Two owners of American Bully XL dogs I have seen recently (and given a very wide berth) were young, fairly slight, women. Neither of them seemed remotely capable of restraining the beasts should they choose to attack another animal or person.
Unfortunately, any discussion of dangerous dogs is always dominated by dog lovers. They are deemed to be the experts we are all obliged to listen to. The entirely predictable message they always come out with: There are no dangerous dog breeds, just bad owners who don’t train their pets properly.
Those of us who have no great love of dogs and are not blinded by the sentiment these pet’s are able to invoke have a much clearer idea of the many problems caused by needless and selfish dog ownership – but of course our opinions are dismissed as irrelevant. If you don’t own a dog it seems you are not entitled to express your views.
I’ve seen this too. Children and women being dragged around by larger dogs, clearly incapable of restraining them if needed. As a dog lover with two Yorkies and a Havenshire, I can assure you we respect people who don’t love them like we do.
I accept that your comment is made in good faith but, as a regular walker I have found that parks and open spaces have become increasingly dominated by dog owners exercising their pets. There is a growing attitude that such open spaces are meant for this and people merely strolling without a dog have less reason to be there.
By the way, data collected by one of the major pet insurers shows that there are more personal injury claims against the “family friendly” Labrador than any other dog type in Britain. Also worth mentioning: Police data shows that you are more likely to be bitten by the (again “family friendly”) Jack Russell Terrier than any other type of dog. Of course, widespread ownership of these breeds is an important factor but it does rather tarnish the image of the lovely pet that wouldn’t hurt a fly.
Yes the Reverend ‘Jack’ Russell has a LOT to answer for.
However these little 8lbs beasts normally only inflict rather minor injuries due to their diminutive size.
Conversely XL Bully can sever an arm with ease!
I was bitten by a dog that was a cross between a Jack Russell and Staffy, (whoever thought that would be a winning combination needs help!) whilst my Rottweiler sat and watched. I’m a firm believer in the benefits of socialising dogs and I think that lockdown exasperated the issue as so many ran out and bought dogs then avoided socialising the dogs because social distancing and now have unspecialised dogs that don’t know how to behave around other dogs or people. I also appreciate that whilst my dog is generally harmless (raised in a family and socialised from pup), she is physically capable of killing even if she doesn’t know it. I would never leave her alone with a child or someone I didn’t know or trust. Not because I believe she would attack but because I cannot guarantee it.
Small dogs can be very dangerous, precisely because they are small enough to be picked up by their owner and put in another room if they are causing trouble. That means the ignorant owner doesn’t see the need to ensure the dog is properly trained.
I read it is the cocker spaniel that holds the record for most bite-prone. But you’re missing the point with the comparison. Nobody ends up dead from a labrador, Jack Russell or cocker spaniel bite – or even end up in an ICU. Bites isn’t the concern that motivates here.
Sure – once in awhile. The statistics on death by dog mauling aren’t even close to being debatable. Look at the police statistics, the ER room statistics.
Hi Clare. In response to your query re my “out of here in November”… I will not be renewing my subscription to Unherd. Unherd is just like any other medium: a platform for a certain type of ideology. In this case, one I no longer care to engage with. “Clever” does not equate “good” in my books. Good luck if you are still in the US… I do not to envy you. Take care.
I would imagine the high population of labradors contributes to the statistics as you suggest. But again, these are working breeds so must have the stimulation and exercise required to subdue them.
Meaning no offence to you sir, but your judgement on the matter seems just as bias by your distaste of dog companionship than dog-lovers are of their affection.
Having owned multiple Labradors and being a dog lover in general I’m inclined to believe that your claim about dog related injuries in Britain needs to be further examined in light of the shear number of Labradors relative to other breeds.
Facts – American XL Bullies have been involved in 44 per cent of attacks on people in 2023, and 75 per cent of fatalities since 2021, despite only being around 1 per cent of the UK dog population.
This is the sort of data needed to make correct decisions. Dogs breeds can therefore be rated acording to danger. 75 % divided by 1% is a fatality rate of 75. A Labrador with say 20% of attacks but 30% of population would be 0.67 and 0 fatalities would be 0. Dogs would be rated by fatalities and then attacks. Mongrels would be rated according to proportion of genetic make up.
Dogs may change in character of which Rottweilers appear to have the is problem. Someone has said in certain cases a bone grows into the brain of some Rottweilers and causes them to become more violent.
The Bully dogs have a large body mass but a small brain. Do they have some brain defect which causes them to lose control and attack ?
The national dog clubs should have asked the points I have made and provided the answers. The reality is that national dog clubs are not acting with sufficient discernment .
It should be attacks per number of dogs and fatalities per numbers of dogs. A simple strength test; can the owner hold the dog back with a single arm even if it rushes sidewards to the person? Therefore strength and size of dog must be proportional to strength of owner.
About 12 months ago I walked round the corner straight in to a very small south-east Asian woman with a huge husky on a lead.
The husky gave me a cursory sniff and then let out a low guttural howl that went right through my core before it trotted on its way taking its owner with it
It did not growl and was not on any way aggressive. It was completely ambivalent.
The howl just sent a chill thorough my bones and made me think I want one
How? Guns are inanimate objects. Dogs are living beings with brains, instincts, and and personalities. Guns can’t load themselves, aim at a target, and fire.
You are absolutely correct and I say that as a confirmed dog lover of many years. In fact I always been much impressed by the alleged remark of the late Frederick the Great* :” The more I see of the human race the more I love my dogs!”
However in this case these XL Bully dogs have clearly been bred to kill, and should be immediately prohibited.
Dogs can be bred to do almost anything, guide the blind, herd sheep and cattle, retrieve game, chase foxes, sniff out drugs and explosives, and so on. So it should come as no surprise that some reprehensible beings have decided to produce the ultimate killer dog, and sadly they have succeeded.
It rather reminds me of someone not that many years, who attempted to breed a ‘master race’.
Y’know, the reason I pay to read all the various opinions offered by UnHerd is the intelligent, civil discourse in the comment section. You’re a sad Blackadder figure, a Percy creating his “green” and wearing an idiotic oversized ruff. Go, Sir, and be savaged by a turbot!
All dogs have a prey drive, some more than others. For example a working line German Shepherd and a Jack Russell have generally high prey drive, whereas a Bichon and Golden Retriever, low. A lot of training is about channeling this drive for good.
Hi Charles, I usually agree with what you say on here, but I am afraid you are wrong here. XL bullies, have not, as you state, “Been bred to kill” – Do you honestly believe breeders hone their dogs killing skills ? And if so, how? They have been bred for a certain size and pphysical characteristics that makes them of course dangerous in the hands of unsuitable owners. There are plenty of other breeds that are just as strong, and potentially dangerous, such as Alsatians, Dobermans, Cane Corsa, Mastiffs, Huskies, Malanois ( As used in combat by the Navy Seals) …..I could go on. The issue here is the people that own them, not the poor dog. No dog is intrinsically dangerous or aggresive unless trained by circumstance or deliberately to be so. Owning a big powerful dog comes with a certain social responsibility and unfortunately these owners who dont fit the bill are usually from the social strata creating other unwanted effects in society, such as crime, antisocial behaviour, bad parenting, etc. This is where we should be concentrating our efforts. So the breed will be banned and these same Ye-Ha’s will simply start crossing some other large dog with another and make some other hybrid with similar characteristics. Problem dogs are a very tiny percentage of the total and its a shame that the significant number of people who dont like dogs are so easily whipped up by the latest tabloid “devil dog” stories. You would not for example suggest banning black people because they carry out most street crime, robberies and stabbings? So why does the same logic apply to dogs?
Good points. Two women friends have been attacked by dogs. One by the family Rottweiler, luckily the husband returned as it was top of her and about to bite her neck. The husband shot the dog.Another by a Rhodesian Ridgeback and the lady needed a 100 stitches. In both cases the dogs were in the country and the women were experienced with dealing with animals. In both cases the dogs turned and attacked people. Large dogs designed to attack in order to defend a territory can kill, small dogs cannot kill.
Labradors have a very strong bite strength and are not used for guarding because their jaws would break the trainers arms even when they were wearing protection. Labradors were bred to retrieve rope and pots to help fishermen in Labrador. They were not bred for protection. There are two strains of Labradors, show types which need less exercise and working ones which need to be exercised the whole day long. Other dogs such as Rhodesian Ridgebacks were bred to protect farms from lions ( Lion Ddogs) and Rottweilers were bred to protect livestock and humans. Another dangerous dog only suited to living in remote areas is the Kangal. Kangal Shepherd Dog – Wikipedia
Dogs are influenced by emotions and can be triggered by fear and jealousy. I suggest for some reason training can be overidden by emotions and basic instinct comes into play such as attack or retrieve.
There are certain simples tests to be done
Bite strength of dog. Number or % of fatalities divided by number or % of dog population to produce Fatality Rating. Number or % of attacks divided by number or % of dog population to produce Attack Rating. The dangerous qualities of each breed could be ranked. High rating on all three would mean banning or high insurance premiums. Some people have been attacked visiting people with dangerous dogs.
Snap. My only “near misses” with dangerous dogs in Vienna have been in situations where relatively small women have been on the other end of the lead (and the dog wasn’t wearing any muzzle). The dog was in control of them, not the other way around.
Who knows whether said women co-owned the dog with some big, meaty, bouncer-type boyfriend who was waiting for them at home…but if you aren’t able to control the thing yourself, you shouldn’t be the one taking it out for walks.
This kind of “dog-poser” makes me really angry, as any incidents which come about are because the dogs are just behaving like they are geared up to do. It is not their fault – it is ALWAYS the owners’ fault.
And to get yourself into a situation where a living thing has to be killed just because you just wanted to adhere to some kind of fashion or tough-guy image is disgusting and unbelievably shallow.
The authority on all this used to be the late Oberst Konrad Most.
Yet he clearly identified that certain breeds have definite characteristics. For example the Dobermann (Pinscher) was clearly an ‘attack’ dog, and very good at defence as well. Therefore you are correct it is ALWAYS the owners fault if they possess such a beast and are incapable of handling it.
However this does NOT mean that a dog cannot be bred to be super ferocious and thus impossible to control.
In other livestock breeding this characteristic is routinely eliminated, even in the case of Spanish ‘fighting bulls’ for example.
Dobermans are what they are intended to be. Dogs that can be a guard dog and then go home to a family.
Nothing wrong with guard dogs. Handled properly they can be great additions to a home.
What is wrong is a few things. 1. Bad breeding 2. Owners who have no idea what they are getting or any idea how to raise and train them. 3. Other people who have no clue how to behave around a dog they do not know.
A Doberman is not a collie, is not a Pitbull, is not a Bulldog is not a Labrador is not a sheep dog, but a lot of idiots out there just buy whichever puppy looks cute at the moment.
If you are a passive person. Do not buy a bulldog. They take a strong hand and they will test you and they are stubborn. If you cannot walk a Jack Russel on a leash and not get pulled down the street, do not buy a Rottweiler.
You can be a bad dog owner and get away with it with a lot of smaller breeds and work dogs. But you cannot get away with not knowing how to train a dog to walk and come when called etc when you have a strong, strong willed, dog that weighs in at 75 lbs or more.
“3. Other people who have no clue how to behave around a dog they do not know.” – what, the general public? So their fault if they are attacked, for not behaving properly around the dog?
I’ve lost count of the amount of parents telling their kids that my dog is going to eat them. Like that’s going to help them in the long run! Dogs are reactive towards fear! Teach children to be respectful not fearful!
The number of idiots that I have run into who have no respect for other peoples dogs is amazing.
You do NOT just walk up to some dog you think is cute and try to pat it on the top of the head.
You ask the owner if it is ok to approach and to pet their dog.
You approach with your hand below the dogs face with your palm flat so they can sniff you. A fist held down below can be acceptable too.
I HATE people who just run over and touch my dog. I detest people who bring their dog over to mine without first asking me. They always say stupid things like ‘” Do not worry, he is friendly.”. Well duh. Glad to hear it. But my dog was attacked by another dog as a puppy and does not trust dogs he does not know. DO NOT PUT MY DOG in a bad situation because YOU are an idiot. Acutally had one woman follow me with her dog trying to intoduce them as I kept pulling mine further and further away. I could have slapped her.
Two days ago, I was on the phone with my son, who was walking near his place in Burbank. Mid- conversation he started yelling “Oh my God, oh my God! Sir! Are you alright? I’m calling 911!” When he called me back he said an old man with a cane was attacked by a pit bull being walked by a young kid. The dog was clamped to the man’s back. The kid was going to leave, but my son – not much older than him, said, “Dude, no. I’m recording this. Wait for the cops”. When the police and EMTs arrived, they brought animal control, who took the dog away.
My guess is that the dog was part of a fight ring, and the kid’s job was to walk it around for exercise; he was clearly too scrawny to control the thing.
Mary’s ’ larger point about masculinity and its seemingly dwindling usefulness due, in large part, to our feminized working life has a point – to a point. My husband has been a professional artist all his adult life. He’s also an athlete, a weightlifter, a mechanic, has remodeled several bathrooms, installed pull-down attic ladders, rebuilt a huge brick patio, and is an excellent father and role model to our two now-adult children. Masculinity doesn’t have to be tied to a man’s job. It’s something cultivated from father to son, and smart women honor and appreciate it.
Yes, Allison, masculinity is indeed the “larger point” in this essay, not dogs per se. I’m astonished that so few readers even noticed that. Harrington’s analogy is interesting, but it seems to have backfired in this essay.
Almost ten years ago, in Replacing Misandry, Katherine Young and I discussed the same problem, although our analogy was not between men and dogs but between perceptions of the male body in earlier times and perceptions of the male body in our time. Masculinity is a cultural elaboration on maleness (just as femininity is a cultural elaboration on femaleness), emphasizing some features and de-emphasizing others in the interest of communal solidarity and endurance. So the value of masculinity usually depends at least partly on the value of maleness itself (just as the value of femininity depends at least partly on the value of femaleness itself). Can the male body contribute something to society that is (a) distinctive, (b) necessary and therefore (c) worthy of public esteem (including at least the hope of some reward as part of a “social contract”)? In other words, can men have a healthy collective identity specifically as men? If not, to put it bluntly, then we’re all in big trouble. Unlike dogs, after all, men cannot simply be banned within any democratic context. But masculinity can be attacked and has been, relentlessly, for decades. The results do not exactly offer hope for either men or women.
Before proceeding, it’s worth noting that not all societies, either historically or cross-culturally, have fixated on the male body as the venue of communal aggression. Three extreme exceptions would be the Sambia (of Papua New Guinea), rabbinic Judaism (though neither biblical Judaism nor some modern forms of Judaism) and the Amish. But most societies have done so, including our own.
For many hundreds of years, the male body (and therefore masculinity in one way or another) was valued in the West for supporting either martial prowess or food production (as in making and using iron ploughs), or both. Since the advent of gun powder in the late Middle Ages, martial prowess has relied less and less heavily on the male body. By the sixteenth century, even the medieval jousting tournament was becoming increasingly ritualized, ornamental and vestigial. Following the advent of machines and electricity, the same has been true of food production. And now, with the advent of digital technologies–and, as Harrington points out, vast commercial and governmental bureaucracies–the same process has repeated itself, leaving only fatherhood as the (precarious) source of a healthy identity for men. Consider the continuing popularity of team sports and athletic competitions–all of which are ritualized, ornamental and vestigial (that is, unrelated except in symbolic terms to the practical needs of earlier communities).
Wonderful reply. Thank you. Fatherhood is indeed the source of positive male identity, which may explain why so many young boys and men without them turn to gang membership.
Too broad a generalization. I’ve know a number of dog-lovers who have reservations about pit-bulls. I have reservations myself.
It seems like the problem could be managed in the same way ownership of many dangerous things is handled. If you own a swimming pool and don’t properly fence it off from toddlers and the neighbor’s wanders in and drowns, you are responsible. Generally, this becomes a tort issue, but in some cases the charge can be manslaughter. If you own a gun and don’t properly keep it out of the hands of a child who shoots someone with it you can be criminally responsible and go to prison. Tort law isn’t going to work at the bottom end of society because they have no pockets. But prison time probably would make a lot of people think twice about strutting around with a dog that could put them there.
Any responsible owner of a normally sized, ordinary family dog is 100% for banning these kinds of dogs (me included). The dog owners who make excuses for Bully XLs are usually people who have similarly large/aggressive/fashion accessory type dogs who fear their own badly behaved breed might be next in line for a ban.
Clare, you strike me as a person with a predisposition to want what is “normal” or “acceptable” or common.
That is fine. A little Scottie can be nice. A Dachsund can be super. Love a mid size mutt.
But a dog being large or muscular and not small, fluffy and cute, is no indication it is gonna be dangerous.
I’m not a fan of any kind of Shepard or Shepard cross. I do not trust em. Not a fan of small dogs either, they tend to be fearful little nippers. Labs are great, IF you own a lot of land and do not mind washing mud out their coats daily or spending 5 hrs a day out jogging with them.
As a former shelter volunteer, I am good with pits depending on the owner and the breeder. They are very very loyal and require a strong hand. They should not be around children unsupervised. Best home for a pit is with a single woman with no kids but who has the skill to train that dog and can keep it well exorcised and well discilined. Not a dog for a young person. Not a dog for someone who is timid or has never dealt with a strong willed dog. Very specific circumstances.
But, then, I have seen a Yellow Lab turn hyper aggressive. Had a young couple that got one. They had a baby and then proceeded to keep the dog locked in the basement except for the occasional walk for over 3 yrs. That dog came into the shelter bordering on insane. Finally had to put it down. Just too dangerous to adopt out. Seen the same thing with Cockers. Had a little spaniel brought in that had been badly spoiled, was hyper posessive of its owner and bit the face of the owners granddaughter when she tried to crawl up in the lap with the dog. Took us MONTHS of work to get that dog remotely normal and understanding it was a dog and where it sat in the pecking order. Took longer to get her trained and disciplined enough to adopt out and then we did now allow any families with kids to adopt her. OMG….those cute little purse dogs? Shoot me. The only reason most of them do not get put down is because of their size.
My Olde English Bulldog? Any kid could climb on him, pull his nose, and he will just think it is play time. Now, I cannot let him play like that since he is liable to hurt a kid just by bumping into them or pawing a ball. Total sweetheart with people. LOVES people. But he is a Bulldog, and when he kisses someone it is with a muzzle punch. If he paws you to get your attention, pray he does not do it on exposed skin. I do not let him put his face near anyone but me or my son and I keep his nails trimmed. Other dogs on the other hand. He has no trust of them.
So much of this is dependent on how a dog was bred, and how the owners have set out to raise them. That could be intentionally raising a dangerous dog OR it can come from simple ignorance and poor understanding of the responsibility.
A friend of mine used to keep malamutes that full grown weighed over 150 lbs. He ran them in mushing races. I never felt the slightest qualm around them. They were rowdy but tempermentally harmless. Also very smart.
Here in the US one only has to see a male with a Pit Bull coming towards one on the sidewalk, to feel a shiver of fear and know what the message is. The dog owner would usually be an hispanic male. At least that’s who it was San Francisco.
There are dangerous dog breeds AND bad owners who don’t train their pets properly. I would also add many wholly unsuitable owners who shouldn’t be allowed to own any dog regardless of breed either because they wilfully raise dogs to be aggressive or because they’re fearful of their own dog which then dominates the relationship.
As a dog lover and trainee Search and Rescue Dog handler, I agree with you. I can assure any prospective dog owner that, in order to have a pet that is trustworthy, well-behaved and loyal, it takes repeated hours and hours of training. There are no short cuts and it is difficult. Unfortunately, in this era of ‘everything must come easy’, too many dogs are left untrained and not in control.
First, instead of saying that there are no dangerous dog breeds, what we should say is that ANY dog breed can be dangerous if not properly bred and raised. ANY dog can be dangerous under the right circumstances. A black lab may well attack someone that they think is threatening their person. A collie may well bight a child that sticks their finger in the dogs eye. A Laza Apso may well tear into someone who steps on them. We CAN say that some breeds have a propensity towards assertiveness and being strong willed and that they attract bad owners. We CAN say that certain breeds that are bred to guard WILL guard just as a sheepdog may try to herd a flock of wild geese or even other dogs.
Second, there are people who should NEVER own a dog, many who should never have a pet at all. Hell, there are plenty of people who should not be allowed to breed themselves since they will raise dangerous kids.
Third, most people are CLUELESS about what a dog actually is and what it takes to raise a well behaved, well socialized, mentally and physically healthy dog. This includes dog lovers and those who do not own them or like them.
ALL animals, ALL OF THEM, are ANIMALS, not little human personalities in a four legged format. I’ve raised horses, dogs, cats, cattle, rabbits, even an orphaned racoon. I’ve even worked with orphaned black bears.
I have seen bad or dangerous examples of all these animals, from dogs to horses to cattle.
But, I have also seen a lot of these animals put in bad positions and or abused to a point they become dangerous. I have also seen and extraordinary number of ignorant people put these animals or themselves in bad positions.
I have seen people call for a bull to be put down because he tried to run them down. Well, you moron, you know nothing about bulls but thought you should climb under a fence so your 5 yr old could feed it a handful of hay. I have seen people want a horse put down because it freaked out on the cross ties, sent a young girl flying and she broke her arm. Did not occur to them that walking up beside a young colt, cross tied for one of the first times, and acting like fools could cause the animal to freak out. I watched a mom hold her 6yr old up to a box stall window so the kid could see a new foal and be terrified when the mare tries to bite her face off. I watch morons walk up to dogs they do not know and decide they are gonna just reach over and pat it on the head with no understanding of how that will be perceived by the dog. I have watched parents encourage their kids to give the puppy a kiss, a little dog they do not know. Just inviting a face bite. I have watched people walk up to horses pulling carriages and just stick their hands on the horses face or patting it on the side without an introduction, just inviting that horse to bite or bolt.
People who do not know animals, do not work with them, have no experience with them, should recognize their ignorance and not put themselves in bad positions. It just sets themselves up to get hurt and the animal to be destroyed.
And yes, I am all for requiring people to need a permit demonstrating that they have had training and have the proper home for a dog before being allowed to have one. I’m even good with the idea that all dog owners prove that their dog has been through an obedience class as part of getting a dog license.
Harrington was using the point that ownership of certain breeds of dogs is an analogy for what the owner is trying to project for what is missing in the male culture in the west, nowadays.
Yes to the the stupidity of the refrain “There are no dangerous dog breeds, just bad owners” but no to the invalidation of people who have no dogs, who say it. It’s said to anyone who suggests it’s a bad dog choice when their are hundreds of other breeds to choose from.
Right-Wing Hippie
7 months ago
Kudos to the editors of this piece about the association of machismo and pitbulls for choosing a picture of an obviously female pitbull to headline it.
Yes, I noticed that, and not only female but she has obviously nurtured at least one litter of puppies. Interesting statement I thought. Make of it what you will, readers.
Matt S
7 months ago
In the same way that I don’t think that the speed limit for cars on local roads should be 100mph based on the drivers perceived ability as a racing car driver, I don’t think that ownership of these dogs should be in the hands of people who think that they can raise them properly. Some can be trained but most probably can’t and i’m not prepared to take the chance that the scumbag in front of me at the local park is actually Barbara Woodhouse in disguise. Any dog that CAN kill someone shouldn’t ever have the opportunity to do so.
A car can kill someone at lower speeds than 100mph! That’s why we have licenses, to ensure car owners are fit to be on the road. Perhaps we need to look into bringing back dog licenses.
Don’t they have them in the UK. They do in the US but a fat lot of good it does in preventing attacks.
michael stanwick
7 months ago
“What American Bullies Tell Us About Men”. Men? As in the entire category of adult males.
So what has it told us about all the members of that category?
Lazy language and a lazy headline IMO.
Christopher Chantrill
7 months ago
Two of my favorite maxims are “women expect to be protected” and “men know they are expendable.”
So, one of the big tasks of human society, after protecting women, is to kid men into thinking they are not expendable, at least until we rulers need a jolly old world war again.
Probably men would not be so interested in vicious dogs if we made them feel that macho male traits in the Jungian collective unconscious might be put to good use.
It seems that in Mary Harrington’s view, and probably the view of many young women today, Bully dogs and men are both equally unnecessary and expendable.
Your last sentence is possibly ambiguous : personally I am of the view that Bully dogs and bully men are undesireable and expendable. Men (unqualified) are not.
For Vijay, William and Matt: I’m relieved that some readers don’t buy into the theory that “men are expendable.” I’m not sure that even evolutionary psychologists would do so without explaining that people (including men) are not purely natural beings–like dogs. Rather, we are also cultural beings. Consequently, we can and must create moral and other levels of meaning.
No healthy people, as either individuals or groups, consider themselves “expendable” (although, lamentably, they often consider other people expendable). To accept this ultimately dehumanizing premise, even grudgingly, people must be not only bribed heavily (promised material and social rewards in this world and immaterial rewards in some other world) but also intimidated (threatened with shame, imprisonment or execution). In short, every society has a social (cultural) contract, whether explicit or implicit, which makes it possible for everyone to believe that its assumptions about human existence make their lives dignified, meaningful and worthwhile.
None of what you said is valid particularly the bit about women expecting to be protected. I never expected that, perhaps because I didn’t get it from my father. I would have welcomed it but it never came from any male in my life.
I think that Chantrill’s point was that culture has fostered this expectation among women, not that all women have ever complied. But I can see why you didn’t and don’t. Thank you for explaining that.
Now, try to think of it from the perspective of a man. My father made it clear to me (not often but often enough even when I was a little boy), that my duty was to protect women no matter what the risk or cost. And that message was backed up by countless movies, TV shows, commercials and so on–all of them addressed to both men and women. Frankly, I found that very threatening. I was hard put to protect myself from the bullies (both boys and girls). In those days, though, boys and men could expect at least the reward of public respect for being protectors–and public shame for not doing so.
N Satori
7 months ago
Is Ms Harrington telling us that ownership of dangerous dogs is toxic masculinity by proxy? Several owners of American Bully XLs involved in recent dog attacks have been women. Presumably then, the women who choose these dogs really yearn for a good old-fashioned toxic male.
The XL Bully is a violent dog owned by stupid and violent people. I see them every day with their owners in their best Sports Direct attire. Nasty dogs owned by nasty people. As a dog owner who has had to kick other dogs off mine when they attacked it, I have no time for dogs like this or their retarded owners.
There was an article that stated that XL Bully is a deeply inbred crossbreed so arguably very much like their stupid owners!
Jim Veenbaas
7 months ago
I have three adorable smell breed dogs. I take them to the dog park everyday. There are three pit bulls that come on a regular basis and they are just wonderful, loving animals. A couple of them are lap dogs – they just want to be cuddled and be as close as possible.
Having said that, I just read some research that shows pit bulls are responsible for 70% of dog attacks, even though they represent only 6% of the dog population.
There have been numerous ‘horror stories’ over many, many years of appalling dog breeding/interbreeding, many if not most of them simply ignored by Crufts & Co.
King Charles Spaniels, Labradors, Alsatians to name but a few.
The only difference here is that that ‘they’ have deliberately produced the ultimate ‘feroco-dog’ and it is a human killer.
Extinction is the only answer sadly.
That is so true. My son is a vet and whilst he benefits from treating these canine products of bad breeding, he gets very angry with Crufts. They have created a situation where in some cases the prize winning dogs have required features that will inevitably lead to medical problems e.g breathing difficulties and skin problems.
A few years ago some brave woman at the BBC took up this matter, and I believe managed to ban Crufts from the airwaves for a bit.
She also exposed the whole potentially fraudulent nature of our Pedigree system, particularly in comparison to both Germany and Scandinavia.
Re “smell” (sic) breed dogs – which may be a Freudian slip!
I can relate to this, as I like dogs, but only in the abstract sense of essential ‘dogginess’. Actual dogs ALL smell and that smell makes me physically retch, so I keep away from them, and I assiduously avoid a house which contains a dog if possible. Some of them (the houses) absolutely stink! (So do some of the owners).
I am continually amazed that the owners either don’t notice or don’t care!
I suppose this is a case of ‘it takes all sorts’. And I admit that a world without dogs – particularly working dogs – would be a poorer place – I just wish owners would keep them away from me.
I agree with a lot of this piece – and am probably more susceptible to the arguments made in it having watched a documentary about Andrew Tate and his nasty little acolytes in the German-speaking area last night.
However, just as pitties etc. are being used as fashion accessories – in some ways I find the trend for little lapdogs worse. Chihuahuas and similar might not pose the same physical danger as Bullies and pitbulls but they are being bred beyond any kind of physical utility to suit humans’ emotional and fashion needs. I’m no dog expert but when dogs are being bred to look a certain way because they do better in shows but then can’t breathe properly, then that is very wrong indeed.
I was out and about around Salzburg a few weeks ago and visited an outdoor museum. It was a stifling hot day and even we had difficulty walking any more than about 100m at a time without having to seek out shade. A woman was there with some kind of lapdog, pulling it around on a leash while the thing gasped and spluttered: when it couldn’t keep up, she picked it up and jammed it under her (pretty warm) armpit. It was a horrible thing to see.
David Morley
7 months ago
Any demographic info on the owners/market for these dogs? By class, gender etc.
Quick look on YouTube suggests young black men, plus middle aged white men who could, in all fairness, be described as “gammon”. Plus a few women. None of them looking like they might have read a book any time recently – not even Jack London.
Correct. Dumb urban losers seem to constitute the majority of owners of these ugly brutes.
Dumetrius
7 months ago
Does Unherd use an American Bully as its proofreader?
Simon Neale
7 months ago
It’s like the firearms debate, in a way. A situation where deadly and unstoppable force is in the the hands of the bad and stupid people. To see anyone in public carrying or fondling an antique kalashnikov would be chilling, let alone those who are clearly not up to handling it properly.
There’s one in our local shopping centre, owned by a homeless bloke who frequently looks the worse for wear. It prompts three questions. Where the heck does he get the money from? Would I be ashamed of my cowardly response if it attacked someone? Do the local police and pseudo-police have some sort of contingency plan?
The local homeless guy owns an antique Kalishnikov?
Sue Ward
7 months ago
My husband is a lorry driver and built like the proverbial brick outhouse in terms of muscle. We have two shih tzus and a miniature poodle. He can regularly be seen walking our female Tzu (she’s his baby!) in her pink collar and harness and occasionally a pink jumper or tutu (the dog wears them not him, to be clear!). A man who needs a mutant killer on a lead to feel secure in himself is a truly sad specimen.
All great dogs but not a dog that I would get for a 12 yr old boy or for a guy that takes his dog with him all over the place.
Those are great dogs if you just want something that is gonna hang with you on the couch and maybe go for a walk.
Not so great if you want to spend all day on a farm where they might get kicked or stepped on by a horse or cow. Not so great if you want to take them camping. Not great if you have a young son that wants to get down and rough house with them.
What constitutes a great dog is dependent on the person and their lifestyle.
If I still went out riding every day and covered a lot of miles, I would not want a Bulldog, I would want another lab. If I lived in my old apartment I would want a smaller terrier. If I had little kids at home or an elderly person living with me I would want something like what you have. But, I am a single dad with a 15 yr old boy. A bulldog suits our lifestyle.
Excellent.
“Typically, if the monster dog-owner is a man, this is aspirational; or if the dog-owner is a woman, to convey approval of these traits in men.”
There are a subset of lesbians, too, who seem to be attracted to pit-bulls. And I doubt they are so to vicariously approve of these traits in men. But maybe – I don’t have a clue. I’ve just noticed the tendency enough times to mention it. In fact, I’ll generalize slightly – I think I’ve noticed that lesbians much prefer to own male dogs to female dogs.
There is surely a subset of lesbians who parade ‘butch’ masculine traits as in the ‘butch’ /Femme couples
Matt Hindman
7 months ago
Sorry, I’m not with Mary on this one. All the biggest pit bull fans I have met have been middle aged white women who love the breed for how affectionate and smart they are when raised properly.
I’ll say this about large, aggressive breeds. The owners have a much greater responsibility than small breed owners. Also, when dogs get older and start suffering from age related maladies, and sometimes dementia, large aggressive breeds can become dangerous, even with the most responsible owners.
I find that most large dog owners take their responsibility more seriously than small dog owners that allow their dogs to do as they please because they’re small and less of a threat! ALL dogs should be trained and socialised! Regardless of size!
I haven’t met any pit bull fans, let alone enough to draw statistically significant conclusions about them, and suspect I may be closer to the average UnHerd subscriber.
All the biggest pit bull fans I have met have been middle aged white women who love the breed for how affectionate and smart they are when raised properly.
Which suggests that something much darker is going on here than what is suggested by Mary.
Are you sure that your “middle aged white women” didn’t have Staffordshire Bull Terriers and NOT Pit Bulls? Despite appearances there is quite a difference.
Staffordshires have been renowned for years as being the ‘nanny dog’. Conversely in the pre-War Raj they were reputed to be the only dog capable of killing a King Cobra.
However recent’n*zi style interbreeding is slowly destroying this famous breed.
There’s very little difference. Both breeds were bred for fighting, with principal characteristics of strength, intelligence agility and intense loyalty. I’ve never met a pit bull I wouldn’t trust with children.
Size is a difference, an ‘average’ Staffie is quite a bit smaller than an ‘average’ Pit Bull.
Other than that your are correct, but perhaps you should have emphasised that historically speaking whilst ‘bulls’ were one of the earliest opponents it became mainly rats, or other similar fighting dogs.
The records of the premier London venue, the Westminster Pit are quite clear on the matter.
Now however the selective breeding of the XL Bully has produced something ‘beyond the Pale’ and it is completely unacceptable.
Years ago the same thing happened with Spanish fighting bulls, they just became too lethal, and had to
replaced by a slightly less pugnacious variety.(sadly).
“I’ve never met a pit bull I wouldn’t trust with children.”
Congratulations . You win the prize for the most irresponsible and misguided comment on here.
So much ignorance and bigotry being displayed on here against Bull breeds. I have owned Pitbulls, English bull terriers, Staffies and and an American bulldog over the last 45 years and without exception all of them have been lovely, affectionate, loyal family pets, great with our kids and fantastic personalities. These dogs reputations are being destroyed by a tiny percentage of irresponsible idiots. Not everyone who wants a dog, wants to own a yipping fluffball, and being attracted towards a strong, intelligent working breed does not make you some kind of sociopathic moron….get real people!
Last edited 7 months ago by Mark Turner
William Shaw
7 months ago
If you want to be sexist and insulting it’s difficult to do better than this headline:
“What American Bullies tell us about men”
To put it into perspective for feminists, consider the following:
“What Teacup Chihuahua’s tell us about women”
See how ridiculous a statement that is?
If this is the best that Harrington can do she should find another job.
Unherd has provocative headers to get you to read the story. That’s what most publications do.
Rachel Elliott
7 months ago
In my neck of Progressive America, Pitties are a badge of honor, particularly if they are “rescue dogs.” One neighbor has a 3-time adoptee reject, whose snarls she dismisses with, “He was abused. I’m his last chance.” Another neighbor’s dog lunged at me as I walked by on the sidewalk, and I was told, “He’s just protective of his mommy.” Insanity.
Alan Jackson
7 months ago
In her last paragraph Mary is I think -whether consciously or unconsciously I am not sure- drawing on Yeats’ “The Second Coming” about a time when “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed ,and everywhere The ceremony of Innocence is drowned”. The poem’s end sparked my reminiscence : ” And what rough best, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born”. Compare “The real dogs of war will slink back out of the shadows, along with the men who command them”!
Chuck Pezeshki
7 months ago
It’s strange to read this piece — no one has mentioned the ‘rescue’ phenomenon. Our part of the world is a dumping ground for seized drug dealers’ dogs, mostly pit bulls and pit bull crosses. Our shelters are no-kill, and as such are popular targets for the no-kill rescue crowd.
Pit bulls have seriously compromised dog culture here, because while 50% are fine, 50% are not, and they are dogs of means. The owners indeed are middle aged women, and if I have to hear another story about ‘nanny dogs’ I think I’ll puke.
My two dogs are both purebred — one border collie, and another borzoi, a Russian wolfhound. The Russian wolfhound is an odd policeman of our own dog park, in that he is loving and very passive, until an aggressive breed (pit bull crosses and huskies are the absolute worst) bites him on the nose or leg. Then he does what wolfhounds, well, do. Warning the Karens that show up to the dog park about what will happen to their beloved apparent killer makes them run, and we have a Clint Eastwood-esque peace. But it’s still depressing. The rescues are signs of a degenerate culture, grasping at virtue signaling, that has no use for good manners. Tragic. And antisocial as hell. It’s more than a sign of decaying society.
Last edited 7 months ago by Chuck Pezeshki
Tyler Durden
7 months ago
Young working-class culture has been revived via Tate and the new accroutements of the modern council estate; including fighting doggies, naturally.
As we’re talking about the boys, they’ve had years to catch up with their women’s Instagram stardom. They don’t participate in the gender mysticism, as they have neither bourgeois or graduate standing.
What is key to the question of these dogs is that they also kill a few hundred other dogs these years. It is almost a metaphor for this forgotten social stratum carving out a thin niche in society by displacing the toys of the middle class- usually this is through drug peddling, but even that is being imperrilled by Ulez penalties now.
We don’t need dogs like this, and to be honest I don’t think we need the kind of people that want them either.
Paul MacDonnell
7 months ago
I think as well as technological sophistication, you must also look at the universal feminization of our institutions and values that has marginalised masculinity. Masculinity needs to be restored and allowed for in a way that is constructive. This is a very good article but it does somewhat repeat the breezy sneering at masculinity and its role in society that is a cause of this problem in the first place.
Alan Jackson
7 months ago
Cf.Re Yeats. Sorry for typo : “best ” from th poem should read “beast”.
Daniel P
7 months ago
You gotta be more specific.
There are so many variations of these dogs.
My Olde English Bulldog is a big, sweet, lump of muscle. If he hurts you it is because he has no sense of his own strength.
Just a big lump that likes to cuddle, is afraid of the UPS truck, and thinks he can take down a deer on the TV. A dog, that has almost no ability to look dignified and looks silly when he tries.
Now, most of the people who stop and notice him? Women. Guys tend to stand back.
My fiance will more readily sit with him than me on some days.
These are great dogs for older boys who play rough because they cannot really hurt them. Great watchdogs, they will hear everything, they notice anything new or out of place and their looks just intimidate people even if the dog is a complete coward. They do not need lots and lots of exorcise the way a lab does or a collie does. Exorcise, yes, all day in a field..no.
“If he hurts you it is because he has no sense of his own strength.”
“their looks just intimidate people even if the dog is a complete coward”
Tells me all I need to know about you and your choice of dog
It’s funny. I’ve always found men are more likely to be afraid of dogs than women and the bigger the man, the more likely they are to be fearful. I see lots of young women walking one or two huge dogs in complete control and I’ve seen men walking lapdogs. The stereotypes presented here are a product of ignorance.
It reminds me of Bill Sikes and Bullseye. The bully of a man with a weapon of a dog. Whilst it would be nice to be a stereotype that doesn’t really exist, unfortunately it does. Whilst not necessarily typical.
Amazing the number of times I have watched a 12 or 13 yr old girl handle a hard headed Thoroughbred, just put it in line when it is acting up, and do it with no fear and absolute certainty that she will win.
Then, watch that same young girls father not even be willing to go in the stall with the horse.
My neighbour just had her hip broken after pulled over by her large dog. I see women being dragged along by dogs nearly every day, looks like the dog is taking them for a walk. The women you quote are not in full control by default because if the dog decided it was going somewhere they are not strong enough to stop it.
True. I walked someone’s big Airdale and it took off after another dog and I was dragged across the street in front of traffic. It was truly terrifying.
A vicious dog needs a vicious owner to balance his instincts. Not!
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
No mention of the MALINOIS*, the super attack dog of both the US and Australian Special Forces?
Capable of being parachuted into the combat zone, its ferocity is legendary, as many an unfortunate Afghan or Iraqi can testify.
One has even been awarded the Dickin Medal**, the dog VC for outstanding courage.
Yet so far no reports of any ‘retired’ Malinois killing anybody that I have seen. Why not?
(* A Belgium sheep dog that resembles an Alsatian.)
(** Awarded by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals or PDSA,
a UK charity for US readers.)
Probably because the ownership numbers are pretty small for this breed Charles, and the retired dogs you mention are almost certain to have been properly trained, well loved and owned by responsible service background type people……..which goes to the reply I made further up to you. Its not the dog, its the owner……
Jerry Carroll
7 months ago
What a long way of saying stupid or thugish people keep these squatty kegs of dynamite with short fuses.
Wow. Lot of fear of dogs. And anger. Not saying either is unreasonable I just was surprised at the tenor of comments. I was only coming down here to comment that MH must’ve never seen a puppy XL. I’m an average size lady with ginormous Newfoundlands. And I live in the great American desert so their only job is Olympic level napping. And drool slinging. None of which is to the point, which actually was my point. I think much of what Mary says here and most of the comments are quite true and reasonable. But humans aren’t built for reason. We’re built for love and fierce loyalty. Reason was only ever meant to keep us between the rails. And people who are untethered from each other, family, children, etc are going to continue being unreasonable about their dogs. And no amount of banning is going to solve the problem.
Banning certain breeds of aggressive dogs will solve the problem. Your” ginormous Newfoundlands” sound like a euphomism.
Nicholas Rowe
7 months ago
What red-blooded male would want to own an animal with two pairs of Queen Anne legs?
Attach a flat surface to the back of the creature and it will become a useful mobile coffee table. Perhaps the refined ethos of the fastidious Stuart age will make some commerce with the owners in their detached netherworld of archaic masculinity.
In any case, no male owner is going to develop a pair of legs that can convey the serious mansplaining that this pictured animal is doing. That must create some sense of inferiority in the owner.
In the coarse language used in the world that some of the owners inhabit, the animal’s bow-legged posture would be termed ‘sh@gbandy’.
If the theory proposed here is correct, should we expect to find coiffured female poodles, festooned with silk ribbons, kept as ‘company’ for these XL animals? Or if homoeroticism is suspected, a male poodle.
Is there still a traditional use for these ugly brutes? (The XL animals, as well as the men). Pepped up with canine chemicals, equipped with dogcams, and decked out with blue and yellow silk ribbons, they could be used like Aztec war dogs on the Eastern Front. Imagine the breaking news from the Daily Express. The 10th Battledog Brigade, ‘The Gnashers’, liberates Sevastopol, eats Putin’s cat.
Well you have certainly proved the point that a certain kind of male will own a certain kind of dog for a certain kind of reason.
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago
Dog liability insurance should be compulsory. Councils should have the power to require owners to hold a licence, for which there should be a test. This answers the reply that there are only bad owners – owners need to be trained to be better. A dog tax should be imposed to discourage multiple ownership and pay for bins for dog poo and other services.
Charles Hedges
7 months ago
There are a number of dogs who have been bred to to protect homes and fight off wild animals. Rhodesian Ridgeback (lion dogs ) to keep lions, leopards and cheetahs away from cattle; Anatolian Wolfhounds to kill wolves at bay, Siberian Wolfhounds to kill wolves, Rottweilers, etc. These dogs are very territorial and all dogs assess their environment through smell. I would suggest when someone is fearful they emit a smell which makes it more likely a dog will attack. All these dogs can kill people. These dogs should only be kept on farms by people who are physically strong enough to control them.
The Rhodesian Ridgeback can be so territorial they will attack any person who is not a family member so people such as post men do not enter the property.
Darwin K Godwin
7 months ago
Cologne commercials seem to be tracking in the same direction. “Be your own Boss.”
Frances Mann
7 months ago
A very good article. Again, thank you Mary.
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Why the censorship on the MALINOIS.
rob drummond
7 months ago
”What American Bullies tell us about men” the article headlines.
if you look at The BBC website – you will mostly see Women (If i may be allowed to use that word) owners all saying how lovely these horrendous animals are.
Reginald Duquesnoy
7 months ago
It would be very fitting and à propos to replace the American Eagle with the pitbull…though in a way, he is but an avatar of the English bulldog, an export gone rogue, now replaced by the poodle or is it the labradoodle?
Shrunken Genepool
7 months ago
We went with an XL Wally.
Nanu Mitchell
7 months ago
13 million dogs. Thirteen million.
Philip Gallo
7 months ago
Maybe men don’t want to live in a matriarchy?
Nicholas Taylor
7 months ago
There is little I need to add to the comments of and replies to N Satori. However, I point to two relevant words: ‘breed’ and ‘dominated’. Domestic dogs are essentially manufactured animals. The people who breed or own them are 100% responsible for their behaviour, as much as if they go into public spaces with anything potentially harmful to other people or the environment, be it gun, car, cigarette/vape smoke, litter or just antisocial behaviour.
Certainly where I live dog owners dominate public urban and peripheral green spaces, where they contaminate the soil with urine and faeces, even if the latter is bagged and removed (at what public and environmental cost?), and intimidate or attack wildlife (and livestock though that is an issue in itself), as well as people. In cities they urinate constantly on the streets and often defaecate too. I read once that most of the bacteria in New York City’s air came from dog faeces. This is starkly at variance with modern ‘health and safety’, ‘ultra low emission zones’, and emphasis on a clean pleasant environment.
A key point is that if dogs had not already been present in towns, introducing them today would be unthinkable. A third relevant word is ‘habit’. Dog owning, that once had a specific purpose restricted to the owner’s estate, has become a habit, promoted by breeders and fed essentially by surplus cash (which equates to extra environmental impact especially as dogs are predominantly flesh eaters).
The companionship argument raises two red flags: first that it is inherently bogus – consider that in (say) 25 years time people may be able to tow around a robot companion that is equally blindly devoted to them; second that it is an unhealthy artificial substitute for natural relationships with other humans and with wildlife – both inherently difficult and that money cannot buy.
None of this addresses the welfare of the dogs themselves. Manufactured and deranged they may be, but they are conscious individuals. Breeding has produced horrors of stunting, overgrowth, disfigurement, disturbed character, and proneness to disability: citing for example Dachshunds, French bulldogs, German shepherds, and of course the American Bully XL. This has no place in a world where nature and biodiversity are valued.
Last edited 7 months ago by Nicholas Taylor
Android Tross
7 months ago
Ms Harrington is wildly hit or miss in her output. This was a miss. She argues that the breed should be banned, but did she take more than two seconds to think that through? America provided the world a cautionary prohibition tale a hundred years ago, but everyone seems to think the lesson ONLY ever applied to prohibiting alcohol. She mentions dog fighting and drug dealing, yet I’m pretty sure both of those things are widely illegal, at least across the Anglosphere. And yet they both continue to happen. Why would banning an entire dog breed result in something different? Ban it, and I guarantee it will become one of the most popular dog breeds in America.
This seems to fall somewhere in between lazy writing categories of “throw the specter of Andrew Tate out there and let that fear make your point for you”, and “there’s a sub community our there for just about everything, but this is the one you should be freaking out about”.
You can drink alcohol behind closed doors but you have to take a dog for a walk.
Stuart Sutherland
7 months ago
I think the keeping of animals as “pets” is the ultimate form of animal abuse. Working dogs at least have some purpose to their existence rather than being a “fluffy toy”!
I’m sure that if you said that to my dog she’d raise a sleepy eye from her ridiculously sized bed and tell you that you were barking up the wrong tree!
Oh yeah? So the dogs and cats that live on the street are better off than those living with humans who feed them, take them annually to the vet, bathe them, care for and love them? Or are you suggesting that all “non-useful” animals should just die off or be destroyed?
Does a pet dog or cat have any less purpose to its existence than a human who does nothing productive, or worse only does destructive, anti-social things?
Absurd comment. There is so much love between pets and their owners and some people only have a pet to love and care for. And vice versa.
Last edited 7 months ago by Clare Knight
Bryan Dale
7 months ago
It’s obvious by his ignorance that the writer has never owned a bully breed, if he’s owned any dog at all. It’s unfortunate that he’s been given a platform to spread his garbage among unsuspecting readers.
As someone who’s owned pit bulls, I know firsthand why they were America’s favourite family pet for generations
The bully breeds are among some of the best, sweetest, dogs out there.
I would take a Bulldog over a Shepard anytime.
And unless I was back on the farm all day, I would take a Bulldog over a lab or a sheep dog also.
I sure as heck do not want some small little ankle biter. I want a dog that can get down and wrestle or who can play tug of war for 30 minutes. I do not want a dog that I have to worry about tripping over or who is gonna get hurt just jumping in and out of the truck.
Do not get me wrong, I love all dogs. They are all pretty cool. But I personally prefer a dog that has some meat to it and can wrestle and play or be taken places and not get itself hurt. I’ve had everything from Collies to Akitas (rescue) to Sheep Dogs to Dachsunds and Labs. The best dog I have owned in terms of personality and temperment and just being interesting and companionable is my Bulldog.
Two owners of American Bully XL dogs I have seen recently (and given a very wide berth) were young, fairly slight, women. Neither of them seemed remotely capable of restraining the beasts should they choose to attack another animal or person.
Unfortunately, any discussion of dangerous dogs is always dominated by dog lovers. They are deemed to be the experts we are all obliged to listen to. The entirely predictable message they always come out with: There are no dangerous dog breeds, just bad owners who don’t train their pets properly.
Those of us who have no great love of dogs and are not blinded by the sentiment these pet’s are able to invoke have a much clearer idea of the many problems caused by needless and selfish dog ownership – but of course our opinions are dismissed as irrelevant. If you don’t own a dog it seems you are not entitled to express your views.
I’ve seen this too. Children and women being dragged around by larger dogs, clearly incapable of restraining them if needed. As a dog lover with two Yorkies and a Havenshire, I can assure you we respect people who don’t love them like we do.
I accept that your comment is made in good faith but, as a regular walker I have found that parks and open spaces have become increasingly dominated by dog owners exercising their pets. There is a growing attitude that such open spaces are meant for this and people merely strolling without a dog have less reason to be there.
By the way, data collected by one of the major pet insurers shows that there are more personal injury claims against the “family friendly” Labrador than any other dog type in Britain. Also worth mentioning: Police data shows that you are more likely to be bitten by the (again “family friendly”) Jack Russell Terrier than any other type of dog. Of course, widespread ownership of these breeds is an important factor but it does rather tarnish the image of the lovely pet that wouldn’t hurt a fly.
Yes the Reverend ‘Jack’ Russell has a LOT to answer for.
However these little 8lbs beasts normally only inflict rather minor injuries due to their diminutive size.
Conversely XL Bully can sever an arm with ease!
Really? Only minor damage? Have you seen what a Jack can do?
Absolutely. All anyone needs to do is search for them on YouTube to see just how much they love to hunt and kill. They are ferocious little beasts!
I was bitten by a dog that was a cross between a Jack Russell and Staffy, (whoever thought that would be a winning combination needs help!) whilst my Rottweiler sat and watched. I’m a firm believer in the benefits of socialising dogs and I think that lockdown exasperated the issue as so many ran out and bought dogs then avoided socialising the dogs because social distancing and now have unspecialised dogs that don’t know how to behave around other dogs or people. I also appreciate that whilst my dog is generally harmless (raised in a family and socialised from pup), she is physically capable of killing even if she doesn’t know it. I would never leave her alone with a child or someone I didn’t know or trust. Not because I believe she would attack but because I cannot guarantee it.
Small dogs can be very dangerous, precisely because they are small enough to be picked up by their owner and put in another room if they are causing trouble. That means the ignorant owner doesn’t see the need to ensure the dog is properly trained.
I read it is the cocker spaniel that holds the record for most bite-prone. But you’re missing the point with the comparison. Nobody ends up dead from a labrador, Jack Russell or cocker spaniel bite – or even end up in an ICU. Bites isn’t the concern that motivates here.
Children have been killed by much smaller dogs.
Sure – once in awhile. The statistics on death by dog mauling aren’t even close to being debatable. Look at the police statistics, the ER room statistics.
I’m not arguing for banning them, though.
Why not ban them, there are plenty of other breeds to choose from, why take the chance?
Hi Clare. In response to your query re my “out of here in November”… I will not be renewing my subscription to Unherd. Unherd is just like any other medium: a platform for a certain type of ideology. In this case, one I no longer care to engage with. “Clever” does not equate “good” in my books. Good luck if you are still in the US… I do not to envy you. Take care.
How many times compared to Pit Bulls?
I would imagine the high population of labradors contributes to the statistics as you suggest. But again, these are working breeds so must have the stimulation and exercise required to subdue them.
Meaning no offence to you sir, but your judgement on the matter seems just as bias by your distaste of dog companionship than dog-lovers are of their affection.
Having owned multiple Labradors and being a dog lover in general I’m inclined to believe that your claim about dog related injuries in Britain needs to be further examined in light of the shear number of Labradors relative to other breeds.
Facts – American XL Bullies have been involved in 44 per cent of attacks on people in 2023, and 75 per cent of fatalities since 2021, despite only being around 1 per cent of the UK dog population.
This is the sort of data needed to make correct decisions. Dogs breeds can therefore be rated acording to danger. 75 % divided by 1% is a fatality rate of 75. A Labrador with say 20% of attacks but 30% of population would be 0.67 and 0 fatalities would be 0. Dogs would be rated by fatalities and then attacks. Mongrels would be rated according to proportion of genetic make up.
Dogs may change in character of which Rottweilers appear to have the is problem. Someone has said in certain cases a bone grows into the brain of some Rottweilers and causes them to become more violent.
The Bully dogs have a large body mass but a small brain. Do they have some brain defect which causes them to lose control and attack ?
The national dog clubs should have asked the points I have made and provided the answers. The reality is that national dog clubs are not acting with sufficient discernment .
It should be attacks per number of dogs and fatalities per numbers of dogs. A simple strength test; can the owner hold the dog back with a single arm even if it rushes sidewards to the person? Therefore strength and size of dog must be proportional to strength of owner.
About 12 months ago I walked round the corner straight in to a very small south-east Asian woman with a huge husky on a lead.
The husky gave me a cursory sniff and then let out a low guttural howl that went right through my core before it trotted on its way taking its owner with it
The husky liked you. They howl socially, showing off for friends. Unless by “howl” you meant “growl”. Two different things.
Oh, so we’ve got to be experts in dog behaviour in order to not get mauled now have we? Jeez.
You need to be able to describe the animal if you survive the attack.
More importantly sue the owner.
It did not growl and was not on any way aggressive. It was completely ambivalent.
The howl just sent a chill thorough my bones and made me think I want one
I don’t quite understand the last sentance.
“There are no dangerous dog breeds, just bad owners who don’t train their pets properly.”
Yet another version of “my feelings trump your facts”
It reminded me of the NRA slogan, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.
How? Guns are inanimate objects. Dogs are living beings with brains, instincts, and and personalities. Guns can’t load themselves, aim at a target, and fire.
Not yet, anyway
Of course it did – it was designed to. But guns don’t get up off the table and trot around the corner and attack the mailman when you aren’t looking.
Absolutely absurd comparison. Breathtaking.
What is your lung capacity? If your breath is taken away that easily maybe you better knock off the fags.
Exactly, that’s the idea.
You are absolutely correct and I say that as a confirmed dog lover of many years. In fact I always been much impressed by the alleged remark of the late Frederick the Great* :” The more I see of the human race the more I love my dogs!”
However in this case these XL Bully dogs have clearly been bred to kill, and should be immediately prohibited.
Dogs can be bred to do almost anything, guide the blind, herd sheep and cattle, retrieve game, chase foxes, sniff out drugs and explosives, and so on. So it should come as no surprise that some reprehensible beings have decided to produce the ultimate killer dog, and sadly they have succeeded.
It rather reminds me of someone not that many years, who attempted to breed a ‘master race’.
(*Onetime King of Prussia.)
No one attempted to breed a “master race” you gullible f*ing idiot.
Y’know, the reason I pay to read all the various opinions offered by UnHerd is the intelligent, civil discourse in the comment section. You’re a sad Blackadder figure, a Percy creating his “green” and wearing an idiotic oversized ruff. Go, Sir, and be savaged by a turbot!
All dogs have a prey drive, some more than others. For example a working line German Shepherd and a Jack Russell have generally high prey drive, whereas a Bichon and Golden Retriever, low. A lot of training is about channeling this drive for good.
But that’s not what this is about.
Exactly. I’ve lost count of the number of tragic cases of adults and children being mauled by this type of dog.
Hi Charles, I usually agree with what you say on here, but I am afraid you are wrong here. XL bullies, have not, as you state, “Been bred to kill” – Do you honestly believe breeders hone their dogs killing skills ? And if so, how? They have been bred for a certain size and pphysical characteristics that makes them of course dangerous in the hands of unsuitable owners. There are plenty of other breeds that are just as strong, and potentially dangerous, such as Alsatians, Dobermans, Cane Corsa, Mastiffs, Huskies, Malanois ( As used in combat by the Navy Seals) …..I could go on. The issue here is the people that own them, not the poor dog. No dog is intrinsically dangerous or aggresive unless trained by circumstance or deliberately to be so. Owning a big powerful dog comes with a certain social responsibility and unfortunately these owners who dont fit the bill are usually from the social strata creating other unwanted effects in society, such as crime, antisocial behaviour, bad parenting, etc. This is where we should be concentrating our efforts. So the breed will be banned and these same Ye-Ha’s will simply start crossing some other large dog with another and make some other hybrid with similar characteristics. Problem dogs are a very tiny percentage of the total and its a shame that the significant number of people who dont like dogs are so easily whipped up by the latest tabloid “devil dog” stories. You would not for example suggest banning black people because they carry out most street crime, robberies and stabbings? So why does the same logic apply to dogs?
Good points. Two women friends have been attacked by dogs. One by the family Rottweiler, luckily the husband returned as it was top of her and about to bite her neck. The husband shot the dog.Another by a Rhodesian Ridgeback and the lady needed a 100 stitches. In both cases the dogs were in the country and the women were experienced with dealing with animals. In both cases the dogs turned and attacked people. Large dogs designed to attack in order to defend a territory can kill, small dogs cannot kill.
Labradors have a very strong bite strength and are not used for guarding because their jaws would break the trainers arms even when they were wearing protection. Labradors were bred to retrieve rope and pots to help fishermen in Labrador. They were not bred for protection. There are two strains of Labradors, show types which need less exercise and working ones which need to be exercised the whole day long. Other dogs such as Rhodesian Ridgebacks were bred to protect farms from lions ( Lion Ddogs) and Rottweilers were bred to protect livestock and humans. Another dangerous dog only suited to living in remote areas is the Kangal.
Kangal Shepherd Dog – Wikipedia
Dogs are influenced by emotions and can be triggered by fear and jealousy. I suggest for some reason training can be overidden by emotions and basic instinct comes into play such as attack or retrieve.
There are certain simples tests to be done
Bite strength of dog. Number or % of fatalities divided by number or % of dog population to produce Fatality Rating. Number or % of attacks divided by number or % of dog population to produce Attack Rating. The dangerous qualities of each breed could be ranked. High rating on all three would mean banning or high insurance premiums. Some people have been attacked visiting people with dangerous dogs.
Snap. My only “near misses” with dangerous dogs in Vienna have been in situations where relatively small women have been on the other end of the lead (and the dog wasn’t wearing any muzzle). The dog was in control of them, not the other way around.
Who knows whether said women co-owned the dog with some big, meaty, bouncer-type boyfriend who was waiting for them at home…but if you aren’t able to control the thing yourself, you shouldn’t be the one taking it out for walks.
This kind of “dog-poser” makes me really angry, as any incidents which come about are because the dogs are just behaving like they are geared up to do. It is not their fault – it is ALWAYS the owners’ fault.
And to get yourself into a situation where a living thing has to be killed just because you just wanted to adhere to some kind of fashion or tough-guy image is disgusting and unbelievably shallow.
The authority on all this used to be the late Oberst Konrad Most.
Yet he clearly identified that certain breeds have definite characteristics. For example the Dobermann (Pinscher) was clearly an ‘attack’ dog, and very good at defence as well. Therefore you are correct it is ALWAYS the owners fault if they possess such a beast and are incapable of handling it.
However this does NOT mean that a dog cannot be bred to be super ferocious and thus impossible to control.
In other livestock breeding this characteristic is routinely eliminated, even in the case of Spanish ‘fighting bulls’ for example.
Dobermans are what they are intended to be. Dogs that can be a guard dog and then go home to a family.
Nothing wrong with guard dogs. Handled properly they can be great additions to a home.
What is wrong is a few things. 1. Bad breeding 2. Owners who have no idea what they are getting or any idea how to raise and train them. 3. Other people who have no clue how to behave around a dog they do not know.
A Doberman is not a collie, is not a Pitbull, is not a Bulldog is not a Labrador is not a sheep dog, but a lot of idiots out there just buy whichever puppy looks cute at the moment.
If you are a passive person. Do not buy a bulldog. They take a strong hand and they will test you and they are stubborn. If you cannot walk a Jack Russel on a leash and not get pulled down the street, do not buy a Rottweiler.
You can be a bad dog owner and get away with it with a lot of smaller breeds and work dogs. But you cannot get away with not knowing how to train a dog to walk and come when called etc when you have a strong, strong willed, dog that weighs in at 75 lbs or more.
“3. Other people who have no clue how to behave around a dog they do not know.” – what, the general public? So their fault if they are attacked, for not behaving properly around the dog?
It could be. If you got up and try to pet a strange dog, or act in a threatening way to its owner, it’s your fault if you get bit.
Would you raise your children with no understanding of the risks of strangers or traffic? Of course everyone should know how to behave around dogs.
I’ve lost count of the amount of parents telling their kids that my dog is going to eat them. Like that’s going to help them in the long run! Dogs are reactive towards fear! Teach children to be respectful not fearful!
Do you think chilfren know the difference with a dog.
The number of idiots that I have run into who have no respect for other peoples dogs is amazing.
You do NOT just walk up to some dog you think is cute and try to pat it on the top of the head.
You ask the owner if it is ok to approach and to pet their dog.
You approach with your hand below the dogs face with your palm flat so they can sniff you. A fist held down below can be acceptable too.
I HATE people who just run over and touch my dog. I detest people who bring their dog over to mine without first asking me. They always say stupid things like ‘” Do not worry, he is friendly.”. Well duh. Glad to hear it. But my dog was attacked by another dog as a puppy and does not trust dogs he does not know. DO NOT PUT MY DOG in a bad situation because YOU are an idiot. Acutally had one woman follow me with her dog trying to intoduce them as I kept pulling mine further and further away. I could have slapped her.
Exactly.Not a valid requirement of the general public and children.
It’s not either or it’s both – the dog breed and the owner.
Two days ago, I was on the phone with my son, who was walking near his place in Burbank. Mid- conversation he started yelling “Oh my God, oh my God! Sir! Are you alright? I’m calling 911!” When he called me back he said an old man with a cane was attacked by a pit bull being walked by a young kid. The dog was clamped to the man’s back. The kid was going to leave, but my son – not much older than him, said, “Dude, no. I’m recording this. Wait for the cops”. When the police and EMTs arrived, they brought animal control, who took the dog away.
My guess is that the dog was part of a fight ring, and the kid’s job was to walk it around for exercise; he was clearly too scrawny to control the thing.
Mary’s ’ larger point about masculinity and its seemingly dwindling usefulness due, in large part, to our feminized working life has a point – to a point. My husband has been a professional artist all his adult life. He’s also an athlete, a weightlifter, a mechanic, has remodeled several bathrooms, installed pull-down attic ladders, rebuilt a huge brick patio, and is an excellent father and role model to our two now-adult children. Masculinity doesn’t have to be tied to a man’s job. It’s something cultivated from father to son, and smart women honor and appreciate it.
Yes, Allison, masculinity is indeed the “larger point” in this essay, not dogs per se. I’m astonished that so few readers even noticed that. Harrington’s analogy is interesting, but it seems to have backfired in this essay.
Almost ten years ago, in Replacing Misandry, Katherine Young and I discussed the same problem, although our analogy was not between men and dogs but between perceptions of the male body in earlier times and perceptions of the male body in our time. Masculinity is a cultural elaboration on maleness (just as femininity is a cultural elaboration on femaleness), emphasizing some features and de-emphasizing others in the interest of communal solidarity and endurance. So the value of masculinity usually depends at least partly on the value of maleness itself (just as the value of femininity depends at least partly on the value of femaleness itself). Can the male body contribute something to society that is (a) distinctive, (b) necessary and therefore (c) worthy of public esteem (including at least the hope of some reward as part of a “social contract”)? In other words, can men have a healthy collective identity specifically as men? If not, to put it bluntly, then we’re all in big trouble. Unlike dogs, after all, men cannot simply be banned within any democratic context. But masculinity can be attacked and has been, relentlessly, for decades. The results do not exactly offer hope for either men or women.
Before proceeding, it’s worth noting that not all societies, either historically or cross-culturally, have fixated on the male body as the venue of communal aggression. Three extreme exceptions would be the Sambia (of Papua New Guinea), rabbinic Judaism (though neither biblical Judaism nor some modern forms of Judaism) and the Amish. But most societies have done so, including our own.
For many hundreds of years, the male body (and therefore masculinity in one way or another) was valued in the West for supporting either martial prowess or food production (as in making and using iron ploughs), or both. Since the advent of gun powder in the late Middle Ages, martial prowess has relied less and less heavily on the male body. By the sixteenth century, even the medieval jousting tournament was becoming increasingly ritualized, ornamental and vestigial. Following the advent of machines and electricity, the same has been true of food production. And now, with the advent of digital technologies–and, as Harrington points out, vast commercial and governmental bureaucracies–the same process has repeated itself, leaving only fatherhood as the (precarious) source of a healthy identity for men. Consider the continuing popularity of team sports and athletic competitions–all of which are ritualized, ornamental and vestigial (that is, unrelated except in symbolic terms to the practical needs of earlier communities).
Wonderful reply. Thank you. Fatherhood is indeed the source of positive male identity, which may explain why so many young boys and men without them turn to gang membership.
Well stated. We’ve gotten side-tracked.
Too broad a generalization. I’ve know a number of dog-lovers who have reservations about pit-bulls. I have reservations myself.
It seems like the problem could be managed in the same way ownership of many dangerous things is handled. If you own a swimming pool and don’t properly fence it off from toddlers and the neighbor’s wanders in and drowns, you are responsible. Generally, this becomes a tort issue, but in some cases the charge can be manslaughter. If you own a gun and don’t properly keep it out of the hands of a child who shoots someone with it you can be criminally responsible and go to prison. Tort law isn’t going to work at the bottom end of society because they have no pockets. But prison time probably would make a lot of people think twice about strutting around with a dog that could put them there.
Any responsible owner of a normally sized, ordinary family dog is 100% for banning these kinds of dogs (me included). The dog owners who make excuses for Bully XLs are usually people who have similarly large/aggressive/fashion accessory type dogs who fear their own badly behaved breed might be next in line for a ban.
Clare, you strike me as a person with a predisposition to want what is “normal” or “acceptable” or common.
That is fine. A little Scottie can be nice. A Dachsund can be super. Love a mid size mutt.
But a dog being large or muscular and not small, fluffy and cute, is no indication it is gonna be dangerous.
I’m not a fan of any kind of Shepard or Shepard cross. I do not trust em. Not a fan of small dogs either, they tend to be fearful little nippers. Labs are great, IF you own a lot of land and do not mind washing mud out their coats daily or spending 5 hrs a day out jogging with them.
As a former shelter volunteer, I am good with pits depending on the owner and the breeder. They are very very loyal and require a strong hand. They should not be around children unsupervised. Best home for a pit is with a single woman with no kids but who has the skill to train that dog and can keep it well exorcised and well discilined. Not a dog for a young person. Not a dog for someone who is timid or has never dealt with a strong willed dog. Very specific circumstances.
But, then, I have seen a Yellow Lab turn hyper aggressive. Had a young couple that got one. They had a baby and then proceeded to keep the dog locked in the basement except for the occasional walk for over 3 yrs. That dog came into the shelter bordering on insane. Finally had to put it down. Just too dangerous to adopt out. Seen the same thing with Cockers. Had a little spaniel brought in that had been badly spoiled, was hyper posessive of its owner and bit the face of the owners granddaughter when she tried to crawl up in the lap with the dog. Took us MONTHS of work to get that dog remotely normal and understanding it was a dog and where it sat in the pecking order. Took longer to get her trained and disciplined enough to adopt out and then we did now allow any families with kids to adopt her. OMG….those cute little purse dogs? Shoot me. The only reason most of them do not get put down is because of their size.
My Olde English Bulldog? Any kid could climb on him, pull his nose, and he will just think it is play time. Now, I cannot let him play like that since he is liable to hurt a kid just by bumping into them or pawing a ball. Total sweetheart with people. LOVES people. But he is a Bulldog, and when he kisses someone it is with a muzzle punch. If he paws you to get your attention, pray he does not do it on exposed skin. I do not let him put his face near anyone but me or my son and I keep his nails trimmed. Other dogs on the other hand. He has no trust of them.
So much of this is dependent on how a dog was bred, and how the owners have set out to raise them. That could be intentionally raising a dangerous dog OR it can come from simple ignorance and poor understanding of the responsibility.
A friend of mine used to keep malamutes that full grown weighed over 150 lbs. He ran them in mushing races. I never felt the slightest qualm around them. They were rowdy but tempermentally harmless. Also very smart.
I don’t think Harrington’s article was meant to elicit a treatise on dogs and dog ownership. You miss the point.
Here in the US one only has to see a male with a Pit Bull coming towards one on the sidewalk, to feel a shiver of fear and know what the message is. The dog owner would usually be an hispanic male. At least that’s who it was San Francisco.
The type of people who say this:
Also usually say this:
They are wilfully ignoring reality.
There are dangerous dog breeds AND bad owners who don’t train their pets properly. I would also add many wholly unsuitable owners who shouldn’t be allowed to own any dog regardless of breed either because they wilfully raise dogs to be aggressive or because they’re fearful of their own dog which then dominates the relationship.
Rubbish.
As a dog lover and trainee Search and Rescue Dog handler, I agree with you. I can assure any prospective dog owner that, in order to have a pet that is trustworthy, well-behaved and loyal, it takes repeated hours and hours of training. There are no short cuts and it is difficult. Unfortunately, in this era of ‘everything must come easy’, too many dogs are left untrained and not in control.
Let’s put that differently shall we…
First, instead of saying that there are no dangerous dog breeds, what we should say is that ANY dog breed can be dangerous if not properly bred and raised. ANY dog can be dangerous under the right circumstances. A black lab may well attack someone that they think is threatening their person. A collie may well bight a child that sticks their finger in the dogs eye. A Laza Apso may well tear into someone who steps on them. We CAN say that some breeds have a propensity towards assertiveness and being strong willed and that they attract bad owners. We CAN say that certain breeds that are bred to guard WILL guard just as a sheepdog may try to herd a flock of wild geese or even other dogs.
Second, there are people who should NEVER own a dog, many who should never have a pet at all. Hell, there are plenty of people who should not be allowed to breed themselves since they will raise dangerous kids.
Third, most people are CLUELESS about what a dog actually is and what it takes to raise a well behaved, well socialized, mentally and physically healthy dog. This includes dog lovers and those who do not own them or like them.
ALL animals, ALL OF THEM, are ANIMALS, not little human personalities in a four legged format. I’ve raised horses, dogs, cats, cattle, rabbits, even an orphaned racoon. I’ve even worked with orphaned black bears.
I have seen bad or dangerous examples of all these animals, from dogs to horses to cattle.
But, I have also seen a lot of these animals put in bad positions and or abused to a point they become dangerous. I have also seen and extraordinary number of ignorant people put these animals or themselves in bad positions.
I have seen people call for a bull to be put down because he tried to run them down. Well, you moron, you know nothing about bulls but thought you should climb under a fence so your 5 yr old could feed it a handful of hay. I have seen people want a horse put down because it freaked out on the cross ties, sent a young girl flying and she broke her arm. Did not occur to them that walking up beside a young colt, cross tied for one of the first times, and acting like fools could cause the animal to freak out. I watched a mom hold her 6yr old up to a box stall window so the kid could see a new foal and be terrified when the mare tries to bite her face off. I watch morons walk up to dogs they do not know and decide they are gonna just reach over and pat it on the head with no understanding of how that will be perceived by the dog. I have watched parents encourage their kids to give the puppy a kiss, a little dog they do not know. Just inviting a face bite. I have watched people walk up to horses pulling carriages and just stick their hands on the horses face or patting it on the side without an introduction, just inviting that horse to bite or bolt.
People who do not know animals, do not work with them, have no experience with them, should recognize their ignorance and not put themselves in bad positions. It just sets themselves up to get hurt and the animal to be destroyed.
And yes, I am all for requiring people to need a permit demonstrating that they have had training and have the proper home for a dog before being allowed to have one. I’m even good with the idea that all dog owners prove that their dog has been through an obedience class as part of getting a dog license.
Harrington was using the point that ownership of certain breeds of dogs is an analogy for what the owner is trying to project for what is missing in the male culture in the west, nowadays.
Yes to the the stupidity of the refrain “There are no dangerous dog breeds, just bad owners” but no to the invalidation of people who have no dogs, who say it. It’s said to anyone who suggests it’s a bad dog choice when their are hundreds of other breeds to choose from.
Kudos to the editors of this piece about the association of machismo and pitbulls for choosing a picture of an obviously female pitbull to headline it.
LOL. Yeah I noticed that too. They also managed to duplicate paragraphs 4 and 5. What was this article about again? Oh, yeah, the power of appearance.
Yes. You know you’ve arrived as a writer when your work is uploaded without being checked by an editor.
Via your dog. Seen The Power of The Dog movie anyone?
That dog is not a pit bull. Possibly an American bully.
That one seems more likely to smother someone with it’s breasts.
Yes, I noticed that, and not only female but she has obviously nurtured at least one litter of puppies. Interesting statement I thought. Make of it what you will, readers.
In the same way that I don’t think that the speed limit for cars on local roads should be 100mph based on the drivers perceived ability as a racing car driver, I don’t think that ownership of these dogs should be in the hands of people who think that they can raise them properly. Some can be trained but most probably can’t and i’m not prepared to take the chance that the scumbag in front of me at the local park is actually Barbara Woodhouse in disguise. Any dog that CAN kill someone shouldn’t ever have the opportunity to do so.
A car can kill someone at lower speeds than 100mph! That’s why we have licenses, to ensure car owners are fit to be on the road. Perhaps we need to look into bringing back dog licenses.
Don’t they have them in the UK. They do in the US but a fat lot of good it does in preventing attacks.
“What American Bullies Tell Us About Men”. Men? As in the entire category of adult males.
So what has it told us about all the members of that category?
Lazy language and a lazy headline IMO.
Two of my favorite maxims are “women expect to be protected” and “men know they are expendable.”
So, one of the big tasks of human society, after protecting women, is to kid men into thinking they are not expendable, at least until we rulers need a jolly old world war again.
Probably men would not be so interested in vicious dogs if we made them feel that macho male traits in the Jungian collective unconscious might be put to good use.
Do contact sports satisfy that purpose? Perhaps governments should popularise those sports just to make macho males among us feel useful!
Don’t they do that already?
It seems that in Mary Harrington’s view, and probably the view of many young women today, Bully dogs and men are both equally unnecessary and expendable.
Your last sentence is possibly ambiguous : personally I am of the view that Bully dogs and bully men are undesireable and expendable. Men (unqualified) are not.
Not if you read her last paragraph with understanding.
“Slink back out of the shadows?”
Maybe you should read that last sentence again.
Bully dogs and bully men.
Not sure how far down the list of my favourite maxims I would need to go to find either of those. Please don’t get into the fortune cookie business.
For Vijay, William and Matt: I’m relieved that some readers don’t buy into the theory that “men are expendable.” I’m not sure that even evolutionary psychologists would do so without explaining that people (including men) are not purely natural beings–like dogs. Rather, we are also cultural beings. Consequently, we can and must create moral and other levels of meaning.
No healthy people, as either individuals or groups, consider themselves “expendable” (although, lamentably, they often consider other people expendable). To accept this ultimately dehumanizing premise, even grudgingly, people must be not only bribed heavily (promised material and social rewards in this world and immaterial rewards in some other world) but also intimidated (threatened with shame, imprisonment or execution). In short, every society has a social (cultural) contract, whether explicit or implicit, which makes it possible for everyone to believe that its assumptions about human existence make their lives dignified, meaningful and worthwhile.
None of what you said is valid particularly the bit about women expecting to be protected. I never expected that, perhaps because I didn’t get it from my father. I would have welcomed it but it never came from any male in my life.
I think that Chantrill’s point was that culture has fostered this expectation among women, not that all women have ever complied. But I can see why you didn’t and don’t. Thank you for explaining that.
Now, try to think of it from the perspective of a man. My father made it clear to me (not often but often enough even when I was a little boy), that my duty was to protect women no matter what the risk or cost. And that message was backed up by countless movies, TV shows, commercials and so on–all of them addressed to both men and women. Frankly, I found that very threatening. I was hard put to protect myself from the bullies (both boys and girls). In those days, though, boys and men could expect at least the reward of public respect for being protectors–and public shame for not doing so.
Is Ms Harrington telling us that ownership of dangerous dogs is toxic masculinity by proxy? Several owners of American Bully XLs involved in recent dog attacks have been women. Presumably then, the women who choose these dogs really yearn for a good old-fashioned toxic male.
Yes – some dark thoughts going on around this one. Perhaps worse than that – a kind of tame animality.
Quite possibly, but they might also be walking it because their partner is imprisoned, intoxicated, or bored with it.
Or to feel safe when they go for a walk since women sre prone to being attacked.
She does address that point.
The XL Bully is a violent dog owned by stupid and violent people. I see them every day with their owners in their best Sports Direct attire. Nasty dogs owned by nasty people. As a dog owner who has had to kick other dogs off mine when they attacked it, I have no time for dogs like this or their retarded owners.
There was an article that stated that XL Bully is a deeply inbred crossbreed so arguably very much like their stupid owners!
I have three adorable smell breed dogs. I take them to the dog park everyday. There are three pit bulls that come on a regular basis and they are just wonderful, loving animals. A couple of them are lap dogs – they just want to be cuddled and be as close as possible.
Having said that, I just read some research that shows pit bulls are responsible for 70% of dog attacks, even though they represent only 6% of the dog population.
That’s the tragedy though isn’t it? They’re lovely until they flip and then they’re unstoppable.
There have been numerous ‘horror stories’ over many, many years of appalling dog breeding/interbreeding, many if not most of them simply ignored by Crufts & Co.
King Charles Spaniels, Labradors, Alsatians to name but a few.
The only difference here is that that ‘they’ have deliberately produced the ultimate ‘feroco-dog’ and it is a human killer.
Extinction is the only answer sadly.
That is so true. My son is a vet and whilst he benefits from treating these canine products of bad breeding, he gets very angry with Crufts. They have created a situation where in some cases the prize winning dogs have required features that will inevitably lead to medical problems e.g breathing difficulties and skin problems.
A few years ago some brave woman at the BBC took up this matter, and I believe managed to ban Crufts from the airwaves for a bit.
She also exposed the whole potentially fraudulent nature of our Pedigree system, particularly in comparison to both Germany and Scandinavia.
The “research” is bogus. There’s an American organisation dedicated to smearing the breed.
Re “smell” (sic) breed dogs – which may be a Freudian slip!
I can relate to this, as I like dogs, but only in the abstract sense of essential ‘dogginess’. Actual dogs ALL smell and that smell makes me physically retch, so I keep away from them, and I assiduously avoid a house which contains a dog if possible. Some of them (the houses) absolutely stink! (So do some of the owners).
I am continually amazed that the owners either don’t notice or don’t care!
I suppose this is a case of ‘it takes all sorts’. And I admit that a world without dogs – particularly working dogs – would be a poorer place – I just wish owners would keep them away from me.
I think it’s probably your responsibility to stay away from them.
“Smell breed dogs”? You mean dogs bred for scent tracking? Or is that a typo?
There you go.
I agree with a lot of this piece – and am probably more susceptible to the arguments made in it having watched a documentary about Andrew Tate and his nasty little acolytes in the German-speaking area last night.
However, just as pitties etc. are being used as fashion accessories – in some ways I find the trend for little lapdogs worse. Chihuahuas and similar might not pose the same physical danger as Bullies and pitbulls but they are being bred beyond any kind of physical utility to suit humans’ emotional and fashion needs. I’m no dog expert but when dogs are being bred to look a certain way because they do better in shows but then can’t breathe properly, then that is very wrong indeed.
I was out and about around Salzburg a few weeks ago and visited an outdoor museum. It was a stifling hot day and even we had difficulty walking any more than about 100m at a time without having to seek out shade. A woman was there with some kind of lapdog, pulling it around on a leash while the thing gasped and spluttered: when it couldn’t keep up, she picked it up and jammed it under her (pretty warm) armpit. It was a horrible thing to see.
Any demographic info on the owners/market for these dogs? By class, gender etc.
Quick look on YouTube suggests young black men, plus middle aged white men who could, in all fairness, be described as “gammon”. Plus a few women. None of them looking like they might have read a book any time recently – not even Jack London.
Not every pit bull owner is a drug dealer, but every drug dealer owns a pit bull.
You have obviously not met a lot of drug dealers have you……….
Correct. Dumb urban losers seem to constitute the majority of owners of these ugly brutes.
Does Unherd use an American Bully as its proofreader?
It’s like the firearms debate, in a way. A situation where deadly and unstoppable force is in the the hands of the bad and stupid people. To see anyone in public carrying or fondling an antique kalashnikov would be chilling, let alone those who are clearly not up to handling it properly.
There’s one in our local shopping centre, owned by a homeless bloke who frequently looks the worse for wear. It prompts three questions. Where the heck does he get the money from? Would I be ashamed of my cowardly response if it attacked someone? Do the local police and pseudo-police have some sort of contingency plan?
The local homeless guy owns an antique Kalishnikov?
My husband is a lorry driver and built like the proverbial brick outhouse in terms of muscle. We have two shih tzus and a miniature poodle. He can regularly be seen walking our female Tzu (she’s his baby!) in her pink collar and harness and occasionally a pink jumper or tutu (the dog wears them not him, to be clear!). A man who needs a mutant killer on a lead to feel secure in himself is a truly sad specimen.
All great dogs but not a dog that I would get for a 12 yr old boy or for a guy that takes his dog with him all over the place.
Those are great dogs if you just want something that is gonna hang with you on the couch and maybe go for a walk.
Not so great if you want to spend all day on a farm where they might get kicked or stepped on by a horse or cow. Not so great if you want to take them camping. Not great if you have a young son that wants to get down and rough house with them.
What constitutes a great dog is dependent on the person and their lifestyle.
If I still went out riding every day and covered a lot of miles, I would not want a Bulldog, I would want another lab. If I lived in my old apartment I would want a smaller terrier. If I had little kids at home or an elderly person living with me I would want something like what you have. But, I am a single dad with a 15 yr old boy. A bulldog suits our lifestyle.
Not sad dangerous.
Just get a goldfish.
A pitgoldfish.
A pitranha
Excellent.
“Typically, if the monster dog-owner is a man, this is aspirational; or if the dog-owner is a woman, to convey approval of these traits in men.”
There are a subset of lesbians, too, who seem to be attracted to pit-bulls. And I doubt they are so to vicariously approve of these traits in men. But maybe – I don’t have a clue. I’ve just noticed the tendency enough times to mention it. In fact, I’ll generalize slightly – I think I’ve noticed that lesbians much prefer to own male dogs to female dogs.
Shockingly bigoted.
You must shock easily.
There is surely a subset of lesbians who parade ‘butch’ masculine traits as in the ‘butch’ /Femme couples
Sorry, I’m not with Mary on this one. All the biggest pit bull fans I have met have been middle aged white women who love the breed for how affectionate and smart they are when raised properly.
I’ll say this about large, aggressive breeds. The owners have a much greater responsibility than small breed owners. Also, when dogs get older and start suffering from age related maladies, and sometimes dementia, large aggressive breeds can become dangerous, even with the most responsible owners.
Yes my fifteen year old arthritic pit bull was truly dangerous. In his later years he could barely walk around the block.
I find that most large dog owners take their responsibility more seriously than small dog owners that allow their dogs to do as they please because they’re small and less of a threat! ALL dogs should be trained and socialised! Regardless of size!
I haven’t met any pit bull fans, let alone enough to draw statistically significant conclusions about them, and suspect I may be closer to the average UnHerd subscriber.
That’s because his music was terrible
Which suggests that something much darker is going on here than what is suggested by Mary.
Yes, there’s a smear campaign against the breed.
Are you sure that your “middle aged white women” didn’t have Staffordshire Bull Terriers and NOT Pit Bulls? Despite appearances there is quite a difference.
Staffordshires have been renowned for years as being the ‘nanny dog’. Conversely in the pre-War Raj they were reputed to be the only dog capable of killing a King Cobra.
However recent’n*zi style interbreeding is slowly destroying this famous breed.
There’s very little difference. Both breeds were bred for fighting, with principal characteristics of strength, intelligence agility and intense loyalty. I’ve never met a pit bull I wouldn’t trust with children.
Size is a difference, an ‘average’ Staffie is quite a bit smaller than an ‘average’ Pit Bull.
Other than that your are correct, but perhaps you should have emphasised that historically speaking whilst ‘bulls’ were one of the earliest opponents it became mainly rats, or other similar fighting dogs.
The records of the premier London venue, the Westminster Pit are quite clear on the matter.
Now however the selective breeding of the XL Bully has produced something ‘beyond the Pale’ and it is completely unacceptable.
Years ago the same thing happened with Spanish fighting bulls, they just became too lethal, and had to
replaced by a slightly less pugnacious variety.(sadly).
“I’ve never met a pit bull I wouldn’t trust with children.”
Congratulations . You win the prize for the most irresponsible and misguided comment on here.
So much ignorance and bigotry being displayed on here against Bull breeds. I have owned Pitbulls, English bull terriers, Staffies and and an American bulldog over the last 45 years and without exception all of them have been lovely, affectionate, loyal family pets, great with our kids and fantastic personalities. These dogs reputations are being destroyed by a tiny percentage of irresponsible idiots. Not everyone who wants a dog, wants to own a yipping fluffball, and being attracted towards a strong, intelligent working breed does not make you some kind of sociopathic moron….get real people!
If you want to be sexist and insulting it’s difficult to do better than this headline:
“What American Bullies tell us about men”
To put it into perspective for feminists, consider the following:
“What Teacup Chihuahua’s tell us about women”
See how ridiculous a statement that is?
If this is the best that Harrington can do she should find another job.
Writers dont get to write the headlines. Unherd does that.
Agree. The article had some good points but the headline is abyssmal.
Unherd has provocative headers to get you to read the story. That’s what most publications do.
In my neck of Progressive America, Pitties are a badge of honor, particularly if they are “rescue dogs.” One neighbor has a 3-time adoptee reject, whose snarls she dismisses with, “He was abused. I’m his last chance.” Another neighbor’s dog lunged at me as I walked by on the sidewalk, and I was told, “He’s just protective of his mommy.” Insanity.
In her last paragraph Mary is I think -whether consciously or unconsciously I am not sure- drawing on Yeats’ “The Second Coming” about a time when “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed ,and everywhere The ceremony of Innocence is drowned”. The poem’s end sparked my reminiscence : ” And what rough best, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born”. Compare “The real dogs of war will slink back out of the shadows, along with the men who command them”!
It’s strange to read this piece — no one has mentioned the ‘rescue’ phenomenon. Our part of the world is a dumping ground for seized drug dealers’ dogs, mostly pit bulls and pit bull crosses. Our shelters are no-kill, and as such are popular targets for the no-kill rescue crowd.
Pit bulls have seriously compromised dog culture here, because while 50% are fine, 50% are not, and they are dogs of means. The owners indeed are middle aged women, and if I have to hear another story about ‘nanny dogs’ I think I’ll puke.
My two dogs are both purebred — one border collie, and another borzoi, a Russian wolfhound. The Russian wolfhound is an odd policeman of our own dog park, in that he is loving and very passive, until an aggressive breed (pit bull crosses and huskies are the absolute worst) bites him on the nose or leg. Then he does what wolfhounds, well, do. Warning the Karens that show up to the dog park about what will happen to their beloved apparent killer makes them run, and we have a Clint Eastwood-esque peace. But it’s still depressing. The rescues are signs of a degenerate culture, grasping at virtue signaling, that has no use for good manners. Tragic. And antisocial as hell. It’s more than a sign of decaying society.
Young working-class culture has been revived via Tate and the new accroutements of the modern council estate; including fighting doggies, naturally.
As we’re talking about the boys, they’ve had years to catch up with their women’s Instagram stardom. They don’t participate in the gender mysticism, as they have neither bourgeois or graduate standing.
What is key to the question of these dogs is that they also kill a few hundred other dogs these years. It is almost a metaphor for this forgotten social stratum carving out a thin niche in society by displacing the toys of the middle class- usually this is through drug peddling, but even that is being imperrilled by Ulez penalties now.
We don’t need dogs like this, and to be honest I don’t think we need the kind of people that want them either.
I think as well as technological sophistication, you must also look at the universal feminization of our institutions and values that has marginalised masculinity. Masculinity needs to be restored and allowed for in a way that is constructive. This is a very good article but it does somewhat repeat the breezy sneering at masculinity and its role in society that is a cause of this problem in the first place.
Cf.Re Yeats. Sorry for typo : “best ” from th poem should read “beast”.
You gotta be more specific.
There are so many variations of these dogs.
My Olde English Bulldog is a big, sweet, lump of muscle. If he hurts you it is because he has no sense of his own strength.
Just a big lump that likes to cuddle, is afraid of the UPS truck, and thinks he can take down a deer on the TV. A dog, that has almost no ability to look dignified and looks silly when he tries.
Now, most of the people who stop and notice him? Women. Guys tend to stand back.
My fiance will more readily sit with him than me on some days.
These are great dogs for older boys who play rough because they cannot really hurt them. Great watchdogs, they will hear everything, they notice anything new or out of place and their looks just intimidate people even if the dog is a complete coward. They do not need lots and lots of exorcise the way a lab does or a collie does. Exorcise, yes, all day in a field..no.
“If he hurts you it is because he has no sense of his own strength.”
“their looks just intimidate people even if the dog is a complete coward”
Tells me all I need to know about you and your choice of dog
It’s funny. I’ve always found men are more likely to be afraid of dogs than women and the bigger the man, the more likely they are to be fearful. I see lots of young women walking one or two huge dogs in complete control and I’ve seen men walking lapdogs. The stereotypes presented here are a product of ignorance.
It reminds me of Bill Sikes and Bullseye. The bully of a man with a weapon of a dog. Whilst it would be nice to be a stereotype that doesn’t really exist, unfortunately it does. Whilst not necessarily typical.
Same with horses.
Amazing the number of times I have watched a 12 or 13 yr old girl handle a hard headed Thoroughbred, just put it in line when it is acting up, and do it with no fear and absolute certainty that she will win.
Then, watch that same young girls father not even be willing to go in the stall with the horse.
My neighbour just had her hip broken after pulled over by her large dog. I see women being dragged along by dogs nearly every day, looks like the dog is taking them for a walk. The women you quote are not in full control by default because if the dog decided it was going somewhere they are not strong enough to stop it.
True. I walked someone’s big Airdale and it took off after another dog and I was dragged across the street in front of traffic. It was truly terrifying.
Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
A vicious dog needs a vicious owner to balance his instincts. Not!
No mention of the MALINOIS*, the super attack dog of both the US and Australian Special Forces?
Capable of being parachuted into the combat zone, its ferocity is legendary, as many an unfortunate Afghan or Iraqi can testify.
One has even been awarded the Dickin Medal**, the dog VC for outstanding courage.
Yet so far no reports of any ‘retired’ Malinois killing anybody that I have seen. Why not?
(* A Belgium sheep dog that resembles an Alsatian.)
(** Awarded by the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals or PDSA,
a UK charity for US readers.)
Probably because the ownership numbers are pretty small for this breed Charles, and the retired dogs you mention are almost certain to have been properly trained, well loved and owned by responsible service background type people……..which goes to the reply I made further up to you. Its not the dog, its the owner……
What a long way of saying stupid or thugish people keep these squatty kegs of dynamite with short fuses.
But why is the point.
Wow. Lot of fear of dogs. And anger. Not saying either is unreasonable I just was surprised at the tenor of comments. I was only coming down here to comment that MH must’ve never seen a puppy XL. I’m an average size lady with ginormous Newfoundlands. And I live in the great American desert so their only job is Olympic level napping. And drool slinging. None of which is to the point, which actually was my point. I think much of what Mary says here and most of the comments are quite true and reasonable. But humans aren’t built for reason. We’re built for love and fierce loyalty. Reason was only ever meant to keep us between the rails. And people who are untethered from each other, family, children, etc are going to continue being unreasonable about their dogs. And no amount of banning is going to solve the problem.
Banning certain breeds of aggressive dogs will solve the problem. Your” ginormous Newfoundlands” sound like a euphomism.
What red-blooded male would want to own an animal with two pairs of Queen Anne legs?
Attach a flat surface to the back of the creature and it will become a useful mobile coffee table. Perhaps the refined ethos of the fastidious Stuart age will make some commerce with the owners in their detached netherworld of archaic masculinity.
In any case, no male owner is going to develop a pair of legs that can convey the serious mansplaining that this pictured animal is doing. That must create some sense of inferiority in the owner.
In the coarse language used in the world that some of the owners inhabit, the animal’s bow-legged posture would be termed ‘sh@gbandy’.
If the theory proposed here is correct, should we expect to find coiffured female poodles, festooned with silk ribbons, kept as ‘company’ for these XL animals? Or if homoeroticism is suspected, a male poodle.
Is there still a traditional use for these ugly brutes? (The XL animals, as well as the men). Pepped up with canine chemicals, equipped with dogcams, and decked out with blue and yellow silk ribbons, they could be used like Aztec war dogs on the Eastern Front. Imagine the breaking news from the Daily Express. The 10th Battledog Brigade, ‘The Gnashers’, liberates Sevastopol, eats Putin’s cat.
Well you have certainly proved the point that a certain kind of male will own a certain kind of dog for a certain kind of reason.
Dog liability insurance should be compulsory. Councils should have the power to require owners to hold a licence, for which there should be a test. This answers the reply that there are only bad owners – owners need to be trained to be better. A dog tax should be imposed to discourage multiple ownership and pay for bins for dog poo and other services.
There are a number of dogs who have been bred to to protect homes and fight off wild animals. Rhodesian Ridgeback (lion dogs ) to keep lions, leopards and cheetahs away from cattle; Anatolian Wolfhounds to kill wolves at bay, Siberian Wolfhounds to kill wolves, Rottweilers, etc. These dogs are very territorial and all dogs assess their environment through smell. I would suggest when someone is fearful they emit a smell which makes it more likely a dog will attack. All these dogs can kill people. These dogs should only be kept on farms by people who are physically strong enough to control them.
The Rhodesian Ridgeback can be so territorial they will attack any person who is not a family member so people such as post men do not enter the property.
Cologne commercials seem to be tracking in the same direction. “Be your own Boss.”
A very good article. Again, thank you Mary.
Why the censorship on the MALINOIS.
”What American Bullies tell us about men” the article headlines.
if you look at The BBC website – you will mostly see Women (If i may be allowed to use that word) owners all saying how lovely these horrendous animals are.
It would be very fitting and à propos to replace the American Eagle with the pitbull…though in a way, he is but an avatar of the English bulldog, an export gone rogue, now replaced by the poodle or is it the labradoodle?
We went with an XL Wally.
13 million dogs. Thirteen million.
Maybe men don’t want to live in a matriarchy?
There is little I need to add to the comments of and replies to N Satori. However, I point to two relevant words: ‘breed’ and ‘dominated’. Domestic dogs are essentially manufactured animals. The people who breed or own them are 100% responsible for their behaviour, as much as if they go into public spaces with anything potentially harmful to other people or the environment, be it gun, car, cigarette/vape smoke, litter or just antisocial behaviour.
Certainly where I live dog owners dominate public urban and peripheral green spaces, where they contaminate the soil with urine and faeces, even if the latter is bagged and removed (at what public and environmental cost?), and intimidate or attack wildlife (and livestock though that is an issue in itself), as well as people. In cities they urinate constantly on the streets and often defaecate too. I read once that most of the bacteria in New York City’s air came from dog faeces. This is starkly at variance with modern ‘health and safety’, ‘ultra low emission zones’, and emphasis on a clean pleasant environment.
A key point is that if dogs had not already been present in towns, introducing them today would be unthinkable. A third relevant word is ‘habit’. Dog owning, that once had a specific purpose restricted to the owner’s estate, has become a habit, promoted by breeders and fed essentially by surplus cash (which equates to extra environmental impact especially as dogs are predominantly flesh eaters).
The companionship argument raises two red flags: first that it is inherently bogus – consider that in (say) 25 years time people may be able to tow around a robot companion that is equally blindly devoted to them; second that it is an unhealthy artificial substitute for natural relationships with other humans and with wildlife – both inherently difficult and that money cannot buy.
None of this addresses the welfare of the dogs themselves. Manufactured and deranged they may be, but they are conscious individuals. Breeding has produced horrors of stunting, overgrowth, disfigurement, disturbed character, and proneness to disability: citing for example Dachshunds, French bulldogs, German shepherds, and of course the American Bully XL. This has no place in a world where nature and biodiversity are valued.
Ms Harrington is wildly hit or miss in her output. This was a miss. She argues that the breed should be banned, but did she take more than two seconds to think that through? America provided the world a cautionary prohibition tale a hundred years ago, but everyone seems to think the lesson ONLY ever applied to prohibiting alcohol. She mentions dog fighting and drug dealing, yet I’m pretty sure both of those things are widely illegal, at least across the Anglosphere. And yet they both continue to happen. Why would banning an entire dog breed result in something different? Ban it, and I guarantee it will become one of the most popular dog breeds in America.
This seems to fall somewhere in between lazy writing categories of “throw the specter of Andrew Tate out there and let that fear make your point for you”, and “there’s a sub community our there for just about everything, but this is the one you should be freaking out about”.
You can drink alcohol behind closed doors but you have to take a dog for a walk.
I think the keeping of animals as “pets” is the ultimate form of animal abuse. Working dogs at least have some purpose to their existence rather than being a “fluffy toy”!
I’m sure that if you said that to my dog she’d raise a sleepy eye from her ridiculously sized bed and tell you that you were barking up the wrong tree!
Oh yeah? So the dogs and cats that live on the street are better off than those living with humans who feed them, take them annually to the vet, bathe them, care for and love them? Or are you suggesting that all “non-useful” animals should just die off or be destroyed?
Does a pet dog or cat have any less purpose to its existence than a human who does nothing productive, or worse only does destructive, anti-social things?
Absurd comment. There is so much love between pets and their owners and some people only have a pet to love and care for. And vice versa.
It’s obvious by his ignorance that the writer has never owned a bully breed, if he’s owned any dog at all. It’s unfortunate that he’s been given a platform to spread his garbage among unsuspecting readers.
As someone who’s owned pit bulls, I know firsthand why they were America’s favourite family pet for generations
I deeply regret I can only downvote this once.
The bully breeds are among some of the best, sweetest, dogs out there.
I would take a Bulldog over a Shepard anytime.
And unless I was back on the farm all day, I would take a Bulldog over a lab or a sheep dog also.
I sure as heck do not want some small little ankle biter. I want a dog that can get down and wrestle or who can play tug of war for 30 minutes. I do not want a dog that I have to worry about tripping over or who is gonna get hurt just jumping in and out of the truck.
Do not get me wrong, I love all dogs. They are all pretty cool. But I personally prefer a dog that has some meat to it and can wrestle and play or be taken places and not get itself hurt. I’ve had everything from Collies to Akitas (rescue) to Sheep Dogs to Dachsunds and Labs. The best dog I have owned in terms of personality and temperment and just being interesting and companionable is my Bulldog.
Well bully for you!
The writer whom you claim is so ignorant is a woman named Mary.
Rubbish and what’s with the “He”?
Unfortunately, nearly all the readers / commenters on here seem to be middle class dog haters with no understanding of bull breeds.