Respect for other dog walkers.

meritaten

I really don't understand why people use muzzles. a dog needs to be able to defend itself and its people from attack. if a dog is wearing a muzzle because it cant be trusted NOT to attack either a dog or a person - then that dog should NOT be out in public.

elsien

meritaten wrote: »

I really don't understand why people use muzzles. a dog needs to be able to defend itself and its people from attack. if a dog is wearing a muzzle because it cant be trusted NOT to attack either a dog or a person - then that dog should NOT be out in public.

If it's a choice of taking a dog reactive dog out wearing a muzzle, or not walking it at all, then wearing a muzzle has to be the better of the two options, surely? It's not a risk to man nor beast if muzzled and it would just be cruel to not take it out at all. What's the other option - PTS would be OTT for something that's safely manageable. Having had to use a muzzle on mutt for a bit, and on my dog reactive foster, I think there was only a couple of times in 13 years when another dog had a go, and I was able to intervene. Mutt would never have defended herself or me anyway, whatever happened.
Are you really suggesting that for those 13 years, she shouldn't have been out in public (bearing in mind I don't have a garden)? I think that's way out of proportion.

krlyr

meritaten wrote: »

I really don't understand why people use muzzles. a dog needs to be able to defend itself and its people from attack. if a dog is wearing a muzzle because it cant be trusted NOT to attack either a dog or a person - then that dog should NOT be out in public.

Why on earth not?

Any dog has the potential to bite. We groan when we hear the "well he's never done that before" - but it has to be true at least once in an aggressive/reactive dog's life.

The first time I owned a reactive dog, I had no clue she would be like that. Our family dogs had never had any issues with other dogs, this dog had lived with our other dog until she passed away, I was certainly not expecting the reaction I got from her first time we passed by a dog on a walk. Fortunately I used a headcollar because she was a very headstrong girl anyway, so that gave me enough control to get her out of the situation ASAP - had she just been on a collar, she may well have bitten another dog.
So, I took it as a (very scary) warning and used a muzzle thereafter. I also took the precaution of walking early in the day and late at night, taking routes I knew other dog walkers didn't tend to use, and trying to ensure every route we did take had a Plan B - e.g. a path we could dart up if I saw a dog, or a fence we could climb under to let another dog pass and so on.
I owned that dog another 4 years (sadly she was euthanised at a young age due to bad health issues), with not even a single near miss. She lived a happy life (aside from the health stuff) - she didn't care about wearing a muzzle, she got regular walks, we kept her as a solo dog so she didn't have to worry about interacting with any other dogs.
What should I have done with her? Had her euthanised after the first incident, "just in case"? Never taken her out on a walk again? Never mind the mental issues that could cause, her health issues meant she needed regular short walks to keep her muscles strong enough to support her failing joints, I wasn't going to deny my dog that when a simple solution came in the form of a muzzle that prevented her from causing any harm.

Ditto with my current dogs. I would like to think neither of my reactive dogs would bite another dog. Like I said, we've been in a situation where mine was pushed to the point an aggressive dog could have bitten (he was on a headcollar, so I had him under control if he had wanted to react aggressively) - but he decided to cower behind me, because of an off-lead Jack Russell that would not leave us alone. The dog was the size of Casper's head, he could have killed it in a single bite had he wanted to, but he didn't.

However, because of the fact they are living beings, who don't act predictably every moment of the day, especially when they suffer what is basically a phobia of other dogs (because reactivity is irrational like a phobia - I don't know what caused Casper's reactivity in the first place, but he can be around dogs he knows so he does know dogs aren't all scary things), I plan for irrational behaviour. If I think a lead and headcollar aren't going to give me sufficient control, I opt for a muzzle. Because, on that slim chance he might one day decide to retaliate instead of back down, I know I have done everything in my control to prevent my dog from being a risk to someone/someone's dog.

In regards to making my dogs defenseless..well, it does, and that's why I think it's not a black and white issue. If I owned a little Chihuahua, yeah, chances are I wouldn't use a muzzle. But I own big, strong breeds who could do a lot of damage in a fight. They're also big enough (and in Casper's case, hairy enough!) that they're not likely to be inflicted fatal wounds, unless it's a particularly big dog (in which case, they probably wouldn't defend themselves very well unmuzzled either). But like most decisions I make with my dogs, I consider their behaviour and safety - I'm very unlikely to take my dogs to a place we'd encounter that kind of risk. They go to our local parks or the fields near our house, where we see the same dogs most days (or don't see any at all).

So for me, the risk of them being left defenseless in a fight is very low. The risk of someone's little dog running over to us is higher - and whilst I would hope mine wouldn't react (so far they have managed very well in these situations), I feel the risk of them reacting - or rather, the risk of the implications should they react - warrants at the very least carrying a muzzle on me that I could slip on should I see a dog making a beeline for us in the park.


If you think I'm being an irresponsible owner for being aware of the fact my big dogs have big teeth that could potentially do some home, so be it. I'm rather happy with the choices I make with my dogs, and they certainly don't suffer from my overcautiousness by wearing a muzzle, as they've been taught to actually enjoy wearing one (muzzle means walkies, just like the lead or my dog walking coat)

chris_n_tj

elsien wrote: »

If it's a choice of taking a dog reactive dog out wearing a muzzle, or not walking it at all, then wearing a muzzle has to be the better of the two options, surely? It's not a risk to man nor beast if muzzled and it would just be cruel to not take it out at all. What's the other option - PTS would be OTT for something that's safely manageable. Having had to use a muzzle on mutt for a bit, and on my dog reactive foster, I think there was only a couple of times in 13 years when another dog had a go, and I was able to intervene. Mutt would never have defended herself or me anyway, whatever happened.
Are you really suggesting that for those 13 years, she shouldn't have been out in public (bearing in mind I don't have a garden)? I think that's way out of proportion.

Thats fair enough for me elsien xx

krlyr

Also, I don't think it's a dog's place to defend a person from an attack. My dogs aren't weapons, I wouldn't expect them to defend me any more than I'd carry a knife for self-defence. Given their breeds, they very may well do so anyway (in an extreme case - despite their dog reactivity, they're very good with people), but I don't feel like I've given myself less protection by walking with them muzzled.

And unlike carrying a knife, where I'm the one who would be punished if I inflicted a wound on someone, I am not prepared to gamble my dogs' lives by putting them at risk of euthanasia by biting someone.

Again, weighing up risks vs. outcome - I don't walk many places alone, and certainly not places I feel unsafe. So the risk of actually really needing to be defended by my dogs vs. the risk of them being euthanised for biting someone who would have only grabbed my phone and ran off with it, I'd stick with the muzzle.