Finally - govt. explore dog ban

[Tapasita]

Finally the Govt are looking into banning* *American bully XL dogs. I expect the "it's not the dog but the owner" responses to this news but I do think these types of dogs are categorically more dangerous than other breeds, and I'm surprised, given the number of fatalities, attacks and serious injuries over the last few years (most on small children) that it's taken this long for someone in Govt. to pay attention. Why anyone would want to own such a savage dog is beyond me - I personally think it's a working class status symbol primarily. Sorry if that sounds rude but I do instantly judge people who choose these breeds of dogs above any other breed. They know they are heavy, dangerous and powerful. Just why? What are you trying to prove??? They're effing ugly to boot. And they kill children repeatedly.

Certain types of individuals choose that breed again and again with zero care for the consequences. It's just ignorance and "tough image" over..........well, anything else.

Absolutely they should be banned, and people who seek to own a dog - any breed for what it's worth - should be required to have a license and undergo appropriate dog-training courses. These two things should be mandatory, because any dog can kill or inflict serious injury regardless of their otherwise "peaceful" temperaments (which is always the counter-argument.)

American bully XL dogs: Suella Braverman orders 'urgent advice' on banning breed - BBC News

I know that’s the current system, and it makes sense for legislation drafted in 1991, but 30 years on there are more options. Along with adding bullies to the DDA, they should switch to genetic testing. Then there’s no problem with non-pitbulls being accidentally implicated.

That’s a private transaction between them and their insurance company - they are buying a product that is more expensive because of the higher risk they pose. It’s not in any way comparable for a societal tax on dog owners.

But they don’t need to reveal exactly what the dog breed is - they just need to test positive for whatever the genetic marker for ‘pit bull’ is.

Its most unlikely that a small dog like a bichon will have the ability to kill someone, its ridiculous to say no dog is born vicious, thats simply not true, and yes it is a working class thuggish class of person who own these dogs and if they dont want their dogsseized, then hold them personally responsible , fine them heavily, jail them, whatever it takes

@Bingbangbongbash Genetic testing is no good, for several reasons.

Whilst DNA testing can determine if a dog is the offspring of another dog, it is not yet reliable enough to determine breed.

Furthermore, XL Bullies are not a breed, they're a type, a mongrel basically. So there will be no obvious and comparable DNA markers from one XL Bully to the next, that would not be in say, a Great Dane x Staffie, or a Bullmastiff x Bulldog or Staffie x Cane Corso... etc etc.

To identify Pitbulls, DEFRA took the breed standard from the United Kennel Club and came up with a set of measurements and proportions, and then gave assessors a certain % leeway from those measurements.

This is what they will have to do with XL Bullies, though I imagine the leeway will be much greater and they may have to use Pitbull and American Bulldog and possibly Cane Corso breed standards to come up with something vaguely workable.

The databases used by the doggy DNA companies are all generated using american sources - which is why even now, if you run a UK bred Jack Russell Terrier type through it, you'll get results back telling you the dog has Rat Terrier ancestry - despite us having never had what the US call 'Rat Terriers'.

Stick a breed in that the US doesn't see much of - Deerhounds used to be a good one, and you'd get back Irish Wolfhound results, not because Deerhounds contain any Irish Wolfhound dna - they don't - but Irish Wolfhounds are genetically a mix of Deerhound, Mastiff and Great Dane... so thats what it flags up.

The databases are improving, but nowhere near good enough even if XL Bully was a pedigree breed with 100's of years of ancestry. As they are not, the DNA would pretty much tell you 'this is a dog'.

Two ugly great specimens on Newsnight last night with the usual apologist “handler”.

Why TF does anybody want or need a dog that looks like that? (unless they have a tiny penis, obviously)

As I understand it, XL bullies are descended from American pitbulls crossbred with staffies, so surely any DNA testing could pick up the pitbull markers? It’s got to be more reliable than measuring their heads, anyway.

I would also presume that the consumer DNA tests use freely available / cheap databases - whereas presumably governments can gain access to other sources.

They'll pick up the markers for pitbulls... but pitbulls in the US were bred from Staffordshire Bull Terrier types imported there ..., so is that marker labelled 'pitbull' actually telling us there is pitbull in there or is it telling is there is 'whatever dogs we sampled that had a lot of staffordshire bull terrier origins'...

Beyond that, the US has two registries, the UKC and AKC, and one will register a dog as an American Pit Bull Terrier, and the other will reg that same dog as an American Staffordshire Terrier - which are the DNA companies labelling those markers?

None of these dogs has gone anywhere near anything genetically 'pitbull' and most won't have close links to American Bulldogs either, very few of either breed have been imported from the US.

The consumer databases are the available databases. Thats it, no government has chucked money at this, just commercial enterprises (usually to fund something else mind...) so thats all we have and they're not fabulous - people are still getting dodgy results back from sending in 'test' samples from dogs with known parentage (pedigree and crossbreed). It is better than it was... those databases are being added to all the time, but it will never be perfect because we're not doing something reasonably simple like determining dog DNA from cat DNA, or even 'this dog is that dogs parent/brother/sister'.

A system based on DNA would not work anyway - people want rid of 'giant hefty fat headed attack machines' - being told 'nono, MY giant hefty fat headed attack machine contains zero XL Bully DNA' will not be calmed one bit.

I won't instantly feel relaxed as I walk my fairylike Saluki and ancient wobbly fluffydog, when some huge 9 stone beast comes hurtling at us with murder in his eyes and the owner shouts 'ITS OK, HIS DNA IS NOT XL BULLY'...

That’s not what I understand from what I’ve read, but I’d be really interested to find out more about the lineage of the XL bullies - do you have any sources I can dive into, please?

I was more thinking of university sources for more accurate DNA, but perhaps those are already in use by the commercial companies. It would be feasible to begin mass testing of bully dogs to develop a set of markers, though.

I still think that genetic testing is more useful than measuring heads, but maybe the best way is a mixture of markers - DNA, measurements, temperament assessment.

The point I’m trying to make is that even if the BSL is flawed right now, it doesn’t mean it’s useless as a concept.

There is no doubt at all that types of dogs have innate traits and it makes perfect sense to ban ordinary people owning those bred for aggression or guarding. I’d even be happy to widen the categories so dogs like Alsatians, Dobermans, Rotties, Akitas etc are all covered. They needn’t be banned but they should require a special license akin to a wild animal or gun permit. The cost of the system should be entirely bourn by the prospective owners.

Of course, it would have to sit in conjunction with extremely strict regulation of breeding / importation and there would be a criminal underclass who would skirt the law and carry on breeding and baiting, but it would stop the hapless idiots who buy them because they’re fashionable.

If you do have any more info on the bully bloodlines I’d be fascinated.

Because shockingly, different people like different things. I can't see why people want dogs like Yorkies but they do and that's that. I feel no need to take a dig at their penis size because, god forbid, we like different things.

Well maybe the humans in the country they've been failed in should deal with them, rather than send them here.

And people don't have rescue dogs because they feel sorry for them, they have them because they want a dog.

@enchantedsquirrelwood I have rescue dogs from Spain because I didn't want to line a breeder's pockets.

Nope, no sources just 20+ years in the dog industry/dog related media industry.

You'd need to get involved with the XL bully culture (I really really wouldn't...) - go to their shows, meet breeders...

Then you need to wander down the side roads...

Bully Kuttas
Gull Terrs
Bandogs
Alaunts
Toadline Bullies/Microbullies
Cane Corsos
Old Time Bulldogges (and variations on that spelling but they all look like uncomfortable unhappy bulldog crosses).

'Protection dog' training/bite sports culture

Repro clinics and illegal cropping - earn thousands a week doing veterinary work illegally, wanking off dogs, doing AI, etc etc (and then set up your own clinic and run courses teaching people how ot do the same, its a doggy wanking MLM!)

Importation of 'trained' protection household pets - Dobermans, Malinois, Russian Black Terriers, Giant Schnauzers, Rottweilers, Dutch Herders, Czech GSD's

It is beyond being a complex problem and many roads led to where we are now.

I think at the root of it, lies marginalised or minority groups, and toxic masculinity of course (because where ever we look we find that), that feel threatened and unsafe and want to feel safe, want an ego boost....

Plus, the lower echelons of organised crime - so much of the above is a front for that, laundering money, hooking people in (buy a dog on tic, co-own it, breed from it to pay us back, dog ends up moved from pillar to post with people who know nothing about dogs).

In some of the cases, the dog has been a co-owned or 'tic' dog, moved when the 'owner' can't pay or their girlfriend/mum kicks off and refuses to house the scary fucking beast any longer, or the owner falls out with whoever supplied it - moving dogs on round various properties, means horribly unsettled anxious dogs, being handled by frightened and ill-equipped people trapped into a dangerous situation by drugs, debts etc etc.

A ban is a sticking plaster. Nothing more.

Grim reading. Thanks for sharing. Not sure I have the stomach for diving in any further.

So…a ban is a sticking plaster - what would you do?

Where do you staaaaaaaaart..... ugh.

Magic a system whereby we have enough police and local authority funding to enforce any legislation...

Deal with the huge issue we have with poverty, drugs, education, minorities feeling oppressed/repressed/hard done to, (i dont know how, magic wand?!)

Dog specific:

Breeders to be responsible for dogs they produce, for the life of the dog. SO if that dog is involved in an incident, potentially (not automatically... but potentially) the breeder is also liable.

Breeders to be traceable at any point in a dogs life - both breeders AND buyers to be responsible for that. So if you own a dog that has no chip, or you 'forgot' who bred it or 'can't remember' where you got it...

Chain of ownership responsibility - buy a dog, pass it on, still retain some responsiblity for where that dog went and what it does.

So owners would need to keep details of training, insurance, vet records - the more info and data they have proving they are/were a responsible owner, the less likely it is they could be liable.

We probably need some sort of exemption scheme - this all applies to dogs over 20kg or dogs over x height and x weight.

Mandatory third party insurance for dogs over x height/weight...

I think a carrot/stick scheme might help too - if you can prove your dog attended a suitable training class or you've taken a suitable dog ownership course, then your third party insurance is cheaper than if you haven't.

We REALLY need to crack down on those training dogs using abusive aversive methods - we have the science that shows us dogs trained this way are more likely to be dangerously aggressive, more likely to be unpredictable.

Ditto those training dogs to be aggressive on purpose - VERY few organisations need dogs trained to bring down people. This should not (sorry for those who do do this responsibly) a sport or hobby for pet dog owners, accessible to anyone who can watch a few videos and enter a competition.

Super strict licencing for dogs trained to do off-lead security/protection work - the current system for that is rubbish.

Increase the education on dog behaviour, how to source a dog responsibly as well - a quick trundle through Mumsnet shows that dog related knowledge is poor.

But it all needs the people and the money to police it - and we have not got that.

There's a difference between making breeders responsible for the dogs they breed and making them liable for them. Many behavioural issues don't show until after adolescence, and while they may be driven by genetics they can be made worse by poor handling. I don't see how breeders can be made responsible or liable; given that it will be near impossible to tell if a problem dog was bred that way or trained. Liability should be entirely placed on the owner.And I'll say it again; compulsory third party liability insurance would sort out a lot of of this mess.

I didn't say fully liable.. I imagine a sliding scale.

If the breeder can prove they did everything right - so health testing, documented great temperaments on the parents, grandparents etc, early socialisation, good quality facilities for rearing, quality food etc..

And then can show they home checked the new owner, took them through a questionaire on the breed, had the owner sign a contract to train a certain way, insure, etc..

Then if down the line, Fido kills someone, that breeder is unlikely to be held liable for that dogs actions.

If however they can prove none of this... then yes, depending on what ELSE can be proven about subsequent owners - they should be, to some degree, held responsible.

After all - they created that dog, without them, that dog wouldn't exist.

We need to make buyers and breeders responsible here - so lets say the buyer means well but buys from a shitty breeder who has done none of the above, not only should the shitty breeder be held responsible SO should the buyer for choosing a shitty breeder.

It should be hard to get a dog, it should be a big, clear risk, to get a dog from a crappy breeder.

Currently someone buys a dog from a total moron, having done zero research and 'oh dear what a shame, they weren't to know'... when it all goes tits up and ultimately, its the dog and the victim of that dog who pay the price.

By making only one half of the equation responsible, there is always a get out clause - we have to act on both sides.

The finer points of how and why could be ironed out later, the basic concept that breeder AND buyer hold a degree of responsibility for what the dog they produced or bought does, would change a HUGE amount for the better.

It's incredible they haven't already done this.

BeMoreBarbie · Today 12:25

MrsSkylerWhite · Yesterday 20:05

Two ugly great specimens on Newsnight last night with the usual apologist “handler”.

Why TF does anybody want or need a dog that looks like that? (unless they have a tiny penis, obviously)

Because shockingly, different people like different things. I can't see why people want dogs like Yorkies but they do and that's that. I feel no need to take a dig at their penis size because, god forbid, we like different things”

So, what is it that you like about these monstrosities?

Completely agree with @WiddlinDiddlin about needing a crackdown on unregulated and irresponsible breeders. I wonder if having a bit of a supply and demand issue (waiting lists for buyers and more stringent checks about their suitability, home and lifestyle) would prevent many dogs ending up in the wrong hands/and shelters overflowing with abandoned animals.

The whole business of breeding and trading bully xls as described above is horrifying.

How many have you actually met? They're not monstrosities, as you describe them. They are big chonkers. They're friendly, extremely loving and docile. Extremely calm when looked after properly. pit bulls are not bred for fighting. They were bred for bear baiting (as were a lot of dogs and smaller dogs that are seen as acceptable were bred for the same with smaller animals and this was centuries and centuries ago) then they became general farm yard dogs because of their strength and then they moved into the home. The only monstrosities are the exotics that have been bred so unhealthily that it's just not fair on the dog - same as frenchies that can't give birth naturally anymore because we've bred them to have huge heads that the mothers body cannot handle.

There are many legal dogs more "dangerous" than the pit bull but they don't have the same problem with troglodyte owners and back yard breeders. That's what needs addressing.

I have an Akita. I had a Rottweiler previously. I like a challenge and they have far better personalities than something like a lab, jack russell or yorkie which isn't for me at all. I also like that I'm safe walking him at whatever time and I can leave my back doors open because no one would break in.

''Bully watch'' traced the 'bloodlines' of XL Bullies and found them to be hideously inbred and almost all UK ones can be traced back to a child killer 'Sire'.

A coefficiency of inbreeding of 40%

1. They are Pitbulls: Analysing each pedigree shows that the American Bully is a Pitbull on paper. We believe it is essentially a Pitbull sub-breed, rather than a separate breed in its own right. They are entirely rooted in the lineage of the American Pitbull Terrier, with every individual dog’s ancestry traceable back to registered American Pitbull Terrier and American Staffordshire Bull Terrier. At some point, Mastiff, Bulldog and other breeds may have been mixed in – but papering (the forging of pedigrees) prevents us from knowing for certain. In any case, other breeds are only a small proportion of their current genetic makeup – they are overwhelmingly genetically a Pitbull Type dog.
2. They are Inbred: The breed’s genetic diversity is relatively limited. All current American Bullies are descendants of a handful of breeders active in the early 1990s. This has resulted in a lineage that stems from a limited number of original dogs. Most American Bully pedigrees show evidence of some inbreeding, with certain influential progenitors even displaying an extreme inbreeding coefficient of 40% or higher.
3. They are Genetically Aggressive: A significant number of these breeding dogs are kin to those infamous for producing human-aggressive progeny. Despite this alarming lineage, such breeding dogs are extensively utilized in the UK. A case in point is a breeding female known to have produced multiple human-aggressive dogs, one of which fatally attacked its owner. Notably, this particular bitch had fighting dogs in her pedigree going back 6-7 generations. Her progeny is notably popular in the UK.

Bullywatch has more info. https://bullywatch.link/

Jeez.
This is deeply depressing.

As an owner of a small, well mannered sighthound who had an XL Bully charge at us a few weeks ago {I'm still with broken finger from that} I had no choice but to release my dog and her companion from their leads - the hippo on steroids homed in on my small dog, and it's a miracle she wasn't caught - had she been on lead she'd have been killed I think.

The dog warden caught my friend's dog {Bedlington X} who was so terrified she ran blindly into a nearby housing estate. {Are rural areas freer of these dogs?}

The monster was silent. Its horrid yellow dead eyes seemed to have no intelligence in them, it was like looking into the eyes of a thing without a brain. Empty eyed.

It reminded me of a hippo and a huge overstuffed sofa but with a massive head and tiny, hard yellow eyes and it was flinging saliva about.

It's owner had zero control and seemed totally incompetent in every way. {now why doesn't that surprise me}

Interesting thanks oakleaffy