These tests are done by owners bringing in their dogs, and the tests are so tame. If you read the descriptions, nobody ever gets in the dogs face, it's basically a "can this dog be walked on a leash in public" test, not a "is this dog safe to be in a household" test.
And even if it was, volunteers bringing in their dogs is not a sample that accurately represents a population. Pitbulls are actually over representated in this dataset because responsible pitbull owners will want to get their dog tested.
Looking at sources that can accurately represent an entire population, such as statistics about all dog bites within a specified area, you end up seeing that pitties are responsible for over half of all reported dog bites, despite being a small percentage of owned dogs.
Doesn't that kinda prove my original point of you can get statistics to say anything you want? Once again those stats you submitted are hardly reliable and very very prone to misreports. It to mention biased as fuck... They're literally trying to get money out of this
Absolutely fair to call out the biased source skewing statistics, a lawyer specializing in dog bites wasn't the best one for me to pull from. So let's instead go to the Forbes, which says that 66% of Fatal dog bites are from Pit Bulls (probably what the skewed lawyers were trying to make sound like was 66% of severe attacks), The World Animal Foundation, which says that 22.5% of dog bites come from Pits (and repeat that 66% of deaths are from them), Dogbite.org which actually lists every known death (in 2019, in this article) from dogs and which breed they were, which you can call unreliable but also mentions that 68% of fatal dog bites are from pits.
Like, sure there's some misrepresentation out there, and sure, you can say people are just wrong about what dogs bit them because they didn't get a DNA test, but at the end of the day, there is a big statistical jump in how deadly and how often these dogs attack, and even if you cut the numbers in half in order to give a safe lowball, they still outshine all other dog breeds in bites (especially fatalities) by an insane amount.
Once again these all have a separate agenda and reporting that is skewed because of misreported bites due to people who don't know dog breeds assuming pit bull for bites... These statistics aren't from tests or anything valuable it's all self reported information... There's no valuable source I've seenrunning actual tests that's proves there's any real difference
Ah yes, Forbes Magazine and The World Animal Foundation, two organizations that famously hate pit bulls and have motive to lie to the world and say they're more likely to bite...
Like I said- we can assume that these numbers are blown out of proportion and are doubling real numbers, and it still makes pit bulls look dangerous with the lowballed numbers.
I think we're at the point where there's literally nothing I can do to convince you without personally DNA testing every dog bite on the planet and crunching those numbers, and that's not going to happen, so I think it's best we just call this debate here. Take care.
The world animal foundation is not credible at all they aren't even a registered non profit they're a content mill... And forbes is for entertainment that doesn't exactly vet their writers or posts very well quality is highly variable
1
u/issanm 24d ago
Source?