Out of control dogs/dog attacks

I hate the line about "it's not the dogs it's the owners." It's one of those mantras that does contain a kernel of truth in that dogs tend to live in the present and are rarely irredeemable with the right guidance.

But it's far from the point when it comes to powerful breeds that were bred towards aggressive pursuits and how to regulate that situation. It's about the potential to do damage, and the potential for them to fall under insufficiently good guidance. If those people that state this mantra as if it solves everything can explain how it leads to protecting the public that would be fantastic.

The bottom line is the majority of people are not cut out to be handling some of these breeds and that's where there should be regulation. Even the ones that are good dogs are often getting there through sheer dumb luck that the natural character of the dog is docile. Personally I'm more inclined towards regulating rather than banning breeds, even the ones that are already banned. There should be a competence and licensing requirement. But how feasible and financially viable that is compared to outright bans I don't know, at some point maybe it's just not worth it compared to funnelling people towards less physically capable and challenging breeds. It doesn't solve dog bites but it reduces the risk of deaths and serious maiming.
 
There was a story once about a dog called Chico in Germany. He was some Staffordshire breed. That thing bit it’s owner and the owners mother to death and German authorities therefore decided it should be killed.
Lots of friendly and very normal animal lovers took to the streets to protest this cruel decision. Here is a pic of this friendly crowd:
a15a411d-0001-0004-0000-000001279071_w898_r1.33_fpx70.84_fpy49.93.jpg
 
There was a story once about a dog called Chico in Germany. He was some Staffordshire breed. That thing bit it’s owner and the owners mother to death and German authorities therefore decided it should be killed.
Lots of friendly and very normal animal lovers took to the streets to protest this cruel decision. Here is a pic of this friendly crowd:
a15a411d-0001-0004-0000-000001279071_w898_r1.33_fpx70.84_fpy49.93.jpg
LHHC = Love Hitler Hate Churchill
 
Love the no true Scotsmanism from one of the protestors :lol: the reporter mentioned how over represented they are in statistics and that there was an attack just the other day in South London, then she said “well they’re not really XL bullies then because all the ones I’ve been around were nice” :rolleyes:
 
75760677-12552529-image-a-49_1695480290509.jpg


From the big London protest today. They look exactly like the folk you'd expect to be there.

They don't need the dogs but they'll fight to the bitter end for them. Why? Because they always have to fight. Try and tell them that Toblerones are lethal and they'll suddenly be marching in support of them. I'm also surprised that they managed to find the time to make the placards after a long week of working 9-5.
I saw videos of the ‘protest’ earlier, and they’re literally the most whitest UKIP voting bunch of cnuts going. Ban and cull I say (the breed).
 
There was a story once about a dog called Chico in Germany. He was some Staffordshire breed. That thing bit it’s owner and the owners mother to death and German authorities therefore decided it should be killed.
Lots of friendly and very normal animal lovers took to the streets to protest this cruel decision. Here is a pic of this friendly crowd:
a15a411d-0001-0004-0000-000001279071_w898_r1.33_fpx70.84_fpy49.93.jpg

It's Chico Time
 
Just seen the footage of the guy that died. Brutal. People around him were useless but don't blame them really. Those dogs are monsters.

Just seen that video, the dogs were still enough when biting to be killed. Why didn't anyone run and grab a big kitchen knife or pitch fork, you could have stabbed those dogs to death and saved that man's life.

20 minutes that apparently went on for. The poor guy went through one of the worst deaths imaginable and yet there were people there who could have stopped that earlier.
 
I just keep going back to that article where the owner of an XL is saying "it's not bad dogs it's bad owners" and based on her description of how the dog acts around her baby she's very clearly one of the bad owners because her dog is territorial as feck.
 
Just seen that video, the dogs were still enough when biting to be killed. Why didn't anyone run and grab a big kitchen knife or pitch fork, you could have stabbed those dogs to death and saved that man's life.

20 minutes that apparently went on for. The poor guy went through one of the worst deaths imaginable and yet there were people there who could have stopped that earlier.

You think you’d be brave enough to stick a sharp thing into a massive dog that is ripping someone to pieces and highly likely to change its line of attack towards someone who sticks a sharp thing into it?
 
You think you’d be brave enough to stick a sharp thing into a massive dog that is ripping someone to pieces and highly likely to change its line of attack towards someone who sticks a sharp thing into it?

I'd like to think if I had a knife big enough I could help that man yes. What do you think they were doing by hitting it with pieces of timber, that was more likely to change its course of attack.

Kitchen knife through the fecking skull or neck whilst it was biting him. The dog will die pretty much instantly anyway. I'd rather give that a go than the bricks and whatever else they were throwing at it myself.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to think if I had a knife big enough I could help that man yes. What do you think they were doing by hitting it with pieces of timber, that was more likely to change its course of attack.

Kitchen knife through the fecking skull or neck whilst it was biting him. The dog will die pretty much instantly anyway. I'd rather give that a go than the bricks and whatever else they were throwing at it myself.

Fair enough. I haven’t watched the video, so shouldn’t really comment. Don’t understand why anyone would choose to watch it tbh. Just seems like seeking out emotional trauma.
 
Fair enough. I haven’t watched the video, so shouldn’t really comment. Don’t understand why anyone would choose to watch it tbh. Just seems like seeking out emotional trauma.

It's horrific, I wouldn't seek it out myself but it was posted on another forum and I couldn't help but click and have a look.

One or the saddest parts of the whole video for me was the fact someone decided to film it. Why wouldn't you try and help rather than film it. The world's fecked up.
 
I've enjoyed the discussion as you are reasoned and back up what you write with what you believe to be solid evidence. I think agreeing to disagree is fair enough because we can only go by what we've known and experienced - data, particularly on the breed(s) we're discussing, is just impossible to correctly parse because of the designer status (demand) of the breed and the utterly irresponsible and unregulated markets they are farmed in and for.

I've been around more dangerous terriers in my life than any other breed classed as lethal and not once have I seen one have the aggression or horrid stance toward humans they are feared for. I've seen a few that you simply cannot have other dogs around, however, that's an identifiable problem I can vouch for first-hand, but the human aspect, it's just not what I've known and we're talking about a number of dogs in households here. I'm not one to ever consider such breeds safe and that's not for doing anything wrong at all, but rather for the fact it's still a pitbull or an XL or mixed and it is a lethal animal in your home. I've been lulled a bit by a few, but ultimately, it's in my own interest to keep that mental acuity to what is potential powder keg. As I said in a previous post, people see these dogs as members of their family and most simply cannot consider their own dog even a potential threat to them.

Pitbulls and other dangerous breeds of terrier aren't going to be good working dogs for a myriad of reasons, but you can say that for a load of non-lethal breeds, too. I don't think that's much of a barometer, personally.

Aye, good talk. I'll readily admit I don't have much terrier experience whatsoever. I've obviously come across some, but those were likely 'problem' dogs anyway as they were in a rescue. I've never experienced any significant problems with them myself. I do know that you must implicitly trust your dog in many situations, and as such need to see it as a member of the family or team.

Perhaps that's why the bold is true. You cannot implicitly trust a pitbull in the same way that you can trust a GSD or many other molosser/gsd breeds. It's somewhat of a shame as it would be a perfect substitute for the Belgian Malinois in many situations and superior in some ways. You have to remember these breeds go into thousands/millions of situations and have never snapped. Whereas pitbulls in families can and do snap. I think it's absolutely a barometer of reliability. I read an article somewhere that some police departments are taking pitbull types from impounds/shelters and training them, instead of buying properly bred and trained dogs. Seems like a recipe for disaster although they have been used in the past. I'm not sure if they are still doing it.

To the bolded. It's the same principle - lethal animal raised from puppy or kittenhood that is part of the family, but also an animal with the capability to kill on any given bad day - there are loads of YouTube channels with these animals being just as sweet and affable with their family as a domesticated breed is, the caveat obviously being it's a fecking Wolf/Cheetah/Puma/Tiger/Lion; you're going great guns with any of them... until you're not, and it's ultimately seen as you getting what you deserve if any of them decide to end you. Funnily enough, I'm subscribed to Luna the Pantera used to watch some Kody Antle vids and watched a lot of vids from a woman who effortlessly strolls around with all manner of big cats at a reserve (can't remember her name and her vids are off my algorithm now), as well as things like this. I find it all rather fascinating, particularly Luna as that panther with the Rottweiler they own are best friends and don't look like they have even a hint of the capability to kill about them, yet we're talking about a panther (and to a lesser extent, a Rottweiler)! As you reference 99.9%, the discussion is about the consequence of that 0.01% these animals are; [much] less domesticated so unpredictability and volatility supposedly through the roof.

If you've hand-reared the animal successfully and are accepted by it as family/alpha or whatever you wish to term where it won't show you hostility, the attitude is going to be different to if it's showing volatility during adolescence, which is generally time when people let go of their domesticated dogs showing hostility, too, (that, or the time when things really go south as the training stops and the animal is allowed to have its own way by asserting dominance - see countless TV shows about out of control dogs) the answer is ultimately no, because irresponsible people will be the first lining up to mistreat and mis-train and it's just an extension of what we already have.

I think that one major difference is, if your dog or domestic cat goes wandering off, it's unlikely to savage a stranger that approaches or tries to pet it. It may show hostility, but the chances it attacks are still miniscule. Even a pitbull. If your fecking "tamed" wolf or lion goes on his jollys, there are going to be issues! You have to keep them in a specific enclosure and away from the public for safety. Luna is interesting, in that she's fairly well treated and seems to have a good amount of space, but she is still treated a fecking pet, which is disgusting for a leopard. She should never be allowed to roam the house unsupervised, she should not be collared, should not have her claws 'trimmed' and should definitely not be allowed to interact with others. She's also only 30kg, essentially the same size as a large Lynx, so for all intents and purpose could not kill a healthy human even if she tried. Tigers/Lions often have doggy friends in sanctuaries though; should be plenty of videos on youtube. It's actually testament to the stability/lack of volatility in domestic dogs. Wonder if a pitbull video exists.

As crazy as Luna is, the next one is worse. Bringing strangers to 'visit' and 'pet' the lions is a level of insanity and greed masked as 'animal welfare' when it's an instagram scam. Not to mention she looked absolutely terrified when the reporter was in there and was constantly tense. I can't find anything else with "Lazmi" and "Lion" together on google, so hopefully she got eaten or something and the lions are being treated as more than props now.

The main guy I watch is/was Kevin Richardson - There's some criticism to be had about how close he gets to them himself and how his channel makes them look 'soft', but in general the sanctuary is well treated and they do a lot of good work. Closed to the public, fenced off from other lions/predators, and not breeding. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_NS4MiiHAFo3CYI7fRSLtQ - Bear in mind the guy is utterly insane; he also has spotted HYENAS there. (ok an all male clan but still) - He's been going for 25 years or so I think, and one story stuck with me. He didn't pay close enough attention or heed their signaling one day when going into one of the lion enclosures, and got a beating from 11 lions. Walked out the next day all cut and bruised once he recovered.

I'm never sure whether to feel sad or disgusted that I too enjoy these 'cute' videos. Edit: wrote the first bit of my post this morning, it seems these days he does allow visitors, and there was a fatality in 2018 when one of his lions on a walk ran off, chased an impala, and ended up yeeting one of the tourist women. Not great.

There's a village somewhere in Africa, I don't remember where. The locals have Hyenas which they 'hug' and 'dance' for shows, whilst baboons in football shirts collect money from the visitors, and the women have venomous snakes which they put inside them. It's a bizarre showing by todays standards, but shows how you can tame wild animals if harsh enough from childhood. They are still wild animals though. Mind you, bear baiting is still legal is fecking South Carolina and popular in Pakistan so we have a ways to go....

I feel one major factor we haven't covered in this discussion is poverty/education. A prospective dog owner should be able to look at the available breeds, meet the breeders and the dogs, and have time to work out if a dog is for them. However purebreeds are damned expensive, and often the good breeders place extremely restrictive rules on potential owners. They won't sell if they feel the dog will be mistreated, or the owner doesn't have the capacity to look after it. They pride themselves of pricing these degenerates out of the market. One example is, almost all breeders in almost all circumstances for larger dogs will require a garden. It's not actually needed [or even beneficial] for many breeds, but it's a catch all. Therefore you have people who are in relative poverty and cannot afford a dog like this. A 60kg dog also eats a lot. So they live in their council flat or house or whatever, in their rough neighbourhood, and want a dog that can protect them and their family and be loving. Pitbulls are banned, so they'll get a similar terrier breed that they can afford to feed from a trash breeder who'll sell to anybody and is only out to make money. And of course the black market breeder will have the parents from a more expensive black market breeder, as most breeders demand their dogs are neutered and spayed. This means they end up with the worst bloodline, no advice, and no money to fix things.The bully simply ticks a lot of boxes. [Ironically somewhat because of this thread] I've decided to get myself a Black Russian Terrier to finally replace my old boy. I'll fly off to Poland to meet some of the genesis breeders and their dogs first, and see what advice I can get on the correct breeder and line for me as well as get to know the dogs a little. I live in an apartment, but don't expect this to be a problem although it will be with some breeders. I'll then possibly have to import from somewhere in Europe. If I was one of those bully owners, I'd have spent a lot less time on breed research, and wouldn't have these options available to me, so would probably be forced into a poorly bred line of Giant Schnauzers from a backyard breeder. (Which isn't the dog I want, but you could trick somebody unaware into thinking its similar)

ps. I don't remember the post it was from, but I'd urge ALL dog owners to get their dog used to and comfortable with the muzzle. It can be used any time you travel or do sports with the dog to prevent impact damage to the jaw.
 
I just keep going back to that article where the owner of an XL is saying "it's not bad dogs it's bad owners" and based on her description of how the dog acts around her baby she's very clearly one of the bad owners because her dog is territorial as feck.

This [protecting babies] is a natural instinct and generally not a problem and should be expected. Cats do it too. Having said that, not seen the video. Any link?
 
You think you’d be brave enough to stick a sharp thing into a massive dog that is ripping someone to pieces and highly likely to change its line of attack towards someone who sticks a sharp thing into it?

Unless you really know what you are doing both in terms of doggy anatomy and the ability to use a knife to kill (which discounts just about all of us I'd say) then you are taking a huge fecking risk as you might well just piss it off and deflect the attack to yourself.
 
ps. I don't remember the post it was from, but I'd urge ALL dog owners to get their dog used to and comfortable with the muzzle. It can be used any time you travel or do sports with the dog to prevent impact damage to the jaw.

Muzzling a dog that doesn't need it is cruel. My dogs would be traumatised by it. And why would you need to muzzle a dog to travel specifically?
 
Unless you really know what you are doing both in terns of doggy anatomy and the ability to use a knife to kill (which discounts just about all of us I'd say) then you are taking a huge fecking risk as you might well just piss it off and deflect the attack to yourself.

Agreed, there's a reason why people use bricks and large pieces of wood to attack dogs in these situations.

When they're in that frenzied state they simply turn and plant their mouths on whatever is there, much more quickly and accurately than humans can deal with. I have a nasty scar on the inside of my forearm to prove it.
 
Agreed, there's a reason why people use bricks and large pieces of wood to attack dogs in these situations.

When they're in that frenzied state they simply turn and plant their mouths on whatever is there, much more quickly and accurately than humans can deal with. I have a nasty scar on the inside of my forearm to prove it.

If there are 2 of you grabbing the back legs and pulling them apart can work. But you had better do it hard and right or again ......
 
@owlo I'm on my phone. Will reply to your post later.

Just checking my feed and this was there (despite me not inputting anything whatsoever about terriers or XL's -_-):



If you watch that video, I think it highlights everything about these dogs and why they would be demonised from the outset before moronic owners are even factored in.

The dog exhibits absolutely normal, exemplary behaviour despite the duress of having its backed cracked numerous times. It even allows full yanking and manipulation of its tail executed by a stranger. As far as I'm concerned, that's a perfectly good dog.

At the same time, watching the video you see it's a hulking mass of power and potential threat. The guy working on him even says it's the most powerful dog he's dealt with. It's head and jaw are massive and the body mass is clear and apparent. If such a dog turns on anyone, there's a potential for fatality. You can see in microcosm why such a breed in the hands of poor owners and/or handling is a recipe for disaster.

Having said the above, I still think for the amount of incompetents owning these terriers, attacking ratios are low. Very low. No other breed has been mass farmed and mistreated like these; no other breed carries the stigma and reputation they do. "Pitbull" or "XL" is an immediate trigger for many (as exhibited in this thread, and any other on this discussion), and for the talk, these dogs should be hair trigger explosive with more desire to strike out than Jack Russells. Bare bones, it'll always come down to the damage they do when they attack, not their propensity to attack in the first place.

Funny again when watching that vid that part of the fascination is observing someone handling a dog people liken to a live grenade. Is it going to go off? Will the chiropractor get away intact? etc. It's a smaller scale, but not really different to what you asked about the 0.01%; if that's not a dog you've known for a very long time, surely your sense for the danger it carries is going to be maximised. Throw in a poor owner and we have what we have in how these dogs are basically seen as monsters.
 
People say adopt, don't shop. The dogs that attack are usually the adopted dogs that come from abused homes and the owner isn't aware how to deal with that kind of trauma and doesn't recognize the warning signs.

Same as with people, usually the problem is the upbringing. The solution is more education but that's not easy to implement.

Here in Poland the shelter will usually let you know that the dog you are adopting may have behavioral issues, and in most cases they won't even release a dog to someone that hasn't had experience with difficult dogs and is able to prove that.

The difficult' part can range from 'won't stay at home alone' to 'could be potentially aggressive towards humans'. That's also why they usually don't put dogs up for adoption instantly after taking them in, and in many cases will send the ones that exhibit signs of aggressive behavior or other issues to a temporary home (usually someone with lots of experience) to address these issues and understand their reactions better before they are up for adoption.
 
Muzzling a dog that doesn't need it is cruel. My dogs would be traumatised by it. And why would you need to muzzle a dog to travel specifically?

All dogs should be muzzle trained. Its useful and even essential in a variety of situations. Why would they be traumatised? And why do you think it's cruel? What would you do if they needed to wear one? Muzzles don't hurt or cause discomfort. I used one when I was offroad or on rough roads.
 
All dogs should be muzzle trained. Its useful and even essential in a variety of situations. Why would they be traumatised? And why do you think it's cruel? What would you do if they needed to wear one? Muzzles don't hurt or cause discomfort. I used one when I was offroad or on rough roads.

A basket strapped to their face? Why would they not find it uncomfortable and traumatising? Especially when there is no need? Dogs used their mouth and nose for almost all interactions and play so removing much of that normal behaviour us inherently cruel.

If you own a dangerous dog (and probably a dangerous breed) you might have no choice, to avoid putting them down. But I don't.

And what purpose do they serve offroad or on rough roads?
 
Saw an XL bully at the park today with what I think is a gentle muzzle, dog seemed very happy with it on.
 
I just keep going back to that article where the owner of an XL is saying "it's not bad dogs it's bad owners" and based on her description of how the dog acts around her baby she's very clearly one of the bad owners because her dog is territorial as feck.
Same as gun owners. Guns are dangerous as well as dangerous breeds such as Pit Bulls.
Ban guns and ban the Pit Bulls and we’re not reading these horrific events
 
Saw an XL bully at the park today with what I think is a gentle muzzle, dog seemed very happy with it on.

That is as maybe and with such a (potentially) dangerous dog it is probably a good idea in public given the potential consequences if the dog attacks.

But general muzzle use is a terrible idea and not supported by any reputable animal organisation. And soft muzzles can be the worst as they are often more restrictive (the fabric ones in particular).

The only situations where it should ever be considered is during an emergency if your dog is prone to biting when injured or scared (informed by past behavior), when you have a dog who nips to get away from grooming of vet attention or if your dog is very badly reactive in other situations or of course due to breed specific legislation. But general muzzle use is unnecessary and for many breeds outright cruel as the dog could not engage in normal sniffing and mouth related behavior which is a huge part of their lives. Scent dogs (setters, pointers, spaniels and gun dogs in general) would be particularly impacted and in the case of setters (that I have) would also view it as very stressful punishments and they would have no idea why.

Too often muzzles are used for long periods and unsupervised and to try to adjust behaviors like chewing that should e addressed with training - purely positive reinforcement training and behavior modification at that, as aversion/negative/punishment training is both cruel and often counterproductive.
 
Same as gun owners. Guns are dangerous as well as dangerous breeds such as Pit Bulls.
Ban guns and ban the Pit Bulls and we’re not reading these horrific events

The difference is that all guns are dangerous. I don't disagree that some breeds need to be banned due to the horrific outcomes if the occasional one does attack, but sadly also because they type of owner such breeds attract far too often.
 
Even if "it's not the dogs, it's the owners" were 100% true, which I don't believe is the case here as there's cases of family pits suddenly snapping, there's no feasible way to restrict the owners which couldn't be easily bypassed if a one off certification or something was put in place. The only way is to restrict the breed.
 
Last edited:
That is as maybe and with such a (potentially) dangerous dog it is probably a good idea in public given the potential consequences if the dog attacks.

But general muzzle use is a terrible idea and not supported by any reputable animal organisation. And soft muzzles can be the worst as they are often more restrictive (the fabric ones in particular).

The only situations where it should ever be considered is during an emergency if your dog is prone to biting when injured or scared (informed by past behavior), when you have a dog who nips to get away from grooming of vet attention or if your dog is very badly reactive in other situations or of course due to breed specific legislation. But general muzzle use is unnecessary and for many breeds outright cruel as the dog could not engage in normal sniffing and mouth related behavior which is a huge part of their lives. Scent dogs (setters, pointers, spaniels and gun dogs in general) would be particularly impacted and in the case of setters (that I have) would also view it as very stressful punishments and they would have no idea why.

Too often muzzles are used for long periods and unsupervised and to try to adjust behaviors like chewing that should e addressed with training - purely positive reinforcement training and behavior modification at that, as aversion/negative/punishment training is both cruel and often counterproductive.
There are softer basket muzzles available and they still allow for sniffing, tongue out, treats for good behaviour just fine.

They should absolutely be used on reactive dogs for walks even on lead. There are plenty of rescue dogs that now have good owners that this applies to. Particularly ex racing greyhounds in the early stages of getting them used to life after racing, as they're trained to chase small animals and have a high prey drive, but are fantastic pets. They're usually not reactive to other dogs as they're so used to them, but other rescues that deserve a better life might be.

Having volunteered at an animal rescue, I've met multiple idiots that will come up to you with their dog after telling them not to, while the dog with me is wearing a bright yellow muzzle, muttering something like "oh, they just want to make friends". It's in everyone's interest to take the necessary precautions, including the dog's, even if it doesn't understand why. And it can take a lot of time to train their reaction out.

Off-lead play without a muzzle can be done in the many bookable dog fields that are now available, or in the garden at home.
 
There are softer basket muzzles available and they still allow for sniffing, tongue out, treats for good behaviour just fine.

They should absolutely be used on reactive dogs for walks even on lead. There are plenty of rescue dogs that now have good owners that this applies to. Particularly ex racing greyhounds in the early stages of getting them used to life after racing, as they're trained to chase small animals and have a high prey drive, but are fantastic pets. They're usually not reactive to other dogs as they're so used to them, but other rescues that deserve a better life might be.

Having volunteered at an animal rescue, I've met multiple idiots that will come up to you with their dog after telling them not to, while the dog with me is wearing a bright yellow muzzle, muttering something like "oh, they just want to make friends". It's in everyone's interest to take the necessary precautions, including the dog's, even if it doesn't understand why. And it can take a lot of time to train their reaction out.

Off-lead play without a muzzle can be done in the many bookable dog fields that are now available, or in the garden at home.

I'm not saying they aren't always unavoidable. Just that they should never be used unless there is a very good reason.
 
Last edited:
Even if "it's not the dogs, it's the owners" were 100% true, which I don't be the case here as there's cases of family pits suddenly snapping, there's no feasible way to restrict the owners which couldn't be easily bypassed if a one off certification or something was put in place. The only way is to restrict the breed.

I agree that certain breeds just shouldn't be allowed to be bred or owned, especially not as family pets.
 
A basket strapped to their face? Why would they not find it uncomfortable and traumatising? Especially when there is no need? Dogs used their mouth and nose for almost all interactions and play so removing much of that normal behaviour us inherently cruel.

If you own a dangerous dog (and probably a dangerous breed) you might have no choice, to avoid putting them down. But I don't.

And what purpose do they serve offroad or on rough roads?

There's no evidence to indicate that what you say is true. There's a lot of evidence to back up what I'm saying. The only trauma/discomfort is from a lack of familiarity with the equipment.

For example, if your dog is injured and needs emergency surgery or calming, a muzzle is invaluable. They protect the jaw from impact injury, most specifically TMJ luxation. Which is why they are often used in sports. (and why I'd use them offroad)

You can get muzzles which your dog can break free from in an emergency. The fact they never do this is testament to the lack of 'trauma' involved. They are comfortable in it.

Even if "it's not the dogs, it's the owners" were 100% true, which I don't believe is the case here as there's cases of family pits suddenly snapping, there's no feasible way to restrict the owners which couldn't be easily bypassed if a one off certification or something was put in place. The only way is to restrict the breed.

I'd agree with this. Pits have a long history of sudden unreliability, which is why nobody uses them for work and they aren't a popular dog anywhere.

I agree that certain breeds just shouldn't be allowed to be bred or owned, especially not as family pets.

Which breed, other than the pitbull? No other well bred breed demonstrates these unreliable traits.

There are softer basket muzzles available and they still allow for sniffing, tongue out, treats for good behaviour just fine.

They should absolutely be used on reactive dogs for walks even on lead. There are plenty of rescue dogs that now have good owners that this applies to. Particularly ex racing greyhounds in the early stages of getting them used to life after racing, as they're trained to chase small animals and have a high prey drive, but are fantastic pets. They're usually not reactive to other dogs as they're so used to them, but other rescues that deserve a better life might be.

Having volunteered at an animal rescue, I've met multiple idiots that will come up to you with their dog after telling them not to, while the dog with me is wearing a bright yellow muzzle, muttering something like "oh, they just want to make friends". It's in everyone's interest to take the necessary precautions, including the dog's, even if it doesn't understand why. And it can take a lot of time to train their reaction out.

Off-lead play without a muzzle can be done in the many bookable dog fields that are now available, or in the garden at home.

I'd rather just keep all sighthounds on a leash at all times. Their predisposition to 'chase' can be dangerous with smaller cats and children, and recall is always somewhat spotty, but they aren't aggressive. Some breeds just need a farm. I'm not a greyhound expert, but my instinct is you should be looking to slowly wean them off the muzzle except during introductions etc as they will be so used to it from racing, and teach them to be on leash. (except when playing with other sighthounds of course!)

I don't walk the dogs, but I'd advise that if it is in early stages of assessment and shows large amounts of reactivity you should keep it away from people, walking it in quiet zones and away from trauma. The dog has loads to get used to without 'those' people wanting to cuddle it, and the muzzle may cause extra stress.

People need a general dog education, to not just come up to them and pet them without permission. It's a catch22, you need to socialise the dog to get it used to the situation and not be reactive, but every time you do, you potentially trigger it with one of these idiots. It's why doing it as a puppy is so important.
 
There's no evidence to indicate that what you say is true. There's a lot of evidence to back up what I'm saying. The only trauma/discomfort is from a lack of familiarity with the equipment.

You could get children used to being muzzled but it is still inherently cruel, not on the same level of course (mostly). It also varies from breed to breed but hunting dogs in general, and stetters (that I own) in particular would be traumatised as they would view it as punishment for no reason. That is why setter breeders often make you sign a contract that prohibits muzzle, choke and prong chain use etc.

In some circumstances the choice may be between a muzzle and a dog being put down, in which case it might be justified but many of the owners who may need to use them also couldn't be trusted to use a muzzle properly.

For example, if your dog is injured and needs emergency surgery or calming, a muzzle is invaluable.

Yes but that is incredibly rare and vets usually prefer to sedate.

They protect the jaw from impact injury, most specifically TMJ luxation. Which is why they are often used in sports. (and why I'd use them offroad)

Is that a risk? What sports? TBH if anything I was doing with a dog for sport posed a serious risk of injury that required a dog to be muzzled I wouldn't do it.

I still don't understand how a dog needs a muzzle offroad. Do you mean driving or walking
or ???

You can get muzzles which your dog can break free from in an emergency. The fact they never do this is testament to the lack of 'trauma' involved. They are comfortable in it.

Doesn't that defeat the objective?

And at least one of my two would have it off quickly smart if it were possible. The other would likely just stress and be upset.

Which breed, other than the pitbull? No other well bred breed demonstrates these unreliable traits.

A few of the generally rarer large fighting dog types and I think perhaps larger dogs like Rotties and American bulldogs need looking at. Perhaps greater regulation, compulsory (proper/expensive) training and certification rather than banning would work for the later.

I'd rather just keep all sighthounds on a leash at all times. Their predisposition to 'chase' can be dangerous with smaller cats and children, and recall is always somewhat spotty, but they aren't aggressive. Some breeds just need a farm. I'm not a greyhound expert, but my instinct is you should be looking to slowly wean them off the muzzle except during introductions etc as they will be so used to it from racing, and teach them to be on leash. (except when playing with other sighthounds of course!)

Sighthounds can be problematic and greyhounds are often more so post adoption because they have little or no training other than to chase. I'd love a totalban on greyhound racing. Cruel and results in huge numbers of health dogs being killed every year.
 
Same as gun owners. Guns are dangerous as well as dangerous breeds such as Pit Bulls.
Ban guns and ban the Pit Bulls and we’re not reading these horrific events

Pitbulls are already banned in the UK and have been for many years though. Yet we still have Pitbull type dogs and attacks so banning hasn't worked. Apparently they have Pitbull sperm shipped in from the US and breed Pitbull cross breeds. Ban one breed and they'll just make another, it'll end up in a game of dog breed wack a mole every 5-10 years.