KC DOG BLOG

How many wrongs does it take to get it right?

Well, here's a messed up story for the day from KSHB News.  Video here.

Apparently yesterday, police showed up at a man's (Jim Conaway) property to issue a warrant to a handiman that was doing repair work on the man's house.  While the police were serving the warrant, that man's dog, which he describes as a "Labrador Retriever Mix" (even though police and neighbors say the dog looked and acted like a "pit bull", whatever that means) became agitated, and broke his chain.  Police officers then shot the dog 5 times and killed it. 

The dog was then taken away by animal control -- who apparently had a good day yesterday and responded faster than their normal 4 hour response time.

The dog was taken to animal control, and incinerated.  The man made says he made several attempts to contact animal control so he could get his dog's remains back and pay his last respects, but animal control says they have no record of the calls and the dog was incinerated before he got a chance to get the dog back.

"The incinerator is fired up as soon as possible" said Animal Control Spokesperson Teresa Clark.  Those are never the words you want to hear from an animal control department that euthanizes kills 70% of the animals that enter the shelter.

Meanwhile, Conaway is upset that he was never contacted. Animal control says that because the dog wasn't wearing tags they didn't know who the owner was -- although Conaway points out that the dog was on killed on his property, so they actually knew where he lived and could have made an effort to communicate with him first. 

This whole event took place on the 3600 block of Roberts -- which should be noted is in a tougher area of town where the average HH income is about $25,000 and nearly 30% of the people that live in the zip code live below the poverty line.

Here are some of my thoughts/lessons from this little keystone cop episode:

1) Don't leave your dog chained up unsupervised. Not only does it tend to make the dog more aggressive but it leaves your dog vulnerable to strange situations that are beyond your control and could be harmed.

2) Having dogs that are around to protect your property (which Conoway admits that this one was)  is a recipe for a bad situation.  This is why I think (even though the research is incomplete) that high crime areas generally have higher dog attack incidences because people are using their dogs as security systems.

3) Hire reputable handymen.

4) Can we paleeesse train  police officers how to deal with dogs in a manner other than just shooting them?  Pretty please?  This dog was on his own property and the police officers were actually intruding there.  This is really unfair that this guy's dog got shot over this.  I'm seeing WAY too many police-shoot-dog stories these days that appear as if they could have been avoided.

5) Is compassion too much to ask for from animal control/police when they kill someone's dog to at least make an effort to contact the owner before the dog is incenerated?

6) If you're spokesperson for an animal control division -- one that has been under fire for killing too many animals of late -- you may want to watch your wording and not say "the incinerator is fired up as soon as possible".

7) Apparently any dog that is aggressive "looks and acts like a 'pit bull' according to neighbors and police, which is one of the many reasons breed ID issues are so rampant in news stories and these types of dogs are over-represented in press accounts. 

Ending Dog Fighting in Chicago

This is a great video about work that is being done in Chicago to encourage young men in the inner city to take pride in their pit bull type dogs for reasons other than their fighting ability. Hat tip to Mac's Gang at Barking Mad for pointing to this.   I'm going to post it here too (sorry Mac), just because I think it's really important for a lot of people to see this.

The video features Tio Hardiman, who was a guest speaker at last year's Canine Legislation Conference that we held here in Kansas City.  He's running a great program in Chicago and it's great to see some of the video of what's going on up there.

On another note, we're also starting another session of "Pit Bull University" here soon -- I'll post the details once we get this all worked out.  PBU is our Kansas City version of helping high risk dog owners (we welcome all breeds) with basic obedience training. 

Cloning and Genetics, what can we learn from things we shouldn't do

Meet Toppy.  All five of them. "Toppy", which is a combination of the words "Tomorrow" and "Puppy" is the name of seven dogs that are the first dogs genetically cloned to be drug and bomb-sniffing dogs. 

Because of the high cost of training dogs to be drug or bomb-sniffing dogs, and because a huge number of the dogs do not have the ability to succeed at these tasks, scientists in  South Korea cloned a succesfful drug sniffing animal in hopes of more inexpensively creating more, genetically identical drug/bomb sniffing dogs.  In February, all seven dogs passed a behavior test aimed at finding whether they were genetically qualified to work as sniffing dogs.  only about 10-15% of naturally born dogs pass this test.

The dogs still need to be tested for physical strength, concentration and sniffing ability and after a year of training, will potentially go to work throughout South Korea.

I'm not going to go into a rant about how unethical I feel like this is, especially as I live in a country where we kill over 5 million dogs.  I'm also not the biggest fan of "playing God" here.  That said, I am fascinated by what can be learned from the process about how much of an aninmal's character/skills is completely genetic, and how much still needs to be taught. Based solely on this article, it looks like the puppies only have the skills and temperaments necessary to be good bomb/drug-sniffing dogs, but still have to go through the necessary training to make those skills useful.

This would help prove a lot in the nature vs nurture arguments in other types of dogs.

You can read more about the story here. 

Hat Tip to PSFK.

Springtime is the season for dog bites

Spring is the time of year when dog bites tend to increase.  Kids are out playing more.  The days are longer.  People are spending a lot more time outdoors.  Dogs are coming out of a long winter in which they likely didn't get as much exercise as they should have and have some pent up energy. 

May 18-24 is Dog Bite Prevention week.  However, I wanted to post a release from the Mothers Against Dog Chaining Group about being aware of dogs in the spring months.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Warm Weather Brings Increase in Attacks on Children by Chained Dogs

Group warns against danger of chaining dogs, especially in springtime when attacks increase four-fold

Altoona, Penn.  March 24, 2008 -- Dogs that spend their lives on chains often become neurotic, aggressive and pathologically protective of the patch of dirt where they spend their lives.  Frustrated and unsocialized, chained dogs pose a year-round danger to unsuspecting children who approach these dogs. However, children are especially vulnerable in the springtime, according to Mothers Against Dog Chaining, an initiative of non-profit Dogs Deserve Better. The groups are dedicated to ending the suffering endured by chained dogs and to educating the public about the dangers chained dogs pose to people.

Since 2003, when the Mothers Against Dog Chaining began monitoring attacks nationwide that result in serious injury or death, it has traditionally seen an increase every spring when the warmer weather beckons more children outside and chained dogs can be especially frustrated after another lonely, agonizing winter.

In 2007, Mothers Against Dog Chaining logged 81 serious attacks on children by chained dogs. Thirty of these attacks -- more than one-third of the entire year's attacks -- occurred in April and May alone.

Of the 81 attacks logged in 2007, 8 resulted in the death of a child. "Our records include only those attacks serious enough to make the newspapers, and include only those we are able to locate," explains Tammy Grimes, founder of Mothers Against Dog Chaining and Dogs Deserve Better. "There are many more attacks that go unmentioned and unreported. And of course numerous adults also are seriously injured and killed every year by chained dogs."

The fact pattern leading up to the death in July 2007 of Tiffany Pauley, a 5-year-old Atlanta girl with Down Syndrome, is typical of many of these attacks: a child wanders into a neighbor's yard and wants to pet the chained dog, but the angry, perpetually chained animal attacks when it feels its space is threatened. The dog's caretakers then claim that there was nothing they could have done, unaware that the very method of confinement to which they subjected their dog led directly to the animal's aggression.

"Children are dying because of the misguided belief in certain segments of our society that it is appropriate to chain a dog to a tree and leave it there to pace the same patch of dirt and excrement for years on end," says Miranda Riane, the mother of an 8-year-old boy who was seriously mauled by a chained dog in November 2007. "My son did nothing but run past a dog that spent its life on a short chain. He paid the price for the owner having taken the negligent and 'easy way out' with regard to caring for her dog."

In part because of the public safety issues posed by perpetually chained dogs, a number of states, cities and counties have started passing laws addressing how long people can chain their dogs. California and Texas recently passed statewide laws that put specific time limits on chaining and a number of other states, including Pennsylvania and South Carolina, are currently considering similar legislation.

For more information and the latest updates on attacks, please visit www.mothersagainstdogchaining.org.

Weekly Roundup -- Week ending 4/27/08

It's been really busy for me -- so I'm running behind on a  lot of stories out there.  This weekly roundup is going to be pretty brief and I think I'll be able to get caught up some this week.

Woman bitten by 'pit bull" in Spokane

This 21 year old woman was bitten in the calf by a loose pit bull.

Pet dies after "dog" attack

The small Bichon was attacked (and later died) after being attacked by a yellow Labrador.

Sylvania (OH) keeps "pit bull" ordinance the same

The community opted to not create an all-out ban of pit bulls because they didn't feel any one type of dog was inherantly more aggressive than another. Congrats to the folks over at the Canine Advocates of Ohio that have been doing great work over there.

German Shepherd mix "bit" a 25 year old man

Mansfield, OH has BSL...sure seems to be working.

Minnesota State Legislature votes to ban ownership for people who violate dangerous dog laws

Good Law.  You violate dangerous dog laws, you lose the right to own dogs. Makes sense.

Anderson SC article on vicious dogs

This is a pretty good story with ATTS numbers, mentions problems with BSL causing shelter overcrowding, problems with breed identification, etc.

Memphis dog recovering

An 8 month old "pit bull" was found with pretty major injuries that were 'consistent with dog fighting" and is now recovering well.  Vets in Memphis say that they are finding more and more dogs that are being abused in their city.

Dog owner mourns her dog shot by police officers

Police shot her 1 year old Boxer.  The dog was running loose and was shot when police said it was "barking and acting in a vicious manner".  The dog had not bitten anyone or any animal. One of the things Tom Skeldon used as evidence as to why his 'pit bull' ordinance was justifiable was that Toledo Police shot more 'pit bulls' than other dogs.  It looks as if the Toledo police are just trigger-happy.

Despite "pit bull" ban, some owners are caught a break

Apparently Aurora is selectively enforcing its 'pit bull ban".  Caveat has a good take on this, but it has to be a concern to people when some dog owners are being treated differently than others.  This preferential treatment has still not kept Aurora from killing over 1,000 'pit bulls" over the past two years, or kept their bite numbers from increasing, including this one from earlier this week.

Six year old girl survives dog attack

The dog attacked the girl while on vacation with her neighbors.

Man attacked by two German Shepherds in Portland, OR

The dogs were running free and attacked the man's dogs while he was walking them.

Elderly woman attacked by "dogs"

Both dogs are described as "Rottweiler/Boxer mixes" and attacked the Scranton, PA woman.

"Dog" attacks 6 year old boy

The Lexington, SC boy was bitten by an off-leash Chow Chow.

PetSmart takes heat for banning 'pit bulls' from doggie daycare

Earlier this week, PetSmart said it would no longer allow certain types of dogs in its doggie day cares. This decision certainly has brought them criticism around the animal welfare community. Since I prefer to support local business owners, I would never take my dog to a Petsmart daycare anyway, but this type of discrimination (based on breed and not behavior) from a national business that is supposed to SUPPORT animals and their owners is not a way to win favor in the animal welfare community.

"Pit bull" attack puts child in the hospital

The dog is later described as a "Mastiff/Pit Bull" mix, but of course Mastiff makes for a less exciting headline.  Haverhill, MA, which has a 'pit bull' ordinance on the books is now looking to expand it to actually be inclusive of other dogs that are aggressive.  Once again, 'pit bull' legislation continues to prove itself to be both overly inclusive and under-inclusive in covering many dogs that aren't aggressive, but also not including all aggressive dogs.

9 month old Flint boy attacked by family 'pit bull"

The 9-month old was messing with the dog's food dish while the dog was eating.  Folks, watch your children especially when there is food in the room....and teach your dogs not to be food aggressive -- it really is an easy problem to fix.

Nampa boy attacked by 'pit bulls'

The three year old boy was left alone in he back yard with the 3 dogs unsupervised and wasn't familiar with the dogs.  What part of that was a truly great idea? 

I include all of these dog bite stories every week so that hopefully people will realize that the circumstances surrounding dog bites are very similar, regardless of the breed of dog involved.  Loose dogs, stray dogs, unsocialized dogs and unsupervised children all tend to be heavy determining factors of dog bites....regardless of the breed of dog involved.

Kenmare, ND bans many types of dogs

The city has given owners of American Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers and Dobermans 10 days to remove their dog from the city.  The city had previously had a ban on American Pit Bull Terriers and Bull Terriers.   The city passed the law even th0ugh no one had been bitten.  "We wanted to get it solved before anything happened," said Mayor Roger Ness.  Yes, solving problems you don't have by descriminating against "only a few" dog owners in the city.  Anyone else scared about the type of precedent this sets?

Have a great week everyone.

The Pit Bull Paradox

There is a new video that I just got a note about called "The Pit Bull Paradox".   The video, created by the Latham Foundation for Humane Education is designed "promote understanding and appreciation of the breed and encourage lifetime adoptions by well-informed, responsible owners."

The video emphasizes the need to consider one's own lifestyle and personality and the dog's need for daily, hard exercise and consistent training.   Here's the trailer:

I'm looking forward to watching the video. More information and the ability to purchase the video for $35 are here.

Springfield, MO Pit Bull Ban

Last week, the Greene County, MO health department issued a press release about how effective the Springfield, MO's pit bull ban has been for the city. Because the local media pretty much took the press release and ran the information straight from the release (nice reporting), I thought I'd make a call to the health department to try to get a little more information. 

The city's ordinance -- which bans all new 'pit bulls' into the community and puts very harsh restrictions on the current owners that are "grandfathered" was voted in in April, 2006 and actually began being enforced in October 2006.  So the numbers are typically comparing 2005 (pre ban year) to 2007 (post ban year). 

Based on the health department records:

2005 Bites: 102 (34 by "pit bulls") (33%)

2007 Bites: 87 (27 by 'pit bulls') (31%)

2005 Pit bull Impounds: 502

2007 Pit Bull Impounds: 252

2006 Pit bulls licensed: 284

2007 Pit bulls licensed: 91

"The data speaks for itself," says director of health Kevin Gipson.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's what the press release doesn't talk about. 

Springfield, MO has a population of 150,000 people -- and 65,000 households.  According to SRDS Lifestyle numbers, 31% of Springfield homes have dogs, and according to the AVMA each dog owning household has about 1.7 dogs.  So according to those calculations, there are roughly 34,000 dogs in Springfield.

From July '05 - June 06 the animal control division euthanized killed 2,111 animals (They don't specify breed or even species in their euthanasia numbers

From June '06-July '07 (during the time the ban went into affect), the kill rates went up 30% to 2,748.

From July 07-March 08 they killed 1,873 -- which projects out to 2,500 euthanized animals during the most recent year. 

So since the ban has taken affect, the city has euthanized killed roughly 1,026 more dogs, or roughly 3% of the dog population.

This in and of itself would be enough to account for the 14% decrease in dog bites. 

Also, according the the city guesstimates, there are roughly 3500-4000 'pit bulls' in the city.   The most disturbing numbers for the city is that they only have 91 registered "pit bulls" and that number has decreased by 200 in the past year (and by 300 over 2 years ago). This means that a) only about 2% of the 'pit bull' owners are complying with the ordinance b) that they grossly over-estimated the number of 'pit bulls" or c) even more dog owners that were affected by the ordinance left the city and move to the county where they wouldn't have to deal with the restrictions (this is speculation by Jaci McReynolds of the Greene County Health Department, not mine).  This could mean another 200-3000 more dogs that have left the city.

I've written about this before, but with the law of unintended consequences I have a feeling that the Springfield bite numbers are going to shoot back up very shortly.   A very large part of the decrease in total bite numbers can be largely attributed to the decrease in the overall dog population due to euthanasia and people moving from the city.  If you decrease the population by enough dogs you're bound to see a drop in bites.

Once the dog population course corrects, I expect the bite numbers will jump up pretty dramatically again.  Council Bluff's, IA saw similar results when in the first year of their breed ban they had a decrease of dog bites by 12% -- however, the following year bites went up and have leveled off at historically high levels.

The fact that so few people are complying with the ordinance is a very disturbing situation for Springfield.  It signifies that most of the responsible owners have left the city and that the people who were the problems in the first place are not complying. 

We'll see how the next year or two plays out, but the bite numbers don't appear to be telling the whole story of what is going on in Springfield.  I'll continue to keep an eye on it.

Seriously?

I thought about not posting this. There's very little reason to encourage people to visit the website -- it's just what they wanted with the headline.  However, I changed my mind.

People who advocate for responsible dog legislation (which does NOT include 'pit bull" bans) often state that many of the public's perceptions of these types of dogs have been formed during a a period when the "news" media thrives on sensationalism -- especially when it comes to vilifying 'pit bulls'.  This is one of the many reasons why studies like Merit Clifton's dog bite statistics that are totally reliant on newspaper reports are completely off base.

Then there comes a story like this one with the headline "Man Eaten by pit bull puppies".  Yip, that's right, that's what it says.  The lead line is "It sounds like a scene out of a Hannibal Lecter movie".

The story appears to be 43 year old Daniel Dangelis -- who is reportedly a long-time heavy drinker -- got home from the bars and was a little liquored up.  A friend reports seeing him the night before intoxicated (falling down drunk) and then went to the bedroom to get Xanax.  So we have a lot of booze, and prescription medication.  24 hours later, the man was later found on his floor, dead. 

Now the puppies, either because they were trying to wake up their owner (this is common that vigorous licking will take place) or because they hadn't been fed in at least 24 hours (quite possibly longer) had apparently done quite a bit of damage to the man's face.  There is very little indication from this story that the dogs had any say in the cause of death here...and were likely just trying to survive.

So when people say that the media is influential in giving these types of dogs a bad reputation, please remember this article.  THIS is what the "news" is giving us.  And the next time someone quotes the "news" as their source for why to ban a certain type of dog -- you may want to question their judgment and try to get expert opinions instead.

Good Ordinances Week!

Last week we got a couple of bits of great news.

First, the city of Osceola, MO repealed its long-standing ban on 'pit bull type' dogs and has replaced it with a breed neutral dangerous dog ordinance.  I really like Osceola's ordinance.  It has two designations of aggressive dogs.  "Dangerous" dogs have bitten someone, chased someone on the street in a menacing manner or have a tendency or disposition to attack.  Vicious dogs have inflicted serious damage on a person or other domestic animal.    Dangerous dogs have to be confined in enclosures, have posted signs, mandated spay/neuter, training and insurance.  The dog must also be muzzled in public.

One thing I really like about this ordinance is that it allows people to request an appeal of the dangerous dog designation.  So after one year, if someone can demonstrate that through proper training and socialization the dog is no longer dangerous, the restrictions will be lifted.  Encouraging good ownership.  I like it.

Vicious dogs will be either euthanized or have to be removed from the city.

One more thing I really like about the ordinance is that it allows for non-aggressive dogs to be under "voice control" in public.  So a person can have their dog off leash and as long as the dog is responsive to voice commands and an owner calls them and they come they are able to walk off-leash.  Again, it encourages good ownership.  I like it.

Meanwhile, Wellington, KS just last week passed an ordinance that restricts the amount of time a dog may be tethered outside unattended to no more than 2 hours at a time and no more than 4 hours in a day.  I do believe that prolonged tethering is cruel and inhumane...and neglectful.  I also feel like from my experience (even though there is little scientific data that agrees or disagrees with me) that prolonged tethering does lead to increased aggression due to neglect, lack of exercise, lack of socialization and general frustration.  I think it's a solid ordinance and a tip of the hat to Cindy Antonich on their city council who did a great job of pushing for this ordinance with the help and encouragment from the Wellington Humane Society. 

Wellington still has BSL on the table for later discussion.  It is my hope that they will continue to move forward with progressive ordinances instead of outdated (and never smart even back in the day) ordinances like BSL.

My one recommendation and hope for the people of Wellington is that they use the ordinance as a way to encourage people to get dogs off their chains, and not as a reason to confiscate dogs and later euthanize them in the shelters.  I've seen these types of ordinances poorly enforced that have been nightmares, but when properly enforced, I think can be quite good and helpful to the community -- like it has been in Lawrence, KS.

And another tip of the hat to the members of KCDA who helped people in both cities by supplying sample ordinances that are good templates to help cities get what they truly should be striving for: safer cities and humane treatment of pets.  Kudos to the people in these cities that reached out to us as well!

Denver area dog bite numbers

There is a solid article in the Rocky Mountain News today discussing several different cities in the Denver area and the affect it has had on overall dog bites in those communities.  At least this reporter interviewed a lot of people and made an effort to get the actual information together beyond just getting the city press release. Here are some of the numbers:

Aurora (BSL passed late in 2005 and affects shown in 2006 numbers):

2003: 213 bites

2004: 211 bites

2005: 137 bites

2006 (first year for the ban): 137 bites

2007: 172 bites

So Aurora reversed a trend in declining dog bites following enacting their BSL.

Lakewood (BSL Passed in 2005):

2003: 267 Bites (21 by 'pit bulls')

2004: 183 bites (22 by 'pit bulls')

2007 (after the ban had been in effect for a couple of years): 217 bites, 34 by 'pit bulls'

So Lakewood's numbers went up over pre-BSL numbers and even the number of restricted "breed" bites went up by 50%.

Commerce City: Also passed BSL in late 2005 and their numbers are reflected in 2006 and 2007 numbers:

2005: 7 Bites

2006: 70 Bites

2007: 67 bites

Ouch.

Denver

I'm going to give these numbers since they were in the story and for my record-keeping, but I'm not sure you can get much information from them. Denver passed its ban in 1989 -- and then suspended the ban due to state-wide legislation prohibiting BSL in 2004.  They then re-instituted the ban in May of 2005.  It's really no surprise that the bite rates were so high in 2005 because they spent the majority of the year chasing pit bulls (and killing nearly 2000 of them) instead of enforcing other dog legislation.  These numbers would be slightly valid (but still suspect) if they went back to 2004 -- or better yet, 1988.  I'm trying to get the 2004 numbers and will update this if I can track them down.

2005 - 504 bites

2006- 493

2007 - 429

I'm really curious what the 2004 numbers is...so if anyone has it, please let me know.

So is anyone convinced from looking at the numbers that pit bull bans makes any one safer? 

One really disturbing quote is someone with the city of Denver:

"This city is committed to the ordinance banning pit bulls passed in 1989," Kelley added. "What can be proven is that when a pit bull bites, statistically it's more serious than other dog bites."

Can be proven?  Really?  How?