Omaha's breed-specific law "successful" at increasing the number of bites

This is one of those stories that gives me some room to almost celebrate while I beat my head against the proverbial wall.

In this morning's Omaha World News, there is a story about the city's 5 year old dangerous dog law. The law has some good points -- particularly in that it can create a reckless owner if someone has a dog in violation of ordinances twice within a three year period, and that it does have some restrictions on the amount of time a dog can be tied up alone.  However, the law also classifies all 'pit bull type" dogs (which, includes 9 breeds in their eyes) as "potentially danerous" and requires them to either be muzzled or go through Canine Good Citizen Training.

In the story, city leaders who pushed fro the law say they're "pleased" with the results.

The law was largely pushed through by one woman, who pushed the law through after her child was tragically attacked by a 'pit bull' in 2008 (fortunately, the child is now doing well). She said her goal was to protect other kids from having to deal with the trauma of being bitten or attacked by dogs.

According to the newspaper report, the number of bite cases involving pit bulls (as they've defined them) has dropped from 123 in 2008, to 38 in 2012.

That sounds like an incredible success. Except when it's not.

The story goes on to note: "Reports of dog bites by all breeds, however, have increased since the adoption of the ordinance."  Uh oh. 

Those who favored the Omaha ordinance quickly bursh that aside as just increased public awareness but really, they don't know that for sure. What they do know is that they passed the ordinance, and they want it to be successful (and it's very lucrative for the Nebraska Humane Society who handles animal control for the city because they are largest provider of the required Canine Good Citizen Training for pit bulls) and so let's ignore the ugly statistic that doesn't agree with us.

For the past 5 years, I've been tracking the "success" of the Omaha Ordinance (there is a lot of data at the link).  In 2008 (which, they're using as the base year, so I will too) there were 808 total dog bites: 123 by 'pit bulls', and 685 by everything else. 

In 2012, there were 981 total dog bites: 38 by "pit bulls" and 943 by everything else. 

So while the city has spent countless resources getting responsible owners of pit bull types to jump through hoops and get Canine Good Citizen Certification to avoid having to muzzle their dogs, dog bites in total have gone up 21% and bites by all non-targeted dogs have gone up 38%. 

It's also important to note that the dogs responsible for doing the most biting are not small dogs. In 2012, the top 4 "breeds" in bite listings were: Labrador Retrievers (92 bites), Stray/unidentified dogs (56), German Shepherds (46) and Boxers (41). 

Pardon me while I throw up a little while the city officials and the Nebraska Humane Society pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

If the goal is to lower the number of people who are being bitten, and suffering severe injuries by dogs (particularly children), then by every total statistical measure the law has been a complete and utter failure. 

If the goal was merely to restrict pit bulls, regardless of how much we mislead the public about true causal factors of dog bites and we don't care how many people really get bitten, just as long is not by a pit bull, then, well, I guess that'd be a success. Justify it however you need to I suppose.

So while this type of thing makes my head hurt, I do want to note that I don't want to lose sight of the fact that somehow this story is progress.  While not perfect, I would like to give the Omaha World Herald a round of applause, or at least a resounding golf clap, for being the first media outlet in FIVE YEARS to actually mention that dog bites are going up, not down. Maybe that little nugget of information will help spark people to start asking what's really going on in Omaha....and keeping people from getting bitten by dogs isn't it.

Comments

[susmart]

Please explain WHY this law is called OBAMA'S breed-specific law, as President's only SIGN laws passed by congress. Unless I missed something- and he personally pushed the law- the person responsible for INTRODUCING the law gets the credit/blame.

[Joel]

While the muzzle law is nonsense, I wonder how many dog bites there would be if ALL owners were required to leash their dogs when off of their own property.

Couldn't Omaha use this so-called success with pit bulls to say "Hey, maybe if we had all owners leash their dogs and receive training, dog bites as a whole might go down".

[Brent]

Su smart - read the headline again. More slowly this time.

Joel, Omaha already has a leash law. I actually like some elements of their law -- such as the idea of tethering restrictions. I also like the idea of requiring dog owners who show themselves as reckless either being required to take training classes, or, not being allowed to own pets again (depending on the frequency and severity of their issues). But they just got themselves caught up in the breed-specific nonsense, and it not only trains people to believe that only those types of dogs can be problems, it also uses a lot of resources targeting owners of the targeted breeds who were already responsible (and not a problem) in the first place.

[Joel]

So all dogs have to be on a leash?

I was reading the line in the article: "Pit bulls that are not in the ambassador program now are required to wear a muzzle and must be on a leash when outside their yard."

But would it be more accurate to say that pit bulls that are in the ambassador program are exempt from the city's leash law?

[Brent]

No. They have a leash law too. But when they crafted their dangerous dog law, they put "leashed and muzzled" in the law for pit bulls, even though all dogs were already required to be leashed (can never be too careful). So dogs that pass the ambassador program, don't have to be muzzled, but would still have to leashed under the law that applies to all dogs.

[Every Pit Bull in America]

Great write up Brent

[Nick]

Thanks for the write up Brent, we shared it on our facebook page (facebook.com/thepitbullpartnership).

[Nick]

I wonder if a contributing reason for the drop in "pit bull" bites is due to the fact that people no longer identified their mixed dogs as "pit bulls" after the ordinance was passed in 2008.

[Brent]

I'm sure there has been some reclassification of some. I wouldn't doubt that some of the different classification is being done by NHS also...

[don cummings]

Dogs adopted through the Humane Society are ID'd by them as majority or minority pit bull mixes if need be. Our dog is a minority pit bull mix and as such is treated like any other mixed breed dog. Omaha does have a leash law for all dogs. In general the NHS has been good about enforcing the dog laws. Hopefully when the public and elected officials truly look at these dog bite #'s they will see that the issue is dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners. But, I am not holding my breath.

[Nick]

The "minority" vs "majority" pit bull idea is a big issue in Omaha. NHS's classification could mean whether your short haired, block headed dog has to follow the ordinance or not. They do their best in classifying dogs based on appearance. This has been proven to be ineffective. "Pit Bulls" that have been labelled one way by NHS have had DNA tests which prove the opposite.

All these classifications do is prove that Breed Specific Ordinances are a waste of time and tax payer dollars. Judging behavior based on physical appearance is failed policy.

[Brent]

Here are at least 2 examples of the arbitrary enforcement:

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/11/breed-identification-issues-omaha.html

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/12/omaha-bsl-enforcement-is-arbitrary.html

[Arika]

To the person asking why it's called Obama's breed specific law... You may want to read it again. It's OMAHA, not Obama. Just wanted to clarify