Absolutely comical view, yeah its quite clear breed matters, even though you say there is no difference between breeds, to then go on to specify the characteristics of herding dogs, is a bit hypocritical.
Breed is just what they're called, as in Labrador, GSD, etc.
Characteristics are what was, or was not, bred into an individual dog's lineage. This is why you get dogs belonging to a certain breed, yet do not exhibit the characteristiocs typical of that breed.
Because dog does not meet requirements, it is moved to a shelter so it can become a non working dog, dont see the problem with this.
The point is that many dogs do not conform to their breed standards, for either appearance or behaviour. Enough of each that there are rescue centres who deal in just that one breed, be they Border Collies, GSDs, Schnauzers, and so on.
The dog maimed 2 children and had to be put down by police. Yes the owner is a clown, no debating that. But the dog is clearly the outlying problem
The dog wouldn't be a problem if the owner did their job in the first place.
"in other words what their ancestors were like" - yes, otherwise known as the breed... the thing they're investigating!
Once again, you are wrong.
The breed is just a standard, covering many different dogs from many different lineages, as well as those outside of the pedigree.
The actual ancestry is specific to a particular dog's lineage, same as with humans. The family trees for XLBs tend to look more like stumps because they're still so new and there hasn't been much (documented) diversity over that long a time.
Two reasons:
1/. Because breed itself has a minimal influence on behaviour compared to environmental malleability and the actual environment in which the dog is raised. In other words, Nurture drastically outweighs Nature.
2/. Because almost all of the dangers associated with 'problem' dogs can be successfully managed by an intelligent, responsible owner.... and because almost all of the incidents that occur result ultimately from owners who failed in their duties.
As so many studies, specialists and professionals keep insisting - Treat the cause, not the symptoms.
In the UK we have some of the highest driving standards in the world (top 10), passing your test is REALLY ******* hard, and the standards for vehicle safety are very high indeed, second I believe only to Sweden and possibly Germany. As a result, UK roads are some of the safest in the world with close to the lowest number of fatalities, per 100k miles driven.
Yup, and that's fine - Some people won't ever pass their tests, and that's also fine.
The problem is with those who either pass their tests and then do whatever they like or, in some cases, just drive without a licence.
The point is, it's on them and in such a free society we can't make them good drivers any more than we can make people good dog owners... but we also don't go round crushing specific makes/models of cars just because the types of people who drive them badly have had an accident.
What an utterly depressing thought. Peoples inate desire to care and raise young, pacified by a canine substitute.
Not at all - I found canines far more rewarding than raising children. Far cheaper, far easier, far more socially welcomed, far less competitive, subjected to far less criticism... the benefits were tremendous.
By contrast, the only mental health issues actually stemmed from the children, and it was the dogs that kept the issues from becoming a problem.
I'd like to see problem dogs taken from their owners and homed until they die from natural causes by people who aren't irresponsible. The same goes for dogs that have problem owners, take the dogs off them. But that would take funding that would never be given.
The first bit is happening already and a number of shelters have just such a section for dogs like that. The second bit also does happen and the likes of the RSPCA do their best but, as you say, funding is the issue and in both cases there are many more dogs than spaces.
A small Swiss army knife or leatherman and sometimes useful to have a multitool in the countryside/outdoors anyway (maybe less so in a city park tho). They're legal to carry around if the blade isn't lockable and below a certain length as they're not particularly useful for violent gang members etc.
It's somewhat more complicated than that.
A non-locking, folding blade under 3" (7.62cm) is legal to carry without any reason.
However, carrying anything like that with the intent of using it to cause harm or injury, or to use it in a threatening manner, is a crime under the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.
likewise, dogs are generally aware of and scared of knives too.
What utter bull ****!!!!!
Where the **** did you hear that??!!
In b4 ackchually the breeds don't matter, it's only the owners...
In b4 any actual context of the circumstances, too, it seems.
99% sure the incident will be down to human failings, though....
www.sthelensstar.co.uk
www.livescience.com
