Out of control dogs/dog attacks

owlo said:
I'd rather just keep all sighthounds on a leash at all times. Their predisposition to 'chase' can be dangerous with smaller cats and children, and recall is always somewhat spotty, but they aren't aggressive. Some breeds just need a farm. I'm not a greyhound expert, but my instinct is you should be looking to slowly wean them off the muzzle except during introductions etc as they will be so used to it from racing, and teach them to be on leash. (except when playing with other sighthounds of course!)

I don't walk the dogs, but I'd advise that if it is in early stages of assessment and shows large amounts of reactivity you should keep it away from people, walking it in quiet zones and away from trauma. The dog has loads to get used to without 'those' people wanting to cuddle it, and the muzzle may cause extra stress.

People need a general dog education, to not just come up to them and pet them without permission. It's a catch22, you need to socialise the dog to get it used to the situation and not be reactive, but every time you do, you potentially trigger it with one of these idiots. It's why doing it as a puppy is so important.
Click to expand...
Yeah they should be kept on lead although they’re not what I’d class as a dangerous dog. At least up until they’ve been homed and temperament, prey drive, and then recall has been fully assessed.

Weaning off a muzzle pretty quickly is what happens unless they’re particularly reactive to other dogs, which I’ve only experienced with non racers whose background is unknown but clearly involved abuse.

Wibble said:
Sighthounds can be problematic and greyhounds are often more so post adoption because they have little or no training other than to chase. I'd love a totalban on greyhound racing. Cruel and results in huge numbers of health dogs being killed every year.
Click to expand...
Fully agree on this. Greyhounds make brilliant pets and are incredibly loving, often even if they’ve being treated awfully while racing. The racing industry ranges from cruel to barbaric.

I’ve had greyhounds with zero issues the minute they step in to our home, apart from being daft as a brush, and it’s usually obvious how they’ll be from how they act at the rescue if they’re a proper greyhound rescue, which makes homing easier. There’s plenty like that and you couldn’t ask for a better pet.

More recently have adopted more problematic dogs because we have the experience to deal with it. One is an ex racer - an angel but terrified of other humans, particularly men, but wouldn’t harm a fly (actually does enjoy trying to eat a fly). Clearly abused in the past. Would jump at the wind when we first got her. Still a weirdo but much better with us.

The other wasn’t a racer or at least not legally, and is reactive to most dogs except ours for some reason, but otherwise a good lad. Came to us having been found on the street severely malnourished but seemed to be house trained to an extent. Possibly lived in a house but seemingly abused. He’s needed a muzzle on walks while we train him to be less reactive, as it’s impossible not to bump in to people walking their dogs around here. Also spent a small fortune on professional training. He’s better but still hates a few dogs in particular, and obviously if other dogs are reactive it sets him off.

Also worth highlighting to anyone reading that if you go to a proper rescue, they’ll fit with you the right dog for you, and there’s tonnes that are good as gold from the off, so don’t let this put you off.
 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
The difference is that all guns are dangerous. I don't disagree that some breeds need to be banned due to the horrific outcomes if the occasional one does attack, but sadly also because they type of owner such breeds attract far too often.
Click to expand...

The other difference is a gun has be used by someone to cause damage. A dog can cause damage of its own accord.
 
if you want a dog, fine, get whatever breed floats your boat.
just keep it on your own property.
 
Wibble said:
You could get children used to being muzzled but it is still inherently cruel, not on the same level of course (mostly). It also varies from breed to breed but hunting dogs in general, and stetters (that I own) in particular would be traumatised as they would view it as punishment for no reason. That is why setter breeders often make you sign a contract that prohibits muzzle, choke and prong chain use etc.
Click to expand...

You are anthropomorphising Wibble - dogs that are trained to be muzzled do not view it as any more of a punishment than dogs that are trained to walk to heel on a tight leash or wear a harness in a moving vehicle.

I agree with @owlo - all dogs should be muzzle trained. That doesn't mean they have to wear one, but it does mean they can wear one when necessary. Muzzling is not cruel or unkind in any way to an animal that has been trained to accept it. It only becomes an issue when it provokes a fear response, which it will not do in an animal trained to accept it.

Wibble said:
Yes but that is incredibly rare and vets usually prefer to sedate.
Click to expand...

Vets prefer not to receive career ending injuries - without a tranquillizer gun how do you propose we sedate out of control dangerous animals?

Banning breeds does not work. The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) has been widely discredited. Veterinary surgeons do not support breed specific legislation, because the identification of affected breeds is subjective, based upon the assessment of individuals or groups of individuals without reference to genotype. The BVA, which is our primary lobbying group has been calling on the Government to repeal the DDA for years.
 
Last edited:
VeevaVee said:
Yeah they should be kept on lead although they’re not what I’d class as a dangerous dog. At least up until they’ve been homed and temperament, prey drive, and then recall has been fully assessed.

Weaning off a muzzle pretty quickly is what happens unless they’re particularly reactive to other dogs, which I’ve only experienced with non racers whose background is unknown but clearly involved abuse.


Fully agree on this. Greyhounds make brilliant pets and are incredibly loving, often even if they’ve being treated awfully while racing. The racing industry ranges from cruel to barbaric.

I’ve had greyhounds with zero issues the minute they step in to our home, apart from being daft as a brush, and it’s usually obvious how they’ll be from how they act at the rescue if they’re a proper greyhound rescue, which makes homing easier. There’s plenty like that and you couldn’t ask for a better pet.

More recently have adopted more problematic dogs because we have the experience to deal with it. One is an ex racer - an angel but terrified of other humans, particularly men, but wouldn’t harm a fly (actually does enjoy trying to eat a fly). Clearly abused in the past. Would jump at the wind when we first got her. Still a weirdo but much better with us.

The other wasn’t a racer or at least not legally, and is reactive to most dogs except ours for some reason, but otherwise a good lad. Came to us having been found on the street severely malnourished but seemed to be house trained to an extent. Possibly lived in a house but seemingly abused. He’s needed a muzzle on walks while we train him to be less reactive, as it’s impossible not to bump in to people walking their dogs around here. Also spent a small fortune on professional training. He’s better but still hates a few dogs in particular, and obviously if other dogs are reactive it sets him off.

Also worth highlighting to anyone reading that if you go to a proper rescue, they’ll fit with you the right dog for you, and there’s tonnes that are good as gold from the off, so don’t let this put you off.
Click to expand...

The saving grace for greyhounds is that they are naturally very good natured. We have an old rescue greyhound next door and he isn't atvall reactive but does get stressed easily. He wants to interact with my two but they are a bit overenthusiastic for him (as they love him for some reason). So my two yip and whimper at the fence to call him over and when he is feeling brave he stands side on to the fence to allow my two to sniff him but ina way that allows him to look away to, control his stress. A lovely boy. How anyone can be cruel to such a lovely creature is beyond me utterly.

One of my two is not exactly a rescue but she was returned to the breeder at 15 months and we got her essentially untrained - mot even toilet trained. Bloody hard work to train any dog starting at that age and doubly so a setter who have particular training needs.
 
beacon said:
You are anthropomorphising Wibble - dogs that are trained to be muzzled do not view it as any more of a punishment than dogs that are trained to walk to heel on a tight leash or wear a harness in a moving vehicle.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I'm a biologist and well know the difference. I wouldn't use a choke chain for similar reasons. I only use harnesses with chest attachments. Some breeds cope better but dogs are often also good at hiding distress. Like us all other animals deserve to be treated with as much dignity as possible.

I agree with @owlo - all dogs should be muzzle trained. That doesn't mean they have to wear one, but it does mean they can wear one when necessary. Muzzling is not cruel or unkind in any way to an animal that has been trained to accept it. It only becomes an issue when it provokes a fear response, which it will not do in an animal trained to accept it.
Click to expand...

One of mine has to wear a cone of shame from time to time as she nibbles terribly when she gets skin allergies and she hates it no matter how much she is used to it. It doesn't provoke a fear response. It provokes a sadness/upset response. Luckily we have found out what causes the allergies and avoid walking there now.

Vets prefer not to receive career ending injuries - without a tranquillizer gun how do you propose we sedate out of control dangerous animals?
Click to expand...

Of course they do and occasionally it might be a necessity but how often is that? Pretty rare I'd say and mainly when the dog arrives already muzzled. Unless you have a very specific clientele.

Banning breeds does not work. The Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) has been widely discredited. Veterinary surgeons do not support breed specific legislation, because the identification of affected breeds is subjective, based upon the assessment of individuals or groups of individuals without reference to genotype. The BVA, which is our primary lobbying group has been calling on the Government to repeal the DDA for years.
Click to expand...

A huge problem with banning anything. It has to be fair and enforceable and breed identification is hard, especially given they are all a single species.
 
Last edited:
Superden said:
if you want a dog, fine, get whatever breed floats your boat.
just keep it on your own property.
Click to expand...

No. Why should I when I'm causing no impact or danger to anyone else? Of course I don't and wouldn't own a dangerous breed.
 
A similar or related device/training issue is prong collars and other aversion training. Prong collars (choke chains with metal prongs that push inward when a dog pulks at the lead) are an odd one here in Australia because they are illegal to import (but presumably must be anyway) yet only illegal to use in about half the states and territories.

https://amp.theguardian.com/austral...-from-australia-prong-collars-change-petition

Personally I'm against all aversion training and only do positive reinforcement training. Stop or I'll say stop again :cool:

 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
The saving grace for greyhounds is that they are naturally very good natured. We have an old rescue greyhound next door and he isn't atvall reactive but does get stressed easily. He wants to interact with my two but they are a bit overenthusiastic for him (as they love him for some reason). So my two yip and whimper at the fence to call him over and when he is feeling brave he stands side on to the fence to allow my two to sniff him but ina way that allows him to look away to, control his stress. A lovely boy. How anyone can be cruel to such a lovely creature is beyond me utterly.

One of my two is not exactly a rescue but she was returned to the breeder at 15 months and we got her essentially untrained - mot even toilet trained. Bloody hard work to train any dog starting at that age and doubly so a setter who have particular training needs.
Click to expand...
Ours looks away sometimes too. Cute as hell when she finds some confidence to play with the boisterous one and occasionally tells him off if he oversteps the mark. He reacts well to it too, despite being a wanker with other dogs :lol:
 
Dog owners making the same excuses, which is why the problems will always continue. It's always someone else's dog and never theirs. Has anyone used the mental health card yet like they do in America when diverting.
 
My dog is a bizzare result of a hook up of two escaped dogs. He's one in a million. When he dies, whatever the feck his breed is dies with him. It'll be sad that he's dead, in fact, it'll be devastating for us, but let's not make out it's some sort of genocide that there won't be other like him.

Let the XL Bullies die out in this country. Let's stop pretending it's really fecking sad outside of an individual pet level, especially if you've been cutting their ears to make them look harder like some sort of fecking sick psychopath.
 
Herman Toothrot said:
My dog is a bizzare result of a hook up of two escaped dogs. He's one in a million. When he dies, whatever the feck his breed is dies with him. It'll be sad that he's dead, in fact, it'll be devastating for us, but let's not make out it's some sort of genocide that there won't be other like him.

Let the XL Bullies die out in this country. Let's stop pretending it's really fecking sad outside of an individual pet level, especially if you've been cutting their ears to make them look harder like some sort of fecking sick psychopath.
Click to expand...

Ear clipping and tail docking should be illegal everywhere. Totally unnecessary cruelty.
 
Wibble said:
Ear clipping and tail docking should be illegal everywhere. Totally unnecessary cruelty.
Click to expand...

We're lead to believe that some working dogs still need their tails docked to avoid injury. Our vet recommended having some of our Jack Russell's dew claws removed to avoid injury so that might be true.

As the owner of a Rottweiler who's been smacked in the face with a large wagging tail many times I can see why some thought it was a good idea with some large breeds. But yeah it's definitely something that should be a thing of the past, along with ear cropping.
 
stevoc said:
We're lead to believe that some working dogs still need their tails docked to avoid injury. Our vet recommended having some of our Jack Russell's dew claws removed to avoid injury so that might be true.

As the owner of a Rottweiler who's been smacked in the face with a large wagging tail many times I can see why some thought it was a good idea with some large breeds. But yeah it's definitely something that should be a thing of the past, along with ear cropping.
Click to expand...

Tail docking (barring for a genuinely therapeutic reason such as a broken tail) ha been illegal in Australia since 2004 with no problems whatsoever.

Dew claws are a bit different in that they are relatively rare and can be easily caught and ripped off etc. However, a medical reason is still required here and so removal is rare. I had a collie with very isolated dew claws and we never had to get them removed - a sample size of 1 I realise. Probably the big difference between dew claws and tails is that dew claws don't serve a function so won't be missed if removal is unavoidable.
 
Owning a dangerous dog is like when idiots own Tigers or Chimps or any other dangerous animal. They say 'Oh but he's harmless.' 'Wouldn't hurt a fly'. 'Soft as sht.' Which may be true but if they decide to fk someone up then you have had it. And its not just the owners. Sure good owners minimize a majority of the risk. But they are still animals and they still have their own rules and their own laws. You could have a good owner but the dog still goes mental one day. To humans everyone will say 'Oh but it takes no sense. He was always such a good dog. We trained him right.' But if you could have a court with dogs and the dog explained himself then they would be acquitted every time. Your honor. That fking bitch crossed my path 3 fking times and she didnt even lower her head or that fking child had no respect, just took my place without giving any leadership. Its like that family that owned chimps and knew everything about them. Everything was fine for years then one day gave one a birthday cake. Thats a big no on chimp world. So they fked him up and bit off his fingers and genitals and ate his face. Point being a dog will never be100 percent safe so keep the ones that will kill you away from society
 
Wibble said:
Tail docking (barring for a genuinely therapeutic reason such as a broken tail) ha been illegal in Australia since 2004 with no problems whatsoever.

Dew claws are a bit different in that they are relatively rare and can be easily caught and ripped off etc. However, a medical reason is still required here and so removal is rare. I had a collie with very isolated dew claws and we never had to get them removed - a sample size of 1 I realise. Probably the big difference between dew claws and tails is that dew claws don't serve a function so won't be missed if removal is unavoidable.
Click to expand...

Tail docking is banned in the UK too, but as far as I know it is still allowed for certain working dogs and of course for medical reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wibble
How many more have to die before these things are banned
 
Seems to be happening every week. I feel like I'm living in Megacity One out of Judge Dredd. Just a horrible nation, absolutely unredeemable, filled with horrific people, just a rot of despicable, selfish, ugly human beings so it makes sense our representatives are like this.

I hate it here.
 
@Fortitude It's half off topic, but the subject of Bidens dog Commander that I believe illustrates my point well. For all intents and purposes it is likely terribly socialised and trained, and in stressful situations daily. Having lived in the white house as a puppy, and as the breed most likely to bite, it's undoubtedly a 'problem' German Shepherd. However despite this, and the fact its a large dog that you would likely class as 'lethal,' its unlikely to kill anybody at this point [though it will keep on biting and escalating this if the behaviour is not addressed. GSD's bite.] This for me is the difference between pitbull breeds and every other breed.

Wibble said:
Ear clipping and tail docking should be illegal everywhere. Totally unnecessary cruelty.
Click to expand...

Missed this but agree. And with your views on greyhound racing. We've come a long way though.
 
owlo said:
@Fortitude It's half off topic, but the subject of Bidens dog Commander that I believe illustrates my point well. For all intents and purposes it is likely terribly socialised and trained, and in stressful situations daily. Having lived in the white house as a puppy, and as the breed most likely to bite, it's undoubtedly a 'problem' German Shepherd. However despite this, and the fact its a large dog that you would likely class as 'lethal,' its unlikely to kill anybody at this point [though it will keep on biting and escalating this if the behaviour is not addressed. GSD's bite.] This for me is the difference between pitbull breeds and every other breed.



Missed this but agree. And with your views on greyhound racing. We've come a long way though.
Click to expand...
You cited the Alsatian, but what about Rottweiler’s, whom can be categorised in the same class (alongside Doberman’s, etc.)?

Your bolded:

I don’t wish to sound like some mad advocate for the breed as I’m not one, but the point still stands about them and it’ll always be a given that attacks by them are highly likely to be life-altering or fatal.

I was curious so quickly googled and most normal sites aren’t dissimilar in their lists to this.

Do you know why that is (in my opinion, why)? It’s because the proliferation of truly lethal dogs in homes is low as Cane Corso’s, Dogo Argetinos, Tibetan Mastiffs, Fila Brasileiro’s, Tosa’s, Presa Canario’s (just list a bunch of mastiffs to go alongside the larger terriers) and so on are rare, expensive and not easy to source. These are truly lethal, like pit bulls and Rottweiler’s but there are so few of them in normal homes that their data point is negligible. The biggest mistake was having a powder keg breed bred, bastardised and farmed all over the world; you’ve an outlier breed - one that should be classified with the aforementioned - in homes as one of the most popular breeds… what could possibly go wrong with that?

Crux of my argument is if the same was done with any of the above, they’d be the infamous demon dog because all of these breeds are way beyond the remit of normal people, let alone the incompetents most likely to own them (in the case of the Pit and XL).

If you were to liken it to guns, it’d be the equivalent of asking why any citizen needs full or semi-automatic weapons and yet they’re the weapons of choice on so many murder sprees.

The data will always be skewed. Does that matter? I don’t know… why? Because the issue of lethality cannot be ignored and these episodes will continue to happen even if attacks are relatively low compared to other breeds.

As I said before, I know of a few homes with the demon breed in them with zero incident, but it doesn’t betray the likelihood it only takes one go in any of those homes for another horror statistic.

Banning the breed sounds like a fantastic catch-all statement, like cheering when the figurehead of an evil organisation is felled, not realising the institution has other branches and a new evil to readily take its place. Ban these breeds; unscrupulous, clever breeders will concoct something new and equally threatening that has no legislation but isn’t a Pit or XL. And further to that, the huge hole in the market would open the doors to a massive race to fill said hole. It would be a bigger boom economy than the one for these breeds. Unless a proper plan is put in place that has no loopholes or exploitation points, this dangerous breed problem will just be a case of kicking the can down the road.

Another way to put the above paragraph is likening it to banning an extremely popular drug. The moment that happens the race is on to gobble up the newly open market space and it’s a free for all with regulations lagging way behind. Illegal drug, the same; remove anything dominant in the market and it becomes a race to fill the void.

As an aside, all those lethal breeds are the same size or even bigger than XL’s. Most humans haven’t a prayer against any of them.
 
owlo said:
@Fortitude It's half off topic, but the subject of Bidens dog Commander that I believe illustrates my point well. For all intents and purposes it is likely terribly socialised and trained, and in stressful situations daily. Having lived in the white house as a puppy, and as the breed most likely to bite, it's undoubtedly a 'problem' German Shepherd. However despite this, and the fact its a large dog that you would likely class as 'lethal,' its unlikely to kill anybody at this point [though it will keep on biting and escalating this if the behaviour is not addressed. GSD's bite.] This for me is the difference between pitbull breeds and every other breed.
Click to expand...
Re Alsatian's, they are the only dog I have had issues with, it's almost as if every park has at least one poorly socialized Alsatian. As you say though, even taking the larger herding breeds - Bernese, Old English, Collies, Aussie Shepherd's, Pyrenees - even the most poorly trained ones are highly unlikely to attack you with then intention to kill you and even if they did, despite being much larger in many cases, they don't have as much muscle mass, they are less stocky/powerful and less dangerous bites.

The gov don't really care about someone getting bit or, in most cases, nipped by a badly trained dog. They care about dogs which can snap and then are wired to essentially maul their target until it stops moving - there aren't that many dogs that can actually take an adult healthy human down and kill them, but the banned breeds and bigger bullies maybe could. I think there are two separate arguments here, one is simply should we stop breeding all/some fighting breeds and allow them to go extinct & the other is about how can we ensure bigger, more aggressive (non fighting) breeds are bought by half decent trainers/humans.
 
Fortitude said:
You cited the Alsatian, but what about Rottweiler’s, whom can be categorised in the same class (alongside Doberman’s, etc.)?

Your bolded:

I don’t wish to sound like some mad advocate for the breed as I’m not one, but the point still stands about them and it’ll always be a given that attacks by them are highly likely to be life-altering or fatal.

I was curious so quickly googled and most normal sites aren’t dissimilar in their lists to this.

Do you know why that is (in my opinion, why)? It’s because the proliferation of truly lethal dogs in homes is low as Cane Corso’s, Dogo Argetinos, Tibetan Mastiffs, Fila Brasileiro’s, Tosa’s, Presa Canario’s (just list a bunch of mastiffs to go alongside the larger terriers) and so on are rare, expensive and not easy to source. These are truly lethal, like pit bulls and Rottweiler’s but there are so few of them in normal homes that their data point is negligible. The biggest mistake was having a powder keg breed bred, bastardised and farmed all over the world; you’ve an outlier breed - one that should be classified with the aforementioned - in homes as one of the most popular breeds… what could possibly go wrong with that?

Crux of my argument is if the same was done with any of the above, they’d be the infamous demon dog because all of these breeds are way beyond the remit of normal people, let alone the incompetents most likely to own them (in the case of the Pit and XL).

If you were to liken it to guns, it’d be the equivalent of asking why any citizen needs full or semi-automatic weapons and yet they’re the weapons of choice on so many murder sprees.

The data will always be skewed. Does that matter? I don’t know… why? Because the issue of lethality cannot be ignored and these episodes will continue to happen even if attacks are relatively low compared to other breeds.

As I said before, I know of a few homes with the demon breed in them with zero incident, but it doesn’t betray the likelihood it only takes one go in any of those homes for another horror statistic.

Banning the breed sounds like a fantastic catch-all statement, like cheering when the figurehead of an evil organisation is felled, not realising the institution has other branches and a new evil to readily take its place. Ban these breeds; unscrupulous, clever breeders will concoct something new and equally threatening that has no legislation but isn’t a Pit or XL. And further to that, the huge hole in the market would open the doors to a massive race to fill said hole. It would be a bigger boom economy than the one for these breeds. Unless a proper plan is put in place that has no loopholes or exploitation points, this dangerous breed problem will just be a case of kicking the can down the road.

Another way to put the above paragraph is likening it to banning an extremely popular drug. The moment that happens the race is on to gobble up the newly open market space and it’s a free for all with regulations lagging way behind. Illegal drug, the same; remove anything dominant in the market and it becomes a race to fill the void.

As an aside, all those lethal breeds are the same size or even bigger than XL’s. Most humans haven’t a prayer against any of them.
Click to expand...

Dog popularity is important for context here: GSD's along with Labs are the most popular dogs by far in the USA, whilst the Rottweiler is at #8 and the pitbull is lower in popularity.

It's inaccurate to say both:

a) the profileration of truly lethal dogs is lower
b) there are truly lethal, but we don't have the data to show this as fact.

This is why. If we look at total dog population in the USA, we see the following.

9% GSD's (including a few Malinois and Anatolians in that; GSD's are 5x more popular than the Malinois and the latter is a tiny population, likely mostly on farms)
8.9% Labs/Lab Retrievers
7.6% mastiffs (not including the newfoundland, but including the swiss mountain dogs. Including Giant Schnauzers. 2.8% of mastiffs are Rottweilers, and 2.7% Great Danes. NOT including bulldogs)
6.5% Pitbull based breeds
3.5% white furs - akita, husky, malamute, samoyeds, and i'm including the newfoundland and a few of the white spitz dogs in this. (these all have wildly different personalities - malamutes and newfoundlands are fluffballs, others can be problematic )
3.1% Hounds
3.1% Bulldogs

And quickly, the fatalities for those joining the conversation: (copying and pasting this one as widely available, 2020 data)


Pit bull28465.6%
Rottweiler4510.4%
German shepherd204.6%
Mixed-breed173.9%
American bulldog153.5%
Mastiff/Bullmastiff143.2%
Husky133.0%
Unknown/unreleased112.5%
Labrador retriever92.1%


There are other breeds, but this is enough for some extrapolation.

Pitbulls are 2.5-3x more lethal than Rottweilers.
Pitbulls are 21-22x more lethal than GSD's.
Mastiffs in general are not lethal. (There's an exception here for the Presa Canario which has some 'interesting' statistics, and could be a worse dog or bad bloodline)
If we include all mastiffs as I calculated in my list, the pitbull is around 7 times more lethal.
If we exclude Rottweilers then Pitbulls are around 20x more lethal.
Bulldogs are more lethal than mastiffs.
Huskys are more lethal than mastiffs.

As to the bold, I don't believe that is evidenced. States that have pitbull legislation simply have lower fatality rates. There's no 'race to the bottom' because scumbag breeders are interested in money and use the lack of regulation to cut corners, not in breeding the most lethal and unpredictable dog.
 
@owlo

You can’t go by official statistics for Pits or XL’s due to them by far the most overbred via backyard dealers and not so niche underground selling. They are the designer dog of choice for so many subsets, too: weaponisation; posturing; intimidation; showing off/displaying (muscularity/power etc.); misguided sense of it being the ultimate protector outside of having a gun to hand, the list goes on. It’s the breed that things have become a world unto itself with and the one statistics have barely any means by which to measure as due to the nature of so many of its owners, it’s not going to be as registered or logged as other common breeds - how do you factor for that in consensus?

We’re going to have some blurred lines here also because I can only really speak about this side of the pond with any certainty, but from all I’m led to believe, things aren’t much different in the US in terms of covetous desire to own these dogs for both nefarious and show off purposes.

Surely you see the fault in raw numbers, too? The larger the corrupted pool the dog is bred from, the higher the likelihood of deviation, in other words, unless you corrupt other lethal breeds as much via the same means of proliferation, you’re not running like for like.

Pits and XL’s are the epitome of skewing data for the reasons listed; there isn’t another breed put through bloodline mills like them or farmed and illegally massed produced in a manner that is almost predetermined to cause malady. Surely you can agree they are the outlier breed for so many reasons that just don’t apply for anything else?
 
Fortitude said:
@owlo

You can’t go by official statistics for Pits or XL’s due to them by far the most overbred via backyard dealers and not so niche underground selling. They are the designer dog of choice for so many subsets, too: weaponisation; posturing; intimidation; showing off/displaying (muscularity/power etc.); misguided sense of it being the ultimate protector outside of having a gun to hand, the list goes on. It’s the breed that things have become a world unto itself with and the one statistics have barely any means by which to measure as due to the nature of so many of its owners, it’s not going to be as registered or logged as other common breeds - how do you factor for that in consensus?

We’re going to have some blurred lines here also because I can only really speak about this side of the pond with any certainty, but from all I’m led to believe, things aren’t much different in the US in terms of covetous desire to own these dogs for both nefarious and show off purposes.

Surely you see the fault in raw numbers, too? The larger the corrupted pool the dog is bred from, the higher the likelihood of deviation, in other words, unless you corrupt other lethal breeds as much via the same means of proliferation, you’re not running like for like.

Pits and XL’s are the epitome of skewing data for the reasons listed; there isn’t another breed put through bloodline mills like them or farmed and illegally massed produced in a manner that is almost predetermined to cause malady. Surely you can agree they are the outlier breed for so many reasons that just don’t apply for anything else?
Click to expand...

All I ever hear or read from pit owners is how they're raised. This is not true. It's not how they were raised, and it's not just over-breeding. It's genetic and instinctive.

For example, bloodhounds follow scents, retrievers retrieve, pointers point at game, and pit bulls attack, maul, and kill. This is what they were bred to do, and that's what they do. No amount of pit nutter propaganda (which in the US is EXTREME) will alter those facts. They are not family dogs or nanny dogs.

Pit bull owners please accept this because they also turn and attack without provocation their owners – even after having owned them for years. Again this is what they do.

https://www.dogsbite.org/
 
Suedesi said:
All I ever hear or read from pit owners is how they're raised. This is not true. It's not how they were raised, and it's not just over-breeding. It's genetic and instinctive.

For example, bloodhounds follow scents, retrievers retrieve, pointers point at game, and pit bulls attack, maul, and kill. This is what they were bred to do, and that's what they do. No amount of pit nutter propaganda (which in the US is EXTREME) will alter those facts. They are not family dogs or nanny dogs.

Pit bull owners please accept this because they also turn and attack without provocation their owners – even after having owned them for years. Again this is what they do.

https://www.dogsbite.org/
Click to expand...
Agreed, this is just a fact (sadly for the breed) of how human's bred them. All dogs have the instinct to attack and bite but in most that instinct is buried so deeply behind decades, if not centuries, of breeding. You'd have to be a real monster of a human to raise a retriever that was genuinely dangerous, although it is sadly possible.

It's quite tragic when you think of what many of these breeds went though, originally most were bred for blood sport, that became illegal so they were bred to kill each other, some would be raised to hunt big game, now they find themselves in a world where they live indoors, maybe if they're lucky have access to a modest garden and most don't get any real physical or mental stimulation aside from a walk when they're likely kept on a leash.
 


This is absolutely horrifying. The sooner those bastards are off our streets the better.
 
Sara125 said:


This is absolutely horrifying. The sooner those bastards are off our streets the better.
Click to expand...


Should be a much stronger penalty for the owners of dogs that attack. If your dog is as "trained", "sweet", etc as you claim, then you should be prepared to pay the price for it attacking someone else or someone else's dog.
 
Sara125 said:


This is absolutely horrifying. The sooner those bastards are off our streets the better.
Click to expand...


It's not the dogs, it's the owners. All dogs have the capacity to be vicious, after all they are originally wild pack animals. There are countless dog attacks every day but the only ones mentioned at the moment are these because the Press have picked up on it.

I remember back in the 90's the same was.said about Rottweilers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Anyone who knows these breeds will tell you they are as soft as shit. Rottweilers are great guard dogs, but most staffies would take a burglar a slipper and roll over for a tummy tickle.

Again that was the press just targetring certain breeds and putting fear in to the public rather than accurately pointing out that 99% of the time the dogs have been extremely badly treated, or were in fact just reacting to being attacked first.

Sorry for the rant, but I've two close friends and a relative who all have XL Bullies, one is a Pitbull cross and they are all batshit stupid and soft as hell. But if your dog went for them or if someone went for their owners or their kids, then yeah, you would have a problem. That's not the dogs fault. I've got a Fox Red Lab and if you went for me, my partner or my kids he would do exactly the same too, should we ban that breed.as well?

It's quite simple really, reintroduce dog licences like we had before and also have stricter licences for dog breeders and importers.Make the XL Bullies wear muzzles and all dogs should be on a lead at all times in public places. Severely punish owners who mistreat the animals, ignore the laws, don't have a licence, or those who own animals who hurt or kill. But don't put innocent owners and their well loved and well treated pets in the same category and condemn the animals to death. Also remember any dog no matter how well trained can have the ability and capacity to cause harm at any time, so good training, care and awareness is essential at all times. The new laws should ensure that the XL breed eventually all but dies out in the UK anyway.

The biggest Joke in all of this is pure breed pedigree dogs are usually the most vicious outside those badly treated. They are quite often the most prone to disease or a shorter than average lifespan too.
 
Sara125 said:


This is absolutely horrifying. The sooner those bastards are off our streets the better.
Click to expand...

Owner should get time in my opinion. We're a couple of weeks away from them having to be on lead/wear a muzzle by law and they've already seen and apologized for the dog's behaviour so know there's interest in the puppy.
 
hobbers said:
Of course it's the dogs fault if their response to feeling aggression/fear/protective instinct is proving lethal and usually unstoppable.

Whereas your lab is never going to tear someones throat out, bite clean through bone, or take a team of people to restrain..

Also, plainly bullshit to suggest that 99% of dogs who kill or seriously maim have been badly treated or provoked. Vast majority of press-covered XL bully deaths are the owners or owners family and came out of the blue.
Click to expand...


Press covered...... Out of the blue.... I call bullshit. How much investigation has been put in to how the dogs were raised, treated or where they came from? I'm not saying it doesn't happen because of course it does, but a well loved, well trained dog is a member of the family,.not a pet. You don't just buy one and think it's going to be easy. You have to raise and teach them the same as.you do a child. The most important factor is the dog understands and respects the pecking order as that's the way it works if they were in the wild. You don't need to beat a dog to earn that, you teach it through love and compassion and with consequences.

The trouble is so many dogs are bought for the wrong reason or by the wrong people. Lockdown caused immense issues for this. Everyone wanted a dog as it was a good excuse to go out and get some exercise and also good company when at home. The trouble is when lockdown finished many couldn't give their dogs the time or attention they need so they were either neglected or just thrown out or given up for adoption. Kennels were overwhelmed to the point many couldn't take anyore let alone find homes. Many more are kept poorly and seen as a hinderence and expense.

The below article pretty much says it all regarding poor raising, breeding, sourcing and bringinf back licences.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ning-why-are-dog-bites-on-the-rise-in-britain




A quick search also shows Labs can and do kill. So do Jack Russell terriers. As I said, ALL DOGS can kill.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/jealous-labrador-mauls-newborn-twin-22286373

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1tgZlc4yc7SwVAig9IQtOp
 
langster said:
It's not the dogs, it's the owners. All dogs have the capacity to be vicious, after all they are originally wild pack animals. There are countless dog attacks every day but the only ones mentioned at the moment are these because the Press have picked up on it.

I remember back in the 90's the same was.said about Rottweilers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Anyone who knows these breeds will tell you they are as soft as shit. Rottweilers are great guard dogs, but most staffies would take a burglar a slipper and roll over for a tummy tickle.

Again that was the press just targetring certain breeds and putting fear in to the public rather than accurately pointing out that 99% of the time the dogs have been extremely badly treated, or were in fact just reacting to being attacked first.

Sorry for the rant, but I've two close friends and a relative who all have XL Bullies, one is a Pitbull cross and they are all batshit stupid and soft as hell. But if your dog went for them or if someone went for their owners or their kids, then yeah, you would have a problem. That's not the dogs fault. I've got a Fox Red Lab and if you went for me, my partner or my kids he would do exactly the same too, should we ban that breed.as well?

It's quite simple really, reintroduce dog licences like we had before and also have stricter licences for dog breeders and importers.Make the XL Bullies wear muzzles and all dogs should be on a lead at all times in public places. Severely punish owners who mistreat the animals, ignore the laws, don't have a licence, or those who own animals who hurt or kill. But don't put innocent owners and their well loved and well treated pets in the same category and condemn the animals to death. Also remember any dog no matter how well trained can have the ability and capacity to cause harm at any time, so good training, care and awareness is essential at all times. The new laws should ensure that the XL breed eventually all but dies out in the UK anyway.

The biggest Joke in all of this is pure breed pedigree dogs are usually the most vicious outside those badly treated. They are quite often the most prone to disease or a shorter than average lifespan too.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand the argument at all. It's the whole "it's not the guns" again.

If it's not the dogs but the owners, the why are there no Chihuahua related deaths? Are the Chihuahua owners that much more considerate and caring? Or is it because the dog is too small to cause grievous injury to humans and most other dogs? Because if it's the latter, then it is the dog isn't it?

Dogs in the categories Teacup, Miniature, Toy and even Small (which is basically all dogs below 10kgs) are obviously a much smaller danger to most humans. If you're buying large dogs, which are 25kg and up, you're buying something that can kill. And Bully XLs are 30kg to 60kg breath for incredible muscle strength. These animals need regulating.

Imo for dogs of medium size and up there should be mandatory licensing, insurance for 3rd party claims and training. The bigger the dog, the higher the insurance. You want a bully XL, go and insure it for couple hundred quid a month if you like it so much.

As for uninsured and unregistered owners...

O3Tuwgl.jpeg
 
Sadly I think something is wrong with the genetics of these dogs because of all the breeding for dog fights. Again it's not the dog's fault but they do need proper care. A dog capable of being vicious in the wrong environment is a recipe for disaster.
 
langster said:
Press covered...... Out of the blue.... I call bullshit. How much investigation has been put in to how the dogs were raised, treated or where they came from? I'm not saying it doesn't happen because of course it does, but a well loved, well trained dog is a member of the family,.not a pet. You don't just buy one and think it's going to be easy. You have to raise and teach them the same as.you do a child. The most important factor is the dog understands and respects the pecking order as that's the way it works if they were in the wild. You don't need to beat a dog to earn that, you teach it through love and compassion and with consequences.

The trouble is so many dogs are bought for the wrong reason or by the wrong people. Lockdown caused immense issues for this. Everyone wanted a dog as it was a good excuse to go out and get some exercise and also good company when at home. The trouble is when lockdown finished many couldn't give their dogs the time or attention they need so they were either neglected or just thrown out or given up for adoption. Kennels were overwhelmed to the point many couldn't take anyore let alone find homes. Many more are kept poorly and seen as a hinderence and expense.

The below article pretty much says it all regarding poor raising, breeding, sourcing and bringinf back licences.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ning-why-are-dog-bites-on-the-rise-in-britain




A quick search also shows Labs can and do kill. So do Jack Russell terriers. As I said, ALL DOGS can kill.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/jealous-labrador-mauls-newborn-twin-22286373

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1tgZlc4yc7SwVAig9IQtOp
Click to expand...

First one is a “Labrador cross” which killed newborn babies. Second one is a black lab that bit someone and caused a “deep cut”. Not even close to the same thing as all the stories of XL Bullies mauling full grown adults to death.

All dogs can bite. Only big dogs can kill. And only very few big dogs are as likely to kill as XL Bullies. So the argument that the breed of dog is irrelevant when it comes to how dangerous they are is definitely not true.
 
langster said:
It's not the dogs, it's the owners. All dogs have the capacity to be vicious, after all they are originally wild pack animals. There are countless dog attacks every day but the only ones mentioned at the moment are these because the Press have picked up on it.

I remember back in the 90's the same was.said about Rottweilers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Anyone who knows these breeds will tell you they are as soft as shit. Rottweilers are great guard dogs, but most staffies would take a burglar a slipper and roll over for a tummy tickle.

Again that was the press just targetring certain breeds and putting fear in to the public rather than accurately pointing out that 99% of the time the dogs have been extremely badly treated, or were in fact just reacting to being attacked first.

Sorry for the rant, but I've two close friends and a relative who all have XL Bullies, one is a Pitbull cross and they are all batshit stupid and soft as hell. But if your dog went for them or if someone went for their owners or their kids, then yeah, you would have a problem. That's not the dogs fault. I've got a Fox Red Lab and if you went for me, my partner or my kids he would do exactly the same too, should we ban that breed.as well?

It's quite simple really, reintroduce dog licences like we had before and also have stricter licences for dog breeders and importers.Make the XL Bullies wear muzzles and all dogs should be on a lead at all times in public places. Severely punish owners who mistreat the animals, ignore the laws, don't have a licence, or those who own animals who hurt or kill. But don't put innocent owners and their well loved and well treated pets in the same category and condemn the animals to death. Also remember any dog no matter how well trained can have the ability and capacity to cause harm at any time, so good training, care and awareness is essential at all times. The new laws should ensure that the XL breed eventually all but dies out in the UK anyway.

The biggest Joke in all of this is pure breed pedigree dogs are usually the most vicious outside those badly treated. They are quite often the most prone to disease or a shorter than average lifespan too.
Click to expand...

Frankly yes! Dog owners (not referring to you) rarely make any sense. It's never their dog....always someone else's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.