My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 2/10/13 | Main | 91 year old woman dead from apparent dog attack »

February 12, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451f90869e2017d410131a3970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Breed-specific Law continues to fail in Omaha:

Comments

Fayclis

I am confident the numbers shown here are somewhat representative of large cities in Ontario also. When the Liberals voted in Ontario's ban they insured REAL difficulty in gathering information (by ignoring what experts suggested on documentation of dog bites). Thus insuring results from lousy legislaton "almost" impossible to track.

Jen Brighton

What a timely post, Brent. I was returning to the office with one of my dogs in the car and the nice man that parks next to me asked to pet her. Which then precipitated a conversation about the type of dog she was. He's owned Labs and now a smaller dog. The gist of the conversation was that "Labs don't bite, but, really, aren't pit bulls just different and you need to be cautious of them?" He mentioned he came from West Virginia and the pit bulls there were not nice.

He was very interested in what I had to say about genetics, the media, etc. I am going to print your article and put it on his windshield or hand it to him personally because as a CPA he indicated he was truly interested in learning the truth behind the so-called pit bull statistics.

Joel

Let's also keep in mind that Omaha is one of the case studies that the loons use to show how successful BSL can be.

Brent

Yes Joel. Because to them "success" is not about improved public safety. It's about restricting pit bulls.

Dianne R

Nice write up. But as an analyst who works with statistics, I'd venture that none of those numbers represents a significant trend. It's just all noise under the bell curve.

Joel

That's kind of the point Dianne. There may not be anything stastically significant to Brent's writeup...but there certainly has been no statistically signficant decrease in bites. The best anyone could hope for is that those increases aren't significant.

So all of this money and time is being wasted on legislation that AT BEST hasn't improved public safety.

Brent

Dianne, there's a possibility that these don't represent a statistical trend, but on the flip side, when you're talking about 20% swings in numbers this size, that's more than a typical year-to-year variance that you'd normally expect. And if you're passing new laws, making responsible dog owners jump through hoops and increasing animal control budgets to improve overall public safety, you certainly need the trend line, significant or not, to be heading in the other direction.

Selma

I think one reason that BSL has no effect on bites/attacks is, as you point out, that the dogs doing the biting are not usually the ones restricted, ie, the targeted shapes are not biting more or less than most other types. So you ban 15% of dogs, what about the 85%?

Also, BSL in its many forms amounts to a wild goose chase, deflecting scarce resources from responding to complaints and dealing with negligent owners regardless of the dogs they own.

As Marjorie used to say "When a retriever bites, it's anything but the breed. When a "pit bull" bites, it's nothing but the breed."

The comments to this entry are closed.