Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Heres some more context for you...
Another one!!!
Woman feared for her life during XL bully attack outside her home
Catherine, from Chingford, was on her doorstep when the attack happened. A month on, she said she’s still in shock.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,088
- Location
- Surrey
@ttaskmaster You realise you've been arguing on this thread for over two years? Amassing 408 posts?
He must be challenging Dowie for the crown of relentless one-upmanship, it's the only plausible reason
No one said they'd not misbehave if mistreated.
You can't answer that because you're wrong.
Oh dear, it looks like I'll need to say it again:
This is not monocausal!
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
Here is your context...
"one of the dogs approached, apparently playfully. As the second dog joined in, both animals got riled up and launched their attack."
That shouldn't be happening, with any dog, especially past puppy age. Owner/training issues.
"Video captured on a surveillance camera showed the owner of the dogs, who was standing nearby, intervening and pulling the dogs off the woman."
Owner should have been right there with the dogs, and on the other end of the leads, not merely standing nearby. Owner at fault.
"The dogs are about a year old and are never wearing muzzles in public - even after the [government's] rule change."
Rules are rules, so there's more context for you. Owner flagrantly disregarding the law.
"They're often left in the back garden and my mum can hear them non-stop barking all day long"
Improper treatment, irresponsible ownership. Do we need to carry on?
"When they're inside the house, they're still barking and banging themselves up against walls"
And again, negligent owner, likely a good case to investigate for animal abuse or maltreatment.
So again and again, issues arising from negligent ownership.... and you still think it's the breed that matters?
Breed is irrelevant, as this could easily have been a Rottie, Great Dane or Labrador.
But I did point out that they would if they were, which is the point you're now seemingly taking issue with.
How badly it turned out is irrelevant, because it's the same negligence that causes the majority of dog incidents, regardless of breed.
I won't answer that because it's a false equivalence. You're assessing based on damage capacity, not behavioural response.
But since we're SO concerned about the deaths and nothing else, smaller dogs account for about 30% of deaths since 1980, including pugs, and mostly in the under-5 age bracket.
And it looks like I need to say it again - This is not limited or even defined by breed.
The only common and governing element in the circumstances all these incidents is human negligence. Without that, dog attacks would be in single figures at best, not in the thousands.
You realise I'm just reiterating what others have been proving for decades, and people are still ignoring it!
Even the argument about breeders simply finding another way around the dog ban was argued about Pit Bulls in 1991... and that's exactly what they did with the XLBs.
Last edited:
He must be challenging Dowie for the crown of relentless one-upmanship, it's the only plausible reason
Dowie tends to have a point and facts.
As dowie says... This is not a monocausal issue.
If you take a dangerous and aggressive breed of dog and couple that with an irresponsible owner then bad things happen.
Bad things might well happen anyway with these particular types of dogs if they are not muzzled and controlled by the owners, as they are selectively bred to be dangerous, and that's why they appeal to a certain type of person.
Put those two things together and you have an incredibly dangerous combination, that is multiples more dangerous than the sum of its parts in terms of public safety.
And that is exactly why attack instances by these types of dog absolutely dwarf the next most dangerous types of dogs by several magnitudes.. The statistics speak for themselves.
If you take a dangerous and aggressive breed of dog and couple that with an irresponsible owner then bad things happen.
Bad things might well happen anyway with these particular types of dogs if they are not muzzled and controlled by the owners, as they are selectively bred to be dangerous, and that's why they appeal to a certain type of person.
Put those two things together and you have an incredibly dangerous combination, that is multiples more dangerous than the sum of its parts in terms of public safety.
And that is exactly why attack instances by these types of dog absolutely dwarf the next most dangerous types of dogs by several magnitudes.. The statistics speak for themselves.
Last edited:
I do actually agree with him on this subject.
If we could make chavs illegal I'd be right behind that, but how would you even start to go about making certain demographics of people banned in public places? It would be a legeslative nightmare.
Ban the wearing of puffa jackets and urine stained grey trakky trousers in public?
Ban the wearing of puffa jackets and urine stained grey trakky trousers in public?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
And what if you take a whole breed of relatively not dangerous dog, but train only some of its lineage to be dangerous and aggressive, before then inbreeding those isolated lineages, with the statistical likelihood of 1/13 to 1/7 of them turning out nasty?
Not that context matters, right?
The statistics are that some XLBs have been irresponsibly bred and dangerously trained, as have other American Bullies, which most commonly draw very irresponsible owners.
Even experts agree that it's not the whole 'breed' that is the problem.
If Dowie had a point, he'd be arguing against the entire illegal American Bully sub-breed, rather than just the XLB variant.
If he had the full facts rather than just random cherry-picked arguments to suit his agenda, they'd explain why the XLB focus is so blinkered.
But then, as a wise man once said, "The number of deaths isn't massive but is still too high, the main issue is the numbers of people injured. Its estimated for each fatality there are 200000 bites and 40000 serious injuries. It's also ignoring the fact that owners are often violent due to confrontation over their dogs (something I've personally experienced), and aspects of animal neglect and cruelty.
Do we need to look at dog ownership and something to ensure only the right people can have a dog?".
I guess the ^answer is yes, we do need to look at the type of owners, but instead we'll just keep banning dogs and pandering to the lowest common denominators of society...
I can't speak for Dowie, and will not do so, but if I may go out on a limb, I belive in the CONTEXT of this discussion, we are talking about all pit bull type breeds. The only reason the XL bully exists is because it created a slightly different variant of incredibly dangerous dog, to evade legislation against the 'classic' pit bull.
Last edited:
Nope - are you insane?
No, it isn't, it's absolutely relevant - it's the very reason why XL bullies are banned.
Like how are you not able to understand that people literally being killed by this breed is generally considered to be a far worse outcome than some Pug yapping and showing aggression?
No it does not. What a ridiculously stupid thing to say. You sure you have been a dog owner and currently are?
Thats not a source now is it, I cant find many genuine google sources showing the murder count by Pugs and sausage dogs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,491
The American Bully was supposed be a calmer, more agreeable version of the APBT. In misbreeding it to create the cosmetic variants, from Pocket to XL, some breeders ended up creating a lineage that was often (but not always) the opposite. This made it attractive to importers and their market here, though technically all were still illegal having been bred from APBTs in the first place.
The intent was never to evade the legislation. That only happened through good fortune on the importers' side and stupidity on the legal side.
You now telling me I didn't say what I said?
Or is this just a really bad attempt at gaslighting?
If it was relevant, you'd be banning all those other dogs who have killed.
Same mode of failure, same deadly result... so why are you not banning them?
Or is there an acceptable threshold for you?
How many kids does a breed get to kill per year before it gets banned from Dowie-world?
The same way you hone in on this specific variant of a sub-breed, while ignoring the wider problem, I expect.
The fact that your only attempt at repudiation is to take the argument to the opposite extremeity of ridicule makes it clear you have no sensible response.
Go on, then - Abuse or mistreat a dog and then tell me how lovingly it behaves toward you.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
As far as ownership standards go, you've consistently asserted that people don't need to train their dogs, and that any assertion to the contrary is me putting myself above everyone else.
That says more than enough.
Why are you looking for that? It's not the point I raised.
It's also not your argument either - You're better off leaving that ******** to Dowie, as he's clearly more practiced and more articulate than you.
Thats not what you said though;
So what is it then?
incorrect.
You said its as likely to, so if it is as likely to, surely there is evidence to show this.
Very much like the overwhelming evidence against XL bully's.
So again, fancy showing me some evidence that you are as likely to get attacked by a pug as you are an XL Bully?
Let's rephrase...
@ttaskmaster why are you seemingly encoraging the breeding of violent dogs? do you wear urine stained grey trousers? Do you wear a north face winter coat in summer?
@ttaskmaster why are you seemingly encoraging the breeding of violent dogs? do you wear urine stained grey trousers? Do you wear a north face winter coat in summer?
To be fair, I understand what @ttaskmaster has been saying the whole time -
Essentially, he doesn't want to blame the dog or breed - he wants the focus to be on the treatment, training of dogs along with owners that are responsible, his argument is that banning things won't make the problem go away, we need to solve the root cause, which is idiots with dogs. (which I don't disagree with, outright)
I think where @ttaskmaster 's falls down, is this obessesion with 'it's not the breed' and 'all breeds are equal' which is false.
If the relationship between breeds and fatal dog attacks was random, eg; you're just as likely to be killed by a GSD as you are an XLB (we have thousands of GSDs but only two/three fatal attacks in 30 years), then the banning argument wouldn't make any sense, you'd have to instead consider a ban based purely on size, weight and strength of the dog, rather than the breed.
But the relationship between breed and fatal attack is clear, the XLB kills way more people than almost every other breed combined - deaths by XLB alone, are the same if not more - than deaths from all of the other breeds combined.
Then for me, there's the common sense question of; 'does this breed need to exist' it's not officially recognised, it's a frankenstein amalgamation of fighting breeds - it shouldn't really exist, not when we have 360 other dog breeds to choose from.
Essentially, he doesn't want to blame the dog or breed - he wants the focus to be on the treatment, training of dogs along with owners that are responsible, his argument is that banning things won't make the problem go away, we need to solve the root cause, which is idiots with dogs. (which I don't disagree with, outright)
I think where @ttaskmaster 's falls down, is this obessesion with 'it's not the breed' and 'all breeds are equal' which is false.
If the relationship between breeds and fatal dog attacks was random, eg; you're just as likely to be killed by a GSD as you are an XLB (we have thousands of GSDs but only two/three fatal attacks in 30 years), then the banning argument wouldn't make any sense, you'd have to instead consider a ban based purely on size, weight and strength of the dog, rather than the breed.
But the relationship between breed and fatal attack is clear, the XLB kills way more people than almost every other breed combined - deaths by XLB alone, are the same if not more - than deaths from all of the other breeds combined.
Then for me, there's the common sense question of; 'does this breed need to exist' it's not officially recognised, it's a frankenstein amalgamation of fighting breeds - it shouldn't really exist, not when we have 360 other dog breeds to choose from.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,730
- Location
- Auckland
Last edited: