End Discrimination! Ohio House Bill 79

Happy Spring to all. Sorry for the lack of posts; our "work" lives have been crazy busy and we have not been able to update this blog as much as we would all like but we've been working diligently behind the scenes on a number of activities.

One very important news item for ALL dog owners in Ohio is the progress of Ohio House Bill 79. We previously posted about the details of this bill, which have not changed. It's relatively simple: would amend § 955.11 of the Ohio Revised Code to remove “pit bulls” from the definition of “vicious dog”.

HELP FIDO was present last Wednesday when HB 79 went before the Ohio House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, over a year after it was initially introduced by Rep. Barbara Sears. There were many supporters in attendance, some even occupying the adjacent “overflow room”. Roughly 10 people spoke, with only a couple expressing opposition to HB 79. Among the supporters were Jean Keating, co-founder of Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates, Shana Klein, founder of Cleveland-based bully rescue For the Love of Pits, and Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop.

There was a wide range of topics discussed by the speakers who support the bill, ranging from the cost for a community to enforce breed specific legislation, to the fact that it punishes law abiding citizens and good dogs and may even be considered unconstitutional. Commissioner Konop, who attempted to have former dog warden Tom Skeldon removed from his position before Skeldon retired in November, stressed that no breed is inherently vicious, just as babies aren’t born evil. He spoke about the Toledo pound’s recent moratorium on killing pit bulls since Tom Skeldon is no longer the dog warden. Skeldon actually spoke briefly, but didn’t have much to say, other than giving his opinion that passing the bill would be a mistake. “The job of dog warden is to protect the public from dogs,” he said. Well, Skeldon, as we’ve said before, you’re missing the other half of the job description, and that’s why you’re no longer the dog warden. The committee members didn’t bother to ask any questions after his speech.

Some testimonies focused on the definition (or lack thereof) of the term “pit bull” and how this presents such a huge problem in identifying dogs where the law is concerned. There was a lot of talk about media sensationalism and how statistics condemning pit bulls are often skewed and inaccurate depending on the source. In regards to these statistics, it was importantly noted that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has not collected dog bite data based on breed in 12 years. They've stopped doing it. Speakers asserted that breed specific legislation, like that of Ohio Revised Code Section 955.11 and 955.22, creates a false sense of security and ignores the root of the problem, endangering the public more. Supporters stated that instead of breed discriminatory legislation, communities should crack down on irresponsible owners and those involved in criminal activity, enforce existing leash/containment laws, focus on educating the public, including children on bite prevention, and promote responsible ownership through lower-cost training and handling classes, as well as spay/neuter programs.

Speakers for the bill effectively presented rebuttals for the opposition in regards to multiple topics. While the speakers supporting HB 79 were extremely well-prepared, offering handouts and informational packets and promising follow-up data for any of the committee members who requested additional information, the speaker from an environmental division within the Franklin County Court could not give any additional information when he was asked by the committee to back up the statistics he presented about the danger of pit bulls. After a speech in opposition to the bill, one committee member commented “These dogs are just nasty, and I don’t see why anyone would want to have one.“ GASP!! HISS!! Well, on the subject of these "nasty" dogs' temperament, findings of the American Temperament Test Society (ATTS) were cited: the average score of the four breeds most often referred to or classified as a “pit bull” type dog, and who are defined as such in the Ohio Revised Code, is an 85.7%, higher than the Golden Retriever. The American Pit Bull Terrier alone received a score of 85.3. Other individual scores can be viewed here at the ATTS website. The reality of dog attacks was also discussed. Supporting speakers noted that often times attacks are the result of environmental factors, such as (abuse, neglect, starvation, and confinement) that would cause ANY animal, not a specific breed or type of dog, to attack, reinforcing Commissioner Konop’s “nature vs. nurture” statement. Other factors that contribute to bites include unaltered dogs and lack of socialization, which are also completely preventable issues.

Several speakers indicated that nearly all the credible animal welfare, veterinary medical, and human health organizations OPPOSE breed specific legislation, including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the American Canine Foundation, the American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA), the American Dog Owners Association (ADOA), the National Animal Control Association (NACA), the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), and the American Kennel Club (AKC), among others; one speaker even pointed out that Ohio BSL actually asks local Animal Control Officers to go AGAINST the opinion of their own national organization.

Shana Klein, founder of Cleveland’s For the Love of Pits bully rescue gave testimony, as did her mother, who delivered a heartfelt speech in favor of pit bulls and HB 79. The Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocate’s Jean Keating had an especially thorough and well-delivered testimonial that included many of the aforementioned points, garnering a healthy round of applause from all the supporters in attendance. Toward the end of the hearing, after all scheduled witnesses had spoken, anyone who wanted to say something was given the floor. HELP FIDO’s Lisa had an opportunity to make a point about the insurance coverage that is required for pit bull owners in Ohio, and how many companies discriminate against homeowners based on Ohio’s current law.

We strongly support this bill as the scientific evidence from places such as the National Canine Research Council and detailed in numerous outlets such as KC Dog Blog and Stop BSL have shown, indisputably, that Breed Specific Legislation does not work! It is impossible to enforce as there is no accurate indicator of breed (aside from early DNA testing), extremely expensive to enforce and most important of all - does NOT make our communities safer. To read more, please click on the BSL link at the bottom right of this blog. What does work is judging each dog individually, based upon its behavior and actions.

As of right now there is no committee vote scheduled for the bill, so we’ll have to keep our ears open and our fingers and toes crossed in the meantime! Want to help HB 79? Visit the Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates website.

Huge thanks for Lacy Marshall for contributing the majority of this post.

Poisonous Chewing Gum...Review!

This post won't be new information for the blog but may be new information for some, so I'm reposting an entry Dr. Mandi wrote last year. I have a friend whose dog recently got into a shopping bag and ate a pack of chewing gum, and she wasn't aware of how dangerous the artificial sweetener xylitol is for dogs. She took him to the vet immediately as soon as I told her it could be poisonous to him, and he's fine thankfully. He cost her and her husband a pretty penny with that scare, but better safe than sorry! I think it's an important reminder, so here it is! :o)


Chewing gum...Poisonous???

Hello all! Recently I have treated several dogs that have gotten themselves into a "sticky situation" by eating various kinds of chewing gum. But all joking aside, if your pet gets into your purse or gets to that gum on the kitchen counter or your bedroom dresser they can be in some pretty serious trouble. The primary offender is an ingredient called XYLITOL. It is a sweetener or sugar substitute that many gum manufacturers are now using in their products. There has been some good information passed around recently on the internet, but here are a few more facts to increase your knowledge base about this sticky sweet "poison".

According to the most recent data from the National Animal Poison Control Center (NAPCC), a relatively small dose of xylitol can cause serious hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) that can be fatal if left untreated. (Something you would certainly NOT expect something sweet to do!!) For a small dog (5-10 pounds) the toxic dose could be as small as LESS THAN ONE STICK OF GUM!

Xylitol ingestion can also be associated with severe liver failure, which, even if treated aggressively, can result in death. Not all dogs that ingest toxic doses of xylitol develop hypoglycemia or liver failure, but because it is impossible to predict which dogs will develop these serious symptoms, it is recommended that all dogs that ingest potentially toxic doses be treated aggressively. Also, if your dog (or cat) consumes ANY chewing gum at all, you should contact your veterinarian, the local emergency service or the NAPCC immediately for consultation and treatment.

Treatment usually involves a veterinarian inducing vomiting, taking blood tests to monitor liver function, hospitalization for intravenous fluids (containing dextrose - sugar supplementation), blood sugar monitoring and other supportive care as needed. Dogs that have ingested large amounts may require long term care and follow up blood tests, may have permanent liver problems and may not survive treatment.

A simple solution is to only purchase xylitol free chewing gum. But remember to call your veterinarian if you even FOR ONE SECOND think your pet may have ingested gum. You can also call the National Animal Poison Control Center at (888) 426-4435 for advice. They charge a $60 consultation fee which can be well worth it in this situation!!! The NAPCC can also answer questions about many toxic substances. Better safe than sorry!!!

Written by Dr. Mandi (April 7, 2009)

Hope for Bullys on Marine Base

I recently received my Winter 2010 copy of "ASPCA Action" and read an article that really made me smile. The article titled "ASPCA Animal Behavior Experts Work with Marines to Evaluate Dogs and Keep Them on Base", gave me hope that more people are working to prevent breed bans and are fighting to give Bully breed dogs the chance they deserve.

This article is reprinted with the expressed permission of the ASPCA.

In early October, six ASPCA animal behavior experts traveled to assess the behavior of 85 dogs living in the Tri-Command housing units of the U.S. Marine Corps Recruit Depot. The dogs, mostly Pit Bulls and Rottweilers, were potentially subject to a new military housing breed ban, and the Tri-Command tapped the ASPCA to assess the dogs to ensure that they did not pose a threat to base personnel and their families.

The assessment, known as SAFER (Safety Assessment For Evaluation Rehoming), is an evaluation tool that helps identify the likelihood of aggression in individual dogs. SAFER identifies a dog's comfort level with certain interactions, like restraint, touch, reaction to new experiences, objects and sounds, bite inhibition, behavior around food and toys, and attitude towards other dogs.

"Our goal was to make sure safe dogs and their families were able to stay together," says Dr. Emily Weiss, ASPCA Senior Director of Shelter Research and Development. "We were seeking to identify behavior such as aggression, which often can be modified or managed." Dr. Weiss developed the SAFER assessment program, as well as the popular ASPCA Meet Your Match program.

Talk of instituting a breed ban on the base began after several incidents that involved dogs attacks. The Marine Corps had previously conducted tests that evaluated a dog's obedience and manners, but not aggression.

The ASPCA is opposed to laws that ban specific breeds of dogs or discriminate against responsible dog guardians based solely on their choice of breed. Dr. Weiss says, " We evaluated 85 dogs using the SAFER assessment. Of those, 83 showed no significant aggression issues that would cause them to be torn from their loving families." She adds, "Two dogs demonstrated significant aggression - that's just 2.4 percent of the dogs assessed, which is a powerful statistic when the alternative is an all-out ban on a breed."

(Copyright 2010. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). All rights reserved.)

Also in this recent issue were stories chronicling some of the ASPCA's recent work such as the evaluation of some of the dogs seized in the largest dog fighting raid in U.S. history (including a "pit-bull" that gave birth to puppies after she was rescued), their rescue of 250 dogs and cats in October raids on puppy-mills in Mississippi and Tennessee, and the passing of the Human Euthanasia Bill by the New York State Legislature that prohibits gassing as an accepted form of euthanasia for stray, homeless, abandoned or improperly cared for animals, requires euthanasia by injection to be done only by a certified euthanasia technician, licensed veterinary technician or licensed veterinarian, and prohibits intra-cardiac euthanasia on unsedated animals who are under the care of a shelter.

The ASPCA is a wonderful organization whose members and experts work tirelessly to save so many animals. But, what impresses me most, is their continued work to show the world that breed-bans are unfounded and that Bully breed dogs are worth saving too. Every day they work to give these dogs not only the care and medical attention they need, but to place them in the loving homes they deserve. THANK YOU ASPCA!!

Gift-wrap that sweater, not a puppy

The holiday season is upon us yet again, and everyone is shopping for the perfect gifts for their loved ones. Many times, people make the mistake of giving a dog (or other pet) as a surprise gift, thinking how cute it will be to have the puppy in a box, wrapped up in a bow like that scene from Lady & the Tramp. But this is not a good idea. If the person receiving your furry present is not ready for a dog, financially or otherwise, or if the particular breed you chose for them is not a good match, it can spell disaster. Adopting a dog is a big decision, and the person who will be responsible for caring for the animal should be involved in every way. If the dog will be a gift for your own children, it should be a family event to make sure the dog is a good fit for everyone, including existing pets! Too many times when parents give a puppy as a gift to their kids, the excitement wears off, puppyhood becomes a reality, and there’s a dog that no one wants to take care of, no one wants to train. Before you know it, your sweet little puppy-in-a-box is in a shelter by St. Patrick’s Day.

Since individual breeds are so different, it’s important that the potential owner researches breeds before deciding on one; everything from size and temperament, to energy levels and health issues needs to be considered to ensure the dog matches its owner’s lifestyle. Instead of actually presenting the dog as the gift, you may want to purchase dog supplies or some dog books to give to the person on the big day. Then your loved one can find the dog best for them, or you can go together to adopt.

A word about puppy mills...

In addition to not giving a dog as a surprise holiday gift, PLEASE do not buy a puppy from a newspaper ad, on the Internet, or from a pet store!! The newspaper/Internet ads are almost always puppy mills advertising to sell animals directly to the public, and pet stores usually obtain their puppies from puppy mills as well. Pet stores will try to assure you that they only get the puppies from responsible breeders, but don’t be fooled. NO reputable or responsible breeder would sell to a pet store.

As you may know, puppy mills are commercial dog breeding operations that focus primarily on profit rather than the welfare of the animals in their facilities. Dogs in puppy mills live in unsanitary conditions, have inadequate food, water, shelter, and veterinary care, suffer overcrowding, and receive virtually no human companionship. In puppy mills, females are bred as frequently as possible and will likely never live life outside of a puppy mill. Many times, the puppies aren’t even purebred, and if they are, the quality is poor. Genetic testing for temperament and health issues is rare, and many of these puppies not only end up with kennel cough and chronic ear and eye infections, but also have serious genetic health problems that don’t show up until later. Despite the owners spending thousands of dollars on vet bills, these dogs often die an early death.

Don’t fall into the guilt trip of “Oh, I need to SAVE that puppy in the window!” Pet stores and puppy mills can only stay in business if you give them your money. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

If you are looking for a purebred dog, try your local shelter. 1/3 of the dogs in shelters are purebred, and many are young, contrary to popular belief. You could also find a breed-specific rescue group. Remember that while puppies are adorable and fun, they also take a TON of work and time. An older dog is often already housebroken and trained, and is just waiting for a loving home to share! Adopting a dog through rescue is also much less expensive than the hundreds or even thousands of dollars you would pay a breeder. Usually spay/neuter is even built into the relatively low adoption fee. If you MUST buy a puppy and haven’t found one through rescue, please make sure you choose a responsible, reputable breeder, and NEVER buy from a pet store.

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays!

Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon Retires After 22-year Reign of Death

This month, dogs and dog lovers all over the land are singing the Munchkins’ happy tune….”Ding Dong…!” First, Dorothy’s house landed smack dab on top of the Wicked Witch of the East with Jackie Thompson’s recall from Whitehall City Council earlier this month. Now, the Wicked Witch of the West (er, well…Northwest-ish) has all but completely melted, as Lucas County dog warden Tom Skeldon submitted a letter of resignation on November 19! His official retirement date will be January 31, 2010, however he plans to use leftover vacation time for the remainder of his employment, making the end of December his last day at the pound.

Now to give you some background on this beast. The departure of Skeldon from his 22-year position as Lucas County’s Chief Dog Warden has been over a year in the making. Last October, a petition with the signatures of over 3000 concerned Toledo-area residents was submitted, calling for his removal as the county’s head of animal control. Since then, Skeldon has been blamed for the wrongful deaths of 2 family pets. In February 2009, a 10-pound Pomeranian that was outside on its front porch waiting to go back inside, was shot by a deputy dog warden’s tranquilizer gun and later died. Then in August, a Chow named Bear got loose from his house on a Sunday evening, was hit by a car, and ran off. Though his family searched the area for him and looked at the pound, they couldn’t find him; however, they were told they had 3 days before he would be put down, should he come into the pound. The dog was found by police Tuesday night, and the dog warden called the family Wednesday morning to notify them that Bear had been put to sleep. The dog warden alleges that this action was taken because the emergency vet recommended it was the humane thing to do, due to the dog’s injuries. Bear’s injuries consisted of a broken leg. The owners had no opportunity to make a decision or to see their family member again.

Of course, Tom Skeldon has been most often criticized for his procedures of operation within the dog shelter. He has come under heavy fire from many animal advocacy groups, including HELP FIDO, but one of his biggest critics is County Commissioner Ben Konop. Konop, like many of us, finds the warden’s policies and actions completely unacceptable. From his statements, he seems to be both outraged and embarrassed by the pound’s astronomical euthanization rate (77%) and low adoption rate (13%), especially since Wood County has an adoption rate of 80%. Only 160 dogs have been adopted out in the last two years. Last year’s death toll was a staggering 2,483 dogs. So far this year, Skeldon’s office has killed 1,848.

In addition to this general lack of effort to place adoptable animals in homes, Tom Skeldon is known for his particularly ruthless bias against bully breeds, promoting discrimination against them and seemingly carrying out some sort of personal vendetta. He refused to adopt out any pit bulls or surrender them to rescue groups, instead euthanizing any that came through his doors. Since 2007, 400 puppies (all breeds) have been euthanized, 183 of which were apparently healthy (another fact that his critics took issue with). Half of the 400 puppies were pit bulls (or what Tom Skeldon considers a pit bull). This year alone, the dog warden's office has killed at least 932 pit bulls or pit bull mixes, including 46 pit bull puppies, regardless of age. Obviously the puppy-killing in general is ludicrous, since everyone knows puppies are so easily adopted. And Skeldon’s pit bull policy is ridiculous. Not only is it disheartening that he was judging solely on breed/type and not history, health, behavior, or temperament, but there's a good chance he was also incorrectly identifying many non-pit bull dogs as pit bulls.

If this weren’t bad enough, pit bulls aren’t the only breed Skeldon discriminates against. He has said “We’ll adopt out a good Rottweiler”, but he refused to place Rotties in the adoption area for the general public because they supposedly get “gangbangers” who come through kicking the cages, looking for a mean dog. While this may be a valid concern, not only did Skeldon’s description and choice of words land him in a different pot of hot water, but it may explain why Rottweilers are the 6th highest breed on the pound’s kill list this year. As of October, the Rottie death toll was 60. To top it all off, Skeldon has also been accused of not vaccinating dogs that come into the shelter, with no regard for the prevention of the spread of disease, and he refused to work with all-breed rescues. The only group Skeldon would work with is the Toledo Area Humane Society (TAHS). Even so, TAHS couldn’t get Skeldon to give them enough dogs, and they have room for more, so they had to pull from surrounding counties such as Hardin, Carroll, Franklin, and Montgomery. WHAT??!

Last week Commissioner Konop proposed that Skeldon be removed from office, but he was out-voted by fellow Commissioners Pete Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak (Tom Skeldon’s first cousin). Konop says that Skeldon is doing the right thing by resigning; however, this has not softened his views on the dog warden. Konop wants him to step down immediately and says “I am not comfortable with him as our dog warden for even another day.” He plans to introduce a motion to have Skeldon dismissed immediately, and if that fails, he will attempt to have Skeldon suspended until his official date of retirement. Go Commissioner Konop!

Bonnie Mitchell, the current Dog Pound Manager, will act as the interim dog warden as Skeldon moves into retirement and until a permanent replacement is found. While this is a concern, since she must have been an integral part of Skeldon’s methods of operation at the pound (read: part of the problem), Commissioner Konop is not a fan of her stepping in as interim dog warden, and he hopefully, possibly, can find a better solution.

All in all, this is why HELP FIDO is JUMPING FOR JOY at the news of Tom Skeldon’s resignation! Judging from his decisions and practices while dog warden, one might conclude that Tom Skeldon finds some sort of sick pleasure or satisfaction in killing the hundreds of dogs that have had the misfortune of crossing his path. Mr. Skeldon has said that his first priority as dog warden was to protect the public from dogs. While this is of course an important and necessary part of being a dog warden, Skeldon seems to have forgotten that dogs often need protection from some people in society, as well as compassionate individuals to advocate for their well-being. Most citizens expect even a low level of these attributes from their county dog warden. Someone who does not understand or like dogs, who does not genuinely care about the welfare of animals, and who cannot or refuses to find a balance between protecting the public and looking out for the furry creatures that share our streets and homes, does not deserve or belong in a position of animal control.