XL Bully Dogs.........

Sassafras

CavemanGrogg said:

Alterlifeson said:

On the pepper spray idea, I've read that it isn't actually that effective once the dog has started the attack or is chomping down on your leg. Again, who's going to have time to get in their back, pull out the spray and use it all before it gets to you.

FYI there is a video of the poor guy who was attacked and died the other day. I've not watched it for obvious reasons but from the comments he was trying to protect his elderly mother who he was out for a walk with. There were a couple of older gentlemen with a stick and a wheelie bin attempting to help but couldn't do much.

If you're very very lucky you may just have enough time and warning to brace for impact and to try and deflect - push the dog away.  And that's making a lot of assumptions and betting on having the state of mind to not panic and inadvertently make yourself more vulnerable.  And this isn't just with the XL Bully, it's the same for any medium to large dog, German shepherd, lab, retriever, staffie, rottie, doberman, husky, collie......

Yeah, coz once you push the dog away it's not gonna come back at you.

Snap

Dogs hate me, almost universally. A few months ago I was "attacked" by a little farty sausage dog, off the lead on a private lane that has signs everywhere saying "Private Land, Dogs on leads at all times". Aside from the "attack" being quite funny, the point is often people are just wankers with dogs and don't act responsibly.

I've been bitten a few times, always by a dog off a lead. It's not difficult is it - just keep your dog on a leash and remember that not everyone is a dog person. 

and more to the point, dogs stink and shit all over the place. and the wanker owners like to bag the shit up and hang it in trees (wtf is that about then?).
We have a load of bushes outside the house, with grass growing under them - it needs strimming now and again. You can almost guarantee that some tosser has bagged up some shite and thrown it under them, so when you strim, it goes fecking everywhere,

People, morons, are the route problem in all this.

darthed1981

Snap said:

the point is often people are just wankers with dogs and don't act responsibly.

and more to the point, dogs stink and shit all over the place. and the wanker owners like to bag the shit up and hang it in trees (wtf is that about then?).

Respectively

FTFY

I have noticed that as well and have literally no idea, unless it is a staggeringly solipsistic protest at the absence of a dog poo bin right there, right now, as if they just pop up when you need them like some kind of turd concierge.

ThePrettyDamned

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:

Oh come on guys, let's stop going on about fighting enormous vicious dogs with combat knives, complex wrestling moves, keys, pointed sticks etc. It's beginning to sound like the macho bullshit mentality of the people who own these fucking monsters.

The truth is we would all be terrified and ripped to pieces in seconds, or at best horribly mutilated and maimed for life.  In that situation none of us would have the presence of mind to fight back even if we could.

That was my point... the *minimum* you would need to stand any chance at all is a weapon which is itself illegal to carry in public, and you'd probably need to pre-empt the attack and have it in your hand already. So in any realistic circumstances, no.

So the only solution is to get rid of the dogs - the question is how. That's the difficult bit, and I don't see an easy or quick option.

ThePrettyDamned said:

It shouldn't be complicated, right? If I have a dog, whether is 20cm tall or 2m tall, and it attacks someone, I should be prosecuted for the actions of the dog.

So if it is a little spaniel and bites an ankle, drawing blood, it's assault or something. A dog that disables someone or leaves scars, gbh. If someone dies as a result of the dog, it's manslaughter. 

Does it need to consider the breed? What am I missing? 

That's it's reactive - it won't bring back the dead person. You could argue that that sort of penalty will deter people from owning dangerous dogs, but it probably won't - if they don't believe *their* dog is dangerous. In the same way as fairly severe (although in my opinion still not enough) penalties for causing death by dangerous driving doesn't stop some people driving like lunatics - they don't believe it will happen to them.

Very true. Wisdom awarded. 

Nothing is ever simple. 

digitalscream

ICBM said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

It shouldn't be complicated, right? If I have a dog, whether is 20cm tall or 2m tall, and it attacks someone, I should be prosecuted for the actions of the dog.

So if it is a little spaniel and bites an ankle, drawing blood, it's assault or something. A dog that disables someone or leaves scars, gbh. If someone dies as a result of the dog, it's manslaughter. 

Does it need to consider the breed? What am I missing? 

That's it's reactive - it won't bring back the dead person. You could argue that that sort of penalty will deter people from owning dangerous dogs, but it probably won't - if they don't believe *their* dog is dangerous. In the same way as fairly severe (although in my opinion still not enough) penalties for causing death by dangerous driving doesn't stop some people driving like lunatics - they don't believe it will happen to them.

...and yet we still have those penalties regarding dangerous driving, and they deter enough people that it makes a difference.

I must say, I'm not really a fan of laws that preempt illegal behaviour, because by definition they assume guilt where there is none.

CavemanGrogg

digitalscream said:

ICBM said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

It shouldn't be complicated, right? If I have a dog, whether is 20cm tall or 2m tall, and it attacks someone, I should be prosecuted for the actions of the dog.

So if it is a little spaniel and bites an ankle, drawing blood, it's assault or something. A dog that disables someone or leaves scars, gbh. If someone dies as a result of the dog, it's manslaughter. 

Does it need to consider the breed? What am I missing? 

That's it's reactive - it won't bring back the dead person. You could argue that that sort of penalty will deter people from owning dangerous dogs, but it probably won't - if they don't believe *their* dog is dangerous. In the same way as fairly severe (although in my opinion still not enough) penalties for causing death by dangerous driving doesn't stop some people driving like lunatics - they don't believe it will happen to them.

...and yet we still have those penalties regarding dangerous driving, and they deter enough people that it makes a difference.

I must say, I'm not really a fan of laws that preempt illegal behaviour, because by definition they assume guilt where there is none.

I would disagree the drunk driver who put my cousin in a wheelchair and killed his partner and children as well as himself had already been jailed 4 or 5 times for taking the police on high speed drunken chases before he took them on his last one and hit my cousin in his parked car.

digitalscream

CavemanGrogg said:

digitalscream said:

ICBM said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

It shouldn't be complicated, right? If I have a dog, whether is 20cm tall or 2m tall, and it attacks someone, I should be prosecuted for the actions of the dog.

So if it is a little spaniel and bites an ankle, drawing blood, it's assault or something. A dog that disables someone or leaves scars, gbh. If someone dies as a result of the dog, it's manslaughter. 

Does it need to consider the breed? What am I missing? 

That's it's reactive - it won't bring back the dead person. You could argue that that sort of penalty will deter people from owning dangerous dogs, but it probably won't - if they don't believe *their* dog is dangerous. In the same way as fairly severe (although in my opinion still not enough) penalties for causing death by dangerous driving doesn't stop some people driving like lunatics - they don't believe it will happen to them.

...and yet we still have those penalties regarding dangerous driving, and they deter enough people that it makes a difference.

I must say, I'm not really a fan of laws that preempt illegal behaviour, because by definition they assume guilt where there is none.

I would disagree the drunk driver who put my cousin in a wheelchair and killed his partner and children as well as himself had already been jailed 4 or 5 times for taking the police on high speed drunken chases before he took them on his last one and hit my cousin in his parked car.

So...because there was one drunk driver, those laws have never deterred any drunk drivers?

I don't mean to be insensitive to your cousin - that's genuinely not my intent - but the evidence would suggest otherwise. There has been a 70% reduction in the number of drunk driving collisions since the introduction of the breathalyser (and progressively heavier penalties that came with it) in the early 80s.

Those were laws that were designed to get the maximum improvement without going the whole hog and banning cars (or any type of car) or alcohol, which is the only way to guarantee zero drink-driving incidents. Seems to me that we should adopt a similar approach here.

Cranky

Snap said:

Dogs hate me, almost universally. A few months ago I was "attacked" by a little farty sausage dog, off the lead on a private lane that has signs everywhere saying "Private Land, Dogs on leads at all times". Aside from the "attack" being quite funny, the point is often people are just wankers with dogs and don't act responsibly.

I've been bitten a few times, always by a dog off a lead. It's not difficult is it - just keep your dog on a leash and remember that not everyone is a dog person. 

and more to the point, dogs stink and shit all over the place. and the wanker owners like to bag the shit up and hang it in trees (wtf is that about then?).
We have a load of bushes outside the house, with grass growing under them - it needs strimming now and again. You can almost guarantee that some tosser has bagged up some shite and thrown it under them, so when you strim, it goes fecking everywhere,

People, morons, are the route problem in all this.

I have had the same issue.  Being an avid trail runner, I had growing very tired of constant encounters with dogs who were rightfully off-leash on wilderness hikes.  I was nearly bitten once by a large Rottweiler.  But any dog, big or small, sensed the fear on me and would lose its mind protecting its owner from me.

So I got a couple dogs of my own.  (This was also so that my kids would have companions and protection, which has paid dividends beyond measure.) I’ve learned a ton from them about dogs and about myself.  Sometimes a dog — like a big bully — will still make me nervous.  But dogs like me now.

sweave

Risk management is about reducing probability of an attack and, secondly, impact if attacked. To reduce likelihood, ideally all owners must undertake training before owning a dog but, in the meantime,  all dogs must be on a lead in any public space. To reduce impact we can argue about banning breeds but simpler if all dogs must be muzzled in public spaces. Fine to have specifically designated areas where they can  be set free to run around, chase balls, etc but make that the exception, not the norm. Easy then to identify offenders (rather than having list of big/dangerous dogs that needs to be checked against), in which case the animals can be confiscated and owners fined before they get the dog back. For repeat offences just keep doubling the fine each time. 

Sporky

Specific mean dogs aside, I think there's a balance to he found between the owners' responsibilities (which are probably the larger part, and certainly include picking up poops) and non-owners knowing a bit about how to act around dogs for their own benefit.

We put ours on the lead, or few them by their harnesses, whenever we see people who might not want to be said hello to. That includes joggers, cyclists, horse riders, people whose own dogs are on the lead, and most people without dogs. But that's harder when a cyclist is going full pelt on the common because (a) you don't get much time, and (2) fogs find fast-moving things jolly interesting.

So while it's the owners' primary responsibility, slowing down near dogs is probably Wise and Smart.

CavemanGrogg

digitalscream said:

CavemanGrogg said:

digitalscream said:

ICBM said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

It shouldn't be complicated, right? If I have a dog, whether is 20cm tall or 2m tall, and it attacks someone, I should be prosecuted for the actions of the dog.

So if it is a little spaniel and bites an ankle, drawing blood, it's assault or something. A dog that disables someone or leaves scars, gbh. If someone dies as a result of the dog, it's manslaughter. 

Does it need to consider the breed? What am I missing? 

That's it's reactive - it won't bring back the dead person. You could argue that that sort of penalty will deter people from owning dangerous dogs, but it probably won't - if they don't believe *their* dog is dangerous. In the same way as fairly severe (although in my opinion still not enough) penalties for causing death by dangerous driving doesn't stop some people driving like lunatics - they don't believe it will happen to them.

...and yet we still have those penalties regarding dangerous driving, and they deter enough people that it makes a difference.

I must say, I'm not really a fan of laws that preempt illegal behaviour, because by definition they assume guilt where there is none.

I would disagree the drunk driver who put my cousin in a wheelchair and killed his partner and children as well as himself had already been jailed 4 or 5 times for taking the police on high speed drunken chases before he took them on his last one and hit my cousin in his parked car.

So...because there was one drunk driver, those laws have never deterred any drunk drivers?

I don't mean to be insensitive to your cousin - that's genuinely not my intent - but the evidence would suggest otherwise. There has been a 70% reduction in the number of drunk driving collisions since the introduction of the breathalyser (and progressively heavier penalties that came with it) in the early 80s.

Those were laws that were designed to get the maximum improvement without going the whole hog and banning cars (or any type of car) or alcohol, which is the only way to guarantee zero drink-driving incidents. Seems to me that we should adopt a similar approach here.

Granted my cousin is an extreme example, using something less extreme, has speed limits done much to reduce speeding, a lot of people I know have gotten points more than once for speeding - myself included, I know people who have gotten them so often that they have set up companies for the sole purpose of owning their cars, so that they can then claim that the company has no idea who was driving the car at the time it was caught speeding, and just pay the fine with no points added to anybodies license or anybody having to go on a speed awareness course.  And speed limits have been around for longer than drink driving laws.

Laws mean nothing to the people who don't agree with them, we don't pay them any attention, think about them, or even recognise their very existence when we're breaking them.  Do people honestly think drug users give drug laws any thoughts while using or sourcing?

Prohibition be it with alcohol, drugs, and even dogs have proven if anything banning things does not work, it simply jacks up the price/value of the item being banned, and hands entire markets over to criminals, who's sole interest is profit rather than quality/welfare.

Punish the deed, not the bread, if banning the breed actually worked there would be no American Pit Bull Terriers in the UK, there where banned in 1991 after all - over 30 years ago that's well over they're best predicted life expectancy for any breed of dog, yet they are still an extremely common sight on the streets of the UK.

Dominic

I have an idea ;
Ban the Breed as from tomorrow
All existing dogs should be either euthanised or registered in an appropriate way
All registered dogs should have all front teeth and Canines surgically removed to eradicate the damage threat
it sounds harsh and cruel but its kinder than a death sentence.
If they retain some back teeth for chewing food that's fine.......my sisters dog has no teeth due to a chronic gum and sinus  infection continually reoccuring resulting in total tooth loss/removal ...........she manages perfectly fine to eat her normal dog food .
In fact the jawbone callouses after a few months .
As it happens these dogs will not live very long anyway due the inbreeding, genetic modification background and morons who are injecting them with steroids from puppyhood .Most will have no use of their legs by the time they are 5 .

Offset

Dominic said:

I have an idea ;
Ban the Breed as from tomorrow
All existing dogs should be either euthanised or registered in an appropriate way
All registered dogs should have all front teeth and Canines surgically removed to eradicate the damage threat
it sounds harsh and cruel but its kinder than a death sentence.
If they retain some back teeth for chewing food that's fine.......my sisters dog has no teeth due to a chronic gum and sinus  infection continually reoccuring resulting in total tooth loss/removal ...........she manages perfectly fine to eat her normal dog food .
In fact the jawbone callouses after a few months .
As it happens these dogs will not live very long anyway due the inbreeding, genetic modification background and morons who are injecting them with steroids from puppyhood .Most will have no use of their legs by the time they are 5 .

I think if you took your idea and applied it to the owners as well as the dogs, it would prove doubly efficacious.

yocky

You'd have to look at the UK dog attack fatality stats from a peculiar angle to say the breed ban has had no effect. Imperfect sure, but it's probably a choice of that or do nothing with the current lame duck lot. If the main downside is that in 20 years we need to add another name to the list because someone has gamed the system with hellspawn 3.0 then that's not a terrible solution, and it's the one we have.

The Dutch repealed their bans a while ago and put in more enlightened measures because they couldn't see a reduction in bite injuries but I think they're still floundering around trying to find a good policy mix, and have gone back to some breed specific rules if not outright bans. In any case the studies around this that have failed to find any benefit to BSL seem to study dog bite hospital visit numbers without any consideration of severity. So someone getting a rabies jab after a nip would be the same stat as someone losing a hand because Grenade Whiskers was having a bad day. Reminds me a bit of that joke study that found no benefit from wearing a parachute when jumping out of a plane.

Sassafras

Dominic said:

I have an idea ;
Ban the Breed as from tomorrow
All existing dogs should be either euthanised or registered in an appropriate way
All registered dogs should have all front teeth and Canines surgically removed to eradicate the damage threat
it sounds harsh and cruel but its kinder than a death sentence.
If they retain some back teeth for chewing food that's fine.......my sisters dog has no teeth due to a chronic gum and sinus  infection continually reoccuring resulting in total tooth loss/removal ...........she manages perfectly fine to eat her normal dog food .
In fact the jawbone callouses after a few months .
As it happens these dogs will not live very long anyway due the inbreeding, genetic modification background and morons who are injecting them with steroids from puppyhood .Most will have no use of their legs by the time they are 5 .

Unfortunately, dogs can be fitted with false teeth:

Offset

Sassafras said:

Unfortunately, dogs can be fitted with false teeth:

Brilliant!!!

dano

TeleMaster said:

People think that it's easy to just face down a monster dog and stay calm, or do a front flip over it and as above, wheelbarrow it back to its owner. It's bollocks. What happens is you shit yourself and that's the end of it. 

I did lol that!

I regularly get savaged by my semi ferrule street cat and he leaves a nasty bite and clings on with all claws, difficult to get off the arm and he's only 5kg..

A 60kg monster killer dog is going to be a serious mauling for the next unfortunate victim

Offset

CavemanGrogg

Sassafras said:

Dominic said:

I have an idea ;
Ban the Breed as from tomorrow
All existing dogs should be either euthanised or registered in an appropriate way
All registered dogs should have all front teeth and Canines surgically removed to eradicate the damage threat
it sounds harsh and cruel but its kinder than a death sentence.
If they retain some back teeth for chewing food that's fine.......my sisters dog has no teeth due to a chronic gum and sinus  infection continually reoccuring resulting in total tooth loss/removal ...........she manages perfectly fine to eat her normal dog food .
In fact the jawbone callouses after a few months .
As it happens these dogs will not live very long anyway due the inbreeding, genetic modification background and morons who are injecting them with steroids from puppyhood .Most will have no use of their legs by the time they are 5 .

Unfortunately, dogs can be fitted with false teeth:

I know this is meant to be a joke, but you can get false teeth for dogs, just like you can for people, In fact it's extremely common for the very people you don't want owning a dog yet alone a big or strong breed, to have their dogs teeth, especially the canines replaced with metal ones, as they can set the dog on you, rather than pull a gun on you - obviously this is American drug dealers I'm on about, and cause you just as much harm, and face next to no legal ramifications bar the loss of the dog, which they have obviously bought and trained to be a weapon, and can financially afford to replace with a few hours ''work''.

Kittyfrisk

dano said:

TeleMaster said:

People think that it's easy to just face down a monster dog and stay calm, or do a front flip over it and as above, wheelbarrow it back to its owner. It's bollocks. What happens is you shit yourself and that's the end of it. 

I did lol that!

I regularly get savaged by my semi ferrule street cat and he leaves a nasty bite and clings on with all claws, difficult to get off the arm and he's only 5kg..

A 60kg monster killer dog is going to be a serious mauling for the next unfortunate victim

Is that a gut, string through model?