My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Sioux City, IA -- a 6 year look back at its breed-specific legislation | Main | BSL -- arbitrary, unfair and targeting resources at the wrong people »

October 30, 2014



Fear-based politics sucks. Always.


outstanding summary. I suppose anymore you just basically need to cut/paste the facts for each location, just having to update the figures for the specific locality. WHEN will people get it?


One of our councilmembers said something very similar to what Aurora's Molly Merkert said. A Reynoldsburg City Councilman stated," It isn't about the dogs, it is about the people that own the dogs." Hard to believe people that makes statements like these are voted into office.


Lori do you have a link to that?

Nancy Tranzow

Thank you Brent! As always a spectacular, well presented and factual blog.


Good luck Nancy. I hope this gets repealed but I am always pessimistic when voters are asked to overturn BSL. Most people just want to be safe, and communities are safe whether or not BSL in in place or not. So they're not going to overturn what is "working". Witness the Miami vote from two years ago.

However, I know there has been a lot of press about this issue in Aurora. More discussion and information is generally good for the anti-BSL advocates. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised by the voting results.

Cheryl Huerta

Thank you as usual Brent. This is so very timely for me as I've just recently been interviewed by a local newspaper reporter for an article he is doing here in Portland Oregon about pit bulls in response to three recent alleged pit bull related incidents. I have shared your blog with him in the hope that he will find some of the information useful in the writing of the article.

Thanks my friend!


I'm pessimistic as well... I think over 40% should be considered a moral victory. I have to admit - I'm kind of a bit discouraged as to the quality of the advocacy - I know ColoRADogs is working their butts off, but I'm kind of wondering why this is the first I've seen the updated statistics. This should be point #1,#2 and #3 - the ban has failed, instead of getting into the weeds with the nuances of dog breed identification and behavior. It's been fairly obvious that Aurora ACC has been selectively describing the situation with their "pit bull bites" are down narrative, and without the full data to counter, that's what seems to be getting out.

Hoping Im wrong.

Greg Hoffmann

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." - Adolf Hitler

Pat F.

"It's not about a fact, it's about a feeling."

I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life? This woman is proud of basing public policy that impacts thousands of people solely on feelings?

Does she think that violent crime is stopped by making potential victims feeling safer, or by education and laws and community/police action?

Dog bites are not feelings; they are facts. The euthanasia of dogs because of their appearance rather than their behavior, i.e. the numbers and incidences, are facts. Both sides of this issue should rely on facts as well as feelings.

Here's hoping for some sanity from the voters in Colorado (all dogs to be judged by their behavior rather than appearance/breed); and continued responsible behavior in all dog owners (well, I can hope).


reasons for #3

1) Aurora Sentinel editorialized against repeal, comparing pit bulls to cheetahs and lions
2) Denver Post editorialized against repeal
3) every local media story about the repeal quoted Dogsbite.. but NO local citizens against repeal (apparently they couldn't find any)
4) one station stated "BSL is increasing across the country" and when questioned, cited Animal Control as the source (the real source is Dogsbite manipulated figures; the actual trend of course is overwhelmingly to repeal BSL)
5) a few days before deadline for ballot return (Colorado is an all mail-in ballot state, so it's not a "polls close" matter), media reported on a "pit bull leaps off balcony to kill another dog", though no one other than unnamed witnesses called the dog a pit bull ... and of course the station has NEVER reported on any other dog-kills-dog story and of course they didn't bother to find out how many such incidents occur. One local advocate reported asking a witness who said the dog did not in fact jump off the balcony)

Conclusion: evidence suggests local media is not interested in reporting facts, but only in playing stenographer to anti-pit bull forces and contributing to hatred and hysteria


No surprise that the ban is staying, see my above comments. Nancy and other advocates did a lot of work, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see 33% of citizens voted Yes.

People want to feel safe, and as Brent always says when he posts about a bite study or a DBRF, we are generally safe from dog bites whether we live in a community with BSL or without it. So asking the citizenry to change the status quo is very very very hard. The good news is that I would not expect communities that don't have BSL to vote to put it in, and far more communities do not have pit bull bans than do. Does anybody think that Fort Collins would have voted 70% in favor of instituting a pit bull ban given that they don't have one today?

Maybe someday a community could hold a vote and overturn a pit bull ban, but I think we're a long way from that point. Given that, I don't think 33% voting Yes in Aurora is a failure in a big picture sense, though it does stink for people in that community.


Emily -- you are completely right in your assessment of #3.

Joel, I agree with your assessment. I'm not surprised. I also think it's an interesting thought about if a city without a ban put it to a vote that it would be unlikely such a high percentage would vote in favor of a ban. But people fear change (which is the primary election approach for all incumbents).

In general, I think that it's unfortunately fairly easy to frightening people into voting to take rights away from others.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)