KC DOG BLOG

Dog Bites Actually on the Decline?

Boy, you'd never know this from listening to the media.  However, according to a press release by the National Canine Research Council last week, dog bites across the United States have been falling over the past 3 decades.

According to the release: "In the last ten years, in particular, America has seen stunning decreases in reported dog bites. Dog safety education programs, better understanding of canine bahvior, increased awareness of the importance of spaying and neutering animals and the creation and enforcement of leash laws have contributed to this decline".

The report notes an 83% decline in dog bites in Chicago and an 80% decrease in New York over the past few years vs 3 decades ago (both cities are incidentally in states that prohibit BSL). Postal workers have seen a 50% decline in bites.

Instead of reading these numbers you have the media seemingly increasing its coverage of dog bites, increased "calls for action", websites dedicated to spreading fear about dog bites, and city council's passing ordinances without much information but because they feel compelled to "do something".

Even more disturbing is when in spite of these national decreases in dog bites, cities are passing Breed Specific Laws and causing their total number of dog bites to go up. Aurora, CO reversed a downward trend line when it passed BSL 2 years ago. Sioux City, IA has shown no decrease in total dog bites in spite of their BSL.  Kansas City and San Francisco passed BSL Spay/neuter ordinances than have also not shown to decrease the number of dog bites, San Francisco has actually seen a signifant increase in bites.

We should continue to make sure that we request that our cities make decisions based on accurate information and REAL data, vs misinformation and hysteria created off of sensationalized media reporting.

By the way, this press release was posted on PR Newswire last week, and I've yet to find even one media outlet that has picked up the article -- even during dog bite prevention week. Interesting.

US Sporting Alliance Files Campaign against HSUS

THe US Sports Alliance filed a campaign this week against HSUS. (Hat Tip: Caveat).  According to the press release, the group is questioning the USDA's listing of HSUS as a "Shelter, Rescue and Welfare Organization" in spite of it being an organization without a shelter.  USSA also questions this designation given the high amount of resources used in lobbying.

Meanwhile, last week the HSUS filed its 2007 Annual Report.  I personally find it fascinating that HSUS as an organization can retain it's 501 not-for-profit status -- in spite of having total assetts over $233 Million.  Of the organization's $113 million operating budget last year, the company spent $13 million in "strategic communications", $27 million in lobbying and $13 million in fundraising.  The organization spent 6% of its total budget on Animal Care Facilities, in spite of being a "rescue organization".

For the life of me I cannot figure out how they keep their 501 status. It will be interesting how aggressvie the USSA campaign against HSUS gets...

KCMO Dog Park Meeting, Thursday, May 29

On Thursday, May 29, the KC WOOF (Well-Organized Off-Leash Friends) group will be making a public presentatoin to the Dog Park Task Froce, which will eventually make recommendations for off-leash parks in Kansas City.  WOOF had a proposed dog park in front of the Parks Board last summer when the Park's Board (In a fiasco that couldn't have been handled worse) decided to go with an overall task force instead.

The WOOF proposed dog park is to go in Sunnyside Park at 83rd and Summit (one block West of Wornall).  A large turnout of public support for dog parks will go a long way in getting more dog parks on the docket in Kansas City. One dog park for a city of 500,000 people, in a city that is among highest concentration of dog owners in the country, is not sufficient.

Meeting Date: Thursday, May 29

Time: 6:30-8pm

Location: Broadway United Methodist Church, 74th and Wornall, KCMO

For more info on WOOF, visit www.waldodogpark.com

For my thoughts on what the city should do about do parks, you can go here and here.

See you there.

Bully Conference - Iowa City, IA, May 31

Yeah, I know, I really should have posted something on this months ago.  It's been busy.  Anyway, for anyone in the neighborhood of Iowa City, IA on Saturday, try to take some time out to go to the 4th Annual Bully Workshop.

It should be a really great conference - and only 5 hours long.  The speaker lineup includes Ledy VanKavage from the ASPCA, Dr. Karen Kline from Iowa State University, Andrea Kilkenny of Iowa City Animal Care and Adoption Center, national disc dog championsRoo and Wallace, and yours truly.

It should be a great event.  Registration has technically already closed, but if you want to jump in at the last minute, let me know and I can pull a few strings for you.  There will be no day-of registration though.

Weekly Roundup - National Dog Bite Prevention Week Edition

A couple of years ago, I stood in front of the Lee's Summit Public Safety Advisory board and gave them a quick presentation on why they should not institute BSL.  The board, consisting of 12 guys, all over the age of 50 (and most in their mid-60s or above) were mostly in favor of BSL at the time.  Two weeks later, the 12 person board unanimously opposed BSL.  One of the members of the board, Steven Caruso, wouldn't allow anyone to talk to him because he wanted to do the research on his own. His comment was that it seemed like someone would have to illiterate to think that banning certain types of dogs would work.

So it appears that the illiteracy rate is growing in North America.

I'm going to skip the plethora of stories about dog bite prevention week (which there were many, and it was great, they all gave good practical advice. I'm going to skip to the other stuff this week.

Livingston MI looks at policy that would require all 'pit bulls' to be euthanized

The shelter is now prepared to euthanize any 'pit bull type dog' that enters the shelter for which they are not able to instantly find an owner.  No dogs being sent out to rescues.  No ability for people to adopt these types of dogs (which would ease some demand from BYB dogs). Just publically funded shelter euthanasia.  

Of  course, this gives newspaper reporters who have no knowledge whatsoever on the topic to provide their opinions.

The city passed the ordinance in spite of having over 60 people in the animal welfare community show up at the meeting.  We wouldn't want to listen to experts or anything. Look for euthanasia rates to go up sharply.

Interestingly, during the same week, the city of Tulsa decide to abandon their similar policy.

And like Tulsa, Vancouver, OR also is making better efforts to adopt out good-tempered 'pit bulls'.

Omaha, NE Policies Diverge

Omaha, NE's shelter just recently started adopting out 'pit bull' type dogs, however, there are some in the city who want all such dogs banned. This is a pretty fair story and worth the read.  The story naturally quotes the Council Bluffs, IA ordinance that banned 'pit bulls' in 2005 and touting the huge decrease in bites from dogs that are no longer allowed in the city.  To this article's defense though, it at least shared the total dog bite numbers (not just 'pit bull' bites) that show that Council Bluffs has really had no significant decrease in total dog bites...only the types of dogs that are involved has changed, and at no point has Council Bluffs even come close to getting back down to the 85 bites in 2003 (before the ban).

Springfield, MO dispute over pit bull ownership leaves one dead

One man apparently accused the other man of stealing his dog, which led to an altercation, and eventually one of the men fatally stabbed in the stomach.  Strangely, there was a similar case in Oakland this week also, where a dispute over a 'pit bull', led to a man being fatally shot. 

In Cincinnati, two men wanted for fatally shooting 'pit bull' type dog

The men apparently got out of the car, tied the dog to a tree with a belt, and then shot the dog 5 times and left. Apparently someone got the license plate number of the car and the car belongs to someone who is wanted on other felony charges.  Is there any real doubt in anyone's mind which species, human or dog is more violent?

I love Irony

This opinion blogger in Dallas writes the editorial with the title "Ban Pit Bulls?"  What's ironic about this is the picture attached to the article, which appears to be a Mastiff-type dog, instead of a 'pit bull' type dog, which all goes to show a) that when reporters keep reporting 'pit bull' attacks, they may or may not actually be 'pit bull type dogs" involved and b) there are some major, inherant problems in determining a dog's breed that make breed bans virtually impossible to enforce.

Ohio State Lawmaker proposes state-wide breed ban

Tyrone Yates, a state representative from the Cincinnati area, has proposed a bill that would make it illegal to own a 'pit bull' in the entire state of Ohio. There would be no grandfathering, and all 'pit bull' dogs would be confiscated and killed. Here's a note on HB 568 from the AKC. Here's the bill in its entirety.  The bill was assigned to the Government and Elections Committee in the House.  Yates is a Democrat in a House that has a Republican majority. He has no co-sponsor, and there is no companion bill in the Senate. There is little chance that this bill gets very far -- but if you are in Ohio, contact the folks on the Government & Elections Committee and let them know you are against this ordinance.

This ordinance, if passed, would lead to a state-wide slaughter of dogs (of all types), tie up tons of legal resources dealing with breed-ID and Constitutionality suits, keep dogs in shelters for months at a time during these suits, clogging up shelter space, tie up tons of animal control resources that would otherwise be used to deal with aggressive dogs and cruelty and neglect cases and would bankrupt cities and communities that were trying to enforce the law. Worse yet, it would do nothing to make communities safer.  Sounds like a great idea.

Pennsylvania House Bill 2553 looks to overturn state ordinance

HB 2553 would overturn the state's law that forbids cities from passing breed specific ordinances. 

Kinston, NC looking into  BSL

One of the reasons they say they want to do this is because 'pit bulls' are becoming a larger issue because seven dogs, narcotics, handguns and drug paraphenalia were netted in a series of drug raids last month and because they have "intelligence" that leads them to believe that there are some people training these dogs to fight in the community. Folks, if they're pedaling narcotics (felony offense), or training dogs to be dog fighters (felony offense) they're not going to abide by a 'pit bull' ban. The artcile also innaccurately states that Florida looked at a state wide breed ban last year (they didn't, they looked at repealing their law FORBIDDING cities from instituting BSL, but their law -- which never made it out of committee -- was going to just allow cities the opportunity to pass BSL if they wanted to, not pass it on a state-wide basis).

Oh, and it's not just us Yankees that are being ignorant this week

Oh no, the city council in Nova Scotia is looking at trying to overturn a judges ruling that BSL was Unconstitutional by passing provence wide BSL.  According to the judges ruling: "To provide that a court could order the destruction of a dog that was merely deemed  by definition to be fierce or dangerous rather than dangerous in fact, would result in the legislation being overreaching and contrary to the principles of fundamental justice."  At least the justice system in Nova Scotia sees that over-inclusiveness of these laws is indeed unjust and unnecessary.

"Pit bull" saves owner's life

The dog's owner was attacked by a man yielding a smurai sword and the dog bit the man protecting its owner.

Whitehall City Council looks like it's leaning against 'pit bull' ban

It looks like the council is leaning against a ban on 'pit bulls' that was proposed by Councilwoman Jackie Thompson.  Thompson seems like quite a trip -- as she was warned on a couple of occassions about her lack of professionalism at the meeting.  I've seen that take place on several occassions, as it's never the logical ones that are crazed about their breed bans.

Surrey, BC facing lawsuit following dog attack

A couple of weeks ago, an 11 year old boy was attacked by a 'pit bull' in Surrey. Now, the boy's family is considering suing the city for failure to protect the public from aggressive dogs. Apparently the family called about the dogs running loose 30 minutes earlier but the authorities never responded. This lawsuit would set a horrible precedent for a lot of reasons. Cities can only do so much to protect people.  A lawsuit like this would open up cities for suits for not protecting people from being injured by drunk drivers, people running red lights, etc. This is probably a good way to bankrupt cities everywhere.  Meanwhile, it should also serve as a warning to cities to not enact ordinances that they cannot even hope to enforce.

"Pit bulls" graduate from Obedience School in Columbus, OH

The program is part of the "recycle-a-bull" project that takes dogs away from abusive/neglectful situations and rehabilitates them into adoptable companion pets.

One of the best blog postings out there this week

Caveat Asks if you want to continue to own a dog...

Dealing with 'pit bulls' in today's society

Writer Jean Faulk notes her embarrassment at the role the media has played in villanizing 'pit bulls" and notesKaren Delise's "The Pit Bull Placebo" and the value of the information found in it. If you read two books on dogs in your entire life, read "The Pit Bull Placebo" and "Redemption".

No such thing as a dog that won't bite

This was a great story for Dog Bite Prevention week centered around the number of public servents bitten by dogs each year in Central Florida.  The primary victim in this story was attacked last year by a Gordon Setter that chewed off one of her fingers.

This week's dog bites

Edmond, OK Woman hurt when she tried to stop a "Stratford Terrier" (whatever that is) that was running at large from attacking her dog.

 "Bulldog" attacks woman's Cocker Spaniel in Hutchinson, KS.  the dog was apparently roaming at large.

Price Hill (OH) child attacked by off-leash 'pit bull'. Price Hill is a suburb of Cincinnati. Apparently two boys were having an argument and the dog attacked one of the boys. 

13 month old Tucson boy "attacked" by a "pit bull looking' dog. The child is recovering from "scrapes and bruises" (note, no bites). The loose dog jumped up on the boy and knocked him down. He was identified as a "pit bull looking" dog by the boy's parents, who I'm sure know exactly what a 'pit bull' looks like.

Two children bitten by Rottweiler in Surrey, British Columbia.  This is the 3rd bite that has been reported in the past couple of weeks in that community.

Chained Pit bull attacks and kills daschund in Burlington, NC.  The dog's chain was long enough to reach the sidewalk where the Daschund's owner was walking him.

Woman attacked by 'pit bull' in Wilsonville, IL.  The woman was dog-sitting her son's dog and then fed her own dog in front of the 'pit bull'.  The dog then become food aggressive and attacked the woman's dog and the woman was bitten trying to break up the ruckus. People, train your dog to not be food aggressive -- and if it is, feed your dogs separately.

16 month old attacked by 'pit bull' in Fredericksburg, VA.  The mother "wasn't concerned" when her son "wandered away". 

Two people bitten by dogs in Pama, TX. The woman was attacked by a Labrador while her child was bitten by a small Chihuahua. 

Roaming dog attacks woman in Canada.  You won't read it in the newspaper because there was no 'pit bull' involved, only blogger Social Mange picks it up.

It's no wonder unsupervised kids get bitten by dogs

I had this picture sent to me the other day. It had a whitty little saying above it because it was supposed to be funny.  All I could see when I saw it is that geez, it's no wonder unsupervised kids get bitten by dogs.

Meanwhile, it's also a reminder of just how great of companions dogs are that I'm sure this picture is a frequent occurance and dogs, in general, are great with kids in spite of it.  However, it really is no wonder why kids get bitten sometimes.

Reporting: Misleading, Balanced or accurate- Lakewood, OH

So this week, the city of Lakewood, OH, had a meeting to discuss a potential ban on 'pit bulls'.  According to the city records (which I obtained from the city clerk, Mary, who was very helpful) 20 citizens of Lakewood came to share their views of the proposed ordinance. Of the 20 citizens who spoke at the meeting, 19 opposed the proposed ordinance; only 1 was supportive of the ban.  So 95% of the citizens who spoke out at the meeting, were AGAINST a ban.  That's pretty overwhelming.

Meanwhile, it's interesting how this city council meeting was reported by the local media.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a story about the meeting, and quoted 4 sources:

1) The Mayor, Edward Fitzgerald, who supports the ban (in spite of what the majority of his constituents think)

2) Councilman Brian Powers, who proposed the ordinance and supports it.

3) The newspaper Animal People (which is run by Merritt Clifton) who supports breed bans because it's the only reason the man has relevance in the world.  His data continues to be completely false and misleading and yet for some reason widely reported.

4) Julie Docherty, who supports the ban (but incidentally did not speak at the meeting)

So 19 people spoke out against the ban. One spoke in favor of the ban.  And ALL FOUR sources used by the Cleveland Plain Dealer were from supporters of the ban.  We're going to chalk this one up as misleading reporting - -as it's definitely not balanced, and certainly not an accurate portrayal of the opinions of the majority of the people at the city council meeting on Monday.

Meanwhile, WKYC TV in Cleveland had a more balanced view.  While they noted the packed crowd of "mostly pit bull dog owners", they had two quotes from sources. 

Joanne Gibbons supported the ban (Because she thought the police had enough to do without policing dogs or dog owners -- an argument that is its own oxymoron as enforcing the ban would cause the police to have to do more).

Jason Brown opposed the law.

This reporting of having both sides represented is balanced, but not really all that accurate.

The truth is that, as usual, 95% of people that spoke at the city council meeting were not in favor of a ban. Many who spoke against were 'pit bull" owners -- but many others were vets, members of rescue groups, doggie daycare owners, members of the Humane Society and some general dog owners (at least one was an owner of Jack Russell Terriers that would not have been affected by the ban.

Why is truthtelling in media so hard to do?  And why is the Cleveland Plain Dealer purposefully misleading readers into thinking that the majority of people supported the ban?  And why is it that city council people support bans "because that's what people want" yet every time there is a city council meeting, the clear majority of people are actually against a ban? 

Wanna learn more?

Wanna learn more about the book Redemption:  The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America?

Do you want to discuss the book with like-minded people that think that this is a doable and possible solution in the Kansas City area?

Are you saddened by the stories of animals dying in our local shelters and want to find a way to help?

Come join us at the Redemption Book Discussion.  Monday June 9 and Monday June 23, Kansas City Dog Advocates and No More Homeless Pets KC will be hosting a two part Redemption book discussion at the Kansas City Public Library -- Waldo Branch. 201 E. 75th Street, KCMO.  Meeting Room A.

Come out and learn more about the book and discuss your thoughts.  Reading the book first is recommended, but not required.  Signed copies of the book will be available to buy for $20 at the event. 

Please RSVP to RedemptionBookDiscussion@gmail.com  Tell them the KC Dog Blog Sent you. 

I'm looking forward to it...it should be a great event.

No Kill vs MSN

There was a good discussion on Tuesday's post about the No Kill movement, and how to fight the growing movement for mandatory spay/neuter laws in many communities. 

No doubt that MSN was initially pushed by the Animal Rights groups.  However, there are many, many people out there who are in favor of dog ownership long term, that favor MSN.  It's actually somewhat rational.

Every year, 4-5 million healthy dogs are killed in shelters around the country. For those who are involved and see the killing, it's absolutely heartbreaking.  Those poor, innocent faces.  It would make sense, logically, that MSN laws would help curb the number of animals that are killed.  That's what everyone wants.

However, MSN doens't have the results that people think it should.  In fact, it has never decreased the number of animals killed in any community.  

What people don't realize is that while MSN seems to make sense on paper, it doesn't solve the problem. Some people will not comply with the ordinance: some because they don't perceive it as fair (it's not) and some because the laws don't institute low cost altering programs that make the surgery affordable for many of the citizens.  Licensing compliance almost universally goes down.  So what ends up happening?

1) Because of lower licensing compliance fewer dogs that come into the shelter are able to be returned to owners -- increasing the shelter population.

2) Good, healthy dogs are taken from otherwise good homes because they are not altered -- increasing the shelter population.

3) Dogs that are taken away are often replaced -- which actually INCREASES the demand for bred dogs.

4) Because shelters have a huge influx of dogs coming into the system, euth numbers go up, and many dogs end up getting killed unjustly.

In 1991, San Mateo California instituted mandatory spay/neuter.  Dog deaths increased by 126%.  Dog Licenses declined by 35%.

In 2000, Los Angeles instituted its "spay or pay" ordinance.  Licensing declined and the animal control budget went up 269% (nearly $12 million). 

In 2006, Kansas City, MO instituted a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit bulls -- with the hope (Pipe dream?) of limiting the number of 'pit bull' type dogs that are killed in the city's shelter.  In 2007, the number of 'pit bulls' killed by the city shelter went up 76% over the year before the ordinance. 

The reality is that shelters are not being over-run with puppies.  They're getting over-run by adult dogs...dogs that at one point had a home, but for a variety of reasons, no longer do. In order to handle the euthanasia problem, they must address the owner retention issues that plague society much more so than the birth of puppies. It's not the puppies ending up in shelters. 

Compare this to the No-Kill philosophy.  The No Kill philosophy, in its simplest form, relies on two key ingredients:

1) Availability and promotion of voluntary low-cost spay/neuter programs.

2) Increasing shelter adoption rates (all shelter adopted dogs are altered, which has long-term benefits also)

The No-Kill principles as instituted by Winograd have worked in San Francisco, rural upstate NY and Charlottesville, VA.

But let's assume you don't buy into anything Winograd is saying.  The same principles have worked elsewhere when Winograd wasn't involved.

New Hampshire had tremendous success just by instituting a state wide low-cost voluntary spay/neuter program.

Berkley California decreased euthanasia rates by 90% (down to 50 dogs in 2007) after instituting aggressive voluntary spay/neuter programs, instituting training opportunities for owners, and doing a kick-butt job of adopting out animals.

Calgary, Alberta has developed their animal control program killed only 26 dogs and 22 cats for reasons other than unworkable behavior or health issues in 2006. They did it on the strength of strong licensing rates (Their return to owner rates are near 50% for picked up animals), with low-cost voluntary spay/neuter programs, and by getting pictures of captured animals up on their website within 15 minutes of the animal entering the animal shelter.  Calgary also has no pet limits so there is nothing to discourage people from not licensing their pets. Oh, and their bite rate incidents are going down too, in spite of having a rapidly growing population of about 1 million people. 

For comparison, Kansas City has a population of about 450,000 and killed a total of 6769 dogs and cats.  We kill 242 TIMES as many pets as Calgary with just over half of their population.  Demographics can account for some of the difference, but not all...

The reality is, the only communities that are seeing success in limiting the number of animals killed in their shelters are doing so without BSL and without MSN.  If we really want to decrease the euthanasia rates in our shelters -- and discourage the implementation of Mandatory Spay/neuter ordinances we must, MUST be aware of the cities that have successful case studies.  We must let people know that THIS is the way to decrease the shelter killing. MSN makes it worse.  We must focus on what works...not mumbo jumbo that seems like it should work but actually has the opposite effect we desire.

Can you increase market share by 2-3%?

Here's another great blog posting from Nathan Winograd.  He goes through the math of the "myth of pet overpopulation" and the market share needed to basically rid ourselves of the senseless killing in animal shelters everywhere.

Here's a quip:

Current estimates from a wide range of groups indicate that between 4 million and 5 million dogs and cats are killed in shelters every year. Of these, given data on the prevalence of aggression in dogs in society (based on dog bite extrapolation) and save rates at the best performing shelters in the country from diverse regions and demographics, about 90% of all shelter animals are “savable.” The remainder are either hopelessly ill or injured or vicious dogs whose prognosis for rehabilitation is poor or grave. That would put the number of savable dogs and cats at roughly 3.6 on the low end and 4.5 on the high end of the spectrum.

But even at the high end, it means that we only need to increase the market for shelter pets by 2-3% in order to eliminate all population control killing. Today, there are about 165 million dogs and cats in homes. Of those, about 20 percent come from shelters. Three percent of 165 million equates to 4.9 million, more than all the savable animals being killed in shelters.This is a combination of what statisticians call “stock” and “flow.” In layman’s terms, some of the market will be replacement life (someone has a pet die or run away and they want another one), some of that will be expanding markets (someone doesn’t have a pet but wants one, or they have pets but want another one). But it all comes down to increasing marketshare (where they get their pets from).

Not yet convinced?  Read the rest here.

2-3% certainly seems very attainable.  And even if you don't get to 3%, why not try? Increasing it by only 1% would save millions of lives.