Does something need to be done about dogs?

[ttaskmaster]

Why can't they bring in legislation that is the dog breeding equivalent of the pyschoactive substance act, that was brought in because clever chemists kept altering drug compositions ever so slightly to get around drugs being banned

Bring in whatever legislation you like. It's still useless if not enforced.

[He was, in fact, confused.]

By what, exactly?
Everything was laid out for you multiple times. You simply refused to acknowledge either my arguments, or those put forward by numerous studies, instead clinging to your own misunderstanding of your one data source.
The result is an argument as blinkered as your reasonng and research.

We banned pitbulls, this should have really been covered under that

We did not ban crossbreeds and genetically distinct derivatives, though, which is why the XLB variant of such derivatives were given the pass. The fact that they're now having to define XLBs as a separate breed anyway actually supports that original ruling.

People are not good with data unfortunately thus we get the funny anomalies where say the RSPCA insurance arm can see the risk right away and refuses to insure them but the charity workers take a blank slate approach.

Insurance is for the owners, not the dogs.
The reasoning behind the RSPCA's opposition to breed-specific legislation, along with the various other perspectives from different industries, has already been explained to you.

 

[dowie]

By what, exactly?

By uncertainty, by groups vs individuals, by arguing against things that weren't argued re: causation etc. I point out that a farmer would perhaps want to buy border collies for sheep herding and you go off on some tangent about which traits are useful... it doesn't matter.

Your latest hangup seems to be a willingness to accept that some breeds do have behavioural traits associated with them but nitpicking that the study was re: pedigree breeds. Thus back to the conundrum you can't address; XL Bullies are genetically close and are a breed stemming from lines of fighting dogs, why the sperging out when it comes to accepting that there are quite likely behavioural traits associated with them?

Are you able to address that or will it be another sperg out with multi quotes going off on multiple tangents?

Insurance is for the owners, not the dogs.

What do you even think you're correcting there with that vague statement? Do you imagine that others think the dogs themselves will put in a claim?

 

[ttaskmaster]

By uncertainty, by groups vs individuals, by arguing against things that weren't argued re: causation etc.

Not in the slightest.
You're the only one who seems confused, and that's because you have not understood the matter you're discussing.

I point out that a farmer would perhaps want to buy border collies for sheep herding and you go off on some tangent about which traits are useful... it doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. This is the epitome of why genetics and heritability matter, and not breed.
It's also the very essence of what all these studies, including your one source, are trying to explain to you. What you're deliberately ignoring is how it works and why it doesn't work how you seem to think, which is also why breed-specific legislation is not going to solve the issue.

Your latest hangup seems to be a willingness to accept that some breeds do have behavioural traits associated with them but nitpicking that the study was re: pedigree breeds.

Nope.
It's about the perceived 'associated with' rather than anything that shows actual correspondence, correlation or causality. You're peddling a sterotype based on limited and flawed focus, while ignoring the studies that properly quantify these things.

Thus back to the conundrum you can't address; XL Bullies are genetically close and are a breed stemming from lines of fighting dogs, why the sperging out when it comes to accepting that there are quite likely behavioural traits associated with them?

I've already explained to you - Neither being genetically close, nor stemming from fighting dogs, offer any specific likelihood of behavioural traits being inherited. Any behaviours 'associated with' the XLB variant or the parent American Bully breed are of dogs similarly 'associated with' environmental malleability - So either you disregard your assertion that genes impact behaviour, or you accept that the heritability leans toward external influence more than genetic inheritance.

Correlation does not indicate causation, and association certainly doesn't.

Are you able to address that or will it be another sperg out with multi quotes going off on multiple tangents?

If you insist on merging the separate premises of your argument, I will continue to pull them out one by one.

What do you even think you're correcting there with that vague statement? Do you imagine that others think the dogs themselves will put in a claim?

Owners are held responsible for their dogs' behaviour. Insurance has nothing to do with the dogs' genetics, but the risk of damage if the owner fails to properly govern their dog.
It's a completely separate issue from their opposition to legislation. You're trying to conflate the two, when there's no correlation.

 

[413x]

Let's put aside the obvious individual vs groups stats fail, you're also once again confused by uncertainty, back to this point as we seem to be getting somewhere.



LOL FFS!

So you're actually admitting the very thing you've been arguing against, or do you just think none of that applies to XL bullies? Or is it just the hang-up you have when there's some uncertainty present?

You understand that this breed of dog tends to have behavioural traits that are useful for herding sheep right?

But you're in total denial that this breed of dog, descended from fighting dogs, might have behavioural traits that pose a greater risk of injury or death to people and other dogs? That's despite the empirical evidence demonstrating the disproportional deaths and your own confusion as to why other strong dogs aren't banned...

Just a hint but maybe, just maybe this isn't monocausal! Despite the common, it's bad owners claims perhaps a combination of physical and behavioural characteristics are at play here too!

That dog is one scary MoFo.

I would avoid that dog on a walk with my dog!
He wouldn't stand a chance

FYI.. The bottom dog

 

[dowie]

Of course it matters. This is the epitome of why genetics and heritability matter, and not breed.

Bizare. OK... so lets say we're referring to some group of genetically similar dogs then... Can you see the issue yet?

Owners are held responsible for their dogs' behaviour. Insurance has nothing to do with the dogs' genetics, but the risk of damage if the owner fails to properly govern their dog.

Not really true when they clearly refuse to insure certain breeds.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Bizare. OK... so lets say we're referring to some group of genetically similar dogs then... Can you see the issue yet?

Again, being genetically similar does not mean anything.
A farmer only looks to Border Collies for sheep-herding because they generally choose from lineages with a high inheritance of trainability. The majority of BC lineages do not have such high inheritances, regardless of how highly heritable the trait may be. The lineage of another breed, like a GSD or a Sheltie, can carry the same trainability gene and be just as effective. That's why there are so many different breeds of Shepherd and Sheepdog. If the Border Collie breed was that good overall, these others would have pretty much ceased to exist.

Similarly, if genetic similarity, smaller genepools and distant ancestors of fighting dogs were anything to go by, then the vast majority of Kimbo's 600 sired bloodlines would have attacked people... and the vast majority have not, because genetic inheritance doesn't work like that.

Not really true when they clearly refuse to insure certain breeds.

Some refuse to insure breeds that are not banned, too, and for the same reasons. They also refuse to insure certain breeds of cat, along with certain cars and certain collectible items.
It has nothing to do with the genetics. It's all about how much their statistics estimate they'd have to pay out in the event of a claim.

 

[dowie]

Again, being genetically similar does not mean anything.

Even though you conceded that genes can impact on behaviour?

You're all over the place with the "cope" here, it's pretty clear that genetically different groups of dogs (let's call them breeds) exhibit different behaviours... you can say look at the study posted earlier which backs this up or you could maybe talk to anyone who has owned a husky. why the constant denial of this?

You're completely missing the point re: sheepdogs too, no one said border collies were the only suitable dogs for that role (just as no one said XL Bullies are the only dangerous dogs). That German Shepards could perhaps be used too is rather moot. You'd not use a labradoodle though right? You understand that some breeds are better suited to that task.

Yet it's full-on, head-in-the-sand denials when it's pointed out that some fighting dogs are dangerous and that's partly a result of behaviour. (Something you perhaps should have grasped when pondering why other large, powerful dogs weren't banned - hint; they're not killing a bunch of people despite also being large powerful dogs).

Some refuse to insure breeds that are not banned, too, and for the same reasons. [...]
It has nothing to do with the genetics. It's all about how much their statistics estimate they'd have to pay out in the event of a claim.

The denial of reality here is astounding... they refuse to insure certain breeds but it's got nothing to do with genetics? A breed is simply a group of genetically similar dogs!

They refuse to insure XL Bullies because they pose an obvious risk.

 

[Felon]

Similarly, if genetic similarity, smaller genepools and distant ancestors of fighting dogs were anything to go by, then the vast majority of Kimbo's 600 sired bloodlines would have attacked people...

Well, compared to all other dogs - this specific breed of dog has attacked more people, than just about any other breed, in a fraction of the time, compared to all other breeds.

And we know there are big differences between breeds based on genetics - just look at other large powerful breeds such as German Shepherds, they've been around for years - we have thousands of them as pets in the UK, they can easily kill a man - but they just don't, or it's very very rare.

 

[dowie]

It's just ttaskmaster getting confused by risk and uncertainty yet again thus coming out with clangers like that... that all the offspring haven't all attacked people or that the majority haven't (not sure we know how many have merely attacked people) doesn't indicate a lack of an issue here.

The issue is the risk, that these dogs are disproportionately more likely to seriously injure and indeed kill other dogs and humans. It isn't required that all or even the majority of them have attacked for that to be a serious issue.

The people who actually understand risk, who deal with it for a living, such as those who work in insurance, often don't insure that breed of dog for good reason!

 

[ttaskmaster]

Even though you conceded that genes can impact on behaviour?

I "conceded" nothing - I have been continually telling you that genes, not breed, define behaviour.
As always, you're ignoring what has actually been said and shown.

The genes of the individual dog define that individual's behaviour. Dogs of the same breed (and even same litter) being 'genetically similar' does not mean they have the exact same genes, nor does it mean they will behave the same, and there is considerable variation within breed.
Dogs of different breeds can still behave similarly, depending on whether they share the same behavioural genes. This is inheritance.
However, there is considerable variation (in any size group) in whether or not that behaviour is due to genetic inheritance or environmental influence. This is heritability.

Because there is such a wide variance in any behavioural trait, and because it is defined by a combination of inheritance and heritability, being 'genetically similar' or from a comparatively small gene pool will not define behaviour to any notable degree.

you can say look at the study posted earlier which backs this up or you could maybe talk to anyone who has owned a husky. why the constant denial of this?

Pick any breed you like, there will be very few that actually conform to breed standard behaviour. The vast majority of dogs' behaviour varies quite a bit from what people typically associate with their respective breeds.
This is what rescue centres and industry professionals have been trying to tell people for decades, as this lack of breed conformation is the main reason why so many are abandoned.

The whole concept of behaviours being associated with breed is a highly outdated assumption of erroneous Victorian era thinking, based purely on breeding for aesthetics.

You're completely missing the point re: sheepdogs too, no one said border collies were the only suitable dogs for that role (just as no one said XL Bullies are the only dangerous dogs). That German Shepards could perhaps be used too is rather moot.

Moot meaning debatable... But actually my point concurs with the studies that show behavioural traits are not specific to breed.
The takeaway is not whether a dog is or isn't suitable, but why they can be.

You'd not use a labradoodle though right? You understand that some breeds are better suited to that task.

If the dog in question has the right traits, there's no reason not to use it.
As a result, any dog can enter an open sheepdog trial. There are no age, size, color, shape, or breed restrictions, and pedigree/breed registration is not required.

Would you use a tiny little Sheltie to herd massive cows?

Yet it's full-on, head-in-the-sand denials when it's pointed out that some fighting dogs are dangerous and that's partly a result of behaviour. (Something you perhaps should have grasped when pondering why other large, powerful dogs weren't banned - hint; they're not killing a bunch of people despite also being large powerful dogs).

What makes the difference is WHY the dogs are considered dangerous... and here's a hint - It's not down to their genetics.
The difference with most other large or powerful dogs is not their genetic behavioural markers, but in how responsive to their environment they are and what environments they're in.
All four of the currently banned breeds are highly sensitive and environmentally malleable - Their behaviour is a reflection of their upbringing and their owner.

Other large, powerful dogs, also with a fighting dog heritage, tend to be kept by owners who know what they're doing, whereas the banned breeds have a statistical history of being chosen as status dogs by owners who are inexperienced, incompetent, irresponsible, or even downright malicious.

The denial of reality here is astounding... they refuse to insure certain breeds but it's got nothing to do with genetics? A breed is simply a group of genetically similar dogs!
They refuse to insure XL Bullies because they pose an obvious risk.

Breed is simply a description of the ideal physical appearance.
The risk with XLBs is not in the dog, but in the statistical likelihood that its owner is a delinquent bell-end.

Well, compared to all other dogs - this specific breed of dog has attacked more people, than just about any other breed, in a fraction of the time, compared to all other breeds.

Yes, and the question that should be guiding our resolution of this problem is WHY?

And we know there are big differences between breeds based on genetics - just look at other large powerful breeds such as German Shepherds, they've been around for years - we have thousands of them as pets in the UK, they can easily kill a man - but they just don't, or it's very very rare.

Our last GSD kill was 2017. America had three last year.
Looking at American Bullies and the XLB variant, they've been around for several decades, but have only just started attacking, and the UK has a disproportionate number of incidents. We need to quantify what is so different about our situation.

It's just ttaskmaster getting confused by risk and uncertainty yet again thus coming out with clangers like that... that all the offspring haven't all attacked people or that the majority haven't (not sure we know how many have merely attacked people) doesn't indicate a lack of an issue here.

I never said it did.
It does illustrate how genetic similarity has no bearing on behaviour.

The issue is the risk, that these dogs are disproportionately more likely to seriously injure and indeed kill other dogs and humans. It isn't required that all or even the majority of them have attacked for that to be a serious issue.

Again, I never said it was a requirement.
The issue is why these dogs have historically racked up a high incident count, regardless of proportion.

The people who actually understand risk, who deal with it for a living, such as those who work in insurance, often don't insure that breed of dog for good reason!

Presumably you don't understand risk, then, since you seem deliberately ignorant of the reason.

 

[jigger]

Not all bears attack people, but the probability of an attack would be massively increased by locality. The statistical probability of an incident, along with the potential level of liability would probably push any insurance product into a niche with a very limited market before the probability of claims and level of liability outweighed any potential profit. I think any company offering to insure these dogs would likely have to run the product at a loss. I doubt anyone would take it on TBH. These dogs are far too numerous and far too dangerous to be out in public and an insurance policy isn’t going to change that.

I think breed and genes would be synonyms.

 

[potatolord]

It's just ttaskmaster getting confused by risk and uncertainty yet again thus coming out with clangers like that... that all the offspring haven't all attacked people or that the majority haven't (not sure we know how many have merely attacked people) doesn't indicate a lack of an issue here.

The issue is the risk, that these dogs are disproportionately more likely to seriously injure and indeed kill other dogs and humans. It isn't required that all or even the majority of them have attacked for that to be a serious issue.

The people who actually understand risk, who deal with it for a living, such as those who work in insurance, often don't insure that breed of dog for good reason!

What we are seeing now is a cluster. Whether that is due to the danger/ aggression of this type of dog, we can't really know for sure at this point.

To be fair, waiting several years for fuller data is probably not a good idea...
 
I'm not disagreeing with your general point/ direction here.

 

[dowie]

As a result, any dog can enter an open sheepdog trial.

Right, but which breeds tend to win on average? Can you see any Huskies here?

Gallery - National Sheep Dog Trials

nationalsheepdogtrials.org.au

What makes the difference is WHY the dogs are considered dangerous... and here's a hint - It's not down to their genetics.

And there we go, another clanger!

Do you really believe that if you take a bunch of the 1000 chavviest delinquents in the country and you gave 500 labradors and the other 500 of them XL Bullies then the risk would be the same?

 

[Felon]

Yes, and the question that should be guiding our resolution of this problem is WHY?

Lets do a five-why's breakdown!

1. Why are people being attacked and killed by XLBs, much more than any other dog?

Because XLBs are very aggressive and are more likely to attack people than other dogs.

2. Why are XLBs more aggressive and more likely to attack people than other dogs?

Because they have a genetic predisposition towards aggression and are owned by people who are irresponsible.

3. Why do they have aggression in their genes and are owned by irresponsible people?

Because they contain lots of fighting dog DNA (Pitbull terrier) and are often bought as a status dog and not cared for properly.

4. Why do they contain pitbull DNA and are owned as status dogs?

Because people have created these animals on purpose, to use as weapons instead of pets - whilst looking tough.

5. Why do people need dogs as weapons and want to look tough?

Because these people are bellends.


There's your root-cause. These people are bellends, and the dogs have been bred on purpose to be dangerous, the two things combined is a recipe for carnage.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Right, but which breeds tend to win on average? Can you see any Huskies here?

Gallery - National Sheep Dog Trials

nationalsheepdogtrials.org.au

What, in a Gathering Style competition that is only open to Border Collies?

I said open trial - "The whole of the trial is of a practical nature and the International Sheep Dog Society rules for these competitions are solely concerned with the working capabilities of the Border Collie and its handler".
Competitions, especially National ones, using ISDS or World Sheepdog rules usually only permit Border Collies!!

Try again....

Do you really believe that if you take a bunch of the 1000 chavviest delinquents in the country and you gave 500 labradors and the other 500 of them XL Bullies then the risk would be the same?

Give them any number of the more reactive breeds, and the behavioural results will be the same... and yes, if these Labradors are all raised by your Chavs or someone with an abusive nature, they they likely will end up behaving just as badly.
Unsurprisingly, the Pit Bull and other Terriers generally score the highest for reactivity, followed by herding/shepherd breeds, with Labs, Golden Retrievers, Rotties and Dobermans coming in the third band.

There's your root-cause. These people are bellends, and the dogs have been bred on purpose to be dangerous, the two things combined is a recipe for carnage.

Leaving aside all the misinformed assertions regarding breeding and DNA, you're not far off.
The majority have not been bred to be dangerous (supposedly just the opposite, at least in temperament), because that would be both stupid and counterproductive... but some 'special' people do some nasty things to them that end up making them dangerous...

Watch: How rogue trainers are turning XL bully dogs into weapons - Reckless owners use sticks, steroids and children’s playgrounds to create mauling machines.

Watch: How rogue trainers are turning XL bully dogs ‘into weapons’

Reckless owners use sticks, steroids and children’s playgrounds to create mauling machines

www.thetimes.co.uk

Basically Chavs and Kennel Club/Showdog breeders are two extreme opposite ends of the same spectrum.

 

[dowie]

I said open trial - "The whole of the trial is of a practical nature and the International Sheep Dog Society rules for these competitions are solely concerned with the working capabilities of the Border Collie and its handler".
Competitions, especially National ones, using ISDS or World Sheepdog rules usually only permit Border Collies!!

OK, so I guess you'll have some examples of these open competitions and the sorts of dogs that win them... Are any huskies among the top dogs? Or are the top dogs mostly those traditionally bred to herd sheep?

This is what you got confused by; https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639 predictions for individual dogs... but we're not talking about individual dogs we're talking about a whole population of XL Bullies, that there's some variance here to the point where reliable predictions re: individual dogs will be shaky doesn't negate that there are traits associated with breeds overall. Also, the notion that the issues with XL Bullies are down to a few bad breeders is pure cope, they're literally bred from fighting dogs, as an illustration of this issue; half of the XL bullies in the UK are descended from that one notorious one. Where are all these "good" XL Bully breeders?

It's just you getting into a complete muddle re: stats/uncertainty, why deny what ought to be pretty obvious to anyone familiar with dogs:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.0716

 

[dowie]

SNP does seem to be a bit silly here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1732000281028628845

The SNP has been criticised for allowing XL bully dogs to be moved to Scotland, after refusing to follow the UK Government's ban on the breed.

Numerous ads have been posted by owners or prospective owners asking to move the dogs to Scotland.

XL Bully dogs will be outlawed in England and Wales from December 31 after a string of dog attacks were connected to the breed.

Selling, rehoming and breeding the dog will be outlawed, and owning one without an exemption certificate will be a criminal offence from the start of February.

In one instance, dog day care centre Bedlay Gardens, based in North Lanarkshire, called for Scottish adoptions on social media.
They said: "We are desperately looking for fosterers/adopters willing to take in an XL bully in light of the announced ban in England and wales.
"Any XL bullies in England and Wales not homed before the 31st of December will be euthanised through NO FAULT of their own.

"These are loving, caring dogs who love people, yet have been abandoned like trash or given up by their owners.
"Almost all of these dogs are dog friendly and many of them have lived with kids.
"If you can help by fostering or adopting an XL bully in Scotland, saving them from being PTS down south, please, please do.
"XL bullies are not banned in Scotland, so at least if they are here in temporary foster homes, we have more time to find them forever homes.
"Here are some of the dogs currently looking for someone to save them. Some have less time than others."

Speaking in parliament on Thursday, Scottish Conservative Justice spokesperson Russell Findlay questioned the SNP's decision to not follow Westminster's ban.

He claimed that banning dangerous dogs is the "latest issue they want to pick a constitutional fight over".

Findlay added: "They are quite literally willing to gamble with lives and stir up grievance."

Earlier this year, Tory MSP Jamie Greene warned: “If the SNP don’t follow suit, there is a real risk Scotland will be used as a dumping ground for these dogs by criminal gangs.”

 

[ttaskmaster]

OK, so I guess you'll have some examples of these open competitions and the sorts of dogs that win them... Are any huskies among the top dogs? Or are the top dogs mostly those traditionally bred to herd sheep?

You'll find a good cross-section of results here:

Results

I'm not aware of any Huskies specifically, but they are usually trained to herd reindeer, so their style of herding is likely too aggressive for sheep. They're sometimes used as cattle dogs, though, but as explained before the herding trait is not as important as their biddability. Border Collies are highly biddable but they're not the smartest dog, and so require very tight control. This is why they work in the Gathering style, rather than any of the Traditional or the Loose-Eyed styles.

It also depends which type of sheep you're working and how they have been trained, too. Most Border Collies apparently struggle with the independence of Range Sheep.

This is what you got confused by; https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639 predictions for individual dogs... but we're not talking about individual dogs we're talking about a whole population of XL Bullies, that there's some variance here to the point where reliable predictions re: individual dogs will be shaky doesn't negate that there are traits associated with breeds overall.

Not just "some" variance, but too much variance.
"Among behavioral traits, biddability—how well dogs respond to human direction—was the most heritable by breed but varied significantly among individual dogs. Thus, dog breed is generally a poor predictor of individual behavior and should not be used to inform decisions relating to selection of a pet dog"

In other words, because there is such a wide variance from one individual to the next, (ie within-breed variance) that spread across the overall breed is too wide to correctly associate a specific behaviour with a breed.
How biddable an individual is will be defined by what genes they have inherited, but the variance within the whole breed points to biddability being more influenced by environmental factors as a whole.
Remember, heritability (within or between breeds) estimates how much of the behavioural variance between individuals of a sample size is due to genetic factors - It does NOT decide how much of a behavioural trait is genetic, nor does it indicate any likelihood of inheritance, at either breed or individual level.

Furthermore:
"Although many physical traits were associated with breeds, behavior was much more variable among individual dogs. In general, physical trait heritability was a greater predictor of breed but was not necessarily a predictor of breed ancestry in mutts".
Pick a dog, any dog - You are more likely to guess what breed it is by its appearance, so long as it's a purebred, but not by its behaviour.

"Most behavioral traits are heritable [heritability (h2) > 25%], and admixture patterns in mixed-breed dogs reveal breed propensities. Breed explains just 9% of behavioral variation in individuals. Genome-wide association analyses identify 11 loci that are significantly associated with behavior, and characteristic breed behaviors exhibit genetic complexity. Behavioral loci are not unusually differentiated in breeds, but breed propensities align, albeit weakly, with ancestral function. We propose that behaviors perceived as characteristic of modern breeds derive from thousands of years of polygenic adaptation that predates breed formation, with modern breeds distinguished primarily by aesthetic traits"
In other words, breed does not define behaviour. Genetic ancestry gives some indication of possible inclination, but again heritability is the factor.

"Through our community science project Darwin’s Ark, we enrolled a diverse cohort of pet dogs to explore the complicated, and sometimes unexpectedly weak, relationship between breed and behavior".
Says it all, really.

Also, the notion that the issues with XL Bullies are down to a few bad breeders is pure cope, they're literally bred from fighting dogs, as an illustration of this issue; half of the XL bullies in the UK are descended from that one notorious one. Where are all these "good" XL Bully breeders?

Starting with that ancestry - There are a good 20-30 different breeds that are literally bred from fighting dogs, some lineages of which are still bred and trained for fighting to this day, even though the primary roles for such dogs are hunting and herding.

Half of all UK XLBs descend from "Killer Kimbo"... Well, the dog in question was only called 'Kimbo'. The dog himself seemingly did nothing more dangerous than exist and breed, with no history of undesirable behaviour in either him or his direct offspring. The "Killer" name was slapped on him by BullyWatch, who were the ones pointing out that a few of his 600+ descendents had been involved in attacks.
Gloria Zsigmond, a UK-based scientist with BullyWatch, has said: "Kimbo bled into all those bloodlines because he was early on and he was so dominant in breeding. There are some good bloodlines where Kimbo isn’t there, but there are many where he is".

So what is Killer Kimbo so notorious for, exactly?

It's just you getting into a complete muddle re: stats/uncertainty, why deny what ought to be pretty obvious to anyone familiar with dogs:

You're using a study limited to pedigree dogs, that examines the heritability of traits (behavioural and physical), and finds that breed-conforming pedigree examples do indeed conform to their breed standards... No ****, Sherlock!
This they conclude is a result of high heritability, asserting their findings to be "on average, five times higher than traditional within-breed estimates, which could be due to limited genetic and phenotypic variation within breeds". They also mention that: "a larger fraction of phenotypic variance across breeds is explained by genetic factors compared with typical within-breed studies".

Another study, which references the one above, states:
"Modern breeds are commonly ascribed characteristic temperaments, and behavioral proclivities on the basis of their purported ancestral function. By extension, the breed ancestry of an individual dog is assumed to be predictive of temperament and behavior, with dog DNA tests marketed as tools for learning about a dog’s personality and training needs. Studies, however, found that within-breed behavioral variation approaches levels similar to the variation between breeds, suggesting that such predictions are error prone even in purebred dogs".

So either way, whether considering within-breed or between-breed, heritability does not reflect inheritance and breed does not define behaviour.

Balance this against the evidence of some XLB breeders stuffing their dogs full of steroids and training them in playgrounds to attack target - Is it more likely that XLBs are all bad just because some come from a common ancestor... or is it more likely that being badly mistreated adversely affects those dogs?

 

[dowie]

I'm not aware of any Huskies specifically, but they are usually trained to herd reindeer, so their style of herding is likely too aggressive for sheep.

Well the first few I've seen from your link are traditional sheepdogs of some variety (no surprises there).

You've just contradicted yourself again with that clanger, citing some behavoural trait for huskies while still in denial that XL Bullies are too aggressive for dogs and humans....

Not just "some" variance, but too much variance.
"Among behavioral traits, biddability—how well dogs respond to human direction—was the most heritable by breed but varied significantly among individual dogs. Thus, dog breed is generally a poor predictor of individual behavior and should not be used to inform decisions relating to selection of a pet dog"

Yes, individual behaviour! You still don't get it - that there's some uncertainty present to the point where breed isn't a good predictor for the behavour some selected individual dog isn't a negation of the fact that breed traits exist for the breed overall and is what we're interested in when looking at XL bullies and the risk they pose. Neither does your handwaving re: the study applying to pedigree breeds, XL Bullies are closely related too, whether some kennel club decides to list them or not isn't really pertinent here.

Another study, which references the one above, states:
[ttaskmaster is again getting confused re: uncertanty w.r.t individual dogs]

 

[mattyfez]

Collies are used more than any other type of dog as sheep dogs because they are geniticaly pre-disposed for that type of activity, so it's a good bet, farmers don't just spin a 'dog breed' wheel, end up with a golden retriever and say, oh well, with the right training that retriver willmake a top class sheep dog - it just won't happen.
Thats not to say that all Collies make good sheep dogs, some just are not interested, but it's a safe-ish bet, as far as betting goes.

Equally most attacks are carried out by Bully XL type dogs, because guess what, they are geniticaly pre-disposed for that type of activity, so it's a good bet.
That's not to say all Bully XLs will kill or attack someone, but it's a safe-ish bet, as far as betting goes.

Same as why Labs are often used as guide dogs, German Shephards as police dogs, etc, etc. Not all of them 'make the grade' when training, but if you want a dog with certain traits, that's why people look to some breeds before others.

In the case of Bully XL's that trait is attacking other dogs and people, simple as that.