (Or purposeful) exaggeration of the interaction from the mother protecting her kids.

My point is a dog can be reported with potential consequences, while the kids cannot be reported or will not have any consequences.

For this reason I believe it is best to be extra cautious as a dog owner, and for some that might mean keeping dog on a lead

Realistically though, nothing will be done about a report of an incident involving a dog unless it has actually caused injury. Giving someone a fright is not an offence, which is all that happened in the ops situation, so there is no issue. Dogs bark, if someone gets upset over that then it's unfortunate, but a dog is not going to get seized or anything of the sort for having a bark.

the law actually doesn't state a dog must be on a lead, possibly in some parks it is the case due to local county council but not everywhere.

My dog had as close to 100% recall as any dog and wouldn't let his person out of his eyesight as he had seperation issues, so in my opinion was always under control and so within the legal requirement for where he was being walked.

Also, laws or no, there is absolutely a responsibility on every parent out there to teach their children not to run at strange dogs screaming. Not to do so is a form of neglect in my opinion, as there is such a huge dog population on Ireland and not all dog owners are responsible ones.

borderlinemeath

average_runner wrote: »

Maybe not a law but there is bye-laws. By breaking these laws you can be fine. Obey the park rules if you want to use it!!!

Did you read my post? I Specifically said the overall law and Not any bye laws or CoCo laws as I am well aware that these exist. The poster I was quoting was stating "the law is the law" and all dogs must be on lead in a public place which is incorrect.

I don't know which park you go to, I'm not a mind reader, so save your indignation for somebody that is there annoying you. I don't go to parks by the way. I have a fantastic beach 5 minutes from my house which is enjoyed by many off lead dog walkers. If the local CoCo bring in bye laws I'll just use the fields behind my house instead.

SeanSouth

Many owners have a complete blind spot when it comes to their own dogs.

As far as i'm concerned, the correct procedure is to have the dog on a leash if anywhere close to other people, no ifs or buts. To frighten another person in a public place, with a dog is a FAILURE of the owner.

I for one, am not interested in other peoples dogs. I dont want them anywhere near me. If your dog is playful, agresive or curious and likes to approach or be in the vacinity of other people, KEEP IT ON A LEASH.

If there is no one else about and you have strong control of your dog, then let it loose.

Dont let your dog loose anywhere near other people EVER. Lots of people are afraid of dogs and that includes your darling mutt.

DBB

hawkelady wrote: »

Pedantic much???? Do you believe the op was in control of her dog. ???
The answer is NO , btw !

If she had the bloody thing on a leash I'm 99% sure we wouldn't be 8 pages in a thread about it.

Hawkelady,
Did you not read the 2 mod warnings about keeping one's posting style in line with the forum requirement that posters do not disrespect one another?
I'd respectfully suggest that you take heed, as your post is not of acceptable standard.

To other posters, please do not reply in-kind to posts that don't meet the required standards of respectfulness, please report them instead.

Do not reply to this post on-thread.
Thanks,
DBB

crossman47

I have looked at boards from time to time but have joined now in order to comment on this thread. I have always had a fear of dogs and dogs off the leash in my local park regularly spoil my morning walk. if a dog comes bounding up to me I freeze. The owner will often say hes just being friendly and won't harm me but my reaction is "Did anyone check that with the dog?"

lifeandtimes

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/32/section/17/enacted/en/html

(1) A local authority may make bye-laws relating to the control of dogs within its functional area.
(b) specify areas in such part of the functional area of the local authority as may be specified in the bye-laws in which the person in charge of a dog shall be required to keep the dog on a leash;

Realistically it boils down to this OP.

Were you and your dog in an area that requires dogs to be on a leash?

Also saying 60% of people dont have their dog on a leash doesnt get you off the hook if it does say the need to be on a leash.

If it doesnt say dogs need to be on a leash youre fine ,if it does then this lady(althought irrational) was well within her right to go nuts and be terrified

tk123

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The dog was running free in a public place. If it didn’t respond to it’s owner, it’s not under control.

.

The dog was sniffing a tree and came to the owner as soon as they called which is the opposite of being not under control by your example..which makes it under control.

lifeandtimes

tk123 wrote: »

The dog was sniffing a tree and came to the owner as soon as they called which is the opposite of being not under control by your example..which makes it under control.

9.—(1) The owner or any other person in charge of a dog shall not permit the dog to be in any place other than—

(a) the premises of the owner, or

(b) the premises of such other person in charge of the dog, or

(c) the premises of any other person, with the consent of that person,

unless such owner or such other person in charge of the dog accompanies it and keeps it under "effectual control".

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1986/act/32/section/9/enacted/en/html

Keeping your dog under effective control. You have an obligation to keep your dog under effective control. This means that, when your dog is in a public place, such as on a road or in a road related area, it must be held on a lead not more than two metres long by a person able to control the dog.

When your dog is off-lead in other areas, including off-lead exercise areas, you must still keep it under effective control. This means that it must be close to you and in sight at all times and respond to your commands.

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/local_government/legislation/dog_control/general_dog_control_issues

Again this boils down to if the OP was in an off leash park or not

Lumen

lifeandtimes wrote: »

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/divisions/local_government/legislation/dog_control/general_dog_control_issues

Again this boils down to if the OP was in an off leash park or not

In Australia?

lifeandtimes

Lumen wrote: »

In Australia?

its the only place i can find an explanation to the terminology.

English is still english but i guess its how its interperated.

My view of effective control would be a dog off a leash that has done a training course to recall when commanded like a police dog.

If ops dog hasnt done this, if it was brough to court i feel they would lose based on a judges view of what effective control it.

But OP hasnt stated if its a park for off leash dogs or not so we need to know that before we can state is this womans reaction were valid.

If its a park for off leash dogs she was should have expected dogs off leashs.

If its not then she was within her rights to be frightend

AryaStark

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't understand why people don't keep their darling muts on a lead. I've lost count of the amount of times I've been out walking and some dog - without a lead- has started barking at me.

it is not the law that dogs have to be on lead. Dogs have to be under effective control but not on leads.

Now if a dog is barking at you while beside or with its owner, then it is your own problem.

AryaStark

DickSwiveller wrote: »

If i had a dog - I don't - and it started barking at someone aggressively then I would take responsibility for it. I don't blame her for shouting at him/her.

The op said that the dog was barking but also looking a bit confused and wagging its tail... Sounds like a very friendly dog who was a little confused and scared of the woman. The dog could sense her fear and was wondering what there was to be afraid.

tk123

lifeandtimes wrote: »

i
If ops dog hasnt done this, if it was brough to court i feel they would lose based on a judges view of what effective control it.

But OP hasnt stated if its a park for off leash dogs or not so we need to know that before we can state is this womans reaction were valid.

If its a park for off leash dogs she was should have expected dogs off leashs.

If its not then she was within her rights to be frightend

Brought to court... For BARKING?! :rolleyes:

ForestFire

TG1 wrote: »

My dog had as close to 100% recall as any dog and wouldn't let his person out of his eyesight as he had seperation issues, so in my opinion was always under control and so within the legal requirement for where he was being walked.

Also, laws or no, there is absolutely a responsibility on every parent ....... and not all dog owners are responsible ones.

Again I am not saying you are doing anything wrong but you seem to ignore the "risks" to you and your dog and shift the responsibility on to others.

You say your dog is close to 100% recall. but yet ... "he took off like a scalded cat and ran past them"

Why did you not recall dog? How far away was he from you? You should be able to recall dog or get to him before he gets to the kids if you are in control? Do you really think you were in effective control of your dog in this situation?

Also you want parents to teach there kids because "Not all dog owners are responsible"?

Do you not think it should be the other way round i.e. I could easily say

There is absolutely a responsibility on every dog owner ....... and not all parents are responsible ones.

Also we lived is a small village were there was no dogs on our estate, so how were we supposed to teach our daughter. Not everyone has the opportunity and to to claim this is child neglect is just insane.

Again I'm not disagreeing that people/parents etc., should not teach and behave appropriately to other dogs but at the end of the day the final responsibility and consequences (Fines etc) falls on the dog owner and the dog and it is in our interest to maintain full control our our dogs.

AryaStark

DickSwiveller wrote: »

But the fact is that many people are afraid of dogs, even if it is just barking and not physically attacking them. Some people don't like dogs - me being one - and would rather not have to pass them without a lead.

It is ok that you would 'rather' not have to pass them without a lead!!! You can want whatever you want but you won't get it unless the law changes.

The law says that a dog can be off lead (in certain places) once it is under effective control. If you can call your dog and it comes to you (as the op dogs did) then it is under control.

AryaStark

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Can a dog be considered under control without being on a lead in public? I don't think so.

Yes it can.

See some people get dogs to have in the back garden or as a right of passage i.e I'm an adult now better get a dog.

Others get them and train them and love them and understand them. When you have a proper relationship with your dog then it is under your control ... In my opinion training and socialising dogs is very important.

I have a husky who is never off lead. I also had a collie who was never on lead... she was trained to walk to heal and had a leave it command that was perfect.

lifeandtimes

tk123 wrote: »

Brought to court... For BARKING?! :rolleyes:

Yes peope get brough to court for letting their dogs bark all day but If she feel over and hurt herself then yes of course she could bring a case and say OPs dog did it.

Or she could even try and bring a case of harrasement against op and their dog

AryaStark wrote: »

If you can call your dog and it comes to you (as the op dogs did) then it is under control.. If you can call your dog and it comes to you (as the op dogs did) then it is under control.

in your opinon and a court may disagree

tk123

ForestFire wrote: »

A
You say your dog is close to 100% recall. but yet ... "he took off like a scalded cat and ran past them"

Why did you not recall dog? How far away was he from you? You should be able to recall dog or get to him before he gets to the kids if you are in control? Do you really think you were in effective control of your dog in this situation?

I ALWAYS let my girl move away from out of control kids when I can - it actually works out much better for us because I can let her escape from them rather than having her on lead trapped by them.. or having to block them from coming near etc etc
I had an autistic child punch my other dog and pull at his fur while he stood wagging his tail - he'd be dead now if he had of reacted to the situation daddy daycare created :mad:

Knine

lifeandtimes wrote: »

If she feel over and hurt herself then yes of course she could bring a case and say OPs dog did it.

Or she could even try and bring a case of harrasement against op and their dog

She would be laughed out of the Courtroom. If a person really is so terrified of dogs that they have to act in a totally irrational manner then I would suggest they either stay away from areas where there might be dogs or they get professional help for their phobia. Judges have much more imortant/serious issues to be dealing with.

lifeandtimes

Knine wrote: »

She would be laughed out of the Courtroom. If a person really is so terrified of dogs that they have to act in a totally irrational manner then I would suggest they either stay away from areas where there might be dogs or they get professional help for their phobia. Judges have much more imortant/serious issues to be dealing with.

THis is off topic and im sorry mods but ill just clarify.

If this woman got such a fright and fell over hurting herself she could bring op to court. She'll show pictures and say the dog did it etc and if a woman who had such an issue about the dog i wouldnt put it past her to exagurate her injuries.

It would be her word againts ops but if ops dog is off the lead like in the above scenario a judge may side with the woman as their opinion of effective control in OPs situation would be a dog on a lead

Knine

lifeandtimes wrote: »

THis is off topic and im sorry mods but ill just clarify.

If this woman got such a fright and fell over hurting herself she could bring op to court. She'll show pictures and say the dog did it etc and if a woman who had such an issue about the dog i wouldnt put it past her to exagurate her injuries.

It would be her word againts ops but if ops dog is off the lead like in the above scenario a judge may side with the woman as their opinion of effective control in OPs situation would be a dog on a lead

Or much more likely another dog walker will act as a witness & tell the truth. If there are no bites or medical evidence to show a dog attack then it will likely go nowhere.

Of course lunatic people like the OP described are more likely to act in an irrational manner & probably have previous form for doing so.

borderlinemeath

lifeandtimes wrote: »

its the only place i can find an explanation to the terminology.

English is still english but i guess its how its interperated.

My view of effective control would be a dog off a leash that has done a training course to recall when commanded like a police dog.

It's effectual. While they pretty mean the same thing, terminology is very important in a court.

If ops dog hasnt done this, if it was brough to court i feel they would lose based on a judges view of what effective control it.

What is very important here is that it is not your opinion in a court that counts. It's down to a judge. It's a deliberately vague, ambiguous wording in the law and should favour the defendant, not the prosecutor who interpretes it as they wish. You wouldn't get a highly trained service or guide dog to move in the same demeanor as a police dog, government department dogs are certain breeds that are highly driven. If the OP called her dog and he ambled back to her at his desired pace, who are you to say that is not effectual control?

But OP hasnt stated if its a park for off leash dogs or not so we need to know that before we can state is this womans reaction were valid.

If its a park for off leash dogs she was should have expected dogs off leashs.

If its not then she was within her rights to be frightend

The OP seems like a consciencous dog walker, who came here, a bit shaken by the incident. Not your average yob who ignores bye laws. It would be fairly safe to assume that the OP was in a place that is not covered by additional bye laws.

dr.fuzzenstein

When I lived in Ireland I would always try to walk my dog in the middle of nowhere where I'd meet no one else.
So many self-entitled whiny snowflakes that regard having their feelings hurt as worse than being murdered. And don't forget the compo culture where people get €20k for scratches and owies, if someone is so fragile and precious that they fall over and get life changing trauma and injuries that will cripple them for life (otherwise known as a booboo), you just can't take the risk.
I remember once walking with my small dog on a lead, it was a grey little terrier, you would find bigger cats. About as threatening as a mildly agitated toothbrush.
He parked at a passing stranger. The guy turned to me and threatened to throw my dog over a wall and if I tried to stop him, he would throw me over the wall as well. I just looked at him and said "no wonder the dog doesn't like you".
When I recall every occasion in my life where I was in an unpleasnat situation where I felt threatened, was it by dogs or people?
The answer is 100% people.

TL/DR:
Dogs before people any time and in a heartbeat. People are nasty, unpredictable, violent, spiteful, vindictive and false.
You never know when they will decide to attack you for no reason. Statistics bear this out. People suck.
So, dog owners, beware of people, you can never gauge what tehy will do next, the sly fcukers.

DBB

I'm dizzy now from the circles this thread is going around in. I've also a pain in my butt asking people to stick on topic, and being ignored.
Thread closed.
DBB