KC DOG BLOG

Welcome back, and a bit about Missouri HB 1116

Welcome back. In the past 8 years of writing this blog this is (by far) the longest stretch between posts. Things have been busy. Life has been busy. A LOT has been going on. I appologize for my absence. Meanwhile, I've been gathering a whole host of blog post ideas -- some long, some short -- but all I think important. We'll see if somehow I can get those thoughts articulated into actual content but I think I'm back in the saddle.

One of the items that has kept me busy the past couple of months is HB 1116/SB 865.

This bill would have positioned Missouri to become the 20th state to pass a prohibition on breed-specific laws - -joining Utah and South Dakota in this legislative session.

I confess, that I wasn't terribly optimistic when the bill was introduced. Freshman bills seldom get much traction in the Missouri Legislature unless there is a perceived urgent need. However, the bill got a lot of support very quickly. It passed out of committee in both houses, and passed the entire House of Representatives. However, it never made it out of the Senate in spite of a lot of support.

So, without much fanfare, the legislative session ended and the bill was still left unpassed.

In many ways, it's sad. Because for each passing day that waits with breed bans in place, dogs are removed from homes, and killed in state shelters just based on how they look. Springfield, MO, Missouri's third largest city, has killed one pit bull per day for nearly a decade due to their breed-specific provisions. (Interestingly, Springfield is very high on the national list of dog bites to mail carriers for such a small city, which is strong indication of the lack of the success of the ordinance from a public safety perspective). 

But overall, experts overwhelmingly oppose laws targeting specific breeds of dogs -- and many municipalities are already taking steps to repeal their own laws.  And I feel good about the number of members of the state legislature that are on board with making the change. I do think we'll overcome a few small hurdles and eventually be successful in passing this piece of legislation.

However, the sooner the better for the sake of the animals and the families that love them.

 

 

Missouri HB 1116/SB 865 -- the opposition

Yesterday, I posted a little overview of Missouri HB 1116/ SB 865. The law is a well-thought-out and has nearly unanimous professional support which is why similar bills have recently passed in both Utah and South Dakota.

However, in spite of this, there is, of course some opposition.

Last week, the city of Kansas City passed a resolution asking for the state to not pass these laws. The resolution was rushed through the council as an emergency resolution (so no one that would have testified against it was aware it was happening until it was too late), and was, as such, very poorly worded including even having the incorrect month and year of the passing of its own breed-specific ordinance.

In following up with several members of the city council, the over-riding theme of their opposition is about ongoing frustration with the state Legislature trying to override local city and county laws. The argument is for local control of these laws (not so much the content of the law itself).  

First of all, I admit, that in general principal I half agree with the city on the local control front. Generally speaking, I do think animal control laws should, in theory, be a local government issue. However, here's the simple truth, if city governments continue to pass irresponsible laws without any expert or factual support (and most often, in spite of expert and factual opposition), at some point the state does need to come in and protect people from these laws.

Kansas City is a perfect example.

The Kansas City ordinance was originally passed in the hysteria of the moment in 2006 after a couple of major dog attacks in neighboring communities and the city felt pressure to "do something".  They did, and passed a law that requires mandatory sterilization of pit bulls at 8 weeks of age. But if you break down the law, it is something that has no professional support, and no track record for success.

First of all, mandatory spay/neuter is a law that is opposed by most national experts. 

Secondly, singling out a particular breed of dogs also has nearly unanimous expert opposition, including from the Center for Disease Control, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Bar Association and the National Animal Control Association.

Thirdly, the law requires sterilization at an extremely young age (8 weeks) before dogs have fully developed -- which scientific studies are showing may lead to many health issues, including cranial cruciate ligament damage -- an affliction that pit bulls are already highly susceptable to. 

Meanwhile, because the primary reason people don't already spay/neuter their pets is because they can't afford the surgery -- so the law itself is now placing undue burden those who are economically challenged.

And then, there are the painful numbers that point to the negative impact the law has had on the shelter population and a large number dead dogs.

Yet, in spite of this, the 8 year old law still remains in place with city support -- which highlights exatly why a state preemption law is necessary.   

If cities want local control, they need to earn it through good governence, and right now that's just not happening.  If cities won't get rid of the laws on their own, in spite of the evidence, it's time for the state to step in and force change to protect people, communities and dogs from these bad laws. 

I do think that law-abiding people should have a reasonable expectation of what is, or is not, a criminal activity as they move throughout the state. Let's take me as an example. I live in Kansas City with two, altered pit bulls. I'm a law abiding citizen with a clean track record. I load up my dogs in my car and set out on a road trip. Within 15 miles of my road trip on all six major highways leading out of Kansas City I will eventually enter a community where I will be breaking the law. At that point, even though neither I, nor my dogs have done anything wrong, I could be pulled over, have my dogs seized for being illegal in that community and subsequentyly killed. 

This also prevents the free movement of people who get new jobs and seek to relocate, but have trouble finding communities to live in where they, and their family pets would be welcome -- solely because of the type of dog they own. These factors do have economic implications.

Things are changing. Over the past few years, many Missouri communities have already repealed their breed-specific laws, including: Clayton, Riverside, Greenwood, Osceola, Manchester, Wentzville, Town & Country, and  Overland. While I feel that the eventual elimination of breed specific laws in Missouri is inevitable, it is still happening too slowly and costing to many people their pets, and too many pets their lives.

By the time you finish reading this, somewhere in our state a dog has lost its home due to its perceived breed, been passed over for adoption due to breed bans in the adopters town or very well may have lost its life due to non-adoption policies like those in Springfield.

Please support Missouri HB 1116 and SB 865 as proposed. As Utah, South Dakota, and 16 other states have done, and protect Missouri residents from ill-thought-out local laws.

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.