<p style=”text-align: left;”>Shall I start then? I’m very concerned by the trend for huge staff/pitt/xl dogs and want them controlled…. gone.  Not convinced the legislation will work though.</p>

Who has the popcorn maker?

The problem isn’t the dogs,  But a knee jerk reaction gets more press and gammon votes than going deep enough to actually start looking at to root cause of the issue.

Start clamping down on unruly owner and back yard breeders would be a good start.

How about treating the owners of dogs that do attack in the same way we treat perpetrators of knife crime. People might think twice about controlling their dogs then.

Don’t get me started on the social failings in this country that lead to people feeling like that need large dogs for protection.

What happens to the dogs that already exist?

whislt I agree they shouldn’t be bred, and you shouldn’t be allowed to obtain one if you don’t already have one, I’m dead against killing those that are already under ownership

rather they should be kept muzzled in public, not allowed off the lead, and perhaps require some form of dog license

i don’t have one, but I am a dog owner. And I’d happily go to prison before I gave her up to be put down

I’d happily go to prison before I gave her up to be put down

As a dog owner too, I have a completely different opinion to you – if it turned out that the breed of dog we have was dangerous, I’d be all for having it put down. There’s no place for dangerous dogs being kept as pets, either muzzled or not in public. There have been several incidences of dangerous dogs attacking / killing people at home – it’s not just in public where they become unsafe.

Dog licence and that should involve training and testing perhaps? Actually have something to test that owners can and do care for,  and control the dog….I guess that’s an owners licence isn’t it,  not a dogs.   Perhaps like a drivers licence it should be categorised.

Cat A – toy poodle

Up to cat D for ‘dangerous dogs’

My understanding, which I gained from reading the Internet somewhere this morning so it must be true, is that existing dogs will have to be neutered not euthanized.

Which, of course, will make intact dogs both highly desirable and highly lucrative to exactly the sort of people who shouldn’t have them.

All dogs have the capacity to be dangerous. Where do you draw the line? Treating them like babies, wolves or accessories is the issue in my opinion. It should be much harder to own a dog than it is and there should be mandatory training. I’ve had lots of dogs over the years and I’d be mortified if any of them acted like the majority of those I see out and about.

Oh, and anyone that uses an extender lead with their dog should be strangled to death with it.

they could fix it immediately by insisting on muzzles, and then take some time to make a considered decision about what to do next.

existing ones – neuter them. then let them die out.

i have a labrador, and i love him. id never own a fighting style dog, the thought fills me with dread. it is extremely stressful when i meet an xl bully when out walking him, when the owner can barely hang on to it and it looks like it wants to rip my dogs throat out. theres no need for them.
i agree is it the owner, squarely their responsibility. however in this case i think it is the dog too. ive seen many many more angry tiny dogs, but the owner just picks them up and walks off.

editted due to my terrible spelling and worse eyesight.

The problem isn’t the dogs,

This.

I may be hyperbolic here but I think that the abuse of dogs is normalised in our society.

People who are normally responsible think that it’s ok to own an animal and only exercise it when it’s not raining while living in a shoebox, not put it into kennels when they are away for a few days but rely on someone to pop in once a day, allow their thousands of pounds worth dogs loose on shared use paths, etc. If that’s what normal people do, then how do we expect the scummiest dog-owners to behave?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom

Single digit figures per year. Some evidence of an increasing trend.

The problem isn’t the dogs,

It’s not just the dogs.

I know someone with three dogs, well, two now as one died recently. Two bulldog type things and a chihuahua (cross?). All had the same upbringing, the bulldogs are(/were) soft as muck and the chihuahua is a nasty little yappy-snappy bastard. She works with dogs for a living and knows what she’s doing, it’s just innately horrible.

Properly licensed breeders only?

Dogs chipped at birth and traceable back to breeder. You could then see if there is a pattern of inappropriate breeding?

XL Bullies are just the latest craze in ‘dangerous dogs’ though. Back in the 80’s Dobermans were the dangerous dog everyone wanted (popularised in many films at the time).

This ban will have zero effect on attacks on people, or the those who chose to own aggressive dogs.

Whilst I agree “owners=the problem” some dog breeds have been developed for their aggression and wiliness to fight.

Why that is needed in society I don’t know (well I do – its an arms race, its for protection). Same way as its not the guns its the owners. But do you really need to be able to own a AK47 or whatever.

So I’m happy with a 2 pronged approach. Licence the owners (like me) and ban the fighting breeds.

To Cougar’s point. Excitable chihuahua’s make big docile dogs aggressive in the right circumstances. Talk to a gated community South African about dogs and they will keep a mixture of dogs to protect their property, the little ones kick off when there is a noise outside and it gets the big ones in to protect the pack mode.

I am always most nervous biking when someone has a mixture of dog breeds and sizes off the lead.

Oh, and anyone that uses an extender lead with their dog should be strangled to death with it.

Oh yes!

There needs to be some form of regulation for all dogs and breeders. Probably a price cap aswell so those who have licences to breed don’t take the piss.

My dog* is a freakin nightmare, like my bloody shadow. She does my head in but I love her loads. Shes very energetic and will bounce around all over people but theres a HUGE difference between if she started having a go at someone and an XL bully type. I’d be absolutely mortified if my dog did have a go at anyone but would do what needs to be done if it ever did happen. I’d be gutted, but I’d do it.

*Small Labradoodle, about the size of a cocker spaniel 10kgs in weight.

The problem is the dogs though. Because if I have an aggressive dachshund, I simply pick him up and smack him on the nose telling me to behave. And if one attacked me I’d give it a boot and it would leave me alone

where as if 12 stone of lean muscle with huge teeth came at me, I’d probably be a bit goosed

by all accounts if one of these bully dogs attack you, you don’t have a chance. So banning them makes sense as any dog can be unpredictable regardless of previous good nature.

if it turned out the breed of dog we have was dangerous

What do you mean ‘if it turned out’? Any idiot would surely know before they acquired one of those things, if it attacked anyone, it would be dangerous. It’s not as if this ban is coming in off the back of some unexpected revelation that a dog,  bred for strength and fighting, is surprisingly capable of ripping your throat out.

I personally wouldn’t go near one, and definitely wouldn’t have one as a pet if I had kids. I don’t agree with killing them however.

”Dogs don’t kill peuple. People kill people”

why are we allowed to have a dangerous dog and not a dangerous gun?

What do you mean ‘if it turned out’? Any idiot would surely know before they acquired one of those things, if it attacked anyone, it would be dangerous.

It’s not as simple as that.

There have been x5 boxers in our family over the years. 4 of them you could do anything with and they were as soft as shit. My mother-in-laws last boxer – I never trusted that. It just wasn’t like the others and I wouldn’t have left it alone with small children.

Staffies have a bad rep but are great family dogs if bought up properly.

This is why I like our cat, he’s a dickhead but far less likely to murder my kids.

Banning another breed is just the easiest response to recent events and doesn’t really address the patterns of dangerous dog ownership as a “lifestyle choice” or wider prevention of inappropriate people owning dogs.

I think registration and chipping isn’t a bad idea, I think breeder licencing and then keeping track of their bred and sold animals outcomes is also potentially useful, and maybe owner ‘licencing’ but more on the basis that they undertake some basic mandatory course (could be online) answer some basic safety questions correctly and sign a pledge WRT understanding their responsibilities and duties of care to both the dog and other members of the public. Then any breeder needs to confirm that a purchaser holds a licence.

None of that really prevents the issues directly but it’s adds extra barriers for people getting an woofing accessory on a whim and might help the police when prosecuting if the primary offence is ‘unlicenced dog ownership/breeding/trading’ …

Trouble is these sort of things all require administration and thought, and well for “dog people” that’s not generally their strongest area 😉

The problem isn’t the dogs,

that’s a bit like the argument for responsible gun ownership

but what can you do about the people who want to own a dangerous dog because it’s dangerous?

I think registration and chipping isn’t a bad idea, I think breeder licencing and then keeping track of their bred and sold animals outcomes is also potentially useful, and maybe owner ‘licencing’ but more on the basis that they undertake some basic mandatory course (could be online) answer some basic safety questions correctly and sign a pledge WRT understanding their responsibilities and duties of care to both the dog and other members of the public. Then any breeder needs to confirm that a purchaser holds a licence.

It can be done – and the basic system is already there in farming.

Livestock has to have a ‘passport’ that is fully traceable.

Even my wifes horse has a passport and it’s illegal to transport the horse without it.

I couldn’t put it more eloquently than this that I have copied from another forum. The current dangerous dogs act is a very badly written piece of law that has been ineffective. Much more responsibility must go upon those who breed status type dogs and upon owners whose dogs cause a problem. Sadly in lots of cases it is family members who suffer from attacks.

The fact is that different breeds were developed for different reasons. We have all different types of dogs known for a variety of different things. We have herding breeds, guarding breeds, gun dogs, sight hounds, our scent hounds, companion dogs etc etc. All of the dogs within these groups were bred for a purpose. Whether that be our Cavalier King Charles Spaniel which was bred to be lap dog and is of course a companion dog or our German Shepherd Dog which belongs to our guarding group and was bred to herd and guard livestock, their breeds were developed specifically for a reason.

Now let’s look at the breed that is hot topic at the moment. The XL Bully. After yet another vicious attack on a child by an XL Bully, there is call for the breed to be banned. I say ‘breed’ very loosely because they are actually traditionally a mix of the already banned Pitbull Terrier, the American Bulldog and the English Bulldog but the XL Bullies of late are made up of lord knows what. Commonly there is Presa Canario (guarding) and Cane Corso (guard dog, war dog and skilled hunter) also thrown in the mix to create these huge, imposing, genetic disasters that we (in the UK) now know as the XL Bully.

The people that are breeding these dogs generally are not at all interested in the health or temperament of the dogs they’re producing since it is size and colour that sells. Therefore these dogs are just thrown together without a second thought for the outcome. The outcome very often is completely unbalanced, genetically modified dog that has been bred simply to be the biggest they can be with no onus put on their health, their joints are also f*cked meaning they often live in pain making them bombs literally waiting to go off. These are the dogs that are the issue.

And then we come to the people that own them. If you are looking specifically for the meanest, biggest, baddest looking dog and you’re not bothered about the health or the temperament of said dog then you’re just as much of a d1ck as the people that are breeding them.

So you take these dogs that have the potential to be completely unhinged and you put them in the hands of someone who simply wants a status symbol and you might as well have just handed them an AK47 because they won’t take the time to research and understand the dog they’ve got. They will regularly spout that it is in how you raise them, they will have no boundaries and they will walk these dogs off lead completely ignoring the fact that they have a dog that is GENETICALLY pre disposed to aggression.

You wouldn’t take a border collie and walk it through a field of sheep and then wonder why it is herding them. You know that they are doing it because regardless of whether they’ve ever seen a sheep before in their lives it is inherent. It is in their genes and this is no different.

The XL Bully in the wrong hands is a weapon and until we start cracking down on the breeders and putting consequences on the owners who allow these dogs to go out and attack innocent people there will be no end to it.

If they ban the Bully, another breed will come along, and another and another. If you want to own a large and potentially dangerous dog you must be held accountable when things go wrong. Handle them with care, put the time in to them, undertake specialist training, give them an outlet, learn how to own one safely and you’ve nothing to fear and you’ll end up with a really lovely dog. Be a dick and ignore your dogs breed traits, show them no respect, don’t take any special measures when nurturing them then you might as well just take your AK47 and open fire basically.

I think lockdown has a good deal to answer for here.

It seems to me (conformation bias alert) that lots of owners and dogs are new, haven’t socialised (or didn’t have access to training) their dogs, that were in this very weird environment with their owners that’s now changed radically. I did read that there was a massive surge in dog ownership over Covid lockdown as well.

I agree that dog ownership should be perhaps more expensive (licencing? And forced training courses?) I’m pretty much OK with most dogs, but I’ve got admit I’m a little uneasy around those Bully XL; if nothing else, they just look mega-aggressive and scary.

Only one in our village is owned by the King Ned / Alpha Scrote.

Deemed unfit to have unsupervised access to their kids, but apparently competent to own a hell hound.

It’s not as simple as that

well obviously if you buy a dog that isn’t known to be aggressive as a breed, then it turns out it rips your babies face off, then I’d be getting rid of it as well

my point was that if I had one of these bully dogs, and it had never been aggressive towards anyone in its life, then suddenly it’s banned..it would be a bit off of me to turn round and say ‘sorry Brutus, turns out you are a dangerous  breed so I’m taking you to the vets first thing to be put down’

It doesn’t suddenly turn out to be dangerous just because the government wants to score an easy win with voters by banning them.

XL Bullies are a massive issue around here.

Sold as part of a pyramid selling scheme, often interlinked with drug dealing. Pups were selling for £5k each – none of it declared.

Parents are afraid to let their children play in the local park – two small dogs were savaged to near-death last summer (48 stitches required by one elderly dog).

The ban can’t come soon enough.

Hopefully Belgian Mallanois will be banned too.

All dogs have the capacity to be dangerous.

Some dogs are bred to be aggressive, others to be intelligent working dogs. If I could have a pet dog, I’d look at working dogs bred to be safe near sheep and cattle – they’re smart and not aggressive so they’re safe with children and strangers. Yes, they will fight to protect their pack but they are smart and not easily provoked so they don’t chew the faces off the children they live with.

Other breeds have been selectively bred for aggressiveness. They are inherently dangerous, that’s why we have regular news stories about children getting their faces eaten by the family pet.

Bully dogs are mostly owned as status symbols by dickheads across our country. I’d happily see the back of them…the dickheads that is, not the dogs. Owning a bully should automatically mean the owner should be neutered, not the animal. All tongue in cheek obviously but I’m more concerned that these dogs are bred to look mean and what that entails for such breeds. They’re getting bigger and uglier all the time to suit the needs of the owners. Can’t imagine how by f’ing around with genetics is ruining their quality of life, no wonder they’re so bloody angry. I’ll lump into that all manufactured cross breeds like cockapoos etc, sacrifcing long dog hairs on your sofa for a (short) lifetime of vets bills. It’s us that need to stop meddling into doggy breeding.

I’m not saying to know the solution, but what I do know is that dog attacks are becoming a bit like shootings in the USA.. They are becoming really common, and they are 9/10 times one of these pit bull type attack dogs that are bred exclusively to be violent and unpredictable.

The problem is easy to understand, but the solution is more complicated.

I’d at least start charging the owners as criminals as if they had shot or stabbed someone, attempted murder, grevious bodily harm etc.

It’s the same as the gun ownership argument in america, the the gun isn’t the issue it’s the owner.

If we accept that some dogs hurt or kill people and that it’s the owners fault not the dog, then why not legalise handguns here again and apply the same logic?

It’s even worse actually, because at least gun owners who kill in america are charged with it, whereas if your dog eats a child here you get off without punishment.

Is this based on Rishi wanting to bad XL Bullies but doesn’t know what one is yet? So how can they say they’re inherently dangerous if they can’t even say what one is?

It’s even worse actually, because at least gun owners who kill in america are charged with it, whereas if your dog eats a child here you get off without punishment.

Without punishment? It’s a criminal offence, wasn’t someone recently charged with man slaughter following an attack?

The problem isn’t the dogs,

This is far too over simplistic. The problem may well be worse with shit owners. But clearly there’s a reason is usually the same dog breeds and that because some breeds are more aggressive than others. There’s a reason Labs are used as guide dogs not guard dogs and why German and Belgian Sheppard’s are used as police dogs.

Breed specific traits are very really. Do t get me wrong I expect it is possible to train a lurcher not to chase rabbits but it would take a **** load of work and a **** load of time and expertise.

I’d at least start charging the owners as criminals as if they had shot or stabbed someone, attempted murder, grevious bodily harm etc.

think it have to be manslaughter, as proving intention without a witness to the owner commanding the dog to kill would be a tad tricky.

how can they say they’re inherently dangerous if they can’t even say what one is?

Legally it’s an interesting point, as bully XL’s are not a recognised breed as such. It’s widley accepted they are some sort of pit bull/ staffie cross and therefore in the UK are not a ‘banned breed’ as pit bulls are.

Realisticaly it’s a huge issue, as we see lots of attacks in the news, and it’s almost exclusivley these hell hounds. You can say they are inherently dangerous on that alone. The statistics speak for themselves.

@BRUK +1

The current legislation doesn’t work.

As an example of an “American Bulldog mix” that really wasn’t dangerous have a look at “The Dog House” S4E4 on All4. He was still growing and already an absolute unit of a dog. Yet the closest he’d ever come to harming anyone was when he leapt up on the lady during the meet and she fell back into the set! He was an absolute cuddle/snacking monster.

And rehoming centers always struggle to re-home Staffies, Bullies and anything with a reputation regardless of the dogs temprament.

My understanding, which I gained from reading the Internet somewhere this morning so it must be true, is that existing dogs will have to be neutered not euthanized.

Yes, they have to go through a behavioral assessment with the police, and they also tattoo the ear to identify the dog. It’s a sensible compromise. A friend accidentally ended up with an Argentine Dogo and is honestly was one of the the softest dogs ever.

As a dog owner too, I have a completely different opinion to you – if it turned out that the breed of dog we have was dangerous, I’d be all for having it put down.

It would be an utterly pointless waste of life though. And as above, isn’t how the process works anyway.

How do you define dangerous? Has the breed ever killed anyone? I’m sure with enough research you could find an bad example of every breed. Especially ending in -doodle or terrier or anything smaller than a cat. I love dogs, but I’d not own a boarder collie for example because every ‘pet’ one I’ve ever met has been an ***hole (mostly because they were working line dogs), and the working ones are 33/33/33 a**holes / obedient a**holes / actually nice dogs.

XL Bullies are a massive issue around here.

I honestly don’t think I have ever seen one. Is this a very localised problem. I mean I live in Burton which is hardly the wilderness but all the dogs I see are labs, spaniels, I think 1 staff and a the normal mix of terriers and cross breeds.

Hopefully Belgian Mallanois will be banned too.

Heh? If you mean Belgian Malinois, that look similar to an Alsatian, they are lovely dogs. Dont understand that.

Staffy owner here. Mine is number 18 (of 19 in the family) so far.  All ours have all been lovely family dogs. No issues in 60 years. Think its how they are socialised and raised. I do worry about the bigger more muscly “breeds” though. There is a big difference between my 18kg dog and these 60-70kg dogs.  I would agree with a ban sadly.

Not sure about owner licences. How does that work for homeless people and those not so well off with mental health issues where a dog is a crucial part of their life?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/07/met-stands-by-officers-man-tasered-two-dogs-shot-dead-london This seemed terribly sad?

All dog breeds have the potential to be completely unhinged, it’s just if you’ve bred it for size and musculature then it’s much more dangerous if it is unhinged.

The problem with banning a particular breed, is that there will always be a desire amongst certain people to own a strong powerful dog either as a status symbol, or so that they can feel powerful themselves by controlling it. At the same time, there will always be unscrupulous breeders willing to work around any rules in order to satisfy this demand.

A few years ago, a woman was killed by her own dog. The family complained about the breeders having misrepresented it to her. I believe that the breeder’s company name was Gangsta Bullies XL or similar. I did wonder how a company with such a name could possibly misrepresent a dog that turned out to be dangerous?

Realisticaly it’s a huge issue, as we see lots of attacks in the news, and it’s almost exclusivley these hell hounds.

It’s as is there is some form of bias.

I’ve seen one absolutely gorgeous it was, huge mind but very friendly.

There’s a reason Labs are used as guide dogs not guard dogs and why German and Belgian Sheppard’s are used as police dogs.

https://www.guidedogs.org.uk/blog/negative-stereotyping-of-german-shepherds-is-affecting-guide-dog-owners

Is this a very localised problem

It’s a problem throughout Stirling certainly.

And from the attacks reported in the news, also throughout the country.