KC DOG BLOG

Florissant MO lies & misleads in effort to protect failing ban on pit bulls

Florissant Missouri's (Population 52,158) pit bull ban is failing its residents. But in spite of this, city officials are actively working to support keeping the ban (on the taxpayer's dime), and then lying to the public about it. 

The city passed the ban on pit bulls in December of 2005. That year, the city had 38 dog bites in their city. A decade later, after 10 years of enforcing the pit bull ban, the number of dog bites rose in the community to 82 -- a 115% increase.

These results aren't surprising to anyone who follows breed specific legislation. While there are always more factors that prevent making a 100% causal relationship between laws and results, passing breed bans often is followed by increases in dog bites in a community -- as has happened in Sioux City, IA Toronto, Aurora, CO;  the United Kingdom, Omaha, NE and many others.

This makes sense, of course. Animal Control resources are not infinite, and thus, as animal control resources are used on an unenforceable law that target dogs that look a certain way, they take resources away from dealing with stray dogs, irresponsible pet owners or dogs that really are dangerous based on their actual behavior. 

Breed-specific laws also negatively "educate" the public into thinking the reasons dogs bite is because of breed - and thus creates a false intelligence in citizens from the real factors and warning signs and how to deal with dangerous dogs. 

The rising dog bites isn't the only problem for Florissant -- as the law has also caused 201 dogs to be confiscated from families in the community over the past 5 years -- of which 164 (82%) were killed at the county shelter -- at a cost of more than $7000 to citizens.

Due to the unfairness of the ban, and it's lack of effectiveness, in May, many residents began asking the city council to repeal its breed ban.  And have been attending city council meetings and testifying on behalf of a repeal at each meeting since.

However, the city is fighting the idea of a repeal -- again, at the taxpayer's expense.

This time, the city paid a whopping $9700 to do a "telephone survey" to ask the opinions or residents on repealing the ban. The phone survey asked the opinions of 300 residents -- a cost of $32 per phone call. But the phone survey wasn't just to get input from residents -- the series of questions was designed to sway opinions about pit bulls prior to asking about the ban.

In spite of the leading line of questioning, the survey came back with 47.5% of people opposing the breed ban, and 44.5% in favor of the ban.

What's more, is when local advocates asked about the survey -- the city clerk, the city council and the mayor all denied that the survey even took place.  It was only after filing a Freedom of Information Act Request under the Missouri Sunshine laws that they were able to get confirmation that the survey took place, the city paid for it, and that advocates were lied to about it. 

The advocacy group commissioned its own phone survey using a local survey company, and talked to 555 people at a total cost of just $350 (just 3% of the cost endured by taxpayers) and found that 65% of respondents opposed the ban on pit bulls, while only 29% were in favor. 

So while the city is spending taxpayer funds to enforce the pit bull ban, which is killing dogs at taxpayer expense, it is also spending a significant amount of money trying to justify keeping the failing ban. These expenses are coming at a time when the city has rapidly depleted its reserve fund for the city.  Taxpayers in Florissant should be really upset by the way their city is handling this.

Fantastic job by the Riverfront Times in unveiling this situation -- and by local advocates persisting through many roadblocks. 

If you are a taxpayer in the city of Florissant you should definitely let your city officials know how you feel about their methods of spending your hard-earned tax dollars and then lying about how that money is spent.

-----

Addendum: 

One other observation in the Florissant discussion. Often times we've found that breed-specific laws have been rooted not in the behavior of the dogs -- but in the image many have of the type of people who own them.  While the image of the type of people who own pit bulls has changed a lot over the past decade, this was certainly a factor 10-20 years ago when many pit bull bans were passed. If I'd had a dollar for every politician that said they thought a ban would keep "those people" out of their city I could have retired long ago.

With this in mind, I find it interesting that the demographics of Florissant changed a lot during the 2000s. In 2000, the demographics of this suburban community were 87% white and 10.5% African American. However, during much of the 2000s, blue collar union jobs left North St. Louis County with Boeing purchase of McDonnell Douglas in 1997 and the closing of the Ford Motor Company Plant in 2006, so many white, middle class residents began to leave Florissant.

By the time of the 2010 census, the demographics had changed substantially -- with 69% of the population being white and 27% African American. Florissant also shares a border with Ferguson, MO, which has recently become an icon of racial stress in this country.

I find it interesting that this ban was put in place in 2005 during the middle of this dramatic racial demographic change for this community. 

 

Almost too absurd to be true

Reading the news this week almost resembles reading articles from The Onion - only without the humor and the wit.  The public/media reactions to events not only crazy, but it's also got me wonderng if we're even making efforts to protect the right species.

In Troy, MO, the city council unanimously approved an ordinance that bans all new 'pit bulls' from a city (as well as any mixed breed that contains "an element" of these breeds -- I'm not sure if you could write anything more vague than that). The community passed the ordinance when a resident supposedly saw two 'pit bulls' running at large in the city. Apparently one resident had his dog mauled by the dogs and requested a ban. Three things impress me about this:

1) That the only people who identified the dogs as 'pit bulls' were residents -- and the general public is far from being breed ID experts.

2) If the city law enforcement cannot even round up stray/at-large dogs, how are they ever going to enforce the city's breed ban?

3) How is one incident indicative of every "pit bull" type dog in the community?

By contrast, in Danvers, MA, a Labrador Retriever attacked and killed a Miniature Schnauzer. It's the same scenerio as what happened in Troy, however, there has been no talk of banning Labradors in the community.  In fact, they're still talking about whether the dog will be allowed to move out of the city vs killing it in the shelter. While I support Danvers' approach, why such a contrast in how the same incident, involving different breeds, is handled? In one, they banned all similar type dogs?  In the other, they are looking specifically at the individual dog?

When people talk about breed descrimination, this is it.

But it gets even wackier.

There was quite a horrific incident in Sea Tac, WA. As best I can gather from the media four young teenagers between the ages of 11 and 15 beat a dog and assaulted 2 adult women. At some point, a 63 year old woman was driving downthe road and saw three boys and a girl repeatedly hitting and kicking a dog on the side of the road. The woman stopped her car, and asked if the youth needed help. At that point, the 15 year old girl told her to mind her own business, and then opened the care door and started attacking the woman -- pulling her hair and dragging her over to the passenger seat of her car. When the woman tried to get away, the girl chased her and continued hitting her, and the boys followed. At some point, the dog that they had been beating apparently bit the woman on the wrist and leg.

Meanwhile, a 2nd woman, 41, saw the first attack and followed the youth to a nearby park. When the kids realized they were being followed, the girl reported head butted the second woman and punched her several times in the head and body.  The three boys accompanied the girl and reportedly provoked the dog to bite the woman while the girl assaulted her.

While all of this is horrific, what is possibly more amazing to me is that the pit bull seems to be getting the majority of the blame (especially early on), not the 15 year old girl who is apparently quite the debutante. Here are the headlines:

Kids accused of using pit bull as a weapon

Children encourange pit bull to attack 2 good samaritans

Sheriff's Office: Youths used pit bull as a weapon

But even more amazingly, is that the topic of a breed ban has again been brought up by the media -- including the article from the Seattle Post Intelligencer: Pit Bull Problem: The owner or the breed?

WTF?

How in the world does anyone read what happened in Sea Tac and think that the problem here was with the dog? There isn't a single thing about that would even hint at these being model owners. In fact, I would venture to say that it is quite the testiment to the breed's devotion to humans (whether really earned or not) that this dog didn't go after the kids that were beating and kicking it in the first place.

And who is going to pretend out there that any dog, regardless of breed, that ended up in a situation where it was clearly abused and beaten by its owners wouldn't have a propensity to have a few aggression issues. If someone repeatedly beat and kicked me, I know I would have aggression issues if given the opportunity.

How in the heck does someone, even for an instant, try to pin this incident on being a breed issue?

And as more and more stories come out about abuse and cruelty cases -- a large number of them involving 'pit bulls' -- it is becoming increasingly clear to me that we're trying to protect the wrong species.  Just in the past couple of weeks:

In Florida, a four month old pit bull puppy was euthanized because he was sprayed with lighter fluid and set on fire after an argument between two people.

In Cambridge, MD, a 'pit bull' was found hanged to death from a tree.

 In Tounton, MA, a four month old pit bull puppy was brutally beaten by his 31 year old owner.

In Sioux City, IA, a 35 year old man was arrested for punching his pit bull in the face about 30 times, killing it.

A Louisiana woman found a neglected, starving 'pit bull' with horrible skin conditions and chained to a concrete block in some weeds.

A Greenacres, FL man was accused of beating his pit bull with his hands and a piece of wood.

In Belle Plaine, KS nine starving pit bulls were pulled out of a home where they were left to their own devises amidst piles of rotting garbage and old tires.

In Memphis, a pit bull was found hanging on a fence with its neck slashed.

With owners like this, is it any wonder some dogs become aggressive?  In spite of the fact that dogs are naturally very friendly toward people, there are some people who just have a way with abuse and neglect. And do we think that if a dog is terribly mistreated, as it was in the case in Sea Tac, that it would matter what breed was involved whether it became aggressive or not?

Not likely.

Of the 7 million or so pit bulls that live in the United States, the majority live with great owners: people who care about them, love them, walk them, snuggle with them, and share beds with them. We don't read a lot about these people in the news, but there are litteraly millions of them out there.

However, for a variety of reasons, the pieces of crap that will cruelly treat dogs have gravitated toward this type of dog. And instead of going out and enforcing cruelty and neglect laws with a vengeance to protect the dogs from this cruelty, the media through their blaming of breed in spite of clear evidence that it's not the breed, and city councils who now react completely differently to attacks by one breed vs those by a different one, have somehow convinced themselves that the "solution" to the problem is rounding up all the dogs that resemble the victims and systematically killing them with breed bans.

That's no solution.

It's time to put an end to the nonsense. It's time to quit blaming the victims of human cruelty and stupidity, and start blaming the humans themselves - and vigilently prosecuting their abusive behavior. This cycle will never end until we do, because even if you exterminate one breed,there will always be another breed.  It sucks. As humans, we don't like to look at ourselves and blame our own kind for the problems that exist. We don't really like seeing the massive failings of our own humanity.

But until we do, the problem will go on. And we need to end the abuse now -- and quit blaming the victims of the abuse for the problem. 

Miscellanious Stuff

Last week, Hawaii Senate President Colleen Hanabusa introduced a bill to the Senate that would ban all 'pit bulls' from the state. The bill has gotten a lot of headlines over the past couple of weeks, but it doesn't sound like it has much support from the Senate, or even really from the person who proposed the bill.

Hanabusa herself said that the bill was drafted by the request of a constitutent, but that the bill isn't likely to go very far.

"I do not believe that this is a bill that has a high priority, but it's going to be up to the Judiciary Committee chair.  I have not hear of anyone asking or pushing the measure," she said.

According to the newspaper report, pit bumll attacks in Hawaii are infrequent, although the bill was introduced after a pit bull mix killed an infant in her home.

In spite of the infrequent attacks by pit bulls on the islands, it hasn't stopped the media from finding a couple to report on. "Coincidentally" there were two reported bites this week just as the bill was introduced.  Interestingly, the exact same thing happened last week in Montana - -they proposed (and quickly killed) a state-wide ban, and the next day there were two media reports of 'pit bull' bites.  Just doing their part, right?

In spite of a large amount of opposition, Lancaster, CA passed their ordinance mandating the sterilization of all "pit bulls" and Rottweilers this week.  Mayor Rex Parris has spent a lot of the past couple of weeks talking about his desire for this law to combat "gangs". Even during the meeting, many voiced criticisms that the new law could lead to racial profiling that would unfairly accuse black or Latino males seen with a pit bull as gang-bangers.

I posted about this earlier this week, but think it deserves to be noted.

In the 2000 census, Lancaster has about 119,000 residents, 63% of them white (75,000).

In 2008, the city has approximately 147,000 residents, 52% of them white (76,500).

So while the population has grown 25% in the past 8 years (about 30,000 residents), it has come been almost exclusively minorities that have been moving to the city.

I still don't think this law has anything at all to do with dogs....

Delusional

The city council and the mayor of Lancaster, CA are scary...and delusional.

The city is looking at an ordinance that would require all 'pit bulls' and Rottweilers to be spayed or neutered, including mutts that have the "predominant characteristics" of the two types of dogs. 

The city is also looking at ways of identifying "potentially dangerous" and "vicious" dogs -- a measure that I would support, if done fairly and logically - -something the city seems not able to do well.

The ordinance mandating spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' and Rottweilers is being aimed at dealing with the community's problems with gang activity.

"I want gangs out of Lancaster," Mayor R. Rex Parris said. "I want to make it uncomfortable for them to be here. Anything they like, I want to take it away form them. I want to deliberately harass them....If they move on to cats, I'm going to take their cats."

"It's really like (gangs) having a weapon that they are allowed to display and intimidate people. If they have a pit bull, they may as well put a sign on their head saying, 'come get me'".

The argument, of course, is delusional.

Let's assume at first that gangs really are a problem in Lancaster. Gangs participate in a wide variety of activities: illegal gun ownership, murders, drug dealing, violation of conceal and carry laws, etc. There would be no reason at all to think that all of a sudden making a dog law will cease this kind of activity. They are already doing illegal things -- most carrying felony penalties -- a dog law is not going to stop them. And, if you take away their dog, they will get a new dog. It really will be that easy.

Meanwhile, the most delusional part of the entire ordinance is the enforcement of it. Does Mayor Paris really want animal control officers fighting the city's gang problems?

Stopping gang activities requires experience and trained police personel...and often SWAT teams. You DON"T go after gang activities with animal control officers, most of whom can't even carry a gun. You're just asking your animal control officers to get killed trying to enforce the law.

So no, the law won't be effective at being able to be enforced....because no animal control officer in their right mind will take on inner city gangs with their small pistol and law mandating the dogs be spayed or neutered.

Instead, the animal control officers will go after safer people and harrass responsible owners that won't shoot at them for showing up on their doorstep -- which is why people are upset about the law. 

I don't want to underscore the problems with gang activity. I know that it is a problem in many urban areas of the United States. I know that often these people own dogs -- and even gravitate toward easy-to-get dogs with a "mean" reputation. But you CANNOT solve the problem by creating animal control laws...in fact, it is completely delusional and irresponsible to think that you can.

During a pilot sweep of the program, the Lancaster animal control officers responded to 283 complaints about pit bulls -- 'most of them strays or at-large' -- in other words, the vast majority of the calls they responded to were dogs they could get by just enforcing the city's leash law.

I'm simply amazed at times at how ignorant people can be about what the real problems in society are and the ridiculous "solutions" they try to come up with for them, even while ignoring the position of every group of animal experts in the country on the lack of effectiveness of BSL.

I also would be remiss if I didn't note the role that race may play in this -- and that race may be the real issue vs gangs. Lancaster is one of the 10 fastest growing communities in the United States. In the 2000 census, the city was about 63% white -- but more recent data is showing the city to be 52% white. Yet, every member of the city council is white. I'm not saying it is a motive -- I have no way to know for sure. But I think those numbers, combined with Mayor Paris' statements sure seems like he is targeting a select group of people.

Sioux City, IA targets those who speak up for good government

It's a story we've heard a lot -- from places across the country. And it looks like Sioux City, IA is the next city to punish people for getting involved in the democratic process. Apparently, city officials collected the names and addresses of dog owners who testified at various City Council Meetings against the ban on 'pit bulls' the city eventually passed. Now, it turns out that these people were sent notices through the mail by the city warning them to license their pets.

City Councilman Jim Rixner called the move totally unacceptable.

"People should hae the ability to come before the council and have a passionate opinion about something and be able to express that without any fear of retaliation," Rixner said. "The potential for abuse is very frightening to me....It's a chilling effect."

Agreed.

But unfortunately, this, all too often is the story we hear.

Ohio Lawmakers use the newspapers to sell their idea

Two Ohio lawmakers are using the letters to the editors in their local newspapers to sell their ideas on banning 'pit bull' dogs in their cities...and when you dive into the logic, it's a bit scary.

We'll start with Councilman Brian Powers in Lakewood. This is Powers' second letter to the editor in as many weeks. Powers begins his letter by expressing his seeming frustration about how much attention his 'pit bul' ban has gotten. He blames most it on out-of towners and out of state special interest groups, but seems to ignore the reality that the people in his own community don't support it either. At the first city council meeting when people were allowed to speak, 19 of the 20 people spoke out AGAINST his ordinance. At the last meeting, according to the media reports, "over 100" people showed up at the meeting with "Most" of them being against the ordinance -- and many wearing t-shirts and buttons denouncing the ordinance.  Seems that Powers is in a bit of denial that this is affecting people in his own community. And maybe he should realize that the reason his ordinance is getting so much attention is because the people who know the most about these types of ordinances know they are complete failures and have seen many places overturn the bans because they are inneffective.

Councilman Powers then calls our one out-of-town blogger Charles Brettel (who has written a letter combating Powers' comments to the newspaper, but the newspaper refuses to run the letter but still allowed his name to get singled out in the letter).

Powers defends his position by taking a quote off the PBRC website. I have an awful lot to say about this whole bit, but let me just leave it at my top 3 list:

1) Quotes off websites are not support for ordinances. Having a goal, and proposing a solution that will achieve that goal are reasons for ordinances. If an ordinance has been a failure at achieving the desired goal in every single instance, it's a bad ordinance.

2) PBRC and many groups like them do a lot of great things.  However, it has become commonplace for many of these groups -- in the interest of fully educating their potential adopters - -to put the worst case scenerio on their websites. Many people like Powers are taking these quotes, the ones for the worst case scenerio, as being the rule, not the exception. These groups need to do a better job of providing averages and worst case scenerios.

3) I find it interesting that Powers uses a group like PBRC and points to them as the experts, but then doesn't pay any attention to the pages and pages of information on their website that talk about the ineffectiveness of the type of legislation he is proposing. Either they're experts or they're not Mr. Powers.

Powers concludes with denouncing actualAmerican Temperament Test Society numbers about the temperament of these types of dogs and then states that 'pit bulls' accounted for 110 deaths between 1982 and 2006 (I'm assuming these are Merritt Clifton's flawed stats).  But let's assume this number is true.  That is 110 deaths over a 25 year time period for the entire United State of America (and this may include Cliffton's Canada numbers too)  That is roughly four 'pit bull' fatalities a year over 25 years.

Most population estimates put the total number of 'pit bulls' at about 8% of the overall dog population (many shelters, especially in urban areas, have an intake of 40-50% being labeled as "pit bulls").  Based on this number, that would put the total population of "pit bulls" in the US to be roughly 6 million 'pit bulls'. So that would mean that Powers' legislation is targeting a type of dog because it has somehow been "genetically engineered" to be more dangerous and yet each year 99.999933% of these types of animals are innocent?  Doesn't sound like 'genetically engineered to kill" to me. Especially when you consider that cities like Cincinnati and Little Rock are now out using police resources (taking away from helping with crimes like murder, traffic violations, rapists, drug trafficking, etc) to enforce their bans.

If this were really about public safety, Powers would look at places like Calgary, that have successful models for his improving public safety.

Meanwhile, Whitehall's Jacquelyn Thompson writes a letter/plea for help as discusses why she proposed a ban in Whitehall.  It's quite obvious from reading her letter that she has completely lost any sense of reality when it comes to this issue.

Thompson starts off talking about our yearning after World War II to improve our country's living conditions and end violence by forming the United Nations. However, according to Thompson, since the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., our country has once again immersed ourselves in violence and has since then become a race to the bottom as we reduce our country to the "lowest common denominator".  "We are in the midst of the latest manifestation of the age-old battle between civilization and barbarian," she writes. 

And get this, "pit bulls are representative of the new order".  Yes, "pit bulls" are causing our society to be spiraling downhill.  She even goes so far as to say her fellow council members "chose to come down on the side of darkness when they voted no on the ban." 

Really Ms. Thompson?  Of all of societies ills, 'pit bulls' are the problem?

According to recent reports, over 2.2 million US Citizens were in prison or jail.  Another 4.8 million are on some type of parole or probation. A good many of these people are there for illegal drug-related activities In 2006, 17,034 people were murdered in the US.  Another 92,455 were forcibly raped, another 862,947 people were assualted.  Anywhere between 12-15% of people in the US live below the US poverty line, including 30% of African Americans under the age of 18.  Our inner city schools in many areas are failing these youth and not giving them a better chance to escape this cycle. Every year, the Child Protetive Service estimates that about 3.25 million children are abused by their parents.

And 'pit bulls' are the problem with our society?  Really?  Get a grip Ms. Thompson. "Pit bulls' are not the "symbol for the new order" or the "Dark side" or anything else.  They're dogs. 

 

Note for the Independence, MO Chamber of Commerce

This is a note for the Independence, MO Chamber of Commerce.  It's one I hope they will see and hopefully act upon.  This isn't about dogs (althought they play a role in this), this is about business, politics and maybe government.  So I hope they're paying attention.

Last week, there was an article in the Independence Examiner entitled "Pit Bulls Need Love too".  It was a nice article that involved an interview with a local 'pit bull' rescue group in the KC area.

Pit bulls can remain silly clowns very late in life," Gipson said. "A happy pit bull will wag his whole body and the joyful expression in his eyes is impossible to miss. Even dogs that are rescued from very difficult situations usually keep a very positive and uplifting spirit."

Because most people think pit bulls are people-aggressive, there is a tendency to shy way from caring for the breeds, Gipson said. Although pit bulls are naturally aggressive, their people-attacking skills are learned, not born, traits.

Another thing noted in the article was that the Missouri Pit Bull Rescue group was having a fund raiser at locally franchised Maggie Moos.  Unfortunately, the fundraiser ended up getting cancelled.

Maggie Moo's franchise owner Debbie Klatt said she cancelled the funraiser after receiving "unspecified complaints" to her parlor and to the company's corporate office.  She declined to comment further on the cancellation other than "We simply decided to cancel the event."

However, some quotes by MPR VP Amy Nash made to KMBC shed some new light on the situation:

“She felt concerned for her safety, and for her staff and asked us if we could not have the event at that time,” said Nash. “While we were there some people called and made phone calls to her. She was quite upset about it."

If I were the Independence Chamber of Commerce, I'd want to do some investigating into these phone calls. Phone records shouldn't be too hard to obtain.  If one of my business owners was either being threatened physically, or with the welfare of her business, over hosting a CHARITY EVENT, I'd be really concerned.  She wasn't hosting an event for the KKK, she was hosting an event for an animal rescue event.

Now, I don't know for SURE who was behind the phone calls, but I have my suspicisions.  Last year, the city of Independence had one city council member that bullied through a ban on 'pit bulls'.  She made threats to other council members.  She stood outside getting petitions signed in case the council didn't pass her ban, she was going to take a harsher ban (without grandfathering) to the voters.  She single handedly bullied the ordinance through with only a handful of local supporters.

If this council member had any involvement in threats to a local business owner -- either with physical threats or threats to this person's business, the Independence Chamber has a responsibility to act and demand she be removed, and depending on the details, potential fined and jailed.  It is not only morally wrong and unethical to do such a thing, but illegal as well.

My hope is that the folks in Independence will stand up to such bullying tactics in order to preserve the rights of the business owners in that community.

Niko Returns Home

Remember Niko?

Back on July 13 I originally wrote about Niko.  Niko was taken from his home and confiscated for being a "pit bull". The owners protested this breed identification. 

Eight months later, Niko has returned home to his family.

The owners paid a local veterinarian to run a blood test on Niko to test his breed ID...as another local vet had originally ID'd him as a "boxer" mix. 

Well, the DNA test came back, with about 1/16th Staffordshire Terrier in him, and so much other stuff (including Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and Mineature Schnauzer) that the computer found the dog's breed "inconclusive". 

In other words folks, Niko appears to be your standard, run of the mill mutt.  So, Niko returns home.

This turns out to be the third lawsuit that KCK has lost in the past 5 months due to their "pit bull' Ban.  You may remember Roscoe's story and the heartbreaking story for April Nash.

In this case, the Kansas City Kansas Tax payers (who are one of the most heavily taxed groups of people on the planet) got to pay for Niko's boarding for EIGHT MONTHS while the legal challenge was taking place.  At a low-end cost of $10 a day, that is over $1800 that tax-payers paid for the "service" of keeping Niko from his owners.

Menawhile, everyone else should be VERY concerned about the precedent that this set. It should be noted that the DNA test (the vet used the Wisdom Marst test that uses drawn blood vs the saliva sample) was paid for by the dog's owner. In this country, we have this little thing called the Constitution that has a little clause in it that says we are innocent until proven guilty.

  In this case, the city presumed innocence until the dog's owners could prove themselves not guilty.  The lack of Constitutionality and due process is pretty clear.

This is yet another instance of the blatant lack of Constitutionality and total crap-shoot of enforcement that BSL is. 

Captions:  The first picture is Niko's picture at home prior to him being confiscated by KCK Animal Control.  The 2nd Picture is Niko's new pic as he relearns where home is.  The third pic is another pic of Niko at home after his return...check out the sore on his left front leg that he inflicted on himself due to the absolute boredom that came from being in a shelter without walks and love for 8 months.  The last picture are more wounds that came from his excess time in the kennel.   It's interesting to think that if KCK had found Niko in this condition at home, they could very well have taken Niko and charged the owners for neglect. 

Update: Here's the link to the Fox4 story on Niko going home.  Thanks again to Tess Koppelman for covering this story.

Roscoe makes it home

Roscoe has returned home.  About 2 months ago, I noted this story where Roscoe was taken from his family in Kansas City, KS because animal control officers thought he was a "pit bull", which are outlawed in KCK.  Even though the Cockrum family produced paperwork that they had adopted Roscoe from the KCK City-run animal shelter as a Shepherd Mix, the authorities still took Roscoe.  Only after some help from some a lawyer, the new crews, and some behind the scenes dog advocates, has Roscoe finally returned home.

The Cockrum's had to pay a fine for not having Roscoe Spay and Neutered and for not having him licensed.  Roscoe spent the day at Spay/Neuter Kansas City, a place that offers low cost spay/neuters for people who can't afford the higher prices at vets offices handled him getting fixed.

Meanwhile, the taxpayers of KCK just spent a small fortune on their animal control officer's time, court costs, and the costs of boarding Roscoe for 2 months while this all took place so this dog could just not be a part of his family.  The dog is clearly not dangerous (watch the video), and clearly not a 'pit bull' (although your guess is as good as mine about what he really is).  But this is a prime example of what happens when you have poorly conceived laws, that are not enforceable, and a poorly run animal control office that is more concerned about making numbers and jacking with people than they are about public safety and animal welfare.

Special thanks to those at KC Dog Advocates that helped out the Cockrum family.  Here's a link to the news story by KCTV5 -- who thanks to them for covering this story.

Roscoe, welcome home. 

Where's Roscoe?

Kansas City, KS's animal shelter is in the news again this week, and KCTV5 has yet another story of a family that is being impacted by the county's corrupt and inept animal control division.

This family adopted their dog Roscoe from the KCK animal shelter back in June.  However, last month, an animal control officer came up to their home while the dog was chained up outside (something I don't support, but at least the family was home) and told them he was taking their dog because the dog was a "pit bull" that was illegal in KCK.  The officer told the woman he could tell it was a pit bull because of its high pitched bark (which is a complete new one -- I've heard a lot of crap, but that is new).

The woman's husband went to the animal shelter the next day to get his dog back -- bringing the paperwork that the shelter had previously deemed the dog a shepherd mix.  They then tried to charge the family with neglect.  That didn't stick.  They then said they were keeping the dog because it was not neutered.  The shelter has been unwilling to cooperate with the family to get their dog back, and now the dog has been in the shelter (we're assuming it's still alive) for over a month now.

Which brings up the following key points:

1) Breed specific laws are nearly impossible to enforce -- because breed ID is impossible -- especially for mixed breed dogs.  This dog was declared by the animal shelter a shepherd mix and adoptable.  An animal control officer then thought it was a pit bull.  I'll note here that shepherds and pit bulls look nothing alike...so imagine the problems in dealing with breeds that actually look similar.

2) If neutering the dog was such an issue for the Shelter, maybe they should have neutered it before adopting the animal out.  This is standard policy at most shelters...and one of the recommendations made by the task force 2 years ago that has been completely ignored.

3) Who thinks this is a wise spend of taxpayer money?  Here's a dog that was housed at the shelter, adopted out, then picked up again by animal control and has been warehoused at the animal shelter for over a month.  At a cost of roughly $38 a day to keep the dog, feed it, care for it, etc, that's nearly $1200 (and counting) of taxpayer money that is being wasted on a dog that wasn't a problem.

The system is broken. In KCK's case, it's severely broken -- on of Extreme Makeover proportions.

They have recommendations in their hands from a task force of professionals on what they could do to improve their system - -ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS READ IT. 

I hope more people in KCK come forward with their stories.  Every story that I have worked with in KCK has been similar to this one.  We should demand more from our public services -- and at the very least not make them public henderences.