Does something need to be done about dogs?

[ttaskmaster]

Who's wearing the lead?

Well, as the experienced Dom, it certainly won't be me....!!

Dowie's nonsense in this case being the argument that XL Bully's should be banned, a view that the vast majority of people support and only lunatics like you and ttaskmaster seem to oppose.

As already shown earlier, a great many industry professionals (lawyers, doctors, vets, animal behaviourists, dog owners, Police officers, and so on) have all argued that breed-specific legislation is not the solution, and for several different reasons. The only lunatics are those who just want what they think is a "simple solution" and a 'quick fix', but does not actually address the root cause or permanently and definitively resolve the issue.
To that end, I do find it rather telling that you only want "XL Bullys" banned, rather than American Bullys as a whole or any other variant!

What do you think a pitbull is?
Oh, wait... it's a combo of an old English terriers and bulldogs

Exactly - Similar ingredients but in different measures, like a Gibson, Bronx and a Martini.
An XLB is the crossbreeding of several other crossbred types, not a direct variant of a Pitbull specifically. If you want it to be subject to breed-specific legislation, it must first be recognised as a different breed, genetically distinct and separate from the Pitbull types... and even then you're only concerned with one as-yet unofficial variant of this supposedly separate breed.

False, I argued that breeds share behavioural traits which is what the study shows.

No, you argued that behavioural traits varied considerably between breeds, which led you to the false conclusion that breed defined behaviour. You then assumed you understood what heritability was, which resulted in your very flawed arguments subsequently.

Your argument against that is that the study only concerned pedigree breeds... but you accept that genetics inform behavour.

No, my argument against that is that you have not properly understood (or even fully read) the one study you're relying upon, and certainly not given proper attention to the various other studies that examine the wider picture.
That your study only selected pedigree (not even purebred) examples of wider breeds just parallels your own narrow focus on the subject.

Well the problem you have now, and that you can't address, is that XL Bullys share a bunch of common ancestors, they're descended from fighting dogs.

How is this a problem, and for whom is it so problematic?
I don't have a problem with it - Ancestry is no guarantee of genetic inheritance, which is why 50-70% of Police and military dogs, and around 30% of sheep-herding dogs, fail their training... and these are all dogs of highly selective breeding, usually from quite specific ancestry and established lineages that exhibit highly heritable traits!

Some of your previous arguments/cope were to point out that other dogs are big and strong too... join the dots, there's a difference here and that's w.r.t behaviour/aggression as well as being a powerful dog, that's why XL Bullies are dangerous they're powerful and they'll be aggressive, spark that aggression in that type of dog and you get serious injuries and deaths. (In b4 "but but muh bad owners")

Kangals and the Causacian breeds can be just as dangerous, if not more so, and would likely ragdoll an XLB. The difference is that they're generally bred and owned responsibly by people who know what the **** they are doing.

But if you're only left with joining dots, now - One of the few things that everyone (vets, breeders, Police, animal behaviourists) agrees on is that American Bullys are highly responsive to their environment and their training. Not only would this mean that their aggression is not highly heritable in this instance, but it also explains why not every XLB is a raging death machine... even those that originated from Killer Kimbo.
So yes, the science in this case does lean far more toward it being down to the individual dog's specific genetics, and its bad owners and bad breeders that decide how the dog turns out....

 

[helpimcrap]

Never a bad dog, just bad owners.

Instead of putting the dog down, put a few owners down and they'd soon get the idea.

 

[mattyfez]

Never a bad dog, just bad owners.

Instead of putting the dog down, put a few owners down and they'd soon get the idea.

It really is a perfect storm of both... I mean, could you imagine this happening with pit bull type breeds?

Video: Parade Of Golden Retrievers Descend Escalator

A long line of golden retrievers being held by their owners descend an escalator. (Video Credit: ViralHog)About NDTV: NDTV brings you unbiased and comprehens...

www.youtube.com

 

[dowie]

This is going to be an interesting A/B test, Scotland not looking to ban XL Bullies... bizarre though that they're also worried about a possible influx of these dogs from England post-ban.

Sort of like the RSPCA's conundrum where the woke employees were simultaneously campaigning against a ban, muh bad owners etc.. but then their own insurance arm deemed the XL Bully too risky to insure.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1729075397071966648

No, you argued that behavioural traits varied considerably between breeds, which led you to the false conclusion that breed defined behaviour. You then assumed you understood what heritability was, which resulted in your very flawed arguments subsequently.

LOL this is just cope now, I literally cited the evidence that shows there is greater variation in behavioral traits between breeds than within breeds. You made a basic schoolboy error re: conflating groups and individuals as already pointed out, perhaps numeracy isn't your strong point.

And again you're ignoring the issue you still can't address, these XL Bullys are share a lot of the same ancestry, you acknowledged genes influence behaviour but we know these dogs are genetically close and when confronted with that you just deflect into mutl quoting and fail to address that point.

Again you've stuck with the bad owners trope as the issue here when the fact is that some of the other breeds which are powerful also have different behavioural traits (the thing you're in constant denial of).

 

[mattyfez]

Quite sad and pathetic use of the word 'woke' there, @dowie. I think in your Scottish RSPCA example, the word 'hypocrisy' could be a more intelligent and grammatically correct word to use.

You can do better

 

[dowie]

Quite sad and pathetic use of the word 'woke' there, @dowie. I think in your Scottish RSPCA example, the word 'hypocrisy' could be a more intelligent and grammatically correct word to use.

You can do better

GTFO

You're conflating separate things, that they're woke and that they're hypocrites are both true in this scenario but not interchangeable terms!

 

[helpimcrap]

It really is a perfect storm of both... I mean, could you imagine this happening with pit bull type breeds?

Video: Parade Of Golden Retrievers Descend Escalator

A long line of golden retrievers being held by their owners descend an escalator. (Video Credit: ViralHog)About NDTV: NDTV brings you unbiased and comprehens...

www.youtube.com

Put a few owners down and see if standards start to improve? I'll put money on it.

 

[413x]

Interesting on Scotland.
Surely the dogs aren't being dumped if Scotland aren't going to outlaw them?

Wonder if any owners will move?

Will be interesting seeing the stats in a years time

 

[Felon]

Wonder if any owners will move?

I think there's a demographic problem if I'm honest, I've been reading a heck of a lot of posts on Facebook of poorer people who are giving away their dogs because they're unable to keep them or afford the cost of neutering, along with their tenancy agreements allowing banned breeds, there seems to be a large number of XLB owners on the poorer end of the spectrum.

It's saddens me - large numbers of dogs who didn't ask to be created this way, now end up being euthanised because of idiots, along with a government who typically - hasn't done anything until the problem got so bad, the only way to solve it was with a ban.

It's the same old story, I just feel sorry for the dogs - it's a problem created entirely by complete **** heads.

 

[413x]

I think there's a demographic problem if I'm honest, I've been reading a heck of a lot of posts on Facebook of poorer people who are giving away their dogs because they're unable to keep them or afford the cost of neutering, along with their tenancy agreements allowing banned breeds, there seems to be a large number of XLB owners on the poorer end of the spectrum.

It's saddens me - large numbers of dogs who didn't ask to be created this way, now end up being euthanised because of idiots, along with a government who typically - hasn't done anything until the problem got so bad, the only way to solve it was with a ban.

It's the same old story, I just feel sorry for the dogs - it's a problem created entirely by complete **** heads.

Agreed.
Its a shame can't do anything about the people.

I know it's controversial but you're assessed for credit for a loan. But not to own a dog.

Personally I feel all dogs should be neutered unless you have a licence to breed. And if you can't afford to get a dog neutered then you probably can't afford insurance.
Insurance should be mandatory. Again. If you can't afford it.. You probably can't afford any vet bills of it goes wrong.


Its probably a bit too strong for many. But I expect a lot would agree with the above too

 

[ttaskmaster]

Sort of like the RSPCA's conundrum where the woke employees were simultaneously campaigning against a ban, muh bad owners etc.. but then their own insurance arm deemed the XL Bully too risky to insure.

The dangers these dogs present is a result of how their owners and breeders treated them. Address the human cause, not the canine symptom.

LOL this is just cope now, I literally cited the evidence that shows there is greater variation in behavioral traits between breeds than within breeds. You made a basic schoolboy error re: conflating groups and individuals as already pointed out, perhaps numeracy isn't your strong point.

Wrong.
You cited a study and claimed it supported your assertion, but were unable to demonstrate any such support, let alone an actual understanding of what the study actually showed. Lacking the ability to explain in your own words, you even enlisted the help of AI, which did nothing more than rephrase the selected quote and did nothing to substantiate your claim.
Perhaps words are not your strong point?

And again you're ignoring the issue you still can't address, these XL Bullys are share a lot of the same ancestry, you acknowledged genes influence behaviour but we know these dogs are genetically close and when confronted with that you just deflect into mutl quoting and fail to address that point.

Yes, they're genetically close and share certain ancestry, some bloodlines more than others..... SO ******* WHAT?
None of this is any predictor of behaviour, as already explained and shown in various studies, including your own.
There is nothing to address, apart from your own flawed comprehension of the subject.

Again you've stuck with the bad owners trope as the issue here when the fact is that some of the other breeds which are powerful also have different behavioural traits (the thing you're in constant denial of).

One of the defining behavioural traits of many problematic breeds is environmental malleability which, by the very definition, means the external factors have a far greater bearing on their behaviour than the presence or absence of any heritable aggression tendencies.
Similarly, many of those other breeds will exhibit very similar behavioural traits, if subjected to the same conditions as XLBs have commonly seen... It's why those breeds have generally remained more in the working environment than becoming family pets.

 

[dowie]

Interesting on Scotland.
Surely the dogs aren't being dumped if Scotland aren't going to outlaw them?

That would be why they'd be dumped up there, like suppose someone wants to give up their dog could presumably still do so to someone in Scotland or indeed a rescue org has some XL Bullies and doesn't want to neuter them (once the ban comes in they can't rehome them in England and Wales AFAIK), could move any XL Bullies up to its Scottish shelters

Wonder if any owners will move?

I doubt very much many (if any) ordinary owners would move, why would they need to in general? The ban doesn't mean they necessarily need give up their dogs, they can have them neutered and keep them muzzled in public etc. Even if you need to move out of your current accommodation you'd surely just look to get new accommodation in the area you live.

The issue though perhaps would be with breeders, they might well end up moving their operations up to Scotland which in turn could undermine the ban in England and Wales a bit. If the whole of the UK banned them and there were no legal breeding operations then we could reduce their numbers a bit more but with breeders in Scotland then there is a legal supply of new Bullies that people in the rest of the UK could still perhaps buy and then later register.

Ideally, the government ought to make the current exceptions for banned breeds time-limited, it seems silly that years after the pitbull ban you can still register your banned dog, that should have been a temporary courtesy for existing owners when the ban came into force. I'd hope that registration for XL Bullies (which closes early next year) isn't then allowed to continue as it seems to have done for pitbull owners wherin even though they temporarily get an illegal dog they somehow then register it anyway.

 

[dowie]

You cited a study and claimed it supported your assertion, but were unable to demonstrate any such support, let alone an actual understanding of what the study actually showed. Lacking the ability to explain in your own words, you even enlisted the help of AI, which did nothing more than rephrase the selected quote and did nothing to substantiate your claim.
Perhaps words are not your strong point?

I literally got Chat GPT to explain it to *you* as you're in denial, unsurprisingly it was able to summarise what I'd already pointed out to you.

Yes, they're genetically close and share certain ancestry, some bloodlines more than others..... SO ******* WHAT?

So...just to summarise:

you take a blank slate approach re: dog breeds and behavior (contradicted by the evidence)

contrary to that you do accept that genes impact behavioural traits

XL bullies are genetically close so even with your confused take re: breeds you still have an obvious issue you can't address

 

[Haggisman]

Agreed.
Its a shame can't do anything about the people.

I know it's controversial but you're assessed for credit for a loan. But not to own a dog.

Personally I feel all dogs should be neutered unless you have a licence to breed. And if you can't afford to get a dog neutered then you probably can't afford insurance.
Insurance should be mandatory. Again. If you can't afford it.. You probably can't afford any vet bills of it goes wrong.


Its probably a bit too strong for many. But I expect a lot would agree with the above too

100%

I'd extend the same to cats. While they obviously don't pose the same risk of attack, the problem is that unlike dogs, most cats are free-roaming, meaning there's no "control" over their breeding. If you haven't got your female outdoor cat spayed then there's a very good chance you're going to end up with a "surprise" litter of kittens that you probably a) don't want, and b) can't afford. Rescues are full to breaking point, so what are you going to do with them? If your male isn't snipped then he's quite likely to wander, putting him at higher risk of fighting and/or lost, and/or getting hit by a car.

Unless you're a registered breeder then it's utterly irresponsible not to get them neutered.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I literally got Chat GPT to explain it to *you* as you're in denial, unsurprisingly it was able to summarise what I'd already pointed out to you.

I asked you for your own words... You instead came back with an AI reiteration of what you still did not understand.

you take a blank slate approach re: dog breeds and behavior (contradicted by the evidence)

Not every individual in a breed carries the same genes, which is what the evidence actually shows.
Genes define behaviour, consistency of behaviour informs breed standard. Breed itself defines nothing beyond probable appearance and one perspective on an ideal.

contrary to that you do accept that genes impact behavioural traits

That was what I told you in the first place.
Genes define behaviour, breed does not.

XL bullies are genetically close so even with your confused take re: breeds you still have an obvious issue you can't address

Genetically close does not mean they are clones, and certainly is no predictor of behaviour. The only issue is your failure to understand your own sources.

 

[helpimcrap]

I think there's a demographic problem if I'm honest, I've been reading a heck of a lot of posts on Facebook of poorer people who are giving away their dogs because they're unable to keep them or afford the cost of neutering, along with their tenancy agreements allowing banned breeds, there seems to be a large number of XLB owners on the poorer end of the spectrum.

It's saddens me - large numbers of dogs who didn't ask to be created this way, now end up being euthanised because of idiots, along with a government who typically - hasn't done anything until the problem got so bad, the only way to solve it was with a ban.

It's the same old story, I just feel sorry for the dogs - it's a problem created entirely by complete **** heads.

It saddens me how narcissistic the human race is.

We'll happily forcibly neuter, cull or put animals down, but we'll keep alive humans who have done far worse. We've bred 300% since WW2.

I think we need to have a word with ourselves.

 

[Mysterae_]

Interesting on Scotland.
Surely the dogs aren't being dumped if Scotland aren't going to outlaw them?

Wonder if any owners will move?

Will be interesting seeing the stats in a years time

Our plan is to deep fry them and sell them with chips.

 

[Pipe & Slippers]

The dangers these dogs present is a result of how their owners and breeders treated them. Address the human cause, not the canine symptom.

I agree with the first part, but thinking that addressing the human cause is ever going to happen is naive. So that leaves addressing the symptoms…

 

[dowie]

Breed itself defines nothing beyond probable appearance and one perspective on an ideal.

Genes define behaviour, breed does not.

Genetically close does not mean they are clones, and certainly is no predictor of behaviour.

LOL so now despite you previously acknowledging that genes do impact behaviour but now your objection is that they're not clones:

It's the same issue as in previous threads, introduce some uncertainty in a topic and you get brainworms and want to throw the baby out with the bath water, in this case denying genes impact anything if the dogs aren't identical clones but merely close genetically.

A husky and a labrador retriever are both medium-sized dogs but in your mind, their breed will only tell us about what they'd look like? A first-time dog owner would, on average, be advised to buy either dog? That's amusing!

A farmer could buy any random medium/athletic dog and have just as easy a time at training them to herd sheep as with a Welsh Border Collie? There's nothing special about them in terms of intelligence etc? That some individuals don't make good sheepdogs doesn't negate that the breed overall does.

Most people making the muh bad owners argument don't go as far as you do with this blank slatism, their argument is more like this whereas you're even denying really established traits:

 

[ttaskmaster]

I agree with the first part, but thinking that addressing the human cause is ever going to happen is naive. So that leaves addressing the symptoms…

It is what needs to happen, though, same as with most social issues. The fact that they rarely do get addressed is why so many of our problems persist.

LOL so now despite you previously acknowledging that genes do impact behaviour but now your objection is that they're not clones:

No.
My objection is that you're assuming their breed defines their behaviour, and that being genetically similar will result in uniform behaviour.
Genes do define behaviour, but not in the ways you assume, imply and infer.

It's the same issue as in previous threads, introduce some uncertainty in a topic and you get brainworms and want to throw the baby out with the bath water, in this case denying genes impact anything if the dogs aren't identical clones but merely close genetically.

None of that is true.
Even siblings with almost identical genes can have vastly different behavioural traits. Similarly, dogs of very different breeds may have almost identical behaviours. Both are still defined by their genes, which is where the heritability and inherited factors come in. The only uncertainty in this is your flawed understanding resulting in your false conclusion.

A husky and a labrador retriever are both medium-sized dogs but in your mind, their breed will only tell us about what they'd look like? A first-time dog owner would, on average, be advised to buy either dog? That's amusing!

Yes, the "breed" really is only based on physical appearance measured against an idealised kennel club standard. Similarly, most breed-specific legislation is almost entirely based on the same thing. The Kennel Club/Crufts, and other cases where appearance conformity is the driving element, are widely criticised and opposed, especially where working breeds are concerned.

Owners are usually advised on breeds, based on an assumption that any dog physically resembling X breed will be of pedigree and have successfully inherited the traits considered most desirable in that breed. This is why so many owners have difficulty when their dog doesn't behave exactly like the book says they should, and why breed is such a flawed, outdated measure.

A farmer could buy any random medium/athletic dog and have just as easy a time at training them to herd sheep as with a Welsh Border Collie? There's nothing special about them in terms of intelligence etc?

Depends... What do you consider "intelligent", in this situation?
Welsh Collies are not even an officially recognised "breed", because they do not have a standardised appearance. They are bred solely for their working abilities, and they operate very differently to Border Collies and most herding breeds.
People do find dogs of various other breeds that have strong herding traits and environmental malleability, but again it's down to individual genetics, not some arbitrary breed description.

Fun Fact: Herding is a highly heritable trait in certain breeds, but the trainability that makes a Collie type so good as a herding breed is not highly heritable.

That some individuals don't make good sheepdogs doesn't negate that the breed overall does.

Again, with the lack of understanding... For someone so keen to point out nuances in arguments, you are also very keen to ignore them when it suits you.

Of all those sheepdogs born, relatively few will actually be considered good enough for training. Of those chosen, about 30% will fail.
Looking at Border Collies, pedigrees only represent about 9% of all those registered. Many working BCs will come from unregistered farm stock, but the majority end up as household pets.
So while a breed may have a reputation for something, the reality is often somewhat different.

Most people making the muh bad owners argument don't go as far as you do with this blank slatism, their argument is more like this whereas you're even denying really established traits:

The image you posted shows mostly working dogs of breeds that are mostly favoured by responsible owners who take the time to understand and work with their dogs.
American Bully types are often favoured by those for whom the dog is an image accessory, and who will not treat the dog properly.
If those owners started choosing Border Collies instead, you'd see an even greater increase in badly behaved dogs, but for the exact same reasons that XLBs do. As is, Collie types are some of the most aggressive and problematic breeds to own as pets, if the owner does not put the right effort in.

The driving issue with American Bully types is that they are highly responsive to how well, or badly, they are raised, trained and treated. The great majority of problems we're seeing with XLBs is a direct reflection of their breeders and owners.