KC DOG BLOG

I'm Not Giving You My Money

This is a short letter written by KCDA member Michelle to the leader of a conference she had wanted to attend.  I love that not only did she tell the leader of the conference why she wasn't attending, but also mentioned to the Toronto Board of  Tourism why she wasn't attending. If all of the 50% of the population that own dogs spoke with their dollars in the same way we'd sure have a lot more cities thinking twice before they passed stupid legislation.  Read on:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Organizer of Computer Geek Conference,

I attended your conference two years ago in Montreal and enjoyed it immensely.  I was planning on coming this year, however, you are holding it in Toronto.  Toronto (as well as the whole province of Ontario) has a "pit bull" ban.  They have slaughtered countless innocent dogs and broken up many happy families.  As a owner of a American Staffordshire Terrier and an American Pit Bull Terrier as well as a mutt that could be part "pit bull" depending on who you ask, I will not be coming to your conference.  I would be considered a criminal in Toronto and my dogs would be seized and killed if I took them there.  I will not spend my money in places where me and my dogs would not be welcome to live. 

Here is some information on the latest victim of Toronto Animal Services.  http://socialmange.blogspot.com/ 

I hope you will consider making Montreal the permanent city for your conference.  And I will see you there when you do...

Sincerely,
MichelleD
Kansas City, MO

Response from Computer Geek Conference Organizer:  As a dog owner I understand.  We will do DevTeach in Montreal Dec. 1-5, 2008

Well, will this make Montreal the permanent residence of this conference?  I don't know... I also copied Toronto Tourism on my email.  I do know that I will not be going to this conference and neither will two of my co-workers that decided not to go because I wasn't going.  That is 3x $1200 for the conference plus 4 nights of hotel at about $200 (x3) plus our$75 per diam for food plus my work bonus I was planning on spending shopping like I did in Montreal PLUS the long weekend me and my husband always spend when I go to these conferences.  So Toronto is loosing at least $8300 because of ME!  I'm sure it won't phase them but I get some satisfaction from giving them the financial finger. 

And no, Toronto Tourism didn't respond...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Take a look at the list of BSL cities from the Rott-n-chatter website. The list isn't always 100% accurate, but it's the best I've found on the Internet.  Think twice about spending your $$ in these cities.   Better yet, don't spend your money there, and send them a letter as to why. 

Is Truth Telling no longer an option?

How did it come to this?  How have we gotten to the point where being honest about how ordinances are working no longer seems like an option?  How have we gotten to a point where we'd rather mislead people than provide an honest, introspective look at the TRUE effectiveness of dog ordinances so we can learn from what works and what doesn't and actually IMPROVE public safety?  I'm confused.

On Wednesday, two "pit bulls" attacked 75 year old Hopeton Hewett in Omaha, NE. Of course, some news sources refer to it as "brutally" attacked (although the man is recovering at home with a 'bandage" on his arm).   The attack sounds scary.   I hope Hopeton Hewett has a speedy recovery.  Little has been made of the dogs having gotten loose and been running free and the importance of socializing dogs and keeping them contained (particularly if they aren't well socialized). 

The focus has become, as it usually does, pit bulls.  And according to one TV news station, the debate is renewing about what to do about 'pit bulls".

The troubling thing about the news report is the information they are given.  They start quoting numbers from a ban that was passed in nearby Council Bluffs, IA.   Said Council Bluffs City Council Member Lynne Branigan, "With the incidents that we had been seeing here in Council Bluffs I just felt it was a very, very much a public safety issue". 

Branigan says the ban in Council Bluffs has been largely effective noting that the "number of incidents that have been reported" has gone to almost zero since the ban was put in place.  Branigan encourages Omaha to look at a similar ban.  Would being honest about the results of the ordinance been so hard Ms. Branigan?

I happen to have the Council Bluffs Dog Bite Numbers, let's take a look.  Note, the 'pit bull' ban took affect in 2005.  The number of bites attributed to "pit bulls" is in parenthesis.

Total Dog Bites:

2003 - 85 (15)

2004 - 131 (29)

2005 - 115 (12)

2006 -- 132 (6)

2007 -- 130 (2)

So in response to a huge increase in dog attacks from 2003 to 2004, they passed a ban on "pit bulls" -- at which time, they had a small decrease in attacks in 2005, but then had two years of leveled out number of dog attacks at the HIGHER bite level.

As for the number of 'pit bull' bites, they have gone down considerably.  However, the number of bites by other breeds of dogs have gone up to replace them. So now, instead of 'pit bull' bites, they're seeing increased bites by German Shepherds, Labradors and Boxers.  All larger breeds of dogs than all 'pit bull' breeds.

Let's just be honest about what's going on with dog bites due to ordinances.  Of COURSE if you ban a "breed" of dog the number of bites attributed to that "breed" will go down. What is important is are you improving public safety?  I'm not seeing evidence based on the Council Bluffs data that they have indeed done that...as bite numbers have remained steady to the huge increase in 2004 that led to the ban.  If we're going to run statistics, let's be honest about what we're looking at. If you aren't being honest, you're apparently hiding something.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why a city would pass a ban on a 'breed' of dogs that never made up more than 22% of their dog bites and ignore the other 78%.  I can't think of a rational explanation for that -- when there are plenty of cities that have created successful ordinances that target bites from ALL tpyes of dogs. 

Denver Lawsuit Dismissed By US District Court

The lawsuit run by Sonya Dias and the rest of the Pit Bull Band Group was dismissed last week by the US District Court.  I want to note that this was NOT a court case loss and NOT a court upholding of BSL as a good law...it was a dismissal.  The 23 page report lays out the reasons why it was dismissed - -and I've made a ton of notes and highlights all over my printout of it.  I've even run this by someone with a lot more legal knowledge than I have to get their thoughts as well.  I'm going to get into a few of the details of this over the next day or so as I think the dismissal highlights some areas that need to be worked on as more legal suits are prepared - -and some "traps" that can be fallen into as judges lump different types of legal precedents together.

The case was dismissed primarily for the following reasons:

1) They dissmissed it based on not having a standing on the allegations of violations of proceedural due process (this is the part that I will spend more time on in the coming days as I think some of this is complete BS, and some of it can provide some great learnings for future suits).

2) None of the actually named Plaintiffs has suffered from the harms that were brought up in the case

3) The courts felt like they didn't provide enough evidence that the law was unconstitutionally vague (something else I'll spend some time on).

I'll continue to note, I am not a lawyer.  So if you ever find yourself in need of a lawsuit, find one of those people who actually has a degree and knowledge of how to deal with these issues.   However, as I get time, I'm going to address some of the specifics in the court dismissal for everyone's knowledge.

KCMO to Close Animal Shelter?

Kansas City, Missouri is in a budget crisis.  Decades of population losses, and increased demands on the infastructure have put the city in a financial crunch.  The rainy day fund appears to be virtually dried up, and revenue projections aren't good.

In light of this, the mayor has proposed some cuts to the city budget.

"Funkhouser would slash the zoo and Liberty Memorial subsidies, eliminate 220 jobs, and close the jail and the animal shelter. At the same time, he would add $10 million for street paving, hire 20 new police officers and spend $200,000 on a citywide education summit."

It's interesting that the animal shelter informatoin is only listed in this newspaper article and not in the spreadsheet detailing the mayor's budget cut recommendations.

So I'm not certain what the idea is behind the animal shelter.  Certainly, I would love to have city shelter run by a private group.  The city animal control shelter has euthanized 92% of the dogs that have entered it over the past 2 years.  However, without some proper steps to get this in place, just removing the shelter from the budget would be a huge mess as animal control would have nowhere to go with the 20+ dogs per day they bring into the shelter.

Certainly there would be a lot of ways to improve the shelter's performance that would make it more financially viable for the city.  One option would be to work harder to adopt out the 7,000+ dogs that enter the shelter each year.  If the city collected $100 for each dog adopted out vs paying $100 for euthanizing the same dog, that $200 swing would mean a net gain of $1.4 million if all of the dogs were adopted out instead of killed.   That'd be pretty significant.

Maybe if they got rid of their mandatory spay/neuter law for all 'pit bulls' (which led to a 76% increase in the number of 'pit bulls' killed by the shelter in the two years of its existance) it would also help the shelter budget. 

The animal welfare community could most certainly help in making the shelter viable for the city.  We'd actually WELCOME the opportunity.  Certainly I wouldn't be opposed to private operation of the shelter facility.  But closing it down, with no back-up plan is a recipe for disaster.

UPDATE:  I have it on pretty good authority that the city is indeed looking at privatizing their shelter.  I do not however know if the shelter cuts are part of the final budget cut plan that is being voted on on Thursday. 

Coyote's attacking dogs in suburban KC

In the past 6 months, no fewer than 8 dogs have been attacked by Coyotes in suburban Leawood, KS.   Six of those attacked have died.  This very upscale suburb of KC, has a population of roughly 30,000 with a average Household income of over $100,000.  However, many of the neighborhood associations have rules in place that prevent certain types of fencing.  Because of this, dogs are increasingly at risk.  The story mentions several dogs that were plucked off of chains, pulled out of electric fences, and even coyotes jumping over small fences. 

One owner even noted that he feared that the coyote's would even attack a small child (when have I heard that one before?)  Coyote attacks on people are extremely rare.

All of this further emphasizes why leaving your dog tethered while unsupervised is a bad idea, and why I'm not a fan of electric fences (which keep your dogs in, but not predators out). 

I could also go into a long spiel about suburban sprawl and taking natural envirnoments away from wild animals, but will spare everyone the rant.

Weekly Roundup -- Happy Easter

While I've been off doing the BSL/MSN series, there has been a fair amount of news that I haven't gotten the opportunity to rant about.  Some interesting stuff this week...so without delay, here's the week's top stories:

Toddler's Condition Improves after "Dog" Mauling

The two Bull Mastiff mixes broke free when their owner was trying to put the dogs' leashes on and ran toward the 3 year old boy.  The young boy ran in fear and the dogs overtook him.  Interesting that the dog's breeds don't appear in the headline or until the 3rd paragraph.

"Big Dog" attacks Baldwin toddler

This "mixed breed bulldog" attacked a 1 year old boy in the back yard of the family home.

Hawaii woman hospitalized after attack by pit bulls American Bulldogs

The woman was reportedly playing with her boyfriend's five American Bulldogs when they became agitated and attacked her.  The dogs were able to be controlled when a neighbor sprayed the dogs with his water hose.  Of course in this story, the dogs were orginally reported as "pit bulls".  The retraction was of course quite small and posted after the fact.

10 year old girl "attacked" by 'pit bull'

This Dallas girl was "attacked" when she was walking in her neighborhood and the dog "lunged" at her.   If you watch the video, it is a bit unclear to me if the girl was actually bitten or scratched by the dog - -as I can't even see the injury when the girl is interviewed. The girl's mom came out and struck the dog with a baseball bat.  This appears to be more of a case of an offleash dog with bad manners than an "aggressive attack".

Woman reports dog bite by Black Labrador

I can't believe this story made the news, so I had to post it.

Family "dog" attacks 3 year old in Henrico, VA

Apparently the boy tried to take a bone away from the family's Lab/Border Collie mix - -the boy's injuries are described as serious but not life threatening.   This is exactly how these types of injuries happen...not with dogs just "snapping" -- but with a dog that is not tought not to have possession aggression and a 3 year old that wasn't tought to respect the dog's bones.

87 year old man attacked by dog in Lubbock

Yet another person in Lubbock was bitten by a large, off-leash dog.  I'm not sure what's going on down there, but it appears that they are having a huge problem with off-leash dogs.  They also had yet another miniature horse killed down there by a stray Lab mix this week.  This is about the 4th or 5th miniature horse that's been killed down there in the past 2 months. 

Pit Bull Attacks Port St. John Baby

A one year old child was bitten on the cheek by friend's 'pit bull'.  It's the second time the dog has bitten a child.  No details are really given about what sparked the bite but I guess when you have 'pit bull' in the headline, that tells the whole story, right?

Woman loses finger in 'pit bull' attack

Two 'pit bulls' came 'out of nowhere' to attack a woman as she was walking her Shih Tzu.  The dog later died, and the woman sustained bites on her hands, including a lost finger, trying to protect her dog.  Folks, keep your dogs behind a fence, or keep an eye on them, or whatever you need to do, but letting them roam free in the neighborhood isn't cool.

Puppy dies after attack by "big dog" at Omaha Dog Park

The 4 pound Pomeranian puppy was attacked at a dog park by a German Shepherd/Golden Retriever mix.  Once again I'll note, that large dogs need to be trained to know how to deal with very small dogs.  However, I'll also note, that I'm not the biggest fan of Toy breeds hanging out at dog parks with 100+ pound dogs.  It is interesting how the public reaction  to (and coverage of) this attack is much different than when two 'pit bulls' killed a Pomeranian at a dog park in Long Beach earlier this year.  Where are the calls to ban German Shepherds and Golden Retrievers?  Where are the call that these types of dogs should be exterminated?  Just asking...

Mauling by 'pit bull' raises fears in Lyman, SC

Apparently, a Cocker Spaniel wandered into the yard where the 'pit bull' was tethered and the 'pit bull' killed the Cocker Spaniel.  The 'pit bull's owner wasn't charged because the dog was on its property and 'properly' contained.   The Cocker Spaniel was the one in violation of the leash law.  A couple of points here:  1) If you don't want your dog attacked, don't let it wander around on its own, 2) Train your dog not to attack other dogs, 3) I still don't think tethering your dog and leaving it there unsupervised is a proper way of containing the dog 4) having fear of 'pit bulls' because of this issue is absolutely absurd.

Geneva, AL Looking at "pit bull" ordinance

In the statistics R US categorie, Mayor Karen Simmons says that "national statistics indicate 80 percent of the dog bites in America come from bull breeds".  And 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot...including both of these.  Can someone please provide some real statistical information for this city council?

Trial starts in Zachary King Manslaughter Case

Zachary King was killed by his dogs when he went down to the  basement.  The dog was tethered to a poll in the basement of the house, had a history of aggression (including biting young Zachary before) and possibly deprived of food, exercise, water and outdoor relief.  The boy's father, Zachary King Sr is on trial for manslaughter.

Plymouth, MI revises Dangerous Dog Ordinance

This follows the story where a neighborhood overreacted and tried to get a new 'pit bull' ban passed following new neighbors moving into the neighborhood with their unneutered 'pit bull'.  The new Plymouth ordinance focuses on dogs that exhibit aggressive behavior and is considered "more enforceable than breed restrictions by City Attorney Bob Marzano.

Animal lovers fight possible ban on pit bulls in Whitehall, Ohio

Around 100 people came out to speak out against the proposed ban on 'pit bull' in this suburb of Columbus, OH.  It's always amazing to me that of all the city council meetings I've attended, I've not once seen the number of people who want a ban even come close to outnumbering those who don't want one...and yet city council folks continue to pass these ordinances.

Antrim, UK reiterates its pledge to destroy all 'pit bull terrier type dogs

The council has destroyed 47 of these types of dogs in the past two years and is vowing destroy all of them.  This of course comes 17 years after the country passed a ban on 'pit bulls' which would mean that all of these dogs would be dead already if the ordinance were actually enforceable and worked....

Meanwhile in the UK

The debate continues on whether Rottweilers are "devil dogs" or "man's best friend".  Rottweilers were not one of the four breeds banned in 1991 by the UK Dangerous Dogs Act but now there are some considering adding Rottweilers to the list...again, because breed bans just change the symptom instead of dealing with the root cause of the problem, which is bad ownership. 

Meanwhile, another man just got his dog back after dealing with 2 months of court proceedings and proving his dog was not a 'pit bull' -- apparently the breed ID issues continue to tie up resources because they're focsing on what the dog looks like instead of what the dog acts like.

Wellington, KS looks at two different dog ordinances

Of course the headline reads "pit bull ordinance".  The city is looking at two different canine laws, one is a two hour time restraint on unsupervised tethering of pets.  The other would consider disallowing "pit bulls' and their mixes.  More to come on this one I'm sure.

Editorial on Florida HB 101

Here's an editorial from the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel about the bill that would remove the state-wide restriction that prevents Florida Cities and Counties from enacting BSL.  "That's the key, giving local communities control they should have....Attempts to rein in certain breeds are always met with cries of "It's the owner, not the breed that causes the problem".  Whether it's a valid argument or not should be for local communities to decide, not the state."

In theory, I tend to agree that this SHOULD be a lcoal issue, this is one case where I agree with the state's efforts to control this situation.  Too many cities are making uneducated decisions (see the mayor of Geneva, AL's statements above) that are overly restrictive on a small number of their constituents.  At some point, the state has a responsibility to step in and protect these citizens from their cities.  BSL has proven itself, in EVERY SITUATION, to be ineffective legislation.  Taking this away will actually force cities to come up with alternative solutions to their canine aggression issues that would actually work.  If cities prove themselves unable to make smart decisions on these cases, I feel the state has the right to step in...as Florida and 14 other states have wisely done.

Ending on a good note

Reading Program with Rufus - -a short video well worth the watch.

So what's the agenda? (Epilogue to BSL/MSN)

So earlier this week, I got emailed a "FactSheet" that the Humane Society of the United States is handing out regarding mandating spay and neuter for all "pit bulls'.   This is a 'factsheet' from the largest and richest animal welfare organization in the country -- and it has barely a fact on it.  Here are some "highlights (I'll put my comments in Blue):

Here are the headers or their categories:

Pit Bull Overpopulation is a crisis for the breed and the community

Protecting Pit Bulls means Protetcting Communities; Spaying and Neutering Pit Bulls is the answer

Cities need to enact Pit Bull Spay Neuter Ordinances

Will this Ordinance Lead to a Pit Bull Ban?

How will it work?  Case Study.

The case study goes on to promote the "results" from the San Francisco Ordinance -- straight off their press release.  Percentage of dogs classified as 'pit bulls' dropped from 60% to 25%.  Percentage of bites involving 'pit bulls' dropped from 32% to just 11% in the 18 months before and after the ordinance (I still for the life of me cannot figure out where they calculated this number from.  I have the numbers, and can't even come close to recreating it.)  Number of 'pit bull' euthanized dropped by 24%. 

This is the research of the largest Animal Protection group in the US?  They can't do better than this?  Did they just ignore the work of T.E. Houston, or the numbers themselves?

Maybe my biggest beef with the entire "factsheet" is from the "Will this ordinance lead to a pit bull ban?" section.  Here's the verbage:

Many people oppose breed bans as ineffective because they punish responsible owners, fail to address the root problem of irresponsible ownership and can cause the deatsh of well-behaved dogs. Unilke a breed ban, a pit bull spay/neuter law sawves dogs by prventing wanton, irresponsible breeding by ill-intentioned owners.  Ultimately, a pit bull spay/neuter law can actually prevent pit bull bans by curtailing the number of abused pit bulls and therefore the number of pit bull/human conflicts. 

In some ways I can respect their desire to use this as a replacement for breed bans - -it is less restrictive than banning.  However, they have been widely circulating this flyer in New Jersey (where breed bans are prohibited so there is no need to protect people from breed bans).  They have also been derailing Missouri SB 886 (which would prohibit breed bans and actually wipe out all breed bans in the state) by trying to allow for mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls in the ordinance.

HSUS, you're not helping!  If the goal is to make it so that BSL/MSN will be a replacement for breed bans -- don't use it as a replacement for laws that already DON"T ALLOW BREED BANS.  And instead of reading the numbers off a press release, how about using the immense resources you have to actually do real research and analysis of the numbers (which will lead you to a quite different conclusion.). 

It's a shame that HSUS would rather derail true animal welfare policy with their agenda than to actually make fact-based claims and studies and focus on policies that actually work.   They continue to ignore case studies like Caglary and the No Kill philosophy for their own agenda.  It's a darn shame.

BSL/MSN - Discussion (Part 4 of 4)

So five days this week, four posts on BSL/MSN - which is basically the mandated spay/neuter of a certain breed of dog.   On Monday we looked at the idea of BSL/MSN, and I layed out my criteria for evaluation of different laws.  I still think animal control laws and policies should serve one of three goals:

1) Protect people from animals

2) Protect animals from people (including shelter euthanasia)

3) Respect taxpayer dollars that go toward animal control

So over the past 4 days we've looked at a couple of case studies of this law -- looking at the shelter euthanasia numbers and kill numbers for the first two cities to pass mandatory spay/neuter of 'pit bull' laws.  On Tuesday, we looked at San Francisco.  Wednesday, Kanasas City.  On Friday, a different look at San Francisco.

I'll note that both of the cities that instituted the ordinance did so following fatal dog attacks in their area -- which would lead us to believe that the primary reason for the ordinances were for public safety.  Although in each case, slowing down shelter killing has also been used as a reason for the ordinances.  So how are they doing?

In San Francisco, bite totals remained flat from 2005 to 2006, in spite of the ordinance.  However, in the 19 months preceding the ordinance compared to the 19 months following the ordinance bites went up 13%.  Although 'pit bull' bites went down, the total number of serious bites and bites by "mastiff" type dogs (basically most large dogs are grouped in this grouping in San Fran) remained flat.  In Kansas City, the total number of dog bites dropped 6% -- although the bites attributed to 'pit bulls' increased.  Given this, I would speculate that KC's drop in dog bites is actually more due to them also increasing the budget for more animal control officers (KCMO only responded to 20% of their AC calls in 2005) than the actual ordinance itself given that the one grouping of dogs affected by the ordinance actually had more bites attributed to them.

Based on these numbers, there is very little evidence that in the early stages of the BSL/MSN that the ordinance is improving public safety.

Meanwhile, animal euthanasia numbers are also interesting. 

San Francisco saw a 3% drop in total euthanasia, with euths to both 'pit bulls' and non-'pit bulls' decreasing slightly, however the precentage of 'pit bulls' that entered the shelter that were euthanized increased by 2 percentage points.

In Kansas City, euthanasia rates went up 7% (450 total kills) between 2005 and 2007 after a big spike in 2006 following the passing of the ordinance.  What is more disturbing is that the euth rate for "pit bulls" went up 76% following the ordinance....which is actually one of the specific problems the ordinance was supposed to cure.  This leads me to believe that KCMO may be using the ordinance to confiscate pit bulls -- and that this isn't the only story where the dog was unjustly taken from its owner and killed.   Taking dogs from otherwise good homes to kill them, only because they are not neutered, is NOT helping. 

So the bottom line -- I'm seeing very little evidence that in the early stages of these ordinances that anything is improving in terms of public safety OR decreasing euthanasia.  In fact, in each case, one of the two problems has actually become significantly worse since the adoption of the ordinance.  This, tacked on to some legal issues that each city has faced due to breed ID (which ties up taxpayer dollars), it really appears as if the ordinances are NOT working.  I know T.E. Houston agrees.

Meanwhile, there was something else really interesting that I picked up from doing this little exercise.  In the TE Houston study, it was noted that 87% of all reported dog bites were considered minor.  In Kansas City, the number ranged from about 88-92%.    Of this small percentage of bites that was considered "major" (a very subjective measurement -- in fact, so subjective that the same word isn't used for it in all cases -- some cases are "severe" and others "serious" -- I've included them all in these reports) here is a list of the breed listings for the dogs involved in "serious" attacks in KCMO:  Akita, Austrailian Shepherd, Border Collie, Chow Chow, Dalmation, German Shepherd, Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Chinese Shar Pei, Dogue Bordeaux, Pit Bull, Rottweiler, Oldeng Sheepdog, Bull Terrier, unknown, Cocker Spaniel, English Springer, Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, Great Dane and Siberian Husky. 

That's 21 different breeds that have accounted for the 104 major/serious attacks in Kansas City over the past 3 years.  How was limiting one "breed" going to help? 

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.

Next up, Kansas City (Part 3)

Editor's note: Since this originally published I've update an error in my numbers on KC's euthanasia stats.  The originally euthanasia numbers I had were actually combiled for all animals, not just dogs, and I didn't catch it when combing through several thousand rows of data.  I've updated the info here, and all conclusions still remain the same.

So in July of 2006,  a Kansas City, KS (not Missouri) woman, Jimmy Mae McConnel, was attacked and killed by two dogs.  Following the attack, many city councils in the area started looking into dangerous dog ordinances. 

As a part of this, Kansas City, MO decided to follow the San Francisco ordinance to mandate that all 'pit bulls' be spayed or neutered.  So in August of 2006, KCMO passed an ordinance nearly identical to San Francisco's ordinance.  Giving people a couple of months to comply with the law, the ordinance officially took affect December 1, 2006. 

The head of animal control in KCMO has been very generous with the information she has provided me.  So to the best of my ability, I'm going to try to narrow this down to the essential information.

Public Safety

2005 Bite Numbers

Total Bites:  331 (40 Severe)

"Pit Bull" Bites: 76  (7 Severe)

Rottweiler Bites: 28 (2 Severe)

Labrador bites: 25 (5 Severe)

German Shepherd bites: 47 (10 severe)

Chow Chow bites: 33 (4 severe)

2006 Bites (37 Severe)

Total Bites: 305

Pit bull bites: 67 (12 Severe)

Rottweiler bites: 15 (5 severe)

Labrador Bites: 35 (3 Severe)

German Shepherd: 51 (9 Severe)

Chow Chow: 15 (0 Severe)

Cocker Spaniel: 3 (0 Severe)

2007 Bite Numbers

Total Bites: 312 (27 Severe)

Pit bull: 79 (11 Severe)

Rottweiler: 14 (2 Severe)

Labrador: 29 (1 Severe)

German Shepherds: 46  (1 severe)

Chow Chow: 11 (1 severe)

Cocker Spaniel: 5 (1 severe)

Some quick thoughts on this.

From 2005 to 2007 total dog bites dropped 6%

Severe Bites dropped 33%

"Pit Bull" bites actually increased 4%, and severe bites by "pit bulls" increased by 57%.

Of these biting breeds -- none appears by percentage to be more involved in severe bite cases per bite  than any other breed.  On the low end, 8% of Chow Chow bites were considered Severe, on the high end, 16% of Rottweiler bites were severe.  German Shepherds (14%), "pit bulls" (13%), Cocker Spaniels (13%), Labs (10%) make up the middle.

Euthanasia

2005 Total Euthanasia: 6,325 (4,026 Dogs)

2005 Pit Bulls Killed: 981 (24%)

2006 Total Euthanasia: 6,959 (4,531 dogs)

2006 Pit Bulls Killed: 1,353 (30%)

2007 Total Euthanasia: 6,769 (4,601 dogs)

2007 Pit Bulls Killed: 1,722 (39%)

At first glace when I looked at this, I saw the 2006 euth numbers and the 2007 numbers and thought, well, this looks like it's working.  However, upon further inspection, I looked at the euths by month.

Now this is really hard to tell from the chart, but I noticed that from September 2006 (right after the BSL/MSN was passed even though the law took affect Dec. 1 2006) through the end of the year, there were over 400 more euthanasias than there were in the same timeframe in 2005.

So if you look at 2005 numbers, there was a 7% increase in total euthanasia at the KCMO shelter in 2007.  There was a 76% increase in 'pit bulls' killed in the shelter from 2005 to 2007. 

And this follows a huge increase in 2006 directly following the enactment of the law.  Sadly, this comes at a time when the shelter has actually seen a 60% increase in adoptions between 2005 and 2007.  Interestingly, there has been a 5.5% decrease in euths among all non-pit bull type dogs -- I suspect that the increased adoptions has a lot to do with that (KCMO refuses to adopt out 'pit bull' type dogs).

The 76% increase in 'pit bull' euthanasia has to be seen as completely disturbing given that this was the problem they were trying to solve.

Tomorrow.  More analysis comparing KCMO and San Francisco and whether or not we feel like the law is "working".