KC DOG BLOG

How not to write a dog bite ordinance -- a look at Omaha

What a flipping mess. 

Omaha passed their dangerous dog ordinance today.  All I can say to the people trying to enforce this one is...good luck?  

To cities who are looking at dangerous dog legislation, let me use Omaha as an example of how NOT to design dangerous dog legislation. Here are the steps of Omaha took to design their dangerous dog ordinance:

1) Wait until there is an attack, and then feel pressured to "do something"

2) Establish a committee comprised of experts who will need to enforce the ordinance and have them put together a proposal with absolutely zero public input.

3) Before anyone sees the proposal from the people who were assigned to study the ordinance and look at successful ordinances from around the country, have the mayor, who is in no way a dog expert, add a couple of changes to the ordinance.

4) Decide that the victim of the attack that started the whole thing is an expert in canine legislation, and over-rule your group of experts who have been dealing with canine laws for years and decades with a victim's opinions who has "studied" canine laws for 2 months.

5) At the last minute, add a whole bunch of amendments at the last minute -- one targeted at exactly one person and another one adding another breed to your banned breeds list without ever  mentioning it.  There will be hundreds of people affected by the ordinance that had no idea they would be affected until they hear it on the news tonight.  That will go over VERY well.  I'm not even sure that is legal under the Nebraska Open Meetings Act.

6) Make laws that make it infinitely more difficult for responsible owners to be responsible, to take resources away from dealing with irresponsible dog owners.

7) End up with an ordinance that is completely unenforceable, overly complicated, and ignores every expert opinion out there.  

I'll get into a lot of the details of the ordinance as soon as I get a full copy -- but this one is tragic. 

Here are the two news stories that are out so far.

KETV

The World Herald

Omaha to discuss dangerous dog law today at 2:00

The city council of Omaha is slated to meet today to discuss several new provisions to their dangerous dog ordinance.  This thing has become quite a mess, with everyone apparently being an expert canine laws and having an opinion -- which is quickly making the law so complicated it's going to be impossible to enforce.  What started out as a pretty solid recommendation from the formed committee, has now been left with a whole bunch of politicians who aren't experts adding their own recommendations to the equation and making this thing a mess.

For a quick refresh the law in its current form:

- A designation for dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs was created that would allow dogs to be declared potentially dangerous based on their behavior, even before a bite incident occurred.

- Dogs would not be allowed to be tethered for more than 15 minutes at a time.

- Any dog owner that violated animal control ordinances 3 times in 2 years would be forbidden to own a dog.

- Based on the mayor's personal recommendation (not that of the committee), all 'pit bulls' (defined as six different and separate breeds of dogs) would have to carry additional insurance and wear a muzzle.

- Dramatic increases in fines for and licensing fees to pay for the enforcement of the ordinance.

Here are my thoughts on most of those ordinances.

Of the proposed changes:

Councilman Jim Suttle is proposing changes that would get rid of the breed specific clause requiring all 'pit bulls' to be muzzled.  However, if they insist on pushing forward with the muzzling, he and councilman Gary Gernandt want to create an exception for dogs and owners that pass a responsible ownership class with the Nebraska Humane Society.

First off, I completely agree with Suttle's recomendation to get rid of the muzzling ordinance. As I've stated before, and repeatedly, muzzling creates a situation where dogs will, over time, become less exercised and less socialized -- exactly the OPPOSITE of what we want dog owners to do with their dogs. Suttle has repeatedly expressed concern to the media though that it seems the ordinance is doing little more than creating a bunch of loop holes for responsible dog owners to jump through and shifting the discussion away from dealing with problem dog owners.  I couldn't agree more.  Any time you create the discussion about types of dogs, and not types of owners, that ends up happening.

Meanwhile, Gary Gernandt is proposing that 'pit bulls' must also be walked on a harness.  He says it is his understanding that it makes the dogs easier to control. Never mind of course, that no dog-training class anywhere ever recommends halters to collars because they don't allow for the same time of direction and correction necessary for proper training.  Sigh. 

Meanwhile, Franklin Thompson wants to propose a requirement that all owners/handlers of 'pit bulls' must be 21 years of age -- with that requirement ending December 31, 2010. It is my understanding that this law is directed at one person who is 19 years old and owns a 'pit bull' and lives directly behind Wendy Blevins. I can't express enough that YOU DON"T MAKE LAWS DIRECTED AT ONE PERSON. 

Meanwhile, apparently, Wendy Blevins now fancies herself as an 'expert on dog ordinances' -- and the media is willing to give her that title. Let's get one thing straight, you don't become an expert in dog ordinances in 3 months. It can't happen.  But this is the problem that is currently facing Omaha. They are now thinking they are all experts -- and have ignored the real experts and NHS and the ASPCA that helped craft the original ordinance.  They are now facing an extremely complicated law that is going to be impossible to enforce - -with multiple loop holes for responsible owners to have to jump through and too little emphasis on the people who are causing the problems in the first place.

Best of luck to the citizens of Omaha today and the rest of the city council.  It sounds like they're going to need it.

Dog attacks and kills 5 year old girl in Simi Valley, CA

Five year old Katya Todesco died late last week following an attack of a mixed breed 'pit bull' last week. While early reports touted it as the family dog, it turns out that there is much more to the story.

It appears that the dog belonged to someone not involved in this overall equation.  The dog's owners were out of town and the 35-lbs "pit bull mix" was staying at a friends house. Katya Todesco was visiting the home where the dog was staying and was out in the back yard playing with the dog, supervised only by another 13 year old girl. Katya apparently "fell into" the dog and the dog bit her.  The injuries proved to be fatal.

So here we have a dog that is not with its owners in a strange environment, allowed to play with a 5 year old girl that it didn't know well (if at all) without any supervision. The girl falls onto the dog (possibly hurting it in some way) and the dog retaliates. 

This is a horrible attack, but again one that was easily preventable merely by having adult supervision of the situation. I will never understand why people don't monitor their young children around dogs.

Also interestingly, Ventura County, CA reported 1,185 dog bites during their 2007-2008 fiscal year -- less than 10% of those came from the group of breeds labeled as 'pit bulls'.

Changing how city administrators view animal control

Never has the need to change how city administrators view animal control been more evident than in the most recent case in Philadelphia. 

Let's give you a quick overview.

Three years ago, the city of Philadelphia had a save rate for animals that entered their shelter of 11%. Yip, that's right, 89% of the 30,000 animals that entered the Philadelphia animal control system ended up leaving dead through the back door.

In 2005, the city awarded the animal control contract to the Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association (PACCA). PACCA, along with the Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) began making changes to the way animal control was run, and how animals were dealt with once they entered the animal welfare system.  Now, under the control of PACCA and PAWS, Philadelphia is saving nearly 60% of the dogs and cats that enter their system.  This is approximately 14,000 lives that are being saved under their leadership.  While they have a long way to go to make Philadelphia a no-kill city, the improvement is undeniable and should be commended.

However, just this month, the city Department of Health has issued an RFP for groups seeking to run their animal control division.  In the RFP to bid for the city contract beginning in January 2009, they state that they are looking for a "qualified contractor" that can "hold, euthanize or dispose of 30,000 animals annually."

While the two organizations that are currently running animal control are succesfully saving 14,000 more animal lives each year, the city Department of Health is looking to bid out "dog catching" duties to the lowest bidder.  Yikes!

As we move forward, if we are ever to improve the way animals are treated in our city sheltering systems, we MUST move the thinking in city leadership that animal control is more than just being "dog catchers".  We must move beyond that model where animal control is expecting to pick up and take in stray animals off the street and kill them, and move the language to bringing animals in and SAVING them. At some point we've lost the "shelter" in our animal sheltering system.

Let's hope the city makes the right decision and keeps the PACCA and PAWS people in place.

You can do a lot of reading on the topic.

An editorial from the Philadelphia Daily News.

Citizens for a No Kill Philadelphia.

All the info you ever needed at the PAWS website. 

Where Philadelphia residents can look up the contact info so they can contact them to show their support.

Winograd's overview on the situation in Philadelphia (he's much closer to it than I am)

Winograd's Philadelphia tool kit.

Springfield, MO has new opposition to city's breed ban

Springfield, MO City Councilman Doug Burlison is looking to overturn the city's 2 year old breed ban.  Burlison thinks the ordinance in unenforceable...and that the people who aren't complying with the ordinance in the first place are the ones that are going to be a problem later.

The ordinance "makes an assumption that every pit bull that is out there is a vicious animal and that is not a correct assumption," said Burlison.

Burlison is hoping to gain support from other council members before issuing a  formal repeal.

Another interesting statement was that the people with the health department that claim their ban is "working" refused to be interviewed for the story.

If you live in the Springfield area, be sure to offer up your support to Councilman Burlison, and best of luck to the folks in Springfield.

Weekly Roundup, Week ending 9/28/08

  Another busy week is ahead. Omaha is going to discuss their ordinance more on Tuesday -- I'll update that story tomorrow. I continue to be amazed at how many politicians think they know more about this subject that all of the expert organizations out there...sigh.

Cities and Laws

Sioux city has decided to wait until January before the look at potentially more restrictions on dog owners. The city began discussing even more restricitons just days after passing their apparently not-well-thought out breed ban.

After several months of researching successful animal control ordinances across the country, Forsyth, NC has passed a generic dangerous dog ordinance that targets potentially aggressive dogs regardless of their breed.  The local newspaper in Forsyth seems very impressed with the new ordinance in this well-thoughtout editorial.

The Fultondale (AL) city council passed a dangerous dog ordinance that includes APBT, SBT and ASTs as automatically dangerous. 

Livonia (MI) is looking at making adjustments to their dangerous dog ordinance.  The article also focuses on a lot of other areas in the Detroit metro that are also considering different types of dangerous dog ordinances.

Moses Lake, WA has opted against seeking a ban on pit bulls. Indstead, they're going to try to sit all parties together to come up with a workable solution.  The newspaper actually had a fairly good editorial on the matter.   The city is talking about this after a supposedly 130 lbs pit bull (pit bulls seldom get above 65-70 lbs) attacked a child in the area.

Dog Bites

A 22 month old child in Baxter, TN was mauled by a chained Akita mix. The girl wandered awayfrom her tricycle and back to the chained dog. The girl's injuries required 100 stitches and she had to repair a fractured skull. Dogs that are perpetually chained are often a recipe for these types of attacks..as are unsupervised young children often the victims.

A boy's family is suing owners of a Bull Mastiff that attacked the boy in WI.

An Idaho man was attacked by two 'sheep dogs' that were used to protect the sheep. The man was mountain biking and apparently attacked when he got too close to the heard. Dogs kept for the function of protection are often responsible for attacks.

Two Dobermans attacked a dog walker in the UK. The 67 year old woman was out walking her poodle when the dogs attacked her dog -- and her in the process. The UK of course passed a well-known ban on four different breeds of dogs in 1991 but still have problems with attacks like these because they never focused on the irresponsible ownership issue.

A letter carrier in Frederichton, New Brunswick was attacked while on her route by a Rottweiler.

I'm still really confused by this story. Apparently a'pit bull" attacked both a mother and her daughter at a gas station in Bradenton, FL last week. The mom makes several statements about how it was the "worst fight she's ever been in" and that she thought "the dogs was going to rip my daughter's head off".  The story goes on and on about the attack -- including convenience store surveilence footage that shows the woman and the little girl but the dog never gets close to them in the video (in fact, the only time you see the dog in the video is through the windo as it runs away.  The girl was take to the hospital with what were called "scratches".

Who are the really abusive creatures?

Man bites off a woman's ear in North Carolina.

A California man uses 'pit bulls' to assault police officers....not by siccing the dogs on the officers. Nope, by picking the dogs up and throwing them at the officers.

Nebraska man accused of beating a dog with a golf club for barking.  The dog had to be euthanized for massive skull fractures.

A German Shepherd named Scooby had his leg amputated when the owner of the dog attacked the animal and slammed it to the ground for getting out of the yard.  The dog's leg was shattered and had to be removed.

A pit bull puppy in Bridgeport, CT had to be euthanized when it was apparently hit on the head by a Machette or shovel.

In Penn Hills, PA,authorities found several neglected pit bulls in a deserted house. Apparently the dog's owner just walked away and left the dogs there. The dogs had heavy chains around their necks and most of the dogs were heavily scarred.

An Iron Mountain Lake (MO) woman was charged for dog abuse after authorities seized six dogs from her flea-infested property. In 2004, the Missouri Humane Society says it seized 119 animals from her residence.  Can someone explain to me why this woman would be allowed to own any animals ever again after 119 counts of animal abuse?'

The Allen County (OH) animal control is working on ways to deal with animal abuse following an incident where a puppy's mouth was taped closed, doused with a flammable liquid and set on fire.

Let's include "pit bull" in the headline because it sells

A Charleston, WV woman was driving under the influence of booze and was busted for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. The woman had a toddler and a pit bull in the car but for some reason the 'pit bull' made the headline.

"Drug search turns up 2 malnourished pit bulls" is the headline.  The dogs were left chained in the back yard with no food or water, one dog was so malnourished it could barely stand. Authorities found a couple of guns in the home that were illegally owned by the convicted felon that owned the place.

"SWAT team finds pit bulls" -- is the headline. Authorities went into an Anderson, SC home and found crack cocaine, but the majority of the story is about the 21 dogs that were found on the woman's property. Sadly it was more than one media outlet that covered the story the same way.

Miscellanious

Local Lake County (WI) family is trying to give 'pit bulls' a voice by starting the Brew City Bully Club with the idea of working to change the perceptions of 'pit bulls' in Wisconsin.

Stereotypes overshadow the positives of pit bulls.  This is a really nicely balanced article from the Suburban Times in Chicago.

Kansas City

Lawrence KS is seeing an increase in abuse cases in the area.  The animal control in Lawrence has become in many ways a victim of their own succes.  After passing a law several years ago that restricts the amount of time dogs can be tethered, the city immediately saw a dramatic decrease in the number of dog bites in the city. Unfortunately, the city administration saw the decrease in bites as an opportunity to cut the budgets from the animal control department -- which has now seen them lose the ability for proactive enforcement of cruelty laws in high-risk neighborhoods.  The net result has been more abuse cases reported...

The Dog Whisperer, Ceasar Milan, was in Kansas City this week visiting with our local weatherman and dog lover Gary Lezak -- working with his dogs Stormy and Breezy.  The article also contains video of Cesar working with Gary and the dogs.

Miami-Dade law is challenged for being Void for Vagueness

Looks like Miami Dade County is being challenged with a lawsuit that the breed ban is Unconstitutionally Vague.  The case seems similar to the amicus that was recently filed in Denver that I discussed yesterday.  According to lawyer Rima Bardawil:

"Miami Dade county's Ordinance 89-22 improperly forces people of common intelligence to have to guess as to the meaning of the statute, and differ as to its interpretation.  A better case of a statute or ordinance being struck down as being void for vagueness could not have been created."

More at Animal Law.

I have no idea why a city would even want to deal with the lack of Constitionality of these laws all for legislation that has proven itself to be ineffective at improving public safety. 

But I kind of rather liked it...

  Ok, so the writer at the Kansas City Star panned the movie All Roads Lead Home.  He also called it your "just your average family film about euthanasia".   I didn't know there was such a thing...

I rather liked it...and don't think movie critics at all watch moves in the same way us lay people do.

The movie opens in theaters tonight in Kansas City, Minneapolis, St. Louis (I think), Salt Lake City and I believe, Phoenix. 

The Television without pity blog seemed to like it.

Check it out for yourself...I think there is a good lesson in the movie for everyone in a culture and society that treats animals as disposable and kills way too many of them.

Is it the dogs? Or the Owners?

Last week, there was a pretty major attack in SeaTac, WA  -- where two 'pit bulls' mauled a 71 year old woman.  The attack of course spurred several news stories about potentially banning 'pit bulls' (something the Seattle city council has no appetite for doing) and 'pit bull' hate groups to speak up of saying "see, we need to ban these dogs."

But it's a bit interesting when you look deeper at the case.

This week,a bit more information was released about the owner of the two dogs responsible for the attack of Huong Le.

Turns out the dogs were owned by Travis Cunningham.  Cunningham has a felony record of burglary and illegal possession of a firearm.  When police searched his home this week, they found two more dogs, drug paraphanalia and another firearm (which is yet another felony offense for Cunningham of being a felon in possession of a firearm).

So here you have someone who's been convicted of at least one felony -- and now has at least one more (being a felon in possession of a firearm) that he's committed, maybe two (drugs) and has dogs that attacked a woman (which could be another).  So I have a couple of questions for the people that say they want a breed ban to protect someone like Huong Le -- someone who does deserve to be protected.

1) Do we think that Mr. Cunningham, who has violated multiple felony laws at this point, would obey a ban on a certain breed of dog if one were in place?

2) Do we think that even if Mr. Cunningham had no access to "pit bulls", he would not instead end up with a Doberman, Rottweiler, Presa, German Shepherd, Bull Mastiff or some other dog that he intended to be aggressive?

3) Do we think that someone else, who owns a dog that did nothing and is not aggressive, should be punished for Mr. Cunningham's wrecklessness?

It's always about the owners folks.  Pass all the laws you want, but until you deal with wreckless owners there will not be public safety from dogs.  Mr. Cunningham provides yet another shining example.

Using AKC/UKC Breed Standards to kill dogs

                                                                                   Caveat had a great post this week about cities like Denver that are using the AKC or UKC breed standards as descriptors for animal control offices to use to determine if a dog is or is not one of the banned breeds. 

She's right of course. These breed standards were in no way designed to be used to determine what was and was not a certain breed of dog.  They were designed to help professional judges determine the best and prettiest amongst an already pre-determined breed of dog.

She has a lot of detail at her place.

All I can ever think of when I see this is that using the UKC breed standards to determine if a dog is a American Pit Bull Terrier is the equivelent to using the Miss America Pageant evaluation to determine if someone was or was not a woman.  I think that'd be ill-advised.

Needless to say, it's FAR from a science and grossly arbitrary -- which is one of the arguments that is being used against Denver in their most recent lawsuit.  According to the Void for Vagueness Doctrine:

 "If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague."  

If you don't think this is a problem, let me remind you about Nikko.  His owners had him taken from him in KCK even though most reasonable people would have looked at Nikko and thought he WASN"T a pit bull.

But again, when multiple people can look at a dog, and disagree on whether or not the dog is a "banned breed", then the owner is completely unaware that they may be violating a law.  The Void for Vagueness Doctrine continues:

"The void for vagueness doctrine curbs the ARBITRARY and discriminatory enforcement of criminal statutes.  Penal laws must be understood not only by the persons required to obey them but by the persons whare charged with the duty of enforcing them."   

Ah, the delimma. Trying to arbitrarily enforce a "what breed of dog is this?" situation with a set of guidelines that was not designed for the specific purpose is nothing BUT vague.

How this shakes out in Denver will be interesting.

Meanwhile, speaking of Denver.  It looks like they've let yet another confiscated 'pit bull' that was not at all aggressive go to live another day elsewhere -- and is actually hanging with Forest in California.  If someone can explain to me the logic of taking non-aggressive dogs out of people's homes and shipping them someplace else, I'd love to hear it.