I agree.

They wont look down on the dog that hasnt bitten because it was muzzled, and I think the difference is, if someone already knows for a fact that they have a dog that will bite, then they have a duty of responsability to others as much as anyone else. Accidents happen and people need to know, dogs will approach as some point, so IMO if you KNOW your dog will cause harm to another simply for a dog approaching then you need to do something about that. I have seen plenty dog aggressive dogs that are on lead but not 'under control'

btw... my dog is not aggressive i am talking hypothetically!


so your saying.. u put yourself between the dog and your dog..after already asking the owners to call back their dog and have been ignored..or been told 'its ok its friendly'.. the other dog wont leave yours alone..your dog shows its not happy warns the otherdog till its left no option but to bite...and your dogs in the wrong!! dream on soz!

NO, I didnt say that at all you just made up a little scenario there....I never mentioned that scenario or me putting myself between a dog..

What I wrote was

The point is that you do not leave the dog without options, I whack the offending dog myself.

It has certainly taught the regulars on my walk to actually pay attention to their dogs and keep out of my way and/or keep their dogs on the lead.

Backed up by the dog warden!

Oh but they do! I've been told I shouldn't have Rupert out in public if he's not friendly. I've also been told several times that he should be dead because he'll be going after children next. I've had both responses when Rupe hasn't even reacted as I've been between him and the other dog the whole time. I've also had them when he has reacted, muzzled and unmuzzled.

I am responsible for my own dogs safety and not anyone else.

If my dog is under control then it makes no difference if the other dog is DA or not.

Talking about protecting a dog from a legal stand point, initially a dog may be ok having the fact that another dog approached first - 3 more dogs mauled and I dont think the wardens/police are going to think its ok for that dog to bite since another was in its space!

I still agree with Claire and Boredinstroud.

There are dogs who are aggressive and theres no such thing as fear in them, they want to grab a dog because it is simply there! Seen plenty and IMO a lead is not taking seriously enough the possible risk to others dogs.

hmmm how have we moved from "biting" to "mauling"?

Not seen any posts in this thread re anyone or any dog being "mauled"?!

There are some dogs who have REAL aggression issues and dont just have a grumble or a snap....

I have known someone with a DA Rott who was kept on lead, he then snapped the lead and had a dog (who was minding its own business) pinned down and going at it crazy style.....LUCKILY HE WAS MUZZLED or that other dog would likley be dead. But according to some he shouldnt have needed to be muzzled and a lead was making sure he was 'under control'..
ALL parties involved were glad that dog had a muzzle on - if he hadnt...

My dog has only "mauled" one other dog and given that that dog had attacked him multiple times and at the time of the "mauling" was intent on attacking him again I don't really blame him to be honest.

Bites...what do you class as a bite? Is a single bite that leaves no mark a bite? What about making the tip of an ear bleed slightly? What about slamming the other dog to the ground and not leaving a single toothmark on it? Obviously there's a hell of a difference between all of those and a dog needing extensive vet care. Or there is to me anyway. Some people think a noisy display of teeth and spit warrants a dog being muzzled and kept on leash though so I guess it's a matter of opinion as to what counts.