KC DOG BLOG

Omaha's "successful" breed specific law - redux

Late last month, the Omaha World News ran an article about the city's 5 year old breed specific law.

In the article, city leaders who pushed for the law were "pleased" with the results of the ordinance. Councilman Garry Gernandt noted, "It seems to me we did the right thing, and I think the stats show that."

Except they don't.

Gernandt makes that claim in spite of the reality that the ordinance had been costing the city more money and that dog bites as a whole had been increasing. 

At the time, I provided the actual numbers to support this, noting that dog bites as a whole had gone up 21% from 2008 (when the ordinance was passed) to 2012, and bites by non-targeted breeds have gone up 38%.

I called this reality out in the comments section of the article that, finally, people are acknowledging that bites are going up even though city but still claiming it to be successful.

So the usual response came back "define bites vs attacks, they're different."

Indeed they are.

But as it turns out, major bites havent gone down either. 

The following are the total bite numbers from 2006 to 2012. The first number is total bites. The second is the number of level 4 and level 5 bites. Level 4 bites are defined as "single bites, holds on and shakes, or single bite, leaves and bites again, more than once, or multiple bites, unable to count how many bites." Level 5 is a level 4 bite with mutilated or missing parts. Keep in mind, the new law was adopted in 2008.

2006 - 916 (53)

2007 - 821 (34)

2008 - 808 (34)

2009 - 875 (42)

2010 - 913 (36)

2011 - 834 (36)

2012 - 981 (36)

So, two takeaways on this. Firstly, it's important to note that most bites are not sever bites. In this case, only about 3-4% of bites would be classified as severe bites. Most bites are, and continue to be, quite minor.

Secondly, in spite of the insistence by authorities and others that major bites have gone down, they haven't. In spite of all of their efforts, money, and back patting, major dog bites have remained very consistent and total dog bites have increased dramatically. 

The law is not working. And the idea that city officials are looking at the data and then LYING to the media and public about it being "successful" is appalling.

There is a group of people in Omaha called the Pit Bull Partnership that are working to highlight the failings of the law and working on driving awareness of the need to repeal it. The bite severity numbers were provided to me by them. Please click on their name and go to their facebook page and like their page to show your support for what they're doing. They were kind enough to provide me with the level 4 and level 5 bite data.

Also, they've sent out a press release highlighting the failure of the law. You can click to enlarge and read it at the left, or read it here.

We must insist that politicians make fact based decisions and rely on expert opinions when it comes to making dangerous dog laws. Expert opinion overwhelmingly opposes breed specific laws in favor of laws that target dogs, and owners, based on their behavior.

However, when politicians cave to the hysteria of the moment, they end up with laws that are costly, and ineffective, that they then end up defending in spite of the evidence that the law is failing. 

We can, and must, do better.

On imagery, adoption events and celebrating success

You may have seen this picture already. According to Facebook, nearly 200,000 people have.

But I'm sharing with a bit of commentary.

Last weekend I had the pleasure of presenting at the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference about the s tory of KC Pet Project. 

As a part of my presentation, I featured 11 things that I felt our organization has done very well and has been a big part of our success. Four of them are represented in this photo. 

1) The power of adoption events -- this photo was taken last night, after a 3 day long ASPCA Mega-Match-A-Thon event. During the 3 day weekend, we partnered with two other area shelters. KCPP alone adopted out 228 pets in the matter of 3 days. In total, more than 700 pets found homes in our community. Events create momentum and get animals into homes. Animals in homes saves lives.

2) Getting everyone on the bus -- it's incredible to have an entire team working to save lives. Whether it's asking the morning cleaning crew to come in at 3 am to clean kennels so we can open earlier, or our front lines adoption team, or our veterinary team working overtime to get all animals altered, or our social media/promotions team, everyone has to be involved and be on board with saving lives. This is a big part of our team. But it's definitely not all of them. 

3) Celebrating Success -- People like to support successful organizations, and staff needs to take time to celebrate success. When you adopt out 228 animals in 3 days, that's a cause to take time to celebrate.

4) The power of positive imagery -- people love positive stories. Share them. And share them visually. This picture tells an amazing story -- of a happy (and worn out) staff, of empty kennels, and lives saved. 

It was a good weekend. 

One key that isn't shown in this picture, is the importance of volunteers. Our volunteer group stepped up big time to make sure every adopter had someone working with them, to have great, easy to digest bios on the kennels, and overall just provided a tremendous amount of support for us all weekend. Thank you volunteers. We couldn't do it without you.

Note #1: Remy, the dog in the picture, is actually owned by one of our staff members and was the mascot of our 2012 Mega Match-a-Thon. She came back to visit and celebrate with us. Don't feel sorry for this dog, I guarantee she's spoiled.

Note #2: I have no idea what Matt is doing on top of the kennels. 

Meeting your match

This weekend, Kansas City Pet Project, and 2 other area shelters, are a part of the ASPCA Mega Match A Thon. It has been an amazing event for us in the past and this year appears to be no different. On Friday, day 1 of our 3 day event, we did 81 adoptions -- getting us well on our way to our goal of 200 over the course of the weekend.   81 surpasses our single day adoption record of 77 that we did on the 4th of July 2012. 

One of the many challenges in pulling off a big adoption event like this is that we have a lot of adopters come in, and a lot of volunteers helping these adopters. That's not the problem, except that sometimes it's a challenge for volunteers (and staff, or me for that matter) to make good matches between dogs and adopters because they don't know the personalities of all 300 dogs on sight (and we rotate animals through on average of every 14 days, so they're not there for long usually). 

So a group of our volunteers made "key cards" to help peple make their matches. 

The cards are a fun way to help adopters quickly determine important things like energy level, personality, ability to live with cats, children and other dogs -- so that people can quickly identify pets that will fit their wishes and lifestyle.

As we like to say, we have a dog for just about everyone, but not every dog will work for everyone.

It was really fun, and impressive to watch the adopters walking through the kennels yesterday with their "key cards" as they looked for the match for their family. 

And in the spirit of "meeting your match" I thinks this was a great way to make adopting a dog easier, more fun, and more streamlined.

Thanks to our awesome volunteers who helped put these together. It was no small task. But their benefit is certainly being seen in the adoption numbers this weekend.

 

Rethinking shelter dogs and social influences -- Thoughts from the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference

Reshaping the expected outcome for animals in shelters in this country includes rethinking "conventional wisdom". We're not going to reshape a nation that has spent decades killing animals in shelters by thinking about things exactly the same way.

And Kim Wolf's presentation at the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference created a different perspective for which to view "at risk" animals for shelters. For anyone not familiar with some of Kim's work, you can see many of her thoughts on her website/blog: Beyond Breed.

In Kim's presentation, she took a look at animals that are "at risk" in our shelters, and the societal factors that are leading to them being at risk. Many of these thoughts are Kim's, with a few of my thoughts sprinkled in. I'm going to do my best to differentiate between to the two as to not try to put words in Kim's mouth (or to take credit for her thoughts).

Kim's presentation started by noting that the single most dangerous place for a pet in this country is sadly, in an animal shelter. And what is it that drives shelter euthanasia?  Shelter intake. In order to save animal lives, you need help in not only keeping animals from coming into the shelter, but also in not doing things to prevent them from getting out.

So Kim highlighted 7 key factors that in her opinion was a risk for pets in today's society:

#1) Prevelence in the community. One of the key reasons pit bull terriers are at risk in shelters is in part because of their prevelence. According to Banfield Pet Hospitals, the popularity of pit bull terriers increased by 47% from 2000-2010 based on breed information collected in their nationwide veterinary clinics. According to Vet Street, Pit Bull Terriers are among the top 5 most popular dogs in 33 of the 50 states, and in the top 10 in 46 of them.  Pit bulls are at risk in shelters in part because there are so many of them. This is the same factor that puts cats and big black dogs at risk also.

#2) The second factor highlighted by Kim is poverty. In the US today, 1 in 6 people live in poverty. This isn't "struggling to get by" or "living paycheck to paycheck" -- it's pure poverty as in, I'm not sure where my next meal is coming from.  To give you a gauge of this, if you are a single person in the continental US, to be considered living in poverty you must make less than $11,490. If you're a part of a family of 4, it's $23,550. That's $23,550, for an entire family of four. For a year. I have no idea how someone lives on that. Let alone, 1 in 6 people in the US. 

Those most at risk of living in poverty in this country are minorities, women and children, and those in very urban and very rural environments. Not coincidentally, states with the highest poverty rates tend to coincide with states that are still killing the most animals in their shelter systems.

#3) Factor #3 is lack of housing.  First of all, living in poverty can make housing difficult to find. Secondly, 1 in 3 people in the US rents. And the availability of pet-friendly rentals is very limited -- particularly if you own a large dog, or one of a targeted breed. Renters are also likely to be lower income, minorities, young adults, and singles. Many shelter workers will tell you that people who rent tend to make up a high number of people surrender pets to shelters, often because a change in living situation causes them to not be able to find a place to live where they can keep their pet. For the most part, I don't think people don't seem to realize just how hard it is to find pet-friendly, affordable rentals. 

Interestingly, last week Bad Rap had an example of someone that they began helping that was about to become homeless and begin living in their car because of the challenge of not being able to find a place to rent with their dogs, and an unwillingness to part with their pets. I know a lot of people say they would live in their car to keep from giving up their pets -- but would you really? Being homeless is a tough pill to swallow.

#4) Resource Deserts --  The USDA started using the term "Food Deserts" several years ago to describe areas where people had little access to fresh foods. Resource Deserts for pets are areas where people lack access to affordable veterinary care (or any veterinary care for that matter). This is most common in urban and rural areas.  

Interestingly, awhile back a Kansas City city council member noted that there were very few veternary clinics in some of the neighborhoods he represented that were selling city licenses -- and was shocked to find out that the reason why was that there weren't any vets in those areas. Recently Kansas City received a grant to help with the spay/neuter of pit bulls in two specific zip codes. Interestingly, these two zip codes combined have only one veterinary clinic. 

When people of low incomes don't have cars, and cannot take pets on the bus system, and there are no veterinarians around, this lack of resources and animal care education takes its toll (it's also a primary reason why mandating spay/neuter always fails because the resources just simply aren't readily available for the people who are in most of need of help to get the services they need).

#5) Lack of adoption diversification -- According to data gathered by HSUS's Pets for Life program, in the underserved neighborhood they reach out to, 2 out of 3 pet owners got their pet from an acquaintance, as a stray, or pets from their own litter. Only 1 in 3 got their pet from a breeder, pet store or online.  

In talking with people I know and respect in Kansas City, many of the people they see in their inner-city outreach programs got their pets through informal networks -- ie, they adopted a stray, or took in a pet from a family member or friend who could no longer keep them, or when a neighbor left a pet behind. 

One place they didn't tend to get pets was through adoptions. Many people in low-income communities were unable to make it to a shelter to adopt (and couldn't get the pet home on a bus even if they wanted to). Many wouldn't be able to adopt because they would be denied due to race, income, neighborhood or living arrangement that would be seen as "undesireable" by a rescue group. Thus, many rescues don't seek out these neighborhoods as a place to do off-site adoptions.

I understand why rescues or shelters may have concerns about adopting to people with very low incomes, but I believe they need to overcome those fears.

Kim would say that whether or not you think low-income people should own pets is irrelevant -- because the fact is they ARE owning pets. So your decision is whether or not you want the pets to come from you or not.

I'll take it a step further. In most communities in the US, literally hundreds, or thousands, or sometimes 10s of thousands of lives are being lost in area animal shelters. If pets are dying in your local shelter while you cling to a moral high ground by not allowing people who live below a certain income threshold the opportunity to adopt (most of whom will end up with a pet anyway), then it's time to reconsider what problem you think you're solving.  And yes, these adopters may not have the resources for the worst case scenario when it comes to a pet's health -- but why not be a resource for them IF this situation arises instead of denying a pet a chance for a loving home because of what MIGHT happen?  Not only can you find a pet a home, but you can also become a resource to help overcome the "resource dessert" problem they face. You can be that resource.

#6) Barriers to Length of Stay -- far too may shelters are still denying the ability of pit bull terriers to leave the shelter, or are putting more challenging requirements on those that seek to save them. This is getting better, but it is still far too prevelent. If your shelter is making it harder for pets of certain types to get out, they need to re-look at that policy. Yesterday. 

#7) Ineffective Messaging -- I'm not going to get into a lot of this for the purpose of this post, but suffice it to say, many of our messaging tactics regarding bullies  pit bull terriers is not helping. Marketing dogs in a way such as "pit bulls are harder to adopt because no one wants them" are not only inaccurate (see point #1), but actually help create the situation where people think they shouldn't adopt them. 

According to Kim, the biggest issue facing pit bull terriers in this country is not breed-descriminatory laws, it's poverty. And lack of resources. It is a driving factor for how the dogs end up in shelters in the first place, and keeping them out is certainly easier than trying to save them once they're there. But even then, we have a lot more outlets for them as shelters/rescues than we allow ourselves to access.

I really enjoyed this presentation and it was a different perspective than is usually provided at animal welfare conferences. And it's a story that badly needs to be told.

For further reading: 

Very Good Sentences - thoughts on poverty and animals -- KC Dog Blog

The Revolving Door: A poverty problem, not a pet problem - Beyond Breed

"Save them all" -- report from Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference

Over the years, the movement toward creating no kill communities has gained a lot of momentum. Whereas only about 6 years ago you could count the number of such communities on one hand, now the number is somewhere in the 160s or so.

Over the years I've heard a lot of criticism over the term "no kill". People seem to dislike the term for a lot of reasons, one of which is that animals still are euthanized in no kill shelters, though only a small number of them that are hopelessly ill, injured or aggressive.

I've long defended the term "no kill" -- noting that the words "Kill" and "euthanize" have different meanings and intentions and should not be used interchangably. And if you differentiate the two words, the term "no kill" is what is says it is.

Over the weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference in Jacksonville.  The theme for the conference was "Save them all". Best Friends has seldom been bashful about using no kill terminology and supporting the movement as a whole and is definitely stepping up their efforts toward no kill.  

It is a rare thing for me to take a theme of a conference and make a big deal out of it. But the more I think about the phrase, "Save them all", the more I like it. And I like it better than the phrase "no kill".

"No Kill", as a phrase, features two negative words. "No". And "Kill". While together the contradict each other to create a positive end, the words themselves are inherently negative.

Meanwhile, "save" puts the goal of the movement at the forefront. While, "no kill' certainly puts the onus on not killing animals, the words itself don't put the emphasis on SAVING them. I've written about this subtle distinction before.  In that blog I wrote: "The focus should not be on ending euthanasia -- it should be on saving them all". 

If the focus is merely on not killing, animals can tend to pile up on shelters. But if the focus is on SAVING them, they won't. And I think that's important. 

Meanwhile, I also like the word "All". 

About a year ago, the Lancaster Humane Society (PA) announced that it would be cancelling its animal control contracts in an effort to become "no kill". Notice, the humane society's move is not rooted in  saving more lives, but on simply not ending them (and thus, making the animals they don't take someone else's problem). There is no emphasis on maximizing lifesaving here. At all. It's just in protecting their own interests.

This is something that is far from unique as many shelters have decided to close admission in the idea of themselves being a 'no kill shelter' instead of focusing on saving as many lives as they possibly can.  I spoke to one former volunteer at just such a shelter and this volunteer noted "when we went closed admission the whole attitude changed almost immediately, and we lost our sense of urgency in saving lives."

We can, and must, do better. We have a moral obligation to save as many lives as possible. And I like the idea of focusing on "Saving them all".

I don't know if "Save them all" was ever intended to be more than a conference theme. And I don't know if the name works as the name of a movement. But I do like it as a mantra. Or a sentiment. Or a rallying cry. Because we need to do everything our resources will allow to save them all. 

I have a lot of other thoughts coming out of the conference that I'll share in the coming weeks, but the short version of it was that I think the conference itself was outstanding and was a great opportunity to recharge my batteries, and hang with like-minded, life-saving people. Over the course of the 4 day weekend, I had the pleasure of talking with a lot (although not nearly all) of the conference's 1500 attendees, and am simply amazed at how many people there are out there doing great work in their communities. I got an opportunity to meet some new people, and meet people I've been sharing ideas online with for quite some time but never officially "met" in person. 

It was a good weekend. And I think through the sharing of best practices and and idea we can reach the ultimate goal. I know many of you out there attended the conference and would love to hear your thoughts.