Well, they're not. They're "implicated" but only as a function of the fact that when there's a media-driven hysteria around certain dog breeds, people who aren't good at readily-identifying dog breeds by sight who get attacked by dogs falsely identify the dog as whatever's been in the news. "Oh, the media says pit bulls attack people. I …
Well, they're not. They're "implicated" but only as a function of the fact that when there's a media-driven hysteria around certain dog breeds, people who aren't good at readily-identifying dog breeds by sight who get attacked by dogs falsely identify the dog as whatever's been in the news. "Oh, the media says pit bulls attack people. I was attacked; must be a pitbull."
There's no actual good evidence linking any dog breed to any dog attack because the dog breed is rarely identified when a dog attacks a person. The dog itself is rarely identified, so you can't just go to the dog and see what breed it is.
BullyWatch's data isn't based on real identification. It's based on assuming dogs of unidentifiable breed that attacked people are "probably bullies" since they "attack people."
Read the linked thread, dude. It's not Bullywatch. There's not some big conspiracy against pitbulls led by some shadowy cabal. Look up Stuart Ritchie's Twitter and read his response to Katie's utter botching of this issue. After looking at all the evidence, you might still believe that it's not enough to ban a breed. But actually engage with some of the contrary evidence instead of just asserting that it doesn't exist
I did literally engage with Bullywatch, and their response was that they knew their data was low-quality but thought getting more of it would ameliorate that problem. But that's not how anything works.
Well, they're not. They're "implicated" but only as a function of the fact that when there's a media-driven hysteria around certain dog breeds, people who aren't good at readily-identifying dog breeds by sight who get attacked by dogs falsely identify the dog as whatever's been in the news. "Oh, the media says pit bulls attack people. I was attacked; must be a pitbull."
There's no actual good evidence linking any dog breed to any dog attack because the dog breed is rarely identified when a dog attacks a person. The dog itself is rarely identified, so you can't just go to the dog and see what breed it is.
They have identified them, because they are killing people https://twitter.com/s8mb/status/1706363365323313591?s=19
BullyWatch's data isn't based on real identification. It's based on assuming dogs of unidentifiable breed that attacked people are "probably bullies" since they "attack people."
Read the linked thread, dude. It's not Bullywatch. There's not some big conspiracy against pitbulls led by some shadowy cabal. Look up Stuart Ritchie's Twitter and read his response to Katie's utter botching of this issue. After looking at all the evidence, you might still believe that it's not enough to ban a breed. But actually engage with some of the contrary evidence instead of just asserting that it doesn't exist
I did literally engage with Bullywatch, and their response was that they knew their data was low-quality but thought getting more of it would ameliorate that problem. But that's not how anything works.