Submitted 1 year ago by shish_mish@lemmy.world to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
Yeah bolloks. 1st the law dose not come in for a year. So anyone putting dogs down now is not keeping them due to love. 2nd just like any other breed banned in the past. If you have one now. You are not required to put it down. Just register and keep the animal in a safe responsible manner.
So no utter bollocks anyone looking to put these dogs down nowe. Is very clearly not a responsible owner in any way shape or form. This is nothing more then a bullshit article.
It seems like a ban on imports and required spaying and neutering would be a less cruel solution. Then when you find dogs younger than the ban you could start talking about euthanizing them.
Also what the law requires. Nothing requires safe existing dogs to be euthenised. Just registered and kept in a safe manner.
That said planty of people who are opposed to such laws. Are very willing to spend time talking to vets as a way to use the new law to avoid the responsibility of their own choice. Lets face it a few vest talking to MPs, is far from outside of the number of irrisponsible unprepared breed choosers unwilling to admit they made a mistake.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
People are already handing in XL bully dogs, with some requesting that their pet be put down, after the announcement of an impending ban, MPs have been told.
At a parliamentary evidence session before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra) select committee, witnesses said vets and animal rehoming centres could become inundated by people seeking to offload the dogs before a ban.
Dr David Martin, group head of animal welfare for IVC Evidensia, a global veterinary care provider, said: “We are already getting clients presenting dogs asking for them to be euthanised because they’re concerned about the effects of a ban.”
Rishi Sunak has announced XL bullies would be banned by the end of the year after a spate of serious attacks involving the dog type.
A number of witnesses said the challenges of correctly identifying XL bully dogs – which are not classified as a breed but a type – would make implementing the ban difficult.
Gaines said the RSPCA had left a government breed confirmation working group over concerns “about its approach and the potential for a large number of dogs to be involved than was actually originally intended.
The original article contains 603 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Breed bans never solve anything.
Owners are having to do this so they don’t risk losing their housing when the ban goes into effect. Since they can’t be rehomed, there’s no option besides euthanization
Fuck any short sighted idiot who supports breed bans. It just results in healthy dogs dying, or being set loose on the streets.
shish_mish@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I agree, banning a breed doesn’t work. Backyard breeders will just move on to another breed. It used to be rottweilers for a while. The thing is, banning a breed is easy and plays to certain parts of the public. Actually, sorting the issue properly…now that takes time and money and is not easy.
Tatters@feddit.uk 1 year ago
If banning does not work, how do you explain the significant drop in attacks by breeds that are already banned, whereas XL Bullies, previously not banned, account proportionately for far more attacks?
HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 year ago
rottweilers have never been banned. or threatened with it. Pit Bull Terrier · Japanese Tosa · Dogo Argentino · Fila Brasileiro. are the currently banned breeds.
Emperor@feddit.uk 1 year ago
That’s the Tories and their policies in a nutshell - cheap headlines but no desire to do the actual hard work.
HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Interesting. As absolutly anyone owning a dog in a rented house. Has had this same issue. Finding a home that will take a dog is a constant issue. So if as an owner you have chosen a dog known to have a violent reputation. You will have faced that choice with bans or not. Even owning a fucking chihuahua I hav had huge issues finding a house. It has only gotten much worse over time. Sorry no its a bulshit answer. When you choose a Bully XL breed you are doinging so knowing exactly the reputation of that dog. As such your choice is responsible for your issues. Its not like any ban has been independent of the dogs reputation.
kaitco@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So, now there’s going to be an increase of strays of a breed viewed as dangerous just wandering around?
Also, euthanizing healthy animals who’ve not done anything wrong sounds just plain barbaric. Why not just stop the sale or adoption of the breed instead of just abandoning or killing them?
HeartyBeast@kbin.social 1 year ago
Which is why the proposed legislation doesn’t include it.
HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Has not happened notably in the past. Honestly demestic dogs are not well suited to survival in UK cities. 11k years of demestic breeding means they tend to turn to people. This is true of most violent breeds as well. So strays tend to be captured in cities and not particularly an issue in rural areas. Only difference would be folks calling RSPCA rather then adopting.
HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Would you like to show the pre and post ban numbers of attacks per breed on that. Because all those very few that happened. Were directlt post several incidents relating to that breed.
i in no way think breed bans are the best solution. But most would be even more uncomfortable with the solution I propose. Any breed known to represent more then average attacks. Should require the same laws and keeping of any other wild dangerouse animal. Just like wolves and tigers. Animals that cannot be shown to be trainable to be safe. Would require safe handleing by skilled staff.
and of course If you cannot rent a property suitable for keeping a dangerouse animal safe. It is not down to opthers to be art risk from your choice.
If you own a pet capable of killing humans. Who but you should face the legal responsibility for housing and careing for that animal.
Any solution that fails to provide that is worse then a ban. So areguing a ban dosent work is just failing.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is like saying banning Glocks results in less people getting shot with a Glock…
And ignoring that people that want to shoot other just used a different brand and total shootings evened out after a very brief dip.