KC DOG BLOG

Interesting study on how canine laws are passed

Caveat has posted an interesting essay written by three Cal State Sacramento professors on the anatomy of how many areas are pushing through certain types of canine legislation.

Here's the abstract:

An open process for drafting legislation would assure that from the onset all camps are heard from and all data considered.” Sunshine” or open meeting laws are in place to assure this. Instead of this happening, proponents of special-interest ordinances are being advised on websites and at legislative workshops to establish “coalitions” or “taskforces” which are independent of the legislative body of the municipality. Thus they are not subject to the open meeting laws and sunshine laws which exist. City or county staff is co-opted and a proposed ordinance is presented by staff. Public trust in government is eroded when legislation to be proposed is drafted in private andvotes are solicited in private without public knowledge or debate, and without those opposed being given sufficient warning to garner opposition or participate in the process. Such a situation operates within the guidelines of the letter of the sunshine principle, but not within the spirit of the sunshine principle, for the legislation is the product of a private coalition where openness, inclusion, and unanimity is falsely maintained.. Not honoring the spirit as well as the letter of sunshine laws allows special interests to hijack local government.

It's an interesting read -- you can catch the whole document here. I've never been comfortable with committees that are created and create policies behind closed doors with no public input. In Omaha, they did this and they're now looking at having two sets of policy proposed and the general public has still gotten ZERO input into the legislation.  Had all the voices been heard, or if people had had access to the committee, a lot of the circus there could have been avoided.

Closed door committees are never the best format in the spirit of a democracy. 

Overall, the study is a little short on research -- but overall it does mirror what it seems like a majority of the cities out there are doing.  Well worth the read and thanks to Professors Cleek, Guarino and Youril for putting it together.  While the study focuses on canine legislation, its principles carry into all kinds of government policies.  And if you're not concerned and suspicious, you're not paying attention.

Weekly Roundup - Labor Day Weekend 2008

I missed the weekly roundup last week.  I had a couple of projects with my real job that had to be worked on -- so this week we have a double dose of stories.  I'm going to dive right in, and just hit the highlights.  The weather is beautiful this weekend in KC and I have some outside time planned with the pups.

Dog attacks

A Beach Grove, British Columbia woman and here Sheltie were attackedby a Bull-Mastiff-type dog in Tsawwassen earlier this month.

A woman in San Antonio and her dog were attacked by two 'pit bulls'.  Apparently neighbors had called police "repeatedly" about the dogs but officials had done nothing about the problem. It just seems that more and more of these problems could be solved before-hand if animal control departments were taking care of these problems when they initially hear about them.

An 11 year old boy inFort Smith Arkansas was hospitalized with serious injurieswhen a Mastiff/Golden Retriever cross jumped a fence and attacked him while he and his brother were swimming.  The boy's injuries were bad enough that EMTs originally thought his lung was partially exposed but it turned out to only be deep muscle tissue. 

A Ville Platte, LA woman, Luna Mc Daniels was seriously attacked by three pit bulls. The 83 year old woman remains in critical condition at the hospital.  No word on what caused the attack.

An 8 year old Ft. Worth, TX girl was attackedby a Rottweiler/German Shepherd mix that had been CHAINED to a pole in the backyard and somehow got loose.

A Petersborough, Ontario boywas attacked in the face and on the torso by  a young border collie/golden retriever mix.  The dog was left alone outside the store and it is believed the 4 year old boy was attempting to play with the dog at the time -- although the boy was left unattended with the dog so no one is quite certain. Of course Ontario is a province that passed a ban on 'pit bull' to prevent dog bites from happening -- how's that working for ya?

A four year old Oconee County (SC) boy was attacked by what the newspaper is reporting to be a 'pit bull'. However, the newspaper later says the dog weighed 125 lbs, which means it was something other than a 'pit bull' as most 'pit bulls' are around 45-65 lbs dogs.  Later reports changed to calling the attacker a "dog".  The dog was initially bought by the owner for use for protection, which would tell you that they encouraged the dog to be aggressive (which almost never turns out good). 

An 18 month old boy was injuredin Aberdeen, MD when he wandered outside of his daycare facility and was attacked in the yard by the dog that lived at the daycare. A lot was made about this attack and whether or not the daycare workers were negligent because they owned a pit bull at a daycare facility, and yet, they never made much of the fact that the people allowed the young boy to walk outside by himself with no supervision.  Follow up reports indicate that the child will have a full recovery.

Police shot an killed a Bull Mastiffin Dedham, MA that attacked a woman.

A 4-year old, Lansdale, PA boy was seriously hurt when he was attacked by a neighbor's German Shepherd. The boy was trying to take a ball out of the dog's mouth when the dog attacked the boy. This is yet another reason to not allow young children to be around dogs unsupervised and to teach them how to behave around dogs.

The headlines of course screams out "pit bull bites child" --  a Minot, ND toddler was bitten when the young toddler wandered up to the newborn puppies.  Dogs can be very protective of their newborn puppies, and letting a child wander up to them unattended is a recipe for something bad to happen.  Of course, they now want to "look at" their pet policies when this was 100% human error.

The UK is calling for a stricter dangerous dog law following the fatal mauling of a 13 month old boy in the country. The UK Dangerous Dogs Act that bans four breeds of dogs continues to provide no safety from attacks from the public.

A 70 year old man in Chili , NY was seriously attacked by three 'pit bull' type dogs that somehow escaped the home. No word on how the dogs escaped, or what prompted the attack by the dogs.

Cities and Legislation

Canton, OH is considering adding American Bulldogs to their breed specific legislation.   In July of 2007, the city council passed a law automatically making all 'pit bulls' declared as vicious dogs.  However, after two attacks by American Bulldogs this year, the city is now looking at adding American Bulldogs to the list.  First off, this shows that the original legislation is not working. Secondly, it should show all dog owners that they should fight against BSL, because it usually doesn't stop with just 'pit bulls'.

The one board member  of Rantoul Village, IL wants to wants to ban pit bulls, rottweilers and Dobermans from the community after an inspector found 19 pit bulls in one home in the community. The mayor opposes the ordinance, and Illinois state says its against the law to pass this type of ordinance .  So it's doubtful that Chuck Smith's clearly horribly researched ordinance will go anywhere - but thanks for wasn't our time Chuck. 

American Falls, ID had a meeting where they discussed changes to their dangerous dog ordinance including banning certain types of dogs. According to some of the dozens of residents who attended the meeting, the city sounds like they're not doing a very good job of dealing with stray/off-leash dogs and that that is where a lot of their problems are coming from.

Greenwood, MS passed a law with harsh restrictions on pit bull owners, including high liability insurance costs, expensive enclosures for dogs that are outside to be sure they are poorly socialized, muzzling to be sure they are not able to be exercised appropriately, restrictions on how close to churches and schools they can be walked, a limit of no more than 3 pit bulls per home, mandatory sterilization and a few other things.  The law was passed following an attack where a pit bull that was Left chained to a tree in its back yard broke free and attacked a woman.

Brookside, AL is considering an ordinance that would place restrictions on 'pit bulls' following attacks that led to the deaths of two cats in the community.  Their next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 9.

Fremont, NE is looking at potential restrictions on 'pit bulls' following a weekend where 3 dog bites were reported over one weekend -- bringing the total number of dog bites in the city up to 21 for the year.  No word on if any of the attacks were actually by the types of dogs that they seek restrictions on.

Hazel Park, MI passed a law is putting restrictions on owners of pit bull type dogs.

A Jordan, MN couple is being forced to choose which of their 3 dogs they must get rid of as the city recently passed a new law that permits people from owning more than two dogs.  The people were responsible owners and had all three dogs registered with the city, and now the city is coming after them and asking them to get rid of one of the dogs. Be sure to watch the video and check out the owner's website where they try to save the dogs.  I can't even begin to express how jacked up this is.

Miscellaneous

A two year old female 'pit bull/boxer mix" is credited with saving the lives of six abandoned kittens.  The dog found the kittens hiding in some bushes.  The kittens ended up up for adoption.

The wife of a Cleveland city councilman wanted taxpayers to pay for the examination of her dogthat was exiled from the city due to the city's law banning pit bulls. The city exiled her dog by claiming it was a pit bull, and Shirley Coats wanted the city to pay for an expert to travel to Alabama to determine if the dog really was a 'pit bull'.  However, somehow the judge ruled that Coats would have to pay for the trip. I still can't understand why the burden of proof of guilt is on the accuser in all cases except for when it comes to 'pit bulls'. 

This writer is challenging the policy by the Jackson County, MI animal shelter on not adopting out pit bulls from the shelter as it's only killing innocent dogs.

I have a few other stories that I'm going to post under different headlines later in the weekend because I believe they deserve their own space.

Enjoy the nice weekend.

THIS is what they call a solution?

Forrest is safe. After several days on death row at the Denver shelter, city officials agreed to release Forrest.  While Forrest is a mixed breed of dog, a mutt, a Heinz 57,he was set to join over 1600 dogs that have been killed in Denver over the past three years because of how he looked.

Denver's solution is a bit odd though. Instead of returning the dog to the owner, Chris McGahey (who is not a resident of Denver), they are releasing the dog to Best Friends, who will then be transporting the dog to a rescue in St. Louis where he will be up for adoption. McGahey was forced to sign paperwork stating that he would not own the dog again.

"We understand that Mr. McGahey is not abusive and Forrest has posed not danger," said head of animal control Doug Kelly.

So what sense does this make? The dog is not a danger, and not being abused, so the owner is never allowed to own him again?  Why is this a solution? The city is now going to allow this to be an option that if a dog is taken because it is a 'pit bull', it can be transferred to an out-of-state rescue.

I'm thrilled that Forrest is safe. Most dogs aren't this lucky (including the other 1600 they've killed in Denver) But this type of judgment, where basically you're just taking someone's dog away for the heck of it, is pretty absurd.

Heck, even the newspaper has realized the absurdity of the law...it usually takes them awhile.

Realizing that the dogs are not dangerous and thus can be shipped out of state is a good first start. They are at least realizing the dogs aren't dangerous. Soon enough they'll realize it makes no sense to remove non-aggressive dogs from the city.  It will be a realization that can't come soon enough.

You're not welcome here

Rhiannon and Casey Embree just want to buy a house.  Seems like a simple thing. The housing market is soft, so it's a great time to buy.

The Embree's found a a home they loved on Sibley Street in Buckner, MO.  However, it turns out that the entire Embree family is not welcome in Buckner because the Embree's own 'pit bulls".

Buckner passed a ban in 2000--  after apparently a 'pit bull' chased a child and attacked his tricycle.  The child was unharmed.  The family was concerned and after some debate, the small town passed a ban on pit bulls.

Instead of sneaking into the community with their dogs, the Embrees approached the city council about repealing their ban for their dogs.  They have said that their dogs are not dangerous. They plan to have a six foot tall privacy fence for their yard and an enclosed kennel.  They say they keep the dogs indoors when they are not at home.  But as for now, the council still seems to be against letting the Embrees, and their dogs, move to Buckner.

Alderman Jimmie Jones said: "There's been too many people come to this board over the years....and I'm not willing to make an exception at this time."

"What do we do with the next couple that comes along?" asked Dennis Gilmore.

The answer is easy.  Repeal the ordinance and let the next people in to. And then if they're a problem, deal with them.

On citizen, Jim Affolter is concerned that dropping the ordinance could send a wrong message to pet owners who own vicious dogs.  Affolter seems to be unaware that people with aggressive dogs still live in Buckner in spite of the ordinance.

Just a year ago, a Dogue Bordeaux dog that was owned by 39 year old Chris Ownbey attacked Steve and Kristi McBee in the street in Buckner. Ownbey was charged for the attack.  The dog had previously attacked 67 year old Joyce Shelley in 2005...but was allowed to remain with the owner.

Buckner is having another city council meeting on Thursday night, September 4. You can show your support for the Embree's at that meeting. It certainly sounds like the

The reality is that Buckner's pit bull ban is doing nothing to protect the citizens of Buckner. All it is doing is keeping people -- people that seem like really nice people like the Embrees -- from being able to move to their town. This doesn't seem like America when people aren't allowed to move to a home that they love. It certainly doesn't feel like America that they are being penalized for a dog attacking a tricycle 8 years ago.  It also is unfair to the current home owner to not be able to sell their property -- which is a tough burden in such a down economy.

Buckner is having another city council meeting to discuss the Embree's on Thursday night, September 4. You can show your support at the meeting that night -- or if you live in Buckner, by contacting your city council members and expressing your opinion on the matter.

"Pit bull" bans do affect dogs....but they often have an even greater affect on people. People who have nothing wrong...and yet are not welcome in many communities.

Best of luck to the Embrees in their quest of buying a new home.

KC Dog Blog Turns 2 Today

Two years ago today I started this blog. It started in part  as an experiment in blogging for a work project.  It also started in part because I became very frustrated about going to city council meetings, then reading the newspaper coverage of the meeting, and wondering if the reporter and I went to the same meeting.  I wanted to do a little truthtelling.

The blog has evolved a little bit over the past two years. In Kansas City, we're no longer on the complete defensive and in city council meetings every night of the week, so I've been able to be proactive on some topics, and to cover things outside of the Kansas City area.  But fixing our little situation in KC still remains my #1 goal, although I continue to try to help others and provide a resource for others who are going through the same things we dealt with 2 years ago.

Over the past 2 years, I've posted 759 posts -- so just more than one per day. I've gotten 2,665 comments.  I've had some 150,000 page views -- which would be about 75,000 unique visitors. That's a about 200 page views per day since I began the blog...which is a bit misleading because almost no one read for the first 6 months. I went 5 straight days once in October that first year without a single person who came to my site. It wasn't until I posted an article on socialization in December of that first year that I  started attracting readers. In June of 2007 I virtually doubled my readers in a matter of days with apost on how people use statistics for misinformation. 

I've learned alot on this journey...like, no one reads blogs on Saturdays.  Like I can get page views up pretty high and then the people go away...many end up subscribing via RSS feed. Which is great, but I have no idea how many feeds I have going out.

 I've met a lot of great new friends.  I've read pretty much every news article about dogs that has appeared in a newspaper or on TV across the country  over the past 2 years. 

I'm having a good time...although I wish for nothing more than to have nothing to write about.  Some day people will figure this out...I just hope it's not too late once it happens.

It's been a crazy and fast 2 years.  Thanks for reading and commenting. I only hope that you've learned 1/2 as much from me over the past 2 years as I have learned from you.

Saving Forest

  There's just nothing like people who WANT to kill animals.

The city of Denver has created yet another stir, and this time the victim is named Forrest (as in Forrest Gump) and is pictured above.

According to Denver law, it is "unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, harbor, transport or sell within the city any pit bull".  Apparently, Forrest lives in nearby Adams County and dug a hole under his fence and escaped.

Forrest never hurt anyone, or even threatened anyone, but he is now in danger of being killed because a hearing officer ruled that he looked enough like a 'pit bull' to deserve death. There is no recourse for Forrest's owner Chris McGahey. No proving the dog is or is not a pit bull. No trial. Just a death sentence.

"The city of Denver intends to kill a dog that never did anything.  They are breaking this guy's heart" said Paula Terrifaj.

McGahey says his dog is not a 'pit bull', but that doesn't matter to the city of Denver. Forrest now sits on death row. McGahey has even said that he intends to move far away from Denver if he can get Forrest off death row...but the city still intends to kill him.

This is what ridiculous legislation like BSL does -- it punishes people and kills dogs -- NOT because they're a danger to society.  But because they look a certain way.  Many times these owners like McGahey have no idea they could be targeted.

This could just as easily be my dog. If I were caught driving through the city of Denver with my dogs, they could confiscate and kill them. This is why cities have no business complaining about "outsiders" writing them about particular ordinances. Stupid laws that can affect me without my knowing ARE are reason for me to care.

The Denver law continues to be a disgrace. They continue to face legal challenges (they're on #4 or #5 now). They continue to just kill dogs that are of no danger to society.  And they continue to have no positive bite statistics to demonstrate that the law is actually improving the situation.  Nope, just more stories like Forrest.  And the PR nightmare is becoming obvious, with 92% of the voters in this poll deciding that Forest should not be killed.  That's pretty overwhelming.

Yet Denver hangs onto this law in spite of its obvious failings. Others model ordinances after it, even though thousands of innocent animals are dying because of it.  It's stupid. It's foolish. And it's unneccessary.  Stupid is, as stupid does.

Best of luck to Forrest and his owner....I hope for a peaceful escape.

Incompetence Kills

Last week, two litters of kittens arrived at the Kansas City, MO animal shelter.  Someone from a rescue group was at the shelter, and sent a notice out to other rescuers about them.  Within a day or so, we had foster homes lined up for all the kittens.

We placed several calls to the shelter to schedule a time to pull the kittens to get them into new foster homes...but the calls were never returned. Today, we found out that all of the kittens were killed by the shelter.  It turns out that the one person at the KCMO shelter who actually cares enough to help animals was on vacation last week.  And apparently, no one else at the shelter cares enough about animals to even return a phone call to save muliple lives.

The KCMO shelter kills about 80% of the cats that enter the shetler...and roughly 65% of the dogs that enter.  It's not because there are too many dogs or cats -- it's because they don't do the slightest little things that can help save lives -- like scanning for microchips or returning rescuer phone calls.

It's unfathomable to me that the shelter only has one person who actually cares about animals working there.  The rest are more than satisfied to continue killing....all at taxpayer's expense.

What happened at KCMO's shelter this week is not unique. It happens every day in shelters across the US.   We must demand better from our shelter leadership and the city managers the run the cities.

Praise for Kill Shelters

There was a letter to the editor in the KC Star today that actually PRAISED kill shelters.  Here's a quick read:

Some shelters in the Kansas City area call themselves “no-kill.” The public perception of a “no-kill” shelter is positive — animals are euthanized only for illness and aggression, not based on lack of space.

But what happens to the animals that these “no-kill” shelters don’t even accept into their facility? When they are turned away from “no-kill” shelters, for some, this is essentially a death sentence in and of itself. They could eventually wind up a “kill” shelter or, worse, be dumped on the streets, left to fend for themselves.

I applaud the individuals who work at so-called “kill” shelters. Their job is not an easy one. It can be heartbreaking and extremely depressing. They have the unenviable task of making life-and-death decisions that “no-kill” shelters avoid.

Please remember to spay and neuter your pets. It’s the only effective long-term solution to pet overpopulation. And if you know of someone whose pets are not spayed or neutered, please encourage them to do so. There are several low-cost options available to those who need assistance.

The confusion remains over what constitutes a true "no-kill" shelter. A true no-kill shelter does not have a selective admittance policy. They do NOT turn animals away that must be dealt with by Kill Shelters. Nor are Kill shelters to be praised.

Shelters with selective admission should not consider themselves "no kill". Out of courtesy to what the term really means, they should not call themselves no-kill if they just cause someone else to do the killing.

Nor should we praise the kill shelters for making the "tough decisions" on which dogs to kill instead of instigating policies that would allow them to stop the killing.

We must straighten out what it means to be no-kill. No killing of healthy animals. Taking in all animals that are in need of a place to go, and finding homes for those animals.

We must get after those who claim to be no-kill, but are not.  And we must not praise those that kill unnecessarily.

Tivo-worthy TV

On Sunday night, Animal Planet will be running a special episode of "Animal Witness that will feature the details of the case involving the timelines and events of Vick's conviction and the rehabilitation of his dogs.

Per usual, it sounds like there is way more footage of dog fighting than there should be on this program, but it does sound like it is mostly positive for the bullies and showing their rehabilitation.  Animal Planet's website also has a "Pit Bull Myths" quiz that is geared to educate people on these types of dogs (I passed with flying colors).

The show airs for the first time at 9PM (Central Standard Time) on Sunday August 24, and then will rebroadcast at midnight and 4 am on the 25th, and 8 and 10 pm on the 27th.

The folks at Bad Rap were interviewed for the piece and Donna has gotten an advanced copy and you can read her detailed review here.

AB 1634 is dead....again.

In a vote of 5 yes, 27 no, AB 1634, a now very strangely worded bill that in a weird, back-door way, could require every dog and cat in the state of California to be altered, died again in committee.

Maybe it was Levine and Ed Boks stating that they had no idea how most cities, which are already understaffed, could enforce the law.

Maybe because when prodded, they had no idea how the enforcement of this would be funded.

Maybe it was that one of the spokesmen for the bill, Ed Boks, passed a similar ordinance in his own community that has led to a 31% increase in the number of dogs that have been killed in the shelter (the first increase in 5 years) and because it the city auditor of LA said his department had "no plan" for the bill's enforcement.

Or maybe it was just bad policy and wiser minds prevailed.

Caveat has links and details.