The local Rottweiler breeder.

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, upside said:

 

Illegal to own the breeds same as the police use. 

 

Have a source for this? 

[upside]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

 

 

Figured I would get a well informed retort such as this. 

 

Not sure what you want out of this thread. You are in Thailand not the UK so hang that hat up where it belongs. 

 

You have a fear of dogs and thats on you not society. I agree that dogs can be a nuisance here, but it doesn't mean you get to dictate what your neighbors do because of your irrational ban-happy viewpoint. Outside of your safety bubble there is a big world out there. 

Go to the police and tell them. Talk to the Neighbor. Wait for a local to put out poison. Re-locate. Those are your options. In my opinion, it would be futile to try and press your view on what the local neighbor is doing. 

Hey all I started off with is a local idiot letting 2 angry Rottweilers out his front gate that terrorize locals. 

 

You guys are the ones that started to get upset about these breeds are fine when the statistics say otherwise. 

 

 

[chrisinth]

16 hours ago, upside said:

 

Walk past the soi and tell me what you think. 

Relax, I'm only trying to lighten this controversial subject a bit. From your viewpoint, I can understand the concern of having two intimidating dogs with access to the Soi.

 

But as others have said, it is not the breed, it is the owners and how they have raised the animals. In this case it is rotties that are the subject and there is nowhere in the breed's bloodline that these have been human aggressive without them trained to be. At the end of the day they are working dogs. In the relatively short period of time where they have been specifically trained for attack & protection by some dedicated organizations, I would doubt that the gene pool has been modified, even if the breeding pair were purchased from one of these organizations in the first place.

 

It is not the dog breed that should be the target of attack, but the owners and their responsibility to the public for their animals.

[chrisinth]

4 hours ago, upside said:

 

Sorry but the facts state otherwise. The research has been done and the pitbull breed so far is banned in 12 countries. That breed in particular is a proven menace. 

 

Yes, the statistics are there for all to see. Whereas it is true that APBT's were modified for fighting other dogs, it does not necessarily mean they are dangerous to humans. Depending on how the animal is socialized, even the dog aggression issue can be easily removed.

 

Animal aggression & human aggression are two different things, but have the wrong owner and of course anything is possible. 

 

As for the banning of certain breeds, if you have a spare 45 minutes, please watch this video. It is a street level view on the issue on the banning of certain breeds in the UK and the failed control to enforce it and  the reason why it didn't cover other breeds. An excellent point from this documentary is the fact that the dog with the greatest number of dog/dog, dog/family, dog/human attacks in the UK is the dachshund.

 

And just because the commentator ( Stephen Manderson) has street tats doesn't mean he is not a clever bloke. IMO, it is an extremely well made doc and well worth watching. 

 

 

[chrisinth]

6 hours ago, upside said:

 

Illegal to own the breeds same as the police use. 

 

You do know the police use labs, GSD, beagles, bangkeow, etc. Maybe poodles for therapy dogs or such like..................

 

That would make a lot of dog owners potentially illegal.

 

Not saying they don't use rotties, but i have never personally seen one used by them.

[cornishcarlos]

7 hours ago, upside said:

 

Illegal to own the breeds same as the police use. 

 

Is that true for Honda CB300 bikes, cause the police use them too !!!

[upside]

51 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

Is that true for Honda CB300 bikes, cause the police use them too !!!

 

The police also wear jocks. Work it out and stop playing the fool. 

[upside]

4 hours ago, chrisinth said:

 

Yes, the statistics are there for all to see. Whereas it is true that APBT's were modified for fighting other dogs, it does not necessarily mean they are dangerous to humans. Depending on how the animal is socialized, even the dog aggression issue can be easily removed.

 

Animal aggression & human aggression are two different things, but have the wrong owner and of course anything is possible. 

 

As for the banning of certain breeds, if you have a spare 45 minutes, please watch this video. It is a street level view on the issue on the banning of certain breeds in the UK and the failed control to enforce it and  the reason why it didn't cover other breeds. An excellent point from this documentary is the fact that the dog with the greatest number of dog/dog, dog/family, dog/human attacks in the UK is the dachshund.

 

And just because the commentator ( Stephen Manderson) has street tats doesn't mean he is not a clever bloke. IMO, it is an extremely well made doc and well worth watching. 

 

 

Why would I waste 45 minutes when the statistics have already been done? Let your child walk past a pack of pitbull then tell me how you feel about the dumb breed. 

[upside]

Pointless thread really. Obviously falling on mentally deficient ears. Not worthy of being parents tbh.

 

I hope your children make it without being scarred for life. 

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, upside said:

Why would I waste 45 minutes when the statistics have already been done? Let your child walk past a pack of pitbull then tell me how you feel about the dumb breed. 

 

4 minutes ago, upside said:

Pointless thread really. Obviously falling on mentally deficient ears. Not worthy of being parents tbh.

 

I hope your children make it without being scarred for life. 

 

Yeah we must be retarded because we don't agree with you, and your ban-happy ways. 

 

Pretty low blow trying to guilt other posters with the fear of scarring their children & insinuating they are bad parents. 

[upside]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

 

 

Yeah we must be retarded because we don't agree with you, and your ban-happy ways. 

 

Pretty low blow trying to guilt other posters with the fear of scarring their children & insinuating they are bad parents. 

 

Statistics mate,  statistics. 

 

 

Nuff said. 

Edited October 9, 2016 by upside
add

[chrisinth]

2 hours ago, upside said:

Why would I waste 45 minutes when the statistics have already been done? Let your child walk past a pack of pitbull then tell me how you feel about the dumb breed. 

 

 There you go. This is the main reason people so willingly believe a group of numbers and percentages presented to them without questioning them (if only in their own minds).

 

I see a group of percentages, in this case for dog attacks by pits (presumably?). However it is only figures. If an organization is so quick to publish these figures, then they should also categorize the circumstances of the attacks.

How many were premeditated attacks?

How many were defensive attacks?

How many provoked attacks, intentional or accidental?

In how many cases were the owners deemed capable (or not) of having the animal? (Extremely important data IMO)

 

And on and on. The link to the documentary looks at the situation (granted, in the UK) from a different perspective that questions what a government deems correct for the population of the country.

 

And the subject of the documentary is about banned breeds and not just pit-bulls. I think there is also a mention about rotties, might help you get back on your own topic...................

[upside]

4 hours ago, chrisinth said:

 

 There you go. This is the main reason people so willingly believe a group of numbers and percentages presented to them without questioning them (if only in their own minds).

 

I see a group of percentages, in this case for dog attacks by pits (presumably?). However it is only figures. If an organization is so quick to publish these figures, then they should also categorize the circumstances of the attacks.

How many were premeditated attacks?

How many were defensive attacks?

How many provoked attacks, intentional or accidental?

In how many cases were the owners deemed capable (or not) of having the animal? (Extremely important data IMO)

 

And on and on. The link to the documentary looks at the situation (granted, in the UK) from a different perspective that questions what a government deems correct for the population of the country.

 

And the subject of the documentary is about banned breeds and not just pit-bulls. I think there is also a mention about rotties, might help you get back on your own topic...................

 

So because I'm not up for watching a 45 minute documentary,  not 4 or 5 minutes,  that's 45 minutes of some junk,  you're getting upset. 

 

Unbelievable. 

[chrisinth]

7 hours ago, upside said:

 

So because I'm not up for watching a 45 minute documentary,  not 4 or 5 minutes,  that's 45 minutes of some junk,  you're getting upset. 

 

Unbelievable. 

 

Not upset at all. Just my viewpoint on what statistics mean to me. Whether you watch the video is entirely up to you.

 

Peace.......................

[Strange]

7 hours ago, upside said:

 

So because I'm not up for watching a 45 minute documentary,  not 4 or 5 minutes,  that's 45 minutes of some junk,  you're getting upset. 

 

Unbelievable. 

 

Nobody is upset other than you. You thought you were going to get ban-happy sympathy and didn't. 

 

Dogs are a nuisance here in Thailand but its not the dogs fault is it? Cant blame an animal for being an animal can you? 

 

You say that these dogs are "Angry Rottweilers" that "Terrorize Locals" and id be willing to bet they are probably just being dogs and you are scared of them. If they really are Jihadist Rottweilers then rest assured that it won't be long and a local puts out some poison. 

 

The subject of "banning" anything should be approached with a little more time than a 4 minute "Clip" or a "Sky" news article.  Informed decisions and independent thinking instead of blindly following what the media is telling you. 

 

But hey, whatever makes you feel good. 

[cornishcarlos]

20 hours ago, upside said:

 

The police also wear jocks. Work it out and stop playing the fool. 

 

Either stop claiming stupid facts or back it up with a verified link...

Only 1 person on here looking like a fool :) 

[Laughing Gravy]

I have had 3 Rottweiler's here over my time. all they have been amazing, intelligent, well behaved dogs. The reason is that they have been trained to be that way. I find shit sui dogs much more dangerous and aggressive.

 

A true story. I was walking my two Rottweiler's at the time and a Thai lady said in Thai that she had read and saw on the news that Rottweiler's were dangerous and kill babies and people.

 

I replied in Thai that I had read and saw on the news, that Thai ladies kill western men, so are all Thai lady's killers?

 

In the best Oxbridge accent she replied. You know when you put it that way, I see your point and will not to judge just from the news.

 

That is one of the big problems here, the poor press the breed get along with the bad education and training from lots of people who have the breed.

 

 If you know a lot about dogs then a Rottweiler is a great dog provided you train, exercise and love them for life.

 

[alfieconn]

On 10/9/2016 at 8:34 AM, upside said:

Illegal to own in Thailand unless you have a business premises. 

 

Don't be so silly !

[wildewillie89]

Rottweilers are not a huge problem...although currently it seems Fila Brasileiros are coming quite popular. Few places around me have just bought pups and seem to think they can just let the dog run around without a fence. Would rather say hello to the local Rott than the local FIla.