KC DOG BLOG

Fallout from Oreo's Law teaches us that old habits die hard

This post isn't about Best Friends. Well, not really. I have no interest in piling onto an organization that I have a lot of respect for in a time when they are getting a lot of criticism. I'm a fan of Best Friends. I've been fortunate to speak at their conference. I've learned a lot from their resources. Russ Meade, Ledy Van Kavage and others with the organization have been very supportive of our organization at times when we've needed the help. I've enjoyed their TV show - and their helping of the Vick dogs has been a huge study in how environment, not breeding, or breed, have the most to say about a dog's personality.

And this isn't a post about Oreo's Law. A law that was pushed hard by No Kill Advocates across the country and in the state of New York. A law that was opposed by the ASPCA in New York and became very controversial -- and two weeks ago was tabled by the New York Legislature. 

This story isn't intended to draw lines -- although it might. But I think the two weeks that have followed the tabling of Oreo's Law, the following criticism of Best Friends' "Neutral" stance on the law, and Best Friends' response to the criticism are a perfect symbol of a couple of the problems I think are impeding progress toward us becoming a No Kill society.  And that is what I want this post to be about.

**************************

For those who are uninitiated, Oreo's law was named after a a dog in New York City, Oreo, that was dropped off the roof of a 6 story building. The dog's owner was never convicted of a crime, but Oreo become the property of the ASPCA (who handles animal control in NYC). After rehabilitating Oreo's physical wounds, they determined that they would never be able to heal her emotional ones -- and declared her too unstable to ever be adopted out. So they put Oreo on death row. A New York rescue group, Pets Alive, offered to take Oreo to their sanctuary -- where they would spend the time needed to rehabilitate her -- or, if never completely rehabilitated, would be allowed to live out her life at the sanctuary where she would get plenty of interaction and play time.

The ASPCA declined, and Oreo was killed at the shelter.

Oreo's Law was designed after Hayden's Law in California. The law would provide open access to rescue groups to city run shelters. So 24 hours before an animal would be killed at the shelter, the shelter had to let the public know about the animal, and a licensed, 501c3 rescue group would be allowed to pull the animal and make them a part of the rescue instead of being killed.

Somewhat predictably, the ASPCA opposed the law -- I think the name alone, and the widely public dog that was the namesake, was enough to put them on the defensive and try to defeat the law.  Even with a name change, the impetus for the conversation was probably a deal breaker from the start for the ASPCA.  It probably also didn't help that one of the champions for the law, No Kill Movement leader Nathan Winograd, has had previous personal history with ASPCA leader Ed Sayers that made the proposal of the law (even though Winograd, himself, didn't propose the law - or name it) seem personal. I think the feeling that the law was personal was its downfall and created divisiveness on the issue -- more-so than the merit of the law itself.

Because of the opposition, the bill failed. And in the aftermath, it was Best Friends, an organization that declared themselves "neutral" in the bill, that drew the ire of the those who supported the bill. Because their support may or may not have made the difference in the passing of the law.

And while Best Friends has every right to either support, or not support a law all they want, it is their stated REASON that troubles me most -- because it it appears to be very backward for a forward thinking organization.

**************

Via Best Friends' Facebook page, Best Friends CEO Gregory Castle released his statement on why Best Friends did not support the bill -- along with their history with lobbying on the bill.  The entire statement is well worth the read -- so please go do so. 

Now, I'm going to state for the record here that I'm not an insider in this case. I've met Mr. Castle and find him to be a smart man and have no reason to believe he is being anything but honest in his statements (which I wouldn't say about everyone I've met in the Animal Welfare movement). So I'm going to take his reasoning at his word.

In the statement, Castle notes that he, and Best Friends, favor open access laws for shelters:

"One good thing that’s come out of finding ourselves in the middle of a shelter access debate is that it confirms what we have long espoused: broad shelter access is a basic element of No More Homeless Pets. Moving forward we intend to support shelter access bills in New York and elsewhere."

In this statement we find that Best Friends supports the basic premise of Oreo's law -- even though they did not support the actual law. So why?  According to their statement, it comes down to two basic things:

1) The ASPCA and the mayor's alliance didn't support the bill and Best Friends didn't support the personal hostility that existed on both sides of the equation.

2) The law was open to all 501c3s (unless anyone affiliated with the organization had ever been charged with animal cruelty) and Best Friends thought there should be a qualification threshold that would prevent some unsavory rescue organizations that are hoarders that mask themselves as rescues from participating.

And that's their statement. Their words. and I think both reasons show a shining example of what has been holding back the animal welfare movement in this country for decades.

*********

I'm a big fan of open access laws. It seems so basic. If one organization is "full" and doesn't have the resources to care for an animal any more, but another organization does, then surrendering that animal to the other organization just makes sense. While most shelters in the country work this way to some extent, there are still many municiple shelters that don't. And I've seen the dramatic difference it can make with my own eyes in Kansas City, Kansas.

Only 2 short years ago, the KCK animal shelter was one of the highest volume killers of animals in this metro. They didn't work with rescue groups and refused to do so. And animals died because of it - by the hundreds if not thousands..

A new shelter manager came in, allowed a local rescue group to pull all of the animals they wanted -- and within 6 months every healthy and treatable animal in the shelter was finding a home -- and it has been that way for over a year now. All of the animals weren't saved because the public instantly got more responsible, or because the city become more compassionate, or because the city created better laws. They got saved because one organization was given full access to the shelter to save lives.

If Kansas had an open access law that would have mandated this years ago, thousands of animals would have been saved from that shelter. And so the success that is happening today, could have happened if the shelter had just been open access before.

Open access laws are good to help rescue organizations deal with bad civic shelter directors and we could all probably name a few that fit the description..

******

There is no doubt that there are some hoarding groups out there that mask themselves as "rescues". Every year, dozens of these groups are busted. Regardless of whether or not Oreo's law was passed, these groups will continue to operate in New York and elsewhere unless they are found, charged and prosecuted for animal cruelty. This should be done regardless of whether or not an open access law is passed. It makes no sense to me that we would not pass good legislation, that could potentially save thousands of animals' lives, because people are breaking laws in other areas. Enforce those too! But don't let a small minority of "rescues" that are doing it wrong prevent the passing of legislation that would help hundreds of other rescues do it right.

The whole overarching idea here is the same one that exists in dozens of other ole school ideas of sheltering. We have somehow determined that it is ok to kill animals to prevent the low-probability bad event from happening.  That even though MOST rescues are good, we must kill the animals to prevent the few bad rescues from getting them, instead of taking the steps to stop the bad rescues. And we mask the killing by using a term that indicates the end of suffering, euthanasia, even though the animals aren't suffering.

This same "kill them to save them" idea is why many pit bull rescue groups SUPPORT the decision of civic shelters to not adopt out 'pit bulls' because they cannot do the same type of screening the rescue groups can do. They say they favor the shelters killing the dogs to prevent them from being adopted by dog fighters -- even though even the ASPCA notes that most dogs used in dog fights are bred specifically for that purpose and are seldom if ever adopted from shelters. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen. I'm not saying that we shouldn't use some basic percautions, but killing thousands of dogs in a shelter to prevent the rarest of occurances is a classic "kill em' to save 'em" idea.

It's this same idea that causes many rescues to deny almost as many potential adopters as they accept because they're seeking 'perfect' homes for dogs to avoid the possibility that something might go horribly wrong (even though and extreme few adoptions end up going horribly).

Best Friends knows this. They know that the kill 'em to save 'em attitude exists and have spent countless hours in conference lectures and in writing website copy trying to overcome this attitude. And yet they used the very idea to support why they didn't support a law they philosophically believe in. It doesn't make sense to me.

******

They also said they didn't support the law because they didn't want to be seen as divisive in their support of the law because the ASPCA opposed it -- even though, again, philosophically, they admit that they agree that open access laws are an important part of the No More Homeless Pets (or No Kill) equation.

I want to say, I'm all for everyone being on the same page when it comes to creating new laws -- it is certainly helpful that way. But if recent history has told us anything, sometimes the national organizations need to be dragged along to new ways of thinking. It wasn't because of collaboration that HSUS began supporting TNR programs or deciding that all dogs from fight busts should NOT be immediately killed. Oh sure, EVENTUALLY they got there through collaboration, but only after loud public outcry.

At some point we cannot let the organizatoins with the money and the big names continue to dictate animal welfare policies (or in this case) hold back a progressive one.

At some point you have to just push for what is right -- regardless of who agrees with you. And while collaboration is always preferred, we can't wait around forever, forgoing solid policies while animals die in uncooperative shelters because one organization's feelings were hurt and doesn't want to go along with it.

*******

So where do we go from here?

My hope is that a new open access law will resurface next year in New York and elsewhere. I think the people with a common interest in this should sit down together and figure out what are the necessary precautions to put into place to protect the animals from bad situations. Dooming them to death in the shelter if there are viable options for them is worse than the animal cruelty so many are trying to avoid.

And I would like to think that all parties involved should be willing to work on this together. If it's all about the well-being of the animals, then everyone should be able to put their personal feelings aside and do what is in the best interest of the animals -- and create something everyone can agree on. I hope.

And as an animal welfare commuity, we need to learn from this too. We need to get rid of the mindset that we need to 'kill 'em to save 'em", and we need to realize that creating policies that lead to thousands of animals being killed to protect them from remote possibilities of future danger is not good policy. Don't be careless, but don't kill them to save them either.

And we need to drag those who support bad policies (or don't support good ones) with us. Regardless of their name, or their bank account, we should push these national organizations to move toward policies that help end the killing.  Or force them to step aside.

If we are a humane population, we will do just that. 

For more info:

Winograd - Where have you gone Best Friends?

Best Friends - Shelter Access - Moving Forward

Best Friends - BFAS Statement on Oreo's Law

Winograd - Best Friends "Spin" Machine Goes into overdrive

YesBiscuit! - Best Friends Animal Society and Oreo's Law

For your Entertainment - On Oreo's Law

Change.org - Can there be a future for Oreo's Law?

Callous

On Sunday, as a part of the weekly roundup, I posted the online video footage of police officers in LaGrange, MO shooting a dog in their city.

The video is a 7 minute video that was edited from about 60 minutes of footage show police officers chasing a chained dog trying to catch it.  The dog was called a 'pit bull mix' (which is debatable from the footage) which apparently need to be licensed and muzzled in LaGrange.

After chasing the fearful dog (the dog actually spends the entire video trying to avoid the officers, not attack them) for around 60 minutes, officers finally secured the dog on a catch pole. The dog resisted the catch pole (which is common) for a bit, and then finally settled down. Upon the dog settling down, the officer drew his weapon and shot the dog twice - -killing it.

Upon the release of the footage, the mayor of LaGrange, Ronnie Powers, along with the rest of the city council, released this statement in reaction -- defending the officer's actions. Neither officer involved has been disciplined.

Here's a snippet (emphasis added):

"During the course of over 1 hour in which the officers were on scene, the dog refused to cooperate with the officers to allow for the safe transportation of the dog to the city dog pound for proper housing until the owner could be located. During this period of time, the dog continued to display aggressive and vicious propensities toward the police officers, and eventually broke the chain leash holding the animal. Following these incidents and numerous unsuccessful attempts to control the dog, the officers concern for the safety of the nearby residents, as well as themselves, became paramount and the officers were compelled to destroy the dog."

The dog had been controlled by the officer by the time it was shot.

The animal was fearful, not aggressive, and any fool who watches the video can see that.

The dog "not cooperating" with the officer with the catchpole would be a laughable statement if the ending wasn't so tragic.

It is impossible for me to even think that the mayor and the city council even watched the same video. The officer's actions were indefensible. And the mayor and council's defending it is even worse.

 

Topeka, KS Considering BSL Repeal

Last week, the Topeka Capital Journal wrote that the city of Topeka is considering repealing the city's breed specific laws. The Topeka law currently requires all 'pit bulls' to be licensed and microchipped. If a dog is suspected of being in violation of the law, then the city confines the suspected 'pit bulls' at the local Humane Society until owners are either cleared or charged in municiple court.

For the past decade, the city's animal control unit has been over budget by about $27,000 a year (a fairly large amount for a smaller community like Topeka that has amounted to $272,751 over the past decade) -- and the vast majority of those overruns is because of their need to confine the suspected 'pit bulls'.

"These are not dogs that exhibited aggressive behavior," said Assistant city attorney Kyle Smith. "They're just running loose or otherwise in violation of our breed-specific ordinances."

Meanwhile, many times there can be 20-40 dogs in the shelter that are awaiting their fate and often the humane society has to kill dogs of other breeds at the shelter in order to make space for the 'pit bulls'.

"Studies show that cities with breed-specific laws are not any safer," said Smith. "Stronger laws against aggressive and dangerous dogs which hold the owners responsible are seen as more effective."

I hope the council listens to Mr. Smith -- he seems to get it.  Smith has made some efforts to learn a lot about this issue. Last January, the University of Kansas Student Animal Legal Defense Fund sponsored a presentation by Best Friends' Ledy Van Kavage entitled "Due Porcess and Doggie Discrimination," and Smith, and several other representatives from the city were in attendence.

Following the presentation, the city put together a committee to address the city's dangerous dog law -- and the committee featured the city attorney, a city council person, a representative from Helping Hands Humane Society and the president of the Kansas Student Animal Legal Defense Fund group.

The proposal the city is looking at is a solid breed-neutral approach that focuses on animal cruelty, focuses on promoting low-cost spay/neuter services, and focuses on targeting aggressive dogs regardless of breed.

It looks like a great option for the city of Topeka and is similar to the trend we're seeing in other places.

Our friends over at the Game Dog Guardian have some more details on the committee that was formed, including links to the budget spreadsheets and Mr. Smith's proposal to the council.

Individuals can make a difference in their community with the right approach and working to educate council members on the information that is available and help them realize the realities of their archaic laws.

  

Yesterday's Animal Wise Radio

If you missed the live broadcast of my interview on Animal Wise Radio - you can catch the entire program via the Animal Wise Radio podcast at http://animalwiseradio.com/  It's currently program #1 under the headline "Betrayal". My interview comes on 9 minutes after the start of the second hour of the show.

The "Betrayal" is a really good interview with Nathan Winograd and his comments following the failure of "Oreo's Law" being passed in New York a couple of weeks ago. It's been the topic of Winograd's blog postings this week and I think it's an interesting interview and one that I will comment more on later this week.

As for my interview, I thought it went fairly well. Beth and Mike are gracious hosts and do a great job with their program.  As always, there are the "things I wish I'd said" that get missed in radio interviews so there are always those regrets.

In the interview, I talked about what our group, KC Dog Advocates, is doing in Kansas City to help with the No Kill movement. It involves getting involved politically and working with city leaders to create better laws that help animals.

One thing I wish I would have talked about was how important it was for ALL animal welfare groups whose primary mission is to end the killing of healthy dogs and cats in our shelters need to be involved politically to affect change. As a compassionate society toward animals, one in which 60% of the population owns pets, it is ridiculous that we have not created more influence at the city level to end the 1980s Catch & Kill animal control philosophies that still exist in many shelters.  It really is easy.

1) Know what laws do and don't work -- and have case studies for support. Restrictive pet limit laws, Mandatory Spay/Neuter, Breed Specific Legislation and laws that prohibit Trap/Neuter release programs DO NOT WORK.

2) Work with politicians to affect change (and if they won't make changes, vote in better politicians).

3) Get as much of the animal welfare community on the same page so politicians don't have to decide who is right, and who is wrong.

Politics is not a spectator sport and the animals need us to get involved.

The final piece of what we talked about was this blog -- you'd think that'd be an easy topic to write about, but it was strangely not as easy as I would have thought.

I made an initial comment about starting this blog to combat mis-information that was released by the media - and then Mike asked for a specific example. Clearly, there are a lot of examples, the number one topic I've discussed on this blog via my blog cloud is "Media Irresponsibility" . At the time, the general stuff (breed mis-identification, fear-mongering, over-reporting bites by certain types of dogs) all seemed pretty basic.

So instead of focusing on one of those examples, I chose a much more difficult subject that was way too long and drawn out for that type of radio format. So if my stumbling through the insurance company report confused anyone, here is the story.

Interestingly, the story I did use followed up nicely with something Mike and Beth talked about earlier on the show regarding the media taking press releases and just reporting on them -- however, I wasn't able to listen to the show live so I wasn't even able to play that up.  Sigh.

Hope you enjoyed the show -- and if you aren't a regular listener, I do recommend catching them on their website via podcast each week. It's a great show that provides a great service to the animal welfare community.

Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 6/27/10

Because of my trip last weekend, I missed last week's roundup - so a lot of stuff to get caught up on this week. I also got a new laptop this week, and my "favorites" all got reshuffled around in transferring them over, so I may miss a few things as I go through, but I'll do my best.

Cities/States and Laws

In spite of a lot of evidence out there that similar laws have failed throughout the US, San Bernardino, CA passed the first reading of a law that would mandate that all 'pit bulls' in the county be spayed or neutered.  A final vote on the bill will be held in July. Rinalia has a good breakdown of the mis-information perpetuated through the process at For the Pit Bulls.

Local humane society says that Center, MO's recent passage of a ban on 'pit bulls' is based on ignorance ond not what is effective. Nopitbullbans has more

Prairie Du Chien, IA was discussing the possibility of taking the city's current law that puts restrictions on 'pit bulls' and try to ban them altogether. The mayor put together a committee to review the matter and the committee came back withthe idea of removing the breed specific laws altogether. Now they will discuss the matter - if you live in or around Prairie Du Chien, you need to help them decide which way to go (ie, listen to your committee).

More on the changing tide for Denver's breed ban.

Butte-Silver Bow, MT is looking at a new ordinance that would require all 'pit bulls' to be tethered when in their own yard. I can only hope that the folks out there will straighten this out before the city creates a new problem that doesn't even exist yet.

Rockville Center Village banned two types of dogs (Rottweilers & 'pit bulls') -- which is a violation of New York state law.

Dalcambre, LA is considering breed-specific legislation.

Lynn, MA is considering a new law that would automatically classify 'pit bulls' as dangerous dogs.

After some brief discussions about breed specific legislation, Adams County, MS passed a new breed-neutral dangerous dog ordinance.

Prattsville, MS is looking at adjusting their dangerous dog ordinance after a Husky-type dog that has been roaming at large has attacked multiple people and dogs.

Dog Bites and Attacks

Major dog bites are very rare. Most of the nation's 78 million owned dogs will never be involved in anything more than a harmless nip. However, sometimes, due to parent and owner responsibility, sometimes bites do happen. When they do happen, it is a variety of breeds that are responsible, and a series of events that caused the attack.

A Redding, CA woman was attacked by a Japanese Tosa at a dog park.  The woman had 30-40 stitches after the attack.

In Youngstown, OH, a 2 year old toddler wandered up to a chained up dog -described as a Cocker Spaniel-Lab mix - in the neighborh's back yard and sustained injuries to its face and head. At least one news source decided not to report the type of dog involved. Youngstown has breed-specific legislation.

Also in Youngstown, a 7 year old was attacked by a large Great Dane and suffered significant injuries, including possibly a broken leg and arm.

A Golden Retriever attacked an 81 year old woman in New Bedford, MA who was walking home frm Sunday Mass.

A 2 year toddler suffered severe facial injuries after being attacked by a family dog in Piqua, OH.

Police shot and killed an American Bulldog that attacked a 38 year old woman and the 5 year old boy she was babysitting in Lakeville, MA.

In the UK, a family's border collie lept into the car and mauled a 7 month old child -- who nearly lost his leg because of the attack.

ABoxer mix in Nevada must now be muzzled, kept in a special pen and have a $50,000 insurance policy after it attacked a woman walking two dogs -- killing one of the dogs.

Abuse Cases

A shocking video as police in LaGrange, MO shoot a dog that was tethered and fearful of them trying to catch the dog. They eventually get the dog on a catch pole and then just shoot the dog. The dog's owner vows to seek changes in the dog law that made him get the fine for his non-aggressive dog being shot.

A year old pit bull mix was found hanged to death on a playground in a Philadelphia neighborhood. The details are a bit gruesome -- so I'll save them for the link.

In Memphis, a family left their 'pit bull' in the car outside a plasma clinic for four hours in last week's sweltering heat.  The dog was in really bad shape when police found it and the dog was euthanized.

Positive Press

Dr. Patty Khuly talks about breed specific legislation vs "damage by dogs" laws that are breed neutral in nature.

The Napa Register notes that pit bulls make great pets when they are properly trained.

Pit bulls make great pets -- nice work by PetSmart and the Seattle Humane society for their efforts to change perceptions.

Miscellaneous

A great article on our local Safe Harbor program that works with prisoners to train and rehabilitate dogs that need it to make them more adoptable -Safe Harbor Offers Redemption to both dogs and men in prison.

Don't leave Fido alone with Kids - some good tips on preventing dog bites from the Acorn newspaper. 

Blog Postings Worth your time

Some good news for the folks in Forrest City, AR at YesBiscuit! -- who just a few weeks ago had their shelter director pushed aside after a major catastrophy and the police chief has taken over the shelter. Turns out, in just a few short weeks, the shelter has had major improvements and things seem to be going better.

No kill by any other name is still no kill -- The Wisconsin Watchdog comments how shelters often try using other names for saving all of the healthy and treatable animals in their community -- but most have the same goal -- ending the killing.

The City of Swan - a case study in cat management - from Saving Pets

Let's Clone Calgary's Animal Control - from Change.org (and yes, their animal control is really that good, and it's a shame that more people have not tried to replicate their overall approach).

The police definition of 'pit bull' often seems to be "any dog we shot' - from Lassie Get Help.

Montgomery advertiser uses pit bull photo for Husky problem - For The Pit Bulls (ever notice how snarling pit bull type dogs make up the stock photos for dog bites whether a bully was involved or not?)

Donating to HSUS: Do you know where your dollars go? - Fully Vetted

Taking on the city: One way to get rabies exemptions for sick dogs - Bad Rap

The fallacey of "Better off Dead" - by For Your Entertainment -- nice work by John Sibley

I'll be on Animal Wise Radio Tomorrow

Tommorrow I'm going to be holding an interview on Animal Wise Radio.  Animal Wise Radio takes a weekly look at No Kill News around the nation. I'll be on talking about some of the things Kansas City Dog Advocates is doing here locally, probably a little about this blog, and probably a little about the upcoming No Kill Conference in Washington DC.

I'm scheduled to be on from 1:20 to about 1:50 CST.

If you live in the Mpls/St. Paul metro area you can listen live on KYCR (AM1570), and KDWA (AM 1460).  In Phoenix and Tucson it is  broadcast on KFNX.  Or you can listen online anywhere in the nation at www.kycr.com or www.kdwa.com  or on www.allpetsradio.com and podcast  at  www.animalwiseradio.com. 

Should be fun.

Truth, deceit, & why Breed Specific Legislation fails regardless of what some might say

Earlier this week, dogsbite.org issued a press release supposed "data" showing that breed specific laws work.

You can read the press release here, or go over to their website and get their support points -- which mostly consist of a handful of quotes from newspaper articles.

Of course newspaper articles without real numbers in them aren't really data - data would involve actual numbers and results. What may be more troubling, is when you look at the examples they give, when you look at the actual DATA, they have actually proven themselves to not be effective at all - -and in many cases, made things LESS safe, not more safe.

Thankfully, as best I can tell, no media source has actually picked up this press release -- so I think people are finally catching on to the reality that they really aren't all they claim to be.

Now, before we dive into the numbers, I want to be fair about what I think the role of  a successful ordinance should be:

1) Improve the overall public safety from dog bites - thus, dog bites, particularly major ones. This should include bites from ALL types of dogs, not just one type. If the general opinion among experts is that dog bites are caused by reckless owners, then we need to stop dog bites regardless of what type of dogs they choose to own. Plus, if enforcement resources are over-extended in one area anc cause them to slough off in another, that is not good either. So total dog bites should go down.

2) Protect animals from people -- whether it be protecting animals from cruelty, or from being killed in the shelter. 

3) Be cost efficient - there are many, many services that cities provide, and dog bites are a relatively minor problem compared to other more major ones. So an efficient use of tax payer funds should be considered here.

In their press release they mention "success" in 13 different North American cities -- of those, I have the actual data behind 7 of them. So for now, I'm going to leave off the other 5 but I kind of have a feeling once you see the trend in the 7 that I have real numbers for, you'll probably get a feel for the accuracy of their report.

Council Bluffs, IA

Their claim: success, because the number of 'pit bull' bites has gone down from 19 to 0.

Reality: Here are the total # of dog bites in Council Bluffs by year since 2003. The ban was passed in 2005.

2003: 85

2004: 131

2005: 115

2006: 132

2007: 98

2008: I don't have 2008 number

2009: 97

So the year with the highest number of bites was after the ban, and the lowest was before the ban. And pretty much everything shows that numbers are leveling off right around where the average was before the ban.  It certanily isn't a sign of a steady decrease. The breeds involved have changed with now the majority of bites coming from Boxers, Labradors and German Shepherds -- all larger breeds of dogs than 'pit bulls'.

San Francisco

Their claim: based on a quote from a newspaper article is that the number of pit bull bites has gone down and the number of complaints have dropped.

Reality: San Francisco's law is not a ban, but does mandate that all 'pit bulls' be spayed or neutered.  And I wrote a detailed report on San Francisco's "success" here.  According to the numbers I received from the San Francisco Animal Control, the number of 'pit bulls' euthanized did decrease in the first 18 months of the ordinance being in effect (some friends I know in the Bay Area note that this hasn't necessarily been the case, but I'm just reporting what I have).

Meanwhile, the total number of bites increased by 13.4%. This is considered success by dogsbite.org.

Meanwhile, a Professor at the California State University- Sacramento also did research on the San Francisco case - -and her results were similar to mine.

Omaha, NE

Their take: They again declare success based on a decrease in bites by 'pit bulls'.

Reality:

In 2006, Omaha had 916 reported dog bites.

In 2007, they had a 10% decline to 821.

Through June, 2008, the city was 14% below the 2007 pace. However, by the end of the summer, they had passed their new breed-specific ordinance and by the end of the year, they finished 2008 with 808 bites, just 1% below their 2007 numbers (with 41 more bites in the last 6 months of the year than they had in 2007 before the ordinance was discussed).

In 2009, bite numbers increased 9% to 875 bites.

And the cost to get the increase in dog bites was an additional $75,000 a year paid to the Nebraska Humane Society to enforce the ordinance.

Little Rock

They say: Success, because animal control officer Tracy Roark says that pit bull bites have decreased and that you don't see pit bulls chained up all over the city any more.

Reality: Again, this is a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for 'pit bulls', not a ban. In the first six months of the ordinance being passed, the city saw a 44% increase in the number of pit bulls killed at the shelter (nearly 400 total dogs).

Bite numbers declined about 9% -- so that impact there was positive.

The cost was about $100,000 in increased animal control fees for the city.

Ontario/Toronto

They claim success based on some rough numbers published in the Toronto Sun Newspaper.

Reality: There has been no statistical change in the number of dog bites in the province of Ontario since the ban went into effect. The numbers have simply fluctuated by about 1-1.5% per year since the ban went into effect.

Meanwhile, cities throughout the province have killed over 1,000 'pit bull-type' dogs and spent a fortuneharrassing people with look-alike type dogs, and struggling with the unenforceable law. Several municipalities in Ontario have simply decided to no enforce the ban and ignore it.

Lancaster, CA

This one is one of my favorites. This law has been declared a 'success' because in the year after they passed the ordinance mandating that all 'pit bulls' and Rottweilers be spayed or neutered, the mayor of Lancaster credits the ordinance with a 45% decrease in violent crime in the city and a 41% decrease in gang crime.

I'm not sure how he thinks a dog law solves gang crime, but hey, to each their own.

Reality: Lancaster, CA was incorporated as an actual city in 1977 -- and had 37,000 residents at the time. 23 years later, the city had 114,000 people and the 9th fastest growing city in the US. By 2009, it was estimated that the city had 145,000 residents.

With the rapid growth came the growth in crime -- this isn't uncommon as cities usually don't expand services like police enforcement as fast as the city grows. By 2002, the city had a huge crime problem -- in 2002, the city had 1,362 violent crimes in the city. At the time, the crime index for the city was 465 (the natoinal average is 320).

By 2008, in spite of 27% population growth, they were down to 1,190 violent crimes and a crime index of 392. So crime has been falling significantlyin Lancaster for over a decade.  Not because of a dog law, but because of stepped up enforcement efforts to stop crime.

The 2009 decline in violent crime was a continuation of this nearly decade long trend in lowing violent crime in the city. Meanwhile 1,138 dogs were killed in the shelter because of the law.

These are their "success stories".

Breed specific laws don't work to save animals' lives. They don't work to protect the public, and they don't work to save the public money.

They just don't work.  And the dozen people out there who are trying to convince people otherwise are disingenuous and relying on annecdotal data vs real data. Let's make decisions on real data.

For more, see more thoughts on this PR release at No Pit Bull Bans

Tragedy, speculation, the hysteria of the moment, and a ridiculous laws that don't solve problems

In Feburary, seven year old Anastasia Bingham was found dead in Terry, MS -- a victim of an apparent fatal dog attack.  At the time, the media reported that the young girl was killed by a 'pit bull' that animal control officers found roaming at large near the scene. It must be noted though, that authorities also stated that there were several other dogs roaming at large in the same area at the time - but at the time they believed the 'pit bull' was responsible.

After DNA tests were performed to see if the 'pit bull' was responsible for Anastasia's death, it was determined that the dog  was not dog that killed her. Authorities also dug up a second dog to see if it was the guilty part, but DNA tests there proved inconclusive.

So at this point, police have no idea what type of dog was involved in the attack, and only that the 'pit bull' that was was one of several at-large dogs near the scene was NOT involved.

As with many tragedies, county officials felt they had to "do something" and started discussing potential legislation (note, immediately following tragedies is never the best time to discuss legislation because the laws end up becoming more emotionally based than fact-based). After a few months of discussion, the county, just this week, passed a new law that singles out 'pit bulls' and wolf hybrids and their owners need to apply for a special permit within the county to own the dogs-- even though it doesn't appear as if either of these types of dogs was actually involved in the attack.

The end result is a law that would do nothing to have helped this young girl, even if it had been put  in place prior to her death...and the whole conversation about 'breeds' is a huge distraction from what appears to be the real issue - which is groups of dogs seeming to be allowed to roam freely at-large with no repurcussions.  However, the county allowed them to get sucked into the hysteria-of-the-moment (note that in initial stories right after the girl was found dead, the officer at the scene said he planned to push for a ban on 'pit bulls') and created a policy that wouldn't even scratch the surface of stopping the problem (and even if the dog involved was the 'pit bull'-type dog, it still wouldn't have been a viable solution).

We need to quit encouraging our cities to make knee-jerk reactions based on speculative evidence of which dog was involved, emotions and hysteria, and really pressure them to make sound decisions based on the advice of experts in their community and nationally.  Maybe then we can make a dent in minimizing attacks like this...but Hind's county's solution isn't a solution at all.

Confirmation bias and the partisan politics of the animal welfare movement

Confirmation bias is defined as a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. Confirmation bias often results in people collecting new evidence, interpreting evidence in a biased way, or selectively recalling information from memory.

We all suffer from confirmation bias to one degree or another -- and the better we understand how it manifests in us the better. Confirmation bias affects the organizations we join, the news we choose to read, and even the information that we see because of the Google terms we select (one may end up with a very different view of 'pit bulls' for instance if somone chooses to type the terms "pit bull bites" vs the terms "pit bulls: family dogs").

Because of confirmation bias, people often then seek out groups of people who share similar beliefs. The internet has provided countless ways for people to connect with others who share their beliefs. When we associate with others that share our beliefs - we become succeptable to the idea of group polarization. Group polarization is the idea that as people interact more with people who share their same beliefs, they become more convinced in their beliefs and more extreme in their views. This causes an overconfidence in personal beliefs that allows people to maintain or even strengthen their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.

When groups become polarized, and overconfident in their beliefs, they then become very inclined to try to discredit any person or groups of people that offer opposing viewpoints - and by discrediting the source, the belief is that it makes the information incorrect also.

These ideas aren't new -- and they can be seen throughout all areas of daily life (I'll save my rant on how this is killing our national politics for another forum). But over the past few months I've seen this manifest itself a lot in the animal welfare movement....and here are a couple of examples that have really struck me in the past few weeks.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws

For years, people in the breeding community have opposed mandatory spay/neuter laws -- however, in recent years, more animal welfare organizations have also taken notice of the negative impact of these laws and have taken a stance against them -- including the AVMA, ASPCA, the No Kill Advocacy Center, Best Friends and American Humane Association.

Even so, it seems to have become a more partisan issue on the local level. When the idea of it comes up, many will step up and note the failure of the laws in other areas and why the laws shouldn't be passed. When they do, often they are dismissed by folks in the rescue/shelter community because it is assumed that these people are "breeders" or somehow taking money from the breeding community and that is why they don't support the mandatory spay/neuter laws. Instead of listening to the evidence, or looking at the data, they dismiss it because it is, in their minds, not coming from a "credible" source - but one that is only seeking out their own self interests.

And even though most national animal welfare groups do not support MSN, it is still widely supported by folks in local shelters who are often dismissive of the real-world results and real impacts of the laws when passed in communities.

Humane Watch vs Humane Society of the United States

One polarized, partisan debate recently has been between the website HumaneWatch.org and the Humane Society of the United States. The HumaneWatch website has been a widely read, widely distributed and controversial website since it was launched by the Center For Consumer Freedom 3 months ago. It has been really easy for HSUS and supporters of HSUS to try to discredit the website because of who is funding it. For months now, HSUS director Wayne Pacelle has been working to expose the funding sources behind the CCF and CCF director Rick Berman. Even mainstream media is picking up on the story.

And make no mistake, the CCF is funded by big business, and is established to protect the interests of big business.

But that doesn't mean that most of their allogations against HSUS are untrue. In fact, regardless of who is funding Humanewatch, it doesn't change that many of their criticisms of HSUS are true.

1) HSUS is the only animal welfare organization that has embraced dog fighter and felon Michael Vick --the most hated athlete in America disliked by 69% of Americans - but embraced by HSUS.

2) In spite of fundraising promotions that lead people to believe that they are actively providing care for animals, less than 1% of all of their donations go to local shelters that do provide hands on support for animals.

3) Many states have no shelters that received any funding from HSUS for actual hands-on care of animals -- and most states have only a few shelters that have received any aid or funding.

4) HSUS has actively fundraised to help dogs that weren't actually in their care (nor were they planning on providing raised funds to help the animals they were using to fundraise off of).  They also did this during the Mike Vick case - asking for money to care for the dogs seized in that case even though they were not caring for the dogs and were simultaneously lobbying for them to be killed.

5) HSUS has been involved in dog busts, claimed to be "working with local humane organizations to adopt them out to loving homes" -- even though HSUS quickly left town, leaving the local organization to care for the animals on their own -- 28 of the dogs ended up dying at the local shelter because they were overwhelmed and had too little support.

6) While many animal welfare organizations are struggling mightily, HSUS sits with over $100,000,000 in the bank -- and much of their current donations go toward fundraising.

And it doesn't change that at least Humanewatch is promoting donating money to local shelters that badly need money in this economy.

Does that mean I love the CCF? No. In reality, I probably share more common beliefs about how animals should be treated and cared for with HSUS than I do with the CCF.

But that doesn't mean the actual facts presented by Humanewatch should be completely ignored. While many seem quick to dismiss them because of who is behind them (including HSUS director Wayne Pacelle), the actual data on the site should be paid close attention to. We should hold the world's wealthiest humane organization to a higher standard - and we should demand better. We should demand truth in advertising from them. And if we don't feel confident about where donations to them are going, we should seek out places to donate those dollars.

It's easy to dismiss those we think we disagree with. But it takes a smart person to look at data and understand that we can learn from all of it -- regardless of the source - -and not let confirmation bias and group polarization allow us to dismiss all information froma source just because of who is funding them. 

Every pet has a personality and a story

Christie has an interesting post today over at the Pet Connection today about Sido - the dog that is generally credited with starting the No Kill movement in the U.S.

Esssentially Sido's owner committed suicide in 1979, and left in her will that Sido should be "destroyed". But the director of the San Francisco SPCA, Richard Avanzino, declined to kill Sido saying that she had a right to live.

"The law says a pet can be destroyed like a piece of furniture" Avanzino told the Anchorage Daily News. "We're saying that's wrong."

At first, Avazino told me, "it was sort of like, 'what is all the furor over a little creature walking on four legs?' And they would come into my office and she would walk over to them an she would put her paw on their knee....and she'd look up at them with those beautiful eyes and they said "I get it. I understand'. And they wrote the story."

It was that one dog, that one case, that change Avanzino's outlook on his job at the SPCA. From Christie's San Francisco Chronicle article Avanzino said:

"I knew then the American people were ready for a transition," he said. Sido's story told him the time was right to make the move from using death as a method of dealing with homeless animals and calling that 'humane'.

Sido's story dates back to 1979.

The great news of the story is that the animal welfare movement has made great strides since this time in reducing the killing happening in our shelters. At the time, US Shelters were killing roughly 20 million animals in their shelters annually. Today, the number is closer to 4 million.

Unfortunately, each of those 4 million has a personality, just like Sido, that if you just met them, you'd understand why we need to save them.

And the great tragedy of the story is that 30 years later, many people have failed to embrace the movement to end the killing of animals in our shelters as the only "humane" option.

We've made great progress. There is still more work to be done.  But there are more options out there rather than killing them. If we took killing off the table, would your shelter find a way to find homes for all of the pets? Or is killing still seen as a 'simpler' solution than the alternative?