Rotweillors

[reptile]

What I can't understand (re the recent case in Dundee of a small girl being mauled by 3 rotweillors) is why we can't have a law limiting the number of these dogs people are allowed to own. I'm a dog owner, but why does anyone need/want 3 dogs, let alone rotweillors.
It would be so easy to police, rather than going on a case-by-case basis, if you had to have a license for your dog, and, in the case of dangerous breeds, had to prove your case for owning more than one (or even just one IMO).

boo, funny how there's never been a single news report of a spaniel killing a small child, then...

All dog owners should have to prove their capability to care for an animal before they are allowed to keep one...especially larger dogs. It is generally the owner rather than the dog who is at fault but this is not always the case. Dog Licencing should be brought back and potential owners vetted (excuse pun!) before licences are issued...but I suppose it would end up being a mine of red tape and nonsense like so much else...I dunno - maybe random "dog inspections?"
Large dogs need space...why do so many idiots decide to keep a large dog in a small flat?...status my A*, that's just cruel and should not be allowed.

edam as others have already said that is because they attract a different kind of owner. Can you imagine a drug dealer yelling "Nooo, don't steal my drugs or my cocker spaniel will 'ave you"? Or a group of thugs arguing in the park over whose toy poodle is meanest?

Any dog is capable of killing or seriously injuring a child. No matter what it's size is. Of course it is easier for larger breeds, but Labradors are larger breeds, as are St Benards and Great Danes. Any one of those is just as capable of causing serious injury as a Rottweiler is. But they just don't attract the same kind owner. The problem with targeting breeds is that those who believe they are above the law will continue breeding illegal breeds, but it will all be behind closed doors. The dogs would be unlikely to ever receive proper training or veterinary care. Which will only make them more dangerous.

And the ones who don't have the gumption to go around importing and breeding illegal dogs will simply move onto to another breed and train that kind into being aggressive.

It is ownership that needs addressing. Not breed. But how to do that efficiently is a difficult question.

edam, spaniels don't tend to attract the type of owners that rotties, SBT etc do. spaniels are not a muscular breed and so don't portray the tough macho image that the irresponsible dog owners want.

the bigger dogs are the one sthey want and they are the ones they train to guard and encourage agression in them. team that with them being stupid enough to let them wander and of course you will end up with someone getting hurt.

springers don't attract that type of owner.

Depending on how small a 'small flat' is - you don't necessarily need an enormous house for a large dog, many of the larger breeds are very laid back and lazy, and happy to lounge around and sleep a lot when in the house. If you take them out regularly for walks and if possible off-lead exercise and to relieve themselves, it shouldn't be a problem.

Having said that, I agree with 'vetting' potential owners - as I said earlier if there was a screening process for all dog owners similar to the one you have to go through before rehoming a rescue dog, that would be fine with me as a dog owner, and would likely prevent a lot of unsuitable people getting dogs.

oops xpost shiny.

and it isn't funny at all edam it is logical.

i would also be happy to undergo screening or 'vetting' before being allowed to own a dog.

boo/shiny - there may be some truth in that, but you also get the well-meaning but ineffectual owners who don't intend any harm but aren't in proper control of their dogs at all times. Making the breeds illegal would get rid of that problem.

Maybe a campaign to neuter all Dobermans, Rottweilers and other breeds capable of killing children and that are bloody hard for an adult to tackle when they have attacked someone?

'Dobermans, Rottweilers and other breeds capable of killing children and that are bloody hard for an adult to tackle when they have attacked someone?' That would be an awfully long list edam. And it would include the family favourite Labrador and Retriever, not to mention Police dogs and rescue dogs.

It's would be a bit silly and over the top, no?

I think more people should neuter their dogs anyway, to stop irresponsible/accidental breeding - especially as there are so many dogs in rescue centres desperate for good homes - but yes it would be a huge overreaction to impose this on all larger breeds.

The screening/vetting idea, while not foolproof, would also help with preventing 'ineffectual' people getting a dog without understanding their responsibilities.

but edam, making them illegal only makes the dangerous owners better at hiding the dogs. making them illegal will not eradicate he dogs. even neutering all dobermans for example will only work wih those people who are already responsible owners. the rest will not offer up their dogs for neutering nor pay for it. who would fund such a campaign? who would police it? as val posted way eralier on. there are four prohibited breeds of dogs, yet a quick google will bring up lots of ads for these type of puppies, advice onhow to care for them and train them etc. these dogs still exist and still cause trouble even though they are prohibited.

a spaniel could kill a small child.I don't think there is much point in making it compulsory. People will always flout the law i>>

Yeah that's why child abuse for example isn't illegal cos people would only do it anyway... oh wait though...

Shiny you feel that getting rid of breeds capable of killing children would be 'a bit silly and over the top'

I suggest you call the mother of the girl and tell her that. She is obviously taking it far too seriously.

onagar you are being really silly now. you know that post does not imply that the public was at fault. i was simply pointing out that a change in the way the public responds could help to protect their own citizens. surely public protection is what is important here? are you saying if you saw someone who you knew was a risk to children hanging about a school you would ignore it and say it was nothing to do with you if they hurt someone? surely the public has a duty to protect each other? if that means making a phonecall then it really isn't a big ask is it?

My 24 year old daughter rented a room in a house owned by a guy who owned a rotweiller. She was a bit alarmed, but accepted it when he told her what a big softie it was and how it wouldn't hurt a fly. All was ok for a month until, out of the blue, it bit her. She's used to dogs and other animals, but she said how frightening it was. The owner said the dog was just playing and told her she was over-reacting.
Fairly soon afterwards she moved out and he has moved in with his girlfriend and her 3 year old child.
The point of all this being that this guy still thinks its a lovely dog and that he's a good owner. I can't see how self policing would work in circumstances like this.
Also, do any of the rotweillor lovers out there acknowledge just how scary they are to other people? I like dogs, and, no, I'm not hysterical, but it would be nice if just one of you acknowledged that people like me are allowed a voice without being labelled as hysterical or misinformed.

I feel that getting rid of all large breeds is silly and hysterical, yes. I have doubt the mother of this girl would not agree with me. And with good (but very emotive) reason. But just because a few people who know next to nothing about dogs think it is a good idea, does not make it so.

Like I said what about Guide dogs? Rescue dogs (the ones who assist in rescues - not who have been rescued) Police dogs?

Reptile, you are allowed an opinion, but calling to ban a whole breed is not useful and does seem hysterical to me.

reptile that does sound frightening for your daughter - I don't mean to doubt or downplay what happened, but was it a proper bite or just 'mouthing'? Because mouthing is a common bad habit for some breeds - it's a playful thing, not the same as aggressive biting and unlikely to do serious damage, but obviously can hurt when it's a big dog and be frightening for the recipient. Lots of puppies do this, and while it's cute and harmless in a tiny little pup, it's definitely not in a grown Rottweiler! Owners should always discourage the behaviour and train it out of them.

I used to be frightened of dogs myself, and I'd never have imagined I'd become a 'dog person' (in fact it was our lovely Rottie boy who helped me get over the fear and distrust), so do understand how it feels. I never let him run up to strangers when we're out, not because I think he would hurt anyone, but because I know not everyone will appreciate it. If anything though it tends to be the opposite situation, people wanting to come up and pet him and make a fuss!

booyhoo, you are right that the public should act. I have a walking stick with a weighted tip. If a dog touches me I will beat it to death in front of the owner. Think of it as doing my bit for the community.

"people who know next to nothing about dogs"

Why can't you people understand? We don't care what breed it is or what kind of upbringing it had. We want our children protected from your pet and if you don't care enough to want the same thing you should be ashamed

"I have a walking stick with a weighted tip. If a dog touches me I will beat it to death in front of the owner. Think of it as doing my bit for the community."

What the fuck is wrong with you? How can you complain about dog attacks on humans when you're willing to inflict equal or worse violence on an intelligent, innocent animal yourself.

I hope the dog you pick gives as good as it gets.

I just lost a little more faith in humankind :(

onagar does that give me carte blanche to beat to death one of your children if it touches me?

now, your child might have no intention of hurting me but i have to protect myself just incase. think of it as doing my bit for the community

BTP, I know, most of them probably wouldn't have the guts to actually do it, and like I said, I've been nervous of dogs myself in the past, so I do understand that. But I never for a moment fantasised about beating innocent animals to death. What kind of vile person would even consider such a thing?

It is pointless to bluster and rant and rave at dog owners on the internet.
If we want to protect ourselves and our children against irresponsible owners, then we have to campaign for changes in the law, and take on board best practice from other places in Europe that have a lower level of...um... negative interactions between dogs and humans.

www.ledogstop.com/pages/travel_scheme_law.html#
It looks as if Germany is heading in the right direction for me.

Best thing to come out of all of this is the Scottish govt.'s change in law and the possibility of legislation that is coming in to protect both dogs and people.

Looking at the dog and not the breed is definitely a much saner approach to this issue.
Definitely put some of the dog hater's gas at a peep!

I hate when things like this happen - immediately folk spew out anti-dog shit all over the place (ridiculously). Yes, the dogs were vicious, yes they attacked an innocent child, yes, there is no excuse. Legitimate.
But....
We are people who live alongside animals in a society created by us for them - and not always on the side of fairness to their lives. Incidents like this will happen. You are asking animals who cannot communicate on the same levels as ourselves to comply with our rules and regulations, without letting them know all of the rules and regulations (bad owners). to live in situations which are not suited to their needs. To be their only source of food and knowledge of right or wrong. Possibly these dogs were playing and the poor girl ended up on the wrong side of it. Obviously the owner should never have had them loose. How do we explain to them that because of their wrong actions they must die? We don't. No reprieve - only death. Nobody has told them any different.

Fair play I suppose (what else could have been done really? Dangerous dogs are unpredictable).

But! Dog Haters! Try and see it from the dog's point of view.
I know it's a long shot.
Hiding this thread now.