Thoughts on the proposed ban?
I know folk say it’s the owners not the dogs but IMHO
A. People buy these dogs for a reason and it’s not their good looks and gentile temperament.
B. These dogs are trained and bred and that DNA must surely filter through to the next generation and so on.
I admit I am biased though, can’t understand why anyone would want a dog other than a lab:)
|
|
Interesting that the latest case has the owner charged with manslaughter. Does that imply he intended to do the victim harm?
|
|
We were wondering this. CPS will have authorised the charge so must have passed the threshold test.
|
Does mans laughter need intent?
I thought negligence/carelessness was enough?
|
>> Does mans laughter need intent?
Never laugh at an angry dog.
|
|
Could it be that it's involuntary manslaughter?
|
Owners should be held wholly responsible for the actions of their "pets" and punished accordingly.
There may be partial mitigation if an adult provokes an animal - but injury or death, particularly of a child, should be treated as a violent unprovoked assault.
Dog lovers would realise that labradors and poodles were less of a risk than alsatians and pit bulls.
I am astounded by the number of defensive owners appearing in the media insisting that their four legged killing machine is sweet and good with children. They are simply delusional.
|
>> Dog lovers would realise that labradors and poodles were less of a risk than alsatians
>> and pit bulls.
I've seen plenty of toy poodles that are aggressive, but not standard poodles. I was surprised at how many labs turn out nasty. Not the fault of the dogs, but the owners who can't be bothered to train them.
|
A bully XL ban is a real problem. Mostly because its not a breed, has no defined breed standard and therefore has a world of problems if an owner challenged it in court.
It is based on an American Bulldog, which is not a recognised breed in the UK but is in the US, so has published breed standards and traits. They are not that big, say just a big english staffie size, Strong willed dogs, sure, but trainable loyal and make good home pets. The bully XL has been supersized by mixing in other breeds.
I know a few XL's personally ( I now train and Judge Kennel Club good citizen award scheme) most are lovely but there is one I am wary of. To be fair it communicates well (Ie a not overly aggressive way) that its not happy and wants to be left alone. Anyone who cant read dog might be in trouble.
In short its a dog that most pet owners wont be able to socialise, train, control and boundary set properly, and a dog exploited by those undesirables in our society. Its not the dog, its the owner. If they were jailed for allowing out of control dogs before they turn into killer dogs it might help.
Anyway, ban the XL and you'll have another dog breed becoming the thug dog of choice. I fear they might turn to Belgian Shepherds (Malinois) - a simply fantastic sporting dog, but one who's bravery might be exploited.
As an aside I have helped an owner of a Bully Kutta (Indian Mastiff) get KCGC awards. It is huge, very well trained and sociable, but in the wrong hands makes a bully XL look like a stuffed tuggy toy. If they get in the hands of thugs we are in a world of trouble.
|
>> A bully XL ban is a real problem. Mostly because its not a breed, has
>> no defined breed standard and therefore has a world of problems if an owner challenged
>> it in court.
Zeddo's post is pretty much word/word what my son's friend, a veterinary nurse, said in my kitchen a couple of hours ago.
She's seen several and says most are teddy bears but they're the ones with owners who understand dogs and how they need to be trained.
If you're exercising your burly bull terrier type dog and a police officer says he thinks its a Bully XL how is that proved either way?
The Dangerous Dogs Act is literally the classic example, quoted over and over, of how not to develop and enact legislation. Adding another breed to the banned list changes nothing.
|
|
How should it be done then? Just deal with each case as it happens, once someone has been mauled by a dog?
|
>> How should it be done then? Just deal with each case as it happens, once
>> someone has been mauled by a dog?
>>
Start again.
Re-introduce dog licences. Getting a dog licence would not be a formality.
Each person applying for a dog licence - one per household - would be interviewed by Mr McKay from Porridge, whose first and last question/statement would be
"Why do you want a dog"?
"Well you can't have one!"
|
>> How should it be done then? Just deal with each case as it happens, once
>> someone has been mauled by a dog?
Yup, thats the way. Its already covered under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, Section 3(1)
Clip if any dog is dangerously out of control in any place, including all private property, the owner, or person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of a summary offence. That offence becomes an aggravated offence, and triable either way, if the dog injures any person or an assistance dog while out of control.
A dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person or assistance dog, whether or not it actually does so, (section 10(3) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991). This is not an exhaustive definition and the ordinary meaning of the words should still be applied. If a dog is factually deemed to be acting in a way that could be termed ‘dangerously out of control’, for example attacking livestock, a prosecution may still be brought.
The act covers everything, all thats required is better enforcement and stiffer sentences.
|
There is a dog near us that had escaped the garden at last 3 times and had killed 3 other passing dogs in the process.
Police say it’s an issue for the dog warden. Dog warden apparently hasn’t take any action that is obvious to outsiders. Dog still runs free in the garden snarling at everything that passes.
I was walking my lab this morning. Got him on a lead. Passed a woman with a toddler in pushchair with a dog on a chain lead. As I got closer, this is on a pavement, she apologised and said she would hold him back.
Well this other dog, not a recognisable breed, was up on back legs barking and snarling against the chain and the woman was using all her strength to hold it back.
Why why why have a dog that is so obviously vicious to other dogs? IMHO that is a dog that should be muzzled in public.
|
>> B. These dogs are trained and bred and that DNA must surely filter through to
>> the next generation and so on.
Nope, they are so crossbred that DNA is soup. At the end of the day most DNA tests say "Siberian Timber Wolf" You simply take any big naturally aggressive dog and exploit it by cruel methods.
|
"Anyone who cant read dog might be in trouble."
And that is most of us.
Hence why anything remotely potentially vicious, or mean looking, should be banned. :-)
Though in the experiences I've previously recounted here I felt I could read dogs enough to know they weren't being friendly and cute.
|
>> Though in the experiences I've previously recounted here I felt I could read dogs enough
>> to know they weren't being friendly and cute.
Nah, wrong way round, the dogs read you " Oh look, there's a bloke we can terrorise"
|
|
Haha but tbh I believe I'm pretty good with mutts I don't know, if they are with their owner. Just the ones I've come across in the wilds of the Portuguese countryside seem to be bred to be aggressive, but I'm kind of fine when they are the other side of the fence. It's when they are standing in my way on a path, or snarling at me close up, that I feel less brave...
|
It's strange how the law in this country restricts gun ownership and closely vets anyone applying for a gun licence but allows anyone to acquire a vicious dog capable of ripping someon's throat out or killing a neighbours children without any checks licences or supervision whatsoever.
I never fails to be staggered as to how people justify the ownership of these animals.
|
To what extent do you acquire a dog capable of ripping someone's throat out?
They don't come with tick box spec sheet....
|
I very much think that the ability to do someone serious or indeed lethal injury is exactly the reaons that some people buy these animals. It makes them look "hard" in exactly the same way that owning a machete or gun does.
If there is a justifiable reason for a dog like these I have yet to hear it.
|
>> I very much think that the ability to do someone serious or indeed lethal injury
>> is exactly the reaons that some people buy these animals. It makes them look "hard"
>> in exactly the same way that owning a machete or gun does.
Absolutely right, they were bred and used for just this reason.
>> If there is a justifiable reason for a dog like these I have yet to
>> hear it.
Because some of them make perfectly acceptable pets if brought up correctly. Personally, I dont like them, ugly drooly creatures too big to be practical in every day life. But then you can say exactly the same about St Bernards (who if riled will easily take on a Bully XL), I know a particularly nasty one - who'd of thought it if you picture the brandy carrying dog saving people from Swiss avalanches.
If you want a dog for personal peace of mind there are loads of other capable breeds, much more practical in the English home.
|
“Because some of them make perfectly acceptable pets if brought up correctly. “
That is not a good reason to own one. A lot of people are rightly afraid of these dogs. There is no justification for owning an animal that intimidates and caused justified fear in others.
|
>> That is not a good reason to own one. A lot of people are rightly
>> afraid of these dogs. There is no justification for owning an animal that intimidates and
>> caused justified fear in others.
Could you not say that about any dog?
I've been intimidated and caused justified fear by a JAck Russell Terrorist...
|
|
No you couldn’t say that about any dog. Some people are indeed frightened by any dog but virtually everyone one would be frightened of a an American Bully Dog off lead and unmuzzled coming towards them. Nearly everyone would be frightened for their children if one lived next door.
|
>> No you couldn’t say that about any dog.
OK, let's assume there's a line related to size at which any breed is frightening to virtually everyone. Catches a lot more than a Bully XL.
Springer? Collie? German Shepherd?
|
You tell me.
Would you sooner be confronted by a Springer Spaniel or an American Bully dog. Which of those would you like to see running off leash in the park where your grandchildren play.
|
>> You tell me.
>>
>> Would you sooner be confronted by a Springer Spaniel or an American Bully dog. Which
>> of those would you like to see running off leash in the park where your
>> grandchildren play.
Frankly, neither.
|
|
In that case restrictions should be placed on the owners is both breeds. As a minimum a muzzle in public space and C kept on a leash at all times.
|
Definitely should be on leads when out in public. There is one dog owner who routinely walks their Great Dane down our road and out onto the main road without a lead, I great the impression that they 'take pride' in this... I shudder to think what could happen as they have zero control if it decided to cross out into traffic.... also dislike their attitude as our neighbour saw it take a massive dump on our drive and then the owners just walked off.
|
>> Definitely should be on leads when out in public. There is one dog owner who
>> routinely walks their Great Dane down our road and out onto the main road without
>> a lead, I great the impression that they 'take pride' in this
If your dog is trained to walk to heel like that then you're doing well, very well indeed. But as you say if it decides to 'take off', maybe after after a squirrel or something, you've no mitigation and a dog that size is going to do a lot of damage to a car.
My son's Spaniel rescue is reasonably OK to heel for him but it's taken a lot of effort and she's always on a lead. She can't be trusted not to go off, squirrel or another dog...
|
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 aims to ensure that where private individuals keep dangerous wild animals, they do so in circumstances which create no risk to the public and which safeguard the welfare of the animals.
The act makes an exception for domesticated dogs. AFAIK there is no legal definition for "domesticated" but the general principle seems to be "animals that have been selectively bred and genetically adapted over generations to live alongside humans".
If a Bully XL is apparently under control owners may argue it is domesticated. However it is clear that it has the capacity to seriously assault and kill grown humans, there is evidence they cannot be reliably controlled.
It therefore comes down to a balance - the right of owners to "enjoy" their domesticated pets vs the risk of death or serious injury if they are not effectively controlled. Protesting that in the care of the right owners they represent a low/zero risk does not cut it.
There are around 8000 hospital admissions for dog related injuries and 3-4 deaths each year. Bluntly - all dogs with the potentially seriously injure or kill should be licensed (like shotguns). The rest should be put down as an unacceptable public risk.
|
“and 3-4 deaths each year.“
Actually ten deaths in 2022 and seven so far this year.
|
Before getting a gun you have to prove you really need one and even then you are stringently assessed as to your suitability, no criminal convictions or mental health issues etc. You have to pass a test to ensure you are safe to drive a car and you can have that right withdrawn at any time if your driving proves to fall below standard
Yet you can come out of prison with a string of convictions behind you for any manner of offences of extreme violence and even murder and the same day acquire a Bully, Rottweiler, GSD or any other potentially lethal dog without any requirements or checks as to how you train or keep it. That has to be ridiculous.
|
>> “and 3-4 deaths each year.“
>>
>> Actually ten deaths in 2022 and seven so far this year.
There were 1600 deaths caused by cars in 2022. I think we should take your car away from you.
|
>> There were 1600 deaths caused by cars in 2022. I think we should take your
>> car away from you.
Whilst the may well be good reasons to stop some people driving the difference is that there is no acceptable reason for owning a large aggressive dog other than some sort of personal vanity.
There just isn’t.
You have no moral right to own something that might kill or injure others and will frighten most simply because you want one. You shouldn’t have the legal right either
|
>>Would you sooner be confronted by a Springer Spaniel or an American Bully dog.
The only dog I've had issue with was a Springer which ran up to my daughter when she was 2yr old, knocked her flying backwards (luckily she was on a grass field) and ate the ice cream cone she had been holding.
The dog landed about 6 feet away after I kicked it and the owner s*** himself when he attempted to remonstrate with me for striking his dog (being 6'5", near 15 stone and very very angry at the time).
Not the dog's fault of course but reflexes are reflexes and if we'd been on a concrete path could have caused a serious injury to my daughter.
|
My 8 year old English Pointer was attacked a few months ago by an off-lead Cane Corso.
I kicked it with my size ten Zamberlan hiking boots before the owner dragged it away.
I now carry a 100g tin of Deep Heat to use as a deterrent against any aggressive dogs, or to help anyone with back pain.
|
How do you use a tin of deep heat to deter a dog? Asking for a friend.
I've always been more or less afraid of dogs. Back in the 60s it was a more common to encounter loose dogs, and it might be my imagination but of late it seems to be getting worse again. Perhaps related to an increase in dog owning during COVID restrictions, by people who found they didn't really like them.
|
When I was a summer postie one of the guys had a spray can of Ralgex or Deep Heat.
Apparently a scoot up a dog's hooter is rather effective as getting them off you.
|
We've done all this before.
When I used to lead walking holidays in foreign parts, I used to carry one of these -
tinyurl.com/bdhuzy22
It is harmless to animals, they will leave you alone.
Bring on the usual ranters.
|
|
The reviews don't seem great, including the video reviews. Some describe it as useless.
|
|
Lots of mixed reviews to them!
|
|
Dazers have been around for donkey's years. Richard Ballantine mentions them in his eponymous Bicycle Book first published in the seventies.
|
>>How do you use a tin of deep heat to deter a dog?
"Apparently a scoot up a dog's hooter is rather effective as getting them off you"
Yup.
|
When you have a 9 stone beast attack you, I don't think there's going to be time to get the spray out of your back pocket!
It must be like doing a round Mike Tyson all that muscle and teeth gnawing at you!
|
>>When you have a 9 stone beast attack you, I don't think there's going to be time to get the spray out of your back pocket!
I sincerely hope I never have to put it to the test!
Like Teddy, I carry it in the side pocket of my cargo shorts, ready to draw it like Marshal Dillon :)
|
I do the same Perro. Ralgex will do the same job. I carry it in the side pocket of my cargos with the top removed. I had occasion to spray my shoulder and our dog was sitting on my bed next to me. I've never seen her leg it as quickly. It nearly knocked me out as well !
Ted
|
I witnessed a neighbour defend his dog from another. He somehow managed to grab the back legs of the attacking dog and proceeded to bash its brains out on the ground, before releasing it by flinging the thing as far as he could and it went off yelping.
I understand that if you can get hold of the back legs of an attacking dog and lift them off the ground, they can't get a purchase. Also, stick something up their back passage!
|
>> Also, stick something up their back passage!
Would that be something like Deep Heat, Ralgex, etc?
|
Yes, the aerosol one, not the ball one.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6IBiR9m3vY
|
Bully XL ban - R.P.
