Very interesting article- Rottie attacks

Not sure if its been posted before but I found it most interesting and it kind of sums up what most of us are thinking!!

Rottweiler Attacks: Muzzle Them, Ban Them, Destroy Them - Here's an Idea - Why Not Train Them?

When they get it right on animals (and they often do) we’re the first inline to pat them on the back and pay credit to Britain’s largest selling daily newspaper. But just lately they’ve got it so wrong something needs to be said.

The Sun’s campaign to highlight animal cruelty was noble. They dedicated entire front pages to the issue of animal neglect and campaigned to stamp out cruelty. They are a largely influential newspaper.

In the wake of the two tragic Rottweiler attacks over the past week The Sun have been slavishly sticking to the good old tabloid principle of using language such as ‘devil dogs’, ‘raging beasts’ and so on. Today especially, The Sun have got it totally and utterly wrong. Their stance will achieve nothing for the victims of dog attacks and certainly nothing for dogs.

Today The Sun tells us their position on ‘devil dogs’. “Muzzle Them”, they bellow. So, are we to assume The Sun wants all Rottweilers muzzled all of the time rather than just in public?

What is The Sun’s view on Rottweiler crosses? How do they want to legislate against dogs who are ‘a bit’ Rottweilerish?

What about the dogs of a similar size, all of whom are equally capable of causing serious damage to people, the Doberman, the Anatolian Shepherd, the Leonberger, the GSD, the Belgian Shepherd, the Japanese Akita and what about the nation’s favourite dog, the Labrador - you know - the one responsible for a fully grown, adult woman who had to receive the world’s first face transplant this year? What about them? Should ALL dogs simply be muzzled at all times, surely that’s the logic at play here?

No, this is the EXACT type of kneejerk response that would solve absolutely NOTHING.

Pit Bulls were banned - whether you believe rightly or wrongly - so surely we should be safer from dog attack, yes? Well no actually, Home Office statistics reveal dog attacks on the up and the reason dangerous dogs are on the agenda again is because a child has died.

So let’s muzzle the Rottweiler. What happens then?

Well, apart from subjecting the many thousands of Rottweilers who haven’t done a damn thing to a single person and have been found guilty by association , condemned to a life of misery, walking around with their muzzles on 24/7, they would inevitably become a less popular breed.

Owners who want a large, sturdy, reliable dog to share their home with and yes, offer a degree of home security, would find themselves opting for a dog who they didn’t have to witness living in misery thanks to a muzzling order and who wouldn’t be the cause of abuse from misguided non dog owners, convinced that Rottweiler ownership is only one notch worse than paedophillia. Other breeds will take their place in the popularity stakes.

Let’s take ourselves forward 20 years. No more Rottweilers, no more Pit Bulls. We’re all completely safe from dog attacks now surely? Of course we’re not and it’s ridiculous, incompetent and downright opportunistic to think otherwise. Where the Rottweiler once sat will be the Mastiff, the American Bulldog, the Ridgeback or other dog of similar size and stature. Take your pick, which is the one who’ll be responsible for the next title of ‘devil dog’?

We need education not legislation. We need to ensure that this vicious cycle of the wrong dogs getting into the hands of the wrong owners stops. We need to ensure people not only fully understand their obligations as a dog owner (of ANY type) we need to ensure people ARE DUTY BOUND to comply with their responsibilities. We need a dog ownership screening test.

We can legislate to high heaven. We can get down to a situation where we’re only allowed to keep dogs of a certain size. We can all just decide that the risk of keeping dogs is to high. Let's remind ourselves that a death by dog attack, as absolutely tragic, appaling and stomach churning as it is, is an isolated incident. It IS still rare.

If dogs were killing people week in week out, we’d be in a different position.

The fact is, they’re not. Electricity is though, cars are, smoking is, drinking is - should we ban it all or should we take the view that, by and large, these things co-exist with us in normal society and in many cases they enance people’s lives. Yes, there are dangers. Yes, lack of care can cause accidents to happen. But simply banning or imposing ill thought out restrictions won’t cure the problem and we’ll have learned nothing.

Let’s get this one right. There is an opportunity to make something positive happen from a truly tragic week. Dog ownership tests WILL have a positive effect. Banning orders, muzzling and breed legislation wont. We’ve already proved that haven’t we?"

Article taken from K9 Magazine.com

you go girl you lay it down I personally feel its the owners who are wrong, from what I have read on another forum the first attack which killed the child the dogs were not in the best of conditions and the owner of the dogs children were running the pub for him while he was on holiday and they left the gate unlocked my mind wonders why was there no adult up stairs looking after this child even though she was sleeping surely a responsible adult mother or father would be, in the flat while the child slept in case of an emergency in the flat but no apparently both parents were down in the pub!!! the second incident the mother of the child bitten was a childminder well her registration should be taken away she endangered her own childs life by allowing it to walk to grannies house knowing the dog was aggressive, the granny should never have owned a dog like that if she could not control it and chaining a dog up as powerful as that with only rope is ludicrous, why not have a special kennel and run for him when children are coming to the house to put him in!!! also apparently the child was walking up to the house on its own no one saw what he did to the dog to make him so aggravated to the point of him snapping the rope and lunging and biting the child, were is the responsibilty of the parent again in this case, why is it children and adults can get away with what they have done to hurt, abuse, neglect animals but when an animal uses its only defense its mouth it is instantly branded a vicious devil dog that must be destoyed.

FACT: the breed responsible for the largest number of dog bites/attacks in the UK is the Labrador. But those rairly get reported in the tabloid press.

These "attacks" intrigue me. Maybe it's just me, but I seem to feel that they often happen in spates.

My theory is that, because of the usually very high profile, and equally sensational media coverage they receive, they become, to a large extent, like self-fulfilling prophecies.

What I mean by that is on Monday night, sometimes quite graphic images are shown on the television, and rightly, parents get concerned, and possibly think about that "Rottie down the road", and how they have to pass it on the way to taking their child to school tomorrow.

Tuesday comes, that parent walks their child to school, they possibly over-react to the mere presence of the rottie and the rottie, in response, also becomes agitated, and so on it goes.

Now, I don't feel that in any way excuses it. It doesn't. But I do feel there has to be a reason why they frequently seem to happen like chained events, shortly after one another.

DobieGirl, fantastic piece, thanks for posting it :smt001

You have hit the nail squarely on the head there. From my own experience with my human aggressive doglet, other peoples reactions absolutely did cause him worry.
Picking up on this, I made him a lightweight dog coat and put the words ` IN TRAINING` on both sides so it could be read at a distance. Because of that, people on walks actually asked what he was in training for. If they looked `iffy`, I simply said Protection Training, [ as he would be barking at them anyway ], so that they did`nt get any ideas if I was alone and felt at all vulnerable, but those who seemed genuine, [ the overwhelming majority ], gave me the opportunity to explain about his horrific abuse at which they relaxed and were on his side, so the way he `read` them was far less stressful for him and many became very good friends who he came to absolutely adore, looking forward to being fussed by them and smothering them with [ rock solid safe ], wiggly wags and doggy kisses.

That simple lettering on his coat made all the difference in peoples perceptions of him. When they relaxed, he relaxed. So from personal experience, I believe you are absolutely right. The media instills fear in people who have probably never particularly noticed before that every day they for the last however many years they have walked past a ` demon dog` as the press sickeningly calls them, and their sudden physical reactions of suspicion and avoidance is bound to have a knock on effect, not only in the dogs concerned but in the handlers too.
Some dogs owners have been egged from speeding cars and given other abuse simply for minding their own business walking their dogs. If the owner tenses up as well because of other peoples reactions, that adds all the more to unnerving the dogs so between that and the publics often silly reactions, it increases the chance of something happening, and that is imo, directly down to the idiot media elements who are out to crucify dogs for the sake of a headline.

Bizarre, I was actually thinking about this the other night, and how it might alter peoples perceptions. As you know, I have a GSD, and while they don't quite have the reputation of the Rottie, they have sufficient for some people to react in such a way that could encourage any dog, let alone a GSD or Rottie, to react in a negative manner.

I think you might have actually just encouraged me to take the step now and see what changes. If for no other reason than I'm fascinated with how people interact with dogs under different circumstances.

Chess, my white GSD, for example, still a GSD, and so, in theory, still subject to the misconceptions that people have about them. And yet, it was usually a struggle for me to get from a to b with him, due to the number of people who just wanted to stroke him!

Interesting...

Please do report back on this, it would be interesting to see if you get the same sort of positive responses as my lad got
Even those who did not actually say anything still reacted well by not wanting to `interfere` with a dogs training so gave us space even when they did not know what was what with him. They seemed to be much more relaxed on seeing him than they might have been without the coat giving them clear indication that he was not `just a norty dog` as it were.

I made his coat from an orange Kagoul, and it did look like a `formal` working dog type coat, [ it might not have had the required effect otherwise ], and because of its `look`
I do think it had an initial positive subliminal effect as so many people are familiar with guide dogs and SAR dogs wearing a coat with wording, and those dogs are considered as literally `the best of the best` in terms of being mans best friends :smt001
There really was method to my madness

i have had similar reactions wiht the same group of people, i used to walk my now passed over bitch to school and back and in the winter she would wear a high vis harness by boett
and the reaction in the winter was completly different even though i had walked the same dog all year

Again similar experience of them thinking i was training - i never bothered to correct them xx

http://www.boett.com/site/page/394?cNode=26

please remove if unsuitable