Proposed Bully XL ban

[12gauge82]

8 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

Agree, but perhaps licensing assists?

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. 

The only way to limit the problem of dog attacks is to licence people.

The only way to completely eradicate dog attacks completely would be to stop all dog ownership full stop.

I do think the time has come to pass a dog ownership test.

[enfieldspares]

13 minutes ago, WalkedUp said:

Agree, but perhaps licensing assists?

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. 

This. 100%.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

This. 100%.

I would say although they have some bearing, phisical attributes are far less important than mental drive when talking breed specific attributes, which pales in comparison to the person that actually owns the dog and what they teach it.

For instance, I could take a labrador and teach it to bite passive people, what do you think would happen if I then left that dog alone with say a child? It doesn't bear thinking about, but the point is, a dangerous dog is a dangerous dog regardless of what breed it is. It's all well and good stating "but (insert breed of dog here) is more powerful than a lab" virtually any dog could kill a child. Dead is dead.

[Docleo]

31 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

No that wasn't my point

What's your point then proposing to ban anything bigger than a spaniel? 

Denying that some breeds are potentially more dangerous than others is nonsense to me.

Maybe a licensing system could be the way forward (if you have concerns about enforcing a ban, then how do you think a licensing system could be enforced??) but at the moment the options are to ban the breed or not - my view is  they are dangerous and should not be around.

 

 

[Sweet11-87]

what about a muzzle in public?. I know 99% of all ex racing dogs wear them because they’ve been bred to chase small things. It’s a very effective means of making the dog allot more safe and it’s a great visual identifier at a distance. 
 

means  it would satisfy the idiots because it’s a big visual “ watch out everyone bad man walking” when in reality a muzzle is a very responsible addition for dog owners who have dogs in public  

[12gauge82]

25 minutes ago, Docleo said:

What's your point then proposing to ban anything bigger than a spaniel? 

Denying that some breeds are potentially more dangerous than others is nonsense to me.

Maybe a licensing system could be the way forward (if you have concerns about enforcing a ban, then how do you think a licensing system could be enforced??) but at the moment the options are to ban the breed or not - my view is  they are dangerous and should not be around.

 

 

My point is that banning specific breeds is a pointless exercise, for all the reasons I have listed previously. 

26 minutes ago, Sweet11-87 said:

what about a muzzle in public?. I know 99% of all ex racing dogs wear them because they’ve been bred to chase small things. It’s a very effective means of making the dog allot more safe and it’s a great visual identifier at a distance. 
 

means  it would satisfy the idiots because it’s a big visual “ watch out everyone bad man walking” when in reality a muzzle is a very responsible addition for dog owners who have dogs in public  

It would for the most part phisicaly stop random attacks in public, but if you think Johnny scrote is going to muzzle his dog when next doors kid comes round to play, it's not going to happen unfortunately.

And I can't agree with you second paragraph either, most dogs don't need a muzzle, so why is it a responsible addition for dog owners in public?

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Sweet11-87 said:

what about a muzzle in public?. I know 99% of all ex racing dogs wear them because they’ve been bred to chase small things. It’s a very effective means of making the dog allot more safe and it’s a great visual identifier at a distance. 
 

means  it would satisfy the idiots because it’s a big visual “ watch out everyone bad man walking” when in reality a muzzle is a very responsible addition for dog owners who have dogs in public  

And compulsory castration of the chavs and neds that own these dogs. Now that would be a win win for society.

[Lloyd90]

3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

The only way to limit the problem of dog attacks is to licence people.

The only way to completely eradicate dog attacks completely would be to stop all dog ownership full stop.

I do think the time has come to pass a dog ownership test.

A bit like rifles being licensed and air rifles being freely available. 
 

We have idiots do stupid things with air rifles; but the damage is usually small or not significant because they can’t get their hands on powerful rifles. 
 

As with a rifle, some of these dog breeds are very powerful when they are misused. 
 

The power and danger factor is what attracts the idiots in the first place. The same idiots encourage the dogs to then display those Traits thinking it’s cool. 
 

Then cos they’re worth ££ you get the puppy farming breeding dogs that are nervy, unfit and don’t have characteristics that should be bred from. 

[Sweet11-87]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

 

And I can't agree with you second paragraph either, most dogs don't need a muzzle, so why is it a responsible addition for dog owners in public?

 How is it not responsible?  I know a few lads who own big breeds thst have shown no aggression but when the dogs were young and again when they got on in years they wore a muzzle because just like humans, dogs can do daft things when young and inexperienced and in new situation and again can get cranky in old age, tired and sore. Can’t Count how many times I’ve seen old dogs show defensive behaviour when they can’t match the energy of a younger dog even when they were playing 5 minutes earlier.

  Larger breeds like German Shepard's are prone to cancer in later life and a brain tumour or any tumour can vastly affect the nature of a big powerful dog. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

And I can't agree with you second paragraph either, most dogs don't need a muzzle, so why is it a responsible addition for dog owners in public?

Because it is far better than a child being bitten!   

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

A bit like rifles being licensed and air rifles being freely available. 
 

We have idiots do stupid things with air rifles; but the damage is usually small or not significant because they can’t get their hands on powerful rifles. 
 

As with a rifle, some of these dog breeds are very powerful when they are misused. 
 

The power and danger factor is what attracts the idiots in the first place. The same idiots encourage the dogs to then display those Traits thinking it’s cool. 
 

Then cos they’re worth ££ you get the puppy farming breeding dogs that are nervy, unfit and don’t have characteristics that should be bred from. 

But that misses the fact that ban a bully xl and there are hundreds of other breeds of dog who are just as powerful, have just as much drive and infact, I would argue theres plenty of breeds with even more bite drive, for the scrotes to choose from.

Your analogy of rifles being licenced and air rifles not is more like ban a .308 and leave .50bmg freely available.

1 hour ago, Sweet11-87 said:

 How is it not responsible?  I know a few lads who own big breeds thst have shown no aggression but when the dogs were young and again when they got on in years they wore a muzzle because just like humans, dogs can do daft things when young and inexperienced and in new situation and again can get cranky in old age, tired and sore. Can’t Count how many times I’ve seen old dogs show defensive behaviour when they can’t match the energy of a younger dog even when they were playing 5 minutes earlier.

  Larger breeds like German Shepard's are prone to cancer in later life and a brain tumour or any tumour can vastly affect the nature of a big powerful dog. 

Do you wrap yourself in cotton wool before leaving the house incase you fall over?

I really don't know what to say to your idea of muzzling all dogs just in case.

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Because it is far better than a child being bitten!   

Better ban cars then.

Life has risks, the odds of a child being killed or even seriously injured by a strange dog are very small, there are far bigger risks encountered in day to day life.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

22 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Life has risks, the odds of a child being killed or even seriously injured by a strange dog are very small, there are far bigger risks encountered in day to day life.

For the sake of a dog owner being legally bound to make his dog wear a muzzle when out in public?

 

Bring in a very stiff sentence for any one who allows their dog to be out in public and to attack a child.

 

About 10 years should be a good deterrent.

[Sweet11-87]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

Do you wrap yourself in cotton wool before leaving the house incase you fall over?

I really don't know what to say to your idea of muzzling all dogs just in case.

 

Where did i say all dogs?. my given examples was a greyhound as a known breed for having high prey drive and german shepards that are known to become tempremental in old age for health reasons. If the owner of the animal has any inclination or isnt sure about the current mind set of the animal its not an unreasonable thing to do.  Even if you are apsolutly sure, if youve got a big powerful dog it can be a fairly courtious thing to do if youre taking it to an area like a public park as it puts other dog owners and park uses a bit more at easy because they dont know the owner or the dog.

and i dont think its an unreasonable request to have the owners of a dog breed thats now got a reputation and a sting of incidents and fatalities to its name to wear a muzzle in public, to safeguard the dog from destruction, the public from an attack, the owner from prosecution. not only will it give everyone peice of mind its also easily seen at a distance for spot checks and fines.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Sweet11-87

[Spr1985]

9 hours 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? 
 

 

A) you missed the point of what I was saying. It’s the owner not the dog

b) you kind of proved my point by saying remove the dog and replace with x y  z  with the eegit owner….. it’s the owner not the dog

c) fatalities would likely increase. Statistically you are more likely to die from tripping an hitting your head than being attacked by a dog, add an aggressive small attacking dog (trip hazard) into the mix and it’s a recipe for disaster. 
 

and yes before it’s pointed out on that last point I am being Facetious and will continue to be every time something I say is purposefully taken out of context or twisted.

9 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

REALLY?

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

Yes. 
 

i think the second point is maybe a little extreme but could be an option. Imprisonment for a minimum of manslaughter and on release Banning said owner from ever owning a dog again (and anyone in their household) as well as banning them from being in charge/control of a dog would be a sensible option. 
 

 

any dog is capable of being trained to be vicious/scary/attack and yes some breeds are far more likely to have these characteristics naturally but I stand by my original statement that it’s the owners that purposefully bring out these characteristics and banning a specific breed will just move them onto the next breed they can train for aggression. (And I highly doubt they’ll choose a chihuahua) 

[Shambam1962]

My daughter has an American Bulldog which she had as a pup, and people class these dogs as different bully breeds.

The condition of her having him, was she had to put the time and effort into training him and socialising him with people and dogs and other animals.

He is 4 years old at the end of September and 36kgs in weight and super fit.

He has never shown any form of aggressive behaviour and is brilliant around other dogs and people, and this is testament to my daughter training him.

He is very intelligent and quick to learn new things.

He is around my dogs on daily basis, and actually thinks he’s a spaniel and does everything a spaniel does from retrieving dummies from land and water.

My daughter suffers with epilepsy and the dog is constantly by her side at home and knows when she’s about to have a seizure.

He’s a typical house dog and loves the comfort of the home, whilst my spaniel’s are kennelled outside.

My daughter when walking the dog in public, always has a muzzle on him which is to safeguard the dog.

People have actually gone onto her and ask why is she walking a nasty dog in public, and when she says he’s not nasty, they say he must be nasty as he has a muzzle on.

You can’t win either way.

The dogs which have attacked people haven’t been trained, socialised and are paraded around as a status symbol by some of the yobs, and are hyped up just waiting to cause mayhem.

 I must be perfectly honest, I wasn’t very pleased when she said she was going to have him , but I was very wrong with my way of thinking .

He’s a brilliant dog and people who meet him have the same views.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

She is a VERY responsible dog owner.

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

For the sake of a dog owner being legally bound to make his dog wear a muzzle when out in public?

 

Bring in a very stiff sentence for any one who allows their dog to be out in public and to attack a child.

 

About 10 years should be a good deterrent.

Really!

No more Dog training in public then.

I suppose with that outlook on life you support Wales 20mph speed limit to?

1 hour ago, Sweet11-87 said:

Where did i say all dogs?. my given examples was a greyhound as a known breed for having high prey drive and german shepards that are known to become tempremental in old age for health reasons. If the owner of the animal has any inclination or isnt sure about the current mind set of the animal its not an unreasonable thing to do.  Even if you are apsolutly sure, if youve got a big powerful dog it can be a fairly courtious thing to do if youre taking it to an area like a public park as it puts other dog owners and park uses a bit more at easy because they dont know the owner or the dog.

and i dont think its an unreasonable request to have the owners of a dog breed thats now got a reputation and a sting of incidents and fatalities to its name to wear a muzzle in public, to safeguard the dog from destruction, the public from an attack, the owner from prosecution. not only will it give everyone peice of mind its also easily seen at a distance for spot checks and fines.

This is getting so silly I can't be bothered at the moment to address all your points.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

No more Dog training in public then.

I suppose with that outlook on life you support Wales 20mph speed limit to?

Train them with the muzzle on if it is public.  

Where did that come from?

If you can't fight your corner, don't come out to play!  

[12gauge82]

51 minutes ago, Shambam1962 said:

My daughter has an American Bulldog which she had as a pup, and people class these dogs as different bully breeds.

The condition of her having him, was she had to put the time and effort into training him and socialising him with people and dogs and other animals.

He is 4 years old at the end of September and 36kgs in weight and super fit.

He has never shown any form of aggressive behaviour and is brilliant around other dogs and people, and this is testament to my daughter training him.

He is very intelligent and quick to learn new things.

He is around my dogs on daily basis, and actually thinks he’s a spaniel and does everything a spaniel does from retrieving dummies from land and water.

My daughter suffers with epilepsy and the dog is constantly by her side at home and knows when she’s about to have a seizure.

He’s a typical house dog and loves the comfort of the home, whilst my spaniel’s are kennelled outside.

My daughter when walking the dog in public, always has a muzzle on him which is to safeguard the dog.

People have actually gone onto her and ask why is she walking a nasty dog in public, and when she says he’s not nasty, they say he must be nasty as he has a muzzle on.

You can’t win either way.

The dogs which have attacked people haven’t been trained, socialised and are paraded around as a status symbol by some of the yobs, and are hyped up just waiting to cause mayhem.

 I must be perfectly honest, I wasn’t very pleased when she said she was going to have him , but I was very wrong with my way of thinking .

He’s a brilliant dog and people who meet him have the same views.

 

Excellent, beautiful looking dogs 👍

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Train them with the muzzle on if it is public.  

Where did that come from?

If you can't fight your corner, don't come out to play!  

You obviously haven't trained many dogs, how are you going to give a toy reward with a muzzle on?

[12gauge82]

7 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

 

Where did that come from?

If you can't fight your corner, don't come out to play!  

Missed this bit.

It was a serious question and came from you appearing to be so risk averse that you are prepared to go to ridiculous lengths to mitigate risk.

[Gordon R]

Quote

You obviously haven't trained many dogs, how are you going to give a toy reward with a muzzle on?

Train them in private, without a muzzle.

All the solutions suggested rely on compliance by irresponsible owners. Scrotes won't licence their dogs, they won't muzzle them. The only training they appear to do is aggression.

Dogs put down following a serious attack and owners jailed - might get their attention. Problem is that successive Governments look for a quick headline grabbing fix - "ban the breed". There is no long term thinking or concern for public safety. It's all about the next election and retaining votes. 

[12gauge82]

7 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Train them in private, without a muzzle.

All the solutions suggested rely on compliance by irresponsible owners. Scrotes won't licence their dogs, they won't muzzle them. The only training they appear to do is aggression.

Dogs put down following a serious attack and owners jailed - might get their attention. Problem is that successive Governments look for a quick headline grabbing fix - "ban the breed". There is no long term thinking or concern for public safety. It's all about the next election and retaining votes. 

Spot on Gordon. 

Apart from the muzzle. One of the most important aspects of dog training is building a solid and reliable recall. If you have a toy focused dog, you'd be missing a huge opportunity by not being able to reward it with it's highest reward in the very place it's most important to recall.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

14 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Train them in private, without a muzzle.

All the solutions suggested rely on compliance by irresponsible owners. Scrotes won't licence their dogs, they won't muzzle them. The only training they appear to do is aggression.

Dogs put down following a serious attack and owners jailed - might get their attention. Problem is that successive Governments look for a quick headline grabbing fix - "ban the breed". There is no long term thinking or concern for public safety. It's all about the next election and retaining votes. 

Yes SPOT ON Gordon!   

[12gauge82]

11 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Yes SPOT ON Gordon!   

Fair enough, you can walk were you want with your dog muzzled, I'll carry on walking my highly trained dogs without one as they recall on a sixpence regardless of circumstance 👍

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Jolly good, I hope you never have to rethink that.