Why do we still keep dogs bred to kill?

[Nessie]

There is a lot in the UK news about a rise in dog attacks and kills, primarily by American Bully XLs. In the past there were issues with other breeds such as Japanese Tosa and Pit Bulls, which were subsequently banned.

Certain dogs were bred to defend livestock and humans and even for attack. The UK bans people from carrying knives and guns as a means of defence, even people who can be trusted to be safe and responsible with weapons. So why allow breeds of dog that have the same purpose as a knife or gun?

There is no place for dogs like the Bully XL, or any dog whose original purpose is to kill.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Because all dogs have killing as an original purpose?

It's training and raising that has the most influence.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Nessie

There is a lot in the UK news about a rise in dog attacks and kills, primarily by American Bully XLs. In the past there were issues with other breeds such as Japanese Tosa and Pit Bulls, which were subsequently banned.

Certain dogs were bred to defend livestock and humans and even for attack. The UK bans people from carrying knives and guns as a means of defence, even people who can be trusted to be safe and responsible with weapons. So why allow breeds of dog that have the same purpose as a knife or gun?

There is no place for dogs like the Bully XL, or any dog whose original purpose is to kill.

I tend to agree. But it is incredibly difficult to class dogs only by breed. Staffordshire Bull Terriers have been classified in some places as dangerous dogs, but personal experience (my son has young children and an incredibly placid Staffy) leads me to be confident that it can be a safe breed.

Pit Bulls may be different and deserve a general ban, but I’m not so sure.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Because all dogs have killing as an original purpose?

Way back before they were domesticated, yes. Since then they've been selectively bred to serve more specific purposes. One of those is taking on and fighting (and killing) large, powerful animals. It's this tendency that can emerge when a dog is roused to act aggressively. A retriever aroused in this way might bite but it won't aim to kill. It'll make its point and probably go and cower somewhere, sensing it's done something bad. A bully type might well aim to rip your throat out.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

It's training and raising that has the most influence.

Not when a dog a sufficiently aroused. That's when many generations of selective breeding can easily rise to the surface.

List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom^WP

Scroll down to modern times. There's a few cases involving Jack Russels in there, but babies are the victims. Otherwise it's bully breeds, Rottweilers, Alsatians and the like.

My own cousin, age about 12 at the time, could be on the list had his father not been around to break the (Rottweiler) dog's back with a dining chair when it proved impossible to get the dog's teeth out of his son's shoulder. The boy's crime? To run down the stairs, trip in the hallway and spook the dog. These were extremely experienced dog owners, and affluent people by the way, about as far from 'thugs' as you can imagine.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Way back before they were domesticated, yes. Since then they've been selectively bred to serve more specific purposes. One of those is taking on and fighting (and killing) large, powerful animals. It's this tendency that can emerge when a dog is roused to act aggressively. A retriever aroused in this way might bite but it won't aim to kill. It'll make its point and probably go and cower somewhere, sensing it's done something bad. A bully type might well aim to rip your throat out.

Not when a dog a sufficiently aroused. That's when many generations of selective breeding can easily rise to the surface.

List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom^WP

Scroll down to modern times. There's a few cases involving Jack Russels in there, but babies are the victims. Otherwise it's bully breeds, Rottweilers, Alsatians and the like.

My own cousin, age about 12 at the time, could be on the list had his father not been around to break the (Rottweiler) dog's back with a dining chair when it proved impossible to get the dog's teeth out of his son's shoulder. The boy's crime? To run down the stairs, trip in the hallway and spook the dog. These were extremely experienced dog owners, and affluent people by the way, about as far from 'thugs' as you can imagine.

You've told this awful story before with additional details. The dog displayed alarming behavior before the incident. Despite their experience, your cousins screwed up.

(Disclosure: I own a rottie, my second one.)

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Way back before they were domesticated, yes. Since then they've been selectively bred to serve more specific purposes. One of those is taking on and fighting (and killing) large, powerful animals. It's this tendency that can emerge when a dog is roused to act aggressively. A retriever aroused in this way might bite but it won't aim to kill. It'll make its point and probably go and cower somewhere, sensing it's done something bad. A bully type might well aim to rip your throat out.



Not when a dog a sufficiently aroused. That's when many generations of selective breeding can easily rise to the surface.

List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom^WP

Scroll down to modern times. There's a few cases involving Jack Russels in there, but babies are the victims. Otherwise it's bully breeds, Rottweilers, Alsatians and the like.

My own cousin, age about 12 at the time, could be on the list had his father not been around to break the (Rottweiler) dog's back with a dining chair when it proved impossible to get the dog's teeth out of his son's shoulder. The boy's crime? To run down the stairs, trip in the hallway and spook the dog. These were extremely experienced dog owners, and affluent people by the way, about as far from 'thugs' as you can imagine.

Poodles: Bred to hunt and kill waterfowl
Terriers: Bred to kill rats
Corgis: Bred to run after large animals and bite them to keep them going
Labradors : Bred as hunting dogs
Golden Retrievers : Bred to retrieve wounded game (hint it wasn't retrieved alive)
Chihuahua : Unknown, but given their aggression their lapdog status is new
Spaniels : Bred to hunt game

Noticing a trend?
We pretty much stopped using some dogs to kill things for us somewhere around 200 years ago, but evolution isn't *that* fast.

[JoeMorgue]

I actually love Pit Bulls, but the Pit Bull Fandom has exactly two arguments and they are both stupid.

1. "It's not the breed, it's the owner!"
2. "But chihuahuas bite more people than Pit Bulls!"

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Poodles: Bred to hunt and kill waterfowl
Terriers: Bred to kill rats
Corgis: Bred to run after large animals and bite them to keep them going
Labradors : Bred as hunting dogs
Golden Retrievers : Bred to retrieve wounded game (hint it wasn't retrieved alive)
Chihuahua : Unknown, but given their aggression their lapdog status is new
Spaniels : Bred to hunt game

Noticing a trend?
We pretty much stopped using some dogs to kill things for us somewhere around 200 years ago, but evolution isn't *that* fast.

I'm not sure what point you're making here.

Incidentally, Labradors are also known as Labrador retrievers. They retrieved downed game, being especially valuable in watery conditions. They didn't actively hunt, so describing them as 'hunting dogs' gives the wrong impression. Same story with Golden retrievers - they didn't go out and kill the birds, merely retrieved birds downed by gunfire. Spaniels were used to flush game from cover.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Because all dogs have killing as an original purpose?

It's training and raising that has the most influence.

Dogs were found useful at raising the alarm and defence, protecting livestock, sniffing or flushing out or prey for humans to kill. Few were bred to do the actual killing.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Certain breeds of dig were originally bred as a form of protection, some for livestock, but also for humans. Having one now, is like being in public with a knife. In the UK, we do not tolerate that, even with someone who can be trusted to have a knife.

Actually we do, and you know that, but we have pretty sensible laws around it. Any adult can carry a folding knife that doesn't lock & is under 3 inches blade length as a tool, anyone who has a legal and timely reason can possess almost any knife (including in public when that legal & timely reason is applicable). The law is more nuanced, a butter knife can be an offensive weapon if you're carrying it without good reason, but we don't arrest people sitting down to their soup course in a restaurant.I

I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm no fan of weaponised breeds, but simplified thinking leads to bad laws.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Poodles: Bred to hunt and kill waterfowl
Terriers: Bred to kill rats
Corgis: Bred to run after large animals and bite them to keep them going
Labradors : Bred as hunting dogs
Golden Retrievers : Bred to retrieve wounded game (hint it wasn't retrieved alive)
Chihuahua : Unknown, but given their aggression their lapdog status is new
Spaniels : Bred to hunt game

Noticing a trend?
We pretty much stopped using some dogs to kill things for us somewhere around 200 years ago, but evolution isn't *that* fast.

Selective breeding is that fast. 200 years is easily 50 generations of dogs, if not more, more than ample to change the characteristics of a breed.

[mumblethrax]

Almost all dog breeds date back no further than 200 years.

A breed is just a curated collection of traits that exist within the greater population. This isn't origin-of-the-species stuff.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I actually love Pit Bulls, but the Pit Bull Fandom has exactly two arguments and they are both stupid.

1. "It's not the breed, it's the owner!"
2. "But chihuahuas bite more people than Pit Bulls!"

I've said it once and I'll say it again...

Beware the chihuahua. The are small and cute, but they roam the land in large packs, one thousand dogs or more. Each one takes only a tiny bite, but when they all attack, ai ai ai.

We call them the 'land piranha'...

[p0lka]

Because some people have no friends but need a bodyguard, because they're idiots.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I actually love Pit Bulls, but the Pit Bull Fandom has exactly two arguments and they are both stupid.

1. "It's not the breed, it's the owner!"
2. "But chihuahuas bite more people than Pit Bulls!"

I dislike Pit Bulls and all the crossbred versions I see. I find nothing redeeming about the breed. They are ugly (to my eyes) and I do not consider them trustworthy. I have only ever been attacked/bitten twice - two different occasions involving different dogs. Both times were unprovoked when I was walking on a footpath past a private property, both times a dog rushed out through an open gate, both of them were Pit Bull crosses. I was also lucky both times that I was able to jump on the bonnet of a parked car.

I just don't trust any of them, and whenever I see one on the beach when walking my dog, I give it a wide berth.

[angrysoba]

The responsible pit bull owner argument is essentially similar to the responsible gun owner argument. We hear about how really it is not the dog but the owner, and that other dogs, like other hand held implements, can also be dangerous. But ultimately this is fatuous. We know the type of dog makes a big difference.

Fortunately I don’t see many of these types of dogs in Japan but when going back to England with my son, I’ll keep him away from them and I don’t care for the appeals of any dog owner who gets upset “but he’s lovely and wouldn’t hurt a fly”, until the dog isn’t lovely any more and those stories are two a penny.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

The responsible pit bull owner argument is essentially similar to the responsible gun owner argument. We hear about how really it is not the dog but the owner, and that other dogs, like other hand held implements, can also be dangerous. But ultimately this is fatuous. We know the type of dog makes a big difference.

Fortunately I don’t see many of these types of dogs in Japan but when going back to England with my son, I’ll keep him away from them and I don’t care for the appeals of any dog owner who gets upset “but he’s lovely and wouldn’t hurt a fly”, until the dog isn’t lovely any more and those stories are two a penny.

Yup. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the owner of a dog that has attacked young family member, interviewed on TV saying things like "... but he was always so gentle, and he has never done anything like this before" And when you dig further into it, they more often that not turn out to be a Pitt bull, or a Pitt Bull cross or a Rottweiler.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yup. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the owner of a dog that has attacked young family member, interviewed on TV saying things like "... but he was always so gentle, and he has never done anything like this before" And when you dig further into it, they more often that not turn out to be a Pitt bull, or a Pitt Bull cross or a Rottweiler.

Or….

“If you knew him, you would never believe he could have….”

Wrong! The only time I have trouble believing is when these dogs are not currently ripping someone’s face off. I always assume they are ticking time bombs and that in most cases owning one is an overt sign of being anti-social.

[arthwollipot]

Dachshunds were bred to kill badgers. But when you get to know them they are the most adorably affectionate dogs you could ever hope to share your territory with.

[Orphia Nay]

I'm sure the whippet that mauled my cat three weeks ago is *lovely*. /s

[SteveAitch]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Dachshunds were bred to kill badgers. But when you get to know them they are the most adorably affectionate dogs you could ever hope to share your territory with.

Well, the only time I can remember being attacked by a dog (it was a few months ago) it was a dachshund. It jumped from the pavement to my hip and sank its teeth into my jacket. At which point the owner pulled it off me by its lead and walked on, with no apology.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by SteveAitch

Well, the only time I can remember being attacked by a dog (it was a few months ago) it was a dachshund. It jumped from the pavement to my hip and sank its teeth into my jacket. At which point the owner pulled it off me by its lead and walked on, with no apology.

I take no responsibility for the behaviour of individual dogs, or their owners.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Dachshunds were bred to kill badgers. But when you get to know them they are the most adorably affectionate dogs you could ever hope to share your territory with.

When was the last time badger killing was a factor in selecting which dog to breed from? In the case of some of the pit bull varieties, they are still being chosen for the traits that make them dangerous, both physically and behaviourally.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

When was the last time badger killing was a factor in selecting which dog to breed from? In the case of some of the pit bull varieties, they are still being chosen for the traits that make them dangerous, both physically and behaviourally.

Indeed.

There is a reason why the lowest form of scum in society choose the Pit Bull and associated cross-breeds to guard their gang houses.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Dachshunds were bred to kill badgers. But when you get to know them they are the most adorably affectionate dogs you could ever hope to share your territory with.

Were they not bred to flush badgers out of their sets for humans to kill them?

[Mongrel]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Border collies need not be aggressive, and whilst they might be able to harm someone when they bite, they are unlikely to be able to maul someone to death

My opinion is that many peoples only research seem to be YouTube or TikTok videos of breeds 'doing their thing'.
Collies herding behaviour or derpy huskies are all over social media, people look at these and buy the dog without realising just how much work is involved. Then the, often poorly trained, dogs start having issues because they're bored or cooped up all day.

[Darat]

I think there is an argument to be made about dogs that physically could easily cause serious harm to people being restricted or simply not allowed. However we need to face the fact that would mean not just mean the "bully" breeds or pitbull "types" any dog of the size of a collie and upwards would have to be disallowed. (Thinking about that a bit more it would mean even smaller than that and be any dog of a cocker spaniel or larger size.)

That would be the only way short of banning all dogs to significantly reduce the deaths and serious injuries from dogs.

Are the risks of such fatalities and severe injury worth that level of restriction?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Certain breeds of dig were originally bred as a form of protection, some for livestock, but also for humans. Having one now, is like being in public with a knife. In the UK, we do not tolerate that, even with someone who can be trusted to have a knife.

That "originally bred" is doing a lot of work.

Very few breeds - by that I'm going to use the KC defined "pedigree dogs" - have been bred for their original purposes for a long time. Generally if you look at the photos from a hundred years ago of a still existing breed you will see a very different looking dog. Appearance is what we've been concentrating on for most breeds. This is even so in the case of the "American XL bully" or "pitbull", it is the appearance that is being bred for with an almost Lamarckian view that a "tough" looking dog will result in a "tough" dog.

There is too much "confirmation expectation" in dog breeding for me to be at all comfortable with the idea that some breeds are being successfully bred for aggression.

Now there can be behaviours more likely to appear in a particular breed, especially those that have remained a working dog breed - for example the border collie.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Sorry, 44% of all attacks, on dogs and humans.

Where is that statistic from - was it in one of my links?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Darat

Where is that statistic from - was it in one of my links?

One of The Guardian articles, which I think I misquoted. Can't find it now.

Here it is: Guardian

[Darat]

Originally Posted by GlennB

One of The Guardian articles, which I think I misquoted. Can't find it now.

Yeah I thought it might have been but can't see it now. It just seems a very high figure given the number of them in the country, was wondering if it's a sub-number, a particular type of attack or something?

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by lionking

I tend to agree. But it is incredibly difficult to class dogs only by breed. Staffordshire Bull Terriers have been classified in some places as dangerous dogs, but personal experience (my son has young children and an incredibly placid Staffy) leads me to be confident that it can be a safe breed.

Pit Bulls may be different and deserve a general ban, but I’m not so sure.

Pit Bulls can be bred and then forced to fight, but that isn't what most Pits are like. They don't even have the highest bite incidence, as they are routinely butt kicked in the number of bites dished out by sausage dogs and purse pups.

Most Pit Bull owners report suffering one problem with their dogs for which that breed is known. The breed requires a lot of exercise, but like humans, Pits are prone to being sofa spuds and one 20-minute walk a day won't deal with the growing waistline.

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by Darat

That "originally bred" is doing a lot of work.

Very few breeds - by that I'm going to use the KC defined "pedigree dogs" - have been bred for their original purposes for a long time. Generally if you look at the photos from a hundred years ago of a still existing breed you will see a very different looking dog. Appearance is what we've been concentrating on for most breeds. This is even so in the case of the "American XL bully" or "pitbull", it is the appearance that is being bred for with an almost Lamarckian view that a "tough" looking dog will result in a "tough" dog.

There is too much "confirmation expectation" in dog breeding for me to be at all comfortable with the idea that some breeds are being successfully bred for aggression.

Now there can be behaviours more likely to appear in a particular breed, especially those that have remained a working dog breed - for example the border collie.

Border Collies are still bred pretty much as herding and farm dogs.

There's a breeder a few miles from us in the North Yorkshire Moors only sells to shepherds and farmers. Her dogs are for working, not pets.
They are some of the top shepherding dogs, win lots of prizes at the country shows.
They are smaller than a lot of Collies, it's one of the ways of telling one of her dogs.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by GlennB

One of The Guardian articles, which I think I misquoted. Can't find it now.

Here it is: Guardian

This is the site of Bully Watch: https://bullywatch.link/

They have a graph on that page that shows the number of attacks in 2023, but there is something screwy about this. According to other reports there were "7,443 people were admitted to hospitals for dog bites between 2020–2021" assuming 2023 hasn't seen an incredibly large drop in dog attacks that graph is very much an undercount of dog attacks?

What am I getting wrong?

ETA: They are very transparent about what they are recording - here is the live spreadsheet that generates the graph on the front page: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...#gid=652096304

Their sample size is currently only 841, seems their data is collated from reports in mainstream media, usually local media. That worries me as we all know once the media gets on a bit of a bandwagon they tend to report confirmations.

ETA1: Seems most of their data is from the likes of Facebook and other social media.

Whilst I applaud their work and transparency I think we should be careful with using their data to come to firm conclusions. If they are accurately reporting what is posted on local news sites and social media (and I have no doubt they are trying to be as accurate as possible) we know they are only looking at a subset of dog attacks, most must not be reported on social media nor in local media. I.e. their sample size for this year to date is 841, whereas data from hospital reported attacks can be expected to be over 7000 a year, never mind those that didn't require hospital treatment, other data indicates there are over 2000 posties attacked by dogs each year and so on.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Nosi

Pit Bulls can be bred and then forced to fight, but that isn't what most Pits are like. They don't even have the highest bite incidence, as they are routinely butt kicked in the number of bites dished out by sausage dogs and purse pups.

Most Pit Bull owners report suffering one problem with their dogs for which that breed is known. The breed requires a lot of exercise, but like humans, Pits are prone to being sofa spuds and one 20-minute walk a day won't deal with the growing waistline.

Not a Pit or other "mean breed", but when I was a teenage paperboy, I had an older customer with a gorgeous Siberian Husky. The owner said thd dog was getting surly around the house, and since I was training for my HS cross country team, I was distance running twice a day, and he asked me if I could try and take the dog along side me. Even though it looked like the Husky was only running half throttle, he stayed right at my heel the whole time and was happy as could be. We didn't even need a leash after he figured out my route, and when it was time to run, he was sitting at attention on the front porch waiting for me.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by varwoche

You've told this awful story before with additional details. The dog displayed alarming behavior before the incident. Despite their experience, your cousins screwed up.

(Disclosure: I own a rottie, my second one.)

No ****...

[Wudang]

I can believe border collies being responsible for a lot of bites. A good number of my relatives in the Highlands and Islands keep sheep and so have working collies. They are possessed of enormous energy and a couple of times I've watched young pups trying to herd young chickens on instinct, which is exactly as chaotic as it sounds.
I've only met one collie kept as a pet that wasn't restless and nervous all the time and his owner went for long cross country runs with the dog in all weathers.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Nosi

Pit Bulls can be bred and then forced to fight, but that isn't what most Pits are like. They don't even have the highest bite incidence, as they are routinely butt kicked in the number of bites dished out by sausage dogs and purse pups.

Most Pit Bull owners report suffering one problem with their dogs for which that breed is known. The breed requires a lot of exercise, but like humans, Pits are prone to being sofa spuds and one 20-minute walk a day won't deal with the growing waistline.

The other problem is this.

Sausage dogs and purse pups have nowhere near enough bite force to do any real harm. Oh sure, they can bite and draw blood, and its bound to hurt ... but dogs such as Pitt Bulls, Mastiffs and Rottweilers are easily capable of mauling humans to death. They are also very, very strong and bloody difficult to control once they are in attack mode. I once watched two Council dog-control officers each with a 6ft catch-pole looped around a large pitbull's neck - they struggled to get it back to their van.

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah like I keep saying a chihuahua or a Weiner dog isn't going to kill me no matter how vicious they are.

[JoeMorgue]

Or to expand it even more there's reason "Maine Coon" is as big as house cats get because a house cat the size of large breed dog would be insanely dangerous to keep in a house.

My two cats are far more "vicious" then any dog breed and both of them routinely stalk and pounce on me but, and again this point is so ******* obvious I don't think anyone is actually not getting it and being honest, they don't actually threaten my life when they decide to playfully attack me because they weight 10 pounds.

The Pit Bull apologiests love to talk about "little dogs" as if this is a system with weight classes or handicaps we have to account for.