Ban The Rottie Poll...

[Sunrise08]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

I voted No it is a terrible event that happened and i really feel for the family, but you cant tarnish every rottie with the same brush.

 

[beaker]

i voted no (twice now )

i know it's a terrible tragedy, i know i shouldn't judge others

but as soon as i heard the words "the dog was chained up in the yard"

i couldn't help but cringe

 

[Strike Whippets]

I have voted .....I think they are a wonderful breed and if I had room I'd love a Rottie ........Golden retrievers bite/attack more people annually than any other breed :- "

 

[melanie]

iv voted no :thumbsup:

i worked at some stables many years ago, they had rotties there, they were lovely dogs :wub:

 

[bezza]

I love dogs but I cannot defend the unregulated ownership of dog breeds that are powerful enough to kill children and are repeatedly implicated in serious and /or fatal attacks. An application for a firearm involves a doctor's report ,with particular reference to the psychological health of the applicant. If granted, a firearms certificate requires the owner of the firearm to provide a secure place to store the firearm.The same sorts of regulation should apply to dogs.Surely the law should be tightened to ensure that powerful dogs are not owned by lunatics or kept in unregulated/insecure accomodation.

In my opinion,powerful dogs(there's probably a good case to include all dogs) should be muzzled in public places and owners should be required by law to take out insurance on each dog they own. The law should be tightened so that a person who owns a dog which attacks a human being faces a lengthy term of imprisonment.

Personally I am fed up to the back teeth of people who argue that they have known a rottie or a bull breed which is as gentle as a lamb and therefore maintain that all dogs are somehow angelic creatures which only become aggressive because some bad person has mistreated thrm. It's a fairy story. Face the facts :SOME BREEDS ARE INHERENTLY MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN OTHERS AND THE LAW NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED SO THAT NO MORE CHILDREN ARE MAULED TO DEATH IN EXCRUCIATING PAIN.

PS IN THE ABSENCE OF A MEANS FOR VOTING FOR TIGHTER REGULATION AS OUTLINED ABOVE-I VOTED YES. I FULLY EXPECT THE WRATH OF BREED BLIND PEOPLE TO BE DIRECTED MY WAY.

 

[Karenhb]

I love dogs but I cannot defend the unregulated ownership of dog breeds that are powerful enough to kill children and are repeatedly implicated in serious and /or fatal attacks. An application for a firearm involves a doctor's report ,with particular reference to the psychological health of the applicant. If granted,  a firearms certificate requires the owner of the firearm to provide a secure place to store the firearm.The same sorts of regulation should apply to dogs.Surely the law should be tightened to ensure that powerful dogs are not owned by lunatics or kept in  unregulated/insecure accomodation.In my opinion,powerful dogs(there's probably a good case to include all dogs) should be muzzled in public places and owners should be required by law to take out insurance on each dog they own. The law should be tightened so that a person who owns a dog which attacks a human being faces a lengthy term of imprisonment.

Personally I am fed up to the back teeth of people who argue that they have known a rottie or a bull breed which is as gentle as a lamb and therefore maintain that all dogs are somehow angelic creatures which only become aggressive because some bad person has mistreated thrm. It's a fairy story. Face the facts :SOME BREED ARE INHERENTLY MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN OTHERS AND THE LAW NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED SO THAT NO MORE CHILDREN ARE MAULED TO DEATH IN EXCRUCIATING PAIN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Bezza, You have made a valid point but I think the whole point of this thread is to vote if you "do not want to see the demise of this wonderful breed due to the actions of some very negligent owners" .... no-one is saying that all dogs are angelic creatures, probably most of us have known an unduly agressive dog and nobody wants children mauled to death - I think it`s more that we are just objecting to a knee-jerk, generalised gesture like "Ban all Rottweilers" :unsure:

 

[BlueNoise]

Done :thumbsup:

 

[oakmoorehill]

this is my brother with my 1 year old rottie 8 months at the time and another pic with my sister and my rottie george. Weve had rotties since i was a baby and im a teenager now and never had one even growl at enyone. we also have georges sister mildred who is ov the same temperement. here is the picz

)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Good looking Dogs - Welcome to K9!

Rotties are great dogs as long as you understand their power, they are well bred and sensibly cared for

Yours look lovely Wiggy Junior - so are your siblings :wub:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I voted no too

And having had the pleasre of meetting Wiggy- junior's rotties I can definitely say the only thing I was in danger of was being licked to death

 

[clairej810]

I voted no too. It's not the poor dog's fault. Why on earth was a young teenager left in charge of a very large dog and several very small children in the first place?

 

[Evie]

I love dogs but I cannot defend the unregulated ownership of dog breeds that are powerful enough to kill children and are repeatedly implicated in serious and /or fatal attacks. An application for a firearm involves a doctor's report ,with particular reference to the psychological health of the applicant. If granted,  a firearms certificate requires the owner of the firearm to provide a secure place to store the firearm.The same sorts of regulation should apply to dogs.Surely the law should be tightened to ensure that powerful dogs are not owned by lunatics or kept in  unregulated/insecure accomodation.In my opinion,powerful dogs(there's probably a good case to include all dogs) should be muzzled in public places and owners should be required by law to take out insurance on each dog they own. The law should be tightened so that a person who owns a dog which attacks a human being faces a lengthy term of imprisonment.

Personally I am fed up to the back teeth of people who argue that they have known a rottie or a bull breed which is as gentle as a lamb and therefore maintain that all dogs are somehow angelic creatures which only become aggressive because some bad person has mistreated thrm. It's a fairy story. Face the facts :SOME BREED ARE INHERENTLY MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN OTHERS AND THE LAW NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED SO THAT NO MORE CHILDREN ARE MAULED TO DEATH IN EXCRUCIATING PAIN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Bezza, You have made a valid point but I think the whole point of this thread is to vote if you "do not want to see the demise of this wonderful breed due to the actions of some very negligent owners" .... no-one is saying that all dogs are angelic creatures, probably most of us have known an unduly agressive dog and nobody wants children mauled to death - I think it`s more that we are just objecting to a knee-jerk, generalised gesture like "Ban all Rottweilers" :unsure:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Couldn't have put it better myself Karen. :thumbsup:

Of course this poll won't have any real effet on laws etc...only to hopefully change the mind of the gutter press and the tripe they spew forth....

For anything real to happen we all need to be writing to our local MP members to voice or thoughts on such matters. It's the owners that need to be targeted; not the animals. The animals are often victims also at the hands of neglectful owners.

 

[bezza]

Sorry, I think those that voted 'no' are lacking in social responsibilty and just general empathy. I don't think the 'no' people can empathise on even the most basic level with the families of those children torn to pieces by these dogs. I remember a case some 20 years ago when two rotties mauled a Scotish child to death. The parents of the dead child tried to introduce a law which would require the muzzling of all powerful dogs at large in public places. They were rewarded by hundreds of vicious crank letters from rottweiller owners and even had their child's gravestone repeatedly vandalised with vile graffiti to the effect that the child had got what she deserved. I have said what I want say on this matter and don't want to debate the matter any further.

 

[FeeFee]

Sorry, I think those that voted 'no' are lacking in social responsibilty and just general empathy. I don't think the 'no' people can empathise on even the most basic level with the families of those children torn to pieces by these dogs. I remember a case some 20 years ago when two rotties mauled a Scotish child to death. The parents of the dead child tried to introduce a law which would require the muzzling of all powerful dogs at large in public places. They were rewarded by hundreds of vicious crank letters from rottweiller owners and even had their child's gravestone repeatedly vandalised with vile graffiti to the effect that the child had got what she deserved. I have said what I want say on this matter and don't want to debate the matter any further.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

But surely the problem with muzzling in public is that these attacks tend not to happen in public places?

In this latest case the dog lived chained up outside, wasn't socialised with the family then came into unsupervised contact with two small children.

The two rotties who so tragically killed the child in the pub were dogs known to be vicious who were kept out on the roof as guard dogs. They gained access to a sleeping child when a door was accidentally left open.

The Pit Bull who killed the little girl last year was kept outside, regularly kicked, punched and abused by his owner and then let into the house with a small child by a grandmother who was under the influence of drink and prescription drugs. This was an 'illegal' dog anyway, so banning a breed didn't prevent tragedy in this case.

Nobody is arguing that these are tragedies, the loss of young lives is a most dreadful thing, and as a parent myself I totally resent the statement that I am lacking in empathy for the children and families involved.

I also think, though, that these were completely preventable tragedies that were the responsibility of the humans that owned these particular dogs, not something that should be seen as typical of the breeds as a whole.

I have a friend who was very nearly killed by a labrador, and apparently the largest number of reported bites are by labs and collies. Should we ban them too?

The problem is that some people will always want dogs for all the wrong reasons. If we ban one breed, these people will simply move to another breed. Ban that too and so it goes on until nobody is allowed to own anything bigger than a chihuahua.

I am, by the way, totally in favour of more control of dog ownership for ALL dogs. There are far too many dogs of all breeds owned by complete morons.

 

[posh totty]

bring back the dog licence, enforce the laws!! banning a breed will only raise the black market price and the only dogs wanted will be the bad tempered ones!!! there should be suitable deterents set out in law also for those whom allow aggressive dogs in the community

 

[Joanna]

Dog article Guardian

An interesting article written after last year's Rottweiler attack on a child. It just about says it all.

The two very interesting points I thought were, firstly, no-one has ever collated stastics about breeds and biting, this could easily be achieved by taking that information in A and E. The Government already monitor certain types of injury stastics from these records and it could either confirm or dispel preconceived ideas about breeds.

Secondly, the fact that there are less dog bites today than when the dangerous dogs act was introduced, is it that potentially dangerous breeds aren't socialised and confined?

I can't see a ban on rotties achieving any-thing, sadly, it is the owners who are generally at fault and we can't ban them :- "

 

[pepa]

voted no again :thumbsup:

 

[parksie]

There are no bad dogs just bad owners.!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that there should be some sort of license to own such a dog. I do empathise with the parents and family of the mauled victim, but not all dogs are the same. To say that certain dogs should be banned, we all need to be careful with every breed of dog as they all potentially have it in them to bite someone. It is the owners of the dog who are responsible, ie. you should take into consideration what the dog is bred for originally. whether you can cope with that kind of dog and whether or not you have the expertise or know how to care for such dogs.

 

[wilfred]

Sorry, I think those that voted 'no' are lacking in social responsibilty and just general empathy. I don't think the 'no' people can empathise on even the most basic level with the families of those children torn to pieces by these dogs. I remember a case some 20 years ago when two rotties mauled a Scotish child to death. The parents of the dead child tried to introduce a law which would require the muzzling of all powerful dogs at large in public places. They were rewarded by hundreds of vicious crank letters from rottweiller owners and even had their child's gravestone repeatedly vandalised with vile graffiti to the effect that the child had got what she deserved. I have said what I want say on this matter and don't want to debate the matter any further.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

But surely the problem with muzzling in public is that these attacks tend not to happen in public places?

In this latest case the dog lived chained up outside, wasn't socialised with the family then came into unsupervised contact with two small children.

The two rotties who so tragically killed the child in the pub were dogs known to be vicious who were kept out on the roof as guard dogs. They gained access to a sleeping child when a door was accidentally left open.

The Pit Bull who killed the little girl last year was kept outside, regularly kicked, punched and abused by his owner and then let into the house with a small child by a grandmother who was under the influence of drink and prescription drugs. This was an 'illegal' dog anyway, so banning a breed didn't prevent tragedy in this case.

Nobody is arguing that these are tragedies, the loss of young lives is a most dreadful thing, and as a parent myself I totally resent the statement that I am lacking in empathy for the children and families involved.

I also think, though, that these were completely preventable tragedies that were the responsibility of the humans that owned these particular dogs, not something that should be seen as typical of the breeds as a whole.

I have a friend who was very nearly killed by a labrador, and apparently the largest number of reported bites are by labs and collies. Should we ban them too?

The problem is that some people will always want dogs for all the wrong reasons. If we ban one breed, these people will simply move to another breed. Ban that too and so it goes on until nobody is allowed to own anything bigger than a chihuahua.

I am, by the way, totally in favour of more control of dog ownership for ALL dogs. There are far too many dogs of all breeds owned by complete morons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Thank you, FeeFee for saying it far more eloquently than I could at the moment (due to extreme over-tiredness!).

I too think there should be far greater control over dog ownership for the reasons outlined above.

 

[pollyanna]

Has the poll closed? I could only find one relating to fuel prices at the side?? Is that it? I didn't vote in case it wasn't. Please tell this thickie where the poll is please?? (w00t)

 

[Evie]

Has the poll closed?  I could only find one relating to fuel prices at the side??  Is that it?  I didn't vote in case it wasn't.  Please tell this thickie where the poll is please??  (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Just before closing the poll was at 72% against the ban..... I wonder if they will ever publish the results? :- "

Funny how they close these things early when they don't get the results they wanted....