Syring: Lawrence works to stop bull

Will Lawrence create a ban to keep vicious breeds out of city limits?

By Kaitlyn Syring

Friday, April 6, 2007

Three-year-old Caitlyn Forsberg was powerless to stop it. Two pit bulls tunneled under the fence in her backyard three years ago and attacked her. Osh Gosh, her golden retriever, came to her rescue, but not before the two dogs bit her multiple times on the face. Eighteen stitches later, Caitlyn returned to her Salina home.

This 2004 incident prompted Salina to place a ban on pit bulls in the city. Under Salina’s ordinance, the pit bulls that were in the city before the ban was passed can stay, but new ones cannot come in, and no one can breed a pit bull in Salina. The dogs already there have to be registered with the city.

nutgraf

Lawrence already has vicious dog policies that require owners of dogs that are declared vicious to register the dog with the Humane Society and pay a $50 annual fee. The Humane Society will then insert a microchip in the dog to track it if it gets loose. This is great, but it doesn’t seem like enough.

It is time for Lawrence to do the same.

Rose Base, director of the Salina Animal Shelter, told the Salina Journal in 2005 that she thought the ordinance made the community safer. The shelter recorded only one pit bull bite in 2005, after recording more than 20 between 2003 and 2004.

If Lawrence adopted a ban like that of Salina, it could produce the same kind of results. Lawrence already has vicious dog policies that require owners of dogs that are declared vicious to register the dog with the Humane Society and pay a $50 annual fee. The Humane Society will then insert a microchip in the dog to track it if it gets loose. This is great, but it doesn’t seem like enough. It only happens after the dog has hurt someone.

The Centers for Disease control found that 66 people died from pit bull attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. Rottweilers were next in line, killing 39 people. According to the Animal Law Coalition, 32 of the 40 vicious dogs shot by Wichita police in 2005 were pit bulls. The Coalition also names Wichita as one city in Kansas that will not place pit bulls for adoption.

Not only could a ban on new pit bulls in Lawrence prevent attacks on people, it could also keep other animals safe. A pit bull attacked Lawrence resident Kylee Stalkfleet’s Labrador retriever a few weeks ago. Stalkfleet’s veterinarian treated the dog for 10 puncture wounds.

The Lawrence Humane Society and the Humane Society of the U.S. are against pit bull bans. They believe that such breed-specific bans put the blame in the wrong hands. The correct placement of blame, according to both organizations, is with the owners, with people who train their dogs to fight. Certainly, a lot of a pet’s disposition is determined by its training. But, these owners who want fight dogs time and again choose pit bulls, not golden retrievers or Australian shepherds.

Under the ban, current pit bull owners would not have to give up their dogs. They would only have to register the dogs with the city and pay a fine and get a chip if the dog became vicious. If the dogs are never going to hurt a person or a person’s pet, then pit bull owners will never have to pay.

Dogs are wonderful, but never should the right to have one endanger another person’s, or pet’s, right to safety.

Syring is a Salina junior in journalism.

Comments

misscris (anonymous) says...

Apparently Ms. Syring needs to do her homework before calling for all pit bulls to be banned - she could start by actually reading the CDC report she quotes, which specifically states that "Because of difficulties
inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,
enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional
and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving
public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical
alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and
hold promise for prevention of dog bites." Not only does the HSUS or the Lawrence Humane Society NOT support pit bull bans, there isn't a single animal organization that does. The AVMA, AKC, UKC, ADBA and every other national organization all reject breed bans. Before criticizing the current ordinance, Ms. Syring should actually interview the Director of the Lawrence Humane Society instead of just reading the ordinance online. I volunteer at the Lawrence Humane Society and according to Midge Grinstead, the Executive Director, since the new breed-neutral vicious dog ordinance went into effect, dog bites have decreased markedly and pit bull impounds have decreased by more than 50%. The current Lawrence ordinance puts the blame on the correct end of the leash (the owners) and rejects the ignorant approach espoused by Ms. Syring, in favor of a more comprehensive law that can actually be enforced and has already been proven to work. In my opinion, unless you are veterinarian, animal shelter volunteer, dog trainer or other type of person with extensive contact with dogs, you have no business advocating for animal control policies. Stop the hype and hysteria and start listening to the experts.

April 6, 2007 at 7:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

bbrettell (anonymous) says...

Stunningly ignorant and woefully under-researched, Ms. Syring’s “work” represents everything wrong with coverage of this issue. As former US Senator Patrick Moynihan once famously said (and I’m paraphrasing here), “you’re entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts.” Indeed, had Ms. Syring done the slightest bit of research on breed specific legislation (BSL) she would have discovered the following.

There is not a single study in the public domain that supports breed specific legislation in any way, shape or form. Most folks point to the deeply flawed CDC study to support their calls for BSL. However, the CDC itself disclaimed its results as the basis for any link between breed and bite fatality rates.

Media reporting related to bully breeds is highly biased. Consider the reporting of the following events from last June (6/9/06). A 3 yr old boy attacked by Golden Retriever in Virginia - reported in only 2 local Virginia newspapers. A 3 yr old girl attacked by Labrador in Colorado - reported 4 times and only in Colorado media sources. 11 yr old girl attacked by a pitbull in California – reported in over 91 national and international newspapers, Forbes, FOX News, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other major news organizations. In all instance, the victims received serious injuries. The only difference was the breed of dog involved.

BSL is also ineffective, costly and probably Unconstitutional. Kansas City, Kansas has had a breed ban for years, but they had fatality in that city last year at the hands of what the officials described as a bully-breed mix. Locally, both Overland Park and Shawnee spend tens of thousands of dollars annually just to handle the police calls related to their breed specific legislation. Finally, this week the Ohio Supreme Court heard a challenge to the City of Toledo’s pit bull ban. As the appellate court stated:

“Extensive, competent and credible evidence was presented . . . which showed many of the beliefs and ‘myths’ about pit bulls to be simply untrue and unsupported by now accepted scientific, genetic, medical, or canine behavior principles. . . the greater population of pit bulls in the United States are not used for pit fighting, but are well-trained, obedient dogs used in competitions and as family pets . . . As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving ‘vicious dog’ laws . . . relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. See, . . . Hearn v. Overland Park (1989), 244 Kan. 638, 772 P.2d 758 . . .”

Lawrence’s current dangerous dog ordinance works quite well, even without a discriminatory breed focus. Since implementation in 2005, dog bites are down nearly 60%. How would this result be aided by a breed specific component? It wouldn’t.

Those are the facts, Ms. Syring. Next time open your mind before you open your mouth.

April 7, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

meg12386 (anonymous) says...

I think Ms. Syring did a great job. I agree with her. You guys are the ignorant ones. Keep up the good work Ms. Syring. I enjoy reading your articles.

April 8, 2007 at 3 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mammakitty (anonymous) says...

Ms. Syring pitbull bans do nothing to make communities safer. Passing laws against breeds of dogs instead of "dangerous dog owner laws" will never solve the problem. Let me give you some insight into why these laws don't work, in a city that has had a pitbull ban since 1990.

Kansas City, KS passed a pitbull ban many years ago, and has for years and years routinely picked up pitbulls. In fact last year the city picked up over 600 pitbulls, 100's of those dogs were family pets. The city spends all it's limited resources picking up just pitbulls. In the meantime many, many KCKS neighborhoods are fraught with stray dogs of every other breed. Several of these stray dogs are in feral packs. I can even supply you with written accounts from neighorhood groups and neighbors complaining at city hall about these packs of dogs.

During last summer's pitbull amnesty period animal control spent two weeks working 10 hour days, 7 days a week just to seek out pitbulls. If a KCKS citizen had a call in to animal control on any other breed of dog, the call had to wait until the officers had time to respond. Most of the time they didn't get to the call.

A lovely lady died in my community because of a pitbull ban. Mrs. McConnell had called animal control many times, along with other members of her family, to report vicious dogs next door. Strangely enough most of the neighborhood didn't even think these dogs were pitbulls, but the breed of dog is irrelevant.

The fact remains KCKS's underfunded animal control unit (only has time and wastes funds to respond to pitbull calls) did not respond to Mrs. McConnell's calls. Derek Lee the dogowner, had prior animal control violations for starving chained dogs at his house. Derek Lee was a dangerous dogowner. If KCKS had a law such as currently exists in Lawrence, where a report of a vicious dog NO MATTER WHAT BREED, can be investigated even before a bite or attack occurs, that would've saved Mrs. McConnell's life.

The cost of a pitbull ban is very expensive. Just to give you an example the national average for picking up a dog, processing it, holding it for 3 days minimum time, and unltimately euthanizing the dog is $60. Hmmm $60 x 600 pitbulls = $36,000 of my tax dollars that were wasted in KCKS.

Ms. Syring do some research and quit recommending wasteful legislation that has never been proven to improve public safety.

April 9, 2007 at 11:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Casmanifest (anonymous) says...

Meg, I'm glad you are giving your friend support. She may have posted wonderful articles in the past, however this one is obtuse and boring (not to mention inaccurate). This is nothing we haven't heard 50,000 times on every news station for the past few years.
So as far as originality Mrs. Syring, you get an D.

I say this with much enthusiasm and care:

I hope you realize that, though it seemed like a good idea to write, with fear tactic, about a topic that may or may not fuel the BSL attempts in other cities, you are only fueling loving "pit bull" owners to lash out against your rude and assuming research. BSL punishes good owners. Those that have fighters and aggressive TAUGHT dogs, are breaking the law already. What makes you think they wont continue to break the law when BSL is instated?
As a trainer, owner, and advocate of "pit bull" type dogs, I suggest you carefully read those replies that are dubbed as "ignorant", by your loyal readers. Maybe an epiphany will strike and you will write something truly interesting. In hopes that you will, I will continue to watch for it. Regardless, in a democracy, ignorance, so long as it is the majority, will reign supreme.
Good luck in your studies.

April 11, 2007 at 11:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Casmanifest (anonymous) says...

Meg, I'm glad you are giving your friend support. She may have posted wonderful articles in the past, however this one is obtuse and boring (not to mention inaccurate). This is nothing we haven't heard 50,000 times on every news station for the past few years.
So as far as originality Mrs. Syring, you get an D.

I say this with much enthusiasm and care:

I hope you realize that, though it seemed like a good idea to write, with fear tactic, about a topic that may or may not fuel the BSL attempts in other cities, you are only fueling loving pit bull owners to lash out against your rude and assuming research. BSL punishes good owners. Those that have fighters and aggressive TAUGHT dogs, are breaking the law already. What makes you think they wont continue to break the law when BSL is instated?
As a trainer, owner, and advocate of pit bull type dogs, I suggest you carefully read those replies that are dubbed as "ignorant", by your loyal readers. Maybe an epiphany will strike and you will write something truly interesting. In hopes that you will, I will continue to watch for it. Regardless, in a democracy, ignorance, so long as it is the majority, will reign supreme.
Good luck in your studies.

April 11, 2007 at 11:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ozbelgnz (anonymous) says...

I've long thought little Caitlyn's dad should have been charged with child endangerment, or something, for leaving his THREE year old in the back yard, unattended, with a DOG (golden retriever, but they have teeth too you know ;) and an supposed "drug dealing pit bull owning" neighbor living next door. And the dad who was letting his young child 'pet the pregnant pit bull on the tummy' and she told the kid to 'get back' in no uncertain terms should have also been brought up on stupidity charges.....
But no.
Had Salina simply followed the vicious dog ordinance already in place, this would never have happened. Of course, for a couple of summers there we did have several 'stupid' humans who were in major violation of our dog laws, some of whom had had dog related issues before, *with the same dogs* and the Slimy Urinal, er, Salina Journal, was very happy to 'follow up' on these new incidents, usually waiting a day or so for photos so they were particularly graphic.
The new pit bull ban did result in MANY illegal dogs suddenly being registered and made to get up to date on shots though.
I'm a firm believer in being a responsible owner, but it is really hard when so many people are not. I wish more laws would punish the guilty while allowing those of us who are responsible to not have to pay the price in loss of OUR freedoms.

April 14, 2007 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement