Discussion
bogie said:
Yes, I wish ....i just cant get my head around these bans, punishing thousands of dogs for the (in)actions of a few owners 
The issue is there’s not a huge amount of them yet they’re responsible for 11 deaths and countless attacks. proportionally they’ve got a terrible record. Whenever you read owners comments on the the news it’s all “soft as a brush” and “wouldn’t harm a fly” immediately followed up by “weighs 60kg”. People who buy them know full well what they are and brag about the weight/size etc. they (the dog) attract a strange type of owner. I love dogs, owned Staffies, but these have no place in our towns and cities. Ban them, then if people start buying cane corso and canary dogs that turn ugly, ban them too. Simple really.
Boom78 said:
The issue is there’s not a huge amount of them yet they’re responsible for 11 deaths and countless attacks. proportionally they’ve got a terrible record.
Whenever you read owners comments on the the news it’s all “soft as a brush” and “wouldn’t harm a fly” immediately followed up by “weighs 60kg”. People who buy them know full well what they are and brag about the weight/size etc. they (the dog) attract a strange type of owner. I love dogs, owned Staffies, but these have no place in our towns and cities. Ban them, then if people start buying cane corso and canary dogs that turn ugly, ban them too. Simple really.
This!Whenever you read owners comments on the the news it’s all “soft as a brush” and “wouldn’t harm a fly” immediately followed up by “weighs 60kg”. People who buy them know full well what they are and brag about the weight/size etc. they (the dog) attract a strange type of owner. I love dogs, owned Staffies, but these have no place in our towns and cities. Ban them, then if people start buying cane corso and canary dogs that turn ugly, ban them too. Simple really.
there are nice bully xls but there are too many attacks to allow them to be bred/sold/traded. Don't put the good ones down, deal rapidly with the ones who bite, and stop their spread in society. I'd happily rehome one if needed but i would also be the first to put it down if it could not be trusted.
okgo said:
It’s also the dogs though isn’t it. I thought that was established? Involved in 60% of fatalities last year, we don’t need those.
The issue as I see it is that while they are large, aggressive dogs, they don't exist in isolation, they're being bred to fit a demand, and if you just remove the particular dog, the demand will pivot to the next available large, aggressive dog.While I love dogs, tbh probably a lot more than I care about random people, I do recognise that you can have some that are so downright nasty, you have no choice but to put them
down.
But even if that is part of how we resolve this, if it's all we do, it just resets the clock until the next breed of choice comes along.
At the very least, they should ensure owners of such dogs can handle them. I've seen women fall flat on their faces after their large dogs decided to chase other animals. Muzzle and the ability to control would be welcome. Personally sick of all the dogs in general. Everyone has one and it stinks
Strolling through Birmingham city on Thursday, I came across an XL Bully without a lead.
Over in the Wirral, we have taken to walking our dogs near our home or in secure private dog parks. This is because the amount of people not being able to control their dogs in public and a child attacked by an XL Bully not far from one of beaches we go. Earlier this year we encountered an unleashed XL Bully with no owner in sight. Thankfully, we didn't have our dogs with us at that time, but it made us feel uneasy.
I can't understand why some dog owners, especially those with large breeds, believe it's acceptable to let their dogs roam freely without leads and without keeping them within eyesight or having any means of control over them if they can't even see them.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-new...
Over in the Wirral, we have taken to walking our dogs near our home or in secure private dog parks. This is because the amount of people not being able to control their dogs in public and a child attacked by an XL Bully not far from one of beaches we go. Earlier this year we encountered an unleashed XL Bully with no owner in sight. Thankfully, we didn't have our dogs with us at that time, but it made us feel uneasy.
I can't understand why some dog owners, especially those with large breeds, believe it's acceptable to let their dogs roam freely without leads and without keeping them within eyesight or having any means of control over them if they can't even see them.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-new...
Slow.Patrol said:
Perhaps we need a return of the dog licence. Make it £50-100 a year and endorsed by a vet at an annual checkup paid for by the dog owner.
If the vet has concerns that the dog shows signs of aggression or neglect, it is reported to the police.
Waste of time, most of the XL bullies around her come from a convicted drug dealer and arsonist called Scott Bennet who also runs a vet practice in our town, why would he not get his breeding flock endorsed by the rather dodgy vet employee that he owns? This sort of dog breeding "specialist" practice is found in many places and nearly always associate with this sort of dog.If the vet has concerns that the dog shows signs of aggression or neglect, it is reported to the police.
Actually this is nonsense. The Bully is a new pretty new breed of dog and was only recognized by the AKC in the US in 2004. From what I've read, the breed appears to have made it to the UK around 2016, and is not recognized by any breed associations. The first time I saw one in London was on the trip I got back from last week and it was a surprise to me to see it.
If it's not a recognized breed in the UK, what this means is that it's unlikely that any of these dogs have any paperwork with them that proves their lineage, and this can create a few problems including:
1) A LOT of mixes that categorized into a breed when they're actually not
2) Very tight breeding from unscrupulous breeders
The first is a problem that has impacted the pit bull breed in the US, where it seems that any time there's a dog bite, it was a pit bull. When you actually see pictures of the dogs, they often don't look anything like a pit bull, but more of a mix of many dogs, and have terrier characteristics (which 99% of mutts that you see at a dog shelter do).
The second becomes a problem when as there's no real regulation or standard set. A breeder can mix up their own breed to make something that looks close enough. For example, an English bull dog and cross it with a black lab , or a Rottweiler and cross it with an English Staff. If they get close enough to the physical characteristics of what's now called an XL Bully, they'll breed that mix tightly to maintain those characters, and the subsequent dogs will develop some pretty severe issues due to the tight breeding.
When I read that a brand new breed of dog breed is suddenly responsible for 60% of all fatal dog bites? My bulls
t meter tells me that there's a good chance that these dogs are mis-categorized. That like saying that 60% of all traffic accidents are caused by Lamborghini's. I'd be interested to know how many of those attack dogs came with actual paperwork.
.
Unfortunately, when I read something so definite as
If it's not a recognized breed in the UK, what this means is that it's unlikely that any of these dogs have any paperwork with them that proves their lineage, and this can create a few problems including:
1) A LOT of mixes that categorized into a breed when they're actually not
2) Very tight breeding from unscrupulous breeders
The first is a problem that has impacted the pit bull breed in the US, where it seems that any time there's a dog bite, it was a pit bull. When you actually see pictures of the dogs, they often don't look anything like a pit bull, but more of a mix of many dogs, and have terrier characteristics (which 99% of mutts that you see at a dog shelter do).
The second becomes a problem when as there's no real regulation or standard set. A breeder can mix up their own breed to make something that looks close enough. For example, an English bull dog and cross it with a black lab , or a Rottweiler and cross it with an English Staff. If they get close enough to the physical characteristics of what's now called an XL Bully, they'll breed that mix tightly to maintain those characters, and the subsequent dogs will develop some pretty severe issues due to the tight breeding.
When I read that a brand new breed of dog breed is suddenly responsible for 60% of all fatal dog bites? My bulls
t meter tells me that there's a good chance that these dogs are mis-categorized. That like saying that 60% of all traffic accidents are caused by Lamborghini's. I'd be interested to know how many of those attack dogs came with actual paperwork. .
Unfortunately, when I read something so definite as
blueg33 said:
This is a powerful dog with high prey drive built into its genetic traits deliberately. Even the best owner can’t programme that out
I'm 100% sure that it was written by somebody who has no idea about what he's talking about. .blueg33 said:
I read here and see in the new a lot of complacency from owners.
“He is really gentle”
“Wouldn’t hurt a fly”
Etc
This is a powerful dog with high prey drive built into its genetic traits deliberately. Even the best owner can’t programme that out.
I would wager that many of the attacks to date were by dogs whose owners would make similar comments.
This complacency is a big risk factor in itself.
“He is really gentle”
“Wouldn’t hurt a fly”
Etc
This is a powerful dog with high prey drive built into its genetic traits deliberately. Even the best owner can’t programme that out.
I would wager that many of the attacks to date were by dogs whose owners would make similar comments.
This complacency is a big risk factor in itself.
Unfortunately criminal / chav type morons are buying dogs and getting them “bite” trained to make them aggressive as possible and as soon as you start teaching a dog it’s ok to bite a human you’ll start to create a dangerous situation.
All breeds are fine in the hands of the right person, as ever the few spoil it for the rest. Question now is how do you control the morons, I know plenty of people who still have pitbulls despite them being outlawed, it is a very difficult one to police. Having a licence to own a dog would be a start, then enforcing non-compliance would be another step forward.
As for a blanket ban on all large breeds which has been touted by the anti-dog brigade, well if you adopt that mentality on the pretext that it will save lives, then perhaps we should ban alcohol first.
All breeds are fine in the hands of the right person, as ever the few spoil it for the rest. Question now is how do you control the morons, I know plenty of people who still have pitbulls despite them being outlawed, it is a very difficult one to police. Having a licence to own a dog would be a start, then enforcing non-compliance would be another step forward.
As for a blanket ban on all large breeds which has been touted by the anti-dog brigade, well if you adopt that mentality on the pretext that it will save lives, then perhaps we should ban alcohol first.
NRG1976 said:
All breeds are fine in the hands of the right person,
Not all breeds have the bite strength to tear a limb off a man after dragging them to the ground. Not all breeds shrug aside being whacked on the head multiple times by an iron bar or block of wood. The argument 'It's down to the owner' doesn't mitigate the fact certain breeds are more prone to bite/attack than others. The Bully is the assault rifle of the dog world, and as a dog owner of many decades I honestly cannot see any reason to have these in our community. The risks are simply too high.NRG1976 said:
Unfortunately criminal / chav type morons are buying dogs and getting them “bite” trained to make them aggressive as possible and as soon as you start teaching a dog it’s ok to bite a human you’ll start to create a dangerous situation.
Not many of the ahole owners would have a clue about training for good or bad
All breeds are fine in the hands of the right person, as ever the few spoil it for the rest.
Not all dogs are fine in the right hands, but there are few right hands with dogs, most owners haven't a clue what dogs need or react to. thankfully most of the dogd around are smaller.
As for a blanket ban on all large breeds which has been touted by the anti-dog brigade, well if you adopt that mentality on the pretext that it will save lives, then perhaps we should ban alcohol first.
Why allow dispersion of dogs that have been selected to fight. Don't kill them just stop them spreading and then enjoy the resulting improvement in death rate. Not many of the a
hole owners would have a clue about training for good or badAll breeds are fine in the hands of the right person, as ever the few spoil it for the rest.
Not all dogs are fine in the right hands, but there are few right hands with dogs, most owners haven't a clue what dogs need or react to. thankfully most of the dogd around are smaller.
As for a blanket ban on all large breeds which has been touted by the anti-dog brigade, well if you adopt that mentality on the pretext that it will save lives, then perhaps we should ban alcohol first.
popeyewhite said:
You need a licence for a gun, and go through several checks. A Bully is just another dangerous weapon and checks should be made before ownership.
There are a lot more kids causing problems then dogs causing problems. Should there be a license to have kids?popeyewhite said:
Not all breeds shrug aside being whacked on the head multiple times by an iron bar or block of wood.
What planet are you on? if you hit any dog with an iron bar on the head, it's going to die and you should go to prison. Please use your common sense.Edited by alabbasi on Saturday 16th September 20:23
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff