Posted on March 10, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

Report: Countries Worldwide that Restrict Dangerous Dog Breeds

Report Shows a "Universal Set of Dangerous Dog Breeds."

The most frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted by countries.

View Worldwide Report
DogsBite.org - Starting in 2011, we began maintaining an estimate of breed restriction laws in the United States, including dangerous dog policies governing military housing and policies on Indian reservations. Currently, we maintain model and noted breed restriction laws to provide guidance to jurisdictions who are researching legislative solutions to prevent severe and fatal mauling injuries inflicted by dog breeds with well-identified risks, chiefly pit bulls and their bull breed derivatives.

This year, we are focusing on a global stage by reviewing the number of countries worldwide that restrict dangerous dog breeds, the breeds and restrictions involved, and the density of populations affected by these laws. We estimate that nearly 5 billion people are familiar with or directly affected by these laws across the 6 regions of the world. Many foreign governments recognize that certain dog breeds present an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of citizens and domesticated animals.

Methodology

Over the last 14 months, we gathered news reports of breed restrictions by government bodies worldwide, as well as pet passport and travel applications. We examined importation guidance and requirements issued by government ministries of environment, agriculture, veterinary and health; entry requirements from embassy websites; and country-level laws, statues, and directives. We also examined peer-reviewed studies with references to country-level dangerous dog breed laws.

For our analysis, we divided the world into 6 regions: Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America & Caribbean, North America, and Oceania. We specified countries with local or national-level breed restrictions, the breeds and controls involved, and if known, the year the national law was enacted. We also specified if a country was a dependency or territory of a sovereign state to identify mutual laws. Greenland, for instance, is an autonomous territory of Denmark that shares Denmark's breed restriction law.

We obtained population data for the world, each region, subregion, country and dependency from WorldOMeter.1 Because population data is continuously updating, we locked down on a data set from November 1, 2024. We calculated the population of 84 countries and dependencies with a local (10) or national-level (74) breed restriction. We also calculated the prevalence (per 1,000 population) of people governed by a national-level dangerous dog breed law within each of the 6 world regions.

To track breed types, we divided the restricted breeds into 7 broad categories: pit bull breeds, mastiff/fighting breeds, rottweiler breed, livestock guardian breeds, northern/spitz breeds, pinscher breeds, and other breeds. We standardized breed name spellings when possible due to language differences. We also retained multiple names for clarity when necessary. For instance, "Boerboel" is always listed as "Boerboel (South African Mastiff)." We identified over 125 different dog breeds.2

(A full list of the 7 restricted dog breed categories is located at the bottom of this analysis.)

All Country Analysis

Jurisdictions in at least 84 countries regulate dangerous dog breeds, of which 99% include pit bull breeds, 89% mastiff/fighting breeds, 45% rottweiler breed, 35% pinscher breeds, 32% northern/spitz breeds, and 26% livestock guardian breeds. The estimated combined population of these countries is 4.99 billion. Notably, at least 21% (18) of countries, mainly in Northern Europe and parts of Asia, have adopted a new national-level breed restriction or strengthened an existing one since the pandemic.3

Of the 84 countries, 21% (18) are dependencies to varying degrees, such as an autonomous country, dependent territory, or special administrative region of a sovereign state. Some share or adhere to the dangerous dog law of the sovereign state. The population of the 18 dependencies makes up 2% of the population of the 84 countries combined. The most populated dependencies are tied to the United Kingdom and China. All 18 dependencies have a national-level law that restricts pit bull breeds.

National-Level Law Analysis

Restricting our analysis to the 74 countries with a national-level breed restriction law allows for richer findings because data for the country population, the affected population, is known. Chart 1 examines the most frequent dog breeds restricted by countries with a national-level law. Chart 2 identifies the number of countries with a national-level law restricting dangerous dog breeds by world region. Chart 3 examines the prevalence (per population 1,000) affected by a national-level law by world region.

Chart 1: Most Frequent Dangerous Dog Breeds

At least 74 countries have a national-level law that regulates dangerous dog breeds, ranging from banning the importation of certain dog breeds to restricting or prohibiting their ownership. Of these national-level laws, 100% target pit bull breeds, 91% mastiff/fighting breeds, 41% rottweiler breed, 32% pinscher breeds, 31% northern/spitz breeds, and 26% livestock guardian breeds. The estimated number of people residing in countries governed by these national laws is approximately 2.7 billion.

Most countries with a national-level law, 91%, restrict both pit bull and mastiff/fighting breeds; 38% restrict the top three breed-types: pit bull, mastiff and rottweiler. Countries that restrict livestock guardian breeds mainly reside in Europe and Asia, specifically Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Southern Asia. These regions surround Central Asia (countries ending in "stan"), which is where a variety of fierce livestock guardian breeds, still used in the blood sport of dogfighting, originate.

Chart - Most frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted by countries

Chart 1: Most frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted by countries with national-level law.

Chart 2: National-Level Laws by World Region

Breaking down national-level breed restriction laws by world region shows that most countries reside in Europe (27), followed by Asia (17), Latin America & Caribbean (13), Oceania (8), Africa (7) and North America (2) -- both countries in the North America region are dependencies.4 Of the 18 dependency countries, most are islands, 67% (12), and most reside in Europe (7), Latin America & Caribbean (3) and Oceania (3). The United Kingdom (UK) is the sovereign state of 56% (10) of these dependencies.

When the adoption year of the national-level breed restriction was known, 23% were enacted during the 1990s after the UK enacted the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which prohibited dogs bred for fighting, largely by countries residing in Northern and Eastern Europe.5 From 2000 to 2009, 48% were enacted, reaching countries in Southern and Western Europe, Western Asia and South America. From 2010 to 2025, 28% were enacted, reaching countries in Southern Asia and Northern and Eastern Africa.

Chart - National-Level Breed Restriction Laws by World Region

Chart 2: Countries with national-level law restricting dangerous dog breeds by world region.

Chart 3: Prevalence Affected by National-Level Laws

The prevalence of the population affected by a national breed restriction law (per 1,000 population) was calculated for the population of each of the 6 world regions during the period of early November 2024. For instance, of the total 1.5 billion population of the Africa region, the portion of the population governed by this law was 202.9 million. Thus, 134 people per 1,000 population in the region of Africa were governed by a national-level law that restricts dangerous dog breeds during this period.

The Oceania region had the highest prevalence with 947 people per 1,000 population governed by a national-level breed restriction law. Europe followed with 757 people per 1,000 population; Asia with 375 people per 1,000 population; Latin American & Caribbean with 158 per 1,000 population; and Africa with 134. North America was last with 0 people per 1,000 population because the United States and Canada legislate these laws on a local or state-level, such as the Province of Ontario pit bull ban.6

Chart - Prevalence affected by national-level breed restriction laws

Chart 3: Prevalence of population affected by national-level breed restriction by world region.

Discussion

The majority of people in the world -- nearly 5 billion out of 8.16 billion -- are familiar with or directly affected by a local or national-level breed restriction law throughout the 6 regions of the world. The combined population of people living in 74 countries with a national-level law is 2.7 billion, about one-third of the total world population. Government bodies in at least 84 countries agree the public requires protection from a type of dog breed that has the characteristics of being bred for fighting.

The data is clear that pit bull breeds, due to their selection for dogfighting, are the most restricted breeds worldwide. Of the 74 countries with a national-level breed restriction, 100% include pit bull breeds, primarily, the American pit bull terrier. The next tier of breeds most often restricted are fighting/mastiff breeds, of which 3 were designated in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino and Japanese Tosa. 91% of the 74 countries, restrict both fighting breed groups.

At least 24% (18 of 74) of these countries, primarily in Northern Europe and parts of Asia, adopted a new national-level breed restriction or strengthened an existing one since Covid. The UK, which includes England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, added the XL bully to their prohibition of dogs bred for fighting. Ireland, which already restricted 11 dangerous dog breeds, requiring a muzzle and leash while in public, also adopted the XL bully ban. Ireland had never banned a dog breed before.

Other countries that tightened existing restrictions post-Covid, increased penalties for owners of dangerous dog breeds and prohibited their breeding, such as South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey. Countries enacting a law for the first time, such as Mozambique and Bahrain, acted to reduce the "significant increase" in severe attacks and dogfighting. Since 2018, prior to Covid, the proliferation of dangerous dogs in the US and UK contributed to the rate of fatal dog attacks abruptly rising.

Central Asia Dogfighting

Of the regions we researched for this report, it was the areas of Anatolia and Central and South Asia, as well as the Punjab regions in Pakistan and India, that captured our attention the most. These regions are the origins of multiple fierce livestock guardian breeds. Many Americans are unaware of these lion-sized ancient breeds like the Kangal Shepherd Dog, which is part of Turkey's national heritage, and the Central Asian Shepherd Dog (Ovcharka). Both dog breeds have long been used in dogfighting.7

Dog fight matches in these regions are described as "wrestling" matches to establish dominance,8 unlike the Cajun Rules of "fight to the death."9 The victor is declared when the losing dog exhibits submission, such as yelping. Historically, the fights were used to test which dog had the strength and tenacity to confront and kill a wolf. Dogfighting in Central Asia has grown to be such a popular blood sport that some livestock guardian lines are now only selected for fighting ability and success.10

This region is also the origin of mastiff-bull breed crosses, like the Bully Kutta11 and Gull Dong, used in dogfighting events. Fights among these breeds, and smuggled in pit bulls, in parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan and northwest India are "fights to the death." It's not by chance that in 2024, India attempted to ban the breeding and selling of the primary breeds used in dogfighting. Breed restriction laws in many countries are designed to stop severe attacks on humans and reduce illegal dogfighting.

A recent report from an India animal group, shows that districts in New Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Western Uttar Pradesh, India are primarily fighting pit bulls, and in hidden places, like basements and farmhouses, just like is done in the US to dodge authorities. As far back as 2015, India media has documented pit bull fight matches and "tournaments" (highly organized matches) carried out by the urban rich. One animal advocate has amassed over 1400 images of fighting evidence.

Summary

Jurisdictions in all 6 regions of the world, 17 of the 22 subregions and 84 countries have a local or national-level breed restriction law. The estimated combined population of these countries is 4.99 billion. The laws range from banning the importation of dangerous dog breeds to restricting or prohibiting their breeding and ownership. At least 74 of these countries have a national-level breed restriction law, of which 100% include pit bull breeds and 91% include mastiff/fighting breeds.

Of the 84 countries, 21% (18) are dependencies that share the dangerous dog law of the sovereign state. The population of the 18 dependencies makes up 2% of the population of the 84 countries combined. The UK is the sovereign state of 56% (10) of these dependencies. Thus, the influence of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is significant and also provides a legislation blueprint for other countries. All 18 dependencies have a national-level breed restriction law that incorporates pit bull breeds.

Despite the wide variety of different cultures, beliefs, ethnicities and terrains represented in the 84 countries, the governments agree that dog breeds selected for the purpose of fighting pose a danger to the public.

The Oceania region had the highest prevalence of people governed by a national breed restriction law with 947 people per 1,000 population. Oceania is home to the countries of New Zealand and Australia and is the least populated world region. Europe followed with 757 people per 1,000 population and Asia with 375 people per 1,000 population. North America had 0 people per 1,000 population because the two largest countries, Canada and the United States, legislate these laws on a local or state-level.

Finally, by examining the frequency of dog breed names in our report, we can see there is a universal set of dangerous dog breeds, and nearly all have a heritage of fighting. The term, "pit bull" appears 161 times and "Staffordshire" 112 times, together, they capture nearly all pit bull breeds ("bully" appears 33 times, capturing the American bully variations). "Tosa" appears 92 times; "dangerous" 85 times, "fighting" 82 times, "Argentino" 65 times, "Brasileiro" 61 times and "rottweiler" 49 times.

Word cloud - frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted

Word cloud of the most frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted by governments worldwide.

Epilogue: Complexities and Subtleties

There are many complexities in this report, some of which, we did not anticipate. For instance, choosing the world region and subregion classification model (such as geographical, geopolitical or culture) and matching it to the correct population data set. Among the geographical schemes there are different regional and subregional classifications, such as the differing divisions of the European subregions. Some classify the British Isles in Western Europe and others in Northern Europe.

There are seismic differences in the levels of self-governance among the dependencies, including: a dependent territory, overseas collectivity, autonomous region, self-governing country in free association with a sovereign state, special administrative region and more. Placing them all under the umbrella of "dependencies to varying degrees," as we did, suited our purpose for identifying countries that inherited or share the breed restriction of the sovereign state, but this is rife with complexity.

Understanding the importation requirements, directives, circulars and statues of each government, a portion of them not in English, was at times challenging. Every country has a unique system of government. With over 240 footnotes, we likely have some invalid or outdated law interpretations. It was also difficult to determine the year the national legislation was enacted. News articles were critical in these areas because they often explain the nuances of the law and when it was enacted.

Photographs - frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted

Images of the most frequent dangerous dog breeds restricted by governments worldwide.

Dog Breed Categories:

We did not try to establish a new breed classification system for this report. We merely reviewed all dog breeds in the report and placed them into 7 logical categories for dangerous dog breed restrictions. Most of the classifications were uncomplicated but determining the names of the Central Asian shepherd dogs, which have multiple regional names per breed, was challenging. The Ca de Bou (Majorca Mastiff, Perro de Presa Mallorquin, Malorsky Bulldog, Malorska Doga) also has many names.

When questions did arise about classification within the 7 categories, we first reviewed the breed's classification and history by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale. If further inquiry was needed, we reviewed the AKC, UKC, and Wikipedia breed groups and histories and performed online searches, especially if fighting was in the dog breed's heritage. The most common breeds listed in the "other" category were dominated by police dog breeds -- German and Belgian shepherds, 14% of laws.

Pit Bull Breeds: American Bulldog, American Bully (Micro, Pocket, Standard), American Bully (XL, XXL), American Pit Bull (XL, XXL), American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Brazilian Bulldog (Campeiro Bulldog), British Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, English Staffordshire, Olde English Bull Dogge, Otto Bulldog (Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog), Pit Bull, Rednose Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier, Swiss Blue Bully, Swiss Champagner Bully—Mastiff Fighting/Guarding Breeds: Alano Espanol (Spanish Bulldog, Spanish Alaunt), Australian Boar Dog (Bull Arab), Bandog, Belgian Mastiff (an extinct breed), Boerboel (South African Mastiff), Bullmastiff, Ca de Bou (Majorca Mastiff, Perro de Presa Mallorquin, Malorsky Bulldog, Malorska Doga), Cane Corso, Cão de Fila de São Miguel (Saint Miguel Cattle Dog), Danish Mastiff (Broholmer), Dogo Argentino, Dogue de Bordeaux (French Mastiff), Fila Brasileiro (Brazilian Mastiff), Gull Dong, Italian Mastiff , Japanese Tosa, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff (Mastino Napoletano), Old English Mastiff, Pakistani Mastiff (Bully Kutta), Presa Canario, Uruguayan Cimarron—Rottweiler Breed: Rottweiler—Livestock Guardian Breeds: Akbash, Anatolian Shepherd (Anatolian Karabash), Appenzeller Sennenhund (Appenzeller Mountain Dog), Aryan Molossus (Afghan Mastiff, Khorasani Dog, Khurasani Dog), Bernese Mountain Dog, Caucasian Dog, Caucasian Shepherd Dog (Caucasian Ovcharka, Caucasian Mountain Dog), Central Asian Shepherd Dog (Central Asian Ovcharka, Alabai), Croatian Shepherd Dog (Tornjak), Great Pyrenees, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog, Kangal Shepherd Dog (Karabash Shepherd Dog), Komondor, Kuvasz (Kuvas), Maremmano-Abruzzese Sheepdog, Mastin Espanol (Spanish Mastiff), Moscow Watchdog, Perro Majorero (Perro de Ganado Majorero), Pyrenean Mountain Dog (Pyrenean Mastiff), Rafeiro Do Alentejo (Portuguese Watchdog), Romanian Shepherd Dog, Sarplaninac (Yugoslavian Shepherd Dog), South Russian Shepherd (South Russian Ovcharka), Tibetan Mastiff (Tibetan Mountain Dog)—Northern/Spitz Breeds: Alaskan Malamute, Aniu Ken, Basenji, Chinese Chongqing (Chongqing Dog), Chinese Dog, Chinese Shar-Pei, Chow Chow, Czechoslovakian Wolfdog, Hokkaido, Husky, Japanese Akita, Japanese Spitz, Kai Ken (Korean Dog), Karelian Bear Dog (Karelian Shepherd Dog), Keeshond, Korean Jindo, Kunming Wolfdog, Swedish Valhunde, Wolfdog, Wolfdog Hybrid—Pinscher Breeds: Affenpinscher, Doberman Pinscher, Doberman Vladika Roshini, German Pinscher—Other Breeds: Afghan Hound, Australian Cattle Dog, Australian Dingo, Australian Shepherd, Bearded Collie, Beauceron Wolfdog, Bedlington Terrier, Belgian Shepherd (Belgian Sheepdog), Belgian Shepherd (Groenendael), Belgian Shepherd (Laekenois), Belgian Shepherd (Malinois), Belgian Shepherd (Tervuren), Black Russian Terrier, Bloodhound, Borzoi (Russian Wolfhound), Boston Terrier, Bouvier des Flandres, Boxer, Dalmatian, East European Shepherd, English Bulldog, Foxhound, German Shepherd (Alsatian), Giant Schnauzer, Great Dane, Greyhound, Hovawart, Irish Wolfhound, Kangaroo Dog, Kerry Blue Terrier, Languedoc Sheepdog, Leonberger, Leopard Hound, Mountain Hound, Newfoundland, Old English Sheepdog, Ridgeback (Rhodesian), Ridgeback (Thai), Saluki, Schnauzer, Scottish Shepherd Collie, St. Bernard, Weimaraner.

1WorldOmeter classifies 195 countries and 38 dependencies. Our classification is 191 countries and 43 dependencies. We counted England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as autonomous and the United Kingdom the sovereign state. WorldOmeter also classifies the territories of Saint-Martin and Sint Maarten, which co-exist on the same island, as one entity. We count each separately because each are dependent on a different sovereign state. The Dutch territory (Sint Maarten), where the international airport and cruise port are located, has a national-level breed restriction law.
2In our count of over 125 different dog breeds, some are regional or colloquial names of the same or similar breed. We thought it was important to keep the country identifying names intact whenever possible, such as "Rednose Pit Bull" in the Netherlands and "Swiss Champagner Bully" in Switzerland, and/or by placing them in parenthesis after the breed name. We only altered breed names if it was a clear spelling or translation issue, such as Kuvasz spelled, "Kuvaz."
3Bahrain, Egypt, England, Iceland, India, Ireland, Isle of Man, Malta, Mozambique, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Turks and Caicos, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and Wales.
4Greenland and Bermuda.
5There are multiple ways to classify the European subregions. The WorldOMeter classification places the British Isles into Northern Europe, as does the United Nations. We also count the 4 individual countries that comprise the United Kingdom. Thus, the 11 Northern Europe countries designated on our chart are: Denmark, England, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland and Wales.
6National-level dog importation laws in the United States are heavily regulated by the federal government regarding disease control. For instance, back in 2023, Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) banned the importation of dogs from dozens of rabies prone countries, causing CDC to undergo a federal rulemaking process about this policy.
7Orhan Yilmaz, Fusun Coskun, Mehmet Ertugrul, Dogfighting in Turkey, Can J App Sci, Issue 2; Vol.05; 21-25; April, 2015.
8,10C. Urbigkit & J. Urbigkit, A Review: The Use of Livestock Protection Dogs in Association with Large Carnivores in the Rocky Mountains, Sheep & Goat Research Journal, Vol 25, 2010.
9The Cajun Rules, by Casino and J.C. Shaw. Variations by G.A. Gaboon Trahan.
11Also known as the Indian Mastiff, Pakistan Mastiff, and the "Beast of the East."

Posted on February 24, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

United States Senate Bill to Provide Public Health Veterinary Services in Rural and Tribal Communities

Bill would authorize public health veterinary services for tribal communities.

Bill Reintroduced
Washington DC - Last week, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA), along with multiple other senators, reintroduced Senate Bill 620, the Veterinary Services to Improve Public Health in Rural Communities Act. The bill authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service (IHS) to provide Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations with veterinary services, including spaying and neutering of domestic animals.

Murkowski first introduced the bill in June 2024. The co-sponsors of the original bill -- Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA), Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), Vice Chairman of SCIA, and Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) -- continue this role. Murkowski represents Alaska, which has the highest Alaska Native population in the country. Heinrich represents New Mexico, which is home to multiple Indian reservations, including part of the Navajo Nation.

"Studies show that Native children have the highest rate of dog bite injuries in the nation, and the highest rate of dog bite hospitalizations occur in rural Alaska and the Navajo Nation..."

"The overpopulation of stray and abandoned dogs in Indian Country is a significant public health and safety issue," said Chairman Murkowski. "My colleagues have been shocked to learn more than 250,0000 reservation dogs, as they’re often called, roam the Navajo Nation alone. And, according to IHS data, an average of 4,800 tribal members are hospitalized or receive outpatient care from dog bites each year. Some studies indicate that tribal areas experience a death rate from dog attacks that is 35 times higher than the rest of the nation...

I reintroduced this bill because Native children experience the highest rates of hospitalization from dog attacks than any other group in the nation, and we have an opportunity to change that."

Veterinary services provided by IHS are also needed to the reduce the risk of dangerous diseases, including rabies. “Communities across Indian Country are at higher risk of exposure to dangerous diseases that spread between animals and people, including rabies,” said Vice Chairman Schatz. “Rabies outbreaks in animals are becoming more frequent across America, and Michigan’s rural and Tribal communities often lack readily available access to the veterinary care," said Senator Peters.

The Navajo Nation, which is over 27,000 square miles and crosses into four states, strongly supports the bill. "This bill would assist the Nation in reducing rabies-related incidents stemming from dog bites and improving overall animal health, which directly impacts public safety and community well-being. We appreciate Senator Murkowski’s leadership in reintroducing this bill and recognizing the urgent need for veterinary services in rural and tribal areas,” said Dr. Buu Nygren, President of Navajo Nation.

IHS is part of the Department of Health and Human Services and is funded by taxpayers. IHS has lacked the authority to fund and provide public health veterinary services to Alaska Native and American Indian reservations. During the pandemic, many reservations closed shelters and halted spay and neutering services, causing the already uncontrolled dog populations on reservations to rise further. Between 2020 and 2024, at least 12 people were killed by dogs on Indian reservations.1

Most fatal dog attacks on reservations are scantly reported; dog breeds are rarely reported; identities may not be released; and some deaths are never reported at all. The 12 deaths over this 5-year period equates to 4% of our recorded dog bite fatalities (283). The number of people living on reservations is estimated to be 429,000, according to IHA. Based on this, we were able to determine rate. Death by vicious dog attack truly is about 35 times higher on reservations than the rest of the United States.2

The Death of Lyssa Rose

In May of 2021, 13-year old Lyssa Upshaw was killed by a pack of vicious dog in Fort Defiance. Afterward, the Navajo Nation Council issued a press release stating the Nation had about 500,000 feral dog and domestic dogs on the reservation, and that "just one mating pair of dogs can create 5,700 new dogs in five years." The pandemic only exacerbated this problem. Animal Control only captured "8,000 dogs in 2020 versus an upward of 30,000 in previous years," states the release.

Upshaw's death helped move the Navajo Nation Council to pass legislation that established penalties for owners of vicious dogs and other dangerous animals running at large that cause injury or death. Previously, there were no criminal penalties for either scenario. The legislation notes that along with the rising feral dog population, "dogs are becoming more vicious and aggressive." Upshaw's death also inspired state-level and federal legislation, including this bill by Senator Murkowski.

While animal control departments on reservations have long been absent, short staffed or poorly funded, it is the costly veterinary services of vaccination and spay and neutering that need federal assistance. Currently, veterinary services often rely upon partnerships with nonprofits for both. Murkowski's bill authorizes the funding of public health veterinary services for spay and neutering, diagnosis, epidemiology, elimination, vaccination and more by the Indian Health Service (IHS).

‘‘(b) AUTHORIZATION FOR VETERINARY SERVICES.— The Secretary, acting through the Service, may expend funds, directly or pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.), for public health veterinary services to prevent and control zoonotic disease infection and transmission in Service areas where the risk for disease occurrence in humans and wildlife is endemic." - Senate Bill 620

Bipartisan Bill & President

Senate Bill 620 is bipartisan, and reservations are located in at least 35 states. Senator Murkowski, the bill's sponsor, is Republican, where the senate holds a slight majority (53 to 47). However, the majority in this case is about the party's agenda and its control over the powerful committee chair positions. Murkowski chairs the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. These are all favorable conditions for this bill. However, moving any legislation through both chambers of Congress can be next to impossible.

There are conflicting reports about which presidential candidate the Native American block, which is traditionally Democratic, supported in the 2024 election. One poll result showed 65% voted for Trump and another showed 39%. Reports from counties in Montana, New Mexico and Minnesota with the largest populations of Native Americans moved sharply to the right, as did voters on the Navajo Nation. Wherever the percentage truth lies, it is just one more favorable condition for this legislation.

“As tribal leaders, we’re just trying to take care of our own people,” former Navajo Nation Vice President Myron Lizer said. “We’re tired of the same old, and there’s a lot of people in our movement.”

Lizer spoke at the 2020 virtual Republican National Convention and stumped for Trump at a rally in Albuquerque, N.M., in October. In his view, it’s time for Indian Country to make its presence known in American politics.

Providing funding for public health veterinary services to Tribal communities isn't a polarizing issue like Tribal sovereignty, land rights or water rights. There is no way to reduce the longstanding uncontrolled dog population on reservations without easily accessible low cost or free spaying and neutering services. Rescuing a handful of dogs at time, as many nonprofit rescues do on reservations, does not make a dent in the hundreds of thousands of free-roaming dogs on U.S. reservations.

You can make your voice known about Senate Bill 620 by contacting your U.S. Senators.

Pictured are five Native Americans mauled to death by one or more dogs on U.S. Indian reservations after the Covid-19 pandemic began, between May 16, 2021 to April 10, 2022.

12020 - Adult Jane Doe (unknown age), Navajo Nation Reservation, 2020 - Kay Torres, Taos Pueblo, 2021 - Lyssa Rose Upshaw, Navajo Nation Reservation, 2021 - Duke Little Whirlwind, Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, 2022 - Unknown, Hopi Reservation, 2022 - Chaille Morgan, Meskwaki Nation Settlement, 2022 - Francis Cavanaugh, Spirit Lake Reservation, 2022 - Shawna Jo Bell, Wind River Indian Reservation, 2023 - Kellan Boner, Fort Hall Reservation, 2024 - Lester Peneaux, Cheyenne River Reservation, 2024 - Carlon Galloway, Fort Hall Reservation, 2024 - Lexi Salas, Picayune Off-Reservation Trust Land.
2The statistic from the press release, "Some studies indicate that tribal areas experience a death rate from dog attacks that is 35 times higher than the rest of the nation" does not cite a source, but our data confirms it.

Posted on February 10, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

Man in Critical Condition After Pit Bull Attack Dies; Owner Charged with Resisting Arrest, Obstruction

After man was mauled by a pit bull, the owner was charged with resisting arrest and obstruction.

On February 11, we received notice that Michael Fabjon passed away on Sunday, February 9 at Bay Medical Center in Panama City. He was viciously attacked by a pit bull belonging to Brendan Murphy on February 4 at a residence on Laird Street. He sustained life-threatening injuries to his throat and the front and back of his neck. Murphy was charged with resisting without violence and obstruction for blocking animal control officers from entering his home to take possession of his pit bull, "Gunner."

Man in Critical Condition
Panama City Beach, FL - Last Tuesday, a man sustained critical injuries after being attacked by a pit bull belonging to his neighbor. Bay County sheriff's deputies responded to an emergency medical call at 8115 Laird Street around 5:00 pm. Upon arrival, he found Michael Fabjon Jr., 49, unconscious and injured from the dog attack. CPR was administered at the scene. He was transported to a hospital and admitted into the ICU. Fabjon sustained critical injuries to his throat and the back of his neck.

According to Pamela Dennis, who began administering CPR before deputies arrived, Fabjon's dog and a pit bull belonging to another resident got into a fight. Dennis and Fabjon were able to break up the fight, but the pit bull, "Gunner," took off. Not long after, Gunner returned and began to attack Fabjon, Dennis said. "Gunner took Fabjon to the ground and then began biting Fabjon's neck while violently shaking his head," reports the Panama City News Herald. Gunner belongs to Brendan Murphy, 28.

After Bay County Animal Control arrived, a deputy escorted the AC officers to confiscate the dog, but Murphy blocked them from entering his residence, saying "no one was going to take his dog." Charging documents state that after police asked him "several times" to stop blocking the front door, "the defendant was placed in double-locked handcuffs." During this scuffle, Murphy resisted arrest. He was charged with resisting without violence and obstruction. He was taken to the Bay County Jail.

"Bay County Animal Control responded to the scene to take possession of the defendant's dog. The defendant stated several times that no one was going to take his dog. The dog was located inside the residence during this time. The defendant walked toward the front door and stood in front of the door. He was asked to move away from the door several times before I asked him to place his hands behind his back. This was due to him refusing to allow animal control to take possession of the dog. I grabbed his wrist, and he pulled away. Another Deputy assisted and the defendant was placed in double-locked handcuffs. He was placed in the back seat of my marked patrol vehicle and taken to the Bay County Jail. The defendant did resist by pulling his arm away and attempted to obstruct animal control from removing his dog from the residence." - Arrest affidavit complaint, 02/04/25

Criminal Investigation Division Lt. Chris Coram spoke to WMBB. "It was described that the individual was thrashed about by the dog when the dog was able to get the man to the ground so most of the injuries that we saw were located in the upper chest, to the neck, in the front of the throat and the back of the neck," Coram explained. Animal control officers took possession of the dog. It was euthanized that night due to Fabjon's severe injuries. Gunner also had a history of violence and attacks.

Coram then clarified the classification of Gunner (who was likely classified as "dangerous" after the attack). It is an "animal by animal basis," he said, "It's not anything specifically against pit bull breeds. The classification of the dog is simply based upon whether or not the dog has shown violence in the community before." Outside of Miami-Dade county, Florida law has not allowed for the type of breed-specific law Coram describes -- declaring a breed prima facia "vicious" or "dangerous"-- since 1989.

Insufficient Felony Law

Gunner had a history of violence and attacks but was not declared "dangerous" for these acts prior to nearly killing Fabjon. If the dog had been, Murphy might also be facing a third-degree felony. "If a dog that has previously been declared dangerous attacks and causes severe injury to or death of any human, the owner is guilty of a felony of the third degree," states the Florida statute. But a legal designation prior to a "new" vicious attack is rare, which is why such felony laws are largely useless.

For instance, as soon as Gunner was classified as "dangerous" he was put down. Owning a dog declared dangerous in most states comes with a slew of responsibilities, restrictions and legal liability. It's simpler for these owners to call the dog a loss and acquire a new one. This is called the "vicious dog loop" because it allows irresponsible owners to habitually acquire new vicious dogs. Thus, felony laws that require a vicious or dangerous classification before eligibility of prosecution are fruitless.

Hardships on the Horizon

On New Year's Eve, Murphy was arrested for disorderly conduct after punching a man in the face. He was intoxicated and resisted being restrained by security guards. One guard "had to tackle and restrain Brendan again due his disruption of the establishment and his level of intoxication until law enforcement arrived," states the arrest affidavit. Murphy pleaded no contest. The case was adjudicated guilty on January 3 as a second-degree misdemeanor. The new charge is first-degree.

"On 12/31/2024, law enforcement was dispatched to 8711 Thomas Dr in reference to a fight that occurred at the bar. Upon arrival Newby's security, XXXXX stated Brendan Murphy had punched another customer at the bar and had to be restrained. Upon law enforcement arriving to Newby's, Brendan was on the ground resisting several security guards who were attempting to restrain him. Brendan was yelling profanities while on the ground ...

XXXXX provided a sworn statement stating that he is employed to work as security for the bar ... While standing there tonight, he observed Brendan punch XXXXX in the face. XXXXX then ran and tackled Brendan ... he then escorted him downstairs due to the disturbance that Brendan was causing. While downstairs ... Brendan stated he was not going to jail and then ran again ... they then had to tackle and restrain Brendan again due his disruption of the establishment..." - Arrest affidavit complaint, 01/01/25

If the victim survives his severe injuries, he faces legal proceedings for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon -- out of the hospital and into the courtroom. He pleaded not guilty in July 2024. If convicted, it is a second-degree felony with a 3-year mandatory prison sentence. The predicament of Fabjon isn't good. The predicament of Murphy isn't good either. Gunner, the pit bull, compounded the already difficult lives of both men by leaving them with long-term consequences.

Pit Bull Dog Aggression

During the first decade of our nonprofit, we saw many "subtypes" of dog aggression defined by the shelter industry, such as stranger aggression, owner aggression, fear aggression, and redirected aggression. But for 18 years, we have seen dog-aggressive pit bulls jump this "compartmentalization" and kill a person. Enough fatal pit bull maulings also have a dead animal at the scene -- the pit bull killed a person and animal during the attack -- that this became one of our tracking parameters.

Gunner took off after two people separated the dog fight. Then he came back -- Murphy lives on the same property as Fabjon and his dog. It's no surprise the dog returned home. According to reports, Fabjon was in the process of "putting his dog up" when Gunner returned. But he didn't (or couldn't) attack the dog again, he just attacked Fabjon, biting into his upper chest, the front of his throat and the back of his neck. No matter the aggression "subtype," this was a disproportionate response.

Pit bull "Gunner" seen at the Bay County animal shelter facility before being euthanized.

Posted on February 3, 2025 by Colleen Lynn

Oakland Man with Criminal Past Facing Multiple Felonies -- Including Assault with a Deadly Weapon -- for His Attack Dogs

Man faces assault with a deadly weapon charge after ordering his dogs to attack.

Dog Owner Faces Charges
Oakland, CA - A man with a lengthy criminal history spanning from at least San Francisco to Fresno is now facing four felony charges after his two vicious dogs attacked police officers and security guards in a 24 hour period. Rafael Rivas, a 38-year old resident of Oakland, has been charged with three counts of failure to control a dangerous animal after his dogs inflicted multiple damaging bites and one count of assault with a deadly weapon after allegedly commanding his dogs to attack a security guard.

The chain of events began on January 13 outside the Grocery Outlet in the 2900 block of Broadway in Oakland. This is where Rivas allegedly ordered his dogs to attack security guards on the premises. "They allegedly singled out one security officer and bit him repeatedly, requiring 'emergency medical attention' for puncture wounds to his finger and leg, police said in court records," reports the Mercury News. The next attack occurred the following day after Rivas was detained by Oakland police officers.

While Rivas was handcuffed in the back of an Oakland Police Department squad car, his two vicious dogs broke free of their restraints and attacked police officers. It is unknown how his dogs were being restrained at the time. During this incident, Rivas had no way to physically stop his dogs. Officer Vern Saechao sustained a bite wound to his arm and Sgt. Colin Cameron sustained a bite wound to his leg. Both officers required emergency medical attention and stitches, reports the Mercury News.

Police did not disclose the breed of dogs involved or their disposition. Since the dogs are part of all four felonies, it's safe to assume they are being held alive as evidence. As for the breed-type, one can imagine a mastiff-pit bull (combat dog) variant. Ever since Diane Whipple was killed by two presa canarios in an upscale San Francisco apartment in 2001, the popularity of these mastiff cross-breeds exploded in California. The caretaker of the two presa canarios, Marjorie Knoller, is still in prison.

According to crime scraper sites (websites that scrape crime data from city and county databases), Rivas has a criminal history dating back to 2019 in at least five California counties, including grand theft, domestic violence, acts of indecent exposure, threats of violence, petty theft and trespassing. The Alameda Superior Court portal site shows that Rivas was charged with four felonies under the dog attack statute on January 16. He was also charged with 14 sentencing enhancement felonies.

On January 17, Rivas pled not guilty to the dog attack charges and denied all of the enhancements. In Alameda County, Rivas has active/pending cases involving a misdemeanor "criminal threats" (filed in April 2024) and misdemeanor "engaging in lewd conduct" (filed in April 2023). He was sentenced to 10 days in jail and one year probation for the latter charge. But that probation was revoked halfway through. Now, he faces multiple felonies after his dogs attacked multiple public safety officers.

Alameda County is the same county where prosecutors charged the owner of three cane corso-Neapolitan mastiff mixes (combat dogs) with a felony after his dogs killed Robert Holguin in September. Brendan Burke was charged with a felony under the California statute for failing to secure his dogs resulting in death. At the time, Holguin was homeless and living out of his car on Burke's property, who was his friend. He died at the scene. Burke was also a backyard breeder of these dogs.

Criminal Charges

We don't see assault with a deadly weapon charge often because proving it requires video or a reliable witness. Many of these attacks only involve the dog owner, the dog(s) and the victim. In the cases we often write about, the victim died, so there is no witness to testify the owner "ordered" his dog to attack. We see deadly weapon charges the most when the dog attacks police officers. The evidence showing intent may be the officer's body-worn camera or an officer who was at the scene.

The deadly weapon charge escalates when it is carried out against a peace officer or firefighter. But in this case the charge regards a security officer. Of the 14 sentencing enhancements, six involve aggravating circumstances of the "crime involved great violence, great bodily harm" or the "defendant was armed with or used a weapon." The other charges fall under the state's felony dog attack law, which applies to attacks resulting in serious bodily injury or death. Both can result in a felony.

(4) “Serious bodily injury” means a serious impairment of physical condition, including, but not limited to, the following: loss of consciousness; concussion; bone fracture; protracted loss or impairment of function of any bodily member or organ; a wound requiring extensive suturing; and serious disfigurement.

Escalating Crimes

It's not unusual for repeat offenders of crimes like domestic violence, soliciting lewd acts and threats of violence to escalate to more serious ones.1 Though, one might not expect they would lead to felony dog attack or deadly weapon by dog charges (due to this area having limited research). The bite victims in this case are also public safety officers. If one is ordering his or her dogs to attack a security guard, what's next? And how vicious are these dogs if police could not even restrain them initially?

Lastly, the irritation with the deadly weapon charges is a presumption that Rivas trained his dogs to attack. Maybe he did. But the majority of dog owners cannot even teach the "Stay" command. There have been countless serious and fatal attacks involving pit bulls when the owner has a heated argument with a household member, and the dog suddenly launches a frenzied attack on whoever is closest to it, usually a family member. That's not training. That's a lightning speed arousal threshold.

1To what extent do lower-level offenders go on to Commit more serious crimes? A rapid review, by Thomas Moniz, Sigrún Clark and Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal Lab (RREAL), July 2023.

DogsBite blog ::

Report Shows a "Universal Set of Dangerous Dog Breeds."