Bonner Springs, KS Repeals Ban on Pit Bulls (& great info on the story you need to know)

Last night, the community of Bonner Springs, KS (a suburb of Kansas City; population 7500), voted unanimously to repeal its 24 year-old ban on pit bull type dogs in the community. Bonner Springs now joins Basehor, KS; Riverside, MO; and Osawatomie, KS; all suburban, Kansas City communities who have repealed their breed-specific laws in the past 8 months.

The repeal came after Titan, a dog owned by Debi Baker was taken from the Baker family home because he was declared to be a "pit bull". The Baker's were given 15 days to get rid of their family pet, and were really not given an opportunity to fight the ruling that he was a "pit bull."

While Titan was being boarded at a shelter in Lawrence, KS (where the family, including two young daughters would visit each weekend), the Baker's talked to the city council about a possible repeal of the law banning pit bulls. At the time, councilman Tom Stephens noted that "We don't want to hinder someone in their freedoms to have the animal of their choice, but we do have to always make sure that the safety of the community as a whole is the number one issue being addressed."

So the council opted, as many do, to form an advisory committee to look at the law as a whole and see if it was still necessary. Obviously, after a unanimous vote by the council, the committee deemed the law was not necessary.

This is all great news, but I think it's really important for everyone to read the letter the advisory committee in Bonner Springs sent to the entire council upon researching their decision.

The advisory group was made up of 12 members, including four city council members, a municipal judge, and two members of the police force, as well as other community leards.  The information relayed by the committee not only shows that their information was well-researched and thoughtful, but also shows that they were quickly able to identify truthful, factual sources vs bogus ones. Here are some snippets from the document -- that you can read in its entirety here. Note that the recommendation to repeal the breed ban was unanimous also by the committee -- which is pretty telling.  Bold added for emphasis is mine.

"In the fall of 1990, the City Council passed the current BSO (Breed Specific Ordinance) that banned pit bull breeds. I reached out to a former City Councilmember who was on the City Council at the time to understand the enactment. He related that Bonner Springs had not had any issues up to that time but that KCK (Kansas City, KS) experience issues involving dog fights and the use of pit bulls in those illegal endeavors. KCK decided to ban pit bulls in hopes that they could curtail the dog fights and the Bonner Springs City Council decided to follow suit...."

This is an interesting note, because many communities across the country banned pit bulls in the late 80s and early 90s after the promotion of stopping dog fighting actually caused dog fighting to be the "hysteria of the moment" and thus, many communities banned 'pit bulls' to stop a problem they didn't have. While dog fighting does exist, and is horrible, misdemeanor pet ownership laws that keep law-abiding citizens from owning certain types of pets have never been an effective way of preventing the felony crime of dog fighting.

"When we reached out to other municipalities...there was no specific pattern that could be found, not by population, geography, etc. The only consistencies we found were those who have BSOs seemed to have passed them based on being proactive (did not actually have an issue at the time of enactment) and those who chose not to have a BSO did so as they believed it did not actually address the real issue of dangerous animals as a whole."

Note, more cities passing laws to solve problems that did not exist.

"The research for articles and statisitcs presented difficulties as the majority were anti-BSOs. The few that were in favor of BSOs generally justified their positions with use of statistical data generated by DogsBite.org. Reasearch of this website found the data presented to be extremely distorted with may myths presented as facts.....Because no one, including the CDC, maintains statistics of attacks by breed, the party who maintains the website gathers statistics based on a review of newspaper articles for reports of dog attacks. This method would not be embraced by any statistician, as this would lead to greatly skewed and inaccurate results."

Nailed it. 

"In discussion with those whose jobs put them on the streets and potentially in harm's way, the majority of those individuals related that pit bulls weren't necessarily the issue but loose and not properly confined animals was the biggers issues. They believed that irresponsible owners and the allowance of dogs that have shown aggressive behaviors, not just pit bulls, are the real issues.....A proactive method to identify Dangerous Animals would better serve the safety of the community over a BSO."

There is more in the letter and worth the read. It's thoughful and well researched throughout.

Congrats to the residents of Bonner Springs who have elected city leaders who get it, and are making smart, thoughtful decisions on behalf of their community as they join the growing list of communities that are repealing old, breed-specific laws. With the wealth of new information that is available, it is great to see so many people using that information and making the necessary changes to breed neutral, behavior-based laws.

Comments

[Nancy Tranzow]

Beautiful!

[Lisa Hospets]

Brent I am unable to access the letter

[Brent]

Lisa. Sorry for the technical difficulty. Trying to work with typepad to get this fixed. Please check back, I hope to have this fixed shortly.

[don cummings]

As an Omaha, NE resident and owner of a "minority" pit bull I hope at some point our city will make this same decision some day. I must say that the employees of the Nebraska Humane Society have been more then professional on the times they have been called to our home because our dog "looks" like a pit bull-- not because she has ever exhibited any aggressive or dangerous behavior. Congrats to the residents of Bonner Springs & keep up the great work on the KC Dog Blog.

[Dog hero]

well another bsl ends. i wonder how many more.

[Whitney]

Awesome for Bonner Springs. Pray for the day I see the same headline for Overland Park, Leawood, Mission Hills, etc etc.

[Mina]

Municipalities ban assault weapons for the same reasons they ban pit bulls (to prevent a problem they have never had.) Notice that notwithstanding a few small advances, the gun control people (the "pro-ban people") have lost the fight virtually all across the country. The pro2A movement has been successful at not only fighting back infringements to gun rights but at expanding them nationwide. I have said it many times - the pit bull type dog advocates would gain much taking a page out of the pro2A strategy handbook. Why they don't I have no idea. If their strategies work for expanding ownership and lessening restrictions on things that are actually designed to kill other people, just imagine how you could use them to help dogs.

[Brent]

For a whole host of reasons, I'm not sure a comparison between hand guns and dogs makes much sense at all, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.

[Mina]

Actually, as someone who is involved in both the similarities are uncanny. The arguments for and against are identical. The hidden discrimination against "the handlers" is there in both. They are almost 100% the same argument. The only difference that I can see is that the right to bear arms is written into the constitution and the right to own any type of dog you want is not.

I can argue for guns or dogs using the exact same words and just change out "pit bull" for "assault rifle". And I have done it to illustrate exactly that many times.

Regardless your position on gun control I am simply saying: If you want to win the fight against BSL start looking at how the gun guys fight against gun control. The strategies work for guns and they would work just as well for dogs.

But eh you guys. You're so invested in avoiding the things you "don't like" ... you'll throw the baby out with the bath water. What a waste. It's a shame. Really.

[Brent]

Mina -- my opinion on this is in no way shaped by my feelings on gun control. I simply think that promoting family pets as in any way similar to assault weapons is a poor strategy.

And we are winning the fight against BSL...without the comparison.

[Doggone]

How are we going to get these decisions made in Johnson County?

[Sisdeh]

Thank you for writing. Just sent the link your blog to my WA legislators who are about to vote on HB2117 to ban BSL in WA urging them to vote yes. I just noticed this link in your article is not working: Here are some snippets from the document -- that you can read in its entirety here. Can you please fix it? I want them to have access to all the great info provided in the full doc in addition to your blog! Thank you!

[Matt]

Can somebody describe this proactive method of identifying aggressive behavior might work in the real world....seems impractical to me.

[Brent]

Sisdeh -- I'm trying to get the link fixed...

Matt, here is what we have proposed in several communities here:

1) Have separate designations for "potentially dangerous" and "dangerous" dogs.

2) A dog can be ruled as "potentially dangerous" based on exhibited behavior, but not any type of bite. For instance, if you live next door to a scary dog, that you think "wow, if that dog ever gets through that fence, I'm a gonner", you can call animal control to come and inquire about the dog. If they feel that a reasonable person would be concerned about this dog, they can designate it as "potentially dangerous" based on behavior and put some restrictions in place. The behavior to be classified as potentially dangerous does need to be well defined.

2) An owner can have the designation lifted if it goes to responsible owner classes and dog training classes and improves the dog's behavior.

3) A "dangerous" dog would then be one that had escalated to a point of having bitten. The requirements for owning a "dangerous" dog are much more rigorous than the "potentially dangerous".

The point here would be to allow some intervention by animal control on a dog (or owner) that is showing reckless behavior before a bite occurs.

Given that nearly every animal control department in the country is under-funded, I'd much rather them spend the resources investigating whether they thing a dog is exhibiting aggressive behavior or not, than showing up to determine if the dog is a pit bull or no.

[Matt]

Interesting...what is the proposed penalty to the owner if a dog leaves it's yard and bites another dog? Penalty if it leaves and kills a dog that was leashed? If it bites a person?

[Brent]

Matt, here's a more detailed example of a law that I think has a proactive, behavior-based approach. I'm sure we could all debate subtleties in the law, but I think the idea here is spot on:

http://www.olatheks.org/files/CityDocuments/code/code_08.pdf

[val]

What kind of country is this thank god i live in a free society I will have a pitt if i want one

[Karen Batchelor]

So good to see dogsbite.org getting the outing it so richly deserves.

The sooner the media understand the harm that woman and her cult members have done - along with their own hype and misinformation - the better!

[Zorica Stancevic]

Hi there -

This blog is great and I know you are working on the link for the whole Committee document on the blog but we are currently working to stop a proposed MSN for pit bulls only in the Los Angeles region right now and access to the document would be incredibly useful in our efforts.

Thank you.

[Mike Stein]

Here's a working link to the working group doc.
http://btoellner.typepad.com/Bonner%20Springs%20Working%20Group%20Cover%20Letter.doc

[Brent]

Thank you Mike Stein. How did you do that?! I've fixed it in the article now as well.

[PAMM - People Against Mad Mothers]

I think Mina is talking about copying the strategy - not making a comparison when testifying in city hall.

If you look at Obama's strategy for winning his first election it is very much like Hitler's nazi propaganda. He used the same strategy for VERY different purposes. (And NO, I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler!!!!)

[Selma]

Nice reporting, Brent! Now we have to spread that information far and wide and hope others snap out of it and face reality.

[Mina]

Just wanted to point out that I NEVER suggested making a COMPARISON between the dogs and guns.

What I said: Listen carefully, now, is USE THEIR STRATEGY. That's it. Nothing more nothing less.

Why dog people can't get this through their heads I have no idea. The gun rights people have a WINNING strategy. They stamped out gun control. Meanwhile the dog rights people piddle piddle and piddle. I have brought this up so many times and every time I mention all anyone hears is "just compare the dogs to guns, that will work!" No - what I am saying 100% is use their strategy. It wins!

Yes you are making headway. Slowly, tiny bit by tiny bit. Your STRATEGY, as compared to the gun rights STRATEGY, is not as efficient, not as strong, not as convincing.

But - whatever - I have suggested over and over that the dog rights people adopt some of the winning strategies of another group also fighting restrictions and bans. Far be it for me to point out how much better their strategy is than yours. It just seems to me that no one listens to anything that is said after the word "gun" is typed .... coincidence? I think not.