Modeling ordinances that work

It happens quite a bit. There is a dog bite in a community. People start saying "something needs to be done" to prevent this from happening again. Cities talk about what to do. Someone mentions banning breeds. Talk circles and people begin taking sides. 

The reality is that we're all on the same side on this. People want to feel safe. Even when they say they want to ban a breed, what they are really saying is, I want to be safe -- they just may not have enough information to determine that what they say they want, is the solution to what they really want.  Which is why it is imperative that city leaders work really hard to not only model ordinances that have been done in other communities -- but to model ordinances that actually have WORKED to improve public safety.

Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN faced this situation two years ago.  At the time, 7 year old Zachary King, Jr. was killed by a 'pit bull' that was chained up in the basement of the family's home. After much debate, both cities decided against breed specific legislation -- and opted to go toward a breed neutral approach that focused on dog owners, not dog breeds.

I'm going to focus a bit more on the Minneapolis law here because I can find the exact wording (64.110) online, but I believe that both city's laws are essentially similar.  In Minneapolis, they focused on creating two designations for "aggressive" dogs -- "Dangerous" and "Potentially Dangerous". 

"Potentially Dangerous" dogs are dogs that, while unprovoked, inflict some type of minor injury on a person or domestic animal, or has a "known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked."

"Dangerous" dogs are ones that have inflicted fairly substantial wounds.

Each designation comes with its own set of criteria for keeping the dog.

I like this ordinance for several reasons:

1) It does allow concerned neighbors to call about dogs they feel are aggressive even before a bite has occurred -- providing a preventative measure of animal control  instead of an entirely reactive one. However, the restrictions are very doable for the average dog owner if their dog is declared "potentially dangerous" even before a bite. And as their own test has shown, 'dangerous' dogs can come in a variety of breeds, with 9 different breeds being represented among the 11 dogs declared 'dangerous' under the law. (Editor's note: their listing only has 8 different breeds listed, but I completely think they failed the breed ID on the "Black German Shepherd" so I made it 9). There are 96 different breeds of dogs between the two cities that have made the 'potentially dangerous" list -- with the most popular breeds being the ones with the most listed.

2) It allows protection for the dog owner because it has a built-in appeals process -- so that no one can become a victim of a vindictive neighbor and have their dog declared "potentially dangerous" unjustly.

3) It allows for an annual appeal process -- so owners that have a dog declared potentially dangerous can go through training classes, get their dog over its hurdles, and get the potentially dangerous designation lifted -- thus rewarding the type of behavior we want in dog owners.

*Olathe, KS has a similarly worded ordinance that they enacted in 2005 and is one that we promote a lot here locally.

Minneapolis also added a law that prohibited dogs that were declared dangerous (based on behavior) from being owned at all by violent felons or by people who violated the restrictions put on the dogs.

St. Paul also passed an additional ordinance that stated that if someone had a dog removed twice within a five year period they would no longer be allowed to own dogs. This "three strikes and you're out" principle (although it's two here) is something we've pushed for here in Kansas City as it would allow them to deal with folks like someone who has had 18 dogs removed from his property in the past 6 years because of cruelty and they just continue repeating the cycle with the owner

 So how have the results been? In 2008, the first full year under the ordinance, Minneapolis saw bites decline by 12%, from 411 in 2007 to 360 in 2008. While exact numbers weren't given in St. Paul, their head of animal control says their bite numbers are also falling.

Compare this to cities like San Francisco, or Council Bluffs, or Aurora, CO, who went with breed specific regulations and all saw an increase in dog bites following the passing of the law.

So when we look at providing what we all want -- public safety -- it is imperative that we, as communities, look to cities that have ordinances that are actually proving to be affective at delivering public safety.  Fortunately, more and more cities are taking this smarter, more effective, breed neutral approach. With these policies, animal control officers are able to focus on problem dogs and dog owners, regardless of breed, and ONLY those dogs that are posing problems -- instead of wasting time focusing on dogs of a targeted breed that are causing no problems whatsoever and with no tools to focus on problem dogs of non-targeted breeds.

It only makes sense.

The entire story from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on their ordinances can be found here.

Comments

[vakadesign]

Interesting. Unfortunately some of the scariest dogs in our community are owned by young guys who really want a scary dog. I'm betting they only become aware of local laws after an incident occurs and animal control is called.

[Brent]

Actually, Vaka, I think that's exactly who the "potentially dangerous" oridnance targets the most. This allows for anyone in the community to call animal control about the dog, and for AC to come to evaluate the situation -- BEFORE a bite occurs. It is, of course, up to the residents of a community to make the law work, but it can....and is.

[Ellen Weinstock]

Brent, thanks so much for highlighting the good news in your usual well-written and thoughtful way. Here in the Twin Cities, we had a fear-mongering legislator who just wanted to shriek about how "one bite is too many" (which actually would have meant we'd have to get rid of ALL dogs). Luckily, he was followed by a task force of smart, thoughtful people who looked to the experience of other places in drafting their own legislation. It's not perfect (I've heard complaints about AC going overboard sometimes), but it seems to be moving us in the right direction.

[KC KS Kills Dogs]

It's too bad Kansas City, Kansas is such an IGNORANT city. Just the other day they confiscated two supposed "pit bulls" from a nice Hispanic family that had just moved to the city in the past 2 wks. A neighbor supposedly called in the report to AC.

Now KCK AC wants to change the rules - their ordinance states that owners can sign the dogs over to a new owner if the new owner presents proper ID with a current utility bill, to prove residency outside of the city. Now AC won't release the dogs because the owner who just moved to the city doesn't yet have a KS drivers license and utility bill to match her new home address.

The owner's daughter's boyfriend (who doesn't own the dogs) balked at AC hoisting the catchpole on the dogs' necks, chocking the dogs during the confiscation process. Rather than see the dogs suffer the boyfriend tried to load the dogs into the truck and reason with the AC officer.

Now the gung ho AC dept wants to retaliate against this family and take out their vengence on the dogs.

Yet I wish all of Brent's worldwide audience could see in action this town - Kansas City, Kansas - there are so many strays running the streets and dogs mistreated and downright abused going on daily; you would think this midwestern town is a Third World Country.

Kansas City, Kansas is a SHINING EXAMPLE OF WHY BSL DOESN'T WORK AND NEVER WILL. BSL is fueled and maintained in cities full of egotistical, power hungry whores.

[dog fence]

I would suggest animal control to take care of scary dogs.

[IndyElmer]

Excellent post! Forwarded it (and the news article) to City-County council members and Animal Welfare Summit members who are working on EFFECTIVE breed neutral solutions.

The Olathe ordinance (in it's legalese form) did not seem to clearly provide for PREVENTIVE evaluation and identification of PDDs. I've still got to read the Minneapolis ordinance, but from what I've read in Brent's post and in the newspaper article, it looks like it may provide for the kind of proactive protection that Councilman Speedy mistakenly believes could come from his MSN4PB proposal.

[IndyElmer]

I called Minneapolis Animal Control to find out more specifics on how they determine that a dog is "potentially dangerous." I was hoping that they have something in place that is more proactive than requiring a dog to bite (without serious injury to human or animal) or maim another animal in order to be labeled potentially dangerous.

I have a neighbor who regularly tethers her lab mix out front and he barks wildly and lunges at anything that passes, but it's pretty clear to me that he's just wanting to give chase and/or play. I am not afraid of him breaking his chain. There are other dogs, behind wobbly fences or chained in their yards, whom I feel quite confident are not barking/lunging in a desire to play. If they are able to slip free from their property, I expect that passersby would, at a minimum be "menaced" by the dog, and in the case of those unfortunate enough to have their own beloved pet out for a walk, I would be surprised if the escapee did NOT attacked, maul and potentially kill the leashed pet, perhaps even inflicting injuries on the human should he or she mistakenly attempt to protect their pet.

I was hoping that the Minneapolis potentially dangerous dog ordinance might be able to protect the community from THOSE dogs. Perhaps not simply based on the aggressive behaviors displayed while contained by a behavior - after all, how do we decide which dogs are being "friendly" when they bark & lunge and which are showing warning signs that they are unstable and a potential danger to their neighborhood? (Potentially dangerous dogs seem to be a bit like pornography -- you know each when you see it, but it's hard to write a clear definition.)

I had hoped that perhaps Minneapolis allowed a combination of photographic/eye-witness evidence that said "scary" dog has been off its property (at-large) WITH behavioral observation ON it's property that would allow the dog to be deemed "potentially dangerous" even if it had never "menaced", chased, bit or injured anyone or anything while off its own property.

The fact that the dog is *sometimes* at large is, IMO, partial evidence that the dog is, at a minimum, posing a low level danger threat to the community due to the increased likelihood that it could causes a car or bicycle accident. If you combine the occasional "at-large" risk with the aggressive/menacing behaviors it displays on its own property (or if the owner has received multiple citations from photographic or eye-witness evidence that the dog continues to escape the property), I would think it could be classified as a slightly higher "potentially dangerous" level, however, it doesn't sound like that is how Minneapolis is using their PDD ordinance.

Is it unreasonable to have multiple levels of potentially dangerous that include owner behavior modification (such as containing the dog before opening doors or gates to prevent accidental escapes) for dogs that have never menaced, chased or bitten someone or something?

[Brent]

Elmer,

This is one thing I like about the Olathe law slight more than the Minneapolis law. In the Olathe law, the third definition of a "dangerous dog" is: "Has a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals" that are clearly a threat to others, even though they've never been at-large per se.

I agree that a "potentially dangerous" dog is something that is hard to define, but you know it when you see it. That's why I think that on top of whatever law you put in place, there has to be a decent amount of time spent with the officers who enforce the laws to be sure they understand animal behavior enough to clearly tell the difference. As much as I like the ordinance, it could be a disaster if a badly trained (or untrained) animal control staff went out to enforce it.

I think this is broad enough to get to the

[MichelleD]

What I like about "potentially dangerous" in the Olathe ord is that it gives the owners a chance to rectify the situation/behavior and loose the PD label.

[electric dog fence]

There are 96 different breeds of dogs between the 2 cities that have made the 'potentially dangerous" list -with the most popular breeds being the ones with the most listed on the list.

[tuscany villas]

Fortunately, more and more cities are taking this smarter, more effective, breed neutral approach which is quite to assure.

[David Bouchez]

I agree. It does no good to just profile a breed of dog, when the problem is usually the ignorance, or just plain obstinance of the dog owner. I believe that if any dog is trained properly, they will not pose a threat to people - most of the problems are people problems not dog problems.

Dave