Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to be scared of two rottweilers unleashed by my local lake?

213 replies

Chequers · 28/01/2008 11:54

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 29/01/2008 09:30

did any of the rottweiler defenders see this today?

Blandmum · 29/01/2008 09:33

I just can't understand why anyone would keep a pet that they couldn't beat in a fight if it came to it!

Why not have a smaller dog which would would stand a chance of fighting off?

This is a serious question and I'm nt being argumantative.

I like dogsm, but I wouldn't keep one that I couldn't stop if it tried to kill me!

If someone kept a tiger as a pet you'd think they were mad

hercules1 · 29/01/2008 09:40

I can see your point but wasn't there a thread here not too long ago from a woman whose partner had admited to being hitting an ex and she figured she could handle him in a fight so it wasnt worth leaving him over.
I couldnt handle dh in a fight (and no, dittany, I'm not saying I'm proud that he could kill me), but I know he wouldnt do so.

As for my dogs- I chose the breeds carefully, chose the breedes carefully, did a stack of research, trained them all as puppies and fully socialised them, continue to train them, have various stair gates in the house, lots of rules about where and what the dogs can do. So I do everything I can to ensure the situation will never arise where we will be in a position of having to defend ourselves and noone else will either.

Now I get back from the deal a whole heap of positives that outweigh for me the chance something bad could happen.

I drive my car each day with my kids in it although I know it could kill me, them and others. You have to weigh up the risks and what you get out of it.

hercules1 · 29/01/2008 09:41

With a tiger all the training and stair gates in teh world wouldnt be enough to outweigh the risk of it killing you and there wouldnt be even pleasure in owning one for me to do this.
People do own poisonous snakes and alligators as they feel the risk is less than the pleasure they get. Not for me it wouldnt be.

Blandmum · 29/01/2008 09:43

The point that all dog owners make is that 'All dogs, however well trained can turn' etc etc etc.

So why get a god that could kill you if it turned, as opposed to a dog that would 'just' bite?

We had a peke when I was a kid, and he was a ver bad tempered little dog, but if push came to shove, I could handle him. Same isn't true for these big dogs.

hercules1 · 29/01/2008 09:52

Yes, they can be vicious (not sure about the word 'turn' as there are usually warning signs and reasons) as of course they are animals and it would be stupidy to ever trust one 100 %. But from what I have researched my large dogs are far less likely to do anything vicious than a lot of medium dogs. I wanted a child friendly dog first and foremost and many of the larger breeds are far better with dogs than the smaller breeds. The dog I trust least out of my dogs with my kids is the cocker spaniel.

hercules1 · 29/01/2008 09:53

You could say why do people have horses or cows etc.

lucyellensmum · 29/01/2008 09:58

I COULD totally control both of my dogs. Ok one of them was problematic when we first got him, but we knew what we were taking on and received lots of support from Battersea dogs home behaviour team.

hercules you make a really very good point about horses, i mean why would anyone want one of those, it COIULD throw you to the ground and stamp on your head!!! Your car COULD suddenly go out of control and kill you and other people.

If i thought for one minute that either of my dogs were a danger to anyone i would not have had them. We used to muzzle our rescue rottie when we first got him, not because he was likely to bite, but because we didnt KNOW that he wouldnt. Once we all trusted each other we removed the muzzles on walks. I always had him on a lead in a public area or even if there was a small chance of running into a family. But that was just because he was stupid and didnt realise the world hates him

GoodGollyMissMolly · 29/01/2008 10:00

No to an extent I don't think that you are being unreasonable. I love dogs, I have two of my own dogs. I love rotties but a rottie, or any dog for that matter, off the lead still (Momentarily at least) scares me.

But I must say though that I have never come across a large breed, such as a rottie, yet who has been nasty or out of control. I sometimes find the smaller breeds to be a bit more of a handful.

lucyellensmum · 29/01/2008 10:02

what i cannot understand is why people simply refuse to listen to the other side of the argument, even when it is presented from an experienced view point.

I do have to say that i do worry about rotties and some of the other "macho" breeds. I used to work as a vet nurse and without fail, the people who owned these dogs for the wrong reason, had NO IDEA how to train and control them. I even had a woman who was scared of their rottie, AND she was pregnant, i begged her to rehome it. Thankfully she did. BUT 99.9% of rottie owners are responsible and more than capable of handling their dogs. I wish i could say the same for some labrador owners, big powerful dog, incompetent owner - um........its just the same thing really

Chequers · 29/01/2008 10:05

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
lucyellensmum · 29/01/2008 10:08

I totally agree chequers, i just think that it depends on the location. Park= dog on lead, middle of the woods = dog run free

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 29/01/2008 10:09

Not read the whole thread.

OP - YANBU.

I agree with MB about having a dog you can physically control. The owner of the Rotties may trust them 100% and think they have control. They can't be trusted 100% - no dog can and if a loose Rottweiler takes off and attacks the chances of him getting it off is minimal. With two loose I wouldn't want to think about it.

I don't think that's prejudiced - I think it's called being realistic.

I had the joys of being bitten by a Jack Russell (loose, in a pack). I kicked it and it left me alone (with a decent chunk of my calf) but at least it was small enough for me to fight back.

Chequers · 29/01/2008 10:12

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
onebatmother · 29/01/2008 10:32

Miss! Miss! I answered the OP about social obligation! Miss!

Squiffy · 29/01/2008 10:38

MB, I wouldn't have a small dog ever because I find IME a lot of the smaller breeds to be bad-tempered and vicious and I think they have a worse record for biting than big breeds (?? Am sure someone will have stats on this somewhere....??) - I've certainly only been bitten by small dogs despite spending my life amongst large breeds.

The whole Rottie thing though isn't fair on the poor breed - it used to be Alsations when I was growing up, but no-one says a word about them now. The unfortunate truth is that every generation there is a breed that starts to become fashionable with thugs, then all the thugs go and get one, they get overbred (the breed, not the thugs) (then again...), the dogs don't get trained properly, don't get treated properly, and start causing havoc.

No-one says a word about alsations now (or boxers - another breed that had it's 'thug' day) and that's because that now they are not popular with the hooligans they are only owned by real dog-lovers who get them from reputable sources, and train them proporly. A properly-trained and cared-for dog is unlikely to attack ever unless it is protecting a 'pack member' (it's owner) or is under severe provocation (just as I would be unlikely to kill unless I was protecting my child, in which case I think I would do so in a heartbeat).

attacking a breed because they have become popular with thugs is just not logical. What you want to do of course is stop thugs owning dangerous dogs. But that's another story altogether.

Chequers · 29/01/2008 10:45

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
Chequers · 29/01/2008 10:45

Message withdrawn

OP posts:
miobombino · 29/01/2008 10:56

MrsGuy and Martianbishop...AT LAST !

When did you last hear about a Red Setter killing a human ?

The thing about dogs is they can revert to their canine instincts at any time. They are animals; nobody has total control over the triggers their wild beast pet could be subject to.

ergo it can only be sensible to buy a breed which you have a high chance of beating off should it turn on you or on anyone else. A dog with massive jaws weighing as much as a large adult ?? Madness. Utter insanity.

I'm sick of listening to the "Don't blame the dog, something must have made it behave that way"/"I'm in control of my Rottie"/"I've grown up with Staffies and I know them inside out"/"They're great with kids. Very protective" type of arguments. They are fatally flawed, every one of them.

hercules1 · 29/01/2008 11:27

If they are all fatally flawed as you say then whey aren't there far more killings? Millions of people own dogs and yet we hear of occasional incidences.

Btw did you not read my link about other breeds killing humans?

hercules1 · 29/01/2008 11:28

You're right. No one listens to the others side - eg why have horses, cows, cars etc?

miobombino · 29/01/2008 11:37

Aren't the killings we hear about enough ?

All I was saying was, the risk of fatal attack can be dramatically reduced to a vanishingly small statistical level if you choose a different breed. Nothing is risk free, of course, and no breed guaranteed not to attack. That's my very point.

And yes of course there is the occasional story about someone being trampled by a horse or cow; sometimes fatally. Again, these tend to be instances where the human's behaviour has innocently triggered the animal to behave, well, like an animal. Another of my points; not a contradiction at all.

But we don't live cheek by jowl with livestock the way a dog would live with a family. So the risks are therefore considerably smaller.

And most car accidents are due to human error, not an inherent flaw in the vehicle. Your Ford Fiesta isn't going to "turn" on you and rip your face off if you threaten it.

Saggarmakersbottomknocker · 29/01/2008 11:40

Horses generally injure the person riding them not random strangers.

Cows - for meat and milk.

Hmm cars - actually the case for cars is similar - don't have one bigger than you need or can handle. Why have a 4X4 when a Fiesta will do?

hercules1 · 29/01/2008 11:45

I have a huge vehicle to transport my huge dogs!

Of course I agree and I wouldnt have a rottweiler myself. But I disagree about it applying to all large dogs. And I get a lot of pleasure from having the dogs and as I said to me they are less risky than many smaller breeds.
Actually if you live in the country side you probably come across a lot of cows and horses. I did as a child especially when dog walking!

hercules1 · 29/01/2008 11:46

But dogs don't have an inherent flaw - they are simply being dogs.