I am kind of on the fence in general with banned breeds(there should be a path for responsible-experienced owners IMO), the owner does play a big part. However, this breed hasn't been added yet and there are experts saying this breed in particular is standing out. One even mentioned that dog handling experts(named one example), with years of experience have been attacked and killed by this breed. It was on some breakfast show but the owner they had on the show was having none of it because theirs was well behaved/had a good temperament.
Just from a quick look, there are some stats knocking around:
Campaign group Bully Watch UK has recorded 351 attacks by the breed this year alone.
They say 43 per cent of all maulings by dogs come from large bully animals, despite the breed being a tiny proportion of all UK dogs.
The last part kind of goes against some of the arguments being made that they are unfairly being singled out but I guess the argument would be that it's mainly the wrong people buying that particular breed. To which the other side would say, you don't know that and even if that were true, it's still an indication that something needs to be done about it.
Another report had a different stat on deaths which included other variants of the American Bully breed(Standard, Classic and XL, I'm guessing):
American bullys, including the XL breed, have been responsible for 73 per cent of dog-related deaths in the UK since 2022 but make up a tiny percentage of the total canine population.
I do agree the media are going overboard in some respects, I've seen them quoting people who aren't even dog handlers likening them to tigers and such. However, is there a compelling reason anyone absolutely must have an XL Bully, or any of the breeds that have already been banned?
That's why I don't see why there's such a fuss about the suggestion of adding this breed to the banned dogs list. Though I admit, I'm not really sure of how the law works on banned breeds. Is it really the case that when a breed is banned, ALL of those dogs are confiscated and euthanised or is that hyperbole from the other side of the fence?
It should be the case that they are phased out. They ask anyone who does own one to come forward. They then run some checks on the owner to see if they are capable/responsible enough for a such a breed. If they aren't, confiscate and re-home them. If they are suitable owners, they enter an agreement of some sort to take full responsibility if they want to keep them. Aren't there permits for that or is that a different country's laws I'm thinking of? Anyway, assuming that's how it is, then if you don't come forward or you don't take the precautions you agreed to and something goes wrong, then you face significant legal consequences. How else do we tackle the problem of idiots and thugs ending up owning these dogs and the public suffering the consequences?
Edit: Didn't even mean to write such a long post(torn whether to split it into two or not), just wanted to share my thoughts.