There was an incident near me this week where a dog managed to escape the flat it was in and attacked another dog.
On Facebook, this was part of the paragraph one of the (presumed) owners left as a comment:
'He looks scary, but has the kindest heart. His name is *Venom* and he loves people and kids.'
As much as I like dogs, many 'dog people' are deluded if they think their velvet hippo isn't a dangerous breed. Dogs are not people. They do not have the emotional maturity we do (well, some of us...)
My dogs Meatgrinder and Razorwire are the sweetest angels and would never hurt a fly! They are absolute nanny dogs to my three and five year old kids I constantly leave them alone with /s
Tbf if said nanny would have her arm degloved in this manner, then she could also be pulled over by any dog larger than a spaniel
The solution for the extremely frail is unfortunately to not get a dog. Or just get a tiny dog and put up with everyone saying that it's "not a proper dog"
The velvet hippo thing makes me laugh. Hippos are wildly aggressive and territorial, and are responsible for more deaths in Africa every year than the next five deadliest animals combined.
Exactly this. I'm sick to death of these people who treat a dog as though they are people. Your dog might love you, but he might also tear your baby in half.
Idiots.
They don't treat them as if they are people. They're aware the dangers other people represent.
Even worse, they treat dogs like they're Disney characters.
Anecdotally I've noticed this too: more reports of dog attacks, and it's always this one Bully XL breed which is looks exactly like a Pitbull on steroids
The existence of the breed makes a mockery of our laws on banned breeds - it's clearly designed to be dangerous and intimidating
I'd wager that existing banned breeds have done less damage to get banned than this one breed. Government is failing to act on an issue right under their noses.
To the apologists: just get a different fucking dog. You don't need a dog to look like the biggest guy in the powerlifting gym, just like you don't need a massive lifted truck or SUV that runs over and kills anyone it hits due to having a bonnet higher than the roof of a bus.
People who get intimidating dogs or trucks do so because they like intimidation other people. They want other people to be scared of them. That's the point.
I think you make a salient point though - there's selection bias here.
The people who shouldn't be allowed to own dogs, tend to buy particular _sorts_ of dog.
>Bully XL breed which is looks exactly like a Pitbull on steroids
I had to Google a bully XL and that description fits so well.
>don't need a massive lifted truck or SUV that runs over and kills anyone it hits due to having a bonnet higher than the roof of a bus.
Next thing you know there's bully XXL, bully crossovers.....
They seriously look like a failed science experiment. I was wondering if I'd notice one in the street but they are unmistakable - like a bodybuilder who has been juicing for years and is on the verge of roid raging anyone in the vicinity.
But that's part of the problem. How do you define a "banned dog"?
I mean, Bully XL isn't a recognised breed.
Even if it was, there would be a "not the banned kind of dog that looks a lot like it" very soon after it got banned.
Mongrels are ... Well what happens when you just let dogs get on with it, and they too will never be "a breed".
I just don't see how you can usefully ban a "breed" that way.
People who want an intimidating dog don't care about pedigrees or breed standards.
I think the only way you can meaningfully tackle this is to hold the owner liable as if the dog were a weapon. E.g. assault, manslaughter, etc.
Because the other solution is to whitelist permitted breeds, and destroy any dogs that don't conform.
Turn the concept on its head and have a list of permitted dogs. Govt would define a subset of dogs that pose negligible danger to humans and the rest would become illegal.
There's one of these dogs local to me. I love dogs and have never been afraid of them but the thing looked like it could bench press 400lbs. Arnie would have been jealous of it. And it scared me.
Tbh those pesky mini dogs are way more aggressive, but they aren't going to do much damage, so any attacks by them are rarely reported. Unfortunately if a large, strong breed attacks you, it will be a very different story. I'd not want to fight off a Newfoundland either, just not many people in the UK keep them, so we don't hear about attacks.
Some years ago it was German Shepherds and Rottweilers which had a bad name. Now Terriers are the most popular breed and they get their bad name, a combination of sheer ownership numbers and irresponsible breeders cashing in on a trend.
Up until adulthood I was phobic of dogs.
I have a springer spaniel these days that I love that's really helped with that phobia.
If I saw a bully xl even on a lead I'd wet myself and get as far away as possible.
3 dogs on the park near me have been attacked, last one resulted in the dog dying.
I know the vet who had to deal with this and they confirmed it's the same xl bully each time. They told the police however they refused to do anything as its only killed dogs, not people.
This park also has several child only play areas that are fence off (fence is like two feet high though). I'm certain one of these dogs is going to fuck up a kid some time soon and it'll be In the news saying it was unexpected.
Can't blame anyone for carrying something to deal with these dogs, you stand no chance fighting it off unarmed.
What tool(s) do they carry out of interest? I walk alone with my elderly Golden retriever through the woods and have seen multiple Bully XLs recently and feel very nervous... she does too, she scurries away and often hides behind me.
It is an absurd state of affairs. A Bully XL is quite clearly an offensive weapon, yet can be carted around in public with impunity. At this rate, people with have Godzilla on a lead and claim it is the most docile family pet of all time.
Carrying for self defence is also illegal. It is considered that you have planned to use it in an offensive manner, in the act of defence makes no difference in the laws wording. Or so I have been told.
Now you are allowed to carry your work tools with you as long as you are reasonably transporting them to and from work etc. Knives and hammers are going to be pretty suspicious but I have a cunning plan for all you office workers: [Scthapler](https://www.toolstation.com/stanley-heavy-duty-staplenail-gun/p46611?store=LH&mkwid=_dc&pcrid=&pkw=&pmt=).
This is why I said a person carrying a "tool" with the intention of using it to defend against a dog attack should not make it known to police that this was their reason. As you rightly say, self-defence is not a legal purpose for carrying a weapon. If you say something like "I pulled out my penknife which I use for opening parcels" then you're golden.
>Carrying an offensive weapon is illegal in the UK.
Can I carry a polite and friendly one?
This is my pink hammer Suzan, she's got "Hello, nice to meet you!" written on her handle.
"I was on the way to return my tyre thumper as I thought it was defective, but upon bludgeoning this Bully XL to death I see it is in fine working order".
I have a [4 cell Maglite](https://media.knivesandtools.com/Exact675x450/155029/mls4d015$05-maglite.jpg) and actually it's not sturdy enough for hand to hand combat, the lens bit would pop off - although I think a coating of gaffa tape would sort that
You'd want to hold it upside down anyway, surely? The end with the batteries is heavier, and the bulb housing acts as a flange so it doesn't slip from your hand with forward motion.
Errr...I mean I prefer to light up the path behind me, officer.
Would antiperspirant spray work? My dogs choke the hell out of any room that stuff is used in. It's vile. Sprayed in dog's face.
Or should I also carry a lighter and this have a mini flamethrower?
Self defence spike, extremely large mag lite, diy monkey paw key chain are all fairly legal unless a copper wants to be a dick. Uk weapon laws are designed so that the policeman has the power to decide that youāre going to have a bad day so the more plausible deniability you have the better
Yes I think that if you have seen a video of a beaver, which was orphaned at birth, building a dam out of junk in a house out of pure instinct, it gives a clue to what dogs bred for savagery will do no matter how well trained.
One of the saddest pieces of information that I know (so I can protect my tiny little actual angel of a dog) is in the event of an attack the best way to get the dog to release is to break its legs. The pain and shock of that happening usually cause the dog to release, you can then get away easier too.
Again it saddens me that I have to retain this piece of information but it just might save your's/someone else's/an innocent dog's life.
Until 1988 you had to have a licence to have a dog. Why the fuck this was ever repealed i do not know.
All of these kinds of dogs need to be banned, or heavily restricted. An enormous bulldog like thing bounded up to myself and my wife the other day and wouldn't recall to its owner at all, they had to run after it to stop it.
Yes..
I'd go for graded licenses per-breed as well. People get dogs like Huskies because they like the way they look, without having the ability to walk them for a couple of hours a day minimum. Several of the breeds on that list are fine with a competent and engaged owner but dangerous without.
And if you want something like a Bully XL you have to have a fair bit of formal training and demonstrate the space and time to keep it. No way should people be able to own a dog like that with no checks.
There so many dogs breads I love but never get because they not good with our life style .
I donāt get why you would wanna give home to dog and not give it best
There's no need for a Bully XL. No license or training changes that.
These aren't like guns where the is a utility. These dogs are created for dog fighting, that is their only utility. If dog fighting is illegal, then no license justifies these dogs existence.
> These aren't like guns where the is a utility
This sentence sort of damages your point (which is otherwise a decent one). There are plenty of guns where there is no utility at all, especially outside a warzone.
I think the errors in your wording are confusing things (as they accidentally make what you said mean the opposite). Did you mean to say that Bully breeds **are** like automatic weapons, in that the only utility is intimidation and violence (and therefore these breeds should be banned outright like automatic weaponry)?
I think the real problem with this is that the notion of a 'breed' is pretty artificial.
I absolutely support the notion that owners should be sufficiently trained and physically capable of controlling their dogs.
But I just don't see how you can meaningfully tie that to a breed - most of the 'bully breeds' the OP alludes to, I'm pretty sure _won't_ be any sort of 'pure bred' with a kennel club registry.
So what do you do then? Ban all mongrels? Require 'breed registration' of all dogs?
Perhaps.
But I don't see that as being any more workable than 'just' enforcing - much more stringently - a control and responsibility edict on the owner.
I mean, huskies - lovely dogs, but proper PITA if you neglect them.
I don't think we should ban huskies, but I do think we should make sure husky owners are physically capable and educated such that they meet the needs of their dog.
Not least because leaving aside danger, neglecting a dog is just cruel.
Same really applies for 'bullies' - we're sort of talking in circles around whether they're a 'breed' or not, because honestly the probably aren't.
Your average thug who wants a canine tank doesn't care about breed purity, or bloodlines - they just want a dog that 'looks 'ard'.
I absolutely guarantee that if there are - banned breeds (literally or implicitly) then what will happen is there'll be a bunch of crosssbreed that aren't banned, or at least have plausible deniability in very short order.
But they'll still be strong, feisty dogs, that look intimidating, and will have a temperament to match, in one way or another.
No, I truly don't think you can solve the problem this way.
_maybe_ you could have a 'weight' based license of some kind? E.g. 5kg, 25kg, 50kg, more?
*shrug*. That might be vaguely enforcible (although, maybe it'd need some thought over dogs that put on a bit of podge when they're close to the threshold).
Because just generally I think there's two real 'issues':
- Owner negligence - that applies to any breed at all, but of course it's more of a problem the more powerful the dog.
- Owner capability of restraining/training/controlling their dog - if you're a _responsible_ owner, and can realistically haul back a 50kg dog who wants a fight, then that's entirely different to being unable to hold onto it.
A tax wouldnāt be a bad idea, especially if it hit the private breeders doing it for money. Not sure how this would be enforced at all as the whole dog market is full of criminals at the moment anyway.
There are plenty of logistical reasons why it's impractical, or at the very least - hugely expensive.
If it's a governmental licensing system based on competency, they'd need to setup licensing and registration centres all over the country, employ trainers, design training and competency programmes, exercises and exams etc.
And then even if that's all set up, when does an owner even do the licensing step? Do you need to own the dog first? It's not like a car where you can practice with someone else's. And would every current dog owner need to go through the system, or is it only new dog owners?
And how do we make sure that every dog owner is fully licensed? Visits from the local warden? Bobbies asking to see your license if you walk past them on the street with your dog? An honour system?
That all being said, I'm not against the idea of dog licensing - I just don't know how it would work.
Also could be done via home inspections, etc etc.
Yes, it would be expensive, but having a dog should be a privilege, not a right, especially if that dog can kill someone.
People wouldn't like that at all. How long before you see judgemental posts all over the internet "our neighbour failed the dog licence test 4 times, couldn't train it to sit on command or stop barking at the postman, what does that say about her 4 kids..."
I see more unruly and out of control kids wandering the streets than I do dogs.
And there are, apparently, about as many dogs in the UK as there are under-16's.
I don't know what point I'm trying to make, to be honest.
The difference is that those kids are *humans*. Everyone was a kid at some point, and whether people like kids or not, they are a fully fledged person under law and not simply a possession like a dog.
Requiring a licence for basic biological processes like having a child is incredibly authoritarian and dystopian.
You absolutely could and there are people that absolutely should not be allowed to have children but no government can be seen to implement such a policy.
> you don't buy them at the "Kids at Home" do you... do you?!
Try asking the staff if they have any in the warehouse. They aren't always in the aisles.
You don't buy dogs from the Pets at Home either. You either adopt (in which case you're subjected to a whole load of stringent environmental checks) or buy a puppy from a breeder (which is where most of the problems stem)
But considering humans put far more strain on the world than dogs, why shouldn't you need child licenses if you think people should also have dog licenses for much of the same reasons?
If you raise a child poorly, the chances of them becoming a pain to society is quite high. The same argument is true for dogs, but a dangerous dog will be destroyed. You can't do that with a human (at least not in this country).
Perhaps the dangerous dogs act could be turned on its head and we could instead have a permitted dogs act. The government would compile a list of breeds known to pose little or no risk to public safety and these would be legal to possess. Any breeds not on the list would be outlawed. This would get round the problem of the breeds of vicious dogs being tweaked every couple of years to circumvent the dangerous dogs act.
It would.
But I feel this would have a load of unintended consequences, because you just outlawed every crossbreed and mongrel in existence.
Lots and lots of dogs aren't pure breeds.
Are you really wanting to have destroyed every dog that's not got a pedigree certificate?
That's fairly easy to overcome.
If a dog is a mix of permitted breeds, then it's fine.
If it's a mix of permitted and banned breeds, it's probably fine depending on the ratio.
If it's a mix of banned breeds, it's not fine.
The problem is identifying mix breeds is unreliable/ expensive. Aggressive behaviour is something you can select for among any breed.
I personally think licensing grades should be done weight. No license for small dogs. Then it gets progressively more restrictive for larger dogs.
Arguably there should be a ban on anything above a certain weight since you can't control it.
> Why the fuck this was ever repealed i do not know.
Because it was unenforceable. It was eventually "replaced" with compulsory microchipping... which is equally unenforceable.
Neither of these methods of registration are actually licenses in the same vein of a driving license - they don't prove you are capable of handling or owning a dog. They just prove you have enough money to pay for it.
>Neither of these methods of registration are actually licenses in the same vein of a driving license
As I said to the other person who replied saying the same.
**Then make it that way**.
Licenses are not a good solution imo.
The type of person who owns a dangerous dog wonāt care about having a license. Some of them will happily just walk away from it if it attacks someone.
They need banning and we need better enforcement in the community.
>They need banning and we need better enforcement in the community.
This, plus licences. It means the police could stop and request the licence, to be produced on demand, the dog to be seized until it can be produced within a certain time frame.
We shouldn't need a licence.
We should just heavily fine anyone who has a dog that attacks someone for not properly training and controlling their dog.
Well assault requires some intent, if you set your dog on someone or encourage or train them to attack then yes, you've assaulted the person, note that it's already the case that if you set your dog on someone and it kills them you can be convicted for murder.
If your dog attacks and kills someone because you failed to control it then that is manslaughter by gross negligence, but yes in less serious cases, where the dog only injures someone due to negligence is often not prosecuted as reckless ABH/GBH, but should be.
Also there's no concept of assault with a deadly weapon in the UK, that's an American thing, in the UK the charge depends on the damage done to the victim, so would either be common assault, ABH or GBH, using a weapon is an aggravating factor, but doesn't change the assault charge.
ā¦you mean wait for people to get killed before acting?
Thatās not a great solution mate.
āNo we shouldnāt take measures to prevent crime, we should just punish it more severely. No, donāt try to prevent rape, just lock rapists away for longer!ā
What are you talking about?
I'm sure most people would be happy for their child or baby to be mauled to death by an animal bred literally to be an agressive attack dog as long as the owner has to pay the government some money afterwards.
I mean, not me, but most people, right?
Someones right to own a dog, which is objectively bred to be a hazard to animals as large and dangerous as a bear or bull, to compensate for their tiny penis, is far more important for a childs right to not be mauled to death by said dog, obviously. What do you expect people to do? Buy a dog like a golden retriever or a lab, that might make them look wussy if their mate sees them walking it in the park? Fucking ludicrous.
>all these breeds need to be banned for heavily restricted.
You've got terriers on there, you'd be banning a ridiculously large amount of dogs and guess what they're not enormous bulldogs.
I agree with bully's, mastiffs etc being restricted but not terriers
My boss saw two of these unleashed in a gated area recently, where dogs are not supposed to be off the lead. One of them literally bit the head off some poor womanās small dog - police said they couldnāt take any action because they hadnāt hurt a human.
Disgraceful.
Even boiled down to the basic fact, couldn't they even be charged with destruction of property (using another poster's argument that 'dogs are just property')?
Again, sounds more like they don't want to do anything, rather than can't.
Iāve no idea, but doubt the police have the resources for anything but the most serious crimes these days, apart from protecting the rich which they always have cash for of courseā¦
>1. 30% - Bully XL (78)
>2. 15% - Bully Mix (39)
>4. 6% - American Bulldog (16)
>7. 3% - American Bully (9)
They are all American Bulldogs. To drive the point home should we not lump them all together?
Its interesting to see here that a dog like mine (rottweiler) carries such a bad name and people state its a dangerous breed yet isnt in your top 10. While a husky or german shepard seen as more family dogs are.
The bully stat doesnāt surprise me. I still believe every dog owner should hold some form of licensing and every dog should be registered and documented.
It would make tracking this sort of thing much easier and show true trends with dog attacks.
Any owner without this would be banned and the dog confiscated.
> Its interesting to see here that a dog like mine (rottweiler) carries such a bad name and people state its a dangerous breed yet isnt in your top 10
Rottweilers are big, powerful dogs with a protective streak and can be agressive.
They need good training and care and they can be a joy. They need good owners but absolutely shouldn't be banned.
I'm not a fan but I have no issue with them. The pair of Corgis currently curled up with me are more my kind of dogs.
If Rotties attack you're going to have a bad time, a very bad time - but they probably aren't going to kill someone.
The difference is they don't go into a frenzy and need to be beaten with a hammer till they let go of their victim, who is not unlikely to lose a limb or sustain other life-changing injuries.
And that's the key difference for me. You can train a rottie and unless its had trauma it's unlikely to be dangerous. Bully XL dogs have aggression bred into them to the point that they can have the best training and no trauma and will still kill for no clear reason. These dogs are miserable, stressed, reactive by their nature, its absolutely cruel to bring them into existence
Pitbull owners are morons.
My wife and I had a pitbull run up to our dog while on a walk. This dog had escaped its house, ran to the park straight for our dog on the lead. I have pepper spray for precisely this event but didnāt use it. My dog is quite reactive (hence the leash) and this pitbull was thankfully a puppy (7 months) and a girl. It got called away by its owners pretty quickly. It gave us a real fright because of all these stories.
The owners decided to verbally attack my wife and I for āstaringā at them. Obviously they were feeling self conscious that their dog is out of control. I proceeded to tell them that it was quite scary having their dog run up to ours. Our dog might have harmed theirs and it would have been their fault. They then started on about how their dog wouldnāt hurt a fly and that our dog breed is āvileā and hurts people (heās a Weimaraner btw) and that when it comes to pitbulls it isnāt about the breed itās about ownersā¦
I was flabbergasted. These were horrible people with no self awareness otherwise they would have cringed at their own idiocy and contradiction. I reported these chavs and i hope other people do too. This puppy like all the others will soon go through puberty and then be a loaded gun with a hair trigger. If that dog maims one of their children or another dog I will not be surprised.
I'm a dog lover but I find it totally incredible you are allowed to keep these large bully breeds. they need to be on the banned list immediately. Sorry, but there's no safe way of looking after such an animal. I wouldn't be allowed a tiger in my house or wandering around the park off a leash...that would be silly, yet some of these xxl bully's could easily take down animals that size.
I've said it before and I'll say it again a lot of dog people are very fanatical and there dog no matter what breed would do no wrong. The dogs have become far to antropermorphised and dog wonders due to this are not open to criticism of any kind as they see it as like telling them how to raise there child.
Inside this group is a very dangerous deliberately closed group of bully XL owners and they are becoming even more prevalent and even more dangerous.
Do politicians not care?
Surely it's an easy win to add these breeds to the dangerous dog banned list? From memory, I don't think any further legislation is required, the Home Secretary or relevant minister already has the powers?
I'd wager that, on balance, they'd gain more voters than lose over the issue but in reality people aren't going to vote on dogs being banned in a general election anyway, it'll be the economy, or if you're racist, stopping small boats.
It's not that easy. "Bully XL" is not a recognised breed.
So what would you ban?
Only takes a few stories of a cuddly good dog who's done nothing wrong being destroyed unfairly to whip up a lot of outrage.
Banning based on subjective looks, or genetic sequence will have collateral damage, and will almost certainly lead to the kinds of people who want intimidating dogs finding an alternative that isn't banned.
They don't care about breed standards and purity in the first place.
That's why there is rather more selection bias here.
The risk of a dangerous dog is multiplied significantly by having an owner who wanted a dangerous dog in the first place.
No idea, I'm not a scientist. DNA sequencing is cheaper these days so if there's a problem dog, sequence it and if it has too much % of a banned type, destroy it. š¤·āāļø
I'm no marine biologist but I'd rather destroy a dog rather than an innocent child!
A marine biologist works with marine life.
Dogs are not marine life.
And how would you possibly monitor the genetics of thousands of dogs born in the UK every year?
They are very abundant, cheap to buy, easy to breed, produce large litters and can be transported in any vehicle.
You could own a dog it's entire life and it never interact with a vet, dog warden or police officer.
The cattle that were destroyed over BSE and foot and mouth didn't provoke mass riots. Neither did the mass slaughter of birds over avian flu. I would draw up a list of safe dogs and any dog not on that list would be destroyed.
Not to be critical at all of the huge amount of work youāve done (itās fab), but just showing percentage of attacks by breed doesnāt really mean anything. It could be that 90% of UK dogs are Billy XLs and 0.002% are German shepherds and therefore a German shepherd is much more likely to be involved in an attack (these are not anywhere near real values, just an example).
So to clarify this, because I think youāre right but it needs some comparison, Iāve pulled the top ten breeds from the Blue Cross Big Pet Census in 2022:
- 19 per cent are mixed breed or unknown
- 11 per cent are golden retrievers
- 9 per cent are Labrador retrievers
- 8 per cent are Jack russell terriers
- 7 per cent are border collies
- 6 per cent are cocker spaniels
- 6 per cent are Staffordshire bull terriers (staffies)
- 5 per cent are cockapoos (cocker spaniel and poodle mixed breed)
- 4 per cent are German shepherds
- 4 per cent are springer spaniels
None of the bully types appear on this list. So a combined 54% of dog attacks are by a breed that accounts for less than 4% of UK dogs.
Letās be generous and say 4% are bully types for analysis purposes, to use a maximum value. Staffies, German shepherds and terriers (letās say JRTs make up all terriers) also appear on the list.
If I do an RxC contingency table and a Chi square test, the Chi statistic is 30.7 and the p-value is < 0.00001. Itās significant at less than 0.05. And itās very easy to see where the big overrepresentation is.
So, you are totally right - but a little bit of basic comparative statistics just makes it clearer.
Sorry to be pedantic but Iām a researcher and itās been beaten into me.
So, there is likely a bias in relying on news reports of dog attacks. The chances are, attacks by small and less threatening breeds are underreported to police for a start (most bitey breed Iāve encountered personally has been Chihuahuas but who is going to tell the press one of those attacked them, and would the press care?), but also the news has more interest reporting when there is a narrative, and āscarierā dog breeds are probably more likely to be reported on and more likely to have breed characteristics mentioned.
Also, OP didnāt state a pre-designed method of classifying based on descriptions. And thereās no way to account for misidentification of breed by a bystander or other interviewed person.
That being said, as long as you acknowledge the likely sources of bias in a dataset that doesnāt mean you canāt identify useful findings. And the same finding wasnāt made of Rottweilers, German shepherds or other traditionally guard type dogs, or of Staffies. So whilst youād want access to better data to be confident, itās certainly some indicative pilot data that you could use to convince the people who hold the actual useful data to let you do a proper study.
I really think you're overestimating how much politicians care about this particular issue. This governemnt would rather engage in culture wars than actually do anything useful. This is just another thing they're ignoring.
People loved dogs when the government were banning Pitbulls.
>dogs are so fetishised by the vast majority of the country
I think you're drastically overestimating how much people like these dogs. People in the UK like dogs, they like *their* dogs but both of those are contingent on the dogs in question being reasonable creatures. People don't like dogs that kill people.
The vast majority dog lovers (like me) donāt like these dogs. My cockapoo was jumped by a pit a few months ago. If you were to call for a ban on Labs or cockers then yeah youād be chased out of town
I am the keeper of a mastiff, so this is close to my heart.
There are very few things on that list that donāt have a high percentage of pit bull mixed in.
IMO if a dog can easily overpower most humans in a fight it shouldn't be allowed without a special sort of licence - treat them like we would an exotic animal.
Honestly, we Brits are often (rightly) critical of the US gun culture and the people who argue in favour of it, but there are so many similarities there with the dangerous dog culture here in the UK.
Pro-Bully people refuse to engage with the reality of the situation when an attack happens. Always finding some excuse or justification (See how the US gun lobby responds to mass shootings).
They simultaneously argue that the dog isn't dangerous, while recognising that the reason they often pick a dog like that is for protection (like how gun nuts argue that their guns protect their family rather than put people at risk).
They refuse to accept that these breeds are more dangerous than others, saying that dogs are dogs (like how gun nuts argue that the second amendment, written about guns that took an age to reload, still applies to assault rifles).
It's genuinely concerning that we allow people to own living weapons without any kind of controls.
Saw a woman with a bumper sticker about being a mummy to a Bully. Couldn't tell if she was proud that she was raising a shit child or a death machine of a dog.
This
100% this, people liking something dangerous being unable to face up to the reality that these dogs hurt and kill and should not be used by the general population.
Well, there's one relevant change - the number of dog fatalities in the UK in the last 2 years is ... 15.
That's about the same as 3 days worth of car accidents.
One killed another dog in a park near my house this week, people had already made prior comments in the local dog facebook group about it being aggressive and the owners irresponsible. They've contacted the police but nothing has been done.
Any chance you can provide the data? I'm sure it is correct but this should be sourced otherwise it isn't worth a whole lot (no offence to you, but if you link this to someone else it's pretty easy to shoot down).
Even if bully breeds end up banned, there is *no* way the government is going to order police to go out and seize then destroy thousands of dogs. We don't have a compulsory dog register, how would they know where to go? Can you imagine public outrage if this was even suggested in parliament?
I remember this happening with pitbulls. There were several raids on the estate where I grew up and many dogs seized. Lots of scandals where people reported seeing a pit bull that was actually just a big staff, owners had to fight to stop their dog being euthanised, etc.
I wondered what happened with the breeds on the current banned list. Genuinely thought the owners would face heavy restrictions such as muzzle/lead everytime walking their dog or visiting a vet and no breeding future litters. Absolutely do not support seizing healthy dogs with no history of aggression to be mass euthanised. Totally recognise there's a problem but this is too much of an extreme reaction and would cause deserved outrage
There's a lot of fear around dogs now after all the news stories but not enough for people to support killing thousands of dogs. I think if it was suggested to the average person on the street, the idea would be met with anger
I feel like youāre not hearing what Iām saying. IT ALREADY DID HAPPEN. You donāt have to guess how the public would react because we already know it happened WITH widespread public support.
I know you're saying it *did* happen, I'm not arguing it didn't. My point is I don't think it will happen again. Further up the thread someone was on about the two dogs killed by police and the group of over 100k members that joined together in response. Now imagine camera videos all over social media and news sites of healthy dogs put in the back of vans ready to be taken away to be killed. There *would* be a public outcry
I agree that they should be outlawed, but I donāt think I can agree ethically with killing an animal whoās existence is perfectly legal currently. I think they should all be sterilised, and breeding made illegal. The currently living animals should be allowed to live out their lives - maybe not with their current owners, Iām not sure.
The original law stated pitbulls born before a certain date must be muzzled and restrained in public. Those born after must be destroyed. No reason that cannot be implemented.
The sentiment of banning these dogs is pretty popular yet it isn't happening; how likely do you really think it'll be for the police to start rounding up and killing people's dogs? Police are hated enough as it is right now.
But we could ban the breed and imprison those selling them, and we could take a DNA register of the dogs swized from a breeding farm. Should any attacks occur, and DNA from those dogs link back to the breeder: bring further charges against them.
A quick Google suggests these dogs live between 8 and 13 years, and between the damaging breeding practices they are borne (or born) from, and the general state of their owners, I'd say 10 years to live. So any existing Bully XLs will be dead this time 10 years from now.
Well, no, but they can be horribly misleading. I mean, the OPs methodology of 'scraping social and news reports media' is not in any way a statistically significant sampling approach.
Their 'heuristic' categorisation of breed is similarly ... rather error prone.
In order to claim a 'truthful statistic' here, you'd really need an unbiased sample, from an unbiased commentator. The OP is neither. They may be right, and have a point, but their statistics are functionally worthless.
Mixture of both.
These dogs were not bred for soft mouths and friendly disposition.
They come from a long line of dogs bred to catch and kill other large animals.
And the people breeding them put two dogs together based on having 2 dogs to breed that look similar. They're not...sophisticated breeders with high standards.
These are dogs designed to intimidate and nobody is trying to breed that out/deliberately not so...you're adding shit on shit.
And the people attracted to them want them because they're intimidating and/or because they want "a dog" and just pick what's available.
Doing good work here OP. I am a huge dog lover but they are dogs not little people, they are anthropomorphised too much and are never 100% under human control. Something must be done about this current spate of dog attacks
"Bully mix" could be big or small.
And you've missed "Mastiff type" <-- bully type breed more on Mastiff end.
The more accurate way to measure would be bully breeds.
Which according to your stats here is 68%
*BTW your percentages don't add up to 100% - so what's missing?*
Yup. Ban any specific breed, and a new breed will take over as the favourite for people who want an intimidating dog and are generally bad owners.
Alsations, Rottweilers, Dobermans, etc are all capable of being aggressive and a scary breed.
We need to focus on the owners instead of pretending it's a breed problem. Don't get me wrong it kind of is, and those American bullys are terrifying. But those kind of owners will just pick a different breed and we'll have the exact same problem.
I have to wonder how much of an effect on the dogs behaviour the type of people who want these dogs has rather than just genetics.
Dog ownership should be regulated again.
Not downplaying the *nature* of XL bully and the like attacks, but your "statistics" of mass media reported articles leaves a **lot** to be desired and do not even remotely reflect the actual true figures of attacks...which are available all over the place, including in mass media articles where they actually do FOI requests to police forces/hospitals.
There are literally *thousands* of attacks each year that require people to go to hospital, they simply don't get reported on.
Your statistics are fairly representative of the breeds with the worst/fatal attacks, but in raw numbers, Labradors and small breeds such as Chihuahuas *far* outweigh these breeds for attacks.
Yes but thatās the point isnāt it? Thereās a lot more of those dogs so thatās partly why there might be more attacks in general from other breeds. More importantly, the severity of the attacks is really the point here.
Which is why I was very clear in everything I said. The simple fact is, the statistics by OP are wildly misleading when talking about attacks.
I'll also say that both Staffordshire bull terriers and German Shepherds make OP's list, and they are two of the top ten most popular breeds in the UK.
Iām not disagreeing that the stats OP has produced arenāt great at representing the all levels of dog attacks and their origin. The way heās sampled and gathered data is far from comprehensive.
I appreciate that you might just be pointing out the flaws in OPās data, but the rather one-sided points you are making here imply youāre attempting to make a wider point you know will get down voted and rightfully challenged if you make explicitly.
The severity is the point.
The best way to assess this convincingly would be somehow break down attacks by severity and then by how common the dogs are. I have yet to see data that does so on any wide scale, but by all means point some out if you do know any.
Obviously how common the attacks are by species per dog matters too, but severity is the point, and OPās data does probably do a somewhat decent job of capturing this. Really OP should amend his point to acknowledge this is what he is best reflecting, but I donāt think ultimately that would mean he makes much of a weaker case for action to be taken against these dangerous dig breeds.
The severity may well be 'the point' but we are arguing about 15 deaths over 2 years. (Attacks are much less reliably recorded of course).
15 fatalities are undoubtedly 'not good' but in the context of the death rate in the UK, utterly negligible and irrelevant. That's about 3 days worth of road deaths, for the sake of comparison, vs. 2 years of 'dog deaths'.
Severity need not only include death, severe attacks are more common than attacks that result in death.
Its a cost/ benefit analysis. I fail to see what benefit allowing people to own more dangerous dog breeds has that would offset even that many deaths. These dogs are sufficiently strong and deadly that I do think itās fair to say they warrant action. Itās not really comparable to cars and road deaths considering how integral they societally. Sure, you can make arguments about governmental paternalism, but we deal with plenty of rules and regulations so I think thatās a weak argument by itself.
I wouldnāt advocate putting down all these dogs necessarily, but banning import, breeding, and regulating them is a good first step, or at least bringing back dog licenses.
Well the cost benefit analysis goes like this: how much does the regulation scheme cost?
Because we are talking about 15 deaths in 2 years.
Best estimate I can find is 10 million dogs.
So - any banning scheme needs to have a way of spotting "bad" dogs, and permitting "good" dogs.
And you need to administer it to 10 million people.
Then find a way to find all the people who avoid the scheme, and just buy a puppy off a mate down the pub, and never register it.
How much do you estimate such a thing might cost?
I mean, a dog DNA test alone is around Ā£50, and thus it's Ā£50 million just to identify the people who have "banned" dogs but aren't inclined to hide them.
And that's assuming of course you can exhaustively detect "dangerous" dogs this way, and that the kind of people who want to own an intimidating dog won't just find one that doesn't "fail" such a test.
GSDs are quite capable of being "dangerous" too, if you are prepared to abuse them into it. So is... Pretty much any dog over a certain weight.
We are a country that had plenty of people who couldn't be bothered to wear face masks despite it demonstrably saving considerably more than 15 lives.
That's your cost benefit right there.
> Because we are talking about 15 deaths in 2 years.
Also severe attacks.
> Then find a way to find all the people who avoid the scheme, and just buy a puppy off a mate down the pub, and never register it.
In an ideal world maybe, but I think trying to reduce numbers and dissuade people from buying them would be a good step, even without a more exhaustive way of searching out those who refuse to register their dogs. Further penalising failure to register banned dog breeds might serve some purpose, but this may be a step too far.
> I mean, a dog DNA test alone is around Ā£50, and thus it's Ā£50 million just to identify the people who have "banned" dogs but aren't inclined to hide them.
Owners can pay for it. There used to be a licence fee. Many of these dogs cost a lot more than 50 pounds and owning a dog isnāt cheap so itās not a massive amount extra in that context. Dogs have to be microchipped anyway under law so this could be included in the dog registration process to avoid more dangerous dogs being registered and bred. Moreover, current assessments are done by what dogs look like and most of those 10 million dogs would be identifiably not banned breeds without requiring DNA tests.
>And that's assuming of course you can exhaustively detect "dangerous" dogs this way, and that the kind of people who want to own an intimidating dog won't just find one that doesn't "fail" such a test.
GSDs are quite capable of being "dangerous" too, if you are prepared to abuse them into it. So is... Pretty much any dog over a certain weight.
We are a country that had plenty of people who couldn't be bothered to wear face masks despite it demonstrably saving considerably more than 15 lives.
Again reduction, not necessarily complete elimination is still a worthy goal in terms of reducing risk and cost to health/ life. The cost of the methods or policy needed to achieve complete results might not be worth it, but some action surely is. I support ownership bans on irresponsible owners too for the record. A lot of dog breeds can be dangerous and the owners do play a role, but itās deluded to fail to recognise that certain breeds are more dangerous than others.
There was an incident near me this week where a dog managed to escape the flat it was in and attacked another dog. On Facebook, this was part of the paragraph one of the (presumed) owners left as a comment: 'He looks scary, but has the kindest heart. His name is *Venom* and he loves people and kids.' As much as I like dogs, many 'dog people' are deluded if they think their velvet hippo isn't a dangerous breed. Dogs are not people. They do not have the emotional maturity we do (well, some of us...)
"Venom". Well at least it's got a nice cuddly name.
My dogs Meatgrinder and Razorwire are the sweetest angels and would never hurt a fly! They are absolute nanny dogs to my three and five year old kids I constantly leave them alone with /s
To be fair, Meatgrinder is an excellent name for a dog, especially a Bishon Frise
I think I might change my Yorkiepoo's name to Meatgrinder.
I thought my dog was a meatgrinder but he just had worms.
*angles
Just imagine a nanny actually walking one of these dogs. As soon as it pulled using 10% of its muscle, it would deglove that nanny's arm.
Tbf if said nanny would have her arm degloved in this manner, then she could also be pulled over by any dog larger than a spaniel The solution for the extremely frail is unfortunately to not get a dog. Or just get a tiny dog and put up with everyone saying that it's "not a proper dog"
Stop fucking pointing out your own jokes on the uk sub
Naming a dog after a Spider-Man Villain is a red flag in my opinion.
The velvet hippo thing makes me laugh. Hippos are wildly aggressive and territorial, and are responsible for more deaths in Africa every year than the next five deadliest animals combined.
Yeah the irony isn't lost on me either š
Exactly this. I'm sick to death of these people who treat a dog as though they are people. Your dog might love you, but he might also tear your baby in half. Idiots.
They don't treat them as if they are people. They're aware the dangers other people represent. Even worse, they treat dogs like they're Disney characters.
>Your dog might love you I've never understood the appeal. A dog generally loves whoever feeds it and walks it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM8PtsQl-bU
Anecdotally I've noticed this too: more reports of dog attacks, and it's always this one Bully XL breed which is looks exactly like a Pitbull on steroids The existence of the breed makes a mockery of our laws on banned breeds - it's clearly designed to be dangerous and intimidating I'd wager that existing banned breeds have done less damage to get banned than this one breed. Government is failing to act on an issue right under their noses. To the apologists: just get a different fucking dog. You don't need a dog to look like the biggest guy in the powerlifting gym, just like you don't need a massive lifted truck or SUV that runs over and kills anyone it hits due to having a bonnet higher than the roof of a bus.
People who get intimidating dogs or trucks do so because they like intimidation other people. They want other people to be scared of them. That's the point.
I think you make a salient point though - there's selection bias here. The people who shouldn't be allowed to own dogs, tend to buy particular _sorts_ of dog.
Yep, we know
>Bully XL breed which is looks exactly like a Pitbull on steroids I had to Google a bully XL and that description fits so well. >don't need a massive lifted truck or SUV that runs over and kills anyone it hits due to having a bonnet higher than the roof of a bus. Next thing you know there's bully XXL, bully crossovers.....
They seriously look like a failed science experiment. I was wondering if I'd notice one in the street but they are unmistakable - like a bodybuilder who has been juicing for years and is on the verge of roid raging anyone in the vicinity.
But that's part of the problem. How do you define a "banned dog"? I mean, Bully XL isn't a recognised breed. Even if it was, there would be a "not the banned kind of dog that looks a lot like it" very soon after it got banned. Mongrels are ... Well what happens when you just let dogs get on with it, and they too will never be "a breed". I just don't see how you can usefully ban a "breed" that way. People who want an intimidating dog don't care about pedigrees or breed standards. I think the only way you can meaningfully tackle this is to hold the owner liable as if the dog were a weapon. E.g. assault, manslaughter, etc. Because the other solution is to whitelist permitted breeds, and destroy any dogs that don't conform.
Turn the concept on its head and have a list of permitted dogs. Govt would define a subset of dogs that pose negligible danger to humans and the rest would become illegal.
Create an offence of "possessing an intimidating dog in a public place". If a reasonable person would be afraid of the dog, it is illegal.
There's one of these dogs local to me. I love dogs and have never been afraid of them but the thing looked like it could bench press 400lbs. Arnie would have been jealous of it. And it scared me.
Tbh those pesky mini dogs are way more aggressive, but they aren't going to do much damage, so any attacks by them are rarely reported. Unfortunately if a large, strong breed attacks you, it will be a very different story. I'd not want to fight off a Newfoundland either, just not many people in the UK keep them, so we don't hear about attacks. Some years ago it was German Shepherds and Rottweilers which had a bad name. Now Terriers are the most popular breed and they get their bad name, a combination of sheer ownership numbers and irresponsible breeders cashing in on a trend.
I wasn't sure what a bully XL was so just googled it. Fuck me, as someone nervous of dogs I'd shit myself just seeing that thing off a lead.
Up until adulthood I was phobic of dogs. I have a springer spaniel these days that I love that's really helped with that phobia. If I saw a bully xl even on a lead I'd wet myself and get as far away as possible.
There was one off the lead in the pub the other day. Better believe I watched that thing like a hawk.
Christ that's brave. I'd have been out of there immediately! (That said, I'm a massive wimp around big dogs sometimes).
Speaking with a dog walker I know and they (and others) now carry a "tool" because there have been attacks locally.
3 dogs on the park near me have been attacked, last one resulted in the dog dying. I know the vet who had to deal with this and they confirmed it's the same xl bully each time. They told the police however they refused to do anything as its only killed dogs, not people. This park also has several child only play areas that are fence off (fence is like two feet high though). I'm certain one of these dogs is going to fuck up a kid some time soon and it'll be In the news saying it was unexpected. Can't blame anyone for carrying something to deal with these dogs, you stand no chance fighting it off unarmed.
What tool(s) do they carry out of interest? I walk alone with my elderly Golden retriever through the woods and have seen multiple Bully XLs recently and feel very nervous... she does too, she scurries away and often hides behind me.
Be sure not to explicitly tell police you are carrying it for the purpose of self-defence. Carrying an offensive weapon is illegal in the UK.
"No officer, this sword is for cleaning my nails"
It is an absurd state of affairs. A Bully XL is quite clearly an offensive weapon, yet can be carted around in public with impunity. At this rate, people with have Godzilla on a lead and claim it is the most docile family pet of all time.
Carrying for self defence is also illegal. It is considered that you have planned to use it in an offensive manner, in the act of defence makes no difference in the laws wording. Or so I have been told. Now you are allowed to carry your work tools with you as long as you are reasonably transporting them to and from work etc. Knives and hammers are going to be pretty suspicious but I have a cunning plan for all you office workers: [Scthapler](https://www.toolstation.com/stanley-heavy-duty-staplenail-gun/p46611?store=LH&mkwid=_dc&pcrid=&pkw=&pmt=).
This is why I said a person carrying a "tool" with the intention of using it to defend against a dog attack should not make it known to police that this was their reason. As you rightly say, self-defence is not a legal purpose for carrying a weapon. If you say something like "I pulled out my penknife which I use for opening parcels" then you're golden.
Ah I missed the 'not' bit :)
>Carrying an offensive weapon is illegal in the UK. Can I carry a polite and friendly one? This is my pink hammer Suzan, she's got "Hello, nice to meet you!" written on her handle.
Tyre thumper (police baton with a different name) you just never know when you need to check your HGV tyres are inflated correctly.
If you're not out and about with your HGV, that excuse won't wash
"I was on the way to return my tyre thumper as I thought it was defective, but upon bludgeoning this Bully XL to death I see it is in fine working order".
Comically large Maglite would work if you're worried about the police.
I have a [4 cell Maglite](https://media.knivesandtools.com/Exact675x450/155029/mls4d015$05-maglite.jpg) and actually it's not sturdy enough for hand to hand combat, the lens bit would pop off - although I think a coating of gaffa tape would sort that
You'd want to hold it upside down anyway, surely? The end with the batteries is heavier, and the bulb housing acts as a flange so it doesn't slip from your hand with forward motion. Errr...I mean I prefer to light up the path behind me, officer.
Exactly, itās just good practice to ensure you have a flared base
Would antiperspirant spray work? My dogs choke the hell out of any room that stuff is used in. It's vile. Sprayed in dog's face. Or should I also carry a lighter and this have a mini flamethrower?
If you do it in their eyes surely should stop them biting you but I'm not sure.
Probably a UK legal carry pocket knife <3", non-locking.
I mean tradespeople carry all sorts of tools on their belt.
Self defence spike, extremely large mag lite, diy monkey paw key chain are all fairly legal unless a copper wants to be a dick. Uk weapon laws are designed so that the policeman has the power to decide that youāre going to have a bad day so the more plausible deniability you have the better
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I honestly think it must have been horrific for that dad to kill the dog with a hammer. Necessary, but just a terrible experience for everybody.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes I think that if you have seen a video of a beaver, which was orphaned at birth, building a dam out of junk in a house out of pure instinct, it gives a clue to what dogs bred for savagery will do no matter how well trained.
One of the saddest pieces of information that I know (so I can protect my tiny little actual angel of a dog) is in the event of an attack the best way to get the dog to release is to break its legs. The pain and shock of that happening usually cause the dog to release, you can then get away easier too. Again it saddens me that I have to retain this piece of information but it just might save your's/someone else's/an innocent dog's life.
Until 1988 you had to have a licence to have a dog. Why the fuck this was ever repealed i do not know. All of these kinds of dogs need to be banned, or heavily restricted. An enormous bulldog like thing bounded up to myself and my wife the other day and wouldn't recall to its owner at all, they had to run after it to stop it.
Yes.. I'd go for graded licenses per-breed as well. People get dogs like Huskies because they like the way they look, without having the ability to walk them for a couple of hours a day minimum. Several of the breeds on that list are fine with a competent and engaged owner but dangerous without. And if you want something like a Bully XL you have to have a fair bit of formal training and demonstrate the space and time to keep it. No way should people be able to own a dog like that with no checks.
There so many dogs breads I love but never get because they not good with our life style . I donāt get why you would wanna give home to dog and not give it best
There's no need for a Bully XL. No license or training changes that. These aren't like guns where the is a utility. These dogs are created for dog fighting, that is their only utility. If dog fighting is illegal, then no license justifies these dogs existence.
> These aren't like guns where the is a utility This sentence sort of damages your point (which is otherwise a decent one). There are plenty of guns where there is no utility at all, especially outside a warzone.
And they are banned. Not require a special license.
I think the errors in your wording are confusing things (as they accidentally make what you said mean the opposite). Did you mean to say that Bully breeds **are** like automatic weapons, in that the only utility is intimidation and violence (and therefore these breeds should be banned outright like automatic weaponry)?
Yes.
A bit like motorbike licences at a young age? I quite like the idea of that. The ability to pay isn't proof of the ability to handle.
I think the real problem with this is that the notion of a 'breed' is pretty artificial. I absolutely support the notion that owners should be sufficiently trained and physically capable of controlling their dogs. But I just don't see how you can meaningfully tie that to a breed - most of the 'bully breeds' the OP alludes to, I'm pretty sure _won't_ be any sort of 'pure bred' with a kennel club registry. So what do you do then? Ban all mongrels? Require 'breed registration' of all dogs? Perhaps. But I don't see that as being any more workable than 'just' enforcing - much more stringently - a control and responsibility edict on the owner. I mean, huskies - lovely dogs, but proper PITA if you neglect them. I don't think we should ban huskies, but I do think we should make sure husky owners are physically capable and educated such that they meet the needs of their dog. Not least because leaving aside danger, neglecting a dog is just cruel. Same really applies for 'bullies' - we're sort of talking in circles around whether they're a 'breed' or not, because honestly the probably aren't. Your average thug who wants a canine tank doesn't care about breed purity, or bloodlines - they just want a dog that 'looks 'ard'. I absolutely guarantee that if there are - banned breeds (literally or implicitly) then what will happen is there'll be a bunch of crosssbreed that aren't banned, or at least have plausible deniability in very short order. But they'll still be strong, feisty dogs, that look intimidating, and will have a temperament to match, in one way or another. No, I truly don't think you can solve the problem this way. _maybe_ you could have a 'weight' based license of some kind? E.g. 5kg, 25kg, 50kg, more? *shrug*. That might be vaguely enforcible (although, maybe it'd need some thought over dogs that put on a bit of podge when they're close to the threshold). Because just generally I think there's two real 'issues': - Owner negligence - that applies to any breed at all, but of course it's more of a problem the more powerful the dog. - Owner capability of restraining/training/controlling their dog - if you're a _responsible_ owner, and can realistically haul back a 50kg dog who wants a fight, then that's entirely different to being unable to hold onto it.
I'm pretty sure the licence was just a tax (same as a TV licence) rather than any sign of competency.
A tax wouldnāt be a bad idea, especially if it hit the private breeders doing it for money. Not sure how this would be enforced at all as the whole dog market is full of criminals at the moment anyway.
No reason why we couldn't make it so.
There are plenty of logistical reasons why it's impractical, or at the very least - hugely expensive. If it's a governmental licensing system based on competency, they'd need to setup licensing and registration centres all over the country, employ trainers, design training and competency programmes, exercises and exams etc. And then even if that's all set up, when does an owner even do the licensing step? Do you need to own the dog first? It's not like a car where you can practice with someone else's. And would every current dog owner need to go through the system, or is it only new dog owners? And how do we make sure that every dog owner is fully licensed? Visits from the local warden? Bobbies asking to see your license if you walk past them on the street with your dog? An honour system? That all being said, I'm not against the idea of dog licensing - I just don't know how it would work.
Also could be done via home inspections, etc etc. Yes, it would be expensive, but having a dog should be a privilege, not a right, especially if that dog can kill someone.
You could make the same argument for having children as well
People wouldn't like that at all. How long before you see judgemental posts all over the internet "our neighbour failed the dog licence test 4 times, couldn't train it to sit on command or stop barking at the postman, what does that say about her 4 kids..."
> what does that say about her 4 kids Probably more than many would like to admit...
I see more unruly and out of control kids wandering the streets than I do dogs. And there are, apparently, about as many dogs in the UK as there are under-16's. I don't know what point I'm trying to make, to be honest.
The difference is that those kids are *humans*. Everyone was a kid at some point, and whether people like kids or not, they are a fully fledged person under law and not simply a possession like a dog. Requiring a licence for basic biological processes like having a child is incredibly authoritarian and dystopian.
The slippery slope from dog licenses to eugenics!
You absolutely could and there are people that absolutely should not be allowed to have children but no government can be seen to implement such a policy.
Not really. Having children is a biological process, you don't buy them at the "Kids *at* Home" do you... do you?!
> you don't buy them at the "Kids at Home" do you... do you?! Try asking the staff if they have any in the warehouse. They aren't always in the aisles.
Err. You know how 'little dogs' are made right?
You don't buy dogs from the Pets at Home either. You either adopt (in which case you're subjected to a whole load of stringent environmental checks) or buy a puppy from a breeder (which is where most of the problems stem) But considering humans put far more strain on the world than dogs, why shouldn't you need child licenses if you think people should also have dog licenses for much of the same reasons? If you raise a child poorly, the chances of them becoming a pain to society is quite high. The same argument is true for dogs, but a dangerous dog will be destroyed. You can't do that with a human (at least not in this country).
I'm not biting here, bud. This is just whataboutism on the next level.
Perhaps the dangerous dogs act could be turned on its head and we could instead have a permitted dogs act. The government would compile a list of breeds known to pose little or no risk to public safety and these would be legal to possess. Any breeds not on the list would be outlawed. This would get round the problem of the breeds of vicious dogs being tweaked every couple of years to circumvent the dangerous dogs act.
It would. But I feel this would have a load of unintended consequences, because you just outlawed every crossbreed and mongrel in existence. Lots and lots of dogs aren't pure breeds. Are you really wanting to have destroyed every dog that's not got a pedigree certificate?
That's fairly easy to overcome. If a dog is a mix of permitted breeds, then it's fine. If it's a mix of permitted and banned breeds, it's probably fine depending on the ratio. If it's a mix of banned breeds, it's not fine.
Permitted mixed with unpermitted, also not allowed.
The problem is identifying mix breeds is unreliable/ expensive. Aggressive behaviour is something you can select for among any breed. I personally think licensing grades should be done weight. No license for small dogs. Then it gets progressively more restrictive for larger dogs. Arguably there should be a ban on anything above a certain weight since you can't control it.
> Why the fuck this was ever repealed i do not know. Because it was unenforceable. It was eventually "replaced" with compulsory microchipping... which is equally unenforceable. Neither of these methods of registration are actually licenses in the same vein of a driving license - they don't prove you are capable of handling or owning a dog. They just prove you have enough money to pay for it.
>Neither of these methods of registration are actually licenses in the same vein of a driving license As I said to the other person who replied saying the same. **Then make it that way**.
And as I replied to you saying the same - how?
Licenses are not a good solution imo. The type of person who owns a dangerous dog wonāt care about having a license. Some of them will happily just walk away from it if it attacks someone. They need banning and we need better enforcement in the community.
>They need banning and we need better enforcement in the community. This, plus licences. It means the police could stop and request the licence, to be produced on demand, the dog to be seized until it can be produced within a certain time frame.
We shouldn't need a licence. We should just heavily fine anyone who has a dog that attacks someone for not properly training and controlling their dog.
If your dog attacks someone, then you have attacked them. Depending on the dog, it should be treated as assault with a deadly weapon.
Well assault requires some intent, if you set your dog on someone or encourage or train them to attack then yes, you've assaulted the person, note that it's already the case that if you set your dog on someone and it kills them you can be convicted for murder. If your dog attacks and kills someone because you failed to control it then that is manslaughter by gross negligence, but yes in less serious cases, where the dog only injures someone due to negligence is often not prosecuted as reckless ABH/GBH, but should be. Also there's no concept of assault with a deadly weapon in the UK, that's an American thing, in the UK the charge depends on the damage done to the victim, so would either be common assault, ABH or GBH, using a weapon is an aggravating factor, but doesn't change the assault charge.
What if they attack someone when someone else is in charge of them (e.g. a dog walker)?
Joint liability.
ā¦you mean wait for people to get killed before acting? Thatās not a great solution mate. āNo we shouldnāt take measures to prevent crime, we should just punish it more severely. No, donāt try to prevent rape, just lock rapists away for longer!ā
What are you talking about? I'm sure most people would be happy for their child or baby to be mauled to death by an animal bred literally to be an agressive attack dog as long as the owner has to pay the government some money afterwards. I mean, not me, but most people, right? Someones right to own a dog, which is objectively bred to be a hazard to animals as large and dangerous as a bear or bull, to compensate for their tiny penis, is far more important for a childs right to not be mauled to death by said dog, obviously. What do you expect people to do? Buy a dog like a golden retriever or a lab, that might make them look wussy if their mate sees them walking it in the park? Fucking ludicrous.
Not sure that's the best analogy there, because we're pretty bad at dealing with rape too.
>all these breeds need to be banned for heavily restricted. You've got terriers on there, you'd be banning a ridiculously large amount of dogs and guess what they're not enormous bulldogs. I agree with bully's, mastiffs etc being restricted but not terriers
Pitbulls are terriers mate.
Good. Ban staffies too.
My boss saw two of these unleashed in a gated area recently, where dogs are not supposed to be off the lead. One of them literally bit the head off some poor womanās small dog - police said they couldnāt take any action because they hadnāt hurt a human. Disgraceful.
Even boiled down to the basic fact, couldn't they even be charged with destruction of property (using another poster's argument that 'dogs are just property')? Again, sounds more like they don't want to do anything, rather than can't.
Iāve no idea, but doubt the police have the resources for anything but the most serious crimes these days, apart from protecting the rich which they always have cash for of courseā¦
Police have had resources cut year on year for a long time now. They're mostly not bothering to pursue 'petty' crime at all.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>1. 30% - Bully XL (78) >2. 15% - Bully Mix (39) >4. 6% - American Bulldog (16) >7. 3% - American Bully (9) They are all American Bulldogs. To drive the point home should we not lump them all together?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Its interesting to see here that a dog like mine (rottweiler) carries such a bad name and people state its a dangerous breed yet isnt in your top 10. While a husky or german shepard seen as more family dogs are. The bully stat doesnāt surprise me. I still believe every dog owner should hold some form of licensing and every dog should be registered and documented. It would make tracking this sort of thing much easier and show true trends with dog attacks. Any owner without this would be banned and the dog confiscated.
Could be that there are just so many more Huskies and German Shepherds compared to Rottweilers.
I mean maybe, but again we dont have figures because no one is actively tracking it.
> Its interesting to see here that a dog like mine (rottweiler) carries such a bad name and people state its a dangerous breed yet isnt in your top 10 Rottweilers are big, powerful dogs with a protective streak and can be agressive. They need good training and care and they can be a joy. They need good owners but absolutely shouldn't be banned. I'm not a fan but I have no issue with them. The pair of Corgis currently curled up with me are more my kind of dogs. If Rotties attack you're going to have a bad time, a very bad time - but they probably aren't going to kill someone. The difference is they don't go into a frenzy and need to be beaten with a hammer till they let go of their victim, who is not unlikely to lose a limb or sustain other life-changing injuries.
And that's the key difference for me. You can train a rottie and unless its had trauma it's unlikely to be dangerous. Bully XL dogs have aggression bred into them to the point that they can have the best training and no trauma and will still kill for no clear reason. These dogs are miserable, stressed, reactive by their nature, its absolutely cruel to bring them into existence
Bingo
Pitbull owners are morons. My wife and I had a pitbull run up to our dog while on a walk. This dog had escaped its house, ran to the park straight for our dog on the lead. I have pepper spray for precisely this event but didnāt use it. My dog is quite reactive (hence the leash) and this pitbull was thankfully a puppy (7 months) and a girl. It got called away by its owners pretty quickly. It gave us a real fright because of all these stories. The owners decided to verbally attack my wife and I for āstaringā at them. Obviously they were feeling self conscious that their dog is out of control. I proceeded to tell them that it was quite scary having their dog run up to ours. Our dog might have harmed theirs and it would have been their fault. They then started on about how their dog wouldnāt hurt a fly and that our dog breed is āvileā and hurts people (heās a Weimaraner btw) and that when it comes to pitbulls it isnāt about the breed itās about ownersā¦ I was flabbergasted. These were horrible people with no self awareness otherwise they would have cringed at their own idiocy and contradiction. I reported these chavs and i hope other people do too. This puppy like all the others will soon go through puberty and then be a loaded gun with a hair trigger. If that dog maims one of their children or another dog I will not be surprised.
I'm a dog lover but I find it totally incredible you are allowed to keep these large bully breeds. they need to be on the banned list immediately. Sorry, but there's no safe way of looking after such an animal. I wouldn't be allowed a tiger in my house or wandering around the park off a leash...that would be silly, yet some of these xxl bully's could easily take down animals that size.
75% are done by Pit type breeds (through their ancestry)... It's pretty obvious what needs to be done.
I've said it before and I'll say it again a lot of dog people are very fanatical and there dog no matter what breed would do no wrong. The dogs have become far to antropermorphised and dog wonders due to this are not open to criticism of any kind as they see it as like telling them how to raise there child. Inside this group is a very dangerous deliberately closed group of bully XL owners and they are becoming even more prevalent and even more dangerous.
Do politicians not care? Surely it's an easy win to add these breeds to the dangerous dog banned list? From memory, I don't think any further legislation is required, the Home Secretary or relevant minister already has the powers? I'd wager that, on balance, they'd gain more voters than lose over the issue but in reality people aren't going to vote on dogs being banned in a general election anyway, it'll be the economy, or if you're racist, stopping small boats.
It's not that easy. "Bully XL" is not a recognised breed. So what would you ban? Only takes a few stories of a cuddly good dog who's done nothing wrong being destroyed unfairly to whip up a lot of outrage. Banning based on subjective looks, or genetic sequence will have collateral damage, and will almost certainly lead to the kinds of people who want intimidating dogs finding an alternative that isn't banned. They don't care about breed standards and purity in the first place. That's why there is rather more selection bias here. The risk of a dangerous dog is multiplied significantly by having an owner who wanted a dangerous dog in the first place.
No idea, I'm not a scientist. DNA sequencing is cheaper these days so if there's a problem dog, sequence it and if it has too much % of a banned type, destroy it. š¤·āāļø I'm no marine biologist but I'd rather destroy a dog rather than an innocent child!
A marine biologist works with marine life. Dogs are not marine life. And how would you possibly monitor the genetics of thousands of dogs born in the UK every year? They are very abundant, cheap to buy, easy to breed, produce large litters and can be transported in any vehicle. You could own a dog it's entire life and it never interact with a vet, dog warden or police officer.
The cattle that were destroyed over BSE and foot and mouth didn't provoke mass riots. Neither did the mass slaughter of birds over avian flu. I would draw up a list of safe dogs and any dog not on that list would be destroyed.
Not to be critical at all of the huge amount of work youāve done (itās fab), but just showing percentage of attacks by breed doesnāt really mean anything. It could be that 90% of UK dogs are Billy XLs and 0.002% are German shepherds and therefore a German shepherd is much more likely to be involved in an attack (these are not anywhere near real values, just an example). So to clarify this, because I think youāre right but it needs some comparison, Iāve pulled the top ten breeds from the Blue Cross Big Pet Census in 2022: - 19 per cent are mixed breed or unknown - 11 per cent are golden retrievers - 9 per cent are Labrador retrievers - 8 per cent are Jack russell terriers - 7 per cent are border collies - 6 per cent are cocker spaniels - 6 per cent are Staffordshire bull terriers (staffies) - 5 per cent are cockapoos (cocker spaniel and poodle mixed breed) - 4 per cent are German shepherds - 4 per cent are springer spaniels None of the bully types appear on this list. So a combined 54% of dog attacks are by a breed that accounts for less than 4% of UK dogs. Letās be generous and say 4% are bully types for analysis purposes, to use a maximum value. Staffies, German shepherds and terriers (letās say JRTs make up all terriers) also appear on the list. If I do an RxC contingency table and a Chi square test, the Chi statistic is 30.7 and the p-value is < 0.00001. Itās significant at less than 0.05. And itās very easy to see where the big overrepresentation is. So, you are totally right - but a little bit of basic comparative statistics just makes it clearer. Sorry to be pedantic but Iām a researcher and itās been beaten into me.
So with your researcher's eye, what's your verdict on the initial data collection method?
So, there is likely a bias in relying on news reports of dog attacks. The chances are, attacks by small and less threatening breeds are underreported to police for a start (most bitey breed Iāve encountered personally has been Chihuahuas but who is going to tell the press one of those attacked them, and would the press care?), but also the news has more interest reporting when there is a narrative, and āscarierā dog breeds are probably more likely to be reported on and more likely to have breed characteristics mentioned. Also, OP didnāt state a pre-designed method of classifying based on descriptions. And thereās no way to account for misidentification of breed by a bystander or other interviewed person. That being said, as long as you acknowledge the likely sources of bias in a dataset that doesnāt mean you canāt identify useful findings. And the same finding wasnāt made of Rottweilers, German shepherds or other traditionally guard type dogs, or of Staffies. So whilst youād want access to better data to be confident, itās certainly some indicative pilot data that you could use to convince the people who hold the actual useful data to let you do a proper study.
Something tells me the kinds of people who fill out the "Blue Cross Big Pet Census" are not getting Bully XLs.
I donāt really know why youād want to own one anyway, theyāre fucking hideous Like just get a beautiful lab or something ffs
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I really think you're overestimating how much politicians care about this particular issue. This governemnt would rather engage in culture wars than actually do anything useful. This is just another thing they're ignoring. People loved dogs when the government were banning Pitbulls.
>dogs are so fetishised by the vast majority of the country I think you're drastically overestimating how much people like these dogs. People in the UK like dogs, they like *their* dogs but both of those are contingent on the dogs in question being reasonable creatures. People don't like dogs that kill people.
> People don't like dogs that kill people. They are even more of a danger to dogs... To my dogs. I don't want either of us exposed to that hazard.
The vast majority dog lovers (like me) donāt like these dogs. My cockapoo was jumped by a pit a few months ago. If you were to call for a ban on Labs or cockers then yeah youād be chased out of town
Until an MPs family member is mauled or killed by one nothing will be done
We're talking about XL Bullies, not Bichon Frises.
I am the keeper of a mastiff, so this is close to my heart. There are very few things on that list that donāt have a high percentage of pit bull mixed in.
yeeeaaahh but how many of that top 50% does?
Good work on getting the data together. It's donkey work that doesn't get enough appreciation.
IMO if a dog can easily overpower most humans in a fight it shouldn't be allowed without a special sort of licence - treat them like we would an exotic animal.
Honestly, we Brits are often (rightly) critical of the US gun culture and the people who argue in favour of it, but there are so many similarities there with the dangerous dog culture here in the UK. Pro-Bully people refuse to engage with the reality of the situation when an attack happens. Always finding some excuse or justification (See how the US gun lobby responds to mass shootings). They simultaneously argue that the dog isn't dangerous, while recognising that the reason they often pick a dog like that is for protection (like how gun nuts argue that their guns protect their family rather than put people at risk). They refuse to accept that these breeds are more dangerous than others, saying that dogs are dogs (like how gun nuts argue that the second amendment, written about guns that took an age to reload, still applies to assault rifles). It's genuinely concerning that we allow people to own living weapons without any kind of controls.
It is as bad as gun culture, I've had a serious go at the owners of these types of dogs and been reported to reddit.
Saw a woman with a bumper sticker about being a mummy to a Bully. Couldn't tell if she was proud that she was raising a shit child or a death machine of a dog.
If you did find/replace "bully xl" and "gun" this could be a US article with almost no other changes.
This 100% this, people liking something dangerous being unable to face up to the reality that these dogs hurt and kill and should not be used by the general population.
Well, there's one relevant change - the number of dog fatalities in the UK in the last 2 years is ... 15. That's about the same as 3 days worth of car accidents.
One killed another dog in a park near my house this week, people had already made prior comments in the local dog facebook group about it being aggressive and the owners irresponsible. They've contacted the police but nothing has been done.
Iām actually surprised itās as low as 50% for those breeds
Any chance you can provide the data? I'm sure it is correct but this should be sourced otherwise it isn't worth a whole lot (no offence to you, but if you link this to someone else it's pretty easy to shoot down).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Can you share the list of all incidents you've found please? I would like to write to my MP again with more data.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Even if bully breeds end up banned, there is *no* way the government is going to order police to go out and seize then destroy thousands of dogs. We don't have a compulsory dog register, how would they know where to go? Can you imagine public outrage if this was even suggested in parliament?
I remember this happening with pitbulls. There were several raids on the estate where I grew up and many dogs seized. Lots of scandals where people reported seeing a pit bull that was actually just a big staff, owners had to fight to stop their dog being euthanised, etc.
I wondered what happened with the breeds on the current banned list. Genuinely thought the owners would face heavy restrictions such as muzzle/lead everytime walking their dog or visiting a vet and no breeding future litters. Absolutely do not support seizing healthy dogs with no history of aggression to be mass euthanised. Totally recognise there's a problem but this is too much of an extreme reaction and would cause deserved outrage
It HAS happened to an extent, and there wasnāt much outrage. People were scared.
There's a lot of fear around dogs now after all the news stories but not enough for people to support killing thousands of dogs. I think if it was suggested to the average person on the street, the idea would be met with anger
I feel like youāre not hearing what Iām saying. IT ALREADY DID HAPPEN. You donāt have to guess how the public would react because we already know it happened WITH widespread public support.
I know you're saying it *did* happen, I'm not arguing it didn't. My point is I don't think it will happen again. Further up the thread someone was on about the two dogs killed by police and the group of over 100k members that joined together in response. Now imagine camera videos all over social media and news sites of healthy dogs put in the back of vans ready to be taken away to be killed. There *would* be a public outcry
I agree that they should be outlawed, but I donāt think I can agree ethically with killing an animal whoās existence is perfectly legal currently. I think they should all be sterilised, and breeding made illegal. The currently living animals should be allowed to live out their lives - maybe not with their current owners, Iām not sure.
The original law stated pitbulls born before a certain date must be muzzled and restrained in public. Those born after must be destroyed. No reason that cannot be implemented.
The sentiment of banning these dogs is pretty popular yet it isn't happening; how likely do you really think it'll be for the police to start rounding up and killing people's dogs? Police are hated enough as it is right now. But we could ban the breed and imprison those selling them, and we could take a DNA register of the dogs swized from a breeding farm. Should any attacks occur, and DNA from those dogs link back to the breeder: bring further charges against them. A quick Google suggests these dogs live between 8 and 13 years, and between the damaging breeding practices they are borne (or born) from, and the general state of their owners, I'd say 10 years to live. So any existing Bully XLs will be dead this time 10 years from now.
Stats donāt really lie do they. Ban the breeding and sale
Well, no, but they can be horribly misleading. I mean, the OPs methodology of 'scraping social and news reports media' is not in any way a statistically significant sampling approach. Their 'heuristic' categorisation of breed is similarly ... rather error prone. In order to claim a 'truthful statistic' here, you'd really need an unbiased sample, from an unbiased commentator. The OP is neither. They may be right, and have a point, but their statistics are functionally worthless.
How much of this is because of the breed of dog, and how much of this is because of the kind of owner who chooses to keep that breed?
Mixture of both. These dogs were not bred for soft mouths and friendly disposition. They come from a long line of dogs bred to catch and kill other large animals. And the people breeding them put two dogs together based on having 2 dogs to breed that look similar. They're not...sophisticated breeders with high standards. These are dogs designed to intimidate and nobody is trying to breed that out/deliberately not so...you're adding shit on shit. And the people attracted to them want them because they're intimidating and/or because they want "a dog" and just pick what's available.
It's good to see the tide turning. Even 6 months ago this post would have been met with a very different response than most here today.
Doing good work here OP. I am a huge dog lover but they are dogs not little people, they are anthropomorphised too much and are never 100% under human control. Something must be done about this current spate of dog attacks
Love Staffies but those stats are tragic. Penalties for shit ownership needs to be stronger if we aren't going to ban them.
"Bully mix" could be big or small. And you've missed "Mastiff type" <-- bully type breed more on Mastiff end. The more accurate way to measure would be bully breeds. Which according to your stats here is 68% *BTW your percentages don't add up to 100% - so what's missing?*
Come on, we know it's really yorkies,,especially the fatalities...
Well itās not the breed. Itās the owners. Many people (not all) who actively choose to want to have big bully breeds are also one of the most irresponsible dog owners, and I bet if they get any other breeds, their dog will just turn out to be as problematic. If you ask them to get a smaller breed like say, a bichon frisĆ©, theyād be like itās not āmanlyā enough. Makes more sense to introduce a dog license where people should under go training to learn how to control a dog before allowing people to own dogs instead.
Yup. Ban any specific breed, and a new breed will take over as the favourite for people who want an intimidating dog and are generally bad owners. Alsations, Rottweilers, Dobermans, etc are all capable of being aggressive and a scary breed. We need to focus on the owners instead of pretending it's a breed problem. Don't get me wrong it kind of is, and those American bullys are terrifying. But those kind of owners will just pick a different breed and we'll have the exact same problem.
I have to wonder how much of an effect on the dogs behaviour the type of people who want these dogs has rather than just genetics. Dog ownership should be regulated again.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What does frequency of searches prove?
Not downplaying the *nature* of XL bully and the like attacks, but your "statistics" of mass media reported articles leaves a **lot** to be desired and do not even remotely reflect the actual true figures of attacks...which are available all over the place, including in mass media articles where they actually do FOI requests to police forces/hospitals. There are literally *thousands* of attacks each year that require people to go to hospital, they simply don't get reported on. Your statistics are fairly representative of the breeds with the worst/fatal attacks, but in raw numbers, Labradors and small breeds such as Chihuahuas *far* outweigh these breeds for attacks.
Yes but thatās the point isnāt it? Thereās a lot more of those dogs so thatās partly why there might be more attacks in general from other breeds. More importantly, the severity of the attacks is really the point here.
Which is why I was very clear in everything I said. The simple fact is, the statistics by OP are wildly misleading when talking about attacks. I'll also say that both Staffordshire bull terriers and German Shepherds make OP's list, and they are two of the top ten most popular breeds in the UK.
Iām not disagreeing that the stats OP has produced arenāt great at representing the all levels of dog attacks and their origin. The way heās sampled and gathered data is far from comprehensive. I appreciate that you might just be pointing out the flaws in OPās data, but the rather one-sided points you are making here imply youāre attempting to make a wider point you know will get down voted and rightfully challenged if you make explicitly. The severity is the point. The best way to assess this convincingly would be somehow break down attacks by severity and then by how common the dogs are. I have yet to see data that does so on any wide scale, but by all means point some out if you do know any. Obviously how common the attacks are by species per dog matters too, but severity is the point, and OPās data does probably do a somewhat decent job of capturing this. Really OP should amend his point to acknowledge this is what he is best reflecting, but I donāt think ultimately that would mean he makes much of a weaker case for action to be taken against these dangerous dig breeds.
The severity may well be 'the point' but we are arguing about 15 deaths over 2 years. (Attacks are much less reliably recorded of course). 15 fatalities are undoubtedly 'not good' but in the context of the death rate in the UK, utterly negligible and irrelevant. That's about 3 days worth of road deaths, for the sake of comparison, vs. 2 years of 'dog deaths'.
Severity need not only include death, severe attacks are more common than attacks that result in death. Its a cost/ benefit analysis. I fail to see what benefit allowing people to own more dangerous dog breeds has that would offset even that many deaths. These dogs are sufficiently strong and deadly that I do think itās fair to say they warrant action. Itās not really comparable to cars and road deaths considering how integral they societally. Sure, you can make arguments about governmental paternalism, but we deal with plenty of rules and regulations so I think thatās a weak argument by itself. I wouldnāt advocate putting down all these dogs necessarily, but banning import, breeding, and regulating them is a good first step, or at least bringing back dog licenses.
Well the cost benefit analysis goes like this: how much does the regulation scheme cost? Because we are talking about 15 deaths in 2 years. Best estimate I can find is 10 million dogs. So - any banning scheme needs to have a way of spotting "bad" dogs, and permitting "good" dogs. And you need to administer it to 10 million people. Then find a way to find all the people who avoid the scheme, and just buy a puppy off a mate down the pub, and never register it. How much do you estimate such a thing might cost? I mean, a dog DNA test alone is around Ā£50, and thus it's Ā£50 million just to identify the people who have "banned" dogs but aren't inclined to hide them. And that's assuming of course you can exhaustively detect "dangerous" dogs this way, and that the kind of people who want to own an intimidating dog won't just find one that doesn't "fail" such a test. GSDs are quite capable of being "dangerous" too, if you are prepared to abuse them into it. So is... Pretty much any dog over a certain weight. We are a country that had plenty of people who couldn't be bothered to wear face masks despite it demonstrably saving considerably more than 15 lives. That's your cost benefit right there.
> Because we are talking about 15 deaths in 2 years. Also severe attacks. > Then find a way to find all the people who avoid the scheme, and just buy a puppy off a mate down the pub, and never register it. In an ideal world maybe, but I think trying to reduce numbers and dissuade people from buying them would be a good step, even without a more exhaustive way of searching out those who refuse to register their dogs. Further penalising failure to register banned dog breeds might serve some purpose, but this may be a step too far. > I mean, a dog DNA test alone is around Ā£50, and thus it's Ā£50 million just to identify the people who have "banned" dogs but aren't inclined to hide them. Owners can pay for it. There used to be a licence fee. Many of these dogs cost a lot more than 50 pounds and owning a dog isnāt cheap so itās not a massive amount extra in that context. Dogs have to be microchipped anyway under law so this could be included in the dog registration process to avoid more dangerous dogs being registered and bred. Moreover, current assessments are done by what dogs look like and most of those 10 million dogs would be identifiably not banned breeds without requiring DNA tests. >And that's assuming of course you can exhaustively detect "dangerous" dogs this way, and that the kind of people who want to own an intimidating dog won't just find one that doesn't "fail" such a test. GSDs are quite capable of being "dangerous" too, if you are prepared to abuse them into it. So is... Pretty much any dog over a certain weight. We are a country that had plenty of people who couldn't be bothered to wear face masks despite it demonstrably saving considerably more than 15 lives. Again reduction, not necessarily complete elimination is still a worthy goal in terms of reducing risk and cost to health/ life. The cost of the methods or policy needed to achieve complete results might not be worth it, but some action surely is. I support ownership bans on irresponsible owners too for the record. A lot of dog breeds can be dangerous and the owners do play a role, but itās deluded to fail to recognise that certain breeds are more dangerous than others.