KC DOG BLOG

Weekly Roundup

It's fall.  The weather has cooled and the stress of the summer heat is less for puppies that are left outside too much.  Thus, my number of newspaper reported incidences are lower this week.  That's a good thing.  Still no shortage of ingorant people out there though.

Labrador bites child in Overland Park, KS

The neighbor's quote (the neighbor is the "expert witness" in this case) is pricesless:

"I do not expect that out of a lab," said one neighbor. "I know labs, I know dogs, always been a friendly dog.  Always came on command if he called the dog.  I'm just totally shocked."

At this point I'd like to note that Labs are the #1 biting dog in Overland Park -- amassing 21 dog bites in Overland Park over the past 4 years.  During that time they had 17 by "terriers", 13 by German Shepherds or GS mixes, "pit bulls" which they banned last year, had 10.  And before anyone says that it's only because labs are the most popular breed in Overland Park (which they are) Labs still had the highest bite/per registered dog in the city.  If I have these numbers at my fingertips, why can't a news source actually report somthing?

Are pit bulls safe?

This question got posed by the Sioux City Journal after a pit bull bit a 6 year old up there last weekend. Note that there are no references to other attacks, jus that maybe they're not safe after one attack.  Very frustrating.  At least the animal control officer seems level-headed:

"To say all bully dogs are aggressive, I don't think is fair to the breed. Any dog can be a dangerous animal, whether it is a small dog or a large dog, depending on how it is raised. It is up to the owner to be responsible -- having the license, the rabies tag and enclosures appropriate for the type of dog they have, so they don't go off and run loose."

3 year old attacked by family dog

The dog is described as a "mixed breed" that the family had raised since it was a puppy.  No other questions apparently were asked as if "what breed was it" would have gotten to the root of the problem.  No info on why a "family dog" would all of a sudden attack a youngster...

And people wonder why dogs get a bad rap and newspapers get accused of bad reporting

This is a story by the Independence Examiner on the French Mastiff Attack that happened in Buckner last week.   This story shows what's wrong with "journalism" these days.  Here's how the creative writer journalist describes the attack:

Then, Steve McBee saw it. Faintly growling, drool frothing. Kristi McBee looked at its collar. She looked for a chain. Nothing. Then, it burst forth with the velocity of a cannonball.

The dog bit.

And it wasn't about to let go.

The dog landed on the ground and began to tug, throwing its head from side to side - tossing Kristi McBee around as if she were made of straw.

Steve McBee knew he had to intervene, and he did. He pried back the dog's jaws, offering his left wrist in lieu of his wife's forearm. The dog accepted, then it released and dug its jaws into his calf. Then it let go again.

By this time, Steve McBee was bloody and beat down, or so the dog thought.  The dog backed up and sprung for his jugular, but Steve McBee was able to fend the dog away with his left hand.

The dog clenched its jaws as tight as a vice.

Yes, French Mastiffs attack with the velocity of cannonballs and jaws as tight as vices.  I'm sure I'll read this again somewhere as a reason to ban them some day.

Pit Bull/Wrong address hamper Florida Firefighters

A 55 year old man died in a house fire this week in Leesburg, FL.  Firefighters first showed up at the wrong address, and then the man's pit bull was trying to protect his dying owner.  It's a really sweet/sad tail when you think about this dog -- scared because of the fire and scared because his owner is in danger trying to do what it can to protect his owner.  It's a shame the way this article paints the dog as such a violent deterant, when most any dog would have acted the same way.

Pit bulls to be an issue in mayor's race

The Richmond, IN newspaper thinks that the next mayoral race should be determined by who supports a pit bull ban in the city. The author thinks that because some pit bulls are used by urban youths in dog fighting, and protection of their drug possessions, that the city should ban pit bulls.  "Idiot" is the only term i can think of to describe someone who thinks that a dog law will have any affect on people who are already involved in felonous activities like dog fighting and drug trafficking.  Yeah, I'm sure the "pit bull ban" will stop 'em.

Baltimore County to look into pit bull restrictions

They have had a couple of attacks this year but only have 14 animal control officers for a city with  nearly 700,000 people (experts recommended that Kansas City would need 26 or so for it's population of 500,000 to do an adequate job of responding to calls.

I'll also note, that Prince George's County that is mentioned as having pit bull restrictions just had a major attack last week by a Cane Corso.  Their head of animal control said they had seen a lot more of them since their ban went into place...proving that bans do nothing but allow irresponsible owners to just change breeds of dogs.

Baltimore has a lot of problems...and BSL is certainly not one of the solutions to them.  This editorial offers a solution that would have a far better impact...muzzling and restraining public officials.

The State of Ohio Supreme Court Refuses to hear appeal in Tellings case

Not suprisingly, they refused to re-look at their decision in the Toledo vs Tellings Case.  It's really unfortunate that they based their decision off of witness testimoney when the witness made up half of his "statistics."

Indianapolis Animal Control Officer bitten by pit bull

Not sure why this is "news", but I guess since it's a pit bull, it must be...

"Pit bull presence growing; most agree that behavior is man-made"

This is a pretty good article covering the different sides of the "pit bull" controversy.  Interestingly, Galesburg, IL has seen a significant increase in the number of "pit bulls"  -- an increase of 281 pit bulls in the past 4 years and a 50% decrease in the number of dog bites over the past 2 years...showing that there is no correlation between "number of pit bulls" and "number of bites".

Interesting study shows dogs have innate connection with humans

I don't have much for commentary on this one, but I thought it was interesting that dogs were able to get the connection between human interactions more quickly than monkeys.

Canine Legislation Conference Speaker Review - Bill Bruce

When it comes to speakers, movies, etc, I always try to temper my expectations.  Usually when I get excited about how great something, I leave disappointed.  I'm the only person who was disappointed by the movie Forrest Gump -- because I had built it up to be so great in my mind before seeing it that no movie could have met those expectations.

In spite of these efforts, I was really excited to listen to Bill Bruce speak at the Canine Legislation Conference.  Calgary has had a tremendously effective animal control program, and I couldn't wait to hear more about it.  Mr. Bruce didn't disappoint.

Calgary has a 90-95% dog licensing compliance rate.  Most cities hover between 10-20% licensing compliance....and 20% are the good ones.  Calgary has done this by providing benefits to people for licensing their dogs....for animal cotnrol being a SERVICE instead of a pain in people's butts.

Overall, they have about 95,000 licensed dogs (in a city with the population of about 1 million).  Licensing fees are $31 per year ($52 for an unaltered dog). 

In 1990 they raised the fines for getting caught with an unlicensed dog from $30 to $250 - -Bruce said that fines should generally run about 10x the cost of actually obeying the law in the first place in order to encourage compliance with the law.  They also made it very easy to license your dog -- online, via phone, at your vets office, and keosks at the animal control office, etc. 

Every dollar that they raise from animal licensing (and fines for non-compliance) go back into funding animal control -- not back into the city's slush fund.  So with an operating budget of $3.5-4.0 million, they are able to really do some things right with their animal control department.

They strongly encourage all people who license their dogs to also have them microchipped (which allows the dogs to be scanned and the owner determined immediately).  Every animal control vehicle is equipped with a scanner -- so if they find a stray dog, the animal control officer can instantly scan the dog for the chip, and deliver the dog home free of charge (although there are fines if your dog becomes a frequent flyer).   

This home delivery a) is a service for people who obey the rules and b) saves money in animal control costs because stray dogs seldom even make it to their shelter.   They are returned home where the dog belongs.  The city then doesn't incur the costs of putting the dog in the shelter, maintaining the dog while it's in the shelter, food etc.  Bruce's goal for next year is to gett 50% of the dogs returned directly home without ever reaching the shelter.

If a dog does end up making it to the shelter, its photo is taken immediately and placed on their webpage within 15 minutes of the dog reaching the shelter.  All the dogs in the shelter are treated for the basic diseases - -and if a dog is found injured, animal control will take the dog to a vet.  The vets treat the dogs because a) animal control is usually able to find the owner of the dog because they're all licensed and b) if they don't, animal control will cover the medical costs associated with treating that dog.  Wow.   

Calgary built a new shelter for their animals about 5-8 years ago that is state of the art...and has never been filled to its capacity.

Calgary also focuses a lot of its energies on education and encouraging responsible dog ownership.  They have a full time staff member, that is trained in education, that puts together a public education program.  They have six specific programs that are part fof their public school's curriculum that emphasizes respect for living things.   

Calgary also has 140 dedicated off-leash areas for dogs -- so that's 140 "dog parks".  Kansas City, MO is struggling to find a way to get a second one.  These off-leash areas provide a ton of areas for socialization for the dogs to learn how to enteract with other dogs and other people.

The net results of their efforts have been impressive.  Over the past 18 years, the city of Calgary has cut their number of dog bites and chases by more than 50% (all the while, the human and dog population of Calgary has doubled).  Last year calgary only had to euthenize 256 animals (Kansas City, KS alone euthenized 5,000 DOGS last year, the KC metro area kills in the neighborhood of 40,000 dogs and cats each year).   Almost all of the euthenizations came from dogs that had behavioral or health issues.  Bruce estimates that Calgary will become a true no-kill city within the next 3-5 years.

When Bill was talking it sounding like a utopia.  I hear stories about local animal controls breaking through locks to steal people's pets based on what breed they think it might be, the massive killing of dogs in our shelters, dogs that are put to sleep because they've been in the shelter too long but never made it up on the website or petfinder or anywhere so people knew where to find them.  I hear about dogs being taken out of someone's loving home and euthenized because someone was over the pet limit -- apparently death is perceived to be better for animals than having to live with 3 other dogs.

Calgary has accomplished so much by focusing on root issues of problems, providing service to their "customers" (it was so weird to hear an animal control officer refer to their constituents as "customers"), and getting people to obey their current laws.

They did it all without mandatory spay/neuter laws, breed specific laws, anti-tethering laws or pet limit laws.  And through paying animal control officers a fair wage -- as Bill said, "If you pay peanuts,  you'll only get monkeys."

I really wish that more cities (ahem, KCMO) would look at successful ordinances around the country (or in Calgary) and model their ordinances and enforcement efforts off of true success stories.   

All of the city administrators were invited to attend Bill's speach, unfortuantely only one city council person and two animal control officers were able to make it.  I'd have loved for them to hear Bill's message and start working toward Calgary as a model of success.

Recipe for a fatal dog attack

You want to create a fatal dog attack?  Put a couple of dogs on chains in the back yard.   Don't socialize them.

Let a 2 year old walk up them while unattended.

Thus was the case in the most recent dog-related fatality from North Carolina.  Two chained dogs, young child walks up to them and is found not breathing, wrapped up in the dogs' chains with severe bite wounds.  The dogs were chained "in a wooded area" behind the neighbor's home.  The dogs were determined to be "German Shepherd mixes", not that the breed matters.  They weren't even reported in one of the four  news sources that bothered to cover the tragedy.

This is the pretty much an identical situation that has led to several other major attacks this year.

This one involved a 7 year old boy and a chained pit bull in the basement in Minneapolis.

Or this one of a 15 month old that was killed by a chow mix in his back yard in Tennessee.

This one, non fatal but severe nonetheless  involved a 7 year old girl and a chained pit bull in Lorain, OH.

These two happened on the same day in Dallas, involving young girls and a Golden Retriever and a pit bull in separate incidences.

And these two were both chained dogs that attacked young children in the Kansas City Area earlier this summer.  One was a German Shepherd mix, one was a chow mix.

You can read even more stories here.

So why is it again that we focus on dog breeds when trying to 'save just one child?"

Canine Legislatioin Conference Speaker Review

This week, assuming that something crazy doesn't break out, I'm going to try to feature some of our speakers/exhibitors at the 2007 Canine Legislation Conference and some of the things I learned/tips that I think people will benefit the most from.

That said, I'm going to start with mostly a photo montage of the finale to our conference, which was an exhibition of some of the worlds top performing dogs. 

The first picture is of Roo and Wallace.  They are the 2005 World

Champion Frisbee team.  They put on quite the show of frisbee tossing and catching.  The performance kicked off with them on opposite sides of the "arena" and then running to meet each other in the middle (with a summersault by Roo).  It was a great performance and Wallace is a great jumper and catches some really high frisbees.

Tom Clements (photo #2) also came with several of his "ultimate canines".  His show featured a Jack Russell Terrier, a high jumping Collie, and the crown jewel of the show, Thumper.  Thumper was a rescue dog with local rescue group MABBR (at the time named Fly Girl) and was having a tough time finding a home because she was so high energy.  But through a couple of connections with MABBR volunteers, along with Roo, Tom and Fly Girl were able to hook up and now take their tour bus around the country entertaining the masses.

Tom did the MC'ing for the event and had a great message along with his show.  He talked about the value of positive reinforcement in training of dogs (vs the negative reinforcement most people gravitate toward) and also talked about how fun it is to take Thumper on the road so that he can teach people that "pit bulls" are great dogs and not at all what most people think when they only judge them off of what they see on TV.

It was very fun, and a good positive experience for everyone.

 

Also on the docket were Kathy Mills and Stewart "NOTSO" Little.  Kathy and Stewart are record holders in long-distance frisbee throwing and catching.  They put on an energetic show of frisbee flips, jumps and catches.  Stewart was definitely "NOTSO LITTLE" so it was quite entertaining to see this big dog show off his athleticism.  They're in picture #4 with Stewart making a jumping catch.

Also on display was KCDA Member Kim Krohn and her Staffordshire Terrier, Susie.  Kim and Susie put on a show in obedience training with Susie doinga perfect heal through walks and stops, in a figure 8 (which is very difficult because the Kim kept a constant pace and Susie had to walk more slowly or more quickly depending on whether or not her turn was bigger based on the figure 8).

Susie is in picture #5 all by herself showing off her ability to sit and wait until called (she is just breaking off of Kim's call in the photo).  I was amazed at Suzi's attention and desire to follow Kim's every command.

Overall, I think everyone had a great time (I know I did).  I think it was awesome that our conference participants, as well as a good turnout of dog people from around the metro were able to come out and see these "pit bulls" in action, and see what these dogs are really like.  Everyone also got a chance to meet the dogs after the show which was great fun as well.  All in all, a fabulous way to end a solid weekend conference -- and I'm so greatful that Kathy, Tom, Kim and Roo were all so willing to give up their weekend to be with us and to show off their special talents. 

And special thanks to Abby for taking so many great photos of the event.

Weekly Roundup

A lot of interesting stories this week -- I'm just going to jump in.

Man attacked by dogs in Prince Georges County

This article is a bit hard to follow as there are a lot of dogs involved and it's not immediately clear who owns which dogs.  As it turns out the man was attacked by two Cane Corsos, and both of his dogs ended up dead (although one was shot by a police officer, the other hit by a car).  Prince Georges County spends about $600,000 a year enforcing its ban against pit bulls...too bad they aren't focusing on dogs that are not safe, regardless of breed.  Apparenty there were many witnesses to the attack that simply watched and yelled at the dogs until authorities arrived.

Wichita, KS decides against BSL

They had discussed an ordinance that would limit owners to no more than two pit bulls, but due to concerns that the law would be unfair to "breed enthusiasts" and bad owners would likely just create bad dogs out of other breeds they voted against the breed limits.  The new ordinance allows them to determine a dog is dangerous without a bite taking place and allows them the ability to euthenize a dog after its first bite.

Why are pit bulls the most hated of all breeds?

An interesting look from a publication called the National Ledger on the media's portrayal of pit bulls.  The article concludes:

Between the media’s search for ratings, popular myths and pig-headed politicians, Pit bulls and other “vicious” breeds don’t stand a chance. The only ones fighting for them are the loving owners that take care of them, nurture them and know exactly how wonderful they really are. It may seem trivial to a lot of people, but to the thousands of Pitbull owners in the U.S., it is an everyday struggle to keep their families from being torn apart by something as ridiculous as a bad reputation.

Wrong info once again from the Kansas City Media

KCTV5 decided to cover the attack that happened in Detroit late last week -- where a pack of American Bulldogs attacked two people and killed them.  KCTV5 of course ran it as a "pit bull" attack and has never bothered to update the info on their website - -once again contributing to the hysteria that pit bulls are worse than other dogs through false reporting.

Arkansas passes state wide vicious dog law

The new law allows them to bring criminal charges upon negligent owners of attacking dogs.  It's modeled after a similar Texas law (that had stiffer penalties).  I'm a huge proponent of holding owners responsible for the actions of their dogs.

Youngstown, OH still trying to figure out who will enforce their Pit Bull Ban

The city lacks their own animal control, and relies on the county dog warden to enforce their dog ordinances and the Mahoning County Dog Warden has decided he doesn't want to enforce their stupid new law.

Great story about a Massachusetts Shelter Worker who rescues pit bulls

Some great stories and quotes in the article from both the rescuer Donna Bishop and Massachusetts SPCA deputy director Scott Giacoppo.

Tuscaloosa, AL Shelter changes its rules on adopting out pit bulls

Yet another shelter has changed a log-standing policy of not adopting out pit bulls and now working toward finding homes for them.  This one had a shelter worker attend a conference in Oakland (BAD RAP likely?) where she learned how to better evaluate temperaments.

"A lot of people are afraid of pit bulls, and Michael Vick didn’t help at all," Strickland said. “Pits are very intelligent and bond well with people. For some people, a pit that had had a good up-bringing is the ideal dog."

NJ Senator drops idea of BSL

The editorial from the local paper is thrilled because it targeted the wrong end of the leash.

The bill was not only potentially illegal, but misdirected. It targeted the wrong species. The problem isn't a specific breed of dog - it's a specific type of human. That's what lawmakers and police should be going after - not someone's pet pit bull that's well-treated and friendly.

6 year old boy attacked by German Shepherd in Enid, OK

Sounds like a really bad attack.  The really frustrating part of this is that the dog had bitten a young child before because the dog was food aggressive.

Man captures cats to feed to pit bull

This was everyone's top featured news story of the week it seemed, but a sicko 21 year old, Tye Hilmo, was arrested for animal cruelty for capturing cats and feeding them to his dog.   Hilmo was already in jail for violating his probation and on drug and firearm possession charges.

Can we all agree to lock this guy up for a while?

This is why I'm a huge supporter of harsh punishment for animal cruelty...guys like this don't belong out on the streets.  I do think it's interesting that the "pit bulls" were such a major part of the headline, but are completely inconsequential to the actual story.

Toledo vs Tellings revisited

Christine over at Bad Rap has a great blog posting about one of the judges in the Ohio Supreme Court commenting publicly on the case in spite of it still being up for review. She does an excellent job of breaking down a lot of the issues with their ruling -- it's a great read -- here's an taste:

Judge Pfeifer confirms, "there is no evidence that pit bulls bite more frequently than other breeds," but then reports, "The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people."

Is no one else scratching their heads at this contradiction?

Sundusky, OH looking at adding back Breed Specific Language

Apparently they took out breed specific language in 2006 following the original Toledo v Tellings ruling, but now that it was overturned by the state Supreme Court want to add it back into their ordinance.  No word was mentioned if bite rates or anything had gone up because of taking out their breed specific language (I'll work on that).  Their county animal control officer of course has believed everything Toledo dog warden Tom Skeldon has ever said (without proof or confirmation) about pit bulls.

Because of the dogs' powerful jaws, pit bull bites tend to cause more fatalities than those of other dogs, Knapp said.  There is no evidence that has ever shown that pit bulls bite with more force than other breeds of dogs.

Originally bred to be fighting dogs, pit bulls will often go for the throat of other animals and, unlike most dogs, will fight to the death. There was a great story in an academic journal a while back that noted that all breeds of dogs attack at the throat -- so this is not a unique trait among pit bulls (I'll dust that off at a later date).

"They were bred for fighting," Knapp said. "It's in their genes.  I'm still looking for the geneticist that has isolated the "dog fighting gene".

Pit bull helps man preach the Gospel

This Huntsville, AL minister has a love for pit bulls -- and apparently people's love for his dogs often give him opportunities to connect.  "People will talk to me about my dogs before they talk to me about Jesus," he said. "That gives me a chance to say, 'These dogs are this way because they were raised in a good, Christian home.' "

That's it for this week.

The dangers of parrotting untrue information

One of my biggest beefs when it comes to dealing with the canine legislation is the number of people -- on both sides of the argument -- that routinely take information that they've heard, and like a parrot, repeat this information in defense of their argument.

As the Mark Twain Quote says:  "What gets us in to trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so".  Thus is the life of dealing with canine legislation -- on both sides of the argument.

This week, I stumbled across an article from East Bay, RI at how people can take something they've heard, and then repeat it as if it's true.  Then the quote runs in a news source, and others believe it.  It's a bad cycle.  So go read the article here -- and come back, as I'm going to pull out a few quotes.

Let's start with the first quote in the paper -- this one by Dr. EJ Finocchio who is president of the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

"The fighting gene has been ingrained in the pit bull. Man made him this way. It's our fault that we've made them this way," he said. "But how are you going to get that gene out of them?"

To see a quote like this, from someone in a position that they should actually know better makes me want to scream.  In hundreds of years of genetic testing, no one has ever isolated this mysterious "fighting gene".  Does such a thing exist?  Does it somehow only exist in pit bulls?  Or would other dogs (all descendents of wolves) have this gene?  As a friend of mine has said, pretty much every breed of dog has been bred, over time, to hunt and be aggressive for something.  Why is this "gene" only in pit bulls?  And why has no geneticist been able to isolate that gene?

"They (pit bulls) fight till the end," he said, showing a photo of a large Labrador retriever with a huge scar. The dog was dragged around by a much-lighter pit bull, he said. "They lived next door to each other for two years. What set him off?" Mr. Holden said.

It's funny that pit bulls "fight till the end" and then shows a picture of a Lab that was bitten but not killed.  Apparently the fight wasn't til the "end".  Dogs sometimes get in fights.  Anyone who has ever lived with any dogs knows that, like people on a Saturday night in your local bar district, sometimes dogs don't get along.  It happens.  I've seen it with pretty much every breed of dog I've ever had contact with.  Getting in fights with other dogs isn't unique to pit bulls, and fighting till the end clearly didn't happen in the picture he showed.

Even people who love pit bulls get caught up in the parroting:

"They're genetically prone to be more aggressive to animals but not toward people," said Katenna Jones, an animal behaviorist who started a petition several years ago against a proposal to restrict pit bulls in Providence.

I hear this one a lot, particularly from people who work in rescue, that have heard it from someone else before and they just keep saying it.  Almost everyone I know that works in pit bull rescue has 2, 3, 4 or even up to 8 dogs.  Most of the time, all of these dogs get along just fine.  If they were genetically prone to be aggressive toward other animals, this would be virtually impossible.  The reality is that many of these people so believe the statement to be true, they resist taking their dogs around other dogs for fear that they will attack -- which causes the dogs to be under-socialized with other dogs.  The reality ends up being that their dog IS more aggressive to other dogs -- but because they created the situation through owner behavior. 

From my experience with working with my own dogs, and dozens of fosters that have come through, the only reason "pit bulls" can't become completely well socialized with other dogs is when owners won't give them the opportunities.  And for any Dog Whisperer fans out there, you get to watch this every week when Ceasar Milan's favorite and most balanced dog, Daddy -- a pit bull that was neutered way later in life - -shows zero aggression around other dogs, even ones that show aggression toward him.

Ms. Jones continues her own stereotyping...

"I don't recommend pit bulls for any first-time dog owner. Pit bulls don't belong off a leash and they don't belong in a group of multiple dogs," she said.

Interestingly, Jones contradicts her own assumptions about pit bulls:

"I have never heard of a case (of an aggressive pit bull) where the dog was properly supervised, spayed and neutered, up to date on shots, properly restrained on a leash and properly trained and socialized as a puppy," she said. 

Looks like she may be on to something with this whole proper training and socializing thing...

But then we get back to unfounded, parrotted information.

"I'd much rather get bitten by a Doberman or a shepherd than the pit bull, because they're going to bite me and screw," said Mr. Dave Holden -- also of the RISPCA. "Most of the bite comes from the back legs. Pit bulls shake. That's where the ripping and tearing comes from."

In Chapter 11 Karen Delise's new book, the Pit Bull Placebo, she notes the origins of a lot of these myths come from.  She looks at major dog attacks from the past century -- and almost all cases show signs of dogs grabbing on and shaking.  Breed is irrelevant -- and there is nothing unique to major pit bull attacks that are different from how other dog breeds attack.  I'd recommend that Mr. Holden actually take a few hours to read a well-researched book vs talking about some nonsense of pit bulls biting with their hind legs...

I cringe when I read stories like this because you end up with a LOT of mis-information getting out to the public from people who have clearly not been well-researched in what they're talking about and are only repeating information that some ill-informed person told  them years ago. 

If we are every going to solve the "dog bite problem", then we need people on both sides of the debate to forget everything they think they know about "pit bulls" and start over with new, accurate, information.

Lee's Summit, MO revises Dangerous Dog Ordinance

Last night, Lee's Summit passed the changes to their Dangerous Dog Ordinance.  The city decided to look at their dangerous dog ordinance in June of 2006 (oh, yeah, that's right, 16 months ago) following the attack on Alan Hill of Independence.  At the time, the goal was to pass a ban on pit bulls, but thanks to the persistence (and ability to listen) of several city council members the idea of BSL was overturned.

The process has taken 16 months.  It's consisted of 16 meetings (to my best count) and had 3 committees and the full council discuss.  It started in the Community Development committee, then went to full council as a split vote 2-2.  At that time, it was kicked to the mayor's appointed public safety advisory board.  Most of those gentlemen were for BSL at the initial hearing, but all took the time to learn about the issues, some meeting dogs, going to people's homes, doing research on the internet, going to shelters, etc.  At a vote of 12-0, they told the full council that BSL was not the answer.

The Council then split their vote and wrote a couple of ordinances that went to a smaller committee of council members -- which came back with the current ordinance that passed last night at a vote of 6-1.   Randall Rhodes, who has long been against any changes to the ordinance was the lone desenting voice.

The "funny" thing about the whole process is that Lee's Summit never had a dog bite problem to begin with as they already had a good DDO.

There are some parts of the ordinance that I like. They have passed some tethering restrictions to prevent 24-hour tethering -- I think they netted out that you could only tether your dog for 30 minutes at a time, for up to 3 hours a day.

Unfortunately, they also passed Mandatory Spay/Neuter for all dogs at 6 months of age.  They allowed for some acceptions to the MSN for registered breeders, and licensed therapy or show dogs.  And then, made increases in all licensing fees and a significant differential in licensing fees for unaltered dogs.

Two bad things about the ordinance.  I think that first of all, they should have just done some differential licensing fees to encourage people to spay/neuter their dogs but not mandate it.  Meanwhile, my personal opinion is that all of the licensing fees are too high (especially for unaltered dogs) and will actually discourage people from licensing their dogs....which is exactly what you don't want to have happen. 

Lee's Summit fell into a trap of looking at statistics, and not realizing that correlation does not equal causation.   One study, by the National Canine Research Foundation, which has very accurate numbers when it comes to canine bites, showed that during a 6 year time period, 92% of all fatal dog attacks were by non-altered dogs.

While there is clearly correlation between fatal dog attacks and unatlered dogs, one has to ask, is the act of being unaltered a cause of these attacks?.  While I do think there may be some causation (testosterone, dogs being in heat and more eager to get out of fencing), the reality is that irresponsible dog owners are much less likely to alter their dogs.  So if the vast majority of irresponsible dog owners don't alter their dogs, and the vast majority of deadly dog attacks are because owners are irresponsible, then it makes sense that most lethal dogs are unaltered.

This isn't to say that everyone who doesn't alter their dog is a bad owner, but only that most altered dogs have at least fairly responsible owners...proven by the fact they've spent enough effort/money on their dogs to actually get them altered. 

I'm still not convinced that there is more than just a very little causation between an unaltered dog and a deadly attack (although there is clear correlation).  I don't think that Lee's Summit's law will really do anything other than decrease their licensing rates (remember, they had no dog bite problem in the first place).  And I'm glad that at least the responsible owners and show people down there have their outs.  But it's just another case where the desire to do something got in the way of realizing that their existing ordinance was really quite good.

At least after 16 long months of discussion, it's over.  For now.

New Life For KC Dog Parks

On Tuesday, the Kansas City Parks Board decided not to implement its rash decision to ban dog parks from 90% of the city's parks.  They have now decided to actually wait until the task force they had recommended actually gets assembled and makes its recommendations.  A task force will be made up of 15 people - -12 nominated by individual city council members, 2 from the WOOF group, and 1 member of the city's animal control division.

Obviously I applaud this decision by the Parks Board -- they were very hasty in their decision to ban dog parks from all parks under 100 acres.  It was a rash, and very arbitrary decision.

Hopefully the task force approaches the dog park situation from a global perspective first...without starting by first looking at the Sunnyside Park Proposal.

Kansas City would do well to start with what the Parks Board intended by looking at adding another 2 or 3 larger regional dog parks.  Using a couple of KC's larger parks, like Hodge Park in the North, Minor Park in the South, Swope Park to the East and (Penn Valley Park can serve the inner city for now. although Barkley Riverfront Park is another underutilized viable option for another park), would give KC residents a couple of larger parks that would be destination parks.  There would be plenty of parking available, and more than enough space for good, quality dog parks.

Then, once those parks are built, we can look at doing smaller, neighborhood dog parks that could be evaluated on an individual basis and built to suit that neighborhood.  Sunnyside would be a consideration for such a park, but with multiple larger dog parks available, the size and scope of the WOOF proposal could be downsized to utilize less space -- and would also need less parking because it would be primarily serving the Waldo Neighborhood -- thus taking out the primary complaints of the few opponents of the park.

The key is to get the regional parks established very quickly so that the WOOF group could redevelop a new, smaller-sized plan and begin discussions on that for Sunnyside Park.  The Parks Board is not overflowing with money, but it seems that private money could be available by soliciting sponsorships/naming rights from various area dog-related companies (hat tip Mark Forsythe).  If at least half of the funding could come from corporate sponsorships, the city would be able to act on these fairly quickly.

This would be a great solution to the underserving of the dog-loving public, take few funds from the overall parks budget, and still rightfully allow neighborhoods the opportunity to build smaller, neighborhood dog parks.

Everyone would win...let's make it happen.

More on the Buckner, MO Dog Attack

It appears that some people just aren't meant to be dog owners....

I mentioned this story on Monday night, and here's a quick followup.  According to the Independence Examiner, the dog's owner, Christopher Ownbey (39) is facing misdeameanor charges for the attack and could face $1000 in fines and up to one year in jail.

Meanwhile, this doesn't appear as if it's the first time the dog has bitten someone.  In September of 2005, a "French Mastiff" owned by a Jessica Ownbey attacked a 67 year old woman named Joyce Shelley.   In a small, unicorporated area of Jackson County near Buckner, with the owner's last names being the same, that most likely the dog is the same dog...meaning the dog, and the owners, have a track record of violence. 

There is little excuse for laws that allow people's dogs to attack more than once.

Meanwhile, KMBC has responded that their errant reporting of it being a pit bull was an honest mistake because it is what they were told it was.  A) this explains why they showed up to cover the story in the first place and B) this is why media reports on breeds of dogs are not accurate -- if people can't tell a 125 lbs (or 200 lbs according to our more up to date hypebolic "news" casts) French Mastiff from a pit bull, we've got some real breed ID issues going on.

In another bit of "coincidence", it turns out that Steve and Kristi McBee, who were the victims in the attack, are also good friends with Alan Hill -- who was the victim in the major dog attack in Independence last year.  Hill even makes a guest appearance in the video footage.

It's a weird story and again demonstrating why we need effective laws that target anydogs, regardless of breed, that has shown signs of being dangerous.  We also need to target dog owners whose dogs are repeat offenders to prevent them from owning other dogs (or in this case, the same dog) that may become dangerous). 

This is a bad situation...and an attack that sadly could have been completely prevented had a good, generic, dangerous dog law been in place and enforced.

Facts not important for KC TV Stations

Two people were injured in a dog attack in rural Buckner, MO today.  KMBC-TV was on the scene to cover the dog attack story.

As the story goes, it turns out that a 100+ lbs Bull Mastiff attacked a woman and her husband before a caring neighbor brings out a knife and they kill the dog.

However, watch the video that ran on KMBC.  As they are talking about the Bull Mastiff attack, not once, but twice they show a banner at the bottom that says "Pit Bull Attack".  It may be the only dog attack banner that they have available. 

It sounds like the dog has been a  problem in the neighborhood for awhile and it's undoubtedly an owner issue - -but it's another case of why "pit bull people" get really upset by how the media continues to make efforts to single out pit bulls in their reporting -- and often innaccurately -- which leads to people believing things about the 'breed" that are simply not true.