Frequency
thank you, yes despite breed specific legislation there seems to be more dog attacks. I wonder though which breed (or not a breed at all) is responsible for the majority of these fatal attacks? and does breed specific legislation cover this breed (non breed, otherwise known as Xl bully). It doesn't. And yet, if it was found that the majority of fatal or serious incidents were Xls could they not be included?
I know there are problems with establishing exactly what they are, and they are not a recognised breed, neither is it easy now to establish what mix of breeds they actually are. Added to which most people can not point at one and say "ah ha, that's an xl bully, because I've eliminated the chances of it being any other recognised breed, AND it isn't a cross breed of some other bull type. The breeders were very well aware at the start of their project several years ago that they needed to avoid falling foul of BSL and wanted to breed a huge powerful pit bull type dog. Since then they have continued to breed in other yet more powerful dogs to create super heavy dogs with guarding instinct, which seems like a dangerous combination to me.
Does anyone know why the kennel club and the American equivalent don't recognise XL bully? Maybe they should, and then there has to be some sort of breed standard??? perhaps then BSL might work?
I love dogs. It is though unacceptable that these dogs prevent people from feeling/being safe in public spaces.
However, my other main concern is that well established breeds that pose little risk are being confused now with XL bully, again because we are not able to identify exactly what we are looking at (as others have also pointed out). Again, this serves no one well except the irresponsible breeders of these dangerous XLs.