Denver still can't prove BSL is working - and other Denver news

So yesterday, the Denver Daily news -- a free circulation newspaper in the city - wrote an article about the dog bite study that I discussed here yesterday.

The article, used the bite study as a platform to discuss whether or not Denver's well-publicized breed ban has actually worked.  Based on the stats fro mthe article:

-- During the 12 year period from 1995 (Denver passed their ban in 1989) and  2006, Denver experienced 273 dog-related hospitalizations.

-- During the same time period, Boulder Colorado experienced only 46 such incidents.

-- Denver's population (roughly 588,000) while Boulder's metro statistical area has a population of (288,000). So Denver, in spite of its breed ban (or possibly because of it) has had 6x the number of hospitalizations compared to Boulder, in spite of having only double the population. Not good.

-- Since 2005, Denver has killed well over 1,600 pit bulls because of their ban.

When asked about whether Denver residents were any safer because of the ban, Doug Kelley, the Director of Denver Animal Control, couldn't really give a solid answer:

"It's a hard question to answer," said Kelly. "We have not had a severe mauling or fatality involving a pit bull since its gone into effect. But then again, we continue to get more pit bulls every year...it depends on how you define success."

It's a revolutionary way to ask about success, how about looking at total dog bites. Since enacting the ban, have residents in Denver been more likely or less likely to be bitten or attacked by dogs than before the ban?

According to Kelly's comments back in November in the Colorado Springs Gazette, that answer is also no:

He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls, certainly, but he has no evidence that the ban has decreased the total number of dog bites or attacks in the city. He also said the ban gives people "a false sense of security."

So:

-- Denver is still getting more and more pit bulls in the community.

-- They have a higher dog bite rate than neighboring Boulder

-- They have not decreased the total number of dog bites

So why are they banning 'pit bulls' again? Only for the right to take animals out of homes and kill them? 

The reality is, that yes, pit bulls do bite and sometimes attack people -- as do a whole host of other breeds of dogs. Behind each of these bites or attacks, is an owner that was using tethering as a primary form of containment, not exercising their dog properly, not providing the dog with proper socialization, using the dog for guarding purposes, letting their dog routinely run around off leash, or leaving their young child alone with with the dog.

You can kill as many pit bulls as you want, but until those problems are addressed, dog bites will still be a problem (albeit still minor with only .3% of dogs being involved in bites). You MUST deal with ignorant, neglectful and irresponsible owners if the problem is going to be resolved.

Denver has completely missed this.

Meanwhile, there is a side note in the story. Kory Nelson. Nelson is by far one of the most vocal supportsers of Denver's failing policy. Nelson got a little interview for this story and said that anti-BSL groups like the Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs and the Humane Society of the United States have a "secret hidden agenda". Nelson says that these organizations rely on donations for their efforts, an thus distort the truth.

"It's politically incorrect for them to admit the truth of this, which is that pit bulls are more dangerous," said Nelson.  Who added that donations could come from anywhere, even including leaders of dog-fighting rings.

So, WHO'S distorting the truth?

Did Kory Nelson really, just imply, that The Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs is lying about their numbers because they are relying on the donations of dog fighters to keep them afloat?

Among the organizations involved in the Coalition are several rescue groups, the Colorado Association of Animal Control Officers, Colorado Association of Certified Veterinary Technicians, the Colorad Veterinary Medical Association and the Denver Area Medical Society.

Really?  These veterinarians and animal control officers are taking money from dog fighters to distort the truth?

And how about HSUS? Listen, I'm not a fan of HSUS for many reasons, but honestly, has any organization in the country been responsible for breaking up more dog fighting operations in the past decade than HSUS?  I would say the possibility of HSUS getting money from dog fighters is about as high as the likelihood that I make a donation to the Kory Nelson fund - -not going to happen.

Not only is it an absurd comment, but it's a blatant, desperate attempt by a desperate man to try to justify his breed ban -- that they have more or less confirmed without confirming isn't working -- by saying that the only reason people say it's not working is because they're taking money from dog fighters. Uh huh.

It's pathetic. It's transparent. And it's desperate. 

Nope. The reasons why these organizations, along with the AVMA, ASPCA, National Association of Animal Control Officers, Dog Trainers etc, oppose BSL is because it doesn't work. Just look at your own city Kory. It's flawed policy that focuses on dogs, not owners, an thus perpetuates the problem, not helps it. 

They oppose it because it doesn't work. No hidden agenda. Just the facts.
 

Comments

[Kara]

1. Dog fighting ring leaders- AS IF they would EVER put their money towards an organization that is AGAINST animal cruelty.

idiots.

2.the fact is-DOGS are ANIMALS. any animal, wild or domestic can bite. ANY DOG CAN BITE. idk why people find that SO hard to understand.

ii mean, COME ON! i live with ALL "dangerous" breeds.
"pit bull"
German shepherd
shar-pei
chow
cattle dog

guess how many fights, bites, atacks, maulings i've had?!?! in 6years...?!?!

NONE.

and they all live with a 15lbs pom.

That should tell you something...

[EmilyS]

I wonder if Nelson's statements aren't actually libelous, since he is basically accusing the Coalition of a crime (supporting dogfighting).

I'd love to see them go after him, or at least use his beyond-ludicrous statements as an opportunity to communicate with the City Council. They should at a minimum demand a public apology.

Brent, I hope you're right that his attack on HSUS (of all things) is a sign of desperation, born of knowing the tide is turning against him. How I wish I could believe the tide is turning in Denver as it is elsewhere.

[YesBiscuit!]

Those societal mainstays of charitable donations - "leaders of dogfighting rings". I just knew they were secret do-gooders. What a clever disguise.

[Brent]

I just can't imagine how this can not be devastating for him. I mean, I just can't imagine it. He has basically implied that HSUS is taking donations from dog fighters and that's why they oppose BSL. Well, that's absurd.

But he then went so far as to accuse the coalition of getting $$ from dog fighters. These are the vets and animal control officers in the communities that did the study. I just can't imagine anyone would not look at those statements, read them, and think, that's the most insane thing I've read in weeks.

There is no way for him to not look like a complete nut-job with those statements. I may be wrong -- and it may be meaningless. But I just can't imagine a scenerio where anyone could take the guy seriously at this point...and he's the only real ringleader for BSL in that part of the woods.

[MichelleD]

These organizations need to clean his clock with this...nothing will happen if they don't make a stink. We can all complain and talk amongst ourselves about him being a complete whackjob...but the AW world already knows this.

[Wendy Russell Trivette]

You can rest assured I will NEVER step foot in Denver...EVER...disgusting people!