Saturday, December 05, 2009

Pit Bulls as Cash Cows and Cause Celebre



The "Pit Bull" problem in America
is not fighting dogs.


In the last two years,
I have seen pro-dog group after pro-dog group rush out to help kennels full of fighting dogs, supposedly out of compassion, but really as a direct mail and publicity scheme.

To be sure, the Humane Society was first in line, and that organization continues to stand four feet and snout in the fundraising trough, but they are hardly alone, are they?

Yes, it's easy to demonize Pit Bull fighters, and it's easy to feel sorry for horribly abused dogs, but let's be clear: the "Pit Bull" problem in America is not fighting dogs.

The Pit Bull problem in America is that more than a million Pit Bulls a year are being bred by numskulls who say they love this breed.

The Pit Bull problem in America is that nearly one million Pit Bulls a year are being purchased or acquired by naïve ignorants who say they love this breed, but who are in fact ill-equipped for a large dog whose genetic code tends to make it dog- and cat-aggressive.

The Pit Bull Problem in America is not people
who hate these dogs, it's the people who say
they love these dogs.


Until we face that fact, and put this issue front and center, not much will change.

You want to comment on this post?

Fine.

But opinions on this post are not free. If you want to post a comment, there is a price, and that price is local research.

Here's what I want you to do:

  1. Look up the euthanasia data for your County and detail in the comments section, what percentage of euthanized dogs are Pit Bulls or Pit Bull crosses, and provide the data links. Look up the same kind of information for 3 more Cities or Counties of your choice (preferably Cities or Counties in other states) and post the links.

  2. Look up your Town, City or County on Pet Finder to see how many Pit Bulls or PitBull crosses are listed, and detail that number in the comments section.

  3. Look up on the number of Pit Bull or Pitbull crosses that are for sale on your nearest Craig's List, and detail the price of those dogs in the comments section.

  4. If you have a blog or web site, provide any links you have to posts about the Pit Bull over-population problem. I am not looking for a link to a bumper sticker in opposition to breed specific legislation. I am looking for a post that talks about how every Pit Bull that will be killed today was bred by someone who loved the breed, and was acquired by someone who thought it was the right puppy for them.

Asking folks to do research before they comment is not punishment; it's education.

It's service to the Pit Bull.



.

27 comments:

Zoe said...

You rock Terrierman! I'll leave it at that! lol

bitbypit said...

2009 U.S. Shelter Data Shows that Pit Bulls Account for 58% of Dogs Euthanized
-DogsBite.org

panavia999 said...

So right Terrierman! I like pit bulls. They are gorgeous to look at and those I have met were affectionate a good natured - and carefully contained and always on a leash. But I will never own one because I have too many other animals whom I love much more than a pit bull.
How many "rescued" pit bulls are sent back to shelters because they are still too much to handle - the recidivism rate if you will?

PBurns said...

I suspect most of the rescue Pits are going to screened homes. Most rescuers are in the business of sizing up people as well as dogs, and most of the rescued Pits have been very well-screened. Anything with the slightest nick of a problem is put down as it's a "buyer's market" in the world of "slightly used Pit Bulls."

The problem with Pits is what happens when people want a puppy and are not prepared for a DOG.

That's true for ALL dogs, of course, but it's more true for large dogs, and it's most true for Pits Bull and Pit Crosses.

P

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

Patrick,

The problem here really is complex -- and I'm not 100% sure I know how, exactly, to solve the problem.

Yes, there is little doubt that a very large part of our shelter killing problem surrounds pit bull type dogs. Without providing links, but having the hard data for every shelter in my area, I completely agree that they are a big part of the problem.

However, the reasons for it are more complex I think than "people who say they love the dogs breed them too much".

For example, I live in Kansas City, and we kill thousands of pit bull type dogs per year. And as far as I can tell, there are 3 major contributors to the problem.

1)Part of the problem comes from Breed Specific Legislation - in the Kansas City metro area, approximately 1/3 of the homes in the city cannot adopt a pit bull because they are banned in that city. It causes a problem by reducing available homes to adopt -- and it causes a problem with good homes losing dogs because they moved to the area not realizing the dog was banned there - or because they thought they adopted a "boxer mix" and a city thought it was a "pit bull mix" and took the dog from them (and the reality is, no one can tell without DNA testing what the dog is because it is just a mutt). So more dogs coming to the shelter because of the laws - -and fewer dogs leaving the shelter because of the laws.

2) Several shelters will not adopt out pit bulls -- for a variety of reasons. Maybe it's liability. Maybe they sit in kennels too long and don't churn fast enough. Maybe they don't want to home check -- but obviously shelter policies that don't allow them to be adopted out puts them in an unfair situation when it comes to euthanasia.

3) and finally -- possibly the hardest question -- is how rescues handle adoptions. Because rescues want to be very cautious about where dogs get placed (and rightfully so) so they don't end up adopting dogs to dog fighters or complete riff raff, they have very tight screening standards. While I mostly agree with why this happens, the back end law of unintended consequences causes other problems. Obviously we have a lot of inner city, urban areas in KC -- most filled with minorities. Pit bulls are a very popular dog with this group. I've done a lot of work in these neighborhoods and can say that most (not all) are really great people who mean well ad will care for their dog -- but most would have no chance of being able to adopt a dog -- particularly a pit bull -- from a rescue. They would be declined in a heartbeat.

So because there is a demand for these dogs, but no access through shelters or rescues, people in these neighborhoods breed them because they're a solid little money maker for them. So they breed, people buy the dogs. Some end up in shelters, some end up coming in later once the dog becomes too big and there was not support from a rescue or responsible breeder for how to care for the dog, or whatever. And the cycle continues.

There is a LOT of work that still needs to be done here in urban cores around the country. Unfortunately, the pit bull community is so tied up dealing with #1 and #2 that they don't really have the opportunity to deal with #3 -- which may be a larger problem. Some people are getting it right, but it's a tough nut to crack for a group of mostly middle class white women.

I've written about this topic quite a bit on my blog -- here are two links:

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/02/sunday-conversa.html

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/01/undoing-the-problem-we-created.html

PBurns said...

BT, it really is NOT complicated.

The problem is too damn many Pit Bulls.

Those Pit Bulls are NOT being bred by people who hate Pit Bulls.

Those Pit Bulls are not being bought as puppies by people who hate Pit Bulls.

They are, however, being DUMPED by the train load in shelters where they are NOT being adopted, and where, for the most part, they are being euthanized.

As a response to that horror, which the Pit Bull community has done TOO LITTLE to correct for the last TWENTY YEARS, some cities have said "enough is enough," and one of those cities is your city, Kansas City. See >> http://www.kmbc.com/news/9691694/detail.html and be sure to read the links at the bottom too.

Sorry, but the City Council of your city is NOT breeding Pit Bulls -- that's being done by Pit Bull "lovers."

Sorry, but the shelter workers in your city are not DUMPING Pit Bulls in the shelters. That too is being done by one-time Pit Bull "lovers" in your city

The bottom line is that the "Pit Bull" problem is NOT a problem anyone but "Pit Bull lovers" created, and it is a problem apologists have ENABLED for decades by trying to make it more complex than it is.

The Pit Bull problem is NOT complicated. The problem is that there are too many Pit Bulls because "Pit Bull" lovers are singularly irresponsible breeders, and people who acquire Pit Bulls as puppies are too often incredibly unprepared, irresponsible, immature, and ignorant owners who acquire the dogs in haste and leave them to die in leisure.

The result is that because of the actions of "Pit Bull lovers," we KILL nearly 1,000,0000 Pit Bulls a year in this country, over 2,400 a day, 100 every hour, one every 36 seconds.

And NO, that is NOT complicated.

It is also not complicated that this is a BREED SPECIFIC problem that seems to require a breed specific solution.

One thing is for sure: absent any real solution coming from the Pit Bull community, City Councils and Counties across the country are stepping up to try to END the misery and death. They are not doing it because they "hate" Pit Bulls, but because they are tired of killing a million Pit Bulls a year, and they are tired of listening to folks whose only reponse to the problem so far has been to put up a million little web stickers talking about their personal property rights (that is all that a "NO BSL" sticker says to me at this point).

P.

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

So, did I get sensored for actually knowing what was going on in my home town?

PBurns said...

Nothing came through here. I have never cut a comment from you.

Hope you will address the topic of this post, however, and actually DO THE RESEARCH and let us know how many Pit Bulls are on PetFinder in your area, etc.

P

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

Sorry, apparently I snafu'd my last comment and then haven't been able to access your site. I want to give a little more background to your info on Kansas City -- because while your info is right, it is far from complete. Keep in mind that the Kansas City Metro is made up of 25 different city governments across two state lines. While KCMO is the largest of the cities, it still represents less than 1/3 the total population of the metro, so it is highly impacted by other cities around it. When I lay out the entire problem, I think it is hard to argue that "pit bull lovers" are the sole problem in Kansas City -- it is more complicated than that.

First off, there are about a half dozen cities in the metro that have Breed Bans - and all except 2 went into effect between 1987 and 1989. These cities (overland Park, Leawood, Kansas City, KS; Shawnee, Roeland Park, Fairway and Prairie Village account for about 1/3 of the population of the metro.

In 1987, there wasn't much of a pit bull overpopulation problem -- or at least, it wasn't any worse for them than it was for all dog breeds at the time.

However, over time, the limited number of homes for pit bulls has added up to be a bit of a problem. Again, in part because we can't adopt to a large number of homes, and in part because the rescue groups won't adopt dogs to people in Kansas City, MO's inner city. Meanwhile, the KCMO shelter -- until April of this year, would not adopt out pit bulls (although they would allow rescues to take them).

So many of the people who wanted them were denied by rescues, couldn't adopt from the shelters, so they bred them themselves. There was demand, but the supply side wouldn't meet the demand. So there is a new supply.

Meanwhile, because KCMO was killing too many pit bulls, they passed the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in August of 2006 (went into effect in December).

In the first two years of having the ordinance, they killed 77% more pit bulls than in the years prior -- mostly because they were ceasing dogs that were unaltered -- most of whom which were unaltered because the low-income people they were seizing them from couldn't afford the surgeries.

I've written about the numbers on my blog in the two links below -- and have the reports if you want me to email them to you if you doubt my numbers.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/06/kansas-city-bsl-mandatory-spayneuter-and-supporting-it-in-spite-of-the-evidence.html

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/03/next-up-kansas.html

These numbers are nearly identical to the problems they saw in Little Rock when they passed a similar law 6 months later:

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/little-rock/

So yeah, it is a little more complicated than you make it out to be. We could solve 1/3 of the problem if we would get rid of all of our metro-wide breed bans.

We could probably get rid of another part of the problem if we just allowed dogs to stay in homes for being unaltered instead of bringing them to the pound.

We can probably beat another 1/3 of the problem if our newly expanded low-cost spay/neuter clinic can continue to make the inroads they've made.

And we could solve the other part of it with educational outreach programs on why spay/neuter is important and somehow make dogs available to low income, minorities in the inner city so they didn't have to breed them themselves to get dogs.

Some of it takes a little time, but the part that could be done quickly is repealing the laws that people made to "fix" the problem.

PBurns said...

BT, the "Pit Bull problem" in America predates 1987 -- that's why all those restrictions went in to effect to start with.

The Pit Bull problem is pretty simple: too many fools breeding too many dogs and giving or selling those dogs to other fools who cannot or will not control them.

In fact, the Kansas City Pit Bull Alliance itself defines the problem as "the over-population of bully breed dogs in the greater Kansas City area." See >> http://www.pitbullalliance.org/

Bingo.

Sorry, but the solution to the Pit Bull problem is NOT to ignore the endless production of animals by knuckle-dragging fools.

You have LOST that argument in Kansas City and much of the rest of the nation as well.

The bottom line is that the over-supply of Pit Bulls is a breed-specific problem and it appears to require a breed-specific solution. Dogs are a right that comes with a responsibility, and in the case of Pit Bulls the responsibility that cities are requiring is that owners have their dogs spayed or neutered. If people will not spay or neuter their dogs, then they live with the consequences and those conseuquences include confiscation and euthanasia of the animal. The theory here is pretty simple: better to put one Pit Bull down and end the chain of dysfunction rather than ingnore it and put 40 of its puppies down over the next five years.

There is now FREE spay-neuter for Pit Bull in Kansas City and surrounding areas. There is NO EXCUSE for having an intact Pit Bull in the Kansas City area other than irresponsibility, stupidity and willful ignorance.

By the way, I see you simply ignored the request to look for Pitbulls in your area via PetFinder or Craig's list. I found dogs. No need to breed, eh? Nope. None at all.


P.

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

Patrick,

It's unfortunate that you are spending more time reading the dogsbite nonsense about a "breed specific problem needing a breed specific solution" and less time listening to people who actually have knowledge about the issues.

I don't need to look at petfinder or Craigslist. I KNOW how many pit bulls there are in KC that need homes and killed in the shelters every day.

Whether I've LOST the argument in Kansas City is irrelevant as to whether your proposed solution actually works (it doesn't - and in fact has been a huge failure everywhere except San Francisco which we've discussed was FAR ahead of the rest of the country when it came to offering free/low cost spay/neuter (which appears to be at least part of the real solution to the problem).

I'm very aware of the free spay/neuter clinic in KC -- and I'm also fully aware of their capacity, and the fact that their new, larger facility is less than a year old. And even then, there isn't enough capacity to deal with the problems in our urban core. But you wouldn't have any idea, because you aren't dealing with it every day.

BTW, I'd love to see some real data to support your claim that the "pit bull problem in America predates 1987." Yes, we killed millions upon millions of dogs of all breeds in the 70s and 80s, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence other some pretty dramatic news articles that pit bulls were an above average problem prior to us trying to solve the problem.

It's a shame that you have decided to follow the language of those with no dog experience vs listening to people who actually understand it. You are better than that.

PBurns said...

BT, I have been to the dogbites.org site only once. If they talk about "breed specific solutions to breed specific problems," it's news to me. So far as I know, I invented the line. A Google of the line finds no one else using it.

As for problems with Pit Bulls prior to 1987, you could always do a little research. If you did you would find this little story in the New York Times >> "Series of Pit Bull Attacks Stirs a Clamor for Laws" which can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/12/us/series-of-pit-bull-attacks-stirs-a-clamor-for-laws.html

As the NYT story notes, "Largely as a result of pit bulls, more than 600 communities have requested information on animal control ordinances from the Humane Society this year..."

There are, of course, many many many other stories that are earlier than this, with such great headlines as "Pit Bulls: Part Terrier, Part Terror" from the May 15, 1985 issue of the Chicago Tribune, or "Pit Bull Attack Inspires a Dog Ordinance With Teeth" from the May 9, 1985 issue of the Los Angeles Times, or the Miami Herald story of July 4, 1985: "Pit Bull Politics Raises Howl in S. Florida" or the Providence Journal article of Mar 23, 1985: "Grisly Evidence Shocks Panel Into Weighing Ban on Pit Bulls."

So, YES, Pit Bulls have been a problem for a long time. This is BASIC information. So too is the fact that they are STILL a problem because there are too damn many of them. That is how the Kansas City Pit Bull community defined the problem. Too. Damn. Many.

Since the Pit Bull community has no answers (you certainly don't) the cities are experimenting with mandatory spay-neuter and other ownership restrictions. If those don't work, breed bans will simply be standard operating procedure. Since the Pit Bull community has no answers other than to feed more than one million dead pit bulls a year into the maw of the incinerator while washing the blood of children off the sidewalk after another maiming, no one in the policy world is listening to folks like you anymore. They are looking for solutions. You have said you have no solutions, which makes you irrelevant as far as policy makers are concerned. Communities are GOING to find a solution, even if if means breed bans and criminalization of pit bull ownership. Obstructionists are simply going to be kicked out of the way. That is what happened in Kansas City, and it is happening all over. If free spay-neuter will not work, then look for bans and criminalization next. Doing nothing is not an option folks are going to accept.

P.

PBurns said...

BT, I just re-read this post, and was reminded that there were rules for posting. They apply to you too. Imagine.

P.

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

Patrick,

You really need to not use KC as your example -- you telling me that this is how Kansas City defined the problem is like me telling you about Terriers. It's foolish, because you know more than me on that topic. Meanwhile, I live here in KC, I know every single person personally that made the decision - -and attended every meeting. I know "Why" it was done - and overpopulation wasn't the driving force.

Now, onto the topic at hand. I'm not denying that there is a problem. And, I'm not denying that we need to find a solution. But the key to finding the solution is to actually understand the problem.

Which you don't.

The problem isn't "pit bulls" per se. The problem is a lack of education on dog ownership and breeding -- particularly among low-income people in this country -- and particularly in inner cities.

Now, for a couple of decades, 'pit bulls' have been a preferred breed for these people -- however, in other parts of the country, even that is changing, and California is having huge issues with Chihuahuas.

http://www.king5.com/news/Pop-culture-blamed-for-Californias-Chihuahua-crisis-79028472.html

Now we can dig a little more deeply into the problem and figure out that the problem is in low-income areas, many who either a) cannot adopt because rescue organizations will not adopt to them or b) an education thing about why they need to quit breeding their damn dog.

It is most likely a combination of those two problems. We can treat it as such, or we can decide that there needs to be a breed specific solution to the Chihuahua issue.

The pit bull one is worse than the chihuahua one because we have already tried to "fix" the problem with many ill-advised laws that now make them non-homeable in many areas. But the basic problem is the same: Lack of overall eduation among certain segments of the population and the unwillingness of rescues to adopt to them.

So, we are left with a couple of different scenerios. We can continue with the "breed specific solution" BS, that has had a negative impact on shelter euthanasia rate among the targeted breeds in every case except San Francisco, or we can do what has actually worked in other areas.

Unfortunately, our society doesn't seem to have an appetite for what works. What works, is instead of using animal control to punish people who don't do as we want - -make more laws, punish more people, take their dogs and kill them - -we actually have AC as mediators in the community to help EDUCATE these people. We couple that with free/low cost spay/neuter services so they can afford the services (because it is quite expensive). But instead, we have people out there who continue to push for things that are not effective - -and have proven themselves to not be effective -- as solutions to the problems. Which is ineffective, and actually harmful to the cause.

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

BTW, as far as your news articles on pit bulls being a major problem prior to 1987, I do want to counter that. News articles do not equal data. I'm looking for actual data on the topic.

But for starters, here is some of mine.

According to the Clifton report,in 1985, we killed approximately 17.8 million dogs and cats in this country -- a number that is now down to around 4 million and has been for about a decade.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19018863/Decade-of-adoption-focus-fails-to-reduce-shelter-killing-Animal-People-JulyAugust-2009

Now we could talk about the reality that we've made dramatic shifts in the shelter killing across all but two categories -- pit bulls and feral cats -- the two groups that regularly have laws regulating them.

Or we could note that it is unlikely that in 1985, pit bulls made up more than 1 million of the dogs killed in shelters then -- as they were a much smaller part of the total dog population in 1985 than they are now -- so thus, were a fairly small part of the larger problem.

If you look a tthe old CDC dog bite reports, you'll note that 'pit bulls' were a fairly small part of the overall dog bite related fatality story prior to 1987 as well (I won't get into fatalities being a statistically awful way to judge what the problem is because it is such a small total number).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19018863/Decade-of-adoption-focus-fails-to-reduce-shelter-killing-Animal-People-JulyAugust-2009

Please don't let anecdotes be data...they are not the same thing.

PBurns said...

BT you are not the brightest bulb in the string. Sorry, but there it is.

You see, if you read this post (did you?) you will see that I AM NOT saying that Pit Bulls are the problem. I am saying PIT BULL PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM -- people like you!

Entire studies have been done about how Pit Bull owners are the problem. And the problem, AS I NOTE IN THIS POST, is that fools breed Pit Bulls and too many fools own them, and too many fools cannot seem to see that this dog has breed specific problems that require breed-specific solutions.

You are not sharp enough to actually read what I wrote, however.

A case in point: I said, repeatedly that the price for posting was doing the research on Craig's list and PetFinder for Pit Bulls in your community and surrounds, but you have simply ignored that. So guess what? You get no more comments until you follow directions. None.

Sorry, but I do not want to waste my time anymore on you. And I bet I am not alone. You are clearly quite irrelevant to Pit Bull policy in Kansas City -- policy makers are not listening to you (if they ever did) because you have no answers, and are not even trying to come up with any. You are LOSING the debate, and you do not care. Which means that for you, the debate is not about the dogs. Ouch, but there it is, and out of your own mouth.

The good news for Pit Bulls is that other people are not ignoring the real Pit Bull problem, nor are they trying to cast it into the abyss of the unsolveable; they are trying to stop the mindless over-breeding of these dogs and stop the reckless acquisition of these dogs as puppies which are then abandoned as young dogs. They are also trying to stop the maulings. You? So far as I can tell, your goal is to object to any and every solution that is being tried and cry "canine racism" whenever anyone notes that more than half the serious maulings in this country are from Pit Bulls and so too are more than 40% of all canine euthanasias. Your answer to these breed specific problems is that there can be no breed-specific solutions, and there can be no heightened responsibility for Pit Bull owners. And you know what the world has said? They have said "Bullshit. Get out of the way." And they are right. A solution will be found, but it will surely be found without you.

P.

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

Ok, let me back track here. Because I would love for this to be a good dialogue instead of a series of insults hailed at each other (although most of them do appear to be hailed toward me).

If it makes you happy, here is the link to petfinder for my zip code.

http://www.petfinder.com/search/search.cgi?pet.Animal=Dog&pet.Breed=pit+bull&pet.Age=&pet.Size=&pet.Sex=&location=64109

Yes, there are hundreds of them -- most of them at rescues I either currently, or have recently, done volunteer work for or given money to. I've never argued that they were there. I know they are -- because I live it, every day.

(BTW, Craigslist is not well used in KC for whatever reason, across all categories -- so a search there gets you only a handful of people wanting tickets to see the rapper Pit Bull -- but nothing about dogs -- but here's the link if you need verification: http://kansascity.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=pit+bull&catAbbreviation=sss&minAsk=min&maxAsk=max

Now that that is out of the way, it doesn't change the realities of what I'm talking about. My current foster dog -- that I am fostering for the Mid America Bully breed rescue (you can see them starting on page 3 of the link) - is in my home because he was confiscated from a home because of the city's breed ban. Any other breed of dog and it is allowed to live happily with his former owner (heck, the dog even has its CGC), but because a city wanted a "breed specific solution" he is now a part of problem you think the breed specific solution should help fix.

So to deny that the laws are at least PART of the problem is just ignoring reality. They are. I can provide you detailed Chameleon reports that prove it.

Now, I'm not denying that ignorant people who are breeding the dogs are also part of the problem (but not solely).

So let's talk solutions. What is it that you propose? I know you don't favor breed bans. But Breed specific Spay/Neuter? I've provided links above to the numbers from Kansas City and Little Rock that have the ordinaces and they are hurting the situation, not helping. I know San Francisco's appears to be working, but as we've discussed before here, that seems to be because San Francisco has a highly developed low-cost spay/neuter program that existed before the law was enacted.

Meanwhile, when you do MSN for all dogs, you end up with a situation like they have in Los Angeles -- where confiscations go up, and thus, euthanasia goes up. Here's the numbers for LA:

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/01/los-angeles-mandatory-spayneuter-year-1.html

So, with San Francisco being the lone exception, we have MSN for all dogs causing euthanasia to go up. When we do it for just Pit Bulls in KC and Little Rock, euthanasia for pit bulls goes up.

The answer appears to be instead of investing the money in enforcing breed specific laws, investing the money in outreach programs and low-cost spay/neuter programs is a viable solution to the problem - that has worked in other places -- where the laws haven't anywhere wihtout the well-developed spay/neuter programs.

So what am I missing? What would YOU propose as the solution? If you provide a record of success for the program to back up your propsal, that would be great? Again, I'd love to hear it, because I would want nothing more than to solve this problem with viable solutions that don't end in more killing.

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

So you would recommend an ordinance that is failing in three of the four cities it has been tried (I forgot to include Omaha -- but here's more on Omaha's mess:

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/08/targeting-the-wrong-people-defining-success-and-a-lack-of-public-information-case-study-omaha.html

I agree with the free Spay/neuter for pits. Heck, if the funds could be available, I'd recommend it for dogs for all people of qualifying income levels. The problem just seems to be -- based on the actual case studies -- that enforcement is not a preferred alternative to actually HELPING people with the problem.

And it is an education (and financial) problem for people in certain target demographics -- that may be pit bulls in many places, but may also be chihuahuas in other areas.

I've covered the topic a lot in different pieces over the years -- but never in one cohesive post -- which I vow to do in the coming weeks when I get caught up on some other stuff. But you won't love the post, because you and I define the problem differently -- and one of us has seen the problem and lived it every day for the past 5 years, and one of us hasn't.

PBurns said...

What I would propose is MANDATORY spay-neuter for Pits and FREE spay-neuter for Pits.

And it YES IT IS WORKING in San Francisco.

Your "yeah but.." to this success sounds a lot like the "yeah buts..." that occured with No Kill in San Fracisco.

Of course, NO KILL is now all over and it is now acknowledged that San Francisco is NOT "different."


Yes, that's right: I am putting you in the bucket with Wayne Pacelle, PRTA and and HSUS on this one; slow to see success, unwilling to look to how to kindle and build on the the flame of that succes, and stuck on doing what you have always done and happy to get the same results.

Now back to WHAT THIS POST WAS REALLY ABOUT, which is that there are TOO MANY PITBULLS and the reason all those Pit Bulls are crowding PetFinder and Craig's list, the local newspaper penny shoppers, etc. is that Pit Bull "lovers" are breeding them and Pit Bull "lovers" are buying puppies in haste and abandoning them in leisure.

Have you written THAT post and documented the national kill rate for Pits created by all those Pit Bull lovers? Because THAT's the problem -- over 2,400 dead Pit Bulls day, bred by Pit Bull "lovers" and ABANDONED by Pit Bull "lovers". So far as I know that is a post you have yet to write. Yet, if you chase it around and go to PetFinder and Craig's list, there is rhe reality staring you in the face, four feet and wagging tail. Those dogs are not being bred and ABANDONED by haters -- they are the FAILURE of people like you -- the Pit Bull "lovers" who will not change a losing game in order to save the lives of nearly a million dogs a year, over 2,400 Pit Bulls a day.

By the way, you know who has the lowest Pit Bull kill rate to population rate? Denver. That's a ban city, and it's where America is going because the Pit Bull community will not accept the fact that Pit Bulls require ENFORCED AND ENABLED RESPONSIBILITY.

P.

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

Also, one more question for you - because this is one that I am having a much harder time answering for myself.

I think we both agree that at least part of the problem with pit bulls centers around people in our urban cores that have affinity for the breeds, but will wrecklessly breed for a few bucks, or don't have the financial resources to spay/neuter their dogs.

In an ideal world, I think, is that we could get these people to adopt animals from rescues vs buying from the dude down the street. However, because many of these people are "high risk" for violent activities with these dogs, most rescues will not adopt to them. Do you have a solution that would allow rescues and shelters -- who have a surplus of dogs -- to get dogs into these homes where there is demand, all the while, minimizing the risks of the dogs getting used for illegal activities, or being involved in violent behavior that will lead to more places wanting to put restrictions on the dogs? It seems as if there is opportunity to match the supply with the demand in a productive way....

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

BTW, if you want to go the route of the No Kill movement, and what has led to success in the places that have had success with No Kill like in Charlottesville, VA; and Reno, NV (BTW, San Francisco is no longer no kill) - -maybe you should read up on what the founder of the movement has to say about mandatory laws:

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf

His comments on it mirror exactly what we've seen here in Kansas City?

So who is not building on the flame of success?

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

One other note -- and sorry this is so scattered but you updated your comment while I was commenting.

Denver -- notice that Denver does have a very low pit bull kill rate because of their ban. But are they on the list of cities that are no kill? Far from it. See, they're still killing dogs in the shelter, they're just not killing pit bulls. Which means they have still failed to educate the right segment of the population, and provide adequate spay/neuter options for that segment. They've just changed the breed involved.

So yes, let's focus on what No Kill cities have done -- and none of them, to date, have instituted mandatory spay/neuter on any level.

PBurns said...

Since you ignored my question, I assume you have NO post about how all those pit bulls that are killed are being bred by Pit Bull lovers and are being ABANDONED by Pit Bull lovers.

You have NO POSTS on the core of the problem?

Amazing.

How about posts on how mandatory Pit Bull spay neuter and free Pit Bull spay-neuter IS WORKING in San Francisco? No?

How about any posts on how it might work better in time as they figure out how to augment it and tweak it?

No?

Why is this not your #1 post today and every day?

Where is your post on the fact that Pit Bulls deaths are down in Denver, as are ALL canine euthanasias in that city? No celebration for less death?

As for scum bags and criminals, the goal is not to get them to own a dog they will abandon, it's to UNSELL dog ownership to them and most other people too. Unselling dog ownership needs to be done for ALL breeds, but especially "macho" and toy breeds.

Let me ask you a question: Have you ever really known someone who fights dogs? Because I have. These folks are not getting these big dogs because they love dogs in general -- they are getting these dogs for a status symbol, and as an alternative to a real personality, and perhaps as a money-maker or as an intimidating equalizer. Most of the time they get bored with the dog and it ends up on a chain for a year, and then it disappears somewhere. It's like a Harley Davidison -- a crappy motorcycle that only sells because of the bullshit image that is attached to it. A Harley rider is not looking for transportation -- he's looking to make a statement. Ditto for most of the wanna be thugs with big dogs.

If, however, you are suggesting there should be a criminal background check to own a Pit Bull, I would certainly salute that. The research shows that people with law problems disproportionately gravitate to Pit Bulls. That's a breed specific problem that may require a breed-specific solution. If we can remove a felon's right to vote or own a gun, we sure as hell can remove his right to own a Pit Bull. Yes! Let's get that one done! Good idea!

P.

PBurns said...

Of course, a ban may be the way to go. Apparently it works too.

Looking around for success, I found a scribd link which gives the following information about bans. I checked the top one, and it's right. Bites are down and euthanasias too.

How about you report out on the other cities? Yes, that's right. See if this has been a solution for these places. Why has it worked for them? What can or should be replicated??

_ __ _ _ __ _ _

Prince George's County, MD - "According to county statistics, 36 pit bull bites, out of 619 total dog bites, were recorded in 2008, down from 95 pit bull bites, out of a total of 853, in 1996. "

Ft. Lupton, CO - "Fort Lupton Police Chief Ron Grannis said the city hasn’t had a pit bull bite since the ban was enacted."

Wapato, WA - "Nine months into the ban and police calls about vicious dogs have been cut in half."

Little Rock, AK - "There was a day when you could walk down any street in center city Little Rock, you could see several pit bulls chained up. You don't see that anymore," said Tracy Roark with Little Rock Animal Services. Roark told Eyewitness News over the phone that pit bull attacks have been cut in half and
credits their new law with getting them there."

Redding, PA - Though this law was voted out due Pennsylvania's statewide Anti-BSL provision, "The law is credited with helping to reduce dog bites from 130 in 1999 to 33 in 2006. Reading city manager Leon Churchill said the total number of bites has fallen so low that no breeds are currently classified as dangerous."

Toronto, Canada - After Ontario enacted its pit bull ban, "reports of bites by pit bull type dogs have dropped dramatically. In 2004, the animal services department received reports about 130 of the powerful animals biting humans and animals. The numbers dropped by substantial increments in subsequent years: 71 in 2005; 53 in 2006; and 44 in 2007."

Springfield, MO - "Since the implementation of the Pit Bull Ordinance in the City of Springfield two years ago. In 2005 the health department fielded 18 vicious dog complaints, but only eight in 2007. Bites were down from 102 in 2005 to 87 in 2007."

Denver, CO - After the City of Denver's pit bull ban went back into effect in 2005, pit bull bites drop dramatically: 39 in 2005, 14 in 2006 and only 9 in 2007.

Council Bluffs, IA - "The Council Bluffs pit bull ordinance went into effect in January 2005. Bauermeister said there were 29 pit bull attacks on people
in 2004, 12 in 2005, six in 2006, two in 2007 and none so far this year."

Manteca, CA - After passing a law that mandated pit bull sterilization, it was reported: "We haven't had any problems in terms of enforcing the ordinance, and people have been pretty responsive when it comes to complying," said Bull."

San Francisco, CA - 18 months after enacting a mandatory pit bull sterilization law, the city impounded 21 percent fewer pit bulls and the number of pit bulls euthanized dropped 24 percent.

Salinas, KS - After enacting a pit bull ban, the number of registered pit bulls decreased by 43%. Though animal bites remained constant in the years following the ban, the severity of bites decreased dramatically.


P.

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

I'm laughing a bit at your scribd link because I know the source (because I recognize the wrong postal abreviation for Arkansas). Not exactly the most unbiased source who is clearly trying to support a point of view.

Notice how most of them pass bans, then just note their number of pit bull attacks instead of total dog attacks - because most see no decrease in total dog attacks. Some have seen it in the short term, but see it go back up after all of the idiots get other breeds of dogs.

I've posted the link to Little Rock (which has all the actual numbers if you choose to actually go read it).

Here's a link to the Denver numbers -- you'll note that pit bulls have never made up more than a tiny percentage of their dog bites there -- the fact that they're still paying to enforce their breed ban, or ever did for that matter, looks absurd with these numbers:

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/DogPitBitesDenver_chart.jpg

My San Francisco links above give you the dog bite numbers there.

Here are the full numbers for Council Bluffs, if you're interested.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2008/06/some-thoughts-and-clarification-about-omaha.html

But whatever, at this point you have decided to change the argument to whatever fits your need to support your point of view.

PBurns said...

Actually, BT, it's you that IGNORED the topic of this post from the beginning, IGNORED the instructions on this post from the beginning.

To summarize ....

Blah, blah blah, there is nothing we can do.

Waaaaahh! It's discriminatory to try to stop the breeding of Pit Bulls that are not needed or to require standards so the dogs acquired in haste are not abandoned by fools.

Boo-hoo, weepy weepy, the POOR OWNERS who might be required to spay-neuter their dogs.

Deathly silence (not a mention) when it comes to the nearly ONE MILLION DEAD PIT BULLS killed every year by breeders who breed 'em and puppy buyers who abandon them when they are less than two years old.

I once rejected a breed ban. Now I understand why more cities are looking into it. It might work (it has in some places), and it's not like the Pit Bull community is offering any solutions, right? Thanks for clarifying that!

Now, having BORED THE HELL OUT OF ME, and having wasted far too much of my time, I am ending this thread because it had a simple point to make, and it made it a long time ago.


P

6p00d83451f90869e2 said...

It's your blog, so obviously you get to do what you want. But it's pretty evident you didn't read my comments and take them serious.

I never said there was nothing we could do -- I just said the problem is more complex than you think it is.

I never said it was discriminatory to stop the breeding of pit bulls -- only that the majority of cities who have done so have had the opposite effect as you would expect (with the links to hte actual data).

I even said all along that that I thought owners SHOULD spay/neuter their dogs -- but that we should do it through education and not laws -- because laws have the wrong effect.

I mentioned on multiple occassions that I KNOW too many pit bulls are killed in shelters -- but said (with links again) that the problem was more complex than you think it is.

I offered solutions. Hell, you even mentioned the solutions in terms of following the No Kill Model - which opposes your point of view on BSL/MSN because it doesn't work.

I've bored the hell out of you because you are too interested in having an opinion and less interested in actual learning.

In one post, and 9 comments, you've not posted a single link to another source that supports your point of view. The two links you've provided are from an organization in KC that has been non-exitent for 4 years and to a newspaper article that is 22 years old.

Sadly, it has been me wasting MY time by thinking you cared about the actual data and facts.

My bad.