Posted on June 8, 2013 by Colleen Lynn

Laws Target Criminals and Owners Pay Special Taxes

DogsBite.org - Every now and again, a surprising email arrives at DogsBite.org from a foreign country. This one is sure to inspire new ideas about regulating dangerous dog breeds. In May, a reader from Germany sent in a description of breed-specific legislation in Germany. We used Google Translate to convert the German Wikipedia page mentioned in the description, which also describes breed-specific laws in Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Denmark and France.

To briefly summarize, in Germany it is difficult for non-law abiding citizens to own pit bulls. Jurisdictions can also create a special tax for pit bulls and other dangerous dogs. Nürnberg, for instance, charges pit bull owners an annual tax of over $1,300 U.S. dollars. In Germany, a combination of federal, state and local laws restricts the importation, trading and breeding of pit bulls and often prohibits ownership by individuals with perilous (criminal, addiction) backgrounds.

Despite staggering observed evidence in the U.S. that pit bulls are the "breed of choice" for criminals, particularly drug-related criminals,1 and have been since the 1980s,2 and that police officers are routinely forced to shoot dangerous pit bulls during the line of duty, DogsBite.org has not run across one jurisdiction in the U.S. since the launch of this website that prohibits these types of criminals from owning this dog breed. Germany's approach directly tackles this problem.

The attack that sparked public outcry in Germany to ban "combat" dogs involved a pit bull and a Staffordshire terrier brutally killing a 6-year old boy on a school playing field in Hamburg in 2000. "We can't allow children to be put in danger simply because of the quirks of a few dog owners," Interior Minister Otto Schily said in response. "You cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that these dogs are dangerous." Hundreds took to the streets demanding government action.

It is a fascinating read. Comments are open to anonymous commenters.

Dear Dogsbite.org members,

As I appreciate your efforts to increase the safety of American citizens, I would like to report some efficent examples of breed-specific legislation in Germany.

1. Executive summary
Pit bulls owners in Germany are subject to multiple restrictions:

Breeding, selling and trading of pit bulls is prohibited. Only adopting is allowed.

They must get a written permission from the Animal Control Officer before adopting a pit bull under the following restrictions:
a.) They must prove their ability to handle the dog

b.) They must not have a criminal record nor a drug addiction

c.) They often have to pay a special tax

2. General overview
Since the 1990s, when some fatal pit bull attacks occurred on public streets, the ownership of dangerous dogs in Germany has been gradually regulated by dog laws.

The importing and trading of pit bulls is prohibited by German federal law unless the owner provides a local permission to have a pit bull.

Animal breeding is subject to state legislation, so each of the 16 states in Germany has its own dog law that prohibits the breeding of dangerous dogs.

Of the 16 German states, 15 have breed-specific legislation. 15 states restrict pit bulls, 5 states restrict rottweilers and 1 state restricts dobermans. (just count the red and green cells)

In Austria, 3 of 9 states have breed-specific legislation and in Switzerland, 12 of 25 states have breed-specific legislation. In Geneva, for example, 15 breeds are prohibited, with an exception for pre-ban animals.

3. One example of a state-specific dog law
The state of Saxony has one of the shortest dog laws, so I will translate the most important restrictions:

Article 1

Dangerous dogs are those that

Belong to a dangerous breed (American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier and Pit Bull Terrier) unless a certified veterinarian has proven their good character

Have ever attacked humans or other animals

Article 2

Breeding of dangerous dogs is prohibited

Article 3

Buying and selling of dangerous dogs is prohibited

Article 4

Training dogs to attack humans is prohibited

Article 5

Keeping dangerous dogs requires a license which is only granted to adults who fit the legal conditions

Must be over 18 years old, must prove knowledge of how to handle a dog, must have insurance and must keep the dog on a fenced property

Dogs bought in 2000 or earlier may be kept without a written license if the other conditions are met

County officers may prevent individuals from keeping or breeding a dangerous dog

Dangerous dogs may not annoy other people

Dog owner's property must be labelled "Beware of the dog"

County officers may check dog owner's property

Article 6

Dangerous dogs must be leashed and muzzled when in public

Article 7

The dog owner must notify the officer when he abandons his dog

Article 8

The owner of a dangerous dog must pass a written exam in order to prove theoretical knowledge of how to handle his dog

Article 9

People

Who have once been convicted to more than 60 days in prison with or without probation (= or an equal fine which is calculated according to days in prison) or

Who have twice been convicted to less than 60 days in prison with or without probation within in the last five years, not including the time in prison itself

Who are addicted to alcohol or drugs

Who are mentally or physically disabled may not own a dangerous dog

Article 10

Cities may impose a special dog tax for dangerous dogs (= about 600 EUR per year)

Article 11

Breeding of dangerous dogs and ordering the dog to attack may be punished with two years in prison

Article 12

Keeping a dangerous dog without permission, without proper fence or without leash, allowing them to run on playgrounds or owning more than one dangeous dog may be punished with up to 25,000 EUR fine.

Article 13

Officers may enter private houses in order to check the dogs (= a modest infringement of constitutional rights for reasons of public safety)

Article 14

Local dog restrictions (= e.g. in parks) may be added according to legal authorization

Article 15

This law is valid on August 25th, 2000

4. Other dog laws
Other German states have similar conditions for owning a dangerous dog. These dog laws may impose a written request for owning a pit bull.

More restricted breeds

Another definition of criminal record

Restrictions for homeless people who cannot have a pit bull in Thuringia, for example.

5. Taxation3
German cities may impose a dog tax for the purpose of restricting the number of dogs. Several courts have approved higher taxes for pit bulls and other dangerous breeds. Of the 15 largest cities, 9 have a special pit bull tax while 6 do not.

"Dangerous dog tax" for pit bulls and other vicious dogs - Annual4

Nürnberg 1,056.00 EUR 1354.64 US

Frankfurt am Main 900.00 EUR 1154.52 US

Essen 852.00 EUR 1092.95 US

München 800.00 EUR 1026.24 US

Stuttgart 612.00 EUR 785.07 US

Düsseldorf 600.00 EUR 769.68 US

Hamburg 600.00 EUR 769.68 US

Hannover 600.00 EUR 769.68 US

Dortmund 432.00 EUR 554.17 US

General dog tax for all breeds - Annual

Köln 156.00 EUR 200.12 US

Bremen 122.64 EUR 157.32 US

Berlin 120.00 EUR 153.94 US

Duisburg 114.00 EUR 146.24 US

Dresden 108.00 EUR 138.54 US

Leipzig 96.00 EUR 123.15 US

6. Impact on dog bites
Since the introduction of dangerous dog laws, which faced much opposition by dog owners, many pit bulls have been confiscated because the owner did not fit the legal requirements. After drug consumption or driving while drunk, pit bull owners automatically lose their license to own a dangerous dog. (A small group is trying to abolish the pit bull restrictions).

As a consequence of strict pit bull regulation, the number of pit bull attacks has decreased. The following spreadsheets shows the number of reported dog attacks in Berlin between 2001 and 2011 according to Claudia Hämmerling, State House of Representatives (she is not in favor of BSL).

This spreadsheet includes all reported cases where humans (=Menschen) have been charged (=angesprungen) or injured (=verletzt) by dogs.

"Dangerous dog tax" for pit bulls and other vicious dogs - Annual4
Nürnberg	1,056.00 EUR	1354.64 US
Frankfurt am Main	900.00 EUR	1154.52 US
Essen	852.00 EUR	1092.95 US
München	800.00 EUR	1026.24 US
Stuttgart	612.00 EUR	785.07 US
Düsseldorf	600.00 EUR	769.68 US
Hamburg	600.00 EUR	769.68 US
Hannover	600.00 EUR	769.68 US
Dortmund	432.00 EUR	554.17 US
General dog tax for all breeds - Annual
Köln	156.00 EUR	200.12 US
Bremen	122.64 EUR	157.32 US
Berlin	120.00 EUR	153.94 US
Duisburg	114.00 EUR	146.24 US
Dresden	108.00 EUR	138.54 US
Leipzig	96.00 EUR	123.15 US

1Not to leave out the painfully obvious animal fighting + drug trafficking combination, 2013 and 2010 examples here.
2Page 4, recall this was published in 1987:

"I just saw a surprising statistic from a Los Angeles study," Steve Blackwood, a sergeant in the San Diego Sheriff's Department, said recently. "In two out of three narcotics raids, pit bulls were used as the guard dogs." San Diego investigators also were told that local members of motorcycle gangs were stashing their drugs beneath the doghouses of their pit bulls. "Street dope dealers and street gangs have gone to pit bulls," says Budd Johnson, an inspector for the U.S. Marshals Service who is based in San Diego. Law enforcement officials are seeing the same thing all over the country, and the pit bull populations in urban areas..."

3The author provided additional notes on dog taxes and Breed-Specific Taxation (BST) in a follow up email.

Bad Kohlgrub, a small town in Bavaria, has the highest "dangerous dog tax" in Germany: 2000 EUR per year (however with grandfathering). I have focused on the 15 largest cities, because their suburbs and many small cities have a similar taxation system. Taxation in small towns and villages is usually lower. However, it's not my intention to disclose the village with the lowest tax rate.
Concerning the general dog tax, there is usually a 50% tax discount for service dogs, rescue dogs, farm dogs, welfare beneficiaries etc, and a temporary tax discount for shelter adoptions. However, vicious dogs are explicitly excluded from any discount.
There is a logical contradiction between my explanations of Art. 10 and the dog tax rates:
Art. 10 - Cities may impose a special dog tax for dangerous dogs (= about 600 EUR per year)
Art. 10 - Cities may impose a special dog tax for dangerous dogs (= usually between 200 EUR and 2000 EUR per year)

4Exchange rate calculations of US dollars was performed on May 25, 2013.

Posted on May 28, 2013 by Colleen Lynn

Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs

DogsBite.org - In April 2011, the Annals of Surgery published a study about severe and fatal injuries inflicted by pit bulls, Mortality, Mauling and Maiming by Vicious Dogs, produced by Texas doctors. The study concluded: "Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites."

The study enraged pro-pit bull advocacy groups.

On April 26, 2012 the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its landmark ruling Tracey v. Solesky that declared pit bulls inherently dangerous and attached strict liability when a pit bull attacks a person. This liability is extended to the landlord when a tenant's pit bull attacks, as was the case in Solesky. The Court cited the entire abstract of the Texas medical study in its opinion. This further enraged pit bull advocates and animal welfare groups that opposed the Court's decision.

In May 2012, Karen Delise of the National Canine Research Council, an entity that produces pro-pit bull propaganda ad nauseum, sent an e-letter of complaint to the Annals of Surgery about the study, berating the doctors. Delise's letter was recently posted to a forum board (scroll to read E-kul's comments). In July 2012, a board member of DogsBite.org wrote a rebuttal to Delise's e-letter. Due to submission technology difficulties, the journal did not receive this response.

DogsBite.org is publishing it now for the record.

RE: Imprudent use of Unreliable Dog Bite Tabulations and Unpublished Sources by Karen Delise
by Carol Miller | July 17, 2012

Carol Miller RN Disclosure: Board Member of DogsBite.org, a national dog bite victims’ group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks.

Regarding the recent e-letter to the editor of the Annals of Surgery written by Karen Delise, Licensed Vet Tech (LVT) with her thoughts on the April 2011 publication of, Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs by Doctors Bini, Cohen et al.

Full disclosure by Ms. Delise would have shown that the National Canine Research Council, LLC is owned by the same individual that owns Animal Farm Foundation whose mission statement is: “Securing equal treatment and opportunity for ‘Pit Bull’ dogs.” I believe that this breed-specific advocacy viewpoint may color Ms. Delise’s remarks.

I find significant errors in Ms. Delise’s arguments. First, she takes issue with a case presentation. She states that there is “no documented evidence from any authority that either dog involved in the incident were pit bulls.” The mauling death of an 11 month old baby is hardly an occurrence I would classify as an “incident.” Ms. Delise fails to recognize that the dogs involved were owned by the baby’s grandmother, who was present during the attack that occurred in her own home. The grandmother would presumably know what kind of dogs she owned. Furthermore, the grandmother was later charged with a first-degree felony because it was not the first or second time her two “pit bulls” had shown aggressive behavior.

Ms. Delise discusses the death of James Chapple Jr. She states that “Mr. Chapple received severe injuries but fully recovered and was discharged from the hospital.” Mr. Chapple’s left arm was amputated, his right arm was badly mauled. A full recovery is impossible in this circumstance. Mr. Chapple’s injuries were so severe that a bill changing Tennessee law regarding vicious dogs was introduced. Video equipment was set up in Mr. Chapple’s hospital room so he could testify to legislators. Mr. Chapple lived long enough to see the bill signed into law. As a hospital nurse, I recognize that there are several reasons for discharge from the hospital, one is recovery, and another is that there is no further treatment that can be offered to the patient, they are discharged home with family care and Home Health nursing care. The listing of cardiovascular complications on the death certificate would not be unexpected. As a Cardiac Rehab nurse, I would expect cardiovascular deterioration in a newly disabled person with underlying coronary artery disease.

Another area of discrepancy is Ms. Delise’s “Unresolvable disagreement as to breed descriptor.” That case involved a two month old infant residing in Waianae, Hawaii, killed in the family home by a dog that Ms. Delise claims was a “Sharpei mix” and “not a pit bull.” A review of police records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, shows the Honolulu Police Department Scientific Investigation Section report of a buccal swab sample “recovered from the mouth of a “pit-bull/shar-pei mixed dog.” The location named in the report was the Honolulu City and County Morgue. Page 5 of 6 of the Police Incident report names the dog as a “Sharpei/pitbull mix” as does a Follow Up report dated 10-5-08, and the CID Closing report dated 1/05/09, page 3 of 4. In the complete police report the dog is never identified as simply a “Sharpei mix.”

Ms. Delise ends her letter with her advice. “Dr. Bini and his colleagues would have been well advised to consult animal professionals on a subject matter that was clearly outside their area of expertise.” I would suggest that a scientific medical injury study pertaining to the public health and safety of human beings is only suited for human medical professionals.

Sincerely,
Carol Miller RN

DogsBite.org Incorporated is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization.

Noteworthy:

Delise's e-letter was never published in the physical journal. It was strictly an e-letter of complaint. Only medical professionals who are subscribers to the Annals of Surgery were able to read it. The number of medical professionals with an interest in her letter would be minimal. At last count, the e-letter had less than 30 views, according to the journal publication software system. Frankly, the only sunshine Delise's e-letter ever received was through promotion by Delise herself.

Posted on May 23, 2013 by Colleen Lynn

Dog Bite Injury Severity and Bowl-A-Thon Event

DogsBite.org - In an ongoing tradition, we comment during National Dog Bite Prevention Week that there is no National Dog Mauling Prevention Week, a far more serious health and safety issue. The distinction between preventing dog "bites" and preventing dog "maulings" -- injuries involving maiming, loss of limbs and death -- is urgent. Over 600 jurisdictions in the U.S. regulate dangerous dog breeds, primarily pit bulls, to prevent devastating "mauling" injuries and deaths.

Dog Bite vs. Dog Mauling -- The Solesky Family

One of the voices in this critical battle to educate more Americans about the distinction between dog "bite" and dog "mauling" injuries, is the Solesky family. The family's landmark court case, Tracey v. Solesky, led to an appellate decision that declared pit bulls "inherently dangerous" and attached strict liability when a pit bull attacks a person. Last December, the Solesky's released the 911 call of their son's attack to demonstrate in real time a life-threatening dog "mauling."

Throughout the 5-year process of achieving this legal victory, both Anthony and Irene Solesky, the boy's parents, have battled against "bite" obfuscation tactics; those who attempt to equate all dog bites as equal. In media interviews and spoken testimony before Maryland House and Senate committees, both parents always distinguish that their son underwent a life-threatening dog "mauling," an incident never to be co-mingled with or compared to an average dog "bite."

Often Irene's testimony is the hardest to listen to because it is a reminder of how much work must still be done to inform more Americans about the different levels of dog bite injury. "Bite" obfuscation tactics used by regulation opponents only have power because too many people believe a dog bite injury today is the same as it was 35-years ago, hurtful but negligible. 35-years ago, pit bulls and their mixes and rottweilers were virtually nonexistent in our neighborhoods.

When Dominic's friend came to my house, one of the three friends he was playing with, came to my house to tell me, frantically knocked on my door, that he was being attacked by a dog, what I envisioned was just Dominic crying, knocked on the ground, a small bite and the dog owner consoling him.

Obviously, this was nothing like I imagined.

When I went to the scene in the alley, it was nothing of a typical dog bite. And there was no dog owner present. So, everything I imagined was not there.

What I had seen appeared to be a crime scene. And injuries resembled to be from a shark attack. We're talking about all dogs biting, all dogs being similar. They are not similar. They are not built the same way. They don't bite the same way. This was a mauling and that needs to be recognized.

His injuries, he had a cut clear down to the bone on his nose. A chunk out of his cheek. As I found out later, a severed femoral artery. I saw three gaping wounds in his left thigh. Blood all over the alley. And his clothes were saturated.

This does not get done by a poodle. Does not get done by a beagle. We need to recognize the difference. Anything that can cause injury like this is deemed dangerous.1 - Irene Solesky, February 5, 2013, Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Testimony

Dog Bite Prevention Event: Bowl-A-Thon in Maryland

On Saturday, May 25, the Solesky and Mason families are teaming up for a Bowl-A-Thon event to raise awareness of Maryland's one bite rule during National Dog Bite Prevention week. Both teenagers, Dominic Solesky and Scotty Mason, also badly injured during the same attack, "have fully recovered from their injuries and are ready to bowl to raise awareness about dog bite statistics and the laws addressing dog bite injuries," states the event's news release.

See: Press release in full

Fact sheets will be handed out at the event to inform attendees about the Three Levels of Dog Bite Injury and Maryland's one bite rule. Due to the high court ruling declaring pit bulls "inherently dangerous," owners of pit bulls in Maryland are now held liable for the first bite. Victims of all other breeds are still held to the one bite rule, where victims must prove the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensity to receive compensation for their injuries.

All funds raised at the Bowl-A-Thon event will be donated to the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center and DogsBite.org.

DogsBite.org encourages readers to download the Three Levels of Dog Bite Injury fact sheet. As stated in the fact sheet, a better understanding of them will help readers navigate the public debate about dog bite injuries and dangerous dog breeds. The fact sheet distinguishes three types of injuries, a dog "bite," a "severe" dog bite and a dog "mauling." The latter two categories, requiring hospitalization, saw an 86% rise from 1993 to 2008, the latest data available.2

The fact sheet also emphasizes that certain dog breeds more commonly inflict second level injuries, "severe" dog bite injury and that only a few dog breeds inflict "mauling" injuries, which represents a "sustained, unrelenting attack during which the animal refuses to stop in a clear attempt to maim or kill it's victim," states the fact sheet. The document also states that "multiple peer-reviewed studies point to only a few dog breeds that inflict attacks of this nature."

The Bowl-A-Thon event created by the Solesky and Mason families to raise awareness about Maryland's one bite rule and the Three Levels of Dog Bite Injury is certainly the first of its kind in the country. Furthermore, the actual victims themselves, Dominic Solesky and Scotty Mason, 6-years after the devastating April 2007 attack, are the bowlers! DogsBite.org hopes that many more events like this one arise in the future during National Dog Bite Prevention Week.

DogsBite.org Neighborhood Safety Brochure

Finally, in April 2012, DogsBite.org announced a neighborhood safety campaign with a new brochure in preparation for National Dog Bite Prevention Week. The safety brochure, How to Keep Your Family Safe from Dangerous Dogs, contains five panels of important information, including images of dangerous dog breeds and the back reserved for U.S. postal mailing. The brochure was designed for parents, homeowners, community activists, and health and safety professionals.

In addition to the brochure, DogsBite.org developed three one-sheet safety flyers featuring the worst offending "mauling" dog breeds, pit bulls and rottweilers. The safety flyers present three powerful distinct messages along with photographs of each dog breed. The safety flyers are "print quality" and free for download and distribution. Since the release of the flyers in April 2012, the top downloaded flyer continues to be, "Is it Worth the Risk? Children and pit bulls do not mix."


Is it Worth the Risk? Children and Pit Bulls Do Not Mix	The Presence of Pit Bulls is as Dangerous as Firearms	Warning: Pit Bulls and Rottweilers

1In the many instances of spoken testimony given by the Solesky's, Irene only refers to her son's injuries as resembling a "shark attack." On February 5, she unintentionally said "dog attack." The founder of DogsBite.org was present on this day and also provided oral testimony to the Maryland Senate Judiciary Proceedings Committee. We've altered one word of the transcribed text to reflect what she intended to say.
2Emergency Department Visits and Inpatient Stays Involving Dog Bites, 2008, by Laurel Holmquist, M.A. and Anne Elixhauser, Ph.D., Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD., November 2010.

Posted on May 21, 2013 by Colleen Lynn

2013 Dog Bite Fatality: Paralyzed Man Pulled from Wheelchair Dies After Dog Attack in Dorchester County

Carlton Freeman, 80-years old, was killed by four dogs in Harleyville.

No Criminal Charges
UPDATE 05/21/13: The Dorchester County Sheriff's announced today that no charges would be filed in the death of Carlton Freeman, a double amputee who died after being mauled by four dogs described as pit bulls. The decision comes after an investigation was carried out by multiple county agencies. Though the dogs were initially thought to belong to a neighbor, authorities later determined the animals did not belong to any one person; the dogs were allegedly feral.

05/14/13: Pit Bulls Identified as Culprits
ABC News 4 reports (within the video only) that family members of Carlton Freeman saw the four dogs pull him from his wheelchair and attempted to drag him into the woods. Family members identified the four dogs as pit bulls. They also said that the terrible attack upon Freeman was especially hard because the owner of the dogs is also family.1 The victim's wife of 35-years, Rita, told reporters, "All he wanted was that they catch those dogs before they hurt somebody else."

Freeman also told authorities before he died that he did not want to press any charges.

05/14/13: Man Dies After Dog Mauling
Harleyville, SC - The Dorchester County Coroner's Office released information today about a dog attack that ended the life of a paralyzed man. According to Coroner Chris Nesbit, Carlton Freeman, 80-years old, was minding his own business while going down the side of the road in his motorized wheelchair when he was attacked by four dogs (breed identification was not provided). The incident happened on May 8 at Spring Branch and Dunnings Road in Harleyville.

Nesbit said the victim was a double amputee at the knees who was "pulled from his wheelchair by his legs as he tried to fight off the dogs." Medical responders transported Freeman to Trident Hospital where he died on Sunday, May 12. In Nesbit's press release, he stated, "He had bites and lacerations from his legs to the top of his head. This is a very sad story, but even worse that Mr. Freeman was basically helpless to the attack, due to being a bi-lateral amputee."

A criminal investigation by the Dorchester County Sheriff's Office is underway. Authorities were able to locate three of the dogs and are still attempting to locate the fourth. According to a report from the sheriff's office, neighbors said the dogs have been "roaming around the neighborhood for months" and told deputies who they suspected the dogs' owner was. Deputies contacted Barbara Goodwin, 61-years old, who said she owns three of the dogs -- a mother and two puppies.