A Small Tiff In The Off-leash Park

[Beth.]

I can understand where the small dogs owner is coming from as well - i'm like that with Lottie, and she's not a small dog (it doesn't help that I live in a small town where dogs rush out from their yards :D very scary!!!).

The other day I was at a dog park (I don't usually go to them, but Lottie had behaved SO well on her walk, it was a little treat for her as she LOVES playing with others!!!). Anyway, on my way out as I was leaving, I had Lottie on her lead and a Weimaraner was bouncing ALL over Lottie, and Jumping right up onto me towards my face!!! (I saw this women come to the dog park - which is situated near a busy road - NO LEASH, NO COLLAR just opened the door to her car and she bolted up and down the fenceline of the park ). Anyway, she said to me 'Oh don't worry about her, she's a Weimaraner, it's what they do!!'. I promtly replied, 'No, this is what YOU let her do!!!! with a very disguisted look on my face, said a very loud 'uh-uh' to which the dog stopped for a second, and left very quickly shaking my head, watching her dog go on to harass others in the park!!!

Some people just have no idea!!! It just made me so mad that she blamed it on the breed, and not on her lack of training - I guess that's easier :D :D

Sorry to the OP, i'm not reffering that you or your dog are like this AT ALL :D :D , just another dog park story......

[corvus]

To say the "world just doesn't work like that" ??? .... IMO, that's another excuse.

IMO it's realistic, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

The law is that you must maintain effective control regardless of whether your dog is on or off-lead, even in a park designated "off-lead". There's no grey to it.

How can you say there's no grey to it when "effective control" must be judged by an owner in general rather than by the odd situation that doesn't pan out as expected? How can you say there's no grey if dogs are never 100% reliable in anything they do because they are living creatures? There is grey because behaviour is grey and we're working on probabilities, not certainties.

If you are unable to achieve the effective control you need, then you need to look at your training method/s.

:yawn: Oh look, an attack on the training level of my dogs. That doesn't happen every other day or something. Only ever from people online, though. Funny, that.

Listen, I'm not saying that there should be no standards, or that rules were made to be broken. I'm saying that this standard of "effective control at all times" is a fallacy. It has to be. Steven Lindsay said it as well. I'm saying be more specific about the rules, be more realistic, and you're more likely to get compliance.

Either you can pretend that it is achievable and make everyone feel privately embarrassed for not being able to achieve it, or you can be realistic and accept that sometimes even a well-trained dog can be unpredictable and an apology might be the best you can do. It's less about training and more about getting along with the other people at the park. As long as I am not 100% sure what my dogs will do I do not consider them under "effective control", and as long as they are alive they will retain the ability to surprise me. At least, I hope they will, because I don't want robots.

[Hetzer]

Hi Mrs Tornsocks,

I think there's a balance between allowing a dog a chance to develop and exercise its own social and canine etiquette skills to communicate appropriately with other other dogs, and restraining it for the sake of a SWF owner who thinks anything over 5KG is Godzilla. I believe the element of human involvement in dogs meeting and greeting is the real hindrance. The off-leash areas would probably run smoother without people and their very human attitudes.

I was really tempted to say to this bloke "the only person that's stressing is you and you're passing that straight on to your dog, especially by lifting him up". But I can obviously understand his concern for his dog's wellbeing and uncertainty about a big bouncy boy.

I couldn't agree more. Play is a mechanism for learning about life, and over-protective owners shield their SWF's into a world of neurosis that matches their own.

[Kavik]

Hi Mrs Tornsocks,

I think there's a balance between allowing a dog a chance to develop and exercise its own social and canine etiquette skills to communicate appropriately with other other dogs, and restraining it for the sake of a SWF owner who thinks anything over 5KG is Godzilla. I believe the element of human involvement in dogs meeting and greeting is the real hindrance. The off-leash areas would probably run smoother without people and their very human attitudes.

I was really tempted to say to this bloke "the only person that's stressing is you and you're passing that straight on to your dog, especially by lifting him up". But I can obviously understand his concern for his dog's wellbeing and uncertainty about a big bouncy boy.

I couldn't agree more. Play is a mechanism for learning about life, and over-protective owners shield their SWF's into a world of neurosis that matches their own.

Since the only one of my dogs which was allowed to learn manners at an off leash dog park with not a lot of human interference is the only one of my dogs that is now aggressive towards other dogs, I will have to respectfully disagree with you here :D Many dogs if not taught properly do not learn how to appropriately meet other dogs and say hi politely and tend to barrell up to other dogs and get in their face (Labs and Staffies I've noticed can be particularly rude if not taught properly)

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Corvus

Are you arguing because you can't get 100%, you shouldn't try at all?

No council is going to agree with you. Most have a pretty clear definition of off lead "effective control" - dog must respond to command by voice or signal. If it doesn't, you must keep the leash on.

In the situation where you say it's too late when your dogs go bouncy bouncy without your permission, you reward your dogs by allowing them to continue, instead of calling them back the minute they start their unacceptable behaviour.

Apologies only have meaning if you make every effort to stop repetition of the offence.

I don't think that "effective control" is "unrealistic", I think it is just largely "unenforced". Not the same thing.

I think councils could more than cover the cost of rangers if they just sent them to any off lead park or even the on lead ones, and asked each owner to call their dog and put it on lead. All those who got no response from the dog, should get a fine. I'd be happy with that. My life and my dog's life would be much easier.

And more dog owners would put a bit of effort into recall training instead of throwing their hands in the air and saying "it can't be done".

[Greytmate]

It was his natural tempermant to kind of be this way, the dominance and not having a brain, but I think the aggressive edge was learned, and I think it was learned because he was allowed to intimidate other dogs when he was younger.

Many dogs if not taught properly do not learn how to appropriately meet other dogs and say hi politely and tend to barrell up to other dogs and get in their face (Labs and Staffies I've noticed can be particularly rude if not taught properly)

Yet people describe the over enthusiasm to get to other dogs as "friendly", and put such a high value on letting their dog "socialise" in this way.

[Erny]

:yawn: Oh look, an attack on the training level of my dogs. That doesn't happen every other day or something. Only ever from people online, though. Funny, that.

Nice sarcastic response ("yawn" .... was that necessary?) from Corvus.

You're the one that said you apologise regularly. If you are apologising regularly it can only be assumed that you have something to apologise for, regularly. And given the topic at hand, then it goes to follow that what you are apologising for regularly is your dogs' regular non-compliance of command or perhaps that you regularly don't work to even ask for that compliance.

You said it Corvus. I've merely made a point of what you've said and where I believe it is incorrect. And of course THAT's what happens on discussion forums. They raise things that people have said and discuss them.

[Hetzer]

Since the only one of my dogs which was allowed to learn manners at an off leash dog park with not a lot of human interference is the only one of my dogs that is now aggressive towards other dogs, I will have to respectfully disagree with you here :D Many dogs if not taught properly do not learn how to appropriately meet other dogs and say hi politely and tend to barrell up to other dogs and get in their face (Labs and Staffies I've noticed can be particularly rude if not taught properly)

Who knows what other factors were involved in this one example. In nature there's a mechanism of correction in that if you're rude or aggressive, you'll be dissuaded from that sort of behavior one way or another. The whole purpose of play in any specie, including humans, is to create an understanding of behavioral protocols. I know humans love to think they're super special and know best, but the natural world has done fine for millions of years without human orchestration and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

[Erny]

I'm saying that this standard of "effective control at all times" is a fallacy.

Hhhhmmm, whilst you're discussing this with your Council, pop that one to them too.

Oh - and high level reliability to command compliance does not make "robots" out of the dogs. But that style of argument is again one that I usually hear from someone who is in defence of not having the standard of reliability that should and can be expected as "effective control" when dogs are off-lead.

[geo]

Off lead dogs always used to piss me off running upto my leashed and sometimes DA staffy (he was a rescue, had been used for baiting)..

Anyways, the owners would say, "oh he's alright"... "well that's fine but my dog is not" i'd say.. "oh but he's wagging his tail".... "yeah don't be fooled by that"..

Some people would say,"it's just 'cause he's on lead!".. then i'd almost have to demonstrate it for them to believe me.., like i don't know my own dog.

Now i have a bounding 36kg 1year old dog who i want to avoid having a negative impact on other dogs or having them having a go at him because they're not quite sure how to read other dogs signals.

SWF owners tend to mother their dogs a little too much (gross generalistaion i know) and the majority that i've met have been aggro towards bigger dogs, and they tend to react quicker to boistrous behavior as they can feel threatened, i know i would if i was a little 'un.

So as a rule their is no off leash with strange dogs or really small ones, (just incase he stepped on them).

[Di*]

Fairy nuff, and absolutely, it is easy to put him on the leash and I can totally appreciate little 'uns paranoia. Was reading that horrible other thread with the injuries to schnauzer and maltese, which looked awful. I suppose I was a little surprised by the harsh reaction of the owner, particularly as Archie had sniffed one or two others small ones and owners generally smile and we all move on (including Archie who usually finds no interest in the littlies and vice versa). As far as bounding, no, it's not ideal, he is still pretty young though, and he is improving every time we go to this particular park (too crowded for my liking so we go once every few months at best). He recalled pretty much every time, and my mistake for not realising earlier that I should have called him off this particular dog sooner. The other dog was actually displaying some quite aggressive behaviour in his mum's arms although obviously I don't know his history.

All good :D

Warning: A Rant

There have been so many posts on annoying out of control yappy aggressive little dogs. I thought I'd offer "The little dog POV ..."

Playful bouncy young labs are among the most dangerous dogs for my old chi cross. He has luxating patellas and a bad back. One playful knock would mean not only pain but quite likely the need for surgery. Even when I keep him on lead and tell the owners of these dogs that he does not like labs or that he may get hurt, they insist their dogs are friendly. When I pick him up to keep him out of their way, they lecture me on how bad it is to pick up small dogs--it makes them aggressive, etc, etc. However, when my dog is in obedience classes with well trained labs in a controlled situation he shows no aggression at all towards them. He'll sit next to a lab in long stays. He'll act as 'a post' and allow the labs to weave around him. We rarely go to off lead areas but even owners with onlead dogs want to force my dog to socialise with their dogs or want to "cure" my dog of his discomfort with bouncy young dogs by forcing him to interact. It drives me nuts.

Di

[Erny]

Who knows what other factors were involved in this one example. In nature there's a mechanism of correction in that if you're rude or aggressive, you'll be dissuaded from that sort of behavior one way or another. The whole purpose of play in any specie, including humans, is to create an understanding of behavioral protocols. I know humans love to think they're super special and know best, but the natural world has done fine for millions of years without human orchestration and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

Unfortunately, Hetzer, the dogs who live with us in our human 'civilised' world aren't "in nature". They don't have the daily freedoms they used to have, to wander and mix freely with other dogs as they used to in my childhood days, to self socialise. And what that means is that there are many dogs who aren't always 'stable' in themselves, so to allow your dog to wander freely using off-lead parks for the purpose is not something that will assure you your dog will learn appropriately or fairly or sufficiently, because those dogs themselves have not necessarily learnt appropriately or fairly or sufficiently. By comparison to the UK, for example, our dogs aren't as settled as theirs seem to be (generally speaking). In contrast, our society regards dogs in general as something that is anti-social to be around. In the UK, they have the freedom to travel and mix with humans in their day to day lives outside of their homes. Here, we've battled laws that suggest they shouldn't be in outdoor cafes for fear of a dog hair floating and making its way over to someone who might be eating. :D, to name just one.

Here, the push seems to be to isolate the dogs more and more from 'life', yet somehow miraculously expect the dogs to be completely comfortable with 'life'. Which means that after generations of dogs not learning well enough themselves, we have many enough who are bad teachers.

So, to suggest (which I think you were) that it is a better thing to let your dog run up to other dogs (whether that be because you allow them to or whether that be because you have no control to stop it) ...... I'm afraid I can't agree.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Erny

[persephone]

They don't have the daily freedoms they used to have, to wander and mix freely with other dogs as they used to in my childhood days, to self socialise. And what that means is that there are many dogs who aren't always 'stable' in themselves, so to allow your dog to wander freely using off-lead parks for the purpose is not something that will assure you your dog will learn appropriately or fairly or sufficiently, because those dogs themselves have not necessarily learnt appropriately or fairly or sufficiently.

YES, YES, YES !

It's often a case of bad manners V even badder manners :D All due to a MUCH more restricted lifestyle our dogs have...and the less experience dog owners have in the basics of dog behaviour.. I mean basics.. not leashwork or obedience, but the sniffing/barking/fighting/peeing stuff that is in all dogs.

[Erny]

YES, YES, YES !

:D ..... I am presuming you agree with me, Perse?

:D

[Mas1981]

Fairy nuff, and absolutely, it is easy to put him on the leash and I can totally appreciate little 'uns paranoia. Was reading that horrible other thread with the injuries to schnauzer and maltese, which looked awful. I suppose I was a little surprised by the harsh reaction of the owner, particularly as Archie had sniffed one or two others small ones and owners generally smile and we all move on (including Archie who usually finds no interest in the littlies and vice versa). As far as bounding, no, it's not ideal, he is still pretty young though, and he is improving every time we go to this particular park (too crowded for my liking so we go once every few months at best). He recalled pretty much every time, and my mistake for not realising earlier that I should have called him off this particular dog sooner. The other dog was actually displaying some quite aggressive behaviour in his mum's arms although obviously I don't know his history.

All good :D

Warning: A Rant

There have been so many posts on annoying out of control yappy aggressive little dogs. I thought I'd offer "The little dog POV ..."

Playful bouncy young labs are among the most dangerous dogs for my old chi cross. He has luxating patellas and a bad back. One playful knock would mean not only pain but quite likely the need for surgery. Even when I keep him on lead and tell the owners of these dogs that he does not like labs or that he may get hurt, they insist their dogs are friendly. When I pick him up to keep him out of their way, they lecture me on how bad it is to pick up small dogs--it makes them aggressive, etc, etc. However, when my dog is in obedience classes with well trained labs in a controlled situation he shows no aggression at all towards them. He'll sit next to a lab in long stays. He'll act as 'a post' and allow the labs to weave around him. We rarely go to off lead areas but even owners with onlead dogs want to force my dog to socialise with their dogs or want to "cure" my dog of his discomfort with bouncy young dogs by forcing him to interact. It drives me nuts.

Di

I think by naming labs as a "dangerous" dog for your old boy is being a bit unfair, ALL of the large breed dogs would be a danger for him then such as ridgebacks, great danes, boxers, they are all large and high energy. The only reason that labs get picked on is that there are so many of them around. Personally if i had an old dog I would never take them to an off lead park because accidents do happen , a dog could be running for his own ball and step on your oldie by mistake.

[jackie_a1]

For me there is an unwritten dog leash law.

If your dog is off leash REGARDLESS how well behaved, how big, small, friendly etc and PEOPLE and or ANIMALS are within view/range you MUST put your dog on a leash. If the people agree to let your dogs meet then its on agreeable terms. No dogs bound up to anyone and no dogs get scared or hurt. Some people don't like dogs running over to them no matter how friendly. Some people arent dog saavy and cannot distinguish between aggression and play some breeds display different traits completely.

I don't apply this law to off leash parks because I don't go to off leash parks I apply this to parks, playgrounds, public places. It's courtesy.

Boss is 16 weeks old and I know he won't hurt anyone or be threatening but he does like to greet people I'm a dog person but I wouldn't want a muddy puppy jumping all over me I'd think the owner needs to take better control of his dog. Same applies to all dogs.

[Kavik]

Who knows what other factors were involved in this one example. In nature there's a mechanism of correction in that if you're rude or aggressive, you'll be dissuaded from that sort of behavior one way or another. The whole purpose of play in any specie, including humans, is to create an understanding of behavioral protocols. I know humans love to think they're super special and know best, but the natural world has done fine for millions of years without human orchestration and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

Unfortunately, Hetzer, the dogs who live with us in our human 'civilised' world aren't "in nature". They don't have the daily freedoms they used to have, to wander and mix freely with other dogs as they used to in my childhood days, to self socialise. And what that means is that there are many dogs who aren't always 'stable' in themselves, so to allow your dog to wander freely using off-lead parks for the purpose is not something that will assure you your dog will learn appropriately or fairly or sufficiently, because those dogs themselves have not necessarily learnt appropriately or fairly or sufficiently. By comparison to the UK, for example, our dogs aren't as settled as theirs seem to be (generally speaking). In contrast, our society regards dogs in general as something that is anti-social to be around. In the UK, they have the freedom to travel and mix with humans in their day to day lives outside of their homes. Here, we've battled laws that suggest they shouldn't be in outdoor cafes for fear of a dog hair floating and making its way over to someone who might be eating. :D, to name just one.

Here, the push seems to be to isolate the dogs more and more from 'life', yet somehow miraculously expect the dogs to be completely comfortable with 'life'. Which means that after generations of dogs not learning well enough themselves, we have many enough who are bad teachers.

So, to suggest (which I think you were) that it is a better thing to let your dog run up to other dogs (whether that be because you allow them to or whether that be because you have no control to stop it) ...... I'm afraid I can't agree.

:D

[megan_]

Mrs Tornsocks - I haven't read all the posts so I hope I'm not repeating everything. First off, well done for recognising that there may be an issue and asking for opinions. So many people think that if their dog isn't attacking another then anything goes.

I own a small dog that is very nervous of dogs that get in her face- labs are the worst offenders unfortunately. She is this way because she was kept as a puppy farm breeding bitch in a cage most of her life. She has improved in leaps and bounds but is still nervous when she feels "smothered". When a dog approaches her like this I ask the owner to get their dog.

I don't care if the dog is friendly or not - they are scaring my girl and with each bad interaction her behaviour becomes more and more ingrained. I know that most dogs aren't trying to attack her - that is beside the point. She will snap at any dog that does this to her and I don't know how the other dog will react. What if they take offence and attack her back? They are often much bigger than her.

I don't buy the whole "just let the dogs sort it out" bit. That works for "normal" dogs, not dogs who have been abused and have to learn what "normal" is.

All I want to do is take my girl for a walk. I really isn't much to ask.

[mrs tornsocks]

Thanks heaps everyone for all the input, some great posts here !

[Adnil444]

My two labs are like yours, over enthusiastic! I am very concious of how they approach other dogs and will put them on lead whenever someone else comes within range with another dog until I can communicate with the owners. They are never looking for a fight but especially having two of them they will easily intimidate other dogs big and small.

Just re read your post, if you are in a signed off lead area, especially if there are already several dogs off lead, then I would say it is up to the people entering with thier dog if they want to interact with the dogs already there, if they don't then they shouldn't enter.

Technically, this is not right. Although admittedly it is the current days' common consensus of opinion by most of those who take their dogs and use the off-lead areas for exactly that purpose. But effective control is what each and everyone of them is supposed to have before they exercise the privilege of being allowed to let their dogs off-lead. Unfortunately, because so many people have the attitude of "if you don't want dogs running over to you in an off-lead area then don't come here" it's too hard to battle it without risking it being at the expense of their own dog's safety and that's exactly what a lot of people who are conscientious about the problems that can and do occur at off-lead parks do - they don't go. Even though they too are entitled to their share of the park and peaceable enjoyment of it.

Hi, agree with you. I am petitioning our council to have our very large fenced dog park segregated for small dogs and large dogs - with one small effort, most of the problems at the dog park would disappear. The small dog owners I'm sure would appreciate having an area that they felt comfortable with knowing that the larger dogs were not going to bound up or knock them over etc and vice versa for the larger dog owners - one of mine does get very excited if a small dog runs and squeals and will chase (and I always get her back and put her on lead or most of the times I anticipate that it will happen by constantly watching the little ones if they come near). In a segregated area, they can still mix and see each other through the fencing, but everyone would be safe.

There are far too many ignorant people who use dogs parks and sometimes the risks are just not worth it. IMO.