Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Hypocrisy Nutter Style: The Ledy Vankavage Edition

Recently, a group of Texas trauma care surgeons, physicians and nurses published a study concluding that pit bull attacks are more severe on average, cost more and have a higher risk for death than attacks by other breeds. The additional risk is completely avoidable and unacceptable. They conclude that legislators should protect their citizens from this unnecessary and unacceptable added risk.

Of course the pit bull apologists and the pit bull pushers came out in force attacking these professionals from all sides. Ledy's attack oozes condescension. You can easily envision the curl of her lip as you read her words belittling the work of these concerned surgeons, doctors and nurses who have seen and tried to sew up the bodies her beloved pitties tore apart.

She feels these professionals' work is so shoddy and their study is so small that it's not research at all; it is simply embarrassingly blatant propaganda. Ledy muses that these professionals were so incredibly incapable they probably didn't find the magnificent research conducted by the illustrious Dr. Victoria Voith that allowed the good doctor to conclude "animal shelter folks" can only correctly identify the heritage of mixed breed dogs 25% of the time! You know if Ledy Vankavage relies on it, Voith's study (download the first pdf entitled ACVB AVSAB Dog Breed Poster) must have been large and impeccably designed. It must be work that would put the good doctors and nurses to shame.


The total sample of dogs was 40. Dr. Voith doesn't offer how the dogs were chosen, only that the sample represents the dogs that could "be there" on a given day. From the very huge sample of 40, they "randomly" selected 20 dogs.

Of the dogs selected, only 16 had been identified by breed mix by shelters when they were adopted. So, only 16 of the 40 dogs could be used (40%) to come up with their statement.

11 of the 20 dogs were less than 6 months old when the unknown rescue or shelter workers attempted to identify the heritage of the dog. Uncharacteristically, half these shelter dogs were adopted as puppies making Voith's "study" particularly useless to criticize the University Hospital study because presumably none of the attacking dogs were puppies under 6 months old when identified. (This can be verified because the researchers do have this information.)

The dogs in Voith's study had been identified up to 11.5 years prior to the "study" by unknown shelters, rescue groups, foster housing, animal control and other agencies. Because of this study's "design," we know nothing of the actual experience, training or education any of these anonymous people had or even if the owner's recollection of the assigned breeds is correct. Ledy wants to compare the expertise of unknown shelter workers trying to promote puppies to the expertise of AC officers, LE officers and veterinarians tasked with investigating a serious injury or death.

The Mars test used only has an 84% accuracy in first generation crossbred dogs. None of the dogs were identified as being a first generation cross, so there is no guarantee of accuracy for the test whatsoever and, because of this "study's" design, no way to verify whether the genetic test is correct. So we don't know if those Tibetian terriers, black russian terriers, and Nova Scotia duck-tolling retrievers get around as much as they seem to judging from these 20 dogs.

This is the kind of "study" Ledy uses to bash doctors and nurses who were motivated by what they see in the trauma room. This is the kind of "study" that Ledy uses to expose these professionals' "embarrassingly blatant propaganda."

I am still trying to imagine how Ledy envisions the conversation where doctors and nurses decided to propagandize:

Dr. to nurse during surgery: "Hey, if you're not busy for the next few months, would you be interested in concocting some propaganda to destroy the reputation of pit bulls?"

Nurse: Why do you want to do that?

Doctor: Just 'cuz.

Nurse: Sounds fun!


scurrilous amateur blogger said...

the problem with dr voith's study is the dogs were intact. it's much easier to id dog breeds without the head. even a child can identity a headless dog.

* said...

Just wrote an article about it and linked yours to mine.

Speaking of shoddy studies, there seems to be some discrepancy of on their end as well in terms of the study. I couldn't get a whole lot of research done on the matter, but it seems as though Ledy's study on Canada's early pit bull attack rate seems to be skewed. There should be a blogger who focuses on how misleading the NCRC is.

Small Survivors said...

Oh my! just found this on SRUV's blog! This is why they want everyone to believe pits can only be genetically tested. They KNOW the results will be wrong. That is how they did their "can you find the pit bull mix" poster! Thank you SRUV!

Mars Veterinary, the company that conducted the DNA analysis for this study (Voith, et al),responded to an unrelated inquiry as follows:

Due to the genetic diversity of this group, we cannot build a DNA profile for the Pitbull [sic]. Any Pitbull type breed tested using Wisdom Panel™ MX Mixed Breed Analysis is likely to reveal a combination of several breeds. 

* said...

snack sized dog:

This is why it confounds me that Ledy would have the gall to criticize a study done by surgeons who encounter these situations daily when you compare it to the points you and SURV have bought up. Journalism must really be a greedy venture when your main purpose is to deceive. Thankfully, I have not been one for making money off the truth. As long as the truth is told, I could care less who profits off of my work.

* said...

snack sized dog:

Also, with that quote, would that be the admittance that "pit bulls do not exist?" That would mean the entire mythology of them; ATTS, nanny dog, ect. would be null and void. No matter how they try to pitter patter around it, there will always be a major hole with their logic.

april 29 said...

Here is how the breed of dog that attacked me was identified. The police contacted the last TWO veterinarians who saw the animal for well dog visits and shots. The veterinarians identified the breed. This is a normal police investigation. The bite report was completed using the information obtained by the police.

Pretty much everything that comes out of Ledy's mouth drips with condescension. I wish she valued victims as highly as she values pit bulls.

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

"There should be a blogger who focuses on how misleading the NCRC is."

karen delise occupies the number one spot on my list and she is one of the reasons why i had to stop the frankenmauler roundup.

"Journalism must really be a greedy venture when your main purpose is to deceive."

i'm not sure that it is greed so much as lack of talent and integrity.

regarding DNA testing, as much as ledy wants it to be, the technology just isn't there yet, as evidenced here.

Dude, I BaggedYourPit said...

VanKavage has all the credibility of a disgraced tobacco lawyer. The strategy is the same; attempt to discredit the doctors.

Old play book – new idiot. VanKavage is scum.

Anonymous said...

Here is a 2000 Study done about Dogbites in Bexar County with the full cooperation of Animal Control and the Health Department:

"Pit Bulls are 5 times more likely to bite than other dogs in Bexar County"

Case Closed!

Unfortunately, three County residents have been killed in the years since. County officials officials appeared to have used the study as a door stop.

Anonymous said...

Here is the link!:

It's time for Congress to either get a Plastic Surgeon on the staff or defund the Dog bite division at the CDC. The Dog Lobbiests there are not looking out for the public. In fact, They haven't done a damn thing to merit taxpayer funding since the DBRF study released in 2000. With over 210 Americans killed by Pits and Rotts since, they were collossally wrong.

Small Survivors said...

GALL is the right word for it, Digger.

More specifically, "the GALL of a disgraced tobacco lobbyist" pretty much describes Ledy's screed.

Ledy and Co. are simply exploiting the known weakness of this genetic "test" ie: it will give false positive results.

As Craven showed, these genetic tests can't even identify a purebred Amstaff which has a closed registry.

Thank you April 29 for the example how how a police investigation differs from Buffy the Shelter Worker looking at a 3 month old puppy and saying "looks kinda shepherdy."

Next, Ledy will have to prove veterinarians who identify pit bulls are also no different than Buffy the Shelter Worker.

Funny how all these studies say basically the SAME THING. It should be CASE CLOSED!

Did anyone else notice that while the test supposedly picked up Clumber spaniels and Glen of Imaal terriers, not one of these dogs had enough labrador retriever in them to register?

Just one more of the dozens of problems with this "study."

scurrilous amateur blogger said...

thank you vintage, that bexar study will come in handy for my upcoming blog post about the texas bite study and the pit nutter response.

Anonymous said...



Meet Charles MacDonald who lost a leg, to a Pit back in 2001....He reminds me of a chimp owner on Fatal Attractions:


Amputee Advocacy seems to be the new pit-schtick as they push America's dog bite envelope more toward Tanzania's acceptance of dealing with Lion attacks...Of course, Tanzania has to accept some attacks since Lions were in the Serengeti first. I have no idea why we have to tolerate it from British Fighting Dogs.....

DISCLAMER** I am not making this up!

* said...


Can't wait for that one. It will be an interesting read.

I must say however, that I feel as though you should have an entire blog dedicated to the main grifters, or at least, create another sidebar link to the tags that refer to these people. I don't think it would be too difficult. And it would make it easier for visitors to find.

Your side bar is already pretty thick though, so maybe something else could be done. Sometimes I want to go back and read some of your more critical entries, but they can be hard to find at times.