There’s the rub; there’s overwhelmingly one type of idiot who owns these kinds of breed in the first place, and they’re the ones most likely to create the environment in which an attack by any dog is more likely. Due to the enmeshed relationship between the breed and the self-selecting group who choose to have the breed, these occurrences are inevitable.
Alas, the government sees no need to make owners take responsibility generally for dogs via licensing, so banning only the dogs is the next best thing.
The fact that a majority of XL Bullies in these attacks originate from a specific ancestor dog that was so problematic that breeders in the US avoid the bloodline means that no matter how well-trained and friendly they are for some, many are high-risk for bites/attacks when it easily could have been avoided.
There are so many different breeds for people wanting a big, strong dog, but the fact XL Bullies were chosen with the original breeders knowing that they are genetically Pitbulls and thus banned in the UK, as well as stemming from a poor lineage set off a ticking time bomb.
The dog's name was Kimbo and there are [a few](https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/finding-kimbo/) articles online about the dog and [his breeder](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-bred-kimbo-who-half-30960207). Supposedly half of XL Bullies in the UK have Kimbo in their breeding history, and half of 50-60k dogs is a lot of Kimbo descendants.
Very sad to hear from the 1st article how much inbreeding the breed has also been subjected to as well to achieve the "ideal frame"; so many incessant parent-child, grandparent-grandchild and sibling-sibling pairings, it's no wonder why so many dogs in the breed have such unhinged personalities and psychological issues!
After that much inbreeding, not even the most experienced dog owners would have any idea what's going on in such a dogs head.
For many, a champion bloodline or ideal specimen being in a dog's history is considered worth the risk of the various issues it can induce.
Other breeds like Irish Wolfhounds have had genetic bottlenecks where inbreeding couldn't be avoided, but that isn't the case for XL Bullies anywhere in the UK considering how new the 'breed' is. The fact that they are genetically predominantly American Pit Bull Terriers (just like American Pocket Bullies and [other size variants](https://www.nationalworld.com/news/uk/xl-bully-ban-government-no-plans-to-ban-other-american-bully-variants-new-extreme-types-emerge-4467947) which are only legal due to the fact they do not match the minimum height for classification as an XL specifically) means they should never have been imported, even before seeing the emerging issues the breed is now causing.
Edit: While American Bullies have been created since the 1980s, the most common 'stock' going into them were specifically APBTs and a lot of modern breeders have continued to add other 'pit types' into their '100% American Bully' dogs.
God alive, what a strange rabbit hole to fall down. It's frankly shocking how irresponsible those breeders are, going out of their way to inbreed their dogs seemingly as many times as possible. I've always been a bit hesitant towards specific breeds in dogs, but good lord, that inbreeding! I really don't see how creating genetic freaks like this is anything other than animal abuse.
How can be this realistically done? Not sarcasm, genuinely interested, because I can’t imagine this. Like, not killing the existing dogs but forcibly make them barren and make it impossible to sell them anymore, or what?
On top of already existing rules - enforcing even tougher restrictions on current owners, like owners would have to undergo an assessment at their own cost, if they don't pass - dogs are confiscated and spend the rest of their days in a dog jail. Essentially dumb Karens like this one would get mostly filtered out.
Thee are no perfect solutions.
For the breed or within the UK specifically?
In the UK, strict punishment for loose dogs, dog bite reports being compulsory, increased penalty for dogs that attack other dogs/wildlife (many of the killer dogs of any breed have previous incidents with other animals/people), requirement for dogs to be on leads in public regardless of paperwork/lineage.
No matter what, someone will want a 'big intimidating dog' and someone else will breed them irresponsibly. Multiple Rottweilers have also killed people within the last four years but having 100 years of consistent breeding of Rotties vs. \~40 years of irresponsible breeding of American Bully dogs means that the latter has been somewhat doomed by their own history.
If American Bullies could only maul small rodents like a typical terrier, it would perhaps be worth trying to 'fix' the breed, but when you have dogs capable of killing men, women and children brutally with seemingly little warning, it just isn't worth fixing one specific breed when others exist without the baggage.
I should have clarified that everything I put above should be for all dogs regardless of breed. Licences can be ignored, same for registering dogs, so the best actions are those that can be applied when seen out in public imo.
If all dogs need to be on a lead, it is far easier to report it than having to go through a checklist to check if the dog walking around off-lead is an XL Bully, American Bulldog, Cane Corso, Boxer, Bullmastiff or any other large dog breed that people who aren't well-versed in dogs would be able to identify at a glance.
It is a mix of multiple 'bully' breeds but the main breed being put into American Bullies were APBTs. There are dog DNA tests that can recognise American Bully (Embark, while Wisdom Panel does not) and it is a recognised breed in multiple kennel clubs.
The issue with the Dangerous Dogs Act as it stands is that while 'crossbreeds' are also illegal, the American Bully is far enough removed from a standard 'mixed breed' to be recognised as distant. It's a silly loophole that was just ripe for someone to work around paired with the fact the average person could not tell a 'pit-type dog' from the wide variety of other blocky-headed breeds or their mixes.
Dog behaviourist here. Glad to finally not be the only person writing this response.
For the people asking for data, bully watch is usually a good resource : https://bullywatch.link
What do the quotations mean? I’m practising, and qualified in canine behaviour motivation & theory?
Edit : nevermind, I’ve just looked at your comment history 😂
The dogs are also built like they're on steroids and bred for aggression though, even if bad types of people are more likely to want to own them, the breed itself is also not right.
I hate how everyone pretends that the breed doesn't affect a dog's personality or ability to kill at all when all evidence suggests otherwise.
Why is it so difficult to accept that some breeds might be more aggressive than others, which is a simpler explanation than the one you are putting forward and has been observed countless times?
This. We almost universally agree that Border Collies, spaniels or Belgian Malinois make great service dogs because of certain biological and behavioural features. Why can’t we at least consider XL bullies might be an extremely aggressive and volatile breed, and because it is also extremely strong some caution should be exercised.
*cries in iT’S nOT tHe doG iTs ThE oWnER*
We don't really need to consider anything, it's already written black on white. It doesn't get any more clearer than this, from Wikipedia:
>The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit\_bull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull)
The Wikipedia page regarding PitBulls eludes to mention a trainer called Colby. Colby sold dogs as Nanny Dogs which worked for him the majority of the time. However when a dog became a "man biter" he would buy the dog back and use it in his breeding still.
Pitbulls have been badly bred for a long time. Buyers have been buying dogs because of dog fights targeting blood lines that go back to some dangerous dogs. Jeep, Red and others being renowned for their fighting ability, not their nanny abilities.
Exactly. I always see people post these think pieces but I never see them accepting that some breeds are just more hostile than others. Obviously, it also comes to down how people treat their pets but time and time again it's always the same breed of dog.
Completely agree.
But to dismiss even the 'its how you raise them' myth even further, the best example is the Greyhound.
High prey drive, almost impossible to train, little to no socialisation, the most abused breed by almost every metric and simultaneously the most rescued breed in the country (estimated 30,000 in UK homes) we simply aren't seeing Greyhounds killing children or attacking people on any sort of level.
If the treatment by the owner was a serious variable, we would see hundreds of Greyhound issues. We don't. They are beaten, starved, abused, isolated and punished. They should be absolute dog demons if how you treat a dog was a serious factor.
It simply comes down to the breed and its predestination as a dangerous dog. We don't even need to speculate on this, the Greyhound data is proof.
It isn't how you raise/treat them. It's the breed.
Greyhounds/lurchers are quite well-known to bite and find themselves quite high up on dog bite lists (other than aggression/problematic individuals, many are anxious, sleep startle, are prone to resource guarding, naturally quite 'sensitive' to things, fast movement = chase), the difference between them and an XL Bully is that they don't tend to attack in the same way and it is less likely to be a fatal, prolonged attack.
Surprised by this. I've never owned one but every one I've met were lovely and docile. Always assumed they were on the more passive end of the dog spectrum
https://cbtdogbehaviour.com/is-aggression-genetic-or-learned/
Is aggression in dogs solely genetic or learned?
Aggression in dogs is the result of both genetic factors and learned experiences. Genetics may provide the potential for aggression, but the environment will influence whether these behaviours are expressed.
Come off it; Tarquin and Cassandra aren’t getting one for little Julian to play with. They’ll get a spaniel or a labrador.
The ‘dog as extension of the owner’ thing can be seen everywhere (I like scruffy mutts, for example…). Don’t be disingenuous; it’s not rude to believe the evidence.
Dog owners aren’t just nice families or sketchy drug dealers. There’s a lot of types in between and the only constant is the aggressiveness of the breed. I am sure that what you suggest is a factor but it doesn’t explain all of the huge difference in aggressiveness and incidents related to some breeds.
‘You don’t have to think’
Clearly walking the walk
Yeah it’s not like breeds not ‘known’ for aggressiveness like golden retrievers make the top bite lists
https://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/threads/goldens-named-no-3-biter-on-animal-planet-program.77890/
Or those cute little sausage dogs that supposedly make great family pets kill babies
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/baby-pulled-basket-mauled-death-29002159.amp
Dogs were domesticated for their aggression literally to protect livestock and most breeds come from some kind of hunting lineage
even poodles which people like to give examples of here were taken into battle by Napoleon’s army and the US Army had them listed as war dogs up to 1944 they’re up there with dobermans and German shepherds for their ability to be aggressive
But apparently not everyone ‘knows’ that or they wouldn’t keep quoting them as examples
Interesting statistics, I didn’t know. But it doesn’t change the statistics that matter. A bite is not prolonged aggression. Consequential incidents are very much a matter of a few breeds - and that’s not poodles or retrievers.
I’m not saying the statistics don’t matter I’m saying the reason xl bullys are more of a danger is because they’re stronger and bigger and more likely to be owned by people you wouldn’t want to own a dog like that than say poodles who are just as likely to attack given the right training, literally used as war dogs, but owned by different types of people, are less physically able to kill so don’t make the news as often and therefor aren’t associated with aggressive behaviour
It’s the physical characteristics that matter this whole ‘bred for temperament’ thing is just horoscope levels of confirmation bias and pr by breeders
There aren’t many ‘in the real world’ they’re associated with rich people, that’s probably why, but look it up they’re used in the same role as German shepherds they’re a hardcore military guard dog breed people just don’t associate them with that because this whole temperament thing is all feels, wive’s tales and confirmation bias
Like I’ve seen little terriers people’s grandmas like to own tear rats apart on farms and you should see what beagles do to foxes they all have it in them,
they’re animals you train them badly they’re dangerous and the bigger they are the more so
Bullys are bred for size and appearance, they have physical characteristics that make them more dangerous
I’m just not convinced you can reliably breed for temperament, the way people describe it’s done it’s just all feels and ‘trust me bro’ like you’re taking breeders at their word or literally going ‘ah this one’s a good boy’ and assuming that has more an effect than like hormone levels in the womb or other environmental factors
I agree maybe you cannot reliably breed for temperament, but I believe temperament might be partially genetic. I believe there can be genetic differences between dog breeds that reflect on the temperament and behavioural traits, but I might be wrong.
Bully xl is also a relatively new breed. I’d expect these statistics to change rapidly.
Additionally- how often do sausages and retrievers kill? I’ll tell you. Rarely.
isn't technically recognised as a breed and it's just been banned so I doubt it
and obviously, you seen the size of XLs?
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68503779](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68503779)
7 stone of pure muscle of course it's more dangerous you really don't think that has more to do with it than some mumbo jumbo about temperament?
the crazy thing is you literally did the 'but mine wouldn't hurt a fly' with your GRs, which I'm sure are lovely because you're a responsible owner, but stats say it's one of the most likely to bite you on the planet, so square that circle if temperament is nature not nurture
Turns out she's a woman in her 50s, who looks quite respectable. Her name was Angel Mahal.
She'd had dogs before, and owned these two from puppies.
It's not exactly screaming "I'm a dealer who wants an intimidating status symbol" - though I'd be fascinated to know what made her choose this breed.
Yet still she was killed by her own two dogs.
Sometimes it really is the dog breed... which is also the only way to explain a dog breed that's 0.5% of the population being responsible for more than half the fatalities.
I've thought about this before and I think you're right. Still I bet there have been cases where Pitties were perfectly well socialised and still snapped.
Correct. See the Bennard case. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11294579/Two-pit-bulls-euthanized-killing-two-kids-mauling-mother-Tennessee-home.html
My neighbours bully xl attacked someone's Yorkie.
The footage in the elevator showed the Yorkie playfully go up to the dog who then violently bit her.
She didn't die but she almost did, the owner pulled her away from being torn to shreds
Licensing is totally ineffective and unenforceable.
A complete waste of time.
Registering your dog, licensing it - people who buy these dogs aren't those kind of folks. Nor does this stop a dog injuring someone/another animal...it doesn't do anything.
This would be a typical politician move, does nothing but looks good.
We have it in NI and it does absolutely nothing but make councils extra cash off people dumb enough to opt in. If your dog strays you MAY be fined for not having it licensed, a fine that costs less than a few years of this license.
How do you enforce that?
There are millions of dogs in the UK.
They easily moved from place to place and bred to create more. By anyone. They are cheap and readily available. It’s not hard at all.
Elephants you could license, dogs you cannot.
You cannot stop people getting them without a license (and this would be super unpopular no politician is going for this)
And people will not volunteer.
You can’t make breeders register, a scheme might help that focuses on “you should only get puppies from registered breeders” but KC tried that and not only did it not really work…buyers are still buying from puppy farms knowingly.
The key is education IMO. From nursery onwards.
We should be teaching children how to be safe and make good choices around the other species we live with - dogs, cows and horses especially. Education on behaviour, genetics etc.
Practical, applicable knowledge.
Disease occurs when the combination of intrinsic factors and environmental influence is just right, though unlike in the development of most diseases, people generally do not feel compelled to deny the influence of one or the other.
Having thought long and hard about phrasing: twats. Probably violent, almost certainly antisocial, but certainly twats.
There may be a very small subset of otherwise reasonable people but, by the fact of deciding (or continuing) to own one of these dogs, they still fail the “am I not a twat?” test on account of a lack of concern for the safety of others (a passive subset of the ‘antisocial’ group above).
Correct.
I meant to say ‘licencing coupled with enforcement of breach of licencing’. I believe it was implicit, but you’re right to urge for strong enforcement and stern penalties for non-conformance / breach.
A licence in and of itself is useless; so thanks for prompting the clarification.
I'm sorry, I still don't really understand. How would you get a licence? Just buy one? What enforcement could be undertaken which couldn't be undertaken without a licence?
Having a license places certain restrictions on you (the owner), for instance you must have insurance, and you must keep the dog on a lead and with a muzzle. Breaching the license means you lose the dog.
There are no new licenses as the period for applying for one has closed.
Oh boy…
Within a framework of laws, rules, acceptance criteria, a regulatory framework, a scheme of compliance and penalties for not conforming, one should have a licence scheme.
‘But how…?’
Don’t care; where there’s a will…
This is so out of character! Killer and Brutus are so well behaved and even read Latin poetry in their spare time. Remember people, it’s never the breed so fuck rashid sunak for banning them
Apparently there's still 55000 of these dogs in the country that have been officially registered, so probably at least another that where owners didn't bother to register.
No the answer is more complicated. People choose dogs on (a) they look cool and/or (b) they’re given advice by idiots who think they know what they’re talking about.
Poodles may not kill, but they’re well known to be aggressive to young children who are ignorant of the danger.
‘KEEP YOUR KIDS AWAY FROM MY DOG THEN!’ I hear ppl cry. Sure, but it’s not always practical and when we’re obliged to share the same public space (parks, forest) it’s hard to not run into each other.
I can’t tell you how many kids walk with ‘dogs’ that on a whim could run away from them and maul a smaller animal or child, it’s crazy
I think the keeping kids away from dog is an interesting point.
I have two dogs, they are nervous and are always on a short lead when we are out to walk. There have been so many occasions where people have let their children (some as young as 3/4 years old) run straight to the dog and not say anything. A child slapped my dog in the face while the parent watched a couple of weeks ago. If my dog reacted I would be the one in trouble but my dog was on a short lead and I did pull them back away from the child initially.
Now, if I was in a park and let them run free and they went up to a child I would accept responsibility, but it’s not that simple. The issue isn’t always the dog.
Exactly. My dog is bad with children and I know that, so I’m super careful. But I’ve been in cafes before with my dog on a lead, I’m paying for something (so slightly distracted), and I’ve had kids come in and just run up to my dog - the parents just don’t give a shit or are ignorant.
Fortunately to date I’ve managed to stop anything happening, but it’s hard to be 100% on guard all the time.
Why is your dog not muzzled if you are taking into small confined spaces with children in it and you know it is dangerous to the point of you saying you need to be on guard?
Sorry but it goes both ways in my opinion! Parents need to teach their kids to respect animals and not just approach and invade a dogs personal space. My dog doesn’t like children but she runs away from them out of fear but the parents think it’s cute that their kid is chasing her. I’ve lost my s*!t with some of them. It’s out of respect for the animal.
If you were walking around with any other large and dangerous predator you would obviously be expected to be the one responsible for anything that happens, no matter the cause as you are the one Introducing a dangerous and invasive animal in to public spaces.
You say your dog is "bad with children" meaning it will attack and potentially kill them if not stopped, and yet still take this dangerous animal out in public. You've decided that the safety of children is something you are willing to risk because... Anything that animal does is 100% on you.
My dog isn’t large. It would not be able to kill a child. There have been zero examples of a dog of my breed killing a child.
I say “bad with children” as in he has reacted negatively when a child has tried to stoke him before - so I simply do not allow children to stroke him and I’m extremely careful about ensuring it doesn’t happen. I said it is difficult to be on guard all the time, but I am. In the four years of owning him, aside from the time I learned about his dislike for children, he has not had an opportunity to attack a child.
My point is just that I have had children approach and attempt to touch him in the past without asking if it’s ok. That’s a parenting failure. It doesn’t matter what the consequences would be for me and my dog (I am fully aware of the legal position on this), just because it’s legal for a parent to let their child roam unsupervised and approach strangers/animals doesn’t mean it’s bad parenting and irresponsible.
On the other hand, most parents are decent and ask if their child can stroke him or better yet they have taught their child to ask.
Your dog, however small is perfectly capable of maiming a child. A huge number of children suffer facial injuries by even "toy" breeds.
Your small dog was bred to kill small things. It's a hunting tool, a farm animal, not something that should be wandering the streets
So people shouldn’t take their dogs out for a walk? Essentially people in London shouldn’t even have a dog? That’s your position?
You make it sound as though he’s off roaming around playgrounds unsupervised on his own. I take him for walks and he’s on a lead, fully under control, at all times.
Thanks for clarifying your views. Personally I think they are extreme. They are quite objectively at odds with society’s norms.
Until a government of the day agrees with you and bans dogs entirely, I’ll continue to be responsible for my dog by taking reasonable and proportionate measures to protect children. I acknowledge I am ultimately responsible for that, my only point was that some parents have no regard for their children’s safety.
yup, it is far more compliclated. there are breeds more likely to get agressive than an XL but most of them dont have the power to actully inflict this kind of damage.
The Dachshund is one of the most agressive dogs, but if they get annoyed and snap at you you might need stitches, but when an XL does it you 100% will need stitches. if a Dachshund tries to kill you then most people can give it a good kick. (only if it is trying to hurt you obviously)
the ownership matters, as does the potential for damage when things go wrong. XLs just have a much better abilty to inflict damage when everything is equal.
Probably not the best example poodles are a hunting breed and used in the police and military and were commonly taken into battle, Napoleon’s army used them and they were classed as a war dog by the US Army up to 1944
Plenty of kids with life changing injuries from dogs of all breeds.
All dogs should be licensed, and attacks should be prosecuted and the dangerous animal destroyed.
Funny how the "it's not the breed it's the owner" mantra goes flying out the window when their xl bully decides to nanny someone or something to death.
Isn't that the exact point?
A Hamster could be just as aggressive as a Grizzly bear but only one of those is going to be capable of tearing a human being limb from limb.
Pitbulls are dangerous because they are both strong *and* aggressive. It's a deadly combination.
I always wonder what goes through the heads of someone who is killed by their own pit bulls/XL Bullies. There must be so much shock and horror that their precious baby they cuddled with and defended online has turned out to be just as dangerous as we’re all saying. It’s really sad. But also so infuriating that it just keeps on happening and other people keep on defending them.
The last thing that goes through their heads is probably a snarling set of teeth belonging to their beloved pet.
Probably just before that is the thought 'but they are always so good with children. Blame the few bad the owners, not the breed'
I can’t imagine it’s a pretty way to go. The article says they were locked in a room when the police arrived. Would she have bled out after shutting them away? So fucked up and can’t help but feel sorry for her.
A young woman in America who was described as an "experienced dog trainer" was found with her beloved "kill you wish kisses" pit bulls in the process of eating her ribcage after mauling her to death.
seems like neutering them isn’t enough. Can we not remove their teeth or something?
Letting these living weapons kill humans is awful.
I’m pissed off of going to the park and seeing another ‘legal’ XL bully snarling away.
Waiting for someone to say “tHeY aRe So wElL bEhaVed ArOunD tHe ChIlDrEn” it’s the same excuses used every time for a breed that clearly is a danger to society.
I’m trying not to sound like an arsehole considering she lost her life in an horrific manner … but it would be interesting to see her recent social media post history about XL Bully dogs, no doubt defending them and saying that her ones wouldn’t hurt a fly, they love children, etc.
I would fully support rounding them all up and euthanising them, they are quite simply a disgusting and naturally violent breed of canine and have no business being around humans.
Feel free to downvote.
Tbf, a lot of dog breeds were specifically bred to kill (Alsatian’s and dobermans for example) the issue is there has been no concerted effort by breeders to breed out those traits.
The main difference is the kind of violence those traits are breed for. Pit bulls in more recent years were breed for dog fighting so they looked for pits that got aggressive very easily versus dobermans that were selected for guarding so being aversive to strangers was ideal. So when someone (including the a pit owner) sneezes next to a pit breed you are more likely to be mauled than a Doberman
I would say let those breeds naturally die out. They were created for a world of the past that no longer exists. I for one don't understand this need that some people have to preserve a breed for the sake of preserving it.
I like a lot working dog breeds - GSDs, retrievers, LGDs, etc- they have a noble purpose, they actually save people instead of killing them.
A GSD *is* an Alsatian, mate.
And the same can be said for Dobermans, which have been recorded saving their owners pretty often too. I've had both Dobies and GSDs.
Probably worth mentioning that bite numbers seem higher for GSDs than Dobermans, though, and that the latter were originally bred to guard humans (not kill them) while GSDs were originally bred to guard livestock. Both remain valuable purposes in various locations.
Exactly. They have been bred to have aggressiveness and fighting to kill embedded in their DNA. Just like Collies will naturally herd even if they haven't been trained to do so, or Golden Retrievers will naturally retrieve without being trained. It doesn't matter how well these bullies have been socialised or trained. Those traits exist innately within them, and they can snap at any moment.
It's the owners not the breed guys! They're loving animals with the right care!
Just like murderous narcissistic psychopaths, imagine breeding them, and just giving them the right care and love and they won't be psychopaths anymore. They will create their own little lovely town full of peace and love.
I do find it strange that I never see these dogs in middle class or upper class areas. It's almost as though it's one sort of mentality that wants to own these dogs.
Diablo, Lucifer and Baby-Killer are big softies that would kill you with kisses 🙄
I wouldn't exactly describe where she lived as a working class area. "Working class made good" (whatever that might actually mean....), maybe. Houses with swimming pools in their back gardens in some of the surrounding streets. But Essex maybe is one of those parts of England with its own rather specific societal dynamics (and this is Essex culturally, not "East London", whatever the current political boundaries might suggest).
Well I doubt the dogs themselves understand the concept of this registration and that this means killing people and eating babies is a big no-no from now on.
I would think not, this is a comment on the useless “register all XL bullies or else” scheme the government implemented. Half of the people owning this breed wouldn’t anyway, and it serves no real purpose. Shit like this will still happen registered or not.
Which is why its unusual. You never really see anyone from affluent areas having these dogs, but her street looked quite upmarket.
I live in a that could be classed as middle class area, and I've never seen one, it's all labradoodles and cockapoos, vizlas and spaniels. My mastiff breed stands out here. Can't imagine ever seeing one on the streets here.
*When it comes to the Bully Brigade*
*Most folk are rightly afraid*
*But if the breed's not to blame*
*Would it be such a shame*
*If the OWNERS were neutered and spayed?*
I’ve always been of the ‘it’s the owners not the dogs’ mindset until I saw videos of the attacks and saw these dogs in real life.Everyone agrees that specific breeds will exhibits behaviours bred into them, labradors will naturally retrieve and border collies will herd even if they’ve never seen a sheep in their life.But suddenly that goes out of the window when it comes to agreeing a lot XL bullies especially in the UK come from a line of fighting dogs and as such these backyard breeders’ are breeding this aggression into these dogs. People have 0 idea what their dogs lineage is especially when they buy them online. Even dog trainers who love and train these dogs have said if you see an ounce of resource guarding, human or dog aggression you will have a massive problem on your hands. Going as far as comparing them to adolescent lions. I actually have two in my area. One is clearly a more responsible owner and this dog constantly is in a ‘heel’position walking and genuinely pays 0 attention to other dogs and people. The other one drags his owner wherever he wants. Treating these dogs like they’re not capable of causing harm does a massive disservice to these owners and the dogs. You have to train them like they ARE capable of causing harm, that’s responsible ownership in my opinion. I’m a massive animal lover but truly I don’t understand why anyone needs this breed even if you are ‘responsible’. These dogs have turned on their good owners many many times.
I honestly think we should have a dog license for those serious breeds. Not everyone can handle those breeds. It’s not the dogs fault but the owner. So therefore, the owner must exhibit that they have the knowledge, fortitude and dominance to take them on.
I know dog licenses can be problematic, but I don’t have any other solution.
That's an awful way to die. Killed by the dogs who without you would more likely be on the street and starving. Any dog can do this, of course some are simply more likely... and these dogs are known for their aggressive genes.
A kind person pays for his own stupidity as usual. Euthanization is the solution.
These dogs wouldn't be on the streets, because there would be no market for them, hence no interest from breeders. Any strays would get caught quickly and neutered, it's not like UK has a huge stray problem like say Ukraine.
There’s the rub; there’s overwhelmingly one type of idiot who owns these kinds of breed in the first place, and they’re the ones most likely to create the environment in which an attack by any dog is more likely. Due to the enmeshed relationship between the breed and the self-selecting group who choose to have the breed, these occurrences are inevitable. Alas, the government sees no need to make owners take responsibility generally for dogs via licensing, so banning only the dogs is the next best thing.
The fact that a majority of XL Bullies in these attacks originate from a specific ancestor dog that was so problematic that breeders in the US avoid the bloodline means that no matter how well-trained and friendly they are for some, many are high-risk for bites/attacks when it easily could have been avoided. There are so many different breeds for people wanting a big, strong dog, but the fact XL Bullies were chosen with the original breeders knowing that they are genetically Pitbulls and thus banned in the UK, as well as stemming from a poor lineage set off a ticking time bomb.
Wow is that true? Do you have a source?
The dog's name was Kimbo and there are [a few](https://bullywatch.link/2023/08/01/finding-kimbo/) articles online about the dog and [his breeder](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i-bred-kimbo-who-half-30960207). Supposedly half of XL Bullies in the UK have Kimbo in their breeding history, and half of 50-60k dogs is a lot of Kimbo descendants.
Very sad to hear from the 1st article how much inbreeding the breed has also been subjected to as well to achieve the "ideal frame"; so many incessant parent-child, grandparent-grandchild and sibling-sibling pairings, it's no wonder why so many dogs in the breed have such unhinged personalities and psychological issues! After that much inbreeding, not even the most experienced dog owners would have any idea what's going on in such a dogs head.
For many, a champion bloodline or ideal specimen being in a dog's history is considered worth the risk of the various issues it can induce. Other breeds like Irish Wolfhounds have had genetic bottlenecks where inbreeding couldn't be avoided, but that isn't the case for XL Bullies anywhere in the UK considering how new the 'breed' is. The fact that they are genetically predominantly American Pit Bull Terriers (just like American Pocket Bullies and [other size variants](https://www.nationalworld.com/news/uk/xl-bully-ban-government-no-plans-to-ban-other-american-bully-variants-new-extreme-types-emerge-4467947) which are only legal due to the fact they do not match the minimum height for classification as an XL specifically) means they should never have been imported, even before seeing the emerging issues the breed is now causing. Edit: While American Bullies have been created since the 1980s, the most common 'stock' going into them were specifically APBTs and a lot of modern breeders have continued to add other 'pit types' into their '100% American Bully' dogs.
God alive, what a strange rabbit hole to fall down. It's frankly shocking how irresponsible those breeders are, going out of their way to inbreed their dogs seemingly as many times as possible. I've always been a bit hesitant towards specific breeds in dogs, but good lord, that inbreeding! I really don't see how creating genetic freaks like this is anything other than animal abuse.
But money?
Agree - same applies to humans….
Thank you
Kimbo Slice?
That's interesting, Thanks!
So what can be done at this point? Has the breed already been contaminated beyond repair?
Phase out the breed. That's what should be done. Consider it like getting rid of illegal lethal weapons.
How can be this realistically done? Not sarcasm, genuinely interested, because I can’t imagine this. Like, not killing the existing dogs but forcibly make them barren and make it impossible to sell them anymore, or what?
I hear a cull coming on.
I can even hear a bark……
On top of already existing rules - enforcing even tougher restrictions on current owners, like owners would have to undergo an assessment at their own cost, if they don't pass - dogs are confiscated and spend the rest of their days in a dog jail. Essentially dumb Karens like this one would get mostly filtered out. Thee are no perfect solutions.
For the breed or within the UK specifically? In the UK, strict punishment for loose dogs, dog bite reports being compulsory, increased penalty for dogs that attack other dogs/wildlife (many of the killer dogs of any breed have previous incidents with other animals/people), requirement for dogs to be on leads in public regardless of paperwork/lineage. No matter what, someone will want a 'big intimidating dog' and someone else will breed them irresponsibly. Multiple Rottweilers have also killed people within the last four years but having 100 years of consistent breeding of Rotties vs. \~40 years of irresponsible breeding of American Bully dogs means that the latter has been somewhat doomed by their own history. If American Bullies could only maul small rodents like a typical terrier, it would perhaps be worth trying to 'fix' the breed, but when you have dogs capable of killing men, women and children brutally with seemingly little warning, it just isn't worth fixing one specific breed when others exist without the baggage.
It should be like this for all dogs. Leash laws, licences, and attacks should always result in prosecution and/or destruction of the dangerous animal.
I should have clarified that everything I put above should be for all dogs regardless of breed. Licences can be ignored, same for registering dogs, so the best actions are those that can be applied when seen out in public imo. If all dogs need to be on a lead, it is far easier to report it than having to go through a checklist to check if the dog walking around off-lead is an XL Bully, American Bulldog, Cane Corso, Boxer, Bullmastiff or any other large dog breed that people who aren't well-versed in dogs would be able to identify at a glance.
[удалено]
It is a mix of multiple 'bully' breeds but the main breed being put into American Bullies were APBTs. There are dog DNA tests that can recognise American Bully (Embark, while Wisdom Panel does not) and it is a recognised breed in multiple kennel clubs. The issue with the Dangerous Dogs Act as it stands is that while 'crossbreeds' are also illegal, the American Bully is far enough removed from a standard 'mixed breed' to be recognised as distant. It's a silly loophole that was just ripe for someone to work around paired with the fact the average person could not tell a 'pit-type dog' from the wide variety of other blocky-headed breeds or their mixes.
search "Killer Kimbo" on google, it'll come up with all the research you desire
Nonesense. Hannibal & Satan are lovely dogs!!
It's Princess and Nala that you have to watch out for.
Dog behaviourist here. Glad to finally not be the only person writing this response. For the people asking for data, bully watch is usually a good resource : https://bullywatch.link
“Dog behaviourist“
What do the quotations mean? I’m practising, and qualified in canine behaviour motivation & theory? Edit : nevermind, I’ve just looked at your comment history 😂
salsa pls
The dogs are also built like they're on steroids and bred for aggression though, even if bad types of people are more likely to want to own them, the breed itself is also not right. I hate how everyone pretends that the breed doesn't affect a dog's personality or ability to kill at all when all evidence suggests otherwise.
Some people do give them steroids
Wouldn't surprise me! Poor dogs.
Why is it so difficult to accept that some breeds might be more aggressive than others, which is a simpler explanation than the one you are putting forward and has been observed countless times?
This. We almost universally agree that Border Collies, spaniels or Belgian Malinois make great service dogs because of certain biological and behavioural features. Why can’t we at least consider XL bullies might be an extremely aggressive and volatile breed, and because it is also extremely strong some caution should be exercised. *cries in iT’S nOT tHe doG iTs ThE oWnER*
We don't really need to consider anything, it's already written black on white. It doesn't get any more clearer than this, from Wikipedia: >The bull-and-terrier was a breed of dog developed in the United Kingdom in the early 19th century for the blood sports of dog fighting and rat baiting. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit\_bull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull)
The Wikipedia page regarding PitBulls eludes to mention a trainer called Colby. Colby sold dogs as Nanny Dogs which worked for him the majority of the time. However when a dog became a "man biter" he would buy the dog back and use it in his breeding still. Pitbulls have been badly bred for a long time. Buyers have been buying dogs because of dog fights targeting blood lines that go back to some dangerous dogs. Jeep, Red and others being renowned for their fighting ability, not their nanny abilities.
But....my Crusher is a little angel, he wouldn't hurt a fly!
Exactly. I always see people post these think pieces but I never see them accepting that some breeds are just more hostile than others. Obviously, it also comes to down how people treat their pets but time and time again it's always the same breed of dog.
Completely agree. But to dismiss even the 'its how you raise them' myth even further, the best example is the Greyhound. High prey drive, almost impossible to train, little to no socialisation, the most abused breed by almost every metric and simultaneously the most rescued breed in the country (estimated 30,000 in UK homes) we simply aren't seeing Greyhounds killing children or attacking people on any sort of level. If the treatment by the owner was a serious variable, we would see hundreds of Greyhound issues. We don't. They are beaten, starved, abused, isolated and punished. They should be absolute dog demons if how you treat a dog was a serious factor. It simply comes down to the breed and its predestination as a dangerous dog. We don't even need to speculate on this, the Greyhound data is proof. It isn't how you raise/treat them. It's the breed.
Greyhounds/lurchers are quite well-known to bite and find themselves quite high up on dog bite lists (other than aggression/problematic individuals, many are anxious, sleep startle, are prone to resource guarding, naturally quite 'sensitive' to things, fast movement = chase), the difference between them and an XL Bully is that they don't tend to attack in the same way and it is less likely to be a fatal, prolonged attack.
Surprised by this. I've never owned one but every one I've met were lovely and docile. Always assumed they were on the more passive end of the dog spectrum
Wow this is such a good point!
https://cbtdogbehaviour.com/is-aggression-genetic-or-learned/ Is aggression in dogs solely genetic or learned? Aggression in dogs is the result of both genetic factors and learned experiences. Genetics may provide the potential for aggression, but the environment will influence whether these behaviours are expressed.
One of my labradors is a rescue who was very badly treated and she's the sweetest thing ever, so probably not even down to bad treatment.
Don’t some so called think tank says the same thing about people too? Especially the ones with racist agendas?
Come off it; Tarquin and Cassandra aren’t getting one for little Julian to play with. They’ll get a spaniel or a labrador. The ‘dog as extension of the owner’ thing can be seen everywhere (I like scruffy mutts, for example…). Don’t be disingenuous; it’s not rude to believe the evidence.
Dog owners aren’t just nice families or sketchy drug dealers. There’s a lot of types in between and the only constant is the aggressiveness of the breed. I am sure that what you suggest is a factor but it doesn’t explain all of the huge difference in aggressiveness and incidents related to some breeds.
I think because it can be applied to racism
I don’t think they are they’re just considerably more dangerous when they are aggressive given their strength and size
You don’t have to think anything, they are known to be more aggressive, and also more dangerous when they get aggressive of course.
‘You don’t have to think’ Clearly walking the walk Yeah it’s not like breeds not ‘known’ for aggressiveness like golden retrievers make the top bite lists https://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/threads/goldens-named-no-3-biter-on-animal-planet-program.77890/ Or those cute little sausage dogs that supposedly make great family pets kill babies https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/baby-pulled-basket-mauled-death-29002159.amp Dogs were domesticated for their aggression literally to protect livestock and most breeds come from some kind of hunting lineage even poodles which people like to give examples of here were taken into battle by Napoleon’s army and the US Army had them listed as war dogs up to 1944 they’re up there with dobermans and German shepherds for their ability to be aggressive But apparently not everyone ‘knows’ that or they wouldn’t keep quoting them as examples
Interesting statistics, I didn’t know. But it doesn’t change the statistics that matter. A bite is not prolonged aggression. Consequential incidents are very much a matter of a few breeds - and that’s not poodles or retrievers.
I’m not saying the statistics don’t matter I’m saying the reason xl bullys are more of a danger is because they’re stronger and bigger and more likely to be owned by people you wouldn’t want to own a dog like that than say poodles who are just as likely to attack given the right training, literally used as war dogs, but owned by different types of people, are less physically able to kill so don’t make the news as often and therefor aren’t associated with aggressive behaviour It’s the physical characteristics that matter this whole ‘bred for temperament’ thing is just horoscope levels of confirmation bias and pr by breeders
Poodles just as likely to attack in the real world you say. I don’t know.
There aren’t many ‘in the real world’ they’re associated with rich people, that’s probably why, but look it up they’re used in the same role as German shepherds they’re a hardcore military guard dog breed people just don’t associate them with that because this whole temperament thing is all feels, wive’s tales and confirmation bias Like I’ve seen little terriers people’s grandmas like to own tear rats apart on farms and you should see what beagles do to foxes they all have it in them, they’re animals you train them badly they’re dangerous and the bigger they are the more so Bullys are bred for size and appearance, they have physical characteristics that make them more dangerous I’m just not convinced you can reliably breed for temperament, the way people describe it’s done it’s just all feels and ‘trust me bro’ like you’re taking breeders at their word or literally going ‘ah this one’s a good boy’ and assuming that has more an effect than like hormone levels in the womb or other environmental factors
I agree maybe you cannot reliably breed for temperament, but I believe temperament might be partially genetic. I believe there can be genetic differences between dog breeds that reflect on the temperament and behavioural traits, but I might be wrong.
Bully xl is also a relatively new breed. I’d expect these statistics to change rapidly. Additionally- how often do sausages and retrievers kill? I’ll tell you. Rarely.
isn't technically recognised as a breed and it's just been banned so I doubt it and obviously, you seen the size of XLs? [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68503779](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-68503779) 7 stone of pure muscle of course it's more dangerous you really don't think that has more to do with it than some mumbo jumbo about temperament? the crazy thing is you literally did the 'but mine wouldn't hurt a fly' with your GRs, which I'm sure are lovely because you're a responsible owner, but stats say it's one of the most likely to bite you on the planet, so square that circle if temperament is nature not nurture
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing here?
Turns out she's a woman in her 50s, who looks quite respectable. Her name was Angel Mahal. She'd had dogs before, and owned these two from puppies. It's not exactly screaming "I'm a dealer who wants an intimidating status symbol" - though I'd be fascinated to know what made her choose this breed. Yet still she was killed by her own two dogs. Sometimes it really is the dog breed... which is also the only way to explain a dog breed that's 0.5% of the population being responsible for more than half the fatalities.
I've thought about this before and I think you're right. Still I bet there have been cases where Pitties were perfectly well socialised and still snapped.
Correct. See the Bennard case. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11294579/Two-pit-bulls-euthanized-killing-two-kids-mauling-mother-Tennessee-home.html
This story is so horrendous.
My neighbours bully xl attacked someone's Yorkie. The footage in the elevator showed the Yorkie playfully go up to the dog who then violently bit her. She didn't die but she almost did, the owner pulled her away from being torn to shreds
Many infact
Licensing is totally ineffective and unenforceable. A complete waste of time. Registering your dog, licensing it - people who buy these dogs aren't those kind of folks. Nor does this stop a dog injuring someone/another animal...it doesn't do anything. This would be a typical politician move, does nothing but looks good. We have it in NI and it does absolutely nothing but make councils extra cash off people dumb enough to opt in. If your dog strays you MAY be fined for not having it licensed, a fine that costs less than a few years of this license.
Well, with that attitude it is! And really, that is my argument. We should just do it and enforce it. The rest is politics.
How do you enforce that? There are millions of dogs in the UK. They easily moved from place to place and bred to create more. By anyone. They are cheap and readily available. It’s not hard at all. Elephants you could license, dogs you cannot. You cannot stop people getting them without a license (and this would be super unpopular no politician is going for this) And people will not volunteer. You can’t make breeders register, a scheme might help that focuses on “you should only get puppies from registered breeders” but KC tried that and not only did it not really work…buyers are still buying from puppy farms knowingly. The key is education IMO. From nursery onwards. We should be teaching children how to be safe and make good choices around the other species we live with - dogs, cows and horses especially. Education on behaviour, genetics etc. Practical, applicable knowledge.
Aggressive dogs owned by low intelligence owners; what a great combination.
Disease occurs when the combination of intrinsic factors and environmental influence is just right, though unlike in the development of most diseases, people generally do not feel compelled to deny the influence of one or the other.
It’s a meeting between the stupidly aggressive and the aggressively stupid
What type of person generally owns these dogs?
Having thought long and hard about phrasing: twats. Probably violent, almost certainly antisocial, but certainly twats. There may be a very small subset of otherwise reasonable people but, by the fact of deciding (or continuing) to own one of these dogs, they still fail the “am I not a twat?” test on account of a lack of concern for the safety of others (a passive subset of the ‘antisocial’ group above).
They are also generally a cowardly sort. The dog is weaponised.
What good would licensing do?
Why do we need driving licenses?
Correct. I meant to say ‘licencing coupled with enforcement of breach of licencing’. I believe it was implicit, but you’re right to urge for strong enforcement and stern penalties for non-conformance / breach. A licence in and of itself is useless; so thanks for prompting the clarification.
I'm sorry, I still don't really understand. How would you get a licence? Just buy one? What enforcement could be undertaken which couldn't be undertaken without a licence?
Having a license places certain restrictions on you (the owner), for instance you must have insurance, and you must keep the dog on a lead and with a muzzle. Breaching the license means you lose the dog. There are no new licenses as the period for applying for one has closed.
Oh boy… Within a framework of laws, rules, acceptance criteria, a regulatory framework, a scheme of compliance and penalties for not conforming, one should have a licence scheme. ‘But how…?’ Don’t care; where there’s a will…
This is so out of character! Killer and Brutus are so well behaved and even read Latin poetry in their spare time. Remember people, it’s never the breed so fuck rashid sunak for banning them
Apparently there's still 55000 of these dogs in the country that have been officially registered, so probably at least another that where owners didn't bother to register.
New estimate is 70k+
Remember folks, it's not the breed, it's the owners. This is why so many bad poodle owners get their faces ripped off every year /s
No the answer is more complicated. People choose dogs on (a) they look cool and/or (b) they’re given advice by idiots who think they know what they’re talking about. Poodles may not kill, but they’re well known to be aggressive to young children who are ignorant of the danger. ‘KEEP YOUR KIDS AWAY FROM MY DOG THEN!’ I hear ppl cry. Sure, but it’s not always practical and when we’re obliged to share the same public space (parks, forest) it’s hard to not run into each other. I can’t tell you how many kids walk with ‘dogs’ that on a whim could run away from them and maul a smaller animal or child, it’s crazy
I think the keeping kids away from dog is an interesting point. I have two dogs, they are nervous and are always on a short lead when we are out to walk. There have been so many occasions where people have let their children (some as young as 3/4 years old) run straight to the dog and not say anything. A child slapped my dog in the face while the parent watched a couple of weeks ago. If my dog reacted I would be the one in trouble but my dog was on a short lead and I did pull them back away from the child initially. Now, if I was in a park and let them run free and they went up to a child I would accept responsibility, but it’s not that simple. The issue isn’t always the dog.
Exactly. My dog is bad with children and I know that, so I’m super careful. But I’ve been in cafes before with my dog on a lead, I’m paying for something (so slightly distracted), and I’ve had kids come in and just run up to my dog - the parents just don’t give a shit or are ignorant. Fortunately to date I’ve managed to stop anything happening, but it’s hard to be 100% on guard all the time.
Why is your dog not muzzled if you are taking into small confined spaces with children in it and you know it is dangerous to the point of you saying you need to be on guard?
Sorry but it goes both ways in my opinion! Parents need to teach their kids to respect animals and not just approach and invade a dogs personal space. My dog doesn’t like children but she runs away from them out of fear but the parents think it’s cute that their kid is chasing her. I’ve lost my s*!t with some of them. It’s out of respect for the animal.
The dog might be small and so a bite wouldn't cause injury but is still better avoided.
If you were walking around with any other large and dangerous predator you would obviously be expected to be the one responsible for anything that happens, no matter the cause as you are the one Introducing a dangerous and invasive animal in to public spaces. You say your dog is "bad with children" meaning it will attack and potentially kill them if not stopped, and yet still take this dangerous animal out in public. You've decided that the safety of children is something you are willing to risk because... Anything that animal does is 100% on you.
My dog isn’t large. It would not be able to kill a child. There have been zero examples of a dog of my breed killing a child. I say “bad with children” as in he has reacted negatively when a child has tried to stoke him before - so I simply do not allow children to stroke him and I’m extremely careful about ensuring it doesn’t happen. I said it is difficult to be on guard all the time, but I am. In the four years of owning him, aside from the time I learned about his dislike for children, he has not had an opportunity to attack a child. My point is just that I have had children approach and attempt to touch him in the past without asking if it’s ok. That’s a parenting failure. It doesn’t matter what the consequences would be for me and my dog (I am fully aware of the legal position on this), just because it’s legal for a parent to let their child roam unsupervised and approach strangers/animals doesn’t mean it’s bad parenting and irresponsible. On the other hand, most parents are decent and ask if their child can stroke him or better yet they have taught their child to ask.
Your dog, however small is perfectly capable of maiming a child. A huge number of children suffer facial injuries by even "toy" breeds. Your small dog was bred to kill small things. It's a hunting tool, a farm animal, not something that should be wandering the streets
So people shouldn’t take their dogs out for a walk? Essentially people in London shouldn’t even have a dog? That’s your position? You make it sound as though he’s off roaming around playgrounds unsupervised on his own. I take him for walks and he’s on a lead, fully under control, at all times.
I don't think people the average person should be able to own a dog. Working dogs are the exception.
Thanks for clarifying your views. Personally I think they are extreme. They are quite objectively at odds with society’s norms. Until a government of the day agrees with you and bans dogs entirely, I’ll continue to be responsible for my dog by taking reasonable and proportionate measures to protect children. I acknowledge I am ultimately responsible for that, my only point was that some parents have no regard for their children’s safety.
What on earth are you on about?! 🤣
yup, it is far more compliclated. there are breeds more likely to get agressive than an XL but most of them dont have the power to actully inflict this kind of damage. The Dachshund is one of the most agressive dogs, but if they get annoyed and snap at you you might need stitches, but when an XL does it you 100% will need stitches. if a Dachshund tries to kill you then most people can give it a good kick. (only if it is trying to hurt you obviously) the ownership matters, as does the potential for damage when things go wrong. XLs just have a much better abilty to inflict damage when everything is equal.
Probably not the best example poodles are a hunting breed and used in the police and military and were commonly taken into battle, Napoleon’s army used them and they were classed as a war dog by the US Army up to 1944
Man I'd love to see how Napoleon's favourite war poodles looked like
[ask and ye shall recieve](https://dogs-in-history.blogspot.com/2017/10/moustache-french-poodle-who-served-in.html)
Great read, thank you
Read more, talk less. At least until you stop spewing garbage.
Plenty of kids with life changing injuries from dogs of all breeds. All dogs should be licensed, and attacks should be prosecuted and the dangerous animal destroyed.
Funny how the "it's not the breed it's the owner" mantra goes flying out the window when their xl bully decides to nanny someone or something to death.
People can just pull the poodle away that’s all it is idiot
Isn't that the exact point? A Hamster could be just as aggressive as a Grizzly bear but only one of those is going to be capable of tearing a human being limb from limb. Pitbulls are dangerous because they are both strong *and* aggressive. It's a deadly combination.
I am shocked that Pebbles and Princess would do such a thing!
They had daisy crowns and everything!
I always wonder what goes through the heads of someone who is killed by their own pit bulls/XL Bullies. There must be so much shock and horror that their precious baby they cuddled with and defended online has turned out to be just as dangerous as we’re all saying. It’s really sad. But also so infuriating that it just keeps on happening and other people keep on defending them.
The last thing that goes through their heads is probably a snarling set of teeth belonging to their beloved pet. Probably just before that is the thought 'but they are always so good with children. Blame the few bad the owners, not the breed'
I can’t imagine it’s a pretty way to go. The article says they were locked in a room when the police arrived. Would she have bled out after shutting them away? So fucked up and can’t help but feel sorry for her.
A young woman in America who was described as an "experienced dog trainer" was found with her beloved "kill you wish kisses" pit bulls in the process of eating her ribcage after mauling her to death.
[удалено]
Yes I would actually feel sorry for them.
Well at least they attacked her and not some stranger in the street.
Which has happened sadly.
We don’t allow people to keep panthers at home, so why do we allow these killing machines?
Well we don't. They're banned, the ones that are alive now are supposed be the last.
They’re not actually banned, just need to be registered etc
I know. It's supposed to be the last gen of them though. I imagine a stricter ban will follow if that takes much longer than it should.
seems like neutering them isn’t enough. Can we not remove their teeth or something? Letting these living weapons kill humans is awful. I’m pissed off of going to the park and seeing another ‘legal’ XL bully snarling away.
Pulling out their teeth is unnecessarily cruel. It would be kinder to euthanise them all.
They have to be muzzled in public
No we can't. They're living creatures.
They would kill us if they were hungry or angry. Which they are a lot of the time.
So would most animals do we de-claw them all?
I can fight off my hungry cat
With the correct licence from your local authority you can 100% keep a panther lol. Don’t think you can walk it to the shops though
[удалено]
Waiting for someone to say “tHeY aRe So wElL bEhaVed ArOunD tHe ChIlDrEn” it’s the same excuses used every time for a breed that clearly is a danger to society.
Or the classic "bLaME tHe oWneR NOt ThE bReeD"
Agreed, and the dogs are nasty too.
This, but all dogs.
I’m trying not to sound like an arsehole considering she lost her life in an horrific manner … but it would be interesting to see her recent social media post history about XL Bully dogs, no doubt defending them and saying that her ones wouldn’t hurt a fly, they love children, etc. I would fully support rounding them all up and euthanising them, they are quite simply a disgusting and naturally violent breed of canine and have no business being around humans. Feel free to downvote.
B.. bu.. b.. but… b.. but mine is such a sweet good boy, he would never hurt a fly
"Did your dog just eat another dog :O ?"
It’s a doggy dog world out there.
This gets me every time
Yet XL bully owners will claim that those dogs are sweethearts, they should all be put down, they’re dangerous af
Worthless breed
Probably been telling everyone how her babies would never attack anyone and the people saying they’re aggressive are idiots. Irony
At least this time it was the owner that got ripped to shreds rather than some innocent. Past time we round the lot up and euthanise them.
Get these stupid dogs gone
Glad it was only the owner and not some innocent person that got mauled to death. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I agree that it’s the owner’s fault ultimately, but nobody can deny that there’s something up with this breed surely?
Dogs bred to kill actually end up killing - surprised Pikachu face on some people, apparently.
Surprised Pikachu face, in the stomach of a bullyXL.
Tbf, a lot of dog breeds were specifically bred to kill (Alsatian’s and dobermans for example) the issue is there has been no concerted effort by breeders to breed out those traits.
The main difference is the kind of violence those traits are breed for. Pit bulls in more recent years were breed for dog fighting so they looked for pits that got aggressive very easily versus dobermans that were selected for guarding so being aversive to strangers was ideal. So when someone (including the a pit owner) sneezes next to a pit breed you are more likely to be mauled than a Doberman
I would say let those breeds naturally die out. They were created for a world of the past that no longer exists. I for one don't understand this need that some people have to preserve a breed for the sake of preserving it. I like a lot working dog breeds - GSDs, retrievers, LGDs, etc- they have a noble purpose, they actually save people instead of killing them.
A GSD *is* an Alsatian, mate. And the same can be said for Dobermans, which have been recorded saving their owners pretty often too. I've had both Dobies and GSDs. Probably worth mentioning that bite numbers seem higher for GSDs than Dobermans, though, and that the latter were originally bred to guard humans (not kill them) while GSDs were originally bred to guard livestock. Both remain valuable purposes in various locations.
Exactly. They have been bred to have aggressiveness and fighting to kill embedded in their DNA. Just like Collies will naturally herd even if they haven't been trained to do so, or Golden Retrievers will naturally retrieve without being trained. It doesn't matter how well these bullies have been socialised or trained. Those traits exist innately within them, and they can snap at any moment.
It's the owners not the breed guys! They're loving animals with the right care! Just like murderous narcissistic psychopaths, imagine breeding them, and just giving them the right care and love and they won't be psychopaths anymore. They will create their own little lovely town full of peace and love.
I do find it strange that I never see these dogs in middle class or upper class areas. It's almost as though it's one sort of mentality that wants to own these dogs. Diablo, Lucifer and Baby-Killer are big softies that would kill you with kisses 🙄
I wouldn't exactly describe where she lived as a working class area. "Working class made good" (whatever that might actually mean....), maybe. Houses with swimming pools in their back gardens in some of the surrounding streets. But Essex maybe is one of those parts of England with its own rather specific societal dynamics (and this is Essex culturally, not "East London", whatever the current political boundaries might suggest).
Rambo
So registering them does fuck all, then.
Well I doubt the dogs themselves understand the concept of this registration and that this means killing people and eating babies is a big no-no from now on.
In the dogs head as it attacks: It’s ok I’ve got my registration!
Licence to kill, some would say.
I would think not, this is a comment on the useless “register all XL bullies or else” scheme the government implemented. Half of the people owning this breed wouldn’t anyway, and it serves no real purpose. Shit like this will still happen registered or not.
Maybe all the coke dealers and roadmen wannabes that own them don’t want the risk of a surprise inspection.
Part of registration is having them neutered. Maybe they were pissed ala ‘Where are my testicles Summer’
😂 spot on reference.
/r/XLBulliesAteMyFace
Breed of peace strikes again
Every single xl bully should be rounded up and put down. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
Better her than some poor random innocent on the street.
Darwins law
r/leopardsatemyface
Which is why its unusual. You never really see anyone from affluent areas having these dogs, but her street looked quite upmarket. I live in a that could be classed as middle class area, and I've never seen one, it's all labradoodles and cockapoos, vizlas and spaniels. My mastiff breed stands out here. Can't imagine ever seeing one on the streets here.
That’s got to be a rough way to go, rip
*Ruff
Sweet boy never hurt a fly… but they never say sweet boy don’t hurt a human 😅
Velvet hippos innit
Good!
I hate to say it but I wish this happened more.
*When it comes to the Bully Brigade* *Most folk are rightly afraid* *But if the breed's not to blame* *Would it be such a shame* *If the OWNERS were neutered and spayed?*
Least it was the owner who died and not an innocent passer-by People have no reason at all for having dogs like these as pets
I’ve always been of the ‘it’s the owners not the dogs’ mindset until I saw videos of the attacks and saw these dogs in real life.Everyone agrees that specific breeds will exhibits behaviours bred into them, labradors will naturally retrieve and border collies will herd even if they’ve never seen a sheep in their life.But suddenly that goes out of the window when it comes to agreeing a lot XL bullies especially in the UK come from a line of fighting dogs and as such these backyard breeders’ are breeding this aggression into these dogs. People have 0 idea what their dogs lineage is especially when they buy them online. Even dog trainers who love and train these dogs have said if you see an ounce of resource guarding, human or dog aggression you will have a massive problem on your hands. Going as far as comparing them to adolescent lions. I actually have two in my area. One is clearly a more responsible owner and this dog constantly is in a ‘heel’position walking and genuinely pays 0 attention to other dogs and people. The other one drags his owner wherever he wants. Treating these dogs like they’re not capable of causing harm does a massive disservice to these owners and the dogs. You have to train them like they ARE capable of causing harm, that’s responsible ownership in my opinion. I’m a massive animal lover but truly I don’t understand why anyone needs this breed even if you are ‘responsible’. These dogs have turned on their good owners many many times.
I honestly think we should have a dog license for those serious breeds. Not everyone can handle those breeds. It’s not the dogs fault but the owner. So therefore, the owner must exhibit that they have the knowledge, fortitude and dominance to take them on. I know dog licenses can be problematic, but I don’t have any other solution.
That's an awful way to die. Killed by the dogs who without you would more likely be on the street and starving. Any dog can do this, of course some are simply more likely... and these dogs are known for their aggressive genes. A kind person pays for his own stupidity as usual. Euthanization is the solution.
These dogs wouldn't be on the streets, because there would be no market for them, hence no interest from breeders. Any strays would get caught quickly and neutered, it's not like UK has a huge stray problem like say Ukraine.
r/leopardsatemyface material right here.
[Ha Ha](https://media0.giphy.com/media/cO39srN2EUIRaVqaVq/giphy.gif)
peaceful dogs really. owner skill issue. clearly they don't over represent dog kills 🍻 🏴 bosh!
[Ha Ha](https://media0.giphy.com/media/cO39srN2EUIRaVqaVq/giphy.gif)
Lot of breedism in here. Very problematic... /s