Bite Release Advice

[Fatsofatsoman]

coz they got more energy and are hypo - my big boy is a couch potato ;) you get my drift?

Fattening a dog has been a traditional method of dealing with energy levels for a long time Fatso.. and its not just Lab owners using it.

Its the dog that pays though.

No doubt.

I reckon my mum and dad used it on me - nah jokes, beer did it for me.

[Rebanne]

Talk to racing greyhound owners Corvus. They are required to walk their dogs muzzled. I've heard plenty of stories about muzzled greys having pieces taken off them by offlead dogs that attack them.

oh yes, I have and will slip a muzzle off a greyhound if there is an off lead dog anywhere near them. I've also taken a lead off a haltie and put it on the collar so the mouth is totally free. So far I have always had the time to do this and a few choice words and body action from me has been enough to see the loose dog on it's way. No way will I penalise my dog by leaving a muzzle on if there's any chance it will be attacked.

[dancinbcs]

If I had a dog that was likely to injure another dog if it was rushed on lead, I would at least make an effort for it not to occur. For starters I wouldn't be walking in an area were dogs were likely to be off leash. If I saw a dog off leash, I'd walk in the opposite direction. If an owner was present I would yell at them to call their dog. I would hope that anyone with a reactive dog would take these steps.

It is never acceptable for an off lead dog to rush at any person or dog(on or off lead), uninvited, no matter where it is. Doesn't matter if it is an offlead area or not. Effective control means that you can keep you dog away from all strange dogs and people with voice control if they are off lead. I am sick to death of people thinking that dogs can do whatever they like in an offlead area.

[dee lee]

If I had a dog that was likely to injure another dog if it was rushed on lead, I would at least make an effort for it not to occur. For starters I wouldn't be walking in an area were dogs were likely to be off leash. If I saw a dog off leash, I'd walk in the opposite direction. If an owner was present I would yell at them to call their dog. I would hope that anyone with a reactive dog would take these steps.

In my experience & anecdotally here on DOL, it generally is the case that owners of reactive dogs take those steps & more.

It's an enormous responsibility to own a DA dog & every walk is undertaken with trepidation & tension.

I hope I never own a reactive/DA dog again, it overwhelms your life & is a highly restrictive life for the poor dog.

After owning my DA dog, It took me a very long time to get used to walking my current non reactive dog. I would tense up everytime I spotted another dog within 2 blocks, on or offlead.

Trust me, most DA dog owners are hyper vigilant & well on top of supervision.

[Guest Willow]

It was totally mine and Gus's (Frenchie) fault though. He was off lead in a public park and ran up to the other dog who was on lead. I accept full responsibility for him being bitten.

Joypod

Haven't read all the posts, but just wanted to say ......it's refreshing to hear someone say that, and to take responsibility instead of passing the buck.

I'm glad your little guy was ok.

[corvus]

oh yes, I have and will slip a muzzle off a greyhound if there is an off lead dog anywhere near them.

Have your dogs been injured because they were wearing a muzzle? How do you know it was because of the muzzle? Have they been in fights without the muzzle and fared better? Was it the same kind of fight as the ones with the muzzle?

Sorry folks, I stand by this. I don't think I could take a dog out in public that I knew might injure another dog or person without a muzzle. Aside from the fact that I couldn't handle how vigilant I would need to be, I couldn't live with myself if the dog seriously injured someone or another dog. Not just so I can rest assured that if a dog as bad as or worse than mine comes along my dog might be less screwed. Particularly when I don't even know if my dog would be less screwed. Sorry, but I value the safety of all dogs and people, not just me and mine. If there's a greater chance that my dog will cause damage than that my dog will take damage, I would muzzle. My dogs are not more important than everyone else's.

[persephone]

I don't think I could take a dog out in public that I knew might injure another dog or person without a muzzle.

admirable -

however ... there is always a 'first time' . and every dog 'might' injure another dog. the probability is very very low, but they 'might'.

Most dog owners have not the benefit of your education ..and are not aware of their dog's- or others, subtle body language. One day ... it 'just happens'

[poodlefan]

Sorry folks, I stand by this. I don't think I could take a dog out in public that I knew might injure another dog or person without a muzzle.

So if Kivi or Eric are attacked and wound another dog you couldn't live with yourself??

ANY dog will bite given sufficient provocation and being on the receiving end of a bite will often do the trick.

Muzzle them now Corvus because given the right circumstances they'll try to defend themselves.. and fail with the muzzle on.

I'm not talking about dogs with a serious bite history here but many many dogs will not take kindly to a strange dog in their faces and that's perfectly natural. What's worrying though is the kind of dog that is rebuffed with a growl or a snap and then decides to go the munch on your dog.. been there, done that.

Edited September 8, 2011 by poodlefan

[corvus]

I'm not talking about dogs with a serious bite history here but many many dogs will not take kindly to a strange dog in their faces and that's perfectly natural.

Well, I am. So we're talking about different things.

My criterion was clear. If there is a greater chance of my dog doing damage than my dog taking damage, I would muzzle. If tomorrow Erik gets into a real nasty blue and does damage, I would have to think very carefully and weigh up my assessment of the risks. When my corgi was having her war of attrition with our whippet cross, there was a very nasty fight where we think she bit someone's hand quite badly. I never muzzled her because those circumstances were highly specific and unusual. She had never injured any other person or dog before then and never did again for the rest of her life, even when she was old and grumpy. There was no reason to believe she was likely to injure a strange dog or person in public just because she had got into a very serious fight with a housemate intent on doing harm.

What's worrying though is the kind of dog that is rebuffed with a growl or a snap and then decides to go the munch on your dog.. been there, done that.

That's how Erik gets into fights. And that's why he doesn't get to play with staffy mixes for very long unless he knows them well. He's actually beautifully clear and always tries non-aggressive means first, but some dogs don't notice.

[LizT]

With regard to "bite release" in a dog that has hold of another dog.

My husbands Grandfather used to race Greyhounds (circa late 1940's/early 1950's) my husband tells me that when his Grandfather had to break up a fight between dogs he picked up the front paw of the dog that had the 'hold' and would squeeze the paw very strongly, and this made the dog let go.

I personally think that this method would result in a bit hand!

[poodlefan]

My criterion was clear. If there is a greater chance of my dog doing damage than my dog taking damage, I would muzzle.

Muzzle up then Corvus. You don't own the smallest dogs in the community. The chances of your dogs doing more damange to a small dog (eg. <10kg) than they receive is high if there's a scuffle. And I know plenty of dogs that have been on the receiving end of aggression from them.

[persephone]

I don't think I could take a dog out in public that I knew might injure another dog or person without a muzzle.

I'm not talking about dogs with a serious bite history here

Well, I am. So we're talking about different things.

Ahh. Corvus, I also didn't realise you were speaking of dogs with a serious bite history - I didn't see where that was specified .

yes- if one had a dog who was known to be aggressive and who had caused injury - then appropriate measures should be taken to avoid any further injuries . ..however I would think , even with a muzzle on the body language may incite confrontation/attack from other dogs- so,as well as muzzling, segregation would be a useful thing.

efs.

Edited September 8, 2011 by persephone

[Nekhbet]

I dont know if anyone mentioned to you Corvus but it's not a dogs size will not dictate the amount of damage it will cause to another dog. Even if the other dog is twice the size of yours, Eric can cause damage resulting in a big vet bill for you.

How you can knowingly let your dog do this is beyond me. The fact you admit your dog gets into fights wont make life easier for you if he does damage another dog either you know.

[poodlefan]

That's how Erik gets into fights. And that's why he doesn't get to play with staffy mixes for very long unless he knows them well. He's actually beautifully clear and always tries non-aggressive means first, but some dogs don't notice.

I think some dogs notice alright, but they simply don't care. They do what they want in dog parks, when they want and to any dog they want and have owners that don't seem to have an issue with it.

That's the scenario that sees me avoid public dog parks if they're occupied.

[Nekhbet]

ditto to that PF

[corvus]

My criterion was clear. If there is a greater chance of my dog doing damage than my dog taking damage, I would muzzle.

Muzzle up then Corvus. You don't own the smallest dogs in the community. The chances of your dogs doing more damange to a small dog (eg. <10kg) than they receive is high if there's a scuffle. And I know plenty of dogs that have been on the receiving end of aggression from them.

:rolleyes: Why does this have to be outrageous? I thought I was being clear, but I think something's been lost in the course of this discussion.

* I was initially responding to comments that said a dog that was dog aggressive didn't need to be muzzled because it was the other dog's fault for approaching off leash in an on leash area.

* I suggested that if the dog was known to do damage, it should be muzzled regardless.

* Enter various arguments against.

* I still believe if the dog is known to do damage, it should be muzzled in public.

My criterion stemmed from that general train of thought. I thought it was clear, but maybe just clear in my head to me. I'm not talking about potential to do harm because you have to take into account the dog's response under extreme pressure, and I don't know what that is for my dogs. Nor do I know the likelihood of them being put under extreme pressure. Hasn't happened yet. I'm talking about what you have experienced with your dog. That's all. On a day-to-day basis, is it more likely your dog will do harm or be harmed? All things being equal. In my case, I can only say that they are more likely to be harmed, because we have had a few misses where I was quite scared, but my boys have never been in a serious fight and have never harmed a dog or human, despite having been in scuffles and been on the receiving end of aggressive behaviour from dogs under 10kg (usual response: "Arg! It bites! Run away!"). If we only include incidents that have involved harm one way or another, which would be fair, the jury is out and so it's not something I need to make a decision about at this point. But if one of my dogs ever injured another, I would be thinking hard about that risk assessment. If one of my dogs had injured a strange dog in public, I would have to consider the circumstances and the risk of those circumstances being repeated.

Is that clearer?

[poodlefan]

My criterion stemmed from that general train of thought. I thought it was clear, but maybe just clear in my head to me. I'm not talking about potential to do harm because you have to take into account the dog's response under extreme pressure, and I don't know what that is for my dogs. Nor do I know the likelihood of them being put under extreme pressure. Hasn't happened yet. I'm talking about what you have experienced with your dog. That's all. On a day-to-day basis, is it more likely your dog will do harm or be harmed? All things being equal. In my case, I can only say that they are more likely to be harmed, because we have had a few misses where I was quite scared, but my boys have never been in a serious fight and have never harmed a dog or human, despite having been in scuffles and been on the receiving end of aggressive behaviour from dogs under 10kg (usual response: "Arg! It bites! Run away!"). If we only include incidents that have involved harm one way or another, which would be fair, the jury is out and so it's not something I need to make a decision about at this point. But if one of my dogs ever injured another, I would be thinking hard about that risk assessment. If one of my dogs had injured a strange dog in public, I would have to consider the circumstances and the risk of those circumstances being repeated.

Is that clearer?

Sort of.

We were talking about your dogs being onlead though, and being attacked by an offlead dog not an "all dogs offlead" scenario. We've removed the flight option for your dogs so your dog's standard response won't be available to them. What I'm talking about is a train of thought that supports inhibiting a dog's capacity for self defence on the chance that it will give better to the aggessor than it gets. For any dog above toy size, that's a distinct possibility but I'd wear that risk if it gave my dog a better chance of defending itself.

What pisses me off about even having to discuss this is that if people take control of their dogs and obey leash laws, we wouldn't even have to be contemplating such scenarios. Good on the OP for stepping up and taking responsibility for her dog's behaviour.. however the idea we are now discussing - that the other dog should automatically wear a muzzle from here on in- doesn't sit well with me as it it did not initiate the encounter.

[Maddy]

Everyone except the muzzled dog that is. It will be unable to defend itself if its reaction to an offleash dog starts a fight. On leash and muzzled, it will be defenceless.

Have you seen a fight involving a muzzled dog? I haven't, so I'm guessing, but as I said before, I wonder if a muzzled dog in a fight is in any more danger than an unmuzzled dog. How are they going to defend themselves? By doing damage with their teeth? Is that going to make it safer for them? Is the other dog going to even notice? If they do, are they going to back down, or go in harder? If I have a leashed and muzzled dog fighting, I am in a pretty good position for breaking it up quickly, and there's one less set of teeth to dodge. What are the chances of the dog that starts the fight delivering uninhibited bites in the first place? It's not that common IME. And I go to dog parks everyday. I've seen a few fights, and usually everyone comes out of it upset, but with not a scratch on them.

I'm just saying, I would rather have a 'defenceless' dog than one with its teeth burried in another dog or someone's arm. As for whether they behave worse with a muzzle on... Presumably they have to learn that they can't defend themselves before they get worse, which means you've already had incidents where other dogs might have been in danger if it hadn't been for the muzzle, which kind of supports my opinion that it's not a bad idea to use one in the first place?

It's just my opinion, though. No one need get defensive.

The answer to both questions would be a resounding YES. All the muzzle does is stop the dog connecting. That's why they muzzle bait dogs.. the attacking dog gets all the hits in and the defending dog cannot inflict damage in return.

In canine defence, if flight's out there's only fight left. Teeth play a very big role if there's a fight on.

Talk to racing greyhound owners Corvus. They are required to walk their dogs muzzled. I've heard plenty of stories about muzzled greys having pieces taken off them by offlead dogs that attack them.

If you think you can protect a leashed and muzzled dog from an offlead dog or dogs in a dog fight, all I can say is you've not seen dogs that intend to do harm. It's a melee of movement and teeth and the dog restained cannot flee and if muzzled cannot fight. Your best chance is before the fight starts.. after that, chances are you'll be on your arse spilled by your dog's lead as it attempts to get away while leashed or requiring microsurgery because you got yourself too close to the bitey end of the attacker.

The result of unmuzzled dog attacking muzzled and restrained dog tends to be a vet visit or worse for the dog. Bait dogs don't have long lives.

If a dog or person gets close enough to a leashed dog under effective owner control to take a bite, then how in hell is that the leashed dog's fault. Dogs known to start fights might need to be muzzled by why any owner should leave their dog defenceless on the odd chance it might defend itself beats me.

I've had muzzled dogs fight and they've still managed to cause bite injuries (if they press their faces in hard enough, they can grab through the wire or plastic) so even with a muzzle on, the outcome (in my experience, anyway) depends on the type of fight and you still can't feel secure that no one will walk away uninjured.

Regarding walking muzzled greyhounds in public.. I think the issue is a little more complex than the dog simply being unable to defend itself. Some people see a muzzled dog, assume it's been made totally safe and so let their dogs run rampant. I think I may have actually mentioned before the owner of the staffy x JRT who was letting her dog mount my dog ( while I was trying to get some distance between it and Kiff). If Kiff had been unmuzzled.. I have a feeling that owner wouldn't have been quite so careless

[Rebanne]

oh yes, I have and will slip a muzzle off a greyhound if there is an off lead dog anywhere near them.

Have your dogs been injured because they were wearing a muzzle? How do you know it was because of the muzzle? Have they been in fights without the muzzle and fared better? Was it the same kind of fight as the ones with the muzzle?

Sorry folks, I stand by this. I don't think I could take a dog out in public that I knew might injure another dog or person without a muzzle. Aside from the fact that I couldn't handle how vigilant I would need to be, I couldn't live with myself if the dog seriously injured someone or another dog. Not just so I can rest assured that if a dog as bad as or worse than mine comes along my dog might be less screwed. Particularly when I don't even know if my dog would be less screwed. Sorry, but I value the safety of all dogs and people, not just me and mine. If there's a greater chance that my dog will cause damage than that my dog will take damage, I would muzzle. My dogs are not more important than everyone else's.

Some of my dogs have to be muzzled by law not because they might bite anything. So why should they be be left pretty well defenceless if they were attacked. My other stratergy would be to let go of the lead. And no my greyhounds have never been injured or injured another person or dog. It's only common sense that a dog wearing a muzzle, null and voiding one's of it's most effective ways of defense, is going to come off second best against a dog without one. Unless it can run away. My dogs are more important to me then some attacking mutt, that's for sure.

[corvus]

We were talking about your dogs being onlead though, and being attacked by an offlead dog not an "all dogs offlead" scenario. We've removed the flight option for your dogs so your dog's standard response won't be available to them. What I'm talking about is a train of thought that supports inhibiting a dog's capacity for self defence on the chance that it will give better to the aggessor than it gets. For any dog above toy size, that's a distinct possibility but I'd wear that risk if it gave my dog a better chance of defending itself.

I don't see much difference. If my dogs are on leash and get bothered, they still do the same thing. If they can't run far they just run in circles until someone rescues them. They're not bolting, just trying to stay out of range. I will drop the leash where it's appropriate to do so (e.g. enormous mastiff with poor social skills and no real sense of his size trying to wrestle with Kivi).

I see what you're saying, but I seriously question whether a dog that's known to deliver uninhibited bites is going to be safer without a muzzle. It took my corgi fearing for her life in a fight before she delivered uninhibited bites, and it was the only time she ever did. She wasn't the first one to do it. She responded in kind to what was dished out to her. That's how it got so horrible. Can we be assured that a DA dog with a known history of doing damage is not actually going to exacerbate the situation if it's allowed to deliver uninhibited bites in self defence? Part of this risk assessment is asking how common it is for off leash dogs to attack with the intent to do harm in the first place.

What pisses me off about even having to discuss this is that if people take control of their dogs and obey leash laws, we wouldn't even have to be contemplating such scenarios. Good on the OP for stepping up and taking responsibility for her dog's behaviour.. however the idea we are now discussing - that the other dog should automatically wear a muzzle from here on in- doesn't sit well with me as it it did not initiate the encounter.

Agreed, but I'm a realist. There are always going to be people breaking the rules. We do. You try walking two active dogs on a trail that goes through thick brush and over fallen trees and shrubs and down steep rocky paths and keeping them on leash. If we want our walk to take twice as long while we untangle leashes every few steps, then maybe. Plus it's really hard to keep your balance trying to negotiate steep paths with a dog trying to do the same tethered to you. They just aren't practical in that environment. I used to do long lines, but they tangle on everything. That aside, lots of people have been brought up believing that leashes are optional. It would be nice if the world were perfect, but it's not. What pisses me off about even having to discuss this is reports that in countries where dogs are allowed to be in more places, these problems aren't nearly as common in the first place. Again, it would be nice if the world were perfect. I think that we just need to accept that it's not perfect and handle the situation that is present, not the one we would like to be present. I sympathise, but unfortunately, that's life. I'm not one to rail against it. I just manage it. We have more fun that way.