To think this just sums up XL Bully owners?

[Ozarkz]

Look North last night. Peter Levy is interviewing a woman who owns two XL Bullys. Both cropped and docked which she says happened in another country before she got them (yeah, course it did).

Peter asks her “so why do people want these dogs in the first place, what’s the attraction for you?”

She replies “well I wanted dogs that were good with kids and famines and stuff so we got XL Bully’s cos they’re great with kids”

Wtf? If I didn’t know better I’d swear this was a spoof interview. Good with kids and families?? These dogs have been responsible for the most human deaths in dog attacks in the UK in recent years!!! Just last week an 11 year CHILD was attacked by one of these dogs … so when looking for a child friendly dog she bypasses the golden retriever etc and goes for the breed with the biggest track record of killing humans …

He then asked her if she will comply with the muzzle when the laws are changed - she said NO.

Then the cherry on the cake … he asked her “would you leave your child alone with these dogs?” And she said “yes, absolutely. I leave my two year old alone with them all the time whilst I’m busy making dinner etc”

Honestly the interview couldn’t have been any more gobsmacking.

This just sums up XL bully owners doesn’t it? Thick as pig shit with no regard to their own safety or the safety of others.

Such as?

A responsible dog owner would not choose to own a breed like this, especially if they are not equipped to deal with it. Someone who doesn’t do research on the breed they’ve chosen is negligent

A dog that is “defective” by being unusually aggressive has had something go wrong - either in the breeding, or the upbringing. Both of these are done by humans.

An animal is an animal, and if you are not equipped to remember that and take precautions, you are negligent. The dog isn’t at fault - it’s an animal, and animals do not think through consequences, emotions, etc. They act on instinct, and it’s up to the pet owner to learn those instincts and put precautions in place.

The people who own these breeds are either trying to rehabilitate, or do a good service for these dogs. Those people I feel the most bad for during this.

Or they’re scumbags, who think they can handle an animal that’s stronger than them because they think they’re tough, when in reality, they’re stupid. They get these dogs to appear tough because they’re a certain type of person. Usually the lowest of society, and while they think everyone looks at them as badasses, everyone is actually just feeling bad for their dogs for the misfortune of ending up with them as their owners

I think we might be coming at it from a different angle.

I don't believe that it's all a product of how they were raised, or 'bad breeding'. I think there is a fundamental instability within the whole 'breed'

I also believe that there are many good (yes possibly naive) but well meaning people who have owned these dogs, since puppyhood, treated them well, enforced boundaries, given them adequate food, shelter and exercise and still, something has made these dogs snap and kill. I am referring mostly to American sources here, where this is a much bigger problem. Owing to the fact that the pitbull is not a banned breed over there.

This website gives the total number of fatalities in the USA. Over 700.

God knows how many more tens of thousands of incidents there have been, involving non fatal (but very serious) incidents including people and other animals.

I'm reading each case individually (about 200 so far) and an alarming proportion of those fatalities were killed by their own dogs, believing that it's all in how they are raised. No bad dogs, just owners.....

www.fatalpitbullattacks.com/

Then what? these certain type of people will start new cross breeds of non bull breeds. At various times they've favoured GSD, Malinois, Dobermans, Husky and Rottweilers. So no, it's not bull breed dogs in general that are the issue.

The dog in the video Cresadilla looks like Boerboel, South African Mastif, they are smaller than an English Mastif.

The point is nobody needs to be the owner of such dogs...or any dog come to that. It's an informed choice to buy a puppy and pay £1000s for the privilege. Poor people don't have that sort of money to buy it or to feed it and for its vets bills unless they recoup the money by breeding. Normal people probably would choose something more manageable or as a dog lover generally would rehome a rescue dog. The cycle needs to stop

An animal is an animal, and if you are not equipped to remember that and take precautions, you are negligent. The dog isn’t at fault - it’s an animal, and animals do not think through consequences, emotions, etc. They act on instinct, and it’s up to the pet owner to learn those instincts and put precautions in place.

I’m sorry, but I think this is so arrogant, you shouldn’t have to put ‘precautions’ in place to stop your domestic dog from killing and maiming people or other peoples children and pets. The bottom line is family dogs should not exist with this level of aggressive instinct end of, it’s not the owners at all, it’s the bloodline, they come from dogs that are literally bred for aggression and fighting, it’s not the dogs fault.. but it is the dog that is the problem.

Not by much they're not. The breed standard gives them as smaller but the ones I've known weigh in at 11 or 12 stone. And oddly enough are banned in some countries.

Tbf, cats are much more likely to kill other animals - birds, rodents, rabbits etc. My neighbours house rabbit was killed by a cat and they never got the body back as it took it away.

Instinct is pretty much unavoidable. Dogs just have the ability to kill larger animals which is why it's considered an issue.

Cresadilla you want all bull breed dogs banned? Yeah....I see lots of savage Boston terriers! ridiculous.

I'm relieved that something is being done to halt the breeding and sale of XL bully dogs. These dogs are not a breed recognised by the kennel club but a type of dog. This type of dog is now being bred with other large guardian type dogs and IMO that is where the the real problems start. Old established bull breeds bred for dog fighting and bull baiting etc,...were bred not to be aggressive to humans, not to see threat from humans, and not to be suspicious around humans. Any dog that could not be handled to break up a fight would be put down and taken out of the gene pool. This goes back a couple of hundred years.

These XLs and their mates are not healthy dogs. They have been bred to create a dog so heavy with muscle it lumbers and suffers joint issues, the breeding for specific tri colours have created neurological issues, blindness and deafness. Mix in other guardian type dogs and you have a mentally and physically unhealthy dog. These dogs in my opinion are worse than any pitbull because they are far less stable. And yet pitbull are banned.

As are Doggo Argentino, and yet I'm not aware of any historical attacks in the UK. Its sad for those people killed and attacked by these monster dogs that the government haven't acted more quickly.

Unlike you, I don't believe that bull breed dogs should necessarily attract these 'certain' types of owner. If they want personal protection dogs then most bull breeds are not suited. There are other types of dog that have the temperament for that.

The statistics don’t lie. The pit bull was banned for a reason, the fact that it’s basically been cross bred to create the current monstrosity is the reason a ban is now on the cards. It should have happened a lot sooner.

none of the other breeds you mentioned are banned.. because there’s nothing inherently wrong in those dogs, unlike a lot of these bull breeds which have been bred for fighting, aggressions and muscle mass/power .. it’s a deadly combination that has no place in normal family life.

That’s exactly it, your average dog can’t kill a full grown man, nor would they want to, these things however CAN and DO kill and main people on a regular basis, they’ve been bred to fight and kill animals much larger than themselves, often not stopping until the other animal is dead or dying, they are a ticking time bomb in a domestic setting.

An animal is, in fact, an animal.

The precautions I meant were not entirely surrounding potential mauling and maiming, but as we’re on the topic - if you own a breed that is prone to violence, then yes, you should absolutely take precautions like muzzles, harnesses and home security (high fences, gates, etc).

I think it’s very arrogant of you to believe you are above an animal in regards to control. Of course, owning a Bichon Frise is not going to require as many precautions, but it’s still an animal, and still capable of damage, however minor. Do you really believe that you could own a violent dog and control them out of sheer free will? Because if you believe that your dog will listen to your every command, and go against their nature at all times, 100% of the time, you are the exact type of owner to have an out of control dog

Being a responsible pet owner means training your animal, but remembering that they too have their own free will, and will act on it. It’s YOUR job to get ahead of this. If you don’t, you shouldn’t have that pet.

moneyplantnation
yes but when was the last time you heard of a spaniel for example attacking and killing someone?

I agree that something should have been done sooner. I agree on the basis that if Pitbull is a banned breed then Bully dogs should have been too as the original stock dogs were pitbull. I can not get my head around why the government have waited and people have paid with their lives. If the government saw fit to ban Doggos despite no actual attacks in the UK, why have they been slow to do anything about the Bully dogs.

'unlike a lot of these bull breeds' can you be specific? some breeds were bred for dog fighting or bull baiting yes, but they are not indiscriminately aggressive dogs and certainly not towards humans. Aggression towards humans was bred out of the gene pool with very good reason. I have had Boxers (hard work to train) Bostons (loopy whirlwind of a dog, real clown) and Staffs (soppy, and about as mean as a wet rag). What about Pugs, French bull dogs and English bull dog......see many of those menacing people?

@sandyhappypeople it’s not the owners at all, it’s the bloodline, they come from dogs that are literally bred for aggression and fighting, it’s not the dogs fault.. but it is the dog that is the problem.

As per my previous post, you will see I included breeders in my list of people at fault. Breeders who continue to breed from a violence prone bloodline are at fault. People who purchase these dogs and refuse to take steps to circumvent a KNOWN issue with these breeds are at fault. People who refuse to take responsibility for the control of their pet are at fault.

The dog didn’t choose to be prone to violence. A dog doesn’t choose very much, nor do many other animals. They run on instinct. That’s what separates animals from humans - the fact that we can make choices and see potential outcomes before they occur.

Dogs, and most animals, do not have the mental capacity to fully understand the decisions they’re making. Babies dont have it either, not until they’re grown up. If a baby were to bite another child are crèche, would you say it’s the babies fault? No, of course not, because it’s a baby. It didn’t know what it was doing, or the consequences of that action. It was just an instinctual reaction to something that baby didn’t like (biting is a known reaction amongst SOME young toddlers). The people at fault were the adults not being prepared to remove that baby from the situation.

The dog in the video Cresadillalooks like Boerboel, South African Mastif, they are smaller than an English Mastif.

It's not big enough to be a Boerboel, and also statistically far less likely as they're not currently a very common breed in the UK. I think it looks like yet another XL Bully or similar, it's the right size and unfortunately the right behaviour.

Do you really believe that you could own a violent dog and control them out of sheer free will?

That’s pretty much the opposite of what I said, My point is breeds that are ‘prone to violence’ have no place in family homes, they are an accident waiting to happen and innocent people/children/other pets pay the price for people’s arrogance in thinking they can control them or put adequate ‘precautions’ in place, and they tend to be the ‘good’ owners! Bad owners wouldn’t give two shits about trying to mitigate the risks and are probably responsible for more attacks then good owners, but it’s still the dog that ultimately does the attacking.

I have three dogs, and owned dogs all my life, would never dream of having a breed like this, the problem is you just can’t control instinct, one of mine is a sight hound, his instincts are to chase, you can train behaviours to interrupt instincts or fulfil those needs in other ways (chasing tennis balls etc) but you’ll never stop them, it’s in their nature, how do you fulfil a dog that is bred for fighting/aggression?

That’s exactly what I was saying in my initial post too?? That instinct is what it is, and it’s up to the owners to recognize that? Not sure why you disagreed in the first place so?

I agree, these dogs should not be owned as it’s impossible to fulfill them. However what I was saying is it’s not the dogs fault for having instincts. Instincts aren’t a choice. Instinct cannot be perceived as a fault, because it’s not something comprehensible - it just is. It’s also not the dogs fault for being alive, that’s the fault of the people who facilitated their birth instead of taking steps to stop it. The dog didn’t have a choice in any of it.

People are at fault when they get these breeds and fail to recognize this fact. They’re at fault for getting them in the first place when there are hundreds of dog breeds who are not known to be prone to violence. But every dog owner should remember, regardless of the breed, if it has teeth and muscles, it carries some level of risk.

I have a hound, and like you have owned many different dogs throughout my life. She is well trained, mild mannered. She’s gentle, loves children and other animals - but I’d never leave her in the room with a child because if god forbid something snapped, she could do damage. That’s just a basic fact. She’s got a strong bite force, sharp teeth and muscle. It’s extremely unlikely that she’d ever do anything, but nothing is impossible. My responsibility to recognize that and protect her well-being as well as others in situations where there’s even the slightest possibility of something going wrong.

The people with these breeds are more likely to be the “bad” owners due to the type of attention they believe these dogs will bring. But I did mention the “good” owners in my original post too - the ones who are trying to do their best. Unfortunately, what makes a good owner is sometimes making the heartbreaking decision that this breed should not be owned. If they don’t make this decision, they switch very quickly to the “bad” owners imo

You’re kind of highlighting my point though, everything you’ve said about these dogs having a violence prone bloodline and running on instincts by it’s very definition means that the owners have no real control, you may as well have a tiger.

it’s okay saying people are at fault for their breeding/existence, I wholeheartedly agree, it is not the dogs fault that they have been bred this way, but no amount of good dog ownership can ever mitigate the risks these dogs pose if they just decide to go apeshit one day.

while I agree a lot of owners have no place owning any dog let alone one of these, it is a problem in the bloodline/breeding of the dog which creates these aggressive/violent behaviours and that can’t be ‘fixed’ with training people to take care of them, all the precautions in the world won’t stop one of these dogs on a rampage.

No, it won’t. But that’s still not the dogs fault.

People should recognize these breeds for what they are, and recognize that they are in no way capable of exerting control. Most people do, that’s why people like you and I wouldn’t have them.

However some people ignore this because they want to be perceived a certain way, or just choose to remain ignorant about their own lack of capability. Those are the people at fault for this. Had they not been so narcissistic to believe they were in control, these dogs wouldn’t be mass produced by money hungry breeders, and wouldn’t be a dime a dozen in dog attacks.

Being a good dog owner, imo, is not owning these types of dogs AT ALL. It’s recognizing your own ability and making a well informed choice when choosing a breed. If you can’t do that, you shouldn’t have a dog, let alone this type of breed. If you ignore all of this, and get the dog anyway, whatever happens is YOUR fault

For anyone who missed it. It took 4 adults to get this dog off the young boy. Look at the terror on the child's face. Ban them all!

t

Seems we’re on the same page mostly to be fair, I was originally replying to your post about it being the owner not the dog that is the problem, I normally agree with that generally, but not with this breed, I really believe that the violence bred into these dogs is the problem, and there’s very little any owner can do to fulfil these dogs to stop that natural instinct taking over, so I do think the dogs are the problem here (through no fault of their own unfortunately).

It seems so! Sorry if there was any confusion there, but I do agree that these dogs are an issue. It’s my belief that years of bad breeding has irrevocably ruined them, and unfortunately, it might be best to just stop the bloodlines where they are now. It’s also my belief that no “good” owners get these breeds. It might not be that they’re cruel, or rough, or anything else that’s typically considered “bad”, but even just ignorant and uninformed can be a dangerous mistake with this breed.

@Iheartpizza No the KEY issue here is if the bully had reacted and killed the lab, without the video showing how well trained the bully was and how it was provoked the bully would automatically have been seen as the aggressor, which is why people are now getting body cams. if the lab had been seen to attack the bully it would not run the risk of being seized by the police and put down or in the worse case scenario which is happening a lot wouldn't have been tasered or shot by the police, it would have been given the benefit of the doubt the bully wouldn't have been now do YOU see the difference