How Can We Stop Attacks?

[TrishB]

R&Gs Mom made a very good point and asked a very important question in this thread: http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/sho...threadid=12463

How can we stop attacks? We know that we can train our own dogs - but how do we stop them within the general public?

I cringe when I hear government regulation or intervention (I'm in Ontario, but I know you've heard those words in the US as well).

BUT

How else do we stop irresponsible owners from getting powerful dogs? How do we get them to be responsible? I know education is key - how do we get it to them?

This forum is a great place - but if you think about it, only responsible owners would go as far as to post on a forum and look for additional information on a regular bases.

If you have any ideas...throw them out here! A brainstorming session of Rottweiler.Net would be a great start!

[Homerhomer]

how about writing a dog ownership test (held let's say by Humane Society) before being allowed to buy a dog. Sure isn't going to stop the attacks but perhaps some will turn away from buying a dog.

[TrishB]

Wonderful idea Homerhomer!!

How about we try to put one together here? What would you put in it?

I think that the test should be made public so that breeders also have complete access to it. That way, they too could have some extra help in attempting to 'weed out' the potential bad owners.

One of the questions would definitely have to be:

"Obedience classes are a must for any dog - how much time and effort are you willing to invest?"

I would be sure not to ask a 'Yes or No' question - they should have to explain why they're answering their questions the way that they are.

[Soapie&Buddy'sMom]

Begin at the source of the problem - the breeders. And I mean any and all breeders - any one who has a dog who gives birth.

Force breeders to be responsible for ALL acts of their dog's offspring. Make breeders sign a contract agreeing to all liability for anything their dog's puppies will do at any point in its life, from day one to the day it dies.

I'll tell you one thing - breeders would be a lot more careful about who they sell their puppies to, and would be a lot more careful about breeding at all!

Signed,
Someone who is indulging in a rare moment of sheer fantasy. :D

[MybabyZeus]

Wouldn't that just start a black market in the dog world? Not that I have a answer,but that is the first thing that popped onto my head.

[Soapie&Buddy'sMom]

Originally posted by MybabyZeus
Wouldn't that just start a black market in the dog world? Not that I have a answer,but that is the first thing that popped onto my head.

"Start" a black market? Isn't that what BYB really already are?

[TrishB]

Originally posted by Soapie&Buddy'sMom
Force breeders to be responsible for ALL acts of their dog's offspring. Make breeders sign a contract agreeing to all liability for anything their dog's puppies will do at any point in its life, from day one to the day it dies.

Hi Soapie&Buddy'sMom,

I'm not picking on your idea as I know where you're coming from. But at the same time - there are so many things that an owner can do to a 7 or 8 week old puppy during its lifetime. Is it really fair that the breeder is held responsible for the act of a 4 year old dog that wasn't socialized and/or neglected and/or abused and/or never attended obedience classes, etc.?

I don't think it could happen, but I love the drive behind it. :)

Maybe a legally binding contract where the owners MUST complete everything listed herein or have the dog removed from their home. They then must pay the breeder for the upkeep of said dog until a suitable home is found.

I agree that there has to be some sort of legal responsibility between the breeder (seller) and the owner (buyer) that the dog is put into a safe, nurturing situation (maybe look at it like gun ownership??).

Keep the ideas coming! :D

Maybe a prerequisite "Canine Ownership" class which must be graduated successfully before you can own a dog? And has to be renewed every 5 years or with every new addition (canine) to the family. Like a drivers license?

Who would regulate such a class / license?

[austin]

As a person who works with children in the foster care system (and proud owner of a rottweiler), I have to say that as long as we're living in a society that allows drug addicts to have babies and abused children to be returned to their parents I highly doubt anyone will step up to regulate the ownership of animals. Most of the irresponsible owners out there don't want education, they have raised their dogs to be vicious. The sad truth is that some breeders are only out to make a quick buck, they couldn't care less about the future of these animals (and I apologize in advance to all responsible breeders). Beyond that, what about rescues and shelter animals, who are the most "at risk" for being brought into a home where they will be mistreated? I'm afraid all we can do is raise our dogs responsibly, and show anyone and everyone we can what a sweet, loving breed rottweilers can be.

I'll get off of my soapbox now.

[MybabyZeus]

Originally posted by Homerhomer
how about writing a dog ownership test (held let's say by Humane Society) before being allowed to buy a dog. Sure isn't going to stop the attacks but perhaps some will turn away from buying a dog.

"Start" a black market? Isn't that what BYB really already are?

No BYB's unfortunaly can still seem to be legit. They can have "the papers" that fool even the honest uneducated buyer. If you make it too difficult to buy a dog honestly then some people may just do it dishonestly. And that would be a BYB's dream come true. "Wow, now we don't even have to worry about papers, we can just breed any two dogs" I can see it already.

I'm not saying it was a bad idea. It was a good idea. Like I said, I don't have an answer or even a suggestion. Maybe one day the AKC will get smart and stop handing out all of these registration papers until all testing has been done on BOTH parents. Maybe that is an idea. Target the AKC and try to make it LAW that no litter is registered until the parents have passed all the proper health screenings.

I don't know.......

[moondog]

Holding breeders liable for the negligent acts of others is a ridiculous proposal, don't you think? They're not the know all and be all of every breath a dog takes during it's lifetime and shouldn't be expected to have answers that only the future holds. You're asking too much. I do think it's reasonable for breeders to make clear to buyers the liability they assume with their purchase and write contracts in which the owner agrees to sufficient socialization and a specified level of training in a formal class environment.

Even then, it can be done poorly..........so then who do you blame? The trainer? Even an exceptional trainer isn't the know all, be all of a dog's every breath. They have to rely on......WHO? Gee, the OWNER that's who, to follow through with the training. The best training in the world won't do a damn bit of good if it isn't IMPLEMENTED.

So who IS the END ALL and BE ALL in a puppy's future? THE OWNER! The BUCK stops with the OWNER, period! If OWNER'S would truly EDUCATE themselves and assume their responsibility TO THE DOG, the happy side effect of which is the safety of others, bite incidences would be rare.

[TrishB]

Originally posted by MybabyZeus

Maybe one day the AKC will get smart and stop handing out all of these registration papers until all testing has been done on BOTH parents. Maybe that is an idea. Target the AKC and try to make it LAW that no litter is registered until the parents have passed all the proper health screenings.

I also have an American Quarter Horse and if I want to breed my mare, I have to have her DNA tested. The Stallion must also be tested and before the foal can be registered, it must be tested too. This came around in the last 5 - 6 years. That would verify the identity of the horse, but not the health of it.

Maybe the AKC and CKC should have prerequisites before a dog can be bred? and adopt the DNA tests?

I too feel that it is too easy to get a 'registered purebred'. If the general public knew how important it was to have, and it was more difficult to get - it may weed out the bad breeders/potential owners.

It's a HUGE topic we're tackling here but it's great to see the wonderful ideas coming out! :D

[Soapie&Buddy'sMom]

Originally posted by moondog
Holding breeders liable for the negligent acts of others is a ridiculous proposal, don't you think? So who IS the END ALL and BE ALL in a puppy's future?

Well I would borrow from Jonathan Swift and call it a "modest proposal," but what you wrote is not what I'm suggesting. I would never suggest that anyone should be liable for the negligent acts of others. I would suggest that if you are going to take the responsibility to bring more dogs into this world, then TAKE the RESPONSIBILITY. It's like bringing children into the world. You, as parent, have responsibility for their acts up to a certain age. If your child does something terrible you will be held at least partially responsible.
Same with dogs. Except dogs never grow up. So maybe the answer is to make the breeder and the dog owner jointly responsible.

The breeders simply cannot be left out of this scenario. To make the ultimate dog owner solely responsible for fixing this mess we have today (dogs killing babies, etc.) is just not enough. The source is the breeders - any solution has to START, but maybe not END, there.

[cinde33]

Sure, we can start going after breeders. BUT what about the dogs that are already out there?

AKC stats of reg.
Rottweilers
2001-29,269
2000-37,355
1999-41,776
1998-55,009
1997-75,489 =238,898 registered rottweilers.
Not even counting the ones that aren't. (give or take a few that may have passed on)




The problem are dog owners who don't give a cr@p if their dog lives on a leash unsocialised or happy because hey - that would involve an effort. An effort to get up off one's lazy butt and walk their dog. The problem are the owners that DON'T believe animals have rights like humans do or should have rights.

The guy that throws a litter of puppies over a bridge instead of having to "deal with them". The guy that took Little Max, a rottweiler we rescued, and walked him into the desert to shoot him because he wouldn't walk right when beaten with a cattle prod. It cost us 1500 dollars to get his back straightened out, not couting the chiropractor he saw for over a year.

There are too many people who don't care. They don't believe animals have rights. It's like the people in Korea who eat dog. WE don't agree, but they see nothing wrong with it. The realization is this: there are people like that who don't give a . So, when your child walks into his yard, guess what is probably going to happen?

How do we control people like that?


What do we do? Create an organisation like Child Social Services? Even the ASPCA can't do anything if the animal has shelter, food, water. it can't prosecute the guy that won't socialize his dog.

Should they? I just don't know. Would I want some person trying to tell me how to train and care for my dog all the time? What if I did but they said it wasn't enough and if I didn't do even more my dog could be put down.

I DO think that people who have incidents should be sentenced not NOT being aloowed to own an animal for a number of years.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but we use our rescue org. to its fullest advantage by saving dogs from people like that AND educating the public. I hope it helps in some way.

[frau]

Listen to this actual experience from 2 weeks ago:

It was my turn at the SPCA again. After all the grunt work was done I sat chatting with the Director. She stepped to her office to answer a phone, and one of the workers helped a prospective adopter with the application. The prospective adopter couldn't read the application very well.

Adopter: What does this mean, "Local veterinarian:"?

Helper: Who is your local vet?

A: I don't have one.

H: You've had dogs in the past. What vet did you take them to?

A: None. When I got 'em they was always fixed.

This is a TRUE story. People who think vets are only for spaying and neutering have no business adopting or buying a dog from ANYONE. Our SPCA did not let her have the Pom she wanted.

I very much like the genetic testing before breeding idea that was suggested. This should be managed by the AKC. If too much for them, then national breed clubs should manage it.

Frau

[MybabyZeus]

Originally posted by cinde33
Sure, we can start going after breeders. BUT what about the dogs that are already out there?

AKC stats of reg.
Rottweilers
2001-29,269
2000-37,355
1999-41,776
1998-55,009
1997-75,489 =238,898 registered rottweilers.
Not even counting the ones that aren't. (give or take a few that may have passed on)




The problem are half-@ssed dog owners who don't give a cr@p if their dog lives on a leash unsocialised or happy because hey - that would involve an effort. An effort to get up off one's lazy butt and walk their dog. The problem are the owners that DON'T believe animals have rights like humans do or should have rights.

AMEN SISTER!!!!!!