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.

I’d assume she had paperwork showing it was something else tbh - as it was a small dog

I'm pretty sure a work colleague got the morning after pill or similar for their dog when he found out they had mated

I would have taken that to mean "that's okay because she has the exemption paperwork".

@tabulahrasa

Possibly, although any paperwork showing the dog is a different set of breeds will be useless to her. The legislation, just like with the ban on pitbull types, isn't based on the dog's genetic make-up or anything else that would make sense, but rather an arbitrary set of measurements and vague descriptions open to interpretation.

I'd be willing to bet substantial amounts of money that the vast majority of dogs who will get caught up in this nonsense legislation will be other crossbreeds entirely unrelated to XL bully mixes. With the pitbull, it was staffy/lab crosses who paid the price. With the XL bully I would guess it will be mastiff and/or boxer types who are targetted.

Oh absolutely - but small was what’s making me think it’s something else meant as small is one of the few things that’ll mean dogs aren’t of type. 😊

And lots of people still think you can “prove” a dog isn’t a pitbull and that’s been more than 30 years... so...

I think it should just be made more difficult to own dogs full stop far to many irresponsible owners of all breeds not just these XL bullies, too many people get dogs and can’t meet their needs, don’t put the training in, don’t pick up after them and allow them to be a nuisance/treat them like babies. As others have said breeding needs to be looked at to try and stop back yard breeders and breeding more dogs from irresponsible owners

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're asking the wrong question.

It's a bit like asking how many people are killed in British Leyland cars these days, and then saying "wow, road safety has improved" because the answer is none. Whereas road safety is actually nothing to do with brand.

The number of dog attacks has gone up since the DDA. If your starting point is that you want dog attacks to reduce, then DDA is a failure. It was short-sighted and led to the popularity of an even larger breed amongst people who can only be described as problematic owners.

Personally I would say all animal sales have to go through a vet.
Someone after a pet could pay the vet a finders fee and the vet could then match people up with the appropriate pet.
At least all the proper checks would be done. The finders fee could cover the costs of vetting potential owners etc.
Obviously it would be not as simple as that but a damn better place to buy a pet than gumtree

Breeding definitely needs tighter regulation, however, imo the key to reducing fatal dog bites is education.

Research has shown that education can reduce dog bites by around 80%. Whereas the DDA reduces dog bites by precisely fuck all.

I'm at work atm so I don't have time to start trawling through research papers and books to find the source but a fairly robust recent study into fatal dog bites showed that circumstances at the time of the attack played a far greater role than the breed of dog.

4 or more of the below were found to be present in over 80% of incidents;

The absence of an able-bodied person to intervene
No familiar relationship between the victim and the dog
The dog was entire
Compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (e.g. mental disabilities)
Dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (e.g. dogs kept chained in backyards)
Owners' prior mismanagement of dogs
Owners' history of abuse or neglect of dogs.

I don't believe anyone, even hardened criminals, want their dog to kill family members or innocent bystanders. It's a lack of understanding and education on the owner's part that plays the biggest role.

I'm not sure that vets would want, or have the appropriate skills to take on this responsibility. They are trained in animal medicine and surgery, not necessarily in psychology.

This 👆

Very well articulated 👍

Who is going to police this ban though? Can't remember the last time I saw a police officer, and the ones that do exist surely have more serious crimes to deal with.

I think that's exactly the point some of us have been making. Nobody will police it unless they stumble upon it in daily life. More likely an event will happen, at which point the owner will be held liable which is almost exactly as it is currently albeit with a possibly heavier consequence.

This is the very reason that prevention is better than cure and that regulating breeders and outlets more thoroughly is a much better control of the problem.