KC DOG BLOG

Weekly Roundup, Week ending 5/31/09

It was a pretty slow news week -- so I expect the roundup to be pretty short this week (we'll see). However, I'm a bit behind on a few of the big stories from the week which I hope to get to early this week....so stay tuned for those.  Anyway, on to the top stories from the week.

Cities and laws

Troy, MO is considering a ban on 'pit bulls' because several citizens have apparently reported pit bulls running at large.  I just can't comprehend why a breed ban is a substitute idea for enforcing the city's leash law, especially given that even with the apparently pit bull sightings, there is no mention of anyone being bitten.

A judge has ruled that the Kansas Felony Animal Cruelty Law is written with wording that too closely to the state Misdemeanor law it replaced --- which means judges cannot impose a higher penalty than the highest misdemeanor penalty in a case where a man brutally attacked his ex-girlfriend's dog.  Kansas was one of the last states to make animal cruelty a felony...enacting the law only 3 years ago.

This article is really interesting for a whole host of reasons. Albertville, AL has passed a new "dangerous animal" ordinance. As part of the ordinance, any animal "which is of a species due to size, vicious nautre or other characteristics would constitute a danger to human life". There are probably several hundred dog, pit bulls and other breeds, that fall under the new ordinance -- including, it seems, Labrador mixes which the city's animal control officer said has a "vicious streak". The other interesting part of this is when he talks about getting the word out to the Hispanic community. "They have the greatest number of pit bulls, which they are raising to fight."  Whoa.  Racial profiling anyone? Meanwhile, if all of them are raising them to fight, why not enforce the state dog-fighting law?

Dog bites and attacks

A black Labrador in Springboro (OH) is responsible for killing a smaller Yorkshire Terrier. Large dogs that are not well-socialized with small dogs (or cats) can sometimes bite, and due to the size differential, it doesn't take much to polish off a 5 lbs dog. I'm tired of the news media covering these stories every time a 'pit bull' is involved, and not realize that it is an unsocialized dog issue.

A "pit bull attacked" a one year old in Haverhill, MA. The dog apparently bit the child after "a young man sat on the dog" and the dog bit the child in the face while the "young man' sat on the dog. They even got a good "If the dog had locked on to her face and didn't let go she would have no side of her face" quote -- as if the dog really could "lock on" and as if the dog is soley to blame for what appears to be some incredible dog mismanagment.

A Firestone, CO man is being charged because his 100 lbs dog attacked and severely injured a woman. Apparently, the man's dog has been a problem on several othre occassions, but authorities have continued to return the dog to the man.  While I hope the victim is ok (not much info is given on the victim), it is a somewhat humorous account of breed identification (it's easy, right?), as the dog was initially described as a "boxer mix", then a "bull mastiff", and finally, a "boxer/mastiff mix". I suppose all of them could, in theory, be true (or none of them could be true), but it's an interesting commontary on breed identification -- and that none of it matters because the guy was clearly a neglegent owner whose dog had a history of aggression and nothing was done about it.

Two people in Newark, NJ were bitten when two dogs, described as "bullmastiffs" escaped from the garage wher they were kept and entered the neighbor's back yard.

A nine year old rural North Carolina girl was attacked by three dogs while riding her bike in her drive way. The dogs were initially described as "a pair of pit bulls and a rottweiler" -- however, the types of dogs involved in the attack were later changed to be "a pit bull, a boxer and a lab-mutt mix". Three different types of dogs, one owner. What was the common denomenator? The owner. Always is. Apparently the dogs had been problems before but authorities had left the dogs with the owner. The girl is doing better and it sounds like she'll be ok.

The UK Dangerous Dogs Act -- yip, still failing

In Watford, UK,  the mayor was hospitalized after being bitten while she was handing out leaflets for an upcoming election. 

An Oxford man was bitten this week by a Rottweiler.

Warning, Warning, Red Alert!!!!  Apparentlya chihuaha suffered some fairly minor bites when two French Mastiff's "attacked" the dog. French Mastiffs are 100+ lbs dogs, if they had "attacked" the 10 lbs Chihuahua, it would not be faring very well. I just think the media reporting on this super-sensationalistic - -even calling the dogs "pit fighting hunters NOT on the dangers dogs register." This could easily have gone in the next category....

Bad Media Reporting

Police on the southside of Chicago shot a German Shepherd that "attacked" the police officers.  No injuries were reported. So why would the media not question why a dog was shot for "attacking", and yet there be no injuries.  It doesn't make sense.

"Pit Bull attacks officer" is the headline of a story from Nampa, ID where police were called to a neighborhood for noise violations. When they arrived, they went up to the wrong house and went into the back yard. When they went into the back yard, the family's dogs ran up to the officers and the officer shot and killed one of the dogs. The family that owned the dog is facing a variety of charges even though the officer entered their property without cause.

Abuse Cases

A Baltimore police officer saved a 'pit bull' that was apparently doused with gasoline and lit on fire. The dog is miraculously expected to survive. YesBiscuit! has an interesting take on this story.

Five 'pit bull' adult dogs, and 8 puppies, were found abandoned in Bowling Green, KY.  All were malnourished and left without food or water for several days.

Miscellanious

 A nine-year old American Bulldog that just a week ago saved its owners life by waking him while his home was on fire was euthanized this week because the cancer the dog was fighting became too much. The owner had considered putting the dog down sooner, but couldn't bare the thought of it...and had he done it earlier, he likely would be dead now.

An article from Australia quotes a Spanish study that calls the Cocker Spaniel the dog most likely to act aggressively toward their owners and strangers. I'll say what I always say, all dogs are a product of their owners.

A columnist who had initially supported a breed ban in his city has a change of heart after talking to the animal control officers in the town.

A great story about a teenager and her dog. The dog, a Rottweiler, without any type of training, can tell when the girl is about to have a seizure and can alert others. I've read a lot of similar type stories - and somehow dogs just seem to have an ingrained sense of when something is wrong with their human master. It's just a nice reminder that dogs really are man's best friend, even though our species fails them in so many ways.

Building a tribe in your community

A few months back, Winograd mentioned a new book by Seth Godin entitled Tribes. The idea behind Tribes is that the world has changed. At one point we used to live in a world where you won by mass manufacturing of items at a faster and cheaper cost than anyone else.

Then you succeeded by advertising a mass message to everyone, and advertising it louder than everyone else.

But now, with the connectivity provided by the internet and people's desire to rally around causes or ideas, you win by creating ideas, rallying people and creating change.

I ran across this video of Seth speaking at the TED Conference. In the video, he explains the book, and how to create your own tribe. His first example of someone who is doing this is Nathan Winograd. It's a 17 minute long video -- but worth the time to watch -- it goes quickly. Seth is a very entertaining writer and speaker.

Do you live in a high-kill community?  If so,  it is time to challenge the status quo and move things forward. It is time to say "this is worth challenging, worth changing".  It is time to start rallying people in your community, creating your Tribe, and focusing on making changes for the better, for animals, in your community.

Enjoy.

Hat Tip:PSFK

Denver Court Case Revived

An Appellate Court Judge has allowed a lawsuit against the city of Denver's breed ban to be allowed to move forward to court.   They can proceed with arguments that the Denver ban is irrational.

This case was dismissed by the court back in March of 2008.  After reading through the case, it appeared that the court dismissed the case for the following three reasons:

1) The plaintiffs did not have standing on the allegations of due process since none of the plantiffs had actually had their due process rights taken away.

2) None of the plaintiffs suffered harms from the law -- since all had moved from the offending juristiction.

3) The courts felt like they didn't provide enough evidence that the law was unconstitutionally vague.

Now, from reading the news clips, it doesn't appear that they will be able to appeal based on due process or vagueness claims (which is unfortunately a huge missed opportunity). However, they should be able to pursue this based on the irrational basis of the law.

However, the rational basis claim should be interesting. Denver's head of animal control Doug Kelly has even admitted that there is no evidence that the city's breed ban has improved overall public safety for the citizens of Denver.

From the Colorado Springs Gazette - November, 2008:

As director of Denver's Animal Care and Control, which has euthanized nearly 2,000 pit bulls in three years, Doug Kelley has to play the bad guy in the pit bull debate. But even he is not a strong advocate for the pit bull ban.

"You'll never see a more controversial ordinance," Kelley said.

He said the ban has lessened the number of attacks by pit bulls, certainly, but he has no evidence that the ban has decreased the total number of dog bites or attacks in the city. He also said the ban gives people "a false sense of security."

So, the ban hasn't shown to decrease the number of bites or attacks, and the head of animal control says it has given people a false sense of security, so the 'rational' nature of the law sure seems to be open to debate. The courts in this country have been pretty lenient with cities on what can be declared rational for the protection of citizens, so this type of case has not been super-effective in the past. However, a lot of the new evidence that came out in the Tellings case, plus the fact that this lawsuit is taking place so long after Denver started enforcing that ban so there is a significant track record of no success could work in our favor on this one.

Either way, the question that comes to my mind is, why is Denver wasting tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars defending a law in court that they even admit is not working?

UPDATE: So I just got a chance to read through the judge's ruling.

The judge in this case is giving them the "ok" to pursue the case on "rational basis". While the judge concedes that the city does have a significant government interest in animal control, the judge does conclude that it is subject to debate that banning 'pit bulls' is not a rational way to improve public safety.

"Pit bull bans sustained twenty years ago may have been justified by the then-existing body of knowledge, the state of science in 2009 is such that the bans ar no longer rational."

Specifically, the judge points out that the AKC and UKC standards for the 'pit bull' breeds -- which the city of Denver declares as accurate and uses to define visually what a 'pit bull' is -- state that the dogs are indeed friendly.

According to the UKC breed standard:

"The American Pit Bull Terrier are an 'extremely friendly' breed 'even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed..."

While the AKC breed standard for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier:

"with its affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is formost an all-purpose dog."

It's interesting that the very source that Denver is using to defend the claims against vagueness is the source that may catch them up on the rational basis argument.

Update #2: Over at the Animal Law Coalition you can download a copy of the judge's ruling for yourself (the file is at the bottom of the page).

New State laws are a reflection of canine policy moving in the right direction

We are nearing the end of the legislative session in most states, and a lot of states are passing some solid animal ownership laws, and deciding against some of the policies that have proven to be bad policy. While none of these policies is perfect, they at least are movements in the right direction because they are focusing on a) actual causes of dog bites, b) irresponsible pet owners and c) policies that have proven themselves to be effective.  I haven't read all of the wording of each of these laws, so if folks in these areas have read the entire laws, I'd love to hear your takes on them. But at least, on their face, they appear to be steps in the right direction toward how we deal with canine laws.

Here are a few of the policies and some pros and cons (mostly pros) of the passed state laws:

Nevada Anti-Tethering Law -- passed

The Law, SB 132, makes Nevada the 3rd state to specifically limit the number of hours a dog can be tethered or chained each day. Beginning October 1, 2009, a dog cannot be chained for more than 14 hours a day and a tether has to be at least 12' long. 

The good: most professional organizations that deal in canine behavior admit that tethering as a sole form of containment often leads to canines that are undersocialized and can lead to frustration which can build to aggression.  The statistics show that a fairly large number of major bites and attacks occur with dogs that either bite people that approach (often unwary children) or break free from their tethers and attack.  I think overall, minimizing the amount of time and the way a dog can be tethered is a good way to improve overall public safety.

The bad: I still worry about what happens to dogs that's owners are in violation of the law. Are they immediately confiscated to where they end up in the overcrowded shelter system where death is a likely option? Are there programs set up for low-income owners who cannot afford fencing and their landlord will not allow the dogs inside the rental home?  The devil is in the details with these as while I support the idea of laws that limit the amount of time a dog is tethered, I am always concerned about not creating situations where unware owners with good intentions lose their dogs, or where the laws are used as an excuse to confiscate animals that end up dead in our shelters. I'm not a believer that being on a chain (for most dogs) is a "fate worse than death".  If these laws can be enforced in a way that allows for the vast majority of dog owners -- even those with a first-time violation -- to keep their dogs, I'm in favor. If the laws are used to increase the number of animals killed in shelters, I am not.  I would prefer that any anti-tethering law preclude seizure for first time offenders.

Illinois "vicious dog" bill - passed

This bill  prohibit  people convicted of  violent or drug-related felonies from owning an unaltered dog for up to 10 years after being released from prison. It also prevents them from owning any dog legally declared vicious based on its behavior. Felons who are covered under the law include those that have been convicted of the sale or production of methamphetamine, marijuana, other drugs, deadly weapons offenses and dog fighting offenses.

The Good:  A lot of bad policies are created in an attempt to eliminate dog fighting and the use of protection dogs for drug houses. This type of law will put restrictions on people who would be considered 'high risk' of running illegal operations in the future, including owning dangerous or fighting dogs.  While some states have tried to pass similar laws to preclude any dog ownership to people who fall into this category, I think that this actually undermines the effectiveness of a lot of good prison dog programs where dogs are used to help many prisoners develop compassion and for rehabilitation before they are released. I think these programs are too valuable to undermine. But allowing them to own any dog, of any breed, as long as it is sterilized, is a good way to provide limitations on high risk dog owners, without undermining good, successful rehabilitation programs.

The Bad:  I don't see a lot of downside to a law like this, except I don't think anyone who has been convicted of felony animal cruelty or felony dog fighting should be allowed to own dogs again and that might be a way to tighten this law up in the future.

Nebraska Dangerous Dog Law -- passed

This law essentially is the three strikes law that targets habitually irresponsible dog owners. If a dog owner owns a dog that is responsible for a 2nd attack, the owenr could face up to 1 year in jail and a $1000 fine. If there is a 3rd attack by the owner's dog, the owner could face a felony penalty of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The dog just has to be owned by the same owner, it does not have to be the same dog.

The good: This is certainly targeted toward habitually irresponsible dog owners who repeatedly own dogs that attack. Many times the laws are written to target the dogs, but this one takes the "dog" out of the equation and really targets the owner who is at fault. This could really help get after the very tiny percentage of owners that cause a large part of the problem.

The bad: I don't know how "attack" is defined here. I hope there is some common sense in this definition that doesn't nail someone for having a "nippy" dog that ends up sending someone to jail for a couple of small nips. 

Florida Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill -- Failed

Wisely, the Florida state legislature killed a bill that would have mandated spay/neuter for all pets over the age of four months.  Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have consistently led to an increase in shelter killing and science is indicating that juvenile spay/neuter may create long-term health problems, especially in large breed dogs.  It is great that these bills are falling out of favor at the state level.

It sounds like mostly this legislative session has been a winner for canine laws.  Thoughts?

European Breed Bans and admitting failure

Back in the early 90s, many European countries began enacting breeds on certain breeds of dogs based on the typical fear and hysteria -- particularly about "fighting breeds" at that time.  The breed bans have proven to be a failure in all counts because they never addresssed problems related to responsible ownership issues, and instead focused on the dogs.  The dogs were never the problem...it was always the owners.

They are finally doing something about it.

Last year, Italy repealed their breed bans -- that at one time had included nearly 100 breeds of dogs. Now it includes zero.  Italy followed The Netherlands, who originally banned 'pit bulls' in 1993, eventually added Rottweilers in 2000, and then scrapped the whole thing to focus the owners rather than the dogs in 2008.

Meanwhile, the UK's ban on four breeds of dogs has actually appeared to INCREASE their demand among the problem owners. While the point of the UK Dangerous Dogs Act (originally passed in 1991), was to eventually eliminate these breeds of dogs from the island, it has not had that effect. In fact, it appears that many of the thugs/lowlifes have gravitated toward the dogs because the idea of having an "outlawed breed" was more appealing to them.  They have also seen an increase in the number of dog fighting incidences as well.

"Things are worse now than when the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed 18 years ago and I'm seeing more status dogs coming in for treatment than ever. These latest figures only prove what the RSPCA's inspectors and animal hospitals have suspected for a long time, that more and more people are using dogs as a means of intimidation," said David Grant of the RSPCA.

See, focusing on the dogs never works. It creates demand for the targeted breeds among the people you don't want to have them (because their being outlawed creats an appeal) -- and I've written about this before.

Meanwhile, regular owners become less educated on what really causes dog bites and think they can be less responsible because their "breed" isn't "dangerous". 

All of this has led to the UK to have major attacks on a weekly basis, including a 28 year old man, and a five year old boy that were both attacked this week.

Since 1997, theUK has seen an over 50% increase in dog bites, while Scotland has seen an increase of over 150%.

With similar results seen in cities in the US that have passed similar legislation, it is amazing to me that some cities still pursue policy that has failed everywhere.

It's time we learn from what has happened in other places and insist on policies that WORK to improve public safety -- ie, targeting wreckless dog owners - -vs rehashing policy that has failed so often elsewhere.

Weekly Roundup, Memorial Day Weekend 2009 Edition

It was National Dog Bite prevention week this week -- which is always a good thing. For one week out of the year, the media seems to do a half way decent job of posting stories by professionals in the animal welfare community on ways to prevent dog bites.  The rest of the time they decide that these people are not worthy of interview and instead decide to make a big deal out of the breed of dog involved in the bite instead of the circumstances surrounding the bite. 

Meanwhile, Mike Vick got out of jail, which led to a lot of good stories about the rehabilitation of his dogs and a lot of banter (mostly criticism) about HSUS reaching out to Vick.  So it's been a pretty interesting week. Here are the top stories:

Cities and Laws

Fayette, AL is looking at potentially banning "pit bulls".  It sounds like a large number of people in the community are against the legislation, but if you live in the community there, be sure to make your voice heard that there are much more effective ways to protect the community vs what they are talking about.

Red Deer, Alberta, is looking at updating their dangerous dog ordinances -- and are looking at modeling the success seen in neighborhing Calgary. I still don't know why more cities haven't tried to emulate what is being done in Calgary, both from a bylaw perspective and in how they rationally enforce the laws.

The Loudon County Circuit Court has ruled in favor of the Loudon County animal shelter. Over the past 2 years, the shelter has been widely criticized for its policy that did not allow any 'pit bulls' to be adopted out by the shelter -- and thus, they were all killed. The citizens challenged this policy as being in violation of the state law that prohibits breed descriminatory practices.  County judge Burk McCahill said, "A citizen's right to own a pit bull is entirely different than a citizen's right to adopt."  So now, after the legal challenge, Loudon's shelter will continue to senselessly kill dogs.

The Warren (MI) city council is considering a potential ban on certain breeds of dogs.

Baltimore's City council voted to lower their staggering $1000 fines for first time offenses for dogs roaming off-leash. They penalty for first time offenders is now $200, $400 for a 2nd time and $600 for a 3rd time.  Failure to pick up dog poo was also lowered from $1000, to $200.  These fines are still too high, and are going to lead to a good number of people not reclaiming their dog because they cannot afford the high cost (and accidents do happen and dogs do get out from time to time).

Dog Bites

This was a bit of an odd story that started the week. Two people, 29 year old Christopher Griffin and his girlfriend, Jacqueline Potts, were apparently living in their Jeep with their 5 dogs. When Griffin's father approached the vehicle where they were living, two fo the 5 dogs (all 'pit bulls') got into a fight and all three people were bitten when they tried to intervene.  I'm pretty convinced that had these dogs been any other breed, the story would have been written as a sympathetic one. One in which the struggling Michigan economy had taken a toll on the individuals, and that they were doing anything they could to keep their dogs and what a tough living environment living in a jeep would be for 2 people and 3 dogs. But with one exception, most everything else had headlines like "Pit bulls attacked owners".

A woman was taken to the hospital after she was bitten and her dog killed by a German Shepherd that had gotten loose.  Neighbors say the dog was "usually chained up".

An Ottumwa, IA boy was bitten by a Boxer -- officials say he may have gotten too close to two dogs while they were playing and got bitten in the face.

In Bay Village, OH, as a family was complaining to authorities about a dog that was habitually running loose in their neighborhood, the dog "broke free" and ran over and bit the 5 year old boy in the leg right in front of the authorities.

 A mail man in Toledo was bitten by a Chow mix this week. There have been few animal control officers who have focused more on "pit bulls" than Toledo's Tom Skeldon, and yet, the community continues to have dog bite issues --including having a 23% increase in bites last year.

A five year old boy was bitten by a 'Mastiff" in Cole County, MO. The dog had bitten another child back in March that was out riding her bike.

A young girl in LaVista, NE was bitten by the neighbor's 'pit bull'. The exact cause of the attack is a little fuzzy, but apparently the dog was in its back yard and the little girl went to go reach for a ball. Some reports have said the girl reached over the fence when she was bitten, other reports say the dog reached over the fence to get to the child.

In a story that got WAY more press than it deserved (running in about 500 media outlets), Pittsburgh Steeler's linebacker James Harrison's child was bitten by his 'pit bull'. Media reports that the child was bitten in the thigh and is recovering fine.

And overnight, a Frankfurt, KY woman was bitten by a "pit bull" that was living in her home. It was her daughter's dog, that was staying with her because it had previously bitten one of her daughter's neighbors -- and the dog got in a fight with another dog in the home and the woman got bitten trying to break up the fight. It's another situation where a dog with a history of aggressive behavior went to someone who didn't know how to properly address the behavior. BTW, please someone look at the photo of the dog in this story, because I don't think it looks like a "pit bull" because it seems very tall and lanky, and am curious what other people think this dog is.

Abuse Cases -- humans are the more dangerous species

An Austin man was arrested on charges of dog fighting.

Two Kansas City boys, aged 9 and 12, are being accused of using lighter fluid to burn the family dog and the family cat. The dog died immediately, but the cat is expected to make a full recovery and has been removed from the home.

Sheltering

Yes Biscuit! has a great read on a shelter in Alabama that is working hard (it seems) to kill dogs as quickly as possible. One couple found a dog that had a collar and turned it over to the shelter. The shelter directors temp-tested the dog and euthanized it within 1/2 hour of coming to the shelter. The relieved dog's owner was at the shelter the next morning (about 16 hours later) to reclaim her dog only to find out it had been killed. The shelter director is defending her stance to put the dogs down. There is much more at YB!  I've written quite a bit lately on shelters using temp tests as a reason to kill dogs (in this case, even ones with homes), and this is a good example of when temp testing goes wrong.

Media Sensationalism

In Bremerton, WA, a young man was walking his 'pit bull' off leash and the dog started to come up to a 53 year old man. The dog's owner called the dog back, and he returned, and he told the older gentleman that the dog wouldn't bite. But the man still pulled a pistol and started threatening to shoot the man and his dog. Of course "pit bull' is the first word in the headline...even though the dog did nothing wrong.

The Youngstown/Warren area of Ohio is working really hard to drum up 'pit bull' drama. Last week they ran a story about 3 dogs (they incorrectly labeled them all as 'pit bulls' even though one was a German Shepherd and one was a Mastiff) that attacked a 10 year old boy -- this week, they reported that police "shoot a pit bull" (and yes, that is the headline) while they were looking for someone suspected in a stabbing case. The dog didn't bite anyone -- although the dog is said to have "almost bit" the officer -- whatever that means.  Seems like they're trying hard to get a pit bull story in their newspaper....but so far, are 0 for 2.

Miscellanious

A positive story about a campaign in the inner city of Atlanta that is focused on reaching people who are involved in street-level dog fighting in their city.  They are encouraging them to attend free training classes to people so they can see the alternatives to participating in these activities with their dogs.

A good story for Dog Bite Prevention week - Teach your children how to approach a dog the right way.

Here's an interesting article about the Miami-Dade County breed ban, and the people who are fighting to repeal the ban.

Another good story about some of the dogs formerly owned by Mike Vick, and their progress out at the Best Friends Sanctuary in Kanab, UT.

An Oklahoma 'pit bull" received a "Dog of Valor" award for devending his family from an intruder who shot the dog three times.

A really great release from the National Canine Research Council that gives a great "dogs eye view" of dog bites.

The Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs re-released their statistics on dog bites that were collected throughout Colorado with tips on avoiding dog bites.

More stuff coming as soon as I get a chance. Have a great long weekend.

Good Media Coverage following Vick's prison release

I posted a little about Vick & HSUS this morning, but one other great thing to come out of Mike Vick leaving jail has been the amount of positive news coverage that has come for the now-recovering victims.

Donna, over at BAD RAP, has a video of Jhumpa that ran earlier this week on Anderson Cooper 360.  Anderson Cooper ran a nice piece on some of the Vick dogs back in December also, so it was great to have another follow up.

Meanwhile,  the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams also ran a story about several of the dog that are rehabilitating out at Best Friends' sactuary out in Utah.  Our Pack has the video link.

Meanwhile, the Daily Oklahoman had a follow-up story on Alf --another dog rescued from Bad Newz Kennels.

The stories and the videos do an amazing job of showing that these dogs are not some genetic freaks of nature. They are merely dogs.  Shaped by their environment, and by the way their owners or handlers treat them. And they have the ability to change dramatically and adapt to a new lifestyle. 

Enjoy.

Mike Vick/HSUS Partnership may be what both parties need

Yesterday, Michael Vick left the prison in Leavenworth, KS, and headed home.

On the same day, Wayne Pacelle from the Humane Society of the United States, announced that Vick will be coming on board to help HSUS in their quest to end the heinous act of dog fighting.

While many have criticized HSUS for this decision, it may, in fact, be what both parties desparately need. Or, it could be a disaster.

In so many ways, the past two years for Mike Vick and for HSUS have been running on parallel paths. Mike Vick was a very good NFL football player. He was revered.  He was wealthy beyond most people's comprehension. And in the act of brutally killing a bunch of dogs, he threw all of it away. He lost his job, was thrown in jail, and his image was badly tarnished.

HSUS is not that far behind.  HSUS is the world's wealthiest "humane" organization.  They had a great image (at least among many). And yet, their reputation has begun to crumble -- in large part, because of them killing a bunch of dogs.  

Two years ago, the dogs from Mike Vick's Kennels were rescued -- even in spite of insistence from HSUS that the dogs be killed. Most have now moved on to great lives in homes (I will post more on this later today). In spite of the successful rehabilitation of these dogs, the next  time a group of dogs from a dog fighting ring were confiscated, HSUS once again insisted that all of the dogs be killed. The public outcry of HSUS's siding with killing -- in spite of the recent evidence that dogs from these situations could be rehabilitated, put HSUS on the defensive -- to the point where they've even said (at least kind of), that all dogs that were rescued from dog fighting rings would be given a chance to be evaluated and possibly rehabilitated.

And now, an organization that is trying to rebuild its reputation is joining forces with a man, who is trying to do the same. In some ways this appears desperate. In other ways, it makes so much sense.

Vick's future appears very up in the air. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has not said whether he plans to allow Vick to come back to the league once he serves his prison term. But the NFL doesn't need Mike Vick. The NFL is the single most successful professional sports league in the world. They're wealthy. They have tons of fans. Most stadiums are sold out on every Sunday. TV ratings are high. The league is rolling....and continues to do so without Mike Vick. If allowed to come back, Vick would be a distraction.  Teams would have to endure picketing outside of games. Opposing crowds will boo him unmercifully. The fact that 13,000 people on facebook (and growing) have already joined a group to "keep Vick out of the NFL" means there will be backlash.  The league doesn't need it. It is most likely time for them to part ways.

HSUS though, potentially has a spot for Vick -- that could be a perfect match.

A few years ago, HSUS partnered with Tio Hardiman.  Hardiman has been working the streets of inner-city Chicago trying to stamp out dog fighting among urban youth. His program is not designed around punishing youth for fighting dogs (something they have learned to accept from those around them, and have likely never even questioned the ethics of it, it literally, is all they know). Hardiman works with these  youth to change their hearts -- and to give the youth compassion for their four-legged partners. With the help of HSUS, they have added a training component to the program, where the youth learn to train their dogs -- so they can take pride in how well trained their dog is, not how well it fights.   The videos of his program are amazing to watch.

Vick could be a perfect fit for a program like this. If Vick is truly a changed man (I'm not yet convinced, but I would have no real reason to not believe it to be true either), I think his celebrity could allow him to easily connect with urban youth.  He could tell his story. He could (potentially) teach them compassion.  He could use his story to change their hearts.

Now it could not happen that way. HSUS could use him as little more than a propped up scarecrow in a few videos that they used for little more than to raise yet more money to "stamp out dogfighting."  We've seen their fundraising efforts before -- calling for money to help them care for and save the Vick dogs, but then calling for them all to be killed.  And this may well be HSUS's intent.

If Vick ends up being used merely as a prop for a fundraising campaign,  HSUS will continue to be seen by many as merely a fundraising machine that has little interest in actually saving the lives of animals. And Vick will look like the guy who took the money from an animal rights group and ran...without having shown true remorse for his past actions.

And that would be too bad. Because this union could be a good match for both parties -- and chance to rebuild tarnished reputations and truly benefiting the dogs that both are responsible for killing.  It would be a second chance for both -- which is what we've all claimed the dogs from fighting operations deserve. The dogs from Bad Newz Kennels have used their second chance to thrive in their new environments. It is a new environment for both Vick and HSUS.  Hopefully they will be at least half as successful as the dogs in adapting to it, and making the most of the opportunity. 

Dog bite fatality story -- and a case for media bias

A few weeks ago, I posted a brief in the Weekly Roundup about a story where a woman was attacked by her dog in the back yard of her home.  It turns out that the woman, Barbara Chambers, has died following the attack due to complications from the injuries she sustained.

There are no media reports about her death. There is a mention of it left in the comments section of the original story, and I was able to confirm the story with someone who knows Barbara well -- as well as find her obituary in last week's Dallas Morning News -- but there have been no news reports of her death.

Two things about this story have really stood out to me.

First, this attack really is sad for so many reasons. Ms. Chambers dedicated her life to working with dogs, and there is a sad irony that her life would end this way. Meanwhile, the attack itself doesn't fit the typical profile of a fatal dog attack. Most fatal dog attacks fit into convenient profiles -- children left alone with dogs, dogs that are used for guarding purposes, or dogs that are completely abandoned or mistreated -- or poorly trained where the owner has disregarded past aggressive behavior.

But none of those fit here. The dog was a show dog. A well trained, well bred, well cared-for, awared winning show dog.  And for reasons unknown to anyone, the dog, a Great Dane, attacked his owner.  It's tragic.  And is certainly the outlier for how these attacks usually happen.

The second part that strikes me is the complete lack of media exposure on this. While the initial attack received a few short stories, there has been no follow up...and no stories about this woman's death.  While a couple of other 'pit bull' attacks in Texas earlier this year generated 300+ news reports apiece, a fatal attack by a Great Dane is apparently considered completely unnewsworthy.

I've stated numerous times before that the media has been majorly responsible for how we view dogs and dog attacks. For too long, they have been reporting stories as if breed is determining factor (it's not) and been over-reporting the misdeeds by some breeds of dogs (often incorrectly) and completely not reporting the misdeeds by other breeds that are deemed "less newsworthy".  It is cases like this that showcase the reality that anyone who bases their statistics and point of view on dogs based solely on media reports is going to have a completely skewed point of view on dogs and dog bites -- and will have completely skewed data if they are simply compiling news reports and trying to pass them off as "statistical" information.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and family of Ms. Chambers as they deal with this tragedy.

It's National Dog Bite Prevention Week

This week is National Dog Bite Prevention Week. Over the course of the week, I entirely expect to see way too many references to numbers that are largely anecdotal -- and outdated. The numbers (800,000 people receive medical attention because of dog bites) weren't really based on a legitimate sample size -- and was done nearly a decade ago and has ignored that dog bites are going down in this country.

With that said, far too many people are still bitten by dogs -- and the bites are largely preventable. Children are the most likely to be bitten, as most are not equipped to recognize canine behavior and warning signs that would prevent the bites from occurring. This is one of the main reasons why it is so important for parents to monitor the activities of their dogs and children to stop a situation before a bite occurs.

With that in mind, Jennifer over at Dogs and Storks --  (who I interviewed a few months back) has posted a series of videos she's pulled from YouTube that show children and dogs interacting together. Some of the videos show good interactions. Some are just dreadful. I mean, dreadful. While none of the children in the videos gets bitten (so they're all safe), it is so much to the credit of the canines in the video.  It doesn't take much of an imagination when you watch some of the videos to figure that if this is going on while the adult is watching with the video camera rolling (and seen as cute), that the recipe for one of these children being bitten is certainly there.  So please check out the videos (most are only about :30 long) -- and do what you can to prevent dog bites in your family.

Baby playing the tug game with dog.

Baby playing with sleeping dog.

A good interaction between dog and baby -- model this behavior.

A dog is clearly frightened by the infant.

Another dog that really has no idea what to do with the infant -- and the adults laugh at the dog's reactions throughout.  I fear what happens when this dog grows up and finds that subtle signs to be left alone are completely ignored in the household.

And honestly, this last one is a complete credit to the dog that this child didn't get bitten. I have no doubt that this scenerio plays out in a large number of the stories where the dog "snapped for no reason."

I think Jennifer does a great job with these videos and I hope that everyone learns something from them so we can make vast decreases in the number of children that are bitten by dogs -- and better educate people on WHY these bites occur.