Family pets taken from homes...

Monkey · Dec 7, 2012

to be put down.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2012/12/sikeston-mo-begins-pit-bull-roundup-.html

Several years ago, Sikeston, MO passed a law that automatically made 'pit bull type' dogs automatically declared dangerous. In order for people to keep their dogs, owners had to license their dogs (which included taking multiple pictures of the dogs from various angles), keep them leashed and muzzled, and post 'beware of dog signs in their yards.

However, apparently that wasn't enough for the authorities in Sikeston -- and yesterday, they began rounding up 'pit bulls' out of people's homes to take to the shelter. Most will likely be killed there. It doesn't matter that these dogs were family pets. It doesn't matter that owners did everything to comply with the law. It doesn't seem to matter that the dogs had no history of aggression or complaints about them. It only seems to matter that they look like pit bulls, and the city authorities want them dead. All of them.

And looky here. The e-mail addresses of the Sikeston city council.

http://www.sikeston.org/departments/city_council/meet_your_council_members.html#TomHedrick

Hey... I've suddenly got the urge to write again!

rugcat · Dec 7, 2012

That's absurd.

There must be something more to this story we're not getting.

Monkey · Dec 7, 2012

There's extreme prejudice against pit bulls. Seriously.

And that prejudice feeds upon itself mightily, largely due to what's known as "Pit Bull-type." Pit Bull-type basically means a short, short-haired dog with a blocky head and nose that's short in relation to its body. Any bite by any dog meeting this description can and often is reported as a "Pit Bull attack," and the description is not in any way exact, so statistics show a much-inflated number of "Pit bull or pit bull type" dogs attacking people.

I have a pit. I've had to face down a coalition of my family members who were worried that I would keep such a "dangerous animal" around my children... and this dog has never so much as raised a hackle at one of my kids. Never growled, never snapped, never acted in any way angry or mean. They play with her, sleep beside her, paint her toenails.

As my friend Kristi says, these dogs that are being taken have not been shown to be aggressive. These are law-abiding people, with pets that have committed no crime. That the city would come in and take them, then kill them, is absolutely terrible.

veinglory · Dec 7, 2012

It appears possible that this is a false rumor based on a few dogs that were picked up for not complying with the licensing rules http://www.kfvs12.com/story/20291371/sikeston-city-manager-reports-of-pit-bull-roundups-are-false

I would want confirmation from law enforcement or the shelter as to how many dogs were seized for what reason before believing the story as first reported.

If the dogs were really meant to be euthanised summarily, how does the story that dogs were shipped out to no kill shelters make sense?

Monkey · Dec 7, 2012

That... depends on who you ask, I guess. Here's an update, just posted: http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2012/12/update-on-the-situation-in-sikeston.html

-- From animal control's perspective, the "roundup" was part of an "audit" of the people who had licensed dogs under the city's pit bull restrictions. The restrictions require registration, Beware of Dog signs, insurance, top and bottom gate locks and requiring a muzzle if the dog is off your property. Animal Control was "auditing' these owners to be sure they were complying. If they weren't in compliance, their dogs were seized.

Note that these rather extreme rules applied only to "Pit Bull Type" dogs.

-- Earlier, Animal Control had estimated that SHS would receive about 20 dogs through this "audit" -- which is why the dogs at the shelter were shipped out. However, due to the push back, animal control never finished their audit -- and Mr. White isn't sure they ever will. Because they didn't finish, the final number of dogs received at the shelter was only 3 (which is still 3 too many). The dogs are going to be held to give the owners enough time to comply with the regulations and hopefully get their dogs back. Mr. White is working with these owners to get their dogs back, and if they cannot, they will be adopted out or sent to rescue.

So it sounds as if public outcry has stopped most of the dogs from being rounded up, and has given those rounded up a stay of execution.

But that doesn't mean this was the plan all along.

veinglory · Dec 7, 2012

Okay, so the law required all kind of dumb things, but it is the law. I suspect the owners will get their dogs back if they do them. Or it will devolve into a lengthy debate about what is or is not a pit bull. One of those things.

The law is frequently an ass but for those who agree their dog is a pittie, they need to follow it.

Monkey · Dec 7, 2012

Even if their dog is clearly not a pittie, it can still fit "pit bull type." That "type" is often in the eye of the beholder.

But I'm very glad that this issue seems to be getting resolved in a hurry. I plan to write a letter thanking the city council for stopping the seizures, and encouraging them to reconsider their draconian laws regarding people's pets.

William Haskins · Dec 8, 2012

rugcat said:
That's absurd.

There must be something more to this story we're not getting.

perhaps a third use of "automatically" in that opening sentence in the original article?

leahzero · Dec 8, 2012

It only seems to matter that they look like pit bulls, and the city authorities want them dead. All of them.

Yeah, no. Local government is making efforts to ship the confiscated dogs to no-kill shelters.

Kind of hard to take it seriously when the blog you're sourcing is clearly distorting the facts and making hyperbolic claims.

Liralen · Dec 9, 2012

Those of us who own Pitbulls -- and love them -- fight this kind of mess every day. The compleat ignorance on both sides, one side malignant, the other well-meaning but very nearly as damaging.

I've been soapboxing on this for years now, long before I came to own one.

First and foremost, there is no such BREED as a "Pitbull." The term Pitbull is a catch-all type that's used to broadly categorize pretty much anything with a squarish head that's large in comparison to a heavily muscled body.

The BREED is "American Pit Bull Terrier," and up until recent witchhunts they've been known by the well earned nickname, "The Nanny Dog." Staffordshire Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers are breeds that also get swept up in the madness.

Gah. This stuff makes me crazy.

If you want a graphic illustration of what happens when "pitbull" owners abide by the law and do their best to follow all the special rules that single out "pitbulls," do some reading on Lennox' story, in Northern Ireland.

I have to wonder if the outrage heard round the world from Lennox has made these municipalities a bit more careful about backing off now.

veinglory · Dec 10, 2012

Which is why I said this divides two ways. 1) Owner agrees dog it pittie and complies with stupid law, and 2) owner disputes that dog is pittie and gets embroiled in ridiculous argument based on an undefinable category.

IMHO, while lobbying to repeal the law I would probably just comply with it if asked to by animal control. And animal control should get a clue and realize they need to let people know rather than assume everyone magically knows what made up "breed" they want to say an given dog its.

IMHO no specific breed is or is not a pittie. It is apply roughly to anything from the bull and terrier line and any dog that looks a bit like one (e.g. boxers crosses etc).

Family pets taken from homes...

Monkey

Is me.

rugcat

Lost in the Fog

Monkey

Is me.

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Monkey

Is me.

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Monkey

Is me.

William Haskins

poet

leahzero

The colors! THE COLORS!

Liralen

Miss Conceived

veinglory

volitare nequeo