Kansas City BSL Mandatory Spay/Neuter and supporting it in spite of the evidence

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Kansas City Star regarding the nearly 2-year report on Kansas City's law that mandated the spay/neuter 'pit bull' type dogs.  The article calls the results "mixed" but that's being pretty gracious (or misleading).  The numbers are similarly on track to the numbers I reported 3 months ago.  

According to the article, the number of 'pit bulls' impounded since August 2006 (when the ordinance was passed, even though it didn't go into effect until December of the same year) was 4,000 dogs (in about a 22 month time window).  In the 25 months prior to the ordinance being enacted, the number of 'pit bulls' brought into the shelter was 2,600. If you amortize out the intakes (182 per month), that would be 4,550 killed in 25 months.  That's a 75% increase in impounded pit bulls since the ordinance took effect.

The number of 'pit bulls killed went from 1600 in the 25 months prior to the ordinance to 2,500 in the 22 months following the ordinance (2841 if you amortize out over 25 months) -- a 77.5% increase.

The number of bites has remained virtually the same (consistent with my numbers).

The Humane Society of the United States estimates that each animal brought into an animal control facility, held for the minimum of 5 days, and then euthanized, costs $117 per animal. So with an increase of 1,241 animals over 25 months that are euthanized cost the taxpayers of Kansas City about $145,000 in fees just for containing and killing these dogs.  In 2005 our animal control department only answered 20% of its calls, and according to Mike Schumacher (who oversees animal control), there is currently a 4 hour response time for animal control calls because of poor staffing.  This year, our city also cut funding for the Zoo and other services while Mayor Funkouser suggested closing the shelter due to a lack of funds.  So AC is spending a LOT of money that could have been used to hire or train several more animal control officers or for a host of other services our city desperately needs.  Where is the oversight on spending?

Interestingly, the article in the Star spent most of its time interviewing the two organizations (Kansas City Animal Control and Spay/Neuter Kansas City) that supported the ordinance two years ago while leaving the opponents, like Kansas City Dog Advocates that testified before the council on this ordinance, completely out of the discussion. And somehow the supporters looked at these numbers and declared that the ordinance is showing signs of working.

"All I can explain to you is that we obviously impound more, and the more we get off the street, the less we'll have out there," said Patrick Egberuare, the new head of animal control (Mr. Egberuare was not involved in getting this ordinance passed, those honors go to his new boss Mr. Schumacher). 

The only thing I can take from this quote is that if we kill them all now, there will be fewer to kill later, which will help our kill numbers. ????

Michelle Dormandy, who runs Spay/Neuter Kansas City and also supported the ordinance originally, also found upside.

"If it wasn't for the ordinance, we wouldn't have spayed and neutered as many as we have, but the downside to the ordinance is that there are more dying."

Isn't the point of spaying and neutering to decrease the killing? So if your increasing the killing to increase spay/neuters, is that an improvement?  Really? So other than that pesky dying, it's going great!

The article completely ignores that the city has also had several problems with taking people's animals for not being neutered and accidentally killing them in the shelter, even when the owner agreed to get the animal spayed/neutered.

Here's the thing folks. Enforcing the law is having the following effects:

1) Animal Control is going out and confiscating and killing dogs because they aren't altered (or in some cases, not licensed). 

2) Because the shelter is overflowing with animals, the 75% increase in impounded pit bulls has led to a 77% increase in the number of pit bulls killed (even though the ordinance was supposed to have the opposite effect).

3) There is no evidence to support that we are even denting the overall population of dogs, as many of these owners are now going out and getting new dogs -- which is increasing the demand for bred dogs (it seems unlikely that these people are running out and adopting dogs at the local shelter that just killed their previous dog).

4) The law has had no impact on the number of dog bites.  This isn't increasing public safety so what is the point besides wasting time and resources?

5) All of this has come at a large price to taxpayers, and with a huge waste of animal control resources -- a department that like so many in the city is inefficient, ineffective, and underfunded.

And yet somehow this is seen as "mixed" results? 

Mayor Funkhouser, the city council and taxpaying citizens of KCMO should demand a full, independent audit of this department, its policies and its practices.  Increasing citizen satisfation with city services was a campaign promise of the Mayor and animal control has been broken for far too long. 

Comments

[PAMM - People Against Mad Mothers]

With the sad and completely forseeable effect this ordinance is having and the almost laughable comments by the Ebruary guy (almost except he wasn't kidding)...what is most shocking is that SNKC supports killing Black people's pit bulls!?!?! WTF! Are they a KC branch of PETA?!

Of course, Schumacher pushed this thru with the help of his wife Becky explicitly to harrass the boyz in the hood. And the stupid city council just sat there like drones and passed it on thru.

[Caveat]

No man, you don't get it.

It's working.

They're killing the most common types of dogs (short-haired, medium-sized, look like the ancestral or Village dog) in record numbers. That's the AR agenda.

Incidentally, you should send your post to the reporter on the story, if you haven't done so already. Also send it in as a letter to the Editor.

That way, they can't pretend they don't have accurate information, even if they don't run it.

Sounds as though these killers and Ontario are having a contest of some kind because the numbers are almost identical - our ban's been around a bit longer (Aug 29/05)but 'pit bull' types are not nearly so common up here as in the US - they have to look for them.

[Brent]

What's sad is that they HAVE accurate information, just lack any cognitive ability to analyize it and realize that you can't kill your way to no-kill...

[Becky]

Brent, thank you SO much for this excellent post! I agree w/ Caveat that this should be sent to the Star -- the Editor, Opinion and the 'journalist'.

Here is a very sad comment: An AC officer of a certain city, who I contacted regarding MSN, stated that the city does not have MSN and they don't need to because they have a pit bull ban. He went on to name a couple of cities that have MSN and said 'This is how they are getting around pit bull bans.' ?????

This all seems so hopeless, so I must commend you for not giving up and continuing to compile and share all this information. I would just like to see some respectable, honest journalist take a serious look at your piece and make some attempt to get this info out there! People tend to skim crap like this Star article, so a bunch of crap gets tucked away somewhere in their brain and they believe it makes sense when it does not!

[EmilyS]

Just more proof, if we needed it, that BSL has nothing to do with facts...

[MichelleD]

Yes Becky, they've discovered that MSN can cast a wider net and kill more animals than BSL alone. It is frightening how engrained the PETA mantra of "kill to save" in supposed dog lovers - like Emily mention, in SPITE of the black and white facts that it doesn't work. And even if it did, the means (MSN) does NOT justify the end.

You could make an argument FOR BSL IF it actually worked to increase public safety. But again, the FACTS are that it doesn't and in FACT has the opposite effect.