BSL continues embarrassment in Springfield, MO

Springfield, MO's breed-specific law targeting pit bulls continued to provide embarrassment for the community this week.

Earlier this week, Jennifer Robinson visited the community of Springfield, MO and her dog, Captain, was seized from her because Captain was deemed to be a pit bull. According to Robinson, Captain is a 10 month old therapy dog that helps her deal with mental disabilities that she has from post tramatic stress disorder. 

 Robinson lives in Christian County which borders Springfield to the south, but when she visited Springfield with Captain, she wasn't in compliance with the Springfield law that requires pit bulls to be registered and microchipped. 

Not only was Captain seized from Robinson, but authorities are now refusing to give Captain back to Robinson until she proves he lives outside of the community. According to reports by KSPR TV in Springfield, this may prove additionally difficult for Robinson because she was readmitted back into the hospital due to all of the stress that losing her dog has caused her. 

If the dog is not reunited with Robinson, the dog will be killed by the shelter because the shelter does not allow pit bulls to leave the shelter alive unless they are reunited with owners, and, in fact, refuse to even work with rescue groups in order to help pit bulls leave the shelter safely. 

The current situation with Robinson and Captain is yet another example of the failure of Springfield's breed-specific law, and a failure that has beeen ongoing for nearly a decade.

Officials have viamently stood by their breed-specific law -- and declared it a success.  However, it really hasn't proven to be the case. In 2005, the year before the law was enacted, there were 102 dog bites in Springfield. In 2010, a 5 year report by KSPR reported there were 104. And, during that time, more than 1500 pit bulls were systematically slaughtered at the Springfield shelter - -or, basically, an average of 1 every single day for 5 years.

It's also worth noting that the community has increased the number of animal control officers by 33% since 2005 in order to help deal with the increased call volume.

So, the ordinance has cost more money, led to the killing of a lot of innocent dogs (including, potentially, Robinson's) and has led to no noticable decrease in dog bites. 

Because of the challenges the law has caused, more thann a year ago, the Springfield City Council created an Animal Issues Task Force to re-evaluate the ordinance. In September of 2013, the Task Force submitted its recommendations to the council, which included, recommending that the city repeal it's breed-specific law and replace the law with a behavior-based law that deals with dangerous dogs, vicious dogs, and reckless owners.

However, as of last week, the Council has taken no action on the recommendations -- after 15 months of having them. This has caused a lot of frustration among advocates in the community and among task force members who dedicated their time to making the recommended changes only to have the city council not act on the recommendations.

Springfield continues to struggle with the impact of its breed-specific laws, and it continues to be an ineffective waste of money and resources for the citizen in their community.  

If you are in the Springfield area, please urge your city council person to act upon the changes put forth by the Council Task force, to lift the mandatory death sentence for pit bulls that go into the shelter, and to help get Captain home.

Update: According to advocates in Springfield, Captain will be allowed to return home after he is neutered at an area clinic and Robinson will incur no fines.

Also, I realize that there may be some discussion about the role of Captain in Robinson's life. While there is often confusion between the terms "Service Dog", "Therapy Dog", "Support Dog", etc, I'll note that I do have huge issues with animals being taken from people when the dogs have done absolutely nothing wrong because of breed-specific policies, regardless of whether the dog is a service dog, or simply a pet.

Comments

[Stacy Williams]

This is my hometown. I still reside here and I've been fighting this ordinance since it's inception. In all fairness the news station failed to get the whole story. This dog IS being returned to the owner next week. Animal Control scheduled him to be neutered before they would release him. He's getting neutered at the clinic where I work and it's been paid in full. This woman will also incur no fines for his time at AC. However, if we didn't have this ordinance it would have been a NON ISSUE.

[EmilyS]

I certainly agree with your point about the SD/TD/CD issue. A service dog is clearly defined in the ADA as one that performs specific tasks for its disabled owner. And towns that try to enforce a breed ban on a service dog ALWAYS LOSE (as far as I know, anyway) because the law is so very clear.

But yes, the cruelty of taking a dog for no reason other than its appearance goes beyond whether the dog is "needed" under the ADA... and this incident makes it crystal clear. Kudo's to the folks like Stacy who are fighting to change the law

[anonymous]

vehemently. not viamently.

[bjean]

I had a job interview at Missouri State University last summer. Being a pit bull owner I did my research and found the city's ordinance prior to my interview. On my interview, I discussed this one issue that would keep me from accepting the job and if commuting from a neighboring county without BSL might be an option. I couldn't have felt more stigmatized. Several of the people I was interviewing with looked at me like I had four heads. One even said flat out I would never allow my family around that kind of dog. Needless to say, I wasn't offered the position. But then again, I didn't really expect to be.

[Karen Batchelor]

Perhaps anonymous would like to volunteer to be your proof reader Brent!

Thanks again for another well-researched article on this very important issue.

[Frog it]

Laws protect people from being banned based on race, so why do people think it is ok to ban a dog based on breed? Dogs deserve to be judged based on behavior, just like people.

[E Duffy]

Please NOTE....The dog was NOT seized due to breed! The POLICE dept asked for assistance of animal control as the woman was being hospitalized against her will in a mental facility!
The police dept does the same with any traffic stop where the owner is arrested or hospitalized regardless of breed!

[Brent]

E Duffy, yes, upon reading other reports it does appear as if the dog wasn't seized due to breed. However, it appears that the city's breed-specific policies are the reason for the delay in the owner getting her dog back.

[Megan Turvold]

Either way the bsl is wasting tax payers money and killing animals for their breed if thats not discrimination i dont know what it. And for the guy to not get the job he was applying for whether he wanted it or not because he had a nully or pitbull breed is discrimination upon the dogs owner for having that breed.The bsl needs to be dropped everywhere acrossed the country not just in missouri. Its not the breed that is vicious, its one dog out of how many??? That is vicious and over half the time these incidents occur is because of how the oqner of that dog has treated them or raised them or allowed others to treat them.

[Lisa Lawstudent]

And this in the state where public demonstrations are happening RIGHT NOW over claims of discrimination...

Whether you agree or not, it's certainly difficult to ignore the irony, isn't it?

[Noah Webster`]

E Duffy your comments are oxymorons in action.the dog (property) was illegally seized. Period -- the Police calling animal control is a ruse its like seizing your car because it has a flat tire on a street. If some one reviews Federal and State mental health laws its likely this persons rights were violated thru seizng of property and failure to provide legal aid. THe fact that her dog was forecablely mutilated by the State is a cause of action in and of itsself. Castration and forecaable drugging is abuse and mutalation.

[Noah Webster`]

E Duffy in my previous comment, for those who donot know how police work the car with falt tire would be towed to a wrecker yard and assessed towing fees and storage while the person (driver ) is in hospital yep the Police did nothing - right? Except they are the ones that called the wrecker (animal control) and authorized the towing. Now to get the personal property back that was inside of the car, what happens.? What peopole donot know/understand is that mental health committment laws are not codified under Criminal acts and mental illness is not a crime even if police treat it as so. The STATE doesnt have a right to seize your property without due process and then dismember it as a condition to get it back.

[CARLA]

was captain returned to her yes or no???

[Brent]

Yes Carla.