KC DOG BLOG

Misusing data to support personal agendas

Merritt Clifton is at it again -- and once again fudging numbers to promote his own personal agendas. 

In this month's issue of Animal People, Clifton's own newspaper where he is the sole writer and editor, Clifton releases his updated information on the state of shelter euthanasias in the U.S.

Not all of Clifton's information is garbage -- although enough of it is to even make me question the parts that seem accurate. He has certainly pulled ou this own conclusions in order to support his own personal agendsa

The article starts with a misleading headline "Decade of adoption focus fails to reduce shelter killing" -- even though in spite of pushes by proponents of the No Kill Movement, most city run shelters have not instituted much emphasis on adoptions. 

But this isn't the biggest problem with Clifton's data analysis.

Clifton is an advocate of breed bans. For reasons I don't know or understand he has continued to be maybe the loan torch bearer in the animal welfare community in support of breed bans.  And this document appears to be no exception.

In a little sidebar on the third page of the document he pulls out 11 cities (seemingly at random) and compares the euthanasia rates for 'pit bulls' in these shelters (3 of the cities have breed specific legislation, the other 8 do not).  The data also shows San Francisco's numbers before and after the city's ruling to mandate the spay/neuter all pit bulls.  Here is Clifton's analysis of the numbers:

"Philadelphia appears to kill relatively few pit bulls as a share of shelter killing chiefly because it has the highest total shelter killing on the chart: 19.9 per 1,000 people. Note that pit bulls are a much smaller part of the total killing in Cincinnati (which has a breed ban) than in either Milwaukee or Indianapolis, two cities with a very similar demographic profile."

The premise here appears to be if a city passes breed specific policies, then the number of pit bulls killed goes down, and that's a good thing. But once again, Clifton has manipulated data to support his point...not developed a point based on the actual data.

San Francisco

Let's start with San Francisco. According to Clifton's numbers, before instituting their MSN policy for pit bulls, San Francisco killed 452 pit bulls -- making up 43% of the total dogs killed in the shelter. Meanwhile, post the MSN, they killed 304 pit bulls, making up 29% of the dogs killed.

It looks like it's working great.

However, if you extrapolate from his data the total number of dogs killed, it tells a slightly different story. If the 304 pit bulls makes up 29% of the total kills, then San Francisco killed a total of 1,048 dogs post MSN.  If the 462 is 43% of the killed dogs, then a total of 1,051 dogs were killed a year prior to the MSN.

Essentially, the only thing that has changed is not a decrease in killing (as Clifton infers from the data), but a change in what type of dogs are killed. Whether this is a reflection of how dogs are classified at the shelter (were a lot more dogs classified as 'boxer mixes' vs 'pit bull' mixes in order to show "effectiveness at the shelter level) or did many of the irresponsible owners just change the type of dog they owned to avoid being harrassed by the law?  It seems Clifton doesn't seek to pursue this question - or even question it at all.  But it sure seems highly relevant.

Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Indianapolis

Meanwhile, Clifton uses a comparison of Cincinnati (a city with a breed ban) and both Milwaukee and Indianapolis as another example of how a city with a breed ban will kill fewer pit bulls than other cities.  But is this true?  From the chart, Clifton's assertion seems true as pit bulls make up a lower percentage of dogs killed than in the other two cities.

But wait.

Until as recently as this past March, Indianapolis' city shelter had a policy that kept them from adopting any pit bulls out of the city shelter. While this has changed in the past year under new shelter management, it certainly was in place with Clifton's current numbers. So an increase in percentage of pit bulls being killed at the shelter would be expected as an incredibly high percentage of the dogs would get killed in the shelter because POLICY prevented them from getting out alive. Clifton isn't a dumb man, and I'd be stunned if he didn't know this information. But he conveniently leaves this out of his analysis.

Meanwhile, when you look at Cincinnati compared to Milwuakee, you may notice something else significant. Even looking at the number Clifton posts, you see that even though pit bulls make up 18% of Milwaukee's euthanized dogs, the city is still killing 37% fewer pit bulls per thousand residents than the city of Cincinnati.  So what gives?

Well, again, if you extrapolate total numbers of dogs killed, you'll see that Milwaukee killed 7,988 total dogs during the timeframe available -- at a pace of 4.7 dogs per 1,000 people. Cincinnati on the other hand killed 11,210 dogs in that same time period -- a pace of 13.5 per 1,000 people*. So it appears that Cincinnati's "success" comes not from killing fewer 'pit bulls', but from the massive killing of dogs regardless of breed. This is also not something that would be a foreign concept to Clifton, who stated this exact scenerio as why the percentage of pit bulls killed in Philadelphia are so low - -and yet not only leaves this out of his "analysis" of the Cincinnati/Milwaukee comparison, he also somewhat conveniently leaves both cities out of the his overall shelter killing analysis that would make easy comparisons impossible.

* It should be noted here that I have no idea what Clifton is using for his population totals for these two cities.  While I can get there mathmatically by dividing the number of dogs killed by the # killed per 1,000 people, I don't know where he got these figures. Cincinnati's population of 836,000 appears to be the population of Hamilton County.  Milwaukee's population of 1.48 million is close to that of the entire Milwuakee MSA -- which they may provide service for.  For the sake of this whole post, I'm just using Clifton's own data.

Meanwhile, Denver -- who has had a breed ban since 1987 -- seems to have INCREDIBLE numbers based on Clifton's report -- killing only 275 pit bulls at a rate of .14 per 1,000 people and making up only 3% of the kill rate.  However, again, Denver's total numbers 9,167 killd dogs and a 4.6 kill rate are very similar to that of Milwaukee -- a city that doesn't have breed specific regulations.  It would only make sense that a city that has had a breed ban on the books for 20 years would not kill all that many dogs of that breed -- but it still hasn't seemed to improve the shelter's overall kill rate.   Meanwhile, it should be noted that Clifton's pit bull kill estimates seem extremely low compared to what most media reports give for the city and their pit bull kill numbers. These numbers for Denver are also conveniently left off of Clifton's overall report.

Why This matters

If we are really ever going to achieve a status of No Kill in our cities, we have to be HONEST with our numbers. We need to avoid the trickery and deceipt by people with agenda bias. We must be honest with the stats, and really look at what WORKS to create No Kill communities. No hidden agendas. No slight of hand statistics.  Just open, honest, dialogue.

This is why I think it's so incredible when cities provide open access to their information.  Go to cities provide open access to their information online for everyone to see -- like in Charlottesville, Va and Reno, NV. (Interestingly, Clifton doesn't include the numbers for Charlottesville even though the info is easily available).

When people like Clifton use the information to mislead the public, it hurts the animals. It hurts them by encouraging policy that is not helpful to the cause...and in fact, makes the situation worse. 

It's time for everyone to put their agendas aside and to push forward with policies that WORK to make communities more livable for both people and the animals. 

Knowing what to expect from proposed animal control laws

Last week, Indianapolis Councilman Mike Speedy wrote yet another article to the Indianapolis Star trying to justify his support for his own ordinance that would require all 'pit bull' type dogs to be licensed and spayed or neutered.  Last month, the rest of the Indianapolis city council voted to table the proposed bill.

According to councilman Speedy, his "targeted solution" would build on the success that other cities, such as Little Rock, AR and San Francisco, have experienced with their ordinances.  

It also completely unusual for well-meaning animal welfare people to support similar legislation and to wonder why so many people oppose legislation that would mandate the spay/neuter for pit bulls.  In this case, Speedy himself even said he was working with a representative from the Humane Society of the United States, Desiree Bender*, who was helping him with the ordinance and talking about Little Rock's "success" with the ordinance.

* It should also be noted here that Bender also testified in favor of BSL/MSN in the city of Jacksonville, AR back in 2005.  Her testimony is on page 4.  Jacksonville eventually passed a full-on ban of 'pit bull' type dogs which led to nearly 100 dogs being killed in the small community of about 31,000 residents.

But what type of results do cities that pass a mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls get from their ordinances?  Because looking at their results may give us a good idea of what to expect when another city passes a similar ordinance.

To my knowledge, there are only about 3 cities with much of  a track record on BSL/MSN to draw records from. I've spent a lot of time covering San Francisco and Kansas City, MO before -- so I won't spend time on those now. Essentially, San Francisco saw a significant increase in the number of dog bites following the law, and a small decrease in the number of pit bulls killed in the shelter following the ordinance*.  Kansas City saw no change in bite numbers, but an 80% increase in the number of pit bulls killed in the 18 months following the ordinance passing.

* San Francisco being able to salvage their kill rates is no doubt at least partially attributed to having one of the oldest and most established low cost/no cost spay/neuter services in the country.

On May 20th of 2008, Little Rock began enforcing their ordinance - -that required a very expensive licensing fee for 'pit bulls', required all 'pit bulls' to be vaccinated, microchipped, altered and confined behind a fence or structure (ie, forbidding tethering).  At the time, Fox 16 caught some excellent video of these "dangerous" dogs greeting animal control officers as they came to "rescue" the animals and take them from their homes (the video is in the upper right hand corner of the link provided -- Bender makes a guest appearance in this video as well).

So, what has the early "success" of the Little Rock ordinance look like? Not good if you're a 'pit bull'.

In 2007, the year before the ordinance passed, Little Rock 'euthanized' in its shelter 2,540 total dogs, of which, 823 (32.4%) were 'pit bulls'.

In 2008, with the new ordinance in affect for about 1/2 of the total number of dogs killed in the shelter rose to 2,847 -- of which, 1,188 (41.5%) were 'pit bulls' -- a 44% increase in total pit bulls killed in only 1/2 a year.*

* Interestingly, when I point out that last year, when Los Angeles has a 24% increase in total dog euthanasia following their first year with mandatory spay/neuter for all dogs, people have been quick to point to "the economy" as the reason for the increased killing. However, it's interesting that in Little Rock, total euthansia for all non-pit bull breeds actually decreased by about 3%, while 'pit bulls', who were the only ones affected by the spay/neuter, went up 44%. It is almost impossible to deny that in almost all cases, mandatory spay/neuter will cause an increase in impounds and kills among whatever category of animals in included.

For 2009, as of the end of May, they're tracking very close to 2008's year end numbers, with total dogs killed at 1,162 (on pace for 2,789) and 'pit bulls' at 490 (on pace for 1,176).

It's amazing how little of a fluke the Little Rock's kill numbers are -- as they mirror almost exactly what Kansas City saw when it passed a similar ordinance in 2006.

For the bite numbers, there is a bit of improvement.

2006 - 135 total bites, 47 by 'pit bulls' (35%)

2007 - 131 total bites , 42 by 'pit bulls (31%)

2008 (with ordinance in place) -- 118 total bites, 34 by 'pit bulls' (29%)

For 2009 - they are currently on pace for 116 total bites with 22% by 'pit bulls'.

It appears that dog bites were on a slight decline prior to the ordinance taking affect. With the ordinance in affect, bites dropped 10% overall -- with about equal drop in total bites among "pit bulls" and all others. For 2009, it looks like the pit bull numbers are going to continue to drop (likely due to the continued increased killing), but 'all others' will go up, likely as many of the people who have lost their dogs begin to get replacement dogs of different breeds.

So are these the results we are looking for? While cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul are passing breed neutral ordinances that are targeting irresponsible owners are having major decreases in bites -- with no increase in shelter killing. Meanwhile, Little Rock, the city Mike Speedy thinks is a "role model", has decreased their dog bites by less, while being on pace to kill nearly 800 'pit bulls' in the first 18 months of ordinance. While San Francisco, Speedy's other "success" story, saw a 13% increase in dog bites following the passing of their ordinance.

How are increased killing and high bite rates successes?

So why would Indianapolis WANT Mike Speedy's ordinance? Why would they want an ordinance that is costly to enforce (Little Rock's AC budget has gone up $100,000 (12%) over the past 4 years), that needs additional money for killing the influx of animals that come into the shelter, and is less affective than alternatives that are currently being worked on by the new director of animal control and the animal welfare community in his city?

And why would well-meaning animal welfare activists support an ordinance that has consistently led to hundreds of animals killed for now reason in a community with some mysterious hope that it just might work this time?

And why would the nation's largest animal "humane" organization, HSUS, have a staff member that would be continually pushing for an ordinance in communities that has consistently cost the lives of literally hundreds and often thousands of animals that are targeted by the laws? 

It is really important to look at the true effects of ordinances that are passed by other communities -- not just the ordinances themselves -- if we really want to build successful communities that are both safe for animals, and safe for people.

 

Hey, that guy's pretty smart!

My letter to the editor about Kansas City's ineffective mandatory spay/neuter laws for pit bulls is making the newspaper tomorrow morning.  Catch the early edition online. 

I must say, I really like blogging. No word requirements, or space restrictions. I can blabber all I want. It was tough gettng this into 150 words (thanks Michelle for helping edit).

Kansas City BSL Mandatory Spay/Neuter and supporting it in spite of the evidence

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Kansas City Star regarding the nearly 2-year report on Kansas City's law that mandated the spay/neuter 'pit bull' type dogs.  The article calls the results "mixed" but that's being pretty gracious (or misleading).  The numbers are similarly on track to the numbers I reported 3 months ago.  

According to the article, the number of 'pit bulls' impounded since August 2006 (when the ordinance was passed, even though it didn't go into effect until December of the same year) was 4,000 dogs (in about a 22 month time window).  In the 25 months prior to the ordinance being enacted, the number of 'pit bulls' brought into the shelter was 2,600. If you amortize out the intakes (182 per month), that would be 4,550 killed in 25 months.  That's a 75% increase in impounded pit bulls since the ordinance took effect.

The number of 'pit bulls killed went from 1600 in the 25 months prior to the ordinance to 2,500 in the 22 months following the ordinance (2841 if you amortize out over 25 months) -- a 77.5% increase.

The number of bites has remained virtually the same (consistent with my numbers).

The Humane Society of the United States estimates that each animal brought into an animal control facility, held for the minimum of 5 days, and then euthanized, costs $117 per animal. So with an increase of 1,241 animals over 25 months that are euthanized cost the taxpayers of Kansas City about $145,000 in fees just for containing and killing these dogs.  In 2005 our animal control department only answered 20% of its calls, and according to Mike Schumacher (who oversees animal control), there is currently a 4 hour response time for animal control calls because of poor staffing.  This year, our city also cut funding for the Zoo and other services while Mayor Funkouser suggested closing the shelter due to a lack of funds.  So AC is spending a LOT of money that could have been used to hire or train several more animal control officers or for a host of other services our city desperately needs.  Where is the oversight on spending?

Interestingly, the article in the Star spent most of its time interviewing the two organizations (Kansas City Animal Control and Spay/Neuter Kansas City) that supported the ordinance two years ago while leaving the opponents, like Kansas City Dog Advocates that testified before the council on this ordinance, completely out of the discussion. And somehow the supporters looked at these numbers and declared that the ordinance is showing signs of working.

"All I can explain to you is that we obviously impound more, and the more we get off the street, the less we'll have out there," said Patrick Egberuare, the new head of animal control (Mr. Egberuare was not involved in getting this ordinance passed, those honors go to his new boss Mr. Schumacher). 

The only thing I can take from this quote is that if we kill them all now, there will be fewer to kill later, which will help our kill numbers. ????

Michelle Dormandy, who runs Spay/Neuter Kansas City and also supported the ordinance originally, also found upside.

"If it wasn't for the ordinance, we wouldn't have spayed and neutered as many as we have, but the downside to the ordinance is that there are more dying."

Isn't the point of spaying and neutering to decrease the killing? So if your increasing the killing to increase spay/neuters, is that an improvement?  Really? So other than that pesky dying, it's going great!

The article completely ignores that the city has also had several problems with taking people's animals for not being neutered and accidentally killing them in the shelter, even when the owner agreed to get the animal spayed/neutered.

Here's the thing folks. Enforcing the law is having the following effects:

1) Animal Control is going out and confiscating and killing dogs because they aren't altered (or in some cases, not licensed). 

2) Because the shelter is overflowing with animals, the 75% increase in impounded pit bulls has led to a 77% increase in the number of pit bulls killed (even though the ordinance was supposed to have the opposite effect).

3) There is no evidence to support that we are even denting the overall population of dogs, as many of these owners are now going out and getting new dogs -- which is increasing the demand for bred dogs (it seems unlikely that these people are running out and adopting dogs at the local shelter that just killed their previous dog).

4) The law has had no impact on the number of dog bites.  This isn't increasing public safety so what is the point besides wasting time and resources?

5) All of this has come at a large price to taxpayers, and with a huge waste of animal control resources -- a department that like so many in the city is inefficient, ineffective, and underfunded.

And yet somehow this is seen as "mixed" results? 

Mayor Funkhouser, the city council and taxpaying citizens of KCMO should demand a full, independent audit of this department, its policies and its practices.  Increasing citizen satisfation with city services was a campaign promise of the Mayor and animal control has been broken for far too long. 

Pasadena announces mandatory spay/neuter of 'pit bulls'

The Pasadena, CA City council has ordered an ordinance to be written that mandates the spay/neuter of all 'pit bulls' and pit bull mixes.   They have  been "studying" such an ordinance since four 'pit bulls" escaped an unsecured yard and attacked several people.

The city seems confused as to why they're passing the ordinance, because they are passing the ordinance following an attack, but then also mention that the Pasadena Humane Society says that 'pit bulls' fill a large amount of shelter space.  Similar ordinances have not proven successful at limiting either bites or shelter euthanasia so I can see their confusion.

The ordinance would require spaying/neutering for all 'pit bulls' over 8 weeks old that aren't licensed show dogs or if the owner has applied for a permit as a breeder.

Of course no city ordinance would be complete without a "canine expert" moonlighting as a reporter having an opinion.  In this gosh-I-should-have-interviewed-an-expert column, they call the move "narrow, but smart".   The writer starts the column with saying that public safety should deal with "just plain facts" and then supplies almost none throughout the story.  Interesting approach.  Here are a few of their "expert" opinions with my commentary.  The article quotes are in italics:

And we do agree with some of the law's critics on one point - (most) dogs are not born mean or vicious. Human training and treatment has a tremendous amount to do with these characteristics. And dogs can certainly be trained to be vicious.  But that's part of the point here - certain breeds have been trained for so long in one direction or another that certain traits have become literally inbred. 

This is quite interesting because it assumes that every single dog of the specified breed was trained a certain way, and has been for centuries, and that training can indeed be passed on genetically. I'm not a proffessional trainer, but it does seem from the ones I know that simply breeding their well behaved dog makes them automatically trained....for example:

"Labradors and other water dogs love to chase and to fetch. That's what they were trained to do down the centuries as working companions for bird hunters."

This is quite curious. One time in my life I actually had a Labrador and I can assure you that that dog never learned how to fetch birds...maybe it's not so instinctual...

"Talk to any objective canine expert - while indeed some are loving and almost entirely kind, an undeniable aggression has been purposely bred into pit bulls."

Interesting, I've never seen one real expert that has noted that every single one of these types of dogs (spanning several breeds that are really no more similar to each other than they are to Labradors) has inherant aggression.

How many times have you seen, or read about in the newspapers, roving packs of ... golden retrievers? Doesn't happen. They're ridiculously docile by nature. Pit bulls, even those that are understandably well-loved by their owners, are simply not docile by nature.

Maybe we should introduce the writer to the American Temperament Test Society's results that show that all of the 'pit bull' type breeds outscore Golden Retrievers in Temp Tests.  Or maybe we should note that the idea of a dog being in "roving packs" already indicates that the dog is either ownerless or doesn't have a responsible owner.  Or, maybe I could point out the several newspaper reports I've seen recently that prove that this does happen. 

And especially for small children, when they get out, or get off leash - and they will - they can be terrifying attackers of people, and even killers...And, using the framework of a San Francisco law passed after a 12-year-old Bay Area boy was mauled and killed by a pit bull, that's why the Pasadena City Council is looking at a sterilization law aimed at pit bulls.

First off, all dogs can be attackers of people -- especially small children.  Last year in Kansas City alone we had 59 different breeds of dogs that were responsible for the 312 dog bites.  In the past 3 years, we've had 104 SERIOUS dog bites, with 22 different breeds of dogs found responsible.   So, based on this, it looks like public safety is why they passed the ordinance (just like San Francisco which has seen an increase in dog bites since their ordinance)....oh, but wait...

But if you want to see ridiculous, pay a visit to the Pasadena Humane Society, where an extraordinary number of the adult dogs that have been given up by families that just can't handle them are pits. City officials say 25 percent of the dogs there are often full-bred or part pit - many times, a look around the kennels would seem to indicate that number is a low estimate.

Oops, now it looks like it's about preventing 'pit bulls' from coming into the animal shelter....not public safety.  This of course is what Kansas City thought and since their BSL was enacted has seen a 76% increase in 'pit bull' euthanasia.

More ridiculous? Objectors to the proposed law who protest that it doesn't provide an exemption for service dogs.  Come on, people. There are virtually no pit-bull service dogs in use by the blind or disabled. Docile Labs and goldens have understandably cornered that market.

And yes, being non ADA compliant is a GREAT idea...even if there were only a few 'pit bull' service dogs...which also isn't true, as there are thousands of therapy dogs such as Rufus and Ruby.

Still not sure why it's so hard to look at the the effects of ordinances before passing them...and as far as reporters go, talk to an expert or two before basing your opinion...that'd be swell. Thanks.

So what's the agenda? (Epilogue to BSL/MSN)

So earlier this week, I got emailed a "FactSheet" that the Humane Society of the United States is handing out regarding mandating spay and neuter for all "pit bulls'.   This is a 'factsheet' from the largest and richest animal welfare organization in the country -- and it has barely a fact on it.  Here are some "highlights (I'll put my comments in Blue):

Here are the headers or their categories:

Pit Bull Overpopulation is a crisis for the breed and the community

Protecting Pit Bulls means Protetcting Communities; Spaying and Neutering Pit Bulls is the answer

Cities need to enact Pit Bull Spay Neuter Ordinances

Will this Ordinance Lead to a Pit Bull Ban?

How will it work?  Case Study.

The case study goes on to promote the "results" from the San Francisco Ordinance -- straight off their press release.  Percentage of dogs classified as 'pit bulls' dropped from 60% to 25%.  Percentage of bites involving 'pit bulls' dropped from 32% to just 11% in the 18 months before and after the ordinance (I still for the life of me cannot figure out where they calculated this number from.  I have the numbers, and can't even come close to recreating it.)  Number of 'pit bull' euthanized dropped by 24%. 

This is the research of the largest Animal Protection group in the US?  They can't do better than this?  Did they just ignore the work of T.E. Houston, or the numbers themselves?

Maybe my biggest beef with the entire "factsheet" is from the "Will this ordinance lead to a pit bull ban?" section.  Here's the verbage:

Many people oppose breed bans as ineffective because they punish responsible owners, fail to address the root problem of irresponsible ownership and can cause the deatsh of well-behaved dogs. Unilke a breed ban, a pit bull spay/neuter law sawves dogs by prventing wanton, irresponsible breeding by ill-intentioned owners.  Ultimately, a pit bull spay/neuter law can actually prevent pit bull bans by curtailing the number of abused pit bulls and therefore the number of pit bull/human conflicts. 

In some ways I can respect their desire to use this as a replacement for breed bans - -it is less restrictive than banning.  However, they have been widely circulating this flyer in New Jersey (where breed bans are prohibited so there is no need to protect people from breed bans).  They have also been derailing Missouri SB 886 (which would prohibit breed bans and actually wipe out all breed bans in the state) by trying to allow for mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls in the ordinance.

HSUS, you're not helping!  If the goal is to make it so that BSL/MSN will be a replacement for breed bans -- don't use it as a replacement for laws that already DON"T ALLOW BREED BANS.  And instead of reading the numbers off a press release, how about using the immense resources you have to actually do real research and analysis of the numbers (which will lead you to a quite different conclusion.). 

It's a shame that HSUS would rather derail true animal welfare policy with their agenda than to actually make fact-based claims and studies and focus on policies that actually work.   They continue to ignore case studies like Caglary and the No Kill philosophy for their own agenda.  It's a darn shame.

BSL/MSN - Discussion (Part 4 of 4)

So five days this week, four posts on BSL/MSN - which is basically the mandated spay/neuter of a certain breed of dog.   On Monday we looked at the idea of BSL/MSN, and I layed out my criteria for evaluation of different laws.  I still think animal control laws and policies should serve one of three goals:

1) Protect people from animals

2) Protect animals from people (including shelter euthanasia)

3) Respect taxpayer dollars that go toward animal control

So over the past 4 days we've looked at a couple of case studies of this law -- looking at the shelter euthanasia numbers and kill numbers for the first two cities to pass mandatory spay/neuter of 'pit bull' laws.  On Tuesday, we looked at San Francisco.  Wednesday, Kanasas City.  On Friday, a different look at San Francisco.

I'll note that both of the cities that instituted the ordinance did so following fatal dog attacks in their area -- which would lead us to believe that the primary reason for the ordinances were for public safety.  Although in each case, slowing down shelter killing has also been used as a reason for the ordinances.  So how are they doing?

In San Francisco, bite totals remained flat from 2005 to 2006, in spite of the ordinance.  However, in the 19 months preceding the ordinance compared to the 19 months following the ordinance bites went up 13%.  Although 'pit bull' bites went down, the total number of serious bites and bites by "mastiff" type dogs (basically most large dogs are grouped in this grouping in San Fran) remained flat.  In Kansas City, the total number of dog bites dropped 6% -- although the bites attributed to 'pit bulls' increased.  Given this, I would speculate that KC's drop in dog bites is actually more due to them also increasing the budget for more animal control officers (KCMO only responded to 20% of their AC calls in 2005) than the actual ordinance itself given that the one grouping of dogs affected by the ordinance actually had more bites attributed to them.

Based on these numbers, there is very little evidence that in the early stages of the BSL/MSN that the ordinance is improving public safety.

Meanwhile, animal euthanasia numbers are also interesting. 

San Francisco saw a 3% drop in total euthanasia, with euths to both 'pit bulls' and non-'pit bulls' decreasing slightly, however the precentage of 'pit bulls' that entered the shelter that were euthanized increased by 2 percentage points.

In Kansas City, euthanasia rates went up 7% (450 total kills) between 2005 and 2007 after a big spike in 2006 following the passing of the ordinance.  What is more disturbing is that the euth rate for "pit bulls" went up 76% following the ordinance....which is actually one of the specific problems the ordinance was supposed to cure.  This leads me to believe that KCMO may be using the ordinance to confiscate pit bulls -- and that this isn't the only story where the dog was unjustly taken from its owner and killed.   Taking dogs from otherwise good homes to kill them, only because they are not neutered, is NOT helping. 

So the bottom line -- I'm seeing very little evidence that in the early stages of these ordinances that anything is improving in terms of public safety OR decreasing euthanasia.  In fact, in each case, one of the two problems has actually become significantly worse since the adoption of the ordinance.  This, tacked on to some legal issues that each city has faced due to breed ID (which ties up taxpayer dollars), it really appears as if the ordinances are NOT working.  I know T.E. Houston agrees.

Meanwhile, there was something else really interesting that I picked up from doing this little exercise.  In the TE Houston study, it was noted that 87% of all reported dog bites were considered minor.  In Kansas City, the number ranged from about 88-92%.    Of this small percentage of bites that was considered "major" (a very subjective measurement -- in fact, so subjective that the same word isn't used for it in all cases -- some cases are "severe" and others "serious" -- I've included them all in these reports) here is a list of the breed listings for the dogs involved in "serious" attacks in KCMO:  Akita, Austrailian Shepherd, Border Collie, Chow Chow, Dalmation, German Shepherd, Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Chinese Shar Pei, Dogue Bordeaux, Pit Bull, Rottweiler, Oldeng Sheepdog, Bull Terrier, unknown, Cocker Spaniel, English Springer, Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, Great Dane and Siberian Husky. 

That's 21 different breeds that have accounted for the 104 major/serious attacks in Kansas City over the past 3 years.  How was limiting one "breed" going to help? 

BSL/MSN San Francisco (part 3.5 of 4)

I should know better than to put a finite number for a series.  Someone always has something even better to share that justifies its own post.  This one is well worth a 3.5 and breaking into the series.

So on Wednesday, after my post about San Francisco, I got an email from Terry Houston, PhD. Terry Houston has written two separate reports on the San Francisco BSL/MSN that are quite interesting.  I've gotten them posted on the KCDA Website for everyone to be able to view.  They're well worth the fairly lengthy read. 

The first article was written, specifically covering dog bites during 2003 and 2004.  In the report, Houston analizes dog bites by breed, gender and reproductive status of the dog, age of the dog, severity of the bite, gender and age of the victim, and zip code.   The report was given to the San Francisco Animal Control group prior to them passing the law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls'.   There are a couple of paragraphs that I think are particularly important, so I will pull them out here.

Of the 75 breeds of dog identified in the 435 bite reports, 73% (289) were labeled as mixed. The city of San Francisco may have a larger percentage of mixed bred dogs than the reported estimate of nearly 40% of the dog population in veterinary caseload studies (4, 8). A national survey put the percentage of mixed bred dogs at 51% (9, 10). The identification of such a large number of mixes in the population raises the question of accuracy when identifying dog breeds. Certain mixes may yield dogs that look like “pitbulls” but are in fact not. A dog that is part Australian Cattle dog and part Labrador could easily be labeled a “pitbull” mix. A German Shepherd dog and a Greyhound mix may be labeled the same, particularly if the dog is a “brindle”, a color associated with “pitbulls” but is not uncommon in other breeds. The dog may be called a “pitbull”- German Shepherd mix based on coat color alone. Breed identification is very subjectiveunless the parents of the dogs are known or the dogs are registered with a national registry. Several generations of breeding mixed breed dogs with other mixed makes identification of the specific dominant breed problematic.

One other note is that 87% of all of the dog bites covered were considered minor.  This will be fairly important in tomorrow's discussion.  Houston also discusses at length the issues that arose with the accuracy of the data that was being analyzed and how better, more consistant reporting is necessary for AC's to know what is going on in their departments.

In conclusion, Houston notes:

The data from the City of San Francisco indicates that mandatory spay/neuter of any specific breed based on reported bites to the city is not an effective method of minimizing dog bites...The risk from an intact dog for the moderate/severee bites shows that reporductive status is not a risk factor.  The high portion of males as victims in reported bites also would indicate that bites are very much a human factor....To minimize dog bites the issue has to be addressed to all dog owners, not just particular breeds.  Training and socialization of the dog are important factors to help minimize the risk of a dog bite.

Two years later, Houston did a follow-up report seeing how San Francisco's new BSL/MSN law was working.  According to the numbers Houston used in the report, here are the reported dog bites for each year.  The percent of bites that are listed as "unknown" (so no breed, gender or spay/neuter status is known)  is listed in parenthesis.  Also note that the new BSL/MSN law took affect in February 2006.

2003 -- 386 (35%)

2004 -- 312 (41%)

2005 -- 366 (36%)

2006 -- 364 (42%)

Houston's conclusions on the study:

Dog bites are more of a result of human interactions with the dog and the lack of understanding of basic animal behavior.  Dogs chase things, they have natural prey drive, so are going to run after other dogs, cats and other small animals.  When a person runs, walks, skates, bicycles past them, they are likely to give chase.  Spaying or neutering is not going to reduce bites without addressing some of the basic problems.

Education on responsible dog ownership and emphasis on basic training, socialization and inclusion of the dog in the household will do more to reduce bites.  There is a serious need to start addressing and targeting human behaviors instead of focusing just on the actions of the dogs.

The two articles are great and well worth the read.  Houston also details out the issues in the accuracy of the documented data with SF AC.  Take the time and check them out -- they're both available here.

Tomorrow.  Some of my thoughts on these case studies.

Next up, Kansas City (Part 3)

Editor's note: Since this originally published I've update an error in my numbers on KC's euthanasia stats.  The originally euthanasia numbers I had were actually combiled for all animals, not just dogs, and I didn't catch it when combing through several thousand rows of data.  I've updated the info here, and all conclusions still remain the same.

So in July of 2006,  a Kansas City, KS (not Missouri) woman, Jimmy Mae McConnel, was attacked and killed by two dogs.  Following the attack, many city councils in the area started looking into dangerous dog ordinances. 

As a part of this, Kansas City, MO decided to follow the San Francisco ordinance to mandate that all 'pit bulls' be spayed or neutered.  So in August of 2006, KCMO passed an ordinance nearly identical to San Francisco's ordinance.  Giving people a couple of months to comply with the law, the ordinance officially took affect December 1, 2006. 

The head of animal control in KCMO has been very generous with the information she has provided me.  So to the best of my ability, I'm going to try to narrow this down to the essential information.

Public Safety

2005 Bite Numbers

Total Bites:  331 (40 Severe)

"Pit Bull" Bites: 76  (7 Severe)

Rottweiler Bites: 28 (2 Severe)

Labrador bites: 25 (5 Severe)

German Shepherd bites: 47 (10 severe)

Chow Chow bites: 33 (4 severe)

2006 Bites (37 Severe)

Total Bites: 305

Pit bull bites: 67 (12 Severe)

Rottweiler bites: 15 (5 severe)

Labrador Bites: 35 (3 Severe)

German Shepherd: 51 (9 Severe)

Chow Chow: 15 (0 Severe)

Cocker Spaniel: 3 (0 Severe)

2007 Bite Numbers

Total Bites: 312 (27 Severe)

Pit bull: 79 (11 Severe)

Rottweiler: 14 (2 Severe)

Labrador: 29 (1 Severe)

German Shepherds: 46  (1 severe)

Chow Chow: 11 (1 severe)

Cocker Spaniel: 5 (1 severe)

Some quick thoughts on this.

From 2005 to 2007 total dog bites dropped 6%

Severe Bites dropped 33%

"Pit Bull" bites actually increased 4%, and severe bites by "pit bulls" increased by 57%.

Of these biting breeds -- none appears by percentage to be more involved in severe bite cases per bite  than any other breed.  On the low end, 8% of Chow Chow bites were considered Severe, on the high end, 16% of Rottweiler bites were severe.  German Shepherds (14%), "pit bulls" (13%), Cocker Spaniels (13%), Labs (10%) make up the middle.

Euthanasia

2005 Total Euthanasia: 6,325 (4,026 Dogs)

2005 Pit Bulls Killed: 981 (24%)

2006 Total Euthanasia: 6,959 (4,531 dogs)

2006 Pit Bulls Killed: 1,353 (30%)

2007 Total Euthanasia: 6,769 (4,601 dogs)

2007 Pit Bulls Killed: 1,722 (39%)

At first glace when I looked at this, I saw the 2006 euth numbers and the 2007 numbers and thought, well, this looks like it's working.  However, upon further inspection, I looked at the euths by month.

Now this is really hard to tell from the chart, but I noticed that from September 2006 (right after the BSL/MSN was passed even though the law took affect Dec. 1 2006) through the end of the year, there were over 400 more euthanasias than there were in the same timeframe in 2005.

So if you look at 2005 numbers, there was a 7% increase in total euthanasia at the KCMO shelter in 2007.  There was a 76% increase in 'pit bulls' killed in the shelter from 2005 to 2007. 

And this follows a huge increase in 2006 directly following the enactment of the law.  Sadly, this comes at a time when the shelter has actually seen a 60% increase in adoptions between 2005 and 2007.  Interestingly, there has been a 5.5% decrease in euths among all non-pit bull type dogs -- I suspect that the increased adoptions has a lot to do with that (KCMO refuses to adopt out 'pit bull' type dogs).

The 76% increase in 'pit bull' euthanasia has to be seen as completely disturbing given that this was the problem they were trying to solve.

Tomorrow.  More analysis comparing KCMO and San Francisco and whether or not we feel like the law is "working".

BSL/MSN in San Francisco (Part 2 of 4)

After California's state law prohibiting Breed Specific Legislation from being enacted was changed, to allow for cities to create breed specific mandatory spay/neuter policies, San Francisco became the first city in the country to enact a breed-specific spay/neuter program, mandating that all "pit bulls" be spayed or neutered.

The ordinance went into affect February 1, 2006.  So with 2 years under its belt, I thought I'd call the San Francisco Animal Control to see how the law was doing.

The San Francisco ordinance has gotten a lot of publicity.  Last August, a story came out in the San Francisco Chronicle talking about how the sterilization law was a success -- noting that the city had impounded 21% fewer "pit bulls" and the number of 'pit bulls' euthanized had dropped 24%.   It is also noted in this article that the law went into affect after 12 year old Nick Fabish was attacked and killed when he apparently tried to break up the two "family pit bulls" while they were mating in the house and he was home alone. 

Also using only percentages, the city's animal control office also announced that total bites by "pit bulls" had gone down from being 32% of all bites to making up only 11% of all bites in the first half of the year...although noting that total dog bites had more than doubled in the first 6 months of last year but Carl Friedman advised that the other bites didn't pack the "punch" of pit bull bites and that most of the bites were believed to be minor.   

So with all that in mind, I called and asked for the exact numbers myself to find out what is really going on in San Francisco with their law. 

What I received back was exactly what I requested.  No more.  No less.  So if you have more questions than this feel free to ask, but I may or may not be able to break down the data further.  I also won't try to explain the percentages in the articles quoted above...for the life of me I have no idea where they came from based on the numbers I've gotten.   

The numbers I've been given are from 7/01/04-1/31/06 -- the 19 months leading up to the February 1, 2006 start date for the ordinance.   I also have the numbers from 2/1/06-8/15/07 -- so the 18 1/2 months following the passing of the ordinance.  When it seems appropriate (when the numbers are big enough), I'm going to use the 1/2 month average for bites/euthanasias to project those last 15 days so we're comparing equal timelines. In these cases, I'll give my real number, but put the projected number in parenthesis).

Public Safety

Since my number one goal stated yesterday was protecting people from dogs, and because the ordinance was passed following a major 'pit bull' attack, I'll start with the dog bite numbers.

Bite numbers for the 19 months prior to the BSL/MSN:

Total: 596

Masiff-Type dogs: 151

(Mastiff Types, by SFAC's definition includes 'pit bulls', St. Bernards, Boxers, Bulldogs, Shar Pei, Rottweilers and Great Danes -- and all their mixes)

Pit bull types and their mixes: 120 (all included) in the 152 above

210 of the bites were listed as "unknown.

So "pit bulls" made up 20% of the total bites pre BSL/MSN.  Mastiff types made up 25%.

In the 18 1/2 months following BSL/MSN (19 month projections in parenths):

Total bites: 657 (676)

Mastiff Type Bites: 151 (155)

"Pit Bulls and Mixes": 102 (105)

So in comparison:

"Pit Bulls" made up 16% of the total bites, Mastiff types made up 23%.

"Unknown bites" went up to 275.

So, after the ordinance:

Total bites went up 13.4%

"Mastiff-type" dog bites went up by a total of 4 bites.

"Pit bull" bites (a subset of the Mastiffs) went down by 15 bites.

Impounds and Euthanasia

The second reason people give for passing this type of ordinance is because they are trying to control their shelter killing -- of which 'pit bulls' make up a large percentage of.  So the following are the impound and euthanasia numbers for the two time periods discussed:

19 Months pre-MSN

Impounds for all Dogs: 3,804

Impounds for 'pit bulls: 1,246

Total Dogs Killed (Euthanasia): 1,156

"Pit bulls" killed: 702

So 'pit bulls" made up 33% of all impounds and61% of all dogs killed in the 19 months prior to the ordinance.  Euthanasia rate is 30% for all dogs, 56% for "pit bulls".

19 month post BSL/MSN

Impounds for all dogs: 3,720 (3,826)

Impounds for "pit bulls: 989 (1,017)

Total dogs killed: 995 (1,023)

Pit bulls killed: 576 (592)

So 'pit bulls" made up 27% of all impounds and 58% of all dogs killed post ordinance.  Euth rate is 26% for all dogs, and 58% for "pit bulls".

In total, total dogs killed dropped 3%. 

Total 'pit bull' type dogs killed dropped 16%

Total non-pit bull dogs killed decreased 1%.

Tomorrow.  We'll look at Kansas City.