Cortez
Tough but Fair
Good. Ownership of any animal should be restricted to those that are prepared to look after them properly.
Another fatal dog attack
- Thread starter SilverLinings
- Start date
Good. Ownership of any animal should be restricted to those that are prepared to look after them properly.
splashgirl45
Lurcher lover
Wouldn’t they fail in the height measurement?
Cortez
Tough but Fair
It was a joke.....
CanteringCarrot
Well-Known Member
Minus a pug having any real power. They don't have much brain power either
Honestly, some of the English Labs over here (some are boxy, wide, and heavy) meet that description better than my Cane Corso would. There's just variance within breeds.
CanteringCarrot
Well-Known Member
There are also some pitbulls here that are rather smaller and wirey.
splashgirl45
Lurcher lover
tristars
Well-Known Member
i think with all breeds, a lot depends on bloodlines, one of the worst i met was a boxer, its actually ran through a window at one point, and was always ready to attack
i just see those bullys as unable to control certain impulses, at certain moments, a faulty breed that has not been bred to tolerate a broad domestic environment, where at some point the chances are something or someone will tip them over the edge
i see this with horse breeding, i could only breed from stock that will take me through hell and out the other side. because at the end of the day the horse or dog that pays the price, as well as any victims
a bit like certain holstein W B lines, terrified of the own shadow, human error, animals are not just flesh and blood, the genuine breeder knows personality is equal, and when you breed a dog to fight ,the last place it should be is running the streets, in public without a muzzle, or in a domestic situation, and recent events have proven this, how much more proof does a government need, 9 people dead this year
i just see those bullys as unable to control certain impulses, at certain moments, a faulty breed that has not been bred to tolerate a broad domestic environment, where at some point the chances are something or someone will tip them over the edge
i see this with horse breeding, i could only breed from stock that will take me through hell and out the other side. because at the end of the day the horse or dog that pays the price, as well as any victims
a bit like certain holstein W B lines, terrified of the own shadow, human error, animals are not just flesh and blood, the genuine breeder knows personality is equal, and when you breed a dog to fight ,the last place it should be is running the streets, in public without a muzzle, or in a domestic situation, and recent events have proven this, how much more proof does a government need, 9 people dead this year
SaddlePsych'D
Well-Known Member
Yes quite literally as well as metaphorically!
sarah.oxford
Well-Known Member
Surely common sense would come into it, and dogs that are clearly a different and obvious breed (such as a boxer) wouldn't get to the point where it is being compared against the checklist?
It would possibly have been helpful to add to the gov guidelines, something like this excludes known breeds that are not on the banned list.
I have worded the above badly, but maybe a kc pedigree certificate that matches with the microchip number and current ownerships would be adequate proof.
Of course any suspect crossbreed of matching structure to the xl bully description would be vulnerable, but at least the above would be a start.
I am in favor of the ban, the regular attacks highlighted on this thread are terrifying.
There are many of these dogs in areas I drive through. I've yet to see one muzzled, and often they are being led by people who would not have the strength to stop the dog should it make an aggressive move towards another dog or human.
It would possibly have been helpful to add to the gov guidelines, something like this excludes known breeds that are not on the banned list.
I have worded the above badly, but maybe a kc pedigree certificate that matches with the microchip number and current ownerships would be adequate proof.
Of course any suspect crossbreed of matching structure to the xl bully description would be vulnerable, but at least the above would be a start.
I am in favor of the ban, the regular attacks highlighted on this thread are terrifying.
There are many of these dogs in areas I drive through. I've yet to see one muzzled, and often they are being led by people who would not have the strength to stop the dog should it make an aggressive move towards another dog or human.
Chucho
Well-Known Member
I'd be surprised if someone could confuse a purebred boxer with an XLB from its appearance. They're a medium-sized dog with a very distinctive type (head and body) that is quite different to even an American Pitbull Terrier, which is a similar size. There is the same thing already in here NA with pitbull legislation (and probably the existing DDA in the UK). Boxers don't get confused with pitbulls. Crosses are a different matter, but any breed crossed with a pitbull/XLB is obviously a different kettle of fish.
marmalade76
Well-Known Member
marmalade76
Well-Known Member
And that would be a GOOD thing if you ask me.
TheresaW
Well-Known Member
Clodagh
Well-Known Member
I do too, really, but be careful what you wish for!
I just want everyone to consider breeds and genetics and train their dog according to them.
Meanwhile… I’m trying to decide what colour unicorn I want
Cinnamontoast
Fais pas chier!
I read the woman fell from the window of the flat during the attack!
splashgirl45
Lurcher lover
Another attack indoors, surely that must tell these bully owners that some of these dogs are unpredictable
cauda equina
Well-Known Member
I wonder if the woman did fall from the window, or jumped out to escape
TheresaW
Well-Known Member
I’ve read that too. All I know is, I am getting more and more worried to walk my dogs.I read the woman fell from the window of the flat during the attack!
SilverLinings
Well-Known Member
It was reported in The Times today that Battersea and the Blue Cross will continue to rehome XLBs after the ban 'despite new rules'. The Blue Cross' public affairs manager said "Any dog can be dangerous and by stigmatising one breed you are sending out the wrong message." They don't say how they will do this whilst operating within the law. The article also says that the Blue Cross estimates 50,000-100,000 XLBs will need rehoming after the ban.
First of all, the breed isn't being stigmatised it is being made illegal (with exemptions with conditions for currently existing XLBs) in the UK. Whether or not a ban is the most effective tool the fact is the breed is responsible for a significantly disproportionate number of attacks on humans (and probably other animals but I can't find reliable data), and those attacks are often serious or fatal due to the breed's physical characteristics.
Secondly, do they think there are 50,000-100,000 homes out there willing to take on an XLB from a rescue when they could rehome a non-banned breed without restrictions or risk? How are they going to ensure they pick owners who really will stick to the law, and how are they going to keep children and the general public safe? How will they know if an owner is telling the truth when they surrender their dog to the Blue Cross and swear blind 'he's never shown any aggression, he's a softy/fur baby etc'?
The article is accompanied by a photograph of a member of Blue Cross staff being licked on the face by a fully grown XLB. The only polite way I can express my feelings on this is to say how utterly irresponsible the Blue Cross is being, they are wasting a prime opportunity to educate the public how to reduce risk if you own a dog like this (number 1, don't let it lick your face/put parts of you in it's mouth). I had thought they were a good charity.
First of all, the breed isn't being stigmatised it is being made illegal (with exemptions with conditions for currently existing XLBs) in the UK. Whether or not a ban is the most effective tool the fact is the breed is responsible for a significantly disproportionate number of attacks on humans (and probably other animals but I can't find reliable data), and those attacks are often serious or fatal due to the breed's physical characteristics.
Secondly, do they think there are 50,000-100,000 homes out there willing to take on an XLB from a rescue when they could rehome a non-banned breed without restrictions or risk? How are they going to ensure they pick owners who really will stick to the law, and how are they going to keep children and the general public safe? How will they know if an owner is telling the truth when they surrender their dog to the Blue Cross and swear blind 'he's never shown any aggression, he's a softy/fur baby etc'?
The article is accompanied by a photograph of a member of Blue Cross staff being licked on the face by a fully grown XLB. The only polite way I can express my feelings on this is to say how utterly irresponsible the Blue Cross is being, they are wasting a prime opportunity to educate the public how to reduce risk if you own a dog like this (number 1, don't let it lick your face/put parts of you in it's mouth). I had thought they were a good charity.
SaddlePsych'D
Well-Known Member
I was typing out a reply but it can be summarised into... FFS and also agree with everything you've said.
ETA I've seen that DT are part of this coalition so have very directly fed-back that I will not be taking up the training I was interested in doing with them for this exact reason. These organisations need to know there are people out there who feel just as strongly as the 'don't bully my breed' brigade.
"I appreciate all dogs can bite and for various reasons, however other breeds are not statistically disproportionately responsible for deaths and serious life-changing physical and mental injuries. The lack of compassion for victims of said attacks, including people out in public minding their own business, by the Dogs Trust response/stance is shocking to me. Additionally by not taking into account the role of genetics and breed-related temperament and physical attributes does not give me the confidence that Dogs Trust can provide appropriate training with these factors held in mind (including for my own breed). I am fed of walking my dog in fear of these attacks and I am certainly not about to attend a group setting where I do not have confidence that risk assessment will have been done robustly."
Further ETA - I realise my pool of potential training is likely massively reduced!
Last edited:
Cinnamontoast
Fais pas chier!
If the law says it will be illegal to re-home or give away xls, how does the Blue Cross propose circumventing that?!
conniegirl
Well-Known Member
Im sure that as soon as the ban comes in and the first XLB is rehomed the charities commission would be very interested!
They take an extremely dim view of charities that break the law.
Infact i may be worth people reporting the statement to the charities commission as a charity saying they intend on breaking the law
SilverLinings
Well-Known Member
It irritated me that in the article they just seemed to be stating that was what they'd be doing, but gave no explanation of how they would legally do it and keep people safe. It is no good just announcing that they will just keep rehoming 'despite the new rules'. It will no doubt lead some private owners to think it is ok if they rehome their XLB privately post-ban if the big charities are doing it
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
I think the police will be very interested when the first rehomed one savages another dog or, heaven forbid, a child.
It's not as if there isn't already a precedent for that!
cauda equina
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the charities intend rehoming as many XLBs as possible before the ban comes in and get round it that way; which would be an awful idea imo, if everything became rushed and proper checks not done
Actually I think rehoming XLBs under any circumstances is an awful idea but to do it in a hurry would be far worse
Actually I think rehoming XLBs under any circumstances is an awful idea but to do it in a hurry would be far worse
maisie06
Well-Known Member
I agree and the dogs I have now will be my last,
planete
Well-Known Member
I had a quick look at the local Freeads and was staggered at the number of Xl bullies their owners are trying to sell for prices ranging from £800 to £200. One of them was actually mentionning the coming ban as the reason he was selling the dog! and the DT are assuring us they will still provide third party insurance for XL bullies as part of their membership but it is unclear whether the insurance company has agreed.
Red-1
I used to be decisive, now I'm not so sure...
For the past 2 days there has been a half starved XL Bully type roaming the village. People have tried to catch it but it seems too frightened to be caught. Luckily, it is the other end from us but it did make me pause for thought about riding out that way and I know some dog walkers are avoiding the area.
They frighten me, especially a nervous, half-starved one!
No one is claiming ownership.
They frighten me, especially a nervous, half-starved one!
No one is claiming ownership.
CanteringCarrot
Well-Known Member
Ugh. Someone probably dumped it, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's more of that to come. Even if it's a dog I don't like, I still feel bad for it. Idiot humans.
Is it bad that I thought to myself, hm, if it were here maybe someone could just discreetly shoot it on their farm? If they could get it there.
Is it bad that I thought to myself, hm, if it were here maybe someone could just discreetly shoot it on their farm? If they could get it there.
twiggy2
Well-Known Member
Poor bugger, no dog deserves that and it will become far more common I think