Posted on June 7, 2019 by Colleen Lynn

2019 Dog Bite Fatality: Man Dies After Saving 5-Year Old Daughter from Dog Attack In Iowa

Robert "Joey" Quick died after saving his daughter from a dog attack in Iowa.

Mother Mourns Son
Fort Madison, IA - On June 1, the Lee County Sheriff's Office issued a news release stating that on May 31, the Fort Madison Police Department responded to a dog attack at 102 Avenue C. Upon arrival, they found a large dog attacking a man, lying on his back, in the front yard of the home. "The dog was very aggressive and did not release the man," states the release. "The officers on the scene did have to discharge a weapon to dispatch the animal to stop the attack."

After first responders rendered aid to the adult male victim, they found 33-year old Robert Joseph Quick Jr., of Dallas City, Illinois, lying in the doorway, also injured from the dog attack. Quick told officers to help his 5-year old daughter first, who had been bitten in the face by the dog. They located his daughter and rendered her first aid. Quick was later pronounced dead at Fort Madison Community Hospital, "after tremendous efforts to save his life on scene" were unsuccessful.

A GoFundMe created for Quick's funeral costs, states that he had a heart attack at the scene and could not be revived. As of Friday, June 7, no cause of death has been released by the coroner's office. His mother, however, Deb Newman, recently shed more light on his dog attack injuries. There were injuries to his jugular vein in the left side of his neck, his nose was "ripped open" and more. The severity of Quick's injuries classifies him as a dog bite fatality in our data collection.

"(There were) bites in Joey's jugular vein in the left-hand side of his neck, and then there was bites in his right arm," Newman said she was told. "His nose was ripped open, he had blood coming out his ears. There was a bite-mark on his temple, and there was bite marks on his hands. - Des Moines Register, June 7, 2019

Earlier news reports stated that one of the male victim's injuries were "superficial." If the coroner eventually makes that determination about Quick, his death will not be included in our fatality statistics. Otherwise, we include all cardiac arrest cases when the victim also suffers severe dog bite injuries. This method of classification has been true since we began collecting data in 2007. Police described the dog, which attacked two grown men and one child, as a brown male boxer.

According to Newman, Quick had recently moved into his mother's home in Dallas City, Illinois. His estranged wife and their two daughters lived about eight miles away across the Iowa border in West Point. On May 31, Quick brought two of his four children with him to retrieve an inoperable car at 102 Avenue C in Fort Madison. Newman said his daughters went inside the home and were attacked by a "very big" boxer. Quick rushed into the home to save his two young daughters.

"Joey ran into the house, and I guess he was the only one strong enough to pull the dog off," Newman said, recalling what she was told by a witness who was dog-sitting the animal in the home. "Joey threw the dog out of the house." - Des Moines Register, June 7, 2019

The dog not only went after Quick and his daughters, it attacked a 49-year old man who lived at the home. Persons at the home had been dogsitting the animal, according to police. Police have not identified anyone living at the home, nor the owner of the dog that attacked three people, sending all three to the hospital. "It's gonna take a long time to come to terms with it. My son is no longer alive because of that dog," Newman told the Des Moines Register. "Yeah, I'm angry."

Newman also said, referring to the family dogsitting the animal, "They haven't even apologized. They keep saying how nice the dog was, they can't believe it was mean." Quick's 5-year old daughter, who suffered dog bite injuries, "wasn't told (about her father's death) right away," Newman said. "She was finally told the other day that her daddy's sleeping in heaven. It's kind of hard to tell a young girl, and they don’t want her to feel guilty, so he's sleeping in heaven.”

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 June 4, 2019 by Colleen Lynn

The Complaint Against Delta - Analysis & Discussion

On June 4, 2017, after Marlin Jackson boarded Delta Flight 1430 in the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, he was repeatedly attacked in the face by a large "support" dog seated on a man's lap.

On May 24, 2019, Jackson sued Delta Air Lines and the owner of the dog in Fulton County state court. The complaint details the allegations against the two parties and asks for a jury trial.

Our report discusses the legal complaint and is divided into four parts: The Complaint Against Delta, The Complaint Against the Dog's Owner, Questions and Discussion; and a Summary.

Jackson v. Delta et al.
Atlanta, GA - A man viciously attacked in the face by an alleged "support" dog onboard a Delta aircraft in 2017 has sued Delta Air Lines and the owner of the dog. A lawsuit filed in Fulton County state court alleges that Marlin Jackson was in a window seat when a large dog seated on the lap of a man next to his repeatedly attacked his face while pining him against the window of the plane. This occurred just after Jackson asked the owner multiple times, "Is your dog going to bite me?"

Leading Up to the Complaint

After this attack, we wrote a special report detailing the widely abused loophole in three federal acts pertaining to service and emotional support animals (ESA); the unprovoked attack on Jackson by a large unrestrained "support" dog onboard Delta Flight 1430; the case against Delta Air Lines and competing public interests; the inconsistent federal and airline safety policies in regards to service animals and ESAs; and an addendum about psychiatric service animals.

Seven months after Jackson was attacked, Delta announced an increased screening process for in-cabin service animals and ESAs. Delta's "enhanced requirements" included requiring a signed Veterinary Health form, verifying basic vaccinations, and a signed Confirmation of Animal Training form declaring, "this animal has been trained to behave in a public setting" and that "if my service animal acts inappropriately" the animal can be denied boarding or removed from the aircraft.

In July 2018, Delta banned pit bull-type dogs as service and support animals and limited ESAs to one per person. "We must err on the side of safety," Delta said in a statement. "Most recently, two Delta employees were bit by a pit bull traveling as a support animal last week. We struggled with the decision to expand the ban to service animals," but determined that "untrained, pit bull-type dogs posing as both service and support animals are a potential safety risk," Delta stated then.

In December 2018, Delta announced that ESAs would no longer be allowed on flights over eight hours and banned alleged service and support animals under the age of four months on all flights. In April 2019, Delta updated its forms for passengers traveling with ESAs or psychiatric service dogs (PSAs) by adding one new form, the "Acknowledgement Form," as well as by beefing up its existing three forms by adding new declarations and animal specific details to attest to.

One new declaration pertains to the size of ESAs and PSAs: "I am not aware of any reason that this animal would be too large or heavy to be accommodated under the seat or within my foot space onboard a typical aircraft."

The other new declaration pertains to liability: "I assume full responsibility for the behavior of this animal ... I understand that I will be expected to reimburse Delta or its passengers for any loss, damage or expense resulting from any misbehavior by my animal." - Delta Confirmation of Animal Training form, April 2019

Aspects About the Complaint

Because this "detail" carries significance in the often-abused loophole in the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), we start by pointing out that according to Delta, the estimated 50-pound dog that attacked Jackson was a psychiatric service animal (PSA) not an ESA. In terms of airline requirements at that time (and still today) PSAs fall under the same flying requirements as ESAs. Delta provided this information in their public comments to the Department of Transportation in July 2018.

"In June 2017, a Delta passenger required 28 stitches after being attacked by a psychiatric service dog sitting on its owner's lap. We recently had another incident in June 2018 where an emotional support dog bit a flight attendant on the face, and then bit a customer service agent sent to resolve the situation." - Delta Air Lines public comments to DOT, July 10, 2018

Also, the Delta policies that were in place when Jackson was attacked are the main subject of this complaint. "The attack on Mr. Jackson would not have happened had Delta enforced their own pre-existing policies concerning animals in the cabin," Jackson's two attorneys, J. Ross Massey and Graham Roberts of Alexander Shunnarah and Associates said in a written statement. However, the complaint also claims that more measures by Delta "were feasible at the time."

The Complaint Against Delta

On June 4, 2017, at approximately 11:30 am, Jackson boarded Delta Flight 1430 in the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport. He had been assigned a window seat in the 31st row. The complaint then spells out the escalating violent attack. The dog's owner, Ronald Kevin Mundy, Jr., then a 24-year old Marine Corps member, could not stop his dog from attacking, nor did Mundy heed the warnings Jackson asked him multiple times before the attack: "Is your dog going to bite me?"

The Complaint Alleges

"Upon approaching the three (3) seat row, Mr. Jackson encountered Defendant Mundy in the middle seat with his large dog attempting to sit in his lap. The animal was so large that it encroached into the aisle seat and window seat.

Despite Defendant Delta's stated policy for larger animals, to receive special seating accommodations onboard, Delta assigned Defendant Mundy and his large dog, a middle seat in the thirty first (31st) row.

Further, Defendant Delta's published policy states that animals, such as Defendant Mundy's dog, would be secured on the floor; however, Defendant Delta allowed the large animal to remain in Defendant Mundy' s lap while Delta employees passed through the area in open disregard of said policy.

[--snip--]

Prior to taking his assigned seat, Mr. Jackson inquired of Defendant Mundy if the animal would bite. Defendant Mundy put his arms around the animal and indicated that it was safe for Mr. Jackson. As such, Mr. Jackson tentatively proceeded past Defendant Mundy and the animal and took his seat next to the window.

While Mr. Jackson was securing his seatbelt, the animal began to growl at Mr. Jackson and shift in Defendant Mundy's lap. Again Mr. Jackson asked if the dog was safe and Defendant Mundy again assured him that Mr. Jackson would be safe.

Suddenly, the animal attacked Mr. Jackson's face, biting Mr. Jackson several times while pining him against the window of the airplane.

The attack was briefly interrupted when the animal was pulled away from Mr. Jackson. However, the animal broke free and again mauled Mr. Jackson's face.

The attacks caused extensive facial damage including deep lacerations and punctures to the nose and mouth. In fact, Mr. Jackson bled so profusely that the entire row of seats had to be removed from the airplane." - Jackson v. Delta et al.

The complaint then lists the damages to Jackson, including that he suffered, "numerous lacerations and punctures to the face and upper body requiring twenty eight (28) stitches" and "permanent injury, scaring, and loss of sensation to the affected areas of his face." Jackson also endured "severe physical pain and suffering" along with sustaining loss of income and loss of life enjoyment. "His entire lifestyle has been severely impaired by this attack," states the complaint.

Allegations of Negligence

As we start to discuss the allegations of negligence against Delta, recall that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Delta restrict "lap infants" to under the age of two (about 30-pounds). Any child over this age is required to have its own seat. The FAA also recommends a government-approved child safety restraint system or device for young children instead of your lap because, "Your arms aren't capable of holding your child securely, especially during unexpected turbulence."

According to FAA regulations, the placement of lap-held service animals is reserved for service animals that need to be in a person's lap to perform a service for a person with a disability and "may sit in that person's lap for all phases of flight," provided that the "service animal is no larger than a lap-held child." Otherwise, service animals must be stowed underseat within the person's foot space or re-accommodated to a seat with more room if the service animal is larger.1

Count 1. Allegations of Negligence Against Delta

Count 1 of the complaint outlines why Delta breached the standard of care by failing to protect Jackson from reasonably foreseeable harm. "The harm of large, untrained, and unrestrained animals in the cabin of an airplane," states the complaint. Moreover, Delta "knew or should have known that subjecting passengers and animals to close physical interaction in the confined, cramped, and anxious quarters of the cabin, presented a reasonably foreseeable harm."

"Despite what Defendant Delta knew or should have known, it assigned Mr. Jackson a seat on an airplane confined between the window of the cabin on one side and a large animal without verified training on the other. Further, Delta allowed the large animal to encroach the space of others from the lap of its owner instead of being securely positioned on the floor." - Jackson v. Delta et al.

Count 1 also spells out how Delta violated their own policies and procedures intended to regulate animals traveling within the passenger cabin. This is the most irrefutable part of the complaint from our perspective -- Delta cannot skirt violating their own safety policies. "These safety policies, which were posted publicly for the protection of and reliance by all airplane occupants, serve as illustrative evidence of the standard of care and were violated as follows," states the complaint.

"Although Defendant Delta's policy states that 'no animals are allowed to occupy seats...' and that animals are, 'expected to be seated in the floor space below [your] seat', Delta allowed the large animal which attacked Mr. Jackson to remain in Defendant Mundy's seat during the boarding process;

Although Defendant Delta's policy states that with regards to 'larger service animals...[Delta] may need to re-accommodate...if the animal encroaches on other passengers', Delta failed to re-accommodate the large animal from its position in the middle seat, despite the animal, due to its size, noticeably encroaching the seats beside it;

Although Defendant Delta's policy states that Emotional Support Animals (hereinafter, 'ESA') 'must be trained to behave properly in public settings as service animals' and 'a kennel is not required' if the ESA is 'fully trained and meet(s) the same requirements as a service animal', Delta failed to require a kennel for the large animal and/or failed to verify that the large animal, allegedly an ESA, was trained and met the same requirements as a service animal." - Jackson v. Delta et al.

Count 2. Allegations of Negligence Against Delta

Count 2 of the complaint addresses hiring, training and employees. Delta was "negligent in hiring, training and supervising its employees working on the premises," alleges the complaint. Delta and its employees knew or should have known before and during the boarding process the animal would be on the plane, "thus presenting Delta's employees with numerous opportunities to evaluate the animal and take reasonable measures to ensure the safety" of its passengers.

"However, Defendant Delta's employees, who were in the area prior to the attack, failed to act reasonably in preventing the attack, including but not limited to, by failing to enforce Delta's own policies noted above. As such, Defendant's Delta's negligence in hiring, training and supervising its employees resulted in the vicious attack on Mr. Jackson." - Jackson v. Delta et al.

The Complaint Against Mundy

The allegations against Delta are re-alleged against Mundy along with several others, including that Mundy "knew or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that his large animal was foreseeably dangerous, especially when confined to the cramped and anxious quarters of the passenger cabin of an airplane," states the complaint. Finally, and horrifically, just after Mundy repeatedly assured Jackson his dog was safe, the dog viciously attacked him in the face.

"Subsequent to the animal's aggressive display of behavior, Mr. Jackson inquired of Defendant Mundy whether the animal was safe and/or would bite, at which time Defendant Mundy voluntarily undertook the responsibility for Mr. Jackson's safety by assuring Mr. Jackson that the dog was safe while physically securing the animal.

Subsequent to the initial assurance by Defendant Mundy, Mr. Jackson proceeded into the row and took his seat by the window. However, the animal's behavior became even more aggressive prompting Mr. Jackson to once again question Defendant Mundy regarding the likelihood of the animal to bite, only to be assured again that the animal was safe.

Mr. Jackson relied on Defendant Mundy's undertakings, prior to entering the row and then again prior to fastening his seatbelt, however Defendant Mundy failed to secure his animal and therefore was negligent under the principle of voluntary undertaking." - Jackson v. Delta et al.

Questions and Discussion

Discussion About Delta

Woven into the complaint are multiple claims of failure to verify training. "Delta took no action to verify or document the behavioral training of the large animal such as, but not limited to, requiring signed documentation that the animal is trained," states the complaint, and Delta "failed to verify that the large animal, allegedly an ESA, was trained and met the same requirements as a service animal." These measures were "feasible at the time but were not in effect until after this attack."

In other words, why weren't Delta's "enhanced requirements" in place to prevent Jackson's attack? Nine months after his attack, Delta began requiring passengers with ESAs and PSAs to sign a Confirmation of Animal Training form declaring, "I confirm that this animal has been trained to behave in a public setting and takes my direction upon command." Also, "I understand that if my service animal acts inappropriately" it can be denied boarding or removed from the aircraft.

When Delta published their comments to the Department of Transportation (DOT) in July 2018, they stated (pages 15-16) that DOT Guidance allowed for behavioral attestations because the key factor in "determining whether an animal presents a direct threat to others or a significant threat of disrupting operations" is to determine whether it has been properly trained and that "attestation forms are fully consistent with existing DOT's service animal regulations and Guidance."2

"In January 2018, when Delta announced modified procedures for bringing an ESA into the aircraft cabin, it added a requirement that those traveling with ESAs attest that their animal is trained to behave in public. As recognized by DOT Guidance, the key factor in determining whether an animal presents a direct threat to others or a significant threat of disrupting operations is whether it has been properly trained ... While behavioral attestation forms are fully consistent with existing DOT's service animal regulations and Guidance ... - Delta Air Lines public comments to DOT, July 10, 2018

While the complaint largely focuses on Delta's failure to comply with its existing safety policies, the complaint also sets forth that methods to verify training (attestations) were feasible when Jackson was attacked, but were not in effect until afterward. Delta's comments also provided statistical data about the number of pet "incidents" and "biting incidents" from 2014 to 2018. Both categories had been on the rise since 2014 (page 20). Could Delta have enacted the attestations sooner?

Discussion About Mundy

We only have one question regarding Mundy. Should the licensed medical or mental health professional who signed a letter authorizing his in-flight service animal be added to the complaint? Due to this signed letter, which presumably required no "airplane" training verification, Mundy was given permission to bring this untrained dog onboard any U.S. flight and keep it unrestrained in the cramped quarters of an aircraft cabin, as well as during high-pressured take offs and landings.3

These ethical questions are compounded by the fact that psychiatric service animals (PSAs) are treated differently under the ACAA than service dogs. Like ESAs, PSAs require a letter from a licensed mental health professional stating the passenger has a mental health-related disability. PSAs were not always treated differently than service dogs on airplanes. The letter requirement for in-flight PSAs only became necessary in 2008 after too many "fakers" abused the system.4

Delta might be concerned about these "letters" from mental health professionals too. Viewing Delta's 2018 vs. 2019 Medical/Mental Health Professional forms, one sees a critical difference. The new form requires the letter to "identify" the ESA or PSA accompanying the passenger. No longer can online letter mills be vague like in the Portland airport case, where the ESA letter only prescribed an "animal" for the owner, not even an animal type, much less the animal's name.

A Note About "Large" Dogs

After the attack, witness Bridget Maddox-Peoples estimated Mundy's dog weighed 50-pounds. Visual weight estimates of dogs are very difficult, even by police officers after a vicious attack. Some breeds, such as pit bull-types, have greater muscular density making them heavier than they appear too. Thus, it is unclear what the actual weight of Mundy's dog was. Some dog lovers will argue that 50-pounds is not "large," but it is large when the dog is sitting on your lap.

Labrador and golden retrievers, the most popular dog breeds in service work, average between 65 to 80-pounds for an adult male. Despite their size, well-trained service dogs curl up right beneath their partner's foot space or under the seat in front of them. Again, FAA regulations only allow lap-held service animals that are "no larger than a lap-held child," about 30-pounds or less. In the context of aircraft quarters, Mundy's dog was "large" and violated both FAA and Delta policies.

Summary

There appears to be little wiggle room for Delta by failing to abide by its own safety policies and procedures. As we noted in our July 2017 report, "Larger lap-held service animals may be a widespread practice too." Some airlines may not be re-accommodating these larger service and support animals to save money. We imagine those loose practices came to a resounding halt after Jackson was repeatedly attacked in the face by a large lap-held "psychiatric service animal."

A jury will determine whether Delta should have been requiring behavioral attestations prior to Jackson's attack and whether "the harm of large, untrained, and unrestrained animals in the cabin of an airplane was reasonably foreseeable to Delta." The loophole in the ACAA -- which favors "fakers" and frustrates airlines, who currently cannot ask for "certification of training" nor do they have a set of "clear standards" established by the DOT -- will also have to be examined by a jury.

What is undeniable is that Jackson suffered immensely during and after this vicious attack that pinned him against an airplane window -- he had no means of escape. "The area was completely covered in blood," witness Maddox-Peoples said. What is also undeniable is that Delta had a duty to enforce its own safety policies and procedures during the boarding process by requiring this larger-sized PSA to be stowed underseat or re-accommodated to a seat with more room.

"We are confident a jury of Mr. Jackson's peers will recognize the carelessness of Delta and Mr. Mundy and also appreciate the harm this needless danger caused Mr. Jackson," his attorneys provided in a statement to us. "Mr. Jackson is very appreciative of the encouragement received from so many air travelers, including those who regularly travel with service animals," added the statement. Our nonprofit prays Jackson is awarded all damages allowable under Georgia law.

Alexander Shunnarah & Associates have law offices in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee. Attorneys J. Ross Massey and Graham Roberts represent Marlin Termaine Jackson.

Complaint against delta - Marlin Jackson injuries Delta

Marlin Jackson's injuries after being attacked in the face by a large dog onboard a Delta plane.

Complaint against delta - dog that attacked Marlin Jackson

Alleged "psychiatric service dog" that repeatedly attacked a man in the face on a Delta plane.

1Flight Standards Information Bulletin for Air Transportation (FSAT 04-01A), Order 8400.10 (July 23, 2004) and Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation, DOT, May 3, 2003 (govinfo.gov)
2First, there is DOT Guidance (nonbinding) and DOT regulations (binding). Existing governing DOT regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 382.117 (e), do not preclude airlines from requiring behavior attestation forms for passengers with ESAs and PSAs to substantiate they will behave properly in the cabin. Delta began using attestation forms on March 1, 2018, stating they are "fully consistent with existing DOT's service animal regulations and Guidance." On May 23, 2018, DOT issued an Interim Statement of Enforcement Priorities (currently, DOT has not issued a final rulemaking). The interim statement spells out what DOT intends to enforce or not while the rulemaking process (Traveling by Air with Service Animals) is ongoing. The statement said in part: "Enforcement Office does not intend to use its limited resources to pursue enforcement action against airlines for requiring proof of a service animal's vaccination, training, or behavior for passengers seeking to travel with an ESA or PSA. At present, the Enforcement Office is not aware of any airline requesting information from ESA or PSA users that would make travel with those animals unduly burdensome or effectively impossible." So, as of May 23, 2018, Delta was officially in the clear to use behavioral attestation forms. However, we also know that on July 10, 2018, Delta banned all pit bull-type dogs as service and support animals, which some groups will argue is inconsistent with existing DOT's service animal regulations. Delta did not wait for a DOT enforcement (or Guidance) response for either the attestation form requirements or banning pit bulls as service and support animals. So, how Delta responds to the complaint -- if Delta could have been requiring attestation forms nine months earlier -- will be interesting.
3It is unknown if Mundy's dog had ever flown in an airplane cabin before. Early news reports stated that Mundy "advised [police] that the dog was issued to him for support," implying a military issued ESA or PSA. While writing our July 2017 special report, we found no online documentation confirming that any U.S. military branch "issued" ESAs or PSAs. In fact, we wrote a whole addendum on PSAs, which noted that in 2012, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) stopped funding PSAs because the agency is authorized to only pay for evidence-based therapies. From 2011 to 2018, the VA underwent a study of the benefits of PSAs that had to be revamped due to contracts being terminated due to bites and aggression. The results of that study are not yet available.
4Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 73 FR 27613, May 13, 2008 (govinfo.gov)

Posted on June 1, 2019 by Colleen Lynn

Tracking Results: 2006 to Present Day

Read about cities and counties with successful pit bull laws. Well-written breed-specific legislation save the lives and limbs of children, adults, senior citizens and beloved pets.

Pit Bull Laws Save Lives

DogsBite.org - Cities and counties in at least 14 states report successful results after enacting a breed-specific ordinance. These states include: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington and Wisconsin. The province of Ontario also continuously reports successful results after it's 2005 pit bull ban. The below statistics absolutely show that breed-specific laws work.

Cities and counties that have implemented successful breed-specific ordinances, please share your results with DogsBite.org so that we can add them to this post.

Salina, Kansas
Population 46,550 | View ordinance
In December 2019, Salina City Commissioners voted 3-2 to not overturn a breed-specific ordinance, which prohibits pit bulls from city limits. Statistical data was also released at this time.

The pit bull ban was enacted back in 2004. Prior to the law being passed there were 24 pit bull bite incidents in a two-year span, between 2003-2004. Since that time, in the next 15 years through this year (2005-2019), there have been 17.

Todd Pittenger, Salina Pit Bull Ban to Continue, KSAL, December 16, 2019 (ksal.com) (Archived by the WayBack Machine)

Pawtucket, Rhode Island
Preemption § 4-13.1-16
In October 2019, Pawtucket released statistical data showing a sharp rise in pit bull attacks after the city was forced to halt its succesful pit bull ban in 2013 due to a state preemption law.

During the 10 years the city had the ban in place, starting in 2004, there were 23 total attacks involving pit bulls.

But data provided to The Breeze in response to a public records request this week shows there have been 116 attacks where pit bulls or pit bull mixes were the aggressor in the five years since the ban was overturned, or more than 10 times as many per year since the ban was lifted.

--- snip ---

There were 319 total dog bites/attacks involving people or other animals from July 1, 2014, to Sept. 30, 2019, with those 116, or more than 36 percent of the total, attributed to pit bulls or pit bull mixes.

Ethan Shore, "Pit bull attacks on the rise since ban overturned," The Valley Breeze, October 15, 2019 (valleybreeze.com)
"Pit Bull Attacks Rise in Pawtucket After State Preemption Law Muted City's Successful Pit Bull Ban," DogsBite.org, November 4, 2019 (blog.dogsbite.org)

Prince George's County, Maryland
Population 909,327 | View Ordinance
Also in October 2019, data from the Prince George’s County Health Department said there had been a 43% reduction in all dog bites since the pit bull ban was enacted in the 1990s.

In 1996, before the ban passed, there were 853 dog bites reported in Prince George’s, 108 of which were from pit bulls or pit bull mixes, said county Health Department spokesman George Lettis. There were 484 dog bites reported in Prince George’s in 2010, 70 of which were from pit bulls or mixes, he said, adding that 2010 is the most recent year for which breed-specific data is available.

--- related article ---

Franklin cited a report by Forbes that 66% of dog fatalities to humans were attributed to pit bulls, even though they make up only 6.5% of the dog population and a report from the Washington Post that said data from the Prince George’s County Health Department said there had been a 43% reduction in dog bites since the ban was enacted in the 1990s.

About 400 pit bulls euthanized last year in Prince George’s, officials say, by Rachel Chason, Washington Post, October 7, 2019 (washingtonpost.com)
County Council votes to continue controversial pit bull ban, by Jessica Ricks, The Prince George's Sentinel, October 30, 2019 (thesentinel.com).

Springfield, Missouri
Population 166,810 | View Ordinance
In July 2017, the Springfield-Greene County Health Department released statistics of
their successful pit bull ordinance after a loose pit bull attacked two children in their own yard.

According to city code, pit bulls must be spayed or neutered, micro-chipped, securely confined, and owners must also follow other strict protocol.

"This didn't come out of a vacuum. There's a reason these restrictions were put in place," said Clay Goddard, assistant director for the Springfield-Greene County Health Department.

Goddard said before the ordinance went into effect, pit bulls made up an alarming number of the reported dog bites citywide. Numbers show in 2005 there were 102 reported dog bites. Pit bull bites accounted for 34 of those.

Since the ordinance went into effect in 2006, Goddard said the number of attacks involving pit bulls has sharply declined, with 78 total attacks in 2015 (the most recent year for which statistics were complete) with 11 of those being pit bulls.

"We think that's evidence of the ordinance working," Goddard said.

Emily Wood, Controversy continues over pit bull ordinance following attack, KY3.com, July 20, 2017 (www.ky3.com) Archived at Archive.is (https://archive.is/Qca5q)

Springfield, Missouri
Population 166,810 | View Ordinance
In January 2017, the Springfield-Greene County Health Department released statistics of their successful pit bull ordinance after a city council member threatened to repeal it.

In 2006, the pit bull ordinance was enacted. The breed was not banned. Owners simply had to get them registered, spay and neuter them, get them microchipped, and post a sign about their dogs.

"Like anything in society, you do not make laws for the best of us. You make them for the worst of us. And that is what we did," Gipson stated.

--- snip ---

"Other dog breeds bite," Gipson said. "Pit bulls are very strong and athletic dog. When they bit they do not let go and cause some severe damage. They are bred to fight. They are fighting dogs. It is inherent in their nature."

--- snip ---

Before the law, one in three dog bites in town were from pit bulls/pit bull mixes. Those numbers have since decreased dramatically, from 34 cases in 2005 to just 16 last year. Also, before 2006, the city picked up and euthanized hundreds of pit bulls a year. In 2016, just 26 were put down.

Mike Landis, Health department says Springfield pit bill ordinance works, should not be repealed, KY3.com, January 4, 2017 (www.ky3.com) Archived at Archive.is (https://archive.is/GYDLB)

Beaufort County, South Carolina
Population 179,589 | Ordinance
In December 2016, statistics showed that after Beaufort County adopted a mandatory pit bull sterilization ordinance, the number of spay and neutered pit bulls has more than doubled.

"The ordinance, approved by the Beaufort County Council in October 2015 and municipal governing bodies in subsequent months, requires that all pit bulls and pit mixes be altered in an effort to fight the overpopulation burdening shelters.

Between October 2014 and when the ordinance was passed, 285 pit bulls were spayed and neutered by the county shelter and the Hilton Head Humane Association free of charge.

That number jumped to 691 in the roughly 14 months since the new regulations took effect, director of Beaufort County Animal Services Tallulah Trice said Tuesday.

More than 400 of those recently spayed pit bulls were female, she said. Because female pits can have litters of up to a dozen puppies, the stepped-up sterilization efforts have stopped the birth of several thousand puppies -- many of which would have likely ended up in shelters, she said."

Lucas High, Required spay and neutering helping take bite out of pit bull overpopulation, IslandPacket.com, December 6, 2016 (www.islandpacket.com) Archived at Archive.is (https://archive.is/OEQZt)

Sioux City, Iowa
Population 82,684 | View Ordinance
In September 2016, statistics showed that attacks by pit bulls were reduced by a factor of six since Sioux City adopted a pit bull ban in 2008. A ban is designed to reduce pit bull mauling injuries, not "all dog bites," many of which are as minor as "breaking the skin." (See: related data chart)

"During the same time period [2007 to 2015], the number of pit bull bites has dropped significantly. Siouxland District Health reported 24 bites by pit bull and pit bull mixes in 2007, a number that decreased to four in 2015. The number of reported pit bull bites has not risen above the single digits since 2011.

Sioux City stats show vicious and high-risk dog designations are also down, dropping from 46 in the city's 2010 fiscal year to five in fiscal year 2016.

--- snip ---

According to city dog licensing information, Sioux City residents registered 93 pit bulls in 2016, about one-sixth as many as were registered in 2009. Pit bulls currently account for 2 percent of the city's registered dogs."

Ian Richardson, "Dog bite reports show slight uptick 8 years after pit bull ban," Sioux City Journal, September 18, 2016 (www.siouxcityjournal.com) Archived at Archive.Is (https://archive.is/SCBgg)
Bret Hayworth, "Pit bulls who attacked boy will be euthanized," Sioux City Journal, September 7, 2007 (www.siouxcityjournal.com) Archived at Archive.Is (https://archive.is/KkaK1)

San Bernardino County, California
Population 2,035,210 | View Ordinance
In September 2015, a spokesman for San Bernardino County said the mandatory pit bull sterilization ordinance adopted in 2010 has cut pit bull admissions and euthanasia of pit bulls by more than half.

David Wert, a spokesman for San Bernardino County, said it has.

“The prime purpose of the sterilization ordinance (in that county) was to reduce the admission and euthanasia rates of pit bulls at county-owned-and-operated shelters,” Wert said.

And it’s working, he said.

In fiscal year 2009-10, right before the measure was passed, the county reported 2,066 pit bull admissions. Wert said 77 percent of them were put down.

“Since the ordinance went into effect, the admission and euthanasia rates for pit bulls have steadily decreased,” he said in an email note. “In fiscal year 2014-15, we had 1,037 pit bull admissions, 31 percent of which had to be euthanized.”

David Downey, "PIT BULLS: Attack alarms region," Press Enterprise, September 9, 2015 (www.pe.com) URL:http://www.pe.com/articles/pit-779755-county-bulls.html. Accessed:
2015-09-10. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6bRI3fnAV)

Toronto, Canada
Population 2,615,060 | View Ordinance
In October 2014, The Star reported on the glowing success of the 2005 Ontario pit bull ban. Pit bull bites per capital are down by more than a factor of six since 2004.

From 2001 to 2004, pit bulls were more likely to bite people and domestic animals than any other breed, the statistics show.

In 2004, the last full year before the ban, there were 984 pit bulls licensed in Toronto and 168 reported pit bull bites. That’s more than double the rate of German shepherds, the next most aggressive breed.

The figures, compiled by the city’s Animal Services division at the Star’s request, come from comparing a breed’s licensed population with the number of times it was reported to have bitten a person or pet.

Nearly a decade after the ban was put in place, its purpose appears to have been achieved: pit bull bites in the city have virtually disappeared.

In 2013, the pit bull population was down to 501, and there were only 13 reported pit bull bites. (See: related data charts)
--- related editorial ---

Indeed, reported incidents of such attacks have almost disappeared.

Reporter Eric Andrew-Gee and data analyst Joel Eastwood crunched municipal numbers and found that, from 2001 to 2004, pit bulls were more likely than any other breed to bite people and pets in Toronto.

In 2004, the last full year before the ban, there were 984 licensed pit bulls in the city and 168 reported bites. Last year there were 501 pit bulls registered in Toronto, and just 13 bites. That’s right — the number of reported bites went from 168 to 13.

Eric Andrew-Gee and Joel Eastwood, "Pit bulls were Toronto’s biggest biters, before the ban," TheStar.com, October 3, 2014 (www.thestar.com) URL:http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/03/pit_bulls_were_torontos_biggest_biters_before_the_ban.html. Accessed: 2014-10-06. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6T834ej0h)
"Ontario’s pit bull ban is working and mustn’t be repealed: Editorial," TheStar.com, October 6, 2014 (www.thestar.com)

Sioux City, Iowa
Population 82,459 | View Ordinance
In August 2014, six years after the city enacted a pit bull ban, bites and vicious dog declarations have drop considerably.

Police records show Sioux City police officers responded to 37 percent fewer dog bites in 2013 than they did in 2007, the year before the breed ban was passed. During that time, the number of reported bites declined each year but one.

More than 550 pit bulls were registered before the deadline in April 2009. Currently, 163 are registered with the city.

--- snip ---

Groetken served as the vicious dog hearing officer before his retirement from the Sioux City Police Department.

"All in all, I think a reasonably prudent person would think, well, something must have happened because the number of pit bulls has reduced in the city, the number of bites has reduced and the number of high risk (designations) has been reduced," said Groetken.

--- snip ---

Vicious dog designations made by Animal Control officers dropped from 33 in fiscal year 2008-09, the year of the ban and first rule changes, to just five last fiscal year. Like the city, Animal Control is on a July 1 to June 30 fiscal year.

Molly Montag, "6 years later, impact of Sioux City pit bull ban unclear: To some, a drop in the number of dog bites indicates Sioux City’s six-year-old ban on vicious dogs is working. Opponents of the contentious rule, however, say the stats don’t tell the whole story…," Sioux City Journal, August, 10, 2014 (www.siouxcityjournal.com) URL:http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/years-later-impact-of-sioux-city-pit-bull-ban-unclear/article_85834f40-a0d3-55c6-b5cc-7b2f4be56e65.html?print=true&cid=print. Accessed: 2014-08-10. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6RjYIWNoQ)

Antigo, Wisconsin
Population 8,044 | View Ordinance
In July 2014, after Wausau citizen Cindy Ryder was attacked by a pit bull, discussions of a pit bull ban arose. The nearby cities of Antigo and Greenwood reported successful preventative bans.

The city of Antigo has been pit-bull-free for almost 20 years.

In 1995, the city hired an attorney who suggested that the city adopt an ordinance prohibiting the oft-maligned dogs from the city, said Kaye Matucheski, city clerk-treasurer for Antigo. The ordinance largely was a preventative measure; Antigo hadn't had any vicious dog attacks, but pit bulls were being blamed for maulings all over the United States, so the city acted before an attack happened rather than waiting to react afterward.

The ordinance the city adopted prohibits pit bulls and mixes of the breed, as well as any other vicious or dangerous animals, from being in the city. In the almost 20 years since it was adopted, Antigo has had no attacks, no maulings, and no dogs killed by pit bulls or other dogs.

--- snip ---

The village of Stratford and the city of Greenwood both have similar bans on pit bulls and dangerous animals. Lonna Klinke, Greenwood's clerk-treasurer, said her city's experience is much like Antigo's: no specific incidents inspired the ban, and since it was adopted, the city has had no attacks and issued no citations.

Greenwood, she said, has no pit bull problem.

Andy Davis, "Pit-bull bans controversial, but they work," Wausau Daily Herald, July 20, 2014 (www.wausaudailyherald.com) URL:http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/story/news/local/2014/07/20/pit-bull-bans-controversial-work/12892813/. Accessed: 2014-07-21. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6REgKPOc3)

Springfield, Missouri
Population 162,191 | View Ordinance
In March 2014, after a state senator sponsored a bill that would "destroy communities' right of self-determination," statistical data was released about Springfield's pit bull ordinance.

According to statistics taken from the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, as reported in the News-Leader March 12, for the three-year period beginning in 2004, there were 42 "vicious" animal attacks recorded in the jurisdiction covered. After passing the local ordinance banning or strictly controlling the ownership of pit bull or pit bull types, the number of attacks has dropped dramatically. For the five-year period from 2007-2011, there was a total of 14.
--- March 12 statistical data ---

According to data from the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, vicious dog attacks are down since the city's pit bull ban went into effect in 2006 … In 2004, there were 13 vicious dog attacks, 18 in 2005 and 11 in 2006. The city's ban went into effect in the fall of 2006. In 2007, eight vicious attacks took place. There was zero attacks in 2008, and one attack each in 2009 and 2010 and four attacks in 2011, the last year of data given in the study.

William Gardner, "Pull pit bull protection bill," Springfield News-Leader, March 26, 2014 (www.news-leader.com) URL:http://www.news-leader.com/story/opinion/readers/2014/03/25/sb-pull-pit-bull-protection-bill/6887605/. Accessed: 2014-03-26. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6OMyOM3kj)
Jonathan Shorman, "Bill puts city pit bull ban at risk," Springfield News-Leader, March 12, 2014 (www.news-leader.com) URL:http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2014/03/11/bill-puts-city-pit-bull-ban-at-risk/6313007/. Accessed: 2014-03-26. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6OMyPeo7x)

Aurora, Colorado
Population 339,030 | View Ordinance
Also in March, Aurora released statistical data showing a significant reduction in the volume of pit bull attacks and pit bulls euthanized after adopting a pit bull ban in 2005.

"Since the ban has been in place, bites are down 73 percent from pit bulls," said Cheryl Conway, a spokeswoman for the city’s animal care division.

She described various problems the city encountered before enacting the ban in 2005 that included irresponsible owners letting the dogs run at large, and owners using pit bulls to taunt pedestrians.

She added that the dogs placed a tremendous burden on city staff. According to city documents, before the ordinance was enacted in 2005, up to 70 percent of kennels in the Aurora Animal Shelter were occupied by pit bulls with pending court disposition dates or with no known owner. That number is now only 10 to 20 percent of kennels.

"There hasn’t been a human mauling in many years. Complaints and requests related to pit bulls are down 50 percent. Euthanasia of pit bull dogs is down 93 percent. Of those few that are put down, they are primarily those that come in as strays and their owners don’t come to claim them," she said.

Rachel Sapin, City Lawmakers Uphold Aurora's Ban on Pit Bulls, Aurora Sentinel, March 4, 2014 (www.aurorasentinel.com) URL:https://sentinelcolorado.com/news/city-lawmakers-uphold-auroras-ban-pit-bulls/. Accessed: 2014-03-04. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6NpRs4GAp)

Pawtucket, Rhode Island
Population 71,148 | View Ordinance
In September 2013, Pawtucket released statistical data showing the dramatic decline in the number of pit bull attacks since adopting a pit bull ban in 2004.

For the four years leading up to the ban, from 2000 to 2003, officers responded to 71 incidents of biting or scratching involving pit bulls in Pawtucket, a majority of those, 51, involving attacks on people.

In the 10 years since the ban was put in place, police responded to 23 total attacks involving pit bulls, with only 13 of those involving attacks on people.

--- snip ---

2000 - 20 incidents, 18 involving attacks on people, two involving other animals.

2001 - 14 incidents, nine involving attacks on people, five on animals.

2002 - 17 incidents, 14 involving attacks on people, three on animals.

2003 - 20 incidents, 11 involving attacks on people, nine on animals.

The following are the 23 pit bull attacks in the city for the 10 years since Pawtucket's pit bull ban was unanimously approved by the Rhode Island General Assembly:

2004 - Eight incidents, five involving attacks on people, three involving attacks on other animals.

2005 - One incident involving a person being attacked.

2006 - Three incidents, one involving an attack on a person, two on animals.

2007 - Four incidents, one involving an attack on a person, three on animals.

2008 - No incidents.

2009 - Two incidents, both involving attacks on people.

2010 - No incidents.

2011 - Two incidents, both involving attacks on people.

2012 - No incidents.

2013 - Three incidents, one involving an attack on a person, two on animals.

Ethan Shore, "Bites by pit bulls have dropped dramatically since 2004," The Valley Breeze, September 10, 2013 (www.valleybreeze.com) URL:http://www.valleybreeze.com/2013-09-10/pawtucket/bites-pit-bulls-have-dropped-dramatically-2004#.UxYlMl7VjYi. Accessed: 2014-03-04. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6NpS10WmQ)

Pawtucket, Rhode Island
Population 71,148 | View Ordinance
In July 2013, Pawtucket Mayor Donald Grebien and City Council President David Moran sent a joint letter to Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee asking that he reject a statewide anti-BSL measure before him (See: Letter in full).

While they agree that some pit bulls can make good pets, said Moran and Grebien, "the number and severity of pit bull attacks against people and other animals in the early 2000s required us to take the action we did."

Prior to the 2004 city ordinance, Pawtucket Animal Control officers responded to many calls about serious pit bull attacks against people and animals, according to the letter. Two of the worst cases involved a nine-month pregnant woman and a child.

--- snip ---

While proponents of the bill argue that breed-specific bans don't work, said Grebien and Moran, "the results in Pawtucket dramatically prove that they do work."

In 2003, the year before the local ban on pit bulls went into effect, 135 pit bulls, all from Pawtucket, were taken in at the Pawtucket Animal Control Shelter for a variety of health and safety reasons, with 48 of those dogs needing to be put down.

In 2012, 72 pit bulls were taken in, only 41 from Pawtucket, with only six needing to be euthanized, according to the two officials.

"That's a tremendous improvement," they state in their letter.

Ethan Shorey, "Still no word from Chafee on 'pit bull' legislation," The Valley Breeze, July 16, 2013 (www.valleybreeze.com) URL:http://www.valleybreeze.com/2013-07-16/pawtucket/still-no-word-chafee-pit-bull-legislation. Accessed: 2013-07-21. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6IHjp8UdE)

San Francisco, California
Population 825,863 | View Ordinance
In June 2013, after a Bay Area child was killed by a family pit bull, San Francisco Animal Care and Control cited the decrease in pit bull bites and euthanasia since the adoption of a 2005 pit bull law.

After 12-year-old Nicholas Faibish was fatally mauled by his family's pit bulls, the city adopted a mandatory spay-neuter law for the breed. The reasoning was that fixed dogs tend to be calmer and better socialized.

Since then, San Francisco has impounded 14 percent fewer pit bulls and euthanized 29 percent fewer - which is a "significant decrease," said Rebecca Katz, director of the city's Animal Care and Control department.

Another significant indicator, she said, is that there have been 28 pit bull bites reported in the past three years - and 1,229 bites by other breeds during the same period. In the three-year period before that, there were 45 pit bull bites and 907 incidents involving other breeds.

Henry K. Lee, "Often no warning signs in pit bull attacks," San Francisco Chronicle, June 19, 2013 (www.sfgate.com) URL:http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Often-no-warning-signs-in-pit-bull-attacks-4611027.php. Accessed: 2013-06-30. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6Hm1oNyhj)

Omaha, Nebraska
Population 415,068 | View Ordinance
In January 2013, the Nebraska Humane Society reported that pit bull bites dropped to 31 in 2012, down from 121 in 2008 (a 74% reduction), the year that Omaha enacted a progressive pit bull ordinance.

2008 Pit Bull Bites Total: 121 (pre-breed specific ordinance)
Level 2: 52; Level 3: 58, Level 4: 8; Level 5: 3 (69 were Level 3-5 attacks)
2009 Pit Bull Bites Total: 73
Level 2: 49; Level 3: 17; Level 4: 4; Level 5: 3 (24 were Level 3-5 attacks)
2010 (through August) Pit Bull Bites Total: 28
Level 2: 19; Level 3: 6; Level 4: 2; Level 5: 1 (9 were Level 3-5 attacks)
2012 Pit Bull Bites Total: 31
No bite level break down provided1

Jay Withrow, "Nebraska Humane Society: Pit bulls not among top five breeds in Omaha attack cases last year," Starherald.com, January 31, 2013 (www.starherald.com) URL:http://www.starherald.com/news/regional_statewide/nebraska-humane-society-pit-bulls-not-among-top-five-breeds/article_a0de220a-6b5f-11e2-92af-0019bb2963f4.html.
Accessed: 2013-03-23. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6FL9kZn5p)
Robert Nelson, "Nelson: Pit bulls' bad rep earned," Omaha World-Herald, July 15, 2011 (www.omaha.com) URL:http://www.omaha.com/article/20110715/NEWS01/707159913/1199. Accessed: 2013-03-23. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6FLDNlneW)
Report from NHS: Comparison of pit bull bites from 2008-2009, and 2010 through August, September 23, 2010.
1DogsBite.org included a 2011 article by Robert Nelson that highlights how the Nebraska Humane Society -- strongly opposed to the pit bull ordinance -- often misleads the media about pit bull bite statistics. Notably the headline in the 2013 article, "pit bulls not among top five breeds" and the failure to provide bite level data.

Ypsilanti Township, Michigan
Population 53,362 | View Ordinance
Also in January, after Ypsilanti Township passed a mandatory pit bull sterilization law in 2010 to reduce pit bull euthanasia, pit bull intake and euthanasia was cut nearly in half in just two years.

Officials said the ordinance is an attempt to reduce the number of pit bulls euthanized and control the breed's population. So far, more than 700 pit bulls have been sterilized for free through a grant awarded to the HSHV from PetSmart, and the program has enough funds left to sterilize another 150.

Ypsilanti Township accounted for nearly 50 percent of the shelter’s pit bull intake, while 11.2 percent came from the City of Ypsilanti and 7.4 percent from Ann Arbor.

In 2011, as the law went into effect, 237 pit bulls were brought into the Humane Society. That number has dropped to 113 through the end of October and is projected to rise to 135 by the end of the year.

Euthanasia of pit bulls dropped from a peak of 139 dogs in 2009 to 103 in 2011 and 56 through the end of October. Officials are projecting putting down 58 pit bulls total in 2012.

“The numbers speak for themselves,” Mike Radzik, director of the office of community standards, said.

Tom Perkins, "Ypsilanti Township makes pit bull spay/neuter ordinance permanent," The Ann Arbor News, January 15, 2013 (www.annarbor.com) URL:http://www.annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti/ypsilanti-township-makes-pit-bull-spayneuter-ordinance-permanent/?cmpid=mlive-@mlive-news-a2. Accessed: 2015-09-22. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6bkHaMyZC)

Saginaw, Michigan
Population 51,230 | View Ordinance
In November 2012, Saginaw reported a reduction in dog attacks eighteen months after enacting a "Light" BSL ordinance1 requiring owners of the top 5 dangerous dog breeds2 to comply with new regulations.

Eighteen months after Saginaw created its dangerous dog ordinance, put into effect in June 2011, Saginaw City Chief Inspector John Stemple said it has helped to lower the amount of dog attacks in the city.

"It was the government reacting to a problem," Stemple said. "And if you look at the numbers, it's been very effective."

--- snip ---

The ordinance requires residents to register dogs whose breeds are deemed "dangerous" at the City Clerk's office, post a "Dog on premises" sign in the front of their homes and when outdoors, keep their animals either on a leash or within a 4-foot-high fenced area or kennel.

The breeds included in the ordinance are pit bulls, presa canario, bull mastiffs, rottweilers and German shepherds.

Stemple said he has heard from employees at Consumers Energy and the U.S. Postal Service that the signs and tethering rules have made their work safer. The number of reported dog bites fell in 2011 to nine, from 24 in 2009.

Erica Perdue, "Dangerous dogs: Saginaw's chief inspector says ordinance 'very effective' in first year," MLive.com, November 12, 2012 (www.mlive.com) URL:http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2012/11/saginaw_chief_inspector_danger.html. Accessed: 2012-11-28. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6CWWNiPb4)
1Even a "Light" BSL ordinance yields results!
2The ordinance does not specify dog breeds, instead it states: "Any dog of a breed that appears consistently in the top five (5) of the breeds on credible, analytical listings of "Most Dangerous Dogs" as verified and supplemented by local data and records for Saginaw County." (See: 2011)

Toronto, Canada
Population 2,503,281 | View Ordinance
In a November 2011, public health statistics published by Global Toronto showed that pit bull bites dropped dramatically after Ontario adopted the Dog Owners Liability Act in 2005, an act that banned pit bulls:

The number of dog bites reported in Toronto has fallen since a ban on pit bulls took effect in 2005, public health statistics show.

A total of 486 bites were recorded in 2005. That number fell generally in the six years following, to 379 in 2010.

Provincial laws that banned 'pit bulls,' defined as pit bulls, Staffordshire terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers and dogs resembling them took effect in August 2005. Existing dogs were required to be sterilized, and leashed and muzzled in public.

Bites in Toronto blamed on the four affected breeds fell sharply, from 71 in 2005 to only six in 2010. This accounts for most of the reduction in total bites. (See: Data chart)

Patrick Cain, "Toronto dog bites fell after pit bull ban," Global Toronto, November 14, 2011 (www.globaltoronto.com)
(Archived by DogsBite.org)

San Bernardino County, California
Population 2,035,210 | View Ordinance
In August 2011, San Bernardino County Animal Care and Control, which oversees unincorporated areas and Highland and Yucaipa, reported a 9.6 decrease in dog bites after enacting a pit bull sterilization law in 2010.

The law, approved unanimously by the Board of Supervisors last week, expands upon an ordinance approved last year that requires pit bull owners to spay or neuter their pets.

Supervisor Neil Derry introduced the original proposal in response to an increasing number of attacks by pit bulls in recent years that resulted in four deaths -- two of them young children -- in the last five years.

The county saw a 9.6 percent decrease in dog bites in the year since the spay/neuter program was instituted, said Brian Cronin, the county's animal care and control division chief.

Imran Ghpri, "SB: County: Spay/neuter law expanded," The Press-Enterprise, August 2011 (www.pe.com) URL:http://www.pe.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20110830-sb-county-spayneuter-law-expanded.ece. Accessed: 2012-07-13. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6980NiTHO)

Omaha, Nebraska
Population 408,958 | View Ordinance
In September 2010, the Nebraska Humane Society provided bite statistical data to city council members and an evaluation of the effectiveness of the pit bull ordinance adopted by the City of Omaha in late 2008.

"It is the position of the Nebraska Human Society that this ordinance has been effective in reducing bites involving dogs defined as "Pit Bulls" in the ordinance."

Judy Varner, President and CEO, Nebraska Human Society
-- analysis --
Varner's attached statistical data shows that bites by pit bulls dropped 40% after one year of the adoption of the ordinance, 121 bites in 2008 down to 73 bites in 2009. The bite rate dropped even further in 2010.

2008 Pit Bull Bites: 121 Total

2009 Pit Bull Bites: 73 Total

2010 Pit Bull Bites (through August): 28 Total

Nebraska Humane Society Bite Statistic Report, September 23, 2010 (cityofomaha.org) (Archived by DogsBite.org)

Ottumwa, Iowa
Population 24,998 | View Ordinance
In July 2010, Police Chief Jim Clark said there had been no recorded pit bull attacks since the city's 2003 pit bull ban. Between 1989 and 2003, the city had a pit bull ordinance, but still allowed pit bulls as "guard" dogs.

Police Chief Jim Clark says since the ban, there have been no recorded attacks by the animals.

"We haven't had any attacks since then for one thing because it is illegal," said Clark. "Most people are keeping their dogs inside their house or inside their basement and not letting them out loose so therefore they're not around other people to attack them."
--- related article ---

In the two-and-a-half years before the 2003 ban, Ottumwa police recorded 18 pit bull attacks, including the death of 21-month-old Charlee Shepherd in August 2002. There were at least three other attacks on children during this time.1

James Buechele, "Police chief supports pit bull ban," KTVO3, July 12, 2010 (www.heartlandconnection.com) URL:http://www.heartlandconnection.com/news/story.aspx?id=481775. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPLFk9CY)
"Factfinder: Pitbull attacks and citations," KTVO3, July 12, 2010 (www.heartlandconnection.com) URL:http://www.heartlandconnection.com/news/story.aspx?id=481570. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPLHxxRE)
1Ottumwa city officials correctly determined in 2003 that the 1989 pit bull ordinance, which still allowed pit bulls as "guard" dogs, did not sufficiently protect children or the public.

Salina, Kansas
Population 47,707 | View Ordinance
In March 2010, a subsequent article was written about the effectiveness of Salina's pit bull ordinance. Rose Base, director of the Salina Animal Shelter who lobbied for the ordinance, told the Salina Journal:

The ordinance has made a difference, she said. Records at the Salina Animal Shelter indicate there were 24 reported pit bull bites in 2003 and 2004, and only five since -- none from 2009 to present.

Salina has 62 registered pit bulls, Base said. Before the ordinance she guessed there were "close to 300." Since the first of this year three of the registered pit bulls have died of old age.

"We definitely haven't had the severity of bites that we had in the past," Base said. "Our community has been somewhat safer because of the law that was passed."2

Tim Unruh, "Inspiring change," Salina Journal, March 15, 2010 (www.salina.com) (Archived by DogsBite.org)
1Osh Gosh, the heroic golden retriever who gained fame for intervening in the 2004 pit bull mauling that prompted Salina's pit bull ban died in March 2011. "Heroic dog that saved toddler dies," Salina Journal, March 20, 2011 (www.salina.com)

Council Bluffs, Iowa
Population 58,268 | View Ordinance
After two serious and separate pit bull maulings occurred on March 4, 2010 in the City of Indianapolis, the assistant city attorney of Council Bluffs spoke to a local radio host about Council Bluff's 2004 pit bull ban:

"We passed a ban and started enforcing it in January of 05, at the end of 05 our numbers had dropped down to 19 people injured by pit bulls. In 06, the numbers dropped to 7 people injured by pit bulls. In 07, 2007 we only had two people injured by pit bulls and we haven't had a person injured by pit bulls since. So in 2008 and 2009 we had zero attacks. As of March 5th, 2010 we have yet to have a pit bull injury here in Council Bluffs."

"Radio Show Interviews Assistant City Attorney," Greg Browning Show, March 5, 2010 (wibc.com) Transcript provided by DogsBite.org

San Francisco, California
Population 808,977 | View Ordinance
When the City of Auburn debated enacting a pit bull law in January 2010, Sgt. Bill Herndon of the San Francisco Police Department weighed in about the success of San Francisco's 2005 pit bull law:

Since requiring all pit bulls to be neutered, they say they are finding fewer pit bulls involved in biting incidents.

Sgt. Bill Herndon, of the San Francisco Police Department's vicious dog unit, said the numbers and severity of pit bull attacks are down since San Francisco enacted an ordinance in 2005 after the mauling death of 12-year-old Nicholas Faibish.

"The number of complaints of mean pit bulls has dropped dramatically," Herndon said.

San Francisco's animal control department reports more than 30 percent fewer pit bulls at the shelter or being euthanized."

"We've seen it as very effective from an animal welfare perspective," said Rebecca Katz, the department's interim director.

Ed Fletcher, "Auburn seeks ways to prevent another pit bull attack," The Sacramento Bee, January 30, 2010 (www.scabee.com) URL:http://www.sacbee.com/2010/01/30/2500818/auburn-seeks-ways-to-prevent-another.html. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPLO97oa)

Lancaster, California
Population 145,074 | View Ordinance
After Lancaster adopted a mandatory spay and neuter law for pit bulls and rottweilers in early 2009, it was reported just one year later, in January 2010, that the results of the ordinance were very positive:

City officials said that 1,138 pit bulls and Rottweilers were impounded last year by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control. Of those, 362 were voluntarily surrendered by their owners in response to Lancaster’s ordinance.

"A year ago, this city was overrun with individuals -- namely, gang members -- who routinely used pit bulls and other potentially vicious dogs as tools of intimidation and violence," Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris said in a statement.

--- snip ---

Parris believes there is a correlation between the results of the dog ordinance and a drop in the city’s gang crime rate. Lancaster’s violent gang crime, which includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, fell by 45% last year, and there was a drop in overall gang crime by 41%, Parris said, citing statistics from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department."

"Lancaster's dog ordinance is cited in helping to drive down gang crime," L.A. Now, January 21, 2010 (www.latimesblogs.latimes.com) URL:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/lancasters-dog-ordinance-is-cited-in-helping-to-drive-down-gang-crime.html. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPLTYBsX)

Omaha, Nebraska
Population 438,646 | View Ordinance
After the City of Omaha adopted a pit bull law in 2008, Mark Langan of the Nebraska Humane Society, who opposed the law, said in September 2009 that pit bull biting incidents were down 35% since its adoption:

Despite the attack of Haynes, The Humane Society's Mark Langan says pitbull bites are down since new laws went into effect last year. Langan says so far this year 54 bites have been reported compared to 83 last year.

"Woman Recovers From Pitbull Attack," 1110 KFAB, September 21, 2009 (www.kfab.com) URL:http://kfab.com/pages/localnews.html?feed=122285&article=6039792. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPLd0O5N)

Prince George's County, Maryland
Population 834,560 | View Ordinance
Prince George's County passed a pit bull ban in 1996. In August 2009, Rodney Taylor, associate director of the county's Animal Management Group, said that the number of pit bull biting incidents has fallen:

Taylor said that during the first five to seven years of the ban, animal control officials would encounter an average of 1,200 pit bulls a year but that in recent years that figure has dropped by about half. According to county statistics, 36 pit bull bites, out of 619 total dog bites, were recorded in 2008, down from 95 pit bull bites, out of a total of 853, in 1996.

Jonathan Mummolo, "Pr. George's Ban on Pit Bulls Resists Tenacious Opposition," The Washington Post, August 17, 2009 (www.washingtonpost.com) URL:https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/16/AR2009081601946.html. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPLfWspL)

Pawtucket, Rhode Island
Population 71,148 | View Ordinance
When the City of Woonsocket was debating a pit bull ordinance in June 2009, the animal control supervisor in Pawtucket, John Holmes, spoke about the enormous success of Pawtucket's 2003 pit bull ban:1

Holmes says he predicted that it would take two years for Pawtucket to experience the full benefit of the law after it was passed, but the results were actually apparent in half the time.

"It's working absolutely fantastic," said Holmes. "We have not had a pit bull maiming in the city since December of 2004."

Holmes says the law also capped the number of legal pit bulls in Pawtucket to about 70 animals.

Russ Olivo, "Police push pit bull law," The Call, June 14, 2009 (www.woonsocektcall.com) URL:http://www.woonsocketcall.com/content/view/90556. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPLm1OH6)
1The proposed Woonsocket pit bull ban, brought by Capt. Kenneth Paulhus of the Woonsocket Police Department and Animal Control Officer Doris Kay, sadly did not prevail. Nine months later, Kay was attacked and seriously injured by a pit bull.

Little Rock, Arkansas
Population 189,515 | View Ordinance
When the City of Indianapolis was discussing a pit bull sterilization law in April 2009, Little Rock Animal Services Director Tracy Roark spoke about Little Rock's successful 2008 pit bull ordinance:

"There was a day when you could walk down any street in center city Little Rock, you could see several pit bulls chained up. You don't see that anymore," said Tracy Roark with Little Rock Animal Services.

Roark told Eyewitness News over the phone that pit bull attacks have been cut in half and credits their new law with getting them there.

"This is the most abused dog in the city," said Roark.

The Little Rock law passed last year and requires pit bulls to be sterilized, registered and microchipped. Also dogs - regardless of the breed - are also not allowed to be chained up outside.

Mary Milz, "Indianapolis ordinance puts restrictions on pit bull breeds," WTHR 13, April 7, 2009 (www.wthr.com) URL:https://web.archive.org/web/20140509225734/http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=10145348. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPLpDjxR)

Fort Lupton, Colorado
Population 6,787 | View Ordinance
When the City of Fort Collins was mulling a pit bull law in March 2009, Fort Lupton's Police Chief spoke about Fort Lupton's successful 2003 pit bull ban, including zero pit bull biting incidents since the law's adoption:

Fort Lupton Police Chief Ron Grannis said the city hasn’t had a pit bull bite since the ban was enacted, but it still has the occasional pit bull that is picked up and taken away. Although he said the ban has not been well-received by every resident, he thinks it was the right decision for the city.

"I believe it makes the community safer,” he said. “That’s my personal opinion. Pit bulls are not the kind of dogs most people should have. They are too unpredictable. ... These dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be fighters.

You can’t take it out of them. A lion cub may be friendly for a while, but one day it can take your head off."

Erin Frustaci, "Opponents, supporters speak out about breed-specific bans," The Greeley Tribune, March 28, 2009 (www.greeleytribune.com) URL:http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090328/NEWS/903289954. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPLv53oY)

Wapato, Washington
Population 4,582 | View Ordinance
In 2008, the City of Wapato passed an ordinance that bans new pit bulls, rottweilers and mastiffs. Nine months after its adoption, in March 2009, Wapato Police Chief Richard Sanchez reported successful results:

Nine months into the ban and police calls about vicious dogs have been cut in half. The Wapato Police tell Action News they've gone from 18 reports in January, February and March of last year to seven so far in '09. "Seven calls in three months... that's nothing," says Chief Richard Sanchez, Wapato Police Department.

Chief Sanchez credits local cooperation for the decline of dangerous dogs.

Sadie Malloy, "Pitbull Ban Has Wapato Locals Hiding Their Dogs," March 20, 2009, KIMA CBS 29, (www.kimatv.com) URL:http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/41542702.html. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPM0jKKq)

Springfield, Missouri
Population 156,206 | View Ordinance
In April 2008, the Springfield-Greene County Health Department released data showing that pit bull biting incidents declined following Springfield's adoption of a pit bull ordinance in 2006:

The Springfield-Greene County Health Department reports that dog bites and vicious dog complaints are declining since the implementation of the Pit Bull Ordinance in the City of Springfield two years ago. In 2005 the health department fielded 18 vicious dog complaints, but only eight in 2007. Bites were down from 102 in 2005 to 87 in 2007.

--- snip ---

The ordinance, which requires pit bull owners to register their dogs annually, has also resulted in fewer pit bull dogs being impounded at the Springfield Animal Shelter. In 2005 there were 502 pit bull and pit bull mixes impounded, compared to only 252 in 2007.

"Because we are impounding fewer pit bulls, we've also seen overcrowding in our shelter subside," says assistant director Clay Goddard. "It is the natural tendency of pit bulls to fight, so our animal control staff are forced to segregate them in individual pens. When we have several pit bulls in the shelter simultaneously, this severely limits space for other dogs."

"Health Department says "Pit Bull Ordinance Working," KSPR News, April 14, 2008 (www.kspr.com) URL:http://www.kspr.com/news/local/17662294.html. Accessed: 2010-08-31. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/5sPM5VAT8)

Toronto, Canada
Population 2,503,281 | View Ordinance
In a March 2008 Toronto Sun article, Toronto animal services reported that pit bull biting incidents had dropped significantly since the adoption of the Dog Owners Liability Act 2005, an act that banned pit bulls:

And reports of bites by pit bull type dogs have dropped dramatically.

In 2004, the animal services department received reports about 130 of the powerful animals biting humans and animals.

The numbers dropped by substantial increments in subsequent years: 71 in 2005; 53 in 2006; and 44 in 2007.

Zen Ruryk, "One endangered species," The Toronto Sun, March 2, 2008 (www.torontosun.com) (Archived by DogsBite.org)

Reading, Pennsylvania
Population 80,560 | City Website
After an 8-year legal battle, pit bull advocates dismantled a pit bull law adopted by Reading in 1998. It was reported in the same news article, in February 2008, that the law had significantly reduced biting incidents:

Reading's 1998 law required that aggressive or dangerous dogs, when outside the home, be muzzled and kept on a leash shorter than three feet long with a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds.

The law also punished violators with fines of up to $1,000 or 30 days in jail.

The law is credited with helping to reduce dog bites from 130 in 1999 to 33 in 2006. As a result, the law - or at least elements of it - were not being actively enforced, the Reading Eagle reported last year.

"State court tosses Reading dog law," Associated Press, February, 26, 2008 (abclocal.go.com)
URL:http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=5975527. Accessed: 2012-11-28. (Archived by WebCite® at https://www.webcitation.org/6CWeqwH50)

Salina, Kansas
Population 46,140 | View Ordinance
In the monthly city newsletter, In Touch, published in September 2006, the City of Salina reported that the pit bull ban adopted in 2005 significantly reduced pit bull biting incidents in just a 12 month period.

The number of pit bull bites depicted in the "Salina Pit Bull Bites Reported" graph shows 2002 with 13 pit bull bites, 2003 with 11 pit bull bites, 2004 with 15 pit bull bites and 2005 with only one bite. The newsletter notes that "animal bites reported have remained constant, but the severity of bites have decreased dramatically" since the enactment of the pit bull ban.

In Touch, The City's new monthly source of service information, Volume 2, Issue 5, September 2006. (Archived by DogsBite.org)

Cities and counties that have implemented successful breed-specific ordinances, please share your results with DogsBite.org so that we can add them to this post.

Populations were recorded at the time of creating each entry and may vary over time.

Peer-reviewed studies:

Posted on May 28, 2019 by Colleen Lynn

Conflict of Interest: San Francisco Animal Control and Virginia Donohue -- Final Installment in Documentary Series

San Francisco, CA - This is the third and final installment in a series of videos about the Department of Animal Care and Control in San Francisco by Black Summers Productions, LLC. This segment is 34 minutes long and focuses on the shameless conflict of interest of Virginia Donohue in serving as the Executive Director of San Francisco Animal Care and Control (SFACC) while co-owning a private, for-profit animal boarding and dog training facility in the city, Pet Camp.

In the second installment, we saw a vicious attack at a dog training facility. The third installment expands upon this attack captured on surveillance video at Dan Perata Training, a competitor to Donohue's Pet Camp. Perata and his wife are interviewed about the incident and how SFACC -- which otherwise refuses to investigate attacks in "private facilities" at Donohue's request -- tries to railroad Dan Perata Training with false testimony at the Vicious and Dangerous Dog hearing.

Video: View the full, unedited interview of Dan Perata and his wife Natasha Koral.

SFACC requested the Vicious and Dangerous Dog hearing on behalf of "Tank," the attacker in the surveillance video, claiming the dog was the victim of a "fairly aggressive method of training," that he was "on the edge of his coping skills" and was "being assaulted and finally snapped." Sgt. Ellie Sadler of SFACC gave this testimony prior to seeing the video. As Perata states, Sadler "got up there and lied ... flat out made shit up." At that time, Sadler did not know there was a video.

Hearing officer John Denny, who is now retired, presided over the Vicious and Dangerous Dog hearing involving "Tank" in March 2016. Denny is also interviewed in the final installment. One sees Denny noting the unusual situation during the hearing, trying to confirm with SFACC, "Your contention is that Tank was provoked into his reaction that started the bite. Your reason for requesting the hearing then is to clear Tank? Do you see the point I am trying to make?"

Video: View the full, unedited interview of retired hearing officer John Denny.

After the video is played during the hearing -- Denny recalls his reaction as "his jaw hanging down" -- he asks Sgt. Sadler, "Now that you have seen this video, what are your thoughts?" She replied in part, "My concern -- and I know you don't want to talk about the training stuff -- is that with this kind of training it's not going to resolve. And he's going to keep being forced into feeling terror and reacting to that." Sadler also stated she still believed Tank was provoked to this behavior.

"Animal Control handles cruelty complaints," Denny states during the interview. "Why are we here? Why did you drag everybody involved, the owners of a competitor to Pet Camp, the dog trainer and the dog owner. Everybody's here because you don't like their training facilities?" Denny asks. "It almost seemed like Mrs. Donohue sent her people out -- made an exception for a standing rule [Donohue's refusal to investigate bites at training and grooming facilities] just to harass one of her competitors." - Retired hearing officer John Denny

The third installment then looks at Donohue, who was appointed in 2015 by and answerable only to the unelected City Administrator, Naomi Kelly. At the time of being appointed to lead SFACC, Donohue was the co-owner of Pet Camp (with her husband) and continues to be. Pet Camp has been featured on SFACC's government website, there is a Pet Camp "stipend" and sponsorship arrangement, and Pet Camp "50% off" flyers are placed into SFACC's animal adoption packets.

Ethics complaints came next, but to no avail. Dan Perata Training filed a complaint with his Board of Supervisors and the Ethics Commission. Denny filed a complaint with the Whistleblower Program and Ethics Commission. "If you blow the whistle on somebody who is liked downtown, they can fix it," Denny states in the interview. Denny then made a complaint to the Civil Grand Jury. "Very disappointing," he reflected. "It's just a coin toss," if you get a good grand jury or not.

Denny was forced out of his position as an independent hearing officer for the Vicious and Dangerous dog hearings at the end of 2017.1

The last portion deals with the new SFACC facility, which grew to a price tag of over $100 million dollars. The new facility is a historic building that requires retrofitting and has less kennel space for dogs and cats (84 dogs, 138 cats) than the current SFACC facility (107 dogs, 151 cats). The documentary refers to it's planning as a "game of capital planning musical chairs." When Donohue was hired, the projected cost was $26.5 million. Today, it is four times that amount with interest.

This documentary series began by examining the dereliction of duty at SFACC. Their findings include that SFACC does not keep track of and monitor officially dangerous dogs, SFACC has corrupted the hearing process for dogs accused of being dangerous, SFACC refuses to investigate "bites and attacks" at training and grooming facilities (unless it is owned by a Pet Camp competitor) and SFACC management has no public safety or law enforcement expertise.

The final installment, however, speaks to a much larger breach of trust. By the City continuing to entrust the shelter planning to Donohue, the City has betrayed public trust. Officials are supposed to make decisions based on what is good for the city as a whole -- not personal interests. By city officials ignoring Donohue's conflict of interest and opportunity for constant self-dealing, they have "rejected simple fairness," states the documentary, worsening this breach of public trust.

Conflict of interest San Francisco Animal Control Virginia Donohue

The owners of Dan Perata Training (top left), now retired hearing officer John Denny (right) and Pet Camp, a for-profit pet boarding and dog training facility co-owned by Virginia Donohue.

Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing for "Tank"

The March 10, 2016 Vicious and Dangerous dog hearing for "Tank" is an hour and 15 minutes long and exists only in audio format. We transcribed a significant portion to highlight the blatant false testimony by Sgt. Ellie Sadler of SFACC, the complainant in the case, in order to harass Dan Perata Training, a competitor to Donohue's Pet Camp training facility. Sadler testifies that Tank was "being abused" and was forced to "respond (attack the trainer) through primal urges."

Read: View the 6-page partial transcript | YouTube: Listen to the full audio of hearing

The obvious problem with Sadler's unfounded testimony is that Tank's attack was captured on surveillance video, which was closely examined during the hearing. After 57 minutes of testimony by the dog's owner, the attack victim, and the owner of Perata Training, Denny asks Sadler again, "Now that you have seen the video, what are your thoughts?" Sadler persists, "the dog was forced into that kind of reaction" and that "with this kind of training it’s not going to resolve."

Denny ignores this absurdity. His role is to determine what to do with Tank, a dog with serious aggression issues that its owner cannot control. Despite Tank's owner stating many times the attack was an "isolated incident," Denny orders Tank to be leashed and muzzled when in public and for the owner to continue her training at Perata Training. In his closing statement, Denny also reminds the owner, "he's got a rap sheet as a biting dog" and "sometimes dogs can't be saved."

"Listen, I’m going to end this not on a sour note. Sometimes dogs can’t be saved. How far are you willing to go? How far are you willing to risk? No one would -- These are decisions that you have to make. But sometimes there is a time that you have to make a real tough decision. All right? And you’ll know it. It doesn’t have to be another bite. But if there’s just no way for you to get Tank under control by yourself then you are going to have to make a decision." - Veteran hearing officer John Denny

Finally, the blacklisting of Dan Perata Training (who uses praise and energy-based training) has been going on for at least three years. In the interview with Dan and Natasha, shot in February 2019, both are still outraged by SFACC's actions. Their complaints to a Board of Supervisors and the Ethics Commission went nowhere. SFACC continues to blacklist them by no longer releasing high-risk dogs to them -- cases that will likely end in euthanasia without specialized training.2

Conflict of interest San Francisco Animal Control Ellie Sadler

Sgt. Ellie Sadler of San Francisco Animal Care and Control at Tank's hearing in March 2016.

Three Documentary Installments

August 5, 2018
Part 1: San Francisco Animal Control Calls Police to Deal with Off-Leash Dog

This is the first installment of a series about the dereliction of duty at San Francisco Animal Care and Control by Black Summers Productions, LLC. The segment is just over 7 minutes long and highlights how SFACC fails in their duty to prevent dog attacks by rejecting the enforcement of leash laws. One sees this clearly when SFACC executive officials "abandon the scene" of a stubborn pit bull owner. SFACC also relies on "police" to enforce leash laws in their own lobby.

Related content:
Civil Grand Jury Report, City and County of San Francisco. Our Lovable Pets, Dogs and Public Safety in San Francisco.

November 18, 2018
Part 2: San Francisco - Vicious and Dangerous Dogs Unleashed

The second installment focuses on the failure of San Francisco Animal Care and Control to properly manage the risks posed by vicious and dangerous dogs in the city. The segment is 44 minutes long. Findings by the documentary include: SFACC does not keep track of and monitor officially dangerous dogs; SFACC has corrupted the hearing process for dogs accused of being dangerous; and current SFACC management has no public safety or law enforcement expertise.

Related content:
Presentation by Veteran Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing Officer John Denny

May 13, 2019
Part 3: Conflict of Interest - San Francisco Animal Care and Control & Virginia Donohue

The final installment focuses on the shameless conflict of interest of Executive Director of San Francisco Animal Care and Control, Virginia Donohue, while co-owning a private, for-profit animal boarding and dog training facility in the city, Pet Camp. The segment is 34 minutes long and zeros in on an attack at Dan Perata Training -- one of Pet Camp's competitors -- and how SFACC tries to railroad the competitor with blatant false testimony at the Vicious and Dangerous Dog hearing.

Related content:
The Complete, Unedited Interview with Dan Perata and Natasha Koral
The Complete, Unedited Interview with John Denny
Listen to Audio of Complete Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing of "Tank"

Virginia Donohue seen "breaking the ground" on May 15, 2019 for the new location of SFACC.

1Denny was replaced by Jeff Foster, a "dog lover" and pit bull owner. Foster's stint as a dog court hearing officer did not last long. Foster was eventually removed after making a prejudicial remark to a dog attack victim. This is a MUST WATCH as Stephanie Hung confronts him in the hearing room about a month after his awful remark.
2Perata and Koral explain this during their interview starting at 37:06. Also, they tell a stunning story of an extremely dangerous protection bred dog that SFACC years ago referred to Perata at 42:35 -- that dog could not be saved.

DogsBite blog ::