Does something need to be done about dogs?

[dowie]

I haven't forgotten - My point still stands, unaltered: Necessity is not a factor, and since people still want them, why not make it safe to own them, both in terms of corrected breeding and in responsible ownership?
Because it's "a faff"??!!
Surely even you have a better defence than that.....?

You haven't provided an argument for why that is preferable to just ending them in the first place?

 

[ttaskmaster]

You haven't provided an argument for why that is preferable to just ending them in the first place?

Preferable? You're reducing it down to subjectivity, now?
Okay, in that case, the same point still stands - Not everyone wants to exterminate the breed (presumably why they were only banned (with exemptions) instead of being culled en masse) and plenty of people still want them as pets.
From a moral standpoint, it's better to accept the blame and correct the genetic wrongs humans did to the lineage, rather than just cowardly bailing out.

 

[dowie]

Preferable? You're reducing it down to subjectivity, now?
Okay, in that case, the same point still stands - Not everyone wants to exterminate the breed (presumably why they were only banned (with exemptions) instead of being culled en masse) and plenty of people still want them as pets.

FML - what do you think the ban involves if they've all got to be neutered and can't be sold on anymore?

From a moral standpoint, it's better to accept the blame and correct the genetic wrongs humans did to the lineage, rather than just cowardly bailing out.

Again - why? What's cowardly about this?

Is it also cowardly to not let people own leopards and tigers rather than [insert handwaving] magically make them genetically friendly?

You're just proposing a nonsense solution yet again because you can't face the fact that this breed is dumb, it doesn't need to exist and we can simply end it.

 

[sidimmu]

@ttaskmaster 13 separate replies to my 7 points.
Whats the actual point. You need to learn how to let a reply go, but you clearly cannot.
Bet you're fun in the real world....

rather than sharing principles relevant to the context.

A car and an animal is not comparable and your "analogy" is you trying to get out of a hole, get a grip.

Who said anything about hurting humans?

What? humans care if you bring a dangerous breed which will maim and kill other humans.
How deluded are you?

You are assuming the breed was designed to cause harm, contrary to this and the previously cited assertions of those who actually did 'design' it.

The breed might not have been created for such reasons, but you got to be completely blind and stupid to see the breed has been shaped to be violent.
Some people also stick up for murder dogs as this thread shows, people cant be trusted, we know this, this is why its banned.

And there we go - I answered one specifically worded question and you take that to be the answer to a completely different one.
Called it.

Yeah you are deluded and @dowie is right, you cannot identify what you are replying to.

So if you had XLB's that you class as a good boy, you'd allow them to be sold and kept in this country? Yes/no answer please.

Yes.
Now let's see how badly you twist that......

Nothing twisted there, you answered the own question. You have no idea what you are replying to do you?

which means the problem is not the 'thing' itself, but the humans, and thus you are ignoring them while claiming the opposite.

Covered this numerous times now, very much like you who cannot be told any different, humans wont listen or change their behaviours, hence its the governments responsibility to protect the civilians from its stupid population.

yet you're saying not to tackle the humans.... !!!

Didnt say that, said you stand no chance on changing the humans who buy these dogs. Do you actually read any of these replies? Guessing not.

I've already offered several different ideas, which you seem to keep forgetting.

Nope, you have stated numerous times that yo have piggy backed off of others ideas, but they were never your own.
Cant forget the classic you piggy backed on to "lets get rappers and entertainers to stop using these dogs and promote a positive message", if you think that works, I am sorry but I cant help your naivety.

I refer you to the earlier part of the thread discussing the targeting of importing and breeding, using the existing enforcement strategies used to address things like drugs.

Right okay, importing and breeding restrictions will stop people being injured and killed today?
Existing strategies for drugs? How naïve are you, the war on drugs has been lost, over and over again by governments. You need to step outside and look at reality.

 

[ttaskmaster]

FML - what do you think the ban involves if they've all got to be neutered and can't be sold on anymore?

That doesn't stop people from ignoring the law and creating or importing monsters, whereas active enforcement on both would not only address the bad lineage lottery but also return them to pet-suitable condition, as we already have with other breeds.

Again - why? What's cowardly about this?

You ****** up, now you want to cut and run, shirking responsibility for your **** up... That is cowardly.
It's also a lovely argument which I shall apply to other similar situations in future threads, just so you can see why it's not a solution at all.

Is it also cowardly to not let people own leopards and tigers rather than [insert handwaving] magically make them genetically friendly?

Do they have thousands of years of domestication bred into them?

You're just proposing a nonsense solution yet again because you can't face the fact that this breed is dumb, it doesn't need to exist and we can simply end it.

OK, so pugs are next on the chopping block, are they?
They're dumb and don't need to exist.
King Charles Spaniels, brachycephalics, any of the Merle breed-variants... that's 32 breeds that need eradicating due to being dumb and having unnecessary harmful genetic disorders. At least American Bullys were originally bred with the intent of a well-behaved dog - These 32 breeds were bred purely for cosmetic and status purposes!

@ttaskmaster 13 separate replies to my 7 points.
Whats the actual point. You need to learn how to let a reply go, but you clearly cannot.

And yet you always reply back. Yet again, pot, kettle.....

Bet you're fun in the real world....

I'm not here to entertain you. If you want that, you're better off watching CBeebies or something.

A car and an animal is not comparable and your "analogy" is you trying to get out of a hole, get a grip.

I just did compare them, so they clearly are. Not my problem if you refuse to understand how analogies work, even after they've been explained to you...

What? humans care if you bring a dangerous breed which will maim and kill other humans.
How deluded are you?

You were talking about pugs not being dangerous, with the inference that no-one gives a **** how ****** up they are so long as humans aren't being killed.
You seem to have lost the plot and are now calling me deluded for your failing...

The breed might not have been created for such reasons, but you got to be completely blind and stupid to see the breed has been shaped to be violent.

I agree, since this is what I've been saying all along.
This is why, in light of how we've already shaped, mis-shapen, and subsequently re-shaped other breeds when people have screwed them up, we have no reason not to try and correct what the chavscum status breeders have done to this one...

Some people also stick up for murder dogs as this thread shows, people cant be trusted, we know this, this is why its banned.

While others argue against the whole principle of banning, based on how flawed the implementation always is.

You know the scene in The Rock, where the guy they just shot is still twitching and Sean Connery says, "What do you want me to do, kill him again?"....?
That's what's happened here - The American Bully breed (and all its variants) were already banned in 1991, before XLBs even existed... yet here we are banning something that's already banned.

Yeah you are deluded and @dowie is right, you cannot identify what you are replying to.

So deluded that I predicted exactly what you'd do and was proven correct...
You asked one question and then asserted another.

Nothing twisted there, you answered the own question. You have no idea what you are replying to do you?

As per the quote, the question was - "So if you had XLB's that you class as a good boy, you'd allow them to be sold and kept in this country?"
It was not, "Are you defending a dangerous breed and want them to be able to sold in this country"... yet this is the line to which you pinned my answer.

So not only was it an assumption, but an outright misrepresentation.

Covered this numerous times now, very much like you who cannot be told any different, humans wont listen or change their behaviours, hence its the governments responsibility to protect the civilians from its stupid population.

People change their behaviours all the time. If they didn't, the marketing industry would go bankrupt overnight.
It just takes the right marketing. The fact that both Dowie and the government won't even look into this because it requires time, effort and money, and because it's "too much of a faff" doesn't make it any less true.

Didnt say that, said you stand no chance on changing the humans who buy these dogs. Do you actually read any of these replies? Guessing not.

I do read them, I just afford them no validity, especially when you fail to make your points so often, while also ignoring everything I say or pretend I said something different in order to fit your own narrative... Why, does it annoy you?

Something makes people want these dogs, so there will be something that'll make them no longer want them. Enough people already get other dogs and subsequently abandon those, and it's not because of a breed ban...

Nope, you have stated numerous times that yo have piggy backed off of others ideas, but they were never your own.

Certain specific ones, yes, and I specifically specified where such specifics were specifically the case.
Others were most definitely my own, and you'll find plenty of posts trying to discredit those one while not actually exploring or addressing them. Given the lack of contest to those, I can only presume there is no objection and they were actually rather good ideas.

Cant forget the classic you piggy backed on to "lets get rappers and entertainers to stop using these dogs and promote a positive message", if you think that works, I am sorry but I cant help your naivety.

And again, you clearly haven't thought it through - If they can tell people what to buy, use, wear, eat, do, think, etc, and people follow along like utter sheep... how do you think it is that they are unable to do the opposite? I bet if [insert relevant/popular celeb icon] started ripping into people who wear Crocs, you'd see a serious drop in Croc sales
Status dogs are fashion, and fashion can change overnight. Do you not wonder why men no longer wear velvet jackets, corduroy bell-bottoms and disco shirts with massive collars?

Right okay, importing and breeding restrictions will stop people being injured and killed today?

Here you go again... I didn't say restrictions. I said active enforcement. That means finding the channels and cutting them off, while also tackling the breeders with resources already in the UK.

Existing strategies for drugs? How naïve are you, the war on drugs has been lost, over and over again by governments. You need to step outside and look at reality.

The War On Drugs is a global strategy designed to impact the United States, and is almost entirely about the US doing things in other countries to stop their drugs coming into America. It has almost no bearing on UK strategy, beyond some 50-year old policies that are long-since outdated.
As the late Bill Hicks said about it, "A war is where two armies are fighting"....

As far as Europe and the UK go, our customs are actually not bad at stopping drugs. Drug crimes are up, particularly since Brexit means we no longer have co-operative intel from the EU and Conservative funding has focussed too far on criminalisation (kinda like the DDA and XLB ban, really, and yes I am 'comparing' two sets of legislation)... but responses and proactive enforcement have also increased, almost to record levels now.


But you know what the best thing is?
You can't hide an XL Bully up your arse and expect to sneak that through customs.... but do feel free to prove me wrong!!

 

[dowie]

That doesn't stop people from ignoring the law and creating or importing monsters, whereas active enforcement on both would not only address the bad lineage lottery but also return them to pet-suitable condition, as we already have with other breeds.

You've just contradicted yourself - if you think people will carry on importing monsters then you're handwaving [magically change their genetics] plan doesn't work either... if people wanted a labrador they can already buy a labrador.

People want a vicious fighting dog, these are dangerous ergo we should ban them.

You ****** up, now you want to cut and run, shirking responsibility for your **** up... That is cowardly.
It's also a lovely argument which I shall apply to other similar situations in future threads, just so you can see why it's not a solution at all.

That makes no sense at all - surely you're being cowardly because you don't have the balls to ban them? See how bad that is as an argument?

Why not let people own leopards as pets? Too cowardly?

Back in reality all you have is a handwaving argument, again.

 

[sidimmu]

At least American Bullys were originally bred with the intent of a well-behaved dog

Chav confirmed.

And yet you always reply back. Yet again, pot, kettle.....

I dont take your replies and multiple by replying to almost every sentence. Stop acting a fool.

So not only was it an assumption, but an outright misrepresentation.

Not really, The good boy was regarding your requirements of a "ttaskmaster good boy certification". This again shows you dont read, understand and reply accordingly.

Status dogs are fashion, and fashion can change overnight. Do you not wonder why men no longer wear velvet jackets, corduroy bell-bottoms and disco shirts with massive collars?

And there is always an opposing group, thats the joys of being a human. You cannot eradicate that from human choice, but what you can do is stop those same humans from owning silly things.

hat means finding the channels and cutting them off, while also tackling the breeders with resources already in the UK.

Works well for everything else dont it. Sarcasm for reference, police cant sort out modern slavery, drugs and more, dogs are not ever going to be a priority or tackled in the way you want.
Cant even be bothered to reply to that waffle about drugs, record high enforcement, but its stupid easy to get drugs on the street, what a win.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You've just contradicted yourself - if you think people will carry on importing monsters then you're handwaving [magically change their genetics] plan doesn't work either... if people wanted a labrador they can already buy a labrador.

The ban doesn't stop them because it's just a piece of paper that no-one really enforces, without which it is negated by various methods.
Active enforcement is what actually stops them from either being improperly bred or from coming into this country. No contradiction, unless you read one into it.

People want a vicious fighting dog, these are dangerous ergo we should ban them.

Far more effective to render them not dangerous in the first place, no?

That makes no sense at all - surely you're being cowardly because you don't have the balls to ban them? See how bad that is as an argument?

We did have the balls to ban them already... and it didn't work.

Why not let people own leopards as pets? Too cowardly?

They don't have a long history of domestication, whereas dogs do.

Chav confirmed.

Clearly you didn't read the link, but that's no surprise...

I dont take your replies and multiple by replying to almost every sentence. Stop acting a fool.

Despite you doing exactly that...

Not really, The good boy was regarding your requirements of a "ttaskmaster good boy certification".

You did not specify this, and neither did you use either quotation marks or inverted commas. You asked a straightforward question and got a straight answer to precisely what you asked.

This again shows you dont read, understand and reply accordingly.

I seemingly read and understood it better than you did!!
If you want a reply to accord, ask the question properly and be specific.

And there is always an opposing group, thats the joys of being a human. You cannot eradicate that from human choice, but what you can do is stop those same humans from owning silly things.

The only opposition to eradicating status dog fashion are the minority who benefit from it. Remove that benefit and the rest takes care of itself.

police cant sort out modern slavery, drugs and more, dogs are not ever going to be a priority or tackled in the way you want.

Then they're not going to be any use in enforcing "The Ban" either, eh... so why bother with such a toothless piece of bad legislation?
Does it make you feel better, or something?

Cant even be bothered to reply to that waffle about drugs, record high enforcement, but its stupid easy to get drugs on the street, what a win.

*removed allegation- montymint.

 

[dowie]

Far more effective to render them not dangerous in the first place, no?

No - because that's just some handwaving nonsense you've come up with and you immediately contradicted yourself with when you claimed people would just import them anyway - thus the need for the ban

 

[ttaskmaster]

No - because that's just some handwaving nonsense you've come up with

Already done with GSDs, Rotties, Dobermans and most recently Staffies, no handwaving needed.

and you immediately contradicted yourself with when you claimed people would just import them anyway

No contradiction - Active enforcement to prevent importation can run at the same time.

- thus the need for the ban

Explain again - Why did you need to ban something that was already banned?
Did the first ban not work? Is this like Double Secret Ban? How will this one work where the first did not?

 

[jellybeard999]

BBC News - Man dies after dog attack in east London

Man dies after dog attack in Stratford, east London

A woman, 32, has been charged over the attack, which took place on Wednesday morning.

www.bbc.com

Doesn't seem to mention breed, but says it's a "fighting dog"

 

[Dis86]

BBC News - Man dies after dog attack in east London

Man dies after dog attack in Stratford, east London

A woman, 32, has been charged over the attack, which took place on Wednesday morning.

www.bbc.com

Another one to pay the piper. Still nothing being done and huge numbers of people living in denial about the problem.

 

[Mason-]

Dj_khaled_another_one.gif

Another blessing bestowed upon us by a dog of peace.

 

[413x]

Do we know if this stuff used to be reported in national news like it is now?
Or if attacks are up?

With rise of click bait I bet the new outlets love putting a dog attack to trigger people. And especially not saying the breed.

Genuine question as I do not know.

 

[Felon]

Another one to pay the piper. Still nothing being done and huge numbers of people living in denial about the problem.

The mad thing about this, is the woman was already in trouble for other incidents involving the dog last month, and according to the charge - it was a ‘fighting dog’ so either banned or allowed with an exception.

Wtf the authorities were doing, to let her keep it when it has already caused another incident prior.

Law enforcement has become a complete joke, there’s nobody properly enforcing the rules and no consequences until it gets totally out of hand.

 

[potatolord]

Do we know if this stuff used to be reported in national news like it is now?
Or if attacks are up?

With rise of click bait I bet the new outlets love putting a dog attack to trigger people. And especially not saying the breed.

Genuine question as I do not know.

Long-term average was about 3-4.

2023 was 16 deaths, this year is 9. Most of that increase is bullyXl related.

Deaths caused by dogs are recorded by ONS in a separate category, and is as accurate as it can be.

 

[ttaskmaster]

according to the charge - it was a ‘fighting dog’ so either banned or allowed with an exception.

Actually the DDA specifically bans five particular breeds (technically four), but further prohibits any dog that has been bred for the purpose of fighting, regardless of breed.
This therefore suggests that it's not one of the specifically banned breeds otherwise she'd have been charged under that part of the Act, and since exemption hinges on demonstrating safety, an individual dog bred specifically for fighting would not get exempted.

Of course, this assumes the BBC has all the available facts and is reporting them accurately....

I do wonder if someone deliberately chose Barkingside Magistrates' Court for her appearance, though...!!!

 

[Felon]

an individual dog bred specifically for fighting would not get exempted.

My understanding, is that if you have a banned dog (anything that is prohibited under the act) - it's seized and you have to go to court to apply to a judge for an exemption, (a whole bunch of stuff has to be done by defra) and the dog is returned with certain restrictions, or it's put down? (I think this happens, regardless of whether it's a banned breed, bred for fighting, it isn't automatically destroyed).

So I'm confused - if it was previously known to be a dog bred for fighting and it had already been involved in an incident, wtf was going on ?

 

[ttaskmaster]

My understanding, is that if you have a banned dog (anything that is prohibited under the act) - it's seized and you have to go to court to apply to a judge for an exemption, (a whole bunch of stuff has to be done by defra) and the dog is returned with certain restrictions, or it's put down? (I think this happens, regardless of whether it's a banned breed, bred for fighting, it isn't automatically destroyed).

I believe you have to apply for exemption of your own volition before it's seized. You then have to prove it meets the criteria for exemption, part of which would be proving it's not bred for fighting.
I expect that if you end up in court because your dog has been seized, then exemption is likely no longer an option...

So I'm confused - if it was previously known to be a dog bred for fighting and it had already been involved in an incident, wtf was going on ?

Fighting status not known/confirmed at the time, plus Police processing time meant she and the dog were still free to go out and about?

 

[Rai200]

So, I just got bit by an XL bully type dog.

Went into my local after a 12h shift at work, someone sat at the bar with their dog, no lead, no muzzle on it. Held out my hand so it could sniff me and it just went mental and bit me on the stomach.

I had a right go at the owner who barely even acknowledged it had happened, then I saw a muzzle on the bar (that they had removed, after telling staff it's a bit bitey) and thew it at her, telling her to put it on (amongst some other choice words). She did but put it on wrong. As she was leaving it fell off again and again I had a go at her, at which point she squared up to me and tried to threaten me

I took photos of the wound, the dog and the work shirt the owner was wearing but apparently that's not enough evidence for the police to pursue it, I need their name, DOB, pic of their face etc. for them to even bother investigating.

I'm just hoping the idiot owner doesn't endanger a child or something with their dog.

Ignore the fact I'm fat AF, but this is what it looks like an hour or two after:

Belly

I'm honestly more annoyed at the police for being so ****ing useless. Your job is to investigate crime but unless I do the work they give zero ****s.