My dog has been declared dangerous.

I have worked with many dogs that have been declared dangerous. In my professional opinion, most of these dogs are not truly “dangerous.” Most are simply scared and have developed poor coping strategies.

As someone who has trained dogs professionally for 30 years and who works with aggressive dogs daily, I can say that almost all of those dogs are not inherently dangerous. Pretty much any dog, in the wrong situation, can or will bite or nip out of fear or self-preservation. Some dogs will also bite a person or another animal if they perceive their owner or family members to be under threat. The real question is: are these dogs genuinely dangerous?

A few years ago I worked with a working-line German Shepherd that was extremely dangerous. He had been raised with soft, pure positive methods and therefore had zero impulse control. This taught him that he could control any situation with aggression whenever he felt challenged. He almost mauled me during a training session one day. Thankfully I knew what to do and avoided injury. Once I recognised what I was really dealing with, I never handled the dog again. His owners still refused to believe their “baby” was dangerous. After I pointed this out, I never heard from them again. Some time later I learned he had mauled a dog at a park and bitten a couple of people who tried to intervene. He was essentially a wild animal that had been socialised. I never found out the final outcome, but I do know someone who later spoke to the owners — they still refused to admit their dog was problematic.

I have a reputation for being very to the point about dog behaviour because I don’t want to waste anyone’s time or money. People come to me for results, not excuses.

I understand the council rangers’ perspective. Most people neither train their dogs properly nor secure them adequately. Declaring a dog dangerous is often used to force the owner either to relinquish the dog (and have it euthanised) or to house and manage it correctly — including muzzling it and fitting a dangerous-dog collar whenever it is outside. My issues with these declaration orders are the annual registration fee of nearly $1,000, the complete absence of any requirement to seek help from a professional dog trainer, the additional fines and legal costs, and the emotional and psychological consequences for the owners. There needs to be clear provisions that require the dog to receive proper training.

I also understand that council rangers face busy day-to-day demands and limited resources.

Recently I was working with a client whose dog had nipped a child. Three council rangers arrived at the property to follow up on the declaration. They were all dressed in military-style flak jackets, cargo pants and boots, wearing the same colour uniform as the police. This was extremely intimidating for the female owner and, unsurprisingly, triggered defensive behaviour from the dog — behaviour the rangers then commented on. I would fully expect even my well-trained dogs to react to that kind of presence at the front door.

I am not minimising the fact that the dog nipped a child — that is inexcusable. However, the treatment of many of these owners is equivalent to the way reoffending dangerous criminals are treated. I can assure you this woman is far from any type of criminal.

Some councils allow a dog to be reassessed after a set period so the dangerous-dog order can be removed. Others provide no such opportunity.

It is far from a desirable situation, and one I see far too often. Ultimately the responsibility falls back on the owner. Genetic predisposition can play a role, but it is rare.

Recently I saw an online post from someone whose dog had been declared dangerous and who was asking for recommendations for a local trainer. People were recommending trainers who had supposedly helped them with aggression. I know some of those trainers — they have no real experience with aggression, or they have simply completed an online course to gain their “qualifications.” Others were promoting positive-only training, which is disturbing. Still others were recommending people who train at local clubs, put on a bite sleeve or bite suit, and are therefore assumed to know what they are doing. I have met these people and seen their training. It is best described as “made up.”

As a qualified dog trainer with multiple qualifications who has trained dogs for personal protection, security agencies, police departments including the FBI, ATF, Abu Dhabi and the Australian special forces, I can say I understand aggression and its complexities, and how it is best handled and trained. Positive-only training will not help these dogs. In fact, it makes the behaviour stronger or worse.

Dogs, like us, need both positive and negative feedback so they can learn which behaviours are correct. It is delusional to believe anything else will work. While pure positive methods sound pleasant, they ultimately reward the exact behaviours we do not want.

I am currently working with a dog that has serious behaviour problems. The owner had already taken it to four different positive-only trainers before coming to me. She openly admitted the problems only became worse. Those trainers made all sorts of excuses and promises, yet all of them fell short. This is a story I hear almost every day.

With all dogs, proper socialisation and training are essential to teach and maintain good behaviour. As the old saying goes: prevention is better than the cure.