Quote:
Originally Posted by OY
|
The list you mention is a collection of media reports, not a very detailed study. The summaries at the right are from those reports.
Above that is a section on the first study *not* based on tv and newspapers reports. The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association got their facts from law enforcement and animal control reports and so on covering 2000 to 2009.
The causes for attacks were ultimately ascribed to people, not dogs or breeds.
Apparently, in all the fatal attacks, "there was either a conflict between different media sources reporting breed and/or a conflict between media and animal control reports relative to the reporting of breed".
Finally, "reliable verification of the breed of dog was only possible in 18% of incidents".
Earlier, a 1978-1998 CDC study "concluded that relying on media coverage of dog-bite-related fatalities presents a biased view of the dogs involved.
"Media reports are likely to only cover about 74% of the actual incidents and that
dog attacks involving certain breeds may be more likely to receive media coverage."
Since identifying breeds "can be difficult and subjective, attacks may be more likely to be '
ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression'"
In other words, the more media "reports" Pit Bull attacks, the more "pit bulls" attack. The media haven't gotten better in the past 30 years, and doing a little research that might take away the sensationalism of yet another "pit bull attack" is probably not worth their while.
In most of those reports, what should be concluded is "Gotta love them dog owners!"
:D