I’m not going to engage with this poster specifically since they seem to be trolling, but if anyone else cares I did some research.
The image they posted is from a site called World Animal Foundation, and their information comes from only one source: dogsbite.org (incorrectly spelled Dog Bite org above).
dogsbite.org’s primary concern is self-disclosed as being the gathering of data of fatal dog attacks in an effort to increase knowledge of what they consider to be dangerous breeds with what they say is the intention of advocating for victims.
This means the organization is not focused primarily on non-biased academic research. They’re interested in proving a theory that they believe to be true, primarily, that pit bulls are dangerous and should be banned.
Their methodology involves primarily scanning a vast amount of media outlets for dog attacks with some supplemental coverage. Their identification methods seem to primarily be photos and social media. They do not mention DNA or professional veterinary verification.
I would determine the organization’s data is compromised by several forms of bias, including reporting bias, confirmation bias, publication bias, and observer bias. You can find a brief overview of biases in the link below.
I’m not going to engage with this poster specifically since they seem to be trolling, but if anyone else cares I did some research.
The image they posted is from a site called World Animal Foundation, and their information comes from only one source: dogsbite.org (incorrectly spelled Dog Bite org above).
dogsbite.org’s primary concern is self-disclosed as being the gathering of data of fatal dog attacks in an effort to increase knowledge of what they consider to be dangerous breeds with what they say is the intention of advocating for victims.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php
This means the organization is not focused primarily on non-biased academic research. They’re interested in proving a theory that they believe to be true, primarily, that pit bulls are dangerous and should be banned.
Their methodology involves primarily scanning a vast amount of media outlets for dog attacks with some supplemental coverage. Their identification methods seem to primarily be photos and social media. They do not mention DNA or professional veterinary verification.
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatality-citations-data-collection.php
I would determine the organization’s data is compromised by several forms of bias, including reporting bias, confirmation bias, publication bias, and observer bias. You can find a brief overview of biases in the link below.
https://casp-uk.net/news/different-types-of-research-bias/
Proper data collection should be handled by a third party and the research should also be reviewed by a third party.
An article published by JAVMA in 2000 investigates the issues of expensive DNA testing, and the importance of reliable identification.
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf?trk=public_post_comment-text
Another article published in 2022 by the National Canine Research Council concluded that breed was not a good indicator for behavior.
https://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/research_library/ancestry-inclusive-dog-genomics-challenges-popular-breed-stereotypes/
**tldr; **
Maybe don’t just blindly trust a single infographic from random strangers on the internet.