KC DOG BLOG

Considering the source

I love the internet. In many ways, I think the internet has helped level the playing field in the talks of BSL because we no longer need to have a multi-million dollar media outlet to tell our story and relay information. Thus, we don't have to rely on the media, which has often been biased on the subject.

Unfortunately, there is a con to this. The con is that on the internet, everyone gets more or less an equal voice -- regardless of their qualifications for being able to speak knowledgably about the subject.

And, unfortunately, it seems many Americans don't have the ability to discern good sources of information from bad ones -- including, at times, the media.

Last week, I stumbled across a terrifying and hilarious blog entitled "Literally Unbelievable". The blog essentially just pulls screen shots from facebook or twitter where people are believing, and commenting on articles published by The Onion. Now, I assume that  most of my readers know about The Onion, but for those over-seas or whatever, the Onion is a Satire newspaper (now mostly website) that has been published in the United States since 1988.  That's nearly 25 years of publishing satirical gems like how the American Public Hired a High-Powered Lobbyist to represent them in Washington DC.

And yet, when you read "Literally Unbelievable" you realize that many people are taking the 'news' published at the Onion as real news. 

While the website clearly highlights the absurdities in not understanding what are meaningful opinions and sources, there are many more subtle examples that are more concerning.

Yesterday, I published a very well-researched article on this blog by the Australian Veterinary Association speaking out against breed-specific legislation.

Now, call me crazy, but I would consider an association of Veterinarians, in a sophisticated country like Australia, with a lot of research backing up their stance to be a reliable source on the topic.

Meanwhile, this paper joins many other similarly posted articles by experts in this country that similarly oppose breed-specific legislation because it is ineffective at inproving public safety. In fact, there is a completely lack of professional support from experts in the animal behavior for breed-specific laws.

BSL is not support by Lawyers -- who understand the legal wranglings of such laws -- as the  American Bar Association has come out against the laws.

Dog trainers, who understand dog behavior more than anyone generally, don't support the laws -- as evidenced by position statements by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, International Association of Canine Professionals, and National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors.

Rescue organizations, many of whom handle hundreds, if not thousands of dogs each year, and have trained staffs of professionals, don't support Breed-specific laws either -- including major national organizations like Best Friends Animal Society, Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, and American Humane.

Breed-specific laws are also not supported by the National Animal Control Association, or the American Veterinary Medical Association -- who has their own very good position paper on dog bite prevention.

Given all of these outstanding resources on what are appropriate responses to dog bite solutions - -and specifically calling out why breed-based laws are wrong, why are we still having the conversation about Breed Bans?

Why are people still citing newspaper articles as sources for effective legislation, or blogs written by annonymous writers, or websites created by people with no animal handling expertise or, Miss Universe Canada, as experts on the topic of dangerous dog laws?

They're not.

Experts are experts. Science is science. And websites written by people who are not experts in the field they write about are not viable sources for information. Nor are people just because they're pretty.

So here's my call out to people in the public, and the media, please consider your sources. Deterimine who is or is not an expert, and report on what real, true, experts believe.

Thank you.

Four important links for National Dog Bite Prevention Week

This week is national dog bite prevention week.

The week will be blessed with a lot of great information about preventing dog bites and attacks. It will also be sparked by a lot of hyperbole and headlines designed to scare people and drive ratings.  Be smart and recognized the difference.

With that, there are four key stories that launched last week (or over the weekend) that I think are good starting points for National Dog Bite Prevention Week.

#1 - The National Canine Research Council Notes that National Dog Bite Prevention Week is succeeding

The Number of dog bites to postal workers topped out at about 7,000 dog bites to postal workers in 1983. Now, 30 years later, the number is 2,675.  This is a substantial improvement -- and particularly notable as the population of people and the increasing perctage of people who own dogs as pets have driven the number of owned dogs up dramatically during this time.  2,675 is still a lot -- but it is great to see the downward trend.

#2  State Farm  Releases their stats on Dog Bite Claims

State Farm is one of the largest home owner and liability insurance companies in the nation -- and also the largest that does not discriminate on insurance coverage based on dog breeds (except in Ohio -- where they do discriminate because of Ohio State law that declares all pit bulls to be "dangerous").  In 2010, State Farm paid out more than $90 million as a result of nearly 3500 dog bite claims.  In their official press release, State Farm lists their top 10 states for insurance claims. It is interesting to note that Ohio is #3 on the list in spite of the state-wide Breed-Specific legislation and in spite of State Farm's inability to insure 'pit bulls' there. This is the state that has the highest upward swing when compared to overall population  -- again showing that breed specific laws do NOT improve overall public safety -- and arguably make people less safe, not more safe.

I emailed the spokesperson for State Farm to see if they had numbers of bites by dog breeds and she noted that they don't track that information because breed is not a causal factor in bites and because breed identification wasn't reliable in these cases -- something else that has proven to be true over and over again. And you'd bet that a company that has $90 million at stake in this would be making a pretty sound decision.

#3 The US Postal Service Released it's top 55 cities for dog bites to postal workers

  This report has gotten a lot of media play this week.  Mostly, if you look at the list, many of the cities largely fall where they are should based on the size of the populations.  Large cities will have more dogs and likely more bite incidents. Here are a couple of notable areas that have significantly higher bite rankings than their populations would indicate they should have:

Columbus, OH - Tied at #2 in bites, #15 in population

Cleveland, OH - #8 in bites, #45 in population

Cincinnati, OH - #19 in bites, #62 in population

Denver, CO -- #12 in bites, #26 in population

Toledo, OH -- #27 in bites, #66 in population

Arguably no cities have done more harm to 'pit bulls' in the name of public safety than this group listed above - -with all of them being miserable failures in terms of public safety. All of the Ohio cities are under the state-wide breed specific legislation, and Denver and Cincinnati have outright bans on the dogs.  Breed-specific laws do not improve public safety.

Meanwhile, this report has also spurred the fear-mongering that comes with the media. KSHB in Kansas City (you'll see more from them from me this week) reported that "Kansas City is among top cities for dog attacks on mail carriers". Uh huh.  They list Kansas City as ranked #21 (which, the report has the cities numbered oddly and has them listed at 21), but KC actually is tied fore 34th on the list of bites (if you count the number of actual cities) and 37th in total population -- so we're essentially right where we should be for dog bites on postal carriers based on overall population.  But fear mongering is more fun.

#4 Dogs & Storks Proposes a Name Change to the week

They propose "Respect Dogs Week" -- which make a lot of sense.  They have some great commentary on respecting dogs' limits and recognizing warning signs. Very much worth the read.

Also, for your education, doggone safe has put together a quiz to help you understand dog body language to help you stay safe. Take the quiz. I got 9 out of 10 -- and I think the answer to the one I missed was more geared toward kids than someone who has a lot of experience handling dogs that have fear issues -- so I gave myself a pass on it.

Have a good week. 

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.

 

Update: Another tragic fatality reported today

Update:  Let the media frenzy begin. After the entire media world ignored this story for nearly 2 weeks, the media has now glommed onto it. The Associated Press has now picked up the story and it's beginning to get picked up by a lot of media outlets. The AP story has the headline "Calif woman killed by pit bulls in backyard" -- and all of the media outlets have been picking up the headline also. Only readers that make it all the way down to the 2nd to last paragraph will note that the dogs were mixed breeds. Thanks AP.

********

Authorities in Moreno Valley, CA have confirmed that 53 year old Christina Casey was attacked and killed last week after being fatally attacked by her neighbor's two dogs.  The woman was tragically found dead on November 2, but reports of her death have just recently emerged.  Casey was found by neighbors dead in the back yard of the home she was renting.

According to a previous report, Casey had often complained about the neigbhor's dogs and was actually two days away from moving from her apartment in Moreno Valley -- in part, because of the problems with the two dogs.  The dogs apparently dug under the fence in her yard at some point overnight.

Unfortunately, the dogs were continually allowed to roam outdoors and Casey was attacked, and killed, by the two dogs. The dogs are being described as "large, pit bull/Weimaraner mix" dogs. 

Only two media outlets have picked up this story at this point and because no one was around when Casey was attacked, not much is known about the incident.  But if more details emerge, I will certainly update this post.

It sounds as if several calls had been made to authorities about the dogs being a problem, but the problem was never stopped and the owner continued to allow the dogs to roam at-large. There were ample opportunities to solve the problem but nothing was done. It's a tragic, and senseless death.

San Francisco Chronicle Blogger acknowledges breed bias in reporting

A couple of months ago, a writer from the Denver Post acknowledged that his newspaper was guilty -- as charged - of over-reporting dog bites attributed to 'pit bulls' vs other types of dogs. In Denver, the newspaper had covered individual dog bite incidents 20 times in the past 5 years -- and the breed or type of dog was mentioned on only 9 occassions -- in 8 of those, a 'pit bull' was the dog responsible.

Now, a reporter/blogger in San Francisco took it upon herself to look at how the San Francisco Chronicle has faired in its reporting.

According to her information, since 2005, the newspaper has covered 34 specific dog attacks.  "Pit Bulls" were responsible for 22 of the attacks -- and in every single instance the 'breed' of dog was mentioned in the headline.

However, in the 12 articles about incidents not involving 'pit bull' type dogs -- not a single article had the breed of dog involved in the attack in the headline.  Even the writer acknowledges that her paper may be responsible for over-reporting as well.

What the writer fails to note, is the headlines only tell a partial story.

According to numbers that I obtained through an FOI request a couple of years ago, in the time period of July 1, 2004 - August 15, 2007, 'pit bulls' accounted for 17.7% of all of the dog bites recorded by San Francisco animal control.  So while bites by 'pit bulls' accounted for 17.7% of all bites, they accounted for 65% of all dog bite stories - -and 100% of the stories where the breed type was mentioned in the headlines.

This is a common theme when it comes to media reporting -- I noted this about a year ago about reporting in Mobile, AL also.

As more newspapers begin to acknowledge their role in creating the hysteria, we can begin changing the narrative from being about breed-hysteria, and more about actual causes of bites and attacks which will make a real difference in dog bite safety. It also continues to slash away at any credibility dog bite "studies" based solely on media accounts may have ever had.

In the Denver Post and the San Francisco Chronicle we have 2 of the 10 largest circulation newspapers in the country admitting that they are guilty...hopefully this will be a trend that will lead to the problem being fixed.

The Insurance Industry Continues its Fear Mongering of Dog Dangers

This week, the Insurance Information Institute continued its fear mongering about dog bites with yet another report on the "rise" in dog bite claims.  The press release has been picked up by 40 or so media outlets -- featuring headlines like "Dog Bite Claims grab record insurance chunk".  Featured in the articles is the news that dog bite claims topped $412 million last year, and the cost of claims has risen 30% since 2003.   Dog bite claims also make up 1/3 of all liability insurance claims.

Scary stuff, right?  Well, not really.

If you dig behind the numbers, it's really not all that scary.

In 2003, there was a grand total of 16,919 dog bite claims. In 2009: 16,586.  The numbers have varied over the years, but there hasn't been some rash increase in dog bite claims-- in fact, there are fewer now than there were 7 years ago -- in spite of the fact that dog ownership has increased about 14% over that time frame and the US Population has grown nearly 10% over that time. So with over 43 million owned dogs in the US, only .03% of them were involved in any type of dog bite claim last year.

While it's true that the average claim has gone up over the past 7 years (claim value is up 27% over that time), much of it is driven by average health care costs -- which have risen at a rate of 8.7% a year over the past decade. That means they've gone up 79% over the past 7 years for those who are counting -- far less than the 27% for dog bite claims over the same timeframe.  Meanwhile, the insurance industry has more than made up for it....cost for home owners insurance premiums are up 32% since 2003.

And while dog bites do make 1/3 of home owners insurance liability claims, liability claims, as a whole, make up only 6% of all claims.  So dog bites make up only 2% of total home owners insurance claims, even though 40% of the population owns dogs.

While the insurance industry seems to want to create fear and hysteria around dog bites, there is really very little evidence of any growing problem with dog bites -- only with the increasing cost of health care (which no one is disputing).  Dogs continue to be incredibly safe.

Meanwhile, there is one other very interesting note from the news sources.

According to the article from the Chicago Tribune, State Farm Insurance paid out $90.1 million in dog bite claims -- 21.8% of the total dog bite payments. Interestingly, State Farm makes up 21.6% of all home owners insurance premiums written. So while many insurance companies deny people insurance based on the breed of dog people own, State Farm does not. And while State Farm does not discriminate, they are not more likely to pay out in dog bite claims than their market share would indicate that they should.

Denver Columnist confirms media bias in over-reporting stories about 'pit bulls'

A writer for the Denver Post had an interesting article late last week on whether or not there was media bias about 'pit bulls'.

The writer publishes a letter from an advocate claiming a bias in over-reporting of bites involving 'pit bull' type dogs.

The reporter then covers a report by the National Canine Research Council that shows how similar attacks over a 4 day period involving four different types of dogs resulted in significantly different media exposure.

It also includes a note by the ASPCA that said that the media has repeatedly told them that they have no interest in reporting attacks involving non-pit bull type dogs.

The reporter, himself, even looked at the headlines for articles in his own newspaper. Over the past 5 years, the newspaper has covered 20 different stories involving dog attacks -- of them, 9 had the breed of dog in the headlines.  The breeds mentioned?  8x 'pit bulls' and 1x a Rottweiler.

This is even more interesting when put into the context that 'pit bulls' make up only 8% of the dog bites in the state of Colorado -- and aren't even the top biting dog in the state (see page 23). Labs were #1.

This isn't unusual of course, last year I did a story about Mobile, AL and noted that one TV station there had 100% of their dog bite stories that mentioned the breed in the story involving 'pit bulls' -- but were only involved in about 20% of the dog bites in the community (also behind Labs).

Media acknowledgement that they may be responsible for the hysteria is a good first step. And in Denver's case, the hysteria has led to countless lawsuits, thousands of dogs being killed, hundreds of families ripped apart and thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees paid at taxpayer expense to support a ban that no one even claims has even really worked.

It's a good first step in changing the narrative with our local media.

The media's race to be first

 Not long ago, when a breaking news story hit, there were deadlines. If a reporter got the story done by 5 pm it'd make the 6 pm news. If they got the story in by midnight, it might make the next day's paper. But there was a set cutoff time -- and the reporter had until that deadline to gather as much information as possible before the story was due.

There are no deadlines any more. With the development of the internet, there is no need for deadlines. Every minute is a deadline, because when breaking news hits, the information is now available almost instantly around the internet.

If a news source wants to lead on breaking news, every minute counts - -because being late will hurt the number of page views, and thus, the number of advertising dollars the media outlet gets.

And in the rush to be first, digging for truth and accuracy have taken a back seat.

The chart up above is the Google tracking chart of the number of media outlets that covered last week's story about the fatal dog attack in Memphis.

In the first hour of the 'news' being available, media outlets rushed to be first. The news of "pit bulls'  attack man" hit the media and spread quickly. Within an hour, 150 media outlets could lay claim to being on top of breaking news.

Then, in the next 5 days, the majority of the media outlets were no longer interested. Those next 5 days featured information about the events that led up to the attack.

- A dog owner who had an extensive criminal history

-  Dogs that had been loose and aggressive only two days earlier, but were left in the home

- Police hauling the dog's owner to jail, leaving the dogs behind to live in the home with no supervision

- A woman who let the dogs out - -even while knowing they were aggressive -- because a plummer needed to get into the apartment

-  Acknowledgment that police may or may not have ever called animal control about the dogs -- and even if they had, animal control is running 800 calls behind in their responses so may not have had time' to deal with the issue regardless.

Nope, once that information came out, there was little interest from most media outlets. They were too busy being "first" on something else -- likely with equally shoddy details.

This case in Memphis is far from isolated. The chart on the left is the media reporting of the fatal attack in Concord, CA.

Look familiar?

In the California case, the media equally reported only the initial "what" -- but few came back to hit on the "why's" that came out in the subsequent days.

We're all the victims in this -- because the majority of the media outlets hit a few glossy facts and moves on. We get little information that would be valuable in our quest to actually know the circumstances that led to the event.

Circumstances are important  -- in fact, they are the most important part of serious dog attacks. Unfortunately, in the race to be 'first', the media often just skips the time needed to get to the why. And as a society, we often become more ignorant as to why dogs bite, and why attacks occur.

This is why we should rely on experts (who understand canine behavior) and not just media reports and people who make irrational recommendations based on them when dealing with issues pertaining to dog bites and how to prevent them.

Because in their race to be first, the media often gets it wrong -- and often without complete information.

And if we want to get it right, we should focus on all of the information that is available -- not on knee jerk reactions based on initial media exploitation in attempts to gain eyeballs.

Meanwhile, for the media, take note. There seems to be a big place of differentiation for those who are more concerned about getting it right vs those who only seek to get there first. The internet has allowed everyone to get there 'first', but few appear to be willing to stick with it and get it right.

Updated: Arrest made in Memphis attack

Update:  23 year old Sherry Wooten has been arrested for her involvement in the attack. According to media reports, Wooten is dating Bernard Humphrey's brother -- and went to the apartment to let the dogs out of the bathroom because the landlord needed to fix a leak in the bathroom that was running into the apartment below. Wooten admitted to knowing the dogs were aggressive and involved in the Sunday incident, but still decided to let the dogs out to trun loose anyway. Wooten has been arrested and charged with negligent homicide. It's good to see the authorities holding people accountable for their actions -- although it is still unclear why the dogs were not confiscated after the Sunday incident. 

The original story:

Potential fatal dog attack, and why covering only part of the story is an injustice to everyone

Yesterday, news broke about a tragic incident in Memphis where a 71 year old man was attacked by two dogs. The man's daughter came to his aid and was also bitten and during the attack and the man, William Parker,  had cardiac arrest during the attack and later died at the hospital.

The Associated Press picked up the first story released after the attack -- which was picked up by nearly 200 media outlets across the country with the headline: "Tennessee Pit Bull Attacks Leave Elderly Man Dead."

 Of course, the story was far from complete -- and the headline not even completely accurate. It sure SOUNDS like the 'pit bulls' killed the man, but at the present time, there seems to be a lot of doubt as to the man's actual cause of death (which could have been from the heart attack he suffered).  All of the man's injuries appear to be on his lower legs. One news station even failed to mention the man going into cardiac arrest altogether.

Meanwhile, there is a lot more information to the story that sure paints a different story than 'pit bull' kills man.

Turns out, authorities knew in advance that the dogs were a problem -- and may, in fact, have made the problem worse.

On Sunday, police were called after the dogs attempted to attack a man. When the authorities came out, they arrested the owner of the dogs, Bernard Humphrey. The 31 year old Humphrey has quite a rap sheet -- with a criminal record that includes statutory rape, drug charges, weapons charges and vandalism.  Humphrey had recently moved to the property without notifying authorities -- which was a violation of his being on the sex offender registry.

Police arrested Humphrey - -and took him to jail. However, they left the dogs - -and it is unclear who, if anyone, was actually caring for the dogs (who, it is noted, were usually chained to a stair railing near Humphrey's apartment).

The attack took place in the 38103 zip code  in Memphis -- an area where 23.4% of the population lives below the poverty line (nearly double the national average) and 14% of the population lives below 50% of the poverty level.

Meanwhile, it would not be terribly surprising that Memphis' animal control would drop the ball when it comes to proper enforcement in the previous incident -- this is the same shelter than only a few months ago had several cases of horrific abuse in their animal shelter -- one of which led to a healthy dog being starved to death in just a short time in their shelter. Interestingly, just last week, YesBiscuit! noted that even though they had recently hired a new animal control director, the agency is still 800 calls behind in responding to calls.

So, what the vast majority of the media outlets didn't cover was an owner with a violent history -- who was hauled off to jail and no longer looking after the dogs. A neighborhood that is mired in poverty, and an animal control that is woefully behind in doing its basic job, and authorities that knew of a problem, and failed to do anything that would have prevented the attack -- or the reality that the man may well not have died from the actual dog attack at all.

When the media gets lazy, and only covers the story as a 'pit bull' attack, they do the world a disservice by not providing all of the causes that led up to the tragic incident.  When people see the entire picture, it really isn't a huge surprise something tragic happened - and it was highly preventable.  But ignoring causes only gets us further away from solving the actual problems.

My heart goes out to the Parker family -- who sounds like they deserved better than this.

Why is it so hard for the media to collect the actual data?

Question.

Let's assume you work for a local news source. Two years ago, your city passes a specific law that was designed to decrease the number of dog bites in your city. As a reporter, you decide to do a follow-up story on the law to see if it's working.  Do you:

a) Get the dog bite stats to see if it's working

b) Talk to the victim of the dog bite that pushed for the changed law and see if she thinks it's working?

If you're a reporter in Omaha,you apparently do option b.

The reporter did also talk to the head enforcement officer at the Nebraska Humane Society who also said that the law was "working" - noting that last year (when they also had their current dangerous dog law) they had 5 serious 'pit bull" bites, this year so far they've only had one.

I think the one stat provided by NHS is interesting. First of all, they compared the number of serious bites by pit bulls from one year after the law was enacted to another year after the law was enacted -- not to where numbers were before the ordinance was enacted. 2009 was a pretty bad year for dog bites all around in Omaha -- in the first year after the ordinance was passed.

NHS also casually mentioned that Labradors have already had 6 'serious' bites as well in the first half of this year.  It is worth noting here that 5 was the maximum number of "serious" Lab bites Omaha saw in any FULL year between 2003 and 2007 before the ban took effect. But hey, it's not a 'pit bull' right? So it must be working -- even if 'serious' would be defined the same way regardless of the type of dog involved.

Also, out of curiousity, why has KETV not reported any of those 6 serious Lab bites this year? Just curious.

The Nebraska Humane Society doesn't give out dog bite numbers -- and have been very secretive about the impact of their laws. They tend to just give out whatever snippets support their case. The new laws have been very profitable for them -- bringing in an extra $100,000 a year in revenue from the city PLUS one of the requirements for 'pit bull' owners to get around the law is for dog owners to get their dog to pass the canine good citizen test -- which is nicely available for a fee through the NHS.

However, a simple call to the city clerk's office would give the reporter the actually data that shows that overall dog bites have gone up since the law was enacted. This news report also comes a week after the Platte Institute noted that Omaha's ban was a "waste of taxpayer's dollars'. 

I attended journalism school....and we had entire classes dedicated to Freedom of Information Acts and Sunshine Laws. So why is it too much to ask for the media to find and report the actual data? To date, there has yet to be a media outlet in Omaha that has actually reported the numbers.

Talking to the victim and asking if they think it's working is not the same as getting the actual information. It's important we force city leaders to review the total success or failure of ordinances -- and open access to that information is the route to do it. Unfortunately it doesn't appear as if anyone in Omaha is ready to dive into the real data to see how the taxpayer's money is being wasted there and how overall public safety has not improved.