This ruling will impact not only thousands of “pit bull” dog owners and their landlords, but will spill over onto owners of other dogs and their landlords, onto animal shelters, pet stores, groomers, kennels, veterinarians, and all other animal service providers.

It is utterly without foundation in the literature of controlled studies of dogs.

In April 2012, experts from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) published a report summarizing 50 years of studies conducted in the U.S., Canada, and Europe that directly contradicts the decision. These researchers concluded that “pit bull” dogs cannot be implicated on the basis of controlled studies of dog bite risk.

The Court’s opinion is not supported in the record concerning dog-related injuries in Maryland.

The record in Maryland from the 1960’s to the present day mirrors the findings of the AVMA experts, and is no different of that in communities everywhere. No breed or type of dog can be said to dominate in the incident reports available.

For example, dog bite-related fatalities are exceedingly rare everywhere, including in Maryland. From 1965 to the present, there have been 12 dog bite-related fatalities in Maryland, an average of one every four years. Investigating authorities reported 10 different breeds or types of dogs in connection with those tragedies. No one breed or type of dog can be said to predominate.

A sampling of serious, non-fatal incidents occurring in Maryland between 1963 and 2010 shows authorities assigning more than 15 different breed descriptors to the dogs involved.  In the 21^st century alone, Maryland authorities have reported a minimum of nine different breeds or types of dogs in connection with serious injuries to human beings.

The most recent critical dog bite-related injury in Maryland involved a 3-year-old Rawlings boy, who was so severely injured  that doctors placed him on a ventilator and in a medically-induced coma in order to treat his life-threatening injuries.  Authorities did not report the dog to be a “ pit bull”, “pit bull cross” or “cross-bred pit bull mix.”

In consequence, under the new Court of Appeals ruling, this child’s family may labor under a different burden of proof than does Dominic Solesky’s family, not because of the circumstances of the incident, but because of the breed label descriptor that the authorities ascribed to the dog.

Further, Tracey v. Solesky offers plaintiffs and their attorneys an incentive to game the system: to try and convince a court that the dog was a “pit bull”, “pit bull cross” or “cross-bred pit bull mix” in order to tilt the scale in their favor and create a prima facie case. The Solesky decision does not specify a standard by which a court would adjudicate the breed descriptor, nor does it recognize either the veterinary behavior literature which reports that observers frequently disagree with each other in guessing at the breed or breeds that make up a dog, nor the genetics literature which explains why this will always be the case.

The record in Baltimore shows how communities should address the issue of dog bites.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, reports of dog bites in cities across the country, including Baltimore, increased – in some cases dramatically.  The Baltimore annual dog bite total peaked in 1972, at 6922. In response to these reports, the authorities in Baltimore took action, setting higher standards for all owners of all dogs, regardless of breed or type. Among other changes, the city

• Increased surveillance of animal bites.
• Promoted inter-agency cooperation regarding bite incidents.
• Appointed an advisory council to investigate and make recommendations.
• Enacted a comprehensive Animal Control Ordinance (1974).
• Undertook a campaign to educate citizens.
• Conducted low-cost vaccination clinics each spring.
• Intensified enforcement of licensing and vaccination requirements.
• Took violators to court.
• Amended ordinances pertaining to humane handling, “public nuisance,” etc.

The improvement in community safety was immediate.  By 1976, reports of dog bites had fallen to 4760, a decrease of more than 30% from 1972.  The City had made clear its determination and more Baltimore dog owners were recognizing their obligations to the neighbors.

The totals have continued to decrease into the 21^st century.  In 1972, animal control authorities in Baltimore were bombarded with an average of 575 dog bite reports every month. In 2011, animal control states received 716 reports for the entire year.

Nothing in the available record in Maryland supports the designation of “pit bull” dogs as “inherently dangerous.” What the record in Maryland does show is that communities increase community safety when they hold all owners of dogs, regardless of breed or type, to the same standards of humane care, custody and control.

We govern best when guided by our best knowledge, rather than ruled by our unreasoning fear.

NCRC Interview with Bill Bruce on Ineffective Dog Laws from Kara Gilmore on Vimeo.

The authors pored over a body of literature covering almost 50 years.  These published reports came from all across the United States, as well as from Canada, the United Kingdom, Denmark, South Africa, New Zealand, and the Netherlands.

These varying reports also confirmed the ineffectiveness of breed-specific regulation. “It has not been demonstrated that breed-specific bans affect the rate of severity of bite injuries occurring in the community,” according to these experts.

Jurisdictions in Europe and North America were responding to the failure of breed-specific regulation to reduce the incidence of injury even before the AVMA published this report. The Netherlands repealed its “pit bull” ban in 2008.  The UK’s House of Commons is currently developing alternatives to the breed ban contained in the Dangerous Dogs Act. Animal experts in the UK have loudly and unambiguously declared the breed ban a failure.

In 2010, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) published an analysis developed from established best-practices in human medicine, which reached a similar conclusion. The authors, two veterinary epidemiologists and a veterinary behaviorist, developed their model based upon dozens of reports from the U.S. and Canada, as well as from Spain, Italy and Germany. They calculated that the available expert literature could not establish differences in breed-specific bite rates that would make it possible to substitute dogs of average danger for dogs estimated to be of elevated danger, in order to reduce the number of serious injuries.[ii]

The AVMA experts do not consider any one factor responsible for serious dog bite injuries. “Serious bites occur due to a range of factors,” conclude these authors.  Animal experts worldwide concur.

To read more about a multi-faceted, responsible pet ownership model that has produced better public safety outcomes, see the NCRC website: http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/responsible-pet-ownership/overview/

[i] AVMA Animal Welfare Division, “The Welfare Implictions of The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention,” April 17, 2012, available at http://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/dog_bite_risk_and_prevention_bgnd.asp (Accessed 8 May 2012).

[ii] Patronek, G., Slater, M., Marder, A., “Use of a number-need-to-ban calculation to illustrate limitations of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the risk of dog bite-related injury,” JAVMA, vol 237, Number 7, October 1, 2010.

After discovering the breed ban while trying to book a ticket to travel with her 10-year-old “pit bull” dog, Slaw, traveler Jessie Huart started a Change.org petition.

While the airline has not yet issued a public statement, United Airlines has updated the “Pet Restrictions” page on its website. “American Staffordshire terriers, Ca de Bou, Cane Corso, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Perro de Presa Canario, Pit Bull Terriers,  Presa Canario, and Tosa (or Tosa Ken)” and mixed breeds of these dogs are now cleared for flight but “only in a reinforced crate” that meets specific International Air Transport Association (IATA) requirements. The crate requirement applies to these dogs once they have reached the age of at least six months or weigh more than 20 pounds: “whichever comes first”.  Confirmation of the dog’s breed, age, or weight must be made via a health certificate, dated within 10 days of transport. However, airline officials “reserve the right to refuse any animal that displays aggression or viciousness at the time of tender”.

The new policy can be viewed here: http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/animals/restrictions.aspx

Prior to lifting the breed ban this week, United Airlines had removed the phrase “dangerous breeds” from its description of the types of dogs previously barred from travel. Embargoes on travel for some dogs do still exist. These include restrictions specific to certain locales and special handling instructions for brachycephalic dog breeds for whom air travel could pose an “increased risk of heat stroke and breathing problems when exposed to stress or extreme heat”. For reasons pertaining to their respiratory health, United Airlines will not carry English Bulldogs older than six months or weighing more than 20 pounds, though it will carry English bulldog mixes.

United Airlines is a member of the International Pet and Animal Transportation Association (IPATA). To learn more about the PetSafe Program visit http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/animals/default.aspx.

[Sources:  United Airlines Pet Restrictions. May 8, 2012. http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/animals/restrictions.aspx.]

Following a stroke that left Sak wheelchair-bound and unable to use the left side of his body, he and his physical therapist trained their family dog Snickers to perform tasks that would enable Sak to live independently and safely in his home.

In 2011, Sak’s attorney Sharon Malheiro of Des Moines law firm Davis Brown, filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Sioux City for a preliminary injunction. Judge Mark W. Bennett granted the injunction, and ordered the return of Snickers to Sak. The town of Aurelia is still fighting to disallow the use of Snickers inside the Sak home: the only place that Snickers is needed. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines, which indicate that all individuals have the right to service dogs regardless of their breed, Snickers is still allowed in public places in Aurelia. Sak’s attorneys will bring his case to trial on July 8, 2013.

Service dogs such as Snickers come in all shapes, colors, and sizes, and offer their human companions a sense of security and support that immeasurably enhances quality of life. Sak’s frustrating case is one example of how the fear and misunderstanding that inform BSL actually create human and animal suffering. In Sak’s case, the court found that his life was in actual danger without the aid of his service dog. Breed bans have real emotional and health impacts on people like James Sak and dogs like Snickers, in addition to being costly and ineffective.

Sak is currently undergoing treatment for cancer at Mercy Medical Center in Sioux City. He credits Snickers, who first noticed the tumor in his throat, with his diagnosis. Snickers will be waiting at home for James’ return after he is discharged.

[Source: http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_fr.pdf]

Evidence Analysis
The rationale and sources relied upon by the Maryland Court of Appeals in reaching its decision in Tracey v Solesky are widely considered suspect. There is no scientific evidence that one kind of a dog is more likely to bite or injure a human being than another kind of dog. Unfortunately, the court’s reliance upon out‐dated and generally discredited reports resulted in a decision that is directly contrary to the nationwide trend of recognizing that the most effective laws apply the same standards of responsible conduct and liability to all dog owners.

Inevitable Controversy
“Pit bull” is not a breed of dog. Consequently, there is no breed standard for “pit bull” dogs. DNA analysis cannot prove or disprove a dog to be a “pit bull” or a “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix” as there is no DNA test to determine whether a given dog is a “pit bull” or a “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix.” (1) Controlled studies have demonstrated that there is little consensus on what a “pit bull” looks like. (2) “Pit bull” is a catch‐all term used to describe a continually expanding incoherent group of dogs, including pure bred dogs and mixed‐breed dogs. A “pit bull” is any dog an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer, newspaper reporter or anyone else says is a “pit bull”. Consequently, it is unclear from Tracey v Solesky just how anyone is supposed to determine if a dog is a “pit bull,” “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix.” The justices who dissented in Tracey v Solesky warned that “the matter of creating a new standard of liability is fraught with problems and is beyond the sphere of resolution by any appellate court.”

What is strict liability in Maryland?
Strict liability in this case means that the victim of a bite from a dog proven to be a “pit bull”, “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix” does not have to prove that the owner or the landlord knew the dog was dangerous.

Dog Owners in Maryland
Maryland does not have a statute that specifically addresses the issue of dog bites and is among the minority of states that continue to follow the common law regarding liability for dog bites. In Maryland, dog owners are not liable for the damages caused when their dogs bite a third party unless the owners knew that the dogs might bite or had bitten before. If the dogs had bitten in the past, the owners are charged with that knowledge and become liable for subsequent bites. Tracey v Solesky changes Maryland’s common law, in that it imputes a knowledge of dangerousness to all owners of “pit bull”, “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix” dogs, regardless of whether the individual dogs so designated had bitten someone in the past. In other words, Tracey v Solesky imposes strict liability on owners of “pit bull”, “pit bull mix” or “crossbred pit bull mix” dogs when dogs so designated bite a person. In order to succeed in a lawsuit for liability against the owner of a “pit bull”, “pit bull mix” or cross‐bred pit bull” dog who has bitten, the victim only has to prove that the owner knew the dog was “pit bull”, “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix” dog. The victim does not have to prove that the owner knew the dog might bite, nor does the victim have to prove that the owner was negligent. However, common law defenses still apply in all dog bite cases. Those defenses include assumption of the risk, trespass, provocation, and contributory or comparative negligence. Other defenses include whether the bite occurred on or off the dog owner’s premises, whether the dog was reacting in defense of its owner, whether the victim teased or provoked the dog, etc. The Tracey v Solesky decision does not change the liability for owners of other dogs in Maryland.

Landlords in Maryland
Tracey v Solesky changes Maryland’s common law and may impose strict liability on landlords if a dog designated a “pit bull”, “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix” bites someone on premises controlled by the landlord. If a person injured by a dog designated a “pit bull”, “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix” can prove that the landlord knew the dog was present, that the landlord knew the dog had been designated a “pit bull”, “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix”, and that the landlord had control over the premises where the bite occurred, the court can impose strict liability on the landlord. The injured person does not have to prove that the landlord knew that the individual dog was dangerous.

Shelters in Maryland
National Canine Research Council’s legal advisors have reviewed Tracey v Solesky and have determined that this decision does not impose any additional liability on shelters. Nothing in this decision limits a shelter’s freedom to adopt out a “pit bull”, “pit bull mix” or “cross‐bred pit bull mix” dog. Shelters should disclose what they know about the dogs they adopt out based on the history they receive and what they observe while the dog is in their possession. Studies have shown that breed labeling dogs of unknown history and genetics based on visual examination correlates extremely poorly with DNA analysis. (3) Shelters do not have the expertise to inform new owners of every possible statute, regulation or common law that effects dog ownership. Nor do they have the expertise to define the applicability of Tracey v Solesky to the dogs in their care. It remains the responsibility of all dog owners, regardless of where they obtain their dogs, to know the laws in their state including the requirement for licensing, leashing, vaccinating, etc. Though this decision does not impose strict liability on shelters, it does negatively impact owners, landlords, and shelters in Maryland.

A Unified Voice for Dogs
It is important to remember that the overwhelming majority of dogs, regardless of breed, never bite anybody. Ever. The majority of states in the United States have statutes that impose strict liability on owners of all dogs in the case of a dog bite. Maryland is the only state that imposes a burden of strict liability on a landlord, in the case of a dog bite. We will only resolve such a controversy finally and equitably when we hold all dog owners to the same standard of humane care, custody and control of their dogs. We must be firm in our resolve to treat all dogs as individuals. We must insist that our laws and our communities afford all dogs equal treatment and opportunity.

FOOTNOTES

(1) Mars Wisdom Panel® Insights explains, “Due to the genetic diversity of this group, we cannot build a DNA profile for the Pit‐bull. If a Pit‐bull type dog was tested, we might anticipate that Wisdom Panel Insights test detect and report moderate to Minor amounts of one or more dis tantly related breeds to those used to breed the dog, it is possible that one or more of the following breeds might be detected at moderate to Minor amounts: the American Staffordshire terrier, Boston terrier, Bull terrier, Staffordshire Bull terrier, Mastiff, Bullmastiff Boxer, Bulldog and various small terriers like the Parson Russell. These breeds would be detected because some markers in these breeds have genetic identity at a minority of the markers Wisdom Panel Insights test uses to the breeds in our database.” http://www.wisdompanel.com/why_test_your_dog/faqs/#79

(2)A study report authored by Kimberly R. Olson, BS and Julie K. Levy, DVM, PhD, DACVIM, of the Maddie’s® Shelter Medicine Program, University of Florida and Bo Norby, CMV, MPVM, PhD, of the Depa rtment of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University, concluded “1. DNA analysis failed to confirm pit bull‐type breeds in the pedigree in more than half of the dogs identified as pit bulls by shelter staff at the time of the study. 2. One in 5 dogs genetically identified as pit bulls were missed by shelter staff. 3. One in 2 dogs labeled pit bulls by shelter staff lacked DNA breed signatures for pit bull terrier‐type breeds. 4. Lack of consistency among shelter staff in breed assignment suggests tha t visual identification of pit bulls is unreliable. 5. Focusing on other attributes of dogs such as persona lity, behavior, and history instead of breed may help predict safety of individua l dogs towards people and other animals. 6. Public safety may be better preserved by recognition and mitigation of risk factors for dog attacks and on identification and management of individual dangerous dogs, rather than on exclusion of particular breeds.” http://www.maddiesfund.org/Resource_Library/Incorrect_Breed_Identification.html and http://www.maddiesfund.org/Documents/Resource%20Library/Incorrect%20Breed%20Identifica tion%20Study%20Poster.pdf

(3) In an article published in the Proceedings of the Annual American Veterina ry Medical Associa tion Convention, July 2009, Dr. Victoria Voith, PhD, DVM, DACVB, and advisor for National Canine Research Council, writes, “The discrepancy between breed identifications based on opinion and DNA analysis, as well as concerns about reliability of data collected based on media reports, draws into question the validity and enforcement of public and private policies pertaining to dog breeds.”

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Voith%20AVMA.pdf

Newspapers and magazines in the U.S. and elsewhere have reported the story. The full preliminary study is available online via Emerald Group Publishing Ltd:  http://www.emeraldinsight.com/search.htm?st1=dog+presence&ct=jnl&fd1=all&bl2=and&st2=1753-8351&fd2=isn

The study measured the impact of a pet’s presence on “stress and organizational perceptions” among three groups of employees: those who brought their dogs to work, those who own dogs by did not bring them to work, and employees without pets. Replacements, Ltd., a service-manufacturing-retail company in Greensboro, NC with 550 employees was the site. It has permitted employees to bring their dogs to work for over 15 years, researchers note.

The findings regarding perceived stress in the workplace seem to correlate with other mounting evidence that supports the health benefits of human-animal interaction. During the workday, stress declined in people who brought their dogs to the office (“DOG” group). Stress increased for the two groups who did not bring a canine companion to work (“NODOG” and “NOPET” groups).

The “NODOG” group had significantly higher stress than the “DOG” group by the close of business. On days during the study when the “DOG” group did not bring their dogs to work, “owners’ stress increased throughout the day, mirroring the pattern of the NODOG group”.

In administering the Pet Attitude Scale (PAS), an assessment tool that measures general attitudes toward animals, workers’ overall feelings about animals in the workplace were also measured. Equal numbers of employees perceived dogs’ presence as beneficial or harmful to their productivity.

The authors suggest that one practical application of their study might be to utilize dogs “as a low-cost, wellness intervention” in both large corporations and small-shop businesses. However, consideration is also given to the workaday canine in their conclusion. Future research, they continue, could focus on the welfare of dogs within the work setting in terms of positive or negative responses to difference stimuli in that specific environment.

NCRC expects that effective follow-up to the findings presented in this preliminary study will require the expertise of behaviorists and ethologists in order to account for the interests and welfare of the dogs, as well as the concerns of non-dog owning employees.

[Source: Randolph T. Barker, Janet S. Knisley, Sandra B. Barker, Rachel K. Cobb, Christine M. Schubert (2012), "Preliminary investigation of employee's dog presence on stress and organizational perceptions", published in The International Journal of Workplace Health Management, Vol 5 Iss: 1 pp. 15-30.]

The story of Cisco’s shooting reminds us of the importance that law enforcement officers receive proper training about what to do when they encounter dogs in the line of duty. Law enforcement officers encounter dogs in the course of almost every kind of police interaction with the public. Through proper training, law enforcement officers can be more prepared during encounters with dogs and can avoid unnecessarily shooting a family pet.

In efforts to better prepare law enforcement officers for interactions with dogs in the line of duty, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) has released an outstanding law enforcement manual: The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters.

The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters gives officers and first-responders the information they need to stay safe, protect the public and successfully manage dogs in the line of duty.

The manual is available for free download: http://tinyurl.com/COPSdogsafetyguide

The National Canine Research Council is proud to be working with the U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office to bring this resource to law enforcement. We hope you share it with your town’s law enforcement officers in order to pass on this important information.

The dogs’ presence on board, and the consequent survival of some further suggests the importance of including companion dogs in human endeavors, and the powerful relationship between pets and people that compelled owners to include their dog when exiting the ship.

The focus on the Titanic’s canine passengers is being highlighted in a new historical exhibit. The curator, J. Joseph Edgette, described his interest in the exhibit’s unique focus when stating, “There is such a special bond between people and their pets,” and, “I don’t think any Titanic exhibit has examined that relationship and recognized those loyal family pets that also lost their lives on the cruise.”

[Prepared in part from an MSNBC.com report and a post by Widener University].

Law enforcement officers routinely encounter dogs in the course of almost every kind of police interaction with the public. However, through proper training, law enforcement officers can be more prepared during encounters with dogs and can avoid unnecessarily shooting a family pet.

In efforts to better prepare law enforcement officers for interactions with dogs in the line of duty, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) has released an outstanding law enforcement manual: The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters.

The Problem of Dog-Related Incidents and Encounters gives officers and first-responders the information they need to stay safe, protect the public and successfully manage dogs in the line of duty.

The manual is available for free download: http://tinyurl.com/COPSdogsafetyguide

The National Canine Research Council is proud to be working with the U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office to bring this resource to law enforcement. We hope you share it with your town’s law enforcement officers in order to pass on this important information.

[Prepared in part from a report in the Frederick News Post.]