Denver’s Pit Bull Debate

Science & A Review Of The Expert Testimony

I have reviewed the testimony that was provided by expert witnesses during the initial safety
committee meeting and the city council meeting, as well as the research that they have cited. I
have broken down my findings in this document and believe that Science does not support
many of the conclusions that are fundamental to their arguments in favor of their bill.

The Councilman who introduced the bill and representatives from both the Colorado Veterinary
Medical Association and American Veterinary Medical Association have made statements that
sounded like they were based on scientific findings, however upon my review, they are merely
their own personal opinions. In some cases, the statements that were made are patently false.

In summary, here are the 3 foundational arguments that proponents of the effective repeal of
the ban have said and a review of the science provided:

1) “Breed-Specific Licensing is ineffective and/or inefficient at preventing bites” - FACT CHECK:

NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PROVIDED SUPPORTS THIS STATEMENT
2) “Pitbulls do not bite at a higher rate than other breeds” - FACT CHECK: SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE PROVES THAT PIT BULLS DO BITE AT A HIGHER RATE THAN OTHER
BREEDS
3) “Pitbulls are responsible for a greater percentage of bites that are categorized as most severe
or fatal”. FACT CHECK: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PROVES THAT PIT BULLS CAUSE A
HIGHER RATE OF EXTREMELY SEVERE AND FATAL BITES AT A HIGHER RATE THAN
OTHER BREEDS

Here are my detailed findings and evidence on these 3 statements

Claim 1: Research/Science Says That Breed-Specific Legislation Is Ineffective

There has been a generally accepted talk track among supporters of the repeal that
research/science says that "Breed-Specific Legislation Is Ineffective". Fact check: ​FALSE. No
such research or science says this​. The only thing that the research has documented is that the
researchers have not been able to prove the effectiveness of BSL. ​Just because science
doesn't exist to prove the effectiveness of BSL DOES NOT MEAN that science has
proven that it is ineffective.​ Statements from supporters of the repeal have twisted the
science to fit their needs and misled the public.

Quote 1: CM Herndon "​Research tells us ​breed-specific legislation is ineffective​ at keeping

communities safe and experts in the field"​ Source: Press Release on Friday.
My Response: FALSE. Since introducing this bill, no research has been cited or provided that
actually says that "breed-specific legislation is ineffective at keeping communities safe".
Quote 2: Kendall Houlihan, AVMA, 1/22/20 safety committee meeting , "​The AVMA is opposed
to bsl because while it may look good on the surface it is an overly simplistic approach to a
complex social problem and therefore not a reliable or effective solution for dog bite prevention​"
My Response: This may have been indicated to be a scientific fact because it came from an
expert witness, however no study was referenced, so this is only a matter of opinion, not
science

Quote 3: Kendall Houlihan, AVMA , "​While breed specific restrictions might seem to make sense
theres no credible evidence to indicate they are effective​.”
My Response: Just because no credible evidence exists to indicate that they are effective, that
doesn't mean that any credible evidence exists to indicate that they are ineffective

Research Provided:

The 2014 AVMA study does not say anywhere that "BSL is not reliable or effective". The
farthest that they go is to say that "It is difficult to support the targeting of this breed as a basis
for dog bite prevention”. That is a long stretch to say that it “is not reliable or effective”.

Quote 3: Doctor Ariel Fagan

When asked her opinion on BSL she said, “Legislation should be driven by science and I don’t
believe that there’s the science to support BSL. I do believe there is science to support
education, responsible ownership, leash laws etc.”
My Response:
1) The current proposal on the table does not include any requirements to support education,
responsible ownership or leash laws, so by her same standards, the proposed law is no more
aligned to Science than the existing one.
One additional point: The proponents of this bill keep harping that BSL should be repealed
because science says that it is ineffective and unreliable. On the flip side, is there any
evidence/science to support the bill that the mayor vetoed that this bill is reliable or effective?
Answer: NO

Section 2: Research/Science Says That Pitbulls Are Not Any More Dangerous Than Other
Breeds​ This statement is False.

Quote: Kendall Houlihan, AVMA 1/22/20 safety committee meeting ​“​And there is no reliable
data to support the idea that any specific dog breeds are more dangerous than others​.” THIS
STATEMENT IS PURELY FALSE.

Proof 1: In citing ​the AVMA's very own report​, both the representatives of the AVMA and
CVMA failed to read the sentence that proves that more of the very severe injuries or fatalities
from dog bites is attributable to pit bulls:

Proof 2: At the 2/10 council meeting, Doctor Ariel Fagan referred to the study, "Does the
dangerous dog act protect against animal attacks" which found that Pit bulls were responsible
for 22.5% of the bites followed by mixed breeds at 21.2% and then German Shephards at
17.8%. ​In comparing pitbulls to German shephards, Pitbulls were 26% times more likely
to bite than the next closest breed. This proves that Kendal Houlihan’s statement was
totally false, as supported by science

I am not sure if this sort of testimony is common for City Council, but as a member of the Public,
after listening to it and doing my research, I felt like the record needed to be set straight and that
our experts are held to much higher standards than what has been presented in this debate. I
hope you find this useful.