For those interested, Dogsbite.org has plenty of documentation and extensive victim reports detailing unprovoked attacks by pits, attempts to conceal the breed, apologists lame excuses, legal efforts to hold owners responsible, the staggering financial costs that fall on the victim, etc. etc. A competing website offers pro-pit propaganda and has intentionally chosen a name VERY similar so if you want to check accurate stats, make sure you use the precise spelling above.
Lots of statistics - I grabbed a few in my prior post from this page. Pit bulls do not have a “bad rap”, they earned their reputation for unprovoked, devastating attacks on family, friends and strangers, one bloody scrap of ripped scalp and sinew at a time.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-quick-statistics.php
Well, woof. I’d still want to know how the danger from the dog correlates to the attitudes of the people having the dog. Maybe dogs can read, and follow along with, a ‘tude better than we might think. They know loyalty, not morality in any human sense.
I see enough pictures of pits with kittens frolicking unharmed around them, even swatting them on the nose, to believe there has to be an important unconsidered factor here. I think it’s quite likely to be the loyalty of the dog combined with the expectations of the owners which in turn embraces intangibles that dogs don’t even understand, like “reputation.”
Dogsbite does not investigate and confirm breed or types of dogs.
When given evidence that a particular dog they have labelled as a ‘pitbull’, is in fact not one
and they are given the contact info to confirm that information, they ignored it.
They are unethical, untrustworthy, agenda driven, and have no regard for truth.
Perhaps that’s why you use them as a source?