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?

Anyone sparing a thought for the good XL bully owners?

I have no thoughts to spare for drug dealers and scumbags, they're the only kind of people who want these killer dogs. No one in their right mind would have one of these savages anywhere near them. I'll keep my thoughts for the victims of XL Bully attacks.

It's like talking to Alf Garnett on here some days.

I’m sure there are good owners but I struggle to understand the psychology of wanting to own a breed with a better chance than most of hurting people. Especially mums with kids at home. Do owners live in intimidating neighbourhoods or live alone and get them for protection?

You're suggesting 'breedism' is akin to dog-discrimination? Systemic prejudice, perhaps? How about a touch of racism?

Good Lord. With this reasoning, lovers of these dogs don't exactly do themselves any favours.

It's made zero difference to the number of hospital presentations or deaths related to dog bites.

That's the point. It hasn't helped one bit in the last 25 years, no matter how much you keep saying it has. That's what you find if you look at the statistics and the studies, rather than the drooling Daily Mail headlines.

It's not about "deaths and terrible attacks per breed", it's about "deaths and terrible attacks across all breeds". Or do you somehow think a death or hospitalisation only counts if the dog involved happens to be of a specific set of breeds you don't like?

It's nothing to do with defending "massive, vicious dogs" and everything to do with the actual real-world results of failed legislation that, for some reason, everyone wants to hang their hat on.

I'm in Scotland and worried sick to be honest. I absolutely hate this breed and their stupid owners, and don't make any apology for that. I'll teach my children to avoid them, I'll avoid them as best I can.

I'm writing to my MSP today, I can't think of what else to do.

You know perfectly well that bull breeds (and Rottweilers and Cane Corsos) are massively the most likely to kill people. It’s all there on the internet. If you look at the wiki list for UK fatal dog attacks from 2020 you’ll see the XL Bully again and again. And it doesn’t take Einstein to work out that non-fatal attacks by these breeds will be worse than other breeds.

You are just parroting the line about replacement breeds and crosses, i.e. that some other dangerous dog type will emerge after a ban. So what? Ban those too.

Why are you being so pig-headed about sensible public safety measures?

I'm not being pig-headed. The point is that these are short term measures that actually do nothing, because it's an eternal game of whack-a-mole on the end result when the actual problem is caused much, much earlier in the process.

You're so blinkered that you're actively avoiding looking at the stats overall, just focusing on 2020+ to satisfy your confirmation bias.

Putting all of that aside...are you really saying that constantly being reactive and banning breed after breed after there have been attacks is better than pre-empting their existence by actually getting a grip on breeding, and preventing those dogs from being bred in the first place?

Your solution requires people to die and be injured before anything is done. Mine prevents the possibility of that ever happening except in very exceptional circumstances, and results in increased canine quality of life overall and results in fewer dogs (and thus vastly reduced need for rescues), and allows for the control of dangerous genetic lines in all breeds (yes, even the cuddly labrador can be dangerous when uncontrollably bred), and makes it impossible to crossbreed to skirt the law.

Really they should be doing both. Belt and braces.

Well, BSL wouldn't be necessary if breeding was properly regulated and controlled.

The truth is that BSL is cheap and easy to implement and grabs headlines, but breeding regulation is much harder (and requires actual knowledge of the subject, which politicians lack). It's a hand-wave solution that just puts off the problem until the next electoral term, and it always was.

Consider this: in the year prior to the DDA being enacted, 3% of hospital presentations and deaths were due to pitbulls, which was the breed-du-jour of the sensationalist press and the primary reason for the law's entry into the statutes. In fact, 24% were by German Shepherds and 18% by mongrels (which can't be covered by BSL) - believe it or not, the breeds mentioned in the DDA combined accounted for just 5%. Labradors and collies were also massively more likely to result in hospitalisation or death than any of the breeds outlawed by the DDA.

So...what was the DDA for, then? It completely ignored 42% of all attacks (the two biggest "breeds"), and was designed specifically to have almost no effect on the numbers by focusing on those breeds.

As SomeCat has said, the ideal would be both, plus a hefty licence fee plus automatic lifetime bans for owners of dangerously out of control dogs, dogs causing injury to people or other pets etc.

But even if these measures were put in place, a ban on the most dangerous breeds would still be right. And if we can’t have it all at once, bans are the most urgent.

I just wanted to respond to a poster who said most attacks happen inside the home. Attached are the ONS figures released Nov 2023 which show that in the last 5 years, in the case of fatal attacks that has only been true in one year.
In 2023, of the sixteen people killed by dogs, only 5 were in the home.

Doesn't that imply that of the 7 attacks that specified the location, 5 were in the home?

Doesn't that imply that of the 7 attacks that specified the location, 5 were in the home?

No there were an addition 9 fatal attacks where no location is specified.

Yes... so they may well have been in the home. The data doesn't say yea or nay.

I would guess the words ‘home’ and ‘other…’ are the giveaways here.

In any case, if a person - more likely than not a child - is killed by a dog at home, it’s hardly likely that the records of the incident are not going to reflect accurately where the attack took place. A person killed in the family living room is not going to be recorded as having been killed in the street or in a car park.

For a start, you say this dog is young, so you don’t know what the adult temperament is yet?

Your friend is experienced with large dogs on the one hand, and the dog is well trained - and yet for the weeks/months that it has been perfectly clear this legislation is coming, your friend hasn’t managed to train her lovely dog to wear a muzzle?

Surely it has already been possible to apply for the exemption too, but this hasn’t been done?

I am a dog lover, but I’ll save my sympathy for the dogs that are being ripped apart by these man-made creatures every week and traumatising their owners - and pray it is never mine, I don’t think I’d ever get over it - let alone those who have seen humans maimed and killed.

The ban will not see 100% compliance, nothing ever does - but I certainly hope we can see a reduction in the numbers of these things, rather than the continuing rise and inevitable rise in issues.

Surely it has already been possible to apply for the exemption too, but this hasn’t been done?

You can't apply for the certificate until the dog has been neutered. Her dog has not come into season yet and it is not recommended at this stage. But I believe they have until the end of 2024 to get the certificate if too young to neuter.

Muzzle training can be tricky. I'm not going to give someone grief because their dog is afraid of it after a few weeks' training.

It will see 100% compliance among the good XL bully owners and 0% among the shit ones, of course.

You can't apply for the certificate until the dog has been neutered.

But (genuine question, interested to understand) how can that be the case when the Gov.uk website says:

From 1 February 2024 it will be a criminal offence to own an XL Bully dog in England and Wales unless your dog has a valid Certificate of Exemption.

I would have assumed owners would be required to apply for exemption, then have their vet confirm age-appropriate neutering by the deadline?

Yeah, OK. Apply, but the other things like microchip and neutering can be done later, as it says further down that page. It's not clear how the process works, exactly... typical of UK Government BS. Perhaps it is clearer if you open an application. Perhaps someone here has done that... though I daresay no XL bully owner would feel welcome on this thread since they are all SCUM and DRUG DEALERS, apparently.

Neutering and microchipping are pretty standard parts of dog ownership anyway, but the requirement for expensive 3rd party insurance is going to dissuade some people from applying, isn't it.

There is a lot of misinformation being confidently stated on this thread.

You can apply for your certificate of exemption before neutering, but you have to undertake to neuter on time (age related) and submit confirmation from a vet that it has been done

If the dog is:

• less than 1 year old on 31 January 2024, it must be neutered and the VCN01 form received by 31 December 2024
• more than 1 year old on 31 January 2024, it must be neutered and the VCN01 form received by 30 June 2024

PP is mistaken, you can indeed exempt a dog without neutering if the dog is under age for neutering. You have a time frame to submit proof of neutering, 30th of June, if the dog is over 1 year old and 31st December this year if under a year old - this is because theres better times to spay/neuter and people may have to save/find a vet to do it.

If you wait to exempt after Feb, you are likely to have your dog seized, so don't hold off because neutering can't happen yet!

3rd Party insurance can be had for £25 membership to the dogs trust, but health insurance cannot and for some people that may be a huge issue if their dog already has health issues that an insurance company was paying out for.

I am really concerned (mostly for the dogs if I am honest, and for the taxpayers that will be funding this) that theres a lot of total morons with dogs they KNOW substantially meet the criteria, that they think won't be seized because the dog has some meaningless paperwork from some unrecognised (by the FCI/UK Kennel Club) registry as an Old English Bulldogge or whatever other made up breed they fancy...

I think theres going to be a big show of seizing dogs breaking the current rules (to be muzzled and on a lead in public of of type) and the upcoming rules (not exempted) - which means many dogs kennelled for months/years, at the taxpayers expense, awaiting court appearances to determine a/type and b/dangerous or not dangerous. This is awful for dog welfare, far worse than humane euthanasia or being kept on a lead and muzzled in public!

The info about the application closing date was added to the website only yesterday, btw!

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-a-certificate-of-exemption-to-keep-an-xl-bully-dog#full-publication-update-history

I'll check with my friend tomorrow to make sure she knows.

A wonderful no-kill shelter near me has just posted that six of these dogs are permanently on their hands till the end of their natural lives as the law forbids now them to rehome them. They have about 65 spaces for dogs when at full capacity and this is going to seriously strain their resources and ability to take in as many dogs. What a horrible position they're in.

Yup, total nightmare, keep them and lose space for rehomable dogs... get a rep for 'that rescue that always has the same dogs in' etc...

Euthanise them - get a rep as a kill shelter and a load of social media abuse...

Lose lose for the rescues.