Does something need to be done about dogs?

[Felon]

People said the very same about GSDs, Rottweilers, Dobermanns and other such dogs before. The proper approach has seen them become pretty decent dog breeds, without the need to ban them or end their existence.

On the whole, none of those breeds has ever really been a problem - there have been a few attacks and issues in the past, but nothing compared to the BullyXL.

And this is the point you don't seem to understand, or have been ignoring - it all boils down to probability.

The probability of being attacked and killed by a Dobermann is low, the probability of being attacked and killed by a BullyXL is much higher..

I'm inclined to say go ahead and ban the XLBs, just to see what mother ****** of natural perversion takes its place. I imagine all the low-down gangstahs and set trippin' bangers will be down wit' their homies, as they walk their pet Balrog (so don't arouse their anger, fool).

Banning BullyXLs on it's own isn't going to solve the problem, I already said that - we need to ban them, AND bring back licensing, mandatory insurance and we also need to regulate breeding - where we don't just let people cross different breeds to create hybrid abominations to get around the rules.

 

[dowie]

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.

You're just in denial here:

We found that a large proportion of behavioural variance across breeds (among-breed heritability) is attributable to genetic factors (figure 1a). The mean among-breed heritability was 0.51 ± 0.12 (s.d.) across all 14 traits (range: h2 = 0.27–0.77), and significantly higher than the null expectation in all cases (permutation tests, p < 0.001). These estimates are also significantly higher than those in previous studies assessing heritability of the same traits in large within-breed samples (mean difference = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.44–0.30; t13 = −12.25, p < 0.001; [44], but see [45]). Incorporating among-breed variance thus yields h2 estimates that are on average, five times higher (range = 1.3–25.5 times higher) than traditional within-breed estimates, which could be due to limited genetic and phenotypic variation within breeds. Although heritability estimates at these different scales stem from fundamentally different underlying populations (randomly interbreeding versus highly structured populations), the statistical component of estimating variance ratios is similar in both cases, suggesting that a larger fraction of phenotypic variance across breeds is explained by genetic factors compared with typical within-breed studies.

 

[dowie]

More recent incidents from the dog of peace:

owner found unconscious after being mauled by one:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699856346957414664

an escaped Bully XL killed a small dog:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699824405436580054

mum sacrifices her arms to protect her baby from an XL Bully:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699822582357279212

 

[Ayahuasca]

It just wanted to play but was brought up the wrong way.

I wouldn't be surprised if people start taking things into their own hands during or after these attacks. Obviously a woman or child is unlikely to be able to fight back, but you can carry up to a 3 inch folded blade in the UK, which should be enough to get the dog of peace to let go.

 

[ttaskmaster]

On the whole, none of those breeds has ever really been a problem - there have been a few attacks and issues in the past, but nothing compared to the BullyXL.

Doesn't matter - There are still people campaigning to get them and other dogs banned.

Those mentioned still have a reputation and were, at one time, as feared by the public as XLBs are now, partly because of a (relatively) small number of incidents, and also partly from reputation alone.
There are 13 countries that outright ban or heavily restrict Rottweilers, to similar extents as we do with our four banned breeds.
Another five ban GSDs, while five more ban Dobermans. Breeds such as GSDs are also facing wider bans at the State and local levels in the US.

And this is the point you don't seem to understand, or have been ignoring - it all boils down to probability.
The probability of being attacked and killed by a Dobermann is low, the probability of being attacked and killed by a BullyXL is much higher..

People don't care about probability. They care about headline reputations. 2 or 3 attacks were enough to give Rotties a seriously bad name, and the others had even less cause for theirs.

Banning BullyXLs on it's own isn't going to solve the problem, I already said that - we need to ban them, AND bring back licensing, mandatory insurance and we also need to regulate breeding - where we don't just let people cross different breeds to create hybrid abominations to get around the rules.

As I said before - Why do you think I have no problem with legislating the absolute **** out of breeders, and severely punishing those who do stupid things?

We found that a large proportion of behavioural variance across breeds (among-breed heritability) is attributable to genetic factors (figure 1a). The mean among-breed heritability was 0.51 ± 0.12 (s.d.) across all 14 traits (range: h2 = 0.27–0.77), and significantly higher than the null expectation in all cases (permutation tests, p < 0.001). These estimates are also significantly higher than those in previous studies assessing heritability of the same traits in large within-breed samples (mean difference = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.44–0.30; t13 = −12.25, p < 0.001; [44], but see [45]). Incorporating among-breed variance thus yields h2 estimates that are on average, five times higher (range = 1.3–25.5 times higher) than traditional within-breed estimates, which could be due to limited genetic and phenotypic variation within breeds. Although heritability estimates at these different scales stem from fundamentally different underlying populations (randomly interbreeding versus highly structured populations), the statistical component of estimating variance ratios is similar in both cases, suggesting that a larger fraction of phenotypic variance across breeds is explained by genetic factors compared with typical within-breed studies.

And what exactly is it that you think they are saying, here?

Did you learn the meaning of heritability yet?
Your blind regurgitation of this one passage, and your total ignorance of the other studies suggest you have not...

 

[dowie]

Did you learn the meaning of heritability yet?
Your blind regurgitation of this one passage, and your total ignorance of the other studies suggest you have not...

I've asked ChatGPT to try explaining it for you instead as you're still struggling:

Sure, let's break it down.

The text seems to discuss a comparison of heritability (often represented by ℎ2h2) estimates derived from two different methods:

1. Incorporating among-breed variance (i.e., considering the differences between various breeds).
2. Traditional within-breed estimates (i.e., considering differences within a single breed).

Here's the interpretation:

1. Heritability Estimates: Heritability (usually denoted as ℎ2h2) is a measure in genetics that indicates how much of the variation in a particular trait (like height, intelligence, or any other characteristic) can be attributed to genetic factors, as opposed to environmental factors.
2. Among-breed vs. Within-breed: The statement compares two ways of calculating heritability:
   • Among-breed variance: This takes into account the variation (or differences) between multiple breeds.
   • Within-breed estimates: This looks at variation within a single breed.
3. Five Times Higher: When considering the variation among different breeds (among-breed variance), the heritability estimates are, on average, five times higher than when you look at the variation within a single breed.
4. Range = 1.3–25.5 times higher: This provides additional context. While the average increase in heritability estimates is five times, the actual increase can range from being just 1.3 times higher to as much as 25.5 times higher, depending on the specific traits and breeds being examined.
5. Possible Reason: The last part of the statement offers a potential reason for this observed difference. There might be limited genetic and phenotypic variation within a breed. In other words, individuals of the same breed might be genetically and phenotypically similar to one another. When you look at differences among breeds, there's a greater range of variation because you're comparing different breeds, each with its own set of genetic and phenotypic characteristics.

In simpler terms, if you only look inside one breed, there may not be much variation to see because the animals are all pretty similar. But when you compare different breeds to each other, the differences become more apparent, leading to higher heritability estimates.

As I've pointed out to you several times, there is greater variation between breeds, that's what the among-breed variance is referring to... also clearly illustrated with the visualisation they included.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I've asked ChatGPT to try explaining it for you instead as you're still struggling:

Why did you do that?
I asked YOU to explain what YOU think it means. Do you not understand it yourself, then?

As I've pointed out to you several times, there is greater variation between breeds, that's what the among-breed variance is referring to... also clearly illustrated with the visualisation they included.

And yet there are still no breed-specific traits, and breed still does not define or predict behaviour.
What's your point?

Yes, dogs bred to look different will look different. Big whoop.
Dogs bred from parents with certain strong traits will often exhibit those same traits, whereas those bred from parents where those traits are not strong tend not to strongly exhibit those traits. Some breeds are focussed on certain traits more than others, and so may be somewhat different from other breeds with a different focus on different traits.
This is Breeding 101 for Dummies... Still doesn't support any notion of breed defining behaviour.

 

[dowie]

Why did you do that?
I asked YOU to explain what YOU think it means. Do you not understand it yourself, then?

Because you're struggling with it, it directly contradicts your claim, ChatGPT has provided a clear explanation for you:

"In simpler terms, if you only look inside one breed, there may not be much variation to see because the animals are all pretty similar. But when you compare different breeds to each other, the differences become more apparent, leading to higher heritability estimates."

And yet there are still no breed-specific traits, and breed still does not define or predict behaviour.
What's your point?

Yes, dogs bred to look different will look different. Big whoop.

The study was looking at behavour, not what the breeds look like! Of course, they share similar physical traits, the point was they also share behavioural traits. The breed specific traits are clearly illustrated in the visualisation posted a few times now, some breeds have high trainability, some have low etc..

 

[ttaskmaster]

Because you're struggling with it, it directly contradicts your claim, ChatGPT has provided a clear explanation for you:

So I ask you for your thoughts and you give me, not even someone else's, but that of a machine..... !!!
You really don't understand it, do you?

The study was looking at behavour, not what the breeds look like! Of course, they share similar physical traits, the point was they also share behavioural traits.

The exact same is true of behaviour, genius!
I apologise for presuming you realised this.

Go have you ChatGPT explain to you what heritability actually means...

Spoiler: Click me

Heritability (usually denoted as ℎ2h2) is a measure in genetics that indicates how much of the variation in a particular trait (like height, intelligence, or any other characteristic) can be attributed to genetic factors, as opposed to environmental factors.

The breed specific traits are clearly illustrated in the visualisation posted a few times now, some breeds have high trainability, some have low etc..

The table illustrates which breeds have higher heritability for certain traits. It shows breeds in which the breeders have focussed on the inheritance of certain behavioural genes.
It does NOT mean those behaviours are breed-specific.
It does NOT mean those behaviours will be stronger in those specific breeds than in others.

If you'd actually read the studies I posted, which also cite ^this one, you'd understand.

 

[413x]

It just wanted to play but was brought up the wrong way.

I wouldn't be surprised if people start taking things into their own hands during or after these attacks. Obviously a woman or child is unlikely to be able to fight back, but you can carry up to a 3 inch folded blade in the UK, which should be enough to get the dog of peace to let go.

Might legit start doing this on our walks. Some of the area round here is a bit rough and although I haven't come across any XLs I've seen some right beef cakes that would (if they wanted) could savage my boy.

I would absolutely use a weapon in a dog that was savaging him. To hell with any ramifications after.

 

[dowie]

The study was looking at behavour, not what the breeds look like! Of course, they share similar physical traits, the point was they also share behavioural traits.

The exact same is true of behaviour, genius!

I know, that's what I'm pointing out, of course it's true re: behaviour.

You claimed otherwise:

It's already been asserted by several studies linked earlier in the thread that breed has very little impact on behaviour.

That is incorrect, as already explained, or neatly summarised for you by ChatGPT as you're struggling still:

"In simpler terms, if you only look inside one breed, there may not be much variation to see because the animals are all pretty similar. But when you compare different breeds to each other, the differences become more apparent, leading to higher heritability estimates."
The within-breed variations in behaviour traits are smaller than the among-breed variations in behaviour traits, it's all explained here for you, I suggest you re-read:

Does something need to be done about dogs?

People said the very same about GSDs, Rottweilers, Dobermanns and other such dogs before. The proper approach has seen them become pretty decent dog breeds, without the need to ban them or end their existence. On the whole, none of those breeds has ever really been a problem - there have been...

forums.overclockers.co.uk

 

[ttaskmaster]

I know, that's what I'm pointing out, of course it's true re: behaviour.
You claimed otherwise:

I did no such thing. You are lying.
I have always asserted that genes define behaviour.

I did say that breed does not define behaviour, and you have not read the studies I posted which support this.

The within-breed variations in behaviour traits are smaller than the among-breed variations in behaviour traits, it's all explained here for you, I suggest you re-read:

Dogs of similar phenotype are all classified into a generalised group called a 'breed'.... while those of a differing phenotype are classified into different 'breeds'.... yes, and?
You'll also find plenty of different breeds where the behavioural traits are very similar, which is why you have 'breed groups'.
Again, Breeding 101 for Dummies.

Breed is still not the same thing as genetic bloodlines. Stop conflating the two.

 

[dowie]

I did no such thing. You are lying.

I can directly quote you right here:

It's already been asserted by several studies linked earlier in the thread that breed has very little impact on behaviour.

That is false as per the study, see this post, it's clearly illustrated for you in the visualisation I included there: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...-to-be-done-about-dogs.18949767/post-36644117

Breed is still not the same thing as genetic bloodlines. Stop conflating the two.

I'm not, I've literally linked to a study that looked at the differences in behaviour between breeds! Look again at the visualisation already posted, see what they're refeing to within it - breeds!

I even got ChatGPT to further explain part of it for you:

"

1. Among-breed vs. Within-breed: The statement compares two ways of calculating heritability:
   • Among-breed variance: This takes into account the variation (or differences) between multiple breeds.
   • Within-breed estimates: This looks at variation within a single breed.

"

You can clearly see that variation between breeds is far greater than within breeds (again they're looking at behaviour not physical differences), your claim that breed has very little impact on behaviour is demonstrably false and there are several strong correlations for behaviour traits and breeds... which is what you'd expect. Dogs of the same breed are genetically closer to each other so if genes inform behaviour then of course they'll be more similar in terms of behaviour.

You seem to have some cognitive dissonance yet again with uncertainty, you're aware that there is some variance within breeds and you somehow believe that negates the much higher variance between breeds. If you can accept that genes have an impact on behaviour then why is it so difficult to accept that genetically similar dogs (i.e. those of the same breeds) will also share behaviour traits... which is what the evidence already posted several times now shows? It's bizarre how you're still in denial about it.

Maybe someone else who has followed the thread can comment? @Screeeech are you able to see that the visualisation posted earlier refers to differences between breeds?

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'm not, I've literally linked to a study that looked at the differences in behaviour between breeds! Look again at the visualisation already posted, see what they're refeing to within it - breeds!

You are literally conflating genetic profile with breed, right there in that very sentence.
Perhaps if you actually read your own study, you'd understand the difference, and that there is a difference.... but I seriously doubt it.

You can clearly see that variation between breeds is far greater than within breeds (again they're looking at behaviour not physical differences), your claim that breed has very little impact on behaviour is demonstrably false and there are several strong correlations for behaviour traits and breeds...

Liar.
Several studies which you refuse to even acknowledge prove otherwise.
You are a liar.

You seem to have some cognitive dissonance yet again with uncertainty, you're aware that there is some variance within breeds and you somehow believe that negates the much higher variance between breeds. If you can accept that genes have an impact on behaviour then why is it so difficult to accept that genetically similar dogs (i.e. those of the same breeds) will also share behaviour traits... which is what the evidence already posted several times now shows?

Your assertion that breed = genetics is false.
There are other contributory factors too, but you clearly haven't read about those even in this study, which you have yet to properly understand.

 

[Dis86]

Top story on BBC...

Concern as pandemic puppies reach difficult age

Dogs bought during lockdown may only now be starting to have behaviour problems, the RSPCA says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Does indeed look like there's a problem already well brewed with dogs!

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Mass culling and an end to RSCPA imho.

 

[dowie]

Your assertion that breed = genetics is false.

I didn't make that assertion... I know you get confused by any sort of nuance here but you're quoting where I've pointed out that dogs of the same breed are genetically closer to each other than dogs from other breeds, a fact that ought to be pretty self-evident. In fact, ChatGPT even summarised it for you in simple terms at the end of its output and you're still in denial.

You made this same mistake previously where you responded as though I had assumed dogs of the same breed are clones of each other - you're just getting confused by the presence of some uncertainty yet again.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I didn't make that assertion... I know you get confused by any sort of nuance here but you're quoting where I've pointed out that dogs of the same breed are genetically closer to each other than dogs from other breeds, a fact that ought to be pretty self-evident. In fact, ChatGPT even summarised it for you in simple terms at the end of its output and you're still in denial.

I'm not confused and there is no denial. It is perfectly evident.
However, breed is not the same as genetics, which is why breed does not define behaviour.

You're assuming that citing genetically-derived traits is evidence of breed-specific behaviour, which it is not, as explained in the study you posted and those I posted.

You made this same mistake previously where you responded as though I had assumed dogs of the same breed are clones of each other - you're just getting confused by the presence of some uncertainty yet again.

You're assuming a lot about my posts, instead of actually reading what's written.
You are the only one who used the word 'clone' and even then as an exaggerated assumption.

I think you're getting confused by your own embellishments.

 

[dowie]

I'm not confused and there is no denial. It is perfectly evident.
However, breed is not the same as genetics, which is why breed does not define behaviour.

No, you're still confused. Again no one said breed is "the same as" genetics but rather dogs of the same breed are closer genetically. Do you really not understand that? It's been pointed out a few times now and simplified for you by ChatGPT?

You're assuming that citing genetically-derived traits is evidence of breed-specific behaviour, which it is not, as explained in the study you posted and those I posted.

Perhaps a pop-science type article based on the same paper might be easier to follow, your claim below, now note the title of the article after it:

It's already been asserted by several studies linked earlier in the thread that breed has very little impact on behaviour.

Genes contribute to dog breeds’ iconic traits

A new study by a research team that included the University of Washington offers new evidence to support what scientists have long suspected about dogs: that some dog behaviors that help characterize...

www.washington.edu

Genes contribute to dog breeds’ iconic traits


Dog breeds tend to have signature traits: Border collies love to herd, greyhounds love to chase, and German shepherds make good guard dogs.

There’s a reason for that: Traits like these are highly heritable, according to a study of 101 dog breeds that identifies genetic differences in behavior.

The study, published Oct. 2 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, points to 131 genetic variants, and offers new evidence to support what scientists have long suspected: that some of the behaviors that help characterize breeds — a drive to chase, for example, or aggression toward strangers — are associated with distinct genetic differences among them.

No one is claiming that every dog of the same breed is a clone of each other, rather they're close genetically and so share traits, which are heritable. Those traits vary more between breeds than within breeds.

The traits with the highest rates of heritability — in other words, those that seemed to be most influenced by genetic factors rather than environmental ones — were behaviors such as trainability, predatory chasing, stranger-directed aggression and attention seeking. For these traits, genetics explained 60 to 70 percent of variation across breeds.

“These are exactly the types of traits that have been selected for in particular breeds of dogs,” said Serpell. “So for trainability, you’re thinking of breeds like border collies that have to respond to human signals to accomplish complicated tasks; for chasing behavior you can think of something like a greyhound, which is innately predisposed to chase anything that runs; and for stranger-directed aggression you might focus on some of the guard dog breeds that are highly protective and tend to respond in a hostile way to unfamiliar people.”

This should be common sense really, it's what Screeeech was pointing out to you earlier:

So you're saying the genes are independent from the breed?? How does that work? the genes define everything about the breed, from the moment it's born... Genes impact everything about the animal - yes it can be trained to do certain things give or take, but there are always going to be baseline differences.

This is why a border collie (smartest dog) will always be better than an Afghan Hound (dumbest dog) at herding sheep and obeying commands, they're different breeds with different genes and they behave in totally different ways, they'be been designed by artificial selection to behave and act in different ways.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Me - Posts an assertion that breed does not define behaviour, genetics does.
Dowie - Continually posts and cites an article about how genes do define behaviour, then disputes my claim.

Perhaps a pop-science type article based on the same paper might be easier to follow, your claim below, now note the title of the article after it:

Now see the title of this article:

Your dog's genes, but not necessarily its breed, play a big role in its behavior

Humans began selectively breeding dogs around 2,000 years ago, and these genes play a role in your pup's behavior, a new study of 4,000 purebred, mixed-breed and wild dogs finds.

www.livescience.com

How the **** are you still disputing this?

This should be common sense really, it's what Screeeech was pointing out to you earlier:

And as pointed out to him, which is covered in all studies, breed is not just about a specific set of genes, nor are genes the only defining factor.