vicious dog

1sue23

Notsosharp wrote: »

I do agree that there are "bad dogs", I know a lot of people say that there is no such thing as a bad dog just bad owners and whilst this may be true in the majority of cases there are cases where there is just a "bad dog".

My Mum had one, it was an alsation and we had it from a puppy, now my Mum is very experienced with dogs and has won competitions with both her springer and her other alsation but this alsation was just wrong from the start. She was fine with family members (which this dog next door to you may be) but she would go completely mental when approached by other people and even when not approached she would go into attack mode. I can't explain it but you would see it in her eyes, she would completely change. She took her to the vets for something, the vet took one look and told her he was putting the dog on the dangerous dog register and if anything happened he would have no hesitation in putting her to sleep, in the end thats what happened the dog just got completely uncontrollable.

This dog sounds very, very dangerous and the fact your neighbours let it into the garden when they KNOW its dangerous and you have a young child is just irresponsible in the extreme. I completely understand you not wanting to go anywhere near the dog. IMO they should have the dog taken off them because its not fair on you and in the long run its not fair on the dog either. They need to accept that they cannot keep a former guard dog in a domestic setting and that sooner or later (God forbid) something is going to happen. Your neighbours need to be responsible and accept they need to let the dog go somewhere it can do what it was trained to do. I think it would be a lot happier and so would you.

This was my dog and her behavior had nothing to do with being a bad owner ,she was not right and as in humans I do believe having owned this dog that it was in her breeding ,from a puppy she would go into attack mode it was not playing I do know the difference her eyes would fix on the victim and no growl or snarl she would just launch herself and bite it was very frightening and I do believe she was more than capable of killing a child ,I had her PTS while still a puppy and I did the correct thing as no amount of training would have helped she was a damaged dog .
The people that own this dog are wrong and a dog like this is not meant to live where it can harm anybody and I will be slated for this ,if it cannot be used for what it was trained to do on premises or as a security dog then it has no place mixing where it is a risk to the public and should for the safety of people be PTS.

CFC

MrsTine wrote: »

I think you'll find that they weren't actually but you feel free to misquote me if you like

And yes I poo pooed the statistics and I still do. Live with it

You obviously dislike Rottweilers and that is your right.



Is the death of ANY person ever acceptable? No. But is it right to base the destruction of a breed on highly inaccurate numbers from statistics or make sweeping generalisations about the breeds stability based on a few very publicesed (sp?) attacks and deaths? No.
.

You say I do not like Rotties. I do not like or dislike them but I believe that the stats speak for themselves. These are dangerous dogs, and physically uncontrollable. Yet again you imply that a 'few deaths' are not enough to warrant the breed being branded as dangerous. Tell me, how many deaths does it take for you to feel that? Read your own words below, you know that these dogs have killed people.

But is it right to base the destruction of a breed on highly inaccurate numbers from statistics or make sweeping generalisations about the breeds stability based on a few very publicesed (sp?) attacks and deaths? No.


You just don't appear to think 'a few deaths' really matter. Perhaps you would feel differently if it was one of your relatives? Perhaps then 'a few deaths' would matter?

In other words, rather than believe scientifically researched stats, which are not those of a newspaper or a sensationalist, but of a USA government funded agency, you'd prefer to go with your emotions ie you LIKE the breed, for whatever odd reason. Therefore the stats are wrong. QED. There's none so blind as those who will not see. To help you out, I've appended some stats at the bottom of this post.

How does your 'good, responsible dog ownership' fit with a childminder finding one of your dogs at the other end of your estate, as I believe you posted in another thread? Not very well, I'd say?

Also - to those who are trying to confuse the argument (by raising a straw man argument) by saying 'then let's ban cars- - there are currently no realistic alternatives to cars/buses; the whole of modern life is predicated on transport. Unless you hadn't noticed, the whole of modern life isn't predicated on having a Rottweiler instead of a more sensible animal as a pet. In the same way, those people who squeal 'it's always the owner' presumably favour having guns easily available on the high street, as guns don't kill people, people do?

I think that the problem with Staffordshires is that many people cannot differentiate between one of those and a Pitbull. Nothing I have seen in the course of my research indicates that Staffordshires, as opposed to Pitbulls, are dangerous dogs.

In case any of you have difficulty reading, so have been unable to view the statistics about Rottweilers, here is one set below:



1979-1998 Dog bite fatalities in the US
Researchers reviewed a 20-year period from 1979 to 1998 to determine the types of breeds most responsible for US dog bite fatalities.

• At least 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 human dog bite related fatalities during this time span. Pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in over half of these fatalities and from 1997-1998, over 60%.
• Researchers note that it is extremely unlikely that pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 60% of dogs in US households during this period thus, there appeared to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.

Traditional dog legislation allows "one free bite." On the second bite, the dog is killed. Such laws do not address the threats from pit bulls, rottweilers, and wolf hybrids. In over two-thirds of the logged cases, the life-threatening or fatal attack was the first known dangerous behavior by the animal.


1982-2007 chart (US and Canada - the Humane Society keeps stats):

Breed Bodily harm Child VictimsAdult Victims Deaths Maimings

Pitbull .........1194 ....528 .......424 .................116 .......654
Rott ............427 .....243 .......113 .................63 ........232
Wolf-dog hybrid 79 .....65 ........4 ...................19 ..........43

German shepherd comes next with 9 deaths. Given that the number of wolf dog hybrids are going to be relatively small, and GSDs relatively popular, there's statistically a huge gap between 63 deaths by Rottweiler and 9 deaths by GSD.

Just so you understand that these figures are not taken from The Sun, here's a bibliography. Enjoy.


Dog bite fatalities

• Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998, by Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab and Lockwood, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2000
• Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities United States, 1995-1996, by R Lockwood, PhD, Morbidity and Mortality Report, CDC, May 30, 1997, Vol.46, No.21
• Fatal Dog Attacks, 1989-1994, by Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW, Pediatrics, 1996;97:891-5
• Dog Bite-Related Fatalities from 1979 through 1988, by J. J. Sacks, R. W. Sattin and S. E. Bonzo, Unintentional Injury Section, CDC
• Hospitalizations Resulting from Dog Bite Injuries -- Alaska, 1991-2002, compiled by Louisa Castrodale,Int J Circumpolar Health, 2007 Sep;66(4):320-7
• Traumatic Deaths from Dog Attacks In the United States, by Pickney LE. Kennedy LA, Pediatrics, 1982;691:193-196

UKTigerlily

CFC wrote: »

You say I do not like Rotties. I do not like or dislike them but I believe that the stats speak for themselves. These are dangerous dogs, and physically uncontrollable. Yet again you imply that a 'few deaths' are not enough to warrant the breed being branded as dangerous. Tell me, how many deaths does it take for you to feel that? Read your own words below, you know that these dogs have killed people.

But is it right to base the destruction of a breed on highly inaccurate numbers from statistics or make sweeping generalisations about the breeds stability based on a few very publicesed (sp?) attacks and deaths? No.


You just don't appear to think 'a few deaths' really matter. Perhaps you would feel differently if it was one of your relatives? Perhaps then 'a few deaths' would matter?

In other words, rather than believe scientifically researched stats, which are not those of a newspaper or a sensationalist, but of a USA government funded agency, you'd prefer to go with your emotions ie you LIKE the breed, for whatever odd reason. Therefore the stats are wrong. QED. There's none so blind as those who will not see. To help you out, I've appended some stats at the bottom of this post.

How does your 'good, responsible dog ownership' fit with a childminder finding one of your dogs at the other end of your estate, as I believe you posted in another thread? Not very well, I'd say?

Also - to those who are trying to confuse the argument (by raising a straw man argument) by saying 'then let's ban cars- - there are currently no realistic alternatives to cars/buses; the whole of modern life is predicated on transport. Unless you hadn't noticed, the whole of modern life isn't predicated on having a Rottweiler instead of a more sensible animal as a pet. In the same way, those people who squeal 'it's always the owner' presumably favour having guns easily available on the high street, as guns don't kill people, people do?

I think that the problem with Staffordshires is that many people cannot differentiate between one of those and a Pitbull. Nothing I have seen in the course of my research indicates that Staffordshires, as opposed to Pitbulls, are dangerous dogs.

In case any of you have difficulty reading, so have been unable to view the statistics about Rottweilers, here is one set below:



1979-1998 Dog bite fatalities in the US
Researchers reviewed a 20-year period from 1979 to 1998 to determine the types of breeds most responsible for US dog bite fatalities.

• At least 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 human dog bite related fatalities during this time span. Pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in over half of these fatalities and from 1997-1998, over 60%.
• Researchers note that it is extremely unlikely that pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 60% of dogs in US households during this period thus, there appeared to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.

Traditional dog legislation allows "one free bite." On the second bite, the dog is killed. Such laws do not address the threats from pit bulls, rottweilers, and wolf hybrids. In over two-thirds of the logged cases, the life-threatening or fatal attack was the first known dangerous behavior by the animal.


1982-2007 chart (US and Canada - the Humane Society keeps stats):

Breed Bodily harm Child VictimsAdult Victims Deaths Maimings

Pitbull .........1194 ....528 .......424 .................116 .......654
Rott ............427 .....243 .......113 .................63 ........232
Wolf-dog hybrid 79 .....65 ........4 ...................19 ..........43

German shepherd comes next with 9 deaths. Given that the number of wolf dog hybrids are going to be relatively small, and GSDs relatively popular, there's statistically a huge gap between 63 deaths by Rottweiler and 9 deaths by GSD.

Just so you understand that these figures are not taken from The Sun, here's a bibliography. Enjoy.


Dog bite fatalities

• Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998, by Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab and Lockwood, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2000
• Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities United States, 1995-1996, by R Lockwood, PhD, Morbidity and Mortality Report, CDC, May 30, 1997, Vol.46, No.21
• Fatal Dog Attacks, 1989-1994, by Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW, Pediatrics, 1996;97:891-5
• Dog Bite-Related Fatalities from 1979 through 1988, by J. J. Sacks, R. W. Sattin and S. E. Bonzo, Unintentional Injury Section, CDC
• Hospitalizations Resulting from Dog Bite Injuries -- Alaska, 1991-2002, compiled by Louisa Castrodale,Int J Circumpolar Health, 2007 Sep;66(4):320-7
• Traumatic Deaths from Dog Attacks In the United States, by Pickney LE. Kennedy LA, Pediatrics, 1982;691:193-196

So, let's ban Boxing, a few have been killed Boxing right? Wait, what about Horse Riding? A Vet I know & that is very well known for eventing died when her Horse fell on her in 1999, Horses can be VERY dangerous. How many children have died at the hands of their Parents or other low life? Better ban people having kids!

Other breeds have killed too, in fact I imagine all breeds have, let's ban dogs. And men, they're more likely to murder & have. While we're at it, what about TV's? One killed a girl on xmas day & it surely can't be the owners fault right? Better ban smoking cause that kills, and drinking there's been many deaths through drinking & people don't NEED to drink or smoke.

I imagine that all of the above, minus maybe the TV, have killed much more than all the 'killing' breeds put together. Yes, maybe some Dogs aren't right just like some people aren't, in which case any responsible Owner would have that Dog PTS regardless of breed. Fact is all breeds can & do bite, and all breeds can & do kill.

Even a Chihuahua or Yorkie or small breed can kill a baby or small child. I've never yet met an out of control or viscious Rotti with a responsible owner. Maybe if ALL Dog owners regardless of breed were made to take their Pups & even older Dogs (If rescue like mine) to training classes & to socialise it well etc there'd be less attacks?

MrsE_2

UKTigerlily wrote: »

So, let's ban Boxing, a few have been killed Boxing right? Wait, what about Horse Riding? A Vet I know & that is very well known for eventing died when her Horse fell on her in 1999, Horses can be VERY dangerous. How many children have died at the hands of their Parents or other low life? Better ban people having kids!

Other breeds have killed too, in fact I imagine all breeds have, let's ban dogs. And men, they're more likely to murder & have. While we're at it, what about TV's? One killed a girl on xmas day & it surely can't be the owners fault right? Better ban smoking cause that kills, and drinking there's been many deaths through drinking & people don't NEED to drink or smoke.

I imagine that all of the above, minus maybe the TV, have killed much more than all the 'killing' breeds put together. Yes, maybe some Dogs aren't right just like some people aren't, in which case any responsible Owner would have that Dog PTS regardless of breed. Fact is all breeds can & do bite, and all breeds can & do kill. ?

The point you are missing is people CHOOSE to box, smoke, horseride, etc
If an irresponsible owner doesn't control their large dog, it can go out & kill an innocent child who didn't have a choice about whether (as per your other examples) they wanted to participate & gauge the risk.

UKTigerlily wrote: »

Even a Chihuahua or Yorkie or small breed can kill a baby or small child. I've never yet met an out of control or viscious Rotti with a responsible owner. Maybe if ALL Dog owners regardless of breed were made to take their Pups & even older Dogs (If rescue like mine) to training classes & to socialise it well etc there'd be less attacks?

A out of control chihuahua (or other small dog) can be stopped in seconds by any adult or larger child. A large powerful dog cannot.
The problem is NOT the responsible owners, the controls are needed because of people like the OPs neighbours who allow their large powerful dog off their property alone.

RedBern

Well.. it's Friday so hopefully this will move on and you'll get some good news. Just to reiterate something from previous poster - if they let the dog into the back and it 'dumps' in your back garden take a picture of that and call the dog warden and show it to him/her.

Not sure whether you're a council tenant or housing association. If council, - look at your local council site - find the 'contact us' email and put "FAO Head of Housing" in title and list your problems. Same if it is Housing Association - address it to the Chief Exec of Housing Association. Find out who your local community councillor is, and also your county councillor. Copy each of them into your letters and emails. If you still get a 'not our responsibility' response, write to the Chief Exec and again copy in your councillors. You should be able to find their contact details via the council site - telephone them - they are paid to look after your interests and will take this forward for you.

Good luck

MrsTinks

CFC wrote: »

But is it right to base the destruction of a breed on highly inaccurate numbers from statistics or make sweeping generalisations about the breeds stability based on a few very publicesed (sp?) attacks and deaths? No.


You just don't appear to think 'a few deaths' really matter. Perhaps you would feel differently if it was one of your relatives? Perhaps then 'a few deaths' would matter?
How does your 'good, responsible dog ownership' fit with a childminder finding one of your dogs at the other end of your estate, as I believe you posted in another thread? Not very well, I'd say?

Firstly - quoting ONE sentence of a very long post and debate isn't really very accurate is it? Never mind - it serves your argument
As you seem so keen to quote me then maybe you could do everyone the favour of including the part where I said something along the lines of any attack being an attack too many BUT punish the deed - NOT the breed (man I feel like a stuck record! I am certain I have said that SEVERAL times not only in this thread...)

As for my dog getting out - yes she did - ONCE! Whether my husband failed to latch the door properly or she managed to open it herself I'll never know BUT the front door has been locked since preventing any repeat incidents. THAT is responcible ownership. Oh and "one of my dogs"? I have ONE dog - ONE!!!!! So whilst you have obviously taken the time to search my posts on the pet forum for things to use at least read them properly. If you'd read even ONE post about me properly you'd know I only have one dog

Would I feel differently if one of my relatives was attacked? No. I would still want the deed punished but I am educated enough to realise that the action of ONE dog is not something to generalise the demeanour of the rest of the breed on. I would however take any legal action in my power to punish the owner!
And ofcourse that would ignore the fact (and obviously a post you have missed ) that I was attacked by a dog as a child and had severe bite wounds to my head... So... do I have reason to be bitter and even afraid of dogs? I'd have thought so... do you see me calling for the mass destruction of any breed? ehhhh no so don't tell me that I would react differently about a breed if me or mine were attacked - I have been and severely too thanks.

As for US statistics... I take it you couldn't find any UK ones that were not contested or deemed inaccurate then? Sorry but no I'm not going to look at those. Why? Because in the US it is the NORM to have rottweilers as attack, guard and protection dogs. That means a very large proportion of rottweilers are trained to attack. And as for responcible owners... don't get me started on the US and irresponcible owners!

MrsTinks

OP - sorry it's going a little off topic (again ) - please do chase the nice police officer again today and get him to come out - and DO let us know what happens Don't suppose you have managed to get some other neighbours together to validate your complaint to give him a little more to work with? Just to make it easier for him

UKTigerlily

MrsE wrote: »

The point you are missing is people CHOOSE to box, smoke, horseride, etc
If an irresponsible owner doesn't control their large dog, it can go out & kill an innocent child who didn't have a choice about whether (as per your other examples) they wanted to participate & gauge the risk.



A out of control chihuahua (or other small dog) can be stopped in seconds by any adult or larger child. A large powerful dog cannot.
The problem is NOT the responsible owners, the controls are needed because of people like the OPs neighbours who allow their large powerful dog off their property alone.

Believe it or not, people don't choose to get lung cancer through passive smoking, or to become alcoholic, or to be attacked by drunks, or to have their horse kill them, or a TV dropped on them. Yes, they choose to horse ride but not to be killed by one or someone elses. In fact i've known more people killed or injured by horses including myself than by dogs of any breed.

My Dad got badly attacked (As an adult) by a Border Collie, should they be banned, he couldn't get that off! A child probably wouldn't be able to get a Chihuahua off, especially toddlers who are probably more likely to be bitten. You'd be suprised at the damage even a Chihuahua can do. Maybe they can't kill an ADULT but they can a CHILD.

It's the OWNERS that need to have the dogs under control, not ohh it's a Rotti IF it attacks you can't get it off. If a guy attacks me I probably can't get him off, ban men? IF owners were more responsible then attacks wouldn't happen so much & nobody would need to fight any dog off.

foreign_correspondent

This thread has become a bit crazy if you ask me.
The basis of the problem is that the OP has a dog which does two things which worry her.

One is the dog going on her garden - well no dog owner should be allowng this whether the dog is a chihauha or great dane- as well as a risk of confrontation with the dog, there is also the nuisance matter of dog mess.

The owner needs telling this is not acceptable and that they must make the fence secure.

The second is that the dog barks and jumps at the window. This scares the OP who worries he may get out. The fact that the dog barks, jumps up and that the OP finds this intimidating does not necessarily mean it is a danger, but it certainly is a nuisance and it would be reasonable to expect the owner to try and change this, probably by keeping the dog away from the window.

Everyone getting hysterical about how dangerous this dog is due to its breed (which may or may not be true) is probably making the problem even more daunting to the OP.

The fact of the matter is simply, it should not be on her garden, at all ever, and that it would be reasonable not to have it jumping and barking at the window when you pass.

If the OP is having no joy from the police/community warden I would call again and chase it (I imagine its been a busy time over christmas and new year) - however it is worth remembering that community wardens have very limited powers, and as someone else said it may be worth ringing the dog warden who should have an understanding of the law in these situations.

However, I think it would be very unwise to tak any unnoficial action (as some hae suggested) as this is very likely to both antagonise the neighbors and discredit the OP somewhat.

Good luck OP

MrsE_2

UKTigerlily wrote: »

Believe it or not, people don't choose to get lung cancer through passive smoking, or to become alcoholic, or to be attacked by drunks, or to have their horse kill them, or a TV dropped on them. Yes, they choose to horse ride but not to be killed by one or someone elses. In fact i've known more people killed or injured by horses including myself than by dogs of any breed.

My Dad got badly attacked (As an adult) by a Border Collie, should they be banned, he couldn't get that off! A child probably wouldn't be able to get a Chihuahua off, especially toddlers who are probably more likely to be bitten. You'd be suprised at the damage even a Chihuahua can do. Maybe they can't kill an ADULT but they can a CHILD.

It's the OWNERS that need to have the dogs under control, not ohh it's a Rotti IF it attacks you can't get it off. If a guy attacks me I probably can't get him off, ban men? IF owners were more responsible then attacks wouldn't happen so much & nobody would need to fight any dog off.

IF, its that little word IF.
Its because of irresponsible owners we need dog controls.
IF nobody broke the law, we wouldn't need police.
IF all kids went to school we wouldn't need truant officers
IF IF IF...............

Many of those scenarios you pointed out are things we have free choice in, the OPs child does NOT have a choice whether the dog scales the fence & it savages her.
The other scenarios are accidents, IF that dog was to savage someone it wouldn't have been an accident either.

You love your dog, you are entitled to that, but not everyone does & other people are entitled to walk in public places & their own homes & gardens WITHOUT fear or hindrance from peoples dogs/animals, because SOME owners won't comply with that laws need to be there to protect people from these owners, like the other posters with the Japanese Akita she allows out to kill cats.

You keep picking on my posts......

What exactly are you arguing about??????

What is your point?????

Do you think dog owners should be free to do as they please???
Or just their dogs???

I read your post about getting your puppy, you live in one room with you, your husband & a cat & then you wanted a dog. 2 people, 2 animals in a studio (one living/bedroom), IMHO I don't think you are very responsible. I'm not against animals in flats (we don't all have gardens) but one room & a dog & a cat:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I really don't think that it very kind to your animals.

The fact that you were on benefits buy stressing about how you would get a KC approved quality breeder is a whole other can of worms.
Plus IF you can afford to buy a pedigree animal you can unregister yourself at the PDSA & just use a normal vet.