scoobypaul_temp

iTrader: (2)

Agree 100%

dpb

Should be poss now you have to have a license ...

Turbohot

LOL, very amusing.


I wonder if it has a little to do with the dog having its own, sometimes, an unpredictable brain and own life, whereas a car is a lifeless object; totally in control of the human driver? Therefore, more liability hence more punishment for the perpetrator driver?

I'm not saying that it should be any less for any stupid dog owner who can't control his/her dog and gets others mauled by it. I'm just working out as to why it may be less; as opposed to the penalty for a dangerous, killer driver.

Devildog

I thought all you UKIP/Britain First types loved to swagger about with your hard man "bull" breeds on leather studded harnesses embellished with union flags?







Oh, sorry, am I stereotyping like a retarded ****? Best not do that...eh?

Devildog

Of course a car is a lifeless object and has no control over its actions. And all joking aside, the two are quite different. The problem is if you ban more breeds, those who are responsble for the few bad dogs out there (and lets get this into perspective, its just a few) will still seek out, breed and keep the banned ones. Its happening now, and banning more isn't going to change that. The UK isn't sifficiently resourced to police the existing breed ban, let alone extending it to more. More breeds = more confusion.

Breed a lab with a staff and you can get something that looks like a (banned) pit. But it isn't.

The only way to be 100% sure is to ban all dogs. Period. And anyone with half an ounce of rational thought knows that's not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

The dangerous dog legislation was rushed in as a knee jerk reaction to events at that time. Most of the banned breeds were so rare anyway as to meke their inclusion laughable. It could, and should, have been so much better.

Finally its changing to focus on the owner's responsibility and not the dog. A dangerous dog is a dangerous dog irrespective of breed. Yes, certain breeds have more bite strength than others, but should that really be a measure of how "dangerous" they are? Should they be banned just of that?

In here, you'll find attacks by bull breeds, but also terriers, a malamute and a collie cross - none of which are known for bite strength.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-death-8664766

There is also much misinformation in that regard too. GSDs have been shown to have slightly higher bite strength than pit bulls on average. But no one calls for GSDs to be banned for being bred to have massively strong jaws.

Incidentally, boxers, St Bernards, newfoundlands, british bulldogs (the short, fat ones), Bernese Mountain dogs and many others are also categorised as having high bite strength due to jaw size, type and muscularity. Can't see them being added to the banned list for jaw strength either.

We need to get a sense of perspective on all of this. Make the penalties for being a d1ckhead wannabee gangsta dog owner so punative that those types take note. And keep moving in the right direction - behaviour not breed.

Apologies if this comes across as me being a, how did Ditchy put it again, ah yes a "pompus self rigtheous superior 4r$ehole that thinks he knows it all"

Having owned Rotties for 20 years I've come across all types of stereotyping, prejudice and misinformation so it pays to know a bit about the subject in hand

(and in the spirit of good humour, I've amended my profile to suit)

Uncle Creepy

Gotta be a stoner!

I agree, but you're assuming knuckle-dragging mongs think like responsible, intelligent people. So many people get dogs without even considering whether they have the financial means to pay for necessary vet bills. If they're unable to realise something this obvious, I highly doubt they'll research sentences for irresponsible ownership and that this will then affect their decision to obtain or walk the streets with the dog.

Yes, you are!

ZANY

Totally agree with you 100%

Devildog

I hope my intentional stereotyping wasn't lost on you UC

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

I doubt it has much to do with that at all. What's more likely is that as a result of prolonged lobbying by friends and families of fatal traffic accident victims (and by other campaign groups), politicians have steadily increased the penalties against dangerous drivers, whereas the same hasn't happened for equally negligen/reckless dog owners. There's no reason that shouldn't change though, if enough people contact their MPs or get together to demand action about it.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

If it puts off even just a handful, that would be a start. For the rest, as I stated in my original post, they can't walk around on the streets with a dangerous dog on tow if they're safely locked up behind bars.

Turbohot

I'm just thinking whether the bite strength, body strength and inherent temperament e.g. 0-to-60 in 4.6 seconds type of factors can be the measures of how dangerous they can be? I don't know, but I'm just wondering, in the light of this thread.

I've read somewhere that recently, somewhere in the U.K., a thug sort of person's Staffy turned on him and killed him. Now Staffy aren't really classed as dangerous 'dangerous', but if mishandled or on over-alerted for some reason, they'd rip yer head off!



Just noticed.

My friend's husband is obsessed with Rotties due to his late mum breeding them when he was a kid. They live in a medium size house in a housing estate with their 19 YO kid, and have two seriously over-sized Rotties. Whole colony is sh7t-frightened of those dogs, and I, too, wouldn't go to her house any more. Before adopting the Rottie twins, they had a large Collie with a scarf on its neck. My mate told me that once before, one of their previous Rotties (before they got the Collie), who she got on very well with, suddenly turned on her in her husband's absence, and wouldn't let her get out of one room. A hostage situation, basically. When the husband came back, he somehow calmed it, but took it to the forest and shot it. I don't know what happened there. Some sort of mental breakdown experienced by the dog, or something like that.

Devildog

That's a bit like saying a big strong bloke is more dangerous than a small one because if he hit you it could be lights out.

A properly brought up [insert any breed here] will have no "worse" a temprament than any other.


Couple of things.

1) That dog had bitten him before and clearly there were serious owner/dog issues.

2) Swati - please don't fall into the trap of stereotyping Staffies just because there's a few bad ones. As a breed, staffies will not "rip yer head off" if mishandled or over alerted. They are well known for being exeptional family and "nanny" dogs and children are notorious for mishandling and over alerting/exciting dogs generally

I've higlighted the completely unecessary narrative in your comment above (as far as the dogs behavior is concerned)

Its exceptionally rare for a Rottweiler to suddenly turn on one of their owners when the other is away (or for any reason for that matter) They are a very loyal and protective breed.

96sti

You talk how you look mate. What type am i? Because i own two. Just because you don't like them on the street what they should be banned you fool

donny andi

iTrader: (3)

****......I thought I'd logged into mumsnet

RS_Matt

I just fancy free hospital parking tbh.

Turbohot

Ok, that's a learning for me, DD. Thanks.

Still, will this 'properly' differ breed to breed? If so, then, some dogs certainly are more aggressive than others. I may be wrong again in thinking that, but you can cast light on this.




No, not at all, DD. Son has a Staffy that I was terrified of. Now, after 7 years, I am much more relaxed with him than ever before. He's a great dog. I also encompassed 'winding the dog up unnecessarily' like 'rubbing something a wrong way' in my 'mishandling' and 'over-alerted' statements. Surely, that's a wrong thing to do, and can invoke fight-flight response in a dog?



Well, I thought the size of the dwelling would be better correlating with the size of the dog, don't you think? Hardly any space for large dogs to move about, hardly any spacious garden for them to run about. They depend on the owners to take them out for walks, and I'm not sure how good of a walk they get, every day.

Now I can kind of guess why their previous Rottie turned all weird. Perhaps it got fed up of being cooped up. I may be wrong, again. But I think one should consider the dwelling for the size of the dog. One of our friends run kennels and they make sure that the large dogs lived in larger kennel rooms.

Devildog

Move to Scotland. We've had that since 2008. Oh, and we're still in the EU the last time I checked.

dpb

yeah , youll get no that ***t when you decide you want independence haha

dpb

his masters voice . you chopped that domino

Devildog

As far as I know, there are no dog breeds that are by default "aggressive"

Many are more protective than others and some breeds are generally more dominant than others (for want of a better word). Rotties are generally very protective of their co-habitees (I won't use the word pack because pack theory has largely been debunked) their environment, and themselves, for example, but they are not by nature agressive. The problems start where those breed traits are wrongly chanelled by, yep, us humans.

Please don't assume the protective/dominant breeds are all large, powerful breeds.

So yes, there are of course breed "traits", but nurture plays a big part too. Bad behavour can be "learnt" or indeed taught as much as good behavior can.

Yes, of course it's a wrong thing to do, as it is to another human, or any aniimal for that matter. What I was getting at was that kids often don't know they are doing the "wrong" thing yet staffies have a great reputation as "nanny" dogs in the family environment.

As long as the dog is getting an appropriate amount of exercise, then the size of the dwelling is irrelevant. Rotties are in fact quite lazy and don't need as much physical exercise as many other breeds. What they do need when younger is plenty of mental exercise. A small flat provides more free space than a large kennel does, and I've yet to see a kennel room bigger than a standard room in the average house.

There's no point guessing that perhaps the dog got fed up. It could just as easily (and more likely) been illness. Dogs really don't just turn on their owners for no reason, having been fine up until that point. They don't hold grudges and we shouldn't try and project human emotions and responses upon them.

HTH

Devildog

In English please Duncan

domino46

not really sure what you mean mate ? , do you mean iv edited the pic ???? I can honestly say that its all original and iv done no editing at all ,,, she (pink collar) has a habit of jumping in my seat soon as I move ,, she also watches tv a lot more than any other dogs iv seen or owned lol

dpb

Fair enough



we had one like that about twenty years ago also a bitch

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hm...iw=320&bih=492

Turbohot

Ok, thanks for your response DD, and.............

I wouldn't hold much hopes for Duncan talking in plain English. Check out the Pets' pics thread. he has called someone with wonky eyes. You can't make out if he's talking about Matt's cat or about the human who's holding the cat.

I personally think that Duncan is Shakespeare's relative.

RS_Matt

I'd give my left knacker to live in Fort William.

Devildog

EFA