Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > Dog News and Articles


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-30-2008, 01:05 PM
kcdogblog kcdogblog is offline
Active Pup
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Kansas City, KS has had a ban since 1987. Incidentally, the only fatal attack in the past 20 years in the KC area happened in KCK in 2006. Nice safety mechanism. I'll never numerically be able to prove their ban isn't working. They don't keep good numbers and aren't at all cooperative with the public.

KC Missouri passed a mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls that became active in December 2006 (following the 2006 fatality across the state line). I'm curious to see what theirr numbers are...I'm honestly not sure they've even made enough of an attempt at enforcement to even matter....their AC is such a trainwreck (and not in an interesting to watch kind of way).

What's most distrubing to me is the blatant skewing of the data in all of these media cases...where 2 years after the ban they report that "pit bull" bites have gone down so the ordinance is a success. They never even bother to ask, look for or report that the total bite numbers went up. Well, we killed 2000 pit bulls in the past year, so of COURSE the 'pit bull' bites went down, there are 1/3 as many of them now.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-30-2008, 01:11 PM
Boreayl_Chinooks Boreayl_Chinooks is offline
Puppy Dog
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 87
Default

I am curious...what happens if this data is plotted over a period of say 5 years? Are there clear trends in the number of pit bull vs non-pit bull bites? Are they both increasing at the same rate? And is there still a spike in non-pit bull bites when the number of pit bull bites drops off? Are there any non-dog related factors changing in the community at the same time that might help explain any trends? Are the stats simply reflective of pit bull owners being more careful since there is greater scrutiny (and probably consequences) if their dog bites under the ban? Might this simply suggest that the city will better accomplish its objectives not through BSL, but through greater penalties on owners whose dogs actually bite regardless of breed? I can't believe this wouldn't make an interesting story for those dog-friendly reporters out there.

Debbie
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-30-2008, 01:14 PM
Zoom's Avatar
Zoom Zoom is offline
Twin 2.0
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 40,737
Default

I'm not sure how much they enforce, though each time I volunteer for KC Spay/Neuter, over 75% of the dogs coming in are "pitbulls" or mixes. What I wish our politicians would come see is that the dogs that make me the most nervous to handle when either going under or coming out of anesthesia are the non-pits. I wish our city council (and every city council) would ask more people besides those in favor of the bans what their experiences are like.

I'm sorry if I"m not making much sense...it's one of those days and I've got so many thoughts running through my head right now about bans and dogs and the sheer ineffectualness of them, etc. I see so many pitbulls, deal with so many of them and 95% are just great, wonderful dogs. The other 5% belong to that section of the population who would get Chihuahua's banned if they owned them.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-30-2008, 05:28 PM
kcdogblog kcdogblog is offline
Active Pup
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreayl_Chinooks View Post
I am curious...what happens if this data is plotted over a period of say 5 years? Are there clear trends in the number of pit bull vs non-pit bull bites? Are they both increasing at the same rate? And is there still a spike in non-pit bull bites when the number of pit bull bites drops off? Are there any non-dog related factors changing in the community at the same time that might help explain any trends? Are the stats simply reflective of pit bull owners being more careful since there is greater scrutiny (and probably consequences) if their dog bites under the ban? Might this simply suggest that the city will better accomplish its objectives not through BSL, but through greater penalties on owners whose dogs actually bite regardless of breed? I can't believe this wouldn't make an interesting story for those dog-friendly reporters out there.

Debbie

I'm curious too. I unfortunately haven't been collecting the data all that long and getting historical info from some of these cities is near impossible.

I have 5 years worth of data for Council Bluffs. Here are their dog bites per year:

2003 - 85
2004 -- 131
After the sharp rise in attacks in 2004, they passed BSL
2005 -- 115
2006 -- 132
2007 -- 130

After a one year decline after passing BSL, they moved back up to the bite levels that were so historically bad that they had to "do something" and basically have maintained the bad status quo.

Basically in 2006 Labs and Boxers replace ''pit bulls" as the biters, 2007 it was German Shepherds and Labs.

I'm still trying to build the case-study out over a longer time period....if anyone knows of any good case studies or halfway cooperative Animal Controls, I'd be happy to make the contacts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 PM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site