that is not a reliable source. You, like they, are repeating a dangerous lie to make yourselves feel good.
The university of Maryland isn’t reputable?
The University of Maryland quoted Pitbulls.org, saying they claim it's a nanny dog. Biased source, don't you think? This excerpt could be very misleading - got a link to the full study?
I live in maui, I see bully dogs on a daily basis. From staffy’s to blue and red nose, to frenchies. I’ll say the only dogs that have ever bit at me are chihuahua’s and a chow mix. The only dog that has ever bit my dog was an Akita/husky mix.
Again, as unfortunate as your situation was, you are treating your judgement of multiple breeds of dogs (albeit you’re lumping them into one ‘pit bull’ name) on one horrible encounter
I'm happy for you that you've never seen a pet or person you love mauled by a bully breed that is trying to kill them. It's an experience so horrifying, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I cannot even imagine how it feels when the victim is a child.
I honestly don't want to get into the pitbull debate, I really don't! Not today anyway.
They get way too heated, no one will budge, and it doesn't resolve anything. I'm not anti-pit in terms of BSL etc, or one of those people who hates them and all pit owners. But I do give bully types a wide berth when I'm out with my own dogs, because owners refuse to admit to their ingrained dog aggression and handle their dogs accordingly. You have a right to own them, I have the right to avoid them.
We both have different experiences of bully breeds, but it's anecdotal on both sides. Not evidence. Statistics show that there's a real problem, and I believe that since they were created as baiting dogs, bred to fight and hold bulls for heck's sake! Then since for fighting, hunting, and as a status symbol by backyard breeders, many of whom encourage people to make them aggressive as protection and guard dogs. With that history, it's no surprise that that they have certain traits which make them a serious dog, which should only be owned by people who are aware of the risks, and do whatever is needed to mitigate them.
But claiming that it's all in how you raise them, that they have no aggressive traits, that they were not bred to bite and hold on no matter what - something they still do - is just ridiculous. We bred dogs to do certain jobs, and we can still see the effects of that in different breeds. There are a billion pages that list breed tendencies and general character traits for every breed for a reason! But for some reason, pitbulls are exempt?
Look at working line Border Collies. We warn prospective owners that not only are they incredibly high energy, with incredible stamina, but that they're also highly intelligent, so need an active, involved home prepared to give them the stimulation they need, or there will likely be problems. To watch them around small children especially, since they often have the inbuild instinct to herd, and can be nippy in their attempt to herd their humans, the same way they were bred to nip the heel of a sheep that wasn't moving the way they wanted them to.
That it's not a couch potato breed, although there are of course individual variations, including the odd lazy, low energy collie!
You won't train a goldie into a guard dog.
You won't train a kangal into an obedience champion.
You won't train a greyhound into a water retriever.
No one claims that it's solely in how you raise them with other breeds, and that they're a blank slate with no genetic traits and breed tendencies. Every breed has lists of their traits, as a result of hundreds of years of selective breeding for those traits! We know how genetics and heredity works. But when the topic of pitbulls comes up, all logic and reason goes flying out the window. People describing them all as demons or angels, and no one meeting in the middle, in reality.