Does something need to be done about dogs?

[413x]

My main problem with the whole "The breed isn't the problem, it's the owner" argument, is that we can't make everyone a good owner, it's impossible - you're always going to have a percentage of complete muppets who end up owning dogs, who are going to cause a problem, because that's just life - and we have a reasonably free society.

In the UK there are around 220 dog breeds, and each breed will be owned by it's fair share of complete muppets, yet overall - we don't really see that much of a problem with 99.5% of the breeds. Even some of the large powerful breeds which can easily kill, (Rottweilers, Mastiffs, GSDs, etc) don't really seem to nudge the needle much - they do occur, but not in any great numbers, maybe a few a year and that number has largely been flat for a long time.

But when this Bully XL appears on the scene, the numbers all literally double in a very short space of time - no other dog even comes close, and it's not even difficult to see.

Then for me there's a second argument to this - why do we need a BXL? If you want a large powerful dog fine - loads to choose from which aren't as statistically dangerous, why does it have to be an Americal Bully XL? - what's wrong with a GSD rescue, or a Rottweiler or something? Been around for years, largely known and understood breeds, they're great pets - they can work, protect and do whatever.

Why do we need these monsterous things..?

Partially agree. But if you banned the breed.. Would these undesirables just latch onto a different breed (a big powerful one) and then that breed goes through the same thing?

I generally agree with you, but I'm not sure if banning the breed full stop would just pass the buck?

For the record I'd be fine with banning bully XLs. They are intimidating.. And I will keep my boy away from such a dog on a walk.. Just in case.

Why? Because even though its very unlikely to happen (in talking fractions of a percent) I know I couldn't save him if it happened.. And it would break me

 

[StriderX]

Maybe we don't bother with bans and just make it so the police can kill them outright without warning.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Maybe we don't bother with bans and just make it so the police can kill them outright without warning.

They probably have to give a warning, but they can shoot pretty much any animal that they perceive as presenting a threat... a clear and present danger, if you like.
However, they should probably also be better trained in dealing with such incidents, as they may escalate a situation instead of peacefully resolving it.

Here's an article with pertinent quotes from yet another vet, animal behaviourist and expert court witness, who clearly doesn't have a ******* clue:

Training call after dogs shot dead by Met Police officers

Vet and clinical animal behaviourist Kendal Shepherd and canine behaviourist Helen Howell publish open letter describing behaviour of officers in incident as

www.vettimes.co.uk

 

[dowie]

You can't make everyone a good driver, even with laws, licencing, training and monitoring, which is why we see a couple thousand road deaths every year... but it's still down to the driver.

Not necessarily, this is also blinkered.

Have you ever heard of an MOT? Are you unaware of safety standards or product recalls in the automotive industry.

Dangerous cars are banned, it's not always down the the driver, sometimes people are killed in car crashes because of a fault with the car or some other external issue unrelated to their driving ability.

Also, re the bad owner/chav argument you might even observe that some dangerous cars are more likely to be owned by chavvy types who don't look after them and try to use that to further conclude that it's *always* the driver/owner, which would be flawed.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Not necessarily, this is also blinkered.

Have you ever heard of an analogy?

Have you ever heard of an MOT? Are you unaware of safety standards or product recalls in the automotive industry.

MOT - Certifies a vehicle as meeting minimum safety standards, and only at the time of testing. It can still go wrong later.
Product recalls - Occur because a vehicle has been certified perfectly safe, until it wasn't.
What's your point? You wanting annual MOT testing for dogs, now?

Dangerous cars are banned, it's not always down the the driver, sometimes people are killed in car crashes because of a fault with the car or some other external issue unrelated to their driving ability.

Dangerous cars are banned. They're still out there.
Dangerous dogs are banned. They're still out there.
Either way, studies repeatedly assert that, with both car crashes and dog attacks, the vast majority of them were predictable and preventable, with humans identified as the legally responsible party.

Also, re the bad owner/chav argument you might even observe that some dangerous cars are more likely to be owned by chavvy types who don't look after them and try to use that to further conclude that it's *always* the driver/owner, which would be flawed.

Ah, but the statistics do show certain demographics and certain stereotypes strongly associated with those outlier vehicles of the car accident world... and in the case of Prius drivers, the stereotypes are decidedly unfavourable - Uncaring, negligent, ignorant of others, hazardous, bordering on dangerous.

Yes, a very small number of individual cars have inherrent issues, but neither the brand/model, nor the cars themselves are considered dangerous enough to outright ban.
How well or badly they are governed is what decides the outcome.

 

[dowie]

Dangerous cars are banned. They're still out there.
Dangerous dogs are banned. They're still out there.
[irrelevant stuff]

So you agree this was incorrect then? It isn't necessarily down to the driver.

but it's still down to the driver.

You've observed that dangerous cars are still out there regardless; so what? Should we just let anyone drive whatever heap of junk around that they like Mad Max style? Clearly not.

In reality, most people do get an MOT, manufacturers often do try to ensure they meet safety requirements, the exceptions don't negate that we have used legislation to make our roads safer.

 

[sidimmu]

Something, something, monocasual.

Lets compare a dog to a motor vehicle which has countless international and regional legislation and regulations across the manufacturing process of said vehicle and its operation on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis.

 

[dowie]

Lets compare a dog to a motor vehicle which has countless international and regional legislation and regulations across the manufacturing process of said vehicle and its operation on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis.

That was the point FFS! Ttaskmaster brought up cars and applied the same flawed logic there, that "it's still down to the driver". In reality, we have a load of legislation regarding cars and we prevent dangerous cars from driving on our roads.

 

[ttaskmaster]

So you agree this was incorrect then? It isn't necessarily down to the driver.

Since you deliberately disregarded the salient point, no I do not agree.

You've observed that dangerous cars are still out there regardless; so what? Should we just let anyone drive whatever heap of junk around that they like Mad Max style? Clearly not.

That is EXACTLY what we do, though... because they're NOT dangerous.... until they are, at which point they either fail an MOT or get a product recall.

In reality, we have a load of legislation regarding cars and we prevent dangerous cars from driving on our roads.

So how come people still have accidents and die then, eh?
It's not the drivers, remember. Sometimes cars just crash for absolutely no reason at all. It's those dangeorus brands of cars that we need to ban, like the Prius which (despite being rated as one of the safest cars) is statistically the outlier....

the exceptions don't negate that we have used legislation to make our roads safer.

So you agree with my assertion that we can't make everyone a good driver.....

 

[sidimmu]

That was the point FFS! Ttaskmaster brought up cars and applied the same flawed logic there, that "it's still down to the driver". In reality, we have a load of legislation regarding cars and we prevent dangerous cars from driving on our roads.

Apologies if you think I was aiming at you with the monocasual side of things and then the follow up line. It was an attempt at humour, but appreciate this thread has gone too deep to say the least and first impressions passed pages ago.

I do agree that the comparison is flawed with motor vehicles. Although I dont necessarily agree with the comparison to the domesticated Puma, this is only due to the domesticated puma's in the world and their back story, basically additional context. Same time, there are a number who have injured and killed their owners.

I think its very clear to see there is no way forward or middle ground forward as everyone just gets their knickers in a twist.
Maybe we just need full boundaries surrounding ownership, any proof of a bite which has drawn blood will result in auto destruction of said animal might get owners to take better protection of others around their animal. I think an outright breed ban might help, but just a process to move forward is needed to set those limits and expectations, no ifs', no buts, no special circumstances, blood = destruction. Will leave the police no area's to be exploited.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Maybe we just need full boundaries surrounding ownership, any proof of a bite which has drawn blood will result in auto destruction of said animal might get owners to take better protection of others around their animal.

There was a kid at my school who got bitten by a dog, quite badly.
He and his mates had been hanging over someone's fence where the owner's dog had been playing, and were throwing things at the dog. The kid slipped and fell in. Guess how that ended...
It used to be quite a common ocurrence when I was growing up - Kid gets nipped or even badly bitten by a dog, the adults' first question was always, "What were you doing to make it bite you?". The (honest) answer usually involved teasing or otherwise hassling a dog that had been minding its own business. The kids got no sympathy.

Automatic death sentencing and ignorance of context is a very dangerous precedent to entertain.

 

[sidimmu]

Automatic death sentencing and ignorance of context is a very dangerous precedent to entertain.

Context is king, yeah yeah I know.

How else do you set a very clear example to owners to take care of their animals in public and ensuring their animal is contained within the environment the owner has control of?

 

[dowie]

Since you deliberately disregarded the salient point, no I do not agree.

The salient point was a flawed analogy that sought to blame drivers?

That is EXACTLY what we do, though... because they're NOT dangerous.... until they are, at which point they either fail an MOT or get a product recall.

If a car needs to be recalled it was probably dangerous all along. We also seek to prevent such cars from being created and sold in the first place!

So you agree with my assertion that we can't make everyone a good driver.....

Where did that come from and what relevance does that have? I might as well throw in; so you agree with my assertion that the sky is blue for what it's worth... It wasn't something that was in dispute in the first place and didn't need asserting.

Whether or not you can make everyone a good driver or a good dog owner doesn't negate that some dogs and some cars are inherently dangerous regardless.

 

[ttaskmaster]

How else do you set a very clear example to owners to take care of their animals in public and ensuring their animal is contained within the environment the owner has control of?

Is it not enough to simply take the animals away and give them to more responsible owners, then?

The salient point was a flawed analogy that sought to blame drivers?

The salient point was the predictability and preventability, with the legal onus on the driver/owner to take responsibility.

If a car needs to be recalled it was probably dangerous all along. We also seek to prevent such cars from being created and sold in the first place!

We attempt, but we don't always get it right, and some potential faults never even come to occur or are only evident in individual examples.

It wasn't something that was in dispute in the first place and didn't need asserting.

I was discussing it with someone else. You stuck your oar in by quoting it and basing your reply off it.

Whether or not you can make everyone a good driver or a good dog owner doesn't negate that some dogs and some cars are inherently dangerous regardless.

All of them are potentially dangerous.
What keeps them in check is the owner, which is why both are regarded as property in law and why the owner is held legally accountable, responsible and culpable in almost all cases.

 

[dowie]

Is it not enough to simply take the animals away and give them to more responsible owners, then?

Responsible owners wouldn't own an XL Bully in the first place so banning them achieves that.

I was discussing it with someone else. You stuck your oar in by quoting it and basing your reply off it.

Nope, I addressed the latter part of the sentence I quoted: "but it's still down to the driver."

 

[dowie]

This is a rather harrowing read re: one of these XL Bullys killing a child in 2021:

A Quick Intro

I’ve wanted to start a blog for a while mainly to voice the things that don’t get printed in the paper, shown on TV or that don’t fit into…

medium.com

And this is why we need a ban on these dogs:

The police made an arrest — Amy Salter, the keeper of the dog. Brandon Heydon (the current owner) and Lee Jenkins (original owner) spoke to police voluntarily. I will talk about Lee Jenkins in a seperate post. We had to wait around a month before Heydon was officially arrested and bailed. We had to wait a further 5 months before they appeared in Magistrates Court. Whilst waiting for the first court hearing Heydon decided he was going to sell XL Bullies on instagram and name one after the dog that killed Jack, ‘Beast’. Again I will post about these people and what they did in a seperate post.

It's perfectly legal, currently, for them to be openly advertised for sale on Instagram. That he'd just had one destroyed for killing a child didn't seem to phase the owner/apparent seller of these dogs.

If you're able to acknowledge that there will always be bad owners how do you stop them from getting hold of these dogs in the first place without banning the breed? Presumably, you can mostly only do so retrospectively... like this guy perhaps gets banned only after his dog has killed 1 child? (But we do already have people who are banned from owning dogs after something has gone wrong and they're shown to be irresponsible, that doesn't address the issue of the breed itself being totally legal for others to buy and make the same mistakes with.)

How can people not see the obvious issue here with allowing them to be owned in the first place?

 

[sidimmu]

Is it not enough to simply take the animals away and give them to more responsible owners, then?

Responsible owners wouldn't own an XL Bully in the first place so banning them achieves that.

Didnt think I'd agree plain and simply with a Dowie quote but I do.
If the animal has maimed or killed a child, why are you arguing for it not to be given to responsible owners rather than destroyed?
Yes I agree there are cases where context is king and not all dogs are immediate killers, but the above suggestion is beyond irresponsible and is rather silly.

How can people not see the obvious issue here with allowing them to be owned in the first place?

Its mad how you need a fishing license to fish in a pond, but not a license to own a potentially dangerous dog.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Responsible owners wouldn't own an XL Bully in the first place so banning them achieves that.

We weren't discussing any particular breed, or even dogs specifically at that point. The term used was 'animal', as the premise applies to all animals and their owners.

Nope, I addressed the latter part of the sentence I quoted: "but it's still down to the driver."

You quoted the full sentence.
Surely you'd not be so hypocritical as to take a quote out of context, so I can only presume you're trying to argue against the clear accident statistics - In this case 94% of accidents being down to driver error.

If the animal has maimed or killed a child, why are you arguing for it not to be given to responsible owners rather than destroyed?

See all the earlier remarks on predictability and preventability, as well as looking through the death list and seeing just how many of those children were left alone with the dogs in question.
See also my anecdote and the links earlier in thi thread, regarding people who abused dogs and got every bite they deserved. See also those deaths that were not the result of a rampaging murder-beast, but either accidents or dogs panic-reacting to things they couldn't understand, such as their owners having seizures.
Too often humans have failed to properly understand their pets' natures, and the pets have had to play the price for it.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

You quoted the full sentence.
Surely you'd not be so hypocritical as to take a quote out of context, so I can only presume you're trying to argue against the clear accident statistics - In this case 94% of accidents being down to driver error.

I wonder how many incidents that were put down to mechanical issues were due to lack of servicing, putting the driver/owner at fault for those too.

 

[dowie]

We weren't discussing any particular breed, or even dogs specifically at that point. The term used was 'animal', as the premise applies to all animals and their owners.

Doesn't matter, some animals shouldn't be owned. I don't think you should be able to keep a pet Puma at home and I don't think XL Bullys should be allowed either.

Why do XL Bullys need to exist even?

You quoted the full sentence.

Yes, it's a sentence why shouldn't I quote the full sentence? I'm not sure why you're confused by that as it was quite clear which part of it I addressed, I even quoted just that snippet of the sentence later on!

I can only presume you're trying to argue against the clear accident statistics - In this case 94% of accidents being down to driver error.

Why would you presume that?

You have the same flawed thinking with your analogy as you do with the subject itself - somehow pointing out the presence of another factor (which we actively mitigate), in your mind, becomes an argument against the one you're focused on. You still don't seem to be able to comprehend that perhaps both breeds and owners are an issue here (or indeed cars and drivers). And now you're highlighting the result of all the effort we put into cars and safety features to mitigate the dangers that would otherwise be present if they weren't regulated!