Does something need to be done about dogs?

[hyperseven]

Was in a pub today, quite an upmarket place I guess, gastro pub. Some old coffin dodger with some white little rat under the table starts making some horrendous screeching noise.

I turned around and said "shut your ******* dog up" pub went silent, including the dog.

Much better I thought, and carried on eating my dinner.

 

[dowie]

Association does not equate to causation, which is the mistake you insist on perpetuating.

What causation argument are you even referring to? You're getting very muddled; genes impact behaviour here, a breed is a collection of genetically similar dogs (it doesn't need to be defined by genetics for that to be true). End result is breeds have differing behavioural traits.

Firstly, you're citing a study limited to pedigree examples as representative of breed

In short, you're assuming that all dogs are True Scotsmen, where most of them are not true and where the XLBs are the very antithesis.

Completely flawed, this is the contradiction you refuse to address - you tried to hold some position where you accept breed differences w.r.t behaviour but only pedigree breeds then you pass off XL Bullies as some very diverse mutt, therefore, it's so uncertain and doesn't apply....

But that's wrong, the opposite is true, this "breed" or group of genetically similar dogs is highly inbred, that they're not a pedigree breed is simply a function of them not being a posh dog recognised by UK kennel clubs, the actual underlying factor that results in particular sets of varying behavoural traits shared by breeds is there (shared genetics).

Breed Genetics

There are three key facts about the American Bully They are Pitbulls: Analysing each pedigree shows that the American Bully is a Pitbull on paper. We believe it is essentially a Pitbull sub-breed, …

bullywatch.link

1. They are Inbred: The breed’s genetic diversity is relatively limited. All current American Bullies are descendants of a handful of breeders active in the early 1990s. This has resulted in a lineage that stems from a limited number of original dogs. Most American Bully pedigrees show evidence of some inbreeding, with certain influential progenitors even displaying an extreme inbreeding coefficient of 40% or higher.
2. They are Genetically Aggressive: A significant number of these breeding dogs are kin to those infamous for producing human-aggressive progeny. Despite this alarming lineage, such breeding dogs are extensively utilized in the UK. A case in point is a breeding female known to have produced multiple human-aggressive dogs, one of which fatally attacked its owner. Notably, this particular bitch had fighting dogs in her pedigree going back 6-7 generations. Her progeny is notably popular in the UK.

They're widely advertised on social media and genetic lineage is a big part of this whole thing, unlike regular dog adverts the facebook/Instagram ads fo XL Bullies will name the ancestors of the XL Bully being sold.

So... try addressing that contradiction again. no more feigned confusion about causation, no more but but those breeds in the study are "pedigree"... here we have an even more inbred group of dogs. If you can accept that behaviour is heritable then that applies here, if you can't then you're just in denial of the evidence.

 

[dowie]

We already police ownership and operation of cars, firearms, boats, radios, and plenty of other things.
And it's not everyone - You only need to police the percentage who want to legally own, or who have been found in illegal possession of, a dog.

This seems conflicted, perhaps ignorant of what "banning" actually involves. It doesn't necessarily mean the dog is destroyed rather it means it's neutered, muzzled in public and can't be sold or passed on.

Similarly, you can be permitted to own a shotgun or rifle in the UK, if you want to own some types of rifles they'll be "neutered"/"muzzled" to some extent as in some types that may otherwise be semiautomatic elsewhere would be single shot only here. And some firearms are essentially banned outright; certain pistols etc.. (save for very few exceptions, IIRC some vets still use them).

 

[mattyfez]

Another

Two arrests after XL bully mauls Chihuahua puppy to death in street

The Chihuahua was taken to the vets where it was put to sleep and the XL bully was seized and remains in police kennels

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Felon]

This morning, I watched some guy in the local Coop - pile about 5-6 cans of cider into his jacket pocket and walk out. I said to the staff "you see that?" she was like "yeah, he comes in and does that reguarly, the police know about him", it happens 20 times a day - we just record them and pass their descriptions to the cops...

I'm all for proper enforcement with regard to this ban, and also more powers to restrict and license these sorts of animals. As a lover of large breeds (Mastiffs, Rottweilers etc) I totally support the idea that I should have to pay a license, and have some mandatory checks in place to own a dog of that size and weight, I'd pay and abide by all of the legislation in a heartbeat.

But when people are just walking out of the shops with stuff and nobody is being arrested, to the point where I could if I wanted - just walk out with an armfull of stuff and there would be literally no repercussions, wtf hope is there of actually enforcing any of these new laws on dog owners?

Spoiler

This is not an argument to suggest that laws are pointless, more frustration around how the core fundamentals of law and order have been eroded away, by a weak impotent government.

 

[sidimmu]

With the funding and legal powers to police it, the likelihood of punishment will reduce the black market viability. It's currently the lower chances of repercussion that emboldens people to ignore existing legislation anyway.

I'm talking about animal welfare checks, primarily facilitated by the likes of the RSPCA and public reporting. An expansion of those is all that's needed.
The mechanisms for repair or removal of property or tenants are beyond the scope of this role, though, and the onus to resolve such issues is entirely on whoever wants to own a dog. They have to provide a suitable environment, as part of being a responsible owner.

But when people are just walking out of the shops with stuff and nobody is being arrested, to the point where I could if I wanted - just walk out with an armfull of stuff and there would be literally no repercussions, wtf hope is there of actually enforcing any of these new laws on dog owners?

There's your answer @ttaskmaster the police and RSPCA resources are not there to sufficiently police as you want. Even if you come back adn say about licensing fee's, thats not going to get the police and RSPCA out of the hole of lack of resources from staff, facilities, equipment etc.

I dont even need to respond to your comparison to gun ownership as its silly and @dowie has pointed out that even still, certain types of firearms are out rightly banned even with licensing.

Guns dont kill people, people do, so do the police and XL Bully's too!

 

[dowie]

XL Bully owners are having a normal one:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1741825135777063114

https://twitter.com/x/status/1741819809342329265

https://twitter.com/x/status/1741797344096452811

 

[dowie]

And... there's more:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1742132490549014746

edited to censor the swearing:

 

[Tr1p]

Didn’t know where to put this,

I posted in this thread a number of months ago, about my adopted Staffordshire Bull Terrier x Mastiff showing aggression and biting my partner.

I’m heart broken, last week we had Oscar put to sleep. Me and my partner made the difficult decision after months of behavioural modification training, which made him worse, resulting in my partner not being able to come downstairs without a lunge and him biting myself. After countless visits to the vets to ensure he wasn’t doing it from illness.

After a few years of abuse prior to us, especially from a puppy the damage was done.

He was my best friend, there’s a huge hole in our lives now, even after the attacks we miss him dearly. I understand first hand how much damage these breeds can do to others and their owners but I feel the owners have a responsibility to ensure everyone around their dog is safe.

Sleep well Oscar, you’re safe now.

 

[Alice In Wonderland]

Didn’t know where to put this,

I posted in this thread a number of months ago, about my adopted Staffordshire Bull Terrier x Mastiff showing aggression and biting my partner.

I’m heart broken, last week we had Oscar put to sleep. Me and my partner made the difficult decision after months of behavioural modification training, which made him worse, resulting in my partner not being able to come downstairs without a lunge and him biting myself. After countless visits to the vets to ensure he wasn’t doing it from illness.

After a few years of abuse prior to us, especially from a puppy the damage was done.

He was my best friend, there’s a huge hole in our lives now, even after the attacks we miss him dearly. I understand first hand how much damage these breeds can do to others and their owners but I feel the owners have a responsibility to ensure everyone around their dog is safe.

Sleep well Oscar, you’re safe now.

I remember reading your posts so I'm really sorry to read that you had to do that

It sounds like you genuinely did everything you could for him and you didn't leave any stone unturned.

I wish there were more owners like you who deeply cared and loved like you both clearly did.

Rip Oscar.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You cant expect public money to be used for attending to owners of dangerous animals.

Of course you can. That was the whole idea behind dog licencing in the first place. That it never got used for its intended purpose is why it got scrapped last time.

It’s equally unreasonable to expect the RSPCA to perform welfare checks on these animals.

Why?
They already perform these welfare checks as a primary part of their remit anyway, and with reports of animal abuse and neglect coming in every 30 seconds, I'm pretty sure they're in a good position to continue. I'd just prefer to see their powers increased.

Firearms, cars etc aren’t going to suddenly decide to shoot or run a person over and we don’t police them either.

We police the owners, which is why I specified that.

What causation argument are you even referring to? You're getting very muddled; genes impact behaviour here, a breed is a collection of genetically similar dogs (it doesn't need to be defined by genetics for that to be true). End result is breeds have differing behavioural traits.

Genes do define behaviour.
Breed is just a grouping of phenotypically similar dogs.
The mistake you're making is associating (and pretty much conflating) behavioural genes with phenotypical genes... and yes, it is defined by genetics, as that's the only factor you're looking at!
End result is you incorrectly ascribe behaviours to breeds.

Completely flawed, this is the contradiction you refuse to address - you tried to hold some position where you accept breed differences w.r.t behaviour but only pedigree breeds then you pass off XL Bullies as some very diverse mutt, therefore, it's so uncertain and doesn't apply....

Not at all.
Behavioural differences do exist, but they're not segregated by breed - Note all those studies, including your own single source, which acknowledge this. Note even the pretty pictures showing instead the considerable similarities in genetic behaviour of breeds that are vastly different in phenotype.

But that's wrong, the opposite is true, this "breed" or group of genetically similar dogs is highly inbred, that they're not a pedigree breed is simply a function of them not being a posh dog recognised by UK kennel clubs, the actual underlying factor that results in particular sets of varying behavoural traits shared by breeds is there (shared genetics).

Pedigree status requires a documented lineage of closed breeding for a standardised appearance.
These XLBs are merely a variant (ie a deviation from the standard) of American Bullies, which itself is already a group of diversely crossbred dogs.
That's the reason why XLBs and ABs aren't recognised by any of the primary kennel clubs. Nothing to do with being posh.

They're widely advertised on social media and genetic lineage is a big part of this whole thing, unlike regular dog adverts the facebook/Instagram ads fo XL Bullies will name the ancestors of the XL Bully being sold.

All the ancestors, or just those high profile violent ones?

So... try addressing that contradiction again. no more feigned confusion about causation, no more but but those breeds in the study are "pedigree"... here we have an even more inbred group of dogs. If you can accept that behaviour is heritable then that applies here, if you can't then you're just in denial of the evidence.

There's no contradiction or confusion, except what you insist on perpetuating youself.
Here we have, of the entire breed, one or two particular bloodlines within the UK that have a higher degree of inbreeding than is deemed acceptable.
Behaviour is heritable, but what you're missing due to ignorance is that estimates are rarely over 0.3, meaning environmental influence has a far greater bearing.

Beyond that, there's no actual evidence pointing to anything in particular, and certainly not enough to justify a breed-wide piece of legislation.

This seems conflicted, perhaps ignorant of what "banning" actually involves. It doesn't necessarily mean the dog is destroyed rather it means it's neutered, muzzled in public and can't be sold or passed on.

You seem conflicted - I never said anything to the contrary, so I don't see why you feel the need to blurt this out...

Similarly, you can be permitted to own a shotgun or rifle in the UK, if you want to own some types of rifles they'll be "neutered"/"muzzled" to some extent as in some types that may otherwise be semiautomatic elsewhere would be single shot only here. And some firearms are essentially banned outright; certain pistols etc.. (save for very few exceptions, IIRC some vets still use them).

Yes, ownership is legislated, controlled and policed... just as I suggested with dogs - We police the ownership of things that are dangerous in the wrong hands, and try to prevent those wrong hands from getting hold of them... so where are you going with this?

There's your answer @ttaskmaster the police and RSPCA resources are not there to sufficiently police as you want. Even if you come back adn say about licensing fee's, thats not going to get the police and RSPCA out of the hole of lack of resources from staff, facilities, equipment etc.

The Police budget shortfall for 2024 is projected to be £700m.
The 12 million (known) dogs in the UK, with individual licence fees set at the Irish £12.50 rate, would bring in £150m. I wouldn't put it past the Govt to bump that up to £50, meaning an easy £600m.
It wouldn't fix every funding problem, but it'd certainly be a considerable help, don't you think...!!

 

[sidimmu]

The Police budget shortfall for 2024 is projected to be £700m.
The 12 million (known) dogs in the UK, with individual licence fees set at the Irish £12.50 rate, would bring in £150m. I wouldn't put it past the Govt to bump that up to £50, meaning an easy £600m.
It wouldn't fix every funding problem, but it'd certainly be a considerable help, don't you think...!!

Nope.
Been proven time and time again, funds from licensing do not get used as intended, to give the gov even more opportunities to make money and not provide a service is just naïve at this point.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Nope.
Been proven time and time again, funds from licensing do not get used as intended, to give the gov even more opportunities to make money and not provide a service is just naïve at this point.

Which was my response when licencing was first suggested, yet I was reliably informed by the very wise denizens of this thread that it was the most sensible solution....
Similarly, how are these chronically underfunded Police supposed to enforce the banning legislation?

 

[dowie]

Genes do define behaviour.
Breed is just a grouping of phenotypically similar dogs.
The mistake you're making is associating (and pretty much conflating) behavioural genes with phenotypical genes... and yes, it is defined by genetics, as that's the only factor you're looking at!
End result is you incorrectly ascribe behaviours to breeds.

This is very muddled again, we've already been over this. That breeds are defined by phenotype doesn't negate that dogs of the same breed are genetically similar. You seem to have now adopted some absurd position that all the genes related to behaviour ar all over the place (confused by uncertainty again) when we know that different breeds do have particular behavioural traits to varying degrees.

And again re:

that's the only factor you're looking at!

No it isn't, i've said multiple times; this is not monocausal so why are you still having some selective amnesia and pretending otherwise. The reason I'm talking about that factor (behavour) is that it's the one you're actively trying to deny, no one is denying that say bad owners are an issue too here or that the fact they're large powerful dogs are an issue here..

There's no contradiction or confusion, except what you insist on perpetuating youself.
Here we have, of the entire breed, one or two particular bloodlines within the UK that have a higher degree of inbreeding than is deemed acceptable.
Behaviour is heritable, but what you're missing due to ignorance is that estimates are rarely over 0.3, meaning environmental influence has a far greater bearing.

Beyond that, there's no actual evidence pointing to anything in particular, and certainly not enough to justify a breed-wide piece of legislation.

Yeah, you're just in denial now, these dogs are highly inbred if you can accept behavioural traits are heritable then you're just being silly now as you have an obvious contradiction you can't really address. You came up with a whole load of waffle when challenged on this re: herding breeds or say the behaviour of Akitas vs Labradors... it's got to some ridiculous levels of cope to pretend that there is a blank slate re: breeds and behavour.

Do you not see that there is a combination of things, any number of dogs may have bad owners but that alone isn't necessarily a reason to ban them, not all of the dogs with bad owners will be large and powerful enough to cause an issue. But of the large and powerful dogs it's this breed that's the big outlier in terms of deaths and serious injuries, that's a combination of the owners, the physical characteristics and the behavioural characteristics of this breed.

 

[sidimmu]

Similarly, how are these chronically underfunded Police supposed to enforce the banning legislation?

They do what modern policing does, wait for something to happen.
React and in this instance, probably terminate the animal.

 

[ttaskmaster]

This is very muddled again, we've already been over this. That breeds are defined by phenotype doesn't negate that dogs of the same breed are genetically similar.

Given that phenotype is defined by genes, of course they're ******* similar. That's how it works.
But having a shared phenotype does NOT mean they also share every other gene, or did you skip those parts of the studies?

You seem to have now adopted some absurd position that all the genes related to behaviour ar all over the place (confused by uncertainty again) when we know that different breeds do have particular behavioural traits to varying degrees.

No, my position remains that behavioural and phenotypical genes do not impact each other, with only the latter corresponding to breed, while the former only vaguely aligns with presumed ancestral function... as also explained in the studies.
Whatever you think "we know" is pretty much what all those studies disproved - That all behaviours are found in all breeds, to varying degrees.

No it isn't, i've said multiple times; this is not monocausal so why are you still having some selective amnesia and pretending otherwise. The reason I'm talking about that factor (behavour) is that it's the one you're actively trying to deny, no one is denying that say bad owners are an issue too here or that the fact they're large powerful dogs are an issue here..

I don't have to "actively deny" the mis-association of behaviour with breed, as that was already refuted by several studies. The only reason I'm still pointing it out to you is that you're taking as gospel a single study with a narrow sample based purely on a small percentage of phenotype, while ignoring the other studies that all examined the wider breed and found very different results.

As for why you're harping on monocausality again, that's your issue, not something I mentioned.
You are, however, still stuck on breed and phenotype, which is the very factor I highlighted.

Yeah, you're just in denial now, these dogs are highly inbred if you can accept behavioural traits are heritable then you're just being silly now as you have an obvious contradiction you can't really address.

Tell me you still don't understand the difference between heritability and inheritability, without actually telling me that you still don't understand the difference between heritability and inheritability.....

You came up with a whole load of waffle when challenged on this re: herding breeds or say the behaviour of Akitas vs Labradors...

Did you not understand it, or did you just not read it?

it's got to some ridiculous levels of cope to pretend that there is a blank slate re: breeds and behavour.

Funny... Breeders and animal professionals have been trying to tell us for decades that each dog is an individual and that breed does not define behaviour, temperament or personality. Now there are studies that support their assertion - Are they all wrong? Are they also just throwing out "cope"?

But of the large and powerful dogs it's this breed that's the big outlier in terms of deaths and serious injuries, that's a combination of the owners, the physical characteristics and the behavioural characteristics of this breed.

Correction: It's this variant of a derivative crossbreed that is the outlier, as the breed itself is of so little concern that you don't even mention them.
More specifically, the UK has an issue with some examples from a few specific lineages, rather than the breed as a whole.

The behavioural characteristics are merely what allow bad breeders and owners to produce such problematic dogs. On their own, they're no more of a factor than with any other large and powerful breed.

They do what modern policing does, wait for something to happen.
React and in this instance, probably terminate the animal.

Well, without the resources to either police ownership or enforce bans, I guess we'll all just have to show them our Swiss Army knives, eh!!

 

[jigger]

Of course you can. That was the whole idea behind dog licencing in the first place. That it never got used for its intended purpose is why it got scrapped last time.


Why?
They already perform these welfare checks as a primary part of their remit anyway, and with reports of animal abuse and neglect coming in every 30 seconds, I'm pretty sure they're in a good position to continue. I'd just prefer to see their powers increased.


We police the owners, which is why I specified that.


Genes do define behaviour.
Breed is just a grouping of phenotypically similar dogs.
The mistake you're making is associating (and pretty much conflating) behavioural genes with phenotypical genes... and yes, it is defined by genetics, as that's the only factor you're looking at!
End result is you incorrectly ascribe behaviours to breeds.


Not at all.
Behavioural differences do exist, but they're not segregated by breed - Note all those studies, including your own single source, which acknowledge this. Note even the pretty pictures showing instead the considerable similarities in genetic behaviour of breeds that are vastly different in phenotype.


Pedigree status requires a documented lineage of closed breeding for a standardised appearance.
These XLBs are merely a variant (ie a deviation from the standard) of American Bullies, which itself is already a group of diversely crossbred dogs.
That's the reason why XLBs and ABs aren't recognised by any of the primary kennel clubs. Nothing to do with being posh.


All the ancestors, or just those high profile violent ones?


There's no contradiction or confusion, except what you insist on perpetuating youself.
Here we have, of the entire breed, one or two particular bloodlines within the UK that have a higher degree of inbreeding than is deemed acceptable.
Behaviour is heritable, but what you're missing due to ignorance is that estimates are rarely over 0.3, meaning environmental influence has a far greater bearing.

Beyond that, there's no actual evidence pointing to anything in particular, and certainly not enough to justify a breed-wide piece of legislation.


You seem conflicted - I never said anything to the contrary, so I don't see why you feel the need to blurt this out...


Yes, ownership is legislated, controlled and policed... just as I suggested with dogs - We police the ownership of things that are dangerous in the wrong hands, and try to prevent those wrong hands from getting hold of them... so where are you going with this?


The Police budget shortfall for 2024 is projected to be £700m.
The 12 million (known) dogs in the UK, with individual licence fees set at the Irish £12.50 rate, would bring in £150m. I wouldn't put it past the Govt to bump that up to £50, meaning an easy £600m.
It wouldn't fix every funding problem, but it'd certainly be a considerable help, don't you think...!!

Not workable or reasonable to expect this level of attending to for what is a dangerous animal being made available to the public. Ban and move on.

 

[Stu999]

I can't believe this circular discussion is still going on.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Not workable or reasonable to expect this level of attending to for what is a dangerous animal being made available to the public. Ban and move on.

This level of attending is intended to keep an animal, that is otherwise no more dangerous than every other of its kind, from being made dangerous by irresponsible humans.
It's also intended to address the likely issues from breeders simply moving on to bastardising another breed of dog, as they did when Pit Bulls were banned, thus preventing the same problem recurring.

 

[jigger]

This level of attending is intended to keep an animal, that is otherwise no more dangerous than every other of its kind, from being made dangerous by irresponsible humans.
It's also intended to address the likely issues from breeders simply moving on to bastardising another breed of dog, as they did when Pit Bulls were banned, thus preventing the same problem recurring.

It’s not just the animal that needs attention in this case. And these dogs are far more dangerous than other breeds. Owners too more than likely.