With the nightmare that so many places have created in large part because of their breed-specific policies, it is a wonder that any city would even consider such a failed approach. But the failures of the ordinances have certainly causing a few places to take a closer look at their BSL and consider potential appeals -- just like Oak Harbor, WA did.
Ontario
In 2003, Ontario became the first major area of Canada to pass a ban on particular breeds of dogs. Next Wednesday, MPP Cheri DiNovo plans to introduce a bill that would keep the Dog Owner's Liability Act with one major change, which is to get rid of the breed-specific part of the ordinance.
Fred over at One Bark at a Time has an exclusive interview with DiNovo (it's a rough audio file, but well worth the time you'd spend listening). In here interview with Fred, she calls the law "ill conceived" talks about the many problems with the law's breed-specific measures including:
1) How the law is being enforced sporadically because of the over-broad definition in the law
2) The difficulty in determining which dogs fit the criteria
3) The unnecessary killing of thousands of healthy, well-behaved animals
She also notes that the breed specific law has not provided more safety to citizens (even citing that bites and deaths have actually gone up since the ordinance was put in place).
DiNovo also did a radio interview with Newstalk1010 that along with the sponsoring of the bill, will play a role in changing public perceptions and educating them about the problems with the breed ban.
If you are in Ontario, you can support her sponsorship of the bill next Wednesday, November 18th at Queen's Park.
Best of luck to Ms. DiNovo and the citizens of Ontario.
Sioux City, IA
Mayor Mike Hobart of Sioux City, IA thinks it's time for the council to tweak the city's controversial dangerous dog law.
The city passed it's dangerous dog law -- which includes a ban on 'pit bulls' -- in March of 2008, and it has been a huge black-eye and distraction for the city. Problems have included:
- animal control actively targeting people who spoke out against the ordinance at city hall
- the local veterinarian community announcing they would not help them with breed identification
-- issues stemming from paperwork people were forced to sign that was forcing them to admit guilt -- a violation of the 5th amendment of the US Constitution
- a city council member's Labrador Retriever biting a jogger, ending up being put on death row, and subsequently getting stolen from the shelter
-- led to a civil suit being filed against the city about the arbitrary nature of the enforcement of the law
-- and led to one of the council members who voted for the law, Jim Rixner, to be voted out of office last week in their most recent election (two others did not seek re-election)
Mayor Hobart said in front of his colleagues, "I have a perspective, having gone through this whole process. I do think there are several tweeks needed."
No timeline is set for when they will discuss, but they did determine to wait until the new council took over. Congrats to the folks in Sioux City for making their voices heard, and counted at the polls.
Toledo
Time might be winding down on Tom Skeldon's deadly reign as Dog Warden in Lucas County. I documented many of Skeldon's failings yesterday, but TODAY, Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop plans to urge his fellow commissioners to either fire, or demote, Skeldon.
"If you're killing innocent dogs, I think that inherently is cause for termination," said Konop.
Konop also called for Tom Skeldon's first cousin, Tina Skeldon Wozniak, who is also on the county commissioners to recuse herself from all future votes involving Mr. Skeldon because he doubted she could maintain impartiality. "Due to the integrity of the process I think she should recuse herself", he said.
Meanwhile, the Toledo Blade, the newspaper of record, had an editorial today encouraging the commission to terminate Skeldon.
End Skeldon's Reign
IF TOM Skeldon were a dog in his own pound, he would have been euthanized a long time ago. No longer a pup, he is obsessive, stubborn, and incapable of learning to modify his behavior, and it is time for the Lucas County commission to end the dog warden's reign of terror so the county can take a new direction in animal control that focuses on saving dogs as well as protecting county residents.
Where is Toledo's heart?
Each day it is more obvious that 22 years as dog warden has closed Mr. Skeldon's mind and narrowed his vision. He pays lip service to new ideas but is incapable of seeing any way other than his way, which is to kill as many dogs as the law allows.
And it appears that all of the readers of the Blade agree with their sentiment. It looks like the clock may be ticking for Tom Skeldon.
It should also be noted that Skeldon was one of only a couple of "experts" that were brought in by Michael Bryant to testify in Ontario on behalf of their breed ban in 2003. Meanwhile, Bryant has had his own set of problems.
It was a tough night for local politicians who favored Breed Specific Legislation throughout the country yesterday.
In Whitehall, OH, Jaquelin Thompson was voted out of office on a recall vote with 75% of voters saying she should be removed from office. Thompson was responsible for not once, but twice, trying to ban pit bulls in the community of Whitehall. She was removed from office two years before her term was up. Also in Whitehall, the only other council member who voted in favor of a ban on 'pit bulls' when it came up for a vote last year, Leslie LaCorte, was also voted out of office in favor of Van Gregg. LaCorte got only 41% of the vote.
(Special thanks to my friends at Help Fido for their Twitter updates last night to keep me up to speed on the latest news in Whitehall).
Meanwhile in Sioux City, IA, incumbant Jim Rixner who supported the city's breed ban last fall was voted out of office. Even Rixner admits that the new dog ordinance most likely cost him the election:
"The vote was split because people were angry about dog ordinances and the Chamber's furious effort to make sure I didn't get re-elected," said Rixner, who was running for his second term on council.
Both he and Rappolt received endorsements from labor organizations, but Rixner said he believes a lot of people "plunked" for Rappolt "because they wanted to see the (vicious) dog ordinance changed."
Rixner supported passage of a stricter vicious dog law and endorsed the pit bull ban, defending both votes during the campaign."
These politicians have followed others around the country, in places like Kansas City, MO; Merriam, KS; Raytown, MO; Overland Park, KS; and Omaha, NE who have been voted out of office shortly after their irresponsible dog legislation was passed -- or, after they proposed a ban on particular breeds of dogs in their city and it did not pass.
People are becoming increasingly aware of the realitities of Breed Bans - -and that they are costly to cities, impossible to enforce, ineffective, and not based on rational decision-making. It ignores all science and the public positions of every single nationally-respected organization that has expertise in canine/human interactions.
And because of this, people are beginning to consistently vote politicians out of office who favor this irresponsible legislation. And I've written about it before, but I do think that BSL can serve as a pretty solid litmus test for candidates.
And hats off to the people in these communities who are taking a stand against irresponsible legislation and the politicians who support it. We can make a difference by being involved politically and getting politcians in office who are animal-friendly.
If you're not involved politically, you are no longer a victim of what politicians do to you, you're a participant.
Last fall, Sioux City hurried through a process, and ignored their local experts, and passed a new law regarding dogs in their community. Among the laws was a ban on "pit bulls", and a changed policy on how the city dealt with "dangerous" dogs -- that all dogs accused of biting would be euthanized -- with no options for transfering the dogs from the city.
The city has had it's share of problems with the laws, including getting people to sign paperwork that signed over their guilt (which is unconstitutional), the local vet community deciding not to help them with breed identification for enforcing their 'pit bull' ban, animal control targeting those who spoke out against the ordinance (another violation of the constitution), and having one of the first dogs that was declared dangerous by the city for biting someone after the ordinance was passed being alabrador belonging to a city council member who was responsible for passing the law in the first place -- a dog that was later stolen from the city shelter.
So why would I not be surprised that the city is facing even MORE problems with their ordinance.
Currently, there are six people who have filed civil suits against the city for what they say were arbitrary decisions about the dogs beign "dangerous". So while these suits tie up the court system, the dogs remain in the shelter for sim months to up to two years at a time on doggie death row waiting for the hearings to take place.
"I think the city does have to be concerned about it because animal control's having to provide shelter for these dogs and it's just something that's going to continue until there's some kind of resolution to it," said Martha McMinn, the attorney for the owners of the dogs. "Everyone agrees you shouldn't have vicious dogs out there biting people but this is so arbitrary."
Dogs affected by the new ordinance, including those confiscated due to the ban on 'pit bulls' now take up about 1/3 of the 52 kennel spaces in the Sioux City Animal Control Shelter and the shelter is struggling with overcrowding. "We're running out of room" said Cindy Rarrat, owner of the Sioux City Shelter.
Also interesting is that of the 6 dogs waiting on doggie death row, only one is actually a 'pit bull' -- with the others being a German Shepherd Mix, a Shar Pei, a Siberian Husky and a Great Dane. So why were 'pit bulls' singled out again? They make up only a small percentage of the dogs that are accused of biting.
Meanwhile, the amount of money the taxpayers are now paying for court rulings, holding the dogs, etc is mounting up tremendously.
"It's just a bad law and people are waking up to a lot of that," said Dennis Cloud, the owner of one of the dogs on death row.
I couldn't agree more.
