You're all over the place with this... as suspected, confused by the presence of uncertainty yet again, even when challenged directly it's back to the multi quotes and deflection.
I am not confused. Perhaps if you actually read what was written, you would also not be confused...
As for the multi-quotes - You frequently base your argument on several conflated premises, each of which must be separated out to address the flaws in them.
So you accept that (pedigree) breed can, in fact, be associated with behavioural traits after all that protesting, but you're still in denial that XL Bullies might even though they're also genetically similar...
I thought you were a master of numeracy and statistical analysis?
Any breed, pedigree or not, can be "associated with" something. That does not mean there is a causal relationship, and most such associations are little more than sterotyping and myth. As highlighted in just about every study thus far - Breed does not define behaviour. Neither does breed
ing, to any degree of predictability.
Again what bearing, if any, do you imagine 'genetically similar' actually has on dog behaviour?
Highlighting that some individual dogs may vary is missing the point here completely when I'm referring to the breed as a whole.
I'm highlighting that a large percentage of dogs do not conform. In the case of the Border Collie, pedigree dogs are outnumbered about 9 to 1 by their non-pedigree brethren. In the case of farmers, they choose from a relatively small selection of lineages, primarily because being genetically good at herding is not the defining factor of a good sheepdog.
So
as a whole, the breed overall is not actually that good at sheepherding and, overall, is not a good choice for farmers.
Labradors, the breed most "associated with" being excellent Guide Dogs - Of all Labs, only some are bred for this duty and only some of those are actually chosen for training. Of those, only 50-60% pass.
So as a whole, Labs overall are not actually that good as Guide Dogs.
GSDs, most "associated with" Police dogs - Of the few that make it to training, up to 70% fail.
So as a whole, GSDs overall are not actually that good as Police dogs.
Highlighting that some individual dogs may be good at, or "associated with" something is simply misrepresenting the breed as a whole. Congratulations, you've made the same first mistake as many prospective dog owners.
That some individual XL Bullies may be totally fine family dogs doesn't negate the risk overall from the breed which is clearly disproportionately high vs other dogs.
That is merely the assumption that the risk is the breed itself, rather than the type of owners most attracted to it.
No idea what
@ttaskmaster is even talking about. You're just arguing with yourself?
Most of it is in reference to previous posts and studies, both of which Dowie has refused to read and understand.
Now imagine a graph where every single breed is listed with their attacks/deaths. Golden retriever is on there, ferocious breed that. But, in all seriousness, there's probably one or two attacks for sure out of how many tens/hundreds of thousands in society.
We still don't have precise data on all those factors, for either the American Bully or the XL Bully sub-type.
Some dogs have higher incidents of attacks resulting in serious injury, but few (if any) kills, while others have almost exclusively kills. Whether either is worse could be debated, but they tend to be considered separately depending on the agendas being argued.
The causation between the highest versus the lowest will be owners for sure, but ONLY because the breed is either bred for or well suited to such behaviour.
In all incidents where the context of the incident circumstances can be determined, regardless of breed or dog type, the one thing that decided whether the incident happened or not was human negligence.
Studies of these incidents conclude that almost every single incident was predictable and preventable.
None of these things can kill anyone without an idiot at the other end, but the correlation is strong enough to warrant a ban.
BMW cars are 'associated with' the most dangerous driving. The Toyota Prius has the highest statistical rate of accidents, even though the BMW is considered statistically more likely to have an accident.
But rather than banning both cars, we try to address the problem of the idiots behind the wheel.
The problem with bans is that they tend not to work, and people are just motivated to try and find ways around them. This is why we have such a high proportion of XL Bullys in the UK.
Part of me thinks that this problem could have been solved by effective government; having rules and enforcement in place to ensure powerful breeds like this, are either not imported in the first place, or strictly controlled.
The problem is that the dogs themselves often weren't imported. Instead semen was brought over and they were bred in the UK. It's how they used to get around similar such importation bans on stuff.
US kennels charging up to £16,000 to ship frozen material abroad to create the large dogs
www.telegraph.co.uk
petition.parliament.uk
