XL BULLIES: ANGELS OR DEMONS?
INTRODUCTION
On 31 December 2023, the first stage of the XL bully ban came into force, and the breed was added to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It is now an offence to sell, abandon, allow to stray, give away, breed from or have an XL bully in public without a lead and muzzle. However, critics argue that bans like these don't consider the impact of the owner's actions and the environment on the dog's temperament, namely its badass owners
The saying "there's no such thing as bad dogs, only bad owners" is a commonly held belief that emphasises the role of an owner's responsibility in shaping a dog's behaviour. Is that the case, though?
What if there are bad dogs?
NATURE, NURTURE OR BOTH?
To be clear, I’m baffled that people consistently exclude dogs from the rules that govern biology.
The belief that genetics play no role in a dog's behaviour is flagrantly illogical and contradicts the fundamental principles of life. Natural selection has profoundly influenced every animal, including dogs.
The evidence from artificial selection, e.g., breeding, is even more compelling. Historically, dog breeders have been able to influence and shape canine traits significantly. This selective breeding has been driven by the desire to create specific characteristics beneficial for various types of work alongside humans. For instance, Border Collies have been bred for their herding instincts, Golden Retrievers and Labradors for their fetching abilities, & Spaniels for their affinity with water.
The diversity and specialised behaviour of the hundreds of dog breeds we see today serve as a testament to the powerful influence of artificial selection. Each breed's unique traits are not mere coincidences but the results of deliberate breeding choices made over centuries.
There is a prolific amount of research on artificial selection; the Belyayev fox experiment is an excellent example. This study began in 1959 and was led by Russian geneticist Dmitry Belyayev. It demonstrated the dominance of nature over nurture in animal behaviour by selectively breeding foxes for tameness. Belyayev showed how the foxes not only became more docile but also developed dog-like traits.
To dispute these facts implies that any behavioural traits, such as swimming and guarding, are solely the result of upbringing and training.
So if your dog is a yapper, then that is on you!
Interestingly, this view is reminiscent of the debunked ‘tabula Rasa’ theory, which was a common feature of behaviourism in the 1950s. But Have the people who believe this stuff been in a time warp; no mammal is born as a blank slate. This is such old news.
XL BULLIES DON’T WIN BEAUTY CONTESTS
Seriously though, If one believes that a dog’s biology is irrelevant, then it begs the question of why breeds even exist in the first place. Surely, a dog’s pedigree is not just about aesthetics, e.g., what the dog will look like.
But does a ten-stone hunk of bone & muscle with a face like it has been forced-fed steroids, conjure up the ideal image of a family pet? I don’t know about you, but if I thought that the personality of a dog weighing 140Ibs was only down to my training, I’d choose a smaller dog; preferably one that doesn’t have a history of mauling kids to death. But then maybe I’m old-fashioned.
SAINTS OR SINNERS?
Not all XL bully breeders are resistant to the ideas of science, though; some believe that XL bullies were specifically engineered to serve as family pets because of their loving & sweet dispositions. This viewpoint appears somewhat incongruous given the dog’s killing history.
Paradoxically, other XL breeders, argue the opposite, e.g., that fighting and aggression are the rationale behind its lineage. Reinforcing this view is the discovery that a significant portion of the UK, XL Bullies can trace their lineage back to a single progenitor, known as "Killer Kimbo”. The background of Killer Kimbo is steeped in a history of fighting.
This leads to an intriguing contradiction among XL Bully enthusiasts. On one hand, they often refute the significance of genetics in shaping a dog’s behaviour, while on the other, they frequently praise the breed's gentle, family-friendly nature.
This dichotomy raises a pivotal question: Can the influence of genes be disregarded when it conveniently suits the narrative? The contradiction is clear - either the breed's temperament is influenced by genetics, or it isn't. XL Bully supporters must reconcile this inconsistency in their arguments, as it fundamentally challenges the understanding of the breed’s nature and the role of genetics in shaping it.
WHAT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT
The environment plays a crucial role in shaping the temperament and behaviour of any mammal. Genes load the gun, but the environment pulls the trigger, particularly during the critical first eight weeks of life. This early period is essential for a puppy's socialisation and temperament formation.
Unfortunately, the rise of puppy farms, particularly noticeable since the COVID-19 pandemic, has led to numerous issues. Puppy farms often neglect the vital early socialisation and nurturing that puppies require, resulting in a higher incidence of aggressive behaviours in dogs. This situation underscores the importance of responsible breeding practices and early-life care in ensuring the well-being and sociability of dogs.
Another contender in the nurture debate is bad dog owners, who can inadvertently or deliberately cause aggression in their dogs through various practices and behaviours. XL Bully owners have been accused of training their dogs to be aggressive for protection or, worse, for illegal dog fighting.
But every dog breed has had abusive owners, it’s inconceivable to think that in the history of Golden Retriever ownership, for example, these dogs have never had it rough. Maybe some dog breeds just don’t kill. Goldens and Spaniels certainly don’t.
It's a universal truth that any dog, regardless of breed, has the potential to attack.; Labradors were high on the bite list a few years back & Jack Russells, Dachshunds & Chihuahuas are well-known for being “a bit bitey”. But for the same reason, we keep cats as family pets & not lions, size does matter.
Smaller breeds, such as Jack Russells, might frequently exhibit aggressive behaviour, but they generally lack the physical capability to inflict fatal injuries on adults. Basically, you can boot one of these dogs over the fence ……I am joking!
It's important here to note the distinct defence patterns across the breeds. While cases of aggression and biting occur in breeds like Golden Retrievers, their reactions typically don't escalate to the same level of severity as seen in some other breeds. Golden Retrievers, along with breeds like Spaniels, may exhibit defensive biting, but they do not engage in the relentless, intense attacks characterised by gripping, shaking, and continuing until the target is incapacitated.
XL Bullies & Pitts show the following genetic traits: unpredictability of aggression; tenacity, e.g., the refusal to give up a fight; high pain tolerance, and the "hold and shake" bite style. According to forensic medical studies, similar injuries have only been found on victims of shark attacks.
WHICH DOG HAS THE STRONGEST BITE?
“Dog bite force” is measured in pounds per square inch, also known as PSI. It is not easy to say exactly which dog breed has the strongest “bite force”. It might vary according to the circumstances and upbringing of the dog.
*For context, humans have a PSI bite of 120 and a Salt Water crocodile has a PSI of 3,700
THE XL BULLY CLASSIFICATION
Another complexity in this debate is the validity of the classification and lineage of the XL Bully. The breed was given pedigree status by the US Kennel Club in 2013, but they are not recognised as a distinct breed by the UK Kennel Club.
According to the UK, the XL Bully is a hybrid, primarily composed of Pitbull, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and Mastiff genetics.
This diverse genetic pool raises questions about the predictability of their behaviour, as they do not conform to a standard breed mix with established behavioural traits.
FINAL THOUGHTS
While it's acknowledged that many XL bullies & Pittballs can exhibit gentle and friendly behaviour, the potential risk they pose cannot be overlooked. The hundreds of horrific accounts of assaults involving XL Bullies and Pitbulls around the world are deeply disturbing and raise serious concerns about public safety.
The types of dogs often cited in this context don’t just include Pitbull Terriers and XL Bullies. The following dogs are also extremely dangerous:
Cane Corsos, Wolf Hybrids, American Bullies, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Japanese Tosas, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Huskies, Rottweilers, Alaskan Malamutes, Bull Mastiffs, Akitas, Chow Chows, Dogo Argentinos, and Fila Brasileiros.
The argument for banning the dog breeds listed above arises from their disproportionately high involvement in fatal attacks on humans.
Advocating for a ban on all dangerous breeds is not a matter of impinging on personal freedom; rather, it's a necessary step to ensure the safety and liberties of the wider community. The analogy of keeping a Wolf as a pet is apt in this context. No matter how tame a Wolf may seem, its inherent wild nature poses a risk that cannot be entirely mitigated.
In a similar vein, if a dog breed is known to have the capacity to inflict fatal harm, it becomes a matter of public concern. Of course, Individuals have the right to risk their safety, but this right does not extend to jeopardising the well-being of others, such as children in the home, dog walkers, or innocent bystanders.
GOING FORWARD:
Prohibiting dangerous dog breeds is a constructive measure, but it's not a complete answer, as breeders will develop new types with similar characteristics. However, this doesn't negate the necessity of such bans. This scenario is akin to banning minors from buying knives or outlawing certain drugs; the possibility of finding alternatives doesn't make these bans futile. Moreover, as new breeds emerge, they too can be subjected to bans. Laws frequently evolve to reflect changing social realities,.
However, a more effective approach would also encompass broader regulations and education.
This could include:
Strict Dog Licensing: Implementing rigorous licensing procedures to ensure responsible ownership.
Harsher Penalties: Introducing stricter penalties for irresponsible dog owners and unethical breeders.
Mandatory Training: Requiring dog owners to undergo training that ensures they can control their pets, including being able to recall their dogs reliably.
Public Education: Educating children and the public about safe and respectful behaviour around dogs.
Expanded Breed Regulations: Extending bans or restrictions to include all breeds known for aggressive behaviour, ensuring a gradual phasing out of these breeds.
Such comprehensive measures would not only address the issue of dangerous breeds but also promote a culture of responsible dog ownership and public safety awareness.
REFERENCES
FATAL DOG ATTACK STATISTICS & RESEARCH
UK Fatal Dog Attacks: List of Fatal Dog Attacks in the United Kingdom.
USA Fatal Dog Attacks: List of Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States.
2020 U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities: 2020 U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Statistics.
UK Dog Bite Statistics (2021): Dog Attack Deaths England and Wales 2021.
UK Dog Bite Statistics (2001-2021): Dog-related Deaths Registered in England and Wales from 2001 to 2021.
~The Dmitry Belyayev fox experiment: Trut, L., Oskina, I., & Kharlamova, A. (2009). "Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model."
Dutrow et al. Study on Dog Behavioral Genetics:
Reference: Dutrow et al.'s study analysed genomic datasets from various dogs, including purebred, mixed breed, and wild canids, to understand the genetic basis of behavioural diversity in dogs. This research found strong correlations between genetic lineage and certain behavioural traits, such as non-social fear in herders and predatory chasing in terriers. Genome-wide analyses identified variants associated with each lineage, suggesting that selection during breed formation acted on pre-existing genetic variation.
Citation: Dutrow et al. (2023). "Mapping dog behaviour." Nature Genetics, 55(1).
Wilsson and Sundgren Study on Dog Behavior Genetics:
Reference: Wilson and Sundgren (1997) conducted a study evaluating a behaviour test for the selection of dogs for service and breeding. This study highlighted the significant within-breed genetic variance found for various dog behavioural traits, demonstrating a strong genetic component to dog personality.
Citation: Wilsson, E., & Sundgren, P.-E. (1997). "The use of a behaviour test for the selection of dogs for service and breeding, I: Method of testing and evaluating test results in the adult dog, demands on different kinds of service dogs, sex and breed differences." Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 53(4), 279–295.
