KC DOG BLOG

Understanding prejudice

Last week, a local Kansas City Blogger wrote an excellent post on the incident involving Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr, an African American man who was arrested when he "broke into" his own home because he had been locked out.

While the post is well done in its own right, the incident and article wouldn't normally apply to a blog about dogs.

But it does.

The article has a nice little segment on prejudice.  Not racism (I think all too often people wrongly interchange these words.  But prejudice. The actual prejudging of a person or situation without any real knowledge of the facts.

We all do it. In many ways, it's what keeps us alive. It's what keeps us from walking down a dark allyway late at night when strangers lurk there. We don't know the strangers, but we prejudge the situation based on past experiences or on the stories we've heard from others.

Often our past experiences cause us to prejudge. We've seen a situation over and over, and thus, we perceive all future situations will similar.  They're not, but we will enter the situation with the negative outcome we've experienced in the past in mind. 

Here's an example from the blog entry:

I used to work in a credit office for a high end (heh heh) retailer at Crown Center. I started in collections and later graduated to processing credit apps.

Not an optimal career path.

Because the only customers I encountered in the beginning were the deadbeats, I came to view all customers as deadbeats. I never had any contact with good customers. So when I started processing credit apps, I was predisposed to view them all as evil doers trying to rip us off. I routinely turned down potential customers who had better credit scores than me!

Luckily, I didn't have the final say and my credit manager vetoed many of my recommendations. She reminded me that our job wasn't to turn away villains, but to find ways to open accounts for people so they could buy our overpriced Russian Lacquer Boxes because that's what paid our salaries!

Cops are the same way. The only people they come into contact with are criminals or people suspected of being criminals. After a while, they start assuming that everyone is a criminal. The only delineation they acknowledge is between criminals who are getting away with it and criminals brought to justice.

So despite the antiseptic spin presented in the official police report, I have no doubt that Officer Crowley walked into the incident with certain preconceptions and assumptions. It's inevitable.

He was responding to a report of black men attempting to break into a house only to find black men inside the house. What was he supposed to think?

And I think this plays itself out every day, countless times, in a variety of industries -- including animal welfare.

It's why it seems police officers shoot dogs for little to no reason -- because so many of the dogs they come in contact with are dogs owned by criminals (otherwise the police would not be there) and thus, often protective.

It's why many people cross the road when they see me walking my 'pit bulls' -- because they have seen images portrayed by the media of the dogs being aggressive, and too few images of the dogs just being dogs (this is changing some, as images of the rehabilitated dogs from Mike Vick's kennels have become so prevelent in the past year).

And this happens in animal shelters too.  Imagine someone (this shouldn't be hard for most of you) who has worked in an animal shelter for years -- doing intake, dealing with dogs that were neglected by their owners, left at the shelter, or were returned for some BS reason. The person does this for several years and before long, every dog owner they seem to come in contact with is irresponsible in some way. 

Eventually, this person moves their way into adoptions and processing adoption applications. Like the blog-writer who began denying all credit applications because he had decided that all people were too irresponsible to have credit, the shelter worker begins denying good potentially -adoptable homes because she has determined that most people are not responsible dog owners, and should be declined.

Every day, in many shelters, this plays out as shelter workers look for reasons why the person is too irresponsible to own a pet, vs looking for ways to get pets into homes.  It's probably a pretty natural reaction for anyone who is working in a shelter or rescue, but it's one that we need to be careful to fall prey to. 

Experiences shape our prejudices. And understanding how your prejudices are shaped is an important key to setting the prejudices aside and doing what is best for the animals.

Thoughts on the NFL and Mike Vick

Unless you live in a cave (in which case, congrats on finding internet access) you are aware by now that earlier this week, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced that he had granted Michael Vick a conditional reinstatement into the NFL.

There are a lot of points of view out there on this. On the one side, are the people who are understandably upset by Vick's reinstatement. Others, that think the NFL was right to give him another chance.

Their reasons usually follow many of the same lines of logic.

--- People deserve a second chance.

--- He made a mistake and should be forgiven for it.

--- He has paid for his crime and should be allowed to get on with his life.

It's all, just BS.

This isn't a second chance.

First off, this isn't a second chance for Vick. It is not as if Vick was a model citizen and true contributor to society before one day, people were just shocked to find out he was involved in dog fighting. Vick was no Peyton Manning, Tony Gonzales, Tony Richardson or any of the other countless athletes who use their fame and fortunes to better their community. Vick had a bit of a track record at embarrassing himself and the NFL.

In early 2004, two men in Vick's home state of Virginia were arrested for distributing marijuana. The truck they were driving was registered to Vick.

In March 2005, a woman filed a lawsuit against Vick for having sex with her under an alias name of Ron Mexico and giving her genital herpes.  Vick settled the case out of the courtroom.

In November, 2006, after a loss to the New Orleans Saints,he flipped off the fans in his own home stadium in reaction to the fans booing his performance.

In January, 2007, Vick surrendered a water bottle at an airport that contained a secret compartment that was allegedly used to smuggle marajuana. While a tiny trace of marajuana was found in the compartment, Vick was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Then, in the summer of 2007, Vick was accused (and later plead guilty) to felony counts of dog fighting. From all reports, he was involved in dog fighting, animal cruelty including cruelly killing many of the dogs, and involved in illegal gambling associated with dog fighting.

Vick is not getting a second chance here. He's been given multiple chances from an escalating scale of involvement in illegal, immoral and embarrassing (to the NFL) activities.  I'd say on the sliding scale he'd be out of chances -- if it were me in charge.

Dog fighting is not a 'mistake'

I want to clear up this silly notion that he made a mistake for which he should be forgiven. This isn't a mistake.  A mathematical error on your taxes is a mistake. Running a red light and running into someone is a mistake. Heck, even Donte Stallworth's decision to drive after being slightly over the legal alcohol limit and hitting a pedestrian (who wasn't in a crosswalk) and pleading guilty to DUI manslaughter charges is a mistake.

No, what Vick participated in was not a "mistake".  It was a series of conscious decisions over a prolonged period of time to participate in felony activities that were cruel and violent. Dog fighting is not a mistake. It's a criminal lifestyle.

He is not guaranteed the life he used to have

Maybe in an ideal world, our justice system would be uniquely designed to rehabilitate people so they left our prison system as renewed individuals who could go seemlessly back to their lives. And while there are always feel-good stories about people who really do "find themselves" in jail, that isn't really the norm.  So as a society, we most often put stipulations on convicted felons. We don't allow child molesters and rapists the same rights as the rest of us.  The folks involved in the Enron Scandle are not just welcomed back to corporate america as CEOs and Vice Presidents of large corporations.

Vick is entitled to resume his life after spending his time in prison. But he is not entitled to the life of fame, fortune and fanfare that he enjoyed prior to being a convicted felon. The idea that he is entitled to come back to the free world and enjoy everything just like it was before his conviction is not like any other felony crime in America. The NFL should have felt more than free to move on with the world's most successful league without him.

What's next?

Just because Vick was reinstated by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell does not guarantee that he will be playing football on Sundays later this year. While Vick was a superstar on the field before he left, it was mostly because of a certain excitement that he brought to the game because of his speed and quickness. But in 2006, his last year on the field, he carried a quarterback rating of a 75.7. That rating would have placed him 28th among NFL quarterbacks last year --in between Chiefs QB Tyler Thigpen (who began the season as 3rd string) and journeyman QB Gus Frerotte.  He is now 29 years old - -and his legs, his most valuable assett -- are on the downhill slide.  And football is a game that requires great skill, built on years of repetition and practice, and Vick has not played this game in over two years.

When you look at the polls on various websites, most show a pretty even split among people who think reinstating Vick was a good idea, and those who think it's a horrible idea. These are tough economic times, and I don't think most teams are going to be willing to take a chance of alienating 1/2 of their fan base to take a chance on a 29 year old QB, who hasn't played a game in 2 years, who was a well below-average passer even when he was well practiced.

As of right now, at least 17 of the league's 32 teams have officially announced that they are not interested in signing Vick.  I swear there are more (I'm 90% sure that New England has officially announced that they are not interested either) and more will announce (can you really see Vick playing in the city of Green Bay after this?).  I might be wrong, but I think soon all 32 teams will have blacklisted him. If Barry Bonds can get blacklisted by baseball owners for steroid use, I find it hard to believe that football owners would stoop so low for Vick. 

So we'll see where it goes. I'm disappointed in Roger Goodell's decision, but hopeful that the NFL owners will have enough sense to make the decision that Goodell was unwilling to.

For more great reading on the subject:

Winograd: And the Monster Went Free

Bad Rap: Animal Cruelty Charge: "Not Guilty"

The Pet Connection: NFL to Sick Vick: What dog thing? Welcome home!

Our Pack: Vick Reinstated, But Don't Worry Leo

The LA Times: Michael Vick paid his debt, but should the NFL let him play?

Fanhouse: Goodell Lets Vick Story Hijack '09 Season

Lakewood, OH - incompetence + vindictiveness = trouble

Last year, the city of Lakewood, OH enacted a ban on 'pit bulls' in the city -- and the city's police department appears woefully prepared to enforce the ordinance -- and the residents and dog owners are getting pretty upset about the whole thing. 

Last month, I did a follow up on a story about a military veteran, Leonard Shelton, who was run out of town by the badgering by animal control and the police about his dog being a 'pit bull'.  Shelton had the DNA test done on his dog, which noted that it had no trace amounts of any of the 'pit bull' breeds in it -- but had already moved out of the city so he and his dog Roscoe could live in peace.

Now, police are up a creek again. This time, police used a taser multiple times on a barking dog. Yip, that's right, a barking dog.  And in spite of police's insistence, that the dog was acting aggressively and lunging at them, they even supplied the video from the taser itself, which has spurred a fire storm on controversy.   What's even "better" about the story, is that the police officer that tased the dog, as well as the spokesman for the police department, are still calling the dog a pit bull. "In our opinion, the dog is a pit bull" said the spokesperson in one video.   And in spite of mulitple headlines by the media calling it a pit bull, at least one media outlet has noted that the owner and several experts in the community say the dog is really a white Boxer, in spite of the police officer's insistence. And one quick viewing of the video from anyone who knows anything about dogs will confirm that the dog, indeed, looks very much like a white Boxer.

Which then leads us back to, would the police officer have tased the dog if he believed the dog to be a Boxer instead of a 'pit bull'?  Did the police interpret the dog barking at the officers as aggressive because of the breed they perceived it to be? 

We'll likely never know -- but we do know that once again the police failed in an effort to identify a 'pit bull' - -and yet another dog and dog owner in this community of 54,000 people have been victims of false breed mis-identification by a clearly untrained group of officers.

And yes, in some cases, police officers need to taser dogs to subdue them.  But this pretty clearly wasn't one of them as the dog could have been subdued very easily by someone with even minimal training.  And yes, tasers can be dangerous to dogs  - as earlier this year, animal control officers in Toledo, OH killed a dog when they used unnecessary force on a 10 lbs dog that was on its front porch.   What may be even worse about this, is that the officer admitted in his police report of the incident thatthe reason he didn't draw his gun, was not because it was unnecessary force, but because he feared the bullet might ricochet and injure a bystander.

The best videos are captured at this link, including some good footage of the dog in the shelter so you can see for yourself what breed of dog he is and also a good interview with a dog trainer that is fired up over the police officer's mistreatment of the animal.

BSL doesn't work. In this case, the law was passed and the local officers didn't even get the training in order to enforce the law. This lack of training puts all dog owners and dogs at risk, even if their dog is not one of the affected breeds.  And officers using an irrational fear of dogs, a lack of even basic knowledge on handling dogs, and a breed ban as an excuse to use cruel force on a dog should not be tolerated.  

Nice job Lakewood...once again, your ban is making your police force look like a group of keystone cops who are tasering dogs unnecessarily and running military veterans out of town. You should be proud.

Weekly Roundup -- Week ending 7/26/09

I'm still playing around with the weekly roundup.  This weekly post is one of the longer ones for me to compose -- but usually the least commented on and least circulated.  Are people reading this?  Do you find it useful?  Let me know -- I've been tinkering with it a little lately and not sure what I want to do with the section.  Let me know your thoughts. Now, onto the news.

Cities and Laws

White County, TN is now considering a ban on 'pit bulls'.

In The Shelter of the Heart blog has an update on the community of Tea, South Dakota that is contemplating repealing their ban on 'pit bulls' and replacing it with an ordinance that would just put restrictions on the dogs.

Des Moines, IA is considering a ban on 'pit bulls' in the city. The head of the Animal Rescue League is against the idea.  One city council member, Christine Hensley, said that she thinks bites in Council Bluffs and Sioux City have gone down following passing of their ordinance. Maybe she should read more about what's really going on in those two cities here and here.

The Stop BSL blog has an update on Portage, IN which passed a new dangerous dog law that focuses on aggressive dogs regardless of breed, and on proper ways to own and maintain the dogs -- which is a far more productive approach than focusing on dog breeds.

Whitehall, OH quickly difused Jacquelyn Thompson's second failed attempt to push for a pit bull ban in her community by voting the ordinance down immediately after it was proposed with one of oher city council counterparts referring to her as "Grandstanding". More from the folks over at Help Fido.

Dog Bites and Attacks

A 15 month old Sedgwick, KS girl was taken to the hospital in critical condition after being bitten in the face by a Labrador Retriever that was believed to be the family pet.  Sedgewick is a small community just outside of Wichita -- the city that dominates that area. Earlier this year, Wichita passed restrictions on pit bull. Instead of focusing on the real reasons people get bitten by dogs, and what makes children especially vulnerable -- instead of focusing on educating the public on these issues so they would be safer -- the city passed restrictions on a breed and missed the opportunity to educate the constituents in the area of things that can be done to prevent dog attacks.

A Murrayville, IL woman was mauled by two dogs - reported to be a Boxer and a Pug.

Two children in Clinton, MS were attacked by a mixed breed dog -- this report calls the dog a Lab mix.

A woman in Boston, MA woman was attacked by a German Shepherd police dog that somehow got loose. A dog's function is often a factor of aggression...and it wouldn't be terribly surprising if a dog used for police work would have a different temperament than ones that are just used as pets.  Often though, people who don't understand canine behavior overlook function when it comes to dog bites.

In Lexington, KY, a4 day old infant was mauled by the family's "Native American Indian dog". The child suffered two collapsed lungs, a skull fracture, broken ribs and a vareity of cuts and bruises and remains in critical condition. The family just left the dog in the room with the newborn for just a minute and the dog attacked the child. Educating parents on how to integrate newborn children in with the family pet remains an important part of the equation for eliminating dog bites and attacks. A picture of the dog can be seen here.

In Cornelius, OR, a man was attacked by two Blue Heeler mixes that were running at large.

A postal worker in the UK was hospitalized and underwent surgery following an attack by two Japanese Akitas. The UK banned four breeds of dogs, including pit bulls, 17 years ago, but now has different breeds that are causing the problem....because it isn't the dogs, it's irresponsible human owners than are the problem.

It is worth noting that in none of the above stories involving bites by non-pit bull type dogs did the breed of dog getmetioned in the headline or even the opening paragraph.

In Nashville, a 79 year old woman was attacked by two dogs running at large.h  The dogs are being called 'pit bulls' -- note that in this one artcile, the breed involved was listed in the headline. And also, unlike the previous article, the story has now prompted White County to comtemplate banning 'pit bulls'. 

A 9 year old Charlotte Girl was bitten in the face by a 'pit bull'.  The dog was given to a man by a stranger the day before and he was trying to give the dog away to the family. The young girl bent down to spend some time with the dog and the dog bite her in the face.  Again, notice that the breed of dog involved is again in the headline.

A Billings, MT woman is recovering this week after being attacked by three Boxers that lived with her next door neighbor.

Miscellanious

"For the pit bulls" has a great story about irresponsible media fear mongering with specific examples and some pretty clever pictures to tell her story.

An interesting article about how many insurance companies restrict ownership of certain breeds of dogs.

I seldom post letters to the editor because they tend to be so filled with innaccuracy that they're not worth it. But I got a chuckle out of this one.  This person claims that pit bulls should be banned because they are banned in 12 countries.  Meanwhile, at least two of the countries, the Netherlands and Denmark, recently repealed their BSL because it was ineffective and one of the countries, New Zealand, doesn't have BSL at all.  She then uses Winnipeg's ban to to represent all of Canada (and innacurrately says that Winnipeg is in Quebec, when it's in Manitoba), and uses Puerto Rico as a representation of the entire United States.  The whole article is so full of misinformation that I'm a bit embarrassed for the newspaper for having even run this -- and it's this misinformation that persists that causes hysteria that causes for bad legislation that is not based on factual information, but on hysteria.

A great story about a Springfield, IL man who works with the pit bulls as a volunteer for the Illinois Humane Society.

Beware of Labradors as well as pit bulls in summer bite season.

This and that

It's been a really busy week so blog posting has been down a little. But there have been several things this week that I wanted to get out there -- interesting, fun, and just downright wrong:

Yes Biscuit! has a great post about HSUS's document from their website on "Selecting Animals for Euthanasia." It's a really detailed report that specifically recommends how animals should be selected for euthanasia.  She does a great job of breaking down the document and what is wrong with the rationale in it.  Meanwhile, apparently someone from HSUS contacted her and noted that the document was "outdated" and would be taken down (which it has). My hope is that they replace it with a document that is equally thorough and helps provide guidance on how to SAVE animals, not kill them.  Meanwhile, I think this might be a good note for all of us that have organizations that have websites to look at all of the old material on there and ask the question -- is that information still current in the mindset of a nation that is quickly moving toward no kill?  We should really take a hard look at the information we are making available to the public and be sure the information we have out there is current, accurate, and helpful in moving us toward a no kill, no BSL nation.

According to most reports, it looks like NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is likely to conditionally reinstate Michael Vick into the NFL with a 4-6 game suspension to start the season. I know many in the animal welfare community are (rightfully) upset at this development. I am not sure why Goodell would think that the NFL -- which right now is the most successful sports league in the world -- needs or wants Vick who will only be a distraction from their on-field product. So keep sending letters to the commissioners office. But with that said, even if Vick is reinstated, and signs with a team, you can still make your voices heard. Money is a powerful motivator, and we need to continue to speak with our pocketbooks. If an NFL team signs Vick, wouldn't it send a powerful message if all of the pet owners who have season tickets cancelled them. Sixty percent of the US owns pets, and if a team signed Vick and the next day had 60% of their fan base call and cancel tickets it would send a very powerful message.  If he signs with your team, don't go to games. Don't watch them on TV. Don't buy jerseys. Money can be a very powerful motivator.

Meanwhile, I still can't help but think of the irony that could come out of all of this. One team that is notorious for bringing in players with troubled pasts is the Oakland Raiders -- and its a team that has struggled at the QB spot for several years. I can't help but think of the irony if he begins playing in the same city as the organization that is probably most responsible for giving his dogs a new and better life.

The stories of two of my three dogs are now up at the National Canine Research Council. Stella and SweetP both came to us under pretty horrible circumstances -- SweetP had nearly been starved to death and Stella had been hit by a car and left for dead along the side of the road in downtown Kansas City.  Both are doing great now -- are best buds and Canine Good Citizens. Thanks to Karen for posting their info.

And finally, over the weekend I was watching Kansas City native Tom Watson nearly making history at the British open, and got to see a new TV commercial from Traveler's Insurance. This is a great spot that really takes a neat twist on protecting your most prized possessions. It also is nice to give a nice nod to the large percentage of the population that loves their pets and can really associate with the spot.

It's really unfortunate that while Traveler's Insurance hit a home run with their advertising campaign, that they don't with pet owners. Traveler's does discriminate against owners of certain types of dogs. So A+ for your commercial...Fail for your internal insurance policies.

How well can we really identify breeds of dogs?

Our friends over at the National Canine Research Council have been having some fun with DNA testing of late.

Last week I noted some new research from the AVMA is indicating that DNA testing may just be debunking any studies ever done on dog bite studies by breed. Basically, every dog bite by breed study out there is based on people's visual identification of the dog breed -- and we're finding out that people really aren't that good at identifying breeds of dogs by looks -- and in fact, it is more or less impossible.

But when you put images with it, it is really telling.

So last week, the NCRC published a "Find the Labrador Retriever mix" visual ID game. Similar to other version of the Find a "Pit bull" game, it turns out that a lot of mixed breed dogs that we assume to be mixed breeds that are predominently common breeds don't often contain any of those breeds at all.

Most people, including many who work in animal rescue, are not all that great at knowing the looks of all the different dog breeds. The AKC/UKC combined recognize over 150 different breeds of dogs....but at this point, there are over 400 recognized dog breeds. And often, when these breed intermingle, they don't carry with them looks of any of the breeds they represent.

However, because we are familiar with a few dog breeds, we have become pretty good at grouping dogs together in groups with other similar looking dogs.  Is the dog about 80 lbs and black?  "Lab Mix." Boxy head and muscly? "Pit bull".  Long hair and snout?  "Shepherd mix".  Never mind that there are several breeds of "Shepherd" that don't look all that much alike -- and many of the "shepherd mixes" don't really look like any of those breeds.

We group them, because in our mind, it's easier to classify them. Besides,  what does a Chesapeake Bay Retriever/Chihuahua mix look like?  And what does that mean to a potential adopter?  Mostly nothing. But it's a cute black dog that kind of looks like a Lab, so let's call it that.

So what do our classifications mean?  It means we group a lot of mixed breed dogs of uncommon breeds into a grouping of more popular breeds. So go to PetFinder, your local shelter, or look at any bite study. Almost anywhere you look for classifications by breed, you see "labs", "shepherds" and "pit bulls" as the most common breeds.  Most often it's not because these dogs share the same DNA -- but because the LOOK similar to each other and it they are more easily categorized that way.

I think this is a really important distinction. When communities say they are putting restrictions based on "breed" because they say they are "inherantly dangerous based on their DNA" -- we need to be honest about what that means. These communities are not making decisions based on DNA, or breed at all -- but on LOOKS. They are determining that a LOOK is aggressive - not genetics. Which is an even crazier notion than the genetics argument which doesn't hold up to science either.

It's turning out that the more we learn about dogs and breeds, we find out the less we ever knew in the first place.  And that pretty much every study we have ever done about dogs and breeds is completely irrelevant now because we didn't identify the breeds right in the first place.

Vick & HSUS in the News Again

Mike Vick is a free man today.  After serving 18 months after pleading guilty of felony counts of dog fighting, Vick is now free to go.

ESPN 360 has a couple of new reports following his release.

The first video highlights the Humane Society of the United States and the work they have been doing to combat dog fighting especially following the Vick's conviction. According to one person that was interviewed that refers to himself as a "dog man", the hits have made pretty major impact on slowing down the major dog-fighting rings. That sounds like good news. Although no actual numbers were given (or even really available), there sure have been some pretty major dog fighting busts lately, including one in 8 states getting 26 people arrested and over 400 dogs rescued from their fighting operations just last week.

The unfortunate part of the program is that in spite of some positive footage from ESPN a few months ago about the recovery of the dogs, the footage in this first video has an over-abundance of gratuitous dog fighting footage -- which is not only unnecessary, but also plays a role in glamourizing this felony activity to some.  Meanwhile, HSUS gets made to be the hero of the whole show -- with of course, no mention that the organization pushed for all of the dogs rescued from Vick's kennels to be killed.  While all of that is disappointing, the interview is interesting if you can get past some of the footage.

The second video is an interview with Tio Hardiman.  Hardiman, a guest at our Canine Legislation Conference back in 2007, is a major member of the group CeaseFire Chicago -- a faith based organization that works to reach out to inner city youth to change their hearts away from violence -- fighting, gangs, shootings and yes, even dog fighting.  HSUS sponsors part of the program that helps end dogfighting. 

 They ask Hardiman about Vick, about whether he feels like he has changed, whether he's serious about reaching out to inner city youth and making a difference, and not just being being a figurhead spokesperson. I respect the heck out of Tio Hardiman, and his answers are pretty interesting.

I hope Hardiman's optimism is warranted. Vick being involved with really being on the ground and involved in meeting with inner city youth could make a huge difference for these youth and for the dogs -- and could be exactly what both parties need.

I've written a lot more about Hardiman's programs here.

I teeter on this subject a lot. I hate the gratuitous fighting footage. I hate that HSUS has seemed to get a free pass from the media for trying to kill all of the dogs from Mike Vick's kennels. But if the public information about dog fighting helps curb this barbaric activity, and if all of the success stories from the rehabilitation of the dogs from Vick's kennels helps change public opinion about 'pit bulls', and if programs like Hardiman's can help curb violence -- against people and animals, then maybe this will be a good thing after all.

Dog Park meeting Tomorrow in Kansas City

Back in September of 2007, the Kansas City parks board assigned a task force to study locations for new dog parks in the city. Kansas City has a population of about 500,000 people, and yet, only has one area of one park that is dedicated to off-leash dogs.

Tomorrow afternoon, at 2:00, at the Parks and Recreation office at 4600 E 63rd Street (over by Swope Park), the task force is going to present their recommendations for parks that would be good for dog parks.  It is my understanding that the recommendation will include a dog parks at Sunnyside park (an area that was initially proposed by the public, and denied by the parks board before the task force was assembled) and then also another location in Midtown and one up North.

I'm curious what they come back with after an exceedingly long time to prepare their recommendation. I provided my thoughts for this back in August of 2007, and then again in September, and stand by those recommendations. I would suspect that the task force will have focused more on the regional dog parks (similar to the one we have now) with little to no thought to actual neighborhood parks. But at least the idea of having more dog parks in the community will be on the table.  I know funding is going to be an issue, but at least dog owners will have options for being able to raise their own funds to finalize the projects.  I personally don't believe that every off-leash area needs a fence, but I'll take small victories wherever we can get them. So head on our to the Parks Board tomorrow to show support for dog parks in the community and provide your input.

Weekly Roundup - News from around the internets

I was out of town most of this week, so there were several blog postings I wanted to do that I just wasn't able to get to. So instead of the usual weekly roundup, I'm going to hit on a couple of major stories from the week that are worthy of more time. 

Forcing Isolation

A five year old girl in Hamilton, OH was attacked this week by a 'pit bull'. I highlight this story because Hamilton, OH is one of those areas of Ohio with very strict regulations on how people keep 'pit bulls' - -including things like kennel requirements and muzzling. While many people support these types of restrictions, they have provent themselves to be very ineffective because they show a complete lack of understanding of basic canine behavior and socialization.  Regulations like what exist in Hamilton are specifically designed to create isolation for dogs.  The thinking is that if the dog is isolated, it cannot attack. However, this forced isolation, in fact, creates a lack of socialization that dogs need to be healthy and well-balanced dogs.  Instead of forcing isolation, cities would be much safer if they would do things to encourage dog owners to well-socialize their dogs....which is why cities should be listening to the expert organizations when it comes to canine laws instead of just following their gut instincts.

Passing the blame

Winograd had a great post this week about the economy and how many communities are blaming their shelter killing on the economy.  However, as Winograd points out, many communities are still decreasing shelter euthanasia in spite of the rough economy. I have repeatedly noted that last year, in Los Angeles, their Mandatory spay/neuter ordinance led to a significant increase in shelter killing. And each time, I get a comment back noting that the increase wasn't because of the ordinance, but because of the economy. Meanwhile, in Little Rock, they passed mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls, and while euthanasia for all non-pit bulls went down in the community, the euthanasia for pit bulls went up by 44% -- showing a complete failure of the ordinance.  I know that many shelters have seen an increase in intake due to the economy -- and have seen a decrease in donations -- but we cannot continue to let the shelters that are being mismanaged and cities that are adopting failed policies use the economy as an excuse for their mismanagement.

Bust Dogs Update

There has been a LOT of chatter this week about the 400+ dogs that were rescued from the largest dog fighting bust in the nation's history. Most of the dogs are being kept by the Humane Society of Missouri -- where it seems they are being very well cared for to the point that their rehab is already beginning.   From the images I've seen, and the reports that I've read, it sure seems like a LOT of these dogs are going to be able to go out to rescue groups.  Winograd has been vigilent in his pushing for the major animal welfare organizations (ASPCA, HSUS) to step up and use their vast resources to be able to help these dogs find homes -- with great posts here and here on the topic.  While I agree with him that we need to continue to push these groups to step up and not only help with the bust of these dog fighting rings, but also in the saving of these animals, at this point, I don't think it's worth the dog's lives to actually sit and wait for them to step up for these dogs. So while we push these organizations to do the right thing -- we must, as an animal welfare community, begin to have homes available for these dogs when they become available to go to rescues. HSMO has already begun taking applications for the dogs online -- here is that info.  While I'm hopeful that they will lighten up expectations a little for who can take the dogs -- I strongly encourage everyone who reads this blog to contact the rescue group they work with about bringing in one or two of these dogs into their organization.  If each person who reads this blog did that, we would have homes lined up for every single one fo these dogs by the time they become available -- which would be pretty darn cool.  Meanwhile, there a couple of nice articles from ABC about finding good homes for the dogs, and about the Vick dogs that have been rehabilitated.

Tonganoxie, KS

This week, in a pretty surprising development, the city of Tonganoxie, KS decided they wanted to keep their ban on 'pit bulls' and Rottweilers.  Four of the five city council members actually didn't believe the ban wasn't right or effective, and yet, they kept it in place. The quotes from the article really tell a good story of what happened.  The mayor, Mike Vestal, noted that he was glad that the ordinance was left in place because while some people think it is antiquated, he thinks it works.  However, by "works", he means that a well behaved member of the family is about to be removed from its home. By "works" he is referring to a little old lady that stood up and said she wanted to keep the ban because  she has loose dogs running through her yard all the time and doesn't want pit bulls and Rottweilers running loose.  Yeah -- that's "working".  It should also be noted that the woman who spoke, Connie Putthoff, appears to be related to councilman Tom Putthoff  (we think it is his mother)-- who was the one city council member who opposed the ordinance change.  I think the citizens of Tonganoxie are going to take on the decision with a petition initiative -- but it's just really disappointing that with a room full of people who were experts about this subject, including representatives from the Leavenworth Humane Society and the Lawrence Humane Society -- and having a ton of information passed along to them including the contact information for an animal control officer in a similar sized community who has implemented a breed neutral ordinance that has been completely effective but no one ever contacted her -- that the majority of the council let one councilmember and his mom steamroll the conversation into keeping the ordinance and forcing a family to lose their family dog.  Here's an old story on it here.

Other Stories

A No-Kill Nation?  May only be about 5 years away.

A 2 year old Augusta, GA boy is still recovering after being attacked by dogs after his parents left him alone and he climbed over a neighbor's fence and into a yard with multiple dogs. The dog owner happened to be a rescuer and was keeping dogs at the property even though she didn't live there. The child's mother has been charged with child cruelty.  What a mess of irresponsibility all around -- that as one reporter noted, looked like an accident waiting to happen.

Just including this because it again highlights how the media has spurred the whole pit bull hysteria. This is a story about a girl in Ohio that was "attacked" by a 'pit bull'. From the video, she has a pretty nasty bruise, but the 'bite" didn't even break the skin...

Wolfhounds causing problems in suburban Chicago.

A really good myth vs reality article from out of Bend, OR.

Warren, MI; Glidden, IA; Mount Clements, MI; are all currently considering breed specific regulations.

Kilgore, TX; The state of Massachusetts; Vestavia Hills, AL; Garrard County, KY; have all abandoned talk of breed specific regulations in favor of breed neutral laws.

A historical view of dangerous dogs in the United States

Karen Delise has a great new post over at the NCRC about the history of dog attacks in this country, the breeds of  dogs involved, and how the media reported the attacks.  The post is essentially an overview of her book, the Pit Bull Placebo, but is a great shortened version of the book for people without the dedication to read the book.

In the article, Karen notes that the late 1880s, the most feared type of dog was the bloodhound. Similar to pit bulls now, bloodhounds represented a large grouping of multiple breeds of dogs -- and their "ferocity" was played out by the media to creat the certain fears. Stage productions such as the The Tom Shows, and in books like Sherlock Holmes' Hound of the Baskervilles, showed the dogs in a negative light and led to their being feared.

Over time, order was restored, and people began focusing more on what caused attacks vs breeds of dogs that were responsible. Several different examples were given.

Meanwhile, during the time from1959 to 1979, none of the dog bite or fatal dog attack studies make any mention of either pit bulls or rottweilers. Neither of these breeds were popular in the use of guarding or for negative functions at the time, and the breeds most often used for these functions were German Shepherds, Great Danes and Dobermans. And in fact, during this period, these were the breeds often feared -- with misinformation abounding about them (remember the ridiculous myth that because Doberman's had smallish heads, as they matured and their brains grew their brains would press against their skull and eventually cause them to "snap" without cause?  Sound at all familiar to anyone?)

In the decade of 1965-1975, less than 2% of all fatal dog attacks in the United States were attributed to either a  pit bul, a pit bull type dog or a Rottweiler. 

Then in the late 1980s, media hysteria grew about a type of dog that was used by a small, violent sub-culture who were using for dogfighting purposes -- that came to a head mediawise in July 1987 when four major magazines contained articles about 'pit bulls'.  Some of the stories contained some innaccurate information in them abot the dogs -- and many of the myths from these stories still exist today, in spite of so much information available that proves it to be false.

The publicity, and the fear surrounding these dogs then created demand for them among people who wanted dogs for negative functions and for guarding....and with that, their involvement in more major attacks.

And so we have the cycle that we are in right now -- where the people who want dogs for guarding or negative functions are gravitating toward a few particular types of dog. And now, the public fears these breeds of dogs - -not much different than Bloodhounds in the 1880s.  So these are the stories picked up by the media.  The difference now is the wide availability of information with the internet where every story written in a local newspaper anywhere is available almost instantly to any person anywhere in the world.  And so the hysteria continues.

But let's make no mistake. There is nothing crazy-different about these dogs. There is no dangerous DNA in them, or certainly we would not have gone through several decades of dog bite studies with them barely represented.  They are just merely a breed of dog that due to the cycle of human emotions and hysteria that has become the victim of our irrational fears.  And this is why attempts to ban the breeds has not been met with success -- because it was never the dog's breed in the first place.  It was the owners -- and how they intended to use the dogs that was. And unless we focus on dog ownership issues, the cycle will continue, but in 30 years we'll be talking about entirely different breeds of dogs that need to be banned becaus of their supposed genetic predisposition to attack.

None of which will be true...just like it isn't now.