‘Pit bull’ doesn’t even have a real definition. It’s sometimes considered a breed or sometimes a family or class and may include more than a dozen different breeds and their mutts depending on who is counting.
Both the CDC and AVMA say there is no sufficiently reliable source for breed data related to dog attacks.
DogsBite.org literally states their objective is convincing people pit bulls are dangerous and claims they can reliably ID a breed from a photograph.
So go pound sand with that ‘facts’ horseshit.
Even if we wanted to ignore those problems and take it seriously as a source, it completely neglects the only relevant question of the proportion of dogs within a breed that attack. Without reliable information about the sizes of the populations of included breeds, the chart is useless.
CONCLUSION
Maulings by dogs can cause terrible injuries47 and death—and it is natural for those dealing with the
victims to seek to address the immediate causes. However as Duffy et al (2008) wrote of their survey
based data: “The substantial within-breed variation…suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given
dog’s propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed.” While breed is a factor, the impact of other
factors relating to the individual animal (such as training method, sex and neutering status), the target
(e.g. owner versus stranger), and the context in which the dog is kept (e.g. urban versus rural) prevent
breed from having significant predictive value in its own right. Also the nature of a breed has been
shown to vary across time, geographically, and according to breed subtypes such as those raised for
conformation showing versus field trials.37
Given that breed is a poor sole predictor of aggressiveness and pit bull-type dogs are not
implicated in controlled studies it is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis for dog bite
prevention. If breeds are to be targeted a cluster of large breeds would be implicated including the
German shepherd and shepherd crosses and other breeds that vary by location.
The only reputable org having a likely informed and less biased conversation about real research on that list is the AVMA which states in the link you posted:
In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data from this study
CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities…
Note that the emphasis was theirs.
While I suppose it is possible that one of those lawyers from the other links has done a responsible job of representing the facts and isn’t just an ambulance chaser, you clearly didn’t read your own sources, so I don’t see any reason to waste my time on it either.
‘Pit bull’ doesn’t even have a real definition. It’s sometimes considered a breed or sometimes a family or class and may include more than a dozen different breeds and their mutts depending on who is counting.
Both the CDC and AVMA say there is no sufficiently reliable source for breed data related to dog attacks.
DogsBite.org literally states their objective is convincing people pit bulls are dangerous and claims they can reliably ID a breed from a photograph.
So go pound sand with that ‘facts’ horseshit.
Even if we wanted to ignore those problems and take it seriously as a source, it completely neglects the only relevant question of the proportion of dogs within a breed that attack. Without reliable information about the sizes of the populations of included breeds, the chart is useless.
Real research on this exists.
Weird, every researcher seems to use this same term.
Oh, those pesky “”““facts””“”! You don’t like my sources, that’s fine. I included 8 more in my other comment, starting with Wikipedia:
https://feddit.nl/comment/15554133
The only reputable org having a likely informed and less biased conversation about real research on that list is the AVMA which states in the link you posted:
Note that the emphasis was theirs.
While I suppose it is possible that one of those lawyers from the other links has done a responsible job of representing the facts and isn’t just an ambulance chaser, you clearly didn’t read your own sources, so I don’t see any reason to waste my time on it either.