Two beige and white, Labrador retriever/husky 2-year-olds have occupied a kennel at the Santa Barbara County Animal Shelter in Santa Maria since April. They’re on a sort of doggy death row.
The puppies are waiting for the courts to make a final ruling in their case: Should they be euthanized (killed humanely) under the county’s dangerous dogs ordinance? Daisy and Duke got out of their owners’ yard on three separate occasions earlier this year and gave into their predator/prey instinct, killing three different pet cats in Orcutt.
The family that owned the dogs, the Hennings, doesn’t deny the fact that their dogs are guilty of killing neighbors’ cats, but they do take issue with the potential punishment. They believe, as do both a veterinarian and an animal trainer who testified at the dogs’ June hearing, that Duke and Daisy could be trained not to attack cats through aversion training—used to teach hunting dogs to steer clear of rattlesnakes.
“We take full responsibility for what Duke and Daisy did. It’s just awful. We feel so sorry that it happened,” Peggy Henning said. “Is there a better way to prevent another cat from being killed? Is putting them down really the only thing to do?”
“These are lovable puppies, they just need to learn not to kill cats,” she added.
Because of Daisy and Duke’s case and a few other similarly unique dangerous dog hearings over the last six months to a year, the county is currently in the process of revising the dangerous dogs ordinance and held public meetings about the draft revision on Sept. 3 in Santa Barbara and Sept. 4 in Santa Maria. The revisions outline two different labels—potentially dangerous dogs and vicious dogs—and lists a variety of punishments, fines, and requirements that can be levied against a dog and its owner, depending on what the charges against the dog are. The hearing officer can also elect to have a dog humanely destroyed, if it’s labeled a vicious dog.
Under the county’s current law, put on the books more than 15 years ago, there’s no wiggle room. Euthanasia is the only option for a dog that has been ruled to be a “dangerous dog.” Whether they attacked a human or a cat, whether they are lovable, friendly, un-aggressive, well-trained dogs that slipped up once or are aggressive, non-trained dogs that slip up all the time.
The Hennings’ dogs are subject to the law that’s currently on the books. The county determined that they are dangerous dogs, and the judge in their June hearing had no choice but to rule that they be euthanized. After that hearing, the family started a petition on Change.org to advocate for changing the county’s ordinance; it now has approximately 2,000 signatures.
“They’ve sort of become the mascots for this, fortunately or unfortunately, I don’t know,” Henning said. “I just really appreciate that there’s an openness to have this dialogue.”
Shirley Jansen of the Dog Adoption and Welfare Group (DAWG) in Santa Barbara said the petition helped push the county to make changes. She said the county notified DAWG about the draft revisions after the Hennings’ petition was already online.
“I think the county realized at that point that their law was very badly flawed,” Jansen said. “The law should enable flexibility.”
According to Susan Klein-Rothschild, deputy director of the county Public Health Department, which also oversees Animal Services, the goal of the draft revisions is to modernize the law’s language and give more options for dealing with dog cases—catering punishments/requirements to go with each situation. She facilitated the Sept. 4 meeting in Santa Maria.
“We as the county would like more flexibility after a hearing,” Klein-Rothschild said during the meeting. “Right now, we have no flexibility.”
She said the purpose of the public meetings was to get input on the proposed changes. Klein-Rothschild told the Sun that some of the people who attended the Santa Barbara meeting wanted to see definitions of terms such as “provoked” or “unprovoked” included in the ordinance; a delineation between dogs with one incident on their record and dogs with multiple incidents; and more emphasis on punishments that match individual circumstances.
Jeanne Sparks, who attended the meeting in Santa Maria and is also a member of Winners of Off-Leash Freedom (WOOF), said she wanted to see training for dogs and their owners included as a potential punishment in the ordinance.
“There are no bad dogs, only poorly trained owners,” Sparks said during the Sept. 4 meeting.
In addition to taking comments at that meeting, Klein-Rothschild mentioned that the Department of Public Health is working on contracting with a third party to conduct an independent review of Animal Services.
In the last year, three separate mauling incidents have happened at county animal shelters; the most recent left a dog—Kitti, who was waiting for a ruling from her dangerous dog hearing—dead.
“Mauled is a gentle word; the dog was literally torn to pieces,” Jansen of DAWG said.
Klein-Rothschild did not say whether the independent review is a direct result of the dog maulings, but did tell the Sun that the department takes full responsibility for what happened and is taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
“The incident that happened recently was really sad,” Klein-Rothschild said. “We had an error, gates were left open and animals were able to have access to each other that shouldn’t have. … We are making changes because of this.”
As for changes to the ordinance, Klein-Rothschild said the department was taking everyone’s comments under consideration and is counting on presenting a new draft of the ordinance to the county Board of Supervisors at the beginning of October, which would hopefully put a new ordinance into place by the end of the year.
In the meantime, Jansen doesn’t want Duke and Daisy to be the last dogs destroyed under the current law.
“Most right-thinking people see that this is ridiculous and very, very sad,” Jansen said. “We will keep trying as long as there’s the remotest chance we can save these dogs.”
This article appears in Sep 11-18, 2014.