After California's state law prohibiting Breed Specific Legislation from being enacted was changed, to allow for cities to create breed specific mandatory spay/neuter policies, San Francisco became the first city in the country to enact a breed-specific spay/neuter program, mandating that all "pit bulls" be spayed or neutered.
The ordinance went into affect February 1, 2006. So with 2 years under its belt, I thought I'd call the San Francisco Animal Control to see how the law was doing.
The San Francisco ordinance has gotten a lot of publicity. Last August, a story came out in the San Francisco Chronicle talking about how the sterilization law was a success -- noting that the city had impounded 21% fewer "pit bulls" and the number of 'pit bulls' euthanized had dropped 24%. It is also noted in this article that the law went into affect after 12 year old Nick Fabish was attacked and killed when he apparently tried to break up the two "family pit bulls" while they were mating in the house and he was home alone.
Also using only percentages, the city's animal control office also announced that total bites by "pit bulls" had gone down from being 32% of all bites to making up only 11% of all bites in the first half of the year...although noting that total dog bites had more than doubled in the first 6 months of last year but Carl Friedman advised that the other bites didn't pack the "punch" of pit bull bites and that most of the bites were believed to be minor.
So with all that in mind, I called and asked for the exact numbers myself to find out what is really going on in San Francisco with their law.
What I received back was exactly what I requested. No more. No less. So if you have more questions than this feel free to ask, but I may or may not be able to break down the data further. I also won't try to explain the percentages in the articles quoted above...for the life of me I have no idea where they came from based on the numbers I've gotten.
The numbers I've been given are from 7/01/04-1/31/06 -- the 19 months leading up to the February 1, 2006 start date for the ordinance. I also have the numbers from 2/1/06-8/15/07 -- so the 18 1/2 months following the passing of the ordinance. When it seems appropriate (when the numbers are big enough), I'm going to use the 1/2 month average for bites/euthanasias to project those last 15 days so we're comparing equal timelines. In these cases, I'll give my real number, but put the projected number in parenthesis).
Public Safety
Since my number one goal stated yesterday was protecting people from dogs, and because the ordinance was passed following a major 'pit bull' attack, I'll start with the dog bite numbers.
Bite numbers for the 19 months prior to the BSL/MSN:
Total: 596
Masiff-Type dogs: 151
(Mastiff Types, by SFAC's definition includes 'pit bulls', St. Bernards, Boxers, Bulldogs, Shar Pei, Rottweilers and Great Danes -- and all their mixes)
Pit bull types and their mixes: 120 (all included) in the 152 above
210 of the bites were listed as "unknown.
So "pit bulls" made up 20% of the total bites pre BSL/MSN. Mastiff types made up 25%.
In the 18 1/2 months following BSL/MSN (19 month projections in parenths):
Total bites: 657 (676)
Mastiff Type Bites: 151 (155)
"Pit Bulls and Mixes": 102 (105)
So in comparison:
"Pit Bulls" made up 16% of the total bites, Mastiff types made up 23%.
"Unknown bites" went up to 275.
So, after the ordinance:
Total bites went up 13.4%
"Mastiff-type" dog bites went up by a total of 4 bites.
"Pit bull" bites (a subset of the Mastiffs) went down by 15 bites.
Impounds and Euthanasia
The second reason people give for passing this type of ordinance is because they are trying to control their shelter killing -- of which 'pit bulls' make up a large percentage of. So the following are the impound and euthanasia numbers for the two time periods discussed:
19 Months pre-MSN
Impounds for all Dogs: 3,804
Impounds for 'pit bulls: 1,246
Total Dogs Killed (Euthanasia): 1,156
"Pit bulls" killed: 702
So 'pit bulls" made up 33% of all impounds and61% of all dogs killed in the 19 months prior to the ordinance. Euthanasia rate is 30% for all dogs, 56% for "pit bulls".
19 month post BSL/MSN
Impounds for all dogs: 3,720 (3,826)
Impounds for "pit bulls: 989 (1,017)
Total dogs killed: 995 (1,023)
Pit bulls killed: 576 (592)
So 'pit bulls" made up 27% of all impounds and 58% of all dogs killed post ordinance. Euth rate is 26% for all dogs, and 58% for "pit bulls".
In total, total dogs killed dropped 3%.
Total 'pit bull' type dogs killed dropped 16%
Total non-pit bull dogs killed decreased 1%.
Tomorrow. We'll look at Kansas City.
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?
Posted by: Caveat | March 18, 2008 at 08:56 AM
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.
Posted by: Caveat | March 18, 2008 at 08:59 AM
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.
Posted by: Brent | March 18, 2008 at 09:02 AM
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?
Posted by: MichelleD | March 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Oh yeah, how about asking bozo how he knows the bite severity were lower? Did he get that from Meritless Clifton?
Posted by: MichelleD | March 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM
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...)
Posted by: Emily S | March 18, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Emily,
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.
Posted by: Brent | March 18, 2008 at 02:00 PM
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"
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/enews_005.pdf
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.
Posted by: Emily S | March 18, 2008 at 02:51 PM
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:
http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/4/14/2879719.html
Posted by: Caveat | March 18, 2008 at 06:30 PM
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.
Posted by: S. Kennedy | March 19, 2008 at 12:02 AM
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.
Posted by: S. Kennedy | March 19, 2008 at 01:25 AM
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.
Posted by: MichelleD | March 19, 2008 at 11:44 AM
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.
Posted by: Becky | March 19, 2008 at 10:42 PM
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.
Posted by: S. Kennedy | March 20, 2008 at 01:13 AM
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.
Posted by: Becky | March 20, 2008 at 09:07 AM
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:
http://www.forpitssake.org/dogbitestatistics.html
Posted by: Liz | March 20, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Liz,
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!
Brent
Posted by: Brent | March 20, 2008 at 06:21 PM
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.
Posted by: S. Kennedy | March 23, 2008 at 02:09 PM
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.
Posted by: IndyElmer | December 30, 2008 at 09:23 AM
Elmer,
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.
Posted by: Brent | December 30, 2008 at 10:21 AM