Banning XL bully dogs

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: Banning XL bully dogs

Post by Allo V Psycho » Mon Sep 18, 2023 8:18 am

As an aside on how much Government ministers are likely to understand, in the distant past I remember the Tory SoS for Scotland (Michael Forsyth?) saying on BBC Scotland that it wouldn't be possible to establish which breed a dog belonged to by testing their DNA, because dogs didn't have DNA.
I'm reading Rory Stewart's book: given the way he describes his colleagues, this kind of comment would still be unsurprising.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2855
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Banning XL bully dogs

Post by IvanV » Mon Sep 18, 2023 8:34 am

Trinucleus wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2023 11:07 am
purplehaze wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2023 4:12 pm
It seems that the Government is going some way along the line of the Spanish route re Bully XL.

Chipped
Neutered
Licenced
Muzzled
Query on 3rd party insurance - sure I heard it was this morning on Radio 4
Sounds like the guy who was killed was attacked by dogs that had escaped from a house, where none of the above would have made a difference
You can have some hope that making people buy insurance will have some overall effect in reducing incidents like this, even if it doesn't prevent them all. It increases the cost of owning such dogs, so some people will decide they can't afford them. Insurers will charge higher premiums for riskier dogs, and riskier owners. Of course some people will just break the law and have the dog without insurance. But it should have some positive effect.

Third party insurance for dogs, etc, makes a lot of sense but is in general not a vote winner. But maybe the dangerous dogs angle can get it brought in.

User avatar
Opti
Dorkwood
Posts: 1489
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: On the beach

Re: Banning XL bully dogs

Post by Opti » Mon Sep 18, 2023 10:17 am

A lot of people here in Spain have always assumed that their home insurance covers any third party claims against their dogs. After recent changes to animal welfare laws a lot have been dismayed to find that it doesn't provide cover for dogs that are deemed 'potentially dangerous dogs'. Insurance for those is not inexpensive.
Time for a big fat one.

User avatar
Boustrophedon
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2920
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire Wolds

Re: Banning XL bully dogs

Post by Boustrophedon » Mon Sep 18, 2023 12:30 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:30 am
jimbob wrote:
Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:10 am
Boustrophedon wrote:
Sun Sep 17, 2023 10:56 pm
Just as an aside, If you look at the Dangerous Wild Animals Act, you will find a lot of fairly inoffensive animals that you are not allowed to keep outside of a strong cage, including Red Pandas and some small cats, smaller than your average moggie. A cheetah on a lead is a complete no, no, despite a long history of domestication, but a fecking huge dog is somehow OK. The law is a mess.
Felines probably are more dangerous per kilo of bodyweight than dogs. Their shoulders as well as jaws and claws..
Also, felines are much harder to train as they're not pack animals (except lions).
None of my three cats attack random strangers in the street, whereas numerous smaller dogs in the vicinity, would do if not restrained.
Perit hic laetatio.

Post Reply