Yes I meant fine.
XL Bully dog - discussion
- Thread starter platinumsage
- Start date
Yes I meant fine.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Yeah, you’re clearly not reading much of any of it at all. Good night.
I read loads of it on the train earlier. Hence the superfluous tagging of you. Which was a bit naughty I will admit but here you are anyway. good night.
Humberto
Godspede
I guess what we have had enough of are quick-fix ineffective 'solutions'. I think 8ball was right to ask (if I've understood him): will a ban make our towns and parks safer for people? Will it be enforced properly? I do think the answer can be legislated, but a quick fix isn't the answer. It didn't work before, and who has the resources and capability to enforce a ban? Bankrupt councils, police?
There has to be animal welfare angle too, which littlebabyjesus said something about. Dogs are aggressive for different reasons. Heavy dogs, wherever you want to draw the line, have definite needs and requirements or they become unstable, distressed and unpredictable. That is the owner's fault and responsibilty. As are the consequences. Or they should be.
Are some dogs more dangerous? Yes, because size and strength varies considerably. So a mandatory 'on lead' rule for all dogs in public spaces should be enforced. A child or anyone, nor their own dogs perhaps, should not be menaced by irresponsible owners. Which is why after all many XL Bully and similar cross breed owners aquire them. And misuse them and allow them to intimidate and put people in danger in our public spaces.
And the government can only do so much for us. Not least because they're mostly fucking shit short-termist, headline chasing gobshites who fuck everything up on purpose to make money and advance their personal ambition. But that's rather broadening the discussion.
People have to tell them and make them instead of just waiting for the next death. I'm reaching a bit now though, but that's about where I am at this point in the discussion.
There has to be animal welfare angle too, which littlebabyjesus said something about. Dogs are aggressive for different reasons. Heavy dogs, wherever you want to draw the line, have definite needs and requirements or they become unstable, distressed and unpredictable. That is the owner's fault and responsibilty. As are the consequences. Or they should be.
Are some dogs more dangerous? Yes, because size and strength varies considerably. So a mandatory 'on lead' rule for all dogs in public spaces should be enforced. A child or anyone, nor their own dogs perhaps, should not be menaced by irresponsible owners. Which is why after all many XL Bully and similar cross breed owners aquire them. And misuse them and allow them to intimidate and put people in danger in our public spaces.
And the government can only do so much for us. Not least because they're mostly fucking shit short-termist, headline chasing gobshites who fuck everything up on purpose to make money and advance their personal ambition. But that's rather broadening the discussion.
People have to tell them and make them instead of just waiting for the next death. I'm reaching a bit now though, but that's about where I am at this point in the discussion.
Humberto
Godspede
Protection. Stereos, soft shoes. And I am the one that is arsing about. Priceless.
I'm not interested if you can't engage. I'm not taking sides here.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Engage with what? And if you don’t wanna engage with something I said, don’t quote me.
Fuck’s sake, he’s up again!
That’s where we are with NHS staffing, I suppose.
yawnsome
Humberto
Godspede
I mean you responded to me. You didn't quote me so what?
Humberto
Godspede
Fuck’s sake, he’s up again!
That’s where we are with NHS staffing, I suppose.
Actually what do you mean about 'NHS staffing'?
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
The pit bull ban worked, so that was good. Look at the number of pit bull attacks in e.g. the US and compare with here.
I fail to see any downsides of adding XL Bully type dogs to the banned list. The reason there has been a spike in attacks is because it wasn't done sooner.
Yes, other measures would be great like going after the breeders for other crimes, licensing etc etc, but that doesn't mean banning types of dogs won't also help.
So come on anti-banners - what are the reasons to oppose a ban other than "hmm it might not work very well"? What actual harm will it cause and how will that outweigh the harm it will prevent?
I fail to see any downsides of adding XL Bully type dogs to the banned list. The reason there has been a spike in attacks is because it wasn't done sooner.
Yes, other measures would be great like going after the breeders for other crimes, licensing etc etc, but that doesn't mean banning types of dogs won't also help.
So come on anti-banners - what are the reasons to oppose a ban other than "hmm it might not work very well"? What actual harm will it cause and how will that outweigh the harm it will prevent?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I don’t think it would be particularly difficult to enforce licensing through council and police spot checks. Other countries manage. In Holland it’s an annual tax based on the number of dogs you own, which increases per dog. If you own 3 dogs it’s the best part of a grand a year.
Meaningful measures can be applied.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I don't buy the 'it's impossible to tell which dogs are XL bullies' thing. Does the dog weigh 300lbs? Yes? Then it's not a suitable domestic pet is it?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
A weight consideration only works at the lower end (a dog under 5 kilos is unlikely to pose much of a threat to anyone) but not all big dogs are dangerous (Newfoundlands, IWHs, Great Danes, etc).
Looby
Well-Known Member
I did ask about the success of the pit bull ban yesterday but no-one answered.
For me, I’m not against a ban, I’m just trying to think about how that will work and how successful it will be. If it’s a half measure that won’t do enough then the government shouldn’t be able to get away with those half measures.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
A ban would be politically very achievable, as a recent YouGov poll showed only 17% of people would oppose it.
Licensing every dog i.e. a "dog tax" for every law-abiding dog owner, would obviously be more difficult as it would meet greater opposition.
Licensing every dog i.e. a "dog tax" for every law-abiding dog owner, would obviously be more difficult as it would meet greater opposition.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Tbh, you can pass whatever legislation you like - bans, licencing, whatever - all that actually matters is enforcement.
Unless there are people walking around, looking for these dogs, and enforcing the ban/licence/whatever right there on the street then it's no more use than a church service where everyone sings hymns and rattles tambourines.
And to be clear, that's not a couple of PCSO's per district council, that's real, intrusive policing with the absolute certainty of physical conflict with owners, and the dogs themselves.
Unless there are people walking around, looking for these dogs, and enforcing the ban/licence/whatever right there on the street then it's no more use than a church service where everyone sings hymns and rattles tambourines.
And to be clear, that's not a couple of PCSO's per district council, that's real, intrusive policing with the absolute certainty of physical conflict with owners, and the dogs themselves.
I think that a ban can have a use in enabling authorities to remove a dog that people have identified as troublesome with the burden being on the owners to justify why their dog is not actually an illegal breed. That removes the requirement for lengthy processes of trying to prove that this specific dog is dangerous. Even lots of dogs are never removed (due to a lack of resources), it still enables the rapid removal of the most worrisome.
StoneRoad
heckling from the back!
I had a thought or three about this late last night.
One of the things anti-breed & anti-banners keep saying is that identifying dogs as belonging to specific breeds isn't possible.
Yet there are supposed to be "genetic" tests that will tell you your mutt is something like 10% this and 30% that ...
Surely, if that is anything other than a scam, it can be used to determine if "Beast" or "Rover" are from banned groups ?
The other point is that these XLBullies are, it would seem, a status symbol within some of the less law-abiding sectors of the population ...
so enforcing any sort of regulation / ban / insurance / licencing is going to be less than easy.
I am assuming - with a fair degree of certainty - that these dogs are likely to be owned & bred by the same sort of people who often don't bother to tax / insure their cars and whose employment isn't at the local shop / factory ...
of course, there would be law-abiding exceptions, but the % would be quite small in comparison to the perceived / actual problem.
Additionally, any scheme to regulate dog-ownership generally would [probably] be massively bureaucratic and is likely to unfairly penalise the less economically active sector of the population even further, as well as the already responsible dog-owners. The irresponsible ones would just ignore such a scheme, a bit like how they perceive the inconvenience of taxing the car ...
Enforcement would also be a nightmare - and could well increase the dog-dumping seen some months after the end of the lockdowns ...
One of the things anti-breed & anti-banners keep saying is that identifying dogs as belonging to specific breeds isn't possible.
Yet there are supposed to be "genetic" tests that will tell you your mutt is something like 10% this and 30% that ...
Surely, if that is anything other than a scam, it can be used to determine if "Beast" or "Rover" are from banned groups ?
The other point is that these XLBullies are, it would seem, a status symbol within some of the less law-abiding sectors of the population ...
so enforcing any sort of regulation / ban / insurance / licencing is going to be less than easy.
I am assuming - with a fair degree of certainty - that these dogs are likely to be owned & bred by the same sort of people who often don't bother to tax / insure their cars and whose employment isn't at the local shop / factory ...
of course, there would be law-abiding exceptions, but the % would be quite small in comparison to the perceived / actual problem.
Additionally, any scheme to regulate dog-ownership generally would [probably] be massively bureaucratic and is likely to unfairly penalise the less economically active sector of the population even further, as well as the already responsible dog-owners. The irresponsible ones would just ignore such a scheme, a bit like how they perceive the inconvenience of taxing the car ...
Enforcement would also be a nightmare - and could well increase the dog-dumping seen some months after the end of the lockdowns ...
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Let's see what the RSPCA say against breed-specific legislation.
www.rspca.org.uk
So yeah, not seeing any compelling arguments there...
Why Breed Specific Legislation continues to fail dogs and people - RSPCA
BSL has killed thousands of dogs over 30 years because of how they look. This has to stop.
- BSL has killed thousands of dogs over 30 years - great
- All dogs have the potential to be dangerous - eh, not to the same extent, no
- Breed does not predict aggressive behaviour or risk to public safety - wrong
- Only 8% of dangerously out of control dog cases involved banned breeds - that's because they're banned, lol
- A dog can be a 'prohibited type' without sharing any genetics with that breed - so what? if it looks like a duck etc
- It's not possible to rehome prohibited dogs to new owners - good!!!
- The UK Government needs to commit to ending BSL now - why?
- Stand up for dogs on death row - no thanks
So yeah, not seeing any compelling arguments there...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I have some sympathy with the rspca view due to moves to make 'wolf dogs' illegal. These moves are often based on lack of understanding and skewed data plus a bit of a cultural prejudice against wolves.
That said, there are specific challenges and responsibilities involved in keeping big dogs. A poorly socialised chihuahua will be irritating. A poorly socialised husky could be dangerous.
That said, there are specific challenges and responsibilities involved in keeping big dogs. A poorly socialised chihuahua will be irritating. A poorly socialised husky could be dangerous.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
I'd not heard of wolf dogs:
www.pdsa.org.uk
Keeping hybrid breeds as pets
Wild hybrid breeds may appeal because of the way they look, but a lot of new owners often find they've bitten off more than they can chew!
www.pdsa.org.uk
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
They're challenging dogs to own, and as that link says they are not indoors dogs at all. Not city dogs. tbh I think the idea that you should need a special licence for one is fair enough. There are campaigns in various countries to completely ban them, though. And the idea that they are potentially more trouble the closer they are genetically to wolves isn't quite right.I'd not heard of wolf dogs:
Keeping hybrid breeds as pets
Wild hybrid breeds may appeal because of the way they look, but a lot of new owners often find they've bitten off more than they can chew!
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
I mean I wouldn't want to pick up the poo, but all the ones of these I've met have been lovely.
Callie
Pivoting
I think part of an issue with making XL bullies a banned breed is that there are a lot in the UK already, which I don't think was the case so much for other banned breeds? That would be a very tricky starting point.
StoneRoad I think you answered your own question about the genetic tests! Not suitable to definitively identify a specific breed.
StoneRoad I think you answered your own question about the genetic tests! Not suitable to definitively identify a specific breed.
Similar threads
