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.

Long term, that would be the only solution (along with proper oversight of breeding and selling/buying) but in the meantime, what’s the solution for the dangerous dogs that are already out there, just wait for them to get their jaws around the skull of a toddler?

I don’t think there is a quick fix.

Banning pitbulls just made life difficult for responsible owners, resulted in a load of perfectly fine pets that had no pitbull in them being destroyed and meanwhile people who shouldn’t have ever had them just hid them till they were out crossed enough to not fit the measurements they use to determine type.

The problem is that there probably are responsible owners of pitbulls - probably mostly rescue ones - but I’m not convinced there are responsible breeders of them. Simply because they are bred for fighting and is anyone who is just a decent person, irrespective of how much they like dogs or not, actually supporting that industry?

And XL Bullies and a lot of the other bull breeds are just an extension of this. I do actually think some unfortunate souls got tied up with the whole ‘nanny dog, so good with kids’ myth.

It’s just a horrible industry, there are no winners in it.

There’s no longer either, in this country. It’s illegal to rehome them too, rescues have to have them put down.

I'm sorry if you thought I was getting off track I was merely replying to this comment "I don’t think any breed that can be considered intimidating has any business being sold to the general public without any oversight"
Xl bullies are one thing but let's not tar all powerful breeds with the same brush, is all I was getting at!

@GSDmom i appreciate that, I admit to getting a bit sidetracked myself, I specifically meant the breeds that are on the fatal attacks list in disproportionate numbers and are attractive to dickheads. Ironically, the GSD is probably TOO stable for the kind of people who want status dogs these days, they’re a lot more common than XL Bully dogs are, and I’m pretty sure the only reason they’re on the list at all is because of the nature of the work they’re bred for, and their sheer size/power. Labs being common and having a high non-fatal bite incident makes sense, as does the GSD being fairly common and having a few incidents itself, considering they have a protective instinct and people like to challenge that for some reason.
Honestly, I will cross the road if possible when seeing a German shepherd while out with my dog, but only because bringing a strange dog that close, especially from behind, just seems like a bad idea. I’m not expecting them to react, but it seems unfair to expect them not to, as well, if that makes sense? Same as giving a border collie a wide berth when jogging or cycling past, their natural instinct is to nip things moving past them quickly, and even if they can and should be trained not to, it’s better to respect the dog’s space and nature, anyway.

It’s illegal to rehome pit bulls but as we’ve all agreed, there’s no actual test for that, so you do have bull breeds (including XL Bullies, which aren’t banned) rehomed. I’m not trying to be unnecessarily argumentative there by the way!

@Giltedged at least bully breeds like that are what they say on the tin, and prospective rescuers can do their own research on whether or not they want to take the risk, the lurchers with bull in the line are often advertised by rescues as “lurcher” with no qualifiers to indicate how thoroughly unlike traditional lurchers these dogs are. People who don’t know that there is a distinction, may not know what they’re actually signing up for, considering traditional lurchers are on par with retired racing greyhounds as the elderly/retired person’s dog of choice, particularly rescued trad-lurchers (known to be pretty docile and happy to plod along on a walk for 20 minutes then curl up on the sofa for the day.)

Yes - this was a particularly upsetting case and it does show how quickly things can escalate. The girl was lying down on a sofa and her mother tried so hard to save her. I know it is tempting to think that if we do the ‘right’ things and don’t leave children unsupervised and teach them to respect dogs and all the rest of it all will be well, but it won’t. Of course, it is most of the time, but when it isn’t, the consequences are serious.

Yep, but I’m pointing out they have to put them down because what can happen is dogs are brought in, at some point while it’s being assessed, someone goes, oh no, it’s looking typey, someone checks it, it is and and then they have to put to sleep a dog that’s passed every behaviour assessment.

Thats not how a dangerous dog law should work IMO, that’s just sad.

Well, it is sad for the dog but you probably sense I’m not going to agree to be honest.

the lurchers with bull in the line are often advertised by rescues as “lurcher” with no qualifiers to indicate how thoroughly unlike traditional lurchers these dogs are.
Bull lurchers are very traditional. There was one around here who would be well over 20 if he was still around. He was bred for fox control.

People who are serious about lurchers often know exactly what they've got, back to the GGPs, and will breed very carefully for particular traits. Unfortunately lurcher breeders vary from the enormously sensible to the outright criminal.

Well apart from being sad for the dog and the rescue staff... you’ve got time, money and resources going into enforcing a law about how dogs look instead of their behaviour.

The case you linked to there, that wasn’t a pitbull or a large dog, it was a standard sized bulldog... a stray that was assessed as needing to not be rehomed with young children and they all decided otherwise. That dog wouldn’t have been picked up under the existing DDA bans or one banning Xl bully types or American bulldog types, or even one based on size.

I know @tabulahrasa … but that wasn’t what I was stating.

I think the problem is that there are a lot of very well meaning people around who genuinely want to give a dog a second chance.

It isn’t about how dogs look, as that suggests I want to euthanise dogs because they are ugly and I don’t! I don’t really want to euthanise dogs at all. But my point was they are all fine until they are not fine and then it’s often too late.

“I think the problem is that there are a lot of very well meaning people around who genuinely want to give a dog a second chance.”

I think behavioural euthanasia should be done more often than it is tbh.

There are people capable of taking on dogs with behavioural issues and managing them, but it honestly is ridiculous that a first time dog owner with a small child was given an ex stray with no history and assessed as not suitable for children. That should never ever happen.

But the pitbull type part of the DDA is based on how a dog looks, makes no difference if it’s a cross of two other breeds that happens to look like that or if it’s got the soundest temperament ever... if it looks like one, it is one and I do think that is sad, when we could have legislation based on creating responsible owners and assessing dogs by behaviour not looks.

20 years among lurchers is not traditional compared to the length of time the original type has been around (since the 14th and 15th century) bull lurchers only really became popular in the 1980s, yorkies aren’t an old breed because I have a 15 year old one, it’s an old breed because it’s been around for centuries. There are 15 year old labradoodles, it’s not a traditional cross because they’ve only existed for about 20 years. In terms of establishing dog breeds/types, 20 years is nothing. It’s about how long it took to make the XL Bully, in fact.

@Jenzine bull lurchers only really became popular in the 1980s
Possibly, but they have been around for much longer than that. The problem is that the people who breed and work lurchers don't tend to write books about it or keep elaborate records spanning centuries or seek KC recognition for whatever type they have developed, so the history is hard to find. They breed for function, and if they want a tougher dog with extra tenacity, but don't want to lose size, they'll add some bull breed in rather than (say) JRT.

I totally get what you're saying about the risks posed by certain breeds, and that a bull lurcher is not necessarily an ideal pet for someone who wants a quiet life.

We're too focused on breeds, not enough focus on the owners. Charities are trying to cover the bases with education in schools and training tools for owners, but it needs more.

If an owner has an out of control dog, of any breed, the law should come down on them, not the dog. Whether that be fines or jail time for more serious offences, bans on dog ownership, compulsory dog training courses, and of course the police and councils need more powers, and more people, to actually enforce any of it. Any out of control dog has been ultimately entirely let down by their humans.

I know someone who has a cane corso. It's absolutely HUGE. It's also a rescue dog from abroad, which came over aged 2, with clipped ears. The family who own it must have acquired it when they had an around 3 year old and a newborn. They are intelligent, 1 is a teacher. I am completely baffled at their choice. Absolutely no way they could overpower it if needed.

I've never had a fear of dogs, although more wary of certain breeds now, due to obvious reasons, but this dog terrifies me. 100% understand that any dog can turn and cause damage, but there's a big difference between damage and probable death with these kinds of dogs if they do attack. Imo, a dog with a bite force stronger than a lion has no place on a street... or anywhere tbf. I'm not bothered how well trained it is, I'm concerned about it's potential if it DOES attack.

We're too focused on breeds, not enough focus on the owners. Charities are trying to cover the bases with education in schools and training tools for owners, but it needs more

But the majority of a dogs behaviour is actually down to it's genes.
A type of dog that has been selected for it's biting/ attacking abilities over 100's of years, will always have this trait.
You can mask it with training and be lucky enough that the dog won't have to revert to primal instincts throughout it's life.

You can channel it & give the dog an outlet with specific training / sport to reduce the probability of an unwanted attack. But you'll never get rid of this trait.

An easier example would be a greyhound. We accept that they have a highprey drive we channel it through greyhound racing...
But many greyhounds should spend the majority of their lives on leads when out and about. Even if they have never been on a racetrack. That's because of their urge to chaise small furry things that we as humans cannot fully control.

The thing is, yes a lot of stuff is down to genes... but firstly, the dogs that are highly represented for things like fatal attacks are mixed breeds really, so their breed traits are a bit of a mixed bag.

But also, education should involve working out which breeds suit your lifestyle and ability tbh.

A lot of first time dog owners I’ve known picked their dog because of things like, I met one in a park and it was nice 😐

But if you look into it, they are actually mixed with the same type of breed.

Dogs don't bite out of the blue. Humans just miss the subtle signals that a dog is uncomfortable, or worried, or scared, and that just escalates until you have an uncontrollable dog. And that can happen to any dog, any breed, any time.

This is why there are education programmes, like the one Dogs Trust runs, that goes into primary schools to teach children how to spot subtle dog behaviours that they may be worried or uncomfortable, and how to behave around dogs - don't run around them screaming, don't try and take food or toys from their mouths, don't flap your arms around them, don't grab them or hug them, don't bother them when they're sleeping - these are the most common reasons for dogs to bite children.

If you look into it, it's not because of the dog's breed or "bad dogs", it's because humans can be a bit thick understanding dog behaviour.

They’re mixed with all sorts tbh, no pedigrees (obviously) so anything easily available and the right sort of size

and the breed after something actually happens is mostly by, what does it look like? And what was the owner sold it as? Multiple of fatal attacks are dogs that were acquired very recently, so it’s all a bit of guesswork.

I’m not saying that’s a good thing btw, just saying, with those type of dogs you could be looking at anything from a whole load of hard to handle traits to a right mix and match from a variety. Which is one of the reasons they’re not really a great idea as a pet for most people.

With this in mind and knowing how many ignorant/stupid/irresponsible owners there are out there, surely that's all the more reason to ban dogs that will cause severe damage/death if upset?

Putting it all on educating children smacks a bit of victim blaming to me.