KC DOG BLOG

A look at how far we've come -- redux

It's kind of amazing to look back at the not-so-distant past and think, wow, look how far we've come.

Juust over a year ago, a Superior Court judge in in North Carolina ruled that 127 'pit bulls' that were confiscated from a dog fighting operation in Wilkes County North Carolina should all be killed. Adult dogs, nursing puppies, all of them. Dead.

And while the dogs died -- with no opportunity for an evaluation -  the Humane Society of the United States watched and said it was the right thing to do.

That seems so long ago now, as two recent cases have shown exactly how far we've come.

The first case is one that was in Kent County, MI, where several dogs were confiscated from a cruelty case this past summer and were slated to be killed. However, the Humane Socity of Kent County had been holding the dogs during the trial and thought that many of the dogs were adoptable. So they hired a lawyer, filed an affidavit and argued to let the dogs live. Not only did they win the lawsuit, the dogs were front page news in Grand Rapids, MI. 

Bad Rap has all the details on the court case.

Meanwhile, in St. Louis, the Fox Affiliate there ran a feature story on the photos that were taken of a very large bust of dogfighting ring in 8 states involving more than 400 dogs.

The dogs from this raid were given a fair evalutation also -- and many have been found homes.

The stories provide a great example of just how far we've come when it comes to our view of dogs that are pulled from horrific conditions. Where, not that long ago, we just systematically killed the dogs -- regardless of their temperaments, we now, just two years later, are giving the animals a chance. We're realizing that they are the victims in these cases.

They are victims.

They are worthy of a fair evaluation.

They are individuals, with each one worthy of its own evaluation.

And you know what else we're learning?  That these dogs are thriving in their new home environments.

My, how far we've come.

Related: 500 Dogs, 3 Magazines and a look at how far we've come

Cesar Millan: his dog, and his critics

Last week, Cesar Millan's 16 year old pit bull, Daddy, died.  It isn't often that the death of a dog because of old age makes national headlines -- including a full page article/photo in this week's People Magazine -- but Daddy was different. 

In so many ways he represented what many 'pit bull' advocates love about these types of dogs -- and what we know all of them can be when they have good owners.  Daddy was often the passive, calm dog when other dogs were not so calm. And many in the nation fell in love with the dog. RIP Daddy.

******

Seeing Millan and Daddy in People last week inspired me to write this post. While loved by many, Cesar Millan has become highly controversial figure among canine behaviorists and dog trainers. Millan has become the face of what many trainers call Dominance Training for dogs -- and a popular face at that. For the many trainers across the nation more strongly favor purely positive dog training techniques, Dominance training becomes the face of cruelty in dog training -- and they would love to see Dominance Training die.*

* Tip, if you want Dominance Training to die, you can start by at least admitting it CAN be successful but there are better ways. It remains because it can work to rehabilitate dogs. Admitting that first will give you more credibility.

It doesn't take much digging to find articles criticizing Millan's training techniques and calling animal cruelty. The Anti-Cesar Millan facebook group has nearly 3,000 members -- some of who are regular readers of this blog or that I know personally.

And while I understand their criticisms of Millan, I never cease to be amazed at the all-or-nothing attitude that seems to exist in this country where we feel like we have to take polarized views on someone we don't agree with 100%. In reality, Millan has done a lot more good than harm in the animal welfare movement....and even if he's not perfect (who is?!), many animals are in a lot better place now because of him.

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

Cesar is a celebrity. Millions of people watch his TV program each week, and both of his books, Cesar's Way, and Be a Pack Leader, sold over 1 million copies. He has reached millions of people with his message.

While some may consider this a bad thing, it depends, I guess, on what message he's talking about. And he has many messages - -and most of them are things people need to hear. 

1) Dogs are a product of their owners. If your dog is misbehaving, it is because of something that you did - -not something that is the fault of the dog.

2) Dogs need Exercise, Discipline and Affection. In that order. No one would dispute the 1st and 3rd need, but it's the second one that is everyone's hang up. Discipline, to me, means that your dog needs rules, boundaries and expectations. Without them, the dog will misbehave and cause problems.

3) All dogs, even 'pit bulls', can be great dogs with proper training. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find many places that have placed bully breeds in a more positive light.

4) On this front, Millan has been vocal against pit bull bans in various parts of the country. "Banning the dog doesn't solve the problem; it only creates fear and ignorance."

5) All dogs deserve a chance to be rehabilitated -- and usually can be.

6) At the end of every show now he signs off with a note to spay and neuter your pet.

7) Chaining dogs is not an appropriate way to contain a dog and can lead to behavioral issues in the dog.

It's hard to believe that a man who sends these messages out to millions of people through different media could have so many animal welfare people dislike him.

******

Four years ago, I stood in the doorway of a city council meeting in Leavenworth, KS because the city council chambers was full. After a couple a pretty major dog attacks in the Kansas City area, and a rash of hysteria brought on by the local media, Leavenworth, like many cities in the metro, was discussing potentially banning pit bulls from the community.

At one point, one of the city council members noted that he confessed to not really knowing a lot about dogs -- but he had watched the Dog Whisperer and there were pit bulls on that show that were really good dogs and that it sure seemed like the dogs were just a reflection of their owners. Leavenworth passed a really good dog ordinance that night because they decided to focus their legislation on dog owners, not on breeds of dogs.  The positive, and correct message, had gotten through.

*******

Positive dog trainers typically don't like Millan. They see his training methods as often barbaric and cruel. I've watched a lot of his episodes....and it is seldom that I see him doing anything that could be misconstrued as actual cruelty.  It's important to note here too, that Millan doesn't start with a small puppy that is completely moldable and just positively training the dog to sit/stay/etc -- where certainly treat training is simple and easy.

The reason he got the call was because someone had so majorly screwed up their dog that it is severely messed up. Often, this shows itself in a form of severe aggression. Often, the owner has called Millan because the trainer they tried to work with said the dog should be euthanized. 

He's not working with a blank slate.

While I realize that good positive-only dog trainers are able to curb these behaviors using their positive training techniques, it does seem at least logical, and not abusive, to use some form of corrective behavior in order to get the dog to cease acting aggressively, and begin to focus on other training.

However, positive trainers see quick pokes and alpha rolls and paint him as an abusive trainer.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

What makes the situation worse for these trainers, they end up seeing the dogs that come in because their owner has screwed them up even more trying to emulate Millan. In spite of the disclaimers that owners shouldn't try these techniques at home, people do. We not the most brilliant of species, and we do try what we see on TV -- which is why there are millions of YouTube videos of painful-looking falls of people who have tried to copy something they watched during the X Games.

These dog owners try to do what Millan does -- but lack what is probably his greatest asset which is incredibly quick hands and excellent timing to redirect unwanted behavior before the behavior actually starts. But because they screw it up, their dog becomes worse behaved, not better behaved.

Trainers see these dogs and think it is Millan's fault. In some ways maybe it is. In other ways I wonder if the owners would have ever taken an active-enough interest in their dogs to even try in the first place. We'll never really know for sure. But the end result is that at least the owner realizes that the dog's behavior is bad and it is their job to fix it. Which isn't the worst end result imaginable.

*******

It is often funny for me to read when people write about how Millan only uses dominance training and never uses a positive reinforcement approach. But even that is not really true.

Often, Cesar takes dogs to the "Dog Psychology Center" where the dogs live with Cesar's pack so they can become 'more balanced'. When the owners come to see the dog for the first time at the Dog Psychology Center, he always says to the owner "No Talk, No Touch, No Eye Contact." The idea is that the dog will misbehave at first and the dog won't get what it wants (to be paid attention to) until it settles down. Once the dog is calm again, the owners are then allowed to interact with the dog -- which is pretty classic positive reinforcement.

*****

I don't expect anyone to change their mind on Cesar Millan. I know how passionate people who are involved in purely positive dog training are about their craft....and I can appreciate that. And I realize that when these people see Millan, and folks that tried his methods on their own and failed, he represents everything that is wrong (in their mind) with dog trainers.

But I think it's still important to acknowledge the overarching messages that he tries, successfully in my opinion, to get across in his program. Primarily, your dog is a reflection of you as an owner. If the dog is aggressive, or ill-behaved, it's your fault.  Not the dog's.

And meanwhile, it is hard for me to imagine anyone who has had a greater, further reaching impact on how people view bully breeds than Millan.  Certainly, very few find themselves with a feature in People magazine with their 'pit bull'.

Sometimes I think, in efforts to discourage his training practices, people become too anti-Cesar Millan. They have become so frustrated with the people that are "doing it wrong" that they feel forced to break down the man they feel represents that training style.

I say it's fine to discourage the training style, but leave the man alone. His larger overarching message is too good of one to just throw out in your dislike of the methods of how he got there.

Additional links:

One Bark at a Time has a funny story of a family of Cesar Millan fans that come visit the shelter.

Dog Spelled Forward is one of the positive dog trainers who really dislikes Cesar. Eric does a good job in his breakdowns of the episodes and what he sees as good and bad with his training. I don't always agree with his comments, but I at least respect that he actually watches the episodes and dislikes them based on the actual information that is in the shows.  Here is one breakdown of an episode "Chihuahuas from Hell"  There is a second one with a dog named Bella. I really liked the second one for a couple of reasons: 1) I thought this was a particularly interesting episode of the show when I watched it before seeing Eric's post and 2) I thought it was a particularly interesting read on how much Eric actually AGREED with what Cesar was doing...even though he is a purely positive trainer and typically doesn't like Cesar.

What the Dog Saw - a great article on Cesar from Malcolm Gladwell that ran in the New Yorker and is the title of Gladwell's newest book.  If you've never read this article, you should make the time to do so.

Yes Biscuit! - Things I've Learned from Cesar Millan

Fear of the Unknown

There was a great article this week over at Matadorchange.com about Pit Bull Bigotry and Public Perception. It's worth the read on its own, so go check it out.

I think the story really registered with me because the author's experience pretty closely mirrored my own.

Several years ago my wife and began discussing adding a dog to our family. We both agreed that we were going to adopt -- and that we wanted to adopt a dog that badly needed a home.  My wife had been watching a lot of Animal Planet at the time, and had seen all of the adorable 'pit bulls' on the show and had decided that we should adopt one.

I can't remember what my first reaction was -- but I know it wasn't positive.

Keep in mind, I had never really met a dog that would be considered a 'pit bull' - or at least, not that I knew of. But I had an image of them that many have that was shaped solely based on their reputation and media hype. But I love my wife, so I agreed to do some research and meet a few dogs. And what I found was that the image I had in my mind was NOTHING like their real-life behavior. While all of the reliable sources I found online about the dogs said they were great dogs, I was still skeptical -- so we went to the local shelters to meet a few.

What I found were sweet, gentle dogs -- almost all of whom were completely unaware that their 45 lbs bodies were not really the right size to be 'lap dogs'. And they licked.  A lot. Pretty much exactly what all of the respectable websites tell you.

And that is how I went from having a negative, stereotyped image of 'pit bulls', to being an advocate for them....just like the writer of the other story...and just like many others like me.

It is human nature to fear the unknown. We fear the dark, because we can't tell what's out there. We fear going into caves, because we can't see what's inside. We often fear taking a new job, moving to a new city, or going to new places because we fear what we don't know.

It's a natural reaction.

My experience is that most people who think they are afraid of 'pit bulls' have limited, or zero, experience being around these types of dogs. They may know what they've read in the newspaper, or heard from friends, but they really don't know much about the dogs. In fact, I've never met anyone with much experience with the actual dogs, that has a negative opinion of these types of dogs.

Knowing, breeds understanding -- and knowing eliminates fear.

And as more people are paying positive attention to these dogs, more people are having positive experiences with them....which is how stories like the Matador article get written.  And articles like that, and experiences with dogs like mine, will change how people view these dogs....it's already happening.   This is why more and more people oppose breed specific policies and why more people are supporting these dogs....exposing those who still live in fear as those who usually possess the least amount of experience with them.

If you are one of those people who has a fear of 'pit bulls' -- I strongly encourage you to go to your local shelter or rescue and ask to meet some of them. It will change everything you think you know about the dogs.

Photo Credit: My dogs at Christmas.

Nature vs Nurture, some new science on the matter

Last week, Time magazine had an interesting cover story about an interesting new area of science called Epigenetics.

When people talk about 'pit bulls', there is often a lot of talk about genetics and whether certain types of dogs are genetically predisposed to certain traits that may make them more dangerous to the public.  This inevitably leads to a nature vs nurture discussion.  But the entire conversation may not even be that easy (and that one isn't easy).

Simply put, Epigenetics is based on scientific evidence that shows that nature may be a more powerful factor than we could have ever predicted. Not only can we be shaped by the environment that surrounds us, but historical evidence suggests that powerful environmental conditions can somehow leave an "imprint" on our genetic material that can then be transferred to future generations.  Environmental factors like diet, stress and prenatal nutrition can not only affect how our genes are expressed, but can affect future generations as well.

In his upcoming book, "The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've been Told Abut Genetics, Talent and IQ Is Wrong", science writer David Shenk calls epigentics a "new paradigm" that "reveals how bankrupt the phrase 'nature vs nurture' really is."

At this point, it seems unlikely that epigenetics would change how we emotionally react to certain events, it may affect how we physically react (sweaty palms, higher heart rate, etc).

The science itself is pretty new -- and most of its applications have been focuses seemingly on cancer research -- so it would be mere speculation on what impact epigenetics really has on canines in one way or the other.  However, one thing would seem pretty evident -- and that's the tremendous diversity that would exist within a particular breed of dog. Not only would dogs be a product of their genetics, and of their environment - -but also products of the specific environment of previous generations.  It also seems to point at an increased need for officials to focus on animal abuse and cruelty for long-term public safety concerns.

It will be interesting to see how this new area of science evolves over time, but it seems all the more reason that we need to be treating dogs as individuals -- uniquely shaped by their own genes, environment, and the environment of their parents -- with their own specific attitudes and behaviors. It's not just an opinion...it's science.

You can read the Time Magazine article here-- it's easily the most readable information on the topic I've found for non-scientists.

Has 'paranoia of dogs' gone too far?

Two 'pit bulls' in Crawford County, MI are on death row -- but not for reasons you might suspect.

It seems that six months ago, a man, James Gardiner was riding his bike near the residence where the dogs lived.  Somehow the dogs got loose and approached Gardner in a manner in which he felt threatened -- he jumped off his bike, put his bike between himself and the dogs, and squirted water at the dogs.  After about 10 minutes of squirting the dogs with water to keep them away, the dogs' owners came out, called the dogs, and the dogs went home.  The dogs never bit or touched him.

Gardiner says he felt fortunate that he was uninjured and when he pressed charges, a judge agreed and ordered the dogs to be euthanized -- calling them "dangerous animals" in his ruling.

The dog's owners, Ken and Dawn Minard, have appealed the decision.  This is the first ever complaint about the dogs and the dogs have never bitten anyone. The dogs have been evaluated by two different trainers -- one called the dogs "extremely loving and not aggressive in any way" -- while a second one said the dogs "have shown some very dangerous behavior patterns". Huh?  Wow. Not sure how two trainers can get completely different indications of the two dogs.That said, the second trainer said he believed that almost all dogs are dangeorus if let free in the community. Wow. Uh, no. Not that they SHOULD be allowed to roam free in the community, but by and large, most dogs would be fine in such a situation.

So the dogs await the decision on the appeal as it goes to circuit court.

And all of this begs the question -- has the paranoia about dog bites gone too far?  Seems very much like the answer is yes. 

Sure, the owners were neglegent in somehow letting their dogs run loose. And one of the things that many dogs do when loose is chase people on bicycles (as a kid, I had a newspaper route for about 3 years, and I can attest to many dogs chasing me while I was on my bike).  But euthanizing a dog over something that is not a bite situation in any way?  Ridiculous.

It would also be naive to not think the breed of dog involved is playing a role in not only Gardiner's opinion of the whether or not the dog was aggressive, but also the judge's decision to rule to euthanize the dogs. Would Labrador Retrievers who did the same thing be sentenced to death? Most likely no.

So here we have two dogs, on death row, for essentially being off leash and a huge paranoia over dogs. Sigh.  It really has gone too far folks.

Repeat after me: Most dogs don't bite. Of the small percentage of dogs that do bite, most are very minor. This goes for dogs of all breeds.

Let's get a grip on reality. Fine the owners for running at large. Even mandate that the dogs go to a training class if you want.  But death?  Ridiculous.

There's an online petition set up for these dogs if you would like to sign. There are nearly 1000 signatures already there so you can add to the list. But let's stop the paranoia before it gets any worse....because really, it's already gone too far.

2009 - A year in review. Have we finally reached a Tipping Point?

I may regret saying this, but I really feel like we've reached a tipping point. Major events at the end of 2008 carried over into some major wins in 2009. I really feel like people are starting to "get it" when it comes to 'pit bulls', BSL, No Kill, and responsible pet ownership. We're not out of the woods yet, but I feel like  an end goal of a No Kill nation is becoming inevitable -- and this includes the senseless killing of dogs based on how they look. This year has been marked with success stories, positive press for 'pit bulls', shelters that have decreased killing, BSL repeals, cities that have been approached with BSL and have opted, instead for behavior-based ordinances and anti-pet political figures removed from office. According to a recent poll by Parade Magazine showed that 76% of people do not support breed bans.  We're making progress.

With that, let's look at the year's top stories.

January

Los Angeles released their euthanasia figures to show a 24% increase in euthanasia following the passing of their law mandating spay/neuter for all pets. LA's numbers have mirrored the failures of MSN laws in virtually all parts of the US and have helped people to understand the failure of this type of legislation.

February

Following major backlash from the animal welfare community for their efforts to kill all dogs confiscated from dog fighting rings, and after a meeting with representatives from Best Friends and BAD RAP in Las Vegas, HSUS changed its official policy on dogs confiscated from dog fighting busts. Now, HSUS agrees that each dog should be treated as an individual and their ability to be rehabilitated should be based on the individual dog's behavior. The overarching themes here is that each dog is an individual, and should be evaluated as such AND these dogs are worth saving. The news became "official" in April.

Westland, MI repealed its Breed Specific Ordinance and instead focused on irresponsible dog owners. Their council spokesperson noted that most dog owenrs of all breeds are responsible, but their problems come from the small number of owners that are irresponsible.

Calgary, AB announced their 2008 statistics and noted that in spite of large growth in the city over the past 25 years, in 2008, they recorded the lowest number of aggressive dog incidents they'd had in over 25 years. Calgary's breed neutral policies continue to be a role model for others across North America.

Kansas City, MO approved contracting out their animal shelter work to a group of private citizens.

March

Greenwood, MO Repealed its 20-year old law that banned 'pit bulls' from the community.

A Florida judge ruled that Miami-Dade County's ban on "pit bulls' is "too vague" because of the difficulties of breed identification. Miami Dade is still enforcing their law -- I'm assuming based on appealing the judge's decision.

Italy repealed its ban on specific breeds of dogs.  At one time Italy had 92 banned breeds, now, they have zero. Accoridng to their Health Undersecretary: "The measures adopted in previous laws had no scientific foundation. Dangerous breeds do not exist."

The Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs, a group made up of Veterinary, Shelter, Animal Control and Rescue Organizations throughout Colorado released a study of dog bites throughout Colorado that noted that dogs were very safe and circumstances, not breeds, were responsible for dog attacks. The study was also very critical (with statistics) of Denver's breed ban.

April

Ed Boks, the controversial figure at LA Animal Control, announced his resignation. Boks had come under fire for a variety of failings including increased euthanasia following the passing of their Mandatory Spay/Neuter law and temporarily discontinuing offering their low cost spay/neuter vouchers.

The dogs confiscated from Mike Vick's Bad Newz Kennels continued their national tour to show people exactly how great 'pit bulls' can be and how they have rebounded from the horrible situation they were in and become household pets -- ESPN's E:60 had an update on the dogs.

Kansas City area politicians were up for re-election and many dog-unfriendly candidates were voted out of office -- and many good politicians were electd in their place.

May

A Colorado Appellate Court Judge reversed a decision to dismiss a lawsuit against the city of Denver.  The suit has been revived that they can proceed in their case that Denver's breed ban is irrational. This marks one of multiple lawsuits against the city over the years that continue to be costly to the city to defend a law that even its proponents can't prove is working.

In Lakewood, OH, a military veteran ended up moving out of town after being repeatedly harrassed by  authorities over his dog -- who they thought looked like a 'pit bull' that was banned from the community. The dog was not (DNA tests confirmed it), but Leonard Shelton and his dog Roscoe moved from the city anyway -- again showing the ridiculousness of BSL.

The first ever No Kill Conference was held in Washington DC at the George Washington School of Law. It was an excellent conference and was awesome to see hundreds of people from around the country come together to learn the tricks of the trade to ending shelter killing in this country.  Here's an overview of one of the sessions I attended on Temp Testing and Rehabilitation.

June

The Indianapolis city council voted against breed specific mandatory spay/neuter that was modeled after legislation in Little Rock and Kansas City -- legislation that led to a 44% increase in 'pit bulls' killed in the shelter in the first 6 months of the year.

Best Friends launched its new cost of BSL calculator that shows the average cost a city can expect if they have to pass and enforce BSL based on national averages. Obviously there is a wide range of expenses involved, but it is no doubt extremely expensive and time consuming for cities to enforce.

Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN both announced the early results of their new breed-neutral ordinances that targeted irresponsible pet owners -- both cities have seen a lot of early success with their breed neutral approaches.

July

A few months after Mike Vick got out of prison after serving time for crimes related to his dog fighting operation, Vick was reinstated into the NFL. It was pretty amazing to watch organizations like the NFL and Humane Society of the US open their arms up to Mike Vick following the reports of the awful things that he was a part of.

Law officials in Lakewood, OH were at it again after video images of them tasering a barking dog were picked up by the news station -- the barking dog was a white Boxer, and the officers thought the dog was a 'pit bull'. This dog owner ended up becoming the second dog owner to move out of the city of Lakewood following constant harrassment from police there about her non-pit bull dog.

The AVMA launched a new report showing the inaccuracy of visual breed identification even among shelter works.

A new book was published -- a Lawyer's Guide to Dangerous Dog Issues that could change how the legal profession views canine legislation.

Authorities across 8 midwestern states seized over 500 dogs from what quickly became the largest dog fighting bust in U.S. history. While the bust itself was historic, saving these animals from their horrible situations, the aftermath has been equally historic -- including the reality that all of the dogs were given fair evaluations to determine whether or not they were suitable for rehabilitation. Most were.  Again, these dogs, the victims on the crimes, are worth saving, and the public spoke up loudly in support of these dogs. This case will come up again later.

August

Oak Harbor, WA repealed their breed specific regulations -- noting that because of the difficulty of determining breed based on visual identification was "almost impossible" - and noted that it wouldn't take much of a legal defense to challenge. The city opted for a behavior based ordinance to replace their breed specific one. The ordinance was officially repealed in November.

Best Friends' John Garcia was on Larry King with Georgia -- one of the dogs best friends is caring for from Mike Vick's Bad Newz Kennels. The road show of how great, and adaptive these dogs can be continued to be on display.

The early results from the first 6 months of Omaha's breed specific ordinance came in -- and showed a 37% increase in dog bites for the first half of the year.

Denver began discussions of a possible repeal of their ban on 'pit bulls' as the costs from multiple lawsuits continue to mount.

September

More pressure in Denver about their existing breed ban.

HSUS and Maddies Fund joined forces with the Ad Council to launch the Shelter Pet Project in an effort to increase shelter adoptions nationwide.

Former Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant -- the person who led the charge to ban 'pit bulls' in the provence -- was arrested after killing a man on a bicycle by using his automobile.

October

Groups from around the country participated in the 3rd annual pit bull awareness day. Organizations everywhere are participating in this event and working to improve the image of a type of dog that's image has been tarnished over the years.

Best Friends held their second No More Homeless Pets Conference in Las Vegas - -Best Friends seems to be (mostly) embracing the No Kill movement and their conference provided more than 600 peopl a good education on the "best of" in sheltering and legislation from around the country.

Scheleswig-Holstein, one of 16 German states, repealed their ban on "pit bulls' as it was found not suitable for improving public safety.

The Supreme Court heard a 1st Amendment case in a case involving Robert Stevens. Stevens is charged with the sale of videos depicting dog fighting, and the question is whether or not Dog Fighting videos are protected under the first amendment of the US Constitution. If it is not, it would be the first class of videos that are not protected under the 1st Amendment since 1982 when child pornography was ruled as not protected.

November

Revised numbers from the UK show that their ban on four breeds of dogs has been disasterous when it comes to public safety -- with overall dog attacks being up 40% over the past decade.

A new bill in Ontario was announced that, if passed, would repeal BSL in Ontario.

After nearly a year of public pressure, Tom Skeldon resigned as the Lucas County Dog Warden. Pressure over his treatment of pit bulls, the high kill rate at the shelter, and unwillingness to work with rescues became too much for Skeldon to overcome. Skeldon's last day as the kill-master at the Lucas County shelter was December 31st. Skeldon, who has long been the loan "expert" that has spoken in favor of BSL around the country wasn't even deemed worthy by the citizens in his own community to run his own shelter.

The ASPCA in New York killed a dog named Oreo. Oreo had undergone several surgeries to repair wounds from being thrown off the roof of a building in New York by his obviously abusive owner. While Oreo had some reported "aggression issues", a group name Pets Alive, a sanctuary group that specializes in dogs with behavioral issues, offered to take in  Oreo, but the ASPCA killed Oreo instead. The unnecessary 'euthanasia' has led many group sto support a law called "Oreo's Law" that would mandate that if a shelter was willing to take a dog from another shelter then that shelter would have to release the dog vs euthanasizing it.

Puerto Rico repealed its ban on 'pit bulls' that has been in effect since 1998.

The head of the Memphis animal shelter was fired after a horrific abuse case came to light as a young puppy was brought in as a healthy puppy, and 3 weeks later died from starvation.

BSL Advocates around the country were rightfully voted out of office in amazing fashion on election night -- showing once again the power of animal welfare advocates have at the polls. In Whitehall, OH, Jaquelin Thompson was voted out in a recall vote and Leslie LaCorte, who supported a breed ban, was voted out of office in favor of a new candidate. In Sioux City, IA, advocates of the city's breed ban Jim Rixner was voted out of office.

December

A proposed breed ban in Hot Springs, AR died quickly when the city council person who proposed the ban could not even get a second for the proposal. A city council chamber full of opponents cheered the non-legsilation.  This was is a reflection of the type of dismissal breed specific legislation saw nationally this year.

Some great publicity in Time Magazine about the 500 dogs from the summer dog-fighting ring bust and the efforts by the Humane Society of Missouri (not HSUS) to help these dogs - provided a great picture of just how far 'pit bulls' have come in the past few years.

HSUS sent out a newsletter hoping to raise $1 million for dogs "like Faye" who were victims of the largest dog fighting bust in US History. However, HSUS was not caring for Fay, or any of the other dogs from that bust. After a huge outcry from the public on their disingenuous fundraising efforts, that were not only misleading, but also taking donations away from the small, local rescue groups that WERE caring for these bust dogs, HSUS bucked up $5,000 of the $1 million they hoped to raise to pay for one of Fay's surgeries. HSUS gave no money to any of the other dogs being helped by small rescue groups.

So, as you can see, we've had a really great year -- with a LOT of progress being made in so many areas.  Congrats on a great 2009 -- let's look to build on this in 2010.

Other year-in-reviews:

A Banner Year -- from Nathan Winograd

Five people in 2009 Doghouse -- Change.org's Animal Welfare Blog

The Year of the Pit Bull - Change.org's Animal Welfare Blog

The Best Decade Ever - Winograd

Friday's Assorted Links

Some good reads out there that I want to pass along to you in case you have down time on a Friday or over the weekend.

It looks like Malcolm Gladwell has a new book coming out - you can pre-buy it here-- a collection of many of his articles that he has written for the New Yorker over the years. I'm thrilled that Troublemakers has made the list of articles they've decided to include.  Troublemakers is a great article from 2006 in which Gladwell takes an analytical view of 'pit bulls'.  The book is named after an article that he did on Ceasar Milan entitled "What the dog saw" which I remember liking as well.  Gladwell is a brilliant writer and it will be great to have Troublemakers included in a book that is likely to become a national best-seller.   If you've never read Troublemakers, click the link and spend the time with the article.

Winograd has a great blog posting from yesterday about shelters denying potential adopters with Good Homes Need Not Apply.  The post starts with a touching tale of a couple who came to the shelter to get a cat a year after their cat of 15 years passed away -- and why they were declined by the shelter 15 years later.  Here's a clip:

 Unfortunately, too many shelters go too far with fixed, arbitrary rules—dictated by national organizations—that turn away good homes under the theory that people aren’t trustworthy, that few people are good enough, and that animals are better off dead.

I've often joked that I would have a difficult time actually adopting a dog from the rescue organization I regularly foster for....and this post hits the nail on the  head of a lot of reasons why.

The final article is one that Winograd posted a couple of weeks ago on Forcing Transparency. The article was written by Kate Neiswender, an attorney who presented at Winograd's No Kill Conference in Washington DC in May. I've been meaning to post a recap for 3 months now -- so I at least get to take that off my to-do list.  The article is a great look at State Public Records Laws (Freedom of Information Laws, Sunshine Laws) and how to use them in order to get information on shelter killing, dog bites, spending, etc to hold cities accountable for their animal control/sheltering services and for laws that are designed to "increase public safety" that often don't.  For too long, these groups have gone relatively unchecked by the public and it is time we begin to hold them accountable.  Our country has a beautiful system of open records laws that make this information open information for the general public...and knowing how to use the information is extremely important. So go check out that as well.

Have a great weekend.

A historical view of dangerous dogs in the United States

Karen Delise has a great new post over at the NCRC about the history of dog attacks in this country, the breeds of  dogs involved, and how the media reported the attacks.  The post is essentially an overview of her book, the Pit Bull Placebo, but is a great shortened version of the book for people without the dedication to read the book.

In the article, Karen notes that the late 1880s, the most feared type of dog was the bloodhound. Similar to pit bulls now, bloodhounds represented a large grouping of multiple breeds of dogs -- and their "ferocity" was played out by the media to creat the certain fears. Stage productions such as the The Tom Shows, and in books like Sherlock Holmes' Hound of the Baskervilles, showed the dogs in a negative light and led to their being feared.

Over time, order was restored, and people began focusing more on what caused attacks vs breeds of dogs that were responsible. Several different examples were given.

Meanwhile, during the time from1959 to 1979, none of the dog bite or fatal dog attack studies make any mention of either pit bulls or rottweilers. Neither of these breeds were popular in the use of guarding or for negative functions at the time, and the breeds most often used for these functions were German Shepherds, Great Danes and Dobermans. And in fact, during this period, these were the breeds often feared -- with misinformation abounding about them (remember the ridiculous myth that because Doberman's had smallish heads, as they matured and their brains grew their brains would press against their skull and eventually cause them to "snap" without cause?  Sound at all familiar to anyone?)

In the decade of 1965-1975, less than 2% of all fatal dog attacks in the United States were attributed to either a  pit bul, a pit bull type dog or a Rottweiler. 

Then in the late 1980s, media hysteria grew about a type of dog that was used by a small, violent sub-culture who were using for dogfighting purposes -- that came to a head mediawise in July 1987 when four major magazines contained articles about 'pit bulls'.  Some of the stories contained some innaccurate information in them abot the dogs -- and many of the myths from these stories still exist today, in spite of so much information available that proves it to be false.

The publicity, and the fear surrounding these dogs then created demand for them among people who wanted dogs for negative functions and for guarding....and with that, their involvement in more major attacks.

And so we have the cycle that we are in right now -- where the people who want dogs for guarding or negative functions are gravitating toward a few particular types of dog. And now, the public fears these breeds of dogs - -not much different than Bloodhounds in the 1880s.  So these are the stories picked up by the media.  The difference now is the wide availability of information with the internet where every story written in a local newspaper anywhere is available almost instantly to any person anywhere in the world.  And so the hysteria continues.

But let's make no mistake. There is nothing crazy-different about these dogs. There is no dangerous DNA in them, or certainly we would not have gone through several decades of dog bite studies with them barely represented.  They are just merely a breed of dog that due to the cycle of human emotions and hysteria that has become the victim of our irrational fears.  And this is why attempts to ban the breeds has not been met with success -- because it was never the dog's breed in the first place.  It was the owners -- and how they intended to use the dogs that was. And unless we focus on dog ownership issues, the cycle will continue, but in 30 years we'll be talking about entirely different breeds of dogs that need to be banned becaus of their supposed genetic predisposition to attack.

None of which will be true...just like it isn't now.

How important is breed history, really?

History is something that people talk about a lot when it comes to pit bulls. You don't have to look far.

-- "Pit Bulls were bred to fight."

-- "Pit Bulls were bred to be dog aggressive (but not human aggressive)".

-- "Pit bulls have an aggression gene that makes them more likely to attack."

-- "Pit bulls have been bred for hundreds of years to attack other dogs, you just can't take that out of them."

These ideas are prevelent.  You will see them in the comments section almost any time there is a story in a newspaper about a dog bite online (even if a pit bull isn't involved).  You can certainly read all about it from people who want to use this information as a reason to ban these dogs -- or even make them extinct.  Heck, you will even see it on a large number of rescue websites.

But are they true statements? I mean, really?

Does the history of the breed really determine their current behavior -- in as much as, even if there is an "aggression gene" (there's not), have the traits that these dogs were originally bred for predetermined the behavior of all American Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers in the wold today?

The history of 'pit bulls' is fairly well documented (although there is a ton of really inaccurate stuff out there). If you aren't familiar, I think Diane Jessup's history stuff is about as good a read as any. And yes, there is history in there about the dogs being used for bull baiting and after bull baiting was made illegal, dog fighting.  I have no doubts that dogs that were good at these tasks were bred to produce offspring that would, hopefully, be good at said task.  The history is undeniable.

But that was almost 200 years ago. How relevant is this information to us now?

In 1835, the United Kingdom enacted the Cruelty to Animals Act that banned a lot of things -- including dog fighting. Meanwhile, across the pond, dog fighting became illegal in most US states in the 1860s, although enforcement was initially lax. Dog fighting was pretty far underground by the 1930s and 1940s in the U.S., as Humane Organizations fought against dog fighting and mainstream animal groups like the UKC pulled their support of the activity.

In 1936, the AKC established the breed of the American Staffordshire Terrier as non-fighitng dogs to differenentiate the dogs from the American Pit Bull Terriers.

So, since 1936, very few American Staffordshire Terriers have been used for dog fighting -- as they were created with the express purpose of NOT fighting.

And for at least the past 70 years, most of the American Pit Bull Terriers have been bred by people with the intention of NOT using them for fighting (not that all of them were BEFORE the 1930s, but certainly after that point) as the law, and canine organizations frowned on the activity.

So if there were genetic characteristics that made 'pit bulls' more prone toward aggression toward other dogs, how long would it take for such a gene to no longer exist through selective breeding.

Prior to around 1900, most dogs were bred with some purpose in mind. People needed dogs for tasks around the home - -often for protection, hunting, getting rid of rodents, etc. In fact, if you look at the breed history of most older breeds, almost all of them were initially bred for the express purpose to either chase, kill, herd or protect something.

However, over the past century as human kind has move from living on farms to living in cities, dogs have changed their role in our lives and moved from living in our barns, to living in our homes.   And over the past couple of decades, from living in our homes, to sleeping in our beds.

Over this time, the need to selectively breed dogs for traits that make them good at tasks has not been the main focus for most breeders -- vs breeding dogs based on things like looks and temperament.

Over this time, lines of dogs have split. While a few lines of dogs remain for their original working purpose, many lines have become much more focused on "pet quality" dogs.  And with that, most of these "pet" dogs have become virtually worthless at the original tasks they were originally bred to perform.

Ask any hunter whether they would be interested in buying a Beagle or Cocker Spaniel from a pet store and they may look at you like you are insane. The difference between the drive, endurance and tenacity of the working lines of these dogs and the "pet" lines of these dogs makes one very valuable as a hunter and the other virtually worthless at it.   In turn, a good hunting dog probably won't make a good pet for your average suburban family.

And over time, we have become really comfortable with most breeds of dogs becoming better "pets" than workers....because outside of a few people out there, most of us don't care if the dog is all that good of a "worker". 

Here is a list of just a few breeds, and some of the functions they were orginally bred for:

The Chinese Shar Pei:  Guarding, protecting, dog fighting

English Bulldogs: Bull baiting, dog fighting

Boxers: Dog fighting, holding down large game like wild boars and bison

Dachshunds:  Crawl into badger holes and fight and kill badgers

Poodles: Water retrievers

Miniature Poodles: Truffle hunting

Rhodesian Ridgebacks: Hunting lions

Weimaraner: Hunting wolves, deer and beer

Now when you look at the former tasks of these dogs, it is almost impossible to think of dogs of our friends and neighbors as fullfilling these tasks. But they used to.  And now the vast majority of the dogs in these groups, like most dogs, are just pets.

It's just really interesting to me that when it comes to the American Pit Bull Terrier, people assume that its history will instantly cause it to attack another dog or person.  Yet we never look at a Poodle and instantly think well, that dog is instantly going to retrieve birds in the water or would be excellent at finding truffles or that a Dachsund is going to instantly crawl down in a hole and kill the next badger it sees. 

It doesn't quite work that way. And science is helping us determine why.

In some new research that is being done -- in part by Scientist Dee Denver - - many scientists now believe that genetic mutation occurs at a rate of 10x what scientists previously thought. In "nature", even though many mutations can improve an organism's chance for survival, most mutations are detrimental to to long-term survival -- thus, within a few generations, the mutation would be eliminated due to natural selection.  In nature, if a dog's genes mutated in a way that would make them lesser of fighters, or hunters, they would likely die off because they would be unable to survive.

But our dogs don't live in nature. They live in homes. And as such, these changes can happen and not have a negative impact on the well-being of a dog because our dogs don't have to fight to survive.  In pet quality dogs, there is little "natural selection".  Behaviors are able to change very quickly.

So, how important of a role does history play in current temperaments of pit bull type dogs?

Changes in genetics can happen very quickly...and the VAST majority of these dogs have not been used for the purpose of dog fighting for at least 30 years, and most haven't been used for this purpose in 70+ years.   The fact that all of this "fighting" talk is ancient history (in dog years) for the majority of dogs is a major reason why 99.9% of them won't bite -- which wouldn't be the case if they were genetically predisposed to attack. 

So why are we still talking about breed history as if it is a predetermining factor in a dog's behavior?

HSUS Changes Policy on dogs seized from Fight Busts

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

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

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

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

Yay.  And it's about time.

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

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

Best Friends has the Press Release here.

Even Wayne Pacelle has issued the statement on his blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

YesBiscuit is asking some tough questions.

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

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

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

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

And that is very powerful indeed.

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