Bully XL ban

[Stevicus]

Im pretty confident a fila brasileiro is more dangerous to humans than a dachshund regardless of any “studies”.

What about an Akita or Rottweiler or German Shepherd or Doberman Pinscher?

 

[Yerda]

What about an Akita or Rottweiler or German Shepherd or Doberman Pinscher?

Never met an akita that wasn't a sociopath.

 

[Stevicus]

Never met an akita that wasn't a sociopath.

Just got to know how to handle them. My neighbor had an Akita which I was a bit wary of at first, but once I got used to him and he got used to me, we got along fine.

 

[Stevicus]

It is my opinion that it is all about the owner.
However, one can not simply dismiss the breed.

I had a Caucasian Shepard.
Once he passed, I knew with my declining health that I could not handle another one.

I don't automatically dismiss the breed, but just looking at the numbers, considering 18 million Pit Bulls (in 2023) with 284 deaths over a 12-year period, how can anyone seriously argue that the entire breed is dangerous and deadly? Where is the data?

 

[Augustus]

It's a terrible law. It would be far better to require people be trained to raise a dog.

X% of owners will always be bad regardless.

Making everyone an excellent dog owner is unrealistic.

The main question is how to minimise the harm done by bad dog owners, and phasing out a small number of breeds seems reasonable.

Folk can still have their pick of almost all breeds, and can own a very similar but less dangerous dog.

 

[Stevicus]

Sounds like a very dubious claim based on equivocation regarding “dangerous behaviour“. Replace that with threat to human life and I’m not sure it will hold up very well.

Im pretty confident a fila brasileiro is more dangerous to humans than a dachshund regardless of any “studies”.

By the way, the study in question was conducted by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

I believe this must be the study they're referring to: Dog bite risk and prevention: The role of breed

Breeds implicated in serious bite injuries​

In a range of studies, the breeds found to be highly represented in biting incidents were German Shepherd Dog,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,50 mixed breed,1,4,6,8,10,11,12,19,17, 20,50 pit bull type,5,9,13,16,21,20,22,23,24,25,26,27 Rottweiler,15,18,22,24,25,28 Jack Russell Terrier,21,25,26 and others (Chow Chow,7,23 Spaniel,14,26 Collie,3,29 Saint Bernard,20 and Labrador Retriever2).

If you consider only the much smaller number of cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities,21,23 pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified. However this may relate to the popularity of the breed in the victim's community, reporting biases and the dog's treatment by its owner (e.g., use as fighting dogs21). It is worth noting that fatal dog attacks in some areas of Canada are attributed mainly to sled dogs and Siberian Huskies,56 presumably due to the regional prevalence of these breeds. See Table 1 for a summary of breed data related to bite injuries.

 

[Father Heathen]

Whenever there is a fatal dog attack in the news it's almost always a pit bull.

 

[Augustus]

What about an Akita or Rottweiler or German Shepherd or Doberman Pinscher?

They haven’t been responsible for 55% of deaths over a multi year period.

My view is the most dangerous dogs should be banned, then the next tier should have more stringent ownership requirements and be muzzled and kept on a short leash in public areas.

 

[Stevicus]

Fyi - edited my post.

I don't see it as an either/or issue. As per my link above there do seem certain breeds that account for much of the attacks. But yes the owners too. Imo, proper training should be required for all dog ownership. Many people seem to have dogs that are not trained. And it is of course true that your typical macho ****head will want a bulldog over a daschund. And probably won't train it.

Well, as I've said, society has to hold the owners responsible.

And that's another point. Just out of curiosity, what's the penalty for violating this new ban on Pit Bulls in the UK? Are there severe penalties in place, or is it just going to be a slap on the wrist?

 

[Augustus]

Well, as I've said, society has to hold the owners responsible.

And that's another point. Just out of curiosity, what's the penalty for violating this new ban on Pit Bulls in the UK? Are there severe penalties in place, or is it just going to be a slap on the wrist?

iirc

Up to 6 months in prison for ownership.

Up to 5 years for injuring someone with any breed.

Up to 14 years if the dog kills someone, and an illegal breed would count as an aggravated offence leading to harsher punishment.

 

[Altfish]

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?

Firstly, it is usually the owners, not the dogs that are the problem BUT...
It is not the first dog ban in UK, there is, IIRC, A Dangerous Dogs Act from about 1990, that I believe the XL Bully breed has been added to.

 

[Secret Chief]

Firstly, it is usually the owners, not the dogs that are the problem BUT...
It is not the first dog ban in UK, there is, IIRC, A Dangerous Dogs Act from about 1990, that I believe the XL Bully breed has been added to.

Correct.

 

[Curious George]

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.

To be honest, after looking through the first site, I didn’t even bother with the second. When someone posts a source so clearly biased, I think there is a fundamental difference in understanding. It would be like us arguing about racism and you posting a white supremacy page as though it were authoritative on non-white cultures. There may be something true on there, but we are starting at such different points that addressing your sources beyond identifying them as unacceptable would be fruitless.

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

I don’t think anyone has suggested that dogs should not be regulated by to some degree by some entity.

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.

This may be splitting hairs, but outside legislation is different than “whether dog breeds ought to be legislated” or “how dog breeds should be regulated.” Again sorry for quibbling, but I would like to make sure we are on the same page with the discussion.

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 think we may agree that dogs deserve better treatment and our societal perspective on dogs (and probably animals) should shift. I think there is a lot here with which I disagree. I do not think that dogs existence is a cruel fact. I think the conclusion that dogs are not happy is a baseless non sequitur.

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.

I think that dogs who attack may often attack for the face. That is not to what I was objecting. My objection was to the assertion that an entire breed of dogs is likely to attack faces. Or even that dogs are likely to attack faces without some conditional statement.

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.

I think we are on a different page regarding this natural/unnatural line you are drawing. My point with tigers is that few people would say no animals ought to be regulated. Tigers were an example of a potentially dangerous animal that people have kept as “pets.”

 

[Curious George]

It is an indication.
Attacks and deaths are the cincher

Than I anticipate that you would be in favor of greatly expanding the ban list on an ongoing basis each time a different breed kills or maims a human.

 

[Curious George]

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.

And I imagine that the worst owners will continue to own the largest and most dangerous dogs available. So why not just head off future incidents and ban all large powerful dogs?

 

[Curious George]

If guns pose a danger to the general public, they should be effectively controlled in a socially responsible manner.
If pit bulls pose a danger to the general public, they should be effectively controlled in a socially responsible manner..

While I think that dogs and guns can be differentiated, especially in the U.S., is banning a dog breed the most effective, efficient, and moral solution. There can be regulation without an outright ban.

 

[Curious George]

OK.



See Pit Bulls: Risks and Solutions which notes ...

Pit bull owners often say that the dog is not dangerous because pit bulls have not been proved to bite people more often than other dogs bite people. Nevertheless, it has been proved that the injuries inflicted by pit bulls are far worse than injuries caused by other common breeds of dog. See the study in Annals of Surgery conducted by physicians which concluded that attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs.​

It later notes:

The annual cost resulting from fatal maulings by pit bulls has been estimated at more than $100 million per year. Merritt Clifton, Punishing the Deed Costs Twice As Much As Banning Dogs of Fighting Breed.​

​

If pit bulls are not to be banned altogether, the breed certainly must be restricted as to who may own it, where it may live, and how it is to be confined and restrained whether on public or private property. See Keep Certain High-Risk Dogs Away From the Wrong People, Places and Situations.​

And it finally observes:

In England, dog attacks surged 76% when the ban on pit bulls was lifted. See Merritt Clifton, Dog attacks surge 76% in England in 10 years, coinciding with exemption of Staffordshire pit bulls from the Dangerous Dogs Act.​

You have quoted a website that is designed to profit off dog attacks, “protect” society from the “danger” of certain dogs, or both. I hope you can see how this is biased. Regarding the research which the website quoted, @Stevicus addressed this well already.

 

[Curious George]

Sounds like a very dubious claim based on equivocation regarding “dangerous behaviour“. Replace that with threat to human life and I’m not sure it will hold up very well.

Im pretty confident a fila brasileiro is more dangerous to humans than a dachshund regardless of any “studies”.

But to ban something merely because it can be said to be “more dangerous to humans” than something else, seems very shortsighted.

 

[Curious George]

Many people get pit bulls for protection or to extrapolate themselves; manhood, with the pit bull like a prop for extra macho. If they do this out of paranoia or self importance, they may not socialize the dog properly, fearing the dog may lose that edge. Lack of training and socialization can cause the dog to let his or her fighting instincts lead, leading to problems. They were bred to fight in the pit and may decide they want some practice, with every dog a threat; inferred from avoided socialization.

Many of the statistics that were shown are about biting humans. This breed can also be very aggressive toward other dogs and cats, The often want to pick a fight with a more mellow domesticated dog, leading to serious injuries or death. Many will respect humans but anything goes if there is a dog or even a friendly cat. Two pit bulls as a team will rip small animals into two.

However, people who socialize their pit bull, starting young, and give it plenty of exercise, will find that a bully can become good pets and citizen dogs; happy dog.

An alternative solution to banning, might be for Bully Breeders to do what breeders do with Belgian Malinois. The Malinois were originally bred to a be a herding dog, but is now used for military and civilian K-9. They can fetch a handsome price if pre-trained for the job; sell at 2 year old fully trained. The most common breeders of this dog are trainers and not dog breeders trying to maintain breed standards. They breed and train to get maximum price for a K-9; aggression, which could fetch from $10K to $75K per dog.

Belgian Malinois are high energy over achievers and the K-9 bred puppies are too often much for most people to handle; maligators. These Breeders will not sell their puppies to just anyone, unless you are a certified dog trainer, thereby avoiding all the things that can go wrong. This smart, high energy breed that will take over the house, if it does not have a human alpha leader who can outwork him.

The State, rather than just ban, can make Pit bull ownership based on certain qualifications such as being a trainer, or enrolled in training program for such a breed, so the story ends well for humans and other dogs. It is like owning a gun in the US, where you need to take a training course and not just buy one and start shooting with unintended consequences.

Pit bulls can make good pets. They do not need a lot of room to run, like a Malinois, so they can exist in an apartment without a yard, even though they can be large. This is ideal for the lazy owner, who by virtue of neglect, can cause the dog to develop bad habits. This is often what happens.

I used to own a Doberman, which is another breed that needs training and socialization, since they were the only dog specifically bred for personal protection. It was developed in 1870, by Karl Friedrich Louis Dobermann, a German tax collector. He needed a body guard dog when collecting taxes in the shady side of town. He ran the local dog pound and had access to many breeds to create the ideal personal protection dog.

My doberman was from a European work line with a very high energy drive. I did not initially understand what that meant beyond how he looked so cool. I was way over my head until I took training courses to learn how to handle him. During walks as a puppy, we met a pit bull puppy; similar age, and the two became friends and workout buddies. The doberman was like the boxer and the pit bull was like the wrestler. They would teach each other the opposite styles. They mostly played by pit bull rules; wrestling, since the doberman was too fast on his feet, so the pit bull would give up chase and the play would stop. Since my dog wanted to play more than just win, he decided to play by pit bull rules. This worked well for both and they built a bond.

The wrestling skills my dog learned from the pit bull allowed him to play with a Great Dane puppy who weighed 150 pounds with him about 90 pounds at one year. He would use pit bull take down tricks, that he learned from his friend, to take the bigger dog off his feet and then get on top so he could not get back up; no biting. Pitfalls have a grappling style that makes it harder for other dogs to counter since most dogs are not used to close fighting in a pit. My doberman was smart enough to add this his skill set. That pit bull was a nice dog with a big smile due to the exercise, socialization and play.

That definitely seems on the track for better thought regulation than an outright ban.

 

[Curious George]

Firstly, it is usually the owners, not the dogs that are the problem BUT...
It is not the first dog ban in UK, there is, IIRC, A Dangerous Dogs Act from about 1990, that I believe the XL Bully breed has been added to.

That doesn’t really address any of my questions or statements. That other dog breeds have been “banned” doesn’t impact whether banning is reasonable, or the best way to address the issue. In fact, that the list needs to be expanded seems to indicate that the list didn’t solve the issue in the first place.