KC DOG BLOG

Missouri HB 1116/SB 865 -- the opposition

Yesterday, I posted a little overview of Missouri HB 1116/ SB 865. The law is a well-thought-out and has nearly unanimous professional support which is why similar bills have recently passed in both Utah and South Dakota.

However, in spite of this, there is, of course some opposition.

Last week, the city of Kansas City passed a resolution asking for the state to not pass these laws. The resolution was rushed through the council as an emergency resolution (so no one that would have testified against it was aware it was happening until it was too late), and was, as such, very poorly worded including even having the incorrect month and year of the passing of its own breed-specific ordinance.

In following up with several members of the city council, the over-riding theme of their opposition is about ongoing frustration with the state Legislature trying to override local city and county laws. The argument is for local control of these laws (not so much the content of the law itself).  

First of all, I admit, that in general principal I half agree with the city on the local control front. Generally speaking, I do think animal control laws should, in theory, be a local government issue. However, here's the simple truth, if city governments continue to pass irresponsible laws without any expert or factual support (and most often, in spite of expert and factual opposition), at some point the state does need to come in and protect people from these laws.

Kansas City is a perfect example.

The Kansas City ordinance was originally passed in the hysteria of the moment in 2006 after a couple of major dog attacks in neighboring communities and the city felt pressure to "do something".  They did, and passed a law that requires mandatory sterilization of pit bulls at 8 weeks of age. But if you break down the law, it is something that has no professional support, and no track record for success.

First of all, mandatory spay/neuter is a law that is opposed by most national experts. 

Secondly, singling out a particular breed of dogs also has nearly unanimous expert opposition, including from the Center for Disease Control, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Bar Association and the National Animal Control Association.

Thirdly, the law requires sterilization at an extremely young age (8 weeks) before dogs have fully developed -- which scientific studies are showing may lead to many health issues, including cranial cruciate ligament damage -- an affliction that pit bulls are already highly susceptable to. 

Meanwhile, because the primary reason people don't already spay/neuter their pets is because they can't afford the surgery -- so the law itself is now placing undue burden those who are economically challenged.

And then, there are the painful numbers that point to the negative impact the law has had on the shelter population and a large number dead dogs.

Yet, in spite of this, the 8 year old law still remains in place with city support -- which highlights exatly why a state preemption law is necessary.   

If cities want local control, they need to earn it through good governence, and right now that's just not happening.  If cities won't get rid of the laws on their own, in spite of the evidence, it's time for the state to step in and force change to protect people, communities and dogs from these bad laws. 

I do think that law-abiding people should have a reasonable expectation of what is, or is not, a criminal activity as they move throughout the state. Let's take me as an example. I live in Kansas City with two, altered pit bulls. I'm a law abiding citizen with a clean track record. I load up my dogs in my car and set out on a road trip. Within 15 miles of my road trip on all six major highways leading out of Kansas City I will eventually enter a community where I will be breaking the law. At that point, even though neither I, nor my dogs have done anything wrong, I could be pulled over, have my dogs seized for being illegal in that community and subsequentyly killed. 

This also prevents the free movement of people who get new jobs and seek to relocate, but have trouble finding communities to live in where they, and their family pets would be welcome -- solely because of the type of dog they own. These factors do have economic implications.

Things are changing. Over the past few years, many Missouri communities have already repealed their breed-specific laws, including: Clayton, Riverside, Greenwood, Osceola, Manchester, Wentzville, Town & Country, and  Overland. While I feel that the eventual elimination of breed specific laws in Missouri is inevitable, it is still happening too slowly and costing to many people their pets, and too many pets their lives.

By the time you finish reading this, somewhere in our state a dog has lost its home due to its perceived breed, been passed over for adoption due to breed bans in the adopters town or very well may have lost its life due to non-adoption policies like those in Springfield.

Please support Missouri HB 1116 and SB 865 as proposed. As Utah, South Dakota, and 16 other states have done, and protect Missouri residents from ill-thought-out local laws.

Missouri HB 1116/SB 865 would prohibit laws targeting breeds in Missouri

HB 1116 is a house bill that was recently passed out of committee and has moved onto the House floor by an overwhelming vote.

SB 865 is the Senate Companion Bill that was introduced into committee discussion 2 weeks ago. 

You can read the entire text for each bill, but for convenience, here it is:

"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of any village, town, or city, including any home rule city, to prohbit dogs from running at large or to further control or regulate dogs within its boundaries, provided that, no such ordinances orders policies or regulations are specific to breeds of dogs.

"The general assembly preempts the control and regulation of specific breeds of dogs to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance, policy or regulation by the village, town or city, including any home rule city, in this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances, policies or regulations relating to specific breeds of dogs shall be null and void."

So, in essence, these two bills would prohibit all breed-discriminatory laws in Missouri, and would overturn all existing laws targeting breeds, and would include home rule cities. The law is very similar to laws recently passed in South Dakota and Utah that also preempt breed specific laws.

They would prohibit breed bans, such as what exists in the state's 4th largest city of Independence. The law continues to separate loving pets from their loving owners 8 years after its passage. It would also prevent the ban in Sikeston, MO -- where 15 months ago animal control reportedly began rounding up pit bulls from people's homes and taking them to the shelter. While the final outcome may not have been as bad as initial reports suggested, still, in 2012, sixty dogs were removed from their homes in Sikeston (a small community of 16,000 people) simply because of the city's breed ban.

Theywould prohibit any (public) shelter policies that require euthanasia of all dogs of a certain breed -- as exists in the state's 3rd largest city, Springfield. This policy has led to the killing of more than 1500 dogs in Springfield -- essentially at least one per day every day for the past 6 years - in spite or rescue groups pleading for the opportunity to take them.

It would also prohibit cities such as Kansas City, MO, the state's largest city, from mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls -- a law that cost more than 2,000 animals their lives in just the first 3 years, and still unnecessarily separates dogs from their owners regularly. The law is particularly targeting low-income owners.

And there are countless others.

This is more than being just about pit bulls -- as it includes many other breeds including Chow Chows, American Bulldogs, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers, and Chinesicher Kampfhunds.

This is a good, very needed law. I am whole-hearted in support of HB 1116 and SB 865 as they are written and introduced. Every day that is delayed from enacting the law will be another day in which dogs in various communities throughout the state, that have done nothing wrong, will be removed from their homes and killed in their area shelters simply because of a poorly crafted law based on the way a dog looks.

HB 1116/SB 865 is good for dogs in Missouri by not arbitrarily causing them to be removed from their home and/or killed in their city shelter.

The law is good for communities in Missouri, by forcing cities to focus dangerous dog legislation on behavior-based approaches that have proven to be more effective than ones targeting breeds of dogs.  

And the law is good for people in Missouri by allowing them to move from community to community without the fear of their family pet not being welcome in one city vs another. 

It's a good law. It eliminates laws that are universally opposed by nearly every national organization of experts in the field.  

I encourage you to also support this much-needed law. And I would encourage you to reach out to your State Representative and State Representative and encourage them to support HB 1116/SB 865, as introduced.

 

Some thoughts on Kansas City's law mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls

Recently, and organization in Missouri (who's executive director lives 200 miles away in St. Louis), has been making some false claims about the "success" of Kansas City's law mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls. Given these misleading, and erroneous statements, I feel like I need to officially state for the record, the impact the laws have had here.

The law has not been effective -- at reducing intake of pit bulls, at decreasing shelter euthanasia, or at improving public safety. While it is true that total shelter intake has decreased following the passing of the ordinance in August, 2006, and that euthanasia has declined considerably, it is because of the hard work of organizations in the area in providing low cost spay/neuter services, and the new shelter operators under the direction of Kansas City Pet Project and more progressive animal control policies that help keep pets in homes vs being seized - -Not the law, that has created this success.

Instead, the law has created an undue burden on low-income pet owners, and had a negative impact on the reputation of the types of dogs being singled out, as well as the potential negative health impact it has had for these breeds.

Given this, here are some thoughts and statistics on Kansas City's BSL/MSN that I feel are important to share with others so that people can understand the true impact the law has had in Kansas City.

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

First of all, let me note that  Kansas City’s law mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls is a poorly idealized law that unfairly targets low-income pit bull owners across the city and is not having the desired impact on minimizing shelter populations, and counter-intuitively, in our experience, makes the problem worse.  And at this point, there is almost no professional support for laws mandating the spay/neuter of any type of animal.

Based on data from the Humane Society of the United States, 78% of all owned dogs, and 88% of all owned cats, are currently spayed or neutered.  However, the numbers are very different when you look at underserved populations. For pet owners who have older animals (non-puppies), the primary reason that people have not altered their pets is because it’s too expensive.

When you look at many neighborhoods in Kansas City, MO, there are many where poverty rates are very high, and access to affordable vet care is very limited. Mandating spay/neuter doesn’t change the fact most in these neighborhoods cannot afford the surgery; it simply makes it harder for those with limited resources to comply. Many of these individuals live in overall “resource deserts”, where they have limited availability of all resources, including access to Veterinary Care.

According to the Humane Society of the United States Pets for Life Program, in a survey of more than 20,000 families they have touched through inner-city outreach programs, 77% of all people they connected with have pets that have never even seen a veterinarian. However, when those with unaltered pets were offered free or low-cost spay/neuter services, 74% agreed to spay/neuter voluntarily, with 90% following through on their appointments. Spay/Neuter Kansas City (our area low cost spay/neuter clinic) has seen an even higher rate of participation and follow through locally.

People generally want to spay/neuter their pets, however, punitive legislation makes this harder, not easier for them. Spay/Neuter Kansas City notes that only about 1% of all of their spay/neuter surgeries in 2013 were performed because people wanted to comply with the city’s mandating spay/neuter for pit bulls law. The other 99% were people voluntarily choosing their low cost services.

Take a family in Kansas City, MO that owns a pit bull. They care for their dog properly, but don’t yet have the money to alter that pet and very likely do not know there is a law mandating spay/neuter. If animal control discovers them in non-compliance, they will then not only have to pay for the cost of surgery, but will have to pay a $500 fine for non-compliance with the law on top of the surgery cost.  The end result is often that due to lack of money, the pet is surrendered to the shelter. This means that a pet with a home is made homeless and ends up at an already over-crowded shelter. The goal of mandatory spay/neuter is to reduce shelter intake and in most instances fails at that goal.

This played out dramatically in Kansas City after it passed its law mandating the spay/neuter (MSN) of pit bulls in August 2006. In 2005, KCMO euthanized 981 pit bulls at the shelter.

In 2006, KCMO euthanized 1353 pit bull type dogs -- with the ordinance in place for just 1/2 of the year. In 2007, the first complete year of the ordinance it euthanized 1,722; in 2008, 1002. This was at a time when euthanasia for all non-pit bull type dogs was decreasing, yet more than 1100 additional pit bulls lost their lives in the next 3 years mostly because their owners were unable to comply with the law and the dogs were taken from their homes and euthanized at the shelter. 

KCMO Dogs Euthanized 2005-2009

 

 

In 2009, euthanasia rates finally began to decline after the city chose to privatize shelter operations vs running it themselves. While the total shelter intake has dropped from about 10,500 per year in 2005 to 8,500 per year in 2013, the number of pit bulls that are impounded remains mostly unchanged.

According to the shelter data at Kansas City Pet Project, pit bulls make up 12% of the dogs that are brought in as strays found by the public, and 12% of the dogs that are brought in as owner surrenders. However, pit bulls make up 24% of the dogs brought to us by animal control. In other words, pit bulls come into the shelter at twice the rate from animal control officers as they do from the general public. 

In the first quarter of 2013, pit bulls made up 13% of all dogs impounded at the shelter. However, in May, we received notification that animal control was going to once again begin impounding pit bulls for non-compliance with the MSN law after a two week extension (instead of giving additional tickets for non-complaince).  In 2^nd quarter and 3^rd quarter, pit bulls made up 23% of the total dogs that were impounded. This dramatic increase, along with the timing of the notification from animal control seems like a very strong link.

Based on the data available, Kansas City’s MSN for pit bulls ordinance continues to be something that is causing unnecessary hardship for low-income pet owners in our community. When they are offered the opportunity for low cost spay/neuter services, the vast majority eagerly participate. However, the city’s punitive approach to targeting low-income pet owners continues to be a detriment to those living in these communities, as well as the relationship between animal control and the community.

Meanwhile, the Kansas City ordinance requires that all pit bulls be altered at 8 weeks -- which completely ignores the potential health impacts of performing the surgeries at such a young age.

What has been successful in other communities is to help service this family by providing low cost spay/neuter service. We are very fortunate in Kansas City to have a great organization like Spay/Neuter Kansas City (SNKC) to help with this service. But if the family doesn’t know about this service or the law itself, they may not come into compliance. A more effective solution would be to take the resources used to punitively enforce this law and use them to increase awareness of low-cost services. This has proven to be the most effective approach in communities throughout the nation.

Laws requiring animals be spayed or neutered are a punitive approach to animal control policy, that unfairly targets low-income people, most of whom want to spay/neuter their pets but lack the resources to do so. As such, nearly all respected national animal welfare organizations no longer support laws that mandate spay/neuter of pets. 

Claiming that Kansas City's ordinance is successful, which has cost thousand of homes their family pets, thousands of dogs their lives and still creates a hardship on the shelter and low income families, particularly in light of other, more successful models, is just reckless. And as such, all major animal sheltering and spay/neuter organizations in our area want the city's law to change. 

Hopefully it will someday soon.

Expert Opposition to Breed Discriminatory Laws

Earlier this week, I provided a post that highlighted the position statements from the national organizations in opposition to laws that mandating the spaying/neutering of pets. While most of these organizations generally support spaying and neutering, they have all become aware of the problems the mandatory laws create -- particularly with spay/neuter because these laws most directly negatively impact low-income families, and lead to MORE animals in shelters, not less.

Today, I want to take a look at the expert opinions of the professional orgainzations with expertise in the health, training, and behavior of animals aroundnd the nation and their views on laws targeting specific breeds of dogs. Here are some clips from their statements about breed-specific laws, with more at the links provided. These organizations represent the largest and most influential animal welfare, sheltering, veterinary, animal control, dog training and legal organizations in the country. While many of these organizations spend a lot of their time arguing about other policies, on this, they are in complete agreement. Some items are bolded for emphasis by me.

National Animal Welfare Organizations

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

“HSUS opposes laws and ordinances aimed at forbidding or regulating dog ownership based solely on breed or type of dog. Breed-specific legislation (BSL) does not enhance public safety or reduce dog bite incidents. Rather, such laws, regulations and ordinances are costly to enforce, and harm families, dogs and communities.

The HSUS supports finding real and effective strategies for safe, humane community dog management and believes BSL is a distraction from that goal – it wastes valuable resources and charges a moral cost in the process.”

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/breed-specific-legislation/fact_sheets/breed-specific-legislation-flaws.html

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

(The full report at the link below provides a wealth of research supporting their opinion).

“The ASPCA is not aware of credible evidence that breed-specific laws make communities safer either for people or other companion animals. There is, however, evidence that such laws unfairly target responsible pet guardians and their well-socialized dogs, are inhumane and impede community safety and humane sheltering efforts.”

http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.aspx

“The ASPCA supports reasonable “leash” laws and laws that regulate dogs who have caused unjustifiable injury or who present substantial danger to the public. However, the ASPCA opposes laws that ban specific breeds of dogs or that discriminate against particular breeds.”

http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-bans.aspx

Best Friends Animal Society

“We draft and lobby for laws that protect communities from reckless owners and dangerous dogs. Best Friends opposes breed-discriminatory legislation, which arbitrarily targets particular dogs because of their appearance or breed. Canine profiling is not only ineffective at improving community safety, it is extremely expensive to enforce and a waste of tax dollars and lives.”

http://bestfriends.org/What-We-Do/Our-Work/Initiatives/Pit-Bull-Initiatives/

American Humane Association

(More support and alternatives with supporting research at the link)

“While supporters of Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) argue that the only way to be safe from dog bites is to eradicate “dangerous breeds” from the community, there is little evidence that supports BSL as an effective means of reducing dog bites and dog attacks. On the contrary, studies have shown that it is not the breeds themselves that are dangerous, but unfavorable situations that are creating dangerous dogs. Often, the very research that some cite as “support” for BSL actual argues for alternative, more effective means.”

http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/breed-specific-legislation.html

Veterinarians

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

 “By generalizing the behaviors of dogs that look a certain way, innocent dogs suffer and may even be euthanized without evidence that they pose a threat. Responsible dog owners are forced to give up their dogs, or move, cities and state spend money enforcing restrictions and bans instead of putting that money to better use by establishing and enforcing licensing and leash laws, and responding proactively to target owners of any dog that poses a risk to the community”

https://www.avma.org/public/Pages/Why-Breed-Specific-Legislation-is-not-the-Answer.aspx

See also the AVMA’s: A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention

https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Documents/dogbite.pdf

 

Animal Control Officers

National Animal Control Association (NACA)

“Guideline Statement

Dangerous and/or vicious animals should be labeled as such as a result of their actions or behavior and not because of their breed.

Basis for Guideline

Any animal may exhibit aggressive behavior regardless of breed. Accurately identifying a specific animal’s lineage for prosecution purposes may be extremely difficult. Additionally, breed specific legislation may create an undue burden to owners who otherwise have demonstrated proper pet management and responsibility.”

http://www.nacanet.org/guidelines.html#dangerous

 

Dog Trainers

National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors

“The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructor, Inc. (NADOI) strongly opposes breed specific legislation which targets or discriminates against certain dogs based only on their breed or appearance. Such laws are unfair because they assume that a dog may be dangerous simply because of breed. In fact, it is almost always the behavior of the owners of these dogs which makes them a danger to others.

Since 1965, the NADOI has worked to help people train their dogs to be well behaved. Also, NADOI educates dog owners about the responsibility not only to their dogs, but to their communities. Ordinances against dangerous dogs, unattended and loose dogs, nuisance barking and other objectionable dog behaviors should be enacted and aggressively enforced. These laws, unlike breed-specific laws, force all dog owners to be responsible for the behavior of their dogs.

http://www.nadoi.org/position2.htm

International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) is an organization representing professional animal trainers and animal behavior specialists. The IAABC strongly opposes any legislation specifically designed to target or discriminate against dogs based solely on their breed or appearance. The IAABC does not believe that a dog poses a danger to society solely because of its breed. Dogs can become dangerous as a result of faulty socialization, inappropriate training, poor living conditions and other factors having nothing to do with breed. The IAABC believes that the objectives behind breed specific legislation can be met more effectively through rigorous enforcement and, when necessary, the strengthening of existing laws. We fully understand and support the need for laws to protect society, human and animal alike; however, our organization feels that any new legislation should be based on specific behaviors and actions and should not discriminate based on breed alone.

http://iaabc.org/

Association of Pet Dog Trainers

“The Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) supports the adoption or enforcement of a program for the control of dangerous or vicious dogs that is fair, non-discriminatory and addresses dogs that are shown to be dangerous by their actions.

The APDT opposes any law that deems a dog as dangerous or vicious based on appearance, breed or phenotype. Canine temperaments are widely varied and behavior cannot be predicted by physical features such as head shape, coat length, muscle to bone ratio, etc. The only predictor of behavior is behavior.

As an organization comprised of dog trainers, behaviorists and other animal professionals, the APDT is fully aware that any dog can bite, any dog can maim and any dog can kill. A dangerous or vicious dog is the product of a combination of individual genetics, upbringing, socialization and lack of proper training. The solution to preventing dog bites is education of owners, breeder and the general public about aggressive prevention, not legislation directed at certain breeds.

Singling out and publicly demonizing certain breeds as dangerous is unfair, discriminatory, and does an immense disservice to those breeds and the people who care about them. Even more chilling, breed specific legislation encourages the faulty public perception of other breeds as being inherently safe. This can lead misguided individuals to engage in unsafe conduct with other breeds that can result in injury or death by individual representatives of those breeds mistakenly perceived as safe. Also, designating certain breeds as inherently dangerous implies to the public that behavior is not effectively influences, positively or negatively, by training. This misconception will likely produce a growing number of dangerous dogs as misinformed, complacent dog owners fail to practice responsible aggression-prevention measures.”

International Association of Canine Professionals

“The International Association of Canine Professionals strongly opposes legislation which discriminates against dogs and their owners by labeling certain dogs as “dangerous” or “vicious” based on breed or phenotype. Breed-specific legislation does not protect communities nor create a more responsible dog owner. Instead it negatively affects many law abiding dog owners and dogs within the targeted breeds.

Breed or breed type is only one factor which determines an individual dog’s temperament. Many other factors also influence behavior. In the case of aggressive acts by dogs, factors may include, but are not limited to: genetic predisposition; irresponsible handling; lack of animal management; general care; improper socialization and training; poor housing conditions; physical ailment, and lack of education and supervision.

A common and serious error in the ‘assumption of risk by breed’ is the inability to identify individual dogs by breed, according to an established breed standard or breed type. Purebred dogs which are registered with national clubs may or may not fit the ideal standard for their breed. As dogs are further distanced from the “ideal” standard by phenotype, especially in mixed breeds, it may become all but impossible for accurate identification.

The vast majority of dogs typically affected by breed-specific legislation are not “dangerous” by any standard. Their physical appearance alone cannot be used as an indicator of an aggressive nature. Breed-specific legislation creates an undue burden on responsible owners of targeted breeds – dogs which are most often not dangerous to their communities….”

http://canineprofessionals.com/Articles/IACP%20Breed%20Specific%20Legislation.pdf

Dog Breeders

American Kennel Club (AKC)

“The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs. We support laws that: establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as “dangerous” based on stated, measurable actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners and establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be dangerous. We believe that, if necessary, dogs proven to be “dangerous” may need to be humanely destroyed. The American Kennel Club strongly opposes any legislation that determines a dog to be “dangerous” based on specific breeds or phenotypic classes of dogs.”

http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/position_statements/Dangerous_Dog_Control_Legislation.pdf

National Animal Interest Alliance

“NAIA supports reasonable laws to protect the public from dangerous dogs and opposes breed-specific legislation in any form. Breed-specific laws target good dogs and responsible animal owners along with the bad.”

http://www.naiaonline.org/about-us/position-statements/pets-and-the-community#breed

Government

Center for Disease Control (CDC)

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years. It does not identify specific breeds that are more likely to bite or kill, and thus, is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about .0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites. For prevention ideas and model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please see the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force Guide on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions: A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention.” (I’ve provided the link to that study above)

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html

Lawyers

American Bar Association

“Resolved, that the American Bar Association urges all state, territorial and local legislative bodies and government agencies to adopt comprehensive breed-neutral dangerous dog/reckless owner laws that ensure due process protections for owners, encourage responsible pet ownership and focus on the behavior of both dog owners and dogs, and to repeal any breed discriminatory or breed specific provisions.

http://www.abanow.org/2012/06/2012am100/

 

Expert opposition to Mandatory Spay/Neuter

It seems like seldom a day goes by that I don't come across a conversation somewhere via social media of someone promoting the idea that we should make spaying & neutering your pets mandatory.  

I get the logic, and the desire for it. I know many shelters are struggling with the number of animals that come into their shelters. I realize that it logically makes sense that if you mandate spay/neuter, you can stop the number of unwanted litters and thus lower shelter populations.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. By far the most common reason people don't alter their pets currently is because of cost or lack of access to low cost spay/neuter services. Making spay/neuter mandatory doesn't change this.  In fact, it often makes the situation worse, because by the time the law gets involved, the pet owners is often looking at a $500 fine (or more) that they can't afford, on top of the surgery cost they couldn't afford. 

The end result is almost always that animals with homes are forced into the shelter system because the law made their owners now longer able to afford them. Instead of HELPING owners to overcome obstacles -- like has been successfully done with low cost spay/neuter and target outreach programs across the nation -- mandatory spay/neuter laws are a punitive approach that actually punish people for being poor. 

It's an ideal that has failed repeatedly in actual practice -- so much so that respected national organizations now almost unanimously oppose mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws. So why, in spite of so much respected opposition, do some people still hold onto the idea that it just might work for them? 

I think part of it is because I don't think people realize just how diverse, and consistent the opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws is. So, today, I wanted to provide the position statements for many of the national organizations on MSN, and why they oppose the idea. Keep in mind that what many of these organizations are best at is disagreeing with each other -- yet, on this topic, they universally agree. 

So with that, I'm providing some quotes from these organization's MSN policies -- with links to the full policies online when available. Many of these statements contain a lot more info at the links and are worth checking out. Some things are bolded for emphasis by me.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

“The ASPCA does not support mandatory spay/neuter laws, however, based on currently available scientific information, the ASPCA strongly supports spay/neuter as an effective means to reduce companion animal overpopulation. In particular, the ASPCA supports voluntary, affordable spay/neuter programs for owned pets, Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs for feral cats.”

http://www.aspca.org/nyc/mobile-spay-neuter-clinic/position-statement-on-mandatory-spayneuter-laws

Editor's note: The ASPCA write-up is particularly well documented, with more than a dozen citations, and well worth the read.

Best Friends Animal Society

“One of the goals of the city council should be to providing for public safety, in the most effective and comprehensive way possible. Everyone benefits from a safe society – both people and pets. Communities should be protecting against any dangerous dog, no matter the breed. Because breed discrimination fails to enhance public safety, Best Friends Animal Society opposes any breed “specific” of discriminatory measures, including mandatory sterilization for certain breeds.”

Letter submitted from Best Friends Animal Society, 2013

No Kill Advocacy Center

“Studies show that the primary reasons people do not sterilize their pets are cost and lack of access to spay/neuter services. The same is true for licensing. The higher the cost, the lower the rate of compliance. As a result, lower-income households with animals, those who are unaware of these laws and truly irresponsible people will not comply in significant numbers….furthermore, legislation may be worded so that the result of non-compliance is the impoundment… of the animal.”

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mandatorylaws.pdf

 Editor's Note: This writeup, "The Dark Side to Mandatory Laws" covers a lot of ground in terms of the impact of many different types of mandatory pet ownership laws and the impact they have on the ability for owners to keep their pets.  

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

 “The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating the spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for pets and may have unintended consequences.

“Although spay/neuter is an important part of effective population control programs, and may benefit individual dogs and cats if performed at the appropriate time, whether and when to spay/neuter specific animals requires the application of science and professional judgment to ensure the best outcome for veterinary patients and owners.”

https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/090515j.aspx

Editor's Note: For more details on the potential health impacts, begin reading here.

American College of Theriogenologists (ACT) & Society for Theriogenology (SFT)

“The ACT and SFT believe that companion animals not intended for breeding should be spayed or neutered, however, both organizations believe that the decision to spay or neuter a pet must be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the pet’s age, breed, sex, intended use, household environment and temperament. The use of generalized rules concerning gonadectomy (removal of overies and testes) is not in the best interest of the health or well-being of pets or their owners”

http://www.theriogenology.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=59

California Sheltering White Paper

“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 it is with resistance to sterilizing pets.  Efforts to increase resources and outreach in communities where spay/neuter rates are low should be the focus."

http://www.cashelteringreport.org/whitepaper/

The American Kennel Club

Mandatory spay/neuter laws greatly increase the work load of animal control offices, many of which are already strained financially. Animal control offices also find they are euthanizing more animals at taxpayer's expense becasue some owners choose to leave their animals at the shelter rather than complying with the law. A mandatory spay/neuter law also communicates the message that the municipality is not "dog friendly."

https://images.akc.org/pdf/canine_legislation/toolbox_msn.pdf

 

Great news as South Dakota & Utah added to states that prohibit laws targeting breeds

Today, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard signed SB 75 into law.  SB 75 essentially prohibits local governments from targeting laws or policies at specific breeds. Here's the text:

"No local government may enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance, policy, resolution or other enactment that is specific as to the breed or perceived breed of dog. This section does not impair the right of any local government unit to enact, maintain, or enforce and form or regulation tahat applies to all dogs."

It's short, and effective, and in the end was passed by two houses and signed into law today. Not only does the law prohibit any South Dakota communities from passing laws targeting breeds, but also will overturn any existing breed-discriminatory laws -- which I believe will impact about 8 cities with a total population of 16,000 people.

Meanwhile, in Utah, the Senate passed a nearly identical law 26-2 that prevented local governments from enacting laws and policies targeting breeds. The bill was similarly approved by the House, and now awaits the governor's signature. Given the overwhelming support for the bill by the legislature, the final signing seems like little more than a formality.  Utah currently has 10 jurisdictions with breed-specific laws that would be forced to overturn their laws.

With the addition of Utah and South Dakota, the grand total is now up to 18 states that have laws that prohibit laws targeting specific breeds of dogs. These two states join Massachussetts, Rhode Island, Nevada, Connecticut, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,Virginia, Minnesota, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Colorado and California as states that have proactively prohibited breed specific policies.

More states may be on the horizon -- as both Missouri and Maryland are also hearing similar legislation and both states have had the legislation move out of various committees.

It is awesome to see the progress state governments are making in listening to true expert testimony about the ineffectiveness of breed-discriminatory laws, and are protecting their citizens from the tyranny of local governments who insist on trying to force ineffective laws on theri constituents. 

Times are definitely changing.

Great news from out of South Dakota and Utah over the past 24 hours....as intelligence is taking precedence over hysteria in the decision-making about dangerous dog policies.

 

A truth, two mistruths, an important factor and a telling quote

Yesterday, an article was published by the Associated Press about the "Softening" reputation on pit bulls.

The article was balanced -- but as with many cases with balanced reporting, the data actually is very heavily weighted to one side over the other - ie, just because two people disagree on something doesn't mean they're equally qualified to that opinion.

But as with any story, that tries to cover a large topic in a short story, there were some interesting "wow, if only you'd dug here a bit more" moments, so with that, and thus, a truth, two mistruths, an important factor and a telling quote from this AP story. 

The Truth

The headline to the story is an absolute thruth. Pit bull laws, and the reputation of pit bulls IS, indeed, softening.

We're not there yet -- but we are making great progress. 

Currently, there are 16 states that prohibit laws targeting specific breeds of dogs -- with four of those states (Rhode Island, Nevada, Connecticut and Massachussetts) passing their law just in the past 16 months. 

These state laws mirror what is happening on the local level -- where already 6 local communities that have repealed their breed-discriminatory laws -- this goes along with 22 local communities that repealed their laws in 2013.  Finally cities are beginning to look toward the experts in animal behavior and their opinions on breed specific laws in making their decisions. And universally, all reputable national organizations of professional in the field of animal welfare reject breed specific policies.

Meanwhile, pit bulls continue gain in popularity -- as ownership of pit bulls has increased 47% over the past 10 years and pit bulls are now among the top 10 most preferred breeds in the US. 

Media coverage is changing too, as evidenced by how the national media is now portraying pit bulls as what they are, family pets. 

Yes. The perception is changing for the better. Truth.

Two Mistruths

Unfortunately, in the effort to portray two sides to a story, they interviewed three people who supported breed restrictions -- and along with that, came some mis-represented information. One of the people quoted was Don Bauermeister (misidentified as "Burmeister" in the article). Bauermeister is the assistant city attorney in Council Bluffs -- and ends up doing a lot of media appearances as one of only, to my count 8, public figures who support breed-specific policies.  The mistruths then come out of this quote, not directly from Bauermeister himself, but by the writer of the article summing up what he was told by Bauermeister:

"After the Council Bluffs ban went into place, the number of pit bull attacks that resulted in hospitalization plummeted from 29 in 2004 to zero in the past few years - proof, Bauermeister said that breed-specific bans work."

Except, well, a little fact checking would show that the "facts" stated above are indeed, not true. However, according to information received by Animal Farm Foundation, the Iowa Health Department reports that in 2004 Pottawattamie County, IA (where Council Bluffs is located) had three or fewer hospitalizations due to dog bites in the entire county that year.

So, while the article states that 29 people were hospitalized from "pit bull attacks" in Council Bluffs in 2004, the actual statistical data indicates that  in the county (1/3 of the population of which is not in Council Bluffs) is was three or fewer. And that's not from pit bulls.  That's bites from ALL dogs in Pottawattamie County. Breed of dog involved in those incidents is unknown.

It's also specifically worth noting that total number of dog bites in Council Bluffs has also not decreased. Here are the total number of dog bites in Council Bluffs over the past 10 years:

2002 -- 97

2003 -- 85

2004 - 131

2005 - (the year the ban passed): 115

2006 - 132

2007 - 98

2008 - 98

2009 - 97

2010 - 97

2011 - 85

So, essentially, outside of three outlier years in 2004-2006 (one each before and after the ban year), the numbers have remained remarkably consistent over the past decade. So when actual data is analyzed, there is actually no evidence that the ban has made their community safer.

An Important Factor

The story also talked to Jeffery Borchardt. Borchardt too has become a voice for the anti-pit bull movement after his son was tragically killed by two dogs owned by his 14 month old son's baby sitter. The dogs were specifically brother and sister, although one was labeled as a "boxer mix" and the other a "pit bull mix".  I sympathize with Mr. Borchardt and the tragedy his family has endured. While, by all accounts  the dogs were well cared for (as is noted in this AP story) there is one important item that showed up on the police report that the media outlets have completely failed to ever mention. 

According to the full police report, the babysitter notes that she obtained the two dogs at 3 weeks of age. Apparently the mother for the puppies was not producing enough milk and thus, the dogs were removed from the litter at 3 weeks. 

Anyone who is a breeder, or a dog trainer, handler or has read any science, will tell you that this is a recipe for trouble. The science suggests that removing dogs from their litters too early can create a host of negative behaviors including high reactivity to noises, fearfulness, possessive tendencies, attention-seeking, and aggression. While this can be overcome, it is very challenging to do and takes someone with a very high level of skill and diligence to do. This would be especially true for pups that were removed at such an extremely young age.

It's just frustrating that this fact, which was likely a causal factor in the incident involving Mr. Borchardt's son has been virtually ignored and that the incident hasn't been used as a platform to provide more awareness of the importance of early socialization for young dogs and the importance of keeping litters in tact until at least 8 weeks of age. 

A quote

My final piece of this is going to be a quote -- this one specifically attributed to Mr. Bauermeister. Again, Bauermeister is one of only about 8 figures publically in favor of laws targeting breeds, and I think this quote gives you a little insight into one of the leaders of this movement. In the article, it says:

"The opposition to pit bulls bans, Bauermeister added, is a sign that many American pet owners have lost touch with reality. 'Fifty years ago, you could take a sick animal behind a barn and put it out of it's misery,' he said. "That's just the way it was done. Now they investigate you for doing that. The emotional irrationality of Americans and their dogs has never been worse than it is today."

Nothing will get people on your side faster than telling them about how irrational they are for not wanting people taking their dogs behind the barn and shooting them.

While the movement to oppose laws targeting specific breeds is being led by national organizations of dog trainers, and veterinarians, shelter workers, of animal control officers, etc, one of the leaders of the "ban them" movement is calling people "irrational" and "out of touch" for not wanting dogs to be shot behind the barn.

This should give a little insight to the two sides of the story. Is America listening?

 

Nailed it

I guess I can't give this much commentary without messing up the ending -- so watch this 90 second video.

A particularly tragic week for dogs and children this week

I've been wanting to write these articles less frequently as with my current time limitations, I'd much rather focus on the positive of dogs, and of things going on at our shelter, than on tragedies. Dogs are such an important part of the lives of many of us and I love celebrating the dogs in our lives.

However, a simple fact remains that the bond between dogs and humans is still broken at times when politicians pass laws based on the hysteria of the moment instead of looking deeper into the causes of high profile fatal attacks. This trend has certainly improved, as many cities are now looking and comprehensive animal control laws and enforcement that are focusing on the behavior of owners and dogs, and not on what dogs look like. This is great news to be sure.

So I'm going to do a little catching up this week, as we had several incidents that should be discussed (plus, I have a couple from early January I'm going to add to the end). The incidents follow the typical story lines and include multiple of the following: unsupervised children, dogs that are resident dogs (vs family dogs) and thus not well-socialized with the family, dogs roaming at large, low-income areas where other social issues exist, and dogs with a history of aggressive actions and have gotten loose from their kenneling before.

Kenneth Santillan, Paterson, NJ

There's still a lot of information that will hopefully come out of this one, but in Paterson, NJ, a 115 lbs Bull Mastiff went after two 13 year old boys. The boys fled in opposite directions -- one boy had a bite on his hand, the other was found dead in a wooded area behind the dog's home. When the dog's owner came out to get the dog while officials were there, the dog bit the owner on the hand also -- and the owner stabbed the dog multiple times before animal control took the dog. 

Neighbor's have reported that the dog had jumped over the fence before and bitten a child previously and that it was often somewhat aggressive. Neighbors report that the dog lived in the back yard of the home and never came indoors except for during Hurricane Sandy, including this winter's freezing temperatures. One neighbor noted that kids would often provoke the dog and try to get it to jump over the fence.

At this point, authorities are not commenting on whether or not the dog was provoked in this case, but it's particularly worth noting that it is important to impart on children the importance of respecting dogs and specifically not to taunt them. It also helps demonstrate that dogs that are left alone in a back yard where they cannon flea from taunting, etc can often become very defensive and  will act out on their own accord. 

Two year old child, Killeen, TX

Not much is known about this one either, so I'll update as more reports come in.

Based on the current media reports, a two year old boy was tragically killed in Killeen, TX. The young toddler was walking home from the park with an 8 year old girl and an 18 year old boy when the dog, described as a bull mastiff, ran from out of a garage and attacked the children. The dog apparently went after the 8 year old girl first, but once people came to help her, the dog turned on the 2 year old and inflicted fatal injuries. 

Four year old child, Tallassee, AL

In Tallassee, AL, a four year old girl was alone outside playing in her own yard when two dogs who were roaming at large attacked the young girl. The girl's grandfather went out to check on her and found one of the dogs, described as a "white german shepherd mix" on top of the young girld. The two dogs fled when the grandfather came outside. The other dog, which may or may not have been involved in the incident is being described as a "lab mix". 

The young girl succumbed to her injuries. 

Neighbors say the owners of the German Shepherd mix tried to keep the dog pinned up, but it often got out.  Other neighbors have reported that the dog had previously eaten their chickens and was known to be aggressive toward people. It's also worth noting that there is no leash law in Tallasee.

Tallassee, AL is an area of very high poverty, with more than 43% of its residents living below the poverty line. I've noted before that in areas with high poverty tend to have significant breakdowns in their social structures and that the dog attacks tend to be a symptom of the struggling social structure. That appears to be the case here, where an inability to be able to maintain proper fencing seems to be an ongoing problem here. 

Braelynn Coulter, High Point, NC

There isn't a lot of information about theis incident, but Braelynn Coulter wa s 3 year old girl that was tragically killed by the family pet. The dog is being described as a "pit bull," and by most reports, appears to have been an indoor family pet (unlike most of the other dogs described here). It is worth noting that one of the major sections of a 10 year dog bite fatality study was that dogs that lived with the family were less likely to be involved in dog attack fatalities than outdoor dogs that lacked the human interaction to properly be able to read human behaviors.

The dog was said to have been aggressive before - -having broken through a fence to attack (and kill) a neighbor's dog. No information about the events that led up to the fatal attack on young Braelynn have been made available. 

Je'veah Mayes, Temple, TX

This story is from a couple of weeks ago, but 2 year old Je'veah Mayes wandered outside the home unattended, and walked up to a dog that was chained in the back yard. The dog, described as a 'pit bull' was being watched for a friend. The toddler walked up to the chained dog (the two do not appear to have been socialized together) and was tragically mauled by the dog.

It is also worth noting that the dog was a momma dog that also had two puppies with her that she may have been trying to protect.

I've often noted that young toddlers do not have the ability to read warning signals given by dogs. Thus, they can be very succeptable to attacks like this, particularly if a dog is chained and has no abilty to flee. 

 Kara Hartrick, Bloomington, IL

This story is from January: 

Four year old Kara Hartrick was being babysat in her home by her grandmother. The young girl told her granmother that one of the three dogs in the home hurt her, so she began to try to separate the dogs from the girl. During that process, the dogs began to become aggressive and directed the aggression toward the young girl and began attacking her. The girl dended up dying from her injuries.

The family owned three dogs, 2 unaltered males, and one unaltered female. Authorities believe it was the two males that were responsible for the attack. All of the dogs are described as "pit bulls". 

This is a truly tragic case where it appears that the person handling the dogs did not really know the dogs well and wasn't able to read particular behaviors well and it ended in tragedy.

Christina Burleson, 43, Houston, TX

This story if from early January:

The 43 year old Burleson was out for an early morning walk when she was tragically attacked by 3 dogs that were roaming at large. When people saw the woman in danger they came to help but unfortunately arrived too late. All three of the dogs were described as "pit bulls" and the owner of at least 2 of the dogs has been identified.

The attack follows the trend that most healthy adults that are involved in fatal incidents tend to be attacked by multiple dogs -- often roaming at large. While a healthy adult can usually defend themselves from a single attacking dog, a large group of dogs would provide significantly more risk.

The incident occurred in the 77061 Zip Code of Houston which has a 26% poverty rate -- nearly double the national average.