“But this doesn’t mean that the breed is safe” And based on that conclusion, it does not mean the breed is unsafe, either. Our veterinary clinic out here takes care of everything from horses to pet chameleons, teaches common sense rules for owners dealing with any dog breed and to not ever leave young kids alone with a pet-any pet-for the safety of both.
There are numerous vicious dog lists, put out periodically by insurers, sometimes even media, based on anecdotal evidence-all somewhat alike, but also reflecting the breed preferences and media hype of the time.
I really don’t think the CDC is a reliable source of fact, either-considering how they mismanage the information on flu and the vaccines every year, and downplay diseases brought here via jumbo jet, or illegal immigrant, I’m not inclined to accept their pronouncements as gospel truth...
I had three dogs-not one-on the dangerous list of the time who were never a problem, but that wasn’t the main point-I was saying that like the list, opinions change, and statistics can easily be manipulated to fit the prevailing opinion. The dangerous dogs of my youth were Dobermans and Shepherds.
Pitbulls were these Boxer-looking terriers that some tourists and carneys from Florida brought on vacation with them, but thugs in city ‘hoods-or the country equivalent- had barely heard of, never mind owned as a statement of bad.
And I won’t imply that you are indulging in a “common folly”-that would not be polite-we simply disagree, my FRiend...
Funny how you pick and choose what parts of my post you resond to. You don't trust the CDC, well neither do I all that much, but in the absence of any other source, I'll say that they have the best data available, and they have no particular axe to grind about one breed over the other.
You either deliberately missed my point about anecdotal evidence or didn't understand it, because anecdotal evidence is exactly what I think should NOT be used to judge things.
We can disagree on things about what color is best for cars, how much one should spend on a trip to the restaurant, etc, and this is simply different opinions, but where there is actualy factual evidence, to take the opposite viewpoint from what the evidence shows isn't a difference of opinion, but the denial of reality. You can rationalize it away with the (somewhat justified) view that the CDC isn't all that accurate, but they're certainly more accurate in showing a pattern than your fortunately good experience with dogs on the dangerous list. You can google "dog bite statistics" and every source I've seen lists pit bulls and rotweilers and breeds which cause more deaths and visits to the ER than any other.