KC DOG BLOG

Breed-specific Law continues to fail in Omaha

In the summer of 2008, there was a significant dog attack in the city of Omaha in which a 2 year old girl was badly injured. Because of the hysteria of the moment, the city council in Omaha began looking at changes to their dangerous dog law.

Instead of listening to the experts in their community: veterinarians, trainers, rescuers, etc;  the council instead took its law-making advice from the victim's mother -- who had virtually no animal handling or animal law experience (and was incidentally working with the folks at dogsbite.org to create the ordinance).  The law ended up singling out 9 different breeds of dogs that would have to be muzzled in public unless the owners completed their Canine Good Citizen Test.

Since the law has been in place, it has done nothing to improve public safety, and has only cost taxpayers more money (Nebraska Humane Society took a $100,000 annual pay increase to enforce the new ordinance). While responsible owners have jumped through the hoops put in place by the ordinance, the irresponsible owners (the ones who caused the problems in the first place) have not, causing not only an increase in fees paid, but also an increase in bite incidents.  All in the name of public safety, right?

So the following are the dog bite numbers for Omaha as supplied by the City Clerk's office over the past 7 years:

2006 - 916

2007 - 821

2008 - 808 (the new ordinance targeting specific breeds of dogs was passed in the summer of 2008. In June of 2008, the city was on pace to be 14% below the 2007 numbers which would have put them below 700 dog bites on the year. However, the second half of the year had 41 more dog bites than in the same 6 months a year prior, causing only a minor decrease from the year prior).

2009 - 875 (the first full year of the ordinance)

2010 - 913

2011 - 834

2012 - 981

So, while the city was actually seeing a downward trend in 2008, after the passing of the law, they have essentially seen an upward trend in dog bites  (with a small blip downward in 2011) since  the law was passed -- and the single fewest dog bites they've had in nearly a decade was the year BEFORE the dog law was passed. Nice work.

Meanwhile, a deeper look into the numbers shows part of the reason. Based on a news report (which is based on numbers supplied by NHS), the following breeds were the top biting breeds in Omaha in 2012:

Labrador Retrievers: 92 bites - 9% of the total (labs also led in 2010, the only other year I have this data for).

Stray/unidentified dogs - 56 - 6% of total

German Shepherds - 46 -5% of total

Boxers - - 41 - 4%

Chihuahuas - 32 - 3%

Pit Buls - 31 - 3%

So while the law went into effect targeting 9 different breeds of dogs, you have to go down to the #6 breed to even find one that was restricted. This then causes a disproportionate number of animal control resources making sure the dog owners of the restricted breeds are jumping through their hoops, while taking resources away from targeting other types of dogs that may show themselves to be aggressive. It's worth noting that while Labs are the most frequent biters, breeds beyond the top 6 make up MORE THAN 70% of the total bites. Thus, the list of biting breeds is very, very deep (as would be expected).

This is why resources are always best spent targeting dogs that show themselves to be aggressive based on their behavior, regardless of breed, and not based on their looks (which is very arbitrarily enforced).

Over the past couple of years the city has had to make several changes to the law -- from removing a $200 fee to remove "dangerous dogs" from the dangerous dog list to reducing fines for dogs running at large from $300 to $100 because they realized they over-reacted and were being overly restrictive. It appears to be time for the city to take a closer look at the law and remove the breed-specific clauses entirely.

Meanwhile, I think there are several things about the media coverage of this situation that are interesting.

#1) Note the picture of the Labrador Retriever used in the media story, and that even while reporting that the dogs are the top biters in the community, the image used is of a very docile dogs. I agree that Labs, like all breeds of dogs, can make great family pets, it's just interesting when compared to imagery used in other breeds.

#2) I think it's interesting that the media seems to dismiss the higher number of Lab bites because they are popular dogs....but pit bulls, which are also extremely popular dogs, are never given the same benefit of the doubt.

#3) While the total dog bite numbers are easily available via open records requests, NOT ONE SINGLE MEDIA OUTLET in Omaha has bothered to report on the increase in dog bites since the breed specific law was passed in 2008.

The Omaha ordinance has been, and continues to be, a major failure in animal welfare legislation and protecting public safety. Residents in the community are not safer; the law is more costly, and it focuses on just a tiny percentage of the dog bites in the community.

It is far past time the council listen to the expert consensus against breed-specifc policies.

Cashing in on failed policy in Omaha

Under an Omaha law passed in 2008, dogs can be declared "potentially dangerous" if they bite someone, or, if they are one of 9 different breeds of dogs declared "potentially dangerous" under Omaha law. Once declared "potentially dangerous" the dog must be altered, microchipped and muzzled and licensed whenever they're out in public.  They also must be licensed for $100 year and the dog owner has to take out a $100,000 insurance policy on the dog.

Biting dogs remain on the list for 2 years (the breeds of dogs forever), and if the dog has no other violations, they can come off the list if the owner pays another $200 to the city.

A couple of weeks ago, the city of Omaha, and the Nebraska Humane Society (which handles all animal control and sheltering for the city) began discussing removing the $200 fee to remove the dog from the list. The vote passed the city council 7-0.

This isn't the first time Omaha has had to tweak its overly broad, and overly harsh, dangerous dog ordinance. The ordinance was originally passed in 2008 following a major dog attack in the community. It was passed as an act of panic policy making after the tragic attack and the city ignored all canine experts and passed an overly broad, overly taxing law targeting all dog owners and even more specifically targeting owners of certain breeds of dogs. Previously, the council had reduced fines for dogs running at large from $300 to $100 because they realized it was causing some dog owners to not get their dogs from the shelter because they couldn't afford the high fees.

And it's good that the council continues to tweak the Dangerous Dog Ordinance -- because there are many other changes that need to be made to it -- which from the start was an over-reaching, costly, and bound-to-be-ineffective boondoggle.

According to the NHS VP of Field Operations Mark Langan, there are "hundreds" of "potentially dangerous" dogs in the city of Omaha. While many of these are potentially dangerous because of their bite history, a large number are on the list only based on their appearance because of the breed-specific clause in the law-- creating a huge issue of cost of enforcement, aribtrary breed determinations, and cost to dog owners in the city.

The ordinance has been a huge boon for the Nebraska Humane Society.  Based on the NHS contract with the city, NHS receives 100% of the impound and licensing fees -- so the high numbers of citations and 'potentially dangerous dogs" is very financially rewarding for them. NHS also received a substantial increase if fees from the city of Omaha for enforcing the new ordinance (they received an annual increase of about $75,000 a year after the ordinance passed).

Meanwhile, the law itself, is not having a positive impact public safety in Omaha. While this was something that anyone could have easily forecasted 4 years ago when their new law was passed, the numbers have completely proved this out.

Here are the dog bite numbers in Omaha since 2006:

2006 - 916

2007 - 821

2008 - 808 (note, the new ordinance declaring 9 breeds of dogs "dangerous" passed in mid 2008). In June of 2008, the city was on pace to be 14% below their 2007 numbers, but in the back half of the year (after the ordinance passed), had 41 more dog bites than the year prior and ended with only a minor decrease for the year).

2009 - 875

2010 - 913

2011 - 834

So, in spite of the city paying more money for law enforcement, and in spite of the increased revenue received via high fines, high citations, and high licensing fees, the city has yet to have lower dog bites than the years prior to passing the ordinance. So increased cost, decreased public safety. Bravo.

Meanwhile, it's worth mentioning that in earlier reports, the top biting breeds of dogs in Omaha have traditionally been Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherds -- neither of which is targeted by the breed-specific part of the city's ordinance. "Pit Bulls", which were targeted by the law, made up only about 14% of total dog bites. And while Langan and the rest of the NHS crew has said the ordinance was a success because 'pit bull' bites have gone down, their continued focus on 'pit bull' type dogs has allowed bites by all other non-restricted breeds to increase significantly.

The entire ordinance continues to be poorly thought-out, ineffective, and costly -- both to taxpayers and to dog owners. However, it has also been a financial boom for NHS -- who continues to reap financial rewards for the ordinance in spite of its ineffectiveness.  It is time for Omaha to repeal the breed-specific part of its ordinance -- for the betterment of dog owners and for the betterment of public safety.

 

Labs lead in dog bites in Omaha (and eventually the media will ask the right question)

Getting numbers from the city of Omaha is a little bit like having a root canal. The animal control and the shelter operations are handled by the Nebraska Humane Society - who, while they get a fee from the city for handling these duties, function as a 501c3 and thus don't feel like they need to make their records public.

The city does get some data from them however, and a call to City Hall will get you those numbers.  Interestingly, 2 1/2 years into the city's breed specific law (that mandates insurance and muzzling for 9 different breeds of dogs) not one local media outlet has called city hall to get the numbers.  Instead, they just take what NHS hands them and prints it. 

The good news is, that by using their information, and the city hall information that I've gotten, you can start to cobble together a bit of the mess that is Omaha's law.

In a news story that ran last week, NHS is reporting that type of dog that led in dog bites in the city was.....Labrador Retrievers. Labs recorded 79 bites whereas the next highest number ws from German Shepherds at 44 with 42 from 'pit bulls' and 33 from Chihuahuas.  The story of course notes that the large number of Lab bites are because Labs are very popular....which is not doubt true. If you look at most cities, the most popular types of dogs in the city are also the leading biters....the odds are just going to work that way. (And tip: yes, this includes 'pit bull' type dogs which are also extremely popular dogs and yes, usually end up toward the top of bite lists -- for the same reason Labs are there in Omaha -- it's not rocket science folks).

The news story also notes that bites from 'pit bulls' -- one of the breeds targeted with the law passed in 2008 -- have decreased from 115 in 2008 to 42 in 2010.   NHS's Mark Langan says this shows the law has been a success.

However, Langan, NHS and the media missed a big part of the story.

First off, let me say that I found it a bit odd that Langan used 2008 as the base year for 'pit bull' bites. It was mid year 2008 that the city passed their law, so 2007 would have been a more stable year. 

That said, in 2008 there were a total of 808 dog bites in the city. So if 'pit bulls' made up 115 of them, they accounted for about 14% of total dog bites.  Seems a bit ridiculous to pass a law targeting such a small total of dog bites.   This means there were 693 bites by non 'pit bull' type dogs.

Meanwhile, in 2010, total dog bites rose to 913.  If 'pit bulls' accounted for 42 of those bites, that means 871 bites were recorded by non-pit bull type dogs -- this is a  26% increase in non-pit bull bites since the year the law was passed.

So while Langan and NHS have been running around for the past 2 years focusing on enforcing the city's breed-specific ordinance (against breeds that accounted for 14% of the total dog bites in the city), all of the other types of dogs in the city have been involved in 26% more dog bites (nearly 200 total bites).  And the largest biting breeds are not targeted breeds, and not small dogs.  They're Labs and Shepherds which are both bigger breeds than any of the 'pit bull' type dogs and in spite of Labs' reputation for being cuddly dogs, it's also worth noting that Langan says that they "encounter a lot of serious bites from Labs".  Labs and Shepherds were both in the top 3 of level 4 and level 5 bites for the 4 years leading up to the passing of the city's breed-specific law.

Omaha continues to provide and example of how using animal control resources targeting a whole host of dogs that don't exhibit aggressive behavior removes resources from targeting ones that do.  Doing this nearly always leads to increased total dog bites, and thus, decreased public safety. 

It's a shame that NHS continues to hide their numbers behind their 501c3 status, that the city lets them, and that the local media seems content to just take what they are fed from NHS without calling city hall to get the total numbers. Or heck, call me. I'll send you the reports.  But having an open discussion on what is going on would be the best way to make improvements....but it seems no one wants to really improve public safety, they would rather manipulate the numbers to justify the ordinance that they pushed for.

More bite numbers from Omaha here.

Omaha: Don't look at our numbers, the law is working great

A couple of weeks ago, KETV in Omaha talked to representatives from the Nebraska Humane Society about the city's 2 1/2 year old dangerous dog law following a significant dog bite in the community.  When asked about the city's dangerous dog law, representatives of NHS said the ordinance is "working". 

According to Field Operations Vice President Mark Langan "It appears the number of bites is staying consistent. But the more severe bites are dropping, which is what we were hoping the new ordinances would do - -put more responsibility on owners to contain their dogs."  Neither Langan nor KETV provided any data points to support this statement, only provided the number of people cited under the ordinance - -that included 19 reckless owners, 67 potentially dangerous dog declarations and 71 muzzle and leash violations.

First of all, let me state, that there are some elements in Omaha's law that are pretty good. The law has a dangerous/potentially dangerous dog element based on behavior. It also can prevent someone from owning a dog for four years if someone violates three animal control ordinances in a 2 year time frame (the way this one is written isn't the best, but the idea is there).  There was also a moderate increase in licensing fees (topping out at $25 which isn't terrible).

However some parts of the ordinance are pretty awful -- including a tethering ordinance that forbids tethering for more than 15 minutes (I am not opposed to laws that limit the amount of time a dog is tethered, but this one is worded particularly poorly, 15 minutes is a very limited amount of time -- especially if the dog is supervised while tethered) and then the awful requirement of $100,000 in insurance and muzzling for owners of 8 different breeds of dogs. This has opened the enforcement of the law to be completely arbitrary as well as focused a lot of resources on dealing with non-aggressive dogs and owners.

So now, let's look at some actual numbers.

In 2006, Omaha recorded 916 actual dog bites.

In 2007, that number was 821 - a 10% decreased.

Through June of 2008, the city was looking at yet another decrease in dog bites - as they were down 14% through the first 1/2 of the year.  However, a significant dog attack that happened on June 25th and all of the discussiong became about breeds -- not responsible dog ownership. By the time the 2008 was over, and a new law was in place, the ended 2008 with 808 bites (a 1% decrease) -- with 41 more dog bites in the second half of 2008 than they had in the second half of 2007.

In 2009, Omaha recorded 875 dog bites, a 9% increase.

In 2010, Omaha saw another increase in dog bites to 913 - another 4% increase

So while Langan says that the "number of dog bites is remaining constant" he seems to ignore the reality that total bite numbers have gone up 13% since the ordinance was put in place (and reversed a significant downward trendline in dog bites in the process).  So instead of double digit declines in bites (which they were seeing for the 2 years prior to passing the law, they have now seen 2 1/2 years of increasing dog bites.

The numbers for "severe" dog bites are a little less clear. NHS does not supply the actual numbers for this to the city that they contract for - and NHS will not release the information to the public under public records requests. So the actual data for Langan's claim is not made available. However, in I do have the number of "severe" bites for the years leading up to the ordinance being passed:

2003: 3 level 5 attacks, 19 level 4s

2004: 4 level 5 attacks, 15 level 4s

2005: 6 level 5 attacks, 23 level 4s

2006: 5 level 5 attacks, 41 level 4s

2007: 11 level 5 attacks, 17 level 4s.

So if you remove the 2 obvious outliers here (the 11 level 5 attacks in 2007 and the 41 level 4s in 2006, the rest of the numbers are pretty consistent, average about 5 level 5 attacks and 18 level 4s.

These attacks made up roughly 2% of the total number of attacks for most years. With the numbers being so few, and the percent likelihodd of it happening are so low, it seems like a stretch that these numbers could have dropped much -- especially given that a large number of these types of attacks involve young children that are left unsupervised with a dog inside the home where the restrictions don't apply. 

Had Langan not already "fudged" a bit in the statement that overall bite numbers had remained steady (when they had, in fact, seen a 13% increase) I might even be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But it sure seems unrealistic that minor bites have seen that type of increase and the very rare, serious bites, would decrease significantly.  And if NHS would like to have any credibility, they'd be open with their records instead of continuing to hide their numbers (including their kill numbers) without opening them up for open records requests or not sharing them when the media does reports on the ordinance (which NHS is profiting nicely from). And the city of Omaha -- which pays a huge amount in their contract to NHS should demand these numbers from them and make them available. 

Hiding records doesn't build confidence, and it certainly doesn't allow the chance for open dialogue about what really will improve public safety....which I suspect is exactly what NHS and the city of Omaha want.

Editor's Note: All of my numbers were obtained through the office of the Omaha City Clerk who has been very quick in answering my requests of the information provided to him. Unfortunately, the information he has is very limited and more should be made available to the city.

Self deception & rationalization in Omaha and Denver

People make decisions. And often they make quick decisions based on somewhat limited information. It's human nature. We cannot possibly research every single element of our lives to the fullest. So we often form opinions quickly.

The danger of this is that it becomes human nature to be more prone to DEFENDING their position on a particular topic than it is to actually CHANGE that opinion based on new data.

And thus is the situation with two communities that are defending their breed-specific policies.

Last night, in Denver, the city council again voted to delay a vote on whether or not to file an exemption of 'pit bull' service dogs from the city's 20 year old breed ban.

The city council has continued to delay a vote on this subject after the Department of Justice offered its final rule this summer on the topic of servcie dogs. In their ruling they said of the ADA:

"The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deferences would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities...state and local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular animal can be excluded based on that particular animal's actual behavior -- not based on fears or generalizations about how the animal or breed might behave."

While the Department of Justice's ruling could not be more clear that exceptions for service dogs must be made from the city's breed ban -- at least two city council members, Jeanne Faatz and Charlie Brown, wanted to vote down an exemption for service dogs because they viewed the federal regulations as an intrusion on the authority of local governments.  This "intrusion" is exactly why laws like the ADA exist -- to prevent local authorities from targeting individuals and limit their access and opportunities based on a particular disability. 

That fact seems to be lost on Brown, Faatz, and others on the council. 

This delayed decision comes at a time when the city is facing multiple lawsuits for their violation of the ADA....and the taxpayer money continues to fund the city's self rationalization that in spite of all of the science and research that contradicts them,  somehow they are right in their breed ban and everyone else is wrong. 

Meanwhile in Omaha, the city council will tonight look at a change in the city's 2 year old law that would prevent 'pit bulls' (very broadly defined as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Dogo Argention, Presa Canario, Cane Corso, American Bulldogs or any mix of those breeds) from having to wear a muzzle until they reach 6 months of age.  Currently all of the targeted breeds are required to be leashed, muzzled and harnessed while in public unless the dog passes the Canine Good Citizen Test.

Pam Wiese -- a spokesperson for the Nebraska Humane Society (which owns the animal control contract for the city of Omaha) - said that the required muzzling of pit bull puppies prevented them from socializing normally.  This is obviously one of the major drawbacks of laws that require muzzling -- muzzling and containment laws targeting specific breeds are designed to force isolation (I pointed this out as a problem 2 years ago when this was being discussed).  Forcing isolation, and thus, causing lack of socialization, is a recipe for creating a whole mess of under-socialized dogs. This is especially true for puppies, so fortunately the council looks willing to make this change, but is very important for dogs of all ages. It would be great if the Nebraska Humane Society -- and the Omaha city council - would recognize the importance of socialization for targeted dogs of all ages.  However, once the city has said "This is a good idea" it seems like they are unwilling to look at the reality that the whole law was a knee-jerk reaction that was based on a faulty premise in the first place.

Meanwhile, also of interest, the council is looking at decreasing the fines for at-large dogs -- decreasing the fines for unaltered dogs from $300 to $100 on the first offense and from $600 to $300 on the 2nd.  They realized the high fees were preventing anyone from picking up their animals at the shelter and NHS has noted that since the law passed they have seen a significant increase in the number of impounded animals left at the Humane Society (which generally translates to higher kill rates, although NHS does not make those numbers available to the public).

Meanwhile, Weise says the rest of the 2008 ordinance is "working well" -- although I guess actually decreasing dog bites isn't a requirement for "working" as bites in Omaha have gone up since the ordinance was put into effect after 3 years of declines prior to the ordinance passing.  "Working" is apparently a very relative term.

Omaha continues to use laws to target the wrong people

Earlier this week, a woman in Omaha has lost the ability to own animals for the next 4 years.

The woman, Sheri Frizzell, is a dog trainer who also works in rescue. However, she has now been busted by the Nebraska Humane Society for violating animal control ordinances on three separate occassions in the past 2 years and has now lost the 'privilage' of pet ownership for the next four.

Frizzell's violations?  One did involve a foster dog that got loose and was running at large, the other two involved being over the pet limit with dogs that were with her temporarily as she was looking for foster homes for them.

So instead of helping the city with their problem of homeless pets....she now has had her own pets, a Chihuahua, a cat and a Boston terrier, taken from her by the Nebraska Humane Society.

Three years ago when Omaha passed their new dangerous dog law, the reckless owner part of the law was the one part I kind of liked (at least in theory). I do like that it gives animal control a tool to target habitually negligent dog owners and prevent them from owning pets -- because we know that a small number of the pet owning population is actually responsible for the majority of the problems.  The law was passed a couple of years ago to "safeguard the public against those irresponsible dog owners whose dogs pose danger to the public."

Unfortunately, instead of targeting people who's dogs are habitually running at large, who are cruel or negligent in their treatment of their pets, or who's pets are habitually aggressive toward others -- they appear to be targeting people who are habitually, gasp, trying to help rescued puppy mill dogs.

This fits the trend though for the Nebraska Humane Society and the Omaha law. The law also requires muzzling and specific insurance for dogs of certain breeds -- unless the dogs get their Canine Good Citizen certificates. So instead of targeting irresponsible owners, it essentially just creates some hoops for the responsible owners (who were never going to be a problem in the first place) to jump through to be able to keep their dogs unmuzzled.

While the NHS continues to focus their efforts on people who aren't really problems, the city has seen increasing dog bites over the past 2 years -- and had a major political group call their dog laws "a waste of taxpayer dollars."

And as long as they continue to focus their enforcement efforts on non-problem people, this will continue to be the case.

I'm still supportive of the idea of reckless owner las, but certainly think there needs to be some distinction between major and minor violations. People shouldn't have their pets taken from them (and likely killed) for minor animal control violations like not being licensed, being over the pet limit, or their dogs escaping and causing no harm. But they should if their animals are severely neglected, cruelly treated, or their dogs are responsible for major cases of aggression.  There has to be some logical distinction here -- and apparently leaving the law open to "common sense" interpretation isn't going to work in Omaha (or likely, elsewhere).

For more on this case, see YesBiscuit! - Thanks for your community service, we're taking your pets

Why is it so hard for the media to collect the actual data?

Question.

Let's assume you work for a local news source. Two years ago, your city passes a specific law that was designed to decrease the number of dog bites in your city. As a reporter, you decide to do a follow-up story on the law to see if it's working.  Do you:

a) Get the dog bite stats to see if it's working

b) Talk to the victim of the dog bite that pushed for the changed law and see if she thinks it's working?

If you're a reporter in Omaha,you apparently do option b.

The reporter did also talk to the head enforcement officer at the Nebraska Humane Society who also said that the law was "working" - noting that last year (when they also had their current dangerous dog law) they had 5 serious 'pit bull" bites, this year so far they've only had one.

I think the one stat provided by NHS is interesting. First of all, they compared the number of serious bites by pit bulls from one year after the law was enacted to another year after the law was enacted -- not to where numbers were before the ordinance was enacted. 2009 was a pretty bad year for dog bites all around in Omaha -- in the first year after the ordinance was passed.

NHS also casually mentioned that Labradors have already had 6 'serious' bites as well in the first half of this year.  It is worth noting here that 5 was the maximum number of "serious" Lab bites Omaha saw in any FULL year between 2003 and 2007 before the ban took effect. But hey, it's not a 'pit bull' right? So it must be working -- even if 'serious' would be defined the same way regardless of the type of dog involved.

Also, out of curiousity, why has KETV not reported any of those 6 serious Lab bites this year? Just curious.

The Nebraska Humane Society doesn't give out dog bite numbers -- and have been very secretive about the impact of their laws. They tend to just give out whatever snippets support their case. The new laws have been very profitable for them -- bringing in an extra $100,000 a year in revenue from the city PLUS one of the requirements for 'pit bull' owners to get around the law is for dog owners to get their dog to pass the canine good citizen test -- which is nicely available for a fee through the NHS.

However, a simple call to the city clerk's office would give the reporter the actually data that shows that overall dog bites have gone up since the law was enacted. This news report also comes a week after the Platte Institute noted that Omaha's ban was a "waste of taxpayer's dollars'. 

I attended journalism school....and we had entire classes dedicated to Freedom of Information Acts and Sunshine Laws. So why is it too much to ask for the media to find and report the actual data? To date, there has yet to be a media outlet in Omaha that has actually reported the numbers.

Talking to the victim and asking if they think it's working is not the same as getting the actual information. It's important we force city leaders to review the total success or failure of ordinances -- and open access to that information is the route to do it. Unfortunately it doesn't appear as if anyone in Omaha is ready to dive into the real data to see how the taxpayer's money is being wasted there and how overall public safety has not improved.

Organization calls Omaha's 'pit bull' ban a "waste of taxpayer dollars"

Last week, the Platte Institute released a report that called Omaha, NE's law that targets several different breeds of dogs (they group them all together as 'pit bulls' even though many of the breeds aren't even of the same breed group) a "waste of taxpayer dollars."

The report covers the failure of breed-specific laws in other communities, and the high costs of enforcement, and the reality that with Omaha's current leash law, tethering law, and reckless owner laws, the vast majority of attacks could be avoided with strong enforcement of those laws.

While the article speculates that the ordinance will not lead to an increase in public safety because, well, laws like this never do - it doesn't go into the fact that bite numbers in Omaha have indeed increased since the law was put into effect.

The Platte Institute is a group with fairly Libertarian beliefs in minimal government and responsible use of taxpayer funds. It is interesting to see groups like this get involved in the breed-specific legislation debate as a major source of wasted taxpayer dollars.

Omaha - Focusing laws on wrong owners causes rise in dog bites

Earlier this week, I posted information on the breed ban in the United Kingdom and the struggles failures the UK has had with their breed ban. Essentially, but focusing on breeds, instead of focusing efforts on irresponsible dog owners (who make up a small minority of total dog owners), the UK has seen a significant increase in dog bites in the country over the past decade.

Omaha is off to a similar start.

In 2006, the city of Omaha had 916 Dog bites.

In 2007, they had 821 (10% decline)

Through June, of 2008, the city was looking at another decrease in dog bites -- down 14% vs 2007 through the first half of the year.

On June 25th, 2008, Omaha's decreasing bite numbers came to a screeching halt when 2 year old Charlotte Blevins was attacked by a 'pit bull'. For the next several months, the city (and the media) talked continually about 'pit bulls'. They didn't talk about the irresponsible owner who had an aggressive, under-socialized dog. They didn't talk about the fact that the dog got free from the owner and attacked the girl. They talked about 'pit bulls' -- the need to ban them, and the need to restrict them.

By October, the city had passed a new ordinance -- some parts were good (restrictive tethering, targeting habitual animal control bylaw offenders by preventing them from owning dogs for a period of time) and some parts were awful (mandating the muzzling of 'pit bull-type" dogs and only allowing people to avoid the muzzling if their dog passed the Canine Good Citizen Test).

The law essentially created a bunch of hoops that responsible owners had to jump through in order to prevent having to muzzle their dogs. These owners that were out getting their Canine Good  Citizen Certificates were never the problem in Omaha....and the people that were the primary problems in the city weren't going to obey whatever law was passed. They essentially passed a law that focused a lot of animal control resources on the people who weren't causing problems.

By the time 2008 was over, the city finished just 1%  below their 2007 dog bite numbers at 808 bites -- having 41 more dog bites in the last half of 2008 than in the same months in 2007.  This was a 10% increase in the second half of the year vs 2007 after starting the year on a 14% decline....all because they were focusing on the wrong people, and relaying the wrong information to the public on what REALLY caused dog bites.

In 2009, the first full year of having the ordinance, while they were focusing on getting canine good citizen certificates for dog owners that weren't causing problems, the city saw a 9% increase in dog bites --  up to 875 bites.

So let's put this in perspective, Omaha was seeing a decrease in dog bites. 2007 was better than 2006. Through June, 2008 was better than 2007. Then, in the next 18 months, they managed to reverse the trend and create a 10% increase in bites in the back half of 2008 and then another 8% increase in 2009.

The cost to the city to enforce the law?  $75,000 additional to the Nebraska Humane Society who handles the city animal control contract.

So while the taxpayers are paying more money for animal control services, because the city is focusing their efforts on the wrong people (vs focusing all of their resources on the people who are causing the problems), dog bites are actually going up, not down.

There are other problems of course , including breed identification issues and the overall lack of statistics made available to the public.  At this point, the mainstream media in Omaha has yet to report anything other than what NHS has sent out in their press releases - -which is mostly the number of Canine Good Citizens they have passed and the number of people who were cited for all of the new laws. No mainstream media outlet has actually published the bite statistics -- you know, the 'public safety issue' that the law was designed to improve in the first place.

Creating over-inclusive laws that target the majority of dog owners who are not the problem is bad public policy -- and repeatedly shows itself to be ineffective at actually improving public safety.

It's expensive to enforce.

It takes resources away from dealing with people who are the real problems.

It doesn't work.

It is time we start focusing on laws that work.  It's not overly-broad sweeping laws. It's certainly not laws that focus on dog breeds instead of irresponsible owners. It is focusing on the small minority of dog owners who treat their animal irresponsibly, cruely and let them habitually roam at large.

Focusing our resources on that will work.

Omaha BSL Enforcement is Arbitrary

The dog pictured to the left is named Ruckus. On the Nebraska Humane Society website (it's currently on page 2, but they change dogs out regularly), it calls Ruckus a "male, brown Weimaraner and Pit Bull Terrier" that "is not required to comply with Omaha Breed Specific regulations.

The second dog pictured is a dog that I fostered for awhile that currently lives in Omaha that is targeted by the Omaha Breed Specific regulations -- so, unless he passes the Canine Good Citizen Test, he will have to wear a muzzle everywhere he goes outside.

If the picture of the victim dog wasn't in black and white, you'd note that the dogs are exactly the same color -- and have nearly identical facial features. I obviously can't tell a lot about the body type on the dog at NHS.

But the point is, who decides?  Who decides that the first dog is not a victim of BSL and the dog in the bottom picture is?

The Void for Vagueness Doctrine is a conctrine derived from the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. The Doctrine states that a law if "void for vagueness" if a person of ordinanry intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited or what punishment may be imposted under a particular law.

One specific purpose of the Doctrine is to curb "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement" of criminal statutes. This, combined with an image of four puppies from the same litter last  month where three were deemed to be "pit bulls -- subject o regulations" and one was not, it appears that the enforcement of Omaha's law is definitely vaguely and discriminately enforced.  The final photo in this set a screen shot of the NHS website, just in case they take Ruckus' picture down or change his ID. Best of luck to Ruckus...