KC DOG BLOG

Rethinking animal cruelty & neglect laws

Cruelty: behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal; behavior that causes physical or mental harm to another.

Neglect: fail to care for properly

Over the past decade, animal welfare professionals and city governments have been cracking down on animal cruelty. The crackdown on animal cruelty has come as we've become increasingly aware of the connections between animal cruelty and mistreatment of humans,  and at a time when 95% of Americans consider their pets to be part of the family and 45% of pet owners say they've at least occasionally bought birthday presents for their pets. As Americans have more and more embraced pets as a part of the family, our tolerance for people who mistreat has decreased accordingly.

Now, more than ever, training is available for animal control officers to learn more about animal cruelty, how to gather evidence for it, and how to prosecute it. The ASPCA offers a series of online courses on the topic (with special emphasis on dog fighting).  The National Animal Control Association training includes similar information on evidence collection and fighting cruelty.

I think most would agree that this is a good thing, and that we SHOULD be more harshly punishing people who are cruel to animals. This increased awareness has led to an increase in fines, and even jail time, for violators of animal cruelty laws.

However, in many ways I think the idea of "neglect" has gotten completely overlooked. Or has gotten completely wrapped up into the notion of "cruelty" and the two are used interchangeably. 

It's understandable haw this happened. In looking at the bylaws of several Midwest cities, every single community I reviewed had "cruelty" or "abuse" laws and "neglect" laws as a part of the same city code. And I'd define these two as very different (in most cases) and needing different types of training to enforce.

Animal Cruelty would be the intentional hurting of animals through abusive behavior.

Neglect would be failing to care for properly and not meeting the needs of the pet. While obviously there are extreme situations where the neglect is so severe is crosses into cruelty, in a large number of cases it does not.

While "cruelty" should be met with the hammer of prosecution. Neglect would often be better met with compassion and assistance. In the May/June issue of Animal Sheltering there is a story that highlights this:

"Another of Russell’s early cases involved a thin, “very sickly looking” cat, whose situation at first didn’t seem much different from that of the starved puggle. But in talking with the owner, she found that he was trying to do right by the animal. He was feeding his cat two cans of tuna and a bowl of milk every day, using his food stamps to purchase those items. “He really loved his cat. He loved him to death,” Russell says. “He thought that’s what cats eat, because that’s what he saw on TV.”

With guidance from Russell, he switched to a commercial kibble and water, and the cat wound up thriving. “Sometimes,” she says, “it’s just … getting people to make that step into thinking that maybe the way their great-grandparents raised their pets isn’t the appropriate way.”

The case falls under "neglect".  Had there not been intervention by the Animal Control Officer Russell, the cat likely would have died. However, in this case the officer did the right thing by HELPING the cat owner learn more about proper feeding of the cat and helped him care for a pet he dearly loved.

This is often what simple neglect  looks like. It often involves an owner that really does care about the pet, but doesn't always have the proper resources (either education or $$$) to properly care for the them. It might be feeding their pet an improper diet; or an inability to provide full veterinary  care. Or they may not be able to afford a good collar, or left the dog out with a dirty water bowl.  While sometimes these situations evolve into a cruelty-type situation, very often simple neglect cases can solved by having compassionate conversations. This is what outreach groups such as Spay & Neuter Kansas City's Families Better Together Program and the HSUS Pets for Life Program have learned to do and do well. 

The battle against neglect is being won with compassion, not the hammer of harsh cruelty/neglect laws. 

Unfortunately, in too many communities, animal control officers are still meeting neglect cases with the hammer -- hitting already struggling pet owners with high fines and seized animals instead of helping owners provide better care for their pets. 

Fortunately this is changing in some progressive communities. 

In Austin, Animal Control officers are now carrying fence-building equipment in their vehicles to aid in fence repair in low-income neighborhoods, and are focusing on holistic solutions such as connecting them with low cost spay/neuter services.  Washington Humane Society Chief Community Animal Welfare Officer Scott Giacoppo (Washington DC) noted last week at the Best Friends National Conference that he is working with officers to issue fewer citations, and instead "solve more problems in the living rooms than the court rooms."

While mindsets are changing in many communities, the type of training being provided to officers doesn't appear to be matching the need and demand for these types of outreach efforts.

While there is significant focus on prosecuting dog fighting (which is horrible and should be prosecuted) most officers will see maybe one potential dog fighting case in their entire career. However, they will likely encounter neglect and owners who need help with their pets on a daily or hourly basis; yet, this type of mediation has little training available on a national level. 

So I wonder if it's time to rethink cruelty and neglect laws with the following proposal:

1) Separate cruelty laws from neglect laws in city statutes to recognize the difference in mindset and fine structures (allowing, of course, for severe or chronic neglect to be punishable as cruelty).

2) Change the fine structures for simple neglect so that fines for something like a dirty or tipped over water bowl are not punishable with the same fines as actually abusing an animal.

3) National organizations should provide better training for officers in mediation in the field so they are better equipped to build relationships in the field and help people resolve issues. These skills would be used daily by animal control officers in most communities whereas skills like "blood sports training", which is readily available, are seldom used by animal control officers. 

It seems that if we rethink how we view cruelty and neglect, it would help us focus on the fact that the two are usually different, and need a different strategy to overcome.

The costs of no kill animal control vs no kill shelters

Last week, the No Kill Advocacy Center released a new report entitled "The Economic Benefits of No Kill Animal Control."

The report, which is 12 pages long seems to be in reponse to an article in USA Today recently that talked about how "costly" no kill shelters were for cities to run, along with the reality that this is a seemingly common thought.

So it appears that we have a little bit of conflicting information. So what gives?

There is one major distinction that I want to make between the No Kill Advocacy Center's report, and the USA Today article -- and that's the difference between creating a No Kill Shelter and creating a comprehensive No Kill Animal Control program. 

Some cities separate these two functions. Some don't.

When the two work together, they can definitely not only improve public safety, but can save lives -- and with minimal if any fiscal impact. Unfortunately, many cities try to create No Kill Shelters, while still maintaining their status quo approach of punitive animal control.  If this is the case, then yes, maintaining a no kill shelter can be costly to absorb the influx of animals that comes from the animal control side.  However, if animal control is operated under a no kill philosophy, then the two can work very well together.

Let me talk a little about the no kill animal control.

When it comes to creating a No Kill community, the math is really pretty simple. In order to save them all, you have to increase postive outcomes (adoptions, sent to rescue, Return-to-owners), and lower impounds. When positive outcomes = impounds, you are no kill. So while increasing positive outcomes is essential to success, lowering impounds by keeping animals from ever coming to the shelter is just as effective.

And that's where no kill animal control comes in.

This isn't about being negligent with public safety and allowing dogs to roam the streets freely. But is about making smart decisions that can minimize impounds.

This means not seizing animals when someone is over the city's pet limit (or repealing the city's pet limit).

This means not seizing dogs because of the way they look based on a city's breed ban (or repealing that law)

This means no seizing animals that are unaltered because of a city's mandatory spay/neuter law (or repealing that law).

This means allowing animal welfare advocates to trap, neuter, and release community cats as a means of population control instead of spending resources trying capture them and house them at the shelter.

This means that if a stray animal is caught by animal control, if it has identification, returning it home without even taking it to the city shelter.

This mean working with pet owners to keep animals in homes whenever it is feasible and possible. Obviously, in situations where animals are in abusive, or neglectful situations where owners should be cited for animal cruelty, these animals should be safely and immediately removed from the cruelty in which they live. But in most cases, animal control officers should work to keep animals in homes by referring them to low cost spay/neuter clinics, pet food pantries, or just allow owners the opportunity to keep their pets vs taking them to their homes.

As Reno's Chief Animal Control Officer Mitch Schneider says, "Don't punish people through their pets, because the pets lose".  Most cities have enough homeless pets without their shelters having to also spend time handling and killing animals with homes.

The side benefit of animal control not taking homed animals to the shelter is that they then get to focus their time and efforts on dealing with truly aggressive dogs (a public safety issue) and prosecuting cruelty/neglect cases (an animal welfare and public safety issue) that will lead to improved public safety.

Then, on the back side, the shelter has fewer impounds, so they can focus their resources on better care for the animals and finding them homes.  So all sides win.

This is why sometimes cities mistakenly think that having a no kill shelter is more expensive -- it can be -- but not if both animal control and the animal shelter are thinking, planning and acting with a no kill mindset to truly build a no kill community.

Keeping animals out of shelters, and increasing Return To Owners

Eliminating unnecessary shelter killing is pretty easy math:  lower the number of animals that come into the shelter, increase the ones that get out safely, and then get the number coming in to be equal to those going out.

Much has been made about the importance of low-cost spay/neuter and its role of in lowering the animal population. and it is, indeed, an important part of the equation.

However, there are other ways to decrease the number of animals that are coming into shelters and I'm happy to report that Kansas City, MO made a step in that direction this week.

In Thursday's city council meeting, the city codified some changes to their city licensing program that should help lower the number of pets that make their way to the Kansas City, MO shelter, and help those that find their way into the shelter to find their way home.

The new ordinance is designed to increase pet licensing. In the city, only about 10% of all pets are licensed and they hope to increase that number. In order to do that, the ordinance does the following:

- Lowers pet licensing fees to $10 -- previously all altered pets were $10 and all unaltered pets were $35.

- Licensing includes a "free ride home" -- so pets with a city license on them that are picked up by animal control will be notified by animal control and taken back home free of charge up to 1x per year without a ticket and without coming to the shelter.

-- Lower shelter fees for licensed pets whos owners cannot be located quickly but are later reclaimed at the shelter

--- All fees generated from the pet licenses go to the KCMO Animal shelter for improved care of shelter animals.

The changes came after area animal welfare groups met with the city to provide recommendations on how to increase pet licensing. In the coming weeks, these groups will combine to launch a pet licensing campaign: "Lost pets can't call home."

I'm very excited for the changes -- particularly offering 'free' services to those who license pets  in order to make licensing more appealing for pet owners. I'm also happy that licensing is being seen as something that can help pet owners vs a punitive law. The free ride home will help get animals home quickly without coming into the city's old, small shelter.  The licenses will also help animals that do make it to the shelter be easier to return to owners.

Again, it's a small step, but a step that will help keep many pets out of the shelter, and help many to get home quickly if they do. And that's a good thing, and a good start to minimizing impounds.

 

Reforming Animal Control

Last week, I posted about the recent failings with the Memphis Animal Care and Control (with all hat tips to Shirley at YesBiscuit!)

And several people asked (rightfully) in the comments "what can we do?"

It's a great, and honest question.

It's great -- because these readers not only recognized that something needs to be done -- but also realized that sitting on the internet, complaining, wasn't going to solve the problem. You have to actually DO something to fix it.

But what?

If you live in Memphis, or any other city that has a failing animal control, and has not expressed a desire to fix it (or, in many cases, expressed a huge desire to keep it the same) you owe it to yourself to watch the video below.  The video is of a presentation given by Ryan Clinton of Fix Austin.  I wrote about this after listening to Ryan's presentation last year at the No Kill Conference -- now it's available to you in its entirety. For free. Take advantage of it.

 Six years ago, the shelter in Austin, TX had no foster programs, no off site adoptions, no desire to quit killing and a stated GOAL of saving 50% of the animals they've taken in. With the help of Ryan -- and a few other animal welfare advocates in Austin, they changed the perceptions in Austin - -and the shelter has now seen a 90%+ save rate for 5 consecutive months and a new shelter director with a history of no kill success. 

It was hard work. It was a struggle. It took fighting a whole lot of people with a lot more power and clout than they started with. It took overcoming a lot of barriers from people saying "it can't happen here".  And it is. The video is a little over an hour long -- but this presentation is the best resource I can think of for anyone facing a situation like Memphis (and there are many situations like it out there) that could use a change in attitude.

Many of the programs Clinton recommends work (we've been doing many of them in KC with equal success - our failures have come in the areas where we have fallen short with what he's talking about.)

So if you are at all serious about changing your shelter -- you owe it to yourself to watch.

Reforming Animal Control from Animal Ark/No Kill Advocacy Cent on Vimeo.

H/T to Animal Ark for posting the video.

'Underqualified, Overpaid Incompetents' and the need for local animal control reform

Dr. Helen Kamp, a veterinarian that formerly worked for the animal control department with the St. Louis County Department of Health, is looking to reform how animal control is run in the county.

In her plea to the council, she has detailed how many underqualified individuals have been hired for high-paying jobs. She also pointed to a fatal dog attack that occurred in January 2007 that could have been avoided if proper animal control protocol had been followed - -however, when a woman was severely attacked by her son's dog that required her to be hospitalized, animal control did not act on the incident, and the woman was then killed by the same dog 3 weeks later.

Among her other complaints include the overall lack of exercise, enrichment and socialization for animals at the shelter - causing greater stress for the animals and making them harder to adopt.  While the county is working on opening a new shelter, Kamp doesn't think it will have the impact that people hope.  "A new shelter with mismanagement on the inside isn't any better than the facility now, it's a new facility with inept employees."

St. Louis County's issues are not unique.

Last month, YesBiscuit! provided a ton of information about similar issues plaguing the shelter in Charlotte, NC.  One of the shelter's key volunteers is seeking reforms there,  There are some rampant examples of poor management, leadership and decision-making at the shelter -- including a series of inappropriate photos taken "for fun" of animals that were in a clearly sedated state that were posted on Facebook, and "accidentally" killing a family's two 'pit bulls'' when they knew the owner was coming to get the dogs.  The public has been up-in-arms about the problem, and have made several recommendations for improvements.

These issues are far too common -- and include horrible situations where a 'pit bull' with pink toenail polish was killed in Toledo without the opportunity find a clearly caring owner, a puppy that was starved to death in the Memphis shelter, and a cat that somehow got trapped in the walls at Dallas animal control being allowed to starve to death there by the animal control employees.

This is not to say that every person that works in animal control in every city is abusive and incompetent. Certainly there are a lot of animal control and city employees who really do care about animals and do their best to make a positive difference for animals in their communities.

Unfortunately, there are a large number who exist in taxpayer-funded shelters who are incompetent, and who do not care.

Replacing these animal control and shelter directors is imperative in the communities that are doing it wrong.  It is past time to insist that animal control positions be legitimate city services -- vs afterthoughts. This includes not only providing appropriate public safety for people from aggressive and otherwise dangerous animals, but also provide a true safety net for the animals that have been failed by their owners. 

The animals need us to insist that city governments replace incompetent leaders with those who are both competetent and compassionate. 

 

KCMO begins door-to-door licensing sweeps -- Notes for pet owners & Animal Control

Just when you thought Kansas City, MO Animal Control couldn't come up with anything more ignorant, they're at it again.

On Wednesday, KCMO AC began a program to godo weekly sweeps in neighborhoods to check to be sure dogs are licensed in the city. Every Wednesday until September, AC will be in a designated neighborhood, knocking on doors, and checking to be sure people's pets are licensed. (More news for pet owners below -- please keep reading!)

According to the head of Animal Control, Patrick Egberuare: "The whole idea is to get people to understand the ordinance. We don't want to fill up the shelter. The fewer animals we take to the shelter, the better off we are, and the less expensive it will be for the animal owner."

Pardon my cynicism here, but if the whole idea was to let people know about the ordinance, it sure seems like announcing the information beyond the KC Free Press website would have been a nice call. At least midway through the first day of sweeps, a couple of the local news stations picked up the story. An official newsletter from the city's email list serve has yet to go out.

Meanwhile, if AC shows up and finds out your pets are licensed, you will likely be fined $75 per pet. All dogs, cats, and ferrets must be licensed.

While several of the rescue groups have been openly supportive of this move (one of which is the shelter that contracts with animal control - and receives all fine money), it is important to note that pre-recession, Kansas City's poverty level was over 17%.  I know that it is even higher than that now -- and Animal Control has said it is going to focus on neighborhoods that have the highest number of animal control calls -- with yes, are typically low-income neighborhoods. A $75 fine (multiplied for each animal you own) will surely be cost-prohibitive to a large percentage of our city's population -- which is going to spell trouble for our shelters.  Also, don't forget that our ACO's are still working with a quota system performance standard that they have to meet -- so they're being incentivized to confiscate animals.*

*I want to note here, that KCMO does have some very good, caring ACOs out there who will do the right thing. But there are also several who will absolutely take the laziest route out doing anything -- and those are the ones that typically cause us problems.

In a city where animal cruelty and neglect are huge issues, I'm just amazed KCMO is taking time to do this. It's a waste of time and resources -- and will undoubtedly lead to more animals unnecessarily going to the shelter. It's a shame.

Notes for Pet Owners

Kansas City Dog Advocates has a great article about what to do when AC comes knocking on your door that is worth the read, but there are a few really important points I want to bring up:

1) First of all, license your pets. Put the tags on your pet and it will make it easier for those who find your pet to get the pet home to you. That's a good thing.  And if your pet is altered, the cost is only $10, so it is very affordable.

2) Know when they are coming to your neigbhorhood. They have published a list (I believe this was a must to avoid 4th Amendment violations - similar to how sobriety check points must be published in advance) of the neighborhoods they will be targeting.  Know when they are coming to your neighborhood so you can be prepared.

3) When animal control comes to your door -- DO NOT LET THEM IN YOUR HOME. If you answer your door at all, step outside and close the door behind you. They can only come into your home without a warrant if you invite them in. But close your door, anything they see, smell or hear through the door can be used to have "probably cause".

4) The city's pet limit is four pets. If you are over the pet limit THEY WILL SEIZE YOUR PETS.

5) In KCMO, it is illegal to feed and care for feral cats. If you feed the cats, according to city law, you own them. This means they are subject to licensing and pet limits. Yeah, it's ignorant -- but be prepared!

Again, not every animal control officer is a problem -- but because you don't know who will be at your door, prepare for the worst case scenerio.  And please pass word around to your friends and neighbors.

NOTE FOR KCMO AC -- YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG

Ok, I get it. It's probably pretty annoying for you to have a law on the books such as licensing that only about 5% of the population actually abides by. But here's the deal - you've earned this.

The city's animal control department has been notorious -- for years - for not working with the residents of this city. Taking pets that are over the pet limit (even if they're well cared for), confiscating and killing 'pit bulls' for not being altered, harrassing feral cat caretakers, quota systems to mandate ACOs bring in a certain # of animals each month,  for years killing about 70% of the pets that enter the shelter (something that has recently changed -- but only because the city no longer officially runs the shelter), not scanning for microchips, etc, etc.

Over the past decade (or more), KCMO AC has earned its reputation of being a punish-first, catch and kill animal control department. If you want people to comply with the law, they need to have some assurance that they won't be targeted by AC. And right now, THAT"S NOT HAPPENING.

Thinks like neighborhood sweeps are another step in reinforcing the catch-and-kill-desire-to-punish vision the residents of KCMO have of Animal Control in this city. If you want people to work with you and sign up their pets -- most will do that -- if you make it not seem like a way to be targeted by the city. You must earn back some of the trust you've lost over the past 10 years.  Offer people something:

1) Free rides home for licensed pets that get loose the first time

2) When you meet with people and they don't have their pet licensed, offer to license them on the spot for them instead of slapping them with a $75 fine.

3) Some assurance that people who care for their pets will not be harrassed.

But these sweeps, along with the quota, are a step in the wrong direction.

Pink Toenail Polish

Last week, in the wake of the reality that Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon is a dog killer, The Toledo Blade has begun reporting a listing of all dogs adopted, and all dogs killed, at the Lucas County shelter at least until changes are made in the shelter. From the 11/14 report, which features 17 dogs killed, and 4 adopted, it seems that little is being done in the short term to bring an end to shelter killing.

But it is a dog on the 11/13 report that caught the eye of one of my readers in the comment section, that is th inspiration for the blog posting.  Here's the part of the report:

Dogs Killed

"Pit bull," tan/white young female "with pink toe nail polish," North University, Toledo, running at large, no muzzle

Reading this can't help but break your heart. Obviously, this dog was someone's dog. Clearly behind the scenes here was an owner that cared dearly about their dog....they loved the dog so much they POLISHED HER TOENAILS.  This isn't some inner city dog fighter like Tom Skeldon would have you believe is the "typical" pit bull owner and why he needs a ban. It was a caring person, who clearly had a connection with their dog.

Somehow, the dog got free (which anyone who owns a dog can tell you, can happen, even to a responsible owner), ended up in the animal shelter, and killed.

Now, most shelters would have workers and volunteers who are compassionate about animals. They would see this dog, realize the dog had an owner, and work their butts off to find that owner. They would post flyers in the North University area. They would talk to neighbors (I mean, come on, someone HAS to know the owner of the pit bull that polishes their toenails) and would work to find the owner who loved this dog.  But this was in Toledo, where only 13% of the dogs make it out alive, and thus, the dog is dead.

But then that got me thinking, what about the dogs in shelters across the U.S. that have owners, but aren't wearing pink toenail polish?

Dogs can get loose for a variety of reasons. Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were out hiking and at the trail head, this dog came up to us. We pet the dog and checked out his collar -- his name was Huck. We have Huck some of our peanut butter sandwhich, a couple of carrots and a little drink of water. Huck was a little dirty and we couldn't find an owner, anywhere. We called the phone number on his tag and no one answered. We decided that most likely someone was looking for the dog and that we would leave him there. If Huck was there when we finished the hike, then we'd start searching for his owners.

We later met a woman on the trail, who was a little frantic that her dog had somehow wandered off while they were out hiking together and she didn't know where he went. I assume Huck and his owner were reunited.

But the moral of the story is, this was a caring owner, who was taking their dog out hiking, and the dog got loose.  It happens. And the dog, gone from his owner for no more than a couple of hours had found water and mud and had gotten dirty. He looked a little disheveled.

But what would have happened if Huck had made it to a shelter and somehow lost his tags? Would the shelter have assumed that he was abandoned out in the woods?  Would they have assumed that he was homeless because he was so dirty?  Would they have assumed that the owner was not caring and irresponsible for letting their dog run free?  Or ould they have busted their butts to try to find Huck's human hiking companion?

I guess my point is that a lot of dogs that find their way into the shelter are owned dogs. They have owners who love them, care about them, and sometimes paint their toenails pink. But what if their toenails aren't pink? What if the signs of ownership are not as obvious and the dog is a little dirty. Do we assume the dog is a stray?  Or assume the dog is lost?  And what resources do we put into finding the dog's home vs finding the dog a new home?

Do we think lost, not stray, even when the dog does not wear pink toenail polish or have other obvious signs of being owned?  We should.

Update on KCMO's new "performance standards"

On Wednesday, I posted about a new "Performance Standard" that Kansas City, MO  is implementing that is requiring animal control officers write at least 15 citations each month and intake 20 animals.

When, Kansas City Dog Advocates sent out the notice on this to their members, I expected it to cause some waves, but I didn't expect the feedback we've gotten.

News of this has spread throughout the city, and around the country. We've been contacted by national and local organizations (I plan to post some of the feedback sometime next week). So far, the only people that think this is a good idea have been city administrators. Apparently none of them are all that great at math.

The media has also picked up on the story (we never even got a chance to do a press release). First, a reporter from The Pitch (our weekly alternative paper) picked it up and put it on the Pitch Blog (PLOG). On Thursday, I did an interview with KSHB news (SweetP and Grommit were the stars of the interview), and on Friday, MichelleD and a representative from the Pet Connection met with Fox4 for their story.

TV news isn't exactly the best delivery vehicle for actual statistical analysis, so KCDA has a reaction to most of the city administrator's comments on their site.  A lot of their comments have made me chuckle with political doublespeak  like:

"It's not a quota, it's a performance standard".  Um. OK.

"The policy isn't new....it just hasn't been enforced."  Um, yeah.

But the biggest thing to me is the blatant misuse of statistics to try to mislead the public. 

In the interview, Mike Schumacher, who handles many of the policy decisions for animal control, said that the new "performance standards" won't increase the number of animals brought into the shelter. According to Schumacher, the new standards require each of the 18 animal control officers to bring in (a minimum of) 20 animals per month (360 total animals).  He says in the Month of July, Animal Control responded to 1100 animal control calls, and there were 800 total impounds -- which is well above their stated minimums.

All of that information is technically true, but doesn't tell the whole story.

First off, every animal control call should not require an animal to be impounded. Many times they'll respond to barking dog calls, neussence calls, calls about a dog without a dog house, a stray dog that is gone by the time they get there, etc. So 1100 calls is essentially meaningless as most of them shouldn't require a dog to be impounded.

Meanwhile, of the 800 or so impounds in July, nearly 300 of those impounds were made by the public. These consist of owner surrenders to the shelter, returned adoptions to the shelter, and strays that are found by the public and taken to the shelter.  Of those impounds, only 506 of them were made by actual animal control officers.

That's still over the new "Performance standard", so that's not a problem, right?

Still wrong.

Animal control is a seasonal business...and summer is their busiest time. So let's look at the monthly animal control intake over the past 7 months:

July: 506

June: 509

May: 402

April: 383

March 396

February: 311

January: 295

So, if animal control officers are required to bring in 360 animals per month (and keep in mind, these are MINIMUMS), where are the animals going to come from in the winter months? And it is ridiculous to say that this new "performance standard" system won't lead to more impounds in January/February when, in order for AC to meet these standards, they HAVE to impound more animals.   And honestly, March/April/May are all way too close to the minimum for my taste also. And the numbers don't even touch on the negative impact the policy will have on sending the message to animal control officers that bringing animals back to the shelter is the most important thing you can do for your job. 

It's just amazing that they are using the year's busiest months as the baseline for the news minimums without any thought (knowledge?) of what it will look like in the winter months.

We can, and must, do better. This is a slaughter waiting to happen. And everyone seems to know it except the people who set the policy.

More to come on this I'm sure. But go check out KCDA's site -- there is more response to the city reaction there, as well as a note sent to the city council by city manager Wayne Cauthen that tries to justify this decision to our city's policy-makers.

Redefining "animal control" -- re-redux

I mentioned this story yesterday in the weekly roundup, but there is even more to the story.

Over the past couple of years, Vandalia, MO's police department has been tasked with addressing citizen's concerns over loose dogs -- and apparently enforcing the city's 'pit bull' ordinance (I am not aware of the specifics of the law). 

However, the way they are going about enforcing the laws on stray dogs are coming under attack.

Last week, officers shot an owned dog in the leg for running off-leash. Officers said they did so because the dog was acting aggressively, but admitted that it had not tried to bite them.  Meanwhile, neighbor and onlookers were astonished that the dog was shot -- including the reactions from two children that witnessed the shooting.

"We will problably never forget the screams of two precious little girls, ages two and four, as two gunshots ran out a few feet from where they had been playing with their dog just moments earlier," said neighbors George and Rhonda Travis in a written statement.

The owner of the dog cites several descrepencies in the officers' report, including neglecting to note that the dog was shot on its own property, and that there was no residue on the dog from pepper spray that the officers said they fired at the dog before shooting it.

"I know cops who never pulled a gun on an animal in all their careers," said dog owner Mark Haden. "They were trained properly and used a police baton of any dog was aggressvie. This man put my family, my neighborhood, in mortal danger because he is ill prepared for his job....My dog was abused because the officer took the laziest, most ignorant, brutal, stupid and reckless approach to a minor incident."

It turns out, this isn't the first such problem of officers shooting dogs unnecessarily. A second incident occurred a couple of weeks ago when officers shot a Sharpei/English Bulldog mix that was running loose that they said appeared to be a pit bull.  Witness reports say that police chased the loose dog for over an hour before laying down from exhaustion, when police pulled up, walked within four feet of the dog and shot the dog.  That dog's owner, Michael Evans, said:

"You can'g bring the dog back. It's just the fact we need to get somebody to stop; your dog could be next on the chopping block...Pets are priceless and part of a person's family. And if you're a pet owner, you will agree that you can't put a price on love".

Evans and Hayden are encouraging anyone else in Vandalia that has had their dog shot by police to come to the city council meeting Tuesday night, March 10, at 7 pm to express their concerns to the city council. If you live in the Vandalia area, please make your voices heard.

While residents need to make greater efforts to keep their dogs contained on their property, it is becoming increasingly clear that residents want more out of their animal control efforts.  No longer is it acceptable to just work to keep humans safe from animals (which is important), but it is equally important to keep animals safe from people - -including cruelty and neglect, but also including safety from law enforcement officials - -and that brutal force should only be used as a  last resort.

This is something we still see a lot -- and it's time we move past this archaic way of thinking and show some compassion for animals.

Changing how we view animal control - redux

Princess (pictured left) is dead today - -thanks to cool hand Tom Skeldon and the rest of the Lucas County Dog Wardens.

Princess got loose and was out in the neighborhood. Lucas County animal control was called to the scene, but the dog was fairly elusive and ended up escaping. The dog ended up running up on its own front porch when one of the animal control officers pelted the dog with a tranquelizer.  The dosage of the tranquilizer was too much for the 15 lbs dog and the dog died from the shot.  

Bob Helle was working on the roof of a school building nearby and watched the scene unfold.

 "I really wish I had videotaped it because people wouldn't believe the way it was handled. It was so sad. I can still see it running through my mind. Shooting that little defenseless dog as it was sitting on the front porch waiting to get back in," says Helle.

Helle describe the dog (estimated to be about 15 lbs) as being playful and definitely not aggressive.

Owner Chad Snyder is pretty choked up about the incident -- and while he says he understands the importance of tranquilizers, says it was too much for his small dog.

"They rolled up on her, stuck the rifle out and blasted her. There ought to be some kind of a weight limit," says Snyder. . "You've got 5 humans versus a 10 pound dog and this is the best you can do. There's got to be a better way!"

Helle and Snyder are adding themselves to the list of people who want changes in Animal Control in Toledo as Tom Skeldon continues to operate under a 1980s view of Animal control that is different from the values of a 2009 society.  Not only are his methods of "shoot first" outdated, but the community has seen an increase in dog bites under his draconian watch.

The lack of value placed on dogs' lives by authorities isn't something that is unique to Toledo -- even if Tom Skeldon could be their poster-boy. The needless killing of dogs by authorities without consequence is very troubling.

There is a story from San Diego where Police investigated a home in search of narcotics (they found none) but in their search, left the back yard gate open. The owner let out the dog and the dog ran through the open gate where officers shot the dog dead (even though they conceded that the dog did not attack). The police THEN arrested the dog's owner for assault with a weapon -- the weapon being the dying dog.  The story just gets worse.  And I agree with the thoughts on this from the Reason.com blog:

"What's troubling is how often in these stories the police officer's first reaction is to fire his weapon at the animal....Something's clearly amiss when a police officer can stroll onto the private property of someone who's doing nothing illegal, be confronted by a dog who's merely doing what dogs do—defending his territory—shoot the dog dead, and get nothing but full support from his superiors. Moreover, many of these shootings have happened in neighborhoods, inside of homes, and in a few cases, directly in front of children.  You'd think there would be some public safety concerns, too."

 We must get rid of the shoot-first, ask questions later mentality. I realize that there are circumstances where officers must shoot dogs for their safety or the public safety -- but that should be the LAST resort.  Not the first one.  Especially when it involves a 15 lbs dog that is sitting on its front porch.