KC DOG BLOG

Would your pet make a good guard dog?

Last week I caught this story from the CBS Affiliate in Atlanta.

The report, which the news station even calls a "unintentionally hilarious investigation", takes a look at family dogs an their ability as "guard dogs".

The investigation included enlisting Jeff Schettler from the Georgia K9 Training Center. Schettler wears a dog bite protection suit, and then acts as an intruder going into people's homes while the owners are not present and films the reactions of the dogs. The story also interviews respective dog owners to see how they think their dog will behave.

Schettler enters into the homes of many different types of dogs: a couple of Border Collies, a Brittany Spaniel, a pit bull, a German Shepherd, a Rottwieler and a couple of Lab mixes.

The end result is that most of them are pretty lousy guardians. Most try to befriend the intruder. One dog even gets stolen by Schettler. The 'pit bull' tries to make friends while his lab mix companions bark at Schettler and even does tricks for Schettler to try to win favor. Only the German Shepherd really puts up any resistence, and that is mostly out of fear.

I think the report does a good job of noting that dogs without specific breeding/training to be guard dogs are not much good at it -- and also of noting that most people are best served by not trying to have guard dogs because they are not terribly good at determining friend or foe.

Overall, it's a pretty interesting (and at times funny) report and worth the time to watch.

Manipulation and justification in Saginaw, MI

Last week, Saginaw MI Chief Inspector John Stemple called the city's new breed specific ordinance "very effective."

"It was the government reacting ot a problem, and if you look at the numbers, it's been very effective," Stemple told mlive.

The ordinance, passed in June of 2011, required residents to register dogs whos breeds were deemed "dangerous" and post signs about a dog being on the premises and to keep their animals either leashed or within a 4 foot high fenced in area.  The targeted breeds included 9 different breeds of dogs including pit bulls presa canario, bull mastiffs, Rottweilers and German Shepherds.

The law was passed after a series of incidents

According to Stemple, signs and tethering rules have made people safer. In 2009 there were 24 dog bites in the city. In 2011: 9. That seems impressive.

But have the results really been because of the ordinance? Or something else?

-----------------

Before I dive deeper into the numbers, I want to give you a feel for the community of Saginaw, MI.

Saginaw, MI as of 2010 had a population of 51,508 -  however, it used to be quite a bit bigger of a city. The city has lost 16.7% of its residents since 2000, and an amazing 30.5% of it's population since 1990.

The decline in population has created many other problems. By 2009, 56.6% of the city lived below the poverty line. Just under 25% lived with income less than 50% of the poverty line -- both well more triple the national averages. The city has a 15% unemployment rate.

With the poverty ha seen increased crime, in 1999, Saginaw had a crime index of 716 -- but by the end of 2008 this had grown to 1067.  The national average is 319.

Because of the decreases in population, and increased poverty, the city finds itself very short of money. The annual budget has continued to decrease over time and now is not only supporting an infastructure built for nearly double the current population, but also suffering because nearly 30% of the total budget is being used to pay off past pensions.

I confess that I've never been to Saginaw, but I have been to similar places, and when poverty gets this high, and city budgets get this low, there is a significant break down in social structure and order -- which helps lead to the higher crime indices. There just isn't enough money to provide the city services the city should have.And while I can't seem to find the specific budget line items, I feel pretty safe in assuming that responding to loose animal complaints probably wasn't a high priority for Saginaw.

It is also pretty consistent that stray/loose animal issues, and aggressive dog issues, are fairly consistent with larger societal issues beyond just loose/dangerous dogs. They are usually a symptom ofa bigger problem.

So in March of 2009, it wouldn't be terribly surprising the city was in disarray. And at that point, a woman and a man were severely attacked by three free-roaming dogs in the community. This was only a few months after another incident in which two free-roaming dogs dug under a fence at a children's zoo and killed several farm animals.

It was at this time that the city began (rightfully) to look at animal control laws.  After more than a year of discussion, the new law passed in June, 2011.

While I confess that I don't have a huge problem with the restrictions for the dog owners (a $20 licensing fee, plus containment are very good laws), the laws should be in place for ALL dog owners.

But that said, has the ordinance itself been effective?  At least the way Inspector Stemple claims?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Last week, in a separate story, mLive also posted the total numbers for 2009, 2010 and 2011 -- and YTD 2012. Here are a few of the raw numbers, some percentages that I've calculated, and then some thoughts:

Total Animal calls:

2009:  1,181

2010: 1,005 (-15%)

2011: 1,281 (+27%)

Jan-Aug 2012: 554 (831 for the year if all are averaged)

Vicious Dogs:

2009: 542

2010: 433 (-20%)

2011: 592 (+37%)

Jan-Aug 2012: 242 (363)

Bites

2009: 24

2010: 11 (-54%)

2011: 9 (-18%)

2012: 3 (5)

What is interesting about the numbers is that in 2010, the city saw significant decreases in incidents across the board -- 15% fewer calls, 20% fewer vicious dog calls and 54% fewer bites. While some of the "enforcement measures" went up in 2011 after the passing of the ordinance, bites continued to drop for 2011 and it appears the trend will continue in 2012.

First of all, this is great. I'm glad to see the bite numbers are dropping. People need to feel safe in their neighborhoods. However, the reduction in bites appears to have not be even correlated to the animal control ordinance.

While the ordinance was passed in mid 2011, the biggest reduction in bites came from 2009 to 2010 -- after the incident that sparked the discussion, but before the law was passed. I know this, a law passed in 2011 cannot be credited for a major reduction in dog bites that occurred the year prior. So something else led to the 54% decrease in bites in 2010. This likely had something to do with increased awareness of the impact free-roaming dogs can have in a community, as well as increased activity from local authorities in responding to complaints.

Then, the trend continued (to a lesser extent) in 2011 and 2012. However, the law cannot be attributed to the number of bites going from 24 to 9 in 2 years. At it's best, it can only be responsible for the drop from 11 to 9 in 2011. Again, the biggest dip happened before the law was passed.

And for what it's wroth, residents still aren't terribly happy with the law, as only 12% of the readers responded that dog breeds are dangerous, regardless of who owns them, while 59% say owners are responsible for their animal's behavior and 29% think the ordinance should apply to all dog owners, regardless of breed.

It's no surprise that the authorities in Saginaw are wanting to take credit for the law being a success. The law was very controversial at the time (still is) and they no doubt want to show it works. However, I'm disappointed that the media let them get by with it, and didn't ask the simple question -- what did you do differently in 2010 that accounted for the real reduction in dog bites?  Because it wasn't because of the law.

 

 

Dog bite fatality roundup

So, today we're going to do something a little different with the roundup. Usually I use this space on Sunday morning's to 'round up' the week's top stories. I may not get to that this week, and if I do, it it will be later tonight. However, this week there were three dog-bite related fatalities, and there is an older one that I'm adding to the list that I had been waiting until more info was available, but apparently more info isn't coming any time soon.

Before I get into these four tragic cases, please let me note, as I usually do, that dog bite fatalities are extremely rare. American's share their homes with more than 72 million owned dogs in this country -- that live more than 300 million people.

And yet, a tiny number (usually around 25-30) of these dogs end up killing someone each year. When these incidents happen, it is not because of breed, or because dogs are bad, or dangerous -- it is almost always a result of very poor ownership, or some human action that led to circumstances that ended up as an attack.

So, with that, here are the four most recent incidents and as much information as I can find about them.

Fallbrook, CA

In Fallbrook, CA, a 30 year old woman was found dead in the yard of the home. The woman, who's name has yet to be released, was hired by the home's owners to clean the home while they were away, was apparently attacked by one or more of the 8 dogs that lived at the residence.

The victim had spent the previous night at the house -- but this was the first time she had cleaned the house and was not familiar to the dogs. The owners were using the dogs for breeding and were described in various places as either American Bulldogs or "Olde English Bulldogges" and ranged in size from young puppies to 105 lbs.

Authurities aslo found 24 marijuana plants in the home that were growing in the back bedroom of the home.

This story was reported by 19 news sources.

Updated 12/19 - According to Animal Services Spokesman Dan DeSousa, he believes the dogs were a mix of Olde English Bulldogs mixed with American Bulldogs in order to make them larger in size -- as all of the dogs weighed in at a little over 100 lbs. The victim has been identified as 30 year old Remedios Romero-Solares who worked as a house sitter and housekeeper. The media is also reporting that the owners of the dogs regularly sold puppies for $2500 due to their potential for size and power as adults and that many of the puppies were "aggressive and difficult to handle".

Yadkin, NC

In Yadkin, NC, a 2 month old infant was tragically killed by the family dog. The child, Dixie Jennings, died from head injuries due to the dog bite.  

There is little information about this incident as reports have not been released to the public., including the type of dog involved in the attack, or whether the parents were present when the incident happened.  Incidents involving infants like this are not common, but can happen even without an aggressive dog because of the sheer size of the dog and how fragile infants are.

This story has been reported by 14 news sources.

Big Rock, IL

In Big Rock, IL, a 44 year old firefighter was found dead after being attacked by a dog that she had recently adopted.

The woman, Dawn Brown, had just adopted a Mastiff a couple of weeks ago after a family member had decided they no longer wanted the dog after having a newborn infant so Brown brought it into her home. There were two other dogs in the home, a Boxer and a pit bull, but according to the autopsy report, the Mastiff is the one that bit the victim in the neck causing the fatal wound.

The Mastiff was said to have weighed about 150 lbs.

Because there were no witnesses to the attack, there is no clear cause of the attack, although Brown's boss, battalion chief Michael Kalina, did say that there had been some "turf wars" between the new mastiff and the other two dogs in the home but "nothing out of the ordinanry or aggressive".  While the victim getting in the middle of an altercation between two of the dogs seems like a likely scenario, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that this was the case. "We literally have noting pointing to why this occurred," said Sheriff's Department Lt. Pat Gengler.

This story was reportd by 37 news sources.

Stanton, DE

In Stanton, DE, 55 year old Robert Rochester died, potentially from injuries sustained in a dog attack. Rochester, a postal worker, was on his postal route when he was attacked by a 12 year old German Shepherd that has escaped from the owner's home.  Rochester spent the night in the hospital being treated for "serious" injuries.

Rochester was released from the hospital, but a few days after the attack, he suffered "complications" that are thougth to be linked to the attack and suffered cardiac arrest and died. 

The dog was euthanized and is being tested for rabies.  At this point, it is not 100% clear if the dog attack led to the victim's death, or if it was from something unrelated. The autopsy was unclear, and further forensic information is unavailable.

This story was reported by 19 news sources.

If I am able to get any more information about any of these incidents I will pass it along.  My heart goes out to the family and friends of all of the victims.

Pit Bull Perceptions

Earlier today, a new study from Maddies Fund was released about how perceptions of dog handlers affected how people viewed an individual dog's behavior.

In the study, people were show pictures of 3 dogs and asked to rate them on a 6 point Likert scale their perceived friendliness, adoptability, approachability, intelligence, aggressiveness and difficulty to train.

People were also shown the same three dogs with different human handlers -- one with a rough looking adult male, one with a young boy and one with an elderly woman.

Not surprisingly, the results showed that people viewed the pit bull less favorably than they viewed the Labrador Retriever and the Border Collie -- giving it lower scores for friendliness, adoptability, approachability and intelligence -- and higher scores for aggressiveness and difficulty to train.

However, the scores for the pit bull jumped considerably when shown with the young boy and the elderly woman. From the study:

"The elderly woman and male child activated positive handler stereotypes, motivating participants to perceive the pit bull type dog as friendlier, more adoptable, more approachable and less aggressive while the rough male reinforced the dog's negative stereotype. These results suggest that a handler can serve as a primer for perceptions about a dog's characteristics."

Indeed.

The study results probably won't surprise most people much, but it does reinforce that overwhelmingly when people discuss ideas about restricting particular breeds of dogs, they are often talking about laws in place that target the types of people they PERCEIVE to be the typical owners of those types of dogs -- not necessarily the dogs themselves. This is why those that advocate for such laws are inclined to try to convince people that 'pit bulls' are the dog of choice for 'paraplegic drug dealers' and "gangbanger wannabe's."  It's very much about racism and stereotyping owners, and not focusing on the dogs, and the reality that most commonly owned by respected members of society.

This is one reason that education at programs that focus on the REAL owners of pit bulls  and showing the dogs as family members, are so effective in counter-acting this blatant, and incorrect, stereotyping.

While it should be about judging the dogs for what they are, I'm actually fine with people basing their predisposition off of the owners as well -- as long as they use the real owners and not the ones rooted in their fear-mongering imagination.  

Here's the link to the info graphic posted below (you can click to enlarge): 

US Pet Ownership Statistical Breakdown

For those of you that have been reading my blog for awhile, you know that I'm a numbers kind of guy. I like statistics, and using the statistical data to help better form my opinions on a variety of topics.

Late last year, a company called Mintel published a breakdown of Pet Ownership information. Mintel specializes in very detailed market information for marketers -- and Pets is just one of the many topics they cover. The pet ownership report is a whopping 136 pages of information and worth the price for any company that is dealing in pet products. I won't overwhelm you with all of the data, but I do think there were several key statistics that I think are important for rescues/shelters to know about pet ownership in the US -- and some things that I just found to be interesting.

All of the data here is from the Mintel report, but the commentary in the second sub-bullets is mine.

• Pet industry expenditures were an estimated $50.8 billion in 2011. 38% of this money will be spent on food, 22% on supplies and medicine, and 28% on veterinary care.
• Families with children are much more likely to have pets than families without children -- yet, the percentage of families without children is increasing in the US. However, pet ownership continues to grow, let in part by the number of young couples who are opting out of parenthood.
• 72.9 million US households report having at least one pet. 46.3 million own dogs, and 38.9 million own cats.  This represents 78.2 million owned dogs and 86.4 million owned cats.
• People with lower education levels (High School or some college) are more likely to own pets (64%) than more highly educated people (post graduate) at 56%.
• 62% of dog owners own only 1 dog. 26% own 2. 7% own 3 and 5% own 4 or more.
• For cats, 49% own 1, 29% own 2, 11% own 3 and 11% own 4 or more.
  • These two numbers are interesting as many cities in the US have pet limits that limit pet ownership to 2, 3 or 4 pets -- but there is an obvious demand for a significant percentage of pet owners to own more pets than that.
• 46% of US homes have a dog.  The age group most likely to own a dog is 18-24 year olds at 58%. Pet ownership remains pretty average for 25-54 year olds (49% for 25-34, 51% for 35-44 and 46% for 45-54) but then drops off considerably in older age groups (41% for 55-64 and 32% for 65+). The numbers are similarly skewed for cats. I find all of this interesting because
  • a) I feel like 18-24 year olds are more likely to be denied adoption by many rescue groups because of their age, the likelihood that they are renting, or the likelihood of something in their lives would make them seem less stable and thus more likely to return a pet -- and yet, they are more likely to ownn pets than any other age group.  
  • b) I think there are opportunities to increase pet ownership among older demographics who may be less likely to adopt because they no longer have kids or because the have concerns about who will care for a pet if something happens to them in their older age.

Where to people get their pets?

• 78% of dog owners own their own home. 18% rent. If we deny renters from adopting dogs we are essentially losing one-fifth of the total dog-owning market. For cats, 71% own and 26% rent.
• 30% of dog owners and 34% of cat owners got their pet from a shelter or rescue.
• 28% of dog owners, and 33% of cat owners got them from a friend or relative
• 15% of dog owners and 3% of cat owners go theier pet from a recognized breder
• 9% of dog owners and 4% of cat owners got them from a pet store
  • Pet stores continue to make up a very small percentage of pet acquisition and shelters and rescues are the leading source of pet acquisition.
• 34% of people with incomes less than $25k acquired their pet from someone else. This number is closer to 20% for all other income groups up to $100K+, where it drops to 16%.
  • I think this is extremely interesting. From talking with people who do urban core outreach in Kansas City, they say that most of the people they run across aquired their pet when a friend or relative could no longer take care of it, or they found it running loose in their neighborhood. These people tend to want to do best for the animal, and yet often, themselves, lack the resources to best care for them. It's just interesting that many people view poor people as poor pet owners, when many are simply trying to keep them from going to the shelter.

Breeds?

• Most cat owners don't really choose a cat by breed. But this is very different for dogs. 32% of dog owners said they knew in advance what breed of dog they wanted. 21% said they didn't choose because the dogwas given to them or chosen by somene else in the houeshold. 12% just browsed the selection and chose one they liked. 11% didn't know specifically what breed they wanted, but had an idea in mind and 10% didn't care about the breed, but knew the size of dog they wanted.
  • I think this is very interesting as 43% of people have a specific breed or an idea of a breed in mind before choosing a pet. 10% more are choosing based on size and 21% are not choosing at all because they just ended up with the dog. This can often be a challenge for small rescue groups to maintain the selection of breeds for different potential adopters.
• Men, and people aged 25-34, are most likely to have a specific breed of dog in mind.

Size?

• 52% of dog owners own a dog less than 25 lbs. This number is highest for people 55+ who own small dogs 58% of the time.
• 29% own dogs 26-50 lbs and 24% own dogs 51-75 lbs and 11% own dogs 75 lbs or more. Older people and low income people are much less likely to own large dogs because of their size and the cost to feed these dogs. Larger dogs are more likely to be owned by 25-54s, as this age group is generally active enough to provide for the exercise needs of a larger dog.

As members of the family?

• 76% of Americans consider their pet to be part of the family
• 54% consider themselves "pet parents' instead of "pet owners"
• 65% of dogs have free run of the house
• 53% of dogs sleep in their owners bedroom
• 21% are crated at night or when owners are away
• Only 8% of dogs are kept outside only.  However, this number is 16% in housholds that make less than $25k per year.
  • For all of the talk that about low-income pet owners being bad pet owners, this isn't supported by these numbers -- with 84% of even the lowest-income pet owners keeping pets inside the home (55% of this group have dogs with free-run over the home). While it's true that they are more likely to have outside-only dogs, they do still overwhelmingly keep them inside the home.

The impact of race on pet ownership

• While 46% of all households own dogs, this number is 51% for whites, 53% for hispanics and 24% for blacks.
• The same is true for cats, where 31% of households have cats, 36% for whites, 34% for hispanics and 14% for blacks.
• Blacks seem to be less likely to own pets because they are more likely to live in densely populated urban areas with less room for pets.
• Whites are more likely to own larger dogs than the other groups.
• Hispanics are more likely to enjoy the fun part of pet ownership-- they buy more toys for their pets, take more photographs and take their pet with them more often than other ethnic groups.

I'll likely refer back to these numbers fairly regularly as I have some things planned for trying to help increase adoptions -- but I definitely think you can see some opportunities here from these numbers.

The costly hysteria about community cat caregivers

For the life of me, I don't get the hysteria surrounding the feeding of community cats.that exists in many communities. The policies in many of these communities is inhumane, cruel, and wildly inconsistent.

Let's say I own a cat. It lives with me indoors.

Then, let's say I decide to just quit feeding my cat. And it gets skinnier and skinnier. If this situation occurred, animal control would come to my door, and (rightfully), write me a ticket for starving my cat -- and, depending on the severity of the case, could send me to jail for animal cruelty.

And yet, in many cases, if the cat lived outdoors, and in my neighborhood, it would actually be ILLEGAL for me to feed the cat. And I could be arrested for NOT allowing it to starve.

So, inside: I MUST feed my cat (this is a good law), but outside I MUST NOT feed the cat. Anyone else scratching their head over this?

Earlier this week, a Liberty, MO woman, Annette Betancourt, was found guilty of feeding feral cats that lived in a wooded area behind her home. Under the city's law, if you feed an animal for more than 3 days in a row in the same place, you own the animal. And, the city has a pet limit of 4. So the city said that by feeding these cats (estimated to be about a dozen cats), Betancourt become the owner of these cats, and was hoarding cats. So, by feeding these cats (and also trapping them, getting them spayed or neutered and releasing them back to the colony so they wouldn't create more cats), Betancourt was sentenced by a judge. Betancourt was only fined for her activity, but could have, under the law, been sentenced to 6 months in jail. For feeding cats.

Betancourt isn't the only person in a Northern Kansas City suburb having trouble with such laws. In Smithville, MO, a family is now challenging authorities after they found a camoflage surveillance camera mounted to a tree that law officials said was being used to catch the man for feeding feral cats in his neighborhood. The family is actually challenging the legality of such an action as a violation of the 4th amendment. The family believes they were being targeted because they had recently spoken out about the city ordinance prohibiting the feeding of feral cats.

Here is what officials need to understand (well, beyond the fact that it is illegal to video record people without a warrant): feral/community cats exist throughout urban and rural landscapes. And Trap/Neuter/Release is the only viable solution to handling the issue.

There are actually several "solutions' -- but none of the rest of them are viable, or humane. Sure, the city could use animal control resources, and taxpayer funds, to trap the harmless animals and take them to their city shelter where they would likely be killed. It's inhumane, and costly, but doable. And while they're at it, they could probably use animal control resource to round up squirrels, and rabbits, and other mammels that live in these neighborhoods. It would be a collossal waste of money, but, in theory, it could be done.

The city could ignore the cats, and not allow people to feed them or spay/neuter them and tend to the colonies. In these cases, the cats would be allowed to reproduce freely and create even more community cats. This of course is a solution, but it doesn't solve anything, and makes the perceived "problem" worse.

Or, they can allow the public to tend to these colonies: provide some basic needs for the cats, and also allow them to alter the cats so they don't reproduce and create MORE community cats. There are many people willing to participate in these programs. They cost the cities nothing, and they keep the community cat populations smaller. And, it's humane. It's a complete win, and the only solution that is a win for any party.

So why are cities still spending taxpayer dollars taking people to court, or installing video cameras, to stop people from actually helping solve the problem?

It's time to quit the hysteria around community cats -- and start working on proving viable options for the cat caretakers in these communities.

Click here for more on Annette Betancourt's case.

 

KC Pet Project to open retail adoption center

For the past 10 months I've been providing updates on KC Pet Project's progress toward taking the Kansas City, MO animal shelter to an open-admission, no kill shelter.

Over the past 10 months, we have been able to save 84% of the dogs and cats that have entered our shelter -- and have saved more than 90% since July 1.

But intake remains high, and ongoing, and with a shelter in an out-of-the-way location, we'll need to keep adoption high over the holidays.

So next Tuesday (November 13), KC Pet Project will be opening a retail adoption center at Zona Rosa shopping center. The retail adoption center will remain open throughout the holidays and is set to close January 15. This is a picture of the outside of the center (although the graphics are not yet complete, this is what it will look like).

The center will house about 25-35 dogs and cats available for adoption (and possibly any other small mammels that we get into the shelter) and will also have a variety of pet-related merchandise for sale.

For those of you not familiar with the geography of Kansas City, let me take a minute to describe. There are essentially 3 main geography dividers in the Kansas City metropolitan area: the state line, that divides Missouri from Kansas, and the Missouri River, that divides Kansas City, MO North/South.

Currently, the three largest shelters in the metro all operate South of the river, two on the Missouri side, and one in Kansas. The Zona Rosa location will give KC Pet Project a significant footprint in Kansas City, MO, North of the River. And Zona Rosa is the highest-trafficked retail shopping district North of the River -- so we should have a TON of foot-traffic in and out of the store (and hopefully a lot of adoptions to match).  The location will give us a 7-day-a-week retail adoption area, that will be open 12-ish hours a day in one of the fastest-growing areas of the city.

We're very excited.

We were able to obtain the space because like many retail destinations in this economy, there are a handful of openings spaces that they were looking to fill for the holidays and they were very gracious to provide the space to us as a not-for-profit for a below-market rate.

As we continue to move toward our no-kill goal, we continue to look for opportunities to increase adoptions in order to keep up with our daily supply. This is another great opportunity for us to do so.

Like always, I will update this blog with some adoption results (and more pictures of the inside of the space) as we get the store open and begin adoptions. 

Weekly Roundup, Week Ending 11/4/12

It's time for the weekly roundup. Since I missed last week while I was at the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference, I have two weeks of material to get through. Because of that, and limited time this morning, I'm only going to hit the highlights.

If you have any other stories you'd like to highlight, please feel free to post them in the comments section.

Cities/States and Laws

The new state law in Massachusetts preventing cities from having breed-specific laws went into effect this week.

In spite of wide opposition, the community of Etowah, TN went ahead and passed it's law banning pit bulls. The law passed 3-2 in the final vote -- although the passing of the first reading was unanimous, showing that education efforts impacted 2 of the 5 voters (and I'm guessing the other 3 didn't spend much time working to educate themselves).

Lansing, MI is looking at improving its dangerous dog law -- there is no word yet on whether or not the law will be breed-specific.

New Westminster, BC is considering repealing their breed-specific ordinance. If you live in the area, please encourage them to do so.

Dog bites/Attacks

Dogs have become increasingly a part of our daily lives and are wonderful additions to our lives -- keeping owners happier and healthier. However, in rare instances, bad incidents do happen and dogs severely attack people. When this happens, it is important for us to look at the circumstances behind such attacks, and not breeds, as focusing on breeds has never been an effective way at determining attacks.

In the UK, 71 year old Gloria Knowles was tragicaly killed this week by her own dogs. There were 5 dogs present, and they were described as two French Mastiffs, one Alpha Blue Bulldog, one American Bulldog and one mongrel. There is little information available about what led up to the attack (although she may have been feeding them at the time). The UK has had a ban on four breeds of dogs for more than 2 decades now, but the law has not reduced dog attacks and there are no shortage of other large breed dogs available for owners who want them.

Miscellaneous

The Humane Society of Memphis is launching a new campaign "Pit bull people" showing pit bulls with wonderful families who own them -- working to debunk the ridiculous myths of the types of people who own pit bulls.

Reading a dog's body language can help you prevent dog bites -- nice to see a smart, educational approach to dog bite prevention.

A pit bull in Ionia, MI is being declared a "hero" after alerting its owner that the neighbor's porch was on fire and allowing them to save their home.

Here's a really good feature on Jim Crosby. Crosby is a former law enforcement official who now specializes in investigating canine attacks on humans and determining root causes. "It's usually a perfect storm of things" says Crosby of canine fatal attacks. "Most commonly, there is some form of human failure." It's a good story and one you should take the time to read.

No Kill

A new group in Lincoln, NE hopes to make the community No Kill. The city killed more than 1200 pets last year in their city shelter.

Manatee County, FL, a community working to get to no kill, is having a Canine Christmas Adoption Festival in order to maximize adoptions during the holidays.

Miscellaneous

Eighteen months after a devastating tornado hit the community of Joplin, MO, a family found their cat that was lost in the devastation. The family searched animal shelters for months, and then, finally saw their cat at the location of their former home -- a little thin, but otherwise in healthy condition. 

There is a custody battle over a Dachsund that was allowed to get up to 77 lbs. I would hope that cruelty charges follow as well.

Blogs

Frenemies -- Winograd looks at the love/hate relationship between HSUS and the Center for Consumer Freedom in an interesting take on the situation.

A contract to control: Do Pet Adoption Contracts go too far -- some good thoughts on overly restrictive adoption contracts from new blog Tales from the Bark Side.

An open letter to the Vancouver Media -- a thoughtful note about hyperbolic language in headlines and misleading information being relayed by the local media, by Hug A Bull.

The life-changing weekend of the year -- a video from the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference.

Central Virginia's Pets: Change the way you look at pit bulls -- a well=written letter to the editor of one person's experience with how her opinion of pit bulls changed over time.

Another well-done video promoting 'pit bulls' in the Milwaukee area.

Do you like to be petted by people you don't know?  Shelter dogs blog takes a look at more shy dogs in shelters and helping people understand that enthusiastic greetings are not a requirement of good, loving pets.

Fun

Since this week was Halloween, it only seems appropriate to show one vidoe of a pet dressed up for Halloween. This week's winner is a Bichon Frise  named Pearson, dressed as Indiana Jones.

Top 5+1 for September/October 2012

The Top 5 is a monthly post featuring the 5 most popular posts for the month based on information from Google Analytics. The +1 is my opportunity to highlight a post that I wish had been more popular but didn't make the list.

Because I missed the Top 5 in September, and posting was pretty light that month, I'm going to combine September/October for the top 5 posts over the two months.  Enjoy.

1) Pit Bull Facts/Myths Info Graphic -- this infographic, put together by 1-800 Pet Meds for Pit Bull Awareness Month, was the most popular post over the past 2 months.

2) Considering the Source -- while the internet has been great about allowing the free-flow of information, it has also evened the playing field where sites by professionals are often given the same priority as sites by people with no real knowledge or expertise in the topic they're covering. This is very true with breed-specific legislation, where virtually every professional expert in the field of animals, or law, realizes that laws targeting specific breeds are ineffective and based on poor science. This post was about making sure we were smart about considering our sources before making decisions.

3)What kind of doggie is that in the window? - my coverage of the results of a breed identification panel done by the University of Florida and Maddies Fund shows the difficulty even professionals have at identifying breeds of mixed-breed dogs. My follow-up to this story just missed making the top 5, and you can find it here.

4) The case against breed-specific legislation in Australia -- I cover a new report from experts in Australia breaking down the case against breed-specific legislation, including breed identification issues, the science against breed-specific laws and the failure of such laws across the nation. This was a fantastic report and I hope everyone takes the opportunity to read it in its entirety.

5) Barriers to Pet Adoptions -- a new report from the AVMA highlights the top reason why people don't get pets. I think this is valuable information in helping us to convince them the value pets bring to their lives.

+1

There were a couple that I considered here -- but this one is especially dear to me: Determining what is dangerous, the military and base breed bans.  While the military is banning breeds from their military bases, the reality is that the biggest threat to soldiers, many of whom suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, is themselves. The reality is that large-breed dogs often provide the best comfort to these soldiers, who often feel tough and misunderstood themselves, and the military is banning these dogs, which could potentially save these veterans' lives from the bases they live on.

Thoughts from the 2012 Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference

A week ago today was the start of the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference and I feel like it's taken me a few days to sort of soak in the events of the conference so I can try to summarize my thoughts in a somewhat coherent fashion.

First off, I was thrilled to have the opportunity to speak at the conference on behalf of KC Pet Project and on the many changes that are taking place here in Kansas City -- and get to talk to a lot of folks about what we're doing not only in a large setting, but also to individuals and I got to hear the opportunities, and struggles, in their communities.

The group of speakers this year was once again outstanding. Experts in no kill sheltering, increasing adoptions, customer service, training and animal handling, marketing etc were all across the speaker panels. One of my big problems is that once again, with so many great speakers, I didn't get a chance to hear nearly everyone speak that I wanted to. But I did get to catch a couple of presenters that I was very much looking forward to seeing -- including hearing about the success April Harris is having in Salt Lake County, UT; hearing Susanne Kogut present (who I've seen at many conferences, and met, but have never actually heard her presentation) and Aimee Sadler -- who is very good at shelter traiing/handling for dogs to help them be more adoptable in a shelter setting.

After thinking about the conference, here are more my thoughts on the No Kill movement at this point that any highlights from speakers:

1) First off, it was great to see so many people at the conference. Numbers I've seen are about 1500 folks in attendence. When I first got into animal welfare 7 years (or so) ago, there were minimal ways for people to get access to information on best practices around the country. It's one of the reasons I started this blog. Now, there seem to be a lot of ways for people to meet others that are having success, and sharing ideas -- at conferences like this one and growing No Kill Conference, and on blogs and Facebook. Learning ideas and best practices from others is huge.

2) I'm so glad people are starting to warm up to the idea of open adoption policies. Several years ago there was a LOT of pushback about open adoption policies -- and now, more and more people are abandoning harsh requirements for adoption. There is still a ways to go here.

3) One observation I had was that the No Kill track (there were 5 "tracks" at the conference) was one of the tracks. More people seemed to be interested in more specific workshops like animal training, increasing owner retention, increasing adoptions, fundraising, marketning, etc. While the No Kill track seems to take a very global view at fixing the problems, the narrow tracks are able to go more in-depth in each of the topics. Both are very valuable. My general feeling is that it seems like a lot of the folks at the conference (and in animal welfare in general) are very focused on their individual pieces of the pie -- whether there are a rescue focusing on adoptions, or a spay/neuter clinic focusing on spay/neuter/outreach.

None of this is bad, and all of it is important, but I do get a sense from this (and from talking to people) that many of the people that are most supportive of No Kill are not necessarily in senior positions, or with organizations that allow them to focus on the more global view.

4) I  think there are a lot of people who WANT the power to make their communities no kill, but right now lack the resources to do so. In some places, the city runs the animal shelter and the animals there are dying because there is a lack of caring at the city shelter. In some, the city animal intake is handled by a 3rd party not-for-profit that runs their own shelter (and is doing so poorly) -- and that shelter may be the only shelter facility in the entire city. I really think the next 3 years or so is going to be spent marrying the people who have a passion for saving lives with the power (whether it be money, the shelter, or city contracts) to impact the changes necessary to become No Kill.

5) Here's the good news -- regardless of the situation in your community, there is a path to No Kill that has been applied that works.  

a) In Charlottesville, VA the city partners with a not-for-profit 501c3, the Charlottesville SPCA, to handle their animal control intake. They're path to success was changing the management at that not-for-profit organization

b) In Reno, NV, the Nevada Humane Society, (a 501c3 not-for-profit) partners with the city shelter (which is next door) in order to maximize life-saving.

c) In Austin, TX; the city shelter was for many years poorly managed, but Austin Pets Alive set up the rescue/foster/spay/neuter resources to effectively pull animals from the city shelter and save their lives until new management could be put in place.

d) In Kansas City, MO; our community was able to convince politicians to privatize the shelter operations and now we have a compassionate organization managing the city shelter facility.

I think any of these paths will work -- and depending on the circumstances in your community, each one offers a potential path to success -- depending on where the power structures are and depending on how hard or easy it is to change the power structure in the city so that we can get compassionate people who know how to make no kill work in positions where they have the money, shelter, access to make the changes happen.

What are the barriers to getting to no kill in your community?  And which path gives you the best opportunity for success?  Now that you know the path you need to take, let's get started.