American XL Bully row shows all dog owners need to pass ownership fitness test: Daxa Patel

Dog charities are concerned by a rise in abandoned XL Bully dogs and the government have even offered a £200 incentive to owners to put down these dogs before the end of the year.

Now we used to be a nation of dog lovers, I grew up with a dog and now I have a dog of my own. What is happening to this breed will undoubtedly cause strong emotions on both sides of the argument.

There will be families where they have a family friendly pet in this breed and they will be worried about the onerous requirements. Some will be able to comply with the requirements, however what about those who cannot afford to do this. Is it right ‘we’ allow a perfectly healthy dog to be killed?

What about families where they have a loving and well-behaved XL Bully family pet, is it right we ask the family to make a choice as to whether their beloved pet is allowed to live or die? A dog can be like a child for some.

We need to ask why there has been a rise in the spate of attacks and ask how easy it for the wrong people to own these dogs who are clearly not in control of their dogs. If a person has a dog as a status symbol and has no regard for the safety of their dog and others, they are the ones who should be held to account.

I have a German Shepherd pup and before my dog was even born, I contacted our local German Shepherd training centre for advice.

Changing the law is warranted in this case but why are we not looking at making dog ownership in general more responsible from the start?

It is easy to buy a dog at present. People keep buying dogs on a whim with no regard to whether they can give it the commitment, training and time required. There will be more puppies bought for Christmas and dog charities are barely coping with the abandoned dogs bought during lockdown.

In my opinion all dog owners regardless of the size and temperament of the dog must pass a fitness test to own a dog before they get one. There must be a requirement for public insurance and a compulsory training. The term dog training is misleading; we need the dog handlers to be trained to understand the psychology of their dog, and to ensure they do not put their dog in a situation where either the dog or others are compromised.

Two weeks ago, I attended a course on canine aggression. The course tutor asked who thought they had an aggressive dog to put their hands up, only a few hands went up. The truth is, all dogs have the potential to be aggressive and just like owning a car, we must have a licence, fitness and insurance in place before we are entrusted to have a dog.

As for the £200 incentive to pay the vet fees to put these healthy animals down, I find this abhorrent. Firstly, the £200 is not enough to meet the vet fees, secondly, any decent vet will say they did not train to put a perfectly healthy, and harmless animal to sleep. Thirdly, owners must act in the dog’s best interest. As soon as a dog bite incident occurs the dog is destroyed when in most cases, the culpable party is the handler who put their dog in a position where it could cause harm.

This whole business causes ethical and moral issues which we cannot just ignore or indeed justify as the best way to handle a problem. The problem here is caused by unfit and unsuitable dog owners.