Who, exactly, is "at risk" here?!

The Indianapolis BSL issue continues to develop... though not in a rational, intelligent, progressive sort of way. He's played with the semantics -- the proposal's wording has changed from "Dangerous Dog" to "At Risk Dog" (you bet they're "at risk" under this proposal!) -- but District 24 Councillor Mike Speedy is pushing breed restrictions harder than ever.

Much of the Indianapolis animal welfare community received a copy of the open letter from the Humane Society of Indianapolis to the members of the City-County Council, drafted by John Aleshire (HSI's Executive Director) in response to Speedy's proposed ordinance against pit bull type dogs (if you somehow missed this wrecking ball, see my previous post). Councillor Speedy conveniently sent an open-letter reply to this email, followed by a press statement, in which he not only demonstrates his complete disregard for true and factual information -- more on that below! -- but also reveals that he is not terribly interested in cooperating with any members of the veterinary, animal behavior or animal welfare communities who do not share his all-bully-breeds-are-necessarily-evil philosophy.

My sister has written a lengthy and factually-supported analysis of Speedy's response, which can be read here (along with the original letter): http://caninesinaction.blogspot.com/2009/04/view-of-councillor-speedys-letter-on.html. It is definitely worth reading, so please take a few minutes to look at her post.


Now, back to the "...he said what?" department. Speedy's press statement, submitted to The Indianapolis Star, includes the claim, "Opponents to the At Risk Dog proposal agree on two things, (1) that Indianapolis has a pit bull problem; and (2) that a breed specific solution is needed."

As a matter of fact, both of these statements are completely untrue, at least in the sense that Speedy doubtless intends them. Indianapolis, along with most of the United States, does face the problem that pit bulls are often abused, neglected, and treated as the playthings of drug and dog-fighting rings -- in that sense only, there is an acknowledged "pit bull problem." However, no group that has publicly opposed Speedy's proposal endorses the view that pit bulls specifically are a threat to public welfare, nor a problem in and of themselves. Furthermore, copied at the bottom of Speedy's own email is the original HSI letter, in which all of the following groups supported the HSI's statement against breed-specific legislation.

"The Humane Society of Indianapolis and the entire animal welfare community cited by name on our attached position statement is completely opposed to ANY BSL ordinance and will adamantly work to defeat any such ordinance."

Alliance for Responsible Pet Ownership (ARPO)
American Pit Bull Terrier/American Staffordshire Rescue Organization (ASTRO)
Casa Del Toro
Cats Haven
FACE Low-Cost Spay/Neuter Clinic
Feral Bureau of Indiana (FBI)
Friends of Indianapolis Animal Care & Control Foundation
Friends of Indianapolis Dogs Outside (FIDO)
Hamilton County Low Cost Spay Neuter Clinic
Indianapolis Animal Care and Control
IndyFeral
Indy Pit Crew
Move to Act
South Side Animal Shelter
Spay Neuter Services of Indiana (SNSI)
Walk a Hound Lose a Pound

In making that blanket statement, Speedy has effectively dismissed all 17 of the above animal welfare groups, or at the least has refused to acknowledge their open letters, public statements and published policies opposing BSL. He is certainly not welcoming their input or professional experience -- which seems to be consistent with Speedy's modus operandi, as he has never to my knowledge cited a single veterinarian, behaviorist, trainer, or reputable statistical research group in any stage of his push for breed restrictions. (In fact, his proposed ordinance directly opposes the legislative approach endorsed by the CDC, the AVMA, and other legitimate organizations.)

Additionally, in his reply to Aleshire's HSI letter, Speedy gripes:

"Also, the tactics used to portray unified opposition have been unbecoming. They have pressured, arm-twisted and where needed, resorted to character attacks. They have degraded, silenced and shoved aside many in the animal welfare community who have differing opinions or have given their professional lives to pit bulls and elected officials who see it as their number one duty to protect people. They do not want a public discussion offering alternative, effective solutions."

After sorting out that somewhat contradictory mouthful -- and after many readings, I'm still not sure exactly whom he's attacking -- it seems Speedy doesn't care one whit about the many respectful letters, emails, phone calls, and public statements submitted to the council by both private citizens and nonprofit animal welfare groups. One example (of the many I've personally read or heard) was, again, copied at the bottom of the VERY SAME EMAIL in which Speedy complains of non-unified, below-the-belt opposition tactics. Aleshire writes:

"As the new Executive Director of the Humane Society of Indianapolis, I am pleased to report that there is unprecedented collaboration underway by each of the animal welfare groups listed on our statement. We have become known as the Animal Welfare Summit group and we have just received a grant from the Central Indiana Community Foundation (CICF) to fund a strategic plan for animal welfare in Indianapolis. This process will take a year or so to complete. But sometime in mid 2010 we intend to have an Animal Welfare Strategic Plan for our city and that plan is likely to include recommendations for your consideration.

"We respectfully suggest that any future animal welfare legislation wait until the full strategic plan is complete and has been shared with you."

So... the Animal Welfare Summit group offers to create a strategic plan to address the issue, and to submit it for legislators' consideration. I personally know of other animal professionals and private constituents who have written to the members of the City-County Council and offered suggestions for more appropriate legislation, even citing other cities' programs for comparison. And then Mike Speedy claims that those who oppose BSL "do not want a public discussion offering alternative, effective solutions."

Am I missing something here?

At first, when this proposal came to light, I legitimately thought that Speedy was simply misinformed. He once had a bad scare when a pit bull barked at him, and I could see someone in that situation mistakenly subscribing to the media hype that pit bulls are just plain mean. But after reading Speedy's most recent public statements, I'm starting to wonder if he has some sort of ulterior motive, some kind of specific maliciousness in targeting bully breeds. The only other explanation for this kind of ridiculous dismissal would be gross ineptitude -- and, as he's one of the voting members of our City-County Council, I truly hope that isn't the case.

I suppose Councillor Speedy would classify that statement as an "unbecoming character attack" by the opposition. But since he has clearly indicated that he doesn't care about my professional or private opinion, I don't think I have much to lose.