Aurora Colorado 2-Year Report

Last week, the City of Aurora Colorado began the 2-year analysis on the City's ban on "pit bull-type" dogs (and by their definition, they included 10 different breeds under their definition of "pit bull").

If you read the media reports, you'd think that their ordinance was really working.  Based on their reports:

-- The city euthanized 636 'pit bulls' in the first year of the ban (2006) and 173 in 2007

--  The number of registered 'pit bulls' in the city dropped from 498 in 2006 to 355 in 2007

-- In 2005 (the year before the ban), there were 27 bites by 'pit bulls", that number dropped to 8 in 2006 and was back up to 15 in 2007.

--- The ordinance has also paid for itself because of the increased fines and revenue coming in off of 'pit bull' owners is more than the city is spending enforcing the law.

Basically the same information was presented in the other news story covering this as well.

However, my friend Sonya out in the area emailed me a copy of the entire two-year report and it actually shows a dramatically different story.

In 2005 (the year before the ban), there were 137 dog bites in Aurora -- 27 from "pit bull type dogs" and 110 from "all others".  The ban went into affect in February 2006.  In 2006, there were also 137 dog bites, 8 from 'pit bulls" and 129 from all other breeds. In 2007, there were 172 dog bites, 15 from 'pit bulls' and 157 from "all other" breeds.

So, since the ban, the city has seen a 26% increase in overall dog bites and a 43% increase in bites by all non-'pit bull' dogs. 

What may be even worse is that the city also ended a 3 year trend of declining dog bite numbers by enforcing the ban. 

So I ask, is the city better off because of their ban?!  Are people safer?  I'd say a 25% increase in dog bites over 2 years of the ban would be a resounding no.

And yet, the media (who I assume had access to the same report I got),  only reported the decline in the number of bites by "pit bulls" - -and failed to mention the dramatic increase in bites by all other breeds of dogs.  Well, the city killed nearly 1000 'pit bulls' in the two years of the ban -- OF COURSE thenumber  bites by those dogs is going to decrease.  There are a lot fewer of them. The real story here, from a public safety perspective, is that the number of bites went UP.  Dramatically.

I want to note that this is the same result as what happened in San Francisco when animal control declared their law mandating spay/neuter of all pit bulls was "working", even though their total number of dog bites had doubled in the first half of the year.

This is the same result that occured in Council Bluffs, IA when animal control declared their BSL was "working" because "pit bull' bites were down following their new law in spite of the reality that their total number of dog bites went up.

There are a couple of other things about the report I find interesting. 

1) I find it odd that a city with a three year decline in dog bites would enact new legislation that has been proven in other areas to make matters worse.

2) If you look at the number of killed dogs, and the number of licensed dogs, there were approximately 1400 pit bulls in the city of Aurora (there are likely many more than that, but that is just a total of the confiscated dogs and the ones that are licensed in the city.  I think it's fair to say that many people are still hiding their "pit bulls" without registering them or left the city voluntarily with the ban). 

Even if this is the true number of 'pit bulls' in the city (it's guaranteed to be low), less than 2% of all the 'pit bulls' in the city were responsible for any type of bites the year prior to the ban (and this number would be high and assumes that every single 'pit bull' bite in 2005 was by a different dog, when likely there were a few dogs responsible for multiple bites).  This all means the legislation affected hundreds if not thousands of owners of these dogs that weren't a problem at all.  All to cause an increase in total dog bites in the city. 

This is why people who oppose BSL oppose the ordininances.  Any law that by its nature makes criminals  out of people, 98-99% of whom are not problems in any way, is bad policy.  This takes a fairly large amount of resources to enforce legislation against innocent people -- and in virtually all cases has caused the total number of dog bites to go up in these communities.  People who oppose BSL actually really DO want improved public safety.  BSL is a threat to public safety.

My hope is that the city of Aurora looks at these numbers and repeals their ban. I also sincerely wish that the media would give an accurate account of the entire report, instead of glossing over the negative numbers.  Is accuracy too much to ask for?

UPDATE:  The Denver Post has posted a story on this as well...and once again they failed to mention that the total number of dog bites had gone up 30+% since the enacting of the ban.  I think it's important to note that these reporters should have received the same 5 page report that I got and apparently not one reporter either read the actual report or found the dramatic increase in dog bites to be relevant information.

Comments

[Marjorie]

According to the latest NHS report, dog bite figures are at an all time high in England, despite a nationwide ban on 'pit bull'-type dogs.

I should note that Staffordshire Bull Terriers ("the nanny dog") were exempt from the original ban. However, since they look so similar to 'pit bulls', and have the kind of conformation that makes them capable of performing similar tasks, it is becoming apparent that the losers who used to train their 'pit bull'-type dogs to behave aggressively have switched to similar-looking Staffies. British media reports of dog biting incidents are increasingly more heavily slanted towards those involving Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Indeed, I was recently in England, and people "explained" to me how Staffies "needed" to be added to the list of banned breeds. (Look for more calls to ban Staffordshire Bull Terriers in the UK, in the near future.)

[Caveat]

"Is accuracy too much to ask for?"

Apparently.

Surely you don't expect our overlords in the media to actually read, understand and analyze reports? Reports are boring.

Are you suggesting that they should check their facts? That takes work, sometimes a lot of mouse-clicks and they might get eyestrain.

Next you'll be telling us that they should interview accredited experts when running news reports, rather than just quote-mining from people who present their personal opinions as evidence.

Have a heart, man!

[Sabrina Kennedy]

Aurora AC is not going to give out the stats of the actual report, and city council even "claimed" they didn't know the lawsuit existed against the ordinance in Aurora? If Aurora pulls their ban and tries to drop the case in Fed Court--(that could be their strategy) that will not make the case moot, but they will say it does. Not likely. Update on Tellings case--OHIO has waived even filing an opposition from what I heard. Interesting.

[Social Mange]

The average reporter and the average politician - both morons. They either can't, don't or won't read the facts. They just want their three-second sound bite and 15 minutes of fame.

[MichelleD]

" Update on Tellings case--OHIO has waived even filing an opposition from what I heard. "

ok, I'm ignorant on this...what do you think this means Sabrina? My first thought is OH is so confident they'll win they don't even want to oppose it. I have to admit..after the OH Supreme Court ruling I have NO confidence our legal system will do didley squat for us...NONE.

[Sabrina Kennedy]

LOL Few of us have much confidence in the Ohio system. But on the other hand, we surely hope that the Supremes don't necessarily think that just because one doesn't file an opposition, they are "winning?" Probably just the contrary. That sort of implies a smug attitude. And if I am not mistaken, that is not what the court is looking for. The Supremes overturn 80% of lower decisions. We hope to be in the 80%.