Does something need to be done about dogs?

[bloodiedathame]

Life is full of "shouldn'ts".

 

[wingman]

Life is full of "shouldn'ts".

You shouldn't have said that.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Considering there are half a million labradors in the UK, (plenty owned by **** heads) and there has never been a single death attributed to one.
With that in consideration - how are you arguing that 'breed is not a factor', when comparing against an XLB - which is responsible for half of all fatal dog attacks on it's own?

In the UK Labradors have one of the higher bite rates which, given the supposed breed temperament and their reputation, would statistically make them an 'outlier'. The difference in kill stats is the same as with other dogs versus those that are more likely to kill than injure.

Most banned dog breeds by countries updated 2024 XL Bully UK

List of most banned dog breeds by countries: some of the breeds are now considered to be dangerous, and in most countries these dogs are banned or have imposed certain restrictions for keeping them

petolog.com

One country has banned/restricted Labradors. ONE.

Might wanna look up the difference between 'has' and 'had'.
One country still HAS the ban in place, several others have restrictions. Several other HAD previously banned them along with GSDs, Rotts, and the other usual types.

Why have you got to turn every reply in to 6 different posts to respond to, do you have nothing better to do? Got to get every last word in?

You reply to me, I'll reply to you. It's good manners. I also tend to keep everything in the one post, so I don't know where you're getting 6 from...

Are you sane? Numerous dogs/breeds go to dog training and guess what, none of them come out in the same way.

Guess what - Those that pass the examinations (generally about 80-90% first time pass rate) get paperwork to certify that they did indeed come out meeting the same behavioural standard that all dogs have to.
So yes, they generally do come out the same way. That is the whole point and purpose of training......!!

You talk like one of these older ladies who have got a border collie who can do no wrong and yo take them to a class every week for them to roll over and obey you.

You talk like one of those kids who knows nothing and just parrots what their mate in the year above told them.

Not all dogs are like that, or are you too thick to realise that?

Show me one dog that won't react negatively to being badly treated....

That goes against what you have said numerous times in this thread of these dogs being available for many many years already.

They have been available for many years.
They have only surfaced in the kill stats since 2021 and weren't even a thing when this thread started - However, the rate of dog attacks had already been increasing for several years. One of the incidents that triggered this very thread was a Husky kill.

Try again, there is a clear dominating breed of dog in fatal attacks since this thread started, prove me wrong.

The underlying problems, already covered in Page 1, have been around long before the American Bully was even available.
Lockdown exacerbated the issue and led to the wider adoption of XLBs.
This has already been covered. Why am I still having to remind you?

A supposedly wise boy once said, "Sorry for working and having better things to do than argue with people who refuse to ensure humans take responsibility for their actions and owned items/animals actions."

Blimey... it's almost as if these incidents are defined by the irresponsibility of owners... and yet me actually doing what you complained isn't being done, sudenly turns to me being better than others.
Funny how your tune changed after dipping your fingers in the Dowie hole...

Ironic considering the only blinkered person in here who wont change their view, is you.

Until the findings of industry professionals change, why would I kow-tow to the mere opinions of tabloid-fuelled online randoms?

Anyway, no they do not, funny enough the regular person dont care if you've pulled a dogs tail too hard and its given you a little nip.
The fact is you are trying to compare a minor injury or nip to the murder of a human by a dog is beyond ridiculous and shows your level of stupidity.

The fact that you think a hospital admission is a minor injury is beyond ridiculous and shows yoru level of stupidity.
That the mode of failure is STILL the same, regardless of consequences, does not change the facts regardless of your ignorance. The ONLY reason to ignore this basic fundamental element is to fit an agenda.

Funny enough, those are the ones that matters the most to the UK and government, the ones who set the rules.

What, the same rules that totally ignored the already-illegal breeding of American Bullys?
The only thing that matters to the government is votes. They will "care" about whatever floats your boat at the time.

Negligence once the dog goes on a murder spree. This happens to dog of different breed every day, funny enough 99% of all other dog breeds dont go out to seriously injure or kill other animals or humans.

Negligence that would not have allowed the incident to occur, had the owner been responsible.
And if you think other dogs don't go out to kill other animals, you've clearly never seen a dog around a squirrel, rabbit or bird. Maybe you don't have trees or parks near where you live, or have never seen greyhounds racing to catch a fake rabbit... If you can't go outside, perhaps YouTube?

The problem is that he's so entrenched in this single monocausal issue, that he can't see anything else, and won't try to understand how things such as breed type, size, genetics - all have an influence on risk, and ultimately the probability that one type of dog will be more dangerous than another, and some are very dangerous.

As I have said, those are factors once an incident occurs, but the risk in this case is not breed specific, as evidenced by those dogs that have the potential for even greater damage than XLBs, yet hardly ever feature in the stats.
The one element that entirely governs the risk of an incident is the owner. In that, the 'breed' is a factor ONLY in that certain owners highly prone to negligence tend to gravitate toward certain types of individual dog from within certain breeds.... but again, the mode of failure is the same, which is what led to the earlier ban of certain breeds, and the near-banning of several others.

It's no different to shepherds favouring certain lineages of a certain breed, leading to a majority presumtion that those selected are typical of the wider breed. This again is a misperception, which has been challenged for decades by industry professionals.

The problem of risk is not the XLB, or the American Bully itself, but in the type of people who want it.

For me it's what it boils down to - basic risk, some things are just too dangerous, often due to lots of complicating factors - not a single problem that can easily be identified be fixed (for instance fixing all idiots, is impossible), so it's simpler to ban.

It may seem simpler, but it does not fix anything, as evidenced by how many sought XLBs in order to circumvent the previous 'fix'.
Fixing idiots is better addressed by focussing on them, because they can take any breed and **** it up to the point of creating monsters.

What's the saying about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

The owner went on holiday and a family moved in temporarily to look after it, the family left their daughter in a bedroom upstairs, and she was dragged out on to the balcony by both Rotweilers, if I remember right the door should have been locked but was left open by someone. She died later in hospital.

Sad to hear, of course, but in almost every incident like this you will find a predictable and preventable human failing.

 

[sidimmu]

One country still HAS the ban in place, several others have restrictions. Several other HAD previously banned them along with GSDs, Rotts, and the other usual types.

You said this Labs are banned, I show you proof of an active ban in one country. Now you go back to bringing other breeds into it.
Fancy actually arguing your point? Or just going to keep throwing out random nonsense and then backtracking and changing your view when provided with evidence.

You reply to me, I'll reply to you. It's good manners. I also tend to keep everything in the one post, so I don't know where you're getting 6 from...

So you dont have common sense, good to know.
You turned 3 replies in to 6 replies, now have turned that into more.
Why? Trying to be Russell Brand by overloading with information, replies and nonsense?

get paperwork to certify that they did indeed come out meeting the same behavioural standard that all dogs have to.

What self certified nonsense certificates are you on about buddy?
Unless you want to give specific courses, any old dog training course round the corner are about as verified/accredited as Oceangate.
Also, they do not come out the same way, any dog like any human can pass a test if its been blasted in to your dome for the past 4 weeks.

Show me one dog that won't react negatively to being badly treated....

I can show you plenty but not allowed to link in this forum.
How many dogs have you seen the owners hit them and the dog continues to walk with them, obey them etc etc.
I tell you right now, there is more of a majority of dogs who will follow their owner after being hit, than there are dog who are going to go on a murder spree.

However, the rate of dog attacks had already been increasing for several years.

Yes I agree with you, but you wont agree with the stats to show its been increasing at an alarming rate due to one breed.

Blimey... it's almost as if these incidents are defined by the irresponsibility of owners... and yet me actually doing what you complained isn't being done, sudenly turns to me being better than others.

Mate, sit down and read the sodding responses. No one has said saying humans are not a problem and you are taking this so to heart, its quite sweet. Your responses and requirements for owners and dogs do give off the impression that you believe you are better than others.
It is you who is constantly arguing about the dangers of this particular breed and giving pathetic false statements back like "you are more likely to be attacked by a sausage dog".
But again, you have also given us clear identifies of your lack of respect and understanding for certain humans and as a result want to push draconian rules on to subsets of people. But wont push rules on to a breed of animal directly responsible for numerous attacks and deaths.

Until the findings of industry professionals change, why would I kow-tow to the mere opinions of tabloid-fuelled online randoms?

Alright flat earther.

That the mode of failure is STILL the same, regardless of consequences, does not change the facts regardless of your ignorance. The ONLY reason to ignore this basic fundamental element is to fit an agenda.

Here we go, the conspiracy theories are here now everyone!
I have an agenda.
Except when I first joined in this discussion, I agreed with you, now after years of evidence I dont agree with you and agree that this breed should be banned. Maybe you should try reflection for once, understanding that our views may be wrong, I'm adult enough to do it, are you?

The only thing that matters to the government is votes. They will "care" about whatever floats your boat at the time.

More conspiracy theory nonsense, love it mate.
They are still responsible for the safety of their "voters" if you must, if there is something causing death and destruction to families and communities, its going to get banned.

Negligence that would not have allowed the incident to occur, had the owner been responsible.
And if you think other dogs don't go out to kill other animals,

Okay so if you have a dog, you must be with the dog 24/7/365 to ensure compliance, another golden idea. Or we could keep the breeds that are safe to be left on their own or can escape without going on a murder spree and not have to keep our dogs in our view 24/7/365.
I said view, not perimeter of household.

Did I context dogs killing other animals etc, nope. I dont need your lessons. Again it comes down to effect on humans and community. dogs chasing squirrels, cats killing birds and mice, we all get on with it as its a bit of nature and realistically causes no harm to people or their families.
But if a dog is to go and kill a human or a cat/dog of a family, completely different scenario.

but in almost every incident like this you will find a predictable and preventable human failing.

So you bold it to clearly identify where a child has made a mistake in an environment that is not their own, been attacked, died and you blame them.
Wow, just wow. You are disgustingly heartless and frankly one of the most disrespectful members on this forum.

 

[Felon]

Fixing idiots is better addressed by focussing on them, because they can take any breed and **** it up to the point of creating monsters.

Ok - but the last time we discussed the best way of fixing idiots, you came up with this absolute gem (from over a year ago, but I remembered it well)

The obvious approach would be to use those same media platforms to spread the opposite message - Essentially that those needing status dogs are weak and cruel little pussy-bullies, who have to force dogs to protect them because they're not man enough to do it for themselves.
The inclusion of celebrities and artists that people actually listen to is an essential component. If the likes of Andrew Tate, Kanye West, Drake, Jay-Z and similar were to be broadcasting this same message, that's what people will listen to. I don't know many current rappers, but if you bring on-side whoever rivals the likes of Rick Ross, DMX and Big Boi (three well-known pit-bull advocates), those are the sorts of representatives you want.

Have your ideas, other than using the likes of Andrew Tate, to encourage idiots to not own dangerous dogs, come along at all in 12 months?

 

[ttaskmaster]

You said this Labs are banned, I show you proof of an active ban in one country. Now you go back to bringing other breeds into it.

Relax. If you look, you'll see the Lab is still featured in the sentence... or do you need to have every line explained to you?

Fancy actually arguing your point? Or just going to keep throwing out random nonsense and then backtracking and changing your view when provided with evidence.

I did argue the point. You're the only change going on here, and going spare from the sounds of it.

So you dont have common sense, good to know.

You're the one replying to my every post, while complaining that I reply to every post...

You turned 3 replies in to 6 replies, now have turned that into more.

I just looked and can only see ONE post from me.
Are you counting every quote within that ONE post as a separate reply, or something?

Why? Trying to be Russell Brand by overloading with information, replies and nonsense?

It's a complex (but not complicated) situation with a lot to understand before you can form an accurate opinion.
If you can't manage to read the information, your opinion will be uninformed.

Unless you want to give specific courses, any old dog training course round the corner are about as verified/accredited as Oceangate.

That's why most of them will be accredited trainers, with official examiners who come to test your dog against the established standards.
The Kennel Club tests are the most common, with several levels of training, but there are other bodies that focus training and certification toward more purpose-based training, such as for working dogs or those in security trades.

Have you spent this entire thread thinking 'training' just meant some random bloke round the corner??!!
Jeez, and you accuse me of knowing nothing about dogs......

Also, they do not come out the same way, any dog like any human can pass a test if its been blasted in to your dome for the past 4 weeks.

Do not assume a dog is the same as a human. You're making the exact same errors of thought as the woman whose dog ripped her apart earlier in this thread.

How many dogs have you seen the owners hit them and the dog continues to walk with them, obey them etc etc.
I tell you right now, there is more of a majority of dogs who will follow their owner after being hit, than there are dog who are going to go on a murder spree.

Until one day they don't.... which is precisely when these supposed softies "suddenly turn without warning".

Yes I agree with you, but you wont agree with the stats to show its been increasing at an alarming rate due to one breed.

Because the stats have been showing this since before XLBs even came to this country.
It's not just one breed, but a surge in irresponsible owners.

Your responses and requirements for owners and dogs do give off the impression that you believe you are better than others.

Most other dog owners already meet these requirements. It's only you and those who don't care to train their dog who are the issue here... in which case I and the rest of us owners are indeed better than them.

It is you who is constantly arguing about the dangers of this particular breed and giving pathetic false statements back like "you are more likely to be attacked by a sausage dog".

I didn't ever make that statement. You're conflating another poster's sarcasm with some other thing you've completely imagined.

But again, you have also given us clear identifies of your lack of respect and understanding for certain humans and as a result want to push draconian rules on to subsets of people.

What is draconian about making training mandatory, and insisting that people aren't dickheads?
Most owners already do it and the law generally punishes them for being dickheads. How the **** is this draconian?
I presume you think requiring a driving licence and training is draconian too?

But wont push rules on to a breed of animal directly responsible for numerous attacks and deaths.

Rules don't apply to animals. They apply to their owners and their breeders, and any industry professionals, as well as members of the public around them.

Alright flat earther.

You think I should ignore what certified experts have found and instead favour whatever The Sun prints?
You really do have your brain wired backwards, don't you?

Except when I first joined in this discussion, I agreed with you, now after years of evidence I dont agree with you and agree that this breed should be banned.

At what point did you stop thinking, then?

Maybe you should try reflection for once, understanding that our views may be wrong, I'm adult enough to do it, are you?

I'm adult enough to weigh the evidence of numerous validated studies and experienced professionals against tabloid hype. Are you?

They are still responsible for the safety of their "voters" if you must, if there is something causing death and destruction to families and communities, its going to get banned.

Until the next one, and the next one, and the next one...... Do you not see how this doesn't stop the problem?

Okay so if you have a dog, you must be with the dog 24/7/365 to ensure compliance, another golden idea. Or we could keep the breeds that are safe to be left on their own or can escape without going on a murder spree and not have to keep our dogs in our view 24/7/365.
I said view, not perimeter of household.

You don't have to keep them in view 24/7 anyway. You just have to act like a responsible owner and not leave them alone with a ******* infant.

Did I context dogs killing other animals etc, nope.

You did. That's why I quoted that exact point.

I dont need your lessons. Again it comes down to effect on humans and community. dogs chasing squirrels, cats killing birds and mice, we all get on with it as its a bit of nature and realistically causes no harm to people or their families.

They will just as easily chase livestock. What was it earlier, 50-odd sheep killed by one Labrador?
That's a massive toll and a pretty serious impact on the farmer, as well as his customer base.

You definitely need something.....

But if a dog is to go and kill a human or a cat/dog of a family, completely different scenario.

Same mode of failure, and the dog does not discern any difference between prey.

So you bold it to clearly identify where a child has made a mistake in an environment that is not their own, been attacked, died and you blame them.
Wow, just wow. You are disgustingly heartless and frankly one of the most disrespectful members on this forum.

Can you actually read, or is this being spoken aloud to you?
The post said "someone". It did not specify who was responsible, although in this case the parent or appointed dog-sitter would be.

If you're going to get all personal like that, at least get your ******* words straight.

Ok - but the last time we discussed the best way of fixing idiots, you came up with this absolute gem (from over a year ago, but I remembered it well)
Have your ideas, other than using the likes of Andrew Tate, to encourage idiots to not own dangerous dogs, come along at all in 12 months?

The principle is still sound. Whatever methods you use to achieve it, you need to stop people wanting status dogs, whether they're Pit Bulls, American Bullys or Gozer's dogs from Ghostbusters... and you need to eliminate the methods by which they acquire them.

Or you could just let them butcher another breed and rely on ill-conceived bans and Swiss Army knives to protect your kids....

Your call.

 

[Felon]

The principle is still sound. Whatever methods you use to achieve it, you need to stop people wanting status dogs, whether they're Pit Bulls, American Bullys or Gozer's dogs from Ghostbusters...

It's not practical though, and it has to be practical if it's going to work.

The best way is:

• Ban nonsense frankenstein breeds (such as the XLB, 'pocket bullies' and other stupid things created by cretins in Facebook groups)
• Bring back dog licensing, tiered in cost for size.
• Enforce third party liability insurance on all dogs.
• Common sense controls for obtaining larger more powerful breeds (CRB check, additional license, for dogs over a certain weight).
• Strong penalties and real consequences for people who flaunt the rules.

I think the above list is a decent set of measures, all of which would be practical - the only problem is it means somebody (government) have to do some work, and they'd likely **** all of it up.

 

[StriderX]

Way too much work frankly.

I know it's harsh but an officer with a shotgun and shoot on sight ROE for these demons is the easier, faster solution.

 

[ttaskmaster]

It's not practical though, and it has to be practical if it's going to work.

The best way is:

• Ban nonsense frankenstein breeds (such as the XLB, 'pocket bullies' and other stupid things created by cretins in Facebook groups)
• Bring back dog licensing, tiered in cost for size.
• Enforce third party liability insurance on all dogs.
• Common sense controls for obtaining larger more powerful breeds (CRB check, additional license, for dogs over a certain weight).
• Strong penalties and real consequences for people who flaunt the rules.

I think the above list is a decent set of measures, all of which would be practical - the only problem is it means somebody (government) have to do some work, and they'd likely **** all of it up.

They may seem practical but are still just as unachievable without, as you say, the considerable time, money, investment, recruitment and engagement of the government and supporting agencies. I have little faith in the current administrative offerings, but I suggest some tweaking to your proposals:

1/. On its own is pointless posturing and does nothing to physically stop the breeding or importation. American Bullies already were banned under the 1991 regs, being bred from Pit Bulls. Instead I would suggest more active methods to tackle the issue, as it would address several other related problems too.
2/. Only going to be viable if the licence fees are the same for every dog, and if the money raised is kept for use in policing the scheme. Otherwise it will fail like the last one.
3/. Unless this is a public service with set low rates, private company fees will price otherwise perfectly good owners out of ownership. A knock-on effect is making dogs a luxury thing, and thus heightens the status dog problem. Edit: You may also end up with people not giving a **** about taking responsibility for their dog, because "The dog's insured, innit".
4/. Doing it for dogs of a certain lineage would be more sensible, given that some of the biggest, most powerful dogs have no history of issues.
5/. If you can ensure a high likelihood of these actually happening, there's no contest.

I know it's harsh but an officer with a shotgun and shoot on sight ROE for these demons is the easier, faster solution.

Too much potential for collateral damage, and Police are not the biggest fans of carrying weapons. You also risk many perfectly legal dogs being wrongfully shot.
It additionally raises the possibility of the owners (typically being the law-flaunting type) then arming themselves and escalating the problem.
Also, this isn't America - Shooting stuff doesn't solve everything.

 

[Felon]

I know it's harsh but an officer with a shotgun and shoot on sight ROE for these demons is the easier, faster solution.

Not really a solution though; If you've had to resort to someone with a firearm to blow the dog away - that implies that the dog has already done the damage we were trying to prevent in the first place.

 

[sidimmu]

Not even going to bother responding to all that dribble.
Yes its absolute dribble.

Oh I used wrong terminology of posts and quotes etc. Either way it shows you need to have the last say. You cant let a sentence die without showing your view or point to be above others, child.

Relax. If you look, you'll see the Lab is still featured in the sentence... or do you need to have every line explained to you?

All I see if your point being proven to be BS.

That's why most of them will be accredited trainers, with official examiners who come to test your dog against the established standards.
The Kennel Club tests are the most common, with several levels of training, but there are other bodies that focus training and certification toward more purpose-based training, such as for working dogs or those in security trades.

Have you spent this entire thread thinking 'training' just meant some random bloke round the corner??!!

I think its more funny you think the kennel club is a top line organisation and are doing the right things for management of dogs etc etc.
They have an accredited breeders program, training of dogs is still done by anyone who wants to pay to attend a course and then you go off and train dogs in any random church hall across the country.

Purpose based training for guide dogs etc is completely different and is frankly not even a topic for discussion, as no XL Bully is becoming a guide dog, sniffer dog, security dog or more due to.... let me check this.... their temperament.

So yeah training provided by kennel club is not worth attending, its more of a club meet rather than training your dog to a standard, but again in your wishy washy world, I bet you think thats amazing.

Until one day they don't.... which is precisely when these supposed softies "suddenly turn without warning".

Except there is far more evidence to show dogs being abused for years on end without them turning on their owner and the dog is either rescued or dies in abuse.
Its honestly like you have to defend this XL Bully to the grave without taking any other consideration, evidence or history into account.
Oh to be so blind.

Because the stats have been showing this since before XLBs even came to this country.
It's not just one breed, but a surge in irresponsible owners.

No, the stats have showed that XL Bullys are the most dangerous breed to ever exist in this nation based on the amount of traumatic injuries and deaths over the past couple of years.

Most other dog owners already meet these requirements. It's only you and those who don't care to train their dog who are the issue here... in which case I and the rest of us owners are indeed better than them.

Another lie, a majority of owners do not take their dog training.
I never said I wont train my dog, I said I wont use wishy washy methods from subscription based models to define my training. Do you even read?

But thanks for confirming again there is an element of you believing you are better than others, we finally got there.

Rules don't apply to animals. They apply to their owners and their breeders, and any industry professionals, as well as members of the public around them.

They do, which is why they get shot/terminated. Deservedly so.

You think I should ignore what certified experts have found and instead favour whatever The Sun prints?

Who said anything about the sun? Oh right you did.
Oh so you are classing me as one of your down and outs now, classy doing it hiding behind a screen.

I'm adult enough to weigh the evidence of numerous validated studies and experienced professionals against tabloid hype. Are you?

There is clear evidence to show that this breed is naturally dangerous but yet you keep arguing for their right to be in this country and undertake the violence they do, so no I do not think you are adult enough.

Until the next one, and the next one, and the next one

Remind me of the previous one? as there was always tabloid hype behind Staffies and others, but none got truly banned or restricted due to people didnt die.
Again tell me why these have been banned? Its not because of who buys them, its not because of how they are trained, it is because as a breed they are extremely dangerous and risky to its owners and general public.

What was it earlier, 50-odd sheep killed by one Labrador?

Nope, that was 2 XL bullys, that also took 2 shotgun shells each.
well duhhh if 50 sheep get killed, of course that has impact on a farmer as thats literal money.

the dog does not discern any difference between prey.

Well I have seen plenty of dogs show concern and understand difference of animals.
If a dog cant like the XL Bully, it deserves to get banned.

The post said "someone". It did not specify who was responsible, although in this case the parent or appointed dog-sitter would be.

And you took the opportunity to push your own nonsense across the forum, you could have said nothing, it didnt need anything saying.
But you had to pull the quote and blame the victim of the attack for not knowing, when it was a child.
You are so entrenched in your own argument, you cannot see where you are being ridiculously stupid or out of order.

1/. On its own is pointless posturing and does nothing to physically stop the breeding or importation. American Bullies already were banned under the 1991 regs, being bred from Pit Bulls. Instead I would suggest more active methods to tackle the issue, as it would address several other related problems too.
2/. Only going to be viable if the licence fees are the same for every dog, and if the money raised is kept for use in policing the scheme. Otherwise it will fail like the last one.
3/. Unless this is a public service with set low rates, private company fees will price otherwise perfectly good owners out of ownership. A knock-on effect is making dogs a luxury thing, and thus heightens the status dog problem. Edit: You may also end up with people not giving a **** about taking responsibility for their dog, because "The dog's insured, innit".
4/. Doing it for dogs of a certain lineage would be more sensible, given that some of the biggest, most powerful dogs have no history of issues.
5/. If you can ensure a high likelihood of these actually happening, there's no contest.

Sounds like banning them is the only sensible route forward then.

Doesn't allow for profiteering, doesn't allow for police to make mistakes, doesn't allow for people to not take responsibility and more.

How much longer are you going to ignore the clear sensible route forward, which the government has taken in banning these types of dogs from becoming a further problem.
If another dangerous breed pops up, guess what its gets banned too.

 

[StriderX]

Not really a solution though; If you've had to resort to someone with a firearm to blow the dog away - that implies that the dog has already done the damage we were trying to prevent in the first place.

The whole 'shoot on sight' rule is meant to for the most part avoid the issue of them attacking people in the first place, if they're going to attack anyone it should be the useless owner who would have no choice but to either get them put down or keep them inside all day until inevitably it does the deed.

Frankly the mere act of owning one should automatically result in attempted murder charges.

 

[potatolord]

Anyone who owns a dog which attacks another dog/ person should have to fight their dog for 150 seconds.

In particularly bad cases, they should have a piece of raw meat tied to their privy parts.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Not even going to bother responding to all that dribble.

In other words, you have no valid argument against it...

Oh I used wrong terminology of posts and quotes etc. Either way it shows you need to have the last say. You cant let a sentence die without showing your view or point to be above others, child.

Says the kid who, yet again, proceeds to do exactly what he's been complaining about.

All I see if your point being proven to be BS.

You see only what you want to see.

I think its more funny you think the kennel club is a top line organisation and are doing the right things for management of dogs etc etc.

Their training schemes are regarded as one of the better and most accessible for the average domestic dog owner.

They have an accredited breeders program, training of dogs is still done by anyone who wants to pay to attend a course and then you go off and train dogs in any random church hall across the country.

And just like driving instructors, these dog trainers must pass the necessary exams in order to operate with accreditation... and just like with driving, the trainers will not be conducting the examinations. Those come directly from the accrediting body, ensuring the dogs and handlers meet the standard in order to pass. They also regularly check to make sure the instructors continue to maintain their accreditation requirements.
This is the same with every other dog training accreditation scheme in the industry, too.

If you have an issue with this, please tell us how you think it should work...

Purpose based training for guide dogs etc is completely different and is frankly not even a topic for discussion, as no XL Bully is becoming a guide dog, sniffer dog, security dog or more due to.... let me check this.... their temperament.

Purpose based training still requires the elements of good behaviour and most schemes mirror the Kennel Club standards for this phase of the course.

So yeah training provided by kennel club is not worth attending, its more of a club meet rather than training your dog to a standard, but again in your wishy washy world, I bet you think thats amazing.

In other words you have no idea what you're talking about and have never been to a training session anywhere.

But again, please stun us with your recommendation for what YOU think is acceptable dog training.

Except there is far more evidence to show dogs being abused for years on end without them turning on their owner and the dog is either rescued or dies in abuse.

Show it, then.
Give us the numbers.
Also, since I specifically said 'negatively react' that includes any dogs that misbehave, act out, attack something other than their owner, or otherwise behave negatively as a result. You don't get to cherry pick your own narrowly-defined interpretation, here.... because that would be pushing an agenda.

Its honestly like you have to defend this XL Bully to the grave without taking any other consideration, evidence or history into account.

I defend all dogs, specifically from people like you, but in general as well.

No, the stats have showed that XL Bullys are the most dangerous breed to ever exist in this nation based on the amount of traumatic injuries and deaths over the past couple of years.

The stats and crime reports have shown a number of XL Bully owners have not acted responsibly and kept their dog from harming people.

Another lie, a majority of owners do not take their dog training.

You WHAT, now??!!
OK, where's your evidence for THAT utter ********?

Moreover, even if there's any truth in this, why would my (and others') suggestion of it being mandatory in any way a bad thing, much less us being draconian and 'above' others?

I never said I wont train my dog, I said I wont use wishy washy methods from subscription based models to define my training. Do you even read?

I never said anything about your dog, I merely included you among the group of people with an irresponsible mentality. Do YOU even read?
But once more, tell us mere mortals what am-MAY-zing training you'll be doing with your dog.... and since you're talking in the future tense, I presume therefore that you haven't actually trained your dog yet...

But thanks for confirming again there is an element of you believing you are better than others, we finally got there.

Ah, so the issue is that I'm specifically better than YOU because I take responsibility..... right, gotcha.

They do, which is why they get shot/terminated. Deservedly so.

So why aren't you shooting the humans, since the law says they are responsible?
Also, where is the law that says the animal is responsible?

Who said anything about the sun? Oh right you did.
Oh so you are classing me as one of your down and outs now, classy doing it hiding behind a screen.

Male, weaker literacy skills, right-wing attitude based on factually inaccurate premises and an unwillingness to understand the truth even when faced directly with it, sensationalist focus on gossip and heresay instead of proven facts, strawman assertions and appeal-based fallacies, ad hominem coupled with agenda-based selective assertion... Yeah, you certainly fit the readership stereotype.

If the screen is a problem for you, tell me where you live and I'll come call you whatever you like to your face.

There is clear evidence to show that this breed is naturally dangerous but yet you keep arguing for their right to be in this country and undertake the violence they do, so no I do not think you are adult enough.

The evidence actually shows numerous breeds, including the American Bully, with the same sensitivty which, as you know from reading this thread, is heritable and mostly determined by their environment.
That is the fact asserted by every study out there, including those posted supposedly in opposition to this very point.

Remind me of the previous one? as there was always tabloid hype behind Staffies and others, but none got truly banned or restricted due to people didnt die.

The previous one was the Pit Bull, and back then it was predicted that other breeds would take its place... and they did. Kenneth Baker, the very man who introduced the banning legislation, also predicted that people would find ways around it.... which they subsequently did. He also claimed it was rushed legislation and not really fit for purpose, while the House of Commons in 2018 called it one of the most flawed pieces of UK legislation.

People didn't die, huh?
13 people died from Staffies alone since 1980.... and you wonder why I favour my facts over your opinion?

Again tell me why these have been banned? Its not because of who buys them, its not because of how they are trained, it is because as a breed they are extremely dangerous and risky to its owners and general public.

The same was said about the "dangerous breed" of Staffie when they wanted that banned for it's high kill stat, and yet it only started to feature in kill stats after scrotes had started to train it and mis-breed it for dog-fighting as an alternative to the Pit Bull... and speaking of which:

Chris Laurence, veterinary director of the Dogs Trust, believes it is pit bulls' new standing as a macho status symbol for young men that has been a major reason behind recent attacks.
"Like any dog, it comes down to the way they're trained and taught," he said.
"The problem is not with the breed. They're bred to be aggressive to other dogs but not to humans, and are very obedient.
"But sadly, they're now being trained to growl and show aggression, because it's a macho dog to own and if they're kept in a kennel outside, not interacting with humans and not being supervised around children, it's a recipe for disaster.
"If they are properly trained, however, they're no more likely to bite you than a Jack Russell".

Just one of a majority consensus echoed by many thousands of industry professionals, and substantiated by dozens of scientific studies, in direct opposition to your assertions.
Are you a vet? Animal behaviourist? Psychologist? Dog warden? Police officer? Lawyer? Dog trainer? Anything to do with understanding dogs and the legislation?
Theirs are the opinions I choose over yours.


Not who buys them:

Convicted drug dealer 'runs XL Bully breeding firm from prison cell'

Drug kingpin Thomas Rayment was serving a six-year jail sentence while still seemingly running Muscletone Bullys UK, selling bulked-up Bully puppies.

www.dailymail.co.uk

How many responsible people buy their dogs from any drug dealer, much less one who is actually in jail at the time??!!


Not how they're trained....

Watch: How rogue trainers are turning XL bully dogs ‘into weapons’

Reckless owners use sticks, steroids and children’s playgrounds to create mauling machines

www.thetimes.com

Yeah, 'nuff said.

Nope, that was 2 XL bullys, that also took 2 shotgun shells each.

Not the incident to which I was referring.
"April 2016, with 66 lambs killed and 19 ewes in a single field by two loose Labradors one night".

UK cost of dog attacks up by 50% since pre-pandemic

As people prepare to flock to the countryside this Easter, NFU Mutual is urging all dog owners in the East of England to keep their pet on a lead wherever livestock may be nearby.

www.nfumutual.co.uk

well duhhh if 50 sheep get killed, of course that has impact on a farmer as thats literal money.

It's such a natural thing for them to do, and such a potential problem for those whose livelihood depends on keeping their safe, that farmers have special permission to shoot dogs doing this.
And totally contrary to what you asserted earlier about other dog breeds not going out to kill other animals.

Well I have seen plenty of dogs show concern and understand difference of animals.
If a dog cant like the XL Bully, it deserves to get banned.

That's basically every animal under the sun you just banned, genius.
An animal that figures something is prey will not stop to think about it. The target has behaved like prey and the animal recognises it as such. That's just how Nature works and you won't ever change that.

And you took the opportunity to push your own nonsense across the forum, you could have said nothing, it didnt need anything saying.
But you had to pull the quote and blame the victim of the attack for not knowing, when it was a child.
You are so entrenched in your own argument, you cannot see where you are being ridiculously stupid or out of order.

Except I did not blame the victim. I blamed the person who would be held responsible in court, which would be whichever adult did not ensure the dog was safely secured.

I don't care how "out of order" you think that is, because it's exactly the same thing you'd throw at me if I had not secured my dog and it was your daughter who suffered, and exactly the same thing the Police/CPS would drag me to court for.

Sounds like banning them is the only sensible route forward then.

Already covered in point 1.

Doesn't allow for profiteering, doesn't allow for police to make mistakes, doesn't allow for people to not take responsibility and more.

Doesn't stop anything from actually happening, doesn't stop people from breaking the law, doesn't stop people from obtaining the dogs, and does still permit mistakes without further effort and investment in an improved process.

How much longer are you going to ignore the clear sensible route forward, which the government has taken in banning these types of dogs from becoming a further problem.

The Pit Bull ban was supposed to solve that problem, yet there have still been at least ten deaths and thousands of attacks since 1991 when it was banned.
Even the guy who came up with the ban says it's not fit for purpose. It's only you and your ilk who think otherwise...

If another dangerous breed pops up, guess what its gets banned too.

And how many more people will die during the years until it actually gets enacted?
How many more thousands will die or be life-alteringly injured from attacks by other breeds that aren't dangerous?

How many more posts will it take until you address the actual problem, instead of putting an Elastoplast over the sucking chest wound?

 

[sihartley25]

My neighbour was bitten by a XL bulldog two months ago

 

[Dis86]

Anyone who owns a dog which attacks another dog/ person should have to fight their dog for 150 seconds.

In particularly bad cases, they should have a piece of raw meat tied to their privy parts.

Your mind is a beautiful place

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

My neighbour was bitten by a XL bulldog two months ago

How bad were his or her injuries?

 

[Tykey]

XL Bullies should have no place in society. They are a breed that has extreme power, strength, and worst of all aggression bred into them. Their attack mode is something that comes to them more naturally than other breeds.

If person A was an exemplary dog owner who owned an XL Bully, perfect in every respect the way they treated and trained their dog, and person B was the same in being a perfect dog owner but owned a different dog breed, it's person A's dog who will be more likely to harm someone or another animal, because even with the best owner, an XL Bully has aggression built into it.

Dogs are not human, they are more prone to random acts than humans, they don't understand laws etc, couple that with natural aggression = bad.

To make matters much worse, XL Bullies are the chavs/idiots/drug dealers/bullies/scum favourite dogs. So this obviously compounds the dogs natural aggressive tendencies + extreme strength, as these types of 'owners' like these traits and will worsen them.

 

[413x]

Interested in you guys views about dogs in pubs?

I always take koda to the pub after the weekly walk. And I'd say over 9 out of 10 pubs allow dogs now here. Especially the rural pubs.

Only been one time I couldn't go so far.

 

[Dis86]

Interested in you guys views about dogs in pubs?

I always take koda to the pub after the weekly walk. And I'd say over 9 out of 10 pubs allow dogs now here. Especially the rural pubs.

Only been one time I couldn't go so far.

Always ruined by the usual types.