Why would *general* underreporting be an issue here re: skew? Also, you're regurgitating that less serious bites are underreported which completely misses the point! That's already been addressed so why waste time repeating that flawed point?
Did you deliberately miss the part where I explained that this covers both serious and minor injuries??!!
As for why it matters - That has already been explained in that the breeds involved are either not identified or mis-identified.
Other breeds may cause fatalities at higher rates... which breeds and to what extent? They'd need to catch up quite a bit to reach the rates of bull terrier types!
Again, you're assuming every record of breed has been accurately and reliably ascertained as a "Bull-Terrier type", a term which covers several different breeds, incidentally - What do you expect is the number of people who wouldn't know a pit-bull from a bull terrier, from a Staffy, from a bull-terrier type... and most especially when it's a dog they don't know, that's in the midst of attacking them? Do you think they stop to consult a reference chart or do a DNA test?
Here's an example:
Eyewitness accounts are unreliable anecdotal evidence, by your standards, and in many other cases the breed was merely presumed by whichever medical practitioner or interviewing officer is filling out the incident report, without ever even seeing the dog!
Studies vary, as always, but generally assert that in only 30-40% of incidents was any breed identified, with no guarantee of accuracy. The rest are classified as mixed or unknown. This and the above would therefore call into question the validity of at least 60% of those bull-terrier rates you're relying on for your bleat.
As for what breeds, that is exactly one of the problems arising from limited and flawed single-source data studies - Even in independent studies, discrepancies arise from differing methodology, study size, breed identifications, location, and many other factors. For example, this study conducted in the Netherlands counted mixed breed dogs (212), Jack Russell terriers (114), and Belgian shepherds (58) as responsible for the most bites:
Another study had American Bulldogs, Dalmatians, Standard Dachshunds, English Bulldogs and Lhasa Apsos delivering the most severe injuries:
Lakewood, Colo. - Chihuahuas are most likely to bite veterinarians. Lhaso Apsos deliver one of the most severe bites.
www.dvm360.com
About the only things most studies generally seem to agree on is that a) the most common bites, and the highest number of severe injuries come from unknown or mixed breeds, and b) that the percentage of bites that result in reported severe injury or death is extremely low. The rest is mostly just informed speculation.
No the argument hasn't been fully supported, you've just thrown in some waffling about reporting issues in general, the only relevant part to the claim is that last bit and you've kept that vague!
Firstly, those reporting issues also apply to this bull-terrier type rate you're so concerned with, so that's now reliable enough to go out the window.
Secondly, you
specifically highlighted the section of the quote regarding reporting.
How vague do you think Working Dogs is?
Do you need a list of every single breed used as a working dog, in addition to those already mentioned, or will that be yet more waffle that you won't read?
The point is to get your focus
off the dogs' breeds, as that has been shown time and again to be irrelevant, in all facets of the issue.
"Although it is understandable, the tendency for people to focus on the breed involved in a dog bite is unhelpful and often misleading.
Visual breed identification is notoriously unreliable, and generally, a dog’s breed has less to do with a bite incident than the situational context surrounding the bite does".
Quote from another study you'll refuse to read.
"In 2013, scientists with Tufts University
published an analysis (which again you won't bother to read) of 256 dog bite
fatalities that occurred in the United States between 2000 and 2009. In the course of their work, the researchers sought to identify factors that may have led to the bite. Now, it should be noted that the bites reviewed in this study were obviously very serious, and they did not review reports of minor bites. However, the information gleaned from the study should still prove instructive.
The researchers found that the bites were characterized by a small number of co-occurring factors.
And most importantly,
these factors were all preventable".
Most dog bite related fatalities were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was
not one of these.
