Posted on February 1, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

Proposed Rulemaking: Traveling by Air with Service Animals

On January 22, 2020, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a proposed rule stating that emotional support animals will no longer be considered a service animal while traveling by air.

The proposal recognizes that "aircraft are highly confined spaces" and that accommodating service animals must be balanced against the health and safety of other passengers and crew.

In a rare opportunity, DOT seeks comments on whether a crowded airplane cabin in flight justifies permitting airlines like Delta to prohibit pit bulls or any other specific breeds or types of dogs.

Summary of Proposal
DogsBite.org - On January 22, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) about traveling by air with service animals. The proposal is a stunning reversal from previous DOT positions -- airlines, the public and public safety prevailed! In one fatal swoop, DOT altered the definition of a service animal to align with the Americans with Disabilities Act and no longer considers an emotional support animal (ESA) a service animal.

Our nonprofit began writing about this issue in July of 2017 after a passenger was repeatedly attacked in the face by a "support" dog onboard a Delta flight. That dog was a psychiatric service animal (PSA), which at that time was treated the same way as ESAs by airlines, requiring a letter from a licensed mental health professional stating the passenger has a mental health-related disability. Under the new proposal, PSAs will be treated like all other service animals.

"Define a service animal as a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability;

No longer consider an emotional support animal to be a service animal;

Consider a psychiatric service animal to be a service animal and require the same training and treatment of psychiatric service animals as other service animals;

Allow airlines to require forms developed by DOT attesting to a service animal’s good behavior, certifying the service animal’s good health, and if taking a long flight attesting that the service animal has the ability to either not relieve itself, or can relieve itself in a sanitary manner" - U.S. Department of Transportation, January 22, 2020 (DOT-OST-2018-0068)

All of this came about after thousands of people began purchasing fake ESA letters sold by for-profit companies claiming to need an ESA due to having a mental "disorder" or "condition" listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In 2018, an airlines trade organization boldly stated, "DOT's conflation of medical 'disorders' and 'conditions' identified in the DSM with the legal concept of 'disability' has created confusion and facilitates fraud."1

In a nutshell, DOT's unwitting language in Section 382.117(e)(1) is in part why fake ESA certification letters gained widespread traction. The proposed rule eliminates ESAs in the aircraft cabin because they are not individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. This is the same reason why the Department of Justice (DOJ) does not recognize support animals as service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Standardized Forms and More

After the Delta attack, airlines began requiring multiple forms for passengers with service and support animals in an effort to reduce "Fakers," one being a Veterinary Health Form attesting to the dog's vaccinations. Prior to this, owners of uncaged service and support animals in a cramped, crowded aircraft cabin did not have to provide proof of rabies vaccination. Due to this lack of proof, some passengers bitten by these dogs likely had to undergo post-exposure rabies treatment.

Under the proposed rule, DOT wisely standardized these forms into one set written by DOT. Previously, each airline had a unique set of forms. For instance, if a Delta flight connected to a United flight, the disabled passenger would need to be armed with both sets. DOT will require three forms: a health form, an attestation that the service animal is trained to behave in a public setting, and an attestation the animal will not relieve itself on flights longer than 8 hours.

The last question on DOT's behavioral attestation form states: "I understand that I am committing fraud by knowingly making false statements to secure disability accommodations provided under regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation." Under the proposed rule, a Faker will now be subject to a federal crime, which is the proper jurisdiction for this crime. The following warning is also included on the behavior form for disabled passengers flying with a service animal:

"Warning: It is a Federal crime to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements, entries or representations knowingly and willfully on this form to secure disability accommodations provided under regulations of the United States Department of Transportation (18 U.S.C.§ 1001)." - U.S. Department of Transportation

Also, DOT finally ditched the absurd policy that an airline must accommodate a disabled person traveling with up to three service animals -- literally a pack of dogs, which could entail three pit bulls or rottweilers, allegedly being managed by a person with a disability onboard an aircraft. DOT now limits this to two service animals and requires both to fit on their handler's lap and/or within their handler's foot space on the aircraft, whereby eliminating the two-large-dogs scenario.

Pit Bulls and Breed Restrictions

In August 2019, DOT issued their final enforcement priorities regarding service animals. The department's non legally binding guidance came after multiple airlines started tightening policies on service and support animals in early 2018, including Delta banning pit bull-type dogs as service and support animals in July. DOT stated at that time, "The Enforcement Office continues to take the view that restrictions on specific dog breeds are inconsistent with the current regulation."

In September 2019, we published a significant follow up to DOT's guidance. We explained that due to how the current rule is written (Part 382), Delta likely has a legal basis for banning pit bulls; they would not have issued the ban otherwise. We also explained that DOT admitted in the guidance, there are still undefined areas in Part 382. Specifically, how airlines may (or may not) assess whether or not a service animal poses a "direct threat to the health or safety of others."

After Delta enacted their pit bull ban, they stated that "untrained, pit bull-type dogs posing as both service and support animals are a potential safety risk," and that "we must err on the side of safety." That was Delta's legal understanding of the Air Carriers Access Act (ACAA) at that time. Their viewpoint may have been emboldened due to Part 382 failing to define how airlines may (or may not) assess if a service animal presents a "direct threat to the health or safety of others."

"Absent an approach that clearly demonstrates an animal can behave properly, airlines should be able to impose breed restrictions to ensure passenger safety." - Delta Air Lines, May 23, 2018 (DOT-OST-2018-0068-1157)

DOT "guidance" cannot significantly alter Part 382. That must be done through a new rulemaking, which is what DOT proposed on January 22. But that is merely a "summary" of the NPRM. The full document is 94 pages. In it, DOT specifically seeks comments about whether a crowded aircraft cabin in flight justifies permitting airlines to prohibit specific dog breeds, as well as how airlines can assess if an individual service dog presents a "direct threat to the health or safety of others."

Learn why breed matters in service dogs and why pit bull service dogs are a bad idea. Primarily, pit bull "breed advocates," not advocates for the disabled, promote pit bulls as service dogs.

DOT Seeks Comments on Pit Bulls and Breed Restrictions, Pertaining to Service Animals in Crowded Airplane Cabin

In the proposed rule, DOT recognized for the first time that a "balance" must be struck between passengers and potentially hazardous service dogs. "Any requirement for the accommodation of passengers traveling with service animals onboard aircraft necessarily must be balanced against the health, safety, and mental and physical well-being of the other passengers and crew and must not interfere with the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft," states the Department.

"The cabins of most aircraft are highly confined spaces, with many passengers seated in close quarters and very limited opportunities to separate passengers from nearby disturbances. Animals on aircraft may pose a risk to the safety, health, and well-being of passengers and crew and may disturb the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft. Any requirement for the accommodation of passengers traveling with service animals onboard aircraft necessarily must be balanced against the health, safety, and mental and physical well-being of the other passengers and crew and must not interfere with the safe and efficient operation of the aircraft." - U.S. Department of Transportation, January 22, 2020 (DOT-OST-2018-0068)

Striking a balance in competing public interests -- the rights of passengers with service animals and the rights of passengers forced to sit next to a potentially hazardous dog -- has never before been uttered by DOT. Also, for the first time, DOT recognized that air travel, "which involves transporting a large number of people in a very confined space thousands of feet above the ground, is unique in comparison to airports, libraries" and other sites covered by the ADA.

DOT is now seeking comments on "whether, notwithstanding the DOJ rules under the ADA, the unique environment of a crowded airplane cabin in flight justifies permitting airlines to prohibit pit bulls and any other particular breeds or types of dogs from traveling on their flights." The below paragraph is specifically what DOT seeks comments for. The last sentence is fanciful, as no assessment test, not even state-of-the-art SAFER, can detect unpredictable aggression.

"However, the Department understands the concerns raised about pit bulls and certain other breeds or types of dogs that have a reputation of attacking people and inflicting severe and sometimes fatal injuries. The Department also understands that there may be concerns that certain dogs may be dangerous because of their muscular bodies, large and powerful jaws and neck muscles, and ferocity when provoked to attack.2

The Department seeks comment on whether these concerns are valid. In particular, the Department seeks comment on whether, notwithstanding the DOJ rules under the ADA, the unique environment of a crowded airplane cabin in flight justifies permitting airlines to prohibit pit bulls and any other particular breeds or types of dogs from traveling on their flights under the ACAA even when those dogs have been individually trained to perform as service animals to assist a passenger with a disability. The Department will consider this question in light of the full rulemaking record when finalizing this rule. The Department also seeks comment on whether its proposal to allow airlines to conduct an individualized assessment of a service animal’s behavior to determine whether the service animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others is an adequate measure to ensure that aggressive animals are not transported on aircraft, rather than banning an entire breed or type of service animal." - U.S. Department of Transportation, January 22, 2020 (DOT-OST-2018-0068)

How to Provide Comment to DOT

We encourage all commenters to read pages 23 to 28 prior to writing your comment to DOT. The actual pit bull section is pages 25-28, but DOT leads into the pit bull section by acknowledging the need to exclude "capuchin monkeys" as service animals "because they may present a safety risk to other passengers" and may exhibit "unpredictable aggressive behavior." This is critical language that leads into DOT seeking comments about pit bull service dogs in the aircraft cabin.

Comments are due by April 6, 2020
If you have a long response, submit it as a PDF, there is no length limitation on submitted PDFs.
In your PDF add the following:
- Docket Number: DOT-OST-2018-0068
- Traveling by Air with Service Animals Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
- Title your comment in reference to pit bulls or breed restrictions
Submit to this website by clicking the blue "Comment Now!" button
Submission category "Public Comment(s)"

If Lacking Enough Comments

DOT will likely explicitly add language to the final rule, Part 382, prohibiting any airline from banning pit bulls as service dogs in the cabin. This will no longer be non legally binding "guidance" readers, it will be federal law. This is a unique opportunity for professionals and members of the public to comment on this critical federal-level issue. Also, DOT noted that during the previous comment period (May-Jul 2018) only 22 percent of commenters supported pit bull restrictions.3

Ideas & Themes for Comments

Your feedback and experience as a medical health professional.
Your feedback and experience as a service dog trainer or handler.
Your feedback and experience as a victim of a violent dog attack.
Your feedback as an advocate for victims' of violent dog attacks.
Your feedback as a person with aviation safety experience.
Your feedback as a person seeking safety in an aircraft cabin.
Flight Safety: Does a crowded airplane cabin in flight justify permitting airlines like Delta to prohibit pit bulls-type dogs as service dogs in the cabin?
Flight Safety: Airplane travel is subject to intense and sudden turbulence, the sound of roaring engines and high intensity takeoffs and landings. Only "bomb proof" service dog breeds should be allowed in a crowded aircraft cabin.
Flight Safety: Pit bulls bite and hold and often "repeatedly" attack. This is a well-identified, breed-specific bite risk that results in severe injury. Every effort should be taken to minimize this in an aircraft cabin that is isolated from help.
Flight Safety: If DOT forbids airlines from prohibiting a specific breed or type in cabin travel and a sudden attack occurs at 35,000 feet -- or worse, during takeoff -- the safety of the entire aircraft and everyone onboard would be at risk.
Flight Safety: There is no mechanism for passengers or crewmembers while in an aircraft cabin in flight to defend oneself if a pit bull-type dog suddenly attacks. No weapons of any sort are allowed onboard commercial flights.
Flight Safety: Delta Air Lines and United Airlines already ban "strong-jawed" breeds, primarily fighting breeds, from cargo transport for health and safety purposes. Why would these breeds be allowed uncaged in a crowded airplane cabin?
Flight Safety: The cabin of an airplane is not only crowded, it forces face-to-face encounters and eye contact that dogs interpret as signs of aggression. For this reason, airlines should be able to prohibit fighting breeds in the cabin.
Injury Statistics: What are the regional statistics of pit bulls inflicting severe injuries and national statistics of pit bulls inflicting fatal injuries compared to other dog breeds? See also, national bite statistics by breed (37.5% pit bulls).
Service Work: Why do most accredited service dog organizations use four specific dog breeds for service work -- Labradors, goldens, Labrador-golden crosses, standard poodles -- and discourage the use of guarding and fighting breeds?
Assessment: Currently, there is no reliable behavior test that detects unpredictable aggression. Yet DOT presumes an airline, which would have to provide highly trained testers for this purpose, can easily "conduct an individualized assessment of a service animal's behavior" while the dog is in the lobby (airline ticket counter line).
Pivoting: Despite the new DOT forms and dropping ESAs, some Fakers will pivot from an ESA to a PSA (45-47). For this reason, as the case of the Fake PSA that viciously attacked a man in the face resulting in a lawsuit showed, airlines should be able to restrict breed-types in the cabin (fighting breeds).
Breed-Specific Laws: Over 900 jurisdictions in the U.S. impose restrictions on specific breeds, chiefly pit bulls; 42 countries impose pit bull restrictions at a national-level; and all three U.S. military divisions ban pit bulls in privatized housing.
Unpredictability: Since 1988, appellate courts have upheld pit bull laws due to the breed's "unpredictable" aggression, including: "possesses inherent characteristics of aggression, strength, viciousness and unpredictability not found in any other breeds of dog" ... "pit bull dogs are unique in their 'savageness and unpredictability.'"

Summary and Call to Action

DOT's proposed rulemaking is a win for airlines, the public and public safety. It is also a win for persons with a disability flying with a service animal. The elimination of ESAs flying for free in the cabin is long overdue. Standardized forms provided by DOT to passengers with a service animal will reduce burden on these passengers and enhance public safety. Also, behavioral attestation forms created by airlines had no penalty. Now Fakers will face a federal crime for this act of fraud.4

For the first time ever, DOT recognized that a balance must be struck in the competing public interests between passengers with service animals and passengers forced to sit beside a potentially hazardous dog. Further, DOT recognized that the unique environment of a cramped airplane cabin allows them to increase restrictions on service dogs, verging from the DOJ's strict position on breed restrictions, which allows "service pit bulls" to evade municipal pit bull laws.

We implore all of our readers to submit a comment to DOT, which seeks feedback about "service pit bulls" flying in a crowded airplane cabin and whether airlines can prohibit specific breeds. Remember, it is primarily pit bull "breed advocates," not advocates for the disabled who promote pit bulls as service dogs. Many accredited service dog organizations only use specific dog breeds and discourage, even prohibit, the use of protection, guarding and fighting breeds in service work.

Some of the dog breeds most often categorized as pit bull-type dogs affected by Delta's ban.

1Comments of Airlines for America, Regional Airline Association, and International Air Transport Association, Submitted July 10, 2018 (DOT-OST-2018-0068-4288), Dated July 9, 2018 | Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0068; and Cassandra. L. Boness, Jeffrey.N. Younggren & I. Bruce Frumkin, The Certification of Emotional Support Animals: Differences Between Clinical and Forensic Mental Health Practitioners, Prof. Psychology: Research and Practice, 2017, Vol. 48, No. 3, 216–223. (DOT-OST-2018-0068-0686) | Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0068.
2While we do not know the motive of DOT's language choice in this case, "when provoked to attack," we do know that scientific medical studies consistently state that pit bulls frequently attack without provocation, "Pit bull terriers inflicted more complex wounds, were often unprovoked, and went off property to attack." (Kahn et al., 2019); "Most alarming is the observation that when attacks come from unfamiliar dogs, the pit bull was responsible for 60% and 63% of all injuries." (Prendes et al., 2015); and "Unlike all other breeds, pit bull terriers were relatively more likely to attack an unknown individual (+31%), and without provocation (+48%)." (O'Brien et al., 2015).
3As if passenger and crew safety in the aircraft cabin should be measured by a popularity contest.
4Multiple states have passed state laws making it a crime to falsely represent an untrained pet as a service animal. The problem is, these laws typically lack an enforcement body. Thus, they only hold value as being "symbolic." To our knowledge, no Faker has ever been prosecuted under one of these state misdemeanor laws.

Posted on January 27, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

The Baby's Mother was Charged with Three Counts of Neglect

Julian Connell, 26 days old, was killed by a family pit bull-mix in Lafayette, Indiana.

One Year in Prison
UPDATE 12/14/20: Jennifer Connell, 38, pleaded guilty in September to one count of neglect of a dependent in connection to the mauling death of her infant son on January 25 -- a level 5 felony. Prosecutors dismissed two other lower counts. On December 14, Tippecanoe County Superior 2 Judge Steve Meyer sentenced Connell to one year in prison and four years of probation. Arriving police officers were forced to shoot the dog to reach the infant, but the baby was already dead.

The Journal and Courier reports that it was Connell's teenage son, Jameson, who told police that his mother had planned to get rid of the dog because it had bruised and scratched infant Julian a week before the dog killed the baby, according to prosecutors. Prior to the fatal attack, Jameson broke up a fight between the pit bull-mix and a beagle-mix in the home. Jameson removed the smaller dog from the room. When he returned to the room, the pit bull-mix had attacked the baby.

07/01/20: Mother Charged in Infant's Death
On June 30, 2020, Tippecanoe County prosecutors charged the mother of an infant who was killed by a family dog on January 25. Jennifer Nicole Connell was arrested and charged with three counts of neglect of a dependent in connection to her infant's dog mauling death. Connell told police she was trying to rehome the pit bull-mix because the dog had recently become aggressive toward the infant, according to a probable cause affidavit obtained by the Journal & Courier.

On January 25, arriving officers had to shoot the dog in order to reach the victim. Investigators also found the home littered with animal feces and dead mice in various states of decay, according to the affidavit. Prosecutors charged Connell with neglect of a dependent resulting in bodily injuries for keeping a known aggressive dog in the home with her infant. She was also charged with two counts of neglect for keeping her son and infant in an unsanitary and unsafe house.

The first charge appears to be a Level 1 felony under the Indiana penal code, "places the dependent in a situation that endangers the dependent's life or health" and "results in the death of a dependent who is less than fourteen (14) years of age." The arrest photograph of Connell is particularly chilling. Two weeks before the arrest, she announced on Facebook that she had lost India -- the beagle-mix that "Maisie" the pit bull-mix had attacked before killing the infant.

The pit bull-mix, "Maisie," seen on the couch of the family's home with one of Connell's sons.

01/27/20: Family Dog Kills Infant
Lafayette, IN - A one-month old baby is dead after being mauled by a family pit bull-mix, Lafayette police said Monday. The attack occurred at 1901 Greenbush Street at about 11:30 am Saturday. Police were dispatched to the residence after the infant's teenage brother called 911 -- both the brother and the baby's mother were in the home when the attack occurred. The pit bull-mix had been "fighting" with a beagle-mix in the home prior to attacking and killing the infant, police said.

The teenage brother separated the fighting dogs, according to police, and that is when the pit bull attacked the baby (redirected aggression).

The dog fight occurred in the same room where police found baby Julian Connell and the pit bull, the Journal & Courier reports. Officers arrived to find the dog standing over the infant, police said. Officer Neil Cain shot and killed the animal in order to reach the baby boy and begin life-saving aid. Connell was transported to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The family's surviving beagle-mix dog was taken to Purdue Veterinary Hospital for medical treatment.

The Tippecanoe County Coroner Donna Avolt said a preliminary autopsy showed the infant died from "multiple sharp force injuries" after sustaining dog bites to his head and neck. The manner of death was an accident. Lafayette Police are still investigating where the infant was lying when the dog fatally attacked him. WTHR reports the teenage brother took the injured beagle-mix out of the room after the dog fight. When he returned to the room, the pit bull-mix had attacked the baby.

"The two dogs were engaged in some sort of a fight in the bedroom where the infant was staying. The brother was actually able to separate the beagle away from the pit bull, take it out of the room and when he returned, he found that the pit bull had attacked the infant," Lafayette Police Lt. Matt Gard said. "The infant did suffer some catastrophic injuries." When Officer Cain arrived, in order to render aid to the infant, the officer had to fire his handgun one time, killing the dog, Guard said.

The Presence of Adults

Last July, we wrote about the Central Texas pediatric study, whose findings showed that parental presence was reported in 43.6% of all attacks and 72.5% were of major severity (Abraham et al., 2019). Multiple studies from Level 1 trauma centers examining severe dog bite injuries report similar findings, including that "Dog familiarity did not confer safety" (Garvey et al., 2015) and "Infants were more than 4 times as likely to be bitten by the family dog." (Golinko et al, 2017)

More recently, a West Virginia study stated, "Our study confirms the dangerous interactions between some dogs, principally pit bulls, and vulnerable persons, especially young children. The number and extent of injuries sustained by many patients, in particular among the owners or family members who had a pit bull in residence, should prompt serious consideration as to the implications of having a dangerous dog." The study called for stronger polices to protect children.

"Our study confirms the dangerous interactions between some dogs, principally pit bulls, and vulnerable persons, especially young children. The number and extent of injuries sustained by many patients, in particular among the owners or family members who had a pit bull in residence, should prompt serious consideration as to the implications of having a dangerous dog. Pediatric anticipatory guidance should include cautionary measures when it comes to safety in the home environment and potential dangers with some dog breeds." (Khan et al., Dog-Bite Injuries to the Craniofacial Region, J Oral Maxillofac Surg, [2019 Nov 14, Epub)

Recent pit bull fatalities involving active adult presence at the time of the attack include: the death of 13-month old Baby "Doug" Doe in California, whose babysitter was in "very close proximity" with the child when the family pit bull attacked, the death of 9-month old Liana Valino in Florida, whose grandmother was with the child when the dog attacked and the death of 1-year old Triniti Harrell in North Carolina, whose mother was with the baby when the family pit bull viciously attacked.

Dog house seen at home where a family pit bull-mix killed an infant in Lafayette, Indiana.

View the DogsBite.org Google State Map: Indiana Fatal Pit Bull Attacks.

Baseline reporting requirements:
Law enforcement departments across the United States should release consistent "baseline" information to the media and the public after each fatal dog mauling, including these items.

Posted on January 23, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

Safety Protocols Inside Shelter Facilities Are Slipping

Video shows shorter version of vicious pit bull attack at the Oakland County Animal Shelter.

Pontiac, MI - On December 12, a pit bull being held in a bite quarantine kennel block at the Oakland County Animal Shelter viciously attacked Shelter Supervisor Shelley Grey. An animal control officer shot the dog in the head, killing it. The attack occurred four days before a show-cause hearing was scheduled. Previously, the dog had attacked three family members, causing the quarantine. The owners, however, wanted "Roscoe" back, which forced the legal hearing.

On January 3, the county shelter released a 17-minute video of the attack on Grey, who was hospitalized after the attack and underwent multiple surgeries. Upon our request, a canine aggression expert in California, who works on a consulting basis with animal control departments for safety and disaster response, broke down the surveillance footage into a written transcript for our readers. The video contains no audio, has a low frame-rate and some parts are unclear.

Background of Vicious Pit Bull

On October 16, Roscoe attacked its female owner and her two children; all three were treated at a hospital. The male owner told police the dog had “been aggressive before in the past and has bitten people/family members,” according to a police report. Officers confiscated the dog and it was taken to the Oakland County Animal Shelter and Pet Adoption Center for a 10-day quarantine. On October 17, the pit bull attacked an animal control officer while under quarantine.

Animal control returned to the family's home, informed them of the shelter attack and urged them to relinquish ownership of the dog as it posed a threat to children. The county informed the owners of the dog that the case would go to court if the male or female owner did not surrender the animal. On October 18, the female owner declared she did not want to surrender the pit bull after it attacked three family members, including herself and two children, and an animal control officer.

The female owner claimed "Roscoe" attacked her "because she was talking too loudly" on the phone. The dog then turned on her two children.

A show-cause hearing was scheduled for December 5 at the Troy District Court, but was rescheduled at the owner's request for December 16. The purpose of the hearing was to ask the judge to surrender ownership of the dog to the county because it was "too dangerous to return to the family." Four days before the hearing, the uncollared pit bull -- while loose and agitated in the kennel block -- attacked Grey, who entered the quarantine block carrying only a "rope loop."1

Rising Attacks Inside Shelters

Vicious attacks inside public and private animal shelters rarely reach the media. Whistleblowers and other parties often send reports of these attacks into our nonprofit, but news stories rarely result. In 2019, two people were killed by vicious pit bulls on animal facility properties (a humane society and an animal hospital that was housing the dogs for a bite quarantine). Both facilities were sorely lacking in safety protocols. It's unknown if civil lawsuits arose from either fatality.

Most recently, we received a tip about a vicious attack by a dog housed at the Chequamegon Humane Association in Wisconsin. We verified the January 2 attack through Broadcastify.com and sent the audio file to a local media outlet, who ignored it.2 Dispatch said the victim "had significant injuries to her hand and leg" and staff "have her tied off at this time, but she was bleeding a lot." A staffer who witnessed the attack said "she threw things at [the dog]" but "he wouldn't let go."

That a staffer "threw things" at the attacking dog indicates poor safety training at the facility and likely no safety equipment in the vicinity.

The one publication that consistently publishes attacks on shelter workers, typically by obtaining information through FOIAs, is CityWatch. After MeLissa Webber, Assistant General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services, resigned in mid January, CityWatch reported that a safety analysis by LAAS's executive management showed a 47% increase in dog bites and attacks in the LAAS shelter system. Civil lawsuits are being filed against the city due to these attacks as well.

Shelter Adds Safety Equipment

During the January 3 press conference, Oakland County shelter manager Bob Gatt showed off new safety equipment. Now hanging in the quarantine block is a clear plastic shield, a snare pole, break sticks -- which are used to pry open a pit bull's jaws -- and heavy gloves covering forearms. The cages on the quarantine block are now "double locked" and workers who enter the block must have "an audible alert device" attached to their clothing in order to summon help immediately.

In addition to new safety equipment, new procedures and training have been implemented at the shelter "to make sure this kind of incident never happens here again," Gatt said during the press conference. Under the new policies, no longer can inmate-workers access dogs in the quarantine block, which houses vicious dogs awaiting destruction orders. Also, enhanced and regular training of shelter staff on safety protocols and equipment, including situational drills, has been added.

Examining Surveillance Footage

A veteran animal control officer, who now gives shelter safety seminars, told us that only 3% of animal control officers have firearms. Under the circumstances of this attack, it is fortunate this department was part of that 3%. However, after this pit bull was shot "at point-blank range, between the eyes," it seemingly rose from the dead, Oakland County spokesman Bill Mullan said. This is yet another example in numerous attack stories where a pit bull survives initial gunfire.

The California-based canine aggression expert breaks down the 17-minute video into time-stamped minutes and seconds to help readers understand what they are seeing and when they are seeing it. Hindsight, particularly through watching surveillance footage, always offers new ways to improve safety protocols. That is the lesson here, as well as to show readers the escalating aggression of this pit bull and how it was handled in a bite quarantine kennel block.

Full 17-minute surveillance video of vicious dog attack at the Oakland County Animal Shelter.

Surveillance Video Breakdown

0:12 Inmate-worker opens the door and pets the dog.
0:22 Man closes gate. Latch not properly engaged.
0:40 Man re-enters room. Dog notices.
0:59 Dog breaks out of kennel and rushes away.
1:09 Gives dog a command to go into the kennel; dog refuses.
1:21 Lifts dog by armpits and pushes it towards the kennel door.
1:23 Attempts to put dog into cage, lifting it, pulling it forward.
1:26 Turning point. Dog realizes it is in full control. Notably, there are other dogs in the quarantine block that are wearing collars. This pit bull, apparently the most dangerous dog on the block, was not wearing a collar.
1:42 Dog mounts man's leg, clasps leg, snaps at stomach and hip.
1:46 Threatening gesture caused the dog to release man, and go back to the position facing the open kennel door.
2:19 Dog knows it's in control.
2:33 Dog is sitting. Dog is sucking back away from the kennel door. Man is visibly scared of the dog and is petting it, trying to soothe it. Dog remains uncooperative, but this is not the ideal time for it to attack the man.
3:01 Dog walks away and goes off screen. Inmate-worker stays by kennel door, holding the gate open.
3:13 Dog re-enters frame. Man points at kennel doorway.
3:17 Dog does a full elevation, raised-leg urination on the wall, while looking directly at the man in a challenging way. At this moment, this dog has established this corner as HIS territory. And now we are going to see the dog go into active defense, i.e. barking and charging.
3:28 Man repeatedly points and commands dog to get in kennel. Man is exasperated. He is not in control.
3:44 The dog's head is right by his urine mark. Inmate-worker turns his back and walks towards the exit.
3:45 Dog's nose arrives at that urine mark, territory mark, dog looks up, sees man's back is turned and charges.
3:46 Inmate-worker has arrived at corner, realizes dog is charging. Turns to face the dog. The dog stops. (The man, by squaring his shoulders and facing the dog directly, that was enough to stop the dog's attack. Because at this point, dog is NOT at a high enough level of aggression to attack this particular man.) Man and dog walk towards exit door.
3:54 Inmate-worker exits room and the dog remains in the kennel area.
4:02 The dog's head comes around corner, exploring the room.
4:09 Camera angle changes. We are now looking at the opposite side of the kennel block; the door in the near left of the frame is the door the inmate-worker just exited.
4:22-4:28 Both doors (top and bottom of screen) are briefly opened a bit, and quickly shut.
4:42 Top door opens. Man enters with a white loop rope in his hand. As he advances, we see he is wearing protective gear (possibly a bite suit).
5:03 Dog rapidly rounds the corner, facing the man entering the room. The man quickly exits.
5:04 The door slams shut, just as the dog reaches the door.
5:14 A woman (not wearing protective gear) enters with a white rope loop in hand. Man in protective suit partially enters behind her.
5:25 Woman opens the door to an empty kennel.
5:27 Woman makes eye contact with dog and steps partially behind the open kennel gate for protection. Dog charges around the gate; the man wearing protection suit exits and closes door. Dog jumps up on woman and bites at her hand, which she pulls out of reach, but the dog does jump on her hip. Dog walks away for a few steps.
5:33 Woman takes one step away from behind the gate. The dog turns around, jumps on woman, bites her and pulls her away from the kennel, pulls her off balance and takes her to the ground.
5:37 Man in protection suit instantly enters the room and wrestles with the dog. Another woman follows with a broom.
5:43 You can see the dog's tail between the man's legs.
5:56 You can see that the dog has its forehand lifted off the ground and its hind legs are on the ground, meaning the man in the suit has some sort of grasp on the dog. The tussle continues.
6:10 Man, female victim and dog move as a unit closer to the camera. Woman with broom repositions a few times, is ineffective. Victim and man try to wrestle dog into an empty kennel.
6:41 Victim goes to the ground.
7:18 Another man enters, bends over and shoots the dog in the head.
7:52 Dog goes down after being shot at close range.
8:17 The three people exit the kennel block, as one man picks up the protective gear top. Man steps in with wad of paper towels and drops them on a spot on the floor.
9:00 The dog appears dead, but is still breathing.
9:35 The door is shut.
12:05 Dog makes its first attempt to get back up.
13:05 Dog makes its second attempt to get back up.
13:33 Dog makes its third attempt to get back up.
15:15 Dog makes its fourth attempt to get back up.
15:20 The pit bull, which took a bullet to the head, is fully up and starts walking.
16:02 Door opens and man with gun enters. The dog is staring at him.
16:02 Second bullet is fired at dog; the dog instantly goes down.
16:15 Man stands nearby to see if dog is finally dead.
16:20 Man exits room.
16:44 Dog continues movement until 16:50. Ends at 17:21.

1It is unclear if this is an actual snare.
2Audio has been truncated to remove some dead space portions.

Posted on January 16, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

2020 Dog Bite Fatality: Woman Killed by Pack of Dogs on Tribal Land at Taos Pueble in New Mexico

Police believe Kay Torres died after being attacked by a pack of dogs at Taos Pueblo.

Woman Killed by Dogs
Taos Pueblo, NM - Law enforcement believe a woman was killed by a pack of dogs on tribal land in early January. Taos Pueblo Gov. Edwin Concha confirmed that the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator is looking into her death. The obituary for 52-year old Kay Torres states she passed away unexpectedly on January 8. Her sister, Sandra Bible, said Torres had worked for Taos Pueblo Head Start as well as Taos Public Schools over the years, reports Taos News.

According to a Taos County dispatch log, a caller reported seeing Torres' body surrounded by a group of dogs that were attacking her near the intersection of Leaf Arrow Lane and Willow Lane. The caller fended off the dogs with a stick. When the dogs moved away, the caller could see bite marks on Torres' arms and legs. "It appears that Kay Torres was killed by a pack of dogs," Taos Pueblo Tribal Police Officer James Gladeau reported from the scene, according to the log.

The New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator has not confirmed the cause of death in a reported dog mauling that occurred eight days ago.

The log report did not indicate how many dogs were involved or if the dogs were later captured. According to Bible, loose dogs have been an ongoing issue in the community. "We've been hearing that this was not the first dog attack on tribal land," Bible told Taos News. "They have something out there where you're not supposed to have more than two dogs. But everybody has more than that. There's no control on the reservation." Tribal policy limits households to two dogs.

Kay left behind six children, according to her obituary. One of her children, Nightwalker, posted on Facebook on January 12, "I love you so much! Watch over all us and now you can rest. She might of been struggling with life but she always stayed fighting and made the best of things even if we didn’t have a whole lot." Bible, who lives in Tulsa, told Taos News she and Torres are Taos Pueblo and Muscogee, a tribe based in Okmulgee, Oklahoma. Torres later settled at Taos Pueblo.

Fatal Dog Attacks on Reservations

Our nonprofit has recorded 12 fatal dog attacks on Indian reservations since 2007. The actual number is unknown, as media reports are often limited on tribal lands. Reservations in Arizona and New Mexico have the most fatal dog maulings. Pack attacks involving loose dogs -- loose dogs that have owners -- are the most common scenario. Several years ago, two fatal attacks on adjacent reservations in South Dakota, Rosebud and Pine Ridge, drew significant media attention.

View the DogsBite.org Google Map: Fatal Dog Attacks on American Indian Reservations.

Learn about breed-specific laws on Indian reservations in our Breed Safety Laws section.

DogsBite blog ::

DOT Seeks Comments on Pit Bulls and Breed Restrictions in Crowded Airplane Cabin; Drops Emotional Support Animals