The reason I don’t like breed bans is that, in the end, I don’t feel they work. In theory, they sound good. Ban the dangerous breed and there’s no problem, right? That’s where human naivete (or in some cases stupidity) comes in. In the 80’s rottweilers were the devil dogs and there was the rash of dog bites, maulings, etc. Then ‘gangsta’ idiots popularized the poor pit bull and that breed’s good reputation went downhill fast. These same idiots and the well meaning, but clueless owners aren’t going to go away because the dogs do. People are already looking into presa canario’s, Fila Brasileiro, cane corso’s and other large, powerful guardian breeds that the average owner shouldn’t have.

They also don’t stop dog bites or maulings. Denver, CO (I think it was) which banned pit bulls, had no fatal attacks since 1997 or whatever the date was. The funny thing is.. neither did Portland, OR which has no breed ban. CO’s # of bites and attacks did not go down.

Rottweilers, pit bulls and the guardian breeds are wonderful, great dogs…. that most people should not have. They are great dogs for the owners that will do obedience classes, socialization classes, that will go to a trainer if they suspect anything is wrong and that will supervise their dogs closely with kids and others.

I did google rottweilers and wasn’t surprised that they were one of the more dangerous breeds. Their strength is amazing, their protective instincts high and that can be a dangerous combo.

My own rottie is a good example of what can happen. She was a 50 dollar dog in front of wal-mart and bought by my idiot brother. Neglected for the first seven months and not socialized, I rescued her when I could. Surprise, surprise, she turned out to have aggression issues, my own inexperience not helping the problems. She is dog, cat and people aggressive. I have paid a price for keeping her. Not other people getting hurt, but the cost of prevention. Fences have to be kept up and secure, the kids can’t answer the door by themselves and people can’t just come up and pet her. Oh and walks? I tend to pick quiet streets and times to lessen any potential issue (of people attempting to pet her or dogs running up) and use a pinch collar.

She is generally great with kids and loves them in a way she never has adults. I, however, still supervise her and if a kid is being too aggressive or too playful, I intervene and remove the dog. I also don’t leave her alone with strange kids or things like that. If she had been aggressive or attempted to bite a child, I would have had to put her down, probably, as I won’t endanger kids.

I explained all this because I’ve been there. I’ve been the inexperienced owner with the powerful breed. If I hadn’t been willing to learn and take the needed precautions, I would have had a dog that bit or attacked people. The frightening thing is a lot of people have these dogs (some more obvious than others) and don’t do what’s needed to keep people safe.

Instead of breed bans, I’d -love- to see owner requirements for some breeds. I’d love for any guardian breed owner to have a) neuter their dog unless it’s a registered akc with breeding potential, b) go through at least one obedience class and c) demonstrate some knowledge of dogs.

Liability may help, but there’s simpler fixes. 1) Enforce leash laws strongly. (I can’t tell you how many dogs have come up to -me- when I’ve been out walking with my dog leashed). 2) Ban chaining. A chained up dog is 3x more likely to bite. 3) Neutering. A unneutered male dog is the most likely suspect in a bite or attack. These things would protect a lot of people from bites in general, not just maulings from a few breeds.

Rules complicate things and cost money to both erect and enforce, and often only lawyers and unscrupulous members of society benefit. They won’t return the dead or cure the permanently injured. Nor would they redeem or necessarily treat the owners’ ignorance

This is true, but compared to the system we have now? It’s better. And even one child is worth saving and I suspect we could save far more than one. Besides, if we can find the money for breed bans? We can fund training or neutering requirements.

No, we can’t rely on dog owners. The dog fighters alone prove that. They’ll sacrifice countless dogs and everyone else’s safety to have their amusement allw hile claiming they ‘love’ their dogs. I too, was a formerly naive dog owner so I can’t insult them too much. I have learned that aggression is rarely ’sudden’ and most dogs give signs or behave in fairly predictable fashion (pushing the boundaries after puberty). My own aggressive rottie gave me signs of being possessive/dog aggressive before I knew to take them seriously. I don’t know that it isn’t reasonable to claim a dog wasn’t following it’s instinct, but that doesn’t excuse the crime, the danger or our responsibility in preventing it.

It amazes me how many dog owners ignore the ’supervising your children around your dog’ piece, regardless of breed. This is obviously not a factor in your case, but the mauling of the 12 yr old by 2 rottweilers? Entirely preventable. They knew the dogs were aggressive (they had bitten her before) and went off and left two -10 or 12 yr olds- alone with two adult rottweilers and puppies. A sadly preventable tragedy.

Perhaps blindness was a bad choice of phrase. It just seemed like you thought all rottweilers were dangerous and monsterous. They are a more potentially dangerous breed, but many, many families have well socialized and much loved pets. Which you acknowledged, that’s just what I was refering too.

I’m very glad that you and your daughter are doing so well and that you’ve been able to take it with grace. As I haven’t been in your shoes, I certainly didn’t mean to criticize you about your handling of it. -_-

And yes, I’d like to see about 1/4 to a 1/2 of pit bull owners with retrievers or chihuahuas instead as well. There’s no excuse for the number of attacks there are now.

Perhaps to my daughter’s and my own detriment, I didn’t have any preconceived notion against Rottweilers. They were my uncle’s pets, and I wanted to play with them the way I used to play with my Boxer, and with my uncle’s other dogs (he’s always had large dogs).

After this incident, I learned that Rottweilers aren’t quite like other dogs. Just Google “dog attack statistics”. Note that we never reported our case to any authority so we know the statistics only present a portion of the picture.

I realize that there are exceptions to the rule, as in the examples you cited. My plea to ban Rottweilers may be simplistic but unlike your rapist example, I didn’t suggest that all (male) dogs be banned.

I agree that much depends on the owners. I’m fine with allowing people to own Rotts and Pits under certain conditions. Examples include mandatory training, high insurance coverage, perhaps even annual temperament testing, etc. I also would stiffen up penalties against dog-owners whose pet injures others, such as by applying the strict liability law. But I’m concerned with the application of such rules / laws.

Rules complicate things and cost money to both erect and enforce, and often only lawyers and unscrupulous members of society benefit. They won’t return the dead or cure the permanently injured. Nor would they redeem or necessarily treat the owners’ ignorance.

But something has to be done because statistics indicate that certain breeds are more dangerous than others. Notice that I say “more dangerous,” not “more likely to attack.” Even if say, a Pomeranian is more likely to attack, chances are that we can more easily thwart them than we can a Mastiff.

And there are too many ignorant dog owners out there (my uncle and myself included) that we know we can’t just rely on them to take the necessary precautions. Some attacks were done by dogs who were specifically trained to do so, others are “unexpected.” But any claim that the dog was merely following its instinct is as (un)reasonable as declaring that a rapist was merely following his (or hers).

I don’t think that my experience blinded me. People are continuously amazed at how positively I took the whole incident. I don’t see it as a tragedy or a catastrophy, for example, and my blog entry specifically omitted the gruesome details of the attack. I only see how lucky we are to have come out alive and with no loss of body parts.

In light of the many ignorant dog owners, however, I’d rather see them own Poodles and Pomeranians than Pitbulls and Rottweilers.

I don’t mean to insult trauma or your terror, both of which are real and justified. I do hope that one day your terror will no longer blind you, however. Two dogs do not define the hundreds of rottweilers in the US, anymore than two boys that grow up to be rapists define the hundreds of men that are good fathers, brothers and sons.

Here are some of the ‘vicious’ dogs you mentioned: http://www.windchyme.com/Pages/ServiceDog/RottweilerSD/rottweilerSD.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pets/19990217pets.asp
http://www.rottclub.ca/therapy.html
http://www.gainesvilleregister.com/local/local_story_155113556.html
http://verysupercool.com/tag/therapy-dog/

There is a very real danger in inexperienced owners owning powerful breeds they cannot and will not control and innocent people pay the price far too often. People -do- need to be help responsible. Holding them responsible doesn’t include painting a breed as anything, but what it is: a dog.

A pomeranian recently mauled and killed it’s owners newborn baby. Saint Bernards and Great Danes have been involved in fatal attacks and in some cities, lab mixes are the most frequent biters. In my area? It is cocker spaniels. They are all dogs, if dogs less capable of hurting people than a rottweiler in most cases. We do need reform, but breed bands can’t and won’t stop the bites or the ignorance of people who get, abuse and neglect powerful animals that in turn attack and sometimes kill.

I will youl all the best in your recovery.