Post #617669

2026-03-10 21:18 UTC

A look at dog bite statistics over only 5 years in 1 city Oh yeah, only 51% of all dog bite injuries for which a breed could be identified presenting to a large pediatric hospital over five years in the sixth-most populous city in the US is basically nothing. I’m sure pit bulls are just 51% or thereabouts of all dog ownership in Philadelphia anyway. Meanwhile, I find it interesting you said: “they don’t even specify how those dog breeds are identified does not prove what you think it does.” Because all I gave you was the condensed version on PubMed. Crazy how you totally read the full methodology you didn’t have before dismissing it. The obvious and only answer was “the patients told the doctors”, you stupid fuck. More than 30 different offending breeds were documented in the medical records. Unfortunately, these data were missing or not known in over half of the medical records (51.2 percent). Of the 269 cases for which a breed was indicated in the medical record, the majority of injuries were caused by pit bull terriers (50.9 percent), Rottweilers (8.9 percent), and mixed breeds involving at least one of the two aforementioned breeds (6.0 percent) (Table 1). Most patients were familiar with the dog involved in the attack (68.8 percent). I can only imagine the 282 unidentified dogs were those vicious golden retrievers. They come out of nowhere, and they’re gone before you know what bit you. They’re fucking vicious, man.

Replies (3)

@dazzlingclitgame@lemmy.world 2026-03-10 21:22

Assuming the 282 unidentified dogs were all pitbulls is a logical fallacy.

Open ##617708
@just2look@lemmy.zip 2026-03-10 21:35

One issue with studies like this is that people are really bad at identifying dog breeds, and that includes experts like veterinarians. “Two ancillary findings, however, were that the second (F2) generation of the Cocker Spaniel–Basenji crosses took a “great variety of form and color” and that none of the 72 F2-generation puppies closely resembled either parental breed.” “More recently, Voith et al compared, for dogs from multiple shelter locations, results of breed identification made on the basis of visual inspection alone with results of DNA analysis of breed. Although the number of dogs was small, the major breed determined on the basis of visual inspection matched the predominant breed identified by means of DNA analysis for only 25% of the dogs. This suggests that there is a high potential that results of visual identification of breed for shelter dogs of unknown lineage will differ from results of DNA analysis.” So unless they identified them with breed papers or genetic testing, the breed identification is suspect at best. Not to say the results would be wrong, just that it needs more definitive study.

Open ##617853
@TotallynotJessica__dup_32908@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2026-03-10 21:37

You’d need to compare it to the number of each type of dog in those statistics. Even then, it wouldn’t tell the whole story because people who buy dogs with bad reputations often buy them for roles where they are more likely to bite like guard dogs. And EVEN then, you also need to consider that dogs who cause worse injuries are more likely to show up in the data because when they do bite it gets reported. I know I didn’t go to the hospital when a Chihuahua didn’t even break skin. Pit bulls undeniably are more dangerous by virtue of their size and strength, but how inherently dangerous they are based on temperament is harder to determine. I’m always skeptical of breed essentialism because it’s so close to human eugenics and scientific racism. We do not have as much control or understanding over nature as we think we do, and our misplaced confidence in our abilities causes harm and keeps us from actual solutions.

Open ##617868