Posted on December 12, 2008 by Colleen Lynn

Who Authored the CDC Fatal Dog Attack Report (1979 to 1998)?

Fatalities by Breed (1979 to 1989)
DogsBite.org - Pit bull advocates claim that the 2000 CDC report, which recorded fatalities from 1997-1998 to encompass attacks since 1979, is inaccurate because it was based on media accounts. Yet the report was only "in part" reliant on media accounts and otherwise reliant on the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) registry of fatal attacks. Five people authored this report: Jeffrey Sacks, Leslie Sinclair, Julie Gilchrist, Gail Golab and Randall Lockwood.

All five authors openly oppose breed-specific laws. The CDC report reflects this bias as well: "From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites." This viewpoint is drawn despite the fact that pit bull laws are designed to stop serious and fatal pit bull maulings, not to prevent all dog bites. This statement is intended to dissuade cities from adopting breed-specific laws.

The panel of authors was also stacked in favor of protecting animals. There were three animal specialists (Sinclair, Golab and Lockwood) and only two human medical doctors (Sacks and Gilchrist). Given the panel's make up, it seems more likely that pit bull fatalities were underreported, not over reported as pit bull advocates claim. Despite the lopsided panel, pit bulls and their mixes accounted for a third of the total deaths (76) followed by rottweilers with 44.

Jeffrey Sacks, MD, MPH

In 1996, upon releasing, Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994 (co-authored with Lockwood), Sacks makes his position on breed-specific laws clear. The report states, "Breed-specific approaches to the control of dog bites do not address the issue." Following the release of the 2000 CDC report, Sacks uses the same distortion voiced by pro-pit bull groups, "A dog of any breed can become dangerous," in an article published by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).

"A dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive," Dr. Jeffrey Sacks, epidemiologist for the CDC, said. "Fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of dog bite injuries and shouldn't be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dangerous dogs." - Jeffrey Sacks, JAVMA, November 15, 2000

Leslie Sinclair, DVM

In 1997, after an article titled, "Playing with pets can be doggone dangerous," appeared in the AAP News (American Academy of Pediatrics),1 Sinclair felt "compelled" to share her veterinary advice with the pediatrics community. In her argument of the old English sheepdog, Sinclair fails to point out that only one fatal sheepdog attack had been recorded in the HSUS registry of fatal attacks prior to 1997, versus 76 recorded fatal pit bull attacks in just a 20-year time span.

"The article was incorrect in asserting that there are "nonaggressive breeds" such as the old English sheepdog. According to the HSUS Dog Bite-Related Fatality Database, even this lovable breed of dog has been implicated in the death of a 7-year-old child." - Leslie Sinclair, AAP News, August 1997

In 1999, one year before the release of the CDC report, Sinclair is quoted in the article, "The Canine Companion, Breed Bans: Is There Another Way?" Sinclair states: "Pigeonholing a certain breed as dangerous and then banning it doesn't get rid of the problem." She adds the classic, "The Doberman pinscher was the "scary"2 dog of the 1970s, the Pit Bull in the 1980s..." Once again, Sinclair neglects to cite the differences in the number of deaths attributed to each breed.

Julie Gilchrist, MD

In the aforementioned 2000 AVMA article, "Responsible ownership the alternative to breed banning, other restrictions," Gilchrist states: "Dog bite reduction strategies are more likely to be effective if they focus on reducing inappropriate dog and dog owner behaviors, regardless of the dog's breed, instead of on banning specific breeds." The article is a propaganda piece by the AVMA, who strongly opposes pit bull laws, and also had a seat on the CDC author panel (Golab).

Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM

Gail Golab, co-author of the study and assistant director of the AVMA Education and Research Division, was also quoted in the 2000 AVMA article. In her quote, Golab attempts to equate all dogs as being equally dangerous: "Breeds responsible for human fatalities have varied over time. Since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds -- including Dachshunds, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, and a Yorkshire Terrier -- have been responsible for fatal attacks on people."

More recently, in 2008, Golab offers the Biased Toldeo Blade3 the same "knee-jerk reaction" phrase that is commonly used by pro-pit bull and animal groups. As a seasoned veterinarian and PhD, Golab also voices a striking distortion of the truth regarding how dog bites are recorded for statistical purposes. Dog bites are recorded by animal control officials, these same officials determine the breed of the offending dog, not the media, not the person bitten and not lawyers.

"Dr. Gail Golab, director of animal welfare for the American Veterinarian Medical Association, called Mr. Rodriguez irresponsible for not confining his dog properly. But she said breed-specific laws are a "knee-jerk" reaction by lawmakers who don't address the real issue" ...
"Dr. Golab said dog-bite statistics that suggest pit bulls bite most often are not necessarily accurate. They are hard to properly formulate, she said, because it's hard for some people to identify what breed bit them and the only bites that typically get recorded are ones reported in the media, to lawyers, or police." - Gail Golab, The Toledo Blade, July 13, 2008

Randall Lockwood, PhD

Finally, on the day the CDC's embargoed report was released, Lockwood calls the fatal dog attack problem a "people problem." Ironically, Lockwood's extensive past research about pit bulls was used to uphold the Denver pit bull ban. His research addresses the following genetic traits in pit bulls: Non-display of rising level of aggression and “surprise attacks”, higher tolerance to pain, tenacity in attacks, and leakage of human-aggressive pit bulls into the general population.4

"It's not a Rottweiler problem or a pit bull problem," said Randall Lockwood, the Humane Society's vice president for research and educational outreach. "It's a people problem." - Randall Lockwood, ABC News, September 15, 2000

To learn more about the authors of the CDC report, please see: Viewpoint: The CDC Fatal Dog Attack Report Issued in 2000 Was Positively Biased.

1Leslie Sinclair, "Doggone good advice," The AAP News 1997;13;27. A copy of this article can be found on page 6 of the above Viewpoint document.
2According to data gathered by Karen Delise, from 1970 to 1979 a Doberman was responsible for one death. During this same period, pit bulls were responsible for at least 5 deaths. Pro-pit bull advocates, such as Sinclair, frequently distort the truth about the 1970's, calling it the "scary" Doberman decade, when in fact pit bulls outranked the Doberman in deaths during the period. The CDC report, which covers the 2-decade period from 1979 to 1998, shows that pit bulls killed 78 persons versus the Doberman killing 10. The distortion that "killer breeds change every decade" is designed to hide the truth about pit bulls, which have been the top killers for over thirty years.
3In November 2009, the "Biased" Toledo Blade effectively forced the removal of Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon, the leading expert and enforcer of breed-specific laws in the United States.
4The Ethology and Epidemiology of Canine Aggression, by Randall Lockwood, The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People, edited by James Serpell, Cambridge University Press, 1995.; republished in Animal Law and Dog Behavior, Ed. David Favre and Peter L. Borchelt, PhD, 1999

Posted on December 8, 2008 by Colleen Lynn

Expert, James Crosby, Testifies in Aurora Fighting Breed Ban

United States District Court for the District of Colorado on 19th Street in Denver.

Expert Blames Owners for Attacks
Aurora, CO - In a recent blog post, we wrote about the Aurora Fighting Breed ban. Last month, Chief U.S. District Judge Wiley Y. Daniel, ruled in favor of the City of Aurora. A pit bull owner named Florence Sasek, along with the American Canine Foundation (ACF), sued the city saying the city's fighting breed ban was "unconstitutional" and "vague." James Crosby was called on to testify as an expert witness for the plaintiffs. Crosby is listed as an expert on the ACF website. Judge Daniels rejected the plaintiff's claim and presumably Crosby's "expert" testimony.

The plaintiffs brought in an expert witness from Florida who testified that the breed is no more aggressive than any other dog.

James Crosby, the animal control manager in Panama City, Fla., told District Judge Wiley Daniel that dog attacks happen because of the owner, not the breed.

Outside the court, he said politicians go after the dog instead of real solutions.

"It's knee jerk," he said. "Something happens and politicians feel like they have to do something. The easiest thing is to legislate against the breed." - The Denver Channel, November 19, 2008

Back in July, DogsBite.org wrote a blog post about this expert witness. James Crosby is a pit bull owner and is aligned with various pit bull special interest groups, including the ACF, National Canine Research Council and Best Friends Animal Society. According to the DenverChannel, Crosby testified in Daniel's court that dog attacks happen because of the owner, not the breed. Sometime after July and prior to his recent expert testimony, content was removed from Crosby's website that indicated an awareness that pit bulls display unique behaviors when they attack.

Investigating Serious and Fatal Dog Attacks:
A Suggested Protocol, by James W. Crosby

The current protocol document located on Crosby's website (click left navigation: Investigative Protocol), previously had a section titled "Breed-Specific Legislation," which addressed behavioral differences that pit bulls display when they attack. DogsBite.org has included portions of this section below. The original protocol document is still in Google cache and can be accessed at our Scribd page as well. We have underlined areas for emphasis, but otherwise copied his original text exactly (including his typos):

"Enter now the Pit Bull, and other breeds speciﬁcally selected by Man to ﬁght each other. These animals have several concerning behavioral difference from most other canines. When they ﬁght, human intervention has selected for animals that do not turn off, and do not stop ﬁghting until one, or both, are dead. There is no surrender for these animals. A fully submissive body posture is no more than another opportunity for them to disembowel their adversary.

As a corollary to this, these dogs seem to have a shorter negotiation sequence. Many times we hear of a Pit Bull or similar dog that “…just went off…” The expected precursors to a full ﬁght seem to be lacking, much like the quick interactions we see with some teens and young adults these days; one insults another, and the ﬁrst response is to “…pop a cap…” into the offender. Even popular Pit Bull sites on the Internet admit that ﬁghts between Pit Bulls can occur with little or no warning."

"...These dogs already have a propensity for tenacity and continued aggression based on years of selective breeding. One than takes and, through fear, mistreatment, or misguided training, positively reinforces the display of aggressive behavior towards humans without the establishment of a clear set of controls. This animal has now learned to manipulate its environment, to its own benefit and sometimes safety, by directing aggressions towards people, with a genetically selected lack of an off button. A bad situation has now become tragically dangerous."

Part of Aurora's justification for its ban likely relied on evidence that pit bulls show little warning prior to an attack (Lockwood Pg 133). Many cities agree that the "sudden" nature of a pit bull attack presents a grave threat. Crosby's past writings reflected the same "little or no warning" behavior. He also stated that pit bulls "do not turn off." Selective breeding for tenacity -- the ability to keep attacking even after serious pain is inflicted upon it -- is another reason why cities regulate pit bulls. Crosby's writings addressed this aspect as well.

The argument to regulate pit bulls is not about why they attack (bad ownership or otherwise), it's about how a pit bull attack differs from an attack by other dog breeds, and the substantial threat this poses to members of the community.

James Crosby (also known as Jim Crosby) is the animal control manager in Bay County, Florida.

Posted on November 27, 2008 by Colleen Lynn

2008 Dog Bite Fatality: 2-Year Old Boy Killed by Family Pit Bull in Clark County, Nevada

Alexander Adams, 2-years old, was killed by his family's pit bull-mix.

Case Concludes
UPDATE 12/03/08: Police spokesman Bill Cassell could offer no theory as to why the family pit bull killed Alexander Adams. The boy's grandmother was walking with the dog's food bowl into a room where the dog was normally fed. The toddler followed and was attacked, he said. "While it's possible that the presence of food, combined with the young victim in the area where the dog was normally fed, triggered the attack, there is nothing definitive that can be determined," Cassell said.

11/28/08: Dogs Described as Pit Bulls
In an updated report, the Review-Journal reiterated again that police spokesman Bill Cassell described the dogs as part pit bull and that possibly both were involved in the deadly attack. The dogs "were at least pit bull mixes," he told the Journal. It is important to point out that pit bull owners and animal control departments will intentionally mislabel pit bulls as boxer-mixes, lab-mixes and other mixes in order to "protect" the breed after serious and fatal maulings.

A police spokesman, Officer Bill Cassell, says investigators might never know what triggered the Nov. 26 attack at a house in northwest Las Vegas.

But he says it happened after the boy followed his grandmother into a room where the pit bull or pit bull mixed breed dog was being fed.

The boy was fatally mauled and the grandmother suffered minor injuries. - Associated Press, December 3, 2008

11/27/08: Second Death in Clark County
Las Vegas, NV - In a developing story, a 2-year-old boy was fatally attacked by at least one dog at his home on the 6200 block of Warm River Road near Washington Avenue. Las Vegas police spokesman Bill Cassell said the boy and his younger brother were being taken care of by their grandmother when the child was fatally bitten. Cassell described the dogs as "mix-breed terriers" and that the dogs also might be a "type of pit bull pit bull" weighing between 40-45 pounds.

On September 12, 4-month-old Cenedi Kia Carey was fatally mauled by her family's two pit bulls in North Las Vegas. In that deadly attack, the child was also under the care of her grandmother.

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

Posted on November 20, 2008 by Colleen Lynn

Aurora, Colorado Fighting Breed Ban Prevails in Federal Court

United States District Court for the District of Colorado on 19th Street in Denver.

Fighting Breed Ban Upheld
UPDATE 11/20/08: Chief U.S. District Judge Wiley Y. Daniel has ruled in favor of the City of Aurora. Once again, the American Canine Foundation loses, making their "track record" undeniably horrific. The United States Supreme Court has also spoken on breed-specific law. The court rejected all grounds that a dog lobbying group brought forth: Procedural due process, Substantive due process, Equal protection of the laws and Void for vagueness.

Lobbying groups like the American Canine Foundation can intimidate cities with lawsuits. But in virtually all cases, their lawsuits are weak.

11/17/08: Doesn't Like the Muzzle
Aurora, CO - To avoid placing a "muzzle" on her pit bull-mix, Florence Vianzon Sasek is going to U.S. District Court to challenge Aurora's Fighting Breed ban. Aurora currently bans: Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, Canary Dog, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Presa Mall orquin and Tosa. Dogs that existed prior to the ban, such as Sasek's, must adhere to special restrictions.

Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel will hear the case. The case was filed on Sasek's behalf by the American Canine Foundation, a Washington state-based pit bull special interest group. Though Colorado State courts and U.S. District Courts have consistently ruled in favor of breed-specific law, Sasek's lawsuit says that Aurora's ban on the breeds is "unconstitutional," that the ordinance is "vague" and that the law was passed unnecessarily.

Aurora's ordinance already has been challenged in state court and was upheld. In January, a U.S. District Court in Colorado rejected a similar case brought against the Denver pit bull ban. The Denver case is currently pending before the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Courts in eleven states have upheld well-written breed-specific laws including: Ohio, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Kentucky.

Good luck Aurora City Attorney Charlie Richardson. It is our understanding that Judge Daniel rejected 3 of the 5 claims of this suit back in May. Today he will hear 2 claims, both of which may prove difficult: the issue of precedence and property seizure.

DogsBite blog ::