A truth, two mistruths, an important factor and a telling quote

Yesterday, an article was published by the Associated Press about the "Softening" reputation on pit bulls.

The article was balanced -- but as with many cases with balanced reporting, the data actually is very heavily weighted to one side over the other - ie, just because two people disagree on something doesn't mean they're equally qualified to that opinion.

But as with any story, that tries to cover a large topic in a short story, there were some interesting "wow, if only you'd dug here a bit more" moments, so with that, and thus, a truth, two mistruths, an important factor and a telling quote from this AP story. 

The Truth

The headline to the story is an absolute thruth. Pit bull laws, and the reputation of pit bulls IS, indeed, softening.

We're not there yet -- but we are making great progress. 

Currently, there are 16 states that prohibit laws targeting specific breeds of dogs -- with four of those states (Rhode Island, Nevada, Connecticut and Massachussetts) passing their law just in the past 16 months. 

These state laws mirror what is happening on the local level -- where already 6 local communities that have repealed their breed-discriminatory laws -- this goes along with 22 local communities that repealed their laws in 2013.  Finally cities are beginning to look toward the experts in animal behavior and their opinions on breed specific laws in making their decisions. And universally, all reputable national organizations of professional in the field of animal welfare reject breed specific policies.

Meanwhile, pit bulls continue gain in popularity -- as ownership of pit bulls has increased 47% over the past 10 years and pit bulls are now among the top 10 most preferred breeds in the US. 

Media coverage is changing too, as evidenced by how the national media is now portraying pit bulls as what they are, family pets. 

Yes. The perception is changing for the better. Truth.

Two Mistruths

Unfortunately, in the effort to portray two sides to a story, they interviewed three people who supported breed restrictions -- and along with that, came some mis-represented information. One of the people quoted was Don Bauermeister (misidentified as "Burmeister" in the article). Bauermeister is the assistant city attorney in Council Bluffs -- and ends up doing a lot of media appearances as one of only, to my count 8, public figures who support breed-specific policies.  The mistruths then come out of this quote, not directly from Bauermeister himself, but by the writer of the article summing up what he was told by Bauermeister:

"After the Council Bluffs ban went into place, the number of pit bull attacks that resulted in hospitalization plummeted from 29 in 2004 to zero in the past few years - proof, Bauermeister said that breed-specific bans work."

Except, well, a little fact checking would show that the "facts" stated above are indeed, not true. However, according to information received by Animal Farm Foundation, the Iowa Health Department reports that in 2004 Pottawattamie County, IA (where Council Bluffs is located) had three or fewer hospitalizations due to dog bites in the entire county that year.

So, while the article states that 29 people were hospitalized from "pit bull attacks" in Council Bluffs in 2004, the actual statistical data indicates that  in the county (1/3 of the population of which is not in Council Bluffs) is was three or fewer. And that's not from pit bulls.  That's bites from ALL dogs in Pottawattamie County. Breed of dog involved in those incidents is unknown.

It's also specifically worth noting that total number of dog bites in Council Bluffs has also not decreased. Here are the total number of dog bites in Council Bluffs over the past 10 years:

2002 -- 97

2003 -- 85

2004 - 131

2005 - (the year the ban passed): 115

2006 - 132

2007 - 98

2008 - 98

2009 - 97

2010 - 97

2011 - 85

So, essentially, outside of three outlier years in 2004-2006 (one each before and after the ban year), the numbers have remained remarkably consistent over the past decade. So when actual data is analyzed, there is actually no evidence that the ban has made their community safer.

An Important Factor

The story also talked to Jeffery Borchardt. Borchardt too has become a voice for the anti-pit bull movement after his son was tragically killed by two dogs owned by his 14 month old son's baby sitter. The dogs were specifically brother and sister, although one was labeled as a "boxer mix" and the other a "pit bull mix".  I sympathize with Mr. Borchardt and the tragedy his family has endured. While, by all accounts  the dogs were well cared for (as is noted in this AP story) there is one important item that showed up on the police report that the media outlets have completely failed to ever mention. 

According to the full police report, the babysitter notes that she obtained the two dogs at 3 weeks of age. Apparently the mother for the puppies was not producing enough milk and thus, the dogs were removed from the litter at 3 weeks. 

Anyone who is a breeder, or a dog trainer, handler or has read any science, will tell you that this is a recipe for trouble. The science suggests that removing dogs from their litters too early can create a host of negative behaviors including high reactivity to noises, fearfulness, possessive tendencies, attention-seeking, and aggression. While this can be overcome, it is very challenging to do and takes someone with a very high level of skill and diligence to do. This would be especially true for pups that were removed at such an extremely young age.

It's just frustrating that this fact, which was likely a causal factor in the incident involving Mr. Borchardt's son has been virtually ignored and that the incident hasn't been used as a platform to provide more awareness of the importance of early socialization for young dogs and the importance of keeping litters in tact until at least 8 weeks of age. 

A quote

My final piece of this is going to be a quote -- this one specifically attributed to Mr. Bauermeister. Again, Bauermeister is one of only about 8 figures publically in favor of laws targeting breeds, and I think this quote gives you a little insight into one of the leaders of this movement. In the article, it says:

"The opposition to pit bulls bans, Bauermeister added, is a sign that many American pet owners have lost touch with reality. 'Fifty years ago, you could take a sick animal behind a barn and put it out of it's misery,' he said. "That's just the way it was done. Now they investigate you for doing that. The emotional irrationality of Americans and their dogs has never been worse than it is today."

Nothing will get people on your side faster than telling them about how irrational they are for not wanting people taking their dogs behind the barn and shooting them.

While the movement to oppose laws targeting specific breeds is being led by national organizations of dog trainers, and veterinarians, shelter workers, of animal control officers, etc, one of the leaders of the "ban them" movement is calling people "irrational" and "out of touch" for not wanting dogs to be shot behind the barn.

This should give a little insight to the two sides of the story. Is America listening?

 

Comments

[EmilyS]

rock on Brent!
The only slam dunk you didn't attempt was versus the quotes from the notorious CL and her misrepresentation of the situation in the military (housing bans) as well as the delicious possibility that the Maryland legislature is about to make any old court ruling there irrelevant.

[Laurie Hoffmann]

Great article, as usual. One thing I'd like to add about the Borchardt case is that, according to the police report, the babysitter had caged rabbits stacked in the hallway in the apartment. She also stated that she fed the two dogs together one cup of food twice a day. Additionally, when she came to Watertown, she stated that she gave them "good food and love" but she never mentioned training.

[Cloey Jade]

Another thing i would like to point out via the police report involving Borchardts son is the fact that the officers observed Iwickis dogs behaving in a predatory manner to animals that were in cages. The same animals they lived with day in and day out and should have been accustomed to. They observed them working together to try and hunt those small animals. This is very telling about their training and their prey drive. Iwicki stated that Dax began to cry and thats when they went after him. Prey drive.

[Cloey Jade]

Haha i see someone already pointed that out :)

[Marc]

Brent - could you post a link to the primary source material for those Pott. county stats? Also - if you have the Aurora stats, that would also be great.

[Erika]

Another person chiming in on more information concerning the Borchardt tragedy.

Both dogs were over a year behind on their vaccinations. The male had been ill/vomiting for several days prior to the attack and was not taken to see a vet.

[Brent]

Marc,

The Pottawattamie information was provided to me via email from a respected source. Essentially the reason the numbers "3 or fewer" is because the department of health will do a "suppressed total" for all categories where the number is less than 4. So because dog bite hospitalization totals were suppressed, we know it was 3 or less, but cannot be sure on the actual number. If you go to Animal Farm Foundation's Facebook page you can see some documentation for the number, although it is less detailed there than what I received via email.

Here's the data for Aurora -- the numbers here were pulled directly from city records presented to the council:

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2011/02/aurora-looks-to-become-ada-compliant-while-city-councilman-misleads-about-the-stats.html

[EmilyS]

Animal Farm Foundation posted about the Iowa statistics:
(quote)
Animal Farm Foundation @Jacqueline Keidel, when we first heard that Council Bluffs was making the assertion that their statistics proved that BSL was a success, we contacted the Iowa Department of Health to collect the data directly from the source. The assertions of Council Bluffs' assistant city attorney are not reflected by the Iowa Department of Health information. The number of people who were hospitalized in Pottawattamie County was so small the numbers were suppressed to avoid incorrect reporting. The Iowa Department of Health suppresses data when the number of those hospitalized is less than 4. What this means is that 3 or fewer people were hospitalized due to dog bite related injuries in 2004 in all of Pottawattamie County, let alone Council Bluffs. And the breed of dog involved is unknown. So, there is no link to the data but a little research at the Iowa Department of Health gave us the information. Hope that helps! (unquote)

Fred Kray did a post on the Aurora statistics: http://stopbsl.org/2011/03/14/aurora-co-council-to-consider-breed-ban-revisions-march-17/

[Brent]

Thanks Emily....I had posted a response but apparently my spam filter filtered me. Awesome.

[Cheryl Huerta]

Thanks for the info Brent. The statistics for Council Bluffs you provided will make great statistics for presentations on BSL to point out why it doesn't work even when those who are implementing it says that it is working. Those statistics will make it into my presentations right beside the great ones you provided for Aurora CO.

Thanks also for the info about the Borchart case. Yes I am with you. It is tragic that any parent loses a child and tragic that the child died as a result of dogs. However it never ceases to amaze me how the anti-pit bull folks believe that they can pick and choose 'their facts' from the full 'facts' to get support for their cause. Then when we try to provide statistical data and facts, usually the facts they leave out, that can be verified we are deemed heartless, crazy pit bull lovers who are out of touch with reality.

Oh well everyone here already has been faced with that no doubt...

At any rate once again you've provided us pit bull advocates out here with some good information that we can use in our ongoing and endless argument that it isn't the dog's breed or even the dog that determines how safe or dangerous it is but it is the human being in charge of the dog that makes that determination through choosing to be a responsible dog owner or an irresponsible one.

[Cheryl Huerta]

By the way Brent thanks for the info on puppies taken from their mother too soon. I wasn't aware of this information and since I have a dog that was abandoned on the steps of a local shelter with two siblings, that didn't make it, at what the shelter believes was two weeks old it is great information and truly explains some of the issues we've had with our Scooby.

But maybe being ignorant of the possibilities due to his leaving his mother so early has been an advantage because we've been working with him on his issues and have gotten a long way with him. But it's always nice to know why he might have had those issues to begin with. To make matters worse he was 'raised' by the cat lady at the shelter which I don't think was a good first choice but it's water under the bridge now.

[Marc]

Thanks for the info Brent. Is there more recent data from Aurora available? I've seen the older data, but was hoping to find something that covered 2011, 12, 13...

[Brent]

Marc, unfortunately I do not have more current data....I feel like I've seen it somewhere, but at this point I don't have it in my files....

[EmilyS]

If any new statistics on Aurora (or other locations in Colorado) are available, the folks at www.coloradogs.org will have them

[Brent]

Marc -- I've found them. I'll post some updated numbers in the next day or two....

[Marc]

Excellent... thanks!

[flgurl]

Now how about gett them legalized in Prince George's county? Pls

[Sharon]

So glad I found you! I'm in. Animal control in Council Bluffs just told my 86 year old mother that they are going to take her pit away...breaks my heart. He means so much to her...and she has suffered so many losses in the past few years. I wish we could change something in the six days they have left together.