People now dumping bull breed puppies, what can be done?

[NmeChngeFail]

Just seen this on local FB and I'm sure this isn't the only case.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/391520164531031/permalink/2023633937986304/

What can be done to stop things like this happening or is it inevitable with the recent ban? I'm not even sure if they are the banned breed

I agree that for certain breeds of dog there should be much more controls over breeding, import, sales and ownership.

There are certain breeds of dog that are just wholly unsuited to typical domestic life in the UK. I wish that was better appreciated.

Agree - and we don't decide that because dangerous drivers are attracted to (insert a particular marque) we'll ban that marque because it's really powerful/dangerous in the wrong hands. We insist on all those safety precautions to ensure that cars are well maintained and drivers are properly trained. Plus we accept a certain level of accidents.

With dogs, we seem to be less willing to accept any accidents, and the government is taking the approach of banning any dog that looks a certain way. That does nothing to stop the root cause, which is the type of owner.

I'd go along a different route

The law is that all dogs must be under control in public places.

I'd start by requiring a muzzle and lead when in public on all dogs over a certain height or weight.

Obviously that does nothing to prevent accidents within the home, or if a dog escapes. But it means it removes the (sometimes lengthy) legal wrangling over whether a dog is of a banned type), recognises that all big dogs cause more harm if they do bite and are scarier if they chase (and twatty owners who just yell "but he's friendly" as Fido jumps art an unrelated toddler are also a problem), and if they're all subject to same regime, then it's harder for a particular breed to gain widespread notoriety . Plus it's fairly future-proof in the sense that it'll also apply to the next demon dog (which I think will be some form of massive mastiff cross)

This irritates me too. I have a large breed and I can absolutely control him. I can restrain him physically if I need to because I use the right tools (A front-leading "anti-pull" harness) and I have verbal control of him because I trained him to respond to me.

The kid's dad, when he was with us, thought he had better control of him because he was a man and I was "too soft on him." My dog rarely listened to him. As I kept saying to ex when he was barking and growling commands at the dog (who was desperate to please him but didn't understand what he was aksing) my dog was raised and trained by 3 softly-spoken women. The tone is just as important as the actual word when training a dog to respond to verbal commands. My dog doesn't understand what people want when they growl a command at him. It is always men who try to bark commands at him, never women. They seem to believe they need to "out-Alpha" the dog to get control of him

On my local Facebook page there is a post asking for a new home for a huge xl bully or it will be put down. There are endless replies from people, so many have clearly got babies or young kids saying give me the address I will get it now. No questions asked about its temperament, how it is with kids or other pets, it’s terrifying. Just goes to show the general public cannot be trusted to be responsible when it comes to these dogs and the sooner they are out of circulation the better.

Well, we don't fundamentally disagree, I just don't see how it's going to happen. Huge amounts of investment needed for a population of dogs when (plucks a number out of air) 99.99% of them probably cause no issue to anyone or anything. All these things ever seem to do is put a further burden on those who are compliant by nature, and the idiots ignore it all.

Vets can't scan dogs for microchips if they never see them. Fines can't be taken from people who (claim to) have no money. We have no room in our prisons to incarcerate any but the most serious offenders, i.e. owners of dogs who kill.

Breeding licences are already mandated in many (not all) cases, but all that means is that a lot of the good breeders have given up because the requirements are too onerous for those who rear a litter beautifully in their homes once a year. Licences favour those who breed commercially, but commercial breeding does not favour the pet buying public - they might have good marketing, but most pups are very poorly reared and socialised.

Most of the XL Bully breeders avoid licences anyway, by only keeping males and farming out bitches to people stupid enough to think they are receiving some magnificent favour by being allowed to do all the hard work so someone else can take the (substantial) money at the end.🙄

I have bred the occasional litter in the past, not for years, and I am still heavily involved in the pedigree dog scene. Good breeders are giving up in their droves. I honestly feel the whole thing is so far down the toilet I can't see a way back.

If it's just one litter a year, then that falls outside the licensing regime for breeders. It needs to be 3 or more litters, and sell any of the puppies.

I'd reduce that to 2 litters. Because I don't think that would make any real difference to eg breed enthusiasts who have the odd litter to keep a rare breed going, and who are not formative of the problem of poorly bred dogs. Or to those who didn't realise that their pet (who was always going to be spayed but they never quite got round to making the appointment) was in pup until the early signs of labour - irresponsibility does not always equal criminality.

But it reduces the projected income from dog breeding, perhaps enough for the smaller farmers to think it's not worth it.

Puppy prices shot up during 2020, and masses of puppies were produced then to meet demand (prices sky-rocketed, reputable breeders reduced/stopped matings because of restrictions on travel, less scrupulous ones filled the gap)

I don't think it's coincidence that we have more difficulties with dog behaviour about 3 years after the puppy boom.

It seems most people drawn to this type of dog just aren’t thinking, or remotely responsible.

There is a rescue somewhere in U.K. that has been trying for a year to re home an XL bully and puts out “Her time is running out” messages- but at least they say No children no teens, no dogs, no cats, dog needs high fencing with no back gates and that it is incredibly strong.

It looks easily capable of killing a strong man, never mind a child or pet dog/ cat.

A couple of large Bull Lurchers have been stolen recently and it’s obvious they are used for attacking wildlife as the owner says “ They are not just working dogs “ Setting a pair of large bull x onto badger and fox and cats is fun to these owners.

Anyone who believes this legislation will take XL bully mixes "out of circulation" clearly does not understand the legislation.

Pitbull types were banned in 1991 but there are as many pitbull types in existence in the UK today as there were in 1991. Pitbull types have caused, on average, as many fatalities each year as they did before 1991. The DDA has done nothing to reduce the number of pitbulls in the UK or to reduce the number of fatalities caused by pitbulls. And the number of fatalities caused by dogs of any breed has risen dramatically since 1991.

The DDA and BSL has failed on all levels, and yet, it still has public support. It's absolutely baffling.

If it's just one litter a year, then that falls outside the licensing regime for breeders. It needs to be 3 or more litters, and sell any of the puppies.

That depends on the Council - some will say that any puppy sold for £1k+ will trigger the requirement for a licence. The approach is very inconsistent across different authorities.

Pitbull types were banned in 1991 but there are as many pitbull types in existence in the UK today as there were in 1991.

But how many would there have been without the legislation, if every Tom, Dick & Harry had been convinced they were a great family pet?

I don't claim to be a fortune teller, so I cannot say for certain but if I was forced to guess, I would guess there would be a whole hell of a lot fewer XL Bully types across the world if Pitbull types had not been banned en-mass...

In 10 years we will be back here debating the next Frankenstein crossbreed created by humans to replace the pitbull and XL Bully.

BSL does not work, has never worked, and never will work. Its focus is at the wrong end of the lead.

Has any Country got strict “aggressive dog” legislation in place?

Similar number, I'd guess. But they would be pitbull sized not XL (as there wouldn't have been the same impetus to breed bigger)

The number of exempted dogs in UK (DEFRA in response to a FOI request) was just over 3600. There were just over 5200 exemptions made in 1991. The number did not fall as expected, and then there are all the larger pitbull crosses - no one knows how many in UK, but a journo claimed earlier this year (before ban announced) there were a about a thousand listed on selling sites

So no, in terms of reducing the number of dangerous dogs, the DDA has not been a success. Nor has it been a success in reducing the number of pit-bull types (as the largest do not fall under the scope of the legislation).

In the 30 years since its introduction, it has reduced the number of specified breed/type dogs by about 1600 (about a third).

The licensing and regulation of breeding, importation and selling of dogs and puppies seems to be the place to start. Mirror some of the systems and processes in livestock management.

This is as much for the welfare of the dogs as it is for the prevention of harm to humans. There are too many puppies of all breeds that end up in unsuitable homes, with unsuitable owners, and live an unhealthy, unhappy, frustrated life as a result. For some dogs this results in serious incidents like those reported.

It depends on what you mean by "aggressive dog" legislation @oakleaffy

The Calgary model is widely thought to be the most effective dog control legislation in practice atm and its focus is solely on responsible ownership and education. It doesn't limit breed types, size or the number of dogs one can own.

Since being put into place Calgary has reduced the number of dog bites by over 80%. Conversely, the number of pitbull types in Calgary has risen dramatically since the new legislation has been in place, mostly because many American rescue organisations send their pitbull types to Calgary for rehoming.

However, the legislation isn't an "aggressive dog" legislation as such. It legislates against irresponsible ownership rather than anything related to the dogs themselves.

Other than the Calgary model, studies into effectively reducing dog fatalities have found that education is the most effective action in reducing dog bites, with a reduction of up to 80% of dog-related injuries in countries that focus on educating primary-aged children and above on canine behaviour and responsible dog ownership.

Ireland have a ‘restricted’ list of several large dog breeds (including Rottweilers, German shepherd, bullmastiff, ridgebacks, akita) and any dog of those breeds or a cross or mixture of those breeds has to muzzled and on lead in public at all times.

I'd argue that if you took the Calgary model and coupled it with tight restrictions on breeding and reselling animals, dog walking businesses, and who can legitimately claim to be a dog trainer or behaviorist, you could reduce dog fatalities by well over 90%.

Atm, anyone can breed and sell puppies. Licensing for breeders is primarily a money-making scheme for LAs with little to no focus on animal welfare. And anyone can set up a dog-walking business. There is 0 need for education or licensing, and dog walkers can walk as many dogs as they choose with no focus on public safety or the quality of exercise they can provide.

Ditto dog training. Anyone can set up as a dog trainer. They don't even need to have met a dog in RL and they can legally call themselves a dog trainer. There is so much misinformation out there on how to train dogs the average dog owner has no chance.

It's quite hard to stomach the idea that we might have to accept a number of 'accidents' when the ones we've seen involve people being torn limb from limb when just walking down the street. Just because people also die in road accidents doesn't mean we should be ok with the risk of being mauled as well. By all means, improve car safety and get those massive SUVs off the road, that would be great, but the existence of oversized cars doesn't in any way justify the attacks we've seen from these dogs (and of course, that's just their human victims; there are so many other dogs that get killed by XL bullies too, but a lot of supposed dog lovers really don't seem to care about that).

It seems the people owning this type are either very irresponsible or clueless. I had a brief look on one of the selling pages. There’s lots of dog aggressive, animal aggressive ones. 3-4 because landlords say they can’t stay (why get a giant fighting dog in a rented house?) and a few that freely admit they just didn’t think/don’t have time/can’t afford any more.

There’s also an unfortunate one on medication that makes it unsafe to live with children, so there it is for anyone to buy on a selling page.

An example of unregulated breeding at its best. If these were properly bred, registered and breeders accountable none of this would exist.

People need to get over their horror of euthanasia, and stop demonising other people and shelters that use it. Not all dogs are suitable for rehoming and its not the worst outcome for a dog.

That sounds OK, but the Stray Pitbulls being shipped in from USA isn't without fatalities to people {or pet dogs} in Calgary.

They do seem as a 'type' to enjoy mauling, and are tricky to temperament test as they can 'Flip' without warnings.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-pit-bulls-are-disproportionally-dangerous-why-is-calgary-importing-more-of-them#:~:text=Only%20two%20countries%20allow%20the,sent%20to%20Calgary%20for%20rehoming.

@oakleaffy The main argument in that article seems to be that attacks by pitbulls rose by 773% in America, therefore Calgary should ban them. Calgary is in Canada.

Not only is Calgary not in America, but their statistics continue to show that the % of dogs that bite in Calgary is continuing to fall.

The overall number of bites each year in Calgary has risen as it has done around the globe because dog ownership has exploded since Covid, in Calgary and everywhere else, but the % of dog bites vs the number of dogs owned is still very, very low compared to other areas.

Goes to show the type of people that own these dogs

@ItWillWash
Educating children in particular is a good idea, eg, when we first got a dog from RSPCA {so essentially unknown, but a 16 week approx stray puppy} a very experienced dog friend advised on son not getting in her face, not disturbing her while she was sleeping, eating &c, telling him that a wrinkled nose or growl should be backed away from in any dog, and never to touch a strange dog.

Good advice that definitely kept son safe from the dogs we met as well.

The stuff one sees on social media of small children climbing over dogs, 'riding' them, pulling them around, while the dog is looking stressed, is concerning.
It's as if the parents are videoing simply for ''Likes'' rather than thinking of child's safety or dog's 'comfort.'

However- a lot of the attacks on children and adults seem to be from straying dogs that barrel up to the child/adult as if the human is a target.

Never mind the pet dogs that get targeted by these bull baiting/dog fighting breeds. There are other aggressive breeds, for sure, but Pits and Bully crosses seem disproportionally represented in deaths and maulings.