'My Dog is a Weapon'

[Blightwolf]

Dogs should only be muzzled for safety reasons. If the dog has behavioral issues, then yes, it should be muzzled when it is being exposed in the public. Also, as a perfectly rational precaution, dogs should also be muzzled when they are being examined by a vet and there might be a procedure that would upset or startle the dog (giving a vaccination, cleaning a wound, etc).

Seeing a muzzled dog just makes people think, "Oh, another aggressive breed, better watch out for those."

[Zethra]

Indeed, the automatic reaction is "That dog is aggressive, get away from it fast!" when really it could be, serverly ingured, having safty issues or is just going into the vet for an operation.
Some people's perseption of things can be odd, an unessesary. However thing like that happen.
This is the same with that special leash, the one that directs your dog's head into one direction at the tug of a leash. That is often mistooken as a muzzle aswell, which is why I am against mussling a dog for those reasons(unless it is of course nessesary).

Though, lets try not to get into a topic on "muzzling" since that's not, really part of the topic.

For most cases, more and more dogs have and are being labeld "aggressive" even though they are quiet dossile, reason for this is because an owner has neglected the dog and thus making them aggressive, because they don't know better. One dog's incodent, sadly, can cause an entire breed to be labeled aggressive. Although, it's mostly not the case.

[Blightwolf]

Dogs do have an instinctual aggression and that is natural, however, it is not correct to label every defensive or protective behavior as "aggressive". There are some subtle differences. Also, a dominant dog is not necessarily an aggressive dog. There are many types of aggression dogs show:

• * Dominant aggression
  * Territorial aggression
  * Fear aggression
  * Prey or predatorial aggression

To read further, click here: http://leerburg.com/aggresiv.htm

[Zethra]

That is true, and most dogs(that I've seen or heard) with aggression is usually a fear aggression. Mostly due to, being a naturally timid dog in an intimidating or none-understandable environment. This case, can easly be solved by showing the dog that the area is safe, and that their behavour is not the way they are supose to act.

The Dominate, and Territoral agression I have also seen in dogs before, by a poodle I met when I was three. However, sadly any form of aggression can lead to "breed label" so that leads to the following quetsion...
When will the breed labeling stop?

[Blightwolf]

As long as there are dog attacks and irresponsible dog owners, the labeling of breeds as "aggressive" will probably never stop, sadly.

I know the dominant aggression from dogs when I see it, it's most common for dogs that live in packs or have established large groups. We own five dogs, so it's easy to see who is trying to dominate who. They do not fight, but they are acting aggressive in a very dominant way toward one another (mounting, howling and barking, exposing teeth, tucking tails between legs or raising tails, etc).

[LunarWolfVII]

Sadly, this is all too common in the States as well, the main breed receiving the blame being pitbulls, Staffordshire terriers, and other similar breeds, with problems getting so bad that many people know are lead to agree with banning breeds like pitbulls all together. A method I STRONGLY disagree with, I've personally met many wonderful, well behaved pitbulls, that showed that if raised properly, these breeds can be well functioning members of both the human and canine community.

Dogs should never be a "weapon" for any civilian, even police and military dogs are less "weapons" and more important assistants to their handlers in the catching and apprehension of suspects, criminals and the like, and these dogs AND their handlers undergo rigorous, Professional training to properly handle and react to these situations. these dogs are also protected by law.

laws are another major reason I do not approve of getting a dog with the intention of it being your "protector" no matter what kind of training you put yourself and the dog through. because Here in this country at least, essentially, a dog is a dog, and if it ever bites someone it has no rights in the eyes of the court. A burgler can literally break into your house, get bit by your dog, on your (and the dog's) property, and sue you for the damages. which means you could lose your companion in the end and possible, as in many bite cases, the dog could lose his life if deemed "vicious".
bottom line, encouraging any kind of aggression in an animal, whether for the intention of personal protection or otherwise, endangers not just the owner and the general public, but also endangers and is detrimental to the life of the dog.

[Blightwolf]

I agree with LunarWolf.

Pit bulls are targeted because of their vivid history as brutal and powerful dogs and because of their associations with dog fighting. People see them as dangerous, vile dogs that are only after for blood and hunting elderly people, small children and neighborhood Chihuahuas. It's hysteric behavior. People need to comprehend that every dog breed are non-aggressive as they are born. Dogs are made aggressive, they are not born aggressive.

[Zethra]

I agree with the both of you. Dogs are not and will never be born as an aggressive animal. Some do have a stronger hunting instinct than others, and that can only be turned into aggresion through the owner training them that way.

I extreamly dissagree with the "dogs as weapons" or any other "tool". Since they are not tools, and the reason why they are seen this way is because they are treated, trained and used as tools. So it's not the dogs fult, even though the human is blaming the breed for such mistakes.

[sonic 68]

It's true that letting a dog walk you can cause aggresive behavior. Some people are kinda bad with animals, and probobly no one here. No offense or anything to those people who let the dogs act aggresively.

[SolitaryHowl]

Letting your dog 'walk you' can lead to dominant behaviours, but it doesn't necessarily have to be aggression.

And Suka, a husky mix, has a high hunting instinct/prey drive. (He's already killed 2 small animals.)

I disagree - dogs can be used as 'tools' (such as in rescue or in police forces) but they must be treated humanely and with respect.

[Zethra]

Agreed. The way they are used for means of law is alright. Again as long as the human is the dominant one, not the dog.

Letting the dog walking on you cannot lead to aggression, however it can lead to disrespect from the animal and letting the animal be the dominant one within the house. Meaning there will be a higher chance of the dog not listening to your commands.

However, there are as Blight once said, different kinds of aggression. Which can be solved. I believe, that if these people where to learn how to stop their dog from the signs, then there would be less dog attacks and less breeds added to the "danger" list. (an opinion)

[SolitaryHowl]

But, again, some dogs might be bred for aggression. Like how a Sibe husky is bred to pull a sled, a pitbull is/was originally bred to be a fighting dog. Maybe that instinctual aggression is still there, but it can be trained out of it.

[Blightwolf]

But even when a certain breed is bred to display aggression (Caucasian Shepherds, Presa/Dogo Canarios, Pit Bulls, Bull Terriers, Mastiffs..., etc) it does not mean that the dog will be an automatically aggressive individual. There is instinctual aggression in every dog - in some, that particular trait is hidden or it has to be brought out from the dog by provocation. In some breeds, the aggression is present in a more distinct way and it has to be modified and channeled to ensure a) the dog's own safety and b) the safety of the people and other animals around it.

An untrained dog with no given boundaries or limitations will easily develop a dominant aggression. It's not "aggression" in the actual sense of the word, but a dog that thinks itself as the dominant dog in the pack can still lean towards the "real" aggression behavior-wise. There's a thin line between aggressive and plain dominant behavior.

I have got some controversial feelings about dogs being used and trained for police force and military purposes. I wish not to bring politics of any sort into this conversation, but armies have the tendency to train specific "intimidation dogs" for war zones which are used in the interrogation process of prisoners. These dogs are particularly used in Middle Eastern countries to cause fear and shock in people that are being held as captives at prisons. I do not approve of using dogs (and training them to be aggressive toward prisoners) for those kind of inhumane and unethical methods.

The only thing I really approve of are canine units working at customs as drug and bomb-sniffing dogs and other beneficial and safety-related things such as that.

I do recognize the fact that dogs were originally bred to serve man as a protector and hunter and that multiple cultures have used dogs as an efficient tool in warfare, but I find the idea a bit immoral at some level. I do understand the causes but if you look at the history of dogs used in war, it is quite gruesome and full of human/dog violence... and violence (animal abuse) plays a big part in the history of dogs that are known being aggressive.

[Zethra]

Blight you took the words right out of my mouth. A dog even when bred for aggression isn't nessesarly going to be aggressive.

The only thing I really approve of are canine units working at customs as drug and bomb-sniffing dogs and other beneficial and safety-related things such as that.

That's the only thing I approve of with the use of dogs in the police force. To help find a crime ect. not for prison use.
Since dog's are not weapons, they have a high sence of smell which a dog loves to use. When it can't use it's nose it becomes confused...

[Blightwolf]

Canine aggression is a complex thing, it's necessary to have studied some dog psychology before fully understanding the context of "dog aggression"...

Sniffer dogs are the most useful dogs in my mind. Also dogs that help in rescue situations such as natural disasters and catastrophes (earthquakes, volcanic explosions, tsunamis, avalanches..., etc) are very good dogs to have around.

It's really a shame how military and police dogs are taught to behave in a far more aggressive way than they naturally would. Dogs are not like humans, they cannot switch their moods on and off or control their minds like a human would - they cannot decide that they are only displaying aggression in-duty and not when they are off-duty. That is why I believe it's important to keep army and police dogs under supervision and maintain their mental and physical state in the best possible way imaginable.

During World War II, the dogs that army used in their missions had to be rehabilitated so that they could be returned to their original owners and also assure that the dogs had stable mental capabilities for safety reasons. The army rehabilitated over 200 dogs. Most dogs used in war had to be put down back then simply because the army had created such aggressive and dangerous dogs. Luckily, there was a Lieutenant who decided that their hero war dogs would not be put down and he wanted them to have access in the army's canine rehabilitation program. And quite frankly, that has to be the best and most rational decision I have ever heard an army person make. XD