Does something need to be done about dogs?

Have you noticed the initial reporting of these dog attacks are very similar to knife attacks or initial stages of terror attacks? Who are they protecting from being offended, the XL Bully Appreciation Society?
Something happened and someone got hurt, but there are no details of what happened or why... Police have released no information beyond a few suspicions, so feel free to guess and infer whatever you like. Long as you keep clicking on our website...

Weird description in the article ("...arrested on suspicion of owning or possessing a dog bred for fighting") and not clear that it's a banned breed.
You can breed any dog with the intent to put it in fights. That doesn't autiomatically make it a banned breed, and they'd still need to confirm the breed anyway.
 
You can breed any dog with the intent to put it in fights. That doesn't autiomatically make it a banned breed, and they'd still need to confirm the breed anyway.

Yeah, I know. Just never seen that as a charge before!

Typical, two minutes after posting that, I saw this- but it's just gossip at this point:
 
Last edited:
and they'd still need to confirm the breed anyway.

looks like as bully breed of some description to me. Regardless of if a lot of them are docile, and even tho its maybe not the dogs fault, i think its neigh on time all of them were banned as pets...... using the same logic as banning hand guns in the UK......... it sucks for the majority of responsible owners..... but it sucks more for the innocent people who are attacked by the animals.

I like dogs as well... having been bought up with them (albeit not bullys)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I know. Just never seen that as a charge before!
It's probably just newspapers fudging and conflating their sentences. Dog fighting and breeding with the intent for fighting probably is illegal, though I'd not be surprised to learn it hasn't actually been enshrined in law yet, but that's still not the same as being a banned breed. It's just the media-hyped intimation that any dog of a banned breed was automatically intended for the pits.

looks like as bully breed of some description to me.
Then it definitely is.
The law is based purely on appearance so regardless of the dog's actual genetic makeup, if it merely looks like one then that's confirmation enough.

Regardless of if a lot of them are docile, and even tho its maybe not the dogs fault, i think its neigh on time all of them were banned as pets......
The entire Bully breed was already banned under the 1991 DDA.
The XL Bully is just a sub-variant of the wider Bully breed.

using the same logic as banning hand guns in the UK......... it sucks for the majority of responsible owners..... but it sucks more for the innocent people who are attacked by the animals.
As previously argued, banning one corrupted breed doesn't stop criminals from finding another breed to corrupt, and we've had decades of them doing this already.
At what point do you either just ban everything, or focus on the root cause of the various problems?
 
As previously argued, banning one corrupted breed doesn't stop criminals from finding another breed to corrupt, and we've had decades of them doing this already.
At what point do you either just ban everything, or focus on the root cause of the various problems?
its a fair point....


as for the genetic makeup ..... ok if you want to argue you do not think that is primarily a bully breed ok............. in which case...... in theory genetic testing is not that expensive at source (after all we are not talking entire genomes needed) so it could be part of a dog licence if needed testing for certain markers, with every dog owner needing to have a licence....... bonus for me as well as my job is coming to an end in 12 months...... i could do with a job, and sequencing dogs wont be much different to what i have done in the past ;).
 
Last edited:
as for the genetic makeup ..... ok if you want to argue you do not think that is primarily a bully breed ok.............
As you say, it's pretty easy to check, but that's not the way the law works.
It's another example of bad legislation, and appearance-based judgements is what led to Staffies getting a bad rep.

in theory genetic testing is not that expensive at source (after all we are not talking entire genomes needed) so it could be part of a dog licence if needed testing for certain markers, with every dog owner needing to have a licence.......
You still have to pay for people and facilities to do the testing, police the licencing, enforce the laws and administrate the whole thing.
It's easier just to write a piece of paper and let that govern everything.
But even then, the criminals breeding and selling these dogs aren't the sort to care whether they have licences in the first place.
 
Protecting themselves from people that take offence at what they report then.

I can hardly see an XL Bully (or a Staffie if it's a case of mistaken identity) going after the BBC though for slander. Mind you, there will be lawyers that would take that case on I suppose.

Accuracy and accountability is not about being offended
 
Accuracy and accountability is not about being offended

There are plenty of occasions where clear, obvious information is either withheld or obfuscated behind 'alternative' language from news reports, and I can only put that down to bias or being overly sensitive.

Leaving those gaps opens up the window for speculation. I can understand it for people, but not for dogs ffs.
 
Another one. Quite a toll again this year. 10 is no tiny toddler or baby either. Poor kid.

Yikes, I guess even though they're obliged to leash and muzzle in public there are still the poor kids who share a home with these dogs.

Granted the article doesn't confirm anything yet, still being assessed for dog of peace status.
 
Had a plasterer round recently doing some work and he was a dog lover, chatting extensively about his dog, which turned out to be an XL bully.

Got all the usual, wouldn't hurt a fly, loves people, everyone comes up to stroke it when he's out etc and tbf he has done everything required, registered it and got exemption, spent a fortune on bespoke muzzles to find the best one for his dog. Then he comes out with that only he can put the muzzle on as his gf tried and it refused and growled/snapped at her, I just rolled my eyes.
 
If a dog jumps at you, even if it's not necessarily being aggressive, is it acceptable to punch the dog?

As a non dog owner and someone who is a bit nervous around dogs (got bit in the hand as a young child) I can't always tell.

I've had dogs jump up at me, the owners are like "don't worry he's only playing".

If I then punch it as hard as I can, then tell the owner "don't worry, I'm just playing" that's ok?
 
If a dog jumps at you, even if it's not necessarily being aggressive, is it acceptable to punch the dog?

As a non dog owner and someone who is a bit nervous around dogs (got bit in the hand as a young child) I can't always tell.

I've had dogs jump up at me, the owners are like "don't worry he's only playing".

If I then punch it as hard as I can, then tell the owner "don't worry, I'm just playing" that's ok?
Give it a try and report back.
 
If a dog jumps at you, even if it's not necessarily being aggressive, is it acceptable to punch the dog?

As a non dog owner and someone who is a bit nervous around dogs (got bit in the hand as a young child) I can't always tell.

I've had dogs jump up at me, the owners are like "don't worry he's only playing".

If I then punch it as hard as I can, then tell the owner "don't worry, I'm just playing" that's ok?
In an ideal world I'd think that ought to be perfectly acceptable. :p
 
Back
Top Bottom