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

euan

Shall we anoint the sacrificial child?

Tannin

^ It's been done. Didn't work.

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

Snags

I don't think anyone* is advocating waiting until someone of any age gets hurt before taking action.

The issue is what is the effective action to take. And banning breeds simply doesn't work, because any dog from any breed can be brought up to be violent, aggressive and dangerous (or may just have an aberration that makes it so), and pretty much any breed can largely be trained to be responsible citizens when handled correctly.

So you need to legislate against owners, not breeds. That's all. It's not difficult, and it shouldn't be that hard to comprehend. The "if it saves one child's life brigade" ought to be getting behind it, because it's a lot more likely to save multiple children's lives than it is if you just ban breeds.

It is, however, harder to accomplish. But better to go for the difficult but effective thing, rather than the simple but ineffective piece of legislative theatre.

*Well, anyone sane

Kilgore

digitalscream said:

Get rid of the BSL, make it illegal to breed any dog without a licence with no exceptions, and transfer all the liability to the dogs' owners. The market for these dogs and any like them will disappear within 5 years of the first manslaughter/murder prosecution and will never come back.

Unlike banning specific breeds, it's a permanent solution.

 Do you not think that making an owner liable for GBH or manslaughter (I don't think murder is likely) might be fraught with legal difficulties?

I'm not saying you can't put in place legal penalties.

And as you've alluded to, it could possibly discourage responsible people from dog ownership.

I'm not convinced that those who own some of these breeds for 'status' etc will be discouraged. I don't believe they're the type of people to consider 'consequences'. 

Of course you would have to put in place the licensing bureaucracy in place and ensure that it is enforced to make any of this work.

digitalscream

Kilgore said:

digitalscream said:

Get rid of the BSL, make it illegal to breed any dog without a licence with no exceptions, and transfer all the liability to the dogs' owners. The market for these dogs and any like them will disappear within 5 years of the first manslaughter/murder prosecution and will never come back.

Unlike banning specific breeds, it's a permanent solution.

 Do you not think that making an owner liable for GBH or manslaughter (I don't think murder is likely) might be fraught with legal difficulties?

I don't think so, they've already made a half-hearted attempt at it recently, but the enforcement is lacking because the law seems to be too woolly. Tighten that up, and make the liability both explicit and automatic, and there's no reason I can see that it wouldn't work.

Kilgore said:

I'm not convinced that those who own some of these breeds for 'status' etc will be discouraged. I don't believe they're the type of people to consider 'consequences'. 

That's true, but that also hasn't stopped us legislating against dealing drugs, violence, murder etc - the sort of people who're likely to commit those crimes will similarly not be completely discouraged, but getting them out of society does also solve the problem of future crimes they might commit if they were free.

And, honestly, there are lots of people who are dangerous as dog owners who aren't that status-dog type of person - I'm thinking the middle-class inattentive owners, for example, who think shouting from a distance will stop their off-lead dog attacking a dog or person, or the oblivious parents who walk out of the room to take a phone call and leave their 2yr old pulling the family dog's ears because "he's always put up with it before". Those people are also a big part of the problem.

Kilgore said:

Of course you would have to put in place the licensing bureaucracy in place and ensure that it is enforced to make any of this work.

Would you really, though? I don't think there's ever been a case where the ownership of the dog has been in doubt (could be wrong on that).

S56035

digitalscream said:

Would you really, though? I don't think there's ever been a case where the ownership of the dog has been in doubt (could be wrong on that).

Haven't had a dog long enough to know about this but what happens if I sell my dog down the pub (mine's a Cavapoo so it will actually be down the cocktail bar drinking a Lambrini based cocktail!), am I still the legal owner when the inevitable chip change doesn't happen?

the_jaffa

Surely it need not be a one or the other option though. Would it not make some sense to ban the breeding/ownership of these specific dogs* that have been bred purely as a fighter/ danger as an extension to the bans already in place as well as more restrictions of dog ownership and legislating against the owners as if they had used any other sort of weapon.

A combination of all three things would seem to be an effective all round solution.

* as far as can be seen, these XL bullys are bred purely to be a threatening/fighting breed that gets round the pitbull ban and hence they don't serve any beneficial service.

digitalscream

the_jaffa said:

Surely it need not be a one or the other option though. Would it not make some sense to ban the breeding/ownership of these specific dogs* that have been bred purely as a fighter/ danger as an extension to the bans already in place as well as more restrictions of dog ownership and legislating against the owners as if they had used any other sort of weapon.

A combination of all three things would seem to be an effective all round solution.

* as far as can be seen, these XL bullys are bred purely to be a threatening/fighting breed that gets round the pitbull ban and hence they don't serve any beneficial service.

Except...breed bans a) are proven not to have any positive effect whatsoever, and b) kill a lot of innocent dogs that aren't even genetically related to the banned breed and have never posed a threat to anyone.

All that a breed ban achieves is make it look like something's being done to satisfy the "Something must be done right now!" crowd. And aside from that, the very point of this particular type of dog is that it's not of any recognised breed, and therefore cannot fall under any breed-specific legislation anyway.

Dominic

Look......what some of you ,all making a busy with what law and what charges etc ,are not getting is the ownership profile of 85 % of these people is .......
They don't care about Laws
They are not Law abiding
they deal drugs and run in gangs for a living
they are not scared of Prison.....or very much else
if the dog doesn't maul their target they will stab them anyway
They don't queue at Post Offices for dog licenses or get busy on-line

Getting a life sentence doesn't stop them carrying knives ,why would a similar threat stop them getting a vicious dog ?
Tough on the 15% (although they can only be mildly sane ) fanciers of the breed but just get them banned .
 You would allow people to walk around with hand-grenades no matter what sentence they get for setting one off on purpose or by accident.It is an object of no good purpose or intent with a huge risk factor ..........Same applies ;
Why do the public and their adored pets have to play Russian Roulette with these monstrosities ?

euan

Recent stats have show that the Bully XL is 270 times more deadly than the rest of the dog population. 

The deaths have included dog handlers, trainers and specialists in abused dogs. 

mikeyrob73

"They don't queue at Post Offices for dog licenses or get busy on-line"

Then the dog is taken and destroyed , simples 

If you have a dog registration system, and that dog is not registered, then the dog is gone. 

Banning a breed of dog does not work, that has been proven.It needs to go further, dog is registered and chipped, you own that dog, if that dog causes damage YOU are responsible and YOU will do the time for it. 

Banning a breed or type of dog will never change the situation, they will just move onto a different breed or type. It was Rotties, it was Dobermen, It was Staffies  before the XL Bully 

we cant keep blaming the dog, or dog breed because people cant or wont train them, we have to start blaming the owners and holding them to account 

digitalscream

Dominic said:

Look......what some of you ,all making a busy with what law and what charges etc ,are not getting is the ownership profile of 85 % of these people is .......
They don't care about Laws
They are not Law abiding
they deal drugs and run in gangs for a living
they are not scared of Prison.....or very much else
if the dog doesn't maul their target they will stab them anyway
They don't queue at Post Offices for dog licenses or get busy on-line

Getting a life sentence doesn't stop them carrying knives ,why would a similar threat stop them getting a vicious dog ?
Tough on the 15% (although they can only be mildly sane ) fanciers of the breed but just get them banned .
 You would allow people to walk around with hand-grenades no matter what sentence they get for setting one off on purpose or by accident.It is an object of no good purpose or intent with a huge risk factor ..........Same applies ;
Why do the public and their adored pets have to play Russian Roulette with these monstrosities ?

So...what? You'd rather they ban the breed (even though it's not actually a breed at all), which is proven to have zero positive effect on the very thing that you want to stop, instead of thinking about it and doing something that actually will have the effect of stopping the thing you want to stop by making them not exist in the first place?

OK then. Interesting approach.

Dominic

As much as I'm against them(bullies) ..............I'm even more against STATS 
270 times more deadly ??????? How do they figure that ?
If half the dogs they sampled were miniature Yorkies then they could have said 20,000 times more lethal

euan

Dominic said:

As much as I'm against them(bullies) ..............I'm even more against STATS 
270 times more deadly ??????? How do they figure that ?
If half the dogs they sampled were miniature Yorkies then they could have said 20,000 times more lethal

Full yer boots

https://bullywatch.link/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Aug-2023-Breed-Specific-Violence-and-the-American-Bully.pdf

guitars4you

Offset said:

Well we love our old girl. She's a rescue as I have pointed out here previously and we had her DNA tested when we got her. Some breeds in there you wouldn't go out to acquire. She's a lovely dog BUT as much as we love her and as gentle as she is with us, she never goes off the lead and we're wary of her with dogs and people we and she don't know. Other owners are not so mindful however - only  a couple of weeks ago a guy allowed his staffie to come racing up to us and snap and snarl at Pickle, who ignored it on the first two occasions. The third time however it got within striking distance and she managed to grab it.  She didn't do it any real damage but Mrs O was holding her at the time and was very upset.  

It's the owners not the dogs. Never 100% trust your pet and act accordingly. If your dog doesn't have 100% recall  or isn't well-mannered with other dogs, keep it on a lead.

That said these bullies aren't pets - they're status symbols for druggie chavs.

I think I've read all posts on this and my first thought was this and I think you are the only to mention it - Not just for the chavs but the gang dealers/bosses etc and they are there for a reason - Not sure it is just about status but protection and creating fear

axisus

A few years ago I would see a guy walking what I assumed was one of those dogs when I would go out running. It was massive and incredibly muscular, when I saw it I actually thought 'that dog could kill me!'. The first time I ran past the owner, the dog went for me aggressively. He was a big guy, but he looked in his 70s and he could barely hold it back. I remember it well as he had a MASSIVE chain instead of a dog lead. That moment scare the **** out of me, if I ever saw them in the distance I turned and went a different way. 

If someone owns a violent dog and it attacks someone PUT THEM IN PRISON! 

crunchman

mikeyrob73 said:

the XL Bully is just the latest dog to be blamed for everything, Staffies, Rotties, GSD etc have all been classed as " devil dogs" previously. 
The owners need to held responsible as its a status symbol, lets start prosecuting the owners, your dog attacks someone, the owner gets an assault /attempted manslaughter charge.  Start dealing with these scrotes properly 

Would need to be proportionate.

I once got bitten by a Jack Russell when I was cycling through a park.  A manslaughter charge for the owner would have been a bit over the top.

mikeyrob73

It wouldn’t be a manslaughter charge for that, but would be an assault charge. If you can’t control your dog that’s your fault not the dogs , Is how would  I look at it. 

If you don’t have 100% recall at anytime your dog shouldn’t be loose in public 

Kittyfrisk

I'm not for simply choosing sides in polarised debates. As has been repeatedly stated, it isn't the individual dogs fault, nor the breed, it is the owners. Full stop, every time.
'Weapon dog' owners tend to be from social backgrounds or life experiences, that reinforces the macho possession of and aggressive training of the dogs. The owners generally do not give a flying fuck about rightness, fairness, law, others upset, empathy etc. They just need to be 'Top Dog'...
Fixing this will take far more real political effort than simply demonizing the dogs. 
Incidentally, the only dog that ever bit me was an evil little shit of a miniature Yorkshire terrier that I was trying to prise out of the mouth of my mongrel, that had been tormented for years by the yappy little bastard that lived two doors down...

theatreanchor

euan said:

Dominic said:

As much as I'm against them(bullies) ..............I'm even more against STATS 
270 times more deadly ??????? How do they figure that ?
If half the dogs they sampled were miniature Yorkies then they could have said 20,000 times more lethal

Full yer boots

https://bullywatch.link/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Aug-2023-Breed-Specific-Violence-and-the-American-Bully.pdf

Very useful. Ta.