Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/03/2013 10A Breed Specific Law; Additional Information from Codes Manager/Fire Marshal Caruso
01,1 1101 li BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: 12/3/2013 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ITEM TITLE: Memo from Codes Manager/Fire Marshall Caruso and additional information re the Breed Specific Law received on November 13, 2013 and distributed at November 12, 2013 Council Study Session. SUBMITTED BY: Sonya Claar Tee, City Clerk SUMMARY EXPLANATION: See attached. Resolution: Other (Specify): Contract: Start Date: Item Budgeted: Funding Source/Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: RECOMMENDATION: Ordinance: Contract Term: End Date: Amount: City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type ❑ memo caruso 11/27/2013 Cover Memo ❑ info from Ryan Low 11/13/2013 Cover Memo ❑ pit bull info distributed at study session 11/13/2013 Cover Memo MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Yakima City Council From: Joe Caruso, Code Administration Manager Date: November 27, 2013 RE: Pit Bull Ban On November 12, 2013, the City Council held a study session on the pros and cons of repealing the City's 1987 ordinance banning pit bulls from residing within the City of Yakima. In addition to the materials and testimony received at the November 12 study session, the City Council and staff also received additional information from Ryan Low. Based on this collective information, the City Council can uphold the existing pit bull prohibition or allow pit bulls into the City with the understanding that the current dangerous dog regulations would apply to them. In addition to the dangerous dog regulations, the City Council may also want to consider the following regulations for pit bull ownership: • Licensing fee differential • Spay/neuter requirement • Liability insurance ranging from $250,000 to $1,000,000 • Require a muzzle on pit bulls when in public • Require enclosed kennel and fencing The critical difference between the City's pit bull prohibition and dangerous dog regulations is that the pit bull ban preempts attacks that would inflict serious injury or death; whereas, the dangerous dog ordinance takes effect after a person is bitten. It is the professional opinion of the Animal Control Division and Police Department not to allow pit bulls a "free bite" before classifying them as a dangerous dog. This is because of the unique characteristics of the pit bull bite as represented by the acute, and often lethal damage the pit bull bite inflicts. believe it is in interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Yakima to maintain the 1987 City ordinance prohibiting pit bulls from residing in the City. Clear Tee, Sonya From: ryan low [rye.low@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:29 PM To: Cawley, Micah; Adkison, Maureen; Coffey, Kathy; Ensey, Rick; Bristol, Sara; Ettl, Dave; Lover, Bill; Claar Tee, Sonya; O'Rourke, Tony Subject: Provision Draft I am an complete novice at writing code and contracts, and policy, In fact I am not qualified to do so. I send this provision draft to you knowing that those things are deficient. The following ideas were drafted from my experience as a board member of the humane society, and in talking to as many local people and agencies who handle dogs as possible. It became clear early that people who adopt dogs from rescue operations, are not the problem because they are so well sifted through by the local rescue operators. No one wants to adopt to a bad owner, and no one wants to see a dog be let down. The humane society is the most liberal to adopt, but it still has never adopted a dog out when the adoptee is in doubt. I could not find a rescue operation in the state that has adopted out a dog that had a viscous attack on a person. High risk dogs are put down, or in rare cases given to high risk shelters out of the city. None of these rescue groups support breeders of pit bulls. Animal rescues have a great encumbrance from the mixed breed dogs that come into the shelter that may look this way. I can't work on a final provision until the draft is considered by City Council. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, it's still a draft and can be changed. Thank you City Council, Mayor and Manager for opportunity for review, and all the support for more animal control measures that have been approved in the last year. -Ryan Low These suggestions will assume you are concerned about future dog attacks on people and other animals, dog fighting operations, criminal conduct and abuse concerning dogs. None the ideas have any added expense to the public, rather you should see an increase in fees through licensing and ticketing, to help pay for the added Animal Control Officers you voted on earlier in the year (Thank you). I believe you already have all the tools in place to implement these concepts, so no additional funding should be needed. The article in need of an update is the animal control code and licensing fee schedule. The ideas listed below exist and are used in other municipalities and have shown excellent results. These Ideas were drafted and considered by several meetings with Animal Control, Central Washington Humane society, and legal guidance through non-profit organizations to find recourse to the Pit Bull Ban in Yakima. The big issue not stated at today's meeting is that visual identification of a dog has become a litigation target and municipalities are losing their visual bans outright. If this provision is adopted people would most likely participate in the program, rather than sue the city. Please look up part 2 of the Criscuolo vs Grant county case online if you want to know more specifics. All the cases mentioned today challenging the ban come in no later than 1989. Today with DNA testing, plaintiff's can prove their visually offensive dog innocent, and any appellate Judge will overturn the ban as being arbitary. The city can either adopt stronger dog ordinances, or re-write the ban with DNA structure and pay for DNA testing on each dog, which is very expensive. To help prepare the city for that end someday, we are trying to develop a model dog ownership program and a new concept for pre-emptive action taken on owners. The city can still retain the ban as it sees fit. To effectively control and prevent bites and attacks we are proposing ideas by way the following concepts; Reduction of dog population; Preemptive action toward aggressive dogs. These two things incidentally address other issues concerning animal welfare. This is the context I believe you are working with, and the aim in which we are suggesting these relatively minor changes in animal control policy, which should make a big difference in years to come. All concerned parties all want more owner responsibility taken and this is a way to get there. FEE DIFFERENTIAL CONCEPT • You cannot have a good animal control policy without effective licensing. This offset is the single best thing that can be implemented in order to start a trend toward better owner responsibility. Statistics show a 35%-45% drop in stray animals in metro areas in a 5 year period. Yakima may not see that significant of a result due to outlying areas that do not have this offset, but it will provide a model structure and incremental results in coming years to effective animal control policy. Licensing Fee Differential •To have effective licensing and ticketing, the differential must pass the test of basic economics, the cost of licensing/fee must be greater than the cost of spay/neuter. Current fee schedule is $15 Altered $30 unaltered. A $15 offset does not satisfy this. —Fee of spayed/neutered animal: $15, —Fee of unaltered animal: $100-$150 w/ a late penalty of $50-$100 each month up to $500. - Exemptions provided for licensed breeders and kennel licenses. •Provisions for Low -Income Residents are already available however limited through a Humane Society program called SNAP, However, these certificates might be better articulated and granted by Animal Control Officers. • Fees collected from a Pit bull provision may be applied toward a spay and neuter program within a 501c3 BANNING REPEAT OR LEVEL 5 VIOLATORS FROM OWNING A DOG - Animal control officers have a list of grossly negligent repeat violators that result in many visits and wasted time. If a person is banned from owning a dog based on a prior offenses/convictions, a far more simple and faster preemptive force can be taken. - Could have a scheduled sentence of 5 years or more and fee - Could be applied to puppy mill operators/illicit breeding without proper licensing. SALE OF ANY PUPPIES, JUVINILES PROHIBITED WITHOUT KENNEL LICENSE By making it illegal to receive profits from illicit dog breeders, you will see less dogs roaming. People can still give away dogs, but selling them should be considered a violation, and have a scheduled fine. Many of the rescue operations will be more than happy to turn in craigslist and Facebook posts and provide the necessary evidence to enable a conviction. IF THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERS A PROVISION TO THE BAN Almost Every Municipality in Washington Provides a Provision of some kind, To allow Good owners to keep their dogs. - Still prohibits purebred pit bulls and thereby not supporting the breeding and/or buying of such - Every aspect of this program will be monitored and managed by local 501 C3 rescue operators that participate, creating no due process for city courts; this will provide more information to the council for decision into the repeal or retaining of the ban in the future, or to continue with provision. - All dogs and families are pre-screened for already existing adoption standards. - Premises in which the dog will reside are reviewed by an animal control officer and subject to further inspection. All people who participate in the program will sign a disclosure permitting such. - Provision would give a supplementary revenue stream to rescues that want to participate. - Within this provision a new kind of pre-emptive measure known as Dog Control Notices can be reviewed and developed, and issued after a level 2 (menacing) violations occurs. This idea needs testing and more work to realize its full potential and flaws. By using this provision as its development point you can examine the most effective animal control measure without any legal burden. Please see Dog Control Notice concept below. Provision Draft - All applications for a pit bull/mix license will require person to apply in advance at shelter and have a yard and home inspection done by animal control - Animal control or police allowed to inspect animal and property without notice after license is granted, and refer owner to a number of conditions or recommendations of the Dog Control Notice as needed, or risk losing the special permit. All permits for pit bull dogs mixes would have to come from a 501 c3 or animal rescue operation, with paperwork to ensure eligibility. This assumes and requires spay/neutering and micro chipping, as well as a temperament check. -Pit bull type dogs will have a "Special collar" and/or License tag to be easily identified by officers from a distance visually. - Any officer can inspect and look up a dog with special collar or tag and cross-reference it with a person's identification to ensure its legality - Transfer of ownership prohibited without proper transfer paperwork through the 501 c3 rescue or humane society and complete application for Certificate of Conformity - The programs results would be reported to city council on various scheduled reporting intervals - Anyone participating in program gives Animal Control Officers consent to implement Dog Control Notices, which if are not obeyed, will result in repeal of permit and possible prosecution by the existing ban. - Shelters will determination if a permit is to be repealed, the city has no liability and can follow through with charges - Program would be controlled and monitored by 501 c3 animal rescue organizations, not city. - City council will be informed of the Programs proceedings through 6 month status reporting intervals - City council can repeal provision by vote if they see it for any reason unfit or unsafe - This program is an ideal model on how to improve and test "Dog Control Notices" which are the best way to prevent an attack by way of code enforcement. - Pre-existing pit mixes may apply for a "Certificate of Conformity", in which the 501 c3 will proclaim that the dog therein conforms to all the adoption concerns and standards as well as the family possessing the dog. Only authorized personnel will be allowed to give Certification for pre-existing dogs. City Licensing dept will have a registry of that list. - After a period of three years (puppy to young dog), a permanent license may be granted to participants who are outstanding model owners, which will be determined by ACO and local shelters. These owners will assist others participating in provision to help promote better ownership. - As a incentive for people to participate, if the program was to be later shut down by vote of council, or any other handicap, participants would be granted a full dog license if there were no considerable violations. DOG CONTROL NOTICES (DCNs) to owners if an animal is consistently out of control, or is causing a "reasonable" sense of alarm to any individual who reports it. These notices can force owners to take a variety of actions before an incident takes place. These steps are a lead in before declaring a dog dangerous within the already stated guidelines in the animal control policy. The DCN can impose a number of conditions on the dog owner including: - Repairing structures needed to retain such an animal - The owner and their dog attending and completing a training course in order to gain the control of dogs . - Keeping the dog on a lead whenever it is in a place to which the public have access; - Referring owner to seek veterinary care If you breach it, you can be fined a targeted amount, having dog convicted of level X behavior and/or declared dangerous. This concept if further developed through this program will help in designing and implementing a pre-emptive action before an incident take place and protect the public from any breed of dog. The current policy on dangerous dogs leaves a space between level 2 (Threaten) and level 3 (harm) that would be served well by this concept, and could be implemented within the current code 6.20.130 Control of dogs. Although this type of ordinance exists elsewhere, it is new (3 Years old), and is showing great results. The concept needs testing before it could be used on any dog of level 2 or greater. The pit bull provision will already grant this access by having any person who participates in program sign a contract giving animal control or 501 c3 the ability to impart their instruction and deal with any concern they may have to meet with acceptable conditions. All of these accounts will be documented or face the lifting of license and face the criminal charges that are already outlined. Groups and people I have worked with to help develop these concepts -Humane Society of Central Washington Alan landvoy, Brian Stephenson, Wendy St. George, Matty, Erica, Vaughn, Patsy Animal Control Mike, Angel, Ben Wags to riches Stacy Mayne Yakima Valley Vet clinic Aaron Patrick DVM and other staff Lincoln ave vet clinic Greg Colman Emergency Vet clinic Dr. Anne Kluetmeier, DVM National Canine Research Council Victoria Voith, PhD, DVM, DACVB Animal Farm Foundation Stacy Coleman Ledy van Kavage Animal Law offices of Adam P. Karp JD MS City Of Yakima Joe Mann Sara Bristol Thank you for your time and consideration -Ryan Low Distributed at the' Meeting Resident: Jim Keightley Address: 504 N 78th Ave I present this statement in regards to the council's study session on the ordinance prohibiting Pit Bulls in Yakima. I apologize for being unable to attend this session. I am a resident of Yakima, but work as police administrator in a neighboring city. My duties include the oversight of our Animal Shelter & Control. This statement, which is my personal opinion, is based on my professional experience and observations. Due to their breeding Pit Bulls are unpredictably aggressive. Pit Bulls with no history of aggression can and do suddenly attack without warning and provocation, usually toward those who they sense are weak such as children and the elderly. Any dog, given the wrong circumstances such as extreme brutality by its owner or being allowed to pack up with dogs who are aggressive, is capable of violent aggression, but no other breed has the history of unprovoked attacks like Pit Bulls. A simple search will uncover numerous records of a Pit Bull violently attacking and killing children, elderly and sometimes others. As mentioned, other breeds are occasionally responsible for these attacks, but it's my estimation that about 80% of all violent dog attacks on humans are Pit Bulls. Pit Bull owners will state that their Pit Bull is a well behaved member of the family, that they have never shown any aggressive tendencies, and are nothing to be concerned about. In almost every case this is completely true. But, the reality is no dog owner can swear with all certainly that their dog will never aggressively attack anyone. Dogs are animals and all animals can be and are often unpredictable. I own two dogs, an Australian Shepherd and a dachshund, both of them licensed in Yakima. These dogs have no aggressive breeding in their lineage and have never shown any aggression toward humans, however, I cannot say with certainty that they will never be aggressive. How much more uncertainty is there when dealing with a dog bred to be aggressive. In the city I work in, nearly every report we get of a dog behaving aggressively involves a Pit Bull or similar breed. Most recently our officers responded to a report of a dog violently attacking a screen door trying to get to the toddler on the other side. Before ever arriving at the location I knew the dog would be a Pit Bull. Thankfully the screen door did not fail. These types of reports are not isolated incidents, they are the routine. With these things in mind I respectfully ask the City Council to leave intact the ordinance that has been serving the citizens of Yakima well, the prohibition of Pit Bulls inside the city. I wish the city I work for had such an ordinance. Thank you OLICE ATROLMANS SSOCIATION PHONE (509) 575-6200 Honorable Members of the City Council of Yakima, r __ y ,Distributed at the Meeting I (-I,4.-3 LAW & JUSTICE BUILDING 200 SOUTH 3RD STREET YAKIMA, WASHINGTON 98901 November 11, 2013 I, Tony Patlan, Chairman of the Yakima Police Patrolman's Association, am presenting this letter to show our support of the current City Ordinance banning Pit -bulls and other dangerous animals. We do not wish or want this Ordinance to be changed or soften. Our reasons for the continued support of the Ordinance as it stands is due to the recent attack and injury to one of our Officers by a Pit -bull and the attack and multiple injuries upon one of the residents of this City. This reason is even more strongly realized by the savage attack and death of a relative of one of our Officer's family members by a Pit -bull in California a few years ago. Officers, in the past, have had to draw and fire a weapon in defense of his person against attack by this"' breed of dog. I, myself, have drawn my weapon and threaten to shoot in order to have a Pit -bull taken out of a yard and effect an arrest. It is unfortunate this Ordinance has to be in place because of a few who may use the dog in the wrong manner. But what is even more unfortunate, this breed of dog has even caused serious injury and death in other states when the dog was advocated to be just a family pet. Again, the Yakima Police Patrolman's Association remains strongly in support of the Ordinance banning of Pit -bulls as it stands. Thank you for your consideration of this letter and our position. Chairman, YPPA Comments received (for/against) about repealing the pit bull ordinance (comments typed as they were received....errors and all) For/Against Name Resident Email Comment Against Alma Navarro Yes almaaalmavarrocpa.com Do not reverse the pit bull ban. Pit bulls are banned because they are a vicious breed. In 2008, two loose pit bulls attacked a 71 year old woman in her front yard in Sea Tac. They attacked her entire body and tore off an ear. In 2010, a pit bull attacked a 58 year old man in Wapato who had to be flown to Harborview, he almost died; and in Burien a pit bull attacked a woman and bit her lip off. In 2013, an 8 year old girl in McCleary was bitten on the legs when a pit bull escaped his pen; and in Wenatchee a 43 year old woman was bitten by the family pet pit bull and had to be hospitalized. There are many, many more factual reports of mauling from this specific breed. I urge you to keep the ban in place, dog owners do not have a right to jeopardize our safety. For J udy Buchanan No - Alabama judvi941@omail.com Sirs...being in a different state does not repel the fact that a pit bull is only bad when the owner is bad. I own pit along with 7 other different breeds and the is one of the best animals I hve ever owned..pleade repel your ban. For Marilyn Brown No pitobsession@hotmail.com I have been informed recently of your willingness to consider repealing Breed Specific Legislation in the city limits of Yakima. I sincerely hope (& pray) that you decide to make this repeal a reality. You may or may not remember, but back in 2007, I put together binders for the City Council, asking for this very thing. My two girls (pit bulls) mentioned in the letter I enclosed in 2007 are both gone now, thanks to age, cancer and kidney failure. I do this not only for them, but for the other wonderful pit bulls who I have crossed paths with over the last 25 years, for it truly is a matter of owner responsibility and has nothing to do with breed. In 25 years owning, rescuing and just plain loving pit bulls, I have never been bitten by one. I'm sure you are being bombarded with all sorts of reasons for a repeal, so I'm not going to go into it. I do however want to put on record that my fiance' and I are both in major support of a breed -neutral ordinance that puts focus on irr! esponsible and reckless dog owners as opposed to targeting specific breeds of dogs. Against Arlene Bugay No - Arizona arlenebuggy@vahoo.com My names Arlene Bugay and I am a owner of a Pure breed Pit bull. He is now 3 years old named Brawly and never had behavior problems. l have had him since he was 3 months old,he has 2 cat brothers and never once tried to hurt them. In my dogs eyes he is a small 901b lap dog and the center of everyone's world. When he meets new people he is excited and loving. My Dog Brawly gets judged every time we go to a dog park because people only see "Pit bull" but that is just his breed and he didn't choose to be Pit bull anymore then we can chose to be white,black,mexican, or any other nationality. I have had many people tell me my dog is dangerous and wanted me to leave a dog park even though they just saw my dog walking with small children and play with other dogs. My dog is my world and I'm sad that the fight for Pit bulls are still going on. Why should a dog be punished for being a certain breed. Every pit bull 1 have ever known which is a lot, has been gentle and nothing like wh! at people make them out to be which is dangerous dogs. You can TEACH any breed to fight or be aggressive,it's not the breed that's the problem it's the "People" who are evil and cruel and dangerous that use these poor animals to do awful things. ALL people and animals are bom to love after all it's one of gods creations. No human is perfect,no animal is perfect but we shouldn't judge a full BREED or RACE. My Sister has 4 Pit bulls and every single one of them are very loving,loyal and gentle. 1 of the pit bulls had a very tragic history before my Sister adopted him. He was apart of a Pit bull fighting ring as a"Bait dog." What this means is these horrible "people" would breed Pit bulls and the Pit bulls that refused to fight or was to weak,they would throw them in a ring and TRAIN dogs to attack it,knowing this "Bait/weak" dog would not fight back. They took all his teeth out so he couldn't defend himself. When this dog was nearly dead they dumped him on the highway to die all alone and scared. These "People" are cruel,emotionless and TRAINED dogs to be this way. Luckily someone pulled over and saw this poor dog and took him in, he made a recovery but has many scares. Emotionally and physically this dog has been through a lot. This dog is not evil,mean,aggressive even though hes been through so much. When my sister adopted this dog who is now named Munchie, he was so gratef! ul and loving and knew he was given a second chance. It breaks my heart that if he was in certain states that he would be considered an dangerous dog and be euthanize. There is nothing wrong with the "Breed" there is only something wrong with the "People" who are twisted and evil that Train dogs to be aggressive. Not all dogs are perfect, there will be some dog some where in the world that attacks for no reason but it's not because of the breed of the dog,might not even be because of the owners. This world is already a sick and twisted place and somebody needs to stand up for what is right, and what is right is to Not KILL innocent animals and not JUDGE a breed by looking at it. Every dog should be treated based off it's own actions and own personality. It would be so very heartbreaking if a Pit bull down the street attacked someone and because of it my very own dog had to be put down even though he had nothing to do with it, but because he was a Pit bull he had to suffer. Your state and County is a very beautiful one. Why not make it a less "judgmental" one. G,usierrrc rwiva sr-vudru - VGl i.7, -ivvz Distributed at theme ti Meeting ti SLI gt+}1..ecl t ' t ynvi 6/611414(4/ ") Ell 11A Page ,.r vas sews*.s.srs massy.. is to -rpm -wow sumo sup ■i! WW1 rum •fir arms form i■ i >RrIIIoE, 17of26 Two pit bulls sentenced to die after killing man in wheelchair h TIM Awci.+M Prow YAKIMA, Wash. — Two pit bulls that fatally mauled a wheelchair-bound man will be killed after they finish a 10 -day quarantine to check for rabic, a sheriffs officer said Monday. .'tt F 75, died Friday after being at tacked by the dogs in his back yard lust outside Yakima city Iimits. Feser, a one-time animal -control officer and for- mer manager of Yakima County's water plant. was an animal lover who collected goats. turkeys, pot- bellied pigs and other creature on his halt -acre p1o1, friends said The owner of a dog that seriously injures or kills someone is automatically guilty of a Class C mis- demeanor under state law. sheriffs 11 Stew Graham said, The crime carries a maximum penal- ty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, Graham said. The pit bulls' owner has not yet been contacted,. Graham said Monday "The guy taking care of the dogs hasn't even been In contact with the owner. He didn't leave an address or phone number. They're just waiting for him to get settled and contact the guy here," Graham said The owner had left the dogs with Lawrence Delaer of Yakima whale he moved to the Seattle area, police said The clop dug under a chain-link fence In escape the yard. Graham Bald Detzer didnot immediately return a telephone menage Monday Feer, who wail partly paralyzed by a stroke several years apo. was in his yard with his dachs- hund. Helga, when the pit bulls Jumped his 311 -foot fence and attacked and killed the dog before attack- ing Ferrer, authorities said "It's the hardest thing to accept this tragedy," said Feser's step -daughter. Becky Simmons, 46. of Kennewick. "He's the fast man to the world you would think to be mauled by doh because he cared so much for God's animals " The city of Yakima has an ordinance banning pit bulls, but the county don't. A county ordinance prohibits dangerous or vicious dogs, but these two dogs did not have a history of attacking people. Graham said "The county ordinance would not. I don't be- lieve, come into play in this situation," Graham said. No charges had been filed by Monday afternoon. according to the prosecutor's office. Feser's neighbor, Herman Meller, 70, was at- tacked when he entered Fuer': mate to respond to the "lifeline" device I . had used to call for help_ Muller suffered more than a dozen bites to his neck, head, back and legs before he was able to retreat to his how across the street. Miller, who was hospitalized for his injuries, be- lieves Feser fell from his wheelchair trying to res- cue his arnali dog from pit bulls. f 4 home dogsbite dangerous legislating dog bite staying blog dogs dogs victims safe • Docis ite.org Some dogs don't let go In the 8 -year period from 2005 to 2012. pit bulls killed 151 Americans and accounted for 60% of the total recorded deaths (251) Combined. pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 73% of these deaths. I More » Home » dog bite statistics » dog bite fatalities » dog bite studies fatality citations quick statistics studies index 2012 dog bite fatalities :: About Us Donate Information gathered by DogsBite.org is verifiablet through Internet archive services. Our Fatality Citations section documents each source used in our dog bite -related fatality research 2012 statistics 38 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2012 2 Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 600 U.S. cities.3 pit bulls contributed to 61 % (23) of these deaths Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.4 Together, pit bulls (23) and rottweilers (3). the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 68% of all fatal attacks in 2012 In the 8 -year period from 2005 to 2012, this combination accounted for 73% (183) of the total recorded deaths (251). The breakdown between pit bulls and rottweilers is substantial over this 8 -year period From 2005 to 2012, pit bulls killed 151 Americans, about one citizen every 19 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 32. about one citizen every 91 days Annual data from 2012 shows that 50% (19) of the victims were adults. 21 -years and older, and the other half were children, ages 8 -years and younger. Of the total children killed by dogs in 2012, 79% (15) were ages 2 -years and younger Annual data also shows that males were more often victims, 61 % (23), than females. The majority of male victims, 61 % (14), were ages 8 -years and younger. Of the total female victims, only 33% (5) fell into this same age group. In 2012, roughly one-third. 32% (12), of all dog bite fatality victims were either visiting or living temporarily with the dog's owner when the fatal attack occurred. Children 8 -years and younger accounted for 75% (9) of these deaths. 34% (13) of all fatalities in 2012 involved more than one dog, 13% (5) involved breeding on the dog owner's property either actively or in the recent past, and 5% (2) involved tethered dogs, down from 6% in 2011. 9% in 2010 and 19% in 2009 In 2012, dogs referred to as a "rescue" accounted for at least 13% (5) attacks that resulted in death. Children suffered the brunt of these attacks with 3 deaths. The adults afflicted, 2 adult females, were killed by their own pack of "rescued" dogs 5 Dog ownership information for 2012 shows that family dogs comprised 58% (22) of all fatal occurrences, 82% (31) of all incidents occurred on the dog owner's property and 18% (7) resulted in criminal charges, down from 29% in 2011 6 California and North Carolina led fatalities in 2012. each with 4 deaths 75% of the California deaths occurred in San Diego County. Pit bull -type dogs accounted for 88% (7) of the 8 deaths New Mexico, Ohio and Texas followed, each with 3 deaths See' 8 -Year U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Chart (2005 to 2012) See. 8 -Year U.S. Dqg Bite Fatality State Mao (2005 to 2012) See' Discussion notes I See Full news release 2012 fatal dog attacks by breed 61% Fit bull (23) f)% Rottweiler (3) ® 5% Mixed -bored (2) III S% German shepherd (2) 3% (1 per 9 different breeds) 2012 U S dog bite fatalities KIMA News Dog attack victim speaks out By Christina Craig (httn://www.kimatu.comiabout/neonlenews/2112807v.httnn 1 Published: Aug 24, 2013 at 9:51 PM PST (2o13-o8-25T5:51:43Z) 1 Last Updated: Aug 25, 2013 at 9:41 AM PST (2013-o8-25T17:41:32Z) 1. TTP://www.K ATV.COM'YU atiNeW'gaMffl 1PFtitifet ETNITLIMEPB1C=1) jillalimai was right on deaths door", Eddie Gefroh told KIMA. YAKIMA, WASH. -- Three dogs brutally attacked a Yakima Police Officer and 48 -year-old Eddie Gefroh. The officer was bitten several times, but Eddie's injuries were worse. He talked to KIMA Action News about the fight of his life. Eddie Gefroh was brutally attacked by three stray Pit -Bull mixed dogs early Wednesday morning. He was walking his dog Oreo in the early hours. His life took a turn for the worse when the dogs attacked him. "They were not biting. They were eating, eating me because when they were stuck to my arms they were pulling out my tendons and nerves and every kind of tissue on me", said Eddie. He has numerous deep gouges all over his body and face. Spending several days in ICU, he had to be pieced back together. He has over iso stitches and 12 staples in his head. Doctors tell him they've never seen an attack like this. And don't know the extent of his injuries yet. Making it hard to determine when he'll fully recover. If it wasn't for David Garza, he would be dead. Eddie told us, "David said you have to stand up, you have to get up on your own. As soon as he said that I let out a big grunt and lifted myself off the ground." Eddie Gefroh was nearly eaten alive by the three wild dogs here on this street. It's the intersection of Division and 3rd Ave. Battling for his life he says David gave him the strength to push through. I remember one part, I had my back to David and he was pushing me back towards the building and it was just traumatic", Eddie wept. Several days after the attack, the family is learning how to cope. "Aggravation of we all know where the dogs come from. If the guy would just confess seriously", Lorraine Gefroh said. The Gefroh's now look for answers. And are concerned that children could be injured if these dogs are still on the loose one school is in session. Officials killed one of the dogs Wednesday. The other two were found in the Central Salvage junk yard Friday. A trap has been set to catch the two remaining dogs. More will be set Monday. Officials told Action News Pit-Bulls are illegal in Yakima, even if it's a mix. If the dog has any Pit-Bull blood, it's considered illegal. Officials trap last of 3 dogs suspected in mauling POSTED ON AUGUST 27, 2013 Email ,4 Print 15 Comments 0 f Share V Tweet By Chris Bristol / Yakima Herald -Republic Phone: 509-577-7748 cbristol@yakimaherald.com Follow me on: t YAKIMA, Wash. — Animal control officers on Monday captured the last of three dogs that are suspected of severely mauling a man walking his dog last week in Yakima. The animal, previously described by police as a pit bull mix, was trapped Monday morning in the same area on the railroad tracks near downtown Yakima where the attack took place, Yakima police Lt. Nolan Wentz said. Although the dog will probably have to be destroyed, it was being quarantined in the short term for signs of rabies or other disease, he said. The dog was one of three pit bull mixes that are suspected of attacking 47 -year-old Eddie Gefroh as he walked his ow] dog along the tracks near the Del Monte plant early Wednesday. That attack occurred hours after the same pack of dogs went after a Yakima police officer investigating complaints of aggressive dogs in the area. Following the second attack, officers shot one of the dogs dead and wounded a second. The third dog got away, however. Wentz said the second dog remains missing but is believed to be dead. Gefroh was discharged from Yakima Regional Medical and Cardiac Center over the weekend. He suffered lacerations to his face, neck, arms and legs. His companion, a cocker spaniel named Oreo, escaped injury Wentz previously said the pit bulls appeared to be wild. They had no collars and appeared to be living in the area along the tracks. Pit bulls have been banned in the city of Yakima since 1987. Previous stories have reported an incorrect date of 1996. Officials told Action News Pit-Bulls are illegal in Yakima, even if it's a mix. If the dog has any Pit-Bull blood, it's considered illegal. victim #376 Levi Watson 3/ 33fi� Fatal Pit Bull Attacks A growing archive of U.S. fatal pit bull attacks dating back to 1858 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. November 2013, White County, AR Levi Watson, 4 Fatal pit bull attack November 2013, Pierce County, WA Nga Woodhead, 65 Fatal pit bull attack November 2013, Forsyth County, NC Katherine Atkins, 25 Fatal pit bull attack September 2013, Baltimore County, MD Terry Douglass, 56 Fatal pit bull attack September 2013, Baker County, OR Jordan Ryan, 5 Fatal pit bull attack September 2013, San Bernardino County, CA Samuel Zamudio, 2 Fatal pit bull attack September 2013, Maricopa County, AZ Daniel "Doe," 2 Fatal pit bull attack August 2013, Harris County, TX Juan Compos, 96 Fatal pit bull attack June 2013, Florence County, SC Arianna Merrbach, 5 Fatal pit bull attack June 2013, Almeda County, CA Nephi Selu, 6 Fatal pit bull attack 8ite.org I Q Share on Facebook fact U.S. fatal pit bull attacks have reached 220 since 1998; the last year the CDC studied fatal dog attack data. In the last 8 - year period of the CDC study (1991 to 1998), pit bulls averaged 2.8 deaths per year. From 2005 to 2012, the most recent 8 -year period, pit bulls averaged 18.8 per year, an increase of 670%. resources Fatal Dog Bite Statistics • Report:1982-2011 • Report: 2006-2008 • 2012 Fatalities • 2011 Fatalities • 2010 Fatalities • 2009 Fatalities • 2008 Fatalities • 2007 Fatalities • 2006 Fatalities • 2005 Fatalities Pit Bull Fatality Maps 1. California 2. Texas 3. Florida 4. Georgia 5. Illinois 6. New York 7. Ohio 8. Michigan 9. North Carolina 10. South Carolina Meet the "Grippers" 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. May 2013, Dorchester County, SC Carlton Freeman, 80 Fatal pit bull attack May 2013, Los Angeles County, CA Pamela Devitt, 63 Fatal pit bull attack April 2013, Fulton County, GA Beau Rutledge, 2 Fatal pit bull attack April 2013, Jasper County, IA Jordyn Arndt, 4 Fatal pit bull attack April 2013, San Joaquin County, CA Claudia Gallardo, 38 Fatal pit bull attack April 2013, Bay County, FL Tyler Jett, 7 Fatal pit bull attack March 2013, Bryan County, GA Monica Laminack, < 2 Fatal pit bull attack March 2013, Walworth County, WI Caxton Borchardt, 1 Fatal pit bull attack March 2013, Knox County, IL Ryan Maxwell, 7 Fatal pit bull attack February 2013, Uvalde County, TX Isaiah Aguilar, 2 Fatal pit bull attack February 2013, Riverside County, CA Elsie Grace, 91 Fatal pit bull attack January 2013, Montgomery County, TX Christian Gormanous, 4 Fatal pit bull attack January 2013, Greenwood County, SC Betty Todd, 65 Fatal pit bull attack The "bull baiter" of the 1800s, the "bulldog" of the early to mid 1900s and pit bulls are one in the same. • Grippers in History - 19th Century Views on the Bulldog • Is an American Bulldog a Pit Bull? DogsBite• ag MaulTalk MANUAL CRAVEN DESIRES blogspot.com +fie +rv,♦ti gbov,+ pi* bv,l l s dogsbite decatural oogsb,tedecalu•a con DANGEROUS BY DEFAULT EXTRBMY BREEDS 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. December 2012, Shawnee County, KS Savannah Edwards, 2 Fatal pit bull attack December 2012, Fresno County, CA Esteban Alavez, 34 Fatal pit bull attack October 2012, Wayne County, MI Tarilyn Bowles, < 1 Fatal pit bull attack October 2012, Robeson County, NC Mary Jo Hunt, 54 Fatal dog attack involving pit bulls September 2012, Oklahoma County, OK Nellie Davis, 60 Fatal pit bull attack September 2012, Johnson, Tarrant Counties, TX Rayden Bruce, < 1 Fatal pit bull attack September 2012, Perquimans County, NC James Hudson, < 1 Fatal pit bull attack September 2012, Jefferson County, AR Deborah Wilson Roberts, 45 Fatal pit bull attack August 2012, Cook County, IL Charles Hagerman, 44 Fatal pit bull attack August 2012, DeKalb County, GA Rebecca Carey, 23 Fatal dog attack involving pit bulls July 2012, Hamilton County, OH Ronnel Brown, 40 Fatal pit bull attack June 2012, Washoe County, NV Kevin Latz, 50 Fatal pit bull attack June 2012, San Deigo County, CA 'yzhel Latella McWilliams, < 1 Fatal pit bull attack Distributed at they Meeting 1- - cl' xcNtir°'a G AMERICAN 5.,* *> KENNEL CLUB® s-DNDED 18+-, December 2, 2013 Yakima City Council 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Support Repeal of Breed -Specific Dog Law Dear Members of the Yakima City Council: The American Kennel Club (AKC) writes on behalf of our affiliated dog clubs in the Yakima area, as well as the numerous responsible dog owners and breeders to respectfully ask you to support the repeal of the city's breed -specific dog laws. This proposal will restore the right of responsible dog owners to'owni the breed of their choice and hold all dog owners accountable, regardless of the breed of dog they choose to own. Breed -specific legislation has proven ineffective across the United States and around the world., These laws force animal control officers to become dog breed identification experts and to spend their time enforcing laws for specific breeds, rather than focusing on true animal problems in the community. It also- places lsoplaces the emphasis on a dog's appearance, rather than on the dog's behavior and punishes responsible dog owners simply because of the dog they choose to own regardless of the dog's behavior. Breed -specific laws are opposed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the ASPCA, the American Kennel Club, the American Bar Association and the National Animal Interest Alliance. Effective animal control laws should target irresponsible owners and dogs based on specific actions, regardless of the dog's breed. Focusing on strong enforcement of at -large, leash, and other general animal control laws, combined with public education programs designed to teach pet ownership responsibility, would hold all pet owners accountable and prove a more effective solution to your concerns. The American Kennel Club and our constituent responsible dog owners in Yakima urge you to support repealing the city's breed -specific laws. We also welcome the opportunity to work with you to develop reasonable legislation and public education programs that will protect the rights of responsible dog owners while ensuring the safety of the community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sarah Sprouse Legislative Analyst, AKC Government Relations 8051 Arco Corporate Drive Raleigh, NC 27617-3390 Tel 919 816-3600 www.akc.org Appellate Court Decisions Affirming Pit Bulls are Inherently Dangerous - Legislating Do... Page 1 of 5 0ige, bitco. S.,r*ie dogs mit let go. riogsi3lto o: j home dogsbite dog bite dangerous legislating dog bite staying blog statistics dogs dogs victims safe In the 8 -year period from 2005 to 2012, pit bulls killed 151 Americans and accounted for 60% of the total recorded deaths (251). Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 73% of these deaths. More » Home » legislating dogs » bsl FAQ state -by -state military regulation constitutionality appellate decisions Distributed at the Meeting �--•3-' I� J About Us Donate Appellate court decisions :: Appellate courts across the United States have recognized the dangerousness of the pit bull breed for over 25 -years. We've listed excerpts from court decisions that demonstrate this. Hardwick v Town of Ceredo (2013) Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia That each Defendant's dogs are of the breed that is typically referred to generically as pit bull dogs which are aggressive by nature, have been known as attack animals with strong massive heads and jaws, and have been found to represent a public health hazard. The Majority of jurisdictions have accepted the proposition that dogs of this type have a propensity to be aggressive and attack without provocation and it is well established that such dogs have gotten a lot of notoriety of being dangerous to public health and safety Tracey v, Solesky (2012) Court of Appeals of Maryland We are modifying the Maryland common law of liability as it relates to attacks by pit bull and cross -bred pit bull dogs against humans. With the standard we establish today (which is to be applied in this case on remand), when an owner or a landlord is proven to have knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross -bred pit bull (as both the owner and landlord did in this case) or should have had such knowledge, a prima facie case is established. It is not necessary that the landlord (or the pit bull's owner) have actual knowledge that the specific pit bull involved is dangerous. Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injures, pit bulls and cross -bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous. Toledo v Tellings (2007) Supreme Court of Ohio The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs; (2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog; (3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined, (4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed. The trial court also found that pit bulls are "found largely in urban settings where there are crowded living conditions and a large number of children present," which increases the risk of injury caused by pit bulls. The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety to citizens. The state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting the citizens from the degree of danger posed by this breed of domestic dog. McNeely v. U.S. (2005) District of Columbia Court of Appeals The temperament of pit bulls, particularly their volatile capacity for hostility and violent behavior, is sufficiently well- known that these dogs are "proper subject[s] of regulatory measures adopted in the exercise of a state's 'police power "' McIntosh v Washington, 395 A.2d 744, 756 (D C.1978) The Florida Bar v Pape (2005) Supreme Court of Florida http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-appellate-court-decisions.php 12/3/2013 Appellate Court Decisions Affirming Pit Bulls are Inherently Dangerous - Legislating Do... Page 2 of 5 The referee found that the qualities of a pit bull as depicted by the logo are loyalty, persistence, tenacity, and aggressiveness We consider this as a charitable set of associations that ignores the darker side of the qualities often also associated with pit bulls: malevolence, viciousness, and unpredictability Further, although some may associate pit bulls with loyalty to their owners. Even the perception of loyalty may be unwarranted. In June, a twelve-year old boy was mauled to death in San Francisco by his family's two pit bulls That same month a Bay Area woman suffered severe injuries in an attack by her nine-year old pit bull A St Louis man was killed in May by his two pit bulls that had "no apparent history of aggression and [were] described as well kept." Pit bulls have a reputation for vicious behavior that is borne of experience. Matthews v Amberwood (1998) Court of Appeals of Maryland The extreme dangerousness of this breed, as it has evolved today, is well recognized. "Pit bulls as a breed are known to be extremely aggressive and have been bred as attack animals." Giaculli v Bright, 584 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla.App. 1991). Indeed, it has been judicially noted that pit bulls "bit[e] to kill without signal" (Starkey v Township of Chester, 628 F Supp. 196, 197 (E.D Pa. 1986)), are selectively bred to have very powerful jaws, high insensitivity to pain, extreme aggressiveness, a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack, and a greater propensity to bite humans than other breeds ("pit bull dogs represent a unique public health hazard [possessing] both the capacity for extraordinarily savage behavior [a] capacity for uniquely vicious attacks coupled with an unpredictable nature" and that "[o]f the 32 known human deaths in the United States due to dog attacks [in the period between July 1983 and April 1989], 23 were caused by attacks by pit bull dogs") Pit bull dogs have even been considered weapons. Ohio v Anderson (1991) Supreme Court of Ohio During the past ten years, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of fatalities and severe maulings caused by pit bull dogs. Unlike dogs who bite or attack merely to protect a person or his property and then retreat once the danger has passed, pit bulls besiege their victims relentlessly until severe injury or death results. In response, lawmakers in states and cities across the country have enacted legislation regulating pit bull dog ownership The American Kennel Club does not recognize the breed and publishes no conformation standards on the pit bull dog. In the pretrial hearings in the case at bar, it was established that the American Kennel Club does not register pit bulls because of their unsavory tendencies. Therefore, the pit but is not a recognized breed for the very reason that it must be regulated: it poses a grave and inordinate danger to human health and safety Colorado Dog Fanciers v Denver (1991) Supreme Court of Colorado The trial court found that pit bull attacks, unlike attacks by other dogs, occur more often ,are more severe, and are more likely to result in fatalities. The trial court also found that pit bulls tend to be stronger than other dogs, often give no warning signals before attacking, and are less willing than other dogs to retreat from an attack, even when they are in considerable pain. Since ample evidence exists to establish a rational relationship between the city's classification of certain dogs as pit bulls, and since there is a legitimate governmental purpose in protecting the health and safety of the city's residents and dogs, the trial court correctly concluded that the ordinance did not violate the dog owner's right to equal protection of the laws. Greenwood v City of North Salt Lake (1991) Supreme Court of Utah The trial court found that pit bull breeds are known for a unique combination of strength, agility, tolerance for pain, and aggressiveness. The court also found that pit bull breeds were historically bred for fighting and killing other animals, that both Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake City have experienced a proportionately higher number of bites and attacks by these breeds than by other breeds, that Animal Control treats pit bull breeds differently than other breeds, and that because of their reputation, these breeds are often acquired by people with the intent of making the dogs mean and aggressive. Plaintiffs do not challenge these findings. Although it may be true that not all pit bulls are dangerous, the evidence supports the conclusion that, as a group, pit bulls are dangerous animals. Giaculli v Bright (1991) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District However, it is not necessary that pit bulls be declared vicious per se under the law in order for the landlord and owners to be placed on notice that a tenant has a vicious dog. Pit bulls as a breed are known to be extremely aggressive and have been bred as attack animals See State v Peters, 534 So.2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev denied, 542 So.2d 1334 (Fla. 1989), upholding an ordinance of the City of North Miami which required pit bull owners to carry insurance, register their pit bulls and confine the dog indoors or in a locked pen. The City of North Miami's http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-appellate-court-decisions.php 12/3/2013 Appellate Court Decisions Affirming Pit Bulls are Inherently Dangerous - Legislating Do... Page 3 of 5 ordinance notes that pit bulls have a greater propensity to bite humans than all other breeds, that they are extremely aggressive towards other animals and have a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack once it has begun. Singer v Cincinnati (1990) Court of Appeals of Ohio, Hamilton County At the hearing regarding the ordinance's constitutionality, the trial court was presented with evidence which established that the specific breeds targeted by the ordinance possess inherent characteristics of aggression, strength, viciousness and unpredictability not found in other dog breeds. The evidence indicated that, unlike other breeds that retreats if they are injured in a fight or an attack, a pit bull will often bite, clamp down with its powerful jaw, and maintain its hold until separated from its victim. The evidence also indicated that the pit bull is an exceptionally strong and athletic dog which requires extraordinary measures for confinement (e.g., six -foot -high enclosed fences). Pit bulls have exceptionally strong bites and have been known to destroy sheet metal panels by ripping them apart with their teeth. Moreover, the evidence submitted by the city illustrated numerous cases of severe maulings and deaths that have occurred in Cincinnati as a result of pit bull attacks, and attributed the majority of fatal dog attacks nationwide to pit bulls. Hearn v. City of Overland (1989) Supreme Court of Kansas In the present case, the district court found that pit bull dogs represented a unique hazard to the public safety, and the city ordinance regulating the ownership and possession of these dogs was therefore reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective. The evidence introduced at trial supports this conclusion. Defendant city introduced expert testimony that pit bull dogs are both more aggressive and destructive than other dogs. Pit bull dogs possess a strongly developed "kill instinct" not shared by other breeds of dogs. This testimony indicated that pit bull dogs are unique in their "savageness and unpredictability " Research indicates that pit bull dogs are twice as likely to cause multiple injuries as other breeds of dogs. Moreover, the injuries inflicted by pit bull dogs are far worse that those inflicted by other breeds. One witness, testifying as an expert on trauma injuries, testified that pit bull dog attacks inflicted injuries much more horrific than those in other dog attacks and were comparable, in his experience, only to those injuries inflicted in attacks by lions. The district court was also presented with a survey of 278 dog attacks indicating that a majority (54.1%) represented attacks by pit bull dogs. Of the 32 known human deaths in the United States due to dog attacks since July 1983, 23 were caused by attacks by pit bull dogs. Vanater v Village of South Point (1989) United States District Court, S.D Ohio, W.D Pit Bulls also possess the quality of gameness, which is not a totally clear concept, but which can be described as the propensity to catch and maul an attacked victim unrelentingly until death occurs, or as the continuing tenacity and tendency to attack repeatedly for the purpose of killing. It is clear that the unquantifiable, unpredictable agressiveness and gameness of Pit Bulls make them uniquely dangerous. Pit Bulls have the following distinctive behavioral characteristics: a) grasping strength, b) climbing and hanging ability, c) weight pulling ability, d) a history of frenzy, which is the trait of unusual relentless ferocity or the extreme concentration on fighting and attacking, e) a history of catching, fighting, and killing instinct, f) the ability to be extremely destructive and aggressive, g) highly tolerant of pain, h) great biting strength, Q undying tenacity and courage and they are highly unpredictable. While these traits, tendencies or abilities are not unique to Pit Bulls exclusively, Pit Bulls will have these instincts and phenotypical characteristics, most siginficantly, such characteristics can be latent and may appear without warning or provocation. American Dog Owners Assn v. Dade County (1989) United States District Court, S.D Florida Legislative fact findings included facts indicating that the selective breeding of certain characteristics in pit bull dogs made these dogs a danger to health and welfare different from the dangers presented by other breeds. The Preamble to the Ordinance contains the several factual findings made by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County that pit bull dogs require special regulation because of their dangerous propensities. These findings were not challenged by the plaintiffs. and are accepted as true for the purposes of this preenforcement challenge. The Ordinance is reproduced in full in Appendix A. WHEREAS, in recent months Dade County has experienced a tragic series of incidents in which citizens have been attacked and seriously injured by pit bull dogs; and WHEREAS, concurrent with these attacks upon human beings, the community has also experienced an increasing number of animal killings resulting from pit bull attacks; and WHEREAS, pit bull breeds were developed for the purpose of fighting dogs and other animals; and WHEREAS, to increase its effectiveness as a fighter, certain pit but traits have been selected and maximized by controlled breeding, including 1) a set of powerful jaws with an exceptional ability to grip, http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-appellate-court-decisions.php 12/3/2013 Appellate Court Decisions Affirming Pit Bulls are Inherently Dangerous - Legislating Do... Page 4 of 5 lock and tear when the dog bites; 2) a unique insensitivity to pain that causes pit bulls to be exceedingly tenacious in the attack: 3) an unusually aggressive temperament towards human beings and animals; and 4) an extraordinary directness in their method of attack that does not include the common warning signs such as barking or growling displayed by other breeds; WHEREAS, for the above reasons, pit bull dogs present a danger to the health and welfare of the citizens of Dade County, different in degree and kind, from the dangers presented by other breeds of dog. State of Ohio v, Robinson (1989) Court of Appeals of Ohio, Clermont County The alarming rise in fatalities and severe maulings of people by pit bull dogs has caused several municipalities and states to consider or adopt legislation limiting or prohibiting the sale or possession of pit bulls The physical characteristics of pit bulls, the historic use of the dogs as fighters, and the increasing number of unprovoked and unexplained attacks on people has caused the pit bull to be perceived as presenting a threat of danger, warranting a legislative response. Id. at 1075-1076. There can be no doubt that dogs in general are legitimate objects of the state's police power Almost a century ago, the United States Supreme Court held that dogs are "subject to the police power of the State, and might be destroyed or otherwise dealt with, as in the judgment of the legislature is necessary for the protection of its citizens." Garcia v Village of Tijeras (1988) Court of Appeals of New Mexico As a complement to the testimony regarding specific incidents, the Village also presented evidence establishing that the American Pit Bull Terrier breed possesses inherent characteristics of aggression, strength, viciousness and unpredictability not found in any other breeds of dog. The testimony indicates that American Pit Bull Terriers are frequently selected by dog -fighters specifically because of their extraordinary fighting temperament. In a fight or attack, they are very aggressive and the most tenacious dog of any breed. They continue their attack until they are separated or their victim is destroyed. Unlike other breeds of dog that "bite and slash" in an attack, pit bulls will "bite and hold," thereby inflicting significantly more damage upon their victim. Testimony was also presented that pit bulls are especially dangerous due to their unpredictability It is impossible to tell from looking at a pit bull whether it is aggressive or not. American Pit Bull Terriers have been known to be friendly and docile at one moment, willing to sit on your lap and lick your face, and at the next moment to attack in a frenzied rage. A pit bull in the grip of such a fighting frenzy will not respond to attempts to deter its attack. Such frenzies can occur at any time and for no apparent reason There was testimony to the effect that such berserk frenzies do not occur in other breeds of dog. This behavior has been substantiated by a number of reports from owners of American Pit Bull Terriers. There was further evidence to show that, in proportion to their population, more dog -bite incidents are caused by American Pit Bull Terriers than by other breeds. Other evidence tended to establish that the American Pit Bull Terrier is an exceptionally strong and athletic dog. Extraordinary measures are required for confining American Pit Bull Terriers, such as a six-foot chainlink fence with an overhanging ledge to keep the dogs from jumping out, and six-inch wide, one -foot deep concrete footings around the base to keep the dogs from digging under They have exceptionally strong bites, possibly twice the strength of bites of other dogs. They can grip cyclone fencing and tear it from its mounting, and have been known to destroy sheet metal panels by ripping them apart with their teeth. State v Peters (1988) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District The federal district court in Starkey v Township of Chester, 628 F Supp. at 197, found that "[t]he Township could reasonably determine, as it did, that Pit Bulls are dangerous." See also Garcia v Village of Titferas, No. 9424 (N.M.Ct. App. Oct. 11, 1988) (ordinance banning pit bulls is reasonably related to protection of residents). Likewise, in the present case, there is ample evidence to support the City's conclusion that pit bulls should be controlled. The ordinance itself states: "WHEREAS, dogs commonly referred to as 'Pit Bulls' were for centuries developed and selectively bred for the express purpose of attacking other dogs or other animals such as bulls, bears, or wild hogs; and "WHEREAS, in developing a dog for this purpose, certain traits were selected and maximized by controlled breeding, including extremely powerful jaws, a high sensitivity to pain, extreme aggressiveness towards other animals, and a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack once it has begun; and "WHEREAS, in addition to statistical evidence that Pit Bull Dogs have a greater propensity to bite humans than all other breeds, there exists overwhelming evidence in the form of individual experiences, that the Pit Bull is infinitely more dangerous once it does attack: and "WHEREAS, the Pit Bull's massive canine jaws can crush a victim with up to two thousand (2,000) pounds of pressure per square inch -- three times that of a German Shepherd or Doberman Pinscher, making the Pit Bull's jaws the strongest of any animal, per pound; and http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-appellate-court-decisions.php 12/3/2013 Appellate Court Decisions Affirming Pit Bulls are Inherently Dangerous - Legislating Do... Page 5 of 5 "WHEREAS, after consideration of the facts, this Council has determined that the following Ordinance is reasonable and necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare." The findings recited in the ordinance are unchallenged. While pit bulls have their defenders, see Hearne, Lo, Hear the Gentle Pit Bull', Harpers, June 1985, at 59 the City's choice to regulate pit bulls cannot be said to have been arbitrary or irrational. Starkey v Township of Chester (1986) United States District Court, E.D Pennsylvania The Ordinance defines the breed of dog by American Kennel terminology and seeks to reach dogs "bred for fighting." The key finding in the Ordinance is: "Pit Bulls are considered dangerous dogs and potentially hazardous to the community " The Township could reasonably determine, as it did, that Pit Bulls are dangerous. The Township's Health Officer testified that the regulation was necessary in this densely populated Township; the Pit Bull bites to kill without signal. The Township does not have to regulate every dangerous animal at the same time in the same way to pass constitutional muster The Township has not gone too far, insofar as the present record shows in regulating, licensing and charging fees for Pit Bulls. home dogsbite blog clog bite statistics dangerous dogs j legislating dogs dog bite victims staying safe donate About 1 Contact Site Terms Privacy Policy Dog Bite Attorney Directory 3 Webmaster Tools Tee Shop I Links Copyright © 2007-2013 DogsBite.org 1 Published by Lynn Media Group 1 DogsBite.org for Android. DogsBite.org is a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks. Through our work, we hope to protect both people and pets from future attacks. Prt© Last n.oched 1 '13 3"%01 s 08'1,3 36 ( Sitemap http://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-appellate-court-decisions.php 12/3/2013 Clear Tee, Sonya Subject: FW another pit bull attack yesterday On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:45 AM, "Price, CaIIy" <Cally.Price@yakimawa.gov> wrote: Woman, 65, loses one arm and part of the other one in pit bull attack and is helped by passing motorists who heard her crying out from underneath her car By Daily Mail Reporter PUBLISHED: 18:17 EST, 12 November 20131 UPDATED:09:36 EST, 13 November 2013 A woman has been attacked by her pet pit bull and lost almost both of her arms as a result. Anne Murray was at her home in Wilton, Connecticut when the dog brutally attacked her on Monday. Police were alerted when a passing motorist spotted the dog wandering down Range Road unattended just before noon. <image001.jpg> The female passerby got out of her car to get the dog but it allegedly began acting aggressively so she got back inside. The Hartford Courant reports that a second motorist helped her get the dog back towards its owner's driveway, and that is when they heard Ms Murray calling for help from beneath her car. <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> Protection: It was then that they heard Anne Murray screaming for help from underneath her car where she had gone for protection from her dog Ms Murray, 65, had hidden underneath the vehicle to protect herself from the animal. One of the good Samaritans called the police and Captain John Lynch ruled that the animal was an immediate threat. He then shot and killed the dog, according to The CT Post. A picture of the dog's collar shows that it was named Tux, but its age and specific breed have not been released. <image004.jpg> Horrific: It is not known what caused the attack, which left the owner without one arm entirely and the other below the elbow (a bloody pillow pictured at the scene) <image005.jpg> The breed: Pit bulls like this one (which was not the dog in the Connecticut attack) have been the subject of debate over their safety for years Police spokesman Donald Wakeman said that the dog's corpse will be tested for rabies.' Ms Murray lost one arm entirely and the portion of her other arm below the elbow in the attack. She also has serious injuries and grave wounds all over her body, with bites from her legs up to the side of her head. She was taken to Norwalk Hospital and is said to be in stable condition. This was not the first time that the authorities had heard about this particular dog, as The Courant reports that Wilton's animal control department had two complaints about the dog wandering off Ms Murray's property. Cally Price Assistant to the City Manager City Manager, Mayor, and Council Office 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Phone: 509-575-6040 Fax: 509-576-6335 www.yakimawa.gov 2