KC DOG BLOG

Late Night Musings: Leading by example and the changing image of pit bulls (and cats!) in communities

Last week, Kansas City, Kansas repealed its 29 year old ban on pit bulls. In the process, KCK joined 27 other cities in Kansas, and 25 in Missouri in repealing its laws. One of the more recent repeals was Liberty, MO, which became the first community in the United States (to the best that I can tell) to repeal a ban by popular vote of its citizens. Liberty joined 24 other Missouri Communities who have repealed their decades-old breed bans. 

This type of progress would have been almost impossible to have imagined just 12 years ago. 

So what's changed? 

I'm convinced that the changing views of animal sheltering and the animal welfare community have been a key driver.

In Kansas City, MO for example, prior to 2009 pit bulls were never put up for adoption at the city shelter. They were killed as a matter of shelter policy unless they were pulled by one of the handful of rescues that rescued pit bull type dogs.

This changed dramatically in 2012, when Kansas City Pet Project took over the operations of the shelter. Since that time, Kansas City Pet Project has saved and adopted out more than 6,000 pit bulls into the community. Other shelters, including the shelter in Independence, MO began doing the same type of adoptions under the leadership of the Great Plains SPCA.

This has had a tremendous impact on the perceptions of pit bulls in the community. The volume of adoptions has increased the number of owners of pit bulls substantially. These owners impact perceptions of their neighbors with their daily interactions. It's also impacted volunteers. Theses shelters now welcome hundreds of volunteers annually who interact with the dogs at the shelters -- many of them pit bulls. And this forever changes these volunteer's perceptions as well. 

And their perception becomes what is real -- that pit bulls are just dogs. They aren't "other". They play, and romp, and rest and do all of the things dogs do. And people love them for that. And it's changing perceptions -- at the public level first, then within city leadership. But it has been the animal welfare community's leadership and commitment to saving these dogs that has driven the change. And we're seeing it around the nation -- not only in increasing shelter save rates, but in how their communities also view pit bull type dogs.

And this is a very good thing. 

Kansas City, Kansas was led by its own animal welfare organization. In 2014, Kansas City, KS passed a law allowing for the trap, neuter, release of community cats. Several local organizations stepped up to do the TNR work -- led by the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City, The Rescue Project, Spay & Neuter Kansas City, and others. The end result was a better relationship with the community they served, and their local government. The Kansas City Kansas Animal Shelter was also doing its part by working to save pit bulls that entered their shelter in spite of the ban. The increased average length of stay for pit bulls (71 days) and the added costs of valuing their lives was a driver in the decision to repeal the ban.

In these cases, it's been the leadership of the animal welfare community that has helped drive the change in their communities. Most people are not terribly familiar with animal welfare issues, so they look to the professionals in animal welfare to provide leadership. And when we do our jobs well, and lead our communities through both our words and actions, good things happen, policies get changed, and lives get saved. And that's something worth working for.

Late Night Musings: Kansas City KS Repeals 29 year old ban on Pit Bulls

Tonight, by a 6-3 vote of the County Commission, the community of Kansas City, KS repealed it's ban on pit bull type dogs. The ban had stood since 1990. There have been several previous attempts to repeal the ban -- but the mounting evidence of the ineffectiveness of the law it finally met its demise. It was time.

Over the months of discussion regarding the repeal, several key themes arose:

1) The city had passed a very strong, breed neutral dangerous dog law in 2014 -- making the ban on pit bulls at best obsolete, at worst, a drain on limited resources to enforce the breed neutral law.

2) Based on data provided by the city leadership, nearly a quarter of the city's $1 million animal control budget was being spent on enforcing the ban. This cost includes calls on non-aggressive dogs that were mistakenly identified as pit bulls. It includes a disproportionate number of pit bulls entering the shelter due to them being illegal in the city. And it includes an increased average length of stay for pit bulls at the shelter because they cannot be rehomed back into the community.

3) A coalition of rescue organizations has dedicated a significant amount of private dollars in helping the community bridge the gap and that has been important for the community. 

Because animal control is already strapped for funding, this increased cost of enforcing the ban was actually making it more challenging to enforce the dangerous dog law, round up loose/off-leash dogs, and respond to neglect complaints (more to come on this).

In the end, the the city made the decision to repeal the ban on pit bulls, making them the 28th city in the state of Kansas to repeal their bans as these archaic laws slowly fall out of favor. Congrats to the city, to the advocates, and to the residents of KCK on their repeal. The local advocates did an amazing job of educating the majority of the county commission, organizing locals to speak knowledgeably (and not repetitively) on the subject, and ensure that all of their "yes" votes made it to the commission meeting this evening. 

Buckner, MO Repeals Pit Bull Ban

A couple of weeks ago, the city council of the city of Buckner, MO (Population 3,072) unanimously voted to repeal the community's 16 year old ban on 'pit bulls'. The change makes Buckner at least the 19th city in Missouri to repeal its breed-specific law.

This isn't first time Buckner has made attempts to repeal. The city also considered repealing the law in 2008 after a member of the community sold her house but the people who bought it found out about the city's ban and backed out of the sale. That vote narrowly failed (4-3). This time around, it was a unanimous decision.

The decision in Buckner is a good one -- as organizations representing experts in the field of animal behavior unanimously oppose breed-specific policies -- which are not based on sound science, or on best knowledge of canine behavior, and are ineffective and inefficient at trying to improve public safety. And because of this, more and more communities, like Buckner, are turning away from breed-specific policies and instead toward breed neutral, behavior-based animal control ordinances.

Congrats to the community of Buckner, MO.

Tonganoxie, KS Repeals Breed Ban

A couple of weeks ago, the city council of Tonganoxie, KS (Population 5,165) UNANIMOUSLY repealed its 23 year old ban on pit bulls and Rottweilers. 

The change comes after area veterinarians, pet owners, a pet groomer and a pet boarder and representatives from the Leavenworth County Humane Society presented information to the council. After two months of thoughtful consideration, the city council unanimously supported repealing the law originally passed in 1993.

Tonganoxie considered repealing the law in 2009 after a family with a Rottweiler appealed to the council to let them keep their family pet.. However, after several months of debate the council decided against a repeal in spite of there being quite a bit of support at that time. 

This time there was little opposition to the change, and mostly overwhelming support for the repeal of the breed ban. The city has a behavior-based dangerous dog law that will still allow them to target dangerous dogs and owners, regardless of what breed they are.

Tonganoxie is at least the 19th city in Kansas to repeal its breed-specific law, and the 12th in just the past 2 1/2 years as more and more communities realize that targeting dangerous dogs based on appearance, and not behavior, is an inefficient and ineffective policy.  

Congrats to the great folks in Tonganoxie.

Here's a link to an earlier story by the Tonganoxie Mirror.

A more recent link to an article by News 6 in Lawrence.

Meeting Minutes to the Tonganoxie City Council Meeting where the ban was repealed are here. 

Shawnee, KS repeals ban on pit bulls

Tonight, the City Council of Shawnee, KS (population 65,323)  voted unanimously to repeal it's long-standing ban on pit bull-like dogs. Shawnee has become the 19th city in Kansas to repeal its ban on pit bulls in just the past 8 years and the 17th since 2010. 

Shawnee, a quiet suburb of Kansas City, was one of the earlier cities in the country to pass a ban on pit bulls -- back in 1985. So for 31 years, as the city has grown, pit bulls and their owners have not been welcome. 

However, that has all changed. 

And the reasons for the change can be seen in a memorandum (starting on page 155) from Captain Ben Mendoza, Special Operations Bureau Commander in his letter to the City Manager with his reasoning for wanting the repeal. 

"The pit bull prohibition was enforced successfully for many years, however over time it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish whether a dog is a specific pit bull breed. Additionally, trends in animal control enforcement have moved from differentiating an animal's propensity to aggressive behavior based on breed alone, to establishing a consistent response to all aggressive acts by any animal."

Captain Mendoza goes on to explain that in 1996 and again in 2007, the city passed behavior-based laws that specifically gave officers the ability to address animals that exhibit aggressive or harmful behavior. 

Mendoza continues:

"Depending on conditions, any breed of dog may bite, no matter how well-bred, well-trained, or well-loved the animal is. Another important reason to make this change is the need to emphasize owner accountability rather than sole emphasis being placed on the animal. The owner, environment and manner in which the dog is raised can mold the dog into an aggressive animal, regardless of the breed. Eliminating the prohibition of pit bulls and using Dangerous Animal enforcement will provide for a consistent response to all animals who exhibit aggressive behavior. The SMC includes a number of enforceable restrictions for both Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous animals."

After some further explanation of the dangerous dog provisions, Mendoza notes that Shawnee is not alone in its desire to repeal breed-specific legislation:

"Currently 19 different states have passed laws prohibiting county or municipal breed specific legislation, and Missouri is one of the most recent to begin discussions on the topic. Kansas state law does not currently contain breed specific language and applies to any animal deemed dangerous. Of the 20 cities in Johnson County, Shawnee is currently one of four with a breed-specific ordinance.....Spring Hill (2014) and Roeland Park (2015) are the most recent cities in Johnson County to lift their ban on specific breeds."

Now the number of Johnson County cities with breed-specific laws is just three.

There was no opposition to the change. Two people testified in favor (one was a business owner of a canine service industry who's business was negatively impacted by the law), and many more people in the room were there to testify in favor of the change.  Several city council members spoke in support of the law and noted that the time for the change was way past due. 

Agreed. 

Congrats to the community of Shawnee and for others that are making the decision to repeal old breed-specific laws and put the emphasis on canine and owner behavior. 

Baldwin City, KS repeals ban on pit bulls - the changing landscape of BSL in Kansas

A couple of weeks ago, the community of Baldwin City, KS (Population 4,515) repealed its long-time ban on pit bulls. The city passed a final vote two weeks ago (it passed unanimously). The new law, Ordinance 1335, redefines "prohibited animals" and pit bulls are no longer on the list. The ordinance made other changes that included more clear definitions of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs based on behavior. 

According to earlier new reports, the city Police Chief, Greg Neis, acknowledged that the pit bull ban wasn't being enforced. "We all know there are people in the city with pit bulls,"  he told the Lawrence Journal World. I have yet to approach an aggressive one that comes close to meeting the standards of a dangerous dog. Most are pretty lovable. If one does come to town, we'll deal with it with the dangerous dog provisions."

While the move is a great move for the city of Baldwin City, it also highlights a growing trend in the state of Kansas. 25+ years ago Kansas was a hotbed for breed-specific laws. Much of that stemmed from the state being home to one of the early court cases involving breed-specific laws. 

However, over the past eight years, 18 Kansas communities have repealed breed-bans, including Wellington, Edwardsville, Topeka, Seward County, Garnett, El Dorado, Basehor, Osawatomie, Bonner Springs, Spring Hill, Wellsville, Garden City, Fairway, Lansing, Roeland Park, South Hutchinson, Edgerton, and now Baldwin City. 

The sheer number of these repeals highlights a growing trend among communities to follow expert opinion and change ordinances to behavior based ordinances vs ones that target dogs based on breed or appearance. The Kansas Animal Control Association has also taken a stand against breed-specific laws and favors behavior-based laws.

Behavior-based laws are more fair and more efficient at addressing the issue of dangerous dogs in communities. As Chief Neis noted, if a dangerous pit bull comes along, they can still address it with their behavior-based ordinance, but it frees his time up from having to target the mostly "pretty lovable" ones. 

The change in direction in Kansas is certainly a positive and reflective of a national trend across the country as well, with 19 states now prohibiting breed-specific laws, and many cities in states that still allow such laws opting to change them on their own. This is particularly true in Ohio (as well as Kansas) which has seen a huge number of repeals in recent years.

This is more great news out of Baldwin City. Nice job. 

 

Edgerton Kansas repeals breed-specific law

A couple of weeks ago, the community of Edgerton, KS (Population 1700) repealed its law that included "pit bulls" in its definition of "dangerous animals".  The new ordinance outlines the types of behavior that are considered dangerous and allows the city's animal control officer to make declarations of dangerous dogs based on behavior regardless of breed.

The animal control ordinance changes passed by a vote of 4-1. Congrats to the city of Edgerton for this positive move forward. 

Edgerton joins many other Kansas City area communities that have repealed breed-specific laws in recent years including Roeland Park, KS; Fairway, KS;  Bonner Springs, KS;  Basehor, KS; Riverside, MO; Osawatomie, KS;  Grandview, MO; Topeka, KS;  and Greenwood, MO. 

Communities are continuing to realize that targeting dogs based on breed, or appearance, is a less effective approach to public safety than laws that target behavior of the both the dogs and owners and repeals of old laws have become far more common than passage of new breed-specific laws. And I completely suspect that trend will continue.

 

Roeland Park, KS repeals BSL - - details and thoughts on focus & equal time

On Monday night, Roeland Park, KS, a first ring suburb of Kansas City, MO with a population of 6800 people, passed dramatic changes to its animal control laws.

Part of the law change was to repeal the city's 27 year old ban on pit bulls -- and this is the part of the law that has gotten the most attention -- from the media headlines to the public commentary. 

But I think the focus of all of the attention on "pit bulls" has done a major disservice to the public commentary about public safety and effective animal control legislation, and that's too bad.

In the world of striving to be first with the news, and 7 second sound bites, a deep dive into the ordinance isn't something that is really getting done, well, anyway. But there were a lot of great provisions in this law, most designed to increase public safety, and all of that has gotten lost in the chatter about the BSL repeal.  Below are some of the provisions that will make life better for animals in Roeland Park, and make the community safer:

1) A well-defined section on nuisance animals -- which protects residents from owners who's animals emit excessive noise, property damage, running at large, jump on, chase or injure another domestic animal. 

2) A solid definition and restriction of "Dangerous animals" (regardless of breed) - as an animal that bites or injures a person or domestic animal. 

3) A separate definition of "Vicious animals".

4) It allows members of the community to institute TNR for cats. Previously the city was paying for animal control enforcement to pick up cats and paying a daily hold fee at their shelter for feral cats. The city will no longer incur those costs.

5) Adding an entire section on tethering within the definition of animal cruelty -- including attaching chains directly to dogs without a proper collar, continuously tethering a dog for more than 1 hour, and the use of a chain, leash, rope, collaring device or tether that weighs more than 1/8 of the animal's body weight or is so heavy to inhibit free movement within the tethering area, or the tethering the dog in a manner that could cause injury, strangulation or entanglement. 

I think when you look at the laws that were added, I think they do a particularly good job of INCREASING the ability of the public to protect themselves from potentially dangerous dogs -- regardless of breed or appearance. Also, the definitions of tethering within the cruelty section allow for dogs to be removed from a cruel tethering situation before a toddler unwittingly walks up to the dog -- which also increases public safety.

I think when you look at these provisions, it allows residents take a proactive response to potentially dangerous dog situation and irresponsible owners before a major incident occurs. It allows for them to take proactive steps regardless of the breed, or appearance of the dog. It also still allows them to target 'pit bulls' (or Chows, or Labradors) that might be potentially dangerous based on their actions -- without wasting resources on dogs or owners that are not a threat to the public. 

It's a complete win/win.

Roeland Park is a small community, and a relatively safe one. But I suspect the new ordinance will continue to increase the quality of life for its residents. Several members of the city council and the community spent nearly a year working on this legislation and I really wish more of the focus would have been on the thoroughness and well-thought out nature of the changes, and not just solely on the pit bull ban getting repealed.

Yes, I'm happy about the ban being repealed. It needed to happen. I just wish the importance of the other elements hadn't gotten missed.

I really feel that if the changes had been fully explained by the media it could have opened up a far better dialogue on public safety, and what leads to animals being aggressive and a public safety risk. And it's disappointing that the opportunity was missed.

Equal Time

There is one other unfortunate thing that has come out of the media follow up is the need to cover "both sides" of the issue vs telling the story of what really happened at the public debate. 

One example is from Fox 4. While their worst report isn't available online, they have several segments that are (I'm a bit forgiving of the Monday night newscasts for all the stations as the final vote happened about 20 minutes before they went on air).  

In the Fox 4 report, they noted that while many people supported the repeal of the pit bull ban, "others were outraged at the decision". They interviewed one person who spoke in favor of the repeal. And one who opposed. Both sides represented. Fair. Balanced.

But here's the deal. The person they interviewed in opposition to the repeal was the ONLY citizen who testified against the repeal. At the meeting which housed the final vote, there were 13 people who stood up and testified in favor of the repeal. People who testified in favor of the repeal included 9 residents, a couple of animal welfare professionals, the director of the shelter that handles the city's animal control contract, a person who moved from the city because her dog was determined to be a pit bull,  and the certified dog trainer who handles dog training classes at the city community center.

Only one person favored keeping the ban.

In an earlier testimony on the ordinance in November, 20 people testified in favor of the repeal. Only 3 opposed it (including the same individual who opposed it Monday night).

Councilwoman Megan England noted that she was "saddened and disappointed" in the council for approving an 11th hour amendment that would prohibit ownership of more than 1 pit bull without a permit until 2018. "Shame on us for thinking this was a controversial ordinance. We don't usually have this many people for an issue and it not be controversial...." noting that almost everyone who testified at both meetings and resident emails favored the change.

It just seems that in an effort to show "both sides" of the issue that the media missed the story about how the public forum was clearly and exceptionally one-sided, in total numbers, and in the expertise of those who presented. 

And maybe in an effort to give "equal time" the media failed to give the public a clear picture of how overwhelmingly supported the new legislation was. 

Congrats to the community of Roeland Park. You got it right. I just hope others can see that what was right about this went far beyond the breed ban repeal, and really is good for animals and humans in the community.

Kennett, MO repeals ban on pit bulls

Kennett, MO is a small community of a little more than 10,000 people in the very Southeastern part of the state and is the hometown of Sheryl Crow.

This week, the city council in the small community voted unanimously to remove "Pit bulls" from the definition of "dangerous dogs" in the community.

"There will be some people concerned on behalf of the risk factor involved," Said souncilman Roger Wheeler. "But there will be a lot more I think who will appreciate the fact that theri dog is not deemed a vicious dog when in reality they are not. This will eliminate a whole lot of complaint callsfor the humane officer."

The repeal was brought up by Councilman Bob Hancock. He was particularly concerned about dogs declared to be pit bulls at the city shelter that were not getting adopted.

"I'm recommending we eliminate the breed-specific and only say vicious animals. We have some pit bulls are partical pit bulls that are good dogs, and people would adopt them, but under our current ordinance, they can't adopt them out."

Kennett joins the growing list of cities in Missouri that are opting for breed-neutral dangerous dog laws instead of breed specific ones, joining Hallsville, Clayton, Riverside, Annapolis, Manchester, Wentzville, Town & Country, and Overland -- all in just the past 3 years. 

The momentum is clearly changing as communities are clearly realizing that aggressive dogs are not a breed-specific trait, but a trait that is made up of a lot of factors, including socializtion and how a dog is cared for. And that animal control departments can be far more efficient in protecting their communities if they focus on a dog's behavior, not it's breed.

Congrats to the community of Kennett. 

BSL -- arbitrary, unfair and targeting resources at the wrong people

Over the last couple of weeks, BSL has gotten tremendously exposed for the failure that it is as communities across the country have again begun repealing bans....or in several cases, enforcing bans on the absolutely wrong people and displaying just how unfair, and ridiculous, laws targeting breeds of dogs are. 

And I think there are two things to make particular note of as you read through the stories:

#1) The arbitrary nature of the law. Many of the folks in these stories had no idea the law applied to them and their dogs, and in one case, were told the law DIDN'T apply to them, and yet then it did. It makes laws targeting breeds impossible to enforce, and abide by.

#2) The ridiculous waste of resources for these communities and the taxpayers. No city government is so wealthy that they can afford everything. And in most communities, animal control is majoryly under-funded. So when resources are used to target people (and dogs) that are not a threat to public safety, these resources are being diverted from true public safety threats - meaning breed specific laws make people less safe, not more safe.

Hallsville, MO

Two weeks ago, the city council in Hallsville, MO (population 1500) unanimously repealed its 20 year old breed ban after a family had their dog classified as a "pit bull" and they had no idea the dog would be impacted by the law. 

The mayor in Hallsville, Cheri Reisch noted "This was an unfair law" -- noting that mixed breed dogs were extremely hard to identify. Meanwhile, Hallsville already has a vicious dog ordinance in place that targets aggressive dogs of any breed. So instead of their animal control or police department focusing their resources on non-aggressive dogs because  may or may not be pit bulls, they can spend those resources on enforcing the city's vicious dog law.  It's a good move by the community of Hallsville.

Camdenton, MO

Camdenton, MO (Population 3,700) has a 25-year old pit bull ban. Under the ban, dogs that demonstrate 5 of 8 very generic characteristics are outlawed from the community. The very generic characteristics include:

-- Round to almond shaped eyes

-- High-set ears that can be cropped or not cropped

-- Muscular neck and shoulders

-- Medium length tail that is thicker at the base and tapers to a point 

-- Single coat with short hair.

Yip, if your dog has a short coat, tapered tail, eyes and ears, it may be a pit bull.

So, before moving to her new home in Camdenton, Misty Brown called city hall to see if her dogs, both registered American Bulldogs (with papers) would be allowed to live in Camdenton. She was told that the dogs would be allowed, because the law only banned pit bulls. 

However, two weeks after moving into her new home, Ms. Brown was given citations and asked to remove her dogs because they fit 5 of the 8 characteristics of a pit bull -- even though she could prove they were a different breed.

Brown now has to go to court (and the taxpayers are paying for the city to defend themselves) for what Brown's lawyer rightfully calls an "arbitrary law". It really doesn't get much more arbitrary than this. Meanwhile, resources are being used in this small community to kick dogs out of the community that have never caused harm, or acted aggressively. 

I wish the best of luck for Ms. Brown as she fights to keep her dogs, who are members of her family, and hope she is allowed to stay in her new home. 

Moreauville, LA

Last week, the city council of Moreauville, LA (population 950) voted to enact a ban on pit bulls and Rottweilers. The law was set to go into effect on December 1.  However, almost as soon as the law was passed, the city council quickly realized the negative impact on the law and are already now reconsidering it.

Almost immediately after enacting the ban, a local family was notified that they had to get rid of their family pit bull, Zeus. However, not only is Zeus a family pet that has never caused a problem, but he also acts as a service dog to the family's daughter, O'Hara, who uses a wheel chair and wears a halo brace because of neck problems, and the Zeus often awakes O'Hara's mother when she has spasms in the middle of the night.

After major opposition from the community, and the national exposure of the impact on Zeus and O'Hara, the city council has already begun considering changing the ordinance. Alderman Penn Lemoine noted that "It (the law) was a mistake. And it's got to be redone and reworded. And this December 1 date is not going to happen."

The city is considering maybe properly enforcing the city's leash law instead of banning specific breeds. 

So again, instead of using resources to enforce the city's leash law, the city decided to use resources to take a dog from a precious little girl with medical problems.

This is not a done deal yet, but it does sound like the city is moving in the appropriate direction. They have lifted the December 1 deadline for removal of the dogs, and do plan to discuss the ordinance again at an emergency city council meeting. Best of luck to Zeus and the Owen Family.

The National Landscape

Stories like what are happening in these communities, and to these families, are changing the national landscape when it comes to breed-specific laws.  Communities like Wauseon, OH are also considering repealing their breed bans because they realize they are ineffective, unfair, and a waste of community resources and that well written breed neutral laws have the ability to target vicious dogs, regardless of breed. 

Other communities like Spring Hill, KS; Fairway, KS; Altoona, IA; Washington Court House, OH; have all recently repealed their breed-specific laws. 

A recent USA Today article notes that more than 100 communities across the country have ditched their breed-specific laws in just the past two years in favor of  behavior-based, breeed neutral laws which are more effective in increasing public safety.  Breed neutral laws are favored by all of the organizations of canine-behavior experts in the country, and all oppose breed-specific ones. Other media outlets, including the Kansas City Star and Pittsburgh Gazette have picked up on this trend.

It's a good trend, and one that I expect, and hope will continue. Breed specific laws are unfair, and arbitrary, and do take resources away from focusing on real problem dogs and owners.