I see a lot of complaints from people that believe because their dog is on a lead it cannot be approached by another dog. Complaints about how their dog is not friendly even though yours is! How dare you allow your dog (a social animal) to approach their leaded, unfriendly dog?
Complaints like that.
And I get to thinking. If your dog is unfriendly, reactive, nervous, scared or openly aggressive on a lead or not, surely it is safer to have a muzzle on? I know there will be a proportion of people that believe the dog on the lead should have its nervousness respected, its fear excused and to a lesser degree its aggressive behaviour accepted. I believe all these things too, but I also believe a muzzle will make these allowances easier to accept for the owners of all the dogs that are not on a lead and are to all intents and purposes, social, friendly and well trained to recall. We are frightened of your unfriendly, unmuzzled dog. We would like you to take full responsibility for what he/she is capable of and use a muzzle.
The problem that underpins it all is that in no way should we blame the dog on the lead for its behaviour. I don’t – I blame the owner for not keeping their dog on a lead safe in the park, in the woodland, on the beach. I blame a lack of understanding on the owner’s part that the dog is their responsibility and theirs alone. Their dog is not the responsibility of other dog walkers. In fact, even with logos on their leads or certain colours depicting problems, the dog on a lead is still their responsibility and theirs alone.
I am a long-time dog owner and I have seen a marked increase in the number of big dogs on leads that will lunge and will bite. This is frightening. Within the last year, as a regular dog walker, I have experienced a large mastiff almost getting one of my dogs on a walk past (no muzzle and angry owner), two Belgian Shepherds pull away on lead from their owner and put teeth on my dog on a walk past (no muzzles and angry owner) and one Labrador mix lunge and miss one of my dogs on a walk past (no muzzle and angry owner) and I know that the large mastiff went on to kill one small dog and maim another. This is very wrong and distressing to all and something that would never have happened had the dog been wearing a muzzle. I wonder if the owner thought it was the fault of the small dogs for approaching her reactive and aggressive un-muzzled mastiff?
On the other hand, I’ve had several encounters with a large mixed breed who is reactive and clearly aggressive. I know this because I have never got near him. The owner about turns when she sees other dogs. One day I did get near, and we had a chat at a distance. Her dog is not friendly and could I keep mine at bay. Of course. We talked about the difficulty she faced when other dogs ran up to her dog, how little people understood that their dog being friendly did not make a difference, how much adversity she faced when her dog lunged. Her dog wore a muzzle and, in her words, – it was “to keep him safe”. I had enormous respect for this. Not only was she keeping his own dog safe, she was keeping others safe too.
This is one of those times in dog training when there is a quick fix. Muzzle training quickly fixes danger from reactive dogs that exhibit aggressive behaviour. I believe, if your dog is nervous, scared or openly aggressive, he/she should have a muzzle on. Because with the best will in the world, it can be impossible to stop a well-socialised, well behaved, friendly dog from saying ‘hello’. This dog is NOT at fault. In fact, this dog may have been raised to be friendly to other dogs, avoid conflict and generally be a successful all-rounder. The dog on the lead, on the other hand, is in no way like this. The dog on the lead is unpredictable. This makes the situation unpredictable. And the entire encounter is compromised simply because the dog on the lead has no muzzle.
Now, I have a curveball to this thinking because much as I believe it to be true, I had a conversation with someone Stateside recently. I learned to my horror two things. Firstly, the use of prongs and e-collars to control reactivity is fairly widespread and secondly that many reactive and/or aggressive dogs roam freely and do attack. The argument here being that a muzzled dog cannot defend itself if attacked (and they are). And, more frighteningly a muzzle is not a necessary tool when a prong or shock can control behaviour. There are many layers to unpick here and I am not sure where to start. I am fundamentally opposed to using aversive tools (like the prong or e-collar) in training BUT I believe people in some situations feel they have no choice. In fact, I believe they love their dog, want to walk their dog and fear that if they use a muzzle, they could put their dog in danger. Even though, paradoxically, they are already putting their dog in danger, at their own hands by using shocks or prongs.
I’d love to know more about our American cousins. I know there are wonderful trainers and behaviourists there. I know there are leash laws and very few places where dogs can free run. I know there are State by State differences. I know many of the dogs come in BIG and BULL. But there is much I do not know and much I would like to know. For example, is there a lack of information or education on socialisation periods for puppies? Is there a trend towards having a large dog for protection? Are the majority of reactive dogs, dogs from rescue shelters? Although the answers to these questions (and more) will provide some clarity, the problem remains. Many reactive dogs in the US are unmuzzled and potentially wearing either a prong or shock collar (I did see a post where one dog was wearing both).
Does a trend towards larger dogs for protection exist? Potentially. I think it always did. And certainly, Hollywood is responsible for glorifying some breeds. For instance, ‘Dog’ released in 2022 is the story of a reactive Belgian Shepherd Dog that comes good within an unrealistic time frame and with little to no training. Sprinkle on a generous dusting of Hollywood magic and we see an upturn in the number of Belgian Shepherds bought, the number of reactive Belgian Shepherds and the number of Belgian Shepherds in rescue. The trend may certainly exist for big dogs for protection but with these big dogs comes an obligation on the owner’s part to understand breed traits and that is most certainly not always there.
Are the majority of reactive dogs from rescue? That’s a tough call. I think some are rescued, rather than from rescue. Certainly, some must be from other countries. On that note there has definitely been an increase in the number of dogs ‘rescued’ from countries like Romania. I think there may be a thread of an explanation there. The dogs in Romania are on the streets as a result of a breakdown in communism in the 1980s. Many people moved from rural to urban living and left their dogs in the country. Dogs began to do what dogs on their own do – they scavenge, they navigate their way to city life so they can live near rubbish dumps which provide viable food sources for the foraging dog. They form loose groups. They breed and over generations their offspring become progressively less friendly to humans. They tolerate people. Village dogs such as this exist across the world (Africa, New Guinea, Mexico and so on). Although they share a domesticated lineage, these dogs are not tame. They are, in fact, reactive and unpredictable when ‘rescued’.
Certainly, bringing these dogs to the UK in the name of rescue has created more dogs with issues on our streets, in our parks, on our beaches, through our woodlands. If any dog should be muzzled, it is them. No question. There is nothing inherently wrong with these ex-village dogs except that they are rescued! The warm fire holds no pull for them. It frightens them. The regular food bores them. The veterinary care confuses them. Other dogs are a threat to them. Nothing is the same or recognisable. And they cannot understand what has happened. CANNOT. They want to go home. Yet we do this in the name of rescue showing a complete lack of research and understanding. It absolutely screams ‘KILL WITH KINDNESS’.
So, to circle back – are there causes for the increase in numbers of dogs with reactivity? Very probably. However, it is still the responsibility of that owner, in my view, to make sure that any attack from their dog is limited by the use of a muzzle. It is not my responsibility, in my view, when walking my friendly, unreactive dog in a public, social space to know that someone might be walking a dog that may attack. I cannot know that their dog is dangerous, known to be dangerous and will attack. A muzzle would alert me.
I love dogs. I am a trainer. I am a behaviourist. I know what I’m talking about. Responsibility MUST land with the owner. Not everyone else in the park. Otherwise, we are entering an arena where culpability becomes skewed. A child gets mauled by a dog – it’s the child’s fault, not the dog owner. You see how I don’t blame the dog? Why? Because there is a high likelihood that the owner knew the dog had ‘form’. Knew they needed to protect their dog in some situations. And a muzzle is protection.
I have included a link to the muzzle project – an organisation where you can get advice on the type of muzzle, on how to fit a muzzle, and loads more. Muzzle Up Project. If you are in any doubt whatsoever, I hope this has been enough to persuade you to get a muzzle – you will never forgive yourself if things get out of control. If you still think it is OK to walk your unmuzzled, reactive dog in the park/street/woodland/beach, please do so at 5am. Give the rest of us a fighting chance for a less frightening walk.
