Bully XL ban

[Curious George]

UK is banning American pit bulls.

Good use of government? Excessive? I didn’t see any posts about the topic, I was curious what RFers thoughts were on this topic.

My understanding is that as a result of this, many dogs of this breed or mixed with this breed currently in shelters will be euthanized.

 

[Altfish]

UK is banning American pit bulls.

Good use of government? Excessive? I didn’t see any posts about the topic, I was curious what RFers thoughts were on this topic.

My understanding is that as a result of this, many dogs of this breed or mixed with this breed currently in shelters will be euthanized.

It is after a couple of deaths of children and numerous serious attacks.
As I understand it anyone owning a dog will have to keep it on a leash and muzzelled when they are outside.
The new legislation apparently means that many owners (They can't be that committed) are handing their dogs back and the rescue shelters can't get rid of them.

 

[Curious George]

It is after a couple of deaths of children and numerous serious attacks.
As I understand it anyone owning a dog will have to keep it on a leash and muzzelled when they are outside.
The new legislation apparently means that many owners (They can't be that committed) are handing their dogs back and the rescue shelters can't get rid of them.

Seems a little intense. A couple of deaths seems to be a consequence of individual dogs. As a result all dogs of a breed or mixed with that breed are punished even though the vast majority would never harm anyone. Why stop at deaths? Why not do the same for all dogs based on bites?

I guess I am curious where the line is and how consistent this logic is across the board? Is this the best way to prevent mauling by dogs? Is this the best way to promote safety?

 

[Stevicus]

UK is banning American pit bulls.

Good use of government? Excessive? I didn’t see any posts about the topic, I was curious what RFers thoughts were on this topic.

My understanding is that as a result of this, many dogs of this breed or mixed with this breed currently in shelters will be euthanized.

I've never had any problems with pit bulls myself. I know there have been some incidents, but I wanted to check on stats, so I found this site: 25+ Dog Bite Statistics 2020-2021 | Top Dog Bites by Breed

I suppose they could try to ban mosquitos.

I guess we can't very easily ban humans, otherwise we'd be banning ourselves.

More stats: There are 89.7 million dogs as pets in the U.S., and there are 4.5 to 4.7 million dog bites per year, 885,000 of which require medical attention. About 30-50 deaths per year, on average.

As for deaths by breed, pit bulls are the breed at the top of the list, based on data taken from 2005-2017:

11. 46+ Breeds Associated with Fatal Attacks​

Over 46 breeds are associated with fatal attacks since 2016, including Akita, Boxer, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherd, Giant Schnauzer, Husky, Labrador Retriever, Mastiff, Pitbull-Type, Rottweiler, and many other breeds and mixes. (10)

Top 10 Most Fatal Dog Breeds Table​

Breed	Deaths	% of Total
Pit bull	284	65.6%
Rottweiler	45	10.4%
German shepherd	20	4.6%
Mixed-breed	17	3.9%
American bulldog	15	3.5%
Mastiff/Bullmastiff	14	3.2%
Husky	13	3.0%
Unknown/unreleased	11	2.5%
Labrador retriever	9	2.1%
Boxer	7	1.6%

Based on 2005-2017 data – data source

Which breeds are the most dangerous?

The AVMA or American Veterinary Medical Association conducted an in-depth literature review to analyze existing studies on dog bites and serious injuries. Their findings indicate that there is no single breed that stands out as the most dangerous.

According to their review, studies indicate breed is not a dependable marker or predictor of dangerous behavior in dogs. Better and more reliable indicators include owner behavior, training, sex, neuter status, dog’s location (urban vs. rural), and even varying ownership trends over the passing of time or geographic location.

For example, they note that often pit bull-type dogs are reported in severe and fatal attacks. However, the reason is likely not related to the breed. Instead, it is likely because they are kept in certain high-risk neighborhoods and likely owned by individuals who may use them for dog fights or have involvement in criminal or violent acts.

Therefore, pit bulls with aggressive behavior are a reflection of their experiences.

This next piece of information was interesting, since I had never seen this kind of breakdown before:

12. 75.5% of Dog Bite Fatalities Meet 4 of 7 Defined Criteria​

According to an analysis of data from 2000-2015 by the National Canine Research Council, there are 7 controllable factors related to dog bite fatalities. In dog bite fatalities reported over the 15 year period, 75.5% were found to have 4 or more of the following criteria (11):

1. No other person around to intervene → 86.9%
2. The victim had no relationship with the dog → 83.7%
3. The dog was not neutered or spayed → 77.9%
4. The compromised physical ability of victim → 68.7%
5. The dog is kept as a resident dog rather than a family pet → 70.4%
6. Mismanagement of the dog → 39.3%
7. Owner’s abuse or neglect of dog → 20.6%

Also:

Along with the National Canine Research Council’s data study cited above, 70.4% of dog bite-related fatalities from 2000-2015 were not family pets.

Some are police dogs:

A national analysis of police dog bites from 2017-2019 found that Indianapolis police dogs have a higher incidence of biting.

Of the 243 bites, IndyStar reported that 159 were unarmed or non-violent, while 84 were likely armed and considered violent.

For comparison, there are about 28.3 bites for each 100,000 city residents in Indianapolis, while in Los Angeles, there are about 5.3 police dog attacks for every 100,000 residents. (12)

 

[Secret Chief]

It is after a couple of deaths of children

Several deaths and at least two adults.

eg

Man killed in Stonnall American bully XL attack named

Why is the UK banning American XL Bully dogs?

 

[Eddi]

I like dogs but those pitbulls give me the creeps

For some reason morons seem especially fond of them

 

[Curious George]

I've never had any problems with pit bulls myself. I know there have been some incidents, but I wanted to check on stats, so I found this site: 25+ Dog Bite Statistics 2020-2021 | Top Dog Bites by Breed

View attachment 86413

View attachment 86414

I suppose they could try to ban mosquitos.

I guess we can't very easily ban humans, otherwise we'd be banning ourselves.

More stats: There are 89.7 million dogs as pets in the U.S., and there are 4.5 to 4.7 million dog bites per year, 885,000 of which require medical attention. About 30-50 deaths per year, on average.

As for deaths by breed, pit bulls are the breed at the top of the list, based on data taken from 2005-2017:

11. 46+ Breeds Associated with Fatal Attacks​

Over 46 breeds are associated with fatal attacks since 2016, including Akita, Boxer, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherd, Giant Schnauzer, Husky, Labrador Retriever, Mastiff, Pitbull-Type, Rottweiler, and many other breeds and mixes. (10)

Top 10 Most Fatal Dog Breeds Table​

Breed	Deaths	% of Total
Pit bull	284	65.6%
Rottweiler	45	10.4%
German shepherd	20	4.6%
Mixed-breed	17	3.9%
American bulldog	15	3.5%
Mastiff/Bullmastiff	14	3.2%
Husky	13	3.0%
Unknown/unreleased	11	2.5%
Labrador retriever	9	2.1%
Boxer	7	1.6%

Based on 2005-2017 data – data source


This next piece of information was interesting, since I had never seen this kind of breakdown before:

Also:



Some are police dogs:

They are also over represented as far as dog ownership. So I think that a more clear picture would be #perx amount.

But that is just a detail. Considering the number of dogs of the breed that present no danger, it seems an extreme response. It seems many think it an appropriate response.

 

[Curious George]

I like dogs but those pitbulls give me the creeps

For some reason morons seem especially fond of them

But is that sufficient reason to ban a type of dog?

 

[Eddi]

But is that sufficient reason to ban a type of dog?

I'd say yes, if they account for a disproportionate number of savagings

 

[Curious George]

Several deaths and at least two adults.

eg

Man killed in Stonnall American bully XL attack named

Why is the UK banning American XL Bully dogs?

But how much is enough?

Should the U.S. be banning every breed that has committed an attack? An attack that resulted in death? How many attacks or deaths are necessary before it is justified to ban a breed?

List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Curious George]

I'd say yes, if they account for a disproportionate number of savagings

I think your reasons were that they give you the creeps and morons own them. I didn’t think you were discussing the attacks, mauling, savaging, deaths etc

 

[Eddi]

I think your reasons were that they give you the creeps and morons own them. I didn’t think you were discussing the attacks, mauling, savaging, deaths etc

If they didn't attack, maul, savage and kill then I would have been totally unaware of them

 

[Stevicus]

They are also over represented as far as dog ownership. So I think that a more clear picture would be #perx amount.

But that is just a detail. Considering the number of dogs of the breed that present no danger, it seems an extreme response. It seems many think it an appropriate response.

I think what struck me about the article was this:

studies indicate breed is not a dependable marker or predictor of dangerous behavior in dogs

That, to me, is the bottom line right there.

 

[HonestJoe]

UK is banning American pit bulls.

Good use of government? Excessive? I didn’t see any posts about the topic, I was curious what RFers thoughts were on this topic.

My understanding is that as a result of this, many dogs of this breed or mixed with this breed currently in shelters will be euthanized.

It's complicated (as is so often the case). The actual ban was largely a knee-jerk reaction to tabloid news coverage of a spate of attacks, with the government wanting to be seen to be doing something (which those same tabloids spun stories demanding, and then immediately complaining about).

I think there is a real problem with some dogs being intentionally bread for aggression, partly for illegal dog-fighting and partly the feed a fashion for wannabe gangsters to have intimidating looking and acting dogs. Combined with the fact those dogs are more likely to be mistreated and poorly trained, attacks are inevitable. The thing is, this isn't really about a specific breed, and, with cross-breeds and mongrels it's often difficult to identify the definitive breed of an individual animal anyway.

I'm not sure what the real answer would be, but it's probably something more nuanced, detailed and long-term than most politicians are willing to consider, especially for such a relatively low-profile issue.

 

[Stevicus]

For some reason, the subject of the UK and dogs made me think of this scene:

 

[Curious George]

If they didn't attack, maul, savage and kill then I would have been totally unaware of them

I would not have known that from your post. It seems you could have expanded your initial post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But is that sufficient reason to ban a type of dog?

All breeds of dogs bite at times. Quite often I would not blame the dogs. The problem is how serious is their bite? Given a choice would you rather be bitten by a pit bull once or a chihuahua ten times?

 

[Curious George]

All breeds of dogs bite at times. Quite often I would not blame the dogs. The problem is how serious is their bite? Given a choice would you rather be bitten by a pit bull once or a chihuahua ten times?

I think the choice is fairly obvious given those options. But I wouldn’t say it’s as definitive if we toss in Rottweiler, German Shepard or a host of other large and very large breeds. Dogs are powerful animals. Poorly treated, poorly trained, they can be very dangerous. I am more interested in the thought process that of making a breed illegal because individual instances of that breed have caused harm/death but neglecting other breeds that have and can cause harm/death. I wonder if people recognize how their opinions have been shaped.

I also wonder about the idea of government making illegal something based on a decidedly small number of behaviors that are not characteristic of a group. If one is ready to accept such legislation, under what other circumstances would they accept similar arguments in other arenas? In what areas would they find the legislation excessive or over broad? How do they differentiate between the cases? Where are lines drawn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the choice is fairly obvious given those options. But I wouldn’t say it’s as definitive if we toss in Rottweiler, German Shepard or a host of other large and very large breeds. Dogs are powerful animals. Poorly treated, poorly trained, they can be very dangerous. I am more interested in the thought process that of making a breed illegal because individual instances of that breed have caused harm/death but neglecting other breeds that have and can cause harm/death. I wonder if people recognize how their opinions have been shaped.

I also wonder about the idea of government making illegal something based on a decidedly small number of behaviors that are not characteristic of a group. If one is ready to accept such legislation, under what other circumstances would they accept similar arguments in other arenas? In what areas would they find the legislation excessive or over broad? How do they differentiate between the cases? Where are lines drawn?

I am not a big fan of the law either. But I can understand their reasoning. And when it comes to bites pit bulls have extremely powerful ones and they seem to be far less willing to let go than other dogs when they do bite. I do not blame the dogs since they were bred for that, but they do require more care from the owner. And I have seen far too many people that should not be able to own a dog.

Me, I can't. I am very allergic to them, but I can appreciate pit bulls because most of them are almost idea dogs. But when things go wrong with a pit bull it is far worse than if things go wrong with a Yorky.

 

[Stevicus]

I think the choice is fairly obvious given those options. But I wouldn’t say it’s as definitive if we toss in Rottweiler, German Shepard or a host of other large and very large breeds. Dogs are powerful animals. Poorly treated, poorly trained, they can be very dangerous. I am more interested in the thought process that of making a breed illegal because individual instances of that breed have caused harm/death but neglecting other breeds that have and can cause harm/death. I wonder if people recognize how their opinions have been shaped.

I also wonder about the idea of government making illegal something based on a decidedly small number of behaviors that are not characteristic of a group. If one is ready to accept such legislation, under what other circumstances would they accept similar arguments in other arenas? In what areas would they find the legislation excessive or over broad? How do they differentiate between the cases? Where are lines drawn?

I think there are reasonable restrictions which can be put in place. For one, all dogs should be licensed, vaccinated. I think leash laws are reasonable, as well as requiring them to remain inside locked fenced yards or inside their owner's home. (Chaining dogs is illegal where I live, but I'm not sure about the UK.) But they shouldn't be roaming free where they can just attack people at will. Sometimes, dogs might get out of their yard, but it's on the owner to make sure they take measures to prevent that. Ultimately, I think it falls on the pet owner to be responsible for their pets. Most pet owners are responsible, but there will always be a few who are not.

I think a better approach would be to have more severe penalties for dogfighting and for the breeders of fighting dogs. Put some real teeth in the law and stop such barbaric practices.