KC DOG BLOG

Oakland Police getting animal behavior training

After a couple of controversial animal shootings (one involving a deer, the other an elderly family dog), the Oakland Police are going to be getting a little training in animal behavior.

The program will be designed to help officers read animal behavior, dog instincts, and to be able to read property to determine if there is likely a dog on the property even if they cannot see the dog.  By teaching the officers different signs of a dog's behavior, they hope that officers will better be able to determine if a dog is aggressive, or friendly, or frightened - and then will also work with them on more effective ways of using batons, pepper spray and catch poles to keep dogs at a safe distance.

"If you don't have that training about animals your first response is going to use what you know, and that's going to be to use force," East Bay SPCA Director Allison Lindquist said.

Police officers often come across protection dogs when they do things like drug busts and weapons busts.  However, in many cases they also encounter dogs that are there simply to protect the family (which is often what the police are there to do too).  Being able to judge the true, immediate threat of the situation can be the difference between a family mourning the loss of their family pet or not -- or, an officer being injured or not.  Too often (in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of the folks in Oakland) there is a bit too much of a tendency to shoot first.

There have been a lot of incidents nationally in the news about police officers unnecessarily shooting dogs - including a case in Columbia, MO last spring where a SWAT team shot a dog that was in its kennel.  Some basic training in canine behavior signs will really help in keeping dogs, and officers safe.

So a tip of the hat to the Police Department in Oakland and the East Bay SPCA for running the training program.  May your proactive attitude be a model for others to follow.

USDA Reports that they're not doing their jobs (& why better enforcement is more important than more laws)

Yesterday, the USDA launched a 69 page report that gave an pretty damning overview of the failures of the department to uphold the national Animal Welfare Act.  I highly recommend reading the entire report -- although, warning, it does contain several graphic and disturbing visuals.

The report focused on several major downfall of the department's enforcement:

1) The USDA enforcement of the law was inefficient at dealing with problematic dealers

According to the report, out of 8,289 inspections, 5,261 (63%) of the operations showed at least one violation of the AWA. Of those, 2,416 (47%) were repeat offender -- with 863 (36%) of them violating the same subsections of the law.

In their reports, inspectors were given the option of recommending no action be taken -- and in a limited check up, 71% of the time, "no action" was what the inspector chose -- even if there were major violations. 

There are several major examples of lack of enforcement and here is one of the worst:

Example 4: At the facility in Oklahoma with 219 dogs, Animal Care cited the breeder for 29 violations (including 9 repeats) during 3 inspections from February 2006 to January 2007. AC requested an IES investigation in May 2007.  However, before the investigation resulted in any enforcement action, the inspector conducted another inspection in November 2007 and found 5 dead dogs and other starving dogs that had resorted to cannibalism. Despite these conditions, AC did not immediately confiscate the surviving dogs and, as a result, 22 additional dogs died before the breeder's license was revoked.

2) Inpsectors did not cite or document violations properly to support enforcement actions

There seemed to be a lot of inconsistency in how AC handled documenting violations. In some cases, if there were 5 dead dogs found on the property it would only be written up as one violation (instead of 5) -- creating lower fines and less follow-up. They also didn't document many things (even though all inspectors are given digital cameras) that made prosecution more difficult.

3)  The new penalty worksheet makes it too easy for inspectors to give minimum penalties.

While Congress has repeatedly raised the maximum fines for violations over the years, the actual amount assessed in fines has gone been going down. The new worksheets allow for many reductions in fines -- allowing up to 145 percent of the maximum penalties. While they don't advocate that enforcement officers assess maximum penalties, the new worksheet has caused numberous reductions to make the actual penalties come out to a negative balance, causing just the minimum fines to be levied.

A report in 1995 noted that most breeding facilities just saw the low fines as a cost of doing business and not high enough to encourage change. This was reconfirmed in 2005, and the average fines were actually lower in 2008 -- meaning that in 13 years, this problem remains completely unaddressed.

4) Misusing Guidelines ot Lower Penalties for violators 

This is tied to #3, but the inspectors seemed to misuse the reductions to get fines lower for kennel operators by incosistently counting violations, applying the 'good faith' reductions without merit, allowed a "no history of violations" reduction when the violators had a prior history and arbitrarily changing the gravity of some of the violations.

In 32 of the 94 cases that were reviewed the guidelines were misused to lower penalties. In 22 of 94 cases, people were given reductions in penalties for having "no previous violations" -- even though they did have previous violations. Also, inspectors are given the ability to give "good faith" reductions on follow-up visits if it appears that breeders are making positive improvements on making changes -- however, the report noted that often these reductions were given unjustly. In 13 of the 94 cases it was found that the enforcement agency applied the good faith penalty reduction without merit.

5) A loophole allowing for internet sellers to not need a license.

Because the AWA was written in 1971, it allowed companies that "sold directly to the public" to be excluded from licensing with the intent to prevent inspectors from having to inspect pet stores. Obviously in 1971, the Internet wasn't on anyone's radar -- so now, many breeders are selling directly over the internet to allow themselves to not need to be licensed. The survey reports that 81% of the breeders they checked (they did include some really small breeders with as few as 3 breeding dogs) were not licensed.

********

If you read the report, it will be a natural reaction to become angry. Sometimes the natural reaction is to see a report like this and want to push for harsher laws against 'puppy mills'. However, I think it's extremelly important to note that everything here is ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. The law, by the USDA's own admittence, just isn't being enforced, and fines are so minor that there is little incentive for facilities to improve their conditions.

This report very much echos the findings in the state of Missouri -- where the MVMA has noted that the problem is not the need for better laws -- but the need for better enforcement and similar findings in the 2008 state audit of the Missouri state department of agriculture.

I think too often we find ourselves torn between the need for more laws and the need to enforce the ones we have. I think this is true for dealing with irresponsible commercial breeders, in most cases for aggressive dogs, and for animal cruelty. More laws aren't going to solve anything if we don't have capable enforcement of the ones we have -- and likely will make the poor enforcement worse, not better.

If we want to solve a lot of these problems we must put pressure on these organizations to DO THEIR JOBS -- and do them well. Our tax dollars deserve better than this.

For more:

YesBiscuit! - USDA Inspections - Not.

Raised by Wolves - Falling Through when the whole damned thing is cracks

Thoughts on the NFL and Mike Vick

Unless you live in a cave (in which case, congrats on finding internet access) you are aware by now that earlier this week, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced that he had granted Michael Vick a conditional reinstatement into the NFL.

There are a lot of points of view out there on this. On the one side, are the people who are understandably upset by Vick's reinstatement. Others, that think the NFL was right to give him another chance.

Their reasons usually follow many of the same lines of logic.

--- People deserve a second chance.

--- He made a mistake and should be forgiven for it.

--- He has paid for his crime and should be allowed to get on with his life.

It's all, just BS.

This isn't a second chance.

First off, this isn't a second chance for Vick. It is not as if Vick was a model citizen and true contributor to society before one day, people were just shocked to find out he was involved in dog fighting. Vick was no Peyton Manning, Tony Gonzales, Tony Richardson or any of the other countless athletes who use their fame and fortunes to better their community. Vick had a bit of a track record at embarrassing himself and the NFL.

In early 2004, two men in Vick's home state of Virginia were arrested for distributing marijuana. The truck they were driving was registered to Vick.

In March 2005, a woman filed a lawsuit against Vick for having sex with her under an alias name of Ron Mexico and giving her genital herpes.  Vick settled the case out of the courtroom.

In November, 2006, after a loss to the New Orleans Saints,he flipped off the fans in his own home stadium in reaction to the fans booing his performance.

In January, 2007, Vick surrendered a water bottle at an airport that contained a secret compartment that was allegedly used to smuggle marajuana. While a tiny trace of marajuana was found in the compartment, Vick was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Then, in the summer of 2007, Vick was accused (and later plead guilty) to felony counts of dog fighting. From all reports, he was involved in dog fighting, animal cruelty including cruelly killing many of the dogs, and involved in illegal gambling associated with dog fighting.

Vick is not getting a second chance here. He's been given multiple chances from an escalating scale of involvement in illegal, immoral and embarrassing (to the NFL) activities.  I'd say on the sliding scale he'd be out of chances -- if it were me in charge.

Dog fighting is not a 'mistake'

I want to clear up this silly notion that he made a mistake for which he should be forgiven. This isn't a mistake.  A mathematical error on your taxes is a mistake. Running a red light and running into someone is a mistake. Heck, even Donte Stallworth's decision to drive after being slightly over the legal alcohol limit and hitting a pedestrian (who wasn't in a crosswalk) and pleading guilty to DUI manslaughter charges is a mistake.

No, what Vick participated in was not a "mistake".  It was a series of conscious decisions over a prolonged period of time to participate in felony activities that were cruel and violent. Dog fighting is not a mistake. It's a criminal lifestyle.

He is not guaranteed the life he used to have

Maybe in an ideal world, our justice system would be uniquely designed to rehabilitate people so they left our prison system as renewed individuals who could go seemlessly back to their lives. And while there are always feel-good stories about people who really do "find themselves" in jail, that isn't really the norm.  So as a society, we most often put stipulations on convicted felons. We don't allow child molesters and rapists the same rights as the rest of us.  The folks involved in the Enron Scandle are not just welcomed back to corporate america as CEOs and Vice Presidents of large corporations.

Vick is entitled to resume his life after spending his time in prison. But he is not entitled to the life of fame, fortune and fanfare that he enjoyed prior to being a convicted felon. The idea that he is entitled to come back to the free world and enjoy everything just like it was before his conviction is not like any other felony crime in America. The NFL should have felt more than free to move on with the world's most successful league without him.

What's next?

Just because Vick was reinstated by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell does not guarantee that he will be playing football on Sundays later this year. While Vick was a superstar on the field before he left, it was mostly because of a certain excitement that he brought to the game because of his speed and quickness. But in 2006, his last year on the field, he carried a quarterback rating of a 75.7. That rating would have placed him 28th among NFL quarterbacks last year --in between Chiefs QB Tyler Thigpen (who began the season as 3rd string) and journeyman QB Gus Frerotte.  He is now 29 years old - -and his legs, his most valuable assett -- are on the downhill slide.  And football is a game that requires great skill, built on years of repetition and practice, and Vick has not played this game in over two years.

When you look at the polls on various websites, most show a pretty even split among people who think reinstating Vick was a good idea, and those who think it's a horrible idea. These are tough economic times, and I don't think most teams are going to be willing to take a chance of alienating 1/2 of their fan base to take a chance on a 29 year old QB, who hasn't played a game in 2 years, who was a well below-average passer even when he was well practiced.

As of right now, at least 17 of the league's 32 teams have officially announced that they are not interested in signing Vick.  I swear there are more (I'm 90% sure that New England has officially announced that they are not interested either) and more will announce (can you really see Vick playing in the city of Green Bay after this?).  I might be wrong, but I think soon all 32 teams will have blacklisted him. If Barry Bonds can get blacklisted by baseball owners for steroid use, I find it hard to believe that football owners would stoop so low for Vick. 

So we'll see where it goes. I'm disappointed in Roger Goodell's decision, but hopeful that the NFL owners will have enough sense to make the decision that Goodell was unwilling to.

For more great reading on the subject:

Winograd: And the Monster Went Free

Bad Rap: Animal Cruelty Charge: "Not Guilty"

The Pet Connection: NFL to Sick Vick: What dog thing? Welcome home!

Our Pack: Vick Reinstated, But Don't Worry Leo

The LA Times: Michael Vick paid his debt, but should the NFL let him play?

Fanhouse: Goodell Lets Vick Story Hijack '09 Season

Animal Cruelty Videos defended by the Constitution

I disgustingly read this on the Animal Law Coalition website.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal appeals court, sided in favor of animal cruelty in U.S.C 48. This is a really unfortunate decision.

Here's a little background:

A man named Robert Stevens, a resident of Virginia, was convicted of knowingly selling depictions of animal cruelty.  Stevens was advertising the sale of videos in a magazine called the Sporting Dog Journal -- an underground publication featuring articles about dog fighting.  Law enforcement officers bought a few videos that showed old footage of organized dog fights (circa the 1960s and 70s) as well as more recent footage of recent dog fights in Japan.  A separate video showed footage and detailed how to train dogs for hunting wild boars.  The videos contained narration and commentar by Stevens as well as literature that was written by Stevens.  As a result of the videos, law officers got a search warrant and executed the warrent -- finding more copies of the videos and other dogfighting merchandise.

The judges sided with Stevens, citing that the Stevens was covered under the 1st Amendment right to free speech. The reasons were as follows:

1) On balance, animal rights do not supersede fundamental human rights. While the government can and does protect animals from acts of cruelty, to make possession of films depicting this abuse would infringe on rights to free speech.

2) The Supreme Court rarely finds such an interest for content based restrictions. When it is done, it is done so because it related to the well-being of human beings, not animals. The example given was child pornography, where materials produced would have a lasting and long-term effect on the child while animals will not continue to suffer after the abuse has taken place.

3) The court decided that the law was constitutionally overbroad. While the significant government interest was described as being to "prevent cruelty to animals that state and federal statutes under-enforce." This makes sense, but the court deemed that it was overbroad because "If a person hunts or fishes out of season, and films the activity and sells it to an out-of-state party, it would appear the statute has been violated. Similarly, the same person could be prosecuted for selling a film which contains a depiction of bulfighitng in Spain if bullfighting is illegal in the state in which the person sells the film."

You can read the rest over at the Animal Law Coalition.

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I generally side with more rights under the Constitution, vs fewer rights. But this one is pretty amazing to me. So someone can actually host a dog-fight. Film the adventures.  Then sell the videos to prove that it happened and that they were there and get off scott free.  This appears to me to be the equivelent of me shooting someone in a country where killing wasn't illegal, and recording the footage of the man dying, and then selling the videos. How did we uphold that THIS is ok?

To put it another way, under the state law of Ohio, a person could be arrested for owning more than one 'pit bull' -- even without the city having to prove the dogs are dangerous or that the dog is actually a "pit bull' at all.  In many Cincinnati, they could be jailed for owning a pit bull at all. However, they could host dog fights, film the footage, and sell the footage of the dogs fighting -- now openly since it's been upheld in court - without punishment.

It appears that dog fighters now have more rights under the Constitution than I do in a lot of places.  That's pretty messed up. As a general rule, if something is deemed a felony in all 50 states, making a profit off of videos depicting it should be illegal also. 

Wally

Here's a story about Wally.  Wally was found by the folks at the Winter Assistance Program with Spay/Neuter Kansas City.  Wally is about 1 year old and was found still wearing his puppy collar -- which was far too small for him and was embedded in his neck. 

You can read the rest of Wally's story here with more photos here (NOTE:  Some of the neck photos are REALLY graphic, so don't say I didn't warn you, but I think it's important to realize just how bad of condition this dog was in).

I want to note that this dog was found by volunteers -- not animal control.  Animal control has been far too busy dealing with court cases, rounding up "pit bulls" that weren't really "pit bulls" and trolling Craig's List and chat boards looking for additional "pit bulls" to have noticed.   I'll also note that some of these same volunteers served on a committee a few years ago that put together recommendations for the city's animal control department (including getting rid of their BSL because they were spending too much time on that and not on other things) and were completely ignored by the city.

There are hundreds of people in this city that care about animals and responsible animal control that are more than willing to HELP in any way...it's amazing to me that cities continue to ignore these resources and in fact, appear to work really hard at pissing them off.

SNKC is looking for donations to help them with defraying some of Wally's medical costs....so if your heart leads you that way, I know they'd appreciate it.