Zhou Xuanyao

They're indeed. They aren't tyrannosaurus Rex being dogs, or possums being dogs, they're dogs being dogs. Plenty of other dogs may not have behaved in this way, but these ones did. Giving them ridiculous epithets like 'vile monsters' is not only unhelpful, but clearly stupid - they're not criminal masterminds.

Hyperbole much dogmad? Vile monsters?

I think aggressive guard dogs have their place, but certainly not unrestrained in public. A dog doesn't understand legal definitions of reasonable force.

No, there shall be no give, just take. BSL in any guise is out, nothing else will do.

Well it depends on how you define validity steamboat. The last bit is a subjective preference, but I think it's objectively true that the present approach undermines the foundation upon which most of our legal system is based. Not going to dwell on that point any further, it's been said quite enough.

Yes, yes, congratulations, and good luck to you.

On the hypothetical proposed in the last paragraph, most of that sounds true enough, so what? My comments, and Aidan's, don't deny that it's the case, only that it's our preference that it wasn't for the reasons stated.

Aidan has already explained how, to uphold the integrity of our legal system and part of the modicum of logic that our society is based on, the onus of proof must be on the accuser.

If council reckons it to be a restricted breed however, it is of consequence, and as bull breed owners we demand that compelling evidence is produced to support the claim, 'reasonable enough best guess' is unacceptable.

Given that primarily only Bull breeds and crosses are potentially effected by BSL, if you buy a papered one instead of a BYB, you don't have to worry about what the council reckons do you??

That's right m-sass.

Most of those who don't have papered bull breed however also don't have to worry about what the council reckons because most people on the ground would sooner transfer to ditch digging than make idiots of themselves bothering people on the grounds that they might own 'Pitbulls'. For those of us that are unlucky however, I advise they demand that the onus of proof is on the council and drain every cent of their resources possible.

I'll help you figure it. If someone reckons a dog to be anything other than a restricted breed, it's of no consequence, so let us call it a 'Staffy', for example, if that seems a reasonable enough best guess.

If council reckons it to be a restricted breed however, it is of consequence, and as bull breed owners we demand that compelling evidence is produced to support the claim, 'reasonable enough best guess' is unacceptable.

I'v found that the irreverence/apathy toward the law on this issue is quite marked, both from a public and council perspective. BSL today seems to me only a big issue in tabloids, some peoples imaginations, and of course a minority of dog owners who do get unlucky or live in an uncharacteristically active BSL council area.

If he really does live in a humpy and hasn't enough food to eat he probably has no means to pay the fine. Maybe he will end up in jail working it off. He'd be stoked, food and accommodation for a month or so at the governments expense - you beauty.

Ok

The point is (and yourself or others may not agree with my approach) to discuss a topic with due diligence in order to gain some insight, something beyond the usual platitudes. I press you, you press me, we strengthen our arguments in response to one and other, and something tighter and more logical may emerge that we can all learn from.

You defined a generic pet, then asked me if that's what my breeder was aiming for, not that 'nil aggression and prey drive' (to summarise your definition) is an ideal that pet breeders aim for. Do you understand the difference, or is it just beneath you to concede a mistake?

No, this is what was said -

I'd say most generic pets would have zero HA and DA tendencies, very high bite thresholds and bite inhibition and be totally unterritorial and friendly to all. No prey drive either.

Obviously absurd, which is why I didn't reply other than to state that I didn't agree.

Re the GR, I don't need to explicitly state that it's aggressive; aggression is implicit in the behaviour I described.

Excellent post Aphra.

My intention in sharing the anecdote is to demonstrate that a dog which is neither of a fighting breed, nor bred for work, is nonetheless aggressive. I would have expected it to be obvious to just about everyone, on the basis of their common experience if nothing else, that aggression is an inherent component of just about all dogs temperaments, irrespective of breeding. However, given some of the frankly baffling comments I read on this forum, and indeed in this thread, I thought I'd offer an example.

It surprises me that you agree, given that earlier you said that a generic pet exhibits nil aggression.

When I say he's useless, I mean in his capacity as a working retriever.

Unless dog aggression served as useful for a breed's original function why would any breed still performing its original task be more inclined to be DA than a former fighting breed?

Because a dog of a fighting breed, from a non working line (although, strictly speaking not necessarily of a non working line) may have a low or even non existent inclination toward dog aggression.

A working line dog of another breed may have relatively high inclination toward dog aggression because the drives that enable it to perform its intended purpose also lend it to dog aggression.

That point aside, despite popular DOL opinion, aggression is more often than not part and parcel with a dogs nature, this fact remains a foundation that underlies all other inquiries into dog aggression.

An anecdote for what it's worth. Mum's pedigree Golden Retriever is neither of a fighting breed, nor bred to a working standard. He's useless, I don't believe he even fetches balls. Confront him with another large male, introduce another dog while he's eating, or introduce another male while an in season bitch is within eye shot, then we'll see

How can no probabilities apply to the characteristics of an individual dog of an individual breed if some traits occur more commonly in some breeds than others??

I have explained it. Of course I'm happy to try and explain things again, but only if there's a genuine spirit of inquiry, not in response to belligerence. Having said that, I'm not sure how I can be much clearer.

The reason many of your comments have gone un-addressed (and that goes for a few by others as well) is because they're straw men./non sequiturs. For example, insistence that particular behavioural trends exist among particular breeds when considered as a whole, while true, is periphery to the issue at hand. The fact that people agree it's true and think it's relevant to the discussion or that it constitutes a successful argument dis-inclines me that much further from re-explaining my position.

I'm leaving the discussion, as it doesn't appear constructive.

If you aren't I simply cannot follow your logic.

Then slow down. Instead of being committed to disagreeing with me, try a commitment to thinking carefully before you post. Those statements do not contradict each other.

As for my 'mistake' - you seem to be the only person having difficulty comprehending me.

Doesn't interest me what others do. I evaluate what's said based on it's merit, not on how much support it draws from others.

I acknowledged your correction of your mistake with which I originally contended in post 179, it's not necessary to repeat it.

Dogs of individual breeds developed for particular functions have particular characteristics and to suggest that none of this matters in determining characteristics such as levels of dog aggression is incorrect. Some dog breeds are far more likely to be dog aggressive than others. That increases the chances that individual dogs of such breeds are more likely to be dog aggressive.

No it doesn't, assessing a temperament is a matter for individual dogs, not breeds. As a collection, it's true that particular traits are stronger or occur more commonly in one breed than in another, but on an individual level, each dog is what it is, no probabilities apply.

Suppose I had 10 lollies in a jar, 7 were blue, 3 were green. Suppose I were to stick my hand in the jar and retrieve 1 lolly at random, my chance of selecting a blue one is 7/10. After having selected the lolly and describing it, it could be said that I have a 1/1 chance of having a lolly with the characteristics particular to it.

As such, whether or not someone else's APBT plays the harmonica while jumping through hoops of fire and juggling has no bearing on my particular dogs particular characteristics, even if selecting a dog from the breed with the aforementioned characteristics is more probable than not.

Of course I'm of the opinion that there's a such thing as general breed characteristics. My original contention was with the unequivocally incorrect comment HD made (given the context in which it was made) which I'v quoted in my first post in the discussion.

What radical assertion have I made? It would be my pleasure to do my best to better support the assertion in question, whatever it may be.

Why would I want to do that?

I'd say most generic pets would have zero HA and DA tendencies, very high bite thresholds and bite inhibition and be totally unterritorial and friendly to all. No prey drive either.

Then you'd be wrong.

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

You could get one or more in the first litter.

A trend would depend on the particular line and your definition of 'generic pet'.