Getting numbers from the city of Omaha is a little bit like having a root canal. The animal control and the shelter operations are handled by the Nebraska Humane Society - who, while they get a fee from the city for handling these duties, function as a 501c3 and thus don't feel like they need to make their records public.
The city does get some data from them however, and a call to City Hall will get you those numbers. Interestingly, 2 1/2 years into the city's breed specific law (that mandates insurance and muzzling for 9 different breeds of dogs) not one local media outlet has called city hall to get the numbers. Instead, they just take what NHS hands them and prints it.
The good news is, that by using their information, and the city hall information that I've gotten, you can start to cobble together a bit of the mess that is Omaha's law.
In a news story that ran last week, NHS is reporting that type of dog that led in dog bites in the city was.....Labrador Retrievers. Labs recorded 79 bites whereas the next highest number ws from German Shepherds at 44 with 42 from 'pit bulls' and 33 from Chihuahuas. The story of course notes that the large number of Lab bites are because Labs are very popular....which is not doubt true. If you look at most cities, the most popular types of dogs in the city are also the leading biters....the odds are just going to work that way. (And tip: yes, this includes 'pit bull' type dogs which are also extremely popular dogs and yes, usually end up toward the top of bite lists -- for the same reason Labs are there in Omaha -- it's not rocket science folks).
The news story also notes that bites from 'pit bulls' -- one of the breeds targeted with the law passed in 2008 -- have decreased from 115 in 2008 to 42 in 2010. NHS's Mark Langan says this shows the law has been a success.
However, Langan, NHS and the media missed a big part of the story.
First off, let me say that I found it a bit odd that Langan used 2008 as the base year for 'pit bull' bites. It was mid year 2008 that the city passed their law, so 2007 would have been a more stable year.
That said, in 2008 there were a total of 808 dog bites in the city. So if 'pit bulls' made up 115 of them, they accounted for about 14% of total dog bites. Seems a bit ridiculous to pass a law targeting such a small total of dog bites. This means there were 693 bites by non 'pit bull' type dogs.
Meanwhile, in 2010, total dog bites rose to 913. If 'pit bulls' accounted for 42 of those bites, that means 871 bites were recorded by non-pit bull type dogs -- this is a 26% increase in non-pit bull bites since the year the law was passed.
So while Langan and NHS have been running around for the past 2 years focusing on enforcing the city's breed-specific ordinance (against breeds that accounted for 14% of the total dog bites in the city), all of the other types of dogs in the city have been involved in 26% more dog bites (nearly 200 total bites). And the largest biting breeds are not targeted breeds, and not small dogs. They're Labs and Shepherds which are both bigger breeds than any of the 'pit bull' type dogs and in spite of Labs' reputation for being cuddly dogs, it's also worth noting that Langan says that they "encounter a lot of serious bites from Labs". Labs and Shepherds were both in the top 3 of level 4 and level 5 bites for the 4 years leading up to the passing of the city's breed-specific law.
Omaha continues to provide and example of how using animal control resources targeting a whole host of dogs that don't exhibit aggressive behavior removes resources from targeting ones that do. Doing this nearly always leads to increased total dog bites, and thus, decreased public safety.
It's a shame that NHS continues to hide their numbers behind their 501c3 status, that the city lets them, and that the local media seems content to just take what they are fed from NHS without calling city hall to get the total numbers. Or heck, call me. I'll send you the reports. But having an open discussion on what is going on would be the best way to make improvements....but it seems no one wants to really improve public safety, they would rather manipulate the numbers to justify the ordinance that they pushed for.
Excellent investigative work, Brent, as always! Thanks for asking the right question--and for doing the work necessary to get the answer.
Posted by: Jennifer | March 22, 2011 at 11:39 AM
I appreciate all the work in my area to show how off these numbers are but there is one more question I see as obvious that does not seem to be asked often or maybe I have just overlooked it. Is it possible a decrease in bites by a breed targeted could be partially due to less of that breed being owned since along with the muzzle laws and such, they also require insane amounts of insurance that the average person in this economy would just say is not worth it for a family pet that has posed no threat? In my area of SW Iowa, there is no law against my rottweiler but I have been denied homeowners insurance or be forced to pay for extra even though he has never growled at anyone and has been through extensive obedience training.
Posted by: Amanda | March 22, 2011 at 12:26 PM
Amanda,
What you're asking is a very legitimate question...but not one that is easy to answer. Most cities have such horrible licensing rates that they couldn't even begin to give you real population estimates by breed. But yes, it is not uncommon for high licensing/muzzle laws/insurance requirements to price people out of owning certain types of dogs...or, for cities to spend a couple of years systematically killing the targeted breeds when they catch people in violation. These folks of course go out and get different types of dogs, which is why bites by other breeds go up to replace the targeted breeds that go down because they never addressed the real ownership issues. This is why tracking "well, pit bull bites went down, so the law is working" is such flawed thinking because it takes way too narrow of a view toward the (supposed) goal of improving public safety.
Posted by: Brent | March 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM
I question any breed identified by ACOs as "Lab" about as much as I do "Pitbull". It seems like there are a few main "breeds" used to identify dogs who are largely mixes: Lab, Pitbull, Shepherd, Terrier, Hound...
Posted by: YesBiscuit! | March 22, 2011 at 01:26 PM
Well yes, of course YB. I had one city a few years back that had 5 different categories for dogs:
Labs/mixes -- so anything big that comes in black or yellow
Shepherd mixes - anything tan with a long coat.
Pit bulls - short and shocky with a short coat
Chow mixes - large and very furry
All other.
Seriously.
If you start mixing dogs together they end up looking like one of few types of dogs...and they all get classified as that. Yes, it's all bunk and yes, I'm sure there are a ton of "others" that got grouped into those categories.
Even if you gave them the benefit of the doubt on breed ID, their numbers are still bad. If you throw that into the mix, it makes their law even more ridiculous.
Posted by: Brent | March 22, 2011 at 01:37 PM
Labs typically lead in bites all over the country simply because there are more of them. Of course most of these bites aren't as severe as bites from some breeds, but they are still bites.
Posted by: Matt Covey | March 22, 2011 at 06:25 PM
"Of course most of these bites aren't as severe as bites from some breeds,..."
How do you reach that conclusion Matt?
Posted by: J.M. | March 22, 2011 at 08:35 PM
Confirmation bias in action.
Posted by: Woody | March 22, 2011 at 09:21 PM
I say that lab bites are not typically as severe as bites from some other breeds since Pitbulls and Rottweilers are responsible for many more human deaths than labs. Please don't assume that I am anti-pitbull, I own an American Bulldog (close relation) and frequently speak out in defense of all breeds. The fact of the matter is however that when more powerful breeds are bred and raised improperly their bites can do much more damage than labs and this is reflected in facts all across the country. Once again I do want to be clear that I do not support breed restrictions, muzzle laws, or any of the nonsense that doesn't take individual animals into account.
Posted by: Matt Covey | March 23, 2011 at 09:53 AM
Fair enough Matt. Except, how do you reconcile both Langan's statement that they have a lot of severe attacks by Labs and the real numbers that for each of the 5 years I have data for, Labs were among the top 3 breeds (varying by year but always in the top 3) in SEVERE bite incidents.
Although, no question that larger breed dogs are going to cause more harm than very small ones -- which was part of your point, I'm not sure I'd put Labs into the 'don't bite as hard" category...statistically, that really doesn't ring true, regardless of perceptions.
Posted by: Brent | March 23, 2011 at 09:59 AM
I don`t think the # of Fatalities proves anything about the severity of the bite.
Fatalities are usually due to blood loss so the determining factor whether you die or not would be where you`re bitten not the type of dog that bit you.
There must not be very many severe bites based on the # of Fatalities but we know that`s not true.Most severe bites don`t result in Fatalities.
Posted by: J.M. | March 23, 2011 at 12:18 PM
VERY important point JM makes. And just to add: most fatalities are children... it's not the "how hard" the bite so much as the "where" and "how many".
ANY dog bite can kill, given tragic circumstances.
Dogbite fatalities are trivial, statistically speaking.
Dogbite injuries are worth talking about.
There's no proven correlation between "breed" and bite "severity".
The factors would have to include both size of the jaw and INTENSITY of the bite and INTENT of the biter (intensity and intent being "psychological" rather than an physical factors). A person could be severely injured by bites from an intense/intent Chihuaha, and not injured at all by bites from a mild "pit bull".
Posted by: EmilyS | March 23, 2011 at 03:32 PM
I am returning to you to ask for permission to use this article. I have discovered today that our own city council is considering a dangerous dog ordinance that I intend to fight. After your mention of licensing, I looked at my rott's tag and it is sad that I forgot to renew it until the first week of March and his tag number is 5. 5!! I had more than 5 dogs in my yard annoying me that do not belong to me in the last week alone.
Posted by: Amanda | March 23, 2011 at 06:59 PM
Amanda -use whatever you desire from this blog. It is my hope in writing this that in writing this blog that people can find parts of it useful in their own communities...
Posted by: Brent | March 23, 2011 at 10:47 PM
Just a comment for the guy who said lab bites were not all that bad..Being the daughter of a vet, and then a vet tech and dog trainer myself, I have seen some very serious consequences of lab bites. Including one from a co-worker who had a lab "turn on her with no warning" (which really was not the case) but she ended up needing plastic surgery on the left side of her face. A bite is a bite is a bite...until the general public and dog owners especially take the time to learn how our dogs communicate, and educate themselves on how to actually raise a dog instead of treating it like a human child there will always be bites that while tragic, are completly preventable.
Posted by: Amy | August 03, 2012 at 02:42 PM
Agreed Amy -- and well said.
Posted by: Brent | August 03, 2012 at 02:47 PM
Thank you so much for your work this is such a breath of fresh air amidst all of the hatred directed to such specific breeds and their owners!! Awesome job Brent!!
Posted by: Sg83701 | October 03, 2012 at 12:02 PM