KC DOG BLOG

Breed Bans = vague laws that impact good people

 Shortly after I finished Thursday''s post, I got an update about Leonard Shelton.

Mr. Shelton is the member of our military that came home from serving our country in Iraq, and then had to deal with the city of Lakewood, OH,badgering him about the type of dog he was walking because they claimed the dog was a pit bull (which are banned in Lakewood). They confiscated his dog.

I'm happy to report that Mr. Shelton and his dog Roscoe are back together...and that Mr. Shelton has moved from the city of Lakewood so he will no longer be harrassed.

While it is great that they are back together, and Shelton can go on trying to get back to life as usual, it's appalling that one of our war veterans would be harrassed by animal control because of the way his dog looks...and be forced to move because of it.

Amazing. I'm sure everyone in Lakewood can hold their heads high over the way the law is being used and defended.  I know I'd be embarrassed, and livid, if I lived there.

One would think the very act of harrassing a someone who served and defended our country because of his dog would be enough to in a post by itself. And it probably would be.  But there's more to this.

During this whole process, Mr. Shelton went out and got the DNA test done on his dog. The net result?  No traceable amount of any of the "pit bull" breeds in Roscoe's DNA. None.

And while Shelton was told that Roscoe was  a Boston Terrier mix (which is why he didn't think he would be affected by the law), there is no traceable amount of Boston in him either.

And this is exactly why every single one of these laws, that claims a dog to be banned, or dangerous, or automatically aggressive, based on the way it looks if it looks too much like a "pit bull" should be struck down based on vagueness.

According to our legal Void for Vagueness Doctrine, a law is considered "vague" if a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated or what conduct is prohitbited. It is also designed to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of laws.

In this case, how would someone who owns a dog with zero trace of a pit bull in him would still be restricted under an ordinance that restricts a breed of dog that he does not own? 

Just this week, Animal Farm Foundation and the National Canine Research Council released a new "find the pit bull" sheet -- this time containing the results from actual DNA tests to go with the pictures.

Can you guess which ones carry significant amounts of "pit bull" breeds? 

Do you trust that animal control in a city with a ban on 'pit bull' breeds can tell the difference?

Does the fact that they can't -- but could deem your dog a 'pit bull' anyway and take it and kill it (without any due process in the state of Ohio) seem like a problem to anyone else?

And in spite of all of this, even if they could accurately tell if a dog was really a 'pit bull', that it still wouldn't indicate that the dog was actually aggressive.

So why have we stuck with BSL for so long? Why do we allow our governments to enforce vague laws against good people in the world like Leonard Shelton who become unsuspecting victims of these laws. Why not focus all of our energies on people who actually have dogs that behave aggressively, instead of harrassing good people and forcing them to have to move from their homes because of an arbitrary law that they didn't even break? 

We'd all benefit if we used our limited animal control resources more wisely than that.

And Lakewood, OH -- shame on you.

-- When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace -- Jimi Hendricks

Man's Best Friend Helps Military Vet

Bob Briggs knows the value of man's best friend.

In April, 2005, Briggs was serving our country as a part of our National Guard in Iraq.  His group was attacked by a group of insurgents, and Briggs suffered a penetrating head wound.  Briggs lost his right high, nearly half his skull, and received a brain injury that left him partially paralyzed.

On his road to recovery, he and his wife adopted a Rottweiler named Pock, and with the help of a not-for-profit training group, Midwest Assistance Dogs, Pock was trained to help Briggs with a variety of tasks as he deals with his disabilities. Pock is now trained to help Briggs with stability, balance, and helping him pick things up.

"I've been around animals a lot in my life, and when you see a special bond, it's hard to ignore it," said Brigg's wife Michelle.

Fortunately for Briggs, he does not live on military base housing. Earlier this year, the US Military banned dogs like Pock from all military base housing because of their ban on 'pit bulls", Rottweilers, Doberman Pinchers, Chows and Wolf Hybrids from military base housing.  So now, a dog that is working as a service dog for one of our wounded military men, would not be allowed to accompany him on a military base. Does that make sense to anyone at all?

This shows the absurdity of not only discriminating against breeds of dogs based on their breed. It also reinforces the absurdity of the military's breed ban on their military bases.

Unfortunately, other military personel aren't as lucky as Briggs. Just last month, a military veteran from Iraq that is is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder from dealing with the loss of several friends in the line of fire, had his companion dog confiscated from him in Lakewood, OH.  The man relied on his dog to help him to be more at ease when he met new people. The dog was confiscated by Lakewood police because of a ban that was enacted while he was serving his country.

Dogs are great companions for people -- and they can be the type of companions that can really help people in times of need.  This ability stretches across all breeds of dogs.  It is time to end the descrimination.  Now.

You can read the whole story on Bob Briggs here.

Another reason breed bans are misguided - -there will always be another breed

The Derry City Council in Ireland is looking at banning more breeds of dogs in Northern Ireland. Go figure.

In 1991, Northern Ireland passed their own version of the Dangerous Dogs Act that banned four breeds of dog -- the American Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argention and Fila Brasiliero.

Like the rest of the UK, Ireland's breed ban has failed. There are more dog bites and attacks than ever before. There are more "thugs" using dogs to intimidate. People aren't safer.

So their council is now looking at adding other breeds such as German Shepherds, Rottweilers and Doberman Pinschers to the list -- bringing them more in line with what Southern Ireland has done by adding Bull Mastiffs, Dobermans, Bull Terriers, German Shepherds, Japanese Akitas, Rhodesian Ridgbacks, Rottwielders and "Ban Dogs" to their restricted list.

And the problem still will not be solved. There will always be another breed. And when they ban them all, they'll create new breeds (mastadoodle?) that don't even exit yet. Because the dogs aren't the problem. They've never been the problem.

This is why a city like Council Bluffs, IA, who has banned 'pit bulls', can claim they have all but eliminated 'pit bull' bites, yet have not seen a drop in overall dog bites...they still have not dealt with the problem owners.

What smart cities across the country (and world) are now doing is learning from the failures of breed specific legislation, and going back to focusing on the owners of aggressive dogs. They focus their efforts on dogs that show signs of aggression, not breeds. And they are putting restrictions on owners who have been habitual problems.

When it comes to public safety, "Breeds" are irrelevant. If someone wants a dangerous or intimidating dog, they will get one.  There will always be a different breed, or a newly created breed, or something they can use.

This is why if cities want effective dangerous dog legislation they will focus on dog owners and not breeds. This is what has happened in Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN, and Calgary, AB, and all three cities are seeing declines in dog bites and improvements in public safety.

It's time to start focusing our efforts on the two-legged end of the leash -- otherwise there will always be just another breed to add.

Enforcing Breed Specific Laws is expensive

Last week, Best Friends Animal Society launched a new study, completed by John Dunham & Associates, that tries to put a mathematical formula behind the cost of enforcing breed specific legislation in a community.

The bottom line: it would cost $450 million to enforce a nation-wide ban on pit bulls.

"Pit Bull bans are enormously expensive and ineffective," said Ledy Van Kavage of Best Friends. "And if breed descriminatory ordinances are passed, people who love their pets will fight the arbitrary identification of their dog, making them more difficult to enforce.  If you take someone's property away, the burden of proof is on the government to prove the pet is subject to the law, which means you must prove it is a pit bull. That becomes an extensive, costly battle that could require DNA testing to see if the dog actually is subject to a ban."

I'm sure there will be people who will try to poke holes in the study's methodology. The reality is, there hasn't been a ton of research in this area, so they had to make some assumptions based on the best available data.  And the study tries to accumulate everything -- enforcement, sheltering, vet care, euthanasia, DNA testing and litigation.  And each city's circumstance is different.

But the reality is, BSL IS expensive to implement...and you don't have to look very hard to find that out. Denver is now looking at going to court for the third time defending their breed ban. Kansas City, KS - 20 years after passing their breed ban -- continues to lose battles in court over breed identification problems.  20 years after passing their ban, Miami Dade county's law was declared "too vague" because of the difficulty of determining breed ID. And Kansas City, MO is dealing with the sheltering and killing of thousands of dogs because of their ordinance (which isn't even a ban, it's just mandatory spay/neuter for pit bulls), including at least one that was taken unjustly and mistakenly killed.

Given all of this, I'd be stunned if their estimates aren't low. Besides, the costs are based on effectively enforcing BSL, even though no one has done that yet.  Anywhere.

It makes absolutely no sense given that there are significantly better options available - with a proven track record of working.

Go check out the article, and feel free to check out their online calculator that should calculate the costs of enforcement in your city.

More cities decide against Breed Specific Laws

Last night, Indianapolis tabled a bill that would have forced all owners of "pit bulls" to spay or neuter their dogs. The chairman of the Rules and Public Policy Committee, Bob Lutz, said it was tabled because the time it would take to address this would take away from other issues facing the city -- including large hits to their employment that jumped above 10% in March.

In spite of some crazy posturing by Mike Speedy -- including writing his own press release that ran in the Indy Star -- the city wisely chose to ignore his proposal.  An ordinance like what Speedy proposed has led to the deaths of two thousand 'pit bulls' in Kansas City in less than two years, and to images of animal control confiscating unaltered and chained pit bulls in Little Rock, AR -- every one of which met the fate of death in their shelter.

This is why people were against the proposal. NOT because there is some big conspiracy like what some of the (quite scary actually) commenters are making it out to be. It's because in places like Indianapolis, when this type of legislation has been enacted, it has led to hundreds and thousands of pit bulls being confiscated from homes and killed in the area shelter -- the exact opposite effect that it is said to have.

Meanwhile, there was some talk a few weeks ago that Hays, KS may look into breed specific legislation, but I've received official word from a trustworthy source that that is now off the table in Hays.

More and more cities that look at BSL are continuing to see that universally, it has not worked in any situation and that there are much more effective solutions to dealing with the "dog bite problem" that are fair, enforcable, and actually work.   And that's great news for all of us.

Sioux City's Struggles Continue

Ahhh, Sioux City. What a mess.

So a few months ago, Sioux City passed a ban on 'pit bulls' in their community.  And their struggles with it continue.

The city has already gotten a lot of pushback from their law.

At first, the city delt with protests that the city was going out and specifically targeting people who showed up at the meetings to speak out against the breed specific bans.

Early on, veterinarians in the community announced that they were not going to help the city by identifying breeds of dogs.

Then, the self-incriminating paperwork that they were forcing people to sign became a cause for concern.

Then, there was the need to give a new timeline for people to use to register their existing dogs because there was confusion over the law and people who didn't know they would be affected by the law were being affected.

Now, it turns out that breed identification isn't as easy as people want to believe.

Yesterday, a story was released where a man had his dog confiscated from him by animal control because AC said his dog was a 'pit bull.'  Because the man couldn't prove his dog's blood line, AC confiscated the dog.

The man still wasn't convince his dog was a 'pit bull', so he went out and bought a dog DNA kit.  The test results from the swab test was that the dog had no "pit bull' at all, and that one of his most prominent traits was Labrador Retriever. Because of th einformation, Josh Mapes was able to keep his dog.  Mapes said that Petsmart sells the swab test kits for $60 and is easy and "definitely worth the expense."

Animal control is now saying that trait information is important to have on hand, especially for "anybyody that has a bully type breed or it looks like a bully type breed," said Cindy Rarrat. 

Uh, that's not how it's suposed to work in this country.

See, in the United States, people are supposedly presumed innocent until they are proven by authorities to be guilty. Thus, if the city is going to use DNA testing to 'prove' a dog's ancestory, then the burden of proving the dog is a pit bull MUST be on the city itself....not on the individual dog owners.  Which would put the cost burden of the $60 DNA test on city -- for each and every case where they want to prosecute someone for having an "illegal" breed. 

Sioux City's struggles with this are exactly why the majority of cities out there are leaning toward breed neutral ordinances that focus solely on the behavior of the animal, not "breed".  These laws are more fair, more reliable, and easier to enforce -- because they ONLY focus on dogs that are problems in a community and don't waste resources on non-problem dogs. 

Because everyone is doing it

I think maybe it's time to reframe the conversation and rethink how we talk about BSL. 

This week, the folks over at the Freakanomics blog were talking about the differences between perception and reality.  Their blog posting takes a look at the show "Friday Night Lights" (which is, really, one of the best-written and acted shows on TV, maybe ever) and a descrepency in the perception it may have painted on high school virginity. It then then goes on to talk about the book YES! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive. According to the book, one of the best ways to convince people to do something is to give them the impression that that is what everyone else is doing. ie.  If you want hotel guests to reuse their towels, include a message about how "most" other guests reuse their towels.

This shouldn't really be news to anyone...but it got me thinking.

It seems like when many cities begin talking about BSL, they begin justifying the conversation with conversations talking about how other cities are doing it: Denver and the UK are often cited. People who fight BSL (including me), are quick to point out that these policies haven't worked in either place, but maybe we still haven't overcome the part where it feels like everyone else is doing it.

And they aren't. Even though it feels that way, everyone is NOT passing BSL. In fact, quite the opposite.

While it's true that many places have BSL -- including the UK and Denver - the reality is that most of these ordinances are really very old.  Denver began their ordinance in the late 80s. The UK began theirs in 1991. The fact of the matter is, when most cities now look into passing breed specific legislation -- and look at the actual results of the places that have passed it, and the recommendations of the experts nationally and the experts in their community, the vast majority of communities pass on BSL and focus on more current ordinances, with proven track records of effectiveness, that are breed-neutral.

I'm just not sure we talk about our successes enough.

Since the beginning of 2009, there have been 30 cities in North America that have had discussions about possible breed-restrictive legislation. Of those, 24 (80%) opted to go the breed neutral route. Of the 6 that chose to do something breed-specific, all but 2 were tiny little communities of less than 5,o00 people -- and 3 of those four are small communities with a badly declining population. These small, dying communities are hardly the trend-setters out there. In fact, since the beginning of the year, there have been almost as many places (4) that have REPEALED BSL than there are ones that have insitituted it. 

So if cities want to look at what everyone else is doing -- they would realize that the vast majority of cities -- especially progressive ones -- are largely moving AWAY from BSL and toward behavior-based ordinances.

So with that in mind, I am making a promise to myself, and the readers -- we're going to start talking about successes more. We're going to start focusing on the majority of cities out there that are looking at the information and passing laws that are behavior-based, breed-neutral, enforcable, fair and effective. Because THAT is what "everyone" is doing.

So with that, here is my list -- and I know this isn't complete -- of cities that have either passed breed neutral ordinances, rejected breed specific ordinances, or repealed breed-based ordinances.  Hats of to those who are doing what everyone else is doing:

Cote St. Luc, Quebec; Norwak, OH; West Liberty, IA; Oregon; New Mexico; Hawaii; Greenwood, AR; Anglaiz County, OH; Castalia, IA; Wolverine Lake, MI; Henderson, NC; Wilmington, DE; Washington DC; American Falls, ID; Molalla, OR; Oshkosh, WI; West Allis, WI; Lancaster, MA; Manchester, MI; Sumner, WA; Puyallup, WA; Lowell, MA; Avon Lake, OH; Perryville, MO; Monroe, WA; Lisbon, IA; Grain Valley, MO; Florence, AL; Joplin, MO: Jackson Township; OH; Ferndale, WA; Sandy, UT; Greenwood, MO (Repeal); Vauxhall, Canada (Repeal); Westland, MI (Repeal); Italy (Repeal); Banff, Alberta (Repeal). 

I'm sure there are more....or places where it was so quickly dismissed, it never even made the newspaper.

It's time for cities to get on board with what everyone else is doing, which is enacting legislation based on behaviors, not on looks.

The time is now for Ohio to overturn their statewide BSL

  Late last month, Ohio Representative Barbara Sears introduced House Bill 79 that would amend section 955.11 of the state code that declares all pit bulls dangerous and vicious based on their breed, not their actions. HB 79 would remove the breed specific language from the ordinance.

"In the 1970s it was German Shepherds, in the 80s, Dobermans, in the 90s it was Rottweilers, now it's pit bulls. Breed specific legislation dos not accomplish the goal," said Sears. "We want to take the focus of the law away from the breed and have it on the behavior of the animal, then hold the owner accountable."

That makes so much sense.

A lot has changed since the Ohio law was enacted:

Dozens of places have tried BSL and seen it fail. Entire countries like Italy and The Netherlands have repealed their breed bans. Cities across the U.S have also -- cities like Greenwood, MO and Westland, MI. Other places like the UK, Denver, Kanas City, KS and Toledo continue to see their BSL flounder yet stubbornly hang onto their archaic laws. But one thing has been universally proven. Laws targeting breeds, instead of targeting irresponsible pet ownership, have failed.

Meanwhile, based on trial and error, learnings, and study, we've now reached a point where every single group of animal welfare experts is opposed to breed specific legislation, including:

Association for Pet Dog Trainers

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

American Kennel Club (AKC)

Humane Society of the United States

National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors

National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA)

National Animal Control Association

No Kill Advocacy Center

The Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs -- a group of rescues, veterinarians, vet technicians, and animal control officers in the state of Colorado -- and a whole host of other regional organizations. In fact, outside of a few fringe individuals, it is unanimous that BSL is ineffective policy.

Meanwhile, even if, in spite of all of that, a representative in the state of Ohio still feels like 'pit  bulls' need special treatment, the time is STILL now to repeal the ban.

It's no secret that the United States is in the middle of a recession. In fact, the Governor of the state of Ohio has called the recession in Ohio  the worst in a half century. The state is currently looking to cut $1.3 Billion (yes, the "B" isn't a typo) from the state budget -- which is more than 10% of the entire state budget. Unemployment in the state rose 9.4% in February -- well above the national average of 8.1%.  Some areas of Ohio are facing a harsher reality, with nine counties facing over 15% unemployment, and 63 counties facing over 10%.  

This high unemployment rate that is affecting the state budget is leading to economic hardship in individual cities too.  Columbus , Ohio's largest city, is looking at a 6% decrease in budget -- forcing them to cut $24 million from the city budget, while a smaller community, Youngstown, is facing a $3.3 million shortfall. And these aren't in the counties that are hardest hit.  These budget shortfalls are causing cities in the state to have to cut really important services like police protection and fire services.

Enforcing breed specific legislation is not cheap. With virtually every city in the state being forced to make tough budget decisions, having the animal control resources to enforce BSL certainly doesn't seem like the highest priority.  HB 79 doesn't even elminate the ability for individual cities to enact BSL if they want to. Some may very well still choose to create local breed-specific laws and dedicate the budget necessary to enforce it. 

But many won't -- and cutting this ordinance that they have to enforce will free up precious dollars that they can use for other city services.

Times are hard, no reason for the state to make it harder for the struggling cities.

So even if a state representative truly believes that a pit bull ordinance is the right option, the idea of letting struggling cities decide for themselves only makes sense.

There is no better time for the state to repeal their statewide BSL. We've learned too much about these dogs over the past few year to believe it still works, and the economy makes it even more necessary to repeal the law now.  If you live in Ohio, contact your state representative.  Help Fido has the links. The time is now.

"Safety" isn't enough, we must kill them too

Back in 2006, Springfield, MO passed an ordinance that banned 'pit bulls' from the city. As part of the ban, the city shelter was no longer adopting out any 'pit bulls', or allowing rescues from other areas to pull them for adoption.

Nope, if you are an unlicensed 'pit bull' in Springfield, and the city gets their hands on you, you're dead. There are no other options. You don't have to bite someone. You can be a great dog. It doesn't matter. It's instant death for the dog.

Councilwoman Mary Collette tried to change that last night. She had proposed to the council that even though she didn't agree with the ban, the least the city could do is allow licensed rescues from other cities to pull well-tempered 'pit bulls' and adopt them out in other cities that don't have bans.

Last night, the city council voted 6-3 to deny Collette's request, and to continue killing all 'pit bulls'.  The perceived notion that they were protecting the public wasn't enough (their data deosn't really support that they are having a real impact on the public safety angle)-- only killing was enough for them.

The council apparently agreed with City Attorney Dan Wichmer, who said the city would be at risk of a lawsuit if someone ever got bitten by a dog the let go.

Honestly, this is where the city has made such a huge flaw in their law in the first place.  By passing BSL, they have now made the statement that its not owners that are responsible for their dogs. Nope, instead of making owners responsible for their dogs (they should be), they have now made the precarious statement that the city knows what a dangerous dog is - -and have such, banned them. However, if that is their logic, then it would appear that the city is opening itself up to be liable for any dog attack -- because if THEY are the ones who know what a dangerous dog is, and owners aren't responsible, this seems like they are in the same jeopardy of lawsuit for any dog that now attacks in the city.

We  have to start requiring owners to be responsible for the actions of their dogs. There is no other successful way to deal with dog attacks. And cities may be opening themselves up to liability issues because they are now assuming responsibility.

The whole logic in Springfield is flawed - and fatally so for countless dogs who are not aggressive, not dangerous, and heck, many not even 'pit bulls'.  But in the past 3 years, this city of 150,000, has killed approximately 900 pit bulls. 

And the slaughter continues.

Around the horn on BSL Issues

I have several stories that I've been wanting to do their own posts for -- because they are pretty big deals -- but just haven't been able to find the time. But I need to get the stories out sooner rather than later and am backed up on a few other things going on.  So, with that, here are a few pretty major stories that I want to be sure are on the radar:

Springfield, MO

City Councilwoman Mary Collette is looking to make a change to how the city handles 'pit bulls'.  Back in 2006, Springfield passed a ban on all 'pit bulls' in the city. As the law is currently being practiced, if a 'pit bull' type dog comes into the shelter, unless it is quickly claimed by the owner, the dog is killed.  (It should be noted that the LAW doesn't specify that this has to happen, but as a matter of policy, the animal shelter is killing the dogs).

Collette is pushing for an ordinance that would allow rescue groups to pull dogs from the shelter and allow them to find homes for the dogs outside the city.

The city is going to discuss this issue again on Monday night at 7:00 -- after tabling the proposal last week because a few of the council members are putting even tighter restrictions on who can pull the dogs -- requiring groups to come up with $500,000 of insurance per dog and requiring the dogs to be adopted out more than 100 miles away from the city.  None of these requirements are necessary for rescue groups when pulling other types of dogs.

While I don't in any way support the city's (paranoia-driven) pit bull ban, I am at the very least supportive of letting some of the dogs be pulled from the shelter instead of forcing them to be instantly killed.

Sioux City, IA

On March 21st, Sioux City, IA began enforcing its ban on 'pit bulls', and impounded 10 dogs in the first 3 days. However, people are hopping mad about it.

Turns out one woman had her dogs taken from her and was given paperwork to sign off on "acknowledging" that the dogs had been taken. There was also, supposedly, a signature requirement for euthanasia, that the dog's owner did not sign because she planned to appeal the measure and move herself and her dogs out of town. However, the dogs were instantly put down in the shelter and the dogs' owner wants to know why.

When KMEG 14 asked animal control for a copy of the form owners had to sign, staff denied their initial request -- essentially violating state open records laws.  The news station eventually did get the form.

It is not uncommon for cities to have this type of paperwork that they force people to sign when they confiscate dogs. They will usually tell them that the paperwork is to "acknowledge" that the dog is being taken, but often has wording that incriminates them in some way by stating that they are acknowledging the dog is a "pit bull" or that the dog can be euthanized.  This paperwork, when it is self-incriminating and doesn't allow for a trial before the dogs are destroyed (which is what happened in this case), is usually seen as a violation of the 5th Amendment rights under the US Constitution. If the woman was forced to sign either of the lines in the document, I do believe this would qualify. You cannot force soemone to give up their right to a trial.

A group of residents in Sioux City are filing a petition now for a repeal on the ban.

Omaha

The Nebraska Humane Society released the first quarter stats on dog citations this week. After they passed their breed-specific restrictions, 43 citations were written for 'pit bull' owners who could not provide proof of insurance, and 32 more for not having proper restraints (most were apparently on too long of a leash.

19 tickets were issued for dogs remaining tethered outside for a long period of time.

17 dogs were declared dangerous (no breed info available on that).

It remains very disturbing to me that NHS continues to define "success" of their ordinance based on the number of tickets they write vs things like decreasing the number of dogs killed in shelters or improved public safety (which it is appearing to not be doing).. However, because they will not release their records to the public, they get to choose how they define "success".

Meanwhile,it should be noted that NHS has been caught bullying 'pit bull' owners  -- with at least one case where they arrested someone for 'not cooperating" with an investigation when the dog owner refused to show them his dog. NHS did not have a warrant for a search, but arrested the man for not giving up his Constitutional right to be unjustly searched and his dog seized. After police arrived, it was later determined that the man's dog was not responsible for a bite - -but the man was still fined.

By the way, I love that the TV station cites that "Pit bull violations lead the field" when that was the primary target of the ordinance -- so of COURSE they do. Mediots.

In other Omaha news, they have an important election coming up on Tuesday. Jim Suttle, someone who was rational during the passing of their ridiculous ordinance, is running for Mayor against city councilman Jim Vokal. Vokal was one of the ring leaders behind pushing forward on the breed specific restrictions in spite of recommendations against it from virtually everyone in the city.  So go out and vote for Jim Suttle on Tuesday, for the good of the city.