Are Rottweilers dangerous?

bilbot79

Sheepdish1 wrote: »

Are there other reasons that are making you nervous about your family member getting the puppy apart from the breed? Do you think they will be responsible with the dog?

This is part of it. They mean well but tend to just go with the flow and not read up on things or heed advice. I'm not entirely certain they appreciate the difference between a Rottweiler and a Collie ie lockjaw

DBB

By "lockjaw" do you mean the ability to lock the jaws into place one the bite has started?
If so, let me assure you that this is not a mechanism that is present in any dog breed or canid species. I know you hear people say it, but a lot of people say a lot of mythical stuff about dogs, and this is most definitely one of them.
Big dogs can bite harder. Some breeds of dogs have a genetic predisposition to bite and hold on to other animals (fighting breeds, bull baiting breeds... Any propensity to display any such behaviour towards humans resulted in the dog being rapidly removed from existence), but there is no locking mechanism, and happily, the Rottie is neither of these types of breeds.

TheUnderfaker

The 2 best behaved dogs I know are rotties. I heard before that statistically, labs are responsible for most bites/incidents but:

A) That might have been a lie
If it's true, it's probably because there are so many of them around

seamus

Heat_Wave wrote: »

What are people's thoughts on Alsatians? There is one in our estate, and his owner walks him off the lead. He went for a neighbour before and they complained, yet the owner continues to walk him off the lead. I saw him this evening and had to turn home as I was frozen with fear when I saw him. It really angers me that I cannot walk in my own estate

It depends on what "going for" means.

I find people are often hysterical about dogs and tend to badly misinterpret the actions of big dogs. A big dogs who jumps up on you or stands in front of you and barks is "going for you", a St. Bernard who walks into you and knocks you onto your arse is "being aggressive".

Unless said dog is actually attacking people, then I'd say the problem is mostly in your head, and you should go see someone to deal with your irrational fear that causes you to freeze and turn around just because you see a dog.

Somedaythefire

A neighbour of mine when I was younger got a rottweiler back in the days I was terrified of dogs. It was the nicest dog on the road. Absolutely gorgeous too, the two chocolate labradors next door, however? They were terrifying and untrained.

borderlinemeath

bilbot79 wrote: »

borderlinemeath wrote: »

A Jack Russell killed a 4 day old baby in the UK a few years ago. Complacency around size, ability and the fact that certain breeds is on an arbitrary list is what is dangerous.

That is seriously tragic and the mortality element has a lot to do with the age of the child aswell. The JRT could be reasonably dangerous to a 2 year old but highly unlikely to be able to fracture it's skull.

Poor baby

But you stated that you would be comfortable with a lab or a retriever, dogs that are 30-35kg and are big strong dogs. They have the same amount of teeth as a jrt or any RB dog and can do the same damage. I'll repeat, complacency around "regular" dogs because some breeds are on the RB list is the most dangerous perception to have.

Doctor DooM

shamrock55 wrote: »

Do you mind if I ask what bad experience did you have with the cocker

I spent a few days volunteering in a rescue shelter, and as a big man, I got given the rotties, GSDs etc to walk (all lovely natured, but some untrained, so a smaller person would be dragged half way across Dublin with them).

There was also a lovely little golden cocker puppy I walked (as a break my arm needed it ) and the staff person told me they can be very unpredictable and I'd need to watch him. Apparently there is an awful lot of inbreeding involved in puppy farmed golden cockers to get the colour and you have to be careful, as they're naturally highly strung anyways.

So here is me who's effectively been thrown out into a field with huge, slobbery happy dogs all day and the one they warn me about is this tiny little cute cocker pup

As it turned out- they were all lovely, and it was an incredibly rewarding experience.

CrankyHaus

I wouldn't fully trust any dog around young children. Children are liable to annoy them by touching them in ways they don't like. The dog may give plenty of body language signals to back off and a child will be oblivious to it because they're more focused on human facial expressions. Eventually even a placid dog may strike out if it feels cornered and pushed too far.

On top of that dogs are social animals and can attempt to get above small children in the family pecking order and may assert their position by lashing out. This is particularly the case if the dog was there before the child and sees the child as taking the attention from its owners that was previously lavished on the dog.

Control measures I'd take with dogs and kids are:

Getting the dog after the kids are a certain age, maybe 6 minimum.
Getting a female dog.
Disciplining and socializing the dog properly.

You're far less likely to have incidents with a Rottweiler following such control measures than you are with say a Cavalier Spaniel without the control measures. Of course the severity of any incidents with a Rottweiler will be far greater due to their size. I'd still probably go for a different breed out of personal choice but done right (which most owners won't do) a Rottweiler is fine. If it's their first dog they probably won't be great with a Rottweiler.

Toots

I've encountered lots of rotties over the years. I used to work in boarding kennels and we boarded a fair few of them, and my experience of them was that they were lovely friendly dogs. Most were totally unaware of their own size and would quite happily try and sit on your lap, even though they wouldn't necessarily fit there.

The only one I ever came across that wasn't a friendly pile of hugs was one that lived next door to my husband's parents. That family have a habit of getting dogs that they've no idea how to handle. A rottie is a high energy dog, which will need to be given plenty of exercise and stimulation. They're not the sort of dog you can just get and leave in the back garden to "guard" the place, which is what this neighbour did. The dog was never walked or played with, it was never around any other dogs and very rarely around people.

Like any dog, you'd need to make sure to socialise them well from a young age, and a few sessions with a trainer would probably do no harm. Also, as they are on the restricted breed list, they do need to be muzzled when in public, and kept on a strong lead. This is nothing to do with whether or not the dog is vicious, it's the law.

I have a staff/lab cross at home and she's a gentle giant. She's brilliant with my kids, and follows them around the place "minding" them. If the baby cries she's straight over to see what's wrong and sits beside the cot until my husband or I pick the baby up. I'd never leave her alone with my kids, but I'd never leave any dog alone with kids. It's not fair on the kids or the dog.

artanevilla

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Greatest myth of all time. Some dogs are inherently dangerous breeds. Yes, they can be controlled via proper training and supervision but nothing that you, me or anyone else can do will take away their instinct. We can minimise the risk but never ever eliminate it.

IMO, Labradors are one of the most dangerous as they almost always appear quite placid and have a 'good' name yet they're one of the most prolific biters of all dogs.

They are only "inherently dangerous" because of their size, not because of any innate temperament.

It's the same for humans. A scrawny little fúckwit might be more dangerous because they are a bad person, but they'd not be as intimidating as a 6"4, 18 stone gentle giant.

I could easily overpower the fúckwit if they attacked me (Chihuahua) but if the gentle giant took offence well I'd be in trouble (Rottweiler).

Now you could argue there are inherently bad people, regardless of upbringing, but dogs are easier to control than people.

My point is that it's unfair to label someone/dogs as inherently dangerous due to their physical makeup.

sillysmiles

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

It doesn't make them bad dogs, nor does it make owners who don't have the means to get rid of their energy bad owners... they're just wrong for each other.

I agree with what you are saying in general- but I disagree with the above. I think this is the epitome of a "bad owner" - not recognizing the needs of the dog and being able to meet them. For good owners, that happens before you get a dog - looking at what you can provide for a dog and then excluding dogs whos needs you cannot meet. Bad owners - to me - start with they wanting a particular dog/breed without knowing anything about that breed and not knowing how to meet its needs.

Sheepdish1

borderlinemeath wrote: »

But you stated that you would be comfortable with a lab or a retriever, dogs that are 30-35kg and are big strong dogs. They have the same amount of teeth as a jrt or any RB dog and can do the same damage. I'll repeat, complacency around "regular" dogs because some breeds are on the RB list is the most dangerous perception to have.

Agreed. Some people think because a dog is a certain breed that they are less likely to bite which is not the case and is also unfair on the dog

Ave Sodalis

sillysmiles wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying in general- but I disagree with the above. I think this is the epitome of a "bad owner" - not recognizing the needs of the dog and being able to meet them. For good owners, that happens before you get a dog - looking at what you can provide for a dog and then excluding dogs whos needs you cannot meet. Bad owners - to me - start with they wanting a particular dog/breed without knowing anything about that breed and not knowing how to meet its needs.

Maybe, but there's a huge amount of bad information on line too. You can get information from anywhere, and it's not necessarily fact checked. The amount of rubbish you see on the likes of Facebook would make you want to scream at times, but there's not much you can do to regulate it. It's entirely possible that many people think they're getting the right breed for them, but are not. There are people who would shame someone for rejecting a dog based on their breed because "every dog deserves a home". Then when an owner realises they've got the wrong dog for them, they're shamed for trying to rehome it to a more suitable home. These owners might be great with another type of dog, and are not bad owners to the dog itself, but they're just the wrong match.



A lot of people don't even factor in breed as something they need to check. They might research food, garden size, even dog size, but not the breed itself. Working professionally with dogs, I know what I don't know. However, with the general public, most don't know what they don't know. Whilst this is an ignorance problem and needs addressing via education, I don't think calling them bad owners is the way forward. Someone doing the best the can with the information they have to me, is not a bad owner, just the wrong one.

NSAman

Never had a Rottie, have had many types and breeds of Dogs. I have to concur with most people on here. It is about the handler and the dogs experience with people rather than the dog.

I have had a Collie who was the most over protective dog of children. The kids used to call to the house to bring him out and play football with them. He would march in front of the kids.

He would sit beside the neighbours house protecting the child from anyone he didnt know.

He would be very verbal with anyone who came too close to that child.

I have had horribly abused dogs, a lab who was slashed and horribly abused. When I got him first, I thought he was the anti-christ. He tore up the house, **** and peed everywhere... but after that... he was the most loved (and not just by me) and loveable dog you could imagine,,, my neighbours adored him he had that personality that made he love everyone and everything... despite his terrible start in life.

I have had German Shepherds, one in particular who was a real mammys boy and protected her and us with his life... as is evidenced by an “attempted” break-in.

I have had many different types of dogs from all back grounds and abuse situations... one thing that they ALL have in common, they are all treated with love and care and TRAINED properly. They have ALL been fantastic and become part of our family.

It is not the dog, it is the owner....

kirving

NSAman wrote: »

It is not the dog, it is the owner....

The vast majority of the time, you're correct.

But it's not good enough to be correct the vast majority of the time. The only way to be sure, every time, that the dog isn't going to hurt the baby is to not have a dog.

NSAman

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The vast majority of the time, you're correct.

But it's not good enough to be correct the vast majority of the time. The only way to be sure, every time, that the dog isn't going to hurt the baby is to not have a dog.

True, but who wants a kid to miss out on the fantastic bonding experience a baby/toddler can develop with a properly socialized dog?

kirving

NSAman wrote: »

True, but who wants a kid to miss out on the fantastic bonding experience a baby/toddler can develop with a properly socialized dog?

It's a difficult one to balance alright, but I think it's fair to mitigate against that somewhat by having a smaller dog introduced when the child is say 2 or 3, and choosing a breed that is less capable of causing harm.

My sister has a large Doberman, and its the most relaxed dog I have ever seen, but there's absolutely nothing I could do *if* it was scared and went for me or someone else. I've seen far more agressive Westie's, but they're very unlikely to be able to seriously injure you.

It's about the *potential* harm a breed can do, not that all dogs of a particular breed are bad.

NSAman

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's a difficult one to balance alright, but I think it's fair to mitigate against that somewhat by having a smaller dog introduced when the child is say 2 or 3, and choosing a breed that is less capable of causing harm.

My sister has a large Doberman, and its the most relaxed dog I have ever seen, but there's absolutely nothing I could do *if* it was scared and went for me or someone else. I've seen far more agressive Westie's, but they're very unlikely to be able to seriously injure you.

It's about the *potential* harm a breed can do, not that all dogs of a particular breed are bad.

*potential* can cause danger in anything in life. I think if you “know” your dog and maintain that vigilance with any child (as you always should around animals) there will not be a *potential*.

We had a massive Saint who we worried about all the time with little one. In case he sat on him.....the two of them were inseparable. When he passed it was absolutely heartbreaking to see that bond gone.

MayoSalmon

Eric Cartman wrote: »

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RecreationandCulture/AnimalWelfare/Documents/New_Banned_Dog_Leaflet.pdf

theyre on the banned dogs list. They likely pose a danger to young children or other animals if left out alone. Im sure somebody will come along to tell us theyre all good and wouldnt harm anybody but in reality unless its a house of adults or atleast teenagers I wouldnt have one around.

:rolleyes: Have you a single clue

Sheepdish1

bilbot79 wrote: »

This is part of it. They mean well but tend to just go with the flow and not read up on things or heed advice. I'm not entirely certain they appreciate the difference between a Rottweiler and a Collie ie lockjaw

I appreciate your concerns in relation to the Rottweiler as it is a large dog however it sounds like you feel the owner's management of the dog will be the problem here. IMO dog owners become the problem if they are inexperienced, haven't researched or don't understand the amount of time and commitment involved in owning any dog will there be a problem.

It is vital for a puppy to become a well rounded dog to get plenty of socialisation when it is young so it does not become fearful or nervous in unusual circumstances. This means plenty of new experiences around different places, types of dog, humans, situations, cars, objects , noises etc before 16 weeks. Will they do this?

It would also be good for them / you to read up on dog body language as a lot of people aren't *aware* of warning signals that a dog is giving well before a growl/ snap / bite happens when it is in an uncomfortable situation. Dog's will generally bit as a last resort but the humans haven't read the other warnings.

borderlinemeath

Kevin Irving wrote: »

NSAman wrote: »

It is not the dog, it is the owner....

The vast majority of the time, you're correct.

But it's not good enough to be correct the vast majority of the time. The only way to be sure, every time, that the dog isn't going to hurt the baby is to not have a dog.

I have 4 dogs and a 3yr old. 3 of them since before she was born and contrary to outdated opinion they dont see her as "above" them because the pecking order/hierarchy theory is a myth. They adore her and she them. I couldn't imagine being the type of person that wouldn't have a dog because I had children.

Tilikum17

NSAman wrote: »

True, but who wants a kid to miss out on the fantastic bonding experience a baby/toddler can develop with a properly socialized dog?

Exactly, when I’m out walking my dogs you can see such a difference in kids/adults that come across them. It’s terrible to see people that are frightened of dogs. Even grown men. More than likely, their parents were raised the same way - Never got to meet dogs growing up. They then spend their whole lives terrified of the greatest animal on the planet imo.

It’s lovely to see a child getting so excited to meet a dog.

Sheepdish1

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's a difficult one to balance alright, but I think it's fair to mitigate against that somewhat by having a smaller dog introduced when the child is say 2 or 3, and choosing a breed that is less capable of causing harm.

My sister has a large Doberman, and its the most relaxed dog I have ever seen, but there's absolutely nothing I could do *if* it was scared and went for me or someone else. I've seen far more agressive Westie's, but they're very unlikely to be able to seriously injure you.

It's about the *potential* harm a breed can do, not that all dogs of a particular breed are bad.

I was bitten by a Westie when I was quite young. With the Westie I wasn't aware of the warning signs and because it's tail was ''wagging'' I assumed it was friendly and wanted me to pet it - wrong Looking back it should not have been allowed to roam around on it's own but then again I shouldn't have approached a dog I didn't know:D I was also a kid that didn't see warning signs .ie. stiff body etc

With the Jack Russell, unknown to me it was injured and when I petted it and got quite a nasty bite....from then on I was more careful when petting dogs without asking:D

seamus

Kevin Irving wrote: »

My sister has a large Doberman, and its the most relaxed dog I have ever seen, but there's absolutely nothing I could do *if* it was scared and went for me or someone else. I've seen far more agressive Westie's, but they're very unlikely to be able to seriously injure you.

It's about the *potential* harm a breed can do, not that all dogs of a particular breed are bad.

I say it all the time; dogs have teeth designed to tear flesh. If you think a Westie can't do serious harm, then you're deluding yourself. Especially in terms of kids.

When factoring in potential harm, you also have to factor in risk. Potential impact is not in isolation an appropriate metric to use to make decisions.

After all, the potential harm of having a fireplace in your home is enormous. It could potentially kill all of you. But the risk of such an incident is low - and controllable - so we have fireplaces in our homes.

Likewise the potential harm that can be caused by doors is quite low - trapped fingers, bruised noses - but the risk of incidents is very high. So we tolerate them.

The same is true of dogs. Potential harm is high, but the risk of harm is low. Potential harm of larger dogs is higher, but the risk is still low. Arguably smaller dogs pose a higher risk since they're more likely to feel threatened by the small child which is bigger than them.
And the risk is controllable. Dogs don't launch into random unpredictable attacks any more than humans do. Short of some kind psychotic break, a dog that you know and trust will give plenty of warning signals before an incident. In fact, you can control it so it doesn't even get that far - don't let children get in the dog's face.

But if you're not confident that you can read the dog or keep the kids away from it, then you'd be correct in making the decision to not have a dog at all.

Mutant z

Any dog with an idiotic owner has the potential to be dangerous it's how they are handled what matters if you can't handle such a breed then you shouldn't have it in the first place.

TheChizler

Tilikum17 wrote: »

It’s lovely to see a child getting so excited to meet a dog.

Except when without warning they go straight for the eyes with their little fingers... :rolleyes: Parents really need to teach their kids how to approach a dog. Plenty of adults do the same thing though.

Irish-Lass

I have a rottie as well as 3 other dogs. We have a 5 year child and she has grown up with all the dogs including the rottie since the day she was born.

I knew my rottie and I knew there wouldn't be an issue with bringing a baby into the house. But saying that I still am not going to leave them all in a room unsupervised. Its not fair on the dogs or the child. In our house its the yappy little terrier who is 16 that is the bi**h in the family. When we got the rottie I was aware of their reputation so we did put a good bit of time into training her etc and it paid off she doesn't jump and is probably the best behaved out of all the dogs.

It comes down to the owners if you are not going to socialise a dog, exercise it, train it all dogs have the potential to cause damage. As this is a puppy its a clean slate and once positive reinforcement is used should turn out a well rounded dog, there are lots of doggy social classes / training around these days.

In our house between the biggest concerns are the 16 year old yappy terrier and the 15 year old cat who looks like she is plotting our demise on a daily basis.

Oh and our rottie is a great foster mammy to the foster kittens we take into the house, they always leave with clean bums and faces :-)

Doctor DooM

Irish-Lass wrote: »

Oh and our rottie is a great foster mammy to the foster kittens we take into the house, they always leave with clean bums and faces :-)

I know this is a SRS BZNZ thread but how cute is this Hoge rottie looking after teeny little kittens!

MayoSalmon

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I have 4 dogs and a 3yr old. 3 of them since before she was born and contrary to outdated opinion they dont see her as "above" them because the pecking order/hierarchy theory is a myth. They adore her and she them. I couldn't imagine being the type of person that wouldn't have a dog because I had children.

DNA from dogs and wolves is 98.8 percent the same.

Dogs are pack animals who live in family units. They do this (form packs) if they are left to their own devices and go feral. A domesticated dog’s pack is made up of the humans and other dogs it lives with.

DBB

MayoSalmon wrote: »

DNA from dogs and wolves is 98.8 percent the same.

Dogs are pack animals who live in family units. They do this (form packs) if they are left to their own devices and go feral. A domesticated dog’s pack is made up of the humans and other dogs it lives with.

DNA from chimpanzees and humans is 99% the same.
I don't see many humans swinging out of trees though!
Genetic similarities aside, the evolutionary processes that have happened to dogs in the past 10,000+ years have caused considerable changes in social structure, physical and mental development, and behaviour. Wolves live in peaceful family packs. Feral dogs live in loose groups which are dictated by reproduction and food availability, and are very unstable over time, and within which there can be considerable aggression.
So, comparing dog behaviour to wolf behaviour is akin to comparing chimp behaviour to human. Close, but not THAT close.