UK only. should Rotweillers be on the Dangerous Dogs act?

Question

Another attack on a member of the public by a Rotweiller recently. There have been a few attacks by Rotweillers over the past few months, and in quick sucession. I know that all dogs are capible of attacking, but some dogs are more dangerous than others. That's why the Government passed the Dangerous Dogs Act; to control the more dangerous breeds.

Thsi increase in attacks suggests to me that Rotweillers are dangerous breeds. I think they should be on the Dangerous Dogs act, but what do you think?

Answer 1

All dogs can attack...obviously the bigger the dog...the more damage done to the victim.
Rather than penalize the dog...its dog owners that need to be having some kind of licence to own a dog in the first place...the licence should only be given when the prospective owners have been properly informed & trained to be a dog owner & proven that they can meet the requirements.

All dogs should be kept on a lead...

I actually own a 3 yr old Rottweiler & wouldn't dream of taking him out without a harness on. He actually walks much better without any kind of restraint but in the interest of others I wouldn't walk him in public places without allowing others to see that I have full control of him...people can be quite nervous when seeing a large dog coming towards them & obviously children play & scream sometimes in the streets...if a dog isn't kept under control then they can easily feel it's play time for them too & want to go & join in. I don't think it's very nice to walk a dog without any kind of restraint on it where you know kids are going to be frightened or parents are going to be nervous....
Yes by all means train the dog well but that's not really effective until the owner is trained as well. Which should actually involve all family members in whom the dog lives...they all need to be accountable.
I have little ones coming to my house at times & will always watch that they are taught not to tease or badger my dog...that includes older kids as well. I would never assume that I can leave any dog alone with a child...whatever the breed...I never assume that my dog will never "turn" ...to think that way is irresponsible & stupid

As for when the dog is at home with the family....surely these owners must have had some kind of warning signs somewhere that the dog isn't the most socially acceptable...some alarm bells somewhere must have gone off...however small.

The trouble with "dangerous" dogs is that many will choose these breeds for that reason...without really knowing what they are actually taking on. In cases like this you get a dog owner without proper control of a killing machine.

There are a lot of humans that should have the dangerous human act slapped on them too.

I don’t like to think my dog should be muzzled but….I wouldn’t have a problem of making my dog wear a muzzle if that’s what the law required while walking him out in public….but to be realistic if it’s not trained properly to be socially acceptable both with humans & other dogs/cats etc then it’s not going to stop all attacks because many of these attacks take place at home….you can’t keep a dog muzzled at all times.
If it's in public interest to brand this breed of dog as a dangerous breed....then so be it. Better that than to have more attacks taking place.
But remember, it's not the animals that are "bad" it's the owners...
No dog "turns" for no reason......unfortunately though the attack can take place on a person that hasn't actually done anything wrong to the dog personally.
These dogs are NOT bred for fighting...but they are very protective towards their owners & will if they feel they need to....fight to the death in order to protect them....

Answer 2

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was rushed through parliament in response to newspaper headlines about dog attacks.

Banning certain breeds/types has had little if any effect. The breeding of APBTs, Tosas and hybrids of them continues today in fighting rings. It has not stopped.

In the area I live, there are at least 2 APBT type dogs. Each is exceptionally friendly and well socialised with both people and other dogs, neither is muzzled when out on walks (as the law states they should be), one is regularly walked unmuzzled, sometimes off-lead (although fenced in) by a boy of 13 (again, contravenes the law).

The point I'm making is, that apart from the law being shown to be needless - it has not solved the problem.

If breed-specific legislation was effective, then the pitbull that attacked Ellie Lawrenson on New Years Day would never have been in a position to do so.

Whatever your thoughts on rottweilers, breed specific legislation has so far had no effect other than to demonise a breed purely based on its looks, and to unnecessarily frighten the public.

Answer 3

The dangerous dog act has shown it doesnt work, the dogs listed are supposed to be wiped out and not allowed to breed which is not happening as has been seen with regards to all the pitbulls being seized lately. They are lovely animals and if in the right hands great companions but I personally think they should not be raised with other large breeds as they begin to form a pack and will often behave in an unsociable way, knowing the ones I have owned they are loyal and friendly good guard dogs in the home although still good outdoors. As with all breeds it is the way they are raised that affects their adult behaviour.I am sorry for the young boy attacked by the three rotties the other day I can't even imagine how terrified he must have been but that is an example of the pack behaviour I mentioned.

Answer 4

Banning Pit Bulls would be like banning cars because people get killed in car accidents! Who's responsible, the car or the driver/manufacturer? Any car can be deadly in the wrong hands or if built with defective parts. Same thing with dogs... Any dog. Pit Bulls are no more responsible for the way they are bred, raised and trained, than cars are responsible for the way they are designed, built and driven. Simply put, the best argument against breed bans is that they are costly and ineffective. Breed bans are often a knee-jerk reaction from politicians who want to say they are "doing something", after a highly publicized dog attack (of any breed). This is a useless exercise. Criminals habitually break laws, so having an "illegal breed" may indeed be attractive to them and might make them want to breed and sell more "illegal dogs". If their dog is confiscated and killed, they really don't care. They will just get another one because breed bans punish the dog, not the owner. BSL is a flawed concept from the moment it is conceived. In most cases the dogs are targeted leaving the owner, which is the responsible, rational thinking party, out of it. Some impose fines along with their laws but are often not enforced to the maximum so the owner gets away with a slap on the wrist. Dogs are not the problem and BSL does not reconize this. People are the problem and until we find a way to punish people for their neglectful actions which allow dogs to bite and terrorize the public we will never stop the problem. First problem is, take one breed away, these people will find another breed to replace it. Since the APBT bans the Rottweiler is now on the rise as the most popular breed. Now these dogs are taking heat from the general public and the BSL supporters. Again they are restricting the dogs and not the people. BSL can be compared to gender profiling or racial profiling. Simply because a dog appears to be a dog on the restricted list it is treated as one. What if you were driving down the road and the police took you to jail, sentenced you, and placed you on death row just for looking like a certain ethnic group? BSL does exactly that to dogs. So why is it then that more BSL laws are implemented daily? God forbid a person have to take responsibility for their irresponsible actions and BSL supports these people by not placing very harsh punishments on them.

Answer 5

No they shouldn't, and as many people have said before it is how the owner has brought up their dog. A breed such as the Rottweiler should not have guarding traits taught into it as it is a natural protector, and in doing so can make the dog more aggresive.

They were originally bred as working dogs, to herd and haul, not to kill as many people think. Their size and strength was used for pulling meat and goods for their owners, and remained loyal as they should be to them, as they do to this day.

Any dog when left alone with children may attack because young children like to poke and prod and annoy animals becasue they are unaware of the concequences. Any good parent/guardian who has dogs, should know this and not leave them alone, not because they can't trust the dog, but because you should never trust the child not to mess around with it.

I have two rottweilers who are gentle giants and becasue they have been brought up well, behave beautifully. I also have a cocker spaniel; and all three would only attack if they felt that they were in danger, or if I and their home/territory was in jeopardy.

Any good dog owner should also know that whilst walking such a powerful animal, that it must be kept on the lead/harness at all times, so as not to intimidate others because as many people know a dog can sense how people are feeling and will react to this.

Answer 6

I am not so sure. I have known rot's that were nothing but teddy bears. Really, I think the behavior falls back to how the dog was raised as a puppy. I know that not all bad dogs were raised bad (I have a dog that bites when away from home myself) but any breed of dog can be an aggressive dog and capible of attack. It takes responsible pet owners to keep this under control not the government. Just like most things, if you take it away from the law abiding citizens the only ones who have them will be the ones that the law was trying to take them away from in the first place.

Those of you that are saying yes, do you have any experience at all with dogs or do you just not like them because of what people say about them.

Answer 7

No dogs are dangerous, its all in the way they are brought up and trained. I have been brought up with dogs all my life, all of them have been big, power full dogs ( GSD, Japanese Akita, Lurches, Boxers and various bull terrier breeds) and none of them have been vicious. Where the problem begins is from where any Muppet is allowed to own and breed dogs. Some people want a big dog as a guard dog but instead of having it trained by a professional so it knows when and how to attack, and who not to attack (IE children) then they just make it vicious by being evil towards it.

Answer 8

I own a fantastic Rottweiler who is well trained and a great family pet.I feel that small dogs snap alot more then the large breeds but you dont hear about this so much as a small dog can not do as much damage as what a large dog will do.But at the end of the day i am responsible for my dog and to make sure she is not going to cause harm to anyone or anything. I dont feel they need to go on the dangerous dogs act but may be some owners should be .

Answer 9

The breeds are not dangerous, the training the owners give them is. You could train a mutt to be an attack dog, if you got him as a pup.

It's not fair to Rottweilers just as the laws in the states about pit bulls are not fair. Yes, that is the breed most often trained for fighting. But it is the training, not the breed, that is at issue. Raise a pit bull from a pup to be a gentle pet, and he will be. But people will still look at him all hairy-eyed, assuming he must be dangerous.

Rotties are very sweet, obedient dogs when well-trained, and you could leave a well-trained rottie to guard your infant without a care in the world.

Answer 10

Like u said any dog can bite.Its down to the people to buy them off reprable breeders and not back yard breeders i have a 3 year old rotty and he is the most loving dog ive ever had. so to your question i think you put these bad owners under the dangerous act insted.