Does something need to be done about dogs?

I'm on fence at banning danger(ie powerful) breeds.

All dogs can end up aggressive, we all know that, and majority is due to the owner.

However some dogs are just annoying others can do you some harm, others can quite easily kill you in certain situations.

Its also clear that certain people are drawn to these powerful dogs. Let's call these people scumbags. Banning these breeds? The only way this would be effective if it's the ban was enforced, and the scumbags didn't just start getting another breed and mistreating it.

Also. These dangerous breeds removed from scum bags often end up needing new homes, but can't be rehomed as they are so dangerous.

So maybe a ban going forward wouldn't be a terrible thing.
 
Why not? I've suggested banning all bull terrier types as they kill disproportionately and the pitbull legislation is iffy when other similar bull terrier types have the same issue. You've highlighted some unclear/unspecified issues with banning some type of bull terriers and some other type of dog (some sort of mastiff which may well also be dangerous but I'm not sure is as popular or easy to keep)... it's not clear what the issue is you're highlighting with banning both of those things and I didn't suggest banning the other in the first place ergo I'm not sure why you've brought it up.

It's not an unspecified issue. It is difficult to define a broad range of bull terrier types in legislation, due to the vast difference in types.

if you want to ban bull terrier types, that's one thing. If you want to ban dangerous dog types, that is entirely different.

I made the presa point as, if bull terrier types are banned, the idiots will simply migrate to rottweilers, mastiffs, presa canarios, ridgebacks and so on.

I didn't claim it did, those are separate things and clearly, the banned breeds can be added/changed. One thing doesn't prevent the other, council dog wardens and police don't write legislation, ergo your objection to why not both is unclear.

I am in favour of better enforcement of existing law, as that provides the fastest and best solution to the problem we have. I can't really be clearer than that.
 
It's not an unspecified issue. It is difficult to define a broad range of bull terrier types in legislation, due to the vast difference in types.

It's difficult to define pitbull in legislation too.

I made the presa point as, if bull terrier types are banned, the idiots will simply migrate to rottweilers, mastiffs, presa canarios, ridgebacks and so on.

Some may but not all, why aren't they more popular now? I doubt a big mastiff is going to be quite so desirable in a council flat as a smaller bull terrier. Not everyone who buys dangerous dogs does so because they specifically want an aggressive/dangerous breed.

I am in favour of better enforcement of existing law, as that provides the fastest and best solution to the problem we have. I can't really be clearer than that.

That wasn't unclear, we both are, the question was why not both and you're answering by pointing out that you're fine with the part both of us are fine with.
 
Some may but not all, why aren't they more popular now? I doubt a big mastiff is going to be quite so desirable in a council flat as a smaller bull terrier. Not everyone who buys dangerous dogs does so because they specifically want an aggressive/dangerous breed.
They are not popular right now due to being a more expensive breed/more difficult to get hold of, plus there is tons of breeding farms out there sadly for your staffies, english bulls, bully breeds etc.
The scum that would buy said dog breed for dangerous reasons and not look after them wont give a hell if the dog has a place to sleep or not. One of my mothers neighbours living in a rather small maisonette has a very large dog (unsure on breed), but it is not where near suitable living environment. One of the other maisonettes had a woman living in there with a rather small yorkie terrier sort of thing, its still not suitable for those type of dogs who want a garden and play around.

What I am trying to say is, your point of people deciding not buying large dogs because they have a small flat, is not a thought process for people who do not give a hell about said dog, instead want it for the size/breed/clout that comes with such a dog.
 
What I am trying to say is, your point of people deciding not buying large dogs because they have a small flat, is not a thought process for people who do not give a hell about said dog, instead want it for the size/breed/clout that comes with such a dog.

You're just making a point that I already acknowledged in that case, like I already said: "Some may but not all".

If someone really really wants a dangerous status dog then the other option of course is to buy a significantly bigger dog, that isn't practical for everyone and is way more inconvenient and I suspect not all of those are as dangerous as bull terriers.

But again that totally misses the point that these dogs aren't just owned by people who specifically want a dangerous dog, they're also owned by people who want a dog and these things are cheap and available and others on the estate have them and then... pikachu_face.jpg ... the toddler's face is ripped off.
 
Last edited:
You're just making a point that I already acknowledged in that case, like I already said: "Some may but not all".

If someone really really wants a dangerous status dog then the other option of course is to buy a significantly bigger dog, that isn't practical for everyone and is way more inconvenient and I suspect not all of those are as dangerous as bull terriers.

But again that totally misses the point that these dogs aren't just owned by people who specifically want a dangerous dog, they're also owned by people who want a dog and these things are cheap and available and others on the estate have them and then... pikachu_face.jpg ... the toddler's face is ripped off.
I think you have a rather differing view on the public who buy the large dogs which have resulted in injury.
I have never come across a family with a kid or 2 who then decide, its time to get a rather large and potentially dangerous dog. Come across families who buy a large dog, but none who will go after a potentially dangerous dog (if not a puppy, again if bought up correctly there is no such thing as a dangerous dog).
So, some may yes, but a majority are buying them for the incorrect reasons which is why we are here having this conversation in the first place.
 
I think you have a rather differing view on the public who buy the large dogs which have resulted in injury.
I have never come across a family with a kid or 2 who then decide, its time to get a rather large and potentially dangerous dog.

I'm not talking about large dogs though I'm talking about bull terrier-type dogs, plenty of which are rather small.

They're the most common breed of dog at basically every shelter in the UK.
 
I'm not talking about large dogs though I'm talking about bull terrier-type dogs, plenty of which are rather small.

They're the most common breed of dog at basically every shelter in the UK.
addressed in my initial reply, you may of missed it.

Problem comes down to people as always, the biggest scum on this planet is humans, not dogs or any other animal.
 
I think you have a rather differing view on the public who buy the large dogs which have resulted in injury.
I have never come across a family with a kid or 2 who then decide, its time to get a rather large and potentially dangerous dog. Come across families who buy a large dog, but none who will go after a potentially dangerous dog (if not a puppy, again if bought up correctly there is no such thing as a dangerous dog).
So, some may yes, but a majority are buying them for the incorrect reasons which is why we are here having this conversation in the first place.
We got a German Shepherd which was 5, when my younger sister was 6, it was from a dogs home and no one wanted it as it was extremely aggressive towards other dogs. First week we struggled with it, once it actually pulled me over and attacked another dog but within a few months it turned into a soft case and ended up being scared of the dog it previously attacked.
I've never owned a dog that has turned out aggressive, ranging from Dobermans, German shepherds, Lurchers, Golden Retrievers so for me personally the dog has taken after the household it lived in.
 
Last edited:
addressed in my initial reply, you may of missed it.

No I didn't miss it, your assertion is that people will buy larger dogs instead but that only potentially applies to some people the subset who want aggressive status dogs, larger dogs may be dangerous but not all are *as dangerous* and also they can be far more costly and inconvenient to keep so even in the case where they may be desired there is an additional barrier too. But sure, no one has said other dogs can't be dangerous or won't be attractive to people like that.

It totally misses that these potentially dangerous dogs are also just kept by a heck of a lot more people simply as family pets.

Problem comes down to people as always, the biggest scum on this planet is humans, not dogs or any other animal.

No, it doesn't always come down to people, sometimes a dog will snap and bite or attack (see the dog walker death recently where a bunch of pets went into pack behaviour and attacked) with some breeds that's not a huge deal on an individual basis and the dog merely bites someone but with a bull terrier type that can turn into the dog getting very aggressive and not letting go, they have pretty powerful jaws and can cause a lot of damage. This recent reported incident was just a regular pet to this person's friend, a dog that was happily sat on the friend's lap:

Lily-Blu Whitehurst, from Congleton in Cheshire, was left with facial injuries after she was bitten by a dog in September 2021. She had been at a friend's house when the family's English bull terrier lunged at her.
"I was sat on the sofa next to the owner. Their dog was lying across my lap. I moved forward because it was heavy and it just attacked,"
says the 18 year old.

3E62NgD.png

And now look at the dog the victim of that random, unprovoked attack bought for herself:

Lily-Blu has two pet dogs herself - including Buster, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. She says they have helped her realise she doesn't need to be fearful.
"I know how to act around dogs. I've had dogs all my life. It's helped me to realise that not all dogs are like that."

lt9lstm.png

Again perhaps a very sweet family pet... but unlike an average dog that one could do a heck of a lot more damage with that jaw too.
 
Last edited:
We got a German Shepherd which was 5, when my younger sister was 6, it was from a dogs home and no one wanted it as it was extremely aggressive towards other dogs. First week we struggled with it, once it actually pulled me over and attacked another dog but within a few months it turned into a soft case and ended up being scared of the dog it previously attacked.
I've never owned a dog that has turned out aggressive, ranging from Dobermans, German shepherds, Lurchers, Golden Retrievers so for me personally the dog has taken after the household it lived in.
100% agree, its all about the home and the people who bring it up.

No I didn't miss it, your assertion is that people will buy larger dogs instead but that only potentially applies to some people the subset who want aggressive status dogs, larger dogs may be dangerous but not all are *as dangerous* and also they can be far more costly and inconvenient to keep so even in the case where they may be desired there is an additional barrier too. But sure, no one has said other dogs can't be dangerous or won't be attractive to people like that.

It totally misses that these potentially dangerous dogs are also just kept by a heck of a lot more people simply as family pets.
Is that a dangerous dog then? Or is it a dog raised dangerously?
No, it doesn't always come down to people, sometimes a dog will snap and bite or attack (see the dog walker death recently where a bunch of pets went into pack behaviour and attacked) with some breeds that's not a huge deal on an individual basis and the dog merely bites someone but with a bull terrier type that can turn into the dog getting very aggressive and not letting go, they have pretty powerful jaws and can cause a lot of damage. This recent reported incident was just a regular pet to this person's friend, a dog that was happily sat on the friend's lap:
Well if a dog just snaps and bites, then its a dangerous dog and needs putting down. Thanks for clarifying that.
I am very aware of small terrier based dogs having owned a number of staffies over the past 20 years, by the way, never been bit of attacked by any of them and neither have any of my friends, random's at the door etc etc why? because they were raised correctly.

In regards to the girl, its was not her dog, a friends dog she has no idea how it has been raised and she has clearly aggravated it in a way for it to attack. Even if not aggravated attack, something she could have done whilst moving has triggered the dog which has a history of something clearly.
Again, I have never met a dog that is outright mean, aggressive or will attack that is not the direct fault of the owners or previous owners. There is no such thing as a dangerous dog, only dangerous owners.

As for the girl again, even she clearly understands this as she has two dogs herself and not to be fearful of those dogs as I guess they have been bought up in a decent manner and never attacked her directly, if they are rescues clearly been looked after well to reduce their chance of triggering any previous abuse.
As for dog walker, given the amount of dogs involved, no one knows which dog started it, which dogs joined in, the background of any dogs. So unsure what point you are trying to make with this one?
 
Is that a dangerous dog then? Or is it a dog raised dangerously?

A dangerous dog.

I am very aware of small terrier based dogs having owned a number of staffies over the past 20 years, by the way, never been bit of attacked by any of them and neither have
any of my friends, random's at the door etc etc why? because they were raised correctly.

Standard excuse, in plenty of cases the dog was a nanny dog, a lovely pet who'd never hurt a fly... until it did.
In regards to the girl, its was not her dog, a friends dog she has no idea how it has been raised and she has clearly aggravated it in a way for it to attack.
The issue isn't just how it's raised though, any dog can attack, some dogs will cause a lot more damage and can be a lot more dangerous in the event they do attack.

As for dog walker, given the amount of dogs involved, no one knows which dog started it, which dogs joined in, the background of any dogs. So unsure what point you are trying to make with this one?

I'd suggest more than one, the reports seemed to suggest several of the dogs joined in and the point is that again, any dog can attack, in that case there was an element of pack behaviour too which becomes dangerous.
 
It's difficult to define pitbull in legislation too.

It is not. It is defined in guidance, according to the US kennel club breed standard for a pitbull.

Defining a "bull terrier type" is far more difficult.

Some may but not all, why aren't they more popular now? I doubt a big mastiff is going to be quite so desirable in a council flat as a smaller bull terrier. Not everyone who buys dangerous dogs does so because they specifically want an aggressive/dangerous breed.

A lot of people who owned pitbulls specifically got them as they are aggressive, intimidating dogs with a bad reputation.

When they were banned, those people moved onto "pitbull-ish" dogs, like Bully XLs.

If those becomes unavailable they will go for other intimidating types- mastiffs, rottweilers etc.

Those people, being cretins, don't really consider consequences when taking actions.

That wasn't unclear, we both are, the question was why not both and you're answering by pointing out that you're fine with the part both of us are fine with.

Not both as, in my opinion, defining a "bull terrier type" in legislation is difficult and unnecessary.

Address the problem dogs and owners through existing nuisance dog legislation. That is the first, and possibly, only step needed.
 
I'm not talking about large dogs though I'm talking about bull terrier-type dogs, plenty of which are rather small.

They're the most common breed of dog at basically every shelter in the UK.

This is something where a ban might help. If they can't be rehomed and are mainly in the hands on scum stopping them ever getting into the hands of scum would be a good thing...

If they aren't just replaced by another breed.
 
It is not. It is defined in guidance, according to the US kennel club breed standard for a pitbull.

Defining a "bull terrier type" is far more difficult.

Disagree, part of the issue with pitbull legislation is the presence of other bull terrier types!

If those becomes unavailable they will go for other intimidating types- mastiffs, rottweilers etc.

Again, that's already been acknowledged, some may but that's not the case of all current bull terrier owners or indeed all people who want a status dog (given practicalities) and other large dogs aren't always necessarily as dangerous.

Not both as, in my opinion, defining a "bull terrier type" in legislation is difficult and unnecessary.

Address the problem dogs and owners through existing nuisance dog legislation. That is the first, and possibly, only step needed.

That doesn't address the point, again those things are independent of each other, so again, why not both?

This is something where a ban might help. If they can't be rehomed and are mainly in the hands on scum stopping them ever getting into the hands of scum would be a good thing...

If they aren't just replaced by another breed.

Exactly, so far the objections seem to be but other dangerous dogs exist (which is already acknowledged), that enforcement should be improved (which I agree with but no reasoning so far as to why not do both) and some beliefs that it's always the owner who is at fault (which is not necessarily true but in lots of the cases where it is true this sort of ban likely helps... as we can already see from the sort of dogs that every shelter has plenty of.)
 
Last edited:
I'm not talking about large dogs though I'm talking about bull terrier-type dogs, plenty of which are rather small.

*They're the most common breed of dog at basically every shelter in the UK*.
I'm gonna have to request some kind of substantiation there, as we've had discussions along these lines before and found the above to be somewhat erroneous.
At my local, for example, it's Collie types.
At Battersea, it's a toss-up between Staffies, Labradors, Collies, Lurchers, GSDs, and those little Pug-like ones with the big ears. Beagles used to be a massive problem at one stage, too.
 
I'm gonna have to request some kind of substantiation there, as we've had discussions along these lines before and found the above to be somewhat erroneous.
At my local, for example, it's Collie types.
At Battersea, it's a toss-up between Staffies, Labradors, Collies, Lurchers, GSDs, and those little Pug-like ones with the big ears. Beagles used to be a massive problem at one stage, too.

After a tense countdown, Britain’s Top 100 Dogs 2019 crowned the Staffordshire Bull Terrier the winner. But there are disproportionately more Staffies in shelters than any other breed, and it takes them so much longer to be re-homed.

10 MOST COMMON DOG BREEDS IN RESCUE SHELTERS IN THE UK​

1. Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Similarly in the US:

Out of all the dog breeds most commonly found in shelters, it’s the Pit Bull that wins by a landslide. This breed is often abused, and neglected leading them to have a hard time trusting people.
 
Last edited:
A dangerous dog.
Wrong, dangerously raised dog and dangerous/scummy owner.

Standard excuse, in plenty of cases the dog was a nanny dog, a lovely pet who'd never hurt a fly... until it did.

The issue isn't just how it's raised though, any dog can attack, some dogs will cause a lot more damage and can be a lot more dangerous in the event they do attack.
The issue is always how it is raised, you are speaking like someone who have never looked after a dog let alone raised one. So stop giving it, standard excuse nonsense, I have raised and bred dogs which are classed as dangerous and not had a problem with a single one of mine nor the litter of puppies produced.
No dogs just attack with all their might and ferociousness for the hell of it, if they have that sort of behaviour in them, its been bred and raised that way through abuse or bad influences such as other dogs with similar tendencies.

If your whole argument is any dog can attack, any human can attack, shall be ban the breeding of those and terminate them at your will? Guess your answer is yes to this which sums up everything wrong with your view here.
 
Last edited:
Wrong, dangerously raised dog and dangerous/scummy owner.

Again no, that's a common misconception. Why try and pretend there aren't differences between breeds here or indeed between the behaviour of individual dogs. You can lessen the risk but you can't eliminate it completely and while any dog can snap some are far more dangerous in the event they do so.

There are plenty of anecdotes from say, pitbull owners, bull terrier owners that their dog is perfect and wouldn't hurt a fly adding another personal anecdote about some beliefs re: a few dogs you've owned is pretty pointless as an argument.

If your whole argument is any dog can attack, any human can attack, shall be ban the breeding of those and terminate them at your will? Guess your answer is yes to this which sums up everything wrong with your view here.

But my argument isn't to ban all dogs, if you can't even state my argument correctly then trying to extend it like that is just silly.
 
Back
Top Bottom