Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

XL Bully dog - discussion

I once tried to pull a normal sized, young staffie off an older staffie that it was trying to shred.
This was in the neighbour's kitchen, btw. [who had a young child and the wife was tiny, well under 5ft and six stone sopping wet and both were screaming, which didn't help]
I had to force a tyre lever into his mouth to get enough pressure and had a bucket to jam over his head when he, finally, let go. It took three adults to get the dogs apart - and that was without the older dog retaliating in any way.
Dog was, literally, thrown into the back of their garage and then tried to chew / tear the door off.
The older dog was taken to the vet for stitches and recovered well.
The younger dog had a one-way trip to another vet - the one used by the breeder.
Even though I had thoroughly washed them with soap, water and disinfectant, I had to get various scrapes and cuts treated at A&E ... and got a tet jab, and blood taken "just in case" ... the little girl involved was in hell of a state mentally for a long time, and the situation caused some marital difficulty
This was mid-1980s ...
 
I once tried to pull a normal sized, young staffie off an older staffie that it was trying to shred.
This was in the neighbour's kitchen, btw. [who had a young child and the wife was tiny, well under 5ft and six stone sopping wet and both were screaming, which didn't help]
I had to force a tyre lever into his mouth to get enough pressure and had a bucket to jam over his head when he, finally, let go. It took three adults to get the dogs apart - and that was without the older dog retaliating in any way.
Dog was, literally, thrown into the back of their garage and then tried to chew / tear the door off.
The older dog was taken to the vet for stitches and recovered well.
The younger dog had a one-way trip to another vet - the one used by the breeder.
Even though I had thoroughly washed them with soap, water and disinfectant, I had to get various scrapes and cuts treated at A&E ... and got a tet jab, and blood taken "just in case" ... the little girl involved was in hell of a state mentally for a long time, and the situation caused some marital difficulty
This was mid-1980s ...
Jesus Christ, horrible!
 
Jesus Christ, horrible!
I can still hear the noise ... it really was horrific.
To get into the neighbour's kitchen I had to hurdle a 4ft garden fence, and I'm a not very agile short-arse myself.
I honestly thought the screams and snarling meant that the younger dog had attacked the child, the dog was a snappy piece of work, having met it a couple of times already.
 
Feel really sorry for farmers and families affected by dog attacks
Not just these bullyXL types,

families
farmers

[sadly, there are plenty of other incidents - quite a few years ago some hounds rioted on sheep and killed a number of the flock & the hunt shot ALL their dogs as a result, not just the ones out that day]
 
Last edited:
Looks like we are due another piece of well thought out legislation, that will be really easy to enforce, from a Tory Home Sec responding to a bit of mobile phone footage...

Moral panic laws = Best laws .

It doesn't need much legislation to add a type of dog, it's as simple as proscribing a group as a terrorist organisation, which is done frequently:

"c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose."
 
Isn’t one of the issues that it’s not a breed it’s a mix of breeds and actually quite hard to define. So we could be banning dogs that are perfectly safe (in the right hands) and others are slipping through the net?

I dunno, staffs get a bad press and have a reputation. My oldest dog was attacked twice by a staff in the same park. Equally I know a few people who have had/have staffs and they’re gentle, sweet and have a good temperament.

A staff that does attack could also easily kill and has. Their jaws are huge and strong too.

Banning and destroying all types of dog that could be bred for fighting is very broad.
I can’t remember if that was particularly successful with pit bulls.
 
all owners more so

scare away dickheads who want a dog to show off their masculinity

Licensing, my council charges €800 a year for fighting dogs. You could make it licence only available to >25 with at least 2 years no public nuisance criminal record for example.
 
I dunno, staffs get a bad press and have a reputation. My oldest dog was attacked twice by a staff in the same park. Equally I know a few people who have had/have staffs and they’re gentle, sweet and have a good temperament.

The dogs that go on the attack are the exact same dogs that are gentle, sweet and have a good temperament.
 
The dogs that go on the attack are the exact same dogs that are gentle, sweet and have a good temperament.
Are they though? Really? So does that mean all staffs and other bull type breeds would need to be banned? And then what happens with all the puppies bred illegally? Do we really have the resources to pursue them?

Recently there has been a huge scandal about a well known dog trainer breeding in an unsafe and unethical way. Her business partner is a famous vet/behaviorist has been accused of knowing about and supporting this. These people are well known, are on the telly and making a fortune from their services.
If she’s a shitty breeder whilst being high profile and KC registered, how are these illegal dogs and litters going to be found?

Honestly if I thought banning these breeds or crosses would stop attacks I’d support it but I’m not convinced.
 
Isn’t one of the issues that it’s not a breed it’s a mix of breeds and actually quite hard to define. So we could be banning dogs that are perfectly safe (in the right hands) and others are slipping through the net?

The Act doesn't ban breeds it bans types. For pit bulls this was tested in court and it was determined that to be a pit bull type the dog must have a significant number of characteristics of the pit bull breed. As XL Bully is not a breed the courts would have to determine what an XL Bully was, presumably with some reliance on the parent breeds and also the characteristics promoted by XL Bully breeders, sellers and clubs.

The burden of proof will fall on the defence, because the Act provides that an offending dog will be presumed to be of a banned type if a constable or local authority officer asserts that it is, unless the accused can provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.
 
Problem is not the breed itself.
But owners wanting a “big bad dog”
1st it was German shepards
Then dobermans
Then rotweillers
Then pitbulls
Then staffys
Now it’s bully XL
Not helped by people inbreeding because they think it’s easy cash and poor training. A vicious attack sausage dog attempted to attack me on my bicycle last week I was giggaling and most concerned with not running it owner.
A bully XL even it it was only “ playing “would have put me in hospital.
This will probably be the next ridiculous breed to be popular with idiots.

I think the breed is a problem, I think it’s cruel to breed an animal with such a big out of proportion head, meaning the bitch can suffer and c section is sometimes needed. There are lots of health problems bred into this breed. Breeders deliberately inbreed these dogs, so you’re going to get all sorts of unintended problems. I don’t agree with sausage dog breeding either, that breed is problematic too, many health problems.
 
The Act doesn't ban breeds it bans types. For pit bulls this was tested in court and it was determined that to be a pit bull type the dog must have a significant number of characteristics of the pit bull breed. As XL Bully is not a breed the courts would have to determine what an XL Bully was, presumably with some reliance on the parent breeds and also the characteristics promoted by XL Bully breeders, sellers and clubs.

The burden of proof will fall on the defence, because the Act provides that an offending dog will be presumed to be of a banned type if a constable or local authority officer asserts that it is, unless the accused can provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.
What's the difference between an XL bully and a pit bull? Wouldn't xls already be covered as a pit bull type?
 
What's the he difference between an XL bully and a pit bull? Wouldn't xls already be covered as a pit bull type?

They don’t have enough characteristics of the pit bull breed to be regarded as a pit bull type, just like Staffordshire bull terriers don’t. It’ll be silly things like leg angle or whatever.
 
Not sure why there's even a focus on breeds/types - as many dogs of 'fighter' strains are indeed soft as shite while many popular 'domestic pet' species can be vicious bastards. The issue is with the owners/keepers (and breeders ofc) and they're the ones who should be more heavily penalised. Far as I am concerned there should be much, MUCH stiffer penalties for allowing dogs off lead, massive fines for owners whose dogs attack and injure other dogs (huge fine + obligatory payment of the victim's vet bills) and prison terms if your dog attacks and wounds/kills another human.
 
Much of the problem with "difficult" breeds so common with "I'm hard so I've got a xxxx dog on a chain {and a small penis}" types is that the production of the dogs in question is done very much undercover by back street organisations & individuals. The dogs are often sold for ridiculous amounts of money - or other favours - in a sector of society in which the rule of law is largely absent and strong-arm force is the order of the day.
Trying to legislate / regulate that situation is, frankly, pissing into a gale force thunderstorm.
 
Not sure why there's even a focus on breeds/types - as many dogs of 'fighter' strains are indeed soft as shite while many popular 'domestic pet' species can be vicious bastards. The issue is with the owners/keepers (and breeders ofc) and they're the ones who should be more heavily penalised. Far as I am concerned there should be much, MUCH stiffer penalties for allowing dogs off lead, massive fines for owners whose dogs attack and injure other dogs (huge fine + obligatory payment of the victim's vet bills) and prison terms if your dog attacks and wounds/kills another human.
All very well, but by the time the fines happen, the damage is done. Isn't it better to ban the big, possibly vicious dogs in the first place? I'm terrified by the recent spate of dog attacks.
 
All very well, but by the time the fines happen, the damage is done. Isn't it better to ban the big, possibly vicious dogs in the first place? I'm terrified by the recent spate of dog attacks.
IME many dog owners are very bad at recognising that some people just don't like dogs and are uneasy/afraid around them. It's often due to a bad incident as a child. But Fluffy is a sweetie doesn't help.
 
Not sure why there's even a focus on breeds/types - as many dogs of 'fighter' strains are indeed soft as shite while many popular 'domestic pet' species can be vicious bastards. The issue is with the owners/keepers (and breeders ofc) and they're the ones who should be more heavily penalised. Far as I am concerned there should be much, MUCH stiffer penalties for allowing dogs off lead, massive fines for owners whose dogs attack and injure other dogs…

They should be forced to own fluffy white Pomeranians, and fined a grand every time they’re seen in public without one.
 
So the data is that dog bites/attacks reported to the police have significantly increased from 3 (ish) years ago.

But surely cases would have been reduced during COVID? Fewer folk out and about to encounter dogs.

And another thing that happened is dog ownership increased during COVID/lockdowns/increased WFH. Possibly people new to dog ownership.

There doesn't appear to be specific info regarding the breeds of dogs involved in the attacks so it could be a majority of poorly trained cockerpoos?? (They're all bloody cockerpoos!)
 
If the Dangerous Dogs Act doesn't work then the only alternative is licensing and policing the ownership of all dogs, with vastly increased punishments for offenders. Should be treated like cars and driving if you ask me; test, license, microchipped and insurance. Your dog injures or kills someone and you get a lifetime ban and heavy fine or prison.
 
So the data is that dog bites/attacks reported to the police have significantly increased from 3 (ish) years ago.

But surely cases would have been reduced during COVID? Fewer folk out and about to encounter dogs.

And another thing that happened is dog ownership increased during COVID/lockdowns/increased WFH. Possibly people new to dog ownership.

There doesn't appear to be specific info regarding the breeds of dogs involved in the attacks so it could be a majority of poorly trained cockerpoos?? (They're all bloody cockerpoos!)

Bully Watch have been collating data (this graph for 2023):
image-8.png
 
There's several dogs in our local area that were acquired during COVID lockdowns.
A few of them are, at best, poorly socialised.
Most are a bit yappy, have poor heel / lead skills and some seem to be more fashion statements than a properly trained companion animal.

I'm comparing them to our Ben, whilst he is now elderly, has always gone for the quiet life and is well-behaved.
 
Motor vehicles are also potentially injurious or even lethal. So why not licence dogs again, but also make it conditional on the owners having insurance to cover damage caused (like sheep or other livestock killed) or attacks on people and injuries caused?

Breeds that are known to be more dangerous than others would cost more to insure in much the same way that a souped up sports car costs more to insure than a Volvo.

If a dog is found not to be insured - all details legally required to be on a microchip - it gets seized in much the same way that vehicles can be impounded. The owner can be prosecuted for having a dog that isn't licenced/insured and the dog destroyed.
I suppose the problem is you don't have a dog equivalent of traffic cameras.
People get caught without insurance or driving dangerously because of cameras.
And it's still bonkers the amount of people who break the rules and either don't get caught or don't care.

I don't know how it's logistically enforceable with dogs.
 
That data is flakey and biased, at best.

View attachment 391236

Right. I'm sure "it could be a majority of poorly trained cockerpoos" then as you suggest. :rolleyes:

If you want more certainty look at the death stats, 18 deaths in the last two years, at least half caused by Bullys. I guess it could be the case that they don't injure in a similar proportion to which they kill, but I would have thought it unlikely.
 
so what’s the problem with adding this looking dog to the band list? Exterminate them and the owners. I know I said that before. But yeah seems fair. it’s only arseholes or antisocial simpletons who want them anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom