Does something need to be done about dogs?

[ttaskmaster]

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.

You seem to be working on the basis that these fight-trained problem dogs are being bred by respectable law-abiding breeder businesses... OF COURSE they're ******* engaged in fraud!!!!!
Pitbulls are illegal to breed in the UK. Period. Anyone breeding them or from them is already committing an offense.
That's why banning XLBs will not stop the criminals from what they're already doing.

"OK, so you take away my 'licence'. Good for you...".
Guy then goes straight back to back-alley breeding and flogging the pups to some dodgy chav out the back of the pub.

Put in place whatever you like in terms of bans and licences and laws, you still need to get out there and find all these people breeding these dogs... and it's not like they're buying from respectable registered breeders in the first place!

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, you think Bodie and Doyle are gonna suddenly come screaming round the corner in a Capri to 8 Acacia Avenue, guns all blazing, because Mrs Miggins at No.12 can't tell the difference between an XL Bully and a Doberman?

It will be filed in with all the other dangerous dog reports and investigated as and when they get around to it.

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.

You seem to be implying that your new rules will have every banned dog destroyed, without question or exception...?

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.

Again, strawman - No-one has said it's a bad idea. The assertion is that it won't actually improve anything.

Why should this be legal to own and have run around the local park:

For the same reasoning that allows a blind person to be in charge of this:

All you've come up with is handwaving about some social engineering campaign you still can't clarify or give an example of.

Examples and better explanations than I can give were, for that reason, already supplied in the various links that you didn't read.

Mainstream media, fashion and modelling industries have driven millions of women into body image issues, eating disorders and even suicide, based simply on selling an image.
Status dogs are based on a similarly sold image within a smaller market.
Why is it such a bad idea to break something with the same powers that made it?

 

[dowie]

Your seemingly forgetting that just banning a breed isn’t going to solve the issue, it’s just going to move the problem along or elsewhere.

You're

It's unclear what you're even trying to say there but given you can't even grasp that banning drink driving saves lives because you've observed that *some* people still die from it I'm not expecting anything coherent anyway.

 

[dowie]

You seem to be working on the basis that these fight-trained problem dogs are being bred by respectable law-abiding breeder businesses... OF COURSE they're ******* engaged in fraud!!!!!
Pitbulls are illegal to breed in the UK. Period. Anyone breeding them or from them is already committing an offense.
That's why banning XLBs will not stop the criminals from what they're already doing.

That's clearly flawed, same flawed argument that because any other criminality exists in any other areas then laws don't work... Also, it's not just chavs who own bull terrier type dogs.

Some people still get shot with illegal guns in the UK and you can still buy guns from dodgy criminals... doesn't negate that UK gun licencing has led to far fewer gun deaths than in the US.
(in b4 but but people can still stab eachother).

"OK, so you take away my 'licence'. Good for you...".
Guy then goes straight back to back-alley breeding and flogging the pups to some dodgy chav out the back of the pub.

So what - those dogs are then illegal and can't be registered/licenced. That's how you can kill demand.

Examples and better explanations than I can give were, for that reason, already supplied in the various links that you didn't read.

Mainstream media, fashion and modelling industries have driven millions of women into body image issues, eating disorders and even suicide, based simply on selling an image.
Status dogs are based on a similarly sold image within a smaller market.
Why is it such a bad idea to break something with the same powers that made it?

Again more handwaving... break it how? Your position seems to be just vaguely point at marketing and ... magic!

If that were the case then why couldn't we magically stop smoking in pubs or drink driving without legislation?

Only recently we had a pandemic and loads of top psychology experts were advising the government on nudging the public/changing behaviours etc.. remember the signs at press conferences etc.. there is no magic bullet where you can somehow re-program everyone to behave in a certain way, the big falls were the result of concrete actions taken re: legislation and enforcement.

 

[Doobedoo]

You're

It's unclear what you're even trying to say there but given you can't even grasp that banning drink driving saves lives because you've observed that *some* people still die from it I'm not expecting anything coherent anyway.

Thanks.

So you ban Bully XL’s then what?

 

[dowie]

Thanks.

So you ban Bully XL’s then what?

Then you can confiscate and destroy XL Bullys which currently pose an obvious threat.

 

[Doobedoo]

Then you can confiscate and destroy XL Bullys which currently pose an obvious threat.

Ok. But then what?

Who owns these dogs?

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's clearly flawed, same flawed argument that because any other criminality exists in any other areas then laws don't work... Also, it's not just chavs who own bull terrier type dogs.

It's not flawed in the slightest.
You're trying to tackle only the easy-target dogs that might one day turn out to be a problem, while ignoring the bigger issue of the ones that are illegally bred, typically for deliberately causing trouble, and that are by far the most likely to end up being the problem.

Some people still get shot with illegal guns in the UK and you can still buy guns from dodgy criminals... doesn't negate that UK gun licencing has led to far fewer gun deaths than in the US.

It's always been far fewer than the US, though. That's utterly irrelevant.
For a UK vs UK comparison, ONS data shows that firearm homicide counts have remained pretty consistent since 2011.

So what - those dogs are then illegal and can't be registered/licenced. That's how you can kill demand.

Talk about magical handwaving solutions....

Almost a million people still drive cars without licence, tax, MoT and/or insurance - They don't give a **** about that, despite the ease with which they are often (but not always) caught, and they won't give a **** about your dog licence, unless the Police are actively coming round checking every single one of them.

You might slightly reduce demand, in the law-abiding busybody village in which you live, but the vast majority of those who intentionally own a problem dog already don't give a **** about those risks and won't give a **** about the minimal risk of getting stopped by the Police's dog licence checkers. Hell, your 'banned-from-owning' man in East London had ARMED POLICE in his face and still thought he could get away with it.

Meanwhile, 30 years after the Banned Dogs enactment we're still getting hundreds of newly bred banned dogs added to the Exemption Index every year, with many more being destroyed, and that's just the ones that were caught. Estimates are still in the thousands for those that the authorities don't even know about.
Licence, ban, whatever - You still can't seize it if you don't know about it, and demand is clearly still there despite the outright ban.

Again more handwaving... break it how? Your position seems to be just vaguely point at marketing and ... magic!

However they sold the image in the first place. The tactics clearly worked, so you're just selling a different image.
You need to specify what additional details you want, or I can't articulate it further for you.

If that were the case then why couldn't we magically stop smoking in pubs or drink driving without legislation?

We could.
If the government campaigns weren't so wishy-washy and trying to be clever with artistic messages, it would have only taken a more serious focus.
Instead, as with the drink-driving, it took social change and celebrity/peer pressure to actually get most people on board and go from grumbling opposition to actual support for the new ways.

Only recently we had a pandemic and loads of top psychology experts were advising the government on nudging the public/changing behaviours etc.. remember the signs at press conferences etc.. there is no magic bullet where you can somehow re-program everyone to behave in a certain way, the big falls were the result of concrete actions taken re: legislation and enforcement.

It's not a magic bullet (which is your argument, by the way), but it is a science and an art and it is clearly used to great success by both marketing and social influencers.

Or did you think the whole hip-hop cultural influence on the popularity of Pitbulls as status dogs was due to legislation?

 

[potatolord]

At the risk of being sucked back into this...

There is a balance to be struck between the need for new legislation, and the need for better enforcement.

Legislating for breed is difficult, but not impossible. It should be considered- bully xls are a clear outlier in fatality statistics at present. Perhaps it is just a cluster and will smooth out, but people will likely die while that is waited out.

Better enforcement of nuisance dog legislation is possible. Perhaps a three strike type rule, where there is an assumption a dog will be destroyed, unless the owner can demonstrate they will mitigate risk immediately and permanently? I am not sure how you could frame that, before the usual "omg how?" requests.

I do think that a public campaign against moronic ownership is worth some consideration, but sadly you are dealing with morons here...

 

[ttaskmaster]

There is a balance to be struck between the need for new legislation, and the need for better enforcement.

Surely it'd be better to address the existing problems with enforcement first, otherwise any new legislation will simply suffer the same fate?

I do think that a public campaign against moronic ownership is worth some consideration, but sadly you are dealing with morons here...

Hence the idea to either talk in 'moron' to them, or have their fellow 'morons' translate it for them.

 

[Doobedoo]

Who actually owns these dogs though?

 

[ttaskmaster]

Who actually owns these dogs though?

All sorts.
Some are pussy criminals who need a dog like this for personal defence. Some are dog fight participants. Some are naive morons who can't understand what it takes to properly look after a dog like this. Some are manly men who think they have what it takes. Some are the 'dogs of peace' protesters that will one day wake up to find their face being eaten off. Some are responsible and capable owners who have chosen a decent dog from a reputable and sensible breeder.

 

[potatolord]

Surely it'd be better to address the existing problems with enforcement first, otherwise any new legislation will simply suffer the same fate?


Hence the idea to either talk in 'moron' to them, or have their fellow 'morons' translate it for them.

I probably could gave ordered my paragrahhs better!

Yes, enforcement could start immediately. Even if you were going for new breed legislation.

I don't know. For some of these idiots, such a campaign could incentivise them to get a dog. They're idiots- I live at ground zero for this stuff.

 

[Parsley]

I probably could gave ordered my oarsgraohs better!

Yes, enforcement could start immediately. Even if you were going for new breed legislation.

I don't know. For some of these idiots, such a campaign could incentivise them to get a dog. They're idiots- I live at ground zero for this stuff.

Yeah, some people seem to exist solely to be obtuse and challenge "The Man". "The Man" being whomever they dislike on a given day.

That or they are looking for a way to be a victim, even if it's utterly stupid.

 

[Doobedoo]

All sorts.
Some are pussy criminals who need a dog like this for personal defence. Some are dog fight participants. Some are naive morons who can't understand what it takes to properly look after a dog like this. Some are manly men who think they have what it takes. Some are the 'dogs of peace' protesters that will one day wake up to find their face being eaten off. Some are responsible and capable owners who have chosen a decent dog from a reputable and sensible breeder.

The biggest problem is some of these guy won’t give to hoots about the law. A breed being banned will not mean anything to them if they are using it to intimidate or protect. They will be hardened criminals that won’t think twice about stabbing or glassing someone.

There was someone killed around my way a little while ago. Apparently it was drug related and the fella owed the wrong people money and they came round and beat him to death. Do you think they care about a dog being on a banned list?

What happens if these Bully XL’s actually do disappear. These same people will turn their attention to other breeds, or maybe interbreed again as you say to get around it. These are people that just don’t care simple as.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I don't know. For some of these idiots, such a campaign could incentivise them to get a dog. They're idiots- I live at ground zero for this stuff.

That's why you don't run it as a campaign. People bleating about doing the right thing on social media won't work, any more than some balding suited Tory type telling everyone just how naughty they are. You figure out their reasons for owning such a dog (usually image) and then turn that back against them - They think having such a dog makes them a hard man, change the perception to one of it being a dog that paedophiles use to scare nosy people away, for example.
People need to feel fear and shame from owning these things, not empowerment.

The biggest problem is some of these guy won’t give to hoots about the law. A breed being banned will not mean anything to them if they are using it to intimidate or protect. They will be hardened criminals that won’t think twice about stabbing or glassing someone.

Yes, but if they can't get the licence to own one, then that will eliminate their demand for it, you see...

There was someone killed around my way a little while ago. Apparently it was drug related and the fella owed the wrong people money and they came round and beat him to death. Do you think they care about a dog being on a banned list?

Depends... Is there a banned dog growling and standing in their way them from getting in to see their errant debtor?

What happens if these Bully XL’s actually do disappear. These same people will turn their attention to other breeds, or maybe interbreed again as you say to get around it. These are people that just don’t care simple as.

I look forward to returning to this thread in a couple of years time, when crossbred XL Pug Bull Terriers are wheezing and the 'Pomsky' is the most hated status dog throughout the West-side 'Hood!!

 

[Parsley]

Pugs have had enough done to them already, leave them alone man .

 

[Doobedoo]

I look forward to returning to this thread in a couple of years time.

May I recommend you go for a walk of something. It’s healthier.

 

[dowie]

It's not flawed in the slightest.

It is, see here, you're repeating the same flaw:

Almost a million people still drive cars without licence, tax, MoT and/or insurance - They don't give a **** about that, despite the ease with which they are often (but not always) caught, and they won't give a **** about your dog licence, unless the Police are actively coming round checking every single one of them.

That *some* people don't care about driving licences and insurance doesn't negate that driving licences and insurance are a good idea!

You're making the same naive argument that the other poster was with drink driving... just because *some* people still drink and drive doens't mean that banning it has no impact or doesn't prevent deaths (his belief).

Do you understand why we have fewer gun deaths than the USA? Does the fact that we have *some* gun deaths in the UK provide evidence to support a view that strict licencing of firearms is pointless? IT's a totally flawed positon and it seems you and the other guy are unable to get your head around it, perhaps numeracy issues at fault here.

It's not a magic bullet (which is your argument, by the way), but it is a science and an art and it is clearly used to great success by both marketing and social influencers.

Again this is just vague handwaving and you're still incapable of substantiating it other than vague gesturing towards psychology, social science etc..

 

[dowie]

Ok. But then what?

Who owns these dogs?

No one does, they're destroyed, put down... dead.

 

[Doobedoo]

No one does, they're destroyed, put down... dead.

So we have no problem then what are waffling on for?