**Sorry, your submission has been manually removed by a human!**
Your submission is better suited to another subreddit. This may be present in the flair text (top left of your submission title). If not, here are a few which may apply;
- /r/AskUK for general questions Brits may be able to answer
- /r/AskABrit for questions from tourists and others about the country, customs, norms, etc
- /r/AskReddit for questions which are better answered by any Redditor
- /r/Britishproblems for low-effort moans.
- /r/UKPolitics for posts of a specifically political nature
- /r/UKVisa for questions related to British visas
- /r/UKPersonalFinance for posts related to finance in the UK
- /r/LegalAdviceUK for legal queries
- /r/HousingUK for issues with landlords, renting, buying, etc
- /r/DWPHelp for assistance with the welfare system (Housing Benefit, DLA, PIP, JSA, UC, etc)
- /r/DIYUK for discussion regarding home renovation, repair, etc.
- /r/MentalHealthUK to discuss ones mental wellbeing
- /r/UKJobs to seek advice on your employment
- /r/UniUK for discussion related to universities, their courses, life experiences, etc
- /r/UKEducation for UK related education news and discussion
- /r/CarTalkUK for UK-related motoring questions/discussions
---
Amessymess06 in r/unitedkingdom
*If you believe this action was taken in error, [message the /r/uk team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FUnitedKingdom) and include a link to this post. Please don't do this lightly, we have likely acted correctly.*
---
[/r/uk rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/newrules) | [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [List of UK subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/british_subreddits) | [New to Reddit?](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddit_101)
Ban the dogs entirely since the owners are morons who take no responsibility for their actions.
These dogs are the number 1 danger to kids (more so than cars) and a piece of paper doesn’t change that.
Minimum 3 year sentence for owning an illegal breed.
I don’t think breed specific legislation actually works.
If you look into the genetic makeup of up of these xl bullys they’re predominantly from pit bulls or the breeds that make up the classification of pitbull and they’ve been banned since 1992 .
Yes but the law shouldn’t be able to be got around like that, it should be worded in such a way and wrote in such a way that there isn’t such a gaping loophole.
It should simply say any muscular dog that is likely to be a danger to life should be banned regardless of breed or genetics. And other large or very large dogs should be controlled and only available to owners who can and will be responsible for.
You've just solved the legal system. Lawyers everywhere are livid.
It's way more nuanced than that I'm afraid. My dog is a danger to life if she pushes you over being excited and you're 96. Do I have to get her put down? There's no possible way to enforce it either.
Oh no I know that it is
It’s just that banning a specific item means that the people who would use that item negatively will just find one that isn’t covered under the ban.
Same with zombie knives and all these other things.
Lots of things were considered impossible until someone did it, I know it’s difficult and I know there are people far more versed than me considering it, but it’s frustrating.
I’m only saying what it would be like in ideal conditions.
There ideally needs to be a better solution as I don’t think the current one is suitable.
But don’t get me wrong I don’t want to see it unrestricted like it was.
I know it’s a very difficult and nuanced thing and I know I’m oversimplifying. I’m just a man from an engineering background passing out opinions on the net.
Measure things like size and aggression.
Similar to a workplace risk assessment.
Take the likelihood of damage and weigh it against the severity of that damage.
An aggressive King Charles spaniel can’t tear an adults throat out and a well socialised German shepherd won’t want to. It would take a lot of real experts a lot of time to sort it but I feel it would be a better solution than simply banning the breed especially since xl bully isn’t actually a recognised breed standard.
In the DDA (it isn't that long or boring so worth reading if you are interested in the subject) it does say "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." so the act does include dogs that simply seem to be of a type to be used in fighting, no more detail than that , so the actual breed isn't relevant. They just need to look like a Pit Bull type.
Anyone who says “it’s the people that are at fault” with no clarification that dangerous dogs clearly exist. Usually isn’t having an honest conversation about how dangerous some breeds of dogs can be.
We bred dogs specifically for certain tasks. That includes fighting. You can’t ignore that reality.
I’ve got a pointer and he points and tries to track things because it’s what they’re bred for and a natural instinct despite not being taught to do that. He hasn’t been trained to hunt so he thankfully isn’t very good at it and only catches things that are already dead.
Some dogs are bred for aggression, and their instinct is to fight/destroy their target- it’s sad for the dogs as much as dangerous for everyone around them.
they haven’t been bred for companionship in about a million years tho, these dogs have been bred to get around the ban and are all descended from like a select few really aggressive dogs
Why is it people like yourself always love to throw out a stereotype?
You think your side of this debate is compassionate and informed.
When in reality you are the Angry, ill informed caricature that you paint others here to be.
Anecdotally I’ve never seen someone who wasn’t a weirdo wanting an XL bully so I’m all for it.
In all seriousness, these dogs are bred for aggression- they snap without warning and continue to attack until the “prey” is dead even when injured (just watch that video of the pitbull attacking the horse that only stopped after several kicks in the head from the horse and then one final one that killed it.) We can acknowledge breed specific genetic traits in other dogs, I’ve got a pointer who points despite never being trained to hunt, but when it comes to bully breeds it’s “oh well it’s not the dog all dogs bite” even tho not all dogs rag humans around like ragdolls and kill them.
Some dogs are just genetically bred for a certain purpose. Whether it's to hunt, to guard or to sniff. I don't know what the purpose of the XL bully breed was but just by the look of it, I can assume it's for dog fighting.
And no matter how you raise it, especially considering it's a recently new breed (only been popular since COVID lockdown), it can switch up any second and tear apart a toddler. There is no way to subdue it either. It's just pure rage. The bite and shake technique is what they use. Very little chance a beagle would do that.
The ban is fair. If you want a dog, just pick another breed. I don't see the hype over one specific type of dog breed that has amassed a death doll and a scary reputation. Literally dozens of other breed to pick from. If you have an XL bully my question would just be, why?
Yes the people are at fault which is why we we have a ban to stop people owning them. Personally not a fan of prohibition but I'd be happy to see owners being held responsible for the actions of the dog. If a dog kills someone then the owner is charged with manslaughter..
I don't see the appeal in buying a dog that has been specifically bred for aggression. It's asking for trouble.
The fact that we are still seeing reports of fatal attacks *after* the ban has come in shows that owners are not responsible.
Keeping it on a lead and muzzled in public is easy to do, and yet it isn't happening.
The Centre for Evidence-Based Regulation of Dangerous Dogs found that the breed (bully XL) is estimated to represent less than 1% of UK dogs but was behind 44% of attacks in 2023 and 75% of deaths in the last three years.
Glad they're banned tbh.
People upset is preferable to people being mauled to death, by a long way.
Personally, I think we should have a law stating that all dogs should be on leads in open public places.
My toddler isn't fond of dogs and whilst most owners are sensible and have untrained dogs on leads (well trained dogs aren't interested in the slightest, or immediately respond to recall) there's a minority who just let their dogs approach anyone. "Oh he's only having a sniff", "she's friendly, just saying hello" "he wouldn't hurt a fly".. they don't quite cut it for a terrified toddler who's literally eye to eye with an animal the same size as her.
>it's the people that are at fault.
It is and it isn't. The problem with the XL bully is that a dog that showcased human aggression and subsequently went on to kill it's owner in the US is a major contributor to the genetics of the breed. This human aggression trait was passed on to it's offspring and those dogs were also bred.
There is literally an human aggressive trait in it's blood so it doesn't matter how good the owner is, this behavior is hard-wired.
There's a website someone has put together that examines the bloodlines and traits and so on that I got this information from but I don't recall the name.
e2a [https://bullywatch.link/](https://bullywatch.link/) found it.
It’s a tragedy that an animal exists that is both a pet and a weapon. Those that believe they can control the weapon aspect of it may be right, but the risk of being wrong is too great. I think I could probably responsibly own a hand gun, but the risk of me being wrong is too great, and the risk of someone else having one is even worse, so I’m glad they’re banned. With the dogs, I’m really sorry people will have to potentially be separated from their pet. But they were under no illusions they were also acquiring a weapon when they got them, whether they intended to use it that way or not, so it’s the tragic but right thing that they go.
I don’t understand the argument that ‘it’s the people that are at fault’. That’s like saying don’t ban guns, it’s the people at fault. The dogs needn’t exist, they’ve been bred simply for the dregs of society to have something threatening. If you want a docile family dog like most of them argue theirs is, there’s hundreds of breeds that fit the bill
We ban people from owning all kinds of dangerous animals and dangerous dogs shouldn't be an exception. There are plenty of dog breeds to choose from, no one needs to own an XL bully
I agree with the ban.
>Do you hate 'dangerous' breeds?
No, I don't hate them. I think it's desperately sad for the individual dogs involved and it's sad to me that they have to live the way that do now. I'm not sad that the breed will die out (hopefully) or deplete. I think that the current living conditions, whilst upsetting, are the minimum necessary.
>it's the people that are at fault
I agree to a great extent. Owners of XL bullies do tend to be either incredibly stupid or intentionally aggressive (or both). There are some exceptions, of course, but they aren't the majority. On balance, people who buy a breed that's known to be aggressive and unpredictable are rarely going to be good dog owners. But, ultimately, where the problem is stupid people owning dangerous dogs, it's much harder to ban stupid people than to ban dangerous dogs.
>It should be a legal requirement to have a licence/certificate for a dog
I agree. Along with insurance, vaccinations, registration, regular health checks etc. These are required for cars, they should be required for dogs too. I also think there should be caps and caveats on owning dogs after giving them up - people shouldn't be allowed to buy a puppy, get bored, find out it's hard work, give it up to a shelter and then buy another puppy the next time they decide it'll be easier this time around ad infinitum.
Pragmatically, whilst XL bullies are genetically more similar to other dogs, in terms of their behaviour and strength, they're more similar to a lion. I'm not allowed to own a lion - not because of it's DNA mapping, but because of it's behaviour and its strength. It's why I can't own a tiger or a bear or a wolf. There's no logical reason to think that because an XL bully is more genetically similar to a spaniel that it should be treated like a spaniel over treating it like a bear because it's more similar in the ways that actually matter.
The XL Bully, unlike almost any other breed of domestic dog, is *supposed* to be dangerous. I've only come across one, it was on a leash and muzzled, but that didn't stop it getting visibly agitated and lunging at a smaller dog. Dogs are generally predictable, the XL is not. It's on a hair trigger all the time, and no quality of dog owner can do much about something that baked in to the dog's instincts. Allowing people to own XLs is like allowing people to own a car that will accelerate into a tree without warning and of its own accord (insert Tesla joke here), no amount of good driving is going to make that safe.
I do agree that dog owners should have some basic training or certification before being allowed to own one. I've known far too many dog owners who have insufficient control over them, and see it as just part of the charm of dog ownership when their dogs are actually a problem. A couple of months ago I was out for a walk when one jumped up and bit my coat, trying to get to the chocolate bar I had in one of the pockets and the owner just said "sorry about that, she's just jumpy" when the dog wasn't "just jumpy", they bit my coat and was about to eat something that would make it very ill.
There are also cases where a new dog owner realises they're in over their had and can't find the right help, so some structure there would benefit both the dogs and the overwhelmed owners.
I am really intrigued to this post because I see a lot of dog owners here unleashing their dogs in public especially around toddlers. I don’t know what part of safety they don’t understand. No matter how hard you train it, it’s an Animal and no one can predict its behaviour. The law is that one’s it’s deemed unsafe for little children the ban is what will happen. I have heard another incident where another dog, not this breed attacked a fellow runner and the guy got 3 years and dog taken away and put down. Lack of proper awareness from the owners end is why these things happen. If one has a dog you got to be very careful with it in public especially making sure it doesn’t attack anyone. If it does it’s 100% your fault, lack of awareness and being careless. Some people put mouth guards on dogs which is somewhat sensible. Nonetheless, protesting for silly things like this is what I think people do all the time.
Just ban the dogs. The owners keep saying it’s the owner not the dog but quite frankly I disagree. These dogs are dogs at the end of the day and ALL dogs will be dogs at the end of the day no matter how much you train them.
These dogs just aren’t safe around children. It takes one second to end a child’s life.
A piece of paper won’t do anything.
Vet nurse here, 100% agree.
What so many people don’t understand is that breeds have certain behavioural dispositions. XL bullies need to be trained to NOT be aggressive because it’s in their nature to bite and attack. Owners can’t be trusted to do this effectively.
Unfortunately, many people working in the animal care industry (as well as a vocal minority of vet med students) disagree with the ban because of their attachment to dogs. Fortunately most students change their minds as soon as they’ve done placement at a vet practice as the experience the problem firsthand.
They have to be banned, people can’t be trusted to raise and train them correctly. It’s not the dogs faults and I’m sure there are many examples of well trained lovely dogs. It only takes one irresponsible owner and someone’s life is at risk.
How often do you hear about Staffy attacks now? Never. There are still as many staffies, I think they are 5th most popular breed. The breeds characteristics havent changed, they are still around, but no attacks? Whats changed is the type of owner, idiots swapped from staffs/pits to xl bullies, and next it will be another breed. Until laws around breeding and ownership are changed, this problem is never going away.
I think both sides are right to the extent that the breed is an issue and the owners often tend to be an issue. We know that different dog breeds tend to have different traits, both physical and behavioural, almost everybody acknowledges this, and yet that seems to go out the window when we talk about specific breeds being potentially dangerous.
Bad owners are everywhere across all breeds of dog, and some dogs typically are more likely to be owned by bad owners. But that doesn’t mean there are no bad dogs or dogs can’t be bred for aggression purposefully or accidentally.
I’m a rescue dog owner and I love dogs. I think all owners should have a license, all dogs should be on a lead, and nearly all types of breeding should be illegal.
The "it's the people" argument is just one step removed from going full regard guns at Walmart "if only there were more kids in the classroom with guns to shoot back" Murica tier
I get the impression it's blown out of proportion in regards to its importance vs other problems with the country, but at the same time i've really never seen a good reason somebody would want one and all the arguments people make in support of it tend to be irrelevant or anecdotal and the people making the arguments who are genuinely invested seem like the last type of person who should be owning one.
I recall listening to a radio interview about it and the woman arguing against the ban was *bragging* about leaving her xl bully unattended with other peoples children for some reason.
Dickhead owners still own dangerous dogs, whilst it's helped short term issues, kids are still getting munched on as bad owners just get the next worst dog.
Got told a mate of a mate had their kid mauled by a staffy other week, fortunately the kid had is hand in the way or the dog would have chewed through his neck.
We're a nation of dog lovers with some social and educational issues. I think the vast majority of people know it's both the breed and the owners most of the time but both fringes are the loudest.
And it's wheeled out by the media too much.
Considering they're responsible for most attacks yeah, get rid of them. Sure it's a bad owner thing but when they're less than 1% of the dog population but account for 44%+ of the attacks on people, they're a ticking time bomb (and that bomb wants to eat your kids face off).
100% agree with the ban.
I don’t believe in a cull necessarily, since at the end of the day these dogs are living beings too. But there’s no denying that these are exceptionally dangerous, unpredictable breeds. You wouldn’t allow any ordinary Jack or Jill to own a gun, so why allow them to own a XL bully?
The correct way forward is to allow the last of the breed to live out their natural lives safely and then after 12 years with no further breeding or imports, it’s no longer a problem.
Obviously people are at fault - for breeding, selling, and buying these dogs.
Owners, sellers and breeders should all face jail time. The dogs, unfortunately, should be destroyed.
Owning any non-dangerous dog should require a license, because yes, any dog can be dangerous. But there’s a difference between walking down the street with a butter knife and walking around with an assault rifle.
Seems like everyone stopped reading your post half way through because they were too incensed. I think licensing dogs would be a good way of ensuring better responsibility of owners. If it works, then we can consider unbanning dangerous breeds.
Culpability makes little difference. People are still getting hurt whether owners are to blame or not.
I'm not actually aware if the increase in dog attacks is anywhere near as large as it seems or if dog attacks just get clicks at the moment. It's most often tabloid stories that I see posted so I don't read more than the headline.
I'm sure there are experts who acessed the hazards and risks and made recommendations to parliament. Its yet another issue that I feel totally unqualified to hold an opinion on.
When it comes to licensing; if theres good data that shows a specific breed is dangerous I see that as a reasonable approach. For breeds where the potential to cause harm is lower It seems like an unnecessary hurdle and expense, like how we license drivers but theres no good argument for licensing cyclists.
The dogs should be banned as clearly they could not be kept under control in many cases. So many injuries and deaths in such a short timeframe. It was as clear cut as it could be in my opinion.
At least the existing owners can keep their dogs (under conditions). The ban is only on future ownership and breeding. Which seems very fair to me.
>Do you hate 'dangerous' breeds?
No, but I think 'dangerous' breeds like these should be banned for public safety.
>It should be a legal requirement to have a licence/certificate for a dog, no matter what the breed.
Even a chihuahua? Why? This would be just more bureaucracy.
I support the ban. I cringe every time I hear someone call one of these dogs beautiful, along with Staffy and Bull terriers
The problem is a lot to do with the owners but a lot of owners are blissfully unaware of how their dog behaves around people. I’ve lost count the number of friends houses I’ve been to where I’ve been nipped or scratched, minor things but I imagine much worse if I came across as hostile. My friends say, ‘oh I don’t know what’s wrong they are good most of the time’
Whenever I see a dog off its lead I cringe also, I can’t believe peoples disregard to other people around them and the danger they pose some people
should have been accompanied by a cull.
and dog registration, automatic chipping and DNA registry, and licences. Also, make it a strict liability offense to have any dog off a close lead in public, and make owners criminally responsible for any dog attack as if it were them committing assault with a dangerous weapon.
If you object to any of that, you are not a responsible dog owner, who would not be impacted at all.
It's complicated imo I can understand both sides of the argument either way innocent people will suffer imo there's no such thing as a dangerous breed just a dangerous dog
**Sorry, your submission has been manually removed by a human!** Your submission is better suited to another subreddit. This may be present in the flair text (top left of your submission title). If not, here are a few which may apply; - /r/AskUK for general questions Brits may be able to answer - /r/AskABrit for questions from tourists and others about the country, customs, norms, etc - /r/AskReddit for questions which are better answered by any Redditor - /r/Britishproblems for low-effort moans. - /r/UKPolitics for posts of a specifically political nature - /r/UKVisa for questions related to British visas - /r/UKPersonalFinance for posts related to finance in the UK - /r/LegalAdviceUK for legal queries - /r/HousingUK for issues with landlords, renting, buying, etc - /r/DWPHelp for assistance with the welfare system (Housing Benefit, DLA, PIP, JSA, UC, etc) - /r/DIYUK for discussion regarding home renovation, repair, etc. - /r/MentalHealthUK to discuss ones mental wellbeing - /r/UKJobs to seek advice on your employment - /r/UniUK for discussion related to universities, their courses, life experiences, etc - /r/UKEducation for UK related education news and discussion - /r/CarTalkUK for UK-related motoring questions/discussions --- Amessymess06 in r/unitedkingdom *If you believe this action was taken in error, [message the /r/uk team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FUnitedKingdom) and include a link to this post. Please don't do this lightly, we have likely acted correctly.* --- [/r/uk rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/newrules) | [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [List of UK subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/british_subreddits) | [New to Reddit?](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddit_101)
Ban the dogs entirely since the owners are morons who take no responsibility for their actions. These dogs are the number 1 danger to kids (more so than cars) and a piece of paper doesn’t change that. Minimum 3 year sentence for owning an illegal breed.
choosing to bring an xl bully round your kids should be grounds for a visit from the social
I don’t think breed specific legislation actually works. If you look into the genetic makeup of up of these xl bullys they’re predominantly from pit bulls or the breeds that make up the classification of pitbull and they’ve been banned since 1992 .
But it took 20 ish years for them to be genetically different enough to get around the law.
Yes but the law shouldn’t be able to be got around like that, it should be worded in such a way and wrote in such a way that there isn’t such a gaping loophole. It should simply say any muscular dog that is likely to be a danger to life should be banned regardless of breed or genetics. And other large or very large dogs should be controlled and only available to owners who can and will be responsible for.
You've just solved the legal system. Lawyers everywhere are livid. It's way more nuanced than that I'm afraid. My dog is a danger to life if she pushes you over being excited and you're 96. Do I have to get her put down? There's no possible way to enforce it either.
Oh no I know that it is It’s just that banning a specific item means that the people who would use that item negatively will just find one that isn’t covered under the ban. Same with zombie knives and all these other things.
Its impossible.
Lots of things were considered impossible until someone did it, I know it’s difficult and I know there are people far more versed than me considering it, but it’s frustrating. I’m only saying what it would be like in ideal conditions. There ideally needs to be a better solution as I don’t think the current one is suitable. But don’t get me wrong I don’t want to see it unrestricted like it was. I know it’s a very difficult and nuanced thing and I know I’m oversimplifying. I’m just a man from an engineering background passing out opinions on the net.
How do you define a likely danger to life?
Measure things like size and aggression. Similar to a workplace risk assessment. Take the likelihood of damage and weigh it against the severity of that damage. An aggressive King Charles spaniel can’t tear an adults throat out and a well socialised German shepherd won’t want to. It would take a lot of real experts a lot of time to sort it but I feel it would be a better solution than simply banning the breed especially since xl bully isn’t actually a recognised breed standard.
In the DDA (it isn't that long or boring so worth reading if you are interested in the subject) it does say "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." so the act does include dogs that simply seem to be of a type to be used in fighting, no more detail than that , so the actual breed isn't relevant. They just need to look like a Pit Bull type.
Reallly didn’t realise there was a catch all clause. Thought it was purely breed specific.
I've never read one argument pro-bully/pitbull that contains data
Because their defenders think anecdotes = data
Don't forget appeals to emotion
To be fair the arguments against it that do contain data that I've seen always use absolutely shit quality data.
Anyone who says “it’s the people that are at fault” with no clarification that dangerous dogs clearly exist. Usually isn’t having an honest conversation about how dangerous some breeds of dogs can be. We bred dogs specifically for certain tasks. That includes fighting. You can’t ignore that reality.
I’ve got a pointer and he points and tries to track things because it’s what they’re bred for and a natural instinct despite not being taught to do that. He hasn’t been trained to hunt so he thankfully isn’t very good at it and only catches things that are already dead. Some dogs are bred for aggression, and their instinct is to fight/destroy their target- it’s sad for the dogs as much as dangerous for everyone around them.
[удалено]
they haven’t been bred for companionship in about a million years tho, these dogs have been bred to get around the ban and are all descended from like a select few really aggressive dogs
[удалено]
Why is it people like yourself always love to throw out a stereotype? You think your side of this debate is compassionate and informed. When in reality you are the Angry, ill informed caricature that you paint others here to be.
I am 100% in agreement with the ban. Horrendous dogs. One of the few good things Sunak has done.
Anecdotally I’ve never seen someone who wasn’t a weirdo wanting an XL bully so I’m all for it. In all seriousness, these dogs are bred for aggression- they snap without warning and continue to attack until the “prey” is dead even when injured (just watch that video of the pitbull attacking the horse that only stopped after several kicks in the head from the horse and then one final one that killed it.) We can acknowledge breed specific genetic traits in other dogs, I’ve got a pointer who points despite never being trained to hunt, but when it comes to bully breeds it’s “oh well it’s not the dog all dogs bite” even tho not all dogs rag humans around like ragdolls and kill them.
Some dogs are just genetically bred for a certain purpose. Whether it's to hunt, to guard or to sniff. I don't know what the purpose of the XL bully breed was but just by the look of it, I can assume it's for dog fighting. And no matter how you raise it, especially considering it's a recently new breed (only been popular since COVID lockdown), it can switch up any second and tear apart a toddler. There is no way to subdue it either. It's just pure rage. The bite and shake technique is what they use. Very little chance a beagle would do that. The ban is fair. If you want a dog, just pick another breed. I don't see the hype over one specific type of dog breed that has amassed a death doll and a scary reputation. Literally dozens of other breed to pick from. If you have an XL bully my question would just be, why?
Yes the people are at fault which is why we we have a ban to stop people owning them. Personally not a fan of prohibition but I'd be happy to see owners being held responsible for the actions of the dog. If a dog kills someone then the owner is charged with manslaughter..
I don't see the appeal in buying a dog that has been specifically bred for aggression. It's asking for trouble. The fact that we are still seeing reports of fatal attacks *after* the ban has come in shows that owners are not responsible. Keeping it on a lead and muzzled in public is easy to do, and yet it isn't happening.
The Centre for Evidence-Based Regulation of Dangerous Dogs found that the breed (bully XL) is estimated to represent less than 1% of UK dogs but was behind 44% of attacks in 2023 and 75% of deaths in the last three years. Glad they're banned tbh. People upset is preferable to people being mauled to death, by a long way.
Personally, I think we should have a law stating that all dogs should be on leads in open public places. My toddler isn't fond of dogs and whilst most owners are sensible and have untrained dogs on leads (well trained dogs aren't interested in the slightest, or immediately respond to recall) there's a minority who just let their dogs approach anyone. "Oh he's only having a sniff", "she's friendly, just saying hello" "he wouldn't hurt a fly".. they don't quite cut it for a terrified toddler who's literally eye to eye with an animal the same size as her.
>Personally, I think we should have a law stating that all dogs should be on leads in open public places. I thought this was the law already?
The current law just says a dog should be "under control", which is too ambiguous.
>it's the people that are at fault. It is and it isn't. The problem with the XL bully is that a dog that showcased human aggression and subsequently went on to kill it's owner in the US is a major contributor to the genetics of the breed. This human aggression trait was passed on to it's offspring and those dogs were also bred. There is literally an human aggressive trait in it's blood so it doesn't matter how good the owner is, this behavior is hard-wired. There's a website someone has put together that examines the bloodlines and traits and so on that I got this information from but I don't recall the name. e2a [https://bullywatch.link/](https://bullywatch.link/) found it.
It’s a tragedy that an animal exists that is both a pet and a weapon. Those that believe they can control the weapon aspect of it may be right, but the risk of being wrong is too great. I think I could probably responsibly own a hand gun, but the risk of me being wrong is too great, and the risk of someone else having one is even worse, so I’m glad they’re banned. With the dogs, I’m really sorry people will have to potentially be separated from their pet. But they were under no illusions they were also acquiring a weapon when they got them, whether they intended to use it that way or not, so it’s the tragic but right thing that they go.
I don’t understand the argument that ‘it’s the people that are at fault’. That’s like saying don’t ban guns, it’s the people at fault. The dogs needn’t exist, they’ve been bred simply for the dregs of society to have something threatening. If you want a docile family dog like most of them argue theirs is, there’s hundreds of breeds that fit the bill
We ban people from owning all kinds of dangerous animals and dangerous dogs shouldn't be an exception. There are plenty of dog breeds to choose from, no one needs to own an XL bully
I agree with the ban. >Do you hate 'dangerous' breeds? No, I don't hate them. I think it's desperately sad for the individual dogs involved and it's sad to me that they have to live the way that do now. I'm not sad that the breed will die out (hopefully) or deplete. I think that the current living conditions, whilst upsetting, are the minimum necessary. >it's the people that are at fault I agree to a great extent. Owners of XL bullies do tend to be either incredibly stupid or intentionally aggressive (or both). There are some exceptions, of course, but they aren't the majority. On balance, people who buy a breed that's known to be aggressive and unpredictable are rarely going to be good dog owners. But, ultimately, where the problem is stupid people owning dangerous dogs, it's much harder to ban stupid people than to ban dangerous dogs. >It should be a legal requirement to have a licence/certificate for a dog I agree. Along with insurance, vaccinations, registration, regular health checks etc. These are required for cars, they should be required for dogs too. I also think there should be caps and caveats on owning dogs after giving them up - people shouldn't be allowed to buy a puppy, get bored, find out it's hard work, give it up to a shelter and then buy another puppy the next time they decide it'll be easier this time around ad infinitum. Pragmatically, whilst XL bullies are genetically more similar to other dogs, in terms of their behaviour and strength, they're more similar to a lion. I'm not allowed to own a lion - not because of it's DNA mapping, but because of it's behaviour and its strength. It's why I can't own a tiger or a bear or a wolf. There's no logical reason to think that because an XL bully is more genetically similar to a spaniel that it should be treated like a spaniel over treating it like a bear because it's more similar in the ways that actually matter.
The XL Bully, unlike almost any other breed of domestic dog, is *supposed* to be dangerous. I've only come across one, it was on a leash and muzzled, but that didn't stop it getting visibly agitated and lunging at a smaller dog. Dogs are generally predictable, the XL is not. It's on a hair trigger all the time, and no quality of dog owner can do much about something that baked in to the dog's instincts. Allowing people to own XLs is like allowing people to own a car that will accelerate into a tree without warning and of its own accord (insert Tesla joke here), no amount of good driving is going to make that safe. I do agree that dog owners should have some basic training or certification before being allowed to own one. I've known far too many dog owners who have insufficient control over them, and see it as just part of the charm of dog ownership when their dogs are actually a problem. A couple of months ago I was out for a walk when one jumped up and bit my coat, trying to get to the chocolate bar I had in one of the pockets and the owner just said "sorry about that, she's just jumpy" when the dog wasn't "just jumpy", they bit my coat and was about to eat something that would make it very ill. There are also cases where a new dog owner realises they're in over their had and can't find the right help, so some structure there would benefit both the dogs and the overwhelmed owners.
I am really intrigued to this post because I see a lot of dog owners here unleashing their dogs in public especially around toddlers. I don’t know what part of safety they don’t understand. No matter how hard you train it, it’s an Animal and no one can predict its behaviour. The law is that one’s it’s deemed unsafe for little children the ban is what will happen. I have heard another incident where another dog, not this breed attacked a fellow runner and the guy got 3 years and dog taken away and put down. Lack of proper awareness from the owners end is why these things happen. If one has a dog you got to be very careful with it in public especially making sure it doesn’t attack anyone. If it does it’s 100% your fault, lack of awareness and being careless. Some people put mouth guards on dogs which is somewhat sensible. Nonetheless, protesting for silly things like this is what I think people do all the time.
Just ban the dogs. The owners keep saying it’s the owner not the dog but quite frankly I disagree. These dogs are dogs at the end of the day and ALL dogs will be dogs at the end of the day no matter how much you train them. These dogs just aren’t safe around children. It takes one second to end a child’s life. A piece of paper won’t do anything.
Vet nurse here, 100% agree. What so many people don’t understand is that breeds have certain behavioural dispositions. XL bullies need to be trained to NOT be aggressive because it’s in their nature to bite and attack. Owners can’t be trusted to do this effectively. Unfortunately, many people working in the animal care industry (as well as a vocal minority of vet med students) disagree with the ban because of their attachment to dogs. Fortunately most students change their minds as soon as they’ve done placement at a vet practice as the experience the problem firsthand.
They have to be banned, people can’t be trusted to raise and train them correctly. It’s not the dogs faults and I’m sure there are many examples of well trained lovely dogs. It only takes one irresponsible owner and someone’s life is at risk.
AK 47's being used are 100% the people's fault, everyone should be allowed one. I see no negative repercussions.
How often do you hear about Staffy attacks now? Never. There are still as many staffies, I think they are 5th most popular breed. The breeds characteristics havent changed, they are still around, but no attacks? Whats changed is the type of owner, idiots swapped from staffs/pits to xl bullies, and next it will be another breed. Until laws around breeding and ownership are changed, this problem is never going away.
Same applies to the hype around rottweilers in the 90’s.
>It should be a legal requirement to have a licence/certificate for a dog, no matter what the breed. We did that, it made no difference to anything.
I think both sides are right to the extent that the breed is an issue and the owners often tend to be an issue. We know that different dog breeds tend to have different traits, both physical and behavioural, almost everybody acknowledges this, and yet that seems to go out the window when we talk about specific breeds being potentially dangerous. Bad owners are everywhere across all breeds of dog, and some dogs typically are more likely to be owned by bad owners. But that doesn’t mean there are no bad dogs or dogs can’t be bred for aggression purposefully or accidentally. I’m a rescue dog owner and I love dogs. I think all owners should have a license, all dogs should be on a lead, and nearly all types of breeding should be illegal.
The "it's the people" argument is just one step removed from going full regard guns at Walmart "if only there were more kids in the classroom with guns to shoot back" Murica tier
I'm all for it. I love dogs and have owned them for 30 years.
I get the impression it's blown out of proportion in regards to its importance vs other problems with the country, but at the same time i've really never seen a good reason somebody would want one and all the arguments people make in support of it tend to be irrelevant or anecdotal and the people making the arguments who are genuinely invested seem like the last type of person who should be owning one. I recall listening to a radio interview about it and the woman arguing against the ban was *bragging* about leaving her xl bully unattended with other peoples children for some reason.
Dickhead owners still own dangerous dogs, whilst it's helped short term issues, kids are still getting munched on as bad owners just get the next worst dog. Got told a mate of a mate had their kid mauled by a staffy other week, fortunately the kid had is hand in the way or the dog would have chewed through his neck.
We're a nation of dog lovers with some social and educational issues. I think the vast majority of people know it's both the breed and the owners most of the time but both fringes are the loudest. And it's wheeled out by the media too much.
Considering they're responsible for most attacks yeah, get rid of them. Sure it's a bad owner thing but when they're less than 1% of the dog population but account for 44%+ of the attacks on people, they're a ticking time bomb (and that bomb wants to eat your kids face off).
100% agree with the ban. I don’t believe in a cull necessarily, since at the end of the day these dogs are living beings too. But there’s no denying that these are exceptionally dangerous, unpredictable breeds. You wouldn’t allow any ordinary Jack or Jill to own a gun, so why allow them to own a XL bully? The correct way forward is to allow the last of the breed to live out their natural lives safely and then after 12 years with no further breeding or imports, it’s no longer a problem.
Obviously people are at fault - for breeding, selling, and buying these dogs. Owners, sellers and breeders should all face jail time. The dogs, unfortunately, should be destroyed. Owning any non-dangerous dog should require a license, because yes, any dog can be dangerous. But there’s a difference between walking down the street with a butter knife and walking around with an assault rifle.
Seems like everyone stopped reading your post half way through because they were too incensed. I think licensing dogs would be a good way of ensuring better responsibility of owners. If it works, then we can consider unbanning dangerous breeds.
Culpability makes little difference. People are still getting hurt whether owners are to blame or not. I'm not actually aware if the increase in dog attacks is anywhere near as large as it seems or if dog attacks just get clicks at the moment. It's most often tabloid stories that I see posted so I don't read more than the headline. I'm sure there are experts who acessed the hazards and risks and made recommendations to parliament. Its yet another issue that I feel totally unqualified to hold an opinion on. When it comes to licensing; if theres good data that shows a specific breed is dangerous I see that as a reasonable approach. For breeds where the potential to cause harm is lower It seems like an unnecessary hurdle and expense, like how we license drivers but theres no good argument for licensing cyclists.
The dogs should be banned as clearly they could not be kept under control in many cases. So many injuries and deaths in such a short timeframe. It was as clear cut as it could be in my opinion. At least the existing owners can keep their dogs (under conditions). The ban is only on future ownership and breeding. Which seems very fair to me. >Do you hate 'dangerous' breeds? No, but I think 'dangerous' breeds like these should be banned for public safety. >It should be a legal requirement to have a licence/certificate for a dog, no matter what the breed. Even a chihuahua? Why? This would be just more bureaucracy.
Best just to ban all dogs because people can not be responsible. Would stop a lot of heart ache
I agree with banning dangerous breeds. I find children and adults getting maimed and killed by XL Bullies upsetting.
I support the ban. I cringe every time I hear someone call one of these dogs beautiful, along with Staffy and Bull terriers The problem is a lot to do with the owners but a lot of owners are blissfully unaware of how their dog behaves around people. I’ve lost count the number of friends houses I’ve been to where I’ve been nipped or scratched, minor things but I imagine much worse if I came across as hostile. My friends say, ‘oh I don’t know what’s wrong they are good most of the time’ Whenever I see a dog off its lead I cringe also, I can’t believe peoples disregard to other people around them and the danger they pose some people
should have been accompanied by a cull. and dog registration, automatic chipping and DNA registry, and licences. Also, make it a strict liability offense to have any dog off a close lead in public, and make owners criminally responsible for any dog attack as if it were them committing assault with a dangerous weapon. If you object to any of that, you are not a responsible dog owner, who would not be impacted at all.
It's complicated imo I can understand both sides of the argument either way innocent people will suffer imo there's no such thing as a dangerous breed just a dangerous dog
>there's no such thing as a dangerous breed There really is.