-
Because there's historically very few studies about dog breed temperament and those which exist are bad. So when you end up with 8 deaths in a year by XL Bullys and people start to say it's a problem, it's a stretch to use the lack of good studies as evidence that actually all dog breeds are equal. And even then by her own admission pitbulls in the USA are vastly over represented in the data and she still says they're not a stand out problem. The part I don't know is why people feel they need to defend an obviously problematic dog breed against all available evidence.
Sumo-
The part I don't know is why people feel they need to defend an obviously problematic dog breed against all available evidence.
Same. It's such a weird flex.
Also specific breeds exist because they have been bread. It's an active choice. Just stop, right?
-
it's a stretch to use the lack of good studies as evidence that actually all dog breeds are equal.
Again, she doesn't say that, she says dog bites and aggression are similar between breeds, but XL bullys and certain other breeds are way more dangerous. If the evidence for that is poor then fair enough.
Maybe I don't see her agenda, but I read her as saying more needs to be done than just ban the latest dangerous breed. I don't see her defending XL Bullys in particular anywhere.
-
The part I don't know is why people feel they need to defend an obviously problematic dog breed against all available evidence
See: motorists
hugo7
neu
pifko
I'm not sure what's controversial or agenda driven about that though. If the evidence is weak then sure, but what do you think her agenda is besides presenting her own research?
I don't see this as downplaying the danger of certain breeds, but highlighting the problem of aggressive dogs in general. I'm very happy for strict enforcement on bans of dangerous dogs breeds, but if that doesn't prevent harm from other breeds then that's pretty important.