Ok, so I said that I would start a new series this week, but at this point, it doesn't make sense to start a new series on a Friday. So part 1 will come either Sunday or Monday. In the meantime, there was an interesting story from out of Des Moines this week.
It seems that the folks in the city council there are considering toughening their ordiance on certain types of dogs. Currently, the Des Moines ordinance declares all 'pit bull' type dogs "vicious" -- and while some groups are calling to get that repealed, Des Moines is considering making the regulations more stringent by adding higher licensing fees, insurance requirements and owner training to the requirements.
Apparently they haven't learned from their own struggles (still a lot of dog bites even though they have already singled out 'pit bulls') or the struggles in nearby Omaha, NE -- where they put a lot of qualifications on 'pit bull' owners which focused a lot of resources on the dog owners who weren't going to be a problem in the first place instead of focusing their efforts on the truly problem owners. In Omaha, it led to a 37% increase in dog bites in the first half of 2009.
Now here is the other "intersting" part of the original article.
According to the article, the last year that dog bite numbers were kept was in 2006. Huh? So they are now looking to increase their dangerous dog laws -- but based on 3 year old numbers that they are no longer tracking?
According to these 2006 numbers, 'pit bulls' aren't even the most common biting breed -- that honor goes to Labrador Retrievers. This isn't instantly clear, as the article notes that 'pit bulls' make up nearly 29% of the city's 182 dog bites, while Labradors had 56 bites total. I'm not sure why the media would choose to not give easily comparable numbers (both in percents, or both in real numbers). For the record, that would be 52 dog bites for 'pit bulls' and 56 for Labs. Labs are given a pass though as they are "one of the most widely owned dogs registerd in Des Moines". No doubt 'pit bulls' are popular also, but that is not called out.
Meanwhile, there is one other glaring point in the article. According to the article, the city's 182 dog bites are spread out among only 5 breeds. Yip, 5. Now there are 140 some breeds recognized by the breed clubs, the idea that only 5 of them could be responsibe for 182 total dog bites would be a phenominal statistic. Which brings me back to a point I've made before here. It seems like very often, city animal control departments just lump dogs into large categories for measurement. If the dog is large and black, it ends up as a "Lab mix". If it's vaguely brown and shaggy, it is a "shepherd mix". If it has a wider body/blocky head, it is a "pit bull". You may end up with another category for Northern breeds ("Huskies"), Chows or Rottweilers, and then everything else gets grouped in as "other".
Which is why, in virtually every city you look at, three "breeds" end up in the top three of dog bites -- German Shepherds, Labs and pit bulls -- because they end up becoming very large catch-all categories for categorization purposes.
Hopefully Des Moines wisens up on their idea for more restrictions -- and focuses on laws that will focus on irresponsible owners, vs just creating more hoops for responsible owners to jump through. And hey, how about keeping some decent statistics on dog bites too while you're at it.
This sums it up pretty well:
"... the article notes that 'pit bulls' make up nearly 29% of the city's 182 dog bites, while Labradors had 56 bites total."
The most frustrating part is people believe all these "statistics."
Posted by: Lindsay | October 04, 2009 at 09:07 PM