Kids are not more special than anyone else, but they also have as much right as anyone else to be in public. Old people can go to the dog park, Chinese people can go to the dog park, Lutherans can go to dog parks, kids can go to dog parks. As members of the public , you can expect to find them in public spaces, such as public parks, and it makes sense to plan for that inevitability.
I’ve known toddlers I wouldn’t take on a field trip to a bubble wrap dealership, but I’ve also known toddlers who are happy to follow simple rules like “stay on the bench.” And the great thing about babies in strollers (especially high up car seat ones) is that they can cry as much as they like, but they aren’t going anywhere or getting in to anything- so if baby is crying because she needs a diaper change, you can gather the rest of the kids and make an exit. Again, won’t work for every group of tots, but it doesn’t really beggar the imagination either.
Why do you keep bringing race and religion into this? You do know that dogs not being good with little kids is not the same as dogs not being good with people of other races or religions, right?
Dogs can actually sometimes react differently to people of races or cultures other than their owners, but that’s down to their owners to control because it’s all about the dog’s reaction. On the other hand, almost all dogs might, at some times, cause harm to unknown small children, because unknown small children are much more likely than adults to pull a dog’s tail to get attention, run into the path of a bounding dog, try to grab a ball, especially if their adult is splitting her supervision among three children. None of that applies to race.
Public swimming pools usually have rules about the number of kids per adult, don’t they? Especially under-fives. Having your child around unknown dogs in an area specified for dogs is at least as big a risk.
It does beggar the imagination that one parent could keep three tiny kids under control in a dog park. All the dog owners would have to put their dogs on a leash for the time you were there. What fun. What a good use of a dog park that is.
FWIW: I’m pretty sure that we’re talking about specific dog parks here. If we’re talking about general parks then… well… the whole thread wouldn’t make sense.
Not singling out the poster, just quoting it as representative of several people have said. The above surprises me, as our local dog park has clearly posted rules – in two places, the entrance sign and on the gate itself – explicitly banning children under 8 from the dog park for safety.
I don’t know about the park in question in the OP, but our local one is partly paid for by families with dogs, and they were the driving force behind it.
For apartment-dwellers with dogs, a fenced-in in area in which their dogs can run off-leash is a desirable physical feature. The local ballparks and tennis courts all have learned to post “NO DOGS” signs. So a dog-specific park was built, and with the county’s explicit permission, the NO CHILDREN UNDER 8 rule (along with other rules) was posted.
It it is constantly flouted by parents. Personally, I don’t have too much problem with dog-loving kids who want to see or be with the dogs, but in other cases I suspect parents are using the fenced-in area to keep their children from escaping while they browse or chat on their smartphones.
There was a large golden retriever in the room when my daughter was born; she’s always been around large dogs; consequently, I have no experience with bringing up a child who is uneasy around dogs (large or small). My initial impression was that it would be a good way to get small children comfortable being around dogs of all sizes.
My immediate second impression was that it is the mother’s responsibility to ensure that before her children approach any dogs, the dogs’ owner(s) be given an opportunity to refuse the encounter. If the errrr, assertive gentleman mentioned in the OP was the only dog owner in the park, his rights (and rightness) were limited to refusing access to his animal(s); in demanding that the family leave, he was speaking for every other dog owner in the park, both then and on the occasions of any future visits they might make.
That strikes me as presumptuous and rude, and I do not support his demand.
-I’m going out on a limb and guessing that people-parks in the area outnumber dog-parks by at least three to one.
-Person who “yelled” at mom and told her to leave is clearly a Crazy Dog Person and should probably not be left unsupervised.
-Mom makes poor decisions. However, “The husband of said mother informs me that the city told them…” tells me that this was premeditated and that poor decisions are not restricted to a single parent/guardian.
-Pretty much everyone in this scenario is wrong (aside from the city spokesperson and the toddlers). Dogs can sometimes behave unpredictably, as can small children. Some dog owners are irresponsible, as are some parents (as clearly demonstrated above). Pointing fingers can go both ways on this one.
Maybe it’s the closest park to home, and the kids don’t have a yard to play in. Walking them over to the dog park is certainly one option, and is probably completely legal, but that doesn’t make it a particularly good option.
Two things that catch my eye. One is that “the city” is a lot of different offices. No telling which office the husband called or whether another office would have given a different answer. If the dog owners call whichever department is in charge of parks and expresses concern about this safety issue and the potential liability to the city, they might be able to get a sign put up clarifying things.
Another is that, although the husband did some manly phone calling, I’m assuming that he was not there when the event happened or the altercation would have been mentioned. That means that the mother had three children under five years old and only two hands to control them. I’ve been in that position. She was being an ass. Unless the dogs were all tiny, she was also endangering her children.
With three children under five, it’s entirely possible that she originally headed to the park because it was too tiring to control them if she took them for a walk in the mall. Kids learn really quickly that mommy can’t grab them when her attention is on the other kid. Even if they’re unusually obedient kids, they will know that they have a shot at yielding to temptation when her attention shifts and they will have radar that tells them when that happens.
Park rangers? What kind of city has park rangers? Serious question, I’m curious. We have maintenance guys who will not get involved in disputes and who will tell you to call a cop if you want intervention.
Around here, “dog parks” are fenced dog runs set into the far corners of a few regular parks. I’m going to keep using the term, but “dog parks” is kind of misleading. They’re dog runs.
I’m guessing that any cops called would suggest that she take her kids out of the dog run and let them play in the park. That’s just my guess and other city’s mileage may vary. Here the cops don’t come to traffic accidents unless there is an injury or one of the cars is disabled in the roadway.
I’m sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this one. Three preschoolers in a dog park is trolling for a law suit. There is nothing reasonable about it. The toddlers have no need to be there. I wouldn’t think it was wise even if they came with a dog. Three preschoolers + two hands = difficult crowd control. It’s a situation where it’s difficult to go to the grocery store and you can put two of them in the cart, there.
Three preschoolers + two hands + dogs = disaster waiting to happen. Even with her own dog there, that woman would be endangering her kids. The other dog people might think that she’d be less likely to sue or demand that a dog be put down when the inevitable happened, but depending on how well she kept the kids corralled away from the dogs, she might have been asked to leave anyway. No way could she watch her own dog properly with three preschoolers to watch.
When our dogs play in their own back yard, they run along slamming into each other. It’s what dogs do in a dog area. Most of the time they’re pretty careful, but I’ve seen them take out a full-sized metal wheelbarrow or bounce off of the fence. The wheelbarrow made enough noise that they shifted attention for half a second before changing direction and continuing the game. The fence was just ignored.
If you add uncontrolled toddlers it is no longer a dog park. The dogs can’t run safely. You can’t even throw them a ball, because they fixate on the ball and won’t see the kid in the way. The area has essentially been stolen. And there is no way for one adult to completely control three toddlers in such a distracting environment.
Add in one more fact. Dogs will put up with a lot from puppies. They care about puppies and will put up with things that they would not put up with from another dog. But when a puppy goes over the line, it gets a puppy nip, which can come with a quick half growl. It’s not a vicious thing, it’s a socializing thing. It’s teaching the puppy. If the puppy doesn’t get it, the dog will pull out the big guns and walk away.
Unless a dog has been trained to be around toddlers, she will treat the toddler like a puppy. That includes putting up with a lot, but giving him a puppy nip when he crosses the line. She won’t walk away first because to a dog that’s a much bigger punishment. People without dogs assume that she’d just naturally walk away first. She won’t be that mean. They won’t see it that way.
Considering that a puppy nip can count as a bite, and considering that some cities require biting dogs to be put down, taking three preschoolers into a dog park is threatening the lives of every dog in the park.* The kids are probably only in danger of being knocked over or nipped. They could be in more danger, if the wrong dog is there, but the inevitable things are being knocked over or nipped. And if they’ve got a mother whose judgement is bad enough that she’ll take them into a dog park, they’re going to have these learning experiences anyway. So I’ll save my worry for the dogs.
Not liking confrontation myself, I’d have taken my dog and left. I may have called the cops to report child endangerment, depending on how many dogs were in the park and how big they were. I hope they get enough comments to convince them that, legal or not, that was bad, BAD judgement. Bad. Shudderingly bad.
Everyone saying kids have rights or control your dog are idiots. It’s a dog run. You don’t take uncontrolled toddlers into a dog run. It’s a dog run. And there will be dogs. Running.
Yes, I know that’s a worse case scenario. People with kids and dogs learn to think of worse case scenarios.
I’ve got two kids who are under the age of six and I cannot imagine taking them both by myself to a dog park. When we lived in Tokyo, there was a park which people let their dogs run around off leash early in the morning. I would sometime be walking past there and while they never bothered my kids, there’s just no way I’d take my kids into the area. Outside of there, no problem, and 99% of the owners were really cool.
While it may be legal, I think she’s being stupid.
While I’m not a dog owner, I assume that at dog parks it’s understood that not all dogs are completely under control and there is a small chance of getting into small fights in all the excitement. Not really big ones, but enough to scare little kids.
The OP says that when the family called the city to complain, they were told it’s a public area so any member of the public could be there. However, when I read that, I also wondered a bit how exactly the parent described the situation on the phone call, because it is SO different from my local dog parks. The fenced in, off-leash area: dogs and dog minders only. The larger public park area that the dog run is part of: yes, of course, anyone can be there.
I understand what you’re saying, but just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean you’re not a jerk for doing it. I have a right to have a picnic in the middle of the nearest public baseball field as long as no one has a permit- but I’d be a real jerk to prevent the field from being used for its intended purpose. I would have to leave a dog run if someone came in with three toddlers- and it’s not because my dog isn’t good with children. In fact, my my dog loves children, but he weighs over 100 lbs and because a) it’s easy for him to knock a toddler over and b) he’s so big that little kids are sometimes frightened I would have to be right on top of him/put him on a leash. Which defeats the whole purpose of taking him to the dog run.
Now about the OP- first off, I’m not really sure what we’re talking about here. Is it part of a large park with lots of areas for designated activities (dog runs restricted to dogs and owners, playgrounds restricted to children under 12, dedicated model airplane fields, bridle paths etc.) or a large open area where dogs are permitted off leash ( possibly during certain hours) or just an area where people let their dogs off leash, although it’s not permitted? Because that phone call sounds strange. I can maybe imagine calling a city agency to see if I am permitted in that park with toddlers and without a dog, but I can’t see a city agency telling me to call the police if some random person tells me to leave . It’s certainly not a crime for him to tell me to leave. What are the police going to do? They can’t arrest him for teling me to leave. Unless of course dogs aren’t permitted off leash in the area during the time in question, in which case he can get a summons.
And to me, what kind of area it is makes a huge difference in determining who’s right or wrong. You shouldn’t go to a dedicated dog run with three toddlers and no dog , but the owner of the unleashed dog has no right to have the dog unleashed in an area where leashes are required. In the middle case, where it’s just an open area where unleashed dogs are permitted, well, everyone has an equal right to be there.
In my city, you have to pay for a license for your dog. And if you want to take him to an off-leash city dog park, you pay *again *for an off-leash dog park license on top of that. So yes, the people there with licensed, paid-for dogs have more right to be in the park than some family without a dog who, presumably, haven’t paid either fee.
There are 2 dog parks I take my dogs to. One has rules that don’t allow kids, the other (the one I predominantly go to) doesn’t have the same restrictions. The parks are run by different cities which is why there’s a difference in policy.
I’ve never seen lone kids in the park I go to but it’s kind of out of the way. The kids who do come seem to have a great time and I’ve never seen any problems. But then again, because they have dogs most know how to properly act around them.
I ride my bike at White Rock Lake in Dallas many weekends which is a very popular park trafficked by lots of people. There’s a dog park in there that I could easily imagine attracting the attention of people nearby. I’d have no problem with a mother taking her kids in to play with the dogs for a short while so long as they acted properly. She may have just been seeing how they’d react before she bought a dog herself.
On the flip side, I would not be ok with non dog owners coming into the dog park to hang out. There’s only so much space for the dogs to play and I’d be worried about ulterior motives.
Here in my neck of the woods, the dog park is a fenced off zone attached to a larger primary park.
I am about as anti-animal rights as they come but in this case, the space has been designated for leash free dog play, and use for that activity should receive priority. It would be similar to demanding to picnic in the middle of a tennis court when people want to use it to play tennis. Sure its a public park, but there is 17 acres of space fair game for picnicking and half an acre designated to tennis courts. Picnicking there is being a jerk and you should expect people to be confrontational about it.
Short version: I think the mom was legally in the right. Nevertheless, she didn’t belong there with 3 children under 5 years old.
I’ve never owned a dog, but I’ve had friends with them and I think I understand dealing with a strange dog. If one approaches me in a curious manner, I’ll offer the back of my hand to sniff. If they approve and let me know, I’ll pet them. If they back away, I leave them alone. And I NEVER go after a dog I don’t know.
It’s only sort of failed me once. With a cousin’s pit bull I was meeting for the first time. We had proceeded to the me petting him stage. I had never pet a pit bull before and I had no idea how whiplike their tails were. He was wagging his tail incredibly fast and HARD too. He left red marks on my legs! Served me right for wearing cargo shorts, I guess. He was a good doggie.
I haven’t seen this happen often at the dog park where I go, but when it has it’s often parents with little kids, LITTLE kids, perhaps two or three years old. So the dog goes running up to a kid, maybe to beg for attention, and the kids shriek and run away. When the dog follows them the kid’s parents tell the owner to “control your dog!” When the dog owner replies that the fenced in off leash park is for dogs to be dogs. the kid parents get all huffy.
As to the OP, I agree with other posters, it may be legal but it’s stupid. Those dogs aren’t there to entertain the kids, and there’s no playground equipment in the dog park I go to, so kids get bored, run around and scream and holler.
Different places do things differently, of course. But it looks to me like the onus, at least here, is on the dog owners to keep their dogs under “control”, to prevent “aggressive behaviour” and that they are specifically told to “Respect other park users”, which term does not appear to exclude children.
It’s a shame that the dog owner didn’t take a moment and maybe educate the clueless mom. Teaching children how to safely introduce themselves to a strange dog is something that would benefit all dog owners.
Didn’t dig too far, but from the Toronto websiteit looks like most of those off leash areas are not fenced (at least some specifically mention that a fenced area is available while most do not). That would be more of a mixed area and I’d expect different rules. I’d also expect owners with romping idiot dogs or dogs that were nervous around children to be sure that they used an “off leash area” with a fence.
Then I’d expect people to keep toddlers out of the fenced dog run and to control their toddlers as they walk through any unfenced off leash area. You can look at the doggies, but you can’t go touch them. And they should be walking through. There will be no play areas in the off leash area, so there is no particular reason for the kids to be there and nothing to keep their minds off of the dogs.
If you don’t keep your kids away from the dogs, especially after someone says their dog doesn’t like kids, you are being a jerk and endangering your kid. If you are keeping the kids away from the dogs in a mixed use area, running you off is probably illegal and it’s possible that the guy was being a complete jerk.
Texas is a big place and I guess I have no clue whether this was a fenced area or not. So she may have been completely legal and he may have been a jerk. But toddlers and strange dogs are a bad mix. I’d never fight for my right to expose my toddler to strange dogs.
