vicious dog

orlao

Mely wrote: »

Thank you Orlao....a lot of owners wouldnt be able to train such type of dog. And is exactly why i think they shouldnt be kept as pets.

TBH a lot of dog owners can't/won't train any breed/size dog properly....should the type of dogs they sc*ew up be banned as pets too? Or should they just not have dogs? I understand the point that if it's a smaller dog there is less damage if they bite but there are plenty of medium sized dogs that could potentially kill if they bit....where do you draw the line?

I don't see why I and other responsible dog owners should be restricted in our choice of pet because other people cannot/willnot behave in an acceptable manner.

I take my dogs many places and when the rottweiler is admired and fussed ( he's such a tart:D ) and you get the numpties saying "I really want one of those" I do my utmost to make them aware of the downsides of having a dog like this.......sadly one of the biggest issues Rott owners have to deal with is other peoples reactions to their dog, which I'm sure you can imagine after reading the other posts on this thread. This predijuce requires their owners to be in total control of their dogs at all times ( not that I have a problem with that btw) but also controlling what is happening around them at as their dog will always be blamed for any incident within 100 yards no matter whether the dog was involved or not. My JRTs are not perceived in such a way despite the facts that one is very old and not at all tolerant of rough kids and the other will occasionally take a violent dislike to another dog and square up to it. Both are supervised enough and obediant enough to immediately stop any problems but the people who tell their children to "come away from the nasty dog" (on a lead around children) will happily let their kids run up to the terriers without asking if it's safe Most responsible rottweiler/GSD/Mastiff/bullbreed owners that I know will also point out the downside of their breeds to interested parties.....it is not in our interest to have more untrained/illmannered dogs around to make our lives more difficult than it already is.

IMHO, if you have a breed of dog that was originally bred to work it is always going to more challenging to train......but lets not forget that working breeds include spaniels, labradors, collies, corgis, poodles, all the retrievers, pointers
just to name a few. In fact, thinking about it the great majority of dogs were bred to work.....the only ones I can think of that weren't are pekes and CKCS.

Apologies for the lousy spelling but it is very late!

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

Mely wrote: »

I dont even think id remember the fire extinguisher was there!

If im going in the house to get a fire extinguisher . . would it not make sense to grab DD first and shut the door?

(I know people meant if the dog had DD but to be fair i wouldnt run in the house and leave DD outside with him - hence the spade at the door!)

Mimi_Arc_en_ciel

orlao wrote: »

TBH a lot of dog owners can't/won't train any breed/size dog properly....should the type of dogs they sc*ew up be banned as pets too? Or should they just not have dogs? I understand the point that if it's a smaller dog there is less damage if they bite but there are plenty of medium sized dogs that could potentially kill if they bit....where do you draw the line?

I don't see why I and other responsible dog owners should be restricted in our choice of pet because other people cannot/willnot behave in an acceptable manner.

I take my dogs many places and when the rottweiler is admired and fussed ( he's such a tart:D ) and you get the numpties saying "I really want one of those" I do my utmost to make them aware of the downsides of having a dog like this.......sadly one of the biggest issues Rott owners have to deal with is other peoples reactions to their dog, which I'm sure you can imagine after reading the other posts on this thread. This predijuce requires their owners to be in total control of their dogs at all times ( not that I have a problem with that btw) but also controlling what is happening around them at as their dog will always be blamed for any incident within 100 yards no matter whether the dog was involved or not. My JRTs are not perceived in such a way despite the facts that one is very old and not at all tolerant of rough kids and the other will occasionally take a violent dislike to another dog and square up to it. Both are supervised enough and obediant enough to immediately stop any problems but the people who tell their children to "come away from the nasty dog" (on a lead around children) will happily let their kids run up to the terriers without asking if it's safe Most responsible rottweiler/GSD/Mastiff/bullbreed owners that I know will also point out the downside of their breeds to interested parties.....it is not in our interest to have more untrained/illmannered dogs around to make our lives more difficult than it already is.

IMHO, if you have a breed of dog that was originally bred to work it is always going to more challenging to train......but lets not forget that working breeds include spaniels, labradors, collies, corgis, poodles, all the retrievers, pointers
just to name a few. In fact, thinking about it the great majority of dogs were bred to work.....the only ones I can think of that weren't are pekes and CKCS.

Apologies for the lousy spelling but it is very late!

The house we used to live in before had a rottie next door and he is like a bear, hes huge! Not fat but very muscley. He used to come and sit with me when i was preggy and is soft - hes scared of cats! Hes the reason i asked the neighbours what their dog was like. Because DD is used to pierce (old neighbours dog) she things all big dogs are soft and i didnt want her going near the fence and thinking the dog was pierce. DD tends to pull dogs ears at the moment and i didnt want her going to a strange dog and pulling his ears and this is when they told me the history of the dog. The breed isnt an issue, yes it would be easier if he was a smaller dog so i could easily get him off her should i need to but if they only kept him under control there wouldnt be any of this.

Mutter_2

Originally Posted by ~Chameleon~
Please don't attempt to turn this into a benefit bashing thread MrsE as I can see exactly where you're going with your comments here :rolleyes:

I could.:rolleyes:

foreign_correspondent

^ Random!! is this thread doomed to keep going off topic or what?

Mutter_2

foreign_correspondent wrote: »

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!??

What a load of tosh.
FC, you are fast becoming the Ted Hutchinson of the pet forums.
A know it all who knows as much as the rest of us.

foreign_correspondent

What is tosh about it?

Please do explain.

...I was simply pointing out it is difficult to draw the line on what is classed as a dangerous breed, in reponse to this point..

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.

FC, you are fast becoming the Ted Hutchinson of the pet forums.

thats brilliant, thanks, I may just have to make that my signature!!! I would be proud to have reached the legendary status of the famous Mr H.:beer:

Mely

Its RIDICULOUS to compare a Springer spaniel to a Rottweiller and such type breeds! In fact there is NO comparison!

orlao

Mely wrote: »

Its RIDICULOUS to compare a Springer spaniel to a Rottweiller and such type breeds! In fact there is NO comparison!

Both working breeds, both needing high value stimulation/occupation, both strongwilled, both very very bouncy:p both soft mouthed ( my rott has had toys since he was a pup with no damage to them and can carry an egg without breaking it, my terriers shred any soft toy in minutes) both very trainable (unlike, for instance the average beagle or bulldog;) ) the only real difference is size and the types of job they were bred to do.....in all honesty there are very few dogs still doing the jobs they were originally bred to do!

foreign_correspondent

Mely wrote: »

Its RIDICULOUS to compare a Springer spaniel to a Rottweiller and such type breeds! In fact there is NO comparison!

back to the capitals and histrionics..

It is not ridiculous, but it does point up the difficulty of deciding what a "dangerous" dog is.

Assuming all spaniels are safe and harmless is about as logical as assuming all rottweilers and german shepherds are dangerous and vicious!