BSL/MSN San Francisco (part 3.5 of 4)

I should know better than to put a finite number for a series.  Someone always has something even better to share that justifies its own post.  This one is well worth a 3.5 and breaking into the series.

So on Wednesday, after my post about San Francisco, I got an email from Terry Houston, PhD. Terry Houston has written two separate reports on the San Francisco BSL/MSN that are quite interesting.  I've gotten them posted on the KCDA Website for everyone to be able to view.  They're well worth the fairly lengthy read. 

The first article was written, specifically covering dog bites during 2003 and 2004.  In the report, Houston analizes dog bites by breed, gender and reproductive status of the dog, age of the dog, severity of the bite, gender and age of the victim, and zip code.   The report was given to the San Francisco Animal Control group prior to them passing the law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls'.   There are a couple of paragraphs that I think are particularly important, so I will pull them out here.

Of the 75 breeds of dog identified in the 435 bite reports, 73% (289) were labeled as mixed. The city of San Francisco may have a larger percentage of mixed bred dogs than the reported estimate of nearly 40% of the dog population in veterinary caseload studies (4, 8). A national survey put the percentage of mixed bred dogs at 51% (9, 10). The identification of such a large number of mixes in the population raises the question of accuracy when identifying dog breeds. Certain mixes may yield dogs that look like “pitbulls” but are in fact not. A dog that is part Australian Cattle dog and part Labrador could easily be labeled a “pitbull” mix. A German Shepherd dog and a Greyhound mix may be labeled the same, particularly if the dog is a “brindle”, a color associated with “pitbulls” but is not uncommon in other breeds. The dog may be called a “pitbull”- German Shepherd mix based on coat color alone. Breed identification is very subjectiveunless the parents of the dogs are known or the dogs are registered with a national registry. Several generations of breeding mixed breed dogs with other mixed makes identification of the specific dominant breed problematic.

One other note is that 87% of all of the dog bites covered were considered minor.  This will be fairly important in tomorrow's discussion.  Houston also discusses at length the issues that arose with the accuracy of the data that was being analyzed and how better, more consistant reporting is necessary for AC's to know what is going on in their departments.

In conclusion, Houston notes:

The data from the City of San Francisco indicates that mandatory spay/neuter of any specific breed based on reported bites to the city is not an effective method of minimizing dog bites...The risk from an intact dog for the moderate/severee bites shows that reporductive status is not a risk factor.  The high portion of males as victims in reported bites also would indicate that bites are very much a human factor....To minimize dog bites the issue has to be addressed to all dog owners, not just particular breeds.  Training and socialization of the dog are important factors to help minimize the risk of a dog bite.

Two years later, Houston did a follow-up report seeing how San Francisco's new BSL/MSN law was working.  According to the numbers Houston used in the report, here are the reported dog bites for each year.  The percent of bites that are listed as "unknown" (so no breed, gender or spay/neuter status is known)  is listed in parenthesis.  Also note that the new BSL/MSN law took affect in February 2006.

2003 -- 386 (35%)

2004 -- 312 (41%)

2005 -- 366 (36%)

2006 -- 364 (42%)

Houston's conclusions on the study:

Dog bites are more of a result of human interactions with the dog and the lack of understanding of basic animal behavior.  Dogs chase things, they have natural prey drive, so are going to run after other dogs, cats and other small animals.  When a person runs, walks, skates, bicycles past them, they are likely to give chase.  Spaying or neutering is not going to reduce bites without addressing some of the basic problems.

Education on responsible dog ownership and emphasis on basic training, socialization and inclusion of the dog in the household will do more to reduce bites.  There is a serious need to start addressing and targeting human behaviors instead of focusing just on the actions of the dogs.

The two articles are great and well worth the read.  Houston also details out the issues in the accuracy of the documented data with SF AC.  Take the time and check them out -- they're both available here.

Tomorrow.  Some of my thoughts on these case studies.

Comments

[S. Kennedy]

Unfortunately, the ARs DO address the human behaviors, and use those situations against the dog breeds. Irresponsible or abusive people are always named on shows like animal planet--then this gives most people the reasoning for hating human behavior as such, and subsequently gives AR law the push to use such behavior as a BASIS for targeting the animals like certain dog breeds. Think about it--isn't that what Peta/HS/the rest always push? Bad people? Why? Because constitutional law AR attys know if they can target rationally, the human behavior, then they can rationally keep bad laws against dogs. I don't think people realize this. Much BSL law is focused on this, and apparently it works? Several exceptions- like Denver, where the rationale is that the dogs are "different" and allegedly more dangerous. Only the Tellings case avoided this, and we can see how the "Supreme" ct. of Ohio handled that. Sad but true. BSL law will not likely change by focusing only on human behavior.

The ID process of dogs is a very strong argument for mixed breeds/alleged purebreds in any criminal charge. This is largely ignored and yet is the strongest fact that can be used to defend criminal charges since the state has the burden of proof.
An example of the human behavior element can be seen in the current case of WA D.C. gun control case at Supreme Ct. DC says handguns need to be "eliminated" or banned bec too many 'bad people' use them for crime. DUH?? Now the Supremes have to weigh that against the constitutional provision regarding right to bear arms and what it really means. In BSL the difference is that dog regulation is considered much lower than gun regulation, despite dogs being property. But if the gun law case finds for gun owners, a corollary could be used for the dog cases. I am hopeful.

[Border Wars - Christopher]

Keep it up, this is a great series.