The case against the XL Bully ban

In just a few hours’ time, Bully XLs will be banned in England and Wales: breeding, selling, advertising, rehoming, or abandoning a Bully will become illegal. In February, the crackdown will continue: from 1 February 2024, it will also become illegal to own an XL Bully dog unless it is registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs. Rishi Sunak has said the breed is a ‘danger to our communities’. But this law, which will condemn innocent dogs, will fail.

Britain has already had breed-specific legislation in place for many years, but the statistics show that the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA), introduced in 1991, is ineffective: between 1999 and 2019, dog bites have increased by 154 per cent from 3,454 to 8,775, according to the RSPCA.

Bully XLs have been involved in some of these attacks. But blaming the breed as a whole isn’t fair. Earlier this year, I lost my best friend Barney to canine lymphoma. In the six years I knew Barney, I didn’t once hear him growl at anyone, never mind snap. His bark was loud, his licks loving, his bite non-existent. But at over 20 inches tall, 40kg of stocky, muscular build, and being a cross-breed (Staffy/Boxer), he would likely be banned as a dangerous dog in England and Wales under the new legislation.

As the XL Bully is hard to define, the new law uses a broad set of visual criteria, including the size of their head and muzzle, their build, and the height and length of their body, to describe them. Temperament, genetics and pedigree are not considered. As a result, this legislation will restrict, ban and destroy thousands of harmless, healthy dogs that pose little or no threat. Dogs like Barney, with no American Bully parents, will be banned.

There are a wealth of scientific studies into dog behaviour that could be applied to design a better policy. This year’s meta-study of decades of research at the University of Lincoln identifies nine key risk factors influencing a dog’s propensity for aggression.  

These factors would be considered if what we wanted was an effective policy to reduce canine aggression. This blunt hammer of a blanket ban disregards them, ignoring their implication that any dog, regardless of breed, can become aggressive under certain circumstances. Only breed-neutral legislation focusing on owner and breeder regulation deals with the issue properly. 

Most popular

Ross Clark

The Waspi women don’t deserve compensation

Such a model exists and is proven to work; the Calgary model. Calgary, in the heart of Alberta, Canada, has been pursuing stricter dog licencing since the late 1980s and has built a well-deserved reputation for its model of small animal ownership, which is being copied in many cities worldwide. 

The Calgary model focuses on responsible pet ownership. The model’s success has been credited to five simple principles, but the most important is education. The community is trained to license and ID all pets, spay or neuter them, provide proper training, diet, medical care and socialisation, and shown how to take preventative action before pets become a threat or nuisance. Most importantly, people are shown how to procure pets ethically and from a credible source.

Calgary also has well-trained ‘animal control officers’, who are tasked with responding to incidents and complaints quickly and effectively; their training in community relations and conflict resolution also helps prevents trouble from escalating in most cases. New measures are regularly being considered, such as a maximum limit of dogs per household, or making it a legal requirement that if there is a dog bite incident the owner must remain at the scene to share contact information. 

They are also considering a dog ‘early warning system’ which is a bandana colour program using the colours of traffic lights. It allows dog owners to indicate to others how their dog should be approached in a way young children can understand. 

Calgary’s approach has dramatically reduced the frequency and severity of dog incidents in the city. In 1985, there were 2,000 reported chases, bites or damage to property from dogs in Calgary, with a human population of 600,000.  By 2012, there were only 201 reported dog bites in a city of 1.1 million humans and 122,000 dogs: that’s roughly half the current per capita rate of dog bites in the UK. 

The scheme is understandably popular: an estimated 90 per cent of dogs in Calgary are licenced, and 94 per cent are satisfied with the service.

Some will say that this kind of approach hasn’t worked in Scotland, which has tried to mirror its strategy (the Scottish government has confirmed it will not implement the XL bully ban). The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, introduced by Christine Grahame in 2009, aimed to focus on ‘Deed Not Breed.’. However, there has not been investment in education: the enforcement of breed-neutral ‘dog control notices’ is sporadic and inconsistent across Scotland’s 32 councils.

We can’t judge the effectiveness of breed-neutral-legislation in regions where resources are not provided to enforce it. Some cash-strapped Scottish local authorities do not even employ the dog wardens required. This lack of implementation would hamper any policy, including a ban. Calgary shows that, with the right investment and thought, a ban on specific breeds is not necessary.  

Many of us speaking out against this ban are being characterised as heartless, having no sympathy for victims of severe dog attacks, not understanding dogs, or having a laissez-faire attitude to ownership. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

A quick roll call of people and organisations opposed to this XL Bully ban includes not just XL Bully owners but the RSPCA, the Blue Cross, Battersea Cat’s and Dog’s Home. the Scottish SPCA, the Kennel Club,  the PDSA and the British Veterinary Association. These are professionals who understand canine behaviour and animal welfare. 

If the aim of the government’s Bully ban is truly to minimise attacks, we have a duty to argue for evidence-based decisions and invest in proper regulation. This knee-jerk ban does not address the root behavioural causes and will not be effective. There is a better way.