KC DOG BLOG

Pink Toenail Polish

Last week, in the wake of the reality that Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon is a dog killer, The Toledo Blade has begun reporting a listing of all dogs adopted, and all dogs killed, at the Lucas County shelter at least until changes are made in the shelter. From the 11/14 report, which features 17 dogs killed, and 4 adopted, it seems that little is being done in the short term to bring an end to shelter killing.

But it is a dog on the 11/13 report that caught the eye of one of my readers in the comment section, that is th inspiration for the blog posting.  Here's the part of the report:

Dogs Killed

"Pit bull," tan/white young female "with pink toe nail polish," North University, Toledo, running at large, no muzzle

Reading this can't help but break your heart. Obviously, this dog was someone's dog. Clearly behind the scenes here was an owner that cared dearly about their dog....they loved the dog so much they POLISHED HER TOENAILS.  This isn't some inner city dog fighter like Tom Skeldon would have you believe is the "typical" pit bull owner and why he needs a ban. It was a caring person, who clearly had a connection with their dog.

Somehow, the dog got free (which anyone who owns a dog can tell you, can happen, even to a responsible owner), ended up in the animal shelter, and killed.

Now, most shelters would have workers and volunteers who are compassionate about animals. They would see this dog, realize the dog had an owner, and work their butts off to find that owner. They would post flyers in the North University area. They would talk to neighbors (I mean, come on, someone HAS to know the owner of the pit bull that polishes their toenails) and would work to find the owner who loved this dog.  But this was in Toledo, where only 13% of the dogs make it out alive, and thus, the dog is dead.

But then that got me thinking, what about the dogs in shelters across the U.S. that have owners, but aren't wearing pink toenail polish?

Dogs can get loose for a variety of reasons. Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were out hiking and at the trail head, this dog came up to us. We pet the dog and checked out his collar -- his name was Huck. We have Huck some of our peanut butter sandwhich, a couple of carrots and a little drink of water. Huck was a little dirty and we couldn't find an owner, anywhere. We called the phone number on his tag and no one answered. We decided that most likely someone was looking for the dog and that we would leave him there. If Huck was there when we finished the hike, then we'd start searching for his owners.

We later met a woman on the trail, who was a little frantic that her dog had somehow wandered off while they were out hiking together and she didn't know where he went. I assume Huck and his owner were reunited.

But the moral of the story is, this was a caring owner, who was taking their dog out hiking, and the dog got loose.  It happens. And the dog, gone from his owner for no more than a couple of hours had found water and mud and had gotten dirty. He looked a little disheveled.

But what would have happened if Huck had made it to a shelter and somehow lost his tags? Would the shelter have assumed that he was abandoned out in the woods?  Would they have assumed that he was homeless because he was so dirty?  Would they have assumed that the owner was not caring and irresponsible for letting their dog run free?  Or ould they have busted their butts to try to find Huck's human hiking companion?

I guess my point is that a lot of dogs that find their way into the shelter are owned dogs. They have owners who love them, care about them, and sometimes paint their toenails pink. But what if their toenails aren't pink? What if the signs of ownership are not as obvious and the dog is a little dirty. Do we assume the dog is a stray?  Or assume the dog is lost?  And what resources do we put into finding the dog's home vs finding the dog a new home?

Do we think lost, not stray, even when the dog does not wear pink toenail polish or have other obvious signs of being owned?  We should.

Update on KCMO's new "performance standards"

On Wednesday, I posted about a new "Performance Standard" that Kansas City, MO  is implementing that is requiring animal control officers write at least 15 citations each month and intake 20 animals.

When, Kansas City Dog Advocates sent out the notice on this to their members, I expected it to cause some waves, but I didn't expect the feedback we've gotten.

News of this has spread throughout the city, and around the country. We've been contacted by national and local organizations (I plan to post some of the feedback sometime next week). So far, the only people that think this is a good idea have been city administrators. Apparently none of them are all that great at math.

The media has also picked up on the story (we never even got a chance to do a press release). First, a reporter from The Pitch (our weekly alternative paper) picked it up and put it on the Pitch Blog (PLOG). On Thursday, I did an interview with KSHB news (SweetP and Grommit were the stars of the interview), and on Friday, MichelleD and a representative from the Pet Connection met with Fox4 for their story.

TV news isn't exactly the best delivery vehicle for actual statistical analysis, so KCDA has a reaction to most of the city administrator's comments on their site.  A lot of their comments have made me chuckle with political doublespeak  like:

"It's not a quota, it's a performance standard".  Um. OK.

"The policy isn't new....it just hasn't been enforced."  Um, yeah.

But the biggest thing to me is the blatant misuse of statistics to try to mislead the public. 

In the interview, Mike Schumacher, who handles many of the policy decisions for animal control, said that the new "performance standards" won't increase the number of animals brought into the shelter. According to Schumacher, the new standards require each of the 18 animal control officers to bring in (a minimum of) 20 animals per month (360 total animals).  He says in the Month of July, Animal Control responded to 1100 animal control calls, and there were 800 total impounds -- which is well above their stated minimums.

All of that information is technically true, but doesn't tell the whole story.

First off, every animal control call should not require an animal to be impounded. Many times they'll respond to barking dog calls, neussence calls, calls about a dog without a dog house, a stray dog that is gone by the time they get there, etc. So 1100 calls is essentially meaningless as most of them shouldn't require a dog to be impounded.

Meanwhile, of the 800 or so impounds in July, nearly 300 of those impounds were made by the public. These consist of owner surrenders to the shelter, returned adoptions to the shelter, and strays that are found by the public and taken to the shelter.  Of those impounds, only 506 of them were made by actual animal control officers.

That's still over the new "Performance standard", so that's not a problem, right?

Still wrong.

Animal control is a seasonal business...and summer is their busiest time. So let's look at the monthly animal control intake over the past 7 months:

July: 506

June: 509

May: 402

April: 383

March 396

February: 311

January: 295

So, if animal control officers are required to bring in 360 animals per month (and keep in mind, these are MINIMUMS), where are the animals going to come from in the winter months? And it is ridiculous to say that this new "performance standard" system won't lead to more impounds in January/February when, in order for AC to meet these standards, they HAVE to impound more animals.   And honestly, March/April/May are all way too close to the minimum for my taste also. And the numbers don't even touch on the negative impact the policy will have on sending the message to animal control officers that bringing animals back to the shelter is the most important thing you can do for your job. 

It's just amazing that they are using the year's busiest months as the baseline for the news minimums without any thought (knowledge?) of what it will look like in the winter months.

We can, and must, do better. This is a slaughter waiting to happen. And everyone seems to know it except the people who set the policy.

More to come on this I'm sure. But go check out KCDA's site -- there is more response to the city reaction there, as well as a note sent to the city council by city manager Wayne Cauthen that tries to justify this decision to our city's policy-makers.

Redefining "animal control" -- re-redux

I mentioned this story yesterday in the weekly roundup, but there is even more to the story.

Over the past couple of years, Vandalia, MO's police department has been tasked with addressing citizen's concerns over loose dogs -- and apparently enforcing the city's 'pit bull' ordinance (I am not aware of the specifics of the law). 

However, the way they are going about enforcing the laws on stray dogs are coming under attack.

Last week, officers shot an owned dog in the leg for running off-leash. Officers said they did so because the dog was acting aggressively, but admitted that it had not tried to bite them.  Meanwhile, neighbor and onlookers were astonished that the dog was shot -- including the reactions from two children that witnessed the shooting.

"We will problably never forget the screams of two precious little girls, ages two and four, as two gunshots ran out a few feet from where they had been playing with their dog just moments earlier," said neighbors George and Rhonda Travis in a written statement.

The owner of the dog cites several descrepencies in the officers' report, including neglecting to note that the dog was shot on its own property, and that there was no residue on the dog from pepper spray that the officers said they fired at the dog before shooting it.

"I know cops who never pulled a gun on an animal in all their careers," said dog owner Mark Haden. "They were trained properly and used a police baton of any dog was aggressvie. This man put my family, my neighborhood, in mortal danger because he is ill prepared for his job....My dog was abused because the officer took the laziest, most ignorant, brutal, stupid and reckless approach to a minor incident."

It turns out, this isn't the first such problem of officers shooting dogs unnecessarily. A second incident occurred a couple of weeks ago when officers shot a Sharpei/English Bulldog mix that was running loose that they said appeared to be a pit bull.  Witness reports say that police chased the loose dog for over an hour before laying down from exhaustion, when police pulled up, walked within four feet of the dog and shot the dog.  That dog's owner, Michael Evans, said:

"You can'g bring the dog back. It's just the fact we need to get somebody to stop; your dog could be next on the chopping block...Pets are priceless and part of a person's family. And if you're a pet owner, you will agree that you can't put a price on love".

Evans and Hayden are encouraging anyone else in Vandalia that has had their dog shot by police to come to the city council meeting Tuesday night, March 10, at 7 pm to express their concerns to the city council. If you live in the Vandalia area, please make your voices heard.

While residents need to make greater efforts to keep their dogs contained on their property, it is becoming increasingly clear that residents want more out of their animal control efforts.  No longer is it acceptable to just work to keep humans safe from animals (which is important), but it is equally important to keep animals safe from people - -including cruelty and neglect, but also including safety from law enforcement officials - -and that brutal force should only be used as a  last resort.

This is something we still see a lot -- and it's time we move past this archaic way of thinking and show some compassion for animals.

Changing how we view animal control - redux

Princess (pictured left) is dead today - -thanks to cool hand Tom Skeldon and the rest of the Lucas County Dog Wardens.

Princess got loose and was out in the neighborhood. Lucas County animal control was called to the scene, but the dog was fairly elusive and ended up escaping. The dog ended up running up on its own front porch when one of the animal control officers pelted the dog with a tranquelizer.  The dosage of the tranquilizer was too much for the 15 lbs dog and the dog died from the shot.  

Bob Helle was working on the roof of a school building nearby and watched the scene unfold.

 "I really wish I had videotaped it because people wouldn't believe the way it was handled. It was so sad. I can still see it running through my mind. Shooting that little defenseless dog as it was sitting on the front porch waiting to get back in," says Helle.

Helle describe the dog (estimated to be about 15 lbs) as being playful and definitely not aggressive.

Owner Chad Snyder is pretty choked up about the incident -- and while he says he understands the importance of tranquilizers, says it was too much for his small dog.

"They rolled up on her, stuck the rifle out and blasted her. There ought to be some kind of a weight limit," says Snyder. . "You've got 5 humans versus a 10 pound dog and this is the best you can do. There's got to be a better way!"

Helle and Snyder are adding themselves to the list of people who want changes in Animal Control in Toledo as Tom Skeldon continues to operate under a 1980s view of Animal control that is different from the values of a 2009 society.  Not only are his methods of "shoot first" outdated, but the community has seen an increase in dog bites under his draconian watch.

The lack of value placed on dogs' lives by authorities isn't something that is unique to Toledo -- even if Tom Skeldon could be their poster-boy. The needless killing of dogs by authorities without consequence is very troubling.

There is a story from San Diego where Police investigated a home in search of narcotics (they found none) but in their search, left the back yard gate open. The owner let out the dog and the dog ran through the open gate where officers shot the dog dead (even though they conceded that the dog did not attack). The police THEN arrested the dog's owner for assault with a weapon -- the weapon being the dying dog.  The story just gets worse.  And I agree with the thoughts on this from the Reason.com blog:

"What's troubling is how often in these stories the police officer's first reaction is to fire his weapon at the animal....Something's clearly amiss when a police officer can stroll onto the private property of someone who's doing nothing illegal, be confronted by a dog who's merely doing what dogs do—defending his territory—shoot the dog dead, and get nothing but full support from his superiors. Moreover, many of these shootings have happened in neighborhoods, inside of homes, and in a few cases, directly in front of children.  You'd think there would be some public safety concerns, too."

 We must get rid of the shoot-first, ask questions later mentality. I realize that there are circumstances where officers must shoot dogs for their safety or the public safety -- but that should be the LAST resort.  Not the first one.  Especially when it involves a 15 lbs dog that is sitting on its front porch.

Kansas City Citizen Satisfaction Survey Results

Yesterday, Kansas City, MO released their 2008 Citizen Satisfaction Survey. There are several elements of the survey that are related to animals that I think are worthy of note. As pets continue to become a bigger part of the family, being an animal friendly city is important for the overal quality of life in a city.  A couple of key stats:

Overall effectiveness of appointed boards and commissions:  18% approval (page 18)

There are a lot of boards and commissions, but the Parks Board, whether directly or indirectly got called out in this survey. 6 of the lowest 16 scoring points on the survey directly related to the Parks Board programs.  Sometime, gosh, 20 months ago or so, a group of Kansas City residents approached the city about building an additional dog park for the city. They approached the city with a plan, a blueprint, a park in mind, and a fairly significant amount of private funding. Unfortunately, the parks board denied their request.  The city council spoke out against the decision, which then led to the board assembling a task force to come forward with recommendations on where to put multiple dog parks in the city. We're now more than a year from the forming to the task force and we've yet to see recommendations from the task force and any movement on this dog park issue.  This is about dog parks.  How can it take 16 months  to put together a proposal on dog parks?  If every commission works so efficiently, I can see why this one is so low.

Quality of animal control -- 33% approval (page 23 & 24)

This number has been trending downward over the past 8 years...and still seems really high. But honestly, most people probably never give much thought to animal control. However, if more people knew that the city kills about 60% of dogs and 85% of the cats that enter the shelter, I'd guess this one would be lower. Tack on the reality that our response rate for emergencies in this city is 24 hours, it's pretty bad.

Citizen satisfaction with animal control in other Kansas City metro area communities ranges from 37% to 81%.  KCMO's is 33%.  Meanwhile, our competitive set of cities (regional midwest cities like Dallas, Minneapolis, Omaha, Wichita, St. Louis, etc)  have a 60% approval rate for animal control. (page 74). Yeah, it is that bad.

Minimizing killing for animal control departments

Obviously one of the major points of conversation last weekend was ending the killing of animals by our shelter system.  There were a lot of great speakers there, with a lot of great points of view.

One of the big points came out of a presentation assembled by Peter Marsh (sadly, due to a family emergency, Peter was unable to attend the conference but someone else presented his material).  Peter's presentation did an excellent job of showing the strong correlation between impounds and euthanasia in city shelters. He had many examples -- -but certainly these numbers are reflective of what has happened in Los Angeles, where impound rates have gone up 18% on the year, and euthanasia has followed by going up 22%.

When an animal comes into the shelter, there are only three options for the animal.

1) Get it returned home to the owner

2) Adopt it out

3) Kill it

So if impounds go up, euthanasia will follow unless a shelter is able to increase return to owner or adoption rates.

Certainly there are various ways of reaching success in ending the shelter killing -- and many were discussed. Certainly places like Calgary have had huge success in improving their return-to-owner rates which has made their program such a success -- where last year they returned 86% of dogs and 48% of cats to their owners.

Other areas have been very successful with strong adoption programs to help minimize their euthasia rates. Charlottesville is a major success story in this regard.

Many others have been successful in minimizing their shelter killing by simply minimizing the number of animals impounded.  This can be done through aggressive, low cost/no cost spay/neuter programs and feral cat programs.

But one additional thing can help minimize the number of animals impounded: the number of overly restrictive laws that cause animals to be taken out of homes for no reason at all. Laws such as mandatory spay/neuter laws, breed restrictive laws, and pet limit  laws often cause owners who break these laws to have pets confiscated and impounded because they violated the laws. These are otherwise very healthy and well-cared-for animals, but because of an arbitrary law, has caused the animals to end up in the shelter system.  And as we know, the increase in impounds most often leads to an increase in euthanasia.

The best programs are using a combination of all three pieces in order to lower shelter killings:  decreasing impounds (with aggressive voluntary spay/neuter programs and getting rid of restrictive laws), increasing return-to-owners, and increasing adoptions. 

Consistently, across the board, these programs are working.  We'll look at a few of those in the coming days.

Changing how we define Animal Control

Caveat tipped me off on an article in the Toledo Blade today.

Many residents of Toledo have been signing a petition to remove Tom Skeldon as the head of Animal Control for Lucas County.  The group has gotten nearly 3,000 signatures for the removal of Skeldon and will be having a meeting in front of county commissioners next week.

 Ben Konop, a county commissioner, doesn't want the meeting to be "a trial" for Skeldon, however, he wants to hear what they have to say.

"I think it's only fair if you've got 3,000 Lucas County residents upset about something to give them a chance to have a public hearing. This, to me, is a first step toward having a more public discussion."

The group is accusing Skeldon of not collaborating enough with animal rescue shelters, promoting discrimination against pit bulls by treating them as inherently vicious dogs, and for an overall callous attitude toward dogs' welfare.

Skeldon seemed to not know anything about the group's meeting with commissioners.  However, his one statement seems to really highligh where his problem is.  "My job is to protect the people of Lucas County from dogs and to protect their property from dogs."

Here's the deal. A LOT has changed since Skeldon became the "dog warden" in 1987. People want more from their animal control officers than merely public safety and taking in stray dogs. While that is certainly a PART of the job, it's certainly not what everyone expects. Simply put, I think (and this seems to be the general consensus of most people) that animal control is responsible for three main goals -- in the following order:

1) Protect people (and property) from dogs

2) Protect dogs from people (this includes cruelty/neglect and shelter euthanasia).

3) Do both at a responsible cost of taxpayer funds.

Skeldon has officially taken on his role as merely being a dog catcher -- and law enforcement officer. He has completely forsaken the role of handling goal number two - -and people do not want that anymore (if they ever did).  People will no longer stand for dogs being allowed to be neglected and abused and nothing be done about them, or for dogs to be yanked out of people's homes merely for the way they look, or for dogs to be killed in the city shelter when there are rescue groups more than willing to take in these animals.

Not seeing the greater picture of what animal control is responsible for is a complete failure for Skeldon and any other animal control officer like him. And it is this mentality -- of animal control as simply being dog catchers -- that needs to change to fit the ideals of modern society.

So head on out and show your support for the group against Skeldon next week. Send a message that we demand more than dog catchers with our taxpayer dollars...we demand a little humanity too.

Changing how city administrators view animal control

Never has the need to change how city administrators view animal control been more evident than in the most recent case in Philadelphia. 

Let's give you a quick overview.

Three years ago, the city of Philadelphia had a save rate for animals that entered their shelter of 11%. Yip, that's right, 89% of the 30,000 animals that entered the Philadelphia animal control system ended up leaving dead through the back door.

In 2005, the city awarded the animal control contract to the Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association (PACCA). PACCA, along with the Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) began making changes to the way animal control was run, and how animals were dealt with once they entered the animal welfare system.  Now, under the control of PACCA and PAWS, Philadelphia is saving nearly 60% of the dogs and cats that enter their system.  This is approximately 14,000 lives that are being saved under their leadership.  While they have a long way to go to make Philadelphia a no-kill city, the improvement is undeniable and should be commended.

However, just this month, the city Department of Health has issued an RFP for groups seeking to run their animal control division.  In the RFP to bid for the city contract beginning in January 2009, they state that they are looking for a "qualified contractor" that can "hold, euthanize or dispose of 30,000 animals annually."

While the two organizations that are currently running animal control are succesfully saving 14,000 more animal lives each year, the city Department of Health is looking to bid out "dog catching" duties to the lowest bidder.  Yikes!

As we move forward, if we are ever to improve the way animals are treated in our city sheltering systems, we MUST move the thinking in city leadership that animal control is more than just being "dog catchers".  We must move beyond that model where animal control is expecting to pick up and take in stray animals off the street and kill them, and move the language to bringing animals in and SAVING them. At some point we've lost the "shelter" in our animal sheltering system.

Let's hope the city makes the right decision and keeps the PACCA and PAWS people in place.

You can do a lot of reading on the topic.

An editorial from the Philadelphia Daily News.

Citizens for a No Kill Philadelphia.

All the info you ever needed at the PAWS website. 

Where Philadelphia residents can look up the contact info so they can contact them to show their support.

Winograd's overview on the situation in Philadelphia (he's much closer to it than I am)

Winograd's Philadelphia tool kit.

Los Angeles, No Kill confusion and choosing role models wisely

On Tuesday, a group of Los Angeles shelter workers submitted a proposal to the City Council that seeks to remove Ed Boks as the head of animal control in Los Angeles.

The petition was signed by 30 of the 32 animal care supervisors at the Los Angeles shelter, and 105 of the 216 animal control officers for the city.

According to the staffers, in an effort to achieve no-kill status, the shelter has been warehousing dogs in order to decrease their euthanasia rates. As they've warehoused animals, shelter conditions have worsened.

"They're warehousing animals -- four and five and six per cage," said Victor Gordo who represents the union of shelter supervisors. "That's not good for the animals and that's not good for the public. These animals are tearing each other up." 

These conditions may be one of the reasons the shelter has seen over 730 animals die (uneuthanized) over the past 2 years -- a 22% increase vs the 2 years prior.

The group also claimed that Boks has allowed the number of  field enforcement officials to fall to dangerously low levels.  Boks disputed this claim saying "Impoundments are also up, demonstrating field operations are functioning better than usual."  This is a very interesting claim given that Boks has previously blamed the economy and owner-surrendered animals for the reason behind the city increasing its euthanasia rates after a decade of declines...but now he has confessed that impounds by officers have gone up following the passing of their mandatory spay/neuter ordinance last winter.  So far this year, euthanasia rates for dogs are up 31% in the Los Angeles Animal Shelter system.

This sounds like quite a mess. Now I've never met Boks, or anyone involved in the situation in LA for that matter, so I'm not really qualified to speak to who's right and who's wrong here. Obviously, the increased shelter killing, the increased deaths in the shelter, and increase in the number of dogs impounded are all signs that the system is pretty broken right now.  And having 30 of the 32 supervisors in the shelter calling for their boss's job is never a good sign. 

This also also sounds like they are creating some more confusion over the idea of "No Kill". Not only did the Los Angeles Times article note that Boks was warehousing because of his efforts to make Los Angeles into a No-Kill shelter, but the San Jose Mercury News (never one to let facts get in the way of a good headline) "LA's no-kill shetler policy allegedly harm animals."

I will repeat, nowhere in the No Kill philosophy does it call for warehousing animals.  It calls for ADOPTING animals. Los Angeles was NOT, and was in no way, no kill.  Seriously folks, read the book.

Meanwhile, this also should send a loud signal to cities looking at instituting their own canine policies to be sure they know who their role models are. Last week, Houston, TX had discussions about following Los Angeles' lead and implement a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance similar to the one in LA.  The article even cited Boks in the article.  I'm wondering if they really feel like Los Angeles is the model that should be followed here.

Meanwhile, there is a group in Seattle (Families and Dogs against Fighting Breeds)  that is pushing for a ban on "fighting breeds" (I'll note that they think a lot of dogs are fighting breeds).  They even announce on their website that they want to follow the model established in the UK with the UK Dangerous Dogs Act. They seem to ignore the fact that over the past decade, the UK has seen their total number of dog bites and attacks go up by 50%, while Scotland has seen the number of bites and attacks go up by 150% with the ordinance.

I think it has never been more important to find cities with SUCCESSFUL animal controls, laws and shelters and work hard to emulate those case studies.  Just because someone else did it does NOT mean it was successful. Some day I hope we'll get to the point that we focus on these successful cities.

For more about the SEIU 721 and the Animal Control Alliance's complaints about LAAS and Ed Boks you can read their report here.

More from SEIU 721 on the hearings.

For more on the hearings, LA Animal Watch has had a lot of details this week.

Underfunded, inadequate animal controls that spark and influx of bad laws

I'm doing a little housekeeping this morning -- putting some things out there for public record as well as my own record keeping, but doing some trend noting as well.

This morning, it was officially announced that an 83 year old Ville Platte, LA womanhas died from injuries she suffered when attacked by 3 dogs two weeks ago while she was out picking up and recycling cans in the neighborhood. The dogs were identifed as "pit bulls" -- by someone, although I've never heard of a reliable source that identified the breeds.  It really doesn't matter, the woman is dead.  But it certainly changes the face of the hysteria.

Since now the public believes the attacking dogs were all 'pit bulls', the focus will be on the type of dog involved.  They'll forget to note that the dogs were already in violation of running at large and being aggressive -- and that most animal control departments do not have the resources to enforce even the most basic of laws such as leash laws.  Nope. That will get lost.

This is the same thing that happened in New York last month also.  Last month, 90 year old Henry Piotrowski was attacked by two pit bulls on Staton Island in New York.  Piotrowski ended up dying a couple of months after the attack due to complications following his surgeries.   It appears that authorities were called multiple times about the dogs -- a total of 8 calls were placed to 911 about the dogs, and yet authorities didn't do anything about the dogs that eventually attacked Piotrowski and led to his eventual death.

Councilmember Peter Vallone Jr in New York continues to push for a ban on pit bulls in the city -- but unfortunately has failed to realize that if the city were enforcing its current laws adequately, the attack on Staton Island could have been, and SHOULD have been, completely avoided. 

What these cities, and most cities,  don't need is increased laws they need to enforce.  They don't need hard and arbitrary laws to enforce. They don't need laws that punish a whole lot of responsible dog owners based on the actions of just a few people.  Such laws tie up a lot of resouces that are already scarce.  But this is exactly what the proponents of breed specific laws propose.

What the residents in these cities need to be enforcing is their current leash laws....and their current dangerous dog laws. Attacks like both of these could have been completely avoided if the current laws had been enforced. Yet, because many focus on the wrong causes of attacks, they aren't at city hall demanding better, adequate animal control.  It's a shame too...because cities owe their constituents better services.   If only people would begin demanding them.  Instead of focusing on legislation that doesn't solve the problem...and in fact, dilutes the resources even further. 

If we focus on emulating cities who have policies and systems that work we will be much more effective at dealing with our own city's policies, instead of demanding laws that have never worked or been effective anywhere.