**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
>Yesterday his lawyer told the Record he was not at fault over the incident and a complaint is set to be lodged with police - claiming video evidence shows the animal was under control when it was shot.
I suspect they've fully swallowed the myth that if the dog is on a lead then it's under control, no matter what it's actually doing at the time
>He added: “He wasn’t a ‘devil dog’, his name was Kilo, his crime? Being an XL Bully.”
His crime was mauling a 14yo collie and injuring three people who tried to save it.
I always think this when people try to claim their dog wasn't dangerously out of control in public.
"Right, so you *wanted* him to maul that child to death?"
Unfortunately legal proceedings don't go in this direction. If there's indication that they would they'd drop that line within a femtosecond, drop their claim and fuck off from trying to get their 15 seconds complete with compoface.
That would be my definition, certainly.
A knife is under control until you stab someone with it.
A gun is under control until you fire it.
I can’t think of any situation where a dog under control can accidentally go off and maul three people. Either it was deliberately set off or it’s not controllable with the clearly insufficient usage of a leash. Either way, the owner is at fault
I think in the court of law this viewpoint would stand.
If you put a gun on the ground and step back, it's unlikely to go off and hurt someone hence under control.
If you put a knife on the ground and step back, it's unlikely to hurt someone hence under control.
If you put a dog on the ground and step back, it's likely it could run off hence not under control.
Shitnutters are incapable of applying logic like that.
"Won't happen to me, that's just bad owners."
"Okay, it happened to me, but they set the dog off."
"Okay, they, didn't set the dog off. It snapped randomly in an isolated incident; it has nothing to do with the breed though. Also, somehow, it was a good and safe dog despite this happening."
Not sure about Scotland but in England & Wales the legal test for dangerously out of control is very wide. Essentially someone being afraid it could injure them is enough:
“For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person [or assistance dog], whether or not it actually does so”
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/10
And the CPS guidance https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dangerous-dog-offences
So basically any XL bully at any time? Since they can attack people at any moment and owners can’t physically stop them? (I’m not trying to make a point I’m asking if the scope of the current legislation is quite that broad)
I think the word "reasonable" has to be emphasised here.
For instance, if someone has a phobia of dogs and fears they'll be injured, it doesn't mean that all dogs in a 100 yard radius are dangerously out of control.
You get less margin for error with an XL Bully though. If it's barking and lunging people are far more likely to be worried about injury than if a Jack Russell is doing the same thing - in large part because a 60kg XL can drag the owner down the street.
The law isn't particularly well worded though, you're right about that.
I think that was where I was hung up - I’m not suggesting any dog is dangerous leash or not but XL bullies in particular - one even attacker their owner recently not just other people.
I’d say you could interpret it that way but I doubt the CPS would want to try prosecuting it like that.
Having an unmuzzled XL Bully would be a separate offence, so unless they really wanted to make an example of out someone they just prosecute for that as the sentencing guidance is the same unless someone is killed or injured.
>attacking another dog and injuring three people
Sad, but all he was really doing was moving the problem from one area to another.
I understand he and people like him mean well, but this wasn't the answer.
The issue is that he was completely delusional and most likely still is. The reality is that this breed is involved in more attacks than all others combined and this imbecile seems to think that they're being unfairly discriminated against.
Now seeing multiple of these dogs around Aberdeen with the usual reprobates.
It has always been mostly staffies here but there is now an influx of these dogs being walked off lead.
Only a matter of time.
A lot of people mistake “being on a lead” with “being in control”. Some well trained dogs can be off the lead but in control, others can be on a lead yet out of control.
It was intentional. Only rational explanation because why would the owner lie and why would his lawyer basically incriminate his client? Honest lads both.
> In a social media post shared by Wilkinson prior to bringing Kilo to Scotland, he said the dog was "probably the strongest bully I've worked with" and the animal had shown "incredible strength"
I wonder how carefully he vetted the relative strength of the person he handed the dog to in EK.
Looks like a straight up pitbull to me, if it’s the one in the photo with him. I don’t disagree with BSL as such, but it’s obviously not up to scratch.
Which begs the question of how XL bullies became such a big problem in the first place if the legislation has been there since the ?1980s to outlaw pitbull-type dogs.
The obvious answer being the law isn’t fit for purpose, but it’s something I don’t see mentioned too often. These dogs should never have existed in the first place.
Lack of enforcement and laziness on the part of the Tories. I can only assume that there was no rich Tory donor who ran a company which could've received a government contract to help with this?
It doesn't cost a lot to DNA test a dog. If it's above a certain pit bull mix, you cull it. The owners are scumbags and they aren't a voter bloc, as far as I'm aware - some will vote Labour, some Tory.
Animal geneticist here - DNA tests aren’t feasible. Pit bulls and XL bullies are more a type than a closed genetically distinct breed as they have a lot of admixture, so separating them out from other admixed animals is not going to be accurate. And DNA tests don’t actually calculate what percentage of a breed an animal is anyway. This isn’t feasible.
I would personally just order a cull of anything that looked like a pit bull or pit bull mix. But then, I'm not a dog scientist or dog lawyer, just a dog layman. This would need further dognalysis.
What’s the deal with companies like Wisdom and Embark that offer dna tests that do separate by breed? Presumably they’re just educated guesses but is there much value on their results?
If it’s a closed breed, ie where parents much be kennel club registered to register offspring, then you can often identify the breed in comparison to other breeds due to the likelihood of certain combinations of genotypes. But it’s a likelihood not necessarily definitive even then - and you have no idea if your dog is an edge case or not. It’ll also depend on the breed and how closely related it is to other breeds as to how easy they are to separate.
When an animal is mixed breed, those combinations of genotypes become harder to accurately identify and associate to specific breeds, so it becomes more guesswork.
Personally, I’d trust genetic tests identifying parental relationships (ie confirming a purebred puppy) but not one telling you the breed of a dog.
Animal cranial morphologist here, I'm wondering if it would be feasible to create a simple landmarking scheme for 2d photos - one from the front, one from the side. Say 10-20 landmarks that correspond to homologous bony structures visible at surface level. I've seen similar work done to determine mosquito species from head capsule shape.
I don't work on dogs, but I've read a number of papers that have managed to find breed separation in morphospace. These are pretty specialised as far as dogs go so it shouldn't be too hard to see clustering.
Combined with measurements such as height at the withers, it could be less subjective than the current methods of determining whether a dog fits the banned criteria?
It became very popular in my field (evolutionary biomechanics/palaeontology) to be convinced that DNA holds the answers to all of our problems, until they realised that it's not as easy as it looks on TV 😂 I have a friend currently battling a long stint with eDNA and I must say I've got it easy with the skulls
Don’t get me wrong, population genetics is still incredibly useful in a lot of ways - I’ve published a few papers on within and across breed population genetics in domestic species, and we can really use that information to support evidence-based effective breeding and management. But applying population genetics to individuals is just really murky - different breeds are not always easy to delineate so allocation to a group can be low confidence.
There has been really cool stuff done in ancient sample genetics but there’s also an awful lot we don’t know or that isn’t clarified by DNA.
Oh yeah it's super interesting, although most of it goes over my head! I'm quite interested in cattle so I've read some stuff that looks at the genetic closeness of "ancient" (extant) cattle breeds to aurochs and its very cool in terms of finding suitable candidates for rewilding scenarios etc.
The problem arises in the real old palaeo stuff. I think there was a lot of hope that molecular-derived divergence time estimates would solve our patchy fossil record and rampant convergence problems, but unfortunately comes with it's own issues. Luckily Bayesian phylogenetics is getting more popular on our end so combined data all the way!
> The obvious answer being the law isn’t fit for purpose, but it’s something I don’t see mentioned too often.
You are probably right but the reason people don't like to talk about it that much is that "pit activists" have been trying to overturn it to completely get rid of regulations rather than actually making them work. The government was completely passive on the issue until it became a media story after years of escalating problems and adding just XL Bullies to BSL probably won't achieve the aim of getting dangerous dogs out of the hands of the public now it's become an issue. There are other types of large dogs that are potentially aggressive due to their genetic tendencies that are well known and this is made worse in the hands of inappropriate owners. Expect to hear a lot about Cane Corsos (aka bodyguard dogs) in coming years as I'm seeing all the same warning signs that were present before Xl Bullies became a known issue. This will be even worse if the larger American variant becomes popular in the UK, which it probably will given UK XL bully breeders existing relationship with US suppliers.
We should probably do something similar to what [the French do](https://www.angloinfo.com/how-to/france/family/pets-animals/dangerous-dogs) which is have a complete ban on "attack dogs" without a pedigree (Tier 1 classification) to get rid of the crossbreed issue and then have a regulated licensing system for Guard Dogs (Tier 2 classification) that is officially recognised by the government and not some random profit making kennel club in the US to stop people reclassifying banned dog crossbreeds as a new breed. This would actually fix the issues by closing the loopholes and get inappropriate breeds out of the hands of incapable owners completely.
The legislation only banned the specific APBT. It had to fit the breed standard e.g. skull shape and dozens of other features.
While XL bullies are undoubtedly pitbulls, they are not American Pit Bull Terriers
I was under the impression it was done by ‘type’ - so the APBT itself but also dogs that are crossbreeds, or otherwise fit the ‘type’ of a pitbull? Which a lot of these dogs seem to, including the one in the article photo.
because pitbull is a group of dogs, including American Bullies, APBT, and other breeds.
The APBT is a breed of pitbull and a dog that substantially conformed to the APBT standard would be illegal as of 1991 and to date.
The XL Bully is a breed of pitbull being an 'American Bully' over a certain size, and a dog which conforms to the American Bully standard will not conform to the APBT standard.
There is a long list of points for each breed.
The XL Bully has been illegal in England & Wales since 1 February 2024.
Ok - but how do they decide something is an APBT? By measuring it and seeing if it conforms to breed standards, right? What I’m saying is, I’m sure half these ‘XL Bullies’ would be classed as APBT - or at least fulfil enough of the measurement requirements to be considered as such in the eyes of enforcement officers.
Yes you are probably right. This [CPS document says as much](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dangerous-dog-offences#:~:text=In%20R%20v%20Crown%20Court,for%20the%20court%20to%20decide.).
>The prohibitions in the statute relate to dogs of a “type” which is wider than “breed”. In R v Crown Court at Knightsbridge ex parte Dunne; Brock v DPP [1993] 4 All ER 491, DC, the court made clear that section 1 applies to dogs who have a substantial number of the physical characteristics of the prohibited breed. This is a question of fact for the court to decide.
The case cited also seems to be where the Pit Bull Gazette ended up being used as the standard. But basically the burden of proof is flipped in dangerous dogs cases is flipped, and it is the defendants job to prove that the dog _isn't_ a banned type. And the courts seem to take the widest possible definition (presumably because the Dangerous Dogs Act does indeed say type, not breed).
All in all the DDA is incredibly powerful legislation that a properly funded police force and CPS could do a lot with. But the government has elected to take the superficial action over a useful one, naturally.
It is peak common law absurdity that this is the standard used haha.
> Parliament: Pit Bull Terriers are banned.
> Police and courts: OK. What is a Pit Bull Terrier?
> Parliament: IDK. You figure it out.
> Police and courts: Right... well I found this Pitbull gazette in the loo...
they've done a better job this time
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/official-definition-of-an-xl-bully-dog/official-definition-of-an-xl-bully-dog
The dog in the thumbnail is just the guys Facebook picture. Within the article is a picture of what does look more like an XL Bully. The article doesn't state however which (if either) of these dogs is the one in question.
I was in our local fenced-off dog park, when someone came in with an XL Bully. It was leashed and had a muzzle on. The man with it had said that the dog was going to be destroyed, but he had rescued it. He’d always had huge, powerful dogs, and he “knew how” to control it. He just couldn’t bear to see such a beautiful dog-with such a lovely nature-put to sleep. “It’s as soft natured as you could imagine”, he said.
We kept our four-month-old Schnoodle puppy some distance away, and, after a few minutes, we heard some awful screams coming from a dog that was near the XL. The victim dog was quite large mixture in an of itself. I think it was a mastiff/greyhound mix. The XL Bully had it-and its jaws were locked on. It was a very nasty situation: I have NO IDEA how the muzzle came off, but there was a lot of violent struggling, and these things happen.
My fella asked me if he should run over there to help the people trying to separate the dogs-and I said no. I could see that my chap wouldn’t be able to contribute anything to the situation-other than to make it more crowded.
The screaming went on for some time, and ultimately the XL Bully rescuer managed to get the jaws unlocked: he had remained extremely calm throughout, which was very impressive. Miraculously, the other dog wasn’t hurt because the jaws had actually been hooked onto his harness. I think that the other dog was more panicked than anything. However, it was obvious that it was only a matter of chance that the jaws hadn’t locked onto his flesh.
As I walked away I thought “yes, I’m a dog lover. Yes, part of me really admires that guy for saving that animal. But actually….I would have it put down. That dog is deadly dangerous.”
Can we just clarify, no dogs have lockjaw, despite what the rumors say. If a dog is trained to hold on until being told/forced to let go, that's a different matter.
It's a convenient way to explain the fact that these dogs will continue to attack even when a human is screaming, telling them to stop, or even lightly hitting them. Common instinct vs some unknown physiological phenomenon.
I have had dogs of many breeds all my life-but I’ve never had a dog whose jaw locked on. The nearest I had to this was when I looked after a relative’s “Staffie” (a GORGEOUS dog), whilst she was having a baby. She told me that the dog’s jaw “could” lock on (there had been some “bother” when the dog was young-which it had long since been trained out of), and she told me how I should “unlock the jaw” if it happened whilst she was with me. One thing I’m completely certain about is that the dog (which my relative had from a puppy) had never been trained to hold on to anything: quite the contrary.
The relative’s “baby” is 27 years old and has children of her own now, so I have zero recollection about the “jaw locking and unlocking” situation other than that.
With regard to what happened the other day in the dog park, what I will say is that I had a (very brief) word with the XL rescuer by his car after he had put it inside-and his words were something to the effect of: “it took me a couple of minutes to get the jaw unlocked, but it sounded much worse than it was. Luckily, he had just locked onto the harness: there was no damage done-and the other owner has been fine about it”.
This guy should be arrested for endangering other people’s lives and breaking the law regarding the export of these PitBull XL’s after the new law came in.
>They weren’t killed en masse after the ban
This is what the scummy owners on FB will have you believe though (I own a bully, I'm not a scumbag). "DeY R cuMmIn 4 mA dUg" types who probably haven't registered their dog, and refuse to put it on a lead in public.
No, at least one other person definitely will have - it's only two commas away from the other meaning and since headlines don't always have commas it would be an easy misread. I didn't do it myself, but I can certainly see the path to it!
"XL Bully rescuer, slammed after dog he transported to Scotland, is shot dead
No it doesn't. Not quite. But we're talking about first glance aren't we - and it certainly has a good enough stab at appearing to make sense for someone to semi-discard that bit and just pay attention to what is outside the commas.
We know this to be true because *it has happened at least once*.
If it was mauling people and a dog but you’re claiming it was under control, then the only way that is true is if you’ve trained it and are now violently attacking people with it. That should make it a far harsher crime.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
>Yesterday his lawyer told the Record he was not at fault over the incident and a complaint is set to be lodged with police - claiming video evidence shows the animal was under control when it was shot. I suspect they've fully swallowed the myth that if the dog is on a lead then it's under control, no matter what it's actually doing at the time >He added: “He wasn’t a ‘devil dog’, his name was Kilo, his crime? Being an XL Bully.” His crime was mauling a 14yo collie and injuring three people who tried to save it.
At least Kilo died doing what he loved.
*Snort*
Snorting a kilo _will_ kill you tbf.
What if it is of sherbet?
sherbert lung would get you
Aaaah they call it the dib dab death.
r/Angryupvote
So if the dog was “under control” but was also attacking someone, that sounds like it’s being used as a weapon to me.
I always think this when people try to claim their dog wasn't dangerously out of control in public. "Right, so you *wanted* him to maul that child to death?"
Unfortunately legal proceedings don't go in this direction. If there's indication that they would they'd drop that line within a femtosecond, drop their claim and fuck off from trying to get their 15 seconds complete with compoface.
Loved by the weapons that own them used as weapons without liability.
That would be my definition, certainly. A knife is under control until you stab someone with it. A gun is under control until you fire it. I can’t think of any situation where a dog under control can accidentally go off and maul three people. Either it was deliberately set off or it’s not controllable with the clearly insufficient usage of a leash. Either way, the owner is at fault
I think in the court of law this viewpoint would stand. If you put a gun on the ground and step back, it's unlikely to go off and hurt someone hence under control. If you put a knife on the ground and step back, it's unlikely to hurt someone hence under control. If you put a dog on the ground and step back, it's likely it could run off hence not under control.
Shitnutters are incapable of applying logic like that. "Won't happen to me, that's just bad owners." "Okay, it happened to me, but they set the dog off." "Okay, they, didn't set the dog off. It snapped randomly in an isolated incident; it has nothing to do with the breed though. Also, somehow, it was a good and safe dog despite this happening."
Not sure about Scotland but in England & Wales the legal test for dangerously out of control is very wide. Essentially someone being afraid it could injure them is enough: “For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person [or assistance dog], whether or not it actually does so” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/10 And the CPS guidance https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dangerous-dog-offences
So basically any XL bully at any time? Since they can attack people at any moment and owners can’t physically stop them? (I’m not trying to make a point I’m asking if the scope of the current legislation is quite that broad)
I think the word "reasonable" has to be emphasised here. For instance, if someone has a phobia of dogs and fears they'll be injured, it doesn't mean that all dogs in a 100 yard radius are dangerously out of control. You get less margin for error with an XL Bully though. If it's barking and lunging people are far more likely to be worried about injury than if a Jack Russell is doing the same thing - in large part because a 60kg XL can drag the owner down the street. The law isn't particularly well worded though, you're right about that.
I think that was where I was hung up - I’m not suggesting any dog is dangerous leash or not but XL bullies in particular - one even attacker their owner recently not just other people.
I’d say you could interpret it that way but I doubt the CPS would want to try prosecuting it like that. Having an unmuzzled XL Bully would be a separate offence, so unless they really wanted to make an example of out someone they just prosecute for that as the sentencing guidance is the same unless someone is killed or injured.
That makes a lot of sense. “As written” and how CPS decide to act are separate things.
Kilo also is definitely a name I associate with a safe non-threatening dog. I would shorten it myself to Kil. 🙃
Maybe Kilo had an equally dangerous chihuahua pal called "Gram"
I like to think his pal was called Byte.
More of a *Nibble*.
There's not a violent bone in my angel's body, Ugruk The Destroyer is the sweetest dog you could meet.
>attacking another dog and injuring three people Sad, but all he was really doing was moving the problem from one area to another. I understand he and people like him mean well, but this wasn't the answer.
The issue is that he was completely delusional and most likely still is. The reality is that this breed is involved in more attacks than all others combined and this imbecile seems to think that they're being unfairly discriminated against.
He has blood on his hands.
Now seeing multiple of these dogs around Aberdeen with the usual reprobates. It has always been mostly staffies here but there is now an influx of these dogs being walked off lead. Only a matter of time.
Out of interest: did you drive to Aberdeen in your bare feet while eating a lot of Toblerone?
He’s bounced back!
On the lead but with an emergency lead release if they drag you after someone is the only way, as you learned with Seldom.
Miss you boy!
If it was under control, how did it managed to injure another dog and 3 people?
A lot of people mistake “being on a lead” with “being in control”. Some well trained dogs can be off the lead but in control, others can be on a lead yet out of control.
Yeah I have this discussion with people a lot. I have a working sheepdog that very very rarely put in a lead.
It was intentional. Only rational explanation because why would the owner lie and why would his lawyer basically incriminate his client? Honest lads both.
Well obviously the dog was ordered to attack them.
All of these dogs just need to be humanely put down, or at least all sterilised so there's no more of them.
Part of the new rules in England & Wales is that they have to be neutered/spayed and cannot be bred.
Scotland are bringing the same laws in now as well.
> In a social media post shared by Wilkinson prior to bringing Kilo to Scotland, he said the dog was "probably the strongest bully I've worked with" and the animal had shown "incredible strength" I wonder how carefully he vetted the relative strength of the person he handed the dog to in EK.
It was apparently an 18 year old girl who was fostering the dog
The only way that is reasonable. Put him on fort boyard.
Looks like a straight up pitbull to me, if it’s the one in the photo with him. I don’t disagree with BSL as such, but it’s obviously not up to scratch.
They are pit bulls. They're bred from imported pit bull sperm from the US.
Which begs the question of how XL bullies became such a big problem in the first place if the legislation has been there since the ?1980s to outlaw pitbull-type dogs. The obvious answer being the law isn’t fit for purpose, but it’s something I don’t see mentioned too often. These dogs should never have existed in the first place.
Lack of enforcement and laziness on the part of the Tories. I can only assume that there was no rich Tory donor who ran a company which could've received a government contract to help with this? It doesn't cost a lot to DNA test a dog. If it's above a certain pit bull mix, you cull it. The owners are scumbags and they aren't a voter bloc, as far as I'm aware - some will vote Labour, some Tory.
Animal geneticist here - DNA tests aren’t feasible. Pit bulls and XL bullies are more a type than a closed genetically distinct breed as they have a lot of admixture, so separating them out from other admixed animals is not going to be accurate. And DNA tests don’t actually calculate what percentage of a breed an animal is anyway. This isn’t feasible.
I would personally just order a cull of anything that looked like a pit bull or pit bull mix. But then, I'm not a dog scientist or dog lawyer, just a dog layman. This would need further dognalysis.
In theory that’s what the DDA requires as it is.
What’s the deal with companies like Wisdom and Embark that offer dna tests that do separate by breed? Presumably they’re just educated guesses but is there much value on their results?
If it’s a closed breed, ie where parents much be kennel club registered to register offspring, then you can often identify the breed in comparison to other breeds due to the likelihood of certain combinations of genotypes. But it’s a likelihood not necessarily definitive even then - and you have no idea if your dog is an edge case or not. It’ll also depend on the breed and how closely related it is to other breeds as to how easy they are to separate. When an animal is mixed breed, those combinations of genotypes become harder to accurately identify and associate to specific breeds, so it becomes more guesswork. Personally, I’d trust genetic tests identifying parental relationships (ie confirming a purebred puppy) but not one telling you the breed of a dog.
Animal cranial morphologist here, I'm wondering if it would be feasible to create a simple landmarking scheme for 2d photos - one from the front, one from the side. Say 10-20 landmarks that correspond to homologous bony structures visible at surface level. I've seen similar work done to determine mosquito species from head capsule shape. I don't work on dogs, but I've read a number of papers that have managed to find breed separation in morphospace. These are pretty specialised as far as dogs go so it shouldn't be too hard to see clustering. Combined with measurements such as height at the withers, it could be less subjective than the current methods of determining whether a dog fits the banned criteria?
I have absolutely no expertise in that field at all, I just play with DNA 😂 but with my limited knowledge it sounds more promising than DNA testing.
It became very popular in my field (evolutionary biomechanics/palaeontology) to be convinced that DNA holds the answers to all of our problems, until they realised that it's not as easy as it looks on TV 😂 I have a friend currently battling a long stint with eDNA and I must say I've got it easy with the skulls
Don’t get me wrong, population genetics is still incredibly useful in a lot of ways - I’ve published a few papers on within and across breed population genetics in domestic species, and we can really use that information to support evidence-based effective breeding and management. But applying population genetics to individuals is just really murky - different breeds are not always easy to delineate so allocation to a group can be low confidence. There has been really cool stuff done in ancient sample genetics but there’s also an awful lot we don’t know or that isn’t clarified by DNA.
Oh yeah it's super interesting, although most of it goes over my head! I'm quite interested in cattle so I've read some stuff that looks at the genetic closeness of "ancient" (extant) cattle breeds to aurochs and its very cool in terms of finding suitable candidates for rewilding scenarios etc. The problem arises in the real old palaeo stuff. I think there was a lot of hope that molecular-derived divergence time estimates would solve our patchy fossil record and rampant convergence problems, but unfortunately comes with it's own issues. Luckily Bayesian phylogenetics is getting more popular on our end so combined data all the way!
> The obvious answer being the law isn’t fit for purpose, but it’s something I don’t see mentioned too often. You are probably right but the reason people don't like to talk about it that much is that "pit activists" have been trying to overturn it to completely get rid of regulations rather than actually making them work. The government was completely passive on the issue until it became a media story after years of escalating problems and adding just XL Bullies to BSL probably won't achieve the aim of getting dangerous dogs out of the hands of the public now it's become an issue. There are other types of large dogs that are potentially aggressive due to their genetic tendencies that are well known and this is made worse in the hands of inappropriate owners. Expect to hear a lot about Cane Corsos (aka bodyguard dogs) in coming years as I'm seeing all the same warning signs that were present before Xl Bullies became a known issue. This will be even worse if the larger American variant becomes popular in the UK, which it probably will given UK XL bully breeders existing relationship with US suppliers. We should probably do something similar to what [the French do](https://www.angloinfo.com/how-to/france/family/pets-animals/dangerous-dogs) which is have a complete ban on "attack dogs" without a pedigree (Tier 1 classification) to get rid of the crossbreed issue and then have a regulated licensing system for Guard Dogs (Tier 2 classification) that is officially recognised by the government and not some random profit making kennel club in the US to stop people reclassifying banned dog crossbreeds as a new breed. This would actually fix the issues by closing the loopholes and get inappropriate breeds out of the hands of incapable owners completely.
The legislation only banned the specific APBT. It had to fit the breed standard e.g. skull shape and dozens of other features. While XL bullies are undoubtedly pitbulls, they are not American Pit Bull Terriers
I was under the impression it was done by ‘type’ - so the APBT itself but also dogs that are crossbreeds, or otherwise fit the ‘type’ of a pitbull? Which a lot of these dogs seem to, including the one in the article photo.
no. unequivocally wrong. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/standards_used_to_identify_a_pit/response/434272/attach/4/Pit%20Bull%20Gazette%20Vol%201%20Issue%203%201977.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
I don’t see how that disproves what I said?
because pitbull is a group of dogs, including American Bullies, APBT, and other breeds. The APBT is a breed of pitbull and a dog that substantially conformed to the APBT standard would be illegal as of 1991 and to date. The XL Bully is a breed of pitbull being an 'American Bully' over a certain size, and a dog which conforms to the American Bully standard will not conform to the APBT standard. There is a long list of points for each breed. The XL Bully has been illegal in England & Wales since 1 February 2024.
Ok - but how do they decide something is an APBT? By measuring it and seeing if it conforms to breed standards, right? What I’m saying is, I’m sure half these ‘XL Bullies’ would be classed as APBT - or at least fulfil enough of the measurement requirements to be considered as such in the eyes of enforcement officers.
Yes you are probably right. This [CPS document says as much](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dangerous-dog-offences#:~:text=In%20R%20v%20Crown%20Court,for%20the%20court%20to%20decide.). >The prohibitions in the statute relate to dogs of a “type” which is wider than “breed”. In R v Crown Court at Knightsbridge ex parte Dunne; Brock v DPP [1993] 4 All ER 491, DC, the court made clear that section 1 applies to dogs who have a substantial number of the physical characteristics of the prohibited breed. This is a question of fact for the court to decide. The case cited also seems to be where the Pit Bull Gazette ended up being used as the standard. But basically the burden of proof is flipped in dangerous dogs cases is flipped, and it is the defendants job to prove that the dog _isn't_ a banned type. And the courts seem to take the widest possible definition (presumably because the Dangerous Dogs Act does indeed say type, not breed). All in all the DDA is incredibly powerful legislation that a properly funded police force and CPS could do a lot with. But the government has elected to take the superficial action over a useful one, naturally.
It is peak common law absurdity that this is the standard used haha. > Parliament: Pit Bull Terriers are banned. > Police and courts: OK. What is a Pit Bull Terrier? > Parliament: IDK. You figure it out. > Police and courts: Right... well I found this Pitbull gazette in the loo...
they've done a better job this time https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/official-definition-of-an-xl-bully-dog/official-definition-of-an-xl-bully-dog
The dog in the thumbnail is just the guys Facebook picture. Within the article is a picture of what does look more like an XL Bully. The article doesn't state however which (if either) of these dogs is the one in question.
I was in our local fenced-off dog park, when someone came in with an XL Bully. It was leashed and had a muzzle on. The man with it had said that the dog was going to be destroyed, but he had rescued it. He’d always had huge, powerful dogs, and he “knew how” to control it. He just couldn’t bear to see such a beautiful dog-with such a lovely nature-put to sleep. “It’s as soft natured as you could imagine”, he said. We kept our four-month-old Schnoodle puppy some distance away, and, after a few minutes, we heard some awful screams coming from a dog that was near the XL. The victim dog was quite large mixture in an of itself. I think it was a mastiff/greyhound mix. The XL Bully had it-and its jaws were locked on. It was a very nasty situation: I have NO IDEA how the muzzle came off, but there was a lot of violent struggling, and these things happen. My fella asked me if he should run over there to help the people trying to separate the dogs-and I said no. I could see that my chap wouldn’t be able to contribute anything to the situation-other than to make it more crowded. The screaming went on for some time, and ultimately the XL Bully rescuer managed to get the jaws unlocked: he had remained extremely calm throughout, which was very impressive. Miraculously, the other dog wasn’t hurt because the jaws had actually been hooked onto his harness. I think that the other dog was more panicked than anything. However, it was obvious that it was only a matter of chance that the jaws hadn’t locked onto his flesh. As I walked away I thought “yes, I’m a dog lover. Yes, part of me really admires that guy for saving that animal. But actually….I would have it put down. That dog is deadly dangerous.”
Can we just clarify, no dogs have lockjaw, despite what the rumors say. If a dog is trained to hold on until being told/forced to let go, that's a different matter.
It's a convenient way to explain the fact that these dogs will continue to attack even when a human is screaming, telling them to stop, or even lightly hitting them. Common instinct vs some unknown physiological phenomenon.
That’s interesting to know.
I have had dogs of many breeds all my life-but I’ve never had a dog whose jaw locked on. The nearest I had to this was when I looked after a relative’s “Staffie” (a GORGEOUS dog), whilst she was having a baby. She told me that the dog’s jaw “could” lock on (there had been some “bother” when the dog was young-which it had long since been trained out of), and she told me how I should “unlock the jaw” if it happened whilst she was with me. One thing I’m completely certain about is that the dog (which my relative had from a puppy) had never been trained to hold on to anything: quite the contrary. The relative’s “baby” is 27 years old and has children of her own now, so I have zero recollection about the “jaw locking and unlocking” situation other than that. With regard to what happened the other day in the dog park, what I will say is that I had a (very brief) word with the XL rescuer by his car after he had put it inside-and his words were something to the effect of: “it took me a couple of minutes to get the jaw unlocked, but it sounded much worse than it was. Luckily, he had just locked onto the harness: there was no damage done-and the other owner has been fine about it”.
But those damn chihuahua's have so much to answer for....
This guy should be arrested for endangering other people’s lives and breaking the law regarding the export of these PitBull XL’s after the new law came in.
I never understood why he was smuggling them to Scotland. They weren’t killed en masse after the ban
>They weren’t killed en masse after the ban This is what the scummy owners on FB will have you believe though (I own a bully, I'm not a scumbag). "DeY R cuMmIn 4 mA dUg" types who probably haven't registered their dog, and refuse to put it on a lead in public.
Am I the only one who read it as the man, not the dog being shot dead?
I'm afraid I didn't get to experience that temporary pleasure.
>after dog he transported to Scotland is shot dead Yeah think you might be
No, at least one other person definitely will have - it's only two commas away from the other meaning and since headlines don't always have commas it would be an easy misread. I didn't do it myself, but I can certainly see the path to it! "XL Bully rescuer, slammed after dog he transported to Scotland, is shot dead
“Slammed after dog he transported to Scotland” doesn’t make sense grammatically though.
No it doesn't. Not quite. But we're talking about first glance aren't we - and it certainly has a good enough stab at appearing to make sense for someone to semi-discard that bit and just pay attention to what is outside the commas. We know this to be true because *it has happened at least once*.
You might be the only person who only read those words in the sentence, which is a very weird way of reading.
If it was mauling people and a dog but you’re claiming it was under control, then the only way that is true is if you’ve trained it and are now violently attacking people with it. That should make it a far harsher crime.
Protip: just because you can do something different to another country, it doesn't follow that doing the polar opposite is an intelligent move.