vicious dog

MrsE_2

UKTigerlily wrote: »

I'm stating a fact nothing more or less, get a life, i'm done with your bs

Well you are one cold b1tch to talk about a babies death like that:mad:

UKTigerlily

MrsE wrote: »

Well you are one cold b1tch to talk about a babies death like that:mad:

What by stating fact? Does my personal feelings need to be spoken about on this thread? FYI it was a child that meant alot to me, I don't need to be bringing it up, just the facts. As in it wasn't a mauling it was an accident therefore papers can't always be believed, the death was terrible but that wasn't the point of the post!

MrsE_2

UKTigerlily wrote: »

What by stating fact? Does my personal feelings need to be spoken about on this thread? FYI it was a child that meant alot to me, I don't need to be bringing it up, just the facts. As in it wasn't a mauling it was an accident therefore papers can't always be believed, the death was terrible but that wasn't the point of the post!

Well thats the difference between you & I.

It pains me to hear about that babies death at mercy of two rottweilers.

& it disgusts me to read of you using it in such a cold matter of fact way to drive home a point about journalism.

Have you tried looking to see if you actually have a heart or is there just a swinging brick there?

Tip from me, DON'T HAVE CHILDREN, you have no maternal instinct.

UKTigerlily

MrsE wrote: »

Well thats the difference between you & I.

It pains me to hear about that babies death at mercy of two rottweilers.

& it disgusts me to read of you using it in such a cold matter of fact way to drive home a point about journalism.

Have you tried looking to see if you actually have a heart or is there just a swinging brick there?

Tip from me, DON'T HAVE CHILDREN, you have no maternal instinct.

Yes you know me so well don't you! Just because I kept to facts doesn't mean anything, I already said a few times how terrible it was. You can believe what you want if you actually read my posts you'd know how much I care about things. You can stop with the !!!!!ing & personal attacks too it's not necessary. Why can't you just get back to the original post as i'm sure not just I wish to

CFC

MrsTine wrote: »

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 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!

Again, I quote your own words below so you can be sure I am not misrepresenting you:

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.

So it's alright providing it's only a few deaths then?

Also, please do not misdirect or confuse the argument by comparing FATALITIES to DOG BITES. Any dog can and may bite; not every dog can and may KILL. Quite possibly Rotts are not the dog with the highest likelihood of BITING per se; but they have the highest likelihood of KILLING. There is a huge difference between the three categories of being bitten, being mauled, and being killed.


To answer your point:

saying punish the deed and not the breed is like saying that guns may be freely available on the high street because guns don't kill people, people do. People with dangerous dogs have the same mental blinkering as the pro Gun lobby in the USA; because THEY want to do it, they believe it should remain legal, regardless of the collateral damage, to use a military term.

For your second point -The reason that I choose the American ones are because they are well researched and reliable, as the Disease Control Centre collates them; whereas the UK government does not collate statistics. That means that UK statistics are arguable in comparison to the US ones. The other statistics I did not post make it clear that there is a breed specific problem, but you clearly havent actually looked into it at all. These are long term studies.

You just choose to ignore them; again, it is not possible to argue with you.

I happened across your post about your dog getting out in another thread I was following - I didn't realise you only had one - from somewhere I gained the impression that you had one Rottweiler and one RottxGSD, and I did not want to assume that it was the Rottweiler wandering around on its own, because that would be the height of irresponsibility. There was no intention to misrepresent you.

orlao

I think this thread has gone a bit dolally....I really hope Mommyme has got some support from the authorities by now, by the the sound of it the CS officer is prepared to help, might be just the thing to scare the dogs owners into behaving properly. Lets hope so anyway.

In simple terms IMHO the point that people are trying to make(me included) is that the breed, not SIZE, breed is irrelevant in this case......bad, irresponsible, antisocial people will affect their neighbours negatively one way or another, be it with a JR or a large dog, music or just a lack of consideration in one way or another. Obviously the size of the dog and most importantly the way it has been trained and the way it is ALLOWED to behave adds to the OPs concerns but the real worry is the OWNERS and their lack of control. If the long list of breeds that people are saying shouldn't be kept in a domestic setting are banned.....who's to say that people like that wouldn't have a lab , pointer, OES or collie etc.....whats to stop stupid people also allowing them to harass their neighbours/hood? All of these types are big enough to do serious damage to a child? So what's the answer? Ban all dogs?

To go back to the analogy with cars.....there are some appalling, dangerous drivers out there......but how many of us would hand over our car keys and agree to ban driving for all because of that MINORITY of dangerous drivers?
Even though lives, many of them childrens would be saved with no cars on the road?

I personally would support a "points" system for dog owners....totting up could allow a dog to be removed from careless and irresponsible owners but as that would require a licensing system ( not impossible with microchipping and or tatooing) I can't see that happening anytime soon.....local and national government appear to prefer to go with kneejerk reactions that again IMHO don't actually make any real difference to anyones safety....as the people they are aimed at seem to be able just to ignore these rules among many others.......

MrsE

I know the case that TigerLily is referring to re the little girl who was killed by the Rottweilers. At the inquest, nearly a year later it was reported ( without any of the media hype, unlike the actual death) that the child hadn't been savaged as such, she had been picked up and tragically dropped by one of the dogs onto her head which fractured her scull which was the cause of death. There were no bite injuries and what has to be taken into account that these were dogs that the OWNERS hadn't socialised or ever had as pets...there was a door left open into the living accomadation and the dogs got into the bedroom where the child was sleeping and yes, there is no doubt they were the cause of her death but they didn't just "turn" and savage her. In no way am I saying this is acceptable ( and I don't think TLUK was either) but the real tragedy in this case is a child lost her life through someone CARELESSLY letting any child and dog come together unsupervised. This death could have been caused by any dog over about 15kgs ( big enough to pick up a baby).....slightly different to the way the story was originally reported isn't it?

CFC

The culture of large dog ownership in the US is very diffrent to here.....in most cases it's only what we would call lapdogs that are house pets....big dogs tend to be working in one form or another. It is perfectly legal and socially acceptable to keep guard/protection dogs and allow them to bite intruders....that is their job and so the figures reflect that.

As a large dog owner I despair of the "ban the breeds" brigade........how about about "Ban the stupid, irresponsible, unconsiderate owners" instead. Keeping a dog should a priveledge (sp!) not a right.....(as should having children but don't start me on that:o ) and treated as such......I really think that would solve a lot of the "dog" problems but only IF it was properly enforced.

foreign_correspondent

Mrs E - please be nice to all moneysavers - you may not agree with someone's point, but to call them a 'cold b1tch' and start questioning their 'maternal instinct' etc etc is just unneccesary and extrememely personal and offensive in my opinion.

It may be worth remembering that all this dog has done so far is bark - yes thats it, bark.

No more than my dog has done, or any other dog, yet it seems almost everyone is baying for its blood, and Mrs E you are furious at anyone who refuses to join in with the Daily mail style sensationalism here.

I mean, who cares if something is true or not, so long as it makes a point??? Not you it seems.

I suggest that you take a step back and consider the reality of the situation.

lilibeth

foreign_correspondent wrote: »

Mrs E - please be nice to all moneysavers - you may not agree with someone's point, but to call them a 'cold b1tch' and start questioning their 'maternal instinct' etc etc is just unneccesary and extrememely personal and offensive in my opinion.

It may be worth remembering that all this dog has done so far is bark - yes thats it, bark.

No more than my dog has done, or any other dog, yet it seems almost everyone is baying for its blood, and Mrs E you are furious at anyone who refuses to join in with the Daily mail style sensationalism here.

I mean, who cares if something is true or not, so long as it makes a point??? Not you it seems.

I suggest that you take a step back and consider the reality of the situation.

I'm not interested in getting involved in the argument between you and Mrs E.

However it is untrue to say all the dog has done is bark.
It has scaled a women's fence more than once and tried to get in at her door and it is known to be dangerous(confirmed by the owners themselves)!

foreign_correspondent

lilibeth wrote: »

I'm not interested in getting involved in the argument between you and Mrs E.

However it is untrue to say all the dog has done is bark.
It has scaled a women's fence more than once and tried to get in at her door and it is known to be dangerous(confirmed by the owners themselves)!

There is no argument between me and MrsE.

Yes, the dog has been in the OPs garden, but the dogs motives are, to be honest unknown, by you, me and the OP. It should not be able to get in there full stop, the dog does not know whose garden it is, and should be safely fenced in. My dog would wander into next doors garden if she could, and may well try and get in their back door.

Lots of people proclaim their dog to be nasty to put off intruders and to look hard. Most of the lads round here with staffies will tell you that the dog will 'have yer arm off!'- just like they will tell you they are 'well hard' and have six girlfriends - its rarely true in my experience!!

My gran used to tell people the dog was nasty as she was worried about intruders and muggers (it wasnt!). Its not unusual, and some people teach theri dog to bark on hearing the words 'mind the dog' or - so that if they are walking alone and are made uncomfortable by someone approaching they can say 'mind the dog', the dog will bark, and the other person will keep their distance for fear it is a nasty dog! Not a bad idea if you are a woman and dog walk alone!

Soubrette

MrsE

Perhaps if I could make another analogy regarding the tragic death of the toddler by the two dogs.

A man recently tragically killed his own young daughter by dropping a TV on her - it was a terrible accident. I have nothing but sympathy for that poor man.

Baby P was savagely and systematically beaten up by his parent - I have no sympathy for them in the least.

In both cases a young child is dead and that cannot be changed but if I were defend the first man in a discussion because it was at tragic accident but he was was being compared to the second incident - would that make me a cold person who shouldn't have kids?

I suggest not, further I would suggest that you owe Tigerlily a bit of an apology

Sou