City Council Staff Report Memorandum

Date:November 5, 2013

To:Mayor & City Council

Through: John Helin, City Manager

From: Tom Stephens, City Councilmember, Animal Control Ordinance Task Force

Subject:Animal Control and Regulation Ordinance Amendments

Task Force Members:

  • Tom Stephens – City Council Member - Chair
  • Rodger Shannon – City Council Member
  • Rachael Hass – City Council Member
  • Jack Knight – City Council Member
  • Debra Sweeten – Edwardsville, KS – Community Member – Bonner Animal Rescue
  • Katie Barnett – Lawrence, KS – Pet’s Right Advocate
  • Larissa Walker – Bonner Springs Animal Control Officer
  • Mike Holloway – Basehor – Bonner Business Owner – Insurance Field
  • Lt. Rick Schubert – Bonner Springs Police Department
  • Tara Surprise – Lawrence, KS – Community Member
  • William Hutton – Bonner Springs Municipal Judge
  • Dennis Cox – Bonner Springs Police Office and Community Member

Recommendation:

The Animal Control Ordinance Task Force (ACOTF) recommends that the City Council approve the series of Ordinance Amendments to the Animal Control and Regulation Ordinance, more specifically to repeal of the Breed Specific Ordinance (BSO). The recommendation to repeal the BSO is unanimous.

Background:

As part of the July 8, 2013 Council Workshop that pertained to the BSO, Mayor Jeff Harrington requested the formation of a Task Force to research and potentially bring forth suggestions to amend the current Animal Control and Regulation Ordinance, Though the ACOTF’s main focus was the BSO, it was understood that any change may involve multiple sections.

Discussion:

The first two meetings of the ACOTF focused on discussion and research that involvedBSOs and their effectiveness, as well as other portions of the ordinance that there was consensus to address. Individual members completed the research outside of the ACOTF meetings and then presented the information at said meetings. Subsequent meetings focused on changes to the current ordinance, provided staff with changes for review and addressed concerns raised by staff.

The ACOTF’s main focus was on the BSO which at the current time only covers Pit Bulls and dogs with Pit Bull like appearances. The Task Force reached out to other Kansas Municipalities to determine who had BSOs, located articles from both sides of the argument, located statistics and spoke directly to public service employees whose jobs place them potentially in direct contact with dogs and with a local veterinarian.

In the fall of 1990, the City Council passed the current BSOthat banned pit bull breeds. I reached out to a former City Councilmember who was on the City Council at that time to understand the rationale at the time ofthe enactment. He related that Bonner Springs had not had any issues up to that time but that the inner city of KCK experienced issues that involved dog fights and the use of pit bulls in those illegal endeavors. KCK decided to ban pit bulls in the hopes that they could curtail the dog fights and the Bonner Springs City Council decided to follow suit as there was a fear that the dog fights would move west into Bonner Springs.

When we reached out to other municipalities, we found that it was about a 50/50 split, with some contemplating enacting a BSO and others who were thinking of repealing. There was no specific pattern that could be found, not by population, geography, etc. A local example is Shawnee who currently has a BSO but Lenexa does not. The only consistencies found were those who have BSOs seemed to have passed them based on being proactive (did not actually have an issue at the time of enactment) and those who chose not to have a BSO did so as they believed it did not actually address the real issue of dangerous animals as a whole.

The researchfor articles and statistics presented difficulties as the majority were antiBSOs. The few that were in favor of BSOs generally justified their positions with use of statistical data generated by DogBites.org. Research of this website found that the data presented to be extremely distorted withmany myths presented as facts. An example of one of the myths reported as fact is one that states a pit bull’s jaws lock. This same myth was presented as fact in the 80s that referred to Doberman Pinchers. The truth is that Pit Bulls do have a strong bite but their jaws DO NOT LOCK. The second issue was the reported statistics and the inaccuracies of said data. Because no one, including the CDC, maintains statistics of attacks by breed, the party who maintains the website gathers statistics by a reviewof newspaper articles for reports of dog attacks. This method would not be embraced by any statistician, as this would lead to greatly skewed and inaccurate results. An example of this would be an excerpt of a submitted paper titled “All Bark and Fiscal Bite – Are Breed-Discriminatory Laws Effective?” by Ledy VanKavage that appeared in “American Bar Association’s Government and Public Sector LawyersDivision Newsletter, Pass It On, Winter 2009, vol. 18, no.2”. In that paper, the events of 4 consecutive days in 2007 are highlighted where 4 very serious or fatal dog attacks occurred. The first 3 days, the dogs involved were of breed types other than Pit Bulls and each attack was only reported once or twice in the local newspaper. On the fourth day, the attack involved a Pit Bull was reported in more than 230 newspaper articles both nationally and internationally as well reported on major broadcast stations that included CNN, MSNBC, FOX. The website claims that it looks for duplications; but even if it caught 90% of the duplications, the incident would still have been over reported by a factor of 10 to 20 times higher than the other attack data.

In discussions with those whose jobs put them on the streets and potentially in harm’s way, the majority of those individuals related that pit bulls weren’t necessarily the issue but loose and not properly confined animals was the bigger issue. They believed that irresponsible owners and the allowance of dogs that have shown tendencies towards aggressive behaviors, not just pit bulls, are the real issues.

The ACOTF, through their research, determined the following:

  • A BSO does not make the public safer, unless you widen the net to include the majority of the breeds weighing over 20 lbs. Research shows that Pit Bulls are no more likely to show aggressive behavior than Rottweilers, Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, Boxers, Saint Bernards, Mastiff, etc. All a BSO does is provide individuals with a false sense of security, the belief they are safer because a certain breed is off the street.
  • Pit Bulls are a victim of a paranoia based on the animal of choice for those who participate in illegal dog fights, those who look for an animal for protection, etc. This type of paranoia has been prevalent for decades, as certain breeds became popular for individuals that wish to train an animal for aggressive behavior. As an example, in the 80s, it was Doberman Pinchers and the 70s saw German Shepherds as the victims of this demonization.
  • A preferred pro-active method to identify Dangerous Animals would better serve the safety of the community over a BSO.
  • There is a need to place more onus on pet owners to show responsible behavior. This would include stiffer penalties and not allow some pet owners in the city to be perpetual abusers of the ordinances without consequences. The consistent application of ordinances for all is important, as some individuals will see the lack of punishment to selected individuals as a sign that ordinances will not be enforced against anyone who does not follow them or worst, that some individuals receive preferred treatment.

There are many sections of the Code that have been modified, please take time to review all revisions, but the key ones are:

  • Sections 2-111 and 2-115 were moved to 2-302 and 2-304 respectively.
  • Section 2-301 was relabeled to “Prohibited” Animals and sub-section 28 “Pit Bull Dogs” was removed.
  • Section 2-305 “Pit Bull Dogs’ was removed as this section will now apply to a new section on Dangerous Animals which is being added.
  • Section 2-303 “Dangerous Animals” is being introduced. This section will allow for the pro-active identification of potentially vicious animals.

Financial Impact:

There is no direct cost as the amendments will be included in the recodification of the City’s Code Book.