Another XL bully death

My husband has a gun license, to hold this he has to be deemed mentally fit, background checks are done and our home can be checked at any time by the Police to check ammunition and guns are stored securely and separately.
If he were to fall foul of any of these measures then quite rightly his license would be revoked immediately.

Yet anyone can have these killer dogs, keep them in an unsuitable environment, walk them wherever they wish, by whoever they wish and worst of all keep them in a house with babies and children.

To comply with new legislation dogs should be muzzled in public, neutered and registered.

This is not enough.

I feel strongly that all these dogs should be euthanised.

Primrose53

A few months back I mentioned on GN someone buying a Cane Corso dog. The owner is about a size 6-8 and is just about 5ft tall. These dogs are massive and within a couple of months had pulled her over almost breaking her wrist. Her garden is tiny and the house is very small too. It is totally unfair to keep a big dog in that property.

The woman I mentioned earlier who had over 200 bites from an XL Bully also lives in a tiny house, also social housing like this girl.

I think it should be a condition of taking on a tenancy that dogs over so many Kg are not allowed. It’s also very unfair on neighbours.

I remember that you mentioned this woman.

You have to question the mentality of such people - though of course it's frowned on as being 'judgemental'. The woman is a danger to herself and other people. A large and powerful dog like the Cane Corso needs a large house and garden(s) - it almost needs its own house.

It is completely unfair on any animal to keep it so confined.

I think it should be a condition of taking on a tenancy that dogs over so many Kg are not allowed. It’s also very unfair on neighbours.

Agree. I don't understand why it is allowed - it's clearly unfair and unhealthy for the dog, too.

There was a report on ITV about this latest tragic dog attack.

The house looked like a small terraced house, open plan front and probably a very small back garden.
Apart from the irresponsibility of someone owning not one, but two of these probably dangerous dogs in a confined space, frightening the neighbours, it is not fair on the dogs either.

Apologies for posting misinfo on the xl bullies shot by the farmer. Thanks OldFrill and Callistemon for putting it right.
Primrose, I remember your Cane Corso post. I saw a man exercising one round the reservoir where I walk my dogs. It was 18 months old, its behaviour, response to commands superb. The owner clearly an experienced handler. I avoided my spaniel getting anywhere near it. I was relieved I didn’t have my boisterous/occasionally anxious young lab with me. The cane corso was huge. No owner could have controlled that dog if anything/ie another dog, an excitable child had distracted or irritated the dog.
Further round the 3 mile resevoir I met a man with an xl bullie on a lead, no muzzle. He’d two big off lead German shepherd dogs with him.
At this point me and my spaniel stopped our walk and went home.
Sorry to whinge but we responsible dog owners are having our lives disrupted by dogs thst are not your average pet dog, they’re being exercised in areas with lots of families, children on bikes etc. All dogs should be on lead in those areas. I never thought I’d say this

Callistemon21

There was a report on ITV about this latest tragic dog attack.

The house looked like a small terraced house, open plan front and probably a very small back garden.
Apart from the irresponsibility of someone owning not one, but two of these probably dangerous dogs in a confined space, frightening the neighbours, it is not fair on the dogs either.

One of the neighbours who regularly walks her greyhound said she wasn't even aware that there were Bullies in that street - had never seen them, nor, apparently, had those she knew.

Another neighbour had seen the dogs outside the house - but only once - and had warned her small child never to approach it or try to pat it.

The unfortunate woman herself had registered the dogs, so did the 'right' thing - but you have to question the point of keeping dogs confined like that.

What kind of a life does any dog have under such circumstances - they have to be muzzled in public, all escape routes blocked (which is a bit of a nonsense because they can leap fences unless they are very very high), and confined.

It's like keeping a dangerous prisoner in your home, making sure he doesn't come into contact with the public, nor escape.

What is this pervasive 'culture' that attracts on the one hand antagonistic young men, and on the other, middle-aged women, to these powerful and often aggressive dogs? And both frequently living in totally unsuitable accommodation?

I don't get it.

Blame the owners, not these dogs. People seem to be overlooking the fact that many dogs that have killed were kept in awful conditions. The recent one of the lady killed by her son’s dogs had been told by him to use a broom to separate the puppies if they fought! They were protecting their puppies. Puppies that should never have been bred in the first place. As I have pointed out on here before there needs to be tighter controls on dog ownership. Many think they’re a bad breed. They’re not. They’re sweet dogs by nature. The problem is those who do not give them proper care and training. And let’s see what the circumstances were about this sad death before judging these dogs. They’ve all been neutered by the responsible owners so they will naturally die out eventually although it’s all a bit pointless because this stupid government are doing nothing about feckless people breeding a different standard. And then it will be Groundhog Day once more.

I m sorry but they are not sweet dogs Gillycats they are huge powerful killing machines and should not be allowed to be amongst human beings

Someone got on the bus I was on recently with a bully dog.. they fortunately went upstairs but I was quite perturbed to be in such proximity with one. They are enormous..

i wonder what happened. As there were two maybe they were fighting and she got involved. Everything we have been told suggests she was responsible and following the rules

These killing machines should be banned. No one should own one. How do you think neighbours feel? I can’t see how anyone responsible and of sound mind would consider one.

I don't get it either, Dickens

Why anyone would want one unless they want to use them as a threat is beyond me. Yes, keeping them confined is like keeping a prisoner in a cell.

Waiting for these breeds to die out will take too long.

Gillycats

Blame the owners, not these dogs. People seem to be overlooking the fact that many dogs that have killed were kept in awful conditions. The recent one of the lady killed by her son’s dogs had been told by him to use a broom to separate the puppies if they fought! They were protecting their puppies. Puppies that should never have been bred in the first place. As I have pointed out on here before there needs to be tighter controls on dog ownership. Many think they’re a bad breed. They’re not. They’re sweet dogs by nature. The problem is those who do not give them proper care and training. And let’s see what the circumstances were about this sad death before judging these dogs. They’ve all been neutered by the responsible owners so they will naturally die out eventually although it’s all a bit pointless because this stupid government are doing nothing about feckless people breeding a different standard. And then it will be Groundhog Day once more.

We are not blaming the dogs. They are responding to their instincts, or 'taunting', or being aggravated, provoked or irritated by something or someone.

They are not "sweet by nature"- they are pack animals and that is part of their survival mechanism. I don't even know what that means - sweet? In what way? Because they show a loyalty to their owner, who they probably see as the pack-leader? They aren't cuddly toys. I think this is part of the problem, that people are convinced they're just lovely, gentle little creatures, given the right environment. Of course they will respond to being properly cared for, and reward with loyalty and 'affection'. And yes they are cute and lovely when they respond to your affectionate stroking and patting. But they are not instinctively "sweet". Domesticated they may be, but the pack instinct is still there - they would not survive if they were instinctively "sweet".

I'm not knocking the bond that people have with their dogs, far from it. I know that dogs are often 'in tune' with their owners emotions, and can decipher facial expressions, etc, etc. But they are still animals and should be respected as such. But this anthropomorphising, attributing human characteristics to animals, is dangerous.

Good post, Dickens.

Many think they’re a bad breed. They’re not. They’re sweet dogs by nature.

They are cross breeds.

About half the XL Bullies in the UK were bred from one dog in the USA, Killer Kimbo, and are inbred. They were bred with a killer instinct.

Why anyone would want one is a mystery, particularly anyone with children in the house.

I don't think XL Bullies are in any way "sweet". Their physique for one thing, let alone their strong jaws. If you want to make comparisons, my golden retrievers have soft mouths and can delicately hold a raw egg in their gentle cheeks without biting it. Yet, however gentle and affectionate they may be, they still need discipline and the right environment so they know their place as dogs in the household.

Gillycats, although x breeds, these dogs have breed characteristics. As Callistemon points out, a large number of xl bullies in the UK were bred from an American dog Killer Kimbo. His name is an accurate description of his temperament.
It’s correct to point to owner/handler incompetence but we can’t ignore breed characteristics. These are bred to intimidate, to be aggressive, fight on as has been shown in many of these attacks - they’ve needed to be shot to end the attack.
They’re interbred by irresponsible people.
My current dogs are show, not working types, a spaniel and a lab. They came from responsible breeders, who breed for temperament and don’t advertise. Their pups go to previous owners or people with a reference. My dogs conform to breed characteristics. Spaniel sweet, kind, gentle, flushes ducks, retrieves from water. Lab, big giddy affectionate immature 3 year old. Perfect obedience in classes, a work in progress when in the real world with distraction. He’ll swim all day, retrieves from water with enthusiasm. Breed characteristics and bred from dogs with good temperament, 5 generation pedigree.
I’ve also rescued, fostered a number of different breeds and x breeds. Characteristics always there. I have no time for xl bullies, don’t trust them, my dog training friends all share the view these dogs need banning

Dickens is correct, as ever, about the nature of the animal being hard wired.
One of my daughters has a Welsh sheepdog:
affectionate and obedient, but with an inbuilt need to herd her " flock" ( us!) and keep us safe. She deters any dog she sees as too close with a low growl.
The family are working at socialising her around other dogs, but it's clearly a struggle for her. A person who she perceived as a threat might be at risk of a nip.

Joseann

I don't think XL Bullies are in any way "sweet". Their physique for one thing, let alone their strong jaws. If you want to make comparisons, my golden retrievers have soft mouths and can delicately hold a raw egg in their gentle cheeks without biting it. Yet, however gentle and affectionate they may be, they still need discipline and the right environment so they know their place as dogs in the household.

So true, and the last part applies to all dogs, no matter which breed. All dogs, big or small, need proper training, discipline and boundaries and the right environment. Yes, they become as much as part of the family as any other member, but they still need to know their place.

Sago

My husband has a gun license, to hold this he has to be deemed mentally fit, background checks are done and our home can be checked at any time by the Police to check ammunition and guns are stored securely and separately.
If he were to fall foul of any of these measures then quite rightly his license would be revoked immediately.

Yet anyone can have these killer dogs, keep them in an unsuitable environment, walk them wherever they wish, by whoever they wish and worst of all keep them in a house with babies and children.

To comply with new legislation dogs should be muzzled in public, neutered and registered.

This is not enough.

I feel strongly that all these dogs should be euthanised.

That's a very good point, how much legislation goes into gun licencing, and yet there is no licence at all required for keeping dogs. It was stopped many years ago, before these dangerous breeds came into circulation.

I have an I-Spy Book of Dogs from about 1960 and none of these dangerous breeds seem to have existed back then. There is a Mastiff and Bull Mastiff, that's all.

If dog licencing were at a realistic price (with reductions for pensioners) then it would be self-funding and enable wardens to chase up dangerous dogs.

Guns of course cannot escape and go round killing people on their own, yet dogs can do just that.

Having these dogs around children is tantamount to me giving our grandchildren a loaded gun to play with.
In no circumstances should these dogs be allowed.

Chestnut

Guns of course cannot escape and go round killing people on their own, yet dogs can do just that.

... and do. Good point.

The mere fact that they can escape their homes and gardens - anywhere, at any given time - means that in principle, the public at large, are all potential victims.

These types of dogs are potential killers. Even those whose owners insist "wouldn't hurt a fly". A small child running around might unwittingly alert the inherent instinct in a pack animal to hunt and kill it.

Also, unless you are very in-tune with your dog - it might be unwell or just 'off-colour', and it can't tell you that's how it's feeling, so a friendly gesture towards it might irritate it to the point it will attack you. Which applies to all animals, but if it's one of those strong and powerful dogs, you might pay a heavy price.

The answer is simple- bring back dog licensing.

It won't happen because of the dog lover lobby, there is no electoral support for licensing so these fatalies will continue because dog owners see it has a price worth paying for their freedom to own a dog.

Actually, keepingquiet, I think most responsible dog owners would be in favour of bringing back some kind of licensing system, but as usual, it would be the irresponsible ones who would find some way round it - so then you need to be able to enforce such a system, and that all costs money.

I am a dog lover and have one small dog. I would be very happy to pay for a dog licence as would many of my fellow dog walkers, keeping quiet, so your statement that there is no support for dog licencing is not correct. We do not like to see dogs out of control either.

For the life of me, I cant6undesrand why a genuine animal lover would want one of these dogs as a "pet".