KC DOG BLOG

More misinformation, deceit and attempts to mislead from Merritt Clifton

It almost seems that if I were looking I could make this a weekly column, but this one is too bizarre to pass up, and given that I've seen the latest piece from Merritt quoted in a couple of places already, I suppose I might as well nip this in the bud.

In the latest issue of Merritt's self published "newspaper" Animal People, Clifton takes aim at the state of Rhode Island with an article "Laws pre-empting breed-specific ordinances pass - but polls tilt the other way".

In the article, Clifton calls out Rhode Island (which has since passed it's law prohibiting laws targeting specific breeds, which is what he refers to as "pre-emption") and why he thinks the law is a bad idea. While most of the article is filled with mistakes, and attempts to mislead (much of it relying on Ed Boks' foolish blog post), there is a paragraph that I've now seen quoted a couple of times that is so full of errors and mis-information that it needs to be addressed in full.

Here's the snippet:

The Nevada, Connecticut and Rhode Island bills, like the similar bill passed in Massachusetts in 2012 were rushed into passage in the last days of their respective legislative sessions, with minimal publicity and debate. Fifteen states now ban breed-specific ordinances, including California, Illinois, Texas and Ohio.

State Farm Insurance, on May 17 2013 disclosed that California, Illinois, Texas and Ohio rated first through fourth in Insurance claims paid for dog attacks in 2011. State Farm paid $20.3 million to 527 victims in California, $10 million to 309 victims in Illinoi, $5.1 million to 219 victims in Texas and $5.4 million to 215 victims in Ohio."

Not only is Clifton's information largely erronious, is is purposefully so in an attempt to mislead people into fearing prohibition of breed-specific laws. It's a desperate grasp for something, anything, that would lend support.

State Legal Process

For all four states that have passed prohibitions on breed-specific laws in the past 12 months (yes, that's FOUR in 12 months, and very noticably trend), all went through the usual process for state laws. The laws were introduced at the beginning of the legislative session. They were sent to committees and discussed, and then, once passed out of committee they went to the House floor, were voted on, then went through the same process in the Senate, and eventually signed into law. Because of the lengthy process of the committee structure, most bills are passed very late in the session.

In Nevada, the bill passed both houses of the legislature with only one dissenting vote. 

In Connecticut, the Senate only had 4 dissenting votes. 

In Massachusetts, the bill spent 5 full months in the democratic process before being signed, so it was hardly a rush job. 

But really, the reason that the bills had less debate than others was because NO ONE OPPOSED THEM. Really, in a world where absolutely no professional support for breed-specifc laws, state legislators were met by knowledgable advocates and organizations in those states that helped pass the laws. This wasn't some rush job. I was a no-brainer based on the fact that there is almost no support outside of Clifton for breed-specific laws.

Ohio

First of all, let's set the record straight. Ohio does NOT pre-empt breed-specific legislation. Ohio law is a breed-neutral, dangerous dog law, that targets dogs based on behavior, not breed. However, the state law does allow local juristictions to pass breed-specific laws. 

So this information from Clifton is just flat wrong. But wait, it gets worse.

Up until February, 2012, Ohio was actually the only state in the US that targeted specific breeds. This law was overturned in February, 2012. 

Now, keep in mind, that Clifton was using Ohio's high bite numbers (and payouts) as a reason why pre-emtion was a bad idea. However, Clifton was basing  this on 2011 data -- a time when Ohio actually TARGETED specific breeds of dogs. So not only is Clifton wrong in trying to use the data to prove his point, in doing so, he actually makes a case against himself. 

Oh, but it gets worse for Merritt.

Keep in mind that Clifton is using only one insurance company for his data -- State Farm. State Farm has a policy that doesn't allow them to insure "Vicious" dogs. Because of the way the Ohio law was written (pre 2012), State Farm WOULD NOT insure pit bulls because state law declared them "vicious" because of breed. So based on this policy, it is unlikely that ANY of the 215 victims and $5.4 million in payouts Clifton attributes to Ohio victims was due to a pit bull bite. None. Further demonstrating how his falsifying of information here is actuall working against his point, not in favor of.

California, Illinois and Texas

So what about these other states?  In their case, it is true that they prohibit breed-specific laws (although California allows for breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter laws).  Why did they have so many bites? 

It's a simple answer:  Math

If you look at the total number of people in each state in the United States, the following are the 7 largest states based on total population:

1) California -- 38 million people

2) Texas - 26 million

3) New York - 19.6 million

4) Florida - 19.3 million

5) Illinois - 12.9 million

6) Pennsylvania - 12.8 million

7) Ohio - 11.5 million

Two things jump out at me on this list:

#1) All 6 of the 6 most populous states in the US have laws prohibiting laws targeting specific breeds.

#2) The best correlation among states with a lot of people bitten by dogs is that these states have a lot of people, and dogs. (New York would appear to be the exception here, but New York actually way under-indexes on dog ownership because such a large percentage of the population lives in New York City where high-rise living is less conducive to dog ownership than in most other parts of the country). So where you have a lot of people, and a lot of dogs, the likelihood of someone getting bitten increases. There's a reason why Maine, which also prohibits breed-specific laws, is not on the list.

This is rocket science.

So it appears that the number of people, and dogs, is the likely cause here, not the laws in place. Except Ohio maybe, which actually TARGETED breeds of dogs, and jumped several states with much higher population than them. Hmmm.

Inadvertently, Clifton then destroys his own data

Over the years, a lot of space has been dedicated here, and elsewhere, to breaking down Merritt Clifton's dog bite data.

Essentially, Clifton has a report of dog bites, as reported by the media, that he has tracked for 30 years now of severe dog attacks in the US.

The errors of the report are plentiful, from the total reliance on media reports, to increasing the number of pit bull attacks during a three year window by more than the total number of attacks, to his not understanding that his discovery of Google caused 20% of all of the bite cases in a 29 year report to have appeared within a 19 month window.

Now, I periodically get Clifton's reports just to keep tabs on things, so I don't have an exact window for 2011, but on Dec 22, 2009, Clifton had 2,694 "attacks causing bodily harm" in his report. 

On December 26, 2011, the number was 3,498 -- an increase of 804 (this was during his period of mysterious increase in bites).

So if you consider this 2 years worth of data (which it essentially is), then we can divide by 2 and say that average number of dog bites "causing bodily harm" for the two years is 402. So it appears that Clifton recorded 402 dog attacks in 2011. 

However, based on the numbers he reported in his recent story, one, singular insurance company, State Farm,  paid out insurance payments to 527 victims JUST IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT YEAR. According to insurance market share reports, State Farm carries roughly 25% of the Property Insurance Policies in the state of California. So based on this, we can estimate that there were nearly 2100 insurance payments for dog bites -- just in California.

And yet, Clifton's report only notes 402, for the entire country. So again, his own data if making his biggest source of "fame" completely invalid for it's utter incompleteness because the media does not report all major dog bite incidents. The media doesn't (nor should it), and without a complete report, Clifton's data is useless and now, self-contradicting.

Inaccurate info, data out of context, and attempts to mislead

And this is where the last gasp is coming. States continue to take the leadership role in prohibiting breed-specific laws. With all credibility slipping away in favor of listening to real experts, Clifton, and the handful of other haters out there are finding themselves quickly on the wrong side of history. In a last gasp effort, they are flinging out inaccurate and misleading data in hopes of scaring people into not doing what's right, and effective, to try to scare people into being afraid of pit bulls.

It's not working. In response to the letters, and the fear mongering, the Governor of Rhode Island signed the bill prohibiting breed-specific laws in his state into law. 

Knowledge and truth are winning.

The importance of length-of-stay for open admission shelters

A couple of weeks ago, the ASPCA released a video about the "Length of Stay Game". 

While I'll be among the first to admit that the video itself is kind of corny, the point behind the video (which it does a great job of doing), is made very clearly: Length of stay is important for open-admission shelters.

 

You can watch the video above -- it's only 4 minutes long and worth the time.

The video essentially takes you through two scenerios where two 'shelters' take in the same number of animals at the same pace. However, one shelter has a shorter length of stay than the other shelter. So while one shelter takes in animals at faster pace than they get them out (causing their shelter to become overcrowded very quickly), the other gets animals out at the same rate they get them in, causing animals to always comfortably fit within the limitations of the shelter.

I think the vide does a great job of highlighting the importance of understanding length of stay at an open-admission shelter. While a closed admission shelter can stop animals from coming in when they aren't moving out, an open-admission shelter cannot. So to prevent the animals from stacking up on each other, they have to find more ways to get them out quicker.

This means not unnecessarily turning away adopters.

This means getting sick animals healthy faster. And keeping animals from becoming sick in the shelter.

It means adopting out quickly, in multiple locations. And transferring to rescue groups. 

It means increasing Return-to-owners -- which is the fastest way to get animals back out of the shelter.

I like the video because I think it makes us look at running a shelter differently. While often the emphasis is on "not euthanizing" animals -- this puts the emphasis on getting animals back out.  Quickly.

And that should be the focus. 

Rhode Island becomes the 16th state to prohibit breed-specific legislation

According to Jodie over at Bless The Bullys, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee has signed HB 5671 which prohibits communities in Rhode Island from having laws targeted at specific breeds of dogs. 

Rhode Island has joined 15 other states in the passing of a law prohibiting breed-discrimination. Many of these are recent passings, as Nevada and Connecticut signed their bills into law just last month, and Massachusetts passsed it's law late in 2012. 

It is also my understanding with this law (although unconfirmed at this point), that it is powerful enough to force cities that currently have breed-specific laws would have to repeal them. This would impact roughly a half dozen communities in Rhode Island.

Overarchingly, as politicians begin talking with experts, and those knowledgable about canine behavior, they overwhelmingly realize how breed-specific policies discriminate against good dogs and good owners, break up families, and are ineffective at improving public safety.  Rhode Island is yet another example of such progress and now, nearly 1/3 of US States prohibit breed discrimination. 

This is obviously great news. Congrats to everyone in Rhode Island that helped make this happen. 

A look at how far we've come -- redux

In the most recent issue of Time, the magazine offers another look at "The Softer Side of Pit Bulls". There is a snipet of the article at the link, the rest is protected by paywall.

The article is pretty general -- as you'd expect. I'm sure most of Time's readers wouldn't love a 30 page expose on the subject. It does however do a nice job of discussing the "makeover" pit bulls are getting by advocates, animal welfare organizations, and even celebrities. It also speaks of the increased popularity of pit bulls over the past few years and how many organizations are seeing dramatic increases in adoptions.

It does provide some data on dog bite numbers, and the accuracy of that data as studies have consistently shown that visual breed identification is less than precise.

And the article also interviews many of the usual suspects: Jane Hoffman of the NYC Animal Alliance, writer Bronwen Dickey, Donald Cleary and Karen Delise of the NCRC and others, and while the article isn't perfect, it is solid, and overarchingly positive toward the dogs (including 7 cute visuals of different pit bull type dogs). 

It's interesting, and certainly welcome to see the expose' from Time. Certainly they have some making up to do for the article they ran in 1987 that helped fast-track the dogs onto America's most wanted list in the first place. 

This isn't the first time they've offered a makegood on the article. Back in 2009 they ran a very good article featuring some of the dogs from the Missouri 500 dog-fighting (again with great visuals) case discussing their prognosis for rehabilitation. It was stories like this that helped change the dialogue about dogs involved in fighting rings from eager participants to the unwillful victims of cruelty that they are. 

The larger narrative is changing, and pit bulls are becoming mainstream again. People are starting to get it in very large numbers. They are dogs. Worthy of our respect and love, and willing to give it in return.

The Time magazine article is another reminder of this change -- that I know for many of us seems too slow in coming. So go read it online. Buy it on the newsstand. It's great to see how far we've come.

Related: 500 dogs, 3 magazines, and a look at how far we've come

Catching up: Two Fatal Dog attacks from 2 weeks ago

I'm still catching up from some personal and professional stuff going on, but there are a couple of fatal dog attacks that I need to get logged. 

I will start this as I start most of these discussions by noting that fatal dog attacks are VERY rare. With 75 million owned dogs in the US, and 300 million people, there are extremely few dog attacks in this country. However, like almost everything in our lives, there is some risk with dogs, and when these rare incidents occur it's always important to look at the social and human circumstances that led up to the attacks so we can better learn how to prevent them.  

Arianna Merrbach

In Effingham, SC, 5-year old Arianna Merrbach was tragically killed in late June outside a relative's home. The young girl wandered outside unattended and walked up to the dog (described as a "pit bull mix") that was chained up in the back yard of the relative's home where a neighbor said the dogs were "usually" tied up. According to reports, the young girl was familiar with the dogs (there were 3 on the property).

It has been reported often that tethering, as a primary form of containment is not an ideal situation for a dog -- particularly if the dog is exposed to predators or where the containment can lead to frustration and poor socialization. It is also well-documented that children generally lack the ability to recognize warning signals that are given by dogs and thus, their interactions with dogs should always be supervised.

 The poverty rate in Florence (where the Effingham zip code falls) is 26.6% -- which is significantly higher than the national rate of about 15%. While poverty is not an indicator of irresponsible dog ownership, major dog attacks do tend to happen in areas of high poverty where other social problems exist.

The story was picked up in only about 10 local news sources. 

My heart goes out to the Merrbach family.

Linda Oliver

In Liberty County, TX, 63 year old Linda Oliver was found dead after being attacked by a dog. According to the reports, the dog wandered onto the family's property 2 weeks ago and Oliver, and her husband, began feeding the stray dog. 

However, one morning Linda went out to feed the stray dog, and the stray began to attack the couple's small Dachsund. Oliver tried to rescue her own dog from the attack, and the stray dog turned on her and began attacking her -- biting her many times. 

Oliver was able to get away and called her husband to tell her she'd been bitten but she sounded weak at the time and then the phone went dead. By the time authorities arrived, Oliver died from blood loss due to her injuries. When authorities arrived, the dog was very aggressive and charged at the officers and they shot the dog. 

The stray dog was described as a large, long-haired black and white dog and has been called both a "Labrador Retriever Mix"  and a "mastiff-Rottweiler mix". The reality is that as a stray, it was likely just a large, mixed-breed mongrel. 

The story is tragic and shows why it is important to be cautious around stray, unknown dogs that likely lack proper socialization and let authorities take percautions about with the dog's temperament. My heart goes out to the Oliver family -- who were just looking to do what they thought was the right thing.

The storywas picked up by 30 news sources. The area where this attack happened has a poverty rate of 38% -- 2 1/2 times that national average. 

Weekly Roundup -- Week Ending 7/14/13

I've obviously been light on posting the past couple of weeks. It's been really busy in my personal, and professional life and just haven't had time to get to the blog. I'll have a bit more on some of those things in the coming week or so. Meanwhile, I've been stockpiling blog posts, some that just won't ever get written, but some I plan to get out there shortly. 

Meanwhile, there are a lot of articles that I"m reading that I want to share in this week's roundup that I think you'll find interesting. Again, going to skip over the majority of bite stories (although there are a couple I want to share) and BSL fights (again, with exceptions). With that, sit back, relax, and enjoy some of the articles from the past couple of weeks.

Cities/States and Laws

Laws targeting specific breeds of dogs "not an option" for Great Bend, KS.

Mason City, IA approved a new dangerous dog ordinance that targets dogs based on behavior, not breed. The ordinance "promotes responsibility of the owner, supervision of the dog and safety to the public -- it does exactly what it was supposed to do" said Chairman Jay Urdahl.

Benton, AR passed a new dangerous dog law at a vote of 7-0. The law targets dangerous dogs based on behavior, not breed.

A Westwego, LA city councilman pulled his breed-specific law off the table after realizing there was no support for the law among his fellow city council members. The law was introduced as a form of panic policy-making after an attack in the community, but wiser heads have prevailed.

A dog owner in Richland, MS has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city's ban on pit bulls. The mayor of Richland says that the law doesn't deprive people of the right to own pit bulls, only the right to own them in the city. Um, yeah.

Speaking of panic policy-making, Garland County, AR passed a law targeting specific breeds of dogs which they refer to as "gripper breeds"  including Am. Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Dogo Argentines (they're wording not mine), Persa Canarios (again, their wording, not mine), Can Corsos (yip, them again) and any mixes of those breeds.  The law applies only to rural Garland County, but doesn't apply to first class cities in the county.  Not to say that the law is a form of panic policy-making,  but the passing of the ordinance comes after a fatal dog attack in the area 2 months ago -- in which a Bull Mastiff (not mentioned in the ordinance) attacked a young boy and less than 8 months after a committee was formed to discuss breed-specific language and determined it would not be effective. Anyone who thinks that passing breed bans is a rational conclusion reached to solve a problem needs to look no further than Garland, AR for how these small communities really pass these laws. 

Collins, MS passed a ban on pit bulls and Rottweilers. The law was passed with no grandfather clause, so anyone who owns a pet of these breeds will have to lose their family pets. Collins, MS, a small community of about 2500 people. 

Pasadena, CA passed a law requiring pets to be spayed or neutered by four months of age. I'm just amazed at the number of animal advocates that continue to support these types of laws in spite of their lack of success in controlling shelter populations, in spite of the reality that nearly no animal welfare organization supports them any more, and in spite of the potential health impacts that such early spay/neuter can create. Keep reading for more...

Positive Press for the Bullies

The Racine Journal Times (WI) notes: Defending the pit bull: Experts say the animals no more aggressive or prone to attack than other breeds. 

Some positive press from Sioux Falls, SD on dog breed profiling.

Dog Bites/Attacks

A rural North Dakota man was tragically mauled by a pack of up to a dozen wild dogs that were roaming at large. While there were a dozen dogs believed to be involved, the media decided to single out "a rottweiler, a pit bull and several other dogs" -- as if those dogs didn't matter. In all likelihood, if they were wild dogs, they were all mongrels of unknown breed.

In Baltimore, a 7 year old boy was attacked by a 'pit bull".  According to witnesses, the boy was one of several kids that was playing on the block and "teasing" the dog, causing the dog to jump the fence and come after them. 

In Palmer, AK, a Husky is going to be allowed to live after it attacked a 2 year old girl back in May. The young girl was in the kennel yard with 52 huskies -- all of which were working dogs -- and this dog broke free from its chain and attacked the young girl. Authorities claimed the girl's mother, who was with her, took a "totall unnecessary assumption of risk" by bringing three children under the age of 5 to the center of a busy dog yard.

Three people in Sikeston, MO were attacked by a Japanese Akita -- two of them losing parts of fingers in the attack. You might remember that last fall, Sikeston Authorities were accused of going around neighborhoods and rounding up 'pit bulls' under the community's breed ban -- taking resources away from dealing with dogs that, regardless of breed, were a danger to the community.

A Des Moines area man was severely attacked by two dogs in his home. The two "Chow-Chows" were copulating and the man tried to break them up. When he tried to interupt them, they both turned on him and began to attack. 

I'm including these attacks because I think they show several things: #1, the variety of dogs that can be involved in significant attacks, #2, that the circumstances around the attack are what lead up to them and that most are preventable, but human error and misunderstanding of dog behavior helped spur the attacks and #3 breed specific legislation does NOT protect people from attacks.

When "helping" is not "helping".

Sometimes rescue groups aren't what they appear to be.  Raised with Wolves shares the story about a "rescue" that is simply a buyer of puppies from puppy mills and then redistributing them via "adoption".  This is not the norm, of course. Most rescues are great, helpful people. But I share the recommendation to always do your research before you donate, or adopt, so you know you're getting what you're intending to get.

Shelter Success

The Martinsville-Henry County SPCA (VA) is celebrating becoming "no kill" 2 years ahead of schedule. 

Los Angeles, CA under the No Kill LA Coalition is also seeing success. For several years, the number of animals killed in LA shelters was around 19,500 - 22,000.  In 2012-13, the number appears to be closer to 17,500, so roughly 4,000 fewer than in previous years. (It's worth noting that in 1971, the shelters killed 111,000 dogs and cats. By 2003, that number was decreased to 30,000 -- and has now nearly halved again).  LA still has a ways to go, but they are making progress pretty quickly and I wish them luck...

Miscellaneous

Law Enforcement Today article advised police not to kill family pets. Finally it seems that awareness of this as a police issue is becoming more popular.

However, a lot more work needs to be done in this arena. Police shoots man's dog in front of him, and then arrests him for recording it on video. In response, police in the community are being given more training on how to deal with dogs noting that the officer's response was a last-ditch response, with no other measures even tried.

Science is studying the strikingly similar relationship that adult dogs have with their owners vs the way human children interact with these same adults. In another report of the same study: Your creepy friend who acts like their dog is a child is actually pretty normal.

A collar that acts as a fitness tracker for your pup.

Blogs

The Tragedy of Wolf Dogs -- some interesting thoughts from Patricia McConnell.

Kennel Cough: Natural Prevention of the Canine Cold -- Dogs Naturally has a potential solution to kennel cough -- something that is a neussance for sure in almost every shelter environment. Has anyone tried this as a way to stop kennel cough in their shelter?

The Plot Thickens: Spay Neuter Effects and the Health of our dogs -- There isn't much new research here that I haven't covered elsewhere on this blog, but more and more the impact of the health impact of spay/neuter is coming to the forefront. This time from Patricia McConnell.

Your Dog Needs to be Spayed or Neutered, Right? -- Dogs Naturally also tackles the subject of the health benefits, and negative impacts, of spay/neuter. 

"Raising them right" and "bad owners" -- Beyond Breed askes what message "it's how they were raised" sends about shelter dogs....

Reactive Dog: Foundation Exercises for your Leash-Reactive Dog --- a great training guideline for a popular problem of leash reactivity in dogs -- from Dr. Sophia Yin.

The dog bit me -- a New York Times Magazine writer talks about the day her dog bit her child and many of the circumstances that led up to the bite. It's interesting how important the circumstances become when you take "breed" (which is never mentioned in the article) out of the equation.

I was bitten by a dog as a kid and nobody freaked out -- I love this article because I think it represents a similar situation to when I was bitten as a child. No one freaked out. No one blamed the dog. Nobody blamed me. When rational judgment replaced hysteria....

Speaking of hysteria, a family in Salem, MO is struggling to keep their pet from having to be killed by local officials after the Labrador "nipped" a 7 year old child. In spite of passing a local professional's behavior evaluation, local authorities are insisting the dog should be killed.

Kai returns home after Osawatomie, KS Breed Ban Repealed

A few weeks ago, I noted here that after very thoughtful discussion, the city of Osawatomie, KS repealed its law that banned pit bulls.

This week in the Osawatomie Graphic, they show a picture of Kai, the dog who started the repeal, with her happy owners.

See, Kai's owners were out walking her when police stopped them and said that she was a "pit bull" and banned in Osawatomie. The family was sure she was a Boxer mix, so they got her DNA tested. Turns out that she was mostly Boxer, but also contained 17% American Staffordshire Terrier according to the test -- enough to make her ineligible to live in Osawatomie.

So Kai's family approached the city council about repealing the law. After thoughtful discussion, consultation with area experts, including the city's own animal control officer, they repealed the ban.

And thankfully, Kai gets to return home, where she belongs.

It's the often untold story of breed bans -- that of families being separated from beloved family pets simply because of how they look - -and in spite of them being good owners and good dogs.

In this case, Osawatomie did the right thing, and repealed its 25 year old ordinance.

Great story. Happy Picture.

 

The popularity of breed-specific laws -- is 600 a lot? Some perspective

It seems that almost any time that there is a story about a city considering passing a ban on breeds of dogs, it doesn't take long before a (generally anonymous) commenter shoots out a statistic that is made to seem like it's a compelling argument for passing breed bans. It generally goes something like this:

"Over 600 communites across the country have passed policies banning pit bulls."

As if the number is supposed to encourage more cities to pass breed bans. But is 600 accurate?  If it is, is it a lot?  

First of all, the number 600 is a bit debatable. Seems like the number 600 is a popular number to use in myths.

The National Canine Research Council estimates the number to be closer to 300. I've seen how the pit bull haters have arrived at the 600 number and it contains a lot of errors, (including the failure to take out a lot of repeals, and several bans that were overturned by statewide legislation) and essentially takes any county-wide ban and then groups dozens of small communities in the county in order to rack up numbers very quickly. 

The real number is probably somewhere in the middle of these two numbers.  But for the sake of argument, let's go with the 600 juristictions that have BSL. Does this make a compelling argument?

Not if you're good at math.

According to "The Straight Dope", there are 19,355 incorporated places in the United States. And another 3,143 Counties (or county equivelents). That's 22,498 total law-making bodies.

So if we do a little math, if the 600 is the number of juristictions that have breed-specific laws, that means that only 2.6% of the total juristictions have breed-specific laws. It's 3.1% if you assume that their inflated number includes just cities. And keep in mind, the 600 number is the high end of a debatable number.

This means that an overwhelming -- and I mean OVERWHELMING -- number of cities and counties have made the decision to target laws toward dogs based on the BEHAVIOR of the dogs and owners, not based on breed.

This 3% number of cities with breed-specific laws is pretty telling. That's small. To put this in perspective, 18% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth.  So yes, you're 6x as likely that a random person you meet with think the Sun revolves around the Earth as you are to pick a random city or town and they target breeds of dogs.

And both ideas are equally as silly.

Last month, Animal Farm Foundation had a nice info-graphic showing the realities that most communities that look into breed-specific laws end up listening to experts in their community and deciding AGAINST breed-specific laws in favor of behavior based laws. Many other communities are realizing the mistakes of the past and repealing their laws. This is great, as far as it goes, but doesn't take into consideration that most cities never really discuss the idea because they realize it's a bad idea without any debate.

So let's put this in perspective. More than 97% of law-making juristictions out there have not decided to single out breeds. Regardless of the anonymous fear-mongers try to convey, it is not the popular option. 

Truth, and knowledge, do generally win out. 

 

Annapolis, MO Repeals Breed-Ban

The community of Annapolis, MO (population roughly 500) repealed its breed ban this week.

The repeal came after an area family rescued a dog that they named Patches -- but authorities later declared the dog could not live with the family under the city's breed ban.

DNA tests confirmed that Patches was 50% American Staffordshire Terrier, which left the family to have to try to overturn the law. After working with city officials, the ban was eventually removed.

It's great to see so many cities with breed bans that are seeing the real outcomes of their breed-specific laws -- which to divide families from their loving pets that they consider members of the family.

H/T: Bless the Bullys

In this case, Annapolis wisely decided that good dogs should stay in good homes and that dangerous dogs will now be declared so based on their behavior -- not what they look like.

Great job by Annapolis, and Patches' family for getting this right -- and for Chris Hayes continuing to do a great job of covering these situations in the St.Louis area.