Family dog kills one-year-old boy

nesf

thelastangryman wrote: »

Let me make this clear. A well looked after and cared for dog will be a lovable pet regardless of breed.

A dog from a decent/responsible breeding line, sure.

Genghiz Cohen

This report (PDF) Shows the breeds of dogs that caused fatalities in America between 1979 and 1998, it shows pit bull and rottweiler type dogs, (Pure-Breed and cross) are the most dangrous.

Top 3 shown here:
Death-based approach Dog-based approach
Breed Purebred Crossbred Total Purebred Crossbred Total

Pit bull-type 66 11 76 98 20 118
Rottweiler 39 6 44 60 7 67
German Shepherd Dog 17 11 27 24 17 41
(A bit hard to make out, but it's copied straight from the report)
So Pit bulls and rottweilers ARE more likely to kill people.

peasant

wyk wrote: »

. ..My Komondor would, and has, instantly attacked, and has killed, most anything that came into my property(in Texas) that wasn't there when he grew up or was trained with(such as sheep, friends, and other dogs). ....

The Komondor is a dog I would never think of keeping in a densely populated area, ....

Err, correct me if I'm wrong ...but aren't you keeping said Komondor in Clondalkin now?

Dyr

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

This report (PDF) Shows the breeds of dogs that caused fatalities in America between 1979 and 1998, it shows pit bull and rottweiler type dogs, (Pure-Breed and cross) are the most dangrous.

Top 3 shown here:
Death-based approach Dog-based approach
Breed Purebred Crossbred Total Purebred Crossbred Total

Pit bull-type 66 11 76 98 20 118
Rottweiler 39 6 44 60 7 67
German Shepherd Dog 17 11 27 24 17 41

missed something there.

"We allocated crossbred
dogs into separate breeds and counted them similarly
(eg, if 3 Great Dane-Rottweiler crossbreeds attacked a
person, Great Dane was counted 3 times under crossbred,
and Rottweiler was counted 3 times under crossbred)."

interestingly enough i heard blacks statistically commit more crimes in the US than other groups...follow the logic..

Genghiz Cohen

Bambi wrote: »

"We allocated crossbred
dogs into separate breeds and counted them similarly
(eg, if 3 Great Dane-Rottweiler crossbreeds attacked a
person, Great Dane was counted 3 times under crossbred,
and Rottweiler was counted 3 times under crossbred)."

I think what you're trying to get at is that the numbers don't actually reflect the number of attacks, right? But that only applies to the crossbreed dogs, and in most cases the numbers in the purebreed's column are larger than the crossbreed's column.

Bambi wrote: »

interestingly enough i heard blacks statistically commit more crimes in the US than other groups...follow the logic..

Unless you can find a random PDF file on the internets to back that up.....

:D

thefinalstage

nesf wrote: »

A dog from a decent/responsible breeding line, sure.

Alright, a breed that hasn't had a sister for a mother than.

Demonique

peasant wrote: »

Err, correct me if I'm wrong ...but aren't you keeping said Komondor in Clondalkin now?

Aren't there skangery types living in some parts of Clondalkin? Would it be too much of a tragedy is said Komondor got loose in the skangery areas?


Actually, better still, let it loose in Cabra, there's a little boll*x there called Anto Beane who could do with a good mauling

foxy06

I'm sure pit bulls can make lovely pets when they have good owners but they don't always have good owners. Just like children can turn into lovely adults but they might not have a chance to turn into lovely adults with two scangers for parents. These animals are vicious by nature and any parent that leaves a child in a house with a pitbull or rottweiler under supervision or not is irresponsible tbh.

wyk

peasant wrote: »

Err, correct me if I'm wrong ...but aren't you keeping said Komondor in Clondalkin now?

Though it may be a good idea in Clondalkin, I don't. He is on a farm in Texas, doing his work, as he does. I work at the Greyhound rescues when I can here, and will eventually keep one when I can find a home environment conducive to it. If I find myself living more out in the country, I may keep a guard dog. "Oh my God. Those things are vicious!" <- a response from a Hungarian friend when I mentioned I had a Hungarian Komondor, BTW.

The CDC stats were derived from reports from Veterinarians that worked for the shelters and animal control agencies that took in the dogs after they attack people. As you can see, the amount of attacks by certain dogs that were bred to be guard dogs and fighting dogs is rather high. Another thing to keep in mind is Labradors are, by far, the most popular breed of dog in the US. Something like 2:1 vs the next breed(Yorkshire Terrier) depending on the stats you look at. And the fact they are blamed for about 12X less violent attacks than pit bull types is hard to ignore. Also add in the fact that German Shepherds are 3rd most popular breed in the US, and it is even more interesting that Rotts and pits top the list. While all dogs may have the potential for violence, not all dogs have the ability to dish out the damage a pitbull or a rottweiler can in short order. That's another point worth considering. And don't think it's lost on the authorities that people make it a point to single out owners as bad, VS the breed. Afterall, the law is perfectly capable of singling out ownership and banning that. Afterall, some experts do say it's the owners, as well. So they could have 'expert opinion' backing ownership laws... Hrm....no dogs over 49 lbs allowed in Dublin city centre? That would rule out a lot of guard dogs without having to cite a single breed, and be easily enforced. Be careful whatcha ask for.

I hate to side track, but...

About the blacks committing crimes in the USA; according to the FBI Uniform Crime reports, blacks are arrested at a far higher % rate for violent crimes than all other races. But you can debate just how motivated the arresting officers are when it comes to race, how they qualify a person as being black, etc. Also according to the NAACP, blacks are also convicted at a higher %. And, as a Texan and a Southerner, let me make it clear that racism is alive and well in the US, especially The South - in all forms. The FBI have these stats for city by city, and state by state, as well as by race:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/table_38-43.html#table43a

In 2004, Blacks comprise 13% of the US population, according to the US Census bureau, yet are arrested at a 47.2% rate for murder and manslaughter.
There's the stat you guys were hunting for.

WYK

Dyr

foxy06 wrote: »

These animals are vicious by nature and [\QUOTE]

lollerpalooza, as someone who been on the wrong end of an angry pit more than once i'd take me chances with them over most breeds.

Taters

I think the parents/whoever was looking after the child were partly to blame... Leaving a baby in a room with a vicious dog, I don't think anyone I know would let their child alone in a room with a terrier even!

wyk

Demonique wrote: »

Aren't there skangery types living in some parts of Clondalkin? Would it be too much of a tragedy is said Komondor got loose in the skangery areas?


Actually, better still, let it loose in Cabra, there's a little boll*x there called Anto Beane who could do with a good mauling

While I don't argue I have seen types in this part of town that certainly seem to be in need of a maulin', I still wouldn't keep one here. However, one of the things that keeps Komondors off of the CDC lists, other than it's rarity, is the fact that they do not wander. By nature, and by breeding, they stay close to their homes, people, and flock. Pitbulls, otoh, are quite capable climbers and diggers. Rottweilers are pretty good at knocking down flimsy barriers like your average wooden fence(ask me how I know).

Here's a photo of my last Rottweiler in Texas - he is 140 lbs:

The greyhound here is about 85 lbs.
Here is the same Rott at 125 lbs and about 11 months:
http://www.pbase.com/wyk/image/40757647/large
This is what he does most of the time:
http://www.pbase.com/wyk/image/46828599
He didn't like strangers in the least, btw.

Here's the Komondor completely shaved for the summer, as well as my last Greyhound being taunted for food:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfTa0__MtvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4TRo_0eHFQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC8me578MVw&NR=1

WYK

Dyr

what keeps komondors out of it is pure rarity. How many people would know what one looks like even, or a vizla or a puli? how many are in ireland? a dozen? how many half/mixed breed komondors are out there? zero probably. unlike every mixed bully breed that will get lumped in with pit bulls

nesf

foxy06 wrote: »

These animals are vicious by nature and any parent that leaves a child in a house with a pitbull or rottweiler under supervision or not is irresponsible tbh.

Not for a responsibly bred pitbull or rottweiler. A purebred pitbull or rottweiler from a good breeder isn't a vicious animal by nature any more than a Golden Retriever is. The problem is that there are pitbull/rottweiler crosses/mongrels out there that aren't from good breeders and are potentially dangerous.

wyk

Bambi wrote: »

what keeps komondors out of it is pure rarity. How many people would know what one looks like even, or a vizla or a puli? how many are in ireland? a dozen? how many half/mixed breed komondors are out there? zero probably. unlike every mixed bully breed that will get lumped in with pit bulls

I do recall mentioning the rarity. In The States, mixing Komondors and Great Pyranees is not as rare as you'd think. I see several litters for sale each year. I think there's something to be said for the fact most the breeders state the Pyranees is to make the Komondors more friendly...
There are roughly 1,300 Komondors reigstered in the world(though there are far more than that unregistered). Compare that to something like 12,000 Labradors in the US alone registered with the AKC.

WYK

Intothesea

I think non-specifically educated/aware members of
the public should be discouraged from owning breeds
developed purely for their high intelligence and high
physical stamina. E.g. dedicated pitbull owners are
likely to respect the requirements of these animals
and address them accordingly. A license to anyone
demonstrating the knowledge and skill needed to
bring out the best of these breeds would be a valid
starting point I think. Breed-specific bans would
miss the point and intensify the public's apparent
misjudgement resulting in the outright demonisation
and distruction of many worthwhile animals.

/0.02

arybvtcw0eolkf

Post #34 in this thread is worth reading.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54749027&posted=1#post54749027

PeakOutput

i cant believe peope want to let the parents of scot free its reckless endangerment threw and threw. someone said the have learned their lesson? so ****ing what they deserve to be punished on behalf of the poor child they neglected.

the only problem with these breeds is that they appeal to scumbags who want to look tough and couldnt give a **** that what they are messing with is potentially lethal. these PEOPLE are irresponsible people the dogs are just the extra ingredient for disaster.

some controls should be in place but i see no reason why the majority should be punished for the stupidity of the minority

peasant

Mairt wrote: »

Post #34 in this thread is worth reading.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54749027&posted=1#post54749027

Thanks Mairt

Here it is again, for the AH gen-pop



This is pure speculation now (because I wasn't there) but that Rottweiler needn't have been "viscous" at all for this to happen.

Here's the theoretical scenario:

The grandparents keep the dog mostly in the back garden, he's supposed to guard the property after all. He does get his walks, he gets his food, he's well cared for. Every now and then he's even let inside to lie by the fireside for a while.

When the older kids come around, they are introduced to him and they can pet him under supervision of the grandparents.

Everything is fine, the dog is regarded as docile and that's that.

What the dog doesn't get, is proper training with the kids and taught proper rules how (not to) behave around them.

There probably were several occasions where the seven year old went out to the dog with something in her hands like a toy or a treat to give to the dog or play with him.

On these occassions, it is likely that the dog just snatched whatever the kid had in her hands and ran away with it ...played with it or ate it.

All in good fun ...isn't it hilarious ...

Nobody bothered to correct him for that behaviour ...sure, he's only playing, isn't he ...

So ...in the dogs' mind (because he was let away with it several times) ...whatever that seven year old brought outside was his ...to play with or to eat. And it was his for the taking.

On the night of the tragic accident, the seven year old didn't walk out with a toy or a goodie though ...it was the baby.

The dog doesn't know that (he's probably never "met" the baby before) ...all he sees is his sparring partner with something very interesting in her arms. By habit, this interesting thing is also his to play with ...so he goes for it.
The seven year old most likely pulls the baby away and starts screaming.

Tragically, this is the point where the dog's natural instincts kick in: Something he wants is taken away from him ...there's shouting and excitement ...the "hunt" is on !

What was play to begin with becomes earnest ..he really goes for that poor baby, snatches it and runs away with it.

The baby cries, the other kids shout at him, try to pull the baby away, he even gets beaten by the older kid. The excitement grows, the adrenalin flows fast. So he just holds on tighter.

Whether the dog now has the intention to kill the baby, or whether he just holds it firmly because he regards it as his "toy" and doesn't want to release it is purely academic ...two, three hard bites and the baby is lethally injured.

I'm not saying this is how it happend ...but it could very well have.


Now ...all you dog owners ....think long and hard:

Have you let your dog away with just helping itself to whatever it was it wanted?
Have you had your kids play with the dog and the dog snatched something from them?
Have you taught your dog that snatching something from you or your kids is not allowed?
Do you allow your kids to play tug games with your dog?
Have you taught your dog to release things on command?

Genghiz Cohen

Mairt wrote: »

Post #34 in this thread is worth reading.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54749027&posted=1#post54749027

That seems very very possible, and even a spaniel(some of the friendliest dogs I have ever owned) could be capable of this.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Here's the poor mother's bebo..

http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=636283738

Sparkpea

same thread is here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055207582

arybvtcw0eolkf

Sparkpea wrote: »

same thread is here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055207582

We know, its woof.

Genghiz Cohen

Mairt wrote: »

Here's the poor mother's bebo..

http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=636283738

I can't even read that, if you want to communicate with people you should at least write with standard characters.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I can't even read that, if you want to communicate with people you should at least write with standard characters.

I know, but the mother is a child herself.

Its D way D young 1's spk D's dayz.

Intothesea

It is fair to say that any breed could
potentially carry out the likes of this, but
not many types of dog have the unique
recipe of talents to take it to such a
tragic conclusion, maybe.

My opinion has been informed by owning
and raising a pitbull. It is mostly out of
recognition of their innate capabilities
that I wouldn't recommend that someone who
thinks all dogs are just labradors in different
suits takes one on. Establishing myself as
pack leader over my dog required what I
would think is greater-than-average
mental and physical effort.

For this reason I imagine an everyday approach
(i.e. for less intense breeds) instilling discipline
could result in a response that is technically on
a par with a family-dog breed (as peasant's post
details), but with many times the power involved.

I don't think it would do the public any harm to
recognise the value of these breeds. A little
respect would go a long way, as always.

Just my opinion

Sonnenblumen

peasant wrote: »

Thanks Mairt

Here it is again, for the AH gen-pop



This is pure speculation now (because I wasn't there) but that Rottweiler needn't have been "viscous" at all for this to happen.

Here's the theoretical scenario:

The grandparents keep the dog mostly in the back garden, he's supposed to guard the property after all. He does get his walks, he gets his food, he's well cared for. Every now and then he's even let inside to lie by the fireside for a while.

When the older kids come around, they are introduced to him and they can pet him under supervision of the grandparents.

Everything is fine, the dog is regarded as docile and that's that.

What the dog doesn't get, is proper training with the kids and taught proper rules how (not to) behave around them.

There probably were several occasions where the seven year old went out to the dog with something in her hands like a toy or a treat to give to the dog or play with him.

On these occassions, it is likely that the dog just snatched whatever the kid had in her hands and ran away with it ...played with it or ate it.

All in good fun ...isn't it hilarious ...

Nobody bothered to correct him for that behaviour ...sure, he's only playing, isn't he ...

So ...in the dogs' mind (because he was let away with it several times) ...whatever that seven year old brought outside was his ...to play with or to eat. And it was his for the taking.

On the night of the tragic accident, the seven year old didn't walk out with a toy or a goodie though ...it was the baby.

The dog doesn't know that (he's probably never "met" the baby before) ...all he sees is his sparring partner with something very interesting in her arms. By habit, this interesting thing is also his to play with ...so he goes for it.
The seven year old most likely pulls the baby away and starts screaming.

Tragically, this is the point where the dog's natural instincts kick in: Something he wants is taken away from him ...there's shouting and excitement ...the "hunt" is on !

What was play to begin with becomes earnest ..he really goes for that poor baby, snatches it and runs away with it.

The baby cries, the other kids shout at him, try to pull the baby away, he even gets beaten by the older kid. The excitement grows, the adrenalin flows fast. So he just holds on tighter.

Whether the dog now has the intention to kill the baby, or whether he just holds it firmly because he regards it as his "toy" and doesn't want to release it is purely academic ...two, three hard bites and the baby is lethally injured.

I'm not saying this is how it happend ...but it could very well have.


Now ...all you dog owners ....think long and hard:

Have you let your dog away with just helping itself to whatever it was it wanted?
Have you had your kids play with the dog and the dog snatched something from them?
Have you taught your dog that snatching something from you or your kids is not allowed?
Do you allow your kids to play tug games with your dog?
Have you taught your dog to release things on command?

Is there a Dr Zoolittle methodology for training children?

BaZmO*

I was watching Skynews on the day this happened and they had a some type of expert on dog psychology or behaviour and the reporter was asking the guy questions along the line of, "Aren't these types of the dogs bread purely for violent and aggressive behaviour?" and "Isn't it more likely that these types of dogs will attack humans?"

The reporter didn't seem too happy when his guest was saying that all breeds have a propensity or inherent ability to attack humans. Somehow it didn't seem to correspond to the reporters belief that it's only these big bad breeds that could ever harm anyone.

The expert also went on to say that Labradors are disproportionately represented when it comes to attacks on humans, but I suppose that doesn't sell papers (or ad space).

The fact of the matter is that all dogs have the ability to attack people and it's our responsibility to act accordingly around dogs when it comes to children.

Banning Rotweillers and Pitbulls won't solve this problem. If a dog is brought up badly it will behave accordingly. I always rememeber when growing up there was always at least one dog on the road that was vicious and that dog was normally owned by the psycho family. Go figure....

conzy

thelastangryman wrote: »

Let me make this clear. A well looked after and cared for dog will be a lovable pet regardless of breed.

eh, no.... Large dogs like that are designed to kill, those jaws / teeth aren't for chewing pedigree and whatnot.. Maybe a well looked after Hyena would be a lovable family pet? Or maybe it would eat everyone that weighs less than 5 stone...

amacachi

No-one ever seen the clip of a guy in North Ireland in the 70's who kept a fully grown tiger, took it for walks on a chain, could stop and tickle his belly and turn him over? Any animal can be trained properly, most people just assume that once the animal is quiet around the people it knows then it'll be fine altogether.

I wouldn't even hold a one year old baby next to a cat, let alone have it in a house where some idiot could take it out to a big dog at some point.

Dave!

"...designed to kill..."

All dogs are designed to kill, genius! If you find any herbivore dogs, gimme a shout.

arybvtcw0eolkf

conzymaher wrote: »

eh, no.... Large dogs like that are designed to kill, those jaws / teeth aren't for chewing pedigree and whatnot.. Maybe a well looked after Hyena would be a lovable family pet? Or maybe it would eat everyone that weighs less than 5 stone...

Yea my Pitbull insists on me feeding him only fresh babies daily, its a right pain.

But try as I might he just won't eat his Pedigree Chum :rolleyes:

Duckjob

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Is there a Dr Zoolittle methodology for training children?

Although you were trying to be flippant, you've actually unwittingly highlighted an important point.

A wee story - just last week I was playing out ball with my little doggie in the park when this little kid of 4-5 ran over, completely hyped up by the sight of a dog playing with a ball, and for about 5 minutes he continually:

- chased my dog around while roaring his head off
- tried to kick her whenever he got near enough.
- tried to hit her with a thin branch of a tree he had picked up.

She kept trying to get away from him, and get near me, and he kept on after her, despite me repeatedly telling him to stop. All the time his mother was sitting there watching her little darling doing this and saying nothing.

Now my doggie is a placid little thing, but I could see her getting 'wound up' by the situation. She didn't retaliate, but she would have been justified if she had done. Hell I wanted to give the little bollox a kick up the hole.

Point is, people in general dont' understand the do's and don'ts of dealing with dogs. That education needs to start with adults and be passed on to children under supervision who are going to be in contact with dogs.

cance

Mairt wrote: »

But try as I might he just won't eat his Pedigree Chum :rolleyes:

i hate to agree with this fella, but blame the owner... not the feckin dog, a cat for christ sake could make good work of a baby if it was that way inclined.

l3LoWnA

Should I worry that my sisters family have a Rotti living in their house? He's a beautiful beautiful creature, and I am a real dog-lover, but he does make me nervous for the children. They have two kids (5 and 2) and the dog goes to each of their bedrooms each night to check they're asleep before he retires himself (in the lounge on his own couch) He seems a very loyal and gentle dog but I still worry as you hear all these horror stories.

I'm scared to let my little girl sleep over in their house. Hell, I'm scared sleeping over there myself sometimes. He roams around the house freely. He's a show-winner, a beautiful, lean, strong, handsome dog. As I've said, he has never shown any signs of being a vicious creature, he's loyal and lovely, but is it true that a rottweiler can just turn at any given time?

Don't get me wrong, I think rottweilers are beautiful creatures and should never be banned completely. I just amn't too sure about rottis or any of the bull-terrier family being kept as family pets (and being left alone with children especially)

I'm not against any breed of dog in particular. I have a friend who has the most beautiful Staffordshire Bull Terriers, they are like children, real pets (but she has no children herself - she has been bitten herself, however, when two of her b*tches (Mother & Daughter) were having a tussle and she was seperating them. When these types of breeds get angry (as any living creature will at some stage) they are dangerous, you cannot deny that fact. I have a king charles myself (not my first choice of breed personally, but since I have a 3 year old I thought it would be the best choice as a little companion for her - they are so close and sometimes even sleep together, I know, no matter how angry the dog gets, she could do very little to harm my child, she's not physically capable of it)

I used to always defend pitt-bulls, staffies, rottis, etc to the last, but now that I'm faced with a situation where my small defenceless relatives could be in danger, I'm not too sure about the whole situation.....One attack from that massive rottweiler, and my little niece or nephew could be left blind or disfugured or worse...it's scary.....and whoever said a cat could make good work of a baby....for gods sake think about what yu've just said, do you really believe a little cat could do even close to as much damage as a 10 stone rotti with massive jaws and huge teeth?

arybvtcw0eolkf

l3LoWnA wrote: »

Should I worry that my sisters family have a Rotti living in their house? He's a beautiful beautiful creature, and I am a real dog-lover, but he does make me nervous for the children. They have two kids (5 and 2) and the dog goes to each of their bedrooms each night to check they're asleep before he retires himself (in the lounge on his own couch) He seems a very loyal and gentle dog but I still worry as you hear all these horror stories.

I'm scared to let my little girl sleep over in their house. Hell, I'm scared sleeping over there myself sometimes. He roams around the house freely. He's a show-winner, a beautiful, lean, strong, handsome dog. As I've said, he has never shown any signs of being a vicious creature, he's loyal and lovely, but is it true that a rottweiler can just turn at any given time?

Don't get me wrong, I think rottweilers are beautiful creatures and should never be banned completely. I just amn't too sure about rottis or any of the bull-terrier family being kept as family pets (and being left alone with children especially)

I'm not against any breed of dog in particular. I have a friend who has the most beautiful Staffordshire Bull Terriers, they are like children, real pets (but she has no children herself - she has been bitten herself, however, when two of her b*tches (Mother & Daughter) were having a tussle and she was seperating them. When these types of breeds get angry (as any living creature will at some stage) they are dangerous, you cannot deny that fact. I have a king charles myself (not my first choice of breed personally, but since I have a 3 year old I thought it would be the best choice as a little companion for her - they are so close and sometimes even sleep together, I know, no matter how angry the dog gets, she could do very little to harm my child, she's not physically capable of it)

I used to always defend pitt-bulls, staffies, rottis, etc to the last, but now that I'm faced with a situation where my small defenceless relatives could be in danger, I'm not too sure about the whole situation.....One attack from that massive rottweiler, and my little niece or nephew could be left blind or disfugured or worse...it's scary.....and whoever said a cat could make good work of a baby....for gods sake think about what yu've just said, do you really believe a little cat could do even close to as much damage as a 10 stone rotti with massive jaws and huge teeth?

Jesus man you sound like one windy fecker

Statistically your children are at greater risk of physical/sexual abuse from a family member than being attacked by a dog at that family members home!.

l3LoWnA

Mairt wrote: »

Jesus man you sound like one windy fecker

Statistically your children are at greater risk of physical/sexual abuse from a family member than being attacked by a dog at that family members home!.

Statistically, more children must live with humans that are likely to inflict abuse, than with dogs that are likely to attack, so that's irrelevant. But if there is indeed even the smallest risk that a big heavy-weight dog with jaws that have a tendency to lock could indeed attack a child, for whatever reasons (ie. child could tease dog etc.....) why put the child (and the dog) into that situation on a day to day basis, and increase the risk.....

how am I windy?

I think my sisters Rottweiler is absolutely gorgeous and if I didn't have a small daughter myself, I'd be the proud owner of a gorgeous Staffie, but my question is, Mairt, is it true, that no matter how a Rottweiler is treated and raised, whether it's a family pet or a guard dog, there is a possibility that it has a vicious streak and can turn on its master or indeed a child with whom it has always been familiar? Or is that a Myth?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

there's the possibility that you are going to crash your car and kill the baby in the back seat... are you going to stop driving?

l3LoWnA

Mordeth wrote: »

there's the possibility that you are going to crash your car and kill the baby in the back seat... are you going to stop driving?

No, but I will drive with care and avoid any potential hazards. I will avoid, at all costs, taking any risks, obviously and especially when my child is in the car.

In this day and age, for many, driving is a necessity, especially when you live in an area with a poor public transport system and have a family/job/responsibilites to tend to.

I need to drive to go about my day-to-day business. So I do drive, I drive well, I don't take risks on the road or in my home with my child, yes every day there is going to be a risk of something happening to all of us, but at least, I will have a clear conscience that I avoided taking risks with my daughters life. I dont "need" a Rottweiler in my home, I can't think of many (or any) who do......yes, I may want one, yes, if I have one I may grow to love it etc, but I don't need it to aid me in my life, so that's a bullsh*t argument too.

Why would anyone put their own child at risk just because they personally want to own a rottweiler....for whatever reasons....I just find it hard to understand. I think it's a selfish and wreckless act for anyone to have a large and even just potentially dangerous dog in a home with children and unsupervised. When I was expecting my child, I got rid of a labrador that I absolutely loved to pieces. It would have been selfish to keep the dog in case he clashed with the baby or there was any accidents that could have been avoided.

drdre

The parents should be arrested and jailed for a while, They shouldnt have such a dog near kids.

arybvtcw0eolkf

drdre wrote: »

The parents should be arrested and jailed for a while, They shouldnt have such a dog near kids.

The mother (who according to her blog just turned 18) shouldn't have left her baby in the care of her 16yr old sister regardless what kind of dog was present.

Silly, stupid girl.

the_syco

Mairt wrote: »

The mother (who according to her blog just turned 18) shouldn't have left her baby in the care of her 16yr old sister regardless what kind of dog was present.

Silly, stupid girl.

Erm, even if the mother was there, if the 6 year old took the baby outside, to pat the dog, the result would've been the same. If the entire extended family was there, and the 6 year old and the baby was left alone for 5 minutes, and in those 5 minutes, the 6 year old brought the baby out to pat the dog, the result would've been the same.

Einstein

we've had dobermann dogs over the years, and I really really do feel for the family of the child here, but I complately blame the owners. I don't care how placid a dog is, children can't be trusted around animals, and vice versa. I think back to the amount of torment I used to give our dogs and I got many a bite from them. But it was my fault, and I don't blame the dogs for one second.

People are too quick to blame the animal. Nobody for a second blames the owner. Parents and owners have responsibilities. It's not a one way thing.
The same way as children are told "not to touch the cooker because you'll get burnt," if they touch the cooker...they should know what to expect.
Same for dogs. It's all about respect.

l3LoWnA

Mairt wrote: »

The mother (who according to her blog just turned 18) shouldn't have left her baby in the care of her 16yr old sister regardless what kind of dog was present.

Silly, stupid girl.

So you think that if the mother hadn't left the child with her sister, the 18 year old mother would have had more chance against that Rottweiler than the 16 year old?

Whoever owned the dog was the irresponsible person, you can't really blame the mother of the child or the dog itself, the dog obviously should not have been left unattended/unleashed and un-mussled in a home where children were present.

So sad - such a gorgeous little kid too

nesf

the_syco wrote: »

Erm, even if the mother was there, if the 6 year old took the baby outside, to pat the dog, the result would've been the same. If the entire extended family was there, and the 6 year old and the baby was left alone for 5 minutes, and in those 5 minutes, the 6 year old brought the baby out to pat the dog, the result would've been the same.

The six year old shouldn't have been left in a position to take the one year old out to see the dog.

peasant

l3LoWnA wrote: »

...a big heavy-weight dog with jaws that have a tendency to lock

show me an X-ray picture of that jaw locking feature on a Rottweiler (or any other dog) ...it's an old wife's tale

is it true, that no matter how a Rottweiler is treated and raised, whether it's a family pet or a guard dog, there is a possibility that it has a vicious streak and can turn on its master or indeed a child with whom it has always been familiar? Or is that a Myth?

simple answer: NO


Long answer: no dog (excluding sudden brain haemmorages or other injuries) will just "turn" on their owner ...ever.

But any dog can display sudden aggressive behaviour that has never been witnessed before ...simply because it finds itself in a situation that it has never experienced before and it's instinctive reaction is defense. That's why it is so important that a dog is thoroughly familiarised with its environement and that a dog has a strong bond with and strong trust in its owner / handlers

l3LoWnA wrote: »

I have a king charles myself (not my first choice of breed personally, but since I have a 3 year old I thought it would be the best choice as a little companion for her - they are so close and sometimes even sleep together, I know, no matter how angry the dog gets, she could do very little to harm my child, she's not physically capable of it)

Don't kid yourself ...even your little Spananiel has teeth and claws ...and instincts. Granted ..she would have a harder time trying to kill your child, but a severe injury is always on the cards.

I personally would not let a dog (any dog) sleep with a three year old unless I was sitting right next tot them, keeping an eye on them.

padi89

l3LoWnA wrote: »

When I was expecting my child, I got rid of a labrador that I absolutely loved to pieces. It would have been selfish to keep the dog in case he clashed with the baby or there was any accidents that could have been avoided.

Child on the way,get rid of the dog?.To say you loved the dog to pieces and then say you got rid of it "in case" is a bit over the top IMHO.Nothing personal but do you always expect the worst in situations?

Einstein

peasant wrote: »

Long answer: no dog (excluding sudden brain haemmorages or other injuries) will just "turn" on their owner ...ever.

i think thats a very bold statement to make tbh and not very accurate.

Theres plenty of proof and stories out there of dogs that have turned on their owner for no reason whatseover.

My neighbor had a collie for years. they never mistreated him, but also never went out of thir way to be nice to him. But he savaged his owners leg one day for no reason whatsoever.

Some people just shouldn't have dogs cos they don't know how to raise them.

nesf

peasant wrote: »

show me an X-ray picture of that jaw locking feature on a Rottweiler (or any other dog) ...it's an old wife's tale

It's all those muscles attached to those jaws...

padi89

Divers wrote: »

i think thats a very bold statement to make tbh and not very accurate.

Theres plenty of proof and stories out there of dogs that have turned on their owner for no reason whatseover.

My neighbor had a collie for years. they never mistreated him, but also never went out of thir way to be nice to him. But he savaged his owners leg one day for no reason whatsoever.

Some people just shouldn't have dogs cos they don't know how to raise them.

Theres plenty of stories NOT plenty of proof.How do you know your neighbor never mistreated the dog? I presume you only caught a glimpse of the dog now and then.Never went out of their way to be nice to him?Think your neighbour could be one of those people that shouldn't own one.