Panel debates challenges in identifying XL bullies
The panel featured input from veterinary, welfare and legal backgrounds.
A cross-discipline panel has discussed the impact that identifying American XL bullies could have on veterinary practices and rescue centres, as well as on animal welfare.
The attendees also debated how efficient labelling American XL bullies as ‘dangerous dogs’ could be at preventing future dog attacks.
The emergency meeting was called by MP and veterinary surgeon Dr Neil Hudson, who chaired the panel attended by Dr Samantha Gaines (head of companion animals at RSPCA), David Martin (group animal welfare advisor for IVC Evidensia), James McNally (partner at Slee Blackwell Solicitors) and Dr Lawrence Newport (lecturer in law at Royal Holloway University of London).
A key issue approached in the meeting was the ongoing work to define American XL bullies as a breed, ahead of its addition to the banned ‘dangerous dogs’ list.
Dr Martin voiced concerns that defining the breed would be a challenging task, which could result in discrepancies between reports based on individual interpretation. He elaborated that dogs with no genetic connection to banned dogs may still develop physical features that may result in their identification as a banned breed.
This could lead to further pressures on veterinary practices to perform neutering procedures, with Dr Martin estimating that there could be over 50,000 dogs considered American XL bullies in the UK.
Dr Gaines described the toll that the ban could have on rescue centres. She voiced concerns that delays involved in court proceedings could mean that rescued dogs that may match characteristics spend longer in care, which could be detrimental to those caring for them if the dog later legally requires euthanising.
Drawing on his experiences providing evidence in court, Dr Martin addressed the effect the legal processes could have on the dogs’ welfare. Dr Martin described how, even after passing behavioural tests, a suspected banned dog may sit in police kennels for years while court cases proceed.
He said "That dog then sits in those kennels for 18 months [to] two years before it gets to court, before the court makes a decision as to what is to happen to that dog
"And sadly a number of those dogs then end up with significant behavioural issues that ends up with the dog being destroyed, not because it was a problem at the beginning, but because it spent two years essentially sitting in solitary confinement in a concrete block."
There also featured discussion into how effective classifying an American XL bully as a ‘dangerous dog’ could be in preventing future dog attacks. According to the legislation, a ‘dangerous dog’ is one that is ‘bred for fighting’.
While Dr Newport stated that the American XL bully’s heritage indicates that it has developed from a fighting breed, Dr Gaines argued that there was no evidence whether American XL bullies were bred to be fighting or companion dogs.
Dr Martin said that, while some of these dogs are owned as intimidating ‘status dogs’, this does not necessarily mean they are aggressive. This opinion was shared by Dr Gaines who stated her belief that "aggressive behaviour is a normal behaviour in dogs."
Dr Gaines was asked what she thought the appropriate response to the alleged XL bully attacks should be, to which she responded: "(…) what we would like to see immediately happen is a crackdown on the illegal breeding of these types of dogs, and also existing provisions being used where these dogs’ behaviour is shown to be out of control."
The full recording is available here.
Image © Shutterstock
FIVP has shared a survey, inviting those working in independent practice to share their views on the CMA's proposed remedies.
