Does something need to be done about dogs?

Parsley said:
I don't feel comfortable with any dog (over a certain size, it's not like something small can't be swatted away) that has a certain intensity or demeanour to its body language. Comfortable is the wrong word perhaps, but I'm wary of anything that is too forward or over bearing in its behaviour. Most of the time you can tell if a dog is just being overly friendly/playful as compared to potentially a defensive / aggressive state of mind. Some dogs do just sort of... snap though, usually out of some sort of fear response (mistreated by a crap owner at some point in its life).

Even something quite a bit smaller than an XL Bully can potentially drag a fully grown man around if it wants to and a harness as opposed to a collar or a halter can let them use their full body weight. Even a 12-13kg dog can be a proper nuisance, especially if it gets a run up on a longer lead. I still don't think XL Bullies, in general, are the problem. It's some of the owners, but at the same time I do think they're an entirely unnecessary breed created by morons. Our fault, not the breeds.
Click to expand...

Yeah there are some dogs I am wary over, especially if I'm walking my dog.

If they look strong or aggressive I'd cross the road (as an example)

I know could save him from a Jack Russell.
But anything beefy you just don't know because, you can't. It's a strangers dog.
 
413x said:
Yeah there are some dogs I am wary over, especially if I'm walking my dog.

If they look strong or aggressive I'd cross the road (as an example)

I know could save him from a Jack Russell.
But anything beefy you just don't know because, you can't. It's a strangers dog.
Click to expand...

I dunno, of all the small dogs you could pick Jacks have the potential to be the biggest nuisance going :cry:. Cross one of those with an XL bully and you'd have the potential for a medium sized demon.

Never trust someone to restrain their own dog if a fight starts. In my handful of experiences they often just stand there and yell or blame anyone but themselves. I'd hate to experience it with something really dangerous, I have with a Collie, a German Sheperd and a Husky, but they last two are at the limit of being able pull off and haul away reliably if needed, I think, they also don't lock their jaws. The worse I've ever come across was an American Bulldog that was walking(dragging) the young woman that was with it, but fortunately that one was muzzled, if it wasn't I don't care to imagine what could have happened. I also don't want to tempt fate with anything worse.
 
sidimmu said:
So each of them took 2 shots from a shotgun with presumably birdshot at I would presume semi close range?
Jesus.
Click to expand...
You ASSume quite a lot there... almost everything, in fact:

- That both shots were at an effective range with an unobscured target.
- That the shotgun had a sufficiently tight choke for the range.
- That both shots were well-aimed.
- That both shots hit with maximum effect.
- That the shells were loaded with birdshot.
- That birdshot is actually going to be effective against anything larger than a small bird.
- That the shotgun was of large calibre, thus insinuating each dog took two full-on effective rounds from high capacity birdshot, delivering somehow effective kill-shots that would drop any other

If the chap is loaded with birdshot, it will likely have a wide spread, be of smaller calibre, hit with comparatively little impact and even if all other factors are optimal, it will likely do comparatively very little damage to the body structure of something the size of a human, deer or a dog. This is precisely why birdshot, even the heavier loads, is generally not approved for game hunting or self defence scenarios - Paul Harrell has some excellent videos exploring the pros and cons of birdshot against larger targets, with the biggest pro being the relative minimal (often non-lethal) damage birdshot does to intended targets, accidental targets and their surrounding environments.

Dick Cheney famously shot one of his hunting buddies from just 30 yards away with birdshot. The buddy took multiple hits (totalling 30 pellets) to the face, neck and chest, but survived and was discharged from hospital within a week.
If a 78-year-old human can survive such a direct hit, why not an animal with similar muscle mass and body density?

I do wonder why the farmers were playing dramatic music while taking out the dogs, though...!! :D
 
ttaskmaster said:
You ASSume quite a lot there... almost everything, in fact:

- That both shots were at an effective range with an unobscured target.
- That the shotgun had a sufficiently tight choke for the range.
- That both shots were well-aimed.
- That both shots hit with maximum effect.
- That the shells were loaded with birdshot.
- That birdshot is actually going to be effective against anything larger than a small bird.
- That the shotgun was of large calibre, thus insinuating each dog took two full-on effective rounds from high capacity birdshot, delivering somehow effective kill-shots that would drop any other

If the chap is loaded with birdshot, it will likely have a wide spread, be of smaller calibre, hit with comparatively little impact and even if all other factors are optimal, it will likely do comparatively very little damage to the body structure of something the size of a human, deer or a dog. This is precisely why birdshot, even the heavier loads, is generally not approved for game hunting or self defence scenarios - Paul Harrell has some excellent videos exploring the pros and cons of birdshot against larger targets, with the biggest pro being the relative minimal (often non-lethal) damage birdshot does to intended targets, accidental targets and their surrounding environments.

Dick Cheney famously shot one of his hunting buddies from just 30 yards away with birdshot. The buddy took multiple hits (totalling 30 pellets) to the face, neck and chest, but survived and was discharged from hospital within a week.
If a 78-year-old human can survive such a direct hit, why not an animal with similar muscle mass and body density?

I do wonder why the farmers were playing dramatic music while taking out the dogs, though...!! :D
Click to expand...
Least I'll never as big as one like you.

Assume is what people do when clear facts are not established, duhhhh. Its also the reason I used the word Presume.

I cba with how much you have to reach to try to get a point over me. The dogs took 2 shotgun cartridges each, in a closed environment, all within 30 feet. But yet you'll still be here to defend them today, tomorrow, next week, next month.
Its a shame as you clearly need to learn how dangerous these dogs actually are, but I would not want to wish harm on to others.
 
sidimmu said:
Its a shame as you clearly need to learn how dangerous these dogs actually are, but I would not want to wish harm on to others.
Click to expand...
(Not deliberately following you over from motors :p).

I'd say potential to be dangerous, some of them really are soft lovely dogs. But I am being pedantic, the breed is unnecessary and capable of doing so much damage that having one is tempting fate for no reason. Just get any other big dog with less potential to do so much damage. As I've said before, we don't need something like that to defend the family home or livestock from predators anymore in the UK, let alone a genetically manipulated brick outhouse.
 
Last edited:
Parsley said:
(Not deliberately following you over from motors :p).
Click to expand...
I hope not, unless you want to be known as Task Junior? :D

Parsley said:
I'd say potential to be dangerous, some of them really are soft lovely dogs. But I am being pedantic, the breed is unnecessary and capable of doing so much damage that having one is tempting fate for no reason. Just get any other big dog with less potential to do so much damage. As I've said before, we don't need something like that to defend the family home or livestock from predators anymore in the UK, let alone a genetically manipulated brick outhouse.
Click to expand...
100% agree.
Others in here do not though.
 
sidimmu said:
Least I'll never as big as one like you.
Click to expand...
As big as me, what? That makes no sense. Please try again...

sidimmu said:
Assume is what people do when clear facts are not established, duhhhh. Its also the reason I used the word Presume.
Click to expand...
ASSumption is taking or asserting something as truth with no certainty or basis of proof at all.
PREsumption is an educated guess supported by reasonable certainty based on reasonable proof or probability. As briefly illustrated, with no actual evidence in either the video or article and in considerable opposition to the probabilities, you have ASSumed a great many factors have come together in optimum alignment to fit your own narrative.

This is why I highlighted the distinction between your claimed PREsumption and your actual ASSumption.

sidimmu said:
I cba with how much you have to reach to try to get a point over me.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's no reach - The first sentence you wrote had four direct flawed assumptions alone, while each had multiple others by associative factors.
The second, single-word sentence was merely an exclamation of further assumptions.
I don't have to reach - You're handing it to me on a plate.

It appears you also "CBA" to consider all the factors you have disregarded in order to reach your flawed perspective, either...

sidimmu said:
The dogs took 2 shotgun cartridges each, in a closed environment, all within 30 feet.
Click to expand...
And you saw all of this where, exactly?
You saw each shot, you saw what load the cartridges had and what calibre they were, you counted the pellet impacts per shot on each dog, you measured the distance to target, and all that?

You have absolute zero evidence for any of your ASSumptions, and only a well-grounded PREsumption (see above definition) that it was a shotgun being used.

sidimmu said:
But yet you'll still be here to defend them today, tomorrow, next week, next month.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending these dogs, though. That's another of your assumptions - They were both presenting a threat and causing serious damage to the farmers' livestock and were legally shot dead.
Most sensible dog owners already know this is a risk around livestock and take care to ensure their dog doesn't do anything that might end up getting them shot.

sidimmu said:
Its a shame as you clearly need to learn how dangerous these dogs actually are, but I would not want to wish harm on to others.
Click to expand...
I know how dangerous they have the potential to be, along with a good appreciation of how potentially dangerous other dogs can be as well.
But more importantly, I have a strong understanding of the external factors that disproportionately increase the risks of that potential being realised.

And I am tenuously grateful that your passive-aggressive wish for me to come to harm is tempered only by your own ideal self-image, but I really don't need either, given that I spent the time to consider the factors already learned long ago from others' misfortune.
 
@ttaskmaster
Why not try to do something with your day rather than break down a random on the internets sentence.

Its amazing I give you that much stress and the need to get back at me, but I dont think its healthy for you.

Edit: Took all the middle stuff out as I really cannot be bothered with your need to put yourself above and beyond others, its disgusting and shows more about your character than mine.

ttaskmaster said:
I have a strong understanding of the external factors that disproportionately increase the risks of that potential being realised.
Click to expand...
Nope, you have a bias for not wishing to ban dangerous items. You have shown zero level of understanding outside of that some people in the country are not nice people to be around.


ttaskmaster said:
And I am tenuously grateful that your passive-aggressive wish for me to come to harm is tempered only by your own ideal self-image
Click to expand...
Except I didnt.
I said I do not wish for anyone to come to harm, including yourself. Some of us wont learn without harm, but again I do not wish for anyone to come to harm.
 
Last edited:
sidimmu said:
Why not try to do something with your day rather than break down a random on the internets sentence.
Click to expand...
Oh, I am - I do this during downtime moments at work, while waiting on other people.
I only get to type so much, because there's so much wrong in just one single sentence of yours.

sidimmu said:
Its amazing I give you that much stress and the need to get back at me, but I dont think its healthy for you.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your faux concern, but there's no stress. Just the opposite actually, and I find it highly amusing.

sidimmu said:
Edit: Took all the middle stuff out as I really cannot be bothered with your need to put yourself above and beyond others, its disgusting and shows more about your character than mine.
Click to expand...
I'm not putting myself above anyone. If anything, I'm helping others up to the same standards as the rest of us... although I don't consider myself to be that benevolent.
But this hearkens back to earlier conversations in the thread about me holding some dog owners to higher standards of responsibility than they currently exhibit, which is very much in line with what the majority opinion is, yet when I do it you somehow think it's me putting myself above everyone....

sidimmu said:
Nope, you have a bias for not wishing to ban dangerous items.
Click to expand...
Which just shows you didn't read what I wrote.
We shouldn't have to ban things. People should take responsibility, and be allowed/empowered to take responsibility, for the world around them. It's generally worked in the past, and the more we restrict people, the less responsibly they behave.

If it were simply a matter of banning things, there are entire profiles of humans that statistically commit the most crimes, which would have been banned by now.

sidimmu said:
You have shown zero level of understanding outside of that some people in the country are not nice people to be around.
Click to expand...
And yet it seems generally agreed that they are the biggest driving factor in these dogs becoming dangerous.... funny that.

sidimmu said:
Except I didnt.
I said I do not wish for anyone to come to harm, including yourself. Some of us wont learn without harm, but again I do not wish for anyone to come to harm.
Click to expand...
No no, you were quite clear that harm is what you think I need, which you only do not wish because it would reflect badly upon yourself. Beyond that driving sense of self, there is no such care expressed.
And again, as mentioned, I am quite content learning from the mistakes of others. Might be why none of my dogs have ever attacked anyone...
 
ttaskmaster said:
I'm not putting myself above anyone.
Click to expand...
ttaskmaster said:
there are entire profiles of humans that statistically commit the most crimes, which would have been banned by now.
Click to expand...
...

ttaskmaster said:
People should take responsibility, and be allowed/empowered to take responsibility,
Click to expand...
Been through this time and time again, fancy coming up with a new argument yet as we have proven time and time again, that allowing people to be empowered to be responsible is beyond stupid.

ttaskmaster said:
yet when I do it you somehow think it's me putting myself above everyone....
Click to expand...
It is more you cannot seem to accept your suggestions are not attainable, sustainable or even sensible for a country the size of the UK, the resource restrictions and more.
But you keep bleating the drum that if we all followed how you raise your dogs, a XL bully can lick peanut butter off my privates.
 
Pretty sure I met one of these this evening they are big dogs aren't they. Normally if a dog is being walked by owner they move out of the way or have some kind of reaction to passerby's this had none it was built like a brick outhouse and just about as impassive which was unnerving. Teh guy wasn't taking the dog for a walk the dog was taking him for a walk it was almost as if the guy holding the lead didn't matter he was going where he wanted and that was that. It was on a lead and it was muzzled so I suppose he was being responsible but yeah, interesting.

sidimmu said:
Its a shame as you clearly need to learn how dangerous these dogs actually are, but I would not want to wish harm on to others.
Click to expand...
Oh he knows he's got a dangerous dog himself its bit the postman he's admitted it on a previous occasion before alll XL bully stuff kicked off. He's just in total denial about the whole thing.
.
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
If only they had been hugged more as puppies this wouldn't have happened!
Click to expand...

From the article, it looks like the person that was killed by the XL Bullies was the owner? I do wonder how badly they would need to be treated to want to kill their owner
 
Bear said:
From the article, it looks like the person that was killed by the XL Bullies was the owner? I do wonder how badly they would need to be treated to want to kill their owner
Click to expand...

Could be any trigger. Dogs can be startled and revert to instinct by anything at any time. Some only train the outward, superficial behaviour, if there is any hint of nervousness they can quickly abandon all they have been taught by their owner and just go into fight/flight survival mode.

When that happens with an XL Bully, well, good luck. No matter how much they love you, when that killer instinct kicks in you are ****ed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom