Des Moines, IA update: BSL still being considered
September 29, 2009 2 Comments
Previous alerts for Des Moines: http://stopbsl.com/?s=des+moines
Des Moines was considering a ban on “pit bulls.” (They already have BSL for “pit bulls,” and it is not working.) Apparently the ban idea has been dropped, but stronger BSL is being considered.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090929/NEWS/909290352/-1/NEWS04
Dog breed, behavior are keys in ordinance debate
By JASON PULLIAM
jpulliam@dmreg.com
September 29, 2009Breed or behavior?
Those issues form the core of a debate brewing in Des Moines over proper regulations for dogs whose bloodlines or tendency to bite earn them the tag “vicious” under a local ordinance.
City officials have called for a mix of tougher license fees, insurance requirements and owner training to strengthen Des Moines’ vicious-dog ordinance and reduce the number of attacks. Calls for the removal of language that defines pit bull-type breeds as vicious, however, have not been included in proposed changes.
The city reported 182 dog bites spread among five breeds in 2006, the last year numbers were kept. Nearly 29 percent of those bites were attributed to pit bulls, city records show.
The highest number of bites – 56 – came from Labrador retrievers, one of the most widely owned dogs registered in Des Moines.
Key recommendations outlined in a Monday City Council workshop included:
- Increasing liability insurance to $300,000 from $100,000 and requiring owners to show proof of 12 months of coverage.
- Increasing the vicious-dog license fee to $35 from $15 for spayed and neutered dogs and $55 for dogs that are not altered.
- Requiring mandatory training for dog owners whose animals are deemed “vicious by behavior.” Dog owners whose canines are deemed “vicious by breed” would not have to attend training classes unless they violated containment requirements outlined in the city ordinance.
In the past, city animal control workers have had problems with owners of vicious dogs who do not reclaim impounded animals and instead get other dogs. Another proposed change in the ordinance would require owners of vicious dogs to pay animal shelter fees even if they don’t retrieve their animals.
“We want to discourage that disposable-dog mentality,” said Sgt. Scott Raudabaugh, the city’s chief humane officer.
A total ban on pit bulls was considered, Assistant City Manager Randy Wetmore said, but such action was deemed impractical.
“If we were doing a complete ban, we would have personnel out looking for the dogs rather than taking care of public safety issues,” he said. “We didn’t think success (would be) very high, because it’s going to be really difficult to find all of those pit bulls that are out there.”
Tom Colvin, executive director of the Animal Rescue League of Iowa, said city officials are “definitely going in the right direction.”
“The issues at hand are public safety, responsible pet ownership, and identifying and dealing properly with irresponsible pet ownership,” Colvin said. “That can either go by ignorance or intentionally having a vicious dog.”
Colvin said he’s concerned that the city’s current regulations have fostered a sense of distrust among even responsible pet owners, who might not want to register their dogs because they know that the animals would be automatically labeled “vicious.”
Colvin said he hoped the city would gravitate toward rules that do not single out breeds.
The Animal Rescue League “has never been shy in its statement that it just does not believe in breed-specific legislation,” he said. “We believe any dog can bite and any dog can cause serious injury. Once you have breed-specific (rules), it’s easy to start adding breeds.”
Additional Facts
What’s next?
- City officials will speak with representatives from the Animal Rescue League of Iowa and other interested groups about possible changes in Des Moines’ vicious-dog ordinance.
- City Manager Rick Clark said he hoped to have a policy recommendation before the City Council within a month.
- A volunteer group composed of certified dog trainers, business owners and citizens has formed to offer input on Des Moines’ vicious-dog ordinance and promote responsible dog ownership. The group has created a Web site: www.adapt4dsm.org.
Follow via Twitter
Find us on Facebook
stopbslcom
weigoba
Overall a very great website except for one thing; this website is very contradictory in regards to altering and dog bites/attacks. At one point you say that altering does make them less likely to attack, while on another page you say there aren’t any studies to back that information up. This is especially surprising to hear since you have bred APBTs (Northern Lights Kennel I believe the name is/was). I think gender-stereotyping amongst dogs can cause just as many problems as breed specific legislation, one or two types of dog are demonized based solely on, in this case, reproductive status; this would especially be problematic for reasonable, responsible breeders. From what little information does exist on the subject, intact dogs seem to face the same fate as targeted breeds like Pit Bulls and Rottweilers; many of the intact dogs who were involved in fatal dog attacks were kept as breeding dogs in poor conditions, and naturally a dog that is used for breeding has to be left intact, or kept as guard/attack dogs (the reason being is that most people believe the myth that when you neuter a male dog, he is less protective of his home/property and family, thus many guard dogs are entire males). They may also be more popular amongst unsavory people because many people see intact dogs, primarily intact male dogs as “macho” and “bad”, the same types of people that will get say a Rottweiler for the same reason, reputation.
Of course this is not to undermine the importance of altering a dog at the appropriate age; as a rescuer I see a lot of pets who are over bred or would really have been better off altered at a safe age, it’s heart-wrenching. I am pro voluntary altering (at or after six months of age except in the case of shelters where this just isn’t possible and early age altering absolutely must be implemented), but I felt that it was important to understand that one sex of dog isn’t necessarily more inherently aggressive than another, I’ve met my share of aggressive altered and unaltered dogs, and all of them have had abusive or neglectful owners or owners that trained them to display “attack/guard dog” behaviors, and I’ve met a LOT of dogs and dog owners of all types and genders doing rescue and opposing BSL.
I am not sure where you heard that I am a breeder or have bred dogs, but I want to correct that mis-statement immediately. I am not a breeder, nor am I associated in any way with any kennel. I have only ever rescued/fostered dogs. I have volunteered with a number of local animal shelters and advocacy groups. I do not support breeders or breeding. See also: http://stopbsl.com/about/
Regarding altering, StopBSL takes no position on the topic. It is hotly debated whether altering does or does not reduce aggression. The few scientific studies performed to determine whether this is the case seem to indicate that altering makes little difference. However, dog bite statistics point to a totally different scenario, as unneutered male dogs are overwhemingly implicated in most severe and fatal bites. As you correctly note, that does not necessarily mean that intact dogs are more aggressive, but that it’s possible that intact dogs tend to find themselves in less-than-desirable situations with less-than-desirable owners. Unfortunately, we have no studies to confirm this. Thus, one must always read with critical thinking cap on.
StopBSL does not support mandatory spay/neuter as it has been shown to be a failure in terms of public safety benefits, among other reasons. However, StopBSL does support voluntary spay/neuter, including the use of public resources to offer low-cost and free spay/neuter to the community, as this has been shown to be a much more effective use of resources than laws that mandate such.