Thank you for the well written and courteous query and for appreciating my weak humor. This thread has been surprisingly coherent and civil given that it concerns a train wreck of broken American gun culture and broken American dog culture.
I’ll try to answer your question, but it’s more complicated than I can explain in a readable post, so I encourage you to check it out yourself!
The American Veterinary Medical Association is the funding engine for a political lobbying group called AVMAPAC. If you’ve ever wondered why veterinary medicine is regulated so differently from other medical practices, now you know - it’s because AVMAPAC’s governmental relations office in Washington, D.C., carefully monitors federal and state legislative efforts concerning animals and “meets with members of Congress and their staff to advocate for legislation that will enhance the veterinary medical field and help block the ones that will not”.
When you check this stuff out, you’ll immediately notice there is no co-ordinated reporting of dog attacks in the USA. What little hard data exists comes from a very few inherently biased sources like individual hospitals, animal welfare agencies, veterinarians, and published newspaper reports.
When the controversial 2000 JAVMA paper came out, it notably exposed the need for some nationwide system of accurate reporting, which would remove any uncertainty concerning the relationship between dog breeds and dog behavior.
Now, AVMAPAC openly opposes breed-specific legislation, and openly says they will spend lobbying money to prevent it. What little data is available indicates that breed-specific legislation (typically targeting pit bulls, wolf hybrids, and rotweillers) has a powerful effect on dog attack frequency in the USA, in effect saving real live human infants from death or crippling. Again, AVMA and many dog fancier organizations vociferously and financially oppose BSL.
A website called dogsbite.org has been in something of a tussle with AVMA over this for years; both sides growing increasingly strident and emotional over time. Of the two, dogsbite.org provides far more physical proof; publishing extensive documentation (and gruesome photos) proving the reality of dog attacks, while AVMA in effect simply says “vets are authoritatively experts - we understand dogs and our statements define what reality is.”
Speaking as a person intimately familiar with both dog ownership and dog attacks, I believe AVMA is a morally bankrupt organization actively enabling child molestation and murder by dogs, and dogsbite.org is a fact-based but obsessive crusade almost single-handedly run by a woman named Colleen Lynn. But unlike the rest of this, those are just my personal opinions.
Anyway, dogsbite.org claims that AVMAPAC has successfully prevented federal funding to CDC programs that would help identify the true scope and scale of dog mismanagement in this country, and identify the most effective means of reducing this problem. AVMAPAC, in turn, claims that they have spent vast amounts of money to influence legislation in ways that will optimize the income of American veterinarians.
When dogsbite.org submitted FOIA requests to the CDC to obtain the small amount of incomplete data they do collect, the request was denied with an explicit claim that no such data existed. A later appeal forced the data to be released; here it is - that’s is literally all they collected, and it excludes whole categories of fatal attacks as well as all non-fatal attacks, and yet the amount of useful data available concerning dog attacks has gone down, not up, over time You can pull the data yourself and see this is true.
I am looking at the lame CDC data right now. It says the opposite of what you just said. Although, yes, AVMA does say that - but they are demonstrated masters of data cherrypicking, like several other trade protectionist groups I could name.
The only organizations that are doing anything approaching rigorous data collection are all citizen science groups advocating BSL. Since most dog fanciers and veterinarians strongly oppose BSL they will point to this advocacy as a reason the data cannot be believed. However, the data is independently verifiable from published sources and it shows clearly that dog attacks are getting worse and more frequent.
I hope that all this will give you food for thought and perhaps action of your own; it took a great deal more effort to compose this post than a clever bon mot might’ve. I’m sorry I didn’t have time to make it shorter and more informative.
 Direct quote from their site. AVMAPAC is the NRA of America’s dog owners.
 Biased does not mean they are purposely misrepresenting data. They currently don’t have any unbiased way to do data collection and analysis.
 Hospital data is the most reliable, but scarce and subject to selection bias.
 Pet maintenance technicians largely deriving their income from treatment of dogs. AVMA says 77% of vets work only with pets and insurance agencies say that claims for treatment of dogs are more frequent and more costly than other pets, by a very large margin.
 Typically sensational articles sorted by unpaid interns or volunteers.
 Controversial for many reasons, some valid, but too many to list here.
 Nominally representing the interests of the thousands of people who have been maimed or disfigured by dog attacks as well as the hundreds of parents whose children have been gruesomely slaughtered.
 Lynn was bitten by a pit bull in 2007, and has received online harassment, internet smear campaigns, and physical threats from dog owners who oppose BSL and comprehensive dog attack data collection.
 I see no inherent contradiction here.
 According to the CDC, who say this has nothing to do with AVMAPAC, but is simply an unfortunate side effect of larger scale data classification efforts.