Does something need to be done about dogs?

robfosters said:
So you don’t actually put out dangerous plants to hurt the cats?
Click to expand...
not at all. though i may well do if the sodding things don't stop crapping round where the kids play (i won't for all those hard of reading, i'll probably just get one of those auto hose things)

edit: curious though. what's the issue if i did? the plants are perfectly natural and legal. not my fault if i plant them and rando cats come in to my garden.
 
Last edited:
Thekwango said:
not at all. though i may well do if the sodding things don't stop crapping round where the kids play (i won't for all those hard of reading, i'll probably just get one of those auto hose things)

edit: curious though. what's the issue if i did? the plants are perfectly natural and legal. not my fault if i plant them and rando cats come in to my garden.
Click to expand...
No issue at all. No one can stop you from planting your garden with legal plants and flowers.

It’s like guard dogs, if a guard dog kills someone who has broken into your house, what can you be charged with! Nothing.
 
Last edited:
robfosters said:
No issue at all. No one can stop you from planting your garden with legal plants and flowers.

It’s like guard dogs, if a guard dog kills someone who has broken into your house, what can you be charged with! Nothing.
Click to expand...
could call them guardplants!! i think i'll market that name :p
 
robfosters said:
No issue at all. No one can stop you from planting your garden with legal plants and flowers.

It’s like guard dogs, if a guard dog kills someone who has broken into your house, what can you be charged with! Nothing.
Click to expand...

Actually, that isn't true!

If you are not there, and the dog attacks, you can't be held to blame. But if you are there, and you set the dog on the burglar, or fail to stop your dog, then you will be charged just as if it was a public place.

Also, your protection only applies to the home. If your dog attacks a burglar on your land or in your garden, you will be arrested.
 
I liked this article:
www.spectator.co.uk

When will XL Bully defenders admit that genes matter?

It’s not a good time to be an American XL Bully. The breed, an extra-large pitbull variant, has been blamed for a threefold rise in fatal dog attacks in the UK; after a series of high-profile maulings, bullies have today been added to the list of breeds restricted under the Dangerous Dogs Act...
www.spectator.co.uk www.spectator.co.uk

Especially this part:
But mitigate it we must – and when it really comes down to it, people typically understand this. A particularly glaring illustration comes from the RSPCA itself. Despite publicly arguing for ‘breed neutrality’ when it comes to legislating against dangerous dogs, the RSPCA’s own pet insurance small print includes a long list of breeds it won’t cover – including the American bully.
Click to expand...
Sadly with genetics people can't separate 'individuals' from 'groups'. You make a comment about averages across groups... people see they belong to that group and don't fit the average and say "it's obviously rubbish because I'm <x> and it doesn't apply to me!". That can be true of course.

Governments have to legislate for groups. And while it's true that any individual dog can be the sweetest thing, when you take a breed of dog, and look at them as a group, you can see differences. Certain breeds, are, as a group, more dangerous than others, and that is why they should be banned, like the Bully XL.
 
Last edited:
Mason- said:
I liked this article:
www.spectator.co.uk

When will XL Bully defenders admit that genes matter?

It’s not a good time to be an American XL Bully. The breed, an extra-large pitbull variant, has been blamed for a threefold rise in fatal dog attacks in the UK; after a series of high-profile maulings, bullies have today been added to the list of breeds restricted under the Dangerous Dogs Act...
www.spectator.co.uk www.spectator.co.uk

Especially this part:

Sadly with genetics people can't separate 'individuals' from 'groups'. You make a comment about averages across groups... people see they belong to that group and don't fit the average and say "it's obviously rubbish because I'm <x> and it doesn't apply to me!". That can be true of course.

Governments have to legislate for groups. And while it's true that any individual dog can be the sweetest thing, when you take a breed of dog, and look at them as a group, you can see differences. Certain breeds, are, as a group, more dangerous than others, and that is why they should be banned, like the Bully XL.
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't really understand the protestors. It just does not make sense to allow the public to have certain dogs. It really seems like some people will just disagree with absolutely anything, even when common sense is staring them right in the face.
 
Last edited:
Wonder if @ttaskmaster has finally updated his views on this issue or if he's still in denial and pretending breeds are irrelevant/it's only bad owners?

IIRC the previous confusion causing the denial that breeds could be a factor here stemmed from the misinterpretation of some studies re: individual dogs. That's just a statistical literacy issue as it doesn't contradict the other inconvenient fact that within breed variance of behavioral traits is lower... or to put it in simple terms, dogs of a certain breed will (in general) share some behavours even though any particular individual dog might vary a bit.

I think it resulted in some cognitive dissonance whereby he'd admit that genes can influence behaviour but still took a blank-slate approach re: breeds, which is pretty flawed given that breeds are genetically similar.

But lets assume for the sake of argument that in general that were the case, that breeds are quite varied... we have a new issue, this specific breed isn't quite like the others:

www.telegraph.co.uk

Half of all XL Bully dogs in Britain descend from 'Killer Kimbo'

Research has shown how decades of inbreeding has produced generations of violent animals
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

XL Bullies are particularly closely related, so.... IF someone can accept that genes do impact behaviour but was previously in denial that breeds can be a factor here, they might want to update that belief re: this particular breed!
 
Aw, is no-one giving you any attention in the other threads?

Genes matter, but there are usually too many different genetic lines to attribute such exact behavioural predictions to an entire breed, as evidenced by the many examples of non-typical individuals.
This is why the genetics shared in the inbred UK XLBs, as presumably explained in your article (sorry, I don't pay for news subscriptions), are the contributing factor to their behaviour rather than it being defined by the breed. This is why breed-specific legislation is not a solution.

Additionally, it has yet to even be established whether XLBs are a distinct and separate breed, or just a sub-variant of a larger group.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Genes matter, but there are usually too many different genetic lines to attribute such exact behavioural predictions to an entire breed, as evidenced by the many examples of non-typical individuals.
Click to expand...

Again just highlighting the same flaw/stats error I called out, those are different things; you're conflating a group and individuals from that group.

ttaskmaster said:
This is why the genetics shared in the inbred UK XLBs, as presumably explained in your article (sorry, I don't pay for news subscriptions), are the contributing factor to their behaviour rather than it being defined by the breed. This is why breed-specific legislation is not a solution.
Click to expand...

If the breed is some a rather small gene pool then any arguments about genetics not breed are rather moot, the breed is simply that collection of that type of dog that share those genetic traits.

What's the reasons for the "breed specific legislation is not the answer" now? Previously all your arguments relied on dismissing any links between breed and behaviour and pointing out that other dogs are big and powerful too + when confronted with stats re: deaths blame it on bad owners.

Now that you are confronted with the fact that this group of dogs that share genes (since you won't acknowledge breed) are aggressive you're still maintaining that position but none of your prior arguments support it now so...???
 
Last edited:
SpellowHouse said:
Actually, that isn't true!

If you are not there, and the dog attacks, you can't be held to blame. But if you are there, and you set the dog on the burglar, or fail to stop your dog, then you will be charged just as if it was a public place.

Also, your protection only applies to the home. If your dog attacks a burglar on your land or in your garden, you will be arrested.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think the only people who are allowed actual guard dogs in the UK are the military. Any other attacks will be treated like an attack with a weapon
 
No officer, I didn't order my dog to attack. I was upstairs asleep when I was awoken by a commotion downstairs. I went to investigate but it was too late, Fifi had already tore the burgling ***** throat out and I wasn't going to approach him as you don't know what diseases these burgling types may have. So I phoned you guys.
 
dowie said:
Again just highlighting the same flaw/stats error I called out, those are different things; you're conflating a group and individuals from that group.
Click to expand...
No, you're just looking for a fight, as you've been away for quite a while and couldn't find anything better.

dowie said:
If the breed is some a rather small gene pool then any arguments about genetics not breed are rather moot, the breed is simply that collection of that type of dog that share those genetic traits.
Click to expand...
In this particular instance, of the overall breed, an unusually large segment of that in the UK is from a small gene pool.
The whole point is that typically a breed will have such a wide spread of genetic lineages that behavioural traits have relatively low inheritance, regardless of heritability. It's also why you see the same levels of inheritance of traits that have high heritability between breeds. The genetics define behaviour, not the breed.

dowie said:
Now that you are confronted with the fact that this group of dogs that share genes (since you won't acknowledge breed) are aggressive you're still maintaining that position but none of your prior arguments support it now so...???
Click to expand...
What are you on about? The 'fact' directly supports my position, as explained in all my previous arguments regarding genetic behavioural heritability.
If a trait is highly heritable, then the offspring of a dog with a high inheritance of that trait is likely (but not guaranteed) to have inherited that trait from their parent(s). If the parent has a low inheritance, then any offspring exhibiting that behaviour likely did not get it through genetics. That's how heritability works, irrespective of breed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom