KC DOG BLOG

Veterans Day Tribute to Veteran Service Dogs

Time Magazine has an extremely touching video talking about how service dogs are helping many of our nation's veterans cope with post traumatic stress disorder following a return from combat.

The soldiers themselves are telling their stories of how they struggled to deal with family and friends again after serving overseas and how getting a service dog helped them integrate back into life.

According to one spokesperson the video, 18 veterans commit suicide every day in this country -- that's 6,570 suicides a year.

Meanwhile, 4 million animals are killed in shelters each year. They are making attempts to match the dogs to the veterans to end the deaths of both groups.

It is dog's like these in the vidoe (several are 'pit bull type' dogs) that the recent US Department of Justice Ruling on the Americans with Disabilities Act that says service dogs should be exempt from breed-specific laws -- just for people (and dogs) like these. And these are the same people that the city of Denver continues to want to discriminate against by delaying their vote to allow exceptions to their 'pit bull' ban for service dogs. 

Thanks to Time for the touching stories. Thanks to the men and women of our military for their services....and thanks to the dogs for theirs.

Self deception & rationalization in Omaha and Denver

People make decisions. And often they make quick decisions based on somewhat limited information. It's human nature. We cannot possibly research every single element of our lives to the fullest. So we often form opinions quickly.

The danger of this is that it becomes human nature to be more prone to DEFENDING their position on a particular topic than it is to actually CHANGE that opinion based on new data.

And thus is the situation with two communities that are defending their breed-specific policies.

Last night, in Denver, the city council again voted to delay a vote on whether or not to file an exemption of 'pit bull' service dogs from the city's 20 year old breed ban.

The city council has continued to delay a vote on this subject after the Department of Justice offered its final rule this summer on the topic of servcie dogs. In their ruling they said of the ADA:

"The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deferences would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities...state and local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular animal can be excluded based on that particular animal's actual behavior -- not based on fears or generalizations about how the animal or breed might behave."

While the Department of Justice's ruling could not be more clear that exceptions for service dogs must be made from the city's breed ban -- at least two city council members, Jeanne Faatz and Charlie Brown, wanted to vote down an exemption for service dogs because they viewed the federal regulations as an intrusion on the authority of local governments.  This "intrusion" is exactly why laws like the ADA exist -- to prevent local authorities from targeting individuals and limit their access and opportunities based on a particular disability. 

That fact seems to be lost on Brown, Faatz, and others on the council. 

This delayed decision comes at a time when the city is facing multiple lawsuits for their violation of the ADA....and the taxpayer money continues to fund the city's self rationalization that in spite of all of the science and research that contradicts them,  somehow they are right in their breed ban and everyone else is wrong. 

Meanwhile in Omaha, the city council will tonight look at a change in the city's 2 year old law that would prevent 'pit bulls' (very broadly defined as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Dogo Argention, Presa Canario, Cane Corso, American Bulldogs or any mix of those breeds) from having to wear a muzzle until they reach 6 months of age.  Currently all of the targeted breeds are required to be leashed, muzzled and harnessed while in public unless the dog passes the Canine Good Citizen Test.

Pam Wiese -- a spokesperson for the Nebraska Humane Society (which owns the animal control contract for the city of Omaha) - said that the required muzzling of pit bull puppies prevented them from socializing normally.  This is obviously one of the major drawbacks of laws that require muzzling -- muzzling and containment laws targeting specific breeds are designed to force isolation (I pointed this out as a problem 2 years ago when this was being discussed).  Forcing isolation, and thus, causing lack of socialization, is a recipe for creating a whole mess of under-socialized dogs. This is especially true for puppies, so fortunately the council looks willing to make this change, but is very important for dogs of all ages. It would be great if the Nebraska Humane Society -- and the Omaha city council - would recognize the importance of socialization for targeted dogs of all ages.  However, once the city has said "This is a good idea" it seems like they are unwilling to look at the reality that the whole law was a knee-jerk reaction that was based on a faulty premise in the first place.

Meanwhile, also of interest, the council is looking at decreasing the fines for at-large dogs -- decreasing the fines for unaltered dogs from $300 to $100 on the first offense and from $600 to $300 on the 2nd.  They realized the high fees were preventing anyone from picking up their animals at the shelter and NHS has noted that since the law passed they have seen a significant increase in the number of impounded animals left at the Humane Society (which generally translates to higher kill rates, although NHS does not make those numbers available to the public).

Meanwhile, Weise says the rest of the 2008 ordinance is "working well" -- although I guess actually decreasing dog bites isn't a requirement for "working" as bites in Omaha have gone up since the ordinance was put into effect after 3 years of declines prior to the ordinance passing.  "Working" is apparently a very relative term.

Denver and their taxpayers stay losing

The city of Denver has lost in court, again.

The great folks over at the Game Dog Guardian (who are having quite a week this week) are reporting that Denver has once again lost in the courts regarding their breed ban.

This time, Denver's motion to dismiss a court case because they are claiming that there were no material facts regarding whether their breed ban was rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

The courts denied their request. 

Even more interesting about the court's decision is that the city's 'expert' witness cited two different studies to substantiate his position that pit bulls are more likely to bite than other types of dogs. However, one of the studies is the 2000 report by the Center for Disease Control.  However, one of the writers of the CDC report, Randall Lockwood, has testified that the city's expert has 'misused' the study and noted that the information in the report cannot be used to determine that certain types of dogs are dangerous.

So the city of Denver must continue paying legal fees to defend their ordinance in court.  This of course is in addition to a legal settlement they paid back in March, and 2 other pending lawsuits regarding violation of the ADA Guidelines on people who have 'pit bulls' as service dogs.

The city continues to pay for lawsuits regarding the city's breed ban -- and continue to try to find reasons to try to avoid following the ADA guidelines - -all at the increasingly high cost of the city's taxpayers.  Maybe the city could use some of the money paying out their defense of this law to try to cover their $160 million budget shortfall. 

The city continues to flail about in support of their breed ban. It seems as if there are quite a few politicians (and a city attorney) in the area that have based a lot of their political career on the hysteria about pit bulls that seem to be willing to pay whatever tax dollars are necessary to defend the ban - -in spite of the mounting costs and evidence that they are wrong. 

There is more in the judge's decision -- and you can catch it all over at the Game Dog Guardian.   But none of it bodes well for the city of Denver -- and the taxpayers who are paying for it.

Yes Denver, non-discrimination laws apply to you too

On Monday, the Denver city council delayed a vote that would have created exemptions for the city's 'pit bull' ban that would allow the use of 'pit bulls' as service dogs in the city.

Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz, who has repeatedly used leadingly-worded survey results to justify her position against 'pit bulls', proposed to send the revised ordinance back to committee and the council voted 10-0 to do so.

Keep in mind, there is no wiggle room for the Denver Council.  Meanwhile, the Denver Post is trying to defend the city's right to discriminate against 'pit bulls' as service dogs.

It doesn't work that way.

See, the American's with Disabilities Act was created to specifically prohibit discrimination based on a disability. And The Department of Justice couldn't be more clear that service dogs are protected under the ADA (more on that in a bit). So no Denver, you are not exempted from being non-discriminatory any more than people in the deep south were exempted from discrimination based on race following the civil rights movement in the 60s.

The laws apply to you too.

And Denver's law is clearly in violation of the Department of Justice's official new final rule.

"The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deference would have  the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities."

That seems pretty clear.  And the DOJ was very clear that service dogs were not without their restrictions:

"State and local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that particular animal's actual behavior -- not based on fears or generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave."

So the reality is, if a dog is ill-tempered and a problem, Denver can still have all the ability in the world to put restricitons on a dog.  So if the dog is a problem, they have an out. So what is the issue if the dog isn't a problem?

Fear based hysteria -- created by the media in the city, continued by the media, reinforced by politicians to the point of even creating fear of 'pit bulls' being used by paraplegic drug dealers (no joke).

So as the city of Denver continues to face endless litigation -- costing the city tens of thousands of dollars - the city stubbornly refuses to let go of an idea of canine discrimination that was always based on fear-mongering, never based in science, and has never proven itself to improve the overall safety of the residents in the city.

Denver is flailing at trying to justify themselves....

For more, see Change.org -- where there is also a petition to encourage the Post to issue an appology for encouraging discrimination against 'pit bull' service dogs.

 

Many Denver city leaders still don't get it

Denver is in the wake of a significant challenge to their 20 year old breed ban. The city faces a legal challenge from  three different plaintiffs that the city's law does not comply with the American's with Disabilities Act guidelines for service dogs -- and a recent statement by the Department of Justice says loud and clear that Denver is in violation.

According to Attorney Jennifer Edwards:

"It's pretty offensive that this has been on the books this way for this long in complete violation of the ADA, in complete violation of our Constitutionally protected rights and it took a lawsuit from the Animal Law Center to Open their eyes."

But Denver many of the city council members still don't get it -- and it's painful listening to how dense they are in their quotes in this article.

Councilwoman Carol Boigon, who has a disability, shares her thoughts:

"I'm  thinking of all the drug houses that I have worked on over the last seven years, and a couple of them have people who have become paraplegics in bad drug deals, but were still dealing out of their house, and they had tough dogs. Was that a servcie dog? Well, I don't know, but those certainly were handicapped people. I think we're going to be in a world of hurt down the road on this."

For more reasons than one.

Here's a hint, if you have people dealing drugs out of their home, and if they are getting injured (shot?) in deals gone wrong because of drug deals gone wrong, whether or not the dog is a service dog is the least of the city's concerns.  How about maybe stopping the drug activity?  And yes, if your concern in that situation is the dog, your city is definitely gong to be in a world of hurt down the road.

Carla Madison at least seems to get it:

"Maybe we need to re-look at our pit bull ban and see if there's a way we can close that gap....maybe put in a dangerous dog act, just look at it differently."

Which is how the majority of cities do it. Which is how cities that have had success in dealing with dangerous dog issues have dealt with it. The ADA does allow  for dogs to be targeted based on behavior -- and if the dog is well-behaved, why does it matter what it looks like?

The status quo is hard to change. Denver has created an aura of fear around 'pit bulls' to the point where they think that the problem with drug houses are the types of dogs they own. 

Fear mongering still lives.  But thanks to the citizens of Denver who continue to fight, change will, I believe, eventually happen.

Weekly Roundup - Abbreviated for Week of 8/29/10

I'm not going to have time to get to a complete Weekly Roundup this week. I'll get most of the stories up in next week's roundup, but there are a couple of stories I think are really important from this week that I want to make some comments on. 

CA SB 250 Fails

Last week, SB 250 -- a bill that would mandate the spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in the state of California - thankfully failed in the Senate.  This is great news given that the law is not based on what is good for animals when the state's largest city has tried the law and has failed miserably with it. The final vote was way closer than it should be -- 34 for, 40 against, 4 not voting. If you live in California, contact your Senator. If they voted against the bill, thank them for making a wise decision. If they voted for the bill, contact them and tell them to look at the failure of the law elsewhere and pursuade them to not repeat the mistakes of others.

The law could be resurrected at any time, so please keep and eye on this and work to educate your senator so they realize that even the majority of animal welfare groups oppose this law -- because it doesn't work.

More on the laws in a great blog post from the Pet Connection.

More on the Jerry Lee Southern Conviction

I posted the news about Southern's plea deal on Wednesday, but Donna has a follow  up that is better, and more detailed than mine (which makes sense, she was there after all).  It turns out that the DA accepted Southern's plea deal to a sentence of 90 days because the judge that was hearing the case has a track record of not giving harsh sentences -- and in fact, deferring sentences a lot -- and the DA thought it was worth getting SOME jail time vs no time at all (which sounds like a real possible option).

We must continue to push judges into realizing that harsh sentences are deserved for  severe cruelty cases like this so that abusers like Southern, who was a repeat offender with no remorse, should not be allowed to get free passes for their actions.

Sioux City BSL Continues to fail

Back in 2008, Sioux City, IA passed a ban on 'pit bull' type dogs. The ban has been nothing but headaches for them  since it's passing, including multiple lawsuits, and other problems.

Turns out dog bites are up too.

Last week, a 19 month old boy suffered severe puncture wounds, collapsed lungs, a bruised kidney, a bleeding spleen and stomach and pancreas damage after being attacked by a Husky-type dog that was chained up in the neighbor's yard.   This of course follows a year in which the city focused on breeds of dogs being responsible for attacks, not aggressive dogs regardless of breed, chaining dogs, and unsupervised toddlers wandering up to those dogs.  This story was actually on the front page of the Sioux City Journal on Thursday morning.

Bites are up in Sioux City this year.  The city is already at the same number of dog bites as they recorded in all of last year.  Here are the dog bites over the past several years:

2006 - 88

2007  - 115

2008 - 94

2009 - 81

2010 - 81 (pace 122)

So outside of a very crazy 2007 -- the city averaged 88 dog bites per year- and was on a downward trend. The 2009 numbers (about 2/3 of which had the BSL ordinance) numbers were pretty good -- but 2010 is shaping up to be a complete disaster in terms of dog bites -- in large part because of the ordinance. And as you can see, the severity of the injuries has not decreased.

When cities focus on the wrong things -- like breeds -- instead of the right things like promoting responsible dog ownership, bad things happen. Sioux City is continuing to show their failures with their breed ban - -even though they are stubbornly holding onto the ordinance. 

Denver re-evaluating their breed ban

Last month, the Department of Justice released an official statement about the Americans with Disabilities Act and how all service dogs are protected under the ADA - -and that cities with bans on particular breeds do not trump the ADA. Service dogs are to be welcomed under the ADA regardless of breed (and regardless of what the city thinks of that breed).

So, now  the city of Denver is re-evaluating their breed ban. Well, they have to. At the very least they're going to have to adjust the law to allow for service dogs in the city -- particularly since Denver is currently facing three lawsuits for harrassing people protected under the ADA with 'pit bull' type service dogs under the city's breed ban.

The city is looking for a quick end to the situation given in order to squash the lawsuits and stop the mounting legal fees in a time when the city is facing a major budget deficit.

The city will likely get rid of the breed bans for service dogs (they have to) -- but it is already causing some to ask the question  that if the Department of Justice suggests that breed bans for service dogs are overly broad, why not for all dogs?

At this point, I highly doubt that Denver will really consider a full-on repeal. There doesn't appear to be much support for a full-on repeal at city hall or in the city attorney's office (where the assistant city attorney build his career on the ban and refuses to acknowledge the ban's failure in spite of the numbers and in spite of the reality that the law is causing the city a huge amount of wasted funds).  But I think eventually the ridiculousness of banning dogs that are capable of being service dogs, the huge difficulty of enforcing the ban with the ADA guidelines now impacting Denver, and, well, the fact that the whole law is ignorant an ineffective, will lead to the law being repealed. But it may take some more time. Or not. But the law is crumbling....

Department of Justice Tackles Breed Discrimination -- more bad news for Denver

Earlier this week, in honor of the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) the Department of Justice released its"Final rule" on enforcement of the law.

It's a lengthy document -- and I confess to not having had time to read the whole thing due to my travel schedule,  but the ruling does take aim at targeting service dogs based on the breed or type of dogs being used.  Here is the text from that section (emphasis is mine):

Breed Limitations.A few commenters suggested that certain breeds of dogs should not be allowed to be used as service animals. Some suggested that the Department should defer to local laws restricting the breeds of dogs that individuals who reside in a community may own. Other commenters opposed breed restrictions, stating that the breed of a dog does not determine its propensity for aggression and that aggressive and non-aggressive dogs exist in all breeds.

The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA who use certain service animals based on where they live rather than on whether the use of a particular animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Breed restrictions differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have no breed restrictions. Others have restrictions that, while well-meaning, have the unintended effect of screening out the very breeds of dogs that have successfully served as service animals for decades without a history of the type of unprovoked aggression or attacks that would pose a direct threat, e.g., German Shepherds. Other jurisdictions prohibit animals over a certain weight, thereby restricting breeds without invoking an express breed ban. In addition, deference to breed restrictions contained in local laws would have the unacceptable consequence of restricting travel by an individual with a disability who uses a breed that is acceptable and poses no safety hazards in the individual´s home jurisdiction but is nonetheless banned by other jurisdictions. State and local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that particular animal´s actual behavior or history--not based on fears or generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave. This ability to exclude an animal whose behavior or history evidences a direct threat is sufficient to protect health and safety."

It makes it very clear in their ruling that breed discrimination of service dogs should not be tolerated. And the service dog issue has become a very important one recently as dogs are proving to have a very positive effect on helping people deal with certain social issues -- particularly around post traumatic stress.

This is obviously devastating news for the cities of Denver and Aurora, Colorado. Both cities are currently facing lawsuits in which three separate individuals are claiming to have their rights violated under the ADA in these cities because their service dogs are of breed types banned in these jurisdictions. Denver has already spent over $15,000 in legal defense to help them prepare for the case -- although with the recent DOJ ruling, it seems impossible that they could win the case.

Breed bans continue to be very problematic for cities because they target exactly the wrong thing - a dog's shape, not its behavior. The ruling makes it very clear that this should be the way issues surround dogs should be handled: on an individual basis not based on very broad (and inaccurate) generalizations).

More great commentary on this from Game Dog Guardian and from For the Pit Bulls.

Pit Bull Bans lead Denver, Aurora into endless litigation

Face the State - a political talk show covering Colorado politics -- has a good story on the struggles Denver and Aurora are facing with their current breed bans.

While the article doesn't hit on much incredibly new, it is great to see a state wide political source covering the cities' costly struggle with BSL.

The article begins with the current, pending lawsuits against both cities and how their policies violate the American Disabilities Act by not allowing people with with 'pit bull-type' service dogs to enter their city. In one of the cases involving Vietnam veteran Allen Grider, Aurora Animal Contorl seized his therapy dog Precious and held the dog for 10 days. Grider was only able to get the dog back if it went to live with someone out of the city -- forcing him to be away from his dog fro 4-5 months -- the dog helps him manage his acute Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

The lawsuits both cities are facing are just a long list of the struggles both have had with the laws. According to the news story, Denver has killed more than 3,500 dogs under their breed ban and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in enforcement and faced a bevy of lawsuits over the past 2 decades.

In January, the city paid $5,000 to settle with a woman who had filed a suit and has agreed to formalize its proceedings for impounding, assessing and destroying dogs it considers to be 'pit bulls'.

In a separate case, Denver racked up at least $15,000 in legal fees -- and if Grider wins his case, he is asking for $75,000 in the suit. 

All of this is at a time when Denver is facing a $120 million budget shortfall.

Denver Animal Control director Doug Kelley notes that it is difficult for agencies to determine if a service animal is legitimate under federal law. "We need some type of documentation that this is a bona fide service animal."  However, in a separate phone call, apparently a staffer at Animal Control noted that they don't accept most types of documentation.  However, multiple court rulings have held that entities cannot demand proof of an animal's service training as stipulation to allowing individuals to keep their animals.

Denver is another shining example of the difficulties and expense that are incurred when breed bans are put into effect. They're costly, and impossible to enforce. And they don't work.

It's great to see the folks at a state-wide political news service covering such a high-profile failure...

For more:

Denver (and its Taxpayers) stay losing due to Denver Breed Ban

More legal problems for the city of Denver (and Aurora too)

More on Denver Lawsuits and a Councilwoman with an agenda

More on Denver Lawsuits and a Councilwoman with an agenda

So, yesterday I posted a note about three cities that are currently struggling with their breed bans - -one of which was Denver.

Then, after I made the post, even more information has come out about Denver's struggles -- and about the city council woman I accused of hiding behind her constituents and instead of doing what was "right", was bowing to the will of the voters. But it's worse than I thought.

First, For The Pit Bulls posted more information about the upcoming lawsuit the city is facing -- and really, it seems like you can only dream up the mess that they've created.

The case centers around three plaintiffs that are filing complaints that their rights were violated under the Amercians With Disabilities Act. Two of the victims are military veterans whose dogs were service dogs helping them deal with post-traumatic stress disorder (we've seen this come up before in other places). The third, was a disabled UKC Show judge whose dog also acted as a service dog. One of the military veterans' complaint is that he was also forced to sign inciminating paperwork to insure the dog's safety -- even after he advised Denver law enforcement that he was illiterate and unable to read the documents they were forcing him to sign.

You can read the entire lawsuit -- in its entirety -- here.

Meanwhile, also yesterday, I criticized city councilwoman Jeanne Faatz for defending Denver's breed ban, in spite of the mounting lawsuits and wasted tax dollars, hiding behind "it's the will of my voters" as her excuse.

Turns out, Ms. Faatz's survey is, at best, misleading.

One kind reader emailed me a copy of Ms. Faatz' 20o5 survey, where we can see the actual survey questions.  It's question 4 - -you can read it here for yourself.  But here it is in all its glory:

Denver enacted a pit bull ban many years ago because this breed of dog has shown particularly dangerous tendencies, especially their ability to inflict severe damage when they attack. Opponents of pit bull bans say it is unfair to single out any specific breed because temperament of an individual dog within a breed can vary. Do you support continuing to ban pit bulls in Denver?

Interestingly, in the 2005 survey, 15% of people opposed the ban -- that number is now up to 23% even though I'm sure the question is still leadingly worded.  In my actual job, we do a lot of surveys and I see the answers to a lot of survey questions. And how a question is worded is very influential to the outcome of the survey.  But I think it would be interesting to rewrite the question and see what type of response she got.  Here's a recommendation:

Many years ago, Denver enacted a ban on 'pit bulls'.  Most estimates say that the city is spending about a quarter of a million dollars on enforcing the ban and the city is now spending tens of thousands of dollars settling lawsuits and on legal council to deal with more pending lawsuits -- all at a time when the city is facing a $120 million budget shortfall.  No national organization of experts on canine/human interactions - -including Veterinarians, Dog Trainers, Rescues, and Animal Control officers - thinks that breed bans are effective or necessary legislation. Proponents of the law admit they have not studied the actual effectiveness of the law. Do you support continuing the ban on 'pit bulls'?

Dear Ms. Faatz. Quit hiding behind your biased survey question for your support of the ban. Quit harrassing military veterans and other people with disabilities. And quite wasting taxpayer dollars.

 

BSL Failures in Toledo, Denver and Sioux City -- and city "leaders" hiding behind constituents

The struggles cities are having with their breed bans were front and center in today's news. And it's becoming increasingly evident that enforcing breed bans is costly and ineffective.  There are better ways of doing this (suggestions coming tomorrow), but for today, let's focus on three cities that were in the news today for the failures of their BSL -- including one story of a city council person who has forgotten what her actual job is as a city leader.

Sioux City

I don't usually link to a lot of editorials here, but I thought this one from the Sioux City Journal summed up the mess they've created in Sioux City pretty well. Two years after beginning talks of banning 'pit bulls', and 18 months after actually passing the ordinance, the city has reached a potentially ugly crossroads. 

The city has undergone a series of embarrassments following the law: including unconstitutional paperworks issues, breed identification issues, civils suits and the man who pushed for the ban on pit bulls having his Labrador attack a jogger, then get sentenced to death, and then stolen from the shelter.  However, things have come to a head now that a deadline has passed for 'pit bull' owners whose dogs were grandfathered in under the ban had to renew their licenses, and approximately 100 dogs are left unlicensed. The cityjust denied the appeal of a military veteran who tried to license his dog 4 days late -- apparently deciding the dog was better off dead than licensed -- and may face the same scenerio 100 times over.  Meanwhile, at least 3 members of the council, and the mayor, have mentioned that they would be in favor of repealing the ban.

So while the council is delaying a conversation about possibly repealing the law, the police are talking about going around and rounding up unlicensed dogs to kill them.  The editorial wisely recommends to the council to take a step back before it "unnecessarily crosses a line it later wishes it hadn't."

It's good advice for a city that has seen nothing but headaches and struggle with their Breed Specific Ordinance.

Toledo

The members of the council's dog warden advisory group in Toledo continued its work on defining a dangerous dog in their community. The group was formed because the city leaders in Toledo recognized that dangerous dogs come in a variety of breeds and they are working on making recommendations to change the law so that ALL aggressive dogs can be included, and not just ones of a particular type. "We're trying to address behavior, not breed" said Chairman Steve Serchuk.

Denver

There is a new article in the Denver Daily News that talks about all of the legal bills that are piling up on the city of Denver.  There isn't a lot of new information here vs what I talked about last month, but it's worth noting that the mainstream media there is picking up on the issue. The city has already settled one payment for $5,000 in one lawsuit, and has at least $15,000 tied up in just two months  in paying a local lawfirm to deal with several other pending cases. Many locally are estimating that the city is spending a quarter of a million dollars in enforcing and defending their law -- at a time when the city is facinng a $120 million budget shortfall.

One thing of particular note in this story are the statements made by Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz who still supports the ban. Faatz says she sent out a survey to her constituents and 78% of them said they favored the ban. "That's the will of my voters, so if it takes defending it, I'm willing to defend it," said Faatz.

Faatz's response is indicitive of what many city council leaders have gotten absolutely wrong when it comes to leading cities.

City leaders are indeed, elected by getting the majority of the votes in their community. However, they still represent EVERYONE in their community, even the ones who didn't vote for them. And  they are elected to make decisions on what is best for the city, not necessarily based on the will of the majority. If over the course of history, our elected leaders only did what the MAJORITY of voters wanted, we wouldn't have gotten very far. It certainly would have set back the civil rights movement, and it's possible that women would have never been allowed to vote either -- or that Faatz herself would even have been allowed to hold her position.

No, city leaders are responsible for doing what is best for the city, and what is best for ALL constituents. Not just caving to the will of the majority. In fact, it means, in many cases, that they are responsible for protecting the minority from the majority. There is a difference between doing what is right, and what is best, than doing what people SAY they want.

People may say they want a 'pit bull' ban. But do they?  Or is it that they want to know that they are protected and safe from dangerous dogs?  Those aren't the same things. And if you asked them which of the two they wanted, most likely they'd choose the latter.

There are absolutely ways to protect people from dangerous dogs, while protecting the minority of people from the majority, and doing so in a way that is both effective and is not a drain on the taxpayer's dollars which are now being diverted to pay for city legal fees. Hiding behind your consitutents is the lazy way out Ms. Faatz. What 1400 people say in a survey does not give you the right to fight for ineffective ordinances that are wasting hundeds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money. It is your job to find effective ordinances and then explain to your constituents why that is a better option to solve their need (being protected from aggressive dogs) and their stated desire (to ban "pit bulls").  Don't hide behind your votes.

Tomorrow, I'll provide recommendations for fair laws that do a better job of addressing dangerous dogs -- so cities can avoid the costliness of what is going on in Denver, the enforcement problems in Sioux City, and the lack of protetion from aggressive non-'pit bull' type dogs that is going on in Toledo. Because really, who wants to dive into the problems listed above?

See also: For the Pits -Denver continues to spend thousands on ineffective pit bull ban