Does something need to be done about dogs?

[dowie]

His argument, according to you, was that it doesn't prevent deaths... and if people are still dying as a result of drink-driving, then it clearly didn't prevent their deaths, did it!

See you're conflating "doesn't prevent deaths" (which it clearly does) and doesn't prevent ALL deaths (which it clearly doesn't), not one said it did prevent *all* deaths.

Do you understand that the covid vaccine saved lives even though *some* vaccinated people died from covid... many deaths were clearly prevented.

I pointed this out before, it's just some binary thinking whereby because something isn't 100% effective you want to dismiss it.

My assertion is that your measures are merely reiterations of existing laws that have already failed to yield the desired result.

That's just false too.

 

[ttaskmaster]

See you're conflating "doesn't prevent deaths" (which it clearly does) and doesn't prevent ALL deaths (which it clearly doesn't), not one said it did prevent *all* deaths.

There's only one very small set of deaths we're looking to prevent, though, so unless your strategy addresses that, it will not be effective.
Given the very small number of dog-attack deaths from a very small number of specific dogs, compared to the relatively high number of both serious injuries and attacks in general from a much wider range of dogs, your strategic assertions would have far more validity were they focussed on the latter.

Instead you have chosen a very narrow focus on one problem breed, itself part of a fairly narrow breed type, which has been variously asserted as being owned primarily by a fairly narrow section of the populace. It should be pretty simple to target that section and prevent all such deaths.

That's just false too.

No, that really is my assertion and it's already been substantiated.
Count how many dogs of a banned breed have been registered on the Exemption Index in the 30 years since they were banned, and then tell me how effective the ban was on their existence...
Tell me also how come we used to have dog licences, but ended up abolishing that...
Tell me why criminals who use dogs for protection or as weapons would suddenly cower in fear and very kindly surrender their rabid beasts when faced with this amended legislation of yours...

 

[dowie]

There's only one very small set of deaths we're looking to prevent, though, so unless your strategy addresses that, it will not be effective.
Given the very small number of dog-attack deaths from a very small number of specific dogs, compared to the relatively high number of both serious injuries and attacks in general from a much wider range of dogs, your strategic assertions would have far more validity were they focussed on the latter.

Why not both... but let's not ignore that in addition to the deaths there are others who were seriously injured by these same types of dogs too... for every death there are going to be many more injuries and these dogs are the clear outlier here w.r.t deaths.

Sure if you're including things like needing stitches after being bitten by an aggressive chihuahua say but nips from ankle biters are rather different to a pitbull type dog attacking so conflating the two because both are "injuries" would be incredibly silly.

Instead you have chosen a very narrow focus on one problem breed, itself part of a fairly narrow breed type, which has been variously asserted as being owned primarily by a fairly narrow section of the populace. It should be pretty simple to target that section and prevent all such deaths.

Nope, I haven't I'm focusing on bull terriers/pit bull types in general. You'd have to be completely innumerate to not see the issue with them.

No, that really is my assertion and it's already been substantiated.

No, it hasn't and that's not what I'm asserting as already pointed out to you.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Why not both... but let's not ignore that in addition to the deaths there are others who were seriously injured by these same types of dogs too... for every death there are going to be many more injuries and these dogs are the clear outlier here w.r.t deaths.
Sure if you're including things like needing stitches after being bitten by an aggressive chihuahua say but nips from ankle biters are rather different to a pitbull type dog attacking so conflating the two because both are "injuries" would be incredibly silly.

Why not both - Because they are two very different focus groups, one of which won't give a flying **** what laws and licences you enact, and will still present the same problem.
They require different approaches.

As for the rest of your drivel - I'm "conflating" nothing. The word you're looking for is 'comparing'.
A serious injury is a serious injury, regardless of breed... but let's not ignore that, in addition to some very minor injuries and the occasional death, there are some very serious injuries caused by other types of dog too. Arguably more than just your pet hate one. You'd have to be completely innumerate to not see the issue with them, too.

Nope, I haven't I'm focusing on bull terriers/pit bull types in general. You'd have to be completely innumerate to not see the issue with them.

Yes you have, and you're so narrowly focussed on this that you seemingly missed where I quite clearly said, "narrow breed type". You'd have to be illiterate not to see the issue with that.

No, it hasn't and that's not what I'm asserting as already pointed out to you.

Yes it is, which is why you haven't responded to the three challenges from my last post.
All you've done is claim that licencing and a breed ban will somehow magically stop people from wanting and getting them... You'd have to be quite obtuse not to see the issue with that.

 

[dowie]

Why not both - Because they are two very different focus groups, one of which won't give a flying **** what laws and licences you enact, and will still present the same problem.
They require different approaches.

You're getting muddled again, why not address both issues, they're not mutually exclusive... pitbull types also cause injuries!

A serious injury is a serious injury, regardless of breed...

Back in reality a pug presents a rather different risk. The fact is the dogs that are the clear outlier re: deaths are also causing injuries... how can you not see that for every death there will be several more people who are very seriously injured and require comprehensive medical treatment, an attack by a pitbull type doesn't mean 100% deaths in every incident. The fact that they cause disproportionately more deaths is a pretty good indication of what they're doing re: the most serious of injuries too.

Again you're just not thinking this through.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You're getting muddled again, why not address both issues, they're not mutually exclusive... pitbull types also cause injuries!

Dangerous status dogs are mostly due to one type of owner with deliberate intentions, requiring one specifically targeted approach.
The dogs that cause the wider issue of serious injuries (which will include some PBTs) are due to various types of owners with varying intents and in various circumstances, which requires a very different multi-faceted, multi-factor targeting approach.

What works for one will not work for the other. You'd have to be deliberately ignorant not to see the issue with that.

Back in reality a pug presents a rather different risk.

If it so much as harmed a kid, it's higher on the risk list than a breed that hasn't.
You do realise that children make up a large percentage of the KSI toll, don't you?

how can you not see that for every death there will be several more people who are very seriously injured and require comprehensive medical treatment, an attack by a pitbull type doesn't mean 100% deaths in every incident. The fact that they cause disproportionately more deaths is a pretty good indication of what they're doing re: the most serious of injuries too.

Yes, Staffie-XL-Bully-American-Dowiehatesthem-pitbull types do also cause some serious injuries... but they're not the top of that particular table, as already pointed out, and other dogs still also cause deaths too. If you believe different, show me your stats...

Meanwhile, you are outright ASSUMING that most deaths = most serious injuries as well, which is blatantly false. Plenty of studies and articles, including those already linked, show there is no difference in severity of injury, nor frequency of attack between PBTs and many other dog breeds. The Labrador is often cited as the most likely to bite and with the same bite force as a PBT.
In short, there is no indication that they cause the most serious of injuries. You'd have to be innumerate not to see the issue with that.

Here's another link of resources that you won't read: https://www.pitbullinfo.org/pit-bulls-bites.html

Again you're just not thinking this through.

You're the one ignoring the stats and all the expert opinions...
You're the one trying to treat just one of several symptoms instead of addressing the root cause...
You'd have to be utterly disingenuous not to see the issue with that.

 

[spolsh]

Just ban all the bull terrier breeds. Non-compliance can result in the cops from the other thread being sent round to do their bit.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Just ban all the bull terrier breeds. Non-compliance can result in the cops from the other thread being sent round to do their bit.

The Labour and Green parties should make it a clear part of their election manifestos....

 

[spolsh]

... Tories more likely to actually do it.

 

[dowie]

Dangerous status dogs are mostly due to one type of owner with deliberate intentions, requiring one specifically targeted approach.

The breed is clearly an issue too,

You're the one ignoring the stats and all the expert opinions...

Nope, I'm basing this on the stats that show that bull terrier types are a clear outlier.

 

[ttaskmaster]

The breed is clearly an issue too,

The type is highly responsive to its environment, both positive and negative, meaning that bred is only factor in the issue, not an issue itself.
You'd know this if you read the links.

Nope, I'm basing this on the stats that show that bull terrier types are a clear outlier.

Which is only one table and only represents the first letter of KSI.
In other words, you're deliberately ignoring the wider evidence and the wider parallel issues, all without any context, in favour of your blinkered agenda.

 

[dowie]

The type is highly responsive to its environment, both positive and negative, meaning that bred is only factor in the issue, not an issue itself.

This is garbled... you just wrote that "bred is only factor in the issue" - I assume you mean breed? Presumably, you meant to write "not the only factor" in whcih case, sure, no one is arguing that. Doesn't change that this type of dog is clearly an outlier and we should ban it.

Which is only one table and only represents the first letter of KSI.

Nope, unsurprisingly if a type of dog is responsible for disproportionate deaths it's also going to be causing the most severe injuries too including scenarios that were nearly deaths but for medical intervention.

The reason for that is the same reason it causes disproportionate deaths... it's a powerful and aggressive dog.

 

[ttaskmaster]

This is garbled... you just wrote that "bred is only factor in the issue" - I assume you mean breed? Presumably, you meant to write "not the only factor" in whcih case, sure, no one is arguing that. Doesn't change that this type of dog is clearly an outlier and we should ban it.

Typing on phone.
"Breed is only a factor in the issue, not an issue itself".

If banning statistical outliers were the answer, we'd have banned Rottweilers and GSDs a decade ago when they were still the outliers.
How many more links to scientific and legal studies that refute your ban rationalisation do you need to see?

Nope, unsurprisingly if a type of dog is responsible for disproportionate deaths it's also going to be causing the most severe injuries too including scenarios that were nearly deaths but for medical intervention.

Show the stats that prove this, then.

So far all you have is a reasonably logical expectation without detailed information and are just taking numbers at face value without considering any context... but it is not at all representative of the reality.
For example. Jack Russells feature in the list of killers far more than Dobermanns. Compared to all the other large, aggressive and powerful dogs out there, ol' Jack is quite the outlier, wouldn't you say...? So how come he doesn't feature in the same quantity of serious injury stats?

The reason for that is the same reason it causes disproportionate deaths... it's a powerful and aggressive dog.

Aggression is an individual trait, not a breed-specific (or even type-specific) one. Various studies have proven this, right down to genetic mapping of aggressive traits and distinct genes that each determine whether that aggression is directed toward owners, strangers or other dogs.
Even fighting-dog breeders understand this well enough to select only the aggressive dogs and destroy those that aren't very aggressive.

Meanwhile, in a 20-year study by the US CDC of dog bites and fatalities, Pit bulls were found to have a ‘Dog Bite-Related Fatality Risk Rate’ of 0.97. This means that Pit Bull bites result in 0.97 deaths for every 100,000 Pit Bulls owned. For comparison, Alaskan Malamutes topped the risk rate list, with 6.79 deaths for every 100,000 Malamutes owned. With a bite force of 540psi vs the Pitbull's 325, the Malamute is also more powerful. Rottweilers and Dobermanns sit at 1.17 and 1.16 respectively, while Chows are 2.32 and with similar bite forces.
Three dogs that are statistically powerful and likely to cause more deaths, yet instead typically feature higher on the serious injury count.

 

[Tykey]

Has anyone just watched Good Morning Britain this morning talking about dog attacks? They had a dog behaviour expert on there and mother and small child who had been attacked and badly scarred by their XL Bully. He said there's been 10 deaths this year from dog attacks, including 4 children. Iirc 5 of the 10 deaths were caused by XL Bullys and another from a pitbull type dog. 6 out of 10 deaths from these types of dogs.

Now considering there are dozens and dozens of dog breeds and these pitbull/bully type of dogs make up a small minority of the total amount of dogs owned, it is statistically relevant that they have caused over half the deaths this year. He said he believed these dogs are genetically predisposed to aggression as this is 1 of the traits that were selected for when the breed 1st came around. I believe him. There's no place for these type of dogs in society imo.

Edit : just done brief google fact check on the stats i heard this morning (i googled "uk death dog attack by breeed 2023"), the 1st result was this site https://www.hepper.com/uk/dog-bite-statistics-uk/ which says there were 11 deaths during jan 22 to jan 23 from dog attacks, 6 of the attacks were caused by XL Bullys.

 

[Felon]

Now considering there are dozens and dozens of dog breeds and these pitbull/bully type of dogs make up a small minority of the total amount of dogs owned, it is statistically relevant that they have caused over half the deaths this year.

Yeah exactly,

If it was the case that the breeds involved were random - as in your Labrador was just as likely to be implicated in causing death, as a BXL - then the problem would be much harder to solve.

But an ordinary person doesn’t have any problem concluding that these BXL dogs are a problem, based on the basic numbers.

I also don’t see why people defend the BXL so strongly, it’s a horrid mutant abomination and it doesn’t really have a place.

They’re too big and unpredictable to be pets, no good as a working dog - plenty of other big powerful breeds which have pedigree, are statistically much safer and better understood, (Rottweiler for example), so we just don’t need this horrid BXLs..

 

[ttaskmaster]

Yeah exactly,
If it was the case that the breeds involved were random - as in your Labrador was just as likely to be implicated in causing death, as a BXL - then the problem would be much harder to solve.
But an ordinary person doesn’t have any problem concluding that these BXL dogs are a problem, based on the basic numbers.
I also don’t see why people defend the BXL so strongly, it’s a horrid mutant abomination and it doesn’t really have a place.
They’re too big and unpredictable to be pets, no good as a working dog - plenty of other big powerful breeds which have pedigree, are statistically much safer and better understood, (Rottweiler for example), so we just don’t need this horrid BXLs..

I don't think anyone (here) is defending the breed. What's being challenged is breed-wide legislation, including such that targets types of breeds.
The XLB was bred from a banned breed, arguably as a result of of that ban and in order to get around it.
The concern, from both posters here and numerous professional experts, is that those seeking such dogs will just carry on finding other ways to get around that legislation, further damaging the reputation of many other dogs and jeapoardise dog ownership in general.
Rottweilers are perhaps a bad example, as they used to be the dog that people wanted to ban, for the same reasons that they're now calling for XLBs to be banned.

He said he believed these dogs are genetically predisposed to aggression as this is 1 of the traits that were selected for when the breed 1st came around.

Some of the lines certainly will have been.
Most of those will have been the status dogs though, whereas those wanting an XLB as viable cuddly pets will likely not have chosen those bred from lines with aggressive inclination... beacause doing that would have been even more injudicious than breeding such a dog to begin with.

 

[Felon]

The concern, from both posters here and numerous professional experts, is that those seeking such dogs will just carry on finding other ways to get around that legislation, further damaging the reputation of many other dogs and jeapoardise dog ownership in general.

Well - that argument would make sense if other dogs have been tearing people up for years, but they haven't. The BXL comes along - and the fatality rate literally doubled because of attacks from that breed, we've had dogs like Rottweilers for centuries and it's only in the last couple of years, since these mutant breeds appeared that this problem really got "bad".

Rottweilers are perhaps a bad example, as they used to be the dog that people wanted to ban, for the same reasons that they're now calling for XLBs to be banned.

Rottweilers have lots of good uses though, they're mega intelligent, they make good pets, good guard dogs and good working dogs - they're also an understood established breed, which I think is important because you have a good idea of what you're getting.

 

[Johno please?]

Yeah exactly,

If it was the case that the breeds involved were random - as in your Labrador was just as likely to be implicated in causing death, as a BXL - then the problem would be much harder to solve.

But an ordinary person doesn’t have any problem concluding that these BXL dogs are a problem, based on the basic numbers.

I also don’t see why people defend the BXL so strongly, it’s a horrid mutant abomination and it doesn’t really have a place.

They’re too big and unpredictable to be pets, no good as a working dog - plenty of other big powerful breeds which have pedigree, are statistically much safer and better understood, (Rottweiler for example), so we just don’t need this horrid BXLs..

I don't blame the dogs, we literally created a monster then wonder why it goes wrong. Stupid humans yet again.

Side note, i've just started a job as a dog walker and the owner of the company refuses to walk/look after large bully breeds.

 

[mattyfez]

I don't blame the dogs, we literally created a monster then wonder why it goes wrong. Stupid humans yet again.

Side note, i've just started a job as a dog walker and the owner of the company refuses to walk/look after large bully breeds.

I'm not supprised, it's too much of a risk for staff and other dogs in thier careand members of the public.

Probably not insurable either so if there's an incident they'll get sued into oblivion.

 

[Felon]

I don't blame the dogs, we literally created a monster then wonder why it goes wrong. Stupid humans yet again.

Yeah it is very much a stupid human problem, it's entirely the result of careless and stupid breeding - they wanted a monster and they got one.

Which in a way - is why I support a ban on these dogs, they shouldn't really exist. Existing dogs should be allowed to live out their lives - but I think we should prohibit any further breeding and let the breed go extinct naturally.

(How the hell we enforce this in a world where you get burgled and the cops don't show, I don't know - but I still think it's the best approach)

Probably not insurable either so if there's an incident they'll get sued into oblivion.

I think dog insurance should be mandatory, same as with cars - you have a license and insurance.

I'll hopefully have a Bullmastiff in around 2-3 years time (if my plans go correctly) and I've already budgeted for the hefty costs of insuring such a dog, (more than my car ) and I'd support a law that imposed licensing and insurance.