Another fatal dog attack

[Caol Ila]

Denver and Boulder have strict leash laws and dog licensing laws. Those regulations most likely worked in conjunction with the ban on pit-types to decrease dog attacks.

It seems as if many of the attacks in the UK are from the XL bully types, which look different from your typical pit. The pitbull ban won't affect those. I saw one in the park the other day. It made me a little nervous because it was pulling at its lead towards me, and its owner, a fairly burly guy, was having to work to hold it. The lead looked like one of those webbing car tow straps, rather than a typical dog lead.

 

[Nasicus]

So what’s the balance of importance between a dog’s life and a human’s?

In 2015, for example, Battersea alone had to PTS almost 100 pitbull types - according to them, 70% of those would have been rehomeable. Is 70 dead dogs worth it for the sake of saving a single human life?

Rehomeable to the right kind of homes that understand the breed, acknowledge it's history as a fighting breed and know how to properly train and handle them on a day to day basis. Those homes are in short supply.
If we took the legal aspect out of the equation, you end up with either rescues/shelters full of (or in some cases warehousing) these animals for sometimes years until those unicorn homes appear, or you end up adopting out these powerful, potentially dangerous breeds to the average joe who thinks they can treat the dog like it's your average dopey Labrador.
Meanwhile, the type of people breeding Pitbulls will continue to churn out litters, despite the legalities, to be purchased by 'ardnuts and idiots.

 

[ycbm]

In 2015, for example, Battersea alone had to PTS almost 100 pitbull types - according to them, 70% of those would have been rehomeable. Is 70 dead dogs worth it for the sake of saving a single human life?

I don't understand how you can even think of asking that question.
.

 

[marmalade76]

I don't understand how you can even think of asking that question.
.

Indeed. I wonder if they'd dare say that to Jack Lis' mother.

 

[Cortez]

I don't understand how you can even think of asking that question.
.

Me neither. The very fact that there were that number of un-rehomeable bull breeds there in the first place is disturbing. My sister-in-law works in a large dog shelter in the States and says that the vast majority of dogs in the shelter are pits or other bull types, either seized or handed in.

 

[conniegirl]

Rehomeable to the right kind of homes that understand the breed, acknowledge it's history as a fighting breed and know how to properly train and handle them on a day to day basis. Those homes are in short supply.

In very very short supply as they are generally not going to consider a dog of that type with an unknown history.
All the rescues round here are full of bull types that linger there for years yet are constantly putting out pleas for more funding so they can pay private kennels or desperate pleas for new homes for these dogs.
Meanwhile hundreds of much more rehomeable dogs are destroyed as no shelter has room enough to take them

I don't understand how you can even think of asking that question.
.

This!!

 

[J&T]

I know it's the owner not the breed but Bull breeds do make me nervous I'm sorry but they do I never let any bull breed say hello to my girl because I just don't trust them.

Talking of a license I'd pay if it's what I had to do to keep my girl and even though she's a very gentle soul I'd muzzle her if it became law.

No matter what anyone says their is something that makes Bull breeds and xl bullys very different to other dogs why I don't trust them look at the dog that killed jack lis , the video that was released of beast before he killed jack showed him stalking a little girl I've never seen any other breed stalk a child like it's prey before. I just feel there is something not right about them and I'm sorry if that offends anyone but it's my opinion.

Here's the video incase anyone's not seen it this is footage of the dog that killed jack lis.

At one point he stalks this little girl and she's so scared she goes in the road behind a truck and easily could have got run over.

 

[Red-1]

I know it's the owner not the breed but Bull breeds do make me nervous I'm sorry but they do I never let any bull breed say hello to my girl because I just don't trust them.

Talking of a license I'd pay if it's what I had to do to keep my girl and even though she's a very gentle soul I'd muzzle her if it became law.

No matter what anyone says their is something that makes Bull breeds and xl bullys very different to other dogs why I don't trust them look at the dog that killed jack lis , the video that was released of beast before he killed jack showed him stalking a little girl I've never seen any other breed stalk a child like it's prey before. I just feel there is something not right about them and I'm sorry if that offends anyone but it's my opinion.

Here's the video incase anyone's not seen it this is footage of the dog that killed jack lis.

At one point he stalks this little girl and she's so scared she goes in the road behind a truck and easily could have got run over.

I would prefer this particular dog be PTS, just on the strength of this video. I think it bit 3 people just on there. But, a muzzle would certainly help me feel safer if that was not possible!!!

 

[J&T]

I would prefer this particular dog be PTS, just on the strength of this video. I think it bit 3 people just on there. But, a muzzle would certainly help me feel safer if that was not possible!!!

I agree, thankfully this dog did get put down but after he killed poor jack lis

 

[Nasicus]

I would prefer this particular dog be PTS, just on the strength of this video. I think it bit 3 people just on there. But, a muzzle would certainly help me feel safer if that was not possible!!!

These are the types of people that wouldn't muzzle even if it were law, but if the dog itself weren't enough to make me cross the street, seeing it without a muzzle would tell me everything I needed to know and to give them a wiiiide berth.
FWIW, I would have no qualms about muzzling my small, friendly dog in public if it became the law. I'm sure the ball chucker mafia would have a gripe about it though

 

[stangs]

Stangs, I understand you are a bull/fighting breed fan but do you agree they need some controls? Or that all dogs need some controls? Or are you ok with the current situation?

I’m not okay with the current situation, because it’s both a human and canine welfare problem. But I’m also tired of people not contextualising the problem alongside increased crime and increased numbers of dogs out of control. I’m no legislator, and I know there are issues with all these ideas and that they require government financing that isn't particularly feasible, but my basic line of thinking is:

1. Dogs out of control legislation

An increase in the severity of legislation regarding dog on human, dog on dog attacks, dog on horse attacks, etc. if a dog kills someone, the owner should be tried with gross negligence manslaughter, or maybe involuntary manslaughter. There needs to be heavier penalties affecting the owner, not just the dog, to make it worth people’s while to train them.

1. Type-related legislation

I’d prefer to have a restriction on breeds as opposed to a complete ban. The affected breeds would be mastiffs, molossers, LGDs, as well as any other dog breed that kills an adult in the UK (currently the only breed that fits that criteria is the GSD). Any crosses would also be restricted. The aim of this would be to reduce dog attacks generally, not just fatalities, and also to prevent a new breed being developed in response to legislation, as has partially been the case with the XL bully.

What the specifics of this restriction would entail, I’m not sure yet. There could be different categories based on a behaviour assessment. To roughly quote a dog expert witness’s recommendations, perhaps the default should be “remain on a short lead (6’ max.) in busy public locations”, and “can be exercised on a fifty-foot training line when in open locations such as parkland and wooded areas” for dogs that pass the assessment and don’t show reactivity. Dogs that show any reactivity, whether to other dogs, bicycles, etc. (even if it’s just repeatedly fixating on something), would have to be muzzled at all times in public as well. Alternatively, do it the other way round - dogs that show no reactivity can be off leash, but must be muzzled. Dogs that show any reactivity must be muzzled and leashed.

Further restriction/licensing would be required for the ownership of any unspayed bitched or unneutered dogs, to incentivise people to spay and neuter (even though I know this isn’t necessarily in a dog’s best interests).

Unlike what the DDA does with banned breeds, restricted breeds could be rehomed iff a) rehomed through a charity on a set list (to prevent people making up charities to rehome their dogs through); and b) the dog has passed a strict and expansive behaviour assessments, much stricter than any assessment or evaluation for other breeds. In short, I’d like the Index of Exempt Dogs to be more 'relaxed' so to speak.

The ‘stick’ of this approach is that dogs get PTS if this isn’t obeyed, not to mention owner penalties. The ‘carrot’ is that registered dogs of restricted breeds get considerable, government-funded discounts on spaying, neutering, behavioural consultations and training sessions with qualified and registered trainers. The last bit is the key, I think; I can’t blame behaviourists for setting the prices they set, but their consultations often aren’t affordable for people. Making them affordable is the best way of making sure that these powerful breeds are able to receive expert support if they need it, making things safer for the general public and anyone who interacts with these dogs. And I do think people would take that opportunity if it was available (see the Joanne Robinson case) - people don’t want their dog to kill their kid, people don’t want their dog to attack their other dog. People can want and have ‘intimidating’ looking dogs and also want and have a loving family pet. The proof of this is all the big, powerful dogs living normal lives under the radar - from the 21 Dogos and 9 Tosas on the Index of exempt dogs, none of which have made the news for harming someone, to the litters of Bully Kuttas a bloke in London breeds every few years.

I’d like any changes to be done by consulting honest breeders of these breeds as well as behaviourists and vets. Ideally, changes would be done with the mindset of protecting dogs from bad ownership generally, not just protecting people from dogs, and with the mindset of improving these breeds, to make them more stable mentally.

I want there to be lots and lots of consultations and discussion and input from different communities (there is a class and subculture element to this, and their voices have to be acknowledged too) so that any new legislation doesn’t end up like DDA 2.0, which is what I fear is going to happen.

(I’d also like an increase in government funding and support in areas with high crime, which tend to end up with more problem dogs and dog attacks. "In an ideal world" and so on...)

 

[stangs]

I don't understand how you can even think of asking that question.

I asked the question because, if you’re considering a piece of legislation, you have to consider every part of it. I wasn’t saying that I think 1 human is worth less than 70 dogs; it was just a question. And I will leave the question there, because I’m genuinely curious. If you could save 1 person’s life, how many dogs would you be willing to kill - 1000, 10,000, a million? What is a dog’s life worth? What is a human’s life worth?

@marmalade76 , I would have indeed asked Jack Lis’ mother the same question if she was on a thread discussing what should be done about dangerous dogs, which I doubt she’s currently comfortable doing. To be quite frank, I’m amused at people jumping at this when Cortez previously alluded to anyone killed by a dangerous dog as being deserving of a Darwin Award. Presumably, she wouldn’t have said that to Jack Lis’ mother but, hey, freedom of speech.

 

[skinnydipper]

Presumably, she wouldn’t have said that to Jack Lis’ mother but, hey, freedom of speech.

Jack Lis wasn't killed by a dog in the family home.

 

[Clodagh]

I’m not okay with the current situation, because it’s both a human and canine welfare problem. But I’m also tired of people not contextualising the problem alongside increased crime and increased numbers of dogs out of control. I’m no legislator, and I know there are issues with all these ideas and that they require government financing that isn't particularly feasible, but my basic line of thinking is:

1. Dogs out of control legislation

An increase in the severity of legislation regarding dog on human, dog on dog attacks, dog on horse attacks, etc. if a dog kills someone, the owner should be tried with gross negligence manslaughter, or maybe involuntary manslaughter. There needs to be heavier penalties affecting the owner, not just the dog, to make it worth people’s while to train them.

1. Type-related legislation

I’d prefer to have a restriction on breeds as opposed to a complete ban. The affected breeds would be mastiffs, molossers, LGDs, as well as any other dog breed that kills an adult in the UK (currently the only breed that fits that criteria is the GSD). Any crosses would also be restricted. The aim of this would be to reduce dog attacks generally, not just fatalities, and also to prevent a new breed being developed in response to legislation, as has partially been the case with the XL bully.

What the specifics of this restriction would entail, I’m not sure yet. There could be different categories based on a behaviour assessment. To roughly quote a dog expert witness’s recommendations, perhaps the default should be “remain on a short lead (6’ max.) in busy public locations”, and “can be exercised on a fifty-foot training line when in open locations such as parkland and wooded areas” for dogs that pass the assessment and don’t show reactivity. Dogs that show any reactivity, whether to other dogs, bicycles, etc. (even if it’s just repeatedly fixating on something), would have to be muzzled at all times in public as well. Alternatively, do it the other way round - dogs that show no reactivity can be off leash, but must be muzzled. Dogs that show any reactivity must be muzzled and leashed.

Further restriction/licensing would be required for the ownership of any unspayed bitched or unneutered dogs, to incentivise people to spay and neuter (even though I know this isn’t necessarily in a dog’s best interests).

Unlike what the DDA does with banned breeds, restricted breeds could be rehomed iff a) rehomed through a charity on a set list (to prevent people making up charities to rehome their dogs through); and b) the dog has passed a strict and expansive behaviour assessments, much stricter than any assessment or evaluation for other breeds. In short, I’d like the Index of Exempt Dogs to be more 'relaxed' so to speak.

The ‘stick’ of this approach is that dogs get PTS if this isn’t obeyed, not to mention owner penalties. The ‘carrot’ is that registered dogs of restricted breeds get considerable, government-funded discounts on spaying, neutering, behavioural consultations and training sessions with qualified and registered trainers. The last bit is the key, I think; I can’t blame behaviourists for setting the prices they set, but their consultations often aren’t affordable for people. Making them affordable is the best way of making sure that these powerful breeds are able to receive expert support if they need it, making things safer for the general public and anyone who interacts with these dogs. And I do think people would take that opportunity if it was available (see the Joanne Robinson case) - people don’t want their dog to kill their kid, people don’t want their dog to attack their other dog. People can want and have ‘intimidating’ looking dogs and also want and have a loving family pet. The proof of this is all the big, powerful dogs living normal lives under the radar - from the 21 Dogos and 9 Tosas on the Index of exempt dogs, none of which have made the news for harming someone, to the litters of Bully Kuttas a bloke in London breeds every few years.

I’d like any changes to be done by consulting honest breeders of these breeds as well as behaviourists and vets. Ideally, changes would be done with the mindset of protecting dogs from bad ownership generally, not just protecting people from dogs, and with the mindset of improving these breeds, to make them more stable mentally.

I want there to be lots and lots of consultations and discussion and input from different communities (there is a class and subculture element to this, and their voices have to be acknowledged too) so that any new legislation doesn’t end up like DDA 2.0, which is what I fear is going to happen.

(I’d also like an increase in government funding and support in areas with high crime, which tend to end up with more problem dogs and dog attacks. "In an ideal world" and so on...)

That all sounds very sensible, on the whole perhaps I haven’t read your posts properly, I just assumed you very very pro dangerous type dogs.
I am not sure how you can quantify human life. If my son was killed by a rehomed gumtree XL bullie because it was a ‘lovely dog’ I’m not sure how many XL bullies I would feel deserving of death.

 

[stangs]

That all sounds very sensible, on the whole perhaps I haven’t read your posts properly, I just assumed you very very pro dangerous type dogs.
I am not sure how you can quantify human life. If my son was killed by a rehomed gumtree XL bullie because it was a ‘lovely dog’ I’m not sure how many XL bullies I would feel deserving of death.

I am pro these types of dogs in the sense that I love their appearance, history, and character. It’s because I’m pro these dogs that I want them to be bred by trustworthy breeders and then sold to breed-appropriate homes. I want to see them happy and healthy, thriving as family pets and doing what they were bred for.

I don’t want to see them being worried and reactive any more than anyone else does - it goes against the breed standard and, above all else, it indicative of poor welfare.

The fact that I have very strong opinions on BSL is a separate issue. I’d be complaining about it even if it was affecting breeds I have no interest in.

 

[Clodagh]

I want to see them happy and healthy, thriving as family pets and doing what they were bred for.

But they were bred to fight?

 

[stangs]

But they were bred to fight?

Which breed are you thinking?

XL bullies’ main job is to be a companion - as per the breed standard, they should never show aggression towards people. Some dog aggression is to be expected of the breed but I’m yet to see any evidence of them having been used in dog fights.

Pitbulls have obviously been used for dog-fighting, but also for other activities. They were the number 1 companion dog in the US earlier in the 20th century, so their history and lines as companions is just as notable as that related to dog-fighting.

Tosas are the only breed I can think of who, over the course of history, have predominantly been bred for dog-fighting. But obviously I don’t want to see them out dog-fighting either.

 

[SadKen]

That's exactly what you described, at some length!

Where?

Quote it. I think you have misunderstood if that’s your interpretation.

Conniegirl, your interpretation is completely incorrect and totally unnecessary, Stangs has it right.

Clodagh, I don’t agree that I ‘need training’ on anything. I have simply repeatedly pointed out exactly why a proposed blanket muzzle law won’t work, in real life.

I have seen no attempt by anyone to actually debate why I am wrong, on the factual nature of the points I raised. Instead, I am seeing emotive attacks on my character, which is an easy place to go if you don’t have any actual counterpoints.

Feel free to debate me on the facts. Prove to me that a blanket muzzles in public law will save lives to the point that it is worth imposing. Prove to me that it would be enforced, and by whom; when current legislation is toothless. Explain to me how people who most need to muzzle their dogs will do so as a result of such a law. Prove to me that enforcing muzzles is a good use of police time. You can’t. Yet here we are, many posts later, earnestly focussing on how dreadful I am, and ignoring the points I raised, instead of thinking of actual workable solutions to the problem.

Those who think it’s a good idea ALL muzzle your dogs in public now, of course. Don’t you. No. Thought not.

 

[marmalade76]

I asked the question because, if you’re considering a piece of legislation, you have to consider every part of it. I wasn’t saying that I think 1 human is worth less than 70 dogs; it was just a question. And I will leave the question there, because I’m genuinely curious. If you could save 1 person’s life, how many dogs would you be willing to kill - 1000, 10,000, a million? What is a dog’s life worth? What is a human’s life worth?

@marmalade76 , I would have indeed asked Jack Lis’ mother the same question if she was on a thread discussing what should be done about dangerous dogs, which I doubt she’s currently comfortable doing. To be quite frank, I’m amused at people jumping at this when Cortez previously alluded to anyone killed by a dangerous dog as being deserving of a Darwin Award. Presumably, she wouldn’t have said that to Jack Lis’ mother but, hey, freedom of speech.

You'd seriously ask the mother of a child killed by a dog if one human life is worth 70 dogs? There's something wrong with you.

As for dog lives V humans, particularly children - no contest, particularly as several of the people recently killed by dogs have been friends and relatives of the owners. I can understand where Cortez is coming from, if you choose to own such a dog and it kills you (the woman who had two large dogs that had been fighting and the dog walker are two recent examples), it's nobody's fault but your own, but when you're inflicting these dogs on your family & friends it's different. I'd be quite happy if every XL bully and pit bull in the world was eradicated. I live in a small town in Gloucestershire, the XL Bully has even made it here, saw one on my way out of the one stop shop the other night - huge, muscular with it's ears removed, menacingly eyeing the much smaller dog walking along the pavement behind it as it's owner was dragging it along, god help us!

 

[conniegirl]

What if he had needed to retaliate to survive and he’s got a muzzle on despite being the friendliest dog in the world? I’m supposed to watch that happen and say ‘oh well, he’s seriously injured or dead, I prevented him being able to defend himself

There you go SadKen, here is the quote.

 

[Dexter]

Not a nice to say about someone whose posts, to me, simply suggest that they’re worried about their dog’s safety.


So what’s the balance of importance between a dog’s life and a human’s?

In 2015, for example, Battersea alone had to PTS almost 100 pitbull types - according to them, 70% of those would have been rehomeable. Is 70 dead dogs worth it for the sake of saving a single human life?

7million dead dogs would be worth it to save 1 human life, and I am very much a dog person having my own much loved pets!

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

Which breed are you thinking?

XL bullies’ main job is to be a companion - as per the breed standard, they should never show aggression towards people. Some dog aggression is to be expected of the breed but I’m yet to see any evidence of them having been used in dog fights.

Pitbulls have obviously been used for dog-fighting, but also for other activities. They were the number 1 companion dog in the US earlier in the 20th century, so their history and lines as companions is just as notable as that related to dog-fighting.

Tosas are the only breed I can think of who, over the course of history, have predominantly been bred for dog-fighting. But obviously I don’t want to see them out dog-fighting either.

I am completely and utterly failing to see where in the features of an XL bully, is anything which says "companion". I'm sorry but this just sounds completely ridiculous. It would be equally so if I said a Greyhound is bred for the main job of companionship, they very clearly are not but at least seem to make the transition to pet without killing people.

 

[SadKen]

Quote didn’t work: to CG: I don’t think you’ve understood. This is me giving a scenario and saying that if there was a blanket law requiring all dogs to be muzzled at all times in public places, and mine was muzzled and his attacker was not, he cannot defend himself. It is NOT me requiring a blanket muzzling law.

The reason I gave this scenario was to illustrate the point I have repeatedly made throughout this thread: the type of people that have dogs which are a risk to the public are not the type of people who follow laws, existing or new. If I *were* to follow a proposed blanket muzzle law and those types of people don’t (which they won’t) I am removing my dog’s ability to defend himself.

For clarity since it seems not to be clear from my repeated posts: I do not agree with blanket muzzle every dog everywhere in all public places because it won’t work. I’ve said it many times.

 

[stangs]

I am completely and utterly failing to see where in the features of an XL bully, is anything which says "companion". I'm sorry but this just sounds completely ridiculous. It would be equally so if I said a Greyhound is bred for the main job of companionship, they very clearly are not but at least seem to make the transition to pet without killing people.

Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that the breed was designed to look powerful but be friendly and gentle with everyone. It's a combination of some people's ideal aesthetics and temperaments. They are not bred to be anything but companions - read the breed standard. Unlike the greyhound, they have no history doing any job other than companionship. So yes, it would sound ridiculous if you said that the greyhound has primarily been bred for companionship, because that would be a blatant lie.

Just because you disagree with people's taste in dogs doesn't mean that people don't want them as companions. Consider talking to some conscientious breeders rather than basing your opinions solely of the poorly bred bullies.

 

[AmyMay]

Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that the breed was designed to look powerful but be friendly and gentle with everyone. It's a combination of some people's ideal aesthetics and temperaments.

You’re referencing the US breed standard. Either way, the base gene pool for an XL Bully is a Pit Bill or American Bull Dog. Add in the other bull mixes or CC’s - and basically you have a lethal weapon.

They may be better bred in the US because of a larger gene pool.

 

[Morwenna]

But how many are actually bred to the breed standard? That is the big issue here. If unscrupulous breeders are not selecting for temperament but for looks then you have ever bigger, stronger dogs that are aggressive. This is the reality of where we are now and so something does need to be done. Whether that is around licensing breeding or ownership or something else.
I would feel very nervous if I met one of these dogs while out walking mine or walking alone. Rationally I know that’s not fair as many will be gentle dogs but they are also the main cause of fatal attacks and that would always be at the back of my mind.

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

It's got absolutely nothing to do with my taste in dogs or what I like or not.

I've just read the UKC breed standard, it describes American Bully's as a "natural extension of American Pit Bull Terriers" - still not screaming 'companion' to me, even if someone somewhere decided to call it so.

Where are these conscientious breeders? Much like with the poor Brachy-breeds, they don't seem to be very well represented. Their breed standards say a lot too and look where they are.

 

[Cortez]

Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that the breed was designed to look powerful but be friendly and gentle with everyone. It's a combination of some people's ideal aesthetics and temperaments. They are not bred to be anything but companions - read the breed standard. Unlike the greyhound, they have no history doing any job other than companionship. So yes, it would sound ridiculous if you said that the greyhound has primarily been bred for companionship, because that would be a blatant lie.

Just because you disagree with people's taste in dogs doesn't mean that people don't want them as companions. Consider talking to some conscientious breeders rather than basing your opinions solely of the poorly bred bullies.

Whether you like it or not, the very fact that such a large proportion of serious and fatal dog attacks are perpetrated by bull breeds would indicate that the alleged breed standard is either not being achieved on a massive scale, or is a complete nonsense in the first place.

Bull dogs were originally bred for bull baiting, requiring aggression, tenacity, and extreme grip strength. Their job was to bite the bull on the nose, flews and neck, and not let go.

 

[AmyMay]

It's got absolutely nothing to do with my taste in dogs or what I like or not.

I’ll admit to something here, in the spirit of openness and transparency…..

I think they are incredible looking dogs, much like the Cane Corso. Do I want one (or either)? Hell No.

 

[palo1]

I’ll admit to something here, in the spirit of openness and transparency…..

I think they are incredible looking dogs, much like the Cane Corso. Do I want one (or either)? Hell No.

Hmm, but isn't that a similar problem that brachycephalic dogs have (at the other end of the spectrum): people love the way that they look so breeding gets more and more extreme to appeal to a particular aesthetic....? I thought that was generally not a good thing. In this instance looking like a brutal and dangerous dog actually results in a dog that can be truly lethal. I have a soft spot for staffies and EBTs but the bull breeds do need considering in terms of public safety, far more so than most other breeds. I get that if you somehow got rid of them, another dog with other features would simply take their place however. I mean you could easily weaponise an Airedale...rambling and not helpful thoughts sorry!