Does something need to be done about dogs?

[sidimmu]

Earlier in the thread the solution was some hand-waving about psychological messaging to persuade people to not own them or something... it wasn't too clear as he's never willing to clarify anything despite a keenness to reply with multi quotes.

Seems like a ban, while imperfect, already solves most of the issues - owners need to get a certificate of exemption (known bad owners can't have one), male bullies need to be neutered and the public is at less of a risk if they're muzzled. I can't really see any decent argument against it as if the position is that bad owners are an issue then that is dealt with via the ban and certificates of exemption.

I unfortunately remember the early solutions in here.
Education, having higher standards, doggy training courses is what you need to tame an XL Bully. Also people that sit within their own organisations and agenda's have to be listened to, because they are the closest to the environment....
All of those things are not going to save a single human or other animal for that matter.

The ban seems appropriate, there should not be any XL Bullys in the country in 15 years, that sounds like a good solution to me.

 

[dowie]

I've seen a. Lot of xl bully videos where the dog is being aggressive to something (say a cat) but then just turns on anything else nearby.

Its like it goes into a frenzy where aything becomes a target

Yup, seems the frenzy in this case was just triggered by seeing another dog through the window.

And that's the other issue with these things, they're quite aggressive to other dogs and have killed plenty! Not to mention the vast majority of owners will have no hope of controlling them if they do choose to fight, maybe some guys can hold them back but plenty won't be able to ditto to women or children walking them.

 

[413x]

Yup, seems the frenzy in this case was just triggered by seeing another dog through the window.

And that's the other issue with these things, they're quite aggressive to other dogs and have killed plenty! Not to mention the vast majority of owners will have no hope of controlling them if they do choose to fight, maybe some guys can hold them back but plenty won't be able to ditto to women or children walking them.

There was a bully dog (not xl, it was not big) on walk today. And thing was out of control.

It was at a cafe in the wood jumping up trees and hanging on. Jumping up on tables and basically looked crazy. The owners gave no *****. They were pretty grotty looking. Had koda with us and even being small, seeing it hanging off trees legs off the ground was... Scary.
Can't imagine the fear of an xl in that state

 

[mattyfez]

Well that's the problem.. These types of dogs are bread as fighting dogs, they are reactive, and unpredictable by nature. Coupled with the fact that they are very powerful and aggressive.

If you add a stupid owner into the equation you all of a sudden have a perfect storm of carnage in the shape of dead children and dead or seriously injured adults.

It's not a difficult concept to understand.

 

[Felon]

https://www.merseyside.police.uk/news/merseyside/news/2024/february/two-arrested-after-child-bitten-by-dog-in-bootle/

Xl bully bites an 8 year old on the head.

Also what is it with Merseyside and that general area for these dogs? It feels like most of the attacks are from that region..

 

[Fubsy]

Eh, calm down lad. They look after their own. Don't need no rats round there. Snitches get stitches.

Those dogs are the Tories fault.

 

[Beans on toast Dave]

https://www.merseyside.police.uk/news/merseyside/news/2024/february/two-arrested-after-child-bitten-by-dog-in-bootle/

Xl bully bites an 8 year old on the head.

Also what is it with Merseyside and that general area for these dogs? It feels like most of the attacks are from that region..

Hate to say it. They need banning no exceptions.

 

[Mint8]

You only have to glance at a photo of the owner from the recent fatal attack to know all thats wrong with people who own these dogs.

A life centred around looking "hard" on social media, how you look to the local "community" (shudder) and no doubt a circle of equally dubious friends.

Not sure its just the dogs that should be neutered.

 

[Hagar]

Hate to say it. They need banning no exceptions.

Merseyside and Essex.

St Helens and Leigh Lancashire are two that immediately come to mind but wannabee gangsters are a common theme.

 

[Bear]

Hate to say it. They need banning no exceptions.

Scousers?

 

[Dis86]

Scousers?

That would be a cull needed.

 

[ttaskmaster]

[citation needed]

That's quite a bold claim tbh... I'll leave you to think about why.

Is it??
Aside from the already-posted stats you've ignored, I seem to recall you saying this:

Not at all, no one said other dogs don't attack the point you're oblivious to is pitbull types being disproportionately more likely to kill and seriously injure.

In XLBs, we have one sub-variant of a crossbreed of a pitbull type. It's not a separate and distinct breed, as already asserted by several others.
It's not "more likely" to kill, it just does. However, all other pitbull types remain 'more likely' to kill than just injure, whereas most other notorious breeds are unlikely to kill but still do top the tables for serious injury.

Feel free to drop a link to whatever you're going on about here... might be more constructive than sperging out yet again with the line-by-line multiquotes as I feel you're likely talking about injuries below life-threatening ones, but since you're seemingly unable to substantiate your claim we can't know.

I've already linked several studies and hospital stats, but since you didn't read them last time why should I think you're going to this time?
I see no reason to again jump through hoops that you won't even acknowlege.

Woman sentenced to 20 months for trying to cover up an XL bully attack:

******* dog genetics, eh?
This sort of thing is heritable, you know....

Its okay, if we hold then all to a "higher standard", they'll all be completely fine and have no tendencies to all of a sudden chew your child's face off.

If we hold people to a higher standard, none of these incompetent ***** would be allowed a dog in the first place, and no breeder would be allowed to bring such a poor example into the world.

Earlier in the thread the solution was some hand-waving about psychological messaging to persuade people to not own them or something... it wasn't too clear as he's never willing to clarify anything despite a keenness to reply with multi quotes.

You think because I didn't have a detailed strategy already prepared for ministerial submission that the idea behind it is somehow flawed, despite it being used very effectively in most other areas of image-based society? Or you just don't want to explore it because it doesn't fit with your 'mindlessly prohibitive' agenda?

On the other hand, since bans clearly don't work, I presume you have a financial plan for equipping the UK population with Swiss Army knives?
I assume they will be on every building and park entrance, in little glass cases that read, "Break glass only in event of XLB attack", which will presumably be enough to stop people from using them in any form of knife crime?

Seems like a ban, while imperfect, already solves most of the issues

Yes, because banning something always stops people from owning it, right........?

Oh, wait, it doesn't:

It just demonstrates incompetence from the authorities at every level, the guy was already disqualified from owning a dog for five years - and he was walking around with an XLB.

owners need to get a certificate of exemption (known bad owners can't have one), male bullies need to be neutered and the public is at less of a risk if they're muzzled. I can't really see any decent argument against it as if the position is that bad owners are an issue then that is dealt with via the ban and certificates of exemption.

How is it "dealt with" when people still illegally own American Pit Bulls, and they're still attacking?

The problem is people who are not suitable owners, having access to badly bred and badly raised examples, which are them badly trained and badly treated.

The ban seems appropriate, there should not be any XL Bullys in the country in 15 years, that sounds like a good solution to me.

By that flawed reasoning there should not have been any Pit Bulls in the UK since 2006, yet loads of new ones are added to the Exemption Register every year and these are just the thousands that are declared. A couple thousand more unregistered ones also get seized by Police responding to calls of dogs out of control, but you can bet there are plenty more they don't know about.

So with all that in evidence, what makes you think banning XLBs will somehow be any different?
Is Dowie paying you for this, perhaps?

 

[dowie]

How is it "dealt with" when people still illegally own American Pit Bulls, and they're still attacking?

The classic ttttttaskmaster reasoning again... why do we still have drunk drivers when we outlawed drunk driving, why bother with laws against burglary when burglars still exist, why outlaw murder and so on....

 

[ttaskmaster]

The classic ttttttaskmaster reasoning again... why do we still have drunk drivers when we outlawed drunk driving, why bother with laws against burglary when burglars still exist, why outlaw murder and so on....

OK, so making a law solves everything. The Police can all go home now, no need to fret and worry about having the resources to actually enforce anything. It's all 'Dealt With', courtesy of Dowie.

 

[dowie]

OK, so making a law solves everything.

Again no, you're just making the same mistake that was highlighted!

Does making a law against burglary solve burglary? Think about what you're arguing.

 

[Felon]

OK, so making a law solves everything.

I don't understand how you can't grasp this basic point.

Nobody is claiming that a law solves everything,

Having a law will reduce the size of the problem, because most (not all, I said most) people, don't want to deal with the consequences of breaking the law. (courts, fines, prison, bailiffs)

There will always be some, (I said some, which is the same as a few) who don't give a **** and will always break laws, but they'll be a minority, and so the problem is smaller than if there were no laws.

The fact that there will always be a few causing problems, is not an argument against having laws.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Again no, you're just making the same mistake that was highlighted!
Does making a law against burglary solve burglary? Think about what you're arguing.

Think about what you're saying.

All this harping on about bans, yet not once have you actually addressed the challenges of enforcing any of it, or better yet pre-emptively preventing the deaths.
Any law is toothless without enforcement, yet your undying reliance on misguided legislation is 1991 all over again.

Nobody is claiming that a law solves everything,

"if the position is that bad owners are an issue then that is dealt with via the ban and certificates of exemption."
It's done. Dealt with. Problem solved. It was the simplest solution, remember... take something that is technically already illegal and make it even moar illegaller.

My issue is that this law doesn't solve enough, if indeed it solves anything. Experts from various fields have been asserting for decades that it doesn't do ****, and so far the stats concur. Dog attacks are on the rise, from various breeds, with the XLBs being merely the extreme edge of the wider problem, which the current approach utterly ignores.

Having a law will reduce the size of the problem, because most (not all, I said most) people, don't want to deal with the consequences of breaking the law. (courts, fines, prison, bailiffs)
There will always be some, (I said some, which is the same as a few) who don't give a **** and will always break laws, but they'll be a minority, and so the problem is smaller than if there were no laws.

The flaw in your argument is that these aren't a fairly benign thing owned mostly by good law-abiding folk. These are status dogs, descended from an illegal breed (from which it is also illegal to breed, already), and the sort of people who make up their ownership are already a far larger percentage than just "a few" or "some". They certainly are not a minority, and even though you yourself pointed out that XLB owner who was already banned from owning dogs, he is not the first such example in the XLB saga.

You might impact the occasional decent law-abiding owner, but the vast majority who present the real problems already don't give a ****.

 

[dowie]

Think about what you're saying.

All this harping on about bans, yet not once have you actually addressed the challenges of enforcing any of it, or better yet pre-emptively preventing the deaths.

That's already been answered, the dogs are neutered and need to be muzzled in public. And the issue re: bad owners is addressed too, everyone is required to apply for an exemption certificate if they wish to keep their XL bully post-ban, those aren't automatically granted!

So what's your alternative plan to pre-emptively address this issue? The first-bite type approaches don't work well with XL Bullies as the first time an XL bully attacks it can still quite obviously be devastating ergo it's better they're muzzled in public to try and prevent that in the first place!

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's already been answered, the dogs are neutered and need to be muzzled in public.

Pit Bulls were also "required to be neutered", but yet again I must remind you of the thousands of new ones we keep finding...

Perhaps you should also go back and read up on how many of these attacks have happened in peoples' private homes. Muzzling orders won't work there, nor will they work in cases where the dog manages to escape!!

And again, since you didn't answer the question, I ask you - How are the Police and other agencies expected to actually enforce these laws in order to prevent attacks and deaths, rather than just taking the dogs away and slapping the owners' wrists after something has happened?

And the issue re: bad owners is addressed too, everyone is required to apply for an exemption certificate if they wish to keep their XL bully post-ban, those aren't automatically granted!

Millions of people in the UK knowingly drive without licences, MoT certificates or insurance.
MILLIONS.
Do you really think they'll give two ***** about needing another bit of ignorable paper to own a dog?

The first-bite type approaches don't work well with XL Bullies

They wouldn't work well for any breed, and there's also no such law in the UK anyway, so I don't know where you got that angle of attack from...!!
You should read more James McNally.

So what's your alternative plan to pre-emptively address this issue?

Jeesus, you really did cheap out on your seats, didn't you!

1/. Target the importation and distribution network.
We already have people and systems in place looking for various other illegal imports, and also tracing the routes both ways, to cut them off before they reach either the country or the end user. Something big and hard to hide like a dog wouldn't be too much of an additional workload.

2/. Target the breeders and suppliers.
Bit more work on this one, but since it also takes care of many other problems resulting from badly bred animals (and not just dogs), the returns would be especially worthwhile.

3/. Target the demand.
Whether you run perception-altering campaigns, or just go round seizing anything that looks even vaguely like a Pit Bull type, you still have to reduce the demand and dissuade people from wanting one of these dogs.

I'm still in favour of calling it the Paedo's Companion, personally.

 

[dowie]

Millions of people in the UK knowingly drive without licences, MoT certificates or insurance.
MILLIONS.
Do you really think they'll give two ***** about needing another bit of ignorable paper to own a dog?

Yeah, this is the same point that went over your head twice in a row just earlier today... why bother with laws for anything in that case if they're not 100% effective? Are you some full on crazy libertarian/no government type?

1/. Target the importation and distribution network.
We already have people and systems in place looking for various other illegal imports, and also tracing the routes both ways, to cut them off before they reach either the country or the end user. Something big and hard to hide like a dog wouldn't be too much of an additional workload.

2/. Target the breeders and suppliers.
Bit more work on this one, but since it also takes care of many other problems resulting from badly bred animals (and not just dogs), the returns would be especially worthwhile.

3/. Target the demand.
Whether you run perception-altering campaigns, or just go round seizing anything that looks even vaguely like a Pit Bull type, you still have to reduce the demand and dissuade people from wanting one of these dogs.

Target them how? If it's not illegal to breed XL Bullies then on what grounds are they being targeted and for what purpose?

What is the perception-altering campaign supposed to do? You want to dissuade people from owning this particular breed but you're simultaneously opposed to banning it and issuing exemption certificates? Why?