Does something need to be done about dogs?

[potatolord]

No, that's incorrect, the context here is the Dangerous Dogs Act, that's the mechanism by which a dog may be banned and XL bullies have indeed been banned:

Ban on XL Bully dogs

The rules you must follow if you own an XL Bully dog in England and Wales.

www.gov.uk

​

People are now banned from breeding them, banned from selling them or passing them on, banned from walking them in public without a muzzle etc.. That's what banning a dog breed entails.

Technically, those activities are banned.

The dogs can be kept if their owner complies with the new conditions and gets the required badge.

I shall look uo the definition of "ban" as maybe it is not what i think it is!

 

[dowie]

Technically, those activities are banned.

The dogs can be kept if their owner complies with the new conditions and gets the required badge.

I shall look uo the definition of "ban" as maybe it is not what i think it is!

There's no technicality here, they've been banned; the "required badge" is an exemption certificate - exempting the owner from the ban. No one said the existing dogs couldn't be kept if the owner complies with new conditions and is granted an exemption (not everyone will necessarily be granted an exemption from the ban either).

The ban is as defined in legislation under the Dangerous Dogs Act:

Government to ban ‘American XL Bully’

The Government has announced today that ‘American XL Bully’ dogs will be banned.

www.gov.uk

The Government has announced today that ‘American XL Bully’ dogs will be banned.
[...]

Environment Secretary Therese Coffey said:​

Dog attacks are devastating for victims and their families and it is clear that more now needs to be done to stop them and protect the public. That is why we are taking decisive action to ban the American XL Bully.

This is on top of the work the Government has been doing for some time with the police and local authorities to encourage responsible dog ownership and make sure the full force of the law is being applied.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, a definition of the ‘American XL Bully’ breed type needs to be specified – including clear assessment criteria for enforcement authorities – in order to impose a ban. The Government must then lay a Statutory Instrument to add it to the list of dogs banned under the Act. This will make it an offence to own, breed, gift or sell an XL bully. We will do this by the end of the year.

 

[Felon]

I just think that we need more enforcement across the board;

• Tighter controls on breeding dogs, tougher penalties for unlicensed breeding, etc.
• Mandatory background checks when purchasing larger breeds from breeders.
• Mandatory full health insurance for all dogs, with mandatory liability insurance for dogs over a certain weight
• Mandatory licensing, tiered by breed size and/or weight.
• Large powerful breeds - require a training certification in dog training and behaviour, to own one.

It feels like a lot of the problems we're having with these nightmare breeds and violent attacks, just resolve back to being too relaxed with the rules, for too long - now the only thing the government has in the toolbox is a ban. I do agree with the ban, but I think more will need to be done in the long term.

Maybe when we can get a government that can build a railway line longer than 100miles, for less than £99999999999Bn per mile, we might stand a chance...

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Again this is not monocausal, that the breed exists is part of the problem. You can go a step back and blame breeders for having created it if it makes you feel better but that doesn't resolve the problem, the dangerous breed still exists thus the need for a ban.

Nor did I say it was. You're right however, the lions share of the blame falls at the feet of the breeders and that's where the government should be concentrating.
All those dogs are still going to exist for the next 10-12 years, they aren't going anywhere, there just won't be anymore born after this year.
It's not going to happen though, far easier and cheaper to just ban a breed, kick the problem down the road and it'll be someone else's problem when the next breed is hitting the headlines, currently my money's on the Belgian Malinois but we'll have to see.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

I just think that we need more enforcement across the board;

• Tighter controls on breeding dogs, tougher penalties for unlicensed breeding, etc.
• Mandatory background checks when purchasing larger breeds from breeders.
• Mandatory full health insurance for all dogs, with mandatory liability insurance for dogs over a certain weight
• Mandatory licensing, tiered by breed size and/or weight.
• Large powerful breeds - require a training certification in dog training and behaviour, to own one.

It feels like a lot of the problems we're having with these nightmare breeds and violent attacks, just resolve back to being too relaxed with the rules, for too long - now the only thing the government has in the toolbox is a ban. I do agree with the ban, but I think more will need to be done in the long term.

Maybe when we can get a government that can build a railway line longer than 100miles, for less than £99999999999Bn per mile, we might stand a chance...

Pretty much yes, proper regulation for breeders and owners. Banning the breed is shutting the stable door after the fact, the last recourse of dimwits. They've had pretty much no choice to ban XLs as they've allowed it to get out of hand, they're a weak ineffectual government pretty much across the board

The dogs themselves are as innocent as their victims. They're just dogs, they get no choice in who breeds them, owns them, how they're treated, exercised etc

 

[dowie]

Pretty much yes, proper regulation for breeders and owners. Banning the breed is shutting the stable door after the fact, the last recourse of dimwits. They've had pretty much no choice to ban XLs as they've allowed it to get out of hand, they're a weak ineffectual government pretty much across the board

The dogs themselves are as innocent as their victims. They're just dogs, they get no choice in who breeds them, owns them, how they're treated, exercised etc

Any action taken now is shutting the stable door after the fact.

The ban does tackle both breeders and owners, breeding these dogs is now illegal as is selling them on and owners need to apply to be permitted to keep them/get granted an exemption certificate and will need to neuter them and muzzle them in public.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Any action taken now is shutting the stable door after the fact.

The ban does tackle both breeders and owners, breeding these dogs is now illegal as is selling them on and owners need to apply to be permitted to keep them/get granted an exemption certificate and will need to neuter them and muzzle them in public.

Yes, obviously, which is why I said they had no other choice at this point, which is what happens if controls aren't in place, if they are then nothing needs banning as a last resort.

The ban tackles the issue (slowly) with this breed alone, breeders and owners are free to carry on as they were with a different breed, that's solving nothing, purely shifting the problem down the road.

 

[dowie]

Yes, obviously, which is why I said they had no other choice at this point, which is what happens if controls aren't in place, if they are then nothing needs being as a last resort.

The ban tackles the issue (slowly) with this breed alone, breeders and owners are free to carry on as they were with a different breed, that's solving nothing, purely shifting the problem down the road.

The fact that this dog breed even exists is an issue, we don't have control over what happens in the USA or other countries, the DDA is the appropriate piece of legislation to deal with problem breeds.

That you may want some additional controls for breeders or owners (which you've not specified) is tangential to this and doesn't negate the issue of this breed existing in the first place.

 

[Felon]

The ban tackles the issue (slowly) with this breed alone, breeders and owners are free to carry on as they were with a different breed, that's solving nothing, Kelly shifting the problem down the road.

Not sure I agree with that.

If you look at the evidence, this particular breed (XLbully) has been responsible for most deaths, therefore the number of fatal, or serious dog attacks is a function of the number of XLbullys - the more XLbully, the more attacks - that's what the evidence shows.

If the breeds implicated in the attacks were random, as in - you'd be just as likely to be mauled to death by a great dane, than you were an XLb - then banning XLbs wouldn't make sense, but that isn't the case.

I think that these dogs, are more likely to attack people - based on the nature of the dog, the owner will play a part in that - but it's all about probabilities and risk, and with these dogs - the probability of them attacking, makes them higher risk than other dogs.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Not sure I agree with that.

If you look at the evidence, this particular breed (XLbully) has been responsible for most deaths, therefore the number of fatal, or serious dog attacks is a function of the number of XLbullys - the more XLbully, the more attacks - that's what the evidence shows.

If the breeds implicated in the attacks were random, as in - you'd be just as likely to be mauled to death by a great dane, than you were an XLb - then banning XLbs wouldn't make sense, but that isn't the case.

I think that these dogs, are more likely to attack people - based on the nature of the dog, the owner will play a part in that - but it's all about probabilities and risk, and with these dogs - the probability of them attacking, makes them higher risk than other dogs.

and is that not because the XL is the current breed of choice?

As I've already said (twice now) the government have no choice but to ban them, when dog attacks are making the front pages every week and the majority from a single breed then there's no other option, it does however give the local MP a chance to get on live TV whilst looking ashen faced and shout about how something must be done.

If controls were put in place on imports and breeding (this should have been put in place back when pit pitbulls were banned, decades ago) then XL's would have never existed in the UK to require banning, and several people wouldn't have been eaten.

It's always easier to sort the cause of an issue than clean up the aftermath, in this example we'be done it the hard way, again, because nothing was learned last time. I doubt anything will be learned this time either, so it'll happen again at some point with a different breed.

 

[dowie]

If controls were put in place on imports and breeding (this should have been put in place back when pit pitbulls were banned, decades ago) then XL's would have never existed in the UK to require banning, and several people wouldn't have been eaten.

Controls were put in place, AFAIK these were covered under the DDA at pitbulls but some breeder managed to argue that they were separate to pitbulls. Now the DDA is updated and they're banned... i.e. we have controls in place for this breed.

If you think that something else also needs to be done re: breeders or licensing then I don't necessarily disagree but you're not being very forthcoming re: what exactly and that all seems rather tangential to the need to ban this particular breed anyway as they'd still exist in the USA etc.. and in order to stop their import you'd still need them to be banned via the DDA.

 

[Johno please?]

I just think that we need more enforcement across the board;

• Tighter controls on breeding dogs, tougher penalties for unlicensed breeding, etc.
• Mandatory background checks when purchasing larger breeds from breeders.
• Mandatory full health insurance for all dogs, with mandatory liability insurance for dogs over a certain weight
• Mandatory licensing, tiered by breed size and/or weight.
• Large powerful breeds - require a training certification in dog training and behaviour, to own one.

It feels like a lot of the problems we're having with these nightmare breeds and violent attacks, just resolve back to being too relaxed with the rules, for too long - now the only thing the government has in the toolbox is a ban. I do agree with the ban, but I think more will need to be done in the long term.

Maybe when we can get a government that can build a railway line longer than 100miles, for less than £99999999999Bn per mile, we might stand a chance...

Theres something disgusting about making money from breeding animals, especially while the shelters are full, probably even more so now thanks to this knee jerk reaction.

Human selfishness and its the dogs that suffer.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Controls were put in place, AFAIK these were covered under the DDA at pitbulls but some breeder managed to argue that they were separate to pitbulls. Now the DDA is updated and they're banned... i.e. we have controls in place for this breed.

If you think that something else also needs to be done re: breeders or licensing then I don't necessarily disagree but you're not being very forthcoming re: what exactly and that all seems rather tangential to the need to ban this particular breed anyway as they'd still exist in the USA etc.. and in order to stop their import you'd still need them to be banned via the DDA.

I think they might need revisiting then, repeatedly banning the breeds after the **** has hit the fan doesn't seem to be working all that well. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Not really sure it's down to me to rewrite the legislation, I design and build electronic systems for the oil and gas industry and when I'm not doing that I **** around on motorbikes, and when I'm not doing that I kill time in different corners of the internet.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Again this is not monocausal, that the breed exists is part of the problem. You can go a step back and blame breeders for having created it if it makes you feel better but that doesn't resolve the problem, the dangerous breed still exists thus the need for a ban.

The existence is merely a contributory factor, but alone it has no impact.
What people have done to certain bloodlines, and how incompetent they have handled the dogs is the problem.

Same silly argument you made before - speed limits don't stop all drivers from speeding, laws against theft doesn't stop all theft... More confusion on your part re: uncertainty.

You're right, they don't stop it.
This is why we have measures like speed cameras, traffic calming, speed-limited vehicles, anti-theft devices, etc. Proactive measures to help prevent the crimes.

Drug laws alone don't stop people from importing, selling/buying and abusing them either.
This is why we have proactive actions to prevent these things, rather than just relying on laws that only come into effect after something bad has happened.

Only in the same sense that there's nothing to stop you from stealing a car.... Sure there are locks, alarms etc.. but if you really really wanted to you probably could.

Ah, well that's OK, then, yeah?
The XLB market can happily carry on as before, if they really really want, and risk perhaps getting found out.... Good thing I have a Swiss Army knife, eh!!

Again your argument is fundamentally flawed - the flaw was already pointed out to you, you're basically arguing that enforcement won't be 100% effective but it's still better than nothing FFS!

No, I'm saying it won't be effective enough. Don't exaggerate.
I'm also saying it won't be heeded by any of the already careless people whose actions resulted in these incidents and these problem dogs. You're targeting the wrong groups with the wrong measures.

post-ban they need to be muzzled and neutered and can't legally be sold. Someone with an unneutered adult XL Bully can have the police called.

Pit Bulls cannot legally be owned, bred, abandoned, imported, given or sold, yet every year several thousand new ones get added to the list of Exempted Dogs.
That means these, and presumably thousands more undocumented ones, are being illegally imported, bred and sold/given, and most definitely owned.

A few would be "not 100% effective"... several thousand is an utter failure!

That you may want some additional controls for breeders or owners (which you've not specified) is tangential to this and doesn't negate the issue of this breed existing in the first place.

All manner of things exist all over our world, that have the potential to be dangerous if improperly treated.
We don't go banning them all from existence, because that would be stupid. Instead, various controls are in place to help prevent stupid people from doing stupid things with them, with the law as a final resort if someone actually does do something stupid.

 

[dowie]

I think they might need revisiting then, repeatedly banning the breeds after the **** has hit the fan doesn't seem to be working all that well. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

You're just replying with little sayings here, and you've got things backward *not* banning this breed earlier is what has gotten us into the position we are in today!

Not really sure it's down to me to rewrite the legislation, I design and build electronic systems for the oil and gas industry and when I'm not doing that I **** around on motorbikes, and when I'm not doing that I kill time in different corners of the internet.

No one said it was, you made some vague replies alluding to regulations you'd like to see ergo why not be clearer about what specifically you're referring to?

 

[dowie]

The existence is merely a contributory factor, but alone it has no impact.

False - the obvious spike in deaths and injuries says otherwise, thus why it's now banned.

Drug laws alone don't stop people from importing, selling/buying and abusing them either.
This is why we have proactive actions to prevent these things, rather than just relying on laws that only come into effect after something bad has happened.

This is a really unclear point - recreational drugs weren't always banned, they've been banned after they've been observed to have negative issues for society. i.e. after bad things happened.

By banning these dogs the police can be proactive i.e. they don't necessarily need to wait until an XL bully has attacked someone in order to take action, if some irresponsible owner hasn't neutered them or isn't using a muzzle in public then they're in breach of the law. And indeed they can be refused permission for a certificate of exemption in order to own any more XL bullies.

 

[ttaskmaster]

False - the obvious spike in deaths and injuries says otherwise, thus why it's now banned.

Flawed argument. These dogs have existed since the 1990s.
If their existence were the problem, we'd have already seen deaths and injuries of this magnitude decades ago.
The spike is due to recent widespread acquisition among the status dog crowd, from questionable bloodlines, during the Covid-era and maintained by the profitability of the breed sub-variant.

This is a really unclear point - recreational drugs weren't always banned, they've been banned after they've been observed to have negative issues for society. i.e. after bad things happened.

It's a very clear point - We don't rely on those laws to prevent people from making or buying them, because they have no effect until after someone has procured them.
We use proactive preventative measures.

By banning these dogs the police can be proactive i.e. they don't necessarily need to wait until an XL bully has attacked someone in order to take action

They never did need to wait. There are plenty of laws already in place that give them powers to act. This was pointed out by the various Police and legal experts in the links you never read.

And indeed they can be refused permission for a certificate of exemption in order to own any more XL bullies.

So?
Most of the targets are people who already don't give a toss about the law. The same sorts of people who have been illegally breeding and selling Pit Bulls for the past 30-odd years.

 

[dowie]

Flawed argument. These dogs have existed since the 1990s.
If their existence were the problem, we'd have already seen deaths and injuries of this magnitude decades ago.
The spike is due to recent widespread acquisition among the status dog crowd, from questionable bloodlines, during the Covid-era and maintained by the profitability of the breed sub-variant.

BS Maybe in the US but they weren't common here at all until recently.

It's a very clear point - We don't rely on those laws to prevent people from making or buying them, because they have no effect until after someone has procured them.
We use proactive preventative measures.

Still unclear - what are you specifically talking about there re: preventative measures?

Also the fact that drugs are illegal means they can be intercepted when imported into the coutry, drug dealers arrested etc.. it's such an absurd argument to make ttaskmaster - are you back to your handwaving stuff about how we shouldn't bother with laws and should persuade people via mass psychological messaging?

They never did need to wait. There are plenty of laws already in place that give them powers to act. This was pointed out by the various Police and legal experts in the links you never read.

False - if you disagree then a citation is needed "if some irresponsible owner hasn't neutered them or isn't using a muzzle in public then they're in breach of the law." What law would allow them to take action there without the ban?

So?
Most of the targets are people who already don't give a toss about the law.

So... enforcement action can be taken against them.

 

[VincentHanna]

Flawed argument. These dogs have existed since the 1990s.
If their existence were the problem, we'd have already seen deaths and injuries of this magnitude decades ago.
The spike is due to recent widespread acquisition among the status dog crowd, from questionable bloodlines, during the Covid-era and maintained by the profitability of the breed sub-variant.

100% agreed.

If Labradors suddenly became status dogs with the wrong owners, they could be just as vicious.

 

[ttaskmaster]

BS Maybe in the US but they weren't common here at all until recently.

If they were that much of a problem, we'd have heard about it in the US.
As is, they've been here for about a decade, but only recently seen a rise in popularity as irresponsibly bred/owned status dogs during Covid, which coincides precisely with the spike in incidents.

Still unclear - what are you specifically talking about there re: preventative measures?

Already explained in previous posts, and even covered in your own responses. You're being deliberately obtuse, now.

Also the fact that drugs are illegal means they can be intercepted when imported into the coutry, drug dealers arrested etc..

So you're saying you don't just rely on the law itself to be preventative... You take proactive measures...

it's such an absurd argument to make ttaskmaster - are you back to your handwaving stuff about how we shouldn't bother with laws and should persuade people via mass psychological messaging?

No, I'm just sharpening up my Swiss Army knives in readiness...
I'm also pointing out that we take proactive preventative measures with other things, so why not do the same with dogs rather than just thinking making something illegal will somehow magically stop criminals in their tracks?

False - if you disagree then a citation is needed "if some irresponsible owner hasn't neutered them or isn't using a muzzle in public then they're in breach of the law." What law would allow them to take action there without the ban?

Why do you assume they need to be neutered and muzzled?
If the owner is irresponsible or negligent, or if a breeder is not breeding responsibly/ethically, that's primarily covered under Animal Welfare. Generally those already banned from owning dogs have been prosecuted under those laws, although plenty of others can be applied as well. This is one reason why experts argued that the DDA is outdated and irrelevant, or that it was never fit for purpose in the first place.

Ergo, the Police never needed the DDA in order to act. They just didn't, because they had more pressing matters.

So... enforcement action can be taken against them.

Like what?
Banning them from owning dogs? Like that worked...
Again, you're relying on dealing with symptoms after someone has done something, rather than preventing them from doing it.