KC DOG BLOG

Lakewood, OH faces Lawsuit over city Breed Restrictions

The city of Lakewood, OH is facing a legal complaint regarding the city's Breed Restrictions.

The case is Tarquinio v City of Lakewood; and alleges that Chapter 506 of the Lakewood City Ordinance is unconstitutional because it violates due process and vague. The suit also alleges that the ordinance violates Home Rule doctrine of the Ohio Constitution.  Lakewood's law allows the Director of Public Safety to make a pit bull classification "with or without a hearing."

The bill is apparently very similar to a case that was won vs the city of Toledo a couple of years ago, in which the city of Toledo's law (which Lakewood's law was modeled after) was ruled unconstiutional by the courts. The city had contemplated fighting the ruling, but instead, repealed their breed-specific legislation.

This isn't the first problem Lakewood has had with their breed specific legislation. If you'll remember, Leonard Shelton, a military veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, was harrassed because his dog was alleged to be a 'pit bull'. Shelton got a DNA test done on his dog, Roscoe, and found the dog to be indeed, not a pit bull, but eventually moved from the city anyway after constant harrassment by the city.  Shelton levied a lawsuit against the city, to the tune of $475,000.

Lakewood, like many cities, is already suffering from significant budget problems -- so more lawsuits are even more problematic for the city and their taxpayers -- especially in supporting a law based on a failed premise (not to mention the constant harrassment of innocent dog owners).

Lakewood becomes yet another shining example of the failures of laws that declare dogs dangerous based on their shape vs based on their actual behavior...and why all taxpayers pay when such laws are passed.

H/T to Dangerous Dog Law -- and if you're not following Pit Bulletin Legal News on Facebook, you're missing a great resource for legal news involving our canines.

"That's 1960. This is 2011" - Connecticut Cities make move to No Kill

From July 2007, to December 2010, the city of Derby, CT took in 94 dogs.  Of those dogs, they killed 43 of them (48%). Derby, Connecticut's second smallest city, has a population of 12,536 people.... and was taking in roughly 1 dog ever two weeks into the shelter. In spite of extremely low intake rates, they were still killing half of the dogs.

Meanwhile, nearby Ansonio took in 522 animals during that time period -- and yet, killed just 20 (3.8%). Even though Ansonia has a population of only about 18,744, (so roughly 50% larger than Derby), they took in 5x as many animals. And yet, saved all but 3.8% -- that, from the records, seem like they were the seriously injured that were truly euthanized (in the true definition of the word).

Meanwhile, other area comunities, Oxford, (12,272)  Seymour (population 16,144), and Shelton (38,101) all have saved between 92 -97% of the animals they've brought into the shelter. The Connecticut state averags is about 88%.

Part of Derby's problems are that in a cost-cutting move, the city insituted a 16 day policy on how long they would hold animals (regardless of the amount of shelter space they had available). The move saved the city around $4700 a year in food  and veterinary costs.

The other area cities have overcome budget deficiencies by having volunteers do fundraisers -- such as themed cocktail parties and events -- to raise money for food and veterinary care.  Many of these smaller shelters are also helping larger cities like Waterbury and New Haven by taking in some of those city's dogs in order to help those cities out.

"We do that so they don't have to euthanize that many animals," said Sandy Merry, Oxford's Animal Control Officer.

The other communities regularly use the internet and Petfinder to advertise their dogs to get them adopted out - but Derby does not.

"I never put anything down," said Seymour ACO Deborah Ice. "Only if it's a vicious biting dog. Or if it's sick. The good shelters don't really put them down. They put more effort into advertising them (to get them adopted)."  Ice says that killing adoptable dogs is an old-school mindset. "That's 1960. This is 2011".

People in the community have offered to help Derby ACO Joe Klapcik, but he has always refused their help.

Cathy DeMarco, founder of the Coalition for Change, said that euthanasia should not be used for population control, only for dogs that are sick, injured or vicious. "How do you know nobody wants the dog?  The pound has been closed and you haven't posted it on Petfinder. That's not euthanasia. That's killing," said DeMarco.  

"All that has to happen is you get a bad animal control officer that gets into that position, then the animals are dead," said Charlotte Meade of Meade Canine Rescue.

Changes are underway in Derby -- and the police chief has put an end to the 16 day hold policy in January. In the first 3 months of the year, no animals have been killed. The city is also revamping the animal control officer's position (and apparently removing Mr. Klapcik).

This is great news for the city of Derby - and for all of these small communities who appear to "get it" when it comes to 2011 animal sheltering. It's also a testiment to the value of embracing volunteers and help at your local shelter, and the importance of good management in achieving no kill. Yay.

H/T on all of this to the Valley Independent Sentinel -- which did a great job of doing the research on this story and doing a great job of putting together this article.

Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 3/27/11

 Things are really busy here.  We've just had our local elections. There is turmoil at my city shelter, and my personal job is probably the busiest it's ever been.

As such, posting has been a little light (that will likely continue for the upcoming week) and I'm three weeks behind on weekly roundups. I'll be going back and picking up a few of those relevant older stories -- but will do my best to keep only the most relevant stuff, as to not overwhelm you with 3 weeks worth of links.  I have a few other things that I'm forgoing so I can talk more about them this week, but if you have other links, feel free to post them in the comments.

Cities/States/Countries and Laws

Aurora, CO's city council is still discussing either adjusting their city-wide breed ban to allow for 'pit bulls' as service dogs (so they can comply with the ADA) or possibly getting rid of the breed ban altogether. Obviously the latter is preferred, but they've been discussing this now for 6 months...must be nice to have no other issues to discuss in Aurora. Get rid of it all. It's led to an increase in dog bites and is costing you a small fortune in lawsuits, just get rid of it and move on to other stuff already.

Seward County, in southwestern Kansas (this is the county where the town of Liberal is), voted 4-1 to revisit their 20 year old breed ban in the community.  They'll be taking a look at the breed ban to see if it needs to be replaced with a breed-neutral dangerous dog law.

The nation of Norway appears to be looking at getting rid of their national breed ban -- as they've continued to have a lot of problems with breed identification issues and no improvement in public safety. They would be following the lead of other European Countries such as Italy and The Netherlands who have each recently repealed their national breed bans.

Fulton, MO is taking a look at some changes to their dangerous dog law. At least one citizen has come forward supporting a breed ban, and while there doesn't seem to be much council support for the idea, if you live in the area, please plan to meet with your representative.

Twice in the past 2 weeks, Aberdeen, SD has decided against the proposed breed ban in the community.

The city council in Beatrice, NE held a meeting to discuss a new law that, among other things, would require higher licensing and insurance requirements for owners of 'pit bull' type dogs. The city acknowledged that breed identification may be an issue and that if DNA tests were necessary to determine parentage, the cost of that would likely fall on the city.

Kirksville, MO passed a new law that would add 'pit bulls' to the city's dangerous animal list.  The vote was 4-1. "Pit bulls' are still allowed in the city, but now must have a 5 foot tall fence and $100,000 liability insurance policy (the irony here is that by making the animals 'dangerous', they've made it almost impossible to get such insurance when home owners are automatically insured for their dogs as long as they're not listed as "dangerous").  In the past 4 years there have been 46 dog bites in the community of Kirksville, a total of 3 (about 6%) have been by breeds of dogs affected by the ordinance.

Ft. Smith, AR apparently voted this week in favor of a Mandatory Sterilization law for pets - a law that has driven up killing in communitiies in almost every instance.

Los Angeles County passed a new ordinance targeting dog breeders in the community. I've not read the full text of the law but many of the regulations seem solid -- like keeping puppies until they are at least 8 weeks old. However, LA is not the epicenter for good animal welfare policies, so I am skeptical. Time 4 Dogs details a few of the things they think are "gotcha" provisions.

Buellton, CA has also moved forward on a Mandatory spay/neuter law....sigh.

Idaho SB 1143 is newly proposed law that would prohibit cities in the state from defining dogs as vicious or dangerous based on breed.  14 states in the US have similar laws.

Miami-Dade County threw out their Mayor and a city commissioner....making a huge statement for the deisre/need for better city leaders. There is some talk that he city manager and head of the animal shelter may be next.

A good article that notes that the majority of Iowa cities are shying away from breed-specific laws. I love this article because so much emphasis tends to be about cities that do adopt breed-specific laws...but the reality is that the vast majority of cities (and it's not even close) adopt breed-neutral policies.

The Elkader, IA city council seems to be looking at potential breed bans in that city -- if you live close, please schedule a meeting to get accurate information to them.

Dog Bites and attacks

A four year old Indiana boy who was playing with his neighbor's German Shepherd/Chow mix by himself was very seriously attacked by the dog.  Hard to say what caused the attack, although parents should always supervise younger children around dogs because, well, kids can sometimes not treat dogs well and dogs will react....see the next story.

A 5 year old Brownwood, TX girl received major bites from a 'pit bull' that she was apparently riding as if it was a horse. The dog, likely injured in the process, bit the girl. I'm actually pleased that they are going to monitor the dog for aggression and not kill it immediately.

A 7 year old Jackson, MI received 40 stitches after she was bitten when she tried to take something away from the family's Golden Retriever.

An 18 month old Palm Beach (FL) girl was bitten by the family's "pit bull/German Shepherd mix" when she apparently got too close to the food bowl.  This story is very confusing, but also involves a family member rescuing the child from the swimming pool...

A four year old Saskatoon boy was hospitalized after he was attacked by one of four sled dogs. The caregiver of 14 musher dogs was feeding the dogs and told the boy to stay in the vehicle, but the boy got out and was seriously injured by one of the dogs while it was being fed.   All fourteen dogs were euthanized.

A 12 yar old Haskell, NJ girl was wounded and taken to the hospital after being attacked by a Golden Retriever that darted out of a neighbor's yard.

While some experts in Winnipeg are trying to get the city to eliminate it's 20 year old breed ban, another couple is devastated after their dog was attacked and killed by two dogs that are not part of the city's breed ban -- further highlighting the ignorance of breed-specific provisions.

A Hermiston, OR woman was attacked by 4 dogs, described as "Heeler types" that ran up on her while she was jogging -- biting her several times and causing a broken ankle.  According the comments, this isn't the first time these same dogs have been responsible for an attack.

Miscellaneous

An article about what really prompts a Dog's 'Guilty Look' -- I'm not sure I"m buying it...

Farmers get paid to let pet dogs herd their sheep.

A solid article from the Morning Sun (Michigan) about a Veterinary Technician that has learned to love and respect 'pit bulls' as an owner of three of them.

Things just keep getting worse for the Chesterfield County (SC) shelter. The shelter staff has already been accused of shooting dogs, and of beating kittens with metal pipes, but now, there are accusations of the shelter using some of the animals for dog fighting. YesBiscuit! has been keeping up with the latest on this...

Animals that were 'rescued' by a rescue, were then 'rescued' again after accusations of the rescue not providing proper care for the animals.

Breaking breed stereotypes -- in Augusta, ME

Missouri's Prop B

While the bill making major alterations to the law has passed the Senate and awaits hearing in the House, some reasonable conversations are taking place on the bill (and a lot of unreasonable ones too). Here is a sampling of some of the reasonable ones:

Missouri House Debate on Prop B reveals deep rural-urban split - I think this is a great debate (probably the best news article I've seen) on the topic of the changes to Prop B.

Puppy mill issue hits the house - a State Representative states his views on Prop B while asking for the input of his constituents.

Why one state Senator, Scott Rupp, voted to make major revisions to the law. Among the major problems was the 50 dog breeding limit.

Wayne Pacelle calls the changes to Prop B "Hokum".  If anyone should be accused of Hokum, it should be Pacelle, who has been far from honest throughout the entire process.

Gregory Castle from Best Friends also has commentary on the law. My frustration with BFs and HSUS (among other things) is that they continue to not tell the whole story in their blogs and mislead people as to what is happening. In Castle's review, he says that SB 113 "would put an end to the hope for improved care for many thousands of puppy mill dogs in the Show Me State and effectively put a stake in the heart of democracy in Missouri".  He of course fails to note that SB113 does increase funding for the enforcement of already existing laws (and lack of enforcement is what the state auditor, Better Business Bureau and MVMA have all identified as the problem).

More on the KCMO Animal Shelter Situation

From KMBC.

The Kansas City Star: Resolve animal shelter's woes

Restore the faith in Kansas City's Animal Shelter -- also from the Star 

Dogs as reading companions for children

There were a lot of recently on the ability for trained service dogs to be good "listeners" for children who need help in their reading skills.

Dogs as library mentors - -a non-dog based blog, PSFK, talks about these types of reading programs

A feature on a librarian in Burlingame, CA that banned 'pit bulls' from the Paws for Tails reading program at her library and a response from Chrish Cohen, owner of Jonny Justice, one of Mike Vick's former dogs that is now a dog certified for helping children read in library programs.

Pictures of Dexter -- a 'pit bull' involved in a reading program -- via Our Pack

Change.org has their take on this as well

When Librarians judge books by their covers - Bad Rap

A furry different kind of teacher for little kids and big kids -- from Poodle and dog Blog

Mediots

The headline points out that three police officers were injured whena  'pit bull' attacked them during a search  -- of course, the search involved them showing up at a drug house with marijuana and unlicensed weapons but that was barely even mentioned in the story. This is from out of Detroit, where guns and drugs are a bigger problem than dogs will ever be.

A couple of dogs were involved in an attack in Baltimore and were originally wildly reported to be 'pit bulls', however, the dogs turned out to be American Bulldogs.

Blogs

The best of the last 3 weeks (and there are a lot of good ones):

Confiscation should be last resort - For the Pit Bulls

Cute or not? - Dogs & Storks has yet another great video of a child with a dog questioning whether it is cute, or dangerous.

End "Convenience Killing" in Texas - Winograd takes a look at a proposed law in Texas that is similar to the Companion Animal Protection Act passed in Delaware.  More here from the Houston Animal Shelters Examiner.

"Good Dog" - Time 4 Dogs has a great post about the Canine Good Citizen program and a program that is promoted for people to take an active role in training their dogs that has now been abused by people who want to make it mandatory for pet ownership.

 Marketing not blaming II -- Saving Pets notes that telling people they're bad, doesn't get people in the door to adopt.

Loyalty - Pound Dogs has some great photos (and a video) of people with their pets (and one dog protecting another dog) following the tragedy in Japan 2 weeks ago. The photographers of these photos deserve a LOT of credit for capturing the strength of the human/animal bond.

Think your community doesn't want to save 'unsavable' pets?  Really. -- Saving Pets notes that the community, by and large, really does want to help save animals.

Kill Shelter Fail, enabled by its supporters -- For the Pit Bulls takes a look at the ridiculousness of many shelter temperament tests and how they lead to dogs bein unnecessarily killed.

Lost Dogs Home wants me "Humanely euthanised" - Saving Pets tells the story of a high kill shelter in Australia that is trying to end a life saving program because the organization is vocally opposed to the high kill shelter's poor management and unnecessarily killing.  It's amazing that a shelter would want to defend their right to kill animals so much that they would try to shut down an organization that is trying to help save them.

Memphis Animal Shelter: It gets the hose again - YesBiscuit! shows screen grabs of video footage of animal care facilities workers powerwashing dog kennels while the animals are still in the cages. The Memphis shelter has been one story after the next of incompetence and neglect....and YB has been all over exposing them for it.

Just 30% of Brimbank's dogs are being reunited with owners -- Saving Pets takes a look at animal control failing to get animals back to their rightful owners and offers some suggestions on how to improve Return to owner rates.  Remember, think lost and not stray, and each dog returned to its owner is a dog you don't have to find a new home for.

Legislating Doublespeak - -Winograd takes a look at various California laws that legislate excuses for needlessly killing animals.

Canine Vaccines Part 1: One Size does not fit all - a great blog from Pawcurious

Everything is conspiring against you -- now what? -- I love this post from Saving Pets -- yes, the public is unappreciative, rescue groups are flaws, laws are problematic, leadership lacks vision, the shelter is underfunded and understaffed -- so what? Realizing that most areas deal with this, and yet many are still making the decision to improve and end killing without using these excuses.

Helping Puppy Mill Dogs - The other end of the leash

Mythbusters - The Public are Irresponsible with Animals - More myth busting from Wisconsin Watchdog

In Hiding: Escaping a life in the dark when a town banned 'pit bulls' - a story of surviving a breed ban from Stubby Dog

Thoughts from others

I've not had a lot of time for blogging the past couple of days, but there are some really good conversations going on in other places that I think are worth your time.

First up, Winograd starts the conversation about whether or not we should spay pregnant female dogs.   Winograd calls the practice ' not defensible".  There is a great paragraph in his post that I think bears repeating:

"Moreover, even while No Kill Advocates encourage spay/neuter, even while humane groups promote it, even while high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter is a central tenet of the No Kill Equation, this effort is a means to an end. It is not the goal itself. The goal is not “no more animals being born.” The goal is, and has always been, “no more animals being killed” (or, in the case of puppy mills, abused). Killing animals to prevent killing is not only a logical absurdity, it is patently unethical."

Much of the emphasis is mine, but I think these are some important distinctions that have somehow, sadly, gotten lost in the push to promote spay/neuter.  Winograd doesn't allow comments on his blog, but does on Facebook, so you can join the conversation there.

 Then, head over to Pet Docs on Call, where Tom discusses the difference a name makes, comparing "pet owners" to "pet guardians" to "pet parents".  According to Tom, the research (although a very small sample size) suggests there is little evidence that changing the name leads to better care for the animals (even though that was the intent of those who are leading the movement for the name change).

I think most agree that seeing dogs as "property" makes them seem more like a couch, than a living thing and for that reason, guardian "feels" better. But the flip side is that legally, the US Constitution provides a lot of protection for 'property' -- and there are many out there (myself included) that have seen far too many dogs and cats confiscated from homes (and destroyed) because they have a certain "look" that is banned or because people are over city pet limits. And protecting these pets and pet owners with due process laws (which applies to property) makes pets falling into that category an appealing idea.

Some good conversations -- and good thoughts out there. So join the conversations and share your thoughts. And as always, be civil.

Very good sentences

I love this paragraph. From Seth's blog today. The topic of his post has nothing to do with the topic of this blog. But kind of it does. Here's the paragraph:

"Vivid is not the same as true. It's far easier to amplify sudden and horrible outcomes than it is to talk aobut the slow, grinding reality of day to day strife.  That's human nature....

'This chart unsettles a lot of people, because there must be something wrong with it. Further proof of how easy it is to fear the unknown and accept what we've got."

I have to say I was stunned by the chart he posted.  We can all become victims of it.

I've talked about this before in this space, but clearly there is a difference between how we think using our head vs using our gut. The gut can be a very powerful influencer. It's why we should avoid panic policy making and instead, led the actual data lead our decisions....not our gut.

Labs lead in dog bites in Omaha (and eventually the media will ask the right question)

Getting numbers from the city of Omaha is a little bit like having a root canal. The animal control and the shelter operations are handled by the Nebraska Humane Society - who, while they get a fee from the city for handling these duties, function as a 501c3 and thus don't feel like they need to make their records public.

The city does get some data from them however, and a call to City Hall will get you those numbers.  Interestingly, 2 1/2 years into the city's breed specific law (that mandates insurance and muzzling for 9 different breeds of dogs) not one local media outlet has called city hall to get the numbers.  Instead, they just take what NHS hands them and prints it. 

The good news is, that by using their information, and the city hall information that I've gotten, you can start to cobble together a bit of the mess that is Omaha's law.

In a news story that ran last week, NHS is reporting that type of dog that led in dog bites in the city was.....Labrador Retrievers. Labs recorded 79 bites whereas the next highest number ws from German Shepherds at 44 with 42 from 'pit bulls' and 33 from Chihuahuas.  The story of course notes that the large number of Lab bites are because Labs are very popular....which is not doubt true. If you look at most cities, the most popular types of dogs in the city are also the leading biters....the odds are just going to work that way. (And tip: yes, this includes 'pit bull' type dogs which are also extremely popular dogs and yes, usually end up toward the top of bite lists -- for the same reason Labs are there in Omaha -- it's not rocket science folks).

The news story also notes that bites from 'pit bulls' -- one of the breeds targeted with the law passed in 2008 -- have decreased from 115 in 2008 to 42 in 2010.   NHS's Mark Langan says this shows the law has been a success.

However, Langan, NHS and the media missed a big part of the story.

First off, let me say that I found it a bit odd that Langan used 2008 as the base year for 'pit bull' bites. It was mid year 2008 that the city passed their law, so 2007 would have been a more stable year. 

That said, in 2008 there were a total of 808 dog bites in the city. So if 'pit bulls' made up 115 of them, they accounted for about 14% of total dog bites.  Seems a bit ridiculous to pass a law targeting such a small total of dog bites.   This means there were 693 bites by non 'pit bull' type dogs.

Meanwhile, in 2010, total dog bites rose to 913.  If 'pit bulls' accounted for 42 of those bites, that means 871 bites were recorded by non-pit bull type dogs -- this is a  26% increase in non-pit bull bites since the year the law was passed.

So while Langan and NHS have been running around for the past 2 years focusing on enforcing the city's breed-specific ordinance (against breeds that accounted for 14% of the total dog bites in the city), all of the other types of dogs in the city have been involved in 26% more dog bites (nearly 200 total bites).  And the largest biting breeds are not targeted breeds, and not small dogs.  They're Labs and Shepherds which are both bigger breeds than any of the 'pit bull' type dogs and in spite of Labs' reputation for being cuddly dogs, it's also worth noting that Langan says that they "encounter a lot of serious bites from Labs".  Labs and Shepherds were both in the top 3 of level 4 and level 5 bites for the 4 years leading up to the passing of the city's breed-specific law.

Omaha continues to provide and example of how using animal control resources targeting a whole host of dogs that don't exhibit aggressive behavior removes resources from targeting ones that do.  Doing this nearly always leads to increased total dog bites, and thus, decreased public safety. 

It's a shame that NHS continues to hide their numbers behind their 501c3 status, that the city lets them, and that the local media seems content to just take what they are fed from NHS without calling city hall to get the total numbers. Or heck, call me. I'll send you the reports.  But having an open discussion on what is going on would be the best way to make improvements....but it seems no one wants to really improve public safety, they would rather manipulate the numbers to justify the ordinance that they pushed for.

More bite numbers from Omaha here.

Kansas City Area Elections tomorrow (& three types of politicians)

Tomorrow marks the general elections for many of our local cities here in the KC area. Kansas City Dog Advocates has a very detailed overview of the candidates for the Kansas City, MO elections as well as the Raytown candidates for tomorrow's votes so you know where they stand on various animal welfare issues.

Please, please, please get out and vote tomorrow. Last month, for the Kansas City primary  elections, only about 15% of the voting age people in the city came out and voted. That's a dismal response. With low voter-turnout expected for tomorrow, if the animal welfare community comes out and makes their voices heard they can make a difference in the outcomes.  We are expecting some very tight races.  Also remember, in KCMO, you get to vote for the mayor, the in-district city council person for the district you live in, and ALL SIX at large candidates.  So be sure to read up on your At-Large races as well.

Getting good political candidates in place is very important for good animal welfare policy.  And good or bad policies can mean the difference in life or death for literally thousands of animals.  So getting good candidates in place makes good policies more likely, and bad policies less likely (duh).

Over the years, I've discovered that there are three major types of candidates when it comes to animal welfare policy.

1) Advocates -- These are the candidates that will actively seek out good policies and look to improve the situation. They will work with the animal welfare community on repealing bad laws, and on enacting good ones. We don't need many of these candidates, as a couple of compassionate council members can drive a lot of issues forward. But the absence of any of these types of candidates really makes getting initiatives passed through the council nearly impossible.  Look for 3 or 4 paw candidates as your advocates.

2) Neutrals - Most candidates frankly fit into this category. These are the folks who are likely not going to drive significant policy changes in animal welfare one way or the other, but will likely vote for them if they are proposed by the advocates.  They're votes are just as important to get policy passed.  But getting them to go with good policy proposed by others is important and it's fine if they make up a significant part of the council.  Most of these candidates have 2 paw ratings.

3) Roadblocks -- These are the folks that will propose bad legislation for animals and try to roadblock good laws. For whatever reason they have vendettas against pet owners, pets, or people that lead them into pushing for laws that will lead to the deaths of animals.  Obviously getting rid of all of the roadblocks (or at the very least, minimizing their voices) is essential to success.  If roadblocks outnumber advocates, you're in trouble. Most of the roadblocks get piles of poo -- but many of the one paw candidates fit this category depending on the topic.  They may be neutrals on something like breed-specific legislation, but roadblocks on laws involving feral cats. 

And yes, I know that there are a great number of issues that are impacting Kansas City -- education, crime, job creation, housing, etc.  I strongly encourage people to get to know their candidate's views on those topics as well. But over the years, I've found that most candidates who are roadblocks tend to support bad policies elsewhere in government because they generally a) lack compassion for people and animals or b) favor infinging on people's rights in many other ways as well.

So go out tomorrow and make Kansas City a better place over the next 4 years. 

This is your American shelter system

The past few weeks have been a sad and scary reminder of some of the failings of our American shelter system.  While it has been common-place for people in the animal rescue world to blame 'pet overpopulation' for the deaths of 4 million or so dogs and cats in our shelters each year, or to blame the 'irresponsible public' for these animals being at the shelter in the first place, the reality is that a large number of these dogs and cats are dying in shelters because we still have far too many incompetent, and even cruel, people running far too many (largely municiple) shelters.

And the stories that have come out the past few weeks have really driven that home.

For the past couple of weeks, Shirley over at YesBiscuit! has been tracking a horrific story in which workers at a shelter in Chesterfield County, SC were accused of shooting at least 22 dogs at the shelter and, not in a one-time lack of judgment, but as a matter of standard practice, allegedly beating cats with a pipe in order to 'euthanize' them.

Earlier this week, a video surfaced of animal control officers, along with the shelter director of the Town of Hempstead (NY) clowning around, and joking around while about to 'euthanize' a kitten even to the point of chanting "kill the kitty, kill the kitty" as the frighted kitten was pulled from its traveling kennel with a catch pole. This is far from the dignity we want to imagine when we hear the word "euthanize".  This shelter director, who earns more than $92,000 a year, was "reassigned".  Not fired. Reassigned. 

This comes just months after news of the folks at the Dallas Animal Shelter were indicted for allowing a kitten to live trapped in the walls of the shelter for several days before it starved to death and was eventually removed from the wall only after the dead cat began to stink.

The problems are on a continuum -- and obviously many of the above are gross forms of purposeful abuse, they also follow a range that include incompetence and neglect.

A shelter in Franklin County, NC 'accidentally' killed a family's dog before the shelter's mandatory 72 hour hold time was up.  The 5 month old puppy got loose from his family and was promptly killed in the shelter.  It seems this story pops up about every other week somewhere in this country.

Or my own shelter, in Kansas City, MO, who's management now faces allegations that include allowing a sick dog to die in its kennel three days after admittence with no care or treatment, heartsticking cats without proper anesthetic, and putting cats that are not yet dead into the incenerator.  

And the problems also include cities and shelters that like Aurora and Denver, CO that choose to kill all dogs of certain breeds because they look like types of dogs they don't want in their city (regardless of the reality that their own statistics don't support their ideas to ban these dogs, nor do the dogs themselves, based on their actual behavior, pose any threat to the public).

The problem also includes cities that do not participate in Trap/neuter/release programs and actually make it illegal for people to properly care for feral cat colonies (the only solution has proven to work) by using cat leash laws, licensing laws, abandonment laws or pet limit laws to make TNR illegal -- and thus, leading cities to kill every feral cat that comes into their shelter.

And these are just the worst case scenerios.  There are other shelters who are not houses of horrors, that just don't do all of the little things well that can make a huge difference in saving animals lives.

So while its commonplace to blame the public, or 'pet over population', the reality is that a huge number of the 4 million healthy/treatable animals killed in our shelters are done so in shelters where workers are not compassionate, and think chanting 'kill the kitty' is funny, or by shelters that have biases against breeds, or feral cats, or are negligent in their work.

We can, and must, do better. The good news is that in virtually all of these incidents, public outrage led to changes in shelter management. The public has decided that this type of activity, that has lasted far too long past when "catch and kill" was the predominent way of running animal control, is no longer acceptable. And are opting for compassionate solutions for homeless pets in this country. 

We are becoming a no kill nation.  Join us.

Related: What has happened to compassion at our animal shelters? - Pets Alive Blog

Aurora (CO) continues to look at loosening breed restrictions, media perpetuates fuzzy math

On Thursday, Aurora, CO will again discuss loosening the restrictions on their 5 year old breed ban. The city is looking at this after the Department of Justice filed a ruling on the Americans with Disabilities Act on breed bans not being able to limit access to those with service dogs.  This made Aurora's ban in violation of the ADA.  While Denver refused to make the necessary changes to their law, Aurora is looking at loosening their restrictions to become ADA compliant.  

Meanwhile, instead of looking at ways to loosen the restrictions, they should be just looking at a full-on repeal of their law that bans 10 different breeds of dogs.   Unfortunately, the city administration continues to ignore their own numbers and pretend they don't exist -- while the news media allows them to do it.

Last month, City Councilman Bob Broom said that "Statistics show that the number of bites have gone way down," which, well, is wrong. The reality is that they have actually gone up significantly.

In the most recent article, the Denver Post tries to help them defend the breed bans by noting that in 2005, there were 35 dog bites regarding restricted breeds.  In 2010, there were only 6.  These numbers are accurate enough, but ignored that there were 188 bites by non-restricted breeds - -up from 110 in 2005.

Oops.

But then it's become commonplace for city leaders who support breed bans (and it has trickled over to the fear-mongering websites as well) to say that, well, severe bites are down because the restricted breeds bite harder.  Aurora has stated this also.

However, the numbers don't support that either as in 2006, restricted breeds made up 8% of the severe bites, and 10% of the moderate bites and in 2007, when severe bites went up (2 years after the breed ban), they made up 6% of the severe bites and 7% of the moderate ones. So for the first two years of the ban, moderate and severe bites went up -- but not because of the restricted breeds, which were never a high percentage of these bites, but because of the non-restricted breeds.

So the city council continues to try to justify their law -- even to the point of hiding and making up numbers to support themselves.  And even though all of these numbers are available to the public, the mainstream media has yet to pick them up and make them widely available....thus allowing the city to waste taxpayer dollars and give the city free-reign to harrass pet owners and people with service dogs of a particular type.

It's time for the city council to own up to their mistake and fix it...and for the mainstream media to do what they are supposed to do which is hold city officials accountable.

More from Stop BSL who has a great and even deeper breakdown of all the numbers -- including links to the dog bite severity numbers which I hadn't seen before.

 

Writing Effective Petfinder Profiles

I got a lot of response from yesterday's post about the PetFinder profiles. Sadly, several people pointed out that these types of profiles are not unique to Kansas City -- or the fact that our shelter is going through a tough transition.  Writing negative bios has, unfortunately, become very commonplace.

As I was reading these, I was reminded of a video I watched a couple of years ago by Michelle Williamson.  Michelle's group, Pet Rescue in Australia, is very passionate about writing fun, positive bios for pets. They never allow them to use terms like "death row dog".  As she notes "People don't want to be bummed out, looking at the pages and pages of sad dogs they can't help. We want people to let their kids look through our pages for a new pet and for it to be something fun they can do together -- not having their 11 year old daughter in tears because she's looked into the eyes of a dog whose "due'" date has passed".

This is a great presentation on what they've learned from writing pet bios for adoptions. It's about 18 minutes long, but well worth the time spent. Go grab yourself a cup of coffee, a pen, and some paper and make a few notes because I guarantee you'll get at least one really good nugget from this.

 

Michelle Williamson - 2009 NDN Summit from PetRescue on Vimeo.