Thats not what you said though;
I did say it. You even quoted it just now.
What is what?
What are you not understanding, here?
Be nice to dog, dog be nice to you. Treat dog like ****, dog get angry with you.
Is that simple enough for you?
You said its as likely to, so if it is as likely to, surely there is evidence to show this.
In reference to Dowie's quote-commenting my remarks of, "She was simply yet another moron who didn't treat her dogs properly and didn't get proper training".
So again, under these circumstances, any dog will behave the same way. You may be conflating behaviour with outcome, which is not something I even brought up as the mode of failure is the important part in this point, but that is a You problem.
So again, fancy showing me some evidence that you are as likely to get attacked by a pug as you are an XL Bully?
You already ignored it the first few times I showed it to you, so no I don't fancy going round that again.
Search the thread for the 256 DBRF studies, or some of those that examine non-fatal attacks. You'll also find the keywords "Predictable and Preventable" will help narrow your search.
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?
Regarding the first question - What exactly about my argument 'seems' to imply that?
I'm probably too old/not old enough to get your reference, but no to the last two questions.
While I agree that there is a strong correlation between dogs and owners, from a risk perspective, this doesn't take into consideration the strength or size of the dog or it's bite though.
Doesn't need to - In the majority of cases, the dogs are capable of causing serious injury, even if it's just severing an artery or something. At least one of the recent UK 'dog kills' was actually a result of septicemia, rather than damage done directly. But even the smaller breeds pose a measure of danger and historically have killed children.
The only common factor is improper ownership. In the case of the XLBs, it's that some of their lineage have been deliberately misbred and deliberately trained to be more volatile, with an unusualy large number of them being brought to the UK for some very improper owners.
If someone were to mistreat a Chihuahua, it's unlikely to be a major threat to life even if it attacked you. When the dog is so big and strong that it can't be pulled offf someone by several adults and it wont unlatch it's bite, it's much more of a threat.
And yet we have many thousands of bites and attacks by many other breeds every year, some of which are serious, some of which are still life-threatening, and many of which still have serious or life-changing consequences thereafter.
In all cases, the fundamental mode of failure is the same, and it's never the breed that makes any difference.
every dog attack always seems to be by a placid and friendly dog. It's all well and good until the fateful day when something happens.
Does it?
Seems a lot of them (where full details are available) mention neighbours either being in fear of the dog(s), or constantly hearing them barking, or some other evidence of maltreatment and poor ownership.
Add to this the percentage of owners who already have a history of animal abuse or breaking the law regarding ownership, which studies found was a major contributor, and you have the reason why I assert that people need the context of the statistics, rather than just blind numbers.
I think you're just very confused.
And I think you're deliberately ignorant, but what does either of us care?
It is relevant, the issue is the XL Bullies are a clear outlier.
Not really.
Poor ownership will still result in the same thousands (and increasing) of dog attacks and serious injuries, with a few deaths along the way. You're just scraping at the lowest denominator with an uncontextualised statistic, but doing nothing to solve the problem - You're like an MP trying to solve knife crime.
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)
All things many people have been saying for decades...
I think where
@ttaskmaster 's falls down, is this obessesion with 'it's not the breed' and 'all breeds are equal' which is false.
Studies have shown otherwise, even from before XLBs existed. I merely echo their findings.
All dogs can bite, most can seriously injure, and some can quite easily kill. However, none are born to deliberately do so, and for this to happen with any breed it requires a combination of bad breeding, bad raising, bad training, negligent ownership and/or preventably predictable bad circumstances.
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.
Over 30% of recent fatalities are children.
The breeds responsible vary, but are more often smaller dogs especially in the case of infants and those under 3 years old.
The most common and controlling factor in child deaths is the child being left alone with an unsupervised dog.
The most common factor in XLB incidents is an owner who got their dog from a disreputable breed line, did not train the dog responsibly, did not treat the dog correctly, disregarded either law or duty of care to both animal and the public, and/or deliberately weaponised the dog. This exact same mode of failure was the cause of incidents with Pit Bulls, Staffies, Rottweilers and others that have faced banning.
Size, weight and strength are a feature in this category of incident, but not a factor - These are status dogs, with appearance being the primary feature.
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.
The relationship between human negligence and both dog attacks and especially dog fatalities is also very clear.
Again, studies go into detail about the various factors in hundreds of fatalities and many thousands of attacks - Breed was not a factor in anything, other than likelihood of a fatality, and even then it was the larger dogs that presented the higher likelihoods as you would expect.
This is not just my opinion here, but the facts in detailed studies.
