Bully XLs: Are current fears a moral panic, or is a ban justified?

One has its tongue out, another sits with its head cocked to the side as if innocently asking “what did I do wrong?” Just one of the dogs is wearing a muzzle.

The image is part of the charity’s campaign against breed-specific legislation, which is described as “fundamentally flawed”.

The Scotland SPCA has a parallel campaign, “No Bad Breed”, and invites supporters to sign a petition after reading a tear-jerking story about the death of a dog called Doyle, who apparently “adored every person and dog he met” at one of the charity’s rehoming centres before he was put to sleep by order of a court.

READ MORE: The legal consequences of Scotland's drug consumption room plan

These two charities are part of the Dog Control Coalition that Suella Braverman will have to face down if she presses ahead with trying to ban the breed of dog that has become notorious almost overnight.

The Home Secretary has asserted: “The American XL Bully is a clear and lethal danger to our communities, particularly to children. We can’t go on like this” and has commissioned urgent advice.

Watching the disturbing footage of attacks by a dog in Birmingham last weekend, it’s hard to imagine how the coalition will be able to hold the line. In a busy shopping area an 11-year-old girl is seen being rescued from a vicious attack by a dog that police say “broke free from its collar”.

READ MORE: The Tories dog-napping bill is nothing but performative legislating 

After being briefly restrained, the animal takes off in pursuit of a man running away, catching up with him at a petrol station forecourt and repeatedly dragging him to the ground.

In footage of the attacks, filmed from a passing bus, another man can be seen brandishing a broom and trying to land blows on the dog as a horrified observer is heard shouting “kill it!” As of Monday, the dog was still being kept in secure kennels.

Thankfully no-one was killed, but it was a stark reminder of the severity of non-fatal injuries and psychological trauma that a powerful out-of-control dog can cause.

The strength of that animal is all the more alarming given it is apparently not even fully grown, with the police describing it as a “bully XL/Staffordshire bull terrier puppy”.

On the mercifully rare occasions when a person is killed in a dog attack, it will be headline news. The standard response of reasonable people is to blame the owner, not the animal. If not all dogs of that particular breed behave aggressively then genetics cannot be to blame, and it would be unfair to tar others of the breed with the same brush.

Owners of similar dogs will come forward to insist theirs would never hurt anyone, despite their size or strength. If these owners are polite and well-spoken and the killer dog’s owners are not, this helps reassure us there aren’t “devil dogs”, just irresponsible humans.

So do we now, as some claim, have a “moral panic” situation on our hands similar to that of the early 1990s, which led to the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act? Or is the level of concern about bully XL dogs proportionate and evidence-based, given they have been responsible for half of the fatal dog attacks of the past three years?

The Daily Mail has perhaps gone overboard with its descriptions of the “franken-bully” and “mutant crossbreads”, but some pictures of these dogs do look like something from a horror film – one that’s used CGI to make the animal look like it’s been weight-training in a gym.

It is hard to look at the drooling, dead-eyed dog that killed 10-year-old Jack Lis in Wales in 2021 and see a cuddly family pet.

The fact it was named “Beast” surely didn’t help the case of the two people who were jailed for being in charge of it.

The Dog Control Coalition point to the fact that dog bites have increased in the decades since the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced, which it claims “shows that this approach isn’t working”.

They acknowledge the soaring population of American XL bullies – which are clearly the breed of choice for 2023 Bill Sikes types – but suggest the answer is not to ban them, but to enforce existing breeding and dog control regulations and promote responsible dog ownership.

The question is, how many of those who favour this breed even aspire to be responsible dog owners?

Media outlets refer to them as “status symbols”, but what status is conveyed by strutting around with a nine-stone dog that lunges towards anyone it doesn’t like the look of? The status of coward?

The delusion among some seeking to defend the breed is strong, with one woman telling BBC Radio 5 Live that her “placid” dog “hears a child crying and its ears perk up and it wants to go and calm this child down.”

I’m sure there won’t be many listeners queuing up to book him as a babysitter. Others are quick to point out the tendency of some small, yappy dogs to bite – which is certainly a problem, but hardly likely to be a matter of life or death.

Currently, owners of banned dogs can obtain an exemption by proving their animals are not dangerous, having them neutered, microchipped and insured, and using a lead and muzzle. Is this really too much to ask?

How many deaths will have to be attributed to Bully XLs before the Dog Control Coalition backs down?