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.

@Jenzine
But GSDs aren't a hybrid breed, they aren't bred to fight/attack and not stop like xl bullies are. Which is a point you have made while explaining why xl bullies are dangerous dogs to own. They're bred for herding cows. A useful working dog, like a collie. They aren't bred for aggression, that generally has to be trained into them. Or is a result of bad breading. And many, many GSDs go through the police training academy and don't make it through due to having too gentle a temperament.
Like any breed you have good owners and bad owners. Unfortunately GSDs were the status breed in the 80s and a lot of irresponsible owners had them and a few fatalities happened (not to the scale of xl bullies) and they were called to be banned. They weren't because the fatalities weren't a big enough scale.
Also I have this breed because of the loving nature, the loyalty, the extremes training ability, the agility and the extreme want to please, as well as many other reasons. That I personally haven't found in any other breed before. And many GSD owners will say the same thing. So no I do not NEED a GSD anymore than someone NEEDS a Dalmatian or a lab or any other dog. But that is the breed characteristics I like and fits my personality and lifestyle, which is very important when considering a dog.

@tabulahrasa

Absolutely!

@tabulahrasa @GSDmom German shepherds can go very wrong in the wrong hands, and are powerful enough to be a threat when they do, but I’m not arguing for banning German shepherds, I know some lovely ones, I’m just pointing out that the argument used by gsdmom to defend German shepherds is the same and the one used by XL Bully owners, the difference is, GSDs are handler focused and typically respond to commands eagerly, they’re not ripping their owners apart in the home. Which is the same point I made to tabulahrasa before, control of your own dog is the key to my point, German Shepherds are big strong dogs, but they can be restrained by their owners because that’s part of their breed instinct, XL Bully dogs can’t.

People seem to be getting off track with this thread, I specifically was talking about bully breed dogs that are cropping up again and again on the fatal dog attacks list, the XL Bully in particular, because of the specific traits of the dog, combined with their power.

I’m not calling for your GSD to be banned, or a ban on large powerful breeds in general, as I’ve said multiple times, but the specific intersection between the dogs with an instinct for massive violence, and the physical ability for massive harm. More to the point, the dogs that crop up on the list of fatalities from dog attacks in disproportionate numbers. Yes this has something to do with the people buying them, but it’s not restricted to owner fatalities, maybe it a matter of public safety.

Saying that a dog that has killed more than a dozen people in the last few years should be banned because clearly they’re impossible to control and therefore breach the control order in the dangerous dogs act simply by existing, is different to saying GSDs which are handler focused and bred with incredible biddability should be banned because some people are dicks. In the case of GSDs it pretty much always is the owner, not the dog, but that’s not the case with Bully breeds as has been proven time and again.

In your opinion.

All the bull breeds are bred to be aggressive with other animals, but biddable and easily handled by humans.

Theres no point having a dog that’ll fight another dog for you, hunt a bear or fight a bull, if it’s a one use dog because you can’t get it to stop. You need to be able to interrupt it, move it and stitch it up if needed.

But that never suits people’s opinions, so they ignore that bit.

The only fact is that currently (and it is only currently, it changes if you go further back) one type of breed is over represented in fatal attacks, but blaming the breed rather than the other more complex issues causing that is a cop out. Fatal dog attacks are nowhere near as straightforward as - it’s the breed.

But people aren’t interested in the bigger problem with dog breeding and ownership causing issues, because it might impact them, so it’s easier to just call for blaming the breed instead.

Dangerous dogs act does not say that dogs should be under control at all times rather not be dangerously out of control in public. Big legal difference.

Most of the dog attacks are in their own homes with people they know or in neighbourhoods where the dog has got out.

We need to look at the owners (not pc) but if we draw up a demographic of owners who had dogs that killed we would get a similarities in the owners. Be it lack of experience with dogs, poor choice when obtaining the dogs, unrealistic expectations of dog ownership etc.

Re 15 and 16 year old tbh a 16 year old boy is probably stronger than me! It is more the decision making ability of an adult over a minor not the strength of the person walking the dog.

This discussion is making the issue very black and white and to ban certain breeds or ownership of certain breeds is not likely to happen soon. The failure of the dangerous dogs act alone shows how banning dog breeds is not the anwer.

There does need to be an answer though!

@IngGenius you are still liable if your dog injures someone on your property unless they were there without permission, people are charged with owning an out of control dog when their dog attacks contractors, care workers, friends, etc. it’s not only in public, read the law.

Yep dangerously out of control - not your dog has to be under control at all times as you stated. (you could read the law)

It is a civil offence

Householder defence has been used and successful on many cases with a dog attack on their own property.

6 postman are bitten a day but 6 dog owners are not imprisoned each day

40 people were arrested in 2022 under the Dangerous Dogs act - Only 16 people were prosecuted in 2022

I agree Op. You only need to do a quick search on FB to see the amount of XL bully’s looking for new homes because their owners can no longer manage them (too strong, too much for them to handle). These breeds have been breed for a purpose and are given no respect by their owners. At what point will this stop?

@IngGenius you’re arguing semantics a dangerously out of control dog is not under control by definition, a dog under control is not dangerous 🤷🏻‍♀️, these dogs are killers and the situation shows no signs of self-limiting, (what are the limits of human stupidity?) they’re a hazard to the public, and sometimes measures have to be taken, it’s taking a lot longer than it should, a lot longer than it has before, for measures to be taken to protect people from these animals who serve no unique purpose as a breed for any reasonable human being.

Absolutely no recorded cases of Labs being involved in fatal attacks in the UK.

Yes good points made and I do agree with you 👍

@Giltedged people really keep trying this “Labradors are super dangerous though!” Angle, huh. I’d definitely prefer to have to fight a Labrador off of my dogs than a bully breed. Both breeds can bite, only one has repeatedly proven to be a killer.

It’s really strange. I don’t know what people are trying to prove.

When Labs have been involved in the number of fatal attacks as bull breeds then fine, we can talk about banning them. But given there are no cases of fatal Lab attacks in this country - what are we wanting to prove with ‘but Labs’?

@deepspace9 the worst thing a Weimaraner has done to anyone I know is steal another dog’s chuckit ball and give it to their owner who immediately returned it (rather bashfully) 😂 hunting dogs are almost always more interested in running than any other type of play with other dogs, every standard lurcher I meet wants to run around and around and around with my own lurcher, every bull lurcher wants to wrestle her, which makes her roll over and submit, because the bull breed in them makes them an entirely different type, despite that laymen wouldn’t know to differentiate unless they were actually looking at the two types next to each other.

this dope is the least intimidating type of dog

Labs are involved in plenty of attacks causing life altering injuries and extensive facial scarring.

The point is that there’s a problem with dog breeding and ownership that’s much bigger than one breed.

But not fatal ones.

We know all dogs can bite. I’m not disputing that, but unless you’re suggesting banning all dogs (and I’m certainly not) what is being talked about are the very narrow number of breeds involved in fatal incidents.

I really don’t know what people want to achieve with ‘what about <breed name>’. I don’t mean that in a passive aggressive way either. I genuinely don’t understand what the aim of those posts is.

I am arguing semantics because that is what the law does.

So banning the breeds will not work.

It has not worked with the other dangerous dogs that have been banned.

I agree action needs to be taken but banning the breed will not do anything to make it safer for people - the same owners will divert to another breed to fill the gap this is what has happened in the case of the xl bully breed now

It has not worked with the other dangerous dogs that have been banned

It doesn’t work entirely because nothing does. But there is an absolutely massive jump in fatalities in the last two years and ignoring that is not helping anybody. Least of all the animals themselves.

See weirdly, I don’t think just because a lab has only ripped apart someone’s face rather than killing them they’re not part of the issue.

We need tighter controls on breeding and owning dogs, actual real effective ones, not badly thought through unresearched ones like breed bans.

Banning breeds is a pointless government exercise designed to make voters think “something” has been done.

So what do you want @tabulahrasa , to ban all labs?

You say you want ‘tighter controls on breeding and owning dogs’ but what does this actually look like in practice?

Honestly - I don’t know completely, but, part of it should be that it’s harder to own a dog.

Compulsory classes (for people, I don’t necessarily mean dog training classes, they’re usually pretty bad) and effective licensing.

Similar to driving licences.

And the usual response is that, well people just won’t do it, but, people said that about drink driving as well, doesn’t mean you don’t try to solve it, you stop enough people and it makes a difference.

Banning breeds works to the extent that the UK is low on tosas, fila brasilieros and dogos, and fairly low also on pit bulls. We have no idea what the death-by-dog stats would look like had those breeds not been banned.

But, as PP have pointed out, the sort of people who want dangerous dogs just develop something else, so now we have XL bullies - which are pretty obviously more dangerous than Labradors, since there are plenty of fatalities attributed to XLs and apparently none to Labs, and we can be sure that there are plenty of life-altering and scarring injuries as a result of XLs and similar (there was a case recently when a woman lost an arm to an American bulldog). So it looks to me as if XLs are a much bigger problem than Labs.

So we get back to the issue: do we ban SOME breeds, or do we licence ALL breeds. Or do we go for a halfway house, of restricting/licensing some breeds (dog must display licence tag on collar at all times, owner must have licence available for inspection, the dog must be covered by third party insurance - reduced premium if owner has done a training course or belongs to a training club perhaps - and anyone who has a dog of a listed breed or type and is found not to have a licence or insurance has the book thrown at them)?

This is clearly not beyond us as we have a rigorous gun licensing system which works pretty well.

Personally I would resent having to cough up to licence my dogs (a breed with no human fatalities on its record) because some people choose to have muscle dogs to use as weapons, but I'd rather cough up than see the human fatality rate go up year by year.

One final point: there's the argument that dog fighting and guarding breeds were bred to be gentle with people or at least handler-soft. Firstly, I am not 100% sure that this was always true - there looks to be evidence in both directions. Secondly, some lines have been so badly bred that temperament plays second fiddle to ££££. Thirdly, guarding breeds were not bred to be nice to people they clocked as intruders. And finally, dog-fighting breeds often seem to retain a lot of dog aggression, leading to not only other dogs being killed or injured, but also people being damaged when trying to break up the fray.

You rejected the exact same argument you just made for licensing in relation to banning the breed that is actively killing people. “The bad ones will do it anyway” yeah, but the good owners are as at risk from these dogs as the bad ones, even if only because they “rescued” one from elsewhere and didn’t know the dog, no one who rescues any breed knows the dog, but people aren’t routinely killed by the Pomeranian they took in. How many news articles read “shock horror: tiny rescued spitz kills new owner in brutal attack”?

Because banning breeds is just putting a tiny plaster over it.

A proper licensing system would make it much harder for people who shouldn’t own dogs to own any dog.