Dangerous dogs - returning to owner

[oviraptor21]

Shocking statement that 85% of these dogs are returned to their owners. How can that be right when only 2 out of more than 100 at this particular facility were categorised as having the lowest level of aggression?

BBC News - 'I dread the phone ringing': Inside the kennels responding to vicious XL bully attacks - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewzw812dd1o

I don’t know why they can’t put the brutes down. The cost to the taxpayer is huge. Any aggressive dog should just be destroyed.

This article absolutely left me cold, I had no idea of the extent of the issue.

Are they being held for dangerous behaviour or for being in breach of the ban? Seems insane that they are returned, even the nicest dog can be affected by a stay in regular boarding kennels so I imagine this will only have negative effects.

I think both, pending court proceedings.

This is an absolute scandal.

£25m housing hundreds and hundreds of these dogs - a cost to the police / taxpayer.

And as for waiting for legal proceedings - we know that there are massive backlogs. It isn't fair to anyone, including the dogs, to keep them for months and months in cages.

The decision about the dogs' safety should lie with dog specialists, not whether or not the owner gets prosecuted for the attack. 85% of dogs where an owner goes to court are returned??

The whole thing is a shit show.

And I see now the plethora of puppies being paraded on Facebook and TikTok as Bull Breed / Cane Corse cross dogs, clearly breeding the next iteration of huge muscular dogs with bite strength etc.

Thick public, pathetic law makers.

I can't believe a dog that attacks or is owned by an organised crime member is a relaxed happy dog - half the ones that are released back probably live miserable lives, no better for their months in a cage.

Destroy the lot.

Yep. That's my feeling too. These are problem dogs in the first place. Cooping them up for months on end is disastrous for them and a complete waste of money for the taxpayer.

In the case of those that have caused injury they should be destroyed. If a subsequent court case finds an error then perhaps some compensation can be paid. That would still be cheaper than housing them for months on end.

In the case of those which are removed for not registering or keeping according to the restrictions, surely a quick DNA breed check can be done and then destroy or return?

Returning any dogs that have been housed for so long in these conditions is just asking for trouble.

The scale of the issue and that 85% are returned to the owner also shocked me. And I had similar concerns about their welfare in being in kennels for so long (I doubt they get much if any exercise or stimulation if they're categorised as being so aggressive) and the impact of that when they are returned. There needs to be a quicker process particularly for XL Bully's (being a banned breed) that have shown aggression.

The clips they showed on the news were awful. None of those dogs should be going back into homes. They sadly need putting down before their next bite / attack.

Agreed.
I think the Panorama programme aired tonight. I must watch it on catch up.

What I dont understand is that we accept that dog breeds have drivers in their DNA that on the whole will come out because they cannot help it;

• Border collies will herd people and pets
• Rerrievers will retrieve
• Lurchers will chase
• Beagles/scent hounds are exceptionally nose-led and independednt when they have picked up on a scent
• Cavalier KCS desires to be near its owners all the time - ultimate companion breed

These are all examples of traits that have been deliberately and sucessfully bred into dog breeds. Ones that we accept will need managing whether it is a worker or a pet.

But when it comes to dangerous fighting history dogs it is suddenly it is "the owner not the breed"

Well fighting dogs are bred to be dog aggressive and not human aggressive because someone needs to get them at the end of a fight and often do things like medical treatment themselves so they don’t get caught. So why would one trait be there and not the other?

It’s always the owner and not the breed because no matter what breed of dog you own, it’s always on an owner to keep people safe, sudden serious attacks are very very rare.

You get the very occasional dog that is absolutely fine and one days isn’t completely out of the blue - usually some sudden medical issue.

Mostly the dog has been an issue for a while and the owner either doesn’t know dogs well enough to spot it….or ignores it until it escalates to something so severe it can’t be unnoticed or ignored anymore. But a responsible owner would have been acting on the earlier warning signs, training, management and ultimately behavioural euthanasia if they weren’t able to make sure the dog wasn’t a danger to anyone.

Breed specific legislation done the way it was for XL bullies (and before them pitbulls) concentrates on the wrong issue, it’s not based on the behaviour of a dog or the DNA, it’s literally how a dog looks. Looking like a type of dog doesn’t pass on behavioural traits.

They knew banning pitbulls that way didn’t work on lowering severe or fatal dog attacks, they’d had 3 decades to come up with better thought out laws that could make a difference and instead, again they rushed through a knee jerk reaction that’s not fit for purpose.

@tabulahrasa I am not disagreeing with you that doing a ban based on looks, feel, measurements is not effective. On this we agree. It is costing them a fortune... they could have prob done it with dna for not much more cost...? That's a guess

Anyway you have perfectly outlined exactly why I wont let my dog anywhere near anything staffie/pitt/bull looking. They are not social. She is more at risk than me for the reasons you state. They have been bred to give little warning before snapping, too. She is more of a target for these dogs than me... but if anything happened I'll be damned if I don't try and stop it happening/end up hurt myself.

I’m not suggesting you just go let your dog mingle Willy nilly 😂

But lots of staffies are absolutely fine with other dogs, they range from was always going to be fine through needed a bit more work to be fine to are going to have an issue despite lots of work and need heavy management… they just skew a bit more to the “wrong” end of that than some other breeds.

if we had better dog laws and better ownership and better breeding then they’d not be an issue.

I’m old enough that I remember watching very similar programmes about pitbulls after that ban and yet here we are, same thing different type 🤷‍♀️

The reason why a lot will be returned is because they were seized for investigation without reason other than being suspected of being an XL bully. Once they are proven not to be, they are returned.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ralph-dog-reunited-tearful-owners-31226865.amp

Unfortunately the phrase ‘it’s the owner, not the dog’ is always trotted out and it’s just not true. Sometimes it is the dog, especially with dogs bred badly from parents with poor temperaments and health issues to start with and where there’s no oversight over degree of inbreeding, etc.

I’ve been involved with dog sports etc and have seen some very experienced and diligent owners struggling with dogs that have poor breeding and temperaments, a couple to the extent the dogs have had to be PTS. These are owners a huge step above the average dog owner in terms of knowledge and time spent trying to train and help their dog’s behaviour. No one seeing the effort some of them went to would tell them it’s the owner and not the dog. There’s a reason it’s very important to pick your puppy/dog carefully. Not all behaviours can be got rid of with clicker training and going to dog classes.

There is also the separate issue that the kind of person who wants one of these dogs in the first place is unlikely to be a responsible dog owner. There are hundreds of dog breeds out there suited to family homes and domestic life already. People who want XL Bullies and the like want them for a certain reason, because they are not appropriate pets for the vast majority of people.

I don't believe that is 85% of them though.

Owners who choose a bully-looking type dog should be asking themselves why - and reconsidering. Those that don't are the problem.

Lots of types of dogs look that way. It's just a big(gish), brachycephalic dog.

They wouldn't be returned if they were banned or proven to be aggressive. People can help the situation by not reporting a dog because you think it looks a certain way. It wastes time and kennel space as you see.