KC DOG BLOG

Mail Bag, BSL as a Litmus Test

Yesterday I received an email from someone who was a bit offended that of all of the issues that affect our fair city, I would encourage people to make a decision based on their stances on dogs.  Here's the short note:

Subject: DSL

Aside from my personal positions, it's a very sad day for our political processes when a candidate's validity for an office, such as Mayor, is influenced by how that candidate has voted on issues such as DSL. There ARE much larger issues to be considered.


Dave

Never mind that I don't know what internet speed has to do with mayoral elections either -- or maybe he's talking about Dog Specific Legislation, but that's another story. 

Anyway, I think this is an important topic, and maybe a fair question and I wanted to address it here.  The reality is there ARE other important issues.  But I feel like BSL provides an excellent Litmus test for candidates that gives me an eye for how they'll view other topics.  As such, here is my response to Dave:

Dave,

Thanks for checking out our site and your comments.

In response to your criticism, I have to say that we absolutely agree that there are other issues to consider when voting. We state quite plainly on the website that this is only ONE issue that people should consider when going to the polls. That?s why we seldom endorse a specific candidate.

However, I do want to point out to you why we think Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is an excellent litmus test for candidates for office.

1) BSL is unconstitutional ? it singles out a certain segment of the population and puts restrictions on them and their rights to own certain breeds of dogs without sufficient reasoning or due process. Currently, 14 states in the U.S do not allow BSL, and four have ruled such ordinances as unconstitutional. The most recent court case, Toledo vs Tellings (www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/6/200 6/2006-ohio-975.pdf ), strikes down BSL as unconstitutional. It?s also important to note that the Missouri Statute uses the state of Ohio as a precedent?which means any new court appeal in Missouri would also likely find it unconstitutional. We think that upholding our national constitution and protecting people?s rights under it is a pretty big deal.

2) BSL is not effective policy in making municipalities safer. There is not one single documented study that shows that BSL lowers the number of dog bites, or fatalities. There are many case studies that actually show the opposite ? that BSL, because it is virtually impossible to enforce, and takes so much manpower for animal controls to enforce, many cities report MORE problems and bites after enacting this policy. In fact, the United Kingdom enacted BSL and has seen a 34% growth in major dog attacks since its enforcement. If a candidate is going to make a poor decision on BSL, in spite of the OVERWHELMING evidence against it, what other decisions are they going to make contrary to what evidence points out works? What other ways will they find to waste taxpayer dollars?

3) Over 50% of the people in the metro have dogs ? and candidate?s points of view on animal related issues regarding spay/neuter, tethering, dog parks, fencing, insurance, breed specific clauses etc affect a LOT of people in this city.

The reality is that pretty much every time we?ve met a politician that favors BSL, we usually find many other instances of them favoring bad policies in different areas. Pardon us for thinking that unconstitutional laws that take rights away from citizens, cost a lot of taxpayer dollars and simply don't work, are a bad idea.

Meanwhile, there are many other organizations that are endorsing and FUNDING candidates for less important issues. Freedoms Inc endorses candidates just based on their race, and another organization here in town promoted candidates just based on their gender. We?ve seen enough politics to know that people of all races and genders are equally able to either make good or bad laws. We?re at least providing information and recommendations based on POLICY. How many votes are cast based on name recognition alone?

What we?re promoting for people is making knowledgeable decisions on candidates?which we think everyone should do. In a day and age when only 30% of the population voted in a mayoral election, and a large percentage of those people knew very little about any of the candidates, we think that providing information and education to people about candidates is a very good thing.

Sorry that you disagree.

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.

Maddening Story

On Sunday, a Raytown woman was kicked out of Lee's Summit's Truman Lakewood Hospital because she showed up to the hospital with her service dog, which happens to be a pit bull.  Apparently, hospital security forced her out to her car and threated to arrest the woman and take her service dog to the pound.

The woman, Coreinna Ball, suffers from a condition known as agoraphobia, an anxiety disorder that creates huge fear of being in public. Her service dog Tanner (pictured left) is a certified service dog that was adopted to her by Mid America Bully Breed Rescue.

The hospital's "appology" consisted of a statement about how the dog's breed "caused staff concerns" but that everything is resolved now because the woman was admitted back into the hospital 2 days later (thank goodness she wasn't having a stroke or heart attack). 

You can watch the Fox 4 News story here.   What is even more annoying is that in the 10pm newscast, they interviewed another woman, Sheila Styron, with Guide Dog Users, Inc, called the hospital staff's irriational fear, and refusing to treat this woman with a trained service dog, "understandable" since pit bulls usually don't contain the temperament for being service dogs.  WHAT?!?!?! (I SOOO wish I could find the video clip of it, it was quite the TIVO moment rewinding it trying figure out if I really heard what I thought I heard).

Let's set something straight.  Service dogs are very well trained dogs, and have to meet certain standards before they can reach that status.  I'd LOVE to see the report of the trained service dog that attacked a young child or hospital worker.

I wrote about the prevelance of pit bulls in service types of positions last week.  As a society, we need to stand up to the types of businesses that discriminate against service dogs, regardless of breed -- and media needs to realize that their inaccurate reporting tactic and hysteria creation are leading to situations where this woman was denied medical attention, and others are scared to help someone in need. 

This is the second report of a service dog being denied because it was a pit bull already this year.  Stop the madness.  Please.

Don't foget the fundraiser tomorrow

Over the past 18 months, KCDA has worked very hard for responsible dog legislation throughout the metro.  We have fought off BSL in over 20 area cities this year (and lost in about 4), we have helped WOOF in their efforts for a new Brookside/Waldo dog park, met with numberous city council and mayoral hopefuls to get them up to speed PRIOR to problems arising, helped promote and run  the great work that Spay/Neuter KC has been doing in helping people VOLUNTARILY control the dog population in the city, and helped their role in the Winter Assistance program. 

All of these things take time and money, and for the past 18 months, we have funded our activities almost entirely out of the pockets of our members.  To remedy that, and to help increase what we're able to do in the future, we are holding our first ever fundraiser. 

So stop by the Draws for Paws fundraiser tomorrow at Tower Tavern -- $15 at the door gets you two beers and good, yummy pizza.

We have a lot of successes to celebrate, a new KCMO City Council and mayor and a lot of great things in the works.  It'll be fun.  And the money goes to helping dogs throughout the metro.

Election Day is Important

Tomorrow is an important day.  There are several major offices that are up for grabs in what will be very close races. 

Overall, I can't express enough my frustration with the politicians of this city and their lack of desire to even TRY to communicate with a dog advocacy group that represents over a hundred members and thousands of dog owners in the city.

And while as a group, KCDA doesn't generally issue support for one candidate over another, there are a couple of races that I feel compelled to talk about.  You can check the dog advocacy ratings here (scroll under politics to find your city of residency).

Meanwhile, here are a couple of highlights:

1) KCMO - Mayor -- Mark Funkhouser. Funkhouser is a facts man, and can be swayed against BSL, because the facts are against BSL.  Wants more funding for animal control and other basic city services.  His opponent, Alvin Brooks, proposed BSL in KCMO in July.

2) KCMO - 4th District At-Large - Beth Gottstein favors BSL, and has not responded to numerous attempts by KCDA to talk to her.  Doug Gamble is against BSL and long-term tethering.  Doug is a good dog-friendly candidate.

3)KCMO - 5th District At-Large - Cindy Baker Circo is one of the few truly dog-friendly candidates left in any of the city council races.  I like Michael Brooks, but as a dog-loving group, we really need Cindy in the council.

4) Gladstone - Barry McCullough vs Les Smith.  Les Smith is the primary advocate and driver for BSL in Gladstone - -in spite of there only being 15 total dog bites last year from all dogs combined.  Barry McCullough is against BSL and would have a chance of getting Gladstone's silly ordinance repealed. This election is actually next Tuesday, but I think it's worth mentioning.

5) Raytown, MO Mayor - Daivd Bower is a very dog-friendly candidate and one of his main opponents is city councilman Greg Walters -- who was the ringmaster of the BSL circus in Raytown this year.  Raytown wisely decided against  BSL, in spite of Walters' antics.  Bower is supported by outgoing mayor Sue Frank, who I respect a lot.

6) Olathe, KS - Mayor - Incumbant Mike Copeland favors BSL for incoming residents in a desire to keep the "undesireable people" out of Olathe.  Beverly Wittenborn "gets it" and favors responsible dog policy -- including Olathe's current ordinance that is very strong.

Go make your voice heard tomorrow.  If, as a constituency, we make our voices heard, eventually, candidates will come around and actually LISTEN to the facts.  Let's make it happen.

Enjoy Democracy.

Kansas Gambling, why animal lovers should care

The state of Kansas is a step closer to allowing slot machines in many places including at their three state greyhound racing tracks.

PLEASE WRITE YOUR STATE CONGRESSMEN AND TELL THEM WHY THIS IS A BAD IDEA.

I'm not hear to preach about gambling. But the reality is that allowing slots at dog tracks will only prolong the profitablity of Greyhound dog racing. Most of these places are no longer profitable due to declining attendance.  But slots will allow them to continue on and be profitable.

I know what you're thinking, Greyhound Racing isn't all that bad -- Greyhounds enjoy running.  And that's true.  However, it's the inhumane treatment of the dogs that bothers me. Most are just killed after their prime racing days are over.  They are terribly over-bred to create the fastest racers -- and the ones that aren't fast enough to be profitable are killed also.

It's interesting to note that Greyhounds are not legally dogs in the state of Kansas -- so they're not subject to the same abuse laws that protect other breeds.  They are classified as livestock...that can be treated however without repercussions (again, I'll let y ou fight those battles based on how you feel).

I've written on this before, but we are dangerously close to this passing state congress.  With all of our help, and letters, we can stop the madness.

For my detailed report on Greyhound racing, go here.

For some of the reasons you should care about stopping Greyhound racing, go here.

For a history of Greyhound racing in the state of Kansas, go here.

Find your legislator here.

It really should only take one

One of the biggest arguments we hear when people want to ban pit bulls is that somehow pit bulls are inherantly dangerous, that there is something "different" about the "breed" that makes them meaner, "likely to snap without cause", or "unstable".

Then, every now and again, the news media will pick up on a story about a pit bull that becomes a service dog or rescue dog.  Here is a story about a rescued pit bull that has become a service dog. (Dog is pictured left).  Then, there was this story about a group of therapy dogs (including a pit bull) that finished their "graduation" last week in Williamsport, VA.

This isn't unusual at all for pit bull-type dogs to be service dogs or search and rescue dogs.  Many organizations specialize in their training -- including Law Dogs USA that trains pit bulls to be working police dogs.  Check out their site as to why pit bulls make such great law dogs.  Diane Jessup is well known also for her job in training pit bulls as service dogs.

It should really only take one though.  Think about it, if only one pit bulls was well respected as a service dog, or rescue dog, or police dog, it would be enough evidence that there is nothing wrong with the "breed" --and that they could be trained to be good dogs.  Nurture would rule. 

Unfortunately, what everyone ends up thinking that it's pit bulls that are the problem.  It never is.  They are what you make them.  The proof is out there, if only people cared to look.

Young lives are more newsworthy than older ones

Or, maybe certain breeds of dogs are more newsworthy. 

This week, the state of Texas saw two dog fatalities.  I want to note here, that dog fatalities are extremely rare -- and happen about 1/3 as often in the US as someone dying from being struck by lightning.  So two happening in the same state, in the same week, is incredibly rare.

Anyway, the first incident involved three dogs, with the one being blamed for the fatality being a Catahoula Leopard Dog/American Bulldog mix.  This dog allegedly attacked and killed a 50 year old woman in her back yard.  The fatality was covered by six news sources in the state of Texas: KVUE TV, the Houston Chronicle, KHOU TV, The Galveston Daily News, KFOR TV and WOAI-TV.  I'll also note that one of the news sources only covered the story as a pit bull attack, and the Galveston News spent 2 days calling it a pit bull attack before finally running a correction.

Meanwhile, the story about the little girl being attacked by a pit bull, has already been covered by 19 different news sources, including almost every TV Outlet in the state of Texas, the Dallas Morning News, the Washington Times, KSOW (Oklahoma TV) and the United Press International.

I wonder why one story was picked up by 6 news sources, and the other by more than 3 times that number?

Tough day for Children in Dallas Area

Two major dog attacks happened in the Dallas area yesterday, and the victims were both young children.  The attacks were very similar in nature. One girl is in critical condition, one is dead.

The first incident involves a neighbor's Golden Retriever that attacked a toddler in Dallas.  According to the owners, the dog had shown aggressive tendencies toward children before.  The owners sound like the really love the dog, and tried to keep young children away from the dog, but the girl, Breanna Webster, was near the dog, more or less unattended, and the dog attacked her.  The surgeon called the attack the worst dog bite he'd ever seen.  You can read the whole story here.

The second incident, involved a pit bull that attacked, and killed, a 2 year old girl in rural Dallas County in the town of Combine.  The dog was chained up in the back yard, and broke free from the chain while the father was using a weed eater, and attacked the girl who was riding a tricycle.  In this instance also, neighbors had called police (there is no animal control for this area) about the dog because it had been aggressive toward children.

Both of these cases are pretty typical of the how major dog bites occur -- dog has shown signs of previous aggression and a child playing close to the dog and not well supervised.  I'll also note again that tethering dogs for long periods of time is such a horrible idea.

It's a shame, these two incidences were entirely preventable.  And yet, one life is ended way too soon, and another, is traumatized early on. 

It's not right, but I do understand

Well, I would like to think I would have handled this situation better, but I won't say for certain that I wouldn't have ended up here.

Yesterday, an owner of two pit bulls shot at an Independence Animal control officer that was trying to take his dogs.  It's my understanding that a "well meaning" meter-reader called animal control about the dogs (even though animal control says they were taking the dogs in because they were not licensed).  The dogs are pit bulls, which are now basically illegal in Independence.

When animal control was trying to take the owner's dogs (to their most certain death), the man fired a gun at the animal control officers.  When animal control left, the man tried to escape before AC came back with police but police caught him escaping in his El Camino.

By all reports, the dogs are good, well-behaved dogs, but are guilty of being pit bulls.

This story shows two things: 1) the most dangerous mammal when a person is walking a pit bull is most likely the person holding the leash and 2) people love their dogs and can be willing to fight for them.

While I can't condone the behavior of the man shooting at the officers, I do understand. 

As a side note, I hear through the rumor mill that the man's girl friend is going to take the dogs and move them to another city.  The man, likely, won't have much use for dogs where he's going.