Another child killed by a dog...

[tnorfotkcab]

Another poor child is killed by a dog.... We already know this is an XL Bully, don't even have to wait for confirmation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce35zkl9dg3o

Xl bullies and similar breeds have aggression bred into them!

Lion - four legs , teeth , claws
Domestic cat - four legs , teeth , claws
🤔

Oh come on now. 🙄Of course not. I am simply saying that if you do not wish to be around loose dogs on the grounds that they might be dangerous, then it's pretty bloody easy to not be around loose dogs. It's also pretty easy not to be around a potential avalanche site, or be at the sidelines of a formula one track, just in case a car flips off the track and hits you, or to not go in an aeroplane if those are your particular triggers for anxiety. Although I don't think you do have genuine anxiety or fear around every dog, do you? I just think you don't like dogs, so on that basis you'd be happy to ban all of them just because a relatively small percentage are dangerous.

That's like a vegan arguing that we should ban ALL meat because a few people died from an isolated outbreak of e-coli in chicken. It's completely irrational and only makes sense if you already hate the fact that anyone eats meat. It's just not a very cogent or compelling argument.

If you genuinely feel threatened and unsafe around dogs then it's not that hard to keep out of their way. I love dogs, but I am not hanging around in an urban park where gangs of dodgy looking youths are loitering with their unmuzzled pit bulls and XL bullies. Even if they are on leads. I stick to pleasant places largely inhabited by sensible people with dogs not known for their fighting prowess.

You might say 'why should I have to avoid parks? I should be able to walk in a park without meeting an off-lead dog.'

But because your opinion that any dog is a potential danger out in public is rather irrational and out of all proportion to the actual risks based on statistics, then I am afraid the world simply isn't going to bend to you and your demands to ban all dogs.

Although every death or serious injury from a dog is tragic and horrifying, it's extremely uncommon when you consider there are around 15 million dogs in the UK. And these attacks are not occurring across all dog breeds roughly equally. They are very much limited to a handful of breeds that share similar breed traits. Not always, admittedly, but as a rule.

I'm sure if we looked at the stats for cycling and motorbiking we'd see far more horrifying numbers of death and injury. No-one needs to go on a bike, do they? They choose to. They could walk, drive or get the bus. But in spite of it being a pretty dangerous mode of travel, we don't ban it.

In public with a dog ?

"Excuse me sir/madam, can I see your licence to possess a dog ?"

I'm not going to invest any more effort, as I have already stated. As a country the UK is happy with the numbers killed by dogs each year.

I have worked around senior management too long to be taken in by the appearance of doing something as opposed to actually doing something.

You are rather making my point for me ...

Sadly, a nineteen year old woman has now been killed by a dog.

The UK dog population is estimated to be 13-15.5 million with a third of all households owning at least one dog. There are over 220 recognised breeds of dog. If you look at the stats of fatalities caused by dogs over the last 5+ decades, there's about half a dozen breeds which have been responsible for these fatalities and of those the majority were caused by the American Pitbull Terrier (banned in 1990) and the XL Bully, (banned in 2024), both imported from American. The solution is not to ban all breeds of dog, the vast majority of which are innocent. The solution is to ban the importation of breeds which have a terrible reputation in their home countries as was blatantly obvious in both cases here. But the government still allowed them to come into the country.....
Now we are dealing with the consequences and will be for at least a decade until the XL Bully naturally dies out of existence.

I've just spent 15 mins reporting today's unmuzzled XL spotting to Hampshire Constabulary Website. Very vague way of reporting something (no victim or actual "crime" 🤷🏻‍♀️) but at least I've done something. I suppose I'd better email the dog warden too.

So would you rather be locked in a room with a hungry lion, or a hungry cat of the Postman Pat variety? If you acknowledge that the lion could kill you, then surely you should ban all domestic moggies too? Because that's what you are doing with dogs.

Domestic cats only come in the one size and temperament type, broadly speaking. They can do roughly the same amount of damage irrespective of their breed.

Domestic dogs can be anything from a teacup Pomeranian to a Dogo Argentino or a Tibetan Mastiff. Dogs that are bred to be truly fearsome killing machines. It make absolutely no sense to judge all dogs equally in terms of risk.

It make absolutely no sense to judge all dogs equally in terms of risk.

But we don't do evidence based policy in the UK. So that's irrelevant.

Totally agree.

Yes all breeds may have the occasional aggressive individual but only some breeds are literally designed to kill. These breeds and their crosses should be heavily legislated against but I can see all breeds being equally affected by any future legislation. The minority ruining it for the majority again.

It's alright for the XL bully twats, they never really wanted a dog anyway, just a symbol, they'll just go and get a new exhaust for their shit car or a new phone or pair of trainers instead.

I hate to say it as I grew up on a council estate but maybe all dogs should be completely banned from all social housing to limit the problem. I lf it was enforced, I bet it would make a difference to the number of attacks.

I commend you for doing this.So often it appears that these dogs that attack have a history of none compliant owners.

Don't we? Then how do you explain why breeding XL Bullies is illegal and breeding teacup Pomeranians or Labradors isn't?

The vet that I used to work for had a Staffy, this was before they became popular. He was a very happy, gentle and well behaved dog.
When I saw a Staffy puppy in rescue that needed a home, I felt lucky to be chosen to adopt him.
Someone stating that I got my dog to make myself look hard is absolutely laughable. I'm glad I am not so judgemental that I decide someone is scummy purely based on the breed of dog they own. I find that very sad.
My dog is now 15. He has never shown aggression to a human or any animal.

I definitely don't hate dogs: I have two. I lived with probably a dozen different dogs over the course of my life.

But it's very easy, if you have an entrenched POV, or if your income depends on subscribing to a certain belief, and are writing an academic paper to end up - intentionally or otherwise - with slanted conclusions.

How do you explain alcohol being legal, and cannabis illegal ?

Very few breeds are “literally designed to kill”. As pointed out before, most bully breeds were bred not to be aggressive toward humans. Others, such as properly bred staffies, have had dog aggression bred out of them. Some bully breeds can be dog aggressive, but it’s by no means a given. A lot will depend on socialisation and training. If you want an indication of what a combination of genetics and training can do, this morning I went on a trainer-led group walk. The only dog that had to be kept away from the little fluffy dogs wasn’t the rottie, the husky, the GSD or the bully, it was the former racing greyhound.

The police seem to be shooting them dead as a matter of course now, so that's something.

Sure, there will be some individuals who will be intentionally or unintentionally biased, but that’s not the full picture. There are few if any groups or people working professionally with dogs who think that breed specific legislation or the like is effective. I suppose they could all be in the pockets of Big Pitbull, but it seems unlikely.

Please get a grip

I can't. But what does that have to do with this thread? How is making comparisons between the risk factors around alcohol and the risk factors around cannabis, and any supposed double standards around legality in any way relevant to your assertion that all dogs should be banned?

I genuinely don't have a clue about what conclusions I should be drawing from that.

You said we don't make policy on the basis of evidence. That may be true of some things, but clearly it isn't true of this thing.

Because the vast majority of dogs pose no appreciable risk.
There are 13 million dogs at minimum in the UK, and maximum 10 fatalities a year.

Personally I think the main problem is the blurring of working dogs and pets.

Dogs evolved as working dogs first and foremost. There is no way our ancestors were around a fire when a wolf slunk in and went "You know what ? Give that a perm and our species is saved !".

If I wrote dictionaries, I would make part of the definition of "pet" as "An animal kept for the owners pleasure that is incapable of killing a human.".

Who's with me ?

Bull lurchers are not uncommon, and have been around a long time. They are often used as foxing dogs.