Posted on November 10, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

On Election Day, Denver Voters Repealed the Pit Bull Ban and Replaced it with a Provisional Breed-Restricted License

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Nelson's post came just days before Denver voters would determine Proposition 2J, which repealed the city's pit bull ban and replaced it with a conditional breed-restricted license.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.

Posted on November 2, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

Video: Person with a Disability Courageously Films, Follows and Confronts Owner of Fake Service Pit Bull in Walmart

"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."

Learn why breed choice matters in service dogs and why pit bull service dogs are a bad idea.

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.

Posted on October 26, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

2020 Dog Bite Fatality: Sleeping Newborn Killed by 'Vicious Canine' Inside Family Home in Hampton, Virginia

A sign outside the home where a sleeping infant was killed by a "vicious canine" in Hampton.

GoFundMe Tall Tale
UPDATE 10/29/20: A GoFundMe identifies the infant as Michelle Ocean Rae Carr. We must point out two parts of the family's statement. One, "Lane" the family German shepherd was not Michelle's "brother." Nor did this canine love or watch over "her with love." This is the very type of anthropomorphizing that can and does lead to fatal dog maulings of infants each year. Notably, even after the infant's death, the grieving parents continue to anthropomorphize this dog.

Two, the deceased infant's parents claim that they "awoke to a panicked, scared Lane and our baby" and that Lane "had heard her crying and tried to bring her to us. He was trying to help, but sadly, her delicate little body could not take the move." Essentially, Lane, the "hero dog" was only "trying to help," but the large-breed canine mistakenly doled out death instead. We hope that parents and dog owners reading this post understand how dangerously foolish this reasoning is.

Lane is a canine, not the infant's "brother" or any human being. The police statement says, "Hampton Public Safety Communications received a call of a vicious canine that had killed an infant in the first block of Scotland Road." Additionally, it states, "The child’s father observed the extensive injuries to the child and immediately euthanized the canine." These statements from police do not corroborate the tall tale fantasy spun by the infant's parents for a fundraiser.

Nor does the father rapidly shooting and killing the dog corroborate this fantasy. "We are not angry, we are not in a rage," states the GoFundMe. Nor, our nonprofit will add, do we the parents take any responsibility in failing to recognize that anthropomorphizing dogs, especially in relation to infants, is dangerous. Pretending that dogs are Nanny Dogs that allegedly "watch over" infants, is also dangerous. Then, inventing a story that the dog was only "trying to help" is sheer madness.

"Michelle Ocean Rae Carr came into our lives on September 1st, 2020 ... Everyday to look at something so beautiful, so pure, how were we so lucky we thought? Michelle’s brother, Lane, an eight year old German Shepard was always by her side. He loved her, and he watched over her with love. He was there at the smallest movement or sounds from her. Lane has never showed a shred of aggression toward anyone in his life. He was a big, curious, goofy child.

On October 26, 2020 at 3:00 am we awoke to a panicked, scared Lane and our baby... Lane had heard her crying and tried to bring her to us. He was trying to help, but sadly, her delicate little body could not take the move. I, the father, explained to him that we were not angry with him but there are consequences for everything in life; even accidents. He was euthanized. We are not angry, we are not in a rage. What happened was purely an accident."

The grieving father also does not understand that 99% of all fatal dog maulings are ruled an "accidental" manner of death, whether there are criminal charges or not. An accidental manner of death simply means an unintentional death, but also a violent death. There are four different non-natural manners of death: accident, homicide, suicide and undetermined. Finally, the last update notes, "Gofundme has requested we explain more in detail our purpose of this fundraiser."1

"We are raising funds to cover costs of our daughters funeral, time off work, to keep our roof over our head, counseling, and a million other obvious reasons. We would love keepsakes of our daughter as well. Gofundme has requested we explain more in detail our purpose of this fundraiser, so this is an unexpected update. We cannot imagine not being together to help each other through this unimaginable time. All funds will be transferred to our bank account..."

We feel terrible for this loss of life. We feel terrible for these parents. Had their beliefs about dogs, however, not been a tall tale fantasy, this loss of life would not have occurred. Hampton police had a realistic and practical view of canines. When asked by a reporter, "What triggered the dog to attack"? Hampton Police spokesperson Sgt. Reggie Williams said, he couldn't say "outside of just a guess or speculation," but "animal behavior can be unpredictable." Dogs are not human beings.

A photograph of infant Michelle from the parent's GoFundMe campaign, uploaded Oct 27.

The elderly German shepherd-mix seen in one of the videos posted to the GoFundMe page.

10/26/20: Infant Killed by Family Dog
Hampton, VA - An infant is dead after being mauled by a dog, according to the Hampton Police Department. At about 3:16 am, Hampton Public Safety Communications "received a call of a vicious canine that had killed an infant" in the 100 block of Scotland Road. "Prior to the officer's arrival, the dog had been euthanized by its' owner," police said in a statement. When officers arrived, they observed a small infant that had sustained injuries consistent with a dog attack.

"The preliminary investigation revealed that the infants' parents were sleeping in their bed when they were awakened by a large amount of motion," states the release. The infant had been in a cradle next to the bed when the attack occurred. "The child’s father observed the extensive injuries to the child and immediately euthanized the canine. The family states that the canine had not been previously aggressive and are fully cooperating with the investigation," police said.

The Virginian-Pilot reports the infant was a 2-month old girl. According to Sgt. Amanda Moreland, one parent shot and killed the dog while the other called police. The injuries were consistent with a canine attack, not just a bite. "There is nothing that would indicate this was anything other than a tragic accident," Moreland said. Police clarified the dog was "shot outside the residence" by its owner. Animal control took possession of the deceased dog, an 8-year old German shepherd-mix.

Infant Deaths in 2020

This infant's deaths marks the seventh infant (< 11 month old) killed by a family dog so far this year and 17% of all dog bite fatalities. In six of these deaths, the breed of dog was released. Pit bulls were responsible for four of these deaths, 67%. Other breeds included a Belgian malinois and this 8-year old German shepherd-mix. Notably, the "mix" portion can indicate a wide range of breeds, including husky, which has a long track record of killing newborns sleeping in cradles.

The cradle in the Virginia fatal dog mauling was later characterized as an "electronic swing" by the Virginian-Pilot. The dog was also identified as a male German shepherd-mix, named "Lane."

Residence where a newborn baby girl was killed by a "vicious canine" in Hampton, Virginia.

1Perhaps GoFundMe did not believe this tall tale fantasy either?

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 October 26, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

National Pit Bull Victim Awareness Day 2020 Zoom Conference

Last year, Responsible Citizens for Public Safety (RC4PS) held the first-ever event on National Pit Bull Victim Awareness Day at the Michigan state Capitol building in Lansing. The year's national awareness day is on October 26. Ann Marie Rogers, the founder of RC4PS, interviews Mia Johnson of National Pit Bull Victim Awareness and Colleen Lynn of DogsBite.org followed by a round table discussion in a pre-taped Zoom conference that is about 46 minutes long.

Johnson discusses National Pit Bull Victim Awareness Day that was first established in 2015, the related organization, and why it was started. Rogers and Lynn discuss legislative issues, such as the National Defense Authorization Act, which our nonprofit wrote about earlier in October. The round table discussion covers a number of areas, including how the act of the CDC defining a "mauling injury" (32:10), instead of using the "dog bite" vernacular would "change everything."

Mauling Event Protocol

In 2019, a study examining 182 patients at Charleston Area Medical Center in West Virginia became the first study to define "mauling injuries," and used the term "mauling event" as well. "Mauling injuries were recorded when 3 or more bites occurred over 2 or more distinct regional anatomic areas, typically the craniofacial region, back, torso, and extremities." Among the top-biting breeds, pit bulls inflicted the most complex wounds (63%) and mauling injuries (71%).

Selected Findings: "The data showed that compared with other dog breeds, pit bull terriers inflicted more complex wounds, were often unprovoked, and went off property to attack ... The probability of a bite resulting in a complex wound was 4.4 times higher for pit bulls compared with the other top-biting breeds ... and the odds of an off-property attack by a pit bull was 2.7 times greater than that for all other breeds." - Dog-Bite Injuries to the Craniofacial Region: An Epidemiologic and Pattern-of-Injury Review at a Level 1 Trauma Center, March 2020 [2019 Nov 14, Epub]

"Mauling" vernacular was also used in the 2011 Texas study, "Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs." That study concluded, "Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs." This vernacular describes the severe nature of the injuries, which is an important distinction for doctors treating these injuries and for those who respond to the scene of a severe dog attack.

First responders have emergency codes for what they are responding to. Today, police and fire respond to a "dog bite" or "animal bite" even if there are multiple victims and mauling injuries. Recall the "Judith incident" where a pit bull killed its owner (Devin White) and attacked three other family members. Four ambulances were required and a life-flight was in motion, but was later called off. They were not responding to a "dog bite." They were responding to a "mauling event."

From animal control departments, who fill out a "dog bite" report after a biting incident, to the hospital intake form listing "dog bite" after taking in Daxton (this 14-month old boy underwent a sustained pit bull mauling lasting up to 15 minutes), to numerous medical studies examining "dog bite" injuries, all the way up to the CDC, which obfuscates "dog bites" with mauling and maiming injuries and deaths, there is a daunting vernacular problem that can and should be rectified.

We stated in our 2014 Remedy document to the CDC that they "must make a vernacular distinction between mauling and maiming injuries and deaths (2%) by dogs and garden variety dog bites (93%). Call them what they are: 'mauling and maiming injuries.'" Doctors, coroners, first responding agencies and animal control departments, need not wait for permission from the CDC to change this vernacular. Even changing "dog bite" to "dog attack" would be an improvement.

We recommend three designations for emergency responders:

Dog Bite
Dog Mauling Event
Rampage Mauling - A Multi-Victim Attack

Each designate different events that require a different response. A "dog bite" is a single victim event that may or may not require an emergency room visit (some victims are treated at the scene.) A "mauling event" is a single victim with multiple traumatic dog bite injuries. A rampage mauling, such as the Judith and Oviedo incidents, and the recent Seattle incident, often involves a single or multi-pit bull household, where the dog inflicts serious injuries to multiple victims.

Future Zoom Conference

Please leave ideas for topics and guests for a future Zoom conference in comments. We will forward them to Responsible Citizens for Public Safety, who will be organizing and hosting a future event (our role is post-conference video editing). We would certainly like to hear from doctors, first responders, animal control officers and family members of victims. There are also key civil and criminal liability issues (or a lack thereof) that attorneys or insurance professionals could address.

Injury severity and multi-victim attacks should be recognized in emergency response codes. When one has listened to as many fire/rescue audio log dispatch files responding to serious and fatal dog attacks as we have, it is clear that a "dog bite" response code is not enough.

DogsBite blog ::

Will the City's Reversal Have Legal Ramifications?

"Attack Dogs" or Dogs with "Protection Training" Prohibited by ADA