K9 Advisors

August 12, 2009

No BSL

I hope that you enjoy Pit Bull Blues by John Shipe which is easily the best song about pit bulls that I have ever heard. Like most people, I did not know what great dogs pit bulls are until recently. As my friend Dog Man says “It is not the dog, but the owner that is the problem and pit bulls are not for everyone.

August 4, 2009

Math Sets Dog Free in Challenge to BSL

Filed under: Animal Advocacy, Say NO to BSL — admin @ 3:05 pm

MCABSL

Update Aug. 2, 2009:  There were 2 challenges on July 31 to confiscations under Miami-Dade County’s Pit Bull ban. Animal Services claimed both dogs, Baby Girl and Dixie, substantially conform to banned pit bull breeds.

In Ordinance No. 89-22, the county bans all dogs that “substantially conform” to American Kennel Club standards for  American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers or United Kennel Club standards for American Pit Bull Terriers. 

Animal Services uses a checklist of characteristics to determine if a dog substantially conforms in appearance or breed to a pit bull type dog.  

The first case involved Carlos McLiberty and his dog, Baby Girl. Dr. Derek Wineburgh, a veterinarian with Hollywood Animal Hospital, testified about his evaluation of Baby Girl and the results of the MARS blood DNA test performed by his colleague, Dr. Ryan Llera. Dr. Llera also evaluated the dog.  Both veterinarians agreed Baby Girl was neither an American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier nor a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (all 3 breeds are banned in Miami-Dade county).

Dr. Wineburgh said that the results from Baby Girl’s DNA test reveal she is bulldog, Whippet, Irish Terrier and Bull Terrier. Nowhere in her genetic makeup is any of the 3 banned breeds.

Despite this, the hearing officer decided the dog is a pit bull within the meaning of the ordinance. 

In the 2nd case Jomar Valdez challenged that the dog, Dixie, conformed to the checklist used by Animal Services to determine if a dog substantially conforms in appearance to one of the banned breeds. 

Dahlia Canes, founder and director of Miami Coalition Against BSL, illustrated through her testimony the many occasions on which Animal Services claimed a dog conformed to the checklist and when questioned, would agree the dog did not conform or meet the requirements to establish it was a pit bull type dog.  

One dog originally said to be a pit bull was a Mastiff, another a Labrador/ Boxer, yet another a Weimaraner mix and in another instance a Great Dane mix. 

dogCanes said the dogs were all evaluated as puppies though the ordinance states dogs must be over 4 months old before their breed is determined.

Had Canes and other rescuers not challenged the original findings, these dogs would have been euthanized simply because they were thought to be pit bulls.

Attorney Rima Bardawil, representing both McLiberty and Valdez, said it was critical that the Animal Services Investigator who issued the citation to Valdez, testified the dog must meet 70% of the checklist to ”substantially conform” to a banned breed.

Dixie’s checklist indicated the investigator thought there were 11 conforming characteristics and 4 that were not. But in the end her math was wrong.

Bardawil explained, “She stated in her summary that the dogs ears stood up erect and ‘Did Not Conform.’ However, her checklist stated that the dog’s (Dixie’s) ears Did Conform.  That was a clear contradiction with her typed summary and that one had to come into our column of ‘Does not Conform’ versus the column that it was in Does Conform.’” 

There were two other mistakes. Bardawil said, “One was on the Front Leg category, where she stated the legs ‘did conform’ on her checklist, yet in her detailed photo blow up she stated ‘did not conform.’  Finally, there was the back legs category, which she admitted she mislabeled the part of the legs she tagged, and therefore at least half of the rear legs did not conform.  Therefore, based on the 70% standard that too had to go into the ‘Does Not Conform’ column. 

With all this, the 11-4 changed to 8-7.  Basic math alone will reveal that this is nowhere near 70%; in fact it is just a little over 53%. ….The [hearing officer]…had …no choice” but to free the dog. 

______________________________  

dogIn March, 2009, in a similar challenge a hearing officer refused to enforce the ban against the alleged pit bull dog, saying the ordinance was too vague.  That case was instigated by Miami Coalition Against BSL, an organization dedicated to ending the Miami-Dade County pit bull ban.

Read Miami-Dade County: 2 Decades of BSL has Produced No Positive Results, by Karen Delise

Dahlia Canes, founder of Miami Coalition Against BSL, says her organization plans to continue to urge owners whose dogs are confiscated under this ban to raise legal challenges.

She said “This is an extremely important step towards the removal of BSL /Pit Ban in Miami-Dade County. [Public] support is most appreciated by the over 70,000 Pitties/Staffies and mixes … residing in Miami-Dade County. Remember… this is not only about Pit Bulls, as Breed Specific Legislation criminally discriminates against over 75 targeted breeds.”

Canes continued, “This ridiculous and inhumane ordinance has been here since 1989 and it’s time to go! It is solely responsible for the confiscation and killing of thousands of innocent dogs. Family members, who are left with hefty fines …grieving over their loss… without a logical explanation!”

For more information please go to http://www.unitedagainstbsl.org/.

July 30, 2009

Miami-Dade County: Two decades of BSL has produced no positive results

Filed under: Animal Advocacy, Pit Bull Advocacy, Say NO to BSL — admin @ 2:15 pm

We like to give special thanks to Karen Delise for writing this article and Laura Allen for posting this on her site, Animal Law Coalition.

In 1989, Miami/Dade County passed an ordinance banning from the county all “pit bull” dogs. The county claimed that pit bulls were different from other dogs, that they inflicted injuries different from the injuries that a person might suffer from another dog, and  that they posed a greater danger than other dogs.

The county claimed that the ban would keep the community safer by reducing the number of serious incidents involving dogs.

Has the Miami-Dade ban reduced the number of dog bites? Has it averted severe dog attacks?  Has it eliminated dog bite-related fatalities? 

Can the county even identify which dogs it has banned?

The answer to all these questions is:  NO.

Number of Dog Bites Reported:

There is no evidence that cities or counties, including Miami-Dade, that have enacted breed bans or restrictions have had a greater reduction in the number of reported bites than cities or counties without breed bans or restrictions.

Official reports from health departments and animal control agencies across the country show that the number of dog bites has plummeted to historic lows, despite the significant increase in both the human and dog population. Virtually all areas of the nation have witnessed dramatic reductions in the number of reported dog bites over the past 35+ years (1971-2007).  For example; Minneapolis, New York City, and Baltimore, cities that have never enacted breed specific legislation, have experienced drastic reductions in the number of dog bites reported:.

Minneapolis shows an 86% reduction, from 1,692 to 239.
New York City has a 90% reduction, from 37,488 to 3,776.
Baltimore has seen a 91% reduction, from 6,809 to 593.
Miami/Dade has in fact realized a lesser decrease in the number of dog bites reported to Miami-Dade Animal Control — from almost 6000 bites reported in 1979, to 992 in 2007.  This decline, of a little more than 80%, is at the lower end of the national trend. Further, most of this decline occurred before the ban was enacted.  Between 1979 and 1988, dog bites reported to Miami-Dade Animal Control dropped from almost 6000 to fewer than 2600.

What about severe dog attacks?

Miami-Dade’s breed ban has not made Miami-Dade any safer than the rest of the state.

In enacting its ban in 1989, Miami/Dade argued that pit bulls inflict more serious injuries than other dogs, and promised that banning pit bulls would reduce serious injuries by dogs. 

This promise has not been kept.

The percentage of Miami/Dade dog bite incidents that result in the victim’s being hospitalized continues to be higher than the rate for the state as a whole.  In 1998, ten years after the breed ban had been enacted, the county’s population was 14% of the total population of Florida; yet it had 18% of the dog bite hospitalizations. In 2007, Miami/Dade’s population was 13% of Florida’s total population, but it had 16% of the state’s dog bite victim hospitalizations.  Miami-Dade is the only Florida county with a breed ban.

Fatalities:

With respect to dog bite related fatalities in Miami-Dade, the ban is irrelevant. 

Dog bite-related fatalities are, and have always been, vanishingly rare.

Over the past 4 decades there have only been two fatal dog attacks in Miami/Dade; one prior to the pit bull ban, in 1972, and the other in 2006.  Neither incident involved a dog reported as a pit bull.

Can Miami-Dade identify the dogs it is trying to ban?

No.

In March of this year, a county hearing officer ruled that the Miami-Dade pit bull ban was too vague to be enforced against a dog named Apollo. In fact, an attorney familiar with the case reported that it is not clear what criteria the county is using to determine whether or not a dog is to be classified as a pit bull, and thus forbidden under the statute. 

What can the citizens of Miami-Dade look forward to with respect to its breed ban?

Miami-Dade can expect further expense and judicial proceedings, if they choose to continue the defense of the ban, with no appreciable decrease in dog bites, serious or otherwise, as compared with the rest of the state. 

Law-abiding citizens will continue to live in fear that their family pet may be targeted by the ban.

Abusive owners, scofflaws, and criminals will continue to flout the law, and to obtain whatever dog they wish.

Miami-Dade can expect renewed legal challenges, similar to the case of Apollo.

A report published in July, 2009 in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science indicates low correspondence between visual breed identification by adoption agencies when compared with DNA identification of the same dogs.  In only 25% of these dogs was at least one of the breeds named by the adoption agencies also detected as a predominant breed by DNA analysis.  Predominant breeds were defined as those comprised of the highest percentage of a DNA breed make-up. 

Dog bite numbers will remain constant, since the limited resources available for animal services are directed at the physical appearance of the dog, rather than for programs and policies holding owners responsible for the humane care, custody and control of their dogs: the approach that animal experts have consistently identified as contributing to a safer, more humane community.

July 23, 2009

New Dog Park? or campaign tactic

Filed under: Dog Parks, Say NO to BSL — admin @ 12:27 pm

We like to thank Dahlia Canes for writing this story!

Comm. Javier Souto building a dog park? What’s wrong with this picture? This is Javier Souto, who was complaining of dogs barking at night in his neighborhood at a past Commissioners hearing? Who in his district further reduced the amount of dogs per household you could have….instead of county that allows 4 he stated since he owned 3 … that was good enough. Who has upheld the BSL or Pit Ban in Dade County single handedly….who wanted all feral cats off the street…  Ahhhhh… elections are coming up….. I see… His opponent is Mimi Planas, who openly declared she wanted the Pit Ban removed and wanted a stronger dangerous dog ordinance enforced. He must be taking lessons or paying attention from Joe Sanchez campaign… he fought for the anti tethering ordinance and always has animal issues on his agenda. Mayor Julio Robaina of Hialeah… who always has animals best interest at hand….He forgets there’s a difference… these politicians do this from the heart… 
 
He just spent $430,000.00 on a dog park and they are cutting budget at animal services drastically? The animal shelter is falling apart…. they have been begging and been promised a new facility soon… still….the next mayor hurricane that hits will level the place…who are you going to point the fingers at then? I’m all for dog parks but….seriously now… why don’t you spend this on diagnostic equipment  for the shelter, an x-ray machine would be wonderful….medication…no need to cut further employees…$430,000.00 could have done some damage to the seriousness of this situation. Yet… you build a dog park to go play and you build a baseball stadium to play ball…amazing….
  
Talk about sugar coating it down your throat….Mr. Souto… this tactic may fool some but for others it’s an expensive campaign tactic that the tax payers are putting up. All I can say is… I hope it rains on your parade!

July 1, 2009

Rochester awaits verdict after Lab bites neighbor

Filed under: Say NO to BSL — admin @ 1:58 pm

Rochester awaits verdict after Lab bites neighbor
Councilman led drive to ban pit bulls
By Lynn Zerschling | Posted: Wednesday, July 01, 2009

SIOUX CITY — The city councilman who led the drive to ban pit bulls in Sioux City is waiting to find out whether his Labrador retriever will be euthanized for biting a neighbor.

Councilman Aaron Rochester said Tuesday he has appealed Sioux City Animal Control’s determination that his family’s yellow lab is vicious after Saturday’s incident, which resulted in an emergency room visit and five stitches for the injured neighbor.

Sioux City Police Capt. Pete Groetken said he held a hearing on Rochester ’s appeal Tuesday morning and will reach a decision by the end of the week. He can either uphold Animal Control’s designation or overturn it.

The 3-year-old dog, Jake, is being held at the Animal Control shelter until the case is resolved.

At 4:45 p.m. Saturday, a man and woman who live in the neighborhood walked by the Rochesters’ home in the 1300 block of 46th St. The lab was sitting on the front porch. As the couple walked by on the sidewalk, the dog ran off the porch and jumped the man, Groetken said..

The neighbor suffered a scratch to his right leg as he tried to push the dog away, some marks on his chest and bites to his thumb that required five stitches at a hospital emergency room. Groetken declined to identify the man because the case remains under investigation.

Rochester said his neighbor did not wish to be identified, and other neighbors contacted by the Journal said they did not know who he was.

Rochester said he and his wife, Amy, held a birthday party for their youngest child, Kate, on Saturday. Amy had gone inside their house while Kate and a friend played outside. Rochester said he had left the party to drive his eldest son to work.

“(Amy) heard something and yelled at Jake to come in the house, and he ran in the front door,” Rochester said. “The people know our dog, and the wife said Jake would bring her a tennis ball and she would throw it. He is a great watchdog. My speculation is, he was watching our children and may have thought they were in danger.”

An Animal Control officer impounded Jake on Saturday after the dog bite was reported. Rochester said someone at the hospital called police to report the bite, which he said is standard practice.

Last year, Rochester led the council’s controversial effort to ban future ownership of pit bulls in Sioux City . Rochester supported his position with Animal Control reports showing that type of dog is the most apt to bite people.

Pit bull owner Amanda Gardner, who helped lead opposition to the ordinance, said Tuesday night: “I don’t wish any dog to be put down. But how many little kids have cried because their pit bulls have been banned from the city or euthanized? In Aaron’s words, a bite’s a bite.”

Dog owner Terry Mann, who also opposed the pit bull ban, said, “Labs are one of the best breeds there are; the most friendly. … I don’t think the dog should be put down at all.”

Rochester emphasized that he has not gotten special treatment because of his position as an elected official.

“It happened Saturday afternoon, and Animal Control had my dog by Saturday night,” he said. “I did not get special treatment.”

Vicious-dog proceedings

Police Capt. Pete Groetken has two choices when he hears cases of animals declared vicious by Sioux City Animal Control: He can uphold or overturn the ruling.

If he upholds the decision, the pet owner may appeal his ruling to a special master appointed by the city manager and eventually could appeal the master’s decision to court.

If in the end the dog is found to be vicious, the animal must be euthanized.

“I have yet to have an owner say go ahead and euthanize my dog,” Groetken said. “There is language in the city code that says if the owner refuses to do it, the city can do it.”

Last year, the City Council redefined vicious animals. To be declared vicious, an animal must bite or harm a person or another animal. The injury would have to cause “bleeding or noticeable and documented injury to the person” or significant injury to another animal or fowl that requires medical attention. A trained guard dog or K-9 is not subject to that provision.

Pet owners used to have the option of placing their pets in homes outside the city limits, with the approval of Animal Control. Last year, the council ruled that owners no longer can do that. The council noted other cities and counties are banning vicious dogs from being placed in their jurisdictions.

May 21, 2009

MCABSL - Dog Fight - Pit bull pan, what pit bull ban?

Filed under: Animal Advocacy, Say NO to BSL — admin @ 3:25 pm

Dog Fight - Pit bull ban, what pit bull ban?
By Tim Elfrink
Published on May 20, 2009 at 10:18am

We wish to thank Tim Elfrink for writing this article as well as New Times for publishing this article to bring this unfair ban to the spot light.

Back in February 1989, a 7-year-old girl named Melissa Moreira was walking home on SW 18th Terrace near FIU after a night of shopping with her family when a neighbor’s pit bull ran at her and leapt. The dog tore apart the girl’s face and arms as she screamed. It then savaged her mother and grandmother before a neighbor shot it four times in the head.  The animal left the girl in critical condition. She survived only after extensive reconstructive surgery to her face. 

Soon after that attack, Miami-Dade banned all pit bulls. It was probably the first such countywide measure in the nation. Since then, thousands of the breed have been killed in a drab building near the Palmetto Expressway. In 2008, the county confiscated 802 pit bulls and euthanized more than 650.

Neither Broward nor Palm Beach has such a ban — and dozens of dog owners have fled there with their dogs just to avoid the law. Though national animal groups from the Humane Society of the United States to the American Veterinary Medical Association oppose the ban, workers every month halt scores of animals’ hearts with an overdose of barbiturates and then cart them en masse out the back door.

But thanks to a minuscule 57-year-old woman with a short haircut and a paw print tattooed on her left wrist, that may soon change. Dahlia Canes led a group that won an unprecedented legal victory this past March. And now she has hired a lawyer and plans to mount a lawsuit that just might overturn the measure. “The ban doesn’t work,” she says. “It’s insane that we’re taking them away and killing them.”

The catchall term pit bull actually refers to at least three common breeds of dog — the American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier, and the Staffordshire bull terrier. All three probably descended from bulldogs bred in England in the 1800s for “bull baiting” — brutal bull versus canine blood matches. When the sport was banned in the 1830s, the hardy animals were bred for dog fights instead.

Hundreds came to America with Irish and English immigrants later in the century. By the early 1900s, pit bulls were among the nation’s most popular breeds. The Little Rascals’ dog, Petey, was a pit bull. So was Sgt. Stubby, a beloved WWI mascot that earned dozens of medals in the European trenches with the 102nd Infantry.

Pit bulls didn’t become pariahs until the past two decades, when well-publicized, stomach-churning attacks such as the one on Melissa Moreira led to anti-pit bull laws. Miami’s ban was championed by then Metro-Dade Commissioner Joe Gersten — who famously later fled to Australia after he was caught frolicking with prostitutes in a crack house. It passed 6 to 0 on April 4, 1989, after Moreira’s mother tearfully asked commissioners: “Who in this room is going to bring my child back to the way she was?”

But it didn’t take long for the law’s problems to become obvious.

One owner chained 16 pit bulls to a tree in a Miramar field and left them to starve rather than face the $500 fine for each dog. A month after the ban was approved, the Miami Herald — which initially supported the law — wrote a scathing editorial demanding its repeal. The next year, Florida’s legislature passed a statewide prohibition against “breed-specific” dog laws. Miami-Dade’s rule, however, was grandfathered in.

The law has plenty of supporters, including PETA. In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control reported pit bulls had killed 66 people in the ’80s and ’90s, twice as many as any other kind of dog.

But that statistic is nonsense, says Adam Goldfarb, a Humane Society spokesman. No one has shown that breed-wide bans reduce pit bull assaults. He contends the laws are expensive and almost impossible to enforce. Thousands of pit bull owners flaunt the law every day just by walking their dogs in Miami-Dade. “We don’t believe any one breed of dog is inherently more dangerous than any other breed,” Goldfarb says.

Miami’s ban has met its most ardent — and dangerous — critic in Canes. She fled to Miami in 1959 with her family at age 6 when her father, a member of deposed dictator Fulgenicio Batista’s regime, was forced from Cuba. Her love for animals goes back to her homeland, where she once spent her $12 allowance on a mule.

In 2003, while driving on NW 32nd Avenue, the paralegal spotted a stray dog. When she opened the door, the chocolate-colored mutt leapt into the car and laid its head on Canes’s lap. Though a friend in the back seat shouted, “Watch out — it’s a pit bull!” Canes was in love.

But soon Animal Services discovered Chocolate, as she named the female hound. Canes sent the dog to live in Broward and began her quest to overturn the pit bull ban.

Since then, Canes has adopted dozens of pit bulls and found homes for them in Broward or other places where the canines are legal.

She has also met people like Pierre Bahri, who move north to save their pit bulls. Bahri, an art gallery worker, packed up in December after an Animal Control officer gave him 48 hours to remove two pit bulls from his Wynwood home. He broke his lease and moved to Hollywood. “I love my dogs like they’re my kids,” he says. Thousands of others simply flout the ban. Among them is “Jose,” a 25-year-old Mercedes-Benz employee in Kendall who asked for anonymity because he’s already been cited for his pit bull. Since then, he’s kept his dog in his dark bedroom every day while he works. “I have to hide him like he’s an abomination or something,” he says. “When I walk him, people put their cars in reverse and stare like I’m holding a fucking Bengal tiger.”  Canes hopes to change that. She lives in an antique-packed bungalow in Miami Lakes, drives a canary yellow 1980 Fiat convertible, and devotes every hour outside work to fighting the law. In October, she founded a group, called the Miami Coalition Against Breed Specific Legislation. She’s already recruited 80 members.

The new group notched an important win March 18. Canes and her friends took on the case of Leo Mahecha, a 27-year-old Kendall mechanic whose dog, Apollo, was seized by Animal Control.

In an administrative hearing at the South Dade Government Center, the group’s lawyer, Rima Bardawil, argued the county doesn’t have an accurate test for deciding whether dogs are pit bulls. Inspectors rely on a 12-point checklist, with questions such as “Eyes: set far apart?”

The hearing official agreed. Apollo was freed.

“To my knowledge, it’s the first time we’ve ever lost an appeal on a pit bull case like this,” says Dr. Sara Pizano, chief of Animal Services.

Canes was emboldened by the ruling. Bardawil is now compiling a group of people who have lost pit bulls to the county’s ban. They hope to sue the county this summer.

“We’ve gone the political route. We talked to every member on the commission, we went to hearings, and they all said it’s political suicide to overturn the ban,” Canes says. “So we’re suing.”

And they just might win. An Ohio appeals court struck down a Toledo law in 2007 — before the state’s supreme court reversed the verdict.

“It’s a smart approach,” says Humane Society spokesman Goldfarb.

Pizano, who’s charged with enforcing the ban, says it’s up to politicians to decide whether the law makes sense. But she allows that “it’s devastating for our staff to euthanize any animal.” Since Pizano took over three years ago, her staff has had to kill more than 1,800 pit bulls.

Additional facts about the pit bull case won in Miami on March 18th, 2009
 
Edel Miedes, an experienced dog trainer and behaviorist in South Florida, of www.K9ADVISORS.com testified in the case of Leo Mahecha and his dog Apollo as an expert witness under the Miami-Dade pitbull ban ordinance category of animal behaviorist.  Edel successfully testified against Miami-Dade Animal Services Animal Control Officer, Luis Salgado, whom wrongfully labeled Apollo as a pitbull.  Salgado was backed and guided by Miami-Dade assistant county attorney, Dennis Kerbel.  During the hearing on March 18th, Kerbel asked such ridiculous questions such as “were the dog’s eye round” and “were the mucles… muscular”.  Kerbel’s lame attempts at discrediting Edel’s breed knowledge were unsuccessful, thus the hearing officer sided with Edel’s testimony and ruled that based on all evidence provided, Apollo, a 90-lb Mastiff mix, is not a pitbull.
 
Shortly after, there was much celebration from all members of the Miami Coalition Against Breed Specific Legislation www.UnitedAgainstBSL.org and many Miami-Dade County residents alike.

April 19, 2009

Court Rules Miami-Dade County Pit Bull Ban Unenforceable

Filed under: Say NO to BSL — Tags: — admin @ 10:37 am

A court ruled Miami-Dade’s 20 year ban on pit bulls was too vague in defining “pit bull” and unfairly let animal control officers basically guess whether a dog is a pit bull.  This lawsuit pertained to a dog named Apollo specifically, and opens the door to a broader lawsuit against the ban.

Miami Coalition Against Breed Specific Legislation (MCABSL) and Animal Law Coalition applaud a court ruling that the Miami Dade County Pit Bull ban is too vague, and the county cannot enforce the finding by animal control that a dog is a pit bull that must be euthanized or removed from the county. The ruling came in a case challenging the finding by Miami Dade County Animal Control that a family pet named Apollo was a “pit bull” that must be removed from the county or euthanized.

The county bans all dogs that “substantially conform” to American Kennel Club standards for American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers or United Kennel Club standards for American Pit Bull Terriers.

To determine if a dog substantially conforms to these standards, animal control uses a chart that lists 15 body parts such as “head”, “neck”, “lips”, “chest”, “eyes”, “tail”, “hind legs”, etc. The officer places a check mark to indicate whether each characteristic conforms or not to a pit bull. If 3 or more characteristics are checked “conform”, the dog is declared a pit bull.

Rima Bardawil, the attorney for Apollo, pointed out that there is no such chart authorized by the ordinance and it is not clear what standards animal control is using in making its determinations.

Also, Dahlia Canes, executive director of MCABSL, testified that animal control is “constantly” mis-identifying the breeds of dogs. She told the court about one dog that was declared by an animal control officer to be a pit bull mix and ordered euthanized. Canes arranged to have the dog re-evaluated and he was determined to be a mastiff mix. The dog was then adopted to a family in Miami-Dade County.

In this case the animal control officer photographed Apollo from several feet away and then using the photo, picked 3 body parts he said he thought conformed to pit bull standards, whatever those are.

As Canes pointed out later, “Many breeds of dogs and mixes have the same or similar traits. It is impossible to determine breed this way. Seriously, you are going to say a dog is a pit bull based on 3 traits like round eyes, broad shoulders and a muscular body? Dogs are many times genetically a mix of many different breeds. The judge agreed. This proves breed shouldn’t be a factor in deciding whether a dog presents a danger.”

Miami Coalition Against Breed Specific Legislation was formed in 2008 to end Miami Dade County’s pit bull ban. For more information and how you can help, visit www.mcabsl.wildapricot.org

Animal Law Coalition works to stop animal cruelty and suffering through legislation, administrative agency action, and litigation. ALC offers legal analysis of the difficult and controversial issues relating to animals. Visit www.animallawcoalition.com for more information.

Author Laura Dapkus

Powered by WordPress