My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - #52
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2023
>
06/06/2023 Regular & HA
>
Correspondence - #52
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/12/2023 4:19:01 PM
Creation date
6/5/2023 11:38:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
6/6/2023
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
For 2019, 31.3 bites were expected, 34 occurred. For 2022, 20.0 bites were expected, 19 <br />occurred. The Actual fell within a stone's throw of the Expected. That is to say, the change in <br />the number of dogs by age bracket largely explains the change in the number of bites. <br />The chart "Vanishing Bite Difference" tracks how, with honest counting and a bit of common <br />sense, the false and misleading claim of 43 bites (as the difference between 2019 and 2022, in <br />the OCCR slide) shrinks to 15 (actual dog bite difference), 6.5 (adjusted just for dog intakes), <br />and finally 3.7 adjusted for the change in age distribution. <br />Is it surprising that the pandemic -era policies (which entail reduced dog -human contact) don't <br />lead to substantially fewer bites? Less contact isn't the only consequence of the policies <br />followed in the 2020-2022 period. The restrictions caused additional stress to dogs and <br />longer stays. So the reduction in handling may have caused a reduction in the bite rate - <br />which was then largely offset by the increase in stress and the longer stays. Suspending <br />playgroups for large dogs may have avoided bites in the play sessions, but it may have <br />caused additional bites during regular handling because the dogs are more stressed. <br />Suppose the continuation of pandemic -era restrictive adoption procedures reduces bites per <br />day, but the dogs stay twice as long. Then the longer stay presents more occasions for <br />bites, and the added stress puts more dogs at risk of biting. <br />Were OCAC/OCCR unaware of the fact that the incoming and outgoing populations of <br />dogs were different in 2022 vs 2019, both in total numbers and in age distribution? Did <br />they not care to look at how this might be influencing bites? Perhaps these questions are too <br />difficult for organizations that didn't want to report the correct number of bites in the first place. <br />The blindness to the data, intentional or not, also led to failure to recognize an obvious <br />measure to reduce bites: Focus on behavior issues for dogs age 4 and up, because that 30% <br />of dogs account for 75% of the bites in the 2018-2022 period. Just the additional staff and <br />volunteer awareness of the issue would have helped. <br />Vanishing Bite Difference <br />2019 to 2022 <br />OCCR FALSE CLAIM <br />justifying dog policies 43 <br />ACTUAL <br />dog bite difference 15 <br />Adjusted <br />6.5 <br />for lower intakes <br />Adjusted <br />F3.7 <br />for younger dogs <br />0 10 20 30 40 50 <br />Bites - Page 5 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.