Proposed Bully XL ban

[12gauge82]

In light of the recent spate of dog attacks by bully XL dogs, there are ongoing discussions on adding the breed, to the ban list.

What's the PW communitys view on this.

Mine in a nutshell is it will do very little to help and could actually cause more harm than good.

Discuss!

[Weihrauch17]

They can't enforce any laws on anything except speeding so what's the point.  There is no place for dogs like these though (or their owners)

Edited September 11, 2023 by Weihrauch17

[Spr1985]

Absolutely pointless banning them for various reason’s I’ll go with a list and start with the most important. 
 

1. it is NEVER the dog!

2. ALL dogs have the capability to attack and maim, yes some will cause more damage due to size and power but at the end of the day it comes down to how they have been treated and or trained (or lack of) and therefore it’s the owners we should be looking at and not the dogs.

3. Banning this specific breed will only lead to these owners attaching themselves to another breed (if the ban happens I believe it will be the cane corso next) and then no doubt breed them for specifics looks statures……leading to another breed being added to the banned list - again we should be looking at the owners/ breeders 
 
4. I don’t believe dogs attack for no reason, something triggers them into doing so and if I’m wrong and these dogs specifically just randomly attack then they should never have been allowed to be owned as pets in the first place (again it’s the owner and the training in my opinion) 

5. if a dog is euthanised due to being dangerous, untrained, trained to attack then we should be looking at jailing the owner in much the same way as we would if it was a driver using a vehicle to hurt/maim, someone wielding a knife/weapon etc

6, just imagine if the same stance was taken about us lot after the raul moat saga. Middle aged white men are banned from ownership just in case. 

[Duckandswing]

I do not like to chastise certain breeds of dog. However, the XL bully is bred from breeds developed purely for fighting. They account for the vast majority of attacks on people and dogs in the UK. Over 70% of all dog on dog attacks recorded in the UK since 2021 are attributed to the XL bully, and this breed are 270 times more dangerous than all the other dogs in UK. That is according to an article I just read.

As I said, I do not want to point the finger at specific breeds, as all dogs, especially if not trained properly can be dangerous. It does appear that this breed is, however, very dangerous.

If I had a choice, I wouldn’t want one around me or my kin. Few breeds worry me, but this one does.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Duckandswing

[12gauge82]

5 minutes ago, Spr1985 said:

Absolutely pointless banning them for various reason’s I’ll go with a list and start with the most important. 
 

1. it is NEVER the dog!

2. ALL dogs have the capability to attack and maim, yes some will cause more damage due to size and power but at the end of the day it comes down to how they have been treated and or trained (or lack of) and therefore it’s the owners we should be looking at and not the dogs.

3. Banning this specific breed will only lead to these owners attaching themselves to another breed (if the ban happens I believe it will be the cane corso next) and then no doubt breed them for specifics looks statures……leading to another breed being added to the banned list - again we should be looking at the owners/ breeders 
 
4. I don’t believe dogs attack for no reason, something triggers them into doing so and if I’m wrong and these dogs specifically just randomly attack then they should never have been allowed to be owned as pets in the first place (again it’s the owner and the training in my opinion) 

5. if a dog is euthanised due to being dangerous, untrained, trained to attack then we should be looking at jailing the owner in much the same way as we would if it was a driver using a vehicle to hurt/maim, someone wielding a knife/weapon etc

6, just imagine if the same stance was taken about us lot after the raul moat saga. Middle aged white men are banned from ownership just in case. 

I think you've hit most of the points I had, although number 5 I disagree depending on circumstances. I see no issue training a protection dog providing it's done right, with solid obedience learnt first and the knowledge that once that's done, it's no longer just a pet with solid precautions taken when in public.

[Spr1985]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I think you've hit most of the points I had, although number 5 I disagree depending on circumstances. I see no issue training a protection dog providing it's done right, with solid obedience learnt first and the knowledge that once that's done, it's no longer just a pet with solid precautions taken when in public.

Sorry, I wasn’t very clear with that was I, when I said trained to attack I was referring to the yob’s/ local hard man/ plastic gangster/drug dealers , not as you pointed out those that have trained (weapons) attack dogs/ protection dogs for legitimate reason. So I agree with what you say completely and should have Been clearer 👍🏻

[12gauge82]

7 minutes ago, Duckandswing said:

I do not to like chastise certain breeds of dog. However, the XL bully is bred from breeds developed purely for fighting. They account for the vast majority of attacks on people and dogs in the UK. Over 70% of all dog on dog attacks recorded in the UK since 2021 are attributed to the XL bully, and this breed are 270 times more dangerous than all the other dogs in UK. That is according to an article I just read.

As I said, I do not want to point the finger at specific breeds, as all dogs, especially if not trained properly can be dangerous. It does appear that this breed is, however, very dangerous.

If I had a choice, I wouldn’t want one around me or my kin. Few breeds worry me, but this one does.

Is it right to blame the breed though?

We could compare that argument to guns and hypothetically say, most shootings are carried out with shotguns, therefore they should be banned, which ignores the fact its the criminals actually pulling the trigger, after illegally acquiring them, who would go on to use say cut down .22s instead.

I have no desire to own a bully XL, however, ban them and scrotes will illegally breed them in huge numbers due to status, will cross breed them to make it difficult for the government to classify them and simply buy other breeds of 'status' dog.

I believe we need to start looking at dog licencing if dog attacks are getting that bad, breed specific legislation has already been proven to be utterly ineffective, just like the handgun ban.

Just now, Spr1985 said:

Sorry, I wasn’t very clear with that was I, when I said trained to attack I was referring to the yob’s/ local hard man/ plastic gangster/drug dealers , not as you pointed out those that have trained (weapons) attack dogs/ protection dogs for legitimate reason. So I agree with what you say completely and should have Been clearer 👍🏻

I thought you probably were 👍

1 hour ago, Weihrauch17 said:

They can't enforce any laws on anything except speeding so what's the point.  There is no place for dogs like these though (or their owners)

Is there a place for owning say a .300 winmag in the uk, it's not really necessary, despite me knowing a very sensible person that does. I would argue it's not the dog breed that's the problem, but some of the owners?

[Weihrauch17]

11 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Is it right to blame the breed though?

We could compare that argument to guns and hypothetically say, most shootings are carried out with shotguns, therefore they should be banned, which ignores the fact its the criminals actually pulling the trigger, after illegally acquiring them, who would go on to use say cut down .22s instead.

I have no desire to own a bully XL, however, ban them and scrotes will illegally breed them in huge numbers due to status, will cross breed them to make it difficult for the government to classify them and simply buy other breeds of 'status' dog.

I believe we need to start looking at dog licencing if dog attacks are getting that bad, breed specific legislation has already been proven to be utterly ineffective, just like the handgun ban.

I thought you probably were 👍

Is there a place for owning say a .300 winmag in the uk, it's not really necessary, despite me knowing a very sensible person that does. I would argue it's not the dog breed that's the problem, but some of the owners?

Of course the dog breed is a problem, they are bred for fighting and are generally uncontrolable when they decide to kick off!  Their idiotic owners just add to the mix.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Weihrauch17

[Lloyd90]

For years people who want to own pit bulls have said “it’s not the breeds fault” and it’s all down to the owners and they should be reintroduced. 
 

Instead we have had the same sorts of people now getting these XL bully dogs, and despite the above claims, it APPEARS (I’ve not personally spent ages looking into it) that the number of dog attack / bites attributed to this type of dog have gone up significantly. 
 

 

Whilst it is far more common that people / kids would probably be bitten by a small yappy dog, getting nipped by a Yorkshire terrier isn’t on the same scale of damage potential as a serious powerful dog. 
 

Bull breed dogs were designed to be ferocious, tenacious, not give up and powerful animals. 
 

Personally I’d rather see certain dog breeds licensed instead of banned outright so genuine decent people who enjoy the breed and own them responsibly can carry on doing so. 

[Duckandswing]

6 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Is it right to blame the breed though?

We could compare that argument to guns and hypothetically say, most shootings are carried out with shotguns, therefore they should be banned, which ignores the fact its the criminals actually pulling the trigger, after illegally acquiring them, who would go on to use say cut down .22s instead.

I have no desire to own a bully XL, however, ban them and scrotes will illegally breed them in huge numbers due to status, will cross breed them to make it difficult for the government to classify them and simply buy other breeds of 'status' dog.

I believe we need to start looking at dog licencing if dog attacks are getting that bad, breed specific legislation has already been proven to be utterly ineffective, just like the handgun ban.

I thought you probably were 👍

Is there a place for owning say a .300 winmag in the uk, it's not really necessary, despite me knowing a very sensible person that does. I would argue it's not the dog breed that's the problem, but some of the owners?

Oh it is definitely some of the owners, 100%. It is a very difficult situation to consider, and I really do not know the answer.

I own a malinois x German shepherd. He is a lovely dog and I do trust him around people, children etc. Not enough to give him free reign without careful handling though.

That may very well be what is required and what needs enforcement. The correct handling, the correct training and the correct legislation/registration of the breed and perhaps other breeds if required.

I don’t think that would hurt.

[Gordon R]

I think banning would be hard to enforce. Scrotes would claim that their dog was a big Staffie, or Bulldog etc. What do you do with those that are out there? If these were banned, they would turn to another cross breed with the same purpose, as they did when Pit Bulls drew notoriety.. A few years ago, Rottweilers were the choice of criminals, which damaged the reputation of a decent breed of dog.

Licensing and dog training sound sensible, but the people who own these would never comply.

I would jail owners who didn't keep their dog under control for a decent stretch - not the pathetic 5 years for knife crime - which never actually occurred.

 

[Lloyd90]

1 minute ago, Duckandswing said:

Oh it is definitely some of the owners, 100%. It is a very difficult situation to consider, and I really do not know the answer.

I own a malinois x German shepherd. He is a lovely dog and I do trust him around people, children etc. Not enough to give him free reign without careful handling though.

That may very well be what is required and what needs enforcement. The correct handling, the correct training and the correct legislation/registration of the breed and perhaps other breeds if required.

I don’t think that would hurt.

What’s your GSD X Mali like? I wouldn’t mind one or just a working line GSD. 
 

My mate takes his mali to a club for them not too far away, I’ve been down there in the bite suit before  

[Duckandswing]

3 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

What’s your GSD X Mali like? I wouldn’t mind one or just a working line GSD. 
 

My mate takes his mali to a club for them not too far away, I’ve been down there in the bite suit before  

He’s a cracking dog. Very playful and very loyal. I’d say he leans more to the shepherd side of the cross rather than the malinois as he’s relatively calm unless there’s a tennis ball or football around.

Very good guard dog. Voiciferous, but if properly introduced he will accept visitors and lick them to bits. Much calmer after his plums were removed.

[Sweet11-87]

its a tough one, theyre probably no more agressive than any other dog but the problem is when they do kick off theyre borderline impossible to stop without somthing in your pocked youd get done for carrying.

what else can we claim we own for protection thats killed 6 people in the last year and not be wildly illegal?. all dogs should need a licence over a certain weight simple as that really.

[enfieldspares]

My view is that what actual lawful purpose do they serve that couldn't be served by another dog? Certain things in the UK get banned too easily...ban it seems to be the answer to everything yet we banned recently death throwing stars, blowpipes, modern curved sabres and nunchucks and all of that when less people have been killed, I'd think by them that I'd reckon have been killed by this "type" of dog.

I hear the argument that "it's the owners' faults" yet if we cannot regulate the owners then all we can regulate is the dog. So yes I'd wish to see them prohibited in the absence of lack of will by successive governments to regulate the owners and mandate that the things are kept muzzled when in public and that the owner be made criminally liable for an injury as if the owner had themselves recklessly inflicted that injury.

Edited September 12, 2023 by enfieldspares

[WalkedUp]

It is never the dog… ? Replace the XL Bully (and all baiting breeds etc) with chihuahuas then leave them in the hands of the eegit owners, what will happen to the number of fatalities from dog attacks? 
 

Some really interesting contributors on Radio 4’s AM show yesterday. One was an expert witness in Dangerous Dog trials. He said the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written and he is completely against banning breeds. However, the American XL he would ban in an instant. I his opinion the musculature, jaw structure and reactiveness of the American Bully mean it is deadly and should not be on the streets.

The statistics alone mean a ban of them is inevitable, such a high proportion of fatalities from such a small proportion of dogs.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

8 hours ago, Spr1985 said:

Absolutely pointless banning them for various reason’s I’ll go with a list and start with the most important. 
 

1. it is NEVER the dog!

2. ALL dogs have the capability to attack and maim, yes some will cause more damage due to size and power but at the end of the day it comes down to how they have been treated and or trained (or lack of) and therefore it’s the owners we should be looking at and not the dogs.

3. Banning this specific breed will only lead to these owners attaching themselves to another breed (if the ban happens I believe it will be the cane corso next) and then no doubt breed them for specifics looks statures……leading to another breed being added to the banned list - again we should be looking at the owners/ breeders 
 
4. I don’t believe dogs attack for no reason, something triggers them into doing so and if I’m wrong and these dogs specifically just randomly attack then they should never have been allowed to be owned as pets in the first place (again it’s the owner and the training in my opinion) 

5. if a dog is euthanised due to being dangerous, untrained, trained to attack then we should be looking at jailing the owner in much the same way as we would if it was a driver using a vehicle to hurt/maim, someone wielding a knife/weapon etc

6, just imagine if the same stance was taken about us lot after the raul moat saga. Middle aged white men are banned from ownership just in case. 

REALLY?

What a shame they don't cull the owners then!   

[12gauge82]

8 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

For years people who want to own pit bulls have said “it’s not the breeds fault” and it’s all down to the owners and they should be reintroduced. 
 

Instead we have had the same sorts of people now getting these XL bully dogs, and despite the above claims, it APPEARS (I’ve not personally spent ages looking into it) that the number of dog attack / bites attributed to this type of dog have gone up significantly. 
 

 

Whilst it is far more common that people / kids would probably be bitten by a small yappy dog, getting nipped by a Yorkshire terrier isn’t on the same scale of damage potential as a serious powerful dog. 
 

Bull breed dogs were designed to be ferocious, tenacious, not give up and powerful animals. 
 

Personally I’d rather see certain dog breeds licensed instead of banned outright so genuine decent people who enjoy the breed and own them responsibly can carry on doing so. 

While theres certainly more drivers in the breed, it's actually towards 4 legged animals and not people. Your also obviously correct when you say they are capable of inflicting far more damage than say a spaniel. But then so are many large breed dogs. The problem is many of the type of people buying them, who then encourage aggressive behaviour. Ban dog breeds until the cows come home, the scrputes will simply shift to the next status dog.

35 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

It is never the dog… ? Replace the XL Bully (and all baiting breeds etc) with chihuahuas then leave them in the hands of the eegit owners, what will happen to the number of fatalities from dog attacks? 
 

Some really interesting contributors on Radio 4’s AM show yesterday. One was an expert witness in Dangerous Dog trials. He said the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written and he is completely against banning breeds. However, the American XL he would ban in an instant. I his opinion the musculature, jaw structure and reactiveness of the American Bully mean it is deadly and should not be on the streets.

The statistics alone mean a ban of them is inevitable, such a high proportion of fatalities from such a small proportion of dogs.

Lets just ban all dog breeds bigger than a cocker spaniel then 👍

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

My view is that what actual lawful purpose do they serve that couldn't be served by another dog? Certain things in the UK get banned too easily...ban it seems to be the answer to everything yet we banned recently death throwing stars, blowpipes, modern curved sabres and nunchucks and all of that when less people have been killed, I'd think by them that I'd reckon have been killed by this "type" of dog.

I hear the argument that "it's the owners' faults" yet if we cannot regulate the owners then all we can regulate is the dog. So yes I'd wish to see them prohibited in the absence of lack of will by successive governments to regulate the owners and mandate that the things are kept muzzled when in public and that the owner be made criminally liable for an injury as if the owner had themselves recklessly inflicted that injury.

We could catagourise many things in the uk like that, cars that can go over 70, ban it. Any gun caliber over .308, ban. 

In the very vast majority of cases, it's not the dogs but the owners causing the problems.

I would compare it to banning previously legally held firearms because criminals keep shooting at each other.

7 hours ago, Sweet11-87 said:

all dogs should need a licence over a certain weight simple as that really.

This backed up by regular spot checks of anyone out with a dog is the only real way to prevent this type of problem from repeating itself.

[Docleo]

35 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Lets just ban all dog breeds bigger than a cocker spaniel then 

Do you really believe a poorly trained/socialised bully xl and a poorly trained/socialised (big) labrador are the same???? 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Docleo

[WalkedUp]

27 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Lets just ban all dog breeds bigger than a cocker spaniel then 👍

My dogs all are over that limit and their mass means they could inflict a nasty bite, many degrees less lethal than a baiting breed. It is not a popular opinion but I would happily apply for a licence and consent to inspections of large breeds for the greater good.

In your comparative hypothesis, if there was evidence that large calibre full bore firearms were responsible for a disgustingly high proportion of civilian deaths (pro rata and absolute), like American Bullies, then a ban or restriction would be appropriate steps to consider.

[12gauge82]

21 minutes ago, Docleo said:

Do you really believe a poorly trained/socialised bully xl and a poorly trained/socialised (big) labrador are the same???? 

No that wasn't my point?

18 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

My dogs all are over that limit and their mass means they could inflict a nasty bite, many degrees less lethal than a baiting breed. It is not a popular opinion but I would happily apply for a licence and consent to inspections of large breeds for the greater good.

In your comparative hypothesis, if there was evidence that large calibre full bore firearms were responsible for a disgustingly high proportion of civilian deaths (pro rata and absolute), like American Bullies, then a ban or restriction would be appropriate steps to consider.

The point is it's not the dog breed that is inherently the problem. It's the scrotes that are buying them. Ban bully XLs and they'll get a different status dog, just like theyve already done by swapping from apbt to bully XLs.

If you keep banning dogs to prevent people getting injured based on breed, because idiots keep buying them, we're all going to end up with toy dogs.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

10 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

If you keep banning dogs to prevent people getting injured based on breed, because idiots keep buying them, we're all going to end up with toy dogs.

Or NO dogs!   

[12gauge82]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Or NO dogs!   

Very true.

There is no 'evil' dog breeds, there are however thousands of idiotic dog owners.

[WalkedUp]

13 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

31 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

The point is it's not the dog breed that is inherently the problem. It's the scrotes that are buying them. Ban bully XLs and they'll get a different status dog, just like theyve already done by swapping from apbt to bully XLs.

Agree, but perhaps licensing assists?

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

There is no 'evil' dog breeds, there are however thousands of idiotic dog owners.

Some breeds have been breed to be inherently more dangerous due to their size, power, jaw structure and reactivity. Sadly those traits are catnip for idiots.