KC DOG BLOG

Updated: Arrest made in Memphis attack

Update:  23 year old Sherry Wooten has been arrested for her involvement in the attack. According to media reports, Wooten is dating Bernard Humphrey's brother -- and went to the apartment to let the dogs out of the bathroom because the landlord needed to fix a leak in the bathroom that was running into the apartment below. Wooten admitted to knowing the dogs were aggressive and involved in the Sunday incident, but still decided to let the dogs out to trun loose anyway. Wooten has been arrested and charged with negligent homicide. It's good to see the authorities holding people accountable for their actions -- although it is still unclear why the dogs were not confiscated after the Sunday incident. 

The original story:

Potential fatal dog attack, and why covering only part of the story is an injustice to everyone

Yesterday, news broke about a tragic incident in Memphis where a 71 year old man was attacked by two dogs. The man's daughter came to his aid and was also bitten and during the attack and the man, William Parker,  had cardiac arrest during the attack and later died at the hospital.

The Associated Press picked up the first story released after the attack -- which was picked up by nearly 200 media outlets across the country with the headline: "Tennessee Pit Bull Attacks Leave Elderly Man Dead."

 Of course, the story was far from complete -- and the headline not even completely accurate. It sure SOUNDS like the 'pit bulls' killed the man, but at the present time, there seems to be a lot of doubt as to the man's actual cause of death (which could have been from the heart attack he suffered).  All of the man's injuries appear to be on his lower legs. One news station even failed to mention the man going into cardiac arrest altogether.

Meanwhile, there is a lot more information to the story that sure paints a different story than 'pit bull' kills man.

Turns out, authorities knew in advance that the dogs were a problem -- and may, in fact, have made the problem worse.

On Sunday, police were called after the dogs attempted to attack a man. When the authorities came out, they arrested the owner of the dogs, Bernard Humphrey. The 31 year old Humphrey has quite a rap sheet -- with a criminal record that includes statutory rape, drug charges, weapons charges and vandalism.  Humphrey had recently moved to the property without notifying authorities -- which was a violation of his being on the sex offender registry.

Police arrested Humphrey - -and took him to jail. However, they left the dogs - -and it is unclear who, if anyone, was actually caring for the dogs (who, it is noted, were usually chained to a stair railing near Humphrey's apartment).

The attack took place in the 38103 zip code  in Memphis -- an area where 23.4% of the population lives below the poverty line (nearly double the national average) and 14% of the population lives below 50% of the poverty level.

Meanwhile, it would not be terribly surprising that Memphis' animal control would drop the ball when it comes to proper enforcement in the previous incident -- this is the same shelter than only a few months ago had several cases of horrific abuse in their animal shelter -- one of which led to a healthy dog being starved to death in just a short time in their shelter. Interestingly, just last week, YesBiscuit! noted that even though they had recently hired a new animal control director, the agency is still 800 calls behind in responding to calls.

So, what the vast majority of the media outlets didn't cover was an owner with a violent history -- who was hauled off to jail and no longer looking after the dogs. A neighborhood that is mired in poverty, and an animal control that is woefully behind in doing its basic job, and authorities that knew of a problem, and failed to do anything that would have prevented the attack -- or the reality that the man may well not have died from the actual dog attack at all.

When the media gets lazy, and only covers the story as a 'pit bull' attack, they do the world a disservice by not providing all of the causes that led up to the tragic incident.  When people see the entire picture, it really isn't a huge surprise something tragic happened - and it was highly preventable.  But ignoring causes only gets us further away from solving the actual problems.

My heart goes out to the Parker family -- who sounds like they deserved better than this.

Does Pay As You Wish Pricing have a place for animal shelters?

Back in October, 2007, the band Radiohead launched a new CD and made the album only available to buy online.  In exchange for the CD, they asked consumers to go ahead pay what they wanted for the CD. No set price. People could just pay what they wanted. In response, the band sold 1.75 million CDs in the UK (another 1.25 million in the US) and sold millions of plays on various pay sites. Retail sales of their boxed set increased, as did the number of of concert tickets they sold.

And in the process, a new retail pricing model began. Provide something of value, and ask people to pay what they feel is the real value of it.

Recently, Panera bread launched a similar model where people could order their meals, cashiers tell the customers the "suggested" price -- and people then pay what they want. After the first trial period, about 70% of people agreed to pay the suggested price, 15% paid less, and about 15% paid more.   There were, of course, some free-loaders, but there were also a lot of people willing to pay $20 for a cup of coffee.

Interestingly, as people have experimented with the idea, and done some testing, it turns out that people are more likely to pay more if they are told that "excess" money is going to help a charity vs going to line some business owner's profits. When a charity was involved, the casual freeloaders balked at the idea of paying nothing because it was more likely to reflect badly on them, yet customers with a desire for the priduct and the cause were willing to pay for both.

Which leads me to ask the question, can shelters and rescues succeed with a pay what you wish pricing model?  As charities (in most cases) themselves, they have a built in charity to them.

So let's say the "suggested" adoption fee is $50. What if we went to pay-what-you wish pricing?  Would some people take free adoptions?  Most likely -- and honestly, if they're good homes, that's probably ok. And on the flip side, if someone with some money came in to adopt, would they be willing to leave $100 with the extra to "help out" other animals? Most likely, yes.

I think it's interesting that many mainstream businesses have ventured into the pay-what-you wish pricing...and I'm wondering if anyone out there of a shelter that has tried this at all and what the results were from it. It sure seems like a great way to get a lot of publicity, overcome price barriers for adoptions, generate a lot of good will in the community -- and maybe get some high-dollar donations for adoptions in the process.

And, most importantly, find a lot of good homes for homeless animals -- which is the true end goal.

For more: Are "pay what you want" animal adoptions a good idea? - from Change.org

It's not a 'loophole' when the law is arbitrary

Looks like Denmark is finding out the hard way what experts told them before they passed their ban on 13 different breeds of dogs -- that it's unenforcable.

Apparently, since the breed ban in the country went into effect, many dog owners have been relicensing their mixed breed dogs as mixes of non-targeted breeds -- and if a vet says the dog's breed was incorrectly registered the first time, the country has to accept the expert opinion of the vet.

The president of the Danish Veterinarian Association, Arne Skjoldager, called the new law banning 13 breeds of dogs "completely useless" because a dog's pedigree cannot be determined with scientific accuracy.

"If puppies don't have a documented pedigree, then it's impossible for a veterinarian to know for certain what it is, expecially if it's a mixed breed," he said. "Not even a DNA test can help."

Of course, experts TOLD the government that before they passed the law -- and case studies of similar impossibilities of reliable breed identification exist throughout the world.

The media article calls it a "loophole" - but it's not a loophole if it's arbitrary and impossible to define. Which is what laws targeting breeds are.

Ontario 5 year ban-iversary gathering

  Five years ago next month, Ontario passed its ban on several breeds of 'pit bull' type dogs. In spite of testimonial by 43 experts in a canine-related field telling the provincal government to not pass the ban (1 person supported it), the government went ahead and passed the ordinance.

Since the ordinance has been passed, there has beenno change in the number of dog bites in the province and yet thousands of dogs have been killed at taxpayer expense, and thousands of families have been separated from their family pets because of the ordinance.

On August 29, at Noon, at Coronation Park, they will be holding a rally to support changes to the legislation that will make Ontario once again open to all dogs -- and focus its dangerous dog laws only on aggressive dogs -- regardless of breed - based on the behavior of the dogs.

Go out and show your support.

More info at stopk9profiling.

Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 7/18/10

Some interesting stories this week -- let's dive right in.

 Cities/States and Laws

Sioux City, IA has updated their dangerous dog ordinance. They have kept the breed ban art of the ordinance, but have added some clarification to how biting dogs will be treated in the community. Pit bulls are still not allowed in the city, but dogs with actual bite histories are now welcome. The city's dangerous dog law has been a constant source of hardship for the city since its passing 2 years ago. The new changes are actually better than what it was, but they will still have troubles with enforcement until they get rid of the breed specific restrictions.

A resident of Ottumwa, IA is trying to get the city to repeal its 7 year old breed ban. There is no evidence that the council really wants to repeal the ban, but at least they are listening. Vets, rescues and other experts in the community should really come forward to help get rid of the ordinance.

The UK bill that would remove all breed bans from the country has passed onto the 2nd stage in the House of Lords. Much more on the details of the law here.

The police chief in Laureldale, PA says there is no reason for breed bans in his community after a resident asked the council to consider such legislation. Laureldale averages one bite per year in the community.

Lynn, MA approved its new ordinance that requires 'pit bulls' to be muzzled -- in spite of appeals by rescue groups, shelters and veterinarians to not pass the law.

Joplin, MO recently passed a new law that will prohibit the use of chains as a way to restrain your dog. I'm not a fan of tethering dogs as a primary form of containment, but do understand that there may be times when it is a preferred method of containment (particularly for elderly people who may just do a short tie out for fido to do his business). I also am concerned that it may lead to more impounds in Joplin, a shelter that already has huge impound numbers and very high euthanasia.

The Winter Park Observer is promoting possibly new legislation to ban tethering in their community following a fatal attack in which a young boy was killed by a dog that was chained up in that community this spring.

A new dangerous dog ordinance that would remove breed-specific restrictions went before the Toledo City Council this week.

Point Pleasant, WV is looking at a potential ban on several breeds of dogs - the current law that's being voted on contains no "grandfather" clause.

Crawford County, AR is still looking at their dangerous dog ordinance, but it is now no longer expected to be breed-specifc.

Dog Bites and Attacks

A dog owner in Foxboro has received 23 complaints and 12 citations in the past 2 years pertaining to her German Shepherds that are constantly running loose. Most animal control departments spend a disporportionate amount of time dealing with a small percentage of the population -- which is why reckless owner laws are a good idea for most cities. Foxboro doesn't have one and is considering just banishing the woman's dogs -- without preventing the woman from owning other dogs.

A 76 year old Cleveland woman was bitten multiple times by 2 "American Bulldogs".  The dogs were apparently bought by the owner of the apartment complex for security purposes and the dogs were apparently startled by the woman in the wheel chair attacked her. Dogs bought almost solely for security purposes are often involved in incidents like this because it is difficult for them to discern "good" people from "bad" ones.

In Lewiston, ME, there have been two dog bite incidents in the past 3 weeks -- one involving a Mastiff/Rottweiler mix that was running at large and apparently attacked a smaller dog. Also,  two weeks ago a pair of huskies attacked and killed a dog that was being walked by a young girl.

Authorities in Ontario are looking for two dogs that were roaming at-large that bit a nine year old boy -- the two dogs are being described as a Border Collie/Labrador Retriever mix and a Labrador Retriever. Ontario has a ban on 'pit bull' type dogs.

A teenager in the UK was attacked by an American Bulldog. The UK bans muliple breeds of dogs but not American Bulldogs -- and is yet another example of the problems the nation's breed ban has caused.

A six year old girl in Colorado Springs was taken to the hospital after being bitten in the face by a 'pit bull' in that community.

Because strangely, not everyone wants to save animals

In New Jersey, the entire board of directors of the Liberty Humane Society (Jersey City and Hoboken) resigned this week because all of them wanted to save money by dramatically reducing the number of animals that were cared for at the shelter while the management at the shelter was pushing to become No Kill.

Mediots

"Woman 'hospitalized' after pit bull attack -- that's the headline from the Seattle Post Intelligencer -- the woman was inded bitten by a dog, in the calf, but was standing up waiting for the authorities to arrive. She received medical treatment for two bites to here leg -- which is certainly different than the word "hospitalized" would imply.

Kansas City area news

Spay/Neuter Kansas City received a grant from the Missouri Department of Agriculture for their efforts in providing low cost spay/neuter services to low income families.

A new startup prison dog program is proving to be great both for the prisoners and for the dogs.

More information on Topeka, KS working to change their pet laws -- changes would include getting rid of their  breed-specific law, allow a free ride home for licensed pets on the first time they get free and beginning to promote TNR programs -- all three are excellent ideas.

Abuse Cases

Because humans are the more dangerous species:

In Toledo, Lawrence Mick is one of two men who is accused of shooting his German Shepherd 6 times while it was in his kennel -- using a gun that he was no longer allowed to use due to preveious convictions.  Sadly, even though numberous people and rescue groups from around the country have stepped up to help Sarge (who appears to be recovering well from his physical wounds), the Lucas County dog warden may not allow Sarge to be adopted because Sarge has a bite history -- having previously bitten his owner (yes, the same one who shot him 6 times -- me thinks he may have deserved it).

In New Orleans,rescuers are trying to help a young 'pit bull' that is recovering from 2nd and 3rd degree burns from an owner putting some type of hot liquid on the animal....

Four years ago, four dogs were accidentally killed at the Chicago Animal Care and Control facility and 8 workers are now possibly going to be fired or disciplined for not only killing the dogs, but for then falsifying paperwork to avoid getting into trouble.

In Fargo, a man with a blood-alchohol content 3 times over the legal limit is accused of punching a young pit bull puppy twice in the face -- all while being observed by a young 5 year old child.

There is a ton of interest in adopting a young 'pit bull' puppy whose owner tried to set on fire. The dog seems to be recovering nicely and the shelter said they have received over 200 calls and emails from people wanting to adopt the young dog.  Sounds like good stories are enough to get a lot of people excited about adopting dogs...

A story from "For Love of the Dog Blog" about a couple that stole a neighbor's dog, took it away and shot it multiple times and then returned the dog to the neighbor's back yard -- all caught on the next door neighbor's survellience video.

Miscellaneous

Two groups in Bangor Maine are joining together to give a free, one-hour seminar to discus the misconceptions about 'pit bulls' in a hope to encourage more adopters for these types of dogs.

Atlanta Pit Bull Parents are working to promote owner responsibility when it comes to preventing dog bites.

After reports of Fox 11 in Los Angeles deciding to no longer allow several breeds of dogs on its Adopt-a-pet segment show, hundreds of letters and emails poured in and Good Day LA reversed it's decision and will now, once again, allow dogs of all breeds to be a part of the program.

Breed bans may affect your dog: It's not just about pit bulls and Rottweilers -- noting that breed bans have affected dozens of breeds of dogs in various parts of the country.

An interesting article about the St. Louis city animal shelter -- apparently the small cages make one feel more like it's a 'puppy mill' than an actualy shelter. Because of this, the new Health Department director is transferring more and more animals to rescue groups in order to get them into a more adoption- friendly environment. Transfers are up about 35% this year.

Yikes -- The Jefferson Parrish (LA) animal shelter admits that they have about an 11% adoption rate, 8% of animals are reclaimed by owners. That leaves about 81% of the animals being killed at the shelter.

NFL player Ernie Sims is a true animal lover -- and is trying to work with the rescue community to improve the reputation of 'pit bulls' and encouraging people to treat the animals better. Hopefully Sims' effort can draw half as much attention as his teammate's....

Mary Tyler Moore has a 'pit bull' type dog that senses when her blood suger gets low....which helps her with her diabetis.

Blog Postings you should read

Broward County Shelter Strikes Again -- YesBiscuit has an outstanding post about the failure of the Broward County shelter to save a dog's life even after the dog's owner contacted them about trying to get their lost dog home.

Does free adoptions equal bad homes? - Great information from the Houston Pets Examiner - and the article also addresses the "bait dog" concern.

Reality bites: Why rubbing noses into shelter euthanasia doesn't work - Dr. Patty Khuly at Fully Vetted discusses the decision by the shelter in Miami Dade to kill a puppy while the TV cameras rolled to show people what their irresponsibility caused.

On Oreo's Law: Why the "hoarding" argument is a Red Herring -- by Animal Ark writer Mike Fry.

We take from the poor and give to the rich - The Wisconsin Watch Dog takes a look at the success of animal control in Calgary, Alberta -- looking at how they have astonishingly high licensing rates and thus, very high return-to-owner rates -- because they've treated animal control as a service instead of as a police force set to punish people.

For the Pit Bulls has the story of 21 pit bulls in Providence, RI that are slated to be killed by Providence Animal Control in what is supposedly an effort to contain Parvo at the shelter.

Taking Liberties with Service Animals -- Pet Docs on Call talks about the supposed legal loopholes in Miami.

Dog we rescued actually saved us - -the joys of adoption from the Buffalo News.

Should dogs be bred?  - The Future of Dogs looks at breeding dogs and the future of owned canines.

Management of information

For those of you that are regular readers, you know that I'm a big fan of Marketing Guru Seth Godin. He has a way of making me think abou things differently, and can wrap it up in a short, concise way.

Seth's blog today is worth posting here in its entirety:

There are two things we can get better at:

1. Getting accurate signals from the world. Right now, we take in information from many places, but we're not particularly focused on filtering the information that might be false, and more important, what might be missing.

2. Sorting and ranking information based on importance. We often make the mistake of ranking things as urgent, which aren't, or true, which are false, or knowable, when they're not.

Dealing successfully with times of change (like now) requires that you simultaneously broaden your reach, focus on what's important and aggressively ignore things that are both loud and false.

Easier said than done.

I think this is interesting for the animal welfare industry. There is a lot of information out there. A lot of it is false and/or misleading. Filtering through the information is hard -- but necessary. There is a lot of good information out there that we can learn from -- but we need to be better at listening to the information provided by those who have been successful, and filtering out the info from the loudmouths and naysayers.

There are two things we can get better at:

1. Getting accurate signals from the world. Right now, we take in information from many places, but we're not particularly focused on filtering the information that might be false, and more important, what might be missing.

2. Sorting and ranking information based on importance. We often make the mistake of ranking things as urgent, which aren't, or true, which are false, or knowable, when they're not.

Dealing successfully with times of change (like now) requires that you simultaneously broaden your reach, focus on what's important and aggressively ignore things that are both loud and false.

Easier said than done.

Banning the sale of pets in pet stores - redux

Over the past week, one of the biggest discussions (it seems) around the country has been efforts by animal welfare advocates to ban the sale of pets in pet stores.

Earlier this week, the Austin Animal Advisory Commission approved a proposal that would ban the sale of pets.  The proposal will go before the full council in October.

Earlier this week, San Francisco began considering similar policy (although San Francisco's policy would ban the sale of hamsters, gerbils, reptiles, guinea pigs, and birds) and El Paso, TX is also considering such a measure.

Proponents of a ban on pet sales in pet stores suggest that ending the sale of pets in these locations would help stop 'puppy mills' -- who they say are the primary supplier of dogs and cats to pet stores. They also believe that by stopping pet sales, it will drive more people to adopting and help solve the problem of an over-abundance of homeless pets.

Puppy mills are often a target for animal welfare and animal rights groups as these groups feel that these breeding operations do not take proper care of their animals, keep them in unhealthy conditions and over-breed their animals.

The keeping of animals in horrible, unsanitary conditions is already illegal under the national Animal Welfare Act -- however, the USDA admitted recently ina 69 page report that it is not doing a good job of enforcing their own policies.

However, this lack of enforcement aside, I think it's fair to look at this from a data-standpoint to see if banning pet sales in pet stores would work to solve the problem.

Last year, PetSmart charities did a research study on a variety of topics. From their research, here is where people got their pets from:

Family member - 25%

Adoption org/shelter - 24%

Stray - 19% (8% for dogs, 30% for cats)

Purebred breeder - 12% (21% for dogs, 2% for cats)

Pet Store - 8%

Own litter - 5%

Other (undefined) - 7%

So pet stores themselves make up only a small percentage of all of the obtained pets in the U.S. And while banning pet stores would possibly lead to an increase in adoptions, adoption isn't the only option and people who would have bought at a pet store may find other options. So let's dig deeper into the report.

When people chose not to adopt, here are the reasons they gave for not adopting. Now, admittedly people often make emotional decisions and then rationalize them, so these may not be entirely accurate, but I think this will give us a good guide on why people chose options other than adopting:

Org/Shelter did not have the type of dog/cat looking for: 17%

I wanted a purbred dog/cat: 13%

Don't know what you'll get with a shelter animal: 12%

I don't know much about pet adoption: 10%

Adoption process is too difficult: 10%

Org/Shelters depressing/sad, don't like going there: 7%

Not convenient hours: 6%

No adoption org close to where I live: 6%

Feel that pets from shelters have health problems: 5%

Feel that pets from shelters have behavior problems: 4%

Feel pet org/shelters have poor customer service: 4%

Other: 50% (includes took in a stray, was not planning to get a pet, wanted a puppy, mention of a specific breed, too expensive for adoption fees/pay for spay neuter).

There are some that shelters can't do much about (particularly on some of the specific purbred wants/needs) and others that are educational elements shelters have to overcome -- but a good number of the reasons people said they didn't adopt (I bolded them) are completely fixable by the shelters themselves if they would choose to make more adoptor-friendly policies.

When you look at the reasons people chose to go to purebred breeders, the top reasons were:

I wanted a specific breed: 67%

I wanted a pet with known history: 46%

I wanted a purbred: 41%

It was the most reputable: 19%

There are others -- but these are the majors. Many of these may be tough for the shelter/rescue community to overcome (although some of these people could be reached). But since we're talking about pet stores, let's look at why people chose to buy from a pet store:

Could get everything pet needs at one place: 44%

I wanted a specific breed: 42%

It was most convenient: 31%

It was least expensive: 14%

Shelters could easily take a lot of this market share if they provided more convenient hours for adoptions, worked to secure more convenient off-site adoption spaces, and provided a more 'pet store-like" environment where people could buy everything their pet needs all in one place. 

My take away is that much of the reason people choose pet stores over things like reputable breeders or adoption has to do with convenience and price - -and much of the reason they choose not to adopt is because of the non-inviting, inconvenient and labor-intensive adoption process.

If these shortcomings are not overcome, it seems likely that the shelter/rescue community would gain the available market share even if pet stores were to close down. Currently,the majority of people already say they plan to get their next pet from a shelter or rescue.

The reality is that pet stores make up only a small source of all of the obtained pets in the community -- making up only 8% of the newly owned pets (it should also be noted, that some of these animals may have been "adopted" from a pet store that handled adoptions instead of purchased pets and the owner didn't really realize it). From looking at the reasons people choose to buy vs adopt, it sure seems like setting up some form of "retail" location would certainly overcome the majority of the hurdles -- and judging by the success of others that have done so, it sure seems like the case.

Meanwhile, if ending 'puppy mills' is the goal, it sure seems as if taking their market share, and pushing the USDA to enforce their current legislation would sure be a more sure-fire route to doing this.

I just think the banning pet stores is a bit of a smoke screen for rescues and shelters to try to hide their own shortcoming.  I think the pet store bans are completely unnecessary, and a scary trend.

For more discussion:

My previous post on this (which is probably better than this one - but with less statistical info)

PetDocsOnCall - against bans on pet sales

Dancing Dog Blog - Supports bans

Miami (not surprisingly) missed the point

Earlier this week, there was a story that was fairly highly publicized that supervisers in Miami-Dade County have expressed concern over apparently a growing number of 'pit bull' owners who are registering thier dogs as service animals. Federal rulings governing service animals would trump the local 'pit bull' ban, providing a 'loop hole' for these owners to skirt the ban.

Investigator supervisor Kathy Labrada said it's a challenge to verify what is or is not a service animal because there are no specific rules that are required for certification - -making it even more difficult for the county to enforce its ban.

Pit Bull bans conflicting with the Americans with Disabilities Act's comments on service dogs is not new. Currently, the cities of Denver and Aurora Colorado are both dealing with similar issues in the form of legal suits in those cities.

Meanwhile, Miami-Dade's focus on this problem shows that they completely lost sight of the true end goal -- which was originally, supposedly, public safety. So if public safety is the real issue (and why they supposedly have the ban in the first place), why are they wasting time and taxpayer dollars trying to figure out what to do about their problem of non-aggressive service animals?

The reality is that Miami has completely lost their focus on improving public safety -- and because of their ban, are completely wasting their time and resources dealing with their 'pit bull' ban.

In the past 9 months, the county has responded to more than 700 calls for pit bull investigations. Labrada notes that many of these complaints are completely unfounded because the dogs end up being other breeds other than 'pit bulls'. This is time, and animal control resources getting wasted dealing with non-aggressive dogs in the community that could be used to deal with cruelty cases, stray dogs, and truly aggressive animals -- to the tune of three wasted calls each day.

Even though the community has had a ban for over 20 years, last year the city still impounded more than 700 pit bulls - -killing most of them -- even though if the law had been enforcable the city would have been free of pit bulls years ago -- which doesn't appear to be at all the case. Meanwhile, I still am not sure how the  county is enforcing their breed ban at all after last year a judge ruled that their enforcement for the definition of a 'pit bull' was unconstitutionally vague.  The judge ruled that the law is "improper and must be invalidated immediately. The ordinance is unconstitutional, implemented inconsistently, selectively and results in capricious and arbitrary results."

While the city wastes resources dealing with non-aggressive dogs, their shelter continues to kill around 23,000 pets each year with a horrific 62% kill rate, and the has a much higher per capita bite rate than neighboring (and ban-less) Broward County.

Yip, those service dogs sure are the county's biggest problem.

Miami continues to focus their efforts on the wrong things...letting the impossibility of enforcing the county's 21 year old breed ban become a major distraction from everything that is really important. Hopefully, eventually, they'll figure it out.

For more: Fully Vetted - Pit Bulls in Miami-Dade Find a Loophole, But is it Fair?

Updated: Michigan boy found dead from apparent dog attack

Not a lot new, but the autopsy results did reveal that young Kyle did die from significant injuries sustained by dog bites.  The boy had multiple bite wounds on his head, neck, chest, arms and legs.

A lot of other questions remain of course, and I'll continue to update this as I get more info.

Meanwhile, I also want to note that after some conversations I've had over the past 24 hours with someone who has a lot more knowledge of Northern Breeds than I do, I'm going to say that this dog may well be some type of Husky mix. While here in the "south", we usually think of Husky type dogs looking like the ones we see in show rings, "husky' is often a very generic term for a specific type of working dog -- many of which do resemble this dog. So I'm going to leave this as being two mixed breed dogs until more information becomes available.

Original Text:

I've been holding off writing this because I'm waiting for more information to come out -- but I've gotten enough questions about it I want to at least get something out there based on at least what we think we know about the situation.

According to the reports, a 5 year old Lincoln Park, MI boy, Kyle Holland, was found dead in his home around 9:30 on Monday morning.

The boy's mother put the boy to bed around 10:30 on Sunday night. When she eventually went to go check on the boy 11 hours later, she found him dead.

Two dogs were in the house at the time of the attack -- one was a 90 lbs Wolf-Hybrid-type dog (the owner says it is a "Husky/German Shepherd mix" - but the pictures do look like the dog is a wolf-hybrid) and the other a smaller, 35 lbs "lab mix".

The dogs were owned by the mother's boyfriend -- who is being held by police for drug possession when police on the scene found drugs in the boyfriend's car. After obtaining a warrant to search the home, additional drugs were found.

Neighbors have reported that the dogs were a often a problem as they were often allowed to run loose and neighbors report "sneaking" food and water to the dogs so they would be able to eat or drink.

An autopsy was scheduled for yesterday -- but no new reports have come out since the original stories. I'll certainly update this if more information becomes available.

My heart goes out for the boy's mother and the rest of their family as they deal with this preventable tragedy.

Why is it so hard for the media to collect the actual data?

Question.

Let's assume you work for a local news source. Two years ago, your city passes a specific law that was designed to decrease the number of dog bites in your city. As a reporter, you decide to do a follow-up story on the law to see if it's working.  Do you:

a) Get the dog bite stats to see if it's working

b) Talk to the victim of the dog bite that pushed for the changed law and see if she thinks it's working?

If you're a reporter in Omaha,you apparently do option b.

The reporter did also talk to the head enforcement officer at the Nebraska Humane Society who also said that the law was "working" - noting that last year (when they also had their current dangerous dog law) they had 5 serious 'pit bull" bites, this year so far they've only had one.

I think the one stat provided by NHS is interesting. First of all, they compared the number of serious bites by pit bulls from one year after the law was enacted to another year after the law was enacted -- not to where numbers were before the ordinance was enacted. 2009 was a pretty bad year for dog bites all around in Omaha -- in the first year after the ordinance was passed.

NHS also casually mentioned that Labradors have already had 6 'serious' bites as well in the first half of this year.  It is worth noting here that 5 was the maximum number of "serious" Lab bites Omaha saw in any FULL year between 2003 and 2007 before the ban took effect. But hey, it's not a 'pit bull' right? So it must be working -- even if 'serious' would be defined the same way regardless of the type of dog involved.

Also, out of curiousity, why has KETV not reported any of those 6 serious Lab bites this year? Just curious.

The Nebraska Humane Society doesn't give out dog bite numbers -- and have been very secretive about the impact of their laws. They tend to just give out whatever snippets support their case. The new laws have been very profitable for them -- bringing in an extra $100,000 a year in revenue from the city PLUS one of the requirements for 'pit bull' owners to get around the law is for dog owners to get their dog to pass the canine good citizen test -- which is nicely available for a fee through the NHS.

However, a simple call to the city clerk's office would give the reporter the actually data that shows that overall dog bites have gone up since the law was enacted. This news report also comes a week after the Platte Institute noted that Omaha's ban was a "waste of taxpayer's dollars'. 

I attended journalism school....and we had entire classes dedicated to Freedom of Information Acts and Sunshine Laws. So why is it too much to ask for the media to find and report the actual data? To date, there has yet to be a media outlet in Omaha that has actually reported the numbers.

Talking to the victim and asking if they think it's working is not the same as getting the actual information. It's important we force city leaders to review the total success or failure of ordinances -- and open access to that information is the route to do it. Unfortunately it doesn't appear as if anyone in Omaha is ready to dive into the real data to see how the taxpayer's money is being wasted there and how overall public safety has not improved.