KC DOG BLOG

The world of made-up statistics

 In my mind, it used to be that statistics were based on data. Data existed, and you extrapolated statistics from that data.

In the world of the internet, everyone has a voice. And while generally that's a good thing, sometimes that privilage is abused andthat voice comes with the amazing ability (and willingness) of some people to make up data and statistics.

While it probably has always been this way, our ability to fact-check this information has never been greater. Unfortunately, with media outlets making severe cuts to news crews, cutting investigative journalism, and apparently fact checkers, it almost seems more common for made-up statistics to make their way around the internet and via twitter. One such "stat" is the idea that "Only 1 in 600 pit bulls finds a home." "The offspring of one unspayed cat will, within five years, will have 420,000 cats" is another.

Some of these are commonly used. They've been passed down for years by rescuers in the same way that urban legends are passed down. Most people don't mean to be malicious with their false statistics, but that still doesn't make them true.

But some people ARE malicious with their claims -- and those claims can also be just as made up.  A couple of weeks ago a lawyer's blog popped up in my news feed.  In it was yet another "statistic" that if someone thought about it for even a minute they would realize couldn't possibly be true. But there it was, in all its glory.

"Together, pit bulls and Rottweilers account for half of the 4.7 million dog bites reported in the United States in 2011."

Wow. That's quite the statistic.

Well, after one of my fellow advocates did a little sluething, here is the source for this astounding statistic.

The first, the 4.7 million dog bites, is the per year estimate routinely given by the Center for Disease Control and Humane Society of the United States. The source for this is actually a study from 1994 in which they garnered national "statistics" from 5,300 phone interviews that not only had a small sample size but also just "made up" data for age groups that were not accounted for in the study. I don't necessarily fault the author of the article for not tracking down the source (I do fault the CDC and HSUS for repeating it for the past 2 decades as if it is a reliable stat), it is more than a little dishonest to attribute this estimated number, from a study done nearly 30 years ago, as the exact number of bites that happened in the specific year 2011.

Meanwhile, datapoint in the second part of the "statistic" is apparently Merritt Clifton's 30 year report on "maimings and maulings".  Clifton's data has often come under scrutiny on this blog, and Luisa did magnificent work on this several years ago here, here and here. In this case, the source is a huge miss.

However, even if the data source wasn't bunk, the data she used isn't even related to the first data point. The Clifton Report that was cited featured 30 years worth of data, not one year. And the report never professed to cover all dog bites. At its best, it was only meant to cover the worst-of dog bites (at it's worst, it's completely flawed in both its methodology, its record-keeping, and being completely non-comprehensive). 

So, instead, the author of the blog reported two pieces of information, that were not related in any way shape or form, one with data from the past 30 years, and one that was literally from 30 years ago, and tacked them together for one "statistic", for one year, in 2011.

It's wrong. And I believe done to be malicious, fear-monger, and drum up business.

Accuracy is important. And making up data to create fear-mongering is not accuracy. But unfortunately it does represent the world of made-up statistics that we live in. 

So please everyone, if you are using data from the internet, PLEASE consider your sources wisely.

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.

 

 

What is the higher authority?

A couple of weeks ago, I posted some commentary about how not all sources of information are created equal -- and that it is important for people to consider their source when it comes to deterimining the validity of that information.

Then, the conversation continued a bit over at Caveat and I had a small revelation that hit me - that, while small, and almost humorous in nature, it actually creates quite a problem for the opposition to Breed-specific laws (BSL).

Let's say the topic of BSL comes up in a community. A reporter is eager to get boths sides of the story so he starts making a few phone calls to local rescue groups, shelters, etc. The first couple of phone conversations to his local experts likely reveals that all are opposed to laws targeting specific breeds. Such laws are ineffective, create a false sense of security, and target the wrong end of the leash. Breed-neutral laws that focused on a dog's behavior, and responsible ownership, are more effective.

However, he still has to find a supporter of breed bans. Local phone calls have gotten him nowhere, so he has to do an internet search. The search leads him to a particular dogs bite website that claims to be a national authority on the topic (even though they have no expertise at all in actual animal behavior). So they get their quote. Both sides are represented.

Unfortunately, for many while both sides get their quotes, the sides aren't equally represented. The anti-BSL group has many supporters, including everyone locally. The pro-BSL group has one supporter, from several states away. Unfortunately, both sides get equal airtime. And unfortunately, often times the general population sees the national organization as being a higher authority than the local groups. No one is ever smarter it seems than the out-of-town 'expert'.

And so the pro BSL side gets a slight advantage in the world of public opinion.

Such has been the case in Vancouver over the past couple of weeks. In a column.

On September 13, the a Vancouver Sun editorial writer wrote an editorial in favor of breed-specific laws. He, of course, didn't consider his sources, and posted a lot of inaccurate gibberish. You can pretty much tell something is going to be gibberish the second they start comparing dogs to bears or when they refer to people who oppose breed bans as the "attack dog lobby". Um, yeah.

It's pretty amazing that you have dozens of national organizations of trainers, rescue groups, dog handlers, animal control officers, veterinarians, etc -- and most don't agree on much of anything - -but the one thing they do all agree on, is that breed-specific laws are not the answer. And because of that, all of these groups are now somehow considered to be some sort of conspiracy lobbying group. Yip.

So, the local experts, talk back. Including this very nicely written letter by Kathy Powelson, the Executive Director of the local Paws for Hope Animal Foundation. Now, I don't know Kathy, but she sounds like a very knowledgable person when it comes to animal handling and canine laws - -and has a title (not just a website) that would help prove that.Kathy points out that most of the evidence presented in the original editorial is from unaccredited, unreliable sources (and she's right).

Maybe my favorite piece of this is that dogsbite.org founder Colleen Lynn then writes defending her own credentials.  Folks, if the only person that comes to your defense and defends you as a credible source is you, you may have a problem.

Let me be perfectly clear - the evidence is overwhelmingly opposed to breed-specific laws and there is a completely lack of expert and professional support for such laws. And the local experts are generally the local experts that have the higher authority with their hands on experience with animals.

One website owner does not change that.

 

 

Considering the source

I love the internet. In many ways, I think the internet has helped level the playing field in the talks of BSL because we no longer need to have a multi-million dollar media outlet to tell our story and relay information. Thus, we don't have to rely on the media, which has often been biased on the subject.

Unfortunately, there is a con to this. The con is that on the internet, everyone gets more or less an equal voice -- regardless of their qualifications for being able to speak knowledgably about the subject.

And, unfortunately, it seems many Americans don't have the ability to discern good sources of information from bad ones -- including, at times, the media.

Last week, I stumbled across a terrifying and hilarious blog entitled "Literally Unbelievable". The blog essentially just pulls screen shots from facebook or twitter where people are believing, and commenting on articles published by The Onion. Now, I assume that  most of my readers know about The Onion, but for those over-seas or whatever, the Onion is a Satire newspaper (now mostly website) that has been published in the United States since 1988.  That's nearly 25 years of publishing satirical gems like how the American Public Hired a High-Powered Lobbyist to represent them in Washington DC.

And yet, when you read "Literally Unbelievable" you realize that many people are taking the 'news' published at the Onion as real news. 

While the website clearly highlights the absurdities in not understanding what are meaningful opinions and sources, there are many more subtle examples that are more concerning.

Yesterday, I published a very well-researched article on this blog by the Australian Veterinary Association speaking out against breed-specific legislation.

Now, call me crazy, but I would consider an association of Veterinarians, in a sophisticated country like Australia, with a lot of research backing up their stance to be a reliable source on the topic.

Meanwhile, this paper joins many other similarly posted articles by experts in this country that similarly oppose breed-specific legislation because it is ineffective at inproving public safety. In fact, there is a completely lack of professional support from experts in the animal behavior for breed-specific laws.

BSL is not support by Lawyers -- who understand the legal wranglings of such laws -- as the  American Bar Association has come out against the laws.

Dog trainers, who understand dog behavior more than anyone generally, don't support the laws -- as evidenced by position statements by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, International Association of Canine Professionals, and National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors.

Rescue organizations, many of whom handle hundreds, if not thousands of dogs each year, and have trained staffs of professionals, don't support Breed-specific laws either -- including major national organizations like Best Friends Animal Society, Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, and American Humane.

Breed-specific laws are also not supported by the National Animal Control Association, or the American Veterinary Medical Association -- who has their own very good position paper on dog bite prevention.

Given all of these outstanding resources on what are appropriate responses to dog bite solutions - -and specifically calling out why breed-based laws are wrong, why are we still having the conversation about Breed Bans?

Why are people still citing newspaper articles as sources for effective legislation, or blogs written by annonymous writers, or websites created by people with no animal handling expertise or, Miss Universe Canada, as experts on the topic of dangerous dog laws?

They're not.

Experts are experts. Science is science. And websites written by people who are not experts in the field they write about are not viable sources for information. Nor are people just because they're pretty.

So here's my call out to people in the public, and the media, please consider your sources. Deterimine who is or is not an expert, and report on what real, true, experts believe.

Thank you.

Four important links for National Dog Bite Prevention Week

This week is national dog bite prevention week.

The week will be blessed with a lot of great information about preventing dog bites and attacks. It will also be sparked by a lot of hyperbole and headlines designed to scare people and drive ratings.  Be smart and recognized the difference.

With that, there are four key stories that launched last week (or over the weekend) that I think are good starting points for National Dog Bite Prevention Week.

#1 - The National Canine Research Council Notes that National Dog Bite Prevention Week is succeeding

The Number of dog bites to postal workers topped out at about 7,000 dog bites to postal workers in 1983. Now, 30 years later, the number is 2,675.  This is a substantial improvement -- and particularly notable as the population of people and the increasing perctage of people who own dogs as pets have driven the number of owned dogs up dramatically during this time.  2,675 is still a lot -- but it is great to see the downward trend.

#2  State Farm  Releases their stats on Dog Bite Claims

State Farm is one of the largest home owner and liability insurance companies in the nation -- and also the largest that does not discriminate on insurance coverage based on dog breeds (except in Ohio -- where they do discriminate because of Ohio State law that declares all pit bulls to be "dangerous").  In 2010, State Farm paid out more than $90 million as a result of nearly 3500 dog bite claims.  In their official press release, State Farm lists their top 10 states for insurance claims. It is interesting to note that Ohio is #3 on the list in spite of the state-wide Breed-Specific legislation and in spite of State Farm's inability to insure 'pit bulls' there. This is the state that has the highest upward swing when compared to overall population  -- again showing that breed specific laws do NOT improve overall public safety -- and arguably make people less safe, not more safe.

I emailed the spokesperson for State Farm to see if they had numbers of bites by dog breeds and she noted that they don't track that information because breed is not a causal factor in bites and because breed identification wasn't reliable in these cases -- something else that has proven to be true over and over again. And you'd bet that a company that has $90 million at stake in this would be making a pretty sound decision.

#3 The US Postal Service Released it's top 55 cities for dog bites to postal workers

  This report has gotten a lot of media play this week.  Mostly, if you look at the list, many of the cities largely fall where they are should based on the size of the populations.  Large cities will have more dogs and likely more bite incidents. Here are a couple of notable areas that have significantly higher bite rankings than their populations would indicate they should have:

Columbus, OH - Tied at #2 in bites, #15 in population

Cleveland, OH - #8 in bites, #45 in population

Cincinnati, OH - #19 in bites, #62 in population

Denver, CO -- #12 in bites, #26 in population

Toledo, OH -- #27 in bites, #66 in population

Arguably no cities have done more harm to 'pit bulls' in the name of public safety than this group listed above - -with all of them being miserable failures in terms of public safety. All of the Ohio cities are under the state-wide breed specific legislation, and Denver and Cincinnati have outright bans on the dogs.  Breed-specific laws do not improve public safety.

Meanwhile, this report has also spurred the fear-mongering that comes with the media. KSHB in Kansas City (you'll see more from them from me this week) reported that "Kansas City is among top cities for dog attacks on mail carriers". Uh huh.  They list Kansas City as ranked #21 (which, the report has the cities numbered oddly and has them listed at 21), but KC actually is tied fore 34th on the list of bites (if you count the number of actual cities) and 37th in total population -- so we're essentially right where we should be for dog bites on postal carriers based on overall population.  But fear mongering is more fun.

#4 Dogs & Storks Proposes a Name Change to the week

They propose "Respect Dogs Week" -- which make a lot of sense.  They have some great commentary on respecting dogs' limits and recognizing warning signs. Very much worth the read.

Also, for your education, doggone safe has put together a quiz to help you understand dog body language to help you stay safe. Take the quiz. I got 9 out of 10 -- and I think the answer to the one I missed was more geared toward kids than someone who has a lot of experience handling dogs that have fear issues -- so I gave myself a pass on it.

Have a good week. 

Aurora (CO) continues to look at loosening breed restrictions, media perpetuates fuzzy math

On Thursday, Aurora, CO will again discuss loosening the restrictions on their 5 year old breed ban. The city is looking at this after the Department of Justice filed a ruling on the Americans with Disabilities Act on breed bans not being able to limit access to those with service dogs.  This made Aurora's ban in violation of the ADA.  While Denver refused to make the necessary changes to their law, Aurora is looking at loosening their restrictions to become ADA compliant.  

Meanwhile, instead of looking at ways to loosen the restrictions, they should be just looking at a full-on repeal of their law that bans 10 different breeds of dogs.   Unfortunately, the city administration continues to ignore their own numbers and pretend they don't exist -- while the news media allows them to do it.

Last month, City Councilman Bob Broom said that "Statistics show that the number of bites have gone way down," which, well, is wrong. The reality is that they have actually gone up significantly.

In the most recent article, the Denver Post tries to help them defend the breed bans by noting that in 2005, there were 35 dog bites regarding restricted breeds.  In 2010, there were only 6.  These numbers are accurate enough, but ignored that there were 188 bites by non-restricted breeds - -up from 110 in 2005.

Oops.

But then it's become commonplace for city leaders who support breed bans (and it has trickled over to the fear-mongering websites as well) to say that, well, severe bites are down because the restricted breeds bite harder.  Aurora has stated this also.

However, the numbers don't support that either as in 2006, restricted breeds made up 8% of the severe bites, and 10% of the moderate bites and in 2007, when severe bites went up (2 years after the breed ban), they made up 6% of the severe bites and 7% of the moderate ones. So for the first two years of the ban, moderate and severe bites went up -- but not because of the restricted breeds, which were never a high percentage of these bites, but because of the non-restricted breeds.

So the city council continues to try to justify their law -- even to the point of hiding and making up numbers to support themselves.  And even though all of these numbers are available to the public, the mainstream media has yet to pick them up and make them widely available....thus allowing the city to waste taxpayer dollars and give the city free-reign to harrass pet owners and people with service dogs of a particular type.

It's time for the city council to own up to their mistake and fix it...and for the mainstream media to do what they are supposed to do which is hold city officials accountable.

More from Stop BSL who has a great and even deeper breakdown of all the numbers -- including links to the dog bite severity numbers which I hadn't seen before.

 

Update: Another tragic fatality reported today

Update:  Let the media frenzy begin. After the entire media world ignored this story for nearly 2 weeks, the media has now glommed onto it. The Associated Press has now picked up the story and it's beginning to get picked up by a lot of media outlets. The AP story has the headline "Calif woman killed by pit bulls in backyard" -- and all of the media outlets have been picking up the headline also. Only readers that make it all the way down to the 2nd to last paragraph will note that the dogs were mixed breeds. Thanks AP.

********

Authorities in Moreno Valley, CA have confirmed that 53 year old Christina Casey was attacked and killed last week after being fatally attacked by her neighbor's two dogs.  The woman was tragically found dead on November 2, but reports of her death have just recently emerged.  Casey was found by neighbors dead in the back yard of the home she was renting.

According to a previous report, Casey had often complained about the neigbhor's dogs and was actually two days away from moving from her apartment in Moreno Valley -- in part, because of the problems with the two dogs.  The dogs apparently dug under the fence in her yard at some point overnight.

Unfortunately, the dogs were continually allowed to roam outdoors and Casey was attacked, and killed, by the two dogs. The dogs are being described as "large, pit bull/Weimaraner mix" dogs. 

Only two media outlets have picked up this story at this point and because no one was around when Casey was attacked, not much is known about the incident.  But if more details emerge, I will certainly update this post.

It sounds as if several calls had been made to authorities about the dogs being a problem, but the problem was never stopped and the owner continued to allow the dogs to roam at-large. There were ample opportunities to solve the problem but nothing was done. It's a tragic, and senseless death.

San Francisco Chronicle Blogger acknowledges breed bias in reporting

A couple of months ago, a writer from the Denver Post acknowledged that his newspaper was guilty -- as charged - of over-reporting dog bites attributed to 'pit bulls' vs other types of dogs. In Denver, the newspaper had covered individual dog bite incidents 20 times in the past 5 years -- and the breed or type of dog was mentioned on only 9 occassions -- in 8 of those, a 'pit bull' was the dog responsible.

Now, a reporter/blogger in San Francisco took it upon herself to look at how the San Francisco Chronicle has faired in its reporting.

According to her information, since 2005, the newspaper has covered 34 specific dog attacks.  "Pit Bulls" were responsible for 22 of the attacks -- and in every single instance the 'breed' of dog was mentioned in the headline.

However, in the 12 articles about incidents not involving 'pit bull' type dogs -- not a single article had the breed of dog involved in the attack in the headline.  Even the writer acknowledges that her paper may be responsible for over-reporting as well.

What the writer fails to note, is the headlines only tell a partial story.

According to numbers that I obtained through an FOI request a couple of years ago, in the time period of July 1, 2004 - August 15, 2007, 'pit bulls' accounted for 17.7% of all of the dog bites recorded by San Francisco animal control.  So while bites by 'pit bulls' accounted for 17.7% of all bites, they accounted for 65% of all dog bite stories - -and 100% of the stories where the breed type was mentioned in the headlines.

This is a common theme when it comes to media reporting -- I noted this about a year ago about reporting in Mobile, AL also.

As more newspapers begin to acknowledge their role in creating the hysteria, we can begin changing the narrative from being about breed-hysteria, and more about actual causes of bites and attacks which will make a real difference in dog bite safety. It also continues to slash away at any credibility dog bite "studies" based solely on media accounts may have ever had.

In the Denver Post and the San Francisco Chronicle we have 2 of the 10 largest circulation newspapers in the country admitting that they are guilty...hopefully this will be a trend that will lead to the problem being fixed.

The Insurance Industry Continues its Fear Mongering of Dog Dangers

This week, the Insurance Information Institute continued its fear mongering about dog bites with yet another report on the "rise" in dog bite claims.  The press release has been picked up by 40 or so media outlets -- featuring headlines like "Dog Bite Claims grab record insurance chunk".  Featured in the articles is the news that dog bite claims topped $412 million last year, and the cost of claims has risen 30% since 2003.   Dog bite claims also make up 1/3 of all liability insurance claims.

Scary stuff, right?  Well, not really.

If you dig behind the numbers, it's really not all that scary.

In 2003, there was a grand total of 16,919 dog bite claims. In 2009: 16,586.  The numbers have varied over the years, but there hasn't been some rash increase in dog bite claims-- in fact, there are fewer now than there were 7 years ago -- in spite of the fact that dog ownership has increased about 14% over that time frame and the US Population has grown nearly 10% over that time. So with over 43 million owned dogs in the US, only .03% of them were involved in any type of dog bite claim last year.

While it's true that the average claim has gone up over the past 7 years (claim value is up 27% over that time), much of it is driven by average health care costs -- which have risen at a rate of 8.7% a year over the past decade. That means they've gone up 79% over the past 7 years for those who are counting -- far less than the 27% for dog bite claims over the same timeframe.  Meanwhile, the insurance industry has more than made up for it....cost for home owners insurance premiums are up 32% since 2003.

And while dog bites do make 1/3 of home owners insurance liability claims, liability claims, as a whole, make up only 6% of all claims.  So dog bites make up only 2% of total home owners insurance claims, even though 40% of the population owns dogs.

While the insurance industry seems to want to create fear and hysteria around dog bites, there is really very little evidence of any growing problem with dog bites -- only with the increasing cost of health care (which no one is disputing).  Dogs continue to be incredibly safe.

Meanwhile, there is one other very interesting note from the news sources.

According to the article from the Chicago Tribune, State Farm Insurance paid out $90.1 million in dog bite claims -- 21.8% of the total dog bite payments. Interestingly, State Farm makes up 21.6% of all home owners insurance premiums written. So while many insurance companies deny people insurance based on the breed of dog people own, State Farm does not. And while State Farm does not discriminate, they are not more likely to pay out in dog bite claims than their market share would indicate that they should.

Denver Columnist confirms media bias in over-reporting stories about 'pit bulls'

A writer for the Denver Post had an interesting article late last week on whether or not there was media bias about 'pit bulls'.

The writer publishes a letter from an advocate claiming a bias in over-reporting of bites involving 'pit bull' type dogs.

The reporter then covers a report by the National Canine Research Council that shows how similar attacks over a 4 day period involving four different types of dogs resulted in significantly different media exposure.

It also includes a note by the ASPCA that said that the media has repeatedly told them that they have no interest in reporting attacks involving non-pit bull type dogs.

The reporter, himself, even looked at the headlines for articles in his own newspaper. Over the past 5 years, the newspaper has covered 20 different stories involving dog attacks -- of them, 9 had the breed of dog in the headlines.  The breeds mentioned?  8x 'pit bulls' and 1x a Rottweiler.

This is even more interesting when put into the context that 'pit bulls' make up only 8% of the dog bites in the state of Colorado -- and aren't even the top biting dog in the state (see page 23). Labs were #1.

This isn't unusual of course, last year I did a story about Mobile, AL and noted that one TV station there had 100% of their dog bite stories that mentioned the breed in the story involving 'pit bulls' -- but were only involved in about 20% of the dog bites in the community (also behind Labs).

Media acknowledgement that they may be responsible for the hysteria is a good first step. And in Denver's case, the hysteria has led to countless lawsuits, thousands of dogs being killed, hundreds of families ripped apart and thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees paid at taxpayer expense to support a ban that no one even claims has even really worked.

It's a good first step in changing the narrative with our local media.