Does something need to be done about dogs?

413x said:
Oh yeah I know. Lots round here like that.
Had one today. An overly aggressive staffy (one of the chunky ones) came up to my boy (mine on lead, this one off). Koda was so. Submissive he rolled over. It didn't get nasty.. But it was overly aggressive play for my boy. The owner quickly leaded his dog. But if it had been a bully xl.. Could have been bad.
Click to expand...
Scary experience for you.

Maddie is really submissive so she would just roll over but lilith goes nuts at any dogs that come accidentally close to her.

I can pick her up but she's pretty heavy for me at 6kg! Lol!
 
ttaskmaster said:
So are scientists.
Click to expand...

No they're not lol,

Your dog's breed may not dictate its behavior, though genes do play a role, a study of the genomes of 4,000 purebred, mixed-breed and wild dogs has revealed.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that all dogs of a specific breed behave 100% the same 100% of the time, we're saying that genes do play a part - as the sentence from the study above also says.

The fact that the genes do play a role, is a problem because it means if some dogs have genes which can lead to problems with behaviour, then it's more likely the dog will have problem behaviour.
 
ttaskmaster said:
You serious?
Border Collies are highly intelligent and highly trainable herding dogs which, in the wrong hands, end up as distressed, frustrated, murderous psychopaths... they will attack ducks, kittens, pigs, sheep, cows and even dog control officers.
Plenty of news articles on those...
Click to expand...

As with everything in life you cannot remove all risk unless people will be happy with a completely sanitised existance. What we should be doing is trying to mitigate against those things of highest risk.

Some people would stand a fighting chance of defending another life form against a sustained 20kg Border Collie attack. Almost nobody can get in the way of a 50kg plus bully XL when it goes off.
 
The collie angle is just ridiculous.
Of course they are not all great sheep dogs, that's why farmers usualy buy pups from other farmers litters that are known to be good. And even then there's no guarenteed they will be up to the job.
They still do however make excellent family pets for the more active/outdoorsy families as genetically they are very clever and active.
They don't make great lap dogs as they they need stimulation and lots of excercise to be happy.

Also they don't have a reputation for eating babies, so that's always a plus.
 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
No they're not lol,
Click to expand...
Article literally opens with the title of, "Your dog's genes, but not necessarily its breed, play a big role in its behavior"...

The study itself explains, "Most behavioral traits are heritable [heritability (h2) > 25%], but behavior only subtly differentiates breeds. Breed offers little predictive value for individuals, explaining just 9% of variation in behavior".
So again, genes do (for the majority part) define behaviour, while breed does not.
I can't see how this could be any clearer...

Screeeech said:
The fact that the genes do play a role, is a problem because it means if some dogs have genes which can lead to problems with behaviour, then it's more likely the dog will have problem behaviour.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what it means. Some dogs.
It doesn't mean all of them will have those genes.

Screeeech said:
I don't think anyone is saying that all dogs of a specific breed behave 100% the same 100% of the time
Click to expand...
So why then would anyone ban 100% of the breed?

Jelly4mybelly said:
As with everything in life you cannot remove all risk unless people will be happy with a completely sanitised existance. What we should be doing is trying to mitigate against those things of highest risk.
Some people would stand a fighting chance of defending another life form against a sustained 20kg Border Collie attack. Almost nobody can get in the way of a 50kg plus bully XL when it goes off.
Click to expand...
Horses weigh about 800-1,000kg, are pretty skittish and can do a lot of damage when panicked, yet we generally manage to keep people safe around those without banning them...
Why then can't we apply some of that same common sense to dogs?
 
ttaskmaster said:
...
Horses weigh about 800-1,000kg, are pretty skittish and can do a lot of damage when panicked, yet we generally manage to keep people safe around those without banning them...
Why then can't we apply some of that same common sense to dogs?
Click to expand...

Horses are not really comparable. They don't inhabit the same spaces dogs do, on the whole, and are nearly always accompanied by a responsible owner and in harness.

Aggressive stallions are kept in fields and often have a tag on their tail so you know to give them a wide berth. Anyone who has been around horses will be very wary of stallions.

Old mares are generally OK, but you still treat them with respect. The thing is, horses don't really follow up on a kick.

Deaths by horse attack, rather than falls, are pretty rate.

Cows are probably more outright dangerous than horses. Cows are way quicker than most people think...

Personally, I'd be happy to see bullyXls added to the banned list. Their owners are generally irresponsible bad boys who are not willing or able to be good owners.
 
ttaskmaster said:
So why then would anyone ban 100% of the breed?
Click to expand...

Because of the balance of probability.

If you have a dangerous dog, that comes from a lineage of dangerous ancestors, which have been bred together on purpose to accentuate those dangerous attributes, then the probability that the breed will be dangerous is higher.

We don't have to deal in 0 or 100% all the time, we only need to be able to define risk by asking what's more likely or less likely.

The insurance companies don't seem to have a problem with this, as @dowie pointed out earlier, so I don't see why it has to be so complicated.
 
taB said:
These dogs (BXL) shouldn't exist; sorry doggos. They do because a certain subsection of our society want them and have bred them specifically to be aggressive and nasty animals. It's the breeders that need to be put down.
Click to expand...

I agree fully. But I also think there should be a concerted effort to destroy all bully type dogs too..
That might sound cruel but they are simply a liability.
And I say that as a dog owner.
 
Last edited:
ttaskmaster said:
Genetically similar does not mean they will be the same. How do you not understand this?
Click to expand...

What claim do you think you're addressing there, no one said all dogs of the same breed are identical clones of each other!

ttaskmaster, again, I'm asking you to understand that the presence of some uncertainty does not imply you disregard everything.

Do you think one Alsatian picked at random will be closer genetically to:

a) Another alsatian picked at random

or

b) a Yorkshire terrier picked at random

ttaskmaster said:
Not at all, I'm quite blatantly taking the **** out of your assertion that "breed" is a factor in the first place.
Click to expand...

It's not just an assertion it's literally backed up with evidence, the study posted clearly shows that various behavoural traits are heritable and that they vary considerably between breeds. You're just confused that's all as you can't seem to grasp that variation within breeds doesn't negate variation between breeds even though it's pretty clearly explained.

Likewise you can't seem to grasp that there can be more than one factor re: the risk here, both bad owners and certain breeds being inherently more risky.
 
dowie said:
It's not just an assertion it's literally backed up with evidence, the study posted clearly shows that various behavoural traits are heritable and that they vary considerably between breeds. You're just confused that's all as you can't seem to grasp that variation within breeds doesn't negate variation between breeds even though it's pretty clearly explained.

Likewise you can't seem to grasp that there can be more than one factor re: the risk here, both bad owners and certain breeds being inherently more risky.
Click to expand...

It's only from personal experience, and obviously a limited number of animals, but my family have had quite a few Weimaraners from Pedigree Show stock and Working stock over the years. The dogs from working stock were generally healthier, less haywire, harder to scare with loud noises (they are gundogs afterall) and had a much different build. Their temperaments were broadly the same, but the pups from working stock were significantly calmer, less nervous. They have been bred to be fit and healthy, not look a certain way and I'd always take animals from a working dog breeder if I had the ability to. When you're breeding for looks the breeders aren't as likely to care about the temperament of the parents or the parents lineage, just that the animals have made a good showing at dog shows so you can end up with nervous dogs, just as an example.

Take that a step further and I think it's fairly obvious you can breed for things like aggression. You won't always get a more aggressive, bold dog, but you can increase your chances of it.

What you're saying is correct dowie, it is backed by study. You only have to look at breeds like pugs and how they have been selectively bred over the years for their looks and temperament to see genetic lineage in action.
 
Parsley said:
Take that a step further and I think it's fairly obvious you can breed for things like aggression. You won't always get a more aggressive, bold dog, but you can increase your chances of it.
Click to expand...

For me it comes down to basic probabilities.

If I took 10000 Rottweilers at random, and walked them past children statistically, the probability of them attacking a child is low, (not zero but low), we know this because we have lots of data on dog attacks and Rottweilers despite being big and powerful, have never really been a big problem, not much more than any other big breed.

If I took 10000 BullyXLs at random, and walked them past children, the probability of them attacking a child is much higher, because we know the breed is known to be aggressive, more unpredictable and the breed is often implicated in violent incidents.

For me, that's all there really is to it, coming to conclusions based on known risks and data - should be enough to make a sensible decision without doing a PHD in genetics.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
I give up reading his rants when he comes back with that sort of wall of text, there's a study already linked to twice that directly contradicts his claim, these traits are clearly heritable and vary significantly between breeds he gets confused with variation within breeds and thinks that somehow negates this but it's clearly illustrated above.



This is where he's got hung up on something; he's aware that genes are inherited from a dog's parents (somewhat stating the obvious) so he ignores that breeds share genes/lineage. The presence of some variation in genes and behavour within breeds has led to some confusion where he's used that uncertanty to dismiss the differences between breeds.

Anyway, we've got another incident:


Two XL Bully's killed 22 sheep and injured nearly 50 more...

Come on taskmaster, let's hear how it's got nothing to do with the breed, border collies do that all the time right?



Also in 5 years time this guy can own dogs again... why not just ban the breed as it would make it harder for him to be in this position in the first place? I haven't seen any argument as to why anyone *needs* to own a freaking XL Bully... other dogs do exist!
Click to expand...

Petition to get the XL Bully banned in the UK here, was at 1,800 earlier today >> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/642809

I don't think they can even be insured in the UK.
 
dowie said:
It's not just an assertion it's literally backed up with evidence, the study posted clearly shows that various behavoural traits are heritable and that they vary considerably between breeds. You're just confused that's all as you can't seem to grasp that variation within breeds doesn't negate variation between breeds even though it's pretty clearly explained.

Likewise you can't seem to grasp that there can be more than one factor re: the risk here, both bad owners and certain breeds being inherently more risky.
Click to expand...

The study you posted shows that an individual dog's direct genetic lineage (heritability) is far more of a factor that just general breed, which is what all the studies you've ignored also assert. The variation between breeds is far less useful as a predictor of behaviour, compared to the commonality between breed types (ie herding dogs, sled dogs, retrieval dogs), since the latter is what dog bloodlines (ie, the genes) have been focussed on selecting. Heritability is why dogs of different breeds can still have similar genetics and similar behaviours, and why those of the same breed can vary so widely.

Here's what an XLB should be, according to the breed standard:

"The American Bully breed is, first and foremost, a companion, exhibiting confidence with a zest and exuberance for life. Despite its powerful appearance, their demeanor is gentle and friendly. This breed makes an excellent family dog. The ideal American Bully possesses the athleticism to do well in performance events.
Aggressive behavior towards humans is uncharacteristic of the breed, and highly undesirable.
Disqualifications: Viciousness or extreme shyness"

This very notion of heritability, upon which you seem to hinge your argument, is exactly why so many industry professionals stand against Breed Specific Legislation.
Police dog handlers, crime analysts, veterinarians, biologists, animal behaviourists, geneticists, lawyers, pretty much anyone who works in a dog-related specialty have argued against banning yet another whole breed.

Yes, dogs of any given breed may have bloodlines that may make them dangerous, but that only becomes a problem through the actions and inactions of a bad owner/breeder.
There's nothing stopping us 're-speccing' the XLB bloodlines to a more socially responsible temperament. That's what originally happened with Staffies, until back-street breeders stuck their oar in, and in a few generations the XLB could quite easily end up another 'gentle giant' breed like the four Sennenhunds and the St Bernard.

So, rather than banning the whole breed, get off your collective arses and actually enforce laws that take down the breeders who have ruined this and other breeds.
Turn "Dogs of Peace" from a snide internet remark, back into something genuine and deserved.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Here's what an XLB should be, according to the breed standard:

"The American Bully breed is, first and foremost, a companion, exhibiting confidence with a zest and exuberance for life. Despite its powerful appearance, their demeanor is gentle and friendly. This breed makes an excellent family dog. The ideal American Bully possesses the athleticism to do well in performance events.
Aggressive behavior towards humans is uncharacteristic of the breed, and highly undesirable.
Disqualifications: Viciousness or extreme shyness"
Click to expand...

This is a load of nonsense, it's just what the American kennel club has cooked up,

It's not even an actual breed, it's a horrid hybrid of all manner of different stuff, so in reality if you buy 3x BXLs from 3x different breeders, you don't know what the hell you're getting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom