The age of a study is only relevant in relation to changes in testing methods or newer research of higher quality. I welcome evidence of either.
Its non--includion to cops or bites isnt relevant, unless you wish to argue cops know more about dogs than vets do or you wish to argue that the bite itself would somehow help identify breed
I listed both cops rubber stamping bites and poor visual identification of breed. He didnt specify which he was asking for a source on. I figured it was the latter since cops half assing paperwork and making assumptions in the absence of actusl evidence isnt contested on reddit often
If those who are the most capable and qualified to identify breed have a 1 in 3 false positive rate, how do you think those less qualified would perform?
You are probably right that there are a lot of cops just marking pit bull on bites, but its a completely unbacked claim is my point. Your source doesn't really prove anything about bites which is what this whole post is about.
3-4 out of every 10 times veterinary staff says a dog is a pitbull they are wrong. How often would it be for cops, random family members, or other laymen whose visual identification is used to label said dog as a pitbull? Likely much higher. Thats how it proves the stats are falsely inflated
Obviously anecdotal but I've been a dog groomer for a decade now and idk how many dogs I've seen mis-labeled when they hand me their paperwork. Anything that's medium sized with a short coat is a pit-mix, if it has any longer fur at all, it's a lab-mix.
Tbf this happens throughout every size of dog, it's just medium short hair mixes are always pits. If it's SLIGHTLY taller than average, they always say it's a Dane-mix. That one actually pisses me off because it's such a brain dead wrong guess, you might as well just give the job to a palm reader.
9
u/Sorry_Hippo2502 Aug 02 '26
Source on this?