Breed Descrimination isn't just for city councils

A two day trial is taking place in Virginia today where the Loudoun County (VA) animal shelter is challenging a court ruling that took away their right to kill 'pit bulls' in their shelter.

Until 2007, Loudoun County used to kill any and all pit bulls that came into their shelter. In 2007, they adjusted the rules so that if the dogs pass a temperament test, they would be able to go to rescue groups.  However, the way the temperament tests were set up, they were killing 84% of the 'pit bulls' that they tested in the past 2 years* -- 214 dogs in total.

*I have a post forthcoming on temp testing in shelters from the No Kill Conference, so stay tuned. But the gist of it is, that most temp tests, by and large, are only a small tool that should be used in testing for overall temperament in shelters.

So people complained, and a court agreed, that the shelter's rules, which didn't allow them to adopt out 'pit bulls', and only made 'pit bulls' take temp tests before being pulled by rescues, violated the state-wide law in Virginia that forbids breed specific regulations.

So the county  is challenging the court decision.

To put this in perspect, this means that a county board of supervisors, who run the animal shelter, the same animal shelter that is designed as a last resort for animals without homes, is challenging a court ruling FOR THE RIGHT TO KILL the very dogs the shelter was put in place to save.

Where did we go wrong here?  How is it that we now have the board that runs the animal shelter that is challenging for the right to KILL dogs, not save them?

The reality is, that sadly, this isn't all that unusual of a case. Just 2 months ago, Indianapolis' new shelter director Doug Rae changed the shelter policy that was to kill any 'pit bulls' that entered the shelter. 

It is just amazing that not only do we have to work to save the lives of these dogs from city councils, but also from many of the same animal shelters that should be helping save them.  Not only do these blanket policies end up with more 'pit bulls' dying in the shelter, but they also lead to other problems. (Like then having cities/shelters say they now need a law mandating the spay/neuter of all 'pit bulls'* because too many of them are dying in our shelters).  So we end up creating more problems trying to undue the problem we created.

*I have more coming on this topic here shortly too.

So, interestingly, I had decided to write on this topic earlier today -- and then, two other posts came out about temp-testing for 'pit bulls' and "breed ambassador" programs.

Winograd has a post about so-called "Breed Ambassador" programs that require 'pit bulls' to essentially pass all of the requirements of the CGC Test before they are allowed into the ambassador program. As someone who has put 2 of his 3 dogs through the CGC, with one passing, and one getting distracted by his sister wimpering in the corner and refusing to lay down, I can tell you that the CGC is something that requires a fair amount of training for a dog to pass -- and that is probably more of a reflection of an owner's connection to the dog than a true "temperament" test. 

His example sounds very much like what is going on in Omaha, NE right now, but I don't know for sure that is who he is talking about.  Here's a clip:

To protect public safety, we cannot include truly aggressive dogs in shelter adoption programs, Pit Bull or otherwise. But it is a far jump from that reality to a premise that says dogs that pull too hard on the leash must die. If in their excitement, they greet by jumping on you, they die. If they do not sit politely while being petted, they die.

In other words, the “ambassador for the breed” program does little more than provide shelters that kill the vast majority of Pit Bulls with a “seal of approval” from supposed advocacy groups. With no criteria to determine whether the program is changing public perception, no timetables for evaluating it, no clearly defined, quantifiable goals as to what success is, and no suggestion of when it can be expanded to Pit Bulls deemed “less than perfect”, the ambassador program may delay the time when the vast majority are saved.

Sue also has a great post on this topic over at The No Kill Nation.

The theory behind Breed Ambassador programs was simple: to highlight the best of the best in an effort to introduce pit bull adoption programs in shelters that were resistant and to challenge and even sway public opinion towards this oft maligned dog.

But the good idea neglected the reality that the overwhelming majority of pit bulls were not crazed creatures but just dogs after all.  And in the wrong hands this seemingly good idea that started with the best of intentions … became a bad one. 

What started as a positive program has now been co-opted by those who are using it as an excuse to continue to kill savable dogs. Just as the term No Kill was used (and still is used) by organizations who kill 50% or more of the animals entering the shelter, Breed Ambassador programs have shined a spotlight on a precious few while hiding the deaths of the majority backstage, behind the scenes.

Now let first say, I have no problem with Breed Ambassador programs. In fact, I'm a huge fan of programs that encourage owners to train their dogs and truly be ambassadors for their breed (regardless of what breed they may be).  They're great programs -- and should be kept. There are many groups,including BAD RAP, that run  many such programs that are great

The problem comes in when these programs are designed so that the ONLY dogs that are not killed, or don't have to wear muzzles in public (ehem, Omaha), are ones that pass the test.

It's just amazing how often breed descrimination happens, often without people realizing it, within the very organizations that are designed as a safety net for the dogs.

They all do deserve a chance at life.  Really.

Comments

[Sue Cosby]

Yeah, I was definitely taking aim at the derailed Breed Ambassador type programs that occur within the walls of shelters.

I would encourage any guardian (of any breed of dog) to participate in programs designed to develop and showcase amazing animals within the community.

My furry dingbats being completely untrained (one of whom routinely sleeps on the kitchen table with the cats on the cat beds) makes for a fine example of what not to do. I've convinced myself I appreciate them more in their "natural" state :-)

[YesBiscuit!]

If a Pitbull "rescue" gets called in to a large seizure case and picks out the so-called best dogs (leaving the majority) and assists with killing the rest, that sounds like an ambassador program FAIL to me. It doesn't mean that I'm ungrateful to the rescue for saving the dogs they did or that I wish them ill, it just means I want to work toward improving things so that ALL adoptable dogs are saved. I hope I'm not supposed to be too intimidated to say that.

[Brent]

YB,

I would agree that that scenerio is certainly a system fail -- but I have a tough time pinning this on an individual rescue group in most cases. Most breed-specific rescues don't have brick and mortar locations -- so they rely solely on foster homes. If you've ever tried to deal with foster homes, try coming up with 130 open homes in a 5 day time period. I don't know of any rescue groups that are equipped to handle that.

However, it is a failure of the entire system for other organizations to not be able (or willing) to assist in absorbing these dogs and dismissing it as someone else's concern.

I think there is a big difference between being in a situation where you can only absorb so many so you take the best of the lot, than the alternative of if they aren't the best of the lot, recommending the rest die.

But yes, ideally we can get the entire animal welfare community on board with the idea that these dogs are worth saving so that the SYSTEM doesn't fail these dogs...

[YesBiscuit!]

For me, it's not about blame and looking back but *looking forward* to what changes can be made. I don't know of any single rescue who can take a triple digit influx of dogs but I hope that the rescue *community* can rally to do that, when needed.
I'm glad when any pet is saved and I'm sad when any pet is killed. I want to be less sad. And I'm willing to work.

[Marthina McClay]

Our Pack took a dog that the shelter could not continue to work with. We partner with them on some of these dogs. That way we don't have to run out for a foster and the dog gets more volunteer help.
http://www.packrescue.blogspot.com/