XL Bully

[blueg33]

m3jappa said:

I keep on reading the line that they were 'bred to kill'

Erm no they wasn't at all, they were bred to look the part but not act the part. Obviously minority as always have purposely bred ones to be aggressive. i have no doubt. but in general they were not bred to kill.

Ask yourself how so many were being stolen if they are so dangerous and are ready to kill the next moving target.

Issue is here there must be thousands and thousands of these dogs. some are no doubt going to have issues. For example a woman i know who lives in a decent street has just had a family move into the house next door. The council bought it (i believe).

Anyway, these people have got a dog, its not an xl bully but it could be typed as one easily, its some kind of bull breed cross. These people are letting the dog run around the street, the kids are out there hitting it and the dad is out there trying to make it bite onto the arm.........the dog is out of control, i walked past and stopped to stroke it and the thing was like a fking salmon, it jumped up and butted me in the lower jaw.

i have zero doubt that once they are bored of him he will be in the garden, i doubt they can afford to feed him properly either. proper scum bag family (who apparently is now being moved).

So thats why some end up like this.

From the research I have done

these bully breeds were also bred for dog fighting and two of the main crosses in XL Bullys are the American Bulldog and the American Pitbull Terrier both commonly used. in the sport of Schutzhund.

[Harry Flashman]

It's like the guy above who wants a dog for defensive weapon purposes, and wants a Dogo Argentino, which he calls a "majestic breed". A dog bred specifically for fighting and hunting large game. As a family pet.

Good plan, brains.

[blueg33]

Harry Flashman said:

NRG1976 said:

If it was allowed I’d love to have a Pitbull or Dogo Argentino, majestic dogs that are loving, intelligent and can protect the family from intruders. I love dogs that are family pets, well behaved and yet are able to defend the household if needed either through sheer intimidation or by actually having to get physical.

I feel a lot more at ease when I’m away at work for a few nights knowing my current dog is with my family and will protect at all costs against burglars etc. Likewise when my wife or daughter go for walks they are accompanied by him and it just makes me feel that bit more relaxed that they have an extra level of protection.

Ditto if workmen have to attend my house in my absence and the ladies are at home by themselves.

I love all dogs, it’s just that I love those that can protect the family just a little more

ETA: I don’t own a XL bully (and wouldn’t as I think they are breed with health issues) but just laying out why some “normal” (not criminal) people may have large breed dogs that are not labradors etc.

Edited by NRG1976 on Saturday 16th September 23:18

Did anyone else read this post with rising disbelief?

"I'd like a loving family dog that can also be a dangerous weapon, and I expect the dog to be able to make that choice/switch".

There is a reason that police dogs, trained to harm, don't make good pets. And a reason that well-trained family pets don't make good weapons.

This, right here, is the problem, beautifully demonstrated.

My jaw was hanging open! It’s difficult to believe that people think like that.

[alabbasi]

blueg33 said:

Where did I mention bite?

You are calling bullst but can’t even read.

Do try to read properly before you try and come across as high and mighty.

Perhaps you need to utilise the power of google and listen to the R4 piece. You might even be able with s bit of education to come across as less of an arrogant person with a huge chip on their shoulder.


The expert in question, is a highly regarded dog behaviourist and an expert witness in dangerous fog cases etc. He is easy to look up.

I suggest that he knows considerably more about these dogs and dogs in general than you or I. That’s why I used his terminology etc.

So, when you say dog attacks, are you suggesting that they attack with another part of their body? A tail maybe?
This is more nonsense from the uninformed, attempting a reverse because you got called out. You've already admitted that your opinion came from something you heard on the radio and couldn't even remember the name of the person you heard it from.

Now, if you're talking about the Radio 4 interview with Stan Rawlinson on September 11th, while I have nothing against the man, I did take the effort to look him up and am struggling to find anybody other than you who he's highly regarded by. I did not find any listings of professional accreditations or educational background in animal psychology, behavioral studies, or veterinary medicine. He has a retail website that sells dog related products which also contains several articles which is good business as it keeps traffic coming to his site. Great!

From his LinkedIn profile: He indicates that he started his business as a dog trainer in 1990 which is one year before the dangerous dog’s act passed and the Pitbull ban came into effect in the UK. Prior to him starting his business as a dog trainer, he worked for Abby Life, the insurance company for around 13 years and before that, he was in a bunch of bands. He indicates that he's educated up to o-level standards and there are no mentions of any certifications that qualify him as a dog behaviorist, geneticist or in veterinary medicine. But you know what? All of that is okay except for the part where he says he was an expert witness for the 1991 dangerous dogs act. I don’t see how anyone could be considered a witness when their experience for the past 10+ years was in a completely different field.

You suggested that he knows more about these breeds than I do and I can debate this. Neither I nor he have academic or professional training in animal psychology, genetics, or veterinary medicine. So, this boils down to our experience. His experience with the Pitbull breed is little to none. The breed was banned in the UK from about the time he started his business and he states very clearly that he refuses to work with them. I on the other hand volunteered for rescues and shelters in a country where Pitbulls are a very popular breed and have handled several. I bought one home that had a very tough life and became responsible for it along with 3 other dogs that lived here. My Pitbull was with me every day for 8 years until he passed away so I think I might know a thing or two more about the breed than Mr. Rawlinson. While I can’t call myself an expert, he certainly isn’t one because he happens to call himself one.

Mr. Rawlinson does have an opinion on this breed and his opinion suits the narrative that he gets called to speak on. But as I had already indicated, he admittedly doesn’t have any experience with the breed because he refuses to work with them.

I see that Mr. Rawlinson has opinions on a lot of things.

https://www.quora.com/profile/Stan-Rawlinson

So, when you read his opinions on the Duchess of Sussex, will you consider him to be a highly regarded expert on this young lady too?

[NRG1976]

blueg33 said:

Harry Flashman said:

NRG1976 said:

If it was allowed I’d love to have a Pitbull or Dogo Argentino, majestic dogs that are loving, intelligent and can protect the family from intruders. I love dogs that are family pets, well behaved and yet are able to defend the household if needed either through sheer intimidation or by actually having to get physical.

I feel a lot more at ease when I’m away at work for a few nights knowing my current dog is with my family and will protect at all costs against burglars etc. Likewise when my wife or daughter go for walks they are accompanied by him and it just makes me feel that bit more relaxed that they have an extra level of protection.

Ditto if workmen have to attend my house in my absence and the ladies are at home by themselves.

I love all dogs, it’s just that I love those that can protect the family just a little more

ETA: I don’t own a XL bully (and wouldn’t as I think they are breed with health issues) but just laying out why some “normal” (not criminal) people may have large breed dogs that are not labradors etc.

Edited by NRG1976 on Saturday 16th September 23:18

Did anyone else read this post with rising disbelief?

"I'd like a loving family dog that can also be a dangerous weapon, and I expect the dog to be able to make that choice/switch".

There is a reason that police dogs, trained to harm, don't make good pets. And a reason that well-trained family pets don't make good weapons.

This, right here, is the problem, beautifully demonstrated.

My jaw was hanging open! It’s difficult to believe that people think like that.

If you say so, let me know when I can take the words you have put into my mouth back out, thanks

[NRG1976]

Harry Flashman said:

NRG1976 said:

If it was allowed I’d love to have a Pitbull or Dogo Argentino, majestic dogs that are loving, intelligent and can protect the family from intruders. I love dogs that are family pets, well behaved and yet are able to defend the household if needed either through sheer intimidation or by actually having to get physical.

I feel a lot more at ease when I’m away at work for a few nights knowing my current dog is with my family and will protect at all costs against burglars etc. Likewise when my wife or daughter go for walks they are accompanied by him and it just makes me feel that bit more relaxed that they have an extra level of protection.

Ditto if workmen have to attend my house in my absence and the ladies are at home by themselves.

I love all dogs, it’s just that I love those that can protect the family just a little more

ETA: I don’t own a XL bully (and wouldn’t as I think they are breed with health issues) but just laying out why some “normal” (not criminal) people may have large breed dogs that are not labradors etc.

Edited by NRG1976 on Saturday 16th September 23:18

Did anyone else read this post with rising disbelief?

"I'd like a loving family dog that can also be a dangerous weapon, and I expect the dog to be able to make that choice/switch".

There is a reason that police dogs, trained to harm, don't make good pets. And a reason that well-trained family pets don't make good weapons.

This, right here, is the problem, beautifully demonstrated.

Who said anything about training a dog to bite? Wow, you don’t half display your cognitive bias in any response!

Also you do realise how hard it is to train a police dog to actually bite and then repeat the bite / hold on? They don’t just throw them a biscuit and it magically happens!

A little bit of knowledge is dangerous and that is aptly demonstrated in your post.

[GilletteFan]

popeyewhite said:

You know we're discussing the XL Bully, right? You've seen the video of people hitting one with an iron bar and a piece of 2x4 and the dog not even noticing?

I'm sorry but you're in danger of losing any hint of credibility you may have remaining.

You would need a good 18 inches of bar at the very least and a powerful build to deliver bone shattering blows. And yes, a powerful blow to the dogs head, rib or back would not go unnoticed from the dog. I would expect some seizures and very serious brain injury with a committed blow to the head with a metal bar of decent length. Blows to the ribs would absolutely break bones and the dog would be in excrutiating pain. The problems are usually having a metal bar on hand and being in decent enough shape to deliver powerful blows. People look scared to hurt attacking dogs for some reason. They need to do more when they witness such an atrocity.

Just hope all dogs are muzzled and on a lead. I dislike slobber and paw marks over my trousers. And hate the rips from large dogs. Your typical owner will usually respond with "He's just a softie, innit". Owners should be fined heavily and pay for replacement clothes as well as additional fees for cleaning all the poo and piss that is everywhere now.

[popeyewhite]

m3jappa said:

I keep on reading the line that they were 'bred to kill'

Erm no they wasn't at all, they were bred to look the part but not act the part.

They are highly inbred fighting pitbulls. 50% are directly descended from a single fighting dog 'Killer Kimbo'.

[Harry Flashman]

NRG1976 said:

Who said anything about training a dog to bite? Wow, you don’t half display your cognitive bias in any response!

Also you do realise how hard it is to train a police dog to actually bite and then repeat the bite / hold on? They don’t just throw them a biscuit and it magically happens!

A little bit of knowledge is dangerous and that is aptly demonstrated in your post.

Sure, Captain Expert, who wants to keep fighting dogs as a defensive weapon.

I don't intend to engage with your particular brand of weirdness, just wished to point it out.

Have a lovely day.

[NRG1976]

Harry Flashman said:

NRG1976 said:

Who said anything about training a dog to bite? Wow, you don’t half display your cognitive bias in any response!

Also you do realise how hard it is to train a police dog to actually bite and then repeat the bite / hold on? They don’t just throw them a biscuit and it magically happens!

A little bit of knowledge is dangerous and that is aptly demonstrated in your post.

Sure, Captain Expert, who wants to keep fighting dogs as a defensive weapon.

I don't intend to engage with your particular brand of weirdness, just wished to point it out.

Have a lovely day.

You too :/

[Berger 3rd]

Personal experience of owning one dog that isn’t even the same breed as the dogs in question isn’t evidence the entire breed are fine.

I met a human once, lovely chap he was, so there is absolutely no way a human could do anything bad!

[blueg33]

alabbasi said:

So, when you say dog attacks, are you suggesting that they attack with another part of their body? A tail maybe?
This is more nonsense from the uninformed, attempting a reverse because you got called out. You've already admitted that your opinion came from something you heard on the radio and couldn't even remember the name of the person you heard it from.

Now, if you're talking about the Radio 4 interview with Stan Rawlinson on September 11th, while I have nothing against the man, I did take the effort to look him up and am struggling to find anybody other than you who he's highly regarded by. I did not find any listings of professional accreditations or educational background in animal psychology, behavioral studies, or veterinary medicine. He has a retail website that sells dog related products which also contains several articles which is good business as it keeps traffic coming to his site. Great!

From his LinkedIn profile: He indicates that he started his business as a dog trainer in 1990 which is one year before the dangerous dog’s act passed and the Pitbull ban came into effect in the UK. Prior to him starting his business as a dog trainer, he worked for Abby Life, the insurance company for around 13 years and before that, he was in a bunch of bands. He indicates that he's educated up to o-level standards and there are no mentions of any certifications that qualify him as a dog behaviorist, geneticist or in veterinary medicine. But you know what? All of that is okay except for the part where he says he was an expert witness for the 1991 dangerous dogs act. I don’t see how anyone could be considered a witness when their experience for the past 10+ years was in a completely different field.

You suggested that he knows more about these breeds than I do and I can debate this. Neither I nor he have academic or professional training in animal psychology, genetics, or veterinary medicine. So, this boils down to our experience. His experience with the Pitbull breed is little to none. The breed was banned in the UK from about the time he started his business and he states very clearly that he refuses to work with them. I on the other hand volunteered for rescues and shelters in a country where Pitbulls are a very popular breed and have handled several. I bought one home that had a very tough life and became responsible for it along with 3 other dogs that lived here. My Pitbull was with me every day for 8 years until he passed away so I think I might know a thing or two more about the breed than Mr. Rawlinson. While I can’t call myself an expert, he certainly isn’t one because he happens to call himself one.

Mr. Rawlinson does have an opinion on this breed and his opinion suits the narrative that he gets called to speak on. But as I had already indicated, he admittedly doesn’t have any experience with the breed because he refuses to work with them.

I see that Mr. Rawlinson has opinions on a lot of things.

https://www.quora.com/profile/Stan-Rawlinson

So, when you read his opinions on the Duchess of Sussex, will you consider him to be a highly regarded expert on this young lady too?

He doesn’t act as as expert witness on royalty.

He acts as an expert witness on dangerous dogs.

What are your credentials?

[popeyewhite]

Berger 3rd said:

Personal experience of owning one dog that isn’t even the same breed as the dogs in question isn’t evidence the entire breed are fine.

I met a human once, lovely chap he was, so there is absolutely no way a human could do anything bad!

This. The naivety of some posters is staggering, and this ignorance is why the breed will be banned - licensing would probably work, but you would still have owners leaving these dogs alone in a back garden or with kids in the house and tragedy is just around the corner. Essentially a ban will protect humans from their own stupidity.

[alabbasi]

Berger 3rd said:

I met a human once, lovely chap he was, so there is absolutely no way a human could do anything bad!

That's one of the points I made earlier in the thread. The bully is not a pure bred dog. It's a mix of different dogs that are categorized as pitbulls. IIRC, the American Pitbull Terrier isn't a recognized by the AKC or at least wasn't when I got mime

So how does this ban work when it takes effect? Will dogs get put to sleep because they bully charactersitics? An English staff and a Labrador mix will close enough

Edited by alabbasi on Sunday 17th September 10:31

[popeyewhite]

alabbasi said:

Berger 3rd said:

I met a human once, lovely chap he was, so there is absolutely no way a human could do anything bad!

That's one of the points I made earlier in the thread. The bully is not a pure bred dog. It's a mix of different dogs that are categorized as pitbulls. IIRC, the American Pitbull Terrier isn't a recognized by the AKC or at least wasn't when I got mime

Almost half of all Bullies carry the gene of 'Killer Kimbo', a dog in America linked to multiple deaths. So really keeping any XL Bully is a bit like Russian Roulette.

[alabbasi]

blueg33 said:

He doesn’t act as as expert witness on royalty.

He acts as an expert witness on dangerous dogs.

What are your credentials?

I already stated that I'm not an expert. I don't see anything that makes him one in this breed either. Do you?

[alabbasi]

popeyewhite said:

Almost half of all Bullies carry the gene of 'Killer Kimbo', a dog in America linked to multiple deaths. So really keeping any XL Bully is a bit like Russian Roulette.

I don't know anything about Killer Kimbo so I had to look it up. A couple of points though;

1) that would put the fault on the breeder and not the breed which is what I said in my first post right?
2) Do you mind sharing the data behind that number? As it's been quantified, I'd like to understand if these dogs were genetically tested or a sample of dogs were used, or if all these dogs come with paperwork

I ask because there's a lot of talk about council flat owners, etc. and dogs with paperwork cost serious money so the two don't typically align. Do you mind sharing the data?

It would also be good to know how closely related or otherwise that statement would be a stretch. Apparently there was a study that found that 16 million men alive today have Genghis Khan's DNA. I know a few Khans and most of them are likeable.

[Bighoose]

The "when will people realise its the owners not the dogs" defense that is being laid down all over Facebook etc is as predictable as night following day.

There a clear pattern of attacks by this breed that is wholly, wildly, disproportionate to their numbers within the overall population of dogs. So factually and objectively it's the specific breed of dog that is the problem, although the type of owner they attract may well be a contributing factor.

The whole "this one wouldn't hurt a fly" defense is laughable as well, every dog that ever attacked someone hadn't had a history of doing so until it did.

Banning the breed but letting existing delusional owners keep them makes no sense. One human life taken by them is too many. Banning them and culling ASAP them gives the best chance of minimising opportunity for cross breeding, and is clearly the best course of action for public safety.

[blueg33]

alabbasi said:

blueg33 said:

He doesn’t act as as expert witness on royalty.

He acts as an expert witness on dangerous dogs.

What are your credentials?

I already stated that I'm not an expert. I don't see anything that makes him one in this breed either. Do you?

He is an expert witness on dangerous dogs. Doesn’t necessarily need to be a breed expert.

If you want balance point me to a breed expert who acts as an expert witness.

[Boom78]

Harry Flashman said:

It's like the guy above who wants a dog for defensive weapon purposes, and wants a Dogo Argentino, which he calls a "majestic breed". A dog bred specifically for fighting and hunting large game. As a family pet.

Good plan, brains.

I watched a travel documentary sometime ago in Argentina where they use Dogo’s to hunt. To say they are unhinged would be an understatement. If they weren’t fighting each other they were hunting wild boar and big cats. Dogs had to be kept away from presenter, crew and each other in the end, too excited, massive prey drive, highly strung and bats*** crazy. Family pets they are not! Same goes for XL bully, Cane corso, canary dogs. They have all been bred to do damage to humans or other animals.

I wouldn’t want any of these dogs around my family, even more so if I was away working.

Edited by Boom78 on Sunday 17th September 11:26