Postman mauled by rottweilers as he delivers Christmas cards

I agree that it is very much the owners' responsibility. In their favour, it has to be said that they had the dogs destroyed immediately they returned and knew about it. I am sure that the law will do what it can but, unfortunately, the law may not always be sufficient, especially if one can employ a good defence lawyer (as I'm certain these people can).

I agree with iZoran on many points. Dogs are very far from being wild animals. They are animals, however, and not human. They are very much reasoning beings, though the parameters and outcome of their reasoning is very different from ours. Rottweilers, like many dogs which were bred for cattle and sheep herding, tend to be very territorial and loyal to one person. They perceive their owner as their master and the 'things' of their owner - including family and children - as things to be protected. If you take a well kept Rotty to the park and let him run free, he will almost certainly be one of the gentlest and most 'well-behaved' of dogs there. He will not spontaneously attack other people or dogs because he is not on his own territory. He may, though, be quite a different dog when he is on what he perceives as his own ground or when his own personal reasoning tells him that his owner or his owner's property is under threat. Rottweilers were originally bred as cattle dogs (and were also used as war dogs). They are an intelligent breed and, being strong, are often used as police and guard dogs. Perhaps some of their unpredictability can be attributed to the fact that the breed declined until the early 20th Century and so there may have been a good deal of inbreeding involved in bringing it to its current popularity. The breed has received a good deal of not entirely unwarranted negative publicity. It is the second named breed most implicated in fatal human attacks in the US between 1979 and 1998 ( http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf ). The first named breed is the Pitbull type, which is banned in Britain. Although I agree that a Rottweiler's behaviour is, to a large extent, determined by its upbringing, I feel (as many do) that it is not a very reliable breed and that the Dangerous Dogs Act ought to make some recognition of the fact - not, perhaps, by banning it but, at least, by restricting or licensing its ownership.

Wrong! They're animals first and foremost. Dogs need no input or influence from humans to make them do this. Certain breeds are worse than others, of course, but as a general rule they are still wild animals and it is an instinct of theirs to behave defensively. If there is a perceived threat, they will do their best to eradicate the threat. They evidently saw the postman as a threat and sadly dogs do not having the ability to reason in the way that humans do. They're wild animals, never forget that.

I totally disagree with the statement above me. Firstly dogs are not wild animals, they are domestic animals. Secondly, despite the bad publicity that rottweillers get, they are naturally one of the best behaved dogs I have ever encountered. They have an inbuilt sense to be good. If a rottweiller has a good owner, you'll see a good rottweiller. They are strong dogs and they have an incredible bite, even in play a little nip feels like a hammer has hit you. Buty they generally do not have any interest in humans aside from their owners. I regularly walk my friends rottweiller and take him off the lead when we get to the park. He will wander around doing his own thing completely uninterested in humans around him. All the kids love him, play with him, pull him around, do what they like with him, and he does nothing. I checked on the internet about rottweillers, and his behaviour is apparrently typical. Leaving the blame strictly with the owners or the way he was raised.

I agree that Rotties are very intelligent dogs and can be gentle when they perceive no threat. I would never trust them to be gentle in all circumstances, however.

I agree with you totally. Blessings

I don't know the specific circumstances of this case, of course. It may be that the dogs were normally kept secure but had, unfortunately, got out and were roaming free in their own territory. It may be that the owners customarily let them roam free in their garden. The property is in a suburban area and its garden adjoins other properties. It is not like a ranch or a farm with no other houses nearby. I sincerely hope that the owners experience the full force of the law though I'm afraid that it will be up to the postman (no doubt with the backing of his Union) to seek compensation.

Whether or not they will be prosecuted depends on the interpretation of the case under the Dangerous Dogs Act. If the dogs were in a public place - that is, a place to which members of the public have right of access from time to time, then the owners will be prosecuted. The fact that they did immediately have the dogs destroyed may be some mitigation. I gather that the maximum sentence would be a £500 ($1000) fine and six months imprisonment. I imagine that these people would get off with a fine only. Since the house is said to be worth £1.3 million, I suspect that they will be able to hire a good lawyer! Compensation for the postman is another matter, of course. That will be for a civil court to decide.