Another fatal dog attack

Genetic
Exasperated said:
Yes, well, could potentially also be used to advocate ‘breeding out’ such tendencies from huge dogs, possibly by the same aficionados who argue inadequate training / nurture is the issue - simply because a huge and dangerous-looking dog confers status on the owner…. We might get a bit further with the problem by genetically testing and psychologically examining such owners.
In humans all sorts of research, including genetic and biological, has been conducted into ‘psychopathy’, and what triggers some psychopaths to homicide. Still no closer to eliminating that little problem, they are people, these are dogs, not endangered species but dogs engineered by humans, and dogs that humanity absolutely does not need. Get rid.
Click to expand...
ah yes those famous non biological genetics 😅
 
meleeka said:
Theres someone who lives fairly locally who owns 2 massive Cane Corsos, in a tiny flat with two young children. It's an accident waiting to happen 😳 I don't know what the answer is, but it appears there aren't any rules against it.
Click to expand...
Unless Social Services are alerted to and identify a significant risk - there aren’t. It’s actually increasingly difficult for landlords to refuse tenants’ pet dogs.
 
Exasperated said:
Yes, well, could potentially also be used to advocate ‘breeding out’ such tendencies from huge dogs, possibly by the same aficionados who argue inadequate training / nurture is the issue - simply because a huge and dangerous-looking dog confers status on the owner…. We might get a bit further with the problem by genetically testing and psychologically examining such owners.
In humans all sorts of research, including genetic and biological, has been conducted into ‘psychopathy’, and what triggers some psychopaths to homicide. Still no closer to eliminating that little problem, they are people, these are dogs, not endangered species but dogs engineered by humans, and dogs that humanity absolutely does not need. Get rid.
Click to expand...

It's almost like you're not well versed in the details and potential applications of genetic studies in this area, and yet, you post with such assumed certainty.

Here's a really simple concept that even a small child should be able to understand:

Current legislation relies on describing "type" and facial / body measurements of dogs. This is difficult to enforce for many reasons. If you could identify a genetic cause for aggression, you could use that as the basis of a definitive test to identify dogs that should be destroyed, and have that as the basis of legislation. That would reduce the risk of animals being bred from dangerous stock to meet the current requirements for a legal dog. How would that be worthless?

Exasperated said:
Would it make it easier for you:
‘...Including genetic / biological...’
there you go!
Click to expand...

If you think that helps, you didn't understand Ester's comment.
 
meleeka said:
Theres someone who lives fairly locally who owns 2 massive Cane Corsos, in a tiny flat with two young children. It's an accident waiting to happen 😳 I don't know what the answer is, but it appears there aren't any rules against it.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be good if you could politely ask why they chose those dogs? Obviously you cannot or indeed should you…
I have a friend whose son and daughter in law have just (well 6 months ago) bought a Cane Corso puppy, they are sensible good owners, but I still wonder why….
 
Marshpiper said:
If only they would throw the “book” at owners, instead of some paltry fine, suspended sentence etc etc…
In these days of Official Seizing of Assets, a proper fine including all costs incurred, damages to the people injured or owner of animal killed or injured, paid immediately or assets seized….
Let’s face it, majority of owners of these poor dogs only got them to appear hard, and should not have ownership of any living creature….I say poor dog because they didn’t ask to be bred like this…
Click to expand...
Agree the poor dogs are the ones suffering through all of this… the people who own these dogs that attack should have punishment even if it’s community work as the jails are too full . any assets confiscated, if they have a car, expensive phone etc take them away permanently, that will upset them!!!
 
JFTDWS said:
It's almost like you're not well versed in the details and potential applications of genetic studies in this area, and yet, you post with such assumed certainty.

Here's a really simple concept that even a small child should be able to understand:

Current legislation relies on describing "type" and facial / body measurements of dogs. This is difficult to enforce for many reasons. If you could identify a genetic cause for aggression, you could use that as the basis of a definitive test to identify dogs that should be destroyed, and have that as the basis of legislation. That would reduce the risk of animals being bred from dangerous stock to meet the current requirements for a legal dog. How would that be worthless?



If you think that helps, you didn't understand Ester's comment.
Click to expand...
Possibly you didn’t read mine, the comment was about deviancy in humans, where isolating a genetic (or any other single) cause for extreme aggression has (unsurprisingly) proved elusive.
Back to the dogs: Xl bulldogs are particularly formidable and particularly inbred, which combination of size and instability does not require further research to ‘prove’ the undeniable threat they pose - as if the statistical incidence wasn’t enough. Sadly, evidence of a serious problem does exist, altho researching why some individuals wilfully choose to ignore it might be interesting.
People likely already know the differences between biochemical and genetic testing, or that you’ll enlighten them if not.
 
Exasperated said:
Possibly you didn’t read mine, the comment was about deviancy in humans, where isolating a genetic (or any other single) cause for extreme aggression has (unsurprisingly) proved elusive.
Back to the dogs: Xl bulldogs are particularly formidable and particularly inbred, which combination of size and instability does not require further research to ‘prove’ the undeniable threat they pose - as if the statistical incidence wasn’t enough. Sadly, evidence of a serious problem does exist, altho researching why some individuals wilfully choose to ignore it might be interesting.
People likely already know the differences between biochemical and genetic testing, or that you’ll enlighten them if not.
Click to expand...

I read and understood your post, but your responses prove you aren't doing the same for others... Nobody is talking about researching the "threat", and nobody is talking about psychopathy in humans (which is an entirely different and more complex issue).

As for the last sentence, again, you didn't understand Ester's comment.
 
JFTDWS said:
Genetic studies on XL bullies aren't to prove the background of the dogs, they're to determine how and why their genetics predisposes them to such aggressive and dangerous behaviour. This can then be used to direct further research, testing and potentially legislation of other current or emerging breeds that carry similar genetic predispositions.
Click to expand...
Can't the samples be obtained after the dog is heavily sedated prior to being euthanized?
 
Marshpiper said:
Wouldn’t it be good if you could politely ask why they chose those dogs? Obviously you cannot or indeed should you…
I have a friend whose son and daughter in law have just (well 6 months ago) bought a Cane Corso puppy, they are sensible good owners, but I still wonder why….
Click to expand...

JMO, but responsible owners should own whatever breed that fits their needs. Excepting banned breeds. I had family members ask me why I wanted German Shepherd when I bought my first one. So I understand the choice.
 
GSD Woman said:
JMO, but responsible owners should own whatever breed that fits their needs. Excepting banned breeds. I had family members ask me why I wanted German Shepherd when I bought my first one. So I understand the choice.
Click to expand...
Not quite the same potential for unprovoked attack as xlbs. GSDs are reputable working/guarding dogs. I've yet to see an a working Xlb. GSDs are usually carefully bred, though of course, not always.
 
Marshpiper said:
Wouldn’t it be good if you could politely ask why they chose those dogs? Obviously you cannot or indeed should you…
I have a friend whose son and daughter in law have just (well 6 months ago) bought a Cane Corso puppy, they are sensible good owners, but I still wonder why….
Click to expand...
This is exactly the question responsible breeders should be asking. But of course most of the people who produce these dogs don't give a flying **** as long as they get their money.
 
JFTDWS said:
I read and understood your post, but your responses prove you aren't doing the same for others... Nobody is talking about researching the "threat", and nobody is talking about psychopathy in humans (which is an entirely different and more complex issue).

As for the last sentence, again, you didn't understand Ester's comment.
Click to expand...
You mean we aren’t line breeding humans and investigating the genetics of psychopathy as a result.

And yup we do lots of genetics on dead things, there’s also very good preservative sample storage options available too so they don’t have to be processed immediately. Nothing has to be alive (hence the horse in lasagne scandal)
 
misst said:
Not quite the same potential for unprovoked attack as xlbs. GSDs are reputable working/guarding dogs. I've yet to see an a working Xlb. GSDs are usually carefully bred, though of course, not always.
Click to expand...

Yep, Cane Corsos can also be a useful and biddable dog when well bred, and have some form of functionality and history of working and living alongside people, they have a lot more to them, above looking hard/cool/impeding the cops for a few minutes after they break the door down. I don't see the issue with a well-bred/researched one, for which the same can be said about GSDs, Rotts, etc, they do appear to be the dog du jour of idiots, but as we have seen over time, they will eventually move on to something else, and hopefully responsible people will keep on breeding/owning/enjoying the good ones.
 
GSD Woman said:
Can't the samples be obtained after the dog is heavily sedated prior to being euthanized?
Click to expand...

Its being done on current populations as far as I know. I'll have a look see if I can find the details again. Its sort of related to some of the stuff I look at so I come across things like this fairly often.

I am absolutely mind boggled that anyone thinks we shouldnt be doing research into what is making these dogs attack. Its research scientists doing it, not the woman who thinks love fixes them. Its not done to "save them". Its done for knowledge of how and why.

FWIW there is still an absolute ton of research done daily into psychopathy and similar.
 
incidentally, my dogs were part of a research study done on skull shape and separation anxiety. A nice man measured their skulls and went off and wrote his paper. Theres so much research happening everyday, on usually live populations of dogs, but occasionally on dead ones and sometimes both. My horses took part in an international research project on PSSM a few years back. Its not just dogs.
 
Theoretically this is already the last generation of xl bulldogs in the UK - ha!
Assuming it even proves possible to identify a gene responsible for extreme aggression in xl bulldogs (purely genetic causation being quite impossible to identify in human aggression), suggesting that such research 5826 might somehow solve the social problem of large, savage dogs in our communities is mistaken. That day to day experience and threat is of most concern to most people, certainly to the authorities, and yes, we probably would make more progress by investigating the social context within which large, ferocious dogs are bred, coveted, trained and kept.
 
Why do people get any particular type of dog? IME many if not most of them do so because they like the look of them whether it's a french bulldog, doodle or a large breed like a mastiff, rott, GSD or an XL. There is very little if any thought about breed traits, exercise and training needs or anything other than what the person wants, right now, this minute. The dog is an accessory to their life and image and little or no meaningful research is done prior to purchase and when they have picked an unsuitable breed and start having issues, many - not all but many - blame the dog, the breeder, the rescue who don't have space, anyone but themselves. Responsibility is in short supply not just in dog ownership but in life generally. Then you have the people who think dogs are humans in furry suits, that luuurrrrve will conquer all - they love their dogs but they don't understand them so put them in situations where it can and does go terribly wrong. Neither human or dog are safeguarded and when you are talking about ill bred, volatile dogs - no matter what breed - there will be tragedies. Most of these are so avoidable if only people engaged their brains.
It's all very good and understandable to talk about punishment (and I would probably be banned if I said what I would consider fair punishment) after an injury or death but really we should be looking at prevention first. Adding the XL to the banned breed list does seem to have greatly reduced the amount of public attacks which is great but the in home attacks are still occuring. You might say that is Darwinism in action and I would struggle to disagree to be fair but family members, especially children didn't choose the dogs did they? And when you ban a breed, firstly you get the muppets up in arms going 'not my Fluffy' with a point to prove (where's the eyeroll emoji when you need it) and very shortly afterwards, those that want an 'impressive dog' move onto another large breed from badly bred stock and the cycle continues. I am no fan of the XLs but to be honest, I wouldn't fancy my chances of surviving a proper attack from any dog over about 35-40kgs and some of the mastiffy types are more than capable of having a real go at someone in many circumstances. Locally, I'm seeing lots more cane corsa, akitas and terrifyingly Tibetan Mastiffs and Boerboels along with various livestock guardian types. All in suburbia...

I've said it before but education about dogs needs to happen, on all sides of the fence. It should be harder to breed a dog, buy a dog, rehome a dog - you should need a licence that can't be got until you've done some form of training, online or otherwise and third party insurance should be compulsory and cost linked to the breed and your living situation. It would financially affect me (and all the other responsible owners) which I admit I'd resent but anything to slow down the impulse purchase, buying for looks and total stupidity that is rife.
 
cbmcts said:
Why do people get any particular type of dog? IME many if not most of them do so because they like the look of them whether it's a french bulldog, doodle or a large breed like a mastiff, rott, GSD or an XL. There is very little if any thought about breed traits, exercise and training needs or anything other than what the person wants, right now, this minute. The dog is an accessory to their life and image and little or no meaningful research is done prior to purchase and when they have picked an unsuitable breed and start having issues, many - not all but many - blame the dog, the breeder, the rescue who don't have space, anyone but themselves. Responsibility is in short supply not just in dog ownership but in life generally. Then you have the people who think dogs are humans in furry suits, that luuurrrrve will conquer all - they love their dogs but they don't understand them so put them in situations where it can and does go terribly wrong. Neither human or dog are safeguarded and when you are talking about ill bred, volatile dogs - no matter what breed - there will be tragedies. Most of these are so avoidable if only people engaged their brains.
It's all very good and understandable to talk about punishment (and I would probably be banned if I said what I would consider fair punishment) after an injury or death but really we should be looking at prevention first. Adding the XL to the banned breed list does seem to have greatly reduced the amount of public attacks which is great but the in home attacks are still occuring. You might say that is Darwinism in action and I would struggle to disagree to be fair but family members, especially children didn't choose the dogs did they? And when you ban a breed, firstly you get the muppets up in arms going 'not my Fluffy' with a point to prove (where's the eyeroll emoji when you need it) and very shortly afterwards, those that want an 'impressive dog' move onto another large breed from badly bred stock and the cycle continues. I am no fan of the XLs but to be honest, I wouldn't fancy my chances of surviving a proper attack from any dog over about 35-40kgs and some of the mastiffy types are more than capable of having a real go at someone in many circumstances. Locally, I'm seeing lots more cane corsa, akitas and terrifyingly Tibetan Mastiffs and Boerboels along with various livestock guardian types. All in suburbia...

I've said it before but education about dogs needs to happen, on all sides of the fence. It should be harder to breed a dog, buy a dog, rehome a dog - you should need a licence that can't be got until you've done some form of training, online or otherwise and third party insurance should be compulsory and cost linked to the breed and your living situation. It would financially affect me (and all the other responsible owners) which I admit I'd resent but anything to slow down the impulse purchase, buying for looks and total stupidity that is rife.
Click to expand...
I agree with every single sensible word……I have said to councillors and other people, please please can we have some sort of questionnaire before getting a dog licence and you must have a licence before you get a dog and people should not sell anyone a dog without them having a licence….rescues would have a much easier time….the licence needn’t be overly expensive….
 
There was an xlb in my village. The woman got it because she wanted to "rescue" a dog. It was arranged through some sort of rescue organisation who placed the dog from one home where the owner was allegedly going into hospital into this woman's care. No assessment was made of the dog or the home. She picked it up one evening and after getting it home it bit her 4yo daughter. Cue loads of frantic posts on fb about how to get this "rescue" to come and get the dog, they wouldn't. This was before the ban. I saw it a lot irl as she regularly walked it past my house, one day when my horse was on my drive it lunged at him like something demented barking it's head off. Luckily it wasn't one of the really powerful ones and the woman managed to hang on to it. These people live in a large expensive house and the husband is supposedly an expert with large dogs but they chose this dog and kept the dog even after it bit their kid. Haven't seen it in a while so really hoping it's dead now and they have given up "rescuing".
 
Exasperated said:
Theoretically this is already the last generation of xl bulldogs in the UK - ha!
Assuming it even proves possible to identify a gene responsible for extreme aggression in xl bulldogs (purely genetic causation being quite impossible to identify in human aggression), suggesting that such research 5826 might somehow solve the social problem of large, savage dogs in our communities is mistaken. That day to day experience and threat is of most concern to most people, certainly to the authorities, and yes, we probably would make more progress by investigating the social context within which large, ferocious dogs are bred, coveted, trained and kept.
Click to expand...

Nice straw man argument there - I didn't say identifying genetic markers would "solve" anything. I said that it might prove useful in directing legislation and breeding - there's nuance and you missed it. I also didn't say that the threat wasn't a concern - another straw man of yours. I said that it is entirely irrelevant to the act of researching genetics associated with aggression in dogs, which it is. If you want some further nuance you've missed, it's that it's not "impossible" to identify markers of behaviours in humans at all - but it's a bit of an ethical nightmare to do much about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top