Rottweiler nearly attacked my guide dog

kylith

Gin77 wrote: »

If there not weapons why do thugs use them and why do the police have a K9 unit, also the army uses dogs.

If they're weapons then why are they used in therapy and as guide and support animals?

I guarantee you, GUARANTEE, that if all the restricted breeds were wiped off the face of the planet in the morning within six months the scumbags who ruined the reputations of Rotts, Pitts, AM Bulls, Staffies, and the rest would have destroyed the reputation of another breed, which would then be classed as 'dangerous'. If you kept removing breeds then you'd eventually wind up with scumbags with packs of vicious Yorkies. Remember that in the 80s the 'devil dog' was the St. Bernard (thanks to the film Cujo), and now I bet everyone's forgotten about it. Ah, look at the lovely fluffy doggy....

Also why do they not report on the news when a Lab savauges a toddler.

Because no-one cares when a lab bites, it has to be an 'evil' breed before it gets column inches, as a poster here who deals with RB dogs will tell you: when she got bitten the paper was very interested in reporting it until they discovered that it wasn't one of the many RBs she deals with, it was a Labrador.

IIRC the top two breeds for biting people are spaniels and collies.

Another point would you trust a strange dog RB or not with your child if you have one.

I wouldn't trust any dog with a child, whether it was a Bichon Frise or a Dobermann Pinscher, this is because you can't trust children not to provoke a dog out of the ignorance of childhood. I'd be a lot happier for my nieces and nephews to approach a Rottie or a Pitt that I knew, supervised of course, than any of the terriers that roam my neighbourhood.

ShaShaBear

Gin77 wrote: »

I love these blind stats you use, maybe they should have a vote too.
If there not weapons why do thugs use them and why do the police have a K9 unit, also the army uses dogs. Also why do they not report on the news when a Lab savauges a toddler.
Another point would you trust a strange dog RB or not with your child if you have one.

I would not trust ANY dog with a child. Nor would I trust any child with a dog. A Rottweiler is absolutely no more likely to tear your child's face off than a Jack Russell Terrier.

Actually, if you go and do a bit of Google, you'll find that a Jack Russell Terrier was responsible for killing a newborn baby back in April. The family also owned a "dangerous" breed, a German Shepherd. Funny how he wasn't the one who bit the child, rather the small, family breed who many people recommend for children.

Worth keeping that in mind when you throw words around - The truth is that there is an equal and healthy mix of breeds responsible for the 7 or 8 human deaths in the past 6 years between the UK and Ireland. Thugs use them because they have been perceived to look menacing. The police have a K9 unit mostly for drug, explosive and sometimes even missing persons detection which would make the dogs sensors rather than weapons. Giant Schnauzers, Boxers, Beagles, Labradors and Springer Spaniels are all regularly recorded breeds used in this work, and none of the above are on the restricted breed list :rolleyes:

TL;DR?
Common family breeds ARE reported on the news when they hurt people.
K9 unit dogs are of a variety of breeds, many of which are not restricted by law and are more often than not a sensing dog and not a weapon.
Thugs want to look menacing and will opt for the cheapest, menacing breed. You will find that many of them end up in pounds and shelters because they simply were not menacing enough :rolleyes:

Rommie

I remember an online article a couple of months back about a child who was mauled to death by his grandfather's four pitbulls at their home in, I think, Texas. They showed a video of the cops arriving to take the dogs away. All four dogs were Boxers. All four of them. Not a single one was a pitbull, but 'devil dogs' sell papers, not 'family pets'. A few days later, a following article was later printed apologising for the wrong information and stating that it was in fact four boxers. Now, who's at fault? The boxers? Of course not!! It's the fault of the idiots who left an 18month old boy unsupervised in the back garden with four dogs. And yet no one was charged but the dogs destroyed. That, unfortunately, is how this world works. The dog always gets the blame

Whispered

steddyeddy wrote: »

No your not sure unless you can read their minds. Their animals and you don't know how they will respond to fright, aggression or stress.

Actually, I would think a lot of dog owners can come close to reading their dogs. Not their minds per say, but their mood and their body language.

I know how they will respond to most situations because they have been socialised. The danger is the dogs (RB or not) who are not socialised, then they become fearful, unpredictable and you're right, in that case you don't know how they will respond to different situations.

If I'm unsure of a situation, for example a dog approaching who I don't know then I will leash them. I will also put them back on when a person I don't know approaches, not because I fear what they will do, of course I trust them. But I wouldn't want someone with breed prejudices to feel uncomfortable. I have to disagree with you saying that I don't know how they respond to stress etc.

Someone said they wonder why someone would choose a certain breed, is it for the look etc. I have no doubt there are a few who do choose based on this, which is a very sad thing to see. In my case, both were fostered for a charity. I didn't request a breed, type or sex, I just said I could foster. Both of those dogs, out of all the others, stole a place in my heart. I fell madly in love with them and their little personalities.

I didn't go out to get 2 RB dogs but now, I know I'll never be without a staffy or a staffy cross. They are a perfect dog for me and my family.

Sorry OP this is all off topic for your thread!!

Gin77

andreac wrote: »

Because a Lab wouldnt make good headlines and sell as many papers etc. There are far more attacks by non rb's than restricted breeds but they never make the papers.

I wouldnt trust any strange dog, respective of breed around children.

A dog isnt a weapon. The only thing that causes a dog to be aggressive are humans. A dog isnt born aggressive, its us humans/owners that do this, so you cannot blame the dog in any way.

And the only thing that causes a gun to kill is a human/owners funny that!

If a dog isn't born agressive how would it survive in the wild, it would have to kill to survive and defend its kill hence the tooth set up.

Dogs are pack animals and have a hierarchy if the owner isn't the leader anything can happen, to many owners think they are in control until its too late.

I'm done

wexie

Gin77 wrote: »

I wonder do owners of RB's know the fear their dogs envokes in other people. A lot of owners dont "Oh thats just Buffy playing sounds familiar"

Lately my neighbours bought a bull mastif puppy for protection, how unfair is that for the neighbour? When they had a collie you could hardly walk on the road past their house, what hope does anyone have now. The worst part is I know the dog wont be trained either.

Complete nonsense, there's nothing wrong or unfair about having a mastiff or any kind of dog. What's wrong is that (you think) it won't be trained properly.

Could just as easily be an untrained Golden Retriever, would that make you feel any better? :mad:

People should really learn that there are no bad dogs, there are just bad dog owners. :mad:

fatmammycat

There's actually growing evidence that disputes the notion that dogs are pack animals at all (studies of stray dogs show they form very loose connections and will seperate easily) and thus the notion of hierarchy might not apply at all to dogs. It might actually be much more simple- some dogs like each other, some dogs don't.

Also, aggression and a will to survive in the wild are not the same thing at all.


The highest pay out for a dog attack in this country was for, guess what? A collie. When Sarah from EGAR was mauled (yes mauled) by a dog and put in hospital, the animal? A yellow Labrador. Were they papers interested? nope, not even slightly, but had it been one of her bull breeds they'd have been all over it. Children were badly bitten by a husky and a malamute down the country recently, dogs not on the RB list, how many were bitten by dobermans, or a ridgeback or a Japanese Tosa?
By the way, the reason GSDs and Mals are used as k9 dogs has more to do with being naturally protective, intelligent and biddable and thus easily trained dogs more than anything else. They're not timid creatures, and trained correctly are excellent service dogs. If they were aggressive they'd be pretty useless as police dogs.

Look, any dog in the wrong hands is potentially dangerous, and obviously the bigger the dogs the greater potential for damage. But blanket condemnation of entire breeds is what gets most reasonable people exercised.

DBB

Gin77 wrote: »

If a dog isn't born agressive how would it survive in the wild, it would have to kill to survive and defend its kill hence the tooth set up.

Dogs don't survive in the wild too well. Domestication has deprived them of the ability to catch, kill, and eat prey animals.
If a dog were allowed out to fend for itself, you'd find they will do what their ancestors did... They'd scavenge our waste. They'd soon die out if catching, killing and eating prey was their only option.
Dog dentition, for the record, bears little relation to wolf dentition: a dog of equal size to a wolf has substantially smaller teeth than the wolf.

Dogs are pack animals and have a hierarchy if the owner isn't the leader anything can happen, to many owners think they are in control until its too late.

I'm done

Before you go, and whilst I respect your right to express your opinion, it is most important to correct anything incorrect that you're basing that opinion on.
Dogs aren't really pack animals. The process of domestication significantly reduced the "pack structure" associated with family groups of wolves. The best they can do is form a loose group. They are, however, highly social animals with a proven preference for human company and ability to "read" humans.
This idea of humans being pack leader has been blown out of the water. The only people still banging on about it are uneducated quacks that you might see on TV. Those who are qualified to express an accurate opinion use evidence-based research, which tells us that the pack leadership model is unfounded bunkum.
For more info, the following site explains it as well as any: http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org.uk

fatmammycat

DBB wrote: »

This idea of humans being pack leader has been blown out of the water. The only people still banging on about it are uneducated quacks that you might see on TV. Those who are qualified to express an accurate opinion use evidence-based research, which tells us that the pack leadership model is unfounded bunkum.
For more info, the following site explains it as well as any: http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org.uk

Aye, I'm no pack leader, but I AM the Resource Queen, a title that better befits me I feel

Tayla

They were talking about this on Sky news earlier, they were also showing footage of a guide dog being attacked by another dog.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2013-08-06/guide-dog-attacks-on-the-rise-as-owners-could-face-life/

snoman

Gin77 wrote: »

I love these blind stats you use, maybe they should have a vote too.
If there not weapons why do thugs use them and why do the police have a K9 unit, also the army uses dogs. Also why do they not report on the news when a Lab savauges a toddler.
Another point would you trust a strange dog RB or not with your child if you have one.

I'm not quoting statistics cos I don't know them. All I know that is on my walks I do meet RBs under effective control and being exercised within the law. I very rarely meet rampaging, vicious off-lead dogs - RB or otherwise.

Thugs also use baseball bats, should we licence them? My own rb was dumped as a puppy, he had ripped ears and cuts - it has been suggested that he could have been used as a bait dog, I don't know. However his temprement both to other dogs and to people has always been great.

No, I would not trust a child with any strange dog - mine, or any other non-rb dog. That's just common sense.

DBB

Tayla wrote: »

They were talking about this on Sky news earlier, they were also showing footage of a guide dog being attacked by another dog.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2013-08-06/guide-dog-attacks-on-the-rise-as-owners-could-face-life/

I have seen really upsetting footage of guide dogs being full-on attacked, and it is so upsetting. It is often the end of the guide dog's career, and all the implications that has for the owner are quite far-reaching.
I have full sympathy for the op in this instance, but I do feel there was too much emphasis placed on the breed. To me, it doesn't matter much what breed or type the other dog was, the fact remains that yet another owner placed his dog, and innocent members of the public, in an unpleasant and utterly avoidable situation. And who knows, despite all the justifications being made here, even a non-contact aggressive incident with another dog is likely to affect the guide dog to some degree... They're not robots, and if they get a bad enough fright, even though not physically harmed, it can affect their behaviour and emotional wellbeing.
When it comes to RBs, and I have one too, I think that if the owner is going to break the laws relating to these breeds, they need to make damn sure they don't give anyone a reason to complain about them. RB owners can disagree all they want with the legislation, but that doesn't absolve them of the extra responsibilities they have, whether they like it or not.

afterglow

Hi DBB

Thanks for your post, and to all the others who have replied and posted on this topic.

I was going to write a lot about how a guide dog's career begins, but with what you have said in your last post, you have pretty much summarised everything I was going to say perfectly without the need for all the other stuff.
All I was trying to get across was the fact that I got a fright.
I apologise now for the final time for my emphasis on the breed, that in fact was not fair of me to do, was just an emotional reaction at the time.
I am an animal lover through and through, a vegetarian in fact, so if there are kind hearted and loving people out there who have fostered RB dogs and saved them from being PTS then who am I, guide dog owner or not, to say anything other than fair play to those people for that.
As DBB so rightly said though, often when guide dogs get attacked, or even get enough of a fright, this can in fact result in the end of their careers, and the end of a very unique and special partnership.
This was really all I was trying to get across, and as I also stated in later posts, I would have been the same whether the dog was big or small, labrador poodle or whatever.
I would actually like to meet some RBs now, well trained and behaved/cared for ones I mean, such as whispered's ones for example, just so I can have also had a good experience with a RB two, and perhaps that will happen sometime.

Anyway hope my position on the whole thing is clear now, and sorry again for any offense caused.

wexie

afterglow wrote: »

I would actually like to meet some RBs now, well trained and behaved/cared for ones I mean, such as whispered's ones for example, just so I can have also had a good experience with a RB two, and perhaps that will happen sometime.

Anyway hope my position on the whole thing is clear now, and sorry again for any offense caused.

That's a great idea!

If more people could see that the RB list makes no sense whatsoever maybe we can get a decent alternative to it. Responsible dog ownership exam anyone?

Whispered

wexie wrote: »

Responsible dog ownership exam anyone?

I would absolutely love there to be one. I actually agree with the poster who said that there should be a test for RB owners. It would be great to see it for all owners too.

In the case of RB owners, anything that might weed out the trouble making dog owners who go for looks or reputation, something that would instill a sense of pride in owning a dog for more than their looks, something that would encourage a proper human/dog relationship would be great in my view.

Clearlier

afterglow wrote: »

And one last point,
Someone said that they trust adult german shepherds as guides.
This is true in some of the american schools they do, but to my knowledge, very few, if any, pure german shepherds are used by europian guide dog schools.

I've met two german shepherd's as guide dogs in Ireland and heard of others. They're useful for matching I think because they're pretty big and if you've got a tall candidate they often look to match a reasonably big dog. That said my wife now has a doodle who is pretty tall so they might be/already have phased out german shepherd's.

Afterglow, if you haven't already you should contact whomever is your contact point in IGDB - your GDMI probably? They can give you advice on how to handle this type of situation. It might also be helpful if they could talk to your Mum at the same time if she was upset by the incident - I'm guessing that she's the one who told you that it was a Rottweiler and possibly instilled the initial fear in you? There are some strategies you can use to manage the situation as best as possible. The other dog will be paying as much attention to you as its owner as it will have been to your dog and the GDMI might be able to suggest some strategies to help you manage the situation as well as you possibly can.

The above is not to excuse the behaviour of the owner of the dog that behaved aggressively towards yours. I free run my wifes guide dog regularly but I couldn't do it for the first 6 months after she got him because although he worked impeccably he wasn't at all well behaved off the lead and insisted on "saying hello" and trying to dominate every single dog he came across. She trained him really well though and after about 6 months I started taking him on my runs again and he's been extremely well behaved since. He's interested in dogs that look like him and often will go over to nose them but if I have any doubts I only have to call his name and he'll stay with me. Still can't trust him around cats but you don't see them in the local park.

I've rambled a little - to summarise, contact your GDMI and ask for advice about what happened and how to handle it in the future. It doesn't sound like you did a bad job but there may be ways of doing even better.

fatmammycat

wexie wrote: »

That's a great idea!

If more people could see that the RB list makes no sense whatsoever maybe we can get a decent alternative to it. Responsible dog ownership exam anyone?

I'd take that exam happily! I think the world would be a much better place if eegits didn't get their hands on great dogs and ruin them.

DBB

Without having checked for sure, I think it's in Austria where all dog owners must pass a competency test before acquiring a dog, and once they have their dog, they must attend certified classes with them.
Needless to say, they don't have an unwanted dog problem. I can only imagine that dog owners there get so, so much more out of their dogs, and indeed their dogs from them.
A behavioural scientist from Vienna told me this, and after thinking she was taking the mick, I thought it sounded like dog and owner nirvana!

FoxyVixen

Honestly, this country doesn't even adequately ensure dog licenses are inforced. Never mind ensuring dogs are micro chipped so problem owners could be fined. Then there's the amount of dogs roaming doing what they want.

Putting it politely, this country would royally F up the canine citizen test. Responsible owners would be paying yet more for their pets and the "yobs" giving breeds a bad name would walk away free!!

Pixie Chief

OP, to be fair I'm not sure that the issue is one of the breed of the dog. The issue is one of lack of control on the part of the dog owner and it is a huge one for dog owners and non dog owners alike in this country. At this present time, I have two dogs of my own and another two that I am fostering for a rescue. I have had dogs all my life (as well as horses, cats etc) and I love them and still it makes me cringe when I hear people say that they 'know' that their dog will never do harm to someone else. EVERY dog will bite or attack under the right set of circumstances regardless of breed - I have the scars on my face to prove it. From a family pet no less and not on the RB list.

The issue is that people seem to feel that it is ok for their dog to be an issue for other people and it just isn't. I don't want to be approached by other people's dogs, friendly or not and I deeply resent that dogs are not kept on leads in public places. If I take my children to the park, I don't want someones dog to come bounding up to us barking at us, followed a few minutes later by an owner strolling along getting annoyed with me for being frightened (all of us standing on top of a slide while the dog barks repeatedly at us - aggressive? don't know, don't care) because sure he only wanted to play with you. That's not my problem. It's not my dog so why should I have any obligation to play with your dog because he (and you) demands it?

As dog owners, I believe that we have an obligation to make sure that our dogs do not pose a problem for others and that includes frightening them, barking/growling at them, following them, jumping into the middle of a family picnic on the beach or whatever. I am always horrified when discussions like this quickly centre around telling someone all of the reasons why he shouldn't have been frightened of someone elses dog or whether that dog/breed in particular is dangerous. That is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that owners should ensure that their dogs (and you can include horses, cattle, cars and children if you like) do not impact on other people insofar as is humanly possible. There will always be incidents where it happens despite best efforts but it would be nice if people could try. If they are in public then they should be on a lead. If you desperately need to run them free (as I do - foxhound!) then make arrangements for a space where you can do that on private property. The whole issue would never have arisen if both dogs in question had been under control. They weren't. But they should have been.

borderlinemeath

Pixie Chief wrote: »

OP, to be fair I'm not sure that the issue is one of the breed of the dog. The issue is one of lack of control on the part of the dog owner and it is a huge one for dog owners and non dog owners alike in this country. At this present time, I have two dogs of my own and another two that I am fostering for a rescue. I have had dogs all my life (as well as horses, cats etc) and I love them and still it makes me cringe when I hear people say that they 'know' that their dog will never do harm to someone else. EVERY dog will bite or attack under the right set of circumstances regardless of breed - I have the scars on my face to prove it. From a family pet no less and not on the RB list.

The issue is that people seem to feel that it is ok for their dog to be an issue for other people and it just isn't. I don't want to be approached by other people's dogs, friendly or not and I deeply resent that dogs are not kept on leads in public places. If I take my children to the park, I don't want someones dog to come bounding up to us barking at us, followed a few minutes later by an owner strolling along getting annoyed with me for being frightened (all of us standing on top of a slide while the dog barks repeatedly at us - aggressive? don't know, don't care) because sure he only wanted to play with you. That's not my problem. It's not my dog so why should I have any obligation to play with your dog because he (and you) demands it?

As dog owners, I believe that we have an obligation to make sure that our dogs do not pose a problem for others and that includes frightening them, barking/growling at them, following them, jumping into the middle of a family picnic on the beach or whatever. I am always horrified when discussions like this quickly centre around telling someone all of the reasons why he shouldn't have been frightened of someone elses dog or whether that dog/breed in particular is dangerous. That is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that owners should ensure that their dogs (and you can include horses, cattle, cars and children if you like) do not impact on other people insofar as is humanly possible. There will always be incidents where it happens despite best efforts but it would be nice if people could try. If they are in public then they should be on a lead. If you desperately need to run them free (as I do - foxhound!) then make arrangements for a space where you can do that on private property. The whole issue would never have arisen if both dogs in question had been under control. They weren't. But they should have been.

I agree with most of your post. Except where you state this:

I deeply resent that dogs are not kept on leads in public places.


Do you not think that is completely discriminatory towards the responsible owners that do have their dogs under control in public? I meet dogs out off lead nearly every day, and for the most part they are well behaved and under control. Sometimes it's just not feasible as you say to organise somewhere that your dog can run free on private property. I try to run my pair at off peak times for minimal public disturbance, and IMO, they are extremely well behaved in public. When they see a dog they turn and look at me for guidance - depending on the other owner, I either tell them to "go on, say hello" or call their name and they come straight back.

The problem I see with ALL dogs on leads ALL the time is that they will miss out on vital socialisation skills. A lot of dogs I know are really not good when they meet other dogs when they are on the lead, there's an apprehension, because they are tethered, they cannot get away if there is an altercation. (the flight or fight response) so over time they develop a behaviour in order to ward other dogs off, it could be barking, rearing up, baring teeth etc and the owner pulls the dog away giving out to it:rolleyes:, further instilling the association with the dog that meeting other dogs is a bad thing.

This is another reason why the RB list is inherently bad. Keep the dogs on lead and muzzled, very little chance of socialisation with other dogs and if they are attacked or feel threatened by another dog they can't even defend themselves.

Rommie

http://notesfromadogwalker.com/2012/01/04/off-leash-dogs/
Had read this a while back and went looking for it again. Above is a story about a service dog that was attacked and had to be completely rehabilitated. And lo and behold, the service dog was a dobermann

ShaShaBear

Pixie Chief wrote: »

The whole issue would never have arisen if both dogs in question had been under control. They weren't. But they should have been.

I hadn't actually thought of this, but really I should have. You are totally spot on here with this.

This incident is absolutely by no means any different than any other encounter between two strange dogs, neither of which are on a lead. The breeds and responsibilities of either dog are irrelevant. As a dog owner, I have to deal with off-lead dogs on a daily basis. And I can absolutely assure you that my dog has been attacked by every single off-lead dog I have not been able to avoid. I can also assure you that it is almost never a restricted breed (not that it really matters when it comes to dog-on-dog aggression).

I don't know where you free run your dog OP, but it might be worth looking into taking him to a designated dog park (I am sure the instances of dog aggression are much lower in them, since there are so many more off-lead dogs in a close proximity) or begin to walk him on a lead. I'm aware that this doesn't prevent another off-lead dog from approaching. But it does give you a small amount of control over the situation. You or your mum could turn the dog and walk the other way. Your mum could shout to the owner that he is a guide dog (which would knock sense into a lot of naive people). You could also put a large yellow ribbon on his lead, which most people know is the universal sign for "give my dog some space". If you want him to socialise you can make sure it is in a controlled environment.

Pixie Chief

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I agree with most of your post. Except where you state this:

I deeply resent that dogs are not kept on leads in public places.


Do you not think that is completely discriminatory towards the responsible owners that do have their dogs under control in public? I meet dogs out off lead nearly every day, and for the most part they are well behaved and under control. Sometimes it's just not feasible as you say to organise somewhere that your dog can run free on private property. I try to run my pair at off peak times for minimal public disturbance, and IMO, they are extremely well behaved in public. When they see a dog they turn and look at me for guidance - depending on the other owner, I either tell them to "go on, say hello" or call their name and they come straight back.

The problem I see with ALL dogs on leads ALL the time is that they will miss out on vital socialisation skills. A lot of dogs I know are really not good when they meet other dogs when they are on the lead, there's an apprehension, because they are tethered, they cannot get away if there is an altercation. (the flight or fight response) so over time they develop a behaviour in order to ward other dogs off, it could be barking, rearing up, baring teeth etc and the owner pulls the dog away giving out to it:rolleyes:, further instilling the association with the dog that meeting other dogs is a bad thing.

This is another reason why the RB list is inherently bad. Keep the dogs on lead and muzzled, very little chance of socialisation with other dogs and if they are attacked or feel threatened by another dog they can't even defend themselves.

Sorry - You are completely correct and I will edit myself here. I deeply, deeply resent that dogs are not under control in public places is probably what I should have said. I should maybe also have said that in public amenity areas such as children's playgrounds and picnic areas all dogs should be on the lead at all times. These are not areas where dogs should be freely running around - they are designated areas for people to enjoy family time and not exercise or socialisation areas for dogs. If everyone were to keep their dogs under control there wouldn't be any necessity for me to ask it but they don't. The fact remains that the vast majority of dogs that I meet loose are not under under control and I remain skeptical of people telling me that they guarantee their ability to control a dog in a public area under any circumstances, no matter what happens - the further away from them that the dog is, the shakier that control becomes.

P.C.

OP, I sympathize with you.
You were worried for your dog, and I can understand that.

The majority of posts on here are from the perspective of a person who can see.
The OP can't see, and has to rely on her mother to - guide her (the OP), watch where she is walking, watch the OP's dog, and watch out for other dogs - that is a lot for one person to do.