Should dogs be muzzled off lead ?

[stumfelter]

I personally Muzzle my dog,an American Bulldog so quite heavy and very strong, as it is aggressive with other dogs and has snapped at a couple of people, in certain unpleasant circumstances, but i have been on the receiving end of another dog attacking mine because its owner had no idea how to control a dog,I'm slightly ashamed to say i beat the dog senseless and if the owner had have got closer he might have received the same £182.00 for stitches to my dog and its only increased his distain for other dogs.

If all dogs were muzzled this scenario wouldn't have arisen.

 

That dog sounds perfect, if you ever breed with him please bear me in mind for a pup. Not.

[Zetter]

Its all about reponsibility if you know your dog can have issues either muzzle it or keep it on a lead.

 

My rescue Shepard/ Lab cross pathologically hates other dogs I suspect before we got her something really laid into her and she now tries to get the first blow in, she is now predatory agressive towards other dogs. Due to this she is always walked on a lead with with a figure 8 head harness on.

The reason is I know that I cant trust her when she sees another dog the red mist descends and she would be off. This however doesnt stop other peoples dogs from coming over with the usual "oh he/ she is friendly" well sorry mate mine when it comes to other dogs isnt.

The upshot of this is most of the time I join the ranks of the late night dog walkers so I can avoid incidents because people whos dogs take no notice of them dont keep their dogs on a lead!

 

Its a pain but she is a fantastic family pet and my kids adour her, we knew if we sent her back to the dog home she would either be a permanent resident or for the chop. Odd dog really she has no issues with people or kids just hates her own species.

 

Glad your dog got off without any major damage Mike though it sounds like it was lucky.

[Munzy]

Given I have been though this dog biting business this year (my 2 year old daughter was bitten on her face) I think we need an overhaul of the various dog acts and the definition of "dangerous dogs" so we can sort out badly behaved dogs of any type and, more to the point, their owners.

In my opinion this is spot on!

 

These are both facts:

 

1) ALL dogs are dangerous - I don't know of a single toothless breed, they are ALL capable of biting someone or something.

 

2) ANY dog can be stopped from inflicting injury on another dog or person - The owner can muzzle, harness, keep on a lead or destroy any dog which poses a risk. Show me ANY dog attack on human or other animal and I will show you how training, muzzling, a lead or prior-destruction would have prevented it.

 

Given that Point 1 is a fact, we do not need and should not have a "Dangerous Dogs" categorisation instead we should force ALL owners to accept that their dog has the potential to cause injury and they MUST act to prevent it. Excuses of "he's never done it before", "my dog is friendly", "my dog is an 18 year old fat barrel shaped lab" will become meaningless.

 

We don't need a law forcing owners to muzzle dogs. If you believe (and demonstrate) you can control your dog by voice fair play to you. If you feel your dog needs to be on a lead in public, fair play to you. If you think it safer to muzzle your dog, fair play to you. But, get it wrong and you're in trouble.

 

So, with ALL dog owners now being accountable and KNOWING that they are responsible and accountable let's address the punishment for an attack.

 

Immediate destruction of the dog in question and immediate imprisonment of the owner for a period equal to that which would have been handed down had they assaulted someone with a knife themselves.

 

The third fact I will throw your direction from my soapbox whilst my blood is still boiling is that this WON'T prevent dog attacks! Many will still refuse to accept that their dog can cause injury or they won't do what they should to ensure it doesn't attack... and then it will.

 

What this action will do, however, is to force people to face responsibility or face the consequences. If it's the latter then we will rid the parks, streets and homes of a great number of dogs AND owners who were unable to protect innocent members of their community.

 

Maybe in 50 years we will completely change people's perceptions of the level of responsibility they have when owning a dog. They may have seen friends locked up for a dog bite crime, they may have lost a beloved family pet because it bit something and hopefully this will make them think twice before embarking on dog ownership in future.

 

We are all familiar with gun safety and I would like to think we all take it VERY seriously. It is this level of responsibility that ALL dog owners need to have when taking their dogs out. They should leave the house knowing they are carrying a loaded weapon.

 

We don't need laws to govern how dogs should be controlled, only that they are. Any owner that doesn't control their dog loses it and loses their freedom for a few years and is never allowed to own a dog in future.

 

Control your dog however you see fit, take some bloody responsibility. Get it wrong and you pay a hefty price. Our whole culture of nannying government is killing people's ability to self govern.

[birdsallpl]

That is a well thought out plan - NOT. Must have taken a whole second to formulate it. :whistling:

 

I do not agree about muzzling the dogs and I say that the owner who let if off the lead was irresponsible - totally.

 

One of our Akitas - 10 stone of fluff - was never muzzled, but was attacked about half a dozen times, by dogs, whose owners let them off their lead. Why would I have put my dog in a position where it could not defend itself? Mine stayed on a lead.

If your 10 stone of fluff decided to attack another dog or god forbid a child, How would you stop it?

[birdsallpl]

In my opinion this is spot on!

These are both facts:

1) ALL dogs are dangerous - I don't know of a single toothless breed, they are ALL capable of biting someone or something.

2) ANY dog can be stopped from inflicting injury on another dog or person - The owner can muzzle, harness, keep on a lead or destroy any dog which poses a risk. Show me ANY dog attack on human or other animal and I will show you how training, muzzling, a lead or prior-destruction would have prevented it.

Given that Point 1 is a fact, we do not need and should not have a "Dangerous Dogs" categorisation instead we should force ALL owners to accept that their dog has the potential to cause injury and they MUST act to prevent it. Excuses of "he's never done it before", "my dog is friendly", "my dog is an 18 year old fat barrel shaped lab" will become meaningless.

We don't need a law forcing owners to muzzle dogs. If you believe (and demonstrate) you can control your dog by voice fair play to you. If you feel your dog needs to be on a lead in public, fair play to you. If you think it safer to muzzle your dog, fair play to you. But, get it wrong and you're in trouble.

So, with ALL dog owners now being accountable and KNOWING that they are responsible and accountable let's address the punishment for an attack.

Immediate destruction of the dog in question and immediate imprisonment of the owner for a period equal to that which would have been handed down had they assaulted someone with a knife themselves.

The third fact I will throw your direction from my soapbox whilst my blood is still boiling is that this WON'T prevent dog attacks! Many will still refuse to accept that their dog can cause injury or they won't do what they should to ensure it doesn't attack... and then it will.

What this action will do, however, is to force people to face responsibility or face the consequences. If it's the latter then we will rid the parks, streets and homes of a great number of dogs AND owners who were unable to protect innocent members of their community.

Maybe in 50 years we will completely change people's perceptions of the level of responsibility they have when owning a dog. They may have seen friends locked up for a dog bite crime, they may have lost a beloved family pet because it bit something and hopefully this will make them think twice before embarking on dog ownership in future.

We are all familiar with gun safety and I would like to think we all take it VERY seriously. It is this level of responsibility that ALL dog owners need to have when taking their dogs out. They should leave the house knowing they are carrying a loaded weapon.

We don't need laws to govern how dogs should be controlled, only that they are. Any owner that doesn't control their dog loses it and loses their freedom for a few years and is never allowed to own a dog in future.

Control your dog however you see fit, take some bloody responsibility. Get it wrong and you pay a hefty price. Our whole culture of nannying government is killing people's ability to self govern.

We are on the same wave length

[timmytree]

 

That dog sounds perfect, if you ever breed with him please bear me in mind for a pup. Not.

 

What a disgusting suggestion!

[bigbird]

In my opinion this is spot on!

 

These are both facts:

 

1) ALL dogs are dangerous - I don't know of a single toothless breed, they are ALL capable of biting someone or something.

 

2) ANY dog can be stopped from inflicting injury on another dog or person - The owner can muzzle, harness, keep on a lead or destroy any dog which poses a risk. Show me ANY dog attack on human or other animal and I will show you how training, muzzling, a lead or prior-destruction would have prevented it.

 

Given that Point 1 is a fact, we do not need and should not have a "Dangerous Dogs" categorisation instead we should force ALL owners to accept that their dog has the potential to cause injury and they MUST act to prevent it. Excuses of "he's never done it before", "my dog is friendly", "my dog is an 18 year old fat barrel shaped lab" will become meaningless.

 

We don't need a law forcing owners to muzzle dogs. If you believe (and demonstrate) you can control your dog by voice fair play to you. If you feel your dog needs to be on a lead in public, fair play to you. If you think it safer to muzzle your dog, fair play to you. But, get it wrong and you're in trouble.

 

So, with ALL dog owners now being accountable and KNOWING that they are responsible and accountable let's address the punishment for an attack.

 

Immediate destruction of the dog in question and immediate imprisonment of the owner for a period equal to that which would have been handed down had they assaulted someone with a knife themselves.

 

The third fact I will throw your direction from my soapbox whilst my blood is still boiling is that this WON'T prevent dog attacks! Many will still refuse to accept that their dog can cause injury or they won't do what they should to ensure it doesn't attack... and then it will.

 

What this action will do, however, is to force people to face responsibility or face the consequences. If it's the latter then we will rid the parks, streets and homes of a great number of dogs AND owners who were unable to protect innocent members of their community.

 

Maybe in 50 years we will completely change people's perceptions of the level of responsibility they have when owning a dog. They may have seen friends locked up for a dog bite crime, they may have lost a beloved family pet because it bit something and hopefully this will make them think twice before embarking on dog ownership in future.

 

We are all familiar with gun safety and I would like to think we all take it VERY seriously. It is this level of responsibility that ALL dog owners need to have when taking their dogs out. They should leave the house knowing they are carrying a loaded weapon.

 

We don't need laws to govern how dogs should be controlled, only that they are. Any owner that doesn't control their dog loses it and loses their freedom for a few years and is never allowed to own a dog in future.

 

Control your dog however you see fit, take some bloody responsibility. Get it wrong and you pay a hefty price. Our whole culture of nannying government is killing people's ability to self govern.

+1

[Doc Holliday]

By strange coincidence, Mrs H & I were having this conversation yesterday with another dog owner whilst out walking. Definitely falls upon the owner to act responsibly and muzzle their dog if there is any doubt about their behaviour on or off the lead.

[Winston72]

thats awful mate. and no need to be ashamed, i would have done the same.

was the other dog running free? or on a lead?

off the lead, I cant blame the dog its all down to the owner,but the dog bore the brunt while the idiot owner left the dog to it

[Winston72]

 

That dog sounds perfect, if you ever breed with him please bear me in mind for a pup. Not.

Whats your problem?

[STOTTO]

They should bring back those high voltage electric dog collars and make them mandatory, not to put them on the dog but around the necks of all of the irresponsible dog owners of which in my area they are legion. Then issue all of the responsible dog owners with a long range zapper then the problem with out of control aggressive dogs would disappear overnight.

[955i]

No. The fact that some people can't control their dogs is no reason to muzzle all dogs.

 

I heard a guy shot someone somewhere, hand your guns to the police!

 

Can't tar all with one brush.

 

Maybe get a 'harder' dog

[955i]

I believe we need to criminalise attacking dogs more. My view is that if you cannot pick your dog off the ground by the scruff of its neck it is too powerful for you to handle and you should be responsible enough not to own it. Or if you do then it must be muzzled whilst in public.

We have all seen the 10stone lady walking along with two Rockweillers. Wouldn't stand a chance to control them. If penalties were far more severe, they may think twice.

Rottweilers (picky I know) and I can't pick my girl up by the scruff but that is not a measure of all dogs attitudes.

 

I assume you carry yours in a Burburry handbag or don't own a dog at all.

 

Ridiculous comment

[birdsallpl]

Rottweilers (picky I know) and I can't pick my girl up by the scruff but that is not a measure of all dogs attitudes.

 

I assume you carry yours in a Burburry handbag or don't own a dog at all.

 

Ridiculous comment

I have a working springer which I can pick up by the scruff of the neck.

All dogs are killers, it is what a dog does in its natural environment. Their attitude has nothing to do with it. Put any dog in the right situation and it is capable of attacking.

[955i]

I have a working springer which I can pick up by the scruff of the neck.

All dogs are killers, it is what a dog does in its natural environment. Their attitude has nothing to do with it. Put any dog in the right situation and it is capable of attacking.

Put any firearm holder in the right situation and they are capable of killing.

 

What do you define as the 'right' situation?

 

BTW, picking it up by the scruff if it gets into a situation is, psychologically speaking from a dogs point of view, making it more likely to react aggressively the next time.

Edited December 15, 2014 by 955i

[Gordon R]

If your 10 stone of fluff decided to attack another dog or god forbid a child, How would you stop it?

 

 

My dogs have all been trained to a high standard. When in public - they were on a lead and we made a point of giving a wide berth to people or dogs, as some idiots kept trying to stroke them.

 

That said - based on your infantile logic - no-one would ever own a dog. Owners would presumably be weighed at the same time as their pets, followed by a test of strength between man and dog. Once results were in - permission to own a dog would be granted or denied.

 

955i - we have not always agreed, but you have the measure of the man.

[955i]

 

My dogs have all been trained to a high standard. When in public - they were on a lead and we made a point of giving a wide berth to people or dogs, as some idiots kept trying to stroke them.

 

That said - based on your infantile logic - no-one would ever own a dog. Owners would presumably be weighed at the same time as their pets, followed by a test of strength between man and dog. Once results were in - permission to own a dog would be granted or denied.

 

955i - we have not always agreed, but you have the measure of the man.

Gordon, we have an accord on this one (and I don't mean to fall out with you in general, sometimes I type quicker than my brain goes )

[955i]

Also note that in some species 10 stone of fluff could equate to 1kg of actual dog.

 

Also spotted is the 'working cocker' which suggests to me that it is an accessory to the gun and flat cap rather than any knowledge of dogs and their requirements.

 

The fact that he knows he can pick it up by the scruff suggests he has had to do that and is not in control of his own dog whilst blathering on at other owners how theirs should be treated.

What dogs do you have Gordon?

[birdsallpl]

My dogs have all been trained to a high standard. When in public - they were on a lead and we made a point of giving a wide berth to people or dogs, as some idiots kept trying to stroke them.

 

That said - based on your infantile logic - no-one would ever own a dog. Owners would presumably be weighed at the same time as their pets, followed by a test of strength between man and dog. Once results were in - permission to own a dog would be granted or denied.

 

955i - we have not always agreed, but you have the measure of the man.

 

You never actually answered my question about your 10 stone of fluff. Also I don't think you read my earlier post correctly. In essence if you can't physically control your dog you should not have it, or if you decide to anyway you should have it muzzled in public. It is about responsibility.

Sorry if you find this topic to emotive, it is never my intention to upset anyone. Just my opinion.

[955i]

You never actually answered my question about your 10 stone of fluff. Also I don't think you read my earlier post correctly. In essence if you can't physically control your dog you should not have it, or if you decide to anyway you should have it muzzled in public. It is about responsibility.

Sorry if you find this topic to emotive, it is never my intention to upset anyone. Just my opinion.

Oh no, your post about being able to lift your dog off appears to have gone astray!! Where could it be???

 

My 10 stone of fluff is actually 6 stone of immaculately well behaved muscle and fur which does exactly what she is told due to long and hard training.

 

What I suspect you have is an uncontrollable dog due to lack of owner enthusiasm and knowledge of dogs as it is a trophy to fit in with your idea of what you need to be 'a shooter'

 

Not too emotive, just don't need to be told my dog should be muzzled by someone who doesn't appear to be able to control their own!!

Edited December 15, 2014 by 955i

[birdsallpl]

Oh no, your post about being able to lift your dog off appears to have gone astray!! Where could it be???

 

My 10 stone of fluff is actually 6 stone of immaculately well behaved muscle and fur which does exactly what she is told due to long and hard training.

 

What I suspect you have is an uncontrollable dog due to lack of owner enthusiasm and knowledge of dogs as it is a trophy to fit in with your idea of what you need to be 'a shooter'

My post wasn't in response to you it was in response to Gordon!

[955i]

My post wasn't in response to you it was in response to Gordon!

Sorry, unlikely as it is we are teaming up on this one

[Albert 888]

Dogs should be on licence or tag type things like fac,if you don't have valid reason for having or owning one you shouldn't have one, this would get rid of allsorts of problems arising from careless dog owners. I have dogs for wildfowling beating and picking up that's my reason to own them. Not because I want to cuddle them and treat them like children.

[ben0850]

The problem won't be solved by suggesting control measures. The responsible people who train their dogs would be the only people responsible enough to muzzle them. The ********* who spout 'my dogs friendly / wouldn't hurt sheep' or the type who have a dog as a penis extender would simply ignore the rules anyhow

[Gordon R]

birdsallpl - I could control my dogs by training, but I am relatively strong. The dog trainer at some classes we attended was about six stone dripping wet, but owned three large GSDs. I presume she should never have been allowed to own these. I have never seen better trained dogs.

From what you say, I had far more control over my dogs than you have over yours. I never felt the need to pick one up. It's hardly scientific and just how would this superb solution be policed?

I don't find the topic "to emotive" - that should be "too", by the way.

955i - sadly we no longer have any dogs. We had 4 GSDs - three at the same time - and 3 Akitas - two at a time. I spent a considerable time training them, but had the misfortune to encounter a number of ill trained dogs and their owners. Despite the fact that their owners might well have been able to pick them up by the scruff of the neck, they didn't seem to control them very well.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Gordon R