Are Rottweilers dangerous?

Wheety

I know a girl who had a couple of rottweilers and the only way they'd hurt you is when they jump on your lap on the sofa looking to be petted. Big and heavy dogs but seem to think they're actually small dogs. :-)

Well these ones in particular. It does depend on how they're raised.

Sheepdish1

Doctor DooM wrote: »

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!

I know I was thinking the same!

Sheepdish1

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.

The theory of rank order/ dominance / submission has now been largely discredited . This theory derived from researchers observing captive wolves that were unrelated and forced to live in an unnatural environment. Wolves observed in the wild do not behave like captive wolves.

Also dogs are not wolves

MayoSalmon

DBB wrote:

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.

DBB wrote:

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.

Well you basically made my next point.

Chimpanzees and humans also share the same DNA and both species can be compared at a very fundamental level social structures etc. The same can be done for dogs and wolves obviously the same can be done the the domestic cat and the leopard, panther, lion, tiger.

Same argument can be made for dogs and wolves probably even more so.

Feral dogs live in loose groups...no they live in packs. These packs may not be as highly bound as same a wolf pack but they definitely display the same characteristics of a pack by and large.

DBB

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Well you basically made my next point.

Chimpanzees and humans also share the same DNA and both species can be compared at a very fundamental level social structures etc. The same can be done for dogs and wolves obviously the same can be done the the domestic cat and the leopard, panther, lion, tiger.

Same argument can be made for dogs and wolves probably even more so.

Feral dogs live in loose groups...no they live in packs. These packs may not be as highly bound as same a wolf pack but they definitely display the same characteristics of a pack by and large.

No, my point is that genetic relatedness does not dictate behavioural or social relatedness. You seem to be saying it does. Humans don't swing out of trees, and chimps don't drive cars.
Feral dogs don't live in packs. It has been claimed that they do, but this has been shown to be unfounded. They form loose groups when it comes to mating, for short periods whilst mother dogs are rearing pups, and occasionally for territorial defense, but the inter-dog relationships are very different to those between wolves in their family groups. The emphasis there is on the word family. Wolves live in family groups, feral dogs don't. The whole process of dog domestication hinged on the fact that "proto dogs" lost their tendency and necessity to maintain close, family social groups.
Ray Coppinger has done an enormous amount of research into this, and it has been widely accepted across canine behavioural science. His books are well worth a read.

kirving

MayoSalmon wrote: »

:rolleyes: Have you a single clue

Better to argue the points made than respond like that.

Tilikum17 wrote: »

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.

My housemate has a dog, and so I live with one. I have zero issue with living with it, but you can be damn sure that I'm going to keep my distance from a random dog. I don't spend my whole life terrified of dogs, I just want nothing to do with anyone else's dog when I'm out for a walk or cycle.

Sheepdish1 wrote: »

....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

I'm being a bit facetious here, but that sounds like victim blaming to me, which wouldn't be accepted in other areas of society. You can't expect a child to recognise the difference.

seamus wrote: »

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.

[/QUOTE]

I did say "very unlikely" though, which while a bit of a catch-all statement, does cover the above.

seamus wrote: »

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.

But we take action to mitigate against these risks, such as glass fronted fires, and dampers on doors in public places. In my view, there are just too many times in a day that a dog and baby/small child can be left alone. It's unreasonable to expect a parent to be present at all times.

seamus wrote: »

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.

I think it's also unreasonable to weigh up the probability vs. consequences of a dog injuring a child. Nominally, I'd consider it to be low risk too, and I've never personally had an issue with a dog, but I don't think anyone is really in a position to asses the risk to an accuracy that they would bet their childs life on.

seamus wrote: »

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.

As far as I'm concerned, it isn't controllable beyond training, which cannot be relied upon all of the time. There are hundreds of thousands of dog bites in the US each year (which I could see figures for), I think we can safely say that there are probably a few thousand in this country.

With that in mind, I'm sure every single one of those owners never thought in a million years that their own particular dog would bite - but it did. I wouldn't be particularly worried about most of them since they're minor injures and the benefits of dog ownership probably outweigh the harm at a macro level.

The problem arises when you have very small child, and a dog which isn't going to just give a nip in self-defense and then run away scared.

seamus wrote: »

In fact, you can control it so it doesn't even get that far - don't let children get in the dog's face.

It's just to difficult to maintain this all of the time, you only have to miss it once.

Mutant z wrote: »

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.

It doesn't matter who you are, if a big Rottweiler goes for you or your child, there is very little you can do about it.

Hellrazer

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Better to argue the points made than respond like that.

Please don't back seat moderate. Report the post and let us deal with it.

MayoSalmon

DBB wrote:

Humans don't swing out of trees, and chimps don't drive cars.

Those points are self evident and anyway we are talking about a shared ancestor 8 million years ago. If humans were still swinging out of trees evolution would of failed us.

The similarities between humans and chimps are more subtle as you would expect 8 million years...opposable thumbs, cognitive development, social relationships.

The similarities between wolves and dogs are not so subtle as their common ancestor was only 10,000 years ago their pack hierarchy being is a very notable similarity. Dogs pack mentality is no where near as strong as wolves however it is still there. To suggest otherwise is just denying reality I'm afraid.

Sure dogs and wolves can still interbreed. Humans and chimps cannot.

alta stare

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.

Im sorry but that last bit is nonsense. Id rather have my kids around a dog when they are young so they are confident and comfortable instead of being a bad of nerves if a dog even looks at them.

It all boils down to how the dog is raised. My kids were also taught how to handle and talk to the dog. They were taught to impose their authority over the dog by being strong in their commands toward him. Because he was trained well from 8 weeks he never went against myself or the kids. I will say though, they were never left alone with him. I wasnt worried about him suddenly attacking them i was worried they would jump all over him and if he got hurt by mistake then he may react with a bite and to be fair that wouldn't be his fault.

If he ever did bite he would of been put down. If they do it once then absolutely they need to be got rid of but a well raised dog is very unlikely going to bite.

kylith

Wheety wrote: »

I know a girl who had a couple of rottweilers and the only way they'd hurt you is when they jump on your lap on the sofa looking to be petted. Big and heavy dogs but seem to think they're actually small dogs. :-)

Well these ones in particular. It does depend on how they're raised.

My first experience of the breed was one that would sit in your lap on the sofa.

kirving

alta stare wrote: »

Im sorry but that last bit is nonsense. Id rather have my kids around a dog when they are young so they are confident and comfortable instead of being a bad of nerves if a dog even looks at them.

It's not nonsense, as you even agree in the last line of your post. Secondly, there is a huge difference between being a bag of nerves and having a healthy respect that a strangers dog (and some breeds in particular) are very capable of seriously injuring them.

alta stare wrote: »

It all boils down to how the dog is raised. My kids were also taught how to handle and talk to the dog. They were taught to impose their authority over the dog by being strong in their commands toward him. Because he was trained well from 8 weeks he never went against myself or the kids. I will say though, they were never left alone with him. I wasnt worried about him suddenly attacking them i was worried they would jump all over him and if he got hurt by mistake then he may react with a bite and to be fair that wouldn't be his fault.

This I think is a little contradictory, in that it can't all come down to how a dog is raised. Even a well trained dog will react if pushed hard enough, either accidentally or on purpose. Nevertheless, it's absolutely a good idea to supervise at all times.

alta stare wrote: »

If he ever did bite he would of been put down. If they do it once then absolutely they need to be got rid of but a well raised dog is very unlikely going to bite.

No to be smart, but it's a bit late at that stage.

alta stare

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's not nonsense, as you even agree in the last line of your post. Secondly, there is a huge difference between being a bag of nerves and having a healthy respect that a strangers dog (and some breeds in particular) are very capable of seriously injuring them.



This I think is a little contradictory, in that it can't all come down to how a dog is raised. Even a well trained dog will react if pushed hard enough, either accidentally or on purpose. Nevertheless, it's absolutely a good idea to supervise at all times.



No to be smart, but it's a bit late at that stage.

The last line of my post doesn't agree with anything you said.

A child who is nervous around a dog may make a wrong move and startle a dog into a reaction. Doesnt mean the dog is dangerous does it.

If a well trained dog is pushed too hard that makes him react then the kids should be blamed not the dog. Tell me how does a dog get pushed to aggression by accident??????

So are you suggesting the dog might aswell be left alone if they bite someone because its is "too late"?? If my dog ever showed aggression to anybody for no reason then yes he would of been dealt with, the same way he would of been dealt with if he bit someone so no its never too late.

Oasis1974

My uncle used to go to a local lake and put kittens in a bag and drown them for his neighbour's and he owned two Red Setters or ones on the buses think that's there breed. So that makes you think but the dogs were always sound used to jump on you but just in a playful manner. Plus on beach in West Cork a calf was bobbing up and down in the water someone had tied rope and a big rock to drown him. That wasn't my uncle BTW just shows its never the animal always the owner.

alta stare

Oasis1974 wrote: »

My uncle used to go to a local lake and put kittens in a bag and drown them for his neighbour's and he owned two Red Setters or ones on the buses think that's there breed. So that makes you think but the dogs were always sound used to jump on you but just in a playful manner. Plus on beach in West Cork a calf was bobbing up and down in the water someone had tied rope and a big rock to drown him. That wasn't my uncle BTW just shows its never the animal always the owner.

I know someone who used to drown pups that way aswell. Bloody horrible.

katiek102010

Rotties are not a banned breed

They used to be called the nanny dog as they are so good with kids

The only dog I have had an issue with is a JRT, they can be nasty vicious little ****s.

I love rotties

bilbot79

katiek102010 wrote: »

Rotties are not a banned breed

They used to be called the nanny dog as they are so good with kids

The only dog I have had an issue with is a JRT, they can be nasty vicious little ****s.

I love rotties

It is illegal to have them unmuzzled in public though. Why does everyone always compare to the most contrasting dogs like JRT = little, Cocker = sweet looking, Lab = gentle?

Tilikum17

katiek102010 wrote: »

Rotties are not a banned breed

They used to be called the nanny dog as they are so good with kids

The only dog I have had an issue with is a JRT, they can be nasty vicious little ****s.

I love rotties

Staffordshire bull terrier was/is known as the nanny dog. They’re not on the dangerous dogs list in England but are in Ireland. Idiots.

borderlinemeath

bilbot79 wrote: »

It is illegal to have them unmuzzled in public though. Why does everyone always compare to the most contrasting dogs like JRT = little, Cocker = sweet looking, Lab = gentle?

JRTs - Fiesty, very reactive breed. For a little dog they can cause a lot of damage.



Cockers - lots of them are badly bred, sometimes neurotic, underestimated because by your own admission they're "cute".



Labs - gentle?? Most labs I meet are big strong dogs. I know plenty that resource guard their food, and some that are dog aggressive.



I'll turn the question back on you. Why do you continue to ignore the fact that ANY breed of dog can do damage? Or ignore the fact that there are dog breeds that aren't on the RB list that are bigger, stronger and far more capable of causing harm in the wrong hands than the breeds you seem to take issue with? Would you even recognise them, or even be able to tell them apart from the RB breeds?

Ave Sodalis

bilbot79 wrote: »

It is illegal to have them unmuzzled in public though. Why does everyone always compare to the most contrasting dogs like JRT = little, Cocker = sweet looking, Lab = gentle?

To me, JRTs are far more dangerous, especially around children. As borderlinemeath has said, Cockers have a tendency to be neurotic due to bad breeding. Labs are just as capable of doing damage of a Rottie. I would actually consider a Rottie and a Lab to be quite similar.



People are comparing them to show you that the restricted dog list was pulled out of thin air. There are dogs that are considerably more unsuitable to be pets than what is on the list, and yet there's no sign of them. I know this has been said before but I think it's worth pointing out again, but a GSD is on the list, but a Belgian Mal is not. Likely the people who made the list would not be able to tell the difference between the dogs if they walked down the street.

bilbot79

I think the main point I'm taking from the thread is that Rottie dogs are potentially less vicious and more amenable than some classic breeds but if a Rottie decided to break bad you're screwed.

It's a shame about the muzzling but I can understand why the public would feel worried if s Rottie was running for them, even if just for a hug.

And to really turn the thread on it's heels, the dog turns out to be a Rottie/Mal cross... (Mal being Malamute)

Choc Chip

bilbot79 wrote: »

I think the main point I'm taking from the thread is that Rottie dogs are potentially less vicious and more amenable than some classic breeds but if a Rottie decided to break bad you're screwed.

It's a shame about the muzzling but I can understand why the public would feel worried if s Rottie was running for them, even if just for a hug.

And to really turn the thread on it's heels, the dog turns out to be a Rottie/Mal cross... (Mal being Malamute)

Fair play - I feel like you came here not liking the idea of a rottweiler at all, and while I don't feel you've entirely come round to them, you do seem more willing to give the dog a chance (and not to immediately judge it because it's been put on some list). Thanks for that - I always hate when people are nervous of my dog just because she's on a list.

bilbot79

Choc Chip wrote: »

Fair play - I feel like you came here not liking the idea of a rottweiler at all, and while I don't feel you've entirely come round to them, you do seem more willing to give the dog a chance (and not to immediately judge it because it's been put on some list). Thanks for that - I always hate when people are nervous of my dog just because she's on a list.

I didn't know about the list before this thread. I'd say not many do so when you see the muzzles you think they are dangerous

muddypaws

bilbot79 wrote: »

I think the main point I'm taking from the thread is that Rottie dogs are potentially less vicious and more amenable than some classic breeds but if a Rottie decided to break bad you're screwed.

It's a shame about the muzzling but I can understand why the public would feel worried if s Rottie was running for them, even if just for a hug.

And to really turn the thread on it's heels, the dog turns out to be a Rottie/Mal cross... (Mal being Malamute)

You're no more screwed thsn if a Great Dane, St Bernard, Malamute or other large dog decided to 'break bad'.

So does that change your mind about the dog, the fact that there is malamute in there? A breed that used to sleep with the inuit children to keep them warm.

bilbot79

muddypaws wrote: »

You're no more screwed thsn if a Great Dane, St Bernard, Malamute or other large dog decided to 'break bad'.

So does that change your mind about the dog, the fact that there is malamute in there? A breed that used to sleep with the inuit children to keep them warm.

Yes it does a bit. And I guess it means it doesn't go on the muzzle too. My perception of rotties has improved over this thread but I don't see why you would get one given they are on that list.

lashes34

Do you mean it won't need to be muzzled? It will. All of those breeds and any cross breed of them have to abide by the rules of that ridiculous law.

bilbot79

lashes34 wrote: »

Do you mean it won't need to be muzzled? It will. All of those breeds and any cross breed of them have to abide by the rules of that ridiculous law.

Even cross breeds? Sure how could they be if no-one knew for sure what it was?

sillysmiles

bilbot79 wrote: »

And to really turn the thread on it's heels, the dog turns out to be a Rottie/Mal cross... (Mal being Malamute)

Please tell me you have a photo? A Rottie/Mal puppy sounds like it should look adorable.

As far as I can tell, at the moment it is a puppy that is not in your house, so either way you have no control over the situation?

sillysmiles

bilbot79 wrote: »

Even cross breeds? Sure how could they be if no-one knew for sure what it was?

Another of the reasons why that law is an ass and made up by people who know feck all about actual dog behaviour.

seamus

bilbot79 wrote: »

I think the main point I'm taking from the thread is that Rottie dogs are potentially less vicious and more amenable than some classic breeds but if a Rottie decided to break bad you're screwed.

Ultimately no more "screwed" than any other dog breed of equivalent size.

The rottweiler was bred as a working dog, not a fighting dog. In comparison to a pit bull, where one may debate whether their reputation is deserved, the poor old Rottie is nothing more than a victim of propaganda.

They are excellent working dogs, and along with German Shepherds, were popular military personnel during the two World Wars - especially with the Germans.

This association with the Nazis, as well as a series of popular TV shows/movies featuring "dangerous" Rotties, caused the public sentiment to turn negative towards them and regard them as "vicious" breeds despite the lack of any reason to do so.

emo72

my mate had a female rottweiller. it was the biggest friendliest dog id ever known. id love a dog like that.