Guns & Dogs

[JohnKSa]

I see a lot of women walking alone (unaccompanied by another person.) but with dogs for security.

This practice distresses me since the dog is invariably very large. All the better for her security, I guess, but she would be completely unable to control it if it decided to take off or attack someone. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make some comment on women's abilities--it's a simple matter of weight ratios (to quote Monty Python). Any 110-120lb person is going to have their hands more than full trying to control an agitated 60-70 lb dog.

These women take their dogs along for their security, but end up endangering the neighborhood instead. Everyone would be safer if they carried guns instead--a gun's not going to slip the leash and chew some kid's leg off.

 

[Ewok_Guy]

This is true.

 

[C.R.Sam]

That is logical.
(In my Spock voice)

Sam

 

[dfaugh]

The problem is

UNTRAINED dogs...I train dogs for Shutzhund, and train with many LEOS and PPDA (personal protection) people...Several of the best trainers I know are ~100 lb women...And a trained PP dog is very much LESS of a danger to "the public" then the average Black Lab (for example) that is untrained... Most of these dogs ARE NOT trained (IMHO shouldn't be) to "attack" on command.. They react only to aggression, towards them or their "pack"(family).... I have a 125 lb GSD, that holds numerous nationally and internationally recognized obediance titles...He has been around 10s of thousands of people, including thousands of children....He has had children pull his ears and tail, among other things, and would do NOTHING...When I competed with him, he routinely stayed in hotels, riding crowded elevators to up and down! He's also a trained PP dog, and would die protecting my children, if necessary....Once, when my kids were playing in front yard, a stranger came into the yard, to talk to them... Dog put his head through window...GF (100 lbs)stopped him from going through w/ one word command...I then walked him outside (at heel, no leash) to see what person wanted....Once dog saw he was OK (asking directions), dog allowed him to pet extensively, tail wagging all the time....THAT is properly trained dog... Unfortunately most aren't

 

[C.R.Sam]

Unfortunately most aren't

That's not a biggie, that's HUGELY important factor.

Sam

 

[OJ]

Real control of a dog is not related to weight of dog or handler. It is related to training of the dog and continued frequent training sessions after the initial training.

Training is not just sending the dog to obedience school but requires the handlers to personally do the training and contine such training after the schooling is past. That establishes a unique relationship between the dog and handler forever. It also trains the dog to respond to appropriate commands from others.

My wife's dog is an English Mastiff weighing 152# -- outweighing her some 30#. The dog is the second English Mastiff my wife has trained and showed to an obedience title (CD from the AKC). Her dogs know who is in charge and she has, on at least one occasion, called her dog out of a dog fight. She has also handled my 198# English Mastiff who was on his way to an obedience title also when we lost him to a seizure disorder. He was under her complete control at all times. She has no problem handling my 170# Mastiff who would have his title if not for the dysplasia that "excused" him from the ring. I trained both those big guys but we did switch dogs in training regularly.

These were all show dogs who were regularly in dog shows with some two thousand other dogs and several times that many people. They were never any threat to any person or dog except that they might be the winners of the coveted blue ribbons.<VBG>

My biggest Mastiff (198#) was once attacked, not once but twice at the same show, by a dog that weighed less than 10# before I had the woman owner of the dog ejected from the dog show. My dog responded to my command and released him as I removed the little dog from his mouth. The little dog bit my hand - a real problem since I was then performing surgical procedures daily. If the handler isn't in charge, it doesn't matter what the dog weighs.

Our bumper stickers say "Good neighbor policy - obedience train your dogs."

 

[Schmit]

I agree with dfaugh. I've got a Rotty that has had Obedience training (not to the Shutzhund level) and my wife (110 #) and oldest daughter (100 #) have no problem controlling her with one word commands.

Normally my Rotty is not on a leash and she is a very civil dog, even when around large crowds or other dogs.

It is all in the training (and the continuous reinforcement of that training).

dgaugh - were in Upstate are you located? My Rotty is getting on in years and I'm looking at the families next pet. It is either going to be another Rotty or a Cane Corso. Either way training is going to be the bussiness of order.

For either - Obedience and Personal Protection.

If Rotty would also like to get trained for Tracking.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"All the better for her security, I guess, but she would be completely unable to control it if it decided to take off or attack someone."


Don't fall into the trap of "oh little woman can't controll her dog."

First comes proper training. A properly trained dog won't "decide to take off."

A properly trained dog also won't attack someone unless there is compelling reason to do so.

Second comes knowing how to handle the dog so that if it does attempt to break, you use the dog's own mass and velocity against it.

Not hard to learn.

I guess small men with big dogs are exempted from this? That a 125-lb. man has the inherent capacity and capability to control a 160-lb Leonberger, or a 200-lb Great Dane, just because the handler has testicles? I have two friends who fit those descriptions/dogs. Maybe I should tell them that they're a danger to themselves and the community at large?

Quite frankly, this smells suspiciously like "A woman with a gun is only a danger to herself and innocent bystanders."

 

[Gusgus]

Gusgus was a big Rottie (165 lb., 28") who was a gentle giant, and loved everyone. He always wanted to play with kids, and greet every stranger. He was such a teddy bear, that I thought that he would probably try to make friends with an intruder. Late one night, as my wife and I where in bed, 2 or more BGs broke open our back door. Gusgus chased them screaming out the back porch and off the property. Even though he loved everyone, he knew when the "pack" was being threatened. He was the best of both worlds - a large, scary looking monster, that was a teddy bear at heart. I always felt safe around him, and everyone that visited learned to love him. I also knew that he would never harm an innocent soul. He was socialized with other folk and animals from a puppy, and I, my wife & children where the "Alpha" members of the pack. He knew his place, and accepted it. My wife (120 lbs.) could walk him (165 lbs.) without any fear of losing control. We lost him to bone cancer last December.

We now have a male English Mastiff (95 lbs. 27" at 6 months), that we are raising the same way we raised Gusgus. He is even portraying the personality traits of my dear departed big boy. He is a gentle sweet heart, that loves everyone he meets, and has been taught to be very gentle with all children (even our 16 month old grandson). Even though he should reach close to 200 lbs., once he is mature, and fully trained, I will have no fear of my wife losing control of him on a walk either. Nor, will I have any fear of her being attacked while on that walk.

As others have said, it all comes down to training, and socializing. If the dog is properly raised, and knows his/her place, a 90 lb. woman shouldn't have any problem with even a 200 lb. dog.

Being fearful of a dog, due to it's size or breed, is akin to an anti, who fears black plastic rifles, because they look evil. I'm fully expecting to hear - "Why does anyone NEED a dog over (fill in the blank) lbs?!"

 

[Schmit]

Gusgus,

My condolences on your loss. I know what that is like.

My family has had three pets that a lot of people would consider "dangerous" - an American Stafforshire (aka Pittbull), Wolf Hybrid, and Rotty.

They were all very social pets, getting along with people and other animals. All were almost never leashed or penned and walked around with my family members. None were aggressive towards people (unless there was a reason) nor other annimals (with the exception of the Stafforshire but only when another Male came on our property - though he wouldn't attack he would walk up and rest his head on the other dogs shoulder waiting for it to jump bad or for one of us to get on to him, same dog in that dogs yard he'd just ignore him)

I don't care what anyone says... it is all in the upbringing and training. There is no such thing as a bad dog, just bad owners.

 

[Quartus]

There is no such thing as a bad dog, just bad owners.

<sigh> And far too many of them.


Well said, gentlemen. Gotta love them mastiffs!

 

[ATeaM]

It's not the size of the dog but whether the owner allows themselves to be dominated by their pet. I'm sure we're ALL familiar with that desperate woman being dragged down the street by her lab/collie/sheperd/****-zuh screeching, "Stop RALPHIE ! No, don't do that RALPHIE ! Please Ralphie, we gotta go now Ralphie !"...as her dog continues to do whatever it wants. As you pass this woman with her pet, no doubt it growls at you, trying to protect it's submissive "master", and if are walking a dog as well, it will bark and bite at it. Of course, this is never her dogs fault, as she screeches, "GET YOUR DOG AWAY ! STOP ! GO !" Like a chicken with it's head cut off, she runs around, escalating the situation further.

Whenever two dogs are about to fight, for some reason women feel it is best to scream at the top of their lungs as if they were being attacked, because in their mind this calms the situation and won't provoke things further. You'll notice they do this when two guys are fighting as well, there's bound to be a shrieking woman somewhere. Why, I haven't figured out yet.

 

[ATeaM]

What, can't say ****-zuh on TFL ?

 

[Marko Kloos]

What, can't say ****-zuh on TFL ?

Sure, if you spell the breed correctly:

Shih-Tzu.

 

[Cosmoline]

dfaugh is right!

My best buddy is a 95lb purebred GSD from old German lines, the kind you rarely see anymore even in Germany. His drive KNOWS NO BOUNDS. He fully believes he could take down a 50' tree and will try if told to do so. A gun will not phase him. If you try to beat him to make him let go, he will only attack more. Pain means nothing to him when he gets going.

YET for all this it takes only a word or two from me and he'll let go and return, or hit the ground. Under no circumstances would he run off and try to attack someone without serious provocation. Schutzhund training is only part of the reason. He's been very well socialized, and as a consequence can read people very well. He knows the difference between a harmless drunk and a dangerous nutcase. He's been trained right--without the use of sadistic methods such as "stringing up" and the like. He's been trained with a combination of positive reenforcement and instant punishment for wrong actions, coupled with lots of TLC and a lot of social experiences with different people.

So many dogs these days, both mutts and purebreds, "bark a good game" but will run off if actually faced with someone who stands his ground and smacks them with a stick. I've seen "top of the line" GSD's run off like puppies when faced with these situations off the Schutzhund field. At the same time, many "well trained" dogs will haul off and bite kids in the face for pulling their tail.

IMHO, to get a proper guard dog requires a combination of solid blood lines and good socialization from puppyhood on up. For example, we've got a batch of GSD's right now in the other room, grandchildren of the Schutzhund world champion. Every day we make a point of "stealing" them from mommy (not easy!) and messing with them to get them used to people.

 

[stinger]

nothing is a 100% sure thing. whatever choice you make for personal protection can fail at any minute.

but i don't care how well a dog is trained, it can snap just like a person can. chemical imbalances in the brain might just turn that loving, loyal companion into CUJO.

chances are that this won't happen, though.

so to all you weakling women out there: take a rottweiller and a 45. if your dog snaps, but a couple of slugs in his head .

stinger

 

[JohnKSa]

Mike Irwin wrote:

I guess small men with big dogs are exempted from this? ... Quite frankly, this smells suspiciously like "A woman with a gun is only a danger to herself and innocent bystanders."

Mike,

I specifically stated that this was a matter of weight ratios and was not any comment on the abilities of women. The only reason I mentioned women is that I don't see any men walking large dogs in my neck of the woods.

To those who responded that it was a matter of training--I agree, but with reservations. It's true that a well-trained dog is much more stable and controllable than one which is poorly trained or essentially untrained. However, there's nothing supernatural about a well-trained animal. They can and will misbehave under certain circumstances.

It's also true that there are unusually well-behaved animals which are virtually unperturbable, however, they are not the norm--if they were, no one would comment on their excellent behavior (in the manner in which comments were made on this thread.)

More to the point, I have no idea what the training level or temperament of these animals is.

BTW, for those who responded that it's wrong to automatically fear any animal--I agree heartily. However, I respect them--in the same way I respect loaded firearms and automobiles. They're perfectly safe under normal circumstances, but have a certain amount of dangerous potential.

Regards,

John

 

[Mike Irwin]

John,

Maybe if you're taking time to make a post, you ought to take time to think about the tone & timbre of your post before hand?

I read your entire post, and the tone that still came through was that if a guy had the dog, it would be better than if a woman had the dog. Again, that smacks greatly of the arguments (some made even here) that women shouldn't carry guns.

You're making a HUGE series of assumptions here:

1. That the dog isn't trained.

2. That the woman handling the dog doesn't know how to control the dog.

3. That the dog was obtained as a means of protection, instead of for some other means.

4. That the dog is inherently vicious.

 

[JohnKSa]

Mike,

"...I'm not trying to make some comment on women's abilities..."
"...it's a simple matter of weight ratios..."
"Any 110-120lb person..."

Gender is not the issue, size and weight is--I don't know I could have made it any clearer than that.

As for my "tone & timbre" and "HUGE assumptions". This started out as a three paragraph post describing an interesting thought I had while driving. Nothing more, nothing less. I didn't conduct any interviews, do any research or perform any experiments. I didn't have anyone proof my three paragraphs for tone, timbre, gender political correctness or possibly unjustified assumptions. I didn't spend hours trying to make this an airtight argument. If I wanted to write dissertations and theses, I'd enroll at the local college and get credit for them.

And, for the record, the POINT of the post was that everyone would be safer if these women were carrying guns instead of walking large dogs. I don't see how you can twist that around to say I'm in favor of those who say that women shouldn't carry guns.

BTW, if you had read my reply post, you would see that it addressed 1, 2 & 4 on your list of assumptions.

Regards,

John

 

[OJ]

Maybe my post was too long. My wife, at under 120# has handled dogs up to 198# under circumstances at dog shows that most dogs never experience (over 2000 dogs and several times that number of people). Never was there any doubt about her ability to control any of those dogs and people were always coming up with their children and piling on the dog -- who was under much better control than the children.

Owning a dog is a serious responsibility and a well trained dog should be 100% dependable. We've shown dogs over two decades with never any incident -- the secret is that the dogs know who is in charge.

If a well trained dog isn't 100% reliable, either it is defective personality-wise (and should be euthanised) or, more likely, the owned has been incompetent in training the dog and thus, has failed the dog. Any aggressive behavior will get a dog "excused" from a show instantly and, if it happens three times, the dog is prohibited from ever being shown again. I've seen literally thousands of dogs that were 100% reliable around the dog shows and, in my experience, at least 50% of the handlers were women.