USPCA: “Adding these dogs to a failed law that has been in place for 30 years cannot not work because it is the owners who train and goad dogs into aggression that must be dealt with”
But is that is because of some treatment or training from the owners also? Doesn’t seem clear cut.
These dogs are breed for aggression. Specifically for dog fighting.
This is opposite to most dog breeding. Generally they are breed to be compliant, docile and some function. Even dogs breed unconsciously people select for docile friendly dogs that they can live with. Most functional aggressive dogs are breed small for rat killing purposes. There small size limits the danger to humans.
Animal charities don’t care about reality. They all spread these lies about nurture over nature. The reality is they are blind and biased. The correlation with fighting dogs and attacks on humans is too high for nurture to be a component.
Many of these charities, especially in the UK are reliant on these dangerous dogs to stay in business. The UK has very good control over stray dogs. This means there is little business in rehoming dogs. So they need a large supply of dogs to stay in business. So much so the will take in dangerous dogs rebrand them and obscure their history. These breeds of dogs make up most of the stock in animal shelters in the UK. It’s why you see the growing trend of people rehoming dogs from abroad.
If your business model relies on dangerous dogs, you’ll do what you can to justify it. (Charities are businesses).
I’m not disagreeing, I’m saying that the study doesn’t necessarily account for the treatment as well.
》The correlation with fighting dogs and attacks on humans is too high for nurture to be a component.
While I agree (to some extent ) with naming or restricting these breeds.
Unfortunately this statement is not true. You are completely ignoring that a significant % of people who want to own these breeds. Do so because they are known for fighting. Nurture is a component. Because the owner want them to seem aggressive. So nurture the animal into doing so.
Its not everything. But is is def a component as you say.
As you say. Breeding is the main point. Done to both enhance the prey drive. And subseptability to agr3ssion. But again the breeder trying to sell these dogs know their customers are looking for a specific personality. And nature plus nurture to help support that.
It is def possible to do things the other way. Nurture a fighting dog to be docile. But it take more work amd dedication then to do so for normal less aggressive breeds.
It is also way more dangerous. It is very easy to nurture a normal breed to be agressive. Happens often where the dog is discouraged from trusting people. But due to build. Doing so is (very crual but) less dangerous
At this point, isn’t that a sophistic argument since we don’t have the means to ban specific people from owning specific breeds?
Ah Christ… where do I start?!??
Aggressive biological-weapon breed dogs. Vicious and deadly to perceived threats, hair-trigger.
Intense multi-generational social inequalities lead to low aspirational, low-educational thug cultures which value violence and intimidation as basic psychological currency.
Thug/dogs proliferate as do innocent victims of said dogs.
Government wants to remove dogs from society without removing basic social inequalities which lead to thug culture. Blames social victims and continues to destroy educational institution and economic structures for all but top wealth classes.
Yup. No issues there. Carry on. What could possibly go wrong?
What??? Why???
