My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Some Clarification on Florida HB 101 | Main | Next up, Kansas City (Part 3) »

March 18, 2008



In the first set of bite numbers, Mastiff types and 'pit bull' types are listed separately, yet it says that 'pit bull' types are considered Mastiffs.

Am I reading this incorrectly?


Oops, yes I was - although 'pit bull' is included in Mastiff type (but not a lot of other well known Mastiffs..) they've separated them into a sub-category.

Need more coffee.


Yeah - -they group them in as "mastiff-type" dogs. I wanted to show both sets of numbers because while the bite numbers for 'pit bulls' have gone down slightly, the bite numbers for the bigger group of large dogs has not...which would be counter (in theory anyway) to Friedman's claim that the while the bites are going up, they are less severe. And this is just this one group of dogs -- while bites of other groups have gone up also and we all know that many types of dogs have the ability to create severe problems under the wrong circumstances.


Since when are pit bulls considered Mastiff types? Oh yeah, since OH decided 16 different breeds were considered pit bulls...

I've said it before I'll say it a million more times before I die...You're not going to get any other correlation than bites by breed if you're ONLY tracking bites by breed. This is like tracking traffic offenders by car color or murderers by shoe size. I'm SURE I could correlate that murderers have bigger feet than non-murders so large shoe size must increase your propensity to murder! Shame on all of you that thought big feet had something to do with one's manhood.

Is SF tracking ANY other data? How about how many pit bulls they got S/N v. the voluntary programs out there?


Oh yeah, how about asking bozo how he knows the bite severity were lower? Did he get that from Meritless Clifton?

Emily S

MichelleD--- you must be right! He probably looked up newspaper articles where victims describe their bites! And of course accurately describe the breed that bit them.

Of the many many things that tee's me off about SF, is the lie that some people keep perpetuating that SF is a "no kill city".

(p.s. it's big HANDS, not big feet, that have something do do with manhood...)



I don't think anyone is saying that San Francisco is currently a no-kill city. Nathan Winograd claims that it was back in the early-mid 90s, but then they did away with some of the policies (which led to him leaving). At that point, SF was no longer "No Kill" -- and hasn't really laid claim to that in over a decade.

Emily S

Winograd is brilliant and I completely support his vision. But he's careless with words. When I read him, I don't see any "that's the way they used to do it" qualification. Just as one example, In this recent newsletter, he writes about SF as if it's still "no kill"
especially pp 2-3.

I didn't mean that SF officials are making the claim to be "no kill".. that would be a lie beyond belief (especially given the glee with which they seem to kill pit bulls/mastiffs or whatever the heck they call them... how very Denver/Ohio of them)

I only meant that Winograd still boasts that SF is an example of how "no kill" can be achieved in a large city. I'm afraid that it may be more of a counter example, because "no kill" there didn't last very long.


I recalled that San Fran was bragging about the 'success' of its program a mere six months after implementation.

I did a little writeup at the time in case you're interested:

S. Kennedy

You must believe this--any "stats" given by C. Friedman will not be the truth. No one in the USA can likely produce stats which hold up in court; BUT even if the stats were authentic, they show what? They have poisoned a dog type permanently, creating false safety for children. Anyone who knows anything at all about SF knows it is run by PETA/friends which used to say 70-80% of dogs killed in their shelters were pitbull. Now they are saying its about 60%. Big deal. All it takes is one check on the breed box to change those numbers. I am not buying into it and never will.

S. Kennedy

PS In any city where they bring out their "data", it will ALWAYS show that either the bite #'s are up/less severe, or they are down (even if severity not changed) BUT they will usually not show--that bites are up, severity same/or worse,and that their "ordinance" didn't work.
Before they announce anything to the public, they make sure it's tailored to fit what they want people to see.In fact, the law being passed may have nothing at all to do with the numbers they are claiming. In several years after the heat dies down, inevitably they will be right back where they started. Which is why this type of ridiculous law is just that. It solves nothing.


S - Soooo agree...the AC's in any city can mark ANY dog as ANTHING they want. There is NO oversight that they are IDing breeds correctly plus we all know its impossible to do anyway.

I've seen people say their dog is a pit bull when its not...breed id/tracking is useless for many reasons.


ALL of the points brought up here (esp properly ID’ing a dog’s breed!) are so important that I cannot understand how and WHY The General Public (including our lawmakers and media) of the US, CA, UK, etc etc, cannot think clearly and rationally on all of this! How and WHY are otherwise intelligent people totally missing all of these points??

AND EVEN IF properly ID’ed pit bulls were, in fact, responsible for the most non -, minor, major, serious bites AND/OR fatalities, WHY is it so difficult to get people to grasp the REAL problems here??

In our cities today, what breed of dog is most often mis-ID’ed? What breed is the most intentionally over bred? What breed is most often chained, otherwise tethered, abused, neglected, trained to fight, trained to attack, and kept or owned as a status symbol and/or object, as opposed to a family pet/companion? What breed of dog is most often exploited by dog fighters, drug dealers, and other people who do not obey the law?

Could we POSSIBLY be dealing with human social issues here??

I would like to comment that until recently, any kind of dog bite stats were never studied, read, considered or published for the general public, as they are today. Not to my knowledge, anyway.

So, it is important to note that, in the past, we have understood and accepted certain risks (OH MY GOD, I SAID THAT WORD!!) involving living with dogs.

To my knowledge, it has only been recently that the public has become so obsessed w/ dog bites/attacks/stats, etc.

S. Kennedy

If we push social issues such as bad things that people do to dogs, it makes it appear that what ARs say has validity. The fact that an element of society may choose specific types of dogs is actually used against defending the dogs. Peta/HS consistently push issues of fighting/abuse, yet the majority of dogs are not fought nor abused. Yet by their consistent mantra claiming that they are, it sets up the public to believe the issues are 1000x the size or higher, than they are in reality. Even the stats which shelters have don't prove the allegations. How many dog fighting rings do you know that were busted? Most don't even know of one. so when one is publicized, the AR team uses it to raise money. It's no secret. It pays for them to push the issue, even if it isn't anywhere near the size they claim. A popular dog breed is popular/numerous. "Guessing" about dog fighting is just that--guessing. HS even hired that prior dog fight related guy to work for them. Like he's going to tell the truth? Please.


Well phooey on HS/PETA, anyway -- too much there to comment on.

I know you/we are stuck w/ stats. But as of up til now, they are meaningless. They are subjective: the bite, the breed, even making a report itself.

How many bites are not reported? How many?? I've been bitten and not reported it. I bet most of you have been bitten and not reported it.

What bites are not reported? Who knows? What bites are always reported? Pit bulls. We get a media report if one so much as looks somebody wrong and they are reported if they chase somebody.

You're stuck trying to analyze stats that are not accurately, scientifically, or mathematically collected.


An in depth study of the dog bite reports in San Francisco before and after SB861, performed by T.E.Houston, PhD. can be viewed here:



Terry emailed me a copy of those studies this week. I hadn't seen them prior to her passing them along. More to come on those!


S. Kennedy

A study that has been done using statistical methods will always carry more weight than one where a person collects "news stories." The weight of the evidence would clearly be higher; however that alone would not necessarily carry the case against unconstitutional claims. CO judges have ruled that bite studies, even AVMA produced, were not relevant to the issues. So there are other ways to take out what we may consider to be valid studies.
Breed ID is very subjective/near impossible particularly for the generic term pitbull when it comes to criminal charges. If every owner was criminally charged/set a trial, govt having to prove the dog was a generic pitbull, I don't think the courts would happily keep entertaining the cases. ARs know it, and MSN and proponents are rubbing their grubby hands together in glee as they embark on their next step.


I wish there was an easy way to get the raw numbers from each city/shelter. Not surprisingly, the pro-MSN4PB folks only believe the shelter figures quoted by the newspapers. The figures as analyzed here are meaningless because this blog has a clear anti-BSL and anti-MSN agenda. Apparently the pro-MSN4PB folks assume that the shelter doesn't have an agenda to make themselves appear effective.



I would certainly question any numbers that come from anywhere. Unfortunately, everyone has an agenda it seems.

FWIW, I'm against MSN4PB because I've seen it in action here in Kansas City and it is a disaster here. San Francisco has seemingly had success with it in lowering their shelter counts -- but has done so at the price of having dog bites go up substantially.

The numbers here are what were sent to me from the shelter. I didn't fudge them at all -- and I don't fudge numbers. The only 'fudging' I did here was to amortize out the results over a similar time frame (although I provided the raw data also). They are what they are -- and you're free to interpret them any way you want.

The comments to this entry are closed.