DogsBite Blog ::

National Dog Bite Prevention Week (May 20-26, 2012)

The Good, The Perverse and The Uplifting

DogsBite.org - Last year during National Dog Bite Prevention Week, we noted that there is no National Dog Mauling Prevention Week, an even weightier public health matter than dog bites. The tips and tricks offered up during this national week to prevent a dog bite hardly address horrific dog maulings, mainly inflicted by pit bulls, which will attack indiscriminately and continue attacking until shot to death or nonlethal human intervention succeeds in stopping the assault.

Neighborhood Safety Campaign

On April 25, DogsBite.org announced a neighborhood safety campaign with a new brochure in preparation for this year's National Dog Bite Prevention Week. The safety brochure, How to Keep Your Family Safe from Dangerous Dogs, contains 5 panels of important information, including images of dangerous dog breeds and the back reserved for U.S. postal mailing. The brochure was designed for parents, community activists and persons who work with children.

The response so far from activists has been powerful, one recently wrote:

"This is FANTASTIC. I am so excited about these. I can't wait to start campaigning in my neighborhood. This is a very powerful tool. Thank you for putting this in our hands."

Order your 30-pack today and become part of this educational campaign!

In addition to the neighborhood safety brochure, DogsBite.org released a series of safety flyers that directly address the top two killing dog breeds in the United States: pit bulls and rottweilers. Each safety flyer contains photographs to help people identify these dangerous dog breeds, as well as national statistical data from DogsBite.org. The safety flyers are "print-ready" and free for download and distribution. We encourage readers to download and distribute them widely.

Download Safety Flyers

• Is it Worth the Risk? Children and Pit Bulls Do Not Mix
• The Presence of Pit Bulls is as Dangerous as Firearms
• Warning: Pit Bulls and Rottweilers

A Time of Victory and Perversion

On April 26, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued a pivotal ruling in Tracey v. Solesky. The case involves the parents of a young boy seeking damages for injuries inflicted by a pit bull owned by a landlord's tenant. The Court adopted strict liability in respect to attacks on humans by pit bulls and their crosses, holding pit bull owners and landlords financially responsible for injuries. DogsBite.org submitted an amicus brief in support of the young mauling victim.

As news of the ruling fell upon pit bull advocates and national humane groups, each began to raise their zealous voices. Betsy McFarland of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) called the Court's decision a "seismic shift in Maryland law" and suggested that the Court did not make a "measured, non-emotional" decision.1 McFarland promised to help create a "rational" policy that stops victims of violent pit bull maulings from having a civil remedy.

The poster boy zealot turned out to be Michael Markarian, Chief Program and Policy Officer at the HSUS and President of the Humane Society Legislative Fund (the lobbying affiliate of the HSUS.) On May 2, Markarian painted a picture of dark horror claiming the Court's ruling could create "packs of free-roaming pit bulls roaming Maryland neighborhoods" and "municipal agencies will bear the financial burden" of addressing this grave public health and safety problem.2

The amount of pro-pit bull propaganda in Markarian's post is tongue-tying. Loaded with words like "canine profiling" and distortions about the reliability of doggie DNA testing -- the top canine DNA lab in the country, Mars Veterinary states on their FAQ: "we cannot build a DNA profile for the Pit-bull." Markarian added that the Court's decision is not "anti-pit bull" but is "anti-dog," hoping to fire up other dog breed advocates, despite their being unaffected by the ruling.

Markarian topped off his post with an image of a pit bull licking a baby.

What to Remember About the HSUS

• The HSUS does not stand behind pit bull owners being held financially responsible when their dog attacks.
• The HSUS does not blame pit bull owners who surrender their dog due to the ruling, but instead blames the Court and victims.
• The HSUS and their lobbying affiliate, HSLF, are committed to overturning the high court of Maryland's decision.
• The second in command at HSUS and president of HSLF believes it is appropriate to publicize imagery of a pit bull licking a baby.

Meanwhile, as the HSUS and other pit bull zealots clamored over the Maryland ruling, two persons were mauled to death by pet pit bulls in New Mexico. The first victim, Clifford Wright, 74-years old, was a long time advocate of the breed. "He wouldn’t want a lot of biased stereotypes about the dog," Gavin told the ABQJournal Online, referring to the beloved pit bull that killed his father. The second victim, killed by her father's pet pit bull, was 15-month old Jazilyn Mesa.

A Time of the "Usual" and Pandering

Upon the approach of National Dog Bite Prevention Week, as usual, the media released stories containing dog bite statistics and yearly data from the III. What was unusual this year, is that State Farm released parts of its national claim data. Blogger Pit Bull Attacks and Dogfighting in Illinois talks about this more, and notes that although basic data was given, such as, the number of claims filed in Illinois, State Farm "did not release bite counts or payouts ranked by breed."3

State Farm also made a point to pander to pit bull advocates during this national data release by stating, "it’s not about the breed, it’s the bite." The Illinois blog then points to a comment left at a recent Illinois pit bull attack news article: "I review homeowner liability claims and I can tell you OVERWHELMINGLY most bites to humans and other animals comes from pits ... Almost every day I pay claims to people injured or had their pets injured by pits," wrote Looselips.

Separately, one insurance group is facing a lawsuit this month over a dog bite. Ohio father Nelson Cope, whose 12-year old daughter was permanently injured in a dog attack, sued State Auto Insurance, attorney David Herrington and the Law Office of Kerns and Proe. The claim alleges that after gaining approval from State Auto Insurance, Herrington and Kerns and Proe hired a private investigator to pose as a "friend" on his daughter's private Facebook account to snoop.4

Cope alleges that between February and March 2011 the investigator viewed his daughter's private Facebook page, "[and] accessed at least 221 pictures of Cope and her other minor friends ... [and] accessed at least 1,000 posted messages between Cope and her other minor friends." Cope and his daughter seek compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701), civil conspiracy and more (See: Full complaint filed).

Insurance groups and attorneys already have a bad reputation for online deceptive investigatory tactics -- something to keep in mind dog bite victims!

Lastly, involving more pandering to pit bull owners by major corporations, United Airlines recently lifted a ban on the transportation of pit bulls and other large dog breeds. There is a reason why pit bulls are banned by some airlines. Pike's Peak Flyer, out of Colorado Springs, shows photos of the damage done in 2002 to an American Airlines jet by a pit bull during a cross-county flight. The pit bull chewed through a fiberglass bulkhead and wires in an electronics compartment.5

A Time of Irony and More Maulings

The signaling of National Dog Bite Prevention Week also brings other developments to the State of Ohio. Back in February, Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, another zealous pro-pit bull group, helped push through legislation to repeal the longstanding state law that declared pit bulls "vicious" and required owners to carry $100,000 in liability insurance. Fatefully, as this week unfolds, most new Ohio pit bull attack victims will no longer have this legal remedy.

As noted in this Columbus Dispatch article, the passage of the new state law does not affect any city that is a charter city (under home rule) in Ohio. For instance, Bexely, which bans the breed, can continue doing so. The City of Lakewood also announced that their pit bull ban would continue. "There’s a home rule issue here," Councilman Brian Powers said. "We can have laws as a municipality. I don’t know of anyone on council who wants to change that law."

On the morning of May 18, as pit bull advocates in Ohio awaited a Saturday celebration sponsored by Best Friends marking the adoption of the new state law, news broke that a 3-day old infant was killed by a pet pit bull in Monroe Township, Ohio. Given the loss of the state's pit bull law, even if some municipalities continue to retain their existing pit bull ordinances, the face of the Ohio Fatal Pit Bull Attack State Map is expected to become dotted with many new red balloons.

Finally, Something More Uplifting

Going back in the Internet Archive to November 2007, one can see the then small website named DogsBite.org. Take a close look at the Links page back then and note how few dog bite victim websites existed. This is untrue today. Three recent website additions, Sitting Bull, which addresses its Australia audience, Confessions of Pit Bull Victims and Walk for Victims of Pit Bulls - Tucson, especially mark increased activism on behalf of this very important cause.

The Sitting Bull website's purpose is to educate and inform the public of the current dangers Pitbulls present to a Civilised Society. The problem is a silent epidemic and more is needed to help prevent "future" attacks on unsuspecting citizens. The Ultimate Aim of this site is to see Pitbull Attacks on both animals and humans minimised or eliminated entirely. A further aim is to help provide support and comfort for the current Victims of Serious Dog Attacks. The author of this website is convinced Pitbulls are dangerous and the withholding of this information is anti-social, unethical and continues putting many lives at risk. - Sitting Bull

This blog has been created to allow a safe site for victims of pit bull attacks to express their feelings and thoughts about their incident. This site will be heavily moderated to protect those who wish to voice themselves, and not need to fear being attacked by the owners of these animals who have unfortunately worked their ways in to their lives. There is no place here for anyone who wishes to defend the breed or their owners. We are victims of this breed and understand the pain and suffering. - Confessions of Pit Bull Victims

Please come and join us, and show your support by walking for the VICTIMS of pit bull and other dangerous dog attacks. Most often when these dogs attack, maul or kill children, adults or family pets, the support seems to be misplaced onto the attacking dog/s to be euthanized, rather than where it should be...on the VICTIM. It is time that the voice of the VICTIMS and their families be heard to promote public awareness and help reduce the number of these attacks. - Walk for Victims of Pit Bulls

04/30/12: Maryland Court of Appeals Holds Pit Bull Owners and Landlords Accountable
04/25/12: DogsBite.org Announces Neighborhood Safety Campaign
03/12/12: Pit Bulls Lead 'Bite' Counts Across U.S. Cities and Counties
05/21/11: Texas Doctors Produce Study: Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs
05/15/11: National Dog Bite Prevention Week (May 15-21, 2011)

Labels: Best Friends Animal Society, Brian Powers, Fatal Pit Bull Attack, Humane Society of the United States, Landlord Liability, National Dog Bite Prevention Week, Tracey v Solesky

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Ohio Newborn Killed by Family Pit Bull-Mix

"Makayla Darnell"
UPDATE 05/21/12: If one does a search on Google News for "Makayla Darnell," guess what article is listed as "highly cited?" The trouble is, that article was removed.1 News began breaking over the weekend about Tuesday, May 22, the day the State of Ohio loses its 25-year old pit bull law, which ominously falls on day three of National Dog Bite Prevention Week this year. We expect much more news about this to follow and the death of Makayla Darnell to quickly be forgotten.

05/19/12: The Blade Removes Story
As noted in an earlier footnote, the Yellow or Biased Toldeo Blade, as DogsBite.org refers to this organization, has a long history of not just pushing the pro-pit bull cause, but was instrumental in bringing down former Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon and ensuring the passage of legislation that repealed Ohio's longstanding pit bull law. After less than 24 hours, the Blade removed its story about an Ohio baby killed by a dog identified as a pit bull-mix.

05/18/12: Autopsy: Death by Dog Bite
Lucas County Coroner Dr. Cynthia Beisser said Friday that the baby died from blunt force injury to the head. Dr. Beisser said it was consistent with a "dog biting down on the head." Apparently the baby's mother and grandmother were just a few feet away preparing food when the attack occurred. The offending dog remains in custody while the investigation continues. Dog Warden Julie Shellhammer confirmed that the dog was a male pit bull-mix about 4 years old.

Related video

05/18/12: Infant Killed by Family Dog2
Monroe Township, OH - In a developing story, a 3-day old baby girl died late Thursday night after being attacked by the family pit bull-mix. Makayla Darnell was sitting in her swing in the living room and her parents were in the kitchen of their northern Allen County home at the time of the attack. The baby's parents, Audrianna Myers and Jared Darnell, drove the injured infant to Blanchard Valley Hospital where it was airlifted to Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center in Toledo.

The infant was pronounced dead just after 11 pm. An autopsy is expected to be done this morning.


Related articles:
09/05/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Two-Week Old Baby Killed by Family Pit Bull-Mix
07/13/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: 'Loving Dog' Kills Visiting Baby in Chesterfield County
06/03/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Kalamazoo Infant Mauled to Death by Family Pit Bull
10/25/10: 2010 Fatality: "Very Loving" Pit Bull Kills Baby in Jacksonville Home

Labels: 2012 Dog Bite Fatality, Fatal Pit Bull Attack, Infant Fatality, Newborn Fatality

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Elderly Woman Dies After October Pit Bull Attack

Numerous Surgeries
Surprise, AZ - An elderly woman badly mauled by two pit bulls last year has died. Maryann Hanula, then 72-years old, was in her front yard on October 10, when the attack occurred. The two pit bulls, a male and female, escaped a gated yard on the same street. When neighbors tried to rescue Maryann, the dogs turned on them. Another neighbor -- an off-duty Phoenix police officer -- shot and killed both dogs. Most of the woman's right foot was gone before medics arrived.

After the October attack, friends say Maryann underwent 13 surgeries and suffered multiple infections, spending most of the last seven months in the hospital. The dogs' owner, Cynthia Montoya had only lived on the street for about three weeks prior to the attack. After the incident, Montoya said she was "surprised" by the dogs' behavior. Unsurprisingly, the Montoyas moved away about six weeks later and could not be reached for comment about Maryann's death. 

Related articles:
01/18/12: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Victim of Catastrophic Pit Bull Injury Dies on Christmas Eve
01/03/12: 2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Woman Dies New Years Eve After Pit Bull Biting Incident
08/23/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Tucson Man Succumbs to Injuries After Attack by Pet Pit Bull
08/30/09: 2009 Dog Bite Fatality: Phoenix Woman Dies After Complications of Dog Bite

Photo: ABC15.com

Labels: 2012 Dog Bite Fatality, Fatal Pit Bull Attack

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: 1-Year Old Henderson Boy Killed by Family Dog

The offending dog depicted with the victim, Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan.

Saving Killer Dogs?
UPDATE 05/13/12: The Las Vegas Review-Journal published a follow up piece about animal activists who intervene to "save dogs" that have bitten and killed. The article refers to the February death of a 2-day old baby who was killed by his family's adopted Husky, named Nikko.1 On April 27, a Pennsylvania judge allowed Nikko to be sent to an out-of-state "sanctuary" instead of being put down. This is the same day that Onion viciously attacked Jeremiah, notes the article.

Even though a Las Vegas judge frustrated an intervention attempt by the Lexus Project on Friday to save Onion -- offering a similar out-of-state "sanctuary" arrangement -- the group says it will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court. Henderson officials have remained resolute throughout the Onion Ordeal calling it a public safety issue. Besides killing Jeremiah, officials said the dog attacked its kennel when a veterinarian tried to examine it at the city shelter.

05/11/12: Euthanization to Proceed
Clark County District Judge Joanna Kishner ruled on Friday that a New York-based group has no legal standing to intervene on behalf of a dog that killed a child and stop Henderson animal control officials from putting the dog down. The scheduled euthanization of Onion was halted earlier this week by a court challenge filed by the Lexus Project headed by attorney Richard Rosenthal, who claimed, among other things, "There is nothing vicious about the attack."

Related video2

04/30/12: Death Ruled Accidental
Having not seen the deceased boy's mother in any news stories, DogsBite.org was deeply concerned about yet another deadly "visiting child" scenario. Indeed, the two adults shared custody of the young boy. The particulars of this arrangement are unknown, but certainly the child was only living part-time with his father. In a devastating3 recent statement by the child's grandmother and owner of the dog, she sent "a message to Jeremiah's mother" in a news story:

"I am so sorry. If I had ever known that this would happen I would have gotten rid of Onion, even though I loved him very much," Keller said.

04/30/12: Insights from Behaviorists
Unenthusiastic, if not alarmed, by the imagery of the gentle giant coupled with an infant provided by the father, DogsBite.org reached out to animal behaviorists Gary Wilkes and Alexandra Semyonova about this fatal dog attack. As Semyonova highlights, this fatality is the result of a serious act of aggression. There are appropriate and inappropriate dog breeds to bring into a household with very young children. This child's parent and many others learn this the hard way.

Gary Wilkes
The disparity in size and potential for damage is so great between a toddler and a large dog that it is plainly dangerous and ultimately a questionable decision. It is no different than having haphazardly stacked crates in your house that could fall and crush the child, uncovered electrical outlets or unfenced swimming pools. It is ironic that they show the child in a car seat designed to make the child's life safer. The dog was obviously the more serious threat.

Gary Wilkes is an internationally acclaimed animal behaviorist, trainer, author, columnist and lecturer. View additional posts by Gary.

Alexandra Semyonova
Mastiff / Rhodesian Ridgeback mix kills one year old boy
Before the usual crowd gets into slandering the domestic dog as a species, let's be very clear about the truth on this: The behavior this Power Dog mix showed is completely and utterly abnormal in the domestic dog. Startled in its sleep, a normal dog might lash out. This might include a grab less inhibited than by full wakefulness. This might cause a more serious wound in an infant than it would in an adult – but that's not the same as a dog taking a child's head in its mouth, crushing the infant's face, shaking to kill, and not allowing its owner to make it release the child [see the video here].
What this incident does show is the result of breeding for both impulsive aggression and exaggerated body size. It shows the result of ignoring real information about the breed or type of dog you bring into your home. Some breeds / types of dogs do simply for real have much higher statistical records of mauling or killing than other breeds or types. Some have a statistical record of being particularly dangerous around infants (besides the pit-bull types, this includes the husky types).
Before the usual crowd starts quoting a certain dog hairdresser that appears often on television, let's be clear about the truth on this too: Dominance or some kind of imaginary ‘ranking order' has nothing to do with what happened. Dogs don't live in hierarchies, nor are relations influenced by who gets to sleep higher or share your spot. I often sit reading with three dogs on my lap, sleep with three or four on my bed. It would be sad if we allowed the weapon dog fashion to ruin this pleasure we share with our normal dogs.
What this incident does show is the result of allowing that kind of physical closeness with a dog that has an aggression problem. ‘Dogs with aggression problems' means not only dogs that have overtly shown touchiness, but also any dog of a breed or type that has impulsive aggression in its breed history. This means most of all the pit-bull types and the mastiff types, but also the others in which this trait has surfaced (even if it's a rare anomaly in those breeds).
When we talk about rational safety measures while guarding the interactions of dogs and children, we are – in normal cases – talking about preventing at most minor wounds, a child scared out of its wits but otherwise not damaged. We are also – in normal cases – talking about being on guard that a child doesn't inadvertently corner a dog such that the dog does feel like it needs to defend its very life and limb. But even then, a normal dog will use exactly as much aggression as it needs to open up a flight route, not a bit more, upon which it will flee.
It's a great tragedy that we are breeding dogs for impulsive aggression coupled with huge body mass, and at the same time hearing so much propaganda from pit fans, humane societies and various ‘experts' that love and a good upbringing will cure these. Neither love, dominance nor (thank you Jean Donaldson!) clicker training will cure the defective genes. They also won't reduce the body mass that makes a dog unstoppable when it – suddenly and impulsively – decides it's hell-bent on killing.
This doesn't mean we don't have to take rational safety measures everywhere children interact with dogs. It does mean that one of those safety measures is to reject the idea of bringing one of these ‘Power Breeds' into our homes.

Alexandra Semyonova is an internationally acclaimed animal behaviorist, behavioral biologist, anthropologist and author. View additional posts by Alexandra.

04/29/12: Baby's Father Speaks Out
Holding back tears, the boy's father describes the horrific scene. "He used the dog's fur to pull himself up on his feet because he wanted to walk," he said. "The dog turned around and grabbed his head ... it took me about 20 seconds to run downstairs and I got the dog off of the baby," he said. "The baby's face was torn off." The father added, "Now I don't have a baby and now I don't have a dog." The 120lb mastiff-Rhodesian mix, named Onion, is scheduled to be euthanized.

Red Flag Photos

The boy's family continues to provide disturbing red flag photos to the media to apparently show how gentle the dog was prior to killing the child. It seems the family is clueless to the fact that the images instead show: "What to never do with a baby and a dog." To make this very clear to our readers, we've marked the images as "100% unsafe." The person taking the boy's death the worst is the grandmother, seen in the photograph with the 120lb dog lying on top of her.



Related video

04/28/12: Birthday Ends in Tragedy
Henderson, NV - In a developing story, a 1-year old boy died early Saturday morning after being attacked by his family's dog while celebrating his first birthday. The boy was at his grandmother's home when he crawled over to pet the dog. The animal, described as a 120lb mastiff-Rhodesian mix, latched onto the boy's head and began shaking him, according to police. Henderson rescue workers rushed the boy to a local hospital where he was airlifted to UMC's Trauma Unit.

The young boy died from his injuries about 1:45 am. The boy's family, which owned the 6-year old dog since it was a puppy, voluntarily relinquished ownership to animal control officials. According to police, the boy had been around the dog since he was born. There were no signs of neglect and no previous calls reported about the dog in the past. Police continue to investigate why the dog attacked the boy. 8newsnow.com reports that the victim's name is Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan.


Related articles: 
03/08/12: 2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Newborn Dies After Severe Dog Bites in McKeesport
11/08/10: Officials Must Stop Ordering Dogs Deemed 'Dangerous' to New Jurisdictions
12/03/08: 2008 Dog Bite Fatality: 2-Year Old Boy Killed in Clark County, Nevada
09/18/08: 2008 Dog Bite Fatality: Pit Bulls Fatally Maul 4-Month Old in Las Vegas

Photos: Fox5 Vegas, KTNV.com

Labels: 2012 Dog Bite Fatality, Infant Fatality

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: 15-Month Old Girl Killed by Family Pit Bull

Family Speaks Out
UPDATE 05/11/12: New information from KVIA.com reveals that Jazilyn Mesa was killed by her father's pet pit bull. Art Mesa, the baby's grandfather, said that Jazilyn was never allowed to be alone with the dog. Jazilyn had wanted to play outside and the grandmother was in the process of putting the dog in the kennel when it attacked. The grandmother tried to stop the attack, but the pit bull would not let the baby loose and drug her underneath the ground-level trampoline.

Mesa says his wife jumped on Jazilyn to cover her but the dog would not let the baby loose. He says the dog then took the baby underneath a trampoline in the backyard. Mesa says his wife, Letitia Mesa, grabbed rocks and was hitting the dog with them.

The pit bull turned its attention upon neighbor Barry Sander after he arrived with a handgun, according to Mesa. Snyder fired multiple shots at the dog, hitting it six times. One shot also hit the grandmother, Letitia Mesa, by accident. Both the baby and the grandmother were rushed to area hospitals. Jazilyn did not survive her injuries. Letitia has since been released from the hospital and is recovering at home. There is no confirmation at this time of negligent charges being filed.

Fatal Dog Attacks in New Mexico

Since 2005, DogsBite.org has recorded 5 fatal dog attacks in the State of New Mexico. 80% of these deaths are attributed to pit bulls. 80% of all victims have also been adults. Only one case resulted in criminal charges, the owners of the pit bulls that struck down Margaret Salcedo on Easter Sunday. The 2006 death of Juan Garcia was only located as recently as 2011. It is possible that there are additional unidentified fatal dog maulings between the years of 2007 to 2010.

• 2006: Juan Garcia, 53-years old (Gallina, Rio Arriba Co.)
• 2010: Larry Armstrong, 55-years old (McKinley Co.)
• 2011: Margaret Salcedo, 48-years old (Truth or Consequences, Sierra Co.)
• 2012: Clifford Wright, 74-years old (Santa Fe, Santa Fe Co.)
• 2012: Jazilyn Mesa, 15-months old (Las Cruces, Dona Ana Co.)

05/09/12: Child Victim Identified
Police continue to investigate the most recent New Mexico fatal pit bull mauling. The deceased child has been identified as Jazilyn Mesa and was determined to be 15-months old. The incident also resulted in the accidental shooting of the child's paternal grandmother, Leticia Mesa, 52, who was shot by a well-intentioned neighbor who intervened with a firearm to stop the family pit bull from killing the child. Police said the woman's injuries are not life threatening.

Authorities say it is unlikely that the shooter, Barry Snyder, 69, will face any charges.

Related video

05/08/12: Child Killed by Pit Bull
Las Cruces, NM - In a developing story, there has been another fatal pit bull mauling in the State of New Mexico in less than one week. At the time of the incident, the child was in the backyard of her grandparent's home. The girl's 52-year old grandmother was accidentally shot in the leg after one neighbor intervened with a firearm to stop the pit bull attacking the girl. Both victims were transported to El Paso hospital. The child did not survive the injuries inflicted by the family pit bull.

A different neighbor, Chris Wollard, who heard the gunshots from about 100 yards away, also ran to the home to help. He looked into the backyard where he found the grandmother and child hiding underneath a trampoline.1 Wollard, a respiratory therapist, took the child and began giving her mouth-to-mouth resuscitation until paramedics arrived. He told the Las Cruces Sun-News that the child was in "pretty bad shape." Police officials are continuing their investigation.

Related video


Related articles:
05/08/12: 2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Pet Pit Bull Kills 74-Year Old Santa Fe Man
10/19/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Four Pit Bulls Maul New Mexico Woman to Death
03/18/11: 25-Year Anniversary of the Tijeras Pit Bull Ban Remembered

Photo: KTSM.com

Labels: 2012 Dog Bite Fatality, Fatal Pit Bull Attack

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Pet Pit Bull Kills 74-Year Old Santa Fe Man

Dog Euthanized
UPDATE 05/08/12: In the continuing saga of Gavin Wright, who initially hoped to spare family the pit bull after it brutally killed his father,1 allowed authorities to euthanize the dog today. On Monday, KOB.com released parts of the 911 call that offers more insight into Gavin: "Don't make me (expletive) repeat myself again ... My dog got a hold of him somehow." It is possible that yesterday's airing of the segment "inspired" Gavin to allow for the humane euthanization of the dog.

Related video

05/03/12: Death by Dog Confirmed
On Thursday, the state Office of the Medical Investigator released an initial cause of death that found that 74-year old Clifford Wright died as a result of a dog attack, not of any other health issues. According to the Santa Fe Police Department, Wright also had a history of dog attack reports at his home. In 2005, police responded to Wright's home after reports he was bitten by a different family pit bull. In 2011, police responded to his home after reports of a loose pit bull.

Several hours after the initial KOB.com news article was posted, a video was added that included more information. The victim's son, former Santa Fe High football player Gavin Wright, who made the 911 call, lived with his father along with four dogs, three of which were pit bulls. Gavin reportedly does not believe that the family pit bull, named Achilles, struck down his father in a life ending mauling, despite the Santa Fe Police Department confirming that the animal did.2

Related video

05/02/12: Pit Bull Suspected in Death
Santa Fe, NM - In a developing story, Santa Fe police are investigating the death of a 74-year old man. Clifford Wright was discovered by his 27-year old son, Gavin Wright, dead in the front yard on Wednesday. Police responded to an emergency medical call from the son, who said "his father had been attacked by an animal at their house." According to a longtime neighbor, the unaltered male pit bull belonged to the son and was a recent addition to the family's household.

Related video


Related articles:
12/08/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: White County Man Mauled to Death by Pet Pit Bull
12/07/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Woman Dies Following Attack by Pet Pit Bull Last Month
09/02/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Philadelphia Woman Killed by Husband's Pit Bulls
08/23/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Tucson Man Succumbs to Injuries After Attack by Pet Pit Bull
08/15/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Pregnant Pacifica Woman Killed by Family Pit Bull

Labels: 2012 Dog Bite Fatality, Fatal Pit Bull Attack

DogsBite.org Founder Responds to Maryland Ruling on CBS This Morning

View the related CBS This Morning news article.

Related articles:
04/30/12: Maryland Court of Appeals Holds Pit Bull Owners and Landlords Accountable
06/20/11: Founder Colleen Lynn Reflects Upon Four Year Anniversary of Her Attack

Labels: Anthony Solesky, Colleen Lynn, Dominic Solesky, Landlord Liability, Maryland common law, Solesky v Tracey

Donate to DogsBite.org Today, Help Keep Our Mission of Prevention Alive

DogsBite.org is a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks. Our website, DogsBite.org, is a public education website about dangerous dogs -- primarily pit bull type dogs. We are the only website in the United States dedicated to putting the safety of humans before dogs, as we are the only source of information on this topic that is not owned, controlled, or funded by pit bull breeders, owners or local or national veterinarian or animal welfare groups.

Learn what people say about DogsBite.org and founder Colleen Lynn.

DogsBite.org is a non-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Please make a contribution today to help prevent a life-altering dog mauling.



Related articles: 
04/25/12: DogsBite.org Announces Neighborhood Safety Campaign and New Brochure
05/08/11: Announcement: DogsBite.org Receives 501 (c)(3) Tax-Exempt Status from the IRS

Labels: Announcement, Landlord Liability, Maryland common law, Solesky v Tracey

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: 2-Month Old Child Killed by Family Dog

The family's recently adopted golden retriever-mix.

Father Charged
UPDATE 05/02/12: The infant's father, Quintin H. McGrew, has been charged with unlawful neglect of a child. An affidavit accompanying his arrest warrant stated that McGrew "placed a 2-month-old infant at unreasonable risk by placing the infant in the living room by himself while the defendant slept in the bedroom. The infant was left in the separate room with a dog that was new to the residence for over an hour resulting in the disembowelment and death of the minor child."

04/24/12: 911 Call Released
A description of the 911 call made Friday morning offers new details about the tragic death of 2-month old Aiden McGrew. In the call, the baby's mother, Chantel McGrew, told the operator, "I believe my 2 and 1/2 year old got the baby out of the swing. I believe the dog went after my son, because the dog has blood all over him." She added about the attacking dog: "He's put in the bedroom away from the baby because he tried to go after the baby again when I got home."1

Related video

04/23/12: Death Ruled Homicide
Dorchester County Coroner Chris Nisbet ruled the death of 2-month old Aiden McGrew a homicide. He announced Monday that the child died from blood loss after being severely mauled by the family's dog. Nisbet said parental neglect contributed to the boy's death. Aiden was discovered Friday morning after being badly bitten and dismembered by his family's newly adopted dog. At the time of the incident, his father was sleeping in an adjoining room.

04/21/12: Killed While Father Slept
News agencies report that the family had two dogs. One was apparently asleep with the father at the time of the attack. The offending golden retriever-mix, named Lucky, had recently been adopted by the family. The dog's previous owner was not named. The deceased boy's parents, Quintin and Chantel McGrew were questioned Friday. The couple's other children, ages 7 and 3, were taken into protective custody by the state Department of Social Services.

Knight said Quintin McGrew was sleeping in a bed with the 3-year-old child and the family's other dog, and Chantel McGrew was taking the 7-year-old to a doctor's visit, when Aiden was attacked.
"The child was in a small swing and was asleep,” Knight said. "I'm not sure who put the child in the swing."
Knight said the family adopted Lucky a few weeks ago, but their other dog has been with them for years. He said the McGrews "dog sat" for Lucky previously and decided to keep the dog when its previous owners wanted to give it up.

The Death of Zane Alen Earles

In 2008, the mauling death of 2-month old Zane Alen Earles by the family's Labrador puppy horrified the American public. The boy's mother found him dead in an infant swing about 10:30 am that morning. Up until that point, she had been sleeping. The nature of the baby's injuries were "so sensitive" that Tulsa police did not release any details other than that the infant had been bitten to death. Months later, a police affidavit stated that the dog "ate the two-month-old victim."

 Authorities charged the baby's mother with second-degree manslaughter.

Related video

04/20/12: Infant Killed by Family Dog
Ridgeville, SC - In a developing story, Dorchester County Coroner Chris Nesbit stated in a news release that a 2-month old child was bitten numerous times and dismembered by a dog in his family's home about 11 am Friday. Aiden McGrew's father was asleep at the time of the attack and his mother was not home. Two other children in the home were unharmed. An autopsy is scheduled for Saturday to determine if the boy was dead prior to the dog dismembering him.

The Daily Mail reports that the dog was a recently rescued retriever.


Related articles:
11/04/08: 2008 Dog Bite Fatality: Tulsa Infant Killed by Labrador Puppy

Photo: The Republic

Labels: 2012 Dog Bite Fatality, Amputation Injury, Infant Fatality, Newborn Fatality

Maryland Court of Appeals Holds Pit Bull Owners and Landlords Accountable After an Attack

Tracey v. Soleksy
Baltimore, MD - In January, DogsBite.org announced our filing of an amicus brief in a landmark Maryland appeals case, Tracey v. Solesky, in hopes of expanding more liability out to landlords when a tenant's pit bull attacks. The case involves the parents of a young boy seeking damages for injuries inflicted by a pit bull owned by a landlord's tenant. Also at issue is the "dangerousness" of pit bulls being "well-recognized," as determined in the 1998 case, Matthews v. Amberwood.

In Matthews, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled in a 4-3 vote that the landlord could have taken steps to abate the danger of a pit bull kept by a tenant when the landlord knew of the dog's presence and was aware of the dog's dangerousness. It was our hope that the Solesky opinion would expand Matthews further. On April 26, 2012, the Court of Appeals, in another 4-3 vote, did expand it and with great clarity by attaching strict liability when a pit bull or pit bull-cross attacks.

Tracey v. Solesky
No. 53, September Term 2012, Opinion by Cathell, J.
STRICT LIABILITY ADOPTED IN RESPECT TO ATTACKS ON HUMANS BY PIT BULL DOGS AND CROSS-BRED PIT BULL DOGS.
Upon a plaintiff's sufficient proof that a dog involved in an attack is a pit bull or a pit bull cross, and that the owner, or other person(s) who has the right to control the pit bull's presence on the subject premises (including a landlord who has a right to prohibit such dogs on leased premises) knows, or has reason to know, that the dog is a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull, that person is liable for the damages caused to a plaintiff who is attacked by the dog on or from the owner's or lessor's premises. In that case a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of negligence. When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous.

Upon receiving the Court's opinion, attorney Kevin A. Dunne, a principal at the law firm Ober Kaler, who represented the Solesky family, told the Baltimore Sun, "the Court of Appeals decision will likely to cause there to be fewer pit bull maulings of the citizens of the State of Maryland." Dunne said the high court's decision "didn't say pit bulls are banned. It makes the owner of the dog financially responsible for the injuries caused. It affects you if your dog hurts somebody else."

Video: Victim's family reacts

The Opinion Broken Down

The Court's opinion opens with the 1916 mauling of a young child by a pit bull, demonstrating just how long this dog breed has been attacking Maryland children. Furthermore, the attack on 10-year old John L. Clark illustrates the manner in which pit bulls attack resulting in many high courts determining that pit bull-type dogs pose a grave danger to the public: "The pit bull refused to release the boy until a witness picked up a 'scantling' and struck the dog, killing it."

The writer of the Court's opinion, Judge Dale R. Cathell, then states:

Over the last thirteen years, there have been no less than seven instances of serious maulings by pit bulls upon Maryland residents resulting in either serious injuries or death that have reached the appellate courts of this State, including the two boys attacked by the pit bull in the present case. Five of the pit bull attacks in Maryland have been brought to the attention of this Court, and two have reached the Court of Special Appeals.

The Court next spells out the details of these cases, which combined led to the Solesky opinion. The most simple explanation of the Solesky opinion is located on page 8:

We are modifying the Maryland common law of liability as it relates to attacks by pit bull and cross-bred pit bull dogs against humans. With the standard we establish today (which is to be applied in this case on remand), when an owner or a landlord is proven to have knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull (as both the owner and landlord did in this case) or should have had such knowledge, a prima facie case is established. It is not necessary that the landlord (or the pit bull's owner) have actual knowledge that the specific pit bull involved is dangerous. Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.

Further into the opinion, the Court addresses Matthews in more detail and how the Court "began our modification of the old common-law rule with respect to dog attack cases with our strong dicta in Matthews, supra, highlighting the particular characteristics of pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls." And, "the language of that case clearly forecasted the direction the Court might take in the proper case. This is that case," the Court wrote, referring to Solesky. In Matthews, the Court stated:

The extreme dangerousness of this breed, as it has evolved today, is well recognized. "Pit bulls as a breed are known to be extremely aggressive and have been bred as attack animals." Giaculli v. Bright, 584 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla.App. 1991). Indeed, it has been judicially noted that pit bulls "bit[e] to kill without signal" (Starkey v. Township of Chester, 628 F. Supp. 196, 197 (E.D. Pa. 1986)), are selectively bred to have very powerful jaws, high insensitivity to pain, extreme aggressiveness, a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack, and a greater propensity to bite humans than other breeds ... ("pit bull dogs represent a unique public health hazard ... [possessing] both the capacity for extraordinarily savage behavior ... [a] capacity for uniquely vicious attacks ... coupled with an unpredictable nature" and that "[o]f the 32 known human deaths in the United States due to dog attacks ... [in the period between July 1983 and April 1989], 23 were caused by attacks by pit bull dogs"). Pit bull dogs have even been considered weapons.

The Court next compiles evidence of the breed's dangerousness, starting with the "special report" issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2000, and the recent medical injury study, "Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs," published in 2011. The Court points out that although the CDC did not recommend breed-specific regulation, it did state: "...laws for regulating dangerous or vicious dogs should be promulgated and enforced vigorously."

Assembling more evidence of the breed's dangerousness, the Court draws upon cases from other jurisdictions that address the inherent viciousness of pit bulls, including the high court rulings of City of Toledo v. Tellings, Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, The Florida Bar v. Pape, McNeely v. United States and finally, The Colorado Dog Fanciers v. The City and County of Denver. Many portions cited in the opinion can be found on the Appellate Court Decisions page.

Concerning arguments raised by pit bull owners in Colorado Dog Fanciers, the Court provides the following footnote: "Some are similar to the arguments made in the appellant or amicus' briefs filed in the present case by supporters of pit bulls. In light of Maryland's situation, we find those particular arguments unpersuasive. (Notably, in Solesky, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals wrote the brief in opposition of the young boy nearly killed by a pit bull.)

In this same footnote, the Court adds that the opposition to breed-specific laws has been present for years. But that the Court's opinion "does not ban pit bulls, but puts a greater responsibility for vicious dogs where pit bull advocates have long argued it should be - with the owners and others who have the power of control over such dogs. Our opinion imposes greater duties by reducing the standards necessary to hold owners and others liable for the attacks of their pit bulls."

Discussion

Given the misleading slogan of "punish the deed" by pit bull owners, advocates and national animal groups -- misleading in the fact that victims often cannot pursue civil claims after a violent attack unless the owner knew the dog had the "propensity to be dangerous" and/or, as in the case of Solesky, the pit bull owner defaulted in bankruptcy -- one can only imagine how many Maryland pit bull owners and landlords are extremely alarmed by the Court's recent opinion.

The fact is, "It's the owner not the breed," is a theme perpetuated by the owners of dangerous dog breeds, primarily pit bulls, to help maintain the existence of arcane "one free bite" rules and other obscene loopholes that often free these owners of any civil or criminal liability after their dog attacks once and even a second time! In a nutshell, such dog owners do not want their dogs blamed nor do they want to be on the hook from a financial or criminal liability standpoint.

Reading the Court's footnote in regards to this brings to mind two phrases, "Be careful what you ask for" and "payback is hell." Pit bull owners and "others who have the power of control over such dogs" (specifically landlords) in the State of Maryland are indeed going to be paying back to victims of violent pit bull maulings due to this opinion, which explicitly modified Maryland common law of liability as it relates to attacks by pit bulls and pit bull-crosses against humans.

The Dissent

There really is only one part of the dissent worth discussing, as parts about the "hysteria regarding pit bulls" and the "media has demonized pit bulls" are on par with the invalidity of the Nanny dog myth. That part is called judicial activism or as the author of the dissent, Judge Clayton Greene, Jr. wrote, "legislating from the bench." The Solesky opinion, however, was not shaped out of thin air. It was developed over many rulings and was specifically "forecasted" in Matthews.

We do expect national animal groups, particularly the ASPCA and Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, to bring their pro-pit bull propaganda to the Maryland General Assembly during its next session in an effort to derail the Solesky ruling. Yet, this effort may prove difficult. Their fight will not be to derail a statewide pit bull law, such as Ohio's former law, their fight will be to derail a liability law that holds the owners of pit bulls and landlords financially responsible after an attack.

Getting these votes is going to be a lot tougher than it was in Ohio. For instance, "Dear Maryland State Representative, it is cruel and unusual punishment that pit bull owners are automatically held financially responsible after their dog mauls a person causing permanent disfiguring injuries and sometimes even death. This type of singling out of pit bulls is discriminatory legislation similar to racial profiling. My pit bull would never snap, but even if it did, I should not be held liable."


Related articles:
01/16/12: Pit Bull Attack Victims May Have New Hope to Recover from Landlords After Maulings
11/02/11: Letter of Gratitude to Founder Colleen Lynn from Parents of Mauling Victim
06/16/11: Website Launch: Pit Bull Attacks - The Survivors | Pitbullattacks.org
05/21/11: Texas Doctors Produce Study: Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs
01/31/11: Parent of Mauling Victim Responds to North Carolina Pit Bull Fatality
05/17/10: Dominic Solesky Featured in National Dog Bite Prevention Week Video
03/10/10: Dangerous By Default: Extreme Breeds by Anthony Solesky 
10/28/09: In Massachusetts, Landlords May Be Liable When Tenant's Pit Bull Attacks

Labels: Anthony Solesky, Dominic Solesky, Landlord Liability, Maryland common law, Tracey v Solesky

DogsBite.org Announces Neighborhood Safety Campaign and New Brochure, 'How to Keep Your Family Safe from Dangerous Dogs'

Purchase a 30-pack of the DogsBite.org neighborhood safety brochure in preparation for National Dog Bite Prevention Week, May 20-26, 2012

Austin, TX April 25, 2012 -- DogsBite.org, a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks, announces a neighborhood safety campaign with a new brochure in preparation for National Dog Bite Prevention Week, May 20-26, 2012. The safety brochure, How to Keep Your Family Safe from Dangerous Dogs, contains 5 panels of important information, including images of dangerous dog breeds, and the back reserved for U.S. postal mailing.

The DogsBite.org safety brochure offers a 3-step guide to help protect individuals, their family members and cherished pets from potentially dangerous dogs that may be located in their immediate neighborhood. The steps include: How to identify dangerous dogs and the person(s) responsible for them, how to report violations, what types of violations to report, tips about collecting evidence and descriptions of the most dangerous scenarios to always avoid.

See: Full news release.


Related articles:
11/15/11: Announcement: Happy Birthday DogsBite.org and Gratitude from a Reader
06/20/11: Founder Colleen Lynn Reflects Upon Four Year Anniversary of Her Attack
05/15/11: National Dog Bite Prevention Week (May 15-21, 2011)
05/08/11: Announcement: DogsBite.org Receives 501 (c)(3) Tax-Exempt Status from the IRS

Labels: Announcement, DogsBite.org, National Dog Bite Prevention Week, Neighborhood Safety Campaign, Tracey v Solesky

Trinidad Proclaims Dangerous Dogs Act; Comes into Force August 1, 2012

Act Proclaimed
Trinidad - It was announced this week by the government of Trinidad and Tobago that the Dangerous Dogs Act will be proclaimed on August 1, 2012. The Act originally passed in June 2000, but was never proclaimed.1 The Dangerous Dogs Act requires owners of dangerous dogs to be at least 18 years old, carry $250,000 of insurance, adhere to special containment requirements, sterilization and registration, and to apply for and obtain a $500 annual license per dog.

"I am happy to see the VICTIMS being finally considered as no one stands up for them." - Comment sent to DogsBite.org from Trinidad and Tobago activist Teseek.

The Act prima facially declares three fighting breeds as dangerous, including: pit bull terriers, fila brasileiros and Japanese tosas (similar to the United Kingdom Dangerous Dogs Act). Any dogs bred from these breeds are also deemed dangerous. The purpose of the Act is to prohibit the importation and breeding of dangerous dogs and to regulate the manner in which these dogs are maintained by their owner to ensure the safety of Trinidad and Tobago citizens.

"Today, the Government has noted with great concern the recent and growing attacks on law-abiding citizens by pitbulls," the Ministry said in a faxed media release. "The facts show that often these dangerous dogs are not properly trained or secured. In recent times, dangerous dogs have been allowed to escape onto the road and attack persons, causing severe injuries and, in some cases, death."
"The Government is of the view that the proclamation of the Act is critical because of the great harm and injury being caused daily to law-abiding citizens when these dogs are not properly secured and controlled." (Ministry of the Attorney General, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2012)

DogsBite.org began following fatal pit bull maulings in Trinidad last May after 46-year old Denise Rackal was mauled to death by a pack of pit bulls belonging to Chaguanas police officer Daryl La Pierre. According to neighbors, the same dogs killed 15 dogs in the year prior to the death of Rackal and attacked two other people. Animal behaviorist Alexandra Semyonova also provided feedback in the wake of Rackal's death to help explain several misleading responses to it.

Trinidad activist Teseek is worried that animal advocacy groups will interfere with the recent proclamation -- already delayed 12-years, resulting in new victims permanently disfigured and, in some cases, killed by violent pit bulls. The Trinidad and Tobago Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (TTSPCA) is "concerned" that the Act could lead to many pit bulls being abandoned due to irresponsible pit bull owners being unable to comply with the proclamation.

It is a catch-22 position for the TTSPCA isn't it? To demand "responsible ownership" and then to claim that penalizing irresponsible owners leads to inhumane results?

Today's pit bull "mess" in the United States and across the world is directly due to animal groups like the TTSPCA whose solution to the pit bull problem is to 1.) "Educate" irresponsible owners, most of whom do not want to be educated, without laws that strongly penalize these owners for failure to comply and to 2.) "Equalize" the breed-specific pit bull problem across all dog breeds even though no other dog breeds are commiting a similar number of maulings and deaths.2

Partial List of Deaths by Pit Bulls

2011: Jesse Dillion Boise, 9-years old, killed by his brother's pit bull (Trinidad); 2011: Denise Rackal, 46-years old, killed by pack of pit bulls (Trinidad); 2004: Chandrawattie Beera, 77-years old, killed by two pit bulls (Trinidad); 1999: Norris Young, 72-years old, killed by a pit bull (Trinidad); 1998: Kimmoi Wong Won, 71-years old, killed by her son’s four pit bulls (Trinidad); 1998: Christopher Charles, adult, killed by political financier Steve Furgeson’s pit bulls (Trinidad).


Related articles:
06/01/11: Animal Behaviorist Responds to Statements Following Trinidad Fatal Pit Bull Attack
05/11/11: Family of Mauling Death Victim Awaits Apology from Dogs' Owner
02/06/10: Ecuador Joins International Trend: Bans Pit Bulls and Rottweilers as Pets

Labels: International Fatal Pit Bull Attack, International Pit Bull Law

Tipper Sends in Pit Bull Image from Kid's Temporary Tattoo Machine

"Killer" the Pit Bull

DogsBite.org - A hot tipper sent in imagery from a kid's temporary tattoo machine last night. The image depicts a muscular chained pit bull with the name "Killer" spelled out on the animal's dog house. Given how many children suffer horrific maulings1 and deaths by chained pit bulls, it is hardly appropriate imagery to be coming out of a children's tattoo "safety" machine. The related website is tattoosafety.net, copyrighted by Flatline Corp. and printed in the U.S.A.

Front:


Back:


The back of the tattoo reads: "This product complies with the appropriate requirements of ASTM F 963-96A Standard Consumer Safety Specification on Toy Safety of USA and mechanical Hazard requirements of 16CFR 1500, and Heavy Metals content requirements of ASTM F963, Section 4.3.5." Despite pit bulls killing 187 U.S. citizens since the last CDC report on fatal dog attacks by breed was issued in 2000, the U.S. government has no warning requirements for pit bulls.


Related articles:
03/28/12: 2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Victoria Boy, 4, Mauled to Death by Pit Bull
02/25/10: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Recalls Sweatshirts...
02/09/10: Zupf: Cuba Child Left Unrecognizable After Pit Bull Attack
12/16/09: Historic Recall: 50 Million Blinds Recalled Following Child Deaths
11/11/08: 2 Deaths Spur Massive Baby Crib Recall

Labels: Pit Bull Imagery, Pit Bulls in Pop Culture

Malden Councillor Clarifies Pit Bull Ordinance and Confirms 'Rational Fear'

Answers Critics
Malden, MA - Last week we reported on a pit bull ordinance passed by Malden City Council. Part of the blog post addressed Dr. Amy Marder who claimed that "a leash will prevent dog bites as well as a muzzle" when being quizzed by Councillor Neil C. Kinnon. The post also noted that the "hollering pit bull owners" attending the meeting failed to grasp the language of the ordinance, which grandfathered in existing pit bull owners if they registered their dog prior to May 1.

On Wednesday, Councillor Kinnon answered critics of the pit bull ordinance in a letter to the editor of the Malden Advocate. It is a fantastic letter that clarifies the pit bull ordinance, offers city dog bite statistical data, zings the "good Doctor" further by stating that her "evidence lacked credibility, as no scientist would ever claim a sample size of ten" and concludes with a statistical comparison that powerfully confirms the rational fear persons maintain about the pit bull breed.

Dear Editor, Malden Advocate, and Malden’s Citizens:
This past week the City Council passed a Pit Bull Ordinance which will take effect on May 1, 2012 (provided the Mayor signs it). It will exempt current pit bulls which are licensed by that time with some reasonable stipulations. Hopefully this letter might clarify what is in the Pit Bull Ordinance, the reasons for it and why some of the information opponents are spinning is simply misinformation or untrue.

Snippets taken by DogsBite.org:

• "According to Animal Control fifty-seven dog bites were recorded from 2009-2011. Eighteen of the bites were committed by pit bulls. The next closest breeds that bit were German Shepherds, Bull Mastiffs and Dobermans, which recorded only two bites each. The data broken down in its simplest terms means pit bulls account for approximately 6.7% of our registered dogs and committed 31.6% of the dog bites."
• "The ordinance requires pit bulls to be spayed or neutered in order to get an exemption from the muzzling law. The advocates who spoke to the Council also advocate spaying and neutering of pit bulls as part of any plan."
• "The ordinance the Council passed requires a fence if one wishes to let their dog out in the yard without a muzzle. PittBullLovers.com states for those looking to own a pit bull "you should have a six foot privacy fence"
• "The ordinance passed by the City Council will guarantee high license compliance for pit bulls, which all advocates say is needed, as it exempts, from the muzzle ordinance, all current pit bull owners who reside in Malden as long as they come in to register for a license and provide the proper spay and neutering documentation."
• "The pit bull advocates continue to claim that BSL (breed specific legislation) does not work and yet over 600 communities in America have adopted it. The Marine Corps and the Army have gone so far as to adopt total bans of pit bulls and their close relatives on all their bases in the last few years."1
• "When the Doctor was asked how many dogs were in her study and how many had some American Staffordshire, her answer was her study included ten dogs and she didn’t know how many included some American Staffordshire. Her evidence lacked credibility, as no scientist would ever claim a sample size of ten was a real study and after stating that DNA didn’t contain Staffordshire in many instances, she didn’t know how many contained some Staffordshire in the sample."2
• "The pit bull advocates continue to state it will be impossible to enforce a muzzle law and that we should instead focus on licensing and strong leash law enforcement of all dogs. One can only conclude from all actual evidence that it would be just as easy for an animal control officer or other law enforcement officer to enforce a muzzle law as it is to enforce a leash law. Is it harder for a dog officer to see if a dog is on a four foot leash or muzzle?"

Councillor Kinnon saved the whopper comparison for his conclusion that illustrates just how dangerous pit bulls are and that fears about the breed are rational:

If there were as many pit bulls in Malden as people, and bite incidents were classified as aggravated assaults, the average rate of aggravated assault by pit bulls in the last three years would have been over 1,500 per year. If one calculated the same math on all other dogs, during that span, the average aggravated assault level each year would have been approximately 220. In the last three years the actual average number of aggravated assaults in Malden, by humans, has been 169. Therefore pit bulls per capita commit almost 10 times the aggravated assaults as do humans. The person who discriminates when seeing a pit bull walking down the street does not do so out of an irrational fear but does so because they are 10 times as likely to be attacked by the pit bull. (Neil Kinnon, Ward Six City Councillor, Malden Advocate, April 11, 2012)

Kudos Councillor Neil Kinnon!


Related articles:
04/04/12: Pit Bull Ordinance Passes in Malden City, Massachusetts
09/13/09: U.S. Marine Corps Bans Pit Bulls and Other Breeds; Policy Affects...
03/17/09: U.S. Army Adopts Breed Restriction Policy for RCI Privatized Housing
06/01/08: Pit Bull Ban FAQ by Councilman Brian Powers

Labels: Amy Marder, Pit Bull Ordinance

archives:  

DogsBite.org

Find a Dog
Bite Lawyer

In the Attorney
Directory at
DogsBite.org