Reporting a dangerous dog...

Cherry Blossom

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The owner was irresponsible and as an owner of a RB should have known better.

I agree with this, I would never dream of taking a dog out off-lead if I had pram/pushchair with me. There was too much going on at the same time there for the owner to be in effective control of the dog, RB or not. If the dog is going to approach people uninvited it really shouldn't have been off lead. Who is to say the OP's dog is dog friendly and what would the owner of the Rottie have done if the other dog kicked off, because if this had happened it would clearly have been his fault/responsibility. What could he realistically have done if his dog approached an aggressive dog and they got in a fight when he had a child in a pram with him, would he have abandoned the dog or the pram? How would that have ended for a dog that technically is supposed to be on a short lead and muzzled?

This is something that should be taken into account as part of the decision making process for anyone considering getting a dog that is on the restricted breeds list. If people are not willing to at least have adequate control of the dog (leads and muzzles aside) they should have got a different breed.

As for the scenario in the OP, is this incident worthy of reporting? Given all of what I've said above I would still say no, there is nothing of much consequence in the opening post that would lead me to believe this scenario was anything other than a non-incident.

ISDW

aisher wrote: »

Bringing up other breeds of dog is pointless - last I read a Lab was not on the list of restricted breeds so making comparisons is pointless. If you own a restricted dog you have added responsibilities even if you disagree or feel its unfair. Had the dog bitten the OP it would have been another story of how 'dangerous' these dogs are - like it or not if a Chihuahua did the same it would be passed off as a 'nip'. Irresponsible owners have turned a perfectly decent dog into a feared 'dangerous' dog. I sympathise with the OP and I dont see how anyone can defend the owner of the dog since he was not doing the responsible thing.

Of course its not pointless. Just because a dog is on the RB list does not mean that it is a dangerous dog. For your information, when the RB list was being drawn up, the Chihuahua was initially added to it because the name sounds foreign, so they thought the dog was a foreign, dangerous dog. Thats how pointless the RB list is. Bringing up the breed at all in this scenario is pointless, as was the fact that the owner was wearing tracksuit bottoms. I can completely understand how the OP might have been scared at a dog running towards them, and around them in a circle, but as has been stated already, that does not make it a dangerous dog. The stereotypes in this thread are unbelievable.

My brother used to drive a Merc and have a rottie, and he wears tracksuit bottoms a lot. Drug dealer? no, rugby player and sailor, at this moment in time he's skippering a yacht in the fastnet race. Hows that for a stereotype?

I am not defending the owner of the dog at all, but nowhere has the OP shown that this is a dangerous dog - and the title of the thread is 'Reporting a dangerous dog'.

Oranage2 wrote: »

The person is well in their rights to report a restricted breed un muzzled and un leashed, whether the dog is dangerous or not is irrelevant.

Its up to you to report this crime or you can just hope the dog doesn't mame a child and you didn't do anything about it.

Why is this dog going to 'mame' a child? Just because its a rottie?

Oranage2

ISDW wrote: »

aisher wrote: »

Bringing up other breeds of dog is pointless - last I read a Lab was not on the list of restricted breeds so making comparisons is pointless. If you own a restricted dog you have added responsibilities even if you disagree or feel its unfair. Had the dog bitten the OP it would have been another story of how 'dangerous' these dogs are - like it or not if a Chihuahua did the same it would be passed off as a 'nip'. Irresponsible owners have turned a perfectly decent dog into a feared 'dangerous' dog. I sympathise with the OP and I dont see how anyone can defend the owner of the dog since he was not doing the responsible thing.

Of course its not pointless. Just because a dog is on the RB list does not mean that it is a dangerous dog. For your information, when the RB list was being drawn up, the Chihuahua was initially added to it because the name sounds foreign, so they thought the dog was a foreign, dangerous dog. Thats how pointless the RB list is. Bringing up the breed at all in this scenario is pointless, as was the fact that the owner was wearing tracksuit bottoms. I can completely understand how the OP might have been scared at a dog running towards them, and around them in a circle, but as has been stated already, that does not make it a dangerous dog. The stereotypes in this thread are unbelievable.

My brother used to drive a Merc and have a rottie, and he wears tracksuit bottoms a lot. Drug dealer? no, rugby player and sailor, at this moment in time he's skippering a yacht in the fastnet race. Hows that for a stereotype?

I am not defending the owner of the dog at all, but nowhere has the OP shown that this is a dangerous dog - and the title of the thread is 'Reporting a dangerous dog'.

Oranage2 wrote: »

The person is well in their rights to report a restricted breed un muzzled and un leashed, whether the dog is dangerous or not is irrelevant.

Its up to you to report this crime or you can just hope the dog doesn't mame a child and you didn't do anything about it.

Why is this dog going to 'mame' a child? Just because its a rottie?

I said just hope the dog doesn't mame a child, Because id feel bad not reporting something illegal and a child gettin hurt.

and its not because its a rottie, its because laws are laws and the dog is on a restricted breed list for a reason. if everyone was to just ignore the laws they didn't agree with we'd Tate. People fighting dogs and all sorts and not being prosecuted.

john t

ISDW Good post.. Im owner a german shepard/ restricted breed, i regularry walk with my 2yr old and 5 yr old daughters, 22mnth old dog always off lead in park, when other parents with kids and small dog see us they can be a bit panicy and afraid but they see dog with kids and presume its a good dog as she is..I suppose because we know have a list of restricted dog breeds sum people expect the dog too be angry/ aggressive/ violent etc...If people allow dogs too meet and sniff their is no problem...

Cherry Blossom

Oranage2 wrote: »

and its not because its a rottie, its because laws are laws and the dog is on a restricted breed list for a reason. if everyone was to just ignore the laws they didn't agree with we'd Tate. People fighting dogs and all sorts and not being prosecuted.

You are comparing a rottie being off-lead to dog fighting?? I'd have been more inclined to compare it to people that let their dogs wander. If I was to report every dog that wandered up to me that I had to shoo away, two things would happen.

1. I wouldn't be able to report them all because the calls would cost more than my weeks wages!

2. The dog warden would take a restraining order out on me for harassment

I think this needs to put into context and perspective, there's a bit too much speculation going on in this thread!

toadfly

and its not because its a rottie, its because laws are laws and the dog is on a restricted breed list for a reason. if everyone was to just ignore the laws they didn't agree with we'd Tate. People fighting dogs and all sorts and not being prosecuted.

The dogs that are the RB list aren't on it for any good reason. It's all media hype and stupid people overeacting.

Bullseye1

Where have I said that dog is dangerous? Seriously the person who owned the Rottie is breaking the law. The law maybe stupid but it's the law. Until RB owners get their act together and have the act repealed we as RB owners have a responsibility to OUR dogs not to put them in a situation where they can get themselves into trouble.

Some people are obsessed wth the word dangerous. And everytime someone uses the word the same crowd gather to give their mob like rebuff. It's actually quite tiring.

Think about the dog. The dog may or may not be person or dog aggressive. We don't live in an ideal world where all RB owners are responsible. As RB owners these people should be chastised as they are bringing the rest of us and our RB dogs into disrepute. Why put your dog into a situation where it could end up being put down because of your negligence.

ISDW wrote: »

But it didn't bite anybody or anything, so how is it a dangerous dog? Yes, obviously by law the dog should have been muzzled and on a lead, but that is because it is on a restricted breed list, not because it is a dangerous dog. Why is the assumption made that just because its a rottie its going to bite?

If it was a labrador in this story instead of a rottie, would you and others be talking about it biting? Yet it could well be an off lead labrador running up to somebody, running around them, and then going back to its owner when called. Yes, an annoyance definitely, dangerous dog? No, no matter what breed it is.

Oh, but a labrador wouldn't have an owner in tracksuit bottoms pushing a pram whilst on the phone obviously.:rolleyes:

Bullseye1

TillyGirl wrote: »

The dogs that are the RB list aren't on it for any good reason. It's all media hype and stupid people overeacting.

Why not do something about it.

Bullseye1

So now the OP was imagining things? The growl may not have happened? Where did the OP confirm this? Instead of having a go at the OP why not chastise the Rotties owner?

ISDW wrote: »

How do you know the dog wasn't friendly? Reread what the OP said, he/she heard growling behind them, then a rottie came charging at them. The OP doesn't say that the rottie was growling as it charged at them, or that it growled at any time when he/she was shooing it away.

From my perspective, how could they have heard the dog growling if it was so far away that they "looked behind to see a Rothweiller coming at speed"? Growls don't usually carry that far. How do they know it was the rottie that was growling at all, if indeed there was growling?

If this dog was not "friendly" then how come it allowed a complete stranger to shoo it away with no reaction? What bit of this dog's actions was not friendly?

Bullseye1

The voice of reason. Thankyou.

aisher wrote: »

Bringing up other breeds of dog is pointless - last I read a Lab was not on the list of restricted breeds so making comparisons is pointless. If you own a restricted dog you have added responsibilities even if you disagree or feel its unfair. Had the dog bitten the OP it would have been another story of how 'dangerous' these dogs are - like it or not if a Chihuahua did the same it would be passed off as a 'nip'. Irresponsible owners have turned a perfectly decent dog into a feared 'dangerous' dog. I sympathise with the OP and I dont see how anyone can defend the owner of the dog since he was not doing the responsible thing.

ISDW

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Where have I said that dog is dangerous? Seriously the person who owned the Rottie is breaking the law. The law maybe stupid but it's the law. Until RB owners get their act together and have the act repealed we as RB owners have a responsibility to OUR dogs not to put them in a situation where they can get themselves into trouble.

Some people are obsessed wth the word dangerous. And everytime someone uses the word the same crowd gather to give their mob like rebuff. It's actually quite tiring.

Think about the dog. The dog may or may not be person or dog aggressive. We don't live in an ideal world where all RB owners are responsible. As RB owners these people should be chastised as they are bringing the rest of us and our RB dogs into disrepute. Why put your dog into a situation where it could end up being put down because of your negligence.

The reason I get so irate when people describe an RB dog as dangerous is because they are not basing it on any fact. This dog did not display any dangerous tendencies whatsoever, so I don't understand why you and other posters are saying it may or may not be aggressive. Surely by its actions it has shown that it is not aggressive? I would have no problem, as has been said, with the OP reporting the dog for not complying with the law, but phone the dog warden and report a dangerous dog, only one outcome for that dog, and its not a good one.

What is actually more tiring is hearing about the amount of RB dogs that get killed in pounds every day because they are on that list, and because people think they are intrinsically dangerous.

You really want to pray that if ever your dog got out, or was stolen, that it would end up in the handful of pounds that will rehome an RB. If your dog was stolen, and then let go, it could end up in a pound anywhere in the country, and if you didn't get there within 5 days it would be killed, even if it hasn't displayed any aggression whatsoever.

As has been pointed out in this forum many times before, there is no basis of fact for the dogs that are on the RB list to be on there.

And as for people only sticking to some laws and not others - never broken the speed limit whilst driving? Or is that one different?:rolleyes:

ISDW

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So now the OP was imagining things? The growl may not have happened? Where did the OP confirm this? Instead of having a go at the OP why not chastise the Rotties owner?

Good point, on an internet forum that they're not going to read. Great use of my time.

The OP has shown a tendency to exaggerate, don't you think? The only people who own rotties and drive mercs are drug dealers?:eek:

Bullseye1

ISDW wrote: »

Good point, on an internet forum that they're not going to read. Great use of my time.

The OP has shown a tendency to exaggerate, don't you think? The only people who own rotties and drive mercs are drug dealers?:eek:

Talk about generalisations. The OP exaggerates and the irresponsible owner gets a free pass.

I own a Rhodesian Ridgeback. I don't want further restrictions placed on me or my dog because of irresponsible owners.

Not once have I ever said this dog was dangerous. Let me put this scenario to you. The OP is walking their dog on a lead minding their own business when a Rottie approaches (in their mind in an aggressive manner, not everyone can read the situation). The Rottie trys to get to the OPs dog and the OP panics and try's to decent their dog by swinging and kicking at the dog (not everyone can read a dogs body language). The Rottie is turn tries to defend itself by fighting back. Say the Rottie is friendly and only wanted to sniff the OPs dog, we now have a scenario where a very friendly Rottie has gotten into trouble.

Bullseye1

That should have read defend their dogs. Bloody iPhone. LOL

Bullseye1

ISDW wrote: »

Good point, on an internet forum that they're not going to read. Great use of my time.

The OP has shown a tendency to exaggerate, don't you think? The only people who own rotties and drive mercs are drug dealers?:eek:

BTW if my posts are a waste of your time don't read them. I would hate to think I've misappropriated your time and energy.

Cú Giobach

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Talk about generalisations. The OP exaggerates and the irresponsible owner gets a free pass.

I own a Rhodesian Ridgeback. I don't want further restrictions placed on me or my dog because of irresponsible owners.

Not once have I ever said this dog was dangerous. Let me put this scenario to you. The OP is walking their dog on a lead minding their own business when a Rottie approaches (in their mind in an aggressive manner, not everyone can read the situation). The Rottie trys to get to the OPs dog and the OP panics and try's to decent their dog by swinging and kicking at the dog (not everyone can read a dogs body language). The Rottie is turn tries to defend itself by fighting back. Say the Rottie is friendly and only wanted to sniff the OPs dog, we now have a scenario where a very friendly Rottie has gotten into trouble.

In case you haven't noticed, practically every post here has said it was wrong for the person to have their dog off lead, the issue people have is with the OP reporting a dog as dangerous when it clearly wasn't.

By the way anyone who lashes out at a dog for approaching their dog shouldn't own a dog.

Narsil

I think the OP has completely overreacted and as many here have already said, if you were to report any curious dog off-lead,you'd be sued by dog wardens for continual harassment!

As for the RB list:rolleyes: As the owner of one of the most friendliest GSD's I know, here's a little taster of what small,cute,fluffy dog made it onto the NSW(Australia)'s list of ill-tempered dogs..................
http://www.smh.com.au/national/maltese-terrier-joins-dangerous-dog-list-20091025-hehr.html
....................now I bet that was surprising to most.

I'm sure if a Maltese came running at someone,looked at them and returned to their owner, that someone would coo and say 'what a cute little fluffy doggie', but when its a Rottie/Gsd etc, they have a heart attack and start blustering about RB lists,muzzles and reporting it.Makes me a little annoyed:mad:

Bullseye1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In case you haven't noticed, practically every post here has said it was wrong for the person to have their dog off lead, the issue people have is with the OP reporting a dog as dangerous when it clearly wasn't.

By the way anyone who lashes out at a dog for approaching their dog shouldn't own a dog.

Actually they have been telling the OP they have over reacted.

Anyone who puts there RB dog into a situation that could lead to them getting into trouble are the people you should be having a go at.

DBCyc

Leaving breeds out of this for a second, I think that it's bad form to let your dog run up to anyone unless they clearly want to interact with your dog. So anyone who lets that happen with their dog is a bit inconsiderate in my book. I don't really let it bother me when it happens as I like meeting dogs

Unfortunately, while it makes no sense, the OP probably was more wary as the dog was a Rottie. This is a pity, but it's the world we live in and hopefully it will change. I know they 'play growl' a lot but most people wouldn't!

Anyway the incident itself sounded relatively harmless and it has been blown out of all proportion. Real life hysteria = Internet hysteria / 1,000.

The owner was inconsiderate and shouldn't have let it run up to the OP, the dog seemed excitable but backed-off when told. No harm done.

Cú Giobach

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Actually they have been telling the OP they have over reacted.

Yes, by wanting to report a "dangerous dog".
This thread would be very different if the OP had just mentioned reporting the dog as loose, with no mention of "reporting a dangerous dog".

Anyone who puts there RB dog into a situation that could lead to them getting into trouble are the people you should be having a go at.

Since there is nobody advocating this, there is not much point in me having a go at anybody.
On the other hand I do have an issue with someone reporting an obedient dog that has done no harm as dangerous.

are you serious

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Talk about generalisations. The OP exaggerates and the irresponsible owner gets a free pass.

I own a Rhodesian Ridgeback. I don't want further restrictions placed on me or my dog because of irresponsible owners.

Bullseye, as an owner you seem to me adamantly defending the OP here.. And from what I have quoted I'm wondering and would like an honest answer to my question...

How many people have you met while walking that even know what a Rhodesian Ridgeback is? I would doubt of everyone you have met while walking that you could list 3... Never mind to mention that they would know that they are on the list of RB's.
My reasoning behind this is when I walk my Rottie who has his waggy tail, I have met I'd say close on 100 people(maybe more including the park rangers) and unless they owned Rotties themselves I could not honestly say that 5 of them realised he is a Rottie.

My point being if people have no idea what breed of dog yours is (park rangers included) it will not, in theory, have any effect on you! I walk in a very busy park in Lucan in Dublin and I know of only 1 guy with a RR nobody Ive asked have any idea what he is, they always assume he is a small DOGUE DE BORDEAUX as the owner has 2 of these also..

People who know the Rottie and who have met Rottie owners will know how vocal Rotties are, I meet a guy who's dog grumbles the wohole time when other dogs are around but his Rottie is so friendly...

Anywayyyy.... I think the OP misread this "growl" as a friendly grumble

RustyNut

Hi
I have to say I find it very bad practice for any dog owner to let their dog run free In a park unless the park is deserted and I say this as a dog lover and owner. It is irrelevant what breed of dog it is. I have a nephew who was bitten as a small kid (5) an now is absolutely terrified of any dog apart from our pom.
It is completely unfair on him to be in the park and have any dog rottie, lab, pom or any other dog lose and able to approach him unrestrained.
Myself and my 11 yo daughter love to meet other dogs when we are out and about and she will be the first one to ask if it's ok to pet your dog whatever breed it is, however when my nephew is with us dogs might as well be alligators, hyenas or tigers, all he sees are vicious kid eating monsters and I could not explain the terror this causes him.
Parks are for everyone but please keep your dog restrained, you know that they are soft, cuddly, playful,harmless family members but that is not what they are to everyone...

Bullseye1

I absolutely accept that most people do not know what a Ridgeback looks like and that there is a prejudice against Rotties. Good responsible owners are unfortunately being tarred with the one brush. I accept that in the correct hands all dogs are not dangerous. But quite simply alot of dog owners are not suitable dog owners.

All RB owners have an extra responsibiliy to our dogs to protect them while in public spaces.

Rotties are beautiful dogs and it would be shameful if the Irish Goverment brought in an outright ban on RBs.

You are also correct in that the OP may have misread the dogs body language. That is a major problem for all dog owners in general and something that could get a dog unfairly into trouble.

garkane wrote: »

Bullseye, as an owner you seem to me adamantly defending the OP here.. And from what I have quoted I'm wondering and would like an honest answer to my question...

How many people have you met while walking that even know what a Rhodesian Ridgeback is? I would doubt of everyone you have met while walking that you could list 3... Never mind to mention that they would know that they are on the list of RB's.
My reasoning behind this is when I walk my Rottie who has his waggy tail, I have met I'd say close on 100 people(maybe more including the park rangers) and unless they owned Rotties themselves I could not honestly say that 5 of them realised he is a Rottie.

My point being if people have no idea what breed of dog yours is (park rangers included) it will not, in theory, have any effect on you! I walk in a very busy park in Lucan in Dublin and I know of only 1 guy with a RR nobody Ive asked have any idea what he is, they always assume he is a small DOGUE DE BORDEAUX as the owner has 2 of these also..

People who know the Rottie and who have met Rottie owners will know how vocal Rotties are, I meet a guy who's dog grumbles the wohole time when other dogs are around but his Rottie is so friendly...

Anywayyyy.... I think the OP misread this "growl" as a friendly grumble

are you serious

@Bullseye1

Just thought i'd publicly like to thank you for realising I was not getting on your back there A lot of other posters would have came back at me with some sort of rant!

Bullseye1

I like a good debate with fellow dog lovers. As I don't own a Rottie or a Pitt Bull I can only imagine what owners of those breeds go through. It takes alot of love and dedication and I applaud you. I just wish some owners would take better care of them in public areas.

Plenum

I agree with most people here, theres nothing for you to report...a curious dog ran up to you and then left when his owner called him

The most dangerous thing about a dog is its owner, the breed of the dog is irrelevant. Breeds like GSD, Rott, Akita etc when properly trained are the most calm, obedient and affectionate animals, but in irresponsible hands they can be very dangerous

Its about time we started to restrict the type of people that can own certain breeds, not the other way around

Oranage2

For anyone that thinks the restricted breed list was just dreamt up

http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

I know its America but Ireland follows USA and Uk when making laws and this clearly shows why we have a restricted breed list ie. popularity of the dog and size means it kills more people.

Shanao

Oranage2 wrote: »

For anyone that thinks the restricted breed list was just dreamt up

http://dogbitelaw.com/dog-bite-statistics/the-breeds-most-likely-to-kill.html

I know its America but Ireland follows USA and Uk when making laws and this clearly shows why we have a restricted breed list ie. popularity of the dog and size means it kills more people.

Popularity of the dog? How many people in Ireland have a Tosa inu in this country? And as for pit-bull type dogs? Dont even get me started on that; there are 30+ plus dogs that fall into this category and most people couldn't recognize a pitbull if it was standing in front of them with the words pitbull tattooed on its forehead.

antomagoo

Maybe I'm wrong but I dont think we have the culture here of having a dog as a weapon that would exist in the UK & the US. Certainly the restriced breed lists were brought in to try and combat the problem but its a problem that wont be solved by adding more breeds to the list or banning certain breeds outright.

Alot of the time the circumstances surrounding an incident with a dog on the RB list is never taken into account its just the fact that the dog is an RB dog that seems to matter.

Some low life scum use the likes of Rotties & Pitts as a form of intimidation and this is the sterotype that prevails in the mind of Joe Public.

The 2 most relevant parts of that article referenced by Oranage2 in my opinion are:

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.

An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).

Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

Bullseye1

if you look at those statistics a Rhodesian Ridgeback was responsible for one death. So was a Cocker Spaniel.