7 people have died from dog attacks in the UK this year, and the government is trying to figure out how to define what exactly this dangerous breed of dog is in order to legislate about it. 1,695...
7 people have died from dog attacks in the UK this year, and the government is trying to figure out how to define what exactly this dangerous breed of dog is in order to legislate about it. 1,695 people died from road collisions last year in the UK. If they did anything that lowered that rate by 1%, it'd be twice as useful as putting the time into this. But scary dogs are way more important than incremental improvements that have larger actual impacts.
It is farcical to imply that banning dangerous dog breeds and improving road safety are mutually exclusive, or that legislators don’t have the capacity to consider both.
It is farcical to imply that banning dangerous dog breeds and improving road safety are mutually exclusive, or that legislators don’t have the capacity to consider both.
The real farce is the noise being made about the dog problem over some of the more pressing and disastrous problems the UK currently has. A populous easily distracted is what we have now.
The real farce is the noise being made about the dog problem over some of the more pressing and disastrous problems the UK currently has.
Do you think that the legislators really have the capacity for every possible concern that leads to even one death? There were 577,160 deaths in the UK in 2022, and of those, 5 were from dog...
Do you think that the legislators really have the capacity for every possible concern that leads to even one death? There were 577,160 deaths in the UK in 2022, and of those, 5 were from dog attacks. What are the actual priorities here, and why on earth are we talking about this?
I'm not sure they do have the capacity to consider both. For example, it has been five years since the UK government committed to banning LGBT conversation therapy. Five years... and then instead...
I'm not sure they do have the capacity to consider both. For example, it has been five years since the UK government committed to banning LGBT conversation therapy. Five years... and then instead of banning it, they decided they were only going to ban LGB conversation therapy. Finally, earlier this year they changed their minds yet again and now LGBT therapy will be banned, but no word of when yet. The opposition has not been pushing for the Government to carry out the promise they made four prime ministers ago...
And in fairness, this could be because the government is facing bigger issues such as Brexit fallout, cost of living crisis, inflation etc.
I'm not saying that action shouldn't be taken against violent or dangerous dog breeds (though I don't know the best way to do this). As a queer person in this country, it is however, a slap in the face when the Government commits to banning a dog breed in less than 4 months, but takes 5 years and counting to ban conversation therapy.
It is clear that the Government is either incapable of unwilling to make certain policy changes over others. If the Government is not too busy banning dog breeds to ban conversation therapy or make roads safer, then they must be ambivalent to these causes. In either case, I do believe it demonstrates their incompetence.
It's almost certainly not going to be banned by the current Conservative government. https://x.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1702294853537685577?s=20 "could be" in the same sense the moon "could be"...
and now LGBT therapy will be banned, but no word of when yet.
Thanks for that tweet, I'd not seen it before. I'm not under the illusion that the Tory party cares at all about LGB rights, nevermind trans rights. My point really was that if the Government is...
Thanks for that tweet, I'd not seen it before.
I'm not under the illusion that the Tory party cares at all about LGB rights, nevermind trans rights.
My point really was that if the Government is 'too busy' to ban conversion therapy, they're also 'too busy' to ban certain dog breeds. If the Government actually does have time to be doing these things, then as @MimicSquid points out, the Governments priorities are all out of whack.
I feel it's quite clear that the Government has taken action on this now because it's a media hot button and they feel it'll help their desperately low polls, and not because they actually care.
Conversion. No offense meant, but it seems like a topic where it's important to use the appropriate terms in case someone tries to argue the semantics rather than the topic.
conversation
Conversion.
No offense meant, but it seems like a topic where it's important to use the appropriate terms in case someone tries to argue the semantics rather than the topic.
I think you're confusing dither and delay on the conversion therapy ban with inability rather than reluctance. With or without the dangerous dog breeds, they will pontificate on this – partly...
I think you're confusing dither and delay on the conversion therapy ban with inability rather than reluctance. With or without the dangerous dog breeds, they will pontificate on this – partly because of all the transphobes in their party who would like to take the opportunity to kick an oppressed minority (and the fact that it looks bad to support trans conversion therapy).
I’m not sure it’s even safe or practical to even say we have definitively identified a dangerous breed of dogs. So many factors are at play in determining dog (and human) behavior. We might be...
I’m not sure it’s even safe or practical to even say we have definitively identified a dangerous breed of dogs. So many factors are at play in determining dog (and human) behavior.
We might be better served by banning, and actually policing, bad trainers. But we do not have finite resources to police or regulate the world. It does behoove us to optimize impacts of our efforts.
Very weird argument. Most people need cars, and accidents are an inevitable but unfortunate risk of automobile travel. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a lot we can do to lower that mortality...
Very weird argument. Most people need cars, and accidents are an inevitable but unfortunate risk of automobile travel. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a lot we can do to lower that mortality rate.
People don't need psychotic dog breeds though, there's just isn't a single argument in the playbook to defend the breeding and failed domestication of animals that are bred for chaos and violence.
I'm just talking about what things are actual threats to the people vs. what gets the attention. Did you know that 25-50% as many people are killed by lightning in the UK each year as are killed...
I'm just talking about what things are actual threats to the people vs. what gets the attention. Did you know that 25-50% as many people are killed by lightning in the UK each year as are killed by dogs? Why aren't our politicians doing more about the threat from Big Sky and people being outside in bad weather? Surely they can put half as much time into that critical priority?
I mean, again, that's another totally bonkers argument which leads me to think you're just trolling. We can control what kind of violent dogs people can keep as pets, we (can't believe I actually...
I mean, again, that's another totally bonkers argument which leads me to think you're just trolling. We can control what kind of violent dogs people can keep as pets, we (can't believe I actually have to type this) can't control lightning.
It is a bonkers argument. That's the point. But on a matter of scale, so is all of this fear mongering about dangerous dogs. I'm sorry I didn't convey it properly. We're talking about numbers of...
It is a bonkers argument. That's the point. But on a matter of scale, so is all of this fear mongering about dangerous dogs. I'm sorry I didn't convey it properly. We're talking about numbers of deaths under 10 people a year, when heart disease kills 500x as many people. All of this strong feeling is about stuff down in the rounding error range.
Out of interest, where you getting the deaths by lightening figures from? I see stats for 2x yearly lightening related deaths being the average for the last 25 years.
Out of interest, where you getting the deaths by lightening figures from? I see stats for 2x yearly lightening related deaths being the average for the last 25 years.
Have you been personally harmed or scared by a dog? I'm trying to have a conversation about what things are actual threats to us on a societal level versus what things are scary, but you sound...
Have you been personally harmed or scared by a dog? I'm trying to have a conversation about what things are actual threats to us on a societal level versus what things are scary, but you sound like you want to have a conversation about how scary certain unspecified people are, and how they don't want to get along in civil society. Is this another racism thing?
A) I don't own any dogs larger than 15 pounds, so I don't have a dog in this fight. As I said, I'm trying to talk about our issues as a society, and why this issue is taking up so much of the...
A) I don't own any dogs larger than 15 pounds, so I don't have a dog in this fight. As I said, I'm trying to talk about our issues as a society, and why this issue is taking up so much of the space in the national discussion despite the very low level of documented harm as compared to less scary but more dangerous things.
B) I'm asking if you're racist because you moved on from talking about dogs to talking about "that special type of people" who are "dissociating from civil society and intimidating their out-group." Maybe you're not racist, but that language is really suggestive of your predilections.
I'm not the person who said those things, I'm just pointing out what gyrel said, entirely unprompted. Edit: I suppose they could be discriminating against poor people instead of people based on...
I'm not the person who said those things, I'm just pointing out what gyrel said, entirely unprompted.
Edit: I suppose they could be discriminating against poor people instead of people based on ethnicity, as they're the other group less likely to feel like they might need to defend themselves in the absence of the government being willing and able to defend them.
I'm having trouble understanding what made you think of "racism" in the first place. Are you being overly creative in your interpretation, or am I the one having trouble with basic reading? Is...
I'm having trouble understanding what made you think of "racism" in the first place. Are you being overly creative in your interpretation, or am I the one having trouble with basic reading? Is there anything specific that you believe was indicative of racism in previous comments? Am I missing some context?
Additionally, what makes you believe @gryel has anything against poor people?
When someone says that (specific attribute) is something that a "special group of people" do without specifying what that group actually is, they're using what's known as a dog whistle. When they...
When someone says that (specific attribute) is something that a "special group of people" do without specifying what that group actually is, they're using what's known as a dog whistle. When they double down and say that the aforementioned "special group of people" is "dissociating from civil society and intimidating their out-group", they're saying that the unspecified groups' specific purpose by their actions is to refuse to be part of regular society, and that's a pretty clear dig against immigrants and their "refusal to integrate".
Whether it's specifically on the basis of race or not, it's fairly clear that they're discriminating against a group of people, and using an attribute of said group's behavior that's not specifically tied to their inherent attributes to make that attack more defensible.
Let me ask you, then. When they said a "special group of people", who do you think they're referring to, and why do you agree with their accusation that they're owning guard dogs for the goal of...
Let me ask you, then. When they said a "special group of people", who do you think they're referring to, and why do you agree with their accusation that they're owning guard dogs for the goal of "dissociating from civil society and intimidating their out-group"?
This argument is somewhat specious. For example, there were ~600 homicides in 2022 in the UK. We have a lot of infrastructure set up to handle homicides (criminal justice system, police, etc.),...
This argument is somewhat specious. For example, there were ~600 homicides in 2022 in the UK. We have a lot of infrastructure set up to handle homicides (criminal justice system, police, etc.), and much more than for road deaths. We could of course "balance" the MoJ and courts funding with funding for preventing road accidents, but rightly we think murder is a lot more serious.
Dog attacks are similar – the owner is usually responsible for the attack. We spend a lot of money stopping illegal weapons entering the country, and dangerous dogs are essentially a weapon (and should be regulated as such).
Snippets from one of the linked articles: Most of the pitbull owners I've met day something like "oh they're just so misunderstood, he/she is so gentle!". A previous neighbor I had, had a couple...
Snippets from one of the linked articles:
A defiant Bully XL owner today told how she feels “targeted” over her choice of pet as calls mount for the breed to be banned.
And she warned against “knee-jerk” changes to the law banning the breed - saying irresponsible owners should be at the forefront of new legislation rather than mutts.
But Sophie said her XL Bully loved “cuddles” and said those using the dogs for “status” and “protection” would just find another breed if they were banned.
Most of the pitbull owners I've met day something like "oh they're just so misunderstood, he/she is so gentle!". A previous neighbor I had, had a couple and had a similar attitude. She liked to hang out with the one unleashed in her front yard while she talked to her friends on the phone and had a smoke. If I was outside it would charge me every time.
Ya, sure the owners are the problem and there are other dangerous breeds. What does she propose? Maybe there should be a broader list of dangerous dogs and you should have to meet some requirements to own.
In was reading a little bit about dog related deaths on wikipedia and this one about a 9 year old boy hit home:
The boy was mauled and killed by the neighbor's pit bulls when he had gone outside to check the mail. The dogs had been aggressive in the past
It makes me think of that previous neighbor I had, and my son who's a similar age to that boy who died.
There's a real behavioural issue with dogs in the UK at the moment. Over Covid a lot of people became dog owners and they've done a really shit job of training their dogs. I own a Dachshund, he's...
There's a real behavioural issue with dogs in the UK at the moment.
Over Covid a lot of people became dog owners and they've done a really shit job of training their dogs. I own a Dachshund, he's adorable and I regularly have to remind people that he's 8kilos of fury and anger when he's provoked (usually after their kids have stormed over to tower over him).
We regularly get people with big dogs wanting their giants to roughhouse with the little dude and I have to warn them off. Or, as is now the case I get my dog to do it (There's nothing quite as emasculating to the turds who buy staffies to look hard, then get their dog chased off by a sausage dog.)
That's not to mention the amount of dogs who just have little to no recall or control from their owners at the park. Dachshunds have phenomenal prey instincts and they'll chase anything, training that from my guy was literally day1 and is a daily thing. But so many folk just let their slobbering hulks wander aimlessly all over parks, kids areas, through woods... All with the "HE'S FRIENDLY!" followed by them scuttling slightly quicker when they realise I'm holding their dogs collar for being an asshole to my dog.
I've had to pick dogs up and throw them away from my dog when they've got aggressive, then had the owner (10 seconds later) kickoff at me because "How dare I do that!" my dog comes first, he's well trained and does as he's damn told despite being a stubborn little shit.
Watching the fucking disgraceful behaviour of dog owners in the UK these days irritates me to no end. I grew up with GSDs, Boxers and Rotties so I know how to train them and how to treat them. So few people have got this and it's now an epididemic of poorly behaved dogs who can't be controlled by laissez-faire owners.
That's not even getting into the fury of these Bully XLs being fashionable. I suspect they're lovely dogs when trained and brought to heel. But that is a tonne of work for people who probably have neither the time not the inclination.
I completely agree with you and the following comment is in no way meant to excuse people's poor dog etiquette. During COVID some training options were not possible. I adopted a dog before COVID...
I completely agree with you and the following comment is in no way meant to excuse people's poor dog etiquette.
During COVID some training options were not possible. I adopted a dog before COVID after our beloved 14-year-old hound dog passed away. At 4 years old and freshly neutered he had zero training or experience outside of yard life. We looked for schools and managed to get some help through video chats but no one was doing in person training and absolutely no group training available.
It was pretty frustrating at the time and we made do as best we could. He's great on a lead with me alone and totally fine at the dog park off leash but we still struggle with encounters with other dogs while on a lead.
See also Zoe Williams having to keep defending her dog as not dangerous, even though it bit someone: https://x.com/Mr_Considerate/status/1701295520688292208?s=20
Banning breeds will only make them more attractive as pets for exactly the sorts of people who want a dangerous dog. You know, assholes. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a state-run...
Banning breeds will only make them more attractive as pets for exactly the sorts of people who want a dangerous dog. You know, assholes.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a state-run insurance program with ruinous premiums.
That too. I'm just not convinced legal repercussions ever dissuaded an idiot, so I figure you just levy a heavy tax on owners with the proceeds going to victims of negligence. If you call it...
That too. I'm just not convinced legal repercussions ever dissuaded an idiot, so I figure you just levy a heavy tax on owners with the proceeds going to victims of negligence. If you call it "insurance," you might get less hullabaloo from the "self-made men" who'd go bugfuck if you called it a tax.
It's very simple – if the police see someone with such a dog, they arrest the person and (as the dog will probably attack them) they will have reasonable cause to put it down. Of course it's a bit...
It's very simple – if the police see someone with such a dog, they arrest the person and (as the dog will probably attack them) they will have reasonable cause to put it down. Of course it's a bit tricky as you have to wait for an armed response unit to arrive (or hope that a taser will be effective).
UK police do this when people possess other weapons (which is the only reason people own such dogs). The Americans have gone too far in one direction, but you do need some policing
UK police do this when people possess other weapons (which is the only reason people own such dogs). The Americans have gone too far in one direction, but you do need some policing
Which breed are you referring to when you say people only own them as weapons? Pit bulls seem to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but obviously plenty of people own pits for...
Which breed are you referring to when you say people only own them as weapons? Pit bulls seem to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but obviously plenty of people own pits for reasons other than using them as a weapon. That's not to say they can't be dangerous, but it would be a massive exaggeration to say all owners have them as weapons.
Edit: I see from context you probably mean the Bully XL, and I would say my point stands.
I guess that depends on what exactly you mean by "policing," but then isn't that the problem? There's a certain segment who think police exist solely to punish certain types of people, not to...
I guess that depends on what exactly you mean by "policing," but then isn't that the problem? There's a certain segment who think police exist solely to punish certain types of people, not to protect society from certain acts. I can't say I'm on board with that interpretation.
I believe in policing by consent, and of course it's better to improve living standards and tackle the real causes of crime rather than just kicking people while they are down. What is defined as...
I believe in policing by consent, and of course it's better to improve living standards and tackle the real causes of crime rather than just kicking people while they are down. What is defined as a crime is of course very geared towards middle and upper class angsts (and conveniently omits the crimes that they commit). However, I do think that some basic standards need to be upheld and that the police should stop people from owning weapons (e.g. guns, knifes, etc) because without that we would pretty quickly descend into chaos.
What do you mean by the statement "blanket bans on weapons is (sic) madness"? It is illegal to carry a knife longer than 7.62cm in public. It's very illegal to own a gun without a license (and...
What do you mean by the statement "blanket bans on weapons is (sic) madness"? It is illegal to carry a knife longer than 7.62cm in public. It's very illegal to own a gun without a license (and they are not easy to get – there is no general right to carry a gun, and licenses are only issued with 'good reason', meaning hunting or competitive target shooting). Even if you own a gun, you are not allowed to wander around in a public place with one. If you carry a gun in public, the police will send an armed response unit very quickly, and you will be arrested. If you carry a knife in public you will also be arrested. If you are going to walk around with an attack dog, then you should also be arrested.
I don’t know if you can un-delete your comment, but even if you retract your statement, I think it’s better to edit and acknowledge rather than delete. That way people still have the context of...
I don’t know if you can un-delete your comment, but even if you retract your statement, I think it’s better to edit and acknowledge rather than delete. That way people still have the context of future comments and replies.
Tildes (the website, not the character) uses markdown, which means if you edit your comment and put two tildes (the characters, not the website) either side of your comment, it will strikethrough the comment.
Like this! You can still read this sentence, but it’s clear to future readers than I no longer stand by my own comments here!
Ordinarily I wouldn't delete, but in this case I think I was confusing separate conversations in two threads, one of which is specifically about the American right to bear arms. My deleted comment...
Ordinarily I wouldn't delete, but in this case I think I was confusing separate conversations in two threads, one of which is specifically about the American right to bear arms. My deleted comment was just not particularly salient to this discussion, so I'd rather just remove it to avoid cluttering this thread with irrelevancies.
If my comment had been intended for this conversation and I had simply changed my mind or regretted my position, I'd have done as you say.
Come on now. This idea oversimplifies things absurdly. Sending police to enforce a law that requires them to start a confrontation that assumes they will be attacked by a deadly animal is a...
Come on now. This idea oversimplifies things absurdly. Sending police to enforce a law that requires them to start a confrontation that assumes they will be attacked by a deadly animal is a horrible policy on so many levels. What if the officer is injured or killed? What if the officer misidentifies the animal? How do you think people with these dogs are going to react knowing that any interactions going to result in arrest and likely euthanization of their animal. How about animals that have never shown aggression going to just kill them all?
At the very least you'd want to give did owner a court date. This would reduce the danger to the police officer, citizen, and animal. While also keeping the police force from being judge, jury, and executioner.
I don't know what the best solution is but I positive this is not it.
Having worked for the Postal Service, I can confidently state that not all dog breeds are alike, and that some dog breeds can be more of a reflection of their owners, some more than others. While...
Having worked for the Postal Service, I can confidently state that not all dog breeds are alike, and that some dog breeds can be more of a reflection of their owners, some more than others.
While we remain a capitalistic society, there will always be people who put no more thought into purchasing a dog than what they put into their gas station knife collection: "Oh man this is gonna be so badass I can't wait to bring this thing home I'm gonna look so hardcore with this gonna be sick etc."
Unfortunately, while I have met with plenty of sweet, gentle pitbulls, they are also the dogs I've found to fall victim to that surface-level impulsivity, and the result out of it all is that all of my conflicts I've encountered with dogs (four total) have either been from pitbulls (3) or German shepherds. (Once)
For those in the defense of pitbulls, they can debate nature or nurture all they want, the reality remains the same: people buy these dogs as methods to project their insecurities, and they're marketed as such. To do such a thing to a dog that was also initially bred for it's aggressive nature is just pure evil.
The sample size is small, and I guess that means I have a bias. However, my point still stands. Until our society has a radical change in how we value those dogs, the mythos and the...
The sample size is small, and I guess that means I have a bias.
However, my point still stands. Until our society has a radical change in how we value those dogs, the mythos and the hyperconsumerism surrounding them will continue, and that won't be fair for the future of that dog breed at all.
That is a huge and biased assumption on people's motivations. I hope you realize that's not everybody, although probably a larger percentage of the dangerous dog owners we hear about in the news...
That is a huge and biased assumption on people's motivations. I hope you realize that's not everybody, although probably a larger percentage of the dangerous dog owners we hear about in the news or have the displeasure of meeting in person.
While I do not agree with your assumptions on people's motives, and I don't think that all pitbulls are evil by nature, they do have physical traits that make them more dangerous and a temperament that can more easily move towards aggressive. I'd be interested in the actual instances of people getting bit by Chihuahuas or terriers vs Pitbulls. I would guess that the number is actually a lot higher just unreported and non-lethal.
I do agree that regulation needs to be increased as do repercussions for irresponsible owners.
Where I am there are a ton of rescued pitties that are well socialized and not aggressive. They’re nearly always abandoned in the city and bought to a local rescue and successfully rehabbed by...
Where I am there are a ton of rescued pitties that are well socialized and not aggressive. They’re nearly always abandoned in the city and bought to a local rescue and successfully rehabbed by good dog owners around here. Fwiw.
I’ve worked with and fostered pit-type dogs (though not specifically American Bullies) in the past at shelters. They can be really sweet, but they aren’t first time dogs, require a lot of...
I’ve worked with and fostered pit-type dogs (though not specifically American Bullies) in the past at shelters. They can be really sweet, but they aren’t first time dogs, require a lot of training, and an understanding that their lineage is a fighting one.
With that said, I’ve always thought American Bullies looked rather “mutated”, the product of poor breeding, and bred deliberately to look tough. Usually, folks who want a bully breed to look tough are the last ones who should own a dog period.
Interestingly, some have pointed out that the spike in attacks correlates to the the puppies purchased during the pandemic reaching sexual maturity. It is my understanding (Brits, correct me if I’m wrong) that dogs are not fixed nearly as frequently in the U.K. as they are in the U.S., so that may account for part of the increase.
It looks like 7 deaths this year is a bit of a spike, but there were 5 deaths in 2002, 2003, 2011, and 2015, and 6 in 2009. When we're dealing with such small numbers within a population it's easy...
It looks like 7 deaths this year is a bit of a spike, but there were 5 deaths in 2002, 2003, 2011, and 2015, and 6 in 2009. When we're dealing with such small numbers within a population it's easy for an unusually high year to just be random chance.
Anecdotally I’ve seen a lot more badly behaved dogs and owners unaware of how to handle them since the pandemic started. I think they’re just not properly socialized, and none of the dog trainers...
Anecdotally I’ve seen a lot more badly behaved dogs and owners unaware of how to handle them since the pandemic started. I think they’re just not properly socialized, and none of the dog trainers were doing in-person training for two years so everyone who was a first time puppy owner was doing remote (read: useless) obedience training classes.
I don't think they're useless to be honest. The problem is that people treat dogs like kids, teach them once or a few times and they just remember it! Dogs don't do that. It's a constant need to...
I don't think they're useless to be honest. The problem is that people treat dogs like kids, teach them once or a few times and they just remember it!
Dogs don't do that. It's a constant need to train them on a daily basis.
My little Dachshund sits at roads, sits when commanded, comes back (95% of the time, the other 5% he's found a smell he REALLY wants to roll in), stays when told as well as other things. Get's nothing but admiration and "wow, he's so well behaved!" from people who haven't seen the graft my wife and I put in to make sure he's actually a socialised animal over Covid (We got him Sept2020).
There are just so many people who haven't put the money, time and effort into making sure their animals remain well trained. It sucks.
Yes dog breeds can have traits that lead to violence against humans. Banning those could make owners transition to other violent breeds. It might be worth to partner with kennel clubs to establish...
Yes dog breeds can have traits that lead to violence against humans. Banning those could make owners transition to other violent breeds.
It might be worth to partner with kennel clubs to establish better behavior parameters for those violent breeds while maintaining the size and bulk people look for.
This would encourage breeders to remove overly aggressive dogs from the gene pool. Great danes are big and impressive, but generally harmless. I can't imagine many in the UK truly need highly aggressive dogs for anything legitimate.
Pit bulls are not even guard dogs to begin with. They're fight dogs. I imagine this crazy American mixed breed has a lot of the same DNA.
Mastiff type dogs - which includes all the bull and pit type dogs - have been used as guard dogs for centuries. Also hunting dogs for larger prey like bears, and yes, fighting dogs too. But breed...
Mastiff type dogs - which includes all the bull and pit type dogs - have been used as guard dogs for centuries. Also hunting dogs for larger prey like bears, and yes, fighting dogs too.
But breed isn't a reliable indicator of behaviour, no more than race is in humans. "Breed" doesn't even really exist, it's something humans made up a couple of hundred years ago (again, much like race in humans).
Fighting dogs are made, not born. There are no bad dogs, just bad owners. I've known plenty of mastiff type dogs, including several who would probably count as Bully XL, who are lovely, well socialised and trained animals and would never hurt anyone. Equally there's a person who lives near me with a flock of horrendously violent chihuahuas, whose house I had to stop walking my dogs past because they kept rushing out and attacking us.
How to combat bad owners is a much harder problem than just banning a 'breed'. Because you have to address the social issues which have led people to the place where they feel like they need or want a living weapon in their house.
While nurture is a huge factor, dog breeds do carry genetic configurations which make them more inclined to certain behaviors. That is how you get breeds that are more suitable to herding,...
While nurture is a huge factor, dog breeds do carry genetic configurations which make them more inclined to certain behaviors. That is how you get breeds that are more suitable to herding, hunting, sniffing drugs, etc. Of course a dog isn't born knowing how to fight bulls, but it can be selected for traits that make it more competent at doing so. A breed like the Brazilian Mastiff used to have aggression in the norms and they would be disqualified from competition if they didn't try to attack the judges... that is not all training, selection and genetics play a big part too.
That said, dogs are not good or bad. Those are human concepts. They're just following their nature and it's up to us to guide and correct their behavior.
Almost everyone assumes this is true, because that's been the story of breeds that the kennel clubs have always told, based on... some stuff they made up 150 years ago because it fit the (also...
Almost everyone assumes this is true, because that's been the story of breeds that the kennel clubs have always told, based on... some stuff they made up 150 years ago because it fit the (also very racist) ideals of the time.
Read the study linked in the article above. Breed is barely, if at all, influential on behaviour. Obviously genetics are a big part of morphology, but just because a human is tall doesn't make them good at basketball any more than having a strong jaw makes a dog violent.
Sure. So, assuming that they tested 100 traits, only 9 of them are genetically determined. Which can be a lot if "propensity to attack humans" is part of that group. They seem to have disproven a...
Sure.
But breed can tell researchers some things. Overall, the scientists found some behavioral traits are more common in certain breeds. For example, Border collies seem to be more ready to respond to human direction than other breeds
"Genetics matter, but genetics are a nudge in a given direction. They're not a destiny,"
So, assuming that they tested 100 traits, only 9 of them are genetically determined. Which can be a lot if "propensity to attack humans" is part of that group.
They seem to have disproven a lot of bullsht, but their conclusions are not necessarily as broad as the title indicates.
I don't see much value in linking dog breeds to racism at this point, as dogs and humans are so different.
In any case, I'd be interested in studies about holistic competence, not just super specific abilities such as "pointing ". For example, teach 100 dogs to herd or guard and see which ones have better performance. Thousands of years breeding work dogs are bound to generate at least some valuable knowledge.
The point is that you can't use breed as a reliable indicator of behaviour. A dangerous dog can't be predicted from it's genes. Hence, banning a certain breed because it's "violent" is not an...
The point is that you can't use breed as a reliable indicator of behaviour. A dangerous dog can't be predicted from it's genes. Hence, banning a certain breed because it's "violent" is not an evidence-based decision, it's an emotional one. It's pandering to a shouty subset of the electorate, it's not rational science-led policy. Just like banning "drugs" isn't rational.
Solving dog attacks as a social problem will not be done by banning breed X or Y. It wasn't stopped by banning pitbulls and it won't be stopped by banning Bully XLs either. The only ban which might work is banning dogs entirely, and obviously nobody is going to do that. Not to mention there is a problem even determining what breed a given dog is, which has been an ongoing issue in the UK since the last time the government banned a breed. Because the thing is... breeds don't actually exist, they're something the Victorians just made up out of nowhere.
I think the parallels with racism are both relevant and interesting, because they stem from the same place. The pseudoscience of "breeds" developed from the same culture are the pseudoscience of race. The West, especially England, in the 19th century, and the repercussions of both are still echoing today. Also, I think most people who have lived with dogs will tell you that human shaped people and dog shaped people really aren't that different.
I have 3 dogs at the moment. One is mixed, another is a schnauzer, the third is a mongrel. I've had 4 different dogs of many varieties before. Maybe more, I may have lost count. I love dogs....
Also, I think most people who have lived with dogs will tell you that human shaped people and dog shaped people really aren't that different
I have 3 dogs at the moment. One is mixed, another is a schnauzer, the third is a mongrel. I've had 4 different dogs of many varieties before. Maybe more, I may have lost count. I love dogs. However, I do believe dogs and humans, while symbiotic, are profoundly different.
The answer is 66%. Together with rottweilers, 76%; that's more than three-quarters of all dog bite deaths. I recently read about a pitbull that tunneled underneath a fence in order to kill a baby....
The answer is 66%. Together with rottweilers, 76%; that's more than three-quarters of all dog bite deaths.
In particular, I'm confused as to why you're combining "pit bull" numbers - which are farcical, as there's no recognized "pit bull" breed - with Rottweilers, which are another breed entirely.
Please note that there are many dogs that get labeled with "pit bull", which DO have recognized breed standards (Staffordshire Terrier, etc), the same way that Border Collies are but one representative of "herding dog".
I clicked through those links to see if I could find a competing statistic of which breeds are most responsible for bites. I could not, but I did see Dogsbite.org being compared to Nazis, which is...
I clicked through those links to see if I could find a competing statistic of which breeds are most responsible for bites. I could not, but I did see Dogsbite.org being compared to Nazis, which is pretty wild! I don't support people owning automatic weapons either, but that doesn't make me a "gun nazi"... I hope...
The CDC stopped tracking breed bite statistics over 20 years ago, because breed is not a good indicator of anything bite related. And the reason you see Nazi comparisons, valid or otherwise, is...
The CDC stopped tracking breed bite statistics over 20 years ago, because breed is not a good indicator of anything bite related.
And the reason you see Nazi comparisons, valid or otherwise, is partly because eugenics and dog breeding are related.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The science doesn't support breed being a reliable indicator of behaviour. There are fairly regularly papers published in reputable journals saying...
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The science doesn't support breed being a reliable indicator of behaviour. There are fairly regularly papers published in reputable journals saying this, it seems pretty well settled at this point.
The kind of people who want violent dogs aren't buying goldies. They're buying mastiff type dogs because they (mistakenly) think those dogs are more suitable for what they want. So obviously there is a bias among dog attacks statistics towards the sort of dogs humans believe to be violent. But it's not because of the type of dog, it's because of the type of owner.
I bet Chihuahuas bite more people than Pitbulls by an order a magnitude or two. Another problem I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet is the pervasiveness of amateur breeding. Dog breeding...
I bet Chihuahuas bite more people than Pitbulls by an order a magnitude or two.
Another problem I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet is the pervasiveness of amateur breeding. Dog breeding used to be a family or institutional tradition with animal genetics going back dozens or hundreds of generations. They had clear goals of temperament as well as aesthetics. Most dogs in the US nowadays come from a couple random people that think since they got papers on their dog that they're going to be breeders. This has caused an explosion of dog breeds with the only goal being extreme size, both little and small, without any thought to temperament, intelligence, or specialization. Papering dog breeds without regulating breeders is probably one of the root problems.
Come to think of it it's probably a larger black market than we all realize. I'm not even talking nasty breeder farms but rather the average Joe who uses it as a side hustle.
As I understand it, there are already some provisions under UK law for dealing with this. If a dog is "out of control" (e.g. it attacks someone) it must be put down and the owner tried criminally....
As I understand it, there are already some provisions under UK law for dealing with this. If a dog is "out of control" (e.g. it attacks someone) it must be put down and the owner tried criminally.
Perhaps the solution is to introduce dog licensing, where anyone wishing to acquire a dog would have to go through
a psychological evaluation
proof of financial means
explanation of why they believe that they will be able to care adequately for the dog
acceptance that if their dog attacks someone they will be banned from ever owning a dog again
Le Monde with AFP Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on Friday he would move to ban the dog breed responsible for a recent series of attacks. A man arrested Government's response Defining breeds and...
Le Monde with AFP
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on Friday he would move to ban the dog breed responsible for a recent series of attacks.
Emergency services were called on Thursday to reports that a man had been left seriously injured after being bitten by two dogs near Birmingham.
"Upon arrival we found a man who had sustained multiple life-threatening injuries and was in a critical condition," said the West Midlands Ambulance Service.
"Unfortunately, after arrival at hospital, despite the best efforts it became clear that nothing more could be done to save him (and) he was confirmed deceased."
A man arrested
A 30-year-old man was arrested on Thursday on suspicion of having dogs dangerously out of control, said Staffordshire Police. Police are now determining the breeds of the dogs involved but Sunak said an American bully XL, known for its stocky and muscular appearance, was suspected.
Government's response
The issue of dangerous dogs has reached the top level of UK politics following a series of attacks. An 11-year-old girl was left seriously injured after she was attacked on Saturday by an American bully XL and Staffordshire bull terrier crossbreed puppy.
The incident led interior minister Suella Braverman to seek "urgent advice" on whether the American bully XL breed should be banned. "This is appalling," she tweeted after the attack. "The American XL Bully is a clear and lethal danger to our communities, particularly to children. We can't go on like this. I have commissioned urgent advice on banning them."
Sunak added on Friday: "It's clear this is not about a handful of badly trained dogs. It's a pattern of behavior and it cannot go on." "While owners already have a responsibility to keep their dogs under control I want to reassure people that we are urgently working on ways to stop these attacks and protect the public." "Today I have tasked ministers to bring together police and experts to firstly define the breed of dogs behind these attacks with a view to then outlawing it."
Defining breeds and banning
The pit bull terrier, Japanese tosa, dogo Argentino and fila Brasileiro are currently banned in the UK. The American bully XL is related to the pit bull terrier, though larger, but is not subject to any legal restrictions itself. It is not recognized as a breed by the country's Kennel Club, complicating efforts to legislate them.
Sunak said defining the breed was vital. "We will then ban the breed under the Dangerous Dogs Act and new laws will be in place by the end of the year," he added. "These dogs are dangerous. I want to reassure the public that we will take all necessary steps to keep people safe."
Ian Price, 52 years, was mauled to death by the two animals in the village of Stonnall on Thursday afternoon. Onlookers reported that he was trying to protect his elderly mother from the dogs, which had escaped from a neighbouring property.
This is the seventh death from a dog attack this year, and comes days after footage went viral of an XL bully cross-breed dog attacking people, including an 11-year-old girl, in the street in Birmingham.
In January, a dog walker, Natasha Johnston, 28, was killed when she was attacked by the dogs she was walking in Gravelly Hill, Caterham. Later that month, Alice Stones, four, was killed by her family’s dog in Milton Keynes.
In April, Wayne Stevens, 51, died after being attacked by a dog in Derby and Jonathan Hogg, 37, was killed by a friend’s dog he was looking after.
As much as I hate this government's guts I'm glad they're taking some steps to address this. It shouldn't be a partisan issue and it'd be an easy win for any of our political parties. It's not...
As much as I hate this government's guts I'm glad they're taking some steps to address this. It shouldn't be a partisan issue and it'd be an easy win for any of our political parties. It's not enough to add these dogs to the list of banned breeds but it's certainly a start.
I read that a significant number of the XL bullies in the UK can trace their lineage back to the infamous Killer Kimbo, and even without that it's abundantly clear that their breeders haven't been prioritising temperament. I'm sorry to say that it's a variant of the pitbull breed that I fundamentally believe should not exist.
7 people have died from dog attacks in the UK this year, and the government is trying to figure out how to define what exactly this dangerous breed of dog is in order to legislate about it. 1,695 people died from road collisions last year in the UK. If they did anything that lowered that rate by 1%, it'd be twice as useful as putting the time into this. But scary dogs are way more important than incremental improvements that have larger actual impacts.
It is farcical to imply that banning dangerous dog breeds and improving road safety are mutually exclusive, or that legislators don’t have the capacity to consider both.
The real farce is the noise being made about the dog problem over some of the more pressing and disastrous problems the UK currently has.
A populous easily distracted is what we have now.
Do you think that the legislators really have the capacity for every possible concern that leads to even one death? There were 577,160 deaths in the UK in 2022, and of those, 5 were from dog attacks. What are the actual priorities here, and why on earth are we talking about this?
I imagine the families of those who died are happy that the subject has been raised.
I'm not sure they do have the capacity to consider both. For example, it has been five years since the UK government committed to banning LGBT conversation therapy. Five years... and then instead of banning it, they decided they were only going to ban LGB conversation therapy. Finally, earlier this year they changed their minds yet again and now LGBT therapy will be banned, but no word of when yet. The opposition has not been pushing for the Government to carry out the promise they made four prime ministers ago...
And in fairness, this could be because the government is facing bigger issues such as Brexit fallout, cost of living crisis, inflation etc.
I'm not saying that action shouldn't be taken against violent or dangerous dog breeds (though I don't know the best way to do this). As a queer person in this country, it is however, a slap in the face when the Government commits to banning a dog breed in less than 4 months, but takes 5 years and counting to ban conversation therapy.
It is clear that the Government is either incapable of unwilling to make certain policy changes over others. If the Government is not too busy banning dog breeds to ban conversation therapy or make roads safer, then they must be ambivalent to these causes. In either case, I do believe it demonstrates their incompetence.
It's almost certainly not going to be banned by the current Conservative government. https://x.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1702294853537685577?s=20
"could be" in the same sense the moon "could be" made of cheese.
Thanks for that tweet, I'd not seen it before.
I'm not under the illusion that the Tory party cares at all about LGB rights, nevermind trans rights.
My point really was that if the Government is 'too busy' to ban conversion therapy, they're also 'too busy' to ban certain dog breeds. If the Government actually does have time to be doing these things, then as @MimicSquid points out, the Governments priorities are all out of whack.
I feel it's quite clear that the Government has taken action on this now because it's a media hot button and they feel it'll help their desperately low polls, and not because they actually care.
Edit: corrected spelling mistake
Conversion.
No offense meant, but it seems like a topic where it's important to use the appropriate terms in case someone tries to argue the semantics rather than the topic.
I think you're confusing dither and delay on the conversion therapy ban with inability rather than reluctance. With or without the dangerous dog breeds, they will pontificate on this – partly because of all the transphobes in their party who would like to take the opportunity to kick an oppressed minority (and the fact that it looks bad to support trans conversion therapy).
Good point. Let's reconvene in a year and see which topics get legislation. I have my bet how it'll shake out.
I’m not sure it’s even safe or practical to even say we have definitively identified a dangerous breed of dogs. So many factors are at play in determining dog (and human) behavior.
We might be better served by banning, and actually policing, bad trainers. But we do not have finite resources to police or regulate the world. It does behoove us to optimize impacts of our efforts.
Very weird argument. Most people need cars, and accidents are an inevitable but unfortunate risk of automobile travel. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a lot we can do to lower that mortality rate.
People don't need psychotic dog breeds though, there's just isn't a single argument in the playbook to defend the breeding and failed domestication of animals that are bred for chaos and violence.
I'm just talking about what things are actual threats to the people vs. what gets the attention. Did you know that 25-50% as many people are killed by lightning in the UK each year as are killed by dogs? Why aren't our politicians doing more about the threat from Big Sky and people being outside in bad weather? Surely they can put half as much time into that critical priority?
I mean, again, that's another totally bonkers argument which leads me to think you're just trolling. We can control what kind of violent dogs people can keep as pets, we (can't believe I actually have to type this) can't control lightning.
It is a bonkers argument. That's the point. But on a matter of scale, so is all of this fear mongering about dangerous dogs. I'm sorry I didn't convey it properly. We're talking about numbers of deaths under 10 people a year, when heart disease kills 500x as many people. All of this strong feeling is about stuff down in the rounding error range.
Out of interest, where you getting the deaths by lightening figures from? I see stats for 2x yearly lightening related deaths being the average for the last 25 years.
I got the statistic from TORRO, the UK Tornado and Storm Research Organization.
Have you been personally harmed or scared by a dog? I'm trying to have a conversation about what things are actual threats to us on a societal level versus what things are scary, but you sound like you want to have a conversation about how scary certain unspecified people are, and how they don't want to get along in civil society. Is this another racism thing?
A) I don't own any dogs larger than 15 pounds, so I don't have a dog in this fight. As I said, I'm trying to talk about our issues as a society, and why this issue is taking up so much of the space in the national discussion despite the very low level of documented harm as compared to less scary but more dangerous things.
B) I'm asking if you're racist because you moved on from talking about dogs to talking about "that special type of people" who are "dissociating from civil society and intimidating their out-group." Maybe you're not racist, but that language is really suggestive of your predilections.
I don't have an opinion, but fostering a discussion about racism in a post about dogs is a sure way to get it locked.
I'm not the person who said those things, I'm just pointing out what gyrel said, entirely unprompted.
Edit: I suppose they could be discriminating against poor people instead of people based on ethnicity, as they're the other group less likely to feel like they might need to defend themselves in the absence of the government being willing and able to defend them.
I'm having trouble understanding what made you think of "racism" in the first place. Are you being overly creative in your interpretation, or am I the one having trouble with basic reading? Is there anything specific that you believe was indicative of racism in previous comments? Am I missing some context?
Additionally, what makes you believe @gryel has anything against poor people?
When someone says that (specific attribute) is something that a "special group of people" do without specifying what that group actually is, they're using what's known as a dog whistle. When they double down and say that the aforementioned "special group of people" is "dissociating from civil society and intimidating their out-group", they're saying that the unspecified groups' specific purpose by their actions is to refuse to be part of regular society, and that's a pretty clear dig against immigrants and their "refusal to integrate".
Whether it's specifically on the basis of race or not, it's fairly clear that they're discriminating against a group of people, and using an attribute of said group's behavior that's not specifically tied to their inherent attributes to make that attack more defensible.
Let me ask you, then. When they said a "special group of people", who do you think they're referring to, and why do you agree with their accusation that they're owning guard dogs for the goal of "dissociating from civil society and intimidating their out-group"?
This argument is somewhat specious. For example, there were ~600 homicides in 2022 in the UK. We have a lot of infrastructure set up to handle homicides (criminal justice system, police, etc.), and much more than for road deaths. We could of course "balance" the MoJ and courts funding with funding for preventing road accidents, but rightly we think murder is a lot more serious.
Dog attacks are similar – the owner is usually responsible for the attack. We spend a lot of money stopping illegal weapons entering the country, and dangerous dogs are essentially a weapon (and should be regulated as such).
Snippets from one of the linked articles:
Most of the pitbull owners I've met day something like "oh they're just so misunderstood, he/she is so gentle!". A previous neighbor I had, had a couple and had a similar attitude. She liked to hang out with the one unleashed in her front yard while she talked to her friends on the phone and had a smoke. If I was outside it would charge me every time.
Ya, sure the owners are the problem and there are other dangerous breeds. What does she propose? Maybe there should be a broader list of dangerous dogs and you should have to meet some requirements to own.
In was reading a little bit about dog related deaths on wikipedia and this one about a 9 year old boy hit home:
It makes me think of that previous neighbor I had, and my son who's a similar age to that boy who died.
There's a real behavioural issue with dogs in the UK at the moment.
Over Covid a lot of people became dog owners and they've done a really shit job of training their dogs. I own a Dachshund, he's adorable and I regularly have to remind people that he's 8kilos of fury and anger when he's provoked (usually after their kids have stormed over to tower over him).
We regularly get people with big dogs wanting their giants to roughhouse with the little dude and I have to warn them off. Or, as is now the case I get my dog to do it (There's nothing quite as emasculating to the turds who buy staffies to look hard, then get their dog chased off by a sausage dog.)
That's not to mention the amount of dogs who just have little to no recall or control from their owners at the park. Dachshunds have phenomenal prey instincts and they'll chase anything, training that from my guy was literally day1 and is a daily thing. But so many folk just let their slobbering hulks wander aimlessly all over parks, kids areas, through woods... All with the "HE'S FRIENDLY!" followed by them scuttling slightly quicker when they realise I'm holding their dogs collar for being an asshole to my dog.
I've had to pick dogs up and throw them away from my dog when they've got aggressive, then had the owner (10 seconds later) kickoff at me because "How dare I do that!" my dog comes first, he's well trained and does as he's damn told despite being a stubborn little shit.
Watching the fucking disgraceful behaviour of dog owners in the UK these days irritates me to no end. I grew up with GSDs, Boxers and Rotties so I know how to train them and how to treat them. So few people have got this and it's now an epididemic of poorly behaved dogs who can't be controlled by laissez-faire owners.
That's not even getting into the fury of these Bully XLs being fashionable. I suspect they're lovely dogs when trained and brought to heel. But that is a tonne of work for people who probably have neither the time not the inclination.
I completely agree with you and the following comment is in no way meant to excuse people's poor dog etiquette.
During COVID some training options were not possible. I adopted a dog before COVID after our beloved 14-year-old hound dog passed away. At 4 years old and freshly neutered he had zero training or experience outside of yard life. We looked for schools and managed to get some help through video chats but no one was doing in person training and absolutely no group training available.
It was pretty frustrating at the time and we made do as best we could. He's great on a lead with me alone and totally fine at the dog park off leash but we still struggle with encounters with other dogs while on a lead.
See also Zoe Williams having to keep defending her dog as not dangerous, even though it bit someone: https://x.com/Mr_Considerate/status/1701295520688292208?s=20
Banning breeds will only make them more attractive as pets for exactly the sorts of people who want a dangerous dog. You know, assholes.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a state-run insurance program with ruinous premiums.
So impose more severe penalties for this, like heavy fines and jail time.
That too. I'm just not convinced legal repercussions ever dissuaded an idiot, so I figure you just levy a heavy tax on owners with the proceeds going to victims of negligence. If you call it "insurance," you might get less hullabaloo from the "self-made men" who'd go bugfuck if you called it a tax.
Have any articles on the matter?
It's very simple – if the police see someone with such a dog, they arrest the person and (as the dog will probably attack them) they will have reasonable cause to put it down. Of course it's a bit tricky as you have to wait for an armed response unit to arrive (or hope that a taser will be effective).
That sounds like an American solution. We have a tendency to use police as a sort of Swiss Army knife for social problems.
I'd predict in the US they'd just use this to arrest or shoot black men walking their dogs. And no one else.
Not exactly. They use fake raid warrants or "probable cause" to arrest the black men and just shoot the dog on sight.
UK police do this when people possess other weapons (which is the only reason people own such dogs). The Americans have gone too far in one direction, but you do need some policing
Which breed are you referring to when you say people only own them as weapons? Pit bulls seem to be the main topic of conversation in this thread but obviously plenty of people own pits for reasons other than using them as a weapon. That's not to say they can't be dangerous, but it would be a massive exaggeration to say all owners have them as weapons.
Edit: I see from context you probably mean the Bully XL, and I would say my point stands.
I guess that depends on what exactly you mean by "policing," but then isn't that the problem? There's a certain segment who think police exist solely to punish certain types of people, not to protect society from certain acts. I can't say I'm on board with that interpretation.
I believe in policing by consent, and of course it's better to improve living standards and tackle the real causes of crime rather than just kicking people while they are down. What is defined as a crime is of course very geared towards middle and upper class angsts (and conveniently omits the crimes that they commit). However, I do think that some basic standards need to be upheld and that the police should stop people from owning weapons (e.g. guns, knifes, etc) because without that we would pretty quickly descend into chaos.
What do you mean by the statement "blanket bans on weapons is (sic) madness"? It is illegal to carry a knife longer than 7.62cm in public. It's very illegal to own a gun without a license (and they are not easy to get – there is no general right to carry a gun, and licenses are only issued with 'good reason', meaning hunting or competitive target shooting). Even if you own a gun, you are not allowed to wander around in a public place with one. If you carry a gun in public, the police will send an armed response unit very quickly, and you will be arrested. If you carry a knife in public you will also be arrested. If you are going to walk around with an attack dog, then you should also be arrested.
I'm referring to the statement:
You did not qualify that statement in any way.
But never mind. I'll remove my comment.
I don’t know if you can un-delete your comment, but even if you retract your statement, I think it’s better to edit and acknowledge rather than delete. That way people still have the context of future comments and replies.
Tildes (the website, not the character) uses markdown, which means if you edit your comment and put two tildes (the characters, not the website) either side of your comment, it will strikethrough the comment.
Like this! You can still read this sentence, but it’s clear to future readers than I no longer stand by my own comments here!Ordinarily I wouldn't delete, but in this case I think I was confusing separate conversations in two threads, one of which is specifically about the American right to bear arms. My deleted comment was just not particularly salient to this discussion, so I'd rather just remove it to avoid cluttering this thread with irrelevancies.
If my comment had been intended for this conversation and I had simply changed my mind or regretted my position, I'd have done as you say.
Come on now. This idea oversimplifies things absurdly. Sending police to enforce a law that requires them to start a confrontation that assumes they will be attacked by a deadly animal is a horrible policy on so many levels. What if the officer is injured or killed? What if the officer misidentifies the animal? How do you think people with these dogs are going to react knowing that any interactions going to result in arrest and likely euthanization of their animal. How about animals that have never shown aggression going to just kill them all?
At the very least you'd want to give did owner a court date. This would reduce the danger to the police officer, citizen, and animal. While also keeping the police force from being judge, jury, and executioner.
I don't know what the best solution is but I positive this is not it.
Of course this isn't something you want, but this is what the police do when they see people with other kinds of weapons (guns, knives) in the UK.
Having worked for the Postal Service, I can confidently state that not all dog breeds are alike, and that some dog breeds can be more of a reflection of their owners, some more than others.
While we remain a capitalistic society, there will always be people who put no more thought into purchasing a dog than what they put into their gas station knife collection: "Oh man this is gonna be so badass I can't wait to bring this thing home I'm gonna look so hardcore with this gonna be sick etc."
Unfortunately, while I have met with plenty of sweet, gentle pitbulls, they are also the dogs I've found to fall victim to that surface-level impulsivity, and the result out of it all is that all of my conflicts I've encountered with dogs (four total) have either been from pitbulls (3) or German shepherds. (Once)
For those in the defense of pitbulls, they can debate nature or nurture all they want, the reality remains the same: people buy these dogs as methods to project their insecurities, and they're marketed as such. To do such a thing to a dog that was also initially bred for it's aggressive nature is just pure evil.
You're casting very wide assumptions on the basis of four dogs.
The sample size is small, and I guess that means I have a bias.
However, my point still stands. Until our society has a radical change in how we value those dogs, the mythos and the hyperconsumerism surrounding them will continue, and that won't be fair for the future of that dog breed at all.
That is a huge and biased assumption on people's motivations. I hope you realize that's not everybody, although probably a larger percentage of the dangerous dog owners we hear about in the news or have the displeasure of meeting in person.
While I do not agree with your assumptions on people's motives, and I don't think that all pitbulls are evil by nature, they do have physical traits that make them more dangerous and a temperament that can more easily move towards aggressive. I'd be interested in the actual instances of people getting bit by Chihuahuas or terriers vs Pitbulls. I would guess that the number is actually a lot higher just unreported and non-lethal.
I do agree that regulation needs to be increased as do repercussions for irresponsible owners.
Where I am there are a ton of rescued pitties that are well socialized and not aggressive. They’re nearly always abandoned in the city and bought to a local rescue and successfully rehabbed by good dog owners around here. Fwiw.
I’ve worked with and fostered pit-type dogs (though not specifically American Bullies) in the past at shelters. They can be really sweet, but they aren’t first time dogs, require a lot of training, and an understanding that their lineage is a fighting one.
With that said, I’ve always thought American Bullies looked rather “mutated”, the product of poor breeding, and bred deliberately to look tough. Usually, folks who want a bully breed to look tough are the last ones who should own a dog period.
Interestingly, some have pointed out that the spike in attacks correlates to the the puppies purchased during the pandemic reaching sexual maturity. It is my understanding (Brits, correct me if I’m wrong) that dogs are not fixed nearly as frequently in the U.K. as they are in the U.S., so that may account for part of the increase.
It looks like 7 deaths this year is a bit of a spike, but there were 5 deaths in 2002, 2003, 2011, and 2015, and 6 in 2009. When we're dealing with such small numbers within a population it's easy for an unusually high year to just be random chance.
Anecdotally I’ve seen a lot more badly behaved dogs and owners unaware of how to handle them since the pandemic started. I think they’re just not properly socialized, and none of the dog trainers were doing in-person training for two years so everyone who was a first time puppy owner was doing remote (read: useless) obedience training classes.
I don't think they're useless to be honest. The problem is that people treat dogs like kids, teach them once or a few times and they just remember it!
Dogs don't do that. It's a constant need to train them on a daily basis.
My little Dachshund sits at roads, sits when commanded, comes back (95% of the time, the other 5% he's found a smell he REALLY wants to roll in), stays when told as well as other things. Get's nothing but admiration and "wow, he's so well behaved!" from people who haven't seen the graft my wife and I put in to make sure he's actually a socialised animal over Covid (We got him Sept2020).
There are just so many people who haven't put the money, time and effort into making sure their animals remain well trained. It sucks.
Yes dog breeds can have traits that lead to violence against humans. Banning those could make owners transition to other violent breeds.
It might be worth to partner with kennel clubs to establish better behavior parameters for those violent breeds while maintaining the size and bulk people look for.
This would encourage breeders to remove overly aggressive dogs from the gene pool. Great danes are big and impressive, but generally harmless. I can't imagine many in the UK truly need highly aggressive dogs for anything legitimate.
Pit bulls are not even guard dogs to begin with. They're fight dogs. I imagine this crazy American mixed breed has a lot of the same DNA.
Mastiff type dogs - which includes all the bull and pit type dogs - have been used as guard dogs for centuries. Also hunting dogs for larger prey like bears, and yes, fighting dogs too.
But breed isn't a reliable indicator of behaviour, no more than race is in humans. "Breed" doesn't even really exist, it's something humans made up a couple of hundred years ago (again, much like race in humans).
Fighting dogs are made, not born. There are no bad dogs, just bad owners. I've known plenty of mastiff type dogs, including several who would probably count as Bully XL, who are lovely, well socialised and trained animals and would never hurt anyone. Equally there's a person who lives near me with a flock of horrendously violent chihuahuas, whose house I had to stop walking my dogs past because they kept rushing out and attacking us.
How to combat bad owners is a much harder problem than just banning a 'breed'. Because you have to address the social issues which have led people to the place where they feel like they need or want a living weapon in their house.
While nurture is a huge factor, dog breeds do carry genetic configurations which make them more inclined to certain behaviors. That is how you get breeds that are more suitable to herding, hunting, sniffing drugs, etc. Of course a dog isn't born knowing how to fight bulls, but it can be selected for traits that make it more competent at doing so. A breed like the Brazilian Mastiff used to have aggression in the norms and they would be disqualified from competition if they didn't try to attack the judges... that is not all training, selection and genetics play a big part too.
That said, dogs are not good or bad. Those are human concepts. They're just following their nature and it's up to us to guide and correct their behavior.
Almost everyone assumes this is true, because that's been the story of breeds that the kennel clubs have always told, based on... some stuff they made up 150 years ago because it fit the (also very racist) ideals of the time.
Read the study linked in the article above. Breed is barely, if at all, influential on behaviour. Obviously genetics are a big part of morphology, but just because a human is tall doesn't make them good at basketball any more than having a strong jaw makes a dog violent.
Sure.
So, assuming that they tested 100 traits, only 9 of them are genetically determined. Which can be a lot if "propensity to attack humans" is part of that group.
They seem to have disproven a lot of bullsht, but their conclusions are not necessarily as broad as the title indicates.
I don't see much value in linking dog breeds to racism at this point, as dogs and humans are so different.
In any case, I'd be interested in studies about holistic competence, not just super specific abilities such as "pointing ". For example, teach 100 dogs to herd or guard and see which ones have better performance. Thousands of years breeding work dogs are bound to generate at least some valuable knowledge.
The point is that you can't use breed as a reliable indicator of behaviour. A dangerous dog can't be predicted from it's genes. Hence, banning a certain breed because it's "violent" is not an evidence-based decision, it's an emotional one. It's pandering to a shouty subset of the electorate, it's not rational science-led policy. Just like banning "drugs" isn't rational.
Solving dog attacks as a social problem will not be done by banning breed X or Y. It wasn't stopped by banning pitbulls and it won't be stopped by banning Bully XLs either. The only ban which might work is banning dogs entirely, and obviously nobody is going to do that. Not to mention there is a problem even determining what breed a given dog is, which has been an ongoing issue in the UK since the last time the government banned a breed. Because the thing is... breeds don't actually exist, they're something the Victorians just made up out of nowhere.
I think the parallels with racism are both relevant and interesting, because they stem from the same place. The pseudoscience of "breeds" developed from the same culture are the pseudoscience of race. The West, especially England, in the 19th century, and the repercussions of both are still echoing today. Also, I think most people who have lived with dogs will tell you that human shaped people and dog shaped people really aren't that different.
I have 3 dogs at the moment. One is mixed, another is a schnauzer, the third is a mongrel. I've had 4 different dogs of many varieties before. Maybe more, I may have lost count. I love dogs. However, I do believe dogs and humans, while symbiotic, are profoundly different.
What percentage of deadly dog bites in the US are caused by pit bulls?
I don't know but that number doesn't tell you anything useful about pitbulls. It does contain some information about one subset of pit bull owners.
The answer is 66%. Together with rottweilers, 76%; that's more than three-quarters of all dog bite deaths.
I recently read about a pitbull that tunneled underneath a fence in order to kill a baby. Let me know if you ever read about a golden retriever doing something like that.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/dog-attack-golden-retriever-hamilton-27101856
https://www.newsflare.com/video/583971/anger-online-as-unleashed-golden-retriever-attacks-smaller-dog
You should know that dogsbite.org has a history of misrepresenting data, including that lovely 66% statistic.
https://adbadog.com/truth-behind-dogsbite-org/
https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2017-11-15/dangerous-dog-debate
In particular, I'm confused as to why you're combining "pit bull" numbers - which are farcical, as there's no recognized "pit bull" breed - with Rottweilers, which are another breed entirely.
Please note that there are many dogs that get labeled with "pit bull", which DO have recognized breed standards (Staffordshire Terrier, etc), the same way that Border Collies are but one representative of "herding dog".
I clicked through those links to see if I could find a competing statistic of which breeds are most responsible for bites. I could not, but I did see Dogsbite.org being compared to Nazis, which is pretty wild! I don't support people owning automatic weapons either, but that doesn't make me a "gun nazi"... I hope...
The CDC stopped tracking breed bite statistics over 20 years ago, because breed is not a good indicator of anything bite related.
And the reason you see Nazi comparisons, valid or otherwise, is partly because eugenics and dog breeding are related.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The science doesn't support breed being a reliable indicator of behaviour. There are fairly regularly papers published in reputable journals saying this, it seems pretty well settled at this point.
The kind of people who want violent dogs aren't buying goldies. They're buying mastiff type dogs because they (mistakenly) think those dogs are more suitable for what they want. So obviously there is a bias among dog attacks statistics towards the sort of dogs humans believe to be violent. But it's not because of the type of dog, it's because of the type of owner.
There are no bad dogs. There are only bad owners.
I bet Chihuahuas bite more people than Pitbulls by an order a magnitude or two.
Another problem I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet is the pervasiveness of amateur breeding. Dog breeding used to be a family or institutional tradition with animal genetics going back dozens or hundreds of generations. They had clear goals of temperament as well as aesthetics. Most dogs in the US nowadays come from a couple random people that think since they got papers on their dog that they're going to be breeders. This has caused an explosion of dog breeds with the only goal being extreme size, both little and small, without any thought to temperament, intelligence, or specialization. Papering dog breeds without regulating breeders is probably one of the root problems.
Come to think of it it's probably a larger black market than we all realize. I'm not even talking nasty breeder farms but rather the average Joe who uses it as a side hustle.
As I understand it, there are already some provisions under UK law for dealing with this. If a dog is "out of control" (e.g. it attacks someone) it must be put down and the owner tried criminally.
Perhaps the solution is to introduce dog licensing, where anyone wishing to acquire a dog would have to go through
Le Monde with AFP
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on Friday he would move to ban the dog breed responsible for a recent series of attacks.
A man arrested
Government's response
Defining breeds and banning
Man who died after double dog attack in Staffordshire named
by Jessica Murray
XL Bully owner defends breed and says banning them ‘won’t work’ by Douglas Whitbread
American bully XL owners speak of heartbreak at ban by Harrison Jones & Jo Couzens
As much as I hate this government's guts I'm glad they're taking some steps to address this. It shouldn't be a partisan issue and it'd be an easy win for any of our political parties. It's not enough to add these dogs to the list of banned breeds but it's certainly a start.
I read that a significant number of the XL bullies in the UK can trace their lineage back to the infamous Killer Kimbo, and even without that it's abundantly clear that their breeders haven't been prioritising temperament. I'm sorry to say that it's a variant of the pitbull breed that I fundamentally believe should not exist.