KC DOG BLOG

It's true for "pit bulls" too

As many of your know, one of my favorite off-topic blogs is Indexed by Jessica Hagy. Her index card today fits all kinds of subjects....and possibly all subjects.

Taking a Look at Lubbock

"Pit bulls' have been all the rage in Lubbock over the past couple of weeks, spurring a pleathora of media articles, a special announcement by the mayor, and a special meeting being called for citizens to discuss.   So let's take a look at what's going on in Lubbock:

The debate heated up a couple of weeks ago when 5 miniature horses were attacked by two 'pit bulls' in their stalls.  Two of the miniature horses ended up dead, and the other 3 injured.

This attack, of course, led for some to cry out the need to do something about 'pit bulls' in Lubbock (which is against the state law outlawing breed specific legislation).

Animal Services Director Kevin Overstreet admitted that Lubbock had a problem with irresponsible owners and expressed frustration that in spite of a strong state law that punishes owners of dogs that attack people, no law could be found for dog owners whose dogs attacked other animals.

Then, last week, a 'pit bull'-boxer mix dog was running astray and approached a mother and her 3 year old child as they walked up to their house.  The young boy, scared by the dog, took off running (not the right response when scared by a dog, and it would have been a great opportunity for the newspaper to get a canine expert quoted to educate people on this), and the loose dog ended up biting the young boy.

The 2nd attack, led to a widely circulated editorial run by the newspaper entitled "Do Something About Pit Bulls Now!"   So here is part of their solution:

The city could define which dog breeds can be dangerous.

Owners of those breeds must register their dog with the understanding of what penalties could apply if the dog got loose and caused damage.

The owner must have insurance for the dog.

The owner's property must pass city code enforcement on fencing where the dog is kept.

In other words, let's make owning a pit bull a financial nightmare.

Their idea is, pass the ordinance, and challenge the Texas state law that makes it illegal.

Overstreet, and the mayor, David Miller, seem to have a good handle on the situation.  The obvious problem is that animal control either isn't enforcing, or doesn't have the resources to enforce, the city's current leash law.  All of the reported attacks the city has seen thus far have involved dogs that are in violation of the county leash law.  An earlier TV news report noted that Lubbock appears to have a pretty major stray/loose dog problem, noting that in the first two weeks of the year, animal control had gotten over 300 calls for stray and loose dogs.  This is an animal control department that received around 20,000 calls in 2007 and picked up over 9,000 stray dogs.  That's a TON for a city of only 209,000 people.

Miller seems to realize the problem is not a breed-specific issue:

And despite outcry over pit bulls - which have been blamed for killing at least a dozen goats and two miniature horses in the last month - Miller said it is not necessarily a breed issue.

"This is a citizen issue rather than a dog issue," he said. "This is a dog ownership issue. There are many other breeds other than pit bulls impacting the safety of our citizens."

The mayor said all dogs seen roaming loose will be picked up, and the city is adding more positions to keep up with all the calls, which have spiked in recent weeks.

Miller said the big problem has been residents not abiding by the laws.

This has not however, hasn't kept the media from trying to create a 'pit bull' story where there isn't one.

In a recent story about a public meeting scheduled for next week, KCBD News twisted a fact and a quote around to make something appear that there is something there that isn't.  Here's the quote:

Currently state law prohibits the City from placing breed specific restrictions on dangerous dogs. However, Miller has spoken recently with State Senator Robert Duncan about possible changes in the state law.

Looks like Miller wants to change the breed specific part, doesn't it?  But wait for the quote:

"I firmly believe that state law should be strengthened as it relates to animals attacking and seriously injuring another animal," said Miller, referring to the recent Pit Bull attack on five miniature horses.

The reality is that in the 15 stories I've read about Lubbock, I've yet to see anywhere that Miller has stated that he wants to overturn the state law regarding 'pit bulls'.   He just appears to want to increase the state law on what punishment can be doled out if a dog attacks another animal.   But that's certainly not the impression you get when they do a little word-smithing.

So if you're in the Lubbock area, head out to the Memorial Civic Center theater next Tuesday from 6-7:30 -- let them know that they need to work hard to supply the resources necessary to deal with loose and stray dogs. 

Welcome to the neighborhood!

Angel Edie, her husband, two children, and her "pit bull" moved to what appears to be a quiet neighborhood in Plymouth, MI last week.  This week, they found out that their neighbors on Wysteria Lane  Jenner Street have filed a petition to get them and their 'pit bull' kicked right out of the neighborhood by trying to get their dog banned.

Even one of the people who led the petition signing admits that the dog may be friendly, he just doesn't want it around.

Nothing says "Welcome to the Neighborhood" quite like a breed ban petition.  How about saying hello first?   

What ever happened to baking cookies for the new neighbors?  Wow.

How can someone support Mike Vick?

The thought occured to me a couple of weeks ago when I saw a picture similar to the one to the left and wondered, how can anyone support Mike Vick?

ESPN, which has done a better job of reporting on the Vick case than 90% of the media outlets out there, have a very good article on their site this week from former KC Star Writer Wright Thompson on the history of racial relations in Atlanta...and how the Mike Vick saga fits into this history of race relations.

I'm not going to sit here and support Mike Vick.  I feel pretty confident that dog fighting happened on property Vick owned.   And I'm not going to give a sermon about racism.  I'm hardly qualified to do that.  This is a dog blog after all. But it's been pretty amazing to me that in a single marrow subject of dog ownership in America, how often race plays a role in what I write.

I think about the Ohio Supreme Court when they say that pit bull bans are constitutional and a supporting proof point is that many of these dogs live in "urban" areas -- does "urban" mean densly populated or does it mean Black?  What about all of the "only drug dealers own pit bulls" comments?  Does anyone seriously think that a dog ordinance will curb drug dealing or do they think its another way to harrass a certain segment of the population?  Or think about when a local mayor says that the city should consider a ban on certain breeds of dogs, not because the bullies that live in his city are a problem now, but he wants to prevent more of "the types of people who own these types of dogs" from moving to town.  Exactly who he is wanting to keep out?

While it may seem crazy at first that people stand fast in their support of Vick, it's hard to be critical until you've walked a proverbial mile in their shoes.  I remember that most people think I'm crazy too each time I speak in support of 'pit bulls'.

And if Vick is really found guilty of what he's accused of doing, he let a lot of people down in Atlanta, that felt like they were making progress. 

I guess what I'm saying is be careful when casting judgment.  If I asked you,  what is the first image that pops into your head when you think about your average pit bull owner?  How about your average Yorkie owner?

And if you think that maybe race, or at least general prejudice, is a factor with the "pit bull issue" or Michael Vick -- maybe there are other areas we haven't considered?

Another Dog shot by police officers in KCMO

Police in KCMO shot another dog over the weekend.  Apparently they showed up at a barbeque "where violence had broken out" and when they got there, a dog barked at them so they shot it.

From the video, the dog looks like some type of Boxer mix, although it's very hard to tell.

I'm not sure why there isn't more outrage over police just firing random shots.  I'm also not sure why using a tazer isn't an option -- certainly seems more humane that a gunshot to the head.  I'll also note that the dog didn't bite anyone.  Meanwhile, what I really want to know is what type of violence broke out that caused police to show up in the first place.

This is how far it's come

This story is magical.  In one quick story, it covers so many topics of what is wrong with people's perceptions of "pit bulls" and how the media covers them. 

So read.

The story is out of Madison, WI.  Apparently 3 pit bull puppies got loose from a yard that neighbors the playground and "scratched" a couple of kids.  The school evacuated the playground.

The owner was fined $700 over the incident (I'm assuming for having dogs at large, but am not sure otherwise what she could be held accountable for).

Oh, and the kids might have been antagonizing the dogs through the fence.

Does anyone else think that if these dogs were 3 five-month old lab puppies, that this would have made the news?  Or that the kids wouldn't have been loving having the fluffy little puppies jump on them?   Would the school playground have been evacuated?  Would the owner even have been fined?  And when are we going to teach kids not to antagonize animals?

Sigh.

Inherantly violent nature

While I'm on the subject of the "inherantly violent" nature of pit bulls, there are two links to other blogs that I think you should see.

First if from KC Soil -- it's a great, 30 second-ish video that shows a pit bull in action.  Joe, who writes the blog, is a good friend to the animal community.

Second, is from a blog I've recently discovered called dog-tails.  This post describes one of the blog's writer's experience with a dog that came into the animal hospital after being a victim of a dog fight.  You'll notice the love this dog showed, in spite of even how it had been trained. 

People who don't get it

I hate idiots.  I don't have a problem with ignorance -- let's face it, there are thousands of subjects out there that I am completely ignorant about.  Everyone is that way.  But idiots are the people who are proud of their ignorance, stating their point of view with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever, and really being proud of their lack of knowledge.  It makes by blood boil.

As it was with this editorial from the weekend.  Go ahead, read.  I'll wait....

The writer is very proud of her ignorance, and completely doesn' t get it.  And if she had thought about her words a little bit, she's almost answered her own question.

There are two main points here:

1) Why do people use pit bulls as fighting dogs vs other breeds?

2) Why do people have to go through such great pains to make these supposedly aggressive dogs violent?

The writer completely misses point number 2.  If there was "something different" about these dogs that made them naturally dangerous, why do dog fighters have to go through such great pains to make them fight?  Why must they inject them with steriods, chain them with heavy chains so that they can almost touch the dog next to them, but not quite, to build up a ton of frustration in not being able to meet (sniff) the dog next to them?  Why do they have to use treadmills to amp them up?  If these dogs were so naturally vicious, as the author implies, why not just cage them up and turn them loose?  Why all the extra work?

The reality is that these dogs aren't naturally this aggressive. They have to be made trained this way.  And pit bulls make great fighting dogs for a lot of the same reasons they make great pets.  Sure, they muscular dogs.  And as working dogs, they contain the stick-to-itivness that they will work until the job is done.  This  would make for a better fight than if you had Italian Greyhounds fighting I suppose.  They're also much smaller dogs than non-knowledgable people thing -- which makes them easier to handle if a fight needs to be broken up (differentiating them from much larger breeds like Presas and Rottweilers).  They are also very people loyal -- which means that even in the midst of a fight, they will seldom turn on their handler. 

This loyalty works very much against pit bull type dogs.  This makes them great pets.  My bullies will do almost anything I ask of them for just a little affection.  This also makes them great candidates to be police dogs and service dogs, which many of them are used for.  But this loyalty, and desire to do whatever pleases their owner, can also make them be savages if they are owned by someone that wants that.  They will attack something -- because their owner wants them to, and it pleases their owner. 

But make no mistake -- they have to be trained that way.  That's why there is always the "paraphenalia" surrounding dog-fighting busts.  It's all a part of the training.  If they were naturally fighters, this wouldn't be necessary.

I don't know that I would send this woman any letters or emails.  The reality is that she seems pretty proud of her ignorance -- and I doubt she'll read or listen. In fact, I think she enjoys the attention.  Just like the pesky kid in grade school that spent all his time in the corner -- just happy to get the attention.

Dogs on Restaurant Patios

  There was an interesting editorial that ran yesterday in the Dallas Morning News. 

The story involves a woman who finds herself seated on a restaurant patio next to a man with his pit bull.  Dallas law allows for dogs to be on restaurant patios, and this restaurant was a dog-friendly place.

By the writer's account (written entirely from the woman's point of view), the dog wasn't causing any problems and the dog was actually a "regular" at the restaurant.  But the woman insisted that the dog was "unpredictable" (wonder where she read that) and insisted to talk to the waitress' manager.  The manager moved the man and his dog to another area of the restaurant.

The story ends poorly however when the man comes back by on his way out of the restaurant and causes quite the scene.  I'll let you read about it, but even told from a biased account there is little way this many could be justified in what he is accused of doing -- even if it was exaggerated a bit.  I'll let you read about it on your own.

But it does lead me to want to talk about dogs in restaurants and public perception.

There are many dog-friendly places in Kansas City.  My dogs and I are pseudo-regulars on weekend mornings at The Filling Station - -a popular neighborhood coffee-shop, brunch place.  We sit on the patio, there are usual other dogs there, and there are seldom any problems (in fact, the biggest issue I've seen is one dog (that is breed challenged)  that HATES other dogs that will bark up a storm if another dog shows up.  Otherwise, no issues.  I've seen some people that will shy away from my dogs because they look like pit bulls, but more often than not, people come over to us when we eat just to say hi and ask about them/pet them.

I think these types of places are great.  There are also a couple of other places that allow dogs that we'll have dinner at at times, and never seen an incident there either.

I guess the moral of the story is one of showing respect.  People who have ill-behaved dogs should NOT screw up someone else's experience by bringing their ill-behaved dog to a restaurant (the same should be said of children too, only I've seen far more ill-behaved children at restaurant that have screwed up my dining experience than dogs).  By the same token, people who go to a dog-friendly restaurant should respect that a well-bahaved dog, regardless of breed, is welcome in that restaurant.

It's when people get their ideas of dogs being "unpredictable" and are scared of well-behaved dogs when problems arise.

In the case of this article, the woman started out being wrong.  If the dog was a problem, then she would have been justified.  But she is not justified for her own hysteria.

Meanwhile, the guy had a chance to make the story one about her ignorance.  He could have politely, but in a straight-forward way, made his point.  Instead, he was an ass and perpetuated the stereotypes of the types of people who own bully-breeds.  In this case, everyone involved was wrong.

Since when is mutual respect no longer an option?

Two News Stories, One Station, Demonstrate the problem

Go to KCTV5's website.  Look for the "Featured Videos". There are two videos about dog "attacks". 

In case they get taken down before you read this, here is the cruxt of the videos.

In the first story, a public works official got bit on the hand by some type of lab mix-type dog when the worker ducked under an awning to get out of the rain.  The dog was tied up outside under the awning while its owner went inside to get a cup of coffee.  There are no hard feelings and the dog isn't really getting blamed for anything and actually the defended the dog by saying it was probably scared about the thunder.  And honestly, it was a small bite, I'm not sure why it's even on the news and it really was no big deal  -- although it's interesting that they don't make a big deal out of it when it's not a pit bull.

The second story features a young boy who was riding his bike to his friend's house and was being followed on his bike by three pit bulls.  To "SAVE" the boy from the dogs, a police officer who had been called to the scene because of stray dogs stepped between the dogs and the boy and shot one of the dogs and killed it. Turns out the dogs were the kid's friend's dogs, so the boy knew them.  I also will note that the dogs never bit anyone -- and yet one was shot.  Yes, the owner shouldn't have let the dogs out running loose, but it just shows to me the over-reaction/under-reaction that exists depending on what breed of dog is involved. 

Editor's Note:  Turns out that according to a friend of mine who spends a lot of time at the Humane Society in Lawrence, two of the dogs were shot.  The "pit bull" was shot in the leg and had to have the leg amputated, the dog that was killed appeared to be what he called a lab/hound dog mix.  Just interesting to note.