Excuse me!, my son was bitten on the arm by a unleashed dog pushing his bicycle past a dog walker on the footpath in a similar situation and afterwards became terrified of dogs.
The way I got him over his fear was using the leash as an indicator that he had the choice to easily avoid the dog and that a leashed dog couldn't get him.
The leashed dog was the first step in his fear rehabilitation to give him confidence that the dog being leashed did provide him with choices to feel safe around them. The basis of his early treatment was to ensure that a leashed dog posed no threat because they were restrained and he had the choice to pass them at a distance he felt safe knowing that the dog couldn't make physical contact with him.
We could have given him the above advice I highlighted, but I doubt such advice although I agree should be the case in a perfect world, would have had much effect in his dog fear rehabilitation.
Welcome to the forum m-sass. :D
My comment was in response to the earlier post by mace
mace on 20 January 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:
The leash range of a strange dog to me is their personal space which I prefer to keep out of to prevent what happened in this case. So if you want to be a thrillseeker by entering a strange dog's personal space, the bottom line is, be aware that getting bitten may be the result........the choice is yours.
However, I did not give any advice, or present advice in the sense in which you have framed it.
My point of reference is the biting dog not the pedestrian.
I refuted the point of view that a leashed dog is a calculated risk that provides choices.
It doesn't and the law clearly says so.
Congratulations on the successful efforts to desensitise your son.
My son was 6 years old at the time walking along with my mum (nanna) and the approaching dog was walking at heel with it's owner, mum thought the dog was leashed. When they passed, the dog doubled back, chased my son biting him on the arm from behind, he was about 15 feet away from the dog's owner, suffice to say had the dog been leashed, it wouldn't have happened?
I agree that people should have control and restraint over their dogs, but I took your post as meaning we should just assume that people will have control with no need to take precautionary measures just in case they don't? My apology if I took your post out of context, it was the way I read the thread and how the comments were unfolding?