KC DOG BLOG

Misusing data to support personal agendas

Merritt Clifton is at it again -- and once again fudging numbers to promote his own personal agendas. 

In this month's issue of Animal People, Clifton's own newspaper where he is the sole writer and editor, Clifton releases his updated information on the state of shelter euthanasias in the U.S.

Not all of Clifton's information is garbage -- although enough of it is to even make me question the parts that seem accurate. He has certainly pulled ou this own conclusions in order to support his own personal agendsa

The article starts with a misleading headline "Decade of adoption focus fails to reduce shelter killing" -- even though in spite of pushes by proponents of the No Kill Movement, most city run shelters have not instituted much emphasis on adoptions. 

But this isn't the biggest problem with Clifton's data analysis.

Clifton is an advocate of breed bans. For reasons I don't know or understand he has continued to be maybe the loan torch bearer in the animal welfare community in support of breed bans.  And this document appears to be no exception.

In a little sidebar on the third page of the document he pulls out 11 cities (seemingly at random) and compares the euthanasia rates for 'pit bulls' in these shelters (3 of the cities have breed specific legislation, the other 8 do not).  The data also shows San Francisco's numbers before and after the city's ruling to mandate the spay/neuter all pit bulls.  Here is Clifton's analysis of the numbers:

"Philadelphia appears to kill relatively few pit bulls as a share of shelter killing chiefly because it has the highest total shelter killing on the chart: 19.9 per 1,000 people. Note that pit bulls are a much smaller part of the total killing in Cincinnati (which has a breed ban) than in either Milwaukee or Indianapolis, two cities with a very similar demographic profile."

The premise here appears to be if a city passes breed specific policies, then the number of pit bulls killed goes down, and that's a good thing. But once again, Clifton has manipulated data to support his point...not developed a point based on the actual data.

San Francisco

Let's start with San Francisco. According to Clifton's numbers, before instituting their MSN policy for pit bulls, San Francisco killed 452 pit bulls -- making up 43% of the total dogs killed in the shelter. Meanwhile, post the MSN, they killed 304 pit bulls, making up 29% of the dogs killed.

It looks like it's working great.

However, if you extrapolate from his data the total number of dogs killed, it tells a slightly different story. If the 304 pit bulls makes up 29% of the total kills, then San Francisco killed a total of 1,048 dogs post MSN.  If the 462 is 43% of the killed dogs, then a total of 1,051 dogs were killed a year prior to the MSN.

Essentially, the only thing that has changed is not a decrease in killing (as Clifton infers from the data), but a change in what type of dogs are killed. Whether this is a reflection of how dogs are classified at the shelter (were a lot more dogs classified as 'boxer mixes' vs 'pit bull' mixes in order to show "effectiveness at the shelter level) or did many of the irresponsible owners just change the type of dog they owned to avoid being harrassed by the law?  It seems Clifton doesn't seek to pursue this question - or even question it at all.  But it sure seems highly relevant.

Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Indianapolis

Meanwhile, Clifton uses a comparison of Cincinnati (a city with a breed ban) and both Milwaukee and Indianapolis as another example of how a city with a breed ban will kill fewer pit bulls than other cities.  But is this true?  From the chart, Clifton's assertion seems true as pit bulls make up a lower percentage of dogs killed than in the other two cities.

But wait.

Until as recently as this past March, Indianapolis' city shelter had a policy that kept them from adopting any pit bulls out of the city shelter. While this has changed in the past year under new shelter management, it certainly was in place with Clifton's current numbers. So an increase in percentage of pit bulls being killed at the shelter would be expected as an incredibly high percentage of the dogs would get killed in the shelter because POLICY prevented them from getting out alive. Clifton isn't a dumb man, and I'd be stunned if he didn't know this information. But he conveniently leaves this out of his analysis.

Meanwhile, when you look at Cincinnati compared to Milwuakee, you may notice something else significant. Even looking at the number Clifton posts, you see that even though pit bulls make up 18% of Milwaukee's euthanized dogs, the city is still killing 37% fewer pit bulls per thousand residents than the city of Cincinnati.  So what gives?

Well, again, if you extrapolate total numbers of dogs killed, you'll see that Milwaukee killed 7,988 total dogs during the timeframe available -- at a pace of 4.7 dogs per 1,000 people. Cincinnati on the other hand killed 11,210 dogs in that same time period -- a pace of 13.5 per 1,000 people*. So it appears that Cincinnati's "success" comes not from killing fewer 'pit bulls', but from the massive killing of dogs regardless of breed. This is also not something that would be a foreign concept to Clifton, who stated this exact scenerio as why the percentage of pit bulls killed in Philadelphia are so low - -and yet not only leaves this out of his "analysis" of the Cincinnati/Milwaukee comparison, he also somewhat conveniently leaves both cities out of the his overall shelter killing analysis that would make easy comparisons impossible.

* It should be noted here that I have no idea what Clifton is using for his population totals for these two cities.  While I can get there mathmatically by dividing the number of dogs killed by the # killed per 1,000 people, I don't know where he got these figures. Cincinnati's population of 836,000 appears to be the population of Hamilton County.  Milwaukee's population of 1.48 million is close to that of the entire Milwuakee MSA -- which they may provide service for.  For the sake of this whole post, I'm just using Clifton's own data.

Meanwhile, Denver -- who has had a breed ban since 1987 -- seems to have INCREDIBLE numbers based on Clifton's report -- killing only 275 pit bulls at a rate of .14 per 1,000 people and making up only 3% of the kill rate.  However, again, Denver's total numbers 9,167 killd dogs and a 4.6 kill rate are very similar to that of Milwaukee -- a city that doesn't have breed specific regulations.  It would only make sense that a city that has had a breed ban on the books for 20 years would not kill all that many dogs of that breed -- but it still hasn't seemed to improve the shelter's overall kill rate.   Meanwhile, it should be noted that Clifton's pit bull kill estimates seem extremely low compared to what most media reports give for the city and their pit bull kill numbers. These numbers for Denver are also conveniently left off of Clifton's overall report.

Why This matters

If we are really ever going to achieve a status of No Kill in our cities, we have to be HONEST with our numbers. We need to avoid the trickery and deceipt by people with agenda bias. We must be honest with the stats, and really look at what WORKS to create No Kill communities. No hidden agendas. No slight of hand statistics.  Just open, honest, dialogue.

This is why I think it's so incredible when cities provide open access to their information.  Go to cities provide open access to their information online for everyone to see -- like in Charlottesville, Va and Reno, NV. (Interestingly, Clifton doesn't include the numbers for Charlottesville even though the info is easily available).

When people like Clifton use the information to mislead the public, it hurts the animals. It hurts them by encouraging policy that is not helpful to the cause...and in fact, makes the situation worse. 

It's time for everyone to put their agendas aside and to push forward with policies that WORK to make communities more livable for both people and the animals. 

Weekly Roundup, Week Ending 8/30/09

It's been a heck of a couple of weeks -- but am starting to get back on schedule and will be posting more regularly in the coming weeks. Sorry for missing the roundup last week -- here are this week's top stories, and a few I missed from the week prior.

Cities and Laws

New Florence city council banned 'pit bulls' from their community of about 765 pepole. I cannot imgaine in a community this size that authorities don't know the name of every aggressive dog in the city....

The city council in Whitehall, OH has decided to drop the costly idea of putting the city's breed ban up to a public vote after 2 failed attempts by councilwoman Jacquelyn Thompson to pass a ban in the city with her council counterparts wisely voting down the ban on both occassions.

Marshalltown, IA is considering a new law that would require dogs that had broken animal control laws on three different occassions to be confiscated by animal control officers.  While I like the spirit of the law, I certainly hope that officials would focus the law on the dog owner instead of the dog and prevent the dog's owner that is in violation from owning a dog again in the city. Just taking the dog in (and sadly, likely killing the dog) will do no good if that owner is just allowed to get another dog.

The Canadian Community of Nackawic is looking at a proposal that would eliminate references to specific breeds from their dog control bylaw.  The revised ordinance has passed its first two readings.

Tulsa, OK is struggling after a decision to cut some of their animal control officers and realizing now that the police don't have time, nor the appropriate training, to deal with animal control calls that are happening during off hours.

Around 100 protesters showed up at City Hall in Denver this week to protest the city's well publicized ban on 'pit bulls'. The city is considering a repeal of the ban because of the high costs of enforcing the ban and defending it in court are a problem in light of the city's $12o million budget deficit. In spite of the reality that the city can show no evidence that the ban is actually improving public safety, some are still in favor of keeping the ban.

Prince George's has onc again stood by their city's ban on 'pit bull'.  This is the third challenge to the law that has been denied in spite of continued task force recommendations that the law is costly and ineffective.

Elkhart, IN is considering legislation that would ban pit bulls in their community.

Kingsport, TN is also looking at a potential ban on breeds - -in spite of opposition from every animal welfare organization in the community.

More problems in Omaha -- in spite of the increased money being spent on animal control by the city, dog bites are up significantly on the year.

Highland Park, IL was looking at potential restrictions on certain breeds of dogs, but decided to forgo a ban in favor of strengthening the animal control ordinance.  I think it's interesting the subtle note that a ban and strengthening animal control are not the same thing...and in fact, are mutually exclusive.

A newly proposed law in Mashpee, MA would ban several breeds of dogs in the community -- and if passed, would require any puppies of these breeds born to be brough into the shelter and systematically killed.

Hot Springs, AR is considering changes to their dangerous dog ordinance that won't be breed-specific.

Perquimans County, NC;  Vestavia, AL; Catawba County, NC; Jonesville, NC (sorry, no link, from the Fight BSL list serve) and Henderson, IN; all are strengthening their dangerous dog ordinances without using breed-specific language.  Most cities now that look at potential bans are starting to realize that the actual data does not support BSL and are going with breed neutral options that have proven to be more effective.

Dog bites and attacks

A 12 year old Norman, OK boy was attacked by 5 dogs  while he was riding his bicycle -- 4 of the dogs are described as Border Collie mixes (2 German Shepherd/Border collie mixes, 2 Border Collie/Pit Bull mixes) and 1 dog was described as a "boxer/pit bull mix". 

A Hoboken, NJ man was bitten in the arm by a Boxer when he reached down and picked up a ball while the dog reached for the same ball.

A father in the Bronx, NY saved his 3 year old son from a dog attack when the child was attacked by a 120 lbs Husky.

A 12 year old Danville, VA boy was attacked while he was swinging on some swings by a "brown and white shaggy haired dog".

A Tucson, AZ man was attacked by three "pit bull mix" dogs that were roaming at large and bit the man.

A 2 year old Harbor Beach boy was mauled by a German Shepherd/Labrador mix -- the boy's father shot the dog in order to stop the attack.

A 5 year old Wilson County (NC) boy was attacked by a Rottweiler while he was swinging on his swing set. The boy's mom left the boy outside alone with the dog and went inside and came back out to find the boy being attacked. What makes this story even worse is that the family had just gotten the dog when they took it in after having been abused by another family.

An 80 year old woman was knocked down by a dog that was clearly running out of control. The large dog knocked the woman down where she ended up breaking her hip. The dog is being called an "American Bulldog/pit bull' Mix.  There are no reports of the dog biting the woman. Interestingly, the initial story called the dog a 'pit bull' and put it in the headline.

Two Sacramento boys were attacked (one receiving 100 stitches) by a neighbor's Rottweiler.

A 7 year old Lake County (FL) boy was attacked by a pit bull that was chained up in the family's back yard.

A postal worker in Overland Park, KS was bitten by a "small black dog". Overland Park has a ban on 'pit bull' type dogs but had several dog bites this week that made the news.

The UK Breed Ban -- yip, still failing

A five year old girl who "strayed back home" while she was playing at a neighbor's house and ended up getting attacked by the family's French Mastiff.

Another young girl was attacked by what sounds like a Doberman and was rescued by a 26 year old man.

In spite of the country's 18 year old breed ban, the citizens of the country are not safer from dogs because irresponsible owners are not breed-specific.

Ontario's isn't working either

After a 13 year old girl was taken to the hospital after having part of her ear detatched by a dog.

The Media

An interesting article from teh Huron Daily Tribune about whether Huron county should hire an animal control officer in the county following an attack of a 2 year old boy by a German Shepherd/Labrador mix and a fatal dog attack involving three Blue Heeler mixes.  What's mostly interesting is that they covered these two stories and never mentioned any of the breeds involved in the attacks.  They even ran a second story and never mentioned the breeds.

A story from the St. Petersburg Times (FL) mentions two police officers that were attacked WITH a 'pit bull' (Not BY one).  The owner apparently threw the dog at the officers on two different occassions. There is no indication that the dog, in spite of its neglegent owner, was aggressive in any way toward the officers, bu that wouldn't be the first thought you had when seeing hte article.

Blog postings definitely worth reading

LA Animal Watch pleads with the city to quit seizing cats during the high kill season.

One Bark at a Time has a great visual  that illustrates the irrational fear mongering that is taking place by many anti-dog people. And yes, idiocy IS a cancer.

Pooch Master -- What did this accomplish?

Miscellanious

A South Carolina couple's American Pit Bull Terrier saved the couple's lives by waking them up when the family home caught on fire.

A good article from About.com on strengthening the human-canine bond.

A good article on pit bulls and parolees -- how the dogs and the parolees in Los Angeles rehabilitate each other.

A great article on Calgary's animal bylaw program. The city has 92% licensing compliance and their responsible ownership program focuses on four main principles: Licensing and permanently identifying the pet, great access to low-cost spay/neuter programs, proper socialization for dogs in the city's 150 dedicated off-leash areas, and not allowing the pet to become a nuissance or threat to the community.  Calgary has one of the lowest bite rates in North America and is essentially no-kill -- all without mandatory spay/neuter laws and breeed specific laws.

Oak Harbor, WA considering repealing Breed Specific Regulations

In 2006, Oak Harbor, WA passed restrictions on 'pit bulls'...and it turns out that the restrictions aren't the silver bullet the city thought it was...and is proving extremely difficult to enforce.  From the article (emphasis mine):

"From an animal control officer's point of view, this is a really difficult issue," said Police Chief Rick Wallace.

"If any action is take, he could end up on the stand," Wallace said referring to Animal Control Officer Terry Sampson. "It wouldn't take much of a legal defense to challenge."

The burden would be on the city to prove any delinquent dog’s breed, and that may mean Oak Harbor would have to foot the bill for a doggie DNA test.

From an enforcement point of view, it’s almost impossible, Wallace said, adding that from a practical point of view, there’s not that many bite complaints each year.

“I don’t want this to turn into an emotional thing,” Schmidt said after the meeting. “We’re looking at it strictly as a fact-based issue.”

And the fact is, breed determination can be a tricky and costly business.

“Our own insurance doesn’t recommend BSL,” Schmidt said, referring to breed-specific legislation. “We support the behavior-based approach.”

Breed identification is extremely difficult.  And if due process laws are followed, the burden of proving a dog really is the targeted breed does fall on the city...which will prove to be very costly for cities to continually have to fund DNA tests to prove their prognoses that  a dog is that particular breed.

I've never understood why cities would pass breed specific regulations when determining breed is very difficult, yet breed neutral ordiances are so much easier to enforce because determining that a dog is dangerous is quite easy.

Best of luck to the city of Oak Harbor in their quest to get rid of this useless legislation.

Hat tip: Stop BSL

KCMO Parks Board Kills Dog Park Plans again

Last month, the Citizens Committee designed to provide recommendations on future dog parks in this city submitted its recommendation after 2 years of work.

In less than a month, the Parks board has decided the committee is completely wrong and made up their own criteria.

The whole thing makes my head hurt.  It's made a mockery of democracy and citizen input in their city.  My entire rant on this is here.

The media, breed bans, and the ineffectiveness of breed bans

Last week, a South Salt Lake City man was bitten by two dogs outside of a gas station.

The dogs, roaming off-leash, approached the man. There is no word that the dog approached the man aggressively, but regardless, the man became scared and when the dogs got close to him, he began kicking one of the dogs. The dogs retaliated and "attacked" the man.

Of course, the headlines were all about the "pit bull" attack -- not about the reality that the man attacked the dogs first.

When police came to get the dogs, police officials said the dogs were quite friendly and showed no signs of aggression...apparently only showing aggression when they are kicked.  Many dogs would react the same way.

The story goes on to talk about how attacks like this often lead to talk of breed bans -- even though the news source didn't find one person in favor of such a ban --- although th Humane Society of Utah spoke out against such a ban.

The news station also noted that the community of South Jordan, UT passed a ban on pit bulls (which happened in 1997).  The article even shows South Jordan's dog bites from 2000-2007. During that time, the total number of dog bites went from 42 to 112.  Less than 5% are coming from 'pit bulls'. It's interesting to note the huge increase in dog bites from 2000 to 2007 -- a 167% increase in bites over the 7 year timeframe. It's worth noting that South Jordan is a rapidly growing city in Utah -- and the population grew from 29,437 to 48,046 during this timeframe. But while the city has grown in population by 63%, the number of dog bites has increased at more than double the rate of the population.

The breed ban there isn't improving public safety in South Jordan. Bites continue to go up at an alarming rate.  And quite likely this is in part due actually TO the breed ban -- which as noted in Yakima earlier today, eats up animal control resources dealing with 'pit bulls' (both real and not real) and not with aggressive dogs -- regardless of breed. Additionally, the media fear-mongering leads to people having an irratoinal fear of pit bull type dogs -- which would lead a man outside of a gas station to kick two friendly dogs because of his unfounded fears -- and actually CAUSE him to get attacked.

And so the vicious cycle goes.  A 'pit bull' bites someone.  The media uses the situation to fear monger and create talk of breed bans even when such talk really doesn't exist. The media even uses the "other cities are doing it" approach -- ignoring the fact that it isn't improving public safety. And then another city passes a ban, which decreases public safety, and increases ignorance about what it really takes to increase public safety, which leads to more dog bites, and the cycle continues.

It's time to break the cycle. It's time to insist that cities look at ordinances that actually WORK -- not just laws that other cities are passing.  It only makes sense...and we need to quit letting the media fear-monger us into bad legislation and further ignorance among people in our communities.

Yakima, WA - Wasted Resources Don't Improve Public Safety

Last week, KIMA TV in Yakima, WA ran a story about Yakima's 20 year old ban on 'pit bulls'.

In spite of the city's ban, Animal Control officers are reporting that pit bulls are filling up the city's shelter -- to the tune of about one pit bull arriving per day. With a 20 year old ban, one would think that a working ordinance would have eliminated all pit bulls from the community.

But it hasn't. There are still many.

What makes the problem even worse is the wasted time spent by animal control officers on calls made about pit bulls that weren't really pit bulls.

"It would free up a lot of our time," said ACO Ben Zigan. "Because a lof the calls we get about pit bulls turn out not to be pit bulls." 

 So, in other words, calls that they're responding to about "illegal pit bulls" turn out to not be illegal dogs...which wastes the time of animal control officers on dogs that are not aggressive. How much better would their time be spent just showing up on calls to deal with aggressive dogs, regardless of breed, than on 'pit bulls' that are neither pit bulls nor aggressive? 

Meanwhile, this is the same community, that just over a year ago, was discussing potentially updating its pit bull ban to included addtional breeds of dogs that had become problems because of a rash of dog attacks that happened in the city.

The problem was never the breed of dog involved. It's always the owners.  And until we get to the point where we focus our animal control resources (which are always limited) on the reckless owners, instead of chasing dogs that weren't a problem but some civilian thought resembled a pit bull, cities will never succeed in dealing with the problem of biting dogs in their communities.

Hat tip on the story to StopBSL.

More Pressure on Denver

News about Denver's continuing struggle with its 20 year old breed ban continues to make the news.

The city is curretnly facing a $120 million budget deficit -- and the costs of enforcing the law, as well as the continued court costs that are going in to defending the law against legal appeals, are coming under the microscope.

Adding fuel to the fire, is a very detailed report on dog bites throughout central Colorado done by a group of veterinarians, rescue groups and animal control officers that joined together under the group, the Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs, that provides actual dog bite statistics for the region. The report noted that a large variety of dogs bite, and most bies are quite minor....and provided useful action steps in dealing with the problem of dog bites in the communities.

These factors, along with public outcrry, are leading the city to look at options besides the city's breed ban.

While the proposal that is on the table is really bad legislation, the reality that Denver's law is costing the financially strapped city unneccesarily, and that the law hasn't actually reduced the number of dog bites in the city, is a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile, there is a large dog ban protecst march planned on City Hall on August 25th at the Denver City and County Building lawn -- 1437 Bannock St. The protest is at 1 pm -- and if you want any additional information you can reach out to [email protected].

Head on out and show your support for a repeal of the costly and ineffective legislation. 

Good article on media reporting of 'pit bulls'

A lot of bad news to report on the blog so far this week, and I feel like the blog needs a pick-me-up. 

Earlier this week, Best Friends posted a great article on their website about the number of mis-reported bites and attacks that are reported by the media....including how stories about 'pit bulls' get a lot greater distribution vs bites by other breeds, and how often times the media will talk about 'pit bull attacks' on young children that end up with mere scratches.

The net result is an irrational fear of 'pit bulls' that is created by the media reporting.  The article is really well-written and a great read (and not just because it talks about me -- but because it provides a succinctness that I don't provide). 

Here's the start:

With the dog cowering in its kennel behind him, the reporter recounts a 'pit bull attack' that left a toddler in Redondo Beach, CA hospitalized. In an interview, police sergeant Phil Keenan describes the attack. "The child and the pit bull were in the living room. The child either touched the tail or grabbed the tail of the pit bull. The pit bull turned around and bit the child."

In the video, in just over two minutes, they repeat the term 'pit bull' about ten times.

The message is clear. This wasn't just a dog, presumably, like the viewers' dogs. It was a pit bull. This dog is different.

But the message falls apart when you see the dog in the video. It isn't a pit bull. It is a mixed breed dog. It could have some German Shepherd in it. Maybe some Lab. It might even have some of one of the pit bull breeds in it. As with most mixed breed dogs, it's hard to tell.

Read the rest here.

I'll be posting a bit more on this subject in the coming months....

Dog fatally attacks 3 day old infant

It feels like doom and despair week this week with yet another tragic story.

In Rio, West Virginia, a 3 day old boy was fatally killed by one of the family dogs.  Apparently the mother was at home feeding the child when the phone rang. The women set the infant on her bed to go get the phone and when she returned, she found her two dogs, one German Shepherd and one 'pit bull', surrounding the child, "acting strangely".  The woman tried to get the two dogs away from the child -- focused first on the German Shepherd -- and the pit bull grabbed the child off the bed. The newborn died from the attack.

This is the third infant under 3 weeks of age to be killed by a dog this year -- all three by different breeds (Chow Chow, Husky, Pit Bull).  Last year, there were 5 infants under 2 months of age that were killed by 4 different breeds (Shar Pei/Pit bull mix, Siberian Husky, Husky, Labrador Retriever, Jack Russell Terrier).

While many are using the case as more fuel to the fire to try to "ban pit bulls", the reality is that the real data indicates a dramatic need for programs like the one put on by Dogs & Storks that really educates people on how to introduce new infants into homes with dogs -- here is an interview I did with the Dogs & Storks founder earlier this year.

Owner negligence and lack of owner education continue to be driving factors in major dog attacks.  Leaving a newborn child unattended around two large dogs is a recipe for a problem, even if in most cases the dogs are fine.  It is time to really focus on education...because owner education (or lack thereof) is the main driving force in these tragedies.

Fatal Attack in Georgia kills elderly couple

An elderly couple were apparently killed this weekend by a pack of dogs. The couple, retired University of Georgia professor Lothar Karl Schweder (77) and his wife, Sherri Schweder (65) who worked at the school's main library, were apparently out looking for their dog that had gotten loose.  The couple was found along a country road where they often walked their dog.

However, the couple never found their dog, and were instead, attacked by 11-14 dogs that are being described by officials as "mongrels" -- and from the looks of them, that's the best description possible.  While the dogs were not aggressive toward authorities, they were found surrounding the couple and the coronery concluded that the victims did die of dog bite wounds. Neighbors report that the dogs have been around for years and never caused a problem in the community.

The dogs belong to a man who used to live in the area but had to move due to medical reasons. However, supposedly a friend was taking the former owner to the property to feed the dogs regularly.

This is a tragic fatality.  The county doesn't have a leash law so the dogs were allowed to roam free with no consequence. This is  the third incident this year that has involved a pack of roaming dogs (6+ dogs) that have been involved in a fatal attack, including an attack last month on Israel Pope Jr, and this past April to Gordon Lykins of Winterhave, AZ.

I do applaoud that a lot of the articles on this story note just how rare attacks like this really are.

I'll update this if anything new comes of it. The story has been widely reported in more than 250 media outlets.

RIP.

Update 8/19/09: Thanks Rinalia for the update. But it seems as if there are quite a few differences in the media reporting on this. But from the more updated reports, it sounds like the dogs were essentially feral dogs.  Susan Fornash, the Director of Madison Oglethorpe Animal Shelter said that the dogs were malnourished and had a range of healt problems including fly bites on their ears, bite marks on their bodies, etc. She thinks the pack of dogs likely killed the couple because they were hungry and in search of food.  She also described the dogs as "Very Aggressive" toward humans -- which contradicts earlier reports. All 16 dogs have been euthanized.