KC DOG BLOG

One example of why BSL does not work

Here's a story out of England where the 2nd child has been mauled by a Rottweiler in the past couple of days.  The first girl died, this boy appears to be in serious condition.

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411366/837161

It should be pointed out here that the UK banned the sale and ownership of pit bulls in 1991...and yet, in a country with a population of about 49 million people (roughly the same population as California and Illinois) has had one fatal attack and one near fatal attack within a two day timeframe.  To put it in perspective how rare a fatal attack is, there are only about 20 that occur per year in the entire United States. 

England is a perfect example of what happens when places go about trying to enforce BSL.  Since enacting their ban, they have shown no decline in dog bites or fatalities.  What happens is that irresponsible dog owners continue to be irresponsible dog owners...only with a different breed of dog.  BSL isn't working in the UK.  It will not work here.  Focusing efforts on irresponsible people is the only way to improve public safety.

Myth Buster #1

As promised, this week I'm going to start on my series of myths that have been perpetuated by the media that people honestly believe to be true now, with no supporting evidence that it's true.  I'm going to go through a series of these Myths and bust them with real, hard, data on why they are not true.

Myth #1 -- Pit Bulls are inherantly more aggressive than other breeds of dogs

Back in the early 90s, HSUS did a campaign to increase awareness of dog fighting in this country.  At the forefront of this campaign were visuals of fighting dogs -- most of which were pit bull type dogs.  Thus, for many this is the lasting impression of their image of "pit bulls" is of these fighting dogs.  This, along with so many media outlets focusing almost exclusively on pit bull bites vs the bites of other dogs, showing many of the same stock photos of a gnarling pit bull have perpetuated this image.

However, the reality is that "pit bulls" share much of the same pleasurable temperament that has led 52 million American households to own dogs. 

The American Temperament Test Society is an organization that measures dog temperament by running dogs through a series of tests -- exposure to people it konws, strangers, strange animals, and other things that will startle the dogs.  Dogs are measured as either passing or failing based on their reactions to the stimuli.

Over time, the ATTS --  http:/atts.org -- has tested over 26,000 animals from over 200 different breeds of dogs.  Of those 26,000 dogs tested, 81.2% passed the test.  Of the four breeds commonly know as "pit bulls", they passed as follows:

Staffordshire Bull Terrier: 84.7%

Bull Terrier: 90.7%

American Staffordshire Terrier: 83.3%

American Pit Bull Terrier: 83.5%

As a point of reference, America's favorite dog, the Golden Retriever, passed at an 83.7% rate.

I've plotted a few popular breeds on the chart on the left.

While I admit that the ATTS statistics have a respresentative sampling error -- ie, only owners responsible enough to bring their dogs forward to get them tested  are tested, this sampling error is the same for all breeds.  I do think that even though this sample isn't completely random, it does point out that all four pit bull breeds -- under proper, responsible ownership,  are more likely than the average dog to be good tempered and as likely to be a good tempered dog as many breeds that are commonly thought of as ideal family pets.  The key here is that they need to be owned by responsible owners.

In most of the cases where there are dog bites (of any dog) with significant injuries, clear signs of owner negligence and irresponsibility involved in the attack.  Unfortunately, instead of focusing on the real societal issues, the media has decided to focus on one breed of dog.

Let's take the four major incidents that have happened in Kansas City this year as examples:

Mid-July - - Kansas City, KS.  -- Death of Jimmie Mae McConnell

This is a situation where 2 dogs jumped over a fence and killed a 70 year old woman.  The "owner" of the dogs did not live at the residence where the dogs lived (no human lived there).  The dogs were basically left to run in and out of a house that was deamed "unliveable" by police, likely at times fending for their own food.  The owner had a previous history of animal control violations -- two years previously, two dogs were confiscated from the property because they one was nearly staved to death, and the other dog had already died.  The owner had also had been previously convicted of drug charges and assault of a police officer. 

Also of note here, is that Ms. Mcconnell had called KCK animal control on 3 different occassions about the two dogs that eventually killed her, and yet they never responded to a call on a house with an owner that had the previous ciminal activity.  Unfortunately, the dogs jumped the fence, attacked Ms. McConnell.  The attack caused her to have a heart attack and eventually die.

There was plenty of blame to go around, and let's face it, the dogs jumping out and attacking the poor woman is of no surprise in this situation.  It's regrettable, but I hardly think at this point he breed of dog had anything to do with it. It was clearly a very irresponsible owner and an inept animal control department.  KCK's response of course was to start rounding up pit bulls, but that is hardly where the blame lay in this instance.

May 4, Independence, MO -- Alan Hill -- Serious attack by 3 pit bulls -- Hill is still hospitalized

I hardly know where to start on this one, but here are the facts of this case - -as best we can tell at this point:

1)   Dog were owned by squatters, and left alone for a long period of time in an abandoned house.

2) The house was owned by the same landlord that had a case with renters at another property that were caught making snuff films that led to the deaths of two women.

3) Animal Control visited the house containing the dogs approximately 3 hours before the attack.

4) One person (a caretaker for the house, or a neighbor, I've heard conflicting reports) is being charged with three counts of assault because he purposly set the dogs loose to "see what would happen"

5) The Dogs attacked three men

6) The family of the one victim who remains hospitalized continues to push for pit bull bans in neighboring communities, but when asked publically what had become of the owner of the dogs, or the person who set them free, were unable to give any updates on their convictions.

I'm convinced that there is much more to this story.  But for now, I still think that it's evident that a dog owned by squatters that had AC called on it before and were deliberately set loose are more than just a breed issue, it's an owner issue.

Mid-September -- Woman at 34th and Prospect -- Seriously attacked by 2 pit bulls

First off, you'll note my post on this attack, that one of these dogs was a pit bull mix, at best.  Not sure if it has any pit in it at all.   We don't know much about the dogs' owner, but it is safe to say that this neighborhood isn't void of problems.  In the past week since the dog attack, four people have been shot on the 6 block stretch of Prospect between 33rd and 39th.  Two are dead.  This zipcode has a HH Income of just over $20,000 a year -- compared to a city average of close to $55k.  Over 30% of the people in this zip code live below the poverty line.  This neighborhood has issues.  I don't know whether the dog's owner is a troublemaker, or if his dogs are deliberately made into guard dogs (which would be understandable given the neighborhood), but there are a lot of issues in this area, and pit bulls are far from the top of the list.

July 5 -- 24th and Hardesty -- Two Men bit by two pit bulls

Thes two men were really only bit, and treated on the scene and released -- I'm including it here because it is often mentioned as an example of why we should ban pit bulls because of the two pages of news coverage by the Star - however, neither of these bites were terribly severe. However, these two dogs were left in a house over the 4th of July weekend to guard a man's stuff.  This neighborhood is similar to the one along Prospect -- HH Income around $22k, 30% live below the poverty line, etc.  Over the 4th of July Weekend, there are thousands of fireworks that get shot off in these neighborhoods, that would quickly freak out a dog.  These dogs finally escaped and bit two men. 

Any type of breed ban will not get rid of irresponsible owners.  These people will either own the dogs and keep them underground, or, they will just own a different breed of dog.  All a breed ban does is take good dogs out of the hands of responsible owners.

Fox News Commentary on BSL

This link is one of the better commentaries I've read from a major media outlet on getting the problems with BSL.  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215637,00.html

The writer actually used Kansas City, KS silly BSL (he mistakenly reports it as Kansas City, MO's law) as an example of what is all wrong with BSL.  I particularly like his analysis of the two different types of "pit bull" owners.   I think this is particularly important as politicians should be out to create legislation that affects people who are problems and menaces to society -- or in other cases, that will create a desired type of behavior...however, in most cases, BSL only affects good, law abiding citizens with good dogs, but are unenforceable against the street thugs and gang-banger crowd -- as the writer says:  "Kansas City has created a scenario where most of the harmless pit bulls in the city will be destroyed, rather foolishly leaving mostly the dangerous ones. Of course, that result will only reinforce the wrongheaded notion that all dogs that look like pit bulls are inherently violent and aggressive."

Also, he links to an article that Malcolm Gladwell wrote earlier this year for the New Yorker.  If you have not read that article, it is a must read for anyone interested in this subject.

"The Dogs Who Found Me"

Here's an article tht appeared last weekend about Ken Foster -- who was doing a small book reading for his book "The Dogs Who Found Me."

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060924/COLUMNIST08/609240309

I got an opportunity to meet Mr. Foster about 2 months ago at the Canine Legislation Conference in Chicago. I have a copy of his book.  It's pretty amazing to listen to Foster talk about the dogs that have found him over the years...anyone who has ever worked in rescue, even for a day, can feel what he's talking about.  He made me laugh.  He made me cry. 

What's pretty funny out of all of this is that he has become a spokesperson, or PR person, for pit bulls, because several of the dogs he talks about turn out to be pit bulls.  I think that that is how a lot of people (including me), end up owning pit bulls -- the dogs certainly have a way of finding us and winning a piece of your heart.   He's even had people argue with him that the dogs he took care of weren't pit bulls -- because pit bulls wouldn't act like how he describes.  That's pretty funny too. 

If you're a lover of dogs, I encourage you to pick up the book.  It's a quick read -- and will certainly make an impact on you. 

The Power of Numbers

"Insanity in individuals is something rare -- but in groups...it is the rule" -- Nietzsche

I've had a lot of great conversations with people over the past few days regarding the most recent pit bull incident in Kansas City.  Most were pretty level-headed people -- but most favored some sort of breed ban on pit bulls.  But what I found the most amazing was how level-headed, rational people can make a strong determination on an issue based on so little known facts.

Here are a few of the many arguments back at me about why pit bulls should be banned:

"Outlaw them.  These dogs have a proven track record of being aggressive."

"My sister's Maltese just got attacked by a pit bull in LA."

"So you wouldn't mind your neighbor having an alligator or lion in his backyard, just as long as he fed it regularly and tried to teach it to be nice?"

" Pit bulls can kill people, golden retrievers and pugs can't."

"There's a huge difference between pit bulls and other dogs and just because the owners are shitty doesn't mean it's all the owner's fault that someone gets mamed or killed. The owner isn't the one with sharp teeth who's biting the person"

"The issue is when pit bulls bite, they have the potential to maim and/or kill. Not too many dogs with that notoriety."

"What is people's obsession with having pit bulls? I just don't understand why people feel they have to have a dog that is proven to be dangerous to strangers."

"Don't pit bulls have locking jaws?"

"Don't pit bulls bite harder than other dogs?"

Over the next few weeks I'm going to cover off on a lot of the myths and statements that people honestly believe about pit bulls based on media reports, and general public perception.  I want to note that several of these comments came off of chat boards, where theer is plenty of opportunity to pull stats and statitstics -- but not a single person was able to support any of their known facts with any supporting evidence. 

I'm not singling out anyone here for anything negative.  As I said, every person I talked with seemed very rational and not at all beligerant.  What I want to point out is how ingrained these "facts' have become in our lives due to the amount of (unsubstantiated) information we receive from the media and general public.

When my wife first brought home our dog SweetP  nearly two years ago, I was suspicious.  She seemed sweet enough, but honestly, I didn't quite trust her.  But she had been staved nearly to death and weighed in at about 25 pounds. So we I let her stay -- but only until we got her back to full health.  But what resulted was that SweetP not only became a beautiful dog, but she also became maybe the truly sweetest dogs I've ever come in contact with (thus her name).  In the meantime, I did a lot of research, and realized that all of the "facts" I knew about pit bulls really weren't facts at all, but only a perception that I had.  I then met more pit bulls, and realized they too were awesome dogs -- nothing like the monsters that I had preceived them to be. 

Our outlook on things can be very distorted sometimes.  The funny thing is, when we're on our own, we usually look into the facts to determine our stance on issues.  However, if we have something in our mind, and everyone else believes it to be true also, it then becomes "fact" in our minds.  This is why Nietzsche's quote rings so true at the beginning of this entry.  As individual people, none of the people I talked to were insane.  However, as a group, a lot of normally pretty sane people like them are working to get dogs that they know little about, and don't understand, to be banned from their cities.  It's the power of numbers, and it's why we end up with all kinds of undesirable mob-like behavior.  If everyone would feel comfortable, or take the time to do the research, we could squelch bad legislation.  If I, as stubborn as I can be, can do it, I think most of us can.

Dog Days of Summer

Today marks the last day of Summer -- a summer that in Kansas City has certainly been the summer of the pit bull.

Yesterday, I made a comment about the tenacity of the media once they latch onto a story.  I went back through the Kansas City Star archives today.  Since May 1, the Star has run 133 different stories or editorials regarding pit bull type dogs, pit bull attacks, and city council meetings regarding breed specific legislation.  Additionally, on 65 different occassions they have run letters to the editor or "voices" call in comments regarding pit bulls.  That is nearly 198 stories and reader comments about pit bulls and BSL in 105 days.  In the same 105 days, they have covered exactly two attacks by non-pit bull dogs.   

To put this in perspective, pit bulls account for less than 35% of the dog bites in Kansas City, Mo, and less that 5% of the dog bites in Lee's Summit, Overland Park, Olathe and other metro cities.  However, they have made up 99.5% of the stories about dogs in the metro this summer. 

It's also interesting to note that in the two months leading up to May 1st, there was only one storyon pit bulls (not about an attack).  That is nearly a 10,000% increase in pit bull articles per month over the past 4 vs the 2 preceeding it.  All of this at a time when there has been no recognizable increase in dog bites (or pit bull bites) in the metro as a whole.

And yet, "pit bulls" are the ones that are getting labled as tenacious.  It's really no wonder that there is hysteria surrounding the breed.

The other 99%...

Article in today's Star about what sounds like a horrific dog attack on a woman yesterday morning. 

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/15551929.htm

According to reports, the woman may have some permanent injuries to her legs based on the attacks by these two dogs.  I feel sorry for this woman, and am grateful for the two men who saved her.

All of the news stations are reporting that the two dogs involved in the incident were pit bulls.  Some days the media reporting is enough to even make me second guess whether pit bulls should be around.  If it even makes someone who has done the research and studied the results of BSL, and the reasons for it question whether or not it makes sense, I completely see how the general public is taking the news reports and determining that a ban is the only way to go.

And yet, realistically, any type of breed restrictions don't make sense.   

First off, here is a picture of one of the dogs that was taken off of the KCTV5 website. 

First off this isn't a pure bread pit bull.  It may be a mix, and who knows what it's mixed with, but that head certainly doesn't look pitty. 

The other thing that really gets me is personal experience.  I'm a proud owner of a beautiful Staffordshire Terrier.  She is certainly not agressive.  Last year, several of us when to New Orleans last year and worked with a lot of the Hurricane Katrina rescue dogs.  We handled hundreds of dogs, who were in about as tough of an environment as you can imagine, and they were all just wonderful dogs.  I've worked with rescue dogs, and helped at spay/neuter clinics where hundreds of dogs will come in for free spay/neuter.  Many are from far from favorable home environments.

The bottom line is that over the past 2 years, I've handled hundreds of pit bulls - -and while I've met a few that might bite, and a few that might even bite a couple of time if provoked (all from some form of possession agression like if you took away it's pork chop), but I have never, ever met one that I could even imagine going crazy and causing the type of damage that the newspaper article describes.  And 99% of them have been just awesome, loving dogs.

It's just a shame that the 1% (it's probably less than 1%, probably closer to a .1%) of these pit bulls that happen to be violent (no doubt due to substandard living conditions) are the only ones anyone ever hears about by watching the news.  It truly is no wonder that people do want to ban certain breeds of dogs, because once the media latches onto potential BSL, they don't let go. And day in and day out, they feature the worst of what these dogs have to offer (which if we did the same with humans, we'd ban all humans too). 

The Evolution of "News"

The media is losing.  They know it, but I don't think they realize why.  They're losing because they're irresponsible, and non-objective.  They're pushing agendas.  While this may have always been the case, the reality is, people realize it now -- because they can get information from thousands of places online.  So when the news is wrong, people are all over it.  And the media is paying the price.

I wrote three letters to media outlets early last week.  One was to the Kansas City Star for its article on the community of Grain Valley talking about BSL at their council meeting last Monday.  In the article, the Star reported that "Overland Park, Independence, Kansas City and Lee's Summit have all done something limiting pit bulls".  That's not a direct quote, but it's pretty close.  I wrote them that they were wrong.  Lee's Summit is still working on upgrading their Dangerous Dog Ordinance.  BSL is still on the table, but FAR from being a done deal.  Kansas City (which is already misleading since there are two of them) passed a BSL spay/neuter, whereas Independence and Overland Park passed bans -- so I felt like that even KC was misleading (but not outright wrong like the Lee's Summit statement."  I sent the letter to the reporter, the news editor, and the reader representative (who knows me well at this point).  No retraction was printed, nor any response to my email. 

Meanwhile, I also emailed the news directors and reporters responsible for Fox 4 and KMBC news channels for their reporting of animal control capturing a stray pit bull -- that was described as "menacing" children at a bus stop.  Never mind the dogs (there were three in total) were far from dangerous (as the video of the dogs running from police officers with their tails between their legs would indicate) -- and that they didn't bite anyone.  They were simply stray dogs.  If you live in KCMO, you know that stray dogs are not news (although you could make a case that animal control actually showing up to get them was news).  You can read more about that incident here:  http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2006/09/the_media_witch.html

Again, no response from either news station. I also want to note that all notes were sent in very nice tones and respectfully....as I overdo the charm on letters like this so I don't seem like a wacko.

In any case, it's become increasingly clear, across the board, that the media as a whole doesn't want to get the facts straight, and doesn't necessarily care about that people are catching onto it.  Which means that, in my opinion, the whole shape of the media landscape and how we get news will be dramatically different 5 years from now.

Sure, it's already changed.  We get a lot more of our "news" online -- however, the majority of the online news is still reported by traditional media outlets.  People are wising up and getting more analysis from outside sources -- particularly blogs like this one.  The next step is that there will be a stronger emergence of  real news outlets that will emerge online -- ones separate from traditional media outlets, but actually have real in-depth journalism behind them.  If anyone cares about some of these specifics, they can read my technical ramblings here: http://btoellner.typepad.com/   

Once this transformation takes place, one-sided "news" about things like BSL will slow --because for the first time since the 1950s, when most cities still had competiting newspapers, there will be real, desenting news sources.  And the people in the world will be much better off for it.  As will city leaders who won't be pushed into making bad policy by constituents that only believe what they read in the newspaper.  And this all can't happen soon enough. 

A Note for Ed Cockrell

All dogs bite....and dog bites hurt.  Ed Cockrell, a councilman in Lee's Summit,  is one of many city leaders who are convinced that BSL banning pit bulls is necessary because "pit bulls bite differently than other dogs".  Lee's Summit's Mayor, Karen Messorli, agrees with Cockrell.  The reality is, that any dog that attacks can be terribly dangerous, especially when the vast majority of attack victims are young children.  Anyone who disagrees that all dogs can be dangerous just need look at this young boy who was bitten by a Bulldog.  Looks pretty severe to me. Pretending that BSL will protect people from dog attacks is simply ignoring research, facts and reality.  Let's continue to demand that our civic leaders make decisions based on facts vs mythology. 

Picture courtesy of BBC.

The Media Witchhunt Continues

After a couple of slow news weeks, the media is back on their witchhunt.  Two stories on local news stations over lunch today on "pit bulls". 

This is the WDAF Fox 4 story, but a similar story ran on ABC:  http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/9848706/detail.html

Police Corner Pit Bulls at School

KANSAS CITY, MO. - A Kansas City, Missouri police officer corralled two pit bulls and another dog at Southeast High School. Officials at Southeast High School called police after they noticed the dogs on the property. They were worried about the students' safety. The officer arrived and pointed a gun at the dogs at 63rd and Indiana, but didn't shoot them. Animal Control got the dogs under control a short time later. Animal Control captured one of the pit bulls. The officer said the dog had lunged at him. The other pit bull and the third dog got away. Police said the dogs had collars, but no tags. One neighbor told FOX 4 he saw a pack of dogs causing problems a few days ago. "I just seen some lady standing there at the bus stop and I saw like four stray dogs come out of the woods and chased her as she screamed, Help. I like picked her up and took her to her destination," said Robert Howard. The owner of the pit bull has five working days to claim the dog or else it will be destroyed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, my question is, what is the news story here?  Three dogs didn't bite anyone?  Stray dogs running loose in KC?  Animal Control actually made it to a call about stray dogs? That Animal Control had a 33% success rate at catching stray dogs?  Police offers pulled their guns on dogs that didn't bite anyone?  Seriously, this is a story about Animal Control almost doing its job of rounding up stray dogs.  I helped put together an advertising campaign today -- when do I make the news?  The fact that this story has picked up by two news stations is just absurd (and no doubt KCTV5 will have these dogs having mauled 30 infants by the time they get to their 5:00 news). It's a complete witchhunt...and when the media gets it in their minds that you are bad, they can't get enough.  Just hope next time it's not you.