Sat03252017

Last updateFri, 04 Jul 2014 5pm

We're Right and Everyone Else is "A Nutter"

Dogsbite.org

rottweiler

We're Right and Everyone Else is "A Nutter"

"Maultalk" 

To say that Dogsbite.org has a superiority complex would be putting it mildly.  Looking at the statements on their website, the impression given is that they're right, and everyone else is a "pitbull nutter." I have never seen the level of anger, virtrol and on what many consider a mainstream website.  It's one thing to disagree with your opponents, and it is another to make personal and vindictive attacks.  Of course, the fact that dogsbite.org feels the need to resort to such tactics says more about the weakness of their position than any arguments their adversaries may make.   

To illustrate this, let's take a look at the statements made by "maultalk" which is described as "a guide to understanding the language of pit bull owners and advocates — (It) is a collective and ongoing project. DogsBite.org and members of our community are the authors of this website." (Emphasis added). Of course, the comments by the "community members" cannot be critiqued because we don't know who is making them.

It is an objective fact, that virtually all animal welfare organizations are against BSL. The list with statement positions can be seen here. What arguments does dogsbite.org through maultalk present regarding these positions?  What you see below is quoted verbatim from the maultalk website.   They only address two of the major animal welfare groups listed.

Animal Welfare Pronouncements

Animal Farm Foundation: "(I)s owned and operated by Jane Berkey, a pit nutter extraordinaire. Her cause is to “restore the image of the American Pit Bull Terrier” and to push the, “All dogs are individuals,” agenda. Berkey donates thousands of dollars to groups annually that offer “pit bull programs”, including Bad Rap. In 2007, Berkey purchased the National Canine Research Council from Karen Delise but kept this purchase hidden. Her ownership of the NCRC greatly prejudices the data it produces. In 2009 the NCRC funded the BSL Fiscal Calculator, which is used to frighten municipalities who may be considering a pit bull law."

National Canine Research Council: "The National Canine Research Council (NCRC) was started by Karen Delise in 2006. In 2007, the NCRC was purchased by Jane Berkey of Animal Farm Foundation. This ownership information is only known today due to 2010 research by DogsBite.org. Berkey is a fanatical pit bull advocate, and her ownership of the NCRC greatly sabotages the “credibility” of any research presented or provided by the group. Internet searches show that the NCRC was formerly named the National Canine Research Foundation and was run in part with Glen Bui, a convicted felon. It is possible that Bui and Delise parted paths in 2005, as Bui shortly thereafter established the American Canine Foundation (ACF). Delise is still listed as a consultant on the ACF’s Board of Directors webpage. Both entities endlessly spew Maul Talk."

Animal Welfare Advocate Pronouncements

Against BSL? You may find yourself on the wrong side of the dogsbite.org fence.

Ledy Vankavage: "Bledy Vankarnage-This term was coined by the DogsBite.org community and refers to Ledy VanKavage, a hired gun lobbyist for Best Friends Animal Society. As a result of Bledy’s legislative handiwork, municipalities in Illinois can no longer adopt pit bull laws. Bledy drafted the 2005 “Anna’s Law”, which prohibits them. The paradox of the law is that it is named after Anna Cieslewicz, who was mauled to death by loose pit bulls in 2003. Glad to see the USMC saw right through the spewage of Bledy Van Karnage and crew. – Anonymous  Thank You Bledy Van Karnage for ensuring that this owner had “The Right” to recklessly and cheaply maintain a “Crop Circle Dog”! ”Prevent the Deed, Regulate the Breed” – Anonymous  Bledy’s handiwork has left a bloody trail of serious and fatal pit bull maulings in the State of Illinois (See: Nick Foley, Gabrial Mandrell-Sauerhage, Rosie humphreys and Jason Walter among others). It is notable that “kavage” sounds like carnage and savage."

"Bledy VanKarnage used the term “wiggle butts” to refer to pit bulls when speaking with the Columbia Tribune back in October 2007. This may have been the first time the childish term was used to describe pit bulls. The intention of the term is to coat the pit bull’s horrific safety record with a glossy, happy shine. There is also a Wiggle Butts Bully Rescue out of Mentor, Ohio. Ledy Vankavage, like other passionate pit bull enthusiasts, said most pits are “extremely human friendly,” little “wiggle butts” that don’t deserve the bad rap they’ve been given. “They should be judged as individuals, and if they’re temperament tested and found to be sound, they should be re-homed,” said Vankavage, a Collinsville, Ill., lobbyist and attorney for The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (“Pit bull advocates fight stereotypes of the breed,” Columbia Tribune, October 27, 2007)"

States Against BSL

Some states don't allow BSL, one of which is Pennsylvania.  Rather than admit there might be some reasonable argument against BSL, dogsbite.org simply ridicules the idea that bad ownership has any bearing on dog attacks: 

Pittsburgh Animal Control Supervisor Gerald Akrie is a shameless pit bull apologist, and needlessly so as the State of Pennsylvania prohibits pit bull laws. It is important to bring to your attention the numerous Maul Talk phrases Gerald Akrie has used recently in media reports, particularly those involving Pittsburgh Police Officer Christine Luffey and her daughter who were viciously attacked by three pit bulls in April 2010. If you look at the bites and the context in which it happened, a majority of the time it wasn’t really the dog’s fault. - Gerald Akrie  I’ve been on this department for almost 18 years, you see an aggressive dog, you talk to an owner, you got a knucklehead owner. – Gerald Akrie I would love to have more vehicles around the clock, but that’s not going to prevent accidents from happening. - Gerald Akrie  Let’s not look at the dogs. Let’s look at the owner. Those dogs are reflecting that owner’s temperament. It’s not just pit bulls, it’s any dog. – Gerald Akrie  Mr. Akrie said he doesn’t favor a ban or believe the pit bull population is exploding. He said Friday’s incident could have been avoided if the owner had been more responsible. – Gerald Akrie   What the (man) did was he gave the dog a doggie treat and then he went and took the doggie treat away and the dog flipped out. – Gerald Akrie

Scientists

Scientists who are against BSL are labelled "science whores."

Nicholas Dodman, DVM: "Science whores also use science babble, such as Dr. Nicholas Dodman, director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Tufts New England Veterinary Medical Center. Dodman apparently treats nasty rottweilers, pit bulls and “slavering German shepherds” with Prozac. According to a 2000 article published in Jewish World Review, Dodman used the term “interspecies dyslexia” in his book, Dogs Behaving Badly, to describe why “bad” dogs bite children. PSYCHOBABBLE: Nicholas Dodman, author of Dogs Behaving Badly, explains that dogs who bite small children aren’t necessarily vicious. Instead, they are afflicted with “interspecies dyslexia” — ie, an inability to differentiate between genuine threats and humans who are harmless, or from the dog perspective, “pink and ouchy.” – Evan Gahr."

Dogsbite.org "Experts" Alan Beck & Tom Skeldon

So who does dogsbite.org considered a "respected" expert?  The illustrious Alan Beck. "(A) respected member of the human-animal bond community, Dr. Alan M. Beck, wrote a letter that was published in Animal People Sept 09.  

Want to know about Alan Beck?  We have a whole section on his opinions on this site here. And it includes his actual under oath testimony, not just some anonymous website comments. Read his actual deposition and reach your own conclusions as to whether his opinions have merit. I have no problem debating Alan Beck's credentials or opinions.  He is not an anonymous web poster from dogsbite.org. 

Tom Skeldon? I'll be publishing a separate article on this "Dog Warden" who dogsbite.org made Dog Warden of the Year 2008. When it was clear he was going to be fired from his post in Lucas County, Ohio, he retired, as reported here.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to illustrate the disingenuos manner in which dogsbite.org argues for BSL.  Rather than make objective points, it simply belittles anyone who is against BSL, despite their credentials and the merit of their opinions.  So Nicholas Dodman, DVM, a man with decades of experience with dog behavior becomes a "science whore."  Thus no scientic debate of his opinion is necessary.  The Animal Farm Foundation becomes a pit bull "nutter" and any of their positions are therefore without merit. Ledy VanKavage, who is an attorney for Best Friends, becomes Bledy VanKarnage "responsible for a string of pit bull maulings."

The irony is that those at dogsbite.org who are belittling everyone against BSL, have provided no evidence of credentials or expertise.  They are either people posting on the site (anonymously or otherwise), or the site's owner, Collen Lynn, whose only expertise is creating websites, graphic design and using google.  Of course, if the arguments had credence, there would be no need to throw out terms like "nutter" or "science whore."  In the end, these terms say more about the people using them, than those against whom they are used.  And that is whole the point.


myra 13.05.2011 (01:41:46)  
No0  

Ah, name calling and insults - Dogsbite.org only strong suit -
I've always noticed - the weaker the argument the stronger the insults and name calling.
Colleen Lynn is so full of hatred she can't help herself - she wants to appear "legit" with her website, but the hatred just seeps out of her pores and she cannot contain it -
hence her "Maul Talk Manual" -
or, as I like to call it - Colleen Lynn's Mein Kampf

 
   
       
Daniel 13.05.2011 (13:26:24)  
No0  

I love the Internet, but one of the biggest downfalls of the Internet is that it allows for the spawning of hate and misinformation. People are not afraid of confrontation or eye to eye contact when spreading lies and insults, because they sit comfortably and safely in their computer chairs in their home.
It allows bullies, liars and passive-aggrressive people like Colleen Lynn to insult people and manipulate information w/o fear of confrontation or having to defend a point of view with a valid argument.
She just posts whatever she wants and doesn't allow any discussion with anyone who does not hold her radical and mean-spirited view of the world.

 
   
       
Jen B 17.05.2011 (04:02:25)  
No0  

Whenever anyone throws out dogsbite.org as a source for their information, I point out that anyone who is so infantile as to name call and actually dedicate a whole section of their website to derogatory pit bull terms deserves no respect. When someone uses the term "pit pusher," I immediately hear nothing else they say.

Plus, Lynn allows Craven Desires to post on her site. He is just plain antisocial. I find his blog site scary myself. Some of the regulars on dogsbite seem a bit unstable, if you ask me.

 
   
       
shar 01.06.2011 (19:29:53)  
Dogbite.org is \"right\" wing No0  

The problem with Dogbite.org is they are a rightwing site. I got that feeling the moment I entered their site a few months ago when I visited them on another story. There hatred of an animal simply because of it's breed. And the comments of it's supposedly "editors" of their webpage making racist remarks regarding thugs and gangs and "those" people who own them. I knew immediately what kind of site I was dealing with. I never take anything they say seriously. The dangerous thing about them is that they are spewing hateful and wrong information about our beloved breed. We need to prove them wrong on everything they post of their site and show them up at every chance. The problem is the people who follow them will never change their minds, but anyone new we might be able to.

 
   
       
pit.propaganda 24.12.2011 (00:35:18)  
you assume too much No0  

What is written in this article assumes that you are reasonable people that are not endangering others at least indirectly. Or it assumes that even if you are of this type, that you deserve respect. What if you folks actually are entirely misguided in such a proactive manner? Well, then I think you deserve harsh treatment and ridicule. But that's just me, I'm not a politically correct fool.

 
   
       
Hide comment form Hide comment form

  2000 Characters left