I can't believe this circular discussion is still going on.
Like an XL Bully, once it locks on...
Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Like an XL Bully, once it locks on...
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
It's not the animal that is the ultimate focus of these measures, either. That's why you police the humans!
We already police people, it’s this breed of dog that is the issue. These pit bulls have proved far too dangerous in public as they have in the past.
I can't believe this circular discussion is still going on.
It's been trapped in the gravity well of a Dowie Hole
It's fate is to have it's logic slowly "spaghettified" until any resemblance to a coherent argument is lost
Last edited:
It's been trapped in the gravity well of a Dowie Hole
It's fate is to have it's logic slowly "spaghettified" until any resemblance to a coherent argument is lost
Feel free to point out the incoherent argument then... anyone defending these XL bullies or opposing a ban at this point has the incoherent position here.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Nov 2019
- Posts
- 4,325
The mods have the patience of a saint!!I can't believe this circular discussion is still going on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
We don't proactively police them. We only react.
Both pit bulls and these subsequent sub-variants are merely reflective of their upbringing and kept environment, as proven both recently and in plenty of past studies.
How is it an incoherent argument to address the cause instead of patching the symptoms?
The only incoherent position is that of not bothering to read and understand why so many industry professionals oppose the ban.
Because you're not addressing the cause, it's not a monocausal issue as has been pointed out to you multiple times! Instead, you're selectively ignoring the really obvious issue which is the breed itself.
It's not hard to understand why the animal lovers are too emotive to act rationally here, what's quite telling is how the likes of the RSPCA (or rather some activist types within it) will trot out some stance about all dogs being potentially dangerous meanwhile when it's their own money at risk within their insurance arm they won't insure XL Bullies... strange that.
Some more skin in the game from the SNP here too:
XL Bully dogs to be banned in Scotland after owners cross border to beat new rules
England crackdown will be mirrored after influx of banned breed being dumped
www.independent.co.uk
Hmm how does that tie in with the blank slate approach, surely these dogs are no more dangerous than any other if it's the owners who are the issue and Scotland already deals with bad owners right?
But suddenly they're not so sure... when it's their career at stake... what if maybe they're wrong and one of these XL bullies kills someone... think of the headlines, think of the next election... oh what a surprise, just like the RSPCA insurance arm, when there's something real at stake for them personally the blank slate approach goes out of the window.
Last edited:
This is really the problem, many people have ideas for how things should work in the pub, or on internet forums or whatever - but they've never been in a position where they've actually had to implement or design or solve any of these problems in real life - where people's lives will definitely be impacted by the decisions made.
If I was a politician in Scotland - I'd be very very worried about all of these dogs being dumped in my region, the moment someone gets hurt and one of these dogs is involved - my head is going to be on the chopping block (as it should be).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
The "breed" is merely reactive. It's quite clearly a result of improper breeding and ownership, as so many others have already highlighted.
They technically don't insure the dogs, they insure the owners... and the owners of these dogs are statistically unlikely to be responsible enough for such dogs, so clearly not insurable.
You don't need to be an animal lover to figure that one out!
Besides that, their insurance is provided by a third party company, not the RSPCA themselves, so it's not even their money and they have no say in what that company will accept. The company has a list of other dogs they also won't insure, including the banned four but also other breeds, which is pretty standard across the industry.
The issue is that no-one does deal with the bad owners.
Even in the last year, you've had dogs being seized from people who were already banned from keeping dogs... and that 'enforcement' only resulted because something subsequently bad happened.
You have plenty of people who already did put their careers at stake - Police, lawyers, vets, all those whose job it is to ensure these dogs don't present a problem, risking careers and reputations to rationally point out why breed-specific legislation is not the solution.
These dogs are mauling and killing people at an alarming rate. It’s clear statistically these dogs are an awful fit for the world outside of possibly a Zoo. If the reason for that is genetics, upbringing or luna cycles it’s completely irrelevant. The right to own pets simply can’t infringe on society.
In my personal opinion these dogs are man made monstrosities and the argument you’re making is a dangerous one.
Last edited:
Which is why lots of insurers (including the RSPCA) won't insure them. Doesn't matter who the owner is, they'll simply not insure this breed at all.
I'm not sure ttaskmaster really understands the skin in the game argument there, there's no real risk to some person airing an opinion but if you insure them you're putting money at risk.
American bully XL owner: 'I'd sooner go to jail than lose my dogs'
Aichaa is worried about the future of her two dogs in the wake of the recent ban.
www.bbc.co.uk
Responsible XL bully owner logic - has small child, small child already bitten by an XL bully and is nervous around the breed... so let's buy two of them!
Some folks are just destined for early graves.American bully XL owner: 'I'd sooner go to jail than lose my dogs'
Aichaa is worried about the future of her two dogs in the wake of the recent ban.www.bbc.co.uk
Responsible XL bully owner logic - has small child, small child already bitten by an XL bully and is nervous around the breed... so let's buy two of them!
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,830
American bully XL owner: 'I'd sooner go to jail than lose my dogs'
Aichaa is worried about the future of her two dogs in the wake of the recent ban.www.bbc.co.uk
Responsible XL bully owner logic - has small child, small child already bitten by an XL bully and is nervous around the breed... so let's buy two of them!
"She said: "My dogs are calm. They're very playful and excitable, but their temperaments are fine. They're not aggressive, they'd never hurt anybody...It's ridiculous. I understand they're big dogs, they're strong, and they could cause a lot of damage, but..."
Very poor judgement, to say the least.
Not one dog, but two. Her daughter has already been bitten by an XL Bully, and is scared ("nervous"!) of them. If that's her garden, she doesn't have much (enough?) outside space. One of the dogs is four months old, so she acquired it in full knowledge of the legislation.
Not sure garden is a great description, more like wasteland. Typical scrubber of a woman, I doubt she has two brain cells to rub together and is more than likely council estate born and bred. Would rather go to jail over her precious dogs than look after her five-year-old daughter, says it all really.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 2,830
- Location
- Cheshire
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-67959870
Owner fits the stereotype
The overall problem isn't going away by banning breeds, they'll just pick a different breed to ruin (I'm not talking about the XL specifically before some bore pipes up)
A simple questionnaire for prospective owners:
Do you or any of your children have ridiculous unpronounceable names?
Will you be taking the dog for a walk on a rope?
Will you be naming the dog something unpronounceable (or Tyson, ripper, mauler etc)?
answer yes to any of the above, no you can't have a dog, here's a hamster, try not to squash it.
Owner fits the stereotype
The overall problem isn't going away by banning breeds, they'll just pick a different breed to ruin (I'm not talking about the XL specifically before some bore pipes up)
A simple questionnaire for prospective owners:
Do you or any of your children have ridiculous unpronounceable names?
Will you be taking the dog for a walk on a rope?
Will you be naming the dog something unpronounceable (or Tyson, ripper, mauler etc)?
answer yes to any of the above, no you can't have a dog, here's a hamster, try not to squash it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,490
It's also been statistically shown that the same breeds presenting so many problems also have the highest rates of abuse, mishandling and irresponsible ownership, even before XLBs surfaced...
Dismissing the root cause is precisely what led to these things being brought to the UK.
With that kind of approach, we'll be back to this very same topic in a few years.
And since 'man' is the only influential factor in the equation, why are you so concerned with policing the dogs instead?
Or other breeds with a statistical history of bad ownership... and again, the RSPCA have no say in the insurance, as it's handled by a third party insurance company.
When they're the same people who decide what laws will/won't work, or the ones refusing to euthanise an animal, the risk is their entire career... and if you want to include it, the salaries that come with it.
So yes, they're risking plenty. Only difference is it's their personal money, rather than that of some shareholder company.
Same logic as so many others in the reports that resulted in children being killed by dogs of other breeds too.
I keep telling you it's the breeders and owners that are the deciding factors, as already proven in plenty of studies that examined numerous incident circumstances. Now here you are with another classic example, just waiting to happen.
Yes, but it's not the owners, remember. It's the breed!
It's both , why is that so hard to understand?
These dogs are bred to be fighting dogs, they are agressive, reactionary, unpredictable and very powerfull.
They appeal to a certain type of dog owner, as in irresponsible/violent/stupid people.