Does something need to be done about dogs?

[Haggisman]

It's why I said "Would obviously take 3rd party if it became a requirement"

Atm, I'm making a personal choice to take on that risk of being sued for loss of earnings

Much like car insurance, it's not compulsory to protect you, it's to protect the 3rd party.

You might be happy to take on that risk, maybe you've got nothing to lose and would be happy to declare bankruptcy if you were sued for 10s of thousands - that doesn't really help the guy who can no longer pay his mortgage because he can't work as he's lost the use of his arm, or the child who needs expensive reconstructive surgery and 24/medical care

 

[Fubsy]

Much like car insurance, it's not compulsory to protect you, it's to protect the 3rd party.

You might be happy to take on that risk, maybe you've got nothing to lose and would be happy to declare bankruptcy if you were sued for 10s of thousands - that doesn't really help the guy who can no longer pay his mortgage because he can't work as he's lost the use of his arm, or the child who needs expensive reconstructive surgery and 24/medical care

Well, now I know you can't read, I can carry on with my day.

 

[Haggisman]

Well, now I know you can't read, I can carry on with my day.

 

[Fubsy]

Where's the rest of my post?

It's not good faith to do what you did. You know what you've done, others can see it to.

 

[Haggisman]

Where's the rest of my post?

It's not good faith to do what you did. You know what you've done, others can see it to.

I'm on my phone, so replying to long posts with lots of quotes is a bit of a pain TBH, but no, you're right, mandatory insurance wouldn't completely stop attacks, but it would help, both in preventing them, and dealing with the fall out (at least financially), much like other small measures would help as well.

No, it's not a magic bullet, but then neither is banning them, or any other single "solution"; perfection is the enemy of progress.

Edit: @Fubsy

Back on my PC now and I owe you an apology, I didn't even see post #2877 which is why I didn't respond to it.

Yes, in that case, where a dog acts "out of character" for its breed/training, then of course mandatory insurance etc. isn't going to stop anything, and like you say it's down to the owner to be responsible enough to make the call. I still think that situations like that are the exception rather than the rule, and stick by my point above - just because there isn't an infallible "quick fix", doesn't mean we shouldn't at least consider things which will help whilst having minimal impact on most responsible owners. (of course as has already been mentioned, without enforcement then it's moot)

 

[ttaskmaster]

I think what has happened here, is you've overcomplicated everything.

It's a complicated topic, especially when Dowie sticks his oar in.

As a result your explanations and points are difficult to understand and don't make sense, this normally happens when somebody doesn't properly understand the topic they're discussing.

I've laid it out as simply as I can for you. It does require a full read of the supporting documents and following of the thread, though.

At the end of the day, dogs bred from Pitbulls, or dogs that have Pitbull genes in them, are far more likely to be implicated in violent behaviour, regardless of upbringing - because they're from a lineage of fighting dogs.
Trying to overcomplicate the issue by blaming breed, or breed-type, or genes, or whatever - doesn't really get you anywhere, it just overcomplicates the issue and confuses people.

That genetic likelihood has been debated by academics quite often, and is part of what's being discussed here.
If you want it simple - Deed, not breed.

FFS man, it's like you've got a complete mental block here, no one is arguing that this is monocausal.

Neither am I, so I don't know why you keep going back to it as an argument...

The point here is that genes (and therefore the dog breed/type) does play a role in behaviour *too* it's not all just bad owners! That doesn't negate that environmental factors also play a role.
Is that really a hard concept to understand? You can't even begin to have a discussion about this is after over a hundred pages you can't even follow what you're trying to argue against.

So you agree with my earlier assertions that environment plays a role, now?

Even after 100 pages, my point still stands - Doesn't matter what genetic profiles, what phenotypes, what levels of heritability, what breed, what likelihood, what behaviour, or any other correlating factor - Humans (ie breeders and owners) are the sole controlling factor in every aspect of this, and thus the only one that makes the difference.

 

[Semple]

Our first puppy was a nightmare, but NOWHERE near as bad as that. For context: we spent £1000s on behaviourists and 1-2-1 training classes. Learnt a lot, made loads of progress, but in the end that dog was dangerous and unpredictable to the extreme and we took the decision to let the breeder have the final say on what happened to him as per our contract. So much money, emotion and time down the drain with just the experience to show for. No one likes to say it, but some dogs are just broken - I saw the look in the two behaviourists eyes over time, even those guys realised it and they were making money from it!

As far as we know he still lives on the farm he was born on, but more likely I hope they saw what we saw and made the right call after they were so judgemental about it being us. It killed our confidence as dog owners, but that's been restored now after very testing, but good experiences with 3 other breeds.

Unfortunately not everyone makes those right choices. It's only when a serious incident occurs that the outcome is forced on them.

 

[Felon]

Humans (ie breeders and owners) are the sole controlling factor in every aspect of this, and thus the only one that makes the difference.

But that does nothing to advance your argument that the XLbully shouldn't be banned.

Just because humans are the controlling factor (because the XLbully was created by humans crossbreeding Pitbulls with other breeds) isn't a positive reason for allowing the breed to continue to exist, not when it's causing carnage on the streets every week.

Put simply - this whole problem was created by stupid humans, it can only be fixed via legislation enacted by sensible humans, without that - it'll just get worse and worse.

 

[jaybee]

There’s a fortune to be made out of doing it, I believe the puppies sell for as much as £10k each…

Breeding those things probably makes you more money than making drugs..

How does the typical owner afford one then?

 

[Parsley]

How does the typical owner afford one then?

The same way they afford big TVs, cars on finance and lord knows how many packs of cigarettes + alcohol.

 

[413x]

Maybe enforcing insurance (3rd party) is the way.

Any dogs that are dangerous would be uninsurable, backed up by data.
And that would make them illegal.

After all, insurance. For cars is a requirement.

The costs would be low for a labrador fir example.
As a dog owner, if you aren't prepared to pay it, don't have a dog.

 

[413x]

I guess my only fear is that we can't break the link of scum bags jumping on what was a previously safe breed and creating a bad name for it.

 

[Felon]

Maybe enforcing insurance (3rd party) is the way.

Any dogs that are dangerous would be uninsurable, backed up by data.
And that would make them illegal.

After all, insurance. For cars is a requirement.

The costs would be low for a labrador fir example.
As a dog owner, if you aren't prepared to pay it, don't have a dog.

I guess my only fear is that we can't break the link of scum bags jumping on what was a previously safe breed and creating a bad name for it.

I guess any solution proposed, is only ever going to be as strong as the people willing to implement it, and with the clownshoes outfit we currently have - the weak link will always be the implementation of it.

My biggest worry, is that we just kick the can down the road, another breed appears - by which point it's too late, so we ban that one too - then kick the next can down the road, all the time making no attempt whatsoever to actually try and solve the problem.

For me, banning the XLBully is literally the bare minimum, and it's a shame because it's gotten to the point where the only reason the ban is being proposed is because the government have allowed the situation to get out of control, and now there's no time, and no resources to do anything else.

We need higher quality leadership, better ideas and people who know how to solve problems.

 

[mattyfez]

OK... Thinking out loud I've just come up with an analogy /parallel issue.

It's about illegal drugs.
Amphetamines and MDMA are totally illegal.
Do we remember when there was a rush of so called 'smart drugs' on the market.

Super poweful modified amphetamines such as MCAT etc?

The legislation couldn't keep up with it, because as soon as substance X was added to the illegal list, the chemist's would alter the drug in a chemically subtle way, so that it technically becomes a new drug, and therefore not subject to the banned list.

Eventually the government just blanket banned entire swathes of drugs derived from the same chemical structures as a catch all umbrella.

Was it 100% effective? No of course not. And I'm not arguing that it was.

What it did do was stem the tide of 'new to science' slightly modified super amphetamines being shipped in en masse from the far east.

Maybe a similar approach to dogs should be taken.
As in, banning a bully XL is all well and good, but then someone could breed a double bully triple XL and we're back to square one as it's a 'new breed' that the legislation doesn't account for, and therefore totally legal.

Food for though I think.

 

[dowie]

Even after 100 pages, my point still stands - Doesn't matter what genetic profiles, what phenotypes, what levels of heritability, what breed, what likelihood, what behaviour, or any other correlating factor - Humans (ie breeders and owners) are the sole controlling factor in every aspect of this, and thus the only one that makes the difference.

Not clear what you're arguing here now, you seem to be modifying an argument to acknowledge that the breed is an issue but then claiming that's down to humans too... I don't think anyone would dispute that the breed is artificially created by humans, that doesn't negate the point that the breed is a factor here in addition to bad owners thus the reason for wanting a ban.

 

[413x]

I guess any solution proposed, is only ever going to be as strong as the people willing to implement it, and with the clownshoes outfit we currently have - the weak link will always be the implementation of it.

My biggest worry, is that we just kick the can down the road, another breed appears - by which point it's too late, so we ban that one too - then kick the next can down the road, all the time making no attempt whatsoever to actually try and solve the problem.

For me, banning the XLBully is literally the bare minimum, and it's a shame because it's gotten to the point where the only reason the ban is being proposed is because the government have allowed the situation to get out of control, and now there's no time, and no resources to do anything else.

We need higher quality leadership, better ideas and people who know how to solve problems.

Without enforcement all this is moot.
The very people you want to target are the very people who won't change unless forced.

I have no faith in the police or who ever to enforce it when so many other things are just not dealt with

 

[mattyfez]

Not clear what you're arguing here now, you seem to be modifying an argument to acknowledge that the breed is an issue but then claiming that's down to humans too..

I don't think even he knows what he's arguing, it's purely an Internet point scoring exercise.

To attempt to argue that there is a mutually exclusive difference between breed and genetics is purely semantic.

It's frivolous and doesn't help move the debate forwards, no matter what way you look at it.

 

[Felon]

Without enforcement all this is moot.
The very people you want to target are the very people who won't change unless forced.

I have no faith in the police or who ever to enforce it when so many other things are just not dealt with

It's helpless really.

I suppose technically, this should fall under the remit of the RSPCA (they have their own animal control divison), so I imagine if that was bolstered and given a refreshed set of guidelines and the ability to dish out enforcement, with regard to things like licensing and insurance. Similar to what the environment agency does with fishing licenses, they go around checking people - if you don't have one, instant big fine (although I've only every been checked twice in my life)

But either way, I have no faith either, not in govenment, the police or anybody in power.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I don't think even he knows what he's arguing, it's purely an Internet point scoring exercise.

To attempt to argue that there is a mutually exclusive difference between breed and genetics is purely semantic.

It's frivolous and doesn't help move the debate forwards, no matter what way you look at it.

Indeed, it's very odd behaviour tbh.

 

[ttaskmaster]

But that does nothing to advance your argument that the XLbully shouldn't be banned.

No, this was all in response to the Dowie-hole pedanticism trying to pick apart my arguments, which he then ends up substantiating instead of disproving.
This all began over a year ago with a discussion about "Pit Bull Terrier types", which covers a number of breeds, none of which were the XLB.
Most peoples' original arguments (including mine) are being repeated here by others, and it's now just 'ironing out the details'... aka pedantic bitching between me and Dowie, which is how it always goes with him.

My biggest worry, is that we just kick the can down the road, another breed appears - by which point it's too late, so we ban that one too - then kick the next can down the road, all the time making no attempt whatsoever to actually try and solve the problem.

Which was one of my objections to the ban in the first place.

Not clear what you're arguing here now, you seem to be modifying an argument to acknowledge that the breed is an issue but then claiming that's down to humans too... I don't think anyone would dispute that the breed is artificially created by humans, that doesn't negate the point that the breed is a factor here in addition to bad owners thus the reason for wanting a ban.

So you DO agree with my earlier assertions that environment plays a role, now?

I did not say breed was an issue. Breed is not an issue, because breed is not genetic behaviour. Every 'breed' has been artificially created.
My argument remains unchanged - Humans are the controlling factor. Banning by breed did not work before and it won't work now.

I don't think even he knows what he's arguing, it's purely an Internet point scoring exercise.

Dowie is involved, so of course it's about Internet points.
If it were about serious debate, he'd spend more time actually engaging with the points raised, instead of seizing on irrelevant details and mauling them like a Pit Bull Terrier type.