KC DOG BLOG

Socialization, a lesson from a 2nd World Country

Two weeks ago, my wife and I went to Belize for a much-needed vacation.  One thing that is impossible to not notice is the huge number of dogs that live in Belize.  The other thing that's impossible to miss is that almost none of these dogs are on leashes.

From talking to one of the locals in Belize, apparently the country had little concept of keeping dogs as pets until about the past 15 years or so as more "euros" have moved to Belize and introduced the concept.  So with the concept of dog "ownership" being very new, the idea of leash laws and "indoor" pets is completely foreign.

What was really interesting was that of all of the dogs we met when we were in Belize (and it was a lot of them -- including the one shown with my wife), none were at all dangerous dogs.  They were all wonderfully socialized and very friendly with people and other dogs.

This of course was quite a contrast to how you'd feel in the United States if dogs were left to run on their own.  And given this, it was hard not to think of an article that I saw at goodpooch.com (a Canadian organization) that discusses how leash laws have cut down on socialization and as such, have made dogs more aggressive. It is an outstanding article, and well worth the read.

I'm not advoacting that we rid ourselves of leash laws, I just think it's all further evidence of the importance of socializing your dogs.  All dog owners, regardless of how responsible they are, will find themselves in a situation where either a) their dog will have somehow found its way out of the yard and will be on the loose or b) another unleashed dog will find its way to you and your leashed dog.

Any dog owner who hasn't experienced one of these two (or both) please let me know.

The key point is that you have to know how your dog is going to react in that situation.  A well socialized dog will be little problem.  A poorly socialized one will potentially end up making the news the next day.

Spending 11 days in a country with no leash laws, almost no vets, no animal control officers and thousands of dogs is pretty compelling evidence to me that what is said in the goodpooch article (I'm going to link there again because you definitely need to read it) is not only logical in theory, but is provable in practice as well.

Two birds with one story

This provides further evidence that muzzling is a horrible idea and only encourages people to not walk their dogs and that a pit bull ban only changes the breed of dog in the headlines because you've done nothing to solve the irresponsible owner problem (Toronto has a pit bull ban).  This story sums up two things in one short story.  Thank you Canadians.

http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2006/12/29/3059325-sun.html

Pair of boxers maul dog

Muzzled victim defenceless

The two snorting and snarling boxers charged without warning, gnashing at a muzzled dog as owner Robert Smol kicked the vicious animals with all his might.

It happened Christmas Eve at a park in Etobicoke, said Smol, who was walking Scout, his 8-year-old-German shepherd-border collie mix at the time of the attack.

The boxers, who weren't on leashes, rushed Smol and Scout without warning.

"All of a sudden ... they just started mauling him," said Smol, 44, a teacher. "My dog is helpless because he has the muzzle on. It was a very vicious attack. I'm surprised they didn't turn on me."

Smol has a lot of experience with aggressive animals.

OBEDIENCE TRAINING

Scout has bitten Smol and his wife and has to be muzzled and leashed to protect strangers. The dog has had obedience training and wears a choke collar on walks, Smol said.

"We do not take any chances with our dog because we know he has a history of aggression," Smol said. "Responsible dog owners know how to deal with an aggressive dog."

As the boxers bit Scout's back and rear end, Smol booted them to stop the attack. Smol hollered at the dog's owner to help save Scout.

"I was screaming at him telling him, "Get your dogs. Control your dogs,' " Smol said.

BLEEDING

After a couple of minutes, the boxers stopped their onslaught.

"(Scout) was definitely bleeding but he was able to walk," Smol said.

Panicked, Smol called his wife, a nurse.

Margie Petrik showed up with blankets to keep Scout warm until they could get him to the vet.

Petrik talked to the dogs' owner, getting his name and confirmation his pets had had their shots.

She didn't call police to report the attack.

"I don't think that's the answer," she said. "It's education and understanding what you're getting yourself into (with an aggressive dog)."

After nearly $2,000 in vet bills, Scout is recovering at home.

"What if this was my 8-year-old niece instead of my dog?" Smol said.

Apparently every biting dog is a pit bull

A 15-year-old kid got attacked by 15 dogs -- apparently all of them were pit bulls.  I've honestly never even been in a pit bull rescue that had 15 dogs that were all pit bulls. 

Seriously, I wish the kid all the best in his recovery -- but if all 15 of these dogs were pit bulls, I'll buy dinner for everyone.

http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/tennessee-teen-recovers-from-pit-bull-attack/68212.htm

Tennessee Teen Recovers From Pit Bull Attack"

A 15-year-old boy is in the hospital Friday after being attacked by pit bulls.

The boy, Paul Brown, said he saw the pack of dogs run down County Road 2 in McMinn County and head straight for him.

He said 15 dogs attacked him, biting his feet, arms and neck.  Brown said he managed to climb on top of a fence post and call for help.

McMinn County sheriff's deputies are investigating the attack.

New York, New York Part 2

Yesterday I made note of New York Councilman Peter Vallone Jr's very-well publicized attempt to get New York State to overturn its ruling that pit bull bans are unconstitutional in New York State so New York City can institute a ban on Pit Bulls....because we wouldn't want constitutionality to get in the way of a desired law.

A couple of follow-up stories to this announcement appeared yesterday.  First, a local shelter (Little Shelter Animal Adoption Center) rightfully steps in and informs people of the thousands of pit bulls that will be killed because of this law.  Good for them.  As a no-kill shelter, this will have a huge affect on them.

Secondly, in a radio news story, they announced that pit bulls account for 15% of all bites in the New York City area.  I'm not sure where this number came from because according to another report New York doesn't track bites by breed, but let's assume the number is correct.

Then, in a third story, independent of the first two, the New York Health Department has noted that nearly 1 in every 100 registerd dogs in New York is named Max.  Interesting -- but the most interesting part of the story is that Pit Bulls came in as the 2nd most commonly registered breed in the New York City area....trailing only "mixed breeds" and "labradors" as the most-commonly type of dog that is owned.  These of course only account for the 101,000 licensed dogs in the area and not the unlicensed ones.  I think we can safely assume none of the dogs owned by "Gangs and criminals" , which would all be pit bulls according to Mr. Vallone, would be registered.  That would make it a strong possibility that pit bulls may be the most commonly owned dog in all of New York City -- and it accounts for 15% of the total "attacks" according to this report.

So when you consider that pit bulls are among the most popular dogs in all of New York, 15% doesn't seem like an outragious number.  In fact, it seems pretty low.  So what is the problem again?  Why not focus New York's resources on the other 85% of biting dogs?  Or how about ALL dogs that are a problem?

Statistics must not be Mr. Vallone's strength.

How people make decisions...

So a city council person in New York has decided to try to overturn the State law that prohibits Breed Specific Legislation so that he can work toward a Breed Ban in New York City.  It doesn't appear that there is much support for this as he proposed the ordinance 2 years ago but there are a lot of things in the news story that are very disturbing that I wanted to highlight.

Here are some quotes from Peter Vallone Jr. that I find disturbing that they can be made by someone who is wanting to ban anything:

First off, he points to two cities, Denver and Miami, that have BSL that are the role models.  It should be noted that Miami has estimated that over 50,000 pit bulls still live in the area in spite of the law being in place since 1988.  Denver has destroyed over 1100 pit bulls this year alone (based on stats from Animal Farm Foundation) in spite of the ban being in place since 1989.  I imagine that Mr. Vallone would be able to expect similar results in New York.

Also, the bill states that pit bulls are "often a weapon of choice of drug dealers and gangs seeking to intimidate and terrorize neighborhoods."  It's interesting that New York has laws against drug dealers and gang activites but those laws aren't effective in stopping illegal activity.  But I suppose the misdimeanor dog law will stop them in their tracks.

Vallone also says that unlike other breeds of dogs, pit bulls have strong jaws that can "lock" precluding "a parent from defending their child or their pet" from an aggressive dog.  Clearly the bill is well-researched as vet study after vet study has said this is incorrect. 

Here's one link to the study done by Dr. Lehr Brisbain at the University of Georgia -- and here is what it says:

"To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of 'pounds per square inch' can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data." Furthermore, Dr. Brisbin states, "The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of 'locking mechanism' unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier."

Then my favorite line from the article:

The local law Mr. Vallone said he would like to see enacted would not apply to current pit bull owners, emphasizing that no dogs would be forced from their homes. He said he is not sure how it would apply to mixed-breed dogs.

No one knows the answer to this -- because it's unenforceable because you can't tell what breeds dogs come from when they're mixed breeds.  This is one of the many reasons BSL is a horrible idea.

Thanks Mr. Vallone for giving me no confidence in the research and knowledge of city council people everywhere.

Update:  I wrote this entry after the initial article came out -- since then, the AP story has been picked up by nearly every major news source in New York City -- 3 TV stations, Newsday, the Sun, etc.  I can't believe the amount of publicity this article is getting -- the bill has been sitting in front of the council for TWO YEARS.  It's really not going anywhere, but one man's stupidity becomes a major news item in New York.  Silly.

All that's missing is the 2-headed monster

I believe the author of this story has been reading too many Steven King and Mary Shelley novels.  All that's missing is the community carrying around pitch forks and torches looking for a Frankenstein monster and we'd have all the makings of a sensational Hollywood film.

I do feel sorry for the people who's miniature horse was killed in this incident (by something, no one really knows yet what) -- but it's this type of sensationalism in reporting that gets everyone all in an uproar and a witchhunt for every pit-bull type dog around.

Check out the headline and opening sentence:

Uxbridge neighbors in fear of marauding killer canine
By Jessica Fargen
Boston Herald Health & Medical Reporter
Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - Updated: 02:42 PM EST

Their rural neighborhood gripped by fear, people in Uxbridge are jogging with baseball bats and keeping their pups indoors as police search for one or more wild pit bulls believed to have killed one horse and left another clinging to life.

As long as people make these dogs out to be Frankenstein-esque monsters, the people that want a dog like that will continue to be drawn to this breed and making people's fears turn to a reality by MAKING them into what people fear they are.  Enough with the sensationalism...please.

Why I'm here

Last week, a number of us spoke at the City of Peculiar City Council Meeting in regards to their dangerous dog ordinace they were discussing that had BSL language in it.  I'm appreciative of their board of alderman being open to people outside the community speaking -- not every city has been as open to it.

One of the city alderman asked the question, and rightfully so, which was, why, people from throughout the metro area came there to speak out against BSL in their small little community.  Why did we care?

This is why I'm here:  Why I blog about the topic of BSL and other related issues; why I care what each and every community; and why I've been to too many city council meetings to count in the past year -- because it matters.  It matters because:

1) I'm affected by many city's stupid BSL laws.  Some cities like Royal City, WA have passed BSL legislation so harsh that it would be illegal for me to drive through their city with my dogs in my car.  If Peculiar, MO did that, I'd more or less be kept from leaving Kansas City with my dogs heading anywere in Southern, MO as the major southbound artery out of the city runs through Peculiar.  Even now, I legally have to call the Overland Park Animal Control every time I drive through their city.  It's silly, but it affects me.

2) BSL makes it harder to adopt out animals from the rescues.  Every time a city adopts BSL it makes it harder for us to adopt dogs of those breeds to that particular city.  It's already hard to find owners who are willing to overlook the urban legends that have become the Pit Bull to take in these loving dogs - -and BSL makes it even harder. I want to keep as many options open for our dogs as possible as we try to find homes for them and minimize the number that are killed because or shelters and foster homes are full.

3) BSL has done nothing to make cities safer.  In fact, BSL only adds to the resources cities need to enforce their true Dangerous Dog ordinances and take away the resources that are used to enforce laws that are truly effective in making communities safer.  Truly safer communities are a benefit to everyone....especially those citizens in that community. However, I benefit from that as well.  If I never see a newspaper headline of "person attacked by dog" again, my life will be significantly better. Every time an event happens and makes the headlines, it has a negative affect elsewhere -- for an example, see how Chillicothe, Mo responded to the news headlines.

4) BSL spreads like a bad cancer.  In nearly every city council meeting I've been to, there has been a map that has been shown that shows cities in the metro area that have BSL colored in red, non-BSL cities in green, and those considering BSL in gold.  Several cities have considered BSL only because other cities are considering it.  Some have brought it up because they fear that they will be a "safe haven" for pit bulls (although if pit bulls aren't a problem now, I don't know why they think the new ones will be a problem).  And like Cancer, it spreads.  I want to stop the cancer from spreading.

That's why I was there.  That's why I'm here.

Feel Good Story for the Holidays

A lot of websites and animal organizations spend a lot of time during the holidays telling you what you should NOT do during the holidays.  They are right of course -- giving puppies and kittens as holiday gifts are a horrible idea.  Many people do this without the thought that a puppy is a 15+ year committment, 352-day a-year committment that shouldn't be sprung on someone.  I applaud these organizations for getting this word out.

But at least one organization spent its Christmas holiday focusing on what people SHOULD do with pets for the holidays.  In Seattle, Pasado went out into communities giving holiday gifts for pets in needy neighborhoods -- providing over $10,000 worth of pet food, collars, dog beds, dog houses, flea treatments, pet store gift certificates, etc.  The Seattle Times wrote a great article about this here.

Here is one quote from the article that I love:

"People from all walks of life care about their animals all the same," Amanda Boyd said. "Dogs and people just have that bond. It's so special because the dog doesn't even want anything from you except to be with you. These dogs have a great life. They get to see their owners all the time, and they get to hang out. And everyone is real grateful."

This is something that I learned an appreciation for recently.  I used to be one of those people who would drive through poor neighborhoods and see animals in less-than-idea situations and would think that the owners did not care much about the dogs.  However, I've helped several times with the spay/neuter events put on by Spay/Neuter Kansas City and have gotten a chance to meet a lot of these owners.  The one thing I've learned is that a lot of these people care about their dogs just as much as I do -- but lack the resources to provide for them in the same ways.

Great job by Pasado on this program -- and my 2007 wish is that this may inspire some people in the Kansas City area (and throughout the country) to set up a similar program to this and that local pet stores, national chains like Petco and dog food manufacturers will help provide them with the resources necessary to do it.

 

Happy Holidays

I love Christmas. And even if you don't celebrate Christmas, there is something about the time off from work, and spending time with family and friends (both two legged and four legged), and contemplating the year that was and the year that is coming.

2006 has been a struggle for a lot of us here in Kansas City -- with 20+ communities having discussed BSL (and some still working on it), I know that a lot of my original "to-dos" didn't get accomplished...but I still feel like I've accomplished something.  In addition, I made a lot of really good friends along the way as we bounced from city council meeting to city council meeting throughout the metro -- teaching and making new friends along the way.

Now, with things being quiet on that front for the holiday, I'm spending more time with my wife and "kids".  It's great to have quiet time and enjoy just hanging out with them -- feeling the love I like to call it.

Have a great Christmas everyone -- I'll be back on Tuesday.

The value of a good dangerous dog ordinance

I referenced this article yesterday in regards to Royal City, WA passing a ban on pit bulls and Rottweilers -- however, there is also included in this story good news from Richland, WA that after a lot of debate and initially considering BSL language, they unamimously opposed the BSL language. Here are two quotes from a city council member:

"I don't see where amending the (dangerous dog) ordinance will gain anything,'' said council member Edward Revell, who voted in favor of the proposal Nov. 21.

"We all have our fears,'' Revell said, ``but I don't think there's any evidence to support (pit bulls) are any worse.''

The first quote sums up one of my big frustrations with adding BSL language to a good dangerous dog ordinance.  A good dangerous dog ordinance should allow you to deem a dog dangerous of any breed.  So if a pit bull is dangerous, it is covered under the dangerous dog ordinance.

However, adding BSL language will only make dogs that are not dangerous be deemed dangerous.  If the dog is dangerous, it fits in the original, breed neutral, dangerous dog ordinance.  However, if it is deemed to be not dangerous, it is then included in the BSL language.  Those are the only "new" dogs that will be covered that weren't covered in the DDO.

Thus, I've never understood the need for BSL -- even if it were statistically warranted (which it's not).  The reality is that if the DDO is solid, there is no added benefit of the BSL language -- as it will only affect non-threatening dogs.  The idea of creating an ordinance that will take man hours to enforce, veterinarians to determine a dog's breed, and money to kennel the dogs during this process that only affects dogs that weren't a problem in the first place is one of the more ridiculous ideas I've ever heard.  And yet, somehow it happens.

A Holiday Weekend tip of the hat to the city council in Richland, WA for getting it.