Dangerous Dogs

[Mr Kobayashi]

I find this thread very strange, often unfeeling, and judgemental. We are talking about living creatures, and often much loved pets. Responsible dog ownership is not about someone's wealth or the fact they may wear a shell-suit!

A dog that is a danger to the public should obviously be dealt with.
Dogs that are completely innocent should not.
I have no problem with a demand for all dogs on leads in public spaces.

A task force needs to be funded to monitor social media activity around the breeding and selling of dogs. All breeders need to be licensed, income taxed, and assets seized should income and sales be undeclared.

In my opinion, the ban will fail. We will not devote the necessary resources to the problem and kennels right across the nation are already filled to capacity with unwanted lockdown dogs. Unlicensed breeders will simply move to other breeds because there is a demand and profits to be made. Do you really think that former Class A dealers will be arsed about someone declaring a breed of dog illegal?

There will never be a dog licensing scheme for all breeders in the UK. Not the way our political economy works.

The people that hand out licenses are officials working in environmental health teams in local authorities. They are already overstretched with statutory work to complete health inspections of premises. Licensing dogs is not a priority that will get resources allocated to it.

And it will just make the cost of buying normal breeds of dogs unaffordable. Which is unfair on the vast majority of the public who don't have dangerous dogs.

The XL Bully is a freak bred for cunts by cunts and needs to be driven to extinction. It should be as rare as the Otterhound.

 

[oldius]

There will never be a dog licensing scheme for all breeders in the UK. Not the way our political economy works.

The people that hand out licenses are officials working in environmental health teams in local authorities. They are already overstretched with statutory work to complete health inspections of premises. Licensing dogs is not a priority that will get resources allocated to it.

And it will just make the cost of buying normal breeds of dogs unaffordable. Which is unfair on the vast majority of the public who don't have dangerous dogs.

The XL Bully is a freak bred for cunts by cunts and needs to be driven to extinction. It should be as rare as the Otterhound.

There will never be the resources spent to make any ban workable. Your last sentence is a nonsense, IMO, and I normally agree with many of your posts. The breed is not a freak - it is a generally healthy dog with few known issues. When we have dogs whose skulls squeeze their brains, dogs that cannot breath, and dogs that have to be covered in sun cream because they were bred to be bald, then the definition of freak is being mis-applied. The issue is twofold - breeding and ownership. The former is an issue because when you have breeders selling via social media for cash, there is little investment in the future care of the dog: who will own it, will they care for it, will they train it how it needs to be trained? The breeder, in many cases, simply wants the cash and they will breed from any dog, including those that have displayed aggressive traits. They will sell the pups for cash in parks and playgrounds across the UK. They will earn vast tax-free sums and the sentencing makes the job a worthwhile risk. There are former Class A dealers up and down the nation who now breed dogs, and they do so for that reason: profit and little risk. The ownership is, naturally, an issue: is the person competent to own a large, powerful breed; do they have the time, money and energy to invest in the dog and its training; why do they want such a dog?

As I have previously highlighted, in the 1990s, when Rottweilers were the breed of choice, the percentage of fatal dog attacks was disproportionately Rotty. The people who wish to own a large, powerful dog will simply move to the next large, powerful dog. Any ban on the XL will be unworkable, and will fail. In fact, as I have already made clear, the dog is already banned because it is bred from a banned dog. This is indisputable. Only those with a misunderstanding or ignorance of the Dangerous Dogs Act will push for a ban on an already banned dog.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

There will never be the resources spent to make any ban workable. Your last sentence is a nonsense, IMO, and I normally agree with many of your posts. The breed is not a freak - it is a generally healthy dog with few known issues. When we have dogs whose skulls squeeze their brains, dogs that cannot breath, and dogs that have to be covered in sun cream because they were bred to be bald, then the definition of freak is being mis-applied.

I didn't say those dogs weren't freaks. Dogs riddled with health issues or breathing problems are freaks too. Pugs, cavaliers. And dogs that can't give birth naturally and need C-sections in the majority of cases. That's a separate issue though, you can't ban unhealthy dogs under the dangerous dogs act, you need separate legislation for welfare issues.

Dogs that attack humans at these rates are not healthy. The XL Bully is too aggressive and the pocket and extreme varieties have exaggerated features and an natural positioning of their front shoulders.

The issue is twofold - breeding and ownership. The former is an issue because when you have breeders selling via social media for cash, there is little investment in the future care of the dog: who will own it, will they care for it, will they train it how it needs to be trained? The breeder, in many cases, simply wants the cash and they will breed from any dog, including those that have displayed aggressive traits. They will sell the pups for cash in parks and playgrounds across the UK. They will earn vast tax-free sums and the sentencing makes the job a worthwhile risk. There are former Class A dealers up and down the nation who now breed dogs, and they do so for that reason: profit and little risk. The ownership is, naturally, an issue: is the person competent to own a large, powerful breed; do they have the time, money and energy to invest in the dog and its training; why do they want such a dog?

The ban introduces more risk. A licensing scheme is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, why should people who might want to breed healthy animals that are primarily pets and have no more than two litters a year have to be punished because of cunts breeding aggressive dogs?

As I have previously highlighted, in the 1990s, when Rottweilers were the breed of choice, the percentage of fatal dog attacks was disproportionately Rotty. The people who wish to own a large, powerful dog will simply move to the next large, powerful dog. Any ban on the XL will be unworkable, and will fail. In fact, as I have already made clear, the dog is already banned because it is bred from a banned dog. This is indisputable. Only those with a misunderstanding or ignorance of the Dangerous Dogs Act will push for a ban on an already banned dog.

I saw that and thought it was a good post. But you're assuming that the dangerous dog act is clearly enforced by saying that it's already covered. You know that isn't the case, and people with Pitbull crosses already used to successfully evade the act before the Bullies became a big thing.

And if Rotties are bred to an aggressive standard and attack and kill people at similar rates they can go too.

 

[Bluesince1979]

Total agreement that there should be laws for dogs who have now been designed to have squashed faces and there for breathing problems.
A british bulldog of today bares absolutely no resemblance of the ones 100 years ago.

My pal has one and thinks hes looks great walking down the street with it. I just feel sorry for the poor thing

 

[talkativesprout]

I have owned an American Bulldog, 3 Staffordshire Bull terriers, a British Bulldog and a Bull mastiff over the last 40 years and I currently own a French Bulldog puppy. Most I adopted as adult dogs that for one reason or another needed a new home.
The mastiff I only had a couple of weeks because next doors dog got under our fence whilst the kids were in the garden and couldn't get back out fast enough. Though doing what I had hoped any dog of mine would do, neutralising any threat to my family, it scared the wife enough that she insisted it must go.

I'm guessing by the list of breeds i have owned i am what Billy Connolly refers to as the "Tattooed Fuckwit" However I have never encountered any aggression towards a Human (and to be fair to the mastiff I had a broom handle up its arse within seconds and it still never went for me) from any of my animals (I had a parrot growing up that was a proper **** though).

That said, I can't remember a time I left any of my children alone for any length of time and they knew to leave the dog alone whilst it or they were eating because i was aware that however rare all dogs can be a hazard.

The American Bulldog was the softest of the lot (I think a lot of the dogs termed XL bully might well be some American bull/mastiff cross) and would frequently get bullied by two Jack Russell bastards on my walks (he was always on a lead her shithouses never were) and he didn't even show aggression as these two fuckers were biting his legs.

 

[oldius]

I didn't say those dogs weren't freaks. Dogs riddled with health issues or breathing problems are freaks too. Pugs, cavaliers. And dogs that can't give birth naturally and need C-sections in the majority of cases. That's a separate issue though, you can't ban unhealthy dogs under the dangerous dogs act, you need separate legislation for welfare issues.

Dogs that attack humans at these rates are not healthy. The XL Bully is too aggressive and the pocket and extreme varieties have exaggerated features and an natural positioning of their front shoulders.



The ban introduces more risk. A licensing scheme is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, why should people who might want to breed healthy animals that are primarily pets and have no more than two litters a year have to be punished because of cunts breeding aggressive dogs?




I saw that and thought it was a good post. But you're assuming that the dangerous dog act is clearly enforced by saying that it's already covered. You know that isn't the case, and people with Pitbull crosses already used to successfully evade the act before the Bullies became a big thing.
gni
And if Rotties are bred to an aggressive standard and attack and kill people at similar rates they can go too.

You make my point: the law is not applied, so it does not matter if the XL Bully is added as a specific breed, or not. Why is licensing a punishment? Surely, a quality breeder who recognises the issues at stake would not object.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

You make my point: the law is not applied, so it does not matter if the XL Bully is added as a specific breed, or not. Why is licensing a punishment? Surely, a quality breeder who recognises the issues at stake would not object.

Because it punishes people who aren't professional breeders but still care for their animals to a high standard with extra costs.

Someone who might have bred their healthy dog may now be put off because they have to put down £500 upfront. If they are a breeding a less popular breed with smaller litters, they might not even cover costs after vet bills etc.

The argument you are making is a welfare issue, it's not a solution to the breeding of violent dogs. XL Bully owners have been paying through the nose to get these dogs and would still pay if the animals came from unlicensed breeders.

Why can we infer this? Because XL Bully owners had plenty of choice from molossers or Mastiff types but specifically picked the in-trend Pitbull clone. Because they're by and large the dregs of society.

 

[oldius]

I do have a problem when we refer to violent dogs and dregs, though I accept that there are some dogs that have been bred from aggressive dogs, trained to be aggressive and are owned by owners who I wouldn't want as a neighbour. And, that really nails it: the people are the problem, and their choice of dog will always be a problem. You pre-suppose expensive licensing, but it does not need to be the case. If you are licensed as a breeder, you pay a small sum, but your details are logged. You pay tax on the profit you make from your breeding, as any business should. Anyone selling puppies online who is not a licensed breeder is dealt with - seized assets, taxes etc. You have to make it beyond worth to sell dogs for these people who do not do it for the love of the dog. Anything else will fail, IMO.

 

[M18CTID]

Another one. I could be wrong but reading between the lines it sounds like the bloke arrested on suspicion of murder might have the set the dog on the victim:

Murder investigation launched after fatal ‘XL bully’ attack

Northumbria Police responded to an incident in Shiney Row, Sunderland, on Tuesday evening.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I do have a problem when we refer to violent dogs and dregs, though I accept that there are some dogs that have been bred from aggressive dogs, trained to be aggressive and are owned by owners who I wouldn't want as a neighbour. And, that really nails it: the people are the problem, and their choice of dog will always be a problem. You pre-suppose expensive licensing, but it does not need to be the case. If you are licensed as a breeder, you pay a small sum, but your details are logged. You pay tax on the profit you make from your breeding, as any business should. Anyone selling puppies online who is not a licensed breeder is dealt with - seized assets, taxes etc. You have to make it beyond worth to sell dogs for these people who do not do it for the love of the dog. Anything else will fail, IMO.

Technically XL Bully breeders already fall within the scope of existing legislation. If you are selling a dog for two or three thousand pounds, in almost instances it's a commercial activity.

It would have to be expensive to pay for the enforcement i.e. extra staff, if you collect the tax as an extra levy or duty, you'll still need extra enforcement officers.

Who currently enforces the existing legislation?

Local authorities, but half-heartedly. It's all pie in the sky unless there is extra resources which we both know won't be allocated.

Hopefully the XL Bullies Will soon be a footnote in history.