My dog was off the leash and this lady screamed at me...

[Earman]

I wouldn''t worry, she seems a bit unbalanced. Even if she was aggreived she should not be screaming and shouting at a heavily pregnant woman .. As far as you dog pulling, have you considered using a "halti"? One of my Labradors (a rescue dog) pulled a lot and the Labrador rescue lady described his walking on a lead as "ABYSMAL!!!", however a Halti cured it immediately . They are only a few Euro's which is a small price to pay for a stress free walk and peace of mind.

[OwnARottie]

Hi!

I agree that the dogs should B leashed (4 the purpose of order), & I am *not* saying otherwise.

But then again, *merely* b'coz some of the esteemed members gave the thread slightly different turn, despite the nature of the incident & the circumstances therein, so my few cents 4 Y people who know nothing should B making the laws (yeah & I am being sarcastic) that allows such comments: A man/woman once shouted @ me & threatened me & scared the hell out of me. I, therefore, demand that all men/women shall B leashed while in public places. In this case, I demand that this woman B leashed & a muzzle B around her mouth (her bark seems worse than the bite).

In the original posters case, apart from the dog being leashed, I don't see how the idiot was even affected. She would have had every right 2 scream *had* something even remotely happened. What gave her the rights 2 scream @ somebody else *without* due justification? Upholder of the law? I would have handled it very differently, & possibly includes a smart retort including words (but not limited 2) such as the female of the canine species.



PS: One does require a driver's license before one can drive - & still accidents happen. How is that dog owners can own a dog (and its life) without proving that they are capable of it?

[OwnARottie]

Oh, I just noticed... the poster does say they live in nowheremäki. So, doesn't seem like it happened in the centre of a town, i.e. "taajama". My dictionary says: taajama = densely populated area. That being said, how does one define "taajama" in this context?

[antstar]

While this female might have taken it bit too harshly...

She was right.

I'm sorry wether law or no law, she has no right to take the law into her own hands.. She was not a police woman, if the law says dog have to be on leads then the police uphold the law! not some crazy angry woman!!

i feel very sorry for you nben, i hope your feeling better.

[sinikala]

For your dogs saftey as well as others you should keep it on a lead at all times at least until a safe place where it can roam and run around.

The animal is your responsibility. I really don't get people who think their animal will do any harm. The amount of times I have been out running or walking
recently, were owners of dogs think its alright if their mutt jumps up, snaps, barks at me is totally beyond me.

I hope you clear its paska up too. Thats another thread in its self.

I love dogs, we had 4 labradors through my childhood, I am not scared of them in the least so don't mind them jumping up at me, but not everyone feels the same way....

So PeteH has got it spot on.

[Goldie]

While this female might have taken it bit too harshly...

She was right.

I'm sorry wether law or no law, she has no right to take the law into her own hands.. She was not a police woman, if the law says dog have to be on leads then the police uphold the law! not some crazy angry woman!!

i feel very sorry for you nben, i hope your feeling better.

[Tiwaz]

While this female might have taken it bit too harshly...

She was right.

I'm sorry wether law or no law, she has no right to take the law into her own hands.. She was not a police woman, if the law says dog have to be on leads then the police uphold the law! not some crazy angry woman!!

i feel very sorry for you nben, i hope your feeling better.

In what way did that woman take law into her hands? While admittably she went bit overboard one could say woman was only giving nben firm warning not to break the law.

If she had tried to give some kind of punishment, she would have been taking law into her own hands. Nben is lucky there was no police present. Based on complain from this other woman, police would have had no alternative (even if they might have permitted minor crime go with warning) but issue her a fine.

Law is law, it is to be respected. Dog is to remain in leash at all times in populated areas.

Outside populated areas, as per laws regarding hunting, dogs may be loose but must be within control of owner. Catch is, you must posses permission of landowner/hunting rights owner to have your dog loose on their land.

Furthermore, no dog may be loose between time of march 1st and august 19th.
That is, no dog. Puppy or not.

It is the law in Finland. Like it or not, follow it.

[antstar]

While this female might have taken it bit too harshly...

She was right.

I'm sorry wether law or no law, she has no right to take the law into her own hands.. She was not a police woman, if the law says dog have to be on leads then the police uphold the law! not some crazy angry woman!!

i feel very sorry for you nben, i hope your feeling better.

In what way did that woman take law into her hands? While admittably she went bit overboard one could say woman was only giving nben firm warning not to break the law.

If she had tried to give some kind of punishment, she would have been taking law into her own hands. Nben is lucky there was no police present. Based on complain from this other woman, police would have had no alternative (even if they might have permitted minor crime go with warning) but issue her a fine.

Law is law, it is to be respected. Dog is to remain in leash at all times in populated areas.

Outside populated areas, as per laws regarding hunting, dogs may be loose but must be within control of owner. Catch is, you must posses permission of landowner/hunting rights owner to have your dog loose on their land.

Furthermore, no dog may be loose between time of march 1st and august 19th.
That is, no dog. Puppy or not.

It is the law in Finland. Like it or not, follow it.

i have to keep reminding myself not to get in a conversation with you, as it always goes down the "this is Finland " route!!
Firm warning? .... the woman shouted at her!! ...oh no stop what am i doing!! stop now no more

[Salopian]

Provided I'm in the woods (as opposed to streets), I know the area and there's clearly no-one around, then I'll let my dog off the leash. If there's somebody close by or I think that may be the case, then leash the bugger up. Fair enough. This perception that dog owner's have that their dog would never hurt a fly is not good. My dog is, despite his bulk, soft as sh*te, but that doesn't mean that people necessarily want him checking them out in anyway - friendly or otherwise - and I respect that. But strewth, if you're away from streets, there's clearly no-one around and there's no danger to hound nor human, should you really be worrying about what the law says?

[Tiwaz]

i have to keep reminding myself not to get in a conversation with you, as it always goes down the "this is Finland " route!!
Firm warning? .... the woman shouted at her!! ...oh no stop what am i doing!! stop now no more

Well, it is common mistake out there these days, in Finland, to let dogs go loose. Which is very questionable practice.

And woman shouted at her... Bark does not bite or so they say. While woman should have behaved little better I honestly have to question every dog owner who does not have their dogs in leash outdoors.


And Salopian.

Law outside built areas, which have very small areas of woods at best, does permit having dog loose.

But question, do you have permission from landowner or person having hunting rights on that land to have your dog loose? Every man's right does not extend to having dogs run around.

If not, you are again breaking the law and will end up punished if complaint is issued. Also, as said EVERY dog has to be on leash EVERYWHERE between march 1 and 19 august. Purpose is to protect wildlife from dogs which are, at heart, predators. Many animals are having their offspring during that time and dogs running loose can mean some rather unfortunate incidents with young animals and dog meeting.

[OwnARottie]

I agree, dogs must be leashed. BUT

- The main issue of contention here: The lady acted incorrectly. If she was bothered, she could have called the authorities if she wanted to who would have handled it correctly and appropriately under the circumstances, she has NO RIGHT to threaten or intimidate. Considering the circumstances, a fine would be okay; scaring or threatening a person this way is NOT. That idiot ought to thank her stars it wasn't somebody else with a tit for tat!

- What part of the nowheremäki part do you not understand? The poster says it is not part of the populated area, then the law is clear.

- This idiot wasn't even on the same path, but in her car. I maintain my view: "Ja mikä vaivasi on? Pidätekö itse julkisena viranomaisena? Kuule ä--ä, pidä t----si kiinni ja huolehdi omista ----- asioistasi!" in no uncertain words.

- And to the sorts of Goldilocks here: I am not arguing against the law. The law is there, to create an order of sorts, not to cater to every individuals reason for peeing in their pants. That being said, laws are always applied in context. I have my personal fears and dislikes too, what part of the law caters for that? I demand that such a "lady" (not so) should be leashed and muzzled too. If the law provided for that, I demand that all people showing a level of stupidity be banned from the public without their mouths taped shut. So, no, not spot on. She could have politely asked or even said it or demanded it.

[antstar]

Well, it is common mistake out there these days, in Finland, to let dogs go loose. Which is very questionable practice.

And woman shouted at her... Bark does not bite or so they say. While woman should have behaved little better I honestly have to question every dog owner who does not have their dogs in leash outdoors.

Well, i keep my dog on a leash unless theres no one around and i am very consious of runners etc so i keep him close. Y own view here also is that Finns don't seem to be very dog friendly, and seem very untrusting of dogs compaired with, say France where you can even take them in cafe and bars, and serve the dog water before the owner But my point is its not HEr place to go around telling people what the law says!! if she thinks someone is breaking the law then she needs to find a policeman and let them do what they are paid for! The woman was not even walking! she was in her car! so she went out of her way to be nasty.

[OwnARottie]

Now, Antstar has it spot on!

[Salopian]

And Salopian.

Law outside built areas, which have very small areas of woods at best, does permit having dog loose.

But question, do you have permission from landowner or person having hunting rights on that land to have your dog loose? Every man's right does not extend to having dogs run around.

If not, you are again breaking the law and will end up punished if complaint is issued. Also, as said EVERY dog has to be on leash EVERYWHERE between march 1 and 19 august. Purpose is to protect wildlife from dogs which are, at heart, predators. Many animals are having their offspring during that time and dogs running loose can mean some rather unfortunate incidents with young animals and dog meeting.

Well, I live in Helsinki. A couple minutes from a metro station, but also a minute away from a wooded area with paths used by many, depending on the time and route taken. I could run for half an hour with the dog before coming close to civilisation again. But anyway, is this built up? Nah. Landowner? Hmm. The dog is a shepherd, not a hunter, and that really shows - his hunting skills are, well, laughable. And as I say, the paths can be busy at times, so I doubt there's much in the way of vulnerable offspring on offer - even if I was negligent enough to let the dog stray a bit. But thanks for the info and good to know the law has taken into consideration the protection of wildlife.

But as I said, I only unleash him if there's no-one around - so who can complain? Does a tree make a sound when it falls in the woods? And if someone/nosy hawk saw me blatantly disregarding the sacred laws and got their filthy knickers in enough of a twist to complain, does that result in a fine automatically?

"Well officer - this is not the dog/owner you're looking for...".

[Goldie]

I agree, dogs must be leashed. BUT

- The main issue of contention here: The lady acted incorrectly. If she was bothered, she could have called the authorities if she wanted to who would have handled it correctly and appropriately under the circumstances, she has NO RIGHT to threaten or intimidate. Considering the circumstances, a fine would be okay; scaring or threatening a person this way is NOT. That idiot ought to thank her stars it wasn't somebody else with a tit for tat!

- What part of the nowheremäki part do you not understand? The poster says it is not part of the populated area, then the law is clear.

- This idiot wasn't even on the same path, but in her car. I maintain my view: "Ja mikä vaivasi on? Pidätekö itse julkisena viranomaisena? Kuule ä--ä, pidä t----si kiinni ja huolehdi omista ----- asioistasi!" in no uncertain words.

- And to the sorts of Goldilocks here: I am not arguing against the law. The law is there, to create an order of sorts, not to cater to every individuals reason for peeing in their pants. That being said, laws are always applied in context. I have my personal fears and dislikes too, what part of the law caters for that? I demand that such a "lady" (not so) should be leashed and muzzled too. If the law provided for that, I demand that all people showing a level of stupidity be banned from the public without their mouths taped shut. So, no, not spot on. She could have politely asked or even said it or demanded it.