Queensland authorities want to get tough on owners of dangerous dogs with new laws that could see them jailed. The state could also become the first to completely ban some breeds.
The breed bans are so misguided and wont fix anything. We know now, with scientific evidence, that breed is NOT the cause of aggression. Also while some dogs like pitbulls have stronger bite forces that may contribute to worse injuries, that bite force is roughly matched by german shepherds (which are suspiciously absent from the proposed banned breed list despite this, I’m sure it has nothing to do with their use by the police surely). In fact there are dogs with higher bite forces than both these breeds that don’t even make the list.
Also without DNA testing you cannot know what is an isn’t a pitbull. You may think you know a pit when you see one but this just isn’t the case. If you have ANY rescue mutt regardless of appearance it may have a higher content than many dogs that are labelled pits on sight alone.
The issue of breeds being over-represented in attacks is not one of biology, it’s one of culture. The more fear mongering about these animals there is the more attractive they are to dipshits who want a dangerous dog, the same dipshits that generally know nothing about canine behaviour or training and think beating an animal will make it behave. Laws like this may actually make the issue WORSE by making the breed more tantalizing to edge-lords.
I was going to just link the articles and studies individually but I think this video is more accessible. If anyone wants to do a deep dive you can check out the literature mentioned in your own time.
Do not get me wrong, the dog attacks are a serious issue and owners need to be better held to accountable. However banning breeds is a distraction and makes the issue needlessly divisive. They risk losing support from owners of banned breeds for the actually good legislation proposed.
INB4 someone doesn’t read any of this unhinged screed I’ve written and calls me a salty pit owner, I have never owned a pit I’m just passionate about animals and the associated science.
I agree with you. People don’t know how to raise and train their dogs. You will get some serious damage from small breeds but their size usually limits it from being fatal. Most people only know how to raise a dog from watching parents or others. Their theory on training a dog is usually based on outdated and flawed premises. When we got ours we did a bunch of research on training and behaviour and I had to relearn what I knew about dogs even though I had them growing up.
admittedly that’s an issue with the study and I’m glad you brought it up. This runs into the issue of how else could you collect the data? If you just go off reports or surrendered dogs you will miss out on smaller breeds like chihuahuas whose aggressive behaviour isn’t seen as serious enough to do anything about, as well as bias in the form of being more likely to label an aggressive dog a pit.
I think the more important thing to put forward here is that many of the participants didn’t actually know their dogs genetics. Like pointed out in the video if you have a mutt you really have no idea of it’s dna without testing. If aggression was a genetic issue you might expect the owners of smaller dogs like chihuahuas to admit to aggression, since doing so would not put their pet at risk, then the dna testing could show a commonality between their genes and the genes of more maligned breeds. Unless aggression if specifically linked to traits like a big muscular head, this seems like the smoking gun that this is a cultural issue.
I also haven’t seen any studies with different methodology find a link between aggression in certain breeds with genetics in any statistically significant way. This was just the largest study I’ve seen.
If you just go off reports or surrendered dogs you will miss out on smaller breeds like chihuahuas whose aggressive behaviour isn’t seen as serious enough to do anything about
I’m not sure what the best methodology is, but I’m not sure this objection really holds much weight.
Because if a dog is “aggressive” but unable to actually cause any real harm…what does it matter? I’m most interested in taking an approach that actually reduces harm. That’s naturally going to mean that larger dogs are more likely to be affected than smaller ones, and I see no problem with that.
because then if it is genetic and someone’s chihuahua or other small dog runs off and sires pups with a larger dog you’ve got the same issue all over again.
The laws aren’t even about a breed ban. It’s about reducing the avenues for appeal that “bully breed” owners have for contesting their dogs being put down following an attack and increasing criminal penalties for owners that can’t control their dogs. I think this is the way to go about this. It’s not the dogs who are at fault, it’s the dumb cunts who get dogs they can’t control as a fashion statement.
The next thing authorities need to do is crack down hard on unlicensed backyard breeders.
Thanks @TiredSpider, I read all of that and realised how little I know about this issue. My gut reaction didn’t really hold up to scrutiny. I appreciate the perspective.
The breed bans are so misguided and wont fix anything. We know now, with scientific evidence, that breed is NOT the cause of aggression. Also while some dogs like pitbulls have stronger bite forces that may contribute to worse injuries, that bite force is roughly matched by german shepherds (which are suspiciously absent from the proposed banned breed list despite this, I’m sure it has nothing to do with their use by the police surely). In fact there are dogs with higher bite forces than both these breeds that don’t even make the list.
Also without DNA testing you cannot know what is an isn’t a pitbull. You may think you know a pit when you see one but this just isn’t the case. If you have ANY rescue mutt regardless of appearance it may have a higher content than many dogs that are labelled pits on sight alone.
The issue of breeds being over-represented in attacks is not one of biology, it’s one of culture. The more fear mongering about these animals there is the more attractive they are to dipshits who want a dangerous dog, the same dipshits that generally know nothing about canine behaviour or training and think beating an animal will make it behave. Laws like this may actually make the issue WORSE by making the breed more tantalizing to edge-lords.
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7F4OfDSvPU
I was going to just link the articles and studies individually but I think this video is more accessible. If anyone wants to do a deep dive you can check out the literature mentioned in your own time.
Do not get me wrong, the dog attacks are a serious issue and owners need to be better held to accountable. However banning breeds is a distraction and makes the issue needlessly divisive. They risk losing support from owners of banned breeds for the actually good legislation proposed.
INB4 someone doesn’t read any of this unhinged screed I’ve written and calls me a salty pit owner, I have never owned a pit I’m just passionate about animals and the associated science.
I agree with you. People don’t know how to raise and train their dogs. You will get some serious damage from small breeds but their size usually limits it from being fatal. Most people only know how to raise a dog from watching parents or others. Their theory on training a dog is usually based on outdated and flawed premises. When we got ours we did a bunch of research on training and behaviour and I had to relearn what I knew about dogs even though I had them growing up.
Bruh, that ‘scientific evidence’ is based on owners self reporting about their own dogs behaviour.
It’s weak af
admittedly that’s an issue with the study and I’m glad you brought it up. This runs into the issue of how else could you collect the data? If you just go off reports or surrendered dogs you will miss out on smaller breeds like chihuahuas whose aggressive behaviour isn’t seen as serious enough to do anything about, as well as bias in the form of being more likely to label an aggressive dog a pit.
I think the more important thing to put forward here is that many of the participants didn’t actually know their dogs genetics. Like pointed out in the video if you have a mutt you really have no idea of it’s dna without testing. If aggression was a genetic issue you might expect the owners of smaller dogs like chihuahuas to admit to aggression, since doing so would not put their pet at risk, then the dna testing could show a commonality between their genes and the genes of more maligned breeds. Unless aggression if specifically linked to traits like a big muscular head, this seems like the smoking gun that this is a cultural issue.
I also haven’t seen any studies with different methodology find a link between aggression in certain breeds with genetics in any statistically significant way. This was just the largest study I’ve seen.
I’m not sure what the best methodology is, but I’m not sure this objection really holds much weight.
Because if a dog is “aggressive” but unable to actually cause any real harm…what does it matter? I’m most interested in taking an approach that actually reduces harm. That’s naturally going to mean that larger dogs are more likely to be affected than smaller ones, and I see no problem with that.
because then if it is genetic and someone’s chihuahua or other small dog runs off and sires pups with a larger dog you’ve got the same issue all over again.
The laws aren’t even about a breed ban. It’s about reducing the avenues for appeal that “bully breed” owners have for contesting their dogs being put down following an attack and increasing criminal penalties for owners that can’t control their dogs. I think this is the way to go about this. It’s not the dogs who are at fault, it’s the dumb cunts who get dogs they can’t control as a fashion statement.
The next thing authorities need to do is crack down hard on unlicensed backyard breeders.
Thanks @TiredSpider, I read all of that and realised how little I know about this issue. My gut reaction didn’t really hold up to scrutiny. I appreciate the perspective.
Politicians said something. Typically doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.