-
it's a stretch to use the lack of good studies as evidence that actually all dog breeds are equal.
Again, she doesn't say that, she says dog bites and aggression are similar between breeds, but XL bullys and certain other breeds are way more dangerous. If the evidence for that is poor then fair enough.
Maybe I don't see her agenda, but I read her as saying more needs to be done than just ban the latest dangerous breed. I don't see her defending XL Bullys in particular anywhere.
neu-
In that article you linked
"But Carrie Westgarth, a professor in human animal interactions at the University of Liverpool explains that there is no hard evidence to prove some breeds are naturally more aggressive than others" and in the context of the recent calls to ban XL Bullys, it's defending the breed by claiming it's not a problem.
Sumo
Because there's historically very few studies about dog breed temperament and those which exist are bad. So when you end up with 8 deaths in a year by XL Bullys and people start to say it's a problem, it's a stretch to use the lack of good studies as evidence that actually all dog breeds are equal. And even then by her own admission pitbulls in the USA are vastly over represented in the data and she still says they're not a stand out problem. The part I don't know is why people feel they need to defend an obviously problematic dog breed against all available evidence.