Another fatal dog attack

[CorvusCorax]

Humans are wired to try and read other animals/people via their eyes to decide whether they are in potential danger (the term ‘murderers eyes’, for instance). If you pair very strange eyes with a huge, muscular dog that has a jaw larger than a small human head, it’s no wonder it gives people the heebie jeebies and that their behaviour and body language will alter around that dog.



I imagine if he were a short coated dog without the ‘redeeming features’ that humans like, peoples behaviour would likely change towards him.

Interestingly, he really sets other dogs off, even when he's paying them no attention at all, to do with his colour, tail carriage, ear-set, etc.

As you mention, I have a friend of eastern European extraction with piercing blue eyes and we always joke that he has 'the eyes of a killer'.

 

[Cortez]

Any well-chosen cross, anything that falls under the categorisation of bandog will do the same thing, and won't necessarily be covered by the DDA if they did decide to ban dogs of an XL bully's description.


These sorts of claims are why we need proper research on the breed rather than banning the lot. Is it just a combination of drive and reactivity, which makes them no worse than a lot of breeds and which just means they need to be kept by experienced owners like the many other breeds with that those traits? Is it that there are specific lines of the breed, allegedly by Kimbo, which are at a high risk of having a sudden onset of inexplicable rage, maybe even rage syndrome - in which case it's not the breed, it's the line, and genomic sequencing would be useful not only for protecting people from XL bullies, but from other potential dog attacks too?



It set your hairs on end because the breed has been in the news nonstop so you estimated the risk of an attack as much more likely than you would if a Rottweiler, say, was doing the exact same thing. That's just how the human brain works; that's nothing to do with the dog's behaviour.

I take it you are an xlbully fan? What sort of “research” do you think would do the job? For me the fact that the majority of fatal dog attacks are perpetrated by the breed is already enough research to make owning one illegal.

 

[Errin Paddywack]

I would happily see all these dogs put down and I am not a fluffy bunny. I remember a friend telling me about her BIL who was a police officer and he was involved at the time of the DDA with helping to remove pitbulls from premises where they were bred and used for dog fighting. They had to take them along to vets and then to kennels and he said he was amazed at what sweet natured dogs they were with people. He was quite sad that they were all destined to be PTS. I very much doubt that he would feel the same about these dogs.

 

[Landcruiser]

There was an interesting take on R4 this morning. I didn't catch who the person speaking was, but he was saying they are a recently developed breed designed to be similar to the "Dogs of War" used by Romans in battle. (Which, having done a bit of research were called Molussus and were more closely related to the Mastiffs). However, they are very much of a body type. It seems to me there's only one reason to breed specifically for this type and it's to make a big, scary dog which can be used as a defence/aggression weapon. Why else, really?

The fact that it's so new , plus the track record of killing and maiming, and the presumably small gene pool - to me it's a no brainer that these dogs should be import banned and the existing ones should be muzzled and never off lead, and the breeding of them banned here too. I know it's tough to police but that shouldn't stop us trying. I think they are terrifying, and would hate to meet one off lead in any circumstances. There may be some that are nice and loving and stable, but their sheer size and strength mean that in the right circumstances they could still kill an adult, never mind a child or another dog.

For the first and probably last time ever, I find myself in agreement with Cruella. Something I never thought I'd say!

 

[Goldenstar]

They are a breEd represented in small numbers in the dog population causing large number of the serious cases of seriously out of control dogs .
Theres no good reason for people to have such a dog .

 

[Moobli]

Yes but he's got a lovely dark eye. This dog had very light coloured eyes, sort of blue/amber.

My friend’s young male GSD has very light eyes and, while he’s a lovely natured dog, lots of people comment that he looks scary and intense.
I just watched the relevant section on GMB on catch up to see the dog you’re talking about and I noticed the female presenter who admitted to being very worried about the XL bully coming into the studio, kept staring at him.

 

[stangs]

I take it you are an xlbully fan? What sort of “research” do you think would do the job? For me the fact that the majority of fatal dog attacks are perpetrated by the breed is already enough research to make owning one illegal.

It’s a sad world indeed if being objective means you must be a fan.

We’re facing two sorts of bully attacks: some have a clear trigger (reactivity/drive/redirection), and are indeed an issue of unsuitable owners. Some are a good-natured dog snapping with seemingly no explanation for it. The latter case follows a trend of behaviour which isn’t dissimilar to behaviour which has been linked to specific genes in the Cocker Spaniel, Mali, and bull terriers too I think. Genomic sequencing of bullies could only add to our general understanding of this sort of aggression, which is far more dangerous because the owner isn’t expecting the behaviour. And we know that there is a major genetic element to this, least of all because it was previously a topic of discussion among US breeders.

If, hypothetically, they could isolate one or two genes as increasing the risk of sudden onsets of agression, then you could require the spaying/neutering of carriers - not just for bullies, but for any powerful breed - and that could reduce the incidence of such attacks. No one, even dog fighters, wants a dog with unpredictable aggression.

 

[CanteringCarrot]

but their sheer size and strength mean that in the right circumstances they could still kill an adult, never mind a child or another dog.

I keep seeing statements like this over and over again in this thread, and these statements are not wrong. However, there are so many dogs and breeds that have the size and strength that could kill an adult, child, or another dog in the right circumstances. I'm not denying they there is a problem here or the issues with the XL Bully...that's not my point.

My point is that if we were to ban or otherwise discriminate off of that criteria alone, then soo many dogs shouldn't exist. Goodbye Labradors, Newfoundlands, GSD's, Golden retrievers, many types of herding dogs, and basically all Mastiffs.

I understand that part of the difference is that the XL Bully has both the capabilites and the track record. Something needs to be done, but I'm not necessarily going to purely go off of the criteria of, "that in the right circumstances they could still kill an adult, never mind a child or another dog." That applies to many dogs out there. It could be a slippery slope to use that as criteria alone. Not saying that's what you're implying, it's just a point that I want to touch on.

 

[Birker2020]

Perfect pets or dangerous dogs? The sudden, surprising rise of American bully XLs

Of the 10 fatal dog attacks in the UK last year, more than half involved a bully XL. But plenty of British owners love the breed. Should it be better regulated – or outright banned?

www.theguardian.com

This makes interesting reading

Earlier this year, a group of dog owners set up Bully Watch, which is working to track which breeds are responsible for the majority of dog attacks in the UK by collating social media posts and news articles. They believe from their research that the American bully XL and bully mix breeds have been responsible for 45% of dog attacks, on humans and other dogs, this year.

 

[asmp]

This has just come up on a local news site:

Man suffers hand and leg injuries after being bitten by a dog in Hants

Hampshire Constabulary wishes to speak with two people

www.hampshirelive.news

Doberman this time.

 

[ycbm]

Perfect pets or dangerous dogs? The sudden, surprising rise of American bully XLs

Of the 10 fatal dog attacks in the UK last year, more than half involved a bully XL. But plenty of British owners love the breed. Should it be better regulated – or outright banned?

www.theguardian.com

This makes interesting reading

Earlier this year, a group of dog owners set up Bully Watch, which is working to track which breeds are responsible for the majority of dog attacks in the UK by collating social media posts and news articles. They believe from their research that the American bully XL and bully mix breeds have been responsible for 45% of dog attacks, on humans and other dogs, this year.

The important statistic is not that 45% of attacks are by Bullys, its that a much, much smaller proportion of total dog ownership is of Bullys.

Bullys are MASSIVELY more dangerous, if you count attacks by breeding, than other dogs.

A man was walking toward the OH and me a few days ago with a Bully on a lead. When he saw us, I saw him take a tighter grip on the dog's lead. This is really frightening, and I don't see why ordinary people should be expected to put up with being frightened like this when they are walking to the shop to buy a pint of milk.

Get them off the streets.
.

 

[Clodagh]

The desire to own one should should preclude you from being qualified to do so.
They are just legal weapons. Stand on a corner with a knife or a gun and you’ll be arrested. Stand there with a dog on a prong collar launching at passers by and you’ll be fine.

 

[conniegirl]

It’s a sad world indeed if being objective means you must be a fan.

We’re facing two sorts of bully attacks: some have a clear trigger (reactivity/drive/redirection), and are indeed an issue of unsuitable owners. Some are a good-natured dog snapping with seemingly no explanation for it. The latter case follows a trend of behaviour which isn’t dissimilar to behaviour which has been linked to specific genes in the Cocker Spaniel, Mali, and bull terriers too I think. Genomic sequencing of bullies could only add to our general understanding of this sort of aggression, which is far more dangerous because the owner isn’t expecting the behaviour. And we know that there is a major genetic element to this, least of all because it was previously a topic of discussion among US breeders.

If, hypothetically, they could isolate one or two genes as increasing the risk of sudden onsets of agression, then you could require the spaying/neutering of carriers - not just for bullies, but for any powerful breed - and that could reduce the incidence of such attacks. No one, even dog fighters, wants a dog with unpredictable aggression.

So whilst you do 10 years of research and testing the rest of us are supposed to allow this threat to continue killing people left right and centre?
Oh joy.

These dogs are bred for the power and physical ability to kill. They are not like your average lab or golden or even most dobies. Who yes if trained to be aggressive can kill but not with the sheer ease of the bully xl, not with the sheer bloody mindedness that anything with pitbull blood has that means they wont let go, ever.

 

[Cortez]

It’s a sad world indeed if being objective means you must be a fan.

We’re facing two sorts of bully attacks: some have a clear trigger (reactivity/drive/redirection), and are indeed an issue of unsuitable owners. Some are a good-natured dog snapping with seemingly no explanation for it. The latter case follows a trend of behaviour which isn’t dissimilar to behaviour which has been linked to specific genes in the Cocker Spaniel, Mali, and bull terriers too I think. Genomic sequencing of bullies could only add to our general understanding of this sort of aggression, which is far more dangerous because the owner isn’t expecting the behaviour. And we know that there is a major genetic element to this, least of all because it was previously a topic of discussion among US breeders.

If, hypothetically, they could isolate one or two genes as increasing the risk of sudden onsets of agression, then you could require the spaying/neutering of carriers - not just for bullies, but for any powerful breed - and that could reduce the incidence of such attacks. No one, even dog fighters, wants a dog with unpredictable aggression.

*So, are you a fan?

I'm not particularly interested in the genetics actually. It's blindingly obvious that if you breed animals to fight they are going to be selected for the willingness to do so.

*I have met many bull-type dogs: pitbulls, staffys and xl's, and they are usually jolly, likeable characters, but I still think they should be prohibited as too big a risk. If people genuinely want a nice, chunky dog, go get something that isn't capable of taking your, or anyone else's face off. Yes, other breeds are theoretically capable, but the point is that they don't do as regularly nor as efficiently as the statistics show pitbull types do.

 

[maisie06]

They are a breEd represented in small numbers in the dog population causing large number of the serious cases of seriously out of control dogs .
Theres no good reason for people to have such a dog .

Exactly this - they should never be allowed in public without a muzzle, even then they could still dSo serious damage just trying to bite. something needs to be done.

 

[JJS]

One of my favourite breeds of dog is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Growing up, we had the loveliest little Staffie, and my parents now have another. Myself and my parents also own Lab x Staffie brothers. All have been sweet, loving dogs despite being another breed that’s been negatively stereotyped in the past.

Because of my experience with Staffies, I very much fall into the “deed not breed” camp, and I do think Scats has made some really good points above.

Personally, I can think of five occasions where I’ve met Bullies (three pocket and two XL). They’ve all been pleasant and seemingly well-socialised dogs. On three of those occasions, I’ve had my dogs with me. All three times, the owners have had their dogs on lead and asked if they were okay to introduce them to our two (all on lead). Two of those owners shared how difficult it’s been to socialise their dogs due to the stigma surrounding the breed.

On all three occasions, I’ve agreed. I’m pretty good at reading dog body language, and none of them have given me any cause to worry about their behaviour/the potential for aggression. On each occasion, the Bullies we met were exceedingly polite around my dogs, and I didn’t once feel there was any threat to them or to me.

While my experience is only based on a handful of dogs, it seems clear to me that this isn’t a breed-wide issue - more a problem that’s specific to certain lines and types of owners. I don’t know what the solution is but nor do I think a blanket ban is the answer. Just because a dog’s stare gives you the shivers and you’ve read a lot of bad press about them, it doesn’t mean they’re actually a danger. However, blanket ban them, and those nice, pleasant dogs I’ve met are going to face exactly the same fate as any other dog outlawed by BSL. That’s not something that sits well with me.

 

[bonny]

One of my favourite breeds of dog is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Growing up, we had the loveliest little Staffie, and my parents now have another. Myself and my parents also own Lab x Staffie brothers. All have been sweet, loving dogs despite being another breed that’s been negatively stereotyped in the past.

Because of my experience with Staffies, I very much fall into the “deed not breed” camp, and I do think Scats has made some really good points above.

Personally, I can think of five occasions where I’ve met Bullies (three pocket and two XL). They’ve all been pleasant and seemingly well-socialised dogs. On three of those occasions, I’ve had my dogs with me. All three times, the owners have had their dogs on lead and asked if they were okay to introduce them to our two (all on lead). Two of those owners shared how difficult it’s been to socialise their dogs due to the stigma surrounding the breed.

On all three occasions, I’ve agreed. I’m pretty good at reading dog body language, and none of them have given me any cause to worry about their behaviour/the potential for aggression. On each occasion, the Bullies we met were exceedingly polite around my dogs, and I didn’t once feel there was any threat to them or to me.

While my experience is only based on a handful of dogs, it seems clear to me that this isn’t a breed-wide issue - more a problem that’s specific to certain lines and types of owners. I don’t know what the solution is but nor do I think a blanket ban is the answer. Just because a dog’s stare gives you the shivers and you’ve read a lot of bad press about them, it doesn’t mean they’re actually a danger

Using that logic nothing would happen to any XL bully until it attacked someone and then there is every chance that person is maimed or dead.

 

[JJS]

Using that logic nothing would happen to any XL bully until it attacked someone and then there is every chance that person is maimed or dead.

You could apply that logic to any dog, and XL Bullies aren’t the only breed that have historically attacked and/or killed people.

 

[CorvusCorax]

I am very interested in genetics and what research might reveal, TBH.

Also all the ones around here that I've seen are quite biddable and as I mentioned on another thread, two very patient ones passed me the other day when my young female was going ballistic at them.

And all the cockapoos are roundly dreadful.

I'm not saying one is not more capable of causing harm than the other, I am saying different gene pools yield different types of dog.

The precise reason that certain breeds **don't** want to take our faces off, is genetics and selection and it was either never there in the first place or the trait was bred out of them.

 

[Clodagh]

But really does anyone who isn’t an idiot want to walk around with an enormous, macho, cropped eared, intimidating dog?
Ok so I find GSD’s intimidating, the way they stare, but they are not solely bred to protect drug dealers.

 

[ycbm]

another breed that’s been negatively stereotyped in the past.

I'm not sure it's technically correct to refer to 45% of attacks by, what, 1% or less of the total dog population as "stereotyping". It seems entirely rational to me to fear walking past an XL bully.
.

 

[JJS]

But really does anyone who isn’t an idiot want to walk around with an enormous, macho, cropped eared, intimidating dog?
Ok so I find GSD’s intimidating, the way they stare, but they are not solely bred to protect drug dealers.

There’s an absolutely lovely man at our yard who has one, so I don’t know that he falls into that category. He’s about the nicest, most mild-mannered guy you could meet

That said, I think there are an awful lot of people who own them for all the wrong reasons, and those are the ones I worry about.

 

[cauda equina]

All the people I know who own firearms are lovely, kind people
That doesn't mean that everyone who has or wants a firearm is a lovely person, and that they should be made freely available to all

 

[CanteringCarrot]

But really does anyone who isn’t an idiot want to walk around with an enormous, macho, cropped eared, intimidating dog?
Ok so I find GSD’s intimidating, the way they stare, but they are not solely bred to protect drug dealers.

As someone that owns a breed (Mastiff type) that could be considered intimidating, I do hate when they have cropped ears and bred for/trained for being aggressive. Or just when aggression is promoted. I'm fine with some level of protectiveness, but some of the stuff I see on Instagram makes me sad, mad, and just annoyed!

 

[JJS]

I'm not sure it's technically correct to refer to 45% of attacks by, what, 1% or less of the total dog population as "stereotyping". It seems entirely rational to me to fear walking past an XL bully.
.

I was talking about SBTs being stereotyped. I’ve acknowledged that certain lines of XL Bullies/those owned by particular types of people seem to be overrepresented in attacks. However, when Staffies were the media’s favoured “devil dog”, almost every dog involved in an attack was labelled as a Staffie or Staffie x, including those that weren’t. I’m sure the same happens with Bullies, so I personally take that 45 percent statistic with a pinch of salt.

 

[AmyMay]

Of course it’s down to certain types of owners @JJS . And the results are there for us to see. The breed need to be outlawed because you simply cannot trust their temperament nor the idiots who breed and own them.

 

[Morwenna]

There are, of course, going to be people who for some reason love the breed and buy responsibly bred animals. Unfortunately there are also many who buy dogs bred to look especially tough for protection / to intimidate people. Stereotyping here but I doubt these people are going to out much time or effort into training. And yes, any dog can bite and yes, other breeds are prone to sudden bouts of rage with no warning, but you’d stand a much better chance against a spaniel than one of these.

 

[JJS]

Of course it’s down to certain types of owners @JJS . And the results are there for us to see. The breed need to be outlawed because you simply cannot trust their temperament nor the idiots who breed and own them.

But by that logic, Dobermans, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, and SBTs should all have been banned when they were the breeds of choice for said idiots. That’s why I can’t and won’t ever support BSL or the blanket banning of breeds. To my mind, it sets a dangerous precedent and enables knee-jerk reactions from lawmakers without actually fixing the problem.

 

[Cortez]

I was talking about SBTs being stereotyped. I’ve acknowledged that certain lines of XL Bullies/those owned by particular types of people seem to be overrepresented in attacks. However, when Staffies were the media’s favoured “devil dog”, almost every dog involved in an attack was labelled as a Staffie or Staffie x, including those that weren’t. I’m sure the same happens with Bullies, so I personally take that 45 percent statistic with a pinch of salt.

According to US statistics, 65%+ of fatal dog attacks are caused by pitbull dogs. That's a 5 year compilation.

And the figure is actually the same for the UK: nearly 66%.

 

[JJS]

According to US statistics, 65%+ of fatal dog attacks are caused by pitbull dogs. That's a 5 year compilation.

That’s hardly an argument in favour of BSL though. Over 900 cities in the US have breed-specific legislation, and it almost always encompasses Pitbulls. It clearly isn’t fixing the problem or that number wouldn’t be so high.