It is often heard that all dog owners should be required to keep their dogs on a leash. There is a call for special laws, and if such laws already exist, for even stricter penalties. The idea is that if this happens, most people will keep their dogs on a leash, and there will be fewer victims from dog attacks in emergency rooms.
The example of dogs on leashes illustrates well the primitive thinking of “just ban it,” which is not far from “just divide it” (c) Poligraf Poligrafovich Sharikov. Additionally, this example shows that describing the actual situation and problem is much more complex than resorting to populist demagoguery with “obvious” solutions. The very description of the root of the problem will be too difficult for the intellectual majority (the many-letters crowd) to grasp. A simple slogan is easier to understand. In contrast, a brief rebuttal takes 10 paragraphs, which 95% of the population won’t manage to read. It’s an unequal struggle.
To put it simply, I would say that, in general, a dog’s (and any other creature’s) reaction to a certain stimulus is “fight or flight.” If a dog can’t run away, it switches to attacking. People take advantage of this by chaining their dogs. The dog will fight for its owner’s property, but only because it is fighting for itself. The chain breaks the dog’s psyche, and it stops being rational, eventually starting to lash out at everyone.
A dog’s behavior is a bit more complex than just “fight or flight.” For example, there’s the behavior of “hold me back,” where the dog displays aggression knowing that an attack is impossible (like when behind a fence or on a leash).
If you approach a person walking a dog on a leash and ask why they do it, you might hear something like, “So it doesn’t run away.” This suggests that thousands of years of living together haven’t taught dogs to behave around humans the same way they do around other pack members—by following, not acting out of the ordinary, and not doing things that the leader wouldn’t do.
In reality, when a person attaches a leash to a dog, they allow the dog to delegate important decisions to them, such as navigation, detecting danger, and taking actions to avoid it or achieve a goal. The dog no longer has to think about whether it should chase a cat. The dog now knows it should always try to do so, and if it shouldn’t, it simply won’t be let off the leash. Act! The leader thinks for you. As a result, instead of having a companion on a walk, the person ends up with a mindless creature that constantly pulls on the leash and tries to break free.
Such a dog doesn’t know how to cross the road, doesn’t understand the purpose of a curb, can’t find its owner or way home on its own, and doesn’t know whether to charge at someone. The owner, in trying to bond with the dog, essentially provokes its escape. And not a rational escape, but a random loss.
On the other hand, the owner who has given up the leash gains freedom from the dog. It is no longer his problem to keep the dog close; it is now the dog’s responsibility to stay near the owner. An alien observing a person walking a dog without a leash would immediately understand who is following whom and who is leading whom on the walk. Paradoxically, by choosing not to worry about keeping the dog close, the owner has solved this issue for himself in a more elegant and less stressful way.
It’s interesting to note that most stories about dog attacks sound like “it broke free from the leash and attacked.” Do you know why? Because the leash is an illusion. A dangerous illusion of safety. Dogs that are capable of harming a person are already strong enough to break free from the leash or drag their owner, who is attached to the dog by the leash, towards their target. The fact that they are on a leash is nothing more than a “contract” with their owner. At the same time, a dog on a leash becomes less social, as its contact with other people is limited and it lacks positive experiences interacting with them. Essentially, it has no brains.
About Passersby. Some cases of dog attacks are provoked by the behavior of a person who is afraid of dogs and doesn’t know how to act. I’m not saying that the victim is to blame. No. The responsibility still lies with the dog’s owner. What I’m saying is that simple safety rules to follow can help avoid problems. We don’t walk through empty lots at night or cross the street at a crosswalk when a car isn’t going to stop. A child or an adult who is afraid of dogs, if not told not to show their fear, will try to run away or jump back. If the dog is on a leash, that tactic might work. But it won’t work against a dog that has broken free from its leash. A person has no chance of outrunning a dog. Dogs are faster than humans over short distances. Moreover, if you run away, you trigger a chasing instinct in a poorly behaved dog. It doesn’t matter whether the dog sees it as a game of tag or a serious attack. However, if leashes didn’t exist at all, such behavior from a dog would be unacceptable and would require correction, meaning efforts from the owner comparable to those needed for house training. And if leashes didn’t exist, the basics of safe behavior around animals would be instilled from childhood just like the basics of road safety.
Now about the owners. Often, people who have dogs with large jaws are specific individuals who try to compensate for their own failures by dominating something strong and by showcasing that strength to others, so that others project their opinions about that person through the dog. Such dogs are often untrained and pull on the leash. The owners do not teach them to walk beside them simply because they enjoy “controlling” the dog. These dogs often learn one wrong lesson from an early age: that violence is a way to communicate. The owner “trains” the dog with a whip. And the dog understands that causing pain is an acceptable tool to achieve its goals.
And one more aspect: Dogs are more prone to instinctual behavior than humans, and certain manifestations of instincts can “overflow” and make a dog difficult to live with, as well as pass on these excessive instinctual behaviors to future generations. There are dogs that have an inherent tendency towards increased aggression. Such dogs are acceptable, but only on a leash and with a muzzle. In other words, the idea of using a leash effectively masks the problem and allows overly aggressive dogs to continue breeding. This is clearly not what people advocating for safety would want.
What can we conclude from all of this? If we want dogs to bite poor children less (oh yes, children, because it’s more emotionally compelling to push through another law), we shouldn’t force everyone to keep their dogs on leashes (which can easily slip off). Instead, if there’s a strong urge to impose a ban, let’s ban leashes. It should now be the owner’s responsibility to train and raise their dog properly. Not everyone knows how to get along with dogs, so they will take them to trainers who won’t make the typical mistakes that can harm a dog’s psyche.
That’s why there are driver’s licenses for cars, but no licenses for walking dogs? I’m not saying that licenses are necessary; on the contrary, I think they might not be needed at all, and we should come up with “automatic” systems instead. For example, in Pakistan, most truck drivers don’t have licenses, yet they drive professionally. Why? A truck is a hereditary elite possession, and before you get behind the wheel, you spend several years as an apprentice to another driver. So what’s more reliable? Ten years of experience or a freshly passed exam?
The issue with leashes is also a demonstration of excessive legislative creativity. In reality, the civil code describes the responsibilities of citizens towards third parties very well. The fear of causing harm should be sufficient for a dog owner to regulate their relationship with their dog. With THEIR OWN DOG. Because the government is intruding into every nook and cranny, stripping people of any real sense of ownership. Right now, there isn’t a single valuable item in the world that one can manage at their discretion. Ultimately, it is the owner’s decision on how to handle their dog: on a leash or not. And it is the owner’s responsibility if the dog is not trained to live in the city without a leash.
In conclusion, requiring all dogs to be on a leash does not eliminate the danger posed by unleashed aggressive dogs, but rather creates an illusion of safety and promotes an opportunistic approach (solving the problem with a leash instead of investing time in training), which can harm the animal’s psyche. The number of bites increases. For example, service dogs at airports, which are capable and trained to be dangerous—meaning they can actually cause harm, not just “nibble”—often walk off-leash while “freely searching” for suspicious luggage. Why? Because they have been properly trained.