John, can you clarify your statement on your last post please. You state... "A walk leader can bar dogs from a walk" Is that with your National Committee hat on, or your personal view?

If it is a National Committee Ruling how can a walk leader enforce it if the walk is solely on public rights of way?

I know you attend LDWA social walks and I don't, so how big is the dog problem on social walks?

My experience on this is, I've never had any problems with members dogs and I can only think of one case of a members dog being a bit of a nuisance and that was over 20 years ago. The only trouble I've had and still do have is with strangers dogs while out walking. I've been bittern four times while walking, always by friendly dogs I may add. I'm always the first person their beloved child whoops sorry I mean dog as ever attacked and I'm blamed for there attack on myself. What I do now is to take a photograph of any dog and it's owner that I see running up towards me just in case it dose bite me. (that's the dog not the owner) When the owners see's me take photos they tend to put their dogs on it's lead very quickly.

So maybe the answer is, don't ban dogs just carry a camera. ;-)

A walk leader can bar dogs from a walk and as far as I am concerned (with personal hat on) they should be kept away from any walk.

I hike and run. Some dogs are worrying but owners are the problem! Some of these people think their animals speak English and they shout, scream and panic as they try to keep control. Of course most dogs take no notice. It is so boring when an owner tells me that their dog will not hurt me. I had a Red Setter grab me by the wrist and when I kneed the dog off me this neurotic woman had a go at me for being so cruel to her little darling!

Iain.

I don't own a dog, never have done, never felt any inclination to have one. However I think you've summed up the situation very nicely.

I like dogs.

But I still think dogs should only be allowed on group walks under certain restrictions. These have been well-voiced here and in the LDWA's current position on dogs and walks, which which I broadly agree.

I like dogs.

The problem with most people's views on dogs and walks (and much else) is that they tend to mask their prejudices for or against dogs (or whatever) with extreme-like or extreme-dislike stories, or, more even-handedly, with one or more pragmatic reasons why dogs on walks (or whatever) are a good idea or a bad idea.

So please, on this already well-stuffed theme, from now on may we hear from *only*:

(a) People who like dogs or own one or more dog, but *still* think that dogs should be allowed on group walks only under conditions which acknowledge the rights of non-dog owners and the owners/managers of the land crossed by group walks,

and

(b) People who don't like dogs (and probably don't own one), but *still* think that dogs should be allowed on group walks under conditions which acknowledge the rights of dog owners and the owners/managers of the land crossed by group walks.

I like dogs. I wouldn't take a dog on a group walk unless I agreed it with the walk leader beforehand, and my dog were insured and on a lead at all times (except on open ground without visible animal stock on the dog's side of any secure walls or fences). If our route were to cross land with animal stock I would go as far round the animals as possible, keeping the dog on a short lead.

Dogs on group walks can be a damn nuisance, but I still think they should be allowed under restricted conditions. I suggest a new acronym: COLI (Chipped, On a Lead, Insured). (That's the dog.)

Iain.

Paul - you've released the skeleton in the closet again!

My head tells me that this post is not a good idea, whilst my heart urges me to confess.
Yes, I must come out of the closet and at the risk of becoming a social outcast, ostracised by my walking companions, confess that I don?t like dogs. Yes, I belong to that small minority of abnormal, weird oddballs, who do not appreciate open displays of canine affection.
All that I ask is to be allowed to enjoy the outdoors, in peace, without menace or threat. Please, dogs and your human friends just pass by on the other side and leave me alone.
I must also confess my guilt to some anti dog behaviour that has antagonised otherwise friendly, playful canines and justifiably annoyed their human companions. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.
Jogging (very slowly) in my local park. The dog?s human companion rightly pointed out that I should confine such activity to a running track.
Having a beard, sorry that I did not realise that some dogs don?t like them.
Moving my arms quickly whilst walking, once again apologies for dog disturbance.
Carrying a stick, pretty obvious, should have known that dogs like to grab them.
Do I have to become clean shaven, walk at a gentle pace with my hands in my pockets and leave the Leki at home in order to enjoy a peaceful stroll in the countryside?

I walked my dog every day for 13 years - mostly in Staffordshire, as it happens - until he finally expired. He was an amiable old dog who approached nearly everyone we met, and most people were quite OK with this, and a friendly conversation often developed. There was the very occasional miserable old curmudgeon but their grumpiness could usually be defused by apologizing for the inconvenience and wishing them a good walk, while secretly hoping they would very soon stumble into a water-filled ditch.

I suppose in the end, one either likes dogs or one doesn't, and no amount of argument will change that!

Dave

Is it me or are we getting more and more irresponsible dog owners? I ask this question as nearly every time my wife and I go out walking we come across dogs running loose and trying to jump all over us with their muddy paws and licking with their slimy tongues. When their owners finally turn up all you get is ' it won't hurt you' my reply is how do we know that? This happened twice yesterday, one owner even said we should not go walking if we didn't like dogs! I told them it's not the dog I didn't like but their irresponsible owner and told them to keep it on a lead if they could not control it. We were not so lucky some 10 days ago as my wife was bitten on her thigh by a dog who we thought was just being playful. This resulting in a inconvenient trip to our local A and E for a 2hr wait for a dressing and tetanus jab. (Worryingly the bite was at the height of the face of a young child). A lot of owners seem oblivious to what their dog is up to while they walk along with music playing in their ears or messing around with their smartphones. While I'm on this rant, who are these disgusting people who think it's clever to hang their dog poo bags on trees, decorating them like some christmas tree? I recently saw a 2 foot high cairn of the things. This was at an A.O.N.B.- not for long if this filthy habit carries on.

Good to see the LDWA dogs on walks policy now showing on the headers. Certainly clarifies the situation and its good to know that we will not have to ask permission in future as it will be clearly stated on the event listing. Here's hoping we will be welcome on as many walks as possible.

John's original text of " Personally, I would ban dogs from all LDWA walks, plus all dog owners.......discuss", may or may not have been serious, but the difficulty he and other committee members face when posting provocative views, or jokes, etc on here is that readers will inevitably find it difficult to separate the "personal view" from the "committee member view" and this is why other forums allow multiple identities so committee members (and others) may post their more outrageous views under a pseudonym without being tarred and feathered by the more reactionary members.

Pseudonyms also, as this topic has illustrated, produce a more lively Forum!

To Simon the Mod.


Because of information I've just received (I will not go into details on here) would you please lock this thread. After all it's not long before all the details will be known to everybody when April's Strider comes out.

Simon I'm reporting this post, so with a bit of luck it will flag up in your e-mail box.

John, but this is about you having information gained at national committee meetings and then half hinting on here what that information is.
With office comes responsibility not only us rank and file members but to your fellow committee members. I have great respect for ALL members who take on the role of office, one that I would not do.

John, I think you are blowing this whole thing out off prospective, mate. It would be a very naive person indeed not to expect the rank and file uses of this forum to want more information on this subject. In hindsight John maybe it would have been best to keep quite about it and just to let us all read about it in Aprils Strider.

John you seem to forget that all the walk organisers. social walk leaders and marshals out here are also volunteers, and have all recived ill informed, unwarranted criticism, complaint and abuse and this communications shambles is making their lives far harder.
I disagree with you when you sat the debate on the forum has been biggotted or ill tempered - I have found aspects very constructive. Just to be very clear - my views are that the decision to admit a dog on the walk should be within the unfettered discretion of the organiser, that any ban on dogs should be communicated to members in an clear and unambiguous way and that members should respect that ban.Is this bigotry? It seems to be totally compatible with the Perkins Slade advice - are they bigots?Perhaps fewer personal comments and more hard fact might be in order.

John, please don't take it personally, either as a walker or a committee member. This was a matter that was always going to inspire strong emotions. We all know dog owners forge stronger relations with their animals than with their fellow LDWA members, children, spouses, or lovers (no names, no pack drill) and so it has proved! Millions of us work as voluntary sports officials, school governors, councillors, magistrates, arts trustees or whatever and so really appreciate the work that you and your colleagues do - we must do, otherwise we would be more prepared to do it ourselves!

My point is that even voluntary associations need some sort of protocol for how they communicate with their members on key or pressing issues between the publication of the periodic magazine. There almost certainly is one, but the absence of its obvious implementation might have led to some confusion and certainly strong feelings as to how dogs were to be treated in LDWA regulations. My observations are entirely about apparent process (and apologies if I have misconstrued) rather than individuals. A forum like this can be both a blessing and a curse so I'll do my best to remain as "measured" in my posts as possible!

Ah well, as Janet suggests, I'm off to dig out my flippers

ps the very best wishes for your PF - I know what a multi-year enforced lay-off (not PF) feels like and how little fun it is

There are many of you out there who will not be prepared to accept any information unless it agrees with your opinions, so whatever advice is given with best intentions it will not be accepted

I said I had posted my last on this but like Arnie I am back. I don't see why I shouldn't post as a member and this has nothing to do with being on the Committee. Personally, I despair of some of the extreme expressions of some of you. Also, the attacks on the Committee - bear in mind - all volunteers, and there is abuse, rather than measured discussion. Ask yourselves why there have been 3 or more Local Groups Secretaries in 2 years and who will next elect to take on this poisoned chalice

And I was concerned that I would be forced to accept dogs on walks unless I could prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of an exceptionally rare amphibian the entire British population of which would be threatened by contact with any canine contaminant. I share your frustration with lack of proper information
Enjoy Devon and Cornwall and take your flippers ? I am told it?s very boggy!

Janet, I know what you mean and have witnessed so many semi-controlled dogs on walks that I was half expecting - but dreading - a total ban. My real point has less to do with pooches than the communication of policy, particularly one which was always going to arouse strong passions - this thread is currently registering 58 posts and more than 3,000 views! Many of us will be used to the notion of "corporate responsibility" and authorised spokespersons on trusts, boards and committees. It might be worth National Committee reviewing communications procedures (apologies if this is already in hand) so potential changes can be subject to proper consultation or diktat - but preferably not rumour!

Other than that, I'm now retiring from the Forum to enjoy Devon and Cornwall's lovely GPX files on my OS Getamap account (and no, the dog won't be joining me in Camelford as he's now almost 12 and restricted to 40 miles or fewer. What a wimp!)

As I said - you sounded very responsible so I am relieved and not surprised that you understand the point - however I can assure you that there are other members who do exactly as I have described

Janet, apologies for confusing matters, the words I used but obviously needed to accentuate more in my post were "to devise a walk on my own", in other words NOT following the walk route and causing the circumstance you describe! I wouldn't dream of following a walk where dogs weren't welcome (unless I was dog-less)

Hope that's cleared that one up! This thread will have taken years off people's lives in emotional stress by the time it is finished and I don't really think it was entirely necessary

John, sorry hear about the e-mails but I'm sure you gave as good as you got.

I think the trouble here is, John reveal a few details that will appear in April's Strider and refused to elaborate on them. This is a big change in policy that will effect quite a lot of people. John as opened a can of worms and maybe best (sticking my neck out again) if one of the National Committee Members could come on here and post in full the article that is to appear in April's Strider.

When I was involved in events we made sure that any/all dogs that was on the events got a badge and certificate free of charge, and I'm sure the to the owners they are a treasured memory when their dogs pass away.

Neil you sound to be a responsible and sensible dog owner but I think you have not thought through the consequences of wandering around a LDWA event route with your dog but not as part of the walk. As an individual you can walk whatever rights of way you please but the impression being given to 3rd parties, landowners, and other walkers if you are walking on an event route with an LDWA route description is that you are part of the event. Groups do not usually ban dogs from events because they begrudge them a biscuit and a bowl of water at a checkpoint - they are banned because the walk goes through pasture with sheep or cattle and the event organiser has spoken to the local farmers and assured them that dogs will not be allowed. Who gets the criticism if it appears that in fact dogs are participating - it?s the local group, not the walker. What is the organiser supposed to say to fellow walkers who complain that you have been allowed to bring your dog but they have not? - What about the member who has joined that particular walk because he doesn't like walking with dogs? It is not only badly behaved or uncontrolled dogs that cause problems - the best behaved ones can cause a very aggressive reaction in cattle with calves - and what happens if there is an incident - the LDWA is brought into disrepute. Please Neil - just stay at home if dogs are not allowed or go and walk somewhere well away from the route

That is a very good point Neil (Bromley), what is to stop say David (my other half) entering the event and using the checkpoints etc etc and me walking alongside him, with the dog, having not entered the event but following the route very closely and quite legally walking my dog on public rights of way. Not that we want to be awkward, but just making a point.

I'm really confused by all this. If Committee are contemplating a change or clarification of policy, surely they need a formal means of announcing it? I can't believe there is a policy of "drip feeding" such matters through the Forum; it seems inappropriate to manage these matters in such a way and likely to generate more heat than light (witness many of these posts, and the very large number of "views" from - doubtless rather bemused - Association members)

Personally, I'm a dog walker and am happy to accept the simple decision of a walk organiser or group as to their accepting dogs (my own local group doesn't, so I rarely join social walks). Otherwise, I try to behave in the same way on dog-accepting walks as I do generally and as the Countryside and Rights of Way and Livestock legislation requires: keeping the dog on a short lead around livestock, occasionally letting him off when conditions allow (eg Forestry Commission track, where not even a squirrel is likely to be seen), recognising that the law only allows the dog to be "off lead" while actually remaining on the right of way (probably a 1 metre wide footpath and not running around somebody else's private property) and cleaning up after him. I have £2m third party insurance cover and would be happy to produce it for walk organisers if requested. On occasion I have turned up to an event with the dog only to find that he is not welcome (instructions unclear or I simply missed the reference to "No Dogs") in which case I have formally "scratched" and used the route instructions to devise a walk on my own, without availing myself of control point refreshments but usually begging a cup of tea at the finish in return for my £6 entry fee (once the dog has been stowed back in the car)

(ps I've no intention of taking up golf - couldn't stand to be seen in a "sports-casual" Pringle sweater!)

This is my last post on this topic as it will be fully covered in Aprill's Strider and despite my best intentions I have received many unpleasant posts and texts from people who just cannot see past their bigoted beliefs. Some attack with abuse for my even attempting to approach this issue of dogs but hey it was the Committee's policy. My intelligence and competency has been impugned by some. I have had enough and will not cite particular groups, but they know who they are.

Lisa - David - in fact you and your dog would have been very welcome on the Wem Winter Wonderland which is held on arable land and on most of our social walks

Neil Fullwood............we respect your views as a farmer and that is why you will never see 'uncontrolled dogs' around livestock, I mean how irresponsible is that! We have no intention of taking up Golf Thankyou very much as much as you have no intention of giving up your job in the countryside.
We know dogs have never been welcome on Marches events for as long as I can remember, so we will continue to look for other suitable events. Thankyou Mr Leaden Boot.

John, when you say that dogs on paths are covered elsewhere, could you direct me to that link please.

Thank you Noel

John I've no axe to grid (none dog owner and been bittern 4 times by dogs while out walking) and I'm not trying to trip you up, but how can we legally ban dogs on walks then.

No rights whatsoever Ian and this is covered elsewhere. If public paths, then we can't prohibit folks from walking dogs.

John you say "not suitable for dogs" If the route is on 100% public rights of way, on what grounds have walk leaders or events got to ban them?

Janet P-L posted:

However I think saying "not suitable for dogs" is a hostage to fortune and will lead to misunderstanding and special pleading from those who think although the walk may be unsuitable for ordinary dogs their own animal will be OK

What is an ordinary dog? Is there a pecking order? What is not understandable about "Not Suitable for Dogs". If a walker comes along with a dog to a walk advertised thus, then they are not allowed to walk. What's the problem, we are dancing on the head of a pin.

Following on Noel Peat's post. If a walk is 100% on public rights of way, roads, paths and bridleways then how can LDWA groups ban dogs? Yes you can ban them from halls and checkpoints if on private land, but can you ban them on the route itself?

As the leader of the Leaden Boot Challenge, I have been watching this thread closely. Given the various comments on both sides of the debate, we approach our insurers for guidance. In their view, given that the route of our challenge follows public footpaths or bridleways, banning dogs would be quite difficult. As long as it is clearly stated in our event terms and conditions that dogs must be kept on leads etc., then, our insurers are fairly relaxed. Following our insurers comments, we will continue to allow dogs to join our challenge.

As an aside, we have only had positive comments from previous entrants, both walkers and runners, about dogs taking part in the event.

Yes good point Ian, we are just trying to comply with modern guidelines; the Committee has no axe to grind, just trying to get out a sensible policy to accommodate everyone and we have been accused as blinkered dog lovers! There is no way we can please everyone on this issue as certain folks, eg farmers, will never welcome dogs and some walkers will never recognise that their dog will be a total nuisance on a walk. My preference would be no dogs anywhere, but we have to accommodate folks with different feelings.

PC thinking, call it what you will. Not helped by many who just snipe and complain, both dog supporters and protagonists.

Can anybody explain why we need guild lines re dogs on walks. I've been walking with the LDWA since 1986 and not seen any real trouble with dogs. OK ban them from the hall at the start and finish, if only for the dogs sake. But I cannot see the sense of a blanket ban on them. I don't think the issue is with dogs on walks, more like the few odd owners who think their dogs have a god given right to get in everybody's way while doing events.

I fail to understand why John simply can't publish the advice from the LDWA insurers rather than his inaccurate take on it and the Ramblers policy statement. For clarity I copy the Perkins Slade advice to the LDWA below as it has been copied to me. It makes it clear that it is the decision of walk organisers as to whether dogs are allowed - there is no duty to justify an exclusion.
I am fully aware of the need to welcome assistance dogs on all activities of the organisation - as I made clear in my earlier posting. However I think saying "not suitable for dogs" is a hostage to fortune and will lead to misunderstanding and special pleading from those who think although the walk may be unsuitable for ordinary dogs their own animal will be OK. Using the words "Not suitable for dogs does not give the clarity required in the Perkins Slade advice.

Please note:
It is very important that the local groups or leaders make it very clear in advance to all members or
walkers when a dog is not welcome on a particular walk. It would be unacceptable for LDWA
members with dogs to turn up for a walk and be turned away.



The Ramblers ?Registered Assistance Dogs Only? is perfectly clear and I suggest the LDWA adopts the same wording.
Or you could say ?No dogs except registered assistance dogs?
Or ?Dogs not allowed save for registered assistance dogs?




Advice from LDWA Insurers
Dogs on Walks

The decision on whether or not dogs are permitted on an LDWA walk is up to the individual groups or leaders.

It is the responsibility of the leader to make certain the dog owner keeps it under close control, especially on farmland, and on a short lead near livestock.

Assistance dogs such as hearing or guide dogs are allowed on all suitable walks.

As noted above dogs may be permitted on walks where there is no problem with terrain or livestock and if the leader is comfortable with dogs.

Some walks won't be suitable for dogs (for example when the route covers a particular type of terrain, young farm animals are present, subject to quarantine i.e. Foot & Mouth) and the ultimate decision on whether to allow dogs lies with the individual group or walk leader.

Some groups may make the decision not to allow dogs on any walks but we would encourage groups to allow dogs wherever possible as is often the case that people may join the LDWA in order to walk with their dogs.
Insurers recommend that all dogs are kept under close control at all times, and kept on a lead on roads, near livestock or sensitive wildlife, where the terrain requires careful footwork and wherever the law or other official regulations require it.
Dog owners must ensure their dog does not alarm other people and they must clean up after their dog at all times. Walk leaders must remind dog owners of their responsibilities at the start of the walk.
Dogs on walks do not affect the insurance cover in any way but incidences caused by dogs are not covered by the LDWA insurance policy. Therefore, it is very important that the dog owners are aware of this and have their own Pet Owners Liability insurance cover in place.
Pet Insurance should include ?Third Party Liability? insurance which pays towards compensation and costs awarded against the owner by a court if the dog causes death or injury to a person, or causes
damage to someone else?s property. The walk leader should specifically ask,?Does this pet have liability Insurance?? and only accept the dog on the walk if the owner verbally confirms this.
Please note:
It is very important that the local groups or leaders make it very clear in advance to all members or
walkers when a dog is not welcome on a particular walk. It would be unacceptable for LDWA
members with dogs to turn up for a walk and be turned away.

Perkins Slade Ltd
January 2013

I have received criticism regarding the wording used in my post and of course I should have stated that "The decision on whether or not dogs are permitted on an LDWA walk is up to the individual groups or leaders. " - taken from a statement by our insurers, Perkin Slade. This is implied in the walk wordings - "Not Suitable for Dogs", as only a walk leader(s) would know if his recce'd walk had unsuitable terrain/beasts/breeding birds etc. "Assistance Dogs only" means what it says, only (registered) assistance dogs allowed. The walk leader would be entitled to turn away any dog where it is stated "Not suitable for dogs" in a walks publicity, web or Strider. I should have been more explicit perhaps but this policy will be clarified further in the next Strider and I will circulate it prior to Strider publication to Group Secretaries and "webmasters"/walk leaders.

I have been criticised, again, for not using the simpler "No Dogs". I say "I", but this is LDWA Committee policy. I refer you to the extract below, taken from The Ramblers policy. If any of you barrack-room lawyers out there prefer to argue the point, take it up with those who formulated the Disability Act (2010) - we cannot say "No Dogs"!

"Title: Dogs on walks

Reference: LED009

Guidance

The decision on whether or not dogs are permitted on a Ramblers walk has been devolved to Areas, then to Groups and then to individual leaders themselves. Dogs may be permitted on some walks where there is no problem with terrain or livestock or if the leader themselves is comfortable with dogs. Some groups have made the decision not to allow dogs on any walks but we would encourage groups to allow dogs wherever possible at is often the case that people join Ramblers in order to walk with their dogs and like minded people. Some Groups have trialed dog friendly walks and found them to be very successful, both boosting the number of members and helping promote the diversity of Ramblers walks.

We recommend that dogs are kept under close control and kept on a lead on roads, near livestock or sensitive wildlife, where the terrain requires careful footwork and wherever the law or other official regulations require it. The only exception to this rule is in the event of walkers being threatened by cattle (they can become unsettled by the presence of dogs). In that circumstance dog owners are advised to release the dog from its lead ? the dog will be able to run away and the cattle?s interest will be diverted from the walkers to the dog. The Coastguard reminds dog walkers to keep dogs on leads near cliffs. ?There are so many exciting distractions for dogs in coastal walks that even the most docile dog has been known to go over cliff edges?.

Dog owners must ensure their dog does not alarm other people and they must clean up after their dog. We encourage walk leaders to remind dog owners of their responsibilities at the start of the walk.

Dogs on walks do not affect the insurance cover in any way and incidences caused by dogs are covered by the insurance policy, as long as the activity is a recognised Ramblers activity.

Wording for Walks Programmes

Please note under the Disability Equality Act (2010) the wording of ?no dogs? on walks programmes is in breach of the Act. The Act covers in-direct disability discrimination; this occurs when there is a policy or practice which disadvantages people with a disability. An example from the Act is a ?No Dogs? rule which particularly disadvantages assistance dog users. Therefore an organisation is required to make reasonable adjustment to this rule to ensure that no disadvantage occurs.
Assistance Dogs covered by the Act are:
? hearing dogs
? guide dogs
? service dogs
? therapy dogs
? seizure alert dogs

Under the Act, these dogs must be allowed to walk with their owners. If Groups, Areas or Walk Leaders do not wish dogs on their walks they must state ?Registered Assistance Dogs Only?."

Discussion of this topic over the past year or so has demonstrated among other things, an apparently lamentable level of knowledge and appreciation on the part of many LDWA Members who own dogs, of what it means to be a livestock farmer in the British countryside. I say this as a sheep farmer and owner of working dogs in the hill country of the Welsh Marches for over 40 years, an active Member of the Association and organiser of the South Shropshire Circular for 30 years and a life-long hill goer and mountaineer. With the exception of Matt Clarke last month and Mike Childs last November, no contributor has made any reference whatever to the potential impact of uncontrolled dogs on farm livestock. The countryside is not simply an extention of your local recreation ground or park where you might normally walk your dog. It's a place where people live and work hard to make a living and that's not an easy one in the uplands. When an event organiser says "No Dogs" it should not be presumed that this reflects an inherent dislike of dogs and their owners. Rather it probably indicates that he respects the perfectly reasonable concern of his livestock-farming neighbours, particularly at such critical times as Springtime lambing. No event organiser can or should be expected to assume potential responsibility for damage caused by dogs on an event so just think for a moment about the people who live and work in the countryside and leave your canine mate at home, or take up golf. .

This is getting silly, leave us poor dogs alone, where can we go for walkies if not in the countryside on these lovely events with my owners.

Don't much fancy walking with dogs - guess that's why I don't own one!

I hope that when we actually get to see the policy it isn't as John summarises it. If the National committee is really considering putting some sort of duty on walk organisers to justify the exclusion of dogs they should think again. It should be a matter completely within the discretion of walk organisers as to whether they want to take on the responsibility of having dogs on their walks. I fully understand the exception for assistance dogs but in general I am unaware of any human rights legislation or LDWA constitutional principle that gives members the right to bring their dogs along unless there is some exceptional reason to exclude them.

Thanks John,
That will be good to see on the event listings, saves emailing the organiser to ask if they are allowed.
Just hope that in our case, dogs continue to be allowed on the very few events that are available to us.

Can you confirm that a valid reason for not allowing dogs would be the protection of livestock during lambing time.
Also, will there be clarity as to the definition of an assistance dog to avoid any doubt as to their legitimate use on an event?
Thanks.

Hi Folks, to clarify the dogs policy, and I know it has proved a bit of a shaggy dog story (groannnn, OK who do you expect, Les Dawson) - here's what you will see in April's Strider:

For the advice of webmasters or those guys who upload walks details for the Local Groups, from the August 2013 Strider onwards, we (the LDWA Committee) propose using two dog related entries in the walks programme:

?Not Suitable for Dogs? means that absolutely no dogs are allowed on the walk. This can only apply where there is a valid reason such as access rights that prohibit dogs, or the terrain prohibits them (sheer cliffs), or nature forbids (eg nesting birds on moorland, or rampant wild cats).

?Assistance Dogs Only? should be stated when the walk leader does not want dogs (other than assistance dogs) on the walk.

If dogs are not mentioned in the listings, then all dogs are permitted provided they are appropriately insured. This latter point is more fully explained in our policy statement in April's Strider.

John

Hello Ross,
Yes, we know that there have been "dog friendly" events in the past, but if National Committee recommend that a No dogs policy should be enforced, we are then left second guessing whether we would be admitted to enter.

Enjoyed a fantastic event 'The Hebden' at the weekend, with the dog.....thanks very much Alan for allowing dogs on the event, really appreciate that. Just hope that this hasn't been spoilt by yet another idiot (probably a non member ultra runner) who apparently let his dog run free behind him causing annoyance to a local resident.
Hopefully not another event considering banning dogs, due to the irresponsible behaviour on a certain few.

Not often that Kafka is referred to on the LDWA web site.

David Street is right when he refers to The Ramblers and their point about the latest pc advice: "No Dogs" is a no-no, must say " Guidance Dogs only" or "Hearing dogs for the Deaf" allowed or similar. Personally, I would exclude dogs but that's just my opinion, I prefer not to have berserk hounds under my feet, running into streams and shaking off onto me or crapping on paths so that the owners can leave it there or hang plastic bags on trees.

Is this thread developing Kafkaesque qualities...

People and dogs have walked out together for a long time.

Surely, the responsibility for the dog lies with the owner. It would do in a public park.

Now 'doggy do'... that's a whole different question... ;)

Emailed our group re the discussion on dogs at the local reps meeting. One member pointed out that her dog has his own liability cover on his pet policy. Not suggesting we insist on everyone insuring their dogs however where a dog is a regualr visitor it may be worth asking the question?

Any claim can only be for negligence, generally associated with a failure in duty of care.

Given that walking with dogs is a reasonably activity then I would suggest that someone would struggle to demonstrate negligence for allowing a dog on the walk.

The only question would then be if the walk leader had a duty of care as to the actions of the walker with a dog. It is not clear to me if that duty of care exists, and if it did the standard of proof required to show that negligence on the part of the leader would be considerable, in particular since most of the reference I can find refer to the liability being with the keeper of the animal, a leader is not the keeper.

I certainly do not pretend to be an expert in this field but as I understand it, if an incident occurred involving loss, the initial claim would be against the dog owner. However, if this route proved unlikely to give satisfactory compensation due to lack of funds or insurance, the claimant could look to the walk leader (who is directing where the walk goes and is technically responsible for the walk) for compensation. The walk leader would seek insurance cover from the LDWA, but we have been advised that this does not cover actions involving dogs. With no insurance cover the walk leader then becomes personally liable for any compensation payable. It may be that the walk leader has house contents insurance that covers their personal liabilities but ......

What I fail to understand when people talk about liability and dogs is where the liability is.

Liability for a leader would only occur in situations where the leader was *negligent* wrt a dog on a walk. To achieve negligence that would mean doing something abnormal ,certainly IMO talking a dog for a walk is a normal activity, so I have problems seeing where negligence could be found

If someone can identify a realistic scenario where negligence would occur it would be interesting to hear it.

(IANAL)

Just a couple of points about those using the argument for banning dogs because of the LDWA insurance issue. The Ramblers are insured by Perkins Slade which I believe is the company used by the LDWA. The Ramblers leave the issue of dogs on walks up to the walk leader. They clearly state that their insurance covers dogs on walks. I can perhaps understand the issue for the LDWA on challenge walks but what is the difference between our social walks and a Ramblers walk. (Before you say it, I know a couple of Ramblers who I can't keep up with).
The other interesting legal point is that the Ramblers had to modify their advice to walk leaders not choosing to allow dogs. This is because of the Disability Equality Act (2010) which could mean the wording of ?no dogs? on walks programmes is in breach of the Act. The Act covers in-direct disability discrimination; this occurs when there is a policy or practice which disadvantages people with a disability. An example from the Act is a ?No Dogs? rule which particularly disadvantages assistance dog users. Therefore an organisation is required to make reasonable adjustment to this rule to ensure that no disadvantage occurs. - Perhaps any member with a dog should be advised to carry a white stick.
In this time of litigation perhaps we sane people can fight this nonsense by finding and quoting such Acts.

Isn't it a pity "litigation" keeps being mentioned as a reason for not having dogs on walks - modern society sucks!

We have nothing against well behaved dogs on walks and have met plenty and nice to see them out, also other dogs that are a pain in the butt. Usual problem is them either walking just in front (bad on narrow paths) so you lose rythm or trip up, or the same just behind your feet. This is very aggravating and many owners simply don't notice that dear fido is such a pain.

Good old days one could give the dog a little kick and tell it to b***er off, and it's owner would take the hint - or same treatment for the owner next. Nowadays this would be unacceptable. matt.

Why not just do events that are dog friendly ?

There are enough of them; Golden Fleece, Dafodil Dawdle, Charnwood, Bassetlaw Bash, Bath Beat, Pewsey, Three Shires, Settle, Leaden Boot, Baslow, Malverns, Osmotherly, Salisbury, Open to Offa's, Ponton Plod, Where Raven's Dare ......

What's the point of resigning over bring the dog or not, it seems a bit churlish to me.

If my wife and I want to do a 'No-Dogs' event, we leave them with the in-laws and walk them when we get back.

Just a thought.

I don?t know Sarah & Malcolm (post 3rd Dec) and it may be discourteous to respond without the benefit of personal acquaintance, ....... but this is an ?open forum?, so ..... here goes

?We joined the LDWA because we could participate in events with the dogs?
Strider (page 2) clearly states that the LDWA?s aim is; "to further the interest of those who enjoy long distance walking". Did our founders intend that dogs would be included?

?We are active outdoor types, and walking/running with our dogs, is part of that pastime?
I agree that this a great pastime, ..... but opportunities for this exist outside of LDWA events.

Please look at the FAQ elsewhere on this website, (click on the Home button) to discover; What is the position concerning dogs on walks? and What protection is given to walk leaders by the Policy?
"Our dogs are fully insured with third party cover, so in the instance that anything regarding stock or traffic ever happened, heavens forbid, we would be covered". Yes, but ..... would the walk leader / Event organiser be covered?

In today?s litigious society someone always has to accept the ultimate responsibility for the safety and well being of those participating together with any damage to property / possessions on either challenge or social walks. Is it fair on these volunteers to increase the risk (however slight it is perceived to be)?

My point is ...... all LDWA events depend upon a willing band of hard working volunteers. Without them nothing would happen. So ... please accept their decisions, even if you disagree.

This is a difficult scenario. I have encountered people who won't walk without their dogs and I know people who won't walk with other peoples dogs. Personally I can take them or leave them but always want them well behaved and on leads.When I, by virtue of being a walk leader, become personally liable for the actions of an unruly dog on a walk being led by me, my reaction will be to refuse to allow dogs on the walk. This is nothing personal but in today's litigious society, I am not willing to take chances. If insurance cover is extended to members dogs then I will change my stance.

This subject only came to light for us when our local group emailed us to inform us that those who had entered the upcoming annual challenge, who were bringing dogs, could no longer bring them.
We joined the LDWA because we could participate in events with the dogs, whom we always bring as it is neither practical or sensible to leave them unatended in our car, or at home, for the period of time it takes to walk a marathon. We are active outdoor types, and walking/running with our dogs, is part of that pastime.
We have participated in events upto 50 milers with them, and have always been courteous with regards to other participants, and never took them into village halls at checkpoints. Our dogs are fully insured with third party cover, so in the instance that anything regarding stock or traffic ever happened, heavens forbid, we would be covered.
I have entered and paid for next year's 100, but after that it seems we will have to resign from the LDWA.
Ironically, The Abbey Hotel is accepting dogs in their rooms at next year's AGM, but I daresay, we will not be able to take part in the schedule of walks.
I can see both sides of the argument, but we will now have to find another source of enjoyment at weekends other than LDWA events.

Well, these people who have allowed their dogs to 'chase or frighten stock' have obviously spoilt it for the majority of responsible dog owners, like myself, who know better.

Walk organisers should remember that dogs are not covered by our insurance. This does leave the walk leader personally liable should they allow dogs on the walks and an incident occurs. The best advice is not to allow dogs. However, it is left to the walk leader?s discretion should he/she wish to allow dogs, but make sure they are on leads at all times.

I think from memory the Dovedale Dipper banned dogs, after an irresponsible owner let their dog scare livestock, which then lead them to panic and trample another participant following on behind.

On this years Leaden Boot a dogs was off the lead whilst we were trying to dscend one of the slopes, and was basically getting in the way, whilst the owner made a few ineffectual attempts to get her back.

That said not all dog owners are like that, but I can understand why dogs get banned from events.

As for myself, I'm tempted to try my 'Lurch' out at Charnwood next year, if only to see how she gets on.

This isn't a matter of events being "dog unfriendly ". Whatever that means (?)

Event organisers have great responsibilities, and have to ensure safety and good relations with landowners and farmers. It is not a pleasant experience, as the organiser of a challenge event to be contacted by an (understandly) angry farmer after "someone's" dog has chased or frightened stock.

And "someone" has gone home without identifying themselves, a word of apology or any attempt to put the matter right... It only takes one irresponsible dog owner to damage the reputation of the event and indeed the LDWA.

More and more events are becoming dog unfriendly, particularly next year i notice the Anglezarke Amble has suddenly changed its policy and the Dovedale dipper. We wont do any events without the dog and are re-considering joining again next year having been in the LDWA (on and off) since the 90's.

That should have read *Brand Spanking New Lurcher* !!

The Spanking Lurcher is still subject to an upcoming RSPCA Cruelty case :-(

This is a tricky one.

As a dog owner and walker I'm still undecided wether to bring my dog and any LDWA events.

We tried one of the older ones on a few short walks a few years ago and found out that we own the only Lurcher in Christendom who doesn't like walking.

Now armed with a brand new spanking Lurcher, who does love walking, I'm not sure I want her along on some of the challenge events. Maybe solo walks around Shropshire & the Peak District will be more suitable, when she is older.

However, I have met quite a few well behaved dogs (and their owners) on events, so I guess it can work.

Tony a bit like walkers and runners

We had a long discussion about whether dogs should be allowed on the Birmingham Canal Canter and came to the conclusion that on constricted sections of the tow path a lead particularly a long lead could be a serious trip hazard that could send someone into the drink. We allow dogs on the Malvern Marathon as the results of a trip are not such a problem

We had a long discussion about whether dogs should be allowed on the Birmingham Canal Canter and came to the conclusion
that on constricted sections of the tow path a lead particularly a long lead could be a serious trip hazard that could send someone into the
drink. We allow dogs on the Malvern Marathon as the results of a trip are not such a problem

In my book dogs are like children - well-behaved ones are fine; unruly, noisy ones should be banned.

I like to see dogs on events. The only time I have ever been annoyed was there was a guy on either Cotswolds challenge or Malvern mara - cant remember which, and he didn't bother to read a route description, instead he relied on his dog to follow the people in front. This got annoying as the dog was choking and wheezing behind us for miles, and when we stopped to let him go ahead, as he wasn't reading an RD, he pretended to do up his shoe laces or check his backpack until we were forced to overtake and this carried on until we got fed up - managed to get a good few hundred yards ahead, then at a junction of paths, I ran to the wrong stile, and covered it in my scent, we then tiptoed backwards onto the correct path. We never saw him again.

This thread has been moved to the Bothy at the request of Ian.

To Simon the MOD.

I've been talking with John Batham today and he told me about this thread and of his surprise that only one person as posted a reply. I think this is maybe down to it being on the wrong forum. So Simon can you move it over to the Bothy forum where it may get more views and more posts. In talking to John today about dogs on walks, he said if it was up to him no dogs would be allowed on any LDWA event or social walk.

By saying that he's a braver man then me.

Hi John

I know that you only put that post up to create a lively argument, and I am sure it is not a serious suggestion. But can I put on record straight away that if dogs get banned from LDWA events, then I personally would leave the organisation. We have a policy that if the dog cannot go, then we don;t go either. I think you would run the risk of alienating alot of good long standing members of the organisation. Our dog has done loads of events and has been a fantastic marshal's assistant on many events too. In fact, I think our dog has done much more marshalling than alot of LDWA members!

I am sure we could extend this ideas forum to have a whole list of things people want banning from events, but please leave our doggy walking partners alone!

Personally, I would ban dogs from all LDWA walks, plus all dog owners.......discuss

Is everyone delighted to encounter dogs out of control ? If not please write to your local MP to support the Second Reading on 20 January 2012 of the Dog Control and Welfare Bill, thank you.