American bully XL dogs to be banned by end of year

Literally the only thing I can agree with sunak on. Good.

It's just a distraction from the UK's anemic growth. Obviously he has done nothing that worked for the economy, and the conservatives have no ideas. The UK GDP has basically not grown since 2007.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=GB&start=2007
- Not everything is a distraction tactic
- Without a doubt it is a dead cat issue (no pun intended). Sunak doesn't give a rat's anus about the people of the UK. There is plenty of evidence that his interests are purely financial and self motivated. But that doesn't deflect that there is an issue, and yet again they are making pointless legislation to deal with it.
- Not everything is a dead cat.
A total waste of time. Banning breeds has proven to be totally ineffective in the past. The common sense approach would be to make it mandatory to muzzle dogs over a certain size.
- There are massive differences between implementing a ban on pit bulls in a single city (Denver) and across an entire nation (the UK). The US is such a mess of federal, state, county, etc. laws that it is difficult to enforce such a law, but in the UK, it’s much easier.
  Honestly I’d go a lot further and ban all breeds with significant health issues as well, to be honest.
- Nah mate, these dogs are fucking disgusting freaks. I've been chased by one before - quite frankly, I don't give a fuck what your research says.
- Totally not a biased source, with no actual statistics or studies to back them up - ah right. We have much fewer dog attacks and especially fatal dog attacks in the UK than the US.
- Muzzles aren't gonna help when the dog escapes

Curious to know what they intend to do with the Bully XLs currently owned legally.

Same as when they last banned a breed. They must all be registered, muzzled, and neutered. If not, fines/seizure and possible imprisonment of the owner.
- A perfectly reasonable way to sunset the breed.

Good job UK, for once

It's not the breed, it's the owner
- Both.
- Nobody needs a dog that powerful.
- So I read this article recently, and it suggested that some American breeders think there's specific issues with the breeding line of XLs that are bred in the UK.
  https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/aug/16/the-alarming-rise-of-american-bully-xl-dogs-if-one-gets-hold-of-you-youre-in-trouble
- You cant ban people

Good.

Now do pugs

Under dangerous dogs?
I assume you mean due to their health issues. Cant disagree. But I think it would be a Heck of a lot more complex to define breeds that suffer.
- There are already dogs banned because they suffer. The white Doberman is one of them. They're not banned in the USA, but they're banned in Europe.
- no, because they are dangeorus

Finally. Took them long enough.

Seems like we need to implement dog licences instead. It takes skill to own a well trained dog. Then just make sure people who are miscreants are banned from owning them.

You know that dog licenses were just a tax on dog owners. There was no ‘fit and proper person’ test or requirement for training.
- Inspection of home, walking, traveling skills, leash skills, etc. Do it every year or every "birthday" of a dog you have.
  I own large dogs and would be fine with this. I'm walking around with a weapon, if I train it to be so
  No one "needs" a dog outside of a service dog, and that's a whole other Convo.
- I was saying that there should be a test and training.
Ah yes, my dangerous weapon of a shiba inu requires a license.
Unrelated, please do not go into politics.

Of course, the people who abuse their dogs to the point of become dangerous will just move on the next breed.

Playing whack-a-mole isn't ever effective policy. Before this breed it was pitbulls, after this breed it'll just be something else.

Dog attacks won't stop unless we ban all dogs, stop people who abuse animals to the point of of being dangerous from owning dogs, or stop people from wanting to abuse animals to the point of being dangerous.

That said, this isn't a harmful policy, just an ineffective one. If you want to own a dog, for good or ill, there are plenty of other breeds out there.

The difference is that other breeds aren't quite as dangerous, and so won't kill or maim as many people.
- I'm not sure this is a reply to me. Difference in what is that? I think my initial two paragraphs respond to what I think you're saying regardless.
Why not just keep banning them?
- Germany looks at patterns. Bully XL isn't even accepted as a distinct race and you don't need to ban it, it just needs to hit certain traits and it will be considered a dangerous dog breed regardless.
- I think I answered that. Or I don't understand your question. Just keep banning what?
  I suppose I assumed the aim of the policy is "to stop fatal dog attacks in the UK". I also assumed that was the reasoning behind the pitbull ban too, and look where we are. We could learn from history, or we could just keep banning them. This is all just repetition of my previous comment though.
  I guess if the aim is to ban breeds of dogs then sure, why not keep banning them.
Dog attacks won’t stop unless we ban all dogs
This’s is where I issue my standard challenge to find the statistics on fatalities cause by dachshund attacks
- Once again, someone didn't read my first two paragraphs.
  But for challenges.
  Here is a list of dog attacks fatalities in the uk the summary has a yearly count. Just looking at the numbers, what year was the pitbull ban and state your reasoning only using the numbers? For example if you pick 1985 because there were 4 that year and fewer after, then the dog breed ban wasn't effective because the exact same thing happened in 1991.
  Dog breed bans do not prevent fatal dog attacks, the numbers bear that out and my initial comment explains why. This is so much red meat for the emotional or dead cat for the guilable, whatever it is, it's boring.

Read this as some new version of American bulldogs. Glad to know it's not the same breed.

I hadn't heard the term either until recently, and had to look it up. An American bully is a cross between pit bulls and bulldogs. A bully XL is the largest variant.
The breed is not an officially-recognized one, so definitions are a bit fuzzy.

Ok, but how is it going to be enforced?

Per the dangerous dogs act?
Here's the neet part it won't same as the pitbull ban even if we get defined breeding standards and it works they'll just mix something like Canie Corso's or something else that they will then abuse to the point it'll be a weapon
- The dangerous dogs act bans cross breeds too. There are hundreds of convictions a year for owning banned breeds.
- They don’t need to define the breeding as being a cross between x and y breeds, but as a set of characteristics for example. I’m not an expert in dog breeding but I’m sure a group of experts could come up with a definition that isn’t overly broad but also defies workarounds

There are no dangerous dogs, only scum bag abusive Humans.

Then why most of the attacks are by this breed?
- Same reason Dobermans and Pit Bulls are the most abused Dogs in the US.
- At least partly because scumbags who want to abuse a dog until it's violent and dangerous don't buy shih tzus to start with. If you ban a breed because it's "dangerous" you'll see people defy it, evade it through hybridizing (which already happened, the bully xl is a hybrid of the already-banned bull terrier) or just start abusing and selectively breeding a different large breed until it's as violent as this breed. I'm not even necessarily against sunsetting this breed, it feels like we're in a situation where a lot of bad decisions we've made in the past have made this a good decision. But I think that there are a lot of core problems that won't be solved just by playing whack a mole with the current breed making headlines
- Because when they do attack they are capable of doing serious damage; enough to be reported. No one is gonna report a dachshund attack for example so statistically it looks like dachshunds never attack people.