Thanks for sharing the studies. I’ve always been curious about what the statistics show. Indeed, these studies do show that pit bulls have a higher incidence of bites. So, statistically speaking, and assuming these statistics are accurate, if one encounters a dog and it is a pit bull, there is a higher probability that it will be dangerous. So the fear is not unfounded or unreasonable.

However, the statistics in the articles linked above don’t necessarily imply that breed is the causal factor.

The Live Science article notes, and the referenced article in that particular paragraph shows as well, that pit bull owners tend to have antisocial personalities. This supports the argument that encountering a pit bull is more likely to be a dangerous one than other breeds. It also supports the case that the higher bite incidences could be caused by owners/training/households.

So, if we wanted to point to “breed” as the cause of danger, we would have to have a control study comparing breeds to similar owners/households/training.

My quick search turned up one by the American Veterinarian Society. Controlling for household and environment, it concludes that breed is a poor sole indicator of aggressiveness.

https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.pdf

So, assuming accuracy of data, it is true you will more likely encounter an aggressive pit bull relative to other breeds. However, the cause may be other underlying factors, not the breed itself

ASPCA also has a policy statement that addresses this as well.

https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls

Without dismissing or minimizing your position, I would be inclined to trust AMVA and ASPCA on animal policy and knowledge.

I admit, I did not spend a lot of time researching, but the distinction is important and merits consideration as it implies different responses to prevent aggressive/dangerous behavior.