Omaha: Don't look at our numbers, the law is working great

A couple of weeks ago, KETV in Omaha talked to representatives from the Nebraska Humane Society about the city's 2 1/2 year old dangerous dog law following a significant dog bite in the community.  When asked about the city's dangerous dog law, representatives of NHS said the ordinance is "working". 

According to Field Operations Vice President Mark Langan "It appears the number of bites is staying consistent. But the more severe bites are dropping, which is what we were hoping the new ordinances would do - -put more responsibility on owners to contain their dogs."  Neither Langan nor KETV provided any data points to support this statement, only provided the number of people cited under the ordinance - -that included 19 reckless owners, 67 potentially dangerous dog declarations and 71 muzzle and leash violations.

First of all, let me state, that there are some elements in Omaha's law that are pretty good. The law has a dangerous/potentially dangerous dog element based on behavior. It also can prevent someone from owning a dog for four years if someone violates three animal control ordinances in a 2 year time frame (the way this one is written isn't the best, but the idea is there).  There was also a moderate increase in licensing fees (topping out at $25 which isn't terrible).

However some parts of the ordinance are pretty awful -- including a tethering ordinance that forbids tethering for more than 15 minutes (I am not opposed to laws that limit the amount of time a dog is tethered, but this one is worded particularly poorly, 15 minutes is a very limited amount of time -- especially if the dog is supervised while tethered) and then the awful requirement of $100,000 in insurance and muzzling for owners of 8 different breeds of dogs. This has opened the enforcement of the law to be completely arbitrary as well as focused a lot of resources on dealing with non-aggressive dogs and owners.

So now, let's look at some actual numbers.

In 2006, Omaha recorded 916 actual dog bites.

In 2007, that number was 821 - a 10% decreased.

Through June of 2008, the city was looking at yet another decrease in dog bites - as they were down 14% through the first 1/2 of the year.  However, a significant dog attack that happened on June 25th and all of the discussiong became about breeds -- not responsible dog ownership. By the time the 2008 was over, and a new law was in place, the ended 2008 with 808 bites (a 1% decrease) -- with 41 more dog bites in the second half of 2008 than they had in the second half of 2007.

In 2009, Omaha recorded 875 dog bites, a 9% increase.

In 2010, Omaha saw another increase in dog bites to 913 - another 4% increase

So while Langan says that the "number of dog bites is remaining constant" he seems to ignore the reality that total bite numbers have gone up 13% since the ordinance was put in place (and reversed a significant downward trendline in dog bites in the process).  So instead of double digit declines in bites (which they were seeing for the 2 years prior to passing the law, they have now seen 2 1/2 years of increasing dog bites.

The numbers for "severe" dog bites are a little less clear. NHS does not supply the actual numbers for this to the city that they contract for - and NHS will not release the information to the public under public records requests. So the actual data for Langan's claim is not made available. However, in I do have the number of "severe" bites for the years leading up to the ordinance being passed:

2003: 3 level 5 attacks, 19 level 4s

2004: 4 level 5 attacks, 15 level 4s

2005: 6 level 5 attacks, 23 level 4s

2006: 5 level 5 attacks, 41 level 4s

2007: 11 level 5 attacks, 17 level 4s.

So if you remove the 2 obvious outliers here (the 11 level 5 attacks in 2007 and the 41 level 4s in 2006, the rest of the numbers are pretty consistent, average about 5 level 5 attacks and 18 level 4s.

These attacks made up roughly 2% of the total number of attacks for most years. With the numbers being so few, and the percent likelihodd of it happening are so low, it seems like a stretch that these numbers could have dropped much -- especially given that a large number of these types of attacks involve young children that are left unsupervised with a dog inside the home where the restrictions don't apply. 

Had Langan not already "fudged" a bit in the statement that overall bite numbers had remained steady (when they had, in fact, seen a 13% increase) I might even be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But it sure seems unrealistic that minor bites have seen that type of increase and the very rare, serious bites, would decrease significantly.  And if NHS would like to have any credibility, they'd be open with their records instead of continuing to hide their numbers (including their kill numbers) without opening them up for open records requests or not sharing them when the media does reports on the ordinance (which NHS is profiting nicely from). And the city of Omaha -- which pays a huge amount in their contract to NHS should demand these numbers from them and make them available. 

Hiding records doesn't build confidence, and it certainly doesn't allow the chance for open dialogue about what really will improve public safety....which I suspect is exactly what NHS and the city of Omaha want.

Editor's Note: All of my numbers were obtained through the office of the Omaha City Clerk who has been very quick in answering my requests of the information provided to him. Unfortunately, the information he has is very limited and more should be made available to the city.

Comments

[Jennifer]

Omaha is one of many cities that tout the "success" of their dog laws while skirting the proof that public safety has improved. Omaha was already patting themselves on the back in the media in 2008 when they declared the ordinance successful because of the sheer number of citations they were writing.

Lucas County, OH, Denver, and even Yakima, WA have made similar statements of "success" in the media, yet their idea of success apparently had nothing to do with public safety.

I read these BSL "success" stories from time to time, but I have yet to read one where the data actually proves that the public is safer. Sure, there's data that shows citations are up, or euthanizations are down, or compliance has improved... but none of that has anything to do with public safety, which in most cases is measured by number and type of dog bites reported--numbers that can be mysteriously difficult to obtain, especially in these places that are so boldly claiming success.

[EmilyS]

something wrong here:

"In 2006, Omaha recorded 916 actual dog bites.

In 2007, that number was 821 - a 10% increase."

I think 821 is a decrease from 916.......

[Brent]

Thanks Emily -- typo fixed. The number was right. The descriptor was wrong.

[avtmri]

thanks for this post. they should open their numbers up completely

[Rachel]

Thanks for the numbers KC. I'm spreading this post around. :)