KC DOG BLOG

Suspected dog fighter arrested in Olathe, KS

Earlier this week, Olathe police arrested Reginald Anderson, of Olathe, for suspicion of dog fighting.  This is the first arrest for dog fighting in Johnson County since it was outlawed in 1982.

Police came to the scene when neighbors reported dogs in distress at the address.

Police found performance enhancing drugs, ropes that could have been used for strengthening a dogs' jaw, and a rape stand.

County prosecuter Phil Kline noted: "Fighting does not happen in a vacuum. There are those who purchase the animals.  There are those who take them to fights. There are those who wager on such fights and we intend to get to the bottom of this."

14 pit bull puppies were put to sleep after the incident because they were diagnosed as having a "parasitic disease" that is common in neglected dogs.  I'm working on getting more info on that, as there is a big difference between that being Parvo, vs heart worms (which are easily treated).

Neighbors said they were not surprised by the findings...as at least one had suspected things were going on there for quite some time -- especially after seeing the man hosing down his garage floor. (Be sure to watch the video).

Hopefully if this man is really guilty he gets full prosecution and anyone else connected with this ring gets found out too.

Another dog "in hiding" from BSL

I've spent some time over the past few weeks telling you about Niko - -a dog in KCK that was taken from its owners for being a "pit bull mix" in spite of the dog having paperwork declaring it a Boxer mix.  So without any hearing, vet looking at the dog, or anything, the dog was just ripped from its home and has been sitting in shelter for 2 months.

Well, another similar case has come up in Grandview.

In this case, Grandview didn't rip the dog from its home, but this woman has been forced to put her dog on the doggie underground railroad to hide it from authorities.  Authorities once again declared it a pit bull, even though records state that it is a Boxer mix.

It's a shame.  This dog has provided the woman a lot of comfort and companionship for the woman, Cathy Tuttle, after her 22 year old daughter died in an auto accident last year.

Again, this is another instance of a dog that no longer lives in its home.  No trial. No evidence it is what authorities said it is, and  not because it was aggressive. But because it looks different.

Does anyone else just think that's wrong?

KC City Council Speaks out against Parks Board Decision

Well, local city councilwoman Jan Marcason sent a letter to the Parks Board requesting they reconsider their decision to amend the dog park rules so that no parks under 100 acres could be considered.  Marcason claims:

"While the proponents of an off-leash dog park within SunnysidePark were met with neighborhood resistance to this site, the far-reaching restrictions adopted by the Park Board could unintentionally prevent another neighborhood that might embrace the benefits of an off-leash park from having this amenity"

Marcason also points out:

"As we all remember, the Parks Board was charged with increasing public use of our park system. Off-leash dog parks have proven to be very popular in many cities across the country. They provide socialization for dog owners, help neighbors get to know one another, and increase usage of under-utilized parks."

Obviously what I'd love to see happen are having the amendments repealed.  Then, have the Parks Board seriously look at a city-wide plan that would involve creation of more dog parks, and increase overall usage of the city's parks.  I would love to see the city fund 3-4 more "regional" dog parks -- in parks like Barkley Riverfront Park, Swope Park, a large park up North and a large one down South.

Then, allow neighborhoods, if they so desired, to raise funds to build their own "neighborhood" parks.  These neighborhood parks would be funded by the neighborhoods (assuming not large opposition) and meet the other criteria in the Dog Park Rules (under-utilized parts of parks, etc).  They should also make a rule that these "neighborhood" parks should not be larger than 10% of the total park space (which would mean a park like Sunnyside park could have a 2 acre dog park, but not a 4 acre one).  This should be fairly easy to meet the neighborhood demand as long as regional parks exist.

Some honest conversation can come up with some good solutions if everyone is willing to work together.  But back-room deals could continue to undermine the entire process, and prove to only be good for a very few.

KSHB Followup on Dog Parks Story

KSHB did a decent followup on the Waldo-Brookside dog park meeting on Tuesday.  They interviewed Deb Hipp who did a great job with the interview in explaining where most of the WOOF group's concerns lay.

What is amazing is the delusional nature of Park Board Chairman John Fierro.

"When it turned into profanity, I thought it went beyond the issues of transparency," Parks Board chairman John Fierro said. "That, I didn't think was fair to our board, nor our staff to endure that."

So let's get this straight John.  Your board put forth two amendments at the 11th hour, and pushed them through with ZERO public comment, that was agreed upon behind closed doors (the board didn't even discuss the amendments at the meeting, just voted them through -- and the press release was available IMMEDIATELY after the vote took place) and you thought this went beyond the issue of transparency?  And you thought it was unfair to YOU that people were upset about it? 

Keep in mind that Mr. Fierro was so aware that this would cause problems that he had police protection already present.

I don't really want to condone the profanity...but this is a case where the parks board got exactly what it deserved.

"It was very clear there were some ill feelings in the crowd," he said adding board members had heard testimony, pro and con, during three previous meetings. "In my mind, I had given them ample time to present their case."

Then why have promise the group a public hearing?  Then why have a scheduled meeting to discuss the dog park and then change your mind 3 hours  the day before about having the public hearing?  Why not at least offer the professional courtesy to call, or email, the WOOF group's leader to let them know personally, instead of letting them find out for themselves?  Why not just rule against the dog park in Sunnyside Park, instead of pushing through 2 amendments (without any discussion) that will affect 150+ neighborhood parks in the city without them even being involved?

Mr. Fierro is delusional...this whole situation could have EASILY been resolved with a little transparency, and open, adult convesation.  But when you have a parks board that is making back-room deals, and board member Aggie Stackhouse making comments like "I'm loving every minute of this" doesn't exactly ring of fair public hearing and transparency. 

Fessing up to it might be a decent place to start.

Draws for Paws!

In all the week's hubbub, I kind of forgot to let people know about our Draws 4 Paws event on Thursday night, August 30 at Tower Tavern on 31st Street (Martini Corner).

Meanwhile, I think this may be a good time to pimp our Canine Legislation Conference in September.  One of our keynote speakers will be Bill Bruce, from the city of Calgary, that has had huge success in minimizing dog bites with their animal control programs -- and one of their success elements has involved having over 120 dedicated off-leash areas for dogs (Calgary's population is roughly 1 million people compared to KCMO's 550,000 residents -- KCMO has 1 dog park).

Anyway, for some of you all out there it may be worth the money for the Conference just to hear Bill speak.

It's a shame the media focused on the wrong things

I posted this on my other blog, but I think it's a real shame that most of the media outlets focused entirely on the wrong things in regards to yesterday's meeting.  Closed politics is a very bad thing for everyone.

Also of note, Mark Forsythe has posted an open letter from the WOOF organizer Deb Hipp on his blog if you want a second view of what happened yesterday.  You can read that here.

If you don't like where it's going, change the rules

So, the KCMO Parks and Receation Department was scheduled to have a discussion on the proposed Waldo Dog Park today -- so I took a late lunch and went on down for the show.

Turns out there is more than one way to kill a dog park.

There has been a lot of discussion on the dog park that was proposed by the WOOF group at Sunnyside Park. Proponents of the park have (Rightly) state all the benefits of dog parks, inlcuding providing a forum for people to gather with people of their own interests, it's a great area for people to exercise and socialize their dogs which is good for dogs (and for people too, as well exercised and socialized dogs lack the aggressive qualities of dogs that don't get these opportunities), and that a very large percent of the population (about 44%) own dogs.  They also pointed out that with 250,000+ dog owners in the KC metro, and 215 parks, there is exactly 1 dedicated off-leash area.  This group may be under-served.

Opponents of the plan, and to the best I can tell there were exactly 11 of them city-wide, state two main reasons why the dog-park is a bad idea 1) that it will only serve a limited number of people and 2) that it will create a huge overcrowding problem in the park that will cause parking problems at the park (when is parking NOT an issue for someone any time this city tries to build anything).  I don't really need to point out (I wouldn't think) that these two ideas are contradictory.

So what's a park board to do?  Change the rules.

In a last minute change to the agenda today, the parks board proposed and voted on an amendment to a new provision in the city's dog park guidelines, without any discussion from the people in the room that was so full people were spilling out the door.  The two amendendments were:

1) Locate off-leash areas in large community and regional parks where appropriate and space is available.

2) Avoid areas that are abut or are in close proximity to neighborhoods and residences.

The head of the Parks Board, Fiero quickly noted that these now ruled out Sunnyside Park as a dog park possibility and moved on to the next agenda item.

I'm not implying that this was a back-room deal by anyone, but the press release on these amendments was available 30 seconds after the vote took place.

So let's look at the new rules.  Last time I checked, KCMO was an URBAN area...which means that pretty much every single park in the city is in close proximity to neighborhoods and residences.  In fact, from the sounds of this, the current Penn Valley Dog Park is going to go away soon because of new condos that are being built at the Trinity Hospital site at 31st and Main -- which will be very close to that dog park.  So the rules are impressively vague, to the point that virtually nothing could be used for a dog park.

If you look at the KCMO Parks Reference Book, there are certainly a very small percentage of KCMO's parks that even come close to fitting the criteria -- and almost all of them are either in the furthest out Southern suburbs, or in the Northland.  There is certainly no opportunity for any dog parks in the city's urban core.

As one man pointed out at the meeting, the Parks and Recreation department set KCMO's parks back about 10 years today.  While nearly every single metro in the country is rushing to add dog parks to meet the growing demand (St. Louis currently has 11 dog parks, and 9 more in the planning stages), KCMO made sure that there would be little opportunity for more here.

It just shows if you don't like progress, and it seems inevitable, it's ok to just change the rules if you're in city government.  It just doesn't much matter what those piddly old citizens think.

Editor's Update #1: Looks like my link to the dog park guidelines is to the NEW guidelines -- I hadn't noticed, but they got the new dogpark guidelines up on the web within an hour of the meeting being over.  That's efficiency.

Save Niko Campaign

I've posted about Niko before.  He is a Boxer mix (with vet records to back it up) that was taken from his home about 2 months ago.  He's now been hanging out (we hope) at the KCK shelter for two months now while his owner is trying to get him back.

KCK's vet, who is supposed to be the "final word" on the what breed of dog is, has yet to even come look at the dog.  Meanwhile, the dog continues to be held, with no evidence that it is guilty of anything, no evidence that it's a pit bull, no dangerous behavior -- only a confiscated dog.  KCK Animal control wants him to sign the dog over to someone else and admit that it's a pit bull -- which they won't do because it's not true.  So Niko sits, and waits, in the shelter. 

These flyers are going to start popping up over the city.  It's time that we, as a society, speak up and say we will not let the government cease our property for no reason.  That we don't want our tax resources used to house dogs that aren't dangerous.  That we need to be proven GUILTY in our country, not have to prove our innocence.  While this is about a dog, this isn't a dog issue.  It's a responsible government issue.  And we need to make our voices heard.  Post a flyer.  Call a KCK City Commissioner.  Tell a friend. Tell a coworker. The Constitution is the Constitution...and we all should be sure that the innocent until proven guilty amendment part stands...

State's Highest Law Enforcement Officer Saves Woman from Dog

Kansas State Attorney General Paul Morrison saved a woman from a dog attack a couple weeks ago.  Turns out the woman was on her nightly walk with her dog, when an off-leash Doberman came up to her dog and started to attack it. Morrison just happened to be driving by and separated the dogs.

Tip of the hat to Mr. Morrison...who did what a lot of people would opt not to do in a situation like this...help someone in need.

What to do with Mike Vick's Dogs

Mike Vick plead guilty today of his involvement in dog fighting, providing the location for dog fighting, killing dogs, and providing money that was used for gambling.

Now the big debate is what to do with Mike Vick's dogs.

HSUS has recommended putting all the dogs down.  Many dogs that have been trained to fight don't do well when adopted out.  However, it should be noted that even though all of the dogs were trained to fight, some of them still wouldn't do it when prodded -- those are the ones that Vick and his posse drowned, electrocuted, etc.

One woman has even gone so far as to recommend that they all be adopted 0ut, but only after having all of their teeth yanked out.  Yeah, that's a great life for a dog...no chewing. 

The right way to do this is to actually analyze the temperaments of each of the dogs and have them determined, based on their own unique temperaments, whether or not they are ok going back into society.  Some no doubt, won't be.  Some, will.  Rehabilitation with these dogs is quite common.   I think these dogs have been through a lot, and shouldn't be presumed guilty without given a fair opportunity.

As you'll note, I've provided several links to Bad Rap's blog.  They've done a GREAT job on the blog of late, and they have developed an outstanding temperament testing system for pit bull type dogs that is second to none.  I'm sure Donna, Tim, and crew would love the opportunity to show some folks how to do the temp test on Vick's dogs.