Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
Well - that argument would make sense if other dogs have been tearing people up for years, but they haven't. The BXL comes along - and the fatality rate literally doubled because of attacks from that breed, we've had dogs like Rottweilers for centuries and it's only in the last couple of years, since these mutant breeds appeared that this problem really got "bad".
Firstly, the issue has been made more complex by the Covid lockdown, and the isolation mentality that has led to the similar surge in general dog ownership, as well as people not taking the time to get proper training for both themselves and the dog.
It's basically the 'dog for Christmas' issue that we used to have, and which led to so many ending up in rescue centres.
This may abate somewhat in a couple of years, especially if there's a focussed effort to get people taking proper responsibility. Theoretically, XLBs should make for pretty decent and wel-behaved dogs, but only in the hands of a sensible and responsible owner and under a good trainer.
Secondly, as with all the previous kill-stats but even more so in this instance, the contexts of and the conditions in which each KSI incident occurred are a big factor.
For example, a lot of the dead victims are children. Children are more likely to die from an attack anyway, particularly those not old enough to be walking and talking... but as the details in various articles and reports show, a great many of those incidents would never have even occurred if the dogs' owners had not done something monumentally stupid.
The exact same can be said of many different breeds, all of which can (and in some cases did) kill people when their owners have done something stupid.Rottweilers have lots of good uses though, they're mega intelligent, they make good pets, good guard dogs and good working dogs - they're also an understood established breed, which I think is important because you have a good idea of what you're getting.
I concur, this would be a sensible approach, but only if you could very tightly police the unregistered breeding and that will take a LOT of effort.Which in a way - is why I support a ban on these dogs, they shouldn't really exist. Existing dogs should be allowed to live out their lives - but I think we should prohibit any further breeding and let the breed go extinct naturally.
(How the hell we enforce this in a world where you get burgled and the cops don't show, I don't know - but I still think it's the best approach).
Outright bans just make things more attractive to the criminal element.
This is one reason why so many associated professionals advise against it.
Making things mandatory like insurance, licencing and so on would only work if they were universally dirt-cheap and, unlike previous implementations, were more than just coffer-fillers for local government. Otherwise you'll just get too many people ignoring it, and you'll still be faced with lacking enough law enforcement checking and enforcing it. I also expect that, as with pet medical insurance, many people would find that companies had shafted them in the small print, leading to a large discontinuance.
Microchipping costs £15, but can even be had for free, which is why it has been mostly successful... The authorities do need a better and wider supply of portable scanners, though, to help further this success.