Archive for Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Ordinance in dog house with canine owners

June 17, 2009

When Casey Allen and his family decided to move back to the town where he grew up, he didn’t think he would soon have to give up a member of his family.

But after a few months in his new home in Tonganoxie, Allen was told that Princess, the 1-year-old Rottweiler he bought for his children on Thanksgiving Day, would have to leave.

“I had no idea that there were any laws about Rottweilers in this town,” said Allen, who moved back to his hometown from Eudora. “I told my landlord what kind of dog it was and there was no question about the dog being able to be with us. If there were, I wouldn’t have even moved back to Tonganoxie.”

Since the early 1990s, the City of Tonganoxie has had a law banning Rottweilers and pit bulls because the city council found that “certain specific breeds of dog are by their nature of breeding prone to exhibit unpredictable and dangerous behavior.”

But Allen and others are now asking the city council to update the ordinance.

Crystal Swan Blackdeer, director of the Leavenworth County Humane Society, said the American Humane Association is against breed-specific legislation, like the one currently on the books in Tonganoxie, because it doesn’t solve the problem of animal attacks.

“Any animal can bite, it's their natural defense to a perceived threat,” Blackdeer said. “There are things we people can do to reduce the likelihood of a bite, and things that make an animal more likely to bite. As a rule, pets who have adequate care, socialization, training, exercise and companionship, who are sterilized and healthy, are not likely to bite unless provoked.”

She said she is not alone in her thinking. She said other organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, the National Animal Control Association, Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, among other groups concerned with people and animals, don't believe banning breeds is effective in reducing the threat of dangerous dogs or bite incidents.

Brent Toellner, legislative chair for Kansas City Dog Advocates, has attended the last two regular city council meetings to discuss adopting a new dog ordinance that would not ban any breed of dog. Instead, it would set up a way to deal with dogs that have bitten someone or have become dangerous. The language of the ordinance is taken from an ordinance adopted by the City of Olathe.

Instead of banning any breed, a dog that is involved in an incident would have to be taken by the city’s animal control officer. The municipal court judge then would determine whether the dog was dangerous.

“I think the city council is moving in the right direction as they look at crafting a revised ordinance based on a dog's behavior, not on its particular breed or breed appearance,” Toellner wrote in an e-mail. “It is my hope that they will continue to keep a dialogue open so they can move to a more effective ordinance based on the current data and trends as they relate to dogs.”

Vickie Smith, who runs Smith Veterinary Clinic, also agrees that a dog’s breed doesn’t determine how dangerous it is.

“In the time I’ve been a vet, I’ve seen aggressive little dogs and big dogs,” Smith said. “I’ve had some Rottweilers that I would much rather handle than some Chihuahuas. I think people should be responsible owners, and if you own an aggressive dog you need to take the proper precautions.”

While city leaders continue to debate adopting new regulation, City Administrator Mike Yanez said there might be some practical problems with adopting an ordinance like Olathe’s. He said the city does not currently have the resources to handle a behavioral ordinance, especially during a time when the city is trying to cut back on expenses.

“For a town this size I don’t think we can justify having a full-time animal control officer, but that could change in time if complaint calls increase in the future due to peoples concerns about behaviors of new dogs coming to town.”

He also said, because the court currently meets one time a month, there is a possibility that a dog involved in an incident would have to be kenneled for up to 29 days, which the city would have to pay for if it could not collect the money from the owner.

Tonganoxie police Lt. Billy Adcox said the department receives very few calls about dog bites each year and the injuries reported have been minor.

Despite the size of the town, Toellner thinks a new ordinance could work.

“This type of ordinance has been adopted by many small communities as well as larger ones. Edwardsville and Osceola, Mo., — just to name two locally — have adopted similar ordinances in the past two years and replaced their outdated breed bans with the behavior-based ordinance that more wisely focuses on dog behavior, not breeds.”

As for Princess, Allen said the dog is currently being taken care of at a friend’s house outside city limits and he hopes that soon Princess and his family will be reunited in their Tonganoxie home.

“I would trust my dog around my kids before I would trust any other human being around my kids,” Allen said. “She is one of the family.”

The city council will be taking up the issue again at its next regular meeting on Monday.

Comments

sagaray 5 years, 5 months ago

I am shocked to see Brent Toellner represented as some kind of "authority." Brent Tollener is an advertising worker who lobbies for the interests of PIT BULL BREEDERS and breeding industry, and has been propagandizing for the pit bull breeding industry. His "information" is tainted by the for-profit interests of the breeders. Pit bull and rottweiler breeders (and dog fighters) want no breed specific regulation because they want to be able TO MAKE MONEY from breeding and selling these dogs. They do NOT care about public safety. They do NOT care about the public expense of controlling these dogs, and dealing with attacks. Business lobbying groups such as the AKC and AVMA represent the PROFIT INTERESTS of breeders, not public safety nor the dogs. (The AKC makes most of its money from puppy mill registrations! This is not an acceptable authority on dog issues.) "Behavior based" animal regulation is NOT working, which is precisely why towns like the city of Fayette AL are passing bans after horrific pit bull maulings. http://www.dogsbite.org/blog/index.html Fayette had "behavior based" dangerous dog laws. They didn't work! Pit bulls and Rottweilers top the list for human fatalities and maulings, but unfortunately because a subset of people make money from these dogs, they want strike down regulations. It is breeders that have their sights set on lifting the ban and endangering local citizens. And out-of-state pit bull and rottweiler breeders are trying to manipulate the city council with propaganda to get their way!

0

sagaray 5 years, 5 months ago

I would also hope that Casey Allen would do his homework and discover that pit bulls and Rottweilers are at the top of the list for killing and mauling people, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN.

If he looks at http://www.dogsbite.org/newsroom-release-dog-bite-fatality-study-042209.htm he can see the terrible track record that Rottweilers have with children. Even many Rottweiler breeders advise that Rotties are NOT good for households that have children.

0

sagaray 5 years, 5 months ago

Brent Toellner has even received an award from the American Dog Breeders Association, a lobbying group for for-profit pit bull breeders, for his lobbying activity on behalf of pit bull breeders.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.