KC DOG BLOG

The aftermath of the craziness

It's been a crazy summer here in KC.  Two major pit bull attacks, one fatality. 200+ articles about pit bulls in the KC Star, another 200+ or more x 4 TV news stations.  People are freaked out about pit bulls...and honestly, the way the media has portrayed this, it's hard to blame most people -- it's too hard to get the facts on the issue.

But one of the worst problems in the aftermath of the craziness is that with all of the people being forced to give up their pit bull dogs, the overpopulation that already existed and the hysteria surrounding these types of dogs, it is almost impossible to find homes for these dogs. Mid America Bully Breed Rescue turning down 8-10 dogs a day because they have no room.  I have been fostering Stella (pictured) for nearly six months, and our friends have been fostering her brother Earl the same amount of time, and we've had no local people who have even shown an interest in them.  There are tons of wonderful dogs that are available, but because people either a) can't have a pit bull because of local legislation or b) don't want one because of fear and ignorance we are unable to find homes. 

It's very sad.  And frustrating.  Hopefully people will wake up to the realities of how great these dogs are soon...but my fear is that this will have long-term affects on people's attitudes in Kansas City.

Peer Pressure

Sugar Creek passed a pit bull ban on Wednesday night.  I have to be honest, this slipped under the radar in our group. Sugar Creek is a very small community and we have no members who live there.  Honestly, I couldn't even find Sugar Creek without a map -- and I live not more than 15 minutes from it.  It still makes me angry though -- it sounds like they only passed the law because neighboring Independence passed their ban.  Nothing like making bad policy because someone else passed bad policy.  As my mom used to always ask "if Gary (my best friend growing up) jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"  Apparently all the Sugar Creek Council members answered that question with a "yes".

http://examiner.net/stories/102606/new_102606005.shtml

Breed Banning to Solve Bigger Problems

I'm baffled.  How can people rationalize their decisions?

St. Joseph County, IN has a dog fighting problem.  In response to the dog fighting problem the county council is considering making it harder for people to own pit bull-type dogs -- the new laws would require higher licensing fees for pit bulls ($100), mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls and require $300,000 in extra liability insurance. "It basically will add accountability to the owners" said Rafael Morton, County Council President.

What is even more infuriating is that the local Humane Society is PUSHING this ordinance.  What are they thinking?

But here's the deal. They trying to stop dog fighting by making it harder to own pit bulls.  Dog fighting is against the law, and a felony in most states (and most likely Indiana).  So why does anyone on the council think that if these dog fighters are willing to break a felony law, that somehow an MSN law or $300,000 in insurance is going to make them quit?  Seriously?  Most of these thugs don't even have any insurance.  And if they can't enforce dog fighting laws, how in the world can they afford to check liability, licensing, and MSN. 

It's just absurd.  You can't fight criminal activity with laws that make non-criminal activity criminal.  It doesn't make sense.  Spend all the resources you would have to dedicate to enforcing this new policy and focus those resources on catching the 20 dog fighters that are causing the problems. THAT will solve the problem, not higher insurance requirement.  It's dumb.

And having the Humane Society support it is almost criminal.   

http://wndu.com/news/102006/news_53402.php

St. Joseph County reviews strict ordinance for pit bull owners

St. Joseph County, IN - A rising number of aggressive pit bulls are ending up at the St. Joseph County Humane Society.

County officials are trying to tighten the leash on pit bull owners by making the rules of owning the breed tougher.

Some people who own pit bulls or mix breeds say this is simply discrimination, or breed specific legislation.

The local Humane Society admits their claims are right.

This is breed specific legislation.

At this point the Humane Society feels this measure is necessary to curb the pit bull illegal problems. "They are all over the place," said St. Joseph County Humane Society Dr. Carol Ecker, in reference to the presence of pit bull fighting rings.

The new ordinance institutes a dangerous dog license fee of $100.00 per year and mandates spay/neuter for dangerous dogs.

It also penalizes irresponsible owners.

She is proposing a new county wide ordinance that institutes a dangerous dog license fee of $100 per year to each person who owns a pit bull.

If they don't, the owner would face fines.

But the proposed rules are already being opposed by several animal groups. "Their main focus, is that they seem to be the most upset with, at this point, is something called BSL breed specific legislation," said Councilman District I, Mark root explained.

"I'm a member of Northern Indiana Search and Rescue, and I am currently working 3 pit bull terriers for search work," Marla Jimerson stated. She also said she would not be able to work in St. Joe County if the new rules are incorporated. "The problem with this ordinance is your dog has to be on a leashed and muzzled in public at all time. If my dogs are out searching I can't do that!"

She also said she also does not have the $300,000.00 liability insurance the new rules require. "Only responsible owners are going to suffer by this."

The Humane Society begs to differ, and some council members believe their claims.

"Do you really think this will curb the fighting?" asked NewsCenter 16's Judi Lykowski.

"Yes, I really do," said County Council President Rafael Morton. "Because, it basically will add accountability to the owners."

The Council made it clear Tuesday night that wording and clarification is still needed in the proposed changes to the County Animal Control Ordinance

Can MSN Work?

On Sunday, I took one of our Mayor Candidates Henry Klein on a tour of the spay/neuter clinic put on by Spay/Neuter Kansas City. 

The first time at the spay/neuter clinic is overwhelming when you walk into a room with 20+ vets and vet students providing low cost spay neuters to over 100 dogs in one day.  It's pretty amazing.  These low cost spay neuters are necessary in providing owners who want to do the right thing an affordable opportunity to do it.  In a given month, spay/neuter Kansas City will provide over 100 spay/neuters for dogs, and around 80 for cats...all done in a single day.

A small group of people has been helping the SNKC by promoting the low cost spay/neuters in at risk neighborhoods throughout the area.

When we were talking about the new Kansas City BSL MSN, that requires spay/neuter of all pit bulls, Michelle Normandy said that they have seen and increase in the number of pit bulls that are coming in once the law was enacted.  The implication is that MSN is reaching people that voluntary spay/neuter may not reach.

I've talked about how MSN is not a something that has a lot of successful case studies http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2006/10/msn_does_it_wor.html -- it's basic net result tends to be lower licensing and high enforcement costs.  And I definitely think that BSL MSN is a worst case scenerio because it combines two different unenforcable laws that have negative unintendend consequences http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2006/10/a_note_about_bs.html

But the thought did occur to me that it might be possible that MSN, with a strong low cost spay/neuter option along with heavy fines for non-licensed dogs could combine to be effective.  I think it would be very difficult and expensive to enforce, but there is a chance that it could work.  If anyone has any case studies on this, I'd love to look at them, but there is a chance. 

Just looking for options...

Dogs as Property

I briefly mentioned this this weekend in this post http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2006/10/journalism_band.html about a string of emails to some local city council people from Cherie Graves, who represents the Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States.  Ms. Graves has done a lot of damage in Lee's Summit by sending more than too many emails to many of the Council members representing an extreme view of animal issues.  In her attempts to do the right thing, she has actually created a lot of damage in the area.  I wish her to knock it off.

Ms Graves views dogs as personal property -- and as such, believes that government has no say in type of dog we own, or whether or not the dog is altered or not because we are guaranteed the right to own property under the Second Amendment.  Therefore Ms. Graves is adamently against Mandatory Spay and Neuter because it is altering her private property.

I'm somewhat sypathetic to Ms. Grave's point of view.  The Second Amendment is sacred -- and I believe in our rights to own property. I also think the government should keep its nose out of people's business as much as possible.  This is why I oppose anti-smoking laws. I don't like cigarette smoke, and as a public citizen, I love going to California and going to bars and restaurants without cigarette smoke ruining my experience.  But at the end of the day, I don't think the government should be able to tell business owners whether or not smoking should occur in their owned businesses.

However, I do think there is room for compromise...a belief that Ms. Graves doesn't share. As taxpayers, we pay for our local governments to have animal control officers.  These officers are responsible for picking up stray and off-leash dogs, identifying and prosecuting animal cruelty cases, and enforcing other local animal control rules.

As a government, they have some responsibility to the taxpayers of creating laws that enable them to provide the safety that comes with having good animal control with making it as efficient as possible to run a good animal control department.  We must allow them some flexibility in making these types of laws.

As a society, we've set a precedent, right or wrong, that the government can make laws that affect personal property if it is for the good of society as a whole.  We have housing codes because people want other people in their neighborhoods to take care of their homes. This is why the government can force people to keep lawns mowed, keep their homes painted, keep sidewalks clear for walking and not use blue tarps as roofing.  In Missouri, we also make personnally owned automobiles go through inspections so that we can control the amount of emmissions go into poluting our air. We impose polution restrictions on private businesses all the time for the good of public health and safety.

Because of this, if government and animal control officials think that it would create a safer envir onment s for citizens and save taxpayer money I'm willing to entertain the possibility of creating some stipulations on dog ownership in order to make this happen, as long as the laws will really achieve this goal.  Therefore, if we can make a way to make mandatory spay/neuter work for the public good, I'm willing to entertain it as an option -- assuming that everyone who has a reason to NEED their dogns unneutered are properly allowed exception.

I've made my view on MSN pretty readily available on this blog.  I don't think it works (although I'm willing to entertain ways in which you could make it work), but I think it's worth looking at.  I do think that putting undo stipulation on one breed of dog is going way above and beyond the role that government should play -- and see no evidence that it is effective either.

I just think when you get in the world of politics, you have to allow for some wiggle room for compromise.  This is where Ms. Graves and I disagree.  And her lack of willingness to budge even a little has hurt efforts to keep BSL out of Lee's Summit -- and I really wish she'd trust people locally to make the call instead of putting everything at risk.

"Journalism" bandwagon continues

There were a couple of great stories this week that took a back seat to my Spay/Neuter series but I wanted to double back and get these in.

The first is a story by KCTV5 (is there a worse news station in the country?).  Apparently a couple of kids got "chased" by a pit bull on Wednesday.  No one got bit.  Dog got loose.  I saw 4 stray dogs in this neighborhood while just passing through (3 of them pit bulls, one dragging a rope it had chewed through) just in 5 minutes driving through the area.  No one got bit, doesn't sound like it even came close.  Not sure why it was news

http://kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5560327

Meanwhile, the Independence Examiner reported on an email chain that was sent to them an extreme property rights group out on the west coast.  The story is about an email conversation the woman in charge of the organization (who doesn't speak for most animal people I know) had with two Lee's Summit City Council people.  What is most amazing about the "story" is that the reporter didn't bother to talk to any dog owners locally about their opinions, or contact EITHER of the two city council people whose names were on the email strain.  I'm pretty sure the emails are legit, but do you realize how easy it would be to fake an email strain?  I can't believe the reporter published it without contacting either local politician involved to verify that they really wrote these things or to get comments.

For what it's worth, I think Mr. Freeman and Mr. Swearngin are two of the best, most thorough and educated city council people I've come across in the entire Kansas City metro.  I hope no one thinks the woman's commnets are reflective of that of the majority of the animal community.   http://www.examiner.net/stories/101906/new_101906006.shtml

The KCTV5 story:

Pit Bull Chases Kids

Oct 19, 2006 07:15 AM CDT

From the Examiner:

Pit bulls topic of e-mails

By Andre Riley
The Examiner

Two members of the Lee's Summit City Council have issued strongly-worded e-mails to a dog activist, who was critical of the city's handling of the pit bull issue.

Council members Nick Swearngin and James Freeman responded after Cherie Graves, chairperson of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States, accused the city of unconstitutional and punitive behavior in its study of a ban on dogs commonly considered pit bulls.

Graves suggested a ban would be harmful because it would strip irresponsible dog owners of their pets at the expense of dog owners in general. She accused the City Council of acting with a "communist mindset" on the issue and suggested if the city enacts a ban, acting council members aren't fit to serve.

In a reply, Swearngin noted he doesn't support dog breed-specific bans but is obligated to represent the desires of his constituents. Also, he said Graves' approach is harmful to the discussion.

"My experience with people such as yourself, the fanatical dog lover who goes too far in my opinion, by offering up insults and threats of a lawsuit, only goes to prove what I tell people that are speaking at public hearings," Swearngin wrote in an e-mail, "too much passion makes people stop listening because you enter the realm of ridiculous. So to you I say that you have entered that realm."

The City Council, by a vote of 5-4, in August voted to create a breed-specific ban. A committee headed by council members has reviewed the possibilities of a ban, along with alternatives such as a mandatory spay/neutering program. A draft ordinance has not been submitted from the committee for council consideration.

Graves, who lives in Washington state, is a American Staffordshire trainer.

Through the Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States, she has fought breed-specific bans throughout the country.

She also strongly objects to the term "pit bull," which she considers a functional description.

In a series of e-mails with Swearngin, she continually questioned the character of the council.

"This is not about dogs. It is about property rights, Constitutional rights, the ability to continue to practice animal husbandry, and about the proposed taking of the property of the people without just compensation," Graves wrote. "Since the term 'pit bull' has been corrupted from its original meaning, I'm breathless with anticipation to see how many legitimate breeds that you are going to make illegal to own."

Pit bulls are not a breed of dog. Locally, the term has been used in reference to American Staffordshire, Staffordshire, and American pit bull terriers. The dogs tend to be short and muscular, with short hair, stubby tails and wide, diamond-shaped noses.

In addition to Swearngin, Graves contacted other council members including Freeman, the mayor pro tem.

In a statement, Freeman echoed Swearngin's thoughts about fanatical behavior. Graves has sent council members large amounts of information on the issue.

"Your analysis of the law is mistaken, extreme and repugnant to me and the values of my community. Nick's comments to you were on point. The more "information" (albeit out of context and inapposite) you provide, the more your extremism comes out, the more marginalization the position you advocate becomes," Freeman wrote. "My suggestion is that if you really oppose breed-specific legislation and mandatory spay/neutering, that you step out of the debate because your method of conveying the message is increasingly harming the cause you advance."

Reach Andre Riley at [email protected] or 816-350-6362.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A group of local kids will most likely keep a close eye on their surroundings  after they came face-to-face with a pit bull that was running loose.

Animal Control officers took the dog into custody at 36th and Askew.

Some kids walking home from school said the dog somehow got out of its yard and started chasing them.

The kids scattered to get away.

Kierra Killion told KCTV5 News, "I jumped on the car. I started praying, hoping it wouldn't get me."

Ennar Killion said, "I was just thinking I needed to get somewhere, so I hopped the fence."

The dog remained with Animal Control.

None of the kids were bitten and the dog's owner said he's sorry the dog got out, but says it's not a mean dog.

A note about BSL MSN

Another growing trend is the growth of Breed Specific (usually pit bull) mandatory spay/neuter.  This was the law adopted in San Francisco in January and used as a model for the ordiance that was passed in Kansas City Missouri in July.

Time will certainly tell if these policies will work, but on the surface, it appears as if this legislation contains the worst of both worlds.  On top of having all of the problems such as lower licensing rates, higher incidences of dogs that are untreated for rabies, and high enforcment costs that come with MSN laws, they also contain the same problems that come with Breed Specific Laws -- including breed identification.

In fact, San Francisco already has several lawsuits pending where dogs that were deemed to be pit bulls or pit mixes have owners who are taking the city to court trying to determine that these animals are not pit bulls.  Given that there is no way to test a dog's breed, even with DNA testing, this will be interesting how the court cases turn out.  Regardless, hundreds of thousands of dollars are now being spent trying to determine a dog's breed to determine whether or not it has to be spayed or neutered.  That's just a huge waste of taxpayer money.

My bet is that within 3 years, San Francisco repeals its law.  It'll probably be longer than that in KC.  But I don't believe it'll fail.  There are too many problems with it...on every single level.

Better Alternatives to MSN (Part 3 of 3)

In part 1, we discussed the reasons why cities are considering Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) as part of their policy as a way of controlling dog populations and aggressiveness in dogs that can help improve public safety.  We also discussed some of the legal pitfalls of MSN. 

In part 2, we discussed a couple of case studies that are representative of a variety of case studies that show how MSN has been ineffective because it has led to a lowering of dog licensing rates, increase in rabies cases due to dogs being run underground from people who refuse to comply with the law, and has proven to be very costly to implement. 

So what is the alternative?

What several communities are doing is instituting low cost, voluntary spay/neuter programs.  According to a recent study by the HSUS, communities can save $3 in Animal control costs for ever dollar that is spent on spay/neuter programs.  Many of these programs involve mobile spay/neuter units that are brought into high-risk neighborhoods to provide low-cost spay/neuter services within these communities. 

One such community program is going on with the East Bay SPCA, along with the group Bad Rap (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls) http://www.badrap.org/rescue/.  When the city of Oakland was looking BSL Spay/neuter a couple of years ago, they decided on letting two local groups work on promoting voluntary spay/neuter programs on the community level.  In just under two years, the EBSPCA has spayed and neutered over 1500 dogs and microchipped hundreds of animals.  With the help of BAD RAP, they have also provided basic training and care information for over 350 pit bulls in the same 2-year period.  This picture was taken by BAD RAP at shot fair in February -- when they got 50 animals signed up for spay/neuter during a three-hour timeframe.

This has all been done voluntarily by dog owners in Oaklands highest-risk neighborhoods with most of the funding coming from private and national animal organizations.  It is proving to be highly successful in eliminating hundreds of potential dog litters.

At the same time, San Mateo County (San Francisco, so just across the bay) instituted a BSL spay/neuter program that required the spaying and neutering of all pit bulls.  Since January 2006, San Mateo County has spayed or neutered only around 200 pit bulls.  Not only has the voluntary program fixed nearly 8x as many animals as the mandatory version in twice the amount of time, it has also made great strides to fix the CULTURE that underlies having unneutered dogs.  San Mateo county has also incurred much more of the cost of their program because they are not getting as much support from local and national organizations.

Will everyone get their dog fixed with a voluntary program?  No.  But it is working at controlling the animal population, increasing education of animal care in urban areas, and really working to change the culture that can lead to animal abuse/neglect and eventually bites.  I think cities would be much more successful running these types of programs with their local HSUS, SPCAs, and rescue groups than trying to mandate spay/neuter.

I think this type of program, along with a program that would spay/neuter and microchip any dogs that enter that animal control system would make great strides in controlling animal populations and creating safer environments, at minimal spend for the citizens. And isn't increasing safety at a responsible spend the role of government?

MSN - Does it work? (entry 2 of 3)

Yesterday we talked about Mandatory Spay/Neuter and what I think some of the legal political arguments are for and against the policy. While I think it's bad policy because I think it's beyond what government should be involved in, I also understand that it is a public safety issue and can see why the government is getting involved -- and could be persuaded to support MSN if it was truly effective.  The problem is, there is little evidence that it works -- in fact, several cities have had major problems with MSN.

I do think that MSN can be effective at getting good people to fix their animals -- because you can teach them that this is the right thing to do, and mandating it will get them off their butts to actually do it.  In just six generations, an unneutered male and female dog, which can reproduce twice a year, can be responsible for the birth of over 60,000 puppies. But the problem is, what happens to the people who absolutely don't want to fix their animal?

Fort Worth, Texas actually abandoned its MSN program when they saw after its passage a decrease in the number of  licensed dogs because people didn't want to be caught with an unaltered dog.  They also saw a decline in the number of rabies vaccinations and thus, an increase in the number of dogs found to have rabies.  Clearly this was not an improvement to public safety.

In 2000, Los Angeles passed a law "spay or pay" that had higher licensing fees for unaltered dogs and additional fees for litters of puppies.  To enforce the law, Los Angeles had to increase its animal control budget 269%  -- over $11 million -- to enforce the new law.

Montgomery County, MD repealed MSN after they determined that licensing compliance fell approximatley 50%; and after they had estimated that there would be 550 breeders licenses requested, and yet, they averaged only 30 were issued each year.

Sadly, while it seems like MSN is a good idea, and that it should work to help control animal populations, and control animal aggression. Unfortunately, what it appears to do in reality is drive up animal control enforcement costs, lead to lowered compliance of  animal registration, and in some cases, led to bigger problems such as increased instances of animals with rabies.

You can read about more cases at the most detailed research I've seen on MSN at this website: http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/4108.html .  I don't know anything about Best friends, but their research seems to be very valid on this subject.

So there is evidence that controlling dog overpopulation will make communities safer -- and decrease the number of unwanted animals that are sadly killed in our shelters every year.  There is other evidence, that at  some level, that spaying and neutering dogs would control aggression and desire for escape. But there also is evidence that mandatory spay/neuter is not a good approach and can actually lead to negative consequences for a community. 

So what is the right answer?  I'm not 100% sure, but it will be the topic of conversation tomorrow.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter Part 1 of 3

Several cities in the area, most notibly Lee's Summit, are considering mandatory spay/neuter programs as a solution to the dog bite problems that are facing their city.  Kansas City, MO voted in a mandatory spay/neuter law for pit bulls back in August. 

There has been a lot of debate in several animal welfare circles that I'm in regarding whether Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) is good policy; is it just?  Is it fair?  Is it government's responsibility to regulate it?  Does it work?

I think the first question to ask is why do dogs bite?

According to the SPCA http://www.spca.bc.ca/animalissues/whydogsbite.asp, there are several reasons dogs bite:

1. Protect their territory or loved ones

2. Defensive/scared/cornered

3. Stray dogs

4. Dog is sick or injured

5. Older dogs that may have vision or hearing problems can be more easily startled

6. Inadequate Socialization

And according to the AVMA, 70-76% of all dog bites are by unneutered male dogs and according to the CDC an unaltered dog is 3x more likely to attack than an unaltered dog.  The CDC also notes that chained dogs are nearly 3x as likely to bite as unchained dogs -- and chained dogs have been involved in more fatalities (98, 92 of them children) than dog packs according Karen Delise's book "Fatal Dog Attacks".

Because of this information, many cities see MSN as a true solution to their problems.  Because fixed animals are not sexually active, they are less likely to escape fencing to seek out other dogs in heat.  Also, MSN helps to control a growing dog population that leads to over 40,000 animals (dogs and cats) getting put to sleep in Kansas City each year due to overpopulation and keeps the number of stray dogs off the streets.  By limiting the number of dogs running free, which in theory MSN should do,  it is felt that a community's citizens will be safer.

I would like to point out that in the case of unneutered dogs being responsible for more attacks and for more fatal attacks, there is a clear correlation between the two.  However, as with anything, it's inportant to note that correlation does not equal causation.  Most (not all)responsible dog owners (people with registered breeding dogs or show dogs are an exclusion here) spay and neuter their animals, and on the flip side, it is very rare to see an irresponsible dog owner that has an altered pet.  So while unneutered dogs appear to be more dangerous, this still may be an owner driven statistic vs anything truly biological.  MSN then would be used as a tool to "force" what is usually seen as responsible dog ownership.

Some opponents of MSN will say that the government has no right to mandate whether or not you alter your dog any more than they have the right to determine the paint color of your car, and that doing so basically criminalizes non-criminal activity.  It's hard to disagree with these statements.

Others will say that MSN is very difficult and costly to enforce.  Again, it's hard to disagree.

Others say that voluntary low cost spay/neuter programs are even more effective than MSN programs because it encourages people to do the right thing, without forcing rules down their throats.  And even though not everyone will "do the right thing", you will get the majority of people to do it, and thus solve your problem.

And yet, most communities are desperately looking for alternatives to help solve their dog overpopulation and dog biting problems.  They will argue that MSN will not negatively affect many people. Most responsible dog owners will already have their dogs fixed, and exceptions would be made for licensed show dogs, hunting dogs, and registered breeding dogs.  Thus, MSN would really have minimal effect other than to encourage good pet owners to go do the right thing and get their dog fixed, and give animal control more ability to get into puppy mills and really bad owners.

The bottom line is that even though this isn't an area I necessarily want government to play a role in my life, if they truly feel that they could make a difference in the safety of a community, with minimal impact on people who are "non problem owners", then I would entertain the compromsie.

But the problem is, there is very little evidence that MSN gets the results city council's desire, and in fact, can make communities less safe.  And that is a problem we will discuss in great detail tomorrow.