KC DOG BLOG

Groundhog's Day in Toledo

You've probably seen the Bill Murray movie Groundhog Day-- or at least know the premise -  where a TV weatherman finds himself waking up and reliving the same day over and over again.

So one must feel like it was with some form of irony that on actual Ground Hog's Day, the city of Toledo announced that they plan to appeal last month's court ruling that the city's breed specific regulations are unconstitutional.  They've lived through this story before.

To be fair, it sounds like they are less concerned about the dog law at this point than the perceived hit on their Home Rule powers based on the decision.

"We are appealing it, not necessarily on the basis of the dog law itself," said Deputy Mayor of Operations Steve Herwat. "It's more of a larger concern than any time our home-rule power is challenged, we believe we need to stand up for the city's rights to appeal."

That seems to be an honest enough statement. Tonight, the city council will meet to discuss the option of forming a Dog Warden Advisory committee that can recommend making changes to the city's breed specific law.

"What I personally want to see is a dangerous dog ordinance that deals with all dangerous dogs and how they need to be kept when off someone's property, and what are the penalties against owners whose dogs either bite another dog, person or damage property," said committee chairman Steve Serchuk.

Serchuk joins Council President Joe McNamara who also would like the breed specific law changed.

Residents in and around Toledo need to go tonight and encourage the city to form this task group. At a time when the city is facing a $44 million budget deficit, the city, and its citizens, can ill afford the groundhog's day of continually going to court and challenging, and appealing, the city's dog law.

Toledo ceases enforcing 'pit bull restrictions -- & a contract incenting killing

Yesterday, I tried to dive into a little detail on the court case that ruled the Toledo BSL Unconstitutional.  Then, last night, the Toledo Blade reported that Toledo has in fact ceased enforcing their current breed specific regulations.

County Administrator Mike Beazley said, "We've directed them not to enforce Toledo's law."

Previously, the article notes, dog wardens had been able to venture on to Toledoans' property and seize dogs that look like 'pit bulls'.  But such actions have now stopped.

No word yet on whether Toledo will appeal the court ruling or whether they will just be changing their ordinance.

Interestingly, buried in the last paragraph of the Blade article mentioned something that, in my opinion, is a really big deal. Here's the last paragraph:

The city of Toledo has a contract with the county dog warden to enforce its local laws. Last year the contract was for up to $146,882. The contract calls for the city to pay the dog warden's office $100 for every citation issued against a “pit bull” or “pit bull” mix dog.

So, in other words, Toledo was providing an incentive to Lucas County's dog wardens to pick up 'pit bulls' and kill them in the shelter (the shelter has a well-known policy against adopting out 'pit bull type' dogs). Last year, Lucas County took in and killed over 1000 'pit bulls' -- which could have meant up to $100,000 in incremental revenue for the dog warden's office based on the city incentive to do so. No wonder Skeldon and his crew were so focused on 'pit bulls', allowing dog bites to increase and shelter kill rates to hover around 77%.  Their incentive was to capture, and kill, 'pit bulls'.

Hopefully the city of Toledo will not only re-write their law to not include breed specific language (which was ruled to be unconstitutional by the court), but also rewrite their contract with the Lucas County Dog Warden's office to incent activities that are good for citizens and for dogs -- like maybe declining bite rates, decreased shelter killing, better return-to-owner rates, etc.  Now THAT would be real success.

One other note on this court case. I've been amazed that outside of the city of Toledo, no other media in the state have mentioned the story or the reality that it will have an impact state-wide on all cities with BSL beyond the state law.

More good news for the residents and dogs in Toledo...

Toledo Law Ruled Unconstitutional - Why, and what's that mean?

Last week, I reported that Toledo municiple judge, Michael Goulding, ruled the city's dangerous dog ordinance was unconstitutional.   The ruling has been greeted with a strange combination of excitement, and confusion, among the animal welfare communities.

The ruling is great, but haven't we already been down this road before?

It sure seems like it -- so what makes this case different?  With that in mind, I'm going to do my best to explain why this case is different from previous cases, and what this may mean for 'pit bulls' in the state of Ohio if the decision stands. I'm going to do this with my usual caveat in these cases:  I am not a lawyer. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I am familiar with all of the precedent cases -- and have sought out a couple of lawyers to be sure I'm on the right path. But PLEASE use this for guidance only, and do not act on it legally without the help of someone who is truly a trained legal professional. Because that I'm not.

So, with that out of the way, let's talk about the case.

In its simplest form,  judge Goulding's ruling essentially declared Toledo's ordinance to be in violation of the constition under two, overarching themes.

1) Due Process for "pit bull mixes and non-pit bull" dogs.

One of the major precedents set forth in prior cases was that restrictions on 'breeds commonly known to be pit bulls" were not void for vagueness because breed standards from the AKC/UKC could be used to identify physical traits for dogs 'commonly known to be pit bulls"; and that 'pit bulls' "possess unique and readily identifiable physical and behaviortrats which are capable of recognition both by dog owners of ordinary intelligence and by enforcement personnel."

In the most recent case, unlike the others, the dogs in question were Cane Corsos, not 'pit bulls."  And because Cane Corsos (and in the case, the judge specifically points out mixed breed "pit bulls" along with Cane Corsos) does not meet the precedents set forth in previous cases because the dogs could not "reasonably" be determined to be pit bulls, because they don't contain enough of the physical and behavioral traits necessary to do so.

Essentially, this ruling now makes breed specific legislation in Ohio for anything beyond 'purebred' American Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers very problematic -- meaning that they would have to go through all due processes and puts more pressure on cities with laws pertaining to mixed breeds and other breeds, like cane corsos, that declaring these types of  dogs dangerous without due process is "unreasonable and arbitrary."

2) Violation of Home Rule Policy

States have authority over cities....and thus, cities cannot pass laws that contradict state laws. If a state specifically makes something illegal, a city cannot make it legal. And if the state makes something specifically legal, the city cannot make it illegal.

The state of Ohio is the only state to have some form of breed specific legislation - -that calls for owners to have to provide a form of specific containment for a "vicious" dog (which all pit bulls are under the state law) that includes either a pen, fasten or muzzle.  However, the Toledo law mandates muzzling.  Thus, the Toledo law specifically prohibits, say, keeping a 'pit bull' in a pen, which the state law allows -- making the Toledo law unconstitutional because it violates home rule policy.

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

What does this all mean? Maybe not much. Maybe a lot. For sure, Toledo is going to have to restructure their law. The good news is that the city has been talking about repealing their BSL anyway and just reverting to the state law...this case will provide them a good reason to do this.

It seems likely that other cities in Ohio that have laws in place that include 'pit bull' mixes or other "pit bull type" dogs will have to provide due process to the people that are accused of having a "vicious" dog.  They may struggle in general upholding prosecuting mixed breeds because the prosecution could be said to be arbitrary under this ruling. This has now made breed identification for anything other than the purest-looking 'pit bull' a huge issue in the state of Ohio.

It also seems that any BSL in the state that doesn't exactly mirror the state law may also be unconstitutional - because the state law stipulates that you can own a 'pit bull' under certain circumstances, any city law that has harsher criteria may be found to be contradictory to the state law.

The reality is that the judge's conclusions may sum up what is best for the cities in Ohio (and elsewhere).  Here is his conclusion:

"The court is aware of the current state of flux in which the law regarding the regulation of dogs finds itself. Certainly this issue has raised great and legitimate concerns at many levels among people  of both care and compassion. Local and state legislative authorities are currently wrestling with amendments to these laws and courts across the state continue to grapple with statutes, ordinances, and cases concerning the subject. Certainly a more uniform, practical and humane method of regulating dogs, which both preserves the safety of the public and focuses on the dangers and misdeeds of irresponsible dog owners, would seem preferable to the status quo." (Emphasis Mine)

Yes, that is one of our judges that is charged with interpreting our laws, that is recommending a dramatic change to the status quo in Ohio for dealing with dogs -- and for the second time in a little over a year, lawmakers have gotten a similar statement from a judge in Ohio.

This ruling could mean very little. Individual cities in Ohio could just continue to fight their constituents and continue to waste tax dollars going to court defending their laws -- making precedents for every single possible scenerio under the law. Or, they could realize that the judge is right, that there are fairer ways to inprove public safety by focusing on careless and irresponsible dog owners and not dog breeds that will free up our court system to deal with other issues and save taxpayer funds defending these ridiculous laws.

Let's hope for the latter.

You can read the entire ruling on the most recent case here. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Toledo: Puppies got second chance, Support for BSL Repeal, & BSL Found Unconstitutional -- again

In the first month after Lucas County, OH puppy killer Tom Skeldon's resignation (and even after he announced his resignation), things have gotten a lot better for the dogs in Lucas County and Toledo.

And things may get much better soon.

On November 18th, long time dog warden Tom Skeldon announced his resignation.  Since then, the winds of change have been blowing quickly.

At the end of 2009, the county saw a dramatic increase in adoptions and dogs transfered from the shelter. In total, 682 dogs were adopted from the shelter -- 190 more than the previous year. However, about 1/3 of the adoptions (225-ish) occurred in the last 2 months of the year -- many after Skeldon's announced resignation. It isn't completely clear whether the increase was due to increased publicity surrounding the shelter (courtesy of the Toledo Blade) or if it was because of people showing the support for the shelter now that Skeldon was leaving is unclear....but either way, it's been good for the dogs.

Earlier this week, Lucas County Commissioners unanimously voted to reverse a long-time shelter policy prohibiting all 'pit bulls' from being adopted out by the shelter by allowing all healthy pit bull puppies under the age of 3 months to be  transfered from the shelter to the local humane society. While the policy needs to be lifted to allow ALL pit bulls to be transferred, this is at least a good first step for the county shelter.

Also, while all of this is going on, the Toledo City Council (Toledo is the largest city in Lucas County) has been mulling over the idea of removing their breed specific legislation. The City is looking at instituting a dog advisory panel to provide recommendations for what the new dangerous dog ordinance would look like without being breed specific. The city admittedly went on the advice of Tom Skeldon for how the laws are written, but now, with him out of the picture, they are looking at other options. "I think we can potentially define vicious without being breed specific," said council member Rob Ludeman. "That is one thing I probably anticipate might come out of this advisory committee.

A court decision that came down yesterday may speed up that process.

The case was a situation where the Lucas County Dog Warden's office seized what it deemed to be three "pit bulls" from a Toledo man - -Hugh Smith - while Smith took his dogs for a walk. The warden cited Smith with 13 violations for having unmuzzled, uninsured, and improperly confined 'pit bulls', as well as having two 'pit bulls' over the limit of one in the county.

Yet Smith and his attorney's claimed that the dogs were in fact Cane Corsos. Yesterday, the Toledo municiple judge, Michael Goulding, not only ruled that Smith could keep his dogs, but also that the law was, in fact, unconstitutional.

One reason for Goulding's claim that the law was unconsitutional was that he said it violated the state home rule doctrine. "While the state statute does not specifically permit ownership of more than one dog 'commonly known as a pit bull', it does not prohibit it either."

Goulding also noted that the law lumping 'pit bulls' with 'pit bull mixed breed' dogs together was also unconstitutional.

This is the second time that the courts have ruled that the Toledo ordinance is unconstitutional -- and this case was declared unconstitutional for different reasons than the one that was overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court two years ago.

Toledo City Council President Joe McNamara, who was the one who initiated the look at changing Toledo's breed specific policy noted that the judges opinion:

 "Underscores the need for us to re-examine the city's policies concerning the regulation of dangerous dogs. I do think Judge Goulding was correct when he wrote that 'a more uniform, practical and humane method of regulating dogs, which both preserves the safety of the public and focuses on the dangers and misdeeds of the irresponsible dog owners would seem preferable to the status quo."

I don't have a copy of Goulding's final verdict, and will hopefully get my hands on a copy soon. But with the second ruling of the law being unconstitutional, and continuing public and city leader support for a repeal, it looks like a long-time law on the books in Toledo could be overturned soon.

BSL is a failed policy -- that is virtually impossible for cities to enforce without some level of arbitrary enforcement -- which opens the city up to a host of legal challenges. Toledo is just one of many cities that are finally wising up to this and looking toward behavior-based ordinances that are more effective and target irresponsible owners -- regardless of what breed they happen to own.

Some more on the court case at Animal Law Coalition.

 

Toledo City Council President Wants to review City's Dangerous Dog Law

December 31st marked Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon's last day as dog warden, and already, some changes look to be taking shape.

City Counicl President Joe McNamara has asked the Dog Warden oversight committee to examime the city's law regarding "vicious dogs", which he feels inappropriately singles out 'pit bulls' and overlooks bad behavior in other dogs.

The current Toledo laws is very strange in that it automatically declares all 'pit bulls' vicious, while gives them no mechanism for declaring  any other breed of dog as vicious, even if that dog is found guilty of attacking someone. The ordinance very much reflects the city and Skeldon's disproportionately high focus on 'pit bulls' and ignoring all other breeds when it comes to public safety -- even though 'pit bulls' only make up about 7% of the total dog bites in the Lucas County

"One of the issues that I have with the code is that not all dangerous dogs are 'pit bulls'," said McNamara. "I am cncerned that the law is not a best practice for regulation of dangerous dogs."

McNamara is right, of course. Ordinances that base a dog's "viciousness" based on how the dog looks vs its behavior definitely does not represent best practices in public safety legislation when it comes to dogs -- which is why every expert organization in the world of canine behavior is opposed to breed-specific policies. It is great to see Toledo looking at making progressive steps without their long-time dog-killing dog warden.

Time for two new county commissioners in Lucas County, OH

Lucas County Commissioners Tina Skeldon-Wozniak and Pete Gerken missed the point.

Last month, long-time Lucas County Dog WardenTom Skeldon resigned amid a swirl of controversy surrounding what animal advocates in the city decided was a lot of unnecessary killing of animals in the shelter. The shelter's high kill rate, policies on pit bulls, and such little regard for animals that a 10 lbs dog was shot (and killed) with a tranquilizer dart and other transgressions led to Skeldon's pressured resignation.

Last week, a young puppy, believed to be a 'pit bull-type' dog, was set free from the shelter -- allowed to go into a foster home. The puppy's escape followed a change in policy that prohibited the shelter director from killing any puppies under 3 months of age.  At the time, County Commissioner Ben Konap declared a small victory. "There is no such thing as a vicious puppy. If this didn't happen today, the dog would have been euthanized probably in a month or two, so this is a victory for the decent treatment of animals."

However, this week, Wozniak and Gerken closed the door - at least temporarily - on future humane opportunities for puppies.  In a 2-1 vote (Konap was the one no vote),the County Commission voted to prohibit 'pit bull' pups from being removed from the shelter. While the shelter director can no longer kill them as puppies, they can, now, just hold them until they reach 3 months of age and then systematically kill the dogs.

Obviously, Gerken and Wozniak missed the point. The whole reason they are looking for a new county dog warden is because of increased public demand that animals be treated fairly and humanely -- and given a chance to live. This public pressure and outcry forced a 20 year-long staffer to step down. But Gerken and Wozniak continue to make policies that make running an effective shelter impossible -- by MANDATING that dogs be euthanized and even puppies to be warehoused and then euthanized vs being given a chance at life.

The decision by Gerken and Wozniak has been blasted by local rescue organizations such as Planned Pethood, Inc and Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates. Also, Toledo City Council President Joe McNamara took issue. "No 3 month old ppuppy is a threat to public safety," said McNamara. "The decision by the Lucas County Commissioners to exclude so-call 'pit bull' breeds from their extended moratorium is a disappointment and should be reconsidered."

As should Wozniak and Gerken's ability to run the county. I have no doubt that humane organizations throughout Lucas County will rally voters to the polls when their terms come due -- my only hope is that some strides can be made to end the needless and senseless killing of animals while they are still in office.  The public has spoken about this need...it is time for all of the commissioners to begin listening.

Tom Skeldon Resigns as Lucas County Dog Warden

Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon submitted a letter of resignation today.

Skeldon's official last day will be January 31st, 2010 -- however, most of that time will be using some of his accrued vacation time. His last day in the office will be December 31st, 2009.

The announcement comes nine days after Commissioner Ben Konop offically announced a proposal to fire Skeldon -- and proposal that was voted against by the other two commissioners Pete Gerken and Skeldon's 1st Counsin Tina Skeldon Wozniak.

Skeldon has been coming under increased fire over the past year.  Most of the roll against Skeldon began last winter afterone of Skeldon's staff shot a tranquilizer into a small dog that was "loose" on his own porch -- with enough of a dosage that the dog died.

As people began investigating Skeldon, they found the shelter to continue to operate with a very high kill rate (77%) and an extremely low 13% adoption rate. They found a dog warden that was unwilling to work with rescue groups. And dogs were dying.

A committee was assembled to provide recommendations on improvements to be made at the shelter -- improvements that Skeldon, throughout, has been reluctant to even admit were problems.  The Toledo Blade continue to run editorials and editorial cartoons calling for Skeldon's dismissal.  The committee recommended some strict new rules last week one of which was to cease the killing of puppies.   Skeldon responded by killing 10 healthy puppies after holding them for only one day.

Konap responded to the killing yesterday by saying. "It makes me physically ill to think the county is in some sense sanctioning this behavior. There is no excuse for this. To me, it shows beyond a reasonable doubt why there needs to be changes in leadership at the dog warden....I can't imagine any logical reason to kill 10 healthy, non-"pit bull" puppies in less than 24 hours after they were turned in. It's disgusting."

Indeed.

And under the mounting pressure, Skeldon resigned. And soon, the citizens of Toledo will get a new dog warden -- and hopefully one that doesn't think killing is a major part of his job description.

Pink Toenail Polish

Last week, in the wake of the reality that Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon is a dog killer, The Toledo Blade has begun reporting a listing of all dogs adopted, and all dogs killed, at the Lucas County shelter at least until changes are made in the shelter. From the 11/14 report, which features 17 dogs killed, and 4 adopted, it seems that little is being done in the short term to bring an end to shelter killing.

But it is a dog on the 11/13 report that caught the eye of one of my readers in the comment section, that is th inspiration for the blog posting.  Here's the part of the report:

Dogs Killed

"Pit bull," tan/white young female "with pink toe nail polish," North University, Toledo, running at large, no muzzle

Reading this can't help but break your heart. Obviously, this dog was someone's dog. Clearly behind the scenes here was an owner that cared dearly about their dog....they loved the dog so much they POLISHED HER TOENAILS.  This isn't some inner city dog fighter like Tom Skeldon would have you believe is the "typical" pit bull owner and why he needs a ban. It was a caring person, who clearly had a connection with their dog.

Somehow, the dog got free (which anyone who owns a dog can tell you, can happen, even to a responsible owner), ended up in the animal shelter, and killed.

Now, most shelters would have workers and volunteers who are compassionate about animals. They would see this dog, realize the dog had an owner, and work their butts off to find that owner. They would post flyers in the North University area. They would talk to neighbors (I mean, come on, someone HAS to know the owner of the pit bull that polishes their toenails) and would work to find the owner who loved this dog.  But this was in Toledo, where only 13% of the dogs make it out alive, and thus, the dog is dead.

But then that got me thinking, what about the dogs in shelters across the U.S. that have owners, but aren't wearing pink toenail polish?

Dogs can get loose for a variety of reasons. Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were out hiking and at the trail head, this dog came up to us. We pet the dog and checked out his collar -- his name was Huck. We have Huck some of our peanut butter sandwhich, a couple of carrots and a little drink of water. Huck was a little dirty and we couldn't find an owner, anywhere. We called the phone number on his tag and no one answered. We decided that most likely someone was looking for the dog and that we would leave him there. If Huck was there when we finished the hike, then we'd start searching for his owners.

We later met a woman on the trail, who was a little frantic that her dog had somehow wandered off while they were out hiking together and she didn't know where he went. I assume Huck and his owner were reunited.

But the moral of the story is, this was a caring owner, who was taking their dog out hiking, and the dog got loose.  It happens. And the dog, gone from his owner for no more than a couple of hours had found water and mud and had gotten dirty. He looked a little disheveled.

But what would have happened if Huck had made it to a shelter and somehow lost his tags? Would the shelter have assumed that he was abandoned out in the woods?  Would they have assumed that he was homeless because he was so dirty?  Would they have assumed that the owner was not caring and irresponsible for letting their dog run free?  Or ould they have busted their butts to try to find Huck's human hiking companion?

I guess my point is that a lot of dogs that find their way into the shelter are owned dogs. They have owners who love them, care about them, and sometimes paint their toenails pink. But what if their toenails aren't pink? What if the signs of ownership are not as obvious and the dog is a little dirty. Do we assume the dog is a stray?  Or assume the dog is lost?  And what resources do we put into finding the dog's home vs finding the dog a new home?

Do we think lost, not stray, even when the dog does not wear pink toenail polish or have other obvious signs of being owned?  We should.

The Toledo Blade Cartoons On Skeldon

The Toledo Blade's editorial cartoonist  Kirk Walters has been using his voice to indicate the many wrongs that are taking place currently in the Lucas County Animal Shelter under the leadership of Tom Skeldon.

While the cartoons are funny, they are also a little sad in the truth of the messaging.

 You can check them out on the Blade's Website here and here.  It is time to end the senseless killing of animals in Toledo.

(Cartoons reposted with permission from Mr. Walters)

Toledo's Tom Skeldon Down, but not out

On Tuesday morning, Lucas County officials voted 2-1 to retain the services of Tom Skeldon.  While Commissioner Ben Konap brought up the proposal to fire Skeldon because of the city's horrific 13% adoption rate and 77% euthanasia rate, Commissioners Pete Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak (Tom Skeldon's first cousin) voted against the proposal.

Wozniak denied Konap's recommendation that she abstain from the vote because of her close family relationship to Mr. Skeldon. Wozniak is right in that by the letter of the law of the of the Ohio Ethic's commission, she was not officially violating nepotism laws -- but it doesn't remove the reality that she does have a conflict of interest in the debate -- even if not legally. Gerken, to his point, wants to give Skeldon time to implement many of the changes recommended by the dog warden advisory committee before making such a dramatic change -- ignoring that since the report came out, Skeldon has done little more than defend his actions.

The decision has not been greeted warmly by local politicians and the media. State Representative Peter Ujvagi (Democrat, Toledo) said "I think changes need to be made. It's very clear form the documentation of the types of dogs that have been put down that many of those ought to be adoptable."

John Stainbrook, the chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party was particularly distrubed to learn about all the puppies that were being killed in the shelter. "My God, there's puppies being killed. Under what set of circumstances or criteria is it ok to kill a puppy?" he said. "There's definitely some serious questions that need to be answered....the criteria set up to determine whether a dog should live or die needs to be re-examined obviously."

Finally, something Democrats and Republicans can agree on.

Stainbrook and Toledo city councilman Joe McNamara were also critical of Woziak's participation in the vote.

The Toledo Blade had a understandably harsh editorial criticizing the Commissioner's decision to retain Skeldon -- and of Wozniak's participation in the vote.  And their political cartoonist has also had a couple of  harsh criticisms of Skeldon.

While Skeldon is still in, the Dog Warden Advisory Committee has issued some strict new rules including:

1) Giving vaccinations to most animals prior to entering the shelter

2) Putting all dog photos up on the county web site within 24 hours

3) Suspend the killing of all puppies, including 'pit bull' puppies, unless a licensed vet diagnoses the dog as terminally ill or injured.

4) Seek a grant of funds for DNA testing to determine which dogs are truly 'pit bulls'

All of their recommendations were approved with unanimous votes.

Meanwhile, the Blade has decided to begin running a list of all of the dogs killed, and adopted, from the shelter to be sure people are aware. Today's list of killed animals includes 16 dogss, including some highly adoptable dogs like a Pomeranian mix, a corgie mix, a chihuahua mix and a couple of Labradors.

At this point, there seems to be no evidence that Tom Skeldon is capable, or willing, to make the changes necessary to end the slaughter in his shelter. Hopefully the county commissioners will make a swift decision regarding Skeldon, before thousands more dogs die under Skeldon's watch.

For more info:

For the Pit Bulls: Tom "Dog Killer" Skeldon Feeling the Pressure