KC DOG BLOG

Rhode Island takes steps to prohibit breed-specific laws

Straight off the news desk from Bless The Bullies, Rhode Island HB 5671 PASSED the House of Representatives today with a vote of 59-9 -- a whopping 87% of the total vote.

The bill would prohibit local juristictions from passing laws targeting specific breeds of dogs.

According to the chairwoman of the House Committee on Judiciary, Rep Edith Ajello, not one single person testified against the bill. The bill was widely supported by experts in animal behavior however, including animal advocates, former RISPCA members and current animal control workers.

The bill is now off to the Senate where it will be assigned to committee. If HB 5671 passes, Rhode Island would become the 16th state to prohibit laws targeting breeds of dogs.  Two other states, Nevada and Connecticut, have passed similar legislation already this year.

 

San Francisco area dog bite fatality

Update:

From the Republic: the victim's mother has confirmed that the boy, indeed, was riding the dog like a horse just before the bite occurred. She also confirmed that the boy was conscious and talking after the incident and the family thought he would need only minor medical attention.  The incident was so minor that according to this report, the family waited 2 1/2 hours before even taking the boy to the hospital.

Seems like one of the questions that needs to be answered is, how did such a minor bite apparently become fatal?

 

Original Story

Major dog bite fatalities are extremely rare. There are nearly 75 million owned dogs in this country, and yet, each year, only 30 are involved in incidents that are fatal.

It's not common. And that's why when fatal bites happen, they are big news. While society barely notices commonplace events these days (such as car crash fatalities, which claim 65,000 people each year), it thrives on the obscure.  And dog bite fatalities are just that.

Such is the case of of the tragic in San Francisco.

As I get into the details of this, please note that all of the information at this point comes from media reports -- and per usual, piecing together the story is often challenging with misisng pieces and mis-information being commonplace.

However, to the best of what I can discern, 6 year old Nephi Selu was at the home of some relatives in Union City (where the boy is said to be living) on Monday. According to reports, the boy was outside playing with the dog and engaging in some type of "horseplay". While that's a general term, officials seem to speculate that the boy was actually trying to climb onto the dog's back and "ride it like a little horse". 

The dog, being described as a "pit bull mix", then spun around and issued what is described as a singular bite on the young child.  "It looks like it was a single bite of a large and strong animal and a young child, and that's not a good combination," said police commander Ben Horner. 

The boy was taken to the hospital where it was reported that the boy was concious and talking for hours. The boy's uncle, Keala Keanaaina, thought the boy would be fine "after a couple of stitches" and went to work. And later found out the boy died. 

It is also worth mentioning that while the area where this happened is not a poverty-stricken area, and Keanaaina has a good job as a police officer in San Mateo, the living arrangement isn't one that is necessarily normal. Based on the media report, the house is shared with Keanaaina and his wife and 7 children, the victim, his parents, and his grandparents -- so 14 people were reportedly living in this home. While the family seems to be from the Pacific Isles, and this may be a cultural difference, it's still a LOT of people living in one home and worth noting.

It's a bizaare story in that the injuries didn't appear to be life-threatening and yet the boy died later at the hospital (which make one wonder).  It's also worth noting that the boy did suffer from a mild case of autism. While I've long mentioned that children, as a whole, generally lack good knowledge of canine behavior and the ability to read warning signals, a child with autism (which impairs social and non-verbal communication) would further inhibit the child from being able to read warning signals. This, combined with the possibility of the child physically hurting the animal while trying to climb on its back (where have we seen this before?), and not being able to judge obvious warning signals, may have led the dog to defend itself in the only way it had left. 

I'm truly saddened for the victim and his family -- but become increasingly angry when the pit bull hater crowd comes out of the woodwork and hijacks the conversation on these issues.

Let me be clear: unless the media starts letting animal welfare experts and people who understand dog behavior control these conversations, we will not be able to better educate people on the actual causes of these attacks. In this case, it seems fairly clear that in some way, shape or form the child, who was unsupervised and most likely unable to read the dog's body language, hurt the dog, causing it to lash out. We MUST let experts control the conversation and allow people to realize that while attacks like this are rare, this is how they happen. 

More from Donna at Bad Rap.

Very good sentences -- and thoughts on poverty, and animals

If you haven't seen this blog post (which I posted on Facebook yesterday), please go and read it now. 

The post is written by Lori Weise of Downtown Dog Rescue -- an organization that does outreach in one of the toughest, poorest neighborhoods in Los Angeles. The post is really insightful, and gives a look at poverty in America, of what urban animals shelters see regularly, and the constant struggle of "us" (the animal welfare community) against "them" -- define that however you want but in this case, it's those who live in poverty.

From Lori's post:

"This is not a "pet problem", this is a poverty problem. Lack of jobs, lack of secure and affordable housing, lack of services. When services are available, they are often difficult to access. Other services require people to live in a target zip code or prove how little money they make to qualify. Even reclaiming a pet at the shelter can be a challenge since it requires identification that matches the address where the people live -- a challenge for people in transition."

It gets better. With stories of successes, and 'failures', in the 'revolving door' at the shelter.

For several years, I spent a couple of evenings per week working with a group of inner-city youth in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Kansas City. I learned a lot over that 4 year stretch.

I learned that ethics can be situational -- and things like not paying your utility bill and then starting up new utilities under a different name is commonplace. And while it sounds obviously wrong, if the alternative is to have it shut off and your family be without heat in winter, or pay it, and your family go without food for the week, then it's a choice that sometimes gets made. 

I learned that sometimes dropping out of school to get a job at a fast food restaurant to help mom pay the electric bill is sometimes the preferred alternative.

I learned the language of asking "where are you staying" instead of "where do you live?" -- because kids moving from family member to family member's home looking for a stable home life was so commonplace. 

When discussing dating and relationships, I had a 13 year old boy tell me that he thought marriage was "something only white people did" because there were so few role models of married families in their community to draw from.

In the United States, the poverty level is set at $23,050 annual income. For a family of four. If you're living alone, the poverty rate is $11,170, $15,130 if you're a couple. 

 Think about that for a minute.

That's VERY little. Now consider that in the US, roughly 16% of the population, and 20% of children live BELOW that number. And that doesn't even account count the people making slightly more than those figures that are still struggling to get by. When you're living in this type of situation, sometimes ethics are situational.

From Lori's post: 

 "I know that many of you might say that you would be homeless, living in your car, before you would surrender your cat or dog. But think about it: Would you really? Could you survive living in a violent area, constant noise, graffiti, trash, gangs controlling the streets, controlling the times that you can go out after dark?" 

Unfortunately, I think too many have removed themselves so far from the problems, that they don't even realize what they're saying. When I was volunteering with the inner-city youth, every year some volunteers would drop out. That's to be expected. But one of the common reasons why people quit was that they felt that the volunteer sight was TOO FAR AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES. And I think it tells an interesting story -- I think most Americans have moved themselves so far away from the problems (for fear, safety, whatever) that they no longer even realize it's a problem. The areas simply become statistics, or the location of the latest tragedy being covered on the 10:00 news.

The impact of the poverty impacts virtually all aspects of living...including their dogs.

From Lori:

"Third, add the higher rate of violent crime like home invasions, assaults, robbery, carjacking and streets being controlled by gangs. It's no wonder that residents of the community often have dogs to protect their homes. They tend to have large breed dogs, who are often very much part of the family, but their main function is to keep the home protected."

It's a lot to think about. But I think as you read Lori's post you start to get a clearer picture of the needs. As she wisely states, "This is not a pet problem, this is a poverty problem". 

And impacts the desire for people to own dogs. It impacts the types of dogs that people choose to own. It impacts the types of dogs that end up at the shelter, and the types that end up making newspaper headlines.  

And if you happen to own a dog in one of these neighborhoods, good luck finding vet care. Unless someone has decided to open up a free/low cost clinic in the area, there are no vet services available. And given that many don't have cars, and public transportation doesn't allow dogs, good luck getting your pet to a veterinarian even if you did have money to pay for the services. 

The problem isn't the dogs. It's society.

Understanding the problem, and having human empathy, is the first step toward repairing it. 

Weekly Roundup - -Week Ending 6/16/13

Well, this is awkward. But I have this weekly column, the weekly roundup, that it's been over a month since I've posted. That's a little embarrassing. So today, I'm cleaning out the files. No dog bite news. Probably not much BSL News. But today I'll post a collection of links that I think are useful that I've collected over the past month that I hope you'll find of value. Let's see how this works:

Cities/States and Laws

Clay, AL (population less than 10,000) passed a law targeting "pit bulls" after the sheriff was approached by an aggressive pack of dogs that he believed to be Rottweilers. Anyone who thinks laws targeting pit bulls are done because of a rational approach, see this.

Breed Specific Legislation

Animal Farm Foundation has the details, and a really nice infographic, that notes that more communities are either looking at breed-specific laws, and choosing breed-neutral ones, or repealing BSL, than passing it. This is something I've been discussing for years here on this blog -- but the infographic and details in the AFF blog are nice to see.

Here's the trailer to the new documentary "Guilty 'til proven innocent".  Looks interest for sure from the short trailer. If anyone has more information about the movie, or has seen it, I'd love to hear feedback.

Breed Specific Legislation - Pride, Prejudice and the damning of pit bulls -- Great thoughts from Dancing Dog Blog

Increasing Adoptions

Short term offers with fee-waved adoptions are a great way to help move animals quickly for shelters and research indicates that these pets are just as valued as pets that are paid for. I'm going to post more thoughts on this, but this is good research for now.

Health

New study links herbicide exposure to bladder cancer in dogs -- this isn't probably earthshattering news to anyone paying attention...

Behavior

Are you overly protective when your dog plays rough?  - A nice article from Dogster about reading canine body language and not interfering with healthy behavior.

Miscellaneous

We are them -- ASPCA Pro, Dr. Emily Weiss, notes how spending time with "Them", with an open mind, will help people overcome negative perceptions of low income people not believing in spay/neuter, or not being safe, and turning those perceptions into the reality that "they" just need access to resources and comunication. Great thoughts Emily.

Pet Diaries: What a street savvy cat taught me about building a community -- from GOOD

 What I learned, what I've come to appreciate -- some interesting thoughts about looking back on what previous notions she had about dogs, and things she didn't know and thought she knew --  from Beyond Breed

The anatomy of a dog attack -- a reminder that dogs don't attack "out of the blue" or "totally unprovoked" -- from K9 Magazine (UK)

Black Dog Syndrome - Fact or Fiction -- more thoughts on "Black Dog Syndrome" from Patricia McConnell

Lost & Found

Could your lost and found listings use a tune-up?  Some good thoughts from ASPCA pro on how to up your Return-to-owner rates through lost and found.

Probability vs Possibility -  Lost Dogs Wisconsin has a great post on finding your lost pet -- focusing on what PROBABLY happened will more likely lead you back to your lost pet that focusing on what possibly happened.

Deep thoughts

This is an interesting post from Lucky Dog about the first pit bull that changed everything for her and drew her to rescue. I think most of us have a "that dog" and I think this post will help move you to remember back before "that dog".

And if that post doesn't get you, this visual from Poodle and Dog Blog will.

The world is not changed by people who sort of care -- not animal welfare related, but completely animal welfare related -- from Sally Hogshead.

Fun

Participation isn't difficult or mandatory -- I love this little graphic that reminds us that politics, and particular dog politics, is not a spectator sport.

25 animals at bath time - this pictoral is as cute as you'd expect

Speaking at the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference 2013

Earlier this week, Best Friends sent out an email about their 2013 No More Homeless Pets Conference in October in Jacksonville.

I couldn't capture the image in its entirety, but here's the little section with my name and picture.

Yes, I'll be speaking at the conference again this year about the progress we've made in achieving No Kill in Kansas City-- and I'm flattered to have been asked again.

It's been a challenge. We're working with a 40 year old shelter that was never designed to save lives. But every day our staff, volunteers and rescue partners work magic to find positive outcomes for the animals that find their way to us. And for that, I'm grateful.

While pretty much every organization that has achieved this type of success has achieved success in much the same way, our model is a bit different. To our knowledge, we may be the only organization that has taken over the operations of a city-owned shelter with a city contract. While others have their own buildings and a city contract, and city shelters that have achieved no kill, I don't know of any others that have created the same civic/private partnership that we created here to make it work. 

I'm excited to share our story again this year -- and I'm hopeful that people will come to my session (there will be other options). Hopefully I won't let you down...

Oklahoma tornado survivor dies weeks later in Arkansas dog attack

Tragedy has struck one Oklahoma family twice.

On Sunday, a 5 year old boy was attacked by the dog owned by a family friend.

The boy, and his two year old sister, were staying with some friends in Jessieville, AR as their family worked to repair their home in Moore, OK -- which was destroyed in the May 20th tornado that struck that area.

Then, the boy suffered another, this time fatal, tragedy.

Piecing the story together from the media reports (of which there have been more than 300) is quite a challenge as most are lacking a lot of critical information. However, it appears as if the boy was putting on some shoes and began throwing a tantrum, and even "acted out" at 50 year old Lynn Geiling who was watching the boy at the time. 

Authorities say they suspect that the dog, described as a 150 lbs Bull Mastiff, then came in from another room and attacked the boy in an effort to protect Geiling. The boy was taken to the hospital but died of head and neck injuries at the hospital.

The dog then was at large for several hours before a neighbor and friend of the Geilings shot and killed the dog.  

The story has been pretty strange and the information in the media has been spotty -- but this does seem to be how the story has come together (so far) and does make some sense.

It's important to note that there are a lot of factors in play here -- including a child misbehaving and "acting out" toward an adult, and a dog that was not well-socialized with the child (he had only been there a couple of weeks). While I would never say that a dog attacking a child is a normal, acceptable behavior, I think many dogs would show guarding tendencies if they felt their owners were in danger. Unfortunately, this was a gross, over-reaction to a situation by the dog. 

I also want to make a note on how the media portrays attacks.

Take this report by NBC News as an example. 

While the story is about a 5 year old being attacked by a Bull Mastiff, the photo caption of a Bull Mastiff notes: "The Bullmastiff isn't bred to attack, unlike the pit bull, but is considered an assertive guarding breed that shouldn't be left alone with children."

Really?  

First of all, pit bulls have no involvement in this story.

Second, they're not bred to attack.

And third, what exactly would you assume the function of an "assertive guarding breed" is? 

And this is not to imply that Bull Mastiffs are bad dogs. They're not. I've met a great many of them and they've nearly all been great dogs. But I just think it's interesting that some in the media have gone out of their way to excuse the dog's behavior while at the same time implicating a breed of dog that wasn't involved. 

The story then includes a quote from the American Bullmastiff Association which notes that the dogs don't need special training to "react appropriately if his family is threatened.".

Ok. So let me say this. While protecting your family is an appropriate, and common reaction for a large number of dogs to have, attacking a child is not in any way "appropriate". However, this is one reason why I think teaching dogs to be "guard dogs" (there is no evidence that that is the case here) is setting your dog up for failure because they just are not cognitively able to truly identify threats vs strangers. 

Anyway, dog behavior is generally pretty predictable. In this case, if you were familiar with the dog, you probably would have known it was protective in these types of situations. I will note that the behavior of a 5 year old is hardly predictable. 

This really is a tragic situation, that really does seem like a tragic accident. My heart goes out to both families in this case, especially as they were already going through a difficult time.

I'll update this story with any new news that comes out...

Very Good Sentences -- Poverty Porn

Here's an interesting article about marketing for charities using "look-away" images. It's not animal-related, but some analogies may apply.

Their post is about "Poverty Porn".  Here's how they describe it:

"Poverty Porn are words and images that elicit an emotional response by their sheer shock value. Images like starving, skeletal children covered in flies... that exploit the poor's condition in order to generate the necessary sympathy for selling newspapers or increasing charitable donations or support for a given cause."

I know we've all seen this. And the concept isn't unique just to showing children in African Nations. The same "shock value" effect also plays a role in those who try to promote dog bite hysteria or some organizations that show shocking footage of abused pets.

They conclude: 

"There are countless organizations and projects that keep falling into the savior trap, trying to do what they think is best, but creating output that is outdated and misguided and old-fashioned. It is Victorian and 20th Century social action swathed in 21st century storytelling technologies. As one commentor has said, poverty porn is the result of an organizations desperate attempt to keep itself relevant and attractive to donors, and is considered necessary for sustainability. It is never about the subject."

Ouch.

You can read the entire post here, at Good. 

Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws

This topic has been coming up a lot lately, and once again I feel that laws people mis-understand the cause and effect of mandating spaying and neutering.

First off, let me state, that I think most people who support Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws (MSN) want to do so because they believe it will save lives. I think they believe that if they pass the law, more people will sterilize their pets and thus, fewer pets will be born, and thus, fewer will end up at the shelter, and thus, fewer will die.

This is a logical progression.

Unfortunately, mandating sterilization doesn't have the same effect. I've seen it in action. And it's really horrific.

Yesterday, former Los Angeles Animal Services Manager Ed Boks posted a blog about why he plans to support MSN targeted at pit bulls in his new role at the Yavapai Humane Society. Previously, Boks had posted "statistics" about the situation, and then asked for people's thoughts and seems to support MSN targeted at pit bulls because that's the type of dog he sees most in his shelter. Then, based on the responses, deemed that most of the people that read his blog and responded supported MSN for pit bulls, it must be a good idea.

It's not. 

Let's start with some of Boks' research. Boks relies heavily on national information provided by the magazine "Animal People". I've written a lot about the magazine's editor, Merrit Clifton, and how his information is egregiously inaccurate and misleading, including:

- Covering bites only based on media reports, which is not statistically reliable

- Somehow having more than 20% of all his "data" for his 29 year study occur purely within a 19 month window

- And blatantly using misleading data from several communities to support his desire for mandating spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' including such egregious ideas as comparing the live release rates of pit bulls in the Indianapolis shelter to other communities and saying Indy killed more pit bulls than the other communities because they DIDN"T target pit bulls. The fact was though, that Indianapolis had a policy against adopting out pit bulls, meaning they didn't save ANY, which drove up their kill rates.

- Clifton claims that pit bulls make up only about 3% of the overall population of dogs in the US -- however, when you add up the numbers for all of the breeds he includes in his report (which includes 18 of the 20 most popular AKC dog breeds + many more breeds) he only accounts for less than 42% of the total dog population.

Boks fails to really analyze this information though, and then uses the latter report to justify why targeting 'pit bulls' might be a solution. According to Boks:

"Is there a way to end this disproportionate killing? Three US communities have tried two different solutions. San Francisco, Denver and Miami have each enacted breed-specific legislation. San Francisco requires pit bulls to be sterilized; Denver and Miami prohibit pit bulls....Cumulatively, San Francisco, Denver and Miami kill about 40% fewer dogs of any breed than the US National Average."

The "data" here comes from Clifton, and the cities were interesting choices.

Denver, which re-enacted its ban in 2005, has long been criticized for its mass killing of pit bulls. During a 2 year period, nearly 1500 pit bulls were systematically rounded up and killed at the Denver shelter, and reporters in the area captured pictures of piles of dead pit bulls as a result of their ordinance (warning, the pics at the link aren't for the faint of heart).

 Meanwhile, just yesterday, the city of Miami continued to look at passing a significant new tax in order to help fund low cost spay/neuter services as the community still is having very high intakes into the city shelter (btw, I'm not necessarily against this new tax, but just pointing out that things aren't all groovy in Miami).

These are interestingly two of Boks' success stories.

However, he also mentions San Francisco, and actually seems to prefer taking their approach of mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls as his third case study. I do want to dive a little deeper into that one.

Why People don't spay/neuter their pets

First off, let's note that after years of education about the importance of spaying and neutering, most people spay/neuter their pets. According to HSUS numbers, 78% of owned dogs, and 88% of owned cats are currently altered. However, when you look at "under-served" communities, roughly 80% of pets are unaltered and of those people who say they haven't altered their pet, 53% of them have actually never taken their pet to a veterinarian before (usually because of lack of money, lack of veterinarians in their community, or lack of transportation to get to the veterinarian -- or a combination of the 3).

These numbers are similar to the numbers from a Petsmart Charities study that notes that only 34% of pets are unaltered. According to this research, the three most common reasons people haven't altered their pets is:

1) Pet is too young for this operation (41%)

2) It is too expensive (32%)

3) Haven't gotten around to it/haven't had time (21%)

So in other words, if you provide people with affordable options, and make it convenient for them, they will alter their pets once they are old enough. No law required.

Failure of BSL/MSN in Kansas City

In 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter.

During the next 24 months, the city saw a 76% increase in the number of 'pit bulls' killed at the city shelter. And while the number of dogs of all other breeds being killed was dropping, the number of pit bulls killed nearly doubled.

While the Kansas City area was growing its low cost services, there wasn't nearly enough outreach resources available. People didn't know about the law and didn't know about the services. So when people were found with unaltered dogs, they were rounded up, and taken to the shelter, where they were, more often than not, killed. Because of the increase in pit bull impounds, the law caused more than 2,000 incremental pit bulls to be seized and killed over a 2 year period than had things remained static. It was tragic. It was slaughter.

Most of these dogs came from homes in the inner city where resources are limited and had people been given the opportunity for services, they would have willingly complied. Unfortunately, with the mandatory law, their dogs were seized, and destroyed.

Lest anyone think that Kansas City was alone in this, Fox 16 in Little Rock captured excellent footage a few years ago of Little Rock Animals services and police rounding up pit bulls for non-compliance where they were taken to the city pound, and also killed. In the first year of having the ordinance, pit bull killings in the Little Rock shelter increased by 44%.

 San Francisco

So let's get back to San Francisco.

There has been a fair amount written about San Francisco's breed-specific MSN. Some places have called it successful, while others continue to say that it has been at best, mixed results (most everyone I talk to close to the scenes have reported that things are definitely not as rosie as the reports would indicate).  Here are the numbers from the first 19 months.

Even if we were to take San Francisco as a "success" story, it would appear that it would be more of the exception than the rule -- and this is in part to a lot of other factors involved in San Francisco -- including, a poverty rate of 15% which is below the state average, combined with a median HH Income that is 20% higher than the state average. So, there is more money in the community than normal, and less poverty - -meaning fewer people needed the low-cost services, and there was more available money to help subsidize it. Meanwhile, it's worth nothing that because of no kill efforts going on in the community, San Francisco, at the time, had one of the most well-developed low cost spay/neuter programs in the country, as well as one of the best pit bull outreach groups in the country.

So the availability of resources in San Francisco helped keep the law from being the disaster it has been in other places.

From examining dozens of cities across the country, one thing becomes completely clear. If there are substantial enough low cost spay/neuter services in a community, people will comply. This works with, or without a law. A mandatory spay/neuter law will not necessarily fail if there are significant low cost resources available -- however, if there are not enough resources, then it will be a complete and udder failure. So there is no value in passing the law because if the services are available, there will be success without it.

This is something Ed Boks should be familiar with. When he was in Los Angeles, he helped pass a law mandating the spay/neuter for all pets in the community. The law has not been a success. And the lack of availability of low-cost options for compliance created a disaster in the community, and in part, led to Boks' firiing at that position.

Cause and Effect

Recently, many of us in Kansas City were discussing the enforcement of the mandatory spay/neuter law for pit bulls in Kansas City (which, unfortunately, still exists). And the sad thing is, there is no "good" way to enforce it.

If people who don't comply have their animals seized, then animals with homes end up in a shelter where they have to be rehomed -- that's no good.

If people are given tickets, well, the primary reason they likely didn't alter in the first place was because of lack of money, so giving them a ticket only makes that situation worse, and more likely they'll have to surrender their pet.

Then, there are a few people who simply, for whatever reason, don't want to alter their pit bull. So what then? Do we ticket them until they wrack up fines they can't afford and then end up with a warrant for their arrest?  Or should the dogs eventually be seized and taken to the shelter?  And if they are, does that stop their desire for having an unaltered pit bull as a pet?  And is that driving up the demand (and price) for pit bull puppies causing more to be bred, not less?

In the end, the idea of seizing pets and bringing them to a shelter in the name of enforcing a law designed to limit the number of pets coming into the shelter is counter-productive.

There is no good solution to it. Which is why I oppose the law which has already proven itself to be a failure.  It's also why nearly every humane organization in the country mandating spay/neuter, in any form.

The solution that has proven itself effective in every situation is to provide adequate, accessible and targeted low-cost spay/neuter programs. Until people start basing their support of legislation based on results, not on what they "think" might work, or what "a lot of people who responded to my blog post think" or based on misinformation provided by numnuts, then we will continue to have to fight this battle. We must do better.

Related: Knowing what to expect from proposed animal control laws.

Sway Love - Ed Boks floating the idea of mandatory spay/neuter for pit bulls

Nevada passes bill prohibiting breed-specific laws, & Connecticut set to follow

It's official, last week, the Nevada Governor Brian Sandovol signed into law a bill AB 110 that prohibits communities in the states from targeting dogs based on their breed or look. The bill passed both houses of the legislature with only 1 dissenting vote.

Nevada has become the 14th state to prohibit breed-specific laws. 

Nevada joins Maine, Massachussetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, Colorado, Oklahoma and California in their efforts to prevent breed-specific laws.

And it turns out that #15 isn't far behind.

Yesterday, the Connecticut Senate passed HB6311 in a 30-4 vote that would prohibit breed-specific laws in Connecticut also.  The bill waits a final signature from Governor Dannel Malloy. The bill, if signed, will force cities to tackle the root causes of dangerous dogs (irresponsible ownership) rather than targeting dogs because of how they look. 

This is great news for the folks in those states who are now going to be able to have REAL discussions about dangerous dogs and how to stop them (as there is no professional support for breed-specific laws) vs having anti-pit bull activists (or whatever breed gets targeted in the future) hijack conversations about the topic. 

Great news. Who wants to be #16?