Self deception & rationalization in Omaha and Denver

People make decisions. And often they make quick decisions based on somewhat limited information. It's human nature. We cannot possibly research every single element of our lives to the fullest. So we often form opinions quickly.

The danger of this is that it becomes human nature to be more prone to DEFENDING their position on a particular topic than it is to actually CHANGE that opinion based on new data.

And thus is the situation with two communities that are defending their breed-specific policies.

Last night, in Denver, the city council again voted to delay a vote on whether or not to file an exemption of 'pit bull' service dogs from the city's 20 year old breed ban.

The city council has continued to delay a vote on this subject after the Department of Justice offered its final rule this summer on the topic of servcie dogs. In their ruling they said of the ADA:

"The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deferences would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities...state and local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular animal can be excluded based on that particular animal's actual behavior -- not based on fears or generalizations about how the animal or breed might behave."

While the Department of Justice's ruling could not be more clear that exceptions for service dogs must be made from the city's breed ban -- at least two city council members, Jeanne Faatz and Charlie Brown, wanted to vote down an exemption for service dogs because they viewed the federal regulations as an intrusion on the authority of local governments.  This "intrusion" is exactly why laws like the ADA exist -- to prevent local authorities from targeting individuals and limit their access and opportunities based on a particular disability. 

That fact seems to be lost on Brown, Faatz, and others on the council. 

This delayed decision comes at a time when the city is facing multiple lawsuits for their violation of the ADA....and the taxpayer money continues to fund the city's self rationalization that in spite of all of the science and research that contradicts them,  somehow they are right in their breed ban and everyone else is wrong. 

Meanwhile in Omaha, the city council will tonight look at a change in the city's 2 year old law that would prevent 'pit bulls' (very broadly defined as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Dogo Argention, Presa Canario, Cane Corso, American Bulldogs or any mix of those breeds) from having to wear a muzzle until they reach 6 months of age.  Currently all of the targeted breeds are required to be leashed, muzzled and harnessed while in public unless the dog passes the Canine Good Citizen Test.

Pam Wiese -- a spokesperson for the Nebraska Humane Society (which owns the animal control contract for the city of Omaha) - said that the required muzzling of pit bull puppies prevented them from socializing normally.  This is obviously one of the major drawbacks of laws that require muzzling -- muzzling and containment laws targeting specific breeds are designed to force isolation (I pointed this out as a problem 2 years ago when this was being discussed).  Forcing isolation, and thus, causing lack of socialization, is a recipe for creating a whole mess of under-socialized dogs. This is especially true for puppies, so fortunately the council looks willing to make this change, but is very important for dogs of all ages. It would be great if the Nebraska Humane Society -- and the Omaha city council - would recognize the importance of socialization for targeted dogs of all ages.  However, once the city has said "This is a good idea" it seems like they are unwilling to look at the reality that the whole law was a knee-jerk reaction that was based on a faulty premise in the first place.

Meanwhile, also of interest, the council is looking at decreasing the fines for at-large dogs -- decreasing the fines for unaltered dogs from $300 to $100 on the first offense and from $600 to $300 on the 2nd.  They realized the high fees were preventing anyone from picking up their animals at the shelter and NHS has noted that since the law passed they have seen a significant increase in the number of impounded animals left at the Humane Society (which generally translates to higher kill rates, although NHS does not make those numbers available to the public).

Meanwhile, Weise says the rest of the 2008 ordinance is "working well" -- although I guess actually decreasing dog bites isn't a requirement for "working" as bites in Omaha have gone up since the ordinance was put into effect after 3 years of declines prior to the ordinance passing.  "Working" is apparently a very relative term.

Comments

[Social Mange]

Why muzzle a 6 month and one day old dog? Geez, the dog has probably just been spayed or neutered and can safely socialize without fear of impregnation.

And exactly how thin is the air in Denver? Fats and the rest are obviously oxygen-deprived. They're the living definition of insanity - repeating the same action but expecting a different result.

[EmilyS]

it boggles the mind how people will twist themselves into knots trying to uphold that which cannot be upheld.

So now in Omaha, people are going to have to carry birth certificates attesting to their "pit bulls" age? As for Denver, I have to admit I'm enjoying their plight. I really really really want to see them try to argue in court that the feds have no right to establish ADA regulations that apply to citizens of the entire country (even Denver). Denver can get away with "home rule" IRT gun possession and breed bans (so far...) .. just not going to happen with federal regulations.

[Brent]

Emily, I tend to agree on Denver's plight. I'd love to see them go to court over this trying to defend their "right" to do whatever they want and the courts ruling AGAINST the Department of Justice? It'd be kind of fun to watch...

[Joel]

They may well realize they are wrong, but politicians have careers to protect. Unless the general public has made the issue a priority and are against the policy, do you really expect the politicians to backtrack? If they admit defeat on one policy, what policy or position can they not be attacked on? Unfortunately, Omaha and Denver will probably need new people in those positions before the laws have any chance of being amended.

[Alexandria Dolceamore]

no gonna like, i kinda like the CGC speculation in Omaha, its promoting responsible ownership. its not hard to do if you actually care about having a good dog.

[dee]

I live in Denver. Charlie Brown is a confirmed idiot. How he keeps getting elected is truly beyond me. All the people I know who live in his district despise him.

[EmilyS]

but Dee: obviously not "all" the people in his district despise him.. or if they do, they're not voting.. The ones who DO vote clearly support him. The people who despise him need to find someone to run against him. That's the only way to get change.