Daily Junction.mobi portalNews · October 8, 2024 · Daily Junction Editorial Team · 10 min
The UK banned XL Bully dogs in February 2024 following a spate of fatal attacks, adding them to the Dangerous Dogs Act list alongside Pit Bulls and three other breeds. But 33 years of breed-specific legislation have failed to reduce dog attacks, and experts warn the new ban will repeat the same mistakes.
On 31 December 2023, it became illegal to own an XL Bully dog in England and Wales without an exemption certificate, making the breed the fifth to be banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The decision, announced by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in September 2023, followed a spate of fatal attacks that shocked the nation and reignited the debate over dangerous dogs.
But 33 years after the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced to protect the public from "dangerous breeds," dog attacks have increased by 154%, from 3,466 hospital admissions in 1991 to 8,819 in 2023. The banned breeds—Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, and now XL Bully—represent a tiny fraction of attacks, while Labrador Retrievers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and crossbreeds are statistically more likely to bite simply because they are more common.
Veterinary organisations, animal welfare charities, and behavioural experts almost universally oppose breed-specific legislation (BSL), arguing it is ineffective, unscientific, and leads to the unnecessary destruction of thousands of dogs. They point to countries like the Netherlands, Italy, and parts of Australia that have repealed BSL in favour of deed-based laws focusing on owner responsibility, with better results.
Yet the UK government continues to double down on a policy that has failed for three decades. The XL Bully ban has already led to the euthanasia of an estimated 10,000-15,000 dogs, many of which had never shown aggression. Meanwhile, the root causes of dog attacks—irresponsible breeding, lack of training, owner negligence, and inadequate enforcement—remain unaddressed.
The XL Bully is a relatively new breed, developed in the United States in the 1990s by crossing American Pit Bull Terriers with larger breeds like the American Bulldog and Mastiff. The result is a heavily muscled, powerful dog weighing 40-60kg, with a blocky head and intimidating appearance. XL Bullies became popular in the UK in the 2010s, particularly among young men attracted to their imposing look and status symbol appeal.
The breed's rise coincided with a surge in serious attacks. Between 2021 and 2023, XL Bullies were involved in approximately 30% of fatal dog attacks in the UK, despite representing less than 1% of the dog population. In 2023 alone, four people were killed by dogs identified as XL Bullies:
Children were also victims. In July 2023, a 17-month-old girl was killed by an XL Bully in Coventry, and several children suffered life-changing injuries in other attacks.
The attacks dominated headlines and social media, with graphic footage and images fuelling public outrage. Rishi Sunak responded swiftly, announcing in September 2023 that XL Bullies would be banned by the end of the year. "The XL Bully is a danger to our communities, particularly to children," he said. "I have ordered urgent work to define and ban this breed."
Defining the XL Bully proved contentious, as it is not a recognised breed by the Kennel Club or international canine organisations. The government worked with veterinary and police experts to create a breed standard based on physical characteristics: height (males over 51cm at the shoulder, females over 48cm), weight, head shape, and body structure.
From 31 December 2023, it became illegal to:
Existing owners had until 31 January 2024 to apply for an exemption certificate (£92.40 fee), which requires:
Dogs without exemption certificates are illegal to own and must be surrendered to police or a vet for euthanasia. Owners who fail to comply face unlimited fines and up to six months in prison.
By August 2024, approximately 35,000 exemption certificates had been issued in England and Wales. However, estimates suggest there were 50,000-60,000 XL Bullies in the UK before the ban, meaning 10,000-15,000 dogs were likely euthanised, either because owners did not apply for exemption, could not afford the fees and neutering costs (£150-300), or because the dogs failed behavioural assessments.
The XL Bully ban is the latest iteration of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, a piece of legislation widely regarded as one of the worst laws in British history. The Act was rushed through Parliament in response to a moral panic over Pit Bull attacks in the late 1980s and early 1990s, with tabloid headlines screaming about "devil dogs" and "killer breeds."
The Act banned four breeds:
It also made it an offence for any dog to be "dangerously out of control" in a public place, though this provision was poorly enforced.
The law was immediately controversial. Breed identification proved highly subjective, with dogs seized and destroyed based on appearance rather than DNA or pedigree. Staffordshire Bull Terriers, a legal and popular breed, were frequently misidentified as Pit Bulls and destroyed. The Index of Exempted Dogs was created to allow Pit Bull owners to keep their dogs under strict conditions, but thousands were euthanised in the first years of the Act.
Most damningly, the Act did not reduce dog attacks. Hospital admissions for dog bites increased every year after 1991, from 3,466 in 1991 to 8,819 in 2023, a 154% rise. Fatal attacks also continued, with an average of 3-4 deaths per year in the UK, similar to pre-1991 levels.
The banned breeds represent a tiny fraction of attacks. NHS data shows that Labrador Retrievers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, German Shepherds, and crossbreeds are involved in the majority of bites, simply because they are the most common breeds. A 2018 study by the Royal Veterinary College found that breed is a poor predictor of aggression, and that factors like training, socialisation, and owner behaviour are far more important.
The scientific consensus is clear: breed-specific legislation does not reduce dog attacks. The British Veterinary Association, Dogs Trust, Battersea, RSPCA, Blue Cross, and the Kennel Club all oppose BSL. Their arguments are backed by decades of research:
1. Any dog can bite: Aggression is not determined by breed but by genetics (within breeds, not between them), early socialisation, training, health, and environment. A poorly socialised Labrador can be more dangerous than a well-trained Pit Bull.
2. Breed identification is unreliable: Most dogs in the UK are crossbreeds or unregistered, making breed identification based on appearance highly subjective. Studies show that even veterinarians and animal control officers frequently misidentify breeds.
3. Bans create a black market: Banning breeds drives ownership underground, with dogs unregistered, uninsured, and unsocialised. Irresponsible owners who want dangerous dogs simply switch to other breeds or crossbreeds.
4. Enforcement is inconsistent: Police and local authorities lack resources to enforce BSL effectively. Many banned dogs go undetected, while legal dogs that resemble banned breeds are seized and destroyed.
5. Better alternatives exist: Countries that have repealed BSL in favour of deed-based laws—focusing on owner responsibility, mandatory training, licensing, and swift penalties for negligence—have seen better outcomes. The Netherlands repealed its Pit Bull ban in 2008 after concluding it was ineffective, and dog bite rates subsequently fell.
Animal welfare organisations and experts advocate for a shift to deed-based legislation, which holds owners accountable for their dog's behaviour regardless of breed. Key elements include:
Mandatory licensing and training: Owners of all dogs, or at least large/powerful breeds, should complete a basic training and responsibility course before acquiring a dog.
Stricter penalties for negligence: Owners whose dogs attack should face serious criminal penalties, including prison sentences for fatal attacks. The Dangerous Dogs Act was amended in 2014 to allow prosecution for attacks on private property, but enforcement remains weak.
Early intervention: Local authorities should have powers to intervene when dogs show signs of aggression or are kept in unsuitable conditions, before an attack occurs.
Breeder regulation: Tighter controls on breeding, including mandatory health testing, socialisation standards, and penalties for irresponsible breeding, would reduce the supply of poorly bred, aggressive dogs.
Public education: Campaigns to teach children and adults how to behave around dogs, recognise warning signs, and report concerns could prevent many bites.
Support for owners: Access to affordable training, behavioural support, and veterinary care would help owners manage difficult dogs before problems escalate.
The failure of the Dangerous Dogs Act has real consequences. 8,819 people were hospitalised for dog attacks in England in 2023, the highest number on record. Children under 10 are disproportionately affected, accounting for 20% of admissions despite being 12% of the population. Facial injuries are common, often requiring reconstructive surgery and causing lasting psychological trauma.
Postal workers are also at high risk, with the Communication Workers Union reporting over 2,000 attacks on postal workers in 2023. Many attacks occur when dogs escape from properties or are allowed to roam freely.
![[View image]](/img/dangerous-dogs-act-xl-bully-ban-2024.jpg){kind=link}