Bully breeds

[Jenzine]

There are many understandable concerns regarding these types of dog, and as a dog owner myself, I have taken to avoiding places that I’ve encountered them, as a precaution, because dog aggression is common in them as a breed instinct, just as ratting is to terriers and herding to collies.
Areas I can walk my dogs (I always walk them individually, I don’t trust other people’s training of their dogs, and want to be sure that I can manage any situations that arise, which is always infinitely harder when walking multiple dogs) are vanishing at a fast pace with the baffling popularity of these mutants.
Defenders of these dogs always claim it’s the owner not the breed, however there are bad owners of every breed and most breeds still aren’t killing people fairly regularly. There also seems to be no consideration among the defenders and deniers that even if the dog is genuinely nice and loving, that it could become unwell (brain tumours, neurodegenerative conditions, general sickness) which can make even the friendliest Labrador have a sudden change in behaviour.
If any of my dogs, god forbid, ever get poorly in a way that makes them react aggressively, I know that I’m physically capable of preventing serious injury to myself and others by restraining the dog; I don’t believe the same could ever be said of an American bully XL or their owners.
All this to say, what is the justification for an otherwise reasonable person (not the drug dealers and chavs buying status dogs) with or without children to get one of these dogs? Just “liking them” surely is not an acceptable answer when weighed against the lives of human beings? What can they offer as a companion animal that you cannot get from any other breed of dog that you are actually physically capable of controlling?
How are these enormously heavy and powerful dogs not automatically in violation of the dangerous dogs act just by existing as a creature capable of exerting about 240kg of force at the higher weights of 60kg (dogs being capable of exerting force at 4x their own weight)? I don’t believe any human is capable of controlling these animals physically, and verbal control of dogs is never 100% and as someone with a lurcher, I know that no matter how well my dog recalls in general situations, the moment her prey drive is activated, she will not even hear the command to be able to follow it, which is why she’s only off lead in enclosed fields.

I don’t believe in any of the myths about these dogs perpetuated by either side (E.g the locking jaw myth of the anti-bull breed brigadiers, or the nanny dog myth of the staffy/APBT nutters) dogs are dogs, they can be good/bad, well treated/abused, but I don’t believe that owning dogs is a right, I believe it’s a privilege that is too often abused, even by well-meaning people.
How many times do we have to mourn children and adults before “[dog’s name] has never done this before!” Is no longer something we hear all too often from people with dogs that can’t be restrained by anything less than a cruise ship anchor, after their “loving family pet” has mauled a grown man to death in a park, or dismembered a toddler in their own home?
People often compare this argument to the argument against guns in America, however, a gun is not an autonomous animal capable of physically overpowering its owner and firing itself at will; dogs are.

Just to add to that. A school friend's Golden Retriever once got loose and they were frantic because they lived near a main road. It was found it near the children's park and somebody had kept it safe. The person told them the dog sat and waited at the pelican crossing until the cars stopped and then crossed the road safely, just like it did with the family.

Nobody was worried that it was going to flip out and go on a mauling spree.

Great anecdote.

A golden retriever mauled a guys arms in a park over Hamilton way about a year ago... I’m sure I could find the newspaper report somewhere if I could be bothered looking.

I know I’m literally wasting my time responding to you, because you pop up with this obsessive hysteria about pitbulls on loads of threads.

But there aren’t safe dog breeds, safe dogs are those with responsible owners and any breed is dangerous in the wrong hands.

There is absolutely a rising issue with serious dog attacks in this country, but concentrating on breeds means nothing useful ever gets done. It’s concentrating on the wrong end of the problem.

Irresponsible owners + huge, muscular dogs with a fight to the death mentality are obviously not going to be a gpod fit. I'm not sure how easy it would be to stop these people owning an animal, so surely making it harder for them to own such a beast can only be a good thing?

The "any breed is dangerous in the wrong hands" argument is quite frankly hilarious, because it's not really true is it. You're not stupid I assume? You do realise how much stronger some dogs are than others?

But the issue is they just move on to a different breed, which is why this breed now exists. They’ve pretty much been bred to get round breed specific legislation.

Of course some breeds are stronger than others, but once they’re bigger than tiny, it’s pretty irrelevant because they’re faster than people.

And there are plenty of large and strong enough to do serious damage very quickly breeds that aren’t of the type people think should be banned.

I agree. When I was a child it was Rottweilers or SBT or GSD. Then we had pit bulls. Banned a load of breeds. In come xl bullies. Ban those? A new cross breed designed to fill the gap. The people who breed and buy these dogs are the issue.

UK dig death statistics prove that breed specific legislation works.

This 'owner not the breed' or 'judge on the deed, not the breed' schtick is just desperate pitbull activism.

They're unarguably dangerous, which is why they're banned in so many countries, and they're the only breed that needs an 'advocate lobby'.

If it's all down to owners, why do only pitbulls get the shit owners?

But there aren’t safe dog breeds, safe dogs are those with responsible owners and any breed is dangerous in the wrong hands.
Some breeds are, quite clearly, more dangerous than others. A spaniel can do you a lot of damage, but it's more likely to bite and release than bite and shake - and it's the bite and shake attacks that cause the really dreadful injuries.

It's very notable that the sort of people who found that they wanted pit bulls but pit bulls were banned didn't move on to, oh, dunno, Pomeranians or even bigger breeds like curly-coated retrievers. They still went for something big and muscular with the genetics to hang on once it got a grip.

It's a mix of factors. Some breeds are more inclined to guarding and biting - the human race has spent literally millennia breeding that into specific lines of dogs. Some dogs of those breeds will be particularly inclined to those breed traits. Some owners of those breeds will provide the right sort of environment and training, and even a tricky dog will be fine with them. Others won't, and will amp up a hard dog into something they can't control, either on purpose or through ignorance.

My own view is that if we bring back licensing for dogs, we bring it back first - or charge more for - breeds with those genetics. Because the Bichon frise next door might give you a nip, but it won't be physically capable of taking out half your bicep.

The U.K. death statistic do not prove anything of the sort.

For reference, I don’t think XL bullies make good pets for most people, they’re bred for all the worst traits of bulldog types and a confirmation nightmare, from looking at them it’d not be hard to convince me that most of the temperament issues are because they’ve all got painful joint issues.

But they’re not the only breed to have bad owners, they are though more likely to have them than some breeds - because there aren’t any ethical breeders of them and any potentially ok owners wouldn’t buy them if they have any knowledge of dogs. The sort of owner they actually need isn’t looking for one.

The big difference between those and other breeds that would be a ticking time bomb in the wrong hands is that with actual established breeds there are some decent breeders and owners...

Malinois for example are way too much dog for most pet owners, but they have a show line that are more suited to being pets, a community of people using working line ones for sport and rescues trying to pick up after the backyard breeders.

Xl bullies only have backyard breeders.

I have a bulldog. He's lovely. But understand how powerful he is. Scared me to death when a gas man walked into the house unannounced, because I panicked and the dog reacted to me, he shut the door fast

"The U.K. death statistic do not prove anything of the sort."

Look at the spike in deaths that occurred the moment a pitbull breed of dog (Bully XL) appeared in the UK. No pitbulls resulted in

Breed specific legislation clearly does work, but so what if it didn't? Given the hundreds of available dog breeds, why are people so determined to own one with so many examples of completely unprovoked maulings.

If this is an 'all dogs' problem, why isn't that born out in the 'death by dog' statistics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom

And while we're about it, we should also ban SBTs. They're just miniature pitbulls and also responsible for multiple deaths.

Pitbull appears on that list in 2007... until last year you’re statistically more likely to be killed by a cow than a dog in the U.K.

Thats how small the numbers are, the earliest you can call it a “spike” happens in 2021, just as all the puppies churned out over lockdown hit adolescence.

The numbers are rising horribly fast, because every one of them shouldn’t have happened - but they are still way to small to be statistically, well, anything about breed.