this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023

14 points (85.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4094 readers

105 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Britons have started handing in XL bullies to be put down, MPs told (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah bolloks. 1st the law dose not come in for a year. So anyone putting dogs down now is not keeping them due to love. 2nd just like any other breed banned in the past. If you have one now. You are not required to put it down. Just register and keep the animal in a safe responsible manner.

So no utter bollocks if anyone looking to put these dogs down now. Is very clearly not a responsible owner in any way shape or form. Unwilling to take even minimal care and responsibility for their pet. This is nothing more then a bullshit article designed to scare/insight readers .

[+] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I agree, banning a breed doesn't work. Backyard breeders will just move on to another breed. It used to be rottweilers for a while. The thing is, banning a breed is easy and plays to certain parts of the public. Actually, sorting the issue properly...now that takes time and money and is not easy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If banning does not work, how do you explain the significant drop in attacks by breeds that are already banned, whereas XL Bullies, previously not banned, account proportionately for far more attacks?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Did the overall rate of attacks go down? That is what would prove they are effective as opposed to just shifting which breed has the highest proportion.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing is, banning a breed is easy and plays to certain parts of the public. Actually, sorting the issue properly…now that takes time and money and is not easy.

That's the Tories and their policies in a nutshell - cheap headlines but no desire to do the actual hard work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You didn’t answer the question

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

What question?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

rottweilers have never been banned. or threatened with it. Pit Bull Terrier · Japanese Tosa · Dogo Argentino · Fila Brasileiro. are the currently banned breeds.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So, now there’s going to be an increase of strays of a breed viewed as dangerous just wandering around?

Also, euthanizing healthy animals who’ve not done anything wrong sounds just plain barbaric. Why not just stop the sale or adoption of the breed instead of just abandoning or killing them?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Also, euthanizing healthy animals who’ve not done anything wrong sounds just plain barbaric.

Which is why the proposed legislation doesn’t include it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Has not happened notably in the past. Honestly demestic dogs are not well suited to survival in UK cities. 11k years of demestic breeding means they tend to turn to people. This is true of most violent breeds as well. So strays tend to be captured in cities and not particularly an issue in rural areas. Only difference would be folks calling RSPCA rather then adopting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Interesting. As absolutly anyone owning a dog in a rented house. Has had this same issue. Finding a home that will take a dog is a constant issue. So if as an owner you have chosen a dog known to have a violent reputation. You will have faced that choice with bans or not. Even owning a fucking chihuahua I hav had huge issues finding a house. It has only gotten much worse over time. Sorry no its a bulshit answer. When you choose a Bully XL breed you are doinging so knowing exactly the reputation of that dog. As such your choice is responsible for your issues. Its not like any ban has been independent of the dogs reputation.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Breed bans never solve anything.

Would you like to show the pre and post ban numbers of attacks per breed on that. Because all those very few that happened. Were directlt post several incidents relating to that breed.

i in no way think breed bans are the best solution. But most would be even more uncomfortable with the solution I propose. Any breed known to represent more then average risk during attacks. Should require the same laws and keeping of any other wild dangerouse animal. Just like wolves and tigers. Animals that cannot be shown to be trainable to be safe. Would require safe handleing by skilled staff.

and of course If you cannot rent a property suitable for keeping a dangerouse animal safe. It is not down to opthers to be art risk from your choice.

If you own a pet capable of killing humans. Who but you should face the legal responsibility for housing and careing for that animal.

Any solution that fails to provide that is worse then a ban. So areguing a ban dosent work is just failing.

[+] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

yeah like glocks and most guns are banned in the UK. Meaning we face much lower gun deaths then nations that dont.

Not really a valid argument obn your part. Of course banning the dogs most likely to kill is an effective way of reducing dog deaths. Where the hell do you live.

The simple fact is we don't need to ban all dogs. Because we have an average of below 1 a year. but when we see a few in one year all related to one new breed that is beyond most owners control. Yes we ban thast breed rather then banning all.

Also it is only when we see deaths related to breeds intentionally bred for attack. Our nation has ever banned them. Even then only once multiple deaths have happened. Most demestic breeds really are not capable of doing seriose damage. Having been attacked by a germon shepard myself at 10 years old. I can assure you the damage from an average dog and one bred for fighting is very different.

[+] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do not disagree. All guns are dangerouse. Hence why guns are limited and restricted to safe areas for use.

Same goes for race cars. We ban them on oen roads due to the risk to others. Privrate roads are fione if the race is run safely. But that dosent stop folks driving a ford fiesta etc. Because in most situations most cars are safe. (ignoring pullution).

But the 4(soon to be 5) breeds of dogs banned. Where bread entirly for fighting. And showed a history or attacking humans and killing. In much higher qty then numbers before the breed was introduced. Most other dog attacks result in injurie. Again can be bad from my own 10yo experience. But at no point was I likely to die. I ended up in hospital for a few days. And the dog was eventually put down. (another attack).

But these breeds are bread to fight. They do not let go when a victim is submited like other dogs.

I have said before it is not perfect. Cross breeds need to be checked. But when you compare it to glocks. You are forgetting that we normally see averages well below once a year of dogs killing. Yet these bans have happened ofter several events in a couple of years. All related top one breed.

Yes another breed may/will come. And again we will ban it. We only have a total of 4 breeds banned. So its far from every couple of years we see a dangerous one. And while Id rather we had a more direct method. I am old enouth to remember the news at each occasion. We avoid cross breeds because the exact breeding that makes pure breeds dangerous is reduced when they are crossed. So like any dog they tend to be judged on actions. It seems to take timer for breeders to come up with new breeds that meet the desire. So evidence indicates it is working if not perfect. Because we see a relative drop in deaths back to normal when a breed is banned.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems like a ban on imports and required spaying and neutering would be a less cruel solution. Then when you find dogs younger than the ban you could start talking about euthanizing them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Also what the law requires. Nothing requires safe existing dogs to be euthenised. Just registered and kept in a safe manner.

That said planty of people who are opposed to such laws. Are very willing to spend time talking to vets as a way to use the new law to avoid the responsibility of their own choice. Lets face it a few vest talking to MPs, is far from outside of the number of irrisponsible unprepared breed choosers unwilling to admit they made a mistake.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

People are already handing in XL bully dogs, with some requesting that their pet be put down, after the announcement of an impending ban, MPs have been told.

At a parliamentary evidence session before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra) select committee, witnesses said vets and animal rehoming centres could become inundated by people seeking to offload the dogs before a ban.

Dr David Martin, group head of animal welfare for IVC Evidensia, a global veterinary care provider, said: “We are already getting clients presenting dogs asking for them to be euthanised because they’re concerned about the effects of a ban.”

Rishi Sunak has announced XL bullies would be banned by the end of the year after a spate of serious attacks involving the dog type.

A number of witnesses said the challenges of correctly identifying XL bully dogs – which are not classified as a breed but a type – would make implementing the ban difficult.

Gaines said the RSPCA had left a government breed confirmation working group over concerns “about its approach and the potential for a large number of dogs to be involved than was actually originally intended.

The original article contains 603 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 68%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!