KC DOG BLOG

Omaha - Focusing laws on wrong owners causes rise in dog bites

Earlier this week, I posted information on the breed ban in the United Kingdom and the struggles failures the UK has had with their breed ban. Essentially, but focusing on breeds, instead of focusing efforts on irresponsible dog owners (who make up a small minority of total dog owners), the UK has seen a significant increase in dog bites in the country over the past decade.

Omaha is off to a similar start.

In 2006, the city of Omaha had 916 Dog bites.

In 2007, they had 821 (10% decline)

Through June, of 2008, the city was looking at another decrease in dog bites -- down 14% vs 2007 through the first half of the year.

On June 25th, 2008, Omaha's decreasing bite numbers came to a screeching halt when 2 year old Charlotte Blevins was attacked by a 'pit bull'. For the next several months, the city (and the media) talked continually about 'pit bulls'. They didn't talk about the irresponsible owner who had an aggressive, under-socialized dog. They didn't talk about the fact that the dog got free from the owner and attacked the girl. They talked about 'pit bulls' -- the need to ban them, and the need to restrict them.

By October, the city had passed a new ordinance -- some parts were good (restrictive tethering, targeting habitual animal control bylaw offenders by preventing them from owning dogs for a period of time) and some parts were awful (mandating the muzzling of 'pit bull-type" dogs and only allowing people to avoid the muzzling if their dog passed the Canine Good Citizen Test).

The law essentially created a bunch of hoops that responsible owners had to jump through in order to prevent having to muzzle their dogs. These owners that were out getting their Canine Good  Citizen Certificates were never the problem in Omaha....and the people that were the primary problems in the city weren't going to obey whatever law was passed. They essentially passed a law that focused a lot of animal control resources on the people who weren't causing problems.

By the time 2008 was over, the city finished just 1%  below their 2007 dog bite numbers at 808 bites -- having 41 more dog bites in the last half of 2008 than in the same months in 2007.  This was a 10% increase in the second half of the year vs 2007 after starting the year on a 14% decline....all because they were focusing on the wrong people, and relaying the wrong information to the public on what REALLY caused dog bites.

In 2009, the first full year of having the ordinance, while they were focusing on getting canine good citizen certificates for dog owners that weren't causing problems, the city saw a 9% increase in dog bites --  up to 875 bites.

So let's put this in perspective, Omaha was seeing a decrease in dog bites. 2007 was better than 2006. Through June, 2008 was better than 2007. Then, in the next 18 months, they managed to reverse the trend and create a 10% increase in bites in the back half of 2008 and then another 8% increase in 2009.

The cost to the city to enforce the law?  $75,000 additional to the Nebraska Humane Society who handles the city animal control contract.

So while the taxpayers are paying more money for animal control services, because the city is focusing their efforts on the wrong people (vs focusing all of their resources on the people who are causing the problems), dog bites are actually going up, not down.

There are other problems of course , including breed identification issues and the overall lack of statistics made available to the public.  At this point, the mainstream media in Omaha has yet to report anything other than what NHS has sent out in their press releases - -which is mostly the number of Canine Good Citizens they have passed and the number of people who were cited for all of the new laws. No mainstream media outlet has actually published the bite statistics -- you know, the 'public safety issue' that the law was designed to improve in the first place.

Creating over-inclusive laws that target the majority of dog owners who are not the problem is bad public policy -- and repeatedly shows itself to be ineffective at actually improving public safety.

It's expensive to enforce.

It takes resources away from dealing with people who are the real problems.

It doesn't work.

It is time we start focusing on laws that work.  It's not overly-broad sweeping laws. It's certainly not laws that focus on dog breeds instead of irresponsible owners. It is focusing on the small minority of dog owners who treat their animal irresponsibly, cruely and let them habitually roam at large.

Focusing our resources on that will work.

Omaha BSL Enforcement is Arbitrary

The dog pictured to the left is named Ruckus. On the Nebraska Humane Society website (it's currently on page 2, but they change dogs out regularly), it calls Ruckus a "male, brown Weimaraner and Pit Bull Terrier" that "is not required to comply with Omaha Breed Specific regulations.

The second dog pictured is a dog that I fostered for awhile that currently lives in Omaha that is targeted by the Omaha Breed Specific regulations -- so, unless he passes the Canine Good Citizen Test, he will have to wear a muzzle everywhere he goes outside.

If the picture of the victim dog wasn't in black and white, you'd note that the dogs are exactly the same color -- and have nearly identical facial features. I obviously can't tell a lot about the body type on the dog at NHS.

But the point is, who decides?  Who decides that the first dog is not a victim of BSL and the dog in the bottom picture is?

The Void for Vagueness Doctrine is a conctrine derived from the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. The Doctrine states that a law if "void for vagueness" if a person of ordinanry intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited or what punishment may be imposted under a particular law.

One specific purpose of the Doctrine is to curb "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement" of criminal statutes. This, combined with an image of four puppies from the same litter last  month where three were deemed to be "pit bulls -- subject o regulations" and one was not, it appears that the enforcement of Omaha's law is definitely vaguely and discriminately enforced.  The final photo in this set a screen shot of the NHS website, just in case they take Ruckus' picture down or change his ID. Best of luck to Ruckus...

Breed Identification Issues - Omaha

Last week, the Nebraska Humane Society had four puppies listed on their website for adoption. Here is the pic -- and here are the descriptions of the four dogs

1) Harriet is now available for adoption. This spayed female, brown and white "Pit Bull Terrier has been at the shelter since November 11, 2009. She is recommended for households with family members aged 5 and older. ID# A695500.

2) Lucy is now available for adoption. This spayed female, brown and white Pit Bull Terrier has been at the shelter since November 11, 2009. ID# A695502

3) Charlotte is now available for adotpion. This spayed female, brown and white Pit Bull Terrier has been at the shelter since November 11, 2009. ID# A695503

4) Hazel is now available for adoptoin. This spayed female, brown and white Labrador Retriever and Pit Bull Terrier has been at the shelter since November 11, 2009. This dog is not required to comply with Omaha's breed specific regulations.  ID# A695501

So, which one is Hazel?  What is it that makes one of these dogs a "lab mix" and the other three 'pit bulls"?  And really, why does it matter?

And there we have an example of why Breed Specific Legislation cannot -- and is not -- enforced equitably.

Here we have four puppies -- by all signs litter-mates (They all look nearly the same, appear to be the same age, and all came into the shelter on the same date) -- three of the four puppies will have to spend the rest of their lives wearing muzzles outdoors (unless their new owner meets a series of requirements), but one, for reasons I cannot even begin the guess, gets to live its life as an ordinary dog.  Why do not all of them get to live the lives as ordinary dogs?  

When it comes to breed identification, especially for puppies and mixed breed dogs, the decision is inevitably arbitrary. It is nearly impossible to judge the genetic background of mixed breed dogs that resemble 'pit bulls'.

The residents of Omaha are becoming increasingly upset and frustrated by the new Omaha law -- as they feel like the fines are too heavy-handed and because the breed identification is arbitrary.

What may make the situation worse for the residents of Omaha, is they have very little recourse right now. The city of Omaha uses the Nebraska Humane Society for the enforcement of all of their animal control laws. Because NHS is a technically a 501c3 organization, and because of the way their contract with the city is written, NHS is not subject to the same open records laws as all of the other city entities. So people don't have any access to their euthanasia statistics, or how many dogs have been confiscated from their homes because of the new breed-specific laws -- and detailed bite statistics are not available.

It should be noted that using the most basic of bite numbers, Omaha saw a 37% increase in dog bites in the first half of 2009 under their new breed specific ordinance.  And if recent headlines are any indication, that isn't improving. NHS continues to spend too much time enforcing the breed specific part of the law, and too little time focusing on the majority of dogs of all other dog breeds.

Beginning in 2009, the city started enforcing its breed specific laws. The cost to the city to enforce went up $75,000. The number of people bitten went up 37%. And the arbitrary nature of enforcing the breed-specific law continues to be a problem.

Back in August, I made some recommendations that I think would dramatically help the city deal with  the problems they're seeing.

Hopefully they will begin listening too.

Here is a screen grab of the entire NHS adoptions page that I snagged while the dog's pictures were up last week. I imagine the dogs' images are down now which is why I did the screen grab. Charlotte is just out of the picture on the screen grab.

Targeting the wrong people, defining "success", and a lack of public information -- Case Study: Omaha

Last October, the city of Omaha passed a new ordinance regarding "dangerous dogs" for their community. Some of the ideas were good and some were awful. And the real results of the ordinance really have not become a part of public knowledge.

The ordinance featured a lot of stuff -- you can read more about it here -- but the gist of it is:

1) No dog may be tethered outside for more than 15 minutes at a time, unless on a trolly system, in which case the time limit is 1 hour.

2) A Designation for Dangerous and Potentially Dangerous Dogs

3) A classification for Reckless Owners

4) Increased Licensing fees

5) Requirements for owners of 'pit bulls' -- including fencing, leash length, muzzling requirements, insurance requirements, age of owner requirements and ways to avoid the muzzling requirements if responsible dog owners pass the Canine Good Citizen Class.

Most of the laws went into effect on October 15, but the pit bull muzzle law went into effect Jan 1 to give people the opportunity

My opinions on each of the ordinances (some good, some bad) was included in the previous post, but essentially I (and several city council members actually) stressed at the time that while some of the elements (like the Dangerous/potentially dangerous and the reckless owner designations) were good -- most of the requirements for the pit bull ownership was targeting mostly responsible dog owners. That essentially, anyone who was going to go through the work to get the Canine Good Citizen designation to avoid all of the breed specific legislation was never a problem in the first place.  But the new requirements were just a series of hoops for good dog owners, and tying up animal control resources (animal control and shelter services for Omaha are contracted out to the Nebraska Humane Society) that were being wasted on responsible owners.

Meanwhile, these resoures were going to be pulled from personnel that would be out dealing with truly irresponsible dog owners - -who make the minority of the dog-owning population of all breeds -- and would cause more problems than it would help.

And it has, depending on who you ask.

At the beginning of July, NHS released their statistics for the first 6 months of the year. They include:

-- 90 citations to pit bull owners who were unable to provide proof of insurance (note -- I've had conversations with several people in Omaha who have had a terrible time trying to secure the insurance requirement - so this may be less of a result of "irresponsibility" and more of a result of lack of availability)

-- 33 tethering citations

-- 9 reckless owner declarations (3 appeals were granted)

-- 70 potentially dangerous dog declarations were issued (4 appeals granted)

-- 62 dogs took the Canine Good Citizen Class.

Based on these numbers, NHS VP of Field Operations Mark Langan called the ordinances a success.

"The new ordinances seem to be doing their job.  Animal control officers have been aggressive in enforcing the law and, for the most part, the public has been cooperating with the law. But occassionally we are dealing with some angry dog owners."

However, the ordinance wasn't designed to hand out more citations -- it was created with the idea in mind of IMPROVING PUBLIC SAFETY. It seemed curious to me that the whole number of dog bites never came up. THAT should be the measure of success. Not citations. Are people safer because dog bites are going down?

Um, no.

According to numbers I receive yesterday, the total number of dog bites for the first 6 months of 2009 was 449 bites recorded.  In the same time period in 2008, it was 328.  For those doing the math, that's a 37% increase in dog bites in the first 6 months of the year following the passing of their new ordinance. By comparison, this comes after a couple of consecutive years of decreases:

2006 dog bites: 916

2007 dog bites: 821

2008 dog bites: 808

This year so far we're at a 37% increase.

Meanwhile, the city is paid out $50,000 more money to NHS to enforce the ordinance in 2008, and increased their contract $75,000 in 2009 to enforce the new ordinance. So at this point, the citizens of Omaha are out $125,000 to see an INCREASE of dog bites.

For an ordinance that was designed to improve public safety, I wouldn't call that a success.

Meanwhile, the city and its current mayor, Jim Suttle (who voted against the ordinance) are staring at an estimated $11 million budget shortfall in 2010.  Some of the things being considered to make up for the budget shortfall include: pay freezes for civilian city employees, pay freezes for police and fire employees, pay freezes for the mayor, staff and city council, and some increased fees.

I have a suggestion to help:

1) Improve the tethering ordinance so that it prohibits "unsupervised" tethering...this 15 minute rule is pretty draconian and doesn't really solve the problem. The problem is people who use tethering as a primary form of containment, so focus on those people.

2) Keep the dangerous/vicious dog designations -- and focus energies on enforcing these laws.

3) Keep the reckless dog owner laws -- there is likely a very small percentage of dog owners who are causing the majority of the problems...and this law will help there.

Laws 2 & 3 are similar to laws passed in Minneapolis and St. Paul in 2007 that led to significant decreases in dog bites in their first year of use.

4) Get rid of all of the 'pit bull' specific laws -- if the dog isn't "dangerous" or "vicious" based on those classifications based on the dog's actual behavior, NHS officials should not be wasting resources dealing with the dogs...which is taking away from their work on the dogs that are a problem based on their actual behaviors.

5) By cutting out the breed-specific laws, they can cut back the fees to NHS so they can give it back to the struggling budget.

6) Rewrite the NHS contract so that NHS's numbers are subject to Sunshine Law Requests.  Right now, NHS is a 501c3 organization and their numbers are not subject to the state Sunshine Law requests. The city is paying them $700,000 in taxpayer funds this year, and taxpayers have no way of looking at the NHS numbers.  This gives them the ability define success any way they want (by citations, not bites for instance).  Their numbers should be subject to open records request.  It would be unfathomable to have a police force that doesn't have to provide crime statistics...and yet, NHS, which has police powers, is not subject to the same scrutiny. If they have nothing to hide, they should have no problem with this.  If they do have a problem with it, one has to wonder what it is they are trying to hide.

In October, the ordinance will have been in existence for 1 year. I think the early results are enough to say that given the current economy, the ordinance is too costly and too ineffective to stick with and that some changes need to be made. 

Around the horn on BSL Issues

I have several stories that I've been wanting to do their own posts for -- because they are pretty big deals -- but just haven't been able to find the time. But I need to get the stories out sooner rather than later and am backed up on a few other things going on.  So, with that, here are a few pretty major stories that I want to be sure are on the radar:

Springfield, MO

City Councilwoman Mary Collette is looking to make a change to how the city handles 'pit bulls'.  Back in 2006, Springfield passed a ban on all 'pit bulls' in the city. As the law is currently being practiced, if a 'pit bull' type dog comes into the shelter, unless it is quickly claimed by the owner, the dog is killed.  (It should be noted that the LAW doesn't specify that this has to happen, but as a matter of policy, the animal shelter is killing the dogs).

Collette is pushing for an ordinance that would allow rescue groups to pull dogs from the shelter and allow them to find homes for the dogs outside the city.

The city is going to discuss this issue again on Monday night at 7:00 -- after tabling the proposal last week because a few of the council members are putting even tighter restrictions on who can pull the dogs -- requiring groups to come up with $500,000 of insurance per dog and requiring the dogs to be adopted out more than 100 miles away from the city.  None of these requirements are necessary for rescue groups when pulling other types of dogs.

While I don't in any way support the city's (paranoia-driven) pit bull ban, I am at the very least supportive of letting some of the dogs be pulled from the shelter instead of forcing them to be instantly killed.

Sioux City, IA

On March 21st, Sioux City, IA began enforcing its ban on 'pit bulls', and impounded 10 dogs in the first 3 days. However, people are hopping mad about it.

Turns out one woman had her dogs taken from her and was given paperwork to sign off on "acknowledging" that the dogs had been taken. There was also, supposedly, a signature requirement for euthanasia, that the dog's owner did not sign because she planned to appeal the measure and move herself and her dogs out of town. However, the dogs were instantly put down in the shelter and the dogs' owner wants to know why.

When KMEG 14 asked animal control for a copy of the form owners had to sign, staff denied their initial request -- essentially violating state open records laws.  The news station eventually did get the form.

It is not uncommon for cities to have this type of paperwork that they force people to sign when they confiscate dogs. They will usually tell them that the paperwork is to "acknowledge" that the dog is being taken, but often has wording that incriminates them in some way by stating that they are acknowledging the dog is a "pit bull" or that the dog can be euthanized.  This paperwork, when it is self-incriminating and doesn't allow for a trial before the dogs are destroyed (which is what happened in this case), is usually seen as a violation of the 5th Amendment rights under the US Constitution. If the woman was forced to sign either of the lines in the document, I do believe this would qualify. You cannot force soemone to give up their right to a trial.

A group of residents in Sioux City are filing a petition now for a repeal on the ban.

Omaha

The Nebraska Humane Society released the first quarter stats on dog citations this week. After they passed their breed-specific restrictions, 43 citations were written for 'pit bull' owners who could not provide proof of insurance, and 32 more for not having proper restraints (most were apparently on too long of a leash.

19 tickets were issued for dogs remaining tethered outside for a long period of time.

17 dogs were declared dangerous (no breed info available on that).

It remains very disturbing to me that NHS continues to define "success" of their ordinance based on the number of tickets they write vs things like decreasing the number of dogs killed in shelters or improved public safety (which it is appearing to not be doing).. However, because they will not release their records to the public, they get to choose how they define "success".

Meanwhile,it should be noted that NHS has been caught bullying 'pit bull' owners  -- with at least one case where they arrested someone for 'not cooperating" with an investigation when the dog owner refused to show them his dog. NHS did not have a warrant for a search, but arrested the man for not giving up his Constitutional right to be unjustly searched and his dog seized. After police arrived, it was later determined that the man's dog was not responsible for a bite - -but the man was still fined.

By the way, I love that the TV station cites that "Pit bull violations lead the field" when that was the primary target of the ordinance -- so of COURSE they do. Mediots.

In other Omaha news, they have an important election coming up on Tuesday. Jim Suttle, someone who was rational during the passing of their ridiculous ordinance, is running for Mayor against city councilman Jim Vokal. Vokal was one of the ring leaders behind pushing forward on the breed specific restrictions in spite of recommendations against it from virtually everyone in the city.  So go out and vote for Jim Suttle on Tuesday, for the good of the city.

Weekly Roundup, Week ending 3/22/09

  I appologize for the last couple of weeks. Personal and business travels and overall busy-ness have made a lot less time for me the past couple of weeks. All is well though. There has been a lot going on - -with a fatal dog attack earlier this week, a won court case in Miami-Dade, and general nuttiness in Los Angeles.

I missed last week's weekly roundup -- so I'm going to go back and pick up some of the stories from two weeks ago too. I'm mostly going to focus on the dog bites (and there were a lot, it always picks up early in the Spring) and cities and laws sections -- but will throw in some other stuff as well.  There's been

Cities/States and Laws

Ridgeland, MS passed a ban this week on "pit bulls", Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and wolf-dog hybrids. Ridgeland has been not at all open to hearing from experts around the country on this matter.  While they put in a Grandfather clause, that allows owners to keep their current dogs if they're registered, owners can keep no more than one dog of the restricted breeds -- forcing many families to determine which of their dogs they want to have removed from their family.

Vauxhall, Alberta repealed their breed ban unanimously on their first reading.  The law will now allow dogs to be declared dangerous on a case-by-case basis. Deputy Mayor Hagan called Breed-specific bans "outdated".

Manteca, CA is looking at passing an ordinance that mandates the spay/neuter of all dogs over six months of age.

A complete rundown on of city and state laws needing attention from Bless the Bullys.

Wichita, KS passed an ordinance that requires all pit bulls to be spayed/neutered and microchipped - which will give the animal control officers a  lot more to enforce even though they are already completely understaffed there. You can read the whole ordinance here.  Wichita has also begun a breed registry list that specifies which breeds of dogs are licensed on each city block With something like this, I would be stunned if we don't see a significant decrease in licensed dogs in the city.

A Chicago alderman claimed that he had enough votes to pass the mandatory spay/neuter law in the city.  Mayor Richard Daley has also announced that he would support the ordinance. However, so far, the city seems to be passing on the idea - after several city aldermen questioned the ordinance. "If you ask the people in my ward, they would say, "Do I want the police running after un-spayed dogs or do I want them out there running after those people out there shooting at our kids?" said Ald. Freddrenna Lyle.

An Oregon bill that would require insurance for all pit bulls doesn't appear as if it will go very far without any support for the ordinance.

Ohio HB 79 would eliminate the 'pit bull' clause from the state's Vicious Dog law. The bill was assigned this week to the Agriculture and Natural Resource Committee.  Please call your legislator and support Representative Barbara Sears' Bill. Bless the Bully's has all of the contacts. Interestingly, Barbara Sears is from the Toledo area where she has seen Tom Skeldon's (who is a proponent of the law) animal control department have an increase in bite stats and a large number of animals killed by officers due to their 1980s way of dealing with dogs.

Norwalk, OH is discussing a new dangerous dog law that would define dogs as "dangerous" and "vicious". However, due to the Ohio state law, they must declare pit bulls as "vicious", even though several other breeds are ahead of pit bulls in the bite stats -- which is causing a lot of discussion in the city.

Dog Bites

There was a supposed 'pit bull' that bit a 12 year old girl (the girl is the one so far that seems be responsible for the breed identification) in Omaha this week (which has restrictions on 'pit bulls'). What makes this really a story though is that workers with the Nebraska Humane Society acted on a tip that the dog went into a home -- so they knocked on the door and questioned the home owner.  When the owner refused to show them his dog (which is a legal right if NHS didn't have a search warrant), NHS called police. The home owner still refused to let them see the dog. Police arrested the man for obstructing and investigation. When authorities finally saw the dog, they determined that it was not the dog that bit the girl -- but the charges still stand on the man who was merely exercising his Constitutional right to not be searched without a proper warrant. Folks, if this stuff doesn't scare the heck out of you, I don' t know what would.

A mail carrier in Des Moines was attacked by a dog this week. Early reports called the dog a 'pit bull', but reports were later changed to it being an American Bulldog.

A 7 year old boy was bitten this week by a boxer mix that was a foster dog in the home. The dog had been in the home less than a week and yet the boy was left alone with the dog.

A "dog" bit a woman in the face in Houston this week. The dog is being called a "huge pit bull" -- but if you look at the pictures, you'll note that it looks like one of the molassar breeds that people often mistake for pit bulls.

A postal worker in Springfield, MO was bitten in the eye by a dog.  No mention on what type of dog was involved in the attack, but it is noteworthy that Springfield banned "pit bulls" 3 years ago and yet attacks are still happening.

A 6 year old Marysville, CA boy was bitten by a Maltese.

Two Boxers are responsible for biting 3 people in Los Angeles.

A Dayton, OH girl was bitten in the face by an Akita -- requiring 60 stitches. Ohio has state-wide restrictions on 'pit bulls".

A "famished" pack of dogs mauled a German tourist in Italy. Italy still has a ban on many breeds of dogs (was just repealed this week, but not yet taken effect), but apparently they aren't controlling their stray dog problem.  A 10 year old boy was killed in Italy this week by a pack of stray dogs.

A two year old Tampa, FL girl was attacked by a large St. Bernard/Bull Mastiff mix that broke from his chain and attacked the girl. The dog was called a variety of different breeds in different stories -- including a 'pit bull mix".  Police are saying the attack happened because the dog had been trained using a teddy bear and the dog wasn't able to discern the difference between a teddy bear and the child.

A 2 year old Long Beach girl sustained severe lacerations to her face after being attacked by the family's Cocker Spaniel.

A Yakima, WA jogger shot a labrador retriever that threatened to attack him. Yakima has a ban on several breeds of dogs.

A taxi driver in Pasco, WA was attacked by a group of mixed breed dogs that jumped on him and bit him multiple times. The dogs all appear to be mongrels.

A Lynn, MA lunch room aide tried to help out and captured a loose German Shepherd that was roaming the streets. She got the dog into the back of her car to take the dog back to its owner and the dog ended up biting her and leaving a deep wound in her hand.

A mother who was trying to help elementary school students in Huntersville, NC was bitten by a Rottweiler.

A 7 year old girl in South Carolina had part of her ear bitten off by the family's Labrador Retreiver.

A 3 year old Rock Hill, SC girl was bitten by a 'pit bull'. The girl was playing with a friend and the friend's dog when the attack occured.

A Seatac, WA man was sentenced to more than 7 years in prison for having a dog that viciously attacked a 72 year old woman last year.

A 3 year old Greenville, SC boy was bitten by the family's German Shepherd mix.

A Beagle that bit a student and attempted to attack several adults and children was eventually shot by police in Wilmington, OH.

In total, there were 14 different breeds of dogs that were involved in these attacks. I mention the stories NOT because dogs are dangerous -- because in fact, they're not. I mention these stories to show that if we do want to eliminate dog attacks, we MUST focus on circumstances that surround the attacks instead of focusing on breeds. Key circumstances around attacks would include unsupervised young children around dogs and loose and stray dogs. We MUST focus on circumstances, and not breeds, when it comes to dog bites.  I also think it's interesting how many of these attacks occurred in cities or states with breed specific laws in them.

The UK breed ban -- yeah, still not working

The number of dog attacks in Lincolnshire, UK is at its highest point in four years.

A 71 year old woman was attacked by a Rottweiler outside of the post office in Pensioner.

A 3 year old girl suffered a broken jaw when she was bitten in the face by a Japanese Akita that she was playing with unsupervised outside and she "fell on" the dog.

A father of a young girl that was attacked by a German Shepherd is outraged to find out that the dog responsible for attack his four-year old daughter is still allowed to walk the streets.

Mediots

It was bad enough that the story ran once, but to be picked up by the Chicago Tribune is ridiculous. Authorities in Council Bluffs, IA raided a home this week and found 56 grams of methamphetamine, $8500 in cash and stolen electronics and a stolen ATV.  However, the fact that police shot a 'pit bull' in the raid made the headline.  And newspapers wonder why their medium is dying.

A writer to the newspaper complains about pit bulls in her neighborhood as two dogs that were chained up in the neighborhood got free and bit people. 

Abuse cases -- because people think the dogs are the violent ones

A pit bull in Destin, FL was reportedly "hacked to pieces" by his owner -- who hit the dog with a meat cleaver at least 70 times.  The owner was reportedly drunk at the time.

Police continue to pump bullets into non-biting pit bulls -- in Phenix City, GA, a pit bull was shot three times by a police officer.  The owner says he's sorry the dog got loose, but said the dog wasn't aggressive. "People think he's just a dog, but he's my dog," said the dog's owner. "I'm not looking for a paycheck, I just want my dog the way he was."

A Oconomowoc (WI) man is accused of kicking his 3 year old black labradoodle to death in front of his children.

Irresponsible peopld are everywhere, not just dog owners - with people like this out there is there any wonder that some would own dogs that would cause problem?

A 13 year old Prince William county girl ended up getting killed by her adoptive mother after being abused by the woman for 2 years. People reported her having been tied up, being thrown in the trunk of her mother's car, being forced into the trunk of the car, and wandering the streets wearing only a BBQ grill cover.

A man is accused of trying to shoot someone who was trying to sell Shar Pei puppies for a higher price than the man wanted to pay.

A Kansas City woman is being charged for child abuse after her two year old boy suffered two broken arms, a dislocated shoulder, severe head bruises and damage to his liver, pancreas and kidneys.

Miscellanious

An awesome post by "For the Pit Bulls" on a tragic story that highlight the true bond between dogs and humans when the humans live up to their end of the deal.  If you only read one link in this roundup, read this one.

Some positive press for the folks at HugABull Advocacy and Rescue Society.

Best Friends issued a press release calling for the US Armed forces to quit their ban on certain breeds of dogs.

A good story about Pit Bulls helping parolees, and parolees helping pit bulls.

Pit Bulls are a misunderstood Breed (Las Cruces Sun-News)

Fighting Pet Prejudice

Have a great week everyone -- I have a lot of (I think) interesting stuff for next week as I'm still trying to get through all of my saved links.

At some point, we have to educate owners

I'm not sure how we got here. But we need to change it...quickly.

At some point, in this country, we decided that we thought it was possible to punish people into being responsible dog owners. We can't.

And the idea that we can has failed us miserably. It has failed the dogs.  It has failed owners. And it has failed children. 

Last week here in Kansas City, some volunteers took a dog from a home (the owner game them to 'ok' to do so) because the dog was a mess.  The dog had 30-40 wounds on its body.  The dog later died in spite of receiving veterinary care.  This wasn't the first time that the owner had had problems with cruelty and neglect. Since 2003, the owner of the dog has been cited for 18 different animal control violations - -and had 12 different dogs confiscated from the property. That's one about every 6 months. 

Some people can't be educated on raising dogs. Certainly we should prevent them from owning dogs. But some people just don't get it -- and just taking their dogs, every 6 months, and giving them a fine, isn't going to allow them to get it. They have to be educated about proper care for animals.  Just taking their dog, putting it in the shelter (which likely meant it ended up being killed at the shelter), and allowing the cycle to repeat itself, is definitely not helping the situation for the dogs.

The same is true for people.

Last fall, the city of Omaha passed a whole gaggle of laws aimed at punishing irresponsible dog owners.  Rules included limiting the amount of time a dog could be tethered and mandating muzzling and insurance for certain breeds of dogs.

Last weekend, there were three significant dog bites in Omaha.

One involved a Rat Terrier that bit a child as it was "being disciplined" for digging in the kitchen trash. It was disciplined near the child and lashed out at the child.

One involved a 3 month old child that was bitten by Husky in the stomach. The bite caused four ribs to be broken. The Husky had been in the home only 2 days, and was left alone with the infant for a length of time long enough for the attack to happen with the caretaker being far enough away to not hear the infant's screams. The dog had clearly not been in the home long enough (2 days) to be socialized with the child to the point of warranting ANY time alone with the infant. Meanwhile, the Nebraska Humane Society apparently wants to continue the misinformation by stating that the "family was not at fault." Huh? Don't leave your dog alone with your infant child -- ESPECIALLY if you've had the dog for 2 days. It is your fault.

The third incident involved a woman's 'pit bull' that attacked the woman in her home. In spite of the city's well-publicized ordinance that mandated that all 'pit bulls' be licensed, altered, and have a $100,000 insurance policy on them, the owners did not meet any of the required criteria. Meanwhile, the dog had a history of aggression having bitten someone in November, but that attack was ignored and was a precursor to this attack.

Folks, we can't continue to go through this conversation thinking we can legislate responsible dog ownership. Sure, we can put laws in place that show what we want people to do -- but we must follow the laws up with real conversations about responsible dog ownership practices.

Calgary, Alberta, has, statistically, one of the most successful animal controls in North America.  One thing that makes Calgary's animal control laws work is that they have the laws -- but they don't use the laws to punish the owners that violate them.  They use the laws to create conversations to educate owners on responsible dog ownership.

Most people want to be good dog owners -- and if you show them how, they will do it.

Just taking a dog from an owner doesn't teach them anything. It just ends up killing the dog and causing the process to repeat.

Not teaching people how to appropriately discipline dogs (and to not do it in front of children), doesn't help the people to do it right the next time.

Telling owners "it's not your fault" when they leave a three month old child alone with a new dog does not help them understand that they should not do it again.

Passing a host of breed specific ordinances that will be followed only by the people who are responsible dog owners who are jumping through the hoops to follow the ordinance, will not make irresponsible owners into responsible ones. Teaching them to recognize the warning signs of aggression (and let's face it, having bitten someone before, is not a subtle sign) will help them recognize the signs so they are able to stop the behavior early -- instead of letting the aggressive behavior build up.

We're not going to be able to punish our way into a whole society of dog owners. We're going to HAVE to create forums for educating owners into responsible dog ownership.  The idea that we can legislate it has proven to be a failure. Legislation cannot replace education.

And pretending that we're "doing something" by creating things like breed specific laws ADD to the lack of education by saying, these breeds are bad.  But other breeds are safer.  We've taken the owner responsibility out of it -- which is exactly the OPPOSITE of education.

We must bring proper education in canine behavior and ownership back into the equation. In the end, it will be better for the dogs, better for the owners, and better for the children.

Three dog bites in Omaha this weekend

There were 3 significant dog bites/attacks this weekend in Omaha.

One involved a 'pit bull' that "attacked" a 48 year old woman.

One involved a Siberian Husky that "bit" a 2 month old infant, fracturing the baby's ribs.

A third incident involved a rat terrier that bit a child in the face as it was being 'punished for digging".

At some point you have to educate owners on keeping dogs vs insisting on just passing laws with the hopes of punishing them.

Guess which of the three bites which one got picked up by 33 different news sources including MSNBC, and which two were ignored by all but one media outlet.

Hiding the truth and defining success however you want

Earlier this week, the city of Omaha released some early results of their new dog ordinance.

I've been fairly critical of this ordinance here on the blog. While there are certain elements that I like about the ordinance, the huge amounts of money the city agreed to pay for the breed specific part of the ordinance (while real crime in the city is on a sharp rise) that is becoming a huge headache for responsible dog owners, as well as the overly restrictive tethering ordinance (15 minuts?) are a bit troubling.

But none of this bothers me as much as the fact that the Nebraska Humane Society is in a position to define "success" in any way they want.  See, they don't release their numbers to the public.  Bite numbers?  They don't release them.  Euthanasia numbers?  They don't release them. Licensing numbers?  Nope.

When you ask them for the numbers, they will decline.  As a private entity, they claim they are not under the umbrella of the Nebraska Public Records Act (I question the legality of the city writing a contract that allows numbers for a law enforcement agency to not be public record). 

But all of that leads to the question, what are they trying to hide? Why not make the records public. If you're really running your organization in the best interest of public safety and the animals, and responsibly using taxpayer funds that support your enforcement efforts (you are doing that, aren't you NHS?), why would you NOT want people to see what you're doing?  It would certainly keep a lot of people (like me) from questioning your motives and the job you're doing.

Unless the real numbers raise more questions than answers.

It's interesting, that most of the places that are doing right by animals and citizens make their records public.

Calgary has all of their statistics online. As does the Humane Society in Charlottesville, VA and in Reno, NV.  Heck, even a lot of places that I think don't always do things the right way, at least are open with their numbers.  Los Angeles makes theirs public, and Kansas City, MO, while the numbers are never online, they at least make them available any time I ask.

But not in Omaha with NHS. Nope. They are very cautious to keep theirs hidden. Why are you hiding?

The concern is in all of this that NHS is it allows them to define success any way they want/need to -- because they control the flow of information.  So this week, they released the early returns on their ordinance.  So far there have been:

19 citations to dog owners who have kept thei dog tethered outside for more than 15 minutes (it's been my understanding that several of these were people outside of the city limits that are included in the law, but didn't realize they were included in the law, but Omaha apparently can pass laws that affect people that live within 3 miles of the city limits).

24 potentially dangerous dog declarations (based on behavior).  There have been two appeals so far, one was granted and one was denied. 

1 Reckless owner citation, with another one currently under appeal.

13 'pit bull' owners cited for not having proof of insurance. 

So far, 56 owners have taken the Good Citizen Class so their dogs can become breed ambassadors in the restricted breeds and can avoid the muzzling part of the ordinance once it takes affect in January. Three have already passed the test.  Several other people that I know of are still trying to get into the classes - -which are full at this point.

No word on what has happened to some of the dogs whose owners have been given $200 fines for violating the tethering ordinance but couldn't afford to pay the fine.  Or what happened to the 'pit bulls' that were uninsured.  Were they confiscated? Are they now dead? We may never know -- and will only know when (or if) NHS decides to tell us.

We should define success based on how many tickets we write. We should definite it in how dogs are treated, how many animal lives are saved, and how many people we protected from dog bites. 

But for NHS, they get to definite it however they want. 

The saddest story I've read this week

A 15 year old boy was killed this week in Omaha. He became the youngest victim of a shooting in the city this year.

What makes the story more painful is that the boy had had a tough life.  In and out of foster care -- basically abandoned by adults his whole life.

For Christmas, his foster family was going to tell him that they were permanently adopting him -- that he was finally going to have a stable home. Forever.  They thought it'd be a great Christmas gift for the boy -- turns out, he didn't live long enough to receive it.

Omaha has had a surge in violent crime recently -- like many cities through the US.    Young Anthony Ray was the 35th murder victim of the year so far -- after a record setting 41 murders in the city last year. Because of budget woes, Omaha has made pretty significant cuts to their police force over the past few years.  Omaha is pretty much above the national average in most crime categories now.

This is part of what is so disturbing by the city council's rash decision to include breed specific language in their new dangerous dog law.  This decision has added cost to providing animal control -- to the tune of about $500,000 in added animal control costs.  The money was justified in the name of "public safety" -- and yet, the police force is underfunded and dealing with much more violent problems than canines.

Listen, I'm in favor of funding for animal control. But I'm also think that it is the responsibility of cities to run animal control on as little money as is necessary -- because from a public safety perspective, dogs are only a minor public safety concern.  And it really bugs me when cities put in senseless laws, that require increased funding to enforce, when, there are much better ways to spend that money in the name of public safety.

Would increased police presence have saved Anthony Ray?  We'll never know. But I can almost assure you that there will be another Anthony Ray, long before there is another canine attack that kills someone in Omaha.

In the name of public safety, let's demand that tax dollars are spent in ways that improve overall public safety -- let's not demand that this money be spent enforcing animal control laws that DON'T make people safer.  This is why I cringe when I read articles like in Cincinnati, where they were having difficulties enforcing their BSL, so they decided to use police resources to help them enforce it.  That's not improving public safety. That's taking resources away from things that truly benefit public safey.  When we create safer communities, we all win. And we should be outraged when cities insist on ineffective uses of our tax dollars and resources.