AURORA COLORADO MUST BE HIGH

Aurora, CO has been discussed around the dogosphere over the past little while.

They brought in a 'breed' ban in 2005 on January 31, 2006 (thanks for the clarification from KC Dog Blog in the comments) as a knee-jerk reaction to the Denver ban's being reinstated.

Remember this from 2005? 

City Councilmember Bob Fitzgerald explained the need for a citywide pit bull ban thus: "We don't want 'those people' here."

Anyway, my friend at KC Dog Blog has done a couple of good articles about Aurora so no need to rehash what he's written.

Since I believe that pictures have more impact than words, I made up a few quick graphs using the data from the Aurora report.

This one shows all bites combined, ie, banned and non-banned types and it looks as though they are quickly moving up to pre-ban numbers, even though through killing and the owners moving, the number of banned types has decreased:

 

This graph depicts a comparison between all bites by other types and the banned types over the same period, separate to show how their bites by 'all other' types are back to where they were:

Finally, this one shows impoundments of banned types only.  The numbers for all dogs are not available:

As you will read over at KC Dog Blog, the council members who want to retain the program believe a rather obscure myth that has been repeated often by those who are in denial and are determined to reveal their lack of knowledge to one and all:

"Neighborhood Services director Nancy Sheffield, who presented statistics related to the ban to council, said it stands to reason that bites from breeds other than the "fighting dogs" banned by the city won't be as severe."

This not only doesn't 'stand to reason', it borders on the absurd.  How could it possibly be true that a bite from a dog about the size of a Springer spaniel could be more severe than a bite by a larger dog, such as a Malamute, Labrador retriever, German Shepherd, etc?

How do they explain the death of a child caused by a popular (non-targeted) type that occurred within hours of the reinstatement of Denver's ban?  Is death not severe?

This is the same poppycock spouted by that feeble excuse for a human being in Denver.  You know the one I mean - the inadequate, unelected clerk who pushes BSL across the continent.  I guess he's in Peta's pocket or something because otherwise his rantings make no sense.

Here's an example of what I mean from June, 2005:

Ban pit bulls? Legal experts in San Francisco said it isn't possible. California is among 12 states that prohibit what pit bull advocates call BSL, or "breed specific legislation.''

Denver assistant city attorney Kory Nelson says that may not matter, and suggests San Francisco give a ban a try. He helped draft Denver's pit bull ban, which the Denver District Court upheld last month, despite the fact that Colorado law does not permit BSL.

"I've read your state law,'' says Nelson, who has sent San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom a letter offering his help. "And I don't think it is that much different from what we had. My point is, if a municipality can't determine what kind of animals it wants, why have a municipality?''

Well, I know what kind of animals I don't want in my municipality and I don't mean 'pit bulls'.

Here's some classic Koryana:

Kory Nelson avoids the debate over whether pit bulls are more aggressive than other dogs. As an assistant city attorney for Denver, Nelson has successfully defended repeated challenges to the city's 16-year-old pit-bull ban, one of the oldest big-city bans in the country.

He concedes that there is no definitive proof that pit bulls bite or attack more often than other dogs or even that they are fundamentally more aggressive.

Statistics about fatal bite attacks, though widely reported in stories about pit bulls, are generally considered unreliable or incomplete.

Instead, Nelson has successfully argued that pit-bull attacks are more severe and more likely to be fatal than other dog attacks because pit bulls bite into deep muscles, and hold and shake, ripping tissue. The dogs are also less likely to retreat in a fight and can strike without warning.

Nelson uses this analogy: Other breeds are to firecrackers as pit bulls are to hand grenades.

Well, other pro-BSL drones are to duped what Nelson is to whipped.

My question is a simple one:  if 'pit bull' attacks are more likely to be fatal, may we presume that all 'pit bull' bites and attacks in Denver resulted in a fatality?  May we also assume that no other breeds have been involved in fatalities in the Denver area?  No and no.

So whenever you hear somebody talking about how 'pit bull' attacks are worse than those by other dogs you know who to blame, Mr BSL-Out-of-the-Box.  How this belief was successfully argued beats me unless it was due to a lack of oxygen in the courtroom.

The Aurora Report is attached for your information.

 

Comments

[unknown]

I have just read the solution to the "Pit Bull" problem.
There really isn`t a problem but here`s the solution.
I read it on a forum where the poster called me a "Pit Bull" Lobbyist.
It must be true.
Everything on Forums is true.
Here goes
They are wreaking havoc because of their names.
Rambo
Cujo
Capone

What do you expect?
They`re bound to be bada$$es!
This person believes that dogs named Nancy or Flowers wouldn`t bite,attack or suddenly flip out.
Problem solved.
So rename your dogs and tell the politicians to get back to real business.
What did politicians used to do?
I forget.
Please visit this video and leave a comment.
This family is donating 10 cents per comment to the Ontario Legal Fund.
Yes it`s a violin recital.
You are not at the wrong video.

[unknown]

I want to be sure to note that that ban didnt go into affect until January 31, 2006. So the 2005 numbers are actually BEFORE the ban. Whats most disturbing is that they actually reversed what was a downward trend by instituting the ban...
Thanks for the link BTW

[unknown]

Hello and thank you, nice work. the only thing people have are the expert opinions of what we DO have. Denver never had hard evidence of anything except 1) a plastic surgeon and 2) a minister w/2 broken legs caused by the other person w/the 2 x 4. Bones can be crushed a lot easier by swinging a 2 x 4 than a dog just happening to allegedly break both leg bones? The 2 x 4 swinger was not at the trial. and that idiot borcheldt or whatever its called is not a certified behaviorist, they proved that already (Tellings case) that he lied about having a "certification"--hes a book writer with absolutely NO hands on experience whatsoever with APBTs. KKK did a big disservice to the community by using plastic surgeon, a lying book writer, and a guy w/2 broken legs. And thats why he HATES ACF--they have exposed him for what he is. A fraud.( Most people have not read the transcript from the dog fanciers trial. )
KKK couldnt even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Margolius dog was an APBT, even using AC witness with 27yr as animal control, and over 500 admin hearings of IDg "pitbull" dogs as a witness. Some expert. And lets not forget that the CO supreme ct. only affirmed the trial courts findings of law--NOT evidence. And the trial courts "evidence" was crap--so I blame Plaintiffs counsel for failing to properly dispute it on the record, and for failing to have experts that would easily take out the citys so-called "experts" When was the last time anyone used a plastic surgeon to prove a dog case of constitutional law?
Thats only used when someone is trying to get medical+ damages and money in an action for liability, personal injury ) And when is a plastic surgeon an "expert" re dogs and dog bites in constitutional law issues? OH I see, its when I need to PROVE that a plastic surgeon is the expert that can testify about dog bites even though he has NO knowledge about the dog, if it actually BIT the person, or anything else, and no expertise as to dog bites except to AFTER a person is attacked. How easy would that have been to discredit?
That was not the issue in the constitutional case. KKK is worried bec hes afraid his wonderful law may be impacted with all the stuff going on. and on that basis, he might be partly right. Just who do we think told D. Kelly that all of a sudden we dont kill dogs in Denver anymore?????????? Maybe that plastic surgeon. snicker snicker:)
Probably taking $$ from the big animal in the sky group run by one of 2 people. DUH? He has given the appearance of impropriety and if the idiot was elsewhere, and not in that land of the dummy dumb dumbs, he would have been disbarred by now.

[unknown]

I agree that K should have been dismissed quite awhile ago. Hes definitely got some issues and they have nothing to do with public policy.
I saw a comment quite awhile ago from one of his neighbours. Apparently, his GSD is not the friendliest dog on the block, if reports are accurate.
Whats with these GSD people? Theyre the lead biter here in Canada according to health reports - the only accurate way to assess the dog bite non-problem.