Well, at least the city council has had the ability to read the entire 2-year report on the "effectiveness" of Aurora's 'pit bull' ban. And some don't like what they see, although others are making up reasons why the ordinance is working.
For those that missed the earlier report, two years ago Aurora, CO passed a ban on "pit bull type" dogs with the "idea" that the legislation would make the city safer. Two years later, the city is reviewing the results of the ordinance, and the results aren't pretty.
Since the ban went into affect in 2005, the city's total dog bites have gone up 43% -- a total of 47 bites.
"Are we really getting to the real cookie here with respect to what we're trying to resolve?" asked councilman Ryan Frazier.
Initial media reports only highlighted the decline in targeted 'breed" bites, which had declined from 27 to 15.
However, the people who support the ban cannot let facts get in the way of their opinion.
Neighborhood Services director Nancy Sheffield, who presented statistics related to the ban to council, said it stands to reason that bites from breeds other than the "fighting dogs" banned by the city won't be as severe.
The restricted breeds tend to be larger and their bites more ferocious, she said.
Meanwhile, Councilman Bob Broom echoed the we-don't-have-facts-to-support-our-opinion statements:
"Broom said the bites from other dogs likely aren't as severe as a bite from a pit bull.
"When you see incidents where people are actually killed, it's not usually a Chihuahua," Broom said."
The thing is, most reported dog bites aren't by Chihuahuas either. Reported dog bites tend to be the more severe ones because people don't usually call the police and newspapers for small puncture wounds. And given that according to CDC numbers, 42% of all non-fatal attacks happen to children under the age of 14, it is pretty evident that the size of dog is really pretty insignificant (even though it should be noted that the vast majority of 'pit bull' type dogs are really mid-sized dogs that are round 45-50 lbs) and that a large number of different types of dogs could do great danger to a small kid under the wrong circumstances.
But Councilman Larry Beer, who wasn't on council when the ban passed, said it appears to him that the goal of the ban was to reduce the number of dog attacks, regardless of the breed. Based on the numbers, that hasn't happened.
Good for Larry Beer.
I do find it fascinating that in light of specific information pointing to a 43% increase in dog bites, that people would be so anti-pit bull to claim that the ban is still working because the bites probably haven't been as vicious -- in spite of having ZERO evidence that this is a factual statement. Hey guys, don't let real information get in the way of a good opinion.
The council is looking to see if there is data available to support the opinions of those who think the ban is working. I'll see what I can track down too.
I left a comment for Mr Broom.
Just in case they don`t post it,I saved it for posterity over on the Pit Bull Place.
Mr Broom has been reading far too many headlines and not enough facts!
Posted by: MAC`s GANG | February 12, 2008 at 05:46 PM
Wow. Why do people defend fiction and refuse to accept facts? That's the million-dollar question.
Somebody said in a news article once that 'pit bull' (whatever that means) bites are worse. Seems to me that the most severe outcome, death, has been caused by a wide variety of shapes and sizes of dogs - with 'pit bulls' not in the majority, even all the breeds and mutts people think fit that rather meaningless category.
Their ban is a failure, as is every ban put into place globally. Why can't they face up to it?
It's bizarre and it also highlights the fact that if this one issue of public policy is being driven by unsupported personal beliefs, you can bet a lot of others are, too.
Scary stuff.
Posted by: Caveat | February 12, 2008 at 05:50 PM
LOL It's "because" K Nelson is in the back door telling them the way "it is"...and we only need look at the Colleen bite blog which puts 10 pitbull incidents and more per day out there, to see fuel for the fire. One needn't look any further than Nelson/bite blog. It's all there. Every argument ever made up. And a few extras.
As for Aurora and proving whatever they want at trial, they didn't submit any evidence into the Pretrial order, nor did they submit an expert who might testify to any of those things. That leaves them w/the dog fanciers case which everyone probably doesn't know, claimed all pit dogs have 14 (count 'em, 14) different traits that makes them the grenades as opposed to firecrackers according to Nelson. I read that on the bite site.
Posted by: Greg J. | February 12, 2008 at 06:46 PM
With regard to this statement:
Neighborhood Services director Nancy Sheffield, who presented statistics related to the ban to council, said it stands to reason that bites from breeds other than the "fighting dogs" banned by the city won't be as severe.
If Nancy could answer the question;
If your face gets chewed off by a Collie or it gets chewed off by a Cocker Spaniel, or it gets chewed off by a 'fighting dog'? Whatever the heck that is? What exactly is the difference? Your face is still missing man! I see no reason at all in Nancy's statement.
Posted by: Lori G | February 12, 2008 at 07:10 PM
You should contact the bizymoms Aurora community to get your blog featured to their large mom community. I am sure they would love to read your posts.
http://www.bizymoms.com/aurora/index.php
There is a form on their expert page, http://www.bizymoms.com/experts/index.html
Posted by: Shanice | July 29, 2009 at 12:41 AM