Literally the only thing I can agree with sunak on. Good.
It’s just a distraction from the UK’s anemic growth. Obviously he has done nothing that worked for the economy, and the conservatives have no ideas. The UK GDP has basically not grown since 2007.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=GB&start=2007
Not everything is a distraction tactic
This is. Conservatives were elected to help the economy in 2010 and have managed less than 2% growth since then. I have no idea why they weren’t thrown out on their asses after Brexit, but maybe the British public love pain and misery?
Do you think someone from Central Office went out and sneakily set dogs on people to savage them and set the news agenda? Or is it just possible these the spate of attacks and subsequent uproar, with pressure that Something Must Be Done occurred without political machinations?
So, in your opinion, the Prime Minister’s major focus should be head dogcatcher? You think a major speech on dogs, covered live, is not a distraction from things that will actually affect your life?
Will tomorrow’s speech be on a car crash that happened today or a disease that a famous person dies of?
So, in your opinion, the Prime Minister’s major focus should be head dogcatcher?
No.
I think he was under pressure for several days to Do Something in the face of a series of attacks and eventually had to.
If there are a series of statistically unlikely car accidents involving out of control vehicles of a particular make and model and the government gets heat over it - yes, tomorrows speech might be on that.
The UK seems like it’s run like a town hall.
Yesterday Biden delivered a speech on the economy:
Soon he’ll deliver a speech on threats to democracy:
Nothing about dogs.
In a word “Corbyn”.
Without a doubt it is a dead cat issue (no pun intended). Sunak doesn’t give a rat’s anus about the people of the UK. There is plenty of evidence that his interests are purely financial and self motivated. But that doesn’t deflect that there is an issue, and yet again they are making pointless legislation to deal with it.
Not everything is a dead cat.
A total waste of time. Banning breeds has proven to be totally ineffective in the past. The common sense approach would be to make it mandatory to muzzle dogs over a certain size.
There are massive differences between implementing a ban on pit bulls in a single city (Denver) and across an entire nation (the UK). The US is such a mess of federal, state, county, etc. laws that it is difficult to enforce such a law, but in the UK, it’s much easier.
Honestly I’d go a lot further and ban all breeds with significant health issues as well, to be honest.
Also if they actually banned with KOS (which would be terrible for many reasons, but still) then it would work in a us city, but anything where landlords and such are the “gatekeeper” will never work
You should probably read the whole article before dismissing it. Easily the most sensible thing I’ve seen written about this.
I read the article and responded to several of the points elsewhere (OP posted it twice) - it’s total nonsense, sorry. If you read that and thought it was sensible I would strongly, strongly encourage you to seek out a media literacy course because it is quite overt misinformation
It is just as difficult and ineffective in the UK. They just breed in new types of dogs. The XL breed is a cross breed with a pit bull terrier which is already on a banned breed list.
I would be for banning breeds with health issues. I would also ban all dog shows that promote dog breed types into the bargain. You will never stop idiots who follow celebrities, but dog shows are an easy fix, and a major reason people buy pedigrees in the first place.
Absolutely agree with you about banning dog shows. I am sure that there are valid criticisms of breed specific bans, but the article you linked wasn’t very persuasive at all, it was really clearly biased and had many weak arguments. Of the various claims made, I looked deeper into a few of them and found that the article was quite misleading. For example, it mentions that the Netherlands repealed a pit bull ban, with the implication being that they instead treat all breeds equally… but that’s just not true, because the Netherlands still classified pit bulls as a dangerous breed, and dogs classed as dangerous need to go through state mandated testing or be euthanised, which is a lot more work and much more cruel than the UK’s dangerous dogs legislation.
I’m open to hearing good criticism from a perspective of improving outcomes but surely we can do better than that americentric article
It was just the first google link google returned.
Had a Google around myself and didn’t really find anything convincing. Just a lot of handwringing about how banning breeds is imperfect because some dogs of that breed can be raised in a loving and caring environment to become affectionate and caring pets. Sure, great, but so can every other breed. There aren’t really any sensible proposals for how to handle the issue of dangerous dogs from those who oppose breed bans. They seem to favour treating each dog individually, but how would that work? We would need to establish a fucking huge office of dog assessors to check every dog in the UK to evaluate if they have good inherent behaviour and that they’ve been raised well, and if they fail the test at that point they’re taking away a beloved family member from people who presumably did their best. I really don’t think that’s a better outcome for anyone.
As it is we have far too much dog breeding going on, so anything that happens to reduce that or to make it harder is a good thing in my view
If you try to ban breeds you just get an ever-expanding list of banned breeds, and penalise good owners alongside bad. People who want dogs as a weapon, or who want the look but can’t put the time in, will always find new breeds to abuse.
Leash-laws, compulsory muzzling, licencing for larger dogs, and training for owners are much more effective. This problem is exploding (again) because so many inexperienced people got dogs during the pandemic and now don’t have the time to spend with them.
The problem isn’t going to disappear just because you can name a new hate-breed of the month. All doggoes are good doggoes, too many owners let them down. We can do something about that, if we want to.
Reposting this from above (not my link originally): Why Breed-Specific Legislation Doesn’t Work
There is never going to be conclusive evidence that it is down to the breed. No one would be so inhumane as to do a study where you mistreat a lot of dogs to see the effects. It is reasonable imo that mistreatment is a major cause of an aggressive dog. You can make a rat aggressive if you condition it that way.
My personal opinion of the dog breeding market in the UK is very low.
Nah mate, these dogs are fucking disgusting freaks. I’ve been chased by one before - quite frankly, I don’t give a fuck what your research says.
My point was that all dogs are dangerous. Selecting breeds shows total lack of understanding. It is how the dog is reared that causes the issues. Since you cannot evaluate that by looking at a dog then it makes more sense to add a safety device for all dogs.
Do you have any statistics on deaths by dachshund?
deleted by creator
Did I mention them at all ?
No, oddly enough you didn’t. Off though - you’d think if it were all to do with upbringing rather than breed, there would be at least one Dachshund-related fatality over the last 109 years.
“All dogs”.
“how it was reared”
You lost me there. These are breeds with an inherent nature to kill and maim. They’re freaks, mutants, and now thankfully to be banned.
The breed is only a small part of the issue. I have already shown studies that state this in another reply.
all dogs are dangerous
Okay, how many deaths are there due to Chihuahua? I will concede that it is perhaps biologically possible for them to bite off the finger of an infant, which could in theory be fatal, but the odds are pretty fucking slim.
Which is why I said above a certain weight.
All large dogs are POTENTIALLY dangerous.
Some breeds are EXCEPTIONAL at violence once they are triggered to do so.
Training can reduce triggers (to zero?)
A poodle or golden retriever can absolutely hurt and kill, but it would be anomalous beyond expectation that a golden would continue to attack and even feed on a human.
Other breeds, once triggered, enter a state where they disengage from reason, latch, hold and tear. Depending on conditions they will even feed.
Totally not a biased source, with no actual statistics or studies to back them up - ah right. We have much fewer dog attacks and especially fatal dog attacks in the UK than the US.
This report gives the opinions of expert behaviourists and consultants on the reasons why some dogs may be aggressive towards people. Of the 215 experts who responded, some 74% argued that breed was either not at all important or only slightly important, whilst an overwhelming 86% believed it was due to the way that the dog was brought up by its owner.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/90096/html/
The law on dangerous dogs refers to specific breeds of dog as ‘dangerous’. However, we believe that breed-specific legislation ignores the most important factors that contribute to biting incidents – primarily anti-social behaviour by irresponsible dog owners who train their dogs to be aggressive or do not train their dogs adequately.
https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/about-us/campaigns/dangerous-dogs-deed-not-breed/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/banning-some-dog-breeds-in-the-uk-wont-stop-attacks-on-humans - study in comments
There is a ton of research on the issue.
Data were gathered via owner report using an online survey […] advertised online (via Facebook and relevant dog/breed specific groups, Twitter, pet fora, via the UK Kennel Club”
Such science, very wow
Holy fuck lol
deleted by creator
Opinions by “experts” are not actual science.
Muzzles aren’t gonna help when the dog escapes
Curious to know what they intend to do with the Bully XLs currently owned legally.
Same as when they last banned a breed. They must all be registered, muzzled, and neutered. If not, fines/seizure and possible imprisonment of the owner.
A perfectly reasonable way to sunset the breed.
Apart from because it’s not a real bread, people will argue that it’s not a bully wasting police time and effort having to seize and then categorise… time and money an already skint police force aren’t going to want to do
It’s reasonable to make a dog wear a muzzle the rest of its life despite having a good temperament? I disagree.
I assume that it applies to the dog in public, not while in your house. Even if it doesn’t who is going to report someone for a dog not being muzzled in their own home?
I also assume it’s only when in public places because the UK has had muzzle laws (in public places) off and on since the major rabies scares in the 1800s iirc.
In public? Yes.
It’s like using a safety on a gun
Good job UK, for once
It’s not the breed, it’s the owner
Both.
Nobody needs a dog that powerful.
And rather, few people can control a dog that powerful once it gets serious. I very much believe that these dogs are peaceful and nice most of the time. But what about the times they are not? Who can hold them back and stop them? They were bred to not stop attacking, bred for incredible strength. They are not evil, they do what they were made for, but sadly that what they were created for is incompatible with a family dog.
So I read this article recently, and it suggested that some American breeders think there’s specific issues with the breeding line of XLs that are bred in the UK.
You cant ban people
Good.
Seems like we need to implement dog licences instead. It takes skill to own a well trained dog. Then just make sure people who are miscreants are banned from owning them.
You know that dog licenses were just a tax on dog owners. There was no ‘fit and proper person’ test or requirement for training.
I was saying that there should be a test and training.
That’s a _lot_of infrastructure, training centres, test infrastructure to build up. Then lots of fun law to write, such as - am I - as an unlicensed person, allowed to look after my brother’s dog for the weekend if they go away?
If there are four of us in the household, do we _all_have to be licensed to take the dog for a walk?
Interesting point, it should be the owners responsibility to hold a licence only. If its abused such like a cars licence. The licence should be revoked permanently just imo. This would also cut down on bad breeders, if they sell to people without a licence, they should also lose their license.
Inspection of home, walking, traveling skills, leash skills, etc. Do it every year or every “birthday” of a dog you have.
I own large dogs and would be fine with this. I’m walking around with a weapon, if I train it to be so
No one “needs” a dog outside of a service dog, and that’s a whole other Convo.
Do it every year? Tried to book a driving test lately?
There are 13 million pet dogs in the UK let’s assume people own multiple dogs. That’s 10 million tests a year. Let’s assume the test are quite hard. That’s a few thousand (10,000?) additional dogs removed from owners each year that need to be rehomed or put down.
Easier to neuter, muzzle and outlaw proscribed breeds.
Both. Phase in.
Finally. Took them long enough.
Now do pugs
Under dangerous dogs?
I assume you mean due to their health issues. Cant disagree. But I think it would be a Heck of a lot more complex to define breeds that suffer.
There are already dogs banned because they suffer. The white Doberman is one of them. They’re not banned in the USA, but they’re banned in Europe.
no, because they are dangeorus
So how many people have pugs killed?
Atleast 1 butterfly I guess
Well my chihuahua has spent the day trying to catch a fly in my narrow boat. Pretty sure the fly is laughing at him.
I assume the /s was missed off?
Nah. I am assuming we have met a real life tom thumb. Or maybe the borrowers. I mean from that angle a pug must seem pretty gruesome.
But atm even if they exist. Pretty sure they can’t vote. So parliment will not care.
I guess a Bully XL could choke on a pug while swallowing it ? Is that the danger pugs present you had in mind ?
Of course, the people who abuse their dogs to the point of become dangerous will just move on the next breed.
Playing whack-a-mole isn’t ever effective policy. Before this breed it was pitbulls, after this breed it’ll just be something else.
Dog attacks won’t stop unless we ban all dogs, stop people who abuse animals to the point of of being dangerous from owning dogs, or stop people from wanting to abuse animals to the point of being dangerous.
That said, this isn’t a harmful policy, just an ineffective one. If you want to own a dog, for good or ill, there are plenty of other breeds out there.
The difference is that other breeds aren’t quite as dangerous, and so won’t kill or maim as many people.
deleted by creator
I’m not sure this is a reply to me. Difference in what is that? I think my initial two paragraphs respond to what I think you’re saying regardless.
You were arguing that if you ban one breed the shitty owners will move on to another one. My point was that that other breed will (probably) not be quite as dangerous as this one, so it’s a net positive.
Nice argument, I showed you the data the proves it wrong though.
But beyond that the argument is flawed fundamentally, dog breeds aren’t static and the gog abusers don’t have to start with dachounds.
My argument stands and is supported by the data.
While the data proves that banning breeds fails.
Unfortunately recent data dose indicate an increase in fatal attacks when this new breed/cross became available/popular.
That is harder with older breeds because data is less available in the past.
But yes your point is valid. Breed is not really a valid method. Characteristics. And or personality would be better. But harder to police.
But I’m also of the opinion that bans even then are not the best method. If defining characteristics is possible. Then requiring owner to be qualified and required to keep the dogs in a safe manner is also reasonable.
Any dog with an uncontrollable prey drive. Is generally safe from fatal attacks if muzzled. Add to that a requirement to be able to control the dog.
If you want to keep a leopard. You are required to do so with the right qualifications and enviroment to do so. While dividing dogs is a lot more complex. No one sane wants to require owners of a chihuahua to be qualified for dangerous animals. As doing so would remove companion animals from lots of loving responsible owners.
But as you indicate. If someone is looking for a violent dog. Then increasing the effort and checks they must comply with. Will put the desire out of reach for all but the most dedicated/ responsible.
Yeah I tried to summarise that in the what would prevent fatal attacks paragraph. I try to see through a “what effective measures have we done to regulate things that can cause harm” lense.
Cars can cause harm, we demand training, licencing, registering, insurance, stoppages by police to provide proof of the above, etc etc. There are still fatalities though. I would accept every one of those measures being applied to dog ownership, you’re right it sucks for the peeps owning chihuahuas, their insurance will likely be low though.
That said, after engaging with the dog foster system (as a fosterer), I have other reasons for wanting to limit access to dogs. I weigh the harm done to families that lose an opportunity Vs the harm prevention I believe the above will deliver by decreasing the number of homeless dogs and increasing the living standards by improving the skills of the owner. I would add all animals are neutered at the earliest possible convenience unless owned by a registered breeder, that registration being an absolute bastard to get, perhaps requiring yearly inspections to curb puppy mills too. I love dogs, I don’t see their ownership as a right but a responsibility first and a privilege second.
I did think about banning characteristics, which then lead me on to blades as we regulate blades by characteristic. I have absolutely no idea if it was effective though, and didn’t care to check, so I didn’t include it. But how to apply it to dogs, weight maybe, biting force are objectively measurable but what happens if some family just lands an absolute chonk. As you say, the actual relevent characteristics are functionally impossible to police.
Why not just keep banning them?
Germany looks at patterns. Bully XL isn’t even accepted as a distinct race and you don’t need to ban it, it just needs to hit certain traits and it will be considered a dangerous dog breed regardless.
I think I answered that. Or I don’t understand your question. Just keep banning what?
I suppose I assumed the aim of the policy is “to stop fatal dog attacks in the UK”. I also assumed that was the reasoning behind the pitbull ban too, and look where we are. We could learn from history, or we could just keep banning them. This is all just repetition of my previous comment though.
I guess if the aim is to ban breeds of dogs then sure, why not keep banning them.
and look where we are
Um, a bit safer with fewer mental dogs running about
This would go a lot easier if you would please read my initial comment. Both of your comments are answered in there.
[Edit, both comments aren’t you, my bad. So far everything asked is addressed in my initial comment though] there also aren’t fewer dog attacks now than compared to before the pitbull ban.
Dog attacks won’t stop unless we ban all dogs
This’s is where I issue my standard challenge to find the statistics on fatalities cause by dachshund attacks
Once again, someone didn’t read my first two paragraphs.
But for challenges.
Here is a list of dog attacks fatalities in the uk the summary has a yearly count. Just looking at the numbers, what year was the pitbull ban and state your reasoning only using the numbers? For example if you pick 1985 because there were 4 that year and fewer after, then the dog breed ban wasn’t effective because the exact same thing happened in 1991.
Dog breed bans do not prevent fatal dog attacks, the numbers bear that out and my initial comment explains why. This is so much red meat for the emotional or dead cat for the guilable, whatever it is, it’s boring.
Read this as some new version of American bulldogs. Glad to know it’s not the same breed.
I hadn’t heard the term either until recently, and had to look it up. An American bully is a cross between pit bulls and bulldogs. A bully XL is the largest variant.
The breed is not an officially-recognized one, so definitions are a bit fuzzy.
deleted by creator
Per the dangerous dogs act?
Here’s the neet part it won’t same as the pitbull ban even if we get defined breeding standards and it works they’ll just mix something like Canie Corso’s or something else that they will then abuse to the point it’ll be a weapon
The dangerous dogs act bans cross breeds too. There are hundreds of convictions a year for owning banned breeds.
They don’t need to define the breeding as being a cross between x and y breeds, but as a set of characteristics for example. I’m not an expert in dog breeding but I’m sure a group of experts could come up with a definition that isn’t overly broad but also defies workarounds
There are no dangerous dogs, only scum bag abusive Humans.
Then why most of the attacks are by this breed?
Same reason Dobermans and Pit Bulls are the most abused Dogs in the US.
At least partly because scumbags who want to abuse a dog until it’s violent and dangerous don’t buy shih tzus to start with. If you ban a breed because it’s “dangerous” you’ll see people defy it, evade it through hybridizing (which already happened, the bully xl is a hybrid of the already-banned bull terrier) or just start abusing and selectively breeding a different large breed until it’s as violent as this breed. I’m not even necessarily against sunsetting this breed, it feels like we’re in a situation where a lot of bad decisions we’ve made in the past have made this a good decision. But I think that there are a lot of core problems that won’t be solved just by playing whack a mole with the current breed making headlines
Because when they do attack they are capable of doing serious damage; enough to be reported. No one is gonna report a dachshund attack for example so statistically it looks like dachshunds never attack people.
deleted by creator
Which means they are more dangerous.
