Dickheads move onto a new breed. Selectively breed the worst traits in them. Make a small profit. People get hurt. Dog’s get banned and put down. Repeat.
It’s such a grim cycle.
Is it the dogs with bees in their mouth, and when they bark they shoot bees at you?
Maybe this one won’t take quite as long to ban since people are already aware.
Boyfriend and I are looking to adopt a dog right now so I’ve been spending time on Pets4Homes and Gumtree looking at dogs over the past months. I definitely noticed a sudden uptick in cane corsos that seemed to come out of nowhere, especially as I’ve never noticed them being popular before.
It’s Rottweilers and Came Corsos, to save you a click.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a Came Corso but I’ve met plenty of Rottweilers and they’ve all been lovely. I think their reputation has been rescued in recent years so I’ll be very sad if they are picked as the new “hard man” dog as they have the potential to be wonderful pets.
Almost like this is what animal charities, vets, and critics of the ban said would happen.
XL Bully’s are a symptom of a wider issue, and while something absolutely needed doing to stop the attacks (please don’t pretend I’m arguing nothing should be done), in the long run the people breeding them will just move onto something else, just like they moved onto XL Bully’s in the first place.
This is less about the dog and more about the society successive government’s breed that results in people wanting them.
Banning breeds is difficult because it’s not like you can scan a barcode on the bottom to find out what it is, it’s not an exact science. All a breeder needs to do is cross it enough for it not to look like the banned breed and it’s problem solved, despite the fact the behaviour hasn’t changed. Going down the breed ban route will lead to an endless game of whack-a-mole and nothing will get solved.
Since they are both guard dogs it may not be so bad..maybe I’m to optimistic
Phew, would be a mass loss to the sub if dog attack stories fell off in 2024..
Cane Corsos and Rotweillers have been around in the UK for a long time without any significant issues. If as the majority of past commenters the issue with XL’s is all about the inherent breed trait and not about the way they have been raised and treated then surely there should be no issue with these dogs becoming an issue and ending up on the banned breed list.
It’s almost like the problem wasn’t the dogs or something.
They just need to make it far more difficult to own a dog.
Want a dog? You need a license. To got the license, you must prove you are a competent dog owner.
How do we know you’re a competent dog owner?
A two week training course on dog behavior and handling. with a test at the end.
The course is very expensive.
You shouldn’t be allowed to just go out and randomly buy a dog.
Surprise surprise. This was always going to happen. Dickheads will move onto the next breed and will keep doing so until there are laws put in place for buying/breeding/selling dogs.
This is what happens when you play reactionary politics, something needs to be done about dangerous dogs, and unfortunately that something isn’t destroy the dogs and wait for the next one to arrive.
Look to the breeders not the genuine owners.
If not the breeders, the dangerous owners. The people whose bullies were most likely to attack people are also the people who won’t have registered them, won’t muzzled them etc.
I think a lot of the comments here are missing the point. XL Bullys in the UK were descended from a particular violent breeding line were they not? Went some way to explain why so many would attack their owners or suddenly snap with no indication at all. Whilst Cane Corsos and Rottweilers are powerful physical breeds, is there an indication they have the same tendency to suddenly go on a rampage as XL Bullys have done?
I’d do what the charities are saying first but wouldn’t a weight limit help a lot?
I’ve been attacked by a jack russel and it was nasty but, it was a jack russel, I could easily kick it away from me.
This is why the dangerous dogs act doesn’t work, the government needs to be able to move far quicker in banning these animals.
Cane Corso dogs have already been involved in multiple attacks/ deaths:
These are the same wet idiots who petitioned to force boxers to wear gloves – and turned boxing into a significantly more dangerous sport as an outcome.
People who use emotions instead of logic destroy everything.
Let’s hope Cane Corso breeders are a bit more on the ball as to who they sell pups too. A huge part of the XL bully problem was people selling to absolutely anyone as long as they had several thousand to lay out on a puppy. And those people wanted to breed to make their own money. Just one big doggy pyramid scheme. I don’t know how anyone has convinced themselves that they are a responsible owner when they’ve bought a puppy off some guy selling to drug dealers and thugs so the criminals can diversify their income stream and look hard at the same time.
>reported spike in Google searches for the canines.
Unbelievable that they’ve made an entire article out of a recent 30-odd% rise in Google searches for these breeds.
We need licenses to own pets, only long-term solution
The bans need to extend to a set of traits rather than breeds, otherwise this game of whack-a-mole will continue indefinitely.
This is why banning breeds doesn’t work very well.
I’m starting to think the idea of a license for dog ownership wouldn’t be such a bad idea, combined with mandatory dog handling lessons enforced every year.
The license could at least provide accountability, if your dog ends up mauling someone, you lose your license and face much heavier penalties. I’m sorry but being banned from owning a dog for a couple of years, and a couple of hundred quid fine isn’t anywhere near harsh enough.
Then forcing mandatory dog handling lessons would improve the owners capacity to control their pets and socialise their dogs more. It would also allow to detect problematic behaviour, in these cases you could force more lessons until the behaviour is corrected and the owner takes better control.
So what’s the solution I’m not seeing? Ban a breed is never effective for long, licencing will be ignored, muzzling and leads in public are already ignored, and banning by size/weight will catch up safe dogs.
I think the least worst is banning by size/weight, with a licence required for anything that is over/at either of those.
I guess it’s time to require a licence to own a dog. The licence is more difficult to attain depending on size and how dangerous the dog *could* become.
Eg pretty easy to get a licence for a small terrier, but a bloody nightmare to get a licence for a kangol or whatever. Face to face interview, background check, home inspection, follow up appointments where licence can be rescinded if the dog is not being looked after appropriately. I’m sure we could perfect the system, but that’d already be a vast improvement. It’d also stop dogs of all sizes being mistreated and people buying a dog ‘for Christmas’.
It apparently only takes a few generations to breed aggression into an animal – this is according to a sometimes overlooked experiment by Dmitry Belyayev (who best known for his experiment to domesticate silver foxes).
You could select for aggressive traits in any dog breed and then breed their offspring together, because you don’t give a s*** about their long term health. As long as there is a market for big aggressive dogs then people will continue to breed them. The ban brings us a temporary reprieve and it’s only a few years until we see the next killer doggo.
The solution is to solve the root cause, deal with the reasons that people feel the need to have a weapon on them at all times. They are a symptom of a deeper problem; but obviously it’s the dogs / immigrants that are the problem… look over that way while we leech another couple of billion away to our family and cronies.
Why not when you get the dog chipped it’s tied to your ID. If your dog attacks someone you’re fully responsible. Oh it’s killed another dog? Off to jail you go. Surely isn’t that difficult. Instead it feels like you can own a walking weapon and then just apologise and move on with the dog being destroyed.
I absolutely love dogs and have a cockapoo myself but it does worry me when you see some of the complete plebs who can own a dog without any checks or safeguarding walking around with almost no control or care in the world.
Oh wow who could have pedicted bsl was poinless and licensing with regulation was the only realistic option. /s
I own a small 30 dog rescue and have received death threats for predicting this exact outcome, i even correctly predicted he new breeds.
These are dogs designed to be working dogs (guard dogs, etc), not to be pets. I don’t understand why people, especially those with children and families, want a mutt that has a high innate prey drive and can see your child as a sport for hunting.
There needs to be stronger rules around dog breeding and stronger penalties for breeders that flaunt them. Responsible professional breeders are more selective about traits and breeding out negative ones.
31 comments
Dickheads move onto a new breed. Selectively breed the worst traits in them. Make a small profit. People get hurt. Dog’s get banned and put down. Repeat.
It’s such a grim cycle.
Is it the dogs with bees in their mouth, and when they bark they shoot bees at you?
Maybe this one won’t take quite as long to ban since people are already aware.
Boyfriend and I are looking to adopt a dog right now so I’ve been spending time on Pets4Homes and Gumtree looking at dogs over the past months. I definitely noticed a sudden uptick in cane corsos that seemed to come out of nowhere, especially as I’ve never noticed them being popular before.
It’s Rottweilers and Came Corsos, to save you a click.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a Came Corso but I’ve met plenty of Rottweilers and they’ve all been lovely. I think their reputation has been rescued in recent years so I’ll be very sad if they are picked as the new “hard man” dog as they have the potential to be wonderful pets.
Almost like this is what animal charities, vets, and critics of the ban said would happen.
XL Bully’s are a symptom of a wider issue, and while something absolutely needed doing to stop the attacks (please don’t pretend I’m arguing nothing should be done), in the long run the people breeding them will just move onto something else, just like they moved onto XL Bully’s in the first place.
This is less about the dog and more about the society successive government’s breed that results in people wanting them.
Banning breeds is difficult because it’s not like you can scan a barcode on the bottom to find out what it is, it’s not an exact science. All a breeder needs to do is cross it enough for it not to look like the banned breed and it’s problem solved, despite the fact the behaviour hasn’t changed. Going down the breed ban route will lead to an endless game of whack-a-mole and nothing will get solved.
Since they are both guard dogs it may not be so bad..maybe I’m to optimistic
Phew, would be a mass loss to the sub if dog attack stories fell off in 2024..
Cane Corsos and Rotweillers have been around in the UK for a long time without any significant issues. If as the majority of past commenters the issue with XL’s is all about the inherent breed trait and not about the way they have been raised and treated then surely there should be no issue with these dogs becoming an issue and ending up on the banned breed list.
It’s almost like the problem wasn’t the dogs or something.
They just need to make it far more difficult to own a dog.
Want a dog? You need a license. To got the license, you must prove you are a competent dog owner.
How do we know you’re a competent dog owner?
A two week training course on dog behavior and handling. with a test at the end.
The course is very expensive.
You shouldn’t be allowed to just go out and randomly buy a dog.
Surprise surprise. This was always going to happen. Dickheads will move onto the next breed and will keep doing so until there are laws put in place for buying/breeding/selling dogs.
This is what happens when you play reactionary politics, something needs to be done about dangerous dogs, and unfortunately that something isn’t destroy the dogs and wait for the next one to arrive.
Look to the breeders not the genuine owners.
If not the breeders, the dangerous owners. The people whose bullies were most likely to attack people are also the people who won’t have registered them, won’t muzzled them etc.
I think a lot of the comments here are missing the point. XL Bullys in the UK were descended from a particular violent breeding line were they not? Went some way to explain why so many would attack their owners or suddenly snap with no indication at all. Whilst Cane Corsos and Rottweilers are powerful physical breeds, is there an indication they have the same tendency to suddenly go on a rampage as XL Bullys have done?
I’d do what the charities are saying first but wouldn’t a weight limit help a lot?
I’ve been attacked by a jack russel and it was nasty but, it was a jack russel, I could easily kick it away from me.
This is why the dangerous dogs act doesn’t work, the government needs to be able to move far quicker in banning these animals.
Cane Corso dogs have already been involved in multiple attacks/ deaths:
Three year old killed by a Cane Corso:
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2022-05-20/boy-killed-in-dog-attack-went-into-cardiac-arrest-coroner-told
10 month baby boy attacked for crying:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-67209689
85 year old woman attacked. 11 dogs at a property seized:
https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2023-11-24/11-cane-corso-dogs-seized-following-attack-on-85-year-old-woman
Woman and child attacked while on a walk:
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/woman-with-child-attacked-by-cane-corso-dog-called-spot-being-walked-off-lead-at-yorkshire-nature-reserve-and-owner-ran-away-4169218
Woman attacked in a block of flats:
https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/23985710.cane-corso-dogs-seized-woman-attacked-redditch/
Woman attacked – though she had been warned off by the owner:
https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/crime/derbyshire-dog-lover-who-approached-cane-corso-despite-warnings-is-bitten-4107637
Mum mauled to death by her own dog. She thought she had bought a Bully XL, but it is thought the breeder gave her a Cane Corso instead:
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/partner-loving-rotherham-mum-mauled-25940820
List of attacks by Cane Corso dogs in other countries, including fatal attacks:
https://www.dogexpert.com/dog-bite-info-on-cane-corso/
Wow who could have ever seen this coming?
Oh yes, anyone with 2 brain cells to bang together.
Can’t wait for my Rottweiler to now be public enemy number 1 when the public turn on them after the mouth breathers use them next.
No new breed is mentioned. Provides no data…
It’s like they just whipped this out of thin air for clicks.
If newspapers declare, ‘Labradors are dangerous’ then thugs will start to buy, abuse and train labradors to turn them into attack dogs.
Labradors will start to lead per capita attack tables.
Labradors will become banned.
Politically-correct idiots create ‘dangerous breeds’.
These are the same wet idiots who petitioned to force boxers to wear gloves – and turned boxing into a significantly more dangerous sport as an outcome.
People who use emotions instead of logic destroy everything.
Let’s hope Cane Corso breeders are a bit more on the ball as to who they sell pups too. A huge part of the XL bully problem was people selling to absolutely anyone as long as they had several thousand to lay out on a puppy. And those people wanted to breed to make their own money. Just one big doggy pyramid scheme. I don’t know how anyone has convinced themselves that they are a responsible owner when they’ve bought a puppy off some guy selling to drug dealers and thugs so the criminals can diversify their income stream and look hard at the same time.
>reported spike in Google searches for the canines.
Unbelievable that they’ve made an entire article out of a recent 30-odd% rise in Google searches for these breeds.
We need licenses to own pets, only long-term solution
The bans need to extend to a set of traits rather than breeds, otherwise this game of whack-a-mole will continue indefinitely.
This is why banning breeds doesn’t work very well.
I’m starting to think the idea of a license for dog ownership wouldn’t be such a bad idea, combined with mandatory dog handling lessons enforced every year.
The license could at least provide accountability, if your dog ends up mauling someone, you lose your license and face much heavier penalties. I’m sorry but being banned from owning a dog for a couple of years, and a couple of hundred quid fine isn’t anywhere near harsh enough.
Then forcing mandatory dog handling lessons would improve the owners capacity to control their pets and socialise their dogs more. It would also allow to detect problematic behaviour, in these cases you could force more lessons until the behaviour is corrected and the owner takes better control.
So what’s the solution I’m not seeing? Ban a breed is never effective for long, licencing will be ignored, muzzling and leads in public are already ignored, and banning by size/weight will catch up safe dogs.
I think the least worst is banning by size/weight, with a licence required for anything that is over/at either of those.
I guess it’s time to require a licence to own a dog. The licence is more difficult to attain depending on size and how dangerous the dog *could* become.
Eg pretty easy to get a licence for a small terrier, but a bloody nightmare to get a licence for a kangol or whatever. Face to face interview, background check, home inspection, follow up appointments where licence can be rescinded if the dog is not being looked after appropriately. I’m sure we could perfect the system, but that’d already be a vast improvement. It’d also stop dogs of all sizes being mistreated and people buying a dog ‘for Christmas’.
It apparently only takes a few generations to breed aggression into an animal – this is according to a sometimes overlooked experiment by Dmitry Belyayev (who best known for his experiment to domesticate silver foxes).
You could select for aggressive traits in any dog breed and then breed their offspring together, because you don’t give a s*** about their long term health. As long as there is a market for big aggressive dogs then people will continue to breed them. The ban brings us a temporary reprieve and it’s only a few years until we see the next killer doggo.
The solution is to solve the root cause, deal with the reasons that people feel the need to have a weapon on them at all times. They are a symptom of a deeper problem; but obviously it’s the dogs / immigrants that are the problem… look over that way while we leech another couple of billion away to our family and cronies.
Why not when you get the dog chipped it’s tied to your ID. If your dog attacks someone you’re fully responsible. Oh it’s killed another dog? Off to jail you go. Surely isn’t that difficult. Instead it feels like you can own a walking weapon and then just apologise and move on with the dog being destroyed.
I absolutely love dogs and have a cockapoo myself but it does worry me when you see some of the complete plebs who can own a dog without any checks or safeguarding walking around with almost no control or care in the world.
Oh wow who could have pedicted bsl was poinless and licensing with regulation was the only realistic option. /s
I own a small 30 dog rescue and have received death threats for predicting this exact outcome, i even correctly predicted he new breeds.
These are dogs designed to be working dogs (guard dogs, etc), not to be pets. I don’t understand why people, especially those with children and families, want a mutt that has a high innate prey drive and can see your child as a sport for hunting.
There needs to be stronger rules around dog breeding and stronger penalties for breeders that flaunt them. Responsible professional breeders are more selective about traits and breeding out negative ones.