Banned dogs - thoughts

[Scottieoutdoors]

I'm seeing this discussed quite a bit due to various stories in the news regarding XL bullys. People suggesting no point banning dogs, no bad dogs just bad owners, better to make owners have licences etc etc

Whats everyones thoughts on the matter? I'd agree that bad owners create bad dogs, but at the same time, I've said it elsewhere, I've yet to meet an XL bully owner that doesn't fit into a very typical profile...

My personal opinion is that as a dog owner I don't have an issue with licences - I'd prefer not for the sake of money and paperwork, but not overly bothered.
However I find there are many breeds - in my opinon some great (Alsations, Dobermans etc), others less so (Pitbulls, xl bullys etc) that fall into the category of "ego dogs" and I see a lot of poorly trained owners with these ego dogs than well trained owners and within these I think there are people who get them because they look cool/tough and those that want something mean to guard them due to nefarious interactions and locations...

I know some great alsation and doberman owners that aren't afraid to be silly with their dogs, talk silly, and you can see the dogs have the utmost respect and adoration for their owners.... I just know some polar opposites with some less relaxed dogs.

 

[slowworm]

It's down to the bad owners and breeders. I would support licencing and tighter controls if they were enforced against the people who cause trouble, which I doubt would happen, so there would seem little point to burden responsible owners.

Personally I've been attacked by an alsatian but that was the owners fault and I've known plenty of well behaved big dogs including particularly lovely alsatian/doberman cross.

 

[gibson 175]

I wonder what solutions experts like vets and the RSPCA might suggest. Either way somebody eg the government,councils need to grasp the problem and sort it. I don't know how though. I am a dog lover and pretty competent at controlling my little lovely mutt. I would be a bit cautious about proposing any solutions on a social media forum. Sorry to wimp out. I have my own ideas but would prefer to leave it to the experts.

 

[Ozmundo]

It may not be the ideal solution but banning certain breeds of dog it probably easier to achieve, enforce and administer than some sort of licensing/mandatory owner training.

My own bias leads me to think that the sort of person who deliberately seeks a certain type of dog will not engage with any kind owner licensing. Because they thugs.

There are also the deluded souls who are adamant that “little wuffles” is a gentle and loving baby pooch. Even when it’s chewing on a small child’s face.

Targeted action against problem owners and breeders is what is needed. But this is probably expensive and would get tied up for years with legal action etc. I think this is why blanket bans on many things have come about.

Basically idiots screw it up for everyone.

 

[Paul_B]

Our border terrier has been ragged about by the neck three times. The breed in all cases was border collie owned by ppl I know to be experienced dog owners and a third by someone who seemed a very responsible owner who's reaction to our dog was misread by their collie which went into defence mode and attacked.

Some old friends were posties and their dog attacks were all from nice breeds like golden retrievers and labradors.

I met a guy doing the Yorkshire 3 peaks one late autumn with a very broad staffie called Blue. Wasn't big but very wide. Turned out to be a really nice dog possibly because the owner was very nice guy. I met a monster female staffie that was licking my Brompton chain on the train. I obviously introduced myself to the dog and owner. The dog was seriously huge for a staffie but soft and nice temperament. The owner was quiet and seemed OK to me too.

Where we live we see so many different dogs and some very aggressive dogs indeed. The most aggressive we've encountered was a little bichon frise. I'm talking vicious baring of teeth and snarling with the owner holding strongly on the lead to stop it reaching us and our dog. If that was a staffie or xl bully our dog would be dead and we'd be attacked too. The only thing stopping that dog from being dangerous was it being small enough the owner could hold it back and it's likely to be small enough for us to control it if it did get loose.

Imho dog owners are the biggest issue with dog related problems. Licencing doesn't work on its own. You need enforcement. However I think every dog owner should be trained, licensed and inspected occasionally. If no dog ownership / handling training then no dog. No licence no dog. Fail an inspection on how you look after and handle your dog then no dog. Fantasy idea but I think we need to stop ppl owning dogs if they don't know or care how to handle their dog.

I also think the dogs with higher potential for harm such as xl bullys should be in a higher category of dog ownership. You can actually own banned dog breeds I understand. You just need to meet certain handling criteria to get a special licence. There was a documentary where they interviewed a sociologist who studied inner city gangs dog ownership trends around big dogs. He got so into the scene that he ended up looking into these dogs. The result was he ended up getting a licence to own one. He takes it out but it has a muzzle on when out or if he has visitors. He also carries ID and a copy of his banned dog breed licence in accordance to local council rules. Basically a danger animal licence I think with inspection of his living arrangements.

One final point. You have two issues, dangerous dogs and dangerous (irresponsible) dog owners.

 

[Pattree]

I’m not sure how we can go about it. Can we really ban mongrels? How precise can we be about the genetics and still be able to police a ban?

As folk have said, it’s down to owners. If a car had injured that lass then the driver would have been banned. If the car wasn’t insured it would be confiscated. Is that a way to go?

I’m no longer a dog owner but when I was I believe that I was a responsible one.

 

[Paul_B]

There is no easy solution. The dogs trust is opposed to creating banned dogs. They're for licences and other things. They also point out that xl bully is not a uk recognised breed, so not easy to identify what is an xl bully. However that's a non argument because its an American kennel club breed standard so you could use that.

They also say that it's the owners not the dogs. No dangerous dog just owners. I think it's both. A fighting dog breed has been selectively bred to be dangerous, so it is simply a dangerous dog breed. It has so much potential in that respect. However a dangerous dog breed doesn't mean it is going to be dangerous just has a higher potential for being dangerous. That probably needs a dangerous dog owner to contribute and allow the danger to be an issue. A dangerous dog breed with a dangerous owner not in control has so much potential for harm. Imho that does need bans for such animals

Perhaps breed standards aren't the best criteria but perhaps potential and owner factors are the better criteria. You wouldn't allow a guy to own a jaguar and walk it down the street. Some breeds have a bite force not far behind a jaguar.

 

[Ozmundo]

It’s easy we “just let in the fit ones”.

 

[Bluebs4]

Iv owned many bull breeds some good some bad and worked with schutzhund 3 level dogs, the truth is its too much dog for 99% the other truth is its got serious prey drives that need exercise and if you don't IT will. Line breeding then the clowns breed them not knowing the linage and flog them asap causes all kinds of problems. A 4x4 60kg unit with massive psi bite in a built up area is bad for them and bad for us. The last DDA failed you still see pits everywhere the police just cannot afford to police it who's gonna pay for it? The sad sad part is the xl bully take 24-36 months to develop mentally and in that time people fall in love with the pet that then wants to eat every moving thing.

 

[Paul_B]

What are the other sized bullys like? The xl is the size there's a few breed standards based on size in the bullys. Which makes me wonder what the smaller ones are like.

 

[Pattree]

My wife shrugged and said:
Chip
Register and
Insure

Just like a car or a gun.
She’s succinct like that.

Like cars I presume you’d have different insurance rates. There will be those who try to get round any system but that’s just the same with any regulation. The consequences (if caught) exceed the cost of compliance.

That reads as a bit right of field. It’s not but regulation often looks that way.

Edited to add - apply to all dogs, not just dangerous ones.

 

[Tengu]

The dogs that have scared me were all wee ones. (Having done many years delivery work)

Having said that, some of the most characterful dogs I have met were wee ones.

 

[Paul_B]

So you can have a dog that can and is likely to attack someone but it's OK so long as you have insurance to compensate a mother for her dead toddler? I suppose that's no different to the potential of cars to take a life if their owners were irresponsible. The only thing is the car isn't sentient and is mostly predictable in handling.

 

[slowworm]

My wife shrugged and said:
Chip
Register and
Insure

It's already a legal requirement to chip, and have a collar with address details on, when your dog is out in public. However, I've never seen or heard of any dog owner being stopped for their dog not complying. (And it's very common to see dogs without collars on these days).

As for insurance there are plenty of car drivers about driving uninsured cars, often the most likely people to have an accident as well, I can't see most of the dog owners with problem dogs bothering with insurance.

 

[Pattree]

@Paul_B
I take your point but there can’t be any control without a lever.
A ban can’t be policed without tight criteria. Owners cannot be held responsible without a visible and measurable accountability. Without that there is nothing to police and nothing for a court to judge. We’ve seen the results of poorly defined law often enough.

Edited to add: @slowworm I agree. Like car insurance, it only works when brought to police attention.

(Are all dogs chipped these days? I didn’t know that.)

 

[Tengu]

Running a dog these days is so expensive I doubt many get insured.

 

[Pattree]

Running a car is expensive too. Legally required insurance is part of the cost.
The cost of keeping a pet was discussed on radio 4 this lunch time. It was suggested that owners need to discuss the cost of ownership of a pet, in this case with refuge and rescue charities.

 

[Herman30]

No doubt about it; a total ban of the breed. That, and dogs like it, are for no other purpose than making the owner feel like a gangster. There are plenty of other dog breeds if you want a dog.

 

[Pattree]

I’d agree if I could.
What breed? Define it. These animals are hybrids like cockapoos. There is an awful lot of legal wriggle room in the genetics and the appearance.

The article above does not refer to breeds but “types” of dog.

How many illegal dogs have been confiscated and/or destroyed under the current legislation?

 

[Paul_B]

A work colleague's boyfriend/partner had a friend with a passion for one of the banned breeds. He's been done for owning one, fined and dog put down. He still got another, however I heard that he started to get paranoid that the police were watching him because they had heard he had another banned breed of dog. So that dog never left the house (in the city) and he ended up taking it to my work colleague's house in the country so the anticipated police search would not find that dog.

My colleague is a talented person wrt looking after animals, instinctive understanding of animal behaviour. She was able to handle that dog, even built a relationship with it, but she was adamant it was to be gone in a week possibly two. She was a dog breeder, groomer, handler and dog daycare / walker. She's had training in behaviour and breed behaviour. How to deal with dogs in many circumstances. She was concerned about that dog I believe.

IMHO I don't think anyone should go where an experienced dog handler won't go with dangerous dog breeds.

However, licensing isn't a panacea or even solution. I'm a cyclist, driver, pedestrian and dog owner. As a cyclist I see licensed motorists break motoring laws and carry out dangerous or at least careless driving manoeuvres. Break the regulations based highway code rules they must obey and break the ones they should obey too. I've been put in situations by professional drivers like bus drivers and truck drivers where my life has been at high risk. Like under a bogey truck trailer between front and back wheel due to it overtaking and pulling in on me then accelerating to nearly 30mph before I reached a dropped kerb and could pull in and out from under the trailer and into the hedge!

My long winded point is licensing doesn't do much without enforcement which takes a lot of money and political will to get. It simply isn't going to happen. Legally police and local council can take action under existing laws but doesn't. Can't afford to / low priority. A knee jerk option is the only likely change. Even adding them to the banned breed list is technically difficult.