KC DOG BLOG

Local Humane Societies changing names, HSUS now on the defensive

By now most people who read this blog are probably familiar with HumaneWatch.org-- a website that has been designed almost with the sole purpose to take down the Humane Society of the United States.

The website has really put Wayne Pacelle and the rest of the HSUS staff on the defensive -- and in the process, is finding HSUS trying to dig themselves out of  a hole.  Meanwhile, several local humane societies -- whose name similarities are causing consumer confusion and been a fundraising windfall for HSUS - are starting to undergo name changes to distance themselves from their unaffiliated namesake.

The attack has by Humanewatch has HSUS defending what they do to help shelters -- and as it turns out, what they do, is just raise money off of them. 

And it looks like the best route for HSUS to take is to come clean with what they do and what they stand for -- before the hole they are trying to dig themselves out of gets too much bigger.

*****

On April 1st, Humane Watch ran the ad pictured here as a full-page ad in the US Today. The ad touts that everyone is probably surprised that HSUS spends less than 1% of its donations to help local animal shelters -- a statement that appears to be true according the HSUS's tax statements (you can see a list of all of their grants starting on page 36 - most of the high dollar grants are to wildlife or political orgs). 

This focus on spending wouldn't be such a big deal if HSUS didn't seem to try to trick people into THINKING they were giving money to support local shelters -- even when they, in fact, were not. Hey, I get the importance of focusing on politics -- my own group is a political group - just be honest about what you are doing and what people's money is really going toward.

The number of instances is starting to mount up. Whether it is their fundraising to "care for the dogs seized in the Vick Case" that they were simultaneously lobbying for the dogs to be killed and not caring for any of them.  There was also the case of Fay, where HSUS sent out a fundraising emailasking for money to help the dogs "Just like Faye" even though HSUS wasn't caring for those dogs either. While HSUS raised over $1.2 million dollars in the "Faye" campaign, only $5,000 went to local organization Mutts & Stuff who was actually caring for Fay. No money went to support the other 450 dogs rescued from the fight bust.

Meanwhile, in a case in South Dakota back in September, HSUS campaigned for more money to "support these efforts" after their great work rescuing some dogs from a puppy mill in South Dakota, talking about how they were "working with local humane organizations to adopt them out to loving families." However, a week later, local news reported that HSUS had already left town, leaving the local organization, Second Chance Rescue Center, to deal with the 172 dogs taken from the raid on their own.  Later,it was noted that 28 of the dogs got sick and died at the overwhelmed rescue center.

Incidences like this leave at least one blogger asking the question: When is an animal "rescued"?

Throughout all of this, it seems as if HSUS has done a great job of helping themselves raise money -- but not so much at helping the rescue groups that are caring for the animals. Again, this might be fine, if people weren't donating millions of dollars to HSUS THINKING it was going to help the rescued animals --and taking money out of the pockets of the groups that actually need the money to care for them.

*****

HSUS has of course responded to the accusations by Humane Watch. The vast majority of the "defense" has been targeted at the Center for Consumer Freedom and at Humane Watch. They've really not denied any of the accusations -- they've only attacked the accuser. That, in and of itself, is pretty telling. However, in one post on Wayne Pacelle's blog, they listed out all of the things they are doing to support local animal shelters. This postis maybe the most damning testament of all. According to the blog entry, here is what HSUS says they do with their $100 million a year budget to support local shelters:

1) Host the Animal Care Expo in Nashville to provide education for animal shelter professionals - cost is $200 for people to attend.

2) Publish Animal Sheltering Magazine - Subscribe now for $20 a year.

3) Publications on a wide variety of topics - all available at a cost.

4) animalsheltering.org website - hey, look at that, available for free

5) Our Shelter evaluation program that provides "affordable, in-depth animal shelter evaluations" - but also, at a pretty significant cost.

6) The Gulf Coast Spay/Neuter project -- a project that they started when people made the same complaints after Hurricane Katrina that the money given to help animals after the hurricane were not used to help those animals -- so in order to stop legal suits against them, they started this program.

7) Hosting Spay Day - that included an online pet photo contest where they raised half a million dollars, had 200 participating spay/neuter programs -- of which 11 got grants from HSUS.

8) Humane Society University - which hosts a variety of classes for animal shelter management -- all at a fee.

There are also a couple of other programs - -their disaster assistance and Pets for Life NYC program that I really don't know a ton about that are on the list.

So, interestingly, the majority of the programs that they have "to support shelters" involve more revenue for HSUS....all the while, their fundraising is also taking money away from the shelters from people who think they support the local shelters. Tragic.

******
Meanwhile, local shelters are starting to try to separate themselves from HSUS. Over the past 2 weeks, at least 3 shelters have announced that they are undergoing name changes in order to distance themselves from HSUS.

The Joplin (MO) Humane Society, which has serviced their community for 52 years, will undergo a name change that will be announced tomorrow.

In Klamath Falls, ID, the Klamath Humane Society pleads for donationsto go locally and announcing that they have "different values" than HSUS.

And last week, the Marquette County (MI) Humane Society announced too that they would change their name because they are not funded by the Humane Society of the United States.

And meanwhile, the Halifx Humane Society (FL) also moans about the reality that people think their donations to HSUS suppor their local shelter.

The hits keep coming.

If HSUS wants to solve their little PR crisis, they badly need to either a) be honest about what their fundraising dollars go toward or b) change where their fundraising dollars go. But the bait and switch scheme is out -- and if you want to get out of the hole, you have to stop digging.

Meanwhile, if you want to give money to help save animals in your local community -- please give directly to a good local shelter or rescue group in your community.

Onatario's BSL Failings are not isolated to Brampton

The Canadian Press has been all over a story today from out of Ontario, about the failings of the nation's Dog Owner Liability Act (DOLA). DOLA was passed in late August of 2005 -- and since then, there has been no change in the number of dog bites in the province. Here are the numbers:

2005- 5,428 bites

2006 - 5,360 bites

2007 - 5,492 bites

2008 - 5,463 bites

2009 - 5,345 bites

The supposed idea behind the ban was to increase the safety of the people in the province by reducing dog bites. However, the bite numbers have simply fluctuated by 1-1.5% since the ordinance was passed -- which would be just the typical year-to-year changes. 

There is certainly no downward trend.

No, what is happening is that the taxpayers are paying for good people's dogs to be confiscated -- and either shipped to Newfoundland or killed.  It's not improving people's safety. It's tearing family dogs away from families. And it's costing taxpayers money.

Toronto Humane Society Spokesman Ian McConachie commented that DOLA has failed to make ths streets safer and "targets the wrong source of the problem. Dogs are not born violent, they are made that way by irresponsible owners who train them to be that way or neglect them and they develop behavioral problems. If we want to reduce the dog bites, we have to address the route cause of the problem, those irresponsible owners who do not appropriately care for their animals."

There are a lot of questions that remain about the numbers -- but suffice it to say, there is currently no evidence that the ban is working, and a lot of evidence that people are being unnecessarily harrassed because of the ordinance and that the ordinance itself is unenforceable.

Breed bans remain an internationally failed attempt at solving the dog bite problem -- when not far away, in Calgary, we have a wonderful example of what can be done to improve public safety by focuing on irresponsible dog owners...not dog breeds. 

For more:

One Bark at a Time -Ontario Pit Bull Ban Ineffective According to THS.

Brindle Stick - Surprise, Surprise...Ontario 'pit bull' ban isn't working

For tie Pit Bulls - Ontario Dog Bites not reduced

There are always others - more stories and statistics come out in Brampton

Last week, I noted that two dogs, Brittany and Rambo, were finally allowed to return home from the shelter in Brampton, Ontario. The dogs, held for 97 days by the city under the provincial breed ban were finally allowed to return home after an independent veterinarian ruled that the dogs were not 'pit bulls' banned unter the ordinance.

The dogs were allowed to return home because one of the dogs' owners was financially able and willing to fight the city to get the dogs back.

But unfortunately, there were others that weren't so lucky. There always are.

The Brampton Guardian -- which has done a great job of covering the breed mis-identification struggles of their city under the Dog Owners Liability Act - had a story late last week that notes that the seizures of Brittany and Rambo were not isolated incidents. But that in the past, the dogs have been taken from homes never to return because the owners could not afford legal representation.

In early 2009, Gail Crocker's boxer mix Rosci, and another dog in the home, were confiscated from her home. Rosci had been licensed with the city for 7 years as a Boxer mix, and then, one day, the dog was taken. There was no warrant, the dog was just taken right off her front porch. "Right out of my arms," said Crocker. The Animal Control officer involved was the same one that took Brittany and Rambo. "It just seemed to become personal." said Crocker.

Crocker paid a $800 medical bill for the dogs to be spayed and microcipped -- and the city told her the dogs would be killed if she did not find a home for them outside of the province. Crocker shipped the dogs to a home she found for them in Newfoundland -- at even more expense to the owner.

Meanwhile, in January, just 7 days after Brittany and Rambo wer taken, Animal Control showed up at Angela Rodriguez's door, and confiscated her dog Missus. Even Rodriguez had paperwork from her vet showing that Missus was a Boxer/American Bulldog mix, the city never gave her a chance to show the paperwork. After paying the city vet $400 to spay and microchip Missus (and in the process, aborting Missus' 11 puppies), they were forced to send Missus to Newfoundland to live with a relative. "What they did has affected our entire family," said Rodriguez. "Our two other dogs seem to be lost without her. My five-year-od daughter could not stop crying."

In the past 4 years, 55 'pit bulls' have been confiscated from people in Brampton under DOLA. Of those, 31 of them were seized in 2009  -- a 138% increase over the number in 2008. Of all of the seized dogs, only 2 have been deemed pure bred dogs -- the rest were all mixes that may or may not have been really 'pit bulls' at all. And Peel Health Statistics show that there has been no change in the number of dog bites over the past 7 years -- with the numbers fluctation only slightly between 280 - 300 dog bites per year.

The Brampton City Commissioner of Community Services Jamie Lowery blames the legislation for the city's problems. "It's not the city, it's the legislation," he said. "That is clearly the biggest problem we have. That DOLA is very vague and ambiguous. It speaks to certain breeds, but also brings into question about characteristics, so we are charged with trying to enfore or interpret the legislation. It's vague at best and the worst part is there really is no relief valve in the legislation for an appeal."

Lowery also said municiple procedue is to "work with the owenrs" when the breed of dog is in question.

Like, apparently holding the animals for 97 days while they have to pay for lawyers to get the animals out - -and preventing the owners from even seeing the dogs for 2 months or allowing other owners to show paperwork proving their dogs were not 'pit bulls' before being forced to be shipped to Newfoundland.

Brampton continues to show us why Ontario's Dog Owner Liability Act is failing, and why all breed specific legislation fails.

- Breed ID for mixed breed dogs is virtually impossible

- It continues to break up families who own dogs that end up being targeted even though the dogs are not of the targeted breeds

- Taxpayers end up paying a large share of the burden to enforce the law

- And in the end, the overall public safety of the area is not improved.

Also, great work by the Brampton Guardian for digging below the surface to get the real story to what is going on in their community in violations of seizure laws, forgoing due process, and the breaking up of families from their family pets.

 

Dog fighting/Crush Videos, the Constitution, & some Clarification on the US vs Stevens

Earlier this week, I noted that the Supreme Court of the United States has released it's decision on the Case U.S. vs Stevens. I posted earlier this week, as soon as I heard the news, but before I had a chance to read the full decision. Now, after having some time to spend with the full decision, as well as reading the thoughts of others, I wanted to clarify some stuff for people who haven't had the opportunity to read the full decision.

For starters, contrary to what most of the media reports have said, SCOTUS did NOT rule that dog fighting videos and crush videos were protected under the 1st Amendment.

They ruled that the federal law that was being used in this case was substantially overbroad and included far more types of "speech" than just dogfighting videos and crush videos.  They are right in that decision, and we should applaud their decision.

And we should also make steps to create a more narrow law that -- based on what was written in Alito's dissenting opinion - was left open for discussion by SCOTUS.

First, let's talk about the law that was ruled Unconstitutional.

The law that was struct down made it illegal to sell or possess any visual or auditory depiction "in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed" where the "creation, sale or possessoin takes place".

A separate clause exempts depictions with "Serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value."

The case vs Stevens was centered 100% around his creating and making of dogfighting videos and the testimony included only reasoning why this activity should not be protected by the 1st Amendment. However, the court noted that by the way the law was written, it could be applied to a variety of different types of hunting videos as different types of hunting are not all universally legal in all 50 states (think in terms of hunting with crossbows, bows, hand guns, and hunting of different types of animals which may be legal in some states, but not others).

Because the exceptions clause (particularly centered around the word "serious") was very narrow in scope and thus, allowed for way more types of conduct to be applied as not protected under the 1st Amendment than what the prosecution and lawmakers intended.  According to the ruling: "there is simply no adequate reading of the exceptions clause that results in the statutes banning only the depictions the Government would like to ban.....To read (the law) as the Government desires requires rewriting, not just reinterpretation."

The court's decision seems like the correct one. So what do we do now? The court's ruling has left an opening for us to create a new law that would be narrowly focused on dogfighting videos and crush videos.  In fact, there is already some movement in drafting such legislation.

Creating areas that are not protected by the 1st Amendment is not new. While the 1st Amendment remains probably our most protected amendment (and with good reason), the courts have historically allowed for certain areas to be restricted -- including obscenity (child porn), defamation (slander), fraud, incitement (yelling "fire" at a theater) and speech integration to criminal conduct (bomb/death threats).

In Alito's dissent, he notes many reasons why SCOTUS would potential rule a law that narrowly targeted dog fighting and crush videos would be considered an exception to 1st Amendment protection -- which include:

1) the videos show footage of activity that  inflicts a severe injury

2) the activities are illegal in every state in the U.S.

3) targeting the videos can reasonably used to target the underlying crimes that they depict

4) The value of the videos to society would be "exceedingly modest" and such value would be "overwhelmingly outweighted by the evil it restricted."

5) The government has a compellling interest in preventing the torture depicted in the videos.

With all respect to the 1st Amendment, I would be happy to see a well-crafted, narrowly targeted law on just Crush videos and dogfighting videos and see if it would hold up under SCOTUS scrutiny.

It looks like we may well soon get to see it.

For more points of views (for thoughts on both sides):

Dogfighting videos = free speech, Part II -- well done from Chistine at Bad Rap

Supreme Court Listens to NRA in Striking Ban on Crush Videos - Animal Law Coalition

For those of you who are upset - Raised by Wolves

US v Stevens, The Post Mortem - Animal Blawg

Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 4/25/10

Yet another crazy week; it seems like it's never a dull moment. The Scotish Parliament passed a new law to deal with dangerous dogs in their country after the UK's Dangerous Dog's Act failed (unfortunately, Scotland cannot repeal the breed ban, only the UK's governing body can). The US Supreme Court ruled on the Stephens case (more to come on that this week). And Brittany and Rambo finally were allowed to return home.  A lot more news this week -- so let's dive right in.

Cities/States and laws

The Toledo Humane Society began adopting out 'pit bulls' this week after nearly 2 decades of prohibiting adoptions of these types of dogs in the community. The move will save hundreds of pet lives in Toledo this year.

Exeter, CA have proposed a new version of their dangerous dog law -- this time making it non breed-specific.

The Missouri House of Representatives has approved a bill that would define state-wide criminal charges if someone has an uncontrolled dog that bites or causes injury in some way.

Garfield, NJ is looking at a potential new law that would require owners of 'pit bulls' to muzlle their dogs when they are on walks.

Mt Holly, NC has proposed a ban on 'pit bulls'. The conversation was started by a man in the community who's dog was attacked by one a couple of months ago.  The city Animal Control officer says he sees no evidence that one type of dog is more dangerous than another.

Dog Bites and Attacks

Major dog bites are very rare but when they happen, can come from a variety of different types of dogs. Focusing on Breed, and not circumstances is negligent and careless.

An Odessa, TX toddler remains hospitalized 2 weeks after a vicious attack by the family's Blue Healer. Medical costs are believed to already be over $1 million. Apparently the dog  was normally a good family dog but later died in the shelter due to having multiple seizurs and a stroke -- so likely had some adverse medical problems in his brain that may have led to the attack. So far, the little boy has had brain surgery and more than 900 stitches put in his face. A sad tragedy for this family that emphasized the need to supervise young children with dogs at all times. Also of note here is that this seems to be the first mention of this story by the media -- nearly 2 weeks after the attack.

A Portland, OR police officer ended up in the hospital after he had an infection following being bitten by a 'pit bull while on duty. I've been catching quite a few of thes stories about serious infections of late - so if you have been bitten by a dog, do seek treatment.

A bite by a 'mixed-shepherd breed' has caused San Antonio to work to crack down on roaming dogs in one of their neighborhoods.

A Ridgefield, CT man and his dog were attacked by two dogs described as German Shepherds this week that were both roaming at-large.

A 5 year old Hurricane, UT girl was bitten by a neighbor's dog. The dog, described as a 'pit bull, was left alone chained in the back yard and the girl wandered into the back yard where the dog was unattended. The dog's owner also says the girl may have been throwing rocks at the dog  prior to it attacking. An unsupervised chained dog and an unsupervised young child that may have been tormenting the dog is definitely a bad recipe.

A 9year old San Leon, TX girl is recovering after being bitten by a neighbor's Rhodesian Ridgeback. Initial calls to the scene were that the dog was a 'pit bull', but officials later confirmed that the dog was a Ridgeback. 

Abuse Cases

A Middletown, NY man killed his neighbor's 'pit bull' after cutting off the dog's tail causing the dog to bleed to death.

A pit bull in San Antonio was seriously injured and was dumped under a bridge and left for dead. The dog, named Blue by the rescuer, had an injured right leg and a large open sore with a blood soaked cast covered in maggots when they found her.  If you watch the video, the dog seems incredibly affectionate.

Two hundred dogs, mostly Toy Poodles, were rescued from abusive conditions from a breeding operation near Sparta, TN.

In Sioux City, IA, a 'pit bull' was shot in the head -- police are unsure if the dog was shot during an attempted break in or whether the dog was specifically targeted out of hatred. We saw 'pit bulls' targeted in due to hatred in New Orleans after several media reports only a couple of weeks ago, and city officials, and the media have to realize that creating a hysteria around 'pit bulls' can have a very dangerous impact on responsible owners of these dogs.

A police sergeant in Memphis was allowed to keep her own pets even after being charged with the starvation death of two dogs.

A Lowell, NC man faces animal cruelty charges after he physically beat his two 'pit bulls' -- causing one to die.

Miscellaneous

The Pet Connection, a no-kill facility in Mission, KS that offers adoption services, training, and low-cost spay/neuter services passed a "surprise inspection" this week that our local "Live, Late-Breaking, Investigative" News station just happened to be there for. The Pet Connection has been targeted by anonymous complaints against them including poor bookkeeping, medical storage, and an unlicensed worker neutering feral cats (while a vet was present). The anonymous complaints also appear to be mostly a personal vendetta as they have also gone after the owners of the Pet Connection's family accusing them of child neglect. I hope they are able to get things worked out as the Pet Connection provided many great services to this community.  

A story about a person who once was bitten by a 'pit bull' has now become a fan of them.

The Kansas City T-Bones - a local minor league baseball franchise - has scheduled their Animal Awareness Night again this year.  All nights are fun at T-Bones games, but pet lovers will most definitely love Animal Awareness night.

The Marquette County Humane Society (MI) is looking to change its name because of the confusion their name causes because they are not funded by the Humane Society of the United States.

A great educational piece from the Atlanta Journal Constitution: Fearsome or fearful dogs benefit from socialization.

Photos from last weekend's Pet Expo in Kansas City.

Ryan O'Meara, from K9 Magazine, opines as to why lessons are not being learned when it comes to fatal dog attacks in the UK.

Blog posts you should read

Unnatural Disaster: Shelter Killing in America - by Yesbiscuit!

The $500,000 pit bull - by Change.org - about an Austrailian family that has now spent half a million dollars trying to prevent their dog from being killed there.

What are mandatory desexing advocates lobyying for really? #2 -- From Saving Pets.

Three Slates to run in the Toronto Humane Society Elections - An update on the changing of the guard in Toronto from One Bark at a Time

Help Fido has a rundown of the hearing for Ohio House Bill 79 that would eliminate state-wide breed discrimination in Ohio.

Baby Time! Sadie helps her people raise a Tiger - Bad Rap has a great post -- with video - of a family that is properly working with their child and their 'pit bull' to be sure the two can live safely and happily in the home together. It's easily done, but just takes a little effort and the video is just great.

Taking responsibility - from the Houston Animal Shelters Examiner -on the need for shelters to begin taking responsibility for the killing in their shelters.

Pet Docs on Call has some good commentary on neutering -- with their vet specialist recommending that dogs not be altered until a couple of years old because of problems early neuter can have in development.

How one writer inadvertently became a pit bull advocate - noting that she overcame her previous prejudice with knowledge - -I wish everyone would do the same.

A NY area rescue survey - by the No Kill Advocacy Center. 72% of NY rescues said they were denied the ability to rescue at some point in the past year and 52% said they feared retaliation if they spoke out about a shelter that was causing problems. I'll likely comment more on this in the future, but worth the read now.

Could Breeders and Shelters Work Together - from The Other End of the Leash.

Why are so many veterinarians still giving anual vaccinations? - The Pet Connection.  Maybe even more frustrating are cities that legislate annual vaccinations -- even though the science doesn't support the need for it any longer.

Two articles, two quotes - by YesBiscuit! -- that show why some shelters are succesful and others are not when it comes to no kill.

Streator, IL repeals breed restrictions

The community of Streator, IL unanimously approved a new law that will focus resources on dogs with complaints of being aggressive vs just singling out "pit bulls". The previous breed-specific law was passed "several years ago".

Streator is a small community of about 14,000 people in North-Central Illinois -- and is the hometown of Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the planet(?) Pluto.

The repeal of their breed specific legislation is part of a trend across the nation of cities that are beginning to realize that the laws are not an effective way of dealing with dog bites in their communities.

Scotland Parliament passes bill to repeal breed ban

The Scotish Parliament today approved their new dangerous dog law they've been calling "dog Asbos" in a unanimous decision.  The new law gives councils greater power to impose penalties for owners of badly behaved dogs and will focus on "deed not breed". The law would replace several laws dealing with dogs in the country, including the Dangerous Dogs Act, which bans four breeds of dogs in Scotland.

Dog Asbos was proposed by MSP Alex Neil. In his proposal, he notes that the Dangerous Dogs Act was "difficult ot enforce and a huge drain on resources." "It is clear that a dog's breed is only one factor which may affect its behavior. Attempting to define the law purely in relation to breed has failed to protect the public."

The statistics support Neil. Over the past decade, Scotland has seen an over 150% increase in dog attacks.

Bill Reilly, President of the British Veterinary Association commented:

"The key message is that any dog can show aggression, particularly if it is not handled and trained properly, so legislation that provides the tools to target irresponsible ownership before it becomes a problem is very welcome. The rest of the UK should now look at Scotland and replace the failed breed-specific legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland."

The law is not yet final, but seems on pace to be soon. Great work by the folks in Scotland in listening to the professional experts in their community and making changes to a clearly failing law.

H/T to Ryan O'Meara at Dog Magazine and his great coverage of this law.

Bureaucrats, people who care, media driving agendas, & a need to end the "death to all pit bulls' thinking

The county officials in Lucas County, OH voted this week to table a proposal that would have allowed the Lucas County Shelter to adopt out 'pit bulls' instead of having to kill them in the shelter. Commissioners Peter Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak voted against a proposed bill that would have given their new dog warden, Julie Lyle, the authority to determine which dogs were allowed to be adopted and which ones were killed based on the temperament of the dogs.

It kind of makes my head hurt. The idea that a bureaucrat in an office gets to make the decision on which dogs get killed, vs the person in the shelter that actually handles the dogs makes no sense to me whatsoever. At this point, killing pit bulls has become so ingrained to them, that they can hardly see any other way.

All is not lost for the dogs however. The county commissioners are looking  a possible proposal that would allow the Lucas County shelter to transfer 'pit bulls' to other area rescue groups for adoptions. The Toledo Humane Society Executive Director John Dinon has said the agency wants change its policy to allow for pit bull adoptions so that pit bulls can be transferred from the county shelter to the Humane Society and get a second chance. (Update: The Humane Society approved the change to allow 'pit bull' adoptions today).

Readers who click through to the links may be a little startled at the beginning of the WTOL article I linked to about the Humane Society. In a story that should be a good article about the Humane Society rethinking its policy of killing all pit bulls, the lead is far from warm and fuzzy.

"Pit bulls can be aggressive and their attacks can be horrifying. In fact, one pit bull is in danger of being euthanized after it mauled a girl over the weekend."

Nice.

Not surprisingly, the WTOL General manager did an editorial yesterday talking about the need to control "vicious dogs". While I actually agree with the general premise of the editorial, the timing of the editorial (being on the same day as the county vote) and the dogs showed in the footage seem pretty clear that Mr. Chirdon is using "vicious dog" and "pit bull" synonymously.

The media wasn't a friend to the 'pit bulls' this week -- with three reports of dog bites in the Toledo area during the same week as they were discussing the possible repeal of the rule prohibiting pit bulls from being adopted from the shelter.

Peter Gerken used the recent stories to help him "justify" the need to keep the policy.

The timing of the media coverage of the bites seems more than just a coincidence. According to the county dog bite numbers from 2007 & 2008, the county has roughly 400 dog bites per year -- so roughly 1 per day. Of those, only about 60 are from 'pit bulls'. So the vast media coverage of the 3 'pit bull' bites during this first week of the new dog warden seems a little, suspicious. Incidentally, over the past 3 years, WTOL has run 19 stories about dog bites/attacks in the community -- 16 of them have been involving 'pit bulls'.   Sure seems like the spike in media coverage mirrored their stated agenda on the issue.

Meanwhile, in a separate article that for the life of me I cannot find right now (updated: here's the link) Lucas County Administrator Peter Ujvagi (I originally mistakenly attributed the comment to Ben Konap) noted that Lucas County isn't terribly behind the curve on how the rest of Ohio treats 'pit bulls' in the shelter. According to Konap, 66 of the state's 88 county animal shelters do not adopt out 'pit bulls'.  At a time when it's become en vogue to criticize 'pit bull' owners for the number of pit bulls dying in our shelters, clearly, with so many shelters having policies that mandate the killing of all of them that come into the shelter is it any wonder their kill rates are so high?

We must replace this archaic way of thinking and give all dogs with good temperaments a chance in a new home. We should make decisions based on the temperament of the individual dog, not on what it looks like. There is no reason a healthy, happy, loving dog should be instantly killed just because of how it looks. It's ridiculous, and it's the reason the residents of Lucas County ran their old-school, catch-and-kill dog catch out of office.

On a lighter note, can the Lucas county administrator lighten up a little? Because this is just all in good fun.

 

 

Updated: U.S. Supreme Court rules that dog fighting videos are ok

Updated: Here's a copy of the full ruling. I've not had a chance to read it yet -- and will likely comment more when I get the opportunity.

Not a lot of information on this yet -- but CNN is reporting that the federal law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty (specifically crush videos) is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment guaranteeing us free speech.

I'm all for free speech, but I had really hoped the Courts would rule that dog fighting, and supreme acts of animal cruelty would fall under the same types of "exceptions" to free speech as child pornography.

I realize it's a slippery slope when you start making exceptions for the first amendment -- but there really isn't a reason for the gruesome video footage to exist -- let alone be profitted from in this country.

I feel like the point of the 1st Amendment has been lost -- and that the reason the Amendment was put into place was that our founders thought that true democracy could only exist if people were allowed to question and criticize our government. Losing the ability to profit off of animal cruelty videos (which includes HSUS fundraising off of their video footage) does not threaten our democracy in any way.

I'll probably have more to say on this one when more news and reasons come out for it. But my initial reaction is of disappointment in the Supreme Court decision.

H/T to a host of people on Twitter for this one.

Brittany and Rambo are set free - Brampton City Officials fail - and even more BSL problems in Ontario

 Finally,Brittany and Rambo were set free by the Brampton Animal Shelter. An independent veterinarian came in and evaluated the two dogs and determined what pretty much everyone has known all along, that neither dog was a 'pit bull' and were not banned in Ontario.

The two dogs were confiscated from different homes on January 13th of this year -- after the city suspected them of being 'pit bulls'.

The dogs have spent the last 97 days in the city pound - -at taxpayer's expense - while the city has paid for lawyers and full-page advertising in the city newspaper trying to justify confiscating the two dogs.  They even denied the owners visitation rights at the shelter for nearly two months.

After months of incurred expenses by the city, the dogs were finally set free.  The incident just illustrates the colossal waste of resources breed bans are - -as neither of the two dogs had violated a single animal control law, neither had had any complaints against them, and neither showed any signs of aggression. But for more than 3 months, two families were torn apart due to the city seizing the dogs, and paid more than $20,000 in legal fees. Meanwhile a ton of taxpayer resources were wasted, headaches and embarrassment were created for the city trying to justify their decision to seize the non-aggressive dogs.

The city may be facing further litigation as the dogs were seized without a warrant -- although the city says there were "exigent" circumstances behind the seizure that allowed them to seize without a warrant, but never said what those circumstances were.

The city of Brampton, of course, refuses to bow out gracefully.

As a part of the agreement with the city, the owners allowed the city to designate the dogs as "potentially dangerous" and thus have to wear a muzzle in public and post a big red "dangeorus dog" sign at the home. The owners agreed to it because they feared that further legal action would take months causing the dogs to have to spend more time at the city shelter.  Keep in mind, the dogs are described even by the city vet as friendly, were in violation of no city ordinances and are not pit bulls - and the city still mandated the dogs be declared as potentially dangerous.

Instead, they should have been offering an appology -- for taking the dogs and holding them for 3 months for no reason and for wasting a ton of taxpayer dollars.

At least the dogs are safe back home, where they belong.

It is exactly this type of problem that has led several Ontario cities to just quit enforcing the province's dog owner liablity act - -including one of the largest cities in the provence -- Ottawa.

*******

Meanwhile, citizens in Sarnia, Ontario are also protesting their city hall because of the provincial breed ban. And it turns out the mayor of Sarnia agrees with the protestors.

"It's provincial legislation -- not the city or the humane society," said Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley. They should be at the MPP's office. I don't even agree with teh legislation myself, but we have to enforce it."

But actually, they don't -- not if the precedents set forth by Ottawa and others is any indictation.

A year ago, Sarnia made some changes to how they enforced the ordinance following a series of confusing cases of breed identity.  Officials note that they are still killing one innocent dog a month due to the ordinance.

"It's very fuzzy legislation; the province passed it, but now they have no involvement in the law itself," said Bradley. "In fact, I'd like to go join the protestors, myself".

He should.

Residents of Ontario -- you have a voice. You have elections for new MPPs coming next fall, and you should send a very clear message to the MPPs there that you support repealing the ordinance. Find out how the candidates feel about the law, and then actively support and help those who support a repeal campaign for office. The MPPs work for you, and the law is working for no one.

For more on the situation in Brampton:

Brindle Stick - Brampton city hall should have a Dangerous Sign posted on the front door.

Lassie Get Help: Stay Classy Brampton Bureaucrats