KC DOG BLOG

This is who laws affect

There is a letter to the editor in today's newspaper.  Here's a woman who by all counts sounds like a responsible owner, and breeder, of pit bulls...but had to give up showing and breeding her dogs because KCMO, her home town, forced a mandatory spay/neuter policy on her.  Meanwhile, the person who was truly responsible for the attack in the first place got merely 100 days in jail and some community service work (hopefully putting him in the back room of a local shelter having to euthenize the dogs that his actions made outlawed in Independence).

This is what happens when society will spend thousands of hours worrying about what we can do to punish pit bulls vs worrying about punishing the guy that let dogs loose to "see what would happen."  Innocent, responsible people pay.  The people who were problems in the first place slide into the cracks.

Sorry Martha...we tried.  Not everyone was willing to listen...but we tried.

Ok, let's say it works, is it a good idea?

There's an interesting article by K9 magazine -- a magazine out of the UK.  The United States is working a DNA Test so that people can accurately determine the breed of dog that they own.  The technology would be such that it would allow people to determine up to 38 different breeds of dog.   Results of the test woudl be available in 4-6 weeks.

The article states that if the test proves to be effective, it could allow people to prove their dog is not a dog listed in the Dangerous Dog Ordinance.  This could be realy handy for dog owners in places with BSL and non-banned breeds from becoming mid-identified and put down.

Meanwhile, the inverse of this, is that many cities will use this as their excuse to actually enact BSL.  Now, with it being "easy" to tell if a dog is truly a pit bull or not, it will be easy to determine which dogs should be banned with little chance of mis-identification.

Unfortunately, somehow they'll still tell themselves that it's easier to capture a dog, bring it into the shelter, take a blood sample, send it off to a lab, get the results back 4-6 weeks later and determine whether it's "dangerous" or not based on what type of dog it is vs just determining whether the dog is really dangerous or not.  Let me have 15 minutes with a dog -- I'll tell you whether it's dangerous or not...breed neutral.  It'll save them 6 weeks, paying for a real scientist to run a DNA test and actually remove dangerous animals from our cities vs some type of BSL that will do nothing to improve public safety.

But at least the test will make ridiculous legislation possible and expensive to enforce.  Sigh.

Stereotypes

One of the hardest things about fighting BSL is overcoming stereotypes that exist for pit bulls (and pit bull owners).  While it's true that many of these dogs have been bred and trained to be violent by the dregs of our society, the reality is that most of them are not that way, and that responsible owners can, and do, breed and train the majority of these problems out of the dogs.  The role of a dog ordinance should be to get at these irresponsible owners vs targeting specific breeds.

Unfortunately, as an animal community, we can sometimes be equally guilty of believing these stereotypes.  Late this week, one local, high-profile, rescue worker put a post on pit moxy regarding our work of preventing the ban of pit bull type dogs from Johnson County Parks.   I'm going to paste the comments here (with one irresistible comment from me in Blue) and then comment at the end.

"There are people that fight BSL without having a profound understanding of the breed and what they are doing. Those people are more likely to get the breed banned, than people who respect the limitations and potential of their dogs.

Pit Bull dogs have been "engineered" by bloodthirsty individuals for hundreds of year.(Let's not exaggerate here, the sport of dog fighting has really only existed for about 150 years...). While they are inherently people-friendly (its actually hard to make a Pit Bull dislike people -except Alan Hill) they also have an inherent urge to fight other canines. 

While Pit Bulls are not the only dogs prone to resolve conflicts and hierarchy via a dog fight, they are unlike any other canine when it comes to their determination to finish the fight. People that don't understand that behavior, should not own a Pit Bull. In the same line of thought, people that don't respect herding behaviors should not own a sheltie or Border Collie.

In addition, Pit Bulls have been bred for their superior fighting abilities for hundreds of years. (Actually Am Staffs have been out of the fighting gene pool for a long time.) To deny or ignore this fact is "Irresponsible"! 

Taking a Pit Bull to an off-leash dog park is a HUGE mistake... A mistake that can cost the life of other dogs and get our breed banned once and for all. (Um, they are in her city.)

I hope that every Pit Bull owner on this list is responsible enough and educated enough to know to NEVER take a fighting breed to a dog park. (Let's ban Shar-peis too!)

Taking a Pit Bull to a dog park and expecting him or her to mingle with other dogs and act like a Lab, is like taking a Lab to the lake and expecting him to stay out of the water like a Chow....(I know someone whose dog was attacked by a Chow at SMP)

It is NOT fair for the dogs to be put in a position to fail like that. Pit Bull owners OUGHT to educate themselves about their breed before they go on to try to fight BSL.

Again, fighting breeds (APBT's are not the only ones) should NOT be allowed, welcomed or best, brought into dog parks. Its a question of common sense, not breed prejudice.

V"

It's this type of thing that not only makes me really angry -- but also helps proponents of BSL.  If the author had any idea about fighting BSL herself, she'd know that.

While a good many pit bulls out there have been bred to be dog aggressive, there are also hundreds of registered breeders of pit bull type dogs that don't breed them for this purpose.  There are also many that have been well-socialized by their responsible owners since they were puppies that handle themselves quite well at dog parks.  I have a dog Grommit, that is some type of cross breed that may or may not even contain pit bull in him, but because he has a blocky head would probably not be welcomed at a dog park with a ban.  He is awesome at the dog park, and usually the best dog there when we go. 

I think the big distinction here is that just because we fought for the right of some of these dogs to be in the dog park doesn't mean that ALL of them should be taken to a dog park.  There's a difference between what people should do and making a law preventing it.

The point is that for a dog park to work, people have to own up to the responsibility of being the world's smartest person about the behavior of THEIR DOG.  If their dog is fine at a dog park, take it.  If it's not, don't.  Know the warning signs your dog gives and always, always keep an eye on your dog.  Even though Grommit is a rock star at the dog park, I still am never more than a few feet away from him (especially if he's in a group of dogs) -- because you never know when a fight might break out (caused by him or another dog) and I want to be there to stop it. 

When even serious "pit bull people" buy into the horrific stereotypes presented in the media, they feed the monster that is BSL and the media mania that surrounds it. This person's rescue website has put up tons of scare-tactics to prohibit people from owning pit bulls and have been used repeatedly by outsiders as to why cities should enact BSL (including the city in which she lived).  While dog breeds can be an indicator of certain characteristics, I've seen more than a few labs that can't (or don't) fetch, and that don't like water.  Dogs are unique creatures and based not only on their breeding, but also their upbringing, they contain different characteristics.  If anyone doubts this, all they need to do is talk to Emily Weiss at the ASPCA...who is one of the top experts in the field on this subject.

Until we shed the stereotypes, it will be a long road for all of us.

Dumb Editorial Week

A couple of really bad editorials this week.

The first is from the Alamogordo Daily News (WA). 

Don't ban pit bulls, but definitely regulate them

Alamogordo Daily News

More pit bull attacks resulting in grievous injuries, mental distress, and yes, even another death recently.

When are our elected officials going to recognize this problem for what it is and take action to resolve it?

What I would like to see legislated nationally, statewide, and by our city is that each pit bull owner should have to acquire a $5O0,000 liability insurance policy on each dog they own; that each dog be registered as a deadly weapon; and if their dog is outside, whether in a fenced yard or on a leash, that these dogs be muzzled. These dogs seem to have a knack for getting out of "fenced yards."

Now I know that I will hear loud and clear from bleeding-heart animal lovers who say that pit bulls are just another dog. These people may be knowledgeable and think that they know all about pit bulls, but what they fail to acknowledge is the lackadaisical attitudes and psychological deficiencies of a majority of these dogs' owners. (No, we acknowledge the lackadaisical attitudes of these dog owners -- and think we should fix THAT problem instead of taking these dogs away from good owners.  Plus, why does this guy think that lackadaisical owners will pay for $500,000 in additional insurance and muzzle their dog?)

From what I have read, these dogs were bred to be killers and not pets. From what I see on TV and read in the news, that's just what they are.  (Wow, this person's credentials are amazing! -- he reads AND watches TV).

Come on legislators, do the job you were elected to do and enact laws to protect your constituency from this growing threat.

The Second is from the Globe & Mail -- in response to a report done in by the Toronto Sun on what is going on with their pit bull ban thus far.  I'm going to post the whole editorial here (my comments in blue, per usual) as the Globe & Mail charges for their online service so I've stolen this from an outside source (no reason giving them extra $$$ and rewarding this type of behavior).

Pit bull ban could be just a start for a safer city
JOHN BARBER

Good news! The number of pit bulls destroyed by the city every year has increased substantially since the breed was banned province wide in August, 2005.

Five hundred of the dogs have died painlessly in municipal facilities since the ban, compared with 441 that suffered the same fate in the 16 months prior to its enactment.

Of special interest, almost 200 of the potentially vicious animals were executed summarily: not because of anything they had done, but simply because of what they were. (I honestly think that anyone who supports any type of breed ban should be forced to spend at least one week in a shelter putting down these dogs so they can see the effects of their legislation and the affects it has on their animal control personnel).

The law is biting back.

This is not necessarily good news to the municipal officials charged with its enforcement.

Toronto animal services manager Eletta Purdy is one of a legion of experts, genuine and otherwise, who oppose the ban.

She would prefer to assess each potentially dangerous dog "on its own merit" before deciding whether to put it down. (Wait, the author here actually is going to to explain why this is a bad idea).

"If it was a healthy, well-behaved dog, we would be placing it up for adoption, regardless of the breed," she said.

But now, municipal officials all over Ontario are forced to destroy many healthy, well-behaved and potentially adoptable dogs, simply because of their breed.

Because of that, and for many other reasons, just about every animal-welfare organization in existence, from the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, opposes breed-specific bans.

Their ultimate argument is that such bans do nothing to reduce the risk to small children of being torn to pieces by vicious dogs that, they acknowledge, were bred to kill.

But what if they're wrong?

What if even one of those 200 summary executions prevented a single hideous mauling of the sort that inspired Attorney-General Michael Bryant to ban pit bulls in Ontario?  (Or what if a stray dog attacks someone because animal control is too busy to get it because it's rounding up pit bulls?)

That would be very good news.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to determine anything beyond the fact that more potentially dangerous dogs are being euthanized.

Dog attacks were not classified by breed prior to the ban, according to Ms. Purdy, so there is no way to determine whether or not it has increased public safety.

"I have no evidence that tells me one way or another," she said.

"In order to ascertain that, you would have to have some very good statistical information, and I'm not sure that exists."

In the absence of any reliable data, hypotheses rule.

Among those who oppose the ban, the most common is a variation on the refrain that "guns don't kill people, people do."

Even though pit bulls have been bred to be vicious (just as guns are designed to kill), such dogs are said to be safe if handled properly.

This is no doubt true.

The problem is this breed's particular attraction to people who value vicious dogs and don't mind using them for the purpose to which they were bred.

A pit bull ban can't contain the anti-social impulse, but it does, to some small extent, disarm it.

People say that irresponsible dog owners will switch to other breeds when they can't have pit bulls.

Again, they're right.

Who can forget the news from Christmas Day, when two free-roaming Rottweilers attacked a Hamilton toddler in a mauling that lasted for minutes, despite the efforts of bystanders to free him.

The boy "looked like he was a doll being torn apart," according to a neighbour.

Different generations choose their own vicious dogs.

German shepherd dogs, bred to attack people and used for that purpose in the Belgian Congo and German concentration camps, were once the most dangerous dogs on Canadian city streets.

Then it was Dobermans, then pit bulls.

Now, it appears, the vicious dog of the day is the Rottweiler -- "a natural weapon of war," according to some of its fanciers.

Fortunately, there is a simple answer to this emerging dilemma: a ban on Rottweilers, followed by bans on any other breeds that are turned to the same anti-social purposes, until people finally realize that a crowded city is no place for potentially vicious animals.  (ok, I confess, I've reread this a half dozen times.  At first I thought it was sarcasm.  But I don't think so now.  I honestly think that he really believes this recommendation...that we should just continue to ban dog breeds until all potentially dangerous dog breeds are disposed of.  Why don't they just ban all dogs over 20 lbs...that will be the eventual result of his recommendation. It's pretty amazing that THIS is his eventual recommendation...as is the direction of the city council.  I can't see any way of how you come to this based on the info he prsented.)

The pit bull ban is a good start.

[email protected]

Wow.

Being Afraid

On Tuesday, Marjorie left an excellent comment to my post about the role of government in protecting protecting the minority from the majority.  Marjorie left many good quotes (including many of her own -- I especially liked her differentiation between democracy and freedom ) .  But one quote really hit home this week.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

I get the point. We absolutely do need to think of our policy makers as our employees.  However, its the government fear of their constituents that may have gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Monday night, the Gladstone City Council met to discuss its dangerous dog ordinance.  The board was split 50/50, with two council members in favor of BSL and two opposing BSL.  One of the council members (Les Smith) in favor of BSL said he favored BSL because he thought it was the will of the people and that most people he talked to in this small community favored some type of pit bull legislation.  I won't get into the specifics of the 3  hour meeting, but I honestly believe that Mr. Smith was taking his stance because he was afraid of his constituents.  He was afraid that by not passing BSL, he would not be re-elected. 

So in spite of a lot of compelling evidence presented last night, the fear of his constituents kept Mr. Smith's feet dug in.  He is reacting to what he perceives to be the majority of his constituents, while his constituents were afraid of pit bulls.

It amazes me what people are afraid of...as a society we tend to be afraid of what the media tells us we should be afraid of.  This is the topic of Barry Glassner's book the Culture of Fear.  In the book, Glassner talks about how the media has caused us to be afraid of school violence, road rage, and internet addiction although these afflictions actually affect very few people.  Similarly, we worry about our kids being taken by a random sexual predator -- when 94% of sexual predators are people who know the child.

The media preys on making us scared...and people are more than willing to jump to that fear. After several hundreds of media reports about pit bulls over the past 8 months, I hardly blame people for thinking pit bulls more closely resembled grizzly bears than 40-50 lbs love-lickers.  The media has preyed on this fear.  People have taken to it -- and at least one politician in Gladstone has allowed that fear to drive his decision. 

Fear is a funny thing.  And has a crazy way of making us make decisions.  We need to be aware, as a society of what drives our fears...and what is really worth being afraid of. As politicians, they need to focus on doing what is fair and right (freedom) vs what they think will get them re-elected (democracy) -- and then trust that the people will see the protection of freedom as worthy of their vote.

"Honest Mistake"

I'm going to highlight this because it happens a lot -- and not only is it sometimes hard to catch, it also doesn't get changed a lot.

Here's a story from WTKR in Hampton Roads, VA.  The updated news story announces that a 6-year-old child was attacked and killed by one, maybe two Rottweilers -- but the original story headline can be seen here at the link from Google (currently the 4th story down) that announces "Pit Bull Attacks and Kills 6 Year Old Boy".

At least the station eventually made the correction.  Earlier this year KCTV5 in Kansas City ran a story about a pit bull attack and showed a picture of the dog on the website.  After several complaints that the dog that was pictured in no way even resembled a pit bull, they pulled the visual down, but left the headline the same.

As far as the media is concerned, dog that bites = pit bull, regardless of what the dog looks like.

Another victory for Pibbles

The Johnson County Parks and Rec voted against the measure last night that would prevent pit bulls from being allowed in any Johnson County Parks or Dog Parks.  The vote was 4-2.  I can't even express the feeling that you get when over 100 dog owners showed up to the meeting, many of which weren't pit bull owners but owners of other dogs that visit the dog park regularly and understand that dogs are dogs, and dogs sometimes get in fights, and that it doesn't really matter if said dog is a lab, german shepherd, golden retriever or yorkie.  They're dogs.

It was great to see so many people give up their Wednesday night to fight for the cause...and frustrating that they had to with 3 confirmed pit bull bites in since 2002. 

You can read more about it here -- but it's a good day for the pit bulls in KC.

Why report it now?

Um, wow.  So there was a dog attack, 600 miles away that happened 24 days ago -- and TODAY it's news.  This story was picked up by media in KC, St. Louis, Columbia, MO, Jefferson City, Kennett, MO, Bellville, IL, Jonesboro, AR and Paducha, KY.  That's right, 10+ media outlets in 7 different media markets in 4 different states picked up a story of something that happened nearly a month ago as news only because it involved a pit bull.  And with nearly a month to cover the story, nobody was able to figure out why the dog attacked or talk to the owner.  What were the events that led to the dog attacking?  Seems like they had time to find out -- but then again, in their eyes, that's not the story.

Another day in the life in KCMO

I have a lot of stuff to get to this week, but bear with me as we've got a LOT going on.   I'll try to keep up.

Meanwhile, I wanted to leave you with this email that I received from a friend of mine that works for the KCMO Police Department. This is a fairly common story in a city that responds to 20% of its animal control calls.  I repeat, this is not a bashing of the KCMO Animal Control Department (most of them I've met from over there are good people -- there just aren't enough of them), it's just a commentary on what happens when a city council's answer to an underfunded AC Department is BSL.  Sigh. 

Here’s another tragic Animal Contorl disaster:

Officer XXXXX of the Metro Patrol Division was dispatched to meet animal control on 1/11/07 at 0914 am at (5500 Block of) Paseo regarding dead dogs inside the residence. Animal Control wanted to ensure there were no people inside the abandoned property before they entered. Of course upon entering, there were three deceased pit bulls, who had obviously starved to death. A neighbor below stated out loud in the presence of the officer and the Animal Control officer, that she had called Animal Control ten times to report the abandoned dogs, after she was aware the owner had moved out, and heard the dogs crying, BUT ANIMAL CONTROL NEVER CAME.

Now, being in law enforcement, I understand people exaggerate or lie frequently, but I don’t understand the neighbor’s necessity to lie, considering she had no risk of being in trouble.

The officer followed up and found out the tenant’s name who abandoned the dogs is: XXXXXX XXXXXX, a black female, about 22 years of age. The officer conducted a computer check which revealed the same person responded to the address. I have more detailed information on her if anybody is interested in seeing if Animal Control is going to pursue neglect charges on her. Somehow I imagine, they won’t, which only encourages the ignorance to continue.

The Role of Government - and the people who don't get it

There was a letter to the editor in the newspaper on Saturday that I want to address -- as I think it highlights a lot of the problems and misperceptions out there and how people perceive the role of government that I find quite disturbing.

Here's the letter in its entirety, just in case the link goes down soon (which sometimes happens).

I've put some comments in blue -- and will have some comments at the end.

Pit bull ordinance

I saw that a police officer recently was bitten by a pit bull. It was easy to see, while animal control officers were taking one dog to their vehicle, that it had not been neutered. I wonder how many of the pit bull dog population have been spayed or neutered since the new ordinance took effect on Dec. 1. I doubt it is very many.

Spay/Neuter Kansas City has been having record turnouts at its spay/neuter clinics since the inception of this law.  Once a month, they do all-day "mash clinics" where they offer low-cost spay/neuter to people in "high risk" neighborhoods and have been averaging around 150 dogs each month.  So while this doesn't even touch the number of dogs that are out there, progress is being made.  I'll also note that if the police showed up at this house in the first place, it doesn't appear that the owner of the dog was too awful concerned with laws in this city...not sure why this guy thinks a dog neutering law would be any different.  At least this guy gets what the city council didn't get in that this law is no way enforcable.

Last summer, the City Council did not have the courage to do the right thing by banning dangerous dogs. Actually, dangerous dogs are banned -- they just define it based on actions, not breed. Is a child going to have to die before the city has the courage to do this? People have so little regard for human life. These dog owners should be held accountable for their lack of responsibility to public safety. I completely agree, let's hold irresponsible owners accountable - -if he'd thought about his letter, he'd almost have gotten it.

Now some of these council members want to be elected mayor of Kansas City. If elected, will they again cower under pressure from a few? Who's providing the pressure? Seems like it's the few who actually want a ban of some type. Elected officials have a duty to represent the citizens who elected them.

Don Baker
Kansas City

Ok, it's the last sentence that's bolded that gets my goat.  Some people in this country have the misconception that the government is there solely to look after the the will of the majority.  Actually, 5,000 or so years of human history, and 200 years of American history, have proven that the majority has been pretty effective in getting its way over the years.  In many ways, while the government in this country is elected by the majority, one of its primary roles as a body is to protect the minority from the will of the majority...to ensure that the minority has the same rights as that majority If, as a country, our government caved to the desire of the majority, we'd still have segregation, slavery, hispanics would all be shipped across the border, etc. I will also note that I have been to city council meetings in 20 cities this year and heard about 10 people in 20 cities actually care enough about wanting a pit bull ban to actually show up to speak out in favor of a ban -- while I've seen hundreds who think it's unwarranted, ineffective, and just plain wrong.

No, the government has the responsibility to provide the best for all of its citizens.  That includes building responsible legislation that not only provides for the safety for all citizens, but also protects the rights of law-abiding citizens.   It also requires providing the resources to enforce the legislation it passes.  Last year, due to low funding and resources, KCMO responded to 20% of its total animal control calls...how did the city council think that it was going to enforce yet more legislation --even with 40% more funding? 

It's a dumb law. The letter writer got that right. Knowing the next steps is what he got all goofed up on.

I saw that a police officer recently was bitten by a pit bull. It was easy to see, while animal control officers were taking one dog to their vehicle, that it had not been neutered. I wonder how many of the pit bull dog population have been spayed or neutered since the new ordinance took effect on Dec. 1. I doubt it is very many.

Spay/Neuter Kansas City has been having record turnouts at its spay/neuter clinics since the inception of this law.  Once a month, they do all-day "mash clinics" where they offer low-cost spay/neuter to people in "high risk" neighborhoods and have been averaging around 150 dogs each month.  So while this doesn't even touch the number of dogs that are out there, progress is being made.  I'll also note that if the police showed up at this house in the first place, it doesn't appear that the owner of the dog was too awful concerned with laws in this city...not sure why this guy thinks a dog neutering law would be any different.  At least this guy gets what the city council didn't get in that this law is no way enforcable.

Last summer, the City Council did not have the courage to do the right thing by banning dangerous dogs. Actually, dangerous dogs are banned -- they just define it based on actions, not breed. Is a child going to have to die before the city has the courage to do this? People have so little regard for human life. These dog owners should be held accountable for their lack of responsibility to public safety. I completely agree, let's hold irresponsible owners accountable - -if he'd thought about his letter, he'd almost have gotten it.

Now some of these council members want to be elected mayor of Kansas City. If elected, will they again cower under pressure from a few? Who's providing the pressure? Seems like it's the few who actually want a ban of some type. Elected officials have a duty to represent the citizens who elected them.

Don Baker
Kansas City

Ok, it's the last sentence that's bolded that gets my goat.  Some people in this country have the misconception that the government is there solely to look after the the will of the majority.  Actually, 5,000 or so years of human history, and 200 years of American history, have proven that the majority has been pretty effective in getting its way over the years.  In many ways, while the government in this country is elected by the majority, one of its primary roles as a body is to protect the minority from the will of the majority...to ensure that the minority has the same rights as that majority If, as a country, our government caved to the desire of the majority, we'd still have segregation, slavery, hispanics would all be shipped across the border, etc. I will also note that I have been to city council meetings in 20 cities this year and heard about 10 people in 20 cities actually care enough about wanting a pit bull ban to actually show up to speak out in favor of a ban -- while I've seen hundreds who think it's unwarranted, ineffective, and just plain wrong.

No, the government has the responsibility to provide the best for all of its citizens.  That includes building responsible legislation that not only provides for the safety for all citizens, but also protects the rights of law-abiding citizens.   It also requires providing the resources to enforce the legislation it passes.  Last year, due to low funding and resources, KCMO responded to 20% of its total animal control calls...how did the city council think that it was going to enforce yet more legislation --even with 40% more funding? 

It's a dumb law. The letter writer got that right. Knowing the next steps is what he got all goofed up on.