I always have a muzzle clipped to my bag when I'm out with Rupert. Most dogs that have approached us have charged straight at us growling and I'm afraid I'm NOT going to muzzle him in that situation but when an obviously friendly one was approaching I did slip it on while my hubby intercepted the other dog. I'd use it if I had no choice but to pass another dog on the same side of the street too. It's not happened yet but if you've got a dog heading towards you and a dog behind you on a busy road....well, there's little you can do.

No, I dont think an on lead aggressive dog should be muzzled.

Off lead Duncan ignores dogs and will run away if they approach him, on lead he barks and if a dog approaches close enough will bite. I don't muzzle him because I keep far enough away from other dogs for the other owner to call their dog back - if they don't I consider their dog out of control and anything that happens to be their fault having said that I will get between them to try to diffuse the situation and if we go to an area where there are likely to be off lead dogs I carry a stick.

The only reason he bites is because he cannot run away classic fear aggression we have worked with a behaviorist and were doing quite well until we had him neutered which seemed to make him much worse.

He doesn't like people either but I consider me telling a person not to try and touch him enough if they carry on and try then sorry they are idiots and should listen and not imagine they are better placed to understand him than me.


In short no I don't muzzle I do think if he was bigger I might have to as I miay not be able to hold him back but he is small and I can.

If the dog is on lead and under control then NO it should not be muzzled.

I like the idea of carrying a muzzle a) as a visual deterant and b) as it could be used if necessary, to allow free running for instance

I don`t think you can generalise like that. Each situation has to be considered separately.

I see no reason for ANY dog to be muzzled unless BOTH the following two conditions are met:

1 The dog is of such a disposition that close contact with another dog/person would result in an actual bite.
2 There is no way to avoid such contact.

If your dog is on a lead it is simple to avoid such contact by preventing your dog interacting with any other living thing UNLESS its spaces is invaded in other words by choice.

If, for example, your dog MUST be approached by a relevant individual eg the vet for examination/treatment then of course put a muzzle on to protect the safety of the vet!

I have an extremely well socialised, good tempered dog who, in her 10.5 years of life has harmed no dog or human, however, she can be reactive on the lead due to morons allowing their dogs to mug her.

Is she aggressive? No, very few dogs ARE worthy of such a label, aggression is merely a behaviour, one of a repertoire belonging to most living things.

Is she reacting appropriately? Yes because her space is being invaded by rude dogs and because her skills are so good, that, if given the opportunity, she can wither most dogs with her body language and eye contact.

She is frequently used when I go out to assess dogs for rehoming and has behaved appropriately at all times.

Yet many people who see her "react" on the lead to their uncontrolled dogs have labelled her as "aggressive, nasty, unfriendly" etc etc.

I have owned a dog that wanted to exterminate all living things, he was never a problem as long as others kept their dogs away, from him and he never instigated anything as he was under control.

So I understand both perspectives, if my dog was bitten because it was out of control and had gone up to a dog on lead then the blame would lie solely with ME for being so irresponsible in relation both to MY dog, the other dog and its owner.

End of!

I think Claire is right & I'd hope in most instances it wouldn't be necessary. However, I don't agree that just because a dog is on-lead it is therefore 'under control'. If an off-lead dog runs up with no aggression but is bitten by an on-lead dog, the attacking dog is clearly not under control, lead or no lead (unless the owner wants it to bite the approaching dog which seems unlikely). That doesn't mean of course to say it's right for the other dog to have approached either but clearly if your dog is not acting as you would wish and you can't stop it, it's not under control as such.

I would say that if someone feels that there is a good chance of their dog biting a dog approaching their dog and that they wouldn't be able to stop that then it would be best that their dog is muzzled. On the other hand, most people on Dogsey seem to have strategies to cope with the scenario without muzzling the dog so that's fine too. It's really sad that people's dogs have been attacked just cause the dog is wearing a muzzle!

i disagree.. its been put in a situation by the other dog!! and owner..people will always look down on the dog that bites/warns as the baddie.

So what does under control mean then because I have assumed on a lead and unable to approach other dogs is keeping mine under control - I cannot control other peoples actions but have my dog on a lead surely I can't be expected to control the other dog too ?

Hi Tupac - I'm not saying the owner of the off-lead dog is in the right - in the situation neither dog is under control and for practicality the aim should be to not allow the situation to arise. However I don't know how you can say a dog is under control if it is not behaving as you would like. Regardless of the situation. Take away either the off-lead dog running up or the aggression of the on-lead dog and you end up with a neutral situation. All owners need to behave as responsibly as possible and if someone can't stop their dog biting, even when it is leaded, an additional strategy which may or may not involve a muzzle is probably required.