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 »
Corey Godsey, 13, was found dead after being attacked by dogs in Knott County.
Boy Killed by Dogs UPDATE 08/13/20: After six months of investigating, Kentucky State Police (KSP) have determined the cause of death of 13-year old Corey Godsey. The teenager was found dead on February 18 in a suspected animal attack. His body was located 1,500 feet up a hillside behind a residence. With the assistance of Fish and Wildlife officers, KSP detectives utilized wildlife cameras to locate multiple dogs on an old mine site near the area where Godsey was found.
The dogs were transported to Kentucky River Animal Shelter in Hazard, where DNA samples were collected. The DNA samples were compared to evidence located on the victim. The lab results showed that specimens from several of the dogs matched those found on the victim. Authorities stated they did not know the types of dogs involved, reports the Troublesome Creek Times. Other news outlets are calling the dogs "wild." In other words, the dogs likely do not have owners.
Ownerless dogs involved in fatal attacks mainly occurrs on Indian reservations. In those few cases, it is more likely the dogs were owned and were roaming without collars. The limited media coverage in those cases makes it impossible to be sure. In the two non-reservation attacks involving stray dogs (< .4% of all fatalities since 2005), one involved multiple people feeding the dogs and the other was a pit bull in Detroit thought to be a stray abandoned by its owner.
A stray dog is not a feral dog. A stray dog is born and kept by humans and is either roaming at large or was abandoned by its owner. A feral dog is a domestic dog born to roaming dogs outside of any human care or contact. A "feral" dog can be first generation, second, etc -- but a feral dog was never kept or owned by a human. A "wild" dog and a "feral" dog are not interchangeable. A wild dog (See: African wild dog), is an individual of a species that has never been domesticated.
There are behavioral differences. Owned dogs and stray dogs have inflicted virtually all, if not all, fatal attacks in the U.S. "A stray will more easily make contact with a human, in a good or bad way depending on its experience with humans. A feral dog will be extremely shy of humans, as dogs tend to be of anything they weren't exposed to in the first six months of their lives," according to animal behaviorist Alexandra Semyonova. The investigation into Godsey's death remains ongoing.
02/19/20: Minor Found Dead; Dogs Suspected
Knott County, KY - Kentucky State Police confirm a juvenile died in a suspected animal attack in Knott County, an area in Eastern Kentucky. State troopers were called to the scene on KY-1102, also known as Montgomery Creek Road about 6:30 pm Tuesday. The minor was discovered dead in a wooded area several hundred feet up a hillside near a home in the Emmalena community, according to Trooper Jody Sims. Rain and dark conditions made finding the minor difficult.
"One person I thought said several hundred feet 300-400 feet up the hill. You know it was very steep, you know so it was a pretty good distance," Trooper Sims told WYMT. No confirmation of the type of animal involved in the attack was available late Tuesday. Though, Knott County Coroner Corey Watson was called to the scene of a suspected "canine attack involving a child." An autopsy is scheduled to be conducted Wednesday to determine the exact cause of death.
Speculation on Social Media
Destiny Caldwell, a woman who lives just up the road from the scene of the attack, said she heard a woman screaming for help and for someone to call 911. She called 911 while a male adult drove down the road to see if he could assist. The man returned once emergency services arrived and said that a child had been mauled by a pack of dogs. Caldwell was later told the boy was 13-years old and had died in the attack. Caldwell did not know the boy or any of the people involved.
Teenage Age Group Victims
Once again in the last 14 months we are writing about another possible teenage victim. In our 14-year data set of 471 dog bite fatalities (2005 to 2018), teenage deaths (12 to 18 years old) are exceptionally rare. There are only three teenage victims in this age group. Yet over the last 14 months, there may now be four of these deaths. That would mean that the number of teenagers killed by dogs during this 14-month period is more than during the previous 14 years combined.
Each of the attacks involving teenage victims in 2019 involved multiple dogs, and in each case the victim was male. In two deaths, Texas and Massachusetts, the victims had some familiarity with the dogs, but were killed on the dog owner's property. The most recent death occurred in December when 12-year old Victor Garces was killed by two loose pit bulls while walking home from school in Hollis, Oklahoma. The owners of the dogs were later charged with manslaughter.
Wednesday Autopsy Results
An autopsy performed at the State Medical Examiner's Office in Frankfort on Wednesday confirmed the cause of death, but a specific animal has not been determined. "Their initial determination was this was caused by injuries consistent with an animal attack," said Trooper Sims. At the time of the attack, the teenager was staying at a relative's home, but he was familiar with the area. Officials continue to withhold the boy's name until they can rule out a criminal act.
Troopers say people in the area should remain "hyper vigilant", especially at night, but there is no immediate threat to the community.1
Meanwhile, a relative or friend of the boy's family has started a GoFundMe to help pay for funeral costs. "13 Year-old Corey Godsey was tragically killed yesterday during an animal attack. I am asking our county, communities and friends to please help with the expenses of this sweet child's funeral," states the page. Just hours after starting the fund, the organizer states, "I'm speechless, and completely at a loss for words. We have already met our goal for the initial down payment."
Note: We understand that police need to call this a suspected "animal attack" until they have more information, but frankly that only fuels unfounded rumors about coyotes or other wild animals.
A teenage boy was found dead in Knott County, Kentucky after a suspected canine attack.
A celebration of life for Corey Godsey was held at Hindman Funeral Services on February 23.
1Which means they shot and killed the suspected animal or have the animal in custody. Additionally, police stated, "this is not suspected to be anything other than a terrible accident," which again indicates a domesticated dog.
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.
The History of the Pit Bull Ban Repeal Effort Since Mid-January
Mayor Michael Hancock's press conference after he vetoed the pit bull ban repeal legislation.
UPDATE: On February 24, the attempt to overturn Mayor Michael Hancock's veto of the pit bull ban repeal failed in an 8 to 5 vote. Nine votes were needed to overcome the veto. The repeal's sponsor, Councilman Chris Herndon, will now try to place the initiative on the November ballot.
Denver Mayor Vetoes Repeal
Denver, CO - On February 14, Mayor Michael Hancock vetoed a bill that would have rescinded the city's 30-year old pit bull ban. The rabid repeal effort began in January driven by Denver City Councilman Chris Herndon. Council Bill 20-0071 proposed allowing pit bulls if an owner obtained a "breed-restricted license," showed proof the dog was microchipped, had a current rabies vaccination (as is already required under Denver statute), and limited households to two pit bulls.
The meager ordinance, which requires little more than what all Denver dog owners are already required to do, can be read in full here. Herndon championed his repeal legislation as a "compromise." But a compromise involves at least two sides, in this case, future victims of violent pit bull maulings and the owners of pit bulls. Herndon's legislation offered "zero" protections for future pit bull victims. Mayor Hancock agreed the legislation, in its current form, is not adequate.
"The difficulty in the numbers of the fatal attacks by pit bulls was really one of the things that stuck with me as I kept going back and forth on whether or not I would sign this legislation." - Mayor Hancock press conference
Mayor Hancock is in his 3rd and final term as the mayor of Denver. Herndon's pit bull ban repeal is the first time he has ever vetoed any legislation during his tenure. "I did not take it lightly," Hancock said during the February 14 press conference. "I hope that council takes a re-look at this" and will reconsider their position in regards to this ordinance, he said. There are broader issues that must be dealt with in this city, such as a low licensure rate and dogs running at large, Hancock said.
In a statement released Friday afternoon, Mayor Hancock stated, "Over the past several days, I have heard from thousands of residents passionately expressing their opinions on both sides of this issue." After deep reflection, "I find that I cannot, in good conscience, support this legislation and will exercise my authority as Mayor to veto it." We cannot "diminish the very real, very traumatic experiences of those who have reached out to me to share their stories," he stated.
We cannot diminish the very real, very traumatic experiences of those who have reached out to me to share their stories. While I appreciate the effort that Councilman Herndon has put in to crafting this ordinance and its guardrails, I do not believe this ordinance fully addresses the very real risk to severe injury that can result from attacks from these particular dog breeds, especially should they happen to a child.
At the end of the day, I must ask whether passage of this ordinance would make our homes and neighborhoods safer or pose an increased risk to public safety? I have concluded that it would pose an increased risk. I encourage members of City Council to reconsider their approach to this ordinance, which has been in the municipal code for over three decades. If we were to make this change now, and harm comes to someone as a result, then we have done a disservice to the people of this great city. - Mayor Hancock press conference
How to Thank the Mayor
We strongly urge our readers to thank Mayor Hancock for his brave and honest decision to veto this "rushed" repeal legislation. You can leave a a nice comment on his Facebook page, the post containing his official statement and you can also email [email protected]. If you are a Twitter fan, send him a thank you Tweet or comment on the Tweet containing his official statement. Also, handwritten notes never go out of "vogue." Send your letter snail mail here:
Mayor Michael Hancock
City & County of Denver
1437 Bannock St #350
Denver, CO 80202
How the Repeal Emerged
On January 22, the bill sailed out of the Safety, Housing, Education and Homelessness Committee in a unanimous 7-0 vote (see full video). That same day, the grandmother of Daxton Borchardt, who was brutally killed by two pit bulls in 2013, spoke against the repeal. "If 186 Americans have been killed in the last seven years by pit bulls, what does that say?" Sharon Sucharski asked CBS Denver. She added, "If the ban is working to keep the number of attacks down, why change it?"
The bill was scheduled before the full council on February 3. In the meanwhile, letters opposing and supporting the bill began pouring into the inboxes of city council members. However, when a bill moves this quickly, it's typically a "done deal." The legislation has the required votes to prevail. A "one hour courtesy" public hearing was held on February 10, where a handful of people opposed the repeal legislation, including Paul Vranas (1:25:30) and Reginald Norman (1:31:00).
Finally, the third problem that I have with this bill is its impact on marginalized citizens. I was surprised to hear that a lot of pit bull complaints in Denver have been coming from some of our poorest citizens … What impact is this bill going to have on these citizens of ours? … When we are crafting a law that disproportionately impacts a marginalized group of people, we should be going into these neighborhoods and having these conversations, especially when it is a matter of public safety. Without these answers, I don’t believe we have enough information on this topic to move forward.
In closing, the issue of reintroducing pit bulls to Denver is a complex, multi-dimensional, high-stakes issue. This bill over simplifies the process of this reintroduction without addressing public safety outcomes, without data to support it or engagement with the most marginalized Denverites on a matter of life and death. - Paul Vranas
Interestingly, Tom Moe also spoke (3:24:33), who drafted the original ordinance in 1989. A council member asked him if he heard any different arguments tonight than what came up in this same chamber 30-years ago when city council adopted the ordinance. He answered, "Not really." Though he noted the growing trend of "pit bull designer" breeds (pit bulls on steroids) and the American bully. Mole was also asked if the city could be sued if it reverses its pit bull ban.
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
A noteworthy legal argument arose after this as well (3:36:00). When Denver banned pit bulls they grandfathered in existing pit bulls under strict requirements, practically none of which exist in the proposed repeal, including: mandatory insurance, muzzling when off property, mandatory spay and neutering1 and secure enclosure requirements. Thus, Herndon's repeal ordinance might place the city in the liability equation for failing to include similar safety restrictions in the repeal.
The fundamental problem of Herndon's proposal is that it offers no protections for victims. Without mandatory insurance, few or no victims of violent pit bull attacks will receive compensation for their medical bills. Without mandatory muzzling when off property, there is little to prevent the bite. Legislative counsel said the city would be immune from any future lawsuits -- don't bank on that. Further, the repeal ordinance opens up a new avenue for pit bull organizations to file a lawsuit.
The legislation states, "WHEREAS, since Denver adopted its ban, there has been a review of controlled studies by the American Veterinary Medical Association ("AVMA") that document that pit bulls are not disproportionately dangerous compared with other dogs." Thus, under this ordinance, Denver would no longer have a legal "rational basis" for regulating pit bulls. A breed-specific pit bull ordinance is only viable if a city can prove that pit bulls pose a unique danger to the public.
The Vote and the Petition
After the courtesy hearing on February 10, city council members passed the bill in a 7-4 vote. On this same day, 5-year old Sterling Vermeer of Oro Grande, California was brutally killed by a family pit bull of 12-years after the dog latched onto his neck. On this same day, 25-year old Devin White died after his own pit bull attacked him and three other family members in Plainfield, Illinois. All four individuals were transported to local hospitals after this family pit bull "rampage attack."
By February 11, the conversation began to change, noting that Mayor Hancock could veto the repeal ordinance. The arguments to veto were solid. Erring on the side of safety is always best. As Vranas stated during the hearing, "There is nothing urgent about this topic requiring it to pass tonight." Also, less than 20% of pets in Denver are licensed. Thus, the vast majority of dog owners in Denver are not in compliance with the current law. Shouldn't the city tackle that problem first?
On February 12, Vranas started an online petition, urging Mayor Hancock not to sign the ordinance into the city’s code. The petition notes the two recent fatal pit bull maulings in California and Illinois. "We believe that a similar deadly attack will happen in Denver as a direct result of the passage of this law," states the petition. Vranas had asked council members to state in writing, to "unconditionally swear to the people of Denver" that Herndon's bill will make Denver a "safer city."
We hereby personally and unconditionally swear to the people of Denver that:
1) Bill 20-071 will create for a safer city than currently exists in Denver related to pit bull attacks.
2) At a minimum, the results from the passage of this bill will meet the safety levels previously attained prior to the passage of this bill, of zero deaths to Denver residents as a result of a pit bull attack.
None of the seven city council members who voted for the proposed repeal signed the document.
On February 13, Vranas and citizens from Denver's Montbello community delivered the petition to Mayor Hancock. “We are very very threatened by the possibility of this ban being lifted. Just yesterday we witnessed two pit bulls in our community of Montbello, just strolling and roaming freely,” said Pam Jiner. She added, "We have hundreds of pit bulls in Montbello." Residents in this Denver community fear that lifting the ban will result in even more irresponsible pit bull owners.
On Valentine's Day, Mayor Hancock vetoed the legislation. During his 15-minute press conference, he explained why he made this decision. He also stated during it, "I am reading letters and information from pediatricians and emergency room physicians, they were very compelling to me." A veto can be overridden by a super majority of city council members. If that effort fails, Councilman Herndon says he will try to place his repeal measure on the city's November ballot.
American Veterinary Medical Association
In October 2016, we released a special report about the back story of the Montreal pit bull ban. The report explained how The Association of Veterinary Doctors of Quebec omitted key parts of medical studies in their report to the government committee, leaving some of these studies "unrecognizable." We also explained the five levels of the American Pit Bull Lobby. Notably, Level 3: Publication, is the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA).
This false passage in the pit bull ban repeal, "WHEREAS, since Denver adopted its ban, there has been a review of controlled studies by the American Veterinary Medical Association ("AVMA") that document that pit bulls are not disproportionately dangerous compared with other dogs," is based upon an outdated, cherry-picked policy paper by the AVMA that is designed to obscure the dangerous breed issue, making it difficult for the public, media and lawmakers to understand.
The principle use of this AVMA paper is to frustrate any city's effort to pass or maintain breed-specific legislation, just as Herndon's pit bull ban repeal shows. Semyonova states in her analysis, "Of the 65 cited 'studies,' more than half (34) are based on data from the previous century, when the pit bull type was extremely rare, constituting at most ≤ 1-2% of the entire pet dog population (as opposed to approximately 6% now). The use of such old data is a serious flaw."
Our nonprofit continues to track modern relevant peer-reviewed medical studies since 2011. Only one study from our modern table (Horswell et al., 2011) is included in the misleading AVMA paper. Criteria for inclusion in our trauma study table requires being a multi-year retrospective study of U.S. Level 1 trauma center dog bite patients (≥ 15 patients), published from 2011 to 2019, the inclusion of dog breed information, and the scientific research conducted by medical doctors.
In the AVMA policy paper, 56% of all cited studies in the tables are from foreign countries.2 We do not accept studies from other countries, as the biting breed population is likely different in "Austria" than it is in a U.S. city. 52% of studies cited by the AVMA are from the last century when the pit bull population was at least five times lower than it is today. The AVMA paper is a sham, designed to obfuscate "bites" versus mauling injuries and to undo breed-specific laws in the United States.
On February 10, Denver council members passed the pit bull ban repeal in a 7-4 vote.
Citizens from Montbello district deliver petition to mayor opposing the pit bull ban repeal.
1A source of deep confusion for us early on was why mandatory spay/neuter was not included in the pit bull ban repeal legislation. It was later explained to us that Denver statute requires all owners who register their dogs to spay/neuter (section 8-55), so the city decided to exclude this language from the repeal. This makes "some" sense until you see that the repeal legislation specifically spells out the requirement for proof of rabies vaccination in order to obtain a breed-restricted license, despite that too already being part of Denver statute. The repeal ordinance states: "(6) Proof that the animal has a current rabies vaccination pursuant to section 8-31." So, we looked into the Denver code. Under section 8-55 spay/neuter is not mandatory. A qualifying dog owner, including a pit bull owner under Herndon's proposal, can obtain an "intact permit" section 8-56. That is simply stunningly irresponsible. 2The 2014 AVMA policy paper has 65 total citations. The tables only list 45 studies. The 56% number is derived from 25 of the 45 studies listed in the tables as being from a foreign country, thus losing significant relevance.
Devin White, 25, died after his pit bull attacked him and three others in Plainfield.
Man Dies of Injuries
Plainfield, IL - A 25-year old man has died after a male pit bull attacked four people on Saturday. The Cook County Medical Examiner identified the man as Devin White of Plainfield, a resident of the 2000 block of Mystic Drive. White was pronounced dead at 8:30 pm Monday at Loyola Hospital in Maywood. Three other victims of the attack, a 52-year-old woman, 25-year-old woman and 19-year-old man, survived with non-life-threatening injuries, according to Plainfield police.
In an updated news release issued by the Plainfield Police Department Tuesday, Sgt. Kevin McQuaid stated that White "died as a result of the injuries sustained due to the dog bite." In an earlier release, McQuaid stated the attack was "unprovoked" and the dog "attacked for an unknown reason." The pit bull was also owned by the victims. This "multi-victim producing" attack remains under investigation by Plainfield police detectives and Will County Animal Control.
His cousin, Samantha Costilla, expressed disbelief after the attack. "I have been around the dog a few times and it never gave the indication it was vicious," she told WLS Chicago. Costilla, who spoke as if she witnessed the attack, said the situation "was uncontrollable at a certain point" and that White tried to protect the other family members. "He definitely fought. He saved his brother and everyone else involved. But, we cannot believe that this is happening right now," she said.
Case Background
On February 8, four people were transported to hospitals after a family pit bull attacked them. Police were dispatched to a home in the 22900 block of Judith Drive about 9:15 pm for a report of a dog bite. Upon arrival, officers found a male pit bull inside the home acting aggressive. "Officers were able to partially gain control of the dog, but due to its aggressiveness towards the officers and the victims, the dog was immediately euthanized," states a release from Plainfield police.
Police and fire department officials located the four victims in the second story of the home. One victim, a 25-year old male, suffered severe injuries to his arms. He was transported to St. Joseph Hospital in Joliet then transferred to Loyola Hospital in Maywood for additional treatment, states the release. Three other victims, a 52-year old female, 25-year old female and 19-year old male suffered minor injuries. They were treated for their injuries and released, states the release.
"The initial investigation indicates the dog, which was owned by the victims, was unprovoked and attacked for an unknown reason."
Plainfield Fire Chief Jon Stratton said a helicopter was initially called to the scene to transport one of the victims, but was cancelled, reports Patch.com. All four victims were taken to area hospitals by ambulance. Plainfield Detective Sgt. Kevin McQuaid said the pit bull was shot at the scene due to its aggression and that officers at the scene were unable to gain control of the dog. The incident remains under investigation by the Plainfield Police Department and Will County Animal Control.
Listen:Audio dispatch logs from Will County Public Safety concerning the Judith Incident.
One victim died of injuries he sustained after a family pit bull attacked four people in Plainfield.
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.
Sterling Ver Meer, 5-years old, was killed by a family pit bull in Oro Grande, California.
Family Pit Bull Kills Child
Oro Grande, CA - A 5-year old boy is dead after being attacked by a family pit bull, according to San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department officials. The attack occurred just before 3:00 pm in the 15100 block of Portland Street. An adult was watching the child when the attack occurred. The adult witnessed the attack as it was happening and called 911. News footage shows animal control officers leading a dark brown male pit bull from the home and hoisting it into a truck.
News chopper footage shows detectives from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department gathered around a shed in the home's backyard, where the attack occurred. Multiple emergency units responded to the scene, but paramedics were unable to save the boy's life. "Unfortunately, the child did not survive," Sgt. Jeff Allison told NBC Los Angeles. It's unclear which adult relative had been watching the boy. Currently, detectives are at the scene interviewing family members.
Evening Updates
NBC Los Angeles spoke to two family members who said both parents of the boy were at work when the family pit bull "snapped" and fatally attacked the boy. The child lived at the home where the attack occurred, according to a female cousin and an uncle of the boy. Both relatives were babysitting the child at the time. They had left the child alone briefly in a playroom in the backyard when the dog attacked. "I jumped in and tried to help," the cousin said, "but it was too late."
"It was totally the dog's fault. Nobody was arrested. Just the dog was taken in, and I don't know the status of the dog," the cousin said, who spoke on camera, but would not be identified. The family got the pit bull when it was a puppy, the cousin said. She warned the public of their danger. "Don't trust pit bulls," she said. "They can change at any moment." The attacking dog, a male pit bull named "Thor," was reportedly 12 years old. Family members want the dog euthanized.
The same cousin told CBSLA, "All we did was step out for like two seconds just to grab the controller for my cousin to play the game." When the two walked back into the playroom, where the boy was, the pit bull had the child by his neck and "would not let go." She said the dog had never hurt anyone before. "He was a loving dog," she said. "He was not a vicious dog, but how it snapped, we don't understand." The dog's owner surrendered the pit bull to animal control.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department released a statement to the media, "Through the investigation, deputies learned the child was being supervised by an adult relative at the residence. The adult stepped out of the room, leaving the child alone with the pit bull. When he returned, the dog was attacking the child and would not release him. There were no other children present during the attack." The boy died of his injuries before deputies and fire officials arrived.
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.
View the DogsBite.org Google Map: 
