shel

Calgary Dog Attacks Fall to Lowest Levels in 25 Years May 19, 2009 By Lynn Ready, Best Friends Network Volunteer Holding reckless owners responsible for dog's behavior—not BDL—works! Communities that have enacted Breed Discriminatory Legislation (BDL) in an attempt to lower dog bites can take lessons from Calgary, Canada. Calgary, a city in Canada, has significantly reduced dog bite incidents without enacting BDL. Instead they have established humane education programs, and work closely with local animal rescue groups and various city/government departments to identify and penalize reckless owners. Despite Calgary’s steady population growth (from 600,000 to 1.1 million between 1984 and 2008) and the absence of BDL, attacks by aggressive dogs are the lowest they've been in 25 years. Calgary Holds Reckless Owners, Not Dogs, Responsible “Everything goes back to responsible pet ownership,” says Bill Bruce, Director of Animal Bylaw Services in Calgary. In 2006 his team incorporated the bylaw which holds owners responsible for their dog’s behavior. Bruce says there are four things that are absolutely essential to lowering dog bites: 1. Licensing and permanent pet ID. 2. Easily accessible spay/neuter programs. 3. Training, socialization, grooming and food—basic needs for a dog to feel safe and comfortable. 4. Proper supervision to prevent a pet becoming a nuisance in the community. Calgary law has a provision that prohibits leaving a dog unattended. An unattended dog tied to a sign or bicycle rack can become scared and bite out of fear. Also, dogs are never allowed to be chained or tethered outside the house unless someone is home. The city doesn’t treat dog bites lightly—a minor bite is a $350 fine and a serious offense is $1,500. This common sense approach is luring many of Ontario’s residents who live in areas that have breed bans to move to Calgary. Calgary is simply a dog friendly municipality that is working together to do things right. In fact, Calgary’s Annual Citizen Satisfaction Survey results show that over 91% of residents rated Animal Services as "good" or "very good." Humane Education Proves Effective The city of Calgary organizes many public speaking programs to teach owners about their pets. These programs address how to properly socialize a dog and understand dog behaviors and needs. The program has even been incorporated into school curriculums—both public and private. Programs/classes include bite prevention, dogs in society, laws in society, and a junior bylaw project in which kids identify problems in their community. Investigating Problem Behaviors Bruce says they spend a lot of time trying to “understand animals.” If a dog bites, for example, the team goes into the house and asks questions such as: Where did the dog come from? Are there children in the house? Where are the dog’s parents? What are the dog’s triggers? Investigators even give the dog a medical exam to make sure it isn’t suffering from an underlying health problem. In addition, investigators will visit another home in the area with the same breed that hasn’t bitten and thoroughly investigate what that owner is doing right. Again, as Bruce says, it all comes down to responsible pet ownership. Incidentally, Bruce notes that one of their top “biters” is border collies and not “bully breeds.” This type of investigation certainly entails high costs, but Bruce says those are all taken care of through licensing. Dog owners pay licensing fees (slightly higher rates for unaltered dogs) and those fees go toward the cost for the humane education and other services. American Pit Bull Terriers on the Rise in Calgary Brandy Campbell-Biggs, President of Pit Bulls for Life, a non-profit animal rescue operation geared specifically toward pit bulls, says targeting bad owners instead of stigmatizing entire breeds is the key to reducing aggressive incidents. She says that while dog bites have been going down, the number of pit bulls coming to the city has actually been increasing. A Community Working Together Ed Fritz, Best Friends campaign specialist for pit bulls, Saving America’s Dog, says, “The good news coming out of Calgary goes to show what can happen when a community is serious and diligent about safety instead of reactionary like so many United States communities in regards to dog ordinances.” He adds, “When members of a community —in this case the post office, humane society, rescue groups and government—work together to identify dangerous dogs and hold dog owners accountable for the management and care for their dogs, a safe humane community is the result. This is something that Best Friends and many other groups are advocating.” Ledy VanKavage, senior legislator at Best Friends summed it up with the following. “American cities can learn a valuable lesson from Calgary. They take a community policing approach to animal control. Their animal control wardens get out of the trucks and work with folks—educating them. Their wardens have degrees in criminal justice and training in problem solving, and they don't view their job as simply catching animals.” For More Information • Read the news story about Calgary’s approach to dangerous dogs. • Join the Stop BDL community for more information on how you can help put an end to breed discrimination.

Wise words as always M - and I think the point of an article that is this deliberately polarising, is exactly that. People in the industry take notice, look at the two ideas, examine them critically then work to solutions that can work in the 'real world'. Nathan doesn't have all the answers - but we do.

Discussing an article like this online is the definition of examining it critically, wouldn't you say The 'don't pick on us, we're the good guys - go do something useful like fight dog fighters' is an interesting comeback until you consider only a teensy tiny number of pitbulls and pitty crosses have been involved in dog fighting. The overwhelming majority having never seen abuse in their lives and are in fact, pets. I think what this article is really picking up on is simply the law of unintended consequences; like that time you found out people were drowing cats in hessian bags so you ran an article in the paper on why it was illegal, only to have kitten drownings go up for a time (have experienced that one personally) No one is saying 'disband the program' but they are saying 'are we inadvertantly perpetuating myths about pitbulls and strengthening the legislation around keeping them by subscribing to the idea that they are in fact 'special''. :)shel

Nope. Breaking a law doesn't challenge it.

I would consider the leap from cross-posting an article and thoughts from another country; to wishing the demise of the entire rescue industry for kicks, as a bit of a leap, wouldn't you? (this) This idea that by posting a concept means I'm completely blinded to every other facet is exactly the opposite of why I posted this piece. I'm not threatened by thoughts. Keep em, chuck em - its totally up to you. But if we only talked about the ones that didn't upset our delicate sensibilities, then where would we be? Nothing great ever came from consensus.

Nope - you've missed it. I'm saying that shelters subscribing to and enforcing BSL is wrong and should be challenged.

Similar but different as there is no government legislation mandating the destruction of all of your breed, their crosses and anything that looks anything like a greyhound should they fail to make the grade to get into your program. What you've described; you, I or any breed lover starting a breed specific program which picks the 'cream of the crop' to act as advocates for the breed, supporting owners, promoting adoption; is a very noble cause. Power to anyone who wants to do it. But what this essay is talking about is councils getting off the hook by saying "we don't have BSL - we're working with a pitbull advocacy group" - then automatically killing any of those not inducted into the program. No rescue, no potential adopter seeing them in the pound... nadda. If we assume that the temperament test to get into this program is more stringent than one for the regular pound population (yes?) we're effectively saying 'we'll save the labrador who gets a 65%, but we'll absolutely no questions asked, kill any pitbull that gets less than say, 95% That's BSL. I for one believe that all dogs should be tested on their individual personality and merit and not their breed. Which is why I feel killing those dogs who fail to make it into these programs, but whom are still healthy and adoptable, simply because they're not a labrador is wrong.

Agree to disagree. I think it was an article and a premise worth debating.

I think what the author is trying to say is; is labrador, is poodle, is mastiff, is pitbull... is dog And that all dogs, regardless of breed, deserve the same temperament testing and an equal playing field. The idea that a dog of certain breed must be more 'special' before they deserve a chance at being saved, is perverse if we're going to make the assumption that all breeds are equal and non is more dangerous (the whole premise of anti-BSL advocacy). Tomato, tomatoe. You say diatribe - I say 'thought piece'. I don't believe there is any shame, nor should there be is examining the way different programs are run. He is examining the whole 'pitbull ambassador program' idea as it stands in the US - not attacking any particular group. This idea that because rescue are working with good hearts and therefore working without fault, or should be somehow immune from examination is not only unrealistic, its unhelpful. Only by discussions such as this thread can we examine our ideas and test their merit. Our strength will come not from always being right, but from constantly challenging our thinking.

The Pit Bull Ambassador Program: Old Dogma, New Package Everywhere you look, it seems that Pit Bulls are being sold out. They are the voiceless victims of dogfighters. They are exploited by the media looking for a sensational story. Self-serving politicians pass legislation demanding their systematic destruction while wrapping themselves in the mantel of public safety. Groups like PETA call for automatic death sentences for those in shelters, while other groups like HSUS promote policies which lead to killing them in various contexts. Shelters like the one in Multnomah County, Oregon, temperament test them to death, falsely claiming the vast majority of them are “unadoptable. ” And self-proclaimed experts like Sue Sternberg advocate that even if they are friendly, they can’t be trusted around children and other animals and thus should be killed anyway. Add poorly performing shelters who find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it, and the chances of Pit Bulls getting out of shelters alive are formidable. Just as often, however, those selling them out are those who claim to be their friends. They say they advocate for Pit Bulls, while pursuing policies that allow for the majority of them to be killed. The new catchphrase in this kind of pro-Pit Bull killing apologia is “ambassador for the breed.” “The goal,” according to a shelter with a Pit Bull ambassador program, “is to debunk myths associated with the breed.” The idea is to adopt out only “perfect” Pit Bulls so that when they are in the community, they can show people that the Pit Bull can be a model dog they need not fear. According to one shelter with a “model” Pit Bull ambassador program, “Dogs who make it into this program undergo extensive health and temperament screenings before they are adopted out.” A dog must score 100 percent on the following tests to become an “ambassador” and thus make it out of the shelter alive: 1. Accept a friendly stranger; 2. Sit politely for petting; 3. Appearance and grooming; 4. Walk on a loose leash; 5. Walk through a crowd; 6. Sit, down, and stay on command; 7. Come when called; 8. Reaction to another dog; 9. Reaction to distractions; and, 10. Supervised separation. What happens to those dogs not deemed “perfect”? While some ambassador programs allow for less than perfect dogs to be adopted and simply withhold the label “ambassador,” many shelters adopt them out only if they meet the mandates of the program. In other words, these shelters kill Pit Bulls who are not “perfect,” even if they are friendly. In that context, the “ambassador” program creates yet another excuse to kill the vast majority of these dogs. And while this program is billed as a way of “debunking the myths” associated with these dogs, in practice, it actually perpetuates them. It sets Pit Bulls apart from other dogs, perpetuating the idea that they are different and potentially dangerous. It perpetuates the idea that their lives matter less than other dogs and that killing them is acceptable. It sets the bar so high that it perpetuates the paradigm wherein the majority of Pit Bulls can and should be killed. In other words, they have to sit, stay, come when called or die—something we would never accept as a standard for other dogs in shelters. This is simply another way of blaming the victim, of blaming the killing on the dogs themselves—rather than on those actually doing the killing in spite of alternatives. To protect public safety, we cannot include truly aggressive dogs in shelter adoption programs, Pit Bull or otherwise. But it is a far jump from that reality to a premise that says dogs that pull too hard on the leash must die. If in their excitement, they greet by jumping on you, they die. If they do not sit politely while being petted, they die. In other words, the “ambassador for the breed” program does little more than provide shelters that kill the vast majority of Pit Bulls with a “seal of approval” from supposed advocacy groups. With no criteria to determine whether the program is changing public perception, no timetables for evaluating it, no clearly defined, quantifiable goals as to what success is, and no suggestion of when it can be expanded to Pit Bulls deemed “less than perfect”, the ambassador program may delay the time when the vast majority are saved, To be effective advocates, we must challenge—rather than sanction—ideas which institutionalize killing. Rather than start with the prevailing paradigm of killing and embrace an incremental approach by beginning with saving a few “perfect” dogs, we must start with the goal of ending their killing and embrace the programs and services which will get us there. In other words, the Pit Bull ambassador program gets it backward. The program also ignores a basic reality that roughly nine out of ten Pit Bulls already debunk the myths in that they are not aggressive. According to national Temperament Testing results, about 87% of owned Pit Bull-type dogs are friendly. The numbers in a shelter environment are similar. About nine out of ten Pit Bull-type dogs should pass a fair evaluation for aggression (In Tompkins County, while I was the director, it was 86% in 2002). Some of these dogs will obey commands, some won’t. Some will eat your kid’s breakfast when no one is looking, some will think all shoes are dog toys, some will poop in the house, some will dig up your garden, some will take over the bed when you go to the bathroom in the middle of the night, some will greet you by jumping up on you with muddy paws when you are wearing your Sunday best, some will be shy, some will pull too hard on the leash, some will think that—though they weigh 80 pounds—they can sit on your lap and then shift around to get more comfortable. But none of them will be aggressive. All of them are dogs worthy of being saved. And thus, all of them are ambassadors for the breed in showing that they are not the mean, vicious breeds that they are made out to be. Right now, the overwhelming majority of Pit Bulls that end up in shelters are killed. And the majority of them are friendly. The only difference between a shelter which simply kills them and one that claims to promote ambassador programs is the seal of approval to the killing that the latter provides. In the end, the notion undermines the basic foundation of the No Kill movement that every animal who can be saved must be saved. Our duty is to expose the myths and disproven dogmas which have allowed for the unnecessary and cruel slaughter of two million dogs every year in our nation’s shelters, including Pit Bulls. Rather than dismantle this deadly paradigm, those defending the breed by promoting the “Pit Bull Ambassador” approach actually create a new rationale for the killing of “adoptable” animals and perhaps, worse of all, officially sanctioned it. The “ambassador” approach buys into the idea that the lives of individual animals are not paramount. That these individuals can be sacrificed for what we perceive to be the greater good: the lives of a few we deem “perfect.” Ultimately, it is simply repackaging “catch and kill” sheltering in a new fuzzy label: “ambassadors for the breed.” Facts, figures, comprehensive adoption programs, and passionate, unyielding advocacy on their behalf is needed to undo the years of misinformation and abuse by which Pit Bulls have suffered. Challenging the status quo and exposing hypocrisy is not easy and never pleasant, but that is what we must do for Pit Bulls. Simplistic, superficial gimmicks which sanction the harmful ideas we are supposed to be fighting and sacrifice the lives we are supposed to be saving violate our core duty to the dogs. How can we expect to change the attitudes regarding these dogs if their advocates are willing to sell them out? Rather than embrace a program based on the flawed and deadly idea that it is acceptable to sacrifice the many to save a tiny few, how about treating them just like dogs and working to save all of them? After all, “Pit Bulls are just dogs. Four legs, two eyes, one heart.” (Delise, Karen, The Pit Bull Placebo, Anubis Publishing, 2007.) We should treat them that way. That is what compassion and justice dictate. And that must be the first premise of our advocacy on their behalf Read more at www.thenokillnation.com. http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1103

Stuff that works (and a great blog if you want a good full story on the implementation, then repeals of BSL in the US) Calgary does it right... http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/200...-incidents.html Edited to add: more stuff on their program can be found here: http://staging.network.bestfriends.org/cs/...bill-bruce.aspx http://network.bestfriends.org/news/print.aspx?np=30060

Lols... so kyoot!

http://www.vidivodo.com/249570/pittbul-ve-kedi

There's a comment blog here - should we have a mixed breed ban on dangerous dogs? FTW? http://blogs.thewest.com.au/news/news-blog...revent-attacks/

Why saving the Vick Dogs was worth it

WOO! Perth gets him! Happy days...

Hey GMD, I'm a vegetarian, slowly edging toward vegan, but I've decided not to put my dogs on the same diet - mostly because it's too much work! (la..zy!) It does make me frustrated that you are still supporting the meat industry by having to buy dog foods tho.... hmmm... This article is good: http://www.vnv.org.au/Articles/Dogs&Cats.htm and there's some good links at the end Cheers, :)shel