Over the past few years we’ve heard a number of alternative dangerous dog’ solutions proposed. Ways and means by which we can prevent dog attacks from occurring. Ideas and suggestions which can help us rid ourselves of the menace of dog attacks.
One of the most common ideas put forward seems, on the face of it, to be entirely sensible: to muzzle all dogs and keep them confined to a lead at all times in public. Well, whilst it may seem sensible — unfortunately, it is not. In fact I speculate that if we want to literally DOUBLE the number of dog attacks, especially the most serious ones, the way to do it would be to muzzle and confine all dogs to leads in public. I shall hereby try and explain the flaws in this ideology.
Dogs operate in and have personalities which can be linked to something known as drives’. Whilst it is not my intent to make this a technical’ dog behaviour article I shall list the recognised drives below:
* The Prey drive: these dogs stalk, kill’ their toys, shake objects and are highly stimulated by visual movements. They like to chase.
* The Pack drive: these dogs are sociable animals who enjoy being touched by people, prone to separation anxiety.
* The Fight drive: self confident or dominant’ dogs who will guard themselves, their property, their family. Tends to hold strong eye contact even with dominant’ people.
* The Flight drive: unsure in strange situations, always needs to be aware of a potential route of escape, tends to be submissive and is most prone to fear biting’.
Dogs may show a tendency to be a high prey drive’ dog or dogs may exhibit high drive behaviour in certain circumstances — for example, a dog which may — by normal personality — operate for most of its life in pack drive’, a friendly dog that loves people for instance, upon encountering its first ever squirrel the dog may instantly switch on to a very high prey drive response.
So it’s not a simple case of being able to label one dog or breed as a particular candidate to fit one of the drive descriptions. Yes, we can generalise (Bull breed dogs tend to score highly on pack drive, they love people, love being touched, enjoy companionship) but these generalisations are what have gotten us in to trouble in the first place!
We simply cannot and should not attempt to define a dog’s personality by its breed type or EVEN its past history. For instance, a dog which has — for its entire life — never been nervous or aggressive about ANYTHING, when faced with a certain new situation or circumstance may exhibit high levels of unplanned for’ behaviour. I often ask people to imagine in their mind how they feel about elephants.
How do they feel when they see elephants on TV on a nature documentary. Most people have neutral views about elephants. We don’t live our lives in fear of them and they are not an animal that invades our daily thoughts. We have no planned for’ elephant response behaviour.
I then ask people to try and imagine how they’d feel if they walked into a room — a room they recognise and have used before, let’s say their boardroom at their place of work — and rather than being confronted by their work colleagues, much to their surprise a fully grown elephant is standing in the room.
Now imagine how you might feel about elephants in THAT circumstance! Heart rate rised, shock, surprise, nervous tension, wonderment, planning for an escape route, sweaty palms — we have no idea how we’d respond to surprising circumstances, especially ones we’ve never planned for — yet we somehow expect our dogs to react consistently to all circumstances based on how they’ve behaved in the past. This is an error.
But what’s this got to do with muzzling and lead confinement you ask?
Well it’s all about the need for owners to be able to do two very, very (very) important things:
1) Allow their dog to exhibit normal behaviour whilst under proper control
2) Understand the risks associated with unplanned’ behaviour
So let’s tackle these two issues.
Allowing a dog to exhibit normal behaviour means allowing a dog to exercise freely. There are some dogs — in fact most dogs — who absolutely thrive on the freedom to run and shake loose the constraints of a leash or the confinement of the four walls of their home and garden. To many dogs, this is their reason to live’. This is their most treasured treat. It also keeps them healthy. If we are to constrain dogs and deny them the ability to exercise freely, a number of things will start to happen and start to happen quickly:
The dogs will start to become very, very wound up at home. Too much energy, no outlet for it. Anyone who has ever had to spend time in a confined space will realise how tedious that becomes. Think of a long-haul flight for an example. Sitting there, waiting for someone else to provide you with release’, waiting for someone else to feed you, relying on others for your stimulation. Now imagine that your entire life was spent on a long-haul flight. I project you’ll do one of two things: You’ll either go quietly mad and spend your days asleep in a permanent bout of depression or you’ll go VERY mad and start threatening to to do crazy’ things in order to get your freedom back. To confine dogs to a permanent life on a long-haul flight will cause a lot of problems.
Dogs will begin to attack more people in their homes. No doubt about it. A dog who is wound up’ a dog who has more energy than they are ever permitted to expend will be a problem dog. If we estimate that 2, maybe 3% of all the dogs in the UK are responsible for attacks and injuries caused by dogs as things stand today — by having a blanket no dogs off lead in public’ law, you can comfortably project that we’ll have maybe as high as 20% of dogs who will pose a far greater risk to people. Yes, we may reduce dog attacks in public but my word, we will massively increase the number of attacks in the home. The net result will be more attacks.
Dogs need off lead exercise and they need the ability to socialise with other dogs. Dogs owners should understand that they have an obligation to keep their dogs under control (and do it! Not just understand it) and they should also recognise that dogs can have very, very different reactions to situations which are unplanned for’. Again, think about how you’d react if you met a real life elephant face to face in a place where you were not expecting it. Don’t assume that dogs can’t have equally extreme reactions to new things.
Muzzling
Similar to the freedom to run argument. If you take away a dog’s defence mechanisms: either the ability to run away or the ability to fight’ you will instantly place the dog into a state of heightened tension.
I want you to think about that elephant again folks. Let us say that you have met the elephant in the boardroom and you’ve just managed to calm your nerves, your blood pressure is lower and your starting to feel a bit more comfortable. No doubt you’ll still be very aware of the fact that there is an elephant in the room but you’ve just about managed to compose yourself. Firstly, you have the door behind you so if things take a turn for the unexpected you can always leg it! Only, now you can’t. Because what’s going to happen now is you are going to be tethered to the radiator and your hands are going to be tied behind your back. How you feeling now? A little less composed? A little vulnerable? Nervous? Tense?
See this is exactly what we do when we impose on our dogs a mandatory constraint. We can — in one fell swoop — make a non aggressive, non defensive dog INSTANTLY more aggressive and more defensive. We can increase the risk of altering the dog’s nature and outlook on life. And again, whilst it is certainly the case that we may (in fact probably would) see a reduction in dog attacks in public, the net result of such a law would be a massive, massive increase in the number of dog attacks occurring in the home.
Why?
Because we will be artificially increasing the drive senses in our dogs. We can’t muzzle a dog all day, we can’t tether a dog all day so for those periods of time when they are unmuzzled we will see a dog with an altered personality. Heightened defensiveness, heightened nervousness — we would make some non aggressive dogs aggressive and some aggressive dogs even more aggressive. Times where the dog is feeding would be exceptionally dangerous. The net result would be more dog attacks.
The solution, whilst simple, is not easy. Dog owners need to better informed on how to manage their animals. They need to be better prepared for the reality that their dogs can and will behave differently in different situations, never assume. They must have better control of their dogs. If they can not recall their dog then they simply should not have the dog off a lead until such a time as that training objective has been achieved. Dog owners need to be aware of the fact that their dogs should not invade other people’s space. Dog owners need to take control of their dogs and to improve their ownership standards. If we could make this happen, society, dogs and their owners would be a lot, lot happier.
—-
Well, that’s MY view – compulsory muzzling of all dogs would make the problem worse, but what do YOU think?
Have your say using the comment form below. I look forward to reading your views!
This is completely idiotic. Change the laws for much harder penalties for dog owners with unfriendly dogs. It is always the owners fault for not having a friendly dog. Also increase the budget for animal control to make sure there aren’t any stray dogs in neighborhoods. There is absolutely no way my dogs should be muzzled when they leave the house.
I agree that dogs should not be made to be muzzled. MOST of dogs I meet are friendly…if there is a dog who is unpradictable, they should then as responsible owners do what they feel is best when the dog is out among others in public.
I have a very skittish Border Collie who is very nervous and I thought that muzzelling her would be safer as I didn’t want her to be in a situation where she might bite someone and then they could insist she is put down. However, I have noticed that this has made her more nervous around other dogs and she is definitely better when confronting other dogs off her lead and without a muzzle.
I have now decided to pay for Molly to have behavioural training to enable me and my dog to get the best behaviour when she is outside the house and then I can show everyone the wonderful dog that I know she is!!
This suggestion/idea has obviously come from a non-dog owner! I once was walking my dogs in a local park, one of mine had a halti head collar on and whilst walking past a group of people one of the ladies told the children to come away from my dog as it was muzzled and very dangerous – then another lady in the group corrected her and said it wasn’t a muzzle but just a walking aid to stop the dog pulling. I have a 30kg staff x lab, he was beaten by men as a pup and is terrified to the bone of men and has also been attacked by other dogs (and did not retaliate) but because of this can put accross the wrong impression – he’s a very sensitive dog and to muzzle him would undo all the years of hard work i’ve put into him in trying to get him to trust man and socialise with other dogs. Also, if he doesn’t get at least one good off lead run a day he’s bouncing off the walls – it would kill him if he had to stay on lead – this i feel would cause more problems and created more highly strung and possibly dangerous dogs. The only way forward is dog licensing.
No way would I ever muzzle my dog. There is no such thing as a ‘bad’ dog…just BAD owners. Good dog owners ensure that their dogs are always under control. Whatever changes are made to the law you will never change the attitude of a BAD owner, and they won’t comply with the law anyway.
I do however think that dog licences should be re-introduced with a very heavy fine for anyone without one.
I agree with most of what you say. Indeed muzzling all dogs is going to create more problems, for precisely the reasons you have given. However, I think there ought to be far tougher penalties for people who allow dangerous and aggressive dogs to behave in that manner, regardless of whether it is towards humans, or other dogs.
If the facilities that people obtain their dogs were to provide for basic training for the new owners and the dogs we might end up with owners that understand their dogs better and be more understanding to the needs and behaviors of their dogs. Much of the problem is that people really don’t understand that dogs are not humans, but animals (canines) and a such need to be understood, trained and respected as such.
I think dog licences should be compulsory and compulsory dog training/socialisation classes for dogs and their owners. Anyone whose dog then aggresses and is found to not hold a licence would be dealt with severely. An owner would have to pass a test with their dog/s and if necessary the dog, if found to be aggressive in class should PERHAPS (if unable to correct behaviour) be made to wear a muzzle in public. Otherwise the majority of well mannered dogs would have their freedom jeopardised. Their are very few cases of dog bites compared to road accidents but we don’t ban cars on the road!
I wholeheartedly agree with the article. It would be cruelty to keep dogs on leads – we need to target irresponsible dog owners not dogs.
I live in Canada-and our dogs have to be leashed. I personally have had Rottwilers for many years now. To be a responsible pet owner-I need to have my dog under my control at all times. If my dog is off-leash-I am not fulfilling my responsibility. I do not muzzle my dogs-they do not need muzzles and it is not law in Ontario yet. but if I found that my dog was creating problems with other dogs or people-I would absolutely muzzle them. To me–that is responsible pet ownership. The biggest problem with other peoples dogs that I have ever had-is with un-leashed dogs on a walk. It is different in a dog park when all dogs are off-leash-as they have proven to their owners that they are safe.
Power and responsibility must always go hand in hand.
Humans are increasingly manipulating everything and everyone around them to suit their convenience.And dogs are no exception.They are extremely social and loving by nature and they need tender caring and human contact to stay that way.
No effort must be spared to educate human beings…start this at pre school and kindergarten levels and keep it going even in old age homes – it is we who need to develop awareness and feel a sense of kinship towards these beautiful animals that bring so much love and joy into our lives.
It should be made a rule that when buying a dog,pet or otherwise,the prospective buyer have at least,basic handling training.And a license,after all you wouldn’t get a gun without a license.
How would you muzzle a Pug or french bull dog or a boston terrier etc ???????????? This is an easy way out for powers that be. They cannot police every park, every walkway to ensure this rule is adhered to and what would they do if they caught you. It’s the owners need to be educated and restricted not the dogs. An ID scheme where dogs have to be registered and cards carried with you at all times, where vets can help police it by reporting people who do not have ID. This ID should also show you have had basic training in animal care and also 3rd party liability insurance. All puppies should be registered and micro chipped before being handed over to new owners. Where an owner is found not to have it for their dog they will be given 7 days to get all paperwork in order otherwise the dog will be rehomed. If you have a dog that you love, then you will go through all this to ensure your dog never gets taken away from you.
What do you have to say? Muzzling is a terrible idea, the anxiety it will create will be phenomenal, our canine friends will not understand become more aggressive when it is time to go out and most likely either try and run or cowl when it sees another dog approaching (muzzled or not).
The problem is the owner not the dog. Increase finds and stiffer penalties for aggressive dog owners (ALL aggressive dogs not just certain breeds).
Heres an idea require ALL dog owners BY LAW to take a basic dog training and behavior class, have it instructed by the local dog officer in conjunction with the Humane Society. If they have or am considering to own a dog.
Have all dog owners carry a Liability Insurance Policy By Law as well.
This deter just anyone from having a dog allowing freedom for our K9 friends and force there owners to be good dog owners as well.
I been a Proffestional Dog Trainer for over 30 years I know what I am talking about.
What utter codswallop! Punishing the majority because of the irresponsible minority is mad. The idiots who own these “bad dogs” are not going to comply with the law and if the government think they will they are living in cloud cukoo land! I agree with Hilary and think there should be mandatory dog licencing with owners only getting a licence once they have proved they can control & take care of the dog (e.g. evidence of attending training classes etc.) Then anyone found without a licence should be heavily fined & I mean HEAVILY fined not just a few quid! As the saying goes “There are no bad dogs only bad owners”.
Well thank you for the invite on this very alarming practise.
Living in Ontario, Canada I have been maintaining that it is not the dog themselves to blame for this issue. There needs to be a better definition of a “Bully Breed” such as pit bulls, Staffordshire terriers, bull terriers and so on. These dogs were bred for one thing and this is not their fault. With that being said the breed, pit bull is a beautiful dog and needs to be dealt with properly. It is my opinion that not only do these animals require an explicit training regiment the owners need to take training as well. I have been watching Caesar Millan do wonderful things with “bully breeds” and this is just proof positive that with the correct knowledge and training this breed can be just as loving and gentle as the retriever. Now to help protect the general public as they may or may not have the training as the dogs owners do an ‘in training’ may need to be used. TEMPORARILY!!!!!
Dog fighting will never go away but with the assistance from pet industry officials such as PIJAC in Canada and the USA, Vets and Breeders proper identification and training for these “bully Breeds” we can slow it down.
Muzzles for dogs that have the proper at home care and exercise do not need to be muzzled. Owners that lack the knowledge and training are the ones that need the muzzles. I believe in the words of Caesar Millan…
“Calm Assertive Pack LEADERS”
A muzzle will not stop a dog from hurting you if you provoke it, corner it, or tease it. You don’t them and they will not bother you!
Years ago people had to pay for a dog licence which was for their dog which if it ever worried sheep or someone knocked it over there were rules to follow.
This meant that most owners were responsible.
Sadly more people have dogs which they do not understand. They don’t study the breed they choose beforehand,or get trained up themselves into the knowledge of how a dog’s mind works.
With irresponsible people leaving kids alone for moments with a dog that isn’t theirs,or allowing small kids to be in the same room alone,or a young generation of gangs, showing off as a status their latest addition of dog,this is the reason why the authorities feel the need to over react with ”muzzling”.
Of course even the easiest laid back kind of dog is going to get irritated with a constricting item placed over it’s nose and mouth if it’s never had one before. You can see at the vets when these muzzles are put on;the dog’s eyes fill with fear!
I always think dog! Would I like to walk around with something over my nose/mouth feeling constrained and uncomfortable?…No! Of course it will create a personality change.Dog’s have rights and that right is for freedom. It is the owner’s responsibility to bring up a well behaved and obedient dog so it will be a happy dog.What should be happening in my opinion is that people should receive a training certificate from attending dog classes before they can actually own a dog.Just because a mother can have a baby it doesn’t mean she knows how to be a good mother,but if she reads or has experience with other children,it can make her a better mother.Therefore if people want to be better owners they need to educate themselves before owning a dog.
What do you have to say?
I agree with everything you say, i think the govt like to make the ‘soft’ targets suffer as this is easier to manage than controlling the real problem. no way do i want to muzzle all of my dogs,some it makes worse and more anxious, adn their off elash activity is essential to their health and well being
There are No bad dogs, just bad people.
I re-habilitate dogs with issues. Namely caused by incorrect ownership.
Make every owner of these type of breed dogs by law be licenced and therefore accountable for correct training, maintenance and upkeep of such breeds and justifiable for their actions.
Don’t penalise all dog owners for the irresponsibility of a few ignorant and unworthy owners!
I would one not want to muzzle any of my two dogs and put them on a lead at all times. I have a gentle 11 year old border collie whom loves nothing but to run in the parks/fields playing ball. this keeps her extremely fit. why should she suffer. My yorkie is extremely well behaved off the lead but can bark at other dogs and people but we are trying to curb this problem as responsible dog owners. As we all know a collie is very dirfferent in nature to a yorkie and most people whom don’t like dogs think my collie is the one that could do more harm than the yorkie, though she is the summisive one. Collies are bread to herd sheep, without the farmers instructions they would kill the sheep, hence all dogs on leads on walks through sheep fields. My collie has never worked herding sheep but she tries when in these areas. Yorkies are bred to kill vermin (rats) a dog with the terrier instinct bred into them by guess what, us humans. you never hear of attacks in the papers about yorkies but me being an owner of two know that they love a postman and can be aggressive. it’s my responsibillity to stop them.
All owners should have compulsary basic dog trainning before owning a pet by law so they can control the dog and learn about the breed. all dogs should be compulsary insured. if you don’t prove insurance then hefty penalties. I can hear cries from the less well off that it would be too expensive. Well maybe the PDSA could offer cut price insurance for them and when they do necessary operations on these peoples dogs the would get a decent pay from the insurace to cover their costs.
What do you have to say? Lets have more controls on bad owners we have two dogs neither is allowed off a lead whilst on a walk outside as we live near busy roads, from experience muzzling a dog causes distress and for many obligatory muzzling when walking is unnecessary. Both have good tempraments and should not be punished for the sins of the few. How long before big brother having punished dog owners moves on to cat lovers can you imagine muzzling moggies to stop them biting and killing birds interestingly my dauaghters have both been bitten by neighbours cats but never dogs our human rights are fast being eroded by bureaucracy in the extreme we need to fight for our pets rights.
Muzzles, liability orders and dog training classes will not force the bad dog owners to change there ways, all any of the above will do is make responsible owners suffer. The out of control and aggressive dogs are usually owned by mindless yobs who don’t obey the law anyway.
Make microchipping law, with stiff penaltys for failure to update details.
Increase funding and staff for dog wardens, make cruelty and fighting dogs carry a very stiff sentence.
Both of my dogs are microchipped, insured and both have third party liability, walk well on and off the lead and are well socialised with both people and other animals and neither has even been to a training class
I work with dogs with aggression issues on a day to day basis. Many can live happy and fulfilling lives with training and management. There are some dogs that do require muzzles to safeguard others in public places, but it’s not realistic or necessary to muzzle all dogs. I think that some form of compulsory training and education is the answer for dog owners. If owners are educated to watch out for potential problems before they become a problem and have a good level of obedience many problems can be avoided.
Teresa
Talk about sledgehammers to crack nuts!
Surely, anyone can see that legislation (breed-specific or not)introducing measures such as compulsory muzzling/leashing of all dogs in public, microchipping, licensing and/or prohibitive insurance will tackle neither the problem of so-called ‘status’ dogs used as weapons nor family dogs biting children.
Fighting-dog owners will simply flout any law designed to curtail their activities, and far too many otherwise law-abiding owners just don’t read the signs that their dog, given the wrong circumstances, may be aggressive.
I believe the only measures that will, at best, go some way to lessen these problems are (a) to give far stronger powers to police and RSPCA inspectors to confiscate dogs proven to have been deliberately bred, purchased, ill-treated and trained to be dangerous and (b) a widespread education programme to show owners and would-be owners how to train their dogs specifically with family and public safety in mind.
But there will never be a complete and infallible solution. People who use dogs as weapons know only too well what any dog, if goaded or treated badly enough, is capable of and usually owners whose family members end up bitten don’t know enough.
Here here! No muzzling of our doggy companions – muzzle the bad owners!
Its always ‘certain types’ of people who have unsociable dogs, they care nothing for the dog, just the impression it gives of being big & tough! They always choose bully breeds for their looks (no fault of the dogs -I know some lovely well behaved ones).
I agree with everyone having a dog licence and 3rd party insurance, although I suspect the ‘certain type’ of people will not comply anyway!
muzzles and other restraints should be used! but NOT for the dogs – the idiot irresponsible owners of these dogs i mean, as its always their fault!
A bad irresponsible owner can turn the sweetest of breeds into a vicious & dangerous dog.
Besides it wouldn’t stop the majority of the past incidents you read about happening, because it happens indoors.
I totally agree that they need to do something about these irresponsible people being able to own a dog (or any animal).
not sure exactly what would be the best way to go about it is, just know that they’re barking up the wrong tree this way.
What do you have to say?
We need to go back to basics, until puppy farms are banned, and breeders take far more care to whom they sell pups too we will have a problem with unruly dogs! Unless the law is tightened up we will always have problem dogs from no fault of their own!
How often do you read in puppy adverts deposit secures, perhaps no in-depth breed suitability questions asked from either the breeder or purchaser. To keep track of owners and breeders all dogs pedigree or not should have some form of registration, and in my opinion all puppies should by law have to attend puppy socialisation courses. All re-homed and rescue dogs should be made to attend adult dog training classes
Change and tighten the rules on dog ownership and maybe we would not have a question about muzzling all dogs and stricter controls of dogs in public places
Lesley
What if you are walking your dog and it is muzzled because of the law and then a dog that someone has let out to potty in other people’s yards comes up to your and your dog and your dog can’t even defend itself because of the muzzle???? It would be suicide for your dog to go out in public with a muzzle on.
There are days where I just want to beat the stupid out of people who come up with these lack of common sense ideas. I completely agree that muzzling dogs will not stop the problem For one thing, an unprovoked attack or biting often occurs when the dog has managed to escape his fence, leash or chain from their home. Implementing a muzzle law would have absolutely no effect on such incidents.
I also believe that muzzling a dog would absolutely invoke their fight or flight response. When you feel trapped or restrained it’s natural to become tense, defensive and anxiety ridden, just as your example explained, so why do people expect an animal who doesn’t necessarily possess the same logical thinking skills as a human, think that suddenly their dog would react in a calm and logical manner when faced with what they perceive to be a dangerous situation? If anything, an animal who is likely more primitive in nature would react even harsher.
Treating the whole group as the problem will not somehow magically cure the actual 2-3% problem? The answer lies with proper pet parent training first, followed by proper dog training. If you don’t have the time to devote to training and working with your new dog to make them safe and happy in their environment, then don’t get a dog! It’s just irresponsible pet ownership that comes from our societies need for instant gratification.
there is no way in hell i am going to muzzle my dogs.these people are crazy!!!. id like to muzzle them
I do not believe that muzzling is the way forward to control dog attacks. I live in NZ and the majority of dog attacks occur to children. I believe that children need to be educated in the school environment regarding canine awareness. I have witnessed first hand how some children can display inappropriate behaviour around dogs. I also believe that adults (whether dog owners or not) need to be educated on what gives a dog a balanced life. If a dog owner feels that allowing their dog off lead will limit their control then the dog should be on a long line (not a retractable lead but a long line like the tracking police dogs have). These lines give the dog a 60ft running area and can be staked into the ground freeing the owner to grab the line and haul the dog back in if more control needs to be established. We also have dog parks in NZ and these are great. There can still be the occasional dog fight but this occurs under the supervision of only dog owners so the fight can be broken up swiftly. Dog-free members of the public do not visit the park which further eliminates potential random attacks.
There are several good points in the article, which could easily be distilled down to the simple statement that all dog owners should be responsible in their attitude to dog ownership.
I would query the value of the example of the elephant in the boardroom as I suspect that fewer people are conversant with the layout and content of their employing organisation’s boardroom than are bitten by dogs. If you must use examples from the work place please try to make them relevant
In the real world it is always the responsible people who are made to suffer for the stupidity of the irresponsible. Those of us who drive safely and considerately are forced to pay ever increasing insurance premiums to cover the cost of uninsured drivers and those who drive without thought for others. Anyone involved in legal gun ownership will be aware of the stringent rules in place, in the UK, yet this has done nothing to reduce the number of unlicenced, illegally held firearms.
The introduction of licencing, muzzling etc will only really affect the law abiding among us, as those who keep illegal and/or poorly trained dogs now will continue to do so. What value would there be in imposing a massive fine, as suggested by several people, when the person being fined will simply argue that they cannot afford to pay it. The reality of the situation is that they would be banned from owning a dog for a set period and would then ignore the ruling, much as ASBOs and the like are regularly ignored, in the knowledge that the police don’t have the resources to follow up on “minor issues”
Muzzle stupid politicians on first offence. Castrate/Spey on second, and pass bottle of euthanol on third while I pump up the veins.
While I agree that muzzling would not be a good idea, I do not see what is wrong with ALL dogs being on a leash in public places.
My dog is always on a leash, and a long one in the park and he is an energetic terrier and has NOT become aggressive even though he can’t run free. I’m sorry but I think your arguement is nonsense.
My dog has been attacked twice by other dogs in the park (fortunately he was OK but it did shake us both up considerably), where the other dog has been roaming free and not being controlled by their owner. Few dogs will ever be trained well enough to never be distracted by something else accross a park/road that may interest them!
I would propose that dogs by law should be kept on a leash in public places, eg street and public parks and allow dogs to run free at designated areas like country parks etc. Why should decent dog owners and other members of the public including children be pestered by other dogs? Long leashes that are commonly used are ideal in parks. I see lazy dog owners stand in the park and never move but let there dog run wild/free…would not be better that they got fit too by actually walking their dogs?
I am a purist. It is a breeder’s responsibility to find appropriate owners for their dogs, and when there is a problem, the owner and the breeder should be charged. Blaming the animal for a poor selection of owner and the inability and unwillingness to train their dogs is STUPID. Do they handcuff shoplifters? Castrate rapists? tattoo Raped on victims foreheads? No.
So why blame the dog for a stupid ignorant owner and a money hungry irresponsible breeder.
If the fines went the owner and breeder, it might stop backyard and boutique breeders. Fines should be heavy so that they make an impression.
I am a careful Rottie owner. Any dog in the wrong hands can be a dangerous ‘weapon’, so as other people have said, its some owners not their dogs that are the problem. also would all dogs in public have to be muzzled? What about Police Dogs? Any Service/Helping Dogs? Rescue Dogs? ,Gun dogs out on a shoot? Farmers with dogs? Then we move to Gun dogs Trials, sheep dog trials. The list is endless. The next move could be in your own garden (in case someone puts their hands through the fence), dogs loose when the postman/delivery man comes.
As for dogs on leads – does this mean everyone? again it would be impossible for gun dogs, farmers etc , but if they are working on a public footpath or access area surely this must count as a public area – not private land.
This would mean and end to many doggie activities – flyball or agility on a lead with a muzzle, I think not. Even obedience work! What about demonstrations?
These rules will be impossible to keep – too many loopholes.
I don’t see that dog licensing is the only way forward and in my opinion the only way this could be effective is if it were policed as they do with tv licensing, which I think we can almost guarantee they won’t do due to budget. If they did then GREAT! But I believe it won’t happen, so if they introduce a dog license and don’t police it well enough, then it’s the same old story, the decent citizen who pays their taxes/licenses/fees and the scumbags who don’t give a monkeys generally get away with it.
As far as muzzling goes, I think the majority of us agree it is not the way forward either and often serves to make the dog worse in many cases. But at the same time, the owners of nervy and snappy dogs also have to be careful about where they walk their dogs and under what circumstance. Unfortunately many don’t think about it and blame others for ‘walking too close’ or having a ‘nosy dog’.
Obviousley those with aggressive/fearful dogs need to be mindful too but generally this group are thinking about the problem more.
What do you have to say? I think making every dog wear a muzzle is wrong after all it is not the dog it is the owner if you can’t control your dog then don’t have it.
I don’t agree with putting muzzle on every dog, no dog is born aggressive, its the owners who by the way they treat a dog that brings out, or encourages the aggression.
As a trainer for over 35 years I have found that if there is a problem no matter what the breed, it is left to get totally out of hand before the owner seeks help
All these politicians and such likes all sit behind their desk and come up with more and more idiotic rules and regulations. I myself have always had Rottweiler’s and have never had a problem with any of them, these new proposals are pointing the finger of blame towards the dogs themselves NOT at the owners with whom are responsible for training the dogs. At least a few times a week I find small dogs come running up to my dog growling and snapping at her, as my dog is trained she ignores it. But if it was my dog running up to them it would be a different story, I would have the authorities banging on my door for having a dangerous dog.
Yes the law has to change but I believe they have to hold the owner’s responsible, maybe bringing back the dog licence and those who apply have to prove they can train and control the dog they are licensing. All of my dogs have always grown up with children and now grand children and all have been as good as gold, I know I keep saying but it is all in the training.
The biggest part of owning a dog is exercise, a poorly exercised dog is a bored dog and in turn has a massive build up of energy this is when it can manifest itself in to aggression. There’re are a lot of dogs being used out there as status symbols which does nothing for the reputations of the breeds being used, yet again it comes back to the owners. It angers me when I find people crossing the road, grabbing their kids or dogs just because I am walking a Rottweiler, the authorities and the press only feed this fear and ignorance.
How ridiculous. While we’re at it lets handcuff all teenagers in case they mug an old lady.
in the 10 years that i have had my beautiful black staffordshire bull terrier and i have lost count of the number of times i have been told to put her on a lead as she is a dangerous dog, and the number of mothers who have pulled their children away from her.
It is the owners responsibility for the upbringing of their dog, and its a shame that we are all tarred with the same brush if we have one of these, so called “dangerous dogs”.
My dog looks scary, but is a big softie.
If i had to muzzle her who knows how she would have turned out.
Rather than just muzzle the dogs, which is the easy option, more emphasis should be put on dealing with the dog owners.
These “dangerous dogs” are our pets….and we love them.
It’s always the dog! Whatever the breed, a dog can be nasty or unsociable if the owner is irresponsible.
I am very much for control of ownership, but not harking back to the days of the 7/6d dog license. I think that ALL owners should attend a dog owners responsibility course before being able to own a dog. I know that all shelters and licensed breeders would subscribe to this, but ultimately, we all know that RESPONSIBLE owners would sign up to this. The only owners that would not, are the owners that we’re trying to stop now.
It all comes down to cost. Any solution would need to be financed and policed, and the only owners who would end up paying are the responsible ones. Those who currently flout the laws will also flout any new laws – and the cost burden would be transferred to responsible owners.
So what is the solution? You’ll never stop a determined chav wanting to own a status dog, and if they can’t buy and own one legally, they’ll do it illegally, as there is nobody out there to police dog laws.
The photo of the dog wearing a muzzle on this page is misleading. The type of muzzle worn by “unpredictable” dogs is the plastic cage type so dog can drink and bark when wearing this type of muzzle. There is also the metal cage type worn by Greyhounds when racing for dogs that could “nibble” through a plastic muzzle.
Gale wrote: Quote “handcuff shoplifters? Castrate rapists? Unquote.
That’s not a bad idea IMO.:-))
Fines won’t solve any problem, neither will licences, insurances etc. The irresponsible won’t pay, the responsible will.
Switzerland has very strict rules. If you want to buy a dog you have to pass a theory and practical test. If you already own a dog you only have to pass the theory. And they police it!!!! Unlike the UK where even policing criminality, drivers with no insurance, licence or tax is sadly lacking in efficiency.
There is no room in society for aggressive dogs. The only acceptable aggression is when a dog is injured and/or in pain, and being provokes by children whose parents haven’t told them that a dog can react by biting if it pulls it’s ears, sticks pencils in it’s ears or jumps all over it etc. Even I would bite in these situations!!!.
The Dangerous Dogs Act didn’t work. There are more PitBulls and Pit crosses than ever before. Ye dOgs, you could even teach a Cavalier King Charles to bite if you really wanted to, and that’s a breed that don’t know what the word “nasty” means!!!
Any dog can bite. Look at hospital records and the number of patients with dog bites they receive each year.
Punish the deed, not the breed. Make the owner of the dogs 100% responsible. Heavy fines, Community work, picking up irresponsible people’s dog poo, and a ban on keeping any sort of animal for either a set period or forever.
If a dog is a known biter, it should have a one way trip to the vet..
There are too many dogs with nice temperaments that are being put to sleep because there is no room in rescue for them.
It would be just awful if all dogs were muzzled. I have a Jack Russell cross American Cocker Spaniel, you have never met a more loving dog. He loves it when we go over the park and he can chase leaves, sticks and his ball, pick them up and throw them around.
What does annoy me is the amount of parents who allow their children to come over, whether the dog is on his leash or not and start playing with him without asking if he is ok with children. Luckily, my dog loves kids and playing with them, but not all dogs are used to them and would be a bit intimidated. As has been said before, it is the humans who should be trained and should have a bit of common sense!
As soon as I got my dog I enrolled in puppy classes. When he was old enough he was castrated and microchipped.
The main problem is, those with problem dogs are not going to pay any attention what-so-ever to being told to muzzle their dogs and keep them on a leash. They don’t bother now, so why would they when they are told!
From reading these comments it is very clear – it is the irrersponsible dog owners that should be muzzled! Why should (yet again) the majority suffer because of the few! More should be done to ensure responsible breeders, owners and the effective use of the laws that we already have. Muzzling is not the answer, butof course, it is easy! Politicians – talk to my hand!
I fail to see how my dogs would bring the ball back when on leads and muzzled. Swimming would be only done in very hot weather when I would go in holding the other end of the lead. I’m not against walking my dogs but for them to get the same energy burn as chasing balls and swimming I’d have to quit work and spend 4hrs a day walking them up hill!
Not going to do that so I’d have unfit, fat unhealthy dogs, what a great idea!
Two words frustration and anxiety. These would increase if my two were not allowed free exercise. Frustrated anxious dogs could easily lead to aggressive dogs. Maybe we should just get rid of all dogs to solve the problem, humans just seem to want this planet to themselves for their own gains anyway! And we’re the so called intelligent beings! What a joke!
Hmm muzzling all dogs in public, this would be akin to
handcuffing all people in public (just in case one of them strikes out at someone else)
putting a speed limiter of say 10mph on all cars (just in case someone speeds and goes out of control)
living in glass houses (so that everyone can see that no one hits out or upsets anyone else domestically)
spaying/neutering anyone who as grown up in a bad environment (just in case they pass on their learning)
Muzzling all dogs will create more problems.
I’ve come from NZ to the UK with my dogs, in NZ we are very restricted on where we can both run our dogs freely and take them leashed and the dogs have a lot more anti-social issues with each other because they are social animals and don’t always get the needed opportunities to relate properly. Then people become unrealistically scared of dogs because they don’t encounter them as often. In the UK (at the moment) there is a lot more freedom and dogs aren’t as antsy with each other.
Microchipping is fine, dog registration is just a money grabbing exercise, as is the norm with everything, the responsible will do the right thing, the irresponsible will just keep on doing what they do! 3rd party insurance – stupid, or let’s just say this would be akin to parents having to get it just in case their children attack someone else or perhaps in case the parent loses it with their child. Yep in every country there are thousands more child abuse cases than there are dog attacks!
I have worked with dogs and owned my own dogs for forty years. Throughout the that time there have been dogs labelled as bad dogs, should be destroyed, should be muzzled, should be band! They have ranged from German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans and now Staffys and Pit Bulls. What breed will be next!
I think the screaming and the idea of muzzling all dogs in public is a knee jerk reaction born from pure ignorance, and definitely from people who have no regard for dogs in general and not an intelligent solution.
It is undoubtedly the owners of these dogs which are at fault and it is they who should be punished not the dogs.
Dogs are not born nasty – dogs are made nasty by human hand, deliberately or through ignorance.
I do think making it compulsory to have dogs microchiped and registered to the owner is an excellent idea and would help deter and police the current problems.
I have no objection to you publishing my comments above.
Muzzling dogs is sometimes used in the right context!! But certainly never when the owners have total control of their dogs. I used to have Maremma Sheepdogs, The Australian owners of livestock said that they were one of the most hated because of their barking. But these dogs only barked if they were telling an owner that someone was around. Here in the UK their are many different thoughts on this lovely breed but I never had a problem with anyone at all. They never barked at passers by that they had got used to. But I deviate because I was using that breed as an example, many of Australian land owners of Maremma Sheepdogs had a real desire to muzzle the breed, they were only doing a job that the breed were bred for’ Flockguarding’ How on earth could they do the job properly if muzzled? In all the time I owned my five not a nasty bone amongst them, in fact they were often seen at the famous Brentwood show “All About Dogs!” as superb examples of the breeds correct temperament. So in my eyes its not the dogs its the owners!! I would so love to take a muzzle to parliament and challenge the culprit to wearing it? I have a Pomeranian and a Yorkshire terrier now because of becoming disabled. But Its so stupid to have these lovely dogs muzzled or any dog??
I don’t see that dog licensing is the only way forward and in my opinion the only way this could be effective is if it were policed as they do with tv licensing, which I think we can almost guarantee they won’t do due to budget. If they did then GREAT! But I believe it won’t happen, so if they introduce a dog license and don’t police it well enough, then it’s the same old story, the decent citizen who pays their taxes/licenses/fees and the scumbags who don’t give a monkeys generally get away with it.
As far as muzzling goes, I think the majority of us agree it is not the way forward either and often serves to make the dog worse in many cases. But at the same time, the owners of nervy and snappy dogs also have to be careful about where they walk their dogs and under what circumstance. Unfortunately many don’t think about it and blame others for walking too close’ or having a nosy dog’.
Obviousley those with aggressive/fearful dogs need to be mindful too but generally this group are thinking about the problem more.