Government to *finally* look at banning XL bullies

[NoCharnce]

Thank goodness. I cannot believe it has taken so long* to even look at banning these awful creatures (I say that as a dog lover). Looks like the viral footage of an XL mauling two men who were trying to defend an 11 year old girl is the straw that broke the camels back.

Tweet direct from Home Sec: https://x.com/suellabraverman/status/1700924751646982312?s=46&t=QlNZXgFJWDXuxa3K3yo7ag

*policy makers have been captured by the RSPCA/Dog’s Trust etc “it’s not the breed, it’s the owner” dogma

I hope someone who is rational and a dog owner can tell me why muzzling and on a lead in public might not work.

I would love to see that. I am fearful of walking in my local park now since it is absolutely overrun with dogs ( running amok) and their owners. There is little pleasure anymore for me going for a walk there, so I don't.

If ALL dogs are muzzled and on leads it would be very easy to spot those who aren't. Easy isn't it?

Honestly I despair. A large rescue dog, scared of busy places and strangers and you take it into a restaurant, probably busy and full of strangers. And before you protest that your dog has every right to be there, it doesn't.

Here's an idea, go to a drive through next time.

People saying its the owner not the breed are ridiculous. A labrador could probably kill a child in terms of physical strength but they don't. Very very rare... because the breed is a very friendly breed. Christ you can Google which breed dogs ate best for kids because the breed of dog does massively affect the temperament of the dog. Some dogs are bred to be aggressive, these dogs should be banned as pets. Yes any dog can be a bit aggressive if it's owner is shit but some breeds of dogs are inherently aggressive and big enough to actually kill people. There's no question for me that these types of dogs should be banned for public safety

@ladeluge I have a poodle which isn't mine but for reasons which are too long to go into here, has been in my care for a year.

It's aggressive, scared of it's own shadow and randomly lunges for people and bites.

Luckily as a small dog it's never ven broken the skin on anyone or anything but it's been a nightmare.

I looked into muzzling it but after having a long discussion with the vet was made aware this can cause harm to the dog especially if used for long periods of time. I did get him a muzzle which I use for short periods in crowded places but because I can't use it long term I do have him unmuzzled when out walking him in the countryside or woodland or whatever where there's less people.

It's not feasible to keep dogs muzzled the entire time they are outside unfortunately.

I do not have a garden so have to take this dog for a walk outside several times a day

@Brightandshining

You are sensiible and sensitive to the worries of those who might be affected by dogs in public. God I wish there were more like you. Bravo!

There's quite a few reasons

It won't decrease fatalities
Fatalities pretty much exclusively fall into the following categories

1. A member of the dog's household (majority of cases)
2. An guest invited to the dog's household
3. A few cases of escaped dogs that have attacked the neighbours
4. A couple of cases of dog professionals

I can't find a single modern case of a dog launching a fatal attack on a stranger while on a walk
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom

Exercise
Dogs normally cover far more distance than their owners do on a walk - they're here there and everywhere, and they need to run, especially when they're young.

If dogs are on leads then they cover far less ground and at lower speeds than they do off lead.

The result is that dogs don't get enough exercise, start to go stir crazy, and that's one way behaviour problems can start.

The next thing you know, you've got underexercised dogs cooped up at home with small children - not a good mix.

As the saying goes, 'a tired dog is a good dog'.

On lead interactions are much more tense and likely to result in conflict
This is for two reasons

1. If you think in terms of fight Vs flight, dogs who are off lead know they always have the 'flight' option up their sleeve if required, so are less likely to opt for the fight option. Dogs on lead are acutely aware that they cannot just walk away and so will opt for fighting far more readily.

1. Being on lead prevents them from displaying the full range of polite dog body language, including calming signals.

For instance, it's polite for dogs to approach each other on a curved trajectory. Running directly towards each other in a straight line is really very impolite - but that's exactly the trajectory two humans will choose if walking their dogs towards each other. This gets an interaction off to a bad start instantly!

Many dogs are a bit snappy on lead and lovely off lead.

Muzzles
Aren't a panacea - dogs can still do damage with them on by punching. They also prevent dogs from playing fetch and exhibiting breed-appropriate behaviours. For instance, gundogs (spaniels, retrievers etc) are bred to carry things around in their mouths. Preventing dogs with zero issues from doing that seems deeply unfair.

Very strong dogs
like XL Bullies ultimately aren't really controllable even if they are on a lead. They can drag their owners around and there's not much they can do about it.

Overall having dogs on a lead and muzzled would save a few picnics from being snaffled, but it wouldn't save any lives and it would likely increase fatalities overall.

We need evidence based policies, and a blanket lead + muzzle policy just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The owner of the Birmingham dog has been arrested for having a dog dangerously out of control
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-66256193

Exactly. This is why I don’t like dogs in restaurants especially when they’re unleashed . We just have no idea as to their temperament, triggers and history, and often they’re there purely for the owners benefit as I’m sure they’d usually be happier elsewhere.

@ToBrieOrNotToBrieThatIsTheQuestion

There are many owners of small dogs who are lead trained and are very happy with it when walking with their owners who take the time to engage with their dog and just don't keep on their phones.

Some owners put muzzles on their dog when out walking for a variety of reasons and not because it's dangerous.

Many owners hate when random adults walk up to their dog and want to stroke and pet it, lovely as they might be.

I'm not sure what your point is?

I feel like the first paragraph is just linking into the myth that smaller dogs automatically need less exercise. They don't. Breeds like Jack Russells will go all day given half a chance. There is no way you can adequately exercise a youngish Jack Russell on a lead unless you're walking for about 12 hours a day. When mine was young, our standard walk was about an hour on lead (going to / between / from parks on foot) and two hours off lead. Anything less and you would live to regret it.

Some dogs are muzzled for reasons other than being dangerous - like dogs that eat foreign objects causing intestinal blockages, and greyhounds that are a bit too good at catching grey squirrels. That doesn't mean that all dogs should be muzzled.

My dog also dislikes being stroked by strangers - he doesn't bite, he just dislikes it. It's much better for him to be off lead so that he can move away from people trying to stroke him (and on occasion, he makes an exception and decides to grace someone with the opportunity to give him a tickle - and he is freely making that choice). Ask before stroking is the most basic bit of dog safety advice - at a minimum, ask the dog and let the dog come to you. This isn't the argument for keeping dogs on leads that you think it is.

What works for some dogs doesn't work for every dog. Your post makes about as much sense as declaring that some people benefit from / need wheelchairs so we should all use wheelchairs.

Surely the best amendment would be to ban all large dogs over say 2 stone and / or mouth size, if they can fit a babies head in their jaws ban it. Preferably ban all but working dogs until we have better solutions, which are almost there eg for blind people.

@Cat1590 maybe don't take your denageroys react8ve dog to a pub where it is supposed to be safe for children if you think irresponsible parents, which they definitely are,might be there with toddlers. If your dog is so unsafe a tiny child touching it makes you worried it may kill the child.

2 stone is not a lot. That would wipe out a huge amount of dog breeds.

You may want to think through your completely batshit ideas a bit more.

Labradors are the breed most commonly used by Guide Dogs. They weigh 4-6 stone.

You might also want to talk to some blind people before you decide that technology is a better solution than a guide dog.

It is also a strange cut off. Why two stone?

Whether a dog can fit a babies head in its mouth also seems like a very strange and arbitrary measure. I’ve never heard of a dog killing a baby by biting its head. Fatal dog attacks on infants are usually a case of a dog grabbing hold of a baby and shaking it to death. It can and has been done by jack russells.

Tbh, the kinds of attacks that kill babies probably owe more to the terrier DNA in the lines of bull terrier type breeds than the bulldog and mastiff DNA. Terriers grab small things and shake them.

The best argument for keeping dogs on leads is nothing to do with the welfare of the dog.

Some people (such as myself) don't want to be touched/sniffed or otherwise interact with someone else's filthy animal.

There's a safety aspect also, but that's not the primary reason.

Dogs off lead should not be approaching strangers. If people can’t control them they shouldn’t be off lead.

I can't believe this post is real.

Not only do you explicitly blame the victim for being bitten (!!!) But you then tell us you take your huge, barking, unstable dog into restaurants and pubs. God almighty.

Presumably you're the sort of person who I have seen gathering their children because my dog was in the vicinity. He's 8kg, and the last thing he wants is to be touched by strange humans, hence he stays away (I've still had to stop children literally chasing him around the park - ridiculous). I've seen some ridiculous overreactions to him merely existing - probably my favourite of which were the four young men who simultaneously jumped on a park bench because he was slowly ambling in their direction.

I don't love everything I see, smell or hear in public, but that's the wonder of public spaces, public transport and public parks - we all have to share.

If you don't want to be near other people's children, sports, hobbies, dogs, personal hygiene, food and suchlike, stay home, where you can keep the environment precisely to your tastes.

I hope this does go through. These dogs are an absolute menace and are almost always owned by people who should not have care over any living thing, never mind a potential killing machine. I'm so glad I've only come across a couple, and luckily I was in a position to get away from them easily, but if I had to encounter one walking my dog, I would be utterly terrified, and changing direction I doubt would make me feel any safer.

Pr9blem with social services referral and police is they won't go in the house at it's too dangerous.

I think people still thinking 'deed not breed' and that it's purely down to owners should read this...

bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/finding-kimbo/

Generally speaking I'm against breed specific legislation however something has gone dreadfully wrong with the breeding of pit bulls and XL bullies.

Many of the XL bullies in the UK today have been bred from lines that have known human aggression problems and that have even fatally attacked humans...

I also think when you read the article I linked to below its very clear why there are issues with pit bulls and XL bullies that simply don't apply to other big breeds.

People keep broadening this discussion out to other breeds like GSDs but for seemingly no reason. Other breeds haven't been bred for human aggression.

GSDs for example have caused two fatalities in the past 12 years. One of these was a police dog who had been trained to take people out despite showing many signs that he was not a suitable dog for that kind of work. It resulted in an overhaul of the way police dogs are selected.

The second was a dog that was proven to have been very badly mistreated by its owner (who had previously owned another breed that had bitten someone).

So please stop lumping other breeds in to this discussion because there simply isn't a logical basis to do that.

XL bullies have killed twice as many people so far this year as GSDs have killed in 12 years.

Many of the XL bully attacks have been by dogs that showed no previous signs of aggression and were loved pets.

The significant inbreeding and breeding from dogs who have fatally attacked humans has led to a breed that has psychological problems. Not every dog will have them, but no-one will know whether there dog does.

It's similar to cocker spaniel rage - they can be loving pets and then just turn with no warning.

Many of the XL bully attacks have been by dogs that showed no previous signs of aggression and were loved pets.

Genuine question: we're they really? Because very case I've read there has been an element which makes this not true - or at least not the whole truth. Such as the dog only being in the new home a matter of days.

Are there genuine cases of XLs being brought up well by someone understands dogs properly - but then goes on to attack? I'd be pretty interested in reading up on it.

I have the same question; did they show no signs of aggression, or did those signs go entirely unheeded?

If my dog had killed or seriously injured someone, I'd probably swear blind he was a lovely dog that just flipped - it's not going to look good in court if you admit you knew the dog was a danger and did nothing to reduce the risk.

A lot of people appear entirely unaware of the more subtle signs that a dog is feeling uncomfortable - anything less than a growl is unrecognised and ignored, when in reality it can be a final warning.

Even worse - some people will punish a dog for growling - thus removing the final warning.

The result is that all the more subtle signals are ignored, the dog is punished for giving a final warning, and so it has no option but to go for the bite when it's feeling uncomfortable - especially if it can't get away.

I'm not sure that XL Bullies are routinely bought by those who have a great deal of knowledge about dog training and behaviour. They primarily seem to appeal to those that want a macho looking dog - there was a breeder on the radio a few days ago (LBC?) who openly admitted that his main market was drug dealers. See also - the Panorama episode from earlier this year. People who are seriously into dogs, dog training and dog sports disproportionately choose border collies for their intelligence - but they're a poor choice for people who just want a pet because they're neurotic when understimulated.

The most notable characteristics of XL Bullies are (if you listen to the sales pitch) that they're enormous, look intimidating, and are allegedly soft family pets. Even if you believe the latter, there's plenty of alternative breeds to choose from - but we all know what the difference between a golden retriever and an XL Bully is.

Looking more widely across the dog world, there's lots of factors which can create a dog's behaviour problems including

• genetics of the particular line - the link a few posts back is really interesting
• genetics of the breed as a whole / breed traits
• in utero experiences, such as a stressed mum
• experiences in the first 8 weeks before they leave the breeder
• socialisation, or lack thereof, particularly in the first 16 weeks
• a single bad experience with one particular thing e.g. years ago family had a dog kicked by a random child, and understandably she hated them thereafter
• medical issues, particularly pain - especially if it's a new behaviour issue, but some have painful genetic health problems like hip dysplasia
• neurological issues - like a brain tumour - again, this is more applicable to nice dogs that rapidly change

... and sometimes there's just bad luck. It is possible to do everything right from choosing a breeder to socialisation, and still get one that's just not quite wired right. Rather like how excellent parents can produce five 'normal' kids and one with severe mental illness.

You can do your absolute best with a dog, but a lot of it is already baked in from when you first get them - as a puppy, more so as a rescue. You can often make lots of progress, but rather like how even the best psychiatrist can't cure schizophrenia - just get it to a manageable level - there are always limits to what can be achieved.