Earlier this week, I posted information on the breed ban in the United Kingdom and the struggles failures the UK has had with their breed ban. Essentially, but focusing on breeds, instead of focusing efforts on irresponsible dog owners (who make up a small minority of total dog owners), the UK has seen a significant increase in dog bites in the country over the past decade.
Omaha is off to a similar start.
In 2006, the city of Omaha had 916 Dog bites.
In 2007, they had 821 (10% decline)
Through June, of 2008, the city was looking at another decrease in dog bites -- down 14% vs 2007 through the first half of the year.
On June 25th, 2008, Omaha's decreasing bite numbers came to a screeching halt when 2 year old Charlotte Blevins was attacked by a 'pit bull'. For the next several months, the city (and the media) talked continually about 'pit bulls'. They didn't talk about the irresponsible owner who had an aggressive, under-socialized dog. They didn't talk about the fact that the dog got free from the owner and attacked the girl. They talked about 'pit bulls' -- the need to ban them, and the need to restrict them.
By October, the city had passed a new ordinance -- some parts were good (restrictive tethering, targeting habitual animal control bylaw offenders by preventing them from owning dogs for a period of time) and some parts were awful (mandating the muzzling of 'pit bull-type" dogs and only allowing people to avoid the muzzling if their dog passed the Canine Good Citizen Test).
The law essentially created a bunch of hoops that responsible owners had to jump through in order to prevent having to muzzle their dogs. These owners that were out getting their Canine Good Citizen Certificates were never the problem in Omaha....and the people that were the primary problems in the city weren't going to obey whatever law was passed. They essentially passed a law that focused a lot of animal control resources on the people who weren't causing problems.
By the time 2008 was over, the city finished just 1% below their 2007 dog bite numbers at 808 bites -- having 41 more dog bites in the last half of 2008 than in the same months in 2007. This was a 10% increase in the second half of the year vs 2007 after starting the year on a 14% decline....all because they were focusing on the wrong people, and relaying the wrong information to the public on what REALLY caused dog bites.
In 2009, the first full year of having the ordinance, while they were focusing on getting canine good citizen certificates for dog owners that weren't causing problems, the city saw a 9% increase in dog bites -- up to 875 bites.
So let's put this in perspective, Omaha was seeing a decrease in dog bites. 2007 was better than 2006. Through June, 2008 was better than 2007. Then, in the next 18 months, they managed to reverse the trend and create a 10% increase in bites in the back half of 2008 and then another 8% increase in 2009.
The cost to the city to enforce the law? $75,000 additional to the Nebraska Humane Society who handles the city animal control contract.
So while the taxpayers are paying more money for animal control services, because the city is focusing their efforts on the wrong people (vs focusing all of their resources on the people who are causing the problems), dog bites are actually going up, not down.
There are other problems of course , including breed identification issues and the overall lack of statistics made available to the public. At this point, the mainstream media in Omaha has yet to report anything other than what NHS has sent out in their press releases - -which is mostly the number of Canine Good Citizens they have passed and the number of people who were cited for all of the new laws. No mainstream media outlet has actually published the bite statistics -- you know, the 'public safety issue' that the law was designed to improve in the first place.
Creating over-inclusive laws that target the majority of dog owners who are not the problem is bad public policy -- and repeatedly shows itself to be ineffective at actually improving public safety.
It's expensive to enforce.
It takes resources away from dealing with people who are the real problems.
It doesn't work.
It is time we start focusing on laws that work. It's not overly-broad sweeping laws. It's certainly not laws that focus on dog breeds instead of irresponsible owners. It is focusing on the small minority of dog owners who treat their animal irresponsibly, cruely and let them habitually roam at large.
Focusing our resources on that will work.
Comments