I apparently have a different view of "working" than people who write policy, because yesterday there was an a story from KCBS News Radio in San Francisco about how San Francisco's mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls policy was "working" to decrease the number of pit bull bites in the city.
In second and third quarters of last year, pit bulls accounted for nearly 30% of reported dog bites in San Francisco. In the first half of 2007, they have made up 11% of reported dog bites.
"I knew they probably should go down, if you're talking about having less of these animals, less coming in obviously there's going to be less dog bites involved. But that's an amazing statistic, 32 percent to 11 percent," said Director of Animal Care and Control Carl Friedman.
Let me share another amazing statistic. In the first 6 months of 2007, there were 227 reported dog bites in San Francisco compared to 109 in 2006. So while the number of pit bulls involved in dog bites has gone down, the number of dog bites HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED. That's not working.
If the purpose of these laws is to eliminate pit bull bites, then by all means, we can do that by exterminating the breed. If the objective is to increase public safety from dogs, Breed Specific Legislation is not the solution.
San Francisco Animal control has invested all of its resources on enforcing its pit bull MSN (and hanging out in court dealing with their legal appeals) and apparently spending no time dealing with dogs of other breeds. THAT doesn't make people safer.
I particluarly note this because Kansas City used San Francisco as a model when it crafted its MSN BSL legislation last summer. Even though, when their animal expert they brought in was asked if the law was working, she said the early signs didn't look good.
If San Francisco's "success" is any indication, we will be re-looking at our laws her in KC again pretty soon. Unless of course we can double the number of dog bites and declare that as "working".
Comments