Posted on April 14, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

2020 Dog Bite Fatality: Woman Dies After Pit Bull Attack in Fort Worth; Cause of Death 'Mauling by Canine'

Sharon Baldwin, 60, died after being mauled by a pit bull brought to her home a week earlier.

Mauling by Canine
Fort Worth, TX - On April 12, a 60-year old woman died after being mauled by a dog, according to the Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Office. Sharon Baldwin died due to "mauling by canine," states the examiner's website. The manner of death was an accident. The attack occurred on March 28 in the 800 block of East Hammond Street at Baldwin's home. A man who stayed at her home told animal control officers he had taken in the stray dog several days before the attack.

According to the Star-Telegram, "authorities" blamed the attack on Baldwin by either rolling over the dog in her wheelchair or falling on the canine, prompting the dog to attack. The dog attacked her arm, shoulder and neck. So far, there are five red flags in this news report. One, the unfamiliar dog was added to Baldwin's home just days before the attack. Two, no one witnessed the attack, thus it cannot be determined if she rolled over the dog in her wheelchair or fell on the canine.

Can it be determined if the dog dragged her out of her wheelchair, as we have seen multiple pit bulls do during fatal attacks in the past, including earlier this year? Three, according to the Star-Telegram, city officials said the dog had been staying at the home "without any problems" prior to the attack, despite the stray dog only being known to the victim for several days. Four, the dog attacked her neck. Five, the April 13 Star-Telegram article did not report the breed of dog.

Our concern is less directed at the newspaper. The entity can only report information that the unnamed officials have released. In this case, as we have seen in many other fatal dog maulings, the information released by "authorities" has been insufficient and frankly, cruel towards the victim. It is unclear if the "wheelchair or falling" information is even valid or just a "speculation game." The start of the attack was either witnessed or it was not witnessed. There is no gray in-between.

Provocation in an unwitnessed violent dog attack should never be based on speculation. Speculation should never be reported as "fact" either.

Pit Bull Euthanized

On April 14, the Star-Telegram reported the pit bull was euthanized Monday. The dog had been in the custody of animal control since the attack and was "evaluated before it was euthanized." Red flag number six. What were the results of this evaluation? That information was not released. Finally, the last red flag is the unidentified man who lived with the disabled Baldwin, who brought an unfamiliar pit bull into the home he shared with her. That mistake that cost Baldwin her life.

CBS DFW reported additional details. The unidentified man found the dog a week before the attack, according to officials. He was apparently caring for the dog until its unidentified owner came forward. The relationship between the man and Baldwin is unknown. There were no issues between the two residents and the dog until something happened Saturday that led to the attack. Thus, leading investigators to speculate the "wheelchair or falling" scenarios caused the attack.

"Officials learned there seemed to be no issues between the two residents and the dog until that Saturday when something happened that led to the attack. Investigators believe the woman may have either rolled over the dog with her wheelchair or fell on top of it."1 - CBS Dallas/Fort Worth

In a reverse course action, we are now taking back that our concern was not more directed at the Star-Telegram. The CBS DFW report contains more reliable information. Investigators typically always want to know "what led to a violent dog attack," even though most fatal pit bull maulings are either unprovoked or the stimuli was minor. For all we (or anyone knows), Baldwin fell out of her wheelchair for any number of reasons and the pit bull attacked her completely unprovoked.

The cause of death of Sharon Baldwin, 60-years old, of Fort Worth, was "mauling by canine."

1The word "may" expresses "possibility" not definitive fact. The Star-Telegram piece expressed this as "fact."

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

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 April 13, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

Traveling by Air with Service Animals - Comments from Airlines and Airline Trade Associations Pertaining to Breed Restrictions

Summary of Comments
Washington D.C. - After submitting our own comments to the Department of Transportation (DOT), which outlines why airlines should be allowed to prohibit specific breeds -- pit bulls and fighting breeds -- as service animals from flying in the space of a confined aircraft cabin, we reviewed comments from airlines and airline trade associations regarding breed restrictions. The majority seek the ability to prohibit certain breeds from flying in-cabin should the airline choose to.

Common themes include: airlines should be given discretion to make this policy determination, as "carriers have ultimate responsibility for the safety of passengers and employees" and airline staff are on the frontline of safety; 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.

DOT's reliance on an "individualized assessment" is based upon the approach taken under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), DOT stated that air travel, "which involves transporting a large number of people in a very confined space thousands of feet above the ground, is unique in comparison to airports, libraries” and other sites covered by the ADA. Yet, DOT did not consider the difficulties or reliability of conducting an "individualized assessment" of service animals in air travel, a method DOT prefers over airlines banning a breed or breed-type.

Most airlines also requested clarification -- if DOT continues to prohibit airlines from restricting certain breeds as service animals -- when transporting these breeds to a country with laws banning their importation or ownership. If airlines are forced to accommodate these breeds to a country, "the airline would be required to transport the passenger and his/her dog back to the United States if the dog were denied entry into that country," noted the airline trade associations.1

Currently, two airlines, Delta Air Lines and Allegiant Air, ban pit bull-type dogs as service animals in the aircraft cabin. These bans began during 2018 and remain in place today, despite both being "inconsistent" with DOT's final enforcement priorities issued last August. In the NPRM, DOT asked for comments on whether "the unique environment of a crowded airplane cabin in flight justifies permitting airlines to prohibit pit bulls." Below are parts of comments from airlines in response.

Comments by Air Canada

"It is important to understand that the goal is not to limit a specific breed but to limit any type of situation where safety would be jeopardized by the impossibility of containing a potentially dangerous situation, and to allow airlines to make their own assessments … Air Canada submits that this individual assessment it not an adequate measure to ensure that aggressive animals are not transported on aircraft, on the basis that it is ineffective and risky. Indeed, this evaluation is based on day-to-day situations that occur on land. The behavioral reaction of an animal in an aircraft environment, in a confined space, in a pressurized environment and in turbulence cannot be evaluated beforehand and therefore the analysis would not be adequate."

Comments by Allegiant Air

"Allegiant's decision not to carry pit bull type dogs was and is based entirely on concern for the safety of passengers, crewmembers, other animals in the cabin, and airport personnel. Through research, analysis and experience, Allegiant has determined the presence of pit bull type dogs in the cabin is inimical to safety ... In the NPRM the Department at least tentatively takes the view, as it has for some time, that pit bulls presented for carriage in the cabin should be assessed individually. But neither airport nor cabin personnel are in a position to make reliable case-by-case assessments of animals with a documented propensity for unpredictable, violent attacks. Airline employees are not veterinarians, veterinary staff, animal shelter employees or other individuals who might possess the expertise to make judgment calls in this area. Nor can they accurately forecast an animal’s reaction to the environment and stimuli it encounters in the close quarters of an aircraft cabin."

Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA

"DOT proposes to continue to prohibit airlines from restricting transport of service animals based on breed or generalized type of dog. We are concerned that this limitation would increase the risk of animal misbehavior, which could result in serious injury to other passengers, crew, and service animals. Certain breeds of dog, which account for a small minority of the total dog population, are not suited to function as trained service animals. Some airlines have experienced incidents of aggressive behavior by such breeds, which have resulted in extremely serious injuries to passengers, crew, and other animals."

Comments by American Airlines

"American Airlines submits that airlines should be permitted to determine that a breed of animal is too dangerous to fly in the cabin as a service animal because of the undue and direct threat it poses. American asserts 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, our passengers, and other service animals ... Carriers have ultimate responsibility for the safety of passengers and employees, and incidents with aggressive dogs are not as easily mitigated in the air, as in a place of public accommodation."

Comments by Spirit Airlines

"The ultimate responsibility to keep passengers safe lies with the airline, and it should be in the airline's discretion whether to allow certain breeds that are capable of more harm in the event an animal shows aggressive behavior. As the Department notes, the unique environment of a crowded airplane cabin in flight requires more protections for other passengers than, say, a library under the Americans with Disabilities Act. While Spirit does not advocate for restricting certain breeds for no reason, it believes the decision should be left to the airlines."

Fraudulent Service Animals

The core issue of service and emotional support animals (ESA) in air travel, which culminated in the NPRM, has always been driven by fraud. There are two types of fraud: A person claims to have a disabling physical or mental condition, but does not and/or a person claims to have a trained service animal or ESA, but does not. This problem is many years old. Due to this fraud, the majority of airlines praised DOT for eliminating ESAs from their definition of a service animal.

"We applaud DOT for a sound proposal that promotes the needs of qualified individuals with a disability to travel with a trained service animal." - Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA

Furthermore, despite some issues still outstanding (such as breed restrictions), airlines urged DOT to finalize the proposed rule "as soon as possible so that these reforms are implemented without delay." The new service animal rule will be an "important step towards reducing the widespread abuse of existing service animal regulations and will ease the continuing challenges that untrained animals pose to passengers, crew, and legitimate service dogs," stated United Airlines.2

With that in mind, we are calling to attention a bold proposal in the airline trade associations' comments, which represents the interests of dozens of airlines. They propose consolidating DOT's proposed three forms into one to reduce the burden of qualified individuals flying with a trained service animal. We agree this is a good solution (see Consolidated DOT form). What is bold on their part is that they seek proof by an accredited entity the service animal has been trained.3

"DOT's form should require that passengers specify the name of the accredited organization and be able to present evidence of training or evaluation by such an organization. Without this requirement, airlines would have no reliable assurance that the animal is trained or will behave appropriately once onboard the aircraft." - Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA

A self-signed attestation form that "my service dog will behave" is not enough, according to airlines. Again, airlines want to reduce fraudulent service animals. While airlines are pleased DOT proposed eliminating ESAs from the definition of a service animal, there remains a fear that ESA owners will then "migrate" to claiming their dogs are psychiatric service animals (PSA), which are included in DOT's definition of a service animal, and fake service dogs in air travel will continue.

To discuss this more in depth, we have to go to back to 2008, when the ADA underwent revisions, along with a public comment period. Those revisions were adopted in 2010. Under those revisions, DOJ, purposely required no certified training or licensing for a service dog, thus the era of Internet "shopping cart" style service animals officially began.4 Via a few mouse clicks and a payment, a dog owner could register his pet as a service dog. This fraud continues today.

The DOJ's reasoning back then, and still today, is that many individuals with a disability self-train service dogs.5 We understand this and respect this, however, the lack of certification or training documentation also opens the door to fraud. We see this fraud routinely in spaces governed under the ADA (supermarkets, etc). In the confined spaces of air travel, however, there is no margin for error. Airlines asking for proof that an accredited entity has validated the dog's training is justified.

Furthermore, according to airline trade associations, if DOT is unwilling to allow airlines to prohibit specific breeds from flying in-cabin as service animals, then DOT should allow airlines to require that passengers provide "a training and behavior attestation form that includes a certification by an accredited organization as to an animal's behavior and training. This would be a minimally necessary measure to protect the safety of the traveling public," states the joint comments.6

"If DOT is not willing to allow airlines to prohibit specific dog breeds from traveling in-cabin as service animals, it becomes even more important that DOT allow airlines to require that passengers, no later than 48 hours prior to travel, provide the airline with a training and behavior attestation form that includes a certification by an accredited organization as to an animal's behavior and training. This would be a minimally necessary measure to protect the safety of the traveling public, crew, and other animals." - Joint Comments of A4A, RAA, and NACA

This proposal leverages the inability for airlines to prohibit certain breeds from flying in-cabin against requiring proof of "certification by an accredited organization" to ensure passenger and crew safety. If airlines cannot have the first option, then airlines request the second option. Only under the second option, along with requiring this documentation 48 hours in advance of travel, would airlines be confident that the "minimally necessary" safety standards were met.7

Summary

The comments from airlines are direct, articulate and reflect their priorities. Their highest priority is the safety of passengers, crewmembers and legitimate service animals onboard aircraft. Further, they reflect the culture of air travel. As Allegiant Air eloquently stated, "Accepting the risk created by the presence of pit bull type dogs in the confined environment of an aircraft cabin is frankly at odds with the culture that has led to the sterling safety record of the U.S. airline industry."8

Not only is safety "paramount" in air travel, airlines currently must mitigate substantial service dog fraud with comparatively weak tools.

DOT must get this safety issue right. Airlines must have the ability to restrict certain breeds -- pit bulls and fighting breeds -- in the aircraft cabin. The airlines have stated this loud and clear. The mere "presence" of these dogs is a "direct threat." Allegiant stated it has "determined the presence of pit bull type dogs in the cabin is inimical to safety." American Airlines stated that DOT should permit carriers to prohibit certain breeds, "because certain breeds pose a direct threat."

The elimination of ESAs from the DOT's definition of a service animal should reduce service animal fraud. What remains unknown is how many fake ESA owners will migrate over to fake PSA owners, claiming the dogs are PTSD or seizure-alert service animals? Airlines need robust tools to counter this fraud. The simplest tool is to prohibit pit bull-type dogs in-cabin. A much more contentious tool is requiring proof by an accredited entity the service animal has been trained.

Fighting and "gladiator" breeds from left: American pit bull, Dogo argentino and presa canario.

1Joint comments from Airlines for America, the Regional Airline Association, and the National Air Carrier Association. Traveling by Air with Service Animals (DOT-OST-2018-0068-19240).
2Comments from United Airlines, Inc. Traveling by Air with Service Animals (DOT-OST-2018-0068-19250).
3See footnote 1.
4Q17. Does the ADA require that service animals be certified as service animals? No. Covered entities may not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal, as a condition for entry. Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADA (ada.gov).
5Q5. Does the ADA require service animals to be professionally trained? A. No. People with disabilities have the right to train the dog themselves and are not required to use a professional service dog training program. Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADA (ada.gov).
6See footnote 1.
7The second option is akin to airlines asking DOT for the Holy Grail, as the ADA prohibits this due to the number of self-trained dogs. DOT has recognized that air travel is unique and warrants tighter restrictions. But if DOT were to ever agree to this option, push back by attorneys and advocates for individuals with disabilities would be extreme. It would be a rekindling of a massive debate settled by the ADA a decade ago. It's far simpler for DOT to allow airlines the ability to prohibit a singular dog breed, pit bulls, because they present a clear and present danger (a "direct threat") to passengers, crew and legitimate service animals in the confined space of an aircraft cabin.
8Comments from Allegiant Air, LLC. Traveling by Air with Service Animals (DOT-OST-2018-0068-19164).

Posted on April 10, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

Advice About Breeding Your Pit Bull: Stop Breeding Pit Bulls

Dogbitelaw.com - In 2018, dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips began a Do Not Adopt a Pit Bull campaign with a Super Bowl-themed video. We most recently wrote about this campaign in late March, noting that a Michigan-based rescue was promoting a free roll of "coveted toilet paper" for the adopter of a pit bull-mix named "Tootie" during their "coronavirus sale." We warned then and continue to warn today, do not adopt a pit bull, especially right now, during the coronavirus crisis.

On Friday April 10, Phillips released a new video, Advice About Breeding Your Pit Bull, which shares the stark figures of the backyard breeding of pit bulls. "There are 4.5 million pit bulls in the USA and 2.4 million of them are up for sale or adoption. More than half," he states. Since last year, "backyard breeders have added another 600,000 unwanted pit bulls to the USA dog population. Pit bulls equal 6% of all the dogs in this country but 50% of all the dogs in shelters."

"One-third of all the pit bulls in the USA are euthanized every year because there are too many of them." - Kenneth Phillips, dogbitelaw.com

Cities that have adopted breed-specific laws, such as pit bull bans and mandatory pit bull sterilization, are the only jurisdictions that are escaping this reality. These laws are not only for the health and safety of the public, they regulate and whereby reduce an otherwise "unchecked" continuous cycle of new unwanted pit bulls coming into a community, many of which will end up in the shelter system where another desperate advertisement for an unwanted Tootie is created.

"Clearly the breeding of pit bulls is cruel to the dogs, most of which end up homeless and a third of which end up euthanized," Phillips states. "This dog is also intolerably expensive for society, in shelter costs, medical bills, and the tremendous suffering of victims. So my advice for breeding your pit bull is … don't. Stop breeding pit bulls. Do the dog a favor," Phillips states. Pit bulls are the number one canine killer of adults and children and the number one canine killer of women.

"They are the killers of 90% of all pets and horses killed by dogs." - Phillips

"If you don't care about your community, do yourself a favor. When pit bulls attack or kill people, most of the time the victim is the pit bull's owner, or the owner's child, or the owner's parents. Most of the time," Phillips emphasizes. "If you love your family, your community -- heck, if you love pit bulls -- do not breed your pit bull," Phillips states. During the 15-year period of 2005 to 2019, pit bulls killed 346 Americans. Over half of those deaths, 53%, involved killing a family member.

You can help spread the word by sharing this video or its Facebook counterpart on social media. Remember, pit bulls and their mixes only comprise 6 to 7% of the total U.S. dog population, but make of 50% of shelter dogs. Roughly one-third of the entire pit bull population is euthanized annually and is abundantly replenished each year by the backyard breeding of pit bulls. This is unheard of in any dog breed population. There is no other dog breed to make a comparison with.

There are more unwanted pit bulls than pit bulls in homes. Screen in dogbitelaw.com video.

Posted on April 8, 2020 by Colleen Lynn

Traveling by Air with Service Animals - Public Comments from DogsBite.org to the Department of Transportation

Comments from DogsBite.org
DogsBite.org - On Sunday, our nonprofit submitted our public comments to the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking public input on proposed amendments to the regulation of service animals in air travel. The public comment period closed late Monday, April 6. Our comments address why airlines should be able to prohibit specific breeds -- pit bulls and fighting breeds as service animals -- from flying in a confined aircraft cabin.

The NPRM came after years of escalating abuse by individuals claiming to have a "disabling" health condition requiring a service or emotional support animal (ESA) in air travel. In 2018, the issue of fake service and support animals onboard airlines became so bad that airlines increased requirements for both types. Six months later, Delta Air Lines banned pit bull-type dogs as service animals and ESAs. The NPRM, thankfully, proposed eliminating the ESA distinction entirely.

My organization welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Department of Transportation's ("DOT") Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM"), issued on January 22, 2020 seeking public input on proposed amendments to the regulation of service animals on flights. We will specifically address why airlines should be able to prohibit specific breeds -- pit bulls and fighting breeds -- from flying in the cabin.

Since 2017, my nonprofit has written extensively about public policy issues pertaining to service and support dogs in aircraft cabins, starting with a report about the attack onboard Delta Air Lines flight 1430, when a "support" dog "repeatedly attacked" a man in the face. In 2018, we issued a special report about why breed matters in service dogs, which outlines what some service dog organizations accredited by Assistance Dogs International ("ADI") already state about fighting breeds: they are a poor choice for a service dog. Most of these groups only choose certain breeds: Labrador retrievers, golden retrievers, Labrador-golden mixes and standard poodles. In 2019, we issued an in-depth report about the civil lawsuit filed against Delta after the attack onboard flight 1430. That lawsuit remains pending. - DogsBite.org (DOT-OST-2018-0068-18935)

Our public comments are 12 pages in length and are divided into multiple sections, including: unpredictable aggression and the disproportionate response by pit bulls; unlike all other dog breeds, pit bulls attack adults more often than children; and the lack of an effective assessment test. The NPRM specifically requested public input on whether "certain dogs may be dangerous because of their muscular bodies, large and powerful jaws and neck muscles, and ferocity."

Thus, we outlined the primary reasons why pit bulls and fighting breeds pose a unique danger to passengers and crew when traveling in the highly confined space of an aircraft cabin coupled with the unpredictable elements of flying, such as sudden turbulence. Even when in a safe, predictable environment, pit bulls consistently display these dangerous traits, "failure to communicate intention before an attack, disinhibited aggression and a disproportionate response to stimuli," we state.

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)

Our blog posts typically remark on one of several traits that make pit bulls uniquely dangerous, such as "unprovoked, disinhibited aggression" or a disproportionate response to minor stimuli (when petting the dog on the head, results in a full frontal attack). DOT seeking comments about pit bull behavior provided a rare opportunity for our nonprofit to state the larger picture, pertaining to why airlines should be able to prohibit fighting breeds as service animals flying in the cabin.

Throughout our comments is data from recent medical studies showing that compared to attacks by other breeds, "pit bull terriers inflicted more complex wounds, were often unprovoked, and went off property to attack" (Khan, 2020); "unlike all other breeds, pit bull terriers were relatively more likely to attack an unknown individual and without provocation" (O'Brien, 2015); and "when attacks come from unfamiliar dogs, the pit bull was responsible for 60%" (Prendes, 2016).

Multiple modern medical studies also call to attention the alarming number of unprovoked attacks by pit bulls compared with other dog breeds. DOT stated in the NPRM, "there may be concerns that certain dogs may be dangerous because of their muscular bodies, large and powerful jaws and neck muscles, and ferocity when provoked to attack." This indicates that DOT has little to no knowledge about why so many U.S. jurisdictions regulate pit bulls, along with jurisdictions in 53 countries worldwide. Fighting breeds do not need provocation to attack. Fighting breeds were selected for the willingness to attack in the absence of species-specific signs. - DogsBite.org (DOT-OST-2018-0068-18935)

We also address whom the most common air travelers are, adults. Studies since the 1980s show that pit bulls attack adults more often than children, a trait not shared by other dog breeds. This remains true today. "Between 2005 and 2019, canines killed 521 individuals in the United States. Pit bulls were involved in 346 of these deaths, 66%," we state. "Of the total number of persons ≥10 years old killed by dogs during this 15-year period (285), pit bulls were responsible for 73% (208)."

Pit bulls pose the most threat to the most frequent airline passengers, adults, due to their failure to communicate intention before an attack -- pit bulls will attack without warning and will attack in the absence of species-specific signs. Pit bulls are also more likely to attack "unfamiliar" persons compared with other breeds and are more likely to attack adults than children. As stated earlier, dogs selected for fighting also lack an appropriate "cut off" behavior once an attack begins. Other dog breeds "bite and release." - DogsBite.org (DOT-OST-2018-0068-18935)

Lastly, we address DOT's mistaken proposal that airline operators have the ability to "conduct an individualized assessment of a service animal's behavior to determine whether the service animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others." This "individualized assessment" approach being a substitute for a breed ban in an aircraft cabin. However, there is no behavior test that measures unpredictable aggression and the tests that do exist have a low predictive value.1

DOT mistakenly believes that airlines have the capability to conduct an "individualized assessment" of each service animal to determine whether the animal will pose a danger to others in a crowded aircraft cabin. Airlines do not have this capability. Shelters do not have this capability, despite having dog trainers or behavioral testers on staff, because the predictive value of these tests is low. - DogsBite.org (DOT-OST-2018-0068-18935)

Delta's position is: "Absent an approach that clearly demonstrates an animal can behave properly, airlines should be able to impose breed restrictions to ensure passenger safety."2 Our nonprofit agrees. Lacking an effective assessment test, dog breeds are a "baseline" assessment tool. "Dogs of specific breeds exhibit different behaviors," we state. Herding dogs herd. Retrieving dogs retrieve. These behaviors do not require specific training. Furthermore, form follows function.

There is a reason why border collies have a differently shaped body than a racing greyhound. There is a reason why pit bulls are characterized by exaggerated jaws and neck muscles. Border collies, greyhounds and numerous other dog breeds do not have the physical conformation to execute an efficient "killing" bite. Pit bulls and dogs bred for fighting and baiting ("killing") do have this physical conformation due to being shaped by hundreds of years of selective breeding to best perform the task of killing. - DogsBite.org (DOT-OST-2018-0068-18935)

In our closing, we state: "The question is not whether one pit bull is a 'safe' service animal and another pit bull is a dangerous service animal. The question is, how can an airline conduct an 'individualized assessment' when no assessment test exists for unpredictable aggression?" Erring on the side of safety, when traveling by air, is always the best choice. "Absent an effective assessment tool, airlines should be able to ban pit bulls and fighting breeds," we conclude.

Rulemaking Process

Now that the public comment period is closed, what's next? According DOT's rulemaking process, there is no time limit for an agency to publish a final rule after publishing an NPRM. The agency will review public comments and analyze them, then "decide whether to proceed with the rulemaking we proposed, issue a new or modified proposal, or withdraw the proposal," states DOT's website. Given the impact of COVID-19 on air transportation, it could be a long wait.

We thank everyone who submitted a comment during the open comment period. We have yet to go through comments ourselves. We may do a follow up post about comments pertaining to the whole NPRM, particularly responses to DOT's proposal to eliminate ESAs. This means ESAs will no longer be able to "fly for free" and will be treated as pets when traveling by air. Valid ESAs can be trained to perform a task for a person with disabilities making the dog a real service animal.

Fighting and "gladiator" breeds from left: American pit bull, Dogo argentino and presa canario.

1Behavior Testing Shelter Dogs – Document 1, The reality of where we are now, by Alexandra Semyonova, September 2016 (nonlineardogs.com)..
2Comments of Delta Air Lines, Submitted July 10, 2018 (DOT-OST-2018-0068-4141), Dated May 23, 2018 | Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0068.

DogsBite blog ::

2020 Dog Bite Fatality: Woman Dies After Pit Bull Attack in Fort Worth; Cause of Death 'Mauling by Canine'

Traveling by Air with Service Animals - Comments from Airlines and Airline Trade Associations Pertaining to Breed Restrictions

Video: Backyard Pit Bull Breeders Continue to Create Cyclical Calamity for Breed. Stop Breeding Pit Bulls

Advice About Breeding Your Pit Bull: Stop Breeding Pit Bulls

Traveling by Air with Service Animals - Public Comments from DogsBite.org to the Department of Transportation