Xl Bully Dogs

My social media feed is full of heartbroken people who love these monster pets, and for whom the prospect of muzzling their semi tame hyaena is tantamount to a hate crime.

Tbh, I'd never even heard of an XL bully until about 6 months ago, but now I can't avoid hearing about them.

I don't really care what happens to them, as long as one doesn't attack my kids, but as it's such a hot topic, what do you all think of these vicious predator nanny dogs?

 

Most of these dogs are perfectly fine. Train them correctly and it's not an issue

 

I've never understood why anyone would keep a pet that was capable of eating them

 

I’m in two minds on this.

I appreciate that trained properly with a responsible owner they can have a different temperament but the potential to revert to type is always there. I’m sure you could train a bloodhound to walk on its hind legs balancing a ball, but there’s potential for that dog’s instinct to follow its nose at some point. Equally, with (a lot of) effort put in you could train a beagle to be good off lead, but at some point that soppy little sod could potentially get distracted and run off. These muscle dogs are cross bred with the nastiest ****ers and not recognised with the kennel club over here. Their instinct is to kill and imho the potential is always there for them to revert to type. What happens when: the owner isn’t around?/that XL doesn’t particularly like that other dog over there?/that little kid kicking that ball in the park is irritating that XL?

That said I agree that owners are also the problem. A lot of them are not getting these dogs to be family pets and banning one breed is just kicking the can down the road. As you say, who knew about them 18 months ago? In 18 months time they’ll probably just cross breed something else that has the potential to kill

 

I don't see the point in them. What's the attraction to a prospective owner exactly?

 

I don't care how well they're "trained", they are capable of killing a fully grown adult, let alone children.

There is absolutely no need for dangerous dog breeds in domestic homes. If you want a dog there are plenty of breeds to choose from that are not capable of killing you or others.

 

It makes them feel big and tough when, in many cases, they are actually small and sad.

 

This. There are plenty of breeds (I also think pugs should be banned on the basis that the breed have severe breathing problems), however the idea that even with a very good owner a dog that is incredibly muscular would be near impossible to suppress in an emergency. Why anyone with children in their home would want one is beyond me.
They're very ugly too.

 

Most XL Bullies are very fond of children, but couldn’t eat a whole one in a single sitting.

 

They have an incredibly high prey drive, which means they are prone to attack other dogs and humans. Plenty of other dogs also have high prey drives, but they aren’t capable of killing humans or other dogs, just maybe rodents and rats etc. If an XL bully follows its instincts then the result is likely to be very unpleasant.

Of course this type of dog attracts (not exclusively of course) the worst type of owner, who most likely won’t train the dog properly, socialise it or exercise is as they should, so you have a perfect storm.

So I personally feel it’s neither a case of the dog or the owners fault, but a combination of both.

The reality is these dogs are wholly unnecessary, it’s a bit like the gun argument in the US, you could maybe make a case for someone owning a handgun, but how can you make a case for someone owning an automatic weapon capable of mass murder?

I'm not sure why so many owners are complaining though, they were all able to apply for exemptions to keep their dogs, and muzzling them and ensuring they’re on a lead while they’re in public really isn’t any sort of hardship, I have a miniature Dachshund who is highly reactive, so I sometimes put a muzzle on her in certain public situations, she doesn’t like it but it is better for everyone including her, there simply is no issue doing it, and even if I didn’t she wouldn’t kill anyone.

Going forward these people just need to choose a dog that isn’t capable of killing humans, there are plenty to choose from.

 

I’ve been unfortunate enough to see some of the videos of what they’re capable of, and sadly I don’t think this is true.

(I know it’s a joke)

 

Protection and gang status innit ?
If people could keep safe fully trained dogs of this type, why not a house-trained lion, tiger or leopard ? It would fun taking your cheetah for a walk and watching him "fetch" all the other dogs balls.

 

Horrible stuff. I’m angered when I of reports of children getting hurt by these dogs, often because family members can’t put the safety of children before their own egos.

Dogs appear to have something of the place in UK hearts that guns do in some US ones.

 

Dogs should be limited to Cocker Spaniel size by law. Then it would still kick off from time to time, but hilariously.

 

All dogs can be trained properly, but the risk always remains that they could instinctively snap. Though, I’d rather be attacked by a Pomeranian than a bear sized dog if I had the unfortunate choice.

Having an XL Bully is no different to having a domesticated lion on a leash. Except, completely legal (until February 2024).

No one in their right mind needs a dog like the XL Bully. There’s absolutely no reason for their existence as a pet dog - and there’s 100’s of other dog breeds to chose from if the “look” is how someone choses their pet.

I for one, am glad that I can go to a park, without the fear of being ripped to the bone by a dog, owned by someone who has a green bean for a ****!

 

I agree with most of the above. No need for people to keep dogs like that.
Sad thing is there will still be incidents because some people don't think the law applies to them.

 

What a ridiculous statement.

 

I assume he means the large dangerous dogs that are kept by men 20-40 for protection in place of a firearm that could be carried in the US.

 

Well, yes I would agree with some of that (it's not all men of that age, is it? It's a very small minority) but that wasn't what was said.

 

It's a weird inversion of 'Love me, love my dog' changing it to 'fear my dog, fear me.'

 

What was it you believe was meant? People have guns in the US because they think they need them for protection and for image/cultural factors. For them that trumps the antisocial behaviour. Guns don’t kill, people kill is pretty much a parallel to no bad dogs, just bad owners. Thing is, when things go wrong guns or big massive dogs with huge biting force can do disproportionate harm, harm that proponents of both big dogs and guns like to rationalise away.

I know you like to take the contrary view as a posting style, but I am not even the only person on this thread to take this view and you haven’t made a coherent refutation.

 

Does that include Labradors?

 

Because they are mostly nice dogs. The same with Rottweilers and Dobermans. Powerful dogs that had an awful press partly to do with being portrayed as vicious in TV and film. My sister in Law had a Doberman that was the softest dog you could ever wish to see. My friend has a beautiful Rottweiler which again is very friendly. They both are very strong dogs that could kill a small child. In fact most dogs above the size of a spaniel could do a lot of damage.

 

You seem to be suggesting dogs - all dogs, you didn't qualify it in your first statement - are as lethal as guns.

That is palpable nonsense. All guns (except fake ones) can kill. Only a minority of dogs can do so.

Absolutely nothing to do with my posting style.

 

Difference is Dobermans and Rottweilers are established breeds who have had decades and decades of selective breeding to eliminate certain bad traits out, so although they are potentially dangerous dogs, they generally aren’t and fatalities are very, very rare.

Xl Bullies are relatively new, and haven’t been bred for the very specific jobs that Dobermans and Rottweilers were decades and decades ago, they’ve been bred without any particular job in mind, just to look big and mean and be highly aggressive with a very very high prey drive, hence the increased risk to humans.

As a child we also owned a Doberman who was the nicest dog we’ve ever had, they can still turn and cause damage, but years and years of selective breeding mean they generally don’t.

The proof really is in the pudding with regards to the amount of attacks attributed to XL bullies.

 

No, my post was purposefully qualified, something of the place I wrote. You know full well I don’t mean those tiny dogs that seem to grow out of old ladies’ armpits.

It has everything to do with your posting style and if you carry on I’m coming back with my imaginary big forum hound.

 

I didn't know full well at all, which is why I called it out. How do I know you don't just hate dogs?

Why didn't you write 'Attack Dogs' or 'Big ******* Dogs' then? You explicitly equated 'Dogs' (in general) and 'Guns'.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of Labradors being known as a breed that is prone to attacking humans and inflicting serious, and potentially fatal, wounds when they do.

But if you have evidence that they are dangerous, with a high prey instinct, that makes them likely to inflict serious injury, then yes, I would want them banned too. I suspect that's not the case though.

 

Close thread. I'm agreeing with Moose and I need a lie down

 

All kinds of bullfighters should be banned

 

You might have guessed from this reply I made to you a few months back.

 

Interesting to see how many fatal attacks are by XL Bullys since 2020:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom

There shouldn't be any need for discussion. The breed is clearly dangerous and has rightly been banned.

 

Well fair enough but I don't retain memory of every post you have ever made!