McPherson, Kansas is at it again.
On reviewing the info provided at the above link, I notice that McPherson is the classic BSL hot spot.
Susan Hunter PhD, Professor of Political Science at the University of West Virginia, found in a recent study that there is a particular demographic that is a) more likely to support BSL and b) less likely to be concerned about animal welfare overall. This research was presented at the Canine Legislation Conference in Kansas City this past September. It hasn't yet been published.
Dr Hunter's study revealed that the demographic most likely to support breed banning is the middle-aged white male, closely followed by the Hispanic male. I know that Hispanic people are Caucasians too, it's an ethnic not a racial group, but it's the US so stay with me.
Races in McPherson:
- White Non-Hispanic (93.7%)
- Hispanic (2.9%)
- Two or more races (1.5%)
- Black (1.3%)
- Other race (1.2%)
- American Indian (1.1%)
Women are least likely to support BSL according to Dr Hunter's findings.
There is an almost 50/50 split between males and females in McPherson but given the high marriage rate (61% of people over age 15 are married), the geographical location and the income levels in the area, I suspect that the women are not like we rebellious types from more cosmopolitan areas.
Review the educational demographics as well. You can't equate education with intelligence obviously, because they aren't necessarily correlated; however, an educated population is less likely to support redneckery of any kind.
For population 25 years and over in McPherson
- High school or higher: 90.2%
- Bachelor's degree or higher: 23.9%
- Graduate or professional degree: 6.5%
- Unemployed: 3.7%
- Mean travel time to work: 11.8 minutes
In a population of 13,770 people, only 81 are foreign-born. The population is also declining in McPherson.
Crime isn't bad overall, except they have a lot of burglaries and thefts, so they likely have a fair number of dog owners. As KC Dog Blog discovered, high property crime rates lead residents to acquire dogs as guards.
*
The burg abandoned its plans to discriminate against 'pit bull' owners two years ago but the issue has resurfaced. Mayor Goering - it's too easy sometimes - is keen to get that train back on the track:
City reopens ‘dangerous dog' discussion
By RHONDA KING, Sentinel Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:12 PM CST
E-mail this story | Print this page
Two years after voting against a similar ordinance, the McPherson City Commission is reconsidering an ordinance to prohibit the ownership or keeping of pitbulls and pitbull mixes within the city limits.
In 2005, Mayor Bill Goering voted for an ordinance designed to eventually ban the ownership of pit bulls and other dangerous breeds of dogs within the city limits. However, the ordinance failed when commissioners Tony Fiedler and Charles Scharf voted against the ordinance.
It sounds as though Tony and Charles have vacated their positions on Council which means the coast could now be clear for discrimination and scapegoating:
Goering said he wanted newy-elected commissioners Mike Alkire and Bob Moore to have an opportunity to consider the proposed ordinance.
Here's some 'justification' for the program:
The issue was raised in 2005 when a study of dog bites over a two-year period indicated that 14 of 63 recorded bites were inflicted by breeds considered as dangerous -- pit bulls or pit bull mixes.
OK, people, all together now:
Twenty-two percent of bites were caused by multiple 'breeds' and mixed breeds that victims thought were 'pit bulls', even though there's no such thing, so it's time for some canine ethnic cleansing, hey hey ho ho!
So Goering, what about the other 78%?
"Oh...um....uh....gee......."Hey! Is that a 'pit bull' over there?"
Sixty-three bites in two years averages to a bite every 1.6 weeks, which is pretty low. There is no indication of severity, so we don't know how many are inconsequential vs how many are serious. We don't if there are repeat reports on the same dog owner. We don't know if bites are trending upwards, downwards or remaining stable. We don't know what percentage of the dogs in the area are licensed as 'pit bulls' vs other types.
So, if 'pit bulls' make up 50% of the population yet are responsible for only 22% of bites, that makes them much safer than other shapes. However, if there are only a handful, then we need to look at enforcement and followup techniques as well as the behaviour of the individual dogs and owners in question. It's more complex than some people realize.
Using my standard estimation, there would be around 2700 or so dogs in the area. That means that an estimated 2.3% of all dogs in McPherson bit a person over the two years under review (1.15% per year), keeping in mind that we don't know about repeats.
I doubt they will be able to reduce that number by much regardless of what steps they take.
Who considers 'breeds' dangerous - the local news outlet, some newbie town councillor or a half-wit who couldn't differentiate between a Rottweiler and a Greater Swiss Mountain Dog?
It gets better worse:
Goering said the situation is different when it involves an angry pitbull versus an angry smaller breed.
“The overall build and the strength of the pitbull makes it more dangerous than say a chiuaua, for example,” he said. “They could be equally irritable and difficult, and upset and angry, but the problem that each one of those breeds presents is different.”
Goering also said he recognizes there are other large breeds that can be vicious and bite, but when a pitbull bites it is more problematic. Most adults can survive a pitbull attack but babies and young children can't.
Nice spelling.
Where does Mayor Goering get his information? Where's the proof of increased dangerousness?
How about larger breeds, which are numerous, since the purebreds renamed 'pit bulls' by the ignorant are medium-sized to small dogs?
Where's the reference for the statement about adults vs children and survival rates in 'pit bull' attacks vs attacks by other shapes/sizes?
I mean really, do these guys believe this malarkey themselves, or is it just the hip new thing to say in paper-pushing circles?
Oh, wait a minute, Councilor Alkire appears to have a few properly firing neurons:
Alkire said he didn't have a problem with passing an ordinance on pitbulls, but that he wanted to make sure they wouldn't be violating anyone's rights. He also asked whether the ordinance would necitate a full-time animal control officer and said he would be interested in getting public feedback.
Nice spelling.
I don't see how you can discriminate against someone based strictly on the physical appearance of otherwise universally legal property in the absence of any wrongdoing without violating their rights but I am a bit of a nut for equality before the law.
They don't even have a full-time ACO but dog-related problems are so serious that they have reached (constitutional) crisis proportions?
Why not regulate by colour, it would be as effective and rational. There you go, Tin Potters, a whole new game you can play! No more brown dogs! That's the ticket!
The police chief makes some sense:
Police Chief Dennis Shaw said he has mixed feelings on the issue. There have been several pitbulls brought to the animal shelter that have been well behaved. His concern is how to distinguish for the court the level of pitbull mix a dog is.
The Chief has valid concerns about establishing the ancestry of a mixed breed dog, the so-called 'pit bull'. Good.
However, you could interpret his statement to mean that he doesn't mind the persecution, he's just worried about it holding up in court. That was Bryant's main concern - whether his half-baked experiment would stand up to a Charter challenge. It didn't.
I'll give the Chief the benefit of the doubt, since he seems to know that dogs are dogs regardless of their looks.
That keener, newbie Councillor Moore, has other plans:
Moore said he would rather deal with the issue now before a problem is present.
It's not an issue if a problem isn't present but I'm quibbling again.
It sounds as though Moore is the villain who must be thwarted.
And now, the moment you've been awaiting:
The commissioners were all in favor of waiting for public replies before making any decisions concerning a city ordinance for pitbulls.
They would welcome any phone calls (245-2535) or letters regarding the proposed ordinance.
The public is always welcome to voice their opinion during public input session at the city commission meeting at 8:30 a.m. every Monday.
Happy to oblige, boys. I think I can put a little something together that will help you see the light. Time to dust off some factual material and send it along for your consideration.
If you'd like to write a businesslike letter informing the McPherson City Council of a better approach to dog owner control, here is the contact info:
http://www.mcpcity.com/e-mail.htm
While you're at their site, check out 'Adoptable Animals' - they have some cute dogs down there.
