Burning issue: Should people be banned from owning rottweilers?

[The Straight Story]

Burning issue: Should people be banned from owning rottweilers?

Mike Flynn, chief inspector of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
AS SOON as you ban one breed, we see other breeds beginning to be imported that are equally dangerous if in the wrong hands. In recent years, we've had mastiffs coming in from America, Spain, Italy – the last one I saw was from the Canary isles. These are as big, if not bigger, than rottweilers, so simply banning this breed would not prevent people from obtaining dogs with just as much potential to kill or maim.

However, perhaps the more persuasive argument against a simple ban is the fact that attacks are usually down to the behaviour of the owner.

The new bill proposed by Alex Neil would mean an offence would be committed if any dog hurts anyone anywhere. Whether an offence had been committed would not depend on the breed of the dog. That's much tougher than current legislation.

We would like to see courts given the power to impose conditions on a dog; for example, that it should be muzzled in public if it's acting aggressively, even if it hasn't attacked anyone. Also, we believe microchipping dogs is a good idea. It seems extreme, but if every dog was chipped, the owners could be traced when something happens – because nine times out of ten it's the owner who is at fault.

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Burning-issue-Should-people-be.3628680.jp

[Vincardog]

1. First problem Microchips have been proven to cause cancer.

Second problem breed specific laws do not work.
Third problem as long as a$$holes can have dogs they will train those dogs to act poorly.

The best answer is to get rid of the a$$holes.

[appleannie1]

2. I have owned two Rotts. They were both gentle

loving dogs. They both adored chilren and were very intelligent. I remember coming home from work one day and Brandy did not meet me at the door as she always did. I found her sitting in the kitchen, in a puddle of drool, staring at the pile of fat and gristle my husband had carved off the roast when making his lunch. It was about an inch from her nose. She never touched it even though no one was home. The collie I now have would have gulped it down in a heartbeat. My vet always said that the problem was not the dog, but at the other end of the leash.

[Rex]

3. Only if people should be banned from owning pit bulls.

Since this is now a political issue.

[sellitman]

4. If you ban Rotweillers then....

you then have to ban republicans.

They are much nastier and usually untrainable.

[Breeze54]

5. Not at all! I love rottweilers!

They are very beautiful dogs and smart too!

They're no different than any other dog.

It's how they are trained and treated by the owners that counts!

[Catshrink]

6. Should my wiener dog be banned because he thinks he's a rottweiler?

I swear, every time we go to the doggie park he seeks out the rotties. His native name must be "Runs With Rottweilers."

[flashl]

7. No. n/t

[Swamp Rat]

8. Just this guy:

:D

[Rex]

10. And here we thought all the Neanderthals died out!

I plainly see one thumbing a smoke in that picture, next to Mulletfoot.

[Swamp Rat]

11. Ready for the wedding cake?

:D

[Rex]

12. I heard it was a real good time, I tried to RSVP

"Hi get me the Pope..."

[madrchsod]

16. exclusive photo of their son.......

[chknltl]

9. VERY unhappy with irresponsible pet owners.

It doesn't matter what breed of dog, (or cat, horse, goat, etc.) there are owners out there who have little to no guilt in being BAD caretakers of these animals. Training a pit-bull to be aggressive is just as bad as leaving one out in the cold and rain, underfed and not spade or neutered! I am not one who is overly fond of creating more laws but in this case I WOULD like to see the pet owner be made to take more responsibilities for their actions.

I dunno, perhaps it might make sense that in order to have a pet, one must sign an agreement to take full responsibility for the creature. If the creature is mistreated, the owner should be dealt with. If the pet causes harm or damage, again that owner should be dealt with. I like the micro-chip notion suggested earlier. This way the owner of the pet can be quickly located and reunited with his or her pet and face any consequences if needsbe.

We have to have a license to operate a car, so why not have one to own a pet as well. Yeah, I know, silly impractical notion but as someone who is currently feeding and rescuing a malnourished and forgotten dog which has been left to it's own devices in a neighbors back yard, I see no other better solution at this time.

[and-justice-for-all]

13. I never blame the animal...

it's the owner that's the problem.

[NorthernSpy]

23. Animals aren't moral agents. Legislating against them has nothing to do with "blaming" them...

Breed bans are about public safety -- not about attributing "blame" to an animal.

We all know that the owners are blameworthy (in part, for choosing to harbor a likely-dangerous animal in the first place). In banning dog breeds that have posed an unacceptable risk to the public, we do restrict the liberty of irresponsible humans.

[canetoad]

14. Another angle to the story

Last week a nine week old baby was mauled in a Melbourne suburb by the family's rottweiler and died. TV footage showed the dog being loaded into a ranger's van. It was around 18 months - 2 years old, very fit and muscular looking as it would be, at close to its physical prime. The male dog was clearly not desexed.

So I wonder;
*Would this have happened if the dog was desexed at an early age?
*Is there a relationship between the number of (single) dog attacks and non-neutered animals?
*When there is talk of bad/irresponsible owners, can a connection be made to non-breeders who, for their own reasons, do not have their dogs desexed.

I'm purposely avoiding the topic of breeders because I have never heard of an example of a breeder being mauled by their stud dogs.

[LeftyMom]

17. Attacks are much more likely with unaltered animals.

There was a law proposed here in CA that would have required spaying or neutering (with exceptions for medical reasons, and for breeding animals with a fee) and the breeders threw a goddamn fit. Shame really, the current situation of so many animals dying for lack of homes, and so many more being kept unaltered at risk to their health and safety, is simply not something that can be continued in good conscience.

[canetoad]

18. That's interesting

You would think it would be in the best interests of the breeders if such a law were passed. Was it the fee they arked up over?

[LeftyMom]

19. The fee and a certain degree of you-cant-tell-me-what-to-do stubbornness.

The stupid thing is reducing the number of surplus shelter dogs would be good for business, so the very small fee would probably cost them less in the end than it would gain them.

That said, I think the real issue was that going on record as being a breeder and having the number of animals born (and presumably sold) on record would mean they've have to get business licenses, pay taxes, register with the feds, etc. We actually have very few registered animal breeders here according to the feds, so most of them are probably not paying taxes on their earnings now or subjecting themselves to inspections for animal care, building codes, etc.

[canetoad]

20. I guess anyone with a dog and a bitch

can call themselves breeders. The whole topic makes me boiling mad as it's about greed and ego and not the welfare of the dogs.

There's another perspective and that is the 'nature child/all natural' school of thought. People who use the excuse that dogs are 'meant' to be left intact. I'm the frazzled owner of two terrier Xs (the Terrorists)who are the result of this attitude by an otherwise terrific bloke; lefty, old hippy, animal lover - but just thinks it goes against nature to have his dogs desexed. He learned his lesson at the time mine were born; he had two litters of pups from his mother and daughter bitches and had a hell of a time giving them away. Thankfully the girls were spayed after that episode. Mine needless to say, went for the big cut as early as possible!

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Does it make a difference with bitches? The British case was a bitch

The 16-year-old hit and kicked the rottweiler in an attempt to save the boy but the dog - a two-year-old bitch that was later killed by police - was too strong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/31/nrott131.xml

[Lorien]

29. There are a million reasons the proposed law makes sense

but the American desire to be "in control" of their "possessions" always seems to override common sense. unfortunately I think we'll see the banning of certain dog breeds (only to be replaced by other dog breeds) before we see mandatory spay/ neuter. I'd challenge anyone who thinks that this law is a bad idea to spend a year volunteering for a local pet rescue group, then get back to me.

BTW-we rescued dozens of rotties from NOLA after Katrina and had not a single problem with any of them. They were all very well behaved and seemed grateful to be safe. We had two small black dogs that were some unusual German breed-looked a bit like little black huskies-and they were pretty vicious. The dog's home environment and training (or lack of training) seems to be the main factor when it comes to behavior.

[madrchsod]

15. rottweilers are great dogs

if the owner treats them with respect and trains them to be respectful of humans. if i had to choose that breed of dog,i`d go with a rottweiler.
it`s not the dog it is the human that leads to the problems

[NorthernSpy]

21. we can legislate against ANY dangerous dog breed...

Denver hasn't had another pitbull attack since outlawing the breed in 1989.


Breed bans work. They get rid of many problem dogs outright, and they force the scofflaws to be extremely careful -- or else.


The best course of action is breed-specific legislation to which we can add problem breeds as necessary, coupled with a strict liability standard for all dog owners.

[harun]

28. Agree, well said (n/t)

[flvegan]

22. I love articles like this.

Against the ban, spokesperson for the SSPCA. As usual, the expert suggests that it's the fault of owners for a bit.

For the ban, someone bitten 20 times by a rott. Blathering emotion, me me me.

That's balanced.

[Edweird]

24. Afraid of something? Don't understand it? BAN IT!

Tired of things that don't conform to YOUR view of the world? BAN THEM!
Rational thought? Who needs it?
Acceptance of others preferences? Screw that!
Why hold someone responsible for their actions or failure to act responsibly when you can punish EVERYBODY that thinks differently than you?

:sarcasm:

NEWSFLASH! Dogs Bite. Water is wet. Film at 11:00.



Edited to add Sarcasm Smilie, just in case......

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. FYI, since I don't think this made DU - the death of the baby that brought this up

Aunt fought to save boy from dog

The teenage aunt of a 13-month-old boy mauled to death by a rottweiler bravely fought to rescue the tot from the jaws of the 10-stone dog, police said.
...
Detective Superintendent Steve Payne, who is leading the investigation, said: "I have to pay tribute to the auntie, who attempted to rescue the child from the rottweiler.

"She struck the rottweiler a number of times, but it wouldn't let go of the child. She then returned into the premises and got her mobile phone and alerted the emergency services. She did try her best to recover Archie from the dog, but unfortunately that was in vain."

He added that the dog had not acted aggressively before. "It has mixed with the family. While it lives in the yard, it is a pet, it is in no way a guard dog, and there has been no previous signs of any aggression from this dog."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7184782,00.html

[NorthernSpy]

27. this is what angers me most about the dangerous-dog apologists...

He added that the dog had not acted aggressively before. "It has mixed with the family. While it lives in the yard, it is a pet, it is in no way a guard dog, and there has been no previous signs of any aggression from this dog."

The apologists make a point of insisting that these dogs are "wonderful family dogs", "gentle", "wouldn't hurt a fly" -- etc.

But when some naive soul believes them -- and a child gets shredded by the "wonderful family pet" as a consequence -- they won't even consider how their spreading false advertisement of these dogs might play a role in such tragedies.


That bothers me.

[Edweird]

30. This is what angers me most about dog banners

In 2006

438,000 people died from smoking related illnesses.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/adult_cig_smoking.htm

42,642 people were killed in motorvehicle crashes.
2,575,000 people were injured in motorvehicle crashes.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/PDF/810837.pdf

In 2005
1,460 children under the age of 18 died from child abuse or neglect.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/CM_Data_Sheet.pdf

In 2006

26 people died from dog attacks. That's ALL BREEDS COMBINED.

So, if the dog breed ban you so dearly love is solely "for our own good", then maybe you should start higher up the list of preventable deaths. Cigarettes and motorvehicles. Get them banned. You'll save almost 500,000 lives! You'll be a hero! Except for one tiny little problem. People wouldn't stand for it.
But, those "mean" "awful" dogs are an easy target.
There's a name for a person that only attacks easy targets.

Edited to add child abuse stats.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. That's somewhat misleading.

The relevant stats are number of deaths from driving divided by number of driver hours vs number of people killed by rottweilers divided number of rottweilers, not just raw numbers.

Also, driving has great benefits, to others as well as to oneself, as well as the risks. The benefits of owning a rottweiler as opposed to owning some other, less dangerous, breed of dog are non-zero, but they're much smaller.

Almost no-one was killed by being battered to death with a herring last year. That doesn't mean it should be legal.

I don't know enough about the statistics to know whether they justify banning rottweilers or not. I do know that they way you're presenting them is not the way to answer that question.

[Edweird]

33. 26 is all breeds.

I'll try to find the number for just rottweilers.

And, I'm no statistician, but no matter how you slice it, even with my "imperfect data", it should be obvious that "dog banning" is a knee jerk reaction.

Furthermore, dogs (especially the "dangerous" breeds) have been loyal partners, hunting companions, and family members to humans since pre-historic times.

Cars are far more recent. They are not a necessity, but a luxury. Empires and dynasties have come and gone without motorvehicles.
Nobody needs a car.

Nobody needs to smoke, either.

I'm not arguing for banning motorvehicles or smoking. I'm only illustrating that this "dangerous dog" hysteria is just that; hysteria.
And nothing more.

[Edweird]

31. Dogs are pack animals.

They have to interact with the "pack" and find their place. Even the sweetest yellow lab can turn bitter if isolated and neglected. The "dominant" breeds are especially sensitive to pack dynamics and will test boundaries and pack order.

"It has mixed with the family. While it lives in the yard, it is a pet, it is in no way a guard dog, and there has been no previous signs of any aggression from this dog."

"living in the yard" doesn't sound like the proper integration to me.

Furthermore, all dogs need special care when there are new/young children in the family, ESPECIALLY the "dominant" breeds.
This family was irresponsible. Their reach apparently exceeded their grasp, and they paid a heavy price for it.