I promise that if my lion attacks any randoms in the park, I will do community service. I am very good at cleaning up lion poo, so I'm happy to offer my expertise for the community.
Out of control dogs/dog attacks
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) look forward to a new life under Ruben Amorim. What system will we be playing? What players will impress? and how will it all go? We also say goodbye to Ruud Van Nistelrooy and review United's 3-0 win at home against Leicester City.
I promise that if my lion attacks any randoms in the park, I will do community service. I am very good at cleaning up lion poo, so I'm happy to offer my expertise for the community.
A cat could kill you as easily as a lion. It's the owners, not the breed.
Greek woman mauled to death by her neighbour's three shepherd dogs
https://news.sky.com/story/greek-wo...y-her-neighbours-three-shepherd-dogs-13027877
https://news.sky.com/story/greek-wo...y-her-neighbours-three-shepherd-dogs-13027877
O'rly?
https://www.google.com/search?q=jack+russell+kills&client=ms-android-google&sca_esv=590770126&source=android-browser&sxsrf=AM9HkKnNodYPQZUZ6fePgLO94W124xt1SA:1702521693945&ei=XWt6ZaKjObrWi-gP1M-_cA&oq=jack+russel+&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIgxqYWNrIHJ1c3NlbCAqAggAMgcQIxixAhgnMg4QABiABBiKBRiRAhjJAzIOEC4YkQIYsQMYgAQYigUyCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjIHEC4YgAQYCjIHEAAYgAQYCjIHEAAYgAQYCkijGlDLCFiUCnABeAGQAQCYAZ0BoAG0BKoBAzIuM7gBAcgBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#ip=1
Look through that lot. Also look at the deaths by dog since 2000.... 6 or more attributed to Jack Russell. Definitely in the big dog category
But there are. Also they can be notoriously nasty little feckers and the same as.many breeds being used as a fashion accessory because they look good in your handbag, it sn't right or fair. The same as thinking you're 10.men because you have a Pitbull isn't fair.
Jack Russells, Staffies and Rotties kill as many as XL Bullies. Two of those are two of the most commonly owned dogs and hardly described as big dogs.
It's nothing like that at all.. That's an incredibly naive and disingenuous comparison to make.
And that's the problem a lot of the time. They haven't trained their dog properly and won't accept it that they can't control it properly. It's no different with many parents and their precious kids that can do no wrong. Ultimately though, I absolutely believe the majority of all dog attacks could be prevented if the owners had control of their pet or knew the signs to look for when their dog is going to react.
Humans have proven that they cannot keep such breeds responsibly.
Some breeds should not be kept as pets.
too many incidents because the owners can’t control the dog once it’s natural urges come to the fore.
All dogs should be muzzled when out; all dogs should be on leads when in public places, all dogs should be licensed. Those not following these rules should receive fines and/or jail time
Some breeds should not be kept as pets.
too many incidents because the owners can’t control the dog once it’s natural urges come to the fore.
All dogs should be muzzled when out; all dogs should be on leads when in public places, all dogs should be licensed. Those not following these rules should receive fines and/or jail time
O'rly?
https://www.google.com/search?q=jack+russell+kills&client=ms-android-google&sca_esv=590770126&source=android-browser&sxsrf=AM9HkKnNodYPQZUZ6fePgLO94W124xt1SA:1702521693945&ei=XWt6ZaKjObrWi-gP1M-_cA&oq=jack+russel+&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIgxqYWNrIHJ1c3NlbCAqAggAMgcQIxixAhgnMg4QABiABBiKBRiRAhjJAzIOEC4YkQIYsQMYgAQYigUyCxAAGIAEGIoFGJECMgsQABiABBiKBRiRAjIHEC4YgAQYCjIHEAAYgAQYCjIHEAAYgAQYCkijGlDLCFiUCnABeAGQAQCYAZ0BoAG0BKoBAzIuM7gBAcgBAPgBAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp#ip=1
Look through that lot. Also look at the deaths by dog since 2000.... 6 or more attributed to Jack Russell. Definitely in the big dog category
But there are. Also they can be notoriously nasty little feckers and the same as.many breeds being used as a fashion accessory because they look good in your handbag, it sn't right or fair. The same as thinking you're 10.men because you have a Pitbull isn't fair.
Jack Russells, Staffies and Rotties kill as many as XL Bullies. Two of those are two of the most commonly owned dogs and hardly described as big dogs.
It's nothing like that at all.. That's an incredibly naive and disingenuous comparison to make.
And that's the problem a lot of the time. They haven't trained their dog properly and won't accept it that they can't control it properly. It's no different with many parents and their precious kids that can do no wrong. Ultimately though, I absolutely believe the majority of all dog attacks could be prevented if the owners had control of their pet or knew the signs to look for when their dog is going to react.
Spot on post. To the bolded part, I think that's the main issue in all of this and it stems from the sheer unregulated nature of dog breeding and ownership. It shouldn't be legal to harvest puppies for cash with minimal licensing (i.e. the only licence the government cares about is being registered as a business and that only kicks in if you have bred 3x litters within a 12 month period and flogged them all).
There are way too many dogs around and they're easy to breed and sell unscrupulously. "Banning" XL bullies is a classic tip of the iceberg solution. Will do sweet feck all, just like "banning" pitbulls has done feck all, ironically creating the British version of the XL Bully in the first place.
Dogs aren't like guns, they have a wide range of purposes and "killing" is one very small subsection. However, responsible breeding and ownership should include understanding what the purpose of your particular dog is before assuming it'll be like a "typical" dog.
I've got a mixed dog who comes from working Brittany Spaniel. Cute as feck, but needs jobs to do or he'll get restless and reactive because he has this inbuilt itch to chase, retrieve and let you know something is there. I don't let him near XL Bully type dogs, not because of what the XL Bully might do, but because my dog is more likely to react to them due to their squashed faces, provoke them and ultimately start a fight.
On the flip side, I've seen videos of people "proving" the XL Bully is totally safe because they're placing their babies in their pens. fecking insane and genuinely a form of child abuse. Legislation that made it impossible for pricks like that to actually own dogs would be ideal - maybe a drivers licence equivalent. That in conjunction with much tighter breeding legislation would slowly see the dog population reduce, weeding out all the backyard breeders, leaving responsible owners buying responsibly bred dogs. Can make farms and things exempt, bit like red diesel or whatever (as they'll boot off). My genius idea.
Oh are there? Lethal attacks by Chihuahuas? Can you link any because I can't find anything. Yes they are notoriously nasty little feckers, but that exactly my point. They can't do much.
Jack Russells have a total of 2 lethal attacks since records began in 1987, that's 2 in 35 years despite existing in numbers much bigger than Bully XLs. Whereas Bully XLs have 23 kills in the UK since 2020 alone. If you cannot recognise the proportional danger presented by bigger dogs themselves, you might not be the most rational person for this argument.
You can believe that, I'm sticking to my guns. I'm seeing a lot of the exact same reasoning being presented.
How do you explain the amount of attacks on family members, of which there are many. There have been recent stories of owners getting mauled by their own dogs and kids getting attacked by family pets. I just think it's disgraceful.
I hate it when people post videos of their young kids and babies in some cases, sidling up to massive dogs. They might think it looks cute and endearing but it's downright irresponsible. When my kids were young, my partner's sister had two Alsatians. I banned my kids from EVER going to that house. Extreme maybe, but the thought of them getting ravaged was too much. Because I would be doing time if anything happened. Like I said everyone always thinks it will never be their dog and they are responsible owners...but it only takes one split second.
It’s more sensible to argue for removing all speed limits, or eye sight test for drivers, than it is to suggest ‘It’s the owners’ and that all dogs should be legal.
Insane that ‘Dogs that can kill or cause huge harm, shouldn’t be owned’ is controversial to anyone.
The Auckland model is a good one. Every single dog needs an annual license. If you have a dangerous breed, you pay more. You need a Responsible Dog Owner License (RDOL) to own a dog on the Dangerous Breeds list. Theres a written exam, you need to pay for that too. Every dog has to wear the correct coloured tag for the license year. Society can spot if the dog is licensed, instantly.
Yes it’s overbearing if you have a Beagle or generic mutt. But honestly, so what? They still have dog deaths but there’s criminality attached to owning a dangerous dog that’s not licensed and the legal framework exists for those incidents.
This thread is Daily Mail level bollocks in so many places. Loads of better ways to do it. Never in a million years would we create the system we have now, if we started with a blank sheet of paper tomorrow, having had no dogs in the country previously.
My old mate has an XL. I don’t see much of him, but the last time I did - pre uproar - I saw enough to know it’s a really good dog. Lovely thing. Gentle and kind and smart. That doesn’t mean I think he should be able to own one. It was a menace off the lead around small dogs and subsequently could only be walked on a lead. I just don’t see how anyone is winning there. Feels mad to defend that as being necessary to society.
Insane that ‘Dogs that can kill or cause huge harm, shouldn’t be owned’ is controversial to anyone.
The Auckland model is a good one. Every single dog needs an annual license. If you have a dangerous breed, you pay more. You need a Responsible Dog Owner License (RDOL) to own a dog on the Dangerous Breeds list. Theres a written exam, you need to pay for that too. Every dog has to wear the correct coloured tag for the license year. Society can spot if the dog is licensed, instantly.
Yes it’s overbearing if you have a Beagle or generic mutt. But honestly, so what? They still have dog deaths but there’s criminality attached to owning a dangerous dog that’s not licensed and the legal framework exists for those incidents.
This thread is Daily Mail level bollocks in so many places. Loads of better ways to do it. Never in a million years would we create the system we have now, if we started with a blank sheet of paper tomorrow, having had no dogs in the country previously.
My old mate has an XL. I don’t see much of him, but the last time I did - pre uproar - I saw enough to know it’s a really good dog. Lovely thing. Gentle and kind and smart. That doesn’t mean I think he should be able to own one. It was a menace off the lead around small dogs and subsequently could only be walked on a lead. I just don’t see how anyone is winning there. Feels mad to defend that as being necessary to society.
Last edited:
Absolutely. Excellent post and I agree completely.
I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from. I'm at work and can't find the article I was reading last night but just here on Wiki (although I think its.probably incomplete) you will see three fatal Jack Russel attacks.
As for the gun argument, I absolutely believe it. And @Spark responded to your point perfectly. Just because some of the reasoning sounds similar doesn't make it the same thing, not even close. Stick to your guns all you like, but you're wrong. How many people have walked in to a school and killed loads.of kids with a dog?
The simple reason there are more XL bully issues is because of a lot of the people that own them and why they are bought and what they are trained for or how they are not trained properly.
The first question... Lots of reasons. Poorly trained dogs, abused dogs or just naive owners. You never leave small children or babies alone with dogs, ever. A lot of children (and some adults) treat dogs badly without realising it and the way they play with their dogs isn't safe.
Lots.of dogs, especially bigger dogs.need as much if not more training than children. They also need lots and lots of exercise. I see too many people owning working dogs like Huskies and walking them once or twice a day for 10 minutes. You can't do that, the dogs are bred to work lengthy hours often pulling huge weights. A quick walk here and there is just going to leave your dog depressed and extremely wound up, no matter how much you claim to love them. Bullies require immense amounts of time and exercise and stimulation.
Why do you think dogs tear up houses or eat shoes etc? It's because they are bored, need exercise or attention and stimulation. Hence why you need to provide lots of toys for them, and take time to play games to keep them occupied. Jack Russells especially, because they are hunting dogs so they need to be active and chase things or fetch things or hunt for treats etc... And LOTS of exercise.
I bet the vast majority of attacks are home are because the dog is wound up, needs exercise or stimulation or because it's.been abused. Another huge factor, and this is especially true with abused or rescue dogs, is they are incredibly reactive and each dog will react to different things. My mate had a beautiful rescue dog that had been abused and she was adorable, but if you went near her with a stick or a rolled up newspaper she would go insane. Even innocently walking past her would set her off because she was scared and obviously that's how she was previously abused. It took about 5 years for her to stop reacting to sticks and newspapers.
Just banning the bigger dangerous dogs or picking on certain breeds isn't the answer and won't achieve anything. It's a knee jerk reaction done to appease Daily Mail readers and make it look like they are doing something. They need to address the real problems and I think both the problems and solutions have all been covered above in previous posts.
In the case of smaller dogs killing people…I wonder how many of them is stuff like the dog startled someone and they fell and hit their head etc. doubt they were actually viciously mauled to death…
langster knows some notoriously dangerous chihuahuas though so what have these facts got to do with anything?
My neighbours have a Polar bear. Friendly little fecker. Not great around other warm blooded mammals but they keep him on a leash and that's that.
Either that or babies. Anyone who seriously thinks a Jack Russell (who are admittedly bitey little feckers) could maul an adult human to death needs to give their head a wobble. Never mind any other small breed.
Thank God they weight like 300 grams, aggressive little feckers.
There's no point replying if you're just going to be obtuse or facetious. Not once have I ever said chihuahuas are more dangerous. Obviously some breeds and bigger dogs are more dangerous but simply banning them isn't the answer and doesn't stop the problems because it won't work and it's like putting a band aid on a severed arm.
The argument you're making is about as daft though.
Ban the breed. Just get rid.
The thing about these dog breeds is, that I have never met a person owning or wanting a dog like this of whom I thought they could responsibly handle them. And I simply don't see the appeal for a reasonable person to own these breeds. Why does your dog have to be huge and potentially dangerous? Why is a typical, "normal" dog not good enough? They display all the positive characteristics of other dogs, but without the immense potential dangers. So the potential danger is usually the point. Most people having these dogs, have them for precisely this reason.
No you do. I've owned one who lived to 15. They go for the throat. That's their instinct and they are also far stronger than they appear. They could easily kill if they wanted to, that's what they were initially bred for. Maybe not a strong adult but definitely a smaller weaker person or an elderly person or a child.
What do you mean where I get my numbers from, dude? There's literally a wikipedia page which tracks them all. There were 3 Jack Russels involved in lethal attacks in all time (1986,2009,2012) but records pre-1987 were not consistent. Which is why I counted after that.
I did however get the records wrong on the Bullies, which I acknowledge. They are directly responsible for 10 lethal attacks and suspected of another 2 (those 2 are in the last couple of months where details have not been revealed yet). Which makes Bullies responsible for half the deaths in the last 3 years. You know how many Jack Russels were responsible for? 0
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/xl-bully-dogs-responsible-half-31122090
And please don't be facetious. I said that you're using the same arguments as the people that defend the guns. And you absolutely are. You literally say "it's not the dog, it's the owner", completely ignoring the different capacity to injure and kill between different animals. I never said "dogs = guns", that would be a stupid point to make.
And you are absolutely lying about the data when you say with a straight face that...
Ultimately ownership of any dog that is big enough to be used as weapon should absolutely be under strict restriction/regulation. The only value of pet dogs is companionship. You can get that from smaller, non lethal breeds. If you insist on owning a bigger breed with a capacity to kill (Rotties come into that too), you should absolutely be required to have license, training and 3rd party insurance as bear minimum. Same with anything that can kill (guns, cars etc.). And obviously insurance premiums will differ depending on breed and owner, as they do with cars. And based on current statistics, I'm guessing premiums for Bully XLs will be through the roof, making them unaffordable for most people.
Last edited:
Everyone is missing the point Langster is making. Banning the XL Bully is fecking pointless. “XL Bully” is a marketing ploy, the ones that kill are labelled that through no science - can even see it in the headlines now, “XL bully type dog”. It’s not a standardised breed, they’re mishmash of a number of totally legal dog breeds and illegal pitbul, but it’s hard to know for sure. Therefore, banning it actually means banning anything that remotely looks like an Xl bully.
Again, many may think “so what, get rid, dumb bitey killer dogs”. The issue is that very quickly there will be a new designer dog that is bred from a bunch of similar breeds, in appalling conditions and owned by appalling people. And we’re back to square one, with kids and randoms in the street being mauled by some as yet unknown hybrid dog.
Ban the backyard breeding of all dogs. Every dog should be neutered and spayed as standard (just like any rescue). If you don’t want your dog fixed then you need to apply for a breeding licence or have a valid reason (working dogs, medically exempt etc).
XL bullys are mutants that should never have been allowed to exist, just like pugs.
Again, many may think “so what, get rid, dumb bitey killer dogs”. The issue is that very quickly there will be a new designer dog that is bred from a bunch of similar breeds, in appalling conditions and owned by appalling people. And we’re back to square one, with kids and randoms in the street being mauled by some as yet unknown hybrid dog.
Ban the backyard breeding of all dogs. Every dog should be neutered and spayed as standard (just like any rescue). If you don’t want your dog fixed then you need to apply for a breeding licence or have a valid reason (working dogs, medically exempt etc).
XL bullys are mutants that should never have been allowed to exist, just like pugs.
Literally, "no u". You and Langster are literally missing all the valid points being made, sitting in an echo chamber and pretending no one is understanding you points.
All big dogs above certain size and weight should require license and insurance and then let the insurance companies calculate the risk of any "marketing" breed. They tend to be very good at that. So the next time someone comes up with the new marketing ploy breed called "Baby Butcher XX-fecking-L" you don't need to do feck all. Their weight and size will immediately mark them as dogs needing insurance and the insurance companies will charge premiums based on a number of factors including statistical precedence. And when the premium for baby butcher comes out to a grand month, that will prevent legal ownership of them by the vast majority. Problem sorted
Agree 100% with the above though.
Both demo muthafeckas scratched up my ankles though
Ground Dog Day
Come on fella you’re digging that hole deeper. You make it sound like they leap up like ninjas to get to the throats. Sounds like the killer rabbit from Monty Pythons Holy Grail
Your personal liability coverage through a homeowner or tennant policy should cover you for any dog related incidents. No need to develop a new insurance segment for these scenarios.
"go for the throat"
They're what? A foot tall?
Obviously comparable to XL Bullies.
Why are you moving the goalposts? You said they can't kill and if you think so you need to give your head a wobble.
They could easily pull a small child or a weak person to the floor, then they will attack the throat. And they could easily get to a baby in a pram or cot and do the same.
Think you've got me confused for someone else.
These scenarios you're coming up with are also a far cry away from anything the bigger breeds, particularly those like XL Bullies can do.
Check my reply. Although I appreciate the reference as I love that film. I was just responding to someone who claimed Jack Russell can't kill when there are 3 recorded kills by them in recent years, yet apparently they can't.
Ok, you’ve tagged me in so I need to reply. I wasn’t going to add to the pile in but you’re having a shocker here. I’m sure a weasel could kill a newborn baby but this doesnt make it a dangerous animal. Trying to argue that a Jack Russel is somehow comparable to an XL Bully in terms of how dangerous they are to be around is like arguing that a weasel is as dangerous as a lion because they can both potentially kill a human. The second part of that sentence is true but the whole argument is absurd. Hence it is ridiculous to use that line of reasoning to argue that owning a weasel creates no more risk for people around you than owning a lion.
Antony is as dangerous as Salah. He may score a goal.
A rooster could kill if it really had to, and if the person was frail enough. But you rarely (never?) hear of that happening, because it's more of a hypothetical. These massive dogs do attack and do kill.
I think both should happen. Implement tighter regulations around owning a dog, especially larger dog breeds. And these regulations should then have an upper limit beyond which a dog isn't allowed to exist, and these XLs should definitely fall into this 'banned' category. And then when Bully XXL 2.0 comes along, that would be automatically banned too.
I think both should happen. Implement tighter regulations around owning a dog, especially larger dog breeds. And these regulations should then have an upper limit beyond which a dog isn't allowed to exist, and these XLs should definitely fall into this 'banned' category. And then when Bully XXL 2.0 comes along, that would be automatically banned too.
Yeah, making rules around breeds is tricky as it’s a moving target. Using weight will capture all the most dangerous dogs, although you’d also be treating dogs that are soft as shite the same way but that’s reasonable collateral damage. Mid sized dogs are tricky. There are some absolutely lethal breeds that would weigh about the same as a Labrador. Should they all be treated the same? I guess so?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,298
- Supports
️
Could a hamster kill a person? Now let’s progress the argument from there.
There will absolutely be awful hamster owners who mistreat them and don’t train them…..
There will absolutely be awful hamster owners who mistreat them and don’t train them…..
I'm not having a shocker. Jack Russells are not comparable to an XL Bully. Obviously XL's are bigger, stronger and could kill more easily. That's not what I was debating. My position is clear. I've said it numerous times, the absolute vast majority of dog attacks are absolutely down to poor owners or owners failures to prevent them. Be it abuse, lack of exercise, poor training, lack of experience or not recognising the signs their dog is going to react and this not preventing it happening.
Blaming a particular breed is insane as all dogs have the ability to kill or maul and seriously injure. Many, like Jack Russells were initially bred to kill. You essentially are bringing a wild animal with big teeth, power strength in to your home. I don't think many people appreciate that. Then through arrogance or ignorance or poor treatment it results in serious problems. Be it another dog mauled, or an adult or a child or like recently here a seal mauled because some moron let his staffy off a lead near a seal that was just chilling on a slipway, but of course the dog was at fault. Never blame the owner.
I don't give a shit about the pile on, I'm a big boy, I can handle it. And the majority of replies are baseless anyway. I may have worded things poorly last night, while I was at my staff party and pissed and stupidly made poor equations. However, my point still stands, and if people want to pick on minor faults in an argument or make stupid comparisons through pedantic comments rather than accept the actual bigger issue then fine. I'm not interested in semantics. Im defending good honest dog owners and dogs themselves. In truth, the many replies here just show me why there are so many dog attacks.
Dog attacks are on the rise and it's not just XL Bullies that are the issue, if you look at statistics it's nearly every single breed. I wonder, what's the one common denominator in all that?
Yes XL Bullies have more kills or maulings because they are the fashionable breed and sadly many owners have them for the wrong reasons. But if you ban them it will just be another breed. Probably Rottweilers, Huskies, Malamute's or German Shepherds or Dobermans, or even the poor Staffies that were public enemy number one back in the late 90's early 2000's.....
Are you going to ban them all too?
It's feck all like the gun scenario as someone else equated, and as a dog lover and owner for nearly 50 years, yes this is a hill I am prepared to die on. If people can't understand having a dog is a fecking huge responsibility and that to have one you have to understand them, train them, excecise them, stimulate their minds and not just walk them 10 mins a day and think they will be your guard dog and look after and protect you all, or make you look good because you carry it in a handbag then I can't help you. I feel far more sorry on a whole for these animals as at the root of all this there are tens of thousands of poor animals miserable and unhappy and primed to react then be blamed due to human arrogance and the belief that a dog is always a man's best friend. That is absolutely true, but as long as you treat respect and understand them correctly and remember they are a part of your family, not a status symbol.
I love polar bears. They are not pet material though.
Roosters are now how I imagine the raptors from the original Jurassic Park. It's far more X-rated, imagine them retaking the chefs' kitchen....