Why does no one ask obvious questions?

Back in November, I wrote about Council Bluff's Iowa reporting that its pit bull ban has been an overwhelming success.  Base on their numbers, in 2004, the year before the ban, they had 29 bites by pit bulls.  In 2005, they only had 12, and in 2006, they had 5.  Because the ban on pit bulls was causing there to be fewer pit bull bites, it was deemed that the ordinance was clearly a success.

I noted at the time that it was odd that the newspaper didn't ask about total bite numbers and whether or not public safety was really improved - but just took the pit bull bite numbers as proof of success.

Well, I just go the final tally of total dog bites for Council Bluffs, and it appears that they've done nothing to improve their situation.

In 2003, Council Bluffs Animal Control reports having 85 dog bites.  In 2004, the year before the ban, they reported a huge increase to 131 dog bites.  In 2005, the first year of the ban, they reported 115 dog bites and in 2006, they increased back up to 132 dog bites. 

So basically, two years after instituting their pit bull ban, more people are getting bitten by dogs than ever before in Council Bluffs -- just by different types of dogs.

So are people in Council Bluffs safer from dogs because of the pit bull ban?  The numbers say otherwise.  And why is it me, a blogger in KC that is asking these questions and not the local media? 

There are also a couple of other interesting notes in their breed-breakout numbers over these four years:

2003 -- Boxer bites: 2, Lab bites: 4

2004 -- Boxer bites: 1, Lab bites: 14

2005 -- Boxer bites: 1, Lab bites: 20

2006 -- Boxer bites: 12, Lab bites 23

Are irresponsible owners moving to different breeds of dogs?  Is animal control working so hard to adjust its numbers to support the pit bull ban, that some dogs that were mis-labeled as pit bulls before now being labeled as something else? Now that Labs make up 23 bites, almost twice as many as the next highest breed (boxers and German Shepherds), and only 6 fewer than there were pit bull bites the year they banned them, should the city consider banning labrador retrievers now as well?

Folks, BSL doesn't work.  It's never worked for anyone in eliminating dogs, or dog bites.  It's bad, bad policy.  Cities should learn from the failure of others before enacting their dog legislation.

Comments

[Caveat]

Jurisdictions which implement BSL experience spikes in dog bites and attacks. In Ontario, provincially, bites are up significantly since the ill-advised ban was brought in, as much as 73% in some cities.

Obviously, if you eliminate a breed, you will have fewer bites by that breed. As for mixed breeds, it's a crap shoot - no one knows what kinds of dogs they are.

Winnipeg, Manitoba saw a spike in bites after they implemented their ban. Kitchener, Ontario saw an initial spike but their bites have now leveled off to pre-ban numbers.

It is of interest that in those cities and others which have banned breeds, the subject breeds have always been under-represented in bite stats compared with others.

The uncommitted tend to move to other breeds but I also think bans give the non-dog savvy public a false sense of safety around dogs. They believe the hype and think all the 'bad' dogs are under control or in cases such as Denver's, dead.

They think that there are friendly breeds and nasty breeds rather than individuals, again thanks to the media, who don't report serious bites and attacks by supposedly friendly breeds, or if they do, it's always presented as anomalous and receives only local coverage.

Whichever breeds are most popular will have the most bites recorded, using the law of averages.

The majority of bites are less serious than a minor kitchen injury but databases don't record severity. The only outcome that is certain is death, which is why the media and self-styled experts tend to focus on that, as if it were possible to prevent such a statistically rare outcome by banning a breed or perceived breed of dog.

[Gwen Lebec]

The obvious question to ask is why public officials care more about pit bull bites than lab bites? Duh! Because of the seriousness of the injuries. By just checking empty numbers you are more obtuse than they were. To determine whether or not the ban is successful you need to analyze whether or not the number of serious injuries have been reduced. More critical thinking is needed here.

[Brent]

Keep in mind Gwen, that only about 2% of all dog bites in Omaha were of the "serious" variety -- most of them likely because of the size of the victim (young child) vs the type of animal involved.

It's funny that Omaha tracks the data on the severity of the bites, but when you ask them to provide it, they are never willing to do it.

The seriousness of dog bites is not a breed-specific issue there.