The stats tend to show the most popular dogs with the wrong crowd at that time. Years ago, this same argument was being used for several other breeds, including bloodhounds. All of the breeds involved at the top of the list have been dogs featured in movies as tough dogs. If it was to come out that labradors were the best tough dog, they would have a demand with that audience and probably would end up becoming the number one. Most of the dogs involved in these issues over the years have had quite a bit of mythology created by exaggerations and ignorance. Did people really believe that Dobies would go crazy from their brains outgrowing their skulls? Absolutely. Did people really think bloodhounds were vicious mankillers? In the 1800’s, yes, after some bad publicity created a “need” for such a dog.
If it really were a breed problem, would 19 people have died last year from other kinds of dogs? Would 13 thousand people get attacked by dogs every single day, as they do now? If it is really about pit bulls, can you please tell me what you think the reason is for places with breed bans to not see declines in serious attacks? Can you tell me why the only places to see declines have been those that pass responsible ownership laws? Seems pretty clear to me, no matter what the issue is here, if bsl isn’t working but rdo laws are, then irresponsible ownership is the common factor needing attention, not breed.
I've posted this pdf file on 2 threads asking a couple of posters who concentrate on the "pit bull"
as being unique in it's propensity to attack or kill to explain what they see in the pdf.
As yet I haven't received an answer.
Unfortunately attempts to introduce rational analysis into the discussion
are often met with accusations of being an " pit bull apologist".
The degree of damage a dog is capable of is strongly related to its size (breed).
Medium and large sized dogs are more likely to cause serious damage
or a fatality when they attack than are small dogs.
It must be stressed though that when the victim is very young or very old
even small dogs can do serious or fatal damage.
The number of attacks/fatalities by a particular breed/type
is also strongly related to the total population of that breed/type.
The effects of a particular dog population to incidents of DBRF can be seen
by comparing the pdf file given above with US statistics.
Often discussions get side tracked with arguments about which dog is most dangerous
By way of example let's suppose a population of 100 'pit bulls'.
Then let's assume that there are only 1/10 the number of the type of dog
involved in the attack linked at the top of this post.
That is, 10 of dog 'x' compared to 100 'pit bulls'.
There have been 4 fatalities this year...
3 reported to involve "pit bills" and one by dog "x".
The ratio then of DBRF is 3 per 100 for "PB" or .03
and 1 per 10 for dog "x" or (.10).
One could make a (I think over-simplistic) case that if the populations were equal
then dog "x" would be ~3 times more likely to cause a DBRF than a "PB".
While all this is an interesting mental exercise
it is to a large extent a distraction from formulating strategy and tactics
that will address dog attacks regardless of breed.
We know that all dogs are capable of biting.
We know that large and medium size dogs
have a greater ability to cause damage/DBRF than smaller dogs,
with the caveat that the victims on either end of the age scale
have increased risk of greater damage from all dogs,
now we should concentrate on a further analysis of all dog attacks
and extract other common factors involved.
For example...sex, reproductive status, function of dog, children left unattended,
neglected or unsocialized dog, stray dog, tethered dog, pack behavior and so on.
When we have a clear understanding of these other salient factors,
we can than develop effective and proactive education, law and enforcement tactics.
This is the path that will lead to less dog attacks regardless of severity or breed.