Even more good news out of the state of Ohio, as more and more communities are following the state's lead in repealing their breed specific laws and instead, moving to a breed neutral law that defines aggression based on behavior, not what a dog looks like.
Next on the list are Avon Lake, OH -- who unanimously passed a repeal 7-0 on Monday. Councilman Dave Kos, who pushed for a repeal 3 1/2 years ago said that attitudes have definitely changed on the council over time and the council was much more agreeable this time around.
Also, North Royalton, OH repealed their breed-specific law -- and now 'pit bulls' in that community are no longer automatically dangerous under local law. Thanks to Jodie at Bless the Bullies for this update.
Also, Painesville, OH has removed pit bull-specific language from their city law. Thanks to Stop BSL for this link.
Meanwhile, Xenia, OH revised it's Breed-specific law, so certain breeds are not automatically considered vicious in Xenia -- unless a dog in the household bites someone, then they are, even if the offending dog is not of a targeted breed. Weird. Thanks to Jennifer at Stop BSL for keeping us up to date on this one as well.
So more good news out of Ohio -- three more repeals, and a lot of changing attitudes about what constitutes a dangerous dog in the state (hint -- it's how it actually acts). This is definitely a sign that we're moving in the right direction. Minds are changing. People are becoming more educated and more aware of what science and experts say about canine behavior. Hooray.
As I've noted many times before, I'm not a fan of posting these dog bite fatality stories because I think they're misleading. Dogs are amazingly wonderful and gentle creatures -- that are great at integrating into our lifestyle. There are 78 million owned dogs in this country -- and only a tiny number are ever involved in a serious type attack. Unfortunately, when they do, it makes pretty big news -- and often, political leaders make poor decisions based on inaccurate data instead of focusing on the CIRCUMSTANCES that led to the the tragedies. And it is always the circumstances that are the driving factor -- as is painfully clear in both of these incidents. If we focus on circumstances, and proper education of these circumstances, we put ourselves in a better position to avoid tragic events.
Tyzhel McWilliams was an 8 month little boy who was left alone with one of the family's three 'pit bull" type dogs in his home in Lemon Grove, CA. Apparently, while the boy's mother and her roommate talked in the next room, the young boy was attacked by the dog and died a short time later. There's not a lot of information about what led up to the attack - but young children are very fragile and vulnerable and this case, the child had recently become mobile for the first time which may have been disconcerting to the dog.
The incident shows why it is essential for parents to monitor ALL interactions between their young child and their dogs - -and when they can't be there to monitor, they should use things like doors and babygates to separate them from each other. There are a lot of good resources for this information - -but I always first recommend people to Family Paws Parent Education.
The story was picked up in more than 30 media outlets, and it does appear as if this did happen in a poverty-stricken area.
Also last week, a two year old boy was tragically killed by two dogs defined by the Sheriff's office as "mixed breed dogs". The dogs were apparently contained behind an electronic fence -- but the young boy was out on his big wheel and came into the yard where the dogs were and was attacked by the dogs.
I'm not a huge fan of electronic fences -- but do think they have their place when people are in their own yard with their dog. While they do a fine job of keeping dogs in, they don't keep other dogs/children/etc out -- so I don't think it's particularly safe for the dogs for them to be left in this type of situation unsupervised. In this case, the young toddler got into the yard while both the dogs and the toddler were unsupervised and the child is now dead. No one witnessed the attack, so there is no way to even speculate on what may or may not have caused the dogs to attack the child.
Two year old toddlers seem to be particularly prone to this sort of attack -- as they are very mobile (and sneaky quick) and can get away from parents very easily. If you look around your home and think of all the things that could be terrible for a 2 year old to wander into unattended that are just 10 minutes from your home it is pretty amazing. Dogs can be a part of that equation.
This story was picked up by only 13 media outlets.
My heart goes out to all the families in these cases.
Check out this creative video ad for spaying and neutering from No Kill LA. The ad features Kevin Nealon wanting to talk to you about a whole host of problems (including Kangaroo Impotence) -- but noting that many of the problems you can't do much about -- but solving the homeless pet issue is one you can do something about. Good stuff.
I've been meaning to update this information for about a week or so but time has simply gotten away, but I did want to post a quick update about the progress being made in Kansas City at making the city's archaic, open-admission shelter into a no kill shelter.
Our organization, the KC Pet Project, has been operating the city shelter since January 1. All of the data in this post is for the first five months of operating the shelter -- so from Jan 1 through May 31.
In the first five months of operations, KC Pet Project adopted out 975 dogs and cats, transferred an additional 775 to other shelters or rescue groups -- and reunited 390with their owners. In total, we created 2,140 positive outcomes for animals in the first 5 months of operations (450 more than in the same timeframe a year ago). When we included animals still at the shelter, or in foster care, we have achieved an 86% save rate for all dogs and cats that have passed through the shelter since January 1st. By point of comparison, the shelter has had a 65% save rate over the past 2 years. As recently as 2007, the shelter had a mere 38% save rate.
The process certainly hasn't been easy. Thus far this year, KCPP has seen a 26% increase in intake (including 24% increase from animal control) for dogs and cats as seen through the first 5 months of 2011. The increased intake has definitely made lifesaving more challenging as it is putting us on pace to have the highest shelter intake since 2008.
While we're pleased with our success so far, we know we're going to have to do more with summer intake increasing even higher -- so we've been ramping up our off-site adoption programs with consistent programs throughout the summer months. We also just purchased a van that will give us great ability to transport dogs and cats to these off-site events.
While it would be great to be able to pat ourselves on the back for the uptick in saves - it truly has been a community effort. More people have come out to our place and adopted. Rescues have been working their butts off to pull animals and place them in their programs. Our volunteeers continue to help find homes, work with training and socializing, and fostering. And the media has been very kind in how they've covered our stories. It really has been a community effort.
Thanks to everyone out there that has supported us, adopted from us, rescued from us, volunteered and donated to our cause. We're making progress. While the mission is not complete (and never will be), we are moving in the right direction.
Photo note: This is the line that formed outside our shelter yesterday after this story ran on KCTV5 about a dog that was rescued after being abandoned on a balcony was brought to our shelter and the station covered our news about increase in intake thus far this year. The public has been amazing at responding to us -- and we thank them for their support.
I've been meaning to cover the situation in Maryland for awhile -- but, because of some other stuff going on I just haven't gotten to it. But here's the latest -- and some background for those who haven't been keeping up (and it's been a LOT to keep up with).
Back on April 26, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a ruling that essentially states that pit bulls, and their mixes, are presumed dangerous by the nature of their breed (or type). The ruling provides a whole host of problems for owners of pit bull type dogs -- including problems getting insurance and if their dog is involved in a bite incident, further liability than other dog owners in similar situations because their dog is a presumed risk (whether they've demonstrated bad behavior befor or not). This has been particularly problematic for renters and landlords as they even transferred the burden on landlords that they were also liable if they knew there was a 'pit bull' on their rental property.
However, legislators are lining up to pass a new law that will negate the decision -- including one by Senate Minority Leader EJ Pipkin -- who called the decision "unprecedented and misguided" and a "Judicial overstep". The law should be heard in a special session in July. Other legislators have also spoken out in favor of the law over-riding the judicial ruling including Thomas "Mike" Miller, JB Jennings, Heather Mizeur, Frank Turner, Michael Smigiel Sr, Herbert McMillan and Jon Cardin - and will no doubt be supported by Annapolis Mayor Josh Cohen -- who ows a 'pit bull mix" name Tula. Cohen doesn't really get a vote, but as the mayor in the capital city he no doubt has some influence.
The court decision has been opposed by nearly everyone, including The Washington Humane Society, rescue organization Presidential Pits, B-More Dog,the Maryland SPCA, Second Hope Rescue, Baltimore Humane Society, Humane Society of the United States and Best Friends has also created an action alert (and many other orgs have expressed interest in repealing this) Immediately after the decision came out Senate President Thomas Miller Jr. and House Speaker Michael Busch announced a joint legislative task force to study the Court opinion. Apparently the new laws being filed are a result of the task force.
The court ruling was made in conjunction with a 2007 attack of a boy by a dog in Towson, MD. According to the courts, the fact the dog was a "pit bull" was prima facie evidence that the dog's owners should have KNOWN the dog was aggressive -- and thus, were more liable for negligence than had the bite happened by any other type of dog.
The ruling (no kidding), used as one of it's proof points, an 1882 dog bite case that involved a Newfoundland dog that was involved in an attack. The court, in 1882, ruled that "the fact that the owner kept his dog tied and did not permit him to run at large, it MUST BE PRESUMED that he had konwledge that the dog was vicious, unruly and not safe...." Or may I suggest that in 1882 the dog was in a rural community and the dog was a working dog, used to protect the flock in the evenings while the owner was asleep. Just a guess.
Either way, the court then argued that they could then make many of the same presumptions in this case -- and through a series of presumptions, ruled that all 'pit bulls' are inherently aggressive.
You can read the court ruling in their entirety here.
The ruling was a 5-4 decision -- so a close one and four of the nine judges didn't agree. And I think the further "logic" of the court case is summed up excellently by the dissenting opinion. Here's an exerpt (emphasis mine):
"By the virtue of this new rule, grounded ultimately upon the perceptions of the majority of this court about a particular breed of dog, rather than upon adjudicated facts showing that the responsible party possessed the requisite knowledge of the animal's incliantion to do harm, the majority transforms a clear factual question into a legal one in an effort to create liability. If the majority believes that it has not transformed the relevant inquiry from a factual determination into a legal one, in the present case, then I pose this question: "What expert testimony or factual predicate is contate within this record to support a factual finding that pit bulls and mixed-breed pit bulls are inherently dangerous? I have considered the record and foudn no such factual predicate."
This should give you a pretty good feel for the decision -- and why the legislature has jumped on adding a law that specifically overides the court decision on its agenda for the summer emergency session.
Best of luck to all the folks who are working hard to overturn this decision. It isn't a good judgement -- and I suspect that with the continued work of advocates in the area that Maryland will become yet another state that will outlaw breed-specific laws.
I found this infographic below last week and thought it was really informative and definitely worth sharing. The graphic lays out the average cost of owning a variety of different types of pets from large dogs to fish. The graphic doesn't account for "start up costs" -- just the ongoing costs of owning a particular pet.
Owning a large dog is the most expensive -- weighing in at $875 a year. A fish, just $35 a year. The graphic does account for the cost of health insurance, but most likely, on average, you're going to make up the cost of the health insurance in vet bills (or more) if you don't have it.
Also, it breaks down the average monthly cost by city. Turns out that Kansas City is the least expensive listed city to own a pet - -at $90 a month. This makes sense. We're sandwiched in between four of the top vet schools in the country so veterinary services tend to be a lot less money here than in other places. Many of the pharma companies are local too. You can click on the image to expand (or click the link here)
I found this info graphic via this article -- which I thought was a really fair article about laying out the costs of owning pets, but also listing the many benefits, including health benefits, of owning a pet and ways to save money on the process.
Of the biggest unseen costs:
Time -- or, the opportunity cost of time spent on a pet
Destruction costs -- things do get damaged. Having not nice stuff helps.
Travel -- boarding and dog sitters can be expensive -- but, finding someone with a similar pet to pet-sit can really help.
Adopting can save money over buying
Getting a pet increases your likelihood of getting another pet. I know that is true.
I'm not sure I buy into everything on the infographic -- and obviously there will be variance by region, and specifics to pets and your living situation. But thought it was worth sharing.
I also want to note that while some may use this as a reason to deny poor people from owning pets -- I do think it's important to Re-note the personal and health benefits of owning a pet -- including lowering cholesterol and blood pressure, decreasing stress and helping to overcome loneliness. And I think low income people deserve this too -- especially given that a) these costs are AVERAGES, the cost can be lower if people are more frugal and many are with purchasing fewer things like toys and nyla bones and b)with most communities having low income services available for vetting, food, etc, most people can afford to get by.
Today marks the innaugeral "Just One Day" campaign. The campaign asks shelters to participate by choosing to not euthanize a treatable non aggressive animal in the shelter -- for just one day.
Around the nation, more than 700 shelters have agreed to participate. One day. No shelter killing.
My one organization, the KC Pet Project, is one of 6 Missouri shelters participating.
While one day will be great, it will be almost meaningless if it doesn't lead to something bigger.
Sure, shelters can stop the killing for one day -- and that's great. It will be the safest day probably ever for shelter animals.
But if things go back to "normal" tomorrow, then what was the point?
My hope is that the "Just one day" promotion will inspire people. I hope it will show people that there is a passion from the public for saving lives, and that when asked, they support efforts to save lives. I hope that shelters will realize that when extra efforts are made to "shuffle the cards" a little that avoiding killing is possible - -with the continued shuffling. And I hope it changes how some shelters operate permanently --- so that "Just one day" can be a recurring theme. And eventually become a week. A month. A year.
Earlier this week, the fine folks over at the ASPCA Pro Blog posted the video below. It is a presentation from a recent TED presenation. For those not familiar with TED, it is a series of presentations that has been going on for years now that features thought leaders on a variety of different topics.
The speaker in this presentation is Tali Sharot --and the topic of this discussion is "optimism bias".
For those of you not familiar with the concept of Optimism Bias (and about 80% of us have it) -- it essentially the idea that we are more optimistic, than realistic about ourselves and our own strengths. In general, we are more optimistic about our ability to have a successful marriage, have successful children, about our ability to get along with others, our driving ability, how interesting we are, how attractive we are and how honest we are. The reality is that about 80% of us think we're better than average drivers, at getting along well with others and more honest than everyone else.
Statistically this obviously can't be true (even though I do think the readers of this blog are extraordinary).
The ASPCA Pro blog then notes that this plays a role in screening pet adoptors as well. We have a tendency to overestimate our own abilities as pet owners, and underestimate the ability of others. And thus, during the adoption screening process, we are often quick to disqualify others from owning pets for doing many of the things we ourselves have done.
Do you or your organization decline potential adopters if you...
--- ever had a pet hit by a car
-- ever had a dog escape confinement and roam at large (at which point, the getting hit by a car is often just dumb luck)
-- ever lied on an adoption application
-- you don't have a fenced yard
-- you don't take your dogs for a walk at least twice per day
-- ever had a pet that produced a litter
-- ever disobeyed a city law, or apartment building guidelines to keep a pet, or
-- ever fell behind on a pet's vaccinations
I think most people, even in animal welfare, if they're honest, will have violated one or more of these policies.
A few years ago I was in a meeting with our city's animal control director with a room full of animal rescue folks, and at one point I dared request that the city consider eliminating it's pet limit (which is currently four). The majority of the people in the room were not pleased with my request -- because they wanted the law to get after hoarders, and abusers. I then just kindly asked for a show of hands of anyone in the room (all animal rescuers) that was currently living within the city's pet limit. No one raised their hands. Not one.
But see, THEY were good pet owners (and no doubt most of them were, and stil are), but they then projected others, in the same situation, as bad pet owners.
Having biases is natural. Most of us have them. But understanding them is really important if we are to make fact-based decisions -- so we base them on facts, not our own biases.
So here are a couple of thoughts:
1) The vast majority of people who come to adopt are good pet owners, or at least desire to be good pet owners. While there are some people who we should deny for adoption, most strive to be good pet owners (even if they're not perfect). Give them the information they need to be successful. Be a resource for them when they get in a bind. And more often than not the pet will be rewarded with a happy home.
2) As yourself realistically if you or your staff would be allowed to adopt from your own shelter. If the answer is no, you're being far too strict in your adoption requirements.
I enjoyed the post, and the TED Talk presentation. Biases are something I've always been interested in and this is a particularly good talk about one specific bias. For more info about bias in decision-making:
Sorry I've been absent from posting -- have a couple of things lined up -- but we've been pretty busy introducing a new foster into the house.
Meet Penny.
The shelter called her "Cricket", but the next door neighbors named her "Penelope" and given that she didn't respond to Cricket at all, we shortened it to Penny.
She's about 12 lbs. To the best of our guess a Long-haired Dachsund mix. She is fearless. And unbelievably cute and fully of personality.
She was a death-row dog -- primarily because she entered the shelter with a bite history. Apparently young children aren't her thing. She seems pretty solid with adults and older children though. And is very playful with other dogs and seemingly so with cats.
So if you're looking for about 12 lbs of cuteness, let me know. We're working on getting her into rescue (local rescue group "Unleashed" has spoken for her, we just need to get her in the program (they're very full right now).
But if you can take her in before going into the program, let me know. I'm not great with little dogs anyway and a little one with a Napoleon complex is not exactly the best fit around here. But she is cute.
The Top 5 is my monthly look at the 5 most popular new posts for the month based on data from Google Analytics. The +1 is my chance to highlight a post I wish had made the top 5 but didn't.
1) Identifying mixed breed dogs is easy - an online survey asking people to determine the heritage of mixed breed dogs was tops on the list. While some debated the merits of DNA testing, others tookt he test to get the main point that determining a dog's heritage based on visual criteria is nearly impossible.
4) An influx of animals, an adoptoin promotion and a village of suport -- An appeal to the media by the KC Pet Project helps get a huge number of cats out of our shelter after 2 hoarding busts in the same week. The community does want to help, you just need to reach out to them.
5) Very good sentences - Kansas City adoptions - another columnists writes about her experience in trying to adopt a dog without a fenced in yard -- and a quote from me in her article about shelters/rescues arbitrarily limit adoption pools.
+1
The plus one this week is really a plus 4 -- as I think it represents a huge turning point for where we're headed with dangerous dog laws in this country. But just in the month of May, at least 6 communities repealed their laws targeting specific breeds of dogs, including DeKalb County, GA; Shreve and Bay Village, OH; Strongville and Geneva on the Lake, OH; and Cincinnati. There is definitely strong momentum toward more effective behavior-focused laws and away from ones that target animals based on what they look like.
Recent Comments