Bloody labrador

[bikerwaser]

sometimes when approaching a dog and owner I think about using the grass to pass by but have decided against that since rolling over dog [inappropriate word removed]. it's a shame that so many of the cycle paths seem to be used as dog walking areas. I have 2 choices for my journeys : dice with death on the roads or dice with dogs on the cycle path.

[pwa]

sometimes when approaching a dog and owner I think about using the grass to pass by but have decided against that since rolling over dog <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i>. it's a shame that so many of the cycle paths seem to be used as dog walking areas. I have 2 choices for my journeys : dice with death on the roads or dice with dogs on the cycle path.

Most "cycle paths" are not for the exclusive use of cyclists. They are for walkers, including dog walkers, too. That was the understanding when they were created. "Cycle tracks" is a lazy term for them, since walkers are at least as numerous on most. And with as much right to be there. As you indicate, this does mean we can't treat these tracks as "cyclists only" routes. We have to expect other types of path user. That is not, of course, a justification for poor control of dogs.

[Mark1978]

As a non dog person my understanding is limited but on a narrow shared use path which sees regular cycle traffic why do you still have a dog off the lead? Especially if you're unable to stop them gravitating towards the cyclist as I encountered about a dozen times yesterday.

I'm sure owners wouldn't walk alongside a road with a dog off the lead and yet here it's apparently fine?

Also whenever you have cause to complain about dogs; and it's usually when I'm a pedestrian not cycling - not so easy to get away - the owners seem to think "he won't hurt you" is sufficient. It's not; I don't want your stupid dog jumping up at me, I don't care if he's just trying to be friendly. I have no interest in your pet.

[Tangled Metal]

We once rented a farm cottage next door to the farm. There was this one collie that always jumped up at you, all friendly. One time the owner told us to give it a knock on the top of the head and it'll stop jumping up. I tried that but didn't think about my raised knee fending it off. I didn't mean to tap the dog's head hard but I did sending it down onto my knee. I felt so bad seeing the dog a little confused shall we say but it never jumped up at me again. It was still friendly just got the message.

[pwa]

As a non dog person my understanding is limited but on a narrow shared use path which sees regular cycle traffic why do you still have a dog off the lead? Especially if you're unable to stop them gravitating towards the cyclist as I encountered about a dozen times yesterday.

I'm sure owners wouldn't walk alongside a road with a dog off the lead and yet here it's apparently fine?

Also whenever you have cause to complain about dogs; and it's usually when I'm a pedestrian not cycling - not so easy to get away - the owners seem to think "he won't hurt you" is sufficient. It's not; I don't want your stupid dog jumping up at me, I don't care if he's just trying to be friendly. I have no interest in your pet.

You are right about loose dogs on busy paths. Common sense should tell people that it will end badly. But for your own sake, to reduce your own stress levels, it would be a good idea for you to relax a bit more with friendly dogs. They can still be a pest when you are trying to get somewhere, but knowing how to influence their behaviour yourself is a useful skill.

On the subject of less friendly dogs,I used to have a problem with a distinctly unfriendly Doberman (think teeth and raised hackles) that ran out into a road as I passed on my way to work. I shouted at it (a bit like returning the barking) and it seemed to prevent the dog closing in. That signalled his weakness. Eventually I decided to go on the offensive, and on one particular day, as I approached the dog's gate I slowed and readied myself for a counter attack. Sure enough, out he came, all teeth and barking. I turned and accelerated towards him, pointing at him and frowning whilst telling him in my loudest shouty voice to get back where he had come from. He halted in his tracks, his world turned upside down, and turned around. He went back through the gate with his head down and the stump of a tail tucked down, signifying defeat. I tell this story to show how knowing about dog psychology can help. Even with friendly dogs, knowing how to influence their behaviour can make your life easier. None of this is meant to excuse poor control of dogs by their owners.

[Tangled Metal]

Heard last night on countryfile that tail up signifies confidence or dominance. They were talking about Welsh sheepdog breed compared to collies. Surely an aggressive dog with tail up is something to be wary of. As opposed to a barking, aggressive dog with tail down. That latter case is probably a scared dog I reckon.

[brooksby]

Most "cycle paths" are not for the exclusive use of cyclists. They are for walkers, including dog walkers, too. That was the understanding when they were created. "Cycle tracks" is a lazy term for them, since walkers are at least as numerous on most. And with as much right to be there. As you indicate, this does mean we can't treat these tracks as "cyclists only" routes. We have to expect other types of path user. That is not, of course, a justification for poor control of dogs.

Turning that on its head, dog walkers need to remember that there will be cyclists using the path, with as much right to be there as them, and to take that into consideration when letting their dog off the lead or using a long-lead.

[pwa]

Heard last night on countryfile that tail up signifies confidence or dominance. They were talking about Welsh sheepdog breed compared to collies. Surely an aggressive dog with tail up is something to be wary of. As opposed to a barking, aggressive dog with tail down. That latter case is probably a scared dog I reckon.

Yes, the tail down bit was after I had dominated the interaction. The dog was chastened and in full retreat. Body language for dogs.

[pwa]

Most "cycle paths" are not for the exclusive use of cyclists. They are for walkers, including dog walkers, too. That was the understanding when they were created. "Cycle tracks" is a lazy term for them, since walkers are at least as numerous on most. And with as much right to be there. As you indicate, this does mean we can't treat these tracks as "cyclists only" routes. We have to expect other types of path user. That is not, of course, a justification for poor control of dogs.

Turning that on its head, dog walkers need to remember that there will be cyclists using the path, with as much right to be there as them, and to take that into consideration when letting their dog off the lead or using a long-lead.

Yes, on a path with regular traffic I think you are right.

[Tangled Metal]

Maybe we should re-evolve tails to keep dogs away!

Seriously though we ride an towpath near us and whilst some dogs and owners cause a problem most do not. I have a long term strategy over this. Whenever you see positive dog ownership you thank them.

Small thing but lm yesterday we passed a lady holding her alsatian to the opposite side of her body to us well before we got there. The dog looked excitable so was needed. I made a point to thank her in a clear and positive voice. Not sure how she took it but I was actually impressed at her consideration for others.

Compare that to the couple sat on a bench and 3 chatting ladies passing them. Neither had control of their 3 and 4 little dogs. As a result the two packs fought a bit making a noise that concerned my young son. The two groups were too busy talking among themselves to bother with what their dogs did. When the 3 ladies passed us one took too much attention to my son and I was close to taking action when it was eventually called,v after they had left it behind.

[pwa]

As someone who has had dogs, and who now occasionally walks dogs for neighbours who are getting too old to do it themselves, I have experience of dogs under my "control" doing things that I find embarrassing and feel a need to apologise for. I have always tried to keep dogs under proper control, but it is important for a dog's welfare that it is able to be off the lead from time to time. I try to ensure that this is done where it will not cause any problems, but occasionally I have got caught out. This happened to me once when I was about 17 years old and looking after a large dog that belonged to an aunt who had gone on holiday. The dog was friendly and playful with strangers, but it had one dislike that I did not know about. It hated joggers. I only discovered this when it ran after a jogger. Of course I ran after them and restrained the dog, apologising as I did so. And I made a mental note not to trust that dog anywhere that joggers were likely to appear without me noticing them first.

With this sort of thing in my memory bank I am less inclined to be quick to judge people whose dogs are a little wayward. So long as the owners seem keen to rectify the problem.

[Tangled Metal]

Sensible pwa. I acknowledge that dogs are not always predictable and like young children will embarrass you at some point.

My issues are related to those who just do not seem to care or want to learn about responsible dog ownership. It is perhaps not the place to have untrained dogs off the lead where cyclists are likely to come round a bend quicker than you can get your dog under.control. Or to allow your dog to get too far away from you.

My other pet dislike are those little happy dogs and more importantly their irresponsible owners. I may be unfair lumping them all as irresponsible but IME those types of dog are owned by ppl who do not acknowledge that they need at least as much quality training as a big dog. As a result they do not have their place set low enough in the pack. Small dogs tend to behave as top dog. This creates issues. Just because it's small and you can pick it up doesn't stop it being dangerous or needing to be under your control. All dogs need training, Simples. Well owners more so.

[robing]

All this amateur dog psychology is all very well, but we have a right to cycle without being chased by out of control dogs, no matter if they are being "friendly " or "wanting to play", end of. I do think however a good squirt of your water bottle would deter most dogs.

[pwa]

All this amateur dog psychology is all very well, but we have a right to cycle without being chased by out of control dogs, no matter if they are being "friendly " or "wanting to play", end of. I do think however a good squirt of your water bottle would deter most dogs.

I don't think anyone is denying that dogs should be kept under reasonable control in public areas. But the "dog psychology" is useful if and when they aren't. I'm not sure about the water bottle ploy. I wouldn't try it with an angry dog.

[Psamathe]

All this amateur dog psychology is all very well, but we have a right to cycle without being chased by out of control dogs, no matter if they are being "friendly " or "wanting to play", end of. I do think however a good squirt of your water bottle would deter most dogs.

I don't think anyone is denying that dogs should be kept under reasonable control in public areas. But the "dog psychology" is useful if and when they aren't. I'm not sure about the water bottle ploy. I wouldn't try it with an angry dog.

I agree.

What I find particularly disappointing is when people start "... we have a right to cycle without being chased ...". When people start resorting to "rights" it means they no longer consider working with people in a pleasant friendly manner but instead are just demanding rights. And those having demands made on them will get their backs-up and so non-cooperation will escalate, cyclists (minority) will get an even worse reputation and everybody will lose.

Most rides I am "disrupted" at least once (dogs disruption being a rarity) but somebody or something that I could demand rights over, something that by the rules should not happen. But I (and other cyclists) would soon get a pretty dreadful reputation were I to start with the stroppy "but I have rights ...". Far more effecting is to have a pleasant chat with whoever, phrasing the benefit in their own interest. For example, when I last had a dog get in my way I slowed, had a pleasant chat with the owner about road state, weather and mentioned how I get scared about injuring dogs when the lunge because they (dogs) don't appreciate the risk of them being injured, etc. and they suddenly appreciate that vet bills are high and I ride on in good humour (not having any agro arguments), dog owner will be more careful next time (to protect their much loved dog), dog owner regards cyclists as pleasant good humoured friendly people and everything is in the spirit of cooperation. Demand "your rights" and say goodbye to cooperation, etc.

Ian