Is No Kill leading to more dog bites in Austin? No, but DBO again pushes for failed policy

Earlier this month, Colleen Lynn, writer of dogsbite.org, approached the city council of Austin, TX. In her presentation, she noted that dog bites have increasing in Austin since 2007, and blamed the city's adoption of "No Kill" policy for the increase in bites.  According to Lynn, the combination of pit bulls "flooding" open admission shelters and No Kill leading to "reduced screening of potential adopters and behavior testing, is a considerable public safety risk".

Lynn then went on to kind of propose, but not really propose (it's kind of confusing what she's asking for here) either differential licensing, mandatory spay/neuter, or both.  You can read all the documentation here.

Last week, I got the opportunity to be on the Pit Bulletin Legal News radio program last week and Fred and his team assembled some data to take a deeper look at the situation in Austin.

To be fair, Lynn's data is actually correct -- in as far as it goes. Dog bites have been going up in Austin. It is her desire to only collect and reportthe data that she feels supports her point that causes her to have dramatically inaccurate conclusions in an attempt to provide causal correlation.

First, let me note that there is no evidence (and still no evidence) that No Kill in any way decreases public safety. No Kill is about saving lives. It's about keeping animals in homes that don't need to be removed from homes. It's about increasing adoptions so that animals that find their way to the shelter are given the opportunity to live. Aggressive/dangerous dogs are still humanely euthanized.  And adopters are still screened (although No Kill would does not set arbitrary rules that lead to homes being needless turned away). 

Meanwhile, the city of Austin put together a response to Lynn's assertions -- which involved a much broader range of data.

According to their data, here is the number of dog bites by year over the past decade:

2000        909

2001        947

2002        858

2003        764

2004        776

2005        778

2006        995

2007        1015

2008        1065

2009        1074

2010        1222

2011        1449

Based on the report: "Simply showing a broader timeframe shows that the upward trend in bite reports has remained consistent since 2003 -- 6 years before the Council's resolution."

Whoops.

The report goes on to show the increase in population for the city of Austin and Travis County -- which is now the fastest growing metro area in the country.  Given the large swing in population over the past decade (from about 800,000 to more than 1.05 million), it would seem fairly obvious why there is an increase in dog bites.  Thus, according to the report, "Therefore, the passing of the no-kill resolution has no substantive correlation to bite report increases, whereas population growth provides a strong correlative relation for a consistent increase in bite reports."

Wow, things are going downhill quickly for the dogbites.org folks.

So one other thing I want to highlight are the difference between minor, and severe dog bites.

Again, looking at the data from the city of Austin, here are the number of dog bites by type over the last decade:

Year            Minor            Moderate        Severe        Unknown

2000            610                    218                47                34

2001            689                    188                39                39

2002            607                    167                49                35

2003            599                    113                15                37

2004            583                    138                22                33

2005            603                    133                15                27

2006            687                    207                52                49

2007            708                    228                32                47

2008           682                    260                52                 71

2009            711                    260                44                59

2010            732                    350                45                95

2011            873                    402                62                112

A couple of important points here:

#1) Over the past 12 years, Austin, a city that now has more than 1 million people and an estimated 525,000 dogs, has averaged less than 40 severe bite incidents a year.  Most dog bite incidents are very minor (68% were minor and 23% moderate), again showing how absolutely safe dogs are relative to the populatin of people and canines.

2)  Of the total population of owned dogs, only .007% were involved in a severe bite.

3) Only 1 of the severe bites in 2010 and 2011 were attributed to dogs that had been adopted from the City Shelter.

In conclusion, the city report notes:

"When looking at a more thorough dataset than used by dogsbite.or, we can conclusively say that we do not believe there is any evidence that suggest the no kill plan has any direct affect on bite report volume."

I think this is outstanding information for everyone to read and be aware of. I've often heard the accusations that No Kill = a decrease in public safety, and this is essentially the first real analysis that I've seen address this issue (and shows that the assertion is false).  It also shows that DBO continues to push for inneffective legislation that is aimed at unnecessarily killing dogs that would have no positive impact on public safety.

 

Comments

[EmilyS]

calculate dogbites/capita.
Raw statistics are pretty useless for exactly the reason you point out. Population goes up, "x" goes up.

[Brent]

Emily,

I was unable to find specific yearly totals for population as the census only updates estimates every few years.

The link I provided above to the city of Austin data actually has a bites per capita chart. At its lowest point (in 2005) it is a little below .1%, at its highest point, it is a little above .1% - -probably around .13% or .14%. So it appears to have gone up a little since 2005, but that would also mirror the increase in dog ownership over that time and again, began going up years before the city declared itself no kill. And again, I'll note, the largest increase was in the very minor bites...

[Brent]

More detailed data from the city can be found here:

http://austintexas.gov/page/bite-report-data

[John Richardson]

Yeah, she's cherry picking. No surprise there.

[Joel]

DBO is an easy target for animal welfare folks, and her website is good for a few laughs, but this illustrates the real underlying problem with their point of view. Selective data that is chosen to support a predetermined opinion can generally easily be refuted, or at least countered. For once, it looks like a fairly professional approach was used - but when the response is also professionally prepared and the issue is thoroughly investigated, the recommendations just don't make a lot of sense.

[Mary]

I am glad to see her put her foot in her mouth in public. I am tired of debating with people that get their info. from her site, cause they believe it's all true. But their is a way to reduce the dog bites number. That is at the first signs of aggression. Having a dog temperament tested and educating dog owners. Tho, a lot of people own dogs. Not all know how to properly take care of their dogs.(exercise, socialization, etc....)

[Fayclis]

Sounds like Austin has some pretty good people working doing due dilligence. One thing about Lynne, she sure can spew allot of BS. Nice to see her get her hand caught in the cookie jar.

[Ras Jacks]

Don't let the numbers fool you either way, my friends. Regardless of the data anti-dog advocates will always exist and attempt to gain tighter laws on dogs. As long as dogs bite there will be hate groups. No one likes getting bit after all. Some of the most fanatic criticism seems to be coming from the Church of Antimuttology who openly condemn all breeds of dogs as evil. http://killthedogs.blogspot.com
I'm not sure what branch of religion they are classified under exactly, but they seem profoundly aggravated by the existence of dogs.
Anyway, cheers on your blog! This is one of the most comprehensive that I have seen so far and it seems more balanced than PETA's website even. I really appreciate the work you do to protect our furry friends. :-) If possible, Go Vegan!

[A Facebook User]

Brent,
Thank you so much for presenting a truly rational perspective that is both factual and objective. The amount of vitriol hurled at anyone who tries to present a reasonable argument against BSL or mandatory Pit type Spay/Neuter laws by the DBO crowd is always amazing. The ignorance is certainly frightening. Recently I was reading a thread in which Tony Solesky defended his lawsuit in Maryland. He could only reference DBO stats and when confronted with facts he was reduced to making statements like "The AKC considers Pit bulls to be the dumbest of breeds" Apparently he was unaware that the AKC doesn't recognize a breed known as "Pit Bull" and that they don't necessarily rate breeds by a single intelligence quotient. Again thank you for this website and the work you do.

[Randy Carothers]

Of course the number of dog bites goes up as the population increases. No real suprise there and certainly the trend lines show that. But based on Austin's own numbers it appears since 2007 the bites are up approximately 30% and the population is up perhaps 13%. (I am interpolating from the graph). Sure some are not serious bites and not huge numbers but if car wrecks were going up quicker than the population I suspect it would be worrisome from a public safety stand point even if they were not serious wrecks. And remeber every bite is a potential rabies spread to a human no matter how minor. Is that No Kills fault? Can't say but the trend in bites would appear to be rising quicker than the population is rising. And of course Austin is in a bit of a box having publically gone no kill so I am not surprised they are supportive of the political decisions they have already made. Also, I noticed their is no mention of Austin's Public Safety Commission (a group of citizens)that came to a differnt conclusion all together and believes bites are up on a per capita basis. Once again is this No Kills fault? Don't think anyone really knows just yet.

[Brent]

Randy,

Keep in mind that while the human population probably went up 13% or so (I'll take your word for it, I haven't gone back to the graph(the dog population has likely gone up by more than that amount as the percent of the population owning dogs (and total number owned) has been growing for the past decade. The number of bites per capita for the dog population may still be going up, but this would even out the numbers even further.

I pretty much discount the rabies possibility. Rabies in domesticated dogs in this country is virtually non-existent and it's been more than 30 years since the last person in the US died from a domestic dog bite (there have been a few from bats, or dog bites in other countries). While people should still take precautions because of the severity of rabies, the likelihood of someone getting it is virtually non-existent in the US.

If when you talk about the Austin Public Safety Commission report you're referring to the document put together by Colleen Lynn, then yes, I purposefully left it off as Lynn shared only a part of the same data that is presented above, and has proven herself to have an agenda of creating fear and hysteria around dog bites, particularly for those involving particular breeds of dogs, against No Kill, and for presenting false and misleading data in order to further her agenda. If there is something else that was presented, then I'd love to see a copy.

[Randy Carothers]

Hi Brent and thanks for the thoughts. I guess the increase could be accounted for by an increase in dog ownership although that seems like quite a jump in those limited number of years to be accounted for by that unless ownership of animals really increased substantially. As for rabies I will grant it is certainly limited to non existant but that is due to many years of dilligence and increased use of rabies vaccines. All good things for sure. Will use my car analogy again and state if seat belts have reduced injury accidents we don't want to stop using them just because the rate has dropped. At least in Texas State Law still requires a rabies quarantine in an animal bite cases so those smarter than me seem to still think their is still some risk from it. Of course the State Law could be outdated but that is a whole other discussion, lol. I do not know this Lynn person at all and I personally don't carry any particular breed bias but just looked at the overall numbers. I have however seen (and this kind of one of observation can always be misleading) animals that bit adopted out on multiple occasions and then returned for biting only to be adopted out again. The people doing the adopting were certainly trying to help the animal but in turn were puting folks and sometimes kids at risk a they did not disclose the information. They were strongly driven by desire to minimize euthanasia but there is a balance some where. I guess time will tell how successful we can be. I also noticed your comments on Austin and the fact it is a journey. I really appreciate your insight into how challanging an open admission shelter environment can be. Unfrotunately their are some in the No Kill movement that seem to get a kick out of demeaning shelters rescue run or other wise because they cannot attain some goal over night. That is sad to me as it may take a wonderfull goal of reducing euthanasia and turn it into a radical political agenda that wil be harder to support. I have seen shelters that attempted to go No Kill over night and the animals are the ones that suffer. Thanks again for your thoughts.

[Brent]

"Unfortunately there are some in the No Kill movement that seem to get a kick out of demeaning shelters rescue run or other wise because they cannot attain some goal over night. That is sad to me as it may take a wonderfull goal of reducing euthanasia and turn it into a radical political agenda that wil be harder to support." -- I don't disagree. While I think that no kill (as defined by 90% save rates, understanding some need to be truly euthanized due to disease, injury, or aggression)can happen in this country, I do think it is a process in many places and requires a lot of infastructure (fosters, volunteers, rescues, spay/neuter, etc) to happen. I think every place is at a different spot along the continuum than others, and thus, will take more or less time to implement. First, we need to change the conversation about "if" it can happen, and focus more on "how" to make it happen -- tand then work with communities to make these changes happen more quickly.

[Randy Carothers]

Very well said! Spay neuter won't do it alone, increased adoptions won't do it alone, pretending their is no problem won't do it alone and so on. But a comprehensive non emotional approach to reaching the goal has a good chance!!

[William Worsham]

Just saying, that no-kill often only cites statistics, or even claims "data" that is not actually data, which only supports its cause. It is no suprise this person did the same.