Talk:Rottweiler

It's not very neutral to say that a "well trained and responsive 'Rottie' is a great pet...", or that the bad press Rottweilers have received is unfortunate. Guanaco 03:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Those are minor changes that you could have made! :-) I'll clear those out. Elf | Talk 04:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I disagree. I believe that both of those statements are fairly neutral. The 1st is a fact... a well-trained responsive Rottweiler IS a great pet. In regards to the 2nd, the bad press is unfortunate... the Rottweiler population in North America currently numbers between 350,000 - 400,000 animals (est.). Given that population size, the number of negative incidents is certainly not at all excessive (i.e. the breed is not predisposed to violence against humans). Furthermore, would it be too bold to suggest that we humans are a far worse 'breed' than Rottweilers? We are certainly more likely to hurt or kill each other... :)

• • "...makes a great pet...", well, we don't know what kind of pet someone would want or could manage given their lifestyle. There are many people & families for whom a Rottweiler will never make a good pet no matter how well it's trained. So you could say that "a well-trained and responsive Rottie is a better pet than an untrained and unresponsive Rottie" (although one might argue that "better" is POV in some ways...) but saying it's a great pet is not a fact.
  • "...is unfortunate...", well, if someone believes that it's a good thing that people don't get Rotties unless they really know what they're doing, then them getting bad press is a good thing. So you could say that "Rotties have received bad press." But whether it's fortunate or unfortunate is in the eye of the beholder. Elf | Talk 22:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Death By Rottweiler

I didn't revert the deletion of the note about the deaths caused by Rottweilers because I don't understand the signifcance of it. For example, according to this survey (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf), 39 deaths were caused by Rottweilers in the U.S. between 1979 and 1999. What makes these noteworthy? Elf | Talk 02:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yes, that's a good point. I think the section can be improved to give a better understanding of the issues - those would be useful as examples of the press given to Rottie attacks, and the information in your source would be very useful in demonstrating that they are high on the list of dogs most likely to cause deaths. In my experience some of the smaller breeds are much more prone to aggression than Rotties, but if one of those attacks they are not as likely to be able to kill. It's the combination of strength and occasional aggression that is particularly problematic (that said, I love the breed and they are, in my experience, usually lovely characters). My concern is to ensure that we acknowledge both sides of the debate and don't leave out negative information in the name of NPOV -- sannse (talk) 21:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added by anon 5/2/05: Rottweilers are great pets.... i have had one for 11 years and he is the best. Good with kids all ages and very protctive!

Objective Assessment

Regardless of this, the author of this article is clearly biased toward Rottweilers and it is not objective. Compare it with, for example, Wikipedia's far more balanced article on the Pit Bull , which mentions Rottweilers as being the second most dangerous breed of dog, without accounting for the fact that many victoms mistakenly identify Rottweilers as Pit Bulls.