The dangerous dog hearing of Max, a high prey drive husky with animal and child aggression.
Statement of Decision
San Francisco, CA - On May 22, 2024, about a month before a San Francisco man had to scale a tall fence to escape two vicious pit bulls, another high-profile attack occurred in the city. "Max" the husky had been sitting under a table at an outdoor pizzeria with its owners, when he suddenly bolted and hunted down a child walking nearby with his nanny. After the male owner regained control of Max, he sat back down at the pizzeria and "finished his beer." Surveillance cameras captured the attack.
No attempt was made by the owners to provide their contact information to the boy's nanny. The couple said they were unable to because they did not speak English and because "everything happened fast." KABC-TV interviewed the child's mother, who had desperately tried to find the owners to obtain the dog's vaccination status so her son could avoid the rabies shots. At that time, SFPD's Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit was investigating, and a hearing was set to be calendared.
Before the Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing was scheduled, KABCT-TV uncovered a previous attack by Max that was also captured on video. A year prior to the May 2024 attack near the pizzeria, Max attacked "Ajaxx," a smaller, 10-year old dog, unprovoked in the lobby of their building. Ajaxx's owner, Jomai DeHaven, filed a dog bite report afterward, but nothing ever came of it. DeHaven did not know he needed to file a Vicious and Dangerous Dog Complaint in order to open an investigation.
The hearing was held on August 6. DeHaven testified first, followed by the child's mother, Clair Wang, and his father. The parents were able to obtain multiple surveillance videos, which we overlaid on the hearing video. Both owners of Max, through an interpreter, testified next. Due to the nature of both unprovoked attacks by Max -- first to a senior dog, then a toddler -- we had a strong interest in learning how the hearing officer would rule in this case: muzzle restrictions or euthanasia?
Statement of Decision
The 11-page Statement of Decision by the independent hearing officer, Janelle Caywood, was issued on August 22. "All testimony and documentary evidence were carefully considered and incorporated," states the decision. We knew the prognosis for Max was poor, a two-time biter by the age of three and was neutered at the age of one. With unprovoked animal and child aggression, rehoming/rescue was off the table too. Max was declared Vicious and Dangerous and ordered to be humanely euthanized.
"Based on the testimony at the hearing, the documents, photographs, videos, and the above Findings, the dog Max meets the vicious and dangerous criteria ... The harrowing videos of the two attacks depicted in the videos in Exhibit 7 speak for themselves ... Max chased down, attacked, and bit a toddler in the right arm, yanking the child to the ground. Thereafter, the dog circled the child and nanny for 20 seconds, in a menacing manner, before the owners finally got control of the dog ... the boy and his nanny did not provoke, strike, tease, or antagonize Max. They simply walked along the sidewalk a considerable distance away from the dog and did nothing to justify this dog hunting down the toddler like prey, biting the boy, and swinging the boy to the ground. Even if the child had made noises as Mejia contended (which the undersigned did not find credible) a toddler’s sounds from a considerable distance away does not constitute provocation to justify hunting down the child and attacking him." - Statement of Decision, August 22, 2024
Caywood also wrote about the husky breed's "innate strong prey drive," which already requires careful management, the unlikelihood of rehabilitating Max through training due to his prey drive for children and dog aggression, and that his lack of bite inhibition was an indicator he would bite again. Given these elements combined, in addition to the fact that dog "owner compliance is never perfect," Caywood had little choice. There was only one sensible outcome in the matter of Max.
"Unfortunately, there is only sensible outcome in this matter: Max must be humanely euthanized to protect the community. Vulnerable children are most at risk for dog bites, so it is of paramount importance that the City and County of San Francisco take swift action when a dog has a propensity to hunt children as Max demonstrated on May 22, 2024. Huskies have an innate strong prey drive and require careful management as it is. But Max’s prognosis is poor and likely cannot be rehabilitated with training given his innate prey drive for children and dog aggression. Max lacks bite inhibition as evidenced by the fact that the child’s wound is so deep. A lack of bite inhibition demonstrates that the dog is likely bite again at the same depth or deeper which poses a grave threat to the children in the community. The dog’s behavior is not amenable to the remedies in Section 42.3(c)(ii) and the standard vicious and dangerous dog restrictions are inadequate to protect public safety. Muzzle and a short-leash mandates are not enough to protect the public from this dog because owner compliance is never perfect. Also, even if Max were ordered to wear a muzzle in public, Max could still attack a person in a private home or facility when lawfully not wearing a muzzle or when eating or drinking. Notably, Max has already been neutered and continues to bite at a dangerous level. This dog is unsafe to exist in the community and must be put down." - Statement of Decision, August 22, 2024
Discussion
The owners of Max had the dog neutered in late 2022.1 At that time, the dog was also vaccinated and microchipped. Max was wearing a leash in the videos but was not always under its control. Thus, the couple had some knowledge of responsible dog ownership and the city's laws. They had no knowledge of the husky breed, unprovoked aggression, or bite inhibition. Nor did they realize that failing to provide their contact information forced a 3-year old to undergo eight painful rabies shots.
"Her child suffered a deep bite wound, as well as additional teeth wounds, that was more horrible than she imagined and required five (5) stiches. Blood was everywhere and flesh was stuck to his clothes. Because they did not have rabies vaccine information, her child had to get eight (8) rabies vaccination shots, including shots directly into the bite wound, which were very painful." - Statement of Decision, August 22, 2024
After Max attacked Ajaxx, he was eligible for a Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing. Unfortunately, DeHaven had not known how to pursue that process. By the August hearing, Max had inflicted another vicious attack. After "hunting down the toddler like prey," Max menacingly circled the boy and his nanny. It took the owners two minutes to regain control of their dog. It was only after two attacks, and being ordered by SFPD, the owners recognized Max could never be unmuzzled in public again.
What occurred to this child is non-repeatable. There could be no "strike three" for Max. His owners being unable to comprehend the magnitude of Max's dog aggression and child aggression is irrelevant. The owners also do not have a yard, enclosed or otherwise. Meaning that every time Max had to relieve himself he would need to be leashed and muzzled -- a zero mistake dog. Sadly, what Mejia told the hearing officer, "Please don't take him, I will train him," is adolescent wishful thinking.
As Caywood pointed out, a muzzle restriction when in public, would not make Max safe indoors. He could attack a child in a private home while "lawfully not wearing a muzzle or when eating or drinking." Mejia stated they had no children in their home. But that could change, not to mention a child or infant visiting. Few entities beyond our readership understand the danger some huskies -- with or without these propensities -- pose to infants. The dog "Max" is set to be euthanized on September 3.
The Declined Witness
The child's mother and father were not present during the attack, only the nanny witnessed the attack. The nanny declined to be a witness, did not provide a written statement, and did not attend the hearing. Given the video evidence presented at the hearing, perhaps she thought she was not needed? Unfortunately, that left her statements to Wang as hearsay. "Wang's testimony regarding" the nanny's "statements were not considered for truth because they are hearsay," states the decision.
What if there had been no video, or the video only captured part of the attack on the child? That would have meant that the only witnesses providing testimony about the "events of the attack" were the owners of Max. Recall that Mejia stated on the record the child was making noises that provoked Max. "The baby was yelling or making noise, so the dog got up and ran. They didn't think that it was going to be so easy for the dog to come out from under the table," stated the translator for Mejia.
Even with video, key witnesses appearing and providing testimony is critical. Failing to appear can impact the hearing officer's final decision. Cornell Law states: "Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility. As a result, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court."
Video Timestamps
We designated the following chapters in our video of the hearing to help readers navigate the chapters. At the 28:45 mark, you can watch all videos related to the attack on the child and what followed uninterrupted. Due to the translator, the testimony by Max's owners moves more slowly, but the questions Caywood asks are weighty, and you can see how she begins to formulate her opinion. Finally, there are some "wobblies" in the hearing video when switching angles; sorry about that!
00:00 Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing begins
07:59 Child's nanny declined to be a witness or provide written testimony
08:53 Witness DeHaven, the owner of Ajaxx, testifies
15:54 Video, Max attacking Ajaxx in the lobby
18:13 Witness Wang, the mother of child, testifies by phone
28:45 Videos (all) of attack near pizzeria and afterward
37:22 Witness Bekerman, the father of child, testifies by phone
41:35 Witness Mejia, female owner of Max
1:23:42 Witness Gomez, male owner of Max
1:40:30 Brief rebuttals of child's parents and DeHaven
1:43:39 Injury photos of Ajaxx shown
1:44:31 Rebuttals of Max's owners.
1:46:45 Recommendations from SFPD and Animal Control
1:53:00 Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing closes
From left: Ajaxx owner DeHaven, Max owner Mejia, and hearing officer Janelle Caywood.
Max at the pizzeria, the injured toddler, and Max walking away afterward with owner Gomez.
Related articles:
06/13/24: San Francisco Man Scales Tall Fence to Escape Violent Pit Bulls Captured on Video
10/29/23: Ring Camera Video of Pit Bull Attacking Pomeranian in San Francisco Used in Hearing
02/26/22: Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing After Alleged 'Service' Pit Bull Attacks Security...
Amazing they were able to track down the owner and get them to a trial. Even more amazing is the decision to put the dog down! Thank goodness the judge made the right call.
Remember that the SFPD Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit was the investigating agency!
I did not realize they had a separate unit for this purpose. They did their job well.
Why does this unit even exist?
I mean, come on. Taxpayer dollars are being spent on vicious and dangerous dogs? Just put ’em down.
It was created after the mauling deaths of Diane Whipple and Nicolas Faibish to prevent another cataclysmic fatal dog mauling. I believe the history is here: https://blog.dogsbite.org/2018/12/san-francisco-animal-control-vicious-dogs.html
Really excellent, comprehensive summary of the case and ruling!
But you definitely need to get a new videographer. 😉
I’m surprise they actually put the dog down.I feel sorry for the little girl who have lifelong scar but at least they got justice for their baby.now if they do the same thing for and put down those pitbull who bit innocent people.
It was a 3-year-old boy.
I personally don’t know why this case went as far as it did.
Couldn’t the owner have stopped his dog’s bad behavior?
The GSD of a friend was destroyed for multiple dog bites. She could not understand what stopping the biting meant. She had had him neutered, and that didn’t stop him.
An owner must first want to stop a dog’s bad behavior. They must see it as a problem to others or outside a cultural norm. Based on the male owner’s casual response of sitting down and finishing a beer, I doubt if he thinks this is a problem. Also, in the USA, attacking a human toddler is horrifying, but perhaps not in the owner’s country of origin. Dogs running at large is most likely the owners’ view of how the world is.
What is unclear to me is the vax record date. The vax, microchip, and neuter happened during the same vet appointment at the SF SPCA sometime in 2023. Did the attack on Ajaxx in the lobby (May 2023) prompt the owners to neuter? If so, there would be some knowledge the owners were concerned with his dog-to-dog aggression (They also said they continued to take Max to the dog park after both attacks using a muzzle). DeHaven said he was told after the lobby attack by the doctor that his dog only survived because he is weightier/thicker than Max expected. “Max actually couldn’t pick him up and shake him to break his neck.” Anyway, and potentially lost in translation, it was not clear to me if both attacks occurred after neutering.
The nonsense that neutering will stop dog aggression is patently ludicrous. Vets, rescuers and others that spread this dangerous nonsense need to stop spreading it.
While neutering a male dog cuts down its testosterone and may lead to less dog fights from fighting over females or for dominance, humping and generally cut down the amount of snaps and bites when someone intervenes in those behaviors, it’s not some magical cure-all for aggression.
A big husky attacking a little pipsqueak dog isn’t a matter of fighting over maleness or the local poodle in heat. A big dog can stomp on a small dog or smack it away if it’s annoying and *they know it*. They were taught that as puppies and if they don’t know it–they’ve had a deprived puppyhood and that’s not fixable. It’s a sign of viciousness or unmanageable prey drive.
Taking a dog to a dog park with a muzzle after an attack is one of the stupidest responses I can think of. Now you have a super-frustrated dog that *still* isn’t trained to ignore distractions and other dogs while remaining calm. And as for so-called “counter-conditioning” and waving treats around hoping to fix an underlying aggression problem–well, I don’t even know where to begin with that.
One of the dumbest things I see posted is that dogs need “socialization” blah blah blah. If a puppy isn’t “socialized” by the time you get it at 10+weeks–it’s not going to happen. Dogs do not “need” to “play” with other dogs. If they have dog friends or are sociable by nature–great. Some aren’t and never will be. Teaching them to ignore other dogs while following instructions is a far more useful endeavor.
It’s too bad someone didn’t bother to inform the first fellow that he had the right (and obligation) to file a dangerous dog report.
A child would still be alive if they had.
“The nonsense that neutering will stop dog aggression is patently ludicrous.” That was also part of my thought. What did the SF SPCA tell them? “Taking a dog to a dog park with a muzzle after an attack is one of the stupidest responses I can think of.” You mean after two attacks, the senior dog and the child. Also, this child survived. We did look at the SF city website. It is clear how to file a VIDD report. DeHaven didn’t see the attack — recall he refused to watch the video prior to the hearing. Had he seen the video and been informed about the VIDD report, it seems he certainly would have done so. Finally, neutering/spaying, in terms of the VIDD hearing officer, is primarily a matter for the record. The Statement of Decision always includes this information. It’s not the same context as “vets, rescuers and others that spread this dangerous nonsense.”
Correction:
Just watched the video. The child was bitten severely, not killed.
That said, the fact two people chased that dog around instead of just yelling “down” or even, yelling “down” and having the dog drop *as soon* as it began to run off…shows why training, matters.
This owner failed the other dog owner, failed the child and failed his own dog. Since nobody in their right mind would now want that dog–euthanasia was the only option.
That’s correct.
Their testimony was vague and evasive – I’m not convinced that they used that muzzle at the dog park.
Also, those dimwits were cruel to keep a husky in an apartment.
If you have an unpredictable, vicious dog and fail to control it euthanasia is what needs to happen.
I live in San Francisco and I’m grateful to learn about these resources. They’re saying they would welcome me reporting it if a dog were to lunge at me. I appreciate that.
Let’s see if they actually do something.
Apparently I can go down to City Hall room 408 on any Tuesday afternoon to see what they are up to 🙂 I am crossing my fingers I will never need their services.
At the State vet meeting, there has commonly been a federal poster from the AVMA. This stuff annoys me. They decided that all intact males regardless of species are dangerous. This is based on the idea that many intact farm animals are aggressive. A billy goat is dangerous because he will come to you to put stinky goat stuff on you.
A GSD should be able to herd with testicles
present. Some stallions are aggressive. Some aren’t.
*Owner compliance is NEVER perfect*
Exactly why ZERO margin of error dog should not be pet animals.
Poor child! I hope he has a good outcome. I’m glad the hearing officer decide to euthanize the child grabber. So many things wrong here. Idiot owners with no clue about their breed and the dangerous nature of their dog. Not caring about the injured child. At the hearing, caring more about the stupid dog than the child. The Nanny? Not calling 911. Not calling police to report. Not agreeing to testify. I wonder why?
Probably an illegal.
Just for clarification, we submitted a FOIA for the vax/neuter date records. Max was neutered on November 25, 2022, around the age of 10-12 months old. Both attacks occurred afterward, a year apart (05/13/2023 and 05/22/2024).