KC DOG BLOG

Knowing what to expect from proposed animal control laws

Last week, Indianapolis Councilman Mike Speedy wrote yet another article to the Indianapolis Star trying to justify his support for his own ordinance that would require all 'pit bull' type dogs to be licensed and spayed or neutered.  Last month, the rest of the Indianapolis city council voted to table the proposed bill.

According to councilman Speedy, his "targeted solution" would build on the success that other cities, such as Little Rock, AR and San Francisco, have experienced with their ordinances.  

It also completely unusual for well-meaning animal welfare people to support similar legislation and to wonder why so many people oppose legislation that would mandate the spay/neuter for pit bulls.  In this case, Speedy himself even said he was working with a representative from the Humane Society of the United States, Desiree Bender*, who was helping him with the ordinance and talking about Little Rock's "success" with the ordinance.

* It should also be noted here that Bender also testified in favor of BSL/MSN in the city of Jacksonville, AR back in 2005.  Her testimony is on page 4.  Jacksonville eventually passed a full-on ban of 'pit bull' type dogs which led to nearly 100 dogs being killed in the small community of about 31,000 residents.

But what type of results do cities that pass a mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls get from their ordinances?  Because looking at their results may give us a good idea of what to expect when another city passes a similar ordinance.

To my knowledge, there are only about 3 cities with much of  a track record on BSL/MSN to draw records from. I've spent a lot of time covering San Francisco and Kansas City, MO before -- so I won't spend time on those now. Essentially, San Francisco saw a significant increase in the number of dog bites following the law, and a small decrease in the number of pit bulls killed in the shelter following the ordinance*.  Kansas City saw no change in bite numbers, but an 80% increase in the number of pit bulls killed in the 18 months following the ordinance passing.

* San Francisco being able to salvage their kill rates is no doubt at least partially attributed to having one of the oldest and most established low cost/no cost spay/neuter services in the country.

On May 20th of 2008, Little Rock began enforcing their ordinance - -that required a very expensive licensing fee for 'pit bulls', required all 'pit bulls' to be vaccinated, microchipped, altered and confined behind a fence or structure (ie, forbidding tethering).  At the time, Fox 16 caught some excellent video of these "dangerous" dogs greeting animal control officers as they came to "rescue" the animals and take them from their homes (the video is in the upper right hand corner of the link provided -- Bender makes a guest appearance in this video as well).

So, what has the early "success" of the Little Rock ordinance look like? Not good if you're a 'pit bull'.

In 2007, the year before the ordinance passed, Little Rock 'euthanized' in its shelter 2,540 total dogs, of which, 823 (32.4%) were 'pit bulls'.

In 2008, with the new ordinance in affect for about 1/2 of the total number of dogs killed in the shelter rose to 2,847 -- of which, 1,188 (41.5%) were 'pit bulls' -- a 44% increase in total pit bulls killed in only 1/2 a year.*

* Interestingly, when I point out that last year, when Los Angeles has a 24% increase in total dog euthanasia following their first year with mandatory spay/neuter for all dogs, people have been quick to point to "the economy" as the reason for the increased killing. However, it's interesting that in Little Rock, total euthansia for all non-pit bull breeds actually decreased by about 3%, while 'pit bulls', who were the only ones affected by the spay/neuter, went up 44%. It is almost impossible to deny that in almost all cases, mandatory spay/neuter will cause an increase in impounds and kills among whatever category of animals in included.

For 2009, as of the end of May, they're tracking very close to 2008's year end numbers, with total dogs killed at 1,162 (on pace for 2,789) and 'pit bulls' at 490 (on pace for 1,176).

It's amazing how little of a fluke the Little Rock's kill numbers are -- as they mirror almost exactly what Kansas City saw when it passed a similar ordinance in 2006.

For the bite numbers, there is a bit of improvement.

2006 - 135 total bites, 47 by 'pit bulls' (35%)

2007 - 131 total bites , 42 by 'pit bulls (31%)

2008 (with ordinance in place) -- 118 total bites, 34 by 'pit bulls' (29%)

For 2009 - they are currently on pace for 116 total bites with 22% by 'pit bulls'.

It appears that dog bites were on a slight decline prior to the ordinance taking affect. With the ordinance in affect, bites dropped 10% overall -- with about equal drop in total bites among "pit bulls" and all others. For 2009, it looks like the pit bull numbers are going to continue to drop (likely due to the continued increased killing), but 'all others' will go up, likely as many of the people who have lost their dogs begin to get replacement dogs of different breeds.

So are these the results we are looking for? While cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul are passing breed neutral ordinances that are targeting irresponsible owners are having major decreases in bites -- with no increase in shelter killing. Meanwhile, Little Rock, the city Mike Speedy thinks is a "role model", has decreased their dog bites by less, while being on pace to kill nearly 800 'pit bulls' in the first 18 months of ordinance. While San Francisco, Speedy's other "success" story, saw a 13% increase in dog bites following the passing of their ordinance.

How are increased killing and high bite rates successes?

So why would Indianapolis WANT Mike Speedy's ordinance? Why would they want an ordinance that is costly to enforce (Little Rock's AC budget has gone up $100,000 (12%) over the past 4 years), that needs additional money for killing the influx of animals that come into the shelter, and is less affective than alternatives that are currently being worked on by the new director of animal control and the animal welfare community in his city?

And why would well-meaning animal welfare activists support an ordinance that has consistently led to hundreds of animals killed for now reason in a community with some mysterious hope that it just might work this time?

And why would the nation's largest animal "humane" organization, HSUS, have a staff member that would be continually pushing for an ordinance in communities that has consistently cost the lives of literally hundreds and often thousands of animals that are targeted by the laws? 

It is really important to look at the true effects of ordinances that are passed by other communities -- not just the ordinances themselves -- if we really want to build successful communities that are both safe for animals, and safe for people.

 

Mike Vick/HSUS Partnership may be what both parties need

Yesterday, Michael Vick left the prison in Leavenworth, KS, and headed home.

On the same day, Wayne Pacelle from the Humane Society of the United States, announced that Vick will be coming on board to help HSUS in their quest to end the heinous act of dog fighting.

While many have criticized HSUS for this decision, it may, in fact, be what both parties desparately need. Or, it could be a disaster.

In so many ways, the past two years for Mike Vick and for HSUS have been running on parallel paths. Mike Vick was a very good NFL football player. He was revered.  He was wealthy beyond most people's comprehension. And in the act of brutally killing a bunch of dogs, he threw all of it away. He lost his job, was thrown in jail, and his image was badly tarnished.

HSUS is not that far behind.  HSUS is the world's wealthiest "humane" organization.  They had a great image (at least among many). And yet, their reputation has begun to crumble -- in large part, because of them killing a bunch of dogs.  

Two years ago, the dogs from Mike Vick's Kennels were rescued -- even in spite of insistence from HSUS that the dogs be killed. Most have now moved on to great lives in homes (I will post more on this later today). In spite of the successful rehabilitation of these dogs, the next  time a group of dogs from a dog fighting ring were confiscated, HSUS once again insisted that all of the dogs be killed. The public outcry of HSUS's siding with killing -- in spite of the recent evidence that dogs from these situations could be rehabilitated, put HSUS on the defensive -- to the point where they've even said (at least kind of), that all dogs that were rescued from dog fighting rings would be given a chance to be evaluated and possibly rehabilitated.

And now, an organization that is trying to rebuild its reputation is joining forces with a man, who is trying to do the same. In some ways this appears desperate. In other ways, it makes so much sense.

Vick's future appears very up in the air. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has not said whether he plans to allow Vick to come back to the league once he serves his prison term. But the NFL doesn't need Mike Vick. The NFL is the single most successful professional sports league in the world. They're wealthy. They have tons of fans. Most stadiums are sold out on every Sunday. TV ratings are high. The league is rolling....and continues to do so without Mike Vick. If allowed to come back, Vick would be a distraction.  Teams would have to endure picketing outside of games. Opposing crowds will boo him unmercifully. The fact that 13,000 people on facebook (and growing) have already joined a group to "keep Vick out of the NFL" means there will be backlash.  The league doesn't need it. It is most likely time for them to part ways.

HSUS though, potentially has a spot for Vick -- that could be a perfect match.

A few years ago, HSUS partnered with Tio Hardiman.  Hardiman has been working the streets of inner-city Chicago trying to stamp out dog fighting among urban youth. His program is not designed around punishing youth for fighting dogs (something they have learned to accept from those around them, and have likely never even questioned the ethics of it, it literally, is all they know). Hardiman works with these  youth to change their hearts -- and to give the youth compassion for their four-legged partners. With the help of HSUS, they have added a training component to the program, where the youth learn to train their dogs -- so they can take pride in how well trained their dog is, not how well it fights.   The videos of his program are amazing to watch.

Vick could be a perfect fit for a program like this. If Vick is truly a changed man (I'm not yet convinced, but I would have no real reason to not believe it to be true either), I think his celebrity could allow him to easily connect with urban youth.  He could tell his story. He could (potentially) teach them compassion.  He could use his story to change their hearts.

Now it could not happen that way. HSUS could use him as little more than a propped up scarecrow in a few videos that they used for little more than to raise yet more money to "stamp out dogfighting."  We've seen their fundraising efforts before -- calling for money to help them care for and save the Vick dogs, but then calling for them all to be killed.  And this may well be HSUS's intent.

If Vick ends up being used merely as a prop for a fundraising campaign,  HSUS will continue to be seen by many as merely a fundraising machine that has little interest in actually saving the lives of animals. And Vick will look like the guy who took the money from an animal rights group and ran...without having shown true remorse for his past actions.

And that would be too bad. Because this union could be a good match for both parties -- and chance to rebuild tarnished reputations and truly benefiting the dogs that both are responsible for killing.  It would be a second chance for both -- which is what we've all claimed the dogs from fighting operations deserve. The dogs from Bad Newz Kennels have used their second chance to thrive in their new environments. It is a new environment for both Vick and HSUS.  Hopefully they will be at least half as successful as the dogs in adapting to it, and making the most of the opportunity. 

Stuff from around the internets

1) Yes Biscuit! has an interesting news report from out of Atlanta on the Humane Society of the United States, and where their donations go. Apparently a lot of people are taking notice that HSUS really takes in a lot of money -- but not a lot of money goes directly toward helping animals. While I can certainly appreciate the importance of legislation in helping animals, that isn't what HSUS says they do.  One thing the report doesn't talk about is the millions of dollars in funds they raised to "help" the dogs from Mike Vick's Bad News Kennels - -and the recommended that all of the dogs be killed. 

If you question the Citizens for Consumer Freedom and the news report's analysis of the situation, you can always check out HSUS's annual reports and tax records for yourself here.

2) "For the Pit Bulls" has another great post today about a woman who's child was attacked by three dogs that were running at-large in a pack.  The woman noted that she believed the dogs were bred for fighting.  The dogs three mixed breed dogs all with distinctively different looks....and the dogs weren't used for fighting. I think this story sadly highlights that all of the talk about fighting dogs that the media does has completely distorted reality in the minds of most people.   Even though it is sadly not uncommon to hear about fight busts, the reality is that the vast majority of dogs are not fight dogs, are not bred to fight, and have never been used to fight. But I don't think people's perception is all that accurate on these matters.

3) The mother of an 18 month old boy that was killed two months ago in Luling, TX was indicted this week.  The mother, 24 year old Melissa Miller, is facing felony charges for criminially negligent homicide and injury to a child. A lot of the initial media reports were very focused on the dog involved in this  unfortunate fatality -- but apparently the grand jury saw things a little differently. You can follow the story here -- but the nutshell version of this is that the mother was asleep at 12:30 in the afternoon when the 18 month old child wandered outside and up to a dog that was chained to a tree in the back yard and was found dead. Tragic, but I'm glad that it looks like instead of blaming the dog (like the media did) the court system is looking at placing the blame on the human element that led to this unfortunate occurrance.

4) In Council Bluffs, IA, three mail carriers have been bitten by dogs just in the past 10 days. Some out there have tried to use Council Bluffs as a case study about that breed bans work. Council Bluffs banned 'pit bulls' back in 2005 and has trumpeted the decrease in bites by 'pit bulls' since the ban was enacted (duh, they killed most of the 'pit bulls' there, so they of course bites by them have decreased significantly).  However, there has been no evidence that they are actually decreasing the total number of dog bites or major dog bites.  In fact, the year with the largest number of dog bites they've had in at least a decade has come AFTER they passed the ban.  Council Bluffs continues to have the same issues with dog bites as they've always had because they still have not dealt with the root of the problem....which were irresponsible owners that created the situations where the bites occurred in the first place.

HSUS Changes Policy on dogs seized from Fight Busts

Last week, members of several groups of animal welfare and animal rights member met in a summit in Las Vegas to discuss a potential change in HSUS policy for dogs that are seized from dog fighting busts.

In the past, HSUS policy was to recommend that all dogs that came from dog fighting operations, even puppies, would be systematically euthanized with no "need" for professional behavioral evaluations.

However, the success in the rehabiliation of the dogs confiscated from Mike Vick's Bad Newz Kennels (Hector, one of those dogs, is seen "viciously" snuggling with Missouri State Senator Jolie Justus), combined with the public outcry over HSUS' insistence that 127 dogs confiscated from Ed Faron's home be systematically killed, has finally led HSUS down a road to a change in policy.

No longer will HSUS insist that all dogs confiscated from fight busts be put down. 

Yay.  And it's about time.

While many dogs from these fighting operations may be put down in the future -- they will all be given professional behavioral evaluations before that happens. If a dog is decided to be too aggressive to ever have a public life, they will be euthanized. But if the prospects for a dog to be rehabilitated look good, the dog will be given that opportunity.

"The groups agree that all dogs should be treated as individuals, and they are the true victims of this organized crime," reads the Best Friends release.

Best Friends has the Press Release here.

Even Wayne Pacelle has issued the statement on his blog.

"In the past, animals seized from operations have been routinely euthanized. This may still be the outcome for the animal victims of dogfighters, but we agreed as a number of groups that all of us should do our best to evaluate dogs seized from these operations and adopt those dogs who can be saved."

That's progress.  It is still concerning that the nation's largest and richest animal advocacy group had to be pushed by the general public and other organizations to change a policy that declared that all of these dogs had to be killed even without an evaluation. But the good news is, the public demanded it to a point that HSUS DID change their policy. The public has charted a direction for how we treat animals in this country -- and that direction is no longer being led by HSUS. 

It's good to have HSUS along for the ride.  Saving these dogs is important. It should be our first notion.  If they cannot be saved, that is understandable, but "kill" should not be our first reaction when it comes to these victims. If the very people who are in a position to care about the welfare of these animals do not think their lives are worth saving, why would we ever think the people who fight these dogs would value their lives either?

Donna at Bad Rap, always the optimist, nicely put it:

"Welcome to the New World, bust dogs. From here on out, you will be counted among the many shelter animals who are also counting on humans to give them a second chance at a real life."

The news is being greeted with skepticism around the animal welfare world.

YesBiscuit is asking some tough questions.

Katie is wondering how an organization that only months ago encouraged Wilkes County, NC to kill 127 dogs, many of them young puppies -- some even born in the shelter - -can do a 180 on this topic in such a short amount of time.

Even Christie is a little skeptical (she has a great overview on everything that's well worth the read).

Who can blame them. HSUS hasn't always been the best of friends when it comes to 'pit bull' type dogs -- or any breeds of dogs for that matter. They've earned the skepticism.

I am surprisingly optimistic. Not because I trust HSUS . I don't. But because the animal welfare communities -- the people who are in the trenches every day saving the lives of animals -- has demanded change and gotten it. The people who truly care about saving the lives of animals and live their lives every day doing it, have charted a new course for animal welfare in this country.  Without HSUS's leadership - - in fact, in SPITE of HSUS's "leadership" - the animal welfare community has changed how they view the humane movement.

And that is very powerful indeed.

And in the end, it will be great for the animals....which is what it's all about.

Vick vs PETA

Earlier this week, Mike Vick was released from a Federal prison and returned to Virginia. The topic of course has been discussed on sports blogs around the US.  The New York Times Sports blog is not different.  However, the New York Times blog had an interesting hypothetical yesterday.  Here's the scenerio:

"You have to give up your beloved family pet, a pit bull terrier, and you have the choice of entrusting it to Ingrid Newkirk, president and founder of PETA, or Michael Vick, trusting that whoever you pick will find a good home.  Who do  you choose?"

The answer sounds easy -- unless you're familiar with the folks at PETA.

However, also yesterday, the Center for Consumer Freedom released numbers from PETA in 2008 -- another year in which PeTA killed 95% of the animals that were entrusted into their care -- killing 2,124 pets last year and placing only 7* in adoptive homes.  That number brings the total number dogs and cats killed by PETA to 21,339 since 1998 (hat tip: The Pet Connection). 

* I want to put the "7" in perspective here. On a $32 million budget, PeTA was able to find homes for only 7 animals. Last year, I think my wife and I found homes for 7 animals -- and we work on a significantly lower budget figure than $32 million. That's absurdity.

That's a lot of dead animals.  PETA isn't an organization that saves animals (which is what they try to lead people to believe).  They are actually one of the largest killers of animals in the united states.

So now, knowing that, given the hypothetical, what would you do. The writer finishes:

"If I delivered my pit bull to Newkirk, I would at least know his fate -- hed' be headed out the back door in a plastic bag by the time I drove back home. I couldn't be completely sure about Vick, but I think I'd have to take my chances with him."

You can read his entire rundown at the NY Times here.

Folks, this isn't animal welfare people talking. It's sports people. Is the general public finally seeing the light on PeTA?

More on PeTA's killing spree over at Terrierman.

HSUS to change their policy on dogs from fighting busts?

  Earlier this week, Best Friends announce that HSUS announced that it will adopt an interim policy recommending that dogs be evaluated as individuals and has called for a meeting of leading animal welfare organizations to form a more formal policy.

Bad Rap has also mentioned that they will be a part of the meeting to discuss the policy.

According to Best Friends' press release:

The new interim policy announced by the HSUS, pending the outcome of the meeting, recommends that local law enforcement and animal control evaluate such dogs as individuals rather than as a category before any decision is made regarding their future.

“We expect government, corporations, and individuals to constantly re-evaluate how they deal with animal issues,” Pacelle said. “Likewise, we regularly review our own policies and procedures here at HSUS, and we think it is important to talk with professional colleagues in the movement to examine issues related to the disposition of fighting dogs.

The response from HSUS comes only a week after they applauded the decision by a Wilkes County (NC) judge to euthanize all 150 dogs without a temperament evaluation,followed by a wealth of backlash from around the US.

I still don't know what I make of this announcement.

On one hand, I hope that HSUS changes their policy. These dogs have had tough enough lives without having HSUS "save" them from their fighting situation to only kill them without evaluations later. HSUS changing its policy would be a huge improvement for the dogs -- which is what this is all about, right? It would be great if HSUS heard the animal welfare community loud and clear after last week's slaughter:

THESE DOGS ARE WORTH SAVING.

HSUS has learned similar lessons before -- back in the early 90s when they used to opposed TNR programs.

But I'd sure feel better if the news of the new interim policy was coming from HSUS itself -- and not from other organizations.

While the news of the policy change and the meeting is prominent over at Bad Rap's blog, and on Best Friends' website, I've yet to hear anything public about it from HSUS.

No email newsletter.

Not on Wayne's blog.

Not in their press releases.

Nope -- those have been dedicated to lobbying for Leona Helmsley's money.

Money is not what is keeping HSUS from saving the lives of animals. Policies are.

 I hope I'm wrong. I hope that the public outcry after HSUS's approval of the slaughter of 150 dogs without proper behavioral evaluations is enough to get HSUS to rethink its policies.  But call me skeptical. HSUS's silence on the matter on their own front speaks pretty loudly.

I'm not the only person who is skeptical. As Winograd notes:

"Instead, in response to criticism, HSUS—through dog killer apologist John Goodwin—chastised groups for making an unnecessary “fuss.” And when that callous retort sparked additional furor, they further inflamed public criticism by issuing a defense of the massacre. Everyone’s heard some variation of the joke that goes, “how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb?” In this case, the more apt question is: “How many humane groups does it take to figure out that an animal welfare organization should champion the saving, not the taking, of animal life?” The answer, of course, should be “one.” It is self-evident. You don’t need a meeting to figure it out. But the reality is that the answer is “two” if one of those groups is HSUS: HSUS to get the answer wrong. The other group to tell them what the right one is."

Mabye it's because I live in Missouri, but HSUS is going to have to Show Me before I believe they are serious about change. Actions speak louder than words (or in this case, non-words). Until they show me -- through their actions -- that they are truly changing their policies regarding dogs that are "saved" from fighting rings, I will remain skeptical.

But let's make no mistake -- our voices are being heard. There are too many of us to ignore. Eventually, HSUS will either have to change their policies to conform to the demand of the animal welfare communities it claims to serve, or will eventually disappear due to their irrelevence.

I'll wait to see which direction they've really chosen.

HSUS -- time to lead or get out of the way

Last week, there was a lot of very founded outrage at HSUS's encouragement of the Wilke's County judge to put down 150 or so 'pit bulls' that were seized from Ed Faron's dog fighting operation. The dogs were not given individual evaluations. They were just killed.  While it was pretty inevitable given the laws for the area, it was appalling to most that HSUS stood by and encouraged this to happen.

I wrote about this last week here, and here.  The first link has a lot of other links to other people's opinions on the matter.  None of them look good for HSUS.

A lot more has been published on the topic since last week.

YesBiscuit! has a great post trapping HSUS in the rounds of flip-flopping on this topic, from the Mike Vick dogs being "the most aggressively trained dogs in the country" to now being the work of  a "pro football player that just fought dogs as a hobby."  Basically saying whatever they need to say to make killing dogs "ok".

Fred over at One Bark at a Time has the entire response by John Goodwin on HSUS's decision to support the slaughter. He doesn't think HSUS should be let off the hook for their continued push toward killing.

Meanwhile, Winograd has another follow up as well. Here's a short clip:

"But in this case, even this argument by HSUS is a red herring. The choice was not, as HSUS contends, a choice between continued suffering at the hands of dog fighters or death at the pound. This was not the option the dogs faced. Once they were taken into custody by HSUS and Wilkes County officials, more dog fighting was no longer an option. The option was whether HSUS and Wilkes County officials would kill them or whether HSUS and Wilkes County officials would not kill them. Their choice is now well known: they chose to systematically put all the dogs and puppies to death, a choice they defend still.

And so we come back to the first and primary principle of the humane movement: Animal shelters are supposed to be the safety net for animals, not an extension of the neglect and abuse they face elsewhere."

The animal welfare community is speaking...and they're speaking loudly. No longer is it "ok" to determine that death is the first option for dogs -- regardless of their background. Death should be the option that is used only when all other options have been completely and thoroughly exhausted. It's the last resort. The final straw. It isn't the first option on the list. It's the last one.

People are waking up to this reality. And HSUS is getting exposed as an organization that is set in an old-school mindset of animal sheltering.

We don't have to take it any more. There are other organizations. There are other leaders we can follow that have shown a better direction.

HSUS is still the richest animal welfare/rights group in the country. They still have the opportunity to step up, see that the animal welfare community is demanding more, and help lead that direction.

Or they can get the heck out of the way.  But direction is changing...with or without them.

BTW, here's a little pictoral put together by Fox 8 in North Carolina with pictures of many of the dogs that were killed.

The Irony of Timing

Yesterday was a crazy day.  In Wilksboro, NC, a judge ruled in favor of killing 127 pit bulls seized froma dog fighting operation in the area -- in spite of contacts from respected national and organizations that called for an opportunity to temperament test the dogs and see if any could be saved. In spite of that, all 127 dogs were killed, including about 40 or so puppies, many less than 2 months old.

Meanwhile, the world's wealthiest "humane" organization, applauded the decision.  I posted about that yesterday -- and have added several new blog links if you missed them.

Meanwhile,Yes Biscuit has posted the comments from HSUS's John Goodwin about the recommendation to kill the dogs:

"Those particular fighting dogs in Wilkes County, NC were very, very different than the Vick dogs. Whereas Michael Vick was a pro football player that fought dogs as a hobby, the breeder of these dogs was a globally recognized professional dogfighter. Vick was not a good breeder, and he lost most of his fights. His dogs were a poor representation of true fighting dogs."

The irony here, of course, is that this would be a somewhat believable claim if HSUS hadn't first raised money to care for the Vick Dogs -- and THEN, recommended they all be euthanized without an evaluation.  No, HSUS loses any credibility when they say "these dogs were different than the Vick dogs" -- when they recommended the exact same result for both groups of dogs. HSUS's policy continues to be, kill first, ask questions later.

As Winograd points out in his post over at the No Kill Nation:

"Every time HSUS defends killing, their antiquated, regressive viewpoints are not only harmful to animals, they make HSUS more and more irrelevant to animal sheltering and more and more despised by those who truly love animals. And they become more out of touch with public sentiment. "

Meanwhile on the same day that HSUS was ordering the killing of 127 'pit bulls' without evaluation, Roo Yori announced that former Vick dog Hector officially passed his test to become a Therapy Dog.  Apparently at least some dogs "bred to fight" can be trained for public benefit...in just a little over a year. And Hector isn't the first dog from Bad Newz Kennels to become a therapy dog.

But HSUS ignored the success of the rehabbing of the Vick dogs and decided somehow these dogs were "different" than the other dogs they recommended killing.

Meanwhile, just last week, Best Friends announced that the first of their dogs that was actually rescued from Bad Newz Kennels went to his forever home.

So at a time when many in the true animal welfare community is celebrating the successes of the rehabilitation of the dogs from Bad Newz Kennels, HSUS is still calling for the death of all dogs coming from these situations -- without evaluation. You'd have thought they'd notice.

Let's repeat after me:

In most cases, these dogs can be rehabilitated.

They are worth it.

Killing should be the last response, not the first.

HSUS has lost their grip on the animal welfare movement. It's time to move on without them...although I'd be happy if they'd get on board on their own.  But I'm not going to sit around waiting for them.

The answer is "kill", now what's the question?

You've probably heard, but yesterday, a Superior Court judge ordered that 127 pit bulls that were confiscated from a dog fighting operation in North Carolina should be euthanized.  The dogs belonged to Ed Faron, who plead guilty to 14 counts of felony dog fighting.  Faron was given 8-10 months in prison. His dogs got the death chamber.

I don't blame Judge Ed Wilson Jr. for the decision. According to North Carolina state statutes, it is mandatory that any dogs seized from dog fighting operations are automatically seen as dangerous and must be destroyed. I don't know that legally, he had a lot of options.

However, my problem is with the Humane Society of the United States being the cheerleader in their killing.  John Goodwin, the "dogfighting" kingpen at HSUS, has oft said that the dogs have been bred for fighting and it would be difficult and expensive to "retrain" the dogs. 

And yet, the folks at Best Friends were willing to do just that.  They had sent letters to the judge and prosecuting attorney hoping to be able to go in, and do evaluations on the dogs and see if any of them were non-aggressive and could be saved.

They were of course, denied. While HSUS stood on the sidelines applauding the decision.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to actually evalutate the animals first?  Let's keep in mind that HSUS did not go in and evaluate the animals individually. In fact, it's unlikely that Goodwin, who has been callling for the dogs' deaths, has even met a single one of the dogs. He's just grouping them into one big category, and universally calling for their deaths.

That's not much of a statement of humanity by the world's richest humane animal organization.

You might recall, these are the same antics that HSUS pulled when the dogs were confiscated from Mike Vick's bad news kennels -- all but one of which were deemed safe to enter into society -- and 18 or so of which are now in homes after rehabilitation. You'd think they would have learned.

I'm not saying all of the dogs would have been fine to move in homes. It is likely that some, a few, a lot, who knows? would not have been fine to pull and be sent to rehab. But I also think it is completely unlikely that none of the dogs would have been suited for rehab. And all I'm saying is that it would cost HSUS nothing to allow other respected organizations to come in and evaluate the dogs on their own individual merits and pull the ones they think they can rehab. Doesn't that make sense?  Why would a "Humane" organization OPPOSE such a response?

Not allowing (or encouraging) others to evaluate the dogs is costing HSUS infinitely in credibility. A "humane" organization's first response should not be to "kill" and then ask questions later. It should be to take the steps necessary to save as many lives as is feasible without putting dangerous dogs on the street.

But they didn't evaluate. They just cheered as the judge ruled to kill the dogs.

That's not "humane".  That's slaughter.

Let's get the law in North Carolina repealed that makes it a mandatory death sentence for all dogs confiscated from fighting rings so each dog can be evaluated on its own merits.  And let's stop pretending that HSUS's main goal is caring about animals.

For more on this case:

Help Fido: Why HSUS is Horrible

Lassie Get Help: The "H" in HSUS stands for Hypocrisy

Bad Rap: The High Cost of Being a Victim

YesBiscuit: HSUS and the Ongoing Campaign to Kill "Rescued" Bust Dogs

Winograd (via the No Kill Nation Blog): The Death of Hope as HSUS

Caveat: Time to take "Humane" out of HSUS"

Save a Pit Bull, Save the World: Of all the things I'm glad I'm not.

Meanwhile, Winograd has a similar, yet completely unrelated post over at his place. Apparently the Animal Humane Society in Minnesota "rescued" 120 cats from a hoarding situation. While several rescue organizations, including Animal Ark -- the largest no kill organization in Minnesota -- offered to help care for the animals, the AHS killed all of the cats that they had "rescued". More over at Winograd's blog.

We must demand more from our "humane" organizations....

UPDATE: Here is a press release from Best Friends on the suject.

Best Friends is urging citizens to contact their state legislators to change North Carolina law and delete the clause in the law that makes it possible for dogs harbored for fighting to automatically be deemed “dangerous”dogs.

 "It is consistent with public safety concerns to evaluate each dog as an individual to determine whether they can be placed in the community,” Rebecca Huss said. “It is my opinion that every dog should be evaluated on an individual basis. The Bad Newz Kennels case shows there is no reason for euthanizing dogs merely by their breed or location where it was seized.”

Hat tip,

BAD RAP Blog

 

Guardian? Owner? Both?

For many years, there has been a debate about the terms using in dog ownership. Many groups, in the Animal Rights front, have pushed for the use of the term "Guardian". Many others, prefer the term "owner".  Many animal welfare folks have been caught in between not sure what the right answer is.

On one hand, I see why there is a desire to move to "guardian". "Ownership" implies that the dog is your property, and you can do with it as you please -- potentially opening the dog up abuse and neglegent care. "Guardian" would provide a greater sense of care that needs to be provided for the dog. I don't buy the argument though. Cities have a wealth of power when it comes to minimim standards for property -- they can mandate how tall your grass can grow, that your house is properly taken care of, and that our automobiles meet certain admissions standards. Why would they not have the same ability to provide "minimum standards" for dog ownership as well -- otherwise it falls under "cruelty and neglect"?  (hint: they do, and it's a law that can carry felony charges if violated).

Meanwhile, on the "ownership" side of the coin, I completely get where these people are coming from. "Ownership" is a very important legal term that provides a lot of protection for owners -- primarly under search and seizure laws (which are violated often by animal control officers around the country).

For these reasons, I've always very much sided with the "ownership" folks.

Yesterday, the community of Ukiah, CA (population 15,000) met to discuss a change in status of owner vs guardian. There had been a push by many to change the language of the city laws from "owner" to "guardian".  However, many objected.

As a compromise solution, the city voted to move forward with drafting an ordinance that would call all people who keep dogs "guardian/owner".  The idea was to use "guardian" to help change how people perceive their dogs to improve the care for them (I do think semantics are a powerful tool), while keeping "owner" to keep dog owner's Constitutional rights in place.

I know there are some out there that will hate the entire idea because it was all driven by the "animal rights agenda" in the first place.  And yes, I'm sure this is a product of their flabba jabba.  I'm also sure that people will oppose this because "if you give an inch, they'll take a mile". Fine. You're entitled to your point of view.

However, if I take out the AR agenda part of the equation, I don't know that I have a problem with this change. I can see both sides.  So I'd love to hear your thoughts on the idea.  Great idea? Horrible idea?  Or a compromise you can live with?  Let me have it.