skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
Dealing with irresponsible dog ownership. A practitioner's manual.
Another fatal dog attack
- Thread starter SilverLinings
- Start date
cbmcts
Well-Known Member
Sorry I posted prematurely then edited
Well yes, we do live in a democracy! A dog causing fear is an offence - obviously it has to with reason, not just where someone is scared of or doesn't like dogs..
That link to the manual is interesting. The flowchart actually shows how the law does allow action to be taken much earlier, hopefully before a serious incident but the issue seems to be a lack of will and resources.
skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
I've only seen one XL bully in the park where I used to walk my dog. He was big but looked to be a youngster. When he saw the big girl he threw himself prostrate on the ground staring at her, transfixed. It didn't fill me with confidence when the owner was unable to budge him. I didn't fancy him launching himself at the big girl even in play so I gave them a very wide birth.
If people want to buy a dog where the main breed in the mix is a dog used for fighting then they should be prepared to keep it on a lead and muzzled in public. If they want Fido to have the freedom to frolic around off lead and unmuzzled then they could hire a dog field.
If people want to buy a dog where the main breed in the mix is a dog used for fighting then they should be prepared to keep it on a lead and muzzled in public. If they want Fido to have the freedom to frolic around off lead and unmuzzled then they could hire a dog field.
SilverLinings
Well-Known Member
As well as enforcing current legislation I think that for a start injury to animals need to stop being treated the same in the eyes of the law as damaging someone's car or bicycle etc. If your dog harms or kills another dog/a horse/sheep/etc (or if you harm or kill an animal by hitting them with your car or by any other means) then the punishment needs to be much greater than if you'd damaged property.
If your dog harms or kills a human then the owner should be legally responsible for the resulting ABH/GBH/manslaughter, and be sentenced accordingly. If your dog had previously been reported for attacking another animal or person and it wasn't muzzled and the dog was in public when the second attack occurred then the punishment should be more severe than if it is a 'first offence'. This would stop certain types of owners buying dangerous dogs as they know that they will get off FAR more lightly if they hurt or kill someone with the dog than if they did it with a knife or gun. It would hopefully also deter the owners who are just too lazy to behave responsibly but want a 'cool' looking dog.
To account for those people who aren't bothered about a criminal record, if your sentence consists of a fine and you can't pay then you should have to serve time in gaol instead.
Making the repercussions of your dog's dangerous behaviour something to worry about would also stop the risk associated with banning breeds, as there would be no incentive to swap to another breed.
Something else that could be considered (I'm not sure how I fell about it though) would be requiring all breeds with a bite strength above a pre-decided psi to be muzzled in public places. Yes, smaller, weaker dogs can also attack and cause harm, but you are far more likely to be killed by an attacking bully xl than by an attacking Pomeranian. I can see that there would be arguments about the cut-off point though.
If your dog harms or kills a human then the owner should be legally responsible for the resulting ABH/GBH/manslaughter, and be sentenced accordingly. If your dog had previously been reported for attacking another animal or person and it wasn't muzzled and the dog was in public when the second attack occurred then the punishment should be more severe than if it is a 'first offence'. This would stop certain types of owners buying dangerous dogs as they know that they will get off FAR more lightly if they hurt or kill someone with the dog than if they did it with a knife or gun. It would hopefully also deter the owners who are just too lazy to behave responsibly but want a 'cool' looking dog.
To account for those people who aren't bothered about a criminal record, if your sentence consists of a fine and you can't pay then you should have to serve time in gaol instead.
Making the repercussions of your dog's dangerous behaviour something to worry about would also stop the risk associated with banning breeds, as there would be no incentive to swap to another breed.
Something else that could be considered (I'm not sure how I fell about it though) would be requiring all breeds with a bite strength above a pre-decided psi to be muzzled in public places. Yes, smaller, weaker dogs can also attack and cause harm, but you are far more likely to be killed by an attacking bully xl than by an attacking Pomeranian. I can see that there would be arguments about the cut-off point though.
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
I think the beginning part of your post should absolutely be the case. If I allow my dog to kill your dog, I am as complicit in the crime as if I had done it myself.
Again if my dogs kills a person, it should be manslaughter. Unless I set it on, in which case murder.
Again if my dogs kills a person, it should be manslaughter. Unless I set it on, in which case murder.
cauda equina
Well-Known Member
Also have a lengthy ban on keeping a dog if your dog injures someone, and a lifetime ban for serious attacks
I'm Dun
Well-Known Member
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/contents/enacted part 7 dangerous dogs - note the bit about being a fit and proper person as part of control orders. That could and is used in some cases in court when deciding if a dog is returned home. Should weed out some of the criminal types that are alleged to use the XL Bullies as intimidation tools?Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
An Act to prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting; to impose restrictions in respect of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition; to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a...www.legislation.gov.uk
The laws are there and to be fair, there is only so much that can be legislated in the home as a preventative.
If people insist on getting large/iffy dogs and not managing them correctly, the law can be proactive, if there was the will to do so, in public at the first misdemeanour such as running loose, attacking another dog or a horse but in the home, most law enforcement is reactive and it would probably be breaching civil liberties to change that too much.
My point is that while I do not defend the XLBs, is that just by banning them is not going to solve issue of people being injured and killed by dogs. Those who have bullies now will replace them with cane corsa, Boerbel, mastiffy types or the massive LGD breeds. Any of those dogs are just as dangerous when badly bred and mishandled and people can and do die if they are dangerously out of control. Banning one breed, which may reassure the public for a while but it would be a pointless PR exercise - sad cases make bad laws generally.
By banning them 45% of dog attacks wouldnt happen. They commit a proportionally much larger amount of attack than any other breed yet are found in much smaller numbers.
Not all of these dogs are owned by the stereotypical scumbag. There are several that are much loved family pets that just snap and kill their owners. These dogs are genetically flawed, we dont know exactly how or why, but we do know they are. That cant be said of cane corsos etc. If they attack it is due to upbringing. If an XL bully attacks its due to a defective gene.
I would happily see every single one collected and humanely PTS. They should never have been created.
SilverLinings
Well-Known Member
And talking about being complicit, in the reports of an awful lot of these cases the owner of the dog shouts/tells the other owner/victim in advance to pick their dog up, to stay away, or that they can't hold their dog. They clearly realise there is a risk (at least for other dogs if not humans) but STILL didn't bother to buy a muzzle as it is clearly up to the other person to get out of the way. It's obviously not the same as setting the dog on someone/another dog, but it shows an awareness of the possible outcome between their dog and a stranger, and an unwillingness to take any responsibility
cbmcts
Well-Known Member
I agree that banning them would bring a sharp drop in attacks but only for a short amount of time IMO. The next dangerous dog du jour would be along very quickly. Then you need another law and they don't come into being quickly. Where does it stop?
Everyone should read the practitioner manual that skinnydipper posted above. It really shows what can be done within the existing law by police and local authorities and if that was in place, I am absolutely certain that we would not be having this conversation as there are so many options to nip problem behaviour in the bud.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about the mastiffs - rescues are starting to see some horrific temperaments in them and as so many coming into rescue have been bred - often to make an XL bully type I suspect - any kind of popularity in mastiffs will only put in public another big breed with a tendency to do serious damage. It's only because they are relatively small in number and tend to be bred and owned by those who love and appreciate the breed, so manage them well that they aren't an issue.
Irish-Only
Well-Known Member
While walking a canal path adjacent to a town we met a very small slight young woman with what we discovered was an XL bully. Initially before we knew what breed it was we were chuckling because it was fixated on the ducks and she was hanging on to it as best she could. A bit of conversation with her and asking what breed it was, she told us it had dragged her previously and got in the canal chasing the ducks. But, she then asked us not to get too close with our dog as it didn't like other dogs as it had been beaten up by it's mother as a pup. Frankly, if it had decided to have a go at anything she would have had no chance of restraining it. Another accident waiting to happen.
cbmcts
Well-Known Member
It's horrific isn't it? But there are plenty of small women/young lads that are under 60kgs dripping wet who would struggle to control any dog more than 25-30 kgs plus on a collar. I'm waaay heavier than 60kgs and any dog I walk over 30kgs wears a headcollar routinely. Just because you can hang on and be ballast at the end of the lead doesn't mean the dog is under control...and if I knew that it was likely that a dog was too strong for me, I wouldn't be walking it in public.
Meredith
riding reluctantly into the sunset
Another?
Has this been posted already?
Has this been posted already?
Stonnall dog attack: Man left seriously hurt
People tried to help the victim and children were stopped from leaving a school, police say.
www.bbc.co.uk
I'm Dun
Well-Known Member
These dogs have a genetic flaw, thats why there is so many attacks, and they tend to be fatal due to the size and strength of them. If banning them saves lives then it should be done. If another breed has the same gene bred into them, then that one can be banned as well when it becomes an issue, if it does.
It stops when huge powerful dogs stop killing people.
cobgoblin
Bugrit! Millennium hand and shrimp.
I sincerely hope its not true that these dogs are being abandoned on the streets. I'd hate to meet a pack of them.
www.express.co.uk
Terrified owners are dumping dangerous XL Bully dogs where they roam streets
People fearing attack from their own pets are abandoning them while dog rescue centres are being swamped with the breed.
millikins
Well-Known Member
There's an article in today's DT but it will be behind a paywall. Basically 50% of XL Bully stud dogs in the UK are descended from an American dog "Killer Kimbo" who was the product of a brother/sister mating. They have an extremely small, very inbred gene pool with inherent behavioural instability.
cobgoblin
Bugrit! Millennium hand and shrimp.
Half of all XL Bully dogs in Britain descend from 'Killer Kimbo'
Research has shown how decades of inbreeding has produced generations of violent animals
www.telegraph.co.uk
Hope that works
skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
Dangerous Dogs Law. Guidance for Enforcers
AmyMay
Situation normal
Do they?
TPO
🤠🏴
The daughter of a senior manager at my work has an XL.
She is in her 30s, intelligent, good job etc. She out her name down at a rescue for a dog and when a litter of illegally cropped XL bullies arrived the rescue offered her one as a first dog...
The manager was telling me how the dog "guards" his wife/owners mum. Dog sits in front of her and growls if anyone approaches. They all think this is brilliant and what a great dog he is...
I did try to tell him they have to get on top of that and stop any guarding behaviour etc but he wouldn't hear a word of it.
This is a good thing apparently and means he'll look after the mum and owner. I mean I'm sure out in the big bad world if they were attacked the dog would step in but I don't think resource guarding in the house, with novice owners, will end well and has the potential for disaster.
These are "good" people, not chavs looking for a fighting dog, but no knowledge has led to this. The finger has to be pointed at the rescue centre rehoming dogs bred for fighting to a novice home.
On that subject years ago mum had someone come to her training class with an akita x that had "anger issues". The bloke went to the local rescue looking for a jack Russell type as a first dog and the rescue sent him home with an akita x that had behavioural issues (SSPCA shelter).
She is in her 30s, intelligent, good job etc. She out her name down at a rescue for a dog and when a litter of illegally cropped XL bullies arrived the rescue offered her one as a first dog...
The manager was telling me how the dog "guards" his wife/owners mum. Dog sits in front of her and growls if anyone approaches. They all think this is brilliant and what a great dog he is...
I did try to tell him they have to get on top of that and stop any guarding behaviour etc but he wouldn't hear a word of it.
This is a good thing apparently and means he'll look after the mum and owner. I mean I'm sure out in the big bad world if they were attacked the dog would step in but I don't think resource guarding in the house, with novice owners, will end well and has the potential for disaster.
These are "good" people, not chavs looking for a fighting dog, but no knowledge has led to this. The finger has to be pointed at the rescue centre rehoming dogs bred for fighting to a novice home.
On that subject years ago mum had someone come to her training class with an akita x that had "anger issues". The bloke went to the local rescue looking for a jack Russell type as a first dog and the rescue sent him home with an akita x that had behavioural issues (SSPCA shelter).
Titchy Pony
Well-Known Member
There's a bit of a difference between a Jack Russell type and an Akita...
Moobli
Well-Known Member
A seemingly intelligent, responsible bully owner and trainer here speaking a lot of sense.
Last edited:
skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
Oh dear, that's not good. The dog is guarding the mother like it would any other valuable resource.
Could you gently suggest to them that they read up on resource guarding and seek professional help as they are clearly out of their depth?
Last edited:
cauda equina
Well-Known Member
I didn't watch all of it (the reliabul guy) but there's some nonsense too - along the lines of 'people who are blaming the owners wouldn't have a clue how to control these dogs'
That's probably true, but most people don't choose to have one in the first place
I think you can very much blame people who get a dog they don't have the tools to deal with while not having those tools yourself
That's probably true, but most people don't choose to have one in the first place
I think you can very much blame people who get a dog they don't have the tools to deal with while not having those tools yourself
Last edited:
Moobli
Well-Known Member
An interesting read.
https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/...r5NzwqVkjORmu6PrEZZIdUUXEMp8L_gWFsCJ4T_KLtKzg
https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/...r5NzwqVkjORmu6PrEZZIdUUXEMp8L_gWFsCJ4T_KLtKzg
TPO
🤠🏴
I did but might as well have been talking to the wall. They all think the dog is brilliant, and this is another attribute.
I'm just a pleb with a cocker, what would I know. I mean, I don't know that much, but I've been dragged up by someone who does and some of it has sank in!
Moobli
Well-Known Member
I didn’t watch it all either but felt he was saying mostly sensible stuff.
Teaselmeg
Well-Known Member
Maybe ask them what would happen if one of them was alone with the dog, fell ill and nobody could get near them to help because of the dog ?? The 'rescue' needs hauling up for this sort of decision
cobgoblin
Bugrit! Millennium hand and shrimp.
I'm not sure rescues should be allowed to rehome these dogs at all.
skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
..
Last edited:
bonny
Well-Known Member
Just announced that he has died from his injuriesAnother?
Has this been posted already?
Stonnall dog attack: Man left seriously hurt
People tried to help the victim and children were stopped from leaving a school, police say.www.bbc.co.uk