XL Bully

[okgo]

Poor man’s 911

[IJWS15]

The real issue here is that the ban should not be a list of breeds which can be circumvented but something along the lines of dogs that are, or could be, a danger to people and property (other dogs).

Either that or there is a list of allowed breeds and anything not on it is banned.

[HTP99]

IJWS15 said:

The real issue here is that the ban should not be a list of breeds which can be circumvented but something along the lines of dogs that are, or could be, a danger to people and property (other dogs).

You could argue that would be all dogs, I'm sure a Pomeranian "could be a danger to people" if it was that way inclined, a baby would be pretty helpless if it decided to have a go!

[billbring]

I don't think banning breeds is the answer as already stated by other posters, the people who want violent and powerful dogs will just mutate other breeds and acquire them elsewhere and we'll be forever chasing our tale (excuse the pun)

Here's a few ideas, don't flame me because it's not perfect...

I really think we need to eliminate back-yard (hobby) breeders, and make it a legal requirement that all breeders are licensed. Dogs can be acquired only via licensed breeders or through registered charities who must conduct a thorough behavioural assessment of the dog (and the potential owner, ideally).

To enforce this, all dogs must be chipped and the details of where it's come from are stored there, either licensed breeder or registered charity and police can carry out spot checks on the street with hand-held chip scanners.

Anybody found with a dog of unknown origin has it confiscated and it is put back through the shelter system for behavioural assessment and re-homing, if suitable - big financial penalties for the person involved as well.

And any dog that is involved in a serious incident, there are penalties for the owner and the original breeder.

edited to add: For all dogs in existing homes, a vet will certify that they were born before this scheme comes into force and are therefore exempt, this will also be recorded on their chip.

The bottom line is, this problem originates from moron breeders, and moron breeders attract moron owners.

Edited by billbring on Tuesday 12th September 09:38

[Zetec-S]

It's already a requirement that puppies are chipped by the breeder before they go to a new home.

[turbomoggie]

The UK population in general seems to have become a bit "dog mad" over the past 10 years. Prior to this I felt that most dog owners were more "enthusiasts" with dogs that were better trained. Most dogs I come across now are poorly trained and are treated like spoilt children rather than dogs. I live on the banks of a canal which is a popular walking and cycling route - I hate it when an unleashed dog comes bounding up to myself and baby daughter. I don't know your dog so please keep them away from me!

I do think greater restrictions should be placed on dog ownership. A good way to do this would be stricter licencing on dogs above a certain size and weight. Ie the dog breeds which can actually cause a person serious harm. XL bullies should be banned imo - I get that the scum of society may still manage to obtain them but a ban would be a barrier for many and a step in the right direction.

[scrw.]

I don't see how the banning of a breed would work, it would reduce what is available to people who want status / protection dogs but they will just find something else to go to. Any dog given the right provocation has the ability to cause serious harm, how do you licence that?

As an aside for breeds that are dubious, look up a Chongqing dog, not something I had heard of until a neighbour got one, it was cute as a puppy but after 6 months it just scared the st out of me, very territorial. It went back to the breeder after it had a bad few weeks that involved it killing another neighbours yappy terrier thing and later broke its collar and attacked some sheep.

[Simpo Two]

I have a plan. You will need:

1x XL Bully (or Bully XL)
1x owner of said animal, complete with hoodie and grey tracky bottoms..

Take a small room and place the dog into it.
Wait 3 days.
Take the owner, soak him in gravy, and then drop him down a chute into the room.

[AyBee]

That only solves half the problem.

[nuyorican]

AyBee said:

That only solves half the problem.

Put a tiger in the room. Tiger then goes back to zoo with a full bully, i mean belly. Everyone's happy.

[Tango13]

Simpo Two said:

I have a plan. You will need:

1x XL Bully (or Bully XL)
1x owner of said animal, complete with hoodie and grey tracky bottoms..

Take a small room and place the dog into it.
Wait 3 days.
Take the owner, soak him in gravy, and then drop him down a chute into the room.

Much quicker to put the dog and owner in the same room at the same time and drop a Honey Badger down the chute...

[okgo]

nuyorican said:

Put a tiger in the room. Tiger then goes back to zoo with a full bully, i mean belly. Everyone's happy.

I’d imagine one of those dogs would give it a good go. I saw a honey badger fight off 3 leopards on Reddit the other day.

Just got lost in Quora - apparently any dog would last seconds against a tiger.

Edited by okgo on Tuesday 12th September 22:49

[GilletteFan]

Simpo Two said:

I have a plan. You will need:

1x XL Bully (or Bully XL)
1x owner of said animal, complete with hoodie and grey tracky bottoms..

Take a small room and place the dog into it.
Wait 3 days.
Take the owner, soak him in gravy, and then drop him down a chute into the room.

Haha. Their beards would soak up quite a bit of the fat. Why do XL Bully owners always have beards? Dogs are literally everywhere now and the streets smell of lovely dog piss and are stained with dog st pressed in by countless unsuspectind pedestrians. We can look forward to even more dogs as people become more reluctant to have friends. The yapping competition between dogs and owners concerns me, but I heard it's completely "normal" to yap away at each other. Oh well... different strokes it is

[Tyrell Corp]

Funny naming a breed of Dog after a sex toy, maybe that's why they are always biting people?

[Boom78]

There’s a few of these in my local area all with scummy owner (literally) in tow. I know people slag off breed bans but I’d ban them today if I could. 10 deaths from them in the UK plus many many more bites. There was a dog trainer/psychologist on bbc recently stating they’re a loose cannon and unlike anything they’d seen before for pure aggression. Root cause is probably the fact they haven’t been breed with standards or character in mind, it’s all about look. Even if the dog is hyper aggressive it will be bred from. What mystifies me is they’re bred from pit bull terriers, all cross breeds from them are banned already aren’t they? Why do these need a separate ban?

There’s a counter from people saying if you ban these then they’ll just move on to cane Corso, if that’s the case then ban those too. They’re all artificial breeds created in the last 30 years to be nothing more than status/aggressive/tough guy dogs. They’ve got zero lineage and breeders use tenuous links to actual old breeds to justify them.

I also think dog licenses should return and be enforced to counter unfit dog owners.

[blueg33]

Boom78 said:

There’s a few of these in my local area all with scummy owner (literally) in tow. I know people slag off breed bans but I’d ban them today if I could. 10 deaths from them in the UK plus many many more bites. There was a dog trainer/psychologist on bbc recently stating they’re a loose cannon and unlike anything they’d seen before for pure aggression. Root cause is probably the fact they haven’t been breed with standards or character in mind, it’s all about look. Even if the dog is hyper aggressive it will be bred from. What mystifies me is they’re bred from pit bull terriers, all cross breeds from them are banned already aren’t they? Why do these need a separate ban?

There’s a counter from people saying if you ban these then they’ll just move on to cane Corso, if that’s the case then ban those too. They’re all artificial breeds created in the last 30 years to be nothing more than status/aggressive/tough guy dogs. They’ve got zero lineage and breeders use tenuous links to actual old breeds to justify them.

I also think dog licenses should return and be enforced to counter unfit dog owners.

I agree.

I heard the BBC piece too. Interesting points about “prey drive” some breeds have more drive to kill stuff. The XL is right up there, plus being quite large it can do a lot of damage unlike a Jack Russell which has high prey drive but does less damage (IME Jack Russell’s are aggressive tts and I wouldn’t miss them)

[Sslink]

blueg33 said:

I agree.

I heard the BBC piece too. Interesting points about “prey drive” some breeds have more drive to kill stuff. The XL is right up there, plus being quite large it can do a lot of damage unlike a Jack Russell which has high prey drive but does less damage (IME Jack Russell’s are aggressive tts and I wouldn’t miss them)

RE: Jack Russells and other small/toy dogs, Id feel a lot more confident in kicking through the dog or throwing it over a fence/wall and getting it away from me and mine than an XL Bully or equivalent that weighs as much if not more than me.

Small dogs, puncture wounds and some injections. XL Bully? You'll be lucky if you escape with all your limbs.

[LRDefender]

billbring said:

I don't think banning breeds is the answer as already stated by other posters, the people who want violent and powerful dogs will just mutate other breeds and acquire them elsewhere and we'll be forever chasing our tale (excuse the pun)

Here's a few ideas, don't flame me because it's not perfect...

I really think we need to eliminate back-yard (hobby) breeders, and make it a legal requirement that all breeders are licensed. Dogs can be acquired only via licensed breeders or through registered charities who must conduct a thorough behavioural assessment of the dog (and the potential owner, ideally).

To enforce this, all dogs must be chipped and the details of where it's come from are stored there, either licensed breeder or registered charity and police can carry out spot checks on the street with hand-held chip scanners.

Anybody found with a dog of unknown origin has it confiscated and it is put back through the shelter system for behavioural assessment and re-homing, if suitable - big financial penalties for the person involved as well.

And any dog that is involved in a serious incident, there are penalties for the owner and the original breeder.

edited to add: For all dogs in existing homes, a vet will certify that they were born before this scheme comes into force and are therefore exempt, this will also be recorded on their chip.

The bottom line is, this problem originates from moron breeders, and moron breeders attract moron owners.

Edited by billbring on Tuesday 12th September 09:38

The big problem with this is enforcement.

There seems to be a minority of individuals that appear to operate with scant regard or respect to the wider community. This is because the chances of getting caught are vanishingly low. If they are caught then the punishment is hardly going to cause them much trouble.

If any new legislation is introduced we need to be able to enforce it appropriately. Therefore more funding for more police and punishment that serves as a deterrent.

For the record I don’t agree with BSL. A properly trained dog isn’t a big risk and a responsible owner will ensure the doggo isn’t a nuisance to people or other animals. Irresponsible owners however…..

[Muzzer79]

Boom78 said:

There’s a few of these in my local area all with scummy owner (literally) in tow. I know people slag off breed bans but I’d ban them today if I could. 10 deaths from them in the UK plus many many more bites. There was a dog trainer/psychologist on bbc recently stating they’re a loose cannon and unlike anything they’d seen before for pure aggression. Root cause is probably the fact they haven’t been breed with standards or character in mind, it’s all about look. Even if the dog is hyper aggressive it will be bred from. What mystifies me is they’re bred from pit bull terriers, all cross breeds from them are banned already aren’t they? Why do these need a separate ban?

There’s a counter from people saying if you ban these then they’ll just move on to cane Corso, if that’s the case then ban those too. They’re all artificial breeds created in the last 30 years to be nothing more than status/aggressive/tough guy dogs. They’ve got zero lineage and breeders use tenuous links to actual old breeds to justify them.

I also think dog licenses should return and be enforced to counter unfit dog owners.

So from XL Bully's they'll go to Cane Corsos

Then to Rottweilers

Then to Dobermans

Then to German Shepherds

Then to Mastiffs

See where this is going?

The root cause is not the breed of dog. It's the cretin who breeds and trains it to be aggressive.

I agree about licencing. Proper licencing and enforcement is the only way to protect people from overly aggressive dogs.

Banning certain breeds is a waste of time and punishes responsible owners who have trained their dogs appropriately.

[Simpo Two]

LRDefender said:

If any new legislation is introduced we need to be able to enforce it appropriately. Therefore more funding for more police and punishment that serves as a deterrent.

Perhaps we need to think of dogs more like the way cars are treated. Cars have to be taxed and insured (and you need to pass a test before you can use one). If they're not, they get taken away and either impounded or crushed.

So funding for all these grand proposals can come from a dog tax. Every dog is licensed and taxed and insured against third party damage; if one if found untaxed/uninsured you impound the dog and crush the owner. Owzat?

Or you could do it the Roman style. Put all the miscreants and their dogs into a big ring and enjoy the popcorn.