Read on...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.
There are some really great comments in the comments section of this article as well.
One stand out comment in my opinion is:
"There are always two sides, and they teach the importance of providing both." This is actually the problem with modern "journalism". Sometimes there are NOT two sides (ex: creationists, birthers, "death panels" etc). By blindly following the archaic "2 sides" notion, modern journalists actually are victimized by propagandists and perpetuate the falsities that are rampant in our society. The use of dogbite.org as a source is an example of this. Journalists don't feel the need to verify whether her information is accurate. It's "the other side" and that's all that matters to them. They can pretend they are being impartial, when what they are doing is helping vicious people lie.