Five things to know before voting on Springfield's pit bull ban

Alissa Zhu | Springfield News-Leader

Should Springfield ban pit bulls? Voters will be asked to decide on Aug. 7.

About a year ago, two toddlers were attacked by a neighbor's pit bulls while they were playing in their family's backyard. The mother was also bitten when she rushed to her children's defense.

Three weeks later, City Council began talking about the possibility of a pit bull-free future in Springfield by phasing in a ban.

Critics argue that the pit bull ban is discriminatory and ineffective. They say that Springfield should concentrate on enacting and enforcing rules that crack down on irresponsible owners of all dogs, regardless of breed.

One of the most vocal supporters of the ban was Travis Atwell, whose wife and children were mauled last summer. The Atwells, joined by the mother of a Taney County girl who had been seriously injured in a separate pit bull attack, made an emotional plea to City Council, arguing that pit bulls are too dangerous to allow in the city.

In October, the ban was passed in a 5-4 vote.

The backlash was immediate. Local residents threatened to boycott Mexican Villa and other businesses associated with the five council members who voted for the ordinance. Within a month, more than 7,800 people signed a petition, circulated by a local group called Citizens Against BSL, in an effort to stop the ban.

The ban has been suspended until the election. Here are some things people should know before going to the polls.

How would a Springfield pit bull ban work?

Pamphlets distributed in Springfield and funded by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals allege the pit bull ban "rips apart pets and families, punishing those who have never done anything wrong."

That's not true.

The ban, if passed, would allow people to keep their pit bulls as long as they register their pets before a certain date and renew the registration every year.

The city would give owners until the election results are certified to register their pit bulls. City spokeswoman Cora Scott anticipates that election results will be certified around Aug. 21.

No new registrations would be accepted after the election results are certified, and any unregistered pit bulls could be seized by the city. Officials said the idea would be to decrease the number of pit bulls in Springfield over time.

There would be an annual registration fee of $50. Owners would be issued special tags required to be attached to dogs' collars or harnesses.

If the majority of voters cast a "no" ballot, then a ban will not go into effect. Other restrictions on pit bulls, which have been around for more than a decade, will continue to be enforced.

The pit bull ban ordinance language can be found on the city of Springfield's website.

What is a pit bull? We asked an expert Anna Yendes, of C.A.R.E. Animal Rescue, explains what a pit bull is under the Springfield ordinance.

Which dogs would fall under the pit bull ban?

There's no distinct "pit bull breed," said Bronwen Dickey, the author of "Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon," in an interview with NPR.

Dickey explained that when people talk about pit bulls, they could be referring to a few different breeds of dogs as well as any dog with common characteristics such as smooth coats or blocky heads.

Springfield ordinance defines "pit bull dogs" as any dog "that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds."

More: What is a 'pit bull' according to Springfield law? It's not obvious.

Health department officials have said that animal control officers are trained to identify pit bulls. If there's a disagreement, a veterinarian may be asked to make a final decision.

However, studies in 2015 and 2016 have found that veterinarians, animal shelter workers and animal control workers struggle to correctly and consistently identify pit bulls, in large part because there is no one "pit bull" breed.

Opponents say there are no bad breeds, only bad owners. What does an expert say?

A dog's breed and ownership both play roles in how dangerous it can be, according to Dr. Wayne Hunthausen, a Kansas City-area veterinarian and pet behavior expert.

"An owner can make a mess out of any dog," said Hunthausen. "Either purposefully or because they're ignorant about dog behavior."

Hunthausen said he's seen aggressive dogs from all different types of breeds.

He's also seen pit bulls with a wide variety of temperaments.

"We see some pit bulls coming here and they are beautiful family dogs, they are non-reactive," he said. "Some dogs are really scary."

A dog's innate size and strength is also an important factor.

"Any big, muscular breed dog is going to be more dangerous than a light-boned small dog. There's no debating that," Hunthausen said. "A pit bull in an ignorant person's hand is going to be more dangerous than a Chihuahua."

What do statistics show about pit bull bites?

The Springfield-Greene County Health Department has strongly urged City Council to implement a pit bull ban.

Health officials presented statistics about local dog bites to council members and described specific attacks in graphic detail, along with disturbing photos.

Pit bulls and pit bull mixes were responsible for about 19 percent of bites in a three-year period starting in 2015, according to the health department.

During that time, animal control investigated 43 bite incidents involving dogs identified as pit bulls or pit bull mixes. The next two breeds with the highest number of incidents were German shepherd mixes, with 24 bites, and terriers, with 20 bites.

The health department also says that pit bulls are responsible for many of the most severe attacks.

In 2015, 2016 and 2017, pit bulls and pit bull mixes were responsible for 10 of the 13 reported "level four" or "level five" attacks, the department says. Those are bites in which a dog clamped down and shook or slashed the victim, resulting in one to four holes, including bruising and tears. The difference between level four and five is that the more serious incidents involve a concerted, repeated attack.

In that same time frame, Labradors were responsible for two level four attacks, health department statistics show. One level four bite was attributed to a German shepherd.

While those numbers appear to indicate that pit bulls bites are more frequent and severe than those of other dogs, Brent Toellner, president and co-founder of the Kansas City Pet Project, said people should take other factors into consideration.

Pit bulls are among the "most popular dogs" for pets, according to Toellner. That goes back to the broad definition of pit bulls.

On average, pit bulls are estimated to make up 10 to 15 percent of a dog population in any given city, Toellner said.

Based on the American Veterinary Medical Association's calculations, there could be 37,600 dogs that live in Springfield.

That would indicate there are thousands of pit bulls in Springfield, said Toellner. Out of the thousands of pit bulls, only a "very small percentage of the breed" causes problems, he said.

"The vast majority of dogs, regardless of breed, are good family dogs. Instead of creating this overly sweeping legislation that targets a lot of good family pets, (a better solution is) focusing legislation on dogs that truly pose a risk and animal control resources," Toellner said.

One of the most commonly cited sources for national dog bite information is DogsBite.org, an organization that supports pit bull bans. It keeps a running list of "fatal pit bull attacks," sourced from media reports around the country.

According to DogsBite.org, about 66 percent of dog bite fatalities in the U.S. from 2005 to 2017 were caused by pit bulls.

The organization describes itself as "the primary whistleblower combating well-funded animal 'expert' groups that manipulate the truth about dangerous dog breeds, primarily pit bulls."

Many on the other side of the debate, including Toellner and Dickey, have called the credibility of DogsBite.org into question, citing the organization founders' lack of expertise in animal welfare or animal behavior.

Some of the national groups that have come out against breed-specific legislation include the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the National Animal Care & Control Association.

PETA, meanwhile, supports pit bull bans and sent Springfield council members a hand-written note thanking them for their vote in October.

Is breed-specific legislation effective?

According to the ASPCA, "there's no evidence that breed-specific laws reduce dog bites or attacks."

Toellner, with the KC Pet Project, said there are about 80 municipalities in Missouri with some type of breed-specific legislation.

He said 23 places in the state have repealed breed bans in the past decade after finding that they have not been effective.

"For the most part what you see is there is a short-term downtick (in dog bites), and then the numbers generally increase," Toellner said.

However, Felicia Trembath, who studies how animals affect the health of humans, would disagree.

Trembath published a dissertation for her PhD in epidemiology at Purdue University about the prevalence and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation.

Trembath said her research found that bans or restrictions on certain types of dogs, including pit bulls, can reduce the number of dog bites to children, especially severe injuries that require hospitalization.

She said the issue has not been well studied in the United States. Trembath analyzed five studies from other countries, including Canada, England and Spain. Three out of the five found that breed-specific legislation did reduce dog bites in certain subgroups.

"I've known some wonderful pit bulls," Trembath said. "On the population level, it's a higher-risk breed."

Trembath believes that the risk comes from pit bulls' origins as a fighting dog.

"They bite, then they don't let go," she said. "They do most of the injury by holding and shaking .... They (also) don't show signs of aggression before they attack."

Toellner takes issue with the idea that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous because of their history.

"Dog fighting has been a felony in this country for 70 years," he said. "The vast majority of pit bulls have no association with dog fighting whatsoever. The idea that lineage is directly related to behavior, dozens of generations later, doesn't pass scientific muster."