They're not people FFS! There's no need to try and feign some blank slate approach here, dogs are literally bred in order to have certain traits and that's the problem. If we're OK selectively breeding them then where is the issue in selectively unbreeding them?
And you've already seen how divergent from the breeding objective that even carefully selected pedigree breeds can be.
The traits for which these dogs are bred are primarily physical - They're bred for looks, the
appearance of violence, the 'bling' factor. Plenty of other dogs could be just as effective at killing and arguably make better pets too, but they don't have 'The Look' that status dogs have.
And for the record, we're
not OK selectively breeding - This is part of the problem with modern breeding that I've been telling you about. From the smashed face of the Pug to the sloped back and frog-poise of the German Shepherd, breeding to aesthetic standards is ruining so many breeds.
Unfortunately all breeds of dogs are abused, in the case of XLBs - that specific breed, is more likely to 'kick off' than almost all other breeds and more likely to kill someone when it does 'kick off', because of it's genetic makeup.
Don't forget that Pit Bulls and related breeds (which would include the American Bully and it's XL variant) are also the most abused dogs, by a wide margin.
So you have to discern whether the dog is actually more likely to kick off, or whether it just has a higher rate of incidents because it has a much higher rate of abuse.
Genetically speaking, no dog is especially given toward 'kicking off'.
The behavioural trait that is a factor here is environmental malleability, which by itself does not mean a dog will kick off. It needs a negative trigger, which is usually abuse or mistreatment of some kind.
The likelihood of it (a poorly raised, abused XLB) causing a problem and killing someone is drastically increased compared to say - a different breed (a poorly raised, abused Greyhound)
Firstly, Greyhounds are not typically high on the list of environmentally malleable breeds.
Secondly, the likelihood of a greyhound being owned by someone so negligent, ignorant, or deliberately abusive is far lower than that of any status breed.
No one is denying that bad owners exist, there is nothing blinkered here, his deflection to the owners is yet again pointless as literally everyone already agrees bad owners are a problem, the breed is also a problem though and is being focused on as that's the bit he's actively denying is an issue.
There is nothing about the breed itself that suggests it is in any way a problem.
There are genetic factors, but again they are not a concern
unless you pair them with a negative environment. Improper handling by a human is what ultimately gives rise to the resulting behaviour, so is the controlling and deciding factor here.
Yeah, although there are quite a few large breeds which just don't have a reputation for kicking off, Great Danes would be an example, which is one reason they're famously good with kids and families.
Aside from lacking the environmental malleability, most of them are not status dogs either, so already have statistical advantages.
People don't look at a GD or a Neapolitan and think they're nasty fighty dogs... They look as soppy as they often are.
I still think we should have a check system - as a lover of Mastiffs, I think I should be required to go through checks and have a license to own such a breed, and I'd be happy paying money and doing whatever needed to get that.
I don't think it's ok for anyone to just go and 'have' a large powerful breed, right off the bat.
^Absolutely. One of my arguments all along.
The unrestricted ownership and unpoliced breeding is precisely what has led to the vast majority of problems being discussed in this thread.
