Topeka leads the way with new animal legislation (and how your city can do it too)

Last night, by a unanimous vote of the city council, the city of Topeka, KS passed their new animal welfare legislation.  Their legislation focused on 3 primary points:

1) Repealing their breed-specific legislation -- Topeka originally passed their breed ban in 1981 - -making it one of the oldest breed-specific laws in the country. About 10 years ago the city repealed the ban, but still left tough restrictions in place.  As of last night, all breed-specific restrictions are lifted and replaced with a breed-neutral, behavior-based definition of dangerous dogs.

2) A new tethering ordinance is in place -- making it illegal to tether a dog for more than 15 minutes while the dog is unsupervised. If the dog is supervised (the caretaker is within easy ear-shot of visual sight of the dog) then the dog can be tethered indefinitely.  I confess that I haven't generally loved tethering ordinances -- frankly because I think most are so poorly written that they don't really focus on the real problems or are unrealistically unenforceable. I really think this one focuses on the real issue (when a dog is left to fend for itself on a tether) while being easily enforceable.

3) Allows for TNR for feral cats. 

In all three laws, I think the city really reflected what I think is the best in current thinking in companion animal legislation -- and in the process, repealed two very archaic ideas for laws.

This has all been a pretty lengthy process.  Back in January, The University of Kansas Student Legal Defense Fund hosted a forum with Best Friends' Ledy Van Kavage who  spoke about the failures of breed-specific legislation.  A couple of members of the Topeka government attended the presentation.  When presented with the discussion about the high costs of BSL, the city attorney went back and ran the numbers -- and noted that over the past 9 years, the ordinance had caused the city animal control budget to run over by $272,000.  The city has also had really high euthanasia rates.  The assistant city attorney, Kyle Smith, estimates that the change in the ordinance will save the city from $30,000-$50,000 a year, "at least".

So the city put together a group of experts in their community and that group met to put together a new ordinance for the city.  The experts included folks from throughout the community and they put forth the current ordinance -- which passed unanimously.

The rest of the city came out in support.  The Helping Hands Humane Society supported the law "110%" because they said the current laws were a driver in the shelter's high kill rates. The local AKC club showed up and discussed how many groups (including the area Boxer club) would not come to events in the city -- which cost both the club, and the city, money.  And many other groups came out to lend their support.

In the end, Topeka set an example that breed-specific legislation does not work. They showed that any city that really wants to look at breed-specific legislation objectively, outside of pre-conceived ideas or in the face of hysteria of the moment, they will find that the legislation doesn't work, and is costly, and is not the type of legislation that is effective or good for the city or its residents.

And because of that, they ended up with a very good ordinance -and one that has garnered attention from officials in Ellis, KS; Toledo, Oh; Douglasville, GA; and Denver, CO -- all of which have either current breed-specific policies or are considering them.

So if your area has breed-specific legislation, hold an informational seminar and invite your local politicians. Encourage them to set up a committee of experts in the community to look at their animal welfare policies.  If you are in a breed club - don't support events in cities with breed-specific legislation -- make it hurt their pocketbooks a bit.  And most of all, get to know your politicians and encourage them to enact more responsible legislation for cities.

A tip of the hat goes out to our friends at the Game Dog Guardian who have been involved in this from the start - -and they have more info at their website.

More info from WIBW.

And still more from the folks at Game Dog Guardian.

Comments

[Donna]

Applause! Applause!

[Lisa in OH]

Sending a HUGE round of congratulations to all involved. Well done :)

[EmilyS]

"The local AKC club showed up and discussed how many groups (including the area Boxer club) would not come to events in the city"

wow, for real? I didn't know there were AKC clubs that had such principles... I am really impressed. Contrast to the clubs in Colorado that use Denver and Castle Rock... including the "all" terrier club that will hold its special terrier- only event in Castle Rock. Because you know, the breeds CAN show there (as usual there's an exemption). grrr...

[J.M.]

Good for them.
That`s impressive.

Did you forget an "un"supervised in that tethering section?

[Brent]

Yes -- but it's fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out.

Yes Emily -- it is amazing how many people are unwilling to take a stand if it inconveniences them in any way.

[Roberta Beach]

What really impressed me is the officials who attended the information seminar offered by the Defense Fund, took the information seriously enough to run the numbers and see for themselves how BSL does NOT work. Absolute congratulations to all, indeed.

[kmk]

Very good coverage, Brent; however, the Topeka ordinance was passed in 1991, not 1981. Don't make it worse than it already is, LOL.

The oldest ordinance in the Kansas City metro area is Shawnee, Kansas' ban. It was put in place in 1984 and was promoted by a part time city attorney and law student at UMKC's law school named Mike Santos.

[Brent]

I've seen the 1981 date in several places now. It doesn't feel right -- given that Hollywood, FL is generally thought to have the first pit bull ban in the country and it was in 1981 -- but I just reported what all of the other media outlets have reported.

[EmilyS]

meanwhile the stupidity in Denver escalates: ACO thinks it would be cool to have people spy on their neighbor's pit bull service dogs (I guess to prove that they're not really service dogs??), and city council member still doesn't get that ADA regs do NOT require any certification (or formal training for that matter). And of course, Denver shouldn't have to subject itself to federal regulations. gah

http://denver.yourhub.com/Denver/Stories/YourHub-Staff-Stories/Story~880662.aspx

[Fran C.]

While some "get it" others dont'. Looks like Denver is still nsisting on living in the dark ages. What is wrong with both the media and the politians there? Politicans talk about public safety and then do the opposite of what works?
Kudo's to Topeka.
I look foward to reading about the successful results their new by-laws will show.

[kmk]

It's okay, Brent, you write a great blog and you're forgiven for the 1981 date on the Topeka BSL.

In your defense it sure FEELS as though it passed in 1981; in fact, there are days when I would swear I have been fighting this stuff since 1881!

Hollywood FL, TiJeres NM, Lynn MA, and Shawnee KS were some of the earliest cities with BSL.

Unfortunately, we witnessed the downfall of Topeka first hand - in 1991. The people in Topeka had some very credible residents lined up to speak, including a respected veterinarian and a behaviorist who was friends with Ian Dunbar and was in charge of the 4-H Program in Topeka.

The same trainwreck happened in Topeka that happened in Kansas City, KS. A bunch of idiots stood up and started threatening the councilmembers, telling them they were stupid, telling them they knew where they lived, etc. The BSL passed. That's also similar to what happened in Independence MO, except in Independence it was councilmembers and city employees threatening each other, LOL.

I think Kansas City, KS (1990) would have passed BSL even if Ghandi, Jesus, and The Pope had testified against the proposed ordinance, but there was a solid chance of stopping it in Topeka. It just didn't work out.

Topeka is in Shawnee County, KS and Shawnee County passed BSL about six months after the city passed BSL. (Shawnee County then repealed their BSL about ten years later and replaced it with a generic DDO).

We then had 15 years of relative peace and quiet until all heck broke loose in Independence, MO and Kansas City, KS in 2006.

[KC KS Kills Dogs]

Interestingly enough, Kansas University law school chapter of ALDF, who hosted a seminar months ago on Dangerous Dogs and BSL invited many Kansas area city leaders to their educational event.

Cities like Overland Park, Kansas City, KS, etc that all have had pit bull bans for years did not participate in the seminar.

I know other groups that have also invited many of the city leaders of various Kansas State cities with antiquated BSL laws; without success. That says a whole lot about a city's leadership when they are not interested in learning how to improve public safety regarding the dogs in their community.

Topeka on the other hand attended and asked intelligent questions. Topeka's city attorney was an attendee and that led him to question the costs of BSL in his city. That opened up his eyes and the rest is history.

[Luke Russell]

Pitbull attack victim 2 year old Savannah Mae Edwards of Topeka brutally killed by a Pitbull on Dec 13 2012 Thanks you for your contribution to furthering your sociopathic agenda of endangering unsuspecting citizens from fighting breeds of dogs. Great work ars#holes.

[Brent]

"Luke" -- the tragic incident involving Savannah Edwards did not occur in the city of Topeka, but rather in the outskirts of Topeka in unincorporated Shawnee County. The area where the incident occurred was not under the influence of Topeka legislation...nor would the law itself been responsible for it, even if it had been in Topeka. It was a tragic incident, to be sure, but the Topeka law change was not the cause of it.