Does something need to be done about dogs?

[Foghorn Leghorn]

You're just replying with little sayings here, and you've got things backward *not* banning this breed earlier is what has gotten us into the position we are in today!



No one said it was, you made some vague replies alluding to regulations you'd like to see ergo why not be clearer about what specifically you're referring to?

If you use a set of rules to solve a problem and it fails, then ban whatever caused the failure, you then use the same set of rules and it fails again causing you to need to ban the next cause of the failure, do you now carry on blindly as before or do you consider the set of rules to be inadequate.

How could we have banned a breed that didn't exist here until recently? Infact technically didn't exist until last year when the breed was defined (poorly, seems to be the standard for our current government).

 

[arknor]

I saw some bloke and what looked like a 7 year old kid walking an xl bully around the park yesterday.

it had a muzzle on it but still if it charged someone it could still knock them over and there's no way that kid is keeping the dog restrained

 

[Screeeech]

and is that not because the XL is the current breed of choice?

There has and always will be idiots with dogs, there are lots of total cretins that own Rottweilers and German Shepherds (both easily capable of killing a man) but the number of deaths and serious injuries from dogs wasn't really that much of a problem, until these XLBs became a thing - the numbers skyrocketed.

How could we have banned a breed that didn't exist here until recently?

AFAIK it actually already was banned, because previously (prior to around 2010) any dog that was deemed to be of "Pitbull type" fell under the legislation and was banned, (because an XLB is basically a large pitbull - it's derived directly from a Pitbull) and the DEFRA guidelines would have determined it to be of "Pitbull type"

Later on in a specific case, the way the law was interpreted changed slightly, so that only actual 100% Pitbull terriers were banned, a dog that was 50% Pitbull, 25% Staffy and 25% Bulldog would now be allowed, because it wasn't 100% Pitbull.

So really - it's all a bit stupid, because the legal system dropped the ball and allowed these things, when they were previously banned.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

I saw some bloke and what looked like a 7 year old kid walking an xl bully around the park yesterday.

it had a muzzle on it but still if it charged someone it could still knock them over and there's no way that kid is keeping the dog restrained

Very few adults will keep a dog that size restrained.

I meet a bloke with his German shepherd occasionally, the dog was abused as a pup and it can't be around other dogs as it reacts violently. It's never off the lead and always muzzled and you can see he's putting a lot of effort in to keep it restrained, at a rough guess I'd say he's around 6'5" and 20 stone, he's an absolute giant of a man

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

There has and always will be idiots with dogs, there are lots of total cretins that own Rottweilers and German Shepherds (both easily capable of killing a man) but the number of deaths and serious injuries from dogs wasn't really that much of a problem, until these XLBs became a thing - the numbers skyrocketed.



AFAIK it actually already was banned, because previously (prior to around 2010) any dog that was deemed to be of "Pitbull type" fell under the legislation and was banned, (because an XLB is basically a large pitbull - it's derived directly from a Pitbull) and the DEFRA guidelines would have determined it to be of "Pitbull type"

Later on in a specific case, the way the law was interpreted changed slightly, so that only actual 100% Pitbull terriers were banned, a dog that was 50% Pitbull, 25% Staffy and 25% Bulldog would now be allowed, because it wasn't 100% Pitbull.

So really - it's all a bit stupid, because the legal system dropped the ball and allowed these things, when they were previously banned.

Does that not suggest that we should target the cause of the issue rather than the symptoms then? The 'total idiots with dogs' owners and breeders, as that doesn't seem to be what we're doing, were treating the symptoms (after the fact) again and expecting different results (again)

The legal system didn't drop the ball, the law was challenged in court. Our government has had 13+ years to put that right, but didn't.

 

[ttaskmaster]

There has and always will be idiots with dogs, there are lots of total cretins that own Rottweilers and German Shepherds (both easily capable of killing a man) but the number of deaths and serious injuries from dogs wasn't really that much of a problem, until these XLBs became a thing - the numbers skyrocketed.

You get a few cretins owning such dogs, but the vast majority are attracted to the likes of Bulldogs, Pit Bulls and now American Bullys. This higher proportion of ********, along with the higher rates of abuse, with such dogs is what results in the higher proportion of incidents.

AFAIK it actually already was banned, because previously (prior to around 2010) any dog that was deemed to be of "Pitbull type" fell under the legislation and was banned, (because an XLB is basically a large pitbull - it's derived directly from a Pitbull) and the DEFRA guidelines would have determined it to be of "Pitbull type"
Later on in a specific case, the way the law was interpreted changed slightly, so that only actual 100% Pitbull terriers were banned, a dog that was 50% Pitbull, 25% Staffy and 25% Bulldog would now be allowed, because it wasn't 100% Pitbull.

So far I've only seen mentions of, allusions and claims to such court cases.
Does anyone have links to the official documents or anything?

 

[dowie]

If you use a set of rules to solve a problem and it fails, then ban whatever caused the failure, you then use the same set of rules and it fails again causing you to need to ban the next cause of the failure, do you now carry on blindly as before or do you consider the set of rules to be inadequate.

You're just being vague again - if a new dangerous, recreational drug is created do you argue to not ban it because existing legislation has "failed"? If so why???

Take it further, why update any legislation ever because, in some vague sense, existing legislation is inadequate right? It's just such a silly argument that updating rules because existing rules are inadequate is a bad thing.

Why not look at why the existing legislation is inadequate - because it doesn't address this breed... ergo it's been updated to correct that.

 

[dowie]

Does that not suggest that we should target the cause of the issue rather than the symptoms then? The 'total idiots with dogs' owners and breeders, as that doesn't seem to be what we're doing, were treating the symptoms (after the fact) again and expecting different results (again)

Again this is not monocausal! It was banned, then ruled to not be a pitbull then... *the problem*... now.... legislation updated to fix the problem. Your previous vague narrative is backwards.

Also re "the cause" that some owners are total idiots doesn't negate the fact that this breed exists and is inherently dangerous in the hands of *any* ordinary owner. Banning it does tackle that bad owner aspect too as you can no longer legally breed or import them, the "total idiots" can also be refused a certificate of exemption. The issue you're bringing up is dealt with in the legislation you're critical of.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Why not look at why the existing legislation is inadequate - because it doesn't address this breed... ergo it's been updated to correct that.

Because it wasn't properly enforced.

Again this is not monocausal! It was banned, then ruled to not be a pitbull then... *the problem*... now.... legislation updated to fix the problem. Your previous vague narrative is backwards.

The legislation states that it is illegal to breed from a Pit Bull.
American Bullys include Pit Bull in their bloodlines.
So it doesn't even have to be a Pit Bull, just bred from one, to be illegal.

The cause of the problem is breeders furnishing the demand for status dogs with improperly bred examples, and selling them to owners who will not treat them properly.

Also re "the cause" that some owners are total idiots doesn't negate the fact that this breed exists and is inherently dangerous in the hands of *any* ordinary owner.

That this dog, as with many other breeds, may require a certain level of competence, and is thus not suitable for the likes of first time owners or a particular type of person, does not make the breed inherently dangerous.

Banning it does tackle that bad owner aspect too as you can no longer legally breed or import them, the "total idiots" can also be refused a certificate of exemption. The issue you're bringing up is dealt with in the legislation you're critical of.

It wasn't "dealt with" when Pit Bulls were banned, as they're still being bred and imported.
It wasn't "dealt with" when Pit Bulls were being bred from to result in American Bullys.
Bad breeders and owners have been causing problems long before the legislation and have continued to do so since, arguably getting even worse.

Legislation did nothing to stop these things from happening, and more/amended legislation is equally ineffective. The only way the government could do any less about this is if they just "strongly condemn" these events.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Again this is not monocausal! It was banned, then ruled to not be a pitbull then... *the problem*... now.... legislation updated to fix the problem. Your previous vague narrative is backwards.

Also re "the cause" that some owners are total idiots doesn't negate the fact that this breed exists and is inherently dangerous in the hands of *any* ordinary owner. Banning it does tackle that bad owner aspect too as you can no longer legally breed or import them, the "total idiots" can also be refused a certificate of exemption. The issue you're bringing up is dealt with in the legislation you're critical of.

Yes, I used the word cause, that does not mean I think the issue is monocausal. Truth be told I wasn't entirely happy with using cause in this instance but I was in a rush and I didn't think anyone would be that stupid, congratulations! you win a prize!

I gave you more credit than you deserved in this instance, my sincerest apologies on this occasion.

You're just being vague again - if a new dangerous, recreational drug is created do you argue to not ban it because existing legislation has "failed"? If so why???

Take it further, why update any legislation ever because, in some vague sense, existing legislation is inadequate right? It's just such a silly argument that updating rules because existing rules are inadequate is a bad thing.

Why not look at why the existing legislation is inadequate - because it doesn't address this breed... ergo it's been updated to correct that.

Have you banged your head? What are you talking about drugs for? The thread's about dangerous dogs, try and keep to the subject in hand rather than attempting to draw comparisons poorly. At what point did anyone suggest not updating legislation or that it was a bad thing? why are you jumping to the extreme?

The post you've quoted was merely expanding on my 'little saying' as you didn't seem to understand, it was an attempt to make it clearer for you, the fact you are still struggling is a you problem I'm afraid.

 

[dowie]

At what point did anyone suggest not updating legislation or that it was a bad thing? why are you jumping to the extreme?

Have you banged your head? Supposedly updating the legislation is the definition of insanity because of some vague notion of other stuff you want to be done which you're as of yet unable to describe.

You say you're aware this isn't a monocausal issue but you then repeatedly oppose tackling one of the causes (the breed itself) and only want to focus on individual owners (which are also dealt with by the same legislation)... so perhaps you should put forth an argument here instead of just sperging out with your vague replies then taking issue when you're called out on them as if replying to what you've actually said is stupid when you're the one who said it!

The post you've quoted was merely expanding on my 'little saying' as you didn't seem to understand, it was an attempt to make it clearer for you, the fact you are still struggling is a you problem I'm afraid.

You've offered nothing of substance beyond your little sayings tbh... other than you're opposed to banning the breed but the reason for that opposition is some vague argument that seems fundamentally flawed.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Say monocausal again, said no one, ever :/

 

[dowie]

Say monocausal again, said no one, ever :/

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Have you banged your head? Supposedly updating the legislation is the definition of insanity because of some vague notion of other stuff you want to be done which you're as of yet unable to describe.

At no point did I or anyone else as far as I can see say that, you do seem to have a comprehension issue. Until you learn to read and comprehend what's in front of you then I'm afraid I can't help you any further.

You say you're aware this isn't a monocausal issue but you then repeatedly oppose tackling one of the causes (the breed itself)

Nope, didn't say that, in fact I said the government had no choice other then to ban the breed.

and only want to focus on individual owners (which are also dealt with by the same legislation)... so perhaps you should put forth an argument here instead of just sperging out with your vague replies then taking issue when you're called out on them as if replying to what you've actually said is stupid when you're the one who said it

Nope, didn't say that either, you're just making it up as you go along now.

Which would be better?

Banning a breed of dog after it's become a danger to the public, or

Actually enforcing (or if necessary changing/adding to) current legislation regarding breeding and ownership to ensure what's happened with the XL doesn't happen with another breed a few years in the future.

Option 2 means no one dies, option 1 means several people die before the government finally react to the situation that they've created (again) by their inaction.



PS: glad you liked my previous post, always good to have a bit of fun with it

 

[dowie]

At no point did I or anyone else as far as I can see say that, you do seem to have a comprehension issue. Until you learn to read and comprehend what's in front of you then I'm afraid I can't help you any further.

something something definition of insanity [insert vague argument]

Banning a breed of dog after it's become a danger to the public, or

Actually enforcing (or if necessary changing/adding to) current legislation regarding breeding and ownership to ensure what's happened with the XL doesn't happen with another breed a few years in the future.

See this is where you need some clarity - you seem to be under the impression that the XL bully was some nice breed at some point, it's the breed itself that's a big part of the issue, we can't control what happens in the USA or other countries.

Changing/adding to current legislation *is* what the government has done - so what's the issue you have specifically?

If you think the DDA should have been updated earlier then sure, I agree, this massive pitbull shouldn't have been permitted in the first place, the issue should have been preempted. If you think there should be some additional regulations on breeders then I don't necessarily disagree but should some new breed of fighting dog be created in the US or elsewhere then do you object to the DDA being updated as per with the XL Bully? A big issue here seems to have been that it was *not* banned sooner.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

something something definition of insanity [insert vague argument]

I think you need to spend more time reading and digesting what other people write rather than rushing your replies. You come across like a toddler covering his ears because he doesn't like what he's hearing.

See this is where you need some clarity - you seem to be under the impression that the XL bully was some nice breed at some point, it's the breed itself that's a big part of the issue, we can't control what happens in the USA or other countries.

I am? where? At no point have I said that either, you seem to make arguments up in you head and then reply to them

In all honesty the XL is a breed that should never have existed in the first place (along with several other cross breeds that have various genetic/health issues) and what happens in other countries is completely irrelevant. We have full control of our borders, we live on an island ffs! the dogs aren't swimming across the ocean. We have (or should have) tight border controls plus they're bloody massive so they weren't brought across in some-one's pocket (I'm aware it was more likely a semen sample or some such that was brought across, I was being facetious)

Changing/adding to current legislation *is* what the government has done - so what's the issue you have specifically?

If you think the DDA should have been updated earlier then sure, I agree, this massive pitbull shouldn't have been permitted in the first place, the issue should have been preempted. If you think there should be some additional regulations on breeders then I don't necessarily disagree but should some new breed of fighting dog be created in the US or elsewhere then do you object to the DDA being updated as per with the XL Bully? A big issue here seems to have been that it was *not* banned sooner.

I haven't got an issue with it? As I said in the post you've quoted (see above where I suggested not rushing your replies)

This bit "Actually enforcing (or if necessary changing/adding to) current legislation"

and this bit, which you seem to have removed from the post you've quoted , sneaky "I said the government had no choice other then to ban the breed."

On top of the legislation as it is to date there should be far tighter controls on breeders, especially where cross breeds are concerned. If we get to a point where another breed needs banning then so be it, I would consider it a failure on behalf of the government and the legislation in place if we did though, clearly showing that they are incapable of acting proactively.

 

[dowie]

I think you need to spend more time reading and digesting what other people write rather than rushing your replies. You come across like a toddler covering his ears because he doesn't like what he's hearing.

That's how you're coming across tbh..,. the last few replies you're just throwing in insults because you're encountering some disagreement.

In all honesty the XL is a breed that should never have existed in the first place (along with several other cross breeds that have various genetic/health issues) and what happens in other countries is completely irrelevant. We have full control of our borders, we live on an island ffs! the dogs aren't swimming across the ocean. We have (or should have) tight border controls plus they're bloody massive so they weren't brought across in some-one's pocket (I'm aware it was more likely a semen sample or some such that was brought across, I was being facetious)

No, it isn't irrelevant, if you want to stop the importation of XL bullies then you need to update the relevant legislation, in this case the DDA!

On top of the legislation as it is to date there should be far tighter controls on breeders, especially where cross breeds are concerned. If we get to a point where another breed needs banning then so be it, I would consider it a failure on behalf of the government and the legislation in place if we did though, clearly showing that they are incapable of acting proactively.

That's fine but again we have no control over what happens in say the USA (where XL bullies have been imported from). How would it be a failure of the UK government if some new breed needs banning given they don't have control over breeders in other countries?

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

That's fine but again we have no control over what happens in say the USA (where XL bullies have been imported from). How would it be a failure of the UK government if some new breed needs banning given they don't have control over breeders in other countries?

We don't need to control what other countries do we only need to control our borders. There are currently five dogs on the banned list so obviously these are prevented from import in to the UK, rather than updating the banned list as new breeds appear, alter the legislation to prevent import of any unrecognised breeds, use it as a catch all. If that had been in place before the XL made it to the UK it may have prevented the XL of ever being available here as it was not a recognised breed until last year.



...and the insults were just for fun thought I might have copped a warning by now tbh

 

[dowie]

We don't need to control what other countries do we only need to control our borders. There are currently five dogs on the banned list so obviously these are prevented from import in to the UK, rather than updating the banned list as new breeds appear, alter the legislation to prevent import of any unrecognised breeds, use it as a catch all.

That seems unnecessarily excessive though, there are plenty of organisations that rescue dogs in other countries (Romania, Greece etc..) and find homes for them in the UK (I know someone who adopted a street dog they found on holiday in Portugal, it stayed with them at their holiday home for a couple of weeks and they opted to adopt it but it's a mutt/not a specific breed), rescue dogs like that are often mongrels. But we don't have a huge issue with mutts in general killing people, the issue is with big fighting dogs, like the XL bully which is basically just a big version of a pitbull.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

That seems unnecessarily excessive though, there are plenty of organisations that rescue dogs in other countries (Romania, Greece etc..) and find homes for them in the UK (I know someone who adopted a street dog they found on holiday in Portugal, it stayed with them at their holiday home for a couple of weeks and they opted to adopt it but it's a mutt/not a specific breed), rescue dogs like that are often mongrels. But we don't have a huge issue with mutts in general killing people, the issue is with big fighting dogs, like the XL bully which is basically just a big version of a pitbull.

Whatever method you choose it wont be perfect. If the legislation is too lax then dogs like the XL get through, too tight and dogs like the mongrel you've mentioned unfortunately wont either.