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

[anon]

There`s a good article on Jim Crosby that references this dogsbite site.
Thought I`d post in case you haven`t seen it.

Some great quotes

[quote]"Breed-specific legislation doesn't work," said Crosby. "It's legislating things. Legislating things doesn't work, you have to change human behavior."[/quote]

[quote]Crosby, hired as the director of Bay County Animal Control in February, is a national expert in this niche field.[/quote]

[quote]"If you want an alarm system, get an alarm system ... a dog is not a proper tool for that."[/quote]

Her reaction to Jim posting further details on an attack says it all

[quote]to explain a pit bull's actions during a fatal attack in Deltona, the site owner, Colleen Lynn, responded by posting his picture under the headline "Professional Whitewasher."[/quote]

How is that reaction constructive?

I`m glad to hear that the bereaved family sees the benefit to further investigation.

Preventing further tragedies should be the goal,not being right.

http://www.newsherald.com/news/dog_70647___article.html/attacks_fatal.html

[stop-bsl.com]

Very informative blog. Dogsbite.org seems to love making up "facts" and blogging about them. I am glad that the people on our side of the BSL fight always cite REAL FACTS with actual proof behind them.

It's a wonder that the propaganda machine that Colleen is peddling actually works ever. But, lead an idiot to a law and most of the time they will vote yes if you make it sound good enough.

[Karen Batchelor]

"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."

In the space of 52 minutes Ms Lynn has removed the article - that tells me that there is every chance a lawsuit against her would succeed. skennedy et al, I hope you copied it before it vanished!

[Mark]

Not sure if you have seen this but it`s making the rounds in Facebook groups.
Thought it would be of interest here.
One post I saw said it had been received via an email.

[quote] dogsbite(dot)org is a dog bite victims organization that works to pass what they call "common sense laws". Their interpretation of common sense laws is to ban breeds of dogs. Despite the fact that many respected organizations such as the ASPCA and Best Friends have proven that breed bans don't work and that responsible ownership legislation is far more effective. Their website contains a good deal of sensationalist "statistics", and horror stories of how Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Chow Chows and Wolf dogs viciously attack and maul children and adults alike. The majority of their statistics come from a publication called Animal People News. A publication that seems to also show considerable breed bias. Dogsbite(dot)org is actively seeking nonprofit status. However, they publicize themselves as a group that tries to "create laws". This would actually make them a Lobbyist group and therefore disqualify them for non profit status.

Those of us who have the insight and wisdom to know that there is so much more than just breed that determines whether or not a dog will bite, those of us that are responsible bully breed owners, those of us believe that only the guilty should be punished need to let the IRS know that dogsbite(dot)org should be denied tax exempt status. We as responsible adults are aware that any untrained, neglected dog of any breed can be a threat to people and animals. And we as responsible adults need to stand up against groups that want to recklessly wipe out entire breeds of dog because of the actions of the irresponsible few.

We are asking you to write to the IRS and ask them to deny dogsbite(dot)org tax exempt status. due to the fact that they are not a charitable organization but legislative lobbyists, who promote propaganda and use sensationalist scare tactics.

Please remember that the IRS is only concerned with the tax aspect of this issue and are in no way concerned with dog laws. So save those letters for your local legislators (whom we are sure you are writing thoughtful well worded pleas to often).

Send you letters to,

Internal Revenue Service
P.O. Box 12192
Covington, KY 41012-0192

It has come to my attention that an organization (dogsbite(dot)org) is
seeking tax exempt status.

"DogsBite(dot)org is a national dog bite victims group dedicated to
reducing serious dog attacks by creating common sense laws. We are a
volunteer organization currently seeking nonprofit status."

Dogsbite(dot)org states its primary purpose is to "create" laws, i.e.,
lobbying. Due to the fact that this organization primarily exists to
lobby legislators, I respectfully request that the IRS deny this
organization tax exempt status.[/quote]

[Angela]

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this and inform people of the TRUTH. What a shame. If you look at this woman's Facebook page, you see pictures of a so-called "animal lover." This woman also supports horse racing which is an extremely cruel and inhumane sport to animals altogether. So sad.