Does something need to be done about dogs?

[Bear]

But if it does anything more than make a noise, you're in trouble.

Better off having geese.

Not technically true. Whilst you are not allowed to have a dog dangerously out of control even on your own property, be it outside in the garden or inside the house and you arent allowed to set your dog into an intruder in your house, if your dog attacks an intruder whilst you were not in the house, then its very unlikely you will be liable

 

[dowie]

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.

Yes, that's rather obvious, you're wrong re: your general argument but for the sake of argument we could accept it was true and you still have the conundrum presented here where this group of dogs is far more genetically similar.

So why revert to some general argument about breeds instead of addressing the point re: this breed/group of dogs?

This breed/group of dogs share a far narrower group of ancestors than other breeds and these dogs are rather similar genetically, so... if you're willing to accept that genes do impact behaviour and your usual denial re: breeds doesn't apply then what's the issue you have with legislating re: XL Bullies?

 

[ttaskmaster]

Yes, that's rather obvious, you're wrong re: your general argument but for the sake of argument we could accept it was true and you still have the conundrum presented here where this group of dogs is far more genetically similar.

I'm not wrong, as this is the very argument put forward in all those links, including the single study you yourself relied upon.
Furthermore, the conundrum is not an entire breed being genetically similar, but one bad lineage making up the majority of the UK population.
The solution is, as already discussed, to focus on the breeders/importers and stop the breeding of antisocial dogs from undesirable lineages.

So why revert to some general argument about breeds instead of addressing the point re: this breed/group of dogs?

I already did address this particular group.

This breed/group of dogs share a far narrower group of ancestors than other breeds and these dogs are rather similar genetically, so... if you're willing to accept that genes do impact behaviour and your usual denial re: breeds doesn't apply then what's the issue you have with legislating re: XL Bullies?

This group is not representative of the wider breed.
The issues with breed-specific legislation are manifold, some perspectives on which have already been linked.
My own biggest concern is that it sets a precedent of arbitrarily prohibiting an entire breed based on the behaviour of comparatively few outlying examples.

 

[dowie]

I'm not wrong, as this is the very argument put forward in all those links, including the single study you yourself relied upon.

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.

Furthermore, the conundrum is not an entire breed being genetically similar, but one bad lineage making up the majority of the UK population.
The solution is, as already discussed, to focus on the breeders/importers and stop the breeding of antisocial dogs from undesirable lineages.

That's is the *whole breed* though... thus the arguments you presented previously not applying.

This group is not representative of the wider breed.

It is as though this breed is from a small gene pool, you did accept that genes inform behavioural traits, your obfuscation re: denying anything to do with breed doesn't apply here. Though now that's become apparent you're unable to address it.

Where are these mythical XL bullies that represent some gentler, tamer "wider breed" here?

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's is the *whole breed* though... thus the arguments you presented previously not applying.

Your own link asserts that, of just those in the UK, half of them are related to the lineage of this one dog.
Estimates put the UK's XLB population at 10-15,000. So 5-7,000-odd are of known bad lineage.
That's 7,000 out of whatever the world population is, say 2 million. That's not even 1% - Hardly the "whole breed"!!

I do like how the Daily Fail is careful not to mis-gender the obviously male dog, though:

Breeder of 'Killer Kimbo' who half XL Bullys traced back to speaks out

The LA-based breeder of the dog who half of all Britain's XL Bullys can be traced back to claims they only become dangerous when people inject them with steroids

www.dailymail.co.uk

It is as though this breed is from a small gene pool, you did accept that genes inform behavioural traits, your obfuscation re: denying anything to do with breed doesn't apply here. Though now that's become apparent you're unable to address it.

A relatively smaller pool, yes, but not a single one.
You would still need numerous diverse bloodlines, or your dog will end up looking like a Picasso portrait of a pug.

Where are these mythical XL bullies that represent some gentler, tamer "wider breed" here?

You've got about 2 million dogs to choose from that don't come from this 'terror bloodline' and that have not, in three decades, ever hurt anyone.
If you want to talk "wider breed", the XLBs are just a variant of the American Bully breed, anyway.

 

[dowie]

Your own link asserts that, of just those in the UK, half of them are related to the lineage of this one dog.
Estimates put the UK's XLB population at 10-15,000. So 5-7,000-odd are of known bad lineage.
That's 7,000 out of whatever the world population is, say 2 million. That's not even 1% - Hardly the "whole breed"!!

See this is part of the problem, you imagine there's some wider population of significantly different dogs and that somehow the bad owners have created this bad UK-only variant of XL Bullys.

What would the basis be for some assumption that only the UK's population is the "bad" XL Bullys and somehow there are a couple of million good XL Bullys in other countries?

Just looking at the UK population for a moment here (as that latest deflection is highly dubious) are you really not able to see the conundrum there, you accept that genes impact behavioral traits and it's known that these dogs are all closely related... so why are you still in denial re: this "breed" given your old arguments don't apply?

All you've got now is this deflection to some mythical wider good XL Bully population as if the few thousand in the UK are just some anomaly and these massive pitbulls are all gentle giant/nanny dogs in say the USA.

 

[ttaskmaster]

See this is part of the problem, you imagine there's some wider population of significantly different dogs and that somehow the bad owners have created this bad UK-only variant of XL Bullys.

I don't imagine that, no...
You, however, do see this one bloodline and seem to imply that all XLBs come from just this. You're taking one half of one small group from the global population and assuming the entire breed is like that.
At best it is illogical, and at worst it is retarded.

What would the basis be for some assumption that only the UK's population is the "bad" XL Bullys and somehow there are a couple of million good XL Bullys in other countries?

I don't assume that. I don't even assume that half the UK's population is from the bad batch.
I do understand that the UK was the highest importer of the bad batch lineage, at least according to various articles on it. Even Americans are wondering why the XLB was so popular in the UK.
A couple of million was merely an estimate to illustrate the point. If you have accurate stats or even sound estimates on the true global XLB population, feel free to share...

Just looking at the UK population for a moment here (as that latest deflection is highly dubious) are you really not able to see the conundrum there, you accept that genes impact behavioral traits and it's known that these dogs are all closely related... so why are you still in denial re: this "breed" given your old arguments don't apply?

I'm not in denial.
Being closely related does not guarantee inheritance of a heritable trait, even highly heritable ones... and the dogs can't be too closely related or they'd all be dead from inbred mutations by now.
The fact that the primary stud dog of this lineage has an estimated 600+ offspring is a far more compelling explanation for the high instances of behaviour, than the assumption that all dogs are going to be like this.

All you've got now is this deflection to some mythical wider good XL Bully population as if the few thousand in the UK are just some anomaly and these massive pitbulls are all gentle giant/nanny dogs in say the USA.

22 XLB kills since 2021.
Before that, not a single XL Bully incident since their introduction in the 1990s. Best part of three decades without incident.
It wasn't even until 2005 that we got the first incidents from American Bulldogs and Pit Bulls, and they've been around many decades longer.

So yeah, time-wise, this is quite an anomaly, though I never specified it was limited to the UK.

 

[dowie]

I don't imagine that, no...
You, however, do see this one bloodline and seem to imply that all XLBs come from just this. You're taking one half of one small group from the global population and assuming the entire breed is like that.
At best it is illogical, and at worst it is retarded.

OK, if you didn't imagine it then cite your source for 2 million XL Bullys that are significantly different to the UK's population.

I think the "retarded" take here is this notion that the UK has some special unique bad XL bully population and there are 2 million in the rest of the world that are particularly different.

I don't assume that. I don't even assume that half the UK's population is from the bad batch.
I do understand that the UK was the highest importer of the bad batch lineage, at least according to various articles on it. Even Americans are wondering why the XLB was so popular in the UK.

You don't seem to understand that that one example is just indicative of the issue, it's not a claim that the only possible issue here is dogs descended from that one fighting dog... in reality, they're all descended from fighting dogs, that's just an illustration of the problem. And more to the point re: your previous arguments in this thread, the small gene pool (which you still can't address).

I'm not in denial.
Being closely related does not guarantee inheritance of a heritable trait, even highly heritable ones... and the dogs can't be too closely related or they'd all be dead from inbred mutations by now.

You are in denial and your inability to deal with uncertainty is raising its head again, there wasn't any claim made about guarantees. You had issues earlier conflating populations and individuals, you're not able to think probabilistically about this.

 

[ttaskmaster]

OK, if you didn't imagine it then cite your source for 2 million XL Bullys that are significantly different to the UK's population.

Cite your source for me supposedly imagining it... or better yet, actually saying that, rather than it being your own strawman.

I think the "retarded" take here is this notion that the UK has some special unique bad XL bully population and there are 2 million in the rest of the world that are particularly different.

Hey, it's your notion, kiddo...

You don't seem to understand that that one example is just indicative of the issue

It's more suggestive of the possibilities with this breed than especially indicative.
Again, we've had these dogs for about 30 years now, and it's only in the last couple of years that they've presented a problem.

And more to the point re: your previous arguments in this thread, the small gene pool (which you still can't address).

Small in relative terms, and again not too small or they'd all have five legs and three heads or something. But yet again, even a small gene pool does not mean traits will be inherited.

You are in denial and your inability to deal with uncertainty is raising its head again, there wasn't any claim made about guarantees. You had issues earlier conflating populations and individuals, you're not able to think probabilistically about this.

I had no issues - That was your own deliberate misinterpretation.
If you accept there are no guarantees, then you'll understand heritability has nothing to do with the probability of inheriting traits... and if you don't understand it, go back and re-read your own study. Moreover, the likelihood of 7,000 dogs out of roughly 2 million being a bad batch, when the only indicative evidence is 22 incidents, results in a very low probability in terms of the overall breed.

 

[dowie]

Cite your source for me supposedly imagining it...

I am the source for that, the fact you can't substantiate it is indicative of that in itself. If you didn't imagine it then provide a source.

If you accept there are no guarantees, then you'll understand heritability has nothing to do with the probability of inheriting traits...

Wat???

and if you don't understand it, go back and re-read your own study. Moreover, the likelihood of 7,000 dogs out of roughly 2 million being a bad batch, when the only indicative evidence is 22 incidents, results in a very low probability in terms of the overall breed.

That's not thew only evidence and those are the extreme incidents (deaths) which are way out of proportion vs other breeds. This, again, is just coming down to your own numeracy issues/inability to deal with statistics.

 

[Stu999]

I wonder what breed it will turn out to be? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67464124

#notallXLBullies

 

[StriderX]

An especially vicious chihuahua.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

An especially vicious chihuahua.

37 of them

 

[ttaskmaster]

I am the source for that, the fact you can't substantiate it is indicative of that in itself. If you didn't imagine it then provide a source.

Case closed.
The fact that I can't (and won't) substantiate an assertion that I never made is what your argument hinges upon.

Wat???

So you still don't understand it, then...

That's not thew only evidence and those are the extreme incidents (deaths) which are way out of proportion vs other breeds. This, again, is just coming down to your own numeracy issues/inability to deal with statistics.

No, this is your argument being based on, and reliant upon, selective statistics being taken out of their wider contexts. Given that some key information will be almost impossible to quantify, that puts it on even shakier ground than your already flawed assumptions.

 

[dowie]

Case closed.
The fact that I can't (and won't) substantiate an assertion that I never made is what your argument hinges upon.

What assertion? I'm referring to the comments you made and that I quoted you on... you made it up, you have no idea whether there are 2 million supposedly different/good XL bullies out there in the rest of the world.

No, this is your argument being based on, and reliant upon, selective statistics being taken out of their wider contexts. Given that some key information will be almost impossible to quantify, that puts it on even shakier ground than your already flawed assumptions.

What selective statistics?

 

[mattyfez]

Another

Dog attack leaves woman fighting for life and man injured as police Taser animal

Police called to attack in Belvedere, south London

www.independent.co.uk

 

[ttaskmaster]

What assertion? I'm referring to the comments you made and that I quoted you on... you made it up, you have no idea whether there are 2 million supposedly different/good XL bullies out there in the rest of the world.

You're asserting that my argument was limited to the UK population, which is a bit stupid since the dog very obviously originated in America. Although, as an aside, American Bully types are notably few in the US attack and kill stats, which does make the UK something of a statistical outlier... and I know how you love honing in on those.

What selective statistics?

Statistics resulting from a study that only examines dogs that conform to pedigree-level breed type, rather than those that examine the wider breeds.

 

[dowie]

You're asserting that my argument was limited to the UK population, which is a bit stupid since the dog very obviously originated in America. Although, as an aside, American Bully types are notably few in the US attack and kill stats, which does make the UK something of a statistical outlier... and I know how you love honing in on those.

They're counted under pitbulls in the US and pitbulls are a really obvious outlier in dog deaths.

You tried some line about them being in the UK for ages, but that's false they were classed as pitbulls here too until a few years back, it's only recently they've been widespread and could evade the Dangerous Dogs Act and look at what has happened as a result to dog deaths.

Statistics resulting from a study that only examines dogs that conform to pedigree-level breed type, rather than those that examine the wider breeds.

Still not sure what your point is here, there was a study presented that shows breeds can inform behavioural traits, there's a smaller within-breed variance of various traits. You're now quibbling because it only involves pedigree breeds? So what? It doesn't even involve XL Bullies, it's simply illustrating the point.

What you're missing with XL Bullies is that the gene pool is rather small, XL bullies share both physical and behavoural traits, half of them in the UK even share a common ancestor note you got confused previously but that isn't an argument that only those dogs are the issue but rather is just being mentioned to illustrate that previous point. The whole breed is descended from fighting dogs, that's literally the point of them, you're just in denial of that, look at how they're marketed FFS!

 

[ttaskmaster]

They're counted under pitbulls in the US and pitbulls are a really obvious outlier in dog deaths.

No, the American Bully has been counted as a statistically separate breed type since at least 2004.

You tried some line about them being in the UK for ages, but that's false they were classed as pitbulls here too until a few years back, it's only recently they've been widespread and could evade the Dangerous Dogs Act and look at what has happened as a result to dog deaths.

No, I said they've been around for several decades. I have no idea when they first came to the UK, or when the numbers surged to current levels. Sources estimate 2014 for initial influx and then Covid-era for the popularity increase.
They were only believed to be of Pitbull type because the APBT is the foundation breed. They're a mix of various different Bulldogs, Staff Terriers, Husky and also Boxer, which is why they were reclassified.

Still not sure what your point is here, there was a study presented that shows breeds can inform behavioural traits, there's a smaller within-breed variance of various traits. You're now quibbling because it only involves pedigree breeds? So what? It doesn't even involve XL Bullies, it's simply illustrating the point.

No, the study you are so reliant upon shows that genes and environment define behaviour (see the very definition of heritability), and that breed standards which focus on certain behaviours as the ideal derive only from those selected bloodlines with high inheritance, ie the pedigrees you see at Crufts. With such a narrow focus for your single study, of course you will find limited variance within breed.
Against that, you have several other studies that show there is actually a far greater variance within breed, and that between breed similarities are closer, because behaviour is rooted in genetics and environment, not in breed.

What you're missing with XL Bullies is that the gene pool is rather small, XL bullies share both physical and behavoural traits, half of them in the UK even share a common ancestor note you got confused previously but that isn't an argument that only those dogs are the issue but rather is just being mentioned to illustrate that previous point.

What you're missing is that XL Bullies are just one of several variants of the American Bully breed. Most registries do not even acknowledge them as variants, while others do not even recognise the wider American Bully as a distinct breed.
Having a common ancestor does not really mean much either, beyond your mere implication, and you have not illustrated how this is actually a factor in either that direct lineage or any of the groupings of the wider breed. I also think you'd be surprised by the diversity of bloodlines, which is smaller than most older breeds of course, but still with enough variety to avoid the impact of inbreeding in the majority of cases.

The whole breed is descended from fighting dogs, that's literally the point of them, you're just in denial of that, look at how they're marketed FFS!

Quite a few other breeds are "descended from fighting dogs", too... What's your point?

As for marketing - You have found one section of the chav populace that styles their adverts on boxing posters. Plenty of other breeders show cute ickle puppies instead. Neither has any bearing on how the dogs will behave.

 

[dowie]

[...]
22 XLB kills since 2021.
Before that, not a single XL Bully incident since their introduction in the 1990s. Best part of three decades without incident.
It wasn't even until 2005 that we got the first incidents from American Bulldogs and Pit Bulls, and they've been around many decades longer.

So yeah, time-wise, this is quite an anomaly, though I never specified it was limited to the UK.

No, I said they've been around for several decades. I have no idea when they first came to the UK, or when the numbers surged to current levels. Sources estimate 2014 for initial influx and then Covid-era for the popularity increase.
They were only believed to be of Pitbull type because the APBT is the foundation breed. They're a mix of various different Bulldogs, Staff Terriers, Husky and also Boxer, which is why they were reclassified.

So you see why you're making a rather misleading point above, you didn't know when they came to the UK but you're referring to UK stats re: 2021 and throwing in a line about their "introduction" in the 1992... yet for the purposes of the stats you're referring to (UK) their introduction wasn't then, it was only a few years prior.

They're not "only" believed to be of Pitbull type because of that, they're believed to be a pitbull type because they're literally the result of breeding with pitbulls.

No, the study you are so reliant upon shows that genes and environment define behaviour (see the very definition of heritability), and that breed standards which focus on certain behaviours as the ideal derive only from those selected bloodlines with high inheritance, ie the pedigrees you see at Crufts. With such a narrow focus for your single study, of course you will find limited variance within breed.

But I'm not reliant on it, it's just illustrating that point and you cant dismiss it by referring to a narrow focus, pedigree breeds when the point being made was that XL Bullys have this issue too. Are you really not following that argument?