In the 15-year period of 2005 through 2019, canines killed 521 Americans. Pit bulls contributed to 66% (346) of these deaths. Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers contributed to 76% of the total recorded deaths. | More »
Donald Ray "Ducky" Allen, 65, was killed by a pack of dogs in rural Jackson County.
Suspected Culprits UPDATE 11/24/20: Authorities captured photos of the dog pack suspected in the mauling death of 65-year old Donald Allen. No one is surprised the dog pack encompasses a number of pit bulls and American bulldogs -- in Florida, particularly, these two breeds are indistinguishable, as the southern American bulldog was built off the back of the American pit bull terrier. An owner allowed this pack of dogs to roam at large. We don't expect any criminal charges in the state of Florida.
Pack includes the southern American bulldog, also identified as a pit bull in other jurisdictions.
There is no doubt that there are pit bull-mixes in this group of at-large dogs that killed a man.
11/19/20: Man Found Dead; Killed by Dogs
Bascom, FL - On Wednesday morning, a man was found dead on the pavement along Kirkland Road after being mauled by a pack of dogs. The Jackson County Sheriff's Office received a call at 7:48 am about a man lying next to the roadway in the 6500 block of Kirkland Road outside of Bascom in Jackson County. Deputies and troopers from the Florida Highway Patrol responded and confirmed the man was deceased. He was identified as Donald Ray Allen, 65, of Bascom.
"Upon completing a thorough investigation, it was determined that the subject had been walking in the roadway when he suffered life-threatening injuries from an animal attack," the Sheriff's Office said in a news release Thursday morning. "The injuries are believed to have been caused by a pack of stray dogs roaming in the area." Investigators have been in contact with Jackson County Animal Control and are placing traps in the area. No other information has been released.
Press Conference -- Jackson County Sheriff Louis Roberts III gave a press conference Thursday afternoon. In a somber tone, Roberts said that the attack occurred sometime after 10:00 pm Tuesday. The drone division has been activated and a nighttime flying unit. Sheriff Roberts asked the public if anyone has seen any aggressive dogs in the 6500 block of Kirkland Road. Authorities will be looking into the possibility of coyotes -- should be easy to clear up via a DNA database. Nothing is being ruled out at this point. The victim lived about 5 to 6 miles away from attack site. Last time someone spoke to the victim was about 10:00 pm when he was dropped off at his home. The autopsy determined his death was caused by the animal attack. Lab results will take time to determine. The dogs may be feral or owned. - Jackson County Sheriff Louis Roberts III
A GoFundMe has been set up by family members to help pay the unexpected funeral costs.
In March of this year -- just 35 miles away in Chipley, Florida -- Beverly Dove, 60-years old, was mauled to death by a pack of dogs on an adjoining property of Home Sweet Home, an assisted living facility in Washington County. "It was a pretty horrific scene," Sheriff Kevin Crews said at the time. "One like they had, in their careers, never been to." Five dogs were eventually removed from the scene. Breed information was never released by the Washington County Sheriff's Office.
The recent fatal dog mauling is about 35 miles away from a fatal pack attack earlier this year.
Donald Allen, 65, was found dead along the side of Kirkland Road Wednesday morning.
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.
Guest Author Carol Miller's take on pit bulls since she was attacked kicks off Dogsbite.Org's guest author series: Perspectives of Advocates
I have a number that I consider significant. Hang in there with me for just a few minutes. That number is how many Americans have been killed by pit bulls since the date of my own attack in 2007. Sadly, that number changes regularly. The number stands at 334 as of November 17, 2020.
That is 334 Americans killed in 13 years. If a manufactured product killed at this rate there would be a massive product recall but elected officials are reluctant to face the rage of breed-specific advocates so the deaths continue at an ever-increasing pace without meaningful regulation.
A great deal of research has been done on pit bull fatalities and that research goes back to the first documented pit bull fatality in the USA back in 1833. From that first fatality in 1833, it took pit bulls 174 years to kill 291 Americans (to the date of my attack) and in 13 years, pit bulls have killed an additional 334 Americans.
What happened in 2007 to kick off this bloodbath? The Michael Vick case brought pit bulls into the public eye and those looking for profit seized the opportunity. The rest is history. The date of my attack is my personal choice but pick any date you like. The numbers don't change much.
Survivors don't get their original peaceful lives back. We live with pain and PTSD. Many live with disfiguring injuries. The 334 didn't get the opportunity to see another holiday season or to see their children grow up.
What is wrong with elected officials who allow this to continue? What is wrong with breed advocates who refuse to acknowledge the suffering they create? What is wrong with those who claim to love pit bulls and continue to breed pit bulls despite the absolute knowledge that the dogs they produce in their back yards have almost no possibility of ending up in a stable and lifelong safe home?
Walk through any city-owned Animal Control facility or private shelter in America and look at the dogs harbored there awaiting the "perfect Owner." Cute little dogs have very short stays but pit bulls languish for months to years because there is no "perfect owner" for dogs that were surrendered for attacking family members or neighbors or killing other pets.
The peaceful public can't have much impact on this situation, only those who love pit bulls can stop the suffering.
Will the City's Reversal Have Legal Ramifications?
The new provisional breed-restricted license takes effect on January 1, 2020.
Pre-Vote Commentary
Denver, CO - On November 1, Kory Nelson, a senior assistant city attorney for the City and County of Denver, penned a post on his personal Facebook page. The post outlined the legal history of the Denver pit bull ban, his own role in successfully defending Denver's Home Rule Authority against a state preemption law, and how the recent pit bull ban debate in Denver ignored the overwhelming scientific evidence introduced to courts of law to uphold pit bull ordinances.
In my role as an attorney for the City & County of Denver, I had the experience of litigating the issue of pit bull bans in the courts of Colorado. From that experience, I became fully immersed in all of the scientific evidence relating to the propensity of specific dog breeds to engage in attack behaviors that provide a substantially increased risk of victims suffering significant injuries and death. - Kory Nelson
Nelson's post came just days before Denver voters would determine Proposition 2J, which repealed the city's pit bull ban and replaced it with a conditional breed-restricted license. As we stated in October, we expected it would prevail just based on its language. It indeed prevailed by a 66% to 34% margin. It also prevailed because city officials and media outlets ignored the scientific evidence used to uphold the ban, along with a dozen new medical studies implicating pit bulls.
"Shall the voters of the City and County of Denver adopt an ordinance authorizing the city to grant a provisional permit to owners or keepers of a pit bull, provided the owner microchips the animal and complies with additional requirements set by Denver Animal Protection?" - Text for Proposition 2J
Denver's own dog bite statistical data was ignored as well. Recent data shows that over the last three years (2017 to 2019), pit bulls are among the top six biting breeds across all four injury severity categories, Levels 2, 3, 4 and 5 -- 5 being the most severe. Despite their low population in Denver, pit bulls are also among the top three biting breeds for Level 4 and 5 bites. We stand by our estimation that there will be a four-fold increase in pit bull bites in just five years time.
In America, there have been dozens of lawsuits about pit bull regulations. In 100% of those lawsuits over well written laws, the Courts have upheld the regulations for one main reason: The scientific evidence admitted in Court has proven that Pit Bulls ARE more dangerous than other breeds. The evidence clearly establishes that the history of selective breeding by humans for the desired dangerous attack behaviors in the profitable dog fighting ring resulted in this phenomenon: When a Pit Bull does attack, it is more likely to bite its victim in the head/neck area, hold that bite (no matter how much blunt force is applied), and shake its head back and forth to rip and tear its victims flesh and blood vessels, causing massive damage and causing victims to bleed to death…
In the 2004 trial in Denver District Court, the Court ruled that the City had provided more unique and compelling evidence as to the dangerousness of pit bulls than had been introduced in the original 1989-90 litigation that went before the Colorado Supreme Court. In 2004, the City provided expert testimony directly relating to the November 20, 2003 death of Jennifer Brooke in Elbert County, when 3 pit bulls cornered Jennifer in her barn. The horrific crime scene photos showed Jennifer was literally ripped apart by these large tenacious fighting dogs. The expert verified that attacks by multiple pit bulls are exponentially dangerous (x2, x3, x4 . . .), while the danger levels from other breeds only multiply (2x, 3x, 4x . . .) - Kory Nelson
Nelson states that expert testimony during the trial verified that attacks by multiple pit bulls are "exponentially" dangerous, while the danger levels from other breeds only "multiply." We examined this effect in 2018 by reviewing 13 years of fatal attack cases involving 3 or more dogs. When fatal attacks involved 3 or more dogs that included 1 pit bull, death resulted 16 times more frequently when 2 or more pit bulls were attacking than when the group of dogs only included 1 pit bull.
Denver's new provisional breed-specific license allows multiple pit bulls per household, specifically 2. Perhaps the city's limitation of 2 was a mechanism to avoid liability? Certainly, if one does not limit pit bull owners, many owners quickly escalate to 4 or more pit bulls -- a pack of pit bulls. Not having a limitation would be "reckless" by the city. Allowing 2 pit bulls, however, is still reckless given the expert testimony that attacks by multiple pit bulls are "exponentially" dangerous.
The recent debate over pit bulls in Colorado has completely ignored the overwhelming scientific evidence that has been introduced in the one place Americans go to settle disputes – the courts of law. The discussions in the media and every other place has been one-sided, propped up by the underground pit bull propaganda lobby, funded by secret and suspicious sources. No one has stood up for the future victims and their family, as they don’t yet know they will join that club, and they have no funding for lobbyists. The best source for the truth is the non-profit group, Dogsbite.org, which has recorded that between [2005-18], 311 of the 471 fatal dog maulings in the U.S. were perpetrated by pit bulls – that is 66%. But pit bulls only make up [6%] of the U.S. dog population. Just this past week, pit bulls killed three more Americans. Most victims are females and children in the household of the pit bull owner, where many attacks come at a complete surprise – without any prior behavioral signs of aggression. - Kory Nelson
"No one has stood up for the future victims and their family," Nelson states. No one has talked about the 14 medical studies since 2011 all showing that pit bulls inflicted the highest prevalence of injuries compared with other breeds and that 12 of those studies show that pit bulls also inflicted the highest severity of injuries. No one is discussing that since 2005, pit bulls have inflicted 66% of all fatal dog maulings, yet only comprised 6% of the total U.S. dog population during that period.1
Intentionally ignoring the reliable scientific evidence admitted and considered by judges in these lawsuits to reverse policy decisions is the epitome of recklessness – the conscious disregard of substantial and unjust risk to the health and safety of the public – which amounts to the abandonment of the social, morale and legal primary duty of government. Such an action would subject that government entity to massive levels of civil monetary liability, as the legal protection of governmental immunity could easily be pierced due to this intentional disregard of the risk. The established record of evidence is so substantial as to provide the keys to the treasury to the civil plaintiff’s litigation attorneys who will represent every future victim of a pit bull attack. Rightfully so. - Kory Nelson
Nelson, who also wrote biting commentary prior to Castle Rock City Council repealing their pit bull ban, offered a future liability scenario. "The established record of evidence is so substantial as to provide the keys to the treasury to the civil plaintiff’s litigation attorneys who will represent every future victim of a pit bull attack." Meaning that the city's reckless disregard of reliable scientific evidence admitted to courts pierces governmental immunity; thus allowing attorneys to sue.
Similar testimony was presented to Denver City Council in February by Tom Moe, who drafted the original ordinance in 1989. Mole was asked if the city could be sued if it reverses its pit bull ban. "One of the dangers that I see here is that all this law," referring to the legal rulings in the ban's history, "indicates that pit bulls are a dangerous dog." He added, "This has been supported in a lot of other places," referring to the multiple state and federal court decisions in other jurisdictions.
Question: Someone raised the question whether we might see a court challenge if we were to reverse the position of the city? (3:31:30)
Answer: That's a strong possibility … The first time it got tested, there were a bunch of organizations, including the American pit bull breeders and also the UKC or AKC, at least one of them was involved. There were about four different organizations, so a lot of evidence was presented on both sides, hours and hours. With some modifications to the ordinance, the judge decided it was constitutional. It was appealed again, all the way up to the state supreme court. The state Supreme Court found it constitutional. In my testimony, I mentioned all of the characteristics of pit bulls. The Supreme Court agreed. That it made [pit bulls] more dangerous…
Then it got challenged again when the state of Colorado said it was their purview [after passing a state preemption law], not the localities to decide whether there could be breed-specific legislation. So, once again, Kory Nelson, who is still in the city attorney's office, handled that. And once again, the court upheld the ordinance.
One of the dangers that I see here is that all this law indicates that pit bulls are a dangerous dog. That [pit bulls] have a higher propensity to inflict a severe bites. Not number of bites, but severity of bites. This has been supported in a lot of other places. So, given that, if we pass this ordinance and somebody gets attacked, they could sue the city. And, based on the law, if the city is viewed as reckless, then the recklessness pierces the governmental immunity that protects the city from being sued, and allows somebody who is the victim of [a pit bull attack] to sue the city. And, get taxpayer dollars as a result of that suit. - Tom Moe
Coconuts and Camels
Nelson's post links to an editorial by Krista Kafer, a columnist for the Denver Post, who was part of Nelson's commentary when Castle Rock was discussing the repeal of its pit bull ban. "All she does is suggest that the mothers and fathers of Castle Rock children should offer up their children’s flesh, scalps, limbs and lives on the 'hope' that 100% of pit bull owners are responsible enough, and good enough, to train their dogs against their natural instinct," Nelson wrote in 2018.
In the 13-years of operating this nonprofit, we have seen all kinds of faulty apples to oranges comparisons (but falling coconuts kill more people!) in an effort to minimize the horrific injuries pit bulls inflict on people. In fatal dog attacks, 53% of pit bull victims live in the dog's household and are considered "family" members. Kafer's most recent fairy tale is yet another iteration of this minimization by dangling her anecdotal ferret, cat, camel, horse, hamster, parrot and ostrich bites.
"The fact is dogs of any breed can bite. I’ve been bitten by a retriever, a dachshund and a collie. Yes, a Lassie lookalike bit me in the face. The dachshund’s bite, however, was the deepest leaving both a puncture wound and a bruise. No dog bit me while I was a volunteer at the pound; I was attacked by a ferret and a cat. I’ve also been bitten by a camel, a horse, a hamster, a parrot, and an ostrich. The parrot’s bite was by far the worst. Animals bite for a variety of reasons -- the ostrich liked my shirt and hamsters are jerks -- however, most animals bite out of fear."- Krista Kafer
Kafer's recent opinion piece omits the scientific evidence used to uphold the Denver pit bull ban. It also omits the dozen medical studies that show that pit bulls are inflicting the most severe injuries. Instead, she states, "several studies indicate that pit bulls are not inherently more dangerous than other dog breeds." Kafer also obfuscates facts and belittles people: "there have been incidents of aggression towards other dogs or people," she writes. "For this reason, people are concerned."
Her piece was also factually faulty -- the breed-restricted license does not mandate pit bull sterilization. The city's website states that a pit bull owner must show "proof that the animal has been neutered or spayed, or proof of an intact license from DAP that allows the animal to remain unaltered." Obviously, her piece is a Pit Bull Hack as we defined back in 2016. "A 'Pit Bull Hack' is generally a pit bull protectionist given a media platform to spread misinformation to the public."
As Nelson states about the ballot item, there were no discussions by media outlets that were not one-sided, favoring pit bulls. Not one stood up for "the future victims and their family" who "don’t yet know they will join that club." Some people who voted for this repeal will learn the hard way that the conditional breed-restricted license has no protections for victims. Most incredibly, there is no mandatory insurance. Many victims will have no path for civil recourse after a disfiguring attack.
Summary
At the moment Tom Moe first uttered, "pierces," he was forcefully interrupted by City Council President Jolon Clark, who strongly supported the ban's repeal. The key to suing all government bodies relies on piercing sovereign immunity. In the case of Denver, Moe argued that if a victim could prove the city was "reckless" in repealing the ban, this would pierce governmental immunity (3:33:48). That was an interesting moment for a sudden and forceful interruption by Clark.
We expect such a lawsuit will be filed down the road. It could occur on Mayor Michael Hancock's watch, who boldly vetoed the repeal effort. Hancock's current term ends on July 17, 2023 and he cannot run for mayor again. Meanwhile, we will end with the words of Youtube artist Robert Crawford, who thanked the mayor for his desire to keep people safe back in March. "He's more concerned with people," Crawford said. "Human beings who may or may not get mauled."
Hancock's actions in February demonstrated real leadership and a real commitment to public safety. Kafer does not care if children, adults and senior citizens are mauled. She does not care about the heaviest class of victims that will be mauled and killed either -- pet dogs. Kafer claimed, "When a city has a breed-specific ban, good dogs die." She omitted that when a city lifts a pit bull ban, hundreds if not thousands of "good dogs" will be torn, mutilated and killed by pit bulls.
1When combining multiple years of fatal dog maulings -- say 2005 to 2019 -- one must find the average of the breed's yearly population during the same period. That amounts to 5.8% to 6%. When only looking at one year of fatal dog maulings, such as 2019, we average three years of breed population data, thus 8%. So data that combines 15 years of fatal dog maulings typically has a lower total population of pit bulls.
"Attack Dogs" or Dogs with "Protection Training" Prohibited by ADA
The confrontation with the owner of a fake service pit bull occurred in the Walmart food section.
Sallisaw, OK - Several days ago, this stunning video came to our attention. A courageous woman in a motorized cart (also called a "Rascal scooter") films, follows and confronts the owner of a fake service pit bull in a Walmart in Sallisaw, Oklahoma. She calls out the owner multiple times, "That is not a service dog," and "Service dogs stay right by their master" and "Service dogs do not get distracted like that." All the while, the soft whirl of the motorized cart is heard in the background.
She starts out by asking the dog's owner, "Why do you have that dog in here? That's not a service dog." After being rebuffed by the dog's owner, she continues to film and follow the couple, stating, "You are lying, that is a fake service dog." As the couple winds through the aisles, she says, "He can't even walk along side of you because he is not trained well enough for that." After the couple stops, the tension really lights up. The owner states the dog is also, "My personal attack dog."
At this stage, the woman on the mobility scooter has legal grounds to ask Walmart to throw out the fake service pit bull -- the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) explicitly does not cover "attack dogs" or dogs with "protection training" (apprehension or bite work). Further, "the Department's modification also clarifies that the crime-deterrent effect of a dog's presence, by itself, does not qualify as work or tasks for purposes of the service animal definition," states the ADA guidance.
The Department recognizes that despite its best efforts to provide clarification, the "minimal protection" language appears to have been misinterpreted. While the Department maintains that protection from danger is one of the key functions that service animals perform for the benefit of persons with disabilities, the Department recognizes that an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal. Therefore, the Department has decided to modify the "minimal protection" language to read "nonviolent protection," thereby excluding so-called "attack dogs" or dogs with traditional "protection training" as service animals. The Department believes that this modification to the service animal definition will eliminate confusion, without restricting unnecessarily the type of work or tasks that service animals may perform. The Department's modification also clarifies that the crime-deterrent effect of a dog's presence, by itself, does not qualify as work or tasks for purposes of the service animal definition. - Appendix A to Part 36 - Guidance on Revisions to ADA Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities
The senior citizen in the motorized cart has the "attack dog" admission captured on video, as well as the owner saying, "He [the pit bull] attacks people." Enforcement by Walmart, however, is not what happens next. Instead, the owner walks away and returns with an empty shopping cart. Our heroine seated in the Rascal stands her ground and says again, "Look at how he is distracted by everything that comes by. That is not a real service dog! You people need to get it out of the store!"
At 4:15 a Walmart employee steps in and tells our heroine, "It's none of our business," referring to whether or not the dog is a real service animal. "Yes it is," says the woman on the mobility scooter. "If someone gets attacked in here, you're going to get sued up your ass. She said it's her 'attack dog.'" Next, the employee, who lacks knowledge of the ADA guidance, blocks her from filming and states she cannot record people inside Walmart. The employee then asks her to leave the store.
Now, in a complete reversal of the ADA, a Walmart employee is ordering a senior citizen with a disability, who is navigating the store on a motorized cart, to leave the store because she called out a fake service dog. Our heroine then zigzags through the aisles to find her husband, as we hear the whirl of the cart's miniature engine. When she finally reaches her husband, she says, "James, they are going to call the police on me because I was recording one of their customers."
She also states in the video that two senior citizens in wheelchairs were killed by pit bulls in just the past few weeks, perhaps referring to 84-year old Carolyn Varanese and 60-year old Sharon Baldwin. She interestingly cuts back to the store manager in still screens as well because they are wrong. They failed to enforce the Walmart service animal policy and instead only focused on her filming, which corporate states is "prohibited" and reserves the right to enforce that policy.
Yet, the entire time she is recording unlawful conduct and the abuse of the ADA -- and is doing so in her own defense had it come to that.
Toward the end of the video, several long text screens spell out how ADA protections do not apply to attack dogs. She also asks viewers, "Does anyone else think SHE should have been told to leave the store, instead of me?" She states that she and her husband finished their shopping that day -- "the guy didn't hunt me down and we never saw the police." She also asked a police officer later that day if it’s illegal to film at Walmart. The police officer "laughed and said no," she said.
As watchers of YouTube know, the conversation continues in comments, often fiercely and tainted by trolls. YouTuber "Mud People," who recorded the video, defends herself against them and gets admiration from others. Such as, "Just when you think Walmart couldn't suck anymore" and "Good for you, enough is enough … I admire you very much" and our favorite, "Not all hero’s wear capes." We encourage readers to join comments on YouTube in support of Mud People.
Person with a disability records and confronts the owner of a fake service pit bull in a Walmart.