Appendix (4) What Blogger Thinks Should Happen

DRAFT #1 -

Here's what Blogger hopes happens, should happen and must happen, based on the facts that are known to us. (Of course, what Blogger thinks will not make any difference to the outcome of the current case. However, what Blogger does and what you do ill make a difference on what happens in the future.)

1- The small dog that was injured recovers quickly and fully (which, we understand, is happening).

2- Sidney is permitted to go home to NY with his family now, but in the future, if his guardians intend to bring him into DC again for a visit (why they would want to is beyond me, considering this whole event and the loose process trap they feel into), they must notify the DoH that they are bringing him back to town and that while here the street he should wear a non-restrictive muzzle, and that they show proof of insurance. (By the way, these matters do not get to liability, because those things are outside of the reach of the DoH and are well covered by law, but someone needs to look closely at the issues of assumption of risk, contributory negligence, forseeable consequences, and the like before pinning the full blame on the large dog.)

3- These things must happen
(a) Someone looks into why this case shot up to the DDA without the usual process being followed, a miscarriage that contributed to much unfavorable publicity for DC, an enormous waste of city resources that could have been put to better use, and an expenditure on the part of private citizens that was patently unfair consdiering the options.
(b) The "consent" option to seize a dog in DC is either removed from the DDA or DoH publishes very specific guidelines on what it takes to get it, e.g., material facts and reasons explained in writing, what is happening and why, clarify options, signatures, etc.
(c) Written guidelines for what the process is for processing dangerous dog complaints, to be used as much for getting a dog into out justifiably as keeping a dog who doesn't belong under it out if it.
(d) Education of public on what is proper protocol for walking dogs on city streets in places where there will be small and large dogs
(e) Exploration of what constitutes provocation of a dog bite, sufficient to get a dog into the DDA or keep a dog out of it. Perhaps GWU Animal Law Center can write a law review article on this.
(f) Training for police department on how to handle dogs (in view of the fact that the police officer almost shot Sidney long after the melee broke up)

The fundamental question for the future is, What can we do to reduce the chances of all of this happening again in DC. We believe that every problem along the way was avoidable. The question is, How does the word get out?

(f) That the noise some are making about pitbulls ends and that the city's time, energy, and money gets focused on the underlying problems and not just one breed. The underlying problems include the cruelty to animals, the inadequate funding of the animal control program, and the policies in place to work within that funding.

Blogger --- and many others --- would also like to see DoH change its policy about not behavior-testing pitbulls and, therefore, automatically making them unadoptable, meaning their death. Until that policy changes, DC does not havea no-kill policy and has, in effect, a ban on pitbulls, pitbulls that are unfortunate enough to end up in the animal control shelter. Of course, we recognize that the reason for this is that there are insufficient funds to behavior test all dogs, and we also recognize that they it would be irresponsible to forego the testing of dogs and just release them back into the public. But we also believe if people knew the facts (we know more than most and we know very little, I fear) perhaps the funding would be there from the public, not just to behavior test pitbulls (and pitbull mixes) but to go after the source of the real problems. If ever there was an opportune time, now is the time to do this. Just as ourperceptive mayor did with the city's school program, he needs to reach out to progressive communities to see what they have done, even if it means hiring away their leaders aware. DC cares about its pets I think as much as it does its children. DC, thanks in part to city council members and the Humane Society, has done some good things for animal protection, but we have a ways to go before we can say that we are a leader in this regard. We are the nation's capital; we should be the leader in this area.

Perhaps all of this is in the 5-Year-Plan for Animal Control which Howard Nelson put forward before he left for Pennsylvania.

Those are my thoughts. Any thoughts of your own? Feel free to post them. Of course, only intelligent, compassionate comments will be published.