Rottweilers Strike Again....
30 August 2010, 06:08 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly when Rotties do let go it causes serious damage; just like it would with a Doberman or a Ridgeback. All scary dogs capable of being wonderful pets or simple killing machines.
30 August 2010, 06:15 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: underground
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have owned rotties for many years and they are the most placed breed i have come across, it has already been said many times in this thread its the way the animal is treated and trained will affect its social behaviour.
Its like going to a scrap yard and seeing a dog tied up with 6ft of chain snapping and snarling continously, the dog has probably been kicked and tortured all its life and knows nothing else, hardly surprising if it bites some-1.
Its like going to a scrap yard and seeing a dog tied up with 6ft of chain snapping and snarling continously, the dog has probably been kicked and tortured all its life and knows nothing else, hardly surprising if it bites some-1.
30 August 2010, 06:22 PM
#34
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you're saying that ALL these animals were scrapyard dogs and not brought up in loving homes then?
30 August 2010, 06:22 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moved to the Darkside
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently 4th most likely dog to attack.
I could post up pictures of children attacked by their own parents and i guarantee that there are a lot more of these incidents. I could have the most vicious dog in the country and still make sure it never bit/attacked anyone. Owners have to take the blame, if they were so dangerous as you say then out the thousands of Rottweilers surely they would all be attacking people.
I could post up pictures of children attacked by their own parents and i guarantee that there are a lot more of these incidents. I could have the most vicious dog in the country and still make sure it never bit/attacked anyone. Owners have to take the blame, if they were so dangerous as you say then out the thousands of Rottweilers surely they would all be attacking people.
30 August 2010, 06:30 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
I hate rottweilers and having been bitten by one in its owners company, i'd say they are quite uncontrollable and shouldn't be in the hands of amature dog handlers. These dogs don't deserve to be banned but they do deserve to be handled in a way that is accustomed to their attitudes. A owner should have to go through a certified training and hold some sort of license that not only shows they have the ability to care of the animal but have complete liability over it along with spot checks on owner and dog to check its well being.
I don't believe these dogs should be taken out into public either unless wearing a muzzle.
I don't believe these dogs should be taken out into public either unless wearing a muzzle.
30 August 2010, 06:47 PM
#38
Scooby Newbie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redditch
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people are sooo naive, there are thousands of rottweilers in this country and yet if its the breed thats dangerous wouldnt we have several attacks a day? just because many of us have been brought up with many horror films where the dog is a big nasty snarling rottweiler doesnt mean they are, if it had been a labrador would they be as popular today?
the problem is that there are a select few owners who dont have the knowledge on how to raise a dog properly let alone such a powerful one?
I own a Rottweiler and a Dogue De Bordeaux both males and both intact and they are both soft, stupid and incredibly loyal. i currently live with my sister and her family which includes her 12month old daughter. they absolutely adore her but i would never leave them alone together in a room nor would i ANY breed afterall they all descend from the wolf.
i love the breeds always been brought up with large breeds BUT I fully respect the capabilities of them thats why i agree there should be some sort of system whereby you have to attend a course with the dog even just for sociolisation purposes if nothing else or you shouldnt be allowed it. at the end of the day if you cant afford or have the time to take the dog to the courses you simply dont have the time to bring the dog up properly and thats when we get problems, afterall many people dont understand how important the whole pack heirarchy is when it comes to dogs.
Most people on here i saying that if a Rottweiler attacks then it should be destroyed, no problem BUT why not put that into place for humans? As humans we are brought up to know the difference between right and wrong!!
the problem is that there are a select few owners who dont have the knowledge on how to raise a dog properly let alone such a powerful one?
I own a Rottweiler and a Dogue De Bordeaux both males and both intact and they are both soft, stupid and incredibly loyal. i currently live with my sister and her family which includes her 12month old daughter. they absolutely adore her but i would never leave them alone together in a room nor would i ANY breed afterall they all descend from the wolf.
i love the breeds always been brought up with large breeds BUT I fully respect the capabilities of them thats why i agree there should be some sort of system whereby you have to attend a course with the dog even just for sociolisation purposes if nothing else or you shouldnt be allowed it. at the end of the day if you cant afford or have the time to take the dog to the courses you simply dont have the time to bring the dog up properly and thats when we get problems, afterall many people dont understand how important the whole pack heirarchy is when it comes to dogs.
Most people on here i saying that if a Rottweiler attacks then it should be destroyed, no problem BUT why not put that into place for humans? As humans we are brought up to know the difference between right and wrong!!
Last edited by ibizaboy; 30 August 2010 at 06:51 PM.
30 August 2010, 09:16 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
As always, so many experts on Rottweilers, yet most of you propbably haven't even met one, let alone lived with the breed for years.
Richie, ibizaboy, Brockalightus, you are wasting your time guys.
DCI, stop being a ****. I could post up thousands of images of children with horrific injuries suffered at the hands of human beings, often their own parents. You used to be an ok poster until you bent over and took one from De Bank. I thought more highly of you than to lose all sense of balance.
Get a grip, and probably a life too. If you actually read the story about the bride to be, she fell over. No mention of an attack, no mention of the dogs fighting. Might just as easily have been a spaniel that ran up to them. Maybe her "Alsatian" started it.
Richie, ibizaboy, Brockalightus, you are wasting your time guys.
DCI, stop being a ****. I could post up thousands of images of children with horrific injuries suffered at the hands of human beings, often their own parents. You used to be an ok poster until you bent over and took one from De Bank. I thought more highly of you than to lose all sense of balance.
Get a grip, and probably a life too. If you actually read the story about the bride to be, she fell over. No mention of an attack, no mention of the dogs fighting. Might just as easily have been a spaniel that ran up to them. Maybe her "Alsatian" started it.
Last edited by Devildog; 30 August 2010 at 09:27 PM.
30 August 2010, 09:23 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
And for the record, Rotties don't have a specially developed bite or musculature, nor are they more likely to attack as a breed.
What they do have, like Staffies and certain other breeds, is a tendency to be owned by the wrong kind of people for the wrong reasons.
What we have here is, once again, irresponsibly owned dogs, in a socially deprived area, badly brought up and roaming apparently free.
From the reports, it was also far from a savage attack, and the injuries no more severe than those recently attributable to a fox.
My heart goes out to the little girl. The owner of the dogs should be jailed.
What they do have, like Staffies and certain other breeds, is a tendency to be owned by the wrong kind of people for the wrong reasons.
What we have here is, once again, irresponsibly owned dogs, in a socially deprived area, badly brought up and roaming apparently free.
From the reports, it was also far from a savage attack, and the injuries no more severe than those recently attributable to a fox.
My heart goes out to the little girl. The owner of the dogs should be jailed.
30 August 2010, 09:30 PM
#41
I have no desire to own such a powerful Dog, no need as there are plenty of small/medium sized Dogs that do the job just as well, i.e. a fun pet, I know if ours goes mental I can subdue him easily, I have no chance with something so powerful, therefore I am not completely in control, however well socialized and well trained a Dog something may trigger it to turn on you, fright, surprise, illness, mistaken identity or whatever.
I know most are big, fluffy, soppy, faithful and lovely, but if one day it isn't, could you stop it once it has a six year old in its jaws, I know I couldnt.
The incidence of certain breeds attacking is skewed massively by the ownership profile, sadly, Rotties and Satffies attract those out to get a tough looking dog and then dont train or look after them properly, this means the chances of an incident go up markedly, i suspect that if it wasnt for bad owners we would rarely hear of an attack, still, I wouldnt have an animal with such potential for damage around if I didnt need to.
I know most are big, fluffy, soppy, faithful and lovely, but if one day it isn't, could you stop it once it has a six year old in its jaws, I know I couldnt.
The incidence of certain breeds attacking is skewed massively by the ownership profile, sadly, Rotties and Satffies attract those out to get a tough looking dog and then dont train or look after them properly, this means the chances of an incident go up markedly, i suspect that if it wasnt for bad owners we would rarely hear of an attack, still, I wouldnt have an animal with such potential for damage around if I didnt need to.
30 August 2010, 09:36 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
J4CKO
You go on as if Rotties are fecking bionic. In reality they are no stronger than a large lab or many other large breeds not subject to the same vilification.
You go on as if Rotties are fecking bionic. In reality they are no stronger than a large lab or many other large breeds not subject to the same vilification.
30 August 2010, 09:39 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
30 August 2010, 09:45 PM
#44
Not really, at sixteen stone and six foot I am no lightweight but I would not want to underestimate a Rottie, or any bigger breed, ok I suspect I am probably able to stop one if its on a lead but if it turned on me I am not blessed with a massive jaw to fight back with, even a Labrador if its intent on taking a lump out of you is a formiddable adversary.
I am not trying to add to the demonizing of Rottweilers, any big, powerful dog has more potential to injure than a smaller one, as I mentioned, the fact they look tough means that people who shouldnt have them go for them, they dont go for Labs but I expect if they did the same thing may happen.
30 August 2010, 09:47 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moved to the Darkside
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm assuming you haven't taken any fence down so it has to be the owners fault for not keeping the dog contained.
30 August 2010, 09:50 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
As always, so many experts on Rottweilers, yet most of you propbably haven't even met one, let alone lived with the breed for years.
Richie, ibizaboy, Brockalightus, you are wasting your time guys.
DCI, stop being a ****. I could post up thousands of images of children with horrific injuries suffered at the hands of human beings, often their own parents. You used to be an ok poster until you bent over and took one from De Bank. I thought more highly of you than to lose all sense of balance.
Get a grip, and probably a life too. If you actually read the story about the bride to be, she fell over. No mention of an attack, no mention of the dogs fighting. Might just as easily have been a spaniel that ran up to them. Maybe her "Alsatian" started it.
Richie, ibizaboy, Brockalightus, you are wasting your time guys.
DCI, stop being a ****. I could post up thousands of images of children with horrific injuries suffered at the hands of human beings, often their own parents. You used to be an ok poster until you bent over and took one from De Bank. I thought more highly of you than to lose all sense of balance.
Get a grip, and probably a life too. If you actually read the story about the bride to be, she fell over. No mention of an attack, no mention of the dogs fighting. Might just as easily have been a spaniel that ran up to them. Maybe her "Alsatian" started it.
30 August 2010, 09:57 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
then sh1tting on my lawns -- my young children get it on their feet -- it goes into the swimming pool etc etc
it is fvcking disgusting - and lazy lazy dogkeeping to boot, I might have to say something because if I catch the dog -- I swear "i'll do time" and kick it's t1ts in
30 August 2010, 10:03 PM
#48
DCI im not going to even bother, you were clearly bored and thought, "how can I cause some trouble".
end of, how many of your other usernames have you used to comment on this thread?
dont bother replying to me, im not interested in anything you say. you talk out of your ****.
end of, how many of your other usernames have you used to comment on this thread?
dont bother replying to me, im not interested in anything you say. you talk out of your ****.
30 August 2010, 10:03 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moved to the Darkside
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agreed -- i think the dog is just being let out at night for it's late "walk"
then sh1tting on my lawns -- my young children get it on their feet -- it goes into the swimming pool etc etc
it is fvcking disgusting - and lazy lazy dogkeeping to boot, I might have to say something because if I catch the dog -- I swear "i'll do time" and kick it's t1ts in
then sh1tting on my lawns -- my young children get it on their feet -- it goes into the swimming pool etc etc
it is fvcking disgusting - and lazy lazy dogkeeping to boot, I might have to say something because if I catch the dog -- I swear "i'll do time" and kick it's t1ts in
30 August 2010, 10:07 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
30 August 2010, 10:28 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an emotive subject alright.......
I feel sorry for that 10 year old gal having to undergo all that trauma becos of someone's inability to control their dog(s)!! You probably only have to look at the ******** kids to know they probably couldn't manage to control a remote for their TV............
And then there is this burning question about breed? is it the breed ? well probably the answer is No, but unfortunately these kind of dogs do have a very good capability in terms of jaw strength etc to do some serious damage.
I mean putting it into perspective I reckon I could put a Jack Russell over a 6 ft fence with my boot if it was attacking my child but I wouldn't fancy my chances of doing the same with an Alsatian.........and THAT is the crux of why these dog's are making the news........I feel for all the good owners of these dogs but as usual the idiotic few are spoiling it for the rest.............
At the end of the day we have to protect our children and if that means having more stringent checks in place becos of some "Bellend" owners then unfortunately I can't see an alternative.
I feel sorry for that 10 year old gal having to undergo all that trauma becos of someone's inability to control their dog(s)!! You probably only have to look at the ******** kids to know they probably couldn't manage to control a remote for their TV............
And then there is this burning question about breed? is it the breed ? well probably the answer is No, but unfortunately these kind of dogs do have a very good capability in terms of jaw strength etc to do some serious damage.
I mean putting it into perspective I reckon I could put a Jack Russell over a 6 ft fence with my boot if it was attacking my child but I wouldn't fancy my chances of doing the same with an Alsatian.........and THAT is the crux of why these dog's are making the news........I feel for all the good owners of these dogs but as usual the idiotic few are spoiling it for the rest.............
At the end of the day we have to protect our children and if that means having more stringent checks in place becos of some "Bellend" owners then unfortunately I can't see an alternative.
30 August 2010, 10:39 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moved to the Darkside
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aaron
30 August 2010, 11:02 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree, I used the word "unfortunate" in the context of having to put rules in place because of some owners that are just plain idiotic. Just seeing some of the Pillocks on Dog Borstal made me realise some people just shouldn't be allowed to keep any dog...........
30 August 2010, 11:10 PM
#54
Scooby Newbie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redditch
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To say Rottweilers are more powerful than similar sized Breeds is a definate misconception, any similar size breed has the capabilities! people seem to forget that Labradors, Dalmations ETC are around the same size.
30 August 2010, 11:19 PM
#55
Dalmations can be a bit unpredictable, we had a Border Collie and he got attacked by one, first time we saw it on the walk, it ignored him, second time it went for him and the Border was no pushover.
Its not Rotties are any more powerful for their size, its the fact they are pretty bloody big, they are being compared to Dalmations and Labradors, they are generally a fair bit bigger than either of those breeds, Male Rottweilers are 40 - 60 Kilos, Male Labs and Dalmations are around 30 kilos, give or take, they are similar in size but double the width.
Its not Rotties are any more powerful for their size, its the fact they are pretty bloody big, they are being compared to Dalmations and Labradors, they are generally a fair bit bigger than either of those breeds, Male Rottweilers are 40 - 60 Kilos, Male Labs and Dalmations are around 30 kilos, give or take, they are similar in size but double the width.
30 August 2010, 11:26 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was posted om the Kennel Club website less than a week ago...
Originally Posted by The Kennel Club
Urgent Action Needed To Change Dangerous Dogs Legislation
A group of the leading animal welfare organisations in the UK have today joined a call on the government to address the many inadequacies of current dangerous dogs laws with tough new legislation.
The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) has lobbied against the inadequacies of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for many years and members of the group are backing a new Dog Control Bill proposed by Lib Dem peer Lord Redesdale, which passed its second reading in the House of Lords in July. This Bill would consolidate previous legislation and better protect the public by targeting the cause of dog attacks – dog owners themselves.
Said Lord Redesdale: “People deserve to feel safe around dogs and this Bill goes a long way towards protecting the public through tougher action against irresponsible dog owners. The current law has done nothing but make banned breeds and their lookalikes more appealing and created the issue of status dogs because they are seen as status symbols.
“Owners of aggressive or violent dogs of any kind would be brought to account with this Bill, which in turn will prevent a large number of attacks by dealing with problem behaviour at the first signs of aggression rather than when an attack has taken place, as in current legislation”.
If passed, the Bill will introduce major changes to current dangerous dog legislation, which is widely considered to be one of the most ineffective pieces of government legislation ever brought into force. These changes include:
• More emphasis on the owner’s responsibilities – the Bill supports the principle that it is the owner who has the potential to make a dog either well-behaved or badly-behaved. It gives authorised officers the powers to place Dog Control Notices on irresponsible owners at the first signs of dog aggression.
• Attacks which take place on private property would also become a criminal offence – a large number of dog attack incidents occur within the home and on private property. The Bill includes various exemptions such as being attacked by another animal, provocation, attacks on individuals committing an offence for which they could be imprisoned or when the dog is being used for lawful purposes.
• Legislation will no longer be breed specific – since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, public money and resources have been wasted by already overstretched police authorities seizing dogs simply for being of a particular breed or type. Research now overwhelmingly supports the principle of ‘deed not breed’, and proves that genetics (breed) play only a limited part in the temperament of an individual dog, with environment and training having a far greater effect.
The DDASG has been working closely with Lord Redesdale in support of his Dog Control Bill and has long been calling on the government to repeal the current legislation. The Group believes that the breed specific nature of current legislation has caused it to fail, and that focusing on individual breeds has failed to prevent a large number of dog attacks, or reduce the number of Pit Bull Terriers in the UK.
DDASG Chairman Chris Laurence, Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust, said: “We firmly believe that the Dangerous Dogs Act needs to be overhauled to better protect the public and that a new dog control regime that emphasises responsible dog ownership should be introduced.
“The Dog Control Bill supports the principle that it is people, not the dogs themselves that make dogs dangerous. Lord Redesdale’s Bill would allow people to be better protected from dangerous dogs with tougher action taken against irresponsible dog owners.”
The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group has also launched a petition supporting Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill which already has almost 10,000 signatures. Click here to sign the petition.
A group of the leading animal welfare organisations in the UK have today joined a call on the government to address the many inadequacies of current dangerous dogs laws with tough new legislation.
The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) has lobbied against the inadequacies of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for many years and members of the group are backing a new Dog Control Bill proposed by Lib Dem peer Lord Redesdale, which passed its second reading in the House of Lords in July. This Bill would consolidate previous legislation and better protect the public by targeting the cause of dog attacks – dog owners themselves.
Said Lord Redesdale: “People deserve to feel safe around dogs and this Bill goes a long way towards protecting the public through tougher action against irresponsible dog owners. The current law has done nothing but make banned breeds and their lookalikes more appealing and created the issue of status dogs because they are seen as status symbols.
“Owners of aggressive or violent dogs of any kind would be brought to account with this Bill, which in turn will prevent a large number of attacks by dealing with problem behaviour at the first signs of aggression rather than when an attack has taken place, as in current legislation”.
If passed, the Bill will introduce major changes to current dangerous dog legislation, which is widely considered to be one of the most ineffective pieces of government legislation ever brought into force. These changes include:
• More emphasis on the owner’s responsibilities – the Bill supports the principle that it is the owner who has the potential to make a dog either well-behaved or badly-behaved. It gives authorised officers the powers to place Dog Control Notices on irresponsible owners at the first signs of dog aggression.
• Attacks which take place on private property would also become a criminal offence – a large number of dog attack incidents occur within the home and on private property. The Bill includes various exemptions such as being attacked by another animal, provocation, attacks on individuals committing an offence for which they could be imprisoned or when the dog is being used for lawful purposes.
• Legislation will no longer be breed specific – since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, public money and resources have been wasted by already overstretched police authorities seizing dogs simply for being of a particular breed or type. Research now overwhelmingly supports the principle of ‘deed not breed’, and proves that genetics (breed) play only a limited part in the temperament of an individual dog, with environment and training having a far greater effect.
The DDASG has been working closely with Lord Redesdale in support of his Dog Control Bill and has long been calling on the government to repeal the current legislation. The Group believes that the breed specific nature of current legislation has caused it to fail, and that focusing on individual breeds has failed to prevent a large number of dog attacks, or reduce the number of Pit Bull Terriers in the UK.
DDASG Chairman Chris Laurence, Veterinary Director of Dogs Trust, said: “We firmly believe that the Dangerous Dogs Act needs to be overhauled to better protect the public and that a new dog control regime that emphasises responsible dog ownership should be introduced.
“The Dog Control Bill supports the principle that it is people, not the dogs themselves that make dogs dangerous. Lord Redesdale’s Bill would allow people to be better protected from dangerous dogs with tougher action taken against irresponsible dog owners.”
The Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group has also launched a petition supporting Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill which already has almost 10,000 signatures. Click here to sign the petition.
31 August 2010, 01:19 AM
#57
Some sense there from the Kennel Club.
I don't deny (and most owners don't either) that the potential damage can be greater in larger, or more powerful dogs... generally the same could apply to the human world. However, that doesn't mean the likelihood of attack is greater.
This thread alone highlights how may attacks go on with smaller dogs (and many before this) you just don't hear about them as they are not so juicy a headline.
Any dog has the potential to turn (our Lab did) but alot comes down to ownership, if the wrong people are getting them and not raising them properly (either bringing them up to be aggressive or mistreating them), then tragedy will often follow. People can bleat on about the breeds all they like, but as has been said, if they were all dangerous we'd be hearing about multiple cases everyday.
What makes me laugh, is we have a dog story and people call for whole breeds to be wiped out, yet we have stories posted on here often enough about either kids being abused or turning out bad in some way and what do people call for... kids to be put down/ nobody who lives on a council estate to be allowed children (as that is the main attack on here)?.. no we call for certain people to be sterilised etc. that clearly can't raise children properly or don't want to.
Do we eliminate all black people because some commit knife or gun crime, do we eliminate some sections of the asian community because some crash for cash, do we eliminate white folk because some go out get pissed and cause havoc/violence as a result, do we eliminate all car owners/drivers because some are irresponsible and kill as a result of that, do we eliminate all priests(people of certain power) because some interfere with children??? This could go on and on.
Alot of what is wrong comes down to ownership/upbringing, respect and responsibility. That goes for humans as much as dogs. Don't just put a plaster over the problems, deal with the cause. Not everything will be solved (as people, dogs whatever are sometimes just wrong), but alot of the time it comes down to the above. All imo.
I don't deny (and most owners don't either) that the potential damage can be greater in larger, or more powerful dogs... generally the same could apply to the human world. However, that doesn't mean the likelihood of attack is greater.
This thread alone highlights how may attacks go on with smaller dogs (and many before this) you just don't hear about them as they are not so juicy a headline.
Any dog has the potential to turn (our Lab did) but alot comes down to ownership, if the wrong people are getting them and not raising them properly (either bringing them up to be aggressive or mistreating them), then tragedy will often follow. People can bleat on about the breeds all they like, but as has been said, if they were all dangerous we'd be hearing about multiple cases everyday.
What makes me laugh, is we have a dog story and people call for whole breeds to be wiped out, yet we have stories posted on here often enough about either kids being abused or turning out bad in some way and what do people call for... kids to be put down/ nobody who lives on a council estate to be allowed children (as that is the main attack on here)?.. no we call for certain people to be sterilised etc. that clearly can't raise children properly or don't want to.
Do we eliminate all black people because some commit knife or gun crime, do we eliminate some sections of the asian community because some crash for cash, do we eliminate white folk because some go out get pissed and cause havoc/violence as a result, do we eliminate all car owners/drivers because some are irresponsible and kill as a result of that, do we eliminate all priests(people of certain power) because some interfere with children??? This could go on and on.
Alot of what is wrong comes down to ownership/upbringing, respect and responsibility. That goes for humans as much as dogs. Don't just put a plaster over the problems, deal with the cause. Not everything will be solved (as people, dogs whatever are sometimes just wrong), but alot of the time it comes down to the above. All imo.
31 August 2010, 06:45 AM
#58
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Inverness, Bonny Scotland
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some sense there from the Kennel Club.
I don't deny (and most owners don't either) that the potential damage can be greater in larger, or more powerful dogs... generally the same could apply to the human world. However, that doesn't mean the likelihood of attack is greater.
This thread alone highlights how may attacks go on with smaller dogs (and many before this) you just don't hear about them as they are not so juicy a headline.
Any dog has the potential to turn (our Lab did) but alot comes down to ownership, if the wrong people are getting them and not raising them properly (either bringing them up to be aggressive or mistreating them), then tragedy will often follow. People can bleat on about the breeds all they like, but as has been said, if they were all dangerous we'd be hearing about multiple cases everyday.
What makes me laugh, is we have a dog story and people call for whole breeds to be wiped out, yet we have stories posted on here often enough about either kids being abused or turning out bad in some way and what do people call for... kids to be put down/ nobody who lives on a council estate to be allowed children (as that is the main attack on here)?.. no we call for certain people to be sterilised etc. that clearly can't raise children properly or don't want to.
Do we eliminate all black people because some commit knife or gun crime, do we eliminate some sections of the asian community because some crash for cash, do we eliminate white folk because some go out get pissed and cause havoc/violence as a result, do we eliminate all car owners/drivers because some are irresponsible and kill as a result of that, do we eliminate all priests(people of certain power) because some interfere with children??? This could go on and on.
Alot of what is wrong comes down to ownership/upbringing, respect and responsibility. That goes for humans as much as dogs. Don't just put a plaster over the problems, deal with the cause. Not everything will be solved (as people, dogs whatever are sometimes just wrong), but alot of the time it comes down to the above. All imo.
I don't deny (and most owners don't either) that the potential damage can be greater in larger, or more powerful dogs... generally the same could apply to the human world. However, that doesn't mean the likelihood of attack is greater.
This thread alone highlights how may attacks go on with smaller dogs (and many before this) you just don't hear about them as they are not so juicy a headline.
Any dog has the potential to turn (our Lab did) but alot comes down to ownership, if the wrong people are getting them and not raising them properly (either bringing them up to be aggressive or mistreating them), then tragedy will often follow. People can bleat on about the breeds all they like, but as has been said, if they were all dangerous we'd be hearing about multiple cases everyday.
What makes me laugh, is we have a dog story and people call for whole breeds to be wiped out, yet we have stories posted on here often enough about either kids being abused or turning out bad in some way and what do people call for... kids to be put down/ nobody who lives on a council estate to be allowed children (as that is the main attack on here)?.. no we call for certain people to be sterilised etc. that clearly can't raise children properly or don't want to.
Do we eliminate all black people because some commit knife or gun crime, do we eliminate some sections of the asian community because some crash for cash, do we eliminate white folk because some go out get pissed and cause havoc/violence as a result, do we eliminate all car owners/drivers because some are irresponsible and kill as a result of that, do we eliminate all priests(people of certain power) because some interfere with children??? This could go on and on.
Alot of what is wrong comes down to ownership/upbringing, respect and responsibility. That goes for humans as much as dogs. Don't just put a plaster over the problems, deal with the cause. Not everything will be solved (as people, dogs whatever are sometimes just wrong), but alot of the time it comes down to the above. All imo.
31 August 2010, 08:22 AM
#59
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 2008 study surveying breed club members found that while Rottweilers were average in aggressiveness (bites or bite attempts) towards owners and other dogs, it indicated they tend to be more aggressive than average towards strangers. This aggression appears unrelated to the fear of the dog, but is correlated with watchdog and territorial instincts.
They should go the same way as the pit bull.... into the pages of history!
31 August 2010, 09:04 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
Rottweilers are territorial animals, and it's generally acknowledged that they'll spend all day flopping around their owners, but that's not the point.... it's other people that are on the receiving end of these animals, typically children. Owners that jump over threads such as these look stupid when trying to down play incidents involving attacks on children by citing the age old (and rather worn out) it's how they've been brought up line... clearly it's a trait in the breed that makes them attack 'strangers' and to say anything else is just naive.
They should go the same way as the pit bull.... into the pages of history!
They should go the same way as the pit bull.... into the pages of history!
I ask because as always with scoobynet those who look the most stupid are those who post based not on significant personal experience of the subject but based on what they pick up third hand.
Which are you? Experienced or just stupid?
Last edited by Devildog; 31 August 2010 at 09:09 AM.