Another fatal dog attack

[JJS]

As for BSL not working. I have never in my life seen any of the banned breeds except for one dog which was the appearance of a pitbull. So I believe I have seen a banned breed, just once. That's it.

I’ve seen quite a few Pitbulls, in the flesh and on social media belonging to people I went to school with etc.

What I’m always shocked by is how open people are about the fact they own a banned breed. They’ll tell anyone and everyone they have a Pitbull or Pitbull x, in the same way I’d happily declare that I have a Labrador.

None of them seem to have aggressive dogs or use them as status symbols, and it seems like their owners are woefully oblivious to what can happen if their dogs are found to be of type.

I can also think of two instances where dogs I know of have been taken by the police and found to be “of type”. Both passed their temperament tests with flying colours (one was already 13 years old when she was confiscated), but both now have to live their lives muzzled and leashed in any public spaces, which seems a shame when they haven’t done anything.

Interestingly, neither of them are Pitbulls (one is a Staffy x American Bulldog and the other is a Staffy x something). That’s another of my issues with BSL: not only is it nearly impossible to enforce, but it’s based on type rather than breeding, so a lot of the dogs disadvantaged by it aren’t even the breed they’re supposed to be.

Also, neither Pitbulls nor Bullies are recognised by the KC, so it’s not like they’ll be banned based on their pedigrees etc. A lot of the dogs who fall victim to this type of legislation are simply crossbreeds who are unlucky enough to fit certain measurements - for example, Lab x American Bulldogs in the case of dogs like Lennox. It’s a highly flawed process that’s seen many perfectly nice, sweet dogs put to sleep and many families left without their pets.

 

[Slightlyconfused]

And she is much better off on her own

I have seen a few make that comment, I always thought it was a good match but i so prefer her content. I have learnt loass from following her over the years.

 

[P3LH]

There are pits, filas, tosa’s and dogo’s not just in this country, but actively being bred and sold if one knows where to look. Quite large numbers of them too. Many who own them wouldn’t be stupid enough to be walking them in the local park though…so few would see them, and fewer would even recognise some of them.

 

[skinnydipper]

There are pits, filas, tosa’s and dogo’s not just in this country, but actively being bred and sold if one knows where to look. Quite large numbers of them too. Many who own them wouldn’t be stupid enough to be walking them in the local park though…so few would see them, and fewer would even recognise some of them.

So who has them and for what purpose?

 

[Cortez]

Wearing a muzzle isn't a disadvantage, if it's the law then it's up to the owner to train the dog to be comfortable wearing one, just as it's necessary to walk on a lead for any dog out in public.

 

[JJS]

Wearing a muzzle isn't a disadvantage, if it's the law then it's up to the owner to train the dog to be comfortable wearing one, just as it's necessary to walk on a lead for any dog out in public.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. If you have a dog with any aggressive tendencies at all, then muzzle training is absolutely the responsible thing to do. However, I’d never muzzle a dog of mine through choice and without due cause. But then I also think my dogs should have time off their leads so long as I can train them to have sufficiently good recall and social skills to not be bothering anyone else, which some people also don’t agree with. It’s all a matter of opinion, I guess

(Obviously, that doesn’t mean I allow my dogs to be off lead around livestock/walking the streets/anywhere where they’re requested/required to be on lead.)

 

[AmyMay]

Newsnight. Should the XL bully be banned. Jo-Rosie Haffenden's excuse - if they can't have XL bullies they'll breed something worse . Lawrence Newport worth listening to.

BBC Two - Newsnight, NHS Whistle-Blower Persecuted

The NHS whistle-blower who says her 'life was ruined' after raising concerns.

www.bbc.co.uk

Starts at 33.00


For XL bully enthusiasts there is another going to be put to sleep on Thursday if rescue space can't be found.

Very interesting. And whilst I don’t agree with her, good to have some intelligent dialogue between two opposing commentators.

 

[Cortez]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. If you have a dog with any aggressive tendencies at all, then muzzle training is absolutely the responsible thing to do. However, I’d never muzzle a dog of mine through choice and without due cause. But then I also think my dogs should have time off their leads so long as I can train them to have sufficiently good recall and social skills to not be bothering anyone else, which some people also don’t agree with. It’s all a matter of opinion, I guess

(Obviously, that doesn’t mean I allow my dogs to be off lead around livestock/walking the streets/anywhere where they’re requested/required to be on lead.)

If your dog isn't on the restricted list and isn't aggressive then it's not required to wear a muzzle, I wasn't suggesting anything otherwise.

All dogs are required to be muzzled in public areas when travelling by ferry. None of mine are remotely aggressive, but I have them muzzled as requested for the 5 minute trip from car deck to cabin; it's no inconvenience and they don't have a problem with it. If they were restricted breeds they would be muzzled in public as required by law.

 

[CorvusCorax]

Is that new, Cortez? I have never seen a dog muzzled on a ferry. I leave mine in the vehicle anyway.

 

[MurphysMinder]

Wearing a muzzle isn't a disadvantage, if it's the law then it's up to the owner to train the dog to be comfortable wearing one, just as it's necessary to walk on a lead for any dog out in public.

All dogs should be muzzle trained so they are comfortable wearing them. They may have to undergo procedures at the vet where a muzzle is needed to protect the staff, far better for the dog if they are not bothered by it.

 

[P3LH]

So who has them and for what purpose?

Your guess is as good as mine, a trawl through my things like instagram if you get into a ‘breeder wormhole’ of accounts shows you a whole, rather large, network of people breeding and selling these dogs here.

 

[MurphysMinder]

Is that new, Cortez? I have never seen a dog muzzled on a ferry. I leave mine in the vehicle anyway.

When I sold a pup to Spain 11 years ago, according to the paper work she had to wear a muzzle when in public areas on the ferry (she was able to travel in the cabin with her new owners. I got her used to a soft muzzle when with me but as it turned out they didn't use it, whether it was because she was only 15 weeks I don't know but none of the crew enforced the rule.

 

[JJS]

If your dog isn't on the restricted list and isn't aggressive then it's not required to wear a muzzle, I wasn't suggesting anything otherwise.

All dogs are required to be muzzled in public areas when travelling by ferry. None of mine are remotely aggressive, but I have them muzzled as requested for the 5 minute trip from car deck to cabin; it's no inconvenience and they don't have a problem with it. If they were restricted breeds they would be muzzled in public as required by law.

I was referring to the part of your previous post where you said wearing a muzzle isn’t a disadvantage. I may be anthropomorphising, but is it not similar to humans having to wear a mask during COVID? While we all got used to doing so in public, it’s much more pleasant to not have to wear one. On those grounds, I do think it’s a shame that some dogs have to be muzzled anytime they’re in public, even if they’ve shown no aggressive tendencies.

I also feel it creates even more stigma around those breeds, as I (like most people, I think) automatically assume a muzzled dog is an aggressive dog. As I say, though, that’s just my opinion.

I’ll also add that I’d have no issue muzzle training my dogs for the specific scenarios you suggested, but I would feel sorry for them if they had to be muzzled anytime they went outside. The same goes for all non-aggressive dogs, regardless of breed or type. It’s simply not something that sits well with me.

 

[cauda equina]

If certain breeds were required to be muzzled in public what would it matter if it created even more stigma around them?

And I see a muzzled dog as a safe dog. It might be aggressive but if properly muzzled it's not going to maul me

 

[KittenInTheTree]

Making it illegal (as in mandatory jail time and heavy fines for all offenders, no exceptions) to sell puppies and/or dogs of any breed or type for more than the cost of breeding and raising them would soon reduce the supply end of things.

 

[twiggy2]

I was referring to the part of your previous post where you said wearing a muzzle isn’t a disadvantage. I may be anthropomorphising, but is it not similar to humans having to wear a mask during COVID? While we all got used to doing so in public, it’s much more pleasant to not have to wear one. On those grounds, I do think it’s a shame that some dogs have to be muzzled anytime they’re in public, even if they’ve shown no aggressive tendencies.

I also feel it creates even more stigma around those breeds, as I (like most people, I think) automatically assume a muzzled dog is an aggressive dog. As I say, though, that’s just my opinion.

I’ll also add that I’d have no issue muzzle training my dogs for the specific scenarios you suggested, but I would feel sorry for them if they had to be muzzled anytime they went outside. The same goes for all non-aggressive dogs, regardless of breed or type. It’s simply not something that sits well with me.

A dog is disadvantaged when a collar and lead are attached to it, most of them are still delighted to see their lead as it means they are going out.
Muzzles don't restrict air flow like masks do So that's a very different thing.
And if dogs wore muzzles more routinely there would be less stigma attached to them.
My lurcher is disadvantaged to some degree by wearing a coat in cold weather she still comes running when she sees it though.

 

[Sanversera]

So who has them and for what purpose?

Dog fighting or guard dogs or just because they are banned.

 

[Cortez]

Is that new, Cortez? I have never seen a dog muzzled on a ferry. I leave mine in the vehicle anyway.

It's required for the ferry to Spain, but actually the crew don't care. It's only technically required in public areas, so not in the cabin, or on the "pooping" deck (as we call it....).

 

[CorvusCorax]

It's required for the ferry to Spain, but actually the crew don't care. It's only technically required in public areas, so not in the cabin, or on the "pooping" deck (as we call it....).

Ah right, haven't been on that route. There was a cocker on the last boat I was on in June, wasn't muzzled.

 

[MurphysMinder]

It's required for the ferry to Spain, but actually the crew don't care. It's only technically required in public areas, so not in the cabin, or on the "pooping" deck (as we call it....).

Yes that was the experience of my puppy’s owners .

 

[Slightlyconfused]

I dont automatically see a muzzles dog and think its agressive, a friend muzzles her spanner because she is a scavanger and will eat anything out on walks. A long stay at the vets after she ate something she shouldnt have ans she is now muzzled when off lead.

My collie is muzzled for the vets, she hates vets so when they have to jab her monthly its just safter all round. She is my first muzzled dog and any others after her will be muzzle trained now.

 

[SOS]

Making it illegal (as in mandatory jail time and heavy fines for all offenders, no exceptions) to sell puppies and/or dogs of any breed or type for more than the cost of breeding and raising them would soon reduce the supply end of things.

I’ve come to this thread after watching a video of a breeder of XL bullies being interviewed by LBC and saying he sold the dogs predominately to drug dealers to “put bread on the table”.

These dogs do fetch a hell of a lot of money but unfortunately your suggestion just wouldn’t work. Having bred my own litter (NOT a bull breed) it would be impossible to quantify the cost of raising a litter. It cost me several thousands to raise my litter as no expense was spared but I had bred to keep a pup back so that was my motivation, not money.

If I had added on my time ‘working’ on the puppies (cleaning, feeding, socialising as the minimum!) then I could easily of charged XL bully prices and claimed this was part of the cost of raising them.

As we know not all breeders raise litters properly but it would be very difficult to prove what they are or are not doing and a well raised litter will of cost more to do. Unscrupulous breeders would still charge lots and claim it was because it cost XYZ to raise the litter.

 

[JoannaC]

Our lurcher was always muzzled when taken out. It gave me peace of mind on the off chance she took off after a rabbit but did make people think she must be aggressive.

 

[Morwenna]

I don’t think banning breeds works but neither does compulsory muzzling. There’s a dog here (not a bull breed, a scruffy mongrel) that has attacked children and dogs and has been reported numerous times. It it supposed to be on lead and muzzled at all times but the owner brings it to the local park, plonks herself down on a bench and lets the dog run around for half an hour, offlead, no muzzle. The problem is there is no one to enforce these decisions.

 

[cauda equina]

Well I agree; no law will be effective if it's not enforced, like the Hunting Act

 

[Errin Paddywack]

We have so many laws that could be really effective if only they were enforced and proper consequences followed. I watch the Police Interceptors program on channel 5 and it infuriates me when they give updates and often it is 'no action taken'. Laws are useless if they aren't rigorously enforced.

Well I agree; no law will be effective if it's not enforced, like the Hunting Act

 

[skinnydipper]

..

 

[Cinnamontoast]

I don’t think banning breeds works but neither does compulsory muzzling. There’s a dog here (not a bull breed, a scruffy mongrel) that has attacked children and dogs and has been reported numerous times. It it supposed to be on lead and muzzled at all times but the owner brings it to the local park, plonks herself down on a bench and lets the dog run around for half an hour, offlead, no muzzle. The problem is there is no one to enforce these decisions.

I went past a bloke with several dogs, one of whom, a chocolate lab bitch, was meant to be muzzled after attacking other dogs. The muzz was always dangling. On this day, there were multiple police officers removing all the dogs while he protested hugely, dunno if there’d been another incident.

 

[KittenInTheTree]

I’ve come to this thread after watching a video of a breeder of XL bullies being interviewed by LBC and saying he sold the dogs predominately to drug dealers to “put bread on the table”.

These dogs do fetch a hell of a lot of money but unfortunately your suggestion just wouldn’t work. Having bred my own litter (NOT a bull breed) it would be impossible to quantify the cost of raising a litter. It cost me several thousands to raise my litter as no expense was spared but I had bred to keep a pup back so that was my motivation, not money.

If I had added on my time ‘working’ on the puppies (cleaning, feeding, socialising as the minimum!) then I could easily of charged XL bully prices and claimed this was part of the cost of raising them.

As we know not all breeders raise litters properly but it would be very difficult to prove what they are or are not doing and a well raised litter will of cost more to do. Unscrupulous breeders would still charge lots and claim it was because it cost XYZ to raise the litter.

Food, wormer, microchip, any jabs/other vet treatment needed for pups and/or dam, stud fee, breeding related health tests for dam, equipment such as whelping materials. Breeder must have physical receipts for all of these. Add up the total spent, divide it by the number of puppies, and then halve that result if it's above £999.99. End number is the maximum that breeder can charge per puppy. Buyer must be provided with a copy of the receipts mentioned earlier before paying anything. No allowance for time spent, effort put in, training, socialising. or cost of utilities such as water, electricity, etc.

Of course it would rely on those in authority bothering to enforce it, and doubtless they'd manage to muck that up somehow

 

[Clodagh]

Food, wormer, microchip, any jabs/other vet treatment needed for pups and/or dam, stud fee, breeding related health tests for dam, equipment such as whelping materials. Breeder must have physical receipts for all of these. Add up the total spent, divide it by the number of puppies, and then halve that result if it's above £999.99. End number is the maximum that breeder can charge per puppy. Buyer must be provided with a copy of the receipts mentioned earlier before paying anything. No allowance for time spent, effort put in, training, socialising. or cost of utilities such as water, electricity, etc.

Of course it would rely on those in authority bothering to enforce it, and doubtless they'd manage to muck that up somehow

That is a ludicrous suggestion. So there would be no benefit whatsoever to training or working the parents, just cost out what food and drink cost. I can’t see it catching on.