Originally posted by Twisterdog
The data behind the "black list" of certain dog breeds exists, and its real. There are a lot of people disputing it, and I think they should. However, when pressed, the insurance companies have always been able to back their policies with facts about certain breeds and percentage of dog bites nationwide. They didn't arbitrarily pick these breeds, there is data behind it, sadly.
I agree with this, but I think the reason behind this is the people who chose the breed for the wrong reasons (size, strength and reputation) not the breed themselves. I have a rottweiler and and a rott/shepherd mix and although they each have distinctly different personalities, neither would intentionally hurt anyone. Their size simply causes problems sometimes when they try to be lap dogs or give hugs

Many disreputable people choose a breed, pitt bulls are the breed of choice in this area, for all the wrong reasons. A big thing here in RI is dog fighting and drugs. Many people own these dogs illegally and bring them up horribly. Children get bitten or mauled, the dog gets put down and the breed gets another mark on it's reputation. I think the blame is being put in the wrong place. It rests with the owner, not the breed and perhaps the statistics they should be gathering should center around the owners rather then the breed.

BTW, I have Nationwide and my dogs were not an issue with them.