vicious dog

MrsTinks

dutch12 wrote: »

Hehehehe this dog is a guard dog, guard dogs by their very nature snarl, growl and generaly arn't cute cudely pootches. they are evil fookers that keep people that want to enter other peoples properties out. I agree the owners need to "controle" this dog and ensure it stays within its garden, and make it wear a mussle when taking it out, but to talk destruction when this dog is doing its job, I still can't get over it.
Seeing that we are soooo scared about dangerous dogs lets look at the numbers:

Dog bites in 2007/08= 3800
Lethal dog atacks= Several
Knife crime= 60.000 victims are mostly young men, perps are mostly young men.(thats 160 per day. As the government has kinda skewed the numbers this is an estimate)
Lethal knife crimes 2007/08= 277
Conclusion: leave the dogs alone and open a post to tackle knife crime:rolleyes:

LOL I'm not saying the dog isn't doing "it's job" - however it is a danger to the public (and the OP) BECAUSE the owner is failing to control it. I'm sure in the right environment it is a good guard dog - unfortunately that is not a domestic setting with a garden where the fence is not sufficient to keep it within the dog owners boundary and thus in legal terms control

and hate to say this but I'm the one saying punish the deed not the breed - and following that line of thought is kinda how other things got dragged in... like cars, horses (sorry that was me!) and so on.

In reality this dog IS a danger both in a real sense and according to the law - what a lot of us are objecting to is that people are assuming that because it is PART rottweiler it is OF COURSE dangerous - I own several knives, some far more dangerous than those little ones the thugs carry round (I like cooking! If you cook you have to have decent knives!) but just because i own knives doesn't make me dangerous. My attitude and training (or lack of it in some peoples cases) is what would potentially make me dangerous.

If the knife I use to fillet fish with was to fall into the hands of someone wishing to use it to do harm it would be little different to this dog. It has the potential to do great harm, because that is it's job, but if it was handled safely, responcibly and kept under control - then it's risk to the public would be nil or certainly close to nil.
In both cases it's the owner/handler/person who makes the difference.

I don't dispute that the dog has been taught to be like this, nor that because it's not safely handled it constitutes a danger, I'm "just" saying that saying that it is a foregone conclusion that it must be so because it is part rottie is stereotyping and in my view incorrectly so.

However - it's late and I want to go to bed - just remember all - be nice

OP please do let us know if the nice copper came round today

MrsTinks

Mely wrote: »

FC with respect,...i think Lillibeth meant the tests should be made with the larger more potentially dangerous breeds and not Springer spaniels etc.

But who then decides what a dangerous breed is? Bearing in mind that there is already a list of "restricted" breeds and the rottie isn't on it... what weight is the limit? how many attacks is the cut off? and how do we realistically gather those statistics? And if we DO then shouldn't we then also apply it to all pets? (personally I'd love to see more control on pet ownership - I just don't see that we should limit it to breeds and would you impose it on mongrels too? how would you definitely prove the parentage of a mongrel?)
I'm far more in favour of responcible dog ownership lessons and classes for ALL who own a dog (or pet in general) - and I am absolutely in favour of bringing back dog licenses!

dutch12

Mely wrote: »

.
Also the problems with knife crime in this country imho is a different issue altogether.

But is it??? 5000 years ago ( give or take a few) Humaity invited wolves into their lives. An animal that is a hughely succesfull preditor, made by millions of years of evolution ( Or God in 5 minutes if you are that way inclined). It kills large and small pray and we start to mess with it to suit our needs. Then we create the civilizations, cities. while the domestication of wolves went on we also created blades and tools. and we have been using both, succesfully for the full time. the bad side: Both can kill. It is a fact and no matter what you do there will always be people that use a knife to end a life and there will always be people that don't treat their K9 correctly.

foreign_correspondent

Originally Posted by Mely
FC with respect,...i think Lillibeth meant the tests should be made with the larger more potentially dangerous breeds and not Springer spaniels etc.

MrsTine wrote: »

But who then decides what a dangerous breed is?

Too right - Rage Syndrome is quite limited to spaniels and, though quite rare can make them very dangerous and unpredicatable....

... and Lilibeth - please do clarify where I was advising someone to keep a stolen dog!??

Mely

MrsTine...im all for dog licences to be brought back too. And lessons etc for all dog owners. I think that dogs like Rottweillers, etc should not be kept as pets. There is too much risk of harm happening with such big, strong dogs. I think banning certain breeds to start with would be a major positive. Then see how things improve.

Mely

Dutch i understand the point your making. But i still think knife crime is a seperate issue.

UKTigerlily

I can't remember what happened when Pit Bulls were banned, were they all PTS? If so & we ban big breeds, that's millions of Dog that will be PTS, millions of people that are good, responsible Owners with Dogs that have never bitten anyone losing their Pets. We'd have to ban so many breeds, Rottis, Dobermans, Ridgebacks, Mastiffs, Bull Terriers, GSDs, Great Danes, Cane Corso etc etc.

Where does it end? If we banned them all, I bet 99% wouldn't have ever hurt anyone. As I say though I can't remember what happened when APBT were banned but I do know the Owner of the kennels I worked in had to have a 1yr old APBT PTS because of it & it'd never harmed anyone.

MrsE_2

Mely wrote: »

Dutch i understand the point your making. But i still think knife crime is a seperate issue.

Its called muddying the water.

Lot of talk going on about how they are all responsible but as soon as someone says lets back this up with laws they all throw their toys out of the pram.

I've never suggested banning dogs or putting them to sleep.

I just want to see thugs & people like the OPs neighbours & the woman with the Akita-cat-killer she allows to roam BANNED from owing dogs.

UKTigerlily

MrsE wrote: »

Its called muddying the water.

Lot of talk going on about how they are all responsible but as soon as someone says lets back this up with laws they all throw their toys out of the pram.

I've never suggested banning dogs or putting them to sleep.

I just want to see thugs & people like the OPs neighbours & the woman with the Akita-cat-killer she allows to roam BANNED from owing dogs.

Well, I definitely agree on that & it can't come soon enough

dutch12

Mely wrote: »

MrsTine...im all for dog licences to be brought back too. And lessons etc for all dog owners. I think that dogs like Rottweillers, etc should not be kept as pets. There is too much risk of harm happening with such big, strong dogs. I think banning certain breeds to start with would be a major positive. Then see how things improve.

Hmmm Prohibition on dogs???? I don't think so. If we are going to ban "big" breeds because they "might be dangerous" lets go for the classic prohibition. Ban Alcohol, cause we all know that is dangerous. How about ban knifes. We will all have to butter our bread with spoons. How about sterilize all humans. That way we can ensure no kids will EVER be hurt again. Cars, what about cars... they can kill ban them too. And planes, they can be flown into big buildings... lets not make any of them. Big buildings..people might jump from them so they are out. What about electric razors, they can cut me (very small chance) so they so have to be banned.... 10 most likely things to kill you:

1. Heart disease
2. Stroke
3. Lung cancer
4. Lower respiratory infections
5. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
6. Colon and rectum cancers
7. Alzheimer's disease
8. Type 2 diabetes
9. Breast cancer
10. Stomach cancer

Ok... so this tells us to ban McDonnald (and all other fast food outlets), Smoking, Any form of radiation creating device, cut all mens nuts off, and what else...

Enough sillyness.. Be honoust Dogs bring joy. Yea there are some idiots out there that spoil it for the rest but banning certain breeds because they "might" be dangerous that's sillyness... Don't ever forget... Humanity has made these breeds, so we have to be responsible for them.