WANTED: Common Sense in Emmetsburg, IA

The city codes in Emmetsburg, Iowa deem Pitbulls to be dangerous dogs. City residents Andrea and Jeremy Bowman have a dog in Emmetsburg who may be part Pitbull (the dog is a mixed breed and those breeds are in dispute). I want to make clear at this point there is no mention of allegations of biting or even growling at any person or animal by the dog.

The Bowmans, along with one of their neighbors, appeared before the city council this week to appeal the dangerous dog ordinance. The owners and neighbor stated the dog is friendly to people and other animals. However another of the Bowman's neighbors appeared to complain that the dog was seen running loose and had pottied on her lawn. (The owner admitted her kid had left the door open and the dog got out once.) So this neighbor who is unhappy about the dog pottying in her yard once schleps down to the council meeting to appeal for the dog to be kicked out of the city because she says, she fears for the safety of her 2 year old son and doesn't want to have to put up a fence to protect him. (I guess I should have warned readers of a Flying Logic Leap in advance, sorry about that.) I suppose that lady's 2 year old has never thrown a temper tantrum outside the home and caused a public disturbance. Because if he had, I'm sure she would have banished him from the city.

Again, the dog hasn't been accused of biting anyone and the owners have not been cited for anything. The principal of the Catholic school across the street from the Bowmans sent a letter of concern to the council. She too wants the dog ridden out on a rail. Not because he terrorizes kids at her school or anything like that but apparently because he's sucking up oxygen and stuff. (Which pets would Jesus ban?)

The council ordered the Bowmans to get a DNA test for their dog at their own expense. They have 30 days to comply.

There is another dangerous dog appeal detailed at the link involving a Drahthaar but my brain is too burned out to post about that one.

IA Councilman's "Vicious" Dog Stolen

If you've been following the story of Sioux City, IA Councilman Aaron Rochester, you know that he's been an advocate for banning Pitbulls and that his Lab recently bit someone. The councilman tried to appeal the ruling that the dog is "vicious" and must be killed under the law - cos you know, it's not fair if it happens to my dog - but was denied.

Well now:

A Sioux City councilman's dog that has been deemed vicious and could be euthanized is missing from an animal shelter.

Police say someone broke into the shelter Sunday afternoon and stole Jake, a 3-year-old yellow Labrador retriever, from an outdoor kennel. No other animals were taken.

Lt. Mark Kirkpatrick says there are no suspects as of Monday and the dog hasn't been found.

Yep, no suspects. And I bet there aren't going to BE any suspects either. Not now, not ever. Just sayin'.

Jane You Ignorant Slut!

A 10 year old boy was killed in Rusk Co, TX after being bitten by two Pitbulls last month. From what I gather reading the news stories, the area apparently had no leash law and the dogs were roaming unsupervised. A terrible and preventable tragedy.

The two dogs were killed by the county and charges are pending against the owners. As is often the case after such an event, things have spiraled out of bounds:

The family of Justin Clinton is now asking for tighter leash laws in Rusk county and trying to get pit bulls outlawed completely in Texas.
[...]
The family calls their mission "Justice for Justin." They're [sic] goal is get Texans to sign a petition that would outlaw pit bulls in Texas.

The notoriously biased dogsbite.org blog has picked up the story and now the goal seems to have leaped from a statewide Pitbull ban to uh, America:

Among those attending the protest was Cynthia Kent, a Tyler attorney who served for several years as a district judge in Tyler.
[...]
She and others vowed to take the fight to ban pit bull dogs to the national level. Mrs. Kent said she would speak with U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Tyler about the prospect of national legislation.
[...]
The court also adopted a resolution calling for the banning of pit bulls throughout the nation.

Oh and they adopted a leash law for parts of Rusk Co. (in case anyone sensible is still reading).

Leash laws and humane confinement of dogs make sense. So does pursuing legal action against owners who violate those laws. Banning an entire breed because of the actions of some irresponsible owners and the tragic consequences which follow is illogical. Breed bans do not work.

If you live in the 1st Congressional District of TX and want to contact Rep. Gohmert, he has an e-mail form here. Hopefully he will hear from some folks educated on the issue. I'd hate to think the only person contacting him is Mrs. Kent.

The Power of Failure

Ontario, Canada is going to keep on killing Pitbulls - legally. The Supreme Court will not hear an appeal seeking to overturn the province's breed ban. Pitbull advocates are going to keep going.

Loudoun Co, VA is going to continue legally killing Pitbulls too. The plaintiffs in the recent court case challenging the ban on Pitbull shelter adoptions testified as follows:

Puppy number 43063 was identified by the shelter as a pit bull mix. On the puppy’s pre-euthanasia report, the official reason for euthanasia is typed in as “breed.” Let me repeat that. The recorded reason for why puppy number 43063 was killed under current shelter policies was “breed.” That reason at some point was crossed out in ink and “behavioral observations” was written in its place. Behavioral observations. The shelter’s canine behavior assessment for puppy number 43063 notes that the puppy, “Approaches the front of the kennel seeking evaluator’s attention. Happily greets evaluator. Is sociable. Initiates gentle, physical contact. Wanted to be in evaluator’s lap. Moves closer for further attention. In evaluator’s lap playing. Wiggly. Leans against you. Bouncing around. Very lovey.

Read the rest on Winograd's blog. Read, weep and then - keep going. Failure is an option on the road to success. We can learn from these setbacks and strengthen our resolve to try again. We can continue our efforts to keep dogs from being killed based on nothing more than their (supposed) breed. Not only can we keep going, we must. In tribute to the memory of the dogs killed by the city of Denver, the Houston SPCA, the HSUS, Ontario, Loudoun Co and countless others - we must keep going. And in honor of the Pitbull victims currently sitting in shelters, awaiting death under these misguided laws - we must continue.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends - go forth and fail, because failure breeds success. We'll get there because we are the real humane society. Join us.

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.

Indianapolis BSL "Tabled" but Still Kicking

As I blogged last month, Indy was considering a bill discriminating against Pitbulls and low income owners. Council member Mike Speedy has a letter to the editor in the IndyStar which begins:

I continue to work diligently on the now-tabled At-Risk Dog proposal because the risk of being mauled or killed by a dog in our city is unacceptable.

Using this logic, one must ask why Mr. Speedy is not working just as diligently on proposals to counter the risks of being in a car wreck or getting hurt at work for example. Or are those risks acceptable in Indianapolis? Here's the thing: In a free society, there are risks. There are people who behave irresponsibly out of malice or ignorance. Then there are accidents - some preventable, others less so. And there are unfortunate victims as a consequence of all these factors.

Mr. Speedy would possibly have us look at which models of cars are involved in a portion of accidents and which occupations represent a statistical hazard for injury. Those cars and jobs could then be banned. Would that solve anything? Would irresponsible owners of these certain cars be magically transformed into responsible citizens and behave as such with their new cars? Would supervisors and workers be instantly educated on job safety and perform differently at their new jobs just because their previous jobs were banned?

It makes no sense. Banning a breed does nothing to educate or reform owners any more than banning a car or job would affect behavior. And accidents will still happen, although through education, we can work to reduce the preventable ones.

BSL doesn't work. It never has, anywhere it's been tried. Instead of forcing Indy on board the Fail Train, why not try something proven like enforcing leash laws and educating the public? Rally the community. Save some lives - human and canine. Make Indianapolis safer and more humane. Anything wrong with that?

Colorado Dog Bites: July 2007 - July 2008

A comprehensive study of reported dog bites over a one year period in that state of CO yields some unsurprising results:

1. Most dogs don't bite.
2. Any dog can bite, regardless of breed.
3. Loose dogs contribute significantly to bite stats.
4. Unsupervised children left with dogs are at risk for bites.

These are all common sense findings to my mind and further proof that targeting specific breeds for punishment will not reduce bite stats. Despite the findings of this study, Denver, CO maintains its ban on Pitbulls.

Holding Ourselves Accountable: Confinement

It seems like I come across this type of story fairly regularly: one starting out with a pet Pitbull and from there, everything goes wrong. This one is from San Antonio, TX:

After repeated instances of pit bulls running loose from a home in the 8400 block of Timber Mill, at least 20 residents have signed a petition that states that they feel like “prisoners in their own home.” Now, one of the dogs — an excitable but not particularly aggressive canine named Genghis Khan — could face euthanasia.

Rather than quote much more from the article (you can read the lunacy for yourself), suffice to say that both sides have gone a bit (or more) wonky. And ultimately a dog with no record of biting may be killed. It does seem as if the whole situation - and many of these types of stories - could have been prevented from escalating if the owner had kept the dog confined. Keeping a dog reliably confined to your own property is a basic tenet of responsible ownership. Of course an accident can happen where a dog escapes but provided this is a rare occurrence and the owner has a history of responsible behavior, neighbors are likely to be more understanding than in the case of a dog who roams loose on a regular basis.

The days of letting the dog out the front door and assuming he stays in your unfenced yard are over. Or maybe you think he just visits neighbors who squeal with delight seeing your dog trounce upon their flowerbeds, fight or mate with their dogs, and potty on their lawns. Yeah, no. The fact is that many areas, both urban and rural, now have leash laws. And in some places, property owners can legally shoot your dog if he is on their property and for example, chasing livestock.

It does no good to campaign for an end to breed specific legislation if we, as dog owners, are not following the dog laws already on the books. Most of us do obviously but as a community we need to do better. Educating dog owners - and their kids at school - on responsible ownership, including adherence to existing laws, is essential. We can't all afford to fence in our yards or hire dog walkers while we're at work but we can - and must - work within our means to hold up our end of the bargain as responsible dog owners and members of the community.

One way to educate your neighbors is by example. If and when an anti-pet law such as BSL or MSN rears its ugly head in your area, you can stand up as a voice for responsible owners and their pets. Others may disagree with your opinion but they won't be able to dispute your track record of complying with existing dog laws and acting responsibly. That gives you an edge right out the starting gate. And in this climate of anti-dog legislation, we need any advantage we can give ourselves.

Related Reading: The Future of Dogs by Walt Hutchens

Tidbits from Friday Reading

Be kind to animals - for profit!

Ohio State University says their research shows that farm animals who are handled gently are better producers:

"The idea behind animal welfare education is to turn people's negative behaviors -- kicking, hitting, shouting -- into positive behaviors -- walking slowly, talking calmly and being more physically gentle."

The university recently began offering animal welfare training to swine and dairy producers. So far, participating farmers have noticed an increase in animal productivity. Milk production rose by five percent and sows gave birth to more piglets, Botheras said.

"We have a substantial amount of research that points to a clear and consistent relationship between how dairy cows, pigs and laying hens are handled and their productivity. Basically, those animals that are most fearful have the lowest productivity," she said.

Makes sense, in a logical, thoughtful kinda way.

***

New York City Housing Authority Punishes the Poor and their Pets

Effective today, residents of public housing in NYC are prohibited from owning a breed of dog on the Housing Authority's Bizarro Blacklist or any dog weighing over 25 pounds. The list, and commentary, from Blue Dog State:

Akita Inu, Alangu Mastiff, Alano Español, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Argentine Dogo, Bedlington Terrier, Boston Terrier, Bull and Terrier, Bull Terrier, Bully Kutta, Cane Corso, Dogue de Bordeaux, Dogo Sardesco, English Mastiff, Fila Brasiliero, Gull Dong, Gull Terr, Irish Staffordshire Bull, Korean Jindo Dog, Lottatore Brindisino, Neapolitan Mastiff, Perro de Presa Canario (Canary Dog), Perro de Presa Mallorquín (Ca de Bou), Shar Pei, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Tosa Inu.

Also: any dog predicted to weigh more than 25 lbs. when full grown

And even more: Even though this is all supposed to commence tomorrow, the list of breeds seems to change several times a day. The above list came from an NYCHA publication. Since then Boxers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers have been included in assorted other news items. I think I saw Golden Retrievers on one.

I guess NYC must be another one of those cities with no real problems since they directed resources be spent on getting Boston Terriers out of public housing during a worldwide economic crisis. Must be nice.

***

E-mail circulating from Best Friends

This craigslist posting is from a Best Friends e-mail requesting assistance:

As part of our First Home Forever Home campaign, we’re donating 29,000 lbs. of dog food to Las Vegas rescue groups and human food banks and shelters.

The challenge is getting it there!

How You Can Help

Best Friends needs help in transporting the dog food from Kanab, Utah, to Las Vegas in the next couple of weeks. We’re looking for someone who can donate the use of a big rig with a lift gate and pallet jack and a qualified driver.

If you or someone you know can help, please contact:
Ellen Gilmore, First Home Forever Home campaign coordinator, at elleng@bestfriends.org.

***

Find a Friend

This weekend, May 2 & 3, is the Pet Adoptathon 2009 - a nationwide shelter effort to get pets into homes.

***

Confession: I'm a Wannabe Egyptologist

You may not find this as incredibly interesting as I do but a mummified puppy, thought to be a Jack Russell type dog, has been found in an Egyptian tomb with his mummified owner. This is the first I've heard of any sort of a JRT type dog being kept as a pet in ancient Egypt. The find has been dubbed "Hapi-Puppy":

The cause of Hapi-Puppy's demise remains unknown, but the dog's age suggests it was killed upon his master's death.

"We see this as a senseless slaughter today, but in ancient Egypt it would've been viewed very differently," Monge explained. "People then felt life on Earth was very short. Hapi-Men wanted to spend all of eternity with his dog."

***

Hey, who let you in here?

Don't forget: Save Dale!

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.

Indianapolis Proposal Punishes Pitbulls and Low Income Owners

There has been all sorts of controversy surrounding the profiling of Pitbulls in Indianapolis under a proposed ordinance which targets the breed for mandatory neuter, among other things. The Indy Star breaks down the proposal as follows:

» Require pit bull owners to spay or neuter their dogs.
» Prohibit residents from owning more than two pit bulls more than 8 weeks old.
» Require pit bull owners to register their dogs with the city.
» Allow the city to revoke an owner's pit bull permit if that owner mistreated the dog.
» Allow the city to require any dog it declared dangerous -- usually for attacking a person or animal -- to be muzzled in public.
» Allow the city to require any owner who mistreats a dog to purchase liability insurance.
» Fine the owner of any dog running loose that is not spayed or neutered.
» Restrict the ways owners can chain their dogs.

In a misguided attempt to justify a bad proposal, the article continues:

An Indianapolis Star review of dog bite data for 2008 revealed that pit bull bites soared 33 percent from the previous year and were three times higher than in 2006. Pit bulls also account for more bites and more severe bites than any other breed. Animal control officials say they often find pit bulls in the hands of neglectful owners who view them as a status symbol or, worse, train them to fight.

I suggest the Star provide its dog bite data in a complete form, including who identified the breeds involved, how many incidents were investigated, and how the severity of the bites was determined. While I may take AC at their word that they "often" find Pitbulls owned by people who neglect or fight them, I would be interested to know how "often" they find them living with responsible owners. Maybe AC doesn't have any idea how many Pitbulls are well cared for pets because they have no reason to encounter those situations. I don't know but it is irresponsible to report only one side of the story.

As for the proposed ordinance, I see it as not only discriminatory toward Pitbulls but also toward low income owners. Will the city provide low/no cost neuter services to those in need? If not, I can imagine a good many people would be unable to pay for neuter surgery as well as the cost of complying with the chaining provision and whatever the registration fee might be.

What will happen to owners and rescues who have more than 2 Pitbulls? They will apparently have to decide which ones to keep and which ones to rehome. If quality homes can not be found in time, presumably the city will seize the dogs. More Pitbulls at the pound. Great.

The proposal will appear on the agenda at the May 4 City County Council meeting, but will not be discussed until subsequent committee meetings. During those meetings, council members will lay out a procedure for accepting public input.

Watch this space.

Moses Lake, WA Gleeful about BSL Victims in Local Shelter

The city of Moses Lake, WA enacted BSL on January 1st, 2009. In order for residents to keep their Pitbulls, Rottweilers or Presa Canarios, they must pay a $250 registration fee, neuter and microchip the pet, buy $200,000 worth of insurance in case the dog bites, and confine to the pet to an enclosed structure.

Why this sucks:

1. Most Pitbulls, Rottweilers and Presa Canarios - and most dogs of any breed or mix - don't bite. Dogs that do bite may be any breed or mix. Forcing certain owners to purchase a costly insurance policy without any evidence that their dogs are high risk for a bite claim is unfair. The only true means of determining any dog's potential for human aggression is an individual evaluation by a qualified behaviorist. The idea that Pitbulls are high risk biters is perpetuated by lazy media in this country who squeal for joy when they get to put "Pitbull" and "maul" in a headline. Stories about attacks caused by other breeds and mixes are largely under-reported.
2. Neuter and microchipping are decisions best made after consideration of the individual pet's circumstances by the owner and his Vet. Further, unless the city of Moses Lake is offering low/no cost neuter and microchipping to owners affected by this law, how are people supposed to pay for it on such short notice?
3. Offhand I would guess that no one owns a Presa Canario in the city of Moses Lake (since they are an uncommon breed) but I bet there are some other dogs (purebreds and mixes) not affected by this law who are high risk for human aggression incidents. How is the public interest being served by ignoring those other (assumed on my part) "hazardous dogs"?

So how are things going after the first quarter of the year under the new law?

Of the 161 dogs impounded or surrendered by their owners from Jan. 1 through March 31, 50 dogs were pit bulls, two were rottweilers and no presa canarios were sent to the shelter.

City Manager Joe Gavinski told the council the information provides a different perspective on the effectiveness of the ordinance. Although few are registered with the city, many people are relinquishing their animals, he said.

Congratulations Mr. Gavinski. You've forced families to give up pets without any evidence those individual dogs were high risk for biting. You must be so proud. Has the city killed them all already or are some still languishing on your shelter's Death Row? Thank you for revealing the true face of BSL: Ignorance, Intolerance, and Cruelty.

Every dog deserves a fair evaluation.

Pitbull Death Advocates Rely on Phony Legal Threats

KC Dog Blog reports on a failed bid to modify Springfield MO's Pitbull ban to allow rescues to pull Pitbulls from local shelters and adopt them out in other, more reasonable, cities:

The council apparently agreed with City Attorney Dan Wichmer, who said the city would be at risk of a lawsuit if someone ever got bitten by a dog the let go.

This flawed logic, as KC Dog Blog points out, takes the responsibility for biting dogs off the owners and drops it into the lap of the city. And when I started thinkin' 'bout flawed logic, I got the HSUS testimony in the Wilkes Co, NC case in my head. In trying to convince the judge that death was the only option for the 146 unevaluated dogs and puppies in that case, an HSUS representative said:

You know, we could be a couple years down the road and one of these dogs could do something, and I think it ultimately could come back on the county of Wilkes.

So riddle me this, Pitbull death advocates: In how many bite cases in the US has this scenario come to pass? That is, someone gets bitten by a dog and pursues legal action - not against the dog's owner - but against the shelter where the dog originated. The bite victim's attorney would need to inquire to the dog's owner to find out where the dog was obtained. In the (theoretical) cases of the Springfield and Wilkes Co dogs, the answer to that would be a rescue group. The bite victim's attorney would then have to inquire to the rescue group to find out how they had gotten the dog. I'm not a lawyer but this doesn't pass my common sense sniff test. What say you lawyers - would you advise a client to pursue legal action - not against the biting dog's owner - but against the shelter who released the dog (presumably with a signed standard release form absolving the shelter of liability) to a rescue group?

Statistically speaking, in what percentage of dog bite litigation cases has this happened? I don't know the answer but my guess would be that it's very low, possibly statistically ZERO. If my guess is correct, how is it that legislators and judges feel threatened by this straw man - enough to kill unevaluated dogs who would likely never bite anyone anyway? (Most dogs don't bite and dog bites are declining due to a number of factors.)

Every dog deserves a fair evaluation. And responsibility for individual dogs lies solely with the owner - not with the friend of a friend's neighbor's Uncle who had the dog at some previous point in time. Dog owning is a right and a responsibility to be undertaken and protected with care.

Biting Dachshunds: How Cute

If you read this story, you'll note the "cute" tone and that it's filed under "weird news":

It aint the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog. Just ask the ten year old Brooksville girl who was walking her two pit bulls Monday.

According to a Hernando County Sheriff's report, the unnamed child was walking her friends two pit bulls when three dachshunds escaped from their home and charged the big dogs. The sheriff's report says, "The one dachshund nipped (the girl's) right leg in the back right above the ankle. (The girl) stated that the pit bulls did nothing but look at the three dachshunds."

It's all ha ha ha until somebody loses an eye. Which could happen if a Dachshund bit a kid in the face. No charges were filed in this case and clearly it's being viewed as a snicker-worthy story. But if it happened the other way around with the loose Pitbulls biting the girl and the Dachshunds looking on? Would the story be reported in the same way? My guess:
The "scratch" reported in this article would be described as a "bite", the Pitbulls would have been seized and destroyed, the owner cited for letting his dogs roam, and the community would be clamoring to enact breed specific legislation to "prevent another Pitbull tragedy".

Oh and by the way, a 10 year old girl walking multiple dogs of any breed on her own is a lousy idea. A child is not going to be able to control multiple dogs of any breed if they decide there is something more interesting to do besides walk nicely on leash. I could easily imagine this Dachshund incident turning into some kind of less-than-hilarious biting scenario resulting in injured/dead dogs and bitten child who attempted to intervene. Responsible pet ownership begins at home.

BSL Proposal in Florence, SC: From the Mouths of Babes

In Florence, SC the Buttinsky Neighbor has made her presentation to the county council for a ban on "pitbull type dogs":

Ernestine Haselden spoke Thursday on behalf of a group of Scranton residents who have said they worry a group of dogs in the neighborhood will get loose and hurt someone.

Have they gotten loose before?  Have they bitten anyone?  I don't see any mention of that.  Maybe Ms. Haselden would like to ban some guy's ax, locked away in a tool shed, because who knows, maybe one day someone will break into that shed and take the ax on a killing rampage.  It could happen.  People have used axes as weapons in the past.  Do we just have to sit around and wait for the next Lizzie Borden massacre before we take action?  Ban baby, Ban!

Oh and while we're busy butting in to our neighbors' business:

Haselden also presented a model of an animal control law that would also cover incessant barking, waste and odor, licensing, and a requirement for owners of dangerous animals to hold a $100,000 insurance policy.

What is this - a cranky "There outta be a law!" free-for-all?  

Ruh-roh, Common Sense Alert:

A group of Southside Middle School students made a rebuttal to Haselden’s presentation. Teacher Brian Harvey, who owns two pit bulls as pets, said the request for a ban on the dogs is the result of a “severe generalization” and that pit bulls are used for search-and-rescue operations and as therapy dogs at hospitals.

The students proposed implementing canine safety education programs in schools, offering responsible canine ownership classes to pet owners, and adopting stronger laws on the city and county levels.

“Pit bulls are no more inherently dangerous to people than any other breed of dog,” student Emily Nance told council.

While the article doesn't state clearly what the council's decision or next step may be, the owner of the "pitbull type dogs" seems upbeat:

Gordon Williams, Haselden’s neighbor who owns the dogs in question, said he was pleased with the “good outcome” following all the presentations.

“(The dogs are) like my children,” he said.

I hear ya.
 

SC BSL Proposal: Buttinsky Neighbor vs. Those Meddling Kids

Last month, I blogged about someone in Florence Co, SC who doesn't like her neighbor's "Pitbull type dogs" and so is requesting a breed (what breed?) ban. The Nosy Neighbor was scheduled to speak at the Florence Co Council meeting on March 5th but apparently bailed at the last minute and the issue has been rescheduled for the next meeting on April 2, 2009. The middle school students who were prepared to present a case opposing BSL have moved their presentation to April 2nd as well. It sounds like the kids have done their homework (ha) and will have a good anti-BSL argument while encouraging responsible pet ownership and education. Yay meddling kids! I'm rooting for you.

Dare Co, NC Moves Forward on Proposing BSL

Dare County initially had one set of problems, now they are compounding those by advancing the idea of breed specific legislation:

[Dare County Attorney Bobby] Outten said he is also looking into two types of breed-specific ordinances that have passed legal muster elsewhere. One would allow people to own dog breeds such as pit bulls only under certain restrictions; the other would outright ban them.

The proposals will be presented to the Board of Commissioners, probably at an April meeting, Outten said, and if the board decides to move forward on either one, a public hearing will be scheduled.

Adding insult to injury, the director of the Dare County Animal Shelter Denise Lambiotte is alerting the media to the myth(s) that wouldn't die!

Any dog left unmanaged can be dangerous, Lambiotte said.

"It's just that pits can do so much more damage," she said.

Pit bulls have powerful jaws that can lock when biting, and they are bred to attack, she said. Although they can be gentle to toddlers, the high-pitched voices of children and their sudden movements can set off pit bulls' predatory instincts, she said.

I look forward to Ms Lambiotte's presentation of the previously unknown, groundbreaking science to substantiate these claims. (She will be asked to substantiate these claims, right? I mean, the Board isn't just going to take a "Because I said so" on those claims, will they?)

Contact info - be polite, be respectful in your opposition to BSL:

County of Dare
PO Box 1000
Manteo NC 27954
(252) 475-5000

Dare Co Board of Commissioners e-mail contacts

Dare Co Attorney Bobby Outten: outten@co.dare.nc.us

Pitbull Hero Helps Save 11 People

In MA this week:

A dog is being credited with helping to save eleven people in Southbridge from a fire in a multi-family home. Firefighters say the dog woke up the people living there. Sadly the heroic dog didn't make it out alive.

The fire broke out early Wednesday morning. An eleven month old Pitbull named Chaos helped save 11 people from the the building.

Fire crews from five different towns battled the blaze for 90 minutes before they put it out. Family and friends are hailing Chaos the dog as a hero.

If you are a MA resident, please contact your state House representative in support of S2624 which will prohibit breed specific legislation in the state.

Dare Co, NC Alert and New Article on Vick Dogs

Dare County, NC considers BSL:

The recent murder of a pet by two pit bulls has drawn the attention of both state and county leaders.

The dogs responsible for the attack were euthanized on Jan. 30 after the owner gave permission to the Dare County SPCA to do so.

Following the Jan. 19 attack on Jazz, a labrador belonging to Mark and Diane Kent of Poor Ridge Road in Kitty Hawk, the animals were returned to their owner, Nikki Canady, pending a $25 fine per dog. Denise Lambiotte, director of the animal shelter, noted the county's ordinances did not give authority to the SPCA to either keep or euthanize the animals.

Kitty Hawk Police Department issued a leash law violation to Canady the day of the attack, but also was unable to detain the animals. Police Chief David Ward, concerned about the danger posed to the residential neighborhood, worked with District Attorney Frank Parrish to have the dogs seized after their initial release. The motion was granted Jan. 23, and the SPCA planned to impound the dogs until Canady's court date March 24.

The initial lack of legal authority to hold the dogs outraged the community and caused concerns for lawmakers, including NC Sen. Pro Tem Marc Basnight of Manteo.
[...]
The incident also sparked discussion during the Dare County Board of Commissioners Feb. 2 meeting. During public comment, several responses were heard, all in favor of strengthening the county's dog ordinances.
[...]
"This was a home invasion and a murder, I'm for banning this type of dog and others like it," said Chairman Warren Judge.
[...]
The ordinances will be discussed at the boards Feb. 16 meeting.

Am I the only one thinking that dogs don't commit "murder"? What up with the inflammatory language Dare County? This case involves dog-dog aggression, failure of owners to properly confine their dogs and failure to enforce existing confinement laws. If Dare County is unable or unwilling to enforce the pet laws already on the books, why would we want to toss more laws on to the pile? And bad laws at that. Stop BSL has all the contact info so you can take action.

***

The AP has a nice follow up article on how the Vick dogs at Best Friends are doing today:

Half the Vick dogs adapted well enough to other dogs that they’re allowed to have playmates.

The others are being slowly introduced to other dogs.

They’re all being prepared for their Canine Good Citizen tests — a 10-step exam that measures things such as the ability to mingle with other dogs, deal with strangers and behave on a leash.

[...]

When Vick’s dogs were first seized, the courts received advice from People for Ethical Treatment of Animals and other humane societies, which said the animals should be euthanized because their chances of living normal lives outside a shelter or sanctuary were minimal.

Oops. Here, let me wipe that egg substitute product off your face PETA.

Yeah but, No

PETA is never one to miss an opportunity for free publicity in their efforts to stuff more money into their mattresses and kill more animals solve society's problems:

In the wake of a savage attack on an 8-month-old boy by a pit bull terrier in Newport News this week, Daphna Nachminovitch of PETA outlined the organization's "controversial" position on pit bulls.

PETA supports legislation that bans the breeding of pit bulls, along with spaying and neutering legislation as the most effective way to combat the "tragic companion animal overpopulation problem."

*screeching brakes* We have no pet overpopulation problem. Nathan Winograd has definitively debunked that myth. We have a failure to get enough shelter pets into homes. Groups like PETA and HSUS share in the blame on that issue. But it is a solvable problem. We are a no-kill nation. Join us.

Back to PETA nonsense:

Although the pit bull that attacked a child at a baby sitter's home on Barclay Road in Newport News was neutered, PETA's position is about more than behavior. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would lead to the phasing out of a breed.

Right. The phasing out of a breed of beloved pets for many families in this country. Of course this fits right in with PETA's pet extermination plan (kill as many pets as possible, prevent the rest from reproducing) but it certainly doesn't fit in with the average pet owning American's civil liberties and Constitutional rights. But hey, don't let that stop you:

PETA argues the breeding ban would save a lot of canines from suffering.

Actually, what would save a lot of dogs from suffering death by lethal injection is to steer clear of PETA's slaughterhouse shelter.

More from the article:

PETA wouldn't be true to form if its position wasn't controversial. But maybe these proposals are worth further consideration.

Although all dogs are capable of biting a child, it goes without saying that the injuries inflicted by a pit bull will usually be worse than those inflicted by a Chihuahua.

M'kaaaaaaaaaaay. By this logic, I guess we could say that injuries inflicted by a hockey stick will usually be worse than those inflicted by a soccer ball. So, ban hockey? Methinks the author misses the point here. It is certainly tragic that this infant was mauled by a dog while in the care of a babysitter. The breed of dog is about as relevant as the color of the babysitter's skin. What we have here is a failure of a babysitter to properly care for a baby.

Sadly, just two days later in Newport News, a baby died while in the care of a babysitter - this time being choked to death by the chest strap of a car seat. So what do we do now? Ban babysitters? Ban car seats? Ban Newport News because two tragic incidents occurred there this week? If those suggestions sound ridiculous because they wouldn't address the real issues or solve any problems, then welcome to my world. Because that's exactly what I think about Pitbull bans.

As for PETA, do us all a favor and stick to what you know. *crickets*