It's been quite a week. Denver is considering a possible repeal of their long-standing ban on pit bulls because of the financial drain the repeated court cases are having on their city budget. Lakewood, OH has run yet another non-pit bull owner out of their community due to an inability to identify dog breeds, Omaha's first six months with breed specific legislation has proven to be a disaster...both in terms of reducing dog bites and its impact on the city budget, and Kansas City, MO has implemented some new 'performance standards" for animal control that will reward ACOs for bringing more animals into the shelter. For the life of me I have no idea why a city would want to impose breed specific language when the evidence of its failures is everywhere and there are so many successful models that exist without breed specific language. I feel like the tide is turning...we'll see.
On to the rest of the week's stories -- and there are a lot of odd ones for sure:
Cities and Laws
The saga in Sioux City, IA took yet another interesting turn this week. For the past 9 months or so, Sioux City, IA has undergone a series of embarrassments coming out of their ban on 'pit bulls' -- the latest being when councilman Aaron Rochester -- who was the leader in getting the ban passed -- let his Labrador get free and it attacked a passing jogger. The dog was declared vicious by the courts and sentenced to be killed -- but this week, Rochester's dog, Jake, was freed from the kennel when someone cut the lock off a chain link fence and rescued Jake. Rochester's comments seem very odd, including noting that he isn't upset by his dog being stolen, he's 'surprised' but thought something like this could happen and claims to have no clue as to who could be responsible, even though some people have apparently said to him that they might do it. Nearly a year later, the fols in Sioux City are STILL discussing changes to their dog ordinance, and the saga continues to get weirder. Yes Biscuit! has a great writeup on this as well this week.
Mount Clemens, MI passed a ban on pit bulls this week, in spite of about 35 people coming out to testify against the ordinance and only a couple that spoke in favor. Their ordinance allows people to keep their existing "pit bulls" with restrictions, but that the restrictions could be avoided if the dog is certified through the AKC's Canine Good Citizen program. This is similar to what Omaha did with their ordinance which essentially requires responsible owners -- who were never a problem in the first place -- to jump through a series of hoops in order to keep their dogs and takes the focus away from the owners that are irresponsible in the first place. Omaha's law has not been successful, but I guess Mount Clemens thought they should try it anyway.
Pine Bluff, AR officials are meeting trying to seek additional penalties for repeat offenders of their vicious dog ordinance. In 2006, Pine Bluffs enacted a breed specific ordinance that required owners of 'pit bulls' to have signs, an insurance policy, and a special registry for their dogs, however, the city continues to have problems with a small group of repeate offenders. Most cities have a small group of dog owners that creat the majority of the dog bite problems in a their community, and yet instead of focusing on these owners, they make a more broad-sweeping law that creates hurdles for good dog owners to have to jump through....which just doesn't make sense.
Elyria, OH is considering a new dangerous dog law with breed specific language.
Denmark is now considering nationwide BSL -- hopefully they'll look at the failures of their UK neighbors (see below) and realize why this is such a bad idea.
Rock Hill, NC is putting in strong restrictions on how dog owners can keep their dogs with the hope of ending the mistreatment of dogs in their community after 13 dogs were found in the woods strapped with logging chains and without dog houses. These types of ordinances make complete sense if public safety and improving the lives of animals is your goal.
Yorkville, IL has decided against breed specific language in their laws.
Miami Dade County lost two lawsuits this week when dogs that were confiscated from homes under the city's breed ban were determined to not be any of the banned breeds. Breed ID via site is proving to be futile....and not only making BSL unenforcable, it is showing that most dog bite studies based on breed are actually bunk because the breed ID is not reliable.
Nackawic, CA is looking at potentially eliminating their breed specific law and making a behavior-based ordinance.
Ortonville, MI is looking at potential breed specific legislation because an owner can't seem to kep her dog from getting loose -- with the owner getting three dog at large tickets in the past month. Note to Ortonville, this owner is the problem...not an entire breed of dogs.
Dog Bites/Attacks
A Labrador Retriever that was tied to a metal fence bit a 2 year old Seattle area girl. The girl had a small puncture on her face that required a stitch.
A 10 year old boy was bitten in the face by a dog (breed was unmentioned) in Connecticut.
An electrical repairman in DeWitt, IA was severely attacked by three dogs that circled him and attacked him. The dogs were described as an American Bulldog, Boxer and a Huskie that were all running at-large.
A four year old girl was bitten for the second time by the family's Beagle/Dachsund mix. Apparently the dog had bitten the child before, but the child went over and laid on the dog. The incident appears to be a complete example of why educating parents how to introduce children and dogs together is increasingly important....for both the child and the dog. Now the dog will be killed because the parents failed to teach their toddler not lay on their dog.
An 82 year old Park Ridge, IL man was bitten by his neighbor's German Shepherds that were running at large.
Note that in none of the above stories was the dog breed mentioned in the headline.
In Miami-Dade County (which has had a ban on 'pit bulls' for 20 years), there is a news story about a 'pit bull' that apparently attacked a US Postal worker. Now, the term 'pit bull' is used in the headline, but if you go to the 14th paragraph of the article, you'll note that the dog, named "Blue", was registered as an Australian Shepherd (although I wonder if they mean Australian Cattle Dog/Blue Heeler given the dog's name). In the 15th paragraph, you'll note that the writer of the story admits that the breed of dog has not been confirmed -- even though the headline appears to say otherwise. Meanwhile, regardless of the breed, the owner does need to be held accountable and it is further evidence that Miami's 2-decade-old ban is not improving public safety in their comunity.
A 13 year old girl in Sacramento was bitten by a 'pit bull' that was owned by the family. Apparently the girl was watching the family's three dogs play in the back yard when the dog ran into the girl, knocking her down, and then bit her. The girl's injuries are described as minor, even though the word "attack" was used in both the headline and the story lead -- along with the words 'pit bull'.
A three year old Apopka, FL boy was attacked by his uncle's German Shepherd that was chained out in front of the home. The boy underwent emergency surgery following the attack. The boy received over 100 stitches in his face and neck. Some reports have noted that the young boy may have been throwing rocks and sticks at the dog prior to being attacked. Apparently this is the second time the boy has been bitten by the dog.
A nine year old Corner Brook girl was bitten when a German Shepherd broke free from its chain and attacked her.
The UK Dangerous Dogs Act
Dog bites in West Yorkshire, UK have gone up more than 43% over the past 5 years in spite of the country-wide ban on four breeds of dogs. The UK, often cited as an example of a place that passed a ban on 'pit bulls' and other breeds continues to be a complete failure at improving public safety because they still haven't figure out how to deal with the irresponsible dog owner situation.
In Lancashire, the bite increases are even more major. In the past 5 years, the number of severe attacks in that area have more than doubled.
Miscellanious
This is a great story from the Gloucester (MA) Times about dog bites, with some refreshing outlooks on causes of dog bites and who's fault it is when one does (yip, that person who owns the dog). It's refreshing when a newspaper does a well-informed article, that educates the public, and puts the responsibility of dog ownership on the dog owner.
A call for help from Best Friends for rescue groups and foster homes to step up to help the 400_ dogs confiscated from a major dog fighting ring bust about a month ago.
Olathe, KS has voted to keep their animal shelter open for at least one more year. Due to budget limitations, they have been considering contracting out shelter operations to nearby Animal Haven.
An interesting article about the growing veterinary field of canine forensics.
The pit bull, nanny dog, an endangered species -- a good write up from the Examiner folks on the failings of BSL -- featuring a mention of a blind pit bull that was taken from her owner in Independence following the city's breed ban.
I don't know anything about this movie --but an interesting trailer is now online for a trailer to a new documentary highlighting the plight of 'pit bulls' in the city of Denver.
Must-read Blog postings from the week:
Yes Biscuit! has a video of a man who's 'pit bull' save his son's life.
One Bark at a Time posts two photographs that tell a very sad, telling story. Fred is usually a great writer, but sometimes let's his photography skills do the talking for him. Folks, if you have older friends or family in your life, please make plans for what will happen with the companion dog when/if the dog's caretaker dies.
F8Hasit has an interesting post from an American Bulldog owner's viewpoint following two incidences where dog owners of non-targeted breeds were forced out of town by the city's pit bull ban and the city's inability to correctly identify dog breeds.
For the Love of Dog Blog has a good article on dog tethering including a day in the life video of a dog that is left chained as its primary form of containment. It's a worthy watch, regardless of where you stand on the tethering issue. And while I do support certain types of ordinances that restrict tethering, I think they should be tailored specifically toward the types of owners featured in this video who, while tethering their dogs, their complete neglect of the dog is their primary crime. Not all tethering is inhumane...but certainly the type featured here is.
Terrierman has a great post on accuracy of reporting, the accuracy of blogs, and steps people should take to insure they are developing accurate opinions on particular subjects. This is great to keep in mind for those city council members who think BSL is a great solution -- if the only source you can find to justify your position is a website created by someone who was bitten by a dog as her primary credentials, then you may need to go find a more accurate source --like any of the expert animal behavior groups out there.
A really great post fromSave a Pit Bull, Save the World about how no one should be made to feel bad about owning a particular breed of dog.
Always appreciate reading your roundups - there's so much I miss during the week! Rock Hill is in South Carolina btw, nor North.
Posted by: YesBiscuit! | August 09, 2009 at 12:09 PM
*not
Posted by: YesBiscuit! | August 09, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Great roundup. It's pretty funny that T-man has a post about forming accurate opinions, considering the half-baked nonsense he posts about 'pit bulls' from time to time...ah well, even a broken clock is right once a day. And Terrierman is good when he sticks to what he knows...
Posted by: Selma | August 09, 2009 at 02:11 PM
no, the funnier thing about Terrierman is his statement that there is no owner side to the Bassett hound story... the owner is guilty because she ACTS guilty (giving up her dogs). As we know, there has never been an incident of the law intimidating dog owners into giving up their animals. ahem
These incidents always follow the same pattern: 1) outrageous story promulgated and believed by everyone. 2) factcheck suggests original story is completely bogus, and this is believed by everyone. The folks in #1 and #2 are EQUALLY credulous. 3) rarely, a followup revealing that "the truth lies somewhere in between"
BTW, I wonder when "terrierwork" became about dogs digging and not about dogs killing as many "varmints" as quickly and efficiently as possible (since Tman generally asserts that he rather than his dogs do the killing)?
Posted by: EmilyS | August 09, 2009 at 08:43 PM
oh and that Denver thing is so weird. With all the restrictions she wants to put on "pit bulls" it can't possibly save any money.. assuming they actually enforce them
Posted by: EmilyS | August 09, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Emily, The Denver thing at this point has nothing to do with dogs, or costs of enforcement, or enforcability at this point. It has everything to do with trying to make the lawsuit go away and prevent the ongoing and expensive court costs.
Posted by: Brent Toellner | August 10, 2009 at 08:38 AM
...otherwise known as saving face, Brent...at the expense of not only the truth but also citizens' rights...which should be grounds for immediate dismissal of an elected or unelected civil servant, imo.
Posted by: Selma | August 10, 2009 at 09:22 AM
I'm not sure why Denver's new ord should make the lawsuit go away. I say let 'em "repeal" their breed ban. Get a handful of pit bull owners to follow the ordinance to a T. THEN, "it would be funny to" make anonymous phone calls weekly to the AC saying you witnessed the pit bull owners violating the ord - you think. Run their AC budget dry...I mean I'm not saying break the law I'm just sayin' it would be "funny".
Posted by: MichelleD | August 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM
IMO, the new proposed regulations are not one whit better than what they have.
They think everybody is protesting because they are killing (ha ha) 'pit bulls'. Obviously that's part of it, duh.
However, the real problem is the discrimination against certain owners and resultant inhumane treatment of living dogs - in the absence of any supporting evidence.
They just don't get it and nobody seems to be able to explain it properly to the courts. Repeat after me: All dogs are genetically identical except for minor blips that create superficial differences - exactly like humans. Breeds are not species. Looks are not breeds. Behaviour is not heritable.
If they could just get their heads around all or any of those simple, scientifically and experientially supported concepts, there isn't a judge in the land that could uphold a 'breed' (ha ha) ban without compromising their sworn duty to defend the constitution, especially the equal protection clause(s) in the US and Canada.
We gotta lot of 'splaining to do, that's really what it is. And evil forces, mostly just ignorance and laziness, are working against us.
Posted by: Selma | August 10, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Well, and the other element in this is, in spite of all the $$ they've spent trying to justify this law, and all of the dogs they've systematically rounded up and destroyed, they still cannot produce evidence that public safety is improved because of it.
So at what point, when you're enforcing a vague, discriminatory, expensive, ineffective law, do you look at it and say, well, that failed, let's change it? For me it would have been several years ago. It's one thing to make a mistake based on bad information -- it's quite another to stand behind the mistake and defend it in spite of all evidence being against you.
Posted by: Brent Toellner | August 10, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I was talking to a lawyer about the BSL proposal in Denver, and he concurs that all it would do is make court challenges more difficult, because 'pit bulls' wouldn't be technically banned, while at the same time, the restrictions would make it very difficult to keep a dog they called a pit bull. And I'm just guessing they'd be even less stringent in calling dogs 'pit bulls' if they were getting revenue from them.
Also, I looked around at insurance rates, and it's maybe $700 a year for 100K in liability insurance on a 'pit bull.' That is a pretty big deal for a lot of people.
The ban, as it stands, is pretty indefensible if the right plaintiff were to bring the challenge.
I say leave it intact, and make them defend it as it is. I expect Denver's ban failing would have a pretty serious domino effect on BSL everywhere.
A lot of places I've seen seem to have cut and pasted their wording right from Denver's, too, so if that goes down and the challenge survives the appellate courts: Boom! Precedent!
Posted by: Lisa | August 10, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Brent, it's infuriating. The High Courts keep ruling that it DOESNT MATTER if a law is stupid, ineffective, expensive, useless, cruel or even discriminatory.. if it has even the slightest vague relationship to public safety as determined by local officials, then it is acceptable, and not unconstitutional. That's how I read the Colorado and the Ohio SC rulings.
I hold out no hope for the new court case. And I don't think Madison's well-intentioned (well, I hope she's well intentioned) proposed law will go anywhere once people realize the ramifications. On the one hand, that it does NOT really allow pit bulls because of the un-meetable restrictions and on the other that it's a ploy to avoid the court case. And of course the usual hate spewers don't want anything that MIGHT allow pit bulls. I suppose if "KoryN in Denver" comes out in favor, we'll know that it's not about the dogs, as you say.
Posted by: EmilyS | August 10, 2009 at 01:27 PM
I'm not talking about the courts Emily. While it's frustrating that they dismiss all of the legitimate due process violations, I don't even know that that matters any more.
At some point, the court of public opinion is going to rule on this. Cities are financially bankrupt...and consumers are sick and tired of having taxes raised on them. At some point they're going to have to answer for wasting money trying to enforce ineffective laws.
Posted by: Brent Toellner | August 10, 2009 at 01:31 PM
I agree, Brent. As someone who just came off five long years of fighting in Ontario - there aren't that many of us, around a dozen in the hard-core group of Banned Aid - I can say that I am relieved that the Supreme Court decided to not hear our arguments. The courts don't get it - because they are hampered by their reticence to infringe on the right of legislatures and town councils to use their discretion when supposedly protecting the public from a supposed and in our case imaginary threat.
The court route seemed obligatory and I'm glad it's over. Now it's time to work even harder to get the public onside and get them complaining to their reps and out to demonstrations. Public pressure will carry far more weight with councillors and others than what the courts say - especially since even with a favourable ruling, there is no obligation for a govt to implement it in a timely manner - that would take another court case.
I think the Denver case is a good one this time and like it or not, there are some heavy hitters involved in this one. I suspect that if the case weren't good, then Denver wouldn't be talking about changing the rules for dog owners at this juncture.
The rules still suck though. As always, I would say to them that if the rules are considered useful they MUST be applied to all dog owners across the board or fuggedaboutit. Bottom line: There is no evidence that the 3 breeds usually named are any more dangerous than any other breeds. Mutts aren't a breed. Why don't they get it?
Posted by: Selma | August 10, 2009 at 03:55 PM
"court of public opinion is going to rule on this"
oh yes, I agree with that completely. The information you, NCRC and others have been collecting is so incredibly valuable. The public has been fed a line of b.s. for so long about vicious dogs and how BSL protects the public. Now we have FACTS to show that just the opposite is true.
The laws have to be changed by legislators, under the influence of the public/voters.
Posted by: EmilyS | August 10, 2009 at 06:19 PM
"The High Courts keep ruling that it DOESNT MATTER if a law is stupid, ineffective, expensive, useless, cruel or even discriminatory.. if it has even the slightest vague relationship to public safety "
OK, I know this isn't the point of this post but I'm with Emily. This is the part I just can't get my head around - its more than infuriating, its frightening.
And to expand the topic of BSL, how about pet limits and laws prohibiting TNR and even FEEDING stray/feral cats? I see how nimrods can get that "dangerous" breeds should be banned. But when did we decide that a 4 pet limit is fine but that 5th cat deserves to DIE!?!?!? WTF! I'm sure you will say the ARs pushed this but it was also embraced by ACs that wanted an ord that made their job easier.
I feel pet ownership is being attacked on all fronts and they're chipping away at our rights piece by piece with the help of naive and ignorant AW people. No more puppy mills! No more commercial breeders! No more back yard breeders! Ban breeds! Ban dogs over 50lbs! MSN! No feeding stray cats!
Where the hell are we going to get our pets in 10 years!? Assuming you don't want a lead based pet from China...
I digress...its all just so stupid.
Posted by: MichelleD | August 11, 2009 at 10:07 AM
btw - not saying I support puppy mills but its an example of all the laws that are being pushed that prohibit pet ownership in some way. They way out number any laws protecting pet ownership...
Posted by: MichelleD | August 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM
The court of public opinion is going to have IMO a big influence.
My suggestion try joining other citizens in your city, county, etc that are fed up with high taxes, bad city services, and bobble heads who pretend to manage effective city govt. Show these groups that you have aligned with, the poor performance of your AC dept, the money they have spent, and back it up with black & white data (available in city budget reports).
You might be surprised that the issue of breed becomes a mute point with these groups; the fact that public safety isn't being met becomes crystal clear, that citizens Constitutional rights are being violated becomes crystal clear.
Posted by: KC KS Kills Dogs | August 11, 2009 at 07:21 PM