Dr. John Bini - Shameless

JUN

21

Most researchers and professionals (regardless of field of study) feel some degree of embarrassment or humiliation when they have made statements or published comments or studies in which even the smallest of errors are discovered.

Even schoolchildren express dismay when learning that they have answered a basic math question incorrectly.

Book publishers and authors are often “mortified” by any typographical errors in a final published edition of a book.

Almost no one is immune to a sense of humility when proven wrong, and even fewer do not feel a flush of humiliation when errors are found in a subject matter in which they claim to have unique knowledge and expertise.

It would stand to reason that the higher the academic credentials, the increased embarrassment that would be felt by an individual when errors are found that demonstrate a lack of diligence, knowledge, or expertise on their part. Because, after all, it is to those who appear to have more education, knowledge and learning in a specific area of study that we rely on to provide us with the most accurate information.

Which is why the response of Dr. John Bini and Dr. Stephen Cohn is so astounding. In light of grievous, numerous and startling errors in their article, “Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs,” published in Annals of Surgery, May 2012 issue, Bini and Cohn continue to “go on the road” and tout their study as if it were flawless in its methodology, claims and conclusions.

Without ever addressing how they came to identify the dogs in their article as “pit bulls” or why they relied on a youtube video as a reference source, Bini and Cohn continue to hawk their study shamelessly.

Without ever addressing how they came to believe, publish and base a large part of their paper on a claim that there are only 2,239 “pit bulls” in the entire United States, Bini and Cohn continue to give radio interviews citing their study. (A future post will address this startling and incomprehensible error by Bini that the TOTAL population of “pit bulls” equals  2,239 dogs.)

When Bini and Cohn’s errors were directly addressed in a published letter to the editor of the Annals of Surgery, May 2012 issue, Bini and Cohn did not respond to a single specific or documented error, except to say, ‘we make no claim on being veterinary or forensic experts.“ 

Indeed, this could very well be the most accurate statement Bini and Cohn have published.  

Which then begs the question, why did Bini and Cohn undertake a study that was so clearly NOT their area of expertise? And why do they continue to defend it when veterinary experts HAVE found their study to be erroneous?
Shameless is the only word that comes to mind.

Posted 21st June 2012 by myra

Labels: Annals of Surgery John Bini San Antonio Stephen Cohn

Colleen Lynn - Seattle Animal Control Records What Really Happened on June 17, 2007 ,, by Fred Kray

Fred Kray is the author of this article..

Home

Pit Bulletin Legal News - Legal Developments in Breed Discriminatory Legislation Across the United States

LEGAL.PBLNN.COM

The Evolution of a Preventable Accident to the Myth of a Vicious Pit Bull Attack

Scene of the June 17, 2007, Incident

I.  Introduction 

For the first time anywhere on the web, you will be able to view, in their entirety, the Seattle Animal Control Records regarding the investigation of the June 17, 2007 bite incident involving Colleen Lynn. The link to the records will be at the end of this article. The addresses and phone numbers of the dog owner and dogwalker have been redacted, in an attempt to protect their privacy and prevent harassment. I am not sure these precautions will be effective. Ms. Lynn has had a copy of these records since 6/29/07 and has already made the photo of the dog involved public through her colleague Craven Desires here. As you can see, there has already been harassment of the dog owner. I have also redacted Ms. Lynn's information, but since she has moved to Austin, it is superfluous.

In writing this article, I have reviewed the Seattle Animal Control Records, talked personally to the dogwalker, reviewed photos of the scene, read various reports by Ms. Lynn on how she says the incident happened, and consulted a dog bite expert. The opinions in this article are my own.

II. Why This Article?

I have written on this site about the "in your face" tactics of dogsbite.org and its founder Colleen Lynn. It has always struck me as odd that she has never published the records from the June 17, 2007, incident. Many doubt the incident even happened, since there are no records available in court records or on the internet. There have been nagging questions about whether a Pit Bull was involved. The best way to silence critics would have been to publish the records. But she never did so. It seemed out of character, based on the way she vilifies her opposition, as I discussed here. And when I read the Craven Desires story that featured a photo of Bull, the dog involved in the attack, it became clear that not only did such records exist, but that Ms. Lynn had them.

I began to search through court records myself, and although I found her divorce decree, there was never any dog-bite lawsuit filed in Seattle. Yet she did say here (in her own voice), that she had settled her lawsuit. Nor was there any record of a dangerous-dog hearing. I was beginning to wonder, like many others, whether it actually happened. On impulse, I called Animal Control in Seattle, and yes, they did have the records, and yes, they would send them to me. Now you will be able to see them too.

There is an explanation for the lack of records. There was never a lawsuit filed because the case was settled for the owner's policy limits. There was no dangerous dog investigation because Lynn agreed not to pursue the owner in exchange for euthanasia of the dog involved. So, the only record of what happened is contained in the initial Seattle Animal Control Investigation records.

After I finished my own investigation, I felt that the public ought to know what really happened on June 17, 2007, and not just from Ms. Lynn. It is my opinion that Ms. Lynn has not published these records because the story she is now telling bears very little resemblance to what actually happened, and are in total conflict with that of the only other witness involved: the dogwalker.

III. Overview of the Incident

There are four characters in this story: Bull (the Pit Bull involved in the incident), the owner of Bull (owner), the dogwalker (dogwalker), and Colleen Lynn. The only witnesses to the incident are the dogwalker and Lynn. It is important to note that it was Lynn's right arm that was injured in reconstructing the accident. You also have to be familiar with the actual scene of the incident to understand what happened. Below is a photo of the scene of the incident taken recently. There have been no significant changes to the scene since June 17, 2007. The arrow shows the direction of the dogwalker and Lynn.

Below is the dogwalker's only statement to animal control:

There was no follow up By Seattle Animal Control to the dogwalker's statement, because within days of the incident, the owner agreed to have Bull euthanized. No further legal proceeding were going to take place, and the case was closed.

Lynn chooses the shortest, not the safest route

You would assume if Lynn's right arm was bitten, that she must have passed on the left side of the dogwalker exposing her right arm to the dog. You would be wrong. The dogwalker drew a diagram to make what happened clear.

The notations made on this photo were made by the dogwalker, and show both she and the dog in the middle of the walkway in the direction of the arrow. According to the dogwalker, she was not even aware of Ms. Lynn until she was next to Bull, where she has drawn Ms. Lynn's name.

Ms. Lynn made the decision, which turned out to be what caused a startled dog to react, to pass closest to the dog on the right with very little room for her to get through. There is a wall to her right. If the dog reacts, she has nowhere to go. Passing on the left would have given her infinite room to move away, and put the dogwalker between her and Bull. The dogwalker says Lynn gave no warning of any kind to let her know she was coming or passing. Lynn was wearing earbuds while jogging.

The dogwalker says that when she first saw Lynn, she was to Bull's right, where her name is on the above photo, stumbling. She did not know if Lynn had been tripped by hitting the dog, been bitten, or lost her footing on the grass. Both Lynn and the dog were together as Lynn continued to fall in front of her. Lynn fell to her back and Bull had her right arm. She pulled the dog off. The dog remained leashed during the entire incident.

A. Lynn's First Version of the Incident

So what did Lynn say in her first version of the accident? The statement was not taken until a day later, June 18, 2007, over the phone. This is what the animal control officer wrote in his report:

Lynn admits, then, that she passed on the right, but says that the dogwalker had moved all the way over to the "parking strip," inviting her to pass. She then slowed down as she passed-no stopping is mentioned.

How can someone move over to the left when they don't even know you are there? Nowhere does she say she gave any warning, verbally or otherwise, that she was going to pass. She has never said it, as far as I have seen.

The dogwalker vehemently denies she moved left and I quote her:

"Colleen states that I moved over to the side, but I did not. . . . I was not aware of her. She just suddenly came upon us."

The diagram the dogwalker drew likewise makes this same point. Note that the dogwalker, according to the animal control reports was 175 pounds. The dogwalker says that Bull was about 80 pounds. So if they were in the middle of the sidewalk, there was not much room on the right to pass.

The first statement makes it clear that Lynn never stopped running as she passed to the right, only slowed down. And of course, that would make sense.

But isn't there some assumption of the risk in deciding to pass closest to the dog on the right? Don't our driving habits on passing go against this? The only logical explanation is that Lynn wanted to take the shortest route rather than a safe one. Does she bear some responsibility for this decision, in light of the fact she gave no warning?

B. Lynn's Second Version of the Incident

Animal Control took a sworn statement of Lynn the next day, June 19, 2007. In this version, Lynn now says the she not only slowed as she passed on the right but stopped.

In this version, Lynn says that she was 10-15 feet away when the dogwalker moved to the left. She gives no explanation as to how the dogwalker could even know she was coming. The dogwalker was facing the opposite way and Lynn does not indicate that she gave any warning. In this version she "slows way down" "when I passed them." She gives no explanation of why she would do this. =You are now clear of the dog. Why slow down now?

At the point she passed them, she says, the dog positioned himself in front of her. How is that possible? The dog was being walked on a five-foot leash according to the dogwalker. The dogwalker knows this because she still has the leash and measured its length. How does the dog get in front of Lynn after she passes them on a five-foot leash?  

This story, even after she has had time to think about it, does not make any sense. But it doesn't have to.  None of this will ever be challenged because the investigation is over after Lynn agrees not to go forward if they euthanize the dog.

C.  February 24, 2010, Version

In my research, I have come across countless versions of the "attack."  I am not interested in cataloging them all and the inconsistencies they show.  I will, however, give you a flavor of how far the mythology of this incident has come, by citing you to a debate she had with Debra Bresch regarding Breed Discriminatory Legislation back on February 24, 2010. I use this example because you can hear her recite the myth of the attack in her own voice. At the very beginning of the debate she is asked how the incident happened. The link is here, click on the mp3 audio link to hear it. (You should listen to the whole debate to hear how little she knows about the lack of science behind BDL--she is totally unaware of the Voith study showing that shelter personnel are only 25% accurate in judging breed by visual identification.) Here is the description given in the linked interview and I quote:

"I was trying to pass by a woman, and she had gotten out of the way, she knew she had a dog that was potentially dangerous, so I passed, the dog, the pit bull, broke free from her, and that's when I knew something wrong was happening, and it jumped, it ran in front of me and just kind of sat in the middle of the sidewalk, and at that point, I completely stopped running and I just kind of stood there, like oh my gosh what's about to happen and it jumped on my chest, knocked me to the ground, and immediately went for my neck, and I protected myself, I put my forearm in front of my face.....I'm good and I'm fully healed and my case has settled and so forth."

In this latest version, the dogwalker "knows" she has a potentially dangerous dog, which Ms. Lynn alleges is the reason she gets out of the way. There is no evidence Bull has any prior aggression problems either by animal control or known to the dog walker. It is this kind of confabulation that is seen on dogsbite.org. Bull, in this version, breaks free from the dogwalker despite being on a five-foot leash at all times, runs in front of Lynn, sits down as Lynn stops and attacks. This statement bears little resemblance to Lynn's first story, and is completely at odds with the dogwalker's version of the incident. The incident has been transformed from a preventable accident to a vicious pit bull attack.

IV. Bull's Reaction Predictable Startle Response

"Bull"

I consulted with a dog bite expert to get his analysis on this incident. He described Bull's behavior as the response of a startled dog. The dog did not know she was coming and snapped to protect himself. He reviewed the photographs, and explained that the post surgical photo of her injuries do not indicate that the dog either dragged her to the grass or shook her arm as she alleges. It was one or two quick bites and release. Lets take a look at what he is referring to. First, lets be clear that the original injury were two sets of puncture wounds, from one or two bites and immediate release. Take a look at the scene photo after her arm has been wrapped.

Notice that the wrap appears to be 6 inches from the elbow joint. What complicated this injury was that one of the bones in her arm broke. We cannot know, without x-rays, whether the break occurred from the bite or a fall to the ground. In any case, this is not what we see in Ms. Lynn's photo of her injury taken after surgery. That photo is below.

Bull did not inflict with his teeth all the injury that you see in this photo. To repair the broken bone, the surgeons had to open an incision to place a stabilization bar. That is what caused all of the damage you see other than the puncture wounds. You can see the steri-strips covering some of the stitches. The holes titled as "punctures" are the bite marks from the incident and are the only injury inflicted by Bull in this incident shown in the photo. According to the bite expert, the fact that the holes are very round and clean, is evidence that the dog bit and released, and that there was no dragging or shaking done with the arm in his mouth. If there had been dragging or shaking, these puncture wounds would have been irregular and enlarged with some evidence of tearing around the wound. The wounds do not support the "dragging" and "shaking" alleged by Ms. Lynn in her statements. Likewise, the dogwalker denies that there was any dragging or shaking by Bull. The puncture wounds and the dogwalker's testimony are thus consistent on this point. Yet another embellishment by Ms. Lynn?

This was not an inexplicable mauling by a Pit Bull. Rather, the dog's response was a predictable, known type of response when a dog is startled. Ms. Lynn has an understanding of the strength of the startle response, based on the words from a piece she wrote and published on the internet entitled "Don't Believe Everything You Think." In that article she wrote, and I quote:

My boyfriend, who lived with me, got the worst of it. I would slingshot from a stupefied state into one of aggression, especially if he approached me from behind. "[DELETED] YOU!" I would shriek. "Don't you EVER come up behind me without announcing yourself."

By not announcing herself to the dogwalker and Bull, she failed to treat Bull in the way she insisted she be treated. Unfortunately, rather than suffering some profanity like the boyfriend, Bull was killed for his reaction.

V. Conclusion

This was a preventable accident. Ms. Lynn could have done the most logical thing and passed the dogwalker on the left. She did not do that. She decided to take the shortest, not the safest route. Despite that choice, she failed to warn the dogwalker or Bull in anyway that she was coming. Because of that, the dog was startled when she ran by. A predictable startle bite reaction was the result.

Ms. Lynn has never acknowledged her part in this accident. Instead, her story has evolved from an incident in which her poor decision was the deciding factor into a mythical vicious pit bull attack. And she has used this myth to position herself at the forefront of the fight for Breed Discriminatory Specific Legislation. From this bullypulpit, she has used this myth to galvanize her followers.

I sympathize with Ms. Lynn - she was injured by a dog bite, and whether the arm was broken in the fall or by the bite, the dog was still the proximate cause of the injury. She was able to be compensated for her injury, and you can hear in the tone of her voice that she was pleased with the settlement when she talks about it in the Bresch debate linked to above.

Further, the Dangerous Dog Law system worked for her as an alleged victim. She was compensated for her injury, and the dog she alleged was dangerous was euthanized under the threat of a dangerous dog investigation (which could have resulted in criminal charges). So Ms. Lynn own experience validated controlling dangerous dogs not through breed banning but by enforcing Seattle's Dangerous Dog Law.

On the other hand, the outcome was not very fair to Bull. Bull has been unfairly demonized in an incident where Lynn could have avoided the accident by taking a safe route. Lynn's decision to not give warning and pass on the right (particularly in light of her own admission that she herself does not like to be approached from behind without warning) makes her responsible for this incident as well. Bull was not a vicious, blood thirsty bad dog.  If Bull had been a red zone dog and had wanted to savage Ms. Lynn while she was on the ground in close quarters, he could have. But he didn't. It was one or two quick bites and release. Had the dangerous dog charges been contested, and Lynn's inexplicable story exposed, Bull's life might have been saved. We'll never know.

Ms. Lynn's misrepresentation of this preventable accident as a vicious, intentional, pit bull mauling, and then going on to use the incident to justify Breed Discriminatory Legislation is shameful.  If she was really serious about wanting to prevent dog bites and canine safety, she could have used the truth of her story to warn others of the dangers of approaching a dog closely from behind without warning.  Telling people to take the safe rather than short route and thus perhaps preventing others from making the same mistake.

Instead, she has actively taken part in the evolution of a myth, with little basis in reality, to fan the flames of prejudice against the Pit bull breed.

I hope this article and the accompanying documents will shine the light of truth on what actually happened on June 7, 2007. Read them and make your own analysis and conclusion.

If you wish to follow this story and others like it, join our Facebook Page, and you will be notified when content is posted on the site.

The full Seattle Animal Control records can be seen here.

http://legal.pblnn.com/pro-bsl-experts/dogbiteorg/109-collen-lynn-seattle-animal-control-records

Discredited Dogsbite.org Spreads Irrational Hatred

Dogsbite.org defines pit bull owners in the following way:  "Pit bull owners:

Studies show that pit bull owners employ strategies to disguise the true nature of the breed by engaging in distortions, denial and overcompensation and by projecting blame after attacks.

Not normal dog owners..."

What is implied? All pit bull owners employ these strategies because they are all inherently deceitful. This is based on their "interpretation" of a Tufts study:

What The Study actually says: pit bulls are "the favorite of gangs and drug dealers" and shelters and those that have them as companion animals have to counteract the stigma attached to their breed. It then lists the way the pit bull owner, who wants a dog for a companion, counteracts the negative stereotype around his dog by "passing their dogs as breeds other than pit bulls, denying that their behavior is biologically determined, debunking adverse media coverage, using humor, emphasizing counter-stereotypical behavior, avoiding stereotypical equipment or accessories, taking preventive measures, or becoming breed ambassadors."

So the website begins by being purposely misleading when it states the deceitful actions of all pit bull owners as one group and not stating the clearly spelled out difference in the study between two classes of pit bull owners:

1. The drug dealers and criminals who have made this their favorite dog.

2. The shelters (who debate whether or not to adopt the dog) and people who choose this dog as a companion animal.

Not once when referring to the study does the website reference shelters and pit bull owners who chose this animal as a companion animal. 

Dogsbite.org creates a negative stereotype - lumping all pit bull owners into one evil mass, which is repeated in the alarmist blogs - as previously mentioned - with hateful narrow-minded rhetoric. Misinterpreting a study on purpose is shameful and no legitimate website would do so.

The whole purpose of the study was to show the stigma attached to the good owners and how it affected them and their pets.

The next thing this pit bull alarmist site says is, "The study is sympathetic to pit bull owners..."

While that may be true, the site hasn't given an honest assessment of the study in the first place so they already lost credibility. If you think the study is overly sympathetic why not say so from the beginning and make your point instead of cherry picking misleading quotes for your own narrow-minded agenda?

Dogsbite.com says, "Pit bull owners frequently direct blame onto victims after an attack too...while "blaming the victim" is a universal phenomenon, pit bull owners do so offensively." 

How so? How is this verified in fact? They cite one example of this. How Dogsbite.org comes to the conclusion that pit bull owners do this universal thing more offensively than any other type of person on the planet is not explained. 

The sad thing is this dangerous rhetoric is fed to those who have suffered the grief of losing a pet or who have been attacked or seen someone being mauled and now they can read on the internet that pit bull owners are so much more deceitful and offensive in their behavior than other humans. As "proof" there is a link to one article. 

America is known for irrational fear campaigns in the past, such as the Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scares and more recently, the policy decision to go to war in Iraq where "mushroom cloud" was the fear mantra repeated by Dick Cheney, George Bush and Condoleezza Rice.

Here is how Dogsbite.org debunks the "myth" a pit bull does not have a locking jaw:

"Myth #7: Pit bulls do not have a locking jaw:

Pro-pit bull groups continuously attempt to debunk the pit bull "locking jaw" expression that is often used by the media and the public. A pit bull's jaw may not physically lock, but due to selective breeding for a specific bite style -- to hold on and to shake indefinitely -- we consistently hear in news reports that the dog would not let go." 

It's a fact a pit bull's jaw does not lock. No dog has a locking mechanism in it's jaw. The website itself states as much a sentence after it claims to bust the myth of pro-pit bull groups. So the myth promoted by the pro-bit bull groups is actually true, but Dogsbite.org feels the need to call it a myth anyway and then admits it's actually true. Anybody confused? It's no surprise many people still believe this myth of the locking pit bull jaw.

Dogsbite.com does more harm than good. They lie, misinterpret studies and distort information on virtually every page. Perhaps they believe by making all pit bulls appear to be super-dangerous and all pit bull owners to be evil they think they will help ban this type of dog, but unfortunately the result is likely this: intelligent people dismiss all the information on the website - even the true and valid concerns - as part of a fabricated narrow-minded agenda.

Recent information about the founder of the site has come to light. That was provided by a pit bull advocate and has not been verified.

I recently found an article written several years ago.

MARCH 27, 2010

The Truth Behind Dogsbite.org

Dogsbite.org is not an "expert" organization when it comes to canine behavior. There, I've said it.

While it seems that lately, several media outlets have been treating them like they have a particular knowledge on the subject of dog bites and attacks (I'll get to a possible "why" on that later in the post), it doesn't erase the reality that dogsbite.org is simply a website run almost entirely by an individual person who has an expertise in web design, access to google, and a desire to seek revenge on an attack that happened to her several years. Those are the qualifications behind the website. And it runs no deeper than that. And treating the website as anything more than that is a recipe bad information that will lead to less safe circumstances for people and dogs. Let me explain.

******

Dogsbite.org is a website run by Colleen Lynn. In June of 2007, Lynn was an unfortunate victim of a dog bite while she was out jogging. Because of the dog bite, by a dog that is said to be a 'pit bull', Lynn decided to create the website dogsbite.org.  According to the original "about us" section of the website, the intent of the website was three-fold:

-- Distinguish which breeds of dogs are dangerous to have in neighborhoods

-- Help enact laws to regulate the ownership of these breeds

-- Help enact laws that hold dog owners criminally liable if their dog attacks a person or causes serious injury or death

While I actually agree with her original third mission statement, the original purpose of the website is very clear in the first two statements -- she intended to target particular breeds of dogs and ban ownership of those breeds. The goal was not public education or anything that she claims it to be about now -- it was about enacting breed specific legislation...even though she has no credentials to propose legislation like that with any basis of expertise.

And make no mistake, all of the experts organizations disagree with her idea on breed-specific legislation.

****

Every mainstream national organization that is involved in canine/human interactions is opposed to laws targeting specific breeds of dogs. An at-least partial list of these organizations include:

American Dog Owners Association

American Humane

American Kennel Club (AKC)

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

American Veterinary Medical Association  (AVMA)

American Working Dog Federation

Association of Pet Dog Trainers

Best Friends

Center for Disease Control

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants

International Association of Canine Professionals

National Animal Control Association

National Animal Interest Alliance

National  Association of Dog Obedience Instructors

National Canine Research Council

No Kill Advocacy Center

You find nearly one-stop shopping of all of the position statements of these groups here.

These groups represent the best of the best in the United States for Dog Trainers, Rescues, Shelters, Animal Behaviorists, Government entities,veterinarians, and even Animal Control Officers. All of them oppose breed specific legislation. All of them, in large part, because they have experience working with the actual dogs, and read the science, and realize the aggession is not a breed-specific issue -and the reality is that most dogs, regardless of breed, do not show aggressive behavior -- and yet, some dogs, of each breed, have. 

All recommend dog ordinances that focus on the the behaviors of the actual dogs, and not on its body type.

And not listening to the professional organizations, and instead, listening to an "organization" that has no expertise, can lead to bad results. Again, their focus is not in the best interests of public safety...it's about getting revenge.

*****

For example: at the end of 2008, Dogsbite.org named Lucas County (OH) Dog Warden Tom Skeldon their "Dog Warden of the year." Their reasoning is that "Skeldon has vigorously worked to prevent horrendous pit bull maulings resulting in serious injuries or death of human beings, their domesticated pets and livestock."  Interestingly, in the same year that Skeldon received this "award", the actual number of dog bites in Lucas County had gone up 23%.

So dog bites go up, and they give the man the dog warden of the year award because he is targeting 'pit bulls'.   Does that sound like the resume of an award winner for a group advocating for public safety to you? Me neither.

Within a year of them issuing the "award",  Skeldon stepped down from his position under significant public pressure. The actual citizens who had to put up with Skeldon's behavior, outrageous shelter kill rates and lack of improved public safety actually forced him out of office. 

But nothing may be worse than a fairly recent post (you can click on the picture to the left to read a screen shot of it) actually claiming that parents shouldn't be expected to teach their children to be respectful around dogs eventhough major, well-respected, dog training groups recommend otherwise.  If you can teach a young child to not touch a hot oven, then they can at least understand "caution" around dogs.  It is this type of irresponsibility that is making people LESS safe, not more safe.

Oh, there are other grievances. There is the reality that they claim dogs of even distantly-related breeds -- including Boxers, Bulldogs and Mastiffs - to all be 'pit bulls' in their "statistics".  They consistently claim that all of the professional organizations that oppose BSL are only doing so because they are supported by dog fighters*. They sensor all comments on their website that even come remotely close to disputing anything they post -- even if it is someone who is providing actual data that is correcting something they misspoke about -- again, censoring other types of thinking isn't exactly something you'd expect from a "public education" website.

* The all of these organizations are opposed to BSL because they are supported dog fighters  and dog breeders is a particularly funny notion. Many of the organizations that oppose BSL spend literally millions upon millions of dollars trying to shut down dog fighting operations, and all of the orgs oppose dog fighting in principle, even if they aren't actively working to shut the groups down. And as for breeding, several of the groups support breeders and several are working very hard to end breeding and spend countless dollars arguing amongst themselves on the breeding issue - -so the idea they would agree on this subject because they are supported by breeders is baseless too -- to the point that it's kind of comical.

And this doesn't even include their inaccurate use of case studies to support their point of view vs reporting the actual data. Or the reality that one city that allowed them to influence their policy-making, Omaha, has had a disasterous year.

*****

So, the question then remains, how is it that an organization that has so few real credentials continues to get quoted by media outlets out there?

One of the things that journalism schools around the nation teach is the importance of providing both sides of a story. There are always two sides, and they teach the importance of providing both. So when it comes to the argument about whether or not to ban 'pit bulls', dogsbite.org ends up being THE ONLY 'organization' in favor of banning 'pit bulls'. So the media almost has to use them, because they are the only ones with the alternative viewpoint.

And that folks, is the sad truth about dogsbite.org. They are the only one(s) that favor BSL. And they do so based on having a website and google -- not with any real expertise in working with dogs.

And that's very telling.

Oh sure, they will likely retort with criticisms of me, and what are my true credentials. It's true, that even though I've worked in rescue, and I've worked with hundreds of dogs that would be considered 'pit bulls', I have no credentials after my name. I'm not a certified trainer, or a vet. However, I will say this. My opinion is the same one shared by the national organizations that speak for veterinarians, animal control officers, dog trainers and rescuers throughout the nation. So my ideas and point of view is supported by pretty much everyone that has knowledge of canine/human interactions.

Their support group is a city attorney in Denver and an animal control officer that was forced out of his job in Toledo. That's it.

And that's the truth about dogsbite.org.  Fine, give them the "other" voice. But let's not mistake them for an organization that has any form of expertise, or any unique knowledge. Let's not mistake them for anything more than a person, with a website, that is seeking revenge for an incident that happened to her. No more, no less.

On one final note to Ms. Lynn. I am sorry that you were attacked by a dog. And I do hope the owner of the attacking dog was held appropriately accountable for the actions of their dog. But it was one dog -- and is not reflective of the millions of dogs out there of this type -- and I would encourage you to go to your local shelter and meet some more of the dogs that you seek to destroy. And I hope that pushing for ordinances that actually improve public safety, and that pushing for educating parents on how to introduce pets and children, will trump your desire for personal vengeance so that we can actually create a safer society. 

KC Dog Blog

Investigate Dogsbite.org and CEO

• author: Mary Robbins
• target: Mayor Lee Leffingwell, Austin Texas Police, Govenor Rick Perry, Greg Abbott
• signatures: 6,798
• 
  
• http://www.thepetitionsite.com/341/325/607/investigate-dogsbiteorg-and-ceo/

The Manipulations and Attacks of Dogsbite.org

The mindset of Dogsbite is very closely related to that of Hitler, Yes you heard me right, Colleen Lynn commonly uses the media and public forums to spread propaganda in very much the same way as the old man himself! She uses lies, media manipulation, she has no real scientific data, what data she does have comes from google and college students that does not make her an expert. She regularly uses slander and malicious attacks on the character of individuals she sees as a direct threat. She passes herself off as a non profit organization when in reality it’s a lobbyist group, isn’t that’s fraud? Oh and Dogsbite no longer maintains they will use Donations to help victims (a little legal wrangling there), now they refer you to a trust set up usually by the victims themselves. So I stand corrected, from my last Dogsbite post. I guess too may people were hitting  up Dogbite to pay their bills. Not that they ever did, or at least there is no record of it available to the public.

She has spread out right lies about various anti BSL and pro pit bull organizations.  She claims Pit bull advocates use propaganda here is an excerpt: pit bull advocates will claim that a pit bull cannot be identified, (see mis identified below) that there is a “media conspiracy” (see media hype below), against pit bulls and that pit bulls are in fact “wiggle butts” who only want to “lick you to death.” Again more manipulation, way to go dogsbite! Dogsbite takes this snippet form a study done by Society & Animals Journal of Human-Animals Studies. Sounds impressive huh? Well don’t be too impressed it was a “scholarly article”, one definition of a scholarly article is: A scholarly article reports on original research or experimentation. It is written by a researcher or expert in the field who is often affiliated with a college or university.  It could have been put together by a student researcher,Well I’ll take that as gospel then! It states: that (pit owners) “pass their dogs as breeds other than pit bulls, denying that their behavior is biologically determined, debunking adverse media coverage, using humor, emphasizing counter-stereotypical behavior, avoiding stereotypical equipment or accessories, taking preventive measures, or becoming breed ambassadors.”  the study refered to the Pit bull owner respondents, Well who did they interview? People from various walks of life, with varied social backgrounds? I’ll speak for myself here, I debunk the media hype, because other breeds are often misidentified as pit bull, biologically determined? come on! I have had dogs in my past from various environments, some abused and neglected, and anyone can deny the Environment theory, but I have seen these dogs flourish with the right environment, and NONE of them ever bit anyone!

For her or the authors of the “Article” to suggest that a pit owner makes a “breed ambassador” to deflect the negative reputation, please! Pit Bulls are not made “breed ambassadors” they either are or they are not, the ones that have the ultimate pit bull nature, that’s an ambassador, what would you call them? An ambassador is there to showcase the “true” temperament and nature of a pit bull, a dog that is complacent, easily handled, loving, and of stable mind. How would you describe a golden lab if they were made into fighting dogs Dogsbite? You have to remember that once all the pit bulls, and dojos, and cane corsos are gone a dog fighter will simply move to the next breed, until poodles are fighting dogs and made to be aggressive.

Will you pursue them with as much zest as you do the Pit Bull Dogsbite?  It is time for Dogsbite to put all those “donations” to good use and focus on legislation that will make owners responsible and accountable or face punishment. Not a ban that is aimed at the genocide of a breed. Will they do that? I highly doubt it, because Dogsbite is on a crusade to rid the world of Pit bulls, so focusing on owners instead of vindictive pursuits is not worth the time

On the Dogsbite website Ms. Lynn refers to a therapy dog that attacked an officer on horse back,  so I will debunk that one for you, the dog was a shelter dog trained by the woman herself not a professional dog trainer. Notice how she minimizes that part of the story. She is manipulating as usual, This woman is a narcissist that truly believes the lies that she puts out there, oh sure it all sounds good on a hate website but being able to shine people on doesn’t make the things she says true, a used car salesman will have a great pitch too but can they back it up?

She quotes specific cases of attacks and slanders the parties involved, there are good and bad people in absolutely every walk of life, some dog owners act responsibly, and some do not, but to suggest that all pit owners act the same or have the same mentality is beyond stupid and not even worthy of a retort.

People should be held accountable if their dog attacks an innocent person. For her to try to use the “don’t blame the dog” theory, against advocates saying we deflect the blame to the victims, I absolutely resent that!  I resent any implication that the majority of pit bull owners or advocates try to deflect responsibility, and news flash Colleen sometimes there are mitigating factors involved.

What we are saying is that each case is different, each dog is different, they need to looked at as individuals, but as for legislation, it needs to applied to all not just one breed, and there needs to be proof of wrong doing on the part of the dog and owner. If it takes DNA testing to prove a dog of a pit bull decent than so be it. That should clear that up Dogsbite! Records must also be kept.

We can do this dance all day, the old she said this and I will say that, the truth is I refuse to sit here and manipulate the facts I want this to be a forum where people can come to get the truth not propaganda, so I am not going to go into each and every single case she manipulates and try to break it down and get to the truth, I don’t have the time on my hands that Colleen has on hers. 

The point is that anyone can manipulate a situation or statements to their benefit, The media uses this Hype or tactic to gain viewers and readers all the time think about all breeds of dogs have stats on biting but when was the last time yu heard about the German Shepard or the golden lab that attacked and yet they do every year! I can break apart her website now and show people how misguided and manipulative she really is, the fact remains that no advocate is trying to portray these dogs as anything other than what they are, they are not demonic, and to correct Ms. Lynn the were not originally bred to fight other dogs, they were bred to control bull stock, then they were trained to fight them in a pit, thus the name Pit Bull. The fighting,  man did that, we changed them into that.

The truth is they became companion animals trusted with our children, and they did not abuse that trust. when a golden lab attacks a child what type of dog is that Dogsbite? Are they demonic or mistreated, neglected or confused? We are ultimately responsible for them, and I do not care what Colleen Lynn chooses to believe, but I do care about what she manipulates and lies about, I care because people like her get innocent dogs euthanized, banned, and removed from responsible loving homes.

Any dog can bite, any dog! I have not seen a well raised dog, a dog given proper training and socialization attack anyone, ever!  (see my earlier blog on stats) and you will get the picture.

Don’t believe everything you read or watch on TV talk to the professionals (Colleen Lynn is not, repeat not, a professional) and do your home work before you judge. Millions of happy pit bulls live peacefully with loving families without incident. that speaks volumes for me.

-Apitome-

The Truth Behind Dogsbite.org

Dogsbite.org is not an "expert" organization when it comes to canine behavior. There, I've said it.

While it seems that lately, several media outlets have been treating them like they have a particular knowledge on the subject of dog bites and attacks (I'll get to a possible "why" on that later in the post), it doesn't erase the reality that dogsbite.org is simply a website run almost entirely by an individual person who has an expertise in web design, access to google, and a desire to seek revenge on an attack that happened to her several years. Those are the qualifications behind the website. And it runs no deeper than that. And treating the website as anything more than that is a recipe bad information that will lead to less safe circumstances for people and dogs. Let me explain.

******

Dogsbite.org is a website run by Colleen Lynn. In June of 2007, Lynn was an unfortunate victim of a dog bite while she was out jogging. Because of the dog bite, by a dog that is said to be a 'pit bull', Lynn decided to create the website dogsbite.org.  According to the original "about us" section of the website, the intent of the website was three-fold:

-- Distinguish which breeds of dogs are dangerous to have in neighborhoods

-- Help enact laws to regulate the ownership of these breeds

-- Help enact laws that hold dog owners criminally liable if their dog attacks a person or causes serious injury or death

While I actually agree with her original third mission statement, the original purpose of the website is very clearin the first two statements -- she intended to target particular breeds of dogs and ban ownership of those breeds. The goal was not public education or anything that she claims it to be about now -- it was about enacting breed specific legislation...even though she has no credentials to propose legislation like that with any basis of expertise.

And make no mistake, all of the experts organizations disagree with her idea on breed-specific legislation.

****

Every mainstream national organization that is involved in canine/human interactions is opposed to laws targeting specific breeds of dogs. An at-least partial list of these organizations include:

American Dog Owners Association

American Humane

American Kennel Club (AKC)

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

American Veterinary Medical Association  (AVMA)

American Working Dog Federation

Association of Pet Dog Trainers

Best Friends

Center for Disease Control

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants

International Association of Canine Professionals

National Animal Control Association

National Animal Interest Alliance

National  Association of Dog Obedience Instructors

National Canine Research Council

No Kill Advocacy Center

You find nearly one-stop shopping of all of the position statements of these groups here.

These groups represent the best of the best in the United States for Dog Trainers, Rescues, Shelters, Animal Behaviorists, Government entities,veterinarians, and even Animal Control Officers. All of them oppose breed specific legislation. All of them, in large part, because they have experience working with the actual dogs, and read the science, and realize the aggession is not a breed-specific issue -and the reality is that most dogs, regardless of breed, do not show aggressive behavior -- and yet, some dogs, of each breed, have. 

All recommend dog ordinances that focus on the the behaviors of the actual dogs, and not on its body type.

And not listening to the professional organizations, and instead, listening to an "organization" that has no expertise, can lead to bad results. Again, their focus is not in the best interests of public safety...it's about getting revenge.

*****

For example: at the end of 2008, Dogsbite.org named Lucas County (OH) Dog Warden Tom Skeldon their "Dog Warden of the year." Their reasoning is that "Skeldon has vigorously worked to prevent horrendous pit bull maulings resulting in serious injuries or death of human beings, their domesticated pets and livestock."  Interestingly, in the same year that Skeldon received this "award", the actual number of dog bites in Lucas County had gone up 23%.

So dog bites go up, and they give the man the dog warden of the year award because he is targeting 'pit bulls'.   Does that sound like the resume of an award winner for a group advocating for public safety to you? Me neither.

Within a year of them issuing the "award", Skeldon stepped down from his position under significant public pressure. The actual citizens who had to put up with Skeldon's behavior, outrageous shelter kill rates and lack of improved public safety actually forced him out of office. 

But nothing may be worse than a fairly recent post (you can click on the picture to the left to read a screen shot of it) actually claiming that parents shouldn't be expected to teach their children to be respectful around dogs eventhough major, well-respected, dog training groups recommend otherwise.  If you can teach a young child to not touch a hot oven, then they can at least understand "caution" around dogs.  It is this type of irresponsibility that is making people LESS safe, not more safe.

Oh, there are other greivences. There is the reality that they claim dogs of even distantly-related breeds -- including Boxers, Bulldogs and Mastiffs - to all be 'pit bulls' in their "statistics".  They consistently claim that all of the professional organizations that oppose BSL are only doing so because they are supported by dog fighters*. They sensor all comments on their website that even come remotely close to disputing anything they post -- even if it is someone who is providing acutal data that is correcting something they misspoke about -- again, censoring other types of thinking isn't exactly something you'd expect from a "public education" website.

* The all of these organizations are opposed to BSL because they are supported dog fighters  and dog breeders is a particularly funny notion. Many of the organizations that oppose BSL spend literally millions upon millions of dollars trying to shut down dog fighting operations, and all of the orgs oppose dog fighting in principle, even if they aren't actively working to shut the groups down. And as for breeding, several of the groups support breeders and several are working very hard to end breeding and spend countless dollars arguing amonst themselves on the breeding issue - -so the idea they would agree on this subject because they are supported by breeders is baseless too -- to the point that it's kind of comical.

And this doesn't even include their inaccurate use of case studies to support their point of view vs reporting the actual data. Or the reality that one city that allowed them to influence their policy-making, Omaha, has had a disasterous year.

*****

So, the question then remains, how is it that an organization that has so few real credentials continues to get quoted by media outlets out there?

One of the things that journalism schools around the nation teach is the importance of providing both sides of a story. There are always two sides, and they teach the importance of providing both. So when it comes to the argument about whether or not to ban 'pit bulls', dogsbite.org ends up being THE ONLY 'organization' in favor of banning 'pit bulls'. So the media almost has to use them, because they are the only ones with the alternative viewpoint.

And that folks, is the sad truth about dogsbite.org. They are the only one(s) that favor BSL. And they do so based on having a website and google -- not with any real expertise in working with dogs.

And that's very telling.

Oh sure, they will likely retort with criticisms of me, and what are my true credentials. It's true, that even though I've worked in rescue, and I've worked with hundreds of dogs that would be considered 'pit bulls', I have no credentials after my name. I'm not a certified trainer, or a vet. However, I will say this. My opinion is the same one shared by the national organizations that speak for veterinarians, animal control officers, dog trainers and rescuers throughout the nation. So my ideas and point of view is supported by pretty much everyone that has knowledge of canine/human interactions.

Their support group is a city attorney in Denver and an animal control officer that was forced out of his job in Toledo. That's it.

And that's the truth about dogsbite.org.  Fine, give them the "other" voice. But let's not mistake them for an organization that has any form of expertise, or any unique knowledge. Let's not mistake them for anything more than a person, with a website, that is seeking revenge for an incident that happened to her. No more, no less.

On one final note to Ms. Lynn. I am sorry that you were attacked by a dog. And I do hope the owner of the attacking dog was held appropriately accountable for the actions of their dog. But it was one dog -- and is not reflective of the millions of dogs out there of this type -- and I would encourage you to go to your local shelter and meet some more of the dogs that you seek to destroy. And I hope that pushing for ordinances that actually improve public safety, and that pushing for educating parents on how to introduce pets and children, will trump your desire for personal vengeance so that we can actually create a safer society. 

Posted at 10:05 AM in Education | Permalink

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/03/the-truth-behind-dogsbiteorg.html