The URL can be used to link to this page

2. Vicious AnimalsThe Care of Pit Bulls in the Shelter Environment Leslie D. Appel, DVM Director of Shelter Veterinary Outreach ASPCA "BeeBee" My personal bias in favor of Pit Bulls and Pit -Mixes Quioi<rn c� d � TFF(Un..mp,essed) decompress., areneeded t. see this picture, Thank You!!! • Dr. Lila Miller, ASPCA • Jacque Schultz, ASPCA • Or. Julie Dinnage, Kelley Bollen, Scott Giacoppo, MSPCA - Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff (Blackwell Publishing, 2004) Introduction • The vast majority of pit bulls seen in private practice are affectionate pets that present no problem to the practitioner Introduction • However, the dogs presenting in the shelter are often seized by the humane law enforcement department for fighting and have to be held for long periods of time, sometimes more than a year 1 Introduction Pit Bulls can undergo a great deal of stress in the shelter from confinement Cases of experienced handlers who had developed good relationships with the dogs over a period of months still being attacked without warning or obvious provocation History of the Breed • "Sport" of dog fighting • Mid 1800's, bull -baiting events popular • Bull -baiting: pitted two or more bulldogs against a tethered poll • Occurred in arena for entertainment History of the Breed • Humane Act of 1886 - Outlawed bull -baiting - Owners of the fighting bulldogs tried to find an alternative use for their dogs - Still high demand for barbaric and bloody sporting events Venue for gambling entertainment History of the Breed • Knowledge of hx of the Pit -bull breed can help shelters safely house and handle Pit bulls - Safe for the dogs • Physical and psychological well-being - 5afe for the handlers History of the Breed 1800's fighting bulldogs were different than bulldog breed of today - In size - In structure - 1800's dog more closely resembled today's Bullmastiff History of the Breed • After Humane Act of 1886 - New alternative to bull -baiting led to dog fighting - Owners pitted bulldogs against other bulldogs Gambling Spectators waged bets on outcome of fights 2 History of the Breed Lack of excitement in this new sport of dog fighting Bulldogs were large and clumsy Fights were slow, less thrilling Owners looked for ways to change the breed - To make better fighters - To attract spectators and gamblers History of the Breed • Selective breeding began in Staffordshire, England - Coal mining area of England - Bull -baiting bulldogs crossed with various terriers - New breed = Staffordshire Bull Terrier Staffordshire Bull Terrier • Characteristics for fighting dog: - Agility and athleticism Agile to avoid serious injury during fight High level of endurance and athleticism - Aggression toward other animals Aggression toward other dogs NO aggression towards humans History of the Breed • Goals of changing the fighting bulldog breed - Maintain certain characteristics of original bull -baiting bulldog - Add traits that would make the dog a more effective fighter in the "pit" Staffordshire Bull Terrier • Characteristics for fighting dogs: - Strength in relation to size • Strength of bulldog, but smaller, more compact - Site style Hold, SHAKE, and tear bite style Increased muscle and tissue damage Staffordshire Bull Terrier • Characteristics for fighting dogs -Ignore signs of submission from other dogs Different than normal dog behavior Fight to the death - Give no warning prior to attack Different than normal dog behavior Shows no signs, just attacks 3 Staffordshire Bull Terrier Characteristics for fighting dogs: - "Gameness" • Most sought after trait of all fighting dogs • Refers to willingness to continue fighting despite physical pain and suffering • "Deep Game" = "Dead Game" Pit Bull Terrier America's dog, early 1900's - WWI posters - Advertisements - "Stubby" (decorated war hero, first "therapy dog") - "Petey" (Little Rascals) Today's Pit Bulls • Name Staffordshire Terrier (AKC 1935) • American Staffordshire Terrier (A KC 1972, Am Staff) • American Pit Bull Terrier or Pit Bull Terrier • Life span- 12-14 years • Textbook weight - Mature males- 65 pounds and up - Mature females-55 pounds and up • True weight-30 to 130 pounds (?) Staffordshire Bull Terrier = Pit Bull Terrier • New breed • Sport of organized dog fighting grew • Further attempts to create even better fighting dog • Bred outside of Staffordshire, England • Bred for fighting in the "pit" Today's Pit Bulls Professionally bred fighting dogs - Aggressive and athletic traits mentioned earlier Beloved family pets - Staffordshire Bull Terrier came to America in late 1800's - Attempts to remove aggressive traits Pit Bull mixes Pit Bull or Am Staff 1w �J16.f, f CI Reproductive Physiology • Reach maturity at about 2 years of age • Onset of estrus is about 10 months • Average litter is 7-8 pups • Monorchids may not drop their testicles until 4-5 months of age Breed Health Problems • Dermatological conditions - Demodectic mange - Ringworm - Allergic contact dermatitis (grass) - Flea allergy dermatitis and hot spots - Pressure calluses - Acral lick nodules (boredom?) Pit Bull Terriers • Common breed entering shelters • Still bred for fighting today • Many Pits entering shelters are dogs bred for fighting • Many mixed -breed dogs are labeled as Pit Bull Terriers Breed Health Problems False pregnancy Hip dysplasia Cranial cruciate rupture Mast cell tumors Increased susceptibility to parvo virus and Babesia infection Bite wound abscesses Pit Bulls Have High Pain Threshold "The American 5taffordshire Terrier has an extremely high pain threshold when excited, and can injure itself with its own strength without realizing it" Medical and Genetic Aspects of Purebred Dogs, 1994, Clark and Stainer, editors Pit Bull Terriers • Many Pits entering shelters have been abused or neglected • Survey by Jacque Schultz, CPDT - Pit Bulls #1 breed most likely to be abused/neglected in NYC Fighting Classif icatians • The Professional - Owner makes substantial investment (time and money) - Travels the country for fights - Knowledgeable about law enforcement investigation techniques Fighting Classif icatians • The Hobbyist - Local fighting circuit - Owner spends minimal time and money training and conditioning the dog - &ambling is the main focus Fighting Classif icatians The Street Fighter - These dogs frequently kept in sub- standard conditions - May show obvious signs of physical abuse - bogs used for "other" reasons Used as guard dogs Used as"dangerous weapons" Used as drug carriers Fighting Classif icatians • The Professional - bogs on performance enhancing steroids - bogs on chronic ABS therapy - $$$ from high stakes matches and stud fees Fighting Classif icatians The Street Fighter - Usually associated with other forms of illegal activity - Local street gangs Source of entertainment Status symbol - These dogs can be aggressive towards humans and more likely to cause fatal attacks to people than other fighting types Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Shelter veterinarians and staff need to understand how fighting dogs are trained and conditioned • Extensive training regimen - Build strength - Build endurance - Reinforce aggressive behavior m Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit Training starts at young age and continues through dog's fighting career Pups are introduced to rough play and extensive exercise Live small animals are used as toys Pups are trained to jump up, grab, and hold onto live animal Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Bait animals - Can be killed or found injured and abandoned - Fighters have been known to steal neighborhood pets to use as bait animals Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Strenuous endurance building activities - Homemade treadmills Many hours per day Exercised to exhaustion +/- bait animals suspended from front of treadmill Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Bait animals - Cats - Rabbits - Weaker dogs - Used to build confidence during training - Used to reinforce aggression Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • As young pups become older and more confident, they are put up against fully conditioned dogs in controlled fight • _ "Rolling" Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Strenuous endurance building activities - Spring Poll Reinforces the hold, shake and tear bite style Muscle building conditioning for hind legs Strengthens force of dog's bite VA Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Unique nutritional programs - Maximum level of nutrients and calories - Supplements added - Often sold by well known fighters through underground magazines Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter It is important to establish a good rapport with any animal in the shelter, but especially with pit bulls that may be held for long periods of time Establishing a routine and spending time with the dog will go a long way to establishing a relationship of trust Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter If being walked in a corridor, for example, no other dogs should be in close proximity For personal safety, staff should always work in pairs with any aggressive animal, but particularly with pit bulls Pits don't always give the traditional signs of warning before they bite Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter The care of aggressive pit bulls in the shelter should be restricted to 1 or 2 staff (or volunteers) who have been trained in animal behavior and restraint techniques. 5taff should always work in pairs with aggressive animals. Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter Pit bulls should not be allowed to have unrestricted or unrestrained contact with other dogs When cleaning cages they should not be permitted to run free in the ward with other dogs, and should be walked and exercised by experienced personnel only Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter • Restriction of access to the dogs is important in court cases in order to preserve the chain of custody of the evidence, as well as for human safety K Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter • Pit Bulls are high energy dogs who can be extremely destructive when bored! Pit Bulls Will: • Climb fences • Chew up stainless steel food and water bowls as well as bedding • Many shelters use disposable paper food trays and large rubber buckets for water because the dogs can be so destructive Pit Bulls Can Be Very Destructive Water bowl destroyed j by a pit bull Pit Bulls Require: • Lots of exercise and attention • Special housing considerations • Isolation from other animals if dog aggressive or have a high prey drive • Careful monitoring for weight changes Pit Bulls Will: Destroy copper tubing of automatic water systems and conventional cages Attack other animals through chain link fences They can break through conventional cage doors and destroy typical epoxy paint on the floors and walls Housing Avoid typical mesh link fencing Use kennel or cage systems with guillotine doors - Important to minimize the need to handle aggressive animals Consider cement or solid metal cages with high cinderblock walls - Prevents dogs from climbing walls - Blocks their view of other animals 9 Housing • Secure and padlock doors - To foil escape artists lei-00 - To prevent dogs from being stolen Housing • Provide bedding- towels or blankets - Thin hair coats - Subject to developing pressure sores and other skin conditions - Check to make sure not eating bedding • Provide environmental enrichment - Kongs, bowling balls, buster cubes, etc_.. Housing Install a panic button in rooms housing pit bulls along with other restraint equipment in any room housing pit bulls In case of an emergency, staff will know to go to the assistance of other staff immediately Pit bulls are tenacious when fighting, and they have very powerful jaws Housing • Avoid placing pit bulls directly opposite or adjacent to other dogs - Especially opposite other fighting dogs 0 Housing Staff should also be trained in ways to break up a dog fight Methods to use on pit bulls that are fighting include bite sticks to pry open their jaws, poles, or water directed in their face and nostrils with a hose In extreme cases where all else has failed, mace or pepper spray may be sprayed toward their face 10 Behavior Fighting dogs are bred for dog to dog aggression, not human aggression They often bond very closely to humans They often do not signal or warn of an attack, and may not respond to normal signs of submission when fighting Placement Suggestions • Screen all adopters closely as for any adoption, and then for prior dog owning experience as well • Sterilize all pit bulls before release from the shelter! • Make follow up calls and visits Placement Suggestions • Dog may be OK until social maturity at 18-24 mos of age - Concern about adopting out puppies from known fighting lines - Need experienced guardians - Counsel adopters Behavior and Placement Considerations Temperament test or otherwise evaluate their behavior before considering placement Placement must consider all characteristics and adopt to experienced owners only • May be dog aggressive and friendly to humans • Maybe people and dog friendly • May be dog and human aggressive Placement Suggestions • Look at adopters environment to determine if a Pit Bull is a good match - Urban area, dog parks - Small children in the home - Other pets Placement Suggestions In this author's opinion, the placement of dogs with a history of dog fighting should be strongly discouraged, if not outright prohibited 11 Nutrition in the Shelter Feed high quality dry food twice a day Feed on a higher plane of nutrition- avoid generic food - Used to lots of exercise and activity - Can lose weight due to stress Use treats judiciously to avoid unwanted weight gain in sedentary dogs Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Maintain ongoing records, with photographs, throughout the course of the animal's stay and initial them Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Cruelty cases may stay in the shelter for weeks to months • Important to maintain a written record of their health status even if they are no longer being treated Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Document a complete and accurate description of the dog • Good medical records can be essential to the successful prosecution of a cruelty case • They may be admitted as evidence in the case Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Medical records should be neat and legible • Avoid the use of white out to correct mistakes • Mistakes should be crossed out and initialed Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Perform a complete physical exam (PE) on entry to the facility • PE should include an all systems evaluation, not just a record of the abnormal values and findings 12 Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • If necessary and not medically contraindicated, the dog should be tranquilized to perform the exam • PE should be performed within the first 24 hours of the dog's entering the shelter. Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Take good quality photographs before, after and throughout the course of treatment • Photographs are important visual records that have a dramatic impact on judges and juries Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Evidence should be initialed and kept under lock and key. • Consult closely with prosecutors and investigators on proper procedure Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term Document all entries legibly in the medical record. This is a legal document. Do not white out or erase incorrect entries Record the dog's initial and subsequent weights Scan for a microchip and check for a tattoo (inner ear, thigh and groin most common) Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term Maintain the chain of custody of the evidence- know where the evidence is at all times The chain of custody of the evidence refers to the ability to identify, with certainty, the whereabouts of the evidence at all times Cruelty Cases Try to ascertain the actual cause of the injury or condition - Include neglect or abuse - Rule out medical conditions (such as diabetes or neoplasia) 13 Cruelty Cases • Be prepared to answer the questions: - How long did it take for this condition to develop? - Was this animal suffering needlessly? - Prognosis? Signalment Fighting dog's ears are often cropped very close to their head Make note of this Are the ears cropped? How close? Does it appear professional? Physical Examination Evaluate and record TPP, hydration and condition of mucus membranes Evaluate body condition using TACC score Check toenails for infections or declawing Check mouth for broken teeth from fighting Check vocal ability- guard dogs may be debarked Signalment or Description Court cases can be lost if the description of the animal is not accurate Owner's name or complaint number Species and breed All colors Gender -include spay or neuter status All other pertinent identifying characteristics - Scars, different eye color? - Dewclaws, etc.... Physical Examination Evaluate dog's overall condition • Describe all wounds in detail - Cause - Number - Type (abrasions, punctures, bites, lacerations, cuts) - Wounds in various stages of healing common in fighting dogs - Location (fighting dog bite wounds may be found on face, head and neck, throat, legs) Physical Examination The medical record should read like the classic text book record, with TPP, capillary refill, degree of dehydration, percentage the animal is underweight, etc.. Veterinarians who examine animals in cruelty cases are frequently called upon to testify as expert witnesses 14 Physical Examination • The medical records that are kept during the normal course of business in a private practice or shelter frequently omit information that would be desirable for a court case. Medical Records • Include the history, including the source if not obtained from the owner • Include a behavioral evaluation as part of the medical record Photographs Use 35 mm camera and film Digital photography is admissible in court Take both close ups and distant views Use a label with name, date, etc Use a ruler in photo to measure lesions Use flash if necessary Take lots of pictures - Y{• -a-- TACC Scale for �"� W O r doge ... 5 Emaciated .� 4 Very underweight .�....o.o. 3 Thin 7 Undelwelbht/ o lean � �.r.��.4...... I ideal �....,•...�..� ---�-w._ Medical Records The behavior evaluation is an important part of the medical record and should be under ongoing reevaluation If it is inappropriate to evaluate the animal immediately upon entry, a notation should be made to that effect, and why A picture can be worth a thousand words 15 Radiographs • If abuse is suspected, take whole body radiographs and look for fractures in various stages of healing- pay special attention to ribs • Use radiology specialists as experts to testify to age of fractures Treatment Protocols Monitor weight regularly as long-term boarders may gain or lose Dogs that enter the shelter as victims of neglect or abuse usually experience a weight gain initially However long term boarders may eventually begin to lose weight, or become overweight due to inactivity Treatment Protocols Vaccinate Perform fecal and use broad spectrum dewormer as a matter of routine Consider performing heartworm test In all cruelty cases, perform lab work and take radiographs Treatment Protocols Treat all medical problems promptly Dogs that have been used for fighting are frequently treated by their owners with antibiotics they obtain from various sources The repeated and inappropriate use of these drugs may create some resistance problems Vaccinations Vaccinate on entry for major core diseases if health permits Consider parvo booster for long- term residents in 6 months Consider intranasal bordetella vaccine if kennel cough is a problem and the dog is tractable enough for this route of administration 16 Vaccinations • Vaccinate for rabies upon release or follow regulations for rabies vaccination if a bite case • If the dog has bitten someone, he must be held for 10 days and vaccinated at the end of that period. Observations About Pit Bulls Pit bulls are of ten extremely well muscled, making diagnosis and treatment more difficult Observations about Pit Bulls If excited, Pits may initially require high doses of tranquilizers to calm or sedate them - But then they can become too heavily sedated Some veterinarians report resistance to acepromazine Others report sensitivity to ace Be careful when sedating Vaccinations If the dog has been bitten by an unknown animal and has no vaccination history, he should be treated as a rabies exposure and should either be euthanized for rabies testing or held in quarantine for 6 months and vaccinated one month prior to the end of the quarantine. If the dog is currently vaccinated, he must be revaccinated and held for 45 days for observation. Observations About Pit Bulls Gunshot victims may present as clinically normal - No outward sign of distress Elicitation of pain can be an unreliable diagnostic indicator - They also show little reaction to normal pain stimulus In cases of cranial cruciate rupture, these dogs can be so well muscled it is difficult to elicit a drawer sign Observations About Pit Bulls Temperament changes may be observed as sick animals regain their strength, going from meek to aggressive 5taff frequently become very attached to these dogs during the initial stages of their recovery when they are very docile, affectionate and calm 17 Observations about Pit Bulls As they regain their strength and vigor, they may revert to their normal behavior and sometimes become more aggressive It is very difficult to make the decision to euthanize after the staff has bonded with an animal that has been rescued from an abusive situation Observations About Pit Bulls Pit bulls often enter the shelter under heavy or over- sedation Treat aggressively with warmth and IV fluids Use extreme caution to avoid being bitten as they regain full consciousness Although this may occur with any breed, a pit bull bite will cause more damage Pit Bull Program Options • Pay to Spay Pit Programs • Breed Rescue Groups • Pits in Prison Programs • Legislative activities - Promote aggressive dog legislation, NOT breed -specific bans Observations About Pit Bulls • Use treatment regimens that minimize risk - Once or twice a day dosing - Oral drugs that can be hidden in food - Ivermectin for mange instead of dips Observations About Pit Bulls • Pit bulls that have been properly bred and well socialized can be very affectionate and loyal pets. The Two Sides of the Story Mims WIF"— [IF tm Hlltr W. Great References Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff — Edited by Lila Miller and Stephen Zawistowski • Blackwell Publishing • 1-800-862-6657 www.aspca.org www.sheltermedicine.com 19 Report: U.S. Police and Citizen Shootings of Pit BUHS 2008 by DogsBite.org I June 1, 2009 Summary: "to evaluate the rit-Irywrous J.S. rnedia reports on pit Malls and their mixes shot for public safety reasons, DogsBite.org ar.1 f_i contribilltor David Monroc e der triese incn ideces over the 12-month period of 2008, The 201-page report domiments, 373 incidences that involved dangerous bit bulls shot by US, law enforcement officers and citizens. The report tracked 12 data aspects per incident. Of the tracked incidences, 626 bullf-As avfire fired avid 319 pit bulls were killed, 148 people suffered bite injury in these incidences as well. In at least three instances, the bite iniur resulted in amputation, Ire six instances, the bite in .1 injury resulted In death, The findings also show that firearm intervention may have I till mailli In prievented at least eight deaths by a pit , - _- . r - Information for this report was gathered through ovillne media sot irces at the firle of the: shooting. ThicUpil the caribination of Google News Alerts avid web searches. 3113 cited incidences are dr c, irlented In this report, Additional nformatinn about the data collection r;rDCe!-,,S avid 110W k) a0tliEws the related source documentation is located oil page III. Doges ute.org 4 742 42nd Aso SW 426 7 Seal Ile, WA 98116 www.dogsbite.org Doga;Blte.org; ":tome dogs don't let go, Report: U,S, Police and Citizen Shootings of Pit Bulls 2008 Objectives: 1j Demonstrate the numbarof oocunences. the bite injury resulted in dam6 U,S, media reports within a 12-monMh period including- Isis Krieger G(Anchonage,AK). oflaw enforcement officers and citizens that KeUi Chapman. 24 (LongvU|a. LA), Luna were |orr-ed(oshoot adangerous pitbull Uo yNcOanie|.03(Ville Platte, LA) Cenedi prevent an attack orhmshmp an ongoing Caney. 4 months (Las Vegas, NV)Tanner ottook�2)Track 12parameters per |no|dent Monk, 7.(Bnmokenhdge.TX) and Pablo and evaluate the findings. LopezHernandez, 5.(Wes|aco^TK)l 13people suffered bullet |niuryaswell. Methods: Information for the 12-month Of these victims, S4%(7)were citizens and report was gathered through online media 46% (6)wama law mnhonommfi.-niofficmrs sources aLthe Lime ofthe shooting. Through States with the highest number cfshootings the combination ofBoog|aNews Alerts and included: California (37).Texas (32).F|ohda web searches, 373uited incidences are (24). Illinois (23)und Ohio (23) documented in this report, Each of the incidences met the following criteria: 1,)The Discussion: Interpreting further data from dog was identified inthe news article aaabit this recent may beimpractical, but the bull orbit buU-mix:2,)The dog had behaved inUamendonbyfirearms most likely in thnea&an|ngmanner orhad attacked a prewonkadadditional deaths byapit bull law enforcement, officer orcitizen, Excluded mauling, Despite being regulated inover 23O were incidences of "criminals" shooting pit U8, cities and the whole state of Ohio, there bulls, auchoaasang member ordmo were aileast aighiinatanoasinwhich gun�na dealer, during acriminal act, stopped aviolent pit 'Dull attack that othemvisemayhave led todeath, Thase Tracked Data: The following 'information instances include the following v|o&|ma:' was recorded for, each incident: 1,)Date 2j City 3j �ia(e� and (h� numb�rof� Catherine Barber, 7Os(Washington O.C.). 4) Shots fired j n�d �Pit bulls killed 0j Law TonyBunden. 24(EvonsviUe. |L). Huong Le. e�m�amenishooiens.^po|iceDne^7j 71 (SeaTa� WA), Roger Lindes. 41 (Palm Bay, FL)' DeniseRocho' 41 (BanAnbonio 'CiUzanshooUons."oiUzanDno"8jSiiai�uhes &j Bullet inJuhes 1Uj Police victims 11j TX),Cameron Salinas, 4(Oconee County, Citizen victims 12jIncidences that resulted SC\TraymhawnToiver, 60Wash|ngton |ndeath byapit bull mauling, "fatal attack," O,CjAnnette Williams, 45 (Greensburg, |N). Results'. |ndhe12-mondhpehod.37B Conclusion: Extensive Interne! searches were not performedtofind the 373 incidences were recorded that involved pit bulls and their mixes shot for public safety incidences, yet there was still over one reaaonabopodedshoodngofadangemus yU.S,UB�|�w�nfo�emen��cena pit buUper dayinthonodon,o Six citizens died due bo and citizens, Ofthe total number of' injuries su�enedinthose a�ackaeven w/ith incidenoes.8�8bu||�Uawenefinedand31� firearm intervention, 4O�� (140)ofall p|tbuUsvxereWUed,Thevaatma]or|tymf incidences Prided 'in bite injury nanging from shooters, 84%(313).were law enforcement o minor boaileast 3instances ofampukoUon, officers and (BO).were oiUzens, 148people suffered pit bull bite injury |n The data also shows that the majority of instancesrequired morethan one bullet be these incidences. Of these victims, 81Y6 ahoLThe aveuagenumber ofbuUeta�ned (12D)wereoidzenaond1@1�(28)weno|aw/ � incident was17 oera�|ns|xofLh�ae enforcement officers, 'per � , Dogsliiflte.orgSome dogs don't let go, The original source data was captured 'in two formats: a Microsoft Word document Compiled by contributor David Monroe and 43 weekly bloQ pouts~ created by OogsBibo,org. In January of2OU8. Oogo8i0aorg crosschecked the two data sources, making adjustments where needed and created a single source data document,6 which formed the basis of the final report, The Single source data document was then migrated 0oa spreadsheet, Thus, the spreadsheet iothe finalized report, with incidences sorted bystate and city for meaningful viewing, David Monroe, the founder and pros�enLofHuman��F|��yedon|nvau��ende|n tracking the first two months of 2008, Monroe also played the continuous role of sharing his independent results throughout the year with the OogaBi&a,ora.as well ashis year-end findings. Oo0sBke/ongisanational dog bite victims group dedicated ioreducing serious dog attacks by creating common sense laws. Through our wnr K, we hope to Protect both People and pets from future attacks, C>urwebsi1e. www,doaebi1e,ora, contains a wide collection of data to help po|icymohemaand citizens learn about dangerous dogs, Our research focuses onpit buUtype clogs, Due to selective breeding practices that emphasize aggression and Umnocity, this class of dogs negatively impacts communidesthe most, The "Possible Prevented Deaths by '-`-Irearni Intervention" docurrierit is located at the foiiowina URL: hup://w"mwdogmbite.org /r.aparts ipeman��-dmat�is-pit-bu|'-ehootings-2o08,pdf xExc|uded from the data is pmentia||y a subetanda| numberofcity "police b|ouar repowts^ that are not online and Iherefo,enot mearchabie via 1heweb. Altacks that Involved firaom/Intervention and ended |namputation.but maynot beUmitedto: Anne ue wNn|omm (Greensburg. |N). RogarL|ndea (Po|m Boy. FL) and Luna N`IoDom|el 'MUo Piou. UV. 7he1.7average Includes Incidences -list Involved mo,ethan onepit buU, sTho^2onaShooting Log" oompUedbyDoomB|te.o,o'is |000ledot/hafoUmm|noURL� hup:8w,w,.dogmb|ta.org/ligoo-poUoe*hmu|ngm.hun4repu� "The"Single Sour,-,aData" dooumans (49paoem)|nlocated at the fo|lowngURL hup:8wvw,.dogmbite. org6eports/s|ngle-sou rce-data-p|t-buU-shDoti ngs-0000.pdf DogsBite.org 4 r4z42`dAve SW#2a7 seau|e.VVAe811a www�gsbite.org |,ifoii dogsb�,mg DogsBlte.orgSome dogs don't let go, ca A t91 tad :Q CL i 0 CL N 2 00 �' '�' r O7 L0 r N — — N— r , m J U 1 fi Q O it it C C N O O O N N ¢— N O N �Y Lo t N Lo 6 C O i > CL L6 cn u LL. ', ;: CO LO C) C) tom- t-- N LO {.O C.O {.O r - LL BM O4NM r CO 0 tt7 M t 0 t q., !1 U- N N N N N c7 t� c� t°� N N ....:... .€. o T c LL � m a ca J ° — co m N N ..... ® cd ` ttS M M C5 r� CO u� h r� CO u� u� 1 - �; C9 t o d- h CO �; LO x� r r o h h 0 0 v �, 0 tti cU n i � O ray v U N N N N r mC) N is ti � Q —Oa Q GO 0 z � €... cN�S En Co tt) ev CO CU GO 00 GO 00 GO 00 CO 00 GO 00 ; fW C7 CU CJ CU C7 CU CJ CU C7 CU CJ CU `d°' €.... is N N N N N N N N N N N N ........ .......: C.J i— LL 0 a cu E E c 0 _N r N r r r r r r r M r N N r r N r r r N r r rCO r r N CO r N r r r M r r U_ ce DC N N N N N N N N 4 <{ 4 <[ 4 <{ 4 <[ 4 <{ 4 <[ 4 <{ 4 <[ 4 <{ 4 <[ <C <i <C <i <C <i <C <i <C <i <C <i <C <i <C <i <C U C) U 0 U C) U 0 U C) U 0 U C) U CL ca a s 0 0 c 0 0 0 a m as E c o 0 0 s oo - 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 v o 0 0 0 <Cmz��W WU) Go w wLLW W -j -j -j -j -j - � a00 00 CO a7 00 00 cc 00 00 00 cc a7 00 00 07 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 07 00 cc a3 CO 00 O 0 0 CD 0 CDO 0 O 0 CD CD 0 0 0 CD O 0 CD 0 0 0 0 O CD CD CD 0 0 0 O 0 0 CD Cy v�� o ��ra v � o v vra �� v v1v4 w voo cam 0 c0 0 0 0 0 c a_ a 0 m 0 0 w 0 0 m E 0 Cn ai m 0 0 9 C 0 E 0 12, QJ tlj O O � C 0 CL ujt? gj o i 9J 0 (�� tt7 c t� ya t55 IL EC o 0 0 C C 0 ui de p r> 0 0 E J=0 �7 0 ° N o 101, o o u 0 2 0 CL _ c :� �? c s 9J O Z° 0 c o c 9J c c c CL w ua t) N o 'a) LL o - o o c> o U u uCO tD LL qa }{ 0 c fl 0 c° S u u '- c N �n v E ? ro w o c o N =_ ° a ° o u u o c o u z 0 c u7 - 4 = E l m Q c m m ui 'i5 a a .- .� u� c m r� "0 > = - o o tC a- a-H o d rs U 0 4 C3 a E try c 0 o w c- > o c cq wm o 0 qua 0 o 0 0 0 a) m f� p (n 0 c m c 0 N1= ua E c o o -� `o c v o a '0) W cis W tR 0 to C. 0 can fn C7 _ es qX m Q _ �_ c �_ 2 a o m � i as CL m in-0 Flo .c to 0 .-. —� c U 0 u7 _ cq tj "0 c ua ._ N �''� "0 grnj m ' 00 0 0 r C7 n5 - ° ° W 0 ga o � -0 as ga - mo > 0 cn 0> 0) 0 o0 E� -� 0 o o s � o d c }, cn Gt _ 0 o 0> -c = 0 m ll 0 `n o ca gj u0 U o Q 0 0 n5 v - _ >, as CL ca c 0 o d - •C 0 73 - n< o o m= J I<0 0m ' ° op L) 0 _ -�a) m�. _ u o czaUi ��- ' C9 u o - o 0 u oQ < t° er Q�.�0 mo�� o U Q 0 - on C5 - m - - - -ato cc m w n j� coj)w o a� C� o ° o °c s� os o o m Q .c ca a a as as c C 0 0 0 E U 4) m m as 0 0 c o 0 0 s N o- U o o 0 0 a) v o o o o 0 0 0 <[ m Z � � LL LL m �✓ Go m .E D_ 0- m �— �— m r w w LL LL LL LL LL LL Z ®I J _J _J _J _J _J 2t col 00 M CO M 00 M co 00 00 M cc M 00 M 07 M 00 M 03 M W M W M W M W M W M W 00 00 M W M _= 1,4 _ C'4 N N r � o r� __ c�a ry _ _ _ ® N N Z, w wf•. ".y' f•. f•. N r Co rLn C3 M m 05 M f•. ( 5 N 00 CO - N f-. 00 M CD M -+Y P-, - - +F I ;,.€.,,,.E. N r r r r N r r r r r r r r r r r r N r r r r r r r r N r :— r e— N r N M r e— r e— r e— r e— N :— r r r r N e— r e— N e— r e— N e— r e— r <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<` <00000-JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 (L LL (L LL LL LL (L LL (L LL (L LL LL LL (L LL (L D O ° U U Cll 'D U O UI D- D- O C aJ {� U O ° ° c c a ° tt)tt) v° m v— �� o 0 '� a� o a s to cv o a o _ U -° q o�`�° ._0 mmm o a e s U ti —5 °° o 0 0° o ai ° ai ai v c `° c r r S ai -0 c -D U c c c c c U U U ai _, _2 M S ny c c c T . 0 tLI t� {Li tLI D C6 (Li City m m 0 O O Cis -C C O O m m U O m O {ll u) O ca m t6 a1 m t9 {6 i9 C z 0 0 Ct"_ aL QL Go C6 Go cn cn cn C� Ct7 � � Q C) U o w � co U U o 1 LL —� J J z 0 0 CL CL CL CL D Cn T� D :I3 CO N CO CO CO CO CO Cc CO Cc Cc Cc CO Cc CO CO CO Cc Cc Cc CO Cc CO CO CO Cc Cc Cc N 00 M 00 N 00 N 00 N Cc CO CO N .' CD O Ca CU CD CU 0 CD CD CD 0 CD 0 CD CD CU CD CD 0 CD CD CD CD CU CD CD CD CD CD CU CO 0 CD CD 0 0 CD CD 0 CU i25 Dti26i25ir)cl5c5�6tic`ore�D`7�:: {5 4 4 26iz: �r�a5csr�`o�ro`o m N O N CD N 77 O P N tP Q N N N LO � CD CJ Gb N N co N N C'J CD t0 CD N CO t0 Cb GO h- CD N O tip C"7 LS .; N O tea cii Cb CJ D7 Lia N O O ,= o r r r o r r� r r CD � r o r r o o cD cD o o r r r o cD cD o r r r o r CD r o cD r r p I E 0 U w c c a� E S fl 0 U c � as � c n n � u� ° o c ° U - a7 E U C fl U as n E T3 U o E U7 as n fl ° E ° r c fl < U as c c ttJ C as o o c fl N m E as `m _ o .zo o >U o as fl Q c Z `UE az LL ° oJ c fl W O La -E m O N U U ° O U �O; U E 0rcflUc0E -° Li fl °z ca Ufl �nE3 °° ° E I aaC ~ cF- ao o m ° E U -o �3 U W o°omo cc E o .o° c -j U ° E f E c - UcN+cc 0) T) L U3 M cn 4 flc m ° C° c z Q v a > a to r m u co o c CL - c S fl ECO c _ fl a U c U CD 0 E c° as w E c t- c m -° m -°� (j m sac c U)c� o fl 0 °a LL U� c Elf m d ° � eo o a ° c CL - U �-= U U o c m'1:3 9U oJ mp > m.� o �� n m� °n U o n0c ° C U wfl mQ © fl C. ° U U° N =— � sE CL fl " U ° � °� o� -°uM a °o CO � ° � °c .c as m °-C c CL ° < oe Eas m w�v fl oc m = o ai U= a t7 O U-N u � CO may i " a) °?U .LCLU"W p° .c flcifl� .m � : -C � U-.0 fl_ fl -C_ Q ° ° O to U m> a - - CL 0 CnOU0 0— Q 0 >. C)�(�U C° t U In � 'aLL IL -yi 0- fl �fl fl o fl m O� In fl fl°°"0 0� CL fl fl qfl^°j , aa c—cmNo c uo CO o O C° o o c = c .=- 0 CO 0 CC — no LL 43 0 aJ U �N� CL{Li = CLM O fl tt w *fl 2 , CLO O wO�>cif yc7�CLOrOCLO�CLCL�)�cLP-(D on OOOr� its N 0 a ° ° 0) U as 0)70 U fl Sn > ° fl c° c as ° cn m v° {6 m i- CL fl o as ° zcs fl E a a ca o u eo ° = Cf U a) fl m fl c ._ �° o m m m w E P6 (� U Cl Cl 'S ° U U C O O O ° CJ uI M iD © `� ai CU a) E C r r fl DM tU m m City m m fl fl O Cis -C U O fl m m° fl m fl w w fl� t9 {6 N t9 {6 i9 C z U 0 CL" aw' QL 0 0 w 0 w 0 C6 Go �� Q U U 0 w ��' m U U 0 w LL ®3 J Jz U 0 CL CL CL CL 0 r CU CJ 0 � GO0" 0 CU 0 CU N 0 0 0 0� CU N CU 0 0 .; N� o�� o-� N o r r r o o c° c° o o r r r o c° c° 0 r r r v c a_ a LO cu a L� �E a� u CL> a � a N _ m CL � w O a A L) LL r r r r r r O O L C N U ® � a r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rcu U .O a uj t� CD _ ` o Q as L rya LL- J J J J J J J <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C <C eta LLLLLLLLLLLLLLUCDUCDUCDtDCDUC3UCD-----�-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-� 0 C6 w L U U O -0C O p v !A c m a ° a o c CJ o o O o o O C ` -{� p i6 CO Oa C Oa O 0 ' Om O C 0) m p :>. i PJ t# fig tL '�'' O o m m m m m .� t� :_ C6 O O C .� O D U :>, C O D U U U U U U U C O C a C C C S� {{g i tJ,1 i6 fti O ,y tU QI O C4S O U U tJI N O Cj U N CL CL U) GO 60 w w m ��` CL 0 0 (� CL C� � w w ED w z 0- C( E i— s`' Q Q i— i— Q Q Q O D] D '€ 3 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO L 00 00 CO 00 CO CO CO CO 00 CO 0000CO CO CO N CO O 0 0 CO CO 0 Ca 0 CD 0 0 07 0 CD CD CO CD CD CD CO CO CD Ca CO O 0 CD CO CO 0 Ca CO C7 CO O CO CO CD CD h r t.4 et Ca 65 u`7 Pam- c0 e— tom- d' r h- c0 07 e— CO o� c0 h c*7 c47 CO c*7 Ca %cj C� 67 67 CC7 c*7 N 67 .eOaCD CD O CD 07 O h-� 00 CJ Cl N O C'J n h-, d' t-- n O 07 tYa 00 CAI 4 tS] co t-- Oi C7 co co 0 I I E 0 E E 0 0 m 0 0 E CD C 1 c 0 C: U >1 0 N M 0 ej 0 .9 E m m AD c I_ - Cs E U C C u C) 0 E 0) Q 0 0 m U q = E 0 - -51 In E > CL ED S 0 E C) E w 0 Q E 0 -c- �c LL c Q c - , < c L� an on C: 0 Y, E 0 0 CL , = co 0 �i w E E -2 0 w o E OR 0 0 co E E C) CD 0 u z 0, ID w co — M 0 U) z = -!,� , m M 0 C: z < o zM C 0) 'n Z U) E w m < m w m m M U) > Z ol t- 0 0,--- co E W w IL ID o Cl. 0 w z :5 u -a 2 N < :3 m >1 00 z co C- a) m m c 0 o co 0-- -0 4) MC -C C: 3i 2 c m CI a) U) 0 CL 0 0 -5 -w C) < C 01-0 0 0) = = c cwn z> w -Nc o u C) -, 0 03 r- p 0) —u x m 1, 0) C: 0 CL LL < ID U) > SE C6 GO =5 W 0 Z M z i� CL va >, zM 0 z a CD CO In '0' vo m a) 3� Z W 0 0 co = a c J= CL 0 CO 0 CO M Ln >, -0 >, rn M m iz — C) 4) -j Q W M a) u -C 70 -a zJ LL M 00 m M —0 0) w 2 IS) E = 0 u m — = U) c C C) L) -0 a) -a -a -j , D- < E U) = 0 u 0) u C) o =0 0 W u ca 0 0 m LL u m o 0 a) fn M 0) a) < 7L 1- C) C) 12L 0 m 0 c — 0 W m M= -0 Ci Q 0- A? E 0 0 "E' Z 0 m 0 to 02, -0 a) U ill C6 �! < a) m o Cg CL ZM W Z5 C) 0) o u T- c6 tf CL 0 S�f 0 C: 0) =5 o - m 0 0 o 0 Z5 0 -0 M a) *—� Q 0 0 Z5 0 CL W < m .0 E 2 4) -5 C: 0 CL Z -C — 0 m cj 0 0 0 U) < — 5 m a) > 0 0- 0 w 0 q C) 0) C) CO 'n- -C 0 U) D- C) U) C) 0) 0) EU 0) Q W 16 -r- .;, c -C m E (n m 2 5 0 = M 0 w 0 m z :S -L) .2 0 0 t,- CC32-co U) a-- fQ -cp-ca o m --1 0 0 d: 10 0- c c: - :� -6 C) 0 0 CL w 0 0 co c 't U-) U) w U) < m CL M (n 0 -J 0 m .— w a) L) 0)76 U) 2 E E u c d: _oj 0 0 C: — o -c- o co 0 m 0 0 >, i- < W CL m L) 0 LL co :;E w LL < < co < C-) 2' tU Z:5 -0 tU 0) 0 MO MU o o o o o 0 o c-o M-c,21-C 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 0] LL >, mmmmmm 0 U C0) E E EL S u c[?� c , :1 E - 2 2 ' 2 2 U.2 .2 L) UL) .2 mu mu T E 2 CL CL U) U) U) < < co 0 T- d- Go U)�� 0 CL U)< < DO L) U Cc) Cc) L) E5 U w w w z , W 00 W W W W W W W W W W W W X W W W W W W W W W 00 W W W W W W W W W 00 W W CO W 1S1 1'- 110 N n r- t- n 0 M team) N "t Ln co r-- M o w w 6) �n 0 00 M a_ m I c a_ a --N —C\j NrNNN M rNrrrrrN— rrrrNN —N— N— err —cl) —— JJJJJJzzzzzzzzzzzzz<C<t<C<C<<<C<C<C<<<<C<C �, o a u CL CL p o O pJ G ��' ° °mmmmm ° ro m v �° a o 0 pp i O 007 tU .0 .� A .w G9 p0 p p v i 4i qi _O O O CL CL o p {6 p p 'U p N 0 p tJW M 0 C tt7 tt) 60 > w w LL LL LL O 0 0 0 O O M (D CD y y 0 0 w 0 w LL N JCL m N CL w Z J Z !,u Ct° W 0 (n i z 0 I p Cn 21 D ...,.,.y.„' 00 Cc 00 00 00 Cc 00 00 Cp Cc 00 00 Cp Cc Cb 00 Cp 00 CO CO Cp Cc Cb 00 Cp Cc 00 00 00 Cc Cb 00 Cp Cc 00 00 Cp Cc 00 CO aj -_ saricoa�oanW "o� �;n� of oro € � tip CJ m r O r ~'J" O O � � co O � � co r r � L i r 0 C c 0 da ul ul E 0 U E T c c Ne o > 0 s� CN m U o � o t� v O v J U Cn S C O v O C O C OC "0o C W 0 E U , O U tN>1 n O dN UU C CL' uiy `✓' C CA 'S 0 r C O c O C 'O �' C> - O tU C f� " 0 tJ 0 tIO O C O 0 0 O tL1 �O �i 0 Z 0 .S� 0a 0 -C C `l' E- *-' .-. C`7 C O Q � C 47 U] -`y1. �' C Z �+- U] 0 7�6 U U C Cll `ter X tt] 0 C C O 0 C le O-, .tJ a0 U N 5 �% C C- 'C �% o O O C = t9 C {6 N to C J t13_ ®! Oi ill i C 0`. [p° .G ti ill C C U=< 3 C x -a i- d S` � U GU 0 O uI _CJ t� 0 S 0 _G] U 'o C C S 0 " ti U 0 7 O O N C r C- C- _ = o "C O -{j -0 C C C 0 N Cn q% C qj N L? I- {6 i1? U m d O O -0_ 0 Q1 -� I- .uI `o .0 E E_ z " �_ C m v O U _v1 C C tp >, '5 -C CL C cra -C- m C_ qi C Lj �} N U C .0 Sm C 0 "C Q.l O CL' O w co o CL C O Cn ®_ ES N .. 0 W -0 i- O Z U Ui 3 N < CL 0 O C 0 N LL CL C 0 -O LZ- t6, - U C ; f U_ C i C O- O O .� C -U '' •� C N U .- C �O U -o i cU C 0 -' C6 S O _ C C Erb d] O C ` - "' `� O > UJ -0 CL C O to 0 C 47 i m 0 N 0 Q? .0 � .! 0J ® I- -C � _ U) .. 0 � - 0 C .�. 0) 0 � `O CL a) N QI Q? tU � -O C a) v1 0 U 00 ol .° i '� C " .0 � O cU 0 CL 0 U -C -C ±U [if `C C � C- 0 5 — O � t}6 � U � C 07 W i6 0 (� �__ 0 C w c6 -C L) cn �, -O U CC 0 C C 0 Q O m U 0 tJJ C_ 0 O O C1 CC C m 0~ 0 o _ u Q U o 0) m C o o o N CL Z m 7 0 O N U F� O O O mS CL an "o -O S C U '0 t� U `° F- "� U)O U v) 0O Cwi7 O .� -{- N to .0 (� H -� C tU iL5 RS C O SZ O 07 C J Cti L6 t9 tll U 0 -� .�' U 0 (D N — o, O tlJ '� C c=U ap O O `3 O O 0 .0 ua �„ w ua m C _ Uj C2 � 0 cq = 0 `0 m 3 O �' 4i r m Cl C:3 = t �, .G C1 0 C C6 cU 0 -O -'-' m .0 (� C "� 0 ` U Q� 0 U m CL O -�-. a) U 70 Cl' (4S Cn 7 � C m tll 0 CL <ll LL N : , 0 -C CL to CL C CL _ ❑ �`�' =U oa o W < --�'� ~ U sin k sin cU `CS L� ? U CA -��. ""' CO - _ 0 4i "0 -U--. WE- O.0 .O O -In w_ � � U � `O o � C � tll m tll i � b ® N C6 U tll .0 = M '0 ,0 _ N � C F 0 00 0 0 0 0 —_ `C .0 � � to o tU � i 0 � i 0 � � S O � n to n Cn y 0 o O CO LL m O O � � m O � � W Cn N U C U .� p p .co � C 0 .� U ::, *® >. 0 {Li +- "�� L6 C o ill CA t� C- 0) '� tLI '0 T ill N o C o cU C o >, tL5 o C •"�„ m C 0) 0 LL 0 .N E 0 C C7 CL CL -3 CL � LL CL t CL t C� -3 0 CL O Ct co w Q co Q S U Cl U I Ct -5 t co J � C O N � C Coco 0 cc t13 {6 O O O Ctl Q� C] CCU Q {0 {� tll Q) tU t� fti 0 O d.1 070 0 O CA C 00 C i qCj 0 0 .0 .0 07 tU .0 .� .UJ UI CL CL CO C- C v i 0 CL qj C 0 o CL CL 0 0 {6 0 0 0 0 0 0 t6 p p 'U p N N t6 t9 0 0 t)W M 1L w _C CL" C� cn cn cn > w w LL LL LL CD 0 y y (n cn to cn cn I I LL _9 CL CL 00 S ®! S CL" Cn cn cn i S cnoo 00 00 00 00 cc 00 00 00 Cc 00 00 00 Cc 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Cc 00 00 00 Cc 00 00 00 Cc 00 00 00 Cc 00 00 00 Cc 00 00 I CDO O CD CD 0 CD CD O C) G7 C) 0 O O CD O O C CD Ca CD 0 0 Cis cfl h O h c9 Z6 0`7 r �" d- �tS h o`7 67 Ls`7 C� 07 Cr cL'a as C� e- ts7 r �s`7 c0 c0 c`o ii5 6 O N N CD t0 -- CD N N QC) N N N = N N M N Ln v csa N r o c6 c ih cis in �O 4�o N N QLn n co n M n co - co 4 n aO cO � o 00 M M a c cu a L� �E N N a� u 0 � CL> a a N _ E f r r �— N c� c— N r r r 0 m CL � w O a A L) LL r r r r r r O 0 L U) C N U ® � a r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r rcu U .O a uj t� CD _ ` o Q as L 0 LL ......:. r r cl) r e- r e- r N M e- r e- r cl) cl) r) r r r r c) e- N d - - - - - - - - - Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) U) U) -UUUUUUU 0 a c o owa Om U U U N Cp p a Oc C M In 0o o o ' fl pntOo Cn -C OE 4) m co m 0 £.L O O O i 0 C N L6 .O -�-• C u {L5 t� ngw fl > fl fl fl {6 fl fl N {Ci N fl fle p fl N i -fl -fl O O {� t6 � 0 CL 'EEL: 0 U U' Z —3 CL Ct° W C) U � a2 67 U Y' y' y" 3) WS C/i Ct7 (t5 C 5 —� z � y Q C) U o o LL U' p U) D] D :€3 L CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO L CO 00 CO 00 CO CO 00 L CO 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO 02 CO 00 CO CO 00 00 CO L 00 00 CO 00 CO 00 CO N � r c'5 ii5 ii5 c'7 mw O :— Tm N h-N co ,o GOO t'-, m O GO m m GO N h-� m LO t-- U-) 0 I I ca 0 o E E 0 0 0 2� m C: 22cra 0 2 Q 0 cs> E 0 CL 0 0) E LL u 0 IL m 0 — CD C: 0 m m 0 005 en M cotll L, m n S�� , m m Z x 0) -r- C: 0 5 0) E -0 c LL 0 c 0) C: 0 -C Z m =- — 0 6 C: Q LL w U 0 0 m 0 2 11 M -= w q '05 m W 0) a) -C cn -0 (D 2! M < -0 m 0 :5 CO '0o T- 0 0 C: ui 2t, 0 a) L) ol vi, In 23:0 > X0,�--m—ywm owwo N080 c Z z Of CD -,e E E M 0- 70 w ID :9 m E Q a) M C In cn CD In - ?i ED 0 m 0 0 U a) 0 Co CD LL m 0� z M > > 0 LL w = E > 2 CL > IL m -0 C:, Z W C M -0 CL ID -0 0 -,e 0 w m m m E E m CO CL w LL (n m CL m o w M z 0� 0 o o �m m -U5 C 'n a) m -0 -0 10) 'm' w 0, CL to -l' in 3: 0 U) -0 CL w > 2 0 0 -0 cn 0 a 00 0 -0 m a) co 0 L) 0 0 m U) m w — >, IL 11 u 'n m m m -c- m -0 -0 2 w c — -- 'n CL CL 00 (D c 0) C: -r- 0) C) w C: < z o ID (n E U 0 'n 0 L 10 = in :5 m : co 'n -5 w u -0 c >, w CL m (i IL -,e 05 M 0 m 0 C) Q 0 — 0 m CL 0 co C) — C 00 T -E w c m = -6 m U) m o 0 'n 0 0 (n < CL ID -') , — -�c a) 0 M _r_ z a) -c- q - = = - E (i c: -'6 - o - > k 'o m 'n M 75 j�E 0, 0 0 U) 0 w 'IL o 0 a- o c- 0 (n 0 > 0 0 co C) M w 0 0 w -c- co ru cc 0 M Z U) 0 m 0 U) vi Z uj u m 0 0- ac5Lj U) C) 0 a- -c- ou m 0 > 0) w E 0 — 0)2 M -r,� 0 ACC -0 C 0) 0 -0 o 0� 0 C� cn 0 m S = c LL -C m w 45 -0 c t5 w CO a) M LIJ W-C m c m = 0 0 a) C: w o 2 76 -6 > m —0 0 0 0 0 g 3: CL 0 0 LL co p co CL m co C) 0 CL 0- 0 -1- 0 Cif (D t Y 2�1 0 CL c 0 < U M 0 7a5 7�-) CL 0 n M 0 U) -- -- -- > 0 0 cn 7� C:)- j2 w 0 o 0 0 0 t2 E5 c c -J -J -J > "; -; w m 0 CL C' m E5 0 L) 5; o '- co T L 0 CD CD = -M�) -D CL [if w C) a� y y y -j 0 GO 60 (n cn -5 Z 3: y < C) L) o in LL 00 00 Cc CO CO Cc Cc Cc CO Cc Cc Cc CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO W W W W W W 00 W W W 00 W W W W W W O � 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 to CD 0 0 CD 0 0 C) 0 0 0 to 0 0 �2 4 Cb ZB 65 as 4 4 i�-) �6 �5 a3 ;:� 6 Liz ��5 ii5 p� a ii5 = �5 7- 77 P N{NP P P P 7 ") — P 7 7- Pt 0P N N NN 7- V) M CO N CO N �; r-- t-- oo — n (o �o r-- m c co M M 00 N r-- M r-O r- Ln 0oo Coco 0 0 r r r 0--0 --- 0 cu a_ 0 N r r N r N N r r N <- N m r r e- r N N r c9 N N e- r e- N r') r r N e- r r N N r e- r rl) r e- r e- - .44 C) CU C) C) C) C) w w w w w W W W W W W j > j :E Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O O D N E 2 c C CU U LJA O cn 2 (n uto In etUll O C i U > 0 o c� � cc c E E E E E E E E a m o (n w ai a m 2 C:a� � o o C 3 2 o� .� m 0 CD o M r u`7 0`7 C` r co co o `h r co c^7 7 cl c5 u`7 Pam- - r. c1 Pam- is5 tom- co o c`7 c�5 tb ci7 co co 2�5 c6 `o m CD r) _, -_ €:€ G'J N N Q tl� P`-• i0 - °.y' t0 io io P`-• 60 co 0N 0� h-- C7 4t� N I r C r ° o - o r � � fl t1J U7 t6 G c c tll O p O J r O m c c� p N cu U m UJ =_ to O i •CO U CL cL` {J UO Cn o 0 Q tL p I o a) � to �.7 z en _ a as a o o c rn Irvcn c O F cn u U <C o a �n C, c 3 o =_ m -o >. .. a cc ct o 0 0 ca) oser— WEC U) o © ,� O z .0 =_ c- o mS c c > {� X tfa i .0 t13 ` ;o > 'a - U i c N sn U7 ° o u o ii LL z O X J o CD o' co E- m o 0CL 0 o m c m r C o c o x as �° m a s� ° o `o U 7 x a ua a 0` . �t ai c �° c .� c rar O < o - o_ caa a c o o o L) � o c m CJ .� Q c o nr a - .� J o o �ClltoU{c�'o 'aaoan acUUU ccaqs a opufl t� 0 uL o U oec N ccn Coc "conOO omO -fmCCc4ll5 �cOd>ioaa°cUt�oss w m ?� U c com N 0) C "O ll o O 4 - c M O M � � °_ c o o c 0 on O 6 41 o ll ac�oN >,(11 U O y® oS' O U RC�Q O oo,U U _ c mow °o U) 0 o cL 0 O F`'o m aOfE a- In 0 -0 a U = c .cO oO Q U O UO c�O c-o ctF � > Q c_h ){)o O J oo c C co Cca ° oCL ° eamo 0 c M c _"en Ui -0 Uz�� - oU co° r-A< U o i o<C omj oC o ooM O Q� o o ocLeL o -0 Co o o >, > � c m 5 = �= � �c Mm .ac .oa)o ��O�o� occ ° L° � a00o'cL4� cL° a_c E 22 e o o ex o o ex o as o n cn o as o° 0� o o M M M M M M M M M za) `c C7 r o ac m ° ac ac v c c o c c c E E E o o ai ac o a o o � J o J2 .� Z o cn to cL � o o o o o o o o o to C Y d cn E 3 3 02 Q2 m .J z z o" a� cn Cn Go ? Q <C c m — Lo u`o m c`, r o c`a `c `o ib: iB c;5 is5 l c5 5 rz izz rz i25 rz c`o c` c`7 c`5 iz: 2is oB Z 2�5 `6 c `o N N p r r r N N N r N N r N N N N r 7- r N r N- r N N N N c. ov v `o ua r__ (o m m ^t �o co ao r__ 00 co Im Im 0 N m 0r__o La r m m r r r O O CO CO !O CO GO ('O !O CO CO CO !O ('O !O CO 00 0 7 c a_ a N CL � C9 U) LLa I M r r r r r r r N N r N co �- ... r r N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r cl) r r cl) r r cl) r e- r e- r e- r cSJ cl) 44 €:000000oo00oo00oo00oo000000000000000CLCLCLCLCL D (ti � A O C vI O) C: LL "O C17 ny Cll � ® O N C O 'i S= 8 `ey C C C 1� O O O .0 C C C '= .C%CD tll 'C®L'C U 0 U � M m N G O -jCm wz� CL n <=� �<""' m U cO N6OOOOO { o 0 a) CO Cc CO Cc CO Cc Cc a) CO Cc Cc a) CO Cc o a) 00 00 o co 00 00 00 co as 00 CO a) CO co Cc a) CO Cc CO Cc ai o o ca o 0 0 o oCD CD CD o w LOLO �iLO0C`ao`7u`��etrecs c`aL�`oc�� c`�c�c`au�cs ��d co � o mTm c47 LQ i-O Ln Cii r-- N N N n n ter' M °.y' LSD n r r-- n Ln U) Q N LQ r r N U) Ln W r-. r r-- O 0 r r Coco 0 0 0 o r 000 r r 000 r r 0 r 0 r r Coco r 0 [) i E 0 U U C T E -0 0 0 � fl� � r 0 U c00 O fl 0 °� U U O O .�. O C '} C� c 'E C n 'n, C � o o o U I _ U U° c 0 - t� 0 n o 0 o = I� 51>1 as - E C o C C g - .0 0 W (a 0 C c N' o c_ > E 5 n 0 o> o 0° o Cr s� d c w o o° <C t� = C r 0 o' o - -� fl CL 3� U U iyt5 U O _cD z i1i cOn tLi zi o Oi t6 U {6 W Lc IJ c flU c E 07 c c E m Q))) M Z m o "U p� '� 0 cri W (�}` tS) ip r C 0 t6 fl) � O C % O C 0 0 ill -C9 I- O O 0 "O 0 C -i5 vl S (6 C r LU t-`-U u ff) 7 C fl 0 U in —C O 0 E O ~ fl U U .� CS) E- c 0 C >> C C U 0 +U O 0 C 0 � tLI C `.t O E U C ~ C QJ U .� C tU T3 {p O tB O NN 0 QJ �7) U U U U I- (� .tiG �,C C O m Y. O C 0 O U ca -C 4= I- M } O m U fl C t� O .0 O C _0 tll SJ O C9 m O U 0 O CL O S37 fJU) t O _O O -0 CU N C m O_ O C Ifl O O C O .0 Q O 4) I- cll C flO 0 C) 'g N U C "Cc0 C.U 0 t6 x Cd'O 0 o U > -0— on y unO U u O O O w C 0 U U U 0> CL CL - m 0 0 O> UCC4U� ~' 07 - F U _CL �f C 0 C 0 U) 4) U� mED:a -C 0 ). O .0 U 0 Q0 O U 0N00 'p O c (n C = Q fl 0 6 O 6 tn � . fl°' v 75 — -0 � _ 0) 0 — ) � Q) Cr O O O O O O 0 ill co 0 CL O '® {j C1 �" -�-. O tL1 U) !- C +. �, O t� O O � o En to .0 CL U U O L7) c {ll 3" C U V- C CL O C {Li ^�,." Cl .0 , O c -cco m `�' "" q) fl 0❑ C U O U � U f tU O Uj O m 0 C-C r --ofl 0 O v .tt) tin C�3" �n 0�� O O CL -C O � O ._ 0 U - O O O U CL O .N .0 — iL8 U O r- - (- tU C 3 tt) -C .0 m C� 0 O `O U) C U to 4) tU 0 co "ti -� O {6 `C cU U fl m _ = N �'' U O >y U CL CL C t13 Q. .� U 0 C �. 0 C -p .=) ;� 0 '- U` '� 0 C cOn cctl (6 C m Cr:l .ta 0 E E m t7) co fl m O3� O 0 c U � U 9 C 0 .0 O C fl L C U CO W 7 �U z - U Q O CL t u p) cn UI t0 C N LL CEEMN C = C 0 O C E 'i 8 a) C `ey C C C 1� S1 1'� O ow O UUC UUC UUC Utll C fl O C O m M 0 0 O O O CON M O O O O 0-0 0 "0 6 fl C m E> ' '- U U U 0 0 -j -j -j -jC(n<CCD, 0 ww=�ecLi< <c.NO a> a3w as w co w as co w w w w w w w w CO w w w CO co w w w co as co CO W CO W W W W W CO 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �R 0 0 0 0 CD0 Lo Lo m Lo 0 co � o`7 u` �Q et re c� c`a � `oo c� � � c`� c� c`a u`� cs � r � 4 co — i�, mr° m � c 5 4 � N 7 o r7 r cV r "J o N r o N N N r r N cv O N N N N— CO co co Ln !� r-: N c� N n n t M gt Lnn r r-- n r y �; Ln U) O N r- r N r U) Ln r� r r~ 0 0 0 o r- v c a_ a CL r) LL cu �C\j �r r C14— C\j— 44 CLCLCLCLCL 900con000000ww0 0 L c m c c c o >> n v o w c o> as c o 0 o a > > c c c— ° U c o u m U c u n o cx >= c c c c 0 `o co Cc Cc CO cc CO cc co cc co cc co cc a> a> CO co a> a> 00 03 a> a> 00 03 a> cc as a3 as cc as a3 as cc ai CD cacor.MNoagtocvsicvcaogtr-:r= cvcOcooCocoLsacsacvUacooinocOoVacsa o I I E 0 -E 0 to U) 0 E 1z: F, 0 Q_-c 0 U-0 a) u m -CQ) w E M (D Q) q m = 0 m 0 LU (D m 0 -r- 0) L) 0 -0 0 C: m 0 > C > 2 -av) 0 E Uo--a y Ci - > 0 O-Ex 0 (1) C a) 2 (u — (D wo u) ]z 0 w m L) IL < 0 -0 0 cw: 0) () 0) 0 :z 2 E C: �5 E -6 a) E 2! 0 (n E 0 0 a) C: 0 0 -0 Ln 0 W -a -0 0 m Q 0 --a 0 0 E -2 ' E E -J 0 w - o - �o c z z 0) E > > F c: in < m c) o 0 Q Q > E z , m :�� . 00 w < N 'n c w m c 0 C2- >, > 0 M en r, C: -'e 1 w a) o ul z 3� o E W a) W a) -, m < 7Z3 0 o C C) 72 0 CD w r- - -r- > o x m CL m -0 > 21 tll w LU cn a)- = a) W E C: CO m r- C) 'D ID 0- 2 E < 2 o (v z tv [-a Ln m = W x m z -5 0) — — c 'i T c q 2 m 72 F- c) 0 Q) > O-C-c -C Z C: m C�L -a L) cn 0 0 41 mmm LL (D c -r- (D in EWE= < < M n w E CO -0 W -0 E -0=5 , S� 3: LD 'n Q m > T LL F- 3� a) w M5" Cc: --M':' a)- Er E 0 M -C co w C: >tll 0 —CL Z m w 0 o CN6 w C o 0 m C: L) -0 -0 0 = 0) c -0 70 CD 0 0 2 0 IQ - L-U 0 -0 5) u LU < co 0) U) -0 M W 0 0 CL 0 0) () < 0- 0) Q M Z -0 m (mj :D 2 x w 0CL -00 M on 'n m 'D =5 = E -= — -0 C < 0 U) 0) -I :� �s 0) 0 0 -0 cn a C) _0 — 0 CL U) 0 " Q -& 0 > C: >, M M c �R CL C) Q 0 En > — m -,,e -C c F- m 2 5, < 0 -q- c 5 cL m m w a) U) zm o Ln 4) (D 0 m CL -0 t 0 COED 0 0 0 tv- 0 _0 -C C fn In = 01 < U) = W U2 -2 o o -U3 U) 0 0) M cn 2 M 0 m 15 w a) Q -0 0 c c m -0 0 0 w Ln CL 'n = c -0 _j 0 M 0 0 C) C) 0) In 0- 0) m 0 g 6 0 c: w CL 0 0 0 IL 0 CD w !E < 0) O. 0 0 CL 0 C — -C X m 0) 0) m 0 0 'n L rL 0 m 11 w a) 2 —> 0 0 0 0 c 0 Z3 o -c 6 0 CL in — M 0 0 w 2 1E 70 Cc :;� C > cp ( co 'D > C) L: U) m :9 In < = -6 >, 'n Cc 0 d) = 0) M t I CL 0 = 3: -r 3: < < 0 E) w o U) m .— > Q > w m 2 76 —co 0 0 0- a, CL - 0 0) � IL 0 0 D- 0 U) CL 0 C: a) -0 W tn �!, 0 F- 0 -6 co o 0 -0 ID E E 0 CL a) M C) M en C2 U5 m 0 -C 3 0- _0 �70 o w 0 -2 -0 -SLS - m -s� OM ca m co 5) 0 m > -0 -0 72 CL 16 0 -L- (n a) § 0- m s- 2 ;= 0 c: C) 0 M m w > �5 c 0 �c U) w < 00 < < w m m m a) 'n CD LL cc M M -oc -0 M m c �5 := �5 .— 7E-) w 2 2 2 CD c o) -,z M M 0 -0 0) 0 E Q - -0 M -Z 76 —a) w a) m c c: U' Ln c 'a) '(n :L w CL 0 p - y cc CL EL 0 T- a) 0) W w Y) p a- 0- a� t - - m z CL -j (n < co w = 0 T- C) -5 < Of < 0 & T C 0 2 2) 7F 0 w > > 0 CL CL CL > c C: C 0 m 0, U, =5 m I cm co -C -0 -0 -0 76 0) c m x 0 W 0 w M' E T -cm w U w = �e CL IL 0-1 < < < C) w CD GO 8 E5 -j z < < < < co m WU 0 00 00 00 00 00 CO Cc Cc CO Cc CO Cc CO Cc CO Cc 00 00 00 00 00 Co 00 00 00 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W � ZB u5 r iB co a iz 4 h a c25 ZB r;5 4 r a cB a 7 P N N 7 7 P P P 7 eq 7 P 7 N c, r7 7 7c, r7P '-t 00 corgi M N M t 0 N M N CO I-- r-- N n 1,0 0 W W --t Ln M N U) W F Ln n Ln M 00000-00-0 000 000 0 0 0 0 (D cu a_ I c a_ a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx§�c 0 1 0 a o 0 o w e c U c c c c L 0 G z o 0 s s c c °°°° o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0co � o. ° ai �� c c� o 0 0 cL IL o o ° 0 0 0 s� c U o 0 `o M ac a�i � wwLLLL(DCDT-zzzT-jCL0 O60GO �� zCL60L) uuy 60GOcnGO60 o U) 00 Cc 00 Cc 00 CO 0 u� r �6 u5 is, a Z 4 a3 rb c6 4 �6 c6 � `sa �6 �6 o-O rb c` c;5 ZB �6 tz. 2�3 re co c` 23 ii, m Tm r v i o o v t �t cv cv Ln 00 00r r7 co Mo Ln Ln M cv v r- cv r- co M cv r- Ln r M Go o I I E a) O --Y m Ul Q (n ej to C 0 > C)- 3: - E z 2 6 S E u) 7E 0 (n -,e U) r- z o 0 0 (D 2 -Fu m c o 0 Q' (� c E E U) co Nc F- c: I > In < w E CD 0 L6 0 -c- — i� - M N t:f 0 0 7Z) 0 U) f m 0 0 -,z M CL c 0 - 70 00 E — w C� 0 W M D� , -,a 0) LL 0)- u c 0) 0 c 'r u 0 > T c: L (1) E m U, mn uI (D 0 w 0 m LO E 0) 0 C -0 0) o 0 U) M 0 L 0- IL Q Ln F- Q) 0 C) E IZ -C (1) T " x C: C: I w > C) a) � as r cn o a w 0 w 0 m C: 0) (n W-r 0 w no 0 c 'n x - ID 0 -0 C o U) ' a) 3: 0 CL Z C 0 U) o m N C: C) to -- 0 CL -0 Z 0 2 C: M w -C 4) 'E -0 75 0 LL = — — o W w — S�� — < 0 E m �V-- U) T —a) zw -a 0 0 o co c: m LL -0 0 L) -0 .0 -0 0 (D 0 0 Z 0 0 .6 C) m = = w o I = . 0 :3 0 -C M T 0 0 -- T > c o c 7 < o ii-- m C) - 0 CO n- — cl, — ID '6 ?� c: saUi -C 0 U) o -0 0 0) tL- (D 0 U) ID 0 J: E4 0 < tt= -0 0) ul = -0 7C3 ID 0 0 Co 0 U) C) m 0 0 0 :5 a) -0 Cc C)� CM 0 (D c: .9 -,,, -.0 0 00 0 0 0 0 c 2t, U, - �c = M 4-- 0- CL — -0 7C3 0 -0 < -0 8- C 0 — m 0 c) M 2 0 W W IL (D — CL 1 0 0 a) 0 0 -J _2 CO 0 0 0 t�� In 0 tF , , r- >, U) 0 —0 —= 0) = CL CL < < C M CY) CD 0 m C) CL 0) 0 >, IL C) -j u 0--c LL o) o EFE 0 M - n 0 0) -, a) m w U) -0 o — CL 0 73 0 (n d: w do C� U) 0 E 0 [L co 0 -C C) ..7 -C CL 0 Z , en C: co En - 3: 0 m 0 0 > u (n (D m C >, 7j� 0) 0 B w >, 16 t 0 0 W 0 LL 0 co 00 M 0 c -'e (PI 0 m co Do > U) 0 w -2 w M 4, M C- CL 76 U) M 0 tF -N� 0 tF- -5 'n < w mcu :;E (n o U) 2 < U) IIn I In -0 to uj E 0 0- (D M iD -0 70 m a) c U co 0 L 0 C) m < :5 m o N w a) < Y Y co Y CL CD C-) CL co to 2�1 .oa 2 .2 .2 M 7�6 0 LL 0 0 0 0 L) C: u -tf 0 0 0 0 0 d) 0 (n w 0 0 E - R .2 uo '81 w m CU m m 0 0 -0 < < < > 0 CL 0- -t� t2 >' > — -0 -C -0 m m m m m -F -0 -0 -0 0 m m m m a) .2 ' w w o o 2 2 D �5 o o o w ED ED LL LL (D CD T- = T- = T- _3 -:3 33 CTL (n Go W Go z CL (n L) y 0 CL (n Go (n (n in w w w w w w w w 00 w 00 w w w w w W W W W W W 00 W W W �6 4 i25 ii5 Z= 4 a3 i�: c6 4 �6 c6 �6 �0- iz: �;5 ZB �6 izz 2�3 re as o 2�3 ii5 Lo m N 00 co 60 io co N 4 4 N N Gh Go co "o m o Lh Ln m N N t-- N r- CO M N r-- V) rM M 00 cu a_ c a_ a 9 I I e 0 UJ E E 0 m OCU 47 0 0 c d Lj L3 0 coo -6) oa c a E @5 @5 C) -2 -2 -2 w ?i ?i ?i 0 U 0 w w w T = = = o m m 3: Do co 00 (D :E :E :E CL 6� 6-- co cc 00 cc co cc cc cc co cc cc cc co cc cc 00 CD CD CD CD 0 CD CD CD CD CD 0 CD CD CD 0 0 iz: c6 ;5 = �0- 2�1 7- 7- CQ co co �? co co U') co U'� �-o m 110 (D 00 Coco 0000000000 O Cz i I I m I Introduction Pit Bulls can undergo a great deal of stress in the shelter from confinement Cases of experienced handlers who had developed good relationships with the dogs over a period of months still being attacked without warning or obvious provocation History of the Breed • "Sport" of dog fighting • Mid 1800's, bull -baiting events popular • Bull -baiting: pitted two or more bulldogs against a tethered poll • Occurred in arena for entertainment History of the Breed • Humane Act of 1886 - Outlawed bull -baiting - Owners of the fighting bulldogs tried to find an alternative use for their dogs - Still high demand for barbaric and bloody sporting events Venue for gambling entertainment History of the Breed • Knowledge of hx of the Pit -bull breed can help shelters safely house and handle Pit bulls - Safe for the dogs • Physical and psychological well-being - 5afe for the handlers History of the Breed 1800's fighting bulldogs were different than bulldog breed of today - In size - In structure - 1800's dog more closely resembled today's Bullmastiff History of the Breed • After Humane Act of 1886 - New alternative to bull -baiting led to dog fighting - Owners pitted bulldogs against other bulldogs Gambling Spectators waged bets on outcome of fights 2 History of the Breed Lack of excitement in this new sport of dog fighting Bulldogs were large and clumsy Fights were slow, less thrilling Owners looked for ways to change the breed - To make better fighters - To attract spectators and gamblers History of the Breed • Selective breeding began in Staffordshire, England - Coal mining area of England - Bull -baiting bulldogs crossed with various terriers - New breed = Staffordshire Bull Terrier Staffordshire Bull Terrier • Characteristics for fighting dog: - Agility and athleticism Agile to avoid serious injury during fight High level of endurance and athleticism - Aggression toward other animals Aggression toward other dogs NO aggression towards humans History of the Breed • Goals of changing the fighting bulldog breed - Maintain certain characteristics of original bull -baiting bulldog - Add traits that would make the dog a more effective fighter in the "pit" Staffordshire Bull Terrier • Characteristics for fighting dogs: - Strength in relation to size • Strength of bulldog, but smaller, more compact - Site style Hold, SHAKE, and tear bite style Increased muscle and tissue damage Staffordshire Bull Terrier • Characteristics for fighting dogs -Ignore signs of submission from other dogs Different than normal dog behavior Fight to the death - Give no warning prior to attack Different than normal dog behavior Shows no signs, just attacks 3 Staffordshire Bull Terrier Characteristics for fighting dogs: - "Gameness" • Most sought after trait of all fighting dogs • Refers to willingness to continue fighting despite physical pain and suffering • "Deep Game" = "Dead Game" Pit Bull Terrier America's dog, early 1900's - WWI posters - Advertisements - "Stubby" (decorated war hero, first "therapy dog") - "Petey" (Little Rascals) Today's Pit Bulls • Name Staffordshire Terrier (AKC 1935) • American Staffordshire Terrier (A KC 1972, Am Staff) • American Pit Bull Terrier or Pit Bull Terrier • Life span- 12-14 years • Textbook weight - Mature males- 65 pounds and up - Mature females-55 pounds and up • True weight-30 to 130 pounds (?) Staffordshire Bull Terrier = Pit Bull Terrier • New breed • Sport of organized dog fighting grew • Further attempts to create even better fighting dog • Bred outside of Staffordshire, England • Bred for fighting in the "pit" Today's Pit Bulls Professionally bred fighting dogs - Aggressive and athletic traits mentioned earlier Beloved family pets - Staffordshire Bull Terrier came to America in late 1800's - Attempts to remove aggressive traits Pit Bull mixes Pit Bull or Am Staff 11 Reproductive Physiology • Reach maturity at about 2 years of age • Onset of estrus is about 10 months • Average litter is 7-8 pups • Monorchids may not drop their testicles until 4-5 months of age Breed Health Problems • Dermatological conditions - Demodectic mange - Ringworm - Allergic contact dermatitis (grass) - Flea allergy dermatitis and hot spots - Pressure calluses - Acral lick nodules (boredom?) Pit Bull Terriers • Common breed entering shelters • Still bred for fighting today • Many Pits entering shelters are dogs bred for fighting • Many mixed -breed dogs are labeled as Pit Bull Terriers Breed Health Problems False pregnancy Hip dysplasia Cranial cruciate rupture Mast cell tumors Increased susceptibility to parvo virus and Babesia infection Bite wound abscesses Pit Bulls Have High Pain Threshold "The American 5taffordshire Terrier has an extremely high pain threshold when excited, and can injure itself with its own strength without realizing it" Medical and Genetic Aspects of Purebred Dogs, 1994, Clark and Stainer, editors Pit Bull Terriers • Many Pits entering shelters have been abused or neglected • Survey by Jacque Schultz, CPDT - Pit Bulls #1 breed most likely to be abused/neglected in NYC Fighting Classif icatians The Professional - Owner makes substantial investment (time and money) - Travels the country for fights - Knowledgeable about law enforcement investigation techniques Fighting Classif icatians • The Hobbyist - Local fighting circuit - Owner spends minimal time and money training and conditioning the dog - &ambling is the main focus Fighting Classif icatians The Street Fighter - These dogs frequently kept in sub- standard conditions - May show obvious signs of physical abuse - bogs used for "other" reasons Used as guard dogs Used as"dangerous weapons" Used as drug carriers Fighting Classif icatians • The Professional - bogs on performance enhancing steroids - bogs on chronic ABS therapy - $$$ from high stakes matches and stud fees Fighting Classif icatians The Street Fighter - Usually associated with other forms of illegal activity - Local street gangs Source of entertainment Status symbol - These dogs can be aggressive towards humans and more likely to cause fatal attacks to people than other fighting types Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Shelter veterinarians and staff need to understand how fighting dogs are trained and conditioned • Extensive training regimen - Build strength - Build endurance - Reinforce aggressive behavior m Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit Training starts at young age and continues through dog's fighting career Pups are introduced to rough play and extensive exercise Live small animals are used as toys Pups are trained to jump up, grab, and hold onto live animal Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Bait animals - Can be killed or found injured and abandoned - Fighters have been known to steal neighborhood pets to use as bait animals Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Strenuous endurance building activities - Homemade treadmills Many hours per day Exercised to exhaustion +/- bait animals suspended from front of treadmill Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Bait animals - Cats - Rabbits - Weaker dogs - Used to build confidence during training - Used to reinforce aggression Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • As young pups become older and more confident, they are put up against fully conditioned dogs in controlled fight • _ "Rolling" Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Strenuous endurance building activities - Spring Poll Reinforces the hold, shake and tear bite style Muscle building conditioning for hind legs Strengthens force of dog's bite VA Training and Conditioning of the Fighting Pit • Unique nutritional programs - Maximum level of nutrients and calories - Supplements added - Often sold by well known fighters through underground magazines Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter It is important to establish a good rapport with any animal in the shelter, but especially with pit bulls that may be held for long periods of time Establishing a routine and spending time with the dog will go a long way to establishing a relationship of trust Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter If being walked in a corridor, for example, no other dogs should be in close proximity For personal safety, staff should always work in pairs with any aggressive animal, but particularly with pit bulls Pits don't always give the traditional signs of warning before they bite Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter The care of aggressive pit bulls in the shelter should be restricted to 1 or 2 staff (or volunteers) who have been trained in animal behavior and restraint techniques. 5taff should always work in pairs with aggressive animals. Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter Pit bulls should not be allowed to have unrestricted or unrestrained contact with other dogs When cleaning cages they should not be permitted to run free in the ward with other dogs, and should be walked and exercised by experienced personnel only Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter • Restriction of access to the dogs is important in court cases in order to preserve the chain of custody of the evidence, as well as for human safety K Caring for Pit Bulls in the Shelter • Pit Bulls are high energy dogs who can be extremely destructive when bored! Pit Bulls Will: • Climb fences • Chew up stainless steel food and water bowls as well as bedding • Many shelters use disposable paper food trays and large rubber buckets for water because the dogs can be so destructive Pit Bulls Can Be Very Destructive Water bowl destroyed by a pit bull Pit Bulls Require: • Lots of exercise and attention • Special housing considerations • Isolation from other animals if dog aggressive or have a high prey drive • Careful monitoring for weight changes Pit Bulls Will: Destroy copper tubing of automatic water systems and conventional cages Attack other animals through chain link fences They can break through conventional cage doors and destroy typical epoxy paint on the floors and walls Housing Avoid typical mesh link fencing Use kennel or cage systems with guillotine doors - Important to minimize the need to handle aggressive animals Consider cement or solid metal cages with high cinderblock walls - Prevents dogs from climbing walls - Blocks their view of other animals 9 Housing • Secure and padlock doors - To foil escape artists 0#100 - To prevent dogs from being stolen Housing • Provide bedding- towels or blankets - Thin hair coats - Subject to developing pressure sores and other skin conditions - Check to make sure not eating bedding • Provide environmental enrichment - Kongs, bowling balls, buster cubes, etc_.. Housing Install a panic button in rooms housing pit bulls along with other restraint equipment in any room housing pit bulls In case of an emergency, staff will know to go to the assistance of other staff immediately Pit bulls are tenacious when fighting, and they have very powerful jaws Housing • Avoid placing pit bulls directly opposite or adjacent to other dogs - Especially opposite other fighting dogs Housing Staff should also be trained in ways to break up a dog fight Methods to use on pit bulls that are fighting include bite sticks to pry open their jaws, poles, or water directed in their face and nostrils with a hose In extreme cases where all else has failed, mace or pepper spray may be sprayed toward their face 10 Behavior Fighting dogs are bred for dog to dog aggression, not human aggression They often bond very closely to humans They often do not signal or warn of an attack, and may not respond to normal signs of submission when fighting Placement Suggestions • Screen all adopters closely as for any adoption, and then for prior dog owning experience as well • Sterilize all pit bulls before release from the shelter! • Make follow up calls and visits Placement Suggestions • Dog may be OK until social maturity at 18-24 mos of age - Concern about adopting out puppies from known fighting lines - Need experienced guardians - Counsel adopters Behavior and Placement Considerations Temperament test or otherwise evaluate their behavior before considering placement Placement must consider all characteristics and adopt to experienced owners only • May be dog aggressive and friendly to humans • Maybe people and dog friendly • May be dog and human aggressive Placement Suggestions • Look at adopters environment to determine if a Pit Bull is a good match - Urban area, dog parks - Small children in the home - Other pets Placement Suggestions In this author's opinion, the placement of dogs with a history of dog fighting should be strongly discouraged, if not outright prohibited 11 Nutrition in the Shelter Feed high quality dry food twice a day Feed on a higher plane of nutrition- avoid generic food - Used to lots of exercise and activity - Can lose weight due to stress Use treats judiciously to avoid unwanted weight gain in sedentary dogs Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Maintain ongoing records, with photographs, throughout the course of the animal's stay and initial them Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Cruelty cases may stay in the shelter for weeks to months • Important to maintain a written record of their health status even if they are no longer being treated Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Document a complete and accurate description of the dog • Good medical records can be essential to the successful prosecution of a cruelty case • They may be admitted as evidence in the case Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Medical records should be neat and legible • Avoid the use of white out to correct mistakes • Mistakes should be crossed out and initialed Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Perform a complete physical exam (PE) on entry to the facility • PE should include an all systems evaluation, not just a record of the abnormal values and findings 12 Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • If necessary and not medically contraindicated, the dog should be tranquilized to perform the exam • PE should be performed within the first 24 hours of the dog's entering the shelter. Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Take good quality photographs before, after and throughout the course of treatment • Photographs are important visual records that have a dramatic impact on judges and juries Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term • Evidence should be initialed and kept under lock and key. • Consult closely with prosecutors and investigators on proper procedure Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term Document all entries legibly in the medical record. This is a legal document. Do not white out or erase incorrect entries Record the dog's initial and subsequent weights Scan for a microchip and check for a tattoo (inner ear, thigh and groin most common) Guidelines for Cruelty Cases and Holding Animals Long -Term Maintain the chain of custody of the evidence- know where the evidence is at all times The chain of custody of the evidence refers to the ability to identify, with certainty, the whereabouts of the evidence at all times Cruelty Cases Try to ascertain the actual cause of the injury or condition - Include neglect or abuse - Rule out medical conditions (such as diabetes or neoplasia) 13 Cruelty Cases • Be prepared to answer the questions: - How long did it take for this condition to develop? - Was this animal suffering needlessly? - Prognosis? Signalment Fighting dog's ears are often cropped very close to their head Make note of this Are the ears cropped? How close? Does it appear professional? Physical Examination Evaluate and record TPR, hydration and condition of mucus membranes Evaluate body condition using TACC score Check toenails for infections or declawing Check mouth for broken teeth from fighting Check vocal ability- guard dogs may be debarked Signalment or Description Court cases can be lost if the description of the animal is not accurate Owner's name or complaint number Species and breed All colors Gender -include spay or neuter status All other pertinent identifying characteristics - Scars, different eye color? - Dewclaws, etc.... Physical Examination Evaluate dog's overall condition • Describe all wounds in detail - Cause - Number - Type (abrasions, punctures, bites, lacerations, cuts) - Wounds in various stages of healing common in fighting dogs - Location (fighting dog bite wounds may be found on face, head and neck, throat, legs) Physical Examination The medical record should read like the classic text book record, with TPR, capillary refill, degree of dehydration, percentage the animal is underweight, etc.. Veterinarians who examine animals in cruelty cases are frequently called upon to testify as expert witnesses 14 Physical Examination • The medical records that are kept during the normal course of business in a private practice or shelter frequently omit information that would be desirable for a court case. Medical Records • Include the history, including the source if not obtained from the owner • Include a behavioral evaluation as part of the medical record Photographs Use 35 mm camera and film Digital photography is admissible in court Take both close ups and distant views Use a label with name, date, etc Use a ruler in photo to measure lesions Use flash if necessary Take lots of pictures Medical Records The behavior evaluation is an important part of the medical record and should be under ongoing reevaluation If it is inappropriate to evaluate the animal immediately upon entry, a notation should be made to that effect, and why A picture can be worth a thousand words 15 Radiographs • If abuse is suspected, take whole body radiographs and look for fractures in various stages of healing- pay special attention to ribs • Use radiology specialists as experts to testify to age of fractures Treatment Protocols Monitor weight regularly as long-term boarders may gain or lose Dogs that enter the shelter as victims of neglect or abuse usually experience a weight gain initially However long term boarders may eventually begin to lose weight, or become overweight due to inactivity Treatment Protocols Vaccinate Perform fecal and use broad spectrum dewormer as a matter of routine Consider performing heartworm test In all cruelty cases, perform lab work and take radiographs Treatment Protocols Treat all medical problems promptly Dogs that have been used for fighting are frequently treated by their owners with antibiotics they obtain from various sources The repeated and inappropriate use of these drugs may create some resistance problems Vaccinations Vaccinate on entry for major core diseases if health permits Consider parvo booster for long- term residents in 6 months Consider intranasal bordetella vaccine if kennel cough is a problem and the dog is tractable enough for this route of administration 16 Vaccinations • Vaccinate for rabies upon release or follow regulations for rabies vaccination if a bite case • If the dog has bitten someone, he must be held for 10 days and vaccinated at the end of that period. Observations About Pit Bulls Pit bulls are often extremely well muscled, making diagnosis and treatment more difficult Observations about Pit Bulls If excited, Pits may initially require high doses of tranquilizers to calm or sedate them - But then they can become too heavily sedated Some veterinarians report resistance to acepromazine Others report sensitivity to ace Be careful when sedating Vaccinations If the dog has been bitten by an unknown animal and has no vaccination history, he should be treated as a rabies exposure and should either be euthanized for rabies testing or held in quarantine for 6 months and vaccinated one month prior to the end of the quarantine. If the dog is currently vaccinated, he must be revaccinated and held for 45 days for observation. Observations About Pit Bulls Gunshot victims may present as clinically normal - No outward sign of distress Elicitation of pain can be an unreliable diagnostic indicator - They also show little reaction to normal pain stimulus In cases of cranial cruciate rupture, these dogs can be so well muscled it is difficult to elicit a drawer sign Observations About Pit Bulls Temperament changes may be observed as sick animals regain their strength, going from meek to aggressive 5taff frequently become very attached to these dogs during the initial stages of their recovery when they are very docile, affectionate and calm 17 Observations about Pit Bulls As they regain their strength and vigor, they may revert to their normal behavior and sometimes become more aggressive It is very difficult to make the decision to euthanize after the staff has bonded with an animal that has been rescued from an abusive situation Observations About Pit Bulls Pit bulls often enter the shelter under heavy or over- sedation Treat aggressively with warmth and IV fluids Use extreme caution to avoid being bitten as they regain full consciousness Although this may occur with any breed, a pit bull bite will cause more damage Pit Bull Program Options • Pay to Spay Pit Programs • Breed Rescue Groups • Pits in Prison Programs • Legislative activities - Promote aggressive dog legislation, NOT breed -specific bans Observations About Pit Bulls • Use treatment regimens that minimize risk - Once or twice a day dosing - Oral drugs that can be hidden in food - Ivermectin for mange instead of dips Observations About Pit Bulls • Pit bulls that have been properly bred and well socialized can be very affectionate and loyal pets. The Two Sides of the Story W. Great References Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff — Edited by Lila Miller and Stephen Zawistowski • Blackwell Publishing • 1-800-862-6657 www.aspca.org www.sheltermedicine.com 19 City of Kalispell Charles A. xarball Office of City Attorney City Attorney 312 First Avenue East P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Mayor Pamela B. Kennedy and Kalispell City Council Charles Harball, City Attorney Jane Howington, City Manager Dangerous Animal Ordinance Review August 24, 2009 — Council Work Session Tel 406.758.7708 Fax 406.758.7771 charball@kalispell.com The City of Kalispell has an ordinance on the books, enacted in 2001 that deals with vicious dogs — KMC 4-23 — [see attached]. There have been some questions from the police department, the municipal court and the public whether this ordinance is as effective as it could be. In the past year there have been numerous well publicized incidents as well as many more less well known incidents involving threatening, vicious, or otherwise potentially dangerous dogs in the City. Most often the incident comes into the public spotlight when the police are placed in the situation of having to destroy the animal on the scene. The staff has been researching other ordinances around the state and interviewing the police departments and courts using these ordinances in order to gauge their usefulness and effectiveness. Particularly, the Whitefish ordinance has many features that would seem to be helpful. Although Whitefish is currently looking to amend the ordinance to some degree, it has received good reviews. There are two features of the ordinance that the staff believes would be effective: 1) A citizens panel is created, comprised of veterinarians, dog trainers or other experts in the field of animal behaviors. This panel reviews particular situations and works with the animal owners in addressing dangerous behaviors and animal training and restraint. The panel also provides an opinion to the court as to whether or not the suspect animal should be considered vicious. This feature provides a service to the community that the police department has not been able to provide and creates a good fact finding element for the municipal court, allowing it to make good, well reasoned determinations. 2) If an animal is determined to be dangerous, the ordinance restricts ownership to those individuals 18 years of age or older; requires an indentifying tattoo be placed on the animal; requires specific fencing and restraints be employed; and requires the owner to carry certain levels of insurance to cover acts of the animal. Vicious Dogs Ordinance Memorandum August 20, 2009 Page - 2 At the workshop, staff will discuss the effectiveness of the current ordinance as well as possible amendments to that ordinance which will hopefully address any drawbacks in it. n Charles rball, City Attorney 4-23 Vicious Dogs. e Howington, City Mana er A. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep, harbor, or maintain any vicious dog in the City of Kalispell. B. If any vicious dog is running at large or any dog appears to be mad or dangerous to the public, and it appears to the Warden that it is necessary to kill such a dog in order to protect the public from the dog, the warden is hereby authorized to kill the dog. C. If any dog, including, but not limited to, vicious dogs, bites a person living in the City, such dog bite shall immediately be reported to the Warden or the Kalispell Police Department. The Warden may issue a written order requiring the owner of such dog to surrender the dog to the Warden, the Flathead County Animal Control Center or, at the owner's expense, to a licensed veterinarian. If the owner cannot be found at his or her place of residence, the order may be served by leaving it with a person at the entrance of such residence. 1. It is unlawful for any person to refuse or neglect to surrender any dog, within twenty four (24) hours after the service of such order, and the warden shall seize and impound such dog at either the Flathead County Animal Control Center or a licensed veterinarian's office, at the owner's expense. 2. In the event the owner is unknown or the dog is running at large, the Warden shall seize and impound the dog without notice. 3. If the vicious dog is running at large and the warden is unable to seize and impound the dog, the dog may be killed by any peace officer or Warden without notice. 4. All dogs impounded under this section shall be quarantined for the period and under the same conditions stated in Section 4-22 of this article. D. Any owner who keeps, harbors or maintains a vicious dog in violation of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for a term not to exceed six (6) months or by a fine of not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) or both. (Ord. 1381A, 5-21-2001) Office of City Attorney City of Kalispell Fes: S _ T The Media; Mythe d� .'and, liti cs of Canine A ggr ion CHAPTER 10 "Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late: the jest is over, and the tale has had its effect." Jonathan Swift In a 10-year span, from 1966-1975, there is only one documented case of a fatal dog attack in the United States by a dog which could even remotely be identified as a "Pit bull" (i.e. American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, English Bulldog or any dog resembling a "Pit bull" or `Bull- dog"). So, how did the "Pit bull" find itself fully entrenched as the new super -predator by the early 1980s? Czz] By the middle of the 1970s there became an emerging public awareness of the cruel prac- tice of dog fighting in the United States. Dog fighting began to get .the attention of law enforcement and, hence, the media during this time and was being exposed as an insidious and growing problem throughout the country. About the same time, in the summer of 1976, a California boy was killed by a dog. Newspapers from Louisiana and New Jersey to California reported this event, with each newspaper using a different breed description. The dog involved in this incident was alter- nately described as a Bulldog, Bull Terrier, or Pit bull. More than a few newspapers reported that the dog "locked its jaws on the child's neck." One newspaper could not make up its mind as to which breed caused the fatality so they simply mixed and matched the anatomy and alleged behavior of an American Pit Bull Terrier with that of the (English) Bulldog. The headline starts off claiming, "Five-year old killed by Bulldog" and in the next line iden- tifies the dog as a "Pit bull." After now identifying the dog as a Pit bull, the article offers the following (incorrect) theory about English Bulldog anatomy that allegedly explains the "locking jaw" reported in this attack: "Because a Bulldog's lower jaw is longer than the upper jaw, it is physically impossible for the dog to let go while there is any tension on whatever it is holding in its mouth." 95 96 Karen Delise During this time, as police raided dog fighting operations, arresting dog fighters and seizing Pit bulls, the media began covering this growing subculture of drugs, guns, gam- bling and fighting dogs in earnest. Shelter personnel were interviewed about why the Pit bulls seized during the raids were being euthanized. Comments about the "killer instinct" of the Pit bull (unfortunately not defined as it was meant--log-on-dog aggression) were found in these reports. Many of these shelter personnel lamented the destruction of these dogs and commented that despite their strength, tenacity and encouraged aggression towards other dogs, the seized Pit bulls were loyal, friendly and affectionate animals. Unbeknownst to the media, law enforcement and shelter workers, the exposure of this cruel and seedy subculture and their descriptions of the Pit bull's fierce but loyal nature would strike a chord with a segment of the human population which has always been attracted to dogs they believe will enable them to impress or intimidate other humans. Exposing breeds of dogs involved in a negative function, through no fault of their own, will not increase their popularity with the average owner looking for a dog. Dogs por- trayed in negative functions (fighting, guarding drug stashes, etc.) will only serve to increase their popularity with unsuitable owners who seek out dogs to increase their status as a per- son of power or intimidation. The media's intention in first reporting dog fighting, police raids, and Pit bull seizures appears to have been legitimate and well-intentioned coverage of animal cruelty which right- fully should be exposed as criminal behavior. However, the media's first reports of two Pit bull -related fatalities in the late 1970s were filled with erroneous Pit bull anatomical ref, erences and sensationalized claims of Pit bull abilities. These glaring errors, along with the continuous exposure of Pit bulls used by dog fighters and drug dealers, would produce an immediate and predictable increase in the popularity of this breed with substandard and criminal owners. By the early 1980s the Pit bull was on the fast track to becoming the new super -predator. Like the producers of the Tom Shows in the 1880s, when the 1980s media recognized that Pit bull attack stories elicited an emotional reaction from their audience, the media went into overdrive. The early 1980s find the media continuously churning out emotionally charged articles about Pit bull anatomy and behaviors that were based on rumors, myths and unproven claims by both experts and laymen. By 1982, Pit bulls were becoming a hot topic and the media would capitalize on this at every opportunity. As the media delighted in reporting the Pit bull to be unpredictable and deadly, the pop- ulation of Pit bulls accelerated each consecutive year. United Kennel Club (UKC) registrations show a 30% increase in registrations of American Pit Bull Terriers in a single year,(1983 to 1984). The media would be in full lather by 1985 and nary an expert or laymen would pass up the opportunity to comment on the Pit bull issue in any public forum, with the Pit bull population continuing to increase in step with the hysteria. The Pit Bull Placebo 97 In 1986 there were over 350 newspaper, magazine and journal articles printed about the Pit bull in the United States. The media image of the Pit bull was becoming so intense and magnified that it sometimes took precedence even over a person's actual experience with the breed. Owners with loving, affectionate Pit bulls were having them euthanized in fear they would "turn." One man who was "attacked" by a Pit bull in 1986 did not assess the temperament of the Pit bull by the dog which allegedly attacked him, but rather by the image of the Pit bull as portrayed in the media. The "attack" occurred when his neighbor's loose Pit bull came near the man's daughter, when he kicked the dog away, apparently the dog snapped at him. He easily warded off the dog with his foot and no injuries occurred. But it was reported in the media that the man "escaped serious injury." He is quoted as say- ing, "The Pit bull has the same instincts as a panther and should be treated as such. Some say if you train it enough, maybe it can become a pet. Well, so can a rattlesnake. But in the meantime, they're killing people, ripping their throats out." This comment came from a man who fended off an "attacking" Pit bull with only his foot. The Pit bull hysteria would continue unabated in 1987 and the media, not above can- nibalizing itself, would begin to report on the over -reporting of Pit bull stories. Two news stories in 1987 demonstrate with great clarity the extent of the hysteria about Pit bulls dur- ing this time. Some people became so frightened that they assumed any misfortune needed to be attributed to a Pit bull, while others used the hysteria and hype about Pit bulls in an attempt to disguise their own evil acts. In 1987 a woman rushed her bleeding and partially paralyzed dog to a Veterinary Hos- pital in Kalamazoo. The woman claimed her small dog had been "mauled by a Pit bull." The dog had no visible bite wounds and x-rays were taken. It was discovered the dog had been shot and a bullet was lodged near the spine. The veterinarian commented that "unless Pit bulls are now carrying guns, the dog was probably shot by one of the woman's neighbors." 1 Also in 1987, an Oakland, California, man called the police to report his 19-month-old daughter had stopped breathing. The man tried to convince police the family Pit bull had attacked and killed the little girl. There was absolutely no evidence the child had been attacked by the dog. The investigating officer stated the dog blamed for attacking the child "was so young, it barely had teeth." The father was arrested on suspicion of murdering his daughter. The Pit bull puppy was taken into custody by Animal Control.2 In 1987, Rolling Stone magazine did a remarkable and graphic expose on teenagers, inner city gangs, violence and the horrific abuse of Pit bulls, entitled "A Boy and his Dog in Hell." 3 This investigation into inner city youth showed that not only were Pit bulls being used as an extension of their owners' depravity, but were extensions of their teenage own- ers' egos. When Pit bulls lost an arranged street fight they were subjected to unimaginable cruelty and violent deaths, because they became a source of embarrassment or failed to uphold the machismo image of their owners. 98 Karen Delise Addressing the societal ills identified in the Rolling Stone report —crime, poverty, ani- mal abuse, ignorance, greed, depravity, and maws lust for violence —is a far too daunting and disturbing task for most people. So much easier on the human psyche to address the situation with Pit bulls as Sports Illustrated did that same month. On July 27, 1987, the entire front cover of this issue was a photograph of a Pit bull, mouth open, teeth bared, over which in bold print was the headline, "Beware of this Dog." The lengthy article inside the magazine gave lip service to the abusive "sport" of dog fighting, while alternately por- traying the Pit bull as vicious and unpredictable 4 Here we also see the beginnings of outrageous examples of Pit bulls involved in attacks being described as "family dogs." One of the "family" Pit bulls described in this Sports Illustrated article was actually one of four dogs chained behind a trailer in Oklahoma. All the dogs (three chained Pit bulls, and one chained Chow) had scars consistent with dog fighting. The owners/parents were charged with criminal neglect for allowing their 2-year- old daughter to wander out to these "family" dogs. But no article could compete with the blatant fear mongering and horrendous portrayal of the Pit bull that Time magazine ran this same month. In an apparent attempt to top all others in shocking the public into reading their Pit bull article, they ran the headline "Time Bomb on Legs." Horror author Stephen King could not have created a more frightening monster than this portrayal of the Pit bull. The second sentence of this article reads, "Never in the deliri- ous dream of a disordered brain could anything more savage, more appalling, more hellish, be conceived than the dark form and savage face" (of the Pit bull) 5 The rest of the article descends even further, vilifying the Pit bull as a creature that revels in a "frenzy of blood- letting," and described as "lethal weapons" with "steel trap jaws" and as "killer dogs," and the new "hound of the Baskervilles." An unproven, unreferenced claim of Pit bulls biting with 1800 psi is included. The article then goes on to describe the formula used to torture, abuse and create a dangerous dog. The author of this article is blithely unaware or unconcerned with his role in perpetu- ating the problem. While this type of journalism may be entertaining, the demonization of dogs by the media has serious consequences. Demonizing certain breeds only furthers their appeal to the most extremely abusive of owners while feeding into a public hysteria and frightening off any potential suitable owners for this breed of dog. This same month, July 1987, still another major publication, People Weekly, would also contribute to the hype and hysteria about the Pit bull with their article, "An Instinct for the Kill."6 Even when other breeds of dogs were involved in attacks, the media would "spice" up the story with a reference to Pit bulls. In 1989, an Akita attacked and severely mauled a 5- year-old girl in Massachusetts. The article describes the attack and claims the Akita is "a breed that resembles the Japanese Pit bull."7 The Pit Bull Placebo 99 The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report Dog Bite -Related Fatalities From 1979-1988, released in September 1989, would seal the fate of the Pit bulls with pseudo- statistics.8 The CDC breed "statistics" were actually numbers derived largely from newspaper stories and from the media's identification of dogs involved in attacks. The report then discussed canine aggression almost exclusively from a focus of breed. Factors such as the function of the dog (guarding/fighting/breeding), reproductive status, sex of dog, vic- tim behavior, and owner behavior were not addressed. The primary focus of the study was breed of dog and victim profile (age/sex). While the media was quick to quote the CDC findings on the percentage of Pit bull attacks, vir- tually no coverage was given to one important finding in this study. A number of times in report, the CDC identified the risk of infants left unsupervised with dogs. In summarizing their findings the CDC wrote, "In particular, parents should be aware that very small infants left alone with a dog may be at risk of death." This finding with the potential to save lives was ignored. The number of Pit bulls found in attacks was of much greater interest. The 1980s media and epidemiological focus on breed was a drastic departure from the multi -faceted approach of the early 1970s. Now, the story of dog attacks began and ended with breed of dog. Politicians, the media, and even some "experts" discussed and debated the problem of canine aggression only as it related to the Pit bull. Pit bull history, anatomy, and temperament were all dissected and examined at length. Little to no mention was made of the factors that had been recognized for centuries as contributing to canine aggression. The heat -stressed, chained dog that attacked a child in 1965 was now being reported as the "family Pit bull" which mauled a child. Almost no one cared to know anything about a dog attack, apart from breed._ Yet the courts and law enforcement have often demonstrated that incidences of severe/fatal aggression were the direct result of negligent, dangerous and/or criminal behav- ior by the dogs' owners. In the 1980s an unprecedented number of owners (Pit bull and non -Pit) were beginning to be charged criminally when their dogs were involved in a fatal attack. During this period, fully 25% of all owners of Pit bulls involved in fatalities were convicted of some type of criminal offense related to the attack. Law enforcement and the judicial system not only recognized that owners were the direct cause of their dogs' involve- ment in attacks, but pursued the matters criminally. Unfortunately, then (as today) many other owners escaped convictions due to the fact that many local or state laws did not ade- quately address negligent and/or abusive dog owners. Nevertheless, four Pit bull owners during the 1980s were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and received prison sentences after their dogs were involved in a fatality. Another Pit bull owner received a 5 year prison sentence for reckless injury to a child when his 4-year-old stepson wandered near one of his Pit bulls chained to a utility pole. His defense, "That boy knew better than to get near that dog," probably did not help his case. (He was allowed to serve this sentence concurrently with a 10-year sentence he had already 100 Karen Delise received for drug possession.) Other owners of Pit bulls (and other breeds) were convicted of crimes ranging from child endangerment to criminal negligence. So while politicians, the media and others were clamoring about Pit bulls behaving unpre- dictably, the courts found and proved that indeed many of these attacks were very predictable. Finally, in 2001, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) convened a Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human -Canine Interactions to address the continuing dog bite problem and to assist in avoiding "ineffective responses" following a severe dog attack in a community.10 This in-depth study reported that "dog bite statistics are not really sta- tistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite."11 Unfortunately the findings and information presented by these learned experts has been largely ignored by many communities when addressing dangerous dogs. If the media acknowledged their over -reporting of anything Pit bull in the late 1980s, one would imagine they would be able to recognize their intense over -reporting on Pit bull related matters today. Apparently not. During the middle 1990s, as the Rottweiler appeared to be replacing the Pit bull as Amer- ica's new guard/protection/intimidation dog, the Pit bull's popularity with unsavory owners who sought out dogs for negative functions appeared to have waned. No surprise, Rottweil- ers then overtook the Pit bull in severe and fatal dog attack statistics. With a new monster looming on the horizon, the media briefly took their focus off the Pit bull. It seemed the Pit bull had finally ran its two decade course as America's favorite super -predator and the unfortunate Rottweiler was positioned to suffer a similar fate. In 1997, there were "only" 400+ newspaper headlines with the words "Pit bull" in them (down from 850+ in 1987). In 2000, the third and latest CDC report on dog bite -related fatalities in the United States released another set of pseudo -statistics claiming the Rottweiler caused the most fatalities for the years 1997 and 1998. But, again, the CDC report counted the number of Pit bull - type dog attacks from their previous two studies (dating back to 1979 and still using media sources for breed identifications) and released a total for Pit bull -related fatalities during the last two decades, from 1979-1998.9 The unbridled media coverage of this report could only be described as orgasmic. Within a month after the release of the CDC report, hardly a person in America did not come to know that Rottweilers and Pit bulls caused the most human fatalities over the previous two decades. It didn't matter that the odds of dying from a dog attack during the year 1996 were 1 in 11,534,087, while the odds of being struck by lightning during the same year were 1 in 4,210,857. The Pit Bull Placebo 101 Nor did it matter that some of the dogs included in this study were terribly abused or were invited to act so aggressively by their owners. Dog breeds involved in fatal attacks were big news. If the intense media focus on an event which occurred to one person in every 11 mil- lion exaggerated the risk of a fatal dog attack, things would get much worse for the Pit bull. The War on Pit Bulls --Politicians Declare the Pit Bull Public Enemy Number One In 2003, a 23-year-old woman was at work as an administrative assistant in Denver when Animal Control officers arrived at the home she shared with her mother. The officers explained to the woman's mother that they were there to confiscate her daughter's two dogs. The mother, confused and unsure as to what was happening, allowed Denver's Animal Con- trol officers to enter her home and seize her daughter's two pet Pit bulls, Lady and Man. Thus began this young woman's abrupt introduction to the world of Denver's Pit bull politics. It is no surprise this woman knew nothing of the ban on Pit bulls in the city of Denver, as she was only 9 years old in 1989, the year Denver concluded that the solution to canine aggression was to rid the city of Pit bulls. Now with her dogs seized and at Den- ver Municipal Animal Shelter, the only way to save them from death was to take them and move outside the city limits. Reluctantly, she moved, consoling herself that she was still close enough to visit and check on her mother regularly. And so she did. For the next few months she frequently drove back into the city to visit her ailing mother. One day she took her two Pit bulls into the city with her, both for com- panionship and because her mother loved the dogs and their presence gave her comfort and joy. The young woman arrived at her mother's house and was inside with the dogs when, not half an hour later, Denver Animal Control officers appeared at the door. The young woman explained to the officers that she no longer lived in Denver and provided proof of her new residence. She attempted to explain that she was only visiting for a few hours with her mother. Pleading with the officers, she said she knew the dogs could not live in Den- ver, but she believed she could still bring them into the city to visit as long as she was able to prove the dogs resided outside the city. Nevertheless, Animal Control officers entered the home and seized the two dogs. Sometime during the next 24 hours, while the distraught young woman was making phone calls and trying to contact people in order to find out how she could get her dogs back, Denver Animal Control killed her pets. Two years earlier, at the age of 21, when this woman received the young female Pit bull from her boyfriend, never did she imagine that the dog would be taken from her and destroyed. She believed if she was a good owner and did everything right —her Pit bulls were house dogs, never allowed to run loose or even be in the yard unless she was there also —the dogs would be safe. Additionally, the dogs were well-behaved, sweet, friendly and had never harmed anyone —what could possibly go wrong? 102 Karen Delise What went wrong was that these dogs were born Pit bulls. And as of 1989, Denver had passed a law making it illegal for a dog to be born a Pit bull. How did Denver come to conclude that it is wrong to be a Pit bull? We've seen that starting in the 1980s the media introduced many of the ingredients necessary to frighten the public into believing that Pit bulls were dangerous. But while it is one thing for the public to buy into fear mongering, hysteria, misinformation and unproven claims, it is quite another matter for laws to be passed based on unsubstantiated claims and media -driven rhetoric. Laws banning Pit bulls were introduced by another element that entered into the Pit bull debate during the 1980s, disseminating misinformation and unproven claims while manipulating the fear fostered by the media: The Politician. We would like to believe that our laws are passed based on scientific data, proven the- ories or the testimony and evidence provided by, if not the majority, at least a respectable number of experts or professionals. This has never been the case with breed specific -leg- islation or the decision by officials to ban or restrict particular breeds of dogs. Experts are rarely consulted and even when they are invited to speak, their testimonies are more often than not discarded in favor of newspaper headlines or the emotional testimonies of a few victims. Hundreds of examples can be given of politicians who flatly refuse to believe canine experts who have extensive personal and professional experience with dogs; the following example is typical of the responses politicians give when faced with the issue of canine aggression as presented by someone who has spent a lifetime working with aggressive dogs or studying canine behavior. During a roundtable meeting about Denver's proposed Pit bull ban in 1989, a dog expert was attempting to describe and explain the nature and workings of canine aggression to a Denver councilwoman. The man was a professional dog trainer and had personally han- dled and trained over 100 protection trained dogs (of different breeds). He was explaining how all dogs can display the same types of aggression and how all dogs will respond aggres- sively to certain stimuli. The councilwoman flatly refuted his knowledge of canine aggression, commenting, "You can't tell me that if there was a Pit bull loose and a small terrier loose, that they are going to respond in the same manner, because that is not true." The expert dog trainer assured the councilwoman that it was true and stated, "You could be attacked by a Schnauzer the same way that you could be attacked by a Pit bull." Again she rebuffed his knowledge of canine aggression based on her self-appointed expertise and knowledge of the subject matter, with the response, "I'm sorry but people run away from Pit bulls. People don't run away from Schnauzers." Perhaps worse than the "Pit bulls are dangerous because people run from them" argu- ment, are comments such as the following, so often used by politicians and delivered by Denver's Director of Environmental Health: The Pit Bull Placebo 103 "I'll tell you the difference between Pit bulls and other breeds: They have lower levels of fighting inhibition; they have a tendency to attack without provocation because they're bred to do that. They will continue to fight until they're either dead or exhausted, no matter how bad you've hurt them, because they have been trained to do that. They don't signal when they're going to attack..." This is the standard description used by almost all politicians when discussing how Pit bulls are different and need to be banned. It is incredible that these politicians do not see what they are doing by asserting these claims: They are deliberately ignoring the testimonies of legitimate professionals (veteri- narians, humane society personnel, dog trainers, breed clubs) and choosing to believe and to validate the boasts of a criminal, inhumane, machismo group of dog owners who for hun- dreds of years have touted extraordinary abilities about their dogs in order to increase their personal and financial worth. The claims like those quoted above are almost word for word the claims of dog fighters. Additionally, the city of Denver entered into evidence outrageously flawed statistics and then drew totally inaccurate conclusions about the "differentness" of Pit bulls based on these meaningless numbers (see Appendix Q. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, newspapers were hyping the Pit bull for all it was worth. Many politicians quickly jumped on the bandwagon, enacting laws and ordi- nances in response to the hysteria. Denver would be joined by Miami, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Toledo, and dozens of smaller cities in enacting bans on Pit bulls in the late 1980s. But things would get much worse for the Pit bull as, by the end of the 20th century, there would be another 200+ cities, communities and counties which enacted breed bans or restrictions against them or any dog that may be viewed as having "Pit bull character- istics." Not only was ridding the community of Pit bull -looking dogs touted as a cure-all for dog attacks, but at least another 26 breeds of dogs would be banned or restricted as "dan- gerous" in communities across the country. The arbitrariness of these "dangerous breed" determinations cannot be overstated. Some breeds with no documented cases of severe or fatal attacks in the community (or even throughout the country) were banned. Some com- munities touted their breed bans to be a pre-emptive strike, banning an entire breed before it had a "chance" to attack. Others merely looked up the history of a breed and determined the dangerousness of the dogs according to the original function of the breed. Other com- munity leaders offered no reason for the "dangerous" determination of certain breeds on their ban/restricted list. The beginning of the 21 st century shows little respite for the Pit bull (and other breeds) as the media and some politicians have partnered up to create a tag team of misinforma- tion and hysteria about canine behavior. 104 Karen Delise The 21 st century media has introduced the public to a host of new canine experts: Kory Nelson (Denver, CO), Michael Bryant (Ontario, Canada), Virginia (Ginger) Rugai (Chicago, IL), Rep. Paul Wesselhoft (Moore, OK), and Peter Vallone Jr. (Astoria, NY). These "experts" can easily be found in newspaper articles discussing the history, anatomy, nature and tem- perament of the Pit bull. The only problem is all these "Pit bull experts" have other full-time jobs —as politicians. Yet, somehow they have managed to acquire the sum total of knowledge about dog breeds, canine behavior, epidemiology (the study of dog bites), canine population statis- tics, Pit bull history, Pit bull temperament, Pit bull anatomy, and Pit bull aggression. Not only have they acquired all this knowledge, but they have analyzed it and discovered the solution to canine aggression which has eluded full time canine experts throughout the last century. Their analysis of the data has led them to definitively conclude that the dog attack prob- lem is caused by: the Pit bull. And this is supported by their assessment that either: • Pit bulls are ticking time bombs • Pit bulls are land sharks, or attack like sharks • Pit bulls feel no pain, or are impervious to pain • bulls are inherently or uniquely dangerous • bulls exhibit behaviors unlike any other breed of dog, or are "different" • The Pit bull's history of dog fighting makes the breed uniquely dangerous These assessments are incredible in the breadth and depth of their ignorance of Pit bulls (and all breeds of dogs), the function of dogs in the history of the human/canine bond, and the human and canine behaviors which contribute to incidents of aggression. The fact that government officials in some of these cities and provinces can enter your home to seize your property (Pit bulls or mixed breed dogs that may look like Pit bulls) based on these grade -school -level assessments of canine behavior is a frightening reality. Yet, outrageous comments about Pit bulls and canine behavior are broadcast across the coun- try, enabling these very same legislators to garner support for their one-step solution to canine aggression. Perhaps worse than failing to address the real reasons for dog attacks, is the fact that these politicians seem blissfully unaware of the insidious results of making such outrageous claims about Pit bulls and Pit bull behavior. History has repeatedly shown that publicly por- traying a breed of dog as exceedingly ferocious or dangerous will only serve to increase the breed's popularity with dangerous owners. Public statements that Pit bulls are "land sharks" or "ticking time bombs" will not increase the breed's popularity with responsible owners, but only serve to increase the breed's popularity with owners who are purposely seeking out a "dangerous" dog. The claims of these politicians have only perpetuated the The Pit Bull Placebo 105 problem by demonizing breeds of dogs and then making them even more desirable and more sought after by people who will mismanage and abuse these animals in such a way as to put the community at risk. At perhaps no time in history has mankind been as ignorant of natural canine behavior as we are today. Perhaps at no time in history has mankind been more ignorant of the essence of the familiar bond between owner and dog —the bond which drives and directs most canine behavior. And perhaps at no time in history has man publicly forsaken or denied his com- mand of the canine species. It has even been suggested that Pit bulls are no longer domesticated animals. Maquoketa, Iowa, has made it unlawful to keep certain animals. The list includes all types of wild and exotic animals from lions and baboons to hyenas. Pit bulls are included in the list between Piranha fish and the puma (mountain lion). A claim that Pit bulls are different or unlike other domestic dogs is a direct refusal to acknowledge a factual relationship which has formed over tens of thousands of years —a relationship which man has controlled, directed, and mastered with great efficiency over the centuries. In a society unparalleled in its access to information and ability to control our natural environment, we now claim that we are unable to master our dogs. Supremely adept in the art of transference, humans have now absolved themselves from any control or culpabil- ity in the creation and maintenance of the Pit bull. We've thrown up our hands and cry out that we are now the victim of this breed. They have forced us to destroy them. It is not our fault; the beast has gotten away from us. How easily we forsake the dogs rather than take responsibility for their behavior is a sad testament to how well humans fulfill their commitment to the canine/human bond. This is perhaps the ultimate act of betrayal which humans have inflicted on our canine compan- ions —the refusal to own what is ours, what we have created. It is no mere accident that Pit bulls are labeled "different." It is also no small coinci- dence that Pit bulls are compared to sharks. This is a psychological ploy that has been used for centuries to disassociate or distance one being from others of its own kind in order to subjugate, abuse or annihila#e them. With humans, color of skin, religion, sex, language, and country of origin have all been used at one time or another as the basis for categorizing the "inferiority" or "differentness" of another group of persons. Once a mental distancing or disassociation is accomplished, it "allows" for abusive or atrocious behaviors to be visited upon these dissimilar beings. For those with their own agenda, this psychological ploy has been used (wittingly or unwittingly) with great effectiveness against the Pit bull. By stripping away the traits that humans recognize and cherish in their dogs (loyalty, obedience, devotion, faithfulness, 106 Karen Delise predictability, trustworthiness), the Pit bull has been separated from all his canine brethren or stripped of his "canineness." We would like to believe our society has advanced from the mass persecutions and eth- nic cleansings that our fellow humans have ruthlessly practiced since the dawn of history. However, fear coupled with ignorance are still powerful mind -numbing agents, allowing seemingly rational people to be swept up by currents of panic-stricken accusations and led into notorious miscarriages of justice. From the Salem witch hunts to McCarthyism and the Communist red scare, Americans haven proven we are not immune to the suspension of reason and the sacrifice of innocents to quell public hysteria. History now clearly shows there were no witches in Salem, nor was our country over- run and infiltrated by communists, and eventually history will bear out that Pit bulls are dogs just like any other dogs. But before that can happen we must come to realize that we are in the midst of a social hysteria about Pit bulls. Today, police chase down fleeing Pit bulls in the street, firing dozens of wild shots in response to media -fed rumors of supernatural Pit bull abilities. Politicians coach and nur- ture this fear with their own brand of rhetoric used to assist in the passing of quick and ineffective legislation created to pacify communities ignorant of the real cause of dog attacks. Hundreds of animal shelters throughout the country kill unclaimed Pit bull -looking dogs, as they are deemed "unadoptable" solely on their physical appearance. This has occurred because we have allowed the Pit bull to be "stripped of his canine- ness"—not by genetics or by breeding, but by wild theories, rumors and myths. We have succumbed to the fear propagated by individuals and organizations with agendas totally unrelated to community safety or dog bite prevention. CHAPTER i 1 and Hysteria Triumph "There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings." (Dorothy Thompson, 1894-1961) There is an incredible amount of information and misinformation available both in paper form and on the Internet about the history, function and temperament of the American Pit Bull Terrier. This plethora of information consists of everything from factual data to hys- terical diatribes and unsubstantiated theories about Pit bull temperament and anatomy. Politicians, prosecutors, attorneys, newspaper reporters, TV and radio station person- alities, breeders, trainers, animal control officers, veterinarians, shelter workers, dog fighters, street thugs, and just about anyone able to speak has an opinion or personal the- ory about the strength and temperament of the American Pit Bull Terrier. These opinions and theories are based on a dizzying mixture of personal experience, media -induced images, rumors, myths, speculation, fear mongering, and personal or political agendas. Separating fact from fiction is time consuming and tedious work. It is much easier for most people to embrace information which supports their pre-existing belief. For example, if your neighbor has a gentle and friendly Pit bull, you may be more inclined from per- sonal experience to believe information presented which supports this view of the breed. If your neighbor is a drug dealer and has three Pit bulls lunging from chains or barking madly behind a fence, you may be more inclined to believe information supporting the vicious nature of Pit bulls. Professionals; too, can have diametrically opposed viewpoints and opinions about Pit bulls. Police officers are more inclined toward encountering bad owners (criminals and their aggressively encouraged dogs). and often see only the "bad" Pit bulls. Veterinarians often have a positive image of Pit bulls since in their profession they more frequently encounter these dogs in stressful situations (pain, fear, with strangers) and recognize the extreme tol- erance found in Pit bulls. If you have no personal experience with Pit bulls, then your only information is acquired from newspapers headlines, and it is not difficult to understand how people have formed 107 108 Karen Delise a very negative opinion of Pit bulls with the media as their only source of knowledge about the breed._ Not until false claims, both of anatomical and behavioral issues, are cast aside, not until breed identification issues are addressed, and not until the circumstances that contributed to dog attacks are examined can aggression be addressed in a way which may provide viable solutions and offer preventive measures to decrease the number of attacks on humans. Solu- tions to canine aggression are doomed to fail if they are based on "facts" not founded on evidence or on unproven claims of canine anatomy or behavior. Unfortunately, much of the information presented about Pit bulls falls under the category of pseudoscience. Pseu- doscience can best be described as information presented as fact, with the appearance of a scientific basis, which, however, is found upon examination to have no evidence support- ing such claims. Claims of anatomical abnormalities, for instance, seem to have a ring of truth about them. The fact that a tangible physical feature is the source of a theory or "fact" would seem to suggest there is tangible physical evidence to support this. In other words, the jaw of an animal is a tangible feature; it can be seen, touched and examined. Claims of abnor- malities in such a visible feature seem to be based in reality because, seriously, why would these claims be quoted and widely believed if they can so easily be disproved? Pit Bulls and the Locking Jaw Myth The Doberman was purported to have anatomical abnormalities (brain size vs. skull size) which rendered it dangerous and unpredictable, setting it apart from other breeds of dog. To upstage the Doberman another breed would also need an anatomic abnormality which set it apart from other breeds in its ferocity. The Pit bull arrived on the scene in the early 1980s with not one, but multiple rumored anatomical features which quickly outclassed the Doberman in their ability to frighten and shock the public. The first anatomical claim to fame about the Pit bull was the myth of the locking jaws. This theory suggests that the Pit bull has a unique jaw and dental structure which allows it to "lock" onto their victim. While Pit bulls do have a specialized and manipulated trait which allows them to exhibit tenacity and perseverance in maintaining their grip (from their Bulldog ancestor), this is not sufficient to propel the breed into super -predator status. After all, while Pit bulls (and Bulldogs) had this ability to hold for well over a century, prior to 1980, other breeds were considered far more vicious than the Pit bull. All breeds of dogs have a particular trait or appearance which sets them apart from other breeds. The new breed that "we love to hate" would have to have much more impressive credentials than just a specialized ability to hold on tenaciously; they would have to have an evil design which would allow for this ability. And an inescapable locking jaw is just such an evil- sounding device. The Pit Bull Placebo 109 This is a classic example of a belief that has no factual or scientific basis. The locking jaw mechanism is a myth. But this myth was as easily bought into by the public as was the myths about the bloodthirsty nature of the Bloodhound and the Doberman brain size. It is not terribly difficult to see how easily this was accomplished and how fervently people hold onto their beliefs once they accept them. The myth of the Bloodhound's "bloodthirsty ferocity" was a rather easy sell. The breed was mostly used to track down unsavory persons or in the cruel pursuits of their masters. Being chased or set on by dogs taps into humans' instinctive and primal fear of being prey. The name "Bloodhound" certainly held a negative connotation and many people confused or misunderstood the true definition of the term. Bloodhounds were defined as a hunter of blood, not a hunter by blood. To some, this distinction may seem trivial, but in reality there is a vital difference. The Bloodhound tracked warm-blooded animals, but was not follow- ing a "blood trail" (not thirsting after blood). As discussed previously, the Tom Shows did much to reinforce this bloodthirsty image. _ A generation later, with images of Dobermans and Nazi Germany still fresh in the minds of the public, anyone taking even a cursory look at a Doberman's rather narrow skull could easily buy into the "skull too small -dog goes mad" theory. The media showing any attack or guard dog as a snarling Doberman helped fix this image of viciousness. In the 1980s, the broad head and square jaw of the Pit bull easily sold a whole new generation of people into the "locking jaw" theory. All these theories sound like they have a scientific basis, and that there must be evi- dence on which these beliefs are based. The truth is, there isn't. There are no scientific studies or evidence which validates any of these widely held beliefs. On the contrary, there are sev- eral written statements by experts definitively refuting the locking jaw theory. Dr. Howard Evans (Professor Emeritus, College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell Uni- versity, Ithaca New York and author of the world's definitive work on canine anatomy [Anatomy of the Dog]), in conjunction with Dr. Sandy deLahunta, one of the foremost dog neurologist in the country, along with Dr. Katherine Houpt, a leading dog behaviorist wrote the following statement about the "locking jaw" in Pit bulls: "We all agree that the power of the bite is proportional to the size of the jaws and the jaw muscles. There is no anatomical structure that could be a locking mechanism in any dog." Research on the functional morphology of the jaws of various dog breeds conducted by Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia showed that: "there were no mechanical or morphological differences between the jaws of American Pit Bull Terriers and those of any of the other comparable breeds of dogs which we studied. In addition, we found that the American Pit 110 Karen Delise Bull Terriers did not have any unique mechanism that would allow these dogs to lock their jaws." 1 Clamps with Front Teeth and Grinds/Chews with Back Teeth Myth This is a carry-over from the old 1800s Bulldog myth. Jack London may have unintention- ally contributed greatly to this myth with the publication of his novel White pang. In his classic theme, wild animal versus dog, we find a wolf pitted against a Bulldog. In Lon- don's telling of this lengthy and protracted battle, the Bulldog's fighting technique in defeating the wolf is described in part as, "the jaws shifting their grip, slightly relaxing and coming together again in a chewing movement." The wolf is described as at a loss to defend itself against the Bulldog's tactics as he "did not know the chewing method of fighting, nor were his jaws adapted to it." But, as one reader in 1908 pointed out, Mr. London "displays an innocence (about dog fighting) which does him credit." The reader, apparently intimately familiar with dog fight- ing, explains in great detail how the Bulldog is not truly a fighting dog, and that the breed's function and physical appearance was designed to bait or hold onto bulls and not for fight- ing. The author then describes the creation and capabilities of what he believes to be the true fighting breed, the Bull Terrier ("A Question of Bulldogs and Fakers, President Roo- sevelt and Jack London Seem to Forget That the Bulldog is Not Really a Fighter," New York Times, November 1, 1908). The grinding/chewing jaw capability is just another of the many myths which surrounded the Bulldog a century ago, and which has carried over into the new Pit bull mythology. Neither Bulldogs, Pit bulls, nor any other breed of dog have a jaw structure that would allow for gripping with their front canine teeth and simultaneously grinding or chewing with their back molar teeth. Pit Bull Bite Force Calculated in psi (pounds per square inch) Myth Another physical ability alleged to set the Pit bull apart from all other breeds of dogs, and even surpass the capabilities of many wild carnivores, is the claim of massive biting power, measured in psi, or pounds per square inch of force. A disturbing number of newspaper reporters, attorneys, politicians, physicians, and testos- terone- driven websites discussing Pit bulls advance outrageous claims of Pit bull biting power in terms of psi. Claims of 1200 psi, 1800 psi, 2000 psi, and even 2600 psi are quoted The Pit Bull Placebo i l l and bantered about regularly in discussions on Pit bulls. And like the locking jaw mecha- nism, though widely believed, none can cite a reputable source for this information. Extensive research on the subject of Pit bull biting force reveals only one medical jour- nal reference on the psi of Pit bulls. The information (or rather misinformation) is startling and unsettling in that it is printed in a scientific journal without supporting data. "Mauling by Pit Bull Terriers: Case Report"2 is an article presented in 1989 by four medical doctors on the multidisciplinary management of a child presented with extensive soft -tissue dam- age as the result of an attack by four Pit bull terriers. The authors of this article state: "Pit bulls bite with greater force than most dogs (up to 1800 lb/in 2)." They cite their sole ref- erence for this claim as: Boenning, D.A., Fleisher, GR., Campos, J.M.: "Dog bites in children." Am. J. Emerg. Med., I: 17 21, 1983. Examination of this cited report, "Dog bites in children," 3 reveals an extensive med- ical article written on the management and treatment of dog bites in children. No mention or reference whatsoever is found to Pit bulls, biting force, or dog breeds within this arti- cle. Their source cited for the psi claim is nothing more than a red herring. The authors of the original report ("Mauling by Pit Bull Terriers") make other unset- tling and unsubstantiated claims about Pit bull anatomy when they state, "Once they have their victim in a hold, they do not merely maintain the `bite', but continue to grind their premolars and molars into the tissue while the canine teeth stabilize the hold." Despite the proclamations of these human doctors, this simply is not true. Pit bull anatomy, jaw structure, dentition, biting/chewing behaviors and abilities are no different than any other breed of dog (perhaps with the exception of the some of the brachiocephalic or extremely short nosed breeds). Pit bulls, and all other breeds of dogs, have an upper jaw (maxilla) and a lower jaw (mandible), neither of which have movable parts (or joints), mean- ing that if the back molars in the upper jaw are moving so are the front canine teeth in the upper jaw. The front canine teeth cannot be unmoving (or stable) while the back molars are moving (grinding) as they are fixed on the same bone (maxillary bone). The same is true of the lower jawbone or mandible. Misinformation and unsubstantiated claims about Pit bull anatomy and abilities pub- lished in medical journals is profoundly disturbing. Once inaccurate and unsupported data is published in a science journal, all future studies which reference this source become fun- damentally flawed. Doctors who treat human patients, in reporting on dog attack cases in medical journals, continue to reference each other in a never-ending succession, building on one false and unsubstantiated claim made in 1989. These unproven claims have even been entered into official court documents as "evidence" of the "destructiveness" of the Pit bull bite. Needless to say, any conclusions about the type of injuries inflicted by Pit bulls found in a medical journal article that cites this inaccurate source (Pit bulls bite with a force of 1800 lb/in 2) are invalid. 112 Karen DeRse Recently, Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic did a study on animal bites. Domes- tic dogs and humans were tested along with wild animals.. The results seem more feasible and within the parameters of reason. The force of bite in the test subjects was recorded as: Humans: 120 pounds of bite pressure Wild dogs: 310 lbs Lions: 600 lbs White sharks: 600 lbs Hyenas: 1000 lbs Snapping turtles: 1000 lbs Crocodiles: 2500 lbs Domestic dogs: 320 lbs. of pressure on average A German Shepherd, American Pit Bull Terrier and Rottweiler were tested using a bite sleeve equipped with a specialized computer instrument. The American Pit Bull Terrier had the least amount of pressure of the three dogs tested.4 In addition to the National Geographic study, other reliable sources have done studies on the psi of non-specific breeds of dogs. It is generally agreed that all dogs bite at approx- imately 200- 450 psi (the higher end numbers apply to larger dogs). While these results seem within reason, bite force in animals is difficult to measure accu- rately. Variables which cannot be controlled include: the individual animal's motivation to bite into a testing device and how hard the animal chose to bite. It is not possible to know if animals are biting with full force or if a bite is inhibited. According to Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia: "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of `pounds per square inch' can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data.5 Fortunately, an emergency room doctor in New York, seemingly unaware of the debate and rumors ofpsi biting force in Pit bulls, allowed common sense to prevail when presented with a patient with severe bites. It was reported in the newspapers in the fall of 2003: A 37-year-old man entered Harlem Hospital (NYC) seeking treatment for bite wounds. The man claimed he had been bitten by a Pit bull dog. An emergency room doctor, after examining the wounds, determined the injuries to the man could not have come The Pit Bull Placebo 113 from a dog bite, Pit bull or otherwise. The wounded man abruptly left the hospital. Police officers later arrived at his apartment to find the animal responsible for the bites was a 400 lb. Bengal -Siberian tiger the man was keeping as a "pet" in his Harlem housing proj ect.6 Hormonal Reactions, Chemical Imbalances, Brain Size and Other Neurological Nonsense None of the claims about chemical imbalances or brain pressure warrant serious discus- sion. These are outlandish assertions serving only to embellish the super -predator image of the Pit bull and appear to be myths simply transposed from the Doberman onto the Pit bull. Recently, a newspaper article stated that "some experts even believe that the presence of hormones in children of puberty age can set off Pit bulls."7 As with most of these outrageous claims, the source ("some experts") is not cited. The questions which could be put to these "experts" are: How has it happened that Pit bulls, exclusively, have come to acquire this ability to detect and react to pubescent hormones? And the even more compelling question: Since pre -teens and teenagers (male and female) are vastly underrepresented in fatal dog attacks, what evidence supports such a theory? (Pre- teens and teenagers are in one of the age groups least likely to be attacked and killed by any dog. Children under the age of six and the elderly are overwhelmingly the most fre- quent victims of severe/fatal dog attacks by any breed.) Nonetheless, newspapers and editorials print this baseless nonsense. Suffice it to say, these are all untrue and there is no evidence whatsoever to support any claims of a chem- ical, neurological or puberty -based aggression exclusive to Pit bulls. Pit Bull Attacks are Like Shark Attacks — Pit Bulls are Land Sharks A first impulse is to simply dismiss these allegations as nonsensical because, like the explod- ing brain myth, they are so outlandish as to not warrant serious discussion. The fact that the city of Denver introduced the claim that "Pit bull attacks are like shark attacks" as evi- dence for breed- specific legislation demonstrates how this kind of misinformation and shoddy research can wind up as "fact" in official court records. The fact that "educated" and not -so -educated people in positions to legislate and enact laws are making these claims necessitates addressing this theory as if it truly had any merit. A dog cannot be more than the sum total of its ancestors. The "worst" a dog could revert back to are traits which can be found in its direct ancestor —the wolf. Man can artificially 114 Karen Delise select for certain traits, but he can only select from the traits nature has already provided. But the Pit bull has seemingly accomplished an incredible feat. It has singularly been able to not only surpass all traits found in its direct ancestor (the wolf), but has allegedly been able to bypass its own species and class and cross over to join ranks with entirely differ- ent species and classes of animals (lions, tigers, sharks). Not only do Pit bulls allegedly attack and bite like tigers, lions and sharks, but the impli- cation is that they have also taken on the behaviors of these wild animals. In the interest of not belaboring similar inane theories (Pit bulls are like tigers/lions), only the shark issue will be addressed, as this is the most commonly seen comparison to Pit bull attacks. Shark Anatomy/Jaws, Teeth (Class: Chondrichthye) Sharks are cartilaginous fish. The shark's jaw exhibits characteristics unique in the animal kingdom. Unlike almost all other animals (and all mammals), the shark is equipped with two mobile and independent jaws, enabling it to attack large prey and tear off extensive pieces of flesh. This jaw structure allows for tremendous extensibility, enabling the animal to swallow some prey whole. In addition to a unique jaw structure, the shark has a set of teeth of which the anatomy and manner of replacement is unique in the animal world. While there are over 400 species of sharks and they differ significantly in dental formula, all sharks have at least five sets of teeth, covered to varying degrees with buccal mucous membrane. One set of teeth sits on the ridge of the jawbone, with at least 4 rows of teeth lined up behind the first, functional row. If one or more of the teeth on the functional row are broken or tom out, the correspon- ding teeth in the next row will rotate up to replace them.$ For example, the White Shark has 46 teeth arranged in seven rows (not all of which are functional) for a total of 322 teeth.9 While shape and size of teeth vary among shark species, all sharks have serrated teeth. These teeth are edged or lined with smaller teeth, which are razor-sharp, rendering each tooth a veritable saw. Canine Tooth - 70 Ib. Dog L 0.79 inches x W 0.47 inches Shark Tooth - Great White L 1.78 inches x W 1.20 inches Photo Credit: mega lodonsharkteeth. com Canine (Pit Bull)/Jaws, Teeth (Class: Mommalia) Dogs are mammals. Unlike the shark, the dog does not have two mobile and independent The Pit Bull Placebo 115 jaws. The only mobile bone in the mammalian skull is the mandible, or lower jaw. The den- tal formula for the dog is 2 (I 3/3, C 1/1, P 4/4, M 2/3) for a total of 42 teeth. Anatomically, the comparison between dogs and sharks could not be any more far- fetched. The dog does not have a jaw structure which allows it to swallow prey whole, nor does its jaw structure contain independent jaws (upper and lower). Unlike the shark, the dog's upper jaw is firmly attached to the skull. The dog's teeth are not serrated with razor- sharp edges, nor do they have rows of teeth positioned behind a primary set of functional teeth. Perhaps the persons who made the claim that "Pit bull attacks are like shark attacks" will say that the comparison was not to be taken so literally —that they meant it as the "man- ner of the attack," "the nature of the attack," "the behavior of the attack" or "the injurious nature of the attack" when they compared Pit bulls to sharks. The manner, nature, behavior, and injuries inflicted by sharks during an attack are driven by predation or feeding. Biting off large chunks of flesh, tearing and ripping are methods by which the shark obtains food. The comparison would have to end here, as no one can seriously believe Pit bulls view humans as a food source. If an argument is made that the comparison was not to be taken literally at all, but was simply a metaphor, the question then becomes: How can comparing Pit bulls to sharks help in the understanding, or prevention, of canine aggression? Well, it can't. Which leads to the following questions: • What is the purpose of comparing Pit bulls to sharks? • Is this approach an effective way to address canine aggression? Since Pit bulls do not behave, attack or have anatomical features which allow for any meaningful comparison with sharks, this cannot possibly be an effective way to address canine aggression. This leaves the remaining question about the purpose of this comparison. While some politicians appear to know very little about canine anatomy and aggres- sion, and even less about shark anatomy, they do know how to promote themselves as "effective" and "concerned" lawmakers. The "facts" released about Pit bulls by some politi- cians are not really facts, but rather tactics tactics that alarm and frighten the public into buying into a quick and ineffectual approach to a complex human problem. Statements comparing Pit bulls to sharks tap into a primal human fear of being attacked and eaten by large predators. These references are emotionally charged, attention -getting devices, capable of frightening a large segment of the public into believing that they are more likely to be killed by a roaming land shark (Pit bull) than by driving to work in the morning. A jittery public sighs in relief when politicians tell them not to fear, for they have the problem within their grasp. They have legislation which will rid the streets of these men- aces, soothing the very fear they helped to create. 116 Karen Delise This is certainly not to suggest that all politicians are unconcerned with finding real preventive measures to control dangerous dogs. But those who instill fear in order to pro- mote their agenda are either grossly ignorant of canine behavior or have questionable motives. Either way, this will not produce effective legislation to protect the public from dog attacks. Pit bulls are Impervious to Pain and Therefore More Dangerous During an Attack Because Pit bulls have historically been bred to have an increased tolerance for pain, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that this would be a factor in severe/fatal dog attacks. There are also some documented cases where Pit bulls appeared highly tolerant of pain and focused during an attack. But sweeping statements like this are never based on documented evidence of signifi- cant populations. Behaviors such as extreme tolerance to pain can be found in groups of dogs within a population, but it is equally easy to find groups of dogs within the Pit bull population which have normal or even increased sensitivity to pain. Increased tolerance for pain is an unnatural or artificial trait within the breed and as such needs to be constantly selected for. Therefore, the number of Pit bulls that are extremely tolerant to pain would depend largely on the recent breeding practices of humans, which cannot be determined. There are documented cases of Pit bulls that were extremely difficult to disengage from an attack. There are documented cases of Pit bull attacks which were thwarted when the dogs were struck with bats or shovels. There are documented cases of Pit bull attacks which ceased when the animals were struck with sticks, curtain rods, hands, feet or other relatively ineffectual objects. And there are many cases of Pit bulls attacking without much conviction, with the dog retreating at the shouts or mere appearance of another person. But these situations only demonstrate that there are many variables within any breed. It is well -documented that other breeds of dogs, upon attacking in a severely aggres- sive manner, are also difficult to disengage. This could be seen as far back as the previously mentioned 1903 attack with the shepherd dog, during which the arrival of the wife, who struck the dog on the back with an axe, "only maddened the dog even further." Even though the dog was frenzied, the arrival of the woman might very well have saved her husband's life, had she not struck him in the leg with the axe. Many severe Pit bull attacks did not result in a.fatality, precisely because of direct inter- ference or thwarting of the attack. Attacks that resulted in a fatality overwhelmingly involved unsupervised children or elderly persons alone with the dog(s), regardless of breed. The probability is not that a Pit bull attack will result in a fatality because the dog could not be "beaten off' the victim, but simply because there was no one of significant force to do exactly that. The Pit Bull Placebo 117 While it may seem logical that increased tolerance to pain would be a significant fac- tor in Pit bull attacks, in reality it is not. Most dogs do not respond to pain while in the frenzied state of a severe attack. This is a behavior observed in many different breeds of dogs and is found repeatedly in many of the earlier examples given of dog attacks. How- ever, forceful and direct intervention, by either separating or shielding the victim from the dog(s) has prevented many a severe attack from becoming a fatality in both Pit bull and other breed attacks. Again, this distinction is important, because claims of Pit bulls being highly tolerant of pain easily turn into the misconception that Pit bulls feel no pain. Recently, Chicago Alder- man Rugai, in commenting on the reasons for introducing breed -specific legislation in her city, was quoted in the Chicago Tribune as saying, "Pit bulls feel no pain ...... 10 These kinds of outrageous comments do incalculable damage. Aside from the obvious repercussions Pit bulls may suffer from this, humans can suffer as well. One hundred years ago the media was reporting that dogs would attack in response to pain, thus educating people in the avoidance of attacks. Yet today the very persons who clamor so loudly about their desire to save people from dog (Pit bull) attacks disseminate information which is the antithesis to dog bite prevention. Pit Bull Attacks are Unprovoked — Pit Bulls Attack without Warning This subject will be discussed in more detail in the chapter on media and interpretation of behavior as it relates to all breeds of dogs. However, as it relates to Pit bulls, this is just another unsubstantiated claim which has been used to classify Pit bulls as "different." Pit bulls are alleged to attack "without provocation" as a result of their breeding and use as fighting dogs. Outrageous claims about Pit bulls and provocation are found regularly. Statements that "most" Pit bull attacks are unprovoked can be found from politicians, physicians, and oth- ers unschooled in canine behavior and unfamiliar with the circumstances preceding dog attacks. There are numerous reasons why claims of Pit bulls (or any breed) attacking with- out provocation are baseless. The classification of an attack as unprovoked is usually based on the declarations of a negligent owner who does not care to understand canine behavior, an owner who is unable to read (understand) canine behavior, a busy owner who is too preoccupied with the tasks of daily living to see the signs and signals dogs usually display, or persons who deliber- ately misrepresent the facts to limit their culpability. Dogs have evolved over thousands of years (both from their ancestor the wolf, and as domesticated dogs in a human society) to be social animals. Social animals communicate by body language and with vocalization. Dogs do this with stares, body stiffening, posi- 118 Karen Delise tioning of ears, tail and head, and growling, to name only a few. Pit bulls do this as much as any other breed of dog. Only hubris allows humans to declare that a few generations of selective breeding of a small population of Pit bulls (for fighting) can erase what thousands of years of evolu- tion have created. While we certainly can find cases in which a Pit bull seemingly attacked without dis- playing any warning signals, again this is not a phenomenon exclusive to Pit bulls, and it certainly is not representative of most Pit bull attacks. Additionally, since so many severe and fatal dog attacks (all breed) are on young, unsupervised children who cannot read or understand canine warning signals, this certainly leads one to question how these types of claims of "attacking without warning" can be taken seriously. As previously stated, there was only one recorded fatality by a Pit bull -type dog in the United States from 1966-1975. The first fatal Pit bull attack we find after this decade occurred in May 1976, when a 6- year-old girl wandered over to a Pit bull chained under a carport at an apartment complex. It is worthy to note that neighbors stated they heard the attack and "heard the dog growl- ing," but assumed it was growling at another animal and did not respond. Only too late did they realize that these very clear signals of aggression were directed towards the child. The overwhelming majority of Pit bulls in the United States cannot trace their lineage directly back to game -bred fighting dogs. And fortunately most Pit bulls are not used for fighting but live, to varying degrees, in social environments where signals of fear, aggres- sion, excitement, contentment, and friendliness are sent and received on a daily basis. Because humans attached to these dogs cannot, or care not, to read these signals does not mean they do not exist. Contrary to what the media and most owners of attacking dogs would have you believe, severe/fatal attacks by Pit bulls are usually the end result of an escala- tion of a series of obvious aggressive behaviors. It is more within the nature of humans to lie about events that point to their culpabil- ity than it is within the nature of dogs to attack unprovoked. So, we find owners less than truthful about pfior incidents of aggression or improper treatment of dogs when they are_ facing legal or civil action after their dog has severely or fat411y injured someone. No owner is going to admit a Pit bull attacked a child because it was kept on a heavy logging chain for five years, bred two times a year, was worm -infested and parasite -rid- den, was teased by children and lived a miserable, lonely existence in the far comer of the backyard. The owner is going to tell police that the dog never showed any signs of aggres- siveness. And if owners' comments are unreliable, media accounts of these events are even more so as they are all too content to describe these dogs as "family pets" and print the abusive owners' cries of ignorance and denial. The Pit Bull Placebo 119 In 2004 the media reported this "Pit bull" attacked and killed a 4-year-old boy. It was not reported that this chained, intact male dog was visibly underweight with numerous old scars on his head and neck. Veterinarian examination revealed the dog was heartworm positive, flea -Infested, and suffering from Internal parasites (hookworms), He was anemic with a low-grade fever and was diagnosed as having very poor body condition and muscle mass. Stress and wear marks along the teeth suggest the dog did not receive adequate nutrition during development. The dog was poorly socialized and very fearful. Another reason why statements about dog attacks being unprovoked are unreliable is because rarely do they take into account the familiar aspect that is so important from a dog's perspective. What may be provocation for one dog will not be provocation to another dog, depending on the relationship between the dog and the person. A clear example of this occurred in Tennessee in 2003 when a 4-year-old boy accompanied his grandfather to a nearby home. The boy had a Rottweiler at home, with which he was known to play very roughly. It was not uncommon for the boy to jump upon his dog and attempt to ride on the Rottweiler` s back. Like true family dogs, the Rottweiler tolerated this child's rambunctious play good-naturedly. However, the home they were visiting also contained a Rottweiler along with another large mixed breed dog. Neither of these intact, male dogs had any history of aggression but, unfortunately, the boy went into the yard alone and it is believed he attempted to play with these dogs in the same fashion as he would play with his pet Rottweiler. Clearly, the reactions of these dogs if the boy attempted to climb onto their backs would be different than the boy's pet Rottweiler. Did the boy mead to harm the dogs? Did he intentionally provoke them? Of course not. But from the dogs' perspective this e4sily could hove been perceived as a threat. And for those who proclaim that dogs should tolerate all these conditions and that the provocation was not serious enough to justify an attack, their opinion matters little. It was the dog's perception which ultimately decided if the provocation was serious enough to war- rant an attack. Owners and non -owners alike need to anticipate a dog's reaction or perception of provocation before an attack or deal with the consequences afterward. And this applies to Pit bulls as much as any other breed of dog. 120 Karen Delise "Pit bulls are ticking time bombs." Michael Bryant, Attorney General, Ontario, in defense of his legislation to ban Pit bulls "...the breed should be terminated as simply being a time bomb waiting to go off." Kory Nelson, Assistant City Attorney, Denver, Colorado These comments are almost always used to support the claim that Pit bulls are vicious, unpre- dictable and need to be restricted or banned. This is blatant fear -mongering. It is as baseless as saying that "Pit bulls are land sharks," "Pit bulls have chemical imbalances" and other claims used by those who are so grossly unschooled in the subject of dog attacks and canine behavior that this is the only way they can address the issue. These statements are even more troubling when they are made by people who claim they have the interests of the public at heart, the very same people responsible for enact- ing laws to control dangerous dogs under the guise of safeguarding the public. Should the public feel safer when politicians enact dangerous dog legislation based on the "ticking time bomb theory" of canine behavior? Would we accept this one-dimensional, emotional argument from our children's fourth grade teacher? Could a teacher tell a classroom of children that the Civil War started because men are inherently aggressive, or World War II started because men are evil? Would this be an acceptable teaching and learning tool? Do we solve problems or address issues effec- tively this way, or do we learn from examining both the major and subtle forces which preceded a war, or a dog attack? A Breed Apaq—or "Attacks Unlike Any Other Breed" Pit bulls are often accused of being inherently different from other breeds of dogs, both in anatomy, temperament, manner of attack and ferocity of attack. In any discussion about the dangerousness of Pit bulls, the most frequently used evidence is the number of fatali- ties attributed to this breed and the description of the injuries to victims. But are Pit bull attacks, in terms of physical injury to the victim and the potential to cause death, actually different than those of other breeds? Consider the eases of double human fatalities due to dog attacks. While fatal dog attacks are extremely rare, cases in which dogs have attacked and killed more than one victim dur- ing an attack are almost unheard of. However, over the last century, throughout the world, there are found twelve reported cases of double human fatalities during a single episode of The Pit Bull Placebo 121 a dog attack (four in the U.S., two in Canada, one in Mexico, one in France, one in Hun- gary, one in North Korea, one in South Africa, and one in Kenya). While all fatal attacks involve severe aggression, the aggression and ferocity of an attack by dog(s) resulting in the death of two victims during a single episode would have to be utterly extreme in nature and force. Yet, of the twelve cases of multiple deaths resulting from a single episode of a dog attack, not one of the dogs involved in these incidents was identified as a Pit bull, a Pit bull -type dog or any other Bulldog -type breed. Clearly, other forces are at work in these types of attacks that are unrelated to breed. Consider also that during the 20th century there have been over 450 documented cases of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. by non -Pit bull breeds. This would certainly suggest that either other breeds exhibit aggression similar to Pit bulls, or Pit bulls are exhibiting aggres- sion similar to other dogs. One of the characteristics often used in claims that Pit bull attacks differ in nature and force from other breed attacks is the shake, hold and tear "manner of attack" In enacting a ban on Pit bulls in 1989, the city of Denver "proved" that Pit bulls inflicted more seri- ous wounds than other breeds because they tend to attack the deep muscles, to hold, to shake, and to cause ripping of tissue. As far back as 1875, descriptions of dogs holding, shaking and tearing their victims could be found. The word "torn" is actually the most frequently found description of dog bite wounds during the last century. A fatal attack on a little girl by a large mongrel occurred in 1875. The dog is described as having "teeth fastened into the child, and was shaking her furiously." it In 1893 a vivid description was given of a woman killed by a Mastiff. The article reports that the woman was viciously attacked and lying on the ground when help arrived. "Mrs. Morrison was lying on the ground unconscious, and the angry brute, with his teeth buried in her flesh, was standing over and worrying her. When the men approached the dog seemed to grow more furious. An attempt was made to beat him off with clubs, but he refused to let go his hold, and at each blow from a club he shook his victim so that it was feared he would kill her. After some delay a pistol was obtained and the brute was shot, but only after he received a second bullet did he release his hold on the woman" (The Daily Advocate, February 15, 1893). The next year, a fatal attack by a Newfoundland is described in great detail. In Chicago, a young boy, Tommy O'Hara, was playing with a Newfoundland when the dog turned and attacked the boy. The report describes many of the typical behaviors found in severe/fatal attacks: "During the progress of the terrible attack on the child, a small brother and sister 122 Karen Delise appeared on the scene and the maddened brute turned on them momentarily and inflicted cruel wounds. But his rage seemed to be against the boy Tommy, and he turned again and seized the little one in his teeth, shaking him until he was almost lifeless." (Herald Dispatch, March 3, 1894). The canine behavior of holding and shaking during a severe attack continues to be appear in recorded dog attacks throughout the century. In 1965, a 4-year-old boy died after being attacked by a Labrador Retriever. The dog was tied to a picnic table and when the boy approached the dog, the "black Labrador seized and shook him." Adults nearby could not intervene quickly enough to save the boy from the fatal head injuries inflicted by the dog. There are untold numbers of .other cases involving many breeds and types of dogs involved in these behaviors (tearing, shaking, and holding) during an attack, seen consis- tently over the last century. Throughout the history of the human/dog bond, owners have witnessed their puppies or adult dogs vigorously shaking and tearing at everything from stuffed toys to captured small animals. For the city of Denver to claim this is a behavior exclusive to Pit bulls demonstrates how statements made with no factual basis can easily wind up in "official" court records, especially in a climate of fear and hysteria. Statements that Pit bulls inflict wounds unlike those of other dogs display unfamiliar- ity with postmortem reports of victims of other breed attacks. It is not necessary to provide the graphic details of autopsy results of Pit bull victims versus non -Pit bull victims. The fact is, they are indistinguishable. It is impossible to examine an autopsy report of a dog attack victim and determine what breed of dog inflicted the injuries. Clearly, other breeds can and do inflict injuries so grievous and profound as to cause fatalities. For centuries farmers have been plagued by livestock losses due to predation by loose roaming dogs. As recently as the 1970s, newspapers were full of stories of dogs attacking all types of farm animals, from two Labrador Retrievers breaking into a pen and killing 900 chickens in Oregon to a pack of large mixed breed dogs attacking a herd of 26 young Holstein bulls in Maryland, killing one and severely mauling another. Wild animals also regularly fall prey to loose roaming dogs and, during the previous decades, local newspapers were often reporting the yearly number of deer kills caused by dogs. As people lose touch with the natural world we allow ourselves to be convinced by sensationalized newspaper headlines that only certain breeds are capable of participating in these types of attacks. In 2001, a woman witnessed four domestic dogs attacking a large buck off a rural North Carolina roadside. The dogs circled the deer, then began jumping and tearing at the flesh from the deer's neck. Distressed at witnessing this attack, the woman immediately called authorities. Officials responded, capturing three of the dogs and shooting the gravely injured buck. The owner of two of the dogs expressed surprise and dismay in learning that his two Labrador mixed breeds had participated in this brutal attack. However, faced with reality, the man was forced to acknowledge that the breed of dog mattered little, as Labradors, like The Pit Bull Placebo 123 all dogs, are predators, and all dogs have the potential to behave "badly," especially when operating as a pack. Dogs capable of killing a 150-1b. buck or bringing down a 500-1b. steer would have lit- tle trouble inflicting fatal wounds on a 2-year-old child. Whether the breed is an 80-lb. Labrador or an 80-lb. Pit bull has little to no bearing on the injuries. The determining fac- tors are the intent and the bite inhibition of the individual dog. To address fatal attacks as a Pit bull -specific problem invalidates the hundreds of deaths caused by other dogs. This approach renders any lessons we may have learned from all non -Pit bull attacks useless or of no intrinsic value in the understanding of canine aggres- sion. There are lessons to be learned from all fatal attacks —lessons which can only be gleaned from examination of all the available data, not just the cases which involve a sin- gle breed. The Pit Bull Dominance Factor --Or, If a Pit Bull Or Rottweiler) is in the Pack, the Other Dogs Don't Count This is perhaps the single best argument for the unreliability of breed statistics. It also hap- pens to be the single most compelling argument for the extreme bias of the media. While the media and others are guilty of broadly interpreting and applying the term "Pit bull" to dogs of very questionable breed, the omission of dogs other than Pit bulls (or Rot- tweilers) in the reporting of attacks is nothing short of disreputable. The media (and others) repeatedly give no recognition to breeds in multiple dog attacks unless they are of Pit bull or Rottweiler descent, even when it is proven the non -Pit bull or non-Rottweiler dogs par- ticipated in the attack. To demonstrate how single-minded the media is in reporting breeds, and how inaccu- rate statistics can be on dog attacks: In the past four years alone (2002 2005), eleven dogs involved in fatal attacks with no Pit bull characteristics were counted as Pit bulls, while their "true" breeds were not reported, and three dogs that were clearly not Rottweilers were identified as Rottweilers. Even more distressing is that in the media's haste to report Pit bull or Rottweiler attacks, three human deaths were attributed to dogs (two cases were reported to be Pit bull attacks and one case was reported to be a Rottweiler attack) when, in reality, the cause of death of these individuals was later determined to be from causes other than dog bites.12 Even if we increased the accuracy of breed identification (hence statistics) by subtract- ing the number of falsely reported "Pit bulls" and adding corrected breed identifications, the results are still unacceptable. Even though, in the above examples, photographs of the animals were examined and animal control personnel and law enforcement were consulted for the breed identifications, the breed identifications were still admittedly guesswork. It is as unreliable to classify/count Pit bull mixes as Pit bulls as it is to classify/count Labrador mixes as Labrador Retrievers. 124 Karen Delise Bear in mind, all previous "statistical" studies on fatal dog attacks (Winkler, Pinckney, and the CDC) have relied on newspaper articles for breed identification. The frequency of media -reported errors in breed identification is so great (and biased) as to render all num- bers on breeds obtained from media sources invalid. The CDC Studies and Pit Bull "Statistics" The oft touted and well-known study by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) "Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998,"13 has been quoted, misquoted, cited, misread, and misunderstood on a regular basis by politi- cians, attorneys, the media and others looking for a sound -byte or quick solution to a complex problem. The CDC study, if read in its entirety, explains in detail the inherent problems in attempt- ing to calculate breed involvement in fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in their study was the inability to factor in total breed populations relative to breed related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression. Despite these inherent flaws, the numbers of particular breeds involved in fatal attacks, as put forth in the CDC study, are continuously used as "evidence" of the danger of cer- tain breeds of dogs. Ignoring the claims of the CDC that the number of dogs involved in fatal attacks cannot be used as a basis for legislation to address dangerous dogs, many indi- viduals, organizations, courts, and communities continue to cite the numbers of breeds involved in fatal attacks found in the CDC studies. The number most frequently cited from the CDC study is that 66 fatalities (more than any other breed/type) were attributed to Pit bull -type dogs over a 20-year period from 1979-1998 (or approximately three deaths per year from dogs reported to be "Pit bulls"). This number has repeatedly been used as "statistical evidence" as to the dangerousness of Pit bulls. However, consider the statistics on child deaths from physical abuse versus child deaths from dog bites. In both of these examples, the first two statements are factual: Fact: In 2002 over 420 children were killed as the direct result of physical abuse by a parent or a guardian (this number does not include death from neglect).14 Fact: The majority of physical abuse deaths of children were inflicted by fathers or father -type men (stepfathers, live-in boyfriends).15 Conclusion: Therefore, fathers are "statistically" the most dangerous of all persons. Fact: In 2005, sixteen children were killed by dogs. Fact: The majority of the dogs responsible for these fatalities were Pit bulls, Pit bull - type dogs or Pit bull mix dogs. The Pit Bull Placebo 125 Conclusion: Therefore, Pit bulls are "statistically" the most dangerous of all dogs. Why does the first conclusion sound ridiculous and the second sound reasonable? We've all been exposed to fathers, either our own or other people's, and we know from personal experience that they are not all potential child killers. Also, even though most people are not statisticians, on some level we understand that variables are missing or other fac- tors are not taken into account before coming to this obviously faulty conclusion. Not all people are exposed to Pit bulls and therefore have no frame of reference of per- sonal knowledge which would make the second conclusion appear as absurd as the first. People unfamiliar with Pit bulls often rely on information presented to them through the media to make an assessment about the nature of Pit bulls. But when the media or politi- cians talk about vicious Pit bull attacks, and hundreds of people write in telling of their friendly Pit bulls, no one wants to hear it. Reporters and politicians have been heard to say, "Don't tell me about your friendly Pit bulls." In reality what they are saying is, "Don't inform me of the behavior of one thousand or ten thousand Pit bulls, because I want to base my theories on the behavior of 10 or 20 dogs and then present this to the public as evidence of my belief." The non -Pit bull owning public then accepts this skewed and biased pres- entation as reliable information, and the second conclusion does not appear as absurd as it really is. Anyone admitting that the first conclusion (fathers are the most dangerous persons) is an invalid one based on the data presented has to acknowledge that the second conclusion (Pit bulls are the most dangerous dog) is also invalid based on the data presented. Yet, this is the exact data and faulty conclusion which are used to prove the how dangerous Pit bulls are. No reasonable person can believe that the extreme behaviors of a small group can be used to define an entire population, whether it is fathers or Pit bulls. Additionally, to demonstrate how most people's belief that Pit bulls cause the most child fatalities are skewed by the media, the years 2002, 2003 or 2004 could not be used in the above comparison, as the Pit bull was NOT the breed responsible for the majority of child fatalities during any of those years. Temperament and Unpredictability Perhaps the most difficult problem facing the Pit bull today is the image that the breed is unpredictable and unstable. This has come about largely through the intense media focus given to a number of cases in which owners have encouraged or permitted their dogs to engage in dangerous behaviors. These are the dogs that then become representative of the breed. However, for every Pit bull that attacks someone, there are tens of thousands of his brethren that tolerate all the conditions humans place them in, from loving homes to hor- rific conditions of abuse, without ever biting or attacking. There are no highly publicized 126 Karen Delise reports or scientific journal articles on the behaviors of these dogs. The tolerance of Pit bulls in extremely abusive situations is almost never reported or given recognition by the scientific community or the public. Only a few of these long-suffering dogs can be found as a footnote in a report on a completely unrelated matter or in newspaper articles or reports of dog fighting and cruelty investigations. Yet, the behaviors of these dogs are the behav- iors which define the breed —the hundreds of thousands of dogs that reside in homes with small children and elderly persons, from doting owners to distracted owners, from abusive owners to demented owners. Millions of examples can be given of loving, loyal Pit bulls, but these are usually of little interest to most people. The following examples are the type that does interest us; though these stories are of monsters and monstrous acts: only it is not the Pit bulls who are the monsters. In 2004, a sad story begins with the discovery of a dead child inside a bag on the steps of a New York City church. Investigation reveals the dead boy was placed there by his father, who claimed he did not call 911 because he had outstanding warrants. Further investiga- tion has the father admitting to hitting the 3-year-old to "stop" the boy's seizures. Photographs of the apartment where this child lived with his three siblings reveal filthy, roach infested rooms, with dirty water covering the bottom of a corroded tub, and flies buzzing around decaying food.16 Prior to his death, this 3-year-old child, with cerebral palsy and a history of seizures, resided with the most minimal care in an uninhabitable apartment along with four loose Pit bulls. In 2003, a 15-month-old girl died in Lucas County, Ohio. The newspapers reported the child had suffered multiple broken bones, a head injury, and abdominal trauma. The coro- ner also found the child had recent exposure to cocaine and there was evidence of cigarette burns on the child's buttocks, near her armpit and on the sole of one foot. The mother's boyfriend was charged with inflicting the toddler's injuries. The environ- ment this child lived in prior to her death was one of domestic violence, extreme child abuse, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and criminal activity. The man accused of inflicting the injuries to this child owned a Pit bull. The dog's name, Ice, was shaved into the fur on the dog's back. The man's estranged wife told authorities he injected the dog with steroids and this aggressive dog was incited to attack family members at the direction of his owner. Yet, in this horrific climate of abuse and encouraged aggression, it was never the Pit bull which harmed this desperate child. The boyfriend, with the silent consent of the mother, was alleged to have abused and tortured this child until it ultimately resulted in her death.17 There are thousands of these types of stories, enough to convince the skeptics and bore the believers. However, these stories are not accessible to most people and so the extreme tolerance and stoic nature of these dogs goes unnoticed, while hundreds of articles are printed about the errant behavior of a handful of dogs involved in attacking a person. The Pit Bull Placebo 127 Pit Bull Identification "Those who disagree with the ban will say that there will be identification problems. I don't doubt there will be some issues on the margins, but, by and large, I think most people know what a pit bull is. The Toronto Star did a caricature the other week. They had a pit bull on it. I won't say what was underneath the caricature, but everyone who saw that picture knew, everyone who read that caricature knew what that was. That was a pit bull. It didn't say `pit bull,' but you knew when you looked at it that it was a pit bull. That's what it was."18 Attorney General Michael Bryant This rambling and surreal method of breed identification was uttered by Ontario's Attor- ney General in his speech during hearings to ban Pit bulls in the Canadian province. And if perhaps comparing a dog to a cartoon character (caricature) is unsuccessful in helping identify whether a dog is a Pit bull or not, the Attorney General offered another method: "I've said before and I will say again, if it walks like a pit bull, if it barks and bites like a pit bull, wags its tail like a pit bull, it's a pit bull. That is going to apply, I'm sure, to the vast majority of identification cases." If these methods appear to border on the absurd, the proof of this was established when the Attorney General was asked to point out which dog was a Pit bull when shown photos of different dogs. Unable to do so, he referred to this as a "trick." Apparently the Attorney General isn't the only one "tricked" by the Pit bull. Those in the media also believe it is easy to identify a Pit bull, and when they are equally taken to task as to their methodology, resort to similar excuses. Those who have knowledge of dogs and dog breeds understand that breed identification in dogs anything less than purebred is often difficult, if not impossible. Even with purebred dogs, many people could not correctly identify certain breeds. These breeds need not be exotic or rare. Most people would not be able to identify an Australian Cattle dog, an Anatolian Shepherd, or distinguish between a white Boxer and an American Bulldog. Even experienced shelter workers, veterinarians, and rescue organization person- nel are at a loss to identify certain cross breeds. Mixing similar -looking, yet distinctive, breeds, such as the Mastiff, Bulhnastiff, Bulldog, Boxer, American Pit Bull Terrier, Amer- ican Bulldog, Presa Canario, Coonhound, Weimaraner, Rhodesian Ridgeback and even the Chesapeake Bay and Labrador Retriever, would yield a dog that even experts would have difficulty identifying correctly. Mixing Malamutes, Huskies, Wolf Dogs, German Shepherds, Samoyeds, Eskimo dogs, or any of the Northern -type breeds would equally yield a dog in which it would be next to impossible to guess the exact parentage or even predominant breed. 128 Karen Delise However, the media has been able to solve the seemingly complex identification prob- lem with Pit bulls. The application of the "one drop rule" has made identifying a Pit bull an easy task for many in the media. The "one drop rule" has long been the standard used in America for determining race. This racially biased theory was based on notions of bi- racialism (the world is viewed as divided simply into White or Black races). The "one drop rule" emerged from the Old South and defined any person having any trace of black/negro blood as black/negro. Having even a single drop of black/negro blood determined one's race to be black/negro. The implication was that African -Americans were inherently infe- rior; therefore any trace of "black blood" was a pollutant. The field of population genetics now rejects the "one drop rule," recognizing that this system was based on social issues and not based on biology or science. But today the canine equivalent of the "one drop rule" is applied to any dog appearing to have any characteris- tics (blood) of a Pit bull. The notion here is also that any Pit bull blood "pollutes" the dog, regardless of degree or ancestral fractions. The canine world is currently viewed as made up of Pit bull and non -Pit bull dogs. The same principles which allowed for discrimination against African -Americans are now applied to dogs. Determining a dog to have Pit bull blood allows for the dog to be classified as genet- ically and socially inferior, allowing for segregation and discrimination. Dogs clearly of very mixed parentage, if involved in attacks, are repeatedly described in the media as Pit bulls or Pit bull mixes. The insistence on classifying dogs as Pit bull or pit bull mixes, even when unable to reference the source of this identification, is clear evidence of the media bias. These very poorly socialized, fearful dogs were repeatedly identified as "Pit bulls` by the media —even though they were identified by Animal Control as Labrador mixes. These dogs were part of a pack of six dogs that mauled to death their owner's elderly neighbor in 2001, All six dogs were intact, with one of the females giving birth to puppies shortly after the attack. The pack had a history of aggression and were so unsocialized they could not be handled by shelter personnel. The Pit Bull Placebo 129 ♦ From the Bloodhound -type dogs to the Northern -type breeds to the Pit bull -type dogs, accu- rate identification of specific breeds involved in aggression has always been unreliable at best. However, there is always other information which can be recorded with precision and which yields valuable insight into the circumstances which directly contributed to an attack. For instance, debating whether the dogs that killed a child in 2005 were Pit bulls, Pit bull mixes or simply mixed breed dogs is an exercise in futility, yielding no definitive results. The information about this attack that can be recorded accurately is: • An intact, male dog, found as a stray, usually chained, was brought into the basement for the night. • A female dog, usually chained, was brought into the basement with a litter of newborn puppies. • The dogs were used by the child's parents for a negative function —guard dogs. • An unsupervised, 2-year-old child was allowed to enter the basement with the dogs. • The owners/parents had a history of drug abuse (use of drugs the night before the attack). • The house was found to be "uninhabitable" and condemned. • The owners/parents had a history of animal abuse (two of their previous guard dogs had died from heat exhaustion). Whether the dogs involved in this attack had any Pit bull characteristics is highly debat- able. The facts listed above are not debatable, and this is the tangible evidence which needs to be examined and addressed when searching for the causes and solutions to dog attacks. This dog was repeatedly referred to as the "family Pit bull" in the media —and is the female dog cited in the case above. Photo credit: Michael Kestner and the Orginian-Pilot. a Fighting Dogs: Branded of Their Masters "And, like a dog that is compell' d to fight, Snatch at his master that doth tarre him on." William Shakespeare, 1564-1616 (King John, Act IV, Scene I) William Shakespeare wrote this verse nearly three hundred years before the existence of any of the breeds recognized today as the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Stafford- shire Terrier, Bull Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier, all of which were not established until the 19th and early 20th century. Though Shakespeare was hardly an expert on dogs, he understood the vital component in the relationship between men and dogs that seems to elude many people today. That is: When we encourage or expect our dogs to behave badly, we cannot feign surprise if they do, nor can we ignore the owners who are directly respon- sible for the behaviors of these dogs. In breeding dogs some humans have created and continue to select for traits that will increase their tendencies to inflict injuries and to fight one another for the exclusive pur- pose of our "enjoyment." To claim that the dog is dangerous because we seek out, select for and encourage these behaviors is just another example of the transference of cruel human traits and behaviors unto our dogs. Both the dog fighters who claim that "Pit bulls love to fight" and the politicians who claim Pit bulls are "inherently dangerous" because of their fighting history are equally obvi- ous in their attempt to absolve humans from any guilt and responsibility for the plight of the Pit bull in our society. Consider the claims of both of these self-serving groups against the real situation of the "fighting" Pit bull: 90 Days of Reported Cruelty in the United States (January 2005-March 2005) • A woman is arrested in Texas for felony cruelty to animals after three dead Pit bulls are found in her yard. Two other Pit bulls were barely alive in a storage area 130 The Pit Bull Placebo 131 without food or water. One dog was so emaciated it could not walk. The surviving dogs had scars indicative of dog fighting. • A Louisiana man is arrested on animal cruelty after animal control officers found a pile of dead dogs and starving live ones chained in his yard. Seven Pit bulls were found dead, some still chained. Three chained Pit bulls were still alive. There was no food on site and all living dogs were severely malnourished. Deputies in Hancock County, LA, received a call about dog fighting. They arrived at the residence to find 35 Pit bulls "living in poor conditions." The owners claim they were "only" breeding the dogs. • A Pittsburgh, PA, man who mailed videotapes of fighting Pit bulls to a government investigator becomes the first person convicted at trial under a 1999 federal animal cruelty law. • Police officers find two men fighting their Pit bulls in an arranged dog fight between two public housing complexes in Annapolis, Maryland. • Five men face felony charges in a night raid that one official called the biggest dog fight event he'd ever seen in Texas. Ninety Pit bulls were removed from the grounds in eastern Bexar County. Taken to the humane society, the dogs elicit only sympathy from shelter personnel as one dog is shown walking gingerly in a cage due to his severe wounds. The Pit bull, 15 pounds underweight, is wagging his tail and welcoming the attention of reporters and TV cameras. His front paws are bent inward, as if he were bowlegged from the elbows down. This is thought to be caused by having his front legs broken and not being taken to the vet for treatment, as dog fighters naturally do not take fighting dogs in for medical attention. The dog was also covered with quarter -sized splotches of pink flesh and scabs dotted over his body. • Floyd Boudreaux and his son, Guy Boudreaux, are each arrested on 64 counts of dog fighting, 64 counts of animal cruelty and one count of possession of anabolic steroids, a schedule III narcotic. Hundreds of fighting roosters were also on the Youngsville, Louisiana, grounds. Both men were accused of fighting the dogs and breeding, training and selling the Pit bull terriers for fighting. The Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals called Floyd Boudreaux "the grandfather of dog fighting" for his work as a breeder since the 1950s. • A Mobile man is convicted of dog fighting and steroid possession. During the trial, witnesses testified that about 20 of the 23 Pit bulls found on the man's property were disfigured with injuries. All the Pit bulls were dehydrated and emaciated to various degrees. The dogs had been kept on heavy logging chains. • Franklin County undercover detectives execute a major dog fighting arrest in Ohio, after two dog fighters were caught on tape talking about horrific methods used to kill "losing" dogs. • A Pit bull is found dead in a trash can behind a restaurant in Indiana. The dog's mouth was bound with duct tape and the mauled condition of the Pit bull's body convinced authorities the dog was used as a bait dog by dog fighters. 132 Karen Delise • Deep in the woods of rural central Florida, officers find half a dozen Pit bulls chained to trees. There is no shelter, food, or water for these dogs bound with heavy logging chains. • A Wisconsin man is charged with fighting Pit bulls in his basement. • Six people, including a law enforcement officer, are sentenced to community service and probation for dog fighting in New Orleans. All six persons are able to expunge their records after serving their sentence (i.e., community service) and paying a $125 fine. • A suspected dog fighting ring is found in Detroit. Police found seven Pit Bulls, growth hormones used on the dogs, syringes and dog fighting training equipment. One official commented, "There was blood everywhere in the basement. I don't think the dogs were ever let outside." Five adults and six children were at the residence at the time of the raid. • A New York teenager is arraigned on charges of torturing animals and dog fighting after numerous Pit bulls, starving and with open wounds, are found at his home. Several Pit bulls were found in pens in the yard and nine Pit bulls were found in the basement. All the dogs were emaciated, scarred and had fresh, untreated wounds. • A Richmond man is convicted on a charge of dog fighting after twelve Pit bulls on heavy logging chains, a treadmill, illegal veterinary drugs, dog fighting videos and other paraphernalia is found in his Virginia home. • A Long Island man is arrested for training fighting dogs when police were alerted to his website. Although the website claimed to offer "gentle and effective training for puppies and dogs," this was hardly the case. Officials found 12-15 fighting dogs in his garage in unsanitary and cruel conditions. • Two men are charged with dog fighting after deputies found them cleaning up and taking apart a portable dog fighting arena in South Carolina. Deputies seized fifteen Pit bulls from the property. An animal control officer stated, "The dogs should weigh 50 pounds or more, but most of them didn't weigh half that." • An 18-year-old in Tyler, Texas, is arrested for dog fighting and theft after a police investigation found him stealing dogs from backyards, taping their mouths shut and tossing the stolen pets to his nine Pit bulls. Police found the remains of six dogs on the property, believed to be stolen pets. • The son of a former Ku Klux Klan grand dragon is arrested after staging a Pit bull fight in a makeshift arena in the living room of his home. Madison County officials found two Pit bulls with fresh wounds that were bleeding and another Pit bull with old scars on its head. • In only three days more than 80 Pit bulls are seized in Anderson County, Texas. Authorities believe the dogs had been used for fighting. At least nine Pit bulls were found dead, still chained to trees. Six Pit bulls had their ears completely cut off, and the infections resulting from this required immediate medical attention. All the The Pit Bull Placebo 133 dogs were extremely underweight, malnourished and being kept in deplorable conditions. Some of the chained dogs had no shelter and were huddled in a ball, shivering. The owners of these dogs were charged with varying crimes, including: cruelty to animals, possession of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and assault on a public servant. For five days, Simon the Pit bull lay in the bottom of dumpster, near death. The Pit bull was thrown in the trash bin near a Portage Little League baseball field in Indiana. The dog had a gaping wound in his head and multiple lacerations and bite marks over his entire body. Officials believe he suffered abuse for a long time. His teeth were broken off, his left eye was injured and the dog was "skin and bones." ...1 _ :'ter_-, _r- - M1- :l �- Pit bull found inside a dumpster in Indiana In 2005 Consider the population of Pit bulls and Pit bull -type dogs in the United States during these three months (January 2005-March 2005): There were the 380+ horrifically abused Pit bulls listed above. There were thousands more fighting dogs whose owners were not apprehended by law officers and reported in the news during these 90 days. During this time there were also other Pit bulls that were subjected to horrendous injuries or unspeakable acts of depravity by humans, unrelated to dog fighting. There were also thousands more abusive owners, who may not have neces- sarily been fighting or inflicting depraved injuries on their dogs, but nonetheless kept them in extremely abusive environments. There were also hundreds of thousands of negligent owners, reckless owners, ignorant owners, irresponsible owners, average owners, good own- ers and great owners of Pit bulls. There were millions of Pit bull -type dogs experiencing every type of positive or negative emotional and physical circumstance humans are capable of imposing on dogs —and only two of these Pit bull -type dogs responded by fatally attacking a human during these 90 days. 134 Karen Delise As for the claim of dog fighters that Pit bulls "love to fight" —and the claim of some politicians about the "inherent dangerousness of the breed" —no sane person could witness the horrific condition surrounding many of these dogs and believe either of these statements have an ounce of validity. A terribly abused Pit bull responding to humane treatment. "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, because of those who look on and do nothing." . Albert Einstein In March 2005, a Mobile, Alabama, man was convicted of dog fighting and steroid pos- session. He was found with 23 Pit bulls chained in his yard. Twenty of the Pit bulls were emaciated and disfigured from injuries. All the dogs were scarred and wounded. His wife was also arrested and went to trial on these charges. The jury, while convicting her hus- band, acquitted the wife. During the trial, the wife of the dog fighter testified that "She didn't know about the dogs on her property and never saw them." 1 The woman claimed ignorance of 20 starving, disfigured Pit bulls chained in her own backyard. As a society, we are no different than this wife of a dog fighter who claims no respon- sibility or knowledge of events occurring in her own backyard. Yet dog fighting is pervasive. No town, city, county or state is immune. Dog fighting is found from the backwoods of Louisiana to the urban streets of Chicago. The Anti -Cruelty Society (SPCA) of Illinois reports that a survey of Chicago's school children has found that students are almost universally aware of dog fighting in their neighborhood, with 1 out of every 6 children admitting that they have attended a dog fight.2 The Pit Bull Placebo 135 These fighting Pit bulls are kept in garages, basements, backyards and even have occa- sion to run loose. These dogs then pose a direct danger to children —not because they are Pit bulls, but because they are individually abused, encouraged to be aggressive, poorly socialized and have not had the opportunity to form positive attachments to humans. As demonstrated, this is the classic formula for creating a dangerous dog. Many an article has been written about a suburban mother's outrage over her children being traumatized after witnessing a Pit bull killing a cat or attacking another dog. These mothers are given a voice, both in the media and in community hearings, on dangerous dog legislation and these complains are often used as "evidence" of the dangerousness of Pit bulls to support the banning of the breed. Nary an article has been written about an urban mother's outrage over the trauma her children endured from witnessing an organized dog fight in a ghetto apartment or an infor- mal dog fight in a back alley. Do all these urban mothers not care that their children witness this terrible violence and cruelty to animals, or is it the media that cares not to report the outrage of less affluent members of our society? Urban mothers and other persons in Chicago do care very much about the horrors of dog fighting. Recently, Chicago's Mayor Daley began a city-wide public service labeled the `Born to Lose" campaign, for the purpose of targeting dog fighting. In 2002, the city of Chicago designated an emergency code for people to call and report animal fighting, and in 2003, the city received and responded to 1,093 animal fighting complaints.3 Only when, and if, society becomes committed to applying the energy and resources needed to actively and forcefully penalize dog fighters and animal abusers can there be any hope of reducing aggressive dogs in the community. Horrifically abused Pit bull picked up by Chicago police 136 Karen Delise The Pit bull's history of being bred for dog fighting is used by some politicians, experts, courts of law, the media, and even Animal Control personnel as proof of the "dangerous- ness" of the breed. There are many books and much information to be found on the history of dog fighting and the history and development of the Bulldog breeds. But, briefly, the history of the American Pit Bull Terrier begins at least two centuries ago, in England, where a type of working Bulldog was found to be useful to butchers in holding and controlling animals at market or to be slaughtered. This function (the ability to hold a bull) was also used solely for entertainment in the brutal spectacle of bull and bear baiting and was pop- ular in England until it was outlawed in 1835. Since human history is steeped in violence and the exploitation of other beings, outlawing the bloody "baiting sports" had only min- imal effect. Although the practice of bull and bear baiting did wane after these events became illegal, the use of dogs for ratting (pitting dogs against rats) and dog fighting increased. Adding Terrier genes to these working Bulldogs was found to create a lighter, athletic and more agile dog which proved more efficient in fighting smaller or equal -sized adversaries. Some of these Pit bull -dogs or Bull -terrier dogs were brought over to America prior to the Civil War. The traits which were found to be useful in bull baiting and fighting were also found to be of great use in the hard -scrabble life of many frontiersmen. So while a segment of Bulldogs were being bred and maintained as fighting dogs, most 19th century Americans were busy eking out a living and using their Bulldogs in functions other than the cruel (and illegal) blood -sport of dog fighting. However, here is the point when the his- tory and beliefs about the Pit bull splinters and becomes skewed. There has always existed a core segment of the population that bred, maintained and used Pit bulls for dog fighting. The very essence of this blood sport required the partici- pants to promote or record the breeding, traits and abilities of their dogs. Dog fighters chronicled extraordinary claims about their dogs because it served their egoistical and finan- cial needs. Often times, the "best" history available about the American Pit Bull Terrier has come from a criminal based, self-aggrandizing minority of dog owners who recorded their claims and boasts about their dogs in order to increase their personal status or worth. The untold number of average persons who owned Bull -dogs or Bull -teener dogs func- tioning in everyday, legal activities have not provided a chronicle of legends and claims about breed temperament and abilities, so today the contributions these dogs have made and the high regard Americans had for the Bull and Terrier dogs have largely been lost or forgotten. Yet, Pit bull -type dogs were a highly respected and recognized part of American culture for the better part of the 20th century. Pit bulls and Bulldogs were prominently dis- played in advertising, literature and in the cinema. Buster Brown and his Bulldog, Tige, started off as a comic strip in 1902 and later became affiliated with the Brown Shoe Com- pany, and the Bulldog become a well-known advertising icon. Even more famous and The Pit Bull Placebo 137 recognizable during the better part of the 20th century was Petey, the famous Pit bull pal in the Our Gang comedy series (later known as The Little Rascals). So famous was Petey that, even today, many people can still recall the Pit bull with a black circle painted around his eye tagging along in the comedic misadventures of Spanky, Darla, Buckwheat, Alfalfa and the other child stars of The Little Rascals. So today, while much of the history of the Bulldog/Pit bull is only a brief remembrance of some of the more famous and high profile dogs of days past, access to late 19th and early 20th century newspapers has now allowed for renewed insight into the popularity, function and behaviors of the Bulldogs found in the general, non -fighting -dog population of dog owners. These records show that many Bull -dogs or Bull -terrier dogs continued to work in their old function as farm/stock dogs, while many more became guard dogs, hunt- ing dogs, traveling companions and family pets. While professional dog fighting men may have been breeding 'for traits believed to increase fighting abilities, they were certainly the minority of breeders/owners. Bulldog - type dogs were exceedingly popular in the late 19th and early 20th century and even became so popular in cities that complaints could be found in the newspapers about the large num- ber of Bulldogs roaming through the streets. Certainly all these Bulldog owners were not breeding their dogs for fighting abilities. While dog fighters certainly shaped and contributed to breed appearance and some behav- iors, they cannot make claim to "owning" the breed. The original baiting, gripping, Bulldog, had been used for many centuries to control stock animals, before being specifically bred for dog fighting. And even after dog fighters began breeding Bulldogs for fighting traits and behaviors, they cannot make claim to controlling the population. Those who choose to define all behaviors of the Pit bull solely by their history as told by dog fighting men are in essence choosing to believe the claims made by a century -old, criminal -based, cruel, self promoting minority of Pit bull owners, while at the same time refusing to believe the claims or examine the behaviors found in the much larger, legal, non -fighting community of Pit Bull owners. Even if we were to believe the claims of dog fighters about the extraordinary ability of the Pit bull, one cannot conclude that this translates into aggressiveness or dangerousness towards humans. Over the centuries, the majority of dog breeds were originally created, encouraged and maintained to harass, worry, chase, fight, hunt, or kill other species of ani- mal, from small vermin and large game animals (deer, boar) to other large predators (wolves, bear). Dogs are predators: all dogs are equipped and have the innate ability and drive to hunt, fight and kill. Throughout history most types of dogs were bred for specialized aggres- sion or behaviors towards specific prey (Irish Wolfhound, Scottish Deerhound, Rat Terrier, Foxhound, etc.). A dog encouraged, either by artificial selection and/or by training to excel in hunting, fighting or killing other animals, has never been considered a precursor or basis for aggression towards humans. 138 Karen DeRse .All breeds of dogs are created by men, therefore any breed -specific trait or ability is the result of artificial selection. Highly selective or artificial traits, if not constantly selected for, are easily lost. It has long been the lament of working dog enthusiasts that when a breed becomes popular with the general public and breeding for appearance or pet qualities takes precedence over, breeding for ability, the dogs quickly lose their edge or ability to outper- form other breeds at a particular task or function. Individual breeds will retain some specialized traits, but they become muted or less viable. Pointers will still point, retrievers will still retrieve, sheepdogs will still herd and fighting dogs will still fight, all to some degree. But the uniqueness of the trait or specialized ability to perform a particular func- tion becomes blunted. These behaviors then begin to revert back to more normal or natural levels found in all canids. Those who claim the Pit bull is destined by its genetic code to behave a certain way are denying the very fact that man has selected for these traits, continues to select for them and could just as easily select against them. It is this claim that Pit bulls cannot revert back to normal behaviors; that they are permanently altered as to render them unable to behave Eke "normal" dogs, which is the basis for the flawed argument of "inherent dangerousness." The Pit bull breeds are maintained by a constant and continuous selection for traits. To claim we can no longer control the appearance, behaviors or traits within the breed, or that the breed has "gotten away from us," is absurd. We can easily fashion the Pit bull to exhibit increased or decreased behaviors. We can test for temperament and select for reduced aggres- sion and drive before breeding dogs. Once dogs are born, we can continue to select and direct behaviors by neutering, training, socializing and practicing humane treatment and maintenance. If dogs still exhibit undesirable or aggressive traits it is still entirely possible to effectively control and supervise the animal so that it does not become a potential dan- ger to others. Every part of the Pit bull, from conception to death, is within the direct control of owners. Any way in which the Pit bull differs from any other breed of dog is the direct result of our behaviors (or lack thereof). To claim we are now hapless victims of the Pit bull's strength, temperament or anatomical traits is denying the indisputable fact that breeds of dogs are man-made, while at the same time failing to acknowledge the very essence of the human -dog bond --dogs will perform functions or behave in ways to serve their owners. CHAPTER 13 Towards the end of the 1970s, two incredible transformations in human and canine behav- ior occurred in perfect unison: • Children suddenly stopped teasing dogs. • Dogs suddenly started attacking without provocation. In less than a decade, human children thoroughly evolved into empathetic little beings, thoughtful of the feelings and mindful of the needs of other forms of life. Adults also became paragons of morality and empathy, ceasing all forms of provocation and abuse towards ani- mals. Just as quickly as children and adults evolved en mass into considerate beings, dogs reverted to their ancestral roots, discarding their long held attachments to mankind and attack- ing humans in wild abandon. Dogs seemed no longer affected by heat, pain, or frustration, and began attacking only from a natural viciousness. Or so the media would now have us believe. Half a century ago, the newspapers relished a good dog attack story as much as the media today. But here is where any similarity between the newspapers of a generation ago and the media of today ends. As recently as 30 years ago newspapers were still printing cir- cumstances believed to have been a trigger or contributory factor in dog attacks. All manner of insightful details were given which explained canine behavior. This type of reporting filled two vital needs: It provided both entertainment and information on individual cases of dog attacks, but even more importantly, this type of reporting provided subtle informa- tion for the prevention of dog attacks. Behaviors from small infractions, such as pushing or shoving a dog, to major abuses, like hitting dogs with pipes, were observed as triggers for a dog attack. These details were given in addition to some of the larger forces at work, such as the chaining of dogs, own- ers permitting dogs to roam loose or children attempting to interact with unfamiliar dogs. The reporting of dog attacks and the overall attitude of the people a generation ago seemed to maintain a healthy balance between the danger which some dogs presented ver- sus the overwhelming tolerance and good nature of most dogs. If anything, dog attack reports in the middle 20th century demonstrated an even more acute understanding of canine aggres- sion and the limits to a dog's tolerance than the colorful dog attack reports of the 19th century. 139 140 Karen Delise While 19th century America was rather unforgiving of dogs no matter how extreme the provocation which made them bite, mid-20th century attitudes were more tolerant of dogs and episodes of biting. There are scores of cases reported during the 1960s and 1970s in which dogs were euth- anized only after a third or fourth bite on a child. Children were known to provoke dogs, and dogs were recognized to have limited tolerance. A 1971 newspaper story which demon- strates this is entitled, "Patient Dog Bitten 6 Times by Boy." The story goes on to tell of a family trying to find a new home for their German Shepherd dog because they could not stop their two -year -old son from biting the dog. Six times the boy had bitten the dog so hard that the animal bore scars from the boy's teeth. The parents commented, "Not once has the dog retaliated. We felt we couldn't try the dog's patience any longer." i Another article clearly demonstrates the understanding of the behavior of dogs in pain and the true forgiving nature of dogs. A 1948 article tells of a boy, Jimmy, walking in the woods with his dog, BoBo, and the poor animal stepping into a steel jawed leg trap. The boy could not bear to see his dog howling in pain and attempted to free him. But each time he approached the dog, the distressed animal snapped at him. The article then describes the thoughts of the boy: "For a minute he wondered what he should do —ran or help and let Bobo suffer until he got back, or try to get Bobo free, even if it meant getting bitten. Jimmy decided to risk the bites. He reached in toward the trap's jaws. Bobo bit him — three times. Jimmy winced but kept trying to open the trap. Finally he did. Bobo jumped out —and immediately began licking Jimmy in gratitude.112 Another case reveals both the overall and immediate events which led to a dog attack. In 1972, the parents of three children went out to dinner, leaving a babysitter in charge. The babysitter left the house, leaving a 9-year-old in charge of his two younger siblings. The chil- dren decided to make popcorn and accidentally spilled the scorching hot kernels on the back of their German Shepherd dog. The dog reacted violently by attacking the children.3 An account of an attack by a German Shepherd police dog provides an excellent visual impression of how the attack occurred: "Not even a fellow member of the police force can get away with treading on the tail of Wolf in. Wolf III, German Shepherd member of the police canine corps, was sitting by his master, Patrolman Funderbruk, near an escalator of the City Hall subway station. Another patrolman was standing with his back to Wolf III, when people getting onto the escalator forced him to take a step backward, right onto the tail of Wolf III. Wolf iII whirled about and sank his fangs in the patrolman's leg. The officer was treated at Philadelphia General Hospital and released.114 From the early 20th century until the late 1970s, hundreds of dog bite stories describe events which contributed to dog attacksibites. Children are found throwing blankets over The Pit Bull Placebo 141 dogs' heads, pelting them with snowballs or rocks, shoving dogs, running in fear from dogs, poking dogs with sticks, yanking bones out of their mouths, inciting dogs to attack other animals, and generally trying the patience of even the most tolerant of dogs. Dogs are found biting in reaction to being scalded by burst radiator pipes or after being tripped over. We find a case of a chained dog watching children in the yard chase a rabbit, and the frustrated dog biting a child running past him. There are scores of cases of children trying to hug, pet, kiss or "caress" chained dogs and being severely bitten in the process. Experts asked to comment on cases of dog attacks during the 1960s and early 1970s almost unanimously agreed the problem rests with owners failing to control their dogs, children attempting to interact with dogs unfamiliar to them, and the use and procurement of large dogs for guard/attack dog functions. But by the 1980s the events contributing to a dog bite virtually disappear from news- paper reports. Dogs were now reported as biting without provocation and even some of the "experts," relying on media accounts for their information on dog attacks, began to erro- neously blame specific breeds. It was the great misfortune of the Pit Bull to be the new "fad" dog and thus the new dog found in incidents of attacks at the very same time when the media stopped reporting triggers or events which precipitated an attack. This would not only prove to prejudice the public against Pit bulls while creating a myth of breed unpredictability, but would also play an important role in the general public's loss of knowledge about canine behavior. In 1950, a man was rushed to a hospital in Pennsylvania in critical condition from loss of blood. The man was able to tell doctors that he had fainted while in the backyard with his Dalmatian. A neighbor found the man with the dog alongside him. The Dalmatian had chewed his master's hand off at the wrist and the man had lost a critical amount of blood. This poor old gentleman loved his dog to the last. Before dying from shock and loss of blood, he insisted the dog was only trying to rescue him and only injured him in an effort to drag him into the house. One of the last things the man said before dying was, "He's a good dog.115 Whether this dog was indeed trying to rescue his master or was exhibiting some other, less altruistic behavior is unknown. What can be gathered from this sad story is the pre- vailing attitude towards dogs. At the time, many people's perceptions towards dogs were the same as could be seen 50 years earlier; that even good dogs could do "bad" things and that even "bad" dogs could be found doing good deeds. Consider an incident reported in 2002. An elderly woman was found dead in her daugh- ter's home. The woman appeared to have several dog bites on her. A Pit bull and a Pit bull mixed breed dog were in the house with the deceased woman. The police and coroner reported the dogs had caused her death. The newspapers, always on the alert for a Pit bull attack, ran the following headlines and stories: "Killer Pit bulls Rip Granny to Shreds" (New York Post, December 11, 2002) "Grandmother mauled to death by family's Pit bulls" (Newsday, December 10, 2002) 142 Karen Delise One article claimed that one Pit bull was "covered in blood." This same Pit bull in another article "appeared to have blood" on him (the him was actually a female dog). One neigh- bor claimed, "the dogs were vicious, they barked a lot and looked vicious." Another neighbor claimed they were nice dogs. One newspaper printed a photograph of one of the dogs clearly agitated (teeth bared) in the new and stressful surroundings at the animal shelter. The dogs would be impounded for the next eight months. The daughter, the owner of the dogs, could not believe they would have killed her eld- erly mother. She hired an independent forensic pathologist from the renowned Henry Lee Forensic Institute to review and re-evaluate the findings of the initial autopsy report. Only then was it discovered that the woman had died from a cardiac arrhythmia, and the few bite wounds on her body were non -lethal and post mortem.* Her death was attributed to natural causes and it was determined the dogs did not participate or contribute to her death. There was a dangerous dog hearing which resulted in both dogs being released back to the daughter. No retraction or correction was ever printed about this "Pit bull attack." This incident remains permanently archived in the newspapers and on the Internet as a "Pit bull -related fatality." *Note: It is well -documented that dogs will, on occasion and for unknown reasons, inflict post mortem bites on their deceased owners. This has been documented with breeds from Poodles and Dachshunds to Labradors and mixed breed dogs. In a society of violent video games, Internet pornography, schoolchildren shooting their classmates, husbands killing wives, court TV, gang warfare, drug abuse, serial killers, ter- rorist bombs and mothers drowning their children, we are becoming increasingly more difficult to shock. Our monsters need to be increasingly terrible in order to keep pace with a society easily bored by our own species' violent acts. Since dogs have for thousands of years befriended, sacrificed and served mankind in selfless devotion, it would require con- stant and wildly exaggerated claims of ferocity and supernatural abilities in order to convince most people to view them as a significant danger. The intense and persistent media and political attention given to Pit bull attacks has skewed our perceptions so dramatically that we no longer have a balanced view of the dan- gerousness of a very few dogs against the extreme tolerance and contributions that millions of other dogs provide. And this has been accomplished by constant over -sensa- tionalism of anything Pit bull related. The barrage of headlines with the word "Pit bull" in them appears to be very convincing evidence of the vicious nature of Pit bulls. But are these reports legitimate evidence of aggressive behavior within the breed? The Pit Bull Placebo 143 There are simply too many outrageous examples of media manipulation and fear -mon- gering to list. Not only are there different types of biased reporting, but the media has been relentless in pursuing all things "Pit bull." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no ques- tion the media vastly over -reports Pit bull attacks as compared to other breed attacks. - In September 2003, a young boy was killed by a Husky -type dog in Alaska. The incident was covered briefly in only two Alaskan newspapers. - In December 2003, an elderly woman was killed by a "pack of Pit bulls" in Florida. (None of these dogs were actually Pit bulls —four were identified by ani- mal control as Lab mixes and two were Pit bull mixes.) This story was covered in over 200 major U.S. newspapers and television stations, and was reported in news- papers in Australia, the United Kingdom, South Africa and Canada. - In 2004, a man was killed by his large mixed breed dog in California. The briefest mention of this attack (less than 50 words) could be found only in the local newspaper. - A month later, a child was killed by a Pit bull in Michigan and this story ran in over 100 national and international newspapers. In 2004 this dog killed his owner when the elderly man attempted to stop the dog from lunging at another dog on the other side of his fence. The only media coverage given to this attack was a 50-word article in the local paper. Nor is this extraordinary media blitz confined to the American media, as a Pit bull -related fatality in the United Kingdom in January 2007 generated over 1,120 articles on this tragic, but singular event. The over -reporting of injuries to children by Pit bulls versus other forms of grievous injuries to children are possibly the most disturbing type of reporting. We are justifiably upset when a child is the innocent victim of a dog attack. Dogs that inflict severe/fatal injuries on children are certainly dangerous dogs. However, the level of fear and outrage towards dogs after such an incident is not proportional to the real risk of severe injury and death. In Illinois, on November 5, 2005, three Pit bull -type dogs rushed out of a house and attacked two children. One child was severely injured and the other child was very critically 144 Karen Delise injured. Even the owner was severely bitten in an attempt to control his dogs. During the next few days, there were over 250 articles printed on this incident. The story was covered in Canada, Japan, Australia, Russia, India, Italy, on FOX News, CNN news, and in over 200 national newspapers. Though one boy suffered grievous and life -threatening injuries and remained hospitalized for over a month, the child did survive. The media continued to report on the long and difficult recovery of this boy over the next month. (Eight months later, in August 2006, another 60+ separate newspaper articles were published covering this very same attack.) The same week as the non -fatal Pit bull attack on the children in Illinois, at least eight children suffered other types of horrific injuries and abuse from a parent or guardian, which resulted in the death of seven of these victims. None of these extreme child abuse injuries/deaths warranted more than one or two small articles run only in the local news- papers. This type of over -reporting of Pit bull attacks versus acts of extreme human violence towards children demonstrates how media bias can easily distort the public's perception of the dangerousness of dogs, while minimizing the more frequent and devastating injuries suffered by children. Errors and random breed identifications by the media have been discussed; however, one further example will demonstrate that even when the breed has come to be identified accu- rately due to intense public and political interest in a case, the media will still make gross errors when referring to breeds of dogs involved in attacks. The 2001, San Francisco death of Diane Whipple is unquestionably the most publicized dog bite fatality in the history of the human/dog relationship. Thousands of articles were written on the initial attack and the subsequent murder trial of the owners. An entire book was written on this single dog bite -related fatality (The Red Zone),6 and another entire book was published on the victim (Death of an Angel).? In many severe/fatal attacks, the first newspaper reports in the day or two following the attack include breed identifications that are unreliable and inaccurate. Initially, the breed involved in this case was identified as Bullmastiffs or Pit bulls. Due to the unprecedented amount of interest in, investigation into and coverage of this case, the breed of dogs involved was later correctly identified to be the Presa Canario. Photographs of these dogs ran in dozens of newspapers and even the dogs' names became familiar to many people (Bane and Hera). Yet, incredibly, four years and thousands of articles later, some in the media still refer to this as a Pit bull -related fatality. In the coverage of a Pit bull attack in Illinois in 2005, the regional newspaper printed the following quote as additional "evidence" as to the vicious nature of Pit bulls: "A San Francisco couple was charged with involuntary manslaughter when a Pit bull they were watching mauled a woman in the hallway of an apartment complex in 2001.118 The Pit Bull Placebo 145 And if over -reporting and erroneous reporting of Pit bull attacks were not enough for the media, they have concocted a new and novel way to titillate their readers. Incredibly, the media now reports Pit bull "almost attacks" or "escape from attacks." The reporting of "almost or escaped" attacks is a phenomenon never witnessed before in the newspaper report- ing of the interactions between dogs and humans. Approximating on the low side, 350,000 persons are attacked and bitten by dogs seri- ously enough to require medical attention each year in the United States. This translates into at least 950 persons PER DAY receiving a significant bite by a dog. Incredibly, the media will often report an "almost" attack or an "escaped" attack by a Pit bull in which absolutely no injuries were inflicted on a person. The only conclusion which can be drawn from this is that the media views an "almost" Pit bull attack to take precedence over a real attack by another breed of less interest. This type of reporting is most often found in communities or areas in which Pit bull bans are being considered. Instead of reporting bites by other breeds to present a more bal- anced and realistic approach to dog bite prevention, the media feeds the flames of hysteria with reports of Pit bull "almost" attacks. In 2005, California was in the process of considering state-wide dangerous dog and/or breed specific legislation. An example of journalistic hysteria during this time is found in the San Jose media, which ran the headline "Elderly Man Narrowly Escapes Pit Bull Attack." This article goes on to tell about an elderly man taking out his garbage when he spots two loose Pit bulls. The man claims that "he saw them, and they saw him and then they came after him." He is reported to have run from the dogs and escaped into his house. (This is obviously the one and only trait Pit bulls are not reported to have —the ability to outrun elderly gentlemen.) This same article goes on to report another "Pit bull attack" involving two Pit bulls and a man walking his small dog. The man was reported to have not been injured, and his small dog received minor injuries 9 How or why the man and his small dog "escaped" from this "attack" by two Pit bulls is not reported. In Louisville, Kentucky, in 2005, after a fatality by a Pit bull and another fatality by two mixed breed dogs (which were, of course, reported as Pit bulls), the news also began grasp- ing at Pit bull straws for stories. Since Louisville was considering breed -specific dog laws in reaction to these two tragic cases, the newspapers attempted to keep Pit bulls in the news by reporting "almost" attacks. The story "Pit Bull Traps Boy, 4, on Car Roof' tells the not - so -harrowing story of a boy placed on the roof of a car by his father when a Pit bull "charged" them. The father "fended the dog off with a pole and a lawn chair." No one was reported to have been bitten, scratched, mauled, clawed or otherwise come into contact with the dog. But, the article made special attention to note the dog was "confirmed to be a Pit bull."lo Even in communities that are not focused on enacting Pit bull legislation, some in the media cannot pass the opportunity to print any encounter between a person and a Pit bull(s). 146 Karen Delise "Two Teenagers Escape Serious Injury after Pit bull Attack near Hanover" is a head- line that ran in 2005. This story claims the Pit bulls "attacked without warning" and that the dogs were "vicious." The only problem with this story is that no one was truly attacked, bitten, knocked down or mauled by any of these six Pit bulls. Two teenagers walking down a street in Hanover stated that "six Pit bulls came out and started attacking us. We kept walking." It was reported that neither youth was "seriously hurt" and, after being exam- ined by a doctor, the "scrapes" were deemed to be so minor as to not require any treatment.11 Six dogs (Pit bulls or otherwise) surrounding and jostling a person can be an unnerv- ing and worrisome event. Especially in today's climate of fear surrounding Pit bulls, these two teenagers were justifiably worried. But are two upset teenagers a newsworthy event? Also, these teenagers did not "escape serious injury," nor were they "attacked," because it is obvious these dogs were exhibiting appropriate bite inhibition. Even in this large pack, acting independently of their owner, clearly excited, and with two unknown and very nerv- ous -acting teenagers, these dogs did not inflict any bites. More accurately the headline should have read, "Negligent Owner Allows Dogs to Frighten Teenagers." It has gotten to the point where any Pit bull witnessed near a person in distress is assumed to be the cause of that distress. In March 2004, police received a call about a Pit bull maul- ing a man in Fort Madison, Iowa. The dog was lying beside his owner, who was dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest. The dog did not bite attack or cause any injury to this man, but was simply lying beside his fallen master. A dog of another breed would have been heralded for devotion to his deceased owner. Since persons being severely injured or killed by automobiles are so commonplace as to not elicit much reaction from the reading public, one media source seriously misrepre- sented the facts of one incident to grab the interest of their audience. "Man Struggles to Recover from Pit Bull Attack," "Update on Pit Bull Attack" and "Pit Bull Attack Victim Leaves Hospital" were three separate news stories run from April 14 through April 29, 2003.12 The first line of one of these articles reads, "After a vicious dog attack families of the victims often suffer the most." The first line of the follow-up article reads, "A Rock- ford man has now left his hospital bed after being attacked by a vicious dog." These articles are a shameful and gross misrepresentation of the facts. The facts of this accident are that a man was walking into a restaurant when a Pit bull began "chasing him." Unfortunately, in running away from the dog, the man ran into the street and slammed into a passing van. The man's injuries were the result of coming into contact with a motor vehi- cle, not with the dog. Additionally, Pit bulls attacking cats (and even rabbits) are now being reported in news- papers, usually accompanied by highly emotional quotes from parents claiming fear for the safety of their children. The reporting of such cases as Pit bull related aggression conveys either questionable motives or a shocking level of ignorance about very natural, albeit unpleasant, canine behavior (i.e., chasing and killing small prey animals). The Pit Bull Placebo 147 Even the most innocuous events involving Pit bulls are deemed not only newsworthy but threatening. Chicago, Illinois, was in the midst of a much -publicized proposal to ban Pit bulls in late 2005. A neighboring suburban community swept up in the latest media - driven Pit bull hysteria was also considering a ban of Pit bulls. The area newspaper tells of the experience and testimony of one man at the town council meeting. The news story is headlined, "Pit Bull Angers Resident." The article goes on to tell of one resident's anger and fear of Pit bulls resulting from a loose Pit bull stealing food from his bird feeder. The man addresses the council, stating that the town needs to "do something before there is another incident.13 With thousands of legitimate and serious injuries inflicted both by other breeds of dogs and by parents on children each day in the United States, we need to examine why our soci- ety views a Pit bull attacking a cat or an "almost" Pit bull attack as more newsworthy. The media barrage of all -things -Pit -bull has defiled the image of the Pit bull so profoundly that it has resulted in a public perception that only certain breeds of dogs can be aggres- sive towards humans (and other animals). Time and again other breed attacks are reported only if the attack was so extreme it could not be ignored. The overwhelming majority of serious and even severe attacks by other breeds are either unreported or underreported as compared to Pit bull attacks. Proof of this is found in human interest stories in which attacks by non -Pit bull dogs played a role. Often, non -Pit bull or non-Rottweiler dog attacks are not reported on their own merit, but only as they relate to how the attack impacts another part of a person's life. The fol- lowing examples are taken from only one year, 2005: A highly publicized case of the first face transplant was reported in November of 2005. This was a significant medical and media event. How the woman came to need this oper- ation was revealed to be the result of a severe mauling by her Labrador Retriever. The woman, while unconscious, had her nose, lips and chin torn off by the dog. The attack occurred months prior to the operation and was apparently of no interest to the media at that time. Another attack by a large mixed breed dog (listed as a Shepherd mix) was only reported in the media a month later when the mother was arrested on a charge of child abuse after she failed to get medical attention for the severe injuries caused by the dog. The dog had bitten one of her children in early 2005, and a social worker had advised the mother to remove the dog from the home. A few weeks later the dog bit another child in the home, inflicting a laceration 7 x 2 centimeters long on the top of her head. The attack became publicized due to the consequences of the bite becoming infected and the mother being arrested for child neglect. An October 2005 attack was not reported until December 2005 in the story of a "hard- ship" case of a man who could not afford to pay the bills incurred as a result of a dog attack. 148 Karen Delise Two months earlier the man had attempted to stop a Chow dog from attacking two girls on the street and in the process he was attacked, losing part of his finger and receiving severe bites to his arm. Unable to work after these injuries and with no insurance, the story tells of the unfortunate financial circumstances of this man. A September article discussing the outcome of a lawsuit and jury -allotted award to the parents is the only report found of the severe injuries received when a 4-year-old boy was attacked by a caretaker's dog. The dog, a Golden Retriever -Basset hound mix, had clamped its teeth on the boy's head and swung the child back and forth repeatedly during this attack. In December 2005, a brief article was published in reference to the recovery and solic- itation of funds to help a small girl who was the victim of a severe dog attack. The article is about the family's gratitude to all the kindness people had shown them and their injured daughter. At the time of the article the child had been released from the hospital and was facing "several more surgeries, including major reconstructive surgery to her face." One sentence describes how her injuries came to be: "The fourth -grader was injured last Tues- day by the family's Labrador Retriever, who has been with the family for 3-1/2 years. Details regarding the incident were unavailable.1114 The attack itself was not reported in the media when it occurred and is only mentioned in this article about the family's appreciation of people's support. The obvious harm of such unbalanced reporting of different breed attacks is illustrated in a comment made by Chicago Alderman Ginger (Virginia) Rugai. In attempting to pass Pit bull breed -specific legislation in 2004, the Alderman was quoted in the Chicago Sun - I -Imes as saying, "Have you heard of any other particular breed that has, in fact, killed or maimed someone?"15 There are two distressing aspects to this comment: The first is the obvious media impact, by over -reporting Pit bull attacks, on creating a public perception that only certain breeds of dogs are responsible for severe/fatal attacks. But there is a further disturbing aspect of this Alderman's comment; unlike most individuals, lawmakers have both a staff and a respon- sibility to research a topic thoroughly before attempting to enact life -altering legislation and making statements to the media. Proposing laws based primarily on information spoon- fed by the media is a seriously flawed approach to controlling dangerous dogs. This is evidenced by the fact that the Alderman seems totally unaware of the number of dog bite fatalities which have occurred in her own and adjacent districts in the Chicago area. In Cook County (which encompasses Chicago), there have been 11 fatal dog attacks since 1965. Eight of these fatalities were caused by breeds of dogs other than Pit bulls. A valid and reasonable argument can be made that it is not the responsibility of the media to provide a comprehensive and accurate running log of dog bites in the United States. Edi- tors, journalists and reporters all have both personal and professional standards and beliefs The Pit Bull Placebo 149 as to what is deemed newsworthy and of public interest. With an infinite number of sto- ries about the human condition occurring each day, editors pick and choose which individual stories they believe have relevance. In a free and capitalistic society, this is per- fectly acceptable and reasonable. So it needs to be recognized that it is neither the responsibility nor the intent of the media to provide unbiased or detailed information on the number and types of dog attack injuries in the United States. One repeatedly finds in media accounts of dog attacks: inaccurate breed identifications, seriously flawed accounts of circumstances surrounding the attack and vital and relevant details concerning both human and canine conditions regularly excluded. Yet, all previous "scientific" studies on fatal dog attacks have used newspaper reports as either their sole source of reference or as an integral part of the study. Therefore, it is vital for both the scientific community and the public to recognize that the media is under no obligation to provide balanced, comprehensive or accurate data on severe/fatal dog attacks, nor does it. COOM The Pit bull has borne the brunt of much of the misinformation and negative handling by the media. However, all breeds of dogs and even humans suffer from this new type of jour- nalistic approach. One hundred, even thirty, years ago, the media provided subtle and not -so subtle tips on dog bite prevention in their telling of dog attack stories. Today, this is all but absent. It may be speculated that in today's highly competitive media climate shocking stories serve a journalistic agenda. Events that are sudden and unexpectedly violent are interesting to most people. Events that occurred as a result of"cause and effect" or events that make sense are rather boring or of less interest. For example: "Family Pit Bull Mauls Tot to Death" versus "Abused Chained Dog Kills Toddler" The first headline used two terms designed to shock: "Pit bull" and "Family." Pit bulls are now recognized as menacing and fearful animals, so placing this breed in the headlines is assured to shock and get the attention of most people. The use of the term "family" is slightly more subtle, but certainly used intentionally to re -enforce fear. A family dog killing a family member implies the most basic and shocking betrayal of trust. It implies there was a familiar bond, which the dog chose to violate. It implies the dog's behavior was unex- pected, unpredictable and, therefore, shocking. The second headline implies cause and effect, or on some level makes sense. It also removes the perception of a familiar bond, thereby removing the implication of a violation of trust. This then becomes less shocking or less attention -grabbing. 150 Karen Delise Yet, both of these headlines describe the same incident. Unsurprisingly, the first head- line was the one chosen by the media. Consider two more headlines: "Rottweilers Attack, Kill Toddler" versus "Uncle's Chained Guard dog Kills Girl" The first headline (the one chosen by the media) imports no information other than that Rottweilers had caused another fatality. The second headline describes the same incident and provides two significant pieces of information that may prevent future dog attacks. Over 17% of children (aged 1 day to 12 years old) killed by dogs are found to have been attacked by a relative's dog. One out of every four children killed by dogs involved a dog that was kept chained. These two cir- cumstances pose important risk factors found in canine aggression. And, of course, recognition of the function of the dog (guard dog versus companion animal) is relevant data in understanding the behaviors expected from and displayed by this dog. Again, the media is not responsible for our edification about dog attacks; therefore, we need to acknowledge that the information presented by the media is entertainment and not a truthful account of the circumstances which contributed to cases of severe/fatal aggression. Of all the sins of the modem -day media, perhaps the most grievous has been the gross mis- representation of the human/canine bond in the recounting of dog attacks. This is unquestionably seen most frequently in the reporting of Pit bull attacks and in the use of the term "family dog." One of the most atrocious uses of the terminology "family dog" is found in the recent reporting of a fatal Pit bull attack in Michigan. After a 6-year-old girl was killed in an alley between two row houses, the following headlines were run in the media: "Family's two Pit bulls kill Hamtramck girl, 6" (Detroit Free Press, April 5, 2005) "Family Pit bulls maul girl, 6, to death as she walks to swings" (Detroit Free Press, April 5, 2005) "Residents Seek Pit bull ban after Child Killed-6-year-old Attacked by Family's Pets" (ClickOnDetroit.com, April 5, 2005) One newspaper volunteered, "The girl had known the Pit bulls since they were puppies." This is how this dog attack was presented to the reading audience. Naturally, the pub- lic and politicians read this and found more "proof' of the unpredictable nature and The Pit Bull Placebo 151 temperament of the Pit bull —or another case of Pit bulls turning on their owners and/or family members. Investigation of the incident and necropsy (animal autopsy) of these two "family pets" reveal: • The dogs, a male and a female, had originally belonged to the mother's boyfriend, who was recently deceased. • Both dogs were 12-18 months old and intact. The female had signs of a previous pregnancy. • The dogs were confined in the basement of a vacant house, while,the mother and girl had moved into another house. • Upon examination both dogs were found to be underweight. • No dog food was found throughout the entire gastrointestinal tract of either dog. • Both dogs tested positive for brodifacoum poisoning (meaning they ingested rat poison). • The stomach contents of both dogs were found to contain multiple foreign bodies of varied forms: — Male: pieces of paper and cardboard (from a box of rodenticide), plant material, small nails, and a rubber gasket. — Female: pieces of cardboard (from a box of rodenticide), multiple small rubber bands and black plastic fragments. It is a gross misrepresentation to label these two dogs abandoned in the basement of a vacated house, with no food or water, with their stomachs fuffl of rat poison, cardboard, nails, plastic and rubber bands, as "family dogs." Any dog that has not been afforded the opportunity to socialize, interact and seam appro- priate behaviors because they have been acquired for negative functions (guarding, fighting, breeding for financial gain) or maintained in semi -isolated conditions (chained, kenneled, basement/yard dogs) cannot be defined as "family dogs." These animals are "res- ident" dogs. Family dogs and resident dogs cannot be expected to exhibit similar behaviors under similar conditions. The toddler who wandered out to the chained, intact, breeding male Pit bull in the back- yard of a home in Louisiana was reported in the media to have been killed by the "family Pit bull in an unprovoked attack." One article even delicately described the heavy chain around this dog's neck as a "tether;" as the dog was reported to be "tethered in the back- yard." The circumstances this dog was maintained in are clear indicators of the degree of socialization, care and function of the dog. The level of socialization and apathy toward this dog was so low that the family never even bothered to name him.. When asked the name of the dog after the attack on the child, the owner stated the animal had no name and was simply referred to as "the dog." 152 Karen Delise This is just another case of owners, in conjunction with the media, presenting an image of the Pit bull that has no basis in reality. Allowing perceptions of canine behaviors and the level of the familiar bond (family dog versus resident dog) to be determined by an owner attempting to limit personal culpability and by the media attempting to sell a story has led the public (and "experts" who rely on these accounts) to believe that certain dogs behave unpredictably and with unprovoked aggression. CZZ Americans have always loved their dogs. So how has it come to pass that a breed of dog that was beloved and respected by Americans for over a century has become loathed, feared and abused both by individuals and society as a whole? As stated previously, it would take a constant and persistent barrage of claims of unpre- dictability, ferocity, extraordinary abilities, powers, etc., in order to make a dog -loving country dislike a particular type of dog to the degree that the Pit bull is feared today. There can be no question that this is exactly what has transpired through the media (and more recently through outrageous claims by politicians). In 1987, over 800 newspaper articles were printed in which "Pit bulls" were headlined. Over a decade later, the media is unrelenting: • 2004, over 900 newspaper articles were printed in which "Pit bulls" were in the headline. • In 2005, there were an incredible 1,700+ newspaper articles which headlined the words, "Pit bull." • In 2006, the media continues to exploit the Pit bull with an unprecedented 2,800+ newspaper articles vying for their readers' attention with the words "Pit bull" in the headlines. In a little over two decades, 1985 2006, an astounding 14,500+ newspaper articles used the words "Pit bull" in their headlines to grab the public's attention. This number does not include newspaper articles referencing Pit bulls that did not specifically use the words "Pit bull" in the headline of the story, nor does it include magazine articles, radio or television coverage of Pit bull issues. In the first week of November 2006, for the first time in over 150 years of recorded fatal dog attacks, an unprecedented number of children (4) were killed by dogs in a single week. One of these four attacks involved Pit bulls and three were by other breeds of dogs. The circumstances surrounding all of these attacks were strikingly similar. Examination of The Pit Bull Placebo 153 these cases, individually and collectively, offers valuable insight into the reasons and causes for fatal dog attacks on children. On November 7, 2006, Nancy Grace of CNNHeadline News chose the single fatality involving Pit bulls to feature on her television show. The coverage and discussion of this fatal attack included describing Pit bulls as "killing machines" and comparing the dogs to "machine guns and Uzis." Graphic and highly disturbing stock film footage of Pit bulls fighting was played repeatedly during the show. The other three children killed by other breeds of dogs during this week were not men- tioned. How could the average person not come to believe that Pit bulls are different than other breeds of dogs given this extraordinary, sensationalized and biased media coverage of dog attacks? CHAPTER 14 "If an ox gore a man or a woman that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten but the owner shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and this hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death." The Bible, Old Testament Exodus, chapter 21, verses 28, 29 If this punishment seems too harsh, the penalties for owners today who allow their dogs to roam loose and attack individuals are equally too lenient, if not nonexistent. The follow- ing cases show that canine behavior cannot be examined without examining human behavior. The behavior of the dogs in these incidents was a direct result of the actions (or inactions) of their owners. Case #1 In February of 2003, Vivian Anthony was walking down a street in Columbus, Ohio, when she was attacked by two loose roaming dogs. Her husband managed to fight the dogs off the woman, but she was critically injured. Two weeks later, as Mrs. Anthony remained on life support in the hospital, another woman was attacked by two loose roaming dogs, near the same location as the first attack. Two men beat the dogs off the woman. A newly fallen snow allowed police to track the dogs' bloody paw prints to a nearby residence. Inside the residence were three dogs, along with a newspaper clipping about the first attack. After 53 days on life support, Vivian Anthony, the first victim, died from complications from the attack. DNA sampling of the dogs and the victims' clothing determined the same dogs were involved in the attack on both women. The owner of the dogs, a medical doc- tor, was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, one count of reckless homicide and one count of assault. There can be almost no doubt that the owner of these dogs knew of the first attack on Vivian Anthony and the involvement of his dogs. He lived not a half mile from where she 154 The Pit Bull Placebo 155 was attacked, he had a newspaper clipping of the incident in his house and the dogs almost assuredly had to return home after the attack with blood on them. Still these dogs were per- mitted to run loose less than two weeks later, allowing them to attack another woman. During the trial the owner admitted to knowing that his dogs escaped often and that they had previously been involved in attacks on two other persons. Of the three dogs owned by this doctor, two were intact males and one was a very pregnant female (she was not involved in either attack). The owner pleaded guilty to one count of involuntary manslaugh- ter and one count of assault. He was sentenced to six months in jail and a $5000 fine. Case #2 In 2002, a 2-year-old girl wandered too near a chained dog and was attacked and killed. This intact, male dog had worn the dirt down to a smooth bare surface in the area limited by the chain. The tree to which the dog was chained was devoid of bark as the dog paced for endless days around the tree. After the child was killed, a few neighbors commented that the dog appeared skinny and underfed. The animal control officer stated that the dog was "appropriately sized for its breed." The owner of the dog stated in the newspapers, "About the only thing I can say is I'm sorry, but I don't see how I could've stopped it from happening." This was the story reported in the newspapers and it is incredible in the startling lack of information. Fortunately, law enforcement officials submitted the body of the dog to the state for a necropsy (animal autopsy). What was not revealed in the newspaper accounts or by the owner was that approximately one week prior to killing the little girl, the dog had killed a young cat. Now, this is not necessarily indicative of aggression towards humans, or anything else really. Dogs do kill cats. But this dog consumed the cat. Dogs don't eat cats after they kill them, unless something else is terribly wrong. What was wrong with this animal was that it was starving to death. The necropsy determined: • The five-year, intact, male weighed only 25kg, or 55 lbs. (This full-grown male dog should have weighed between 75-95 lbs) • The dog was 10-12% dehydrated. (Dehydration at 10% is considered severe and life -threatening.) • The intestinal tract contained only small particles of leaves and scant amounts of corn kernels. • There was no dog food in the entire intestinal tract. Diagnosis: Severe emaciation and malnutrition. Yet, unbelievably, the owner was puzzled as to how he could have prevented this tragedy. 156 Karen Delise Case #3 In 2004, the mother of an eight -year -old boy allowed him to spend spring break at his father's house in Charlotte, North Carolina. One day during the week, the father was in the house with his girlfriend and the boy was playing in the backyard with the father's four dogs. Tragically, the dogs began attacking the boy. The father and girlfriend inside the house did not hear the boy's cry for help or his screams. A postman across the street did, though, and ran over in an attempt to save the boy. When he realized he could not help the child by himself, he ran to the door and banged on it for help. The father answered the door and threatened to kill the postman. The boy died. The police arrived and found that the father was a convicted felon, out on parole. Inside the house they found an assault weapon and drugs. The father was arrested for possession of a firearm, possession of illegal drugs and for threatening a federal employee (postal worker). He was also later charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of his son. A few neighbors warily stated the dogs seemed abused and said they had witnessed the owner beating them. The mother, obviously distressed and grieving for her son, started a petition to rid Charlotte of three different breeds of dogs. What many people fail to acknowledge, even those not overcome with grief, is that a convicted felon, out on parole, would have little regard for any legislative efforts that would make ownership of a breed of dog illegal. The fact that it is was illegal to be in possession of a firearm or narcotic drugs were no deterrent to this man. It is very doubtful that he would have any regard for a law that banned a particular breed of dog. It is not reasonable to expect normal or amiable behavior from dogs owned by a man who, rather than having intense gratitude, instead threatens to kill the man who is attempt- ing to save the life of his son. Addressing this as a dog breed issue will never solve the problem of canine aggression. Legislators and communities can destroy the dogs, ban breeds, mandate high insurance cov- erage, require fencing, or signs and any other number of measures to restrict the dog —but no amount of laws, restrictions or breed bans will save the lives of children whose parent(s) allow them to live in such high risk environments. These are but three examples in a three-year period (2002-2004) showing behavior by owners so extreme in their negligence or criminality that they render the breed of dog a non -issue. There are many more cases like these, some as extreme, others to a lesser degree. This demonstrates that in many cases of severe/fatal aggression it is simply not possible to separate the behavior of the owners from the actions of the dogs. If we were to take the above examples and add the three different breeds involved to statistics on fatal dog attacks, what does this accomplish? Can we seriously believe that any of the above owners were true devotees of the breed of dog which they so recklessly abused and/or mismanaged? Do we imagine that banning the breeds of dogs involved in The Pit Bull Placebo 157 these attacks would prevent them from acquiring another breed of dog and demonstrating equal recklessness? As some politicians and a large portion of the media spin off in the direction of focus- ing on breeds, fortunately law enforcement personnel work diligently behind the scenes in an attempt to address the real circumstances which permit or encourage some dogs to act so aggressively. Unlike some in the media and some politicians, law enforcement is keenly aware that persons involved in situations in which their dog has attacked and killed someone are liable to be less than truthful about the history, function and prior bad acts committed by their dog(s) and/or by themselves. Additionally, even if a police officer is personally inclined to believe a particular breed may be aggressive, they conduct a rational and thorough inves- tigation, as is required by their profession. Because of this, law enforcement agencies disseminate the most accurate data and least prejudicial conclusions about the circumstances and factors behind severe/fatal canine aggression. In recent years, some police and sheriff agencies have done extraordinary work in uncov- ering information and details about the owners and dogs involved in fatal attacks. Based on this information, some cases of fatal dog attacks have been deemed terrible accidents. Others were concluded to have stemmed from low level negligence or a low level of super- vision of dogs/children, coupled with misfortune. Some cases were negligence bordering on criminal and other cases were clearly criminal. The only way to come to conclusions about dog attacks being accidental or criminal is to examine the owners first, then the circumstances surrounding the attack and, lastly, the dogs. Only in this way can the origins and opportunity for canine aggression be determined. While proponents of breed -specific legislation often seem uninterested in recognizing the distinction between dog attacks that can be attributed to canine behavior and those that can be attributed to human behavior, the criminal justice system, the police and the courts frequently recognize that were it not for the reckless disregard of some dog owners (and/or parents of the victim), these fatalities would not have occurred. Since 1982 there have been at least 29 dog owners found guilty of murder, manslaugh- ter or criminally negligent homicide in cases in which their dogs were involved in a fatal attack. Still other dog owners and/or parents have been found guilty of child neglect, child endangerment, child abuse and reckless injury to a child after a fatal dog attack on a child. Throughout the ages, dogs have been guardians, protectors, companions and playmates to children. Like all friendships, there may be squabbles, misunderstandings and offenses taken, but children and dogs are forgiving creatures, and both usually emerge with only the fond- est of memories of their relationships together. There are over 73 million dogs in the United States.1 The vast majority of these dogs interact on a daily basis with every conceivable type of child, from infants to teenagers, 158 Karen Delise from gentle children to tormenting children, from handicapped children to healthy children and from family children to neighborhood children. The dogs these children live with and are exposed to include almost every recognized purebred dog along with a never-ending variety of mixed breeds. Millions upon millions of children learn about compassion, respon- sibility, companionship, and respect for others by living with these animals. Virtually all these children enter into adulthood all the better for their experiences with dogs. However, about a dozen times a year, something goes terribly wrong. Statistically, a child has a greater chance of dying from hundreds of other maladies and mishaps, both man-made and natural, than from the bite of a dog. But society is deeply shocked and offended when a child dies from an attack by a dog. For this reason we need to take a closer look at how children come to be exposed to dogs which put them at risk. How a child becomes the victim of a fatal dog attack is dependent on either one or both of these factors: level of responsibility and risk evaluation demonstrated by the parent and/or the failure of the dog owner to evaluate risks and safeguard children from their dogs. More often than not, children who fall prey to dogs do so as a result of negligence by either the parent(s) and/or the dog owner. Sadly, far too many children live with parents or guardians who offer them only a low level of safety. Many of the child victims of fatal dog attacks lived in an environment which allowed for a large margin of error, which in turn invited misfortune. The following cases demonstrate that some victims of fatal dog attacks were children whose parent(s) provided them with only a low level of safety from misadventure. In 2001, a 2-year-old boy was killed by an intact, male chained dog. It was the middle of the afternoon and the parents were seemingly unaware the child had left the house or had been killed by the dog in their yard. After an undetermined amount of time, the child was discovered dead near the stepfather's chained dog. The stepfather was unconvinced the dog had killed the child, claiming the dog's chain had been the cause of death. The dog, prior to this incident, had killed another dog. The stepfather claimed the death of that dog was also a case of "death by chain." The evidence clearly proved the boy was killed as a result of an aggressive attack (bites) from the dog. Yet, the stepfather's refusal to acknowledge the clear evidence was only the latest in a long list of denials and irresponsible ownership practices (unaltered, chained, unsocialized dog, with previous acts of aggression ignored or excused) that directly con- tributed to the ultimate act of aggression displayed by this dog. It is worthy of note that the boy's funeral needed to be delayed as the parents overslept that morning. - A fatality in 2000 involved a 2-year-old girl wandering over to one of six dogs kept on a heavy logging chain in the far corners of a yard. The owners of the dog knew it to be dangerous and had warned their own children not to go near him. When a mother and her 2-year-old girl were visiting the house, the child wandered out and was killed by the intact male dog. The owner came home and beat the offending dog to death with a sledgehammer. The Pit Bull Placebo 159 All six dogs in the yard were intact, and one of the female dogs was very pregnant. Inves- tigation revealed that the dog which had killed the child was actively used for fighting and had been matched in a fight only weeks earlier. The mother of the deceased child refused to cooperate in the investigation or assist police. She stated in so many words that she did not want to help police get her friends in trouble. A 2001 fatality involved the tragic circumstances of a young boy who had come to St. Louis with his brother and mother in the winter of 2000. By all accounts 10-year-old Rod- ney was a sweet, pleasant and intelligent boy, despite his unstable home environment. Before arriving in St. Louis, Rodney and his brother had been taken twice from their mother by the Missouri Department of Family Services and placed in foster homes. Now returned to his mother, who had a history of drug abuse and an open weapons charge pending in a neigh- boring county, Rodney appeared to be adapting well to his new location and school. On a Monday evening, around 5 p.m., Rodney's mother saw him leave the house with his basketball. The following morning police arrived at the mother's doorstep to inform her that her son had been killed by dogs in Ivory Perry Park on either late Monday night or early Tuesday morning. Rodney's mother was unaware that her son had not returned home the night before. She was arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of a child. With no parental interest in keeping this child out of harm's way and no concern for his safety or whereabouts, it is not terribly surprising that this child should be the victim of some type of terrible misfortune. Sadly, dogs were the source of his tragic death. Of course, equally culpable are the unknown owners who abandoned and allowed these dogs to roam loose in the city. One of the most frequent scenarios for dog attacks is children visiting relatives. Sev- enteen percent of the children killed by dogs were attacked by a relative's dog (grandparent, aunt/uncle). While cases of extreme negligence are found here, this is the one area where seemingly innocent mistakes or slight errors in judgment have resulted in tragic conse- quences. The factors which appear to be at work here are: Adults, being familiar (or having a bond) with a relative's dog, assume the dog will be equally accepting of their young children, believing their bond with the dog will automatically extend to them. Adults visiting with children fail to take into account the territorial issues found wi many dogs. A common scenario is: A woman visits her mother. She is familiar with her mother's dog and perhaps feels comfortable with this dog which has never shown any aggression towards her or her parents. At some point the daughter becomes a mother herself. She con- tinues to visit her parents, but now begins to bring along her child. The dog has had only 160 Karen Delise minimal exposure to this (grand) child and at some point the child and dog are left alone. The dog then attacks this small interloper. The case of a child being killed by a relative's dog is perhaps the scenario in which education may make the biggest difference in the reduction of severe attacks on children. Very often these parents made only minor errors in judgment. Also, many of these parents did have lifestyles in which they provided safe environments for their children. An added awareness of the danger some dogs may present to young visiting children may help these parents avoid attacks on their own children by a relative's dog. A 5-week-old infant was left unsupervised at his grandmother's home. This Labrador and Mixed breed dog fatally mauled the infant. Photo Credit: James Crosby While a significant number of fatal attacks on children may have been prevented by either responsible behavior or reasonable risk assessment by a parent and/or dog owner, some cases are truly unforeseeable events. There are a small number of cases in which parents and dog owners seemingly took all necessary precautions prior to a fatal dog attack, yet still suf- fered the same fate as severely negligent dog owners and/or parents. A sad case of what could only be classified as a terrible accident occurred in April2004 in Washington. John, an 8-year-old boy, was visiting his next door neighbor's home. John . was inside the home with the teenage boys living there. At some point, John, unnoticed, went into the fenced -in backyard where the family kept two large dogs. John knew these dogs and had interacted with them before. For reasons which will never be known, the boy The Pit Bull Placebo 161 was attacked and killed by either one or both dogs. There is absolutely nothing about this case which suggests the dogs would have behaved this way. The dogs had responsible and quality owners, who maintained them in a controlled and safe environment. The dogs had no other function than that of companion animals and were owned by this family for three years (since they were puppies). Even the dogs' names sug- gest nice family pets, Precious and Diamond. The dogs were females (although intact, there were no issues with pregnancy or puppies involved). Female dogs without puppies (or not pregnant) are exceedingly rare in cases of fatal canine aggression and are responsible for less than 2% of all fatal dog attacks. The dogs had no history of aggression prior to the attack. They were known to be friendly with neighborhood children. Neighbors unanimously agreed the dogs' behavior was always appropriate and non -threatening. The boy had knowledge of these dogs and was aware of their friendly and non -threatening behaviors. He was old enough to make a fair and rea- sonable assessment of the (low) risk involved in encountering these animals. No mistakes, no bad risk assessment, no cruelty, negligence or lack of control over the dogs just a terrible accident involving a young boy and a tragic event for two families and two dogs. If the reason a person obtains a dog and how the dog is maintained are important signposts on the road to aggression, something as simple as a dog's name is often just as relevant to the future behaviors we expect from our dogs. Suppose you are walking down a street and a short distance off a man is walling towards you with a large, muscular dog. The dog's leash snaps and the dog is leisurely trotting towards you. The owner yells, "Psycho, stop!" Now envision the exact same scenario, except the owner yells, "Ladybug, stop!" Except for those who are so petrified of dogs, or so brainwashed by the media to fear certain breeds, most people would assess the risk of each of these trotting dogs a tad dif- ferently. It is no small coincidence that many of the dogs involved in fatal attacks have indeed been named: Crusher, Rage, Psycho, Mayhem, or a host of other names which suggest their owners wished their dogs to appear —or, worse, act —menacing. Many dogs involved in severe and fatal attacks are found with these menacing, crimi- nal -laced names because they had been acquired for the express purpose of intimidation. The names of these dogs coincide with their use as status symbols by urban thugs in a cul- ture of violence, drug abuse and dog fighting. 162 Karen Delise Environment and maintenance are additional critical factors (along with function and own- ers) which demonstrate the level of commitment and responsibility an owner has, not only to the dog but also to the community and safety of its inhabitants. Environment is the immediate physical surroundings of the dog (chained dogs, yard dogs, loose roaming dogs, multiple dog situations, unsupervised dogs, isolated and unso- cialized dogs). Maintenance is the physical condition of the dog (intact dogs, sick, abused or underweight dogs). Chained Dogs The potential danger of a chained dog stems from rather simple causes: • Chained dogs can never be afforded the same level of socialization as household dogs. • Chained dogs have a well defined and limited territory and therefore may exhibit heightened territorial issues. • Chained dogs cannot flee a threatening situation, increasing the probability of a defensive (or fear) bite or attack (fight versus flight response). • Chained dogs are not able to release pent up energy or frustration and this may increase aggressive or abnormal behaviors (pacing, barking, straining at chain, etc.). • Chained dogs are exposed to extreme weather conditions, and the discomfort of heat, cold, rain, and insects. Also, chained dogs are at the mercy of tormenting children. • Untold numbers of chained dogs are injured or die after becoming entangled in chains or ropes or are attacked by loose roaming dogs. None of these are very complex issues. The conditions under which chained dogs are kept are in direct opposition to the conditions needed to produce a well-balanced, social dog. An owner who keeps his dog chained does not recognize or meet the social, emotional, and even most of the physical needs of the animal. Dogs, by nature, require physical exer- cise, mental stimulation, social and physical interaction with other beings (dogs or human) and a sense of belonging or attachment to other "pack" members. Depriving dogs of these important behaviors and interactions with humans invites aggression. Putting dogs in situations where they are apt to feel threatened, protective of limited ter- ritory, or experience isolation, discomfort or pain will increase incidents of aggression. This is evidenced by the fact that 25% of all fatal attacks have been inflicted by chained dogs. Dogs that have not been provided the opportunity to develop appropriate social behav- iors due to chaining cannot, after an attack on a toddler, be classified as "family dogs." Dogs maintained on chains in backyards are not family dogs. The term which correctly identi- fies the dog is "resident dog." The dog resides on the premises of the owner. The dog is The Pit Bull Placebo 163 not a part of the family. The distinction is important and real because it defines the rela- tionship or bond that is so important in understanding canine perceptions and, hence, behavior. It is exceedingly rare for a family dog to kill an immediate family member (despite what has been reported to the contrary). Dogs attack and severely injure or kill persons to whom they have no bonds or strong attachments. This dog fatally attacked an unsupervised 1-year-old child in 2001. Here again is another visibly emaciated dog, chained to the side of a trailer, that nobody "noticed" until after the attack. In addition to starvation, chaining, and neglect, the dog was wearing a prong collar Loose Roaming Dogs This is, without a doubt, the longest running and most frequently found complaint about dogs in our society. One hundred years ago the newspapers were full of angry letters from citizens from New York to Chicago, complaining about loose dogs attacking livestock and harassing and seriously injuring humans. An owner who allows his dog(s) to repeatedly run loose (meaning more than once) shows an utter disregard not only for their own dogs, but also for the welfare of their neighbors' animals, and a flagrant disregard for the safety and well-being of persons in their community. Communities which cannot or care not to enforce existing leash laws or cite owners for allowing their dogs to roam should not even consider passing additional dangerous dog legislation if they are unable to effectively and seriously penalize owners who violate this basic rule of canine responsibility. Loose roaming dogs are simply an owner management problem. A free roaming dog is an animal acting independent of human interests. In urban and residential environments there is great potential for harm when dogs arc left to their own devices. Dogs being hit by cars or causing traffic accidents, harassing and chasing other domestic animals or wildlife, 164 Karen Delise as well as threatening or attacking humans, are very real and frequent occurrences when dogs are allowed to roam loose off their property and free of human direction. The dangers here are real and obvious, yet owners continue to allow dogs to operate in this potentially dangerous way. In one year only, 2005, ten persons died because their neigh- bors failed to contain their dogs on their property. Of these ten fatal attacks by loose roaming dogs, eight cases involved owners allowing not only a single dog, but multiple dogs, to run loose. Not only were these dogs allowed to roam loose, but all these cases involved dogs which were intact (not spayed or neutered). Reproductive Status of Dogs While politicians and the media love to quote breed statistics, no statistic about the dogs involved in fatal attacks is more overwhelming than the statistical percentage of intact ver- sus altered animals. Over the last six years, from 2000-2005, there were 131 fatal dog attacks in the United States. Ninety-two percent of the fatal attacks were inflicted by reproductively intact (un- neutered, un-spayed) dogs. This is a significant percentage and is highly suggestive of certain conditions (reproductively viable) predisposing a dog to aggression. However, no single statistic is a true representation of the behaviors or forces at work driving canine aggression in severe or fatal attacks. Fatal attacks are the result of an esca- lation of events, behaviors and circumstances which culminate in the opportunity and ability for a dog to behave aggressively. What the statistic 92% of dogs found in fatal aggression were intact does not reveal is the other contributing factors found in the environment and maintenance of these dogs. For instance, over 70% of the intact dogs involved in fatal aggression were maintained in multiple dog residences. This is relevant. Multiple dogs in residence introduce new dynam- ics to canine behavior not seen in single dog households. This requires owners to be more knowledgeable about infra -species behaviors and/or aggression and the possible develop- ment of pack mentality. Dogs which may never snarl or snap at their owners will frequently growl their dis- pleasure at each other. Dogs in the yard, running ning along the fence after a boy riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, often feed off each other's excitement. Feeding time in multiple dog house- holds can be tension -filled. There are dozens of situations in which dogs in multiple dog households can trigger each other to behave aggressively. The most obvious situation which may trigger intact male dogs to behave aggressively is the nearby presence of a female in estrus. Dozens of cases of fatal dog attacks involved intact males with females in estrus nearby. Whether this was the singular cause for aggression cannot be determined, but undoubtedly any behaviors of the male would be more intense. Of course, female dogs, intact and bred, may exhibit heightened aggression if there are puppies on site. Indeed, this is when female dogs are found in fatal attacks. Not surprisingly, The Pit Bull Placebo 165 this is one of the very few situations in which male and female dogs are found together and the female initiates the attack on a human. In almost all other witnessed cases of fatal attacks on humans, when a male and female dog were together, the male was observed to be the instigator or initiated the attack. The point about intact dogs involved in fatalities is not just that they were intact, but that they were more likely than not to be kept in multiple dog residences, and more likely than not to be active in breeding for the financial gain of their owners. So while the singu- lar circumstance of being intact may seem indicative of increased aggression in dogs, there are almost always other risk factors involved. This female and a similar -looking, intact male dog were running loose when they fatally attacked a man In 2005. She had recently given birth to yet another later of puppies. Within days after the attack, the male dog died from parvovirus. Single Dog and Multiple Dog Situations in Fatal Attacks Single Dogs During the past 40 years, from 1966-2005, 65% of the human fatalities from a dog attack were the result of being attacked by a single dog. However, in the vast majority of these cases there were other dogs on the premises or near the scene at the time of the attack. In the six -year span, from 2000-2005, in over 87% of the cases of fatal attacks by a single dog, there were other dogs in residence or situated near the attack. While many of these other dogs were not able to participate due to barriers or restraints, there were a number of dogs certainly able to join the attack that simply did not. Even in cases of the alleged "dangerous" breeds, there are incidents of one dog attacking while multiple other dogs on the scene do not participate. The behaviors of these non -par- ticipating dogs are remarkable in their restraint and inhibition. While the behavior of the one dog beginning a frenzied attack on a human must be rec- ognized for the extraordinarily aggressive act that it is, dogs standing off and refraining from entering into a pack mentality or pack attack require equal weight in the assessment 166 Karen Delise of canine (or breed) behaviors and temperament. Yet, incredibly, these behaviors (of non - attacking dogs) are never studied or given recognition in discussions of canine (or breed) temperament. The breed of the male dog that killed a little girl in a field after she screamed when a lizard ran over her shoe has been permanently documented in the statistics as indicative of the dangerousness of this particular breed. Yet, the behavior of the female dog (of the same breed) that was also at the scene but did not participate, and was even witnessed biting the rump of the male during his attack on the little girl, has gone unrecognized. Yet, her behav- ior in defining breed temperament is as revealing and significant as the behavior of the attacking male. Multiple Dogs Over the last 40 years (1966-2005) 35% of all fatal dog attacks have involved more than one dog. When dogs operate as a pack, their potential to do harm is obvious. Dogs will often feed off each other's excitement, thereby increasing and prolonging an aggressive episode. In multiple dog attacks, injuries and bites are apt to be more numerous and occur more rap- idly. Many a victim who may have been able to survive or ward off an attack by one dog succumbed due to the force of multiple dogs. Not all dogs in a pack situation attack with the same intensity. Some dogs will attack seemingly without inhibition, inflicting deep, penetrating wounds. Other dogs (often times the females) may participate by worrying the victim, tearing at the clothes or inflicting lesser bites. An example of this is the infamous Diane Whipple case which occurred in San Fran- cisco in 2001. Here, two large dogs escaped from their owner's control and attacked the gym teacher in the hallway of their apartment. Bane, the male, was observed to be the aggres- sor, inflicting most of the severe and ultimately fatal bites. Hera, the female, was less active in the attack, primarily worrying the victim, rather than inflicting severe bites. In multiple dog attacks that are not witnessed, it is often impossible to know the exact level of participation of each of the dogs involved. Naturally, in large packs (of four or more dogs) it is often impossible to know how many, and to what degree, each of the dogs par- ticipated. Bite impressions of the dogs' teeth, examination of stomach contents, DNA and saliva testing will often assist in identifying the major offenders, but may reveal little about the behavior of the other dogs in the pack. A case in which the stomach contents of the dogs did reveal the obvious offenders occurred in 1990, when a 44-year-old woman was killed by dogs she maintained on her property. There were eleven dogs on the premises, which she and her husband declared to be their "pets." The house was in a dilapidated condition, with huge cracks in the walls through which the dogs could enter and exit at will. Two of the dogs appeared well-fed, while the other nine dogs were emaciated. All nine dogs were all at least 20 pounds under- weight, with some of them being, as one official stated, "skin and bones." The Pit Bull Placebo 167 The female owner had a history of seizures. It is believed she suffered a seizure while alone in the home and this may have triggered this large pack of starving dogs to attack her. While the two well-fed dogs were determined not to have participated in the attack, examination of the contents of the stomachs of the starving dogs revealed that seven of the nine actively participated in the attack. Like most fatal attacks, multiple risk factors need to be present before dogs behave so aggressively. Besides these dogs operating as a large pack, starvation, poor environment, possible seizure activity in the owner and perhaps other forces were in place which allowed them to behave in the manner they did. The Familiar Bond and The Family Dog "If you get to thinking you're a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else's dog around." Will Rogers Unfortunately, this simple witticism, defining how canine behavior is dependent on the famil- iar bond between owner and dog, is lost on many people today. Dogs behave differently with those to whom they have formed strong attachments than they do with more unfamil- iar persons. For centuries this has been understood, embraced, and heralded as the essence of dogs. Yet, today, this defining aspect of canine behavior is either grossly misrepresented or has been given no recognition in the recounting of dog attacks. The denial or ignorance of this basic tenet, which so often drives canine behavior (and aggression), has led to erro- neous claims of the unpredictable nature of dogs and dog attacks. Today, dozens of studies, quotes and percentages can be found claiming that "family dogs" are responsible for the majority of bites and attacks on children. However, even the most cursory examination of these stories about "family dogs attacking children" quickly reveals that many of these claims are a perversion of the familiar bond. Scores of exam- ples can be given in which dogs, either seriously undersocialized, chained, used for breeding, guard dog use, and/or kept in isolated and even in extremely abusive conditions, were labeled as "family dogs." Family Dog versus Resident Dog Though discussed previously, it needs to be stressed that dogs maintained outside the home (on chains, in kennels or in yards) and dogs obtained for negative functions (guard- ing, fighting, protection, breeding for financial gain) are not "family dogs" they are "resident dogs." This distinction is vital in the understanding of canine behavior and aggres- sion. Dogs maintained as resident dogs cannot be expected to exhibit the same level of 168 Karen Delise sociability as dogs afforded the opportunity to interact with humans and their families on a daily basis and in positive and more humane functions. The fact that there is no documented case of a single, spayed/neutered Pit bull or Pit bull -type dog, maintained exclusively as a household pet, involved in a fatal attack on a human in the United States is proof that canine behavior is profoundly influenced by the function of the dog and quality of care and control practiced by owners. It has always been mankind's great fortune that most dogs, despite the low level of care and control demonstrated by many of their owners and their acquisition for negative func- tions, are nevertheless wonderfully tolerant and sociable toward humans. It is for this reason that we often expect all dogs to behave amicably. However, dogs will, and do, bite; there- fore, any serious study on the reasons and causes for dog attacks requires a truthful examination of each individual dog, the function for which the dog was obtained and how the dog was maintained. This is the first critical step toward understanding how a dog had the ability and opportunity to behave aggressively towards a human. EMKIM • Dogs are predators —predators chase and kill other animals. • Aggression is a natural part of dog behavior, used to lay claim to resources, guard territory, protect offspring or ward off perceived dangers. • Dogs are sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain, anger, fear and frustration. • Dogs have different signs and signals they use to communicate intentions or emotions, and these are very different than the vocalizations and signals humans use to communicate intent or emotion. Because of all these things, dogs bite. They bite other animals, they bite each other and they bite humans. Sometimes we can understand or relate to the reasons why dogs attack, other times the bite or attack seems to us to be unwarranted or vicious. As humans often have a difficult enough time understanding the intentions or aggressive behavior found in our own species, it should come as no surprise that the behavior of dogs should also at times confound and confuse us. Few things in life come without some level of risk. Swimming pools, automobiles, house- hold cleaning products, power tools, bicycles, stairs, and dogs all come with a certain level of potential harm. Our lives are comprised of evaluating risks on a daily basis. From how fast we drive our cars or when to cross a busy street, or cordoning off swimming pools and staircases from unsupervised children, we think about or act on the potential danger of things daily. Why then is it so difficult for so many people to understand that this applies to our dogs as well? While dogs are certainly less of a risk factor than automobiles or swimming pools, nevertheless, the same theory applies —dogs are safe when maintained in a respon- sible manner and when people show a reasonable level of risk assessment. Terrible, The Pit Bull Placebo 169 unforeseeable accidents will always occur in life, but the point is to strive to make these incidents as rare as possible. There are presently 73 million dogsl in the United States and approximately two dozen human deaths per year are due to dog attacks. In approximately one half to three-quarters (12-18) of these deaths, the victims are young children. However, over 250 children under the age of five die yearly in swimming pools.2 Comparing yearly dog bite fatalities to yearly fatalities associated with automobiles, swimming pools or lightning shows that dogs are incredibly low on the list of potential dangers. While the risk of being killed by a dog is extremely low, serious dog bites and attacks obviously present a likelier risk. Both serious and fatal attacks can be reduced by reason- able risk assessment. Owners can reduce the risk of their dog biting someone through dozens of different methods, from educating themselves about canine behavior and enrolling in dog training classes to properly containing and supervising their dogs. Potential victims can also reduce their risk of dog attacks by learning about canine behaviors and how to respond to an aggressive -looking dog. There are literally hundreds of books written on these topics, as well as information presented on the Internet, television and even radio. For those wishing to educate themselves and lower the potential risk associated with dogs, the infor- mation is available and highly accessible. However, just as there will always be murderers and reckless drivers, there will always be some dog owners who refuse to safeguard others from their dogs and there will always be some victims who not only failed to make an appropriate risk assessment in a situation involving dogs, but were reckless. In 2006, an adult male climbed over a fence at 5:30 a.m. and entered into the yard of a metalworking company in California. Three large guard dogs were kept on the premises. The man was attacked and killed by the dogs. In 1997, a man took possession of two large dogs and placed them in the fenced yard behind his trailer. In addition to obtaining the male and female for use as guard dogs, he intended to breed them "to make some money." Four days later his girlfriend arrived with her 3-year-old son. Authorities believe the mother and her boyfriend were in a drug -induced stupor when the boy wandered into the backyard where he was attacked by the dogs. An autopsy revealed the boy lay dying in the yard for at least two hours before either adult awoke and realized the child was missing. While there is much society and individuals can do to reduce attacks, the two cases cited above demonstrate that there will always be incidents of severe or fatal dog attacks due to some people's failure to take any appropriate steps to safeguard themselves or others from their dogs. If we are truly interested in reducing the number of attacks, we need to hon- estly examine which behaviors are the major contributors to these events: human or canine. Unfortunately, the way canine aggression is usually examined is by simply referring to the number of deaths or bites attributed to dogs and not by an examination of the forces driv- ing behavior. 170 Karen Delise It is inaccurate and unreliable to use the number of fatal dog attacks, and/or which breeds are involved, as "proof' of canine aggression. The reason for this is that it fails to identify exactly what it claims to be providing evidence of —namely aggression. Consider the following deaths which are included in the Centers for Disease Control statistics on dog bite -related deaths in the United States: • A man is bitten on the thumb by a dog. Introduced into the wound is a rapidly spreading and virulent bacteria, which results in the man's death four days later. • A man is bitten on the thumb by a dog • A woman dies after her boyfriend physically restrains her, while repeatedly ordering his dog to attack her. • A two -day -old infant dies after a dog picks the child up by the head and carries the infant into the room where the parents are. • A dog attacks his long-time owner, inflicting dozens of deep, penetrating wounds, resulting in the woman's death. These four deaths tell us only one thing —four people died as a result of dog bites. They tell us nothing about the level and type of aggression, or define what aggression is. Lump- ing these disparate events together misconstrues the very nature of the behavior. Is a bite to the thumb the same type of aggression as a dog inflicting dozens of penetrating and lethal bites? Is a dog that attacks due to repeated commands from his owner showing the same type of aggression as a dog that attacks a person of his own initiative? Is a dog that picks a baby up by the head and carries it into the room with the owners committing an aggres- sive act? You cannot provide proof of something which you have not defined. Yet these types of statistics are routinely used to "prove" the aggressiveness of certain breeds. The answers to severe and fatal canine attacks are not to be found in statistics, or in discussing dog breeds, or in recent accounts of dog attacks found in the media. The answers to canine aggression can only be found beginning with an examination of the relationship (or lack of one) between dogs and owners. CHAPTER 15 33SM=0 •LLMiLIOA "We are alone, absolutely alone on this chance planet: and, amid all the forms of life that surround us, not one, excepting the dog, has made an alliance with us. " (Maurice Maeterlinck, 1862-1949) Recently, in North Carolina, police responded to a report of a Pit bull and a Golden Retriever fighting. One of the dogs was found tied to a tree with his front leg broken and deep gashes to his muzzle from the bites of the other dog. There can be little doubt as to which dog was injured and how this attack came to be. We have identified the two types of dogs involved in this incident, we know their history, we've read the newspaper headlines about which dogs are involved in aggression, we've listened to politicians state that certain breeds are the source of the dog bite problem, we've even heard some "experts" and laymen alike tell us of the uniqueness of the wounds Pit bulls inflict during an attack (breaking of bones and tearing), and through all this we've come to know that there are "dangerous and aggres- sive" breeds and there are "friendly, non- aggressive" breeds of dogs. Today, the human/dog bond —the most complex and profound inter -species relation- ship in the history of mankind —has been reduced to a simple axiom: Breed of dog = degree of dangerousness. Throughout the centuries, dogs have elicited great pride, enduring love and extreme devo- tion from humans. It has never been uncommon for humans to risk their lives to save their beloved canine companions and dogs have more than returned this devotion in kind. How- ever, as frequent as it is to find humans bestowing great affection upon their dogs, it is as frequent to find humans inflicting horrific abuse and cruelty upon our canine companions. What reasonable or sane person could expect dogs kept in such diametrically opposed conditions (cherished versus abused) to exhibit similar behaviors? How, in a society unpar- alleled in its access to information, have we been bullied into believing that the condition and treatment of our canine companions has no relevance on their fixture behaviors? And how have we become a society so ignorant and terrified of some dogs that we have allowed a wave of panic to sweep through our communities, allowing certain dogs to be banned, muzzled, restricted and killed by the hundreds of thousands in "shelters" across the nation? 171 172 Karen Delise Consider how information about dog attacks has been disseminated over the last century: One hundred years ago —Newspapers provided vivid and often detailed accounts of dog attacks. Emotional and often anthropomorphic terms were used in an attempt to under- stand the factors that caused the dog to attack. Dogs were described as either "vicious by nature" or "caused to be vicious." People were identified at times to be "innocent" victims, or "tormentors" who invited an attack. Dogs were understood to be complex beings react- ing to human behavior. The function and condition of dogs were often included in reports, as they were understood to influence canine behavior. Fifty years ago —Newspapers continued to report dog attacks to be a result of "cause and effect." Although dogs were no longer described in emotional terms, they were still portrayed as sentient beings that reacted to pain, discomfort, or fear. Additionally, many reports of dog attacks conveyed the understanding that aggression was a natural and expected behavior of dogs in certain circumstances. Owners and/or victims were often identified in news reports as exhibiting behaviors (intentionally or unintentionally) that caused the dog to attack. Today —The Pit Bull Paparazzi are our source of information on dog attacks. Like their tabloid celebrity counterparts, The Pit Bull Paparazzi are ever on the alert for any incident involving their high -profile subject, pushing past or ignoring all "low entertainment" attacks, while zooming in on and hyping any incident involving the "high entertainment" Pit bull. Theories about the breed, its history and temperament, are discussed, while details con- cerning the circumstances of the individual dog involved are not reported. Cause and effect, or reasons for the attack, are no longer found in reports, since breed is now recognized as sufficient information to explain aggression. Recently, some politicians have joined in the fray with their own brand of "yellow jour- nalism," touting wild claims about canine behavior of which they know little and seem to care less. In 2005, despite the fact that only one of Canada's 33 documented fatal dog attacks involved any type of dog even remotely resembling a Pit bull, Ontario's Attorney General Michael Bryant began a campaign to rid the providence of Pit bulls. Spouting inane and false claims about Pit bulls and aggression and refusing to consider the testimony of Ontario's own professional canine experts, the Attorney General pushed through legislation banning Pit bulls in the entire providence of Ontario. In addition to the news media and politicians, an unholy trilogy of misinformation has been formed with the Internet. The Internet has allowed for the rare incidents of severe and fatal canine aggression to be transmitted on a global scale, at times generating hun- dreds of sensational headlines from a single episode of aggression, grossly distorting our perceptions as to the dangerousness of dogs and the frequency of attacks. Not only are these The Pit Bull Placebo 173 rare cases instantly accessible, but oftentimes they become retrievable for a seemingly infi- nite amount of time, providing "a permanent record" of selective cases of aggression. The information disseminated about Pit bulls and aggression by the newspapers, politi- cians and the Internet has led many to conclude that the solution to canine aggression is to rid society of the "breeds of dogs found in reported attacks." And, since little to no infor- mation is revealed about the other circumstances contributing to an attack, breed is now found to be the only "constant" in reports of canine aggression. The solution or cure now touted for ridding communities of dangerous dogs is found in the guise of the Pit Bull Placebo. Like the pharmacologically inactive sugar pill dispensed to pla- cate a patient who supposes it to be medicine, eradication of the Pit bull is heralded as the cure for severe dog attacks. However, a placebo is administered solely to appease a per- son's mental duress. In the present day climate of fear and misinformation about Pit bulls and dog attacks, eradication of the Pit bull is the placebo administered to ease the public's mental anxiety. This, of course, does not address the underlying cause of why dogs attack and how they have been allowed access to their victims. Nor does this address why humans feel the need to have dogs that will intimidate, attack, or fight other beings. These factors, recognized for centuries as contributing to canine aggression, are dangerously ignored when a dog attack is deemed to be a product of breed. The distraction of blaming the breed of dog involved in attacks, while ignoring dan- gerous human behaviors, has created a climate of fear towards certain breeds. Paradoxically, this fear of Pit bulls allows us to maintain our sense of well-being because it permits us to believe that canine aggression can be solved without introspection. If we truly believe that the extremely rare cases of fatal dog attacks merit extreme meas- ures in the management of dogs —if our concern and shock is genuine —then we must be equally genuine and sincere in seeking out and addressing the real causes for these inci- dents. Hanging entire breeds of dogs in effigy for the actions of a miniscule percentage of their population, while ignoring the dangerous management practices of their owners, is not an effective or acceptable solution to canine aggression. Portraying two Pit bulls abandoned in the basement of a vacant house that have des- perately resorted to ingesting inedible objects and rat poison as "family dogs" is a grotesque distortion of the human/dog bond. Furthermore, claiming that the agonizing and final behaviors of these suffering animals are proof of the aggressiveness of the breed is a monstrous mischaracterization of canine behavior. Only by acknowledging that a social hysteria has been spawned by the sensational and inaccurate reporting of dog attacks and only by extracting ourselves from the swirl of emo- tion, myths, rumors, and politics of dog attacks can we rationally and effectively address canine aggression in a way that may reduce these attacks. When we put aside our preconceived notions about breed behaviors and investigate the real causes for dog attacks, we come to discover that it was actually the Golden Retriever 174 Karen Delise which initiated the attack against the Pit bull in North Carolina —and it was the Pit bull who received the fractured front leg and severe bites described at the beginning of this chap- ter. Further investigation finds that the Golden Retriever had attacked and injured the Pit bull at the goading and urging of his teenage owner. Had we simply allowed the breed of dog to explain this attack our conclusions would have been a complete misrepresentation of the facts. But the truth is that dog attacks are rarely investigated in such a way that reveal the real reasons why dogs attack. And so we have routinely come to draw totally inaccurate conclusions about canine behavior. These inaccurate assessments often lead to breed -spe- cific legislation which is not only of no value in keeping communities safe, but has caused much anguish to responsible dog owners and has doomed hundreds of thousands of dogs to exile or death. It is long past time for us to rethink our policies about dog attacks and the role humans play in this inter -species relationship. We owe it to the future safety of our children and communities. We owe it to our canine companions. /q� APPENDIX C Denver, • • ••o "Evidence" .. In 1989, the Denver City Council enacted an ordinance making it "unlawful to own, pos- sess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any Pit bull." A "Pit bull" was defined by Denver as "any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the major- ity of physical traits of any one (1) 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." In 2005, Denver's Assistant City Attorney, Kory Nelson, in defending the ban on Pit Bulls in the city and the findings of the court which "found" Pit bulls to be different than other dogs, claimed that there is "only new relevant evidence that adds additional support for breed specific legislation, as the differential treatment of Pit Bulls is based upon logi- cal, rational evidence from the scientific field of ethology" (canine behavior). i The "logical, rational evidence from the scientific field of ethology" that Denver intro- duced and their City Attorney continues to tout as "proof' of the "differentness" of Pit bulls is in reality critically flawed, limited and inaccurate data and is a combination of pseudo - science, anecdotal evidence, media generated hysteria, and unexplainable conclusions drawn from irrelevant data interpreted by those who have little to no knowledge about the "field of ethology." In hearings defending the ban on Pit bulls, Denver presented 15 reasons or "evidence" explaining that, as a group, Pit bulls are different than other breeds of dogs. The trial court, while not believing all of Denver's 15 claims about the "dangerousness" of Pit bulls, did find "evidence" to support the following: (Note: The court's findings are in italics) 1. Biting "The court finds no scientific evidence proving that the biting power of pit bull dogs exceeds that of other dogs. However,, the City did prove that they inflict 191 192 Karen Delise more serious wounds than other breeds. They tend to attack the deep muscles, to hold on, to shake, and to cause ripping of tissues. Pit bull attacks were compared to shark attacks. " The major flaw in all of the conclusions drawn by the court about the behaviors and tem- perament of the Pit bull is the failure to use a significant study population and the use of seriously flawed and inaccurate data presented by the City of Denver as "evidence." Because severe and, to a much larger degree, fatal attacks are relatively rare, and since the focus of most epidemiological studies in the past two decades has been on breed only, there was a scarcity of comprehensive data on the types of injuries other breeds of dogs have inflicted and, as such, no valid comparison could be made between the types of wounds inflicted by Pit bulls versus other breeds of dogs. Shaking, holding and tearing are NOT breed -specific behaviors hey are canine behav- iors. Injury to deep muscles and the ripping of tissue are easily and frequently accomplished by any large dog during the process of a severe attack. The fact is, one cannot examine autopsy reports or autopsy photographs and determine the breed of dog by the injuries inflicted. There are hundreds of examples of grievous, tearing- type injuries inflicted by other breeds of dogs. They were simply not entered into evidence or presented to the court. The shark analogy has been discussed in Chapter 11, but will be addressed here as it was presented by the City of Denver. Denver introduced a plastic surgeon from Arizona to testify as to the specific types of injuries caused by Pit bulls. Despite the fact that this plas- tic surgeon had stated he had personally treated only three non fatal cases of victims attacked by "Pit bulls," he was nevertheless entered into the record as an "expert" witness. To bol- ster his lack of personal experience with victims of Pit bull and shark attacks, this witness then entered into the record the alleged "learned treatise" on the subject of reconstructive surgery in Pit bull attacks printed in a Texas Medicine Report.2 The following claim was read from this study and entered into court record as evidence: "Fourteen of the 20 recorded fatal dog attacks on people between October, 1983, and November, 1986, were from Pit bulls or Pit bull mixes. During the one year period between June 1986 and June 1987, 14 people were killed by dogs in the United States; ten of those 14 deaths are attributed to Pit bulls. Thus, 71 percent of the deaths during that period were attributed to a type of dog that accounts for one percent of the dog population." The fact is that from October 1983 to November 1986, at least 48 people were killed by dogs in the United States (not 20). Of the 28 fatal attacks shockingly absent in this study, 24 were by breeds of dogs other than Pit bulls.3 This degree of statistical error is so signif- icant that it renders any conclusions based on this data invalid. That errors of this magnitude were entered into court records to "prove" the danger- ousness of Pit bulls is highly disturbing. Equally distressing is another claim reported in this study (Texas Medicine Report) and entered into evidence that "Pit bull attacks are like shark attacks." The report states: "Most The Pit Bull Placebo 193 breeds do not repeatedly bite their victims; however, a pit bull attack has been compared to a shark attack and often results in multiple bites and extensive soft -tissue loss." The study cited two sources for this claim: "Prophylactic antibiotics in common dog bite wounds: controlled study" (Annals of Emergency Medicine),4 "The Pit Bull: friend and killer" (Sports Illustrated).5 The first cited source is a detailed medical journal report on the management of dog bite wounds. There is no mention or reference to Pit bulls or sharks anywhere in this study. The second cited source is not a scientific or medical journal study, but an article writ- ten in Sports Illustrated magazine. The only reference to sharks versus Pit bulls is found in a comment by a field officer from a Humane Society when he stated, "A pit bull attack is like a shark attack. He keeps coming back." It hardly needs to be said that a single comment from a single person, quoted in a Sports Illustrated Magazine article, does not qualify as evidence to be used in a scientific journal, nor does it qualify as evidence by which a Court can uphold a claim that Pit bull attacks are "found" to be like shark attacks. 2. Destructiveness "The Court finds that some pit bull type dogs, due to their strength and athletic ability, can damage facilities and equipment. There is a disproportionate number of attacks by chained pit bull dogs which is indicative of their strength. " There is simply no way to explain how the Court could possibly have come to the conclu- sion that being attacked by a chained dog is indicative of strength. It simply is not a reasonable or valid conclusion. The only possible explanation is that they were basing this finding on a chained dog breaking a restraint and then attacking a person (breaking a chain allegedly being indica- tive of strength} —see Finding #7 addressing this. 3. Fighting Ability and killing Instinct "Importantly, there was no evidence that any AKC registered American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or any UKC registered American Pit Bull Terrier was involved in any severe or fatal attack. Nevertheless, the City did prove that unregistered pit bull type dogs were responsible for a disproportionate number of severe or fatal attacks on other dogs and human beings. Credible testimony also proved that, when a pit bull dog begins to fight, it often will not retreat. " 194 Karen Delise Since the data on fatal attacks presented by the City was so significantly flawed and biased (see Finding #1), it is little wonder that Pit bull attacks appeared "disproportionate" to the Court. As for the "often will not retreat" remark, see Finding #4. 4. Frenzy "Many aggressive and vicious dogs can become uncontrollable when excited or challenged. No credible evidence proved that pit bull dogs were more likely to enter a frenzied state than other dogs. However, the evidence proved that once pit bull type dogs do attack, they are less likely to retreat than other dogs. " These two findings of the Court contradict each other. The Court found that Pit bulls are not more likely to become frenzied or uncontrollable than other breeds of dogs, but were less likely to retreat. A frenzied, uncontrollable attack by a dog is highly aberrant and abnor- mal behavior. The very definition of "frenzied" is "wildly uncontrollable or abnormally excessive." What the court is implying is that other breeds behave "normally" during a fren- zied attack and Pit bulls behave "abnormally" during a frenzied attack. Also, how can retreat be defined or measured in a frenzied and uncontrolled attack? At what point in time is retreat during a frenzy determined to be normal versus abnormal? One minute or five minutes after the attack? When the victim stops moving? When the dogs are subjected to other stimuli or interference? None of these components were defined or accounted for, yet the court, nevertheless, concluded that anecdotal evidence presented by the City was sufficient to find that Pit bulls "were less likely to retreat." 5. Manageability "American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, and their mixed breeds can make excellent, gentle pets. Nevertheless, credible testimony proved that proper handling, including early socialization to humans, is very important for these dogs. Even their most ardent admirers agree that these dogs are not for everyone and they require special attention and discipline. The Lockwood study reported that 13.3 percent of pit bull type dogs attacked their owners as compared with 2.2 percent of other dogs. " The study from which these claims are based (Lockwood) did not identify or define the relationship between the "owner" and the dog. Was the owner an abusive owner? Was the dog maintained on a chain 100 feet from the owner's residence? How long did the owner have the dog: 1 day, 1 month or 5 years? These are extremely important details that explain The Pit Bull Placebo 195 behavior and aggression, yet they were not defined, accounted for, or qualified, rendering any conclusions or statistics about aggression towards owners meaningless. The court found that Pit bulls can make "excellent and gentle pets," yet stated it was important for Pit bulls to receive "proper handling and early socialization to humans." If Pit bulls can become excellent and gentle pets with proper handling and socialization, then how is this evidence that the breed is "different" than any other breed? This "finding" of the court about the "manageability" of Pit bulls has been recognized for centuries as the essence of all dogs —it is the very foundation on which thousands of years of dog owner- ship and management have been based. "Proper handling and early socialization to humans" is how all dogs come to be "excellent and gentle pets" and certainly is not a char- acteristic particular to Pit bulls. 6. Strength "Pit bull dogs are stronger than many other dogs. The evidence showed that 42.7 percent of the pit bull type dogs attacked while restrained (Defendants'Exhibit CC and Plaintiff fs'Exhibit 50). " The court came to this totally inaccurate conclusion quoting data that in no way implied or supported this. The statistics used to prove "strength" was a study that stated, "42.7% of Pit bull type dogs attacked while restrained.116 The entire quote from this study reads: "Virtually all the dogs in the cases we studied were owned. A surprising number, however, were restrained at the time of the attack. In the case of pit bull bites, 61 of 143 (42.7%) involved animals that were fenced, chained, or inside prior to the incident. Twenty cases (141/o) involved pit bulls that escaped by jumping fences or breaking chains immediately before the attack. Of the 135 cases involving other breeds, 36 (26.7%) involved restrained animals, but only 1 (0.7%) broke restraint to initiate the attack." The authors of this study did not imply or suggest that this statistic was indicative of strength. The authors of this study defined "restrained" to be "animals that were fenced, chained, or inside prior to the incident." How does 42.7 percent of Pit bulls attacking some- one while fenced, chained or inside a house indicate strength? An equally disturbing possibility is that Denver, and/or the trial court, used the wrong statistic, meaning they should have used the 14% quoted in this study of Pit bulls jumping fences or breaking chains as indicative of strength. But again, this would be an inaccurate and totally baseless conclusion since the type and strength of the "restraint" is not defined and therefore cannot be used as evidence of strength. For example, was the fence these Pit bulls jumped three feet high or five feet high? Did all of these owners use chains with the same thickness and gauge? Did the Pit bull break loose of a bicycle chain or a logging 196 Karen Delise chain? None of these vital qualifiers were taken into account or measured; therefore any conclusions about the strength of any of the dogs in this study are invalid. 7. Unpredictability "The evidence showed that most dog attacks (by all breeds) are unprovoked. However, pit bull dogs, unlike other dogs, often give no warning signals before they attack. " This is simply not true. All information about provocation and warning signals from any breed of dog is anecdotal at best and, at worst, unreliable (see chapters 11, 12, 13). A large majority of victims of dog attacks are very young children. Young children are most fre- quently bitten by d6gs precisely because they are unable to read and understand the warning signals that dogs so often give prior to an attack. Also, in a highly litigious society, both victims and owners are increasingly less than truthful about their involvement or behavior preceding a dog attack, making their testimony about provocation suspicious. Additionally, any cases in which media accounts were used as evidence to support the argument that dog attacks are unprovoked are meaningless, as the media is NOT a credible or impartial source of information on the nature or behavior of dogs involved in attacks. Notes 1. "One City's Experience, Why Pit Bulls Are More Dangerous and Breed -Specific Legislation is Justified." Nelson, Kory A., Municipal Lawyer. July/August 2005, Vol. 46, No. 6, p. 12-15, 29. 2. "Pit Bull Case Report Nurture Review." Viegas, Steven F., Calhoun, Jason H., Mader, Jon. Texas Medicine. Vol. 84; Nov. 1988. (Exhibit KK). 3. "Fatal Dog Attacks: The Stories Behind the Statistics." Delise, Karen. Anubis Publishing, Manorville, NY, 2002. 4. "Prophylactic antibiotics in common dog' bite wounds: controlled study." Callaham, M. Ann Emer Med 9 (8): 410-414, 1980. 5. "The pit bull: friend and killer." Swift, E.M. Sports Illustrated 67: 72-84, 1987. 6. "Are `Pit bulls' Different? An analysis of the Pit Bull Terrier Controversy." Lockwood, R., Rinky, K. 1987 Anthrozoos. Vol.1 No. 1, 1987: pg. 2-8. Denver, • • ••• An Ineffective and Uninformed VM1 After a fatal dog attack in 1986 and a severe dog attack in 1989 in Denver, Colorado, the city/county of Denver enacted a ban against Pit bulls and any dog which may be determined to resemble a Pit bull (the type of dog involved in these two attacks). The city/county of Denver chose to blatantly ignore the dangerous and irresponsible behavior of the owners of these dogs and instead placed the blame for these attacks squarely on the back of a "breed of dog." Not addressed by their breed -specific legislation was how these dogs had access to their victims, nor was the maintenance, function, condition or history of the dogs and their owners considered relevant. An examination of Appendices A and B demonstrates that the breeds of dogs involved in severe and fatal attacks change over the decades. A serious analysis of severe and fatal attacks reveals that while the breeds change, many of the circumstances surrounding these attacks are seen with remarkable consistency throughout the last 150 years. The factors which contribute to canine aggression and have been found consistently in cases of fatal dog attacks over the past century are: • Dogs obtained and maintained for negative functions —This includes dogs obtained for fighting, guarding, and protection, dogs used for intimidation or as status symbols, and dogs being bred for financial gain. • Failure of owners to humanely care for and control their dogs —This includes owners who maintain dogs on chains or allow dogs to run loose, owners who fail to socialize, train and supervise their dogs, owners who abuse or neglect their dogs, and owners who allow or encourage their dogs to behave aggressively. • Young unsupervised children and dogs —This includes newborns left alone with dogs, young children allowed to interact with unfamiliar dogs or children allowed to play with multiple resident dogs (pack) without adult supervision. • Reproductive status of dog —This includes intact animals actively used for breeding, bitches guarding puppies, pregnant bitches, and intact males in the vicinity of a female dog in estrus. 197 198 Karen Delise In the decade from 1966-1975, fewer than 2% of all dogs involved in fatal attacks in the United States were of the breeds which today are targeted so frequently as the solution to canine aggression (Pit bull or Rottweiler). However, one or more of the critical factors listed above were evidenced in over 90% of the fatal attacks during these years. An Examination of Fatal Dog Attacks —Colorado, ] 963-2006 1963—Boulder An unsupervised 2-year-old boy was attacked and killed by one of two chained Husky dogs in the backyard of a duplex where he lived. The owner of the dogs had gone on a three- day fishing trip and left the dogs unattended without food or water. 1977 Breckenridge The owners of three dogs responsible for killing a 6-year old girl were charged with Crim- inally Negligent Homicide. The girl was walking to a friend's home when the dogs, a St. Bernard, Norwegian elkhound and German shepherd/Husky mix, attacked her, biting her repeatedly. A man caring for the dogs while one owner was out of town was also charged with Criminally Negligent Homicide as the dogs were off the property when they attacked the girl. 1985—Littleton A five -year -old boy was killed by his babysitter's Doberman Pincher. The intact, male dog mauled the child while he was playing with the dog. 1986—Denver An unsupervised 3-year-old boy was attacked and killed when he wandered away from home and over to a chained, intact female Pit bull. The owner of the dog had previously been sued, charged and was on probation after another one of his dogs severely bit an 8-year- old child three years previously. Since he'was unable to pay the medical bills of the previous victim, the civil suit against him was dropped. Undaunted by his inability to meet his finan- cial and moral responsibility to the previous victim of one of his dogs, this owner proceeded to obtain additional dogs and maintain them in an environment which invited aggression (intact, chained, unsocialized, etc). One of these dogs would later be the dog responsible for the attack on the unsupervised 3-year-old child. Instead of instituting laws to severely penalize or punish owners such as this who repeat- edly obtain dogs, breed these dogs, and maintain these animals in a condition in which they have the ability and opportunity to attack children, Denver opted to ban the breed of dog. The Pit Bull Placebo 199 1990—Arapahoe County A 4-year-old boy wandered out of his house and was killed by a neighbor's loose roaming dog. The male dog was identified to be either a Chow/Malamute mix or a Malamute. The dog was maintained primarily as a chained or outside dog. The owner was charged with letting a dog run loose and harboring a vicious animal. 1994—Northglenn A woman had borrowed a 120-1b. male Rottweiler from a friend for protection. Two days later her 5-year-old daughter was playing on a swing in the backyard when the dog "snatched her from the swing, and shook her like a rag doll." Only later was it discovered that the intact, male dog had a history of aggression and previously attacked another child in 1993. 1996—Black Forest Two wolf hybrids attacked and killed their caretaker, a 39-year-old woman. The woman was attempting to get them back into a pen when the dogs turned on her and killed her. The wolf dogs were a male and female used for breeding and kept in outside pens. The woman was dragged over 1/10 of a mile by the animals as they continued their attack. 1998—Lakewood A neutered, male Rott/Mastiffmix attacked and killed a 21-month old boy, as the child was crawling on the floor towards his father, seated on the couch. This fatal attack is the rare "exception to the rule" in which the parents/owners had neutered the dog, had it obedience trained and maintained the dog as a household pet. Additionally, unlike most fatal attacks, the child and dog were in the presence of supervising adults at the time of the attack. 2003—Ebert County Three loose roaming intact Pit bulls attacked and killed a 40-year-old woman in her barn. These dogs and their owners were well known in the community due to previous aggres- sive episodes involving the dogs and the owners repeatedly allowing these (and other dogs) to roam the area, harassing and attacking other beings. One neighbor had previously sus- tained a very severe bite to her leg from dogs alleged to belong to these owners. The female owner was convicted of owning dangerous dogs resulting in a death, and received a 6-year prison sentence. The male owner of these dogs fled the jurisdiction, was a suspect in a mur- der case in another state and was finally apprehended in 2005. 2005—Fruita A 7-year-old girl was attacked and killed after her mother left her in the yard alone with newly acquired male and female Malamutes. It is believed only the male attacked the girl and the child was dead when the mother re-emerged from the house a few minutes later. M Karen Delise An examination of fatal attacks in the state of Colorado reveals that not only are these incidents incredibly rare (10 fatal attacks in the state over a 45-year period, 1962-2006), but they involve complex human and canine behaviors. Denver's approach to the first documented fatal attack in the state of Colorado by a Pit bull -type dog was to ban the breed. There was no examination or discussion of previous fatal attacks in Colorado or the critical role owners play in allowing their dogs to behave aggressively. Denver chose to criminalize a breed of dog rather than enact laws that would impose strict penalties to control the behavior of dangerous dog owners. CHAPTER 1 1. "Terrific Encounter," Bangor Daily Whig and Courier, January 2, 1883. pg. 2. 2. "A Dog Attacks His Master," The Washington Post, February 9, 1888. pg. 1. 3. "Bitten by a Mad Dog," New York Times, July 27, 1893. pg. 5. 4. "A Child Terribly Mangled by a Dog," New York Times, June 14, 1874. pg. 7. 5. Fort Wayne Sentinel, June 4, 1879. pg. 3. 6. Newark Daily Advocate, April 12, 1889. pg. 3. 7. The Newark Advocate, January 30, 1902. pg. 1. 8. "Bloodhounds for Apaches," The Washington Post, February 28, 1892. pg. 10. 9. General Court Martial Orders No. 607. War Department, Adjutant -General's Office, Washington, November 6, 1865. Court Martial of Henry Wirz-Charges and Specifications. 10. `Bloodhounds are Bought," Perry Daily Chief, February 22, 1903. pg. 2. 11. "A Lovely Father," Olean Weekly Democrat, January 9, 1894. pg. 4. 12. "Mangled by a Dog," New York Times, May 27, 1888. pg. 3. 13. `Boy Torn by Savage Hounds," The Washington Post, June 8, 1903. pg. 1. 14. "Saved by Dog," The Daily Courier, August 3, 1907. pg. 1. 15. The Hornellsville Tribune, April 2, 1875. pg. 2. 16. "Savagely Attacked by his Dog," New York Times, June 15, 1885. pg. 2. 17. The Massillon Independent, August 5, 1887. pg. 1. 18. "Devoured by Wild Dogs," The Washington Post, February 16, 1892. pg. 6. CHAPTER 2 1. "The True Bloodhound," Denton Journal, June 30, 1888. pg. 4. 2. "Hunted with Bloodhounds," The Davenport Daily Leader, November 2, 1891. pg. 2. 3. "Molosser Dogs" (www.molosserdogs.com). 4. "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (Brevisima relacion de la destruccion de las Indias)" Bartolome de las Casas, 1552. 5. Dogs of the Conquest. John Grier Vamer and Jeannette Johnson Varner. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 1983. 6. "The Horrors of Slavery and England's Duty to Free the Bondsman: An Address Delivered in Taunton, England, on September 1, 1846," Frederick Douglass. Somerset County Gazette, September 5, 1846. 7. "A Terribly Brutal Scene: Fight Between a Professional Sport and a Siberian Bloodhound," The Washington Post, December 25, 1879. pg. 1. 8. "A Siberian Bloodhound Killed," New York Times, March 24, 1882. pg. 3. 9. "Attacked by a Bloodhound," New York Rmes, January 30, 1900. pg. 3. 10. "Peasant is Tom to Death by Savage Bloodhounds," Special cable to The Washington Post, November 18, 1906. pg. F5. 201 202 Karen Delise 11. Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class. Lott, Eric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993 (Chapter 8: "Uncle Tomitudes: Racial Melodrama and Modes of Production," p. 211-233). 12. "Life and Times of Actress EJ Phillips (1880s & 1890s): Her dramatic career, cross-country travels, family life, Golden Age of the American Theatre & Arrival of the 20th Century." Em Turner, Nickinson Kuhl and Mary Glen Kuhl Chitty (http://home.comcast.net/-m.cbitty/index.html). 13. `Bloodhounds Attack Woman," New York Times, September 23, 1898. pg. 2. 14. "Wicked Dogs," New York Times: New York City, April 6, 1855. pg. 1. 15. The Florida Historical Quarterly: "Cuban Bloodhounds and the Seminoles," James W. Covington. Volume XXXIII, No. 2, October 1954. CHAPTER 3 1. "A Dog's Revenge," Fort Wayne Sentinel, November 8, 1890. pg. 1. 2. `Boy Killed by a Dog," The Washington Post, December 26, 1893. pg. 3. 3. "Hoboken Terrorized," New York Times, July 30, 1889. pg. 2. 4. "Mad Dog's Desperate Attack," The Daily Advocate, June 12, 1894. 5. "No Hydrophobia," New York Times, July 25, 1887. pg. 4. 6. "Attacked by Dog Team, Woman Dies in 2 Days," Special to the New York Times, April 29, 1925. pg. 3. 7. "Devil Dogs of Labrador," The Washington Post, September 20, 1908. pg. M4. 8. "The Dogs of Labrador," The Chronicle, January 29, 1903. pg. 7. 9. "Dog Pack Attack: Hunting Humans," Simon P. Avis. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 20(3): 243-246, 1999. CHAPTER 4 1. "Young Boys Attacked by a Dog," New York Times, December 13, 1891. pg. 2. 2. "Mutilated by a Dog," New York Times, May 1, 1893. pg. 8. 3. `Boy and Girl Bitten When Collie Runs Amuck," Indianapolis Star, May 2, 1915. 4. "Bitten by Dog," Fitchburg Daily Sentinel, March 29, 1910. pg. 2. 5. "Boy is Bitten 30 Times by Collie," Oakland Tribune, June 8, 1913. 6. "Child Bitten by a Dog," New Oxford Item, November 16, 1916. pg. 1. 7. "St. Bernard Dogs Termed a Menace: Swiss Doctor Says Penning -up and Cross -Breeding Have Ruined Their Tempers; Urges Their Banishment," New York Times, July 18, 1937. pg. N2. 8. "Bernard Dogs Reprieved After One Kills Child," The Washington Post, June 8, 1937. 9. "Child Attacked by a Dog," New York Times, June 29, 1901. pg. 2. 10. `Baby Killed by Dog," The Washington Post, February 4, 1909. pg. 3. 11. "Boy Bitten Twelve Times by Dog in Saving His Sister," Syracuse Herald, May 3, 1925. 12. "Man Attacked by Wild Dog," New Oxford Times, February 24, 1921. pg. 10. 13. "Dog Attacks Its Mistress," Reno Evening Gazette, April 10, 1931. pg. 10. 14. "Dog Meat at $125 a Pound," Gettysburg Times, June 21, 1918. 15. "Terribly Mangled by Dogs," New York Times, April 23, 1884. pg. 5. 16. "Dead, Tom by Her Dog," The Washington Post, March 12, 1910. 17. "Attacked by Dogs, Boy Dies," New York Times, August 18, 1917. pg. 5. 18. "Attacked and Slain by Hungry Dogs," New York Times, February 23, 1926. pg. 25. The Pit Bull Placebo 203 CHAPTER 5 1. "Girl Mangled by a Pet Dog," New York Times, October 27, 1897. pg. 4. 2. "Attacked by Starving Dog," Newark Daily Advocate, February 19, 1885. 3. "Mangled by Mastiffs," The Washington Post, September 7, 1891. pg. 1. 4. "Torn by a Fierce Dog," Daily Nevada State Journal, September 26, 1905. pg. 1. 5. Evening Observer (from the Boston Globe), July 21, 1884. pg. 3. CHAPTER 6 1. "Brave Bulldog Saves Twenty Women," The Washington Post, July 31, 1907. pg. 1. 2. "Settled in One Round," The Lima Daily Times, July 18, 1889. pg. 1. 3. "Faithful Bulldog Copper Patrols Georgetown Beat," The Washington Post, August 26, 1906. 4. "Woman's Battle with Dog," New York Times, January 19, 1905. pg. 1. 5. The Davenport Democrat, August 7, 1924. pg. 1. 6. New York limes, August 20, 1905. 7. "Killed by Dog She Beat," The Washington Post, February 14, 1907. pg. 1. 8. "Dog's Bite May Kill," The Washington Post, August 4, 1909. pg. 1. 9. "Canines," Semi -Weekly Age, January 20, 1888. pg. 1. 10. `Bulldog Losing Character," Special Cable to the New York Times, November 10, 1912. pg. C2. 11. `Bulldog Saves Life of Boy Playmate," Oakland Tribune, October 25, 1919. CHAPTER 7 1. "The News of the Week," The New Era, October 27, 1887. pg. 1. 2. "A Dog Kills His Master," The Wellsboro Agitator, September 2, 1903. pg. 1. 3. `Boy Killed When Attacked by Dogs," Bismarck Tribune, April 13, 1928. pg. 10. 4. The Washington Post, July 13, 1945. pg. 5. 5. "Police Dogs," New York Times, July 20, 1924. pg. XX13. 6. The Bismarck Tribune, February 20, 1930. CHAPTER 8 1. "Watchdogs for Chief Executives," Daily Northwestern, May 27, 1929. 2. "Gold Medal Voted, Dog That Killed Rattler, Saving Baby," Syracuse Herald, August 3, 1932. 3. `Baron, Seeing -Eye Dog, is Adopted as Family Member," Sheboygan Press, October 29, 1952. pg. 25. ' 4. "Two Dogs Attack and Kill Mistress," Special cable to the New York Times, June 3, 1955. pg.46 5. "Woman Owner Bitten to Death by Prize Doberman in Jersey," New York Times, March 20, 1960. pg. 50 6. Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama: The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution. Diane McWhorter. Simon & Schuster, 2001. 7. "Interview with Diane McWhorter," Jerry Jazz Musician, July 25, 2002 (www.j erryjazzmuscian.com). M Karen Delise CHAPTER 9 1. "Increase in Dog Bites Linked to Ghetto Growth," Evening Bulletin, June 26, 1974. 2. "Dog Bites: Surgeon's Warning," Evening Bulletin, May 14, 1978. CHAPTER 10 1. "Pit Bulls: Months of Hysteria Lead to a Distorted Response," Detroit Free Press, August 10, 1987. 2. "Father Held in Tot's Death after Telling Pit Bull Story," San Jose Mercury News. June 19, 1987. 3. "A Boy and his Dog in Hell," Sager M. Rolling Stone, July 2, 1987. pg. 39-40, 62-65. 4. "Beware of This Dog," Swift, E.M. Sports Illustrated, July 27, 1987. pg. 72-84 5. "Time Bomb on Legs," Time, July 27, 1987. 6. "An Instinct for the Kill," People Weekly, July 7, 1987. 7. "Dog Attack Leaves 5-year-old girl with 120 stitches," The Boston Globe, August 19, 1989. 8. "Dog Bite -Related Fatalities From 1979 Through 1988." Sacks JJ, Sattin RW, Bono SE., JAMA 1989; 262: 1489-1492. 9. `Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States between 1979-1998." Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab Q Lockwood R., JAMMA Vol. 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000. 10. "A community approach to dog bite prevention." AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human -Canine Interactions. JAVMA., 200.1 218: 1732-1749. 11. "Canine aggression toward people: bite scenarios and prevention." Wright, JC. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract, 1991; 21: 299-314. CHAPTER 11 1. Ontario Superior Court of Justice Affidavit of Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Senior Research Scientist Emeritus with the University of Georgia. 2. "Mauling by Pit Bull Terriers: Case Report." Baack, B.R., Kucan, J.O., Demarest, G, Smoot, E.C. Journal of Trauma, Vol. 29, No. 4. 517-520, 1989. 3. "Dog bites in children: Epidemiology, microbiology, and penicillin prophylactic therapy." Boenning, D.A., Fleisher, G.R., Campos, J.M. Am. J. Emerg. Med., 1: 17 21, 1983. 4. "Dangerous Encounters: Bite Force." Dr. Brady Barr. National Geographic. August 18, 2005. 5. Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Senior Research Scientist Emeritus with the University of Georgia. 6. "New York Police Remove 400-pound Tiger from Housing Project," New York Daily News, October 4, 2003. 7. "Keep the Pit Bull Ban -and Put Some Bite in It," The Washington Post, October 2, 2005. 8. The Jaws of Death. Xavier Maniguet. Crescent Books, Avenel, New Jersey, 1996 (Chapter 3: An Extraordinary Machine, pg. 45- 47). 9. ReefQuest Centre for Shark Research, R. Aidan Martin, Director (www.elasmo- research.org). 10. "Alderman Wants to Ban City's Pit Bulls," Chicago Sun -Times, December 1, 2005. 11. The Hornellsville Tribune, April 2, 1875. pg. 2. 12. Of the two victims reported to have been killed by Pit bulls: Autopsy results listed one victim's death as caused by cardiac arrhythmia (unrelated to dog bites), the other cause of death was from blunt force trauma (the result of an assault by a human during a robbery The Pit Bull Placebo 205 attempt). The victim reported to have been killed by a Rottweiler: Autopsy determined the manner of death to be "natural" with the cause of death as "atherosclerosis, cardiac disease and chronic liver disease." National Canine Research Council (www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com). 13. "Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998." Sacks, JJ., Sinclair, L., Gilchrist, J., Golab, G., Lockwood, R., JAMVA, Vol 217, No. 6. September 2000. 14. The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), 2002. 15. "A Nation's Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the United States." U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington D.C. 16. Daily News, September 20, 2004. 17. Toledo Blade, January 12, 2003. 18. Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 38th Legislative, 1st Session. Bill 132, Second Reading, November 15, 2004. CHAPTER 12 1. "Mobile Man Convicted of Dog -fighting, wife acquitted," Tuscaloosa News, March 19, 2005. 2. The Anti -Cruelty Society, Chicago, Illinois (www anticrueltyorg). 3. "Dog Fighting Detailed Discussion," Hanna Gibson. Animal Legal and Historical Center. Michigan State University College of Law, 2005 (www animallaw info). CHAPTER 13 1. "Patient Dog Bitten 6 Times by Boy, 2," Evening Bulletin, April 21, 1971. 2. `Boy, 11, Braves Pet Dog's Bites to Free Him from Steel Trap," Evening Bulletin, December 29, 1948. 3. "Hot Popcorn Hits Family Dog, Children Bitten," Evening Bulletin, May 1, 1972. 4. "Policeman Steps on Police Dog, Is Bitten on Leg," Evening Bulletin, February 23, 1968. 5. "Dog Kills Owner in Trying Rescue," Syracuse Herald Journal, March 23, 1950. 6. Red Zone: The Behind -the -Scenes Story of the San Francisco Dog Mauling. Aphrodite Jones. HatperCollins, N.Y., 2003. 7. Death of an Angel: The Inside Story of How Justice Prevailed in the San Francisco Dog - mauling Case, Joseph Harrington. Quantum Entertainment, June 2002. 8. Morris Daily Herald, November 8, 2005. 9. `Elderly Man Narrowly Escapes Pit Bull Attack," KGO-TV (ABC 7 News), June 23, 2005. 10. "Pit Bull Traps Boy, 4, on Car Roof," Courier Journal, November 22, 2005. 11. "Two Teenagers Escape Serious Injury After Pit Bull Attack near Hanover," The Citadel, November 14, 2005. 12. WorldNow and WTVO, Channel 17 News: April 14, 2003, April 15, 2003, April 29, 2003. 13. "Pit Bull Angers Resident," Herald News, January 8, 2005. 14. The Reporter, December 20, 2005. 15. "Fed -up Alderman Wants to Rid City of Pit Bulls," Chicago Sun -Times, January 15, 2004. 206 CHAPTER 14 Karen Delise 1. APPMA Advisor, Quarterly Newsletter, National Pet Owners Survey. American Pet Products Manufacturers Association. May 2005/Issue 6. 2. "CPSC Warns about Pool Hazards, Reports 250 Deaths on Young Children Annually." U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004. Release #04-142. Pets/Pit Bulls/Human-animal communication $24.95 THE HUMAN -CANINE BOND AT RISK First it was the Bloodhound, sensationalized in the dramatizations of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Then it was the Doberman, the symbol of Nazi cruelty. Today, it is the Pit Bull that is vilified for the depravity of his master. Sensationalized reports by the Pit Bull Paparazzi sow fertile ground for politicians to promote breed -ban placebos, which offer no solution to rare cases of extreme canine aggression. Karen Delise's groundbreaking history of society's response to canine aggression pulls away the fear frenzy sweeping the country. Americans have abandoned common sense and allowed their perceptions of canine behavior to be dictated by those who traffic in myths and pseudo - science. We have reached a critical divide on the road where men and dogs have traveled together. Do we accept breed -ban placebos and risk losing our most rewarding and profound interspecies relationship, or do we step forward and take responsibility for our dogs? "Delise provides common-sense solutions for public safety and sheds light on current media bias involved in the reporting of dog attacks. A compelling and thorough analysis of reckless owners and dangerous dogs in America. A must -read for any public official concerned with increasing public safety." "Delise's exhaustively researched, often riveting account of how America's most respected dog became its most reviled takes us beyond the pitiable plight of the Pit Bull. It goes to the heart of the storied bond between dogs and humans and the ways the latter often corrupts it for their own craven purposes. By dispelling common misperceptions about certain dog breeds, Delise successfully shifts the onus for problem dog behaviors back to where it should be: squarely on us." "An eye-opening look at how media portrayals of dog attacks have changed, through the lens of newspaper reports sampled over more than a century and a half. Delise has uncovered a profound change in our cultural perception of dog aggression." About the Author ISBN 10: 0-9721914-1-0 $24.95 Karen Delise is the founder of the National Canine ISBN 13: 978-0-9721914-1-8 nuiu�nin�1111�1Ill1111111 Research Council and is a New York state-IicensE 5 7 4 9 5 veterinary technician. The nation's leading expert on fat Compliments of dog attacks, she is also the author of Fatal Dog Attack National Canine Research Council The Stories Behind the Statistics. www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com -'Ia L%11 V. / V 1V V1Uri 1\LV VLA 11VlY r agv 1 Vl J Chapter 6.76 NOISE REGULATION - Sections: 6.76.010 Declaration of policy. 6.76.020 Definitions.. 6.76.030 Identification of environments. J6,040, Maximum permissible environmental noise levels. 6.761.050 Exemptions. 6.76.060 Public nuisance and disturbance noises. 76.070 Motor vehicle noise levels. 6.76.080 Variances. 6.76.090 Penalty for violation. 6.76.010 Declaration of policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the city of Marysville to minimize the exposure of citizens to the harmful, physiological and psychological effects of excessive noise. It is the express intent of the city to control the level of noise in a manner which promotes commerce, the use, value and enjoyment of property, sleep and repose, and the quality of the environment. (Ord. 1419 § 1, 1985). 6.76.020 Definitions. All technical terminology used in this chapter, not otherwise defined, shall be interpreted in conformance with Chapters 173-60 and 173-62 WAC. The following words and phrases shall have the meanings indicated below: (1) "dBA" means the sound pressure level in decibels measured using the "A" weighting network on a sound level meter. The sound pressure level, in decibels, of a sound is 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound to a reference pressure of 20 micropascals. (2) "EDNA" means the environmental designation for noise abatement, being an area or zone (environment) within which maximum permissible noise levels are established. (3) "Noise" means the intensity, duration and character of sounds, from any and all sources. (4) "Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, governmental body, state agency or other entity whatsoever. (5) "Property boundary" means the surveyed line at ground surface, which separates the real property owned, rented, or leased by one or more persons, from that owned, rented, or leased by one or more other persons, and its vertical extension. (6) "Receiving property" means real property within which the maximum permissible noise levels specified herein shall not be exceeded from sources outside such property. (7) "Sound level meter" means a device which measures sound pressure levels and conforms to Type 1 or Type 2 as specified in the America National Standards Institute Specification S1.4-1971. (Ord. 1419 § 2, 1985). 6.76.030 Identification of environments. (1) Class A EDNA. Lands where human beings reside and sleep, including all properties in the city which are zoned and single-family residential or multiple -family residential classifications. (2) Class B EDNA. Lands involving uses requiring protection against noise interference with speech, including all properties in the city which are zoned in neighborhood business, community business, general commercial and freeway service classifications. (3) Class C EDNA. Lands involving economic activities of such a nature that higher http ://www. codepublishing. com/wa/marysville/html/Marysville06lMarysvilleO676.html 8/20/2009 vll(.6�J {.VL V./Vl\V11JL 1WVVLL 111VL\ 1 0.'%, /- Vl J noise levels than experienced in other areas is normally to be anticipated. Persons working in these areas are normally covered by noise control regulations of the Department of Labor and Industries. Such areas shall include all properties in the city which are zoned in light industrial and general industrial classifications. (Ord. 1419 § 3, 1985). 6.76.040 Maximum permissible environmental noise levels. No person shall cause or permit noise to intrude into the property of another person which noise exceeds the maximum permissible noise level set forth in WAC 173-60-040, which section is hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 1419 § 4, 1985). 6.76.050 Exemptions. The exemptions to the maximum permissible environmental noise levels set forth in WAC 173-60-050 are hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 1419 § 5, 1985). 6.76.060 Public nuisance and disturbance noises. It is unlawful for any person to cause, or for any person in possession of property to allow to originate from said property, sound that is a public nuisance. The following sources of sound are defined to be public nuisances, except to the extent that they may be specifically exempted by other provisions of this chapter: (1) Frequent, repetitive or continuous noise made by any animal which unreasonably disturbs or interferes with peace, comfort and repose of property owners or possessors, except that such sounds shall be exempt when originating from lawfully operated animal shelters, kennels, pet shops, and veterinary clinics; (2) The frequent, repetitive or continuous sounding of any horn or siren attached to a motor vehicle, except as a warning of danger or as specifically permitted or required by law; (3) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous noise in connection with the starting, operation, repair, rebuilding, or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off - highway vehicle, or internal combustion engine within Class A EDNA, so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace, comfort and repose of owners or possessors of real property; (4) Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time and place so as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with peace, comfort and repose of owners or possessors of real property; (5) The use of a sound amplifier or other device capable of producing or reproducing amplified sound on public streets for the purpose of commercial advertising or sales or for attracting the attention of the public to any vehicle, structure or property or the contents therein, except that vendors whose sole method of selling is from a moving vehicle shall be exempt from this subsection; (6) The making of any loud and raucous noise which unreasonably interferes with the use of any school, church, hospital, sanitarium, nursing or convalescent facility; (7) The creation of frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds which emanate from any building, structure, apartment, or condominium which unreasonably interferes with the peace, comfort and repose of owners or possessors of real property, such as sounds from musical instruments, audio sound systems, band sessions, or social gatherings; (8) Sound from motor vehicle audio systems, such as tape players, radios, and compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 75 feet from the source, and if not operated upon the property of the operator; (9) Sound from audio equipment, such as tape players, radios and compact disc players, operated at a volume so as to be audible greater than 75 feet from the source, and if not operated upon the property of the operator; and (10) The foregoing provisions shall not apply to regularly scheduled events at parks such as public address systems for baseball games or park concerts. (Ord. 1958 § 1, http://www. codepublishing. com/wa/marysville/html/Marysville06lMarysville0676.html 8/20/2009 1993; Ord. 1419 § 6, 1985). 6.76.070 Motor vehicle noise levels. (1) Noise Standards; Violations. No person shall operate any motor vehicle or any combination of such vehicles upon any public highway in violation of standards specified in WAC 173-62-060(1) through (4), which section is hereby adopted by reference. For purposes of this chapter, "public highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every road, street, alley, lane, boulevard, parking lot, and every way or place in the city, whether publicly or privately maintained, when any part thereof is open at any time to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic. (2) Exemptions. The exemptions to motor vehicle noise as stated in WAC 173-62-040 are hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 1419 § 7, 1985). 6.76.080 Variances. (1) The board of adjustment shall have authority to grant variances from the requirements of this chapter. Variance procedures specified in Chapter 19.44 MMC shall apply. The application fee shall be $50.00. (2) Variances may be granted to any person from any particular requirement of this chapter, if findings are made by the board of adjustment that immediate compliance with such requirement cannot be achieved because of special circumstances rendering immediate compliance unreasonable in light of economic or physical factors, encroachment upon an existing noise source, or because of non availability of feasible technology or control methods. Any such variance, or renewal thereof, shall be granted only for the minimum time period found to be necessary under the facts and circumstances. (3) An implementation schedule for achieving compliance with this chapter shall be incorporated into any variance issued. (Ord. 1419 § 8, 1985). 6.76.090 Penalty for violation. (1) Motor Vehicle Offenses. All offenses defined in this chapter relating to the operation of motor vehicles, including specifically a violation of MMC 6.76.060(8), shall constitute traffic infractions, and a violator shall be civilly liable for a monetary penalty as specified in MMC 1.1.04.090. (2) Other Noise Offenses. All other noise offenses defined in this chapter shall constitute misdemeanors, and a violation shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000. (3) Separate Offenses. Each day for which a violation continues, or is repeated, shall constitute a separate offense. (4) Supplement to Other Laws. The provisions of this chapter, and the penalties provided herein, shall be cumulative and nonexclusive, and shall not affect any other claim, cause of action, or remedy provided in the Marysville Municipal Code or by common law. (Ord. 2255 § 1, 1999; Ord. 1419 § 9, 1985). This page of the Marysville Municipal Code is current City Website: http://www.marysvillewa.gov through Ordinance 2785, passed July 27, 2009. City Telephone: (360) 363-8085 Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Code Publishing Company Marysville Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Email: CPC@codepublishing.com Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/marysville/html/MarysvilleO6/MarysvilleO676.html 8/20/2009 . ur=,- . MX fi tJ 7 How To Use This Site ( About Us Contact Us Search 1 Rl 'rz E Legislature Horne Senate ( House of Representatives Print Version I No esta disponible en espanol 1 Inside the Legislature WACs > Title 173 > Chapter 173-60 > Section 173-60-050 Find Your Legislator 173-60-040 « 17- -050 » 173-60-060 Visiting the Legislature 0-00 No agency filings affecting this section since 2003 Agendas, Schedules anExemptions. Calendars all be exempt from the provisions of WAC 173-60-040 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. Bill Information and 10:00 p.m.: Laws and Agency Rules (a) Sounds originating from residential property relating to temporary projects for the maintenance or Legislative Committees repair of homes, grounds and appurtenances. Legislative Agencies (b) Sounds created by the discharge of firearms on authorized shooting ranges. Legislative Information Center (c) Sounds created by blasting. E-mail Notifications (Listserv) (d) Sounds created by aircraft engine testing and maintenance not related to flight operations: Provided, hat aircraft testing and maintenance shall be conducted at remote sites whenever possible. Students' Page History of the State (e) Sounds created by the installation or repair of essential utility services. Legislature (2) The following shall be exempt from the provisions of WAC 173-60-040 (2)(b): Outside the Legislature (a) Noise from electrical substations and existing stationary equipment used in the conveyance of water, waste water, and natural gas by a utility. Congress - the Other Washington (b) Noise from existing industrial installations which exceed the standards contained in these regulations TV Washington and which, over the previous three years, have consistently operated in excess of 15 hours per day as a Washington Courts consequence of process necessity and/or demonstrated routine normal operation. Changes in working hours, which would affect exemptions under this regulation, require approval of the department. OFM Fiscal Note Website (3) The following shall be exempt from the provisions of WA 173 60-040, kept insofar as such provisions relate to the reception of noise within Class A EDNAs nhe hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 d :00 a. m. Access Washingtono (a)Soundsoriginating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity. JeF-..ndia. .r s.w .e its enw 42i. (b) Sounds originating from forest harvesting and silvicultural activity. (4) The following shall be exempt from all provisions of WAC 173-60-040: -e (a) Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by chapter 173-62 WAC. b Sounds originatingfrom aircraft in flight and sounds that originate at air airports which are direct) related () 9p Y to flight operations. (c) Sounds created by surface carriers engaged in interstate commerce by railroad. (d) Sounds created by warning devices not operating continuously for more than five minutes, or bells, chimes, and carillons. - w i (e) Sounds created by safety and protective devices where noise suppression would defeat the intent of the device or is not economically feasible. � (f) Sounds created by emergency equipment and work necessary in the interests of law enforcement or / for health safety or welfare of the community. (g) Sounds originating from motor vehicle racing events at existing authorized facilities. j ( (h) Sounds originating from officially sanctioned parades and other public events. (i) Sounds emitted from petroleum refinery boilers during startup of said boilers: Provided, That the ._startup operation is performed during daytime hours whenever possible. Q) Sounds created by the discharge of firearms in the course of hunting. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-60-050 8/20/2009 P�L1li 1 /J-VV-VJ V. LAVlllt/t1"' i Qr'V L. Vl L (k) Sounds caused by natural phenomena and unamplified human voices. (1) Sounds created by motor vehicles, licensed or unlicensed, when operated off public highways EXCEPT when such sounds are received in Class A EDNAs. (m) Sounds originating from existing natural gas transmission and distribution facilities. However, in circumstances where such sounds impact EDNA Class A environments and complaints are received, the director or his designee may take action to abate by application of EDNA Class C source limits to the facility under the requirements of WAC 173-60-050(5). (6) Nothing in these exemptions is intended to preclude the department from requiring installation of the best available noise abatement technology consistent with economic feasibility. The establishment of any such requirement shall be subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.04 RCW. (Statutory Authority: Chapter 70.107 RCW. 94-12-001 (Order 92-41), § 173-60-050, filed 5/18/94, effective 6/18194; 83-15-046 (Order DE 82-42), § 173-60-050, filed 7/19/83; Order DE 77-1, § 173-60-050, filed 6/2/77; Order 75-18, § 173-60-050, filed 811175; Order 74-32, § 173-60-050, filed 4/22/75, effective 9/1/75.] Glossary of Terms I Comments about this site I Privacy Notice I Accessibility Information I Disclaimer http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=l 73-60-050 8/20/2009 �T�acoma Municipal Code Chapter 8.06 AIRCRAFT Sections: 8.06.010 Definitions. 8.06.020 Exemptions - Government aircraft and aircraft licensed by foreign country. 8.06.030 Minimum height limitations. 8.06.040 Operators to be licensed. 8.06.050 Reckless operation - Under influence of narcotics or liquor. 8.06.060 Federal Aviation Administration traffic rules. 8.06.070 Acrobatics prohibited. 8.06.080 Landing at other than established airport. 8.06.085 Special permits - Authorized by City Manager. 8.06.090 Lights required for night flying. 8.06.100 Unnecessary noise prohibited. 8.06.110 Dropping objects from aircraft prohibited. 8.06.120 Loud -speaking devices prohibited. 8.06.130 Severability. 8.06.140 Violation - Penalties. 8.06.010 Definitions. "Aircraft," as used in this chapter, means any airplane, gas bag, flying machine, balloon, or any contrivance now known or hereafter invented, used or designated for navigation of flight in air, except a parachute or other contrivance used primarily as safety equipment. "Acrobatic flying," as used herein, means any intentional airplane maneuver or stunt not necessary to air navigation, or operation of aircraft in such manner as to endanger human life or safety by the performance of unusual or dangerous maneuvers. (Ord. 13177 § 1; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.020 Exemptions - Government aircraft and aircraft licensed by foreign country. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to public aircraft of the Federal government, or of a state, or territory, or of a political subdivision of a state or territory, or to aircraft licensed by a foreign country with which the United States has a reciprocal agreement covering operation of such aircraft. (Ord. 13177 § 2; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.030 Minimum height limitations. No person, firm or corporation shall fly or permit any aircraft to be flown over any part of the City of Tacoma at an altitude of less than 1,000 feet above the terrain, except while taking off or landing at an established landing field or airport, and except while taking off or landing on the waters of Commencement Bay or Puget Sound. The provisions of this section may be deviated from when special circumstances render a departure necessary to avoid immediate danger, or when such departure is required because of stress of weather conditions or other unavoidable cause or pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.06.085 of this chapter. Upon making application to the Chief of Police to take aerial photographs, permission may be granted by him to make flights over the City of Tacoma at an altitude of less than 1,000 feet. (Ord. 20446 § 1; passed Jun. 10, 1975: Ord. 13177 § 3; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.040 Operators to be licensed. No person shall operate any aircraft within or over the corporate limits of the City of Tacoma unless such person has an appropriate effective airman certificate, permit, rating or license issued by the United States authorizing him to engage in the particular class of aeronautics in which he is engaged, and unless such aircraft has an appropriate effective certificate, permit or license issued by the United States. (Ord. 13177 § 4; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.050 Reckless operation - Under influence of narcotics or liquor. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate an aircraft in the air, or on the ground or water, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotics, or other habit-forming drug, or to operate an aircraft in the air or on the ground or water, in a careless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. In any proceeding charging careless or reckless operation of aircraft in violation of this section, the court, in determining whether the operation was careless or reckless, may consider the standards for safe operation of aircraft prescribed by Federal statutes or regulations governing aeronautics. (Ord. 13177 § 5; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.060 Federal Aviation Administration traffic rules. No person shall operate any aircraft over or within the City of Tacoma in violation of any valid air traffic or other rule or regulation established by the Federal Aviation Administration. (Ord. 20446 § 2; `X I Tacoma Municipal Code passed Jun. 10, 1975: Ord. 13177 § 6; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.070 Acrobatics prohibited. Acrobatic flying by any persons flying over any portion of the City of Tacoma is hereby prohibited. (Ord. 13177 § 7; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.080 Landing at other than established airport. Except in case of emergency, or pursuant to a special permit as provided in Section 8.06.085, no person shall land any aircraft within the corporate limits of the City of Tacoma, except upon a regularly established airport field, or landing place, or helicopter landing pads which are to be used by governmental subdivisions for official business. (Ord. 19333 § 1; passed Apr. 6, 1971: Ord. 18259 § 1; passed Apr. 11, 1967: Ord. 13177 § 8; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.085 Special permits - Authorized by City Manager. The City Manager is authorized to issue a special landing permit for helicopter landings at locations other than regularly established airports or helicopter landing pads. Said permit will extend for a period of one year and be issued to a helicopter operator, upon written application and after the applicant has filed with the City of Tacoma an aircraft liability insurance policy naming the City of Tacoma as an additional insured. The policy must provide not less than 30 days' notice of cancellation prior to the effective date thereof, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,500,000.00. The permit, and subsequent operations thereunder, shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the City Manager may impose. Any helicopter operator holding said permit will be required to report any planned landing to the City Manager and receive verbal authorization prior to landing. The permit will be renewable on a yearly basis only if the helicopter operator has demonstrated responsible operations and adequate concern for public health and safety. (Ord. 20446 § 3; passed Jun. 10, 1975: Ord. 19333 § 2; passed Apr. 6, 1971) 8.06.090 Lights required for night flying. All aircraft, when flying within or over the corporate limits of the City of Tacoma at night, shall have lights and other equipment required for such flying by the rules, regulations, or orders of the Federal Aviation Administration. (Ord. 20446 § 4; passed Jun. 10, 1975: Ord. 13177 § 9; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.100 Unnecessary noise prohibited. Unnecessary noise by operators of aircraft within or over the corporate limits of the City of Tacoma is hereby prohibited. (Ord. 13177 § 10; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.110 Dropping objects from aircraft prohibited. No person in any aircraft shall cause or permit to be thrown out, discharged or dropped within the corporate limits of the City of Tacoma, any object or thing, except loose water or loose sand ballast when absolutely essential to the safety of the occupants of the aircraft. (Ord. 13177 § 11; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.120 Loud -speaking devices prohibited. No person shall operate a loud -speaking device from any aircraft flying within or over the corporate limits of the City of Tacoma. (Ord. 13177 § 12; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.130 Severability. It is the intention of the City Council that each separate provision of this chapter shall be deemed independent of all other provisions herein, and it is further the intention of the City Council that, if any provision of this chapter be declared invalid, all other provisions thereof shall remain valid and enforceable. (Ord. 13177 § 14; passed Aug. 20, 1947) 8.06.140 Violation - Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in a sum not exceeding $500.00, or be imprisoned in the Pierce County Jail for a period of not more than six months, or be both so fined and imprisoned. (Ord. 22600 § 3; passed Dec. 29, 1981: Ord. 13177 § 13; passed Aug. 20, 1947)