Last week, city officials in Aurora, CO announced that they were planning to adjust their breed ban to allow for 'pit bulls' as service dogs in order to become compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act. While nearby Denver decided a couple of months ago to fight the Department of Justice ruling that forbids breed discrimatory laws from applying to service dogs, Aurora took the opposite path.
"We're not interested in going to war with the Department of Justice" said Mayor Ed Tauer. Unfortunately he also added "but at the same time, we don't want to completely abandon the law on the books.
However, there does seem to be some discussion about whether or not to get rid of the city's breed ban (which applies to 'pit bulls', American Bulldogs, Canar Dogs, Cane Corsos, Toso Inu, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brassilleiro and Presa Mallorquins) altogether. Councilwoman Renie Peterson would support a behavior-based ordinance, as would Councilwoman Melissa Miller. However, Mayor Tauer and council members Brad Pierce and Bob FitzGerald appear less willing to make such a change.
Meanwhile, councilman Bob Broom seems perfectly content to make up numbers as he goes along to support keeping the breed ban. "Statistics show that the number of bites have gone way down, and we haven't had any severe incidents with pit bulls since the ordinance has been in place," Broom told the Denver Westwood last week.
Of course, if you look at the actual numbers, Broom appears to be very wrong in his assesment.
Thanks to a kind reader for passing the information along -- here is a copy of the notes that were supplied to the city council for their hearings on the topic. The notes include a lot of data, information on the restricted breeds, a history of the ordinance and dog bite numbers in the city.
According to the data presented:
2003 -- 213 dog bites, 28 by the nine restricted breeds, 185 by non restricted breeds
2004 - 211 dog bites, 33 by restricted breeds, 178 by non-restricted breeds
2005 -- 137 dog bites, 27 by restricted breeds, 110 by non-restricted breeds
The new breed ban was enacted in January 2006 -- yes, as a way to target 15-20% of the total bites leaving 80% un-impacted. Also, one other change was to track dog vs dog bites and not just bites on humans. So because of this, the numbers would be expected to go up some in 2006 -- which they did.
2006 - 137 dog bites, 8 by restricted breeds, 129 by non restricted breeds
2007 - 172 dog bites, 15 by restricted breeds, 157 by non-restricted breeds
2008 - 224 dog bites, 8 by restricted breeds, 216 by non-restricted breeds
2009 -- 229 dog bites, 9 by restricted breeds, 220 by non-restricted breeds
2010 - 194 dog bites, 6 by restricted breed, 188 by non-restritced ones.
So even though some increase in 2006 would be expected because of the addition to bites involved dogs onto other dogs, the 67% increase in total dog bites (including a 71% increase from non restrictred breeds) between 2006 and 2009 is 100% a reflection of the ordinance.
That's not a decrease Mr. Broom. Nor is it success.
And to his point about no major attacks by restricted breeds since the ordinance was passed, it's worth noting here that in all of the documentation, there is no mention of their being any attacks by the restricted breeds BEFORE the ordinance was passed - -only "concern" from residents about there being more 'pit bulls' in the city and the city reacting to Denver's breed ban.
Meanwhile, a look at the "operational impacts" of the law, you get a feel for why the bite numbers have been going up, not down. Beginning in 2005 (when they first started talking about the law), the city has impounded more than 2,000 restricted breeds -- with nearly all of them ending up killed.
The impounding of the restricted breeds has also been a drain on their financial and kennel resources because the restricted breds were taking up kennel space that could have been used to house dogs of other breeds (which, I suppose, were likely also killed or transfered to other shelters to make space for the restricted breeds being held for their court dates) and Veterinary costs were higher due to the number of dogs being impounded.
This is a huge amount of resources (rounding up and killing 2,000+ dogs) when less than 30 of them (about 1.5% if the 2,000 reflects all of the restricted breeds that exist) were involved in any type of dog by incident in the years prior to passing the law. It should also be worth noting that 7 of the 9 breeds targeted had no record of any bites prior to the ordinance being passed - which would lead one to conclude that the ordinance was passed more out of fear and hysteria than because of any real problems they were trying to solve. It's simply an amazing number of resources to waste, and a big reason why these diverted resources led to an increase in dog bites from non-targeted breeds.
Amazingly, in spite of this, the "staff" has still recommended that the city keep this ordinance - -which shows a lot more desire to either save face or continue with breed bias (or, as often is the case, the perception of the types of people who they perceive to own the targeted breeds) vs a true desire for public safety.
But make no mistake, there is nothing in the numbers that indicate that public safety has actually improved and that actually, it's quite the opposite.
There are ten members of the Aurora city council -- hopefully more of them will take a real look at the numbers and realize how ineffective the ordinance has been. Also, it would be hoped that a lot of citizens and dog owners in the community come forward and demand a better use of their tax dollars.
the power of the human mind to encompass denial, stupidity and cruelty is awesome... (not in a good way)
Posted by: EmilyS | February 14, 2011 at 10:50 AM
Well written, to the point, with yet a whimsey of personal opinion and sarcasm.
cde
Posted by: Team Pit-a-Full | February 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM
Good grief.
What is it about municipal government that encourages public servants to check their brains at the door?
Posted by: kmk | February 14, 2011 at 05:30 PM
It is because most public servants are like a lot of other people. They give in to fear and false facts and manufacture reasons to keep the awful cruel laws that they enacted. Denver, CO should be ashamed of itself. Aurora, please do not add yourself to the towns who have put themselves on the list of stupidity by their falsely placed hysteria.
Posted by: Lin | February 14, 2011 at 09:14 PM
Are all dog bites the same?
Would you rather be bitten by a poodle or a pitbull?
When pitbulls bite you usually end up permanently disfigured or dead. especially children.
When other dogs bite you might end up with a band aid.
Posted by: Joe | February 14, 2011 at 11:45 PM
Would that be a toy poodle or a standard poodle?
Posted by: PitOwner | February 15, 2011 at 12:07 AM
A Lab, a Golden, or a pit bull all have the ability to do about the same amount of damage, and a standard poodle wouldn't be far behind. And no, that doesn't automatically mean disfigurement or death, because bites differ, not just breeds.
A nip is not the same as a full-on attack, and there's a lot of variation in between those two extremes.
Moreover, Aurora is not the only jurisdiction where banning "dangerous breeds" has had no useful effect or been actively counter-productive in actually reducing dog bites. In order to reduce dog bites, you need to target the dangerous behavior of dog owners, and individual dogs who actually ARE aggressive.
Posted by: Lis Carey | February 15, 2011 at 07:38 AM
Joe's right. But at least everytime a pit bull bites and angel gets its wings and if you get killed by a pit bull you'll get 76 virgins in Heaven. When a labrador kills someone they don't get squat...
Posted by: PAMM - People Against Moronic Men | February 15, 2011 at 10:02 AM
"When pitbulls bite you usually end up permanently disfigured or dead. especially children."
Really?
I guess they don`t bite very often Joe.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/in-your-state/colorado/dog-bite-fatalities/
"Over the past 45 years (1965-present) there have been nine (9) dog bite-related fatalities in Colorado, an average of less than one (1) fatality every four (4) years.
At least eight (8) different breeds/types of dogs have been reported involved in these nine (9) incidents."
It appears that children would be better off being raised by pit bulls or any dog for that matter.
"According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
In 2007, twenty-eight (28) Colorado children died as a result of maltreatment (abuse, neglect).
In a single year, 2007, 4 times as many Colorado children died as a result of maltreatment than the total of all children killed by dogs in the state over the past 45 years."
Posted by: J.M. | February 15, 2011 at 10:26 AM
Nobody is going to dispute that a bite from a larger dog is likely to be worse than a bite from a small dog.
But a statement like "When pitbulls bite you usually end up permanently disfigured or dead" has zero basis in fact.
And even if it were true, where is the evidence to show that Denver or Aurora's approach to this "problem" is working?
Posted by: Joel | February 15, 2011 at 11:31 AM
I can't help but chuckle when I see comments like Joe's.
Of course the size of the dog matters when it comes to the severity of bites. But let's face it, when cities have dog bite statistics they seldom include bites by very small dogs because no one ever reports them. I know I've never reported any of the bites I've sustained from little yippy dogs.
No, the ones that are reported tend to be larger dogs - and it's worth noting, that on the grand scheme of dogs, 'pit bull' types are much smaller than a lot of other types of dogs.
The comments like "when a pit bull bites you usuually end up disfigured or dead" sounds great in a soundbite or on a pit bull basher's website, but there is zero evidence to support it (and a lot of evidence to the contrary). Meanwhile, as Joel notes, in cases like Denver, or Aurora, Omaha or others, it is also very common to note that bites have gone up but that the severity of bites has gone down...but none of these communities have ever been able to produce statistical information to verify that either. Again, it sounds great as a sound bite, but the actual data never supports it.
Posted by: Brent | February 15, 2011 at 01:03 PM
Perhaps "size matters" to some extent but I get sick and tired of idiots on Silly Councils dismissing cat bites! We often hear, "Oh cats are small and can't do much damage". Wow, spoken like a person that has no knowledge of cats and has never known someone that nearly lost a hand or foot to infection from a cat bite.
I had a city councilmember ask me, "what would you rather be bitten by, a German Shepherd or a cat?". I told him I'd take my chances with the German Shepherd.
Years ago Independence, MO tried to pass BSL (the first time). What finally got it stopped dead in its tracks was a senior citizen that attended church with the mayor and owned a pit bull (he slept in an antique baby bed, by the way). This particular pit bull owner was bitten by a stray cat and nearly lost her hand to infection. she spent a week in the hospital. the city councilmember that wanted to ban pit bulls was the one that introduced the ordinance that removed cats from the city's leash law (oopsie).
I was so tired of fighting the BSL and then God gave me a gift - the senior citizen pit bull owner spent the summers in Colorado but she had come back early and I ran into her at City Hell, paying her light bill. I told her what was going on and she went to the next council meeting with her hopital bill from the cat bite! She told the council if they passed BSL and made her put up a fence she did not need she would sue the city.
And that was that!
Posted by: kmk | February 16, 2011 at 01:40 AM
Dogs bite for a reason - why not make it mandatory that this breed be neutered/spade, professionally trained/socialized, and if necessary basket-muzzled in public - there are so many other options much better than euthanizing them.
Posted by: jennifer | February 26, 2011 at 08:23 PM
Jennifer, all breeds can and do bite for a reason -- and it's probably not because they have their reproductive organs. (You may have reports of a correlation between reproductive status and bite stats, but it's just that -- a correlation, NOT a cause/effect relationship.)
Breed specific legislation is in ANY FORM is unnecessary when communities enact breed-neutral, proactive ordinances that allow animal control officials to make special requirements of owners whose dogs BEHAVE aggressively -- no matter WHAT they LOOK like.
Posted by: Lori S. | February 26, 2011 at 08:58 PM