Bully XL ban

[The Hammer]

I like dogs but those pitbulls give me the creeps

For some reason morons seem especially fond of them

Call me a moron then. Love the little drool bugs

 

[flowerpower]

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.

That's horrible!!!



IMO dogs should have equal rights to humans. Maybe even be considered to be a superior species to us due to their enhanced capacity for love.

This move by the UK government, thus, is both racist and genocidal.

Horrible move UK. On par with Trump's Muslim ban and kid in cages policies.

I like dogs but those pitbulls give me the creeps

For some reason morons seem especially fond of them

It's the owners of hyper-aggressive dogs that give me the creeps.

Not the dogs themselves.

 

[The Hammer]

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.

What about livestock guardian dogs, herding dogs and various other family pets that serve work functions and need to roam free in a property?

 

[Stevicus]

What about livestock guardian dogs, herding dogs and various other family pets that serve work functions and need to roam free in a property?

I can't see how that should be a problem, as long as it's within an individual property. I was thinking of more urban areas where there's a higher population density. On farms, out in the country, it's a much lower risk. But even then, it would still be on the owners to keep their dogs from menacing their neighbors.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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 reasonable for governments to regulate or ban this breed. When I was a child my small dog bit my friend's nose, because my friend came close to his food. If my dog had been a pit bull things could have been much worse owing to larger jaws and a more aggressive disposition. They are known to tear the faces off of people: children for instance. The owner of such dogs are usually mortified when it happens, but this does not repair the damage. These are not inanimate objects. They are creatures with a disposition to attack.

Pit Bull Myths - DogsBite.org

Pit bull owners, breeders and animal groups have created a slew of myths and distortions about pit bulls to fight breed-specific laws. See the top 10 myths.

www.dogsbite.org

The article above says that from 2005 to 2019 the pit bull has killed 346 US persons. The article below says that from 2009 to 2018 pit bulls maimed or killed 3569 US persons. The breed is objectively vicious not through any character flaw, any training or bad ownership but by its nature. It can be tamed but is menacing.

Pit Bulls: Facts and Figures

What you need to know about pit bulls. Not opinion, but facts with links. Educate yourself and use these argument-enders!

www.dogbitelaw.com

 

[Curious George]

It is reasonable for governments to regulate or ban this breed. When I was a child my small dog bit my friend's nose, because my friend came close to his food. If my dog had been a pit bull things could have been much worse owing to larger jaws and a more aggressive disposition. They are known to tear the faces off of people: children for instance. The owner of such dogs are usually mortified when it happens, but this does not repair the damage. These are not inanimate objects. They are creatures with a disposition to attack.

Pit Bull Myths - DogsBite.org

Pit bull owners, breeders and animal groups have created a slew of myths and distortions about pit bulls to fight breed-specific laws. See the top 10 myths.

www.dogsbite.org

The article above says that from 2005 to 2019 the pit bull has killed 346 US persons. The article below says that from 2009 to 2018 pit bulls maimed or killed 3569 US persons. The breed is objectively vicious not through any character flaw, any training or bad ownership but by its nature. It can be tamed but is menacing.

Pit Bulls: Facts and Figures

What you need to know about pit bulls. Not opinion, but facts with links. Educate yourself and use these argument-enders!

www.dogbitelaw.com

Your site seems biased and lacks credibility. That doesn’t mean some of the facts that it offers are not true, but I would caution you to read sources with a more critical eye.

Regarding your anecdotal experience, if your dog was a Rottweiler, a Doberman, or a German shepherd it could have been much worse too. These dogs have killed in the UK as well. Should the government then ban these breeds too? Why not all dogs? I do not think you are correct to say, regarding this specific breed, that “they are known to tear the faces off” or that “they are creatures with a disposition to attack.”

instances of this breed attacking people exist or having maimed/killed individuals, does not then entail such a gross generalization. But I agree that we can probably make statistical observations about disposition. While I think that “tearing faces off or attacking” is not a characteristic found amongst a whole breed, we can say that some dogs are more prone to fear/anxiety, some dogs are prone to more curiosity etc this does not necessarily mean that a dog is going to be more likely to attack. Temperaments are definitely discussed by breed (though they can still vary upon the individual dog). I would caution against over generalization though; our want to categorize cause us to make very inaccurate statements.

Even so, clearly lines exist. I imagine most people would say that owning a tiger is something a government can reasonably and responsibly legislate against. But where is the line when talking about domesticated animals? Should a government ban all dog breeds that have been found to have killed a human? Is that pragmatic? Justified? Reasonable? Is government banning dog breeds the best solution?

 

[Curious George]

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.

I think our views on animals still need to change. There are instances where law enforcement have unreasonably killed dogs without any consequences, there are where neighbors have poisoned dogs, instances where owners suffer only minor penalties for cruel treatment towards dogs, and instances where people who have no business caring for animals continue to do so. I would think that our societal view on animals is equally if not more to blame than the dogs who have attacked people, because it is our view on animals that allows for dogs to be raised in the conditions which lead to these attacks in the first place.

 

[Secret Chief]

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

How many shootings before the US bans handguns?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Banning any particular breed might not really do much to alter the numbers of dog attacks and/or the numbers killed by dogs - both other animals and humans - but what would actually work? Given that it probably is as much the owner being responsible, whether having a possibly dangerous dog for their protective value (but risk to others) or because they cannot train them sufficiently. And even so, regarding the latter, how can one train a dog for every conceivable circumstance - as to how they might respond?

 

[Secret Chief]

IMO dogs should have equal rights to humans. Maybe even be considered to be a superior species to us due to their enhanced capacity for love.

IMO I do not consider species to be superior or inferior, simply different.

This move by the UK government, thus, is both racist and genocidal.

This move involves neither race nor genocide.
The United Nations Genocide Convention defines genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

 

[Brickjectivity]

Your site seems biased and lacks credibility. That doesn’t mean some of the facts that it offers are not true, but I would caution you to read sources with a more critical eye.

Two sites. I have not claimed them to be an authority, but they have credibility as witnesses. The first site is full of testimonials about pit bulls and the damages they have causes to people, to animals and to each other. The second site is about how to get legal help in the US when dogs are a threat.

Below is a list of papers about the epidemiology of dog bites in the US. The abstracts show that many dog bites happen to children and that regulation of dogs is important. They must be controlled and kept, or many will attack people.

Dog bites: still a problem? - PubMed

Dog bites continue to be a public health problem affecting 1.5% of the US population annually. Although comparison with similar data from 1994 suggests that bite rates for children are decreasing, there still appears to be a need for effective prevention programs.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Regarding your anecdotal experience, if your dog was a Rottweiler, a Doberman, or a German shepherd it could have been much worse too. These dogs have killed in the UK as well. Should the government then ban these breeds too?

Localities may do so, and hopefully they will take into consideration other factors such as dogs that are needed, cared for and kept under control. I do not think any particular dog breed is outside regulation of government.

Why not all dogs?

I don't want to destroy all dogs, however I don't think we are kind to dogs in the first place. Their existence is a cruel fact. Dogs are inbred wolves which have been inbred to make them friendly to humans, and their features and breed characteristics are actually weaknesses which no wolf would want. If we are going to make wolves suffer for our pleasure why not switch to a breed which is less dangerous to owners, to children, to other animals and to people? Do not try to argue that the dogs are happy or well cared for. They are not. They are our property, our prisoners, our responsibility. Ending a dog breed is a serious decision but hardly unusual for humans, and it isn't the same as eliminating a natural breed such as a wolf.

I do not think you are correct to say, regarding this specific breed, that “they are known to tear the faces off” or that “they are creatures with a disposition to attack.”

I will allow this argument to drop, since it is difficult to support so many points with links. I note that nobody has countered with evidence or has tried to argue that dogs don't attack faces.

instances of this breed attacking people exist or having maimed/killed individuals, does not then entail such a gross generalization. But I agree that we can probably make statistical observations about disposition. While I think that “tearing faces off or attacking” is not a characteristic found amongst a whole breed, we can say that some dogs are more prone to fear/anxiety, some dogs are prone to more curiosity etc this does not necessarily mean that a dog is going to be more likely to attack. Temperaments are definitely discussed by breed (though they can still vary upon the individual dog). I would caution against over generalization though; our want to categorize cause us to make very inaccurate statements.

Even so, clearly lines exist. I imagine most people would say that owning a tiger is something a government can reasonably and responsibly legislate against. But where is the line when talking about domesticated animals? Should a government ban all dog breeds that have been found to have killed a human? Is that pragmatic? Justified? Reasonable? Is government banning dog breeds the best solution?

All dog breeds are unnatural and are our responsibility. They need humans and suffer in the wild, because they are mentally like puppies and physically deficient. Pit bulls are not an exception to this in spite of their dangerous nature and powerful jaws. They need us to control them, to keep them from harming people. Owning a tiger is not the same thing, because it is a natural creature. It does not need humans, but a dog does. The tiger needs humans to leave it alone. The dog needs people to control it.

 

[Curious George]

How many shootings before the US bans handguns?

Not sure what Chinese tea costs, why do you ask?

 

[Secret Chief]

Not sure what Chinese tea costs, why do you ask?

Just curious. If I was in a public area with say, a 5 year old child, and I saw someone with some Chinese tea I would be very wary, both for the child and myself.

 

[McBell]

Just curious. If I was in a public area with say, a 5 year old child, and I saw someone with some Chinese tea I would be very wary, both for the child and myself.

So you have some sort of fear of dogs, or just pit bulls in general?

 

[Stevicus]

It is reasonable for governments to regulate or ban this breed. When I was a child my small dog bit my friend's nose, because my friend came close to his food. If my dog had been a pit bull things could have been much worse owing to larger jaws and a more aggressive disposition. They are known to tear the faces off of people: children for instance. The owner of such dogs are usually mortified when it happens, but this does not repair the damage. These are not inanimate objects. They are creatures with a disposition to attack.

Pit Bull Myths - DogsBite.org

Pit bull owners, breeders and animal groups have created a slew of myths and distortions about pit bulls to fight breed-specific laws. See the top 10 myths.

www.dogsbite.org

The article above says that from 2005 to 2019 the pit bull has killed 346 US persons. The article below says that from 2009 to 2018 pit bulls maimed or killed 3569 US persons. The breed is objectively vicious not through any character flaw, any training or bad ownership but by its nature. It can be tamed but is menacing.

Pit Bulls: Facts and Figures

What you need to know about pit bulls. Not opinion, but facts with links. Educate yourself and use these argument-enders!

www.dogbitelaw.com

I read through that site's list of pit bull myths, with this being the first one:

Myth #1: It's the owner not the breed

I think this is absolutely false. It IS the owner. Whenever anyone is threatened or harmed by anything, whether it's a dog, car, piranha, pet snake, gun, or whatever it may be, then the owner is still responsible if anyone gets access to it or is otherwise in a position to be harmed.

Yes, it's true that pit bulls have a powerful bite and can rip someone's face off. But then again, if someone pours a bucket of piranha into the kiddie pool, then there will be severe injuries and possible deaths, but it ultimately depends on the actions or inactions of humans for injury or death to occur. Humans would be responsible for the outcome.

Then there was the last myth, related to the first:

Myth #10: Punish the deed not the breed

Much like the outdated Myth #1, "It's the owner not the breed," this last myth lies at the heart of archaic and insufficient U.S. dog policy.

I do agree that dog policy is insufficient and archaic, but maybe that's because those who are involved in breeding and fighting these dogs are given obscenely light sentences. I guess they must be following this article's idea that "it's not the owner" and believe that the owners shouldn't be held accountable for their own misdeeds.

So, it seems the writers of this article want to give the human owners a light sentence (if any) while punishing the breed. I think this is wrong. Unless society is willing to give adequate punishment to the owners, then I think the problem will continue.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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

It is an indication.
Attacks and deaths are the cincher

 

[Stevicus]

I think our views on animals still need to change. There are instances where law enforcement have unreasonably killed dogs without any consequences, there are where neighbors have poisoned dogs, instances where owners suffer only minor penalties for cruel treatment towards dogs, and instances where people who have no business caring for animals continue to do so. I would think that our societal view on animals is equally if not more to blame than the dogs who have attacked people, because it is our view on animals that allows for dogs to be raised in the conditions which lead to these attacks in the first place.

Yes, as I mentioned in my previous post, we really need to toughen up the penalties for this kind of cruelty. The law needs to have teeth in it, even stronger than those of a pit bull.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So @Stevicus offered a cite

• that claims "1 in 118,776 Odds of Dying from a Dog Attack,"
• and offers "You're more likely to die from a fall or choking than from a dog attack."

Well, that settles it. I'm no longer significantly concerned about dying from a dog attack, so thank you for that. Of course, it is extremely unlikely that I might be killed by arsenic poisoning, but that doesn't make me less supportive of strict controls.

 

[Augustus]

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?

12 out of 23 dog attack deaths in the uk were from XL bullys.

Dogs bred for fighting and size unsurprisingly turn out to be more dangerous than other dogs.

A few other breeds of large fighting dogs are already banned.

Such dogs attract the worst owners, so the most dangerous probably need to be banned as it’s unrealistic to expect responsible ownership.

They can still own slightly smaller dogs with similar characteristics after all.

 

[Secret Chief]

So you have some sort of fear of dogs, or just pit bulls in general?

Not me. Large dogs, small children - as per the attacks cited previously.