KC DOG BLOG

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.

Hiding behind the word "adoptable"

Last week, there was a news story out of Springfield, MO about their successful, 19 week run, at being a "no kill" shelter.  While, there are many good points about the story, it did highlight for me maybe one of my biggest pet peeves in animal sheltering that I feel like I'm seeing a lot more of these days.

First, a little about Springfield, MO's shelter. The shelter itself is very small and very old -- and was very much designed as a catch and kill facility (like many old shelters were). The shelter is less than 4000 square feet in size, serving a population of more than 200,000 people. It has 34 cages/runs.  The Springfield, MO shelter does not even attempt to adopt animals out of their shelter.  And as recently as two years ago, roughly 2500 (out of a total of 5,000 impounds) animals were killed in the city shelter. 

However, many rescue groups began working with the city to pull more animals out of the city shelter.  And these groups have had tremendous success pulling animals, getting them healthy, and getting them into homes. And for 19 weeks, all "adoptable" dogs from the Springfield Shelter have been saved.

This is a huge testiment to the work being done by the rescue groups -- and to a degree, the city for working with them.

On the flip side, I have an issue with the city hiding behind the word "adoptable".

Back in 2006, Springfield passed a law that required insurance, certain types of enclosures and muzzles for all 'pit bull' type dogs. In the process, the city also retained its policy to not allow rescues to pull 'pit bulls' dogs from the shelter. So, once a 'pit bull' got into the shelter, it could be reclaimed by its owners, or it would be killed. No other options. In the first 5 years of the ordinance -- Springfield killed more than 1500 pit bulls (of 1700 impounded) -- so an average of nearly one every day for 5 years.

These dogs were declared "unadoptable" -- not because they were sick, or injured, or agressive. But because of what they looked like.

So essentially, if the law of averages plays out - -in the past 19 weeks while Springfield has been declaring itself "no kill" of "adoptable" animals, it has killed roughly 133 'pit bulls' that they just declared "unadoptable".   Incidentally, this is the same shelter that for the first 7 months of 2010 put out a presentation that declared 37% of their entire shelter intake as "ill or injured euthanized" -- and 19% "healthy euthanized".  

Now, let me note, that I'm familiar with how shelters work - -and there absolutely are animals that enter open access shelters that need to be, and should be, euthanized. They are untreatably ill or aggressive -- and euthanasia is the best policy for them.  This is why you hear No Kill groups talk about the importance of achieving a 90% save rate as reaching true "no kill" -- because they expect about 10% of the population to be untreatably ill or aggressive. And even then, some very progressive shelters, like in Austin, are now working to do more to help the "last 10%".

This post isn't meant to belittle anyone who is really making an honest effort to achieve no kill  wherever they are in the process - -whether you're still working hard to achieve a 90% save rate, or have achieve that and working on the last 10%.  It's also not an effort to belittle the efforts of the rescues in Springfield who are truly saving all the animals they can.

But this post is about being honest. It's about being honest about how many animals are still being killed in the shelter because illness abounds, or the resources don't exist to treat them (yet), or rehabilitate their behavioral issues or because a blanket policy exists to not even try with dogs of certain breeds.  It's about not hiding behind the word "adoptable" -- and pretending you're doing everything you can do and saving them all  and creating a false-sense of "success" while declaring 37% of the animals at your shelter as too ill to be treated and a whole grouping of dogs as "unadoptable" because of how they look.  

That's not transperency. That's not honesty. And that's not No Kill.

We've all seen shelters that do this -- that report figures based on "adoptable" animals -- but with no real clarification of what "adoptable" really means -- and then, systematically, weeding hard to adopt dogs out of the program by declaring them "unadoptable".

It's wrong.  And the animals deserve better. And the public deserves to know the truth. From the shelter, and from the media that covers the shelter.

Defining "working" -- Springfield, MO edition

Five years ago, the city of Springfield, MO passed a law heavily restricting pit bull type dogs. Owners are required to have heavy insurance policies, license their pets and dogs must wear muzzles when in public spaces.

Since the law was enacted, Springfield has impounded more than 1700 'pit bulls' and pit bull mixes  -- and  killed more than 1500 of them --an average of nearly 1 a day. This is in part because the city doesn't think restricting them is enough -- but they also insist on killing all 'pit bulls' that come into the shelter that are not reclaimed by their owners.  To put this number in perspective, in 2006, the city licensed 620 'pit bulls' -- now the number is closer to 300. This means that hte city has succesfully slaughter 3.5x more 'pit bulls' than they were ever able to even register.

In spite of the ramant killing (or maybe because of it), Animal Control in Springfield says they think ordinance is working.

"Before the ordinance in 2005 animal control says about a third or 33% of all dog bite complaints involved pit bulls or pit-bull mixes.  In 2010, the number dropped to 11%. 'It's always better to do something as opposed to nothing' said animal control supervisor Randy Barnts. "We saw what happened before and what happened after the ordinance. Obviously the situation has improved greately."

Execpt, really, it hasn't.

In 2005, before the ordinance was passed, Springfiled had a total of 102 dog bites -- 34 of them by 'pit bulls' (it's telling to note that because of 34 dog bites by 'pit bulls', more than 1500 have been slaughtered -- seems as if a law killng 44x the number of biting dogs is a bit over-reaching, no?)  In 2010, they had a total of 104 dog bites, 11 by pit bulls.

So, they decreased the number of attacks by pit bulls (which is bound to happen when you kill 1500 of them over past 5 years), but dog bites have stayed essentially the same.   Or if you put it another way, while the city has been busy rounding up 'pit bulls', dog bites by all non-pit bull type dogs has risen from 68 to 93 -- a 37% increase. Success indeed.

One city council member, Doug Burlison, continues to fight for a repeal of the law -- so that the city will focus on dangerous DOGS, not specific breeds.  He notes that the impound and death criteria for 'pit bulls' is very subjective and inconsistent.  It is a tough road for Burlison as the city staff seems content to define "working" any way they want -- especially if they consider it 'working' when no decrease in dog bites is seen and the city is just spending thousands of dollars capturing and killing 'pit bulls'. 

It's an ugly situation - and has been from the start. I wish Mr. Burlison success -- and hope the citizens of Springfield will make their feelings known about this terrible situation.

For more commentary on the recent news article out of Springfield:

Bless the Bullies - Springfield, MO pit bull ordinance a success....seriously??

Stop BSL -- Springfiled, MO: Stats don't back up claims of BSL success

KC Dog Blog -- Springfield, MO looks to possibly re-address breed specific law -- this is a post that puts together more statistical data on Springfield from roughly a year ago.

Springfield, MO looks to possibly re-address breed-specific law

Last week, news hit that several members of the Springfield City Council are taking a look at some animal control policies -- including the city's current breed-specific law - and a potential new shelter for the community.

In 2006, Springfield passed a law that requires all 'pit bulls' to be micro-chipped, muzzled, spayed/neutered and a host of other restrictions.

Two groups got together -- the Plans and Policies committe and the Community Involvement Committee -- to discuss various animal-related issues in the city; but eventually all talk seemed to center around the city's pit bull ordinance and the city animal shelter.

Councilman Doug Burlison, who two years ago tried to repeal the 'pit bull' ordinance -- calling it unenforceable - is the chair of the Plans and Policies Committee. Former Councilwoman Mary Collette, who was on the council when the law passed and has been a vocal opponent of the ordinance, is also providing input. Collette thinks the city should replace the breed-specific ordinance with a vicious animal ordinance that would cover all dangerous animals -- not just pit bulls.

Director of the Springfield - Greene County Health Department Kevin Gipson (who's department is responsible for enforcing the codes) notes that he never liked the breed-specific ordinance -- but says it has done good in the city.

So with that in mind, I thought I'd take a look at the actual numbers in the city to see how things are working (and thanks to the folks at the Greene County Health Department for being so easy to work with on getting the numbers).

The first year I have data for is 2005 -- which is the most recent "clean" year. The pit bull ordinance was passed in 2006.  The 2010 numbers are through September only (I've put the 'projected' number in parenthesis just for comparison purposes if the same pace holds up over the last 3 months of the year).

Dogs Impounded      Total Dogs            Pits & Mixes

2005                                            2289                                    502

2006                                            2079                                    362

2007                                            2366                                    252

2008                                            2863                                    204

2009                                            2660                                    214

2010                                            1740 (2320)                     123 (164)

So according to their statistics, impounds are generally trending upward for all dogs (with a slight downturn in 2010) while the number 'pit bulls' impounded has been on the decline. This could be because people have opted to get different breeds of dogs because of all of the restrictions, or moved out of town, or because of how they're identifying mixes -- or some combination of all of those things.  But more animals are being impounded than before the ordinance.

Dog Bites                    Total Dogs                    Pits & Mixes

2005                                        102                                                    34

2006                                        98                                                       26

2007                                        87                                                       23

2008                                        89                                                       15

2009                                        103                                                    15

2010                                         83 (111)                                           7 (9)

So there was an initial decrease in total dog bites in the community, numbers have begun to go back up again over the past couple of years. The number of bites by 'pit bulls' has continued to decrease....which means that bites by other breeds are going up as irresponsible/problem owners likely switched to other types of dogs that they owned. 

The shelter has been doing an improved job of getting dogs and cats into rescue. The shelter itself doesn't do adoptions (they claim they don't have the capacity or space to do so) but they have been more active in working with rescue groups to get the animals out of the shelter -- improving rescue rates from 45% to 71% for dogs from 2005 to 2009 and from 20% to 41% for cats over the same time period.

Note that virtually all 'pit bulls' are still killed at the shelter as the shelter has a policy against transfering 'pit bulls' to rescues and the council voted 2 years ago against a proposal to force a shelter policy change.

The Health Department officials and the council seem to realize that the city is getting a lot of criticism for their 'pit bull' ordinance, along with their policy of no adoptions from the shelter. It is excellent that several members of the council seem to be looking at improving this in the city -- which would require more funding for animal control and likely money for a new shelter. They are looking at needing $5 million for a new shelter -- some of which they'd like to get from private donations.  One option might be to ask Bob Barker for some help -- Barker is vocal supporter of the animal rights movement, and graduated from Drury College in Springfield - and gave $1 million to start a foundation to build an animal rights curriculum at Drury. 

If you live in or around the Springfield area, please write or talk to your city council member and let them know that changing their pit bull policies are important for the city. 

 

"Safety" isn't enough, we must kill them too

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.

Around the horn on BSL Issues

I have several stories that I've been wanting to do their own posts for -- because they are pretty big deals -- but just haven't been able to find the time. But I need to get the stories out sooner rather than later and am backed up on a few other things going on.  So, with that, here are a few pretty major stories that I want to be sure are on the radar:

Springfield, MO

City Councilwoman Mary Collette is looking to make a change to how the city handles 'pit bulls'.  Back in 2006, Springfield passed a ban on all 'pit bulls' in the city. As the law is currently being practiced, if a 'pit bull' type dog comes into the shelter, unless it is quickly claimed by the owner, the dog is killed.  (It should be noted that the LAW doesn't specify that this has to happen, but as a matter of policy, the animal shelter is killing the dogs).

Collette is pushing for an ordinance that would allow rescue groups to pull dogs from the shelter and allow them to find homes for the dogs outside the city.

The city is going to discuss this issue again on Monday night at 7:00 -- after tabling the proposal last week because a few of the council members are putting even tighter restrictions on who can pull the dogs -- requiring groups to come up with $500,000 of insurance per dog and requiring the dogs to be adopted out more than 100 miles away from the city.  None of these requirements are necessary for rescue groups when pulling other types of dogs.

While I don't in any way support the city's (paranoia-driven) pit bull ban, I am at the very least supportive of letting some of the dogs be pulled from the shelter instead of forcing them to be instantly killed.

Sioux City, IA

On March 21st, Sioux City, IA began enforcing its ban on 'pit bulls', and impounded 10 dogs in the first 3 days. However, people are hopping mad about it.

Turns out one woman had her dogs taken from her and was given paperwork to sign off on "acknowledging" that the dogs had been taken. There was also, supposedly, a signature requirement for euthanasia, that the dog's owner did not sign because she planned to appeal the measure and move herself and her dogs out of town. However, the dogs were instantly put down in the shelter and the dogs' owner wants to know why.

When KMEG 14 asked animal control for a copy of the form owners had to sign, staff denied their initial request -- essentially violating state open records laws.  The news station eventually did get the form.

It is not uncommon for cities to have this type of paperwork that they force people to sign when they confiscate dogs. They will usually tell them that the paperwork is to "acknowledge" that the dog is being taken, but often has wording that incriminates them in some way by stating that they are acknowledging the dog is a "pit bull" or that the dog can be euthanized.  This paperwork, when it is self-incriminating and doesn't allow for a trial before the dogs are destroyed (which is what happened in this case), is usually seen as a violation of the 5th Amendment rights under the US Constitution. If the woman was forced to sign either of the lines in the document, I do believe this would qualify. You cannot force soemone to give up their right to a trial.

A group of residents in Sioux City are filing a petition now for a repeal on the ban.

Omaha

The Nebraska Humane Society released the first quarter stats on dog citations this week. After they passed their breed-specific restrictions, 43 citations were written for 'pit bull' owners who could not provide proof of insurance, and 32 more for not having proper restraints (most were apparently on too long of a leash.

19 tickets were issued for dogs remaining tethered outside for a long period of time.

17 dogs were declared dangerous (no breed info available on that).

It remains very disturbing to me that NHS continues to define "success" of their ordinance based on the number of tickets they write vs things like decreasing the number of dogs killed in shelters or improved public safety (which it is appearing to not be doing).. However, because they will not release their records to the public, they get to choose how they define "success".

Meanwhile,it should be noted that NHS has been caught bullying 'pit bull' owners  -- with at least one case where they arrested someone for 'not cooperating" with an investigation when the dog owner refused to show them his dog. NHS did not have a warrant for a search, but arrested the man for not giving up his Constitutional right to be unjustly searched and his dog seized. After police arrived, it was later determined that the man's dog was not responsible for a bite - -but the man was still fined.

By the way, I love that the TV station cites that "Pit bull violations lead the field" when that was the primary target of the ordinance -- so of COURSE they do. Mediots.

In other Omaha news, they have an important election coming up on Tuesday. Jim Suttle, someone who was rational during the passing of their ridiculous ordinance, is running for Mayor against city councilman Jim Vokal. Vokal was one of the ring leaders behind pushing forward on the breed specific restrictions in spite of recommendations against it from virtually everyone in the city.  So go out and vote for Jim Suttle on Tuesday, for the good of the city.

Springfield, MO has new opposition to city's breed ban

Springfield, MO City Councilman Doug Burlison is looking to overturn the city's 2 year old breed ban.  Burlison thinks the ordinance in unenforceable...and that the people who aren't complying with the ordinance in the first place are the ones that are going to be a problem later.

The ordinance "makes an assumption that every pit bull that is out there is a vicious animal and that is not a correct assumption," said Burlison.

Burlison is hoping to gain support from other council members before issuing a  formal repeal.

Another interesting statement was that the people with the health department that claim their ban is "working" refused to be interviewed for the story.

If you live in the Springfield area, be sure to offer up your support to Councilman Burlison, and best of luck to the folks in Springfield.