KC DOG BLOG

No Kill -- Politically Speaking

Last week, Nathan Winograd wrote an article for The No Kill Nation about howNo Kill was a truly bipartisan issue.  Winograd's article talks about how people of all different political beliefs -- from the very conservative to the very liberal -- can all mostly agree that philosophically, they love animals, and that unnecessarily killing animals is wrong.

The conversation of No Kill and politics really resonated with me this week. One of the things that KC Dog Advocates has been working hard on over the past couple of months in assembling political rankingsof local politicians and their thoughts on various laws and policies that are impacting our abilities as a community to reach no kill in time for our local elections on April 6th.

After reading through dozens of political surveys over the past few years, I tend to agree with Winograd's analysis -- most people (and politicians) do tend to love their pets. And most, regardless of how they stand on all other social issues, believe that at least philosophically, that we should be working to end the senseless killing of dogs and cats in our local shelters.

Why is it then, that so many of them support policies that are causing more animals to die in our shelters?

*****

Our local Kansas City area politicians for the most part love animals. Most are pet owners themselves -- or at least have been in the past. Many have adopted their pets from local shelters and are more than happy to tell us stories about their pets. Some are even currently volunteering with local rescues.  They realize that most of their constituents love pets to0 -- as a couple have commented at the large number of pet owners they see when they are out on the campaign trail, knocking on doors, visiting voters.

And it's true most of their constituents own pets.  According to the AVMA Census, approximately 60% of people in the U.S. own pets -- 37% own dogs and 32% own cats. Two-thirds of the petting owning population owns more than one pet and 50% consider their pet to be part of their family. Kansas City is a little above average in all forms of pet ownership - -and it's even more pronounced in our suburban areas where people have higher incomes and larger homes and yards that make pet ownership easier.

Yet in spite of having politicians that love animals, and in spite of having constituents that love animals, many still unknowingly, unwittingly, or for reasons I can't quite understand, support legislation legislation that leads to the killing of animals and seem to want to ignore what the laws are doing.

******

In general, there are four types of legislation that we've found that many of our politicians support that are causing more animals to be impounded and thus, causing shelter overcrowding, and thus, more deaths.

Not supporting feral cat programs

Generally speaking, there are a lot of politicians that don't understand what it means to properly manage feral cat colonies. They don't realize that by altering all of the cats, that you can keep them from multiplying and having a huge colony of cats that create a public nuisance. And that by returning the cats to their neighborhoods, they will keep other colonies of cats from moving in. It's a humane way to deal with feral cat colonies that causes fewer problems in neighborhoods than simply removing all the cats and killing them.

Pit Bull Bans (or other breed bans)

A lot of politicians, even pet-loving ones, hide behind the disguise of "public safety" and support 'pit bull' bans. Bans lead to killing dogs. There is no other way around it. When 'pit bulls' are removed from homes there is no private beach they all get taken to to live happily ever after. They get removed from homes, go to the shelter, and get killed at the shelter.

Politicians will often hide behind the idea of killing 'pit bulls' because of "public safety", but there is nothing rational about killing all pit bulls. People do it because they say all pit bulls are "unsafe" or "unpredictable".  But this ignores the reality that all across the country, pit bull type dogs are used for service dogs, frisbee catching dogs, law enforcement dogs and family pets. Clearly, there is nothing genetically "wrong" with pit bull type dogs.

And the idea of banning breed ignores this. It also ignores the recommendations of every expert group of professionals in the animal welfare community-- including the recommendations of the AVMA, American Humane Association, No Kill Advocacy Center, ASPCA, HSUS, the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, AKC, International Association of Canine Professionals, National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors, the National Animal Control Association -- you get the idea.

BSL ignores facts. Ignores experts. And kills dogs.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter

A lot of well-meaning people think that mandatory spay/neuter laws will help end the killing of dogs and cats in our shelters.  The logic is that if you stop unwanted litters, you will end the killing of dogs in shelters. Unfortunately, while people who support the law are often well meaning, they are overlooking a couple of realities. 1) The primary reason that most people say they don't alter their animals now is because of the cost. Making a law doesn't change this, it just makes their dog now illegal and 2) Now that their dog is illegal, it then gets confiscated and added to the already over-crowded shelter system....increasing killing.

They also are ignoring the results from other cities that have tried similar mandatory spay/neuter laws like Los Angeles (killing increased 24% in year one, and rose again in year 2), Kansas City(approximately 2,000 pit bulls killed due to the MSN for pit bulls ordinance) and Little Rock(increased killing of animals affected by MSN by 44%).

The solution here is funding voluntary low-cost spay neuter programs and specifically targeting low-income neighborhoods for these services.

Pet Limit Laws

Many cities have restrictive pet limit laws with as few as 3 or four dogs or cats allowed to live in homes. As long as all pets are well cared for and living in good conditions, there should be no arbitrary pet limits. Often, it people in the rescue/fostering committee that are most negatively impacted by arbitrary pet limit laws. Pet limit laws limit the number of homes available, and limit the number of foster homes that are available because homes are "full" even though they may easily be able to keep additional pets.

******

Being a fan of animals is a non-partisan issue. It seems unlikely that anyone could get elected running on an anti-pet platform. However, whether it is because they do not know, do not understand or have ulterior motives, some politicos SAY they support No Kill, but actually support policies that are counter to the no kill vision -- and actually hurt the effort.

Pet owners make up the majority of voters in the United States. It is our job and responsibility as voters to:

1) Make informed decisions on who we vote for and be sure we vote for local candidates that are in favor of  responsible and effective animal control laws.

2) Educate well-meaning politicos about what make for good laws (and which seemingly good laws are ineffective -- this means educating ourselves on these laws too).

3) Be involved politically

Yes, No kill is a non-partisan issue....but it doesn't mean that people in both parties are well-educated on the issues and don't favor legislation that hurts the cause. 

If we all get involved, we can, and will make a difference. And if you're in some areas of the Kansas City metro, your first opportunity to make steps in that direction comes April 6.

Positive Year 1 for KCMO Privatized Shelter; but better Civic Policies Needed

Editor's Note: This is a slightly edited version of an article in the KCDA newsletter about the successful changes in the Kansas City Missouri Animal Shelter.  While things are better, they are definitely not perfect. My only adds were a couple of notes (in italics) and a few additional links.

 

Last March, Kansas City, MO signed an agreement to privatize the city's shelter operation which is now run by a for-profit company owned by Dr Wayne Steckelberg. The adoptions side of the sheltering operation is run by Half Way Home Pet Adoptions. Last week, Dr. Steckelberg was on the news talking about steps that are being taken in Kansas City, MO to move toward becoming a No Kill city.You can watch the video clip here. A second story appeared in the Kansas City Star on Tuesday.

 

Before we go any further, I want to state up front that the privatized shelter for KCMO has been an excellent move by the city. The city is currently paying $175,000 a year less for the privatized shelter vs the cost of running the shelter themselves. Adoptions are up 150% (from 978 adoptions in 2008, to 2498 in 2009) and euthanasia is down significantly (shelter numbers show a decrease of 35% -- which is close to the number in the KC Star article, but not near the 65% mentioned on the KCTV5 newscast).  The privatized shelter has been great for animals in Kansas City. 

 

While we are excited by the good news, we still think it is best to temper our enthusiasm. In order for us to truly become a no kill city, we must be honest about where we really are in our quest to become no kill. And in spite of Dr. Steckelberg's claims, we're really not close.  

Now, I understand where Dr. Steckelberg is coming from. Half Way Homes' contract is up at the end of this month and it is important for him to talk about the success that the shelter is having so the contract can be renewed.Things are infinately better than when they were run by the city. But it is important that we are honest about our kill rate. 

In 2009, the shelter killed 3,114 dogs and cats (1821 dogs, 1293 cats) - which is way more than the 100 per month they said they need to save in order to get to no kill.  We don't know where this "100 per month" number comes from but KCMO impounded approximately 7500 dogs and cats this year.  The 90% save rate required to reach "No Kill" status would mean we save 6750 of them, needing to increase true adoptions by 200 per month.

There are two different ways to get to no kill -- and both have to work together in order to achieve success.  One, is increase adoptions. Half Way Homes is making good progress in this regard. The second, is minimize the number of animals coming into the shelter. Kansas City is fortunate to have a great low-cost spay/neuter option for low-income people at Spay/Neuter Kansas City. However, the other part of decreasing the number of animals coming into the shelter involves decreasing animal control's ability to take healthy, non-problems from homes and making them part of the shelter problem. 

There are also a couple of city laws and policies that are making it much harder for Kansas City to achieve its no kill goal.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter of all "pit bulls"

Of the dogs that were impounded, 21% (1086) were 'pit bulls'. 25% (270) of the pit bulls that were impounded were impounded for no other reason than because of the law passed in 2006 that mandated that all pit bulls be spayed or neutered. 686 pit bulls were euthanized in the shelter last year. If we could have prevented all of the pit bulls from coming in because of the ordinance we could have brought down the entire pit bull euthanasia rate by at least 25% -- and if you assume that for each 'pit bull' brought into the shelter replaced another dog that was there, you could have cut 'pit bull' euthanasia down 40% just be getting rid of the law. I will provide more depth on the BSL/MSN for KC Dog Blog readers tomorrow.

 

"Performance Standards"

In August of last year, the city instituted a "performance standard" that required animal control officers to meet a quota of impounding a minimum of 20 animals each month. In the first 7 months of the year, animal control officers averaged bringing in 303 dogs each month. In the final 5 months, it was 338 dogs per month. So with the 'new performance standards', city animal control officers brought in 35 more animals per month that Half Way Homes had to handle and adopt out -- that's an additional 420 dogs a year. While some of these additional dogs are a good thing (additional cruelty/neglect charges, strays picked up), a large number of them are a cause for concern.  

It is possible, and even likely, that we could have cut shelter euthanasia by over 500 dogs just by eliminating these two policies.
 
If the shelter is going to have sustained success, it is not going to be enough to just adopt our way out of it -- we're going to have to minimize impounds as well. This means we need to keep up with aggressive low cost spay/neuter programs (Kansas City is fortunate to have a great low cost spay/neuter program in Spay/Neuter Kansas City) AND getting rid of policies and laws that are taking animals out of homes. And with the current 'performance standards" it will be virtually impossible for us to ever see a decrease in impounds.

In order to do this, we need not just the shelter doing its job, we need civic help as well --and we hope that animal control and the city council will work with us to get rid of these policies that are leading to increased shelter killing.

* Repeal the pit bull Mandatory Spay/Neuter

* Increase the pet limit (and don't confiscate healthy animals from homes that are above the pet limit) 

* Increase the hold period of tame cats from 2 to 5 days. 

* Allow people to care for feral cat colonies and actually encourage Trap-Neuter-Return.

* Get rid of the 'performance standards' that require animal control officers to impound a certain number of animals each month. 

 

The city must focus on the true pupose of animal control departments - protecting the public from dangerous animals and then animals from dangerous humans.
 
While great strides have been made now is not the time to sit on our laurels.  We're still a long way from no kill and it is important that the city maintain the contract of a privatized shelter so we can build on that success. While it is not imperative that Half Way Homes keep the contract, we cannot allow the city to take control of the shelter back.  Regardless of who runs the shelter, we cannot expect them to solely adopt our way to no kill. It is also important that the city leaders and the public know exactly where we stand in our quest to become a no kill city, so we can take the necessary steps to improve things further.The privatized shelter is a good first step. Improving animal control policies is a necessary next one.

 

Contact your city leaders and let them know we will not stop until we stop the killing in KCMO, the KC Metro and beyond.

KCMO Incenting ACO's to Seize Pets

Some of our folks over at KC Dog Advocates just released some news last night about some very disturbing news coming out of Kansas City, MO animal control. While some progress is being made in adopting out animals with the newly privatized KCMO shelter, some new animal control policies are going to make things even harder.

Here's the scoop:

On August 1st, the animal control department in Kansas City, MO implemented a new policy when it comes to evaluating their field officers. Effective now, animal control officers in KCMO will be required to issue a minimum of 15 summonses and impound a minimum of 20 animals per month.   

These minimum standards are being used as a management tool to address Animal Control Officers (ACOs) who are not performing their duties.  Getting GPS devices installed in the trucks was also considered but there was no room in the budget. 

With 18 full time field officers, 20 animals per month is a minimum of 360 animals per month (4,320 per year) that will be brought into the shelter.

Through July 21^st of 2009, Animal Control had impounded 4,137 animals – of those 1,636 of them were killed in the shelter.  With 1 out of every 3 animals that enters the shelter being killed, any increase in pets coming into the shelter – along with the new shelter management’s decision to increase fees for recovering an animal from the shelter during the biggest economic crisis of our lives -- will undoubtedly lead to an increase in kill rates in KCMO. 

We’re making too much progress to allow this to happen.

While yes, animal control needs to pick up stray animals, and animals that are suffering from cruelty/neglect, 384 animals (most marked as healthy, normal seeming animals) were confiscated in the first ½ of this year for basic (non-aggressive) animal control ordinance violations – nearly 3x the number (134) that were prosecuted for cruelty/neglect. We at KCDA keep hearing stories of animals getting confiscated from owners due to inadequate housing (even though Spay/Neuter Kansas City’s outreach program has free dog houses available to needy families), animals confiscated from owners because they are not altered under the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit bulls, and others that are confiscated because they cannot afford the fine associated with having not licensed their dog.

The new evaluation criteria will further increase the number of animals needlessly taken from homes for minor animal control violations.  Just this weekend numerous well fed, up-to-date on shots, altered cats were seized for nothing more than being over the city’s pet limit of four animals. For each of these cats that entered the shelter this past weekend, others in the shelter died to make room for them. This isn’t an acceptable option.

Instead of rewarding animal control officers for creating good outcomes for the owners and animals by offering assistance when needed or for scanning for microchips in the field so animals can get back home, the rewards system is now put in place to encourage animal control officers to bring animals back to the shelter where a large percentage of them end up dying.

If we are to seriously decrease the number of animals killed in our shelters, we must not only work on adoptions on the back end, but also on lowering the amount of dogs coming into the shelter whenever possible on the front end. This evaluation system runs counter to that goal.

Instead of evaluating officers on how many animals they bring in, how about these for better options for evaluating the quality of work for ACOs:

-- The number of low cost spay/neuter vouchers they have redeemed at Spay/Neuter Kansas City

-- The number of unvaccinated animals that get updated shots at low-cost shot clinics

-- The number of cruelty/neglect cases prosecuted

-- The number of animals without proper shelter that they were able to get proper shelter for using already-existing relationships with Spay/Neuter Kansas City’s Outreach program

-- The number of pet owners they got to license currently unlicensed animals

All would be far better alternatives to the current program...

We cannot continue incentivize animal control officer actions that unnecessarily lead to the increase in killing in our shelters. While animal control has a role and responsibility to get animals out of abusive and neglectful situations, and needs to do work to pick up truly stray dogs, there must be an emphasis on getting pets back into their rightful homes, and to keep them in their homes when possible. ACOs that have already proven themselves inept should be fired.  They should not be encouraged to go out and pick the low hanging fruit in order to meet some arbitrary quota.  Being rewarded for behavior that leads to more killing is a completely unacceptable form of ‘management”.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So how about it?  What other incentive/performance goals make sense to monitor ACO activity without encouraging them to take pets and bring them into the shelter? Please post some of your best ideas.

Modeling ordinances that work

It happens quite a bit. There is a dog bite in a community. People start saying "something needs to be done" to prevent this from happening again. Cities talk about what to do. Someone mentions banning breeds. Talk circles and people begin taking sides. 

The reality is that we're all on the same side on this. People want to feel safe. Even when they say they want to ban a breed, what they are really saying is, I want to be safe -- they just may not have enough information to determine that what they say they want, is the solution to what they really want.  Which is why it is imperative that city leaders work really hard to not only model ordinances that have been done in other communities -- but to model ordinances that actually have WORKED to improve public safety.

Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN faced this situation two years ago.  At the time, 7 year old Zachary King, Jr. was killed by a 'pit bull' that was chained up in the basement of the family's home. After much debate, both cities decided against breed specific legislation -- and opted to go toward a breed neutral approach that focused on dog owners, not dog breeds.

I'm going to focus a bit more on the Minneapolis law here because I can find the exact wording (64.110) online, but I believe that both city's laws are essentially similar.  In Minneapolis, they focused on creating two designations for "aggressive" dogs -- "Dangerous" and "Potentially Dangerous". 

"Potentially Dangerous" dogs are dogs that, while unprovoked, inflict some type of minor injury on a person or domestic animal, or has a "known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked."

"Dangerous" dogs are ones that have inflicted fairly substantial wounds.

Each designation comes with its own set of criteria for keeping the dog.

I like this ordinance for several reasons:

1) It does allow concerned neighbors to call about dogs they feel are aggressive even before a bite has occurred -- providing a preventative measure of animal control  instead of an entirely reactive one. However, the restrictions are very doable for the average dog owner if their dog is declared "potentially dangerous" even before a bite. And as their own test has shown, 'dangerous' dogs can come in a variety of breeds, with 9 different breeds being represented among the 11 dogs declared 'dangerous' under the law. (Editor's note: their listing only has 8 different breeds listed, but I completely think they failed the breed ID on the "Black German Shepherd" so I made it 9). There are 96 different breeds of dogs between the two cities that have made the 'potentially dangerous" list -- with the most popular breeds being the ones with the most listed.

2) It allows protection for the dog owner because it has a built-in appeals process -- so that no one can become a victim of a vindictive neighbor and have their dog declared "potentially dangerous" unjustly.

3) It allows for an annual appeal process -- so owners that have a dog declared potentially dangerous can go through training classes, get their dog over its hurdles, and get the potentially dangerous designation lifted -- thus rewarding the type of behavior we want in dog owners.

*Olathe, KS has a similarly worded ordinance that they enacted in 2005 and is one that we promote a lot here locally.

Minneapolis also added a law that prohibited dogs that were declared dangerous (based on behavior) from being owned at all by violent felons or by people who violated the restrictions put on the dogs.

St. Paul also passed an additional ordinance that stated that if someone had a dog removed twice within a five year period they would no longer be allowed to own dogs. This "three strikes and you're out" principle (although it's two here) is something we've pushed for here in Kansas City as it would allow them to deal with folks like someone who has had 18 dogs removed from his property in the past 6 years because of cruelty and they just continue repeating the cycle with the owner

 So how have the results been? In 2008, the first full year under the ordinance, Minneapolis saw bites decline by 12%, from 411 in 2007 to 360 in 2008. While exact numbers weren't given in St. Paul, their head of animal control says their bite numbers are also falling.

Compare this to cities like San Francisco, or Council Bluffs, or Aurora, CO, who went with breed specific regulations and all saw an increase in dog bites following the passing of the law.

So when we look at providing what we all want -- public safety -- it is imperative that we, as communities, look to cities that have ordinances that are actually proving to be affective at delivering public safety.  Fortunately, more and more cities are taking this smarter, more effective, breed neutral approach. With these policies, animal control officers are able to focus on problem dogs and dog owners, regardless of breed, and ONLY those dogs that are posing problems -- instead of wasting time focusing on dogs of a targeted breed that are causing no problems whatsoever and with no tools to focus on problem dogs of non-targeted breeds.

It only makes sense.

The entire story from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on their ordinances can be found here.

New State laws are a reflection of canine policy moving in the right direction

We are nearing the end of the legislative session in most states, and a lot of states are passing some solid animal ownership laws, and deciding against some of the policies that have proven to be bad policy. While none of these policies is perfect, they at least are movements in the right direction because they are focusing on a) actual causes of dog bites, b) irresponsible pet owners and c) policies that have proven themselves to be effective.  I haven't read all of the wording of each of these laws, so if folks in these areas have read the entire laws, I'd love to hear your takes on them. But at least, on their face, they appear to be steps in the right direction toward how we deal with canine laws.

Here are a few of the policies and some pros and cons (mostly pros) of the passed state laws:

Nevada Anti-Tethering Law -- passed

The Law, SB 132, makes Nevada the 3rd state to specifically limit the number of hours a dog can be tethered or chained each day. Beginning October 1, 2009, a dog cannot be chained for more than 14 hours a day and a tether has to be at least 12' long. 

The good: most professional organizations that deal in canine behavior admit that tethering as a sole form of containment often leads to canines that are undersocialized and can lead to frustration which can build to aggression.  The statistics show that a fairly large number of major bites and attacks occur with dogs that either bite people that approach (often unwary children) or break free from their tethers and attack.  I think overall, minimizing the amount of time and the way a dog can be tethered is a good way to improve overall public safety.

The bad: I still worry about what happens to dogs that's owners are in violation of the law. Are they immediately confiscated to where they end up in the overcrowded shelter system where death is a likely option? Are there programs set up for low-income owners who cannot afford fencing and their landlord will not allow the dogs inside the rental home?  The devil is in the details with these as while I support the idea of laws that limit the amount of time a dog is tethered, I am always concerned about not creating situations where unware owners with good intentions lose their dogs, or where the laws are used as an excuse to confiscate animals that end up dead in our shelters. I'm not a believer that being on a chain (for most dogs) is a "fate worse than death".  If these laws can be enforced in a way that allows for the vast majority of dog owners -- even those with a first-time violation -- to keep their dogs, I'm in favor. If the laws are used to increase the number of animals killed in shelters, I am not.  I would prefer that any anti-tethering law preclude seizure for first time offenders.

Illinois "vicious dog" bill - passed

This bill  prohibit  people convicted of  violent or drug-related felonies from owning an unaltered dog for up to 10 years after being released from prison. It also prevents them from owning any dog legally declared vicious based on its behavior. Felons who are covered under the law include those that have been convicted of the sale or production of methamphetamine, marijuana, other drugs, deadly weapons offenses and dog fighting offenses.

The Good:  A lot of bad policies are created in an attempt to eliminate dog fighting and the use of protection dogs for drug houses. This type of law will put restrictions on people who would be considered 'high risk' of running illegal operations in the future, including owning dangerous or fighting dogs.  While some states have tried to pass similar laws to preclude any dog ownership to people who fall into this category, I think that this actually undermines the effectiveness of a lot of good prison dog programs where dogs are used to help many prisoners develop compassion and for rehabilitation before they are released. I think these programs are too valuable to undermine. But allowing them to own any dog, of any breed, as long as it is sterilized, is a good way to provide limitations on high risk dog owners, without undermining good, successful rehabilitation programs.

The Bad:  I don't see a lot of downside to a law like this, except I don't think anyone who has been convicted of felony animal cruelty or felony dog fighting should be allowed to own dogs again and that might be a way to tighten this law up in the future.

Nebraska Dangerous Dog Law -- passed

This law essentially is the three strikes law that targets habitually irresponsible dog owners. If a dog owner owns a dog that is responsible for a 2nd attack, the owenr could face up to 1 year in jail and a $1000 fine. If there is a 3rd attack by the owner's dog, the owner could face a felony penalty of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The dog just has to be owned by the same owner, it does not have to be the same dog.

The good: This is certainly targeted toward habitually irresponsible dog owners who repeatedly own dogs that attack. Many times the laws are written to target the dogs, but this one takes the "dog" out of the equation and really targets the owner who is at fault. This could really help get after the very tiny percentage of owners that cause a large part of the problem.

The bad: I don't know how "attack" is defined here. I hope there is some common sense in this definition that doesn't nail someone for having a "nippy" dog that ends up sending someone to jail for a couple of small nips. 

Florida Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill -- Failed

Wisely, the Florida state legislature killed a bill that would have mandated spay/neuter for all pets over the age of four months.  Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have consistently led to an increase in shelter killing and science is indicating that juvenile spay/neuter may create long-term health problems, especially in large breed dogs.  It is great that these bills are falling out of favor at the state level.

It sounds like mostly this legislative session has been a winner for canine laws.  Thoughts?

Miscellanious Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Proposition 2

I wasn't going to write about this.  I write a dog blog. Not a blog about farm animals.  Not that I don't care about farm animals, it's just not what I do.

But like many people who care about animals and eat food, I did my due diligence and watched the Oprah show about Proposition 2.  For the most part, I thought the show was well put together -- however, much of her show (and Lisa Ling's on-site reports) were a comparison of factory farms and free range farms. There is obviously a major difference between the two.

Proposition 2 does not mandate that farm animals be free range. The act is merely to: "prohibit the confinement of famr animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around frely, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs."

That kind of got lost on Oprah on Tuesday.

Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the US was on the show -- speaking in favor of the proposition. Wayne was his usual slick self -- and with a few exceptions where he talked over other people -- sounded like his usual cool self.  It is of course hard for him not to sound smart on this one, of course. Most people would agree that animals should be treated humanely and given room to at least turn around -- is that not too much to ask?!?  Meanwhile, Wayne, as a person who spends 2/3 of his life lobbying and in front of cameras is much more polished at public speaking than the farmers who represented the opponents against Proposition 2.

But even after viewing the show, I wasn't going to write about this. This is a dog blog afterall.

But then I read Wayne's blog yesterday with people's comments about the show.

First of all, in the essence of full disclosure, here are the facts about me. I eat meat. I eat eggs and consume dairy products. I DO however have a couple of local farmers who work at our local farmer's market where I buy the vast majority of my animal products who produce food in a way that I find to be humane: Pisciotta Farms and Green Dirt Farms.  We're not perfect about buying from them, but we do for the majority of our needs.  I should also note here that both my paternal and maternal grandparents were farmers.  My dad still raises about 30 head of cattle a year on our 120 acre family farm.

However, I was almost horrified with the comments from the people that wrote into Wayne's blog -- and it was, at the moment of reading the comments, that I felt compelled to write on this topic. So here are my views on the topic:

1) In theory, I completely agree with the stance HSUS is taking with the bill. I do believe animals should be kept in a way that will allow them to stand up, turn around, spread their wings, etc.

2) The reality of passing this law is that food costs WILL go up.  These producers will have to either a) double the size of their operations/barns or b) keep half as many animals as they had before. If the same farmers are producing 1/2 as much food, there is no way that the costs will remain the same.  None. If they have to expand their operation, the cost of the land/barns/etc will be passed along to the consumers.  Food costs WILL go up.

3) I, personally, am fine with that. In the grand scope of everything, one of the reasons the United States is one of the richest countries in the world is because we have developed ways of producing our food very inexpensively.  We basically became a world power because we could produce food very cheaply and sell it to other places. Food here is cheap -- probalby too cheap -- in part because we treat our animals like crap.

4) However, not everyone is as lucky as I am -- or apparently the selfish-assed people who read Wayne's blog and write into it.

5) In 2007, the average Household Income in the state of California was over $50,000. However,  12.7% of Californians, and 18% of children under the age of 18 in California, live below the US  poverty line...which for a family of four is making less than $21,200.

6) I can't even imagine trying to feed a family of four on $21,200 a year. I can't. I remember when I first graduated from college and scraping by on that kind of money -- when it was just me.

7) There are a lot of people who just flat, cannot afford the price of all of their meat, eggs and dairy to go up substainially...including 1 out of every 5 children in the state of California.  And that sucks.

8) I don't blame a person for supporting this bill. In theory, I agree with it.

9) However, I don't want a single person to vote in favor of it without at least considering the people in California that will be severely impacted by a rise in food costs.

With all of that said, it will anger me if this bill passes. Not because the bill would go into effect, because that would be good for the animals. But I'd be mad that there is enough support to pass the bill, and yet, it was necessary.

 For the bill to pass, 50% of the residents of California would have to vote in favor of the bill. If all of these people truly have the desire for animals to be treated a certain way, they would vote, daily, with their pocket book. They would, like I have, choose to do business with farmers that farm with practices that they agree with. If 50% of the people in California did this, there certainly would be a LOT more farmers doing it this way to meet the demand. I have very little tolerance for people who don't want to be inconvenienced by having to go out of their way to buy meat and eggs from the farmers that do things the way they prefer -- yet want the government to do the dirty work for them. Every day these people have the CHOICE to either buy from free range farms, or buy factory farmed products. 

I don't have much appreciation for people who are not willing to inconvience themselves (either due to price or convenience of purchase) for their own preferences...but then want government to legislate in their preferences...and in the process, inconvenience others.

As for how to vote? I'm not going to make a recommendation. I'm personally glad I don't have a vote in this one in the state of California. But I do have a vote here in Kansas City. And every Saturday, you'll see me in line with dozens of other people casting my vote with my wallet with my local, free range, farmers.  And hopefully, when others see the line and "sold out" items on his marquee, they will see the demand and start farming this way also.  My hope is that by the time this comes type of bill comes up in Missouri, that we will have already cast our votes with our wallets...and not need government to make the vote for us. 

Ignoring Societal Problems

  I touched on this one on the weekly roundup on Sunday, but I'm still really bugged by this one and believe it deserves its own segment.

A judge in Hidalgo County, TX is pushing for legislation that would ban 'pit bull' type dogs throughout the state of Texas. Currently, Texas law forbids this type of legislation even at the local level, so getting it pushed through at the state level is a bit of a stretch.

However, Charlie Espinoza believes the government should intervene following the death on June 18 of Pablo Lopez in Weslaco.

To refresh your memory, let me run through the series of events that led to Pablo Lopez's death.

Hidalgo County, TX is a poor, mostly Hispanic county in South Texas. Approximately 36% of the population in Hidalgo County lives below the poverty line, and with a per capita income of $9899, Hidalgo County is the22nd poorest county in the United States.

With high levels of poverty, usually crime follows. And this was the case in the area of Weslaco County. Pablo Lopez lived with his uncle.  His uncle had been a victim of property crimes on several occassions, and called the police for help but they were unable to curb the problem. So out of frustration, Mr. Lopez got two dogs to guard his property.

One day a man walked by the household and the guard dogs went crazy (which is what they were being trained to do).  Young Pablo went out into the back yard, and was attacked by the stirred up dogs and died.

So I would love to ask Charlie Espinoza,  and find out what he thinks the banning pit bulls will solve.  It won't take care of the poverty. It won't take care of the crime. It won't take care of a police force that is apparently not able to curb the crim issues. And won't end the use of dogs as guard dogs.   And it won't solve the problem of young boy's walking up to guard dogs to try to calm them down.

The dogs attacking Pablo Lopez were the end result of a social structure that is failing in Hidalgo County -- like it is in many parts of the United States. You don't solve social structure problems with dog laws.  That's just burying your head in the sand to avoid dealing with the other societal problems that people don't know how to solve.  But ignoring the problems won't make them go away. Passing a ban on dogs, will not make the problems go away. 

If we want to improve society for these young kids, we must deal with the societal problems that are causing the problems.  Not try to stop symptoms.

It's not easy, but it's the only way.

Interesting study on how canine laws are passed

Caveat has posted an interesting essay written by three Cal State Sacramento professors on the anatomy of how many areas are pushing through certain types of canine legislation.

Here's the abstract:

An open process for drafting legislation would assure that from the onset all camps are heard from and all data considered.” Sunshine” or open meeting laws are in place to assure this. Instead of this happening, proponents of special-interest ordinances are being advised on websites and at legislative workshops to establish “coalitions” or “taskforces” which are independent of the legislative body of the municipality. Thus they are not subject to the open meeting laws and sunshine laws which exist. City or county staff is co-opted and a proposed ordinance is presented by staff. Public trust in government is eroded when legislation to be proposed is drafted in private andvotes are solicited in private without public knowledge or debate, and without those opposed being given sufficient warning to garner opposition or participate in the process. Such a situation operates within the guidelines of the letter of the sunshine principle, but not within the spirit of the sunshine principle, for the legislation is the product of a private coalition where openness, inclusion, and unanimity is falsely maintained.. Not honoring the spirit as well as the letter of sunshine laws allows special interests to hijack local government.

It's an interesting read -- you can catch the whole document here. I've never been comfortable with committees that are created and create policies behind closed doors with no public input. In Omaha, they did this and they're now looking at having two sets of policy proposed and the general public has still gotten ZERO input into the legislation.  Had all the voices been heard, or if people had had access to the committee, a lot of the circus there could have been avoided.

Closed door committees are never the best format in the spirit of a democracy. 

Overall, the study is a little short on research -- but overall it does mirror what it seems like a majority of the cities out there are doing.  Well worth the read and thanks to Professors Cleek, Guarino and Youril for putting it together.  While the study focuses on canine legislation, its principles carry into all kinds of government policies.  And if you're not concerned and suspicious, you're not paying attention.

The Desire to Punish

Winograd has an excellent blog posting over there today.  You should definitely check it out.  Here's a small section that I want to highlight:

" These are the people who obstinately ignore facts, experience, and history and continue to push these types of laws. They will do what they have always done—facts, logic, and history be damned. They will continue to blame the public and they will continue to fight for more and tougher laws. They will argue that their community is different, that their situation is unique, that citizens in their community are particularly—or peculiarly—irresponsible. None of this is true, but they do not care. They will ignore the failures of dysfunctional animal control shelters and its equally inept and uncaring leadership....While they claim to be motivated by saving lives, there is something more powerful driving them: the desire to punish....

But regardless of the underlying beliefs and motivations, the end game is the same:  the power to kill increases and animals die."

There's a lot more great stuff there. Interestingly, he's writing about AB 1634 in California that would mandate the sterilization of all pets. But he could just as easily have been writing about Omaha, or numerous other areas around the country as well. 

It's a shame. There are so manygood animal control models out there that have been successful at protecting the public as well as saving animal's lives.  and yet, these case studies go virtually ignored when cities choose to write policies.  We should and must demand better.