'Guard' Dogs...

I was asked by a colleague in a rural area about the possibility of a client of theirs taking on a couple of rescue dogs to act as guard dogs in their property during the night and be tethered during the day (living outdoors).

As I wrote my response I thought it might be useful to put it in a blog post for others to read.  I've had quite a bit of experience with people wanting to rescue Molossers to give them a 'better' life as a guard dog for their premises...  

"With regards to keeping dogs as guard dogs, we generally strongly recommend against this now.  It’s actually not strictly legal anyway, as a dog cannot be kept as a ‘guard dog’ unless some pretty stringent measures are put into place such as warning notices all over the place and the dog being supervised by a handler at all times.

Tethering of dogs makes them extremely frustrated (this is a massive problem in the U.S.) and this can lead to aggression.

In my experience dogs (whatever size or disposition they are) would prefer not to be left to their own devices to guard territory.  They need to know that it isn't THEIR job to make critical decisions about who they let in and who they don’t.  They need to work with a handler to make those decisions for them.  Even if they are not expected to actually attack anybody and just raise the alarm, this won’t stop the stress related to having that responsibility on their shoulders unless very specific training is instilled such as I've taught my dogs; one or two barks then run back into the house and find me so I can reward them with a treat.  Most pet owners will not be able to put this training in and keep it in place.

Dogs that work ‘alone’ make all the wrong decisions - usually using their teeth - and end up being very unstable characters who generalise their instability around animate stimuli even when they are taken ‘off duty’ for a walk with their owner.  They usually lead miserable lives never quite knowing when they are on or off duty and never being able to fully relax.

I think that in truly rural areas this isn't really a problem as people, as you say, live differently and almost expect visitors to understand that there are loose dogs roaming around and the dogs generally have more space to 'escape' if they feel they need to. This is very different in busier towns and cities though, where dogs are subjected to far more ‘threats’ and probably never get a chance to ‘switch off’, leading to long-term problems with cortisol build-up due to prolonged stress etc.

Living outside is a purely an individual decision based on the individual dog.  I've known many dogs who prefer to live outside and only visit indoors now and again.  These guys tend to be quite independent, aloof characters and not ideal family pets though.  They are loyal to a point but personally speaking,  I think they will always be ‘their own masters’ because due to the emotional detachment needed to live separately from the human social group, they’re not emotionally invested in their humans.  

A part of me can’t help feeling there’s something sad about that, but as we have to tell people every day - dogs are as individual as we are and may not always be people-orientated.  Like some humans!

Been reeling over Lennox today... 


There was a part of me that really didn't believe they'd actually go through with it against the weight of worldwide opinion.  It's bad enough feeling so sad about it but my heart really goes out to Sarah Fisher, who actually spent time with him.  


It reminds me of a dog I worked with that was also destroyed for no good reason...


Every dog I work with, I form a bond with.  It's unavoidable.  A couple of years ago I was asked to assess a dog for a breed rescue. He had come in for showing aggression towards a small child, but the child had been trying to hug the dog while he was eating.  I was told that the dog had been subjected to non-stop chasing and hugging from the child since it had been born a couple of years previously, and 'without any warning' had snapped at the child... 


To cut a long story shorter, I assessed the dog as having some slight proximity issues around food (to be expected), calm, quiet, gentle and just wanting to have his own space and bumble about without being pestered.  He'd have been the perfect companion dog for someone who just wanted a bit of company while they were working at home or doing the garden; perhaps a retired / semi-retired person or couple without any visiting children.  I'd have had him in a shot, but then I was used to mastiffs and although this dog wasn't a mastiff, his temperament was very similar.  He'd have made someone a very loving companion.


I received an email just a few hours after my assessment from the foster carer telling me that the dog had been destroyed.  When I asked why, it was because his temperament was not indicative of his breed and he would be un-rehomeable.  In other words, because he wasn't bouncy and bright with a constantly wagging tail he wasn't to be given a chance.  Another dog who had lost his life due to breed 'type', but this time  because he WASN'T typical of type.


I only spent an hour or so with him but I still remember the quiet, gentle way that lovely dog had about him.  I remember his quiet, thankful eyes and how restful and at peace he seemed now that he was in a quieter environment without being pestered all the time and used as a plaything or child's toy.  I will never forget him and how needless his death was.


So my heart goes out to Sarah tonight as she also remembers a dog that has been lost for no good reason.  


I wish that humanity's obsession with 'breed' could simply die and we could see dogs as individual as we see ourselves.  Perhaps Harvey and Lennox would be sleeping on a sofa somewhere now.  

Gavin Grant's Blog on Responsible Dog Ownership

Regardless of what you may think of the RSPCA as a whole, the outlines for the overhaul in legislation in Gavin Grant's blog make sense EXCEPT for making people responsible for the actions of their dogs within their own home...  In gardens?  Yes; we have to protect postal workers and other people who have valid access to our front door, but behind the front door?  No.  For me, this is a sacrosanct, private, family area in which every member of the family - INCLUDING THE FAMILY DOG - should be able to feel safe.  


I know that the proposed legislation changes allow for the event of a dog biting someone with unauthorised access to the house (i.e. a burglar), but we already know that ambiguous wording of an Act can give clever lawyers a chance to take advantage, especially where dogs are concerned.


Contrary to popular opinion there is ALREADY perfectly usable legislation in place to prosecute owners of dogs who harm people within the home.


The Dogs Act 1871


I deter visitors to my home as much as possible because I'm looking after a dog that needs to have one place in the world where he feels safe.  On the rare occasion I have to allow workmen into the home for essential works, I take the day off work and sit at my desk working with the dog at my feet or in his bed behind a closed door to 'show' him that there's no need to be anxious.  At no point do I 'allow' him to make a mistake and put someone with approved access to our home into fear. However, what I would not tolerate, and would resent enormously, would be someone who ignored my advice as to how to behave in MY home to keep the dog calm and stress-free and then felt they could have me charged under some law because THEY made the mistake that made the dog feel threatened.


I may be in the minority, but members of my family - even temporary ones like foster dogs - come first in their own home.  


I'm just worried that a blanket law stating that a dog is guilty until proved innocent is going to lead to exactly the same problems as we now have with the DDA...

The Incredible Ignorance of Man...

The title of this post may seem a little extreme, but the events that unfolded today proved once again that some humans do not deserve the company of dogs...


I had to do a bit of shopping this afternoon and as I went into the supermarket (Sainsburys) I spotted a car with it's back windows open a few inches (always a tell-tale sign that there's someone in the car...).  It was parked in the shade but those of us that have done our research know that a car can still become dangerously hot in these conditions.


As I approached I saw them... two greyhounds lying down in the back of the car.  As they saw me one of them stood up poking his nose through the gap in the windows.  They were both panting distressingly heavily.


I took a photo and a quick bit of film as evidence and went immediately went to the Customer Service and told the not-too-concerned assistant that there were two dogs in distress in a car, gave her the registration and details and asked that she request the owner return to her car.


I went back to the car as the announcement was made (not for the owner to return to her car as her dogs were in distress, but just to come to Customer Service...) and watched the dogs get more and more distressed.  They didn't even get up as I returned to the car, they were lying as low as they could, clearly having difficulty in breathing and in some distress.


I then saw the owner, a middle-aged woman, wander up to the Customer Service desk and simply could not believe my ears as she tried to defend her actions, with the shop assistant agreeing with her sympathetically... Comments such as


'my dogs are fine... I'm checking on them all the time etc... Some people are just busybodies.. They just want to cause trouble..." etc.


I could not believe my eyes as this personification of ignorance just walked back into the shop and continued her shopping.


I immediately contacted the RSPCA, got through straight away, reported the incident, gave them all the details and by this time (some 15 minutes later), the owner came wandering out, went to her car, unloaded her shopping, returned her trolley to the bay and then got in the car, not looking in at the dogs once....


I didn't see them stir, so I am only hoping and praying that they weren't already beyond help.  The RSPCA have said they will follow up the incident as they have the registration number and I am hoping and praying they will.  


I completely understood the aggrieved stance this ignorant owner took; I see it all the time.  Owners who - instead of taking an incident like this as an opportunity to take a step back, look at their actions and see if there is a point to them being reported - take a defensive position because they feel their actions have been criticised.  When I see this kind of reaction I know that I have 'touched a nerve'... a person truly ignorant of the fact that their dog's welfare has been compromised will react with surprise, not defiance.


I also know from experience that personally challenging people like this is pointless, even though I wanted to.  This kind of person will only take notice of 'officialdom', and not someone they see as an equal; another member of the public.  This is why I hope the RSPCA will do the job I know they can do very well and follow this up.  I am also hoping at the very least, this owner will think twice about taking her dogs with her to go to Sainsburys, as there are people who WILL be an advocate for her dogs and disturb her little shopping trip.

From Scrapbook Photos

P.S.


As soon as I got home, I checked the temperature in my living room - completely in the shade, insulated against the heat via double glazing and being mid-terrace.  My dogs were peacefully snoozing and it actually felt really cool and comfortable, but I was amazed at the temperature reading of this room...

From Scrapbook Photos

I shuddered as I thought of those poor greyhounds in that car... Goodness only knows what the temperature was in there.