Does something need to be done about dogs?

[dowie]

For all the reasons you're deliberately ignoring, all dogs are a "blank slate" until you know their exact lineages and ancestry, which even then only tell part of the story.

You're totally inconsistent on this because when it's pointed out that Akitas will have different behaviour on average to labradors you come up with some explanation involving traits.

Likewise, where are all the Huskies or Labradors winning herding competitions, you dumped a link to open competitions and the winners were unsurprisingly from herding breeds. So how can you claim dogs are a blank slate w.r.t behaviour?

You've thrown in "until you know their exact lineages and ancestry" well we're talking about breeds not individual dogs, also "which even then only tell part of the story" no one said otherwise... jeeze do we need to go back to pointing out that this is not monocausal!

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's what this whole problem essentially boils down to - the risk of such a breed, combined with the factors which tend to be associated with it.
Which is why it needs to go.

Why does the dog need to go?
Why not the humans who are creating the situations that result in the problem?

Horses also respond badly to certain situations, but rather than banning those we just brought in legislation to protect them.

You're totally inconsistent on this because when it's pointed out that Akitas will have different behaviour on average to labradors you come up with some explanation involving traits.

You cannot ascribe behaviours based on flawed classification and then reduce the resulting wide behavioural variances down to a single average and still be anywhere near representative of the overall population.
That you would try to do so without actually understanding what's going on behind that data is very disingenuous.

Likewise, where are all the Huskies or Labradors winning herding competitions, you dumped a link to open competitions and the winners were unsurprisingly from herding breeds. So how can you claim dogs are a blank slate w.r.t behaviour?

Where - Probably the same place Welsh Collies are. The last time a Husky even entered FCI was in 2019, where I believe they came fifth.
That they even bothered to compete shows the aptitude, and the breed does carry a relatively high heritability for the herding trait. But this only further serves to illustrate that it doesn't work the way you're assuming, which is why there aren't (m)any Border Collies there, either.

You see breed and assume behaviour, without knowing why - You see a 'herding' breed and assume it's down to a herding gene. This is why you then get confused when a dog of your choice, which also has a strong herding trait, does not dominate in trials and some of the lesser known herders, from different countries, and with very different styles of training do.

You've thrown in "until you know their exact lineages and ancestry" well we're talking about breeds not individual dogs

It works for both.....

also "which even then only tell part of the story" no one said otherwise... jeeze do we need to go back to pointing out that this is not monocausal!

Point it out if it makes you feel better, but that isn't what I said.

 

[Felon]

Why does the dog need to go?
Why not the humans who are creating the situations that result in the problem?

Because it's too dangerous and its existence creates too many risks.

You also can't ban stupid people, because that's impossible - so the lesser of two evils, is to ban the overly dangerous dog.

Horses also respond badly to certain situations, but rather than banning those we just brought in legislation to protect them.

This is a crap analogy, because horses don't run around out of control biting children's faces and tearing their limbs to bits.

 

[wingman]

Can ttaskmaster be banned instead? Perhaps at least from this thread?

 

[dowie]

You cannot ascribe behaviours based on flawed classification and then reduce the resulting wide behavioural variances down to a single average and still be anywhere near representative of the overall population.

OK you say that (even though it contradicts the evidence) then you immediately contradict yourself anyway:

You see breed and assume behaviour, without knowing why - You see a 'herding' breed and assume it's down to a herding gene. This is why you then get confused when a dog of your choice, which also has a strong herding trait, does not dominate in trials and some of the lesser known herders, from different countries, and with very different styles of training do.

That's pure projection on your part, I said nothing about a herding gene nor does the fact that lesser-known herders do well in trial negate what I'm getting at here, quite the opposite that just reinforces the point that breeds have behavioural traits and some breeds are better suited for some tasks than others.

What do you mean by lesser-known herders? Are you referring to some breeds that have behavioural traits that are useful when herding sheep? What happened to your blank slate/any dog breeds are equally unknown re: behaviours?

 

[wingman]

What happened to your blank slate/any dog breeds are equally unknown re: behaviours?

It's almost as if when you're talking nonsense you'll get caught up in your own points.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Because it's too dangerous and its existence creates too many risks.
You also can't ban stupid people, because that's impossible - so the lesser of two evils, is to ban the overly dangerous dog.

The dog is only dangerous when subjected to certain conditions.
And yes you can ban stupid people. We ban them from driving every day.

Ignoring predictable and preventable human catalysts is by far the greater evil.

This is a crap analogy, because horses don't run around out of control biting children's faces and tearing their limbs to bits.

Ever seen a horse panicking on the road? They cause accidents and/or do plenty of damage, including fatalities, again in response to how people behave around them, and it's happend often enough that we've had to legislate peoples' behaviour.
If you prefer, pick your own analogy where people's behaviour has been legislated to avoid danger.

OK you say that (even though it contradicts the evidence) then you immediately contradict yourself anyway:

The evidence, as shown in all those studies, is that breed is a flawed classification which is not representative of behaviour.

That's pure projection on your part, I said nothing about a herding gene nor does the fact that lesser-known herders do well in trial negate what I'm getting at here, quite the opposite that just reinforces the point that breeds have behavioural traits and some breeds are better suited for some tasks than others.

It does negate this, because the point is that it's not based on breed or specifically behavioural traits, hence it being open to any breed.
This was further substantiated by the aforementioned narrow percentage of herding breed members that actually end up making the cut.

What do you mean by lesser-known herders?

It's a herding competition. Those doing the herding are herders, no?

Are you referring to some breeds that have behavioural traits that are useful when herding sheep? What happened to your blank slate/any dog breeds are equally unknown re: behaviours?

Nope.
As I said already, any dog that exhibits the right traits. Nothing to do with breed, hence open trial.
It's also why the German Shepherd, a pastoral herding dog by 'breed' behaviour and a shepherd by its very name, is far more commonly used as a working dog.

 

[Felon]

The dog is only dangerous when subjected to certain conditions.

You can't know that - you can't say, that all of the attacks [involving an XLB] have purely been down to the dog being 'subjected to certain conditions' that's nonsense.

In many cases - we have no idea why the attack happened, which is a huge risk - because it points to these dogs being unstable and prone to kicking off, something that doesn't seem to be a problem in 99.9% of all other breeds.

And yes you can ban stupid people. We ban them from driving every day.

You don't get banned from anything for being stupid, it's not illegal to be stupid - you only get banned from driving if you commit and offence, being stupid and breaking the actual law are two different things.

Ever seen a horse panicking on the road? They cause accidents and/or do plenty of damage, including fatalities, again in response to how people behave around them, and it's happend often enough that we've had to legislate peoples' behaviour.

Accidents happen, you can't ban an entire thing (people on horses) because accidents happen, that would be too harsh.

In the case of the XLB, we have one breed, one specific type of dog out of all others that is too dangerous, no other dog breed has this problem - so it's a different situation entirely.

 

[sidimmu]

Ever seen a horse panicking on the road? They cause accidents and/or do plenty of damage, including fatalities, again in response to how people behave around them, and it's happend often enough that we've had to legislate peoples' behaviour.
If you prefer, pick your own analogy where people's behaviour has been legislated to avoid danger.

This is the most comedic analogy I have ever come across. This has to be trolling.

Can ttaskmaster be banned instead? Perhaps at least from this thread?

I endorse this.
Or endorse the closure of this thread, its clear Dowie has won.
Defenders of the XL bully are either a chav with an XL bully or one of these lawyers sticking up for the scum of the world.

 

[dowie]

The evidence, as shown in all those studies, is that breed is a flawed classification which is not representative of behaviour.

I think you're getting confused between groups and individuals again there.

You previously referred to lesser-known herding breeds and yet when questioned on that you've feigned confusion and backtracked to just talking about any dog doing the herding in the competition.

Just look at this whopper too, not only are you referring to a breed having behavioural characteristics but you're making quite precise claims about those characteristics as part of an explanation:

Akita are notoriously difficult dogs because training has to start at a very early age and continue long past adolescence, and they are very sensitive to subtle cues, which many owners do not realise.

So you do in fact accept behavioral differences for *that* breed but supposedly it's a blank slate for these inbred XL Bullies, supposedly they're equally likely to be as calm and docile as a Great Dane???

 

[ttaskmaster]

You can't know that - you can't say, that all of the attacks [involving an XLB] have purely been down to the dog being 'subjected to certain conditions' that's nonsense.

Given just the levels of abuse and the prevalence we know about (such as 59% of the owners having either a history of of poor dog ownership, or actual abuse and neglect of dogs), particularly compared to other breeds that have attacked, and the conditions of dogs that have been perfectly fine, it's already a pretty safe bet that this is the primary cause.

In many cases - we have no idea why the attack happened, which is a huge risk - because it points to these dogs being unstable and prone to kicking off, something that doesn't seem to be a problem in 99.9% of all other breeds.

You do realise that a lot of people have done a lot of studies on these attacks, right?
Since you and Dowie are utterly incapable of reading things properly (presumably because you are so genetically similar?), I'll post the findings of the 10-year study here for you:

In 87% there was an absence of an able-bodied person to intervene
45% of the victims were less than 5-years old
85% of the victims had only incidental or no familiarity with the dogs
84% of the dogs were not neutered
77% of the victims had compromised ability (age or other conditions, such as drugs and alcohol) to interact appropriately with dogs
76% of the dogs were kept isolated from regular positive human interactions
38% of the dog owners had histories of prior mismanagement of dogs
21% of the dog owners had a history of abuse or neglect of dogs

In 81% of the attacks, four or more of the above factors were involved.

Blimey, eh? It's almost as if... we know what the cause is, and that the circumstances giving rise to XLB incidents are no different to those of all the other dogs.... Fancy that!

So yes, the problems with the XLB are the same in 99.9% of attacks by all other breeds.

You don't get banned from anything for being stupid, it's not illegal to be stupid - you only get banned from driving if you commit and offence, being stupid and breaking the actual law are two different things.

Breaking the law... as in illegally breeding Pitbulls, for example?

There are plenty of situations where peoples' stupidity has been addressed pre-emptively to avoid more serious consequences. The most obvious is failing their driving test, but people have been disqualified from driving without actually committing any motoring offenses. The court has that discretionary power.
Similarly, if there were such a thing as a dog licence prerequisite, that immediately is a first step toward preventing the stupids from getting a dog.

Accidents happen, you can't ban an entire thing (people on horses) because accidents happen, that would be too harsh.

Grandma accidentally got stoned off her rocker when she was meant to be supervising the toddler and the dog...
Charlie Chavster accidentally left the gate open, whereupon Rambo escaped and attacked Jim from Number 8...
Wendy Wino accidentally forgot to book a babysitter when she went out boozing with Fag-Ash Lil...
Robbie Redneck accidentally shut his dog alone in the coalshed every day without food or water...

Accidents happen - You can't ban an entire breed of dog because accidents happen, that would be too harsh.

In the case of the XLB, we have one breed, one specific type of dog out of all others that is too dangerous, no other dog breed has this problem - so it's a different situation entirely.

Actually several other types of dogs have pretty much this same problem, particularly in other countries, albeit without so many steroids.

Or endorse the closure of this thread, its clear Dowie has won.

If misrepresenting my argument is winning, then sure, yeah, he wins.
If ignoring what's actually been written, and what's been proven by various studies is winning, then absolutely.
There is no winner in this, it's just a bitchfest.

Defenders of the XL bully are either a chav with an XL bully or one of these lawyers sticking up for the scum of the world.

Lucky I'm not defending them then, eh?

I think you're getting confused between groups and individuals again there.

You're not thinking very hard, are you?

You previously referred to lesser-known herding breeds and yet when questioned on that you've feigned confusion and backtracked to just talking about any dog doing the herding in the competition.

I'm pretty sure I said herders, not herding breeds... Feel free to check that one more time, if it makes you feel better.

Just look at this whopper too, not only are you referring to a breed having behavioural characteristics but you're making quite precise claims about those characteristics as part of an explanation:

The same description applies to many other similar 'breeds' (with the exception of the owners not realising), since they have similar genetic lineage.
You already know all this, so what's your point?

So you do in fact accept behavioral differences for *that* breed but supposedly it's a blank slate for these inbred XL Bullies, supposedly they're equally likely to be as calm and docile as a Great Dane???

So you do accept that you can't profile genetic behaviour based on breed, then???

 

[dowie]

The same description applies to many other similar 'breeds' (with the exception of the owners not realising), since they have similar genetic lineage.
You already know all this, so what's your point?

The point was pretty obvious, it's that you're contradicting yourself:

Akita are notoriously difficult dogs because training has to start at a very early age and continue long past adolescence, and they are very sensitive to subtle cues, which many owners do not realise.

If you're going to state [some breed] is "notoriously difficult" and refer to a behavioural trait then clearly you don't actually believe that all breeds are blank slates w.r.t behaviour. Note that doesn't require that this breed is completely unique in that respect, just that that is some characteristic you can point to (which you have done here).

 

[mattyfez]

It's pretty much a non issue now anyway. And for good reason.

If you have one it has to be registered, chipped, castrated insured and muzzled unless you choose to put it to sleep.

There's no sensible reason to own this type of dog.

 

[ttaskmaster]

The point was pretty obvious, it's that you're contradicting yourself:


If you're going to state [some breed] is "notoriously difficult" and refer to a behavioural trait then clearly you don't actually believe that all breeds are blank slates w.r.t behaviour. Note that doesn't require that this breed is completely unique in that respect, just that that is some characteristic you can point to (which you have done here).

The only contradiction is between the phenotype to which 'breed' actually refers, and how you continually choose to misinterpret the term, despite being shown how and why it is so flawed.

Once again, behavioral characteristics ascribed to modern breeds are polygenic, environmentally influenced, and found, at varying prevalence, in all breeds.
Breed does not define behaviour and, with the exception of a few narrow lineages only found among inbred pedigree dogs, behaviour doesn't define breed either.

That an Akita has a behavioural trait common and highly heritable in most breeds just means it's in keeping with the typical behaviour of a dog. The qualifying element is the bit you're ignoring at the end of the quote, being "which many owners do not realise", which is the environmental influence.

 

[sidimmu]

Lucky I'm not defending them then, eh?

Your actions and offerings could be identified as a form of defence for the breed in question for the past 6 months.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Your actions and offerings could be identified as a form of defence for the breed in question for the past 6 months.

Despite me repeatedly saying I'm not defending the breed, while taking a substantiated stance against breed-specific legislation.
Yeah, given how certain posters in the thread so often ignore what's actually written in favour of their own flawed conclusions, I'm sure it could indeed be identified in whatever way you want...

 

[sidimmu]

Despite me repeatedly saying I'm not defending the breed, while taking a substantiated stance against breed-specific legislation.
Yeah, given how certain posters in the thread so often ignore what's actually written in favour of their own flawed conclusions, I'm sure it could indeed be identified in whatever way you want...

Like how you have just interpreted mine in to what you want to read? Nice.
Your actions and defence of breed-specific legislation comes across as defence for the breed, given that the XL bully has been the topic of conversation in here for the last 6 months.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Like how you have just interpreted mine in to what you want to read? Nice.

I 'interpreted' nothing.
You very clearly said my words "could be" seen as something - I agreed that they could be, even if they aren't, and acknowledged why that might be.
No interpretation required.

What matters is what's actually written, rather than any imagined inferrence, particularly any to the contrary.
Case in point, you asserting how my actions "come across", despite me being as specific as I can with regard to what I'm actually saying. I can say the sky is blue till the cows come home, but if people are going to see that 'coming across' as me saying it's red, then that's their failing, not mine.

As to the actual matter, there are several problems stemming from the same fundamental mistake, which a lot of people make by assuming that 'breed' is indicative of behaviour, and why I stand with the many others against BSL.

And in case you missed it - However you think it comes across, I'm still not defending the breed.

 

[sidimmu]

And in case you missed it - However you think it comes across, I'm still not defending the breed.

But happy to fight against the need for legislation to remove dangerous animals from ownership? Nice one.

 

[ttaskmaster]

But happy to fight against the need for legislation to remove dangerous animals from ownership? Nice one.

When it's so often the breeders and owners that make them dangerous, as you'll have seen from reading the reports?
You need to reconsider the focus of that legislation...