KC DOG BLOG

Interesting poll on who does, and does not, support breed-specific laws

This was an interesting news report from a couple of weeks ago out of Calgary.

In a citywide poll, seniors in Calgary were more likely to be in favor of outlawing 'pit bulls and other large canines' more so than younger Calgarians, who overwhelmingly rejected such a law.

According to the poll, 64% of those over the age of 70 supported breed bans, while only 19% of those aged 18-29 were in favor.  Overall, 48% opposed breed bans, while 40% supported them.

It's worth noting that the poll was done as a non-random internet poll, so the data is far from scientific, but it does reflect similar research done over the years that indicates that while older people tend to favor breed specific laws (likely rooted in decades old hysteria that no longer has merit), younger people overwhelmingly oppose BSL. This also helps us understand why more and more communities are continuing to move away from the idea of breed-specific legislation and instead, moving more toward breed-neutral policies that focus on the behavior of the dogs.

It's also worth noting that Calgary, with its breed-neutral, behavior-based policies, has long been upheld as one of the models of animal control in North America (even though a very recent trend line, in part due to how bites are reported, has caused an increase in bite reports in the past cocuple of years).

Failure of breed-specific policy in the UK

In 1991, the United Kingdom issued its Dangerous Dogs Act which essentially banned four different breeds of dogs that they, at the time, considered more dangerous than other types of dogs: Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese Tosa and American Pit Bull Terrier.

However, statistics contine to show that the legislation has not only been ineffective in promoting pubic safety, it may also have been counter-productive in its efforts.

According to a recent article in The Guardian, there were roughly 1,150 dog bites that led to hospitalization in 1990 -- the year before the DDA was enacted. By 2012, the number had risen steadily to 6,447 -- a whopping 460% increase in major bites. You can get an interactive chart at the link.

 Much of they're problem tends to be directly linked to the ordinance itself.

Last week, a 14 year old UK girl , Jade Anderson, was tragically killed by 4 dogs in a home where she was alone and visiting. By most accounts in the report, the girl was carrying a meat pie that the dogs were interested in, she tried to keep them away from the food and in the commotion, ended up attacked and killed by the dogs.

Based on the reports, there were three different breeds of dogs involved in the attack.

However, instead of focusing on the circumstances that led up to the attack, and caused it (pack mentality, victim potentially not well known to the dogs, the dogs being very large and too numberous and would not have been able to be handled by a young girl, potential food aggression), the authorities seem to be more focused on determining that none of the dogs involved were unlawful breeds.

Because they seem so focused on what type of dog is involved, they are completely missing the causal factors that may be leading up to the attack. And THUS, many residents of the UK are being misled into thinking they are 'safe' because they have dogs that are not of the restricted breeds instead of making appropriate procautions or being aware of warning signs. While most dogs ARE safe, dog owners certainly need to be aware of what warning signs to look for.

But they don't. And for 20 years people have been led down the path of faulty, misleading information, and the ignorance is causing more and more people to be injured. 

Dog attacks are not a breed-specific issue, and when it comes to dogs, there are dozens upon dozens of breeds that are large, strong, and capable of causing harm if they are poorly handled or raised, and have beahvioral issues that are left uncorrected -- especially when the largest number of the severe bite victims (nearly 20%) are under the age of 9 and thus, more vulnerable to bites (and less aware of warning signs given by the canine).

The UK breed ban has been a huge failure -- not only failing to protect the public from severe bites, but actually, through focusing on the wrong issues, having the opposite impact that was intended.

The failure has caused the majority of the professional organizations in the UK to be very vocal in speaking out against the breed ban -- including The British Veterinary Association, Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club and the RSPCA.

The UK continues to be a glaring example of the failure of focusing on the look of the dog instead of on responsible bet ownership issues and the behavior of the dogs.

 

Everybody's doing it

Every now and again, when a significant dog attack happens, city or state officials will rush out to try to "fix the problem" (usually there is no major problem, the incident was isolated or could have been prevented, and they are just embarking on panic-policy-making) by puting the idea of targeting laws toward specific breeds of dogs on the table.

Often times, they'll try to justify the targeting of specific breeds by noting that other communities are doing it.

But really, are they?

The trend is actually going in the exact opposite direction.

Yesterday, Tennessee HB 621 was pulled from its subcommittee. The bill was initially designed to target particular breeds of dogs, but after hearing from experts in the state, the bill was pulled only 5 days after being introduce.

Earlier this year, a similar bill was introduced in Rhode Island -- however, it too was later pulled and replaced with HB 5671 which would actually PROHIBIT communities in the state from targeting breeds of dogs.

Meanwhile, the state of Oklahoma already has banned local cities from enacting breed-specific laws, and a bill there to overturn this was quickly pulled when there was so much opposition toward it.

The same thing is happening on a local level. Earlier this week, Royal Oak, MI briefly considered targeting specific breeds but after hearing from residents and local experts have wisely decided to work on breed-neutral legislation that targets dogs based on their behavior, not their looks.

Lansing, MI made a similar decision last night as well.

Meanwhile, many cities who have already made rash decisions and are seeking to overturn those decisions. Springfield, MO is one of those communities, as they are currently exploring options to overturn their breed-specific law that was passed in 2005.

As councilwoman Mary Collette notes: "Perhaps not looking at having our ordinance be breed-specific in any way but we could have it be vicious animal specific whihc is really what we're trying to get at anyway. That is really how you are going to reduce the bites and damage. We're hoping we can bring our ordinances in line with what is a little more prgoressive actually more productive in curbing animal attacks and bites."

Agreed.

And in the current landscape, this is what the majority of states and cities are doing -- focusing their limited animal control budgets and resources on the dogs (and owners) who have shown themselves to be more dangerous THROUGH THEIR BEHAVIOR, not their look. And as these politicians look at best practices throughout the country, and talk to experts in their community, they are overwhelmingly choosing behavior-based animal control laws.

This is, in reality, what "everybody" is doing.

 

 

Why knowledge is power - Broward County, FL edition

Last week, Broward County Vice Mayor Barbara Sharief proposed a new bill that would make ownership of pit bulls illegal in Broward County. The law would have been opposed to the state law which prohibits breed-specific legislation so the city would have had to lobby the state to allow them to probibit pit bull ownership.

Sharief seemed very confident that the bill would be adopted, telling the Broward New Times: "It has a pretty good chance of being adopted. I'm not asking for anything unreasonable....We're absolutely going to get backlash for this, but we have more supporters than backlashers."

Well, Sharief appeared to be wrong in her assumptions.

First of all, the New Times did a nice job of posting a story with scientific data noting that "pit bulls' were actually less aggressive toward both their owners, and strangers, than many other breeds of dogs.

Then, there's the reality that her law was based on the Miami-Dade ordinance -- even though with the ban in Miami-Dade they had a significantly higher dog bite/per capita than Broward County had without a ban.

Then, in an informal poll (which isn't scientific, but is telling), 84% of a local news station's voters said they opposed a ban on specific breeds of dogs.

Then, there's the reality that there really wasn't much support for her proposal. Yesterday, with the hearing of the ordinance, there was a packed house at the Commission chambers and nearly 60 people showed up to speak at yesterday's hearing on the law, and nearly all opposed it. One councilman noted that he got more than 1000 emails opposing the law, and only 11 in favor. Opposition also included representatives from the Humane Society of Broward County.

So with the opposition, Sharief withdrew her propsal -- and noted to the New Times that she was "surprised it was met with such fierce opposition."  She now plans to assemble a group of animal experts to discuss other possibilities outside of her proposal. 

I'm not surprised at the opposition.  This same opposition is met every time something like this is brought up because the science doesn't support breed specific laws, and there is an overwelming lack of professional support for them. Again, knowledge is power. And people and legislators who support breed-specific laws tend to not have the knowledge they need to make such a decision, or have gotten information from unreliable, non expert sources. Her proposal was shown to once again ignore the science, the knowledge of professionals in her community and not have the support of the majority of people in her community.

Congrats to the folks in Broward County, and hopefull the revised proposal is something far more reliable and impactful.

Making homeless animals out of animals with homes -Sikeston, MO Edition

Last month, information started coming out about a pit bull "roundup" in Sikeston, MO -- where pit bulls were being seized from homes under the community's breed-specific law. However, local officials denied that any roundup was ever taking place.

However, when breed specific laws are in place, every day has round-up potential.

Earlier this week, the Sikeston Humane Society (which handles all animal control intake for the city, but is a separate organization from animal control) posted their numbers.

According to their records, Sikeston animal control brought in 247 animals to the humane society. Of those, 60 (24%) were pit bulls. All except 7 of those pit bulls were seized for violation of the city's breed-specifc law (the other 7 were cruelty victims or strays).

Meanwhile, Sikeston Humane Society took in 260 animals through their front door -- other 13 of them were pit bulls surrendered by owners because they couldn't comply with the city's laws.

So, in total, 66 pit bulls lost their homes in Sikeston last year purely because of the breed-specific law -- WITHOUT an actual roundup. This is an extraordinary number given the community is small, with only about 16,000 residents.

The good news is that SHS is a compassionate organization -- and last year adopted out 167 animals and transferred another 480 to no kill rescue groups (note, their number of animals saved is higher than their intake because they actually transferred some out of area rescue groups as well). A job very well done by SHS - and great news for the pit bulls that lost their homes unnecessarily because of the breed-specific law.

Sikeston's law is poorly written. I targets the look of a dog instead of its behavior and also does not allow for due process. And because of its breed-specific nature, it is causing animals WITH loving homes to be removed from those homes -- unnecessarily leading them to be homeless.

This needs to change. Because even if the roundups were never going to happen (I still think they were), 66 dogs separated from their family is too many..

 

All eyes are still on Sikeston, as with 2 sides the story, pit bull roundup may continue

The saga in Sikeston continues.

Last week, news started to come out of Sikeston, MO that animal control officials were beginning to round up pit bulls in the community for non-compliance with the city's 9 year old breed-specific laws.

City officials contended that allegations were not true, and were never true. And the final results of the roundup, where 3 pit bulls found their way into the shelter for "non-compliance" may have indicated that city officials were right.

But as with all things, there are two sides to every story, and it appears the story being told in the community is very different than the story being told by city manager Robert Friend (and really, shame on the Sikeston Democrat for not even trying to connect with the other side of this story).

In the latest report, Sikeston Humane Society Director Trace Allen White contends that he was informed that there would be roundup last week -- and that is why he sent 30+ dogs to other shelters to make room for the influx of dogs to come into the shelter. White contends that due to the public outcry, the city ceased their roundup -- but that the roundup may continue at a later time once the outcry has died down.

Friend denies this charge.

I'll let you watch the great follow-up story by Chris Hayes of KTVI St. Louis. Thanks Chris for the follow-up on this story.

 

Meanwhile, the city leadership of Sikeston could learn a lot from the outcry and the situation that they've created. Because even if the allegations of the roundup are not true (I believe them to be true), their poorly crafted law is setting them up for this type of feedback.  So here is some constructive feedback for city leadership on their law:

1) Make the law behavior-based, not looks based. Not all of the aggressive dogs in Sikeston (and likely not even most of them) are pit bulls, and not all pit bulls in Sikeston are aggressive. This is NOT a wealthy community, and if public safety is the concern, then focusing the limited resources on dogs that have shown through their behavior to be aggressive is by far the best approach. It's fair, an effective.

2) If you confiscate a dog from someone because they violated the law, and you say you identified the dog as a 'pit bull' that wasn't living under the guidelines set forth by the city, your defensive of identifying the dog as a pit bull "by looking at it" is not really going to stand up so well in court. Especially when the dog is listed as a 15-20 lbs dog and lets some random news anchor just hold him in his arms.

3) The US Constitution guarantees Due Process. Your law should too. The current law notes that "any dog found to be subject of a violation of this ordinance shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment. In addition, a minimum $500 fine will be assessed..."

So there is no due process. Immediate seizure, and fine. This is not legal.

4) Please, go talk to the experts in your community about breed-specific laws. Talk to your area veterinarians. Your shelter director. Area dog trainers. I don't know any of them, but I can almost bet that they will completely oppose your position on this law as there is almost ZERO professional support for laws targeting specific breeds of dogs.

Leave good dogs with good owners in their homes. There is no reason to add dogs with homes to the shelter population in this state. It only leads to the deaths of dogs. Stop it. It's time to move on from your poorly though-out breed-specific law. The world is still watching.

Some parting thoughts about the incident in Sikeston, MO

Last week, I posted a blog in response to a media story (and a couple of other sources confirming the situation) about the authorities in Sikeston, MO rounding up pit bulls registered within the city. The blog received an unprecedented amount of popularity….receiving nearly 100,000 page views in less than 72 hours.  I’ve had popular blog posts, but never anything like that.

The final result of the “roundup” or “audit” (depending on whose words you want to use) did not end up nearly as bad as it initially sounded. Some close to the situation say the city backed off due to the harsh
public outcry, the city says it was never going to round them up and was just performing an “audit”. I do think the shelter director’s actions of sending 30+ dogs to other communities to make room for what he thought would be an influx of pit bulls that day sure signifies that he had reason to believe this would be far worse than it was, and the city is covering their tracks a bit.

I have my theories, but I’ll let you make your own decisions on whether the initial story by the media, and me, was greatly exaggerated or whether you think the city is covering their tracks and backpeddling a bit. I will say this though, if the city was just "driving by to verify that somebody who had a registered pit bull still lives at the address" (as the city manager claims) -- then I highly doubt that more than 10% of the city's registered pit bull population would have ended up at the shelter that day (and at least one other owner being forced to plead to keep her dog when authorities stopped by. I also think that the shelter sending 30 dogs to other communities signifies that they had reason to believe the "audit" would be worse.

That aside, the popularity of the story caught me off guard, not because I don’t think the story deserved the attention, but because, the story itself is unfortunately not terribly unique.

As a writer of this blog, and an advocate for dogs and owners for several years, I regularly get emails from people who are losing their pet due to breed-specific laws.  A few weeks ago I got an email from a woman in Tonganoxie, KS who lost her Rottweiler because of the city’s breed-ban.

Then there’s the story of Nikko – a dog that was adopted from the pound in Kansas City, KS as a shepherd mix puppy, but then months later, was confiscated from the owners because animal control said the dog he adopted from their shelter was an illegal pit bull. After nine months of fighting for their dog, and DNA evidence to prove the dog was not a pit bull, the dog was allowed to return home.

Then there’s Simba, a dog that was banned by the city of Grandview, MO. Simba’s owner went through the process of getting her dog grandfathered in with the city. The dog would have to be licensed, muzzled she was outside, and behind a 6 foot tall fence. Simba’s owner couldn’t afford a fence, but regularly let her dog outside to pee on a pee-pad on her deck – that was set 20 feet above the ground.  The only way for the elderly dog to get down would have been to jump, and she no doubt would have broken several limbs in the landing. Regardless, animal control seized her animal and she needed legal help to get Simba returned to her and her mentally disabled daughter.

These stories are terrible, and separate good owners from their family pets, and they happen across the nation in cities like Denver, CO  with laws that target dogs based on their looks, not behavior.

This is what breed-specific laws do.

And there is no doggie beach resort that these dogs go to when they’re confiscated.  At worst they
end up dead. At best they end up transferred to other communities to take up shelter space needed by dogs in those other communities.  

I guess I was just a little surprised by then the outrage about the situation in Sikeston – because this same thing happens in relative obscurity every day.

But that’s what else I learned about the situation in Sikeston.

First off, the media narrative is changing. I’ve talked about this before, but it used to be solely that any time a pit bull story ran, it was in connection with the dog being aggressive, with a stock photo of a
snarling dog. It’s not necessarily that way any more; with more and more positive stories, and various books being written about the dogs, and often times the dogs being painted as the victims. This is a very good thing.

Also, as people who advocate for dogs and owners, we have the ability to mobilize to help dogs and owners like never before. Facebook and other social media outlets allow us much more access to each other. Within a couple of days of the story breaking, hundreds of thousands of people had heard the news and literally 1000 letters, only from Missouri residents, were sent to the city council via Best Friends’ letter-writer program.  And the pressure was clearly felt by the city.

We have the power to change this, and we are changing this. Public support is swinging in our favor with entire states like Ohio (repealing their state-wide breed-specific law) and Massachusetts (making breed-specific laws illegal) turning the tide in just the past 12 months (along with a host of individual cities).

Let’s make these laws end. The data about the ineffectiveness of the laws is clearly in our favor. The data about the unreasonableness of the laws, is clearly in our favor. Expert opinion is clearly in our favor.  We just need to ensure that politicians are also; with thoughtful, polite communication with these politicians about why breed-targeted laws are wrong, and why behavior-based laws are better.

Because even if only 3 dogs ended up getting seized in Sikeston, that’s three too many. And if you’re the owner of one of those three dogs, then it’s your world that has been rocked by the loss of your family pet and that three might as well be 3,000.

It’s unnecessary, and we do have the power to change it. Go.

Update on the situation in Sikeston

As everyone in the world seems to know, on Wednesday night news started coming out a roundup of pit bull type dogs in Sikeston, MO. As time grows, and the story gets passed along, things become a little, eh, exaggerated. So I want to provide the most accurate information I can on the situation there.

Earlier this morning, Trace White of the Sikeston Humane Society posted an update on their facebook page. And here are a few more details of the situation in Sikeston:

-- First off, the Sikeston Humane Society holds the animal control contract for the community of 16,000 people. They are NOT animal control -- which is separate. Nor does SHS support the city's pit bull restrictions

-- Earlier this week, SHS shipped around 30 dogs to other shelters in the region in order to make room for the dogs expected to come in.  These are the dogs talked about in the news report -- as many were shipped to the St. Louis region.

-- From animal control's perspective, the "roundup" was part of an "audit" of the people who had licensed dogs under the city's pit bull restrictions. The restrictions require registration, Beware of Dog signs, insurance, top and bottom gate locks and requiring a muzzle if the dog is off your property. Animal Control was "auditing' these owners to be sure they were complying. If they weren't in compliance, their dogs were seized.

-- Earlier, Animal Control had estimated that SHS would receive about 20 dogs through this "audit" -- which is why the dogs at the shelter were shipped out. However, due to the push back, animal control never finished their audit -- and Mr. White isn't sure they ever will. Because they didn't finish, the final number of dogs received at the shelter was only 3 (which is still 3 too many). The dogs are going to be held to give the owners enough time to comply with the regulations and hopefully get their dogs back. Mr. White is working with these owners to get their dogs back, and if they cannot, they will be adopted out or sent to rescue.

 -- Mr. White agrees that the BSL in Sikeston needs to be changed - and he, himself, moved from Sikeston so he could walk his dogs without muzzles. He does feel that this is as close as they've ever been in his three years at the shelter to getting the law repealed.

-- If people want to help, they can send letters to the city staff and council stating they think the law should change. LETTERS MUST BE PROFESSIONAL AND COURTEOUS in order to be well-received. We should be sure they are focusing on the real goal, which is to protect families from aggressive dogs, and also from having their family pets removed from their home. If you aren't capable of doing this professionally and politely, please don't write to them.   

-----

I want to quickly note that I'm very grateful for Mr. White's presence at SHS -- if city shelter workers were of the same mindset as the city, and animal control, many animals likely would have died during this process. Even so, the animals that were sent out to other rescues are still displacing animals in those communities that badly need the shelter space also.

I'm also very grateful that due to the public outcry and support for the dogs and the families, the 'audit' has ceased. This is very good news and thanks to everyone for their support of the dogs and families.

I have a few other thoughts on this as well -- but I'm going to hold them for now until the urgency of the matter blows over.

Sikeston MO begins pit bull roundup

Several years ago, Sikeston, MO passed a law that automatically made 'pit bull type' dogs automatically declared dangerous. In order for people to keep their dogs, owners had to license their dogs (which included taking multiple pictures of the dogs from various angles), keep them leashed and muzzled, and  post 'beware of dog signs in their yards.

However, apparently that wasn't enough for the authorities in Sikeston -- and yesterday, they began rounding up 'pit bulls' out of people's homes to take to the shelter. Most will likely be killed there. It doesn't matter that these dogs were family pets. It doesn't matter that owners did everything to comply with the law. It doesn't seem to matter that the dogs had no history of aggression or complaints about them. It only seems to matter that they look like pit bulls, and the city authorities want them dead.  All of them.

This isn't happening in a 3rd world country. Or some science fiction novel. It's happening in the United States. In 2012. And this isn't the only place it's happened.

Several years ago, a similar incident happened in Denver, when authorities began going around and rounding up 'pit bull' type dogs, leading to a massive pile of dead pit bulls in the city (note, the picture at the link may be disturbing). And this is even different than the killing of homeless animals in our shelters (which is its own travesty), this is the purposeful rounding up and killing of people's family pets that HAVE loving homes.

People in Sikeston, Mo should be upset that this is happening. In fact, people everywhere should be upset this is happening. And if you are, sign the petition at Best Friends. And if you're in Sikeston, change all of your city leaders today. This is a tremendous waste of taxpayer funds that could be used to solve many of the city's other major problems.

For those not familiar with Sikeston, MO, here's a bit of the rundown. Sikeston is a community of about 16,000 people in rural Southeast Missouri. It's a poor community, with 35% of the population living below the poverty line. Crime in the city is high, with a crime index in 2010 of 632 (nearly double the national average of 319, and of the poverty level of Sikeston in 2002) -- in spite of the city employing nearly double the police officers per 1000 people (4) than the national average (2.5). So, there are much better places the city could be spending this money.

And if dog bites really are a huge issue in Sikeston, The Fox News report also does a great job of showing the failure of the city officials -- as they captured multiple video shots of dogs roaming at large through the neighborhoods of Sikeston. When one person who's dogs were taken by authorities mentioned the loose dogs, the police told her that "they couldn't catch them".  Excellent.

This is the type of thing you get when cities focus on hysterics instead of intelligence in creating their animal control (or any other) ordinances. This is what breed-specific legislation is. And this is why it needs to end.

I do want to tip my hat to the Sikeston Humane Society -- who in an effort to deal with the issue, transferred 35 dogs up to the St. Louis area in order to make room for the incoming animals in order to avoid having to kill for space. They seem to be making a strong effort in spite of a crappy situation created by their city leaders.

Update: There is a new update on the situation in Sikeston -- for the most recent information, please click here.

Manipulation and justification in Saginaw, MI

Last week, Saginaw MI Chief Inspector John Stemple called the city's new breed specific ordinance "very effective."

"It was the government reacting ot a problem, and if you look at the numbers, it's been very effective," Stemple told mlive.

The ordinance, passed in June of 2011, required residents to register dogs whos breeds were deemed "dangerous" and post signs about a dog being on the premises and to keep their animals either leashed or within a 4 foot high fenced in area.  The targeted breeds included 9 different breeds of dogs including pit bulls presa canario, bull mastiffs, Rottweilers and German Shepherds.

The law was passed after a series of incidents

According to Stemple, signs and tethering rules have made people safer. In 2009 there were 24 dog bites in the city. In 2011: 9. That seems impressive.

But have the results really been because of the ordinance? Or something else?

-----------------

Before I dive deeper into the numbers, I want to give you a feel for the community of Saginaw, MI.

Saginaw, MI as of 2010 had a population of 51,508 -  however, it used to be quite a bit bigger of a city. The city has lost 16.7% of its residents since 2000, and an amazing 30.5% of it's population since 1990.

The decline in population has created many other problems. By 2009, 56.6% of the city lived below the poverty line. Just under 25% lived with income less than 50% of the poverty line -- both well more triple the national averages. The city has a 15% unemployment rate.

With the poverty ha seen increased crime, in 1999, Saginaw had a crime index of 716 -- but by the end of 2008 this had grown to 1067.  The national average is 319.

Because of the decreases in population, and increased poverty, the city finds itself very short of money. The annual budget has continued to decrease over time and now is not only supporting an infastructure built for nearly double the current population, but also suffering because nearly 30% of the total budget is being used to pay off past pensions.

I confess that I've never been to Saginaw, but I have been to similar places, and when poverty gets this high, and city budgets get this low, there is a significant break down in social structure and order -- which helps lead to the higher crime indices. There just isn't enough money to provide the city services the city should have.And while I can't seem to find the specific budget line items, I feel pretty safe in assuming that responding to loose animal complaints probably wasn't a high priority for Saginaw.

It is also pretty consistent that stray/loose animal issues, and aggressive dog issues, are fairly consistent with larger societal issues beyond just loose/dangerous dogs. They are usually a symptom ofa bigger problem.

So in March of 2009, it wouldn't be terribly surprising the city was in disarray. And at that point, a woman and a man were severely attacked by three free-roaming dogs in the community. This was only a few months after another incident in which two free-roaming dogs dug under a fence at a children's zoo and killed several farm animals.

It was at this time that the city began (rightfully) to look at animal control laws.  After more than a year of discussion, the new law passed in June, 2011.

While I confess that I don't have a huge problem with the restrictions for the dog owners (a $20 licensing fee, plus containment are very good laws), the laws should be in place for ALL dog owners.

But that said, has the ordinance itself been effective?  At least the way Inspector Stemple claims?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Last week, in a separate story, mLive also posted the total numbers for 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- and YTD 2012. Here are a few of the raw numbers, some percentages that I've calculated, and then some thoughts:

Total Animal calls:

2009:  1,181

2010: 1,005 (-15%)

2011: 1,281 (+27%)

Jan-Aug 2012: 554 (831 for the year if all are averaged)

Vicious Dogs:

2009: 542

2010: 433 (-20%)

2011: 592 (+37%)

Jan-Aug 2012: 242 (363)

Bites

2009: 24

2010: 11 (-54%)

2011: 9 (-18%)

2012: 3 (5)

What is interesting about the numbers is that in 2010, the city saw significant decreases in incidents across the board -- 15% fewer calls, 20% fewer vicious dog calls and 54% fewer bites. While some of the "enforcement measures" went up in 2011 after the passing of the ordinance, bites continued to drop for 2011 and it appears the trend will continue in 2012.

First of all, this is great. I'm glad to see the bite numbers are dropping. People need to feel safe in their neighborhoods. However, the reduction in bites appears to have not be even correlated to the animal control ordinance.

While the ordinance was passed in mid 2011, the biggest reduction in bites came from 2009 to 2010 -- after the incident that sparked the discussion, but before the law was passed. I know this, a law passed in 2011 cannot be credited for a major reduction in dog bites that occurred the year prior. So something else led to the 54% decrease in bites in 2010. This likely had something to do with increased awareness of the impact free-roaming dogs can have in a community, as well as increased activity from local authorities in responding to complaints.

Then, the trend continued (to a lesser extent) in 2011 and 2012. However, the law cannot be attributed to the number of bites going from 24 to 9 in 2 years. At it's best, it can only be responsible for the drop from 11 to 9 in 2011. Again, the biggest dip happened before the law was passed.

And for what it's wroth, residents still aren't terribly happy with the law, as only 12% of the readers responded that dog breeds are dangerous, regardless of who owns them, while 59% say owners are responsible for their animal's behavior and 29% think the ordinance should apply to all dog owners, regardless of breed.

It's no surprise that the authorities in Saginaw are wanting to take credit for the law being a success. The law was very controversial at the time (still is) and they no doubt want to show it works. However, I'm disappointed that the media let them get by with it, and didn't ask the simple question -- what did you do differently in 2010 that accounted for the real reduction in dog bites?  Because it wasn't because of the law.