KC DOG BLOG

Riverside, MO repeals long-time breed ban

The city of Riverside, MO (a inner-ring suburb of Kansas City) has apparently repealed its long-standing ban on 'pit bull' type dogs.

From the city's newsletter (pictured left, click to enlarge):

"The former ban on owning pit bulls has been revised, and the breed is now allowed within the City limits. The new code prohibits owning animals whose behavior has been deemed dangerous -- reegardless of the specific breed."

Riverside continues its route to becoming a very pet-friendly community. The repeal of their long-time ban follows a city-wide commitment to TNR for community cats.

The repeal is joining the ever-growing list of communities in the Kansas City area that are repealing their long-time breed bans (most here have been on the books since the late 80s), including Osawatomie, KS; Topeka, KS; Greenwood, MO; Edwardsville, KS; and Osceola, MO. 

I confess that I don't know any more on this other than what is in the newsletter but it certainly sounds great. Congrats to the folks in Riverside, who are really working to become a pet friendly community and to improve the safety of their residents by focusing on problem dogs based on behavior, regardless of breed, instead of targeting only specific breeds. 

Omaha's breed-specific law "successful" at increasing the number of bites

This is one of those stories that gives me some room to almost celebrate while I beat my head against the proverbial wall.

In this morning's Omaha World News, there is a story about the city's 5 year old dangerous dog law. The law has some good points -- particularly in that it can create a reckless owner if someone has a dog in violation of ordinances twice within a three year period, and that it does have some restrictions on the amount of time a dog can be tied up alone.  However, the law also classifies all 'pit bull type" dogs (which, includes 9 breeds in their eyes) as "potentially danerous" and requires them to either be muzzled or go through Canine Good Citizen Training.

In the story, city leaders who pushed fro the law say they're "pleased" with the results.

The law was largely pushed through by one woman, who pushed the law through after her child was tragically attacked by a 'pit bull' in 2008 (fortunately, the child is now doing well). She said her goal was to protect other kids from having to deal with the trauma of being bitten or attacked by dogs.

According to the newspaper report, the number of bite cases involving pit bulls (as they've defined them) has dropped from 123 in 2008, to 38 in 2012.

That sounds like an incredible success. Except when it's not.

The story goes on to note: "Reports of dog bites by all breeds, however, have increased since the adoption of the ordinance."  Uh oh. 

Those who favored the Omaha ordinance quickly bursh that aside as just increased public awareness but really, they don't know that for sure. What they do know is that they passed the ordinance, and they want it to be successful (and it's very lucrative for the Nebraska Humane Society who handles animal control for the city because they are largest provider of the required Canine Good Citizen Training for pit bulls) and so let's ignore the ugly statistic that doesn't agree with us.

For the past 5 years, I've been tracking the "success" of the Omaha Ordinance (there is a lot of data at the link).  In 2008 (which, they're using as the base year, so I will too) there were 808 total dog bites: 123 by 'pit bulls', and 685 by everything else. 

In 2012, there were 981 total dog bites: 38 by "pit bulls" and 943 by everything else. 

So while the city has spent countless resources getting responsible owners of pit bull types to jump through hoops and get Canine Good Citizen Certification to avoid having to muzzle their dogs, dog bites in total have gone up 21% and bites by all non-targeted dogs have gone up 38%. 

It's also important to note that the dogs responsible for doing the most biting are not small dogs. In 2012, the top 4 "breeds" in bite listings were: Labrador Retrievers (92 bites), Stray/unidentified dogs (56), German Shepherds (46) and Boxers (41). 

Pardon me while I throw up a little while the city officials and the Nebraska Humane Society pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

If the goal is to lower the number of people who are being bitten, and suffering severe injuries by dogs (particularly children), then by every total statistical measure the law has been a complete and utter failure. 

If the goal was merely to restrict pit bulls, regardless of how much we mislead the public about true causal factors of dog bites and we don't care how many people really get bitten, just as long is not by a pit bull, then, well, I guess that'd be a success. Justify it however you need to I suppose.

So while this type of thing makes my head hurt, I do want to note that I don't want to lose sight of the fact that somehow this story is progress.  While not perfect, I would like to give the Omaha World Herald a round of applause, or at least a resounding golf clap, for being the first media outlet in FIVE YEARS to actually mention that dog bites are going up, not down. Maybe that little nugget of information will help spark people to start asking what's really going on in Omaha....and keeping people from getting bitten by dogs isn't it.

The common denominators

So, the past week or so has been a particularly hazzardous week when it comes to toddlers, and dogs. In the US, there have been now three young children killed by dogs in just the past 7 days. 

It's awful.

And while there are people out there who seem to want us to be very fearful of dogs and are trying to create hysteria, they seem to miss that there is a major, common denominator in these cases.

So, in order of their happening, here are the cases: 

Jordon Reed

Kotzebue, AK: 5 year old Jordon Reed was out playing in his front yard on Saturday night when his family reported him missing after he wandered off unsupervised. Local fire, police and search and rescue personel searched for the young boy only to find him dead in a field at 4 am on Sunday morning on the outskirts of town. The boy was determined to have been killed by dogs.

Police captured several free roaming dogs in the area -- one of which was believed to be involved in killing the boy. 

Authorities report that packs of loose dogs have been an increasing problem in the small community. The dog involved in the attack was said to be a loose fugitive from a sled dog "musher's lot". The dog believed to be put down was said to be a "Husky mix".

Earlier this year, the city council passed an ordinance that required people who owned "vicious breeds" to carry insurance for their animals and keep them secured in penned yards. I don't have clarification on what breeds were a part of that ordinance, but it sure seemed like some type of leash requirement may have been in order (although leash laws tend to not be popular in rural settings).

Kotzebue is a small community of about 3200 people. The poverty rate of Kotzebue is about 16% -- about 33% higher than the state average. 

"Daniel"

Gilbert, AZ - An unnamed 2 year old boy was tragically killed by multiple dogs in his babysitter's home. The details of the event are still a little scarce, but according to the reports, the child was a specail needs child that was being babysat along with his four sibblings. There were also four dogs in the home.

At some point, it's being reported that a dog fight broke out among 3 of the dogs, and somehow, the young toddler ended up getting in the middle of the attack.  The 28 year old babysitter was injuried trying to break up the fight between the dogs and the young toddler ended up suffering life-threatening injuries.

While authorites say that they may press charges on the sitter, it may also have been a case of the toddler being in "the wrong place at the wrong time."

Neighbors report that the dogs were usually kept outside.  

The dogs are being described as 'mixed breed pit bulls" although from the visuals, they look more "mixed" than "Breed".

 It's unclear at this point how closely the child and dogs were being supervised, however, I'd contend that no one person can fully supervise 5 children and four dogs by themselves....especially considering that all five of the children were apparently special needs. 

Samuel Zamudio

Colton, CA  - Two year old Samuel "went missing" at around 5:00 on Monday afternoon. After about a 30 minute search, the family found the toddler dead in the back yard of the home apparently killed by one or more of the five dogs that were in the back yard. 

The dogs are being described as "pit bull mixes" -- although the dog in this picture is a mixed breed at most. Neighbors had often complained that the dogs were often kept in a stench an that they seemed "restless and starved for attention".

The boy was visiting some family members. The boy's uncle and grandmother have been arrested on suspicion of felony child endangerment for not properly supervising the 2 year old toddler.

Colton, CA has a poverty rate of 28% -- nearly double the national average -- and poverty does seem to be an influencing factor in this case.

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

As you read through the the stories, common denominators arrise. In three of the cases, the toddlers were out in their yard unsupervised. In one case the amount of supervision is undetermined, but 5 special needs children and 4 dogs is a LOT for any one person to adequately supervise.

In all 3 cases there were multiple dogs involved. In all three cases the children were not well-socialized with the dogs. And in all three cases it appears the dogs were not terribly well socialized in the first place. 

Two of the three cases happened in low socio-economic settings, where often dog issues are a symptom of larger social issues that exist in the area.

In all three of the cases the dogs were described as mixed breed dogs. One involved a "husky mix" the other two involved "pit bull mixes" -- although the dogs are very different in appearances and it is highly unlikely that they shared much, if any, genetic lineage.

As much as some sources might like to make this about different breeds of dogs, or dangerous dogs, or whatever, it's not. If we want to solve dog bite issues in this country we should focus on the circumstances, not the "breed" of dog. 

For one, it is most likely that the attacks occurred by mixed breed dogs (which quickly dilute breed traits).  

For another, there clearly other factors involved -- including, most importantly - -the need to adequately supervise children. When young children and toddlers are allowed to roam outside, they quickly become potential victims to a whole host of dangerous things in the world that they are not equipped to understand how to avoid. Meanwhile, it's also important that dogs get socialization -- and not be abandoned in back yard, or allowed to roam freely in packs. 

My heart goes out to all of these families. These are true, tragedies, and all were avoidable.

A look at how far we've come -- Anderson Cooper edition

In 2009, officials ordered that 127 'pit bulls" be killed after they were seized from a dog fighting bust in North Carolina. Ed Faron was given 8-10 months in prison for his 14 counts of felony dog fighting. His dogs, including many puppies, were sentenced to death. It was certainly a high cost for being a victim.

At the time, HSUS's John Goodwin supported the measure noting that the dogs had been bred for fighting and it was expensive and difficult to "retrain" them. This followed reports that just 30 months earlier, HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle recommended that all of the dogs seized from Mike Vick's Bad Newz kennels be killed because they were "the most aggressive dogs they've ever seen." However, after proper evaluations, experts declared that 49 of the 51 dogs would be given an opportunity to live.

This was only 4 years ago -- that scores of dogs were killed, without evaluation, merely for being the victims of someone else's cruelty.

Skip ahead a few months, and Time Magazine featured 500 dogs rescued from a major dog fighting bust in Missouri. The dogs were given the opportunity to live, and the magazine featured the dogs not as vicious dogs that were eager participants, but as victims to human crimes and creatures to be empathized with.

And the trend continues.

A few weeks ago, the ASPCA, HSUS and area authorities broke up yet another dog-fighting ring in the South. The dogs are being held by the ASPCA and being given evaluations and behavioral rehabilitation opportunities. In other words, a chance. CNN's Anderson Cooper covered the story - showing the dogs again as the victims of human cruelty that they are. Broken, but not unsalvagable. It's a really nice report, that you can view here:

 

 It's amazing to see the transformation in how the cruelty victims are being covered and viewed. And it's great to see. Thanks to Cooper and the CNN team for their report.

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

Weekly Roundup - -Week ending 9/15/13

Here's a very quick look at some of the top stories from the past couple of weeks. 

Cities/States and Laws

Some speculation in Denver that after the White House denounced policies targeting specific breeds of dogs that Denver may reconsider its long-standing ban on Pit Bulls. Just speculation for now, but I have to wonder how long the old guard like Cory Nelson and Charlie Brown can hold onto the power in that city in spite of all of  the evidence against them.

In Swanton, OH, there is a legal tangling over the definition of a 'pit bull'. A dog belonging to Tim Bork was identified by acting Dog Warden Brian Bannister as a Fila Brasileiro -- which under the "a pit bull is what I say it is" philosophy Bannister considers to be a "pit bull" type dog. However, the law doesn't call out Fila Brasileiro in its list of "pit bull" type breeds. This suit is costing one resident his relationship with his dog, and the taxpayers a whole lot of money. Meanwhile it appears that Bork's dog has earned its Canine Good Citizen certification and is not a threatening dog....

Twenty-five years after instituting its breed ban, residents and officials in Yakima, WA are questioning whether the law is actually effective. 

A solid read from The Tennessean that debates the reputation of pit bulls as being dangerous.

Another solid report out of Kansas City. There are quite a few things that I would have done differently if I controlled this story, but overall a solid report.

Even though residents in Burnaby, BC say they don't want the city's breed-specific law, there is a chance the law might stay.

Clay, AL has decided to not enforce its breed ban under the advice of their attorney.

Dardenelle, AR passed the first reading of its proposed law to target specific breeds of dogs. The Dardenelle Police Chief says the law is needed because they increasingly see vicious dogs at drug houses. For the life of me I have no idea why anyone would think that dogs laws are an effective approach for dealing with drug problems....

After months of debate, Watertown, WI chose to listen to experts in their community and voted no on breed-specific legislation and instead voted in favor of a strong, breed-neutral ordinance.

Animal Shelters

I never cease to be amazed at the myths some people still believe in -- but a shelter in Texas is holding an adoption special on black cats now because they don't adopt any out during the month of October.

A couple of weeks ago I noted that the Genesee County shelter was doomed because they tried to implement their version of no kill by focusing on not euthanizing animals instead of not saving them. A couple of weeks ago they eneded their "no kill" policy.

Residents in Bakersfield have been stepping up to adopt following the news that the city was going to kick the Kern County Animal Control out of the shelter and let a not-for-profit run the shelter -- leading to more than 500 dogs and cats to be adopted in just a couple of weeks. This is still a huge mess out there and it seems like there are a lot of responsible parties, none of whom want to play in the same sandbox together and get this right. The Bakersfield Californian has a solid article about the decade of failure in Kern County.

Costa Rica's plan to adopt out more shelter dogs includes creating "designer breeds" for the mixed breed dogs. Our shelter has often called them "one of a kind" and "coutour" dogs, and this is another spin on the idea.

Positive Press

When the Toronto Blue Jays were in town, pitcher and advocate Mark Buerhle talked to the local press about breed-specific laws in Ontario and the challenges it created for his family. Many Kansas City area communities have breed bans similar to Ontario's so it was good press for us to have here in KC.

Good interview about Breed-specific legislation with Drayton Michaels.

Experts in Iowa concur that 'pit bulls' aren't dangerous.

Miscellaneous

A new virus called circovirus, that sounds similar to parvo, but different, has been confirmed in Ohio. This is obviously a concerning proposition for many as it can lead to a lot of dead animals quickly if a cure/vaccine is not found.

For all the talk about dangers of dog bites, after Labor Day weekend it was noted that drowning deaths in Missouri have doubled this year. More people have died from downing just in Missouri than will die from dog bites in the entire US this year.

Blogs

Wisconsin Watchdog notes that signage pointing people to an out-of-the-way animal shelter can help with owner reclaims as people often don't consider the animal shelter until their pet is lost. For years, shelters didn't really want people to know about them because they didn't necessarily want to publicize what happened in them. However, changing mindsets also includes doing 'little things" like creating signage to help people with finding their lost pets and knowing where to adopt.

The first step in addressing a fear is to recognize it as unfounded -- Modern Dog takes a unique look at BSL from the view of someone who is afraid of pit bulls, but realizes it is an irrational fear.

PETA confirms support of breed specific laws and the idea of killing pit bulls to keep bad things from happening (you know, like dying). SwayLove has a nice report of their correspondence with PETA who is clearly on the fringes of common belief.

Details about the new HSUS shelter report (which opposes Mandatory Spay/Neuter and has other good info)

Last week, the Humane Society of the United States launched a very detailed white paper with an overview of progress (and lack thereof) of sheltering under California law, with recommendations on needed legal and shelter activity improvements.

This is a study that HSUS seems to have gotten right in terms of research and perspective and you can read the report here in its entirety. Below is a quick overview, a few of the key "hits" and a a very key miss. While the focus of this paper was on sheltering and California Law, my plan is (with a couple of exceptions) to pull out things that I think are most relevant to the entire population.

Overview

The study is essentially an overview of 15 years worth of shelter data to evaluate the successes, and failures, of Hayden's law -- the governing law for shelters in California. The report analyzed data from reporting public agencies -- for an area that covered 87% of the population of California. It's definitely a large statistical area.

According to the report, the following is the disposition of the 459,000 dogs that come into California Shelters in 2010:

 - 38% euthanized

 - 33% adopted

 - 19% Reclaimed

 - 7% transferred to other shelter or rescue organizations

 - 4% "other"

The total number of dogs that entered into the shelter system, according to their reports, dropped 15% since 1998. Euthanasia of those dogs decreased 47%. A pretty substantial improvement. 

Things weren't quite so rosey for cats:

For cats, the total number that entered shelters actually increased 7% -- and euthanasia remained essentially the same.

Cats were much less likely to to make it out of the shelter alive. For the 393,000 cats that entered California Shelters, the following was their disposition:

- 71% euthanized

- 24% adopted

- 2% reclaimed

- 5% transferred

- 3% other

The report goes on to detail four key points that it felt needed to be addressed: Intake reduction, improving animal welfare for animals in shelter care, decreasing costs, and increasing revenue.

Hits

1) One key area of the report involves the recommendation for animal shelters to move toward taking appointments for owner-relinquished animals (which makes up roughly 1/3 of their shelter population). According to the report:

"Some shelters require an appointment to surrender pets, which has prompted a good number of owners to decide to keep their animals. Owners are responding to information they get about available resources and support, such as spay/neuter services, low cost medical care, training, food bank, etc to issues they are experiencing. Although most California communities have these types of resources available, many pet owners simply do no know that they exist. Owners may also be more inclined to keep a pet, in spite of any issues, when they find out how likely it is that the animal will not be released alive. Owners may also be in a better position than a crowded shelter to rehome their pet, as they know their pet's positive qualities and can exhibit the pet in a comfortable habitat."

Appointments have other benefits for the shelter too:

"Appointments enable agencies to control the flow of animals into their shelters based on their capacity to care for and place the animals.....if people can drop off pets at any time, a shelter may receive 30 animals in one day and only 2 the next. This creates staffing inefficiencies and can raise operational costs. Even within a given day, too many animals could come in at once, creating a hurried proces to manage them that stresses both pets and staff. If the agencies used appointments to spread surrenders over a reasaonable period, they can do more to work with owenrs to avoid the surrender and handle intake more smoothly."

2) A second key hit is that the report mentions the values of TNR. While HSUS used to denouce TNR, it has come around recently and this is another good sign. It also notes that feral cat colony managers should be aware of environmental impacts of the cat colony.

3) Hold times -- Based on their report, increasing the average hold time has had a minimal impact on the number of dogs reclaimed. The report notes that 80% of all dogs returned to their owners happen within four days (for our shelter, it's 3) and thus, there is not much net gain in increasing hold times beyond 4 days in terms of RTOs -- especially if a dog does not have identification. Holding the animals beyond the four days only increases sheltering costs and takes up space in the shelter because the dogs are unlikely to be reclaimed, yet unavailable for transfer or adoption, and increases the likelihood of disease exposure. 

The report goes on to suggest limiting hold times to 4 days unless an animal is wearing identification, and to eliminate hold times for litters of puppies coming into the shelter (people almost never lose an entire litter of puppies). 

It also notes that cats without identification should be made available for adoption immediately (mostly for space reasons and so cats don't stay in the shelter long enough to get sick) unless a cat has identification given that only 2% of cats are ever reclaimed, and almost never without identification present.

My note: We've had a similar situation here in Kansas City and 80% of our RTOs happen within the first 3 days, yet Missouri Law is to hold for 5. For a shelter with very minimal space, it would make the transition faster if we could put animals up for adoption after 3 days instead of waiting for 5. While many fear that this would result in earlier killing for high kill shelters, the solution would be relatively easy. Allow animals to be adopted or transferred after the 3 day hold, but note that they cannot be euthanized (unless for severe medical reasons) until after 5 days. 

4) The report also pushed for shelters to have transparency in their numbers -- which is important.

5) In the final section, the study notes ideas that it considered, but did NOT recommend. In this, it issues a statement AGAINST mandatory spay/neuter. Over the years, I've dedicated a LOT of space on this blog to the adverse impact of mandatory spay/neuter.  And over the past several years, most national animal welfare organizations have denounced mandatory spay/neuter, including Maddies Fund, the ASPCA, No Kill Advocacy Center, and the AVMA. However, HSUS has never really taken a stance against it....until now.

According to the report, it did NOT recommend increasing penalties for failure to spay or neuter, and goes on to describe:

"While finding people to adopt dogs and cats is crucial, reducing the supply of incoming animals is the only way to end the pet overpopulation problem. The stakeholder group discusses the pros and cons of changing state laws to increase fines and penalties for not altering pets. However, compelling evidence exists to show demand for affordable spay/neuter services is high, particularly in underserved areas. Failure to spay or neuter is more correlated with limited access to affordable and proximate services than i is with resisance to sterilizing pets.  Efforts to increase resources and outreach in communities where spay/neuter rates are low should be the focus."

This is outstanding news that finally HSUS is on board with a proven, targeted outreach approach vs trying to mandate sterilization on those who cannot afford it.

 Misses

Overall, I thought the report was really solid and hit on a lot of key points and shelter best practices. However, while there was a huge amount of space spent to keeping animals out of the shelter (which is important), and proper care for animals in the shelter (also important), outside of one section on working with rescue groups, there was little information on how to get them back OUT safely. 

Through the course of their study, intake for dogs dropped 15%. However, euthanasia for dogs dropped 48%.  So some shelters, somewhere are saving more lives of animals that do make it into the shelters. 

How are they doing it?  Increased adoptions?  Increased transfers?  Increased RTOs?  There isn't much in here about programs that are doing that (and nothing, at all on adoptions).  I would have loved for them to have dived into the shelters that were increasing adoptions to see which programs had the biggest impact. Off-site adoptions? Adoption special events?  Open adoption policies?  Satellite adoption centers? 

I feel that while keeping animals out of the shelter is important (and would have been a greater influence on the legal angle, which was their key focus), a small section on SAVING those who came in would have been warranted. It's the biggest miss in what was overall a very solid report, that is worth checking out.