KC DOG BLOG

Seven Facts about Aurora, CO's breed ban before next week's vote

Next week, voters in Aurora, CO will have the opportunity to repeal the city's 9 year old breed ban.

The city has discussed the potential repeal multiple times since the law's inception and finally decided to take the repeal idea to the voters. I personally think it's up-hill battle to win a repeal via a public vote, generally because if a ban is in place, most of the residents have had very little personal interaction with the banned breeds and thus, are more apt to have to rely on the media coverage as the basis for their opinions. To this point, the area media has not been terribly accurate in their reporting.

So with that, here are 7 facts that voters in Aurora need to know prior to heading to the polls.

#1) All national organizations with expertise in dog behavior support repealing breed bans.

Every. Single. One. These organizations of professionals are basing their reputations on their opposition to breed-specific laws. And these organizations are very diverse, and include the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the National Animal Control Association (NACA), American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), the American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and the American Bar Association all agree that laws targeting breeds are ineffective and should be replaced with laws targeting aggressive dogs based on their behavior, not their breed.

You can read their position statements here.

#2) The 9 year old breed ban has NOT been effective at improving public safety

In fact, the number of bites in Aurora has actually increased by 77% since the law was put into effect and the law seemed reverse  what was a trend of decreasing dog bites and bites immediately began trending upward after the law passed. In fact, the four highest years in total dog bites occurred AFTER the law was enacted to supposedly improve public safety.  Here are the raw numbers from 2003-2013:

Year                Total Bites                    Bites by targeted breeds            Bites by other breeds

2003                 213                                         28                                                        185

2004                 211                                         33                                                        178

2005                 137                                         27                                                        110

Ordinance Passed October 24, 2005

2006                 137                                         8                                                          129

2007                 172                                         15                                                         157

2008                 224                                         8                                                         216

2009                 229                                         9                                                          220

2010                 194                                          6                                                         188

2011                 252                                          9                                                          243

2012                 241                                          6                                                         235

2013                 243                                        10                                                        233

The total number of bite incidents has increased 77% since the passing of the ordinance back in 2006.

It's also worth noting that the breed ban was set at addresssing only about 15% of the dog bites in Aurora -- and never even attempted to address 85% of the cases.

#3) In spite of the total bite data being easily available via Freedom of Information Act, not one single media outlet in the Denver/Aurora area has decided to publish it.

#4)  What the ordinance has done is lead to the mass slaughter of more than 1,100 dogs that look like pit bulls - at taxpayer expense.

According to a memo produced by Aurora Animal Care PR Specialist Cheryl Conway, dated January 27th, 636 pit bulls were killed in 2006 -- the first year after the ban was passed. 173 were killed in 2007 and roughly 100 every year since then. 

The ordinance has led to the direct killing of more than 1,000 family pets since it was enacted. An article from the Aurora Sentinel put the death tally at 1,158 nearly a year ago.  While the rest of the nation is working hard to save healthy, treatable dogs, the city of Aurora is using taxpayer money to round them up and kill them. 

#5) Aurora City Council members that support the law have acknowledged that the law isn't about improved public safety and is not rooted in factual information.

Last week, Aurora City Council Woman Molly Markert told ABC 7 in Denver:

 "Oh, you bet if I could, I would ban the owners too.  By banning the dogs, we lose the violent behavior that comes with the owners."  She then went on to say that breed bans make people feel safer. "It's not about a fact, it's about a feeling."

In saying this, she acknowledges that she is racist, or at the very least classist, vs the stereotypes of people she THINKS own pit bulls. Never mind that pit bulls are among the most popular breeds of dogs in the country, and owned by people of all races, income levels, and professions including lawyers, academics, and young professionals. 

Markert's reactions should be extremely frightening to anyone who believes in fact-based decision-making and policies not designed to target people by perceived race or class. 

#6) The expense of managing the ordinance has been substantial, including substantial legal fees that are being paid with taxpayer funds.

In an email from Assistant City Attorney Julie Heckman from February 2014 notes that the city has suffered many legal challenges, to which they have suffered substantial losses.

In the ADA case, Grider, Belcher and Piltz vs the City of Denver & Aurora, the city of Aurora endured more than $130,000 in legal fees associated with defending the law (in a case which they eventually lost).

They also have been challenged in their breed identification of more than 100 dogs -- and ended up being wrong on the the breed ID in 77% of the cases. Again, all at taxpayer expense.

 #7) City officials have already acknowledged that the original breed ban was a failure. 

 The original law banned 10 different breeds of dogs back in 2006. However, in April 2011, the council voted to remove 7 breeds from the banned breeds list due to their struggles in enforcing the law.

 The law is a failure. It's failed in public safety. It's cost innocent pets their lives. It's cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the council members who support the law acknowledge it's not rooted in fact, and only makes people feel better. And the law has no professional support.

Voters in Aurora, I urge you to vote to repeal the city's breed ban on Tuesday. The rest of the nation is watching.

Stoking fear and hysteria in Aurora

I've worked several jobs in my life. In each of those jobs, I learned from other experts in my field. 

When I worked at an advertising agency, I followed the work of the leading agencies and looked for mentors in my field. Now that I work mostly in sales, I read and watch online training programs designed by people with a track record of success.  When we began running the KC Pet Project, I immediately sought out advice on medical best practices from the University of California Davis shelter medicine program, and the Maddies Fund Shelter medicine program, and advice about best practices in life-saving from shelter directors that had been successful at life-saving in their own shelters.

This seems like the natural course of action to take -- if you are in a field, learn about what the experts in your field are saying and doing and build on best practices. 

Unfortunately, it appears that animal control in Aurora, CO has taken a different approach.

Earlier this month I noted tha the city of Aurora was considering a possible repeal of its 8 year old ban on pit bulls. In that blog posting, I noted that there was a memo written by the Aurora Animal Control that specifically stated that the current "ban on pit bulls continues to effectively work as intended," and they recommended the city keep the ban. This statement was made in spite of the reality that dog bites have gone up in the community, and more than 1,100 dogs have been killed at taxpayer expense. If this is "effective" and "as intended" it seems like maybe someone is missing the point.

Well, Aurora Animal Control has missed a lot of points it turns out. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, I was able to obtain a full copy of the of the memo crafted by animal control and it is, well, embarrassing.  

It leads me to question not only where they get their knowledge base of information, but also if they've actually ever interacted with a pit bull beyond sticking a needle in it to kill it.

First of all, let's think for a minute about who you would look to for knowledge and advice if you were the head of an animal control department.

If it were me, I might first check in with the National Animal Control Association -- an association that if they are not a part of, they should be. NACA of course thinks dangerous or vicious dogs should be labeled as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed.

Or, maybe they would seek out the advice of the veterinary community. The Veterinary Community understands how health and behavior work together, and their members have millions of hours of hands-on experience with dogs, so they would have a good point of view. Here too, the AVMA notes that "by generalizing the behaviors of dogs that look a certain way, innocent dogs suffer and may even be euthanized without evidence they pose a threat." The AVMA also has a well-written document that is a decade old about a community approach to dog bite prevention that also recommends a behavior-based approach. 

Or maybe, they might check with the Center for Disease Control. The CDC has long been established to help governing bodies deal with disease and health issues across the US and has taken an interested in protection from dog bites. The CDC is also against targeting breeds of dogs. The CDC recommends the AVMA papper mentioned above as a best approach for dog bite prevention.

Or, maybe they could have looked to the dog training community. Obviously dog training community has a strong understanding of dog behavior, and breed traits, and would be a good resource. Here too, the National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors, International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, Association of Professional Dog Trainers, and the International Association of Canine Professionals all unanimously agree that targeting breeds is an ineffective approach.

Or maybe they would have looked to the sheltering community, who also handles millions of animals per year, and would know how to end the mass slaughter of the dogs in their shelter. And here too, the Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Society and others all agree that targeting breeds is ineffective.

But strangely, none of these resources were included in the memo written by Aurora Animal Control to the city officials.  In their six page memo to the city council, the Animal Control Department included NINE citations from THREE different resources.  The resources were:

1) A website created by a web developer who's sole experience with dogs is having been bitten by one

2) An article written by a city attorney

3) An article written in the 90s in a trade magazine for city officials. 

So in a six page article, the animal control division for Aurora cited three sources with zero of them having any expertise in canine health or behavior, and one of them an article that was written more than 15 years ago. So the information contained in it is neither current, nor credible.

I wish I was joking, but I'm not.

And worse, there are many statements that were made without attribution that are designed solely to scare people into trying to keep the ban, and a few that make you scratch your head and wonder -- have the people who have written this even handled dogs before? 

The Memo

The is a lot in the memo, but here are a few of the highlights lowlights:

"The number of pit bulls euthanized continues to decline. The number of dogs released due to DNA Testing or by court order....remains relatively steady and has even increased over the past two years."

I think this was intended to be a positive, but really, after killing 650 dogs in 2006, and another 200 in 2007, of course the number killed will go down because you've already killed them all. Meanwhile, this also acknowledges the amount of taxpayer resources getting tied up in court orders for dogs that shouldn't have been prosecuted is increasing, and that their ability to  breed ID dogs isn't very reliable. 

"To date, the number of issues stemming from Pit Bulls has not increased, and the intent of the ordinance remains effective."

The number of dog bites are up. The number of animals killed has increased. And the amount of money being spent in court that are being overthrown due to DNA and false breed IDs is going up. "Effective" seems like not the right word.

"Staff is concerned that if Aurora's ban is repealed, it is liekly the pit bulls banned in Denver, Commerce City, Lone Tree, Castle Rock, Louisville, & Fort Lupton will move into our city and the serious injuries might resurface."

Fear mongering much? Over the past 3 years more than 50 communities have repealed their breed-bans and guess how many have reported this issue?  Zero.

If this were true, surely a city like Boulder, CO, which has never had a breed ban, would have seen an influx of aggressive dogs coming into their city from the same cities mentioned and yet their number of dog bites per capita in Boulder  is 1/3 of that of Denver (which has a ban). Heck, Aurora itself repealed a ban on 7 breeds of dogs 2 years ago and is not seeing any influx of those breeds taking over the streets of Aurora. This has never been documented to have happened, even in their own city.

And then, more fear-mongering recalling back to when the ordinance was enacted:

"At that time, pit bulls were the dogs of choice for gang members....breeding them, fighting them and abandoning them....For safety reasons, Animal Care Officers could not respond to service requests at addresses for known gang members or in areas heavily frequented by gang members withou an accompanying police officer."

Wow. But now animal control officers feel safe around gang activity now? 

Here's the thing folks, if someone is involved in gang activity, which usually involves felony gun and drug activity, your misdemeanor dog law isn't going to solve it. Nor should animal control be the ones to take the lead. Leave that to the SWAT team. 

"At any given time, 70% of the kennels in the Aurora Animal Shelter were occupied by pit bulls with pending court disposition dates or with no known owner. That number has dropped significantly and now only 10-20% are occupied at any given time by pit bulls."

This is because you've killed 1100 of them in the past 6 years and are making no attempt to save them. Killing them instead of them being in kennels looking for homes isn't a success story.

There is more there, including some strange behavioral information that anyone with any dog handling experience (at all) would just laugh at...including:

"Pit bull breeds, unlike other dogs, often give no warning before they attack" - This myth has been around since the early 80s and continues to get perpetuated even though no dog trainer/handler would agree with this sentiment.

"Pit bulls, compared with other breeds, generally have a higher propensity to exhibit unique behavioral traits during an attack". -- Aggressively being attacked by a Germand Shepherd, or Akita, or Rottweiler, or a pit bull, all are the same unsocial, not normal behavior. 

"In the legal case against Denver, the court cited one study which reported that over 13% of pit bulls attacked their owners, as compared to just over 2% for other dog breeds."  Cory Nelson was the source for this one (go figure). I don't know where this study comes from, but it is a direct contradiction to peer reviewed studies that show much less owner-aggressive response from pit bulls than most other breeds such at this study and this one. But hey, don't let peer-reviewed science get in the way.

It's a really frustrating memo because they have abandoned listening to any actual expertise and instead have relied on an old article, a propaganda website and a city attorney as their basis for information. It's now up to the council in Aurora to actually dive into the sources used to cut through the utter BS that is this memo.

I'd also hope they'd ask their animal control who they look to for training to do their jobs and best practices.  I wonder if they'll answer the expert sources but then get questioned or why they didn't get feedback from those sources on their stance on breed bans? Or maybe they do get their professional advice from an attorney and a non-professional website...which would dramatically decrease any credibility they might have.

It's a lot to ask a city official to challenge their paid staff on something like this....but given their research and choice of sources, now seems like a really great time to do so.

Public Safety, Stat Tracking, and errors of Omission

More news from out of Aurora, CO, where they are now officially considering repealing its 8 year old ban on "pit bulls". 

Many cities have already recently repealed their long-standing breed bans in favor of breed neutral, behavior-based, dangerous dog ordinances  -- including five communities already this year. 

So far, at least 2 of the city's 10 city council members (Barb Cleland and Renie Peterson) have spoken out in favor of a repeal.

In response to the movement to repeal, the Denver Post wrote an editorial speaking out against the move to repeal. In it they note:

"Since Aurora instituted a pit bull ban in 2006, the number of bites attributed to restricted breeds has gone down from several dozen to just a few a year.  So the logical move would be to....recind the city's breed bans? No, it doesn't make sense to us either."

Errors of omission are common. It's a way to provide an accurate data-point to support your point of view and then brush past all of the data that completely opposes your viewpoint. 

In this case, there is a pretty major error of omission. 

Here is the reason Aurora is considering a repeal of its breed ban:  It's failing.

If you look at the TOTAL number of dog bites in the community, they are actually INCREASING. And increasing at an alarming rate. From 2006 (when the ban was passed) to 2010, Aurora actually saw a 67% increaese in the total number of dog bites -- a number that based on news reports continues to grow.  While the number of bites by "restricted" breeds has decreased, it has come at the expense of a 71% increase in bites by non-restricted breeds (which always made up 80-85% of bites in the community in the first place).

Meanwhile,  the city has systematically rounded up and killed more than 1158 dogs at  the shelter simply because of the way they looked. 

That's right. 1158 dogs killed and an increase in dog bites. Everyone should be livid that this has gone on for as long as it has.

So it is this error of omission that the Denver Post is guilty of in trying to persuade public opinion that the ban in Aurora is a good idea. It's such a major error that might make one ask: why would they make such a glaring omission?

My guess is that they realize that Aurora repealing its ban would put even more pressure on Denver to repeal its ban. Denver continues to stubbornly holds onto even though they have a higher a hospitalization rate (per capita) from dog bites than other communities in Colorado, they've suffered a long series of court legal battles over the ban at taxpayer expense, and overall have seen their pit bull ban fail also.

 

Of concern of course is that apparently, animal care staffers with city animal control wrote a memo to the city council that "The ban on pit bulls continues to effectively work as intended."

Um, what?

Was the intent to raise dog bites in the city? Was the intent to wholesale slaughter more than 1100 dogs at taxpayer expense? If that's their intent, they should all be fired. 

People defending them might note that the law was only intended to impact pit bulls, and not the other 85% of the bites in the community. And of course, if you wholesale slaughter ever pit bull in a community, you'll have fewer bites by pit bulls because you'd killed them all.

But here's the deal: there are opportunity costs for enforcement. Every time an animal control officer spends time, money and effort to round up and kill an innocent pit bull, that same officer is not spending that same time on stray or aggressive dogs of other breeds. Meanwhile, as negligent dog owners replace their pit bulls with another type of dog, bites by those breeds go up because you didn't solve the actual problem of irresponsible and reckless dog ownership. This happens EVERY.SINGLE. TIME. a city passes a breed ban: see Sioux City, Council Bluffs & Omaha as prime examples.

It's a failed law. Based on a failed concept. That is opposed by every organization of experts in canine behavior in the nation. 

Telling half truths through omission doesn't change that. And defining success as a decrease in one type of dog bites but an increase in all others doesn't change it either.

 

The results of breed-specific laws in Aurora, CO

Officials in Aurora, CO are once again considering a repeal of the city's law targeting 'pit bull'- like dogs as the law continues to show how ineffective the laws can be.

According to news reports, since the law took effect in 2006, 1,158 dogs of targeted breeds have been systematically killed in the city of Aurora (population 330,000).

Meanwhile, the same media reports that the number of dog bites in the community has remained steady at about 200 per year.

So that makes the score for the breed-targeted law:  Dead dogs 1,158, public safety - 0.

It's important to note here that Aurora passed the ban in January 2006. At the time, the city banned 10 different breeds of dogs that accounted for 15% of the total number of dog bites in the community in the previous 3 years. 

After passing the ordinance, the number of bites actually increased by about 67% over the next 3 years. Like other communities like Omaha have done, some city officials and the media have used some fuzzy math to try to justify the law, but it doesn't change the reality that the the true result has been that the city has used taxpayer funds in expensive court battles, more than 1100 dogs have been killed, and public safety has not increased. 

Due to all the complications, and the reality that the law was failing, in April 2011 the city of Aurora voted to repeal the ban on 7 of the 10 breeds -- but kept the ban on 3. Because that would fix it. 

But it hasn't. The lawsuits continue. Dogs continue to die (43 more so far this year) and public safety remains unchanged.

it is one thing to make a mistake in judgment and pass a bad law in the first place. It is quite another to stare at the failure of the law and stubbonly hang onto the notion that is working is spite of the clear evidence that it is no.

Admit it was a failure, repeal it, and move on. 

Denver changes law regarding pit bulls, lies about it, & Denver's opportunity to vote them out

Late last week, news came out about a slight change to the city's 20 year old ban on 'pit bulls'.

Quietly, without any public input, the city adopted a policy that any 'pit bull' that is identified as a service dog will not be impounded. This reverses a decision in which the city stubbornly refused to come into compliance with the official ADA ruling regarding service dogs by voting 9-4 against changes in December.

The change comes as the city is facing several class-action lawsuits from a disabled people who are using 'pit bulls' as service animals.

However, even in changing the rules, Denver still appears to be in violation of the ADA because they put policies in place that allow them to investigate a service animal to "verify or disaffirm an owner, keeper or possessor's claim that the pit bull is a qualified service animal."  This investigation can include checking to be sure the dog is not aggressive toward people or other animals, is tolerant of strange sights, sounds, odors, etc in a "wide variety" of public settings, and ignores food dropped on the floor in the dog's vicinity while working outside the home. Such interrogation is not allowed under the ADA (I can already see ACO Doug Kelley trying to confiscate a service dog now for having an affinity for peperoni sticks).

The Denver rules do allow the dog to be confiscated if the dog is determined to be a threat based on its behavior or actions on a case-by-case basis. This is allowed under the ADA -- and is actually the most effective policy regardless of whether the dog is a service dog or not.

You can read the policy in its entirety here (it's 4 pages).

Meanwhile, apparently Doug Kelley is now saying that these exemptions for service dogs have been allowed all along. According to an article in the Denver Daily News, Kelley said:

"We have always allowed pit bulls as service dogs. I think what they're talking about is it was memorialized in writing."

I guess that's one way to look at it. But interesting that this comes up 6 months after the city voted to NOT allow for exemptions. In that meeting, Councilman Charlie Brown urged his colleagues to not "roll over and play dead" when it comes to abiding by the federal law and also expressed concern that people would "game the system" to keep aggressive dogs by saying they were service dogs. He even warned about "Paraplegic drug dealers".  No kidding.

After that meeting, the Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell declined do comment about the council's decision saying:

"Projecting who might sue us, or how they might sue us, is something with some senstivitiy around it."

That doesn't sound like the words of people who always felt there was an exemption.

Fortunately, Jennifer Edwards, the attorney with the Animal Law Center has called Kelley out on his rewriting of history:

"I suppose this is their newest tactic to say, 'This is how has always been.'  If that were the case, we would have never had people denied by Doug Kelley himself to have pit bulls service dogs, we would have never had to get a signed stipulation between our office and the City of Denver protecting our clients in March last year, and we would have never had to file a federal lawsuit."

Oh yeah, all that stuff.

Meanwhile, David Broadwell -- the same guy who declined to comment about who might sue the city after the council declined to pass the exception for service animals -- is now also saying this has always been policy.

"Both before and after the Council discussion in December 2010, our animal control officers have acted in accordance with the new ADA regulations in the actual day-to-day enforcement of the pit bull ordinance even though the ordinance does not expressly recognize this exception.”

Apparently the folks in Denver think a) they can rewrite history and b) that their constituents are too ignorant to notice.  Keep it classy folks.

So if you are in Denver, now is your chance to rewrite the future.

Tomorrow, Denver will be hosting a city-wide election for a new mayor and city council members. Bless the Bullies has some of the candidate's positions here, and one more here, and here's a more detailed spreadsheet with the info from each of the council districts.

If you live in Denver, please make your voice heard. Even if you are not an animal lover, your tax dollars continue to be used to fight off lawsuits to keep a law that is not working and continue to disrupt people's lives. And the council and city leaders continue to perpetuate hysteria in the face of facts, and then are trying to re-write history in order to make themselves look less foolish.

Best of luck to the good candidates in Denver tomorrow.

Aurora repeals ban on 7 breeds, keeps it for 3

No one said logic was rampent in Aurora.

At tonight's city council meeting, the Aurora City Council voted to eliminate the 7 breeds of dogs from the city's breed ban -- but to keep it for American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

People with these breeds as service dogs will be allowed to keep them so the city is in compliance with the ADA.

Councilman Bob Broom claims his decision to keep the ban (but only on three of the 10 breeds) has reduced the number of dog bites and thus, supported keeping the ban.

Broom seems to have ignored all of the statistic actually presented at the city level that clearly show that bites, along with serious bites, have gone up significantly - -here's the packed offered to the city council.

Councilman Bob Fitgerald also thought allowing pit bulls would compromise the safety of citizens -- also ignoring the reality that the actual ban has compromised the safety of citizens (also ignoring the actual numbers).

The Aurora Sentinel has, of course, so far failed to publish these numbers -- for some reason they are either unable to access them via public records request or via the internet - - or just think that Bob Broom's word for it is good enough.

It's not.

Aurora continues to fail. Hey, it's progress getting 7 breeds off the list -- but keeping the 3 continues to show that their decisions are completely based on emotion and fear-mongering, not on logic or their own actual data.

 

Aurora (CO) continues to look at loosening breed restrictions, media perpetuates fuzzy math

On Thursday, Aurora, CO will again discuss loosening the restrictions on their 5 year old breed ban. The city is looking at this after the Department of Justice filed a ruling on the Americans with Disabilities Act on breed bans not being able to limit access to those with service dogs.  This made Aurora's ban in violation of the ADA.  While Denver refused to make the necessary changes to their law, Aurora is looking at loosening their restrictions to become ADA compliant.  

Meanwhile, instead of looking at ways to loosen the restrictions, they should be just looking at a full-on repeal of their law that bans 10 different breeds of dogs.   Unfortunately, the city administration continues to ignore their own numbers and pretend they don't exist -- while the news media allows them to do it.

Last month, City Councilman Bob Broom said that "Statistics show that the number of bites have gone way down," which, well, is wrong. The reality is that they have actually gone up significantly.

In the most recent article, the Denver Post tries to help them defend the breed bans by noting that in 2005, there were 35 dog bites regarding restricted breeds.  In 2010, there were only 6.  These numbers are accurate enough, but ignored that there were 188 bites by non-restricted breeds - -up from 110 in 2005.

Oops.

But then it's become commonplace for city leaders who support breed bans (and it has trickled over to the fear-mongering websites as well) to say that, well, severe bites are down because the restricted breeds bite harder.  Aurora has stated this also.

However, the numbers don't support that either as in 2006, restricted breeds made up 8% of the severe bites, and 10% of the moderate bites and in 2007, when severe bites went up (2 years after the breed ban), they made up 6% of the severe bites and 7% of the moderate ones. So for the first two years of the ban, moderate and severe bites went up -- but not because of the restricted breeds, which were never a high percentage of these bites, but because of the non-restricted breeds.

So the city council continues to try to justify their law -- even to the point of hiding and making up numbers to support themselves.  And even though all of these numbers are available to the public, the mainstream media has yet to pick them up and make them widely available....thus allowing the city to waste taxpayer dollars and give the city free-reign to harrass pet owners and people with service dogs of a particular type.

It's time for the city council to own up to their mistake and fix it...and for the mainstream media to do what they are supposed to do which is hold city officials accountable.

More from Stop BSL who has a great and even deeper breakdown of all the numbers -- including links to the dog bite severity numbers which I hadn't seen before.

 

More problems for Denver and their Breed Ban

Denver has wasted yet more resources enforcing their breed-specific legislation.

A dog named Mufasia escaped from his home in Southwest Denver, and was picked up by animal control. According to Animal Control, Mufasia fit the physical critera for being a pit bull based on the analysis of three separate employees -- and ordered to be killed or removed from the city.

Mufasia's owner protested the breed determination -- and after hearing testimony from outside breed experts, it was determined that Mufasia was in fact, not a pit bull.

The decision again shows the arbitrary nature of Denver's breed ban, their failures in being able to accurately (and definitively) determine breed ID, and the ridiculousness of wasting resources on targeting dogs that, by all reports, showed no signs of aggression. So instead of focusing their limited animal control resources on dogs that had shown themselves to be aggressive, they were focusing city resources on a dog that was not (by all accounts) aggressive, but because it contained a 'look' of a dog they didn't want in their city. 

"Time and time again we have seen that the city relies on poorly trained employees to determine which dogs in their possession are pit bulls," said Animal Law Center attorney Jennifer Edwards. "Their inability to single out pit bulls from out from other breeds has meant a death sentence for thousands of dogs in the years that the city's pit bull has been in place".

Of course, in spite of the ruling, Denver's animal control director Doug Kelley says this proves the process works and is confident in his staff's ability to recognized breeds.

Denver continues to provide evidence of all the reasons why breed bans are a failed initiative.

 

 

Aurora looks to become ADA compliant while city councilman misleads about the stats

Last week, city officials in Aurora, CO announced that they were planning to adjust their breed ban to allow for 'pit bulls' as service dogs in order to become compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act.  While nearby Denver decided a couple of months ago to fight the Department of Justice ruling that forbids breed discrimatory laws from applying to service dogs, Aurora took the opposite path.

"We're not interested in going to war with the Department of Justice" said Mayor Ed Tauer.  Unfortunately he also added "but at the same time, we don't want to completely abandon the law on the books.

However, there does seem to be some discussion about whether or not to get rid of the city's breed ban (which applies to 'pit bulls', American Bulldogs, Canar Dogs, Cane Corsos, Toso Inu, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brassilleiro and Presa Mallorquins) altogether. Councilwoman Renie Peterson would support a behavior-based ordinance, as would Councilwoman Melissa Miller.  However, Mayor Tauer and council members Brad Pierce and Bob FitzGerald appear less willing to make such a change.

Meanwhile, councilman Bob Broom seems perfectly content to make up numbers as he goes along to support keeping the breed ban. "Statistics show that the number of bites have gone way down, and we haven't had any severe incidents with pit bulls since the ordinance has been in place," Broom told the Denver Westwood last week.

Of course, if you look at the actual numbers, Broom appears to be very wrong in his assesment.

Thanks to a kind reader for passing the information along -- here is a copy of the notes that were supplied to the city council for their hearings on the topic.  The notes include a lot of data, information on the restricted breeds, a history of the ordinance and dog bite numbers in the city.

According to the data presented:

2003 -- 213 dog bites, 28 by the nine restricted breeds, 185 by non restricted breeds

2004 - 211 dog bites, 33 by restricted breeds, 178 by non-restricted breeds

2005  -- 137 dog bites, 27 by restricted breeds, 110 by non-restricted breeds

The new breed ban was enacted in January 2006 -- yes, as a way to target 15-20% of the total bites leaving 80% un-impacted.  Also, one other change was to track dog vs dog bites and not just bites on humans. So because of this, the numbers would be expected to go up some in 2006 -- which they did.

2006 - 137 dog bites, 8 by restricted breeds, 129 by non restricted breeds

2007 - 172 dog bites, 15 by restricted breeds, 157 by non-restricted breeds

2008 - 224 dog bites, 8 by restricted breeds, 216 by non-restricted breeds

2009 -- 229 dog bites, 9 by restricted breeds, 220 by non-restricted breeds

2010 - 194 dog bites, 6 by restricted breed, 188 by non-restritced ones.

So even though some increase in 2006 would be expected because of the addition to bites involved dogs onto other dogs, the 67% increase in total dog bites (including a 71% increase from non restrictred breeds) between 2006 and 2009 is 100% a reflection of the ordinance.

That's not a decrease Mr. Broom. Nor is it success.

And to his point about no major attacks by restricted breeds since the ordinance was passed, it's worth noting here that in all of the documentation, there is no mention of their being any attacks by the restricted breeds BEFORE the ordinance was passed - -only "concern" from residents about there being more 'pit bulls' in the city and the city reacting to Denver's breed ban.

Meanwhile, a look at the "operational impacts" of the law, you get a feel for why the bite numbers have been going up, not down.  Beginning in 2005 (when they first started talking about the law), the city has impounded more than 2,000 restricted breeds -- with nearly all of them ending up killed.

The impounding of the restricted breeds has also been a drain on their financial and kennel resources because the restricted breds were taking up kennel space that could have been used to house dogs of other breeds (which, I suppose, were likely also killed or transfered to other shelters to make space for the restricted breeds being held for their court dates) and Veterinary costs were higher due to the number of dogs being impounded.

This is a huge amount of resources (rounding up and killing 2,000+ dogs) when less than 30 of them (about 1.5% if the 2,000 reflects all of the restricted breeds that exist) were involved in any type of dog by incident in the years prior to passing the law.  It should also be worth noting that 7 of the 9 breeds targeted had no record of any bites prior to the ordinance being passed - which would lead one to conclude that the ordinance was passed more out of fear and hysteria than because of any real problems they were trying to solve.  It's simply an amazing number of resources to waste, and a big reason why these diverted resources led to an increase in dog bites from non-targeted breeds.

Amazingly, in spite of this, the "staff" has still recommended that the city keep this ordinance - -which shows a lot more desire to either save face or continue with breed bias (or, as often is the case, the perception of the types of people who they perceive to own the targeted breeds) vs a true desire for public safety. 

But make no mistake, there is nothing in the numbers that indicate that public safety has actually improved and that actually, it's quite the opposite.

There are ten members of the Aurora city council -- hopefully more of them will take a real look at the numbers and realize how ineffective the ordinance has been. Also, it would be hoped that a lot of citizens and dog owners in the community come forward and demand a better use of their tax dollars.

Denver Attny: "Projecting who might sue us is something with some sensitivity around it"

Last night, by a 9-4 vote, the city of Denver elected to make no changes to it's 20 year old breed ban.  Even for Denver, who's council seems to be working very hard to ignore all of the data that has come to light over the past 20 years that indicates that breed bans are not an effective solution, this decision comes as a bit of a surprise.

Back in August, the Department of Justice issued a "final rule" on the Americans with Disabilities Act.  In the final rule, they were extremely clear that according to the ADA, service dogs had to be exempt from city breed bans.

"The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA...."

However, last night, Denver refused to change its breed ban to allow for service dogs. 

The change will no doubt lead to many more lawsuits against the city -- a city that has already incurred thousands of dollars in outside legal help, had at least one lawsuit settled out of court, and has several others pending.  Meanwhile, the city continues to face a $160 million budget deficit.

Now first off, let me state that the ADA is designed to allow people with disabilities the same rights and access as people without them. And for many, dogs can play a crucial role (for instance, many military veterans are using dogs to help them deal with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- which can be debilitating for veterans and part of the reason a staggering 18 veterans a DAY commit suicide).

The Department of Justice's final rule could not be more clear on the issue of service dogs -- and just like other civil rights issues in our nation's history, local officials DO NOT have the ability to trump federal law on these cases.

But Denver thinks they're special, apparently.

Councilman Charlie Brown (he's a clown, that Charlie Brown) urged his colleagues last night to not "roll over and play dead" and to stand up for their pit bull ban.  Brown, and others, have expressed concern that people will try to "game the system" and keep aggressive 'pit bulls' and claim they are service dogs when they are not -- even to the point of being concerned about "paraplegic drug dealers".  Uh huh.

Maybe the best quote of the night comes from Assistant Cit Attorney David Broadwell who declined to comment about the civil liability of the city in defying federal law:

"Projecting who might sue us, or how they might sue us, is something with some sensitivity around it."

In other words, we're going to get sued, it's just commenting about who and how is not a good legal decision - and man, is this going to suck for him. At least one local lawyer has already come forward speculating that there will be many more lawsuits against the city.

The taxpayers in Denver of course are going to have to foot the bill for this -- hopefully the voters of Denver will remove some of these council members from office in order who continue to make costly, irrational fear-based decisions that are costing dogs their lives, and people their civil rights under the ADA.

--------------------------------------

 Interestingly, yesterday there was a second story about Denver pets that is in many ways quite related.

Apparently, Denver animal control is concerned about the reality that a huge percentage of pets in Denver are not licensed.  According to their projections, there are roughly 150,000 dogs and 153,000 cats that reside in Denver (these numbers seem about right based on an estimated 239,000 households).  However, in 2009, only 18,892 pets had licenses -- which is roughly 6% of all pets).

Based on their $15 one year licensing fees ($40 for a 3-year license), the city estimates it is losing upwards of $4 million in licensing fees (which may be needed to pay all the new lawsuits) -- and the city is looking for ways to improve licensing.

Here's a hint:  if you want people to license their pets, you must do two things:

1) Offer a service -- Initiatives like offering a "free ride home" to licensed pets provides an insurance policy of sorts for pet owners -- and a service they receive for their payment. Programs like this have worked extremely well in other cities to get people to license their pets -- because they get something in return.  If Fido gets out, he comes home for free. It's a great deal, and a great service.

2) Be trustworthy -- many people don't license their pets because they are afraid that giving their information away will lead to it being used against them by animal control and they will be targeted by animal control for one reason or the other.  As long as you have a city government that is willing to deny people their civil rights of having certain types of service dogs under the ADA, then how are we to assume they will treat pets owned by people NOT under the ADA.  As long as you are out there trying to punish pet owners for owning well-behaved dogs, and as long as the media continues to show pictures of piles of dead dogs that are killed just because of how they look, people will not trust you and will actively not comply.

It's not that hard.  And yet, Denver is oh so far away from this.  It's actually almost amazing that a city that was not all that long ago seen as progressive seems to be so far away from it now.