Ridiculous. Not even the most basic attempt to distinguish the impact of city size. For example, Houston (ranked worst on the list) is actually has a higher p

Ridiculous. Not even the most basic attempt to distinguish the impact of city size. For example, Houston (ranked worst on the list) is actually has a higher population per dog bite (i.e. fewer dog bites per 1000 people), than other cities ranked lower. Houston (ranked worst) population 2,301,572 dog bites 57 dog bites per 1,000 people: 0.0247 Baltimore (ranked 20th worst) population 585,708 dog bites 16 dog bites per 1,000 people: 0.0273 Dayton (ranked 18th worst) population 137,644 dog bites 18 dog bites per 1,000 people: 0.1308 So, Dayton has about 6x the problem that Houston does, but somehow is ranked as not as bad. Essentially, the reason they list California and Texas as the worst, is that they have the largest populations. Not to mention that different areas have different numbers of dogs, and in some areas the postal service worker doesn't have to approach the house, but just deposits in the mail hive.