July 21, 2000

TO: Board Members of the City of Little Rock:

Dear Members of the Board:

I am the professional dog trainer/behaviorist who addressed you briefly on Tuesday, July 18, 2000, about the proposed revisions to Little Rock’s Animal Services Ordinances. Per the request of BJ Wyrick, and now Attorney Carpenter, I have committed my further comments to writing. Because my comments seem to fall into three distinct categories, I have divided my letter into three separate parts. I submit this with hopes that my comments will help you draft an effective animal ordinence that will benefit the general public without penalizing those members of the public that are already law-abiding and responsible.

As a responsible owner I support reasonable and necessary laws designed to protect the public’s welfare, provided those laws do not violate the rights of responsible animal owners, are well written, and provide a real solution to a real problem.

I do not accept the idea that responsible animal owners’ must bear a punitive monetary burden for those causing the problem. I do not accept that responsible animal owners’ rights must be violated in order to protect the public welfare. Responsible animal owners do not allow animals to present real threats or cause real problems within their communities and they obey the laws. I am opposed to any legislation proposed as a "knee-jerk" reaction to an emotionally laden incident or problem.

The current code may well need to be overhauled. If this is so, I encourage the elected representatives to exercise extreme caution and to proceed with restraint when drafting, proposing, and deliberating legislation to insure that logic and not emotion prevail.

Animal-related legislation is complicated and has many facets, including but not limited to the needs of the community as a whole and the emotional attachment of owners to their pets. It is critical that the needs of the community be considered, that the rights of owners be respected, and that the problem and solution be genuine.

We must differentiate between unwanted animals and excess animals. There is no evidence that there are too many dogs and cats being bred. Evidence proves most unwanted animals are unwanted for a reason.

In both of these instances, the key is not spaying/neutering but readily accessable education -- an equivalent of parenting classes for dog owners where the owners would learn a basic understanding of canine social structure and communication, what reasonable expectations for a dog’s growth and development are; and how to humanely exert leadership and control over the dog (training) so that he or she becomes a canine good citizen. Trainers have found that if we can keep the dog in the home for the first year, the likelihood that the dog will be surrendered to the shelter for behavior issues is dramatically reduced.

For example, let me share with the Board a fact which might help with the vicious dog legislation. A significant number of bites occur when a dog is chained. This happens for a number of reasons, including the chain causing increased feelings of territoriality. A dog that is chained out, staked out, or otherwise tied out, frequently spends a great deal of time by him or herself. As a pack animal, it requires a relationship with its family group, even if the other single pack member is human. Most dogs would prefer not to be the pack leader. They would much prefer to follow their human, but if their human fails to provide the proper leadership the dog will step into that role, and if there is no one there to teach him what is acceptable behavior, they will make it up themselves. Last year I spoke on the radio in defense of the Rottweiler who had mauled a three year old girl to death. I mourned for the child, but I also mourned for the dog. As I said then, you cannot anchor a dog to his doghouse with a chain, rip open a bag of dog food left on the ground, leave a bucket of dirty water for him and then expect him to know how to behave when thrust into human society, or when a human wanders into "his" territory.

Since chained or staked-out dogs are implicated in so many biting incidents, would it not make sense to make it illegal to chain, stake out or otherwise tie out a dog, except for short periods in an emergency situation? This also addresses the dilemma over what to do about "choke" (we call them "slip") collars. The intent, as I understand it, is to prevent tied up or staked out dogs from accidentally hanging themselves (which can also be done on a buckle collar, or if a dog walks out of a harness, as often happens).

I am pro neutering pet dogs and cats as a short-cut method to prevent unwanted litters. I agree with the vet who suggested that one waits until the animal is six months old and past its vaccination period, especially for females subjected to a hysterectomy (and doesn’t that sound different than the word "spay"?) and therefore am opposed to pediatric neutering.

Further, responsible breeders are already putting into their contracts that they will be responsible for the puppies they breed for the life of the dog. If, for whatever reason, the new owner becomes unwilling or unable to care for the dog, the dog is returned to the breeder. And then they follow up on the dog they sold, with phone calls and emails and letters, having the new owners send pictures and reports, keeping in touch throughout the life of the dog. I know some breeders who do quarterly newsletters for their puppy buyers. It is not the responsible breeders’ dogs who are turned into the shelter. The purebred dogs that comprise about 10% of shelter dogs come from puppy mills, pet shops, and backyard breeders, who do not provide, voluntarily, I might ad, such a clause in a contract. If a contract is offered.

Spay or pay laws are extremely difficult (and expensive) to enforce and they can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners. Numbers of dogs vaccinated and licensed may decrease as individuals may try to avoid breeding permits. High fines to redeem dogs allowed to run loose in the first place may result in an unclaimed dog.

The information I have is that spay and pay programs not only fail, but they penalize the one group of people who would most avidly support responsible dog ownership. Those individuals most likely to not spay and neuter are the same scoff laws that don’t obey existing laws. It is highly improbable that this ordinance will change their habits at all.

CRATE means a structure, made of wire, fiberglass, or plastic, that is completely enclosed but for a door and sufficient openings to allow free flow of air without allowing the dog inside to escape. If made of wire it should have a cleanable pan, usually of plastic or metal, on the bottom. It should be of sufficient size to allow the dog to stand up, turn around and lay down fully on its side. The crate is meant as an indoor substitute for a dog’s den. Since dogs will not soil their own beds unless they are forced to, crates are commonly used as a housebreaking device, as a "playpen" where dogs in training will not get into trouble, as a sickbed, when recuperating from illness or surgery, as a safe place to be while traveling, as a place to keep the dog safe when children who are uneducated to the proper way to behave around dogs come to the house, and as a safe place to feed a dog. Crates come in various sizes, from the ones small enough to fit under an airline seat to ones designed for Great Danes. I would be happy to provide a treatise and references on how many hours a crate should be used, but for the purposes of this analysis will simply confine myself to saying the following: if a dog receives sufficient exercise on a daily basis (at least 1/2 hour of aerobic exercise, such as ball chasing ) it can actually spend a great deal of time crated without harm, provided the crate is located in a well trafficked area of the house. Maximum number of hours to be crated? Depending on the circumstance, a good rule of thumb in my opinion, would be 12. But that is all it is: rule of thumb and not something to be legislated. There are times, during bouts of panostitis, or cruciate ligament injuries, for example, when veterinarians will recommend extended crate rest, sometimes for 6 weeks at a time, with only walks on leash to go potty. So I would be extremely careful about how this is phrased.

You also talk about "kennels", which, by your definition, is an establishment, rather than a "crate" or a "run". A "run" is a large, outdoor fenced area, where indoor dogs can be placed for exercise and to excrete, or outdoor dogs can live. I think it’s important to make that distinction.

Female dogs generally only come into breedable season twice a year. Although she is attractive to male dogs throughout that period she can only actually become impregnated some 7 days per season. If my math is right, that means that an intact female dog getting out one day in a year means she has a 1 in 182 chance of becoming pregnant.

Dogs kept at home cannot breed indiscriminately. Dogs kept at home are less of a danger to the public. Dogs kept at home are not hit by cars and left injured or dead on the public roads. If you cannot now enforce your leash laws, which would prevent irresponsible owners from letting their pets run loose, how are you going to enforce the spay or pay law, and the breeding permit regulations?

If "Responsible Pet Ownership 101" had been instituted in the schools ten years ago, we would now be graduating an entire generation of people with knowledge of how important it is to spay and neuter pets, to keep them from roaming, and how socialization and training contribute to having a well mannered dog. In fact, these kids would be educating their parents, and when that happens it becomes a "win" situation for everyone -- the dogs, the kids, the parents, the shelters, and the City of Little Rock.

It can still be done, and with the help of the local dog clubs, the American Kennel Club, and other interested "dog" people. I know this is a possibility because I’ve already been contacted by a local coalition of dog clubs in Arkansas that is just forming and they are very, very interested in assisting in any way they can. I’m sure you will hear from them in another venue.

The subject of animal ordinances is a very large plate with a lot of separate compartments and what appears to be one way on the surface may well prove to be another way when that surface is scratched. In Part II I will present a series of statistics and facts. Part III (which will be sent prior to Part II) is a detailed analysis of the draft Ordinance as written and read for the first time.

Let me leave you with this quote from Ingrid Newkirk, a co-founder of PETA -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Ingrid states:

These views do not reflect mine, or the views of the majority of pet owners.