Discussion
Come on, one and all, think about this, a savage dog attack (maybe x 10) should make many think about what weapon they want. Bully XLs are not all bad but they are bred to fight. Full stop. Any of them that show fighting attitude should be put to sleep, any that object should be directed to the "save my pet bully" sites.
The good ones should be allowed to be in society, but mess up and owner and dog should be subject to penalties.
Stop the breeding and sale of these dogs please. My 55kg dog is harmless in my view but if he attacked anyone, I would put him to sleep barring evidence of a
holes.
There is no need for dogs bred to fight in out society, there is a need for dogs to protect their pad, but savage bites and death....err NO simple, meet a dog that is aggressive and then decide. Scooby, my mate, was bred for showing and not savagery, how can the Bully XL breeders claim similar? Breed is important for dog behaviour and guess what, human behaviour is utterly tied to the breed!
The good ones should be allowed to be in society, but mess up and owner and dog should be subject to penalties.
Stop the breeding and sale of these dogs please. My 55kg dog is harmless in my view but if he attacked anyone, I would put him to sleep barring evidence of a
holes.There is no need for dogs bred to fight in out society, there is a need for dogs to protect their pad, but savage bites and death....err NO simple, meet a dog that is aggressive and then decide. Scooby, my mate, was bred for showing and not savagery, how can the Bully XL breeders claim similar? Breed is important for dog behaviour and guess what, human behaviour is utterly tied to the breed!
Saleen836 said:
Merc 450 said:
My friend in Leeds has these they are perfectly normal friendly dogs but it's
okay as she has been on facebook today saying "they now identify as cocker spaniels"
A photo of one saying the same thing has popped up on my feed from a friends repost of itokay as she has been on facebook today saying "they now identify as cocker spaniels"
alabbasi said:
abzmike said:
No, let’s avoid the problem, and prevent dogs from biting people in the first place.
All dogs are capable of biting. The first three suggestions in my post do exactly that. Insurance is a risk mitigation in case they do. alabbasi said:
Harry Flashman said:
Almost certainly - if introduced today, it would be banned. But a bit like guns in America, that genie is out of the bottle.
Nice whatabouttery argument, by the way. Nice, but not going to win anyone round to your point of view, apart from the guy above trying (and failing) to argue genetics.
This is called a pivot, it's a cheap trick used by ill informed people when they fail at making their point. We're not talking about guns or America. We're talking about merits of banning a specific breed of dog.Nice whatabouttery argument, by the way. Nice, but not going to win anyone round to your point of view, apart from the guy above trying (and failing) to argue genetics.
Not to mention the hypocrisy of chastising him over whatabouttery when he responded to your what about Americans comment. Amateur
Edited by alabbasi on Sunday 17th September 18:53
No one except this guy agrees with you, on this thread. No one thinks that your weird little genetics argument holds any water, either.
No one except you thinks you have a valid point. No one cares what genes a dangerous animal carries - most of us would just prefer that people like you weren't able to endanger others to satisfy some weird little fetish for owning an animal better suited to a fighting pit or hunting field.
But you know, carry on. It's vaguely entertaining. But only vaguely.
alabbasi said:
abzmike said:
No, let’s avoid the problem, and prevent dogs from biting people in the first place.
All dogs are capable of biting. The first three suggestions in my post do exactly that. Insurance is a risk mitigation in case they do. Every time I read down and find one of your arguments, I just, well, realise that there's just no point.
Fact is, it doesn't matter what you think. Govt made a decision.
I just cant accept this 'bred to fight' bred to kill thing.
that would mean to me that every generation or at least most generations have been used for fighting or killing of something.
That has not happened. Some have used them for protection. which is wrong because they aren't protection dogs. Maybe mix one with a cane corso? yea you might have a serious protection dog.
They aren't bred for protection like something like a belgian malinois is (which coincidently appear to have had a huge rise recently as well.......)
Originally the pitbull terrier may well have been bred for fighting, for several generations. It is often said thats what makes them (and staffordshire bullterriers) such good family pets because it is their dna to attack animals and not people.
But now for the last several decades dog fighting has diminished from society. The dogs used for fighting were totally different dogs, slim, lightweight, skinny and athletic. The modern xl bully would be useless for dog fighting.
Yes i agree some might have some prey drive. but you know what i have met several of these dogs and every single one was the same. calm placid and friendly.
'oh but they are bred to kill people'
When? where? is there any evidence of this.
If you want to go back to 'bred for xyz' then that would remove half the dogs that exist.
And before i am jumped on i do think the xl bully is a problem - not because of the breed itself but because its simply too big and too powerful for the average public. If they turn then as seen they are too big.
I dont know the answer, maybe it is having every single dog muzzled in public? but banning them will not stop a lot. maybe short to medium term but not long term.
that would mean to me that every generation or at least most generations have been used for fighting or killing of something.
That has not happened. Some have used them for protection. which is wrong because they aren't protection dogs. Maybe mix one with a cane corso? yea you might have a serious protection dog.
They aren't bred for protection like something like a belgian malinois is (which coincidently appear to have had a huge rise recently as well.......)
Originally the pitbull terrier may well have been bred for fighting, for several generations. It is often said thats what makes them (and staffordshire bullterriers) such good family pets because it is their dna to attack animals and not people.
But now for the last several decades dog fighting has diminished from society. The dogs used for fighting were totally different dogs, slim, lightweight, skinny and athletic. The modern xl bully would be useless for dog fighting.
Yes i agree some might have some prey drive. but you know what i have met several of these dogs and every single one was the same. calm placid and friendly.
'oh but they are bred to kill people'
When? where? is there any evidence of this.
If you want to go back to 'bred for xyz' then that would remove half the dogs that exist.
And before i am jumped on i do think the xl bully is a problem - not because of the breed itself but because its simply too big and too powerful for the average public. If they turn then as seen they are too big.
I dont know the answer, maybe it is having every single dog muzzled in public? but banning them will not stop a lot. maybe short to medium term but not long term.
I think the stats show that the XL Bully is a problem.
I grew up with Weimaraners. The same dogs that the German police used to use as police dogs. I get that most dogs are a bit breed, and a lot training.
But we also need to look at actual stats. Some dog breeds are responsible for more incidents than others. Public policy cannot be that nuanced, so you go with the breed.
I personally like the dog licence idea. Of course, that means that people who own one without a licence have the dog taken and, if it can't find a home, out down, eventually. So there's a problem with that policy too.
I grew up with Weimaraners. The same dogs that the German police used to use as police dogs. I get that most dogs are a bit breed, and a lot training.
But we also need to look at actual stats. Some dog breeds are responsible for more incidents than others. Public policy cannot be that nuanced, so you go with the breed.
I personally like the dog licence idea. Of course, that means that people who own one without a licence have the dog taken and, if it can't find a home, out down, eventually. So there's a problem with that policy too.
Harry Flashman said:
alabbasi said:
abzmike said:
No, let’s avoid the problem, and prevent dogs from biting people in the first place.
All dogs are capable of biting. The first three suggestions in my post do exactly that. Insurance is a risk mitigation in case they do. Every time I read down and find one of your arguments, I just, well, realise that there's just no point.
Fact is, it doesn't matter what you think. Govt made a decision.
tbh and i hate to say this but they are already illegal. I dont understand how they have been allowed.
Under existing laws they are clearly 'pitbull type' i dont think anyone can say they aren't.
I always thought that authorities just turned a blind eye because theres so fking many of them and the vast vast majority are fine decent dogs.
Under existing laws they are clearly 'pitbull type' i dont think anyone can say they aren't.
I always thought that authorities just turned a blind eye because theres so f
king many of them and the vast vast majority are fine decent dogs.abzmike said:
So let’s muzzle all dogs not just big ones. People are more important than dogs. Dog ownership is optional.
As I mentioned earlier, dogs don't sweat so they use their mouth to keep cool. Muzzling them could cause them to overheat. It's really much simpler to require dogs to be on a leash. You can watch your kid and the owners can watch their dogs. It's tried and tested, and there's no reason to reinvent the wheel.Harry Flashman said:
Yeah. A Dachshund isn't going to kill you though.
Do you ever check before putting your name behind a statement?https://time.com/5280769/dog-attack-dachshund-woma...
alabbasi said:
blueg33 said:
Where did I state 50 percent?
And no its not stupid if dogs with those characteristics are more prone to attack and by virtue of their size and power cause significant injury of death.
You said almost half of this breed carries the gene or a particular dog. In percentages, Half is 50%.And no its not stupid if dogs with those characteristics are more prone to attack and by virtue of their size and power cause significant injury of death.
Astonishing lack of self awareness.
As for providing info, did you provide the info I asked for from you?
I have cited a recognised expert witness, he doesn’t say what you want to hear so you waffle on about a duchess!
When you question credibility i think you must be looking in a mirror.
alabbasi said:
Do you ever check before putting your name behind a statement?
https://time.com/5280769/dog-attack-dachshund-woma...
Lol. Seven of them. Picking random news stories to support your narrative demonstrates some very poor thinking.https://time.com/5280769/dog-attack-dachshund-woma...
s
t man, a single bee won't kill you. A swarm of them will. Your point?m3jappa said:
tbh and i hate to say this but they are already illegal.
You're technically right, which is why I said I was surprised to see one when I was in London last week. The problem with the 1991 dangerous dogs act is that it was flawed in itself because it banned a breed of dog that was not a recognized breed. Staff mix, boxer mix, mastiff mix, and many other dogs can be mistaken for what people describe as pit bulls. Here's a few examples. Can you pick the Pitbull?
Edited by alabbasi on Sunday 17th September 20:51
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff