Blog

By Jerome Burdi

South Florida Sun Sentinel

To Officer Jeremy Codling, the pit bull charging him was out to kill or maim, authorities said. So he shot him one time, hitting him under the eye.

To owner Summer Davis, the 75-pound dog named Max is an overgrown puppy and doesn't see why such fatal force had to be used.

"I know my dogs," Davis said. "They're nicer than cocker spaniels."

Officers went to the 2200 block of Northwest Third Avenue around 7 p.m. Tuesday after getting a call about two loose pit bulls running the streets. When police got there they found neighbor Everett Hill.

Hill pointed to the front of the house where the dogs lived and said he was outside when the dogs began charging him and he had to jump in his truck to avoid being attacked, police said.

Davis took Max, 6, to Coral Springs Animal Hospital late Tuesday where he remained Wednesday. He's bleeding profusely and she said he'd have to be put to sleep.

Neighbor Adam Faustini told officers he noticed the front door open in the 2200 block of Northwest Third Court and when he pulled into the driveway to check the house, the dogs ran out and charged him also.

As officers got within 30 yards of the house, police said, the two pit bulls, Max and Kast, ran out an open front door and began barking and charging.

The two officers backed up and yelled at the dogs to stop, police spokesman Mark Economou said. As Max got within 10 feet of officers, Codling drew his handgun and fired one shot, hitting the dog below the left eye, police said.

After the second dog ran into the house, the officers were able to close the door. No one was home at the time.

It is nearly impossible to use a stun gun effectively on an animal, Economou said, especially when it's running toward you.

"The width of a dog isn't wide enough," he said. "If you're shooting down at a fast moving object, it's hard to hit with both prongs."

Many of the residents in the cul-de-sac neighborhood off Glades Road have dogs, and over the past year police have been called five times for stray dogs, and one bite, police records show.

Davis has been the subject of two other complaints, in 2003 and 2004 for noisy and loose dogs, records show.

Palm Beach County Animal Care & Control is investigating the current case.

When Davis got home Tuesday night, she told police she must not have secured the door when she left earlier in the day.

"I don't know why you're allowed to rip out your gun and shoot an animal," Davis said Wednesday. "I guarantee if it were a German shepherd or golden retriever they wouldn't have shot it."

http://www.denverpo st.com/insideand out/ci_15328946

Sonya Dias remembers living in the shadows, afraid to emerge into the light with her dog, Gryffindor, a Staffordshire bull terrier.

"I had to get up at 4:30 a.m. to walk my dog," Dias says. Or, after a day's work at a mortgage lender in the Denver Tech Center, she took her pet out at 9:30 p.m.

Five years ago, the Denver City Council re-approved the city's 1989 ordinance against having dogs such as Gryffindor within city limits. Owners with any of the three dog breeds more broadly known as pit bulls — American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers — had one month to get the animals out of town, or the dogs could be confiscated and possibly destroyed.

"I lived in a loft right on Colfax Avenue," Dias says. "I had to move because of the pit bull issue."

She will only say now that she lives in the suburbs. And that she still has Gryffindor, now 6 1/2. "There's my baby now," she says during a phone interview.

Dias is one face of the long-running national dispute over pit bulls. Denver, one of the few large American cities with a breed-specific ban, remains ground zero more than 20 years after it first passed the law following two savage attacks.

The Mile High battle has played out in several lawsuits, spillover ordinances in other metro cities, protests and pressure from groups such as Denver Kills Dogs and The Pit Bull Band.

And while it's hard to see change in the wind for Denver, some are hopeful that a window has been cracked open and a breeze may have started blowing in.

High-profile violence

The boy's name was Fernando Salazar. On Oct. 26, 1986, the 3-year-old wandered into a Denver neighbor's yard and was killed by a pit bull chained to the neighbor's carport. The dog's owner was watching football on TV at the time of the attack.

Then, on May 8, 1989, the Rev. Wilbur Billingsley of Denver, 59, was attacked by a pit bull in the alley behind his home. He suffered more than 70 bites and two broken legs. His neighbor stopped the assault by firing a shotgun at the dog.

And so it began.

City Council steps in

Former Denver City Council member Mary DeGroot takes a minute to search her memory when asked why she voted for the pit-bull ban in late 1989.

"The thing I remember is a little boy was killed. I drove by the house before I voted on the ordinance to see if someone just walking by could be attacked," DeGroot says. "They could. I guess."

"Back in those days, you had crack houses opening around town," DeGroot says, echoing those who have linked pit bulls to gang culture.

Would she vote the same way today?

"I would do the same thing," she says. "Some people say the dog is gentle. I certainly felt empathy for people who had them as pets. But we had a lot of expert opinion that it was the breed."

DeGroot also recalled that later, while campaigning door-to-door for re-election, a dog jumped over a fence and bit her on the hip.

It was not a pit bull.

Good dogs, bad rap?

Over the years, Denver's pit- bull ordinance has been challenged repeatedly — by owners who think the breed is a worthy family dog demonized by the law. And by the state, which lost its effort to halt Denver's law because Denver is a home-rule city.

Following the victory over the state, Denver in May 2005 re-adopted its ban and set the one-month limit for the dogs to be gone.

Dias has since been a plaintiff in two lawsuits.

"You can't separate the actions of the dogs from that of the owners," Dias says, hitting on one of the main themes of pit-bull supporters.

"The other thing is that Denver is rounding up and killing good family dogs for nothing these dogs and the owners have done."

Dias says that a dog is considered a probable pit bull based on "whatever an animal control officer says" and ultimately is judged on the basis of a simplistic visual checklist that sometimes ensnares dog that aren't pit bulls.

Some say Denver's ban had a ripple effect, prompting neighboring cities to adopt laws out of fear Denver's dogs would flood into their limits.

An Aurora law went into effect in 2006 targeting several breeds that are considered pit bulls or dogs with the same physical characteristics.

Breed bans also are in effect in Castle Rock, Commerce City, Fort Lupton, La Junta, Lone Tree, Louisville and Wellington.

Pit-bull advocates such as Wendy Weiman and Angela Kuettner think the tide may be turning.

Weiman is an engineer and Kuettner a doctor. The 30-something women look right at home as they sip lattes during an interview at a suburban mall. But their passion is rescuing dogs that frighten most other people.

"There is a huge wave of opposition that is growing against Denver's ban," says Weiman, speaking as a member of Colorado Citizens Against Breed Bans. "One of the reasons is probably that people are becoming educated about pit bulls and their temperament. People are also becoming more educated about the ban, the cost of the ban and the . . . treatment of the dogs and their owners."

Weiman is armed with a loose- leaf binder full of information to back up her case. Among its entries:

• Copies of several online tests in which users try to identify which of a number of dog photos are of pit bulls. Most people score low.

• A document from the Best Friends Animal Society in Utah that estimates the total annual costs associated with Denver's law at $803,170.

• A copy of 1995-2006 statistics from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment showing Denver with about twice the ratio of dog-bite hospitalizations as Boulder, El Paso and Jefferson counties, none of which has breed-specific legislation.

Neither Weiman nor Kuettner owns pit bulls. But both think the breeds are good dogs that need good homes.

Weiman says she didn't sleep the night before the first time she was to meet a pit bull. But when she opened the cage at a shelter and the dog came out, it put its head on her lap. She was hooked.

The dog had lived in that cage for two years.

Rethinking the ban

If the Denver City Council were to vote today on the city's ban, observers think it would stand.

Council members have polled constituents and found continued support for it, although critics believe questions have been presented in a biased way.

"I don't see a need to review the ban," says Councilman Charlie Brown. "I still believe a majority of citizens believe in what we're trying to do."

Another City Council member, Carla Madison, says she thinks the city's ordinance should be amended but not repealed.

"Having a ban keeps them out of the hands of gang-bangers," Madison says. "But I don't think it's fair to put the onus on one dog. What I plan to do is put forth a responsible pit bull owner act. If you own a pit bull and go through certain steps, then an owner could keep a pit bull in the home."

Those steps include proof of an insurance policy, temperament testing of a dog by an impartial group, registering animals and leash requirements.

Madison says two other council members are "mildly interested" in her idea.

Window "cracking open"

Read the lawsuits against Denver's ban and you see one name cropping up again and again: Doug Kelley, director of the Denver Division of Animal Care and Control.

But Kelley, sitting in his cluttered office at the aging Denver Animal Shelter near the South Platte River, is willing to consider changing the pit-bull status quo.

"Let's get a committee from all sides to look at this," Kelley says. "I think there is a lot of interest in reviewing it. The window may be cracking open a bit."

What Kelley is talking about is a revision along the lines of Madison's proposal, in which pit-bull owners would be offered a path to keep their dogs if certain conditions are met.

As for the current law, Kelley says his division "is responsible for enforcing it, right or wrong," including the disputed visual evaluations.

There's a new player in the metro area's pit bull battle, and it's having an impact.

It's called the Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs, and its membership is made up of representatives from some of the area's best- known animal-welfare organizations.

In 2005, after Denver's pit-bull ordinance exploded in rancor, a group of veterinarians and metro area animal welfare leaders formed the coalition to offer unbiased information for dealing with aggressive canines.

"The coalition's position is neutral," says member Nick Fisher, who is CEO of the Humane Society of the South Platte Valley. "We're just trying to be a resource for communities considering a ban."

After a dog attack, there's often a knee-jerk reaction, Fisher says. "I believe you should make the owner responsible instead of putting the blame on the dog."

Fisher says that every decade has a dog that is demonized. Past "villains" included German shepherds, Doberman pinschers, Great Danes and Rottweilers.

The coalition has come out with the key elements of a model "dangerous dog" ordinance that is not breed-specific. Among the elements: owners held accountable; sterilization required; owners can choose education over fines; increased licensing fees for intact and dangerous animals.

The coalition's model has been influential in Jefferson County, where it was used in Lakewood and Englewood.

One members is Dr. Rhea Dodd, a local animal behaviorist.

Dodd says pit bulls "seem stable in temperament" and make good family dogs because of their affinity for people. She also notes that any dog can bite under the right circumstances.

"Like all social issues," she adds, "this is not going to be resolved overnight."

 Her bright pink hairlessness coupled with her cotton candy disposition earned her the name, "Pinky." How could a veterinarian resist? Trouble is — get this — she's a pit bull mix. Which means she's 100% illegal where I live. Ever heard the term "BSL"? It stands for "breed specific legislation" (AKA, breed ban or, more coloquially, "pit bull ban").

Municipalities all over the U.S. have adopted these laws in a misguided effort to reduce dog-related violence. Trouble is, there's no evidence they've ever managed to work.

Make no mistake, Florida's "Damage by Dogs" law is a good one. It takes the enlightened view that individual humans must be made responsible for their dangerous pets. By limiting breed banning, it recognizes that such blanket constraints on individual property rights are not only intrusive, unfair and costly to implement, they also do little to decrease the risk of dog-related violence.

 Rep. Thurston's bill would make way for more municipalities to adopt these regressive laws.

 While it seeks to amend the existing "Damage by Dogs" law with greater restrictions, his bill (HB 101) does nothing to address the fact that there's currently little to no enforcement of its key provision: holding owners responsible for their individual dogs' behavior.

 Predictably, this new bill has stirred up debate in the local and national media with big groups taking sides. For this party, PETA has been on hand to pass out hats and light the candles while the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) and the Florida Animal Control Association are rallying their minions against the festivities.

 Veterinarians, animal welfare groups and animal control organizations are speaking out ever loudly against breed specific bans for their biased infringement on property rights, their failure to stem the tide of canine violence and their short-sighted approach to the problem of unwanted behaviors. Good laws, like Florida's current "Damage by Dogs" law, already exist. Enforcing them is the obvious solution proposed by this new bill's detractors.

 True to form, PETA supports breed specific legislation. Though its rallying cry references pit bulls and curbing blood sports altogether (which all animal advocates support), PETA's track record with shelter pets seems to suggest it'll leverage any excuse to keep dogs out of human hands altogether.

 Earlier this year, my local daily, The Miami Herald, weighed in on the debate with an article quoting those on all sides. Surprisingly balanced, it pointed to the lack of statistics on dog bites and the questionable impact of Miami-Dade County's 20 year-old pit bull ban. In its final paragraphs it quoted Palm Beach County's animal control czar, who reported that Shepherd, Lab and Chow mixes were his area's biggest offenders.

 Hmmm ... I'll wager Palm Beach won't be banning German shepherds, Labrador Retrievers or Chow Chows anytime soon. If the forbiddingly named, thug-evoking pit bull topped the list, however, I'd bet high against their surviving the year without a breed ban levied against them. This, because of popular culture and their abuse by those within it who would fight them — not because pit bulls are any more innately violent than these other dogs on Palm Beach's list.

 The "jaw locking" thing? A myth. Pit bulls' jaws are not anatomically or physiologically different from any other dogs' in this respect. Neither are pit bulls behaviorally special, save their infamous, terrier-ish drive to kill small prey. Indeed, anyone who owns a Jack Russell or bull terrier (of "Spuds MacKenzie" fame) would recognize the same outsized drive.

 The recognition of this fundamental unfairness is why after 20 years of a painful breed ban that's hurt only the most responsible pet owners among us and sent hundreds of dogs to their needless deaths every week, Miami-Dade County residents are finally getting sick of breed bans. In fact, last year, one judge ruled the ban unconstitutional in the case of one dog. (Which means that maybe — just maybe — Pinky will get a reprieve should she ever get hauled in.

 Hmmm ... maybe a great picture in her new collar would help. Barring that, maybe I'll buy one of those newfangled breed tests. One blood test or buccal swab mailed to the lab and maybe we'll learn she's no pit bull at all. Viszla mixed with Boston terrier? Who knows?

http://www.usatoday .com/life/ lifestyle/ pets/2010- 06-24-vetviews25 _ST_N.htm

Both Denver and Aurora have laws banning pit bulls. The breed, they say, is so dangerous to the public that any dog displaying more than 50 percent of pit bull-like features must be run from city limits or face extermination. But what about a pit bull acting as a service animal for a disabled person? Should officials accept dogs that their own laws deem inherently unacceptable?

Good question - and one that happens to be at the core of a new federal class-action lawsuit filed against Denver and Aurora by three disabled people who say the laws banning pit bulls violate their civil rights under the American Disabilities Act. Allen Grider of Aurora and Glenn Belcher of Denver are U.S. veterans who suffer from psychological disabilities they say resulted from wartime service. Valarie Piltz is a Washington-based dog trainer with physical mobility problems and a condition that causes her to experience debilitating panic attacks. All three say the breed bans fail to make proper exemptions for their service animals of choice: pit bulls.

Actually, in the case of Grider, it's Aurora animal control that deemed his dog "Precious" a pit bull. The Vietnam vet says the dog is a boxer/lab mix recommended by a VA social worker to help him manage his acute Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and related mental disabilities. Among other acts, Precious is trained to enter rooms and buildings ahead of Grider and perform nighttime patrols in their Aurora apartment to ease his owner's persistent bouts of hyper vigilance.

Grider claims that in November an officer with the Aurora Animal Care Division used a false claim of an animal abuse report to gain access to Precious and then seize the animal under the pit bull law despite Grider's insistence that the dog is a service animal. During the 10 days that Precious was impounded, Grider "suffered from severe anxiety stemming from his PTSD," says the complaint. Officials released Precious only after Grider arranged for the dog to live at a friend's house outside of Aurora.

An agreement with Aurora allows Grider to have his dog while the lawsuit proceeds, "but during the four or five months he was without his service dog, he was living on the edge the whole time," says the plaintiff's attorney, Jennifer Reba Edwards, of the Wheat Ridge-based Animal Law Center. Aurora says it will allow Precious to stay in the city as a service animal, but only if he abides by rules for dogs that are deemed vicious, stipulations that Edwards calls absurd.

"They said, 'You're going to have to get liability insurance. You're going to have to keep her in a six-sided enclosure. You're going to have to muzzle her whenever you take her anywhere.' A lot of these things defeat the purpose of having a service animal, so they've really missed the whole point," says Edwards.

Nine cities in Colorado have bans on pit bulls. Aurora's law, enacted in 2005, also prohibits seven other so-called "fighting breeds" of dog, including the American Bulldog, Presa Canario and Tosa Inu. While the Aurora law is the broadest in terms of banned breeds, Denver's anti-pit bull ordinance was one of the first in the nation when it was passed in 1989 and has been by far the most controversial. Denver has killed more than 3,500 dogs, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in enforcement costs and faced a bevy of lawsuits from dog owners and animal welfare groups to maintain the ban over the last two decades.

In January, the city paid $5,000 to settle with a woman who filed suit after her dog was killed for being a pit bull. The city also agreed to formalize its proceedings for impounding, assessing and ultimately destroying dogs it considers to be pit bulls, a process dog owners have long criticized as unclear and arbitrary. Dias v. Denver, another long-running lawsuit by pit bull owners who says the ban unconstitutionally drove them out of the city, continues to wind its way through the federal appeals court. According to the Denver Daily News, the case has cost Denver at least $15,000 in legal fees. And the service dog case could end up costing Denver even more; Grider et al are asking for $75,000 and a permanent exemption to the pit bull ban for service dogs.

"I just want to know my dog and I are protected if we ever get stopped," says Glenn Belcher, who suffers from depression, anxiety and physical disabilities from an accident that occurred while he was serving in the Gulf War. His dog "Sky" helps him with balance and walking up stairs, but largely the purebred pit bull functions as a "therapy dog" when the 38-year-old gets hit with debilitating panic attacks and night terrors. He was able to license Sky as a service dog in Palm Springs, California. Belcher relocated to Denver last fall and says he tried to obtain a similar license from Animal Care and Control but was told by staff that he wasn't allowed under the city's pit bull ban. "I was told to either live here by myself or get rid of my dog," says Belcher. Like Grider, he has been granted a temporary stipulation to keep his dog for the duration of the suit.

The third plaintiff, Washington dog trainer Valerie Piltz, was arranging a trip to stay with her sister who lives in Denver last fall and was hoping to bring her two pit bull service dogs, "Klicker" and "Powerball," that she has trained to assist her with mobility and warn her of oncoming chemical imbalances in her body that cause debilitating anxiety attacks. But when Plitz's sister called Denver animal control, she says she was told by division director Doug Kelley that the dogs would only qualify as service animals if Plitz were "blind or deaf."

Neither the ADA nor Denver law makes any such stipulations for service animals says Edwards. "Federal law defines a service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability," she says.

Because of the pending litigation, Kelley said he couldn't comment on any of the cases. But he notes that there is no national program or database of service dog certification and the open-ended language of the ADA makes it difficult for local agencies to determine if a service animal is legitimate under federal law. "We need to see some type of documentation that this is a bona fide service animal," he says. This would be in the form of a doctor's letter stating the patient would benefit from a service animal or papers showing that a particular dog was trained specifically to help with their owner's disability. (In a phone call to Denver animal control separate from Face the State's interview with Kelley, a staff member explained to this reporter that the division "does not accept letters from doctors saying you need a service animal. We only take documents from certain training agencies." The staff member was unable to say which agencies, just that "we know them when we see them.") And if the service dog in question is a pit bull, the issue gets an even closer look from the city attorney's office to make sure they stay on the right side of the the ADA.

But it may be Denver's policy that needs a closer look. Multiple court rulings have held that businesses or other entities cannot demand proof of an animal's service training as a stipulation to allowing individuals to keep their animal.

While Kelley says he gets occasional calls from people asking if the city will allow them to bring their service dog pit bulls into the city despite the ban, he says he has never officially refused a Denver service animal license application because the dog was a pit bull. "We've never had any requests," he says.

America is a nation of dog lovers. Dogs come in so many shapes and sizes that we often forget that they are all one species of animal. Forty-three million households have seventy-three million dogs. We spend billions of dollars each year on their care. Many of us consider dogs to be family members. We often hold our values regarding companion animals above the values of many other cultures.

There is a dark side to our relationship with dogs, however, which has become increasingly disturbing in recent decades. We have surrendered what we know about the human-dog bond and have allowed ourselves to be swept away by media reporting which is biased, at best, and which has the effect of being deadly, at worst. There is no dog more misunderstood, or more feared, in our country than the dog commonly referred to as the "pit bull." This is our fault and it is our responsibility.

We must work to turn the tide of public opinion and perception about pit bulls by debunking the myths about them through fair and unbiased shelter adoption programs which allow them to join our communities and which allow people to see the dogs for what they really are and not for what they are feared to be. It's time to reclaim the truth. It's time to save man's best friend.

What is a Pit Bull Anyway?

A pit bull is not a breed of dog. It is a term which is used to describe a group of dogs which most often include three specific breeds: the American Pit Bull Terrier,2 3 the American Staffordshire Terrier4 and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.3 4 Although there is some disagreement regarding the origins of these breeds, the organizations which register them report that all three breeds are descended from crosses between Bulldogs and Terriers in 19th century England, Ireland and Scotland. 2 3 4 Because of the similarities between the breeds, some dogs are dual registered with more than one organization.5 It is universally accepted that these dogs are descended from dogs who were originally bred for "bull baiting" and "bear baiting" hundreds of years ago and that after these forms of public entertainment became illegal in 1835, dog fighting became a popular replacement.

The phrase "pit bull" is also commonly used by many people to describe a number of other dogs who are presumed, based on appearance alone, to be pit bulls or pit bull mixes.6 There are more than 20 breeds of dogs that have similar appearances and are commonly mistaken for pit bulls.

It is almost impossible for most people to accurately identify a pit bull.7 8 15 (For purposes of this paper, the phrases "pit bull" and "bully breeds" are used to describe these breeds of dogs and all other dogs who are presumed to be these breeds based on appearance.)

A Case of Mistaken Identity

In the Summer of 2007, animal control officers in Kansas City, Kansas, seized a dog named "Niko" from Mike and Amy Johnson for violating the city's ban against "harboring" pit bulls. After Niko was seized, he remained in the custody of animal control authorities and lived in a kennel, losing weight and developing health problems. It took an eight-month legal battle and a DNA test on Niko before the city agreed with what the Johnsons (and their paperwork) had said all along: that Niko was a Boxer mix.9

Even though tragic stories like the one above have become more common in an age of breed bans, identifying the breed of a dog which comes from documented lineage is normally a relatively straightforward process. Visually identifying dogs of unknown parentage, however, is hardly an accurate process. Sometimes dogs just don't look like their parents and many dogs look like a variety of breeds, based on their mixed ancestry. Breed assignments of shelter dogs are ordinarily based on what dogs look like to someone at the shelter (such as Animal Control Officers) or based on how the dog is identified by a person surrendering a dog to a shelter.10 In many shelters, most medium to large size dogs with straight, short/medium length brown hair coats are cast as German Shepherds or shepherd mixes; dogs with black spots on their tongues are designated Chow mixes; and most medium sized, stocky, broad headed, small eared dogs with short hair coats are cast as pit bulls or pit bull mixes.10

A July 2009 report published by the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science shows that breed assignments of dogs by adoption agencies, and what they are determined to be through DNA testing, is rarely in agreement.10 DNA test results showed that only 25% of the dogs in the study ended up being the predominant breed identified by adoption agencies. In 87.5% of the adopted dogs, breeds were identified by the DNA analysis that were not proposed by the adoption agencies at all.10

Shameful Statistics, Deadly Assumptions

Common sense would dictate that you cannot regulate what you cannot identify. That is clearly not always the case when it comes to dogs and the numbers related to shelter deaths of dogs considered pit bulls speak for themselves. According to statistics maintained by Merritt Clifton of Animal People,11 between eight and nine million animals entered American shelters in 2008.

Approximately 45% of those animals were dogs. Although 90% of dogs are statistically considered to be savable,12 almost two million dogs were destroyed in shelters in 2008 with 58% of them being those labeled as pit bulls. This is most often the result of a legislative breed ban (in the form of an ordinance or resolution), as the result of a de facto breed ban (in which Pit bulls are not adopted out by shelters under any circumstances) or as a result of so-called "temperament testing" which is utilized to determine which dogs will be put up for adoption and which dogs will be destroyed.A

". . .Temperament testing requires skill and training that is not often a priority for shelters; the results vary depending on the environment in which the test is conducted. . .it can and often does result in dogs being executed when they are not really aggressive."12

According to Mr. Clifton (who maintains statistics on a wide variety of animal species), a pit bull in America has approximately the same life expectancy as a steer raised for beef: about 18 months, on average. In any given year, about a third of all the steers on farms are sent to be slaughtered and about the same number of pit bulls are impounded and killed.11

How Did We Get Here?1

Dogs are part of America's rich history. Immigrants brought their dogs across the ocean along with their families and prized possessions. They soon became a fixture in our society; protecting homesteads from predators, helping on family farms and often serving as constant companions and nannies to young children who were entrusted in their care.5

Although dogs have served us faithfully in many capacities for many years, we have a long history of stereotyping certain breeds of dogs during different time periods. This "canine profiling" has been based on public perception and has been the result of hysteria which has had little, if anything, do to with actual dog behavior and aggression and which has had more to do with the manner in which types of dogs are objectified and used for negative or illegal purposes.

From the late 1800s up until the 1970s, the dogs considered to be vicious and naturally aggressive during particular decades in our history include Bloodhounds, Newfoundlands, Mastiffs, a group of dogs simply referred to as the "Northern Breeds" (such as Huskies, Malamutes and, Eskimo Dogs), Collies, Boston Terriers, St. Bernards, Airedale Terriers, Great Danes, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers and Rottweilers. The reputation of many of these stereotyped breeds has historically been a result of their use for some negative function (such as guarding or fighting) or as a result of being subjected to harsh environmental conditions and physical abuse.

How easily our opinion regarding different breeds of dogs is influenced is demonstrated by three breeds of dogs. In the case of Bloodhounds, the reputation of the dogs (from the late 1800s to the early 1900s) as fierce came not from actual reports of attacks, but from sensationalized stage versions of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin which were not true to the novel and in which a pack of Bloodhounds chased an escaping slave, baby in tow, across the frozen Ohio River. In the 1920s, the German Shepherd was seen as having no redeeming qualities until a dog named "Rin Tin Tin" appeared in a number of silent movies and public opinion about the breed changed primarily as a result of one dog. The association of Doberman Pinschers with Nazi guards during World War II automatically led people to believe the dogs were some type of super-predator, even though the German Army used many other breeds of dogs and in spite of the fact that breed was also used by the United States Marine Corps for valiant purposes.

Those dogs we now think of as pit bulls were quite popular and enjoyed an excellent reputation in the United States up until very recently. They were considered all-purpose dogs who appealed to a wide variety of owners and who functioned as guard dogs, farm dogs, hunting dogs, police dogs, traveling companions and house pets. Pit bull type dogs show up in hundreds of turn of the century photos, flanked by loving family members. World War I posters displayed illustrations of American Pit Bull Terriers as proud mascots of neutrality and bravery.5 The most decorated war dog of that time was an American Pit Bull Terrier named "Sergeant Stubby.13 A pit bull type dog named "Tige" helped sell Buster Brown shoes and "Petey" from the "Little Rascals" comedy television series was the first Staffordshire Terrier registered by the American Kennel Club.6

Regardless of the breed, consistent in our history with dogs is a dark side to the human canine relationship. Each time a breed of dog has been portrayed as vicious, there has been an immediate increase in the number of substandard owners of that breed which has led, in turn, to more reports of aggressive behavior because of the dogs' use for negative functions. Karen Delise, the Founder and Director of Research of the National Canine Research Council, states the following in her authoritative book, The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression:

"The bane of any breed is popularity. As seen time and time again, when a breed becomes exceedingly popular, especially if the breed has a negative function attached to it, there will be a significant increase in substandard and unsuitable owners . . . fatalities are directly associated with the increased popularity of these breeds among substandard owners."1

Yellow Journalism Alters Reality

From the late 1800s until the 1980s, media reports about dogs involved in attacks on people were not breed-biased. Newspapers focused on the circumstances which led to the attack and the breed of dog, if known, was simply one of the reported facts. Factors such as excessive heat, teasing, chaining and abuse were included in news reports of dog attacks to explain behavior. All of this changed three decades ago and a new era of the super-predator began.

By the middle of the 1970s, there was emerging public awareness of the blood sport of dog fighting in America. Dog fighting became a crime in all states in 1976 (even though it had been illegal in most states since the 1860s14) and in 1976 the Animal Welfare Protection Act was amended to make trafficking in dogs for the purpose of dog fighting a crime.6 As dog fighting got more attention from law enforcement authorities, it also got the attention of the media. This is when the true demise of the pit bull reputation began. Rather than follow the type of media reporting utilized for a hundred years, the media began to focus on the dogs, rather than the people who abused and objectified the dogs.15 "In a society of violent video games . . . gang warfare, drug abuse, serial killers [and] terrorist bombs. . .we [have become] increasing more difficult to shock. Our monsters need to be increasingly terrible in order to keep pace with a society easily bored by our own species' violent acts. . ."1

As had happened with other breeds in the past, the sensationalized, almost comic-book type of reporting about pit bulls whipped the general public into a frenzy and attracted even more unsavory owners who hoped to capitalize financially on this new super-predator. Myths of pit bull dogs with "super-canine powers" and deviant anatomy began to dominate news stories.1 

(All of these myths have since been exposed as having no basis whatsoever in fact: pit bulls do not have locking jaws, do not clamp with their front teeth and grind with their back teeth, do not have a greater bite force than other dogs, are not impervious to pain and do not attack without warning or when unprovoked.1)

The birth of the Internet only served to make matters worse for the pit bull. The Internet "has allowed for instant accessibility to highly publicized media accounts of individual cases of dog attacks. Editorial columns about the vicious nature of certain breeds, dog-bite attorneys' web sites filled with photos and statistics about dog attacks, quotes from politicians and outraged citizens about the nature and behaviors of certain dogs, and sensationalized headlines of dog attacks all seemingly offer instant and ample ‘proof' of the vicious nature of certain dogs. To many people these Internet sources are perceived as a reliable and accurate source of information on what they believe to be a recent epidemic of canine aggression."1

In 1986 there were over 350 newspaper, magazine and journal articles printed about the pit bull in the United States.1 "Over a decade later, the media is unrelenting."1 In 2006, more than 2,800 articles headlined the "pit bull."1 Reports about attacks by dogs other than pit bulls seldom garner more news coverage than a local paper whereas reports involving dogs believed to be pit bulls are consistently reported in hundreds of national and international newspapers and are covered by major television news networks, including CNN, MSNBC and FOX.1 "Clearly a fatal dog attack by an unremarkable breed is not as newsworthy as a non-fatal attack by a Pit bull," says Karen Delise.

"This biased reporting is not only lethal to an entire population of dogs; sensationalized media coverage endangers the public by misleading them about the real factors in canine aggression."15

The Wrong End of the Leash

The public hysteria created by the media hype caused people to demand that something be done about pit bulls, leading politicians to enter the fray and focus on the wrong end of the leash16 by concentrating on the dogs and not on the people responsible for their behavior. Relying upon myths of canine superpowers and on emotional pleas from constituents (often while completely disregarding expert opinions) politicians began taking steps to either ban pit bulls or severely limit the circumstances under which people could own them. By the end of the 20th century, more than 200 cities, communities and counties had enacted breed bans or restrictions against pit bulls or any dog that was viewed as having "pit bull characteristics."1 "Not only was ridding the community of pit bull-looking dogs touted as a cure-all for dog attacks, but at least another 26 breeds of dogs would be banned or restricted as ‘dangerous' in communities across the country. Some breeds with no documented cases of severe or fatal attacks in the community (or even throughout the country) were banned. Many communities touted breed bans to be a pre-emptive strike, banning an entire breed before it had a ‘chance' to attack."1 (Breed bans in other countries like Italy and the Netherlands have been lifted because they proved to be ineffective.6 Many breed bans in the U.S. have either been repealed or are being legally challenged as unconstitutional and unenforceable.7)

Pseudostatistics Become Proof

In the 1970s, a significant number of studies were published in response to increasing numbers of reported dog bites and dog attacks in many areas across the United States. None of these studies conducted in the 1970s make mention of the pit bull or the Rottweiler.15 Beginning in the middle 1980s, however, dog bite studies began to focus on only one aspect of dog bites: breed.17-22

The problem with the vast majority of the studies is that the "statistics" relied upon were actually numbers derived largely from newspaper stories and from the media's often incorrect identification of dogs involved in attacks. Following a number of studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and independent experts, it was determined that the studies did not "identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus [were] not appropriate for policymaking decisions related to the topic."23 "Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite."24 Dr. Randall Lockwood of the ASCPA (who was involved in a number of major dog bite studies) has since stated,"it's not the breed that makes a dog dangerous, it's the attitude of the owners . . . in 1974 we saw more German Shepherd, Collie, and Cocker Spaniel bites. Today it is the Rottweiler, Chow and Pit Bull. The dogs are a victim of their own popularity."25 Lockwood has also opined that "a well-trained, neutered Rottweiler will probably make a much better pet than a poorly socialized Dachshund."26

The Truth about Canine Aggression

The media focus on pit bulls has been so intense that many people now believe that only certain breeds of dogs are aggressive when, in fact, all dogs have the capability to be aggressive under certain circumstances. All dogs have teeth. All dogs bite. "They bite other animals, they bite each other and they bite humans."1 Approximately one-third of American households includes at least one dog.27 This means that at least 96 million people are in daily contact with dogs, if we include only the members of the dogs' own households.27 In spite of this level of interaction, dog bite fatalities are extremely rare, accounting for about one in 167,000 deaths per year in the U.S.27 Dog bites represent 0.2 percent of emergency room visits, making them comparable in incidence to, but less severe than, accidents involving many common household objects like chairs.27 Ninety-nine percent of emergency room treated dog bites are rated as minor punctures and lacerations.27 About half of the people who require medical attention as a result of a dog bite are children.23 "There is consensus among researchers that the majority of dogs who bite injure people they know well, in the dogs' own homes . . . yet much of the public concern is directed at bites to strangers in public places. This statistically misplaced concern may occur because the victims of such bites often have not consented to the dog having access to them."27

"The reasons why dogs attack are often complex, but the answer to preventing dog attacks is relatively simple: humane care and control of dogs is often all that is needed to prevent most dog attacks."1

Extensive research conducted by the National Canine Research Council has conclusively identified the practices that can cause a dog to behave dangerously.

(The National Canine Research Council maintains the most extensive data file available of the rare instances of severe and fatal canine aggression. This data file includes autopsy reports, crime scene photos, incident reports and interviews of police investigators, animal control officers, coroners, forensic pathologists, veterinarians, health department officials, dog owners and eyewitnesses.15)

These include the function of the dog (such as use as a guard dog), owner management and control (such as chained dogs, dogs roaming loose, failure to supervise interaction between children and dogs), and the reproductive status of the dog.15 Statistics15 regarding dog attacks which occurred in 2006 reflect the following:

• 97% of the owners of dogs involved in fatal attacks failed to spay or neuter their animals.
• 84% of the owners of dogs involved in fatal attacks either maintained their dogs on chains or in pens, allowed the dogs to run loose, neglected or abused their dogs, and/or allowed children to interact with unfamiliar dogs.
• 78% of the owners of dogs involved in fatal attacks maintained the dogs not as household pets, but as guard dogs, fighting dogs, intimidation dogs, breeding dogs, or yard dogs.

A 2007 report by the Council indicates that from 2005 to 2007, 91% of all fatal dog attacks were due to one or more of these same critical factors. Although the Council's 2008 report has not yet been published, a Council press release indicates that incidents of dog bite fatalities fell by one-third in 2008.15

The Real Deal

In spite of the breed origins, the vast majority of pit bulls are very far removed from their origins as dogs used for baiting and fighting. The sad truth is that pit bulls have often been used as fighting dogs because of their intelligence, athleticism, tenacity, strong sense of loyalty and their overwhelming desire to please humans. Pit bulls are often described as fun loving, spunky and affectionate.5 They are extremely loyal, bold and courageous animals.5 Their athletic nature makes them excel at various dog sports and activities including obedience trials, agility trials, flyball and frisbee competitions, and weight-pulling events.5 "The soft side of the breed shows up in their gushing affection for humans - a desirable trait that was very important to the original breeders of this animal and remains so today. For this reason, many pit bulls work as Certified Therapy Dogs in hospitals and nursing homes."5 Yet other pit bulls work as search and rescue dogs, in law enforcement (as narcotics and bomb detection dogs) and as service dogs.

When we put aside the hype and hysteria, we find that pit bulls are actually some of the most well-behaved dogs in our society. The 2008 breed statistics published by The American Temperament Test Society28 (which conducts comprehensive behavior assessment testing which is often referenced in reports and studies) indicate that the average passing rating for pit bulls (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier) was 85.73. Of the 214 other breeds tested by the American Temperament Test Society, 133 breeds had lower passing scores than dogs typed as pit bulls. Some of the breeds of dogs (of comparable size to most bully breeds) with lower scores were the Beagle, Border Collie, Boxer, Cocker Spaniel, Collie, Dalmatian, Golden Retriever, Mastiff, St. Bernard, Standard Poodle and Weimaraner.28 Although smaller breeds of dogs are generally considered less capable of being as aggressive as larger breeds of dogs, it should be noted that many small dog breeds also had passing rates lower than that of bully breeds, including Bichon Frise, Cairn Terrier, Chihuahua, the standard Dachshund, Jack Russell Terrier, Maltese and Yorkshire Terrier.

Like many other breeds of dogs who are considered "high energy" and very smart, pit bulls are not for everyone.29 They are not a hands off breed which can simply be left alone. Early socialization and training are essential in order to teach them their proper place in the home and how to act around both people and other animals. Pit bulls who become bored will find ways to entertain themselves. An under-exercised pit bull will have a large amount of excess energy that will be utilized in some inappropriate way if not channeled properly, be it running around the house, jumping on people and play-biting, pacing, and so on. Pit bulls tend to be prone to dog aggression and are in general a breed with a high prey drive (they like to chase and catch small animals.)29

Even when pit bulls have been subjected to the worst that humans have to offer, they are capable of defying the media hype of them as super-predators and of overcoming incredible abuse.

After forty-nine pit bulls were seized from Michael Vick's Virginia property in the summer of 2007, federal Judge Henry Hudson ordered them placed with eight rescue groups in five states.30 All 10 of the dogs placed with BAD RAP are living in homes (the majority live with other animals), three have passed the AKC Canine Good Citizen Test, two are certified therapy dogs and one of the therapy dogs, "Jonny Justice," also helps with a children's literacy program.31 The 22 dogs deemed the most traumatized were placed with the Best Friends Animal Society at their sanctuary in Kanab, Utah.

Five of the dogs have either been adopted or are in foster care32 and all but one of the dogs are considered adoptable at any time to the right home. (Due to the origins of the so-called "Vicktory Dogs" placed with Best Friends, and the potential that they could be sought by people with negative intentions, the dogs were not available for adoption until 2009, allowing one full year to work with the dogs and get to know them. Best Friends considers all but one of these dogs adoptable at any time to the right home, but there is a considerable process that each adopter must go through, including a background check and retaining a personal qualified dog trainer.32)

Where Do We Go From Here?

It's a given that there is no quick fix for the undeserved reputation of pit bulls. Most people consider the media reports and information found on the Internet as "proof" of the inherently vicious nature of these dogs and we cannot simply flip a switch and regain our collective sanity about the true nature of dogs in general. The fact remains, however, that we cannot allow this trend to continue. We owe our canine companions better. It is up to us as communities to be responsible and to help take proactive steps in order to rehabilitate the image of pit bulls and to educate the public on the real reasons behind dog aggression. This will help prevent dog attacks and fatalities, and it will help people understand that aggression is not limited to certain breeds of dogs.

Getting Them Into Homes

• Shelter directors and staff (and those in management positions over shelters) should ensure that all dogs in shelters are given the same opportunities to be adopted, regardless of perceived breed, keeping in mind that even the most experienced shelter workers often cannot correctly identify dog breeds or their mixes. It has been proposed that it might just be easier to refer to them as "American Shelter Dogs."10
• Shelters should use breed-blind, equitable, double-process behavior testing in order to fairly evaluate dogs for adoption. Prior to being tested, dogs should be given a chance to acclimate to the shelter for a period of days, they should be medically evaluated first and they should be given the chance to be walked outside of the building daily and interact with shelter staff or volunteers on a regular basis and away from the distractions inside the shelter. When the behavior assessment is conducted, it should be repeatable at different times and in different environments and it should accurately predict the dog's behavior in a home. The goals of true behavior testing should be to screen out aggression while ensuring that dogs who are otherwise friendly but who are just scared, shy, traumatized, sick or injured are not wrongly destroyed. Assessments should not be pass/fail; any dog showing workable issues, such as resource/food guarding, can be helped and made ready for adoption by behavior rehabilitation.
• Potential adopters of pit bulls should be screened to make sure they possess a general understanding of dog behavior, the needs of high-energy, strong dogs, and that they understand the ordinary temperament and needs of pit bulls and pit bull mixes. They also need to understand and appreciate that the dog they adopt will become an ambassador of a breed with the potential to sway public opinion. Some organizations which regularly adopt out pit bulls require a home visit (to view the environment in which the dog will live and to ensure the dog will not be utilized for some negative purpose) both before and after the adoption, in addition to requiring a veterinary reference to ensure the dog will receive proper medical care.

Avoiding Litigation

According to attorney Bonnie L. Lutz (a member of the board of directors for the American Veterinary Medical Legal Association), "there is not a single reportable appellate opinion in which an animal shelter was found liable for a bite by a dog that it did not own."33 "If reduction in liability is the goal, refusing to adopt out certain breeds of dogs or placing blanket restrictions on adoptions of certain breeds, are not viable solutions."33 A variety of breeds of dogs which are statistically more aggressive29 than pit bulls are adopted out on a regular basis by shelters and rescue groups across the country (Basset Hounds, Beagles, Boxers, Cocker Spaniels, Golden Retrievers, Jack Russell Terriers and Standard Poodles, etc.). It stands to reason then, that if suits are not brought following adoption of these other breeds of dogs, there is no reason to believe that adoption of pit bulls raises the potential of liability, particularly if the adoption process provides for adequate screening of adopters and efforts are made to educate the community.

In order to avoid litigation following adoption, the shelter should: 1) observe dogs while in the shelter environment, document those observations and document all information provided by the previous owner; and 2) disclose all known facts to the new guardian and transfer ownership of the dog fully and finally.33 This is easily accomplished using a blanket adoption agreement which contains a hold harmless provision. The agreement can also contain an assumption of the risk form which allows for specific, known information about the dog's reported or observed history to be documented.34

Keeping Them in Homes

• Adult Educational Programs. Offer free educational programs to teach responsible dog ownership, promote socialization of dogs at an early age and encourage owners to make dogs part of the family. (Approximately 80% of fatal dog attacks are by dogs that were isolated or not included in the family's activities.7) The training can be provided with the help of local rescue groups, animal welfare advocates and volunteers.
• Educational Programs for Children. Most of the exposure to dog-bite injury risk can be mitigated by providing appropriate education to well-intentioned but misinformed and/or uninformed guardians, and to the public at large.27 Sixty-seven percent of injurious dog bites to children have been shown to be preventable by changing the child's or the caregiver's behavior in interacting with the dog. Even a single 30-minute lesson incorporated into a regular school day, taught by a dog handler, has been shown to dramatically reduce high-risk behaviors toward unfamiliar dogs in both very young and middle-school children.27
• Bully promotion programs. Working with pit bull rescue groups and advocates, develop an outreach and intervention program for the local community serving the unique needs of pit bulls and pit bull mixes. Programs like this exist in a number of regions to educate the general public regarding the misunderstanding of the breeds' needs, to offer potential adopters advice and education about the breed and to encourage people to see their pit bulls as ambassadors to the community, with the potential to change public opinion.

Making People Feel Safe While Getting to the Roots of Canine Aggression

• Enforce dangerous dog laws (as opposed to breed specific legislation.) Rather than try to regulate the dogs, we must regulate the people who own them and who are responsible for their care and behavior. The best way to do this is by enforcing existing dangerous dog laws and by gauging the effectiveness of those laws over periods of time so that they can be modified to address true sources of canine aggression. Model dangerous dog laws are available for us to emulate, and they seek to individually identify potentially dangerous dogs based on a history of that dog's and owner's behavior and reported incidents.
• Enactment/strengthening of laws regarding dogs running at large that require spay/neuter after the second violation. More than 80% of dog bites are by dogs running loose.

(JAVMA, September 15, 20007; National Canine Research Council) After passing a leash law, the city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, reported a 35% drop in dog bites.7

• Enactment/strengthening of laws that restrict the tethering, chaining and penning or caging of dogs.35 Dogs that are chained are 2.8 times more likely to be aggressive.7 Lawrence County, Kansas, adopted an anti-tethering ordinance. From 2005 to 2006, the number of calls concerning cruelty and dog fighting dropped from 800 to 260. Officials attribute the decline in large part to the anti-tethering law.7
• Encourage spay/neuter and help educate/inform the public about organizations or programs that promote low-cost spay/neuter in the community. In many communities, people are not aware of the health benefits of having their dog sterilized and are unaware of programs which provide financial support for low income families. More than 90% of fatal dog attacks are by dogs that are not spayed or neutered.15 Also, mandate spay/neuter for dogs determined to be dangerous (in accordance with existing laws) and dogs impounded more than once or found at large.

"It is long past time for us to rethink our policies about dog attacks and the role humans play in this inter-species relationship. We owe it to the future safety of our children and communities. We owe it to our canine companions." 1

We owe it to ourselves.

REFERENCES

PRIMARY REFERENCE SOURCE:

1 Karen Delise, The Pit Pull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression; Anubis Publishing, June 2007.

SECONDARY REFERENCE SOURCES:

2 American Dog Breeders Association, Inc. http://www.adba.cc/

3 United Kennel Club http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/Home

4 American Kennel Club http://www.akc.org/

5 Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls http://www.badrap.org/rescue/index.cfm

6 Jane Berkey, President, Animal Farm Foundation, Inc.; Dog Breed Specific Legislation: The Cost to People, Pets and Veterinarians, and the Damage to the Human-Animal Bond; Published in Proceedings of the Annual AVMA Convention, July 11-14, 2009, Seattle Washington.

7 Animal Law Coalition http://www.animallawcoalition.com/breed-bans/article/556, http://www.animallawcoalition.com/breed-bans/article/598, http://www.animallawcoalition.com/breed-bans/pendingcase/53

8 Pit Bulls On The Web (http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/), (www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html), ( www.box.net/shared/static/sjc8d9mcm6.pdf)

9 Dana M. Campbell; Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation; American Bar Association Magazine Article, July/August 2009.

10 A Comparison of Visual and DNA Identification of Breeds of Dogs; Victora L. Voith, PhD, DVM, DACVB;published in Proceedings of Annual AVMA Convention, July 11-14, 2009, Seattle Washington.

11 Personal communication with Merritt Clifton, Editor, Animal People; August 18, 2009.

12 Nathan J. Winograd; Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America; 2d Edition, Almaden Books, February 2009.

13 State of Connecticut Military Department http://www.ct.gov/mil/cwp/view.asp?a=1351&q=257958

14 Hanna Gibson, Animal Legal Historical Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Dog Fighting Detailed Discussion, 2005 www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusdogfighting.htm

15 National Canine Research Council http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/

16 S. Miller, "Wrong End of the Leash: Breed-Specific Laws Target Symptoms, Not Causes," Best Friends Magazine, March/April 2008.

17 "Are ‘Pit Bulls' Different? An analysis of the Pit Bull Terrier Controversy", Lockwood, R, and Rindy, K. Anthrozoos 1987, Volume 1, Number 1 pg. 2-8.

18 Sacks, J. J., Sattin, R. W., Bonzo, S. E. "Dog bite-related fatalities from 1979 through 1988." Journal of the American Medical Association, 1989; 262, 1489-1492

19 Sacks, J. J., Lockwood R., Hornreich J., Sattin R. W. "Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994." Pediatrics, 1996; 97, 891-5.

20 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; "Dogbite-related fatalities-United States, 1995-1996 (1997)." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997; 46:463-7.

21 "Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998," JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000

22 Merritt Clifton, Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. and Canada, September 1982 to January 1, 2008 www.scribd.com/doc/11249213/Dog-Attack-Deaths-Maimings-US-Canada-September-1982-to-January-2008

23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites

24 B. Beaver, et al., "A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention: American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, JAVMA, Vol. 218, No. 11; June 11, 2002.

25 Humane Society of Seneca County http://www.senecahumane.org/cruelty.html

26 Cary Silver, "Dangerous Dogs, A Biting Look at Man's Best Friend"; Working Dogs Magazine http://www.workingdogs.com/doc0084.htm

27 Janice Bradley, Animals and Society Institute; Dog Bites: Problems and Solutions Policy Paper; 2006.

28 American Temperament Test Society, Inc.; Breed Statistics as of December 2008 www.atts.org/stats1.html

29 The Real Pit Bull http://www.realpitbull.com/

30 Order entered by United States District Judge Henry E. Hudson; In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division; Civil Action No. 3:07-cv-00397; HEH

31 Personal communication with Christine Allen, Legislative Affairs Director, Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit bulls; August 22, 2009.

32 Personal communication with Ann Allums, Best Friends Animal Society, Head Trainer for the "Victory Dogs"; August 28, 2009.

33 Bonnie L. Lutz, Esq.; Liability Hysteria: Don't let liability "hysteria" keep you from sending good dogs home"; Animal Farm Foundation, Inc.http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/view_article.php?id=36

34 www.cockerspanielrescue.com/forms/adoptcontract.pdf; Best Friends Resource Library

35 www.unchainyourdog.org and http://www.municode.com/

Courtesy of Animal Law Coalition

A growing group of pit bull owners says the animals are ideal service dogs -- a designation that exempts them from Miami-Dade's ban of the breed, which some say is instinctively dangerous.

BY LAURA ISENSEE

Photo by Ginger Monteleone

lisensee@MiamiHerald.com

Brian Guadagno is rarely alone -- whether he dines out, shops for groceries or flies on a plane. His dog Doc stays by his side.

The 5-year-old, 35-pound service dog is a Staffordshire bull terrier -- a breed that, like pit bulls, is banned in Miami-Dade County.

Guadagno, 32, said Doc helps him contend with a lifelong learning disability that makes it hard for him to focus.

``We've never spent time apart,'' said Guadagno, who said he no longer needs medication.

A pit bull may seem an unlikely savior, given its reputation for powerful jaws, lock-down bites and aggression.

But Doc and Guadagno are among a small but growing group of pit bulls and their owners who are exempt from Miami-Dade's pit-bull ban, enacted in 1989 after an 8-year-old girl was mauled by a neighbor's pit bull.

Within the past year, Miami-Dade Animal Services has registered about half a dozen pit bulls as service animals for people with disabilities, in what investigator supervisor Kathy Labrada called an emerging trend.

Under federal rules, any guide or signal dog that is individually trained to assist someone with a physical or mental disability qualifies as a service animal.

Federal law trumps Miami-Dade's ordinance, Labrada said.

``We're seeing a trend in an increase of citizens that claim to have a disability and their pit bull is their service animal. That is a loophole that people have found,'' she said.

Labrada said it is a challenge to verify that a dog is a service animal because federal rules do not require any special certification for the animal. In addition, the Americans With Disabilities Act restricts the county from asking specific questions about medical conditions, she said.

Anyone can train a service animal under the federal guidelines. International standards recommend a minimum of 120 hours over six months for service animals, which can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars.

``There are certainly concerns that some individuals may claim an animal as a service animal when, in fact, it isn't,'' Labrada said.

Toni Eames, president of International Association of Assistance Dog Partners, said she had heard of pit bulls as service dogs, but had not encountered one or a program that trains them.

``There's a lot of fraud and there's a lot of legitimacy,'' said Eames, who is blind and has a golden retriever as a guide dog. ``The training has to be the standard.''

In Miami-Dade, pit bull owners can face a $500 fine and possible court action to force the animal's removal. The dogs are still deemed dangerous.

``They were bred to bait and fight bulls,'' Labrada said. ``If and when they bite, the potential for damage is extreme.''

Miami-Dade's ban covers American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers or any dog that matches most of those breeds' traits.

Other U.S. cities, such as Denver and Cincinnati, have banned pit bulls. Broward County does not have a ban, though at least two cities there -- Sunrise and Tamarac -- require pit bulls to be registered. Broward resident Larry Steinhauser, 57, said he would campaign for a countywide pit bull ban -- though Florida now prohibits laws against specific breeds. (Miami-Dade's ban was grandfathered in when the state law was passed.) A pit bull once lunged at him while he walked his dog. He also witnessed another pit bull attack, he said.

``I've never seen one that isn't aggressive,'' said Steinhauser. ``I feel they're a danger to society.''

Many love and defend the bully breed. One was the lovable mascot of the Little Rascals children's movie shorts of the 1930s, and the dogs later became the inspiration for local rapper Pitbull's fierce stage name.

On the national stage, celebrity chef Rachael Ray, who owns a pit bull named Isaboo, has advocated for the dogs. (Isaboo made tabloid headlines this year for reportedly biting the ear off another pooch.)

In Miami-Dade, Dahlia Canes directs a group fighting to overturn the ban. The group -- Miami Coalition Against Breed Specific Legislation -- was scheduled to join other advocates in Tallahassee for a rally Sunday.

Canes said many owners in Miami-Dade keep their dogs under the radar -- walking them very early or very late and finding veterinarians who won't report them.

``These dogs are extremely loyal and loving. The ban should be removed yesterday,'' Canes said.

Canes pointed to Ruby, a pit bull who recently visited Hialeah Hospital. Her owner, Pat Bettendorf, of Minnesota, found Ruby as an abandoned puppy and now considers her his service dog, assisting him when he experiences anxiety attacks.

Dr. Reinaldo Carvajal, who directs the geriatric unit at Hialeah Hospital, said therapy dogs can help patients, and said the pit bulls' reputation is not deserved.

``It's due to the fact that some people have used them for activities such as animal fighting,'' Carvajal said.

Pit bulls that strictly provide therapy still face Miami-Dade's ban. While they may support emotional well-being, they do not perform a service, Labrada said.

Not all agree that pit bulls make the best service animals.

``Service dogs need to be above reproach,'' said Janet Severt, founder of New Horizons Service Dogs in Orange City, north of Orlando, and who trains service animals. ``They need to be able to handle anything life throws at them.''

That could be the sudden boom of a car backfiring to a child pulling the dog's hair.

At New Horizons, Severt trains Labrador and golden retrievers as service animals, primarily for people with mobility problems or in wheelchairs, like herself.

She said the retrievers -- originally bred as a gentleman's hunting dog -- are eager to please. She said she disagrees with the ban, but would not train a pit bull.

``My problem with pit bulls is if they're in a fight they can do a lot of damage,'' said Severt.

Guadagno's companion Doc didn't start as a service animal. He said Doc has more than 100 hours of training and was certified in 2007 by the International Therapy and Service Animal Association. Guadagno registered the dog with the county last year.

Sometimes Doc stands on his hind legs and gives Guadagno a friendly pat with his paws -- a hug -- to keep his attention from drifting.

``It's really grounding,'' said Guadagno.

Miami Herald staff writer Melissa Montoya contributed to this report.

 Lisa Moehring is a member Director of MCABSL Polk County District

LAKELAND | About two years ago, Lisa Moehring visited the Polk County Animal Control shelter looking for dogs that could be rescued from euthanization. Her eyes fell on two burly American Staffordshire Terriers, a breed closely related to the American Pit Bull Terrier, and she knew she had to save them.

Meet Grady and Judd, two 70-pound bundles of brown-coated muscle. Moehring eventually got the dogs to a pit bull rescue organization, the first pit bulls to be rescued out of the Polk shelter, she said. As a gesture of thanks to Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, whose office runs the shelter, she named them after him. Today, they are owned by a woman in Clearwater named Margaret, who didn't want her full name used.

Recently, Margaret brought Grady and Judd over to Moehring's house for a visit, where they romped and lazed in the sun and jumped in friendly greeting to a couple of visitors.

"I have not had one negative reaction. Once people get past the fact they're pit bulls, they say, 'Oh, they're beautiful.' I take them to Starbucks and people take pictures with their camera phones," Margaret said.

In the wake of a recent incident in Pasco County in which a family's pit bull attacked and killed a week-old infant while the child's mother slept, controversy about pit bulls has resurfaced.

Is the breed inherently dangerous, or has it been given a bad reputation by owners who use the dogs for fighting or mistreat them in order to have a big, mean dog?

Dog advocacy groups say that at one time, American Pit Bull Terriers were considered all-American dogs. One was used in a World War I propaganda poster, Moehring said. Pete, the dog in the "Little Rascals" comedy films, and Tighe, the dog in the Buster Brown shoe advertisements, were pit bulls.