Police patting an XL bully

[Unsurprisedyetsurprised]

Well it’s finally happened! The local XL bully owner (who has never muzzled his dog, including today and walks it on an extendable line - despite it being aggressive to other dogs) encountered two police officers on his walk today along the seafront. Everyone in the smallish village knows him - he’s the only bloody one with that breed and, he’s proud of it (boasting loudly)

Shock and horror - the police said nothing, about it being unmuzzled and worse than that, they then patted the vicious little bastard and said how lovely it was!!

Anyone who knows anything about dogs - tbh even anyone who didn’t - could tell what this dog was. But did the police do anything? No. Instead they went on to bother the local (very harmless) homeless man who had been asleep on a bench nearby - asked him to move on! He’s been around for about ten years and is so completely harmless. But something actually illegal and a nuisance? No. Let’s pat it on the bloody head.

I’ve long had a low opinion of the police but this really took the biscuit!!

Idiots like that say all sorts of things - doesn’t mean it’s true. I’ve seen people bragging all over social media about owning X breed of dog but they quite clearly don’t. It’s an attempt at showing off.

If, when thinking about banning pit bulls, we’d sought a proper solution (regulating breeders for instance) XLs wouldn’t have been an issue. BSL is a lazy, cheap option that benefits no one. People are the problem and always will be.

You can make that argument for dangerous wild animals or guns. It doesn’t answer anything. Some things are not allowed to be owned by the general public or only owned under strict conditions.

If the risk from a breed of dog is too great it should be banned. So various breeds have been banned. And the bans work. Good.

Did you read what I wrote?

Yes. I made the best sense of it that anyone could.

😂 you seemed to have answered a completely different post. It’s early though.

How can the bans work if after 30 years there are still 3k dogs?

Oof, I do get you. Actually, even if not a banned breed, it's terrifying to encounter an aggressive dog on an extendable lead, so yes, sympathies. Even if they can't do anything, I am sure the police should not be condoning this by patting.

My friend was walking her (on lead) dog past a house when a large bully-type dog ran out and attacked it. She managed to get away and reported it. Police officer went round to the house, had a chat with the owner and observed in an email to my friend, that the dog had appeared 'friendly'. Case closed.

No, I didn’t. You object to breed bans. You favour regulating breeders. Since breeders are already regulated you must be in favour of the public being able to own these dogs without any restrictions.

Breeders aren't regulated.

Why do they need a licence from the local authority then?

That license is easily obtained, and as you don't need a license to own a dog, there is nothing stopping me from breeding and selling dogs without one. You don't have to have one in order to breed your dog and sell the pups. It's just a good look for buyers to make sure the breeder AT LEAST has that.

My friend was told by a busybody that her two dogs needed muzzles to go on the beach.

They are French Bulldogs 🙄

Breeders qualify by how many litters are produced, whether puppies are sold and in any event if they market themselves.

If you’re saying that dog owners can breed anyway outside the qualifying requirements then presumably all owners are potential breeders. Since the bans make breeding XL Bullies a criminal offence for everyone, all owners are already regulated.

All owners are potential breeders, hence why a dog license for all would work towards monitoring and governing who breeds their dogs. A ban on certain breeds wouldn't do anything towards problematic breeding.

I’m not against dog licences.

But I can’t see how a licence would do any better than the existing criminal offences of owning a banned dog that isn’t chipped, neutered, insured, leased and muzzled. Which of those would you do away with?

It would help prevent the unethical and problematic ownership of all dogs. Not just ones that look scary.

Personally I'd have a local license for people to be allowed to walk their dogs off leash. After said dog has demonstrated adequate recall and socialisation to an authoritative body, of course.

OK, but how does that help with breeds of dog that kill and maim?

And if a ban is imperfect because some flout it, what’s to stop flouting of licensing?

As I said, I’m not against dog licensing for all dogs (and it ought to be expensive and rigorous for both dogs’ and the public’s sake) but it’s no argument against banning dangerous breeds.

It doesn't need to be expensive because then only the richest people would be able to own dogs and they are certainly not the best owners by a long way.

There aren't breeds that maim and kill, an XL bully isn't even a proper breed. I said earlier how my BIL has two dogs that are siblings (same parents but different litters), one is classed as an XL and one isn't, because one is smaller than the other so doesn't meet the criteria.

Any dog that hasn't been bred and/or raised correctly could show problematic behaviour, including injuring other dogs and people. Cracking down on irresponsible owners and breeders would minimise the number of dogs who show these tendencies.

Anyone who has ever seen a reactive, aggressive golden labrador will tell you that they're no less likely to really hurt you than any similar sized dog. Behaviour is the issue, genetics are the issue, breed is not.

And again, and XL bully isn't a breed. It's a dog that meets a certain size criteria and isn't otherwise excluded. For instance, many mastiffs meet the size guidance and description of an XL on paper. As do Rottweilers and some other breeds.

For instance, many of my colleagues (midwives, doctors) have recently bought dogs knowing that they'd have to empty a dog walker. I don't get why they'd buy one knowing they'll have to outsource so much of the interaction. And no it isn't the same as sending your kid to school or childcare while you work. You don't need to have a kid (to some extent) but you definitely don't need to buy a dog when you don't have the time to actually raise it.

I see it more like having a child when you know neither parent will be present to raise the child at all because they work in Antarctica for months on end. Surely you'd wait until that phase of your working life is over?

TBH, the way you explain what’s happened with your BIL’s dogs we need a broader ban.

Banning all bull breeds or similar dogs would be a good start.

Well why not just muzzle the dog that needs it as well as the one that's legally obliged to have it. If it needs a muzzle then it doesn't matter if it's an XL or not. The owner should be using one.

Neither dog needs a muzzle, it's just that the older one is more likely to eat things off of the floor than the younger one. Believe it or not, this is why some people muzzle their dogs. They scavenge and it's dangerous for them. It's why he only ever went on a long lead but the other dog used to go off lead.

The XL dog has to be muzzled, surely?

I really can’t see why all dogs out in public shouldn’t have to be muzzled and leashed. It would protect the public and the owner (from being prosecuted or sued for dog attacks). It would also make the public less opposed to dogs being around them in all situations.

Seems like common sense to me.

Based on what I'm reading the only conclusion I can come to is the ban didn't go far enough and they should all have been euthanized