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.

Sorry should have read @tabulahrasa Bloody autocorrect.

^This.

Bully breeds don’t exhibit the same warning signs as other breeds of dog, they don’t get nervous, there’s no whale eye, or attempting to escape, or warning growls, they tolerate annoyance until the moment they don’t, and then they snap.
a Labrador will always show discomfort well before the point that they’re stressed enough to attack, a bully breed won’t.
a bully breed running up to your dog, wagging its tail the “good” way could be friendly, but it could be happy about the idea of fighting to the death (dogs do the jobs they’re bred for happily, and these are bred down from dogs selectively bred for blood sport) with your dog. Are you taking a chance on being able to tell the difference? (There is none, they look exactly the same. There is video evidence of this. Normal dog fights are loud because the dogs are scared and angry, bully breeds are quiet while fighting and their ears and tails are relaxed more often than not, because they’re enjoying themselves.)

Because it’s too shortsighted.

Focussing on the breed is pointless, people aren’t going to suddenly stop breeding and buying dangerous dogs just because their current breed of choice gets banned.

People don’t just stop murdering people because it is against the law either.

Shit well if anyone has made a very strong argument for saying that these dogs are not family pets Jenzine has. Generally I remain sceptical about banning these type of dogs because I’m not sure how enforceable it it but if this is the case then in the ideal world yes we should be banning them at the very least from living in homes.
Who in their right mind owns such a dog? It’s beyond my comprehension.

“Bully breeds don’t exhibit the same warning signs as other breeds of dog, they don’t get nervous, there’s no whale eye, or attempting to escape, or warning growls, they tolerate annoyance until the moment they don’t, and then they snap.
a Labrador will always show discomfort well before the point that they’re stressed enough to attack, a bully breed won’t.”

Thats not true

Except that it is, and most owners aren’t aware of the warning signs for regular dogs, let alone dogs that are going to seem friendly until they’ve crushed the throat of your cocker spaniel.

It’s absolutely not true.

It’s right up there with locking jaws as stuff people make up to justify their opinion.

Of course bull breeds display warning signals.

People can’t read dogs, absolutely, but that isn’t breed specific.

It doesn’t change the fact that these are the dogs killing.

I have no desire whatsoever to euthanise animals that have done nothing wrong, but the absolute insistence that they are the same as other breeds, it’s not caused by either aggression or ability to do damage at all, it’s just bad owners, is really troubling to me.

@tabulahrasa the consequences of misreading a chihuahua and the consequences of misreading an XL Bully are worlds apart, whether the behaviours are the same or not (and they aren’t.)

It’s not that all breeds are the same, it’s that by focussing on breed there’s literally no solution.

Its very very easy to make any breed bigger and more aggressive relatively quickly, ban pitbulls, people create XL bullies.

Ban them, you could have old tyme fighting style boxers or Xl labradors or Dalmatians in about 5 years. It literally only takes a few generations to breed in a temperament change like that, I mean it only took ten to domesticate foxes from wild.

We have in this country a really big irresponsible breeding and ownership issue - on one end you’ve things like cockerpoos and puppy farms and on the other dangerous dogs, but they’re both part of the same issue.

It’s breeding and ownership that needs to be regulated not breeds.

@tabulahrasa agreed on breeding and unregulated ownership being an issue, but no one has addressed my main point: the point being “how is it legal to own a dog you can’t physically restrain should the need arise, for WHATEVER reason.” The dangerous dogs act says dogs should be under control at all times (not at risk of injuring someone or giving them the reasonable idea that they might attempt to injure someone.) for this reason, children under 16 aren’t legally considered in control of any dog, how is the same not the case for an adult holding the lead of an XL Bully?
I’d trust that a 15 year old walking their toy breed is more in control of their dog than an adult walking an XL Bully.

I’m all for anything that improves animal rights but I do think that to an extent that is separate to the current problem.

I don’t wish to simplify things but to me we have two quite stark facts - firstly, that fatal dog attacks have gone up massively in the last two years or so, and secondly, a disproportionate amount of these attacks are due to a particular breed or type.

I know that banning a breed doesn’t make people law abiding citizens and I also think a huge part of the problem is the DDA is reactive rather than proactive - so once someone is attacked the police may get involved but prior to this they just don’t (ime anyway) and so banning is stupid.

However I don’t think that means banning doesn’t work, it just means it has to be active and it has to be put into practice. There is no way those breeds should exist. As you say, it’s cruelty to animals as well as humans.

'It's not the breed, it's the owner' is too simplistic. A Malinois, well trained and given an outlet, is a fabulous dog. A Mal in the wrong hands, not so much.

Breeds have traits. I own a gundog breed, and I know how much gundog breeds differ from one another. A cocker is not just a small fluffy Labrador, any more than a German Wirehaired Pointer is a rangy shaggy one. Guarding breeds like Mals and Dobes, different again - and from each other. Show breeding has blunted breed traits, but not completely disposed of them, and working lines can be pretty extreme.

Breed does matter, and saying it doesn't does a huge disservice to people who are considering getting a dog. But owners matter too. We need to work on both ends of the lead.

“how is it legal to own a dog you can’t physically restrain should the need arise, for WHATEVER reason.”

Because for a lot of people that’s most breeds of dog, I’ve seen people dragged along the street by a reactive westie.

I’ve completely failed to restrain someone else’s loose patterdale terrier attacking one of my previous dogs - but I could restrain mine who was much much larger.

So it’s not as straightforward as you’re making it sound.

@tabulahrasa you’re saying because you can’t control a terrier that wasn’t yours while being capable of restraining your own dog, people shouldn’t be expected to control their own dog? Wouldn’t it have been much better for you if the terrier owner had control instead of you attempting to control someone else’s dog? And again, the consequences of not restraining a terrier (even though they should be) are not the same as a bully that literally no one but professional strong men even have a hope in hell of doing?

No, I’m saying restraining a dog by force is much more unrealistic than people think it is.

So iI’d pretty pointless to discuss why people have dogs that could overpower them... because that’s actually most dogs, except toy breeds. Though I struggle with my cat sometimes, so maybe I’m underestimating toy breeds as well.

When Westies start appearing on the lists of fatal dog attacks we can talk about them then.

@tabulahrasa thank you for the clarification, it’s certainly something I’ll consider in future, but most dog breeds are very unlikely to attack their owner, so when restraining your own dog, that’s a reason it’s easier compared to restraining someone else’s, and why the law is YOUR dog should be under YOUR control. Cats are less likely to consider harming their owner as a reason not to struggle, so that might be why you struggle, and collars are still a legal requirement in the age of the harness because it’s the most effective tool to gain physical control of an unruly dog. People who walk their dog on a harness with no collar are breaking the law, and it’s the law for a reason.
the XL Bully has a propensity for attacking their owners in the home, so the increased ability to handle your own dog because it doesn’t want to hurt you just isn’t there for this breed, ergo, no one can realistically control it. This is already the law, my only question is why it isn’t enforced as it’s written.

What about lab's because they have been.

While I don't disagree about banning xl bullies, in fact I think maybe that's the way things will have to go because of the irresponsible people that own them.
I do disagree with OPs comments about possible banning all intimidating dogs. I have a wonderful GSD, absolutely mental but the softest dog you'd find. I know everyone says that their dogs are big softies but he genuinely submits to my friends pug, that's how non aggressive he is. He doesn't have an aggressive bone in his body, despite being attacked several times and dogs generally have a pop at him on a weekly basis, and that isn't an exaggeration (mostly by small dogs off the lead owned by middle aged women). He's also an absolute gem with my 9month old dd, he absolutely loves her to pieces and even stands in front of the Hoover to protect her!
However GSDs are used by the police, the army, and security services because they are incredibly easy to train, motivated but above all they are intimidating, so they act as a deterrent. Partly because their bite is as powerful as a pitbulls. We simply can't ban every dog that is large and intimidating, where would it end.

We don't have to ban them completely. We can license them, like the weapons they are.

@GSDmom i appreciate that you have a well trained dog, but the argument you use is the same one owners of well trained XL Bully dogs will use, the issue isn’t your individual dog, the issue is the breed your dog is has a propensity for violence, statistically, and you don’t NEED to own that breed.

Short of people whose job relies on dogs or people who need assistance dogs...

Nobody needs any dog.