My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Weekly Roundup - -Week Ending 7/3/11 | Main | St. Louis looks at passing Mandatory Spay/Neuter Legislation »

July 05, 2011



135 pounds is a big darned American Bulldog! I guess it could have been fat.

Sad story.


Terrible tragedy. But relating to this topic of young children and dogs, if you look at today's "Yes Biscuit" the feature photo is of a toddler with his face being licked by a large dog. There are a plethora of photos all over the internet nowadays of young children positioned with dogs in "warm-fuzzy" poses. And while most of these interactions do not result in harm, I think these photos give people a false sense of safety about kids and dogs. I've spent half my life working in rescue, but the first thing to remember about dogs is they all have teeth. Having a baby's face right up at a dog's mouth is never a good idea IMHO, no matter how many cute photos you've seen.

Mary Murray

What I have seen recently in our rescue when being approached by owners wanting to relinquish their dogs o our rescue has been the "family party" or gathering being a catalyst to an incident. As a licensed presenter for dog bite prevention and a rescue coordinator, I would strongly advise dogs be crated or in a safe place away from the activities during such gatherings. Stress seems to have been a factor in all of the cases we have been involved with,


Imagine this, has it posted as a Pitbull, Imagine that!

St Francis

I am shocked that the pathological liar Colleen Lynn listed this fatality as a pitbull.

This is an email I received a while ago from Karen Delise:

There is very little truth to ANY information on this website (colleen Lynn) for three reasons:

1. Ms. Colleen Lynn has an extreme bias, as a matter of fact it goes beyond bias and is truly fanaticism.
2. This site uses newspaper articles for all its "information"
3. Ms. Lynn knows absolutely nothing about canine behavior, dog attacks or Pit bulls. She is an "overnight Internet dog expert."

It would take me a week to address all the inaccuracies and purposeful untruths found here. But, here are a few examples:

This site has listed "dog bite fatalities" in which the person absolutely did NOT die from dog bites but died from causes totally unrelated to a dog attack.

This site lists another "Pit bull fatality" even though it was NEVER determined which dogs were involved in the fatality as the dogs were never located.

This site lists another "Pit bull fatality" in which no one but Ms. Lynn (and the reporter) believes the dogs were Pit bulls (they were very mixed breed dogs).

Ms. Lynn even goes as far as to say that the newspapers do not need to print the breed of dog involved in incidents, because she INSTINCTIVELY KNOWS what breed it is, and will list it accordingly (of course, she lists these unknown, unidentified breeds as "pit bulls.")

Like I said, I could write a book on this site. Suffice it to say that Ms. Lynn has an EXTREME bias, she is not interested in anything at all about dog attacks other than "proving" that Pit bulls are responsible for seemingly all the evil in the world.

Her "list of 2007 fatalities" would be a joke if it weren't for the tragedy of some of the victims and some of the dogs.

Ms. Lynn is purposely deceitful. Her information is worse than garbage, it is a manifesto of hate.

Karen Delise


St. Francis - -no one here doubts Lynn's motives or questions her credibility. She has the dog listed as a "pit bull" frankly because she doesn't have enough knowledge about dogs or dog breeds to know the difference. And I'm sure Eric was being sarcastic with his comment.


St. Francis; Don't forget that the Title of is deliberately missleading. This site is disguised as a record keeper of dog bites and statistics but has nothing to do with dogs in general, It's nothing but Pit Bull propaganda from start to finish!

Jen Brighton

I've asked dogsbite proponents time and again to point me on her website to the listed, credentialed experts that Ms. Lynn consults. Surprise, surprise, her fans conveniently skirt that question and belittle any true expert that remotely supports pit bulls or is not in favor of breed bans.

I find it ironic that dogsbite is one of only a handful of sites that spews these "facts," yet you can find literally hundreds of rescue organizations, trainers, behaviorists, etc. and positive pit bull websites praising the breed if raised and trained correctly.

That should indicate something to an intelligent individual who is truly interested in forming an unbiased opinion.


So as a neighbor living in rural Oregon next to a pit bull owner, what governs my neighbor to be a responsible dog owner?

My kid riding his bike down the road, how do I know that if isn't the breed that the owner having no training is responsible for an aggressive breed of dog, that my kid is safe?

Please convince me why I should not vote for a ban. You go down any rural road and in Oregon I could stereotype 50% of pit/rot/macho owners.



Your last statement pretty much answers your question.

There is no doubt that you have ever right in the world to be sure your child is reasonably safe from aggressive dogs (I say reasonably, because everything we do has some risk, including walking down stairs, swimming pools, riding a bike, riding in a car, etc -- all of which are statistically far more dangerous than dogs).

But the problem, inherently is with people who are not responsible in training their dogs, or worse, have the desire to have an aggressive dog. So while you can stereotype them based on the type of dog they have, it won't change the desire or irresponsibility they have.

So, while one response has been to ban the dog breed, there are no shortage of dog breeds out there. If the goal is to have an aggressive dog, then there is no doubt that a chow, akita, german shepherd, doberman, St. Bernard, dozens of Mastiff breeds, Shar Pei, etc could all fit the bill just fine. It's not that any of these types of dogs are a problem -- it's that the real problem is never addressed which is the problem numbskull dog owner.

This is why when cities pass breed bans, they continue to have the same problems they had before - and in many cases, make the problem worse because they are diverting resources from dealing with numbskull owners toward types of dogs -- even if the dog's individual behavior makes it not a problem (and there is noone) that can make a reasonable argument that all, or even most, of any one type of dog is behaviorally a problem).

So the solution is to put in a proactive aggressive dog ordinance -- based on behavior, not what the dog looks like, that allows animals to be confiscated based on their behavior if there are reasonable concerns about the individual animals -- and to prevent dog ownership from individuals that because of repeat violations have proven themselves unsatisfactory for dog ownership.

It works every time -- unlike breed-specific "solutions".

The comments to this entry are closed.