The Sordid History of Pit Bull Fighting in 19th Century England

Additional Note: The following blog was cited in a paper, History of Dog Fighting in the World, which appeared in the April 2015 issue of the Journal of Animal Science Advances, 5(4), 1234-1237, by Professor Orhan Yilmaz of Ardahan University, Turkey, and two of his colleagues.    

I have been critical of anti-pit bull legislation on a number of occasions, and have mentioned my opposition in at least five blogs here.  This has led to unpleasant—mostly anonymous—emails addressing me as or equating me to the orifice on my backside. (I do not post these accusations, not because I can’t accept criticism or don’t tolerate cussing, but because I hope that I am encouraging reasonably intelligent discourse and such emails vastly disappoint this expectation.)  In describing dog attacks involving pit bulls, I have also been accused of supporting breed-specific legislation by shining too much of a light on which breed of dogs is responsible for attacks.  

Recently I received an email arguing that because the pit bull was created to fight, and with a temperament and physical characteristics appropriate for this activity, it is inherently much more dangerous than other dogs.  That difference justifies, in the commenter’s mind, a certain legal separation of pit bulls from other breeds. It was recommended that I look into the history to satisfy myself that pit bulls are in a class by themselves and should be kept “on a shorter leash” than other dogs. 

This criticism is fair up to a point.  While occasionally adding bits and pieces concerning the history of pit bulls in pieces I write, I have largely remained focused on recent legal decisions and research on dog bites.  It is time to say something about the early history of pit bulls, which transpired not that long ago, and in England. 

Invention of the Pit Bull Terrier  

To understand the origin of the pit bull, one must go back two hundred years to a time when two dogs fighting to the death in an arena was as acceptable as two prize fighters punching each other in Las Vegas is today.  It was considered an advancement when dogs were no longer allowed to bait bears and bulls, though enforcement of the laws criminalizing these contests was probably lax even at the beginning of the 19^th century. 

Phil Drabble, writing a history of Staffordshire Terriers and baiting sports in 1948, says that when bull baiting was outlawed, fighting between bulldogs was used to replace it.  While bulldogs had the necessary aggressiveness, they lacked an appropriate level of agility, so various crosses were tried, the most successful being with terriers, eventually producing a group of bull terriers. 

Lt. Col. Clyn (1948), in his brief description of the Bull Terrier, elaborates:

“Bulldogs, though more active than the modern type, proved too slow in the fighting pit and breeders were concerned with increasing the Bulldog’s speed and agility without sacrificing his power to bite.  To achieve this end Terrier blood was introduced and the resulting cross-breeds were called Bull-and-Terriers or Bulldog Terriers.  These when bred together eventually produced a distinctive type which, early in the 19^th Century, became known as Bull Terriers.”

John Henry Walsh, writing as "Stonehenge," says in The Dogs of the British Islands:  

"The Bull Terrier, like his chief progenitor, the bulldog, is now without a vocation, dog fights being prohibited by law, and rat pits being equally out of the question. But, unlike the bulldog, he is an excellent companion for the male sex, being a little too violent in his quarrels to make him desirable as a ladies' pet. Careful crossing—said to be with the terrier, but also alleged to be with the greyhound or foxhound, or both-has produced a handsome, symmetrical animal, without a vestige of the repugnant and brutal expression of the bulldog, and with the elegant lines of the greyhound, though considerably thickened in their proportions."

The first plate depicts two show dogs that Walsh saw as excellent examples of the breed. As to the dog's behavior, Walsh states:

 

"The bull terrier is still judged by the fighting standard—that is to say, he must have all the points, mental as well as bodily, which are necessary to the fighting dog. If of pure bull parentage or nearly so, he is unfitted for the office; for, instead of laying hold and shaking his adversary for a time with great force, and then changing to a fresh place of attack, as the fighting dog should do, he keeps his hold tenaciously, and never changes it but on compulsion. The infusion of terrier, greyhound, or foxhound, or whatever may be the cross, gives activity of body in addition to the above mental peculiarity, and thus is created an animal calculated to take his own part in any combat, whether with one of his own kind or with any of our native larger vermin, or even with the smaller felidae of other lands. His temper is sufficiently under control to prevent his intentionally injuring his master, under the severest provocation, and he is admitted to be, of all dogs, the most efficient protector against attack in proportion to his size and muscular powers. He is a very cleanly animal in the house, and many years ago I had one which, being by accident confined in my bedroom surreptitiously for four days, under the care of a person who fed him, but neglected to let him out as directed, for fear of discovery, never once relieved himself of any of his secretions, by which he very nearly lost his life."

Genome research has put the Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Miniature Bull Terrier in the same group as the Bulldog.  See vonHoldt et al. (2010). A recent study (Larson et al., 2012), in a supplemental table S1, stated that the Bull Terrier was created "by crossing English Bulldogs with several breeds including Black and Tan Terriers, Spanish Pointers, English White Terriers, Dalmations, Greyhounds and Whippets in order to create a dog breed that would fight other dogs."

A Show Dog Has to Fight

Pit Bull Terriers were of various colors but a show dog, Puss, entered in a show at Cremorne Gardens near Chelsea was all white and was a big hit.  Part of Puss’s history is given by Clyn:

“On the day of the show there could be no question that Puss was much smarter and more graceful than her old fashioned rivals, but the old breeders were convinced she could never hold her own in the pit; tempers frayed, and heavy wagers were offered at odds against Puss till Mr. Hinks could bear it no longer.  Refusing to profit by his rivals’ ignorance, Mr. Hinks backed Puss at even for £5 and a case of champagne against the best known fighting dog present in the show.  The challenge was accepted and the contest took place immediately in an improvised pit just outside the show. Tradition says that within 30 minutes the old fashioned champion was being laid to rest while Puss, almost unmarked, was back in the show, where she received First Prize.”

Dog shows have apparently changed somewhat in the last century.

The older type of dog was re-crossed with the newer type in the earlier 20^th century because the white variety was prone to deafness.  The second plate shows a father and son, which Ash (1927) describes as “of the famous Paddington strain, never beaten.”  The caption says that the father had killed two dogs.  Ash relates an account that when a famous fighting dog gave birth to a litter, church bells were rung in Wednesbury. 

Dog Fighting in the 19^th Century

By 1860, according to Drabble, there were two preferred types of fighting dogs, the English Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but the former was developed more for show than courage.  The Staffordshire Bull Terrier continued to be bred for the pit.  At the Westminster Pit, fights were held between dogs, cocks, dogs and monkeys, dogs and lions, and dogs that were required to kill large masses of rats. 

Drabble goes into detail:

“The pit itself was roughly 12-18 feet across, with a boarded surround about three feet high, over which the spectators could watch.  Each dog was handled by his second and, after the preliminary formalities concerning the stakes had been completed, each dog was weighed in the pit.  It is common for owners of bull terriers which develop a taste for fighting, to boast that their dogs will 'kill anything' and that this dog or that ‘killed an Alsatian’ (or something equally big) ‘in ten minutes.’”

Watching a dog being torn to pieces for ten minutes was apparently something some dog fanciers were then excited by watching and, unfortunately, some still are. Drabble says that in fights before spectators, dogs were usually required to be within a pound of each other. As to timing. Drabble says that “two dogs would sometimes take as much as two hours to decide which was the better and rarely less than 25 or 30 minutes.”

Trickery practiced by dog owners included rubbing a dog “with acid or pickle or pepper or anything to discourage his opponent from biting him.”  To prevent this, both dogs were often washed before the fight began, sometimes with milk, which was supposed to neutralize acid.  Also, “each setter was allowed to ‘taste’ (or lick) his opponent’s dog both before and after fighting.”  Clyn says that the taster was sometimes a third party who was given a shilling to assure that “no corrosive chemical or other poison had been rubbed into the coats of the contestants.”

The beginning of the fight was rather formal:

“When the preliminaries had been completed a coin was tossed to decide which dog should ‘scratch’ first.  They were taken to opposite corners of the pit where each second held his dog between his knees so that the other dog got a fair unobstructed view of his opponent’s head.  On a word from the referee, the dog wich had to ‘scratch’ first was liberated and had to go across the pit to attack his opponent.  A line was drawn cross the centre of the pit, which was known as the Scratch, and the opposing dog could not be loosed until the attacker had crossed this line.  When he crossed the scratch the other setter could loose his dog when ever he liked and it was judgment here that won or lost many battles.” 

Being held put a dog at a disadvantage, but Drabble says that if the setter kept holding and the dog that had been released did not attack the dog being held, the match was forfeited to the dog being held. 

Once the dogs began to fight, the setters could leave the pit.  They could encourage their own dogs but could not speak to the opponent’s dog.  Neither dog could be touched again until both stopped fighting.  If the dogs stopped fighting, a setter could pick up his dog and the round was counted as expired.  “One minute was allowed for sponging down and making ready for the next round, and the referee gave warning after 50 seconds so that both should be ready when the minute was up.” 

Rounds were not set times but were ended when both dogs ‘faulted,’ i.e., ceased to be engaged in fighting, so a round might go for 20 minutes or more.  “A battle of an hour or more might have twenty scratches, or one dog might be killed in the first scratch.”  Drabble notes that in old prize ring rules, fighters fought until one fell. 

A dog that failed to scratch in his turn lost.  “If a dog was killed in the pit the other had to stay at him for ten minutes at least and he could still not be handled by his setter till he faulted.” Thus, dogs were encouraged to continue to maul a dead opponent for the entertainment of the watchers.  Once the mauling dog finally faulted, he was taken to his corner.  The scratch rules had a curious result at this point:

“If it was the dead dog’s turn to scratch the battle was automatically lost.  If it was the live dog’s turn and he did not scratch, he lost the battle although he had killed his opponent.” 

Since the live dog would know by smell that his opponent was dead, it must have been a matter of training to get the dog to fake an attack at that point.  

Writing in 1948, Drabble says that the sport was rare in Britain after the turn of the century, “but game terriers are still bred and exported to America where the sport is still perfectly legal in some States.”  This, of course, was true even at the time Michael Vick was arrested. We have the British to blame for the preferred dog fighting breed in America.  

To get a dog in fighting trim, Drabble has a number of recommendations:

“The first considerations in getting a dog fighting fit are therefore his wind and the removal of all surplus fat.  He must be given constant hard exercise to get him muscled up and in dead hard condition, this can be best achieved by giving small quantities of highly nutritious food with an absence of starchy food during training.  The jelly from cows’ feet and an adequate supply of fresh green food forms a good basis. Plenty of hard walking on a lead with a wide collar so that he can lay himself down and pull helps to strengthen his back and loin muscles.  An old motor tyre or other piece of rubber hung up so that he can jump up, catch hold and shake himself about on it is simply vital.  The damage a fighting dog does is not so much by the sheer force of his bite as by shaking when he has got hold.  And his neck and back muscles are essential for this.  Plenty of running and jumping for a ball that bounces well strengthens all the muscles he uses in turning and twisting, and produces the required agility.” 

The advice rings a little too true.  One must wonder how Drabble came by it.  He describes the proclivities of the breed:

“Puppies will fight to kill at three months and bitches are as keen as dogs.  Yet some strains are remarkably friendly to other dogs and will put up with unusual insults before being goaded into fighting.  When once they get a taste for it, they would rather fight than do anything in the world.”

That untrained pit bulls will readily attack other dogs is demonstrated by a recent incident in Florida.  

As to those who participate in dog fighting, Drabble says they are general of “a low parentage” and “are usually as willing to fight each other as to watch their dogs.” 

Drabble recounts that efforts to ban dog fighting at first met little success:

“There was little initial interference from the law, since it was possible to fight two dogs in any hollow or shed without attracting much attention, for fighting dogs fight silently.  They were easy to get away afterwards, as they could always be carried in a sack if their condition was likely to draw suspicion. And dog-fighting had the advantage over bull- or bear-baiting in that at least both animals wanted to fight instead of the victim having to be fastened with a rope or chain with no chance of escape.”

Bull Baiting

Drabble says that Bulldogs “were developed for no other purpose” than baiting bulls.  See also R. and W. Livingston (1885).  This activity did not begin as a sport, but rather because of the belief that beef was more tender when cattle were excited by dogs before being killed.  The dogs were thus, at first, the same dogs used for driving cattle.  The sport—for it soon came to be one—was long popular in England and Drabble describes the devotion of Queen Elizabeth I to watching it as “anything but spinsterish.” 

The tide began to change with James I, who in 1620 refused to license houses for bull-baiting and it was forbidden altogether on Sundays.  Cromwell forbade the sport altogether, though this may have been because he saw the gatherings as having the risk of turning political in a way that would not favor his control.  The Restoration brought it back. 

Bulldogs used in baiting weighed under 50 pounds, and Drabble discusses the importance of their jaws.

“The object in bull-baiting was to grip the bull in a tender enough part of the face to hold him still or throw him.  Tremendous power of jaw was necessary for this and nostrils set far enough back to allow normal breathing without letting go.” 

As to the fight itself, Drabble states:

“When all was ready the bull was tethered to the stake by a rope about 15 yards long attached to the base of his horns…. [The dog] would not rush madly at the quarry but creep on his belly, stealthily, as close as possible.  If the bull was a ‘green’ bull, which had never been halted before, he would bellow and lower his head towards the dog but do little else, for he didn’t know what he’d got coming to him.  If, on the other hand, he was a ‘game’ bull, which had been baited before and proved his mettle in the ring, he would not get at the extremity of his rope but would leave himself enough slack to charge when necessary.  He would lower his head and keep his forelegs close to prevent the dog slipping between them and getting hold.  The aim of the dog would be to creep along and wait for an opening, when he would dart in and ‘pin’ the bull by laying hold of his tongue, eyepiece, lip or nose.  The bull would not try to impale him but slip his horn under his belly and toss him high enough into the air to suffer damage when he fell.  The dog’s owner was well aware of this and he would be ready to try and break his fall by catching him in his apron or deftly slide a light pole under him, in mid-air, down which he could slide in comparative immunity.  If the bull was successful and the dog not much hurt he was let go again since he was expected to be game enough to go back so long as he had still the strength to crawl.”

Some dogs were killed by the bull’s toss, and some dragged their entrails behind as they tried to find safety.  If the dog got a good grip, the flesh of the bull might be torn away by the dog as the bull shook to free himself. If the bull gave up, the dog’s jaws might have to be pried apart with a tool to get him off the bull. 

Drabble says that the last bull-bait took place about 1838. 

Although bulldogs were still a popular breed when Drabble wrote in the mid-twentieth century, he cautions against imagining “that the monstrosities wheezing at modern dog shows in the classes for bulldogs are like the animals” that baited bulls.  “Instead of being disproportionately squat and broad, like some great toad, the bulldogs which were used in the ring were finely proportioned dogs, little heavier in build than a modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and taller for their size.”

This is one case where breeding for show had the advantage of taking a dog away from its violent past.

Bear Baiting

Next to bull baiting in popularity was bear baiting, but Drabble says that “bears did not provide such good sport as the bulls.  For one thing too much manipulation was necessary to prevent the dog from being killed.”  The bears were “usually a mass of festering fly-blown sores which had resulted from the lacerations of earlier ‘baits’. They were led by a chain and ring in the nose and their muzzles were scarred or raw from the chafing of their chains.”

By about 1750, the sport had largely disappeared. Nevertheless it seems not to have gone away completely because, a depiction in Real Life in London from about 1821 shows men in the audience dressed in nineteenth century coats and leggings.

There is no end to the ingenuity of cruelty and we have only touched the surface. Drabble describes fights between groups of bulldogs and lions, dogs and monkeys, and many other horrors. When the contest was between a dog and rats, the sport was how many rats the dog could kill in a specified time. 

Guarding Function

Clyn relates a story that perhaps demonstrates there are occasions when a dog with the skills of a bull terrier might provide a legitimate defense function:

“The breed has a reputation for fighting which it does not really deserve; I think this is founded partly on the breed’s history as a fighting dog and also partly on the shocking efficiency of the few savage Bull Terriers about; the modern dog is but little less powerful than his ancestors, and a nice tempered White Bull Terrier bitch, well known on the bench, created something of a sensation in Burma some years before the War while defending her master who was attacked by an armed dacoit [bandit].  Within a few moments the dacoit was dead and the dog’s owner was paid a substantial reward that had been offered for the dacoit dead or alive.”

Conclusion

Bulldogs were able to escape their history as dogs used to bait bulls because the practice came to an end and no netherworld of gambling on fights between dogs and cattle lasted very long after the official ban.  Bears became too rare, and too protected, and, as described above, fights between bears and dogs were too difficult to manage in any case.  Unfortunately, dog fighting was only gradually outlawed in England and the United States and often not enforced when it was outlawed.  The sport had time to move underground, to develop a culture and venues where the morons that engage in it could meet with fellow enthusiasts.

Many of the potentially more dangerous breeds descend from war dogs, which probably means they descended from types of dogs that guarded the flocks. Outlawing a breed only means that other breeds including large dogs with powerful jaws will soon be preferred by those sick strains of humanity who feel that the suffering of animals is amusing.

The Michael Vick case brought public attention to the amount of dog fighting that occurs in the United States, and demonstrated that those who participate are often not gang members.  It also brought to everyone’s attention the frequent lack of enforcement of laws prohibiting dog fighting, and significantly changed enforcement patterns in most of the country. 

Despite the specific and violent purpose that explains pit bull origins, this is human history more than canine history, and I continue to believe that breed specific legislation will do little to diminish dog fighting or pit bull attacks.  It is serious enforcement of anti-dog fighting and dog bite laws that will accomplish that.  And despite the fact that this is already a trend, more effort is needed both in arresting and punishing those responsible for such inhumanity and stupidity.

Sources:

1. Alken, H. (1903). The National Sports of Great Britain. D. Appleton & Co., New York.
2. Ash, E.C. (1927). Dogs: Their History and Development.  Ernest Benn Ltd., London.
3. Clyn, S.H. (1948). Bull Terrier.  In The Book of the Dog (Vesey-Fitzgerald, B., ed.). Nicholson & Watson, London.
4. Drabble, P. (1948). Staffords and Baiting Sports. In The Book of the Dog (Vesey-Fitzgerald, B., ed.). Nicholson & Watson, London.
5. Egan, P. [writing as Anonymous] (1821). Real Life in London.  Methuen & Co., London.
6. Evans, R.D., and Forsyth, C.J. (1997).  Entertainment to Outrage: A Social Historical View of Dogfighting.  International Review of Modern Sociology, 27(2), 59-71. 
7. Jesse, G.R. (1866). Researches into the History of the British Dog.  Robert Hardwicke, London (in the final chapter of Volume II, discussing the rise of the pit bull terrier in the early 19^th century).
8. Larson, G., Karlsson, E.K., Perri, A., et al. (2012). Rethinking Dog Domestication by Integrating Genetics, Archeology, and Biogeography. PNAS (doi/10.1073/pnas.1203005109).
9. Livingston, R., and Livingston, W. (1885). The Bull-Dog. In The Century Magazine, May 1885, 3. 
10. Parker, H.G., Dreger, D.L. Rimbault, M., Davis, B.W., Mullen, A.B., Carpintero-Ramirez, and Ostrader, E.A. (2017). Genomic Analyses Reveal the Influence of Geographic Origin, Migration, and Hybridization on Modern Dog Breed Development. Cell Reports 19, 697-708 ("[W]hen dog fighting was a popular form of entertainment, many combinations of terriers and mastiff or bully-type breeds were crossed to create dogs that would excel in that sport. In this analysis, all of the bull and terrier crosses map to the terriers of Ireland and date to 1860–1870. This coincides perfectly with the historical descriptions that, though they do not clearly identify all breeds involved, report the popularity of dog contests in Ireland and the lack of stud book veracity, hence undocumented crosses, during this era of breed creation....").
11. Walsh, J.H. ("Stonehenge") (1859). The Dog in Health and Disease. Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, London. 
12. vonHoldt et al. (2010). Genome-Wide SNP and Haplotype Analyses Reval a Rich History Underlying Dog Domestication.  Nature, 464, 898.
13. Walsh, J.H. (1882). The Dogs of the British Islands (4th ed.). Horace Cox, London.  

Thanks to L.E. Papet for comments and corrections.  

1.       

Fort Bliss Adopts Draconian Measures to Enforce Army’s Service Dog Policy

The Army Medical Command’s policy with regard to service dogs, announced on January 30, 2012, stated a goal that, to the extent possible, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) would apply to Army facilities and operations.  Interviews with Soldiers at Fort Bliss who have service dogs demonstrate that the opposite has been the case.  Before word of the new policy reached the post, Soldiers had been allowed by individual commanders, on a case-by-case basis, to keep their dogs in barracks, have them near during certain work assignments, take them into the Post Exchange (PX), and stay with them during most hospital visits—in short, to use the service dogs as they are intended and as the ADA regulations conceive of them being used.

Now, under the new policy as implemented at Fort Bliss, the dogs are being prohibited access to barracks and most places on the post, and thereby prevented from performing their functions for Soldiers who often depend on them just to be able to go out in public.  Fort Bliss has also imposed requirements that substantially lengthen the time before a Soldier can acquire a service dog, perhaps up to a year, assuming that a dog can even be made available, a period that a potentially suicidal Soldier may not survive.  The profile of an acceptable dog that the Army has adopted follows an ill-advised model first created by the Veterans Administration, which does not just misunderstand the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but entirely contradicts the logic of those Acts.

There are 48 Soldiers with service dogs at Fort Bliss, none of which currently satisfy the Army policy and all of which are being excluded from parts of their master’s lives.  Many more dogs would be present were those soldiers wanting dogs allowed to get them, but the discouraging practices implemented at the post are keeping the number from getting higher. Soldiers are suffering, unnecessarily. 

Why Does the Army Want a Restrictive Policy?

The actions taken by the Army must be seen in the larger context of dealing with massive levels of post-traumatic stress disorder and other physical and psychological injuries resulting from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Faced with thousands of Soldiers returning from combat tours—often multiple tours—in countries where the relentless tension of war takes a heavy toll, the Army healthcare system has been increasingly overwhelmed.  Left to deal with the manifestations of PTSD and other mental conditions on their own, some Soldiers have begun drinking, using drugs, and cracking under the pressure, sometimes with tragic tolls on themselves and those close to them. 

The Army’s favored method, according to many Soldiers, often appears to be to prescribe massive amounts of prescription drugs, coupled with occasional therapy sessions.  When Soldiers are paired with service dogs, their dependence on drugs is often drastically reduced as they find some semblance of normalcy and even return to performing useful tasks.  That this transition does not come through a therapeutic regimen that has been rigorously studied in perfectly controlled tests has always been a difficult issue for psychiatrists and psychologists, and some of the problem may come from an Army medical corps that is inexperienced in working service animals into an overall concept of how to approach PTSD cases.  Some doctors apparently feel that Army hospitals are being overrun by service dogs.  Perhaps a post commander or two saw a few too many dogs pass his view of the lawns outside his window and determined that not all Soldiers were picking up poop. 

Developments at Fort Bliss

Once having settled on paying lip service to the ADA while instituting a program that contradicts ADA philosophy and mandates, at least two posts—Fort Bliss and Fort Campbell—took the Army Medical Command policy and expanded its coverage post-wide.  At Fort Bliss the enforcement of the policy, which was formally implemented on April 4, 2012, has become draconian. 

Some Ft. Bliss Soldiers suffering from PTSD were given the choice of paying for off-post housing so they could keep their dogs, or living in barracks where dogs were not allowed. Soldiers are no longer permitted to keep their dogs with them at work, and some are being ordered to accompany their units on field training exercises lasting several days without their service dogs.  These FTXs include combat training, with situations simulating battle conditions similar to those that caused PTSD in the first place.  Some were told to attend therapy sessions at hospitals that did not allow service dogs despite the availability of other facilities that do allow service animals.  Treatment regimens were in some cases cut from five to three days a week, making Soldiers with PTSD available for duties at their units two or more days a week.  Those duties often involve training where dogs are not permitted and conditions which are likely to exacerbate PTSD reactions. 

Soldiers and others believe commanders are deliberately taking these actions to increase the likelihood that Soldiers with PTSD will speak disrespectfully, act out in frustration, refuse orders, or otherwise provide an excuse to discharge them for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, rather than allowing them to complete the Medical Evaluation Board process and satisfy the requirements for a medical discharge.  Whether such practices reflect informal policy mandated at some level, or whether it is just the way some officers in management think, is hard to say, but the effect has a financial advantage to the Army in that a discharge for misconduct or failure to meet standards allows the Army to avoid paying for retirement benefits or providing post-discharge health coverage. 

(Soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder do not meet the Army standard for continued military service.   (Army Regulation 40-501, § 2-27.k; § 8-24.a(1), (2)(d))  Nevertheless, if a Soldier has not completed the process for a medical discharge, he or she can be discharged under Chapter 13 or 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (separation for unsatisfactory performance or misconduct), or for other reasons, which will involve the loss of pension and benefits.) 

One Soldier who spoke with me said when she first obtained her service dog, a female Rottweiler, in late 2011, the dog was allowed to live with her in barracks and accompany her to work, where she quickly became a favorite of the other soldiers in the unit.  “She was almost a mascot.”  (It would probably have been better had she been a mascot than a service dog since Army regulations include special provisions regarding mascots.)  Once the policy at Fort Bliss was implemented, the Soldier was told she could not keep her dog in barracks or bring her to work.  She applied for benefits that would allow her to get an off-post apartment, but was denied.  Faced with a horrible dilemma, she went to the press.  Suddenly the benefits were granted. 

This same Soldier began the process of trying to get the Fort Bliss recognize her dog under the new policy. Although she had obtained the dog with a prescription because of trauma suffered from a sexual assault by a superior in Afghanistan, she now had to have a mental health or medical official designate three tasks of the dog as necessary for the dog to qualify as a service dog.  The dog performs numerous tasks that should satisfy ADI service dog certification requirements and should satisfy post officials as well.  The dog searches rooms if the Soldier has any suspicion that somebody might have entered the apartment and returns to lie beside her when no one is.  The dog presses against the Soldier if she is walking with the dog and begins to panic because of the crowds or other circumstances that set off her PTSD.  When directed to “watch my back,” the dog sits behind the Soldier in a line and prevents anyone from getting too close to her.  If the Soldier has a panic attack, the dog lies across her until it passes.  If she cannot sleep because of the effects of the PTSD and then takes prescription drugs to do so, the dog wakes her up after the alarm clock rings by a series of progressively more effective nudges and barks, and makes sure the Soldier gets to assignments and appointments on time.  “I could not function without her.”  This is the definition of a service dog.  Yet post medical officials are afraid to go against the wishes of the post commander and acknowledge that her dog is, in fact, a service dog. 

Policy Affects More than Soldiers, More than Army Facilities

One Soldier who had spoken with the civilian landlord of an apartment building about his right to have a service animal live with him found the landlord refusing to allow him to bring his service dog into the unit, quoting the post policy with regard to service dogs.  It was apparent that landlord was unfamiliar with applicable regulations of the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. (For a history of how the federal agencies developed regulations on service animals, see Service and Therapy Dogs in American Society.)  The landlord called up the post commander and said she had been threatened by the Soldier.  The Soldier was told that if there were any more incidents like this, he would be court-martialed.  Whether a court-martial could be carried out in these circumstances is doubtful, but there was a clear effort to deter any further attempt on the part of the Soldier to live with his dog in at least this building.  This means that some landlords may be using the Army policy as a means of restricting their obligations under federal law with regard to service animals.

Another incident involved a Soldier’s dependent husband who has a service dog.  The husband had been in the Army for 12 years and been deployed several times, was wounded in combat and suffers from PTSD.  He was medically discharged on a 40% disability for back injuries, but eventually persuaded the Veterans Administration to award 100% disability for PTSD.  His doctor had prescribed a service dog, which he obtained.  He had regularly taken the dog to the PX before the Fort Bliss policy was implemented.  On a visit to the PX with his service dog a few days ago, he was prevented from bringing the dog inside.  It seems that Fort Bliss officials would like to see Army policy supersede ADA requirements even for those not in the Army.

A Meeting in Washington

Reacting to substantial opposition from wounded Soldiers, on May 1 the Army Surgeon General’s Office assembled a group of interested parties in Washington DC to discuss and recommend revisions to the service dog policy.  The largest part of the discussion concerned the portion of the policy requiring Soldiers with PTSD for whom service dogs have been authorized to obtain their dogs from organizations certified by Assistance Dogs International (ADI).  (Guide dogs for blind Soldiers have to be trained by organizations under the International Guide Dog Federation, but this decision does not have a limiting effect.)  Since the Army insists on privatizing the recognition of dogs that qualify as service dogs, one issue that was discussed was whether an alternative to ADI recognition could be devised.  One practical suggestion made would involve dogs not trained by ADI organizations being accepted on passing the AKC Canine Good Citizen (CGC) test and receiving a Veterinary Health Certificate (DD 2209) from the Army Veterinary Command.  It must be hoped that the sort of practical treatment of service animal issues that has been demonstrated by the Departments of Justice, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development will now be taken by the Army, though recent experience gives little reason for optimism in this regard. 

Conclusion

I have found no evidence that ADI lobbied for or in any way sought the official status that the Army has given it.  Several trainers working with Fort Bliss Soldiers who provide training largely on a volunteer basis told me that it was suggested to them that they consider applying for ADI membership.  This would, according to ADI’s website, require paying a $1,000 application fee, something that would be a significant burden for many trainers who are charging little or nothing and often cannot cover their own expenses.  ADI, having been blessed (or cursed) by the Army’s designation, should be evaluating means by which it can satisfy the demand for service dogs at posts where it does not have nearby member organizations.  Indications that Fort Bliss officials are discouraging staff from authorizing service dogs may be a way of keeping the census of soldiers needing dogs, or needing approval for dogs they already have, as low as possible so that the insufficiency of the mechanism chosen for satisfying the Army policy does not appear any more impractical than it already is. 

The problem should not exist at all.  Aside from the legal and social reasons I have previously presented, history should be considered.  The first service dogs were military animals.  In World War I, ambulance dogs, also called Red Cross dogs, were trained to find he wounded on battlefields and retrieve medics for assistance. Even before the end of the war, some of them were used to pull what were then called “invalid chairs” of soldiers who could not walk.  After the war, some members of German training organizations began working with dogs that had been used to guide the wounded off the battlefield and taught them to guide those who had lost their sight from war injuries.  There was a clear recognition that dogs could help former members of the military return to civilian life.  The guide dog phenomenon became a movement and soon spread to the United States when Dorothy Harrison Eustis, who had seen and trained dog guides in Switzerland, founded The Seeing Eye. 

It is a shame that a use of dogs that began in a war a century ago, and then proliferated into many types of service uses, is now meeting so much resistance from the U.S. Army, particularly at Fort Bliss. 

The Common Law of Pit Bulls: Maryland’s Highest Court Imposes Strict Liability Without a Statute

Faced with a gruesome attack and lacking a strict liability statute to apply to the landlord, whose tenants’ dogs were responsible for the attack, the highest court in Maryland determined that the matter could be dealt with by changing the common law.  Thus, there is now common law specific to pit bulls. 

In Tracey v. Solesky, 2012 WL 1432263 (Md. 2012), the Maryland Court of Appeals held, three justices dissenting, that harboring a pit bull was an inherently dangerous activity for which the landlord (Tracey) could be held strictly liable.  The Court noted that pit bull cases have a long history in Maryland and entered into a discussion of that history in order to support its conclusion that strict liability could be imposed as a change in the common law of the state, without a legislative mandate. The problem has become particularly great in the last 13 years when courts have had to deal with “seven instances of serious mauling by pit bulls upon Maryland residents resulting in either serious injuries or death … including the two boys attacked by the pit bull in the present case.”  In a number of cases landlords have been held liable for injuries caused by the pit bulls of tenants. 

Since this is a change in the common law, the law made by judges, it is likely that other high courts in the U.S. will seriously consider arguments that, even where there is no anti-pit bull statute, strict liability may be imposed as to pit bull attacks. 

Pit Bull Attacks in Maryland Courts

As far back as 1916, in Bachman v. Clark, 128 Md. 245, 97 A. 440, a pit bull terrier crossed the street and attacked a ten-year-old boy, seriously injuring him.  A witness picked up a piece of timber and killed the dog with it. 

In Shields v. Wagman, 350 Md. 666, 714 A.2d 881 (1998), a pit bull owned by the operator of an automobile repair business attacked a customer in the shopping center where the repair business was located.  The dog, named Trouble, also attacked another tenant.  Both attacks resulted in serious injuries, the second after the victim had climbed onto the roof of a car in an attempt to escape the pit bull.  The Court of Appeals held the landlord had actual knowledge that Trouble was dangerous and had the right to cause the removal of the pit bull from the premises but failed to do so, and in not so doing, had negligently allowed the attacks to occur. 

Just two months later, in Matthews v. Ameberwood Associates Ltd. LP, Inc., 351 Md. 544, 719 A.2d 119 (1998), a pit bull named Rampage attacked and killed a child in an apartment building.  The Court of Appeals found that because the landlord’s employees had reported Rampage’s aggressiveness and viciousness on prior occasions to management personnel, that knowledge was imputed to the landlord, and because the landlord had the right not to renew the lease or remove the pit bull under a no-pets provision in the lease, he could be held liable. 

In reaching its decision in Matthews, the Court considered the adequacy of a pit bull’s pen and cited a New Mexico case, Garcia v. Village of Tijeras, 108 N.M. 116, 767 P.2d 355, which had determined that “extraordinary measures are required for confining American Pit Bull Terriers, such as a six foot chain link fence with an overhanging ledge to keep the dogs from jumping out....”

In Moore v. Myers, 161 Md.App. 349, 868 A.2d 954 (2005), a pit bull chased a twelve-year-old girl into a street where she was run over by an automobile and suffered two broken arms, a broken leg, and a fractured jaw.  Prince Georges County, where the event occurred, had a statute requiring owners of pit bulls to keep them in enclosures or leashed at all times.  The owner’s son, according to the evidence, had sicced the dog on three girls, one of whom was the victim.   

In Ward v. Hartley, 168 Md.App. 209, 895 A.2d 111 (2006), the landlord was sued after the following occurred:

“[A] taxi driver was dispatched to pick up a passenger for transportation to the Kennedy Kreiger Institute. When he knocked on the door to the leased premises, he heard someone tell children not to open the door. He stepped back and at the same time a child opened the door and a pit bull came charging out as he heard someone yell ‘Get the dog.’ He hit the pit bull with rolled-up paper he had in his hand and the pit bull grabbed his foot. He then ran to his cab with the pit bull still holding onto his foot and, with the pit bull still attached, climbed on top of the car. A police car appeared on the scene, and as it did, two boys ran out of the house laughing and pulled the dog off of the cabdriver's foot. The cab driver's foot was severely injured and required surgery…. There was no evidence in the case that the landlord knew that a pit bull was being kept on the premises until he heard about the incident with the cab driver. The Court of Special Appeals, in holding for the landlord, opined: ‘Keeping a pit bull did not violate any covenant of the lease, nor did it violate any law or ordinance. No provision of the lease gave the landlord control over any portion of the rental premises. Thus, appellees had no duty to inspect the premises.’”

Although the landlord avoided liability here, it is unlikely the pit bull owner could have.  It seems he needed some training for his children as well as for his dog. 

The Attack on Dominic Solesky

In the case before the Court of Appeals, Clifford “escaped twice from an obviously inadequate small pen and attacked at least two boys at different times on the same day.”  The second boy was Dominic Solesky, who sustained life-threatening injuries and underwent five hours of surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital to repair his femoral artery.  He spent 17 days in the hospital and underwent additional surgeries, and was in rehabilitation therapy for a year after his release. 

The Court, as mentioned above, established “a strict liability standard in respect to the owning, harboring or control of pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls in lieu of the traditional common law liability principles that were previously applicable to attacks by such dogs.”  The Court acknowledged that it was imposing “breed-specific liability standards,” elaborating as follows:

“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 injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.”

Old Common Law

Since the Court determined to modify prior common law, it entered into a discussion of what law it was changing.  Citing an 1882 case, Goode v. Martin, 57 Md. 606 (1882), the Court had there stated that “to render the owner liable in damages to any one bitten by his dog, it must be proved not only that the dog was fierce, but that the owner had knowledge that he was fierce.”  A presumption that the dogs in the case were fierce and dangerous arose, however, from the fact the defendant kept them tied up during the day, a presumption that made sense in an era long before leash laws.

Looking at Harper, James, and Gray on Torts (3^rd ed. 2007), the Maryland Court of Appeals found the following statement in the treatise persuasive:

“It thus appears that one keeps dangerous animals at one’s peril, that is, at strict liability, but otherwise as to animals ‘not dangerous.’  As to the former class, it is no defense that the keeper employed reasonable care, or even a high degree of diligence to prevent their escape.  Liability is independent of any fault on the part of the owner. “

The Court of Appeals discussed its own ability to change the common law, noting that in a case from 1821, State v. Buchanan, 5 H.&J. 317, it had referred to the inherent dynamism of the common law which made it subject to judicial modification in the light of modern circumstances or increased knowledge. 

Common Law of Pit Bulls

The Court of Appeals noted that it had discussed the difference between pit bulls and other breeds in Matthews, where it had stated:

“[T]he foreseeability of harm in the present case was clear. 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 bull dogs ‘bite to kill without signal’ (Starkey v. Township of Chester, 628 F.Supp. 196, 197 (E.D.Pa.1986)), are selectively bred to have 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. The ‘Pit Bull's massive canine jaws can crush a victim with up to two thousand pounds (2,000) of pressure per square inch—three times that of a German Sheppard or Doberman Pinscher.’ State v. Peters, 534 So.2d 760, 764 (Fla.App.1988) review denied, 542 So.2d 1334 (Fla.1989).”

The Court noted that after its decision in Matthews, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association published a “special report” stating that:

“From 1979 through 1996, dog attacks resulted in more than 300 dog-bite related fatalities in the United States. Most victims were children. Studies indicate ... that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human ... [fatalities] during the 12 year period from 1981 through 1992 ....”

The same report indicated that, in the 12-year period ending in 1992, almost half of fatalities were caused by Rottweilers, but that in more recent years pit bulls have caused more fatalities than Rottweilers. From 1979 to 1996, pit bulls and Rottweilers accounted for 67% of human dog bite related fatalities.  The AVMA referred to this as indicating a “breed-specific problem with fatalities.” (A 2009 study, Kaye et al., not cited by the court, found in a survey of cases at the Children's Hospital in Philadelphia that over 50% of dog bite attacks on children over a recent five-year period were caused by pit bulls.)

The Court stated that the AVMA’s statistics “may reflect the increasing popularity of pit bulls, i.e. more pit bulls—more attacks.  Other issues such as training, use by persons in the illegal drug trade, etc., may be causative factors.”  The Court cited a website, Animal People, for an estimate that pit bulls now make up about 5% of the total dog population of the United States.  Of dogs in animal shelters, 23% in a survey of 5,236 dogs were pit bulls, suggesting that pit bulls end up in animal shelters at a much larger ratio than any other breed, presumably in part from instances of aggression.    

A recent study of patients with dog bite injuries (Bini et al. 2011) found that not only were pit bull attacks more common than attacks by other breeds of dogs, but also those bitten by pit bulls were injured more severely, were more likely to be admitted to a hospital, more likely to have higher charges once admitted, and more likely to die.  The authors of the study concluded that “strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the U.S. mortality rates related to dog bites.” 

Other Jurisdictions

The Maryland Court of Appeals cited a case, City of Toledo v. Tellings, 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007), in which the Ohio Supreme Court had upheld most of Toledo’s breed-specific regulations that classified pit bulls as “vicious dogs.”  The Ohio Court stated:

“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 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.”

As discussed in a prior blog, the danger of a pit bull in a police raid is not just to the police, since an officer may feel the need to eliminate the risk from the pit bull by shooting it.

In 2006, a Kentucky appellate court approved a trial court’s determination that pit bull terriers have “inherently vicious and dangerous propensities.”  Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ct. App. 2006). 

In two Florida cases consolidated on appeal, The Florida Bar v. Pape and The Florida Bar v. Chandler, 918 So.2d 240 (2005), two Florida attorneys were disciplined under the Rules of Professional Conduct for using advertisements analogizing themselves as pit bulls. The court said that the analogy ignored the darker side of the qualities often associated with pit bulls: malevolence, viciousness, and unpredictability.  Of course, the lawyers were reflecting what their clients want.  At an initial interview where a client was asking what he wanted in his trial counsel, I remember the answer: “I want a pit bull.”  Even Sarah Palin found common ground between pit bulls and soccer moms. One wonders if the lawyers would have been disciplined had they compared themselves to Rottweilers or standard poodles.  I'm considering adding 'The Labradoodle of Lawyers' to my business card.

In a District of Columbia case, McNeely v. U.S., 874 A.2d 371 (Ct. App. 2005), two dogs attacked a woman as she put garbage in the trash can behind her house.  She tried to climb over a fence but one of the dogs pulled her off it and both dogs began to maul her.  “During the ensuing attack, skin, muscle, and nerve tissues were bitten off from various parts of her body, including her leg and both arms; one of her toes was nearly bitten off, and she lost a large amount of blood. The attack finally ended when Avery's son, Jerrel Bryant, and two other men successfully chased the dogs off by beating them with an ax and baseball bat.”  The appellate court upheld the conviction and stated that all that had to be shown under the District’s Pit Bull and Rottweiler Dangerous Dog Designation Emergency Act of 1996 was that the pit bulls had attacked without provocation and that the owner knew the dogs he owned were pit bulls. 

In The Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. The City of Denver, 820 P.2d 644 (1991), the Supreme Court of Colorado upheld anti-pit bull legislation, rejecting the argument that the statute should be overturned because it “allows the determination that a dog is a pit bull based on nonscientific evidence.”  Thus, a dog with the physical characteristics of a pit bull could be banned based on its appearance, even if it were, say, a cross between a bull dog and a Labrador.  “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.”

The Maryland Court of Appeals cited Harper, James, and Gray on Torts as finding that negligence could be established under a strict liability statute regarding certain dogs in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Ohio.  Local and other laws also impose strict liability in California, South Carolina, and the District of Columbia. 

Summary Statement by the Court

Concluding all these strands, the Maryland Court of Appeals summarized its holding by stating that “upon a plaintiff’s sufficient proof that a dog involved in an attack is a pit bull or a pit bull mix, and that the owner, or other person(s) who has the right to control the pit bull’s presence on the subject premises (including a landlord who has the right and/or opportunity to prohibit such dogs on leased premises as in this case) knows, or has reason to know, that the dog is a pit bill or cross-bred pit bull mix, that person is strictly liable for the damages caused to a plaintiff who is attacked by the dog on or from the owner’s or lessor’s premises.” 

Dissent

Three justices dissented, criticizing the majority for holding that a “trace of pit bull ancestry” would be enough to impose strict liability. The dissenters saw this as a case where bad facts led “inevitably to the development of bad law.”  They stated that “in accordance with the well-settled common law standard of strict liability, the breed of the dog, standing alone, has never been considered a sufficient substitute for proof that a particular dog was dangerous or had a violent nature.”  Also:

“Under the new rule announced today, however, the only corrective action an owner, keeper, or landlord could possibly take to avoid liability for the harm caused to another by a pit bull or mixed-breed pit bull is not to possess or allow possession of this specific breed of dog on the premises. Conversely, any other breed of dog in the possession of the owner or on premises controlled by the landlord, no matter how violent, apparently, would be judged by a different standard. As a result of the majority opinion, it is unclear as to what standard should be applied prospectively to owners and landlords for the liability of other breeds of dogs kept on the premises.” 

Of course, encouraging landlords not to rent to tenants with pit bulls will be an inevitable result of this case, and even pit bull service dogs will undoubtedly encounter resistance.The dissenters cited the 2006 article by Hussain as saying that more than 25 breeds of dogs are commonly mistaken for pit bulls. 

“[S]ome experts indicate that the term 'pit bull' does not describe any one particular breed of dog; instead, it is a generic category encompassing the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and the American Pit Bull Terrier…. Neither the American Kennel Club nor the United Kennel Club recognizes all three breeds, and the breed descriptions and standards provided by the two organizations differ…. It is difficult for courts, therefore, both to determine whether a particular dog should be categorized as a pit bull and to differentiate between pit bulls and other breeds.”

As Voith (2009) has noted, there is a discrepancy between breed determination based on physical attributes and scientific determinations. 

Breed-specific liability may provide a “superficial sense of security because many factors completely unrelated to the breed or appearance of dogs affect their tendency toward aggression, including early experience, socialization, training, size, sex, and reproductive status.” The dissenters argued that the courts should leave breed-specific rules to the legislatures, not attempt to change the common law as was done here. 

Conclusion

I have disagreed with breed-specific legislation before, and disagree with this modification of the common law.  Nevertheless, I can understand the frustration of a court when faced with serious attacks by dogs whose owners have not trained them and do not know how to control them, and often do not know how to control their children. 

The largest weakness of the decision is that pit bulls are not the only dangerous dogs, and people who want large aggressive dogs may easily shift their preferences to other breeds and mixed breeds. Great Danes could come into fashion among the drug crowd, ending the successful marketing of the dog as a gentle breed and bringing back the image of their ferocity they once had. 

Also, what is a pit bull?  Is genetic testing to be used when breeding records indicate that a dog that looks like a pit bull is in fact a cross between a bull dog and a Weimeraner?  If a dog that does not look like a pit bull, but without any prior history of aggression, attacks a child fatally, will the parents be able to test the dog’s DNA for the presence of some pit bull markers?  If there is a common law of pit bulls, that common law will have to be interpreted by lower courts in Maryland in countless possible situations.  The decision ignores the inherent plasticity of the canine phenotype.

I sometimes think that owners of large dogs with large jaws should be given an IQ test before being allowed to have a potentially dangerous animal. They should probably be given an IQ test before being allowed to have children as well.  These laws are, in reality, laws against the kinds of people who obtain dogs for defensive and aggressive purposes, often based on lifestyle choices.  In the end I am afraid such laws are unenforceable. 

Additional Sources:

1. Beaver B. V., et al. (2001). A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 218, 1732.
2. Bini, J.K., et al. (2011). Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs.  Annals of Surgery, 253, 791.
3. Collier, S. (2006). Breed–Specific Legislation and the Pit Bull Terrier: Are the Laws Justified? Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 1, 17.
4. Grey, K. (2003). Comment: Breed–Specific Legislation Revisited: Canine Racism or the Answer to Florida's Dog Control Problems? 27 Nova Law Review 27, 415-432.
5. Hussain, S.G. (2006). Note: Attacking the Dog Bite Epidemic: Why Breed–Specific Legislation Won't Solve the Dangerous–Dog Dilemma, Fordham Law Review, 74, 2847.
6. Kaye, A.E., Betz., J.M., and Kirschner, R.E. (2009). Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries: A 5-Year Review of the Experience at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Plastic Reconstruction Surgery, 124(4), 551-8 (Five hundred fifty-one patients aged 5 months to 18 years were treated in the emergency department after suffering dog bite injuries during the study period. The majority of injuries (62.8 percent) were sustained by male children. Dog bite injuries were most prevalent during the months of June and July (24.1 percent). Grade school-aged children (6 to 12 years) constituted the majority of victims (51 percent), followed by preschoolers (2 to 5 years; 24.0 percent), teenagers (13 to 18 years; 20.5 percent), and infants (birth to 1 year; 4.5 percent). Injuries sustained by infants and preschoolers often involved the face (53.5 percent), whereas older children sustained injuries to the extremities (60.7 percent). More than 30 different offending breeds were documented in the medical records. The most common breeds included pit bull terriers (50.9 percent), Rottweilers (8.9 percent), and mixed breeds of the two aforementioned breeds (6 percent).)
7. Medlin, J. (2007). Comment: Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior. DePaul Law Review, 56, 1285.
8. Ready, L. (April 28, 2011). Pit–Bull Terrier Therapy Dogs Provide Great Service to Their Community, Best Friends Animal Society Pit Bull Terrier Initiatives.
9. Sacks, J.J., et al. (2000). Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 217, 836.
10. Voith, V.L. (July 11, 2009). Shelter Medicine: A Comparison of Visual and DNA Identification of Breeds of Dogs. Proceedings of Annual AVMA Convention.
11. Wisch, R.F. (2006). Quick Overview of Dog Bite Strict Liability Statutes. Michigan State University College of Law Animal Legal & Historical Center (May 2006, updated 2010).

Thanks to L.E. Papet for comments and additional sources.

Some Bills before Congress Will Help Dogs, Some Will Help National Security, but Some Seem Designed to Help Special Interests

One should periodically review what Congress is up to with regard to one’s interests, and even though many proposals regarding dogs are going nowhere, either because it is an election year or because some ideas are poorly conceived or drafted, certain trends can be detected.  The strongest trend evident in current proposals regarding dogs is a willingness of Congress to hand over responsibility for canine issues to private contractors and organizations.  Sometimes this is evident on the face of the legislation, but sometimes one must consider where the Senator or Congressman is from, and what constituents in his or her jurisdiction would benefit.  Other times it is not inappropriate to speculate about who may have assisted a legislator’s staff in drafting a proposal. 

Concomitant with the preference of certain members of Congress to privatize canine functions may be a tendency to assume that the welfare of working animals will be adequately protected by the private sector and non-federal agencies.  Legislation dealing with retired military working dogs, while admirable, will often not apply to contract working dogs owned by independent companies in the business of supplying dogs and handlers for military and security purposes.  While some organizations make appropriate provision for retiring dogs, I believe that there are cases where dogs are not being placed or appropriately protected at the end of their careers.  This too should be of concern to Congress, yet no such concern is reflected in current legislative initiatives.    

So here’s a brief snapshot of what’s now on the Congressional plate with regard to dogs.

Military and Security Proposals

H.R. 1900, the Surface Transportation and Mass Transit Security Act of 2011, provides that the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, consulting with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, may conduct a demonstration project in a passenger rail system to test technologies that would strengthen security of passenger rail systems.  This could include the use of dogs to detect improvised explosive devices. 

Also, and most important, the number of canine teams certified by the Transportation Security Administration is to be increased by 200, with $75,000 to be provided for each canine team deployed, requiring an appropriation of $15 million.  Specifically, the bill would require expanding “the use of canine teams trained to detect vapor wave trails in passenger rail and public transportation security environments….”

The Comptroller General is to submit a report to Congress on “the capacity of the national explosive detection canine team program as a whole.” The bill was introduced by Democratic Representative Sheila Lee of Texas, who also introduced House Resolution 28 (January 7, 2011), which encourages TSA to “continue development of the National Explosives Detection Team Program, which has proven to be an effective tool in securing against explosives threats to our Nation’s rail and mass transit systems, with particular attention to the application of its training standards and the establishment of a reliable source of domestically bred canines.” 

This may in part be a reference to the fact that the most popular breed at the moment for bomb dog work is the Belgian Malinois, and some agencies prefer to get them from European breeders. This is largely driven by economics because many imported dogs have already undergone significant training, which can include basic obedience, tracking, apprehension and attack work, and even detection training.  Starting with this level of training often saves the training companies a great deal of expense.  The intent of the legislation is appropriate, but at least in the short term it is likely to result in additional expense for some acquiring agencies. 

H.R. 1299, the Secure Border Act of 2011, would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to report to Congress the “number of canine and agricultural officers assigned” to each port of entry.  Within six months of enactment, the Secretary of Homeland Security would be required to “develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of security at ports of entry, which shall consider … [t]he required number of … Canine Enforcement Officers necessary to achieve operational control at such ports of entry.”  The bill was introduced by Republican Representative Candice Miller of Michigan, whose district abuts Canada.

H.R. 3011, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2011, has provisions regarding explosive detection canine teams for aviation and air cargo security.  The bill provides that the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security “shall ensure that by the end of 2013 at least 100 explosives detection canine teams are used for passenger screening purposes at large airports in the United States….”  The dogs can be used “to resolve screening anomalies,” such as something suspicious detected during a full-body scan. The bill authorizes the appropriation of $25 million for this purpose. 

In providing for air cargo security, the bill specifically provides for leveraging “third-party explosives detection canine assets … for screening air cargo that can be used by air carriers, foreign air carriers, freight forwarders, and shippers and that meet certification standards of the Administration, as determined by the Assistant Secretary.”  A third-part explosives detection canine asset is “any explosives detection canine or handler that is not owned or employed by the Administration.” 

For mass transit systems, the number of canine teams certified by TSA is to be increased by “not less than 200 canine teams,” with $75,000 in assistance to be provided for each team.  The bill specifies that TSA must “expand the use of canine teams trained to detect explosives based on methods other than traditional explosives detection training techniques.” It is not clear whether this is a reference to vapor wake detection, but it is to be noted that the bill was introduced by Republican Representative Mike D. Waters of Alabama, whose district includes Auburn University, where vapor wake detection research is a priority and a source of revenue.   

Research is also contemplated and $1 million is appropriated for two years so that “the Assistant Secretary, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Science and Technology, shall develop and implement a basic research and applied research and development program for the purpose of advancing the scientific understanding and applicability of canine explosives detection assets in the transportation environment.”  Auburn would have to be regarded as a good candidate for such a grant, but there are others. 

H.R. 4103, the Canine Members of the Armed Forces Act, would provide that the Secretary of Defense is to classify military working dogs as canine members of the armed forces, and not as equipment.  If a dog reaches the age of retirement and it has not been adopted, it is to be transferred to the 341^st Training Squadron.  Veterinary care is to be provided to retired military working dogs.  The bill was introduced by Republican Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina.  S. 2134 is the Senate version of this proposal.

This is a good idea, though it only has 12 sponsors at the moment.  Also, it does not protect contract working dogs on retirement. Rumors I have been unable to substantiate suggest the possibility that some current contractors are making little or no effort to redeploy older dogs or those that fail certifications, or allow them to enjoy any retirement whatsoever.

S. 722, introduced by Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, the Secure Facilities Act of 2011, provides that the Director of the Federal Protective Service is to increase by up to 15 canine teams the number of infrastructure security canine teams.  This increase could be achieved by one of three possible means:

“(A) partnering with the Customs and Border Protection Canine Enforcement Program and the Canine Training Center Front Royal, the Transportation Security Administration's National Explosives Detection Canine Team Training Center, or other offices or agencies within the Department with established canine training programs;

(B) partnering with agencies, State or local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, universities, or the private sector to increase the training capacity for canine detection teams; or

(C) procuring explosives detection canines trained by nonprofit organizations, universities, or the private sector, if the canines are trained in a manner consistent with the standards and requirements developed under subsection (b) or other criteria developed by the Secretary.”

Criteria for infrastructure security canine teams may involve standards set by private sector programs.  Unlike some other proposals, this one does not try to avoid use of federal training facilities. 

Proposals Regarding Veterans

H.R. 943, the K-9 Companion Corps Act, would provide funds to non-profit organizations for “planning, designing, establishing, and operating programs to provide assistance dogs to covered members and veterans.”  The proposal contemplates that assistance dogs would be provided to veterans suffering from:

(A) Blindness or visual impairment.

(B) Loss of use of a limb, paralysis, or other significant mobility issues.

(C) Loss of hearing.

(D) Traumatic brain injury.

(E) Post-traumatic stress disorder.

(F) Any other disability that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs consider appropriate.

Organizations applying for grant money would have be required to have “recognized expertise” in breeding and training assistance dogs, and would have to describe their experience in “working with military medical treatment facilities or medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.”  An assistance dog is defined as “a dog specially trained to perform physical tasks to mitigate the effects of” one of the disabilities listed above.  The dogs would be provided to active members of the military receiving “medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy,” and to veterans receiving treatment.  Up to $5 million would be authorized for this program.  The bill was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Mazie Keio Hirono of Hawaii. 

The Congresswoman may have been influenced by some organizations whose philosophy is that service animals should perform tasks and cannot qualify as such if they only “do work,” as accepted in Department of Justice regulations defining “service animal.”  On the other hand, the language in the proposal may only be designed to preclude the use of funds for emotional support animals.  The bill has attracted 23 cosponsors, indicating some traction, though probably not enough to advance in the current session. 

H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (PL 112-81), which has become law, contains a provision that allows the Defense Department to make available to a deceased handler’s family the military working dog which he had handled.  The dog may be given to a parent, child, spouse, or sibling of the deceased handler.  MWDs may also be given to their wounded handlers if the Department determines to do so, but if the handler is alive, the dog may not be given to a family member.  

H.R. 2074, the Veterans Sexual Assault Prevention and Health Care Enhancement Act, would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to implement a three-year pilot program to assess the effectiveness of using dog training activities as a component of integrated post-deployment mental health and PTSD rehabilitation programs offered by the VA. 

The Secretary is to select a VA medical center for this program, which cannot be in the VA Palo Alto health care system. In designing the program, recommendations published by Assistance Dogs International, the International Guide Dog Federation, “or comparably recognized experts in the art and science of basic dog training with regard to space, equipments, and methodologies.”  Partnerships are to be established with these two programs, as well as “academic affiliates, or organizations with equivalent credentials with experience in teaching others to train service dogs….” It is not clear who will determine what experts are “comparably recognized” or what organizations have “equivalent credentials.”  Since the VA is looking to the external organizations for guidance, it would presumably be up to those organizations to acknowledge who belongs in their class.  One wonders if anyone not directly affiliated would be found to be so.  Temperament criteria for dogs are to be taken from ADI and IGDF.  The legislation was introduced by Republican Representative Ann Marie Buerkle of New York.  The Senate version of this proposal is S. 1838.

H.R. 198, the Veterans Dog Training Therapy Act, was discussed in a prior blog.  The bill has acquired 98 sponsors but has been stuck in the Committee of Veterans Affairs for over a year. 

General Proposals

S. 707, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act, provides that the Secretary of Agriculture is to promulgate standards for dealers “that include requirements for the exercise of dogs at facilities owned or operated by a dealer.”  The rules would apply to all dogs at least 12 weeks old, and is not to include “forced activity (other than a forced activity used for veterinary treatment) or other physical activity that is repetitive, restrictive of other activities, solitary, and goal-oriented.”  The area provided for such exercise is to be “separate from the primary enclosure if the primary enclosure does not provide sufficient space to achieve a running stride,” and is to be sufficiently large for dogs to get exercise, i.e., to run around a bit. Certain kinds of flooring that would be unsafe for dogs are to be prohibited.  State laws that provide additional or greater protections for dogs are not preempted.  The bill was introduced by Republican Representative Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania. 

H.R. 2256, the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2011, is designed “to ensure that all dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally.”  Dogs and cats used in research must be obtained from a dealer, a pound or shelter, a person who bred and raised the animal or owned it for at least a year, and certain research facilities. This would apparently preclude people from rounding up their neighbors’ pets and donating them to research facilities, though if someone claimed to have had the animal for more than a year, it is not certain how the lie would be determined.  It appears to be well intended.  The bill was introduced by Republican Representative Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania.     

H.R. 1878, which would give public transportation access to trainers of service dogs, was discussed in a prior blog. 

Conclusion

Big winners, if legislative proposals before Congress were enacted, would be Auburn University’s trademarked vapor wake detection system (H.R. 1900, probably H.R. 3011, though the latter may be beneficial to a broader range of private institutions), and Assistance Dogs International and the International Guide Dog Federation (H.R. 943, H.R. 2074, S. 1838).  

I should note that I have the greatest respect for the latter two organizations, but delegating governmental responsibilities to umbrella organizations is too easy a way for government to avoid responsibilities altogether.  Also, with respect to non-guide service dogs, the Army, VA, and now Representative Buerkle, seem not to want to see that the umbrella is not broad enough to cover those with a great need for service animals.  

I also have great respect for Auburn University’s canine research, but like my father (who was an agricultural scientist) and my uncle (who spent most of his life in the Agronomy Department at Auburn), I am suspicious of the commercialization of research results.  Since it can bias the research, there should be an independent evaluation of the research and the validity of its commercial application.  That evaluation should not merely be a summary of field reports from handlers whose claims are necessarily biased by the fact that their employment depends on the success of an approach. 

Big losers, if some of the Bills become law, would be canine training programs already developed by the military and active-duty Army personnel and veterans who cannot get access to assistance dogs through channels approved by the military and the VA.  Dogs in general would benefit from exercise requirements placed on dealers, and limitations on the sources of animals for research, but a question that would remain open some time will be the level of enforcement that can be implemented by the Department of Agriculture, something discussed previously. 

H.R. 1540, allowing wounded handlers or the families of deceased handlers to obtain the military working dogs is now law (10 U.S.C. 2583).  Time will tell how many handlers and families are able to get dogs, since the military must approve a transfer.  Certainly dogs nearing the end of their useful lives should not present issues for the military, and giving a dog to a family that has lost a member will be some comfort that should not be denied. A similar requirement should be considered for contract working dogs.   

Overall, the proposed legislation, most of which will go nowhere in this election year, shows a trend towards privatizing canine responsibilities and activities.  Although this may be cost-effective, it comes with the price that neither the government nor the public will necessarily know very much about the implementation of a program, and Congress will effectively delegate oversight, at least until some flaw in a program blows up in a public manner.    

Thanks to L.E. Papet and Debbie Kandoll for thoughts on a draft of this blog.