Posted on December 21, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

DOT Final Rule: No Longer Recognizes Emotional Support Animals, Prohibits Pit Bull Bans in Aircraft Cabin and More

The Department's final rule allows fighting breeds as service animals in the aircraft cabin.

Final Rule Issued
Washington DC - On December 2, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued its final rule on Traveling by Air with Service Animals. It is now absolute that the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) no longer recognizes emotional support animals (ESAs) as a service animal. Passengers claiming to have a disability and needing to fly with one or more ESAs in the aircraft cabin is finally an artifact of the past. The DOT's final rule also recognizes psychiatric service dogs as a service animal.

Passengers flying with a service animal must complete a combined behavior and health form developed by DOT, attesting to the dog's training, behavior, and health. This form also warns, "It is a Federal crime" to make fraudulent statements. DOT also allows airlines to require that service animals be harnessed or leashed at all times when onboard. However, the Department prohibits airlines, such as Delta, from banning pit bull breeds as service animals in the aircraft cabin.

Our ninth special report about traveling by air with service animals dives into the events that led up to the Department's final rule, including a violent facial attack by a lap-held "support dog" in 2017, along with the pros and cons of the final rule. We also discuss DOT's "open-ended," promise regarding future bans of fighting breeds in the cabin; DOT's false arguments about pit bull identification; and how DOT did not err on the side of safety regarding bans of fighting breeds.

Leading Up to the Final Rule

The need to mitigate the widely abused loophole in the ACAA pertaining to service animals and ESAs began with new urgency in 2017 after Marlin Jackson, then 44, was repeatedly attacked in the face by a large "support" dog seated on a man's lap on board Delta Flight 1430. At the time, Jackson was in a window seat. The dog attacked his face, while pinning him against the window. This occurred just after Jackson asked the owner multiple times, "Is your dog going to bite me?"

The 50-pound support dog that attacked Jackson was technically a psychiatric service animal, not an ESA, and it was clearly untrained.

Delta responded in January 2018 by tightening the reins on untrained "support" animals flying in the cabin. Delta began requiring passengers flying with an ESA or psychiatric service animal (PSA) to submit a signed Veterinary Health form verifying immunizations and a signed Animal Training form, attesting to the dog's behavior, to its support desk at least 48 hours before travel. Passengers with service animals were also required to show proof of basic immunizations.

As indicated above, ESAs and PSAs were formerly treated the same way by airlines. Both types required a signed letter from a licensed mental health professional stating the passenger has a mental health-related disability and that the passenger needed the animal for an activity at the passenger's destination. In 2018, to reduce fraudulent untrained "support" animals flying in the cabin, Delta began requiring a health and training form for these types of support animals too.

Just five months later, in June 2018, Delta banned pit bull-type dogs as service and support animals in the aircraft cabin. Delta also began limiting passengers with support animals (ESAs and PSAs) to one support animal per person. The new policy came after multiple employees were bitten by a passenger's ESA. Apparently, a passenger attempted to board a plane in Atlanta with not one, but two alleged emotional support pit bulls. Two Delta crew members were bitten.

"I can understand that many people have anxiety issues and that comfort animals can mitigate this. But not at the expense of the safety of others on board. Flying is stressful enough (and I have a basic fear of flying, though Martinis allow me to cope) without having to worry about your face being ripped off by someone's 'comfort pit bull.'" | full comment - Gaius Marius, who witnessed the attack

In our related special report, we pointed out in defense of Delta, that airlines are not subject to the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), which does not allow breed restrictions. We stated in June 2018: "Delta was correct in stating that 'untrained, pit bull-type dogs posing as both service and support animals are a potential safety risk.' Under the ACAA, the prohibition of pit bulls is apparently legal, as a safety standard, (§382.117) and Delta is free to 'err on the side of safety.'"

At that time, Delta also provided insight into their reasoning for the ban. A pit bull advocate left a comment on social media, sharing what Delta had told her after she complained about the ban: "Hello Lorraine, RE: Case 01211022 … We have worked with our Advisory Board on Disabilities to develop this more detailed policy. Pit bull type dogs tend to not behave as well in small spaces and we feel not allowing them is in the best interest of our customers and employees," Delta stated.

The issues of PSA fraud and pit bulls not behaving well in confined spaces play into DOT's final rule, so keep both aspects in mind.

In August 2019, the Department issued final guidance of its enforcement priorities. Parts of DOT's guidance, which is not legally binding, foreshadowed their final rule, stating, "the Department is not aware of and has not been presented with evidence supporting the assertion that an animal poses a direct threat simply because of its breed" and "The Enforcement Office continues to take the view that restrictions on specific dog breeds are inconsistent with the current regulation."

Airlines had 30 days to respond to the enforcement guidance. Delta responded by continuing its pit bull ban, stating: "Delta instituted its ban on pit bulls in 2018, to protect the airline’s employees, customers and trained service animals. Pit bulls account for less than 5 percent of the overall dog population but 37.5 percent of vicious dog attacks. Understanding this risk, Delta has not come to a solution for allowing pit bulls onboard that satisfies its own rigorous safety requirements."

On January 22, 2020, DOT issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asking for public comments on whether a crowded airplane cabin justifies airlines banning pit bulls. Our comments focused on the unpredictable aggression by pit bulls, the disproportionate response by pit bulls when they attack and that airlines cannot conduct an "individualized assessment" for each service animal prior to flight because behavior tests, even when conducted by experts, have low predictive value.

"Airline travel has a number of unpredictable elements, from sudden turbulence to abrupt loud noises to long delays. This unpredictability combined with the extremely confined space inside an aircraft cabin could exacerbate the well-identified dangerous characteristics in pit bulls, a breed that consistently displays these traits -- failure to communicate intention before an attack, disinhibited aggression and a disproportionate response to stimuli -- when in a safe, predictable environment." - DogsBite.org (DOT-OST-2018-0068-18935)

This brings us to the present discussion of the Department's final rule. Despite well-crafted and cited public comments by this nonprofit and many airlines, all supporting the right to restrict certain breeds as service animals in the cabin -- specifically fighting breeds -- the DOT eliminated breed bans. DOT did so by citing the "ancient" and debunked American Temperament Test, which is not based upon scientific random sampling of any dog breed, is breed-specific and is biased.1

The Pros of DOT Final Rule

Airlines no longer have to accommodate emotional support animals (ESAs) in the airline cabin. The final rule now defines a service animal in coordination with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The DOT defines service animals as a dog that is "individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability." Airlines can now recognize ESAs as pets.

Prior to the final rule, ESAs were subject to airport rules governed under the ADA and had to be crated while in an airport, but were allowed to be loose in the aircraft cabin. Certainly, the DOT aligning its definition of a service animal with the Department of Justice will "reduce confusion for individuals with disabilities, airline personnel, and airports." The ACAA never should have had a special carve-out for ESAs to begin with since their sole function is to "provide comfort."

DOT now also limits each passenger to two service animals instead of three. While that may seem like a modest improvement, it points to the absurdity of a person with a disability managing three separate dogs in the cabin and airlines having to accommodate them. The airlines had wanted to limit passengers to only one service animal. The Department also clarified that airlines can refuse to transport two service animals if they cannot safely fit in the passenger's lap or foot space.

Leashing and Large Dogs

In a departure from the ADA, the Department's final rule "allows airlines to require service animals to be harnessed, leashed, or tethered at all times, even in instances where the device interferes with the service animal’s work or the passenger’s disability prevents use of these devices." DOT was convinced by commenters who explained to them that, "non-physical means of control over the service animal, such as voice commands or signals, could implicate safety on an aircraft."

Regarding large service animals, such as mastiffs and Great pyrenees, DOT stated that, "Passengers, including passengers with disabilities traveling with large service animals, are not entitled to more space than they purchased." However, airlines must accommodate passengers with large service dogs by moving them to a different seat, transporting the animal in cargo or by providing an opportunity to take a later flight if there is space available on the later flight.

Combined Unified Form

Under the final rule, passengers with service animals are required to complete a combined animal behavior and health form provided by the DOT for each trip.2 The form contains the following warning: "It is a Federal crime to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements, entries, or representations knowingly and willfully on this form to secure disability accommodations provided under regulations of the United States Department of Transportation 18 U.S.C. § 1001."

A unified DOT form eliminates forms created by each airline. Owners must attest to the behavior and training of their dog, that their dog has "not behaved aggressively or caused serious injury to another person/dog," that their dog must be tethered at all times, that airlines may treat their dog like a pet if it exhibits poor behavior and that if the passenger "knowingly make false statements on this document," he or she can be subject to fines and other penalties." DOT also states:

"[The form] educates the user that the animal must be harnessed, leashed, or otherwise tethered; that the animal may be treated as a pet if it engages in disruptive behavior; and that the user may be responsible for any damage caused by the service animal. The Air Transportation Form also provides airlines with a means of contacting the service animal user and the animal’s veterinarian in the event of an incident that endangers other passengers or service animals." - DOT final rule, 12/02/2020

Enforcement of the Federal crime notification -- the part that matters the most -- begins by an airline notifying the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection (ACP) of the fraud. The Office plans to refer these reports to the Department’s Office of the Inspector General for investigation and prosecution. ACP "does not have the authority to assess fines or other penalties on passengers who make false statements based on the ACAA or a regulation prescribed under that Act."

Open-Ended Promise

Finally, though the final rule prohibits airlines from banning certain breeds, specifically fighting breeds, which are already regulated at a national-level in at least 42 countries, the DOT said it will "continue to monitor published studies or accounts of dog behavior by breed or type and reports of incidents involving service dogs," and if there is data indicating that certain breeds pose a heightened threat to the health and safety of people in close proximity, we will revisit the issue.

42 countries barring the entrance of pit bull-type dogs into their borders is not enough evidence for DOT. All three branches of the U.S. military banning pit bulls from privatized housing is not enough evidence for DOT. Over a dozen medical studies from Level 1 trauma centers since 2011 examining serious dog bite injuries, largely inflicted by pit bulls, is not enough evidence for DOT. Thus, there will never be enough evidence for DOT. "Revisiting" this issue is an empty promise.

The Cons of DOT Final Rule

By the Department harmonizing its definition of a service animal with the ADA, psychiatric service animals (PSAs) no longer require a letter from a licensed mental health professional. That is good news for a qualified person with a disability, but bad news for service dog fraud. Many Americans have witnessed a dog owner claiming to have a service dog for "PTSD." Recall that DOT allows two service dogs per person as well. Thus, a pair of fake PTSD service pit bulls is foreseeable.

"Most notably, psychiatric service animal users will no longer be required to provide a letter from a licensed mental health professional detailing the passenger’s need for the animal, nor will they be required to check in one hour before the check-in time for other passengers." - DOT final rule, 12/02/2020

Airlines had concerns about this too, stating in public comments, "the extensive fraud that airlines have experienced involving individuals who do not have a disability but falsely claim that their pet or other animal is a service animal will migrate to another service animal category (e.g., PSA or seizure-alert animal)." DOT promised to "monitor," by some mechanism, "whether unscrupulous individuals are attempting to pass off their pets as service animals for non-apparent disabilities."

The Breed Discussion

The "breed" discussion starts on page 34, where DOT suspends its commitment to treating traveling by air different than the DOJ's ADA regulations, which govern public ground facilities. DOT cites the "ancient," American Temperament Test, which lacks random sampling, as part of the reason why airlines should not be able to ban pit bulls. DOT also cites false information claiming that the American Pit Bull Terrier (e.g., UKC, ADBA) has no clear set of characteristics.

"The American Temperament Test Society found that more than 85 percent of pit bull-type dogs have tested with above average temperaments (85.6 percent of Golden Retrievers and 85 percent of German Shepherds tested the same) … Furthermore, commenters argued that if DOT ultimately requires that all service animals be trained, there would be no need to ban pit bulls for fear of their behavior." - DOT final rule, 12/02/2020

Delta did not ban pit bulls due to properly trained pit bull service or support dogs. They banned them due to service dog fraud. "We must err on the side of safety … We struggled with the decision to expand the ban to [pit bull] service animals, knowing that some customers have legitimate needs, but we have determined that untrained, pit bull-type dogs posing as both service and support animals are a potential safety risk," Delta said in a statement to People in June 2018.

As we reported in April, the majority of airlines submitted comments stating they should be given discretion to make breed restrictions, as "carriers have ultimate responsibility for the safety of passengers and employees;" there are valid breed-type behavioral risks and certain breeds are unsuitable for service work; an "individualized assessment" conducted on land cannot predict what occurs in the air; and many countries have breed-specific laws that airlines must comply with.

"The Department also received many comments in support of allowing airlines to ban specific breeds of service animals. Airlines and airline organizations expressed concerns that not allowing airlines to restrict service animals based on breed could result in an unsafe flying environment and argued that airlines should have the discretion to choose whether to transport dogs that are capable of inflicting serious harm. A4A argued that not allowing airlines to restrict transport of service animals based on breed or generalized type of dog would increase the risk of animal misbehavior, which could result in serious injury to other passengers, crew, and service animals. They argued that certain breeds of dog, which account for a small minority of the total dog population, are not suited to function as trained service animals. They also noted that certain breeds raise legitimate fears from other passengers and animals, including other service dogs and handlers. American Airlines asserted that airplanes are a unique environment -- “they are crowded spaces with no opportunity for egress -- which could be triggering, and triggering an animal with large and powerful jaws and neck muscles that can be ferocious if ‘provoked,’ is a direct threat to the health and safety of our crews, passengers, and other service animals.” American Airlines further argued that there is precedent for adopting a more stringent approach in the airline environment because air travel differs from other places of public accommodation. Some airlines argued that individualized assessments are not enough. For example, Spirit Airline and Air Canada argued that some animals are more prone to aggression and may not exhibit such behavior until they are onboard an aircraft. Thus, even with the ability to refuse transportation to dogs that exhibit aggressive behavior, it may, in some instances, be too late by the time an animal that eventually exhibits aggressive behavior has boarded an aircraft." - DOT final rule, 12/02/2020

DOT's Inconsistencies

Consider the inconsistency presented by DOT thus far: Airline staff cannot visually identify a pit bull (not even veterinarians can, cites DOT), but airline personnel, who lack animal behavior expertise, can make an "individualized assessment" of a service animal's behavior -- how the dog will behave while flying in a crowded cabin at 35,000 feet -- while the dog is at the boarding gate. If a mistaken assessment is made with a pit bull service dog, the ramifications could be disastrous.

"Furthermore, the Humane Society states that an American Journal of Sociological Research study found that animal professionals, veterinarians, and animal control officers were unable to identify correctly dog breeds visually when compared with DNA evidence [in a study funded by the Pit Bull Lobby3], and that dogs with blocky heads and thick necks were commonly misidentified as pit bulls because there is no clear definition or set of characteristics…" - DOT final rule, 12/02/2020

Next, DOT rattles off multiple countries with strict entry bans for fighting breeds, but does not question why. Nor does DOT acknowledge that "airline employees are not veterinarians" and that assessment tests have a low predictive value, even when conducted by "experts." Instead of a breed ban, DOT states that "airlines are permitted to make an individualized assessment" of a service animal's behavior to determine if it "poses a direct threat" to the health or safety of others.

DOT concludes the breed discussion with a mixed-message and an empty promise to "monitor" studies that will likely never be funded or produced. While there may be a peer-reviewed study that examines the "best" breeds for service dogs, there will not be one that focuses on high-risk fighting breeds. It seems unlikely there would ever be an unbiased study about any dog breeds that examines the "heightened threat to the health and safety of people in close proximity" either.

"The Department understands the concerns raised about pit bulls and certain other breeds or types of dogs that have a reputation of attacking people and inflicting severe and sometimes fatal injuries. The Department also understands that there may be concerns that certain dogs may be dangerous, particularly dogs that have been bred to fight, which may be linked to a heightened degree of reactivity and aggression. The Department will continue to monitor published studies or accounts of dog behavior by breed or type and reports of incidents involving service dogs, and if there are compelling studies or data indicating that there are particular dog types or breeds that are established to pose a heightened threat to the health and safety of people in close proximity, we will revisit this issue." - DOT final rule, 12/02/2020

Faulty Logic Prevails

DOT compromised on fighting breeds based on error in logic. DOT states, "air transportation is unique because it involves transporting a large number of individuals in a confined space thousands of feet in the air with no means of egress." Then states, "there may be concerns that certain dogs may be dangerous, particularly dogs that have been bred to fight, which may be linked to a heightened degree of reactivity and aggression." Then fails to tie the two together.

Factor in the fact that 42 countries worldwide already have strict entry bans for fighting breeds, which DOT had to address separately (by allowing airlines traveling to those countries to ban those breeds in the cabin), along with the fact all three U.S. military divisions ban pit bulls from privatized housing and one is looking at a fallacy of major proportions. Recall DOT agreed to allow airlines to require leashing based on comments alone, none of which cited studies in the area.

"The use of fallacies is common when the speaker's goal of achieving common agreement is more important to them than utilizing sound reasoning. When fallacies are used, the premise should be recognized as not well-grounded, the conclusion as unproven (but not necessarily false), and the argument as unsound." - Wikipedia, 12/21/20

DOT did not err on the side of safety when traveling by air. They erred on the side of a tiny population that seeks out pit bulls as service dogs (fake or valid) to advocate for the breed. There is no other reason to choose a pit bull as a service dog. Even Tia Torres of Pit Bulls and Parolees admits this. Torres will not adopt one of her pit bulls to an individual "if your plans are to make it a service dog." Torres does not want one of her dogs placed into a situation that it is unqualified for.

Learn why breed matters in service dogs and why pit bull service dogs are a bad idea. Primarily, pit bull "breed advocates," not advocates for the disabled, promote pit bulls as service dogs.

Summary

U.S. airlines no longer need to freely transport emotional support animals (ESAs) in the cabin. This is a major victory for airlines, passengers and public safety. However, ESA fraud may migrate to psychiatric service animals (PSAs). Passengers with PSAs are no longer required to have a letter from a licensed mental health professional either. DOT will monitor this situation, but the final rule did not explain how. Only that the ACP office is currently accepting input on this issue.

Airlines can now also require the harnessing or leashing of service animals at all times while onboard -- even if this interferes with the service animal’s work. Another "self-evident" public safety measure that previously was not required, along with DOT reducing the number of service dogs per passenger from three to two. Passengers with service animals must also submit a signed form attesting to their dog's good behavior and health that comes with a Federal crime warning.

DOT emphasized numerous times that carriers are permitted to require a service animal fit on their handler's lap or within its handler's foot space (as even larger dogs are trained to fit into small spaces). DOT provided no "weight" for a "lap-held" service animal, but FAA regulations mandate that lap-held service animals can be "no larger than a lap-held child," (Section 3-3576) which is limited to about 30-pounds. This means that no service pit bull can ever be on a passenger's lap.

Despite these new safety measures, which are highly welcomed, DOT reasoned they were enough to stop passengers from bringing pit bulls onboard posing as service dogs, especially, posing as psychiatric service dogs. We believe DOT is mistaken. Real service dogs and people will pay the price too. Again, DOT did not err on the side of safety. They erred on the side of a tiny population that seeks out pit bulls as service dogs (both fake and valid) to advocate for the breed.

Answer Our Poll Question

Ronald Kevin Mundy, Jr., then a 24-year old active Marine Corps member, was holding a 50-pound psychiatric service animal (PSA) on his lap before the dog repeatedly attacked Jackson in the face. Mundy could not stop his dog from attacking the first or second time, nor did Mundy heed the warnings Jackson asked him multiple times before the attack: "Is your dog going to bite me?" Mundy claimed his PSA was "issued to him for support," but the military does not "issue" or even fund PSAs.4 After the attack, Mundy was seen at the gate area cradling the dog and weeping, repeatedly saying, "I know they're going to put him down." | Review the new DOT form

Final poll results show that readers believe Mundy would have signed the new DOT form.

What is the real result of lying on the form? Though this is undetermined, it seems likely that all the owner will have to say is, "My dog has never done this before." Welcome to Dog Bite Law 101.

12nd Edition: Misunderstood Nanny Dogs? A Critical and Objective Analysis of the Facts & Myths Concerning Pit Bulls by J. Thomas Beasley. Pages 64-65. "Essentially, the test is a 12-minute walk through where the dog (with the owner ALWAYS at his side) is led through an “obstacle course” of sorts, where he is confronted with a variety of situations. The dog is graded on how he handles the different situations. However, it should first be noted that dogs are not graded in relation to all other dogs, but only other dogs of the same breed. Thus, a Pit Bull taking the test is judged relative to other Pit Bulls. And genetic traits of the dogs are taken into account. For example, if a ‘docile’ breed acts aggressively in response to certain stimuli, he would get points deducted, while if an ‘aggressive’ breed shows aggression at the same point, it would gain points! Not exactly a uniform indicator of temperament. Pit Bull advocates erroneously assert that higher scores on the test mean less aggression, while lower scores equal higher aggression. However, according to Carl Herkstroeter, one of the founders of the American Temperament Test Society, “[j]ust because a certain percentage of dogs in a certain breed fail, this does not necessarily indicate aggression... If you look at our statistics just from a perspective of aggression or non-aggression, they can be very misleading.” But this is exactly what pit bull advocates do."
2Each "trip" means each round-way trip. So if a passenger with disabilities takes three round trips to Denver in one year, he or she will be required to complete the DOT's animal behavior and health form three times.
3This particular study that was at least in part authored and funded by the Pit Bull Lobby was recently called out in American peer-reviewed literature, along with three other similar studies, for the authors' failure to disclose conflicts of interest. "As a result, some of the most influential literature has received authorship from persons who have a high risk of bias, yet this is not disclosed."
Voith VL, Trevejo R, Dowling-Guyer S, et al. Comparison of visual and DNA breed identification of dogs and inter-observer reliability. Am J Socio Res. 2013;3:17–29.
4In 2012, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) stopped funding PSAs because the agency is authorized to only pay for evidence-based therapies. Since then, the VA has stopped and started a study regarding whether a service or emotional support dog can assist a veteran with PTSD multiple times. The results are still not out.

Posted on December 18, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

2020 Dog Bite Fatality: Pit Bull Attacks, Kills Man During a Loud Argument in Joliet, Illinois

A pit bull killed a 46-year old man during a loud argument in Joliet, Illinois.

Pit Bull Kills Man
Joliet, IL - A 46-year old man is dead after being attacked by a pit bull in Joliet, marking the sixth fatal dog mauling in Illinois this year. The vicious attack occurred in the 1200 block of Arthur Avenue. A Joliet Fire ambulance crew was called to the home at 6:27 pm Thursday for a dog bite incident, according to fire chief Greg Blaskey. The man was found on the floor with no pulse. He was not breathing, and a Joliet police officer performed CPR on the victim, reports Patch.

"The patient was a victim of a dog mauling, from a single dog, and suffered traumatic cardiac arrest due to the injuries caused by dog bites," Blaskey said. "The victim did not live at this residence, but was there to visit." Joliet police were called to the home just after 6:20 pm. The man, identified as Erick J. Quinn of Joliet, was unresponsive and had sustained "extensive injuries to his body." Quinn was transported to Silver Cross Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

According to police, two people at the house "were involved in a loud argument. The dog, a 5-year-old pit bull terrier named Kaedo, became agitated by the argument. (Quinn) attempted to intervene to calm the dog, at which time the dog began repeatedly attacking the victim." Other people in the home tried to free Quinn from the pit bull, but were unsuccessful. "The dog eventually let go and the occupants were able to secure the dog prior to calling 911," police said.

The Chicago Tribune reports the dog became agitated when two women in the home Quinn was visiting started arguing over money. When Quinn stepped into calm the dog, which lived at the residence, the canine turned on him, Joliet Police Sgt. Dwayne English said. An autopsy conducted Friday showed that Quinn died of multiple injuries due to a dog attack. Police have not had previous contact at the home on Arthur Avenue for reports about the dog, English said.

Illinois Fatal Dog Maulings

Quinn's death marks the fourth fatal pit bull mauling in a 40-mile area within Will and Cook counties during an 11-month period. In February, a family pit bull attacked four family members, killing one, in Plainfield. That attack also began with an argument. In June, a woman was killed by her son's four pit bull-cane corso mixes in Country Club Hills. In July, 1-year old Marley Wilander was killed by a pit bull in the middle of the night during a Fourth of July party, also in Joliet.

Between May and August, canines killed two other individuals in Illinois. In May, 52-year old Lisa Urso was killed by her "Shorty bull," named "Blue Bear" that had a history of violence in Ingleside. In August, 61-year old Stephen Pemberton was killed by his stepson's two pit bulls in Belleville. Of all six Illinois victims, 83% were 25-years and older. 83% of these deaths involved pit bulls and 63% were carried out by family pit bulls. No criminal charges were brought after any death.

During an 11-month period, pit bulls killed four people within a 40-mile area in Illinois.

Yesenia Diaz claims to be the original owner of Kaito. The male pit bull had lived in at least three different homes, probably more like seven. Diaz also misrepresented the cause of death.

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

Baseline reporting requirements:
Law enforcement departments across the United States should release consistent "baseline" information to the media and the public after each fatal dog mauling, including these items.

Posted on December 16, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

Ann Marie Rogers: Animal Welfare Advocate, Animal Control Officer, Public Safety Advocate - Perspectives of Advocates

Ann Marie Rogers of Responsible Citizens for Public Safety shares her background in animal welfare, animal control and public safety advocacy in our series: Perspectives of Advocates.

My Background

As I have always had a passion for animals, particularly dogs, I volunteered at a local humane society as a teenager and later worked at the Michigan Humane Society in various capacities -- adoption counselor, wildlife specialist, animal behaviorist, evaluator and veterinary technician -- while attending the University of Michigan. I continued there after graduation for some time. I loved the experience and education I received at MHS. Part of good "adoption counseling" was to list the correct breed/mix and discuss breed traits to ensure a good match for the dog and the family who may take them home. It was gratifying to find our wonderful shelter dogs an equally wonderful home. We educated people about animal welfare and preached responsibility and spay/neuter. We felt good making a positive difference in the lives of pets and people.

As a shelter evaluator, it was my job to temperament test the dogs and determine if they were suitable to be adopted into a new home. If a dog passed a temperament test, that was not a guarantee that it would never bite, but it gave us a pretty good indication. If a dog failed a temperament test by displaying aggression to people or other animals, they were humanely euthanized. I did that too. It was my job to decide which animals went up for adoption and which did not and to humanely euthanize those that did not. I did not have any moral objection to euthanasia as I knew the process was humane and in the best interest of the dog and the public. As shelter workers, we saw our share of cruelty cases and knew that there are far worse things for an animal than being put to sleep in the arms of a caring animal lover.

At that time in my area of suburban Detroit, pit bulls were not a popular pet. We did not see many of them turned into our Rochester shelter, but the few that did come in were automatically euthanized. It was the shelter policy at all three branches of Michigan Humane Society. The employees at the shelter understood the policy and the reasons behind it. We knew that pit bulls were bred specifically to kill other dogs and were used in dogfighting. We opposed dogfighting as animal cruelty and any abuse toward pit bulls or any animal, but pit bulls were too dangerous and unpredictable to place for adoption due to their genetics. We knew that you cannot train away inherent genetic aggression. The Detroit MHS cruelty investigators called their genetic propensity for unpredictable aggression "clicking on". We were dedicated to sending good family pets into the community for a win-win for our shelter dogs. We knew that dogs of any breed that had a propensity to bite people or those that were aggressive toward other animals should not be placed for adoption. We knew we could not "save them all" nor should we.

With my MHS education/experience, I later founded No Place Like Home Rescue of Michigan and have operated my nonprofit rescue for over 25 years. I practice the same criteria that was used at Michigan Humane when I worked there. NPLH has placed many wonderful dogs and cats into good homes over the years, and I am proud of this work. We do not place pit bulls, but we do have an outreach program through which we come in contact with a great deal of pit bulls and their owners. I can say from firsthand experience they are wildly overbred and abused. Pit bulls that were given up to NPLH by their owners were taken to a shelter or veterinary office for humane euthanasia. Through the years, my knowledge that pit bulls are unpredictably aggressive was reinforced on a daily basis as we came across animal victims of pit bull attacks and their bereaved owners.

I worked full time as an animal control officer under a police department and again saw animal victims of pit bull attacks. I have enforced state and local Dangerous Dog laws and Animal Cruelty statutes. Through my vast experience in the animal welfare field for over 30 years, and having witnessed and experienced pit bull attacks, it is my opinion that pit bulls do not make safe pets and that breed safety laws that regulate the ownership of pit bulls are essential to enhance public safety and reduce animal cruelty.

No Kill Advances In Michigan And Pit Bull Adoptions Trend

Over the last 10 years or so in Michigan, the "No Kill" philosophy has advanced in animal shelters and rescues and pit bulls are trending as "safe family pets". Even the large, private, Michigan Humane Society where I gained my foundation in animal behavior had done a 180 degree turn and began adopting pit bulls to the public, despite its prior conviction and policy held for over 40 years. Publicly funded animal control agencies are now sending pit bulls into the community too, which endangers public safety. The animal control agency in my county has knowingly sent many dangerous dogs into the community despite their mission statement to "protect public safety". This is irresponsible.

While it sounds on the surface like a kind idea, "no kill" is actually cruel and it endangers public safety. It is a grand, deceptive marketing scheme that preys on ignorant, kind-hearted members of the public that want to adopt a shelter pet. Through "No Kill" policies, dangerous dogs are promoted as safe, bite histories are hidden, breeds are mislabeled, behavioral issues are masked with drugs and flowery descriptions and geriatric animals with illness are passed off as healthy, middle-aged pets. The movement is based in deception and greed ... It's wrong on multiple levels.

I became painfully aware of this trend through my rescue work. In 2016, a shelter in Detroit, operated by a friend, that still prioritizes public safety was under attack for having a "high kill rate". Protesters came to the shelter with nasty signs and harassed customers. The protesters also ran a social media campaign condemning this shelter. Their goal was to shut the shelter down by drying up their donations and frightening them into closing. The shelter was experiencing "Cancel Culture" before the term was widely known. This shelter is in a particularly poor area of Detroit and subsequently the majority of animals that they take in are pit bulls, very ill animals, or aggressive animals, which are unadopatable. The privately funded shelter has every right to operate as they see fit and as they have for over 80 years. I publicly defended this shelter and its policies and publicly advocated for breed safety laws. I soon found myself and my organization under fire by the "No Kill" pit bull advocate protesters, and they tried to cancel me too.

I received literally thousands of vile, obscene death threats, bomb threats, threats of rape and violence and other hate mail via social media, telephone and email. I contacted the local sheriff, the Michigan State Police and the FBI. Some of the threats came from people I knew through rescue work! Other rescue groups began to send threats and incite violence toward me through social media posts. It has been relentless for years and continues to a lesser degree still today. It was shocking and exhausting to field thousands of vile threats on a daily basis. I began to do research in hopes of finding help for my shelter friends and myself and found DogsBite.org and breed safety advocates. I read all the research posted on the site and was astounded to find how many people had been killed by dogs, particularly pit bulls. I always knew pit bulls were dangerous and were bred to kill other dogs, which is bad enough, but I was shocked at the number of people who are severely disfigured, dismembered, disabled or dead because someone else chose a pit bull as a pet! Prior to that point, I had heard of one little child, Xavier Strickland, who was killed by four pit bulls in Detroit in 2015. Despite my knowledge of the danger pit bulls present to other animals, I thought those pit bulls must have been starved to kill and eat a human being. Now I know that starvation is not a prerequisite for a pit bull to kill and consume a human being and that a pit bull kills someone every 10 days. Now I know that pit bulls are the #1 canine killer of people, pets and livestock and that they kill more than all other dog breeds combined. It is a stunning revelation, especially since pit bulls are commonly seen in every neighborhood.

Between discovering much information on DogsBite.org about the frequency and severity of attacks by pit bulls on people and beloved pets, along with the continued threats of harm I received from pit bull advocates, my resolve to stand up to bullies while protecting the public was strengthened. My new advocate friends came in like the Cavalry and did battle for me using their wit, facts and data, dispelling myths on social media. I will always be grateful for their swift action during a time when I was under extreme attack. At that moment I became a public safety advocate against dog attacks. I wanted to help keep people and pets from experiencing a devastating pit bull attack. I wanted to promote breed specific legislation in an effort to save lives.

In the same year, Michigan pit bull advocates were promoting a preemption bill that would remove the authority of local units of government from enacting or enforcing breed specific legislation because it "discriminates" against pit bulls, which they claim is a "misunderstood" breed. "Make Michigan Next" was their slogan in the hopes to inflict bloodsport dogs on the populace. That violent people like violent dogs has been proven in psychological studies.

Evolution To Responsible Citizens for Public Safety, RC4PS.org

Knowledge is power. I used mine to begin Responsible Citizens for Public Safety (RC4PS.org) to advocate for public safety. I joined with DogsBite.org, NationalPitBullVictimAwareness.org, DaxtonsFriends.com, DogBiteLaw.com and Animals24-7.org to help spread the truth.

I became friends with victims of pit bull attacks and their families. I know their stories, the depth of their grief and the extent of their PTSD after losing their loved ones or their own body parts through a brutal dog attack. I grieve with them. I advocate for them. This is my passion and my purpose.

Responsible Citizens for Public Safety promotes breed safety laws (BSL) which enhance public safety and reduce animal cruelty. We write letters on behalf of victims to legislators in cities across the USA and Canada. We offer presentations of facts and data for boards and commissions to consider.

We combat Michigan preemption laws, which would strip the authority of local units of government from protecting their residents against pit bull attacks by giving public testimony before House and Senate Committees. To date, we have been successful in stopping BSL preemption bills during three legislative cycles. We will continue to fight against the disinformation promoted by sponsors of these preemption bills.

We have presented facts and data to Generals, Senators, State Representatives, City Council Members, Township Trustees, Doctors, Health Care workers, Attorneys, Parents and other organizations as well as the general public about the significant threat that pit bulls and their promoters present to public safety.

RC4PS.org has created brochures with relevant facts and data about dangerous dog attacks that are available to download on the site that we use to educate the public.

We held a beautiful Tribute to Victims of pit bull attacks on the steps of the Michigan Capitol Building in October 2019 for National Pit Bull VICTIM Awareness Day, which attracted the media and impacted legislators.

RC4PS.org hosted a Zoom conference in 2020 featuring Colleen Lynn of DogsBite.org and Mia Johnson of National Pit Bull Victim Awareness to discuss the status of BSL in the US at the local, state and federal level as well as resources for victims of dog attacks, which can be viewed on our YouTube channel.

We believe in local control. We believe that communities should have the right to make decisions affecting their citizens, particularly in issues of safety.

The mission of Responsible Citizens for Public Safety is to SAVE LIVES by promoting canine awareness and educating people about the significant threat to public safety presented by the trend to keep pit bull dogs as family pets. We expose the propaganda being promoted by humane organizations. We equip BSL activists. We engage legislators and encourage them to promote public safety through legislating Breed Safety Laws for the state of Michigan and we work toward BSL in every state in the USA. We continue to work toward strong BSL by presenting hard facts and data that PROVE that pit bulls should never be promoted as safe family pets.

We welcome those who wish to join us in our mission and make it yours.

Posted on December 11, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

2020 Dog Bite Fatality: 14-Year Old Boy Fatally Bitten by Dog at Otter Tail County Breeder; Dog was Imported from Poland

Dion Bush, 14-years old, was killed by a dog imported from Poland in February 2020.

Ully for Sale Advertisement
UPDATE 12/15/20: Advertisements sent into DogsBite.org indicate that Ully, a male long hair German shepherd that was imported from Poland in late February, was still available for sale on December 8. Two days later, Ully attacked and killed 14-year old Dion Bush. Ully was also advertised as being 4-years old, not 3. Ully's owner and the victim's mother, Jennifer Bush, operates LakeView Shepherds. She has since taken down her website (see: Internet Archives).

Commenters on this post have provided more details about Ully and Bush. First, the intact dog was infertile. Between the spring and fall, Ully underwent three failed breeding attempts. According to an April 13 Instagram post by LakeView Shepherds, Ully was seen by the "Repro vet" and was part of the "billionaire club" with "strong swimmers" (had a high sperm count). Bush also has two females, Jurnee and Willa. Both females had Ully breedings, but neither produced litters.

No litters were sired by this dog, at least not in the U.S., according to commenter Lynn who spoke with Bush about the sale of Ully. After the third expected litter failed, Bush put Ully up for sale. Bush told Lynn that Ully "isn't aggressive," but he was in show training and bite work in Poland. Bush also told her, "He can get a little mouthy when over excited." That is atypical language for working dog owners, but typical language by shelter staff when masking aggression in dogs.

"I considered purchasing him," Lynn wrote. "But her comments made my husband nervous. I am heartbroken for her loss but also very concerned that she tried to sell him to us or any other family. It seems her site has been removed of all content and her Facebook page has been changed to 'blog.' I am hoping she provides deposits back to all families considering buying upcoming puppies from her." Lynn and her husband dodged a disaster, as did every other potential buyer of Ully.

Commenter Denny pointed us to the LakeView Shepherds Yelp page. Jessica, of Elk River, gave the breeder a one-star rating: "I selected a puppy from this breeder that ended up biting a chunk open through my ear when I was laying on the ground. It was yanking on it like a chew toy." She also posted a picture of her ear injury. The breeder did offer "to take the dog back" due to him being ill and his dominance/aggression issues, Jessica wrote, but did not return the $500 deposit.

Police killed the "extremely aggressive" dog at the scene, citing at the request of the owner and for "public safety" reasons. The StarTribune reported Monday that importing dogs from other countries into Minnesota is regulated by the state Board of Animal Health. "We don't have a record of [Jennifer Bush] being licensed as a commercial dog and cat breeder," said board spokesman Michael Crusan. All three commenters questioned the judgment of this dog breeder as well.

12/11/20: Teenager Kill by Imported Dog
Battle Lake, MN - A 14-year old boy was discovered dead after being attacked by the family dog, according to the Otter Tail County Sheriff's Office. The attack occurred Thursday afternoon in rural Battle Lake. Shortly after 3:00 pm, deputies responded to a welfare check at a home on Twin Lakes Road, Otter Tail County Sheriff's Lt. Keith Van Dyke said. When they arrived, they found the teenager in the yard. It was clear to the first deputy at the scene the boy was deceased, he said.

The 3-year old dog was purchased from Poland earlier this year.

The family dog, a Polish long hair shepherd, was standing near the teenager's body and was "extremely aggressive" when the deputies arrived on scene, the sheriff's office said. The dog was put down due to public safety and at the request of its owner. The welfare call came from the boy's father, who has a medical condition and cannot leave the house, Van Dyke said. He called out to his son, but got no response. He immediately called the sheriff's office afterward, he said.

The Valley News reports the teenager had not been heard from for about three hours. The Otter Tail County Coroner’s Office is assisting the sheriff’s office with the investigation that remains active and open. The dog has been transported to North Dakota State University for a necropsy. The boy’s identity has not been released. The rural community of Battle Lake is 30 miles east of Fergus Falls and 175 miles northwest of Minneapolis. The population is about 930 people.

Imported Dogs & Teen Deaths

There are plenty of German shepherds, both short and long coat, in the U.S. Unless they were seeking the dog for a specific purpose, such as protection or breeding, it would be unusual to order a dog from an Eastern Bloc country, where many dogs used in police work stem from. The victim was also 14-years old, an extremely rare age for a dog bite fatality victim. In 2019, a 14-year old boy was killed by a pack of protection bred dogs owned by trainer Scott Dunmore.

Over the 16-year period of 2005 through 2020, only 6 teenagers, ages 13 to 19-years old, were killed by dogs, 1% of all dog bite deaths (6 of 566). Stunningly, half of those teenagers were killed in the single year of 2019. The last time we reported a fatal dog mauling in Minnesota was 10 years ago, after the death of infant Robert Hocker in Independence. In the most recent death, a rare dog breed, a rare victim age group and a rare state, equates to three rarities at once.

Afternoon Updates

The Detroit Lakes Tribune reports the boy's family raises German shepherds (thus, the imported dog). Van Dyke said the attack happened after the teenager went out to tend to the dogs. "The father was incapacitated with a medical injury so he wasn’t able to take care of the dogs himself," he said. The boy was a ninth grader at Battle Lake High School. On Friday, the school sent a letter to families informing them of his death and that counseling would be available for students.

The Star Tribune reports the attack occurred in the 30800 block of Twin Lakes Road. There is a breeder of long coat German shepherds who lives on this block, according to web searches. Her name is Jennifer Bush and she operates LakeView Shepherds Kennel. She advertises on K-9classifieds.com (police dogs). Her breeding bitch is a progeny of dogs with IPO titles. The culprit dog was not your average pet dog. At 3-years old, the dog may have held titles in protection too.

Notably, the "Our Stud" page is blank. We predicted this was the case because the stud was the killer (the breeder removed the page after the Thursday attack). Internet Archives show the stud is "Ully" and "was imported from Poland Feb. 2020 and greeted me with pure happiness and licking. Sweet, sweet guy! He is social and loves to be loved on," states the website. Ully "comes from amazing and proven lines and was sired by "VA1 BSZS 2016 Jackson vom Zisawinkel IPO3."

The teenager has since been identified as Dion Bush.

The website continues, "Ully is a very go with the flow and even tempered male. He is highly intelligent and adjusted in our home very well. He has a silly side; loves to play and make us laugh." Ully also savagely killed a 14-year old boy on December 10 and the breeder tried to hide this. How many puppies has Ully sired since being imported from Poland -- not six months ago, but nine months ago? The breeder forgot about the Internet Archives, but our nonprofit did not.

The kennel's only stud dog, named "Ully," was imported from Poland in February 2020.

The circumstances caused by Covid-19 should never be underestimated. But typically between November 1 and December 15 of each year, there are 5 to 7 reported dog bite fatalities, not 2.

DogsBite blog ::

Leading Up to the Final Rule

The Pros of DOT Final Rule

The Cons of DOT Final Rule

Answer Our Poll Question