People's reaction

[Obelix]

Peoplen are reacting hatefull after incident with baby-girl.

'My pet Rottweiler is not dangerous'

A ROTTWEILER owner has been shouted at in the street after a baby girl was killed by two dogs of the same breed.


Tiena Shiraishi, 45, was walking her Rottweiler Marmite when people shouted at her to get a muzzle for her dog.
But dog trainer Ms Shiraishi, of Shakespeare Road, Wellingborough, has defended the breed, which has been criticised after the incident at the weekend in which a baby was savaged to death by two Rottweilers at a Leicester pub.

She said: "Marmite is a lovely dog and he has got total respect for humans.

"Rottweilers have got to be trained like any other dog. The dogs that killed the baby were out of control."
Ms Shiraishi is planning to hold a sponsored Rottweiler walk to raise cash for the Kennel Club because she says people are dumping their dogs due to the controversy.

Lauren Young, five, who regularly handles the Rottweiler, said: "I love Marmite, he is my best friend."
Dog rehoming charity Maxicare in Grendon has urged people not to react hastily to the horrific attack.
Angie Marriott, trustee of the charity which has rehomed 1,500 dogs in 10 years, said every dog is different.
She said: "I think Rottweilers are going to get a bad name now, but I just want to reassure people that not every large dog is a bad dog."
Maxicare takes in stray dogs and staff rarely know much about the history of the animals. But the charity does make every effort to ensure a dog is safe and will settle in its new home, including making home visits and looking at the environment the animal will be moving into.

Mrs Marriott said: "When we rehome dogs we are extremely cautious. Dogs can react differently at home compared to when they are at a kennels.
"It's a policy of the charity that we do not rehome animals to families with children under five because we don't know the dog's past. When we do rehome to children aged over five we look carefully at the child and the dog.
"You have got to be so careful with any kind of dog in this day and age."

Police investigations are ongoing into the Leicester attack.
26 September 2006


Evening Telegraph - Northampton Today: News, Sport, Jobs, Property, Cars, Entertainments & More

[Tywaknya'sBABY]

What???
People are actually dumping their dogs (that they know better than anyone)off because of what people are SAYING about Rotts.

Hmmm...Some 18yr old kid just shot a rival at his school. I have a kid. Let me get rid of him before he does something dangerous like this.

Great Logic. Who thinks like that???

[molochai2580]

Unsuprising but sad all the same. People will always seek to blame and this time it happens to be the "Devil Dogs" Rotties. It always makes me so mad

[MissMary]

Today a jogger saw Sadie in her run, the jogger turned and went the other way. I worry more about my chihuahua bitting then Sadie. Of course if the chihuahua did bite anyone it wouldn't make the news.
Every little noise makes me jump and check on Sadie and I don't live in the city, I feel really bad for rotties and their owners.

[Taki]

It's horrible isnt it. I've had 4 phone calls this week asking if I'd like to adopt another Rott, I would but with a wedding to pay for another dog cant fit in the budget. How can people abandon their beloved pets like this because of media hype.

xXx

[Gunsey'sMom]

Thats just sick!!! Its obvious how committed those people were to thier beloved dogs in the first place if they are going to dump thenm at the drop of a dime!!! I would move to keep Gunner!! This just make s my stomach turn!!!

[LavenderRott]

Here is an article that was posted on another forum that I am on. You can imagine that the debate about rottweilers and BSL that followed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...C-new_27092006

By Andrew O'Hagan
(Filed: 27/09/2006)
Lovely to live in a country where the foxes are safe in their holes, but babies aren't safe in their cots. Historians some day might be astonished to discover the number of man-hours that went into protecting countryside vermin from dogs and humans, while an average of 3,000 people are injured every year by dangerous mutts with irresponsible owners.
After the killing of Cadey-Lee Deacon the other day – snatched from her bed by two Rottweilers and mauled to death on the roof of a pub – it might be intelligent to look again at the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, which was always too perfunctory in its details.
That Act came into being because of the wildly increased number of maulings by English pit bull terriers, and it became an offence to be the owner of a dog that is out of control in a public place. But the breadth of that stricture misses the point: many of these dogs are bred (and adored) on account of their viciousness, and a great number of the people who have them as pets see them as being a symbol of both personal security and incipient rage.
I'm against those dogs. Just as I don't understand why anyone in civilian life would have use for an automatic assault weapon, I don't see why anyone should be encouraged to squire a dangerous dog around the streets.
In America, the right to own such a weapon is taken to be a matter of civil liberties, and some will say the same of those dogs: you can't stop people having them or training them, and can only insist that some of them wear muzzles. But I think there should be stringent limitations: update the 1991 Act so as to make it difficult to own one, unless you have a professional reasons to do so and can prove that you have the experience to handle the dog and to feed it and house it properly. One attack on children a year would be horrendous – but 3,000?
Many of you are dog-lovers and will already be reaching for the pen and ink to tell me off. I know your own pit bull is lovely and would never hurt a flea, I know he gambols sweetly in the meadow with your infant loved ones, but it is well known that these dogs can turn wild in an instant.
The instinct to attack cannot be eradicated in a pet just because you will it: the two Rottweilers that snatched Cadey-Lee Deacon were not serial killers, and they were not provoked. They simply responded to their instincts one day in a way that shocked everyone who knew them.
But they didn't know them. I have a scar on my arm where an Alsatian, a previously nutty but otherwise docile white creature, decided to bound across a garden and attack me. I was reading a book at the time. Years before that, in the place where I grew up, it seemed that every other garden fence had a sign on it saying "Beware of the Dog".
There was one house that became notorious for an Alsatian called Shane: it bit the fingers of every child who happened to touch the fence. The owners never properly walked the beast, so you had the sense of this threatening, caged animal forever pacing the garden and waiting to strike.
Nowadays, in various parts of Britain, you see these dogs, bowlegged and unmuzzled, straining at the end of some piece of rope held by a barely responsible teenager. I know from speaking to some of those youths that they like the notion that the dog is a law unto itself – they don't want the dog to hurt people, necessarily, but they admire the way it bares it teeth, and they wouldn't be caught dead tugging a Jack Russell down the street.
Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough, they seem to say. Many of those owners are involved in some weird cross-fertilisation of anger and aggression with those animals, and when something goes wrong it's always the owners who express surprise. "He was such a softy," they say. Yeah, right.
True dog lovers wouldn't want police dogs to be kept as pets. They would understand how cruel it was and how irrational: apart from that poor child, the two dogs were slaughtered the other day as a result of actions that should have been prevented by law.
Some people find it natural to blame all forms of modern viciousness on poverty, but that will not do when it comes to the keeping and ill-keeping of dangerous dogs. They are expensive to buy and to maintain, and let's not forget that the Princess Royal was once fined £500 when her vicious dogs set about two small children.
I have written before in this column about the arrogance of the human belief in our natural dominion over the animal kingdom. In this case, not only arrogance, but also stupidity: we think we can ordain what animals will and won't do by the force of our own needs, presuming we "know" our dogs and can reliably dictate their behaviour in line with our own domestic habits and comforts.
Some owners even imagine that their dogs can meet their own emotional shortcomings. I dare say they might, but the law should protect the general public against such lunacy, and treat these social rituals with at least some of the contempt which they found so easy to deploy when castigating foxhunters.

[Gunsey'sMom]

WOW! This guy completely missed the point. Its just not about that--obviously as he said they have about 3000 ego starved owners who think they need big bad dogs to puff thmselves back up, along with the people who just dont care about hteir animals and let them roam, and them the ones who purposely fight their dogs.