Lamentable Legislation

Unclear, unenforceable, full of unintended consequences. The XL Bully Ban is so deficient that even those who agree with a ban in principle should reject it and demand more competent legislation.

“I see, these books are probably law books, and it is an essential part of the justice dispensed here that you should be condemned not only in innocence but also in ignorance.”

― Franz Kafka, The Trial

The UK's XL Bully Ban is mired in controversy and criticism. Enacted supposedly to curb canine aggression, the ban instead rejects expert advice. It traps many breeds under a vague and broad definition, casting a net far wider than intended. This article delves into the issues plaguing this misguided legislation, urging even its supporters to reconsider their stance in light of its profound flaws and far-reaching consequences.

Use of Vague Definitions

The core issue with the XL Bully Ban lies in its reliance on an ambiguous definition of the targeted "type" (RSPCA, 2023). This approach leads to a significant risk of misclassification, where dogs of various breeds could be erroneously labelled as XL Bullies. Such a broad and imprecise criterion confuses responsible dog owners and undermines the ban's intended purpose, leading to unjust outcomes for numerous dogs and their families. The typing has been crafted to be applied subjectively - the same dog could be classed as legal or illegal by different people's interpretations of the 'standards.'

Lack of Preparation and Oversight

The hasty introduction of the XL Bully Ban without a comprehensive feasibility study, particularly concerning veterinary resources, highlights a significant oversight in the legislative process (UK Government, 2023). This lack of preparation suggests a disconnect between the law's intentions and practical implementation, raising concerns about the ban's real-world effectiveness and strain on veterinary services.

The XL Bully did not exist as a recognised breed before this legislation. So, the government had no feasibility study of how many dogs would be impacted or what additional resources would be required. For example, they demanded that all dogs that meet the criteria be neutered by a specific date, but with no work to see if the veterinary capacity existed to meet those legal requirements. 

Similarly there was a rush on muzzles, in which larger sizes quickly went out of stock - and muzzle training classes became over-subscribed.

Poorly thought out, illogical requirements. 

The ban's impractical requirements, such as the rule for dogs in cars to be on a lead held by a person, present significant challenges (UK Government, 2023). This rule contradicts established practices for safe dog travel. 

The best practice would be for a dog to be restrained in the back seat of a car in a harness attached to a seatbelt and unable to reach the driver. 

Drivers are also expected to keep both hands on the wheel. 

Many other people have dog gates and have restrained dogs in the boot space for travel - while vets and animal rescue and transport often have vans. 

Feasibility of Enforcement 

Just as no feasibility was done about vet neutering availability or how many dogs would be impacted, resources have not been put in place to enforce the ban - for example, in the availability of dog wardens and space in council pounds or police kennels. 

This raises questions about the feasibility of its enforcement, especially in areas like Scotland, where resources for dog wardens are limited.

Inconsistency and Subjectivity

The subjective nature of the ban's guidelines leads to inconsistency in its application. The criteria for identifying an XL Bully are open to interpretation, resulting in varied outcomes for similar cases. This subjectivity undermines the fairness and effectiveness of the legislation, as it allows for varied application of the law based on individual judgment rather than a clear, objective standard.

It is also internally inconsistent with the very theory behind breed-specific legislation because it does not even consider the dog's breed or genetics. Dogs with no bully parentage - say, a Mastiff crossed with a staffy or a Rottweiler crossed with a labrador, could come under the ban. 

Even if 'XL Bullies' were eradicated, crossbreeds in the future could meet the criteria and be banned - born after the exemption deadline. 

We even have a situation where some dogs in the same litter might be banned while their siblings aren't. 

Unintended Consequences

The ban has led to several unintended consequences, including the rushed rehoming of XL Bullies to Scotland to avoid the ban and the misidentification of non-bully breeds. Additionally, bad faith breeders have been incentivised to shift their focus to other breeds, thus failing to address the core issue of irresponsible breeding. 

Emotional and Financial Toll

The emotional and financial impact of the XL Bully Ban on families and veterinarians is profound. The legislation has caused distress among dog owners and placed veterinarians in difficult ethical positions, adding a human dimension to the critique of the ban and highlighting its far-reaching consequences.

Vets and Animal Rescue volunteers are, naturally, animal lovers. That they are being asked to euthanise healthy, harmless, innocent dogs is incredibly traumatic.

Failure to Address Root Causes

The XL Bully Ban utterly fails to address the well-understood root causes of canine aggression: irresponsible ownership and breeding. Effective legislation should focus on education, responsible ownership, and regulating breeding practices. By unscientifically targeting specific breeds based on 'shape' without addressing these underlying issues, the ban misses an opportunity to impact canine welfare and public safety.

A Call for Better Legislation

While framed as a swift response to a tabloid-fuelled public safety panic, the XL Bully Ban is fraught with issues that undermine its effectiveness. 

Its vague definitions, lack of preparation, rushed time-table, poor communication, practical challenges, internal inconsistency, unintended consequences, emotional and financial toll, and failure to address root causes all point to a need for a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach to canine legislation. 

There is some hope with the upcoming judicial review. We must advocate for more informed, effective, and humane legislation addressing the complexities of canine behaviour and welfare.

References

• RSPCA. (2023). American XL Bullies. Retrieved from RSPCA

• UK Government. (2023). Official Definition of an XL Bully Dog. Retrieved from GOV.UK

• Duncan-Sutherland, N., Lissaman, A. C., Shepherd, M., & Kool, B. (2022). Systematic review of dog bite prevention strategies. Injury Prevention. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2021-044477
  This paper systematically reviews various strategies to prevent dog bites and aggression, evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, including dog-control legislation and breed-specific legislation.

• Mitka, M. (2001). Control "social carnivores" to prevent bites. JAMA, 286(2), 153. https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.286.2.153
  This article discusses a guideline published by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, advocating for a community approach to dog bite prevention and moving away from breed-specific legislation.

• Mouton, M., & Rock, M. J. (2021). Débats autour des races canines et de la santé publique à Montréal et au Québec (2016–2019). Canadian Journal of Public Health. https://dx.doi.org/10.17269/s41997-021-00550-3
  This study examines public policies formulated for the prevention of dog bites, focusing on the case of Montreal and Quebec, where breed-based bans were debated and alternative approaches were considered.