Does something need to be done about dogs?

[dowie]

What makes you think it was a dangerous dog?
The majority of livestock incidents comes from herding breeds...

This is like the same cognitive blind spot that causes people to say things like "ackchually did you know chiuauas are among the most aggressive dogs"

 

[Richie]

Perhaps punish the owner for the dog attacks as if it was the owner themselves that carried out the attack e.g:

• Victim is disfigured - owner sentenced as GBH (potentially with weapon? - weapon being dog)
• Victim dies, sentenced as manslaughter

This, potentially, would result in the lowering of number of dogs that are known to attack and/or stop irresponsible ownership as people don't want the risk

No doubt deemed too harsh for people to accept?


EDIT: When I say "victim" above, I refer to human victim

 

[ttaskmaster]

The problem with that car anology is that design or manufacturing defects can be addressed directly in a relatively short period of time, usually at the manufacturer's expense.

And you don't think it can be done for dogs at the expense of bad owners and bad breeders?

Addressing this problem with dangerous dogs requires getting through to the idiot owners and probably a ridiculous amount of taxpayer resources to make sure said owners do what's required.

It starts with the breeders, particularly those importing and/or breeding from bad bloodlines and already-banned breeds.
It wouldn't cost as much as you'd expect and again that can be funded from fines and licencing fees.

It needs to be nipped in the bud at the root instead of trying to enforce bans on certain breeds when there are already tens of thousands of them in the country.

It does, but it's already been pointed out that no-one is interested in that, as it requires effort. Something being BANNED is far simpler and far more effective, as it then actually empowers the Police to enforce the ban, whereas proactively stopping already-banned breeds from being imported is somehow impossible even though they're already empowered to do so even without the ban...

This is like the same cognitive blind spot that causes people to say things like "ackchually did you know chiuauas are among the most aggressive dogs"

The last time a bunch of alpacas were killed like this, it was a pack of hounds being used by the local stag hunting club, who rode their horses through the farmer's land on their tally-ho jolly jaunt.
Like I said, most livestock kills come from dogs that aren't on the dangerous list and wouldn't normally be considered a problem. Collies and Labradors being the most common.

This, potentially, would result in the lowering of number of dogs that are known to attack and/or stop irresponsible ownership as people don't want the risk

Only works on people that abide by laws in the first place.
Those who get an XLB because they think it makes them look hard won't give two *****.

 

[Dis86]

Perhaps punish the owner for the dog attacks as if it was the owner themselves that carried out the attack e.g:

• Victim is disfigured - owner sentenced as GBH (potentially with weapon? - weapon being dog)
• Victim dies, sentenced as manslaughter

This, potentially, would result in the lowering of number of dogs that are known to attack and/or stop irresponsible ownership as people don't want the risk

No doubt deemed too harsh for people to accept?


EDIT: When I say "victim" above, I refer to human victim

What about damage to property or other animals?

 

[ttaskmaster]

My replies are not limited to you, but do everything you can to make it about you. You're like a small yapping dog, always needing attention.

It's funny you say that, as it's always you that comes to yap at me.
Again, pot, kettle.
Try a little less projection next time.

Not comparable, why do you bring in the most weird and non comparable comparisons each time.
Yes we can fix cars which have been fully man made and built. You cannot do that to an animal.

Every modern breed in the last 500 years has been bred by man.
You say we cannot, yet we've been doing exactly that for centuries. Where do you think XLBs came from?

Things get banned when you can not control or change them.

We can change these, we can make them more controllable. Again, we've already been doing so for centuries, and it works great when the people doing the controlling take the time to learn how it's done.
We broke the American Bully with the XL variant, and we can fix it as we've already done with plenty of other breeds.

You cannot change that or them, thats why they require banning and destroying.

You can remove the defective strains and allow the validated-good ones, though, which again is how we've turned other breeds around.

 

[Richie]

Only works on people that abide by laws in the first place.
Those who get an XLB because they think it makes them look hard won't give two *****.

I'm relatively sure that a few years behind bars may help with their attitude adjustment in relation to having dangerous dogs and, even if it doesn't, it'll keep that type of person off the street and away from owning another dangerous dog for a while.

Or we just don't bother doing anything cause certain people won't abide by the laws? That seems a little short sighted

What about damage to property or other animals?

Same result. Whatever the current punishment is if a human did it. So, in the case of property damage and your dog gets a bit lairy with some graffiti, the owner gets sentenced for vandalism... Of course, this example is being flippant but you get my meaning

 

[dowie]

You can remove the defective strains and allow the validated-good ones, though, which again is how we've turned other breeds around.

Why faff about when you can just go with a final solution for the newly invented breed that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

It was only created recently and the traits you want to breed out are the reason it was created in the first place... It's good that you're finally recognising things like the impact of traits & genetics though.

 

[sidimmu]

Every modern breed in the last 500 years has been bred by man.
You say we cannot, yet we've been doing exactly that for centuries. Where do you think XLBs came from?

Lol wut.
There is a massive difference between a man made vehicle and an animal which lives, breathes and more. This comparison is beyond stupid.

We broke the American Bully with the XL variant, and we can fix it as we've already done with plenty of other breeds.

You can remove the defective strains and allow the validated-good ones, though, which again is how we've turned other breeds around.

So, no dog can ever naturally be a bad or aggressive dog? Seems unlikely.
You want "good boy" XLB's available to be purchased in this country then right?

 

[Felon]

Perhaps punish the owner for the dog attacks as if it was the owner themselves that carried out the attack e.g:

• Victim is disfigured - owner sentenced as GBH (potentially with weapon? - weapon being dog)
• Victim dies, sentenced as manslaughter

This, potentially, would result in the lowering of number of dogs that are known to attack and/or stop irresponsible ownership as people don't want the risk

No doubt deemed too harsh for people to accept?


EDIT: When I say "victim" above, I refer to human victim

My understanding (which may be wrong as there are lots of grey areas), is that if you allowed, enabled or otherwise let your dog attack someone and they're disfigured or killed, then under current law you would already be charged with serious offences, including manslaughter.

I agree with your sentiment, I just think that a lot of the people involved in dangerous dog attacks frankly don't give a **** about consequences, take reasonable precautions or general care, which is why their XL Bully escapes and goes on a rampage, so I doubt the deterrance of prison really matters to them.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'm relatively sure that a few years behind bars may help with their attitude adjustment in relation to having dangerous dogs and, even if it doesn't, it'll keep that type of person off the street and away from owning another dangerous dog for a while.

You're right, it will keep them away for a bit, but repeat offenders are common in this context. Look at how many dogs (in particular the breeds other than XLB) that have been seized from people who were already banned from owning dogs, and/or who had previously been convicted of breeding/owning banned dogs.

Or we just don't bother doing anything cause certain people won't abide by the laws? That seems a little short sighted

Or we work to prevent the bloodlines in question from being available, and focus first on the breeders responsible.

Why faff about when you can just go with a final solution for the newly invented breed that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

It's one sub-variant of an existing cross-breed.
The bigger question is why you're only focussing on this sub-variant, instead of the entire breed, or the banned breed from which it came...

Your 'final solution' argument applies to almost every breed in the last 500 years. None were 'necessary', but people liked them and their lives have been all the better for having them.
We've sorted out problem breeds before, so why is this any different?

It was only created recently and the traits you want to breed out are the reason it was created in the first place... It's good that you're finally recognising things like the impact of traits & genetics though.

I always have recognised the impact of traits and genetics. It was you who refused to understand and acknowledge what all those studies were showing, in favour of some blind assertions by one website.
Even when anti-XLB experts pointed out that there were plenty of good bloodlines as well as bad, you glossed over that because it upset your stance that they were all bad and must be exterminated.

Are you going to try and argue heritability, again?

Lol wut.
There is a massive difference between a man made vehicle and an animal which lives, breathes and more. This comparison is beyond stupid.

The science behind it was already explained quite clearly in the studies posted earlier, and the medical industry makes a fortune from its grasp of genetics.
The fact that XLBs exist shows that even a chavscum backstreet breeder understands it enough to 'build to spec'... So what parts do you not understand?

So, no dog can ever naturally be a bad or aggressive dog? Seems unlikely.

In their natural state it's highly unlikely, for any dometicated breed.
What determines behaviour is primarily environmental factors, as already explained by geneticists, which is why any responsible breeder takes considerable measures to ensure they produce a good dog.

You want "good boy" XLB's available to be purchased in this country then right?

As I keep explaining to you, I'm not a fan of them myself.
But if the bloodlines get sorted out I'd no more object to other people owning them than I would Staffies, Rotties or any other breed.

My understanding (which may be wrong as there are lots of grey areas), is that if you allowed, enabled or otherwise let your dog attack someone and they're disfigured or killed, then under current law you would already be charged with serious offences, including manslaughter.

You can be charged with them. Arguably it should be applied far more frequently than it has been.

I agree with your sentiment, I just think that a lot of the people involved in dangerous dog attacks frankly don't give a **** about consequences, take reasonable precautions or general care, which is why their XL Bully escapes and goes on a rampage, so I doubt the deterrance of prison really matters to them.

I concur - With the sort of people who own status dogs, prison time itself is often a badge of honour or status.

 

[dowie]

I always have recognised the impact of traits and genetics.

You were in complete denial and have tried all sorts of flawed, cope tier, arguments like pointing out that other dogs are aggressive or other dogs are big etc.

 

[sidimmu]

The science behind it was already explained quite clearly in the studies posted earlier, and the medical industry makes a fortune from its grasp of genetics.
The fact that XLBs exist shows that even a chavscum backstreet breeder understands it enough to 'build to spec'... So what parts do you not understand?

Thats not what you were arguing though.
So please tell me how you can directly compare a man made vehicle that has no ability of its own to an animal or any kind, doesn't even need to be a dog at this point. That comparison is beyond a joke. I have nothing to understand here you'll be telling me that you can compare an alligator to an airplane next...

In their natural state it's highly unlikely, for any dometicated breed.
What determines behaviour is primarily environmental factors, as already explained by geneticists, which is why any responsible breeder takes considerable measures to ensure they produce a good dog.

Natural state does not exist, because everyone brings their dog up differently, its impossible to have one, so fancy coming back with something worthy? Also, XLB's have been made to be an attack dog, so is that their natural state? a state you are defending, nice one.
Responsible breeders, all this shows is that you have never owned a dog. For every responsible breeder, there is 10 bad ones.

As I keep explaining to you, I'm not a fan of them myself.
But if the bloodlines get sorted out I'd no more object to other people owning them than I would Staffies, Rotties or any other bree

Not a fan of them, but will argue for their continued survival and sale in this country. Clearly not a fan.

So if you had XLB's that you class as a good boy, you'd allow them to be sold and kept in this country? Yes/no answer please.

Staffies, rotties etc got a bad name from the media going mental over them, XLB's have a completely different history.
I say this as someone who has grown up and owned staffies and rotties, there is a clear and stark difference between them and XLB's. XLB's have killed more humans in the last 2 years than staffies ever have.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You were in complete denial and have tried all sorts of flawed, cope tier, arguments like pointing out that other dogs are aggressive or other dogs are big etc.

Oh, I see - You're still assuming that genetics defines everything, in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it, and then assuming I actually agreed with that.....!
Ja, no, that's still all wrong. You haven't won a prize. Please try again.

So please tell me how you can directly compare a man made vehicle that has no ability of its own to an animal or any kind, doesn't even need to be a dog at this point.

It's called an analogy. Your mistake is to assume I said they were the exact same in every way.
The methods are different, as if that needs to be said, but the premise is the same - We can fix what's broken and have done so before, so why don't we do that now... particularly as the ban has not been effective?

Natural state does not exist, because everyone brings their dog up differently, its impossible to have one, so fancy coming back with something worthy?

Natural state is one of happy domestication and integration into society.
Is that worthy enough for you, or are you going to be deliberately ignorant of even this most basic, fundamental fact too?

Also, XLB's have been made to be an attack dog, so is that their natural state? a state you are defending, nice one.

Incorrect.
Some strains of XLB were subsequently altered for aggression, but their original intended breeding was a calmer, more docile version of the American Bully.

Responsible breeders, all this shows is that you have never owned a dog. For every responsible breeder, there is 10 bad ones.

Me?
Nope. No dogs ever. Absolutely not.
I salute, with the most overstated dramatic American enthusiasm, your cunning insight into my absolute lack of dog ownership......

I mean, here was me thinking that I'd had dogs for the best part of 40 years, yet you have utterly demolished that illusion!!
How can you manage such a feat, yet so utterly fail to grasp the basics of genetics that even the most uneducated chav can follow?

I'd be curious as to your sources for this 1:10 ratio of good:bad breeders. Presumably you work for the RSPCA or something and can furnish the thread with some kind of statistical substantiation, showing aaaaaaaaall these bad breeders, which presumably were prosecuted for their abhorrent and illegal behaviour?

Not a fan of them, but will argue for their continued survival and sale in this country. Clearly not a fan.

Oh, can we not advocate for something that does not directly appeal to us, now?
Jeez, how will lawyers ever survive?

Here's another concept for you to blow your mind over - I hate Pugs, but would advocate their continuation if their genetic issues are corrected.
Try not to have a cerebral aneurysm thinking about that one, yeh!

So if you had XLB's that you class as a good boy, you'd allow them to be sold and kept in this country? Yes/no answer please.

Yes.
Now let's see how badly you twist that......

Staffies, rotties etc got a bad name from the media going mental over them, XLB's have a completely different history.

The media went mental because they also topped the list of killer dogs, as you can see from the stats so often posted in the thread.
Today we are a far more tolerant and permissive society, where the rights of criminals trump justice, so incidents will be greater in number.

I say this as someone who has grown up and owned staffies and rotties, there is a clear and stark difference between them and XLB's. XLB's have killed more humans in the last 2 years than staffies ever have.

There is also a clear and stark difference in individual, collective and societal responsibilities compared to 10, 20, 30 and 40 years ago.
Back in the 90s, breeding was pretty much the limit and people still cared enough to treat their dogs responsibly. Biologically and chemically doctored breeding was not a line people would so readily cross, whereas today they'll seemingly do anything to make money, and people bought a dog just because of Covid - Tell me more about how we should ban the dogs and ignore the root cause of irresponsible humans...

 

[Fubsy]

 

[sidimmu]

It's called an analogy. Your mistake is to assume I said they were the exact same in every way.

You used them as a comparison, maybe go back and look at how you were using it. You can't compare them both. Analogy is just an excuse to escape the criticism, weak.

Natural state is one of happy domestication and integration into society.

No that's your own made up version of natural state, also that's not a natural state for all dogs as not all are domesticated, what fantasy land do you actually live in?

Some strains of XLB were subsequently altered for aggression

Goes against your previous statement only a couple replies ago, nice stance you got there....

Pugs, but would advocate their continuation if their genetic issues are corrected.

When they go killing and maiming humans and other animals alike sure thing, but until then, they are harmless. You are defending an aggressive breed that is designed to cause harm. If only it happened to someone you know, the Ill logic would finally leave your brain.

Yes.
Now let's see how badly you twist that......

How am I twisting it? You've told us everything right there, you are defending a dangerous breed and want them to be able to sold in this country.
Frankly on that basis, you are no different to a terrorist sympathiser/supporter.

Today we are a far more tolerant and permissive society, where the rights of criminals trump justice, so incidents will be greater in number.

Not a reason to argue against a ban.
Do you actually read the nonsense you type?

Tell me more about how we should ban the dogs and ignore the root cause of irresponsible humans.

Who's reaching and twisting now.
I've never said don't tackle the human, but you can't tackle humans and expect them to listen, unlike your view on animals.
The sensibile decision is to remove these dangerous dogs from existence to stop the unpleasant humans owning them, they'll move on to something else that we can ban and move on from.
Long story short, you are never handling or resolving the problems with humans.

But why not give us actually something useful to go on, as all you do is contest others views.
Give me a clear path on how you can achieve resolving these dogs and their owners.

 

[dowie]

You're still assuming that genetics defines everything

Nope, but I'm not ignoring that they're a big factor and that there is an inherent issue with this breed, it's not just bad owners etc.

The breed doesn't need to exist - everything else is just more multi-quote waffling and cope.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You used them as a comparison, maybe go back and look at how you were using it. You can't compare them both. Analogy is just an excuse to escape the criticism, weak.

I clearly can and I did compare them, though.... That's what an analogy is.
Maybe you go look up the definition of analogy... ?

You're again making the mistake of assuming analogy or even comparison is an assertion of high similarity or parallel, rather than sharing principles relevant to the context.

No that's your own made up version of natural state, also that's not a natural state for all dogs as not all are domesticated, what fantasy land do you actually live in?

But we are talking about domesticated breeds, which have been so for hundreds of years.
Is this another of your concepts that only apply when it serves your purpose?

Goes against your previous statement only a couple replies ago, nice stance you got there....

No it doesn't.
Explain how you came up with such an idea...

When they go killing and maiming humans and other animals alike sure thing, but until then, they are harmless.

Who said anything about hurting humans?
It's not about whether they hurt humans, the genetics we bred into them are causing them problems and it's wrong. It's bad breeding - Doesn't matter if it results in killer dogs, or mutated mutts, it's still wrong.

You are defending an aggressive breed that is designed to cause harm. If only it happened to someone you know, the Ill logic would finally leave your brain.

American who first bred the animal hits back as dog set to be banned

Dave Wilson from Virginia began creating the XL Bully breed in the 1990s by crossing an American Staffordshire terrier, American pit bull terrier and other bulldog breeds in the US.

www.dailymail.co.uk

You are assuming the breed was designed to cause harm, contrary to this and the previously cited assertions of those who actually did 'design' it.
Might as well watch a few road crashes and bleat that cars are designed to be weapons...

It's not designed to cause harm. Some people just turn it to such purposes.

How am I twisting it? You've told us everything right there, you are defending a dangerous breed and want them to be able to sold in this country.

And there we go - I answered one specifically worded question and you take that to be the answer to a completely different one.
Called it.

Frankly on that basis, you are no different to a terrorist sympathiser/supporter.

Oh wow, what mental gymnastics.... You're not related to Diane Abbot, are you?

Not a reason to argue against a ban.
Do you actually read the nonsense you type?

I read the nonsense you type... This was nothing to do with contesting a ban. This was about fixing problems and providing context between media-driven perception vs reality.

Who's reaching and twisting now.

Not me - I'm reflecting... but since you know so much about the definitions of words, you already knew that.

The sensibile decision is to remove these dangerous dogs from existence to stop the unpleasant humans owning them, they'll move on to something else that we can ban and move on from.

So according to you, we ban dogs, then they move on to something else that we also ban, and the cycle repeats... which means the problem is not the 'thing' itself, but the humans, and thus you are ignoring them while claiming the opposite.

Long story short, you are never handling or resolving the problems with humans.

So you never said not to tackle the humans, yet you're saying not to tackle the humans.... !!!

But why not give us actually something useful to go on, as all you do is contest others views.

Because people don't 'go on' anything, they just shoot the idea down in a torrent of posturing bluster. I've already offered several different ideas, which you seem to keep forgetting.
Instead, why don't you actually go on them and use them to develop a more defined strategy?

Give me a clear path on how you can achieve resolving these dogs and their owners.

I refer you to the earlier part of the thread discussing the targeting of importing and breeding, using the existing enforcement strategies used to address things like drugs.

Nope, but I'm not ignoring that they're a big factor and that there is an inherent issue with this breed, it's not just bad owners etc.

They're a small factor.
The issue is not with the sub-breed itself, but only certain parts of it, which is entirely down to the breeders' efforts to skew things.

The breed doesn't need to exist - everything else is just more multi-quote waffling and cope.

No modern breed 'needs' to exist. Many things don't 'need' to exist.... What's your point?

 

[413x]

Perhaps punish the owner for the dog attacks as if it was the owner themselves that carried out the attack e.g:

• Victim is disfigured - owner sentenced as GBH (potentially with weapon? - weapon being dog)
• Victim dies, sentenced as manslaughter

This, potentially, would result in the lowering of number of dogs that are known to attack and/or stop irresponsible ownership as people don't want the risk

No doubt deemed too harsh for people to accept?


EDIT: When I say "victim" above, I refer to human victim

This is perfectly fair. Like a captain responsible for a ship, you at responsible for your dog.

 

[dowie]

No modern breed 'needs' to exist. Many things don't 'need' to exist.... What's your point?

This is the problem with all those multi quotes, you completely forget what you were even replying to within two replies:

Why faff about when you can just go with a final solution for the newly invented breed that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

 

[ttaskmaster]

This is the problem with all those multi quotes, you completely forget what you were even replying to within two replies:

I haven't forgotten - My point still stands, unaltered: Necessity is not a factor, and since people still want them, why not make it safe to own them, both in terms of corrected breeding and in responsible ownership?
Because it's "a faff"??!!
Surely even you have a better defence than that.....?