Fair enough, I'm all for banning dangerous breeds, I don't like them any more than the next person. It will probably make no difference, statistcally speaking, but thats not a reason not to do it.
Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Fair enough, I'm all for banning dangerous breeds, I don't like them any more than the next person. It will probably make no difference, statistcally speaking, but thats not a reason not to do it.
But would it solve one problem but manifest another? I.e. If these ‘morons’ didn’t have their big, dangerous dog to protect them, would they be more likely to carry or use a knife?
Anyway we will beg to differ. I don’t want my experience ruined because of a tiny minority of bad owners.
Anyway we will beg to differ. I don’t want my experience ruined because of a tiny minority of bad owners.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,492
Of course it won't.
This is an internet forum. No-one has any power here to actually effect change out there.
Your dog's microchip, and thus your registration details, can already be checked there and then with a simple handheld scanner by any Police officer, dog warden or veterinarian that has one. You can even buy your own for about £40.
It's as simple as a cop checking your car registration plate.
That won't actually stop anyone from buying an illegal dog, and the likelihood of being stopped for a spot check by a cop will be so low, they can walk around without any fear.
Dogs can already be taken if the authorities merely suspect it's a banned breed or a dangerous dog.
To use your car analogy - There are over half a million unlicenced drivers, almost three quarters of a million untaxed vehicles, and double that number of uninsured drivers currently on the road.
This is despite licencing, legislation and a plethora of automated systems that should be seeing law-breaking drivers all caught and prosecuted without an officer even needing to lay actual hands on collars...
So what makes you think the very small number of problem dog-owners will magically start following your new laws?
There was initial criticism over the planned partial ban, which gradually turned to more widespread support, among both smokers and non-smokers, once it was a near-total ban.
Support stood around 78% in 2007 when the ban came in, rising to 83% by 2017.
And again, peer pressure is one of the biggest factors in preventing drink-driving, as well as many other undesirable behaviours... yet you seem so very averse to making use of that power, for some strange reason.
They probably have a knife anyway and hiding behind a big dog is a lot different to actually having a confrontation.
Banning the breeds wouldn't actually ruin my experience unless I had my current dog taken off me as a result, which wouldn't happen. As for them not being available anymore? Well, plenty of other needy rescue dogs are available, and I tend to head that direction anyway. The breed doesn't really bother me when it comes to what dog I actually have. Though I much prefer active smaller breeds, they tend to live a bit longer
.I don't think banning breeds is right either by the way, as I firmly believe people are the problem. But as has been said above, people can't be trusted to take any responsibility for much of anything anymore so it has to be forced.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
You are never going to sort this out with banning certain breeds, you could make it a legal requirement to muzzle all dogs or maybe all dogs over a certain size/weight but that probably isn't workable. Lots of dog friendly muzzles out there that still let them pant etc. Though they aren't playing fetch wearing one. Maybe just a requirement in urban areas. Its a nightmare to legislate for this.
Good luck with your endeavours.
We have our heart set on a Staffie so beyond any unforeseen circumstances that what we shall be getting.
I don’t have the answers to society’s issues, it doesn’t seem that anyone does to be honest. I doubt laser focusing on one, teeny tiny part of a much, much larger problem will yield any significant results, but who doesn’t love a crusade.
We have our heart set on a Staffie so beyond any unforeseen circumstances that what we shall be getting.
I don’t have the answers to society’s issues, it doesn’t seem that anyone does to be honest. I doubt laser focusing on one, teeny tiny part of a much, much larger problem will yield any significant results, but who doesn’t love a crusade.
Again totally missing the point, it's completely moot when XL Bullies are legal and there isn't legislation in place to ban them and only register dogs from licenced breeders.
Not if you ban bull terrier types in general - then it's pretty obvious when someone has an illegal dog, not to mention any neighbour can report a potential problem dog to the police and it makes things far simpler if it's unlicenced.
Currently, if your next door neighbour or someone in your apartment block buys an XL bully or similar then there isn't anything (legally) you can really do about it. Likewise to spotting some in the local park...
If you legislate to ban them and everyone needs to carry a licence then literally any police officer from say a local a neighbourhood safety team could ask the owner to see their license. Becomes rather difficult to keep one if anyone in your block of flats or on your street can simply report you for it... currently pit bulls are illegal but plenty of other types that look similar aren't, it's far less clear cut and indeed even when an illegal pit bull is discovered the owners can sometimes keep them but agree to certain requirements like muzzling etc.
Could very easily crack down on this.
Last edited:
I say again, ban the breed, the breeders of those breeds and the import of those breeds first.
The police and public then have the power to report and remove those breeds from the streets.
Save any unnecessary licencing until we see what effect that has on deaths by mauling. Licensing ****ing Pugs and Pomeranians at this point is stupid.
The police and public then have the power to report and remove those breeds from the streets.
Save any unnecessary licencing until we see what effect that has on deaths by mauling. Licensing ****ing Pugs and Pomeranians at this point is stupid.
That steak analogy is terrible. It would make sense if you chewing steak caused someone else to choke. Or...you know, be torn to pieces.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,492
XL Bullies are only legal because they're not *technically* a banned breed. Technically they're a Pitbull crossbreed, which came about due to the Pitbull bans.
Banning these will only result in more crosses and technical workarounds.
It does negate the need for carrying a licence though, as the owner details are tied to the chip, so anyone already banned from owning a dog would get flagged during the check.
Beyond that, the chip is the same as a licence - Illegal breed owners just won't bother registering and work on the basis that they'll not get scanned.
Not obvious at all as previously shown with various breeds commonly misidentified as Staff bull-types, and those who have been openly walking their banned breeds around for years.
Most of those who were prosecuted got caught only after something bad happened.
They can already report owners of currently banned breeds, yet frequently don't...
Why are there still thousands of unreported banned breed dogs and what will be different this time?
Yes it is, the point was it would be a stupid thing to ban.
There are lots of things we could ban because low numbers of people could be horrifically injured or killed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Indeed we are, we should stop breeding brachycephalic dogs as a starting point, they have many health problems and short lifespans, not to mention the dangers from american bullys as highlighted here.
I walked past a bulldog the other day and he was wheezing just walking :\
It's not about people killing themselves through incompetence. It's about harm to others.
And peoples incompetence in many, many other things can also cause harm to others.
Yes but those things are generally controlled and restricted.
not if you phase out bull terriers in general and licence dogs and breeders, each dog gets linked to a breeder or an official rescue org... if you've got outside the licensing system then how can you introduce new (legal) pitbull crosses?
No it doesn't as I'm suggesting a much more comprehensive system here as already mentioned.
Already answered this, there are plenty of pitbull type dogs that aren't banned and it's not obvious which are pitbulls etc.. if your neighbour has an XL Bully then what can you do about it now?
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm with you on that. My sister has a lovely Pug, the friendliest most naive and innocent dog I think I've ever known. But walk him for 3 minutes and it sounds like he has run a marathon, and when it's hot he really struggles. He isn't overweight either. It's cruel to have bred them into that when you look at what pugs were 100 years ago when they didn't have the issues.
And despite that, those things can cause more problems than the dogs do. Examples being Alcohol, Cycling (I don't hate cyclists
, I cycle myself! But it's another thing that's targeted and ranted about, but pedestrian deaths could be similar to dog deaths? Cyclist deaths are certainly higher, those caused by vehicles), Driving, Corruption in Government or the Workplace leading to god knows what by way of misery and suffering. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I hate inconsiderate and selfish behaviour. It's just sorting out certain breeds considering that the people who want them will just carry on regardless in whatever way they can seems like peeing into the wind when other things should really take priority.But again, I've no problem with people needing a licence, or even breeds being banned and a prevention of further breeding. No one needs a Bully XL. They want one. English Staffordshire Bull Terriers being banned though? I still don't see a Pedigree Staff as being any more dangerous than other "powerful" dogs. I think most people think of them and are actually thinking of an American Staff.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,492
The same way they're introducing crosses bred off illegal Pitbulls, I imagine.
A lot of 'problem' dogs were deliberately bred with Staffy genes included, purely because the Staffy appearance is often a dominant factor and dangerous dogs are assessed primarily on looks alone.
The result is a dog that looks something like a nice little Staffy, but has the temperament and aggression of a Pit Bull. If you now want to ban Staffies, then they'll breed in another dog that makes the result look like a legal breed.
A system that relies on people reporting dogs/owners and the Police having the resources to go check out every report.
There are thousands of obviously banned dogs, though, which have the means to be addressed yet still go unreported. What will adding more dogs to the list and forcing licences on owners actually change to make people report what they're not already reporting?
As fo this XLB... It depends - If the dog is a problem in some way, they can be reported. If not, then there's no greater worry than with any other massive dog that simply has the potential to be dangerous.
That wouldn't work in this case if pit bulls are already illegal and can't be registered and breeders need to be licenced/regulated and owners need to be licenced then... you can't very easily have either a pitbull on a licence or indeed get one from a legal breeder.... unless they're going to engage in fraud in order to sell labrador/pitbull crosses and risk losing the licence.
Nope not necessarily, some vague unclear report isn't necessarily going to be attended to. Someone reporting their neighbour has an XL Bully is a no-brainer.
What do propose they could do at the moment? Nothing...
I've already addressed that too, current rules don't necessarily mean that a banned dog is taken away, there may well be an assessment and if it's neutered and wears a muzzle outside then the owner can keep it, secondly, plenty of dogs look like pitbulls and indeed are very similar, identification and imposing a ban is complicated by that.
Just because current enforcement of something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it can't be improved, this is like the drink driving objection, just because *some* people still drink drive doesn't mean banning it is a bad idea.
Why should this be legal to own and have run around the local park:
All you've come up with is handwaving about some social engineering campaign you still can't clarify or give an example of.