To think we're about to see an influx of XL Bully attacks after a rehoming free for all?

[SeattleSpacePlane]

So I know the ban is about to come in. Plenty for it, many against it. Not trying to start a debate about that!

Yesterday someone on my FB shared a post from a woman who was offering to rehome an XL to save it before the ban came in. Someone commented with a group for rehoming XLs before it's too late and banned and I clicked on it for a look.

I was absolutely gobsmacked by the posts on the group. Hundreds of posts going back weeks of XLs needing new homes (I suppose expected) - but a VERY high and panicked volume of posts over the past few days, as the ban approaches.

Lots of pictures of dogs with !!URGENT!! rehoming requests. From people asking on behalf of their friend, because their HA just told them XLs are banned under their tenancy, for the XL they just found abandoned behind Tesco, because they bred an XL litter this year and a buyer has just dumped an 8 month old pup back with them. Lots of reasons. Incredibly sad for the dogs, none of this is of their making.

But it's the reaponses. Comments and comments from people offering to rehome an XL to save them. Highlights were 'willing to take one but must be good with children as I have a 5 year old'. 'I wish I could have both but I'm in a flat so one is my limit, please contact me'. 'I have an XL already who is brilliant with the kids, happy to add another poor baby to our pack'.

Dogs are currently being panic-rehomed all over the Country. People are offering their services to transport the XL from Devon to the family in Yorkshire who've agreed to take it. No home checks, no behavioural checks of the dogs, people aren't even meeting the dog they're agreeing to home. Lots and LOTS being shipped to Scotland in particular where there's no ban.

It's truly frightening the amount of people with young dc agreeing to blindly rehome an XL to save them. I wouldn't rehome a bloody Yorkie without meeting the dog first never mind an XL!

This is going to end in tragedy, surely?

AIBU to think the ban on privately rehoming them should have been immediate at point of announcement to prevent this madness? And also that, sadly, we're likely to be reading several tragic stories in the coming weeks about one of these panic-rehomed dogs turning?

If naive owners keep trying to rehome their dogs on Facebook to give them a chance at muzzle-free walks in Scotland, multiple dogs are going to end up in the hands of the types who want a free dog to torture for kicks.

Not to mention the dog-fighting rings.

I think especially dog fighting rings? I'm sure anyone involved in dog fighting doesn't care about the law! And they've just had an additional supply of cheap/free dogs.

I think I agree with whoever said that private rehomes should have been banned straight away- but I think perhaps legitimate charities should have been given a bit longer- that seems like a reasonable compromise.

I'm not fully convinced this legislation will stop dog attacks in any meaningful way, though. The idea of an XL Bully is in part to get around the legislation on Pit Bulls- I'm sure they will move on to another breed in time.

The way to prevent this long term is legislation that applies to all dog owners.

So many of those dogs are going to be used for fighting. So many. I wonder how many of the Facebook rehoming groups have actually been set up by dog-fighting rings, don't you?

My practice has had to pts three xl bullies recently.
Two were from the dog warden as they didn't find homes in time, and the other was a homeless man's dog but as he didn't have a secure address he couldn't exempt the dog.

The veterinary profession has one of the highest suicide rates of all professions. Just look up the "Not One More Vet" campaign.

There is an immense guilt in putting to sleep a healthy animal, especially if said animal is happy to see you and wagging its tail etc. Then you assist or inject the animal, stroke it until it takes its last breath, then bag it up whilst its still warm and put to be collected by the cremation company. Job done...except it stays with you sometimes until you feel "ok" and then another healthy animal comes in to be put to sleep and the internal struggle starts again.

It also doesn't help that staff often get offered ownership of the animal to save it and it just adds to the guilt when you say no.

Like everything this shit show of government do, it has not been thought through. The whole situation is just heartbreaking.

Why are any rescues attempting to rehome these? They should be pts. It should be part of the ban that any in rescues are pts now.

Really no kill dog shelters shouldn't exist, that's irresponsible. Many dogs who arrive at a shelter should be pts for their own good as well as public safety.

I find it utterly disturbing the attitudes towards dogs anyway. People actually give money to dog shelters when they could give it to a children's charity, literally blows my mind.

I find it utterly disturbing the attitudes towards dogs anyway. People actually give money to dog shelters when they could give it to a children's charity, literally blows my mind

Some people give to both. It is not one or the other.

No, it isn’t. It’s public protection.

Any fallout is the responsibility of fools who get these repulsive and dangerous dogs and who then can’t even be bothered to have them put down (with a grant FFS) let alone train and neuter them.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying the £200 grant doesn't cover the cost of euthanasia and cremation.

Well God forbid some of these owners have to pay a small fee to dispose of their potential murder weapon.

Yup, the vets I use, it would cost £143 for euthanasia, and another £54 for cremation. To get ashes back it another £233.

I feel sad having clicked on that part of my vet's site. It is not something I want to think about right now.

I didn’t say it did. I can’t honestly see why XL owners should get any subsidy, but even so they do.

When you say cremation, do you mean a dog cremated individually and the ashes provided to the owner, or just going off for incineration generally?

There’s only so much charity money. Animal charities hoover up a lot of it.

I do think there’s a strong case for stripping animal charities of their charitable status.

Without the ashes that’s less than £200.

XL Bully owners are not out of pocket.

People donate to whatever cause they want to. I donate to the rescue that my dog came from as they do great work for dogs in need. They are not taking money away from other charities at all. People do not have a specific charity budget that must go to charity. If I did not donate to my dog's rescue, I would not be donating anything at all.

Also, animal charities receive no government or local authority finding, unlike charities for people.

That is my vets. Others will be charging more.

OK. But since you’ve said that some people give for both humans and animals, I imagine those people’s charity budgets would all go to good causes for people. If that didn’t happen and cancer research, hospices, children’s charities, disability charities and so on got no more, at least animal welfare wouldn’t get unjustified tax breaks.

(I accept that some animal charities are for human benefit, like guide dogs, and would come under the benefit to humans umbrella, not the animal welfare one.)

Animal charities exist because humans are cruel and exploitative. They should not need to exist, but they must.

It depends on the weight of the animal but a euthanasia and communal cremation would still be more than £200. So, if anyone thinks owners are pocketing money from getting their xl bullies put to sleep they're wrong. It just means they're paying less once the £200 has been taken off their bill.

We can differ on whether animals should benefit from charity law. Personally, I think it should be exclusively for the benefit of people.

But I doubt that if, magically, human cruelty vanished, animal charities would vanish with it. Some would still give to look after dangerous dogs, strays, run-over animals and sick or old animals that should be humanely put down, for example. I agree with the poster upthread who said that rescues should never have a no-kill policy.

Maybe a topic for a new thread.

Thank you.

I don’t think I suggested that there was a profit in it. But it clearly is relatively much cheaper to have an XL Bully PTS than any other dog, given the grant.

Out of interest, what happens if an owner can pay for euthanasia but not cremation? What would happen to the remains?

Fair.

@XenoBitch

I find it utterly disturbing the attitudes towards dogs anyway. People actually give money to dog shelters when they could give it to a children's charity, literally blows my mind

Some prefer animals to people. It’s all about having preferences and choices.
If there were no animal charities, it doesn’t mean that people would give to children or people instead. They just wouldn’t donate at all.

a