KC DOG BLOG

Very Good Sentences - On-Demand Pet Surrender

Best Friends Animal Society Co-Founder Francis Battista on the idea of on-demand owner-surrender of pets to shelters (bold emphasis mine):

"Rewinding this policy to assess its underlying logic suggests that it rests on two assumptions: everyone who needs to re-home a family pet should indeed be pigeonholed as uncaring, undeserving and likely to simply put their pet out on the streets. And dogs and cats, per their legal status as property, have no more value to a family than an old piece of furniture. In fact, it's easier to get rid of your dog or cat at the public's expense in most cities than it is to get rid of an old mattress.

"Both of these assumptions are invalid and harken back to the era of municipal animal shelters being about public health or rabies control, rather than serving as true community resources for the humane care of stray and unwanted pets. They also shortchange the public's willingness to work with the shelter to increase the likelihood of a positive outcome for pets."

More from Francis' blog here. 

Two years ago, Kansas City Pet Project moved to a managed intake policy for pets in spite of many of the same concerns that existed about the fear of people feeling like they were being turned away from the shelter, or fears of pets simply being "dumped" on the streets instead.

The result has been that KC Pet Project is better able to address the needs of some pet owners who want to keep their pets but may not be aware of the resources to help them do so. It has allowed us to better help people rehome their pets themselves vs coming into the shelter at all. It has also allowed us to better control the flow of pets into the shelter to create higher likelihood of a successful outcome for that pet. And, overall, has allowed us to provide better customer service to people surrendering pets as well as to adopters. All with virtually no negative side effects.

Very Good Sentences -- Without Provocation

Last week, the Whole Dog Journal issued the following as their "Tip of the Week" that I felt was very much worth sharing. Sorry for no direct link to the tip, but it's an email newsletter and I can't find it specifically online. But their sentences sum up a huge frustration over the media reporting of dog bite incidents and why experts in canine behavior are important resources vs just news sites or people without expertise. 

"Without Provocation.

"Almost every "Dog Mauls Toddler" headline is followed by an article that includes, among other things, these two phrases:

"1.'The dog was always good with children' and

"2.'the bite was unprovoked".....

"With the very rare exception of idiopathic aggression -- aggression for which there is no discernible cause - every bite is provoked from the dog's perspective. We, as humans, may feel the bite wasn't justified or appropriate, but rest assured the dog felt justified in biting. In many cases the provocation is pretty apparent from the news article: the do was kept on a chain, the dog had a litter of puppies, the toddler was left outside in the back yard with a dog who had just been fed. In each case, the dog was stressed beyond his ability to control his bite. 

"Raise your stress awareness. Examine news reports about dog attacks to see if you can identify possible stressors and provocation in each incident. Then be sure to protect your own dog from these potential bite-causing circumstances."

Very Good Sentences -- from the Huffington Post on Merritt Clifton

Earlier today, Douglas Anthony Cooper wrote a very nice article for the Huffington Post about Merritt Clifton.

In the piece, he calls out Clifton as a "fraud" from a research perspective -- and in the process, takes out Canadian Columnist Barbara Kay in the process who has oft relied on Clifton as the "primary resource" for her opinion pieces. 

In the piece, Cooper calls Clifton an "academic fraud" for stating that he had more than 100 different peer-reviewed articles when even after rigorous searching, Cooper could find only one.

Cooper also takes aim at Clifton's oft-cited "research" on dog "Maimings and Mortalities" and the fact that this "research" has been kept hidden from the public for more than 30 years.

Cooper cites one teacher at the University of Toronto:

 "The biggest problems are often found in one or more of three areas: collection, presentation, and interpretation. To my mind, collection is the big one when ameteurs, especially those with an ax to grind or a position they've staked out in advance, are involved. To be believable, the dataset has to be available in its entirety for examination and the collection methodology had to be described in full. In essence, one must be able to replicate and reach the same conclusion."

However, Clifton has never made the data available -- at least, not to anyone who might possibly disagree with him. I know no fewer than 6 people who have legitimately tried only to be denied. Cooper is one of them, and concludes:

"If the data even exists, my guess is that it's embarassing: inaccurate, incomplete ore incomprehensible. Otherwise, who better to share it with than the pit bull advocates ("nutters") -- so they might be convinced of the error of their ways?"

I tend to share Cooper's skepticism and would at this point almost be more surprised if the product of the raw data wouldn't look more like the picture on this page than anything worthy of scientific ponderance.

I've found many inaccuracies in Clifton's data over the years.

     -- I'd argue that any research based solely on media reports has a huge collection bias.

    -- His data also is under-representative of the entirety of the number of severe dog bites in this country, accounting for only about 2% of the total dog attacks in a given year. 

     -- And he's mathematically inaccurate. During at least one 3-year period, the number of dog attacks attributed to pit bulls, Rottweilers and Presa Canarios  in Clifton's "research" actually increased by more than the total number of attacks he recorded during that time.

    -- Clifton's numbers have increased dramatically over the past 5 years. Clifton attributes this to an increase in the number of attacks, however, it is far more likely to be a product of information availability and better access to information via the internet than he's ever had before. 

Nice work by Cooper and the Huffington Post. 

For more information:

KC Dog Blog: More deceit from Merritt Clifton attacking shelter pets....

KC Dog Blog: More misinformation, deceit and attempts to mislead from Merritt Clifton

KC Dog Blog: Creating Fear in the media and politics -- on terrorists, pit bulls and mis-information

KC Dog Blog: Merritt Clifton -- when the numbers just don't add up

Very Good Sentences - on Fear

Last week, after nearly a year of review, the city of Reynoldsburg, OH decided to keep its ban on "pit bulls" -- even though police records note that the city has never enforced the ban until residents asks for a repeal.

The Columbus Dispatch notes that the decision flies in the face of scientific research, and recommentdations from the AVmA, CDC, US Department of Justice, every humane organization in the country and the recommendations of its own commissioned committee.

Why'd Reynoldsburg keep the ban?

 "It's cheaper and takes far less effort than providing community programs for bite prevention and educating citizens about the real circumstances that contribute to dog aggression. Breed bans are a fear Band-Aid......Fear extracts a price and we all pay it."

That price so far has been nearly 50 well-behaved dogs being removed from their families based on how they looked. 

Nice editorial by the Columbus Dispatch.

Very Good Sentences -- Is Better Possible?

From the always enlightening Seth Godin, who never writes about animal sheltering, and yet often writes about animal sheltering:

"Is better possible?  The answer to this is so obvious to me that it took me a while to realize that many people are far more comfortable with 'no'.

"The easiest and safest thing to do is accept what you've been 'given', to assume that you are unchangable, and the cards you've been dealt are all that are available. When you assume this, all the responsibility for outcomes disappears, and you can relax".

I'm convinced that when high-kill shelters say they are doing the "best they can do", they are saying it because of two major reasons:

#1) Fear of failure -- if they make a commitment to saving lives, and don't succeed in ending the killing, then they will have "failed". It's a false premise. Even if a shelter doesn't achieve "no kill", maximizing the number of lives saved should continue to be the goal, and will mean a lot to those animals, and the community.

 When KC Pet Project took over the Kansas City, MO animal shelter in 2012, I wasn't sure if achieving a 90% Live Release Rate was possible. There were a whole lot of obstacles. But we knew we could save more lives than were currently being saved, and that was worth trying to do better for.

#2) Dealing with the past - If a shelter admits that it CAN do more to save more lives, it must also deal with the reality that there were saveable animals that it didn't do as much as it could have to save.  It's a hard thought to deal with. But isn't doing better worth it?

Regardless of the reason, better is possible, and we should always be striving for it.

Very Good Sentences -- on False Equivalency and being entitled to your opinion

This is a great article from Australian Lecturer in Philosophy Patrick Stokes in which he lectures his philosophy students that they are not entitled to their opinion -- but only the opinions they can successfully argue for.

"The problem with 'I'm entitled to my opinion' is that all too often it's used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for "I can say or think whatever I like" -- and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And that attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature in our public discourse."

I've talked about this subject before -- and that somehow in the debate about laws targeting breeds, expert opinion -- which is overwhelmingly opposed to laws targeting breeds -- is somehow given the same credibility as the discourse led by a handful of individuals with no expertise in canine behavior. Pit Bulletin Legal News has a great article on "False Equivalency" as well. 

Back to the Stokes article:

"If 'entitled to their opinion' just means no one has the right to stop people from thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you from saying that vaccines cause autism no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

"But if 'entitled to an opinion' means 'entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth', then it's pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred."

I do hope that the people without experience or expertise will quit getting equal time with those that have real expertise and experience on the subject of animal behavior. This isn't an equal debate, and needs to quit being treated as such.

 

 

Very Good Sentences -- from Best Friends Animal Society

From yesterday's Best Friends Blog about their pit bull terrier initiative:

"A Best Friends-commissioned study found that 84 percent of people polled believed local, state or federal governments should not infringe on a person's right ot have whatever breed of dog they choose. That's a pretty powerful statistic, and one that has supported our work on breed-discrimnatory legislation preemption bills."

It's this lack of support that is also leading to cities like South Bend, IN to repeal their existing breed-specific laws. And more of a sign that times are definitely changing for the better.

 

 

Very Good Sentences - Experts against breed-specific laws

A couple of weeks ago, Miami Veterinarian Ian Kupkee wrote a very nice column for channel 10 about BSL and fears surrounding pit bulls. It's compelling throughout, but had a really nice comment toward the end.

"So back to the original question. Why am I doing this?  Because I've studied the evidence, and I've reachd a verdict. Because I know the facts and therefore the truth. Becaue pit bulls are just dogs. Because in fifteen years of poking them, palpating them, sticking my fingers in their mouths, I've never met a pit that didn't lick my face or plonk its goody head in my lap. Most importantly, because it's the right thing to do."

Almost universally, people who have hands on, professional experience working with dogs have the same point of view and oppose laws targeting breeds of dogs. While the movement to have legislation targeting breeds is centered around a handful of people who got their information from Google.

It's not the same.

We need to let experts in the field of animal care and handling, like Dr. Kupkee, lead the way in determining the type of dangerous dog legislation in this country -- which should be targeting canines (and owners) based on behavior, and not body type.

 

Very Good Sentences - why just preaching supervising dogs & children won't work

I confess that while I'm usually a very optimistic person, the skeptical side of me often greets headlines with cynicism. When I saw the headline of this post, I clicked through, prepared to be annoyed -- and instead, found a very thoughtful piece about "Why Supervising dogs and kids doesn't work".  As any regular reader knows, I often talk about the need FOR parental supervision of dogs/child interactions -- so you can understand why I was skeptical. Instead, I was greeted with a very good introductory paragraph:

"It's sound advice given frequently: Supervise your dogs and kids while they're together. Breeders warn parents, 'Don't leave the dog alone with children, no matter how friendly the breed.' Veterinarians advise, "Never leave a dog and a child in the same room together."  Dog trainers explain, "All dogs can bite so supervise your dog when you have children over.'  Everyone knows the drill. SO why doesn't it work? There are an estimated 800,000 Americans seeking medical attention for dog bites each year with over half of these injuries to children ages 5-9?

"The bites are not a result of negligent parents leaving Fido to care for the baby while mom does household chores, oblivious to the needs of her children. In fact, I've consulted with hundreds of dog bite cases and 95% of the time the parent is standing within 3 feet of the child watching both the child and dog when the child was bitten. Parents are supervising. The problem is not lack of supervision. The problem is no one has taught parents what they should be watching."

While I'm not sure I agree with the 95% number the author mentions (and this certainly isn't the case in the really major attacks that make headlines), there is certainly evidence to show that her overall thought is exactly right -- including even very disturbing videos of parents filming dangerous child/dog interactions without any awareness of the canine warning signals. 

She goes on to talk more about what parents should be looking for. This is great, as dog behavior is very predictable, while child behavior is what is  erratic. But I think it's a good reminder to all of us that "supervision" isn't really enough -- knowing what to look for is also required.

Very good sentences -- and thoughts on poverty, and animals

If you haven't seen this blog post (which I posted on Facebook yesterday), please go and read it now. 

The post is written by Lori Weise of Downtown Dog Rescue -- an organization that does outreach in one of the toughest, poorest neighborhoods in Los Angeles. The post is really insightful, and gives a look at poverty in America, of what urban animals shelters see regularly, and the constant struggle of "us" (the animal welfare community) against "them" -- define that however you want but in this case, it's those who live in poverty.

From Lori's post:

"This is not a "pet problem", this is a poverty problem. Lack of jobs, lack of secure and affordable housing, lack of services. When services are available, they are often difficult to access. Other services require people to live in a target zip code or prove how little money they make to qualify. Even reclaiming a pet at the shelter can be a challenge since it requires identification that matches the address where the people live -- a challenge for people in transition."

It gets better. With stories of successes, and 'failures', in the 'revolving door' at the shelter.

For several years, I spent a couple of evenings per week working with a group of inner-city youth in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Kansas City. I learned a lot over that 4 year stretch.

I learned that ethics can be situational -- and things like not paying your utility bill and then starting up new utilities under a different name is commonplace. And while it sounds obviously wrong, if the alternative is to have it shut off and your family be without heat in winter, or pay it, and your family go without food for the week, then it's a choice that sometimes gets made. 

I learned that sometimes dropping out of school to get a job at a fast food restaurant to help mom pay the electric bill is sometimes the preferred alternative.

I learned the language of asking "where are you staying" instead of "where do you live?" -- because kids moving from family member to family member's home looking for a stable home life was so commonplace. 

When discussing dating and relationships, I had a 13 year old boy tell me that he thought marriage was "something only white people did" because there were so few role models of married families in their community to draw from.

In the United States, the poverty level is set at $23,050 annual income. For a family of four. If you're living alone, the poverty rate is $11,170, $15,130 if you're a couple. 

 Think about that for a minute.

That's VERY little. Now consider that in the US, roughly 16% of the population, and 20% of children live BELOW that number. And that doesn't even account count the people making slightly more than those figures that are still struggling to get by. When you're living in this type of situation, sometimes ethics are situational.

From Lori's post: 

 "I know that many of you might say that you would be homeless, living in your car, before you would surrender your cat or dog. But think about it: Would you really? Could you survive living in a violent area, constant noise, graffiti, trash, gangs controlling the streets, controlling the times that you can go out after dark?" 

Unfortunately, I think too many have removed themselves so far from the problems, that they don't even realize what they're saying. When I was volunteering with the inner-city youth, every year some volunteers would drop out. That's to be expected. But one of the common reasons why people quit was that they felt that the volunteer sight was TOO FAR AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES. And I think it tells an interesting story -- I think most Americans have moved themselves so far away from the problems (for fear, safety, whatever) that they no longer even realize it's a problem. The areas simply become statistics, or the location of the latest tragedy being covered on the 10:00 news.

The impact of the poverty impacts virtually all aspects of living...including their dogs.

From Lori:

"Third, add the higher rate of violent crime like home invasions, assaults, robbery, carjacking and streets being controlled by gangs. It's no wonder that residents of the community often have dogs to protect their homes. They tend to have large breed dogs, who are often very much part of the family, but their main function is to keep the home protected."

It's a lot to think about. But I think as you read Lori's post you start to get a clearer picture of the needs. As she wisely states, "This is not a pet problem, this is a poverty problem". 

And impacts the desire for people to own dogs. It impacts the types of dogs that people choose to own. It impacts the types of dogs that end up at the shelter, and the types that end up making newspaper headlines.  

And if you happen to own a dog in one of these neighborhoods, good luck finding vet care. Unless someone has decided to open up a free/low cost clinic in the area, there are no vet services available. And given that many don't have cars, and public transportation doesn't allow dogs, good luck getting your pet to a veterinarian even if you did have money to pay for the services. 

The problem isn't the dogs. It's society.

Understanding the problem, and having human empathy, is the first step toward repairing it.