KC DOG BLOG

Breed Identification continues to be problematic and costly for BSL cities

You've read it here before on many an occassion, but breed mis-identification continues to be a haunting and expensive problem for cities that continue to thing determing a dog's viciousness by "breed" is an easier solution than basing it on thei actual bahavior.

It's not.

And cities and taxpayers continue to pay the price for this outdated thinking.

Last week, Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon was again in the court room.  In this case, Skeldon had confiscated three dogs that he deemed to be "pit bulls' saying that they were in violation of the county's Vicious Dog Law.

The owner of the dogs, Hugh Smith, says the dogs are not "pit bulls', but instead, he has the paperwork for the dogs that shows that all of them are documented Cane Corso's -- a type of Mastiff.  Smith's attorney, who appears to get the problem, notes that this mis-identification is a part of a larger issue:

"There's a history here of misclassifying pit bulls when they are not. Many of the people are scared to fight for their dogs, threatened with criminal prosecution."

While the case is ongoing, the dogs were granted a conditional release so they no longer have to be "cared for" at Lucas County Animal Control. From reports I've gotten, the dogs were in terrible shape after just two weeks at the Dog Warden's Facility, caked with feces and urine, sick with kennel cough, and already under weight.

In Denver, Kevin O'Connell had his Boxer-mix named Dexter taken from him by Denver Animal Control. O'Connell lived in nearby Thronton, but dropped Dexter off at a friend's house when he was headed out of town on Business. That is when animal control officers, who were responding to an unrelated call, saw Dexter in the back yard and took him to the pound because they thought he was a 'pit bull' - banned under the city's breed ban.

However, O'Connell appealed the breed identification, and an administrative judge ruled that Dexter was not a 'pit bull' -- even under Denver's broad definition.

"This verdict shows that Denver cannot enforce it's pit bull ban, They do not have qualfied experts in to enforce the ban and determine breeds of dogs," said Jennifer Edwards, the founder of the Animal Law Center.

Even though O'Connell was found innocent -- and that his dog was unfairly taken - he still got stuck with the bill from Denver for the Attorney fees, impound fees and vet fees -- something many people would not be able to afford if they were unfairly targeted.  This has caused many - including Denver's  alternative newspaper the Westword - to question just how many of the 3500 'pit bulls' that were killed in Denver since 2005 were really 'pit bulls' -- or dogs that were unfairly targeted and the owners did not have the resources to appeal the ruling.

"There could be thousands of people out there who can call into question if their family pet was killed for absolutely no reason," said Edwards. "How many of them were never actually pit bulls?"

Meanwhile, the costs of enforcement, and legal proceedings continue to mount in Denver -- all at taxpayer expense -- as the city is in the middle of yet another lawsuit and continues to defend its breed ban in site of having never done an audit of the ban to determine its success.

There's more on this case from the Animal Law Coalition website.

The combination of these two cases further enhance the statements that people have been making for years:

1) Breed ID based purely on looks is unreliable -- as most people aren't rally very good at visual breed ID of mixed breed dogs.

2) Dog bite studies based on media reports (that are based on visual breed ID) are not very reliable

3) And BSL is completely unenforcable because of the difficulties in breed ID -- and impact many dogs that are not among the targeted breeds.

All of this has caused some to declare this the "Beginning of the End of BSL" -- and it is certainly tearing away at the idea of it. It is proving to be ineffective, costly and too vague in how a "pit bull" is defined to be accurately and uniformly enforced. And as such, citizens should demand a wiser spend of their tax dollars to not waste so many dollars targeting dogs THAT AREN"T EVEN AGGRESSIVE -- but just happen to have a certain "Look" that people fear. 

And that just doesn't make sense -- on any level. And mainstream failures like these affecting innocent owners and dogs are going to cause a break down in the entire program.  Which will be good for everyone.

Denver BSL Redux

The Denver Westword -- an Alternative Newspaper in the Denver area -- has a great article today on Denver's 20 year old ban on pit bulls -- wondering if it's time for a recount on Denver's declaration of 'pit bulls' as public enemy #1.

The article tells some of the stories of the people who have been affected by the law. Kevin O'Connell had his Presa Canario that got out while a friend was watching his dogs and attacked a neighbor's Chihuahua.  When animal control officers arrived, they confiscated not the dog that actually attacked the other dog, but the other dog that was in the yard minding its own business because they said it was a 'pit bull'. It also tells of his signing of a document that declares his dog a 'pit bull' in order to get his dog out of doggie prison -- which is a forced signature of guilt in order to get his now sickly looking dog -- which is a violation of the 5th amendment of the US Constitution.

It also tells the story of Heidi Tufto -- an army staff sergeant -- who was held at gunpoint while authorities confiscated her dog they thought was a 'pit bull' while she was walking her dog in the park in 2002. Tufto ended up being flown out of the state on a military transport to get out of the city. 

The article also talks about the costs associated with Denver enforcing the ban. Since 1992, Denver has impounded 5,286 pit bulls.  In 2005 and 2006 alone (right after Denver won its lawsuit against the state of Colorado in order to keep its ban), 1900 pit bulls were confiscated -- of those, 1,453 of them were killed. In total, 3,500 'pit bulls' have been killed by the city - -at an estimated cost of roughly $256 per dog from pickup to killed.   In total, about $900,000 has been spent by the city killing pit bulls -- mostly in the past 3 years.  The city has indured three lawsuits (one is still ongoing) and even levied its own lawsuit against the state (which doubles the taxpayer expense since they're paying for both ends of the suit) in order to keep the law.  The city pays six full time evaluators just to determine breed identification. 

In total, the city has spent millions of taxpayer dollars enforcing the ban, and killing dogs -- all at a time when the city is facing a $160 million budget shortfall -- with no measure of success.

According to the report:

Denver has never done an audit of the pit bull ban, never conducted a study of how effective it has been, never established a commission to determine whether one of Denver's most controversial policies is actually accomplished what it was created to do.  But evidence from other sources suggests that after two decades of classifying pit bulls as public enemy number one, it could be time for Denver to redo its math.

While proponents of the city's ban point to the fact that since the ban was put in place no one in Denver has been killed by a "pit bull", that is a really narrow focus.  Someone has been killed by a dog in Denver since the ban was put in place -- just by a different breed of dog -- which is actually pretty amazing given how rare such attacks are.

Meanwhile, a study by the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment notes that a person bitten by a dog in Denver is much more likely to go to the hospital than a person bitten in many neighborhing counties that don't ban pit bulls -- and a separate study done by the Coalition on Living Safely with Dogs notes that the bite rate in Denver is much higher than it is in neighboring communities.

So how is it that the city of Denver has been allowed to spend millions in taxpayer funds to enforce and defend a controversial ordinance with no study on its own part to determine the effectiveness of such a law?  It almost seems criminal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes it worse is that this all started after an attack by a 'pit bull' on Wilbur Billingsly -- a 58 year old evangelical pastor.  Billingsly was severely mauled.  It turns out that in spite of the owner's assertion that the dog had never been a problem before, this wasn't the dog's first run in with trouble.  In fact, the dog had bitten three people in three consecutive years - -including one incident in which a child was bitten so badly that a child spent 3 weeks in the hospital.  Animal control let the dog that attacked Billingsly stay with its owner - -who continued to leave the dog chained in the back yard. Just three days before the attack, the dog had broken free from his chain and nearly attacked an 11 year old girl.  Had animal control done anything at all to remove this dog from the situation -- and prevented the dog's clearly irresponsible owner from continuing to own, and mistreat the animal -- Billingsly may likely have never been attacked -- creating what then council president Cathy Reynolds still recalls as "the hysteria of the moment.  It was emotional, there was no way you could stop it."

Had animal control simply done their jobs -- Wilbur Billingsly would likely have never been mauled -- and a ban that has cost the taxpayers of Denver millions of dollars with no measurable success would have never taken place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The after affect has been equally tragic. Dogs ripped from people's homes. People forced to move. Armed services officers held at gunpoint. Thousands of dogs killed for no reason at all.

The article has an accompanying pictoral of Denver's "Pit Bull Row".  It's extremely powerful. 

Please check out both articles.

For Two decades, pit bulls have been public enemy #1 in Denver. But maybe it's time for a recount.

Denver's Pit Bull Row.

And while you're at it, check out denverkillsdogs.com. 

And alsoFor the Pit Bulls blog on the same subject.

More Pressure on Denver

News about Denver's continuing struggle with its 20 year old breed ban continues to make the news.

The city is curretnly facing a $120 million budget deficit -- and the costs of enforcing the law, as well as the continued court costs that are going in to defending the law against legal appeals, are coming under the microscope.

Adding fuel to the fire, is a very detailed report on dog bites throughout central Colorado done by a group of veterinarians, rescue groups and animal control officers that joined together under the group, the Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs, that provides actual dog bite statistics for the region. The report noted that a large variety of dogs bite, and most bies are quite minor....and provided useful action steps in dealing with the problem of dog bites in the communities.

These factors, along with public outcrry, are leading the city to look at options besides the city's breed ban.

While the proposal that is on the table is really bad legislation, the reality that Denver's law is costing the financially strapped city unneccesarily, and that the law hasn't actually reduced the number of dog bites in the city, is a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile, there is a large dog ban protecst march planned on City Hall on August 25th at the Denver City and County Building lawn -- 1437 Bannock St. The protest is at 1 pm -- and if you want any additional information you can reach out to jan@denverkillsdogs.com.

Head on out and show your support for a repeal of the costly and ineffective legislation. 

Denver considers possible repeal of Pit Bull Ban

For several years now, Denver's controversial ban on 'pit bulls' has been under attack. The ordinance was originally adopted in the ban in the late 1989. However, after several legal challenges, the ban stood dormant until 2005 when it was re-enacted.

The city has endured several court cases on the ban -- and is in the midst of yet another legal case that was revived back in May. The city has also endured advertising campaigns against the city's breed ban by groups like Roverlution, as well as an entire website  entitled denverkillsdogs.com

Through all of that, authorities in Denver have stubbornly stood beside their ban - -and have done so without any evidence that the ban has actually improved public safety. In fact, the city admitted as much last November in an article by the Colorado Springs Gazette:

As director of Denver's Animal Care and Control, which has euthanized nearly 2,000 pit bulls in three years, Doug Kelley has to play the bad guy in the pit bull debate. But even he is not a strong advocate for the pit bull ban.

"You'll never see a more controversial ordinance," Kelley said.

He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls, certainly, but he has no evidence that the ban has decreased the total number of dog bites or attacks in the city. He also said the ban gives people "a false sense of security."

In spite of the lack of success of the ordinance in improving public safety and in spite of growing financial burdens of defending their breed ban in court, the city has stubbornly stood by its failed ordinance.  They have done so in spite of other embarrassing and costly situations -- including killing over 2,000 pit bulls over the past 3 years-- many of which were family pets,  holding down a former military officer at gunpoint while they confiscated her dog, a child killed by a non-pit bull type dog, andthe highly publicized incident where a dog named Forrest was confiscated from his owner, deemed not aggressive, but the breed ban prevented the dog from going back to his owner and thus he had to be shipped out of state.

But that might be changing.

For the past few months, Councilwoman Carla Madison has been working on a proposal that would end the city's ban on pit bulls. Apparently the city is looking to save some money -- in efforts to close its $120 million shortfall.  The city apparently is looking to repeal the ban, in part, because they are looking for a compromise to help squash the legal costs associated with defending their law and stop the mounting legal fees. A cost calculator put together by Best Friends Animal Society puts the cost of enforcing the city's BSL at about $803,170 annually....and I can gurantee their litigation costs that they have figured in don't even come close to covering Denver's bill.  It appears as if Madison at least may have the support of the mayor as well.

The idea of repealing the city's breen ban is certainly great news. It is way past time the city drops its draconian, and ineffective policy that is doing little besides wasting animal control resources killing people's pets for no reason other than what those dogs look like.

However, the way the current proposal looks, it isn't much better. While it would allow people the possibility to own pit bulls in the city, the current working proposal still has very tight restrictions on 'pit bulls' including:

1) Mandatory purchase of an annual $50 pit bull permit

2) Mandatory passing of the AKC's Canine Good Citizen Test or American Temperament Test Society's Temperament Test

3) $100,000 Liability Insurance Policy

4) Mandatory Spay/Neuter

5) Mandatory Microchipping

6) Mandatory Home Inspection

7) Limit of no more than two pit bulls

8) Mandatory Obedience or Responsible Dog Ownership Class

9) Adequate Fencing (which is pretty vague)

10) No one under the age of 21 allowed to own or walk the dog off the owner's property

11) Mandatory background check for criminal record.

Yikes.

On January 1 of this year, the city of Omaha, NE began enforcing their ordinance that is somewhat similar to this proposal. In the first four months of this year, Omaha saw an 81% increase in dog bites.  See, the problem in Omaha is that the ordinance forced all of the people who were good, responsible dog owners in the first place, to jump through a series of hoops and expenses in order for them to be able to keep their dogs. However, these people were not a problem in the first place. So instead of spending time on the owners whose dogs WERE problems, they spent time and resources on dogs and dog owners that weren't.

That doesn't makes sense.  And is essentially the failure of all breed-specific legislation.

The dogs are not the problem. The owners are. Most of the major dog and dog bite problems come from a small percentage of irresponsible dog owners.  And laws should be designed to focus on these problem owners and these owners only. By focusing laws on dogs that aren't problems and have never shown signs of problems, we dilute animal control resources by having them spend time on non-problem dogs and dog owners.  Which makes the laws ineffective.

Congrats to Denver for at least taking the first step of admitting that their breed ban has been a failure and an extremely expensive use of taxpayer dollars. However, I really hope they really reach out and listen to listen to the expert groups in their community to come up with a less stringent proposal that really focuses the limited resources where they need to be focused...and not on good dog owners who should be left alone.

For more information:

Past KC Dog Blog articles about Denver

National Canine Research Council Overview of Denver.

Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs (Co)  Dog Bite Study Key Findings in Colorado Dog Bite Study

 

Denver Court Case Revived

An Appellate Court Judge has allowed a lawsuit against the city of Denver's breed ban to be allowed to move forward to court.   They can proceed with arguments that the Denver ban is irrational.

This case was dismissed by the court back in March of 2008.  After reading through the case, it appeared that the court dismissed the case for the following three reasons:

1) The plaintiffs did not have standing on the allegations of due process since none of the plantiffs had actually had their due process rights taken away.

2) None of the plaintiffs suffered harms from the law -- since all had moved from the offending juristiction.

3) The courts felt like they didn't provide enough evidence that the law was unconstitutionally vague.

Now, from reading the news clips, it doesn't appear that they will be able to appeal based on due process or vagueness claims (which is unfortunately a huge missed opportunity). However, they should be able to pursue this based on the irrational basis of the law.

However, the rational basis claim should be interesting. Denver's head of animal control Doug Kelly has even admitted that there is no evidence that the city's breed ban has improved overall public safety for the citizens of Denver.

From the Colorado Springs Gazette - November, 2008:

As director of Denver's Animal Care and Control, which has euthanized nearly 2,000 pit bulls in three years, Doug Kelley has to play the bad guy in the pit bull debate. But even he is not a strong advocate for the pit bull ban.

"You'll never see a more controversial ordinance," Kelley said.

He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls, certainly, but he has no evidence that the ban has decreased the total number of dog bites or attacks in the city. He also said the ban gives people "a false sense of security."

So, the ban hasn't shown to decrease the number of bites or attacks, and the head of animal control says it has given people a false sense of security, so the 'rational' nature of the law sure seems to be open to debate. The courts in this country have been pretty lenient with cities on what can be declared rational for the protection of citizens, so this type of case has not been super-effective in the past. However, a lot of the new evidence that came out in the Tellings case, plus the fact that this lawsuit is taking place so long after Denver started enforcing that ban so there is a significant track record of no success could work in our favor on this one.

Either way, the question that comes to my mind is, why is Denver wasting tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars defending a law in court that they even admit is not working?

UPDATE: So I just got a chance to read through the judge's ruling.

The judge in this case is giving them the "ok" to pursue the case on "rational basis". While the judge concedes that the city does have a significant government interest in animal control, the judge does conclude that it is subject to debate that banning 'pit bulls' is not a rational way to improve public safety.

"Pit bull bans sustained twenty years ago may have been justified by the then-existing body of knowledge, the state of science in 2009 is such that the bans ar no longer rational."

Specifically, the judge points out that the AKC and UKC standards for the 'pit bull' breeds -- which the city of Denver declares as accurate and uses to define visually what a 'pit bull' is -- state that the dogs are indeed friendly.

According to the UKC breed standard:

"The American Pit Bull Terrier are an 'extremely friendly' breed 'even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed..."

While the AKC breed standard for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier:

"with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is formost an all-purpose dog."

It's interesting that the very source that Denver is using to defend the claims against vagueness is the source that may catch them up on the rational basis argument.

Update #2: Over at the Animal Law Coalition you can download a copy of the judge's ruling for yourself (the file is at the bottom of the page).

Denver ban? Still not working

The folks at Denver Animal Control paid HSUS to come in and do some consulting of their shelter to talk about some of the ways the city's animal control/shelter operations could be improved.

Although I've only spot-read through the 210 page document, the results aren't pretty. Among the bad (from their summary):

The department is understaffed

Shelter facility is in poorly maintained

Citizens going to other organizations for animal welfare concerns because they view DACC as poor or don't even know they exist

Poorly trained staff

Poor volunteer support

Poor record-keeping

Inadequate housing and sanitation proceedurs for shelter animals

Poor leadership

HSUS continues the questioning of Denver's Breed ban (page 162):

"The Denver Prohibition of pit bull type dogs has been controversial and its efficacy remans somewhat unclear. The number of reported attacks and injruies committed by animals idendified as or associated with pit bull type dogs has been recorded as greatly reduced, but the actual number of these breeds still residing within Denver is unknown and hte impounment rate at DACC wousl suggest that there may still be many. We recommend that agressive dogs -- of any breed -- should be serious scrutinized. Strict enforcement of leash laws and rigorous attention to current "dangerous dog" restrictions should be applied without discrimination."

So, after doing an internal audit, HSUS couldn't find success in the ordinance either. There are still a lot of 'pit bulls' living in Denver, and while the number of bites by 'pit bulls' has gone down, there is no evidence that overall bites have gone down because the regular dangerous dog restrictions aren't being enforced. The consultant recommends that Denver complete a full analysis of:

Total bites (from all breeds)

Bite severity

Loose dog complaints

Financial, legal and personnel costs

Rate of actual compliance with the ban

Public perceptions of the agency

and the process of identifying a dog as a 'pti bull' based solely on physical characteristics

What may be even more amazing, is that after multiple lawsuits, a billboard compaign and petitions criticizing them, thousands of dogs dying needlessly because of the law, and a public perception of them that is in dramatic decline -- even after all of that, none of this stuff  has been looked at? 

Well, we know based on this report that compliance isn't good. And we know based on billboard campaigns and petitions that the public perception isn't good. And we know, based on head of animal control Doug Kelley's own words that overall bites have not gone down -- here's that snippet:

You'll never see a more controversial ordinance," Kelley said.

He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls, certainly, but he has no evidence that the ban has decreased the total number of dog bites or attacks in the city. He also said the ban gives people "a false sense of security."

"Pit bulls aren't bred to be aggressive toward humans," he said. "There are a lot of other dangerous dogs out there that aren't prohibited and are trained to be aggressive toward people, so that needs to be addressed."

And I can only imagine the costs, legal and personel-wise, that have gone into enforcing this ban after multiple lawsuits, what the costs of enforcement must be.

And folks, this is the role model for cities that want to pass breed bans.  Is THIS the best model we can come up with? It's not.

You can read the whole report here, as well as a summary of findings.

But here's the good news. The good news is that the city has put together a committee to look at DACC and provide recommendations and policy changes to the organization. Hopefully, the combination of the reality that Denver can't prove their ban is working, but that it is taking up valuable resources (for an already understaffed department at a time when the city is looking to cut $35 million from the city budget), and causing a negative impression of the organization will cause them to push for the city to overturn the city's breed ban. Combine this, with the real dog-bite study done by a local coalition of veterinarians, animal control officers and shelters that shows that breed bans are unwarranted and unneccessary, they will have the necessary data to overtun this wasteful law.

There are much better models for animal control...and while some cities insist on turning to Denver as a model, it certainly seems far, far away from what most people want from animal control.

Denver still can't prove BSL is working - and other Denver news

So yesterday, the Denver Daily news -- a free circulation newspaper in the city - wrote an article about the dog bite study that I discussed here yesterday.

The article, used the bite study as a platform to discuss whether or not Denver's well-publicized breed ban has actually worked.  Based on the stats fro mthe article:

-- During the 12 year period from 1995 (Denver passed their ban in 1989) and  2006, Denver experienced 273 dog-related hospitalizations.

-- During the same time period, Boulder Colorado experienced only 46 such incidents.

-- Denver's population (roughly 588,000) while Boulder's metro statistical area has a population of (288,000). So Denver, in spite of its breed ban (or possibly because of it) has had 6x the number of hospitalizations compared to Boulder, in spite of having only double the population. Not good.

-- Since 2005, Denver has killed well over 1,600 pit bulls because of their ban.

When asked about whether Denver residents were any safer because of the ban, Doug Kelley, the Director of Denver Animal Control, couldn't really give a solid answer:

"It's a hard question to answer," said Kelly. "We have not had a severe mauling or fatality involving a pit bull since its gone into effect. But then again, we continue to get more pit bulls every year...it depends on how you define success."

It's a revolutionary way to ask about success, how about looking at total dog bites. Since enacting the ban, have residents in Denver been more likely or less likely to be bitten or attacked by dogs than before the ban?

According to Kelly's comments back in November in the Colorado Springs Gazette, that answer is also no:

He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls, certainly, but he has no evidence that the ban has decreased the total number of dog bites or attacks in the city. He also said the ban gives people "a false sense of security."

So:

-- Denver is still getting more and more pit bulls in the community.

-- They have a higher dog bite rate than neighboring Boulder

-- They have not decreased the total number of dog bites

So why are they banning 'pit bulls' again? Only for the right to take animals out of homes and kill them? 

The reality is, that yes, pit bulls do bite and sometimes attack people -- as do a whole host of other breeds of dogs. Behind each of these bites or attacks, is an owner that was using tethering as a primary form of containment, not exercising their dog properly, not providing the dog with proper socialization, using the dog for guarding purposes, letting their dog routinely run around off leash, or leaving their young child alone with with the dog.

You can kill as many pit bulls as you want, but until those problems are addressed, dog bites will still be a problem (albeit still minor with only .3% of dogs being involved in bites). You MUST deal with ignorant, neglectful and irresponsible owners if the problem is going to be resolved.

Denver has completely missed this.

Meanwhile, there is a side note in the story. Kory Nelson. Nelson is by far one of the most vocal supportsers of Denver's failing policy. Nelson got a little interview for this story and said that anti-BSL groups like the Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs and the Humane Society of the United States have a "secret hidden agenda". Nelson says that these organizations rely on donations for their efforts, an thus distort the truth.

"It's politically incorrect for them to admit the truth of this, which is that pit bulls are more dangerous," said Nelson.  Who added that donations could come from anywhere, even including leaders of dog-fighting rings.

So, WHO'S distorting the truth?

Did Kory Nelson really, just imply, that The Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs is lying about their numbers because they are relying on the donations of dog fighters to keep them afloat?

Among the organizations involved in the Coalition are several rescue groups, the Colorado Association of Animal Control Officers, Colorado Association of Certified Veterinary Technicians, the Colorad Veterinary Medical Association and the Denver Area Medical Society.

Really?  These veterinarians and animal control officers are taking money from dog fighters to distort the truth?

And how about HSUS? Listen, I'm not a fan of HSUS for many reasons, but honestly, has any organization in the country been responsible for breaking up more dog fighting operations in the past decade than HSUS?  I would say the possibility of HSUS getting money from dog fighters is about as high as the likelihood that I make a donation to the Kory Nelson fund - -not going to happen.

Not only is it an absurd comment, but it's a blatant, desperate attempt by a desperate man to try to justify his breed ban -- that they have more or less confirmed without confirming isn't working -- by saying that the only reason people say it's not working is because they're taking money from dog fighters. Uh huh.

It's pathetic. It's transparent. And it's desperate. 

Nope. The reasons why these organizations, along with the AVMA, ASPCA, National Association of Animal Control Officers, Dog Trainers etc, oppose BSL is because it doesn't work. Just look at your own city Kory. It's flawed policy that focuses on dogs, not owners, an thus perpetuates the problem, not helps it. 

They oppose it because it doesn't work. No hidden agenda. Just the facts.
 

Attack on Denver Pit Bull Ban continues

The Assault on Denver's pit bull ban conintues.  In 1989, Denver passed a ban on pit bulls....however, for many years the ban sat dormant as the city fought the state and consituents trying to keep their ban (which is in opposition to a state law that forbids breed specific ordinances). So, in 2005, the city began enforcing the ban again. Since then, thousands of 'pit bulls' have been killed by the city. Since that time, the city has killed nearly 2,000 'pit bulls' - -and hastaken several others from owners that are never allowed to see the dogs again.

However, this fall, a California-based group called Roverlution, took out some billboards near the Pepsi Center in Denver with the question, "What dog will Denver kill next?"  -- and linking them to the website denverkillsdogs.com.

Well, local news is starting to pick up on the campaign. On Friday, Fox 31 ran the story, as well as an interview with a former military officer who was taken the ground at gunpoint by police to have her dog taken away from her.  Oh yeah, police brute force on a military officer for walking her dog.  Nice.

Meanwhile, the Denver Daily News also ran the story this week. In their interview with Doug Kelley, the head of animal control in Denver, he said it was a tough question to answer about whether or not the ordinance was effective. "We have not had a severe mauling or fatality involving a pit bull since the ordinance went into effect.  But then again, we continue to get more pit bulls every year...it depends on how you define success."

Success shouldn't be defined by whether or not you end 'pit bull' attacks -- it should be based on overall public safety.  Did the ban, overall, help protect people from dogs?

Well, Kelley answered that question last month, on November 16, in the Colorado Springs Gazette.  According to the Gazette:

He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls, certainly, but he has no evidence that the ban has decreased the total number of dog bites or attacks in the city. He also said the ban gives people "a false sense of security."

"Pit bulls aren't bred to be aggressive toward humans," he said. "There are a lot of other dangerous dogs out there that aren't prohibited and are trained to be aggressive toward people, so that needs to be addressed."
 

So what is the point of the breed ban again?  So far they've admitted:

1) That not all pit bulls are aggressive - -and they now allow non-aggressive pit bulls to be removed from the city.

2) That the ordinance doesn't address aggressive dogs that are not pit bulls

3) That there is no evidence that the ordinance has improved public safety be decreasing the number of bites or attacks.

So why the ordinance?  Is it to take dogs like Forrest away from their owners?  Is it to put military veterans at gunpoint to take their dogs?

Seems like a breed neutral ordinance would be a better way to go -- protecting people from aggressive dogs regardless of breed. What are we waiting for?

Colorado BSL News

The lawsuit challenging Aurora, CO's ban on 'pit bulls' goes to trial today. The lawsuit in Aurora challenges the ban as being unconstitutionally vague and unnecessary. According to this report, 'pit bulls' made up only 2 percent of the injuries in the city in the 3 years prior to the ban taking place.  According to the Aurora 2 year report, which you can find here, the total of dog bites in Aurora has gone up 26% from 110 to 157 in the two years following the passing of the ordinance.  Amazingly, in spite of these statistics and the pending lawsuit, Aurora decided to continue on with their ban last spring.

Meanwhile, there was a very good story in the Colorado Springs Gazette yesterday regarding 'pit bulls'.  The story has an interview with Doug Kelly of Denver.  Denver has long been seen by supporters of pit bull bans of the "shining example" of pit bull bans -- however, they never really base their point of view on actual statistics, only the fact that they have one.  Here's a clip from the news story:

As director of Denver's Animal Care and Control, which has euthanized nearly 2,000 pit bulls in three years, Doug Kelley has to play the bad guy in the pit bull debate. But even he is not a strong advocate for the pit bull ban.

"You'll never see a more controversial ordinance," Kelley said.

He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls, certainly, but he has no evidence that the ban has decreased the total number of dog bites or attacks in the city. He also said the ban gives people "a false sense of security."

"Pit bulls aren't bred to be aggressive toward humans," he said. "There are a lot of other dangerous dogs out there that aren't prohibited and are trained to be aggressive toward people, so that needs to be addressed."

Emphasis was mine.  Read the rest of the story here. 

Just a couple of months ago, Denver had a 'pit bull' in captivity that they allowed to leave the community because it was deemed not-aggressive.  The idea of non-aggressive dogs being confiscated from their owners because of how they look continues to seem absurd to me.

Is the tide turning in Colorado?  Let's hope.

Thanks to reader Emily for sending over the Denver story.

Using AKC/UKC Breed Standards to kill dogs

                                                                                   Caveat had a great post this week about cities like Denver that are using the AKC or UKC breed standards as descriptors for animal control offices to use to determine if a dog is or is not one of the banned breeds. 

She's right of course. These breed standards were in no way designed to be used to determine what was and was not a certain breed of dog.  They were designed to help professional judges determine the best and prettiest amongst an already pre-determined breed of dog.

She has a lot of detail at her place.

All I can ever think of when I see this is that using the UKC breed standards to determine if a dog is a American Pit Bull Terrier is the equivelent to using the Miss America Pageant evaluation to determine if someone was or was not a woman.  I think that'd be ill-advised.

Needless to say, it's FAR from a science and grossly arbitrary -- which is one of the arguments that is being used against Denver in their most recent lawsuit.  According to the Void for Vagueness Doctrine:

 "If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague."  

If you don't think this is a problem, let me remind you about Nikko.  His owners had him taken from him in KCK even though most reasonable people would have looked at Nikko and thought he WASN"T a pit bull.

But again, when multiple people can look at a dog, and disagree on whether or not the dog is a "banned breed", then the owner is completely unaware that they may be violating a law.  The Void for Vagueness Doctrine continues:

"The void for vagueness doctrine curbs the ARBITRARY and discriminatory enforcement of criminal statutes.  Penal laws must be understood not only by the persons required to obey them but by the persons whare charged with the duty of enforcing them."   

Ah, the delimma. Trying to arbitrarily enforce a "what breed of dog is this?" situation with a set of guidelines that was not designed for the specific purpose is nothing BUT vague.

How this shakes out in Denver will be interesting.

Meanwhile, speaking of Denver.  It looks like they've let yet another confiscated 'pit bull' that was not at all aggressive go to live another day elsewhere -- and is actually hanging with Forest in California.  If someone can explain to me the logic of taking non-aggressive dogs out of people's homes and shipping them someplace else, I'd love to hear it.