Yes. Worse and far more frequent relative to the number of dogs in that debased breed.
“Yes. Worse and far more frequent relative to the number of dogs in that debased breed.”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
According to the first study on your link, dog attacks aren’t even listed by breed. Dog bite related fatalities are, and if you read the entire thing, you will see that they aren’t agreeing with you. It might seem that way if you only read a few lines, but go ahead and read the whole thing. They make it very clear here:
“Although fatal attacks on humans
appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type
dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and
cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional
and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical
alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)”
And here:
“Numerator data may be biased for 4
reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely
underestimated; prior work suggests the approach
we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.1,2 Second,
to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy
than those by other breeds, our methods may
have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities
by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed
may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the
breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially
ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression.
Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred
dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed
involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred
dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to
be counted more than once.”
And this:
“Finally, it is imperative to
keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could
be accurately calculated, they do not factor in owner related issues. For example, less responsible owners or
owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may be drawn differentially to certain breeds.”
Heck, they even offer a solution STRIKINGLY similar to the one I have repeatedly spoken of:
“An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate
individual dogs and owners on the basis of their
behavior. Although, it is not systematically reported, our
reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem
behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in
a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for
preemptive action.....Generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s
breed.17 In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible
dog owners may be effective.18 If dog owners are
required to assume legal liability for the behavior and
actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seek
professional help in training and socializing their pets.”
By the way, I wouldn’t trust everything on that site. Dogbitelaw is run by lawyers, not dog experts. They have some great stuff on there, but mixed in with it is some nonsense that has been dismissed as rubbish (specifically, the Merritt Clifton study, which is a perfect example of fear-mongering combined with misinformation, manipulation, and flat-out lies). I wouldn’t dismiss the entire thing, though, because there is a wealth of information available on that page. I do believe this lawyer, among others, has committed the cardinal sin of being too lazy to read the whole thing, or to even research his sources, and because of that, I would be wary about some of the things he puts up. For the most part, he does seem to have reputable studies available. How he decides to use the information is another story, though.