Craigmont City Council Jonesing for a Dog Killing

Although this story seems complicated, from what I can tell, these are the basics:

• A Pitbull called Butch somehow escaped from his Craigmont, ID home when the owner wasn't there and ran up to a 3 year old boy in August 2009.
• The kid happened to be the son of the town's "dog catcher".
• The owner talked to the Mother of the kid the day the escape occurred and was told the boy had not been bitten.
• At some point later, allegations of biting and "bad acts" were made against the dog (I'm not clear who made the accusations but it doesn't seem as if any proof was offered).
• The city council took custody of the dog and held a closed hearing on the matter which they did not record. They did not provide the owner with information in advance and refused to hear all of the owner's evidence. The council ordered the dog killed in September 2009.
• The owner has been fighting in court to save Butch since then and is now taking her case to the ID Supreme Court.
• Butch is still in the custody of the city council.

Is it just me or does this whole thing stink of small town politics? I'm guessing this isn't the first time a loose dog has "charged" a child in Craigmont so how has the council handled these cases in the past? Have they killed the dogs after holding closed hearings of which there are no records? Or is Butch being treated differently because he's a Pitbull and because the kid he ran up to is the son of the local dog catcher? I don't know anything about Craigmont but that city council is stinking up the joint something awful.

Marine Corps Pets Tested by ASPCA in SC

In keeping with its policy banning so-called "aggressive dogs" on base, the US Marine Corp has brought in ASPCA reps to test dogs living on SC bases:

Although not the 54-hour test called the Crucible that Marine recruits must pass to join the Corps, dogs from three Marine facilities in South Carolina faced their own assessments Tuesday to see if they may remain among the few and the proud.

Both Vader and Osceola passed, but the friendly pit bull terriers seemed more interested in a group of reporters and their youngest owner, 7-month-old Keeley Drew Smith, than news they may remain with their Marine family.

The two pets were among more than 100 pit bulls, Rottweilers and canine-wolf mixes owned by Marines at Parris Island, the Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort and the Beaufort Naval Hospital.

The tests are being used to determine which families to break up, unless the owners can afford to move off-base which is not likely:

Dogs that don't pass may no longer stay at the bases. Dogs that do pass get waivers to stay until 2012.

What happens in 2012? Who knows. Probably more stupidity.

Pitbull Owner Testimonial

Anyone NOT cry listening to this story?

Collateral Damage

There seems to be a continuous supply of "Pitbull set on fire" stories in the news. Like most other severe cruelty cases, I try to avoid them. We all have our limits.

But the story of Phoenix, a female Pitbull in Baltimore who was saved when hero police officer Syreeta Teel saw her in flames and put the fire out using a piece of her own clothing, caught my attention:

The Pit Bull was brought to BARCS [Baltimore Animal Rescue & Care Shelter]. Despite the severe pain she was in, she wagged her tail and looked for comfort from the BARCS staff members.

[...]

She has suffered horrific burns over 95% of her body. The fire stripped the fur and flesh from her small figure.

[...]

Phoenix has a long road ahead of her. Her injuries are vast and she is at risk for infection and in severe pain.
[...]
There is a reward of $1,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who are responsible for setting fire to the dog in Southwest Baltimore, in the 1700 Block of Calhoun Street, on Wednesday, May 27th. All tips are confidential. Call 410-396-4698 and ask for the Animal Enforcement Officer Supervisor at the Bureau of Animal Control.

I have no idea what motivated the sicko(s) who set this dog on fire. But I got to thinking. Baltimore has a history of BSL (now repealed). And certainly one doesn't have to look too hard in the MSM to find sensationalized - and sometimes totally inaccurate - stories about Pitbull maulings. Is there a collective price to pay for demonizing an entire breed of dog based upon the actions of a small percentage of irresponsible owners? Phoenix can't talk of course, but I sure would like to hear her thoughts.



To donate to the Franky Fund which is being used to pay for Phoenix's care, please click here.

Loudoun Co, VA Judge: Keep Right on Killing Shelter Pitbulls

Pitbull advocates took their case to a judge earlier this month challenging Loudoun County's policy on not adopting out Pitbulls. (The county kills most of them.) The judge has now issued a ruling in favor of the county. His opinion states that although residents can legally own a Pitbull, that doesn't guarantee them the right to adopt one. I guess that makes sense if you've been to judge school.

Sorry Pitbulls ensnared by Loudoun Co's "shelter" system - sucks being you.

Pinchona non Grata

This campground info page for a place in NC came through my inbox this morning:

Leashed pets are welcome, excluding the following breeds: Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Pinchers, Greyhounds, Husky, and German Shepherds.

Apparently Greyhounds and these other breeds (and non-breeds) pose such a menacing threat to campground society even on leash that they simply can not be allowed into the place. The website doesn't say but I'm wondering if they allow guns and alcohol.

Here's what I'm thinking: The campground doesn't really mean to single out and ban specific kinds of dogs. What they actually intend to do is keep irresponsible people from creating a nuisance or dangerous situation for others. Lacking the legal A-OK from their attorney to put up a "Everyone Gotta Act Right" sign, they are instead falling into the breed profiling trap.

The people who run this campground obviously know little about dogs and probably are incapable of identifying the targeted breeds (real and make believe) anyway. They just don't want bad owners of any breed behaving irresponsibly and making trouble. I can understand that. But the policy banning specific breeds isn't going to accomplish that. Nor will it prevent irresponsible people from behaving badly with say, guns or alcohol - a far more realistic threat to my mind than a family pet on a camping trip. Responsible people know how to handle their dogs, guns and alcohol. The breed ban policy is ignorant and needs to be eliminated.

Pitbull Advocates in Loudoun Co, VA in Court

A legal effort to save shelter Pitbulls from automatic death in Loudoun Co VA started in 2007:

The effort to save the Vick dogs, seized under federal jurisdiction, is consistent with a Virginia law which prohibits killing impounded dogs solely based on their breed. Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Horne on October 15, 2007 issued an injunction under that law against the Loudoun County Department of Animal Care and Control, at the request of the Animal Rescue League of Tidewater and Norfolk resident Ron Litz, who had sued seeking to force the shelter to allow pit bull terriers to be adopted.

The county did revise its policy to allow for some Pitbulls to be transferred out to rescue but most were still being killed and the case finally got scheduled for trial in 2009:

At issue is whether the county is violating a state law that gives people the right to adopt the dog of their choice from a publicly funded shelter. State law also says that "no canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed."

For years, Loudoun euthanized all abandoned pit bulls. The county revised its policy in 2007, allowing the animals to be transferred to rescue groups or shelters in other jurisdictions if the dogs passed a temperament test. The change came soon after Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R) issued a nonbinding opinion saying that pit bulls taken to public pounds could not be euthanized based solely on their breed.

The plaintiffs in the suit, filed in 2007, are a Norfolk-based animal rescue group and Ronald Litz, a Sterling man who was turned down when he tried to adopt a pit bull from the shelter that year. They contend that the county treats pit bulls differently from other breeds and that the public should be allowed to adopt the animals.

The shelter's current evaluation methods for dogs are also at issue:

Laura Rizer, spokeswoman for the Loudoun Department of Animal Care and Control, said that all unclaimed dogs go through a comprehensive evaluation that includes behavior monitoring.

[...]

The plaintiffs' attorneys question whether such tests are a fair and accurate way to determine pit bulls' suitability as pets. For example, if a test involves a toy being yanked away from a dog, one would expect a pit bull to react differently than another breed placed in that situation, said Anthony F. Troy, who represents Litz and Animal Rescue of Tidewater.

[...]

Troy said he plans to have an animal behavior expert testify to raise questions about the merits of the temperament tests.

The shelter is following a policy set by the county's Board of Supervisors:

Board members stand behind the ban on pit bull adoptions.

"We believe that the policy that we have is a good one and protects the public and also provides for an appropriate discharge of those dogs," said Supervisor James Burton (I-Blue Ridge.)

So how has this "good" policy been going so far?

Since July 1, 49 pit bulls and mixed pit bull breeds have been euthanized, and three have been transferred to other shelters or animal rescue groups, according to the Loudoun shelter. Seventeen of the dogs have been transferred since that became an option in 2007.

Since we don't have complete stats to understand the total number of 17, we must look at the numbers from July to January: That's a 94% kill rate. 49 out of 52 Pitbulls surveyed say policy not so good.

The trial began yesterday and is scheduled to continue through tomorrow.

UPDATE, 5-7-09: The trial has wrapped, and a summary of the case can be found here.

Op-Ed Calls for Reversal of FL Ban on BSL

An editorial (with poll) in the Orlando Sentinel starts out like this:

Spike is gone, mauled to death earlier this month by a pit bull on the loose.

The little Dachshund was the latest casualty of an out-of-control breed whose irresponsible owners are letting their animals terrorize dogs and people alike.

It's all downhill from there.

The piece goes on to say that because BSL is prohibited in FL, nothing can be done to protect people from dangerous dogs. And that Pitbull advocates don't post stories about Pitbull bites, only the nicey-nice stories.

Wrong, wrong and wrong-o-mundo.

There's no such thing as monsters and no such thing as "an out-of-control breed" of dog. Some individual dogs of all breeds bite, for various reasons. But most dogs don't bite. Some owners are irresponsible - they may own any breed of dog, including Dachshunds for example. But most owners are well intentioned people who, if they aren't already behaving responsibly, may need a hand up in the form of education and community support. Making low/no cost neuter surgery accessible to all pet owners who want it is just one way the community can make a difference. And the idea that nothing can be done to protect the public from dangerous dogs unless BSL is passed is utterly false. Non breed specific legislation regarding dangerous dogs is already on the books in many areas.

I'm a Pitbull advocate and I post stories about bites in addition to the hero dog and other positive stories. Some people don't like that. But we can always learn something from tragedy and every opportunity to educate is important. I don't blame the breed, I look at the backstory and try to figure out what went wrong. Too often, bite incidents could have been prevented by something as simple as not leaving a child unattended with a dog or keeping a dog confined. These are basic tenets of responsible dog ownership and yet the need for education is apparent. So I don't shy away from those. On the other hand, I don't fall for every "Pitbull Mauling Rah-Rah-Rah!" headline that makes its way on to the internet. We have seen time and again that the dog in question is in fact not a Pitbull, that there was no mauling, etc. while bite incidents involving other breeds get little media coverage.

As for who is terrorizing who, I'd say irresponsible journalism and wrong-headed thinking are partly to blame for perpetuating the myths (and ratings grab) surrounding Pitbulls. Everyone is entitled to his opinion but fear mongering and discrimination have no place in our communities. We are a no kill nation of pet lovers and a humane society. Join us.

APHS Pitbull Policy: No Evaluation, No Adoption, Just Kill

How many dumbass ideas can you fit into one short article? A Texas TV news site goes for broke:

To keep animal attacks down, Amarillo Panhandle Humane Society (APHS) is euthanizing all pit bulls at the shelter if their families do not claim them in 72 hours.

ProNews 7 learned pit bulls are just "not eligible" for adoption to new families.

Humane society officials said they're a "problem breed" and they have the numbers to back it up. Since October, they’ve recorded 51 bites from pit bulls.

[...]

"If they're going to continue to be irresponsible, then maybe limiting the population will be a good thing," said Shannon Barlow of Amarillo Animal Control.

The article provides the "numbers to back it up". And I call SHENANIGANS on those numbers! Who ID'd the dogs involved in the bites? The overwhelming majority of bites were by "all other dogs" - what breeds were they? These stats are being reported by the people KILLING dogs with no known bite history! The only thing these dogs are "guilty" of is getting picked up the the local "Humane Society". Anyone else getting the stench of rat?

And where does a public servant get off pulling this Mother Hen crap? I suspect the community she's paid to serve would not support her "You're all bad people so I'm going to kill these dogs" philosophy. And does the 72 hour hold for stray Pitbulls apply to all strays or do non-Pits get held for longer?

APHS, please get out of the sheltering business already and take your mindless Pitbull killers with you. We are the real humane society. Join us.

Pitbulls Fly the Unfriendly Skies

There's been a lot of buzz over a new airline that exclusively flies pets called Pet Airways. But apparently some pets are flown only by special arrangement, which the customer wouldn't know unless they downloaded and read the Contract of Carriage (pdf) from the website:

6. SHIPMENTS SUBJECT TO ADVANCE ARRANGEMENTS
The following shipments shall be acceptable for carriage by Carrier only upon Advance Arrangements:

(D) Shipments of the following breeds of dog: Pit Bull, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Saffordshire (sic) Bull Terrier, Presa Canario.

I wondered exactly what these "advance arrangements" were so I contacted the airline to inquire but so far, no response. I was hoping their answer might shed some light on why these special arrangements were required for just these particular breeds which are often the victims of breed profiling. Owners of these breeds may face extra challenges in trying to rent a home, obtain home insurance, or even keep their pets after someone else's dog bites someone in the community. It seems they won't catch a break on Pet Airways either which is too bad since the company's business idea is a good one.

If Pet Airways responds to my inquiry, I will update the post.

Bringing up from the comments, from EmilyS, 4-24:

according to a friend, PA has tweeted ""there are red carpets awaiting pit bulls 2 & we have revised our Contract of Carriage as we do not discriminate at Pet Airways"

I looked at their website and indeed, the offending part of the contract has been removed.

GOOD JOB PET AIRWAYS!!!

Biscuits for everyone!

The section naming the bully breeds has been replaced by:

(D) Shipments of pets with past aggressive behavior.

That sounds like it would even apply to my 10# mixed breed "Emily" who bites (she would have gotten a free pass under the previous language). So too bad Emily, you won't get to go on any flight crew eating binges anytime soon, hehe.

Breed Bias in Home Insurance

Dear Jack Russell Terriers, Chihuahuas, Dachshunds, Labs, Goldens and friends,

Welcome aboard the breed discrimination bus!

Insurance companies are in the business of making money. One of the ways they do that is by minimizing their risks in writing a policy. Some insurance companies consider how likely the homeowner might be to file a claim for injury caused by a dog. So instead of having a qualified behaviorist evaluate each dog as an individual - the only true (albeit costly) means of assessing a dog's potential for human aggression - they rely on various other sources for their information:

Where are insurance companies getting their lists of what they perceive to be "aggressive" dogs? Without knowing, it's difficult for home- and dog owners to discern which breeds are acceptable and which aren't.

As it turns out, there's no standard list insurance companies follow, but dogs can factor in when an insurer is reviewing your new customer application. And it's not just the breeds typically thought of as aggressive, such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, chow chows, Doberman pinschers and German shepherds.

[...]

"The real problem is that there is so much conflicting information (about aggressive breeds), that you don't know what to believe," says Donna Popow, senior director of knowledge resources for the Insurance Institute of America, a nonprofit offering insurance education in Malvern, Pa. "Any dog will bite, given the right set of circumstances."

True, but most dogs don't bite. And fear of having to pay out on dog bite claims is an overhyped bit of hysteria to my mind, used by more than just insurance companies in advocating discrimination based on a dog's physical apprearance.

So what can a dog owner in need of home insurance do?

Before telling your insurance company that you have what they may consider an aggressive dog, [Ledy] Van Kavage, of the Best Friends Animal Society, suggests you have some coverage lined up with another insurance company. Insurance companies differ on breeds they deem aggressive and some go by which breeds in your state have bitten the most.

Van Kavage also cautions that when you own a mixed-breed dog, don't offer your insurance company a guess on what the predominant breed in the mix is. "It's impossible to guess correctly what the breed is unless you have a DNA test done," Van Kavage says.

And I guess you definitely would not want to say you have a Golden-Pit-Chiweenie mix.