Dogsbite.org - -when a quest for vengeance becomes dangerous

For more updated information on dogsbite.org -- check out a more recent post here.

Even though they've been out there for awhile, I've largely let dogsbite.org do their own thing. However, at this point, their rallying of misinformation and misleading information is becoming even more biased, misleading, and dangerous, so I want to respond.

Yesterday, Dogsbite.org created a post entitled 'pit bull bans work".  They cited four different cities where BSL "worked".  The post below that also mentions a fifth city. And I want to respond.

First of all, I want to define what I would call a law that "works".  "Working" is improving public safety. "Working" acknowledges that in almost no cities do one breed of dog account for even a majority of the attacks in a city. There are many different types of dogs that can, do and have "attacked". So "working" improves public safety by lowering the total number of dog bites in a community. 

Dogsbite.org only wants to track 'pit bull' bites in determining success. But let's face it, if you eliminate the majority of one type of dog from a community, you can eliminate the majority of bites by that type of dog. Duh. However, bites have never been about the breed of dog involved. It's always been abou tthe owners of the dogs and their perpetually negligent treatment of the animal. Take away one type of dog, and they will be negligent with the next. Until you deal with THE OWNER problem, you will never solve the dog bite/attack problem.  So of course in these cities that passed BSL, "pit bull" bites went down. However, let's look at whether or not public safety was really improved.

So let's look at their case studies of "successful" bans that are "working".

Council Bluffs, IA

I've written a LOT about Council Bluffs' ban over the past couple of years.  However, here's the down and dirty:

2003 (pre-ban) - total dog bites: 85

2004 (pre-ban) - total dog bites: 131

Ban passed to deal with unusualy high number of dog bites.

2005 (ban in place) -- total dog bites: 115

2006 (ban) -- 132

2007 (ban) -- 98

There isn't much of a trend line here, however, in the two years prior to the ban (one of which was an abnormally high number of bites for that time) they averaged 108 bites per year. In the three years following the ban, they have average 115 bites. Is that an IMPROVEMENT to public safety?  It's not, but they want you to believe it is.

Aurora, CO

Hey, I think you should read these results directly from the folks in Aurora. Here's a copy of the Aurora 2-year report.  Here are the actual numbers of total dog attacks via their 2-year report:

2003-- 185

2004 -- 178

2005 -- 110

In spite of a trendline trending downward in the total number of bites in the community (which mirrors what we're seeing nationwide), they passed BSL to start 2006.

2006 - 129

2007 - 157

So Aurora "worked" by stopping a trend of fewer dog bites and reversing the trend to now have more dog bites.  In 2007 they had 26% more bites than they had the year before the ban was enacted.

San Francisco

I've written a lot about this one too.  There are a lot of numbers in that link, here's the short of it:

In the 19 months prior to the mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls law, they had a total of 596 total bites.  In the 19 months following the ban, 676.  A 13% increase.  Don't believe my numbers? Here's an article noting that the total number of bites the first six months after th ordinance passed actually doubled from the year prior.   And here's an academic paper written by TE Houston, PhD from out of Sacramento that also notes no decline in bites following the passing of the ordinance.

Denver

I don't have Denver's total dog bite numbers. I've looked, and I've never seen them published anywhere, nor have they been given to me when I've requested them. It seems odd to me that a city that has been to court FOUR TIMES in the past 3 years would not have widely published their "success" if these numbers looked good...but I don't know for sure.

So why would dogsbite.org not share with you these numbers? It's because they could really care less about public safety. The owner of the website got attacked by a 'pit bull' about 14 months ago..and in her quest for vengeance, she is out pushing breed bans regardless of what the end results would be.  Colleen Lynn is a victim of an attack. That is tragic. But she is NOT an expert in dog bites, canine behavior, or canine legislation.  She is a person with a website that is seeking vengeance. In her quest to thwart truth, she weeds out any comments that counter her view. 

In my opinion, any efforts to thwart discussion and dissenting opinion are especially dangerous. It gives her the option of putting anything she wants on the site, with no pressure to make sure it's true or even accurate. See, that doesn't really matter, because she's not really interested in the truth anyway.

In order to build public safety -- and I mean TRUE public safety, we MUST deal with neglegent owners, regardless of what type of dogs they own.  We MUST deal with how dogs are treated.  Anything other that will lead to failure...just like in all the cities that Ms. Lynn would like you to think have been successful.  Otherwise you won't have solved anything...you will have just changed the problem.

Comments

[spotted dog farm]

yep, and you know what would really improve public safety? banning dogs altogether! and why don't we legislate against certain "types" of people while we're at it. oops, i better stop - someone might take me seriously!

[Kelley Filson]

Thank you for your diligence to the #'s. I agree with ignoring bad anything... to a point. Your comments are timely and appropriate. Thank you.

[MichelleD]

I seriously think we should consider legal action against this woman and others that knowingly publish these lies. The Constitution does not cover yelling FIRE in a theater - this is the same. This kind of hysterical propaganda is a serious public safety threat. These lies have caused serious detriment to dog owners and dogs - slander, libel, defamation: I can't believe this website doesn't fall under one of those categories.

I'm not a lawyer but a class action lawsuit sounds like a viable option - I am willing to contribute. Could any lawyers out there comment?

[Becky]

I have a name of a lawyer that does class action suits -- mostly known for employment type. I dont know yet, but he may be a constitutional lawyer, as I requested. I had been thinking along the lines of KCK's violations, but perhaps I could speak w/ him along the lines of your post, Michelle. My dog and I have been defamed w/ this libel and slander. Sites like this harm my reputation as well as my dog's, yet have no basis in fact. Do you think this enough to sue? Seems to me it would be the same as published garbage about how dangerous redheaded women are and then publishing and publishing until red headed women are feared, hated, and banned.

[EmilyS]

excellent post, Brent. Your stats certainly show a pattern that banning a breed does NOT reduce bites (I'm not willing to conclude that bans INCREASE bites, because "correlation is not causation".) But your point worth hammering on, a lot.

Kudo's to you for compiling the stats.

I wonder if Colorado has a FOIA law (most states do) that might be used to pry the bite numbers out of Denver.

[KC KS Kills Dogs]

I was checking out some of the references the author of this site uses and stumbled upon this -

It is apparent that the "pit bull gene" is slowly spreading into the traditionally gentler breeds and producing vicious Labradors, Golden Retrievers and other anomalous progeny. You cannot look at a puppy and know its pedigree.

I am with Michelle and Becky, this site borders on "a hate website" and deserves a class action lawsuit.

[Barb]

Yeah, I LOVE that quote about the "pit bull gene". WTF? I think she got it from Kenneth Phillips' web site: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/advice.htm
Or he may have gotten it from the Dogsbite bitch. Who knows...it would make me laugh, if it wasn't so hateful and scary. It's like reading stuff the Nazis wrote about the Jews - so ludicrous and obviously made up that it would be funny if it hadn't led to the slaughter of millions.

[Jim Crosby]

Hi Brent:
Glad to see that others find that site as troublesome as I do. The author is not remotely interested in accuracy-I have sent several comments correcting 'facts' from having been on scene-and they never appear. So the author, when confronted by info that differs, just covers his/her ears and yells "La La La I can't hear you".
The Aurora figures are typical. Dogbites cites 473 bites in the three years. I have the hard copies of the bite reports since I am testifying to overturn the ban-and there were actually 459 incidents. No big deal, just a few bites difference, eh? But sadder is the fact that I can look at these hard copy reports and literally see where the breed section has been whited out and, in a different pen and handwriting, had "Pit Bull" written in. And trust me, I am not a conspiracy buff-no little green men, no guy on a grassy knoll-but these are clearly altered. And even with the alterations, the numbers don't match the numbers they give.
The bottom line: in Aurora, CO, Pit Bulls bit no more often, no more severely, than any other breed. And post ban, the numbers of bites have risen. Period. Effective my eye. Dogbites is nothing more than a hate fueled site with a clear agenda to warp the truth and destroy a breed of dog based on the authors personal feelings.

[Would contribute to this Lawsuit]

There are so many lawsuits going on that you really have to pick and choose where you contribute but I`d sign on to this one.

I suspected they wouldn`t allow anyone with a different view to post and I knew they wouldn`t allow links to real Facts to be posted and Jim Crosby just confirmed my suspicions.

That alone should raise alarm bells even to the people who agree with here and think these dogs are "dangerous".

What would be the harm in allowing this other info to be posted.People can still make up their own minds.

People don`t seem to like the Nazi comparison but what else can you call it?

[TEH]

Good comments Brent. In all reported bites, we need to be certain we are comparing apples to apples, and being honest in the evaluation. What is often glossed over is the number of "unknown" bites, that is those where the breed is not identified. The dogs would be generically described by color, coat length, size. This can comprise a large percentage of the bites. This was seen in San Francisco, where the number of unknowns were not reported initially. Then, to show their new regulation worked, they included the unknowns in the new tally post- MSN of bullys. Somewhat misleading.....or should I say not forthcoming.....or down right dishonest??
Additionally in reported bites you can have a description of the dog initially, but on follow-up of the events, the breed identification of the dog may change. Is this then corrected from the original? Hard to say. I have seen a dog identified as a "pitbull" initially, but then buried in the description of events the dog now becomes a Labrador.
None of these bans or restrictions have anything really to do with public safety. They are totally emotional reaction to fear and hysteria. And I also think it is just condoning animal abuse. By saying dogs are banned, they do not just go away, they go underground, which makes it all that much easier for the dogs to be abused.
Dogs are dogs and they behave as dogs....any breed. People need to acknowledge their role in this, legislation is targeting the wrong species.

[MichelleD]

It's not that the "banning pit bulls" itself causes an increase in bites its any action/law that takes resources away from ACTUAL problems and focus on NON problems. We need to get the numbers but I'm betting that MSN will have the same effect.

Its one thing to publish editorials with opinions we don't care for, its another to publish flat out lies stated as fact and refuse to correct them when they're proven wrong.

People are so defensive about the Nazi thing because "those were people, these are dogs". So, you throw all reasoning, fact based decision making and ethics out the window when talking about non-humans? How about all the "only trash owns pit bulls" comments - PEOPLE are effected by this. Compare it to whatever you want, bullshit on any topic is still bullshit.

[AnnaC]

Excellent - though infuriating - post Brent.
And I completely agree with TEH - we are targeting the wrong species. And until we, as a society, learn to even look at the PEOPLE and how we help them (or in this case hurt them) we are not going to make much progress in either direction. And I will be completely off my chair if I hear that Colorado doesn't have a FOI act...isn't that sorta un-Constitutional?!?
grrrrr.

[Carianne]

This is horrific! How can anybody in their right mind think that a breed ban is working if the dog bite numbers are increasing? How do people believe these lies? Have we all become so lazy and stupid that we buy into what is published and forget that what is intentionally left unpublished oftentimes says more?

On a side note, how do we even know whether these bites were from bully dogs to begin with? There are so many dogs that now resemble bully breeds that even vets are not able to make the appropriate breed identification. If I am fear based and get attacked by a random dog won't I just say that it was a bully breed because that is what I read is biting in the news on a regular basis.

Come on biotech companies/pharm companies, come up with the accurate DNA testing solution that proves many of these stupid reporting tactics and laws unscientific. Come on cities, use scientific evidence for breed identification over AC officers without any high level education. Step by step, but so many steps to break down the ignorance of the public.

[EmilyS]

http://www.coloradoforethics.org/

hmmmm.
Colorado has a "Open Records Act"
http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archives/open/00openrec.htm

It seems clear that IF some agency (including local ones) in Colorado keeps bite statistics, they must provide access to them.

[Would contribute to this Lawsuit]

I wasn`t comparing the killing of dogs to Humans with the reference to Nazi.
I was speaking of the propoganda machine similar to dogsbite.

I don`t care if you like or love dogs.
But the people that push out this propoganda have put a target on my forehead as well as on the dogs.

There is absolutely no difference between those 2 propoganda machines.

The Nazis just put the target on a much larger group of people.

I don`t want to accidentally die because someone takes a shot at my dog due to dogsbite propoganda.

[MichelleD]

Oh, I agree with you Lawsuit... that is the argument I've heard regardless of what aspect of the comparison you're talking about - one was humans one was dogs so comparing anything about it is insulting. To me, when you can literally change the words from "Jew" to "Blacks" to "pit bull" and be unable to tell that the message had been altered that is a pretty compelling argument.

I personally think a big part of the whole thing is people's redirected racism and that is why people are so defensive to the argument.

[Caveat]

RE: the accuracy of 'breed' identifications in bite reports - it doesn't exist. Whenever you mention 'pit bulls' you are by definition comparing apples to oranges.

It's an irrelevant detail anyway but it has received unwarranted prominence despite that.

Since very few people understand what makes a dog a purebred, very few people would even know how to establish a dog's status.

Purebred dogs (which really are a member of a breed) are identified, their vital information is recorded and they are registered to an owner. The dog's physical appearance is irrelevant. Without this documentation, a dog is considered a mixed-breed animal.

Add to that the fact that most people who are bitten (in a non-work situation) are non dog-savvy (most, not all)and you realize that these 'breed' IDs are not credible.

Then we have the use of a slang term, 'pit bull', to describe a cluster of breeds (3 - 5), over two dozen unrelated breeds (according to the AKC/CKC) and a huge and unmeasurable number of lookalike mutts - all lumped together as a 'breed' by media and others - including the CDC in their infamous review papers.

This is equivalent to saying 'shepherd' and calling it a 'breed', then allocating bite data to that one 'breed'.

It's wackaloon thinking.

In virtually every place that has brought in a 'breed' ban, bites have increased and in some places have eventually stabilized to pre-ban numbers. I don't know why, but have my suspicions. I personally have been unable to locate one jurisdiction that had a decrease in overall bites when they banned 'breeds' of dogs.

Winnipeg MB, Kitchener (and other places in our province) ON, the UK are a few more examples of failure.

[Sue Cosby]

Great post Brent! Seems like dogsbite is pretty typical - they aren't going to let any facts get in the way of a good story.

[TEH]

Caveat, your are correct in that accurate breed identification does not exist in reported bites and it should be an irrelevant issue. In the early literature dogs were identified by size or by grouping. In looking through the bite reports, there are still lots of generic descriptions of breeds. Pitbull is generic,a slang for a number of breeds and mixes. Shepherd or retriever describes a number of dogs and mixes. All one has to do is go through websites of shelter animals or rescues to see that specific identity of a dog is difficult.
People now need to be educated on dog behavior, dog-dog or dog-cat aggression is not unusual for ANY breed. Folks seem to have forgotten this.
Children get bit cause they have a remarkable propensity for behaving in a manner that is not conducive to their health sometimes....
Just plain commonsense and an understanding of dog behavior and human actions would go a long way to reducing dog bites. We all know that here. But how to truly get this across to the general public when sites like dogsbite create total hysteria and irrational
actions.

[skennedy]

I don't believe it could be a c/a lawsuit but I think crosby+acf might have one on her for publishing what she put out in July.
http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/2008/07/comment as that implies he doesn't know what he is doing,or that his work is BS. Make sure to all read it so you can be used as 3rd party witnesses.

[Caveat]

Too late, SK. It's gone.

[Would contribute to this Lawsuit]

Wow
Impressive IMO
From CEO of Seattle HS

[quote]Rushing to ban pit bulls is the wrong response[/quote]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008186610_pitbullop18.html

[katie]

*nod* Caveat, and sad to say, these dogs don't even have to look anything like pit bulls to receive the label. If it bites, it must be a pit bull! Big, little, it doesn't really matter. The mis-labeling I've seen sometimes is absolutely astounding.

[Angel]

Just a interesting fact I want to add..a little off subject. Council Bluffs ban does not include the American Bulldog. When I asked Council Bluffs animal control how they were able to tell the difference. They paused, then stuttered and then said..the American Bulldog has a different size head and body than the pitbull terrier. I laughed a little and then said Thank you...and Goodbye. I think they have this law on their books so they can harass certain people and turn a blind eye to friends and family.

[Gertrude from NY]

We should follow suit against this woman!

I'm game!

I feel that BSL is anti-American

We don't need more rights taken away from us come on now!