Another loose dog incident at an event. Time to ban dogs?

[FestiveG]

But no one is saying that anyone HAS to go. I honestly dont understand what sort of argument you and others are trying to put forward as reasons why having dogs at events, specifically XC, is in any way advantageous to BE or in a way trumps the real risk that loose dogs pose to competitors.

There is a serious risk to life with loose dogs. Of course everyone had well trained dogs suitably restrained yet it is still a regular occurrence that dogs get loose and some.of them chases horses in course.

There is absolutely no one saying that if a ban is put in place that you still have to go regardless of if you are a competitor, spectator or trade stand owner/worker. The choice is yours to make.

You may not be happy if that ruling was put in place but no one has put forward any reasons as to why them taking their pets on days out is more important than the risk that dogs are posing.

No one can deny the real risk that loose dogs pose. Dogs can only be loose if someone brings them onto the site.

Theres lots of things I would like to do but there are rules saying I cant so I cut my cloth to fit. Theres things I've wanted to do and places I've wanted to go but havent because of other choices that I've made. I'm adult, that's life and my choices. Just because it conveniences me wouldnt be a reason for me to place my wants over someone else's life.

Given that be need the money from spectators and the trade stands and people are saying that they will choose to not attend if dogs are banned then it is up to BE to decide. However it is my understanding that the dogs in this instance were competitors animals, so it is an issue for those who compete to consider each others safety or for BE to apply more appropriate sanctions.

 

[Fred66]

TPO - the instances are neither regular or frequent, they are occasional.
The risk posed by dogs at a BE event is no greater than is encountered in every day life from dogs on horse or not.
BE have always previously allowed dogs and many competitors take dogs to an event, so they obviously don’t believe it increases the risk to an unacceptable level.
I know of at least one instance of a dog chasing the rider cross country and it turned out to be the riders own dog !

 

[PapaverFollis]

I'm sorry but if I'm competing in an event I expect to be more protected from controllable risks than if I've just popped out for a hack.

 

[Fred66]

I'm sorry but if I'm competing in an event I expect to be more protected from controllable risks than if I've just popped out for a hack.

Can I assume you currently don’t compete at BE then ?

It’s obviously not a concern for the members though as most events are over subscribed

 

[ycbm]

Can I assume you currently don’t compete at BE then ?

It’s obviously not a concern for the members though as most events are over subscribed

Fred I don't think you can fairly claim that. Having experienced being chased by a dog at a BE event, it was always a concern for me but it was impossible to compete without overriding that concern.
.

 

[Fred66]

Fred I don't think you can fairly claim that. Having experienced being chased by a dog at a BE event, it was always a concern for me but it was impossible to compete without overriding that concern.
.

I suppose the point I am trying to make is that currently BE allows dogs.
Therefore individuals have a choice (no one makes you do BE) if they feel that dogs are a safety issue then they should choose not to compete. H&S is as much an individual’s responsibility as it is the organisers.

 

[ycbm]

Riders should give up the possibility of competing at BE so that you and others can take your dogs to BE cross country courses. That doesn't sound like a very fair exchange to me.
.

 

[PapaverFollis]

No. I can't even jump a 50cm cross pole. But it's irrelevant. My point is that if a person is taking part in an organised event then the event organiser has duty of care to that person to make their experience as safe as possible. In my view that should include no dogs on live cross country courses for BE. I would expect to be a good deal safer from bring terrorised by a loose dog on a BE cross country course than while hacking out of my own volition...

 

[ihatework]

Riders should give up the possibility of competing at BE so that you and others can take your dogs to BE cross country courses. That doesn't sound like a very fair exchange to me.
.

I think that’s a bit far fetched.

BE is a sport that is ultimately run for its members. Eventers are a pretty vocal when they don’t like something and have no qualms about making their voices heard. Therefore I can only presume the majority of the membership are not strongly in favour of banning dogs, or at the very least, don’t care enough to argue the point.

Eventing is a high risk sport at the best of times so naturally those participating would fall more towards accepting risk. I suspect there almost no people whose sole reason for not competing BE is because dogs are allowed on site. But just as the argument goes for volunteers if there was a ban (ie no one forcing them to volunteer), same goes for the one in a million person who might choose not to compete because of dogs.

I would reiterate I’m in general support of the tightening of rules relating to dogs as I do believe there is a heightened risk that could be mitigated against. But I don’t care strongly enough to do anything about it.

I suggest that members that do feel strongly raise it at the next AGM and have it open to further consideration.

 

[PapaverFollis]

I don't consider it a member voting matter to keep the possibility of loose dogs on a live cross country course to as near zero as possible. BE should be taking the matter in hand. Too many near misses.

 

[{97702}]

Interesting, do all you people who f/j and spectate at xc and have dogs do you not work part or full time so never leave your dog for more than a couple of hours except to go shopping or out for a meal / drink. Do all the people attending the county shows (guess 40% horse owners 40% farmers 20% other ) HOYS Olympia Hickstead etc. (99% horse owners ) not own dogs? Would all the dog owners not attend their son's/ daughter's wedding brothers/ sisters 21/ 30 / 50 birthday celebrations parents silver/ golden wedding anniversary etc. because they couldn't leave the dog for more than a couple of hours? How do you find time to see to and ride your horse without leaving the dog for a couple of hours?

Now I can only conclude from this that you have never fence judged at a BE event.....

I have an average 9-5 job, so dogs are left 4 hours then let out, socialised and fussed, then another 4 hours.

Even when I fenced judged at my nearest event - Hartpury - which is a 10 minute drive from my house, it was an 11-12 hour day away from home. All other events involved much longer journeys. It simply isn’t comparable.

 

[PapaverFollis]

BE members voted against being banned from bringing dogs to the event full stop because of Covid19 risk. There has been no vote about dogs on the cross country course? Many competitors will want to still bring dogs to the event. But that doesn't mean they happily accept the risk of being chased by loose dogs...

 

[ihatework]

BE members voted against being banned from bringing dogs to the event full stop because of Covid19 risk. There has been no vote about dogs on the cross country course? Many competitors will want to still bring dogs to the event. But that doesn't mean they happily accept the risk of being chased by loose dogs...

Sorry, what’s your point?

 

[PapaverFollis]

That people citing members voting against banning dogs full stop are extrapolating that that means that members are happy with the situation as it is. That may not be the case.

 

[ihatework]

That people citing members voting against banning dogs full stop are extrapolating that that means that members are happy with the situation as it is. That may not be the case.

Sorry I’ve missed where that has been stated. There was something about Covid, but it wasn’t put to a vote.

There is nothing to vote on, and neither should there be. If there is a concern about something it needs to be raised with BE under formal pathways. BE then need to evaluate that, gain feedback from all stakeholders, make proposals and carve a path forwards if there is sufficient evidence of support.

If the membership isn’t happy with dogs on site / on live Xc course they need to know it’s under consideration and have a way of providing their feedback.

 

[Fred66]

Riders should give up the possibility of competing at BE so that you and others can take your dogs to BE cross country courses. That doesn't sound like a very fair exchange to me.
.

But you think that people that have dogs that would struggle to compete if they are not allowed to take their dogs should forgo competing?

 

[PapaverFollis]

There have been numerous posts on this thread about a vote about whether people could still bring dogs due to Covid 19 risk? People have been using that information to argue that BE members don't want to see dogs banned at all and therefore are happy with the status quo? Have I read the whole thread wrong ?

 

[ihatework]

There have been numerous posts on this thread about a vote about whether people could still bring dogs due to Covid 19 risk? People have been using that information to argue that BE members don't want to see dogs banned at all and therefore are happy with the status quo? Have I read the whole thread wrong ?

There was never a vote. BE initially said there was a ban on dogs due to Covid, got a lot of negative feedback and as a result modified their Covid rules. So I think it’s fair to say there is a general support from the membership for having dogs on site.

That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a % if the membership that isn’t supportive of dogs, they may choose to stay quiet for whatever reason is applicable to them. But they have the opportunity as members to do something about it if they feel strongly enough.

I do think the main stakeholders in this are the BE membership rather than Joe Bloggs on an Internet forum.

To reiterate. I would be supportive of a move by BE to look into tightening regulations of dogs at events. I’d actually love a spectator ban on dogs at the big 3DEs! I don’t support a blanket ban at national level events.

 

[PapaverFollis]

Doesn't mean JoeBloggs can't discuss it though. As I say I'm only quoting others on here when talking about a vote. There have been a number of posts about it.

General support for dogs at events does not necessary equate to being content with the status quo and people walking dogs on the cross country course while riders are out there. There have been a number of posts saying or implying that it does.

 

[Rowreach]

I think that’s a bit far fetched.

BE is a sport that is ultimately run for its members. Eventers are a pretty vocal when they don’t like something and have no qualms about making their voices heard. Therefore I can only presume the majority of the membership are not strongly in favour of banning dogs, or at the very least, don’t care enough to argue the point.

Eventing is a high risk sport at the best of times so naturally those participating would fall more towards accepting risk. I suspect there almost no people whose sole reason for not competing BE is because dogs are allowed on site. But just as the argument goes for volunteers if there was a ban (ie no one forcing them to volunteer), same goes for the one in a million person who might choose not to compete because of dogs.

I would reiterate I’m in general support of the tightening of rules relating to dogs as I do believe there is a heightened risk that could be mitigated against. But I don’t care strongly enough to do anything about it.

I suggest that members that do feel strongly raise it at the next AGM and have it open to further consideration.

That’s an interesting point about risk. In most high risk sports the participants are only too aware of the risk of the actual activity, yet are all in favour of anything that can mitigate that risk and in particular external factors which can be completely controlled.

With the spate of fatalities in eventing in recent years there’s been masses of work done to make the actual activity of riding a fit horse over solid fences at speed a lot safer.

I wonder why event riders aren’t bothered about removing a risk that is easily controlled?

 

[honetpot]

Riders should give up the possibility of competing at BE so that you and others can take your dogs to BE cross country courses. That doesn't sound like a very fair exchange to me.
.

It depends on if the competitors entries pay the whole cost of the event, and its associated costs. They are buying a 'service', the person providing the 'service' has to at least cover their costs. It's going to be hard enough with all the present rules because of the virus, are they going to check every car and lorry coming on to their land, it's just another job, when they have enough trouble finding people to fence judge and steward anyway, especially the smaller events?

 

[teapot]

I will say my view re dogs at events relates to the big ones that attract an element of there to be seen, not there for the event type.

What happens at Skipton BE100 on a wet Tuesday in April bothers me far less so, and I'm sure the issues are far far fewer too, bar the original post. In the same way you tend to get fewer issues at point to points because those attending have a far better handle on themselves, their dogs, and the countryside code than the white skinny jean brigade. In my experience of being out BE at the lower levels, they're far far more enjoyable, whether spectating or grooming.

 

[ihatework]

That’s an interesting point about risk. In most high risk sports the participants are only too aware of the risk of the actual activity, yet are all in favour of anything that can mitigate that risk and in particular external factors which can be completely controlled.

With the spate of fatalities in eventing in recent years there’s been masses of work done to make the actual activity of riding a fit horse over solid fences at speed a lot safer.

I wonder why event riders aren’t bothered about removing a risk that is easily controlled?

The only answer I can give is speculation.

But I would speculate that the risk is perceived to be minimal. It’s actually pretty rare to get chased by a dog and to date there hasn’t been an accident due to it. So when an eventer has all sorts of things to deal with, a potential loose dog comes way way down the list. Bigger safety issues to deal with first kind of mentality. Plus they like taking tiddles the lorry terrier with them.

I think you would see a shift in that if someone got killed due to a loose dog. And I really hope it doesn’t take that to see some sort of action.

 

[ycbm]

But you think that people that have dogs that would struggle to compete if they are not allowed to take their dogs should forgo competing?

Just as they forego many other things as part of their own choice of owning a dog. To choose not to event because of other people's decision to take a dog is not the same thing at all.

I agree that most eventers are so risk blind that it is a theoretical point only. But I'm also quite bemused by the reactions of dog owners on this thread. Anyone reading it would think that there were no other places than BE cross country courses where dogs aren't allowed to go.
.

 

[ycbm]

It depends on if the competitors entries pay the whole cost of the event, and its associated costs. They are buying a 'service', the person providing the 'service' has to at least cover their costs. It's going to be hard enough with all the present rules because of the virus, are they going to check every car and lorry coming on to their land, it's just another job, when they have enough trouble finding people to fence judge and steward anyway, especially the smaller events?

I don't think including Covid in the discussion is at all helpful. If there ever is a ban, it's very unlikely to be in place until events are back to normal, provided a horse or rider doesn't die first.

Only the big events are paid for by spectator attendance, the vast majority are financed by entry fees and sponsors.

 

[SatansLittleHelper]

Are there any eventers on here that currently don't/won't compete due to the risk of a loose dog..??

 

[SatansLittleHelper]

Double post

 

[Rowreach]

The only answer I can give is speculation.

But I would speculate that the risk is perceived to be minimal. It’s actually pretty rare to get chased by a dog and to date there hasn’t been an accident due to it. So when an eventer has all sorts of things to deal with, a potential loose dog comes way way down the list. Bigger safety issues to deal with first kind of mentality. Plus they like taking tiddles the lorry terrier with them.

I think you would see a shift in that if someone got killed due to a loose dog. And I really hope it doesn’t take that to see some sort of action.

I pray it doesn't come to that. But if it did, I imagine it would be out of members' hands and become an insurance requirement.

 

[Tiddlypom]

I pray it doesn't come to that. But if it did, I imagine it would be out of members' hands and become an insurance requirement.

I suspect that that is the only way that BE will be forced to act.

But meanwhile others who are less risk blind can do our best to agitate.

BE will be hearing from me - the letter is already written and I am just juggling the wording. I still seem to be an associate BE member, although that bestows no voting rights or privileges.

 

[Tiddlypom]

A sad reminder from Cornbury that a days fence judging is not always a pleasant day out in the open. Fingers crossed, the worst that's happened to me is a rider fall or two, and a course hold at my fence after a nasty fall at the fence after mine - I held Jeanette Brakewell.

All thoughts to the connections of the horse and of the injured rider, plus the event officials, vets, medics and volunteers.