Oops, I sure did forget working dogs. These just might be the most dangerous since they pretend to be helpful just to gain access to helpless victims. How sinister. :rolleyes:

Do you mean this report:

"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 12 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill." (emphasis mine)

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya (from The Princess Bride): "I do not think it means what you think it means."

The only thing that study shows is that the most dangerous 'breed' is 'unrestrained dog' (82% or deaths) which isn't exactly a breed now is it?

I'm not sure what caused these dangerous creatures to suddenly appear in the last 50 years or so. Maybe it was the A-bomb. Can you imagine what would've happened had our ancestors been faced with cohabitating with canines for, say, the last 20,000 (some say 100,000 ) years or so?

With no nobody to ban them, they would've eaten all the babies & early man would've died out.