Rottweillers and Pitbulls

He's a Great Dane. Right now he's at 232 lb. He put on about 20 lb. since they got him fixed (ow:(). Don't know if that's normal or not.

Bandit...:)
Those two monsters got a new housemate a couple of months ago.
It's a Dachshund-go figure. My friend's wife had always wanted one...fits right in:rolleyes: That little dog is hilarious!
 
Tightwad,
Once again some peoples ignorance rears it ugly head :(

How can you make a statement like that? Do you actually know ANYTHING about dogs?

I have owned, trained, competed and shown dogs for many years, and out of all of the breeds I have had, guess which one was the best? That's right, a Rottweiler (and yes, there is only 1 L).

It is all in the way a dog is managed by his owner. If an a$$hole drug dealer owns a Rottweiler or a Pit Bull and mistreats the dog and fights the dog, then obviously, the dog wil not behave the way it would if it is trained properly. Is that the dog's fault? Blame the owner, not the dog.

My best Rottweiler was a 160 lb. male, that was full protection trained. I could turn the dog from protection mode to not a care in the world mode like a light switch. I used to take him to the park and place him in a sit/stay position, and walk away. I would walk a couple of hundred yards away, and the dog would just sit and watch me as other little yappy dogs, joggers, bikers, kids, etc. would go by him. Then using hand commands, I would summon the dog. He would make a bee-line to me and sit in front of my feet. Could you get a Poodle to do this?

This dog also loved kids, and would let them do anything to him, including pulling on his ears, without even thinking biting them.

This same dog would also pop a basketball with a single bite, or shred a highway cone (you know, those orange things), or hit a training sleeve so hard it knocked the wearer down, and let go instantly on command. And don't even think about raisng a hand to one of his family members.

So remember, it's not the dog, it's the person behind the dog's training.

And BTW, do you realize that dog bites are one of the things that brings the most people into the emergency room each year? And that Poodles and Golden Retrievers are are on the top of the bite list? Rotties and Pit Bulls aren't even close to the top.

And one more thing, would you trust your family members lives protection to a Poodle or a Beagle?

Think before you spout off at the mouth.
 
Jailhack, I agree with most of what you had to say, but however silly poodles look when they are clipped and painted, the standard poodle is very smart and has been used by Navy Seals in some of their operations. I have seen one who protects his turf very well indeed. It's not their fault that they are clipped in such a silly way by some folks.

I have to disagree with your assumtions that Rotties and larger dogs are the only ones you can trust for defense of security and property. That just ain't so. I know you are loyal to the breed but most dogs if raised and treated in the proper way will do just fine. I once had a one eyed sheperd mix who was a medium sized dog. We lived in a rough neighborhood back then, and while the folks next door and those around us were burgarlerized, we were not. I have heard police officers that have stated this: "I have never answered a burgalry call from a house that had a dog."

I have friends who have Rotties and the next door neighboors have a Pit Bull. They can be very sweet if raised and treated right. In most cases, the owner makes all the difference in the world.

BTW I wish I could get my Cairn to obey half as good as you have your Rottie doing. He has a mind of his own for sure.

Bandit, those miniture Dachshunds are the worst! I hear, if you are attacked by one it is best to just play dead.:D

Enjoy and take care of whatever breed you have. Make them an equal member of the family. Take care.
 
Originally posted by Tightwad
In the days when homes had a moat and all combat was with blades and arrows
these two "War Dog" breeds served a useful purpose. The only real purpose they
serve in todays modern world is to exhibit the owners stupidity for owning one.

There is a saying that when you breed a junkyard dog (or war dog) it's only a matter
of time before he'll turn on you.
Originally posted by Tightwad
In the days when homes had a moat and all combat was with blades and arrows
these two "War Dog" breeds served a useful purpose. The only real purpose they
serve in todays modern world is to exhibit the owners stupidity for owning one.

There is a saying that when you breed a junkyard dog (or war dog) it's only a matter
of time before he'll turn on you.

I cant help but retort to this silly notion. This has got to be the biggest dump truck load of doo doo I have ever heard. Now I do belive that people who raise these dogs to make them mean and nasty and train them for the purpose of fighting are warped. But I have had a Pitbull for twelve years now and all I have done is shown him love.
I can honestly tell you that he is a big sweet heart.
I also think that a responsible Pitbull owner is far from stupid, we are here to show the sheeple that these are one of the most versatile and loyal dogs around, not to mention brave. So please before you go measuring ones intelligence by the breed of dog they own, open your eyes. Her is a pic of my killer pitbull George watch out he might lick you to death.:rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • george2.jpg
    george2.jpg
    91.1 KB · Views: 190
BoyNhisDog,

I should have explained better....I meant those little yappy 5 lb. Toy Poodles, not the standard. And it is definitely better to have any decent sized dog than none at all, but a 10 pound yapper is not going to stop anyone intent on robbing your home. I myself am very much into large size breeds, nothing against the medium ones though :)

That same Rottie once pinned a UPS driver against a wall just because he placed a foot inside an open door. He was A-OK until that foot came through the door, as soon as it did, the dog went into "protection mode". Didn't touch the driver, just backed him up and kept him there until called off.:)
 
Although I don't agree with what Tightwad said, I understand a little bit about where he is coming from. Pit bulls and certain other varieties are what my brother and I call "poseur" breeds, because the owners are quite frequently "I'm a bad ass" type who feel they need to show their machismo as much as possible.

I've never met a Rottweiler that was vicious-- or smart.
 
Originally posted by Jailhack
It is all in the way a dog is managed by his owner. If an a$$hole drug dealer owns a Rottweiler or a Pit Bull and mistreats the dog and fights the dog, then obviously, the dog wil not behave the way it would if it is trained properly. Is that the dog's fault? Blame the owner, not the dog.

In the 1980s and into the early 1990s, whenever a Pitbull would bite someone in Maryland and then the local TV Shows would have these stupid "Townhall Meetings" or whatever, there was always some paranoid and very vocal minority controlling the debate. Same with Guns, same with knives...same with everything in this Country and in many other countries as well.

Jailhack is correct when he says it is sh*tbag "owners," if you wish to call some of these people that, that will turn a dog into what Massad Ayoob referred to as, "The equivalent of a five year old human running around with a handgun." That is in a slightly different context, Ayoob was stressing the point that the most intelligent of dogs are possibly as intelligent as a five year old human child. But that is also an entirely different form of intelligence too and that must never be forgotten.

I grew up around the basic, aforementioned, "sh*tbag owners" in the form of Bikers and wannabe badasses that wanted badassed dogs. I've seen abused dogs. No, they were not all abused, some of them just treated in a manner that made them extremely hostile towards anyone but the Owner of the dog. There are several different forms of abuse and a book could be written on the myths associated with "fighting dogs" or "attack dogs" and that whole subculture that has developed around them in this country alone.

Dog Lovers will not like what I am going to say and Dog Haters have already dismissed what I have said in agreement with Jailhack. Jailhack might not like what I have to say next either...I agree and then disagree on one point.

Dogs are no different than human beings in one aspect, which Jailhack hit upon but I am going to say something further...

Yes, the vast majority of dogs that attack and kill people were abused, tormented or something went wrong somewhere with the way they were handled, raised and or "trained." Using the word "trained" very lightly...

What Jailhack might disagree with is this, I don't know.

Dogs are also like people in that, some of them are just bad eggs. And that about sums it up. They are NOT perfect, cuddly creatures and some of them are downright nasty without human intervention to make them so. I've seen it personally. Sometimes inbreeding can cause this, which is ALSO a HUMAN INTERVENTION PROBLEM but you can get a dog that you think is good, treat it well and it is still basically a waste of life. It's useless because for whatever reason, they are just screwed up. Just like some people do not have to be abused but grow up to simply defy the norm and attack people. They are rare, but they do exist. In what percentage? I have no idea but a guess would be way less than 5%. It might be lower than 1%, given the fact that the Media is responsible for creating hysterias about fatal dog attacks. Surely no more than 5% though.

There are Doberman Lovers that will tell you that it is a myth that a Doberman will "bite the hand that feeds it," meaning, turn on the Owner. That is not exactly a myth. A Doberman, from personal experience, is a strong-headed dog, the descriptions used above are popular with Doberman Haters, but they do in fact feel the need to test their Master once in a while. :D I've owned a couple of them in my day. They are good dogs, but they do tend to be high strung and because of nasty inbreeding over the years, some tend to be even more so, this makes for a fear biter as well. If you had to take one breed of "Working Dog" that would have the greatest possibility of being a fear biter, it would be a Doberman. They are not high strung because they are "neurotic" as some people like to say, but they do have a nervous energy about them and alot of them do not get the proper exercise and attention they really require. That is why I don't own one now, or a Rottie. I don't have the time to spend with them, added to the fact my Wife and Son are allergic to dogs.

The Rottie is a MUCH MORE stable dog than a Doberman, a much better choice. But you still have to get a good bloodline and you have to treat them right. Simple as that. Is it possible you might get one of the "bad eggs" I spoke of? Of course...that is a possibility with any dog.

They are animals, if we leave behind the cuddly and loving adoration for the dog and the cat, they are still animals. People begin to attach human sentiments to a dog, that's the wrong thing to do. They are animals and you must never forget that you own an animal and it is NOT your child. There is absolutely no scientific basis for what some people's emotions allow them to believe.

That having been said, it is perfectly OK to have one as a companion and to love it! They can be great friends and indeed, they can save your life. But never forget there is a dividing line there as well. They are still a dog. There is no benevolence natural to the dog. A dog is a dog, you can get a good one, but if you don't, you might be in for some trouble.

I find debates on large dogs to be a bag of poop. My Mother had a Cocker Spaniel that was a fear biter that sent me to the hospital for three sutures in my face. Any animal can injure and even a Cocker Spaniel could kill a small child if they wanted to. Think about that for a moment...they still have teeth, teeth can still hit the throat and vital structures of the neck, it is a no-brainer.

In fact, a year or so ago, a person in some State, I cannot remember which, was killed by a Raccoon or Opossum, how is that for rare? They have teeth and they can be vicious, just like a Poodle or any other animal with teeth. They can kill you. It is just easier for the larger dogs to do so for whatever reason.

I have also watched children walking home from school and poking sticks through chain link fences on an almost daily basis, tormenting good dogs...if the dog that is so tormented should turn on a child in the future, what then? The dog should be put down, simple as that. But what about the tormentors? When they are caught they should be punished because in a very real way, they are, at times, directly responsible for that future killing of innocent people.

Pit Bulls are another breed that takes a lot of heat. Sure, they can be nasty, but I think we already established any dog can be. I like dogs...they have a rightful place in the order of things.

Dismount soapbox, you may now flame at will. :)
 
Originally posted by komondor
Although I don't agree with what Tightwad said, I understand a little bit about where he is coming from. Pit bulls and certain other varieties are what my brother and I call "poseur" breeds, because the owners are quite frequently "I'm a bad ass" type who feel they need to show their machismo as much as possible.

I agree with that, but the problem is not the dog, but again, the Owner.

You don't see crackhouses being guarded by Pomeranians, and there is a reason for that. Ignoring the reason is simply being a non-thinking Dog Lover.

I've never met a Rottweiler that was vicious-- or smart.

I've seen both! I've seen smart and vicious, stupid and vicious and just plain old, good, smart dogs in that breed. They're more stable than a Dobe, as I stated, but Dobes tend to be a tad more crafty. The sneaky Sonsabitches. :D
 
Fella's, Some of you may notice that I deleted all of my previous post on this subject
and replaced them with Merry Christmas. I did that because it seemed that NO one
was reading exactly what my meaning was intended to be. All that was happening
was a personal interpertation of what the reader thought I ment. This lead the ensuing
flame war that serves no real purpose here at all.

So in the interest of peaceful .....calm.....discussion I changed all my post to be more in
line with the Bladeforums guidelines and agreement. I marvel at the diversity here and
all the different points of view which can all be stated calmly for all to consider.

Since the subject of pet ownership is very much like a persons choice of worship, wine
women , politics, and cars I'll offer this though......Whatever your point of view on the
subject is it is just that.......Your point of view and not anyone else's. As long as you are
not being forced to accept the other point of view it can not be wrong.......just different.
 
Jailhack, I agree that Rotties are a better choice in keeping people out of your house who don't belong there. They have such a poker face. I never can tell what they are thinking. Size does matter but as you say even a medium dog who is devoted will serve you well.

I too am no fan of the toy group. I prefer a dog that was bred for a working purpose.

Don, I have owned two Dobermans and never had one bite or even threaten. They are hound dogs with clipped ears. Some are more regal than others. Yes, the bloodlines do matter but that goes for everything on this earth. Somewhere inside all of us is an inner cave man who lived a short brutal life. They hunted in packs too and killed everything that they saw including other men. They were and still are the most dangerous being on this planet.

Far, far more people are hurt by other people than by dogs. a lot of dogs are hurt by people. And yes, the dogs rightful place is with man, and it has been that way for more than 14000 years. They are a big reason for our early survival.
 
Don,

I am not going to flame you at all, because I agree with what you said in it's entirety, basically. There are dogs that are just plain F**ked up in the head, and you basically stated the reason why.....human intervention. Now, some have a chemical imbalance just the same as people, but this number must be miniscule compared to all of the inbreeding, crossbreeding, etc. At some point all current dog types have had a human hand involved.

Like I said, don't blame the dog, blame the owner or even perhaps the breeder, or the breeder's, breeder, etc. , etc. ;)
 
You are all wrong. Big dogs drool, Chihuahua's rule!:D
My chi is a 100lb dog in a 6lb body. Of course I do back
her up with a 1911. HAPPY NEW YEAR to all......slewis36 :)
 
While I agree with much that has been said,
the fact remains that both Rottweilers and
Pit Bulls are probably the two most deadly breeds of
dogs that we have in the US. Some of this is probably
due to the owner's bad treatment and some is
probably due to bad breeding practices.
Because of their physical attributes (Rottweiler
-overwhelming size and strong bite, Pitt Bull-
exceptional strong bite and unstable temperment)
one should be careful about owning these breeds,
and for that matter several other breeds that
could become dangerous. While several of the
smaller breeds may be just as vicious, because they
lack the physical attributes of the two mentioned
above, their simply isn't the same level of danger
involved. No matter how you put it, the fact
remains that an attack by a dachsund is not anywhere
near the same level of danger as an attack by a Rott-
weiler or Pitt Bull. Coon-hounds are not noted for
savagely attacking people. Pitt-bulls are. An attack
by a Pitt-bull may end up being a fight for one's life.

As a fellow dog lover and owner, and at the same time,
one who has shot a # of dogs over the years protecting
livestock, I personally think owning some of these
breeds is in many cases foolish, as unless you control
them (and many people don't) they can be dangerous to
your neighbors and friends. You can be sued for whatever
damage they inflict. These are not breeds I would
recommend for someone to own.
 
What is your suggestion then, Sir? That like Britain, we create a Law where "Dangerous Breeds" are banned, then, if you can avoid the unpleasant aspect of having your dog or personal property, companion, however you look at it, euthanized...they have to be sterilized? Is that the sort of oppressive thing you would like to see? And if not, what is the alternative to this horrible threat you see?

I have also shot a few dogs in my day while hunting Whitetail Deer, we were told directly to do so by DNR in that area if confronted by one. They were a threat, wild dogs that were once pets.

I see in your statements the same sort of hyperbole that is seen in the Media Blitz surrounding School Shootings, in that, instead of contemplating the MILLIONS and perhaps TENS OF MILLIONS of these animals privately owned that hurt no one, you focus on the statistically few that have. It is precisely the same thing when it comes to children and firearms. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of children in this country have owned firearms or had access to them and have not done these things, a few have, therefore, the powers that be have come to the conclusion that children and guns do not mix. Yet, the culture has changed and it is not about firearms at all.

Honestly, I have a five year old Son and I don't want him mauled and I realize there is a threat to him from large breeds of dogs, but short of exterminating EVERY type of large dog, the inevitable will happen.

This is a direct parallel to gun and knife ownership. It is based on personal responsibility. Some people have no responsibility! No sense of it. Of course you don't want a person like that owning a machinegun or a large breed of dog! But, in order for everyone to remain FREE and to live a FREE life, we accept the inevitable, we tolerate a threat knowing that not every threat can be addressed and we allow some of these things.

In other words, you don't punish Joe Sixpack and prohibit from owning a machinegun because Machinegun Kelly existed. And you don't punish "Jailhack" or anyone else for some other person's criminality, negligence or stupidity.

And...no one would want to take your car away from you because an average of 16,000 people are killed by drunk drivers every year on our highways and you cannot be trusted with a car.
 
Assuming your post is addressed to me.
Actually I don't have any suggestions at
this time other than to recommend that people
not choose these breeds as pets, and that
those who do should take precautions to
restrain them and prevent them from being a
public hazard. Basically the same approach
I would take to people owning any large dog,
but certainly more so do these breeds.
Would you not agree that these two
breeds, whether thru bad-breeding or bad owners
have had the highest # of incidents of savage
attacks or a higher percentage than other breeds?

My own personal most dangerous encounter with
a dog was with a St. Bernard owned by a little
old lady who could not control him.

Let me ask you this, should people whose dogs
kill or savagely attack (bite more than once)
be held criminally liable for the actions of
their pet?

Will attempt to find data on the actual # of
incidents of attacks by certain breeds and
post it. If some one else has this data, would
you post it? Thanks.
 
From the National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention,
and the Humane Society of the United States :
a 6 yr study of 109 bite-related fatalities shows that
24 were caused by Pitt Bulls
16 were caused by Rottweilers
10 were caused by German Shepherds

The web site is: www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/FatalDogAttacks.htm


A 1996 Texas study of severe attacks (repeatedly bites
or shakes victim) shows the following:
Chow Chows - 12.6%
Rottweilers - 10%
Chow Cross - 7.2%
German Shepherd - 6.4%
Pitt Bull - 5.2%
Labrador - 4.5%
Mix - 4.1%

% Involving Hospitalizations:
Rottweiler - 29.8%
Chow Chow - 10.5%
Chow Cross - 7%
Pit Bull - 5.3%
German Shepherd Cross - 5.3%
Labrador Retriever - 5.3%

Anyone with different or perhaps better data?
 
scotjute,

These so called "studies" are just like most other ones. They show only the worst case scenarios. Of course a bite by a Rottie or any other large breed will result in more damage than if bit by a Poodle or any other small dog. These studies are a joke. What happens in an accident between a dump truck and a Yugo? It is comparing apples to ranges. What the "studies" don't show is the actual number of both reported and non reported bites by small dogs. If a small dog bites someone, most times it is not severe enough to seek medical attention. If a large dog bites someone, it usually causes some form of injury.

Another bogus thing about the studies is stated right in your own "facts". They only show "severe" or "fatal" attacks. Once again, they don't mention overall number of bites.

Just another case of "the smoking gun" syndrome.
 
Originally posted by scotjute
Assuming your post is addressed to me.

It was, sorry to not address it to you specifically.

Actually I don't have any suggestions at
this time other than to recommend that people
not choose these breeds as pets, and that
those who do should take precautions to
restrain them and prevent them from being a
public hazard.

I think most "Good Owners" already do this. Even by your own words, if they did not do this, one could expect mass carnage, correct?


Basically the same approach
I would take to people owning any large dog,
but certainly more so do these breeds.

And if you could magically make the Pit Bull, Rottie and Doberman disappear from the face of the Earth, pinheads in the world would simply shift to three "lesser" animals, then if you could make those animals disappear, it would happen once again.

That's not progress, is it?


Would you not agree that these two
breeds, whether thru bad-breeding or bad owners
have had the highest # of incidents of savage
attacks or a higher percentage than other breeds?

Only because they exist and if they did not exist, as I stated directly above, more animals would take their place.

Do you envision a country of Pomeranians? It seems like it.


My own personal most dangerous encounter with
a dog was with a St. Bernard owned by a little
old lady who could not control him.

Unfortunately, you made my case right there. Why not "ban" all large dogs then? The dog that attacked you is not on the "Hot List" of "dangerous dogs" in any great number, is it? She did not need a Rottie, Pit Bull or Dobe to cause damage, only her own personal negligence.


Let me ask you this, should people whose dogs
kill or savagely attack (bite more than once)
be held criminally liable for the actions of
their pet?


They are for the most part, where have you been?

I think, also, if a child goes out of their way to torment a dog that is on private property and they are attacked, tough sh*t. People have to teach their children respect for the private property of others as well as respect for other living things. I have seen countless instances of extreme cruelty on the part of children towards animals. People should be held to a degree of responsibility in this issue as well.
 
Back
Top