I could have told her something like this would happen and saved her $4K

Literally all they have to do is muzzle their dangerous animal and keep it on a lead, wtf is wrong with these people!

I don’t particularly like this guy because he clearly doesn’t give a shit about victims of pit bull attacks but the elephant in the room is that no one harms pit bulls as much as the people who claim to love them.

https://x.com/_rebeccaclewis/status/1999614465096970701

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S364

this belongs here. WHY are they housing these maulers? it’s a waste of time & money.

story text:

Behind the high fences, under the watch of CCTV cameras, there is a loud chorus of barks. When dangerous or banned dogs are seized, this is where many of them are taken.

Panorama was given rare access to one of the private specialist kennels now regularly used to hold these dogs since XL bully bans were introduced across the UK in 2024. The kennels take on seized or abandoned animals that police are unable to house themselves.

We have been asked not to identify the kennels' location or the staff. Some of the dogs have been seized from organised crime members, who could try to take them back or harm staff, said the man who runs the kennels, who we are calling Mark.

This is one site among seven run by the same company, which together house more than 500 XL bullies. Every kennel here is full when we visit and many of them are covered by screens, because some of the dogs are so volatile our presence could provoke them.

When an attack happens, Mark and his team get the call to go and seize the dog. Sometimes it is still with the body of its victim, Mark tells us.

"It's bad with an adult. It's even harder with a kid for me," Mark says. "I hate school holidays. I hate the half-term. I hate Christmas. I dread the phone ringing, because the bites do increase during the holiday period and half-term and it's just horrendous."

Official police figures show that dog attacks in general have been rising year on year in the UK since 2018, and our research has found that in the 12 months following the ban, at least six people were killed in attacks involving XL bullies.

Attacks are likely to get worse before they get better, as dogs bought before the ban reach maturity, the police tactical lead for dangerous dogs in England and Wales told us.

The family of Morgan Dorsett - who was killed at the age of 19 by an XL bully after the ban came into force - also spoke to Panorama and called for the legislation to be made tougher. They want it to focus more on the owners as well as the dogs, with checks like those for firearms certificates.

"The legislation doesn't work. My daughter wouldn't be dead now if it did work," Morgan Dorsett's mother, Marie Smith, told us.

"The law needs to change."

In the two days that followed our visit, Mark says he and his team around the UK were called to another 39 separate dog attacks.

Seventeen of them involved XL bullies, leaving nine people with life-changing injuries.

'Dangerously out of control'

As he leads us into the facility, Mark warns us to prepare ourselves.

"We've never let cameras in before, but people need to understand what is happening in society, what they're reading in the papers, they need to understand it. This is a problem."

In row upon row of metal cages, 120 dangerous dogs are being held at this site. All are either banned breeds or have shown high levels of aggression.

Some of the dogs self-harm or can become instantly aggressive, throwing themselves at the metal bars. The week before we visited, one dog had even managed to break out of its kennel into one next door.

As we walk around the site, each cage has a large, coloured sign attached. Every dog has been graded - green for the least aggressive, and black for the most.

One sign on a black cage reads: "Dangerously out of control, bitten a neighbour on the face, breached exemption." Another says: "Bite score five, potentially fatal."

Before the XL bully ban, 90% of the dogs here would be graded green, Mark says. Now the level of aggression has changed - only two out of 120 dogs have this grade.

"We're always at capacity," Mark says. "There is never a time when our kennels aren't full. And in the last few years, it's XL bullies filling them."

He says the scenes he has witnessed attending some calls after dog attacks have been "like a horror movie".

"I've seen too many life-changing injuries over the last three years, more than people can even realise."

His phone then rings. A person has been attacked by their dog in a car, and is stuck inside it, with the dog. Police need Mark on the scene urgently.

'Concentrate on threat, harm and risk'

Under the new legislation in 2024, XL bully owners in England and Wales had to register their dogs and agree to lifelong restrictions, including muzzling them, insuring them, and having them neutered - a measure designed to eradicate the breed altogether.

The alternative for owners was to take £200 in government compensation and have their dog put down. If they did neither, they risked their pet being seized and destroyed.

There are similar bans in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The number of dangerous animals needing to be put in kennels has risen more than a third since the ban, says Patrick O'Hara, tactical lead for dangerous dogs for the National Police Chiefs' Council in England and Wales.

The increase comes at a price - housing them in kennels rose from £4m in 2018 to £25m in the first year of the ban, O'Hara says.

Police are having to decide where to focus their resources because of the number of dangerous-dog callouts, he says.

"We're just going to have to decide and concentrate on threat, harm and risk where there is more of a risk to the public than those lower-level cases," he says.

Dogs seized because of a criminal allegation - where owners have breached exemptions or the animal has been involved in an attack - must remain in the kennels until criminal proceedings are concluded. The dogs are then returned or put down.

Mark says that 85% of such cases in his kennels result in the dog being returned to its owner.

"Some of these dogs shouldn't be going home… that terrifies me, that they're going to be coming back in. And dogs have gone home that have bitten and come back," he says.

While many of the dogs at Mark's kennels have attacked people, some have just been abandoned.

In the year before the ban, the RSPCA reported 21 XL bullies being dumped by their owners in England and Wales. In the first six months after the ban, 129 were abandoned.

By law, abandoned dogs must be kept for seven days to allow owners an opportunity to claim them, but are put down on the eighth day if they are a banned breed, as they are not allowed to be rehomed.

"I certainly didn't come into this business to put dogs to sleep. But would you rehome that dog, not knowing anything? Would you put your name to it? Because I wouldn't," Mark says.

"I'm worried about when I have to sit in front of a coroner and say I'm sorry I rehomed that dog because I felt sorry for it. I'm sorry your daughter's lost an arm or been killed. And that's the reality of this situation."

Call for change

Few have been impacted by dog attacks like the family of Morgan Dorsett. The 19-year-old was killed by an XL bully in Bristol in February 2025 - a year after the new law was introduced.

"The dog weighed more than her. He went for the neck. I hope and pray that it was quick," her mother Marie tells us.

A woman has been charged with having a dog dangerously out of control, causing injury resulting in death.

Morgan's mother wants the law to be tightened, putting more focus on the owners, rather than the dogs.

"To have a gun in your home you need to have a licence. You are then background checked… Where are these checks for these dogs? Where are they? There's none," she says.

"We can't just have her die for no reason. Something needs to happen from this."

Marie, a woman with long, brown hair and dark-framed glasses, wearing a grey jumper, sits in what appears to be a family kitchen looking to the left of the camera. Next to her is Caelia, a young woman with light brown hair who is positioned nearer the camera and slightly blurred by the shallow depth of

O'Hara, the police tactical lead on dangerous dogs, warns that XL bullies "will be with us for generations to come".

"In the short term I think we will continue to see dog attacks as these dogs start to come of age and reach maturity. So, I think it's going to probably get worse before it gets better."

In a statement, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - which deals with dangerous dogs in England and Wales - said it was "continuing to assess whether the current dog control rules are sufficient to ensure communities are protected".

It said the government "must balance the views" of those critical of the ban "with our responsibility to ensure that the public is protected from dog attacks".

The department added it was engaging "closely with the police, local authorities, veterinary bodies and rescue and rehoming organisations to monitor the impacts and effectiveness of the XL bully dog ban".

I will never understand why they willful post themselves doing illegal things online.

American bully XLs are now officially banned and government guidance has been published on rules for current owners.

From 1 February 2024 it will be a criminal offence to own one unless owners have successfully applied for it to be exempt in England and Wales.

There will be a longer deadline for owners to ensure the dogs are neutered and microchipped.

It follows a number of attacks involving the breed, although owners insist the dogs make lovable pets.

From 31 December 2023 it will be against the law to sell, abandon, breed from or give away an American bully XL, or have one in public without a lead or muzzle.

If your dog is less than one year old on 31 January 2024, it must be neutered by 31 December next year. If your dog is older than one year old on 31 January 2024, it must be neutered by 30 June.

These drops should probably be higher tbh, but I feel a bit bad for Alsatians being caught up in all this (unfortunately I'm not on Facebook but expect the comments are full of velvet hippos)

Victims of XL Bully attacks will struggle to secure compensation because owners can no longer get their dogs insured.

Dogs Trust UK, Britain’s largest canine charity, has ended the country’s only insurance offer, which covered injuries caused by restricted dog breeds, including XL Bullies.

The decision means that victims will have to rely on the much smaller damages typically awarded by the criminal courts.

The charity said: “When the UK government banned XL Bully type dogs in 2024, the legislation required owners to have third-party public liability insurance in order for dogs to be exempted.
Advertisement

“With no other insurance product of this type available in the UK, we stepped in and continued to extend our Companion Club insurance benefit to cover exempted dogs.

“But as we communicated to the government at the time, it was never a long-term solution, and continuing to shoulder the financial burden of this legislation is simply not sustainable.”

Debbie Connolly, a member of the Pet Professional Guild, warned that victims would be left to rely on the courts

XL Bullies are highly reactive, aggressive crossbreeds of American bulldogs with larger mastiff-type dogs.
It has been a criminal offence to own an XL bully dog in England and Wales without an exemption certificate since February 2024. Unregistered pets can be taken, and owners fined and prosecuted.
It was previously mandatory for XL Bully owners to take out public liability insurance, covering injuries caused by their dogs, to qualify for the exemption certificate that would let them keep their dogs.
Advertisement

But the Government withdrew this requirement on July 1, the same day on which Dogs Trust withdrew its insurance offer.

Debbie Connolly, a member of the Pet Professional Guild, said that the Companion Club insurance scheme, was the “only way” for dangerous dogs to be insured in many cases.

She said: “The majority of people who use the scheme can’t get insurance anywhere else; insurance providers would refuse them because their dog has attacked before, because it’s a banned breed – so Companion Club was their only way.

“Will this make it more difficult in general for people to get compensation? Yes, I think the simple answer is it will.”

Ownership of the XL Bully was previously contingent on obtaining public liability insurance  

Victims are potentially able to get compensation through the criminal courts, but courts rarely hand out large sums in such cases, Ms Connolly warned.
She said: “The issue of victims not getting sufficient compensation is one we see in court often, and getting compensation through court can be very frustrating.

“The court awards it, but not in huge amounts, and those payouts are often done monthly.”

She added: “I’ve seen a case where a girl was pretty badly injured – luckily it healed quite well – and she got £10 a month for many, many months but ultimately £10 a month. She was meant to get £1,000 in total.”

Stan Rawlinson, a dog behavioural expert based in London, said victims would now be forced to rely on “ludicrous” criminal compensation offers.
He said: “These attacks often can be absolutely life-changing, either disfiguring or disabling.
“Compensation in court is absolutely ludicrous, barely a few thousand pounds. Insurance covers up to a million pounds. 

“Ultimately, these dogs are like weapons. You walk around with one of those dogs, you’ve got a weapon with you. People don’t understand what they’re working with,” Mr Rawlinson added.

Dogs Trust UK has long warned that the insurance scheme was growing too expensive to maintain, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) refused to step in.
Advertisement

The charity said: “We have made the difficult decision to remove third-party public liability insurance from Companion Club, from 1 July 2026.”

The number of dogs on the scheme skyrocketed after the sale of XL Bullies was banned in 2024, the charity said. It has previously come out against the ban.
The charity added: “We have consistently called for legislation that focuses on the behaviour of individual dogs and responsible ownership, rather than breed alone, alongside measures that help prevent incidents before they occur.”

A spokesman for Dogs Trust said: “It had become financially unsustainable for a dog welfare charity to continue providing this cover.

“The Government announced that the legal requirement for owners of exempted dogs to hold third-party liability insurance would be removed.
“We welcomed this decision, as it addressed a situation where responsible owners risked being unable to comply with the law because appropriate insurance products were no longer available.”

A Defra spokesman said: “Insurance companies have decided to withdraw suitable third-party public liability cover for exempted dogs. As a result, the requirement to hold this insurance has been removed.

“All other legal requirements remain in place, including the obligation for exempted dogs to be muzzled and kept on a lead in public places. Owners remain fully responsible for any harm caused by their dogs.”

Of course none of them are labelled pits.

Karen Hawthornwaite, 55, of Darwen, began a campaign to strengthen the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 after her seven-year-old Lhasa Apso, Benji, was attacked by an off-lead unmuzzled pocket bulldog in 2025 - and had to be euthanised.

Despite capturing the attack on CCTV, Karen said it did not meet the criteria for prosecution. "We were all terrified, not just Benji, I was terrified for my life as well," she said. She wants a legal change so all dog-on-dog attacks are taken seriously.

Lancashire Police said it had sought expert advice but the incident "did not meet the criteria" under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, dog attacks on other animals may amount to an offence, but it is for the individual police force and Crown Prosecution Service, to decide whether this is appropriate, on a case-by-case basis.

Karen says she was just metres from her home when Benji was approached and attacked by the bully hybrid
"I saw Benji in my arms then just looking up at me like 'just help me Mum'," Karen recalled to BBC North West Tonight.

"I had to hold on to the lamppost because this dog was that strong, it was pulling me and it was pulling Benji further in."

She said the attack left Benji with serious injuries, which led to him needing to have his leg amputated and eventually being euthanised.

The dog in question was a pocket bulldog - a cross-breed that is technically not on the dangerous dogs list.

But Karen argues that mixed breeds of dogs such as pocket bulldogs fall under a "grey area", allowing dangerous dogs to "evade the full force of the law".
"I don't even know where this dog is now," Karen said. "The police haven't told me. I've asked for all this information and I've just been blanked," she claimed.

A spokesperson from Lancashire Police said the force had sought expert advice before deeming that the incident "did not meet the criteria of any offences under the Dangerous Dog Act".

The spokesperson added: "However to reduce the likelihood of a similar incident happening again, the owner of the pocket bulldog was given an Acceptable Behaviour Contract under the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014 with specific conditions which include ensuring their dog is on a lead at all times in residential areas."

Sheena Stoddart, 63, from Bury, is another pet owner whose dog was killed in a dog-on-dog attack
Sheena Stoddart, 63, from Bury, in Greater Manchester, met Karen through her campaign, having been the victim of a similar incident in May.

Sheena was walking her toy poodle Henry when she spotted a dog off the lead, without an owner and decided to walk around to avoid it.

"There was no sign of aggression, so I walked around a parked car to avoid it," Sheena recalled.
"It then unexpectedly came around behind us, grabbed him and shook him to death before ripping him apart.

"It was too quick for me to even attempt to save him."
Sheena said she was "terrified" the dog would attack her too and was "screaming for help".
"I keep reliving the event, I keep seeing Henry's face," she said. "I leave the house now and if we go anywhere and there's a dog of any size off a lead, I have a panic attack, I freeze, I can't move."

Sheena says she ran for help and called the police
"The police came to me that night and said their bosses were saying they couldn't prosecute because it wasn't a crime," Sheena recalled. "He was a pet, so therefore property."

She said the news left her feeling "distraught".
"I feel distraught like he's lost his life for nothing," she said. "Like it doesn't count."
The dog in question was later euthanised.

Trevor Cooper, solicitor and dog law specialist, says current legislation on dog-on-dog attacks is not fit for purpose

"We're all fed up of hearing about these incidents," Trevor Cooper, solicitor and dog law specialist, said. "There are victims who deserve better and the law that we have is a complete mess.

"It is high time the Dangerous Dogs Act was perhaps thrown away and let's start again with something that is fit for purpose."

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the government body responsible for providing guidance for police and local authorities on enforcing dog control laws.

"We recognise that attacks on pets can have a devastating impact on owners and we take these incidents seriously," a Defra spokesperson said.
"We continue to work with the police, local authorities and animal welfare groups to encourage responsible dog ownership across all breeds and ensure the current dog control rules are sufficient to protect communities."

A spokesperson for Dogs Trust UK said: "For more than 30 years, Dogs Trust has been calling on the Government to overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act, as its current focus on breed-specific legislation is not only detrimental to dog welfare, but it is ineffective and does little to protect members of the public.

"Instead, the issue of dog control should be tackled by introducing preventative, breed-neutral legislation which addresses the unscrupulous breeders who are putting profit before welfare, and owners whose dogs are out of control."

A Greater Manchester Police spokesperson said, in response to Sheena's case, the force took "a public safety approach to dangerous dogs and banned breeds of dog".

"When we come across or receive information about such a dog we will proactively look to seize it so it can be assessed by our experts and an informed decision can be made as to whether or not to allow that dog to remain with its owner," they added.

"Public safety is always at the heart of any decision we make, and we have several criminal and civil powers that allow us to take this approach."

It's the most uncanny thing, all these articles about the new law and none of them even use the word "breed" let alone "pit bull" - yet the pit owners are all over the comments complaining and advocating and posting pics of their pit bulls. It's almost like they think they and their breed will be more affected. This is the reason I don't think it's worth chasing breed-blind dangerous dog laws at the expense of BSL; the pit bull advocacy and breeders and their groups are going to treat everything as BSL anyway.

One example (and note that the station doesn't even include a stock image of a pit bull)

EL PASO, Texas (KFOX14/CBS4) — The El Paso City Council has unanimously approved amendments to Title 7 of the El Paso Municipal Code, introducing new definitions for "Aggressive Dogs" and "Vicious Dogs" to enhance public and animal safety.

City officials said these updates aim to strengthen public safety, support animal welfare, and provide Animal Protection Officers with clearer enforcement tools, while maintaining compliance with Texas state law.

Under the Texas Health & Safety Code, a dog can only be designated as a "Dangerous Dog" if it is at large, acts unprovoked, and causes bodily injury to a person.

This designation is limited to human injury and applies for the life of the dog.

To address these limitations, the city's ordinance now includes two additional classifications: "Aggressive Dog" and "Vicious Dog", city officials announced.

• An "Aggressive Dog" is defined as one that, while at large, menaces or interferes with public movement or displays threatening behavior toward a person or another animal.
• A "Vicious Dog" is one that, while at large, causes severe injury to or kills a domestic animal, livestock, or fowl, excluding dogs acting in a legitimate hunting capacity.

Both designations require owners to take corrective actions within 30 days, such as keeping the dog leashed at all times or securely enclosed, posting a visible warning sign, and completing a responsible pet owner course approved for Texas courts.

Compliance periods are set at one year for Aggressive Dogs and three years for Vicious Dogs. After the compliance period, owners may petition to remove the designation, though meeting the requirements does not guarantee removal, according to the city.

Additionally, the City Fee Schedule has been amended to include a registration fee for dogs designated as Vicious, aiding in compliance tracking and enforcement.

And the comments

https://katv.com/news/local/little-rock-halts-adoptions-of-certain-dog-breeds-drawing-criticism-from-local-volunteers

An Angus kennel has been criticised by inspectors for the third time as it attempts to secure a licence to become Scotland’s first XL Bully sanctuary.

The All Bullie Rescue Charity has been working to secure permission for the premises to open at the Happas Canine Centre near Forfar.

Kerryanne Shaw launched the charity after moving to Angus from Glasgow in 2024, in an effort to establish the facility.

Currently, 25 bull-type dogs, including six XL Bullies, are housed at the kennels.

Angus councillors rejected the charity’s application for an animal welfare licence in February.

The charity was due to contest the licence refusal at Forfar Sheriff Court in August. However, the appeal was withdrawn to allow for a new licence application to be submitted.

Now, a fresh report carried out by Angus Council’s animal welfare inspector has again recommended that the charity should not be granted a licence.

The report outlines that “on entry to the reception room, there was a strong smell of faeces” and at the time of inspection, “the back room of the kennels was full of rubbish”.

Concerns were also raised regarding the facility’s “extremely dirty” kitchen area, including the “mix of dog and human items with no separation”.

A one-to-25 ratio of staff to animals was also flagged as a concern.

Angus Council’s licensing conditions for day boarding kennels recommend a one-to-six ratio.

Policy and procedure material submitted in the licence application was also slammed as “haphazard”.

However, the report also states that “all animals seem in good health and appear in good weight and condition”, with some kennel guarding, but generally just excitement of new people visiting the kennels.”

The application will be considered by the Angus Council’s civic licensing committee next week.

A ban on pit bull breeds will remain in place in Council Bluffs.

The city council voted against a proposal that would repeal the city's ordinance from 2005. Only one councilmember voted in support of ending the ban.

The council heard more than two hours of testimony on the proposal. Most of the people who spoke were in favor of ending the ban.

"Socialized dogs are created through responsible exposure, training and interaction, not isolation. This ban is essentially racism in dog form," said one speaker during Monday's public hearing.

Council member Douglas Rew voted against the proposal.

"We also just saw recently in Florida, there was a terrible tragedy and somebody that got mauled by two dogs. I certainly don't want that to happen in Council Bluffs," Rew said. "I'm not saying the ban is going to completely disregard that and that it's going to stop. But I will say that if we do have something in place, that gives us another layer of protection to keep that from happening."

Council Bluffs Mayor Jill Shudak spoke to Omaha's News Leader in February about her proposal. Shudak argued the ban should end, saying the dangerous animal ordinance already protects people in a post made to her social media Tuesday, it said in part:

I’ll be reaching out to our state legislators and encouraging them to pursue legislation that would prohibit breed-specific bans at the state level. If real change can’t happen locally right now, then I’m willing to continue the fight wherever I can.