East Texas Woman Severely Mauled by Pit Bull at 'Dog Friendly' Private RV Park

Couple Warns of Hidden Dangers and Unknown Information

Park on the Lake RV pit bull mauling
Lorrie George was mauled by a pit bull at an East Texas RV park on November 12th, 2012.

Willis, TX - Last November, Lorrie George, 59-years old, was viciously attacked by a tethered pit bull while visiting a friend at a private RV park in Willis, Texas. The injury nearly cost Lorrie her left leg. What follows in this post, told through the eyes of Lorrie and her partner Thomas, is what led up to the mauling and what unfolded in its aftermath. Like many pit bull attacks that end in horrific injury, the local media did not report Lorrie's attack, not even after the couple reached out to them.

Our documentation of Lorrie's attack describes in detail how the legal and law enforcement system in Texas deserted Lorrie and Thomas, primarily due to the location and conditions of the attack and a pit bull owner who was uninsured. The couple's story is filled with frustration and sadness, a disbelief this could happen to them, and worse, any number of new unsuspecting victims. The only relief they feel today is in knowing that Lorrie's attack may have prevented the death of a child.

Issues covered in this blog post include: The day of the attack and the history of Tank, a nine-time biter leading up to the mauling, a closer look at Tank's first recorded bite and lack of injury severity tracked, the rejection of their case by four attorneys and the crime victims' compensation program, the bungled or non-dog bite investigation, the "vicious dog owner loop" and how charity to an irresponsible friend comes at a price, finally, the change the couple would like to see in Texas state law.

Click here to see terminology that explains the various types of private RV parks.

The Day of the Attack

Willis Texas pit bull mauling RV parkWillis Texas pit bull mauling RV parkWillis Texas pit bull mauling RV park
See full album to view more images of different perspectives of the RV lot.

On November 12th, 2012, Veterans Day,1 Lorrie and Thomas drove to Park on the Lake RV Park, a privately owned RV park in Willis, Texas. The park does not require trailer insurance, allows for the indefinite stay of residents and is "dog friendly." The couple was on their way to visit Denise,2 a friend who needed help with an electrical problem in her towable RV. The couple knew Denise from their time spent working together at nearby Hide E Hole Equine Therapy Center.

Denise owned a male pit bull named Tank that was about 2.75 years old. Both Lorrie and Thomas were wary of the dog and had experienced minor bites from the animal when Denise lived and worked at the equine center. Part of the reason why Denise was asked to leave the center was due to Tank. The dog had gone after one of the horses and ended up with a solid kick to the head.3 On November 12th, Lorrie and Thomas still lived and worked at the equine center.

When the two arrived at about 2 p.m., Denise tied Tank up to a makeshift low wooden barrier near the back of her trailer and the three went inside to have coffee and talk. After about an hour of visiting together, Denise asked Thomas to look at her electrical system located in the back of her trailer. All three adults exited; Thomas and Denise walked to the back. Denise noticed that Tank had gotten tangled up in his long rope over the past hour. She started to untangle her dog.

Lorrie exited moving away from Thomas and Denise, toward the adjacent lot and the estuary, which ran behind the trailers. Lorrie edged away, keeping her distance from Tank, but had no idea of the length of his rope, which was 20 to 25 feet. Thomas stated in an email to DogsBite.org, "The next thing I know is that TANK had Lorrie by the leg. Lorrie was standing in the easement between Denise's trailer and her neighbor's trailer, the dog should not have been able to reach Lorrie."

"For tenant #66 to use that cooker he would be standing where Lorrie was attacked," Thomas wrote.

A portion of Lorrie's written statement. Read statement in full.

pit bullTank was laying very still on the ground, he did not bark or growl and all of a sudden, like a bolt of lighting he grabbed hold of my left leg just above the knee. He bit into my leg, and I fell to the ground. I thought for a moment that he would let go but he continued to bite me harder and started growling and shaking me like a toy.
pit bullI screamed for Tommy and cried Tank is attacking me. Tommy jumped on Tank and tried to get him to release his grip on my leg. Tommy then yelled for Denise to help him get Tank off of me. Tank refused to release his grip on me, even with Denise and Tommy trying to pry him off of me. The pain was intense and I have never been so terrified in my life. They finally got him to release me for a second and then he bit me again on the lower part of my leg.
pit bullOnce again they struggled to pry him loose from my leg. When he finally released me Tommy was yelling to me to move away but I couldn't move. I went into shock, I had my hand gripping my pant leg very tightly, thinking I was preventing my leg from bleeding.
pit bullI looked down at my leg and saw huge gashes, it looked like I was attacked by a shark. - Lorrie Ruth George

While Lorrie was on the ground holding her mangled leg together, other people in the park rushed over to help. One woman standing nearby even lifted her skirt to show Lorrie the wound where Tank had bitten her a few days earlier. The gathering crowd assured Lorrie that 911 had been called and that an ambulance was on the way. Thomas asked for a blanket to help keep Lorrie from going into shock. The ambulance did arrive quickly, but to Lorrie it felt like an eternity.

"Finally, I felt myself being placed onto a gurney and hoisted into an ambulance," she said.

She was transported to the ER at Memorial Hermann Hospital in the Woodlands. Lorrie writes in her statement that the doctor was undecided about what to do. "He acted like he had never seen a dog bite this bad," she wrote. She remained in the ER for about six hours; nearly two were spent working on her primary thigh injury. Just before releasing her, doctors realized they had missed the entire lower wound on her leg, which was bad enough to elicit concern for skin grafting.

Neither Lorrie nor Thomas understood why she was not kept overnight. The Woodlands hospital is a Level III trauma center, equipped to stabilize and transfer trauma patients to Level I, but with limited beds. Both were comforted by the ambulance paramedics, who stayed with them in the ER for a long time. Thomas had ridden in the front seat. On the way to the ER, Thomas said the ambulance driver told him, "I have never seen a bite as bad as hers. It looked like a shark attack."

Lorrie wrote in her statement that she spent the next week: "confined to bed, only getting up to use the bathroom." Because of the open wounds, "there was a lot of leakage of blood, which ruined my clothes and bedding," she wrote. Her injuries had to be washed and bandaged twice a day. In a phone call with DogsBite.org, she said she doesn't know how she could have coped without Thomas' help. Denise did not contact her during this time to ask about her welfare, she said.

Seven days after the attack, Lorrie had a follow up visit with a local doctor in Conroe. At that time, her wounds looked okay with no signs of infection. She was told to return on the 27th to have the stitches removed. But on the morning of the 24th, both she and Thomas knew that something was wrong. She wrote that her wound "smelled like rotting meat." Thomas took her back to the ER at Herman Memorial Woodlands where they told them that gangrene was a real danger.

The immediate cleaning of her wounds and new antibiotics staved off the threat.

Thomas said that Lorrie was bedridden with her injuries for two months. Her medical bills exceeded $10,000, using the full amount of her Medicare insurance. Lorrie had needed an eye operation before the dog attack to repair a torn retina, "or she may go blind in that eye," Thomas said. She was also being treated for glaucoma in both eyes. Due to the allocation of funds to treat the mauling injury, Lorrie will have to wait until next year for new treatment covered by Medicare.

The pit bull owner had no insurance and is a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipient. Recovering compensation from her was futile.

Lorrie is also an SSI recipient. She has a neurological brain disorder. Before the mauling, she had been staying at the equine therapy center to be near the horses. After two years of living at the center, she believed her condition was improving. "The attack changed all that," she wrote in her statement. Nine months after the attack, Lorrie said that her injuries have healed, "but I don't think my brain has," she said. Her left leg, she explained, "just doesn't feel like her other one anymore."

Sensitivity and pain in the upper injury still comes and goes, she said. She described it as a kind of "restless leg syndrome, like there are no ends there," referring to nerve endings. She said it still causes her sleeping problems. The scarring isn't bad, she said, but she'll be wearing long pants to an upcoming social event. The worst part about today, she said, is the continued mental frustration. Meanwhile, "the dog owner goes on," Lorrie said, "as if nothing ever happened."

She added that to this day, Denise has never offered her an apology.4

The History of "Tank"

By the age of approximately 2.75 years old, Tank had bitten at least seven different people and gone after a horse.5 Lorrie and Thomas knew about most of these bites before the November 12th mauling. They uncovered more in the months following. Lessons both have learned since the RV park attack is that all dog bites should be reported to help future victims and to create a paper trail for a dangerous dog designation and that all dog bites are legally required to be reported as well.6

Both were also surprised to learn that waiving medical treatment for minor dog bites could result in developing serious health complications. Lorrie said that an unfamiliar dog bit her in the past that had come from a vacant lot. She reported that bite because she was afraid of rabies. "Tank had his tags," Thomas said, "so we knew that rabies was not a threat." Lorrie and Thomas are hardly unique. Many people have no idea that minor dog bites can still lead to serious infection.

While working at the equine therapy center during Denise's stay, both Lorrie and Thomas each were bitten twice by Tank. The first pair were "nips," they said, the second pair left puncture wounds. Through conversations with Denise, they learned that Tank had bitten a female friend at the center along with Denise's own granddaughter. After Denise and her dog became indefinite residents at Park on the Lake, beginning in early October 2012, Tank inflicted more bites.7

As we talked on the phone, both Lorrie and Thomas were surprised at the number of bites when they began adding them up in earnest.

One bite at the RV park was to Lisa, the woman who raised her skirt just after Tank attacked Lorrie. Another incident involved Denise's neighbor at the RV park. Denise told Lorrie and Thomas the man reported the bite incident to park management.8 Yet, the county animal control agency has no record of it. Had the agency been notified, Park on the Lake might have been made aware it was Tank's second documented bite, placing the entity further into the "liability equation."

In 2010, Tank bit another woman at the equine center. The caveat being that the 2010 bite (or mauling) was reported and documented by the county animal control agency.

Reviewing the 2010 Reported Bite

The 2010 biting incident and 2012 mauling at Park on the Lake fell under the jurisdiction of Montgomery County Animal Control (MCAC). Thomas believes that Denise began living and working at the center in December 2009. Not long after, a relative of the center's owner had a litter of pit bulls. Two puppies were given to the center. Denise took the male and the equine owner's son took the female. Tank's first documented bite occurred at the center on June 6th, 2010.

Lorrie and Thomas began living and working at the equine therapy center in April 2011. Thomas recalled Denise telling him about the 2010 incident at some point during their overlapping stay at the center. According to the MCAC bite report, the dog "jumped from truck through open window" and attacked a visiting 35-year old female. The circumstance of the attack is listed as "unprovoked" on the bite report. Tank was quarantined at MCAC then released back to its owner.

The 2010 bite report shows that the incident occurred at 9102 Longmire Road, Conroe, Texas, the address of Hide E Hole Acres Equine Therapy Center. As explained, Denise had already been living and working at the facility for seven months. However, the home address she provided to MCAC was a specific lot at Park on the Lake RV Park, the very lot where the 2012 mauling transpires. One can only speculate as to why Denise provided the wrong home address.

According to Thomas' recollection, Denise had not resided at Park on the Lake before October 2012. Seven of the known ten bites by Tank occurred while Denise was living at the equine center. Lorrie and Thomas learned about four of the bites because Denise spoke of them freely. Denise, seemingly, was a ticking liability time bomb for any landlord or property owner that rented to or housed her and Tank. Maybe this is why she provided the wrong home address to MCAC?9

How Serious was the First Reported Bite?

When Thomas contacted DogsBite.org in late May of this year, he sent the 2010 and Lorrie's bite report. Tank's "bite" was listed as "unprovoked" in both reports. The area of injury was similar too. Tank bit both female victims on the thigh. Notably, the "severity" of injury on each report was listed simply as "puncture" (please review Lorrie's injury photo again). To gain a better understanding of this insufficient definition of injury severity on the bite reports, DogsBite.org wrote to MCAC.

We first wrote on June 6th, asking if there were only two levels of dog bite injury severity: puncture and non-puncture? We received a response saying the email was forwarded to the appropriate person. A response did not arrive. We wrote again on July 8th, asking the same question. This time a response did come and to our surprise, at some point after Lorrie's mauling (Possibly between June 6th and July 8th?), MCAC altered how they documented dog bite injury severity.

Q. Are there only two options under severity -- puncture and non puncture?

"We currently have several changed our report to reflect the following wound types:
pit bulla)  Contact Only
pit bullb)  Scratch Only
pit bullc)  Broken Skin and Open Wound
pit bulld)  No Known Contact Test Only
pit bulle)  Severe Attack
pit bullf)  Attack Resulting in Death." - MCAC, July 8, 2013

Q. Does Montgomery County internally or otherwise track severity levels of dog bite injuries?

"Pursuant to Texas Law there are three types of actions that are necessary dealing with dogs:
pit bulla)  Multiple Acts that place a person in fear it would attack and cause bodily injury
pit bullb)  Bite Wounds causing Bodily Injury
pit bullc)  Severe Bite Wounds or Death" - MCAC, July 8, 2013

The "puncture vs. non-puncture" only distinction on a dog bite report is an artifact from decades ago, back when rabies was still the major reason why public agencies tracked dog bites. The primary questions in response to any bite case back then were: "Did the bite break the skin?" Meaning, "Is there a threat of rabies transmission?" and "Is the dog vaccinated?" This tracking method was routine until the early 1980s, when the era of dangerous dog breeds erupted.

In this day and age we live in a new reality -- destructive maulings. New criteria for recording injury severity have become important for three reasons. 1.) Victims like Lorrie who are trying to pursue civil lawsuits. Was Tank's first documented bite a "Scratch Only" or was it a "Severe Attack?" 2.) When a first (or any) attack is a "Severe Attack," it cannot be obfuscated as a mere puncture injury, and 3.) Provide relevant, detailed information to pursue a dangerous dog designation.

While we do not know the degree of injury in the 2010 attack, other aspects of that incident are known. Tank jumping from a truck through an open window to attack a woman unprovoked appears to qualify under Texas state law as an act qualifying a dangerous dog designation -- this being the dog's first unprovoked aggressive act, not multiple victims later. How different would Lorrie and Thomas' life be today if Tank had been given a dangerous dog designation in 2010?10

822.041. Definitions
(2) "Dangerous dog" means a dog that:
pit bull(A) makes an unprovoked attack on a person that causes bodily injury and occurs in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own; or
pit bull(B) commits unprovoked acts in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog was being kept and that was reasonably certain to prevent the dog from leaving the enclosure on its own and those acts cause a person to reasonably believe that the dog will attack and cause bodily injury to that person.

We predict that Montgomery County will log many pit bull maulings in the future qualifying as "Severe Attack" and "Attack Resulting in Death." As noted in our March report, Texas Dog Bite Fatalities, January 1, 2005 to February 17, 2013, Montgomery is the third leading county in the State of Texas for fatal dog attacks, and whose crime-related newspaper, Montgomery County Police Reporter, runs articles like, "Montgomery County recorded yet another Pit Bull attack."

Just a few days before this article, a pit bull killed a 4-year old boy in Montgomery County.

Jan 22, 2013
pit bullWILLIS — Early Tuesday afternoon, Montgomery County recorded yet another Pit Bull attack. This one occurred in the 100 block of Straughter at Rogers Road. Willis Police responded along with Montgomery County Hospital District. They arrived to find an 18-month-old male, bitten in the face, neck, and side. His mother was also bitten and scratched, but not severely.
pit bullMCHD transported both to Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston. The boy remains in critical condition as of this writing, but is expected to recover.11 - Montgomery County Police Reporter

Rejection after Rejection by Attorneys

Lorrie and Thomas knew right away that pursing the dog owner was unfeasible. Why couldn't they pursue Park on the Lake? They turned to attorneys to find out. The answers given to them were not to their liking. Nine months after the mauling, four attorneys have rejected their case so far. Pursuing a landlord or landowner in the State of Texas is viable, but is further complicated when the attack occurs in a private RV park. Among other legal issues, there is a two-part test:

pit bullA landlord or landowner in this state can be held liable for failing to rid premises of a known dangerous dog ... The Baker court set forth a two-part test: "(1) the injury must have occurred in a common area under the control of the landlord; and (2) the landlord must have had actual or imputed knowledge of the particular dog's vicious propensities." - Dogbitelaw.com

The frustration of abandonment by the attorneys is best summed up by Thomas who wrote in an email to DogsBite.org: "What I don't understand is why almost every park restricts dangerous dogs for fear of liability, and this park and attorneys are trying to claim there is no liability." This is an honest question that we do not have enough legal background to answer, except that in a nutshell, their case is difficult to pursue, particularly given that Denise was uninsured (judgment proof).

What arises over and over again in the case of Lorrie and Thomas is that they are simply Shit Out of Luck. Between the lack of a better paper trail on Tank to the rental living arrangements of Denise at the time -- no trailer insurance required at Park on the Lake -- and a legal system that can't function without both, victims of serious dog maulings are thrust into a nearly impossible situation. Obtaining compensation for medical bills under this scenario is at best grim.

Even when riding inside a speeding ambulance and a paramedic confesses to your partner, "I have never seen a bite as bad as hers," as was the case with Lorrie, there may be no means to recover compensation. Due to mandatory insurance for road vehicles and homes under financing, this is usually untrue in those scenarios. Your best bet is to understand the conditions that caused this terrible outcome for Lorrie and Thomas and avoid placing yourself in a similar situation.

How many readers have ever considered the risk of encountering a dangerous dog at a private RV park or campground area? Lorrie and Thomas hope you consider it now.

Crime Victims' Compensation Program

Still, not all hope was lost for the couple. The equine center's husband is a former Harris County sheriff. He recommended that Lorrie apply to the Texas Crime Victims' Compensation program. Many states have a similar program for victims of violent crimes, though qualifying and procedural operations may differ widely. The Texas program denied Lorrie's application. The violent pit bull mauling that could have led to the amputation of her whole left leg was not considered a crime.

DogsBite.org contacted the victims' program to learn more. "In what scenario would Lorrie have qualified?" we asked. Generally, qualifying applicants are determined on a case-by-case basis, we were told. Yet, if the dog owner had been issued a criminal citation, for instance, an at large citation,12 Lorrie's application might have been approved. The victims' compensation program is looking for "criminal conduct." This does not always require a criminal citation, but it helps.

Tank was not running at large during the attack. Some, however, could argue the dog was, tethered to a 20-25 foot rope in a cramped RV park.

Tank's perilous tethering, which reached into three RV lots, two belonging to other campers, should have been a violation of a local, county or state tethering law13 and certainly in violation of park rules. Yet, the private RV park had no known tethering rules. No citation was given. Denise was also current on her dog's vaccinations, again, no citation. Tank was guilty of previous bites, but there is no application of the state felony dog attack law, Lillian's Law, because?14

The law only applies to a loose dog, or a "dangerous dog" that is not confined.

After the November 12th mauling, the dangerous dog designation did kick in. Denise immediately put Tank down. She did not have an interest in complying with the designation, which would have mandated $100,000 in liability insurance, special containment rules and more. IF Tank had been designated a dangerous dog before it attacked Lorrie (and still attacked) and Denise failed to comply with these restrictions, these failures could have resulted in serious criminal citations.

Again, the victim's compensation program is looking for "criminal conduct." Did the conduct of that person pose substantial injury? Denise knew that Tank was a repeat biter. It was dangerous for her to tether Tank to a 20 to 25 foot rope in an RV park setting, but the program did not believe this to be criminal conduct. If "unattended" tethered Tank had attacked a neighboring child standing in the easement area while the adults were inside Denise's trailer, would that have qualified?

Possibly yes? 1.) The dog would have been unattended and 2.) The child was not a friend or guest of Denise like Lorrie and Thomas were.

By talking to the victims' program, we also learned that there is a 3-year statute of limitations and an appeals process. However, when we notified Thomas about this, he said they only had a 30-day window to appeal (See: appeals process). They declined to appeal because they found an attorney who dumped the case 4-months later, as did two other attorneys after a few months and one who wouldn't take the case at all. Thomas said the whole thing was "sort of a trick."

The victim's program is considered the "payor of last resort," according to their application. Lorrie's Medicare insurance had maxed out. The dog owner was uninsured. But Lorrie did not meet the most basic eligibility requirement: "Victims of violent crime who suffer physical or mental harm as a direct result of the crime." In Lorrie's case, and umpteen other damaging dog maulings, assault or aggravated assault by a pit bull is not equivalent to assault by a "person."15

Who is the payor of last resort?
pit bull•  All other available third party resources (for example, Medicare, Medicaid, personal health insurance, workers’ compensation and settlements) must meet their legal obligations to pay crime-related expenses.
pit bull•  The Crime Victims’ Compensation Program must be notified before a civil lawsuit is filed in relation to the crime, if restitution is ordered by the criminal court, or if any party receives the proceeds of a settlement.
pit bull•  CVC is considered the payor of last resort.

Bungled Dog Bite Investigation?

Was the investigation of Lorrie's biting incident "bungled" as the couple suspects, or was it a typical dog bite investigation? Thomas said there were three agencies involved in Lorrie's case: Willis Police Department, Montgomery County Sheriff's Department and MCAC. He said that he had great difficulty trying to reach all three to learn more about reports that might have been written about her case. It turns out there were none, except for the basic bite report by MCAC.

Thomas said it took at least 30-days to obtain this report from MCAC, which often comes as a shock to dog bite victims, but isn't an uncommon time frame. More disturbing to Thomas is that he was never interviewed or called by the other responding agencies. "They were on the scene as Lorrie was being hoisted into the ambulance," he said. "So what happened?" He also asked DogsBite.org, "Why after leaving multiple messages at the agencies did no one return my calls?"

While we cannot respond on behalf of those agencies, we hear the same questions from many dog bite victims. We believe the answer is stated on the first page of Lorrie's bite report. "Synopsis: Victim was visiting owner, she walked past the bite case dog where it was tied and it bit." How would the synopsis have been written had an assailant pulverized Lorrie's leg by beating her with a steel baseball bat? Injuries suffered by dog bite victims are routinely minimized.

We have a suggestion for how Lorrie's bite synopsis should have been written:

The dog latched onto the victim then re-attacked the victim and re-attacked the victim causing massive injuries to her left thigh.

"The dog bit" scenario would be natural prior to the early 1980s, before pit bulls began pouring into the public in record numbers (See: leakage period) causing an explosion of injuries leaving victims "unrecognizable as a human being," and by 1986, described as a canine that attacks "like a shark." Since 1986, pit bulls have brutally mauled to death 275 Americans. But still, nearly 30-years later, the MCAC bite report merely describes the repeated assault upon Lorrie as "it bit."

As indicated by MCAC, new guidelines have been established for tracking dog bite injury severity level. This is a step in the right direction, particularly for a county well rehearsed in serious and fatal pit bull maulings and a long history of dogfighting, fighting dog breeding and related crimes. Another step in the right direction would be to review San Antonio's program rolled out in 2012, billed as "one of the most proactive approaches in the state to support dog bite victims."16

No Crime = No Investigation

With criminal conduct absent in this case, at least according to Texas laws, there was no basis for Willis Police or Montgomery County Sheriff's Department to investigate. This is true regarding the victims' compensation program as well. Lorrie and Thomas do not understand this, nor does any dog mauling victim. Lorrie asked us, "So, Denise can go out and do the same thing again? Isn't that a crime?" The answer to her first question is Yes. The answer to her second question is No.

The "vicious dog owner loop" is particularly ghastly in One Free Bite states like Texas.

Yes, Denise can obtain a new pit bull. That dog can attack once (no liability due to One Free Bite rule).17 That dog can attack again, now the owner is liable, but who cares if she has no insurance or assets? Then she puts the dog down to avoid the dangerous dog designation. Then the loop can play again and again. If one of the secondary attacks by the same dog is serious and occurs off the dog owner's property, Denise "might" be charged under the state felony dog attack law.

Most people can't imagine the "vicious dog owner loop" could be true.18 Most people also can't imagine being abandoned by a legal and law enforcement system the way Lorrie and Thomas were. This, however, is the way it is in Texas. Lorrie's mauling did fall into the gray area of occurring on private RV park property with quasi-residential property borders by a tethered dog. Yet, the result could have been the same had the attack occurred on the property of a home Denise was renting.

An uninsured dog owner is an uninsured dog owner wherever he or she goes.

"Tolerance" Comes with at a Risk

Like many dog bite scenarios, Lorrie was attacked while visiting a friend's home. Both Lorrie and Thomas were untrusting of Tank, but did not believe that his previous behavior was foretelling of a relentless, sustained pit bull mauling. Nor were they aware that by entering onto the dog owner's property, they would give up all mechanisms to receive compensation for the serious injuries inflicted by the animal. What average person would know this? It's buried in dog bite laws.

DogsBite.org has never spoken to any victims who had knowledge of civil or criminal liability of a dog mauling prior to being attacked.

For some, a lingering question might be: "Why, knowing about Tank, would the couple do this woman a favor by going to her home (trailer in this case) to check her electrical system?" See how Denise just walked away? Not even bothering to apologize? Lorrie and Thomas are caring people. It never occurred to them that being "nice" and "tolerant" to a friend with a risky dog could end this extremely, Lorrie in fear of losing her whole left leg and Denise able to walk away scot-free.

Lorrie and Thomas represent the majority of Americans who are charitable to friends who own hazardous dogs. Their friendship comes first instead of their own personal health and safety. The primary reason why is because they do not even know they have made this choice. This information is hidden from the public eye. The forced recognition comes only after a brutal attack and trip to the ER on a gurney, complete with hanging IV bags and the smell of a sterilized room.

DogsBite.org cautions that you need to protect yourself and your family first. There are systems in place for this.

There is no perfection in animal control agencies, but due to state rabies control and quarantining laws (in every state), all dog bites should be reported and are taken seriously for this reason. Being "understanding" with owners of high-risk dogs, as Lorrie's account shows, ended in a severe mauling and the total abandonment by the legal and law enforcement system in Texas. This, of course, was coupled by being a "visiting guest" on an uninsured renter's property.

These are extremely painful lessons to learn in hindsight, especially after the infliction of terrible injuries and shelling out thousands in medical bills. On top of this, Lorrie and Thomas had no insight that Denise is a "dime a dozen" when it comes to reckless owners of dangerous dog breeds: multiple bites, dangerous tethering (and other idiotic restraint practices) and naturally no insurance. Nor did they know that many of them ride the "vicious dog owner loop" over and over again.

Reforming Texas State Law

On a state level, Lorrie and Thomas would like to see the adoption of mandatory insurance for owners of known dangerous dog breeds. If by doing this the right way -- only targeting well established dangerous dog breeds -- causes an all out war by the well-funded dangerous dog breed lobby, the couple would also be satisfied by applying the law to all dog breeds. That way, the owners of ankle biters can help pay for dog mauling injuries that are likened to "shark attacks."

The couple also believes that "Dog Friendly" private RV parks should require:

  • Proof of insurance on the motorized or towable RV.
  • Special restrictions or the prohibition of known dangerous dog breeds.
  • Clear tethering guidelines, including the maximum length of the tether.
  • Security or staff that enforces these rules.
  • Security or staff trained in emergency response procedures.19

Lorrie and Thomas' Checklist When Visiting "Dog Friendly" Private RV Parks

  • Check to see if proof of insurance and registration on the motorized or towable RV is required upon checking in. If not, reconsider your stay.
  • Check to see if there are restrictions, such as, "only small dogs allowed" or breed-specific restrictions, such as, no pit bulls or rottweilers.20 If the dog or pet friendly private RV park has neither condition, reconsider your stay.
  • Check to see if there are tethering guidelines, including the maximum length of the tether and how long of period the animal can be tied up. If there are no written tethering guidelines, reconsider your stay.
  • If you find yourself driving on FM 830 on the outskirts of Willis, Texas21 in either direction, do not stop and exit your vehicle AT ALL. As Thomas commented to DogsBite.org, "Expect to be treated worse than a dog."22

Park on the Lake RV Park in Willis, Texas

In addition to hoping that Lorrie's attack saved the life of a child -- Tank was euthanized after Lorrie's attack -- the couple truly hoped that Park on the Lake would alter their park policies after the mauling to better protect the safety of their residents and guests. DogsBite.org wrote to the company on August 23rd asking two simple questions, but did not receive a response as of pre-press time, August 28th. Surely, our questions could have been easy enough to respond to:

  1. What are Park on the Lake's current park rules concerning dogs?
  2. Has there been a policy change since the November 12th, 2012 attack that seriously injured Lorrie?

So we headed to the park's website.23 Given that "dog run" is still listed as a park amenity, we presume the "all dog breed" policy is still in place. Notably absent from the park's website are the words "pet" and "pet friendly" and "dog friendly." Instead, Park on the Lake advertises the park as the "friendliest place to park" and a "family-friendly RV park." DogsBite.org looked through at least a hundred photos on their website and Facebook page, not a single one showed a dog.

Thomas believes this is deceptive advertising, "Is it a family-friendly park or a dog-friendly park?" he asked.

Tank was the farthest thing from "family-friendly" imaginable. Again, if we are to believe Denise's story, that park management was told that her dog had bitten her neighbor, any responsible park manager would have kicked the dog out then. Whatever may be the case, Lorrie paid the price. While Tank is no longer a threat to park residents, any current or arriving pit bulls and rottweilers are, especially if tied to a long rope in a packed environment described as, "sardines in a can."

Below is a collection of Park on the Lake RV Park reviews from various websites.

Park On The Lake
12351 FM 830 Road
Willis, TX 77318

  • Mar 2013, RV Park Reviews - We left after several hours. It is a place for permanent housing in very old RV's. Dirt road, very crowded and overall unsightly. We camped here in a Motorhome. - Anonymous
  • Mar 2013, Google Reviews - …There are A LOT of full-timers in the park and lot of campers that are parked full time with no apparent tenants. Some have porches in need of repair and lots of extra STUFF stacked around and under trailers … We moved after 4 nights ... could not take the dirt tracking in another day! Will not be going back! - Jacquelyn Carter
  • Sep 2012, SuperPages.com - The worst rv park I have ever been too. Very dangerous place. People drive thru at speeds up to and over 40 mph. Posted speed is 5 mph. We sent numerous complaints to office and they where never addressed. Many drunks stumbling around...loud music all hrs day/night. No security... its not an rv park, rather a trailer park....STAY AWAY...there will be law suits soon against that getto of a campground. - Anonymous
  • Jan 2011, RV Park Reviews - Disappointed after seeing website. Sites are small. Mostly permanent residents with cluttered sites. Camp bathrooms have no paper products or light bulbs.They should board them shut if they aren't going to clean them and make them of use. Seems more like a trailer park than campground as campers don't go walking and visiting like in most campgrounds. We camped here in a Motorhome. - Anonymous
  • Date Unknown, Doggies Welcome - this park is not what it appears to be. they have no working security (although they will tell you they do). i have witnessed numerous assults in the park from campers on other campers. they claim to have working internet, but you get kicked off every 3-5 mins..the staff are rude and disrespectful of campers wishes. i will never return and i advise any one and everyone to stay away... - maps.google.com
  • Date Unknown, Camping.About.com - Drive on past this place! Most of the park dwellers live there full time. I had a neighbor who party right outside my window to late hours of the night. Dogs running wide. Turned water off twice. Promised internet service and had none. I paid for a full month and stayed only two weeks. Management very, very rude and refused to pay remaining two weeks. Then after I left they made a fraudulent charge on my credit card and I had to report it to the police. Drive on past this trashy place. - Park on the Lake, Willis, Texas, Member jo12345678
  • Sep 2009, RV Park Reviews - It appears as if most of the guests were semi-permanent so most of the sites were cluttered. The sites were small, crowded, and I would not stay here again. We camped here in a Motorhome.
  • Sep 2008, SuperPages.com - … Dusty roads and the sites are too close together. We felt like sardines in a can. We could hear the neighbor's TV and their cabinet doors slamming. - guest82352

Definitions - Private RV Parks, The Basics

Types of RV parks and language basics.

Affiliated private RV parks are known as the nicest parks and can require a membership. Such parks may require proof of vehicle registration and insurance when checking in. Security is often provided with actual security cars that drive the grounds. The average stay is 2-days to 2-weeks. Some private RV parks (affiliated or not) allow for "semi-permanent" or seasonal residents, an average stay of 1-2 months. Overnight stayers in seasonal parks are often called "transient."

A "slum park" is equivalent to a "trailer park" and can allow for the indefinite stay of tenants (aka "full-timers"), slowly turning the park into a slum. Such parks may also have semi-permanent and transient residents. Some private RV parks allow for dogs, others do not. Some "dog friendly" private RV parks also have breed or size restrictions. In this specific case, the owner of the pit bull lived in an "all dog breed friendly" private RV park that allows for the indefinite stay of tenants.

Motorized and towable RV insurance basics.

Motorized RVs, like all automobiles on the road, require insurance. Towable RVs that are under a financing plan also require insurance. If a towable RV is fully paid for, insurance is optional for the owner. Towable RV insurance is often attached to the towing vehicle's insurance policy and might also be included in a homeowner's umbrella policy. More or less, this is true across all 50 states.24 In this specific case, the towable RV trailer owned by the dog owner was not insured.

State and national campgrounds / RV parks.

Though not part of this specific case, public campgrounds, such as state and national parks and recreational facilities that have RV hook ups, often 1.) Do not have breed restrictions, 2.) Do not require vehicle registration and insurance and 3.) Are limited to a 2-week stay. These parks usually have Rangers, law enforcement officers trained in emergency medical response, public safety and education. These often wide-ranging parks also have extensive park rules.25

Contents of this post were gathered through direct phone calls and emails with Lorrie and Thomas and several Texas agencies over a 12-week period. DogsBite.org honors Lorrie and Thomas for their perseverance and compassion to help others from sharing their same fate.
1In 2012, Veterans Day was observed on Monday, November 12.
2Lorrie and Thomas said that Denise no longer resides at the RV park.
3The dog was knocked unconscious.
4Fourteen days after the attack, Denise posted a disturbing meme on her Facebook page, shared from "I love pit bulls."
5Individuals followed by bites: Lorrie (3), Thomas (2), Denise's granddaughter (1), two female friends of Denise (2), RV park male (1) and RV Park female (1).
6Willis, Texas § 90.040 (E) Any person having knowledge of an animal bite to a human will report the incident to the Animal Control Officer, Code Enforcement Officer, a city police officer, or the City Health Authority Director as soon as possible after the incident.
Montgomery County, Texas SECTION VI. When a dog or cat that has bitten a human has been identified, the owner or custodian shall place the animal in quarantine, as required by the Rabies Control Act of 1981, § 826.042 TX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE, and the rules of the Texas Board of Health, and amendments thereto.

7Denise resided in a cottage with a fenced yard at the equine center, which at least limited the dog. It was obscenely reckless of her to take that dog to an RV park setting, which prohibits fence installation. Park on the Lake also specifically prohibits installing, "any pet carriers or cages or houses around your campsite." After the November mauling, Thomas obtained a copy of the park's rules.
8That's all Lorrie and Thomas know, what Denise told them. The couple never spoke directly with her neighbor.
9Both DogsBite.org and Thomas are still stumped about this and how Denise was related to Park on the Lake in 2010. Recall, she provided MCAC the address right down to the lot number where the mauling occurred 2.5 years later. Thomas believes that prior to moving into the cottage on the equine center in December 2009 (staying through early October 2012), Denise lived in a rented trailer next to the center. Prior to that, she lived in a house down the street from the center on Longmire Road. Prior to that, she lived in different RV park where she met Lorrie and Thomas.
10The 2010 bite report basically consists of a single sentence and no injury severity. So yes, this is speculation on our part on whether or not this attack might have led to a dangerous dog designation. However, towards the end of writing this post (Aug 22), we learned from Thomas that after the 2010 incident, Denise sent Tank to Louisiana to live with her son. Shipping a dog across state lines to live with a relative is yet another sign the 2010 incident was serious. Owners of dangerous biting dogs commonly take these same measures. By the time Lorrie and Thomas begin staying at the center in April 2011, Tank is back.
11Not even the Montgomery County Police Reporter reported Lorrie's attack.
12An at large dog citation is a criminal offense in Texas (Sec. 826.034), but it was not the example provided as a "hypothetical" by the program. The provided example was a criminal citation for "owning a dangerous dog." In Texas, this citation (usually) has two requirements: 1.) The dog attacked previously and was given the legal designation of a dangerous dog and 2.) the dog attacked AGAIN. This is not true in other states. Many jurisdictions in the U.S. will cite an owner for "owning a dangerous dog" after the dog's first attack.
13Texas has a statewide tethering law (821.077), which also has an exclusion for "camping and recreational" areas:
Sec. 821.078. EXCEPTIONS. Section 821.077 does not apply to:
(2) a dog restrained in compliance with the requirements of a camping or recreational area as defined by a federal, state, or local authority or jurisdiction.

pit bullHow would this apply to a private RV park, or would it at all? Chasing an ever-moving shadow, we contacted Montgomery County to see if we could learn more. The woman on the phone thought that a tethering law was a "leash law." When we pointed out these are two separate things, she forwarded the call to animal control. At that point we hung up, as animal control only offers a recorded message.

14You are Shit Out of Luck when a dog tethered to a 20 to 25 foot rope in a private RV park mauls you in an easement area, the strip between two lots and accessed by both parties.
15In the January fatal pit bull mauling of the Montgomery County boy, there was no crime either. The boy climbed over a fence into his neighbor's yard and was brutally attacked by a chained pit bull. It's perfectly okay for Texas dog owners to have "killing machines" in their yards, just as long as the animal does the mauling, maiming and killing on the dog owner's property.
16Such programs often emerge as the result of public outcry after too many serious and fatal dog maulings, which was the case in San Antonio. Montgomery County is well on their way to the same scenario. There is no need to wait for the deaths and injuries to keep piling up.
17Technically, one only has to prove the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities. The One Free Bite term arose from the legal community because a documented previous bite is the easiest way to achieve this.
18To our knowledge, the loop occurs in all 50 states. In strict liability states, at least the first mauling is not free, contracting the loop. Though knowledge about "repeat offenders" is quite well understood in law enforcement, it is rarely applied to owners of dangerous dogs.
19After Lorrie was attacked, she said one of the RV park managers ran over to help. While she was down on the ground he blurted out something like, "You'll be okay! We'll run a marathon after this!" At this point, she was in shock, so his statement was that much more "surreal."
20Sunset Shores on Lake Conroe has a classic description in its park rules, "Pets must not have an aggressive nature or be of a breed generally considered aggressive by the public."
21Don't forget that the City of Willis is where the 2012 Spindletop pit bull rescue bust when down. Willis was also home to William David Townsend Jr., involved in drug-trafficking and fighting pit bulls and suspected in the 2006 murder of Thomas Weigner Jr. who ran a multimillion dollar pit bull breeding operation in Liberty County. Willis only has a population of about 6,000 people!
22We recommend driving through the entire East Texas region without stopping given its long known dogfighting history and its subsequent production of explosive maulers.
23We do not know the details of "under new management" that is shown on the park's website. We do know, according to Park on the Lake's Facebook page, that the new website was announced on November 1, 2012. Lorrie was attacked 11-days later, so presumably the "new management" was in place at the time she was attacked.
24According to our conversation with a GEICO RV insurance agent. She was very helpful.
25Rangers can issue and enforce citations. In Texas, state park Rangers have the discretion to determine if a pet is dangerous or poses a hazard. Section 59.134 (c)(2) "It is an offense for any person to" … (G) possess a noisy, vicious, or dangerous pet, or a pet which creates a disturbance to or hazard within a state park."


Related articles:

03/20/13: Report: Texas Dog Bite Fatalities, January 1, 2005 to February 17, 2013
01/20/13: 2013 Dog Bite Fatality: Chained Pit Bull Kills Montgomery County Boy
02/20/12: What Happens When A Victim Does Not Report a Dog Bite?
05/21/11: Texas Doctors Produce Study: Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs
09/19/10: Dog Attacks, Trends and Dog Law Coverage of Texas

Photos: Provided by Lorrie and Thomas | See: Full press release

Washington State Court of Appeals Upholds Jury Verdict in Vicious Dog Mauling Case

appellate court upholds dog mauling verdict

UPDATE 01/16/14: On January 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of Washington rejected Pierce County's request for review of Gorman v. Pierce County. The jury verdict stands and cannot be appealed higher. The case was tried before a jury in July 2011 by Mike McKasy and Shelly Speir of the Tacoma-based law firm, Troup, Christnacht, Ladenburg, McKasy, Durkin & Speir. The jury agreed that Pierce County and the dog owners were at fault, awarding Gorman $2.2 million.

After the jury trial, Pierce County appealed to Division 2 of the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court had given improper jury instructions and applied the wrong law. The Court of Appeals rejected Pierce County's arguments. Next, Pierce County asked the Supreme Court to review the case. On January 9, the Supreme Court denied the review. The Court of Appeals decision reached in August 2013 is final. After nearly 7-years, Sue Gorman's civil lawsuit finally comes to a close.

08/16/13: Jury Verdict Upheld by Court of Appeals
Gig Harbor, WA - The Washington State Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict that awarded $2.2 million in damages to a woman mauled by dogs six years ago. On August 21, 2007, two pit bulls entered Sue Gorman's home through a sliding glass door and attacked her while she slept. Gorman suffered serious injuries to her face, forearms and hands in the assault. Pierce County animal control had responded to multiple complaints about the pit bulls prior to the vicious attack.

In the 2011 jury verdict, Pierce County was found 42% at fault for the mauling, Gorman 1% and the owners of the pit bulls shared the remainder. Both Pierce County and Gorman appealed the 2011 jury verdict. In a split decision issued on August 13, the appellate panel for Division II upheld the jury verdict. The majority opinion, written by Justice Joel Penoyar, ruled that the county had a duty to initiate a process to determine if one of the attacking dogs was potentially dangerous.

Here, while some of the steps in the process are discretionary, the code did require Pierce County to take action if certain conditions existed. If the county was made aware of a likely potentially dangerous dog, it had a duty to evaluate the dog to determine if it was potentially dangerous. Then, if the dog was declared potentially dangerous, the code mandated that the county take corrective action, seizing and impounding any dog whose owner allowed it to violate the restrictions placed upon it ... We agree with Gorman and the trial court and hold that the failure to enforce exception applies here.

Portions Unfavorable to Victim

NOTE: Readers have left comments about the 1% fault attributed to Gorman. "Why was any blame assigned to her at all?" This is a two-fold issue. Part one is technical.1 Gorman appealed the 2011 jury verdict to set aside the 1% finding of contributory fault. The appeals court denied Gorman's argument in part because of when it was submitted and that her renewed motion (with new language) was not argued before the verdict, thus not a preserved argument for appeal.2

We will not consider an appeal from a trial court's denial of a CR 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law unless the appellant has renewed the motion after the verdict ... To preserve the opportunity to renew a CR 50 motion after the verdict, a party must move for judgment as a matter of law before the trial court submits the case to the jury ...

On the issue of her own comparative fault, Gorman asserted in her original CR 50 motion that she bore no fault because the evidence was insufficient to show that leaving the door open was a breach of her legal duty. For the first time in her renewed motion, Gorman argued that, as a matter of law, she had no legal duty to close the door. This argument is not proper because a renewed CR 50 motion cannot present new legal theories that were not argued before the verdict ... Gorman did not preserve her argument for appeal, so it fails. [Pages 19-20]

Part two pertains to the assignment of contributory fault. The 2011 jury verdict assigned 1% contributory fault to the victim. The verdict cannot be overturned "unless it is clearly unsupported by substantial evidence," states the majority opinion. The Court then cites two areas where substantial evidence supported the jury's findings that Gorman breached her duty of exercising reasonable care for her own safety and her negligence was a proximate cause for her injury.

Substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that Gorman breached her duty by failing to exercise the care a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances. Although Gorman believed Betty was an aggressive and vicious dog and Gorman knew that Betty and Tank had previously entered her home through the open door, Gorman testified that she left the door open on the night of her attack. Pierce County also claimed that Gorman unreasonably chose to save Romeo rather than flee for her own safety. Because Gorman testified that she indeed tried to save Romeo, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether this decision was reasonable.

Substantial evidence also supports the jury's finding that Gorman's conduct was a proximate cause of her injuries. Gorman testified that the pit bulls entered her house through the open door on the night of her attack. Gorman also testified that while trying to rescue Romeo, she suffered further injuries to her hands and wrists. Therefore substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict on contributory fault. [Pages 21-22]

Given that it was a split decision regarding the most critical area -- whether Pierce County was a proper defendant in the case -- it seems likely that the case will be appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court. Chief Justice Lisa Worswick disagreed with the majority opinion and states in her dissent: "I am convinced that the failure to enforce exception does not apply here. Therefore I would reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the county as a defendant."

Read: Appellate decision in full

Background Reading

To review additional case history, The News Tribune still has archive articles about this case online. The 2007 press conference video of Sue Gorman is also available on Live Leak. Notably, the last time that we wrote about this case, just after the 2011 jury verdict, Gorman said that the same safety flaws still persist in Pierce County. "It's just real scary that it could happen again to anyone in any neighborhood," Gorman said. The 2011 King 5 video is also still available online.

1Evidentiary errors. The Court also denied Gorman's emergency doctrine argument.
2The majority opinion repeats in the last paragraph: "Although we are sympathetic to Gorman's argument that she did not owe a legal duty to close her door, as we discussed above, she did not preserve this argument for appeal."

Related articles:
03/01/12: Suing Animal Control Agencies or Municipalities After a Serious Dog Attack
08/18/11: After $2.2 Million Award, Dog Bite Victim Sue Gorman Says System is Still Flawed
08/31/08: Dog Attack Victim Lawsuits and Settlement Awards
10/19/07: Owners Charged in Sue Gorman Attack

Photo: Komonews.com

Father of Pregnant Pacifica Woman Killed by Her Pet Pit Bull Writes Letter

In Memory of Darla Napora

darla napora killed by her pit bull
Darla Napora, 32-years old, and her unborn child were killed by her beloved pit bull.

DogsBite.org - Two years ago today, Darla Napora was mauled to death by one of her two pet pit bulls in her Pacifica home. At the time of the attack, she was 32-years old and reportedly in her sixth month of pregnancy. Her father's letter about her death was first published on July 2nd by the Pit Bull Attack Facebook page. Doug Robinson reflects in his letter how this was the most exciting time of her life and that her baby shower was only one month away when she died.

"Two lives ended BECAUSE of a pit bull," he states in his letter.

Robinson also writes that he could "only imagine the shock and horror" that she felt. "She honestly believed in the pit bull." Robinson has always had dogs and has "never trusted a pit bull." The tragic loss of his daughter and her unborn child runs even deeper for him knowing that both deaths were preventable. Darla is always in his heart, "I think of her every day," he writes. He still has all of her pictures, voice and text messages, emails and her phone number in his phone.

August 11th will always be a very painful day for Robinson.

Pregnant woman mauled to death by pet pit bull

By Doug Robinson

I have tried not to say anything but, every time there is a pit bull attack Darla’s name comes up. People commenting about whom they think she was and what happened to explain away the simple fact that a pit bull killed her. HER PIT BULL KILLED HER.

People have said “She was white trash and that she must have abused her dog.” or “She fell off a ladder and the dog didn’t attack -- it only was trying to awaken her.” and “Her husband trained the dog to attack Darla.” I also heard she left Yakima because they outlawed pit bulls. In reality, Darla had been living in the Bay Area several years before she decided she had the time and the room to have pets.

Prior to her marriage, Darla adopted a female pit bull and became a member of a local pit bull group that advocated against the bad rap that they always fell into. Darla exercised, trained and loved her dog while providing a good home.

After marriage, Darla’s husband wanted a male pit bull and one was rescued. This pit bull was larger than average and for some reason, they chose not to neuter. Darla’s husband came home for lunch and found Darla dead, her neck torn open and the male standing over her. Darla’s dog was in the corner of another room. Cowering and had urinated on the floor. This was the end of Darla’s life and she was pregnant with her first baby. Two lives ended BECAUSE of a pit bull.

I became Darla’s Dad when she was about four years old. She played basketball and soccer in school. It was a joy watching her grow up and become an adult. When she turned 18, she asked me to formally adopt her and I did.

Darla was raised around horses, cattle and pigs as well as dogs and cats. Darla always treated animals with dignity, respect and love. Everyone loved Darla. She was a genuine good person through and through.

Darla was so happy when she called to tell me she was going to have my grand baby. She sent me sonogram images and audio from the baby’s heartbeat. Yes, I still have all of the pictures and audio plus her texts, emails and her phone number in my phone.

Darla’s baby shower was 1 month away when she died. She was planning on flying up to Seattle for it. I had just sent her a crib. Darla was 32 years old; she took her time and planned everything. This was the most exciting time in her life. We, as a family were just as excited.

I can only imagine the shock and horror that she felt. She honestly believed in the pit bull. I have always had dogs. I have 3 now. I have never trusted a pit bull. I know why.

Darla is always in my heart. I think of her every day. I am deeply, deeply saddened by this tragedy. It seems almost worse because it was preventable. My mind goes down the “what if” path very often.

I love Darla and I miss her.

-Doug Robinson
map iconView the DogsBite.org Google Map: California Fatal Pit Bull Maulings.
Links added by DogsBite.org.

Related articles:
08/15/11: 2011 Dog Bite Fatality: Pregnant Pacifica Woman Killed by Family Pit Bull

Beyond the Interview: Father of Child Killed by Babysitter's Pit Bulls Speaks Out After Attack

'Believing the Myth is What Left Us Without a Son'

Beyond the interview, essay of a fatal pit bull mauling
June 10th Interview
Walworth, WI - On March 6, Daxton Borchardt, 14-months old, was savagely killed by two pit bulls while under the care of his babysitter. Susan Iwiki, 30-years old, was babysitting Dax at her home on North Lakeshore Drive when her two pit bulls attacked. In his first interview about the deadly attack, Jeff Borchardt, 39-years old, spoke candidly about his son's death. He said that after hearing about a toddler mauled by a pit bull in Caledonia, he could no longer remain silent.

The interview took place at Jeff's former home on June 10th, which now lies empty, filled with painful memories. "We couldn't be here anymore. We had to come home to a house with marks on the walls," Jeff said, pointing to the marks Dax once made. Jeff and his wife decided to leave their Darien home after the attack because the memories of their son were overwhelming. Jeff is speaking out now to warn others about pit bulls, a dog breed he believes is dangerous.

"Believing the myth, 'It's not the breed, it's all how you raise them,' is what left us without a son," Jeff said.

Before his son's death, Jeff said that he used to believe that a dog's behavior was determined by the way it was raised. He no longer believes this myth -- a falsehood widely cited by pit bull advocates and humane groups. The dogs that Susan owned with her boyfriend had no history of aggression. The couple raised the two pit bulls from puppyhood. The dogs were not abused or neglected and both were sterilized. "Something made the dogs snap on that day," Jeff said.

He cannot forget how his son looked after the prolonged attack. "There were unimaginable bruises and bites all over his legs, his arms and his body -- his head," Jeff said. He added, "[The pit bulls] had one goal in mind and that was to murder my baby." Jeff hopes that by sharing Dax's story with as many people as he can, new damaging pit bull maulings and fatalities can be prevented. He said that if his stepping forward today saves just one life then going through this pain is worth it.

Beyond the Interview: Essay of a Fatal Pit Bull Mauling

What began as a moderate follow up post to the June 10th interview turned into an 8,500 word essay documenting the fatal pit bull mauling of Daxton Borchardt. Over the past six weeks, Jeff and Susan shared many details with DogsBite.org through phone conversations and emails about what transpired on March 6th. They also shared their histories about the four months shadowing the young boy's death. Both Jeff and Susan formerly believed, "It's all how you raise them."

Killed by babysitters two pit bullsKilled by babysitters two pit bullsKilled by babysitters two pit bulls
Daxton Borchardt of Darien, Wisconsin at different times before his death.
Blood was everywhere -- all over the floor and bed. His son's lifeless body lay mainly covered up, but still exposing his massive head injuries.

Jeff arrived at Mercy-Walworth Medical Center eight minutes before the ambulance. An officer had told him the situation was very grave. "Dog bite" was listed on his son's intake form. How bad could it be? he wondered. Until arriving, Jeff did not know that dogs had injured his son. After doctors stabilized the boy's heart in preparation for the helicopter flight, a doctor emerged and repeated the words "very grave." He asked Jeff if he would like to see him before the flight.

This is the first time Jeff sees his son after the savage attack. In the WISN interview, Jeff said that he would never forget how his son looked afterward. "There were unimaginable bruises and bites all over his legs, his arms and his body," he said. If only that was all that was forever seared into the father's mind. In reality, one side of his son's face was entirely ripped off, his skull crushed and one eye dangled from its socket. His wife was not spared this horrific imagery either.

Dax underwent a sustained, relentless mauling by two pit bulls that lasted up to 15 minutes. Total destruction ensued.

Upon seeing his son, Jeff immediately called his wife and told her to "pull over now." Kim had been en route to Mercy at the time. In gasps, he explained the severity. All family members were told to drive to Children's Hospital of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, about 40 miles away. The helicopter arrived the fastest. Kim arrived next in a frantic state, asking the trauma intake staff, "What happened? What happened?" When no one answered her, she collapsed to the floor.

A nurse helped Kim recover and showed her into a special waiting room. It was a ten-by-ten foot room lined with chairs. When Jeff and his father, driving together, arrived at Children's, the hospital chaplain was standing outside. He took their car keys, handed them to the valet service and ushered them both into the room. Several of Kim's friends filled chairs now. This is when doctors appeared the first time and told the family that 40 physicians were working to save Dax's life.

When doctors emerged a second time, about 10 minutes later, they asked for consent to take x-rays. Startled by the question, Jeff said: "Yes, take the x-rays! Do whatever it takes!" My God! he thought to himself. Why are they asking us this? By this time the small room was filled with family and friends. After another 10 minutes, doctors appeared a third time. They pulled Jeff and Kim away and said, "He's gone." The doctors explained to them that he did not feel any pain.

"He was unconscious the whole time," the chief doctor said.1

As the couple walked down the corridor to see their son one last time, they saw the faces of the doctors and nurses they passed by. Each held an expression of total defeat. Jeff said these expressions still plague him today. When they reached the trauma room where their son died, Jeff said it was like walking into an accident scene. Blood was everywhere -- all over the floor and bed. His son's lifeless body lay mainly covered up, but still exposing his massive head injuries.

"This is a war we are in," Jeff realized after describing the trauma room where his son died.

Everyone in the small room was breaking down, weeping and sobbing. Slowly, trauma staff members began directing people into a new room, the hospital's chapel. There were pews in the room and a bible. Jeff was striding back and forth in panic and disbelief. The chaplain asked Jeff if he would like to take a walk. He began walking down a hallway with the unknown man, away from his family. This is when the chaplain said to him, "In one week you will be able to function again."2

The Day of the Attack

pit bull attack near dog runpit bull attack near dog runpit bull attack near dog run
Images showing Susan's backyard and dog run area, taken in winter 2012.
The arriving deputy initially feared it was a murder scene, according to reports. Bloodstained snow and fabric covered the backyard where the attack took place.

Walworth County Sheriff's Office did not release details about the March 6th attack until nearly a month later. News articles published then reported that the two pit bulls turned from playful and "nippy" into a violent frenzy. We've since learned more about what occurred before and after the attack. The agreement between Susan and the boy's parents was that Dax was always to be kept away from the two pit bulls and the dogs kenneled. March 6th had started that way.

It must be noted that Susan had babysat Dax at her home on at least 20 occasions previously without incident. The set up was always the same. She and Dax spent time in the front part of the house near her two pet chinchillas. The pit bulls were kept kenneled in the back part of the home near a sliding glass door that exited into the backyard and fenced dog run. Susan provided photographs of the backyard where the attack occurred (taken one year earlier) for this essay.

It was 12:30 pm and time for the dogs to be let outside. Susan dressed Dax in his coat; she had on snow boots and an unzipped parka. There was a routine when the dogs were let out of their kennels. Not only did they have to stay in their kennel until the door was fully open, but were also given an okay to exit. Susan was holding Dax on her hip when she opened the kennel doors. The dogs exited in the routine way then went out the glass door and headed toward the dog run.

Still holding Dax, Susan came strolling up behind. She opened the gate and away the dogs went. When it was time, Susan called her dogs to come inside. The dogs ran back normally then suddenly charged Susan and attacked. One clamped onto her leg and the other latched onto her coat, trying to pull her to the ground. A bite to Susan's arm forced Dax out of her arms and sent them both spiraling into the snow. She scrambled to cover the little boy with her body.

She used the open sides of her parka to insulate the boy as her own dogs tore at her hair, one on either side. The pit bulls then started to dig into the snow around and underneath her to reach Dax. She frantically fought off the dogs, but neither responded to her repeated punches and kicks. She even jammed her thumb hard into her female pit bull's eye with no result. The dogs continued their relentless assault, and in the end, were able to pull Susan away, separating her from Dax.

The gate, already unhinged on one side, was ripped down during the struggle, Susan said.

Every time she tried to stand up, the dogs knocked her back into the snow. She could see Dax lying on the ground and her two pit bulls guarding him. Under the haze of distorted time that afflicts people in life-threatening situations, Susan crawled far enough away to be able to rise to her feet. She knew while rising that this was her last chance to act. Her snow boots were loose and frayed. During the onslaught, her male pit bull had torn through them, ripping out the laces.

At this stage her two pit bulls were circling the boy -- his bright red blood covered the surrounding snow and was soaking through it. Susan knew she had to run between the dogs with steady feet to pick up Dax. She also knew she might not make it out of the dog run alive. She raced between the two dogs as fast as she could, scooped up the boy and fled toward the house. As she was going through the door, the female pit bull ran under her legs nearly knocking her down again.

This is all that Susan can remember today. She may never remember the rest.

Police released the 911 call Susan made about a month after the fatal attack. The WISN video only depicted a small portion. Notably, the dispatcher is shocked as Susan screams into the phone, "Dogs, dogs, dogs!" The dispatcher inquires, "They attacked a baby?" Susan screams, "Yes!" Further into the 911 call, Susan warns the dispatcher that two pit bulls are running loose outside and that officers may encounter them. "They can shoot them, I don't care!" Susan cried.

The arriving deputy initially feared it was a murder scene, according to reports. Bloodstained snow and fabric covered the backyard where the attack took place. The dogs had ripped Susan's parka to shreds and stripped all of the clothing from the boy during the prolonged attack. Susan was still frantically speaking with 911 when the first deputy arrived. The officer found Dax in a room in the home, totally naked, lying on his back in a pool of blood. He initially thought the boy was dead.

A Meeting with the Detective

Three days after the attack, Jeff and his father drove to Elkhorn to meet with a county detective. Until this point, few specifics were known. Jeff only knew the dogs attacked Susan and killed Dax while she was babysitting him. Jeff initially believed the pit bulls had gotten to Dax while he was walking in her home or outside. He said that when he learned Susan had been carrying Dax when her own dogs attacked her in order to reach his son, everything changed for him.

"She suffered injuries, was sent to the hospital ... THEY ATTACKED THE HAND THAT FED THEM!" Jeff wrote to DogsBite.org.

After three days of living in a shell-shocked emotional state, Jeff now had to listen to all of the disturbing details from the detective. From the moments leading up to the attack, to understanding the length of the attack -- up to 15 minutes -- and what followed. The length of the attack was the most devastating. "Did he know what was happening?" Jeff demanded. A question the Walworth County detective could not answer. He told Jeff his son's death was a "perfect storm."3

When Jeff called him three days later, he again told him it was a "perfect storm."4

As the horror settled in, both Jeff and his wife began the next phase of severe emotional trauma, suffocation by the powerful forces of guilt. His wife Kim was the first to blame herself; she had failed him as a mother. "Why wasn't I there to protect him?" she repeated desperately. Jeff soon followed, asking out loud, "Why did I ever leave Dax with those monsters? What was I thinking? My God!" From that point forward, feelings of guilt and the failure as parents enveloped them.

Jeff had long known pit bulls to be dog-aggressive. He cited a late 1990s episode of Cops, where an elderly woman's small dog was killed by a pit bull. As the police drove away from the scene -- fading into a commercial -- Jeff recalled one said: "I respond to a lot of these kinds of calls. It's a really sad part of my job. I would say 99% of the time, it's a pit bull that is the killer." This is why whenever he visited Susan's home with his own two small dogs her pit bulls were kenneled.

"Why did I think it was okay for my son to be anywhere near these kinds of dogs?" Jeff asked.

Another prevailing myth cited by pit bull advocates and humane groups is that pit bulls are "dog-aggressive not human-aggressive," despite the abundance of people the breed disfigures, maims and kills every year. Pit bulls were selectively bred for explosive animal aggression to excel in dogfighting. As far back as 1909, handlers used the term "man eaters" to describe prized fighters.5 Like a hand grenade going off, explosive aggression often lacks specificity.

Jeff also recalled on at least two occasions bringing Dax over to his friend Danny White's home, the two went to grade school together and kept in touch.6 Danny had two large pit bulls that were not well disciplined, unlike Susan's dogs. Hauntingly, Jeff reflected, "I let them lick his face once when he was still so small and he was in his car seat." He added, "Another time, I had him sitting on my lap and let them lick him. It could have been then," Jeff said. "What was I thinking?"

A few weeks into writing this essay, Jeff asked in an email, "Why couldn't someone have warned me how bad it was with this breed before he was taken from us? Would I have listened to them?" He wrote that he did not know the answer to his questions. Up until his son's brutal death, pit bulls exhibiting dog aggression had been his life experience, along with being backed by the "not people-aggressive" myth. Similar questions continue to rage in Jeff's head today.

The Owners of the Dogs

Susan believes the attack lasted between 10 to 15 minutes. This time frame coincides with her two calls to 911 made at 12:44 and 12:46 pm. Her cell phone was out of reach during the violent attack. When she was finally able to reach it, trying to open the Android phone then clicking through the many prompts with stiff, freezing fingers from the snow -- "Are you sure you want to call 911? Are you really, really sure?" -- made making the life-saving 911 call that much harder.

Susan is also haunted by the fact that no one responded to her cries for help. "The backyard area was an echo chamber," she said. Throughout the entire attack, she screamed as loudly as she could, "911 HELP! 911 HELP!" Her dogs were "going crazy," she said, and growling loudly. "How did no one hear this?" she asked. At least one man did, according to police reports obtained by the media, but took no action after hearing a woman scream for up to 15 minutes.

pit bullA man working at a resort next door told deputies he'd heard Iwicki's screams but did not go check out the situation because he thought it was children having a snowball fight at a nearby playground.
pit bullThe man also told deputies he'd been watching "too many horror movies lately," and suggested that was why he did not investigate the screams, according to reports. (GazetteXtra.com)

Susan said the "nearby playground" the man referred to is nearly a mile away in the opposite direction of her home, whereas the attack took place on a property adjacent to the resort. At this point, there was a long pause in our conversation, both of us painfully aware that any intervention on his part, including just calling 911 might have made a difference. He wasn't alone either. Sandi McGough, the longtime innkeeper at the resort, who knew Susan and her dogs, heard as well.

"The housekeeper and maintenance man said they heard some yelling," Sandi McGough told Fox 6 Now on March 6th. "We couldn't exactly figure out where it was coming from," she said. Susan had worked at the resort two years earlier. All of the housekeepers knew who she was. "Who else would be screaming next door?" Susan asked. Especially given that it was off-season and only a handful of people stayed year round? Susan has not visited the resort since the attack.

The excuses by the resort staff are a heartbreaking reflection on humankind. How did they feel after they learned what happened?7

Because of the location of her building, mostly hidden behind another home, Susan knew she would have to direct the officer onto the property. After she rushed inside carrying Dax, she laid him down in a room. She grabbed a child gate and shoved it into the doorway -- one pit bull was also in the home. Susan ran to the other side of the house, seized the dog and dragged her into the kitchen. She barricaded the open doorway by stacking up chairs to keep the dog inside.

Dax was secured when she ran outside to direct the officer, she said. As she stood in the snow in her shredded parka, she continued to talk to 911. The first deputy arrived quickly. She saw the deputy get out of his vehicle and walk toward the backyard. The male pit bull, still loose outside, ran up to the man and sniffed him. The officer did not believe the dog posed a threat at that time. As soon as he turned the corner and saw the horrific scene, she heard the officer shriek.

"Hearing the officer scream, this is when I knew I was not in a dream," Susan said.

She remained standing in the driveway shaking in the cold. When the ambulance arrived, she called her boyfriend Steve. "You and Jeff need to get here now!" she said. At the time, Steve and Jeff were together at a job site installing carpeting. Deputies, however, did not want Susan using her phone. They took her phone away and told the men to go to the hospital. Steve was told about a "dog bite" during the call, but had no idea of the gravity. He rushed Jeff to the hospital.8

Susan's clothes were drenched in Dax's blood. Some of that blood was also her own, injuries incurred while fighting off her own dogs. The second ambulance that arrived was for her. When it reached the hospital, doctors were still working to stabilize Dax's heart for the helicopter flight. Coincidentally, one of the nurses at Mercy working on Dax was a woman that Susan had known from childhood. After her shift and returning home, she learned that Susan was the babysitter.

Susan struggles with the many personal connections involved in the "worst day of my life," she said.

Since the March 6th attack, Susan said that no one has walked into the fenced dog run in the backyard. Not even the landlord has used it, whose dog Judy used to spend long summer days in the run playing with Susan's two pit bulls. Before deputies left on March 6th, Susan said they shoveled over the bloody snow in the extensive attack area, hiding most of it.9 Not long after the attack, a warm spell arrived. As the snow melted, she said, "There was burnt snow everywhere."

Additional Clarifications

Susan wanted to clarify an aspect that is stated earlier in this piece, "the two pit bulls turned from playful and 'nippy' that day into a violent frenzy." The "nippy" terminology was taken from police reports released to the media on April 1st. She doesn't believe she ever said the term "nippy" while being interviewed by police in her hospital room. The word implies bad ownership. Her two dogs were "never nippy," she said. Further, "batting dogs away is not playful," she said.

She also wanted to address how her and Steve got the two pit bulls. Susan grew up with a German shepherd, but had friends that owned the breed. Steve had previously owned a pit bull along with other dog breeds. The two had discussed getting a dog for a while. When one of their friends said her pit bull was about to have a litter, the couple acted. They took two puppies from the litter. Getting the dogs was about timing and opportunity, she said, not a "political statement."

"Doing research before getting the puppies never crossed her mind," Susan said. She thought all dogs were the same.

Like the father, Susan believed the myth, "It's all how you raise them." Believing this myth, perpetuated by pit bull owners, humane groups and veterinarians, resulted in the death of Dax. Jeff and Susan wanted to be part of this essay so that others who intentionally or unintentionally believe this myth can realize the truth. On March 6th, Susan's well-raised pit bulls acted out their genetic heritage by inflicting an unpredictable destructive attack that took a young boy's life.

The Deceitful, Harmful Controversy

family pit bullfamily pit bullfamily pit bull
Susan holds Penny as a puppy, Bosston and Penny as adults, taken in 2013.
Zealous breed advocates lie and use "perceived expert" tactics all the time. Serocki's deceitful method, however, sheds new light on the "organized" pro-pit bull effort.

In the several hours leading up to his son's death, Jeff posted updates to his Facebook status about his son's critical condition. Family members and friends were posting messages as well. News of the attack spread rapidly through the community via local media reports. Jeff Borchardt is a popular deejay in his area and has over 1,800 Facebook friends. On March 6th, his Facebook timeline began overflowing with messages from family members, friends and fans.

Within hours of Jeff posting, "He didn't make it," that landscape changed.

Jeff was stricken after the attack, robbed of his son's life, left only with the images of the destructive injuries inflicted by the dogs. In a shaken mental state, he posted some of his thoughts about pit bulls to his status. Instantly, he was thrown into the sphere of fanatical pit bull owners, some of which were his friends.  Breed advocates bombarded his timeline with propaganda, "All dogs bite!" and "Don't blame the breed!" Some posted photos of pit bulls cuddling with babies.

"THIS IS ABOUT A BABY!" a friend wrote on Jeff's timeline. "Stop posting picts of pits and babies!

The next day, the media began copying parts of his postings and placing them into news articles, "Father of boy killed by pit bull attack shares grief." This caused the "invasion" by breed advocates to intensify further. Close friends and family members posted more messages telling them to "BACK OFF!" At this stage, family members were using Jeff's timeline to get information out to people about where to send flowers and cards, which was the Monroe Funeral Home.

While bombardment tactics are common in "mauling threads" -- comment sections following a pit bull attack news story -- harassing the father of a deceased child on his own Facebook timeline is not. At one point on March 7th, Hannah Hoyt begins arguing with Jeff's wife, telling her, "I am very sorry for your loss, BUT ... it's not the dog's fault, it's the owner." Hoyt continues to taunt and antagonize Kim even after Kim states multiple times to stop and "leave us alone."

Readers of this website already know about the multiple studies regarding owners of vicious dogs, which characterize these owners as antisocial and deviant. In the case of Jeff, many of these breed advocates lacked all social boundaries, even when confronted directly by one of the boy's parents. Armed with narcissism and an "impoverished conscience," pit bull advocates continued swarming and flogging Jeff's Facebook page in the aftermath of his son's horrific death.

Susan did not escape similar harassment. Pit bull advocates immediately lined up to prove she was a "bad owner" who "abused her dogs" in order to justify the unprovoked, prolonged attack that left an innocent baby dead. On June 14th, over three months after the attack, Jeff commented on a Brew City Bully Club post (a meme glorifying pit bulls). He quickly learned that Michelle Serocki, who runs the group, secretly private messaged his friend who was commenting beside him.

Serocki wrote to Jeff's friend stating, "The dogs that did this were not well cared for though. I saw them and they were neglected - in my professional opionion almost criminally. You and I can have different opinions on how to care for dogs - but by social and veterinary standards these dogs were neglected." Zealous breed advocates lie and use "perceived expert" tactics all the time. Serocki's deceitful method, however, sheds new light on the "organized" pro-pit bull effort.

Via a private message, Serocki flat out lied under the auspices of "quasi-credentials" to blame Susan and change the mind of Jeff's friend.

When Jeff learned about the message from Serocki, he called her out in a new comment: "Detective Michelle Serocki on the case ... pay attention cause this is not what the real detective told me ... maybe we should reopen the case?" Jeff added: "there was a reason no charges were brought ... there was no history of abuse or neglect." He then suggested that Susan join the discussion, the dogs' owner and the "only witness to my son's murder ... Let's do that, shall we?"

Serocki never responded to Jeff's invitation. See private message conversation in full.

While Susan was sitting in the ambulance -- still in the driveway of her home -- she signed the surrender forms allowing authorities to take her dogs. She wanted nothing more to do with the pit bulls she had raised from babies. The two dogs were taken to a private veterinarian and put down in a matter of hours. Susan was still in the emergency room at Mercy when she was told by a police officer that the dogs had been euthanized. Serocki never laid eyes on those pit bulls.10

Last year in Milwaukee, a pit bull jumped from a second story balcony to attack another pit bull being walked by its owners (See: Aerial-attacking pit bull). The 55-year old male owner intervened to save his dog and became the next victim. The man was hospitalized with serious injuries. "Detective" Michelle Serocki became a "safety" expert in this article essentially saying the man should have just taken "some deep breaths" and "not screamed" during this frenzied attack.

"In this case, onlookers had to literally ram a moving car into the dog in order to break the victim free." (Blogs.citypages.com)

This was a shocking attack to this community. Fox 6 Now turned to alleged "pit bull expert," Michelle Serocki, who is nothing more than a self-proclaimed pit bull rescuer, to frame this attack to the whole community, specifically from a safety perspective? Earth to Fox 6 Now: There is no safety protocol for an aerial-attacking pit bull. Their portrayal of Serocki as a pit bull and safety expert is embarrassing and unbelievably deflected the reality of this obscene attack.

Both Jeff and Susan expect more harassment, but it won't stop either of them from warning people about the myth that forever destroyed parts of their lives. As Jeff stated in the WISN interview, "This could easily be your son or daughter too." He does not want any parent to experience a similar tragedy first hand and only then realize the myth is sheer propaganda, designed solely to protect a dog breed with an unmatched 30-year track record of mauling, maiming and killing.

Zero Margin of Error Rule

On Father's Day, another tirade unfolded on Jeff's timeline. In this case, the "So sorry for your loss ... BUT" post related to the perfect dog owner concept or what DogsBite.org calls the "zero margin of error" rule for pit bull owners. If only Susan had "exactly" followed the rules set forth by the boy's parents, Dax would still be alive. Susan was imperfect on March 6th and broke the "zero margin of error" rule for pit bull owners by carrying Dax outside while letting the dogs into the run.

If there had been two poodles in the run that day instead of pit bulls, would the result have been the same?

Many pit bull owners -- particularly those duped by the myth, "It's all how you raise them" -- are unaware of this rule until it is too late. The margin of error between humans and normal dog breeds is a vast meadow. Humans and dogs can make small, medium and large errors within this area without significant repercussions. Pit bull owners, however, have "zero margin of error" -- one simple error or oversight can result in a catastrophic or fatal pit bull mauling.

Perfect dog owners are similar to perfect parents -- both are nonexistent. There are strengths and weaknesses in each role, even average and great, but never perfection. Susan did not leave this child unattended on that day, which was the other option, to leave Dax in a room in the house alone while the dogs took a bathroom break. Zealous pit bull advocates would have the public believe that perfect dog owners and the "zero margin of error" rule are reasonable.

Only pit bull experts, a selection of zealous pit bull owners and dogfighters -- real knowers of the breed -- understand the "zero margin of error" rule. The broader category of pit bull owners, such as what Susan falls within, is either in denial of the rule or has no idea of its existence. Duped by the pervasive myth, "It's all how you raise them," along with similar myths, "It's the owner" and "All dogs are the same," how would the average pit bull owner even know about this rule?

Failure to Refute Pervasive Myths

pit bull mythpit bull mythpit bull myth
Myth pushers: Best Friends (no-kill), ASPCA (animal welfare) and Cesar Millan (demigod).
The idea that "the owner made the dog violent, not the breed" has been sucked into the American psyche by all of these forces.

The fact is, everything is in place to support the denial of this dog breed's deadly traits, from local and national humane and veterinarian groups, up to the Centers for Disease and Control, which deserted the dangerous breed issue in 1998.11 Pit bulls have since killed over 220 Americans. None of these institutions refute the myths spread by zealous advocates that saturate the Internet and people's lives. As Jeff recently stated in an email: "I honestly believed, it's all how you raise them."

Anywhere the average person turns, false myths about pit bulls prevail. For instance, within the top five funded humane groups, Best Friends Animal Society claims that pit bulls are "just like any other dogs, but they’ve been given a bad rap." The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) admits the dog-aggression heritage of the breed, but holds to the false claim that pit bulls were "nursemaid" dogs, a myth that kills innocent children every year.

The largest humane group, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is bitterly fighting the Tracey v. Solesky ruling, which declared pit bulls "inherently dangerous," and attached strict liability when the breed attacks (See: HSUS related fact sheet and the deconstruction of it). The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is just as deceitful: "the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor," states the group about severe and fatal attacks on its website.12

If a vet or member of the HSUS tells you, "Responsible ownership is all it takes," why would the average person disbelieve them?

The idea that "the owner made the dog violent, not the breed" has been sucked into the American psyche by all of these forces. Mega star Cesar Millan and television pump out the same rhetoric. Tune into Animal Planet to watch Pit Boss, fighting "pit bull stereotypes," and Pit Bulls and Parolees, whose host Tia Torres is driven to save the "most maligned type of dog" and who fell in love with a man jailed for attempting to murder two Orange County sheriff's deputies.13

What about the print medium? See a recent July Time magazine feature article: "The Great Pit Bull Makeover" with gagging imagery of so-called gentle pit bulls.14 Remember Susan's two biddable pit bulls? Also see the Humane Society of Chittenden County's new ad campaign to "soften pit bulls' dangerous image" that depicts Miss Vermont USA Sarah Westbrook kissing a pit bull. (Note: A proper role model for a beauty pageant winner is seen with Miss Universe Canada.)

Who can forget the Sweet Jasmine cover of Sports Illustrated post Michael Vick? The number of "positive pit bull" articles generated or publicized by local and national news organizations is staggering. Even worse, while faced with the truth that Miami-Dade County has not suffered any pit bull fatalities since the 1989 ban was enacted, unlike many other counties in Florida, the Miami Herald told readers to repeal the ban. Fortunately, the majority of county voters disagreed.

Frankly, prior to embarking on this essay, even DogsBite was unaware that people like Jeff and Susan who were duped by these myths could be so widely prevalent. However, when one looks at the situation in this light -- which groups are spreading the false myths, which groups fail to refute these myths and how many entertainment and news organizations broadcast these myths -- one must also ask: Where can a person go to receive reliable information about this dog breed?

Usually, a person only finds DogsBite.org when it's too late, after devastating injuries have been inflicted.

From a psychological standpoint, the simplest form of the myth, "It's the owner," answers all of the questions to an average person about the dangerous breed issue. Challenging this belief disrupts and threatens the beholder's world. Tony Solesky, the father of the young boy in the seminal court decision declaring pit bulls "inherently dangerous" recently summed up this phenomenon pointedly: "This type of belief system is fine until it threatens my family," Solesky said.

Why do Jeff and Susan feel it is so important to speak out about this issue?

Because it was under the condition of dedicated, responsible owners when two pet pit bulls turned "dead game" on March 6th attacking their owner and killing a child.

The Currents of Grief

loss of child pit bull attackloss of child pit bull attackloss of child pit bull attack
New boat out on Lake Beulah, angel cloud and rainbow cloud taken at important times.
Loss thunders through him -- not only for his son, but for an understanding of life. Where did his former understanding go?

Jeff doesn't know how to measure his life now. He just knows when it is a good day or a bad day. A bad day results in a meltdown, as he calls them. Tears and grief overwhelm him along with feelings of guilt and anger. Loss thunders through him -- not only for his son, but for an understanding of life. Where did his former understanding go? A questioning of his beliefs follows with fears of the unknown. What if we have another child and something this devastating happens again?

"Would I still have faith? Would I be able to carry on?" Jeff asked.

The back and forth currents of grief pull him from feeling emboldened to lost and from being "fight ready" to unable to move. Jeff explained that he likes to stay busy to keep from being alone with his thoughts. Stillness brings collisions in the currents -- powerful emotions crashing into each other causing a meltdown. Unrestrained weeping follows, sometimes for long periods. "Meltdowns strike suddenly too," Jeff said. One minute I am standing, the next I am falling down.

For three weeks after the attack, Jeff said that someone had to stand behind him when he performed his shows. This was in case a sudden meltdown struck. They occurred anyway, as the body's response to severe emotional trauma isn't easily controlled. Jeff is well-known across the Midwest and often travels to Milwaukie, Chicago and Indiana to perform. When a meltdown hits, "Instantly, I am crying my eyes out in front of a 100 or more people," Jeff said. Then I crash down.

What readers must remember is that not only is the loss of his son's life shattering, but his horrible death was preventable. This significantly raises the severity of the emotional trauma of losing a child. Many parents never recover from this loss without this component present. Jeff said the images of his son's body, which "looked like he was blown up by a bomb," flash through his head like a strobe light, uncontrollably at times. Maybe this double component is why.

"I stood in that room screaming, while my wife held his small hand. His body was destroyed, lying there in that neck brace," Jeff said.

Fourth months after the loss of his son, Jeff's central place of employment for the past 10-years, The Reddroom, shut down. He said that half of his family's total income is now gone. "What else could be worse than what we went through, right?" he asked. The sudden and dramatic financial stress on top of everything else was mind blowing. Jeff said he wonders how he is even able to get of out bed at this point. The subject line of his email was, "When it rains, it pours."

About a week later, Jeff went to an urgent care center after a 5-day long migraine. During the exam he learned that his blood pressure was extremely high. He had an immediate meltdown and explained to the physician assistant who he was. They both cried together in the patient room and she hugged him. She knew who he was from watching TV. She referred Jeff to a mental health professional. He set up an appointment to meet with the person the next day.

Susan began seeing a mental health worker shortly after the attack. She was assigned a caseworker right away, who still comes to her home once a week for 1 to 3 hour sessions. Part of her flashbacks and dreams involve reliving scenes of the brutal attack with Dax or another young child from her life and often in front of a crowd. No one offers any help in the dreams. Susan is currently taking four different medications to cope with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

"I think about Sue and what she had to witness that day," Jeff wrote in an email to DogsBite.org.

When Susan was able to return to her restaurant job after the attack, they held a special meeting after hours. She wanted to tell her story once to everyone so that she would not have to keep reciting it (reliving it). She said the meeting was scary, but she got through it. In her waiter's pad she keeps a photo of Dax in his red coat visible, a photo she took while babysitting Dax on a separate occasion. She said the photo helps keep the bad injury images of Dax out of her head.

After a fatal dog mauling, the public rarely learns what happened to the lives of family members and witnesses to the attack. Follow-ups by the media usually only occur when substantial criminal charges are filed and a trial ensues months or years later. As stated on many occasions in the past, fatal dog attacks are not only multi-generational tragedies for family members and witnesses, but also for the whole community. Recovery is slow, weighted with remorse and deep loss.

Finding Faith as Guidance

After their son's death, Jeff and his wife turned to faith for guidance. They began attending the church where Dax's funeral service was held. The last time either had been in a church was for their wedding 9-years earlier. Jeff believes that Dax saved the lives of both of them not once, but twice. Upon his birth, both parents were transformed into new people who had never known this type of love before. He saved them again when he died -- neither would be in church otherwise.

When they moved away from Darien, they found a closer church to attend. Jeff said the pastor at Brooklife Church is inspiring and he feels a sense of renewal after each service. The couple has also connected to people through the church who have lost their children. He said that no matter how the child was lost, the daunting, paralyzing pain is the same. There is a difference though, he said. Dax died in a controversy that continues to rage today, unlike a disease or car accident.

The controversy adds a whole new dimension of pain -- "It's horrible," Jeff said.

Fierce disagreements with people he once considered friends have caused more heartache too. Today, Jeff is still learning who his real friends are. As revealed on his Facebook timeline and through private messaging, some of his longtime friends, notably Danny White, made unforgivable statements to him in the wake of his son's violent death. Serious offenders like Danny are forever banned from Jeff's life. Others, who might be redeemable, are placed on his "probation list."

What is important to Jeff now are those who support his mission: Sharing what happened to Dax to save innocent lives.

His wife Kim is the staple that holds his many pieces together, Jeff explained. Through Kim and his new church, Jeff believes his faith in humanity and life might one day be restored. Calmness will begin to replace the madness and a deeper level of understanding will be born. Unlike Jeff, Kim stays away from the hostile pit bull storm. Instead, she loses herself in spiritual books, like: Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back.

The two have found at least one place where part of the pain is muted. It is being out on the water in their new boat. Here, the back and forth currents are beneath them. They float for hours on the surface without interruptions from the world -- no Facebook timelines or messages and often without many words between them. They look out across the water and up into the sky, where Dax lives now. They compare notes about the many Sixth Sense experiences since his death.

For Jeff, the coincidences occur with dates and numbers. Jeff said it took them weeks to find a new place to live. They wanted a 3-bedroom, one bedroom specifically reserved for their future child. One month to the date of Dax's death, they found the place they will use as a healing ground to start their new family. Kim sees coincidences in the sky, usually in cloud formations. She takes photographs and shows them to Jeff, pointing out the angel, a message from the Divine.

Jeff said that he notices orbs in photographs now. When he looks back on past pictures of Dax, he sometimes sees them there too, indicating that the spirit had been present the whole time. Jeff knows that you cannot change the past. Even when you try, such as the protagonist in The Time Machine did, it leads to worse results. In the film, instead of being able to save his fiancée's life by going back in time, "the protagonist merely gets to watch her die a different way," Jeff said.

Both Jeff and his wife are anxious to have a new child. It would be gift from God and a way to try to begin again. Kim is 38-years old now. In early July, they received negative test results. A positive test would have placed the child's birth in the same time period as Dax's death. This new life would always bring them joy in early March, instead of the unbearable memory of his loss. Jeff said they tried for three years to conceive Dax. One close try resulted in a miscarriage.

Jeff said he could not imagine trying for three years this time.

In Memory of Daxton Borchardt

Daxton Borchardt MemorialDaxton Borchardt MemorialDaxton Borchardt Memorial
Daxton Borchardt, his urn next to his lock of hair and Borchardt family photographs.
 Dax loved Squeeze Freezer Pops. When he would finish eating one, he would start waving the wrapper all over, "acting like a crazy man," Jeff said.

The cost of their son's death wasn't just emotional. Jeff said the cost of the Flight For Life alone was over $37,000 (nearly $1,000 per mile). When you start to add everything up, Jeff said, including the trauma medical procedures at Mercy and Children's, the cost is getting into the $80,000 range. Calvary Community Church donated the funeral services for Dax, the same church that Jeff and his wife first began attending. The service was held six days after his death in Williams Bay.

The service was open to the whole community. Doctors and nurses from Mercy and Children's attended the service. Dax's delivery doctor did as well. The undersheriff and police officers on the scene that day also attended along with the paramedics. Throughout the service, two big screens running side-by-side displayed photos of his family. They released balloons outside with handwritten messages saying, "I love you" and "I miss you." Dax loved helium balloons.

Jeff said that balloons made Dax want to walk more. When the helium began seeping out, he would beat it up, saying, "Yah, yah, yah!" A visit to Walmart's balloon section was a must when in the store. Dax liked all things that hung from the ceiling, like balloons and fans. Just before his death, he learned the "eff" sound. He loved to say "fan" and "fish." He also learned how to turn ceiling lights off and on. He was "very curious and a walker by 10-months old," Jeff said.

Most of all Dax loved to dance, Jeff reflected. "I would put music on and he would just dance, dance, dance," Jeff said. Dax also liked blow-up balls and anything with wheels. He would spin the wheels of his cars and trucks and make engine-revving sounds, Jeff said. He loved to cruise through the house in his toy coupe. Jeff thought he might grow up to be a racecar driver. When his parents needed a break, Puss in Boots videos were a savior, the character mesmerized Dax.

One of Jeff's best memories, which still causes him to breakdown when he thinks about it, is the popsicle wrappers. Dax loved Squeeze Freezer Pops. When he would finish eating one, he would start waving the wrapper all over, "acting like a crazy man," Jeff said. Once Jeff started copying him, acting crazy and making fun of him. The look on Dax's face was initially perplexed. Then suddenly there were two crazy people in the home waving empty wrappers up and all around.

People always asked about Dax's hair, Jeff said. "Why does it only grow on the top?" We would always tell them, "No we did not give our 10-month old a Mohawk." Dax turned his head back and forth a lot while he slept, Jeff explained. We think this is why he had so little hair on the sides of his head. Jeff said that they keep a locket of his hair next to his urn. He and his wife saved their son's ashes, "So that he is always with us," Jeff said. "We have Dax with us everywhere we go."

Love for Dax Benefit

In May, a fundraising benefit was held to celebrate the life of Dax and to help his parents. Falling Up: A Tribute to Dax Borchardt was held at the Richfield Chalet in Hubertus. Many people attended the benefit headlined with four prominent deejays, including Mix Master Bogart, Jeff Borchardt. The Facebook event website has many photos and videos of the benefit, including laser light show images, deejays spinning and more, all components of Jeff's everyday world.

Tomorrow, on July 27th, an even larger benefit, Love for Dax, is being held at Phil & Amy's Corners Inn in Delavan. There will be live music, food and raffles at the benefit. Jeff anticipates up to 1,000 attendees. DogsBite planned the publishing of this essay to be the day before the July benefit. Jeff has been looking forward to this date. He is tired of explaining his position to people. He would rather just write, "Here's the full story -- please read every word," and provide this link.

DogsBite.org and many of our readers will be present at the Love for Dax benefit in spirit.

Daxton Borchardt Fund
A memorial fund has been set up at Associated Bank. Donations can be made at any Associated Bank branch to the "Daxton Borchardt Fund."

Nearly all portions of this essay were gathered through direct phone calls and email communications with Jeff and Susan over a 6-week period. DogsBite.org honors both individuals for their courage and honesty and their desire to make a difference in this vital cause.

Editorial note: In April 2016, we altered various links that had become outdated -- were removed from the web or Facebook -- since our initial publication. They now link to the related PDF or photo files to help keep the essay and its original links intact. Not all news articles and Facebook pages were captured as PDF files; those broken links have also been removed.


1Neither Jeff nor Kim believed the doctor then nor do they today.
2Jeff said he was right. He and his wife were completely nonfunctional for about the next seven days, even to the point of being able to stand up on their own.
3This detective might have performed web searches leading up to the meeting. Dr. Randall Lockwood, a senior vice-president of the ASPCA used the "perfect storm" comparison in a 2006 article by Malcom Gladwell to "explain away" fatal pit bull maulings that continue to plague this country. After Lockwood debuted the analogy, other scientific and academic "ethics sell-outs" and humane groups began using the term as well. Lockwood is the gravest of all scientist ethical sell-outs because it was his own published research about the "unique" behaviors of fighting dogs (pit bulls) while working at the HSUS that was used to uphold the Denver pit bull ban. When he moved to the ASPCA in 2005, Lockwood's tune on pit bulls changed. Please note that 100% of Lockwood's presumptions in his 2006 statement are categorically false concerning the death of Daxton Borchardt.
pit bull"A fatal dog attack is not just a dog bite by a big or aggressive dog," Lockwood went on. "It is usually a perfect storm of bad human-canine interactions—the wrong dog, the wrong background, the wrong history in the hands of the wrong person in the wrong environmental situation. I've been involved in many legal cases involving fatal dog attacks, and, certainly, it's my impression that these are generally cases where everyone is to blame. You've got the unsupervised three-year-old child wandering in the neighborhood killed by a starved, abused dog owned by the dogfighting boyfriend of some woman who doesn't know where her child is. It's not old Shep sleeping by the fire who suddenly goes bonkers. Usually there are all kinds of other warning signs." - Randall Lockwood, 2006.

4Just days before publishing this essay, more light was shed on the detective's repeated use of "perfect storm" to describe the circumstances of Dax's death. Bear in mind that an actual "perfect storm" occurs approximately once per century. During the 8-year period of 2005 through 2012, pit bulls killed an American on average every 19 days. During the first three months of 2013, this was reduced to every 13 days. Just days before the death of Dax, in the neighboring state of Illinois, the fatal pit bull mauling death of 7-year old Ryan Maxwell occurred.
pit bullIn a July 22nd phone conversation with DogsBite.org, Susan said the detective called her about an hour before Jeff and his father arrived that day. She said he cited the explanation of a "perfect storm" about a half dozen times during the call. He also told Susan something along the lines of, "It's not always the breed or the owner. An animal is an animal."
pit bullAfter learning this information from Susan, it became clear to DogsBite.org that the detective had indeed found the term by performing web searches. A term first used by Lockwood whose presumptions in no way correspond to the facts of this case and only repeated by fellow science "ethical sell-outs" and pit bull advocates. The detective more than likely discovered DogsBite.org in his searches as well. Yet, a "perfect storm" and an "animal is an animal" were his stock answers to the 358th American viciously killed by a pit bull, Daxton Borchardt.
Not a Perfect Storm
  • If employees at the resort had called 911 quickly, emergency responders "might" have been able to save Dax's life. Though he still would have been subjected to a violent mauling by two pit bulls for at least several minutes, resulting in years of reconstructive surgeries and possibly maimed and disfigured for the rest of his life.
  • If it had been a summer month -- no snow on the ground -- Susan still would have been an unarmed female with no capability of stopping one pit bull much less two focused and engaged in a relentless attack.
  • There were no dog ownership, abuse or neglect issues is this case, the chief components of Lockwood's "perfect storm" scenario: "You've got the unsupervised three-year-old child wandering in the neighborhood killed by a starved, abused dog owned by the dogfighting boyfriend of some woman who doesn't know where her child is."

pit bullThe fatal dog mauling of Daxton Borchardt was a sudden assault by two pet pit bulls on their owner who was holding a toddler -- the intended target of the dogs. This bears no relevance to a so-called "perfect storm." Recognizing that traumatized victims like Jeff and Susan might be better off initially with a substandard stock answer to better grapple with what happened on March 6th, the detective still did a disservice to both victims. He also failed to acknowledge the proper usage of the term: "The only perfect storm in this incident is the documented, lethal genetic history of the pit bull breed." - DogsBite.org, January 2010.
5George C. Armitage, "Thirty Years with Fighting Dogs," Originally Published in 1935, Pg 20 (The Battle Between Parren's Pat and Caire's Rowdy)
6Danny White was one of Jeff's friends that taunted him after his son's death, posting pro-pit bull propaganda on his timeline. In the past several weeks, Jeff learned through a mutual friend that Danny was playing with his two pit bulls when one of them latched down on his hand and wouldn't let go, sending him to the hospital. On July 26th, after publishing this essay, we learned that Danny's biter is now dead. During this summer's baking heat, Danny left that pit bull in his car with the windows rolled up. "The dog was cooked to death," according to our source.
7No, it wasn't a rape and bludgeoning death of a woman who lived nearby (Would this have been acceptable?). It was the obscene pit bull mauling death of an innocent child.
8Over the course of March 6th, Jeff does not have his car. Early that morning, when he went to Susan's home and dropped off Dax, he left his car there. Steve drove both of them to the job site.
9Steve and his cousin had to finish the job. Also, there was not time to determine if these actions were a health violation not, covering over the bloody snow, versus removing it from the property.
10On July 27th, one day after the publication of this essay, Michelle Serocki of Brew City Bully Club changed her personal Facebook profile image to represent an individual other than herself. Specifically, Serocki changed her profile image to represent Alexis Gull, the Events Director of Brew City Bully Club. Just one more underhanded deceitful tactic by Serocki. We wonder if Alexis Gull knows the real underpinnings of Serocki's action?
11Though the modern annual rate of dog bite fatalities is 31, the CDC website still lists 16, a figure derived from the 1980s and 1990s.
12Recall the AVMA's mission statement: "to improve animal and human health and advance the veterinary medical profession." Its stated objective: "to advance the science and art of veterinary medicine, including its relationship to public health, biological science, and agriculture." Dog mauling injuries and fatalities, primarily inflicted by pit bulls, are a serious public health issue. Allowing the "blame the owner" myth to prevail, instead of honestly addressing the breed's dangerous genetic traits, is an "F" failure grade in advancing human health and public health.
13What a remarkable role model for her young pit bull owning audience?
14This photo gallery is part of the July 22nd article, "The Softer Side of Pit Bulls," by Paul Tullis. Time magazine did not contact DogsBite.org to be interviewed for this article.

Related articles:
07/26/14: News Release - Beyond the Interview: Essay of a Fatal Pit Bull Mauling
07/24/13: Beyond the Interview Photo Album: Essay of a Fatal Pit Bull Mauling
07/18/13: Video: Father of Boy Killed by Pit Bulls Warns About Dangerous Myth
04/02/13: 2013 Dog Bite Fatality: 14-Month Old Wisconsin Boy Killed by Babysitter's Pit Bulls