Back in 2006, Springfield, MO passed an ordinance that banned 'pit bulls' from the city. As part of the ban, the city shelter was no longer adopting out any 'pit bulls', or allowing rescues from other areas to pull them for adoption.
Nope, if you are an unlicensed 'pit bull' in Springfield, and the city gets their hands on you, you're dead. There are no other options. You don't have to bite someone. You can be a great dog. It doesn't matter. It's instant death for the dog.
Councilwoman Mary Collette tried to change that last night. She had proposed to the council that even though she didn't agree with the ban, the least the city could do is allow licensed rescues from other cities to pull well-tempered 'pit bulls' and adopt them out in other cities that don't have bans.
Last night, the city council voted 6-3 to deny Collette's request, and to continue killing all 'pit bulls'. The perceived notion that they were protecting the public wasn't enough (their data deosn't really support that they are having a real impact on the public safety angle)-- only killing was enough for them.
The council apparently agreed with City Attorney Dan Wichmer, who said the city would be at risk of a lawsuit if someone ever got bitten by a dog the let go.
Honestly, this is where the city has made such a huge flaw in their law in the first place. By passing BSL, they have now made the statement that its not owners that are responsible for their dogs. Nope, instead of making owners responsible for their dogs (they should be), they have now made the precarious statement that the city knows what a dangerous dog is - -and have such, banned them. However, if that is their logic, then it would appear that the city is opening itself up to be liable for any dog attack -- because if THEY are the ones who know what a dangerous dog is, and owners aren't responsible, this seems like they are in the same jeopardy of lawsuit for any dog that now attacks in the city.
We have to start requiring owners to be responsible for the actions of their dogs. There is no other successful way to deal with dog attacks. And cities may be opening themselves up to liability issues because they are now assuming responsibility.
The whole logic in Springfield is flawed - and fatally so for countless dogs who are not aggressive, not dangerous, and heck, many not even 'pit bulls'. But in the past 3 years, this city of 150,000, has killed approximately 900 pit bulls.
And the slaughter continues.
That's terrible. I wonder what the stats say for that city. Ratios of all dog bites to pit bull/mixes and number of pit bulls in the city, etc. Because no doubt this is another case of willful innumeracy amongst the governing personnel of this city--i.e., overreaction!
I haven't read your blog before but I can see your knowledgeable on this subject. This law is unfair to the many pit bulls that are just nice dogs.
Good point about opening up the city to liability for other breed-bites as well.
Posted by: TC | April 07, 2009 at 09:22 PM
TC:
Here are the #s I know. Impoundments from Jan -May 2007 were 1,367 - -and went up to 1,672 in the same time period in 2008. So impoundments were up. Now some other changes they made at the shelter did improve adoption rates (to the shelter's credit), but obviously impounds were up.
I'm working on getting the other information...
Posted by: Brent | April 07, 2009 at 09:34 PM
Fascinating! City Council is sort of painting themselves into a very small corner.
Brad Jensen
Cypress,CA
Posted by: Brad Jensen | April 07, 2009 at 10:37 PM
What these awful people are saying, which is the same thing the HSUS reps said in the Wilkes Co. NC case, is that a dog adopted from a city facility renders that city liable for its behaviour for the rest of its life.
Taking this line of skewed reasoning to its logical conclusion, no dogs should therefore be adopted from city shelters regardless of shape, because the city is vulnerable if that dog snaps, snarls, chews shoes or steals the Easter ham (as my Mum's Chow did one year - he was guzzling water for a week lol).
Someone should point out to them that there is such a thing as an adoption release form (I've signed them in the past) and that not everyone suffers from a lack of reasoning ability.
I'm convinced they just want all the 'pit bulls' to take the blame for human shortcomings. Either that, or they just like to kill dogs because thanks to propaganda, it's the 'in' thing to do in the hinterlands.
Posted by: Selma | April 08, 2009 at 07:06 AM
Time to vote the assholes out of office Springfield!
Posted by: PAMM - People Against Malevolent Morons | April 08, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Humane Society in New Castle, PA 16101 has the same policy! Headlines in the local paper..."Woman claims adoption refused" 2/8/11 New Castle News New Castle, PA...she tried to adopt a 6 mo.or so pitt bull just turned in as a stray, says she got a pitt bull rescue organ. involved, & the society would not release the pitt bull to any one...their policy is to put down any dog of that breed! What a travisty!!! I'm sick of things like this... Linda Phillips Lawrence Co. Animal Releif Fund aka LC-ARF newly formed organ. trying to effect change and help the animals in the county.
Posted by: Linda M. Phillips | February 14, 2011 at 08:23 AM
What a bunch of clueless ASSHOLES!!!!!!
Posted by: kelly g | November 09, 2011 at 03:21 PM
I love this term "PULL". The only thing this is is rescues wanting dogs for free so they can go to the media begging for donations because they have "RESCUED" this dog and dont have the funds to care for it. In my opinion all rescues do is contribute to the over population problem.
Posted by: jim | February 01, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Jim, you are an idiot.
Posted by: Brent | February 02, 2012 at 08:41 AM