Does something need to be done about dogs?

ttaskmaster said:
The "breed" of an XLB is what was described in the official Breed Standard posted earlier. That is what a 100% breed-typical XLB should be like. That's what 'breed' means... and pretty much every modern breed was 'artificially created'.

Arguably the XLB breed may well have originally been bred "to develop a dog that was calmer and more adaptable than the American Staffordshire Terrier" with "the intention of creating a companionable and friendlier variant of a guard dog" and those of the founding bloodlines may well be "highly regarded as a companion and family dog, known for its sensitive and highly adaptable nature... exhibiting friendliness towards its loved ones, children, and even strangers".....

You gonna read that and still try telling me my assertion of breed not defining behaviour is false?
Click to expand...

LOL you're actually running with the dog of peace/ackchually it's a nanny dog meme now? Seriously?

ttaskmaster said:
Not mutually exclusive, but they are almost entirely independent of each other.
Click to expand...

Completely false as shown already by the study you're supposedly not denying but then repeatedly do.

ttaskmaster said:
So only about 13 years of breeding to get the resulting XLB and get it recognised. Probably less than 10, in reality.
Click to expand...

And 30 years before it became a problem... it existed in the US, then later started being imported and recently has become an issue. This notion of every few years is unfounded, it was 1991 when pit bulls were banned now it's 2023 and hopefully these will be too.
 
jigger said:
It’s something, but I don’t see how banning a particular breed solves the issue of aggressive dog attacks. Any number of dog breeds could do as much damage or more, when out of control.

The responsibility should be on the owner IMO.
Click to expand...
Needs to be part of a multi layer strategy. Perhaps ban the bully outright and some other breeds must be muzzled in public.
 
jigger said:
It’s something, but I don’t see how banning a particular breed solves the issue of aggressive dog attacks. Any number of dog breeds could do as much damage or more, when out of control.

The responsibility should be on the owner IMO.
Click to expand...

The responsibility should be on the owner, but clearly that isn't working, or the punishment isn't scary enough to worry about the dog being out of control.

I imagine the majority of the owners of these out of control dogs are the scum of the earth anyway who have no moral compass and wouldn't give two ***** about their dog nearly mauling someone to death.
 
ttaskmaster said:
The problem is the breeders, yes. The trouble is with the bloodlines from which they deliberately breed. Good or bad breeding is a factor, but breed itself is not.
Banning is not the solution.
Banning is what gave rise to XL Bullys in the first place.
Click to expand...

So the banning needs to be made more around the breeding of these specific bloodlines rather than banning just a specific breed. As you say this would then prevent a XXL Bully from being bred.
 
Semple said:
The responsibility should be on the owner, but clearly that isn't working, or the punishment isn't scary enough to worry about the dog being out of control.

I imagine the majority of the owners of these out of control dogs are the scum of the earth anyway who have no moral compass and wouldn't give two ***** about their dog nearly mauling someone to death.
Click to expand...

Banning the breed could save lives.

Yes, make the owner 'responsibile', but that's a reaction and will likely be after the dog has killed or hurt someone.
 
dowie said:
LOL you're actually running with the dog of peace/ackchually it's a nanny dog meme now? Seriously?
Click to expand...
No, I'm pointing out why your assertions and continual reliance on 'breed' as both a descriptive term and a legislative reference is utter ********.

So which is it, Dowie?
Breed does not define behaviour, as I said... or are all those 'monsters' out there not actually XLBs, because the 'breed' as defined does not attack people?

dowie said:
Completely false as shown already by the study you're supposedly not denying but then repeatedly do.
Click to expand...
Utterly true, as shown by the several studies I posted, and in the study you yourself have not properly read.

dowie said:
And 30 years before it became a problem... it existed in the US, then later started being imported and recently has become an issue. This notion of every few years is unfounded, it was 1991 when pit bulls were banned now it's 2023 and hopefully these will be too.
Click to expand...
A mere 10 years to breed a lineage into a distinctly separate breed.
But only a problem in the last 2-3 years, suggesting the change was driven by the mixing of specific bloodlines... so yes, every few years, clearly founded upon the time taken for 'problem dogs' to 'suddenly' appear.
Add in the likelihood that dodgy breeders will see how successful the XLB was in circumventing the PBT ban, and copy that concept with yet more dodgy breeds in anticipation of the XLB being banned... that's if they're not already doing it.

Semple said:
So the banning needs to be made more around the breeding of these specific bloodlines rather than banning just a specific breed. As you say this would then prevent a XXL Bully from being bred.
Click to expand...
It would, yes, but the focus needs to be on eliminating backstreet breeders, and preventing legitimate breeders from using undesirable bloodlines. This must cover everyone involved with even a single breeding, not just those who breed more than X times per year in order to qualify as a registered breeder.

This approach not only deals with the XLB/XXLB, but also addresses individual dogs from other breeds, and covers far more than just aggressive behaviour - You'd also breed out all the stupid aesthetic mutations that result in dogs like Pugs with their breathing difficulties, or slope-backed GSDs with their spine and hip dysplasia.
 
The only thing I'm honestly worried about, is the government just banning the BullyXL and doing nothing else - it does need banning, but we need proper binding legislation to prevent them breeding around the law, along with other things that have already been mentioned.

The current clown government is in such a poor state, I just can't see them spending the time to do this properly, and I think the only reason Bravermann has come out with this proposal to ban, was because of the TikTok video doing the rounds, if that video hadn't been taken - I doubt we'd have heard anything from Bravermann at all.
 
ttaskmaster said:
It would, yes, but the focus needs to be on eliminating backstreet breeders, and preventing legitimate breeders from using undesirable bloodlines. This must cover everyone involved with even a single breeding, not just those who breed more than X times per year in order to qualify as a registered breeder.

This approach not only deals with the XLB/XXLB, but also addresses individual dogs from other breeds, and covers far more than just aggressive behaviour - You'd also breed out all the stupid aesthetic mutations that result in dogs like Pugs with their breathing difficulties, or slope-backed GSDs with their spine and hip dysplasia.
Click to expand...

Realistically though that's never going to work. Genuine reputable breeders will abide by legislation. But it's the "backstreet" breeders who will continue to breed regardless of what the law says.
 
Semple said:
Realistically though that's never going to work. Genuine reputable breeders will abide by legislation. But it's the "backstreet" breeders who will continue to breed regardless of what the law says.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean it's always going to boil down to enforcement, and the state of our current policing and court system - it's not going to happen, not whilst we're living in a world where if your house gets turned over, the police show up 6 weeks later with a crime number.
 
Semple said:
Realistically though that's never going to work. Genuine reputable breeders will abide by legislation. But it's the "backstreet" breeders who will continue to breed regardless of what the law says.
Click to expand...
This is why I mentioned including even single breeders, ie those who just once intentionally allow their dog to breed, even if they're not doing it for profit.
But yes, backstreet breeders looking to make a fast buck on Farcebook are usually the biggest problem, and as many people have pointed out in the thread, anything you come up with to actually tackle teh problem will require enforcement.

No-one is going to give a **** if all you've got is words, which is why there are still thousands of unregistered Pit Bull Terriers around, despite them being banned since 1991.
 
They should at least bring in a licence for owning a dog. This could be matched with the chip the dog has.

If a person is caught with no licence or a dog isn't chipped it should be a criminal offence.
 
BowdonUK said:
They should at least bring in a licence for owning a dog. This could be matched with the chip the dog has.

If a person is caught with no licence or a dog isn't chipped it should be a criminal offence.
Click to expand...

How does that prevent an attack taking place?

No dog is under control unless leashed and muzzled. Putting the breed on the banned list will mean that can be enforced. It can still maul owners and kids at their home though or escape and do damage. A licence doesn't do **** to prevent bad things happening.

Even without licensing, people can be banned from dog ownership if found to be a dick to the animal or disregard the safety of others. Those laws need to be enforced!
Licensing will do jack all to prevent anything and is just a comfort blanket that big nanny state types want.

I'm pro banning breeds. It starts the removal process and acceptability of having these horrific animals. There's also a bunch of restrictions then put in place on owners of the breeds without affecting others with non-war dogs.

I'm pro enforcement of current laws. Idiot owners need banning from ownership and to pay for the damage their animals cause (all dogs included in this). If your dog can't be insured, and it's on a banned list, then it needs to be destroyed unfortunately. It's classed as dangerous for a reason.

I'm pro licensing for breeders. You breed something that kills? You have some explaining to do; lineage and temperament of ascendants, due diligence on who it was sold to, ensuring they understand how to train and control etc.

I'm anti licensing for ownership*. What does it actually achieve? It's typical British "oi, got a licence for that?' memery that we get ridiculed around the world for.

*before any action is taken on the above first. If those steps fail to reduce the attacks, then yea, maybe take a look at a dog ownership licence. Still can't see what it will achieve, be enforceable and could even make things worse through complacency.
 
Last edited:
ttaskmaster said:
No, I'm pointing out why your assertions and continual reliance on 'breed' as both a descriptive term and a legislative reference is utter ********.

So which is it, Dowie?
Breed does not define behaviour, as I said... or are all those 'monsters' out there not actually XLBs, because the 'breed' as defined does not attack people?
Click to expand...

You've come up with an entirely artificial contradiction based on this nanny dog trope. "The breed as defined" in that case = a load of subjective nonsense written down by people who love XL Bullys.. so good with children, sure, until they rip their face off!

The point re: this breed is that, in reality, it's dangerous. Half of all dog-related deaths this year are a result of attacks by XL Bullys, the breed is clearly a problem and needs to be banned.
 
Last edited:
413x said:
This will be the video that does it.
I'd support it. And I rarely support bans of any kind.
Click to expand...

You're right, that does seem to have had an impact with politicians. It's funny, the stats already make it obvious that the dog is a risk but the footage/emotional reaction to it is what really perhaps really changes things. Starmer seems to recognise the issue now:

 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
Yeah I mean it's always going to boil down to enforcement, and the state of our current policing and court system - it's not going to happen, not whilst we're living in a world where if your house gets turned over, the police show up 6 weeks later with a crime number.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
All the scooters going 25mph with 2 kids on are left.
You could drive a police car around here and catch 2 people in the act on any one drive by.
But it's not policed at all.

Keep hearing more and more "can't be bothered to report x, y, z as police won't do anything." and I don't blame people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom