KC DOG BLOG

Two New York anti-discrimination bills would curb biggest barrier to pet retention

In animal welfare and sheltering circles, it doesn't take long into most conversations for the topic to come up about the sheer number of pit bulls in shelters. Even within no kill shelters, 'pit bull-like' dogs are often the most common type of dogs in the shelter, and are usually there longer, providing particular challenges.

Such numbers have caused some communities to take breed-specific steps to trying to "solve" the problem such as breed-specific spay/neuter laws or other breed-targeting solution -- usually with poor results. 

However, New York appears primed to tackle this issue from the source by with two bills targeting a solution that would address one of the primary reasons the dogs are ending up in the shelter in the first place -- the issue of housing

In New York there are two bills that are moving through their general assembly that would address one of the biggest issues surrounding pit bull-like dogs entering shelters -- and that's the issue of housing.

NY A02065 is a bill that would prohibit landlords from discriminating against owners based on the breed or size of dog. 

NY A03696 would prohibit insurance companies for refusing to insure people based on the type of dog owned.

According to the ASPCA Pro research, 20% of all pets that end up needing to be rehome, are rehomed due to housing issues.  That's already a lot, but housing issues are THE top reason pets need to be rehomed for people who rent -- which is now 37% of the people in the US -- the highest rate of renters vs homeowners since the 60s (35.4% of people in the Kansas City Metro rent, so very near this national average)

So, if the rate of renters is at a 50 year high.

And pet ownership is at an all-time high.

And the biggest reason pets into a shelter is because of housing issues (particularly for renters).

And many landlords and insurance companies discriminate against certain types/sizes of dogs.

Based on this data, is it any wonder that these types of dogs are entering shelters in large numbers?  It shouldn't be a surprise.

What makes this potentially even more interesting is that this discrimination isn't based on research, but, instead, a form of race/culture based redlining that stems back decades. In Bronwen Dickey's amazing book Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon she laid out how the insurance industry and landlords turned to a form of "moral hazards" to replace racial ones as a way of denying people of different race and class from getting insurance. 

"As overt race and class discrimination became less socially acceptable [Scholar and former insurance underwriter] Brian Glenn explains, 'The rhetoric of insurance exclusion changed to appear more scientifically based, keeping the underylying narratives about groups buried and undisclosed.' Even today, he says, "the numbers, data, and forms merely hide the fact that applicants are still judged according to their standing in society."

My own personal experience with insurance would reflect this type of discrimination, having our  insurance rates increase dramatically when we moved into a zip code that is only 29% white and then having lost the insurance provider permanently based on the type of dog we decided to adopt in our new home (we've not filed a single claim in 11 years at this location). 

So what New York is making progress in doing is instead of trying to create a breed-specific solution -- it's trying to undo the breed-specific discrimination that is causing much of the problem in the first place. Not only is it hurting the dogs and causing them to enter shelters, it is also negatively impacting their families -- who are most often lower income and minority. 

While some have expressed concern that this will simply lead landlords and insurance companies to deny coverage to all pet owners, I'm not as concerned about that. Roughly 65% of American own a pet -- and that's a lot of potential revenue for both sides to turn down by discriminating entirely. And most places will make the decision that gives them the largest audience, and thus, the largest potential revenue opportunity. I think ultimately this will be a win/win for everyone and we will see legislation like this spread throughout the US. We'll be watching closely.

On a related note, Bad Rap has been working hard to try to tackle the landlord issue in the San Francisco Bay Area -- and have found that a few bad apples have definitely made things harder for pet owners. They have recommended the idea of a "pet resume" for a potential landlord and I really like the idea to help people work through the challenge of finding rental housing when they have a pet. It's worth a read (and watching the 90 second video). 

 

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. 

New video on breed-specific preemption bills

Below is a good video put together that highlights much of the testimoy in South Dakota and Utah for the passing of their statewide bills that preempt municipalities from passing laws targeting specific breeds of dogs. 

The testimony tackles property rights issues and the state as a check of abusive local government policy. It tackles the issue of personal responsibility and accountability. And it tackles the issue of inconsistent laws that create scenarios where a person can be walking down the street with their dog and by the very nature of crossing the street and into another juristiction can then be subjected to criminal charges for simply walking their dog which is not legal on the other side of the street in the neighboring juristictions. 

"Law and policy should be based on individual actions and individual merits, not on classes "-  Representative Nielson, Utah.

Preemption laws have been passed in 18 states in the US. Learn more in the 8 minute video:

 

Very Good Sentences -- on False Equivalency and being entitled to your opinion

This is a great article from Australian Lecturer in Philosophy Patrick Stokes in which he lectures his philosophy students that they are not entitled to their opinion -- but only the opinions they can successfully argue for.

"The problem with 'I'm entitled to my opinion' is that all too often it's used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for "I can say or think whatever I like" -- and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And that attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature in our public discourse."

I've talked about this subject before -- and that somehow in the debate about laws targeting breeds, expert opinion -- which is overwhelmingly opposed to laws targeting breeds -- is somehow given the same credibility as the discourse led by a handful of individuals with no expertise in canine behavior. Pit Bulletin Legal News has a great article on "False Equivalency" as well. 

Back to the Stokes article:

"If 'entitled to their opinion' just means no one has the right to stop people from thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you from saying that vaccines cause autism no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

"But if 'entitled to an opinion' means 'entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth', then it's pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred."

I do hope that the people without experience or expertise will quit getting equal time with those that have real expertise and experience on the subject of animal behavior. This isn't an equal debate, and needs to quit being treated as such.

 

 

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.

 

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/

 

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?

 

Garland County, AR struggles with the after effects of breed specific law

Well, this didn't take long.

In June, a 5 year old boy was tragically killed by a Bull Mastiff in Garland County when the dog apparently reacted to the boy "acting out"  in a tantrum.

In response to the tragedy, Garland County's Quorum Court passed a law that specifically targeted several breeds of dogs (not including Bull Mastiffs) as nuissance/vicious dogs. The law went into effect in October of this year.

Not surprisingly, the results of the ill-advised, and poorly-thoughout-out ordinance have been a negative and causing significant over-crowding at the Hot Springs animal shelter. (BTW, I do think it's interesting that the article here never mentions that the law targets specific breeds of dogs).

Now, dogs that are deemed to be one of the targeted breeds of dogs are taken to the animal shelter -- and now must be held until a trial can be held so a judge can decide if the dog is considered a nuissance or not. Right now, the trial dockets are being set at about 90 days out, which means dogs being held for trial are being held for at least 90 days at the shelter.

The result is that the shelter is being over-run with dogs awaiting trial, while other adoptable dogs are being killed at the shelter. So now, not only are the dogs that resemble targeted breeds dying at the shelter, but while those dogs await trial and death, dogs of other breeds are also dying due to lack of space. 

This is the result of laws targeting specific breeds. The laws do nothing to improve public safety and the net result is just a lot of dead dogs.

In response to the problems that it took the ordinance only about a month to create, the Garland County Quorum Court passed a bond system to help them "fix" their problem. 

Now, owners of the "high risk" breeds can pay a $500 fee so they can keep their dogs until the court date. This allows them to take the dog home which saves animal control the responsibility of caring for the animal, feeding the animal and taking up shelter space while the dog and owners await trial.

It seems unlikely to me that many owners will choose to pay such a  high fee but at least it's a start.

Justice of the Peace for District 11 Larry Griffin notes that it's the best solution to the problem.

Well, no, not really. The best solution would be to go back and rethink the law in the first place. It would be get rid of the law targeting certain breeds of dogs -- which inevitably leads to dogs dying in shelters unnecessarily and no increase in public safety -- and instead, focus the laws on responsible pet ownership, and targeting aggressive dogs based on their BEHAVIOR, not breeds.

That would be the best solution. Everything else is just trying to cover up for the problem of a poorly thought-out law that is focused on the wrong "problem". 

The link between ignorance and irrational fear

"We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them." - Chrisitan Nestell Bovee

A couple of weeks ago, the University of Lincoln (UK) introduced results from some interesting research.

In their report entitled, Acculturation - Perceptions of breed differences in dog behavior, note that the level and quality of contact between dogs and humans is a major influence on the tendency to believe popular breed stereotypes.

According to the results of their survey, more than half of the respondents that labeled themselves "experienced or knowledgable" of dogs disagreed with the statement that some breeds are more aggressive than others.  Similarly, more than half of this group responded that they felt there was no valid reason for legislation targeting specific breeds.

However, only 15% of people with little or no experience with dogs disagreed with the statement that some breeds were more aggressive than others and less than 10% disagreed with laws targeting specific breeds.

The study noted that the variability in behavior within a breed is nearly always greater than the variability between breeds.  It was also noted that visible characteristics such as short hair, or being well-muscled, were also stigmatizd more often as dangerous by people with less experience with dogs.

While the study is somewhat small in scope, I do think the difference in the numbers is significant and worth noting.

People with experience with dogs do not fear them, and do not buy into breed stereotypes.

However, people without much knowledge or experience with dogs tend to be fearful of them based on certain attributes. While the study doesn't dive into the origin of these negative breed stereotypes, one would presume that media influence would be a pretty major driver -- especially in the UK where the media has spent a solid 25 years stigmitizing certain types of dogs. 

Meanwhile, I also think this has some important information for policy-makers. I feel that it's important to note that some people are fearful of certain things, and as such, we need to be aware of those fears. However, it's also important that we don't base our policies on fears that are generated out of lack of knowledge and experience.

If generations of bigotry and hate over other types of prejudice have taught us nothing, it should be that such bigotry and hate are almost always rooted in irrational fear based on lack of contact and understanding.

With dogs it's reall no different.

Let's let the people who are knowledgable drive the decision-making here. Laws based on ignorance are destined to fail. 

Very Good Sentences - Experts against breed-specific laws

A couple of weeks ago, Miami Veterinarian Ian Kupkee wrote a very nice column for channel 10 about BSL and fears surrounding pit bulls. It's compelling throughout, but had a really nice comment toward the end.

"So back to the original question. Why am I doing this?  Because I've studied the evidence, and I've reachd a verdict. Because I know the facts and therefore the truth. Becaue pit bulls are just dogs. Because in fifteen years of poking them, palpating them, sticking my fingers in their mouths, I've never met a pit that didn't lick my face or plonk its goody head in my lap. Most importantly, because it's the right thing to do."

Almost universally, people who have hands on, professional experience working with dogs have the same point of view and oppose laws targeting breeds of dogs. While the movement to have legislation targeting breeds is centered around a handful of people who got their information from Google.

It's not the same.

We need to let experts in the field of animal care and handling, like Dr. Kupkee, lead the way in determining the type of dangerous dog legislation in this country -- which should be targeting canines (and owners) based on behavior, and not body type.