What problem are we trying to fix?

Last week, the city of Council Bluffs, IA provide proof that banning pit bulls works.  It's just a matter of what problem you're trying to solve.

According the numbers provided by the Council Bluffs animal control, in 2004, the year prior to their Pit Bull ban, they had 29 pit bull bites that were reported.  In 2005, only 12 pit bull bites were reported.  This year, only 5 have been reported so far.

So, if their goal is to minimize pit bull attacks, banning them worked.  Duh.  If you significantly decrease the number of a breed of dog, you're going to have few bites.  What they haven't stated, was whether or not the total number of dog bites has decreased.  Did they use more resources to get rid of pit bulls and then have an increase in total dog bites?  Did the total number of bites stay the same but the decline in "pit bull" bites cause a total decrease in bites?  Are there more bites by licensed dogs of other breeds (boxers, presa canario, mastiffs, etc) because people are licensing their bully mixes as something else entirely?

It's pretty amazing that they didn't provide these stats.  It's also amazing that the newspaper didn't ask (or didn't even deem it important to note that they did ask and those stats weren't available).  The problem they're trying to fix shouldn't have been to decrease "pit bull" bites.  The problem they should have been trying to fix was decreasing the number of total dog bites and thus improving public safety.  We still don't know if that goal was achieved.

I think any city that wants to institute any type of dog law should be sure they know what their goal is for the law -- and equally important, determine what measures they're going to use to judge whether their goalwas achieved.  As citizens, we need to be sure that their goal is (or should be)  public safety -- and be sure their laws are put in place, and measured, with that in mind.  I think we'd have much different dog laws if that was the desired, measurable goal.  However, if we allow them to only have the goal of decreasing pit bull bites (or Rottweiler bites, or Boxer Bites, whatever), that is easily achieved, even if it's at the expense of true increases in public safety. 

I also think it's interesting that they admit that compliance with the new law has not been very good.  "We've come across numerous violators and will continue to do so," Chief ACO Barrett said. "I have applied for many search warrants on people illegally harboring a pit bull. Some are repeat offenders. Some people do not want to comply with government mandates or ordinances."

Welcome to the world of BSL Mr. Barrett.  Having to use misleading stats to show the law is "working" and realizing that the people who were the problems in the first place aren't going to abide by the rules and you're going to have to continue to utilize resources to enforce these laws.  Thus is the life trying to enforce bad policy.

Comments

[Cheryl B]

Another city that has a pit bull ban and has had this ban since 1989 or 1990, is Kansas City, KS. They too stand by their ban and say it's working. But interestingly enough when their dog bite stats have been requested their legal department only responded with a total number of dog bites by year, NOT BROKEN DOWN BY BREED. Their legal department actually stated they could not supply information via breed of dog, that it would take too much time to research and compile the data. Hmmm....maybe they are afraid to reveal the truth.