Posted on August 23, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

Communities Are Safer; Euthanasia of Pit Bulls Drops

Dominic Solesky meets his heroes 5-months after surviving a near fatal pit bull attack.

Whidbey Island, WA - Last week, DogsBite.org received another potent response from Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People. If readers recall, last July Clifton responded in detail to fact cooker Mark Robison of the Reno Gazette-Journal after Robison criticized the breed-specific dog attack log complied by Clifton since 1982. Clifton's most recent response is part of a correspondence
with Meagan Dziura, a second year student at George Mason University School of Law.

I am researching and writing a journal article for one of our law journals (the Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy) and am focusing on the rise in Breed Specific Laws and their negative effect on the community. - Meagan Dziura

Merritt Clifton - August 16, 2012 (Links added by DogsBite.org)

Meagan Dziura,

ANIMAL PEOPLE very strongly favors breed-specific legislation following the San Francisco model, which requires that all pit bulls be sterilized.

I'm a step beyond the ANIMAL PEOPLE editorial board position. I very strongly favor the Ontario model, which grandfathered pit bulls in the province at the time their breed-specific law was passed, but does not allow the breeding or import of pit bulls, including their lookalike mixes and close relatives.

My major disagreement with the Ontario model is that it does not cover Rottweilers, who are also about 11 times more likely to kill or disfigure humans & other animals as the average dog, but are much less over-represented in animal shelter intakes and killing.

I don't see any negative effects on communities from breed-specific legislation.

What I see are much safer, healthier communities, where people can jog,
bicycle, play in front yards, and walk their dogs without fear of a pit bull leaping over a fence or out a window or through a screen door or popping up at large out of nowhere, killing or maiming their victims without, in most cases, any previous bite history and any prior warning.

What I see are communities where dogs are again welcome everywhere, as they were during my childhood and youth, before the proliferation of dangerous dogs led to bans on all dogs in many public places, even though more than 80% of the incidents resulting in the prohibitions resulted from the behavior of just one breed type, the large molossers (including pit bulls, Rottweilers, and mastiffs.)

What I see are communities where drug dealers & other criminal elements either prefer not to live, since they cannot keep dangerous dogs to guard their wares, or at least are much less dangerous to their neighbors and law enforcement.

What I see are communities where firefighters -- and I am a former firefighter -- can enter a burning building safely to do a room-to-room search, without risk of opening a door to release a dog who may be more dangerous than the fire itself.

What I see are emergency room physicians who no longer have nightmares about the degloving injuries, especially to the heads of small children, that are typical of pit bull, Rottweiler, and mastiff attacks.

What I see are lawyers screaming their heads off because they are no longer making huge sums representing the owners of dangerous dogs on the one hand and the victims of dog attacks on the other.

And of course I see animal rights activists screaming, without noticing that communities with breed-specific legislation are killing not only a fraction as many pit bulls as those without, but a fraction as many dogs. I don't see any rational reason why anyone who loves dogs would oppose legislation which, if in effect nationally, would prevent the births and premature deaths of more than 900,000 pit bulls per year.

Reality is that opposition to breed-specific legislation favors just three interest groups: dogfighters, people who want to keep dogs as weapons, and breeders of pit bulls, Rottweilers, and other large molosser dogs.

Contrary to common claim, there is no verifiable history of pit bulls in particular having ever been "nanny dogs" or popular household pets. There is, however, quite a long history of pit bull advocates lying quite demonstrably about the realities of pit bulls, dog attacks, and the pit bull record over the past couple of centuries.

And there is also quite a long history of well-meaning young people being taken in by the big lies amplified by the fronts for the pro-pit bull interest groups.

See next several e-mails & the attachment for documentation.

Merritt Clifton
Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

Readers may have favorite parts of Clifton's response, but his response could not be more concise in nailing not only the primary public health and safety concerns these types of dogs pose, but also the enormous shelter killing rate of pit bulls and their mixes. Despite immense efforts
undertaken by humane groups to "adopt their way out" of the unwanted population of pit bulls clogging open admission shelters, pit bull euthanizations still hover above 930,000 annually.1

Bottom-line: 1.) Opposition to breed-specific legislation favors just three interest groups: dogfighters, people who want to keep dogs as weapons, and breeders of pit bulls, rottweilers, and other large molosser dogs, 2.) There is quite a long history of pit bull advocates lying quite demonstrably about the realities of pit bulls, 3.) There is quite a long history of well-meaning young people being taken in by the big lies amplified by the fronts for the pro-pit bull interest groups.

Some of these young people pay with their lives.

12011 U.S. Shelter Data Update, Animal People, July/August 2011, Pg.14

Posted on August 21, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

Maryland Court of Appeals Narrows Decision to Pit Bulls; Removes Cross-Bred Pit Bulls

On April 8, 2014 the governor signed a bill abrogating this Court of Appeals decision.

Motion for Reconsideration
Annapolis, MD - In a rare decision by the high court to grant a motion for reconsideration, the Maryland Court of Appeals narrowed its April, 26 2012 ruling in Tracey v. Solesky by limiting its ruling only to pit bulls and removing the terms: cross-breds, pit bull mix, or cross-bred pit bull mix. The Court narrowed its original Opinion because the case before them, Tracey v. Solesky, had no references to cross-bred pit bulls. The dog in question in Tracey was a "pit bull terrier."

The Court's holding that "pit bulls are inherently dangerous" still stands, as does strict liability for their owners and landlords when a tenant's pit bull attacks.

The Court wrote (highlight by DogsBite.org):

On May 25, 2012, the petitioner, Dorothy Tracey filed a motion for reconsideration, complaining that the imposition of a “new duty” on landlords was fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional as applied to her. An answer to the motion was filed by the respondents. As to the Court’s holding with respect to pit bulls, I would deny the motion.
For the reasons stated in Judge Cathell’s Opinion, I do not believe that a "new duty" was created or that there is anything unconstitutional or unfair about holding Ms. Tracey liable for the gruesome damage done to Dominic Solesky by a pit bull that she knowingly, and with obvious reservations, allowed her tenant to keep on her property.
The Opinion is not as dramatic and pervasive as the motion claims. It does not prohibit the ownership or breeding of pit bulls; it does not require that persons who own such dogs get rid of them. By imposing long-standing principles of common law strict liability for what is now clearly foreseeable damage done by those dogs, it simply requires that those who possess them or permit them to be on their property take reasonable steps to assure that they do not run loose or otherwise are in a position to injure other people.
That said, having re-read the briefs, relevant portions of the record extract, and the dissent, I am now convinced that, on the record before us, the application of the Court’s holding of strict liability to cross-bred pit bulls was both gratuitous and erroneous. I would grant the motion for reconsideration, in part, to delete any reference to cross-bred pit bulls (i.e., part pit bull and part some other breed of domestic dog), so that the Court’s holding would apply only to pit bulls that are not cross-breds. There are two reasons for my change in position. First, there was never any assertion, suggestion, or finding in this case that the dog was a cross-bred -- was anything other than a pit bull. Second, it is not at all clear what "cross-bred" really means -- whether it is limited to the offspring of two pure-bred dogs of different breed, so that the offspring is, in effect, half of one and half of the other, or includes succeeding generations bred from cross-bred parents. The complaint filed in the Circuit Court alleged that the dog that mauled young Dominic was a "pit bull terrier."

Furthermore, the cases cited in the April ruling also involved "pit bulls." The Court wrote: "There is no suggestion in any of them (except a brief reference in Wade v. Hartley) that the dog in question was or might have been a crossbred." Because the cross-bred issue was not raised in Tracey v. Solesky, there was no discussion about what the term embodied. Thus, the extension of strict liability to cross-bred pit bulls, "should await a case in which that issue is fairly raised."

The Court's Opinion was written by Judge Alan Wilner. Joining in the majority Opinion were Judges Harrell, Greene, Adkins and Barbera -- though Judges Harrell, Green and Barbera maintain their dissent to the extension of strict liability to the owners of pit bulls and to the owners of property who permit tenants to keep pit bulls on their property. Chief Judge Bell and Judge Cathell (who wrote the original Opinion) both would have denied the motion to reconsider.

Discussion

More discussion about the Opinion is forthcoming, particularly concerning the Court's sharp language of the landlord. The Court found nothing unconstitutional or unfair about, "holding Ms. Tracey liable for the gruesome damage done to Dominic Solesky by a pit bull that she knowingly, and with obvious reservations, allowed her tenant to keep on her property" and footnote 2, which relates to wolf-hybrids and Maryland Code, § 10-621(b) of the Criminal Law Article.

Posted on August 18, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: 23-Year Old 'Dog Rescuer' Mauled to Death by Own Dogs

Rebecca Carey, 23-years old and a dog rescuer, was killed by one or more dogs.

Adoption Information
UPDATE 08/17/12: A hot tipper sent in a cached web page of two of Rebecca Carey's dogs, a pit bull named Napoleon and a presa canario named Louis. Both dogs were adopted over five years ago from the Gwinnett Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center. This is how Napoleon looks now at the age of 6. We continue to search for answers as to why Jackie (Jacqulynn) Cira, who works at The Village Vets as a receptionist, was having Carey dog-sit her presa canario, named Danai.

Carey would have been 5-years younger at the time she acquired Napoleon and Louis1 -- an age and dog breed combination that ought to rattle the nerves of any sensible animal adoption agency, despite the dogs becoming "inseparable." Thus far, we have little information about the two other dogs Carey eventually acquired, other than that one was 15 pounds. The earlier AJC.com article noted that Carey had been dog-sitting Danai for only a week prior to the fatal dog mauling.

08/17/12: Killed Last Weekend
New information about the death of Rebecca Carey reveals that one of the two presa canarios was owned by Carey's friend, Jackie Cira.2 For unknown reasons, Carey was dog-sitting Cira's presa canario, named Danai. Cira discovered her friend's bloody body Sunday afternoon after she failed to show up for work at Alpharetta's Loving Hands Animal Clinic. Police initially thought they were dealing with a homicide, but it soon became clear that the fatal attackers were dogs.

08/17/12: Young Woman Killed
DeKalb County, GA - In a developing story, a young woman who rescues dangerous dog breeds to spare them death, was found horrifically killed by one or more of the five dogs in her Decatur home. At the time of her death, Rebecca Carey was caring for two presa canarios (See: Diane Whipple), two pit bulls and a boxer-mix. DeKalb animal control took custody of all five dogs and subsequently put them down. Animal control’s interim director Tim Medlin told WSBTV.com:3

"We didn’t know which dog did which. I can’t be wrong. Not just myself, no one can be wrong in putting out a dog that possibly had to do with these type of injuries. I will not put another person at that kind of risk."

Carey's family issued the following statement after her death was publicized:

"Rebecca Carey of Decatur was 23 years old and an avid animal lover. Since the second grade when she read the book Throw Away Pets she vowed to be a voice for all animals. She attended Georgia Perimeter College and worked at a veterinary clinic. Upon placing her first abandoned animal in a permanent loving home in 2003, she volunteered countless hours with rescue networks and animal shelters. There she did what she loved the most: rescuing animals from untenable situations to find them safe, loving homes."

In a separate article, Medlin said Carey’s death was the county’s "first fatal dog bite." According to the Fatal Pit Bull Attacks website, this statement is untrue. As recently as 2007, 2-year old Robynn Banks was killed by a pit bull and mastiff-mix. Other DeKalb County victims killed by pit bulls include Chett Heyder, 2-years old (1988) and Billy Gordon Jr., 4-years old (1986), the latter being an historic fatal pit bull attack involving the landmark criminal trial of Hayward Turnipseed.

View the DogsBite.org Google Map: Georgia Fatal Pit Bull Maulings.

1Cira told media sources that Carey adopted Napoleon when the animal was 6-weeks old.
2Cira goes on to say that Carey would have been devastated to learn that all of the dogs had been put down, particularly her pet pit bull of 6-years, Napoleon. Cira also claimed her own presa canario -- that Cira temporarily pawned off onto Carey -- was the "love of my life."
3Notably in May, DeKalb County lifted a zoning code that made it difficult for animal shelters to adopt out pit bulls. The so-called "DeKalb County pit bull ban" was so confusing that it was never even documented by DogsBite.org.

Photo: WSBTV.com

Posted on August 17, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Chicago Man Killed by Pit Bull(s) in His Home

Conflicting Stories
UPDATE 08/17/12: Relatives of Charles Hagerman told news sources that the dogs belonged to his girlfriend's son. The victim's mother, Salithia Maybell, said, "I can't see my baby. My baby's ate up. I can't see him. Okay, I've got to have a closed casket." She added that the pit bulls, "were vicious dogs," had previously killed a dog and that, "they've attacked before." Relatives also said that Hagerman was afraid of the two pit bulls, that were usually kept caged.

In contrast to the victim's relatives, the Pit Bull Attacks and Dogfighting in Illinois blog reports that there was no indication the dogs were dangerous (though the oldest one, Scrappy, was territorial), a neighbor reported seeing the dogs walked "regularly" and Daryl Williams, the owner of the pit bulls, and son of Hagerman's wife, said the pit bulls slept in Hagerman's bedroom. In a Sun Times article, updated today, Williams added, "We always leave him at home with the dogs."

08/16/12: Death Due to Dog Mauling
MailOnline reports that Charles Hagerman suffered multiple injuries consistent with a dog attack. Cook County Medical Examiner's office told the news group today his death was ruled accidental following an autopsy. The victim had bite wounds to his neck and his body was covered in lacerations. Police are still trying to determine if one or both of his pet pit bulls were involved. Chicago police offered MailOnline no further details about the man's death.1

08/16/12: Autopsy Conducted Thursday
Chicago, IL - Late last night, news outlets reported that a 44-year old man was killed by at least one of his two pet pit bulls in his South Side home. A woman discovered her husband, Charles Hagerman, on the floor with their pit bulls nearby. One of the dogs was still on top of him biting his neck when his wife arrived home. Cook County Medical Examiner's office said Hagerman was dead at the scene. An autopsy to discover the cause of his death is slated for today.

In 2011, there were 8 total instances in which a family dog inflicted fatal injury to its primary caretaker, the dog's owner, 88% (7) involved pet pit bulls.

View the DogsBite.org Google Map: Illinois Fatal Pit Bull Maulings.

1CBS Chicago confirmed this at 5:30 pm CST Thursday.

DogsBite blog ::

Animal People Editor Summarizes Need for Breed-Specific Legislation in 600 Words

Communities Are Safer; Euthanasia of Pit Bulls Drops

Maryland Court of Appeals Narrows Decision to Pit Bulls; Removes Cross-Bred Pit Bulls

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: 23-Year Old 'Dog Rescuer' Mauled to Death by Own Dogs

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: Chicago Man Killed by Pit Bull(s) in His Home