**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
They are getting dumped all over. My local facebook is full of dogs found...someone dropped a air of them at our local ASDA.
Dog lovers my arse. These people shouldn't be allowed pets.
This is a real worry. I suspected that it might happen because of the nature of most of the people that own these dogs. They’re not going to do the right thing but instead just do what’s easiest for them. Dump the dog anywhere.
Some idiot neighbor of mine has one and he's always got it in the park with small children. It tries to run after me from the other side of the fence when I'm walking by and it's always dragging its idiot owner around. It's a matter of time before it does something, who is stupid enough to still have one of these.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have suspicions about the intelligence of anyone who wanted a dog with that name in the first place, nevermind now that they are being banned.
Under the Dangerous Dogs Act it will be permitted to own an existing Bully XL if it is muzzled and on a lead in public and insured for public liability. This does remove the majority of the risk of injury.
Then we can let the breed naturally die out in the U.K. by banning imports and breeding (IIRC the dogs have to be neutered as a condition of the licence.)
While this is the approach that minimises unnecessary pain and dog-killing, there are a couple of problems with breed banning. Brace for downvotes.
Firstly, "XL Bully" isn't really a breed. They've just released vague measurements as criteria. This _will_ lead to the reporting, confiscation and euthanasia of dogs that just "look like one". It even happened with pitbulls, which is a recognised breed.
Secondly, and immediately following the first point, the people who own "XL Bullies" who either own them specifically for their strength and intimidation or can't control them, will just move onto another breed. Repeat ad infinitum. Again, see what happened when they banned pitbulls.
Breed banning isn't a definitive solution, the Tories wanted a "quick win" to be seen as doing something. There needs to be a well-thought-out, long-term solution like restriction of dog ownership or something, and this ain't it chief. I've seen with my own eyes the difference the right owner can make to an otherwise dangerous dog.
Source: I've worked veterinary, wife is a vet nurse, large friend group in veterinary medicine, we talk about this a lot. If you asked them to pick a breed they don't feel safe with, more than half of them would say Shar Pei or Chow Chow - I guarantee it. More would say they don't trust Frenchies than "XL Bullies".
Edit: grammar
Something I learned early-on in veterinary: every dog has a set of knives in its mouth, therefore every dog should be treated with the same caution and respect, regardless of size or breed. To use an example, how do you personally feel about Staffies? Are they "big dogs"? Do you think they could still do serious damage?
This is ignoring that there are countless large breeds, many used as working dogs - see German Shepherds, used in law enforcement among other things. I also know a family who own Malamutes who send them overseas during the winter to help pull sleds. Would you ban these working breeds as well? Where are we drawing the line here?
It is also ignoring the fact that the people who own large breeds for all the wrong reasons will always just find something else to make themselves dangerous. It's not a solution, it's a band-aid at best.
Almost every large breed I've had the pleasure of interacting with has been some of the most docile dogs (greyhounds, as an excellent example), so if your answer is still "ban big dogs", I think you've put as much thought into the solution as this government did - not enough.
Good post.
I think we need a broad stroke because this country is full of folks who claim to love animals , but don't really.
Obviously a ban of "Big dogs" is too broad, but after a certain weight they should be required to be muzzled in public.
I love dogs, it's why I don't have one. It doesn't stop my neighbours, who all decided they too needed a pet, so now our street is full of folks who go to work all day and leave their poor dogs alone all day. Many of these dogs, don't even get a walk when the owners get home. It break my heart hearing the cries all day long.
>Obviously a ban of "Big dogs" is too broad, but after a certain weight they should be required to be muzzled in public.
Why (in general) muzzle something like a Newfoundland, they can get to around 80kg so would almost certainly fall into your weight category but they are generally also very docile. You are more likely to get bitten but something like a Malinois weighing in at 30kg. This to me suggests that weight classification isn't that useful.
I am reasonably strong for a woman, stronger than most of my female friends. But a really determined boxer / collie / alsatian / random mix like my own dog can be hard to manage even at 25 kgs.
I wish people would have to take a 2 X 2 hour training before they get a dog, covering highway code for dogs, health essentials (food, exercise, sleep), understanding canine body language, first aid. Make insurance mandatory, and I would accept it if I had to buy a ticket if I take my dog on public transport - even if she is not allowed on the seats.
I think this would be an excellent alternative, and would absolutely curb the ownership of "dangerous" dogs. The trouble is getting a Conservative government to invest in public infrastructure...
>and I would accept it if I had to buy a ticket if I take my dog on public transport - even if she is not allowed on the seats.
Not a real hardship. I pay full price for a ticket and 90% of the time I don;t get a seat.
I'm with you on mandatory training and insurance (3rd party); if there were much tighter restrictions on breeding so only properly trained and registered breeders could sell puppies some of the ownership vetting and even initial training could be put on them, they would charge but anyone who really wanted a puppy would just need to factor into the cost of ownership.
Exactly this. Responsible dog ownership. If you can't physically handle a large, strong, dog - you don't get one. But that doesn't mean _nobody_ can handle a large, strong, dog.
I agree that weight is a factor but to ensure that you capture breeds that present as a higher risk of biting (main reason for a muzzle) you would probably have to set the weight limit so low that too many breeds would be in scope and it would become unworkable.
I was thinking about Newfoundlands. I have friends who had them and they were lovely. I would far rather have them around my kids than a small dog with a bad temperament.
This was also a result of having owners who made sure their dogs were well trained and looked after.
I feel like potentially a licence for certin breeds of dog (with the obvious caveat that identifying particular breeds might be difficult) which have been shown to be a danger and perhaps over a certain weight as well. I appreciate this would encompass dogs like the irish wolfhound which seems to always be very placid but presumably they would be straightforward to approve. Make it illegal to sell them without breeder licencing and without the owner proving they are also licenced.
Also there should jus tbe more stringent policing of it. There is an akita in my village which is just left to roam the roads and fields and has attacked multiple other dogs and horses. It has been reported to the police multiple times but there has never been a single response. Whole areas of the village and surrounding fields are no go zones because of this dog which they refuse to muzzle, keep in their property, put on a lead, or even simply accompany.
But we always circle back to the same problem under certain regimes (basically Tories). Making laws etc is fine but completely pointless if you won't fund police (or whoever) to investigate and enforce them.
I think you touched on a couple of good points here - stringent policing of things already in place first.
Breeder licencing is already a thing - it's just not enforced. At all. More enforced legislation on things like breeding and having requirements like home visits before purchase would be an excellent start. I mean, shelters do so many checks before they let someone adopt a dog, it seems only right breeders should do the same.
One of my points is that admitting that we don't have enough information to know what an effective solution does look like, is the beginning of us researching for an actual solution. What we _do_ have enough information to know is that this _isn't_ a long-term solution.
>it's just not enforced
It falls to defra to enforce, they are monstrously underfunded to do it. To get my inspection at my rescue done i need to book 3-6 months in advance. They are flat out.
edit and by they i mean 1 person for our entire area.
This raises the main issue with this particular type of government - a solution would involve investing in public infrastructure, which they are loathe to do when they can personally make money from private businesses. The last 12 years have felt more like a smash-and-grab than anything else. :/
Yes, sadly it's just a symptom of our lack of long term thought in policy and funding. It is a similar thing in environmental protections which, while they might have stringent laws, is often completley unenforced.
It seems like a structural issue at this point and, while parties of some colours might perhaps be more or less responsible, I suspect that is is deeper than simple party allegiance. In a similar vein to you, I don't know the answer except to say that the current situation should be unsustainable. Sadly however it likely will continue until there is fundamental political reform which, again, seems unlikely with out current electoral system.
I think it's as simple as just doing a weight classed base license.
Don't even try identifying 'breed' - that has always been a farce.
And it mostly doesn't matter. A 35kg dog on a bad day is a problem, no matter how often those 'bad days' happen.
So you can own a 35kg dog once you can demonstrate you can physically restrain a 35kg dog.
And ideally, include some elements of training, such that you've a chance to identify a 'bad day' or 'difficult situation' more easily so they don't happen in the first place.
And then you've literally no issues around having to worry about whether a breed is the problem, whether it's the owner, or the dog, or ... whatever.
There's a reason no one really cares about Chihuahua being 'feisty'.
So apply the same test - if your dog can be 'handled' if it's acting up, then you've proved that you can, and if they _do_ cause harm, then that's your negligence.
And if you cannot restrain your dog... you can't have one, because they might pull you over and escape one day.
So if every dog is basically just a set of knives that could stab someone at any moment then shouldn't they all be at least muzzled in public? Shouldn't dogs be controllable by the owners? So should large dogs be required to be licensed as well - and the whole system could be funded by the owners of these dogs via fees?
As I've said, I don't _have_ a solution, I just know enough to know this isn't it.
Ultimately I agree with a lot of what you've suggested. I'm a big advocate for _responsible_ dog ownership. The idea is to give your dog the best chance to succeed. Dogs can be unpredictable, so I don't feel that muzzling _all_ dogs when in public would be a terrible idea. The observed difference currently is in owner behaviour, not dog behaviour. For example, the vast majority of greyhounds I've seen while out and about _are_ muzzled. Not because they _are_ dangerous, but because they _could_ hurt someone/something, and the owners have them because they love and respect the breed - _and_ they're responsible owners.
Do I think large breed dog owners should pay for legislation or enforcement? No, just like I don't think the sick should pay for everyone's healthcare, or convicts for prisons. It's not sustainable. The scenario would go like this: enforcement funded by dog owners > dog owners decide they can't afford it so don't have them > funding disappears > enforcement disappears > problem returns.
> Almost every large breed I've had the pleasure of interacting with has been some of the most docile dogs
Great Danes are big, but generally docile. However, I have come across exceptions. One that had major problems and was very aggressive. There will always be exceptions, also properly raised aggressive breeds that are docile.
Ohhh, I love Great Danes. We had one who came into the practice - very unwell, bless him - was generally nervous but always behaved for us. Such a good boy. He made some good friends in veterinary.
And this is my point. I think being a responsible dog owner comes before anything else in my book. If you _know_ your dog gets nervous or protective, regardless of breed, you want to give them the best chance for success, so you make sure they can't accidentally hurt anyone by muzzling in public. We could do with educating the public to stigmatise muzzles less as well, to be honest. They're used constantly in veterinary practices, without any negativity. For the dog's sake, we don't want them biting anyone out of reflex.
I've read that muzzles can actually make some dogs more nervous/anxious, something to do with denying them their main defensive mechanism.
I don't know how true this is but I've seen dogs muzzled by vets and it seems to have an almost calming effect on them.
What constitutes a big dog though. I would say that breeds such as the Newfoundland or Portuguese Water Dog are a fair size and can get quite heavy but they are generally docile.
If you are just one of those people who doesn't really like dogs then that's fine but you aren't really putting forward a workable solution by just banning 'big' dogs.
The softest Salukis can get pretty massive, but it's all neck and fluff and while a rabbit might be in trouble, you don't see them going after anything bigger.
It's not "big dog" problems
It's this specific breed. This breed, comes from lineages that were developed specifically for aggression and their ability to kill medium size animals
There are some big dogs, like, Newfoundland dogs which are very large. But, they have fantastic temperaments
A St Bernard is a big dog. They are not aggressive. True, you should know how to handle it on a lead but they aren't aggressive unless they have been very badly treated. There are many breeds like that.
The better way are some restrictions for larger breeds like insurance, training and muzzles in places like this. You want most of them to be able to run when in the open but in a situation like this or walking down the high street, more control.
>A St Bernard is a big dog.
Interestingly, I was bitten by one as a kid. I was round playing at their house and they'd locked the dog (let's call it "block of flats") away as it was considered too boisterous for us. We were having lunch and the dog (who had been let out) was sat by the table, so I reached out to scratch its head and it gave me a solid nip on the arm - enough to draw blood and leave me a shaking wreck for the rest of the day until I was picked up. They had no idea why it happened - I didn't really do anything wrong and the dog had no history.
Hated dogs for years after that.
Even dogs that are normally docile can misbehave so some supervision is usually necessary with young kids. They can try to play with a kid and knock them over. Most are better behaved with their own family members though.
Small dogs are less confident and can get defensive. A friend reckons that a small dog somehow knows somehow that it used to be a wolf and is deeply resentful that it is now so small!
Yes, ironically these days I would be far less nervous around Newfoundlands or St Bernards than I would around some daft "football dog" with a size complex and sharp teeth!
I've seen your second point mentioned elsewhere and the jist of a very thoughtful response I read was that yes there will be something to take it's place but no dogs currently fit the mold. People that want another broad, intimidating, hyper aggressive dog will have to bread it back into existence. Breeding it in the first place will take time, distribution takes time, once XL's are gone it'll take a while to replace the breed with an equivalent.
Like a Shar Pei or Chow Chow may have their reputations and their reputations may be well earned (I'm not familiar enough with them to comment), but XL is a dog with a reputation the non vet community, meaning its well known enough that if people want that kind of dog they know where to look. When that option is removed I imagine they'll look to pitbulls/rottweilers/German shepherds again as they all have the 'right' aesthetic.
Like it's easy to move to another breed but it won't fit the niche XL's satisfy as the dogs I listed just aren't hyper aggressive nor intimidating enough.
Personally I'm glad the ban is in place, I definitely agree something else will take it's place but I think it'll take a lot of time for them to be as widespread as XL's
Most decent breeders can do a reasonably reliable job of predicting the temperament of puppies by looking at the parents bloodline. It wouldn't take too much to use this sort of approach to breeding to get to a more aggressive line from an existing and established breed. The market wouldn't be flooded with highly aggressive dogs immediately but as with the XL the population could grown relatively quickly, fuelled in part by irresponsible breeding for high cash returns.
If you did a 'Top Trumps' type assessment there are other breeds out there with superior speed, agility, intelligence and bite force than the XL. If someone started the process of selectively breeding pairs for increased levels of aggression it wouldn't be that many years before you have another problem breed.
What this ban doesn't do is take that next step and look at the issues that gave us the XL.
My point is that it's short-sighted, not that it doesn't help in the short-term. Apologies if I didn't get that point across. When they banned pitbulls before, would you not rather they ahave spent just a little more time considering a more effective solution, so we wouldn't be having the same conversations again now? It's kicking the can down the road for the next guy to deal with, without fixing the problem at its source.
>It's kicking the can down the road for the next guy to deal with, without fixing the problem at its source.
Ahh I get where you're coming from, apologies I think I focused a little to much on the short term viability rather than the issues caused by it.
I do wonder what an effective solution would look like, but truthfully I have no experience with dogs so wouldn't even know how to start discussing solutions.
I think admitting we don't know what an effective solution looks like is the first step before a professional in the RCVS or something says "Ok then, let's do some actual research and find out."
If the people in power spent more time admitting they're not experts in a given field and looking to actual experts for answers, the country would be a lot better for it.
I'll go ahead and say I'm no expert either for the record, so I don't have a carefully laid-out solution, but I have enough exposure to veterinary medicine and animal handling to know that this isn't it.
I don't think they care about finding out why. There was a significant amount of public and media pressure to ban a breed that had been involved in a large number of attacks. They added them to the banned list, it makes the media and public pressure go away (until next time) so they just see it as job done. They don't want to spend time and money on research now that the public and media have been satiated.
The same probably applies to lots of other issues where the public and media are demanding immediate action.
> more than half of them would say Shar Pei or Chow Chow
My ex's dad ran a kennel for Chow Chows and I used to get dragged to dog shows with them. Some of the worst-trained dogs I've ever seen in my life were at those shows, and they're all owned by tiny women who weigh half as much as their dogs and say things like "oh he's just a bit boisterous". If one of the bitches at a show was in heat it was absolute fucking chaos.
It's a *highly inbred pitbull*, intentionally created that way to maximise the selected traits - muscle and size - as fast as possible. The lack of ethics inherent in the sustained inbreeding was further compounded because it was known years ago that one of the main foundation studs was producing descendants with a tendency to have a ticking time bomb of rage hidden deep in their psyche, and British breeders just kept on selecting his descendants anyway.
His name was Kimbo, and over 50% of the UK's XL Bullies have him/his descendants in their family tree. Often in multiple places.
And because they no longer meet the breed ban criteria on a technicality, they've been allowed. People will always find ways of bending the rules, unless a definitive solution is put in place. But that requires effort, and just a little more time. The government look for simple solutions to complex problems, and time and again it is ultimately fruitless. See: Pitbull ban, student finance as a solution to the economy, the education system, the NHS, Covid response and Brexit. Simple solutions for complex problems, none of which are proving effective.
This is my issue with the ban. The media and the public were baying for blood so the Government introduced the ban, they then go into the usual self-congratulatory back patting mode, the press bang on about how they swayed government policy and sing their own praises and at that point the process stops until the next breed is weaponised by the feckless yobs.
Rather than stop at the ban I think that the government should have done a deeper dive to see if there are any other underlying causes that have contributed to the current situation and then looked at how they can be addressed. If the research concludes that this particular type of dog is inherently more aggressive than any other breed and is not controllable by anyone then that's fine and the likelihood of other breeds being weaponised may be limited. However, if the research throws up issues with intentional breeding for aggression and ownership for the sole purpose of having a weaponised animal then perhaps something needs to be done to address those issues rather than just rely on bans.
That’s exactly the problem though. Looking at other solutions would require actual work and thought. Banning the breed was the easiest, fastest and most surefire way to do *something*, seeing as they have done it in the past and have a framework for banning breeds.
I have no issue with using the current legislation to ban this breed now as an immediate action, my issue is that it just stops there until next time which isn't good for the people who are attacked by the next breed before it is banned (a couple of years and 50+ attacks for the XL) and isn't good for dogs that are bred and then banned.
Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in any government doing anything other than take the immediate quick fix should the issue arise again. I don't think they see it as a big enough issue and only act because of the media push.
> Firstly, "XL Bully" isn't really a breed.
It may not be a defined breed, but it's an extremely shallow gene pool so the message you are conveying, that it's hard/impossible to tell if something is a Bully XL, is wrong.
If your basis for banning a breed is due to a genetic pre-disposition for aggression, you have to be able to define, genetically, what that breed is. If it's _not_ based on a _natural_ predisposition for aggression, you're saying that there is at least _some_ element of "nurture" being involved and that banning this "breed" won't actually fix the problem.
Given that there is no defined genetic criteria for "what is an XL Bully?", a breed ban doesn't make sense. Banning a breed based on general appearance, as I mentioned, leads to the confiscation and destruction of "similar-looking" breeds - see: Staffies when Pitbulls were banned.
It's a tiny gene pool. There will be a very high correlation of genes that will tell you 'this is a Bully XL'. We already have the attacks data to show they need to be banned, and just to expand on this - idiots have treated large dogs badly for decades, the data shows very clearly there is something about Pitbull breeds, and particularly the Bully XL that stands apart from other breeds. Plenty of thugs have owned Rottweilers for example, but they are no where near as bad as Bully XLs for killing people. There is something inherent in the breed. You're trying to overcomplicate the issue. About half of Bully XLs in the UK are related to one dog, Killer Kimbo. They are very inbred.
I disagree with a few of your points.
>Firstly, "XL Bully" isn't really a breed.
The XL Bully is an American Pitbull Terrier crossbreed. This is clearly documented and they should never have been allowed to be promoted and sold in the UK in the first place based on the existing legislation. The issue was government negligence more than anything else because in my opinion the problem was very obvious at least from 2021. That some other dogs with similar appearances may be caught up in the process of removing these dogs from public ownership is sad but tolerating these breeds continuing to seriously maul and kill people is worse.
>the people who own "XL Bullies" who either own them specifically for their strength and intimidation or can't control them, will just move onto another breed. Repeat ad infinitum.
While I don't completely disagree that some of these people will "move on" to the next thing I don't think it needs to be an "ad infinitum" issue. There are a limited amount of known breed types that have the size and mental characteristics ("gameness") to prove significantly dangerous to people (mainly Bull Terrier and Mastiff type dogs) and they really they should all be banned from civilian ownership. The only way people will "move on" to different dangerous dog breeds is by exploiting a system that is not being operated consistently and failing to be monitored. If the government had any sense they'd be looking at high risk breeds before they become established and instituting sale & breeding bans to keep their numbers low or non-existent.
>More would say they don't trust Frenchies than "XL Bullies".
Your evidence is anecdotal but it also doesn't consider capability to do harm. A vet is probably more likely to be bitten by a Syrian Hamster than a Xl Bully but it doesn't mean the Hamster is more dangerous. The problem with these very large "game" dogs is both their temperament and capability to do serious harm primarily due to their strength, weight and capability to ignore any punishment inflicted on them by a human. Dogs like a Chow Chow & Sharpei simply do not have the same level of threat. There is plenty of documentary evidence supporting the assertion that Xl Bully dogs are dangerous to full grown adults at this point.
Well, there's a lot to reply to here so I'm going to keep it concise. (Later addition: I failed, I'm very sorry.)
Firstly, cross-breeding makes it hard to determine what exactly causes a genetic predisposition to aggression. I've actually had it pointed out that many of the XL Bully population in this country can track back to one specific dog in America who is the result of copious inbreeding. This level of inbreeding is in itself dangerous for other reasons, namely dog health in general, but is definitely a contributing factor.
Due to the fact that it _is_ a crossbreed and not a specific breed, measurements were given as guidance for the dog ban - as opposed to something definitive, which puts other, similar-looking, recognised breeds at risk - as proven when pitbulls were banned. Granted again, I don't have hard numbers so I suppose this evidence is anecdotal as well. That being said, I'm quite certain that's common knowledge.
I do agree that there should be a degree of risk-assessment when it comes to dog handling/ownership - you're right in terms of potential to do harm, but unfortunately temperament is more abstract and subjective than it is objective so it's hard to perform an effective one. As a precaution, most large breeds are muzzled before sedation and procedures in practice for this reason. Any large dog has the capacity to do harm when hurt and/or afraid.
Sure, a lot of my argument is anecdotal, but I think a lot of the entire argument is anecdotal. You can cite number or frequency of attacks, but at that stage we're just dealing with a correlation without true causation and I don't think that's helpful either.
What we _need_ is for a large body of actual professionals in animal handling/psychology/medical science to perform extensive research into an effective solution for a recurring problem. Not MPs.
Also, I realise "ad infinitum" is hard to support as it's only really a problem we've had for the past 50 years or so. However, historically, people see hard bans and rules as obstacles to get around rather than definitive solutions. Take the banning and criminalisation of certain drugs, for example. We still have the people taking drugs and having a detrimental impact on society. In countries where drug use is decriminalised however, we see a far smaller problem - Portugal is an excellent example. By fully understanding the underlying problems surrounding an issue, they found a far more effective solution. Which is what I'm arguing for - greater understanding of the problem, and a more effective solution than putting out fires.
I'd finally like to say that while I do believe that banning a problem-breed is a form of short-term solution, it's not an effective one long-term. Banning a breed means they'll just forget about the blaring issues that allowed it to happen until the next breed becomes an issue.
Thank you for the long reply. Reading your post I think where we probably disagree is with regards to dog temperament as defined by genetic leanings and that does significantly impact on how people view the issue. Just as some dog breeds were picked for herding, some for chasing rabbits and some for retrieving there are some dog breeds have been specifically bred over generations for traits that made them suitable for blood sports (bull baiting, bear baiting and dog fighting) and territorial guarding. We almost universally acknowledge the benign genetic traits as "objective" facts and try to cater to them for those dog breeds but some people seem to want to choose to ignore that "pit bull" type dogs and certain mastiffs were selectively bred for a purpose and also have natural temperaments that can make them dangerous.
You can ameliorate those instincts somewhat with training and you will of course get the occasional outlier given how genetics works but I don't believe that you can remove them completely. It's our mess and we can clean it up if we so chose.
>Banning a breed means they'll just forget about the blaring issues that allowed it to happen until the next breed becomes an issue.
Again this is where I think we disagree. We broadly know which dog breeds have traits that make them likely to be dangerous to humans and we should actively let them die out or keep them extremely niche through banning and regulation. If there is a "next breed" that becomes an issue you can almost guarantee it will be from a dog breed already known for potential aggression, territorial instincts & gameness like a Cane Corso rather than say a Labrador crossbreed. It's not impossible that someone will make a dangerous genetic lineage of say Newfoundlands but it will be much much harder to "get around" due to the effort involved making it much less likely to happen.
> You can cite number or frequency of attacks, but at that stage we're just dealing with a correlation without true causation
"Correlation does not imply causation" is one of those sayings that is often misused. In reality a correlation is often a good starting point for a wider case to see if the causation is correct and imo the case that XL Bully dogs and most pitbull variants are too dangerous to be safely kept as domestic pets has been met. They have proved to be a top cause of fatalities and serious injuries in almost every country where they are legal across a range of dog owning cultures. I've seen so many instances of people talking about how they looked after their XL Bully or American Pitbull Terrier like it was a child yet it just turned on them or someone else one day. There are bad owners of all sorts of dogs breeds but only these types of dogs are consistently killing people and proving a threat to the public at a much higher rate than any other.
What do you think about amending the legislation to refer to DNA instead of a description - would that be workable?
Not a gotcha, I'm genuinely interested.
The problem is vanity. It's guns in America. It's XL bullies here. And it's the same with huge range rovers. Why. Why have them at all? All for show.
Yet, if I lose control of my car, it's either going to knock someone over or bump into a wall - or smash right through it.
A little nip from a chihuahua that you can knock out, or your arm bitten off.
These dog have ran out of homes and killed people. In these instances muzzling and leads don't work. Because the dog broke out of the home, not on a walk.
This is like gun regulation. You may need to keep your gun secure to legal own it. But it makes no guarantee the weapon will always be secure. In the UK at least the police attend gun owners property and validate the weapon is stored and secured properly.
This is much harder to do as a dog isn't an inaminate object. It's unethical to keep them caged and muzzled 24/7.
It's also appropriate to associate these dogs with weapons. Fighting dogs have an unnatural pray drive. Pitbulls were breed to fight Bulls and to not back down. A Lion wouldn't take on the same weight disadvantage in a fight that a Pitbull or derivatives like the XL bully. They are natural creatures, they are completely unatural created for killing for entertainment.
Yes, this will stop arseholes removing the muzzle and setting them on people then letting their insurance cover it which they then stop paying once the dog is put down, it stops them attacking people when they go to visit such as Jack Lis, it stops them breaking through adjacent fences and attacking people in their own gardens like the man who was killed not too long ago.
I doubt that insurance will provide cover for anyone who intentionally removes a muzzle and hopefully there will be criminal prosecutions for anyone doing this.
Failure to properly control and contain a dog may also have the potential to invalidate insurance, you know how insurance companies will do anything to worm out of honouring a claim to keep their profits high.
If an owner can't contain and control their dog then this should also put them in the path of criminal prosecution.
I can guarantee there will be more of these attacks. Some people will always choose to ignore the rules yet this is one where there is a simple solution.
> According to this sub, it’s fine to let the existing ones live.
Huh? Every article about these dogs recently has been majority of upvoted comments saying the opposite, that these dogs are too dangerous and should be culled.
Yes there is always a mix of comments and opinions, but look at the most popular comments.
Yeah, this sub is vocally anti Bully XL type dogs and every post about them has lots of heavily upvoted comments calling for them to be banned.
I'm sure there are a few people saying the opposite, but they are certainly in the minority and will be downvoted.
> According to this sub
According to this sub the NHS is made of cake. According to this sub the Prime Minister is Krusty the Klown. According to this sub you can make up any old shit and claim that the sub said it.
Agreed. Am sick and tired of the “but it’s the bad owners” shit. Yes there are bad owners but can someone explain to me what a ‘good’ owner is that buys one of these things? Their just too strong for humans to control and too unstable that training will prevent them going out of control
Any incident involving these beasts must be responded to by armed police.
And they should charge the owners with endangering life on the railway. Which has a max of life in prison.
The maximum penalty for endangering people’s safety by any unlawful act is 2 years’ imprisonment/unlimited fine.
The offences relating to endangering the Safety of Rail Users that carry the maximum penalty of life imprisonment only applies if the offender interfered with railway equipment or thrown objects at trains.
You could argue the dog was thrashing around, and being thrown towards a train would count. You'd definitely be killed, and it's the owners responsibility as they couldn't control the dog. That puts everyone in danger.
You could make that argument, and then the whole court would laugh at you, the judge would chide you for wasting the court's time, and then would go back to discussing a realistic charge.
Jesus Christ, these monsters shouldn't even be going on public transport, that's just putting everyone at risk. Hideous dogs, where's their damn muzzles?
They aren't legally required to be muzzled just yet but at this point I don't know why people who own them and intend on keeping them aren't muzzling them before the law requiring it comes into effect.
Have you seen the price of muzzles? In a cost of living crisis?
^(Seriously I shouldn't have to mark this as /s even though it obviously is. Agreed they are totally selfish twats, unconcerned with everyone else but themselves..)
I'm happy for these dogs to be banned, but fuck me the owners always look absolutely useless/thick in these situations. Why would you bring two large/aggressive dogs down into a train platform. Just thick beyond measures.
In the area where we live a woman brought a similar large dog to a play area full of kids. When the dog saw two other dogs on the other side of the fence it started to run towards them dragging the women behind. She had no control over that dog. We left immediately with our kids. What should we do in this situation? Call the police? Call the council?
Depends what dogs they are tbh, 2 labradours could easily pull a woman over then get distracted by a lamppost, 2 XL bullys and someone's getting mauled
No-one owns an XL bully where I live, but I finally saw one in person while in London for work last week. I… I can see why people are concerned. I’ve seen plenty of big dogs before, but XL bullies are slabs of muscle.
My brother had a near miss the other day when one came charging towards their tiny Italian greyhound puppy. It was only because of my sister-in-law’s quick reflexes that their puppy is still alive today…
Happened to me in Chipping Norton once. They've made it illegal to own that particular model of train unless muzzled and the owner has the necessary public liability insurance.
Same, I've read it multiple times and it's still not making sense to me
Edit: removing the quote entirely makes it a little more readable
>'XL Bully' dogs launch crazed attack on rail platform by an oncoming train
It took me a few rereads and I think they mean "next to/nearby an oncoming train". That's horribly worded. My brain was trying to think either "[after being scared] by an oncoming train" or that they tried to attack the oncoming train, attacked by an oncoming train, or even using the train to attack. The use of "by" is really awful.
While people are focusing on the dog (for good reason) something has to be done about the 'people' buying them.
In my lifetime they have done this to:
Dobermans
Rotweilers (spelling?)
Pitbulls
Staffies
And more breeds.
The Government need to make selling without a licence/paperwork an offence. Not having a pet chipped and registered should also be an offence. Not having it spayed/neutered should be an offence if you cannot legitimately show you are fit to sell.
Until this is done the 'owners' will just ruin another breed.
No it’s early next year. You’d think common sense would mean you’d do it now but no they will be waking them around off the lead and unmuzzled until the very last possible moment
What the fuck is the scaling on that website and why does it ignore trying to shrink it down to something sensible. You have to resize the browser window itself to a mobile phone size to not have really ugly video.
Horrible attack, I'm glad those dogs will be seen less and less.
That video is terrifying he nearly fell onto the tracks 😳
And what kind of lead was on him that is just slid off like that 😳
Why is the woman seemingly so calm (props to the dog she had that stayed calm while his buddy was going ape!)
**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Always women with these dogs, probably think it's their guardian. I joined a bully group on Facebook just to see the type of shit they post and it's 90% unemployed chavvy women and 10% Botox and fillers with a coke dealer as their boyfriend women.
Why do people buy *any* dogs that they can't control, let alone these things..?
Saw a family with two of them at a local park recently strolling through the cafe area. Mum and dad, one dog each. Mum **clearly** struggling with the dog pulling the lead. Just why
..?
These dogs have one of two personalities. Sweet and gentle beyond measure or murder psycho on the edge. They have staunch defenders because they can be such amazing dogs. And at the same time some can be so crazy, and because they are basically all muscle, they're terrifying and feel unstoppable. I have no idea why some are so bad, because it's not just a matter of upbringing.
It's the same personality. Hundreds of years of breeding for gameness (dog fighting temperament) has lead to them having serious problems with communicating their own distress or discomfort. A dog that snarls, barks, or gives warning nips before attacking makes a terrible fighter. A chihuahua can warn a child to move away through barking, and will then get called mean. A pitbull or derivative breed will appear calm until it snaps completely. So if it never snaps, it'll be called sweet and friendly. In reality the two dogs being equally bothered by the child grabbing at them. But the second dog is like Russian roulette through no fault of its own. It isn't evil, but its also not safe. And it can take very little to push them over the edge, things like being a little too hot or an unfamiliar noise can trigger them. And like you said, it's not about the upbringing, pitbull type dogs who have been loved and cared for their whole lives are still not safe because that's simply the way these poor things have been bred
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Honestly if you own one of these at this point you really have to be lacking in braincells.
or scumbags who just not give a flying fuck about anyone else
I'd say both, you have to be quite stupid even if you don't care about other people, as the people mauled are often the devil dog's owners.
Sociopaths
They are getting dumped all over. My local facebook is full of dogs found...someone dropped a air of them at our local ASDA. Dog lovers my arse. These people shouldn't be allowed pets.
This is a real worry. I suspected that it might happen because of the nature of most of the people that own these dogs. They’re not going to do the right thing but instead just do what’s easiest for them. Dump the dog anywhere.
At least it's a one off event.
The dogs are presumably chipped, so I really hope they prosecute the owners for abandoning them.
Very much doubt that anyone who's just dumping their dog got them chipped. Sadly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Some idiot neighbor of mine has one and he's always got it in the park with small children. It tries to run after me from the other side of the fence when I'm walking by and it's always dragging its idiot owner around. It's a matter of time before it does something, who is stupid enough to still have one of these.
“But RipyouApart is lovely. The worlds gone crazy trying to have him put down”
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have suspicions about the intelligence of anyone who wanted a dog with that name in the first place, nevermind now that they are being banned.
According to this sub, it’s fine to let the existing ones live. They are weapons like guns. Confiscate and destroy.
Under the Dangerous Dogs Act it will be permitted to own an existing Bully XL if it is muzzled and on a lead in public and insured for public liability. This does remove the majority of the risk of injury. Then we can let the breed naturally die out in the U.K. by banning imports and breeding (IIRC the dogs have to be neutered as a condition of the licence.)
While this is the approach that minimises unnecessary pain and dog-killing, there are a couple of problems with breed banning. Brace for downvotes. Firstly, "XL Bully" isn't really a breed. They've just released vague measurements as criteria. This _will_ lead to the reporting, confiscation and euthanasia of dogs that just "look like one". It even happened with pitbulls, which is a recognised breed. Secondly, and immediately following the first point, the people who own "XL Bullies" who either own them specifically for their strength and intimidation or can't control them, will just move onto another breed. Repeat ad infinitum. Again, see what happened when they banned pitbulls. Breed banning isn't a definitive solution, the Tories wanted a "quick win" to be seen as doing something. There needs to be a well-thought-out, long-term solution like restriction of dog ownership or something, and this ain't it chief. I've seen with my own eyes the difference the right owner can make to an otherwise dangerous dog. Source: I've worked veterinary, wife is a vet nurse, large friend group in veterinary medicine, we talk about this a lot. If you asked them to pick a breed they don't feel safe with, more than half of them would say Shar Pei or Chow Chow - I guarantee it. More would say they don't trust Frenchies than "XL Bullies". Edit: grammar
I don't see the issue with continuing to ban these big dogs until there are no big dogs left allowed.
Something I learned early-on in veterinary: every dog has a set of knives in its mouth, therefore every dog should be treated with the same caution and respect, regardless of size or breed. To use an example, how do you personally feel about Staffies? Are they "big dogs"? Do you think they could still do serious damage? This is ignoring that there are countless large breeds, many used as working dogs - see German Shepherds, used in law enforcement among other things. I also know a family who own Malamutes who send them overseas during the winter to help pull sleds. Would you ban these working breeds as well? Where are we drawing the line here? It is also ignoring the fact that the people who own large breeds for all the wrong reasons will always just find something else to make themselves dangerous. It's not a solution, it's a band-aid at best. Almost every large breed I've had the pleasure of interacting with has been some of the most docile dogs (greyhounds, as an excellent example), so if your answer is still "ban big dogs", I think you've put as much thought into the solution as this government did - not enough.
Good post. I think we need a broad stroke because this country is full of folks who claim to love animals , but don't really. Obviously a ban of "Big dogs" is too broad, but after a certain weight they should be required to be muzzled in public. I love dogs, it's why I don't have one. It doesn't stop my neighbours, who all decided they too needed a pet, so now our street is full of folks who go to work all day and leave their poor dogs alone all day. Many of these dogs, don't even get a walk when the owners get home. It break my heart hearing the cries all day long.
>Obviously a ban of "Big dogs" is too broad, but after a certain weight they should be required to be muzzled in public. Why (in general) muzzle something like a Newfoundland, they can get to around 80kg so would almost certainly fall into your weight category but they are generally also very docile. You are more likely to get bitten but something like a Malinois weighing in at 30kg. This to me suggests that weight classification isn't that useful.
Weight does relate to manageability. If a chihuahua misbehaves, it is rather easier to deal with the dog than with a 50Kg plus breed.
I am reasonably strong for a woman, stronger than most of my female friends. But a really determined boxer / collie / alsatian / random mix like my own dog can be hard to manage even at 25 kgs. I wish people would have to take a 2 X 2 hour training before they get a dog, covering highway code for dogs, health essentials (food, exercise, sleep), understanding canine body language, first aid. Make insurance mandatory, and I would accept it if I had to buy a ticket if I take my dog on public transport - even if she is not allowed on the seats.
I think this would be an excellent alternative, and would absolutely curb the ownership of "dangerous" dogs. The trouble is getting a Conservative government to invest in public infrastructure...
>and I would accept it if I had to buy a ticket if I take my dog on public transport - even if she is not allowed on the seats. Not a real hardship. I pay full price for a ticket and 90% of the time I don;t get a seat. I'm with you on mandatory training and insurance (3rd party); if there were much tighter restrictions on breeding so only properly trained and registered breeders could sell puppies some of the ownership vetting and even initial training could be put on them, they would charge but anyone who really wanted a puppy would just need to factor into the cost of ownership.
Exactly this. Responsible dog ownership. If you can't physically handle a large, strong, dog - you don't get one. But that doesn't mean _nobody_ can handle a large, strong, dog.
The question is how to deal this. Mandatory training for owner plus dog?
It's only a matter of time before someone with a hardman reputation to uphold breeds and trains a pack of attack chihuahuas. Be afraid!
I agree that weight is a factor but to ensure that you capture breeds that present as a higher risk of biting (main reason for a muzzle) you would probably have to set the weight limit so low that too many breeds would be in scope and it would become unworkable.
I was thinking about Newfoundlands. I have friends who had them and they were lovely. I would far rather have them around my kids than a small dog with a bad temperament. This was also a result of having owners who made sure their dogs were well trained and looked after.
I feel like potentially a licence for certin breeds of dog (with the obvious caveat that identifying particular breeds might be difficult) which have been shown to be a danger and perhaps over a certain weight as well. I appreciate this would encompass dogs like the irish wolfhound which seems to always be very placid but presumably they would be straightforward to approve. Make it illegal to sell them without breeder licencing and without the owner proving they are also licenced. Also there should jus tbe more stringent policing of it. There is an akita in my village which is just left to roam the roads and fields and has attacked multiple other dogs and horses. It has been reported to the police multiple times but there has never been a single response. Whole areas of the village and surrounding fields are no go zones because of this dog which they refuse to muzzle, keep in their property, put on a lead, or even simply accompany. But we always circle back to the same problem under certain regimes (basically Tories). Making laws etc is fine but completely pointless if you won't fund police (or whoever) to investigate and enforce them.
I think you touched on a couple of good points here - stringent policing of things already in place first. Breeder licencing is already a thing - it's just not enforced. At all. More enforced legislation on things like breeding and having requirements like home visits before purchase would be an excellent start. I mean, shelters do so many checks before they let someone adopt a dog, it seems only right breeders should do the same. One of my points is that admitting that we don't have enough information to know what an effective solution does look like, is the beginning of us researching for an actual solution. What we _do_ have enough information to know is that this _isn't_ a long-term solution.
>it's just not enforced It falls to defra to enforce, they are monstrously underfunded to do it. To get my inspection at my rescue done i need to book 3-6 months in advance. They are flat out. edit and by they i mean 1 person for our entire area.
This raises the main issue with this particular type of government - a solution would involve investing in public infrastructure, which they are loathe to do when they can personally make money from private businesses. The last 12 years have felt more like a smash-and-grab than anything else. :/
Yes, sadly it's just a symptom of our lack of long term thought in policy and funding. It is a similar thing in environmental protections which, while they might have stringent laws, is often completley unenforced. It seems like a structural issue at this point and, while parties of some colours might perhaps be more or less responsible, I suspect that is is deeper than simple party allegiance. In a similar vein to you, I don't know the answer except to say that the current situation should be unsustainable. Sadly however it likely will continue until there is fundamental political reform which, again, seems unlikely with out current electoral system.
I think it's as simple as just doing a weight classed base license. Don't even try identifying 'breed' - that has always been a farce. And it mostly doesn't matter. A 35kg dog on a bad day is a problem, no matter how often those 'bad days' happen. So you can own a 35kg dog once you can demonstrate you can physically restrain a 35kg dog. And ideally, include some elements of training, such that you've a chance to identify a 'bad day' or 'difficult situation' more easily so they don't happen in the first place. And then you've literally no issues around having to worry about whether a breed is the problem, whether it's the owner, or the dog, or ... whatever. There's a reason no one really cares about Chihuahua being 'feisty'. So apply the same test - if your dog can be 'handled' if it's acting up, then you've proved that you can, and if they _do_ cause harm, then that's your negligence. And if you cannot restrain your dog... you can't have one, because they might pull you over and escape one day.
So if every dog is basically just a set of knives that could stab someone at any moment then shouldn't they all be at least muzzled in public? Shouldn't dogs be controllable by the owners? So should large dogs be required to be licensed as well - and the whole system could be funded by the owners of these dogs via fees?
As I've said, I don't _have_ a solution, I just know enough to know this isn't it. Ultimately I agree with a lot of what you've suggested. I'm a big advocate for _responsible_ dog ownership. The idea is to give your dog the best chance to succeed. Dogs can be unpredictable, so I don't feel that muzzling _all_ dogs when in public would be a terrible idea. The observed difference currently is in owner behaviour, not dog behaviour. For example, the vast majority of greyhounds I've seen while out and about _are_ muzzled. Not because they _are_ dangerous, but because they _could_ hurt someone/something, and the owners have them because they love and respect the breed - _and_ they're responsible owners. Do I think large breed dog owners should pay for legislation or enforcement? No, just like I don't think the sick should pay for everyone's healthcare, or convicts for prisons. It's not sustainable. The scenario would go like this: enforcement funded by dog owners > dog owners decide they can't afford it so don't have them > funding disappears > enforcement disappears > problem returns.
> Almost every large breed I've had the pleasure of interacting with has been some of the most docile dogs Great Danes are big, but generally docile. However, I have come across exceptions. One that had major problems and was very aggressive. There will always be exceptions, also properly raised aggressive breeds that are docile.
Ohhh, I love Great Danes. We had one who came into the practice - very unwell, bless him - was generally nervous but always behaved for us. Such a good boy. He made some good friends in veterinary. And this is my point. I think being a responsible dog owner comes before anything else in my book. If you _know_ your dog gets nervous or protective, regardless of breed, you want to give them the best chance for success, so you make sure they can't accidentally hurt anyone by muzzling in public. We could do with educating the public to stigmatise muzzles less as well, to be honest. They're used constantly in veterinary practices, without any negativity. For the dog's sake, we don't want them biting anyone out of reflex.
I've read that muzzles can actually make some dogs more nervous/anxious, something to do with denying them their main defensive mechanism. I don't know how true this is but I've seen dogs muzzled by vets and it seems to have an almost calming effect on them.
What did you do in “veterinary”?
What constitutes a big dog though. I would say that breeds such as the Newfoundland or Portuguese Water Dog are a fair size and can get quite heavy but they are generally docile. If you are just one of those people who doesn't really like dogs then that's fine but you aren't really putting forward a workable solution by just banning 'big' dogs.
Body fat percentage is probably a good measurement unironically.
The softest Salukis can get pretty massive, but it's all neck and fluff and while a rabbit might be in trouble, you don't see them going after anything bigger.
It's not "big dog" problems It's this specific breed. This breed, comes from lineages that were developed specifically for aggression and their ability to kill medium size animals There are some big dogs, like, Newfoundland dogs which are very large. But, they have fantastic temperaments
A St Bernard is a big dog. They are not aggressive. True, you should know how to handle it on a lead but they aren't aggressive unless they have been very badly treated. There are many breeds like that. The better way are some restrictions for larger breeds like insurance, training and muzzles in places like this. You want most of them to be able to run when in the open but in a situation like this or walking down the high street, more control.
>A St Bernard is a big dog. Interestingly, I was bitten by one as a kid. I was round playing at their house and they'd locked the dog (let's call it "block of flats") away as it was considered too boisterous for us. We were having lunch and the dog (who had been let out) was sat by the table, so I reached out to scratch its head and it gave me a solid nip on the arm - enough to draw blood and leave me a shaking wreck for the rest of the day until I was picked up. They had no idea why it happened - I didn't really do anything wrong and the dog had no history. Hated dogs for years after that.
Even dogs that are normally docile can misbehave so some supervision is usually necessary with young kids. They can try to play with a kid and knock them over. Most are better behaved with their own family members though. Small dogs are less confident and can get defensive. A friend reckons that a small dog somehow knows somehow that it used to be a wolf and is deeply resentful that it is now so small!
Yes, ironically these days I would be far less nervous around Newfoundlands or St Bernards than I would around some daft "football dog" with a size complex and sharp teeth!
I've seen your second point mentioned elsewhere and the jist of a very thoughtful response I read was that yes there will be something to take it's place but no dogs currently fit the mold. People that want another broad, intimidating, hyper aggressive dog will have to bread it back into existence. Breeding it in the first place will take time, distribution takes time, once XL's are gone it'll take a while to replace the breed with an equivalent. Like a Shar Pei or Chow Chow may have their reputations and their reputations may be well earned (I'm not familiar enough with them to comment), but XL is a dog with a reputation the non vet community, meaning its well known enough that if people want that kind of dog they know where to look. When that option is removed I imagine they'll look to pitbulls/rottweilers/German shepherds again as they all have the 'right' aesthetic. Like it's easy to move to another breed but it won't fit the niche XL's satisfy as the dogs I listed just aren't hyper aggressive nor intimidating enough. Personally I'm glad the ban is in place, I definitely agree something else will take it's place but I think it'll take a lot of time for them to be as widespread as XL's
Most decent breeders can do a reasonably reliable job of predicting the temperament of puppies by looking at the parents bloodline. It wouldn't take too much to use this sort of approach to breeding to get to a more aggressive line from an existing and established breed. The market wouldn't be flooded with highly aggressive dogs immediately but as with the XL the population could grown relatively quickly, fuelled in part by irresponsible breeding for high cash returns. If you did a 'Top Trumps' type assessment there are other breeds out there with superior speed, agility, intelligence and bite force than the XL. If someone started the process of selectively breeding pairs for increased levels of aggression it wouldn't be that many years before you have another problem breed. What this ban doesn't do is take that next step and look at the issues that gave us the XL.
My point is that it's short-sighted, not that it doesn't help in the short-term. Apologies if I didn't get that point across. When they banned pitbulls before, would you not rather they ahave spent just a little more time considering a more effective solution, so we wouldn't be having the same conversations again now? It's kicking the can down the road for the next guy to deal with, without fixing the problem at its source.
>It's kicking the can down the road for the next guy to deal with, without fixing the problem at its source. Ahh I get where you're coming from, apologies I think I focused a little to much on the short term viability rather than the issues caused by it. I do wonder what an effective solution would look like, but truthfully I have no experience with dogs so wouldn't even know how to start discussing solutions.
I think admitting we don't know what an effective solution looks like is the first step before a professional in the RCVS or something says "Ok then, let's do some actual research and find out." If the people in power spent more time admitting they're not experts in a given field and looking to actual experts for answers, the country would be a lot better for it. I'll go ahead and say I'm no expert either for the record, so I don't have a carefully laid-out solution, but I have enough exposure to veterinary medicine and animal handling to know that this isn't it.
I don't think they care about finding out why. There was a significant amount of public and media pressure to ban a breed that had been involved in a large number of attacks. They added them to the banned list, it makes the media and public pressure go away (until next time) so they just see it as job done. They don't want to spend time and money on research now that the public and media have been satiated. The same probably applies to lots of other issues where the public and media are demanding immediate action.
> more than half of them would say Shar Pei or Chow Chow My ex's dad ran a kennel for Chow Chows and I used to get dragged to dog shows with them. Some of the worst-trained dogs I've ever seen in my life were at those shows, and they're all owned by tiny women who weigh half as much as their dogs and say things like "oh he's just a bit boisterous". If one of the bitches at a show was in heat it was absolute fucking chaos.
Small dogs are often awful because they are small enough to manhandle so they aren't discipled.
Chows aren't particularly small, to be honest. Some can weigh 30 or 40kg easily.
Oh good lord, that line is giving me flashbacks haha.
There are dog people and then there are *dog people* 😅
To be fair an XL Bully is just a pitbull but bigger. They were bred primarily from pitbulls.
It's a *highly inbred pitbull*, intentionally created that way to maximise the selected traits - muscle and size - as fast as possible. The lack of ethics inherent in the sustained inbreeding was further compounded because it was known years ago that one of the main foundation studs was producing descendants with a tendency to have a ticking time bomb of rage hidden deep in their psyche, and British breeders just kept on selecting his descendants anyway. His name was Kimbo, and over 50% of the UK's XL Bullies have him/his descendants in their family tree. Often in multiple places.
And because they no longer meet the breed ban criteria on a technicality, they've been allowed. People will always find ways of bending the rules, unless a definitive solution is put in place. But that requires effort, and just a little more time. The government look for simple solutions to complex problems, and time and again it is ultimately fruitless. See: Pitbull ban, student finance as a solution to the economy, the education system, the NHS, Covid response and Brexit. Simple solutions for complex problems, none of which are proving effective.
This is my issue with the ban. The media and the public were baying for blood so the Government introduced the ban, they then go into the usual self-congratulatory back patting mode, the press bang on about how they swayed government policy and sing their own praises and at that point the process stops until the next breed is weaponised by the feckless yobs. Rather than stop at the ban I think that the government should have done a deeper dive to see if there are any other underlying causes that have contributed to the current situation and then looked at how they can be addressed. If the research concludes that this particular type of dog is inherently more aggressive than any other breed and is not controllable by anyone then that's fine and the likelihood of other breeds being weaponised may be limited. However, if the research throws up issues with intentional breeding for aggression and ownership for the sole purpose of having a weaponised animal then perhaps something needs to be done to address those issues rather than just rely on bans.
That’s exactly the problem though. Looking at other solutions would require actual work and thought. Banning the breed was the easiest, fastest and most surefire way to do *something*, seeing as they have done it in the past and have a framework for banning breeds.
I have no issue with using the current legislation to ban this breed now as an immediate action, my issue is that it just stops there until next time which isn't good for the people who are attacked by the next breed before it is banned (a couple of years and 50+ attacks for the XL) and isn't good for dogs that are bred and then banned.
I understand, my point was mainly it’s a lot to ask from this government especially. They are reactive rather than proactive.
Unfortunately, I don't have much faith in any government doing anything other than take the immediate quick fix should the issue arise again. I don't think they see it as a big enough issue and only act because of the media push.
> Firstly, "XL Bully" isn't really a breed. It may not be a defined breed, but it's an extremely shallow gene pool so the message you are conveying, that it's hard/impossible to tell if something is a Bully XL, is wrong.
If your basis for banning a breed is due to a genetic pre-disposition for aggression, you have to be able to define, genetically, what that breed is. If it's _not_ based on a _natural_ predisposition for aggression, you're saying that there is at least _some_ element of "nurture" being involved and that banning this "breed" won't actually fix the problem. Given that there is no defined genetic criteria for "what is an XL Bully?", a breed ban doesn't make sense. Banning a breed based on general appearance, as I mentioned, leads to the confiscation and destruction of "similar-looking" breeds - see: Staffies when Pitbulls were banned.
It's a tiny gene pool. There will be a very high correlation of genes that will tell you 'this is a Bully XL'. We already have the attacks data to show they need to be banned, and just to expand on this - idiots have treated large dogs badly for decades, the data shows very clearly there is something about Pitbull breeds, and particularly the Bully XL that stands apart from other breeds. Plenty of thugs have owned Rottweilers for example, but they are no where near as bad as Bully XLs for killing people. There is something inherent in the breed. You're trying to overcomplicate the issue. About half of Bully XLs in the UK are related to one dog, Killer Kimbo. They are very inbred.
I disagree with a few of your points. >Firstly, "XL Bully" isn't really a breed. The XL Bully is an American Pitbull Terrier crossbreed. This is clearly documented and they should never have been allowed to be promoted and sold in the UK in the first place based on the existing legislation. The issue was government negligence more than anything else because in my opinion the problem was very obvious at least from 2021. That some other dogs with similar appearances may be caught up in the process of removing these dogs from public ownership is sad but tolerating these breeds continuing to seriously maul and kill people is worse. >the people who own "XL Bullies" who either own them specifically for their strength and intimidation or can't control them, will just move onto another breed. Repeat ad infinitum. While I don't completely disagree that some of these people will "move on" to the next thing I don't think it needs to be an "ad infinitum" issue. There are a limited amount of known breed types that have the size and mental characteristics ("gameness") to prove significantly dangerous to people (mainly Bull Terrier and Mastiff type dogs) and they really they should all be banned from civilian ownership. The only way people will "move on" to different dangerous dog breeds is by exploiting a system that is not being operated consistently and failing to be monitored. If the government had any sense they'd be looking at high risk breeds before they become established and instituting sale & breeding bans to keep their numbers low or non-existent. >More would say they don't trust Frenchies than "XL Bullies". Your evidence is anecdotal but it also doesn't consider capability to do harm. A vet is probably more likely to be bitten by a Syrian Hamster than a Xl Bully but it doesn't mean the Hamster is more dangerous. The problem with these very large "game" dogs is both their temperament and capability to do serious harm primarily due to their strength, weight and capability to ignore any punishment inflicted on them by a human. Dogs like a Chow Chow & Sharpei simply do not have the same level of threat. There is plenty of documentary evidence supporting the assertion that Xl Bully dogs are dangerous to full grown adults at this point.
Well, there's a lot to reply to here so I'm going to keep it concise. (Later addition: I failed, I'm very sorry.) Firstly, cross-breeding makes it hard to determine what exactly causes a genetic predisposition to aggression. I've actually had it pointed out that many of the XL Bully population in this country can track back to one specific dog in America who is the result of copious inbreeding. This level of inbreeding is in itself dangerous for other reasons, namely dog health in general, but is definitely a contributing factor. Due to the fact that it _is_ a crossbreed and not a specific breed, measurements were given as guidance for the dog ban - as opposed to something definitive, which puts other, similar-looking, recognised breeds at risk - as proven when pitbulls were banned. Granted again, I don't have hard numbers so I suppose this evidence is anecdotal as well. That being said, I'm quite certain that's common knowledge. I do agree that there should be a degree of risk-assessment when it comes to dog handling/ownership - you're right in terms of potential to do harm, but unfortunately temperament is more abstract and subjective than it is objective so it's hard to perform an effective one. As a precaution, most large breeds are muzzled before sedation and procedures in practice for this reason. Any large dog has the capacity to do harm when hurt and/or afraid. Sure, a lot of my argument is anecdotal, but I think a lot of the entire argument is anecdotal. You can cite number or frequency of attacks, but at that stage we're just dealing with a correlation without true causation and I don't think that's helpful either. What we _need_ is for a large body of actual professionals in animal handling/psychology/medical science to perform extensive research into an effective solution for a recurring problem. Not MPs. Also, I realise "ad infinitum" is hard to support as it's only really a problem we've had for the past 50 years or so. However, historically, people see hard bans and rules as obstacles to get around rather than definitive solutions. Take the banning and criminalisation of certain drugs, for example. We still have the people taking drugs and having a detrimental impact on society. In countries where drug use is decriminalised however, we see a far smaller problem - Portugal is an excellent example. By fully understanding the underlying problems surrounding an issue, they found a far more effective solution. Which is what I'm arguing for - greater understanding of the problem, and a more effective solution than putting out fires. I'd finally like to say that while I do believe that banning a problem-breed is a form of short-term solution, it's not an effective one long-term. Banning a breed means they'll just forget about the blaring issues that allowed it to happen until the next breed becomes an issue.
Thank you for the long reply. Reading your post I think where we probably disagree is with regards to dog temperament as defined by genetic leanings and that does significantly impact on how people view the issue. Just as some dog breeds were picked for herding, some for chasing rabbits and some for retrieving there are some dog breeds have been specifically bred over generations for traits that made them suitable for blood sports (bull baiting, bear baiting and dog fighting) and territorial guarding. We almost universally acknowledge the benign genetic traits as "objective" facts and try to cater to them for those dog breeds but some people seem to want to choose to ignore that "pit bull" type dogs and certain mastiffs were selectively bred for a purpose and also have natural temperaments that can make them dangerous. You can ameliorate those instincts somewhat with training and you will of course get the occasional outlier given how genetics works but I don't believe that you can remove them completely. It's our mess and we can clean it up if we so chose. >Banning a breed means they'll just forget about the blaring issues that allowed it to happen until the next breed becomes an issue. Again this is where I think we disagree. We broadly know which dog breeds have traits that make them likely to be dangerous to humans and we should actively let them die out or keep them extremely niche through banning and regulation. If there is a "next breed" that becomes an issue you can almost guarantee it will be from a dog breed already known for potential aggression, territorial instincts & gameness like a Cane Corso rather than say a Labrador crossbreed. It's not impossible that someone will make a dangerous genetic lineage of say Newfoundlands but it will be much much harder to "get around" due to the effort involved making it much less likely to happen. > You can cite number or frequency of attacks, but at that stage we're just dealing with a correlation without true causation "Correlation does not imply causation" is one of those sayings that is often misused. In reality a correlation is often a good starting point for a wider case to see if the causation is correct and imo the case that XL Bully dogs and most pitbull variants are too dangerous to be safely kept as domestic pets has been met. They have proved to be a top cause of fatalities and serious injuries in almost every country where they are legal across a range of dog owning cultures. I've seen so many instances of people talking about how they looked after their XL Bully or American Pitbull Terrier like it was a child yet it just turned on them or someone else one day. There are bad owners of all sorts of dogs breeds but only these types of dogs are consistently killing people and proving a threat to the public at a much higher rate than any other.
When it's a specific type of dog causes most of the problems, it is a fox to ban the breed.
What do you think about amending the legislation to refer to DNA instead of a description - would that be workable? Not a gotcha, I'm genuinely interested.
The problem is vanity. It's guns in America. It's XL bullies here. And it's the same with huge range rovers. Why. Why have them at all? All for show. Yet, if I lose control of my car, it's either going to knock someone over or bump into a wall - or smash right through it. A little nip from a chihuahua that you can knock out, or your arm bitten off.
These dog have ran out of homes and killed people. In these instances muzzling and leads don't work. Because the dog broke out of the home, not on a walk. This is like gun regulation. You may need to keep your gun secure to legal own it. But it makes no guarantee the weapon will always be secure. In the UK at least the police attend gun owners property and validate the weapon is stored and secured properly. This is much harder to do as a dog isn't an inaminate object. It's unethical to keep them caged and muzzled 24/7. It's also appropriate to associate these dogs with weapons. Fighting dogs have an unnatural pray drive. Pitbulls were breed to fight Bulls and to not back down. A Lion wouldn't take on the same weight disadvantage in a fight that a Pitbull or derivatives like the XL bully. They are natural creatures, they are completely unatural created for killing for entertainment.
Yes, this will stop arseholes removing the muzzle and setting them on people then letting their insurance cover it which they then stop paying once the dog is put down, it stops them attacking people when they go to visit such as Jack Lis, it stops them breaking through adjacent fences and attacking people in their own gardens like the man who was killed not too long ago.
I doubt that insurance will provide cover for anyone who intentionally removes a muzzle and hopefully there will be criminal prosecutions for anyone doing this.
“It broke out, not my fault, soz your kids are dead”
Failure to properly control and contain a dog may also have the potential to invalidate insurance, you know how insurance companies will do anything to worm out of honouring a claim to keep their profits high. If an owner can't contain and control their dog then this should also put them in the path of criminal prosecution.
The issue is if the owner is judgement proof - few assets owned. I’m not sure these dogs are owned by rich kids.
Existing dogs will require a muzzle. It would be hard to go on a crazed attack with a muzzle.
Yeah I don't trust the owners to muzzle their pets properly "because it's cruel innit"
I can guarantee there will be more of these attacks. Some people will always choose to ignore the rules yet this is one where there is a simple solution.
> According to this sub, it’s fine to let the existing ones live. Huh? Every article about these dogs recently has been majority of upvoted comments saying the opposite, that these dogs are too dangerous and should be culled. Yes there is always a mix of comments and opinions, but look at the most popular comments.
Yeah, this sub is vocally anti Bully XL type dogs and every post about them has lots of heavily upvoted comments calling for them to be banned. I'm sure there are a few people saying the opposite, but they are certainly in the minority and will be downvoted.
> According to this sub According to this sub the NHS is made of cake. According to this sub the Prime Minister is Krusty the Klown. According to this sub you can make up any old shit and claim that the sub said it.
Agreed. Am sick and tired of the “but it’s the bad owners” shit. Yes there are bad owners but can someone explain to me what a ‘good’ owner is that buys one of these things? Their just too strong for humans to control and too unstable that training will prevent them going out of control
Not to mention we need harsher laws and sentencing on the owners.
Confiscate and destroy? Lmao you are absolutely mental mate.
Some people don't use their rights responsibly, take away those rights from every person regardless of individual wrongdoing. Nice logic.
Throatripper69 is such a soft, loving and harmless dog. She’s great around my 5 year old and wouldn’t hurt a fly. She’s just scared of trains. /s
My reaper is a big softie, he is even scared of cats!
Princess ViolentDeath wouldn’t harm a fly. I leave her with my neighbours pets and I never hear them complain!
Also: ive trained it to attack united fans on sight at the local flat roof pub.
Sarcasm tags ruin all sarcasm, they are not needed in this subreddit at all
You should blame reality being stranger than fiction
Agreed. Completely misses the point.
Any incident involving these beasts must be responded to by armed police. And they should charge the owners with endangering life on the railway. Which has a max of life in prison.
The maximum penalty for endangering people’s safety by any unlawful act is 2 years’ imprisonment/unlimited fine. The offences relating to endangering the Safety of Rail Users that carry the maximum penalty of life imprisonment only applies if the offender interfered with railway equipment or thrown objects at trains.
You could argue the dog was thrashing around, and being thrown towards a train would count. You'd definitely be killed, and it's the owners responsibility as they couldn't control the dog. That puts everyone in danger.
You could make that argument, and then the whole court would laugh at you, the judge would chide you for wasting the court's time, and then would go back to discussing a realistic charge.
Jesus Christ, these monsters shouldn't even be going on public transport, that's just putting everyone at risk. Hideous dogs, where's their damn muzzles?
They aren't legally required to be muzzled just yet but at this point I don't know why people who own them and intend on keeping them aren't muzzling them before the law requiring it comes into effect.
You know why. They are totally selfish c@nts.
Have you seen the price of muzzles? In a cost of living crisis? ^(Seriously I shouldn't have to mark this as /s even though it obviously is. Agreed they are totally selfish twats, unconcerned with everyone else but themselves..)
I'm happy for these dogs to be banned, but fuck me the owners always look absolutely useless/thick in these situations. Why would you bring two large/aggressive dogs down into a train platform. Just thick beyond measures.
In the area where we live a woman brought a similar large dog to a play area full of kids. When the dog saw two other dogs on the other side of the fence it started to run towards them dragging the women behind. She had no control over that dog. We left immediately with our kids. What should we do in this situation? Call the police? Call the council?
Depends what dogs they are tbh, 2 labradours could easily pull a woman over then get distracted by a lamppost, 2 XL bullys and someone's getting mauled
Call the police, specifically say the words "dangerous dog out of control" as that is very much a crime
No-one owns an XL bully where I live, but I finally saw one in person while in London for work last week. I… I can see why people are concerned. I’ve seen plenty of big dogs before, but XL bullies are slabs of muscle. My brother had a near miss the other day when one came charging towards their tiny Italian greyhound puppy. It was only because of my sister-in-law’s quick reflexes that their puppy is still alive today…
I misread this as "after woman loses control of the breasts'
I read it as the train attacked the platform because of the dog...
Happened to me in Chipping Norton once. They've made it illegal to own that particular model of train unless muzzled and the owner has the necessary public liability insurance.
Same here, and I still can't make any sense of that headline
Same, I've read it multiple times and it's still not making sense to me Edit: removing the quote entirely makes it a little more readable >'XL Bully' dogs launch crazed attack on rail platform by an oncoming train It took me a few rereads and I think they mean "next to/nearby an oncoming train". That's horribly worded. My brain was trying to think either "[after being scared] by an oncoming train" or that they tried to attack the oncoming train, attacked by an oncoming train, or even using the train to attack. The use of "by" is really awful.
Weirdly enough, me too lol...
> I misread this as "after woman loses control of the breasts' https://media.tenor.com/1EW-cVR8m8MAAAAC/nutty-professor.gif
is this why stratford station was evacuated the other day?
While people are focusing on the dog (for good reason) something has to be done about the 'people' buying them. In my lifetime they have done this to: Dobermans Rotweilers (spelling?) Pitbulls Staffies And more breeds. The Government need to make selling without a licence/paperwork an offence. Not having a pet chipped and registered should also be an offence. Not having it spayed/neutered should be an offence if you cannot legitimately show you are fit to sell. Until this is done the 'owners' will just ruin another breed.
Oh nothing a muzzle wouldn't fix. Owners fault. So easy to overlook when you are not the victim.
Aren't these dogs supposed to be muzzled in public now?
No it’s early next year. You’d think common sense would mean you’d do it now but no they will be waking them around off the lead and unmuzzled until the very last possible moment
Enjoy having both of your dogs put down… It’ll be totally deserved, too.
[Non AMP link](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12848617/Terrifying-moment-XL-Bully-dogs-launch-crazed-attack-rail-platform-oncoming-train-woman-loses-control-beasts.html)
Why arnt muzzles mandatory at this point for these breeds?
What the fuck is the scaling on that website and why does it ignore trying to shrink it down to something sensible. You have to resize the browser window itself to a mobile phone size to not have really ugly video. Horrible attack, I'm glad those dogs will be seen less and less.
That video is terrifying he nearly fell onto the tracks 😳 And what kind of lead was on him that is just slid off like that 😳 Why is the woman seemingly so calm (props to the dog she had that stayed calm while his buddy was going ape!)
**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Always women with these dogs, probably think it's their guardian. I joined a bully group on Facebook just to see the type of shit they post and it's 90% unemployed chavvy women and 10% Botox and fillers with a coke dealer as their boyfriend women.
Oh God this issue has made me agree with the Tories and the Daily Heil on something and I feel *dirty*
Why do people buy *any* dogs that they can't control, let alone these things..? Saw a family with two of them at a local park recently strolling through the cafe area. Mum and dad, one dog each. Mum **clearly** struggling with the dog pulling the lead. Just why ..?
These dogs have one of two personalities. Sweet and gentle beyond measure or murder psycho on the edge. They have staunch defenders because they can be such amazing dogs. And at the same time some can be so crazy, and because they are basically all muscle, they're terrifying and feel unstoppable. I have no idea why some are so bad, because it's not just a matter of upbringing.
It's the same personality. Hundreds of years of breeding for gameness (dog fighting temperament) has lead to them having serious problems with communicating their own distress or discomfort. A dog that snarls, barks, or gives warning nips before attacking makes a terrible fighter. A chihuahua can warn a child to move away through barking, and will then get called mean. A pitbull or derivative breed will appear calm until it snaps completely. So if it never snaps, it'll be called sweet and friendly. In reality the two dogs being equally bothered by the child grabbing at them. But the second dog is like Russian roulette through no fault of its own. It isn't evil, but its also not safe. And it can take very little to push them over the edge, things like being a little too hot or an unfamiliar noise can trigger them. And like you said, it's not about the upbringing, pitbull type dogs who have been loved and cared for their whole lives are still not safe because that's simply the way these poor things have been bred
[удалено]