Cincinnati BSL and setting priorities

In November of 2003, Cincinnati reinstated its ban on 'pit bull' type dogs.  According to an article in today's Cincinnati Enquirer, it's become quite a mess.

In spite of the ban, Hamilton County (Cincinnati is the largest city in Hamilton County) put down 1,121 'pit bulls'.  This is the most represented 'breed' in the 8,000 dogs taken into the Cincy shelter, as authorities say that German Shepherds (and mixes) are more prevelant.

The city has estimated that it spend more than $86,000 in 2006 while they were handling the prosecutions for the just 50 'pit bulls' that were taken from homes because they were illegal.

So,

1) In spite of the ban, 'pit bulls' are prevelant.

2) Other types of "guarding type dogs" are becoming more popular.

3) The city taxpayers are paying a lot of money prosecuting only a small number of people for owning a "banned breed".

So what's the city to do?  Councilman Cecil Thomas is now recommending that police officers get trained in breed identification so the ordinance will be easier to enforce. Talk about some messed up priorities.

In 2006 (this is the most recent year I can find), Cincinnati actually had the 8th highest murder rate per capita of any city in the country.  It's also among the top 20 in most other major crime categories.

In a city that clearly has its public safety issues (in terms of murder), is using police resources to identify breeds of dogs.  Is spending $100,000 a year on holding dogs for their breed ID cases really the wisest spend of money for a city that clearly has other crime issues? 

The ordinance is not working.  Enforcement is a huge issue.  And taking resources from another major need is not a recommended solution to this problem.  Repealing the law would be.  It will be really interesting what recommendations the task force group that is studying the ordinance comes back with later this year.  I can assure you it won't echo Cecil Thomas' recommendation.

*Note:  For the life of me I cannot figure out why the mediots out there continue to quote Merrit Clifton's information as being valid research.  His statistics represent only the less than 1% of major attacks that have appeared in newspaper stories over the past 25 years.  It's not a random sample. It's not even an accurate sample. How they continue to publish this as "fact" is totally beyond my comprehension.

Comments

[Kayla]

You really bring out the real issues and make their mistakes and stupidty known. Thank you!!

[Carianne]

This article proves the stupidity of people in general. City officials really believe that by banning something, the problem just magically disappears. Oh no, the problem magically worsens, SURPRISE!

I love the statistics that you threw on your blog about Cincy being the 8th highest murder capital in the world, but they are focusing on banning a dog breed. WOW, this is really insane and I am embarassed to say I live in OH.

[Caveat]

"Mediots" - love it! Mind if I use it, giving you credit of course?

As for Cinci, remember when that 'study' came out showing that high risk owners have high risk dogs (aka 'pit bulls')?

I did a bit of a lookup on Hamilton County fora post at the time and found that it was economically depressed with a very high crime rate.

I'm sure that banning a vague shape of domestic dog should get things fixed up in no time.

Mediots...heh. Policretins? Bureaucranks? You've got me going now, Brent!

[Brent]

LOL Caveat. I can hardly take credit for 'mediots'. I read it somewhere, loved, it and stole it. Sadly, I couldn't find the original source to give proper attribution. I did add it to the "urban dictionary" page - which I suppose is like a copywrite these days.

Another new favorite is off of a Comedy Central Commercial (Marjorie shares my affinity) -- Democratics. I kind of like it too.

[Dawn]

As embarassing as it is to live in Ohio, it's worse to live in Cleveland and have the Plain Dealer as our source of news! I wrote to Donna Miller blasting her for cherry picking the CDC statistics with an aside that Clifton's study isn't valid because the sample is inherently biased, and you what she replied? "I'll let Merritt know your concerns"!!!!! This woman is so biased she should have her press pass revoked. I'm still angry!

[Caveat]

Clifton is a wanker and so, obviously, is Miller.

Send the bimbo this link and tell her to read Luisa's shredding of Clifton's garbage (both parts). It's one of the best guttings of his made up nonsense I've seen:

http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/8/25/3184538.html

[Dawn]

Thanks Caveat! Great analysis. I wonder what is going to happen when Clifton dies. Is he grooming an heir apparent to collect his newspaper articles? The only two pro-BSL sources I ever see quoted are the CDC and Clifton.

[Caveat]

Actually, Dawn, the CDC was not pro-BSL. It's just that mediots (heh) and paid sellouts like Beck from Purdue jumped on the ban wagon and cashed in based on the flawed tables and methodology in the CDC studies. Incidentally, they did the same thing with the Sacks dog bite study - that's why you'll hear that there are 4 million bites a year, sometimes even reported bites or bites requiring medical attention when if you read the paper you'll see it was just a guess based on the sketchy evidence available which was extrapolated to come up with a possible number.

Even the CDC (Julie Gilchrist) has publicly repudiated their dog bite fatality papers and has said they wished they'd never published them.

Scientists and researchers don't always think of the implications of the things they publish. That's why I'm always quick to refute anything new that I think could be misused by coneheads like Nelson, Clifton, Beck, etc. They (and the hacks in the media and public offices) have a way of cherry-picking what they can sensationalize without actually reviewing the findings, methodology, etc to see what's valid and what isn't.