KC DOG BLOG

KCMO Incenting ACO's to Seize Pets

Some of our folks over at KC Dog Advocates just released some news last night about some very disturbing news coming out of Kansas City, MO animal control. While some progress is being made in adopting out animals with the newly privatized KCMO shelter, some new animal control policies are going to make things even harder.

Here's the scoop:

On August 1st, the animal control department in Kansas City, MO implemented a new policy when it comes to evaluating their field officers. Effective now, animal control officers in KCMO will be required to issue a minimum of 15 summonses and impound a minimum of 20 animals per month.   

These minimum standards are being used as a management tool to address Animal Control Officers (ACOs) who are not performing their duties.  Getting GPS devices installed in the trucks was also considered but there was no room in the budget. 

With 18 full time field officers, 20 animals per month is a minimum of 360 animals per month (4,320 per year) that will be brought into the shelter.

Through July 21^st of 2009, Animal Control had impounded 4,137 animals – of those 1,636 of them were killed in the shelter.  With 1 out of every 3 animals that enters the shelter being killed, any increase in pets coming into the shelter – along with the new shelter management’s decision to increase fees for recovering an animal from the shelter during the biggest economic crisis of our lives -- will undoubtedly lead to an increase in kill rates in KCMO. 

We’re making too much progress to allow this to happen.

While yes, animal control needs to pick up stray animals, and animals that are suffering from cruelty/neglect, 384 animals (most marked as healthy, normal seeming animals) were confiscated in the first ½ of this year for basic (non-aggressive) animal control ordinance violations – nearly 3x the number (134) that were prosecuted for cruelty/neglect. We at KCDA keep hearing stories of animals getting confiscated from owners due to inadequate housing (even though Spay/Neuter Kansas City’s outreach program has free dog houses available to needy families), animals confiscated from owners because they are not altered under the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit bulls, and others that are confiscated because they cannot afford the fine associated with having not licensed their dog.

The new evaluation criteria will further increase the number of animals needlessly taken from homes for minor animal control violations.  Just this weekend numerous well fed, up-to-date on shots, altered cats were seized for nothing more than being over the city’s pet limit of four animals. For each of these cats that entered the shelter this past weekend, others in the shelter died to make room for them. This isn’t an acceptable option.

Instead of rewarding animal control officers for creating good outcomes for the owners and animals by offering assistance when needed or for scanning for microchips in the field so animals can get back home, the rewards system is now put in place to encourage animal control officers to bring animals back to the shelter where a large percentage of them end up dying.

If we are to seriously decrease the number of animals killed in our shelters, we must not only work on adoptions on the back end, but also on lowering the amount of dogs coming into the shelter whenever possible on the front end. This evaluation system runs counter to that goal.

Instead of evaluating officers on how many animals they bring in, how about these for better options for evaluating the quality of work for ACOs:

-- The number of low cost spay/neuter vouchers they have redeemed at Spay/Neuter Kansas City

-- The number of unvaccinated animals that get updated shots at low-cost shot clinics

-- The number of cruelty/neglect cases prosecuted

-- The number of animals without proper shelter that they were able to get proper shelter for using already-existing relationships with Spay/Neuter Kansas City’s Outreach program

-- The number of pet owners they got to license currently unlicensed animals

All would be far better alternatives to the current program...

We cannot continue incentivize animal control officer actions that unnecessarily lead to the increase in killing in our shelters. While animal control has a role and responsibility to get animals out of abusive and neglectful situations, and needs to do work to pick up truly stray dogs, there must be an emphasis on getting pets back into their rightful homes, and to keep them in their homes when possible. ACOs that have already proven themselves inept should be fired.  They should not be encouraged to go out and pick the low hanging fruit in order to meet some arbitrary quota.  Being rewarded for behavior that leads to more killing is a completely unacceptable form of ‘management”.

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

So how about it?  What other incentive/performance goals make sense to monitor ACO activity without encouraging them to take pets and bring them into the shelter? Please post some of your best ideas.

Modeling ordinances that work

It happens quite a bit. There is a dog bite in a community. People start saying "something needs to be done" to prevent this from happening again. Cities talk about what to do. Someone mentions banning breeds. Talk circles and people begin taking sides. 

The reality is that we're all on the same side on this. People want to feel safe. Even when they say they want to ban a breed, what they are really saying is, I want to be safe -- they just may not have enough information to determine that what they say they want, is the solution to what they really want.  Which is why it is imperative that city leaders work really hard to not only model ordinances that have been done in other communities -- but to model ordinances that actually have WORKED to improve public safety.

Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN faced this situation two years ago.  At the time, 7 year old Zachary King, Jr. was killed by a 'pit bull' that was chained up in the basement of the family's home. After much debate, both cities decided against breed specific legislation -- and opted to go toward a breed neutral approach that focused on dog owners, not dog breeds.

I'm going to focus a bit more on the Minneapolis law here because I can find the exact wording (64.110) online, but I believe that both city's laws are essentially similar.  In Minneapolis, they focused on creating two designations for "aggressive" dogs -- "Dangerous" and "Potentially Dangerous". 

"Potentially Dangerous" dogs are dogs that, while unprovoked, inflict some type of minor injury on a person or domestic animal, or has a "known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked."

"Dangerous" dogs are ones that have inflicted fairly substantial wounds.

Each designation comes with its own set of criteria for keeping the dog.

I like this ordinance for several reasons:

1) It does allow concerned neighbors to call about dogs they feel are aggressive even before a bite has occurred -- providing a preventative measure of animal control  instead of an entirely reactive one. However, the restrictions are very doable for the average dog owner if their dog is declared "potentially dangerous" even before a bite. And as their own test has shown, 'dangerous' dogs can come in a variety of breeds, with 9 different breeds being represented among the 11 dogs declared 'dangerous' under the law. (Editor's note: their listing only has 8 different breeds listed, but I completely think they failed the breed ID on the "Black German Shepherd" so I made it 9). There are 96 different breeds of dogs between the two cities that have made the 'potentially dangerous" list -- with the most popular breeds being the ones with the most listed.

2) It allows protection for the dog owner because it has a built-in appeals process -- so that no one can become a victim of a vindictive neighbor and have their dog declared "potentially dangerous" unjustly.

3) It allows for an annual appeal process -- so owners that have a dog declared potentially dangerous can go through training classes, get their dog over its hurdles, and get the potentially dangerous designation lifted -- thus rewarding the type of behavior we want in dog owners.

*Olathe, KS has a similarly worded ordinance that they enacted in 2005 and is one that we promote a lot here locally.

Minneapolis also added a law that prohibited dogs that were declared dangerous (based on behavior) from being owned at all by violent felons or by people who violated the restrictions put on the dogs.

St. Paul also passed an additional ordinance that stated that if someone had a dog removed twice within a five year period they would no longer be allowed to own dogs. This "three strikes and you're out" principle (although it's two here) is something we've pushed for here in Kansas City as it would allow them to deal with folks like someone who has had 18 dogs removed from his property in the past 6 years because of cruelty and they just continue repeating the cycle with the owner

 So how have the results been? In 2008, the first full year under the ordinance, Minneapolis saw bites decline by 12%, from 411 in 2007 to 360 in 2008. While exact numbers weren't given in St. Paul, their head of animal control says their bite numbers are also falling.

Compare this to cities like San Francisco, or Council Bluffs, or Aurora, CO, who went with breed specific regulations and all saw an increase in dog bites following the passing of the law.

So when we look at providing what we all want -- public safety -- it is imperative that we, as communities, look to cities that have ordinances that are actually proving to be affective at delivering public safety.  Fortunately, more and more cities are taking this smarter, more effective, breed neutral approach. With these policies, animal control officers are able to focus on problem dogs and dog owners, regardless of breed, and ONLY those dogs that are posing problems -- instead of wasting time focusing on dogs of a targeted breed that are causing no problems whatsoever and with no tools to focus on problem dogs of non-targeted breeds.

It only makes sense.

The entire story from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on their ordinances can be found here.

New State laws are a reflection of canine policy moving in the right direction

We are nearing the end of the legislative session in most states, and a lot of states are passing some solid animal ownership laws, and deciding against some of the policies that have proven to be bad policy. While none of these policies is perfect, they at least are movements in the right direction because they are focusing on a) actual causes of dog bites, b) irresponsible pet owners and c) policies that have proven themselves to be effective.  I haven't read all of the wording of each of these laws, so if folks in these areas have read the entire laws, I'd love to hear your takes on them. But at least, on their face, they appear to be steps in the right direction toward how we deal with canine laws.

Here are a few of the policies and some pros and cons (mostly pros) of the passed state laws:

Nevada Anti-Tethering Law -- passed

The Law, SB 132, makes Nevada the 3rd state to specifically limit the number of hours a dog can be tethered or chained each day. Beginning October 1, 2009, a dog cannot be chained for more than 14 hours a day and a tether has to be at least 12' long. 

The good: most professional organizations that deal in canine behavior admit that tethering as a sole form of containment often leads to canines that are undersocialized and can lead to frustration which can build to aggression.  The statistics show that a fairly large number of major bites and attacks occur with dogs that either bite people that approach (often unwary children) or break free from their tethers and attack.  I think overall, minimizing the amount of time and the way a dog can be tethered is a good way to improve overall public safety.

The bad: I still worry about what happens to dogs that's owners are in violation of the law. Are they immediately confiscated to where they end up in the overcrowded shelter system where death is a likely option? Are there programs set up for low-income owners who cannot afford fencing and their landlord will not allow the dogs inside the rental home?  The devil is in the details with these as while I support the idea of laws that limit the amount of time a dog is tethered, I am always concerned about not creating situations where unware owners with good intentions lose their dogs, or where the laws are used as an excuse to confiscate animals that end up dead in our shelters. I'm not a believer that being on a chain (for most dogs) is a "fate worse than death".  If these laws can be enforced in a way that allows for the vast majority of dog owners -- even those with a first-time violation -- to keep their dogs, I'm in favor. If the laws are used to increase the number of animals killed in shelters, I am not.  I would prefer that any anti-tethering law preclude seizure for first time offenders.

Illinois "vicious dog" bill - passed

This bill  prohibit  people convicted of  violent or drug-related felonies from owning an unaltered dog for up to 10 years after being released from prison. It also prevents them from owning any dog legally declared vicious based on its behavior. Felons who are covered under the law include those that have been convicted of the sale or production of methamphetamine, marijuana, other drugs, deadly weapons offenses and dog fighting offenses.

The Good:  A lot of bad policies are created in an attempt to eliminate dog fighting and the use of protection dogs for drug houses. This type of law will put restrictions on people who would be considered 'high risk' of running illegal operations in the future, including owning dangerous or fighting dogs.  While some states have tried to pass similar laws to preclude any dog ownership to people who fall into this category, I think that this actually undermines the effectiveness of a lot of good prison dog programs where dogs are used to help many prisoners develop compassion and for rehabilitation before they are released. I think these programs are too valuable to undermine. But allowing them to own any dog, of any breed, as long as it is sterilized, is a good way to provide limitations on high risk dog owners, without undermining good, successful rehabilitation programs.

The Bad:  I don't see a lot of downside to a law like this, except I don't think anyone who has been convicted of felony animal cruelty or felony dog fighting should be allowed to own dogs again and that might be a way to tighten this law up in the future.

Nebraska Dangerous Dog Law -- passed

This law essentially is the three strikes law that targets habitually irresponsible dog owners. If a dog owner owns a dog that is responsible for a 2nd attack, the owenr could face up to 1 year in jail and a $1000 fine. If there is a 3rd attack by the owner's dog, the owner could face a felony penalty of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The dog just has to be owned by the same owner, it does not have to be the same dog.

The good: This is certainly targeted toward habitually irresponsible dog owners who repeatedly own dogs that attack. Many times the laws are written to target the dogs, but this one takes the "dog" out of the equation and really targets the owner who is at fault. This could really help get after the very tiny percentage of owners that cause a large part of the problem.

The bad: I don't know how "attack" is defined here. I hope there is some common sense in this definition that doesn't nail someone for having a "nippy" dog that ends up sending someone to jail for a couple of small nips. 

Florida Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill -- Failed

Wisely, the Florida state legislature killed a bill that would have mandated spay/neuter for all pets over the age of four months.  Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have consistently led to an increase in shelter killing and science is indicating that juvenile spay/neuter may create long-term health problems, especially in large breed dogs.  It is great that these bills are falling out of favor at the state level.

It sounds like mostly this legislative session has been a winner for canine laws.  Thoughts?

Miscellanious Stuff

Last week, Hawaii Senate President Colleen Hanabusa introduced a bill to the Senate that would ban all 'pit bulls' from the state. The bill has gotten a lot of headlines over the past couple of weeks, but it doesn't sound like it has much support from the Senate, or even really from the person who proposed the bill.

Hanabusa herself said that the bill was drafted by the request of a constitutent, but that the bill isn't likely to go very far.

"I do not believe that this is a bill that has a high priority, but it's going to be up to the Judiciary Committee chair.  I have not hear of anyone asking or pushing the measure," she said.

According to the newspaper report, pit bumll attacks in Hawaii are infrequent, although the bill was introduced after a pit bull mix killed an infant in her home.

In spite of the infrequent attacks by pit bulls on the islands, it hasn't stopped the media from finding a couple to report on. "Coincidentally" there were two reported bites this week just as the bill was introduced.  Interestingly, the exact same thing happened last week in Montana - -they proposed (and quickly killed) a state-wide ban, and the next day there were two media reports of 'pit bull' bites.  Just doing their part, right?

In spite of a large amount of opposition, Lancaster, CA passed their ordinance mandating the sterilization of all "pit bulls" and Rottweilers this week.  Mayor Rex Parris has spent a lot of the past couple of weeks talking about his desire for this law to combat "gangs". Even during the meeting, many voiced criticisms that the new law could lead to racial profiling that would unfairly accuse black or Latino males seen with a pit bull as gang-bangers.

I posted about this earlier this week, but think it deserves to be noted.

In the 2000 census, Lancaster has about 119,000 residents, 63% of them white (75,000).

In 2008, the city has approximately 147,000 residents, 52% of them white (76,500).

So while the population has grown 25% in the past 8 years (about 30,000 residents), it has come been almost exclusively minorities that have been moving to the city.

I still don't think this law has anything at all to do with dogs....

California Proposition 2

I wasn't going to write about this.  I write a dog blog. Not a blog about farm animals.  Not that I don't care about farm animals, it's just not what I do.

But like many people who care about animals and eat food, I did my due diligence and watched the Oprah show about Proposition 2.  For the most part, I thought the show was well put together -- however, much of her show (and Lisa Ling's on-site reports) were a comparison of factory farms and free range farms. There is obviously a major difference between the two.

Proposition 2 does not mandate that farm animals be free range. The act is merely to: "prohibit the confinement of famr animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around frely, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs."

That kind of got lost on Oprah on Tuesday.

Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the US was on the show -- speaking in favor of the proposition. Wayne was his usual slick self -- and with a few exceptions where he talked over other people -- sounded like his usual cool self.  It is of course hard for him not to sound smart on this one, of course. Most people would agree that animals should be treated humanely and given room to at least turn around -- is that not too much to ask?!?  Meanwhile, Wayne, as a person who spends 2/3 of his life lobbying and in front of cameras is much more polished at public speaking than the farmers who represented the opponents against Proposition 2.

But even after viewing the show, I wasn't going to write about this. This is a dog blog afterall.

But then I read Wayne's blog yesterday with people's comments about the show.

First of all, in the essence of full disclosure, here are the facts about me. I eat meat. I eat eggs and consume dairy products. I DO however have a couple of local farmers who work at our local farmer's market where I buy the vast majority of my animal products who produce food in a way that I find to be humane: Pisciotta Farms and Green Dirt Farms.  We're not perfect about buying from them, but we do for the majority of our needs.  I should also note here that both my paternal and maternal grandparents were farmers.  My dad still raises about 30 head of cattle a year on our 120 acre family farm.

However, I was almost horrified with the comments from the people that wrote into Wayne's blog -- and it was, at the moment of reading the comments, that I felt compelled to write on this topic. So here are my views on the topic:

1) In theory, I completely agree with the stance HSUS is taking with the bill. I do believe animals should be kept in a way that will allow them to stand up, turn around, spread their wings, etc.

2) The reality of passing this law is that food costs WILL go up.  These producers will have to either a) double the size of their operations/barns or b) keep half as many animals as they had before. If the same farmers are producing 1/2 as much food, there is no way that the costs will remain the same.  None. If they have to expand their operation, the cost of the land/barns/etc will be passed along to the consumers.  Food costs WILL go up.

3) I, personally, am fine with that. In the grand scope of everything, one of the reasons the United States is one of the richest countries in the world is because we have developed ways of producing our food very inexpensively.  We basically became a world power because we could produce food very cheaply and sell it to other places. Food here is cheap -- probalby too cheap -- in part because we treat our animals like crap.

4) However, not everyone is as lucky as I am -- or apparently the selfish-assed people who read Wayne's blog and write into it.

5) In 2007, the average Household Income in the state of California was over $50,000. However,  12.7% of Californians, and 18% of children under the age of 18 in California, live below the US  poverty line...which for a family of four is making less than $21,200.

6) I can't even imagine trying to feed a family of four on $21,200 a year. I can't. I remember when I first graduated from college and scraping by on that kind of money -- when it was just me.

7) There are a lot of people who just flat, cannot afford the price of all of their meat, eggs and dairy to go up substainially...including 1 out of every 5 children in the state of California.  And that sucks.

8) I don't blame a person for supporting this bill. In theory, I agree with it.

9) However, I don't want a single person to vote in favor of it without at least considering the people in California that will be severely impacted by a rise in food costs.

With all of that said, it will anger me if this bill passes. Not because the bill would go into effect, because that would be good for the animals. But I'd be mad that there is enough support to pass the bill, and yet, it was necessary.

 For the bill to pass, 50% of the residents of California would have to vote in favor of the bill. If all of these people truly have the desire for animals to be treated a certain way, they would vote, daily, with their pocket book. They would, like I have, choose to do business with farmers that farm with practices that they agree with. If 50% of the people in California did this, there certainly would be a LOT more farmers doing it this way to meet the demand. I have very little tolerance for people who don't want to be inconvenienced by having to go out of their way to buy meat and eggs from the farmers that do things the way they prefer -- yet want the government to do the dirty work for them. Every day these people have the CHOICE to either buy from free range farms, or buy factory farmed products. 

I don't have much appreciation for people who are not willing to inconvience themselves (either due to price or convenience of purchase) for their own preferences...but then want government to legislate in their preferences...and in the process, inconvenience others.

As for how to vote? I'm not going to make a recommendation. I'm personally glad I don't have a vote in this one in the state of California. But I do have a vote here in Kansas City. And every Saturday, you'll see me in line with dozens of other people casting my vote with my wallet with my local, free range, farmers.  And hopefully, when others see the line and "sold out" items on his marquee, they will see the demand and start farming this way also.  My hope is that by the time this comes type of bill comes up in Missouri, that we will have already cast our votes with our wallets...and not need government to make the vote for us. 

Ignoring Societal Problems

  I touched on this one on the weekly roundup on Sunday, but I'm still really bugged by this one and believe it deserves its own segment.

A judge in Hidalgo County, TX is pushing for legislation that would ban 'pit bull' type dogs throughout the state of Texas. Currently, Texas law forbids this type of legislation even at the local level, so getting it pushed through at the state level is a bit of a stretch.

However, Charlie Espinoza believes the government should intervene following the death on June 18 of Pablo Lopez in Weslaco.

To refresh your memory, let me run through the series of events that led to Pablo Lopez's death.

Hidalgo County, TX is a poor, mostly Hispanic county in South Texas. Approximately 36% of the population in Hidalgo County lives below the poverty line, and with a per capita income of $9899, Hidalgo County is the22nd poorest county in the United States.

With high levels of poverty, usually crime follows. And this was the case in the area of Weslaco County. Pablo Lopez lived with his uncle.  His uncle had been a victim of property crimes on several occassions, and called the police for help but they were unable to curb the problem. So out of frustration, Mr. Lopez got two dogs to guard his property.

One day a man walked by the household and the guard dogs went crazy (which is what they were being trained to do).  Young Pablo went out into the back yard, and was attacked by the stirred up dogs and died.

So I would love to ask Charlie Espinoza,  and find out what he thinks the banning pit bulls will solve.  It won't take care of the poverty. It won't take care of the crime. It won't take care of a police force that is apparently not able to curb the crim issues. And won't end the use of dogs as guard dogs.   And it won't solve the problem of young boy's walking up to guard dogs to try to calm them down.

The dogs attacking Pablo Lopez were the end result of a social structure that is failing in Hidalgo County -- like it is in many parts of the United States. You don't solve social structure problems with dog laws.  That's just burying your head in the sand to avoid dealing with the other societal problems that people don't know how to solve.  But ignoring the problems won't make them go away. Passing a ban on dogs, will not make the problems go away. 

If we want to improve society for these young kids, we must deal with the societal problems that are causing the problems.  Not try to stop symptoms.

It's not easy, but it's the only way.

Interesting study on how canine laws are passed

Caveat has posted an interesting essay written by three Cal State Sacramento professors on the anatomy of how many areas are pushing through certain types of canine legislation.

Here's the abstract:

An open process for drafting legislation would assure that from the onset all camps are heard from and all data considered.” Sunshine” or open meeting laws are in place to assure this. Instead of this happening, proponents of special-interest ordinances are being advised on websites and at legislative workshops to establish “coalitions” or “taskforces” which are independent of the legislative body of the municipality. Thus they are not subject to the open meeting laws and sunshine laws which exist. City or county staff is co-opted and a proposed ordinance is presented by staff. Public trust in government is eroded when legislation to be proposed is drafted in private andvotes are solicited in private without public knowledge or debate, and without those opposed being given sufficient warning to garner opposition or participate in the process. Such a situation operates within the guidelines of the letter of the sunshine principle, but not within the spirit of the sunshine principle, for the legislation is the product of a private coalition where openness, inclusion, and unanimity is falsely maintained.. Not honoring the spirit as well as the letter of sunshine laws allows special interests to hijack local government.

It's an interesting read -- you can catch the whole document here. I've never been comfortable with committees that are created and create policies behind closed doors with no public input. In Omaha, they did this and they're now looking at having two sets of policy proposed and the general public has still gotten ZERO input into the legislation.  Had all the voices been heard, or if people had had access to the committee, a lot of the circus there could have been avoided.

Closed door committees are never the best format in the spirit of a democracy. 

Overall, the study is a little short on research -- but overall it does mirror what it seems like a majority of the cities out there are doing.  Well worth the read and thanks to Professors Cleek, Guarino and Youril for putting it together.  While the study focuses on canine legislation, its principles carry into all kinds of government policies.  And if you're not concerned and suspicious, you're not paying attention.

The Desire to Punish

Winograd has an excellent blog posting over there today.  You should definitely check it out.  Here's a small section that I want to highlight:

" These are the people who obstinately ignore facts, experience, and history and continue to push these types of laws. They will do what they have always done—facts, logic, and history be damned. They will continue to blame the public and they will continue to fight for more and tougher laws. They will argue that their community is different, that their situation is unique, that citizens in their community are particularly—or peculiarly—irresponsible. None of this is true, but they do not care. They will ignore the failures of dysfunctional animal control shelters and its equally inept and uncaring leadership....While they claim to be motivated by saving lives, there is something more powerful driving them: the desire to punish....

But regardless of the underlying beliefs and motivations, the end game is the same:  the power to kill increases and animals die."

There's a lot more great stuff there. Interestingly, he's writing about AB 1634 in California that would mandate the sterilization of all pets. But he could just as easily have been writing about Omaha, or numerous other areas around the country as well. 

It's a shame. There are so manygood animal control models out there that have been successful at protecting the public as well as saving animal's lives.  and yet, these case studies go virtually ignored when cities choose to write policies.  We should and must demand better.

When it comes to dog laws, everyone's an expert

 A friend of mine and I were talking the other day about city councils, BSL and canine laws. It was an interesting discussion.  The most interesting part of the discussion though was arond how it seems the city administrators seem to pay so little attention to the experts on canine legislation.  When it comes to canine legislation, it appears that everyone thinks they're an expert.

It's not like this in other areas of government.  Certainly if there was a bridge in need of repair in a particular city, the city would bring in the experts in to create a solution. They'd listen to a structural engineer to see if the bridge was sound structurally, an architect maybe to design a new bridge, a traffic engineer to figure out the best way to re-route traffic during the building/remodeling proecess, etc. Certainly the victims of the blocks of falling concrete from the bridge would be listened to about the need to "do something" but probably not on the best specific solution to the problem of the decayiing bridge. We'd listen to the experts on that.

Why is it different then for dogs?  When it comes to canine legislation and animal behavior, it seems like everyone's an expert. It seems like legislators, newspaper columnists, dog bite victims....everyone...is an expert on what exactly the solutions should be. Meanwhile, the true experts in canine behavior and effective canine legislation are often ignored.

Virtually every major national organization that has an expertise in canine behavior and human interactions agrees that breed specific ordinances are a bad idea. Here's a short list of some of the national organizations that oppose BSL with links to their position statements:

Association for Pet Dog Trainers

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

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

American Kennel Club (AKC)

American Humane Association

Humane Society of the United States

National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors

National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA)

National Animal Control Association

No Kill Advocacy Center

As well as virtually all local AVMA and local humane society and aspca groups including my local KCAVMA, Kansas AVMA and Missouri AVMA.  This list doesn't even include some of the people behind some of the best case studies for preventing dangerous attacks in their communities like Bill Bruce in Calgary and people who are successfully ending shelter euthanasia in their communities.

Oh sure, if I look hard enough I can find an "expert" who thinks differently about this. I'm sure that I could find an "expert" that would tell me the world is flat or that there is no such thing as micro evolution too.  But I think it's really telling when the national organizations represent the majority of the people in the US that know the most about animal welfare, animal training, animal behavior, animal care, running animal shelters, animal breeds and running animal control law enforcement all, unanimously agree that breed specific laws are not effective in creating safer communities for people to live in because breed is not a determining factor in whether or not a dog bites.

So can we please start listening to the experts when dealing with local issues?  I would certainly hope we would when building buildings and bridges. Why not with dogs?

Whitehall passes breed neutral Dangerous Dog Ordinance

After 5 months of discussion, the city of Whitehall (OH) passed what appears to be a very good dangerous dog law that allows for all dangerous dogs to be restricted, regardless of breed. The ordinance passed nearly unanimously through the council.

Help Fido has a few more details this morning too.