Another fatal dog attack.

[Ostryga]

A 37 year old man has lost his life to a ‘dangerously out of control’ dog and the owner has been arrested. The dog was put down.

How many more people have to lose their lives before something is done about out of control animals?!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-65651152

This.

With luck, this latest attack will cause XL Bullies to be added to the banned list, and require all existing dogs to be neutered, and muzzled in public.

It still leaves the poor families of the idiots who choose these dogs, at risk, but there is little the law can do to protect them.

Just ban them and mandate that all the existing XL Bully dogs in this country must be destroyed. It's quite simple really. Set a date that they must be handed over by, and after that date, give the police order to shoot on sight.

^^THIS.

you could be the shittiest owner but I’d still never be scared that your shih-tzu would kill me. Could a pug be trained to attack and kill and adult? I don’t see many cocker spaniels or golden retrievers making the news for maiming people. And I am sure there are plenty of them out there who have shit owners who haven’t trained them at all.

it is, 100%, the breed.

I agree it’s the breed of dog not just the owners! Bully xl needs banning!

I'd go further and ban all the bull breeds. The clue is in the name. They were bred to attack and kill BULLS.

IMO a dog breed that is genetically equipped to do that is not suitable as a family pet.

I disagree. The UK banned a few breeds not that long ago.

And this has finally been said out loud.

The guy on BBC Breakfast this morning said exactly that. It's a certain type of person (man or woman but usually man) who have these dogs as 'pets'

We all picture that person immediately we hear of one of these dog attacks. And these people will never get a licence, insurance, mandatory dog training, etc. Just as they don't have a driving licence or car insurance but continue to drive around like twats.

I think it's more than that.

But there needs to be consequences to banning them.

Eg police and whoever will be looking for these dogs need comprehensive training on what they look like.
People get away with having pitbulls and saying they are cross breeds.
Needs water tight hot on this for a few years with big fines so people don't bothers and have big push with pics and shopping neighbour in for having one.

@MrsJBaptiste but we know we can't trust humans so we have to ban these breeds

The poor girl killed by eye family pet, newly from a rescue did we find out what dog that was.

Problem is these dogs are effectively penis extensions for "hard boys" and those who wish to appear so. It was blue staffies a decade or so ago, now it's these dogs.

They do have an inherent agressive nature (comes from the bull herding/controlling/fighting) which is not ideal when combined with idiot owners.

any dog can be aggressive. Cocker spaniels are apparently most likely to be so. Why? Because that's with no clue why they're buying get them then wonder why it is their bred to carry and retrieve gundog resource guards. Spaniels aren't aggressive. They're intelligent dogs which need breed appropriate training. They're actually really soft mouthed dogs because they're bred to not damage the game they retrieve so "aggressive" here is totally lack of training. 'Cocker rage' is almost bred out the breed entirely now, it's very rare.

I suspect these dogs are the same. The difference here is that they're way, way too large to be controllable and therefore have potential to kill adults. And that's why they need to be looked at in more detail by the Government. I'd not trust one as far as I could throw it.

For a lot of posters it seems preferable to just fix anti-social behaviour, drug dealing, dysfunctional upbringings, homelessness, deprivation, the criminal justice system and gangs, and then add some more bureaucracy around owning dogs on top. Rather than take the relatively more straightforward step of preventing people getting their hands on these animals (while continuing to work on improving all the aforementioned problems).

They’re coming from a place of prioritising their right and preference to own potentially dangerous dogs, which just isn’t a consideration for the rest of us. I don’t need to read another lengthy description of all the laudable training that someone has done with their dog - fact is we cannot ensure everyone does the same and on a societal level the risk in no way outweighs the reward.

I just read a newspaper article about why it would be wrong to ban them. I was interested by the title because I’m open to being persuaded, but it was the same thing all over again. Long descriptions of how well the writer trained their dog and met its needs followed by an emotive description of a lovely bully rescue. Same old.

The whole 'it's a cross breed' is the reason why I don't believe banning certain breeds is the answer.

The type who want these dogs aren't going to have them KC registered. They'll be many arguments over what is or isn't a xl bully, the same as a pit bull, and what ever they move on to.

The legislation needs to cover all dangerous dogs. Owners should be convicted of murder if their dog kills or GBH if it bites requiring stitches.

Reminds me of a form of “I can fix him” saviour complex.

With all due respect whoever is doing your training is wrong in using a halti/leader, you need to be the leader, not a piece of equipment. Badly trained dogs are known to pull, not breeds.

@Doagooddeed licencing and compulsory training would pay bonuses to shareholders of an out sourced private company unfortunately.

Problem owners with problem dogs would avoid both and it would increase the trade in unchipped dogs (which is already a problem despite the law that every dog has to be chipped).

It would however control responsible owners and their non problem dogs.

When I lived on a council estate these dogs were treated like status symbols. You'd get gangs sitting on the pavement waiting for someone to walk by so they could inform that their dog "would eat you for breakfast", yanking on the dog's chain to make it growl.

It may be the case that it's the owners, not the breed. But put a golden lab in place of the bully and its owner would probably still be alive.

My cat lives a life of luxury, fed his favourite food & treats on demand but he still goes out to hunt and bring me dead things. It’s instinct.
Some dogs have instinct to herd, others instinct is to hunt & retrieve, some it is guarding. Others have the instinct to KILL and no amount of training can remove that instinct.

With all due respect whoever is doing training is wrong - being a leader and dominance theory has been disproven.

I've had 3 quite serious dog bites in my life, a lot of dog owners seem to be quite entitled. IMHO dogs should always be kept on the lead. I also think dog licences should be a thing and part of that should be mandatory training for dogs, who have to pass a training test before being given a licence.

The breed should be banned and all existing examples should be neutered. I adore dogs but it's getting increasingly scary taking my small dog out for a walk thanks to the type of idiots who own this breed. Banning the breed would prevent further misery being caused to the dogs themselves. A friend who volunteers at a dog shelter tells me that they see a huge number of these dogs who have lived lives of abuse and neglect and are too dangerous to re-home. Many of them have permanently damaged throats due to the horrible, heavy collars their scumbag owners make them wear. Many of them have been bred for dog-fighting. Many of them have had their ears cropped so they can be used in dog fighting. Many of the non-Bully pet dogs that are stolen every year are used at bait to train these dogs for fighting. It's just misery all around, including for the XL-Bullies.

Why can't we have dog licences in the same way that we have car licences? The money raised could then go towards wardens to enforce them and anyone found having a dog without a licence then gets it taken away until they pay a substantial fine (and if they don't pay, they don't get it back). Any further offences then potenially lead to jail time.

Dog owners seem prepared to pay stupid amounts for their dogs while they get all the benefits and non-dog owners only get the negatives - dog shit, noise, dangerous dogs etc. Seem only fair that they pay a bit more to make up for it. Surely if they are the 'responsible owners' they all claim to be, they'd be all up for it.

It's quite the coincidence that all the irresponsible owners own XL bullies.

Not all irresponsible owners have big xl bullies.
But smaller less powerful dogs are less likely to have the strength to kill. If they attack, people are more able to pull them off the victim.