XL Bullies to be destroyed now!

[Babycatsarenice]

Sick of these monsters still being on our streets (I never see them muzzled as their irresponsible owners don't comply) and worse still knowing that they are still in homes with children.

AIBU that they should be put to sleep NOW

Again, the choice is not labrador or XL bully. Other equally powerful breeds exist. Wolf dogs, for example.

How many of them are we going to ban before we admit defeat and actually deal with the issue?

But you frequently use other dogs as examples so people are going to challenge you on the false equivalence.

Why not do both? Ban dangerous breeds and crack down on dangerous, irresponsible owners?

Out of curiosity, are you someone who believes that it is ever a sensible decision for someone to have an XL bully as a family pet? Regardless of whether you believe other dog breeds are unsuitable or not, do you believe it is ever a responsible decision to have an XL bully in a home with children?

I used labradors as an example because, having owned a labrador in the past I can tell you they are deceptively powerful dogs and could easily cause a lot of damage very quickly. Whether or not they could be pulled off by an adult once their attack is started is neither here nor there once the damage is done. It would take one bite to cause serious, permanent damage to a child or elderly person.

No, they cannot cause as much damage as a bull breed as quickly as a bull breed but I assumed the aim of the DDA was to prevent as many serious injuries and deaths as possible not just those caused by bull breeds. A Labrador is more than capable of killing a small child or elderly person.

As I said in my previous post I am undecided on the XL Bully. I don't think there is enough data available to decide whether the majority of them are inherently dangerous or whether it is an issue caused by poor ownership.

I personally wouldn't own one but I wouldn't become hysterical if one moved in nextdoor to me or I passed one in the local park.

Whether or not they could be pulled off by an adult once their attack is started is neither here nor there once the damage is done. It would take one bite to cause serious, permanent damage to a child or elderly person.

Neither here nor there? It's hugely relevant if the first bite is non catastrophic or non fatal. Being able to pull the dog off the victim after the first bite, if that first bite isn't enough to cause permanent damage, could be the difference between life or death. Or life changing injuries versus 'just' painful ones.

I think we are going round in circles and the fact you don't believe that having an XL bully in a family home is absolutely wrong (as I asked if you thought this and you said you didn't have enough data) means I don't think you have a real understanding of the power and characteristics of the breed.

They are completely unsuitable in a home with children, as are cane corsos and other massively powerful large dog breeds you mentioned.

Suggesting they might not be unsuitable as a family pet is, in my opinion, bizarre.

Suggesting people are being 'hysterical' for being fearful of this breed suggests to me you maybe don't live somewhere where you've seen a number of them in person regularly. I do think many people who are dog lovers (which I am) are commenting on this from a place of privilege where they are unlikely to come into contact with them on a regular basis. I don't know if that's the case for you obviously.

Actually, some breeds probably could do as much damage. When I first had my rescue lab, he pulled me off my feet a couple of times. I'm 6'2", and 16 stone, and he is not even 4 stone. His bite pressure is approx 230 to 250 psi, which is more than capable of breaking bones, and his teeth are still sharp enough to rip skin and muscle from human flesh. Granted an XLB has a stronger bite strength at an estimated 300 psi, however this is semantics. A lab could still do you considerable damage.

The difference is that they usually give some warning where the XLBs have been reported not to. Labradors have also been selectively bred not to be aggressive, however there will always be rogue dog. If you consider that there are an estimated 100,000 XLBs in the UK, and low double digits have gone fatally rogue, there is a low percentage chance. There are more labradors, and less instances of fatal attacks, but labradors have definitely killed people. In fact between 2005 and 2015 in the USA, two people were even killed by chihuahuas, so they can also kill. Don't get me wrong, nobody here is minimising the impact of a fatal dog attack, or saying that the XLBs are not more likely to be problematic, or that the impact is not likely to be more severe. Despite the fact that mine has pulled me off my feet, I am not in any way concerned that he would bite anyone without warning or cause. If he did, the chances are that it would be a warning bite as opposed to a full in attack.

Does this mean all dogs should be put down, despite the fact that a wife is still statistically more likely to be murdered by her husband? Should we stop driving in case we have a fatal car accident? Essentially, nothing is without some risk, it is really what has been deemed acceptable risk.

If you don't like what the government have done to mitigate the risk, there will soon be an opportunity to vote a new government in. Even then, we need to lobby them to regulate breeders and outlets as banning the breeds clearly does not work. There are more pitbulls in the UK now than there were before they were banned, so clearly banning breeds does not work.

You've hit the nail bang on the head with the statement that owning one of these dogs is selfish with children in the home. This just proves that regulating the owners is an incorrect course of action.

Actually, some breeds probably could do as much damage. When I first had my rescue lab, he pulled me off my feet a couple of times

And yet, despite their strength, they don't wind up killing anyone. Not in the UK to date, anyway.

Does this mean all dogs should be put down, despite the fact that a wife is still statistically more likely to be murdered by her husband? Should we stop driving in case we have a fatal car accident? Essentially, nothing is without some risk, it is really what has been deemed acceptable risk.

People want to get married and most experience it as a positive - it provides a stable environment for child rearing. Vehicles are extremely useful in the movement of goods and workers and are an overall benefit to the economy.

XL bullies - no benefit to society at all. There are a bazillion other dog breeds someone could choose if they want a pet dog.

Labradors have killed, admittedly not in this country, so you can't say they don't wind up killing anyone. Actually, in researching the fatalities in the UK, it is surprising how many people have been killed by Jack Russell Terriers, and also how far back American Bulldog fatalities have been recorded (20 years or so).

I don't disagree at all the XLBs would not be my breed of choice, however if you look at the fact that most owners have their dogs for pleasure, it isn't up to us to dictact what gives another person pleasure. My lab is a gun dog, but I don't go hunting. I have him for the fun of it. Just because you or I would not choose an XLB does not mean we have the right to say that nobody else should. The government have now intervened, but even they have not prevented ownership, just put in place rules that they believe will reduce the numbers over time. It won't of course, as has been proven by the increase in numbers of previous banned breeds.

By your own logic, if people getting married are experiencing a positive, statistically the same can be said for XLB owners. Most are experiencing a positive.

@HappiestSleeping If the owners of XLB’s or Pits or other aggressive dog type ONLY impacted on themselves, it wouldn’t be a problem.

But someone’s choice of dog should not cause harm or death to other people OR their pet dogs, cats or horses.

An American breeder of these large Pit crosses admits they can be dangerous - he admits to carrying a Glock.

These are a man made abomination using fighting dog crosses , and they do go off half cocked.

Very few people seem to be able to manage them.

The Compton breeder was mauled to death- all 13 dogs were euthanised as human aggressive.

These human aggressive genes will be in the U.K. ones as well.

very few people seem to be able to manage them
And that will be the ones with glocks! 😳☹️

Actually, in researching the fatalities in the UK, it is surprising how many people have been killed by Jack Russell Terriers

One killed a baby in 1986. One was present when a SBT killed a baby in 2009. A third baby was killed by a JRT cross in 2012. None of these situations would have posed a threat to adults or the general public, they were tragic instances of poor supervision of tiny babies.

By your own logic, if people getting married are experiencing a positive, statistically the same can be said for XLB owners. Most are experiencing a positive.

They don't need it to be that type of dog to experience the positives of dog ownership. Unless they're getting something else out of the experience, maybe the joy of intimidating the hell out of neighbours and general members of the public.

@Gloriosaford - It’s crazy.
They are breeding more and more for extreme size and strength yet carry a weapon -?

The most irresponsible are usually drawn to aggressive dogs

Cane Corso will be the back yard breeders next big thing.

Back yard breeding and puppy farming and importing dogs with dubious heritage and mutilated ears needs stopping, but doubt any government will put that in place.

I think you are missing my point. I don't disagree with a single word you have said.

If you are familiar with risk assessments, they basically work on two facets. The first is the likelihood of the risk occurring and the second is the severity of the consequence if it does.

The government have made a decision based on the risk of occurrence being low, but the severity of the consequence being high. Whether we agree with that or not, that is what they have done. My point is that it is an inappropriate response if we want to either reduce the numbers of XLBs, or to eradicate attacks by dogs, or both. The current legislation will do neither of those things as has been proved. Numbers of pitbulls has increased since they were banned, so using that as a baseline, I expect the number of XLBs to increase too. Additionally the number of dog attacks has increased, so I expect the ban to have zero effect on that too.

Destroying all XLBs won't actually do accomplish anything either as there will just be some other frankenbreed to replace it.

The only effective means would be to control breeders and remove the outlets for frankenbreeds.

@SomeCatFromJapan The owners of these powerful dog do indeed get a sense of power being dragged about by their XLB or Cane Corso - They enjoy intimidating people who have small pet dogs and children.

Son once looked after his friend’s American Bully and another Bull ( shortly after Jack Lees’s awful death )

Son said it was not a good experience taking them out as people crossed the road, or gave a wide berth- he is used to walking small Sighthounds where people stop to say hello!, and pass closely.

But some people would enjoy the fear their dog/s create in others.

All these fools saying blame the owners not the dog. They are innately aggressive that’s why they actually want them in the first place. Wake up.

@oakleaffy the last bit of your comment was included in the Kept Animals Bill but it got rejected by parliament.

importing dogs with dubious heritage and mutilated ears needs stopping, but doubt any government will put that in place.

If that were the case then given theres likely around 100'000 of them in the UK, we'd be seen FAR more attacks and human fatalities. They'd ALL be killing people.

They are not, because they are not innately aggressive.

Some individuals might be.
Some individuals are mishandled, trained using awful methods, actively trained to grab people by the arms and legs in the name of 'protection training', are badly housed and don't have their needs met adequately... and therefore are a risk when they are inevitably allowed to escape, snap a lead, have Grandma threaten them with a broom handle because that what works for someone else...

Most of them are not innately aggressive to humans though, just massive and too heavy to shove off, than many breeds.

If you gave the owners of the dogs that have killed, some other big heavy breed, the outcome would be the same. Give them a Tibetan Mastiff or a Caucasian Shepherd or a Kuvasz... someone will end up dead (though with those breeds more likely the owner, they are significantly less tolerant).

We have a LOT of big heavy breeds capable of killing humans, recognised by the kennel club, owned in the UK.

They are not killing people. Because their owners are not ignorant stupid twats, and they're not being kept in shit conditions, unsocialised, under exercised, trained with shitty methods etc etc.

How on earth would they do that?
I'm old enough to remember the days of no Internet..if you wanted a dog, you went to the local dog's home - or if you wanted a pedigree you wrote to Kennel Club - or breed specific rescues, looked at classifieds in Exchange and mart or 'trade it' or a sporting paper.

Maybe Puppy farms and BYB's were around then, but I wasn't aware of it as much.
Lurcher books would write darkly of ''Dog meddlers'' - probably BYB's.

Nowadays dog breeding seems to be way out of control.

Even my dog- I have had people ask ''when are you next breeding her?''

I'm not and never have- She's spayed.

How would governments stop puppy farms , importing from overseas puppy farms, and stopping smuggled puppies?

This govt seems hopeless.

All people want is for dogs to be safe to be around, to not be mutilated not dangerous, so one can live without worry of one's pets being attacked on a walk , or some poor child or old person {or anyone} being attacked.

"This government seem hopeless" and "how on earth would they do that?" are two very separate issues.

I think that there are a number of steps that can be taken very easily that would massively reduce the occurrences of dismal breeding. I have stated these earlier in the thread, but for ease, I will repeat.

It would be very easy to immediately ban the purchase of dogs via Facebook / gumtree / etc. If you remove the outlets, the demand reduces, which in turn makes it less attractive for the suppliers. This would probably be more efficient than banning breeds without any further action.

Then, put restrictions on breeders who would have to be registered and licenced. There would be cost associated with this.

Importing puppies / adult dogs is already controlled through customs, so easy to add conditions.

You'll never stop it completely, however this is more likely to be effective than an "after the fact" ban. Prevention is better than cure.

I also predate the Internet, and puppy farms were just as prevalent in those days.

Banning owners won`t work either as they can move house and get another dog!