All eyes are still on Sikeston, as with 2 sides the story, pit bull roundup may continue

The saga in Sikeston continues.

Last week, news started to come out of Sikeston, MO that animal control officials were beginning to round up pit bulls in the community for non-compliance with the city's 9 year old breed-specific laws.

City officials contended that allegations were not true, and were never true. And the final results of the roundup, where 3 pit bulls found their way into the shelter for "non-compliance" may have indicated that city officials were right.

But as with all things, there are two sides to every story, and it appears the story being told in the community is very different than the story being told by city manager Robert Friend (and really, shame on the Sikeston Democrat for not even trying to connect with the other side of this story).

In the latest report, Sikeston Humane Society Director Trace Allen White contends that he was informed that there would be roundup last week -- and that is why he sent 30+ dogs to other shelters to make room for the influx of dogs to come into the shelter. White contends that due to the public outcry, the city ceased their roundup -- but that the roundup may continue at a later time once the outcry has died down.

Friend denies this charge.

I'll let you watch the great follow-up story by Chris Hayes of KTVI St. Louis. Thanks Chris for the follow-up on this story.

 

Meanwhile, the city leadership of Sikeston could learn a lot from the outcry and the situation that they've created. Because even if the allegations of the roundup are not true (I believe them to be true), their poorly crafted law is setting them up for this type of feedback.  So here is some constructive feedback for city leadership on their law:

1) Make the law behavior-based, not looks based. Not all of the aggressive dogs in Sikeston (and likely not even most of them) are pit bulls, and not all pit bulls in Sikeston are aggressive. This is NOT a wealthy community, and if public safety is the concern, then focusing the limited resources on dogs that have shown through their behavior to be aggressive is by far the best approach. It's fair, an effective.

2) If you confiscate a dog from someone because they violated the law, and you say you identified the dog as a 'pit bull' that wasn't living under the guidelines set forth by the city, your defensive of identifying the dog as a pit bull "by looking at it" is not really going to stand up so well in court. Especially when the dog is listed as a 15-20 lbs dog and lets some random news anchor just hold him in his arms.

3) The US Constitution guarantees Due Process. Your law should too. The current law notes that "any dog found to be subject of a violation of this ordinance shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment. In addition, a minimum $500 fine will be assessed..."

So there is no due process. Immediate seizure, and fine. This is not legal.

4) Please, go talk to the experts in your community about breed-specific laws. Talk to your area veterinarians. Your shelter director. Area dog trainers. I don't know any of them, but I can almost bet that they will completely oppose your position on this law as there is almost ZERO professional support for laws targeting specific breeds of dogs.

Leave good dogs with good owners in their homes. There is no reason to add dogs with homes to the shelter population in this state. It only leads to the deaths of dogs. Stop it. It's time to move on from your poorly though-out breed-specific law. The world is still watching.

Comments

[Janette Hamilton]

Do they honestly think the outcry is just going to die down and then they can continue on removing dogs from homes? Do they not realize that the second they start back up again they will get the same reaction from the public? This isn't a sweep it under the rug sort of thing! There will NEVER be a time where the public will stay silent as authorities condemn good dogs to death.

[Cheryl Huerta]

Thanks for the update Brent. I'll continue to encourage people to contact the Sikeston City council with respectful but factual information about what type of legislation can be effective in keeping citizens safe from dog related injuries.

[EmilyS]

I've been most shocked by the sanguine way "StopBSL" (and other "advocates) have treated this, just swallowing the city's line of bull whole. Your points here are dead-on.

[db]

Keep their feet to the fire, so to speak, so they don't revert back to taking people's pets in the dead of night. This needs to be kept in the public eye. Thanks for following this up and thanks to the reporter for not letting this drop.
I'd love to write, but not sure I can be as respectful as warranted . . . this is an atrocity!

[EmilyS]

and btw, since their ordinance says dogs "shall" (not "may") be seized and fines "will" be assessed, the city is violating its own ordinance if it DOESNT seize noncompliant dogs and fine their owners... leaving them open of course to charges of unequal application of the law. AKA "owning a pit bull while poor/minority"

[Brent]

Emily,

The story is strange to say the least and I'm glad that Chris Hayes followed up on this and asked the questions I woudl have wanted to ask.

Obviously there are two sides to this story, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what's in it for Trace Allen White to lie. At this point, coming out against the city potentially threatens his job and SHS's relationship with the city -- but for him to stick to his story, and to have other people in the community speaking out about it has a lot of people on one side, and only the city manager on the other (who, at this point, has every reason to lie).

I also think his choice of messaging is odd - and seemingly only focused on what they didn't do, but no encouragement of people to follow the ordinance, or the "need" for it, or whatever. While Friend has every reason to be untruthful, I don't have any motive for White to be so..

[Karen F]

Thank you for your excellent coverage of this issue and for not letting it disappear.

[Joel]

1. Why can't the city manager be transparent about his plans, since they would have enhanced public safety? If BSL is so great, puff out your chest about it and educate us bleeding-heart pit nutters about why it makes communities safer.

2. If (as the city manager suggests) the Humane Society sent 40 dogs to St. Louis rescue groups simply to reduce population at the shelter, don't you think they'd do that every chance they got? Did the shelter director look like he'd never thought of that before?

3. Nice follow-up reporting, but can we PLEASE stop showing shelter dogs barking and howling in their cages? Take them out of their kennels where they usually act like any other dog.

4. That being said, nice of the reporter to cuddle up with one of the impounded pit bulls. He sure looked like a vicious one! Glad that threat to public safety is off the streets. Well done Sikeston!