KC DOG BLOG

Are we done believing the media yet?

There's a story over at the Huffington Post today about how the US government worked to fabricate a story about Iranian aggression toward the US in order to gain public support for conflict in Iran.  The story is entitled, "How the mainstream media echoed a fabricated story."

The potential ramifications of the media's inability to ask basic questions about the story, to seek multiple sources and angles for the story, and willingness to run fear mongering stories vs seeking truth are quite dramatic in this instance.

The story led the author to write:

"In all of these cases the administration's intention has been to keep Iran as a threat in the public eye by manipulation, distortion, and fabrication of stories.....

"Fortunately, there have been lots of outlets criticizing the fake story of speedboats such as independent journalists, bloggers and activists. But mainstream media outlets such as CNN, Fox and CBS did not cover the reality behind the story properly.

"This sort of behavior calls into question the reliability of mainstream media. That's one of the reasons that it has become harder and harder to understand what is news and what is propaganda. "

If the media is so irresponsible in its coverage of something as important as potential war, why does anyone believe that they would do a thorough background check and question different angles of something as simple as a 'pit bull" bite story.  They don't. Which is why folks who rely on media reports on the "pit bull" issue end of finding themselves ill-informed and making bad conclusions and decisions.

Thursday Links

Los Angeles is having a vote tomorrow (Friday, Feb 1!) that would mandate spay/neuter for all animals four months of age and over.  The AKC has the details. (Hat Tip NoPitbullbans).  Mandatory Spay/Neuter has been pretty well documented to have no positive affect on decreasing the animal populations or in improving public safety, and has also proven to have negative affects such as reduced licensing and reduced numbers of people getting dogs vaccinated - as well as using up animal control resources that should be going to more urgent matters.  Meanwhile, there are many other options that have a proven track record of working better.  Meanwhile, the city rejected a proposed program that would have helped cure a large part of their shelter's kill rate by helping dogs to become more adoptable from the shelter.  MSN is bad policy and if you're in the LA area, you should show up and speak out against the ordinance.

Also tomorrow, pethobbyist.com is hosting an Evening With Nathan Winograd tomorrow night at 9:00 EST. Chances to live chat with Nathan about topics such as shelter kill rates, spay/neuter policies, and the perils of breed specific legislation can be discussed. Winograd wrote the book Redemption...a book that outlines proven and affective ways of improving animal welfare and public safety.

And finally, Lassie Get Help has a great post entitled "Nitwit" about Merritt Cliffton.  Cliffton has somehow gotten some media folks to buy into his bunk numbers and pass himself along as an "expert"...although when any reasonable person that has a conversation with the man realizes he is not an expert, but someone with a set agenda.  Lassie Get Help is another quality look at the unquality data that is offered up by Cliffton.

Dogs Bite

I've been refraining from writing about this for awhile....but like cancer, you can't just ignore a problem and hope it goes away.

Several months ago, a new website launched called dogbites.org.  I'm not going to provide a link, as I'd rather not give them any undue web traffic.  Most of you are probably aware of the site already.

I want to make a note about the site. The site claims to be a "public information website with support of the following":

• Distinguish which dog breeds are dangerous to have in our neighborhoods.
• Help enact laws to regulate ownership of these breeds.
• Help enact laws that hold dog owners criminally liable if their dog attacks a person and causes serious injury or death.

There are several major problems with their premise.  Nowhere in their mission statement do they say that their goal is to improve public safety.   Their goal is completely dedicated to enacting laws against breeds of dogs.  As such, they spend no time or effort researching laws and policies that would actually improve public safety.  And even if they add "safety" to their list of objectives, their site continues to be based very much on emotion and media articles...not real world information like what types of policies actually work.

I'm always suspicious of any "group" that is completely anonymous (with the exception of their founder being outted) and nearly all comments on the site are anonymous.  And I also find it interesting that a site that says they're dedicated to public information is so diligent about sensoring opposing viewpoints.  Seems they don't want certain facts to get in the way of their opinions.

Most websites/blogs/etc have a bias.  I, of course, have mine...which was developed after doing a ton of reading and learning about all the information regarding breeds of dogs, dog bites and city policies.  It's also probably not much of  a coincidence that my view and opinion happens to be shared by most of the nation's leading experts in the field (all of whom have a stance on this issue born out of facts and not out of bias).  However, I've never made it a point to censor any comments on the blog (with very rare exceptions of spammers and rantic lunatics).  I figure that the way to truly create knowledge and effective policies -- policies that have positive effects for both human and dog populations -- is through open knowledge and conversation.

What's interesting is that most "dog people" would support them in their 3rd goal of holding violating dog owners criminally responsible if their first two goals were founded on a real premise.   Unfortunately, their premise of enforcing breed bans, regardless of whether it makes policy sense or not is tragically flawed.

I would be hesitant to put much credibility in any site that remains purposefully anonymous, has blatant mis-information, and doesn't allow any dessenting dialogue.  I will continue to not withhold rational discussions from my site -- because I feel confident that the facts (both science and policy) will prevail. 

Update on the Springfield, IL Case

According to media reports, Preliminary autopsy results on the woman that died in Springfield, IL indicate that the woman was most likely dead before she sustained her dog bite injuries.  22 year old Amber Strode was found dead in her home on Sunday.  Initial media reports had indicated the two "pit bulls" were responsible for the gruesom scene -- in spite of the reports of gunshots occuring on the block 10 hours before her death and a bullet hole in a window in her home.

I think it's also fair to note that Jim Stone, the director of the Sangamon County Department of Public Health has declined to identify the breeds, ages and sizes of the dogs that were found in the home.

There appears to be a lot more to this story than the media is letting out, and once again, a story about a "pit bull attack" appears to be a much bigger problem...and was ignored by today's Chicago Sun Times after the case was determined not a 'pit bull' attack.

Again, I  promise to keep you posted.

Potential dog bite fatality in Springfield, IL

The Springfield Journal-Register is reporting that a 22 year old woman's death is being investigated when she was found dead in her own home.  Preliminary evidence shows that the woman's two 'pit bulls" may have been involved in the incident, but authorities won't know for sure until an autopsy is performed today.

The media is reporting that the dogs both weighed about 100 lbs, which is far bigger than the typical "pit bull" which are usually 35-55 lbs.

It should also be noted that one of the neighbor's reported hearing gunshots at 2 am on Sunday morning -- and that there is a bullet hole in the glass of one of the victim's windows.  The victim was found around noon on Sunday.  Neighbors have also said the victim appears to have had a live-in boyfriend.

The Chicago Sun Times is already reporting the 'pit bulls' as the guilty.  The bullet holes sure sound awfully suspicious -- it would be really random to have gun shots and bullet holes all happen 10 hours before a woman's body turns up dead by dog bites.  I'll provide more updates as I hear them.

Aurora Colorado 2-Year Report

Last week, the City of Aurora Colorado began the 2-year analysis on the City's ban on "pit bull-type" dogs (and by their definition, they included 10 different breeds under their definition of "pit bull").

If you read the media reports, you'd think that their ordinance was really working.  Based on their reports:

-- The city euthanized 636 'pit bulls' in the first year of the ban (2006) and 173 in 2007

--  The number of registered 'pit bulls' in the city dropped from 498 in 2006 to 355 in 2007

-- In 2005 (the year before the ban), there were 27 bites by 'pit bulls", that number dropped to 8 in 2006 and was back up to 15 in 2007.

--- The ordinance has also paid for itself because of the increased fines and revenue coming in off of 'pit bull' owners is more than the city is spending enforcing the law.

Basically the same information was presented in the other news story covering this as well.

However, my friend Sonya out in the area emailed me a copy of the entire two-year report and it actually shows a dramatically different story.

In 2005 (the year before the ban), there were 137 dog bites in Aurora -- 27 from "pit bull type dogs" and 110 from "all others".  The ban went into affect in February 2006.  In 2006, there were also 137 dog bites, 8 from 'pit bulls" and 129 from all other breeds. In 2007, there were 172 dog bites, 15 from 'pit bulls' and 157 from "all other" breeds.

So, since the ban, the city has seen a 26% increase in overall dog bites and a 43% increase in bites by all non-'pit bull' dogs. 

What may be even worse is that the city also ended a 3 year trend of declining dog bite numbers by enforcing the ban. 

So I ask, is the city better off because of their ban?!  Are people safer?  I'd say a 25% increase in dog bites over 2 years of the ban would be a resounding no.

And yet, the media (who I assume had access to the same report I got),  only reported the decline in the number of bites by "pit bulls" - -and failed to mention the dramatic increase in bites by all other breeds of dogs.  Well, the city killed nearly 1000 'pit bulls' in the two years of the ban -- OF COURSE thenumber  bites by those dogs is going to decrease.  There are a lot fewer of them. The real story here, from a public safety perspective, is that the number of bites went UP.  Dramatically.

I want to note that this is the same result as what happened in San Francisco when animal control declared their law mandating spay/neuter of all pit bulls was "working", even though their total number of dog bites had doubled in the first half of the year.

This is the same result that occured in Council Bluffs, IA when animal control declared their BSL was "working" because "pit bull' bites were down following their new law in spite of the reality that their total number of dog bites went up.

There are a couple of other things about the report I find interesting. 

1) I find it odd that a city with a three year decline in dog bites would enact new legislation that has been proven in other areas to make matters worse.

2) If you look at the number of killed dogs, and the number of licensed dogs, there were approximately 1400 pit bulls in the city of Aurora (there are likely many more than that, but that is just a total of the confiscated dogs and the ones that are licensed in the city.  I think it's fair to say that many people are still hiding their "pit bulls" without registering them or left the city voluntarily with the ban). 

Even if this is the true number of 'pit bulls' in the city (it's guaranteed to be low), less than 2% of all the 'pit bulls' in the city were responsible for any type of bites the year prior to the ban (and this number would be high and assumes that every single 'pit bull' bite in 2005 was by a different dog, when likely there were a few dogs responsible for multiple bites).  This all means the legislation affected hundreds if not thousands of owners of these dogs that weren't a problem at all.  All to cause an increase in total dog bites in the city. 

This is why people who oppose BSL oppose the ordininances.  Any law that by its nature makes criminals  out of people, 98-99% of whom are not problems in any way, is bad policy.  This takes a fairly large amount of resources to enforce legislation against innocent people -- and in virtually all cases has caused the total number of dog bites to go up in these communities.  People who oppose BSL actually really DO want improved public safety.  BSL is a threat to public safety.

My hope is that the city of Aurora looks at these numbers and repeals their ban. I also sincerely wish that the media would give an accurate account of the entire report, instead of glossing over the negative numbers.  Is accuracy too much to ask for?

UPDATE:  The Denver Post has posted a story on this as well...and once again they failed to mention that the total number of dog bites had gone up 30+% since the enacting of the ban.  I think it's important to note that these reporters should have received the same 5 page report that I got and apparently not one reporter either read the actual report or found the dramatic increase in dog bites to be relevant information.

Weekly Roundup - Week ending 1/27/08 - Part 1 of 2

A LOT of news this week.  So I'm going to jump right in.

Updates on the Vicktims of the Mike Vick Dogfighting Ring

I normally save the good news untilt he end, but this has to be the week's top story. With the final trial over in the Mike Vick case, updates on the dogs are now available....and wow, what a press sensation they have become.  Best Friends has an update on the dogs that are at their Utah Sanctuary.  Meanwhile, the folks at Bad Rap have been telling a great story about these dogs and how well they've been doing once removed from Vick's property.  This AP article has been picked up from over 200 media outlets (including my local Kansas City Star).  And Tim Racer, of Bad Rap, got a 10 minute interview on CNN yesterday.   The Contra Costa Times also had a great article.  The Bad Rap blog has an update of all of their press findings -- and it's great to see the media jump on this positive press for a change.

Organization helps outdoor pets

The Pet Assistance Program sponsored by Spay/Neuter Kansas City continues to make headlines in the area with their help going into neighborhoods and helping protect dogs from the cold weather by providing blankets, dog houses, shelters, etc.  Thanks to KSHB for running this story about the important work this set of volunteers is doing.

Pit Fix Week out in the San Francisco Bay Area

The East Bay SPCA, as well as some other shelter groups in the San Francisco Bay area is offering  to spay/neuter pit bulls in the Bay area free of charge this week.  These low cost/no cost programs in the East Bay continue to get more 'pit bulls' altered than San Francisco's mandatory ordinance that has taken a ton of their animal control resources, led to various law-suites over dogs that owners said were not 'pit bulls' and led their dog bite numbers to double in the first half of last year. The low cost/no cost spay/neuter programs prove to be a much better route at getting dogs spay/neutered than forcing people to do so with mandating laws.

Woman's dog charged with killing another dog, woman assaults Sheriff's Deputy

Here's another local story out of Kansas City, a woman's "pit bull" got loose and attacked and killed a neighbor's dog.  When authorities arived, Tamara Hernandez allegedly assaulted the Sheriff's Deputy and an animal control officer. 

"Pit bull" defies "breed's" bad reputation

Here's another story from out of Rochester, MN about a certified therapy dog that happens to be a "pit bull".  There have been quite a few of these stories lately, and it seems that even just one such story would make people realize that there is nothing genetically different in a 'pit bull" that makes them all crazy attack dogs.  The more times people see  good examples of these types of dogs (who never seem to make the news) the more they'll realize that the bad reputation is one based on media reports and the actions of bad owners.

Woman/City in Dispute over aid dog

Doris Hayes of Parma, MO is in a debate over whether or not she can keep her dog.  Doris is blind, and she relies heavily on her dog Bonnie to be her eyes.  Bonnie is not a certified service dog, but that doesn't diminish the role the dog plays in Doris's life...including helping her realize when her stove was on fire and getting her out of the house. 

Parma has  a ban on "pit bulls' and city officials are threatening to take her dog from her because it could be "dangerous".

Bite, Attack, or other?

This headline from out in Lakewood Park, FL has the headline "14 year old Lakewood boy ATTACKED by pit bull".   Then read these sentences from the article:

The dog grabbed his left pant leg and the boy pulled away and kicked the dog and ran into the house, the report states.  Law enforcement officers observed holes in the boy’s pant leg, but he didn’t have any broken skin on his lower leg where the dog bit his pants, according to the report.

Is it an "attack" if the boy is uninjured and there are no bite marks?  Is it even a bite if there are no bite marks?  Just another case of hyperbole headlines that are made to sell newspaper, not relay facts.

New Dangerous Dog Law Approved in Napa, CA

Their new law speeds up enforcement of animal control laws and greater fines for owners.

Councilman Mark van Gorder, who served on the task force, said it made sense to focus enforcement on owners. “It puts the accountability on the owner, not just the animal,” he said.

Nice work by the folks in Napa.

Drug Bust leads to recovery of dog fighting materials

A "routine" cocaine bust in Kansas City has uncovered a potential dog fighting training room in South Eastern Kansas City.  The Police Department gang unit arrested four people, seized about $10,000 in cocaine, and found a room in the home that appearted to be designed to train fighting dogs.   Four dogs were removed from the home.

This is all I have time for right now. More to come later today!

Update and video on some of Mike Vick's Dogs

The fine folks over at BAD RAP have some video footage of some of the dogs they rescued from Mike Vick's dog fighting facility in Virginia.  I highly encourage you to watch the videos that are posted over at Dog Time to see the successful transformations of these dogs.

For those of you that have a soft spot for these kinds of dogs, you'll love watching their success.

For those of you who are skeptics, watch the video and keep in mind that these are dogs that were truly bred and trained to be fighting dogs (the VAST majority of these dogs aren't) and see how well they're doing when they have a knowledgable and caring owner. 

And for what it's worth, I think I'm developing a little crush on little Jonnie Justus (pictured).  He and my Stella would be quite a pair.

Hat tip: Gadab

Winograd Post On HSUS Scare Tactics

Just so nobody misses this, Nathan Winograd, the founder of the No Kill Equation, has yet another great blog posting today regarding HSUS and how they've used fear tactics to get many of their laws hindering pet ownership in place.  It's long been known by politicians that creating fear is a great way to get them elected (they can solve those fears) and the media often creates fear because it helps sell papers (or get people to watch).  Winograd calls out HSUS's scare tactics in a great post that is worth the long read.  Here's a sample:

Despite an explosion in the number of dogs in the US and their greater integration in society, the number of fatal dog attacks has remained relatively constant for decades. You are “five times more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning” and “four times more likely to be killed by a forklift, even though a very small number of people come into contact with these machines.” [Bradley, Janis, Dogs Bite (2005: James & Kenneth Publishers)] In other words, comparatively speaking, it is exceedingly rare.

Despite this, dogs remain heavily regulated: they must be licensed with local authorities, they cannot go in public places without a leash (if at all), they must be vaccinated against rabies, you can’t live with more than a small number of them, animal control officers can seize and destroy them if they determine that they are a nuisance, and the threshold of making a determination that they are dangerous and subject to extermination puts dogs at a disadvantage, even when the facts show otherwise. Together, license laws, leash laws, vaccination laws, pet limit laws, nuisance laws, health codes, property laws, and dangerous dog laws control dogs, in concert with an animal sheltering system built on overkill, that there is little justification to tighten the noose even further.

We will never eliminate risk in society. We can minimize it, but in the case of dogs, there is little more that can and should be done. And, in many ways, we need to undo some of the laws and regulations because they allow friendly dogs to be killed without making anyone safer (such as breed bans).

Banning Pit Bulls or any breed of dog is geared to overkill by definition because—media hysteria to the contrary—the vast majority of dog bites occur within the home by many breeds, with the dog biting a member of the family after some provocation, a different causal mechanism than the false image presented: an epidemic of free roaming Pit Bulls attacking unknown children or the elderly. As a result, a breed ban won’t stop the vast majority of dog bites. On top of that, roughly 20% of those bites are a result of the dog defending him or her-self from being attacked.

There's MUCH more where that came from.  Go read it now.

The anatomy of a dog bite fatality sotry

Earlier this week, a story broke about a woman, 24 year old Kelli Chapman, had been attacked and killed by her "two pet pit bulls" in her home in Longville, LA. Her husband, Jason Chapman, reported found his wife dead on the bedroom floor.

Reports were that the dogs (a 4 year old male and a 1 year old female) were like family to the couple.  "The couple had the dogs since they were pups.  They raised them. The dogs slept with them.  They were part of the family," said one family member.  Kelli's arms were fairly badly bruised and it looked like she was involved in some sort of struggle.

This story got picked up in several news outlets (pretty much as it ran in the story above). The implied note here is that these "family dogs" just snapped and killed their unsuspecting owner.

The story then caused the media to create a lot of controversy regarding the "breed" of dog involved in the case, and whether or not they should be banned.  Some areas even ran stories on why even trained pit bulls can suddenly attack.  (If you want a good breakdown on this story, check out Caveat's interpretation here.)  KLTV in Tyler, TX even got a quote from the Tyler animal Control officer Shawn Markmann talking about the mythical 2000 pounds per square inch bite pressure that someone threw out in an a news article 15 years ago and still perpetuates today in spite of no scientific evidence that even remotely supports this "stat".

Meanwhile, one news source actually did a little digging on the attack (I've yet to find this having run any any other place, which is pretty telling that the media prefers a good story vs the actual truth).

Turns out that in October 2006, the area narcotics task force and SWAT team raided the Chapman's home and arrested the couple for having methamphetamines and other drug items.  During that raid, one of the couple's dogs attacked an officer and was shot and killed (which explains why one of their dogs is about a year old).   Meanwhile, apparently Kelli also was prone to having seizures and it appears likely that she had a seizure and the dogs may have freaked out during the seizure and bitten her.  The bruises on the arms are likely from her flailing during the seizure.

So does that change the story?  While tragic that the woman is dead, the story has now turned from happy young couple who's 'pit bulls' just snapped and turned on their owner where the woman died in a heavy struggle, to a story about a woman with a history of meth usage that had a seizure and the dogs freaked out during the seizure and fatally bit her.

The story looks completely different now.  And yet the debate goes on.