Pets4Homes full of XL bully puppies

[Tygertiger]

Even after the ban was announced, there have been so many Xl bully litters posted. Who on earth is going to pay £800+ for a pup that will need to be muzzled its whole life and they’ll need an exemption certificate for? Or is this just evidence that people will ignore the ban as they think it won’t be enforceable due to these dogs not actually being a proper breed?

Those poor puppies. I agree with the ban but it’s still a very sad situation as presumably so many of them will now be euthanised at a very young age.

The DDA has so many flaws in it.

All dogs must be castrated - initially this is a good idea stops breeding etc. Except an already aggressive dog being castrated will make it much worse.

Dogs on DDA are not insurable. Owners are encouraged to get third party insurance but you can quarantee that will not happen with a lot of them

Many dog trainers will find it hard to get insurance to be able to train these dogs. I can only find one company so far that will give me insurance after 31st Dec. It is of course way more expensive. So aggressive dogs will have no training back up at all.

DDA will not stop the problem and we really do need to stop the problem. Many bullies are bred to be aggressive and have extreme guarding behaviour. It is quite terrifying.

Which is why I said that legislation doesn’t go far enough. More breeds should be banned outright and muzzles and leashes should be mandatory for all dogs in public - with big fines and ownership banning orders imposed for breach - by law.

The RSPCA wouldn’t insure XL bullies before they were banned, despite later opposing the ban. It’s not the DDA creating that ‘problem’, it’s the evidence of risk collected by insurers.

You said the bans do work - they dont

People stop owning the banned breeds and breed bigger and more aggressive dogs hence the creation of the XL Bully.

We ban the XL Bully another more dangerous dog will be breed as is historically the case.

You are being very naive to think that dog attacks will stop with this ban - they will not.

You keep saying that but you haven’t answered the question about how many banned breeds are responsible for attacks over the years since the DDA.

And you’ve said nothing about the law going further and muzzling dogs in public.

If it’s true that the irresponsible will just fix on a different type of dangerous dog we need to do more to stop the problem in general, like what happened in the 1970s with dangerous wild animal law.

It’s totally reasonable for rescues to say they won’t take them, if they can’t rehome them, what’s the point? The dogs can’t live indefinitely in centres, who could be expected to go in to the cages to feed them, or walk them?

Many dog trainers will find it hard to get insurance to be able to train these dogs. I can only find one company so far that will give me insurance after 31st Dec. It is of course way more expensive. So aggressive dogs will have no training back up at all.

The other issue is dog walkers and daycare won't be able to take them either.

My insurance won't cover me to have any banned breeds in my care, even if I agree to walk them solo, leashed and muzzled. So these dogs will no longer be able go out with walkers or anything during the day, which won't exactly help their temperaments or energy levels.

I don't think it will. The owner might still be out of pocket if the euthanasia costs more than £200 because it's based on weight and some of them are huge

If these owners don't "gain" anything by putting them to sleep, they'd be better off dumping them so I expect we will see a lot abandoned.

If they keep them they'll have to pay to put them on the register which is about £100 and pay for their neuter which will also cost a fortune as based on weight.

It will work out cheaper for the irresponsible owners that don't really care about their dog to dump it. Then they'll all be roaming around and able to attack what/who they want. ☹️

Not sure why I have to do your research for you
fatal dog attacks
You will see that dogs have killed and then are banned and then another dog breed takes precedent until they are banned.

Personally I do not think - Iall dogs need to be muzzled in public. Most dogs are fine to not be.

Muzzled in public will also not stop the attacks in the home and attacks on people the dogs now

1970s with dangerous wild animal law is basically the licensing of keeping animals this is a good idea but probably impossible to legislate hence why it has not been done. I would like to see more licensing and more responsibility put on the owners, re education and training. People are the problem

People always say that dogs should be muzzled at all times in public on these threads, but the vast majority of attacks occur when dogs escape their homes (so they won't be muzzled anyway), or in the home (so again, no muzzle needed).

You don’t have to do any research for me. You said the DDA doesn’t work. I asked how many banned dogs were responsible for attacks after the DDA. You said the ban doesn’t work. You prove it.

Your link proves nothing.

I don’t care whether most dogs don’t need muzzling. Some do, and so all should be muzzled. Just like guns are banned even though some - no doubt many - gun owners would be very responsible.

I realise that dog attacks in the home can’t be stopped. That’s a sadness created by dog owners that we just have to accept. Regrettably.

The link evidences all fatal dog attacks since 1737.

It is important in decision making to have the data. Confused as to why it proves nothing as this is some of the data that is being used to make decisions

Unfortunately what you care about will not change legislation especially if it is unlikely to change the outcome.

Guns are not banned in the UK they are licenced ......

"In the 3-month period before the DDA was implemented, 99 cases of dog bites were reported, 3% of which were from pit bull type dogs. When the number of dog bites were examined in a 3- month period 2 years after the ban was implemented, there was no change in the number of reported dog bites (99 cases), and the number of cases involving pit bulls was similar (5% of bites)"

Canadian Veterinarian, 2005: https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/documents/breedspecific-
legislation-considerations-for-evaluating-its-effectiveness-and-recommendations-for alternatives

@IngGenius you are wasting your breath quoting statistics at @WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps .

Despite the fact that dog attack occurrences happen for less than .2 of a percent of dogs owned in the UK, the perspective of Dishwasher is still to muzzle them all. The government are unlikely to do anything for such a small issue (while very serious and unfortunate for those concerned) over what they have done to date with the DDA. What they have done is only about their own popularity and not about actually solving the problem. I agree that the ban of breeds and the DDA don't really work as can be seen by increasing numbers of banned breeds.

In theory, making every dog wear a muzzle in public might possibly make a very small difference, however it does not account for the fact that the owners of the type of dog most likely to be aggressive is also the owner least likely to put a muzzle on their dog, or that the majority of attacks have been in the home where the dog wouldn't be muzzled anyway. Since the government would then be upsetting 11 million potential voters whose dogs don't need to wear a muzzle, it won't ever happen.

Guns aren’t banned, plenty of people own guns, they’re licensed.

Your link says nothing about the effect of the DDA.

The other poster’s link to a Canadian website doesn’t work and on the face of it would probably be irrelevant anyway.

’Guns aren’t banned’. OK, neither is plutonium or smallpox virus, because some labs are licensed to use them. 🙄

One last try.

Look at the dates of the pit bull attacks - these were pre pit bull being on the DDA

After they were put on the DDA the attacks by them dropped but dog attacks increased but not with put bulls there were banned but by American XL Bully.

Same will happen now American xl bully attacks may drop but there will be an increase in dog attacks by a different breed

No idea what small pox and plutonium have to do with anything

It was data gathered by Canadian Vetinary Association on the effectiveness of the DDA in the UK, so it is relevent. Here is a link to the PDF I got that quote from.

Evidence on Dangerous Dogs: Breed Specific Legislation

There are many more studies which prove the same. Since 1991 dog attacks have risen steadily while attacks by pitbulls in the UK have remained roughly the same, although there are more pitbulls in the UK now than before the ban.

Thank you. You agree that breed bans do work. Pitbulls no longer figure on the fatalities list. If fools turn to other breeds to intimidate and show off, an answer would therefore be to ban a wider variety of breeds. As I said, the legislation doesn’t go far enough.

A further simple measure - which I’m told applies in Spain, but I haven’t researched it - would be that dogs over a certain size/weight must be muzzled in public.

As for guns, ‘banned’ means that you can’t own one unless you have a good reason and comply with rigorous checks, safety requirements and so on. And many types of gun can’t be owned at all - pistols, automatic weapons etc. Most licensed firearms are shotguns. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom

But illegal guns still circulate among criminals. You’d say the law is ineffective then and we should lift the controls on guns. I’d say that was nonsense.

Very dangerous substances are also banned other than in those places that are specifically licensed for good reason, like labs (for research into disease, poisons and the like) or quarries and demolition firms (for use e.g. explosives).

It’s not difficult.

With respect, that ‘research’ is biased (look at the introduction!), feeble, and in any event doesn’t prove what you say it does.

Presumably there would be an enforcement body funded by the licence fee, or an annual levy on dog owners.

Pitbulls no longer figure on the fatalities list. If fools turn to other breeds to intimidate and show off, an answer would therefore be to ban a wider variety of breeds. As I said, the legislation doesn’t go far enough.

Surely prevention is better than a cure? All that has happened (and will keep happening) is that a new breed replaces the old. XL Bully attacks will reduce over time, but will rise in some other Frankenstein breed. A much better, and more permanent solution would be to control breeders and the outlets. That would be one set of legislation, easier to administer, and enforce, and it would be way more effective.

Also, there are more pitbulls now than there were ten years ago, which in my view shows that the DDA doesn't work. The XL has overshadowed them, but there are still attacks by pitbulls, albeit less fatalities.

From a purely statistical point of view, it would be interesting to see whether current XL owners had previously owned pitbulls.

I encountered one a few days ago. And elderly man and his wife who live in my village, dog sit for people who go on holiday. He has an old rescue dog he walks and the other day he had another, a small dog, he said he was looking after it for his grand daughter and it was ‘one of the American ones’. I asked him if her meant a bully and he said yes.

I told him these were being banned, he said it was OK because his grand daughter had the paperwork!

So many people who don’t read, watch or listen to the news are probably not aware of the new law

I told him these were being banned, he said it was OK because his grand daughter had the paperwork!

I would have assumed he meant his granddaughter was preparing to have her dog exempted. These dogs are not pedigrees so there would be no other paperwork associated with them.

I agree. I had an aggressive dog (not this breed) and after spending two years and a lot of money with behaviourists trying to resolve the issue I had the dog pts. No way would I have rehomed him. He was my responsibility and having him pts was kinder than dumping the problem onto someone else. Wouldn’t have been fair to them or the dog.

The good reason for owning a gun includes a hobby.

Which is effectively what dogs are.

The point is that most people who agree that banning breeds doesn’t work would prefer more extensive legislation that focuses on breeder practices and owners - banning breeds is just a headline grabber, what you need to actually lessen serious dog attacks is education and a change to who and why people breed dogs and who can own them.

Banning breeds is focusing on the wrong end of the lead.