Severe and fatal dog attacks on people and beloved pets are escalating across the country.
After multiple severe and fatal maulings by dogs adopted from animal shelters, California and Virginia have enacted laws that require animal shelters and animal rescue groups to disclose a dog’s bite history in writing to the person adopting the dog- a “Truth in Pet Adoption Law”. Searchable Dangerous Dog Registries were also enacted in Viginia and Pennsylvania. Florida is in the process of enacting such a registry (Pam Rock Act) to track the location of dogs deemed dangerous in legal proceedings, similar to a sex offender registry.
In the interest of protecting public safety, dangerous dog registries and mandatory bite disclosure laws should be Federal Laws. Every state should have laws like these to protect people and innocent pets. Contact your Congressmen and Senators!
Michigan has many victims who have been killed or were severely disfigured, dismembered, or disabled as a result of maulings by dangerous dogs. Due to more dog attack related fatalities, there is renewed public outcry for changing the Michigan Dangerous Animal Act.
In January 2024, Harold Phillips, age 35, pictured above, was violently attacked by 3 pet pit bulls in Detroit. He was hospitalized with grievous injuries and later died in the hospital from the injuries inflicted by the dogs. Mr. Phillips had a wife and 6 children. The pit bulls that attacked Mr. Phillips had previously attacked three different people, including a child. Detroit Animal Control did not require the dogs be removed from the owner’s home after any of those attacks. The killer pit bulls were euthanized after the attack on Mr. Phillips. The pit bull owners are facing felony charges for that attack. The Phillips family has retained Feiger Law and are suing the City of Detroit.
Lovell Anderson, age 4, of was playing in his own back yard and mauled to death by a stray pit bull in Detroit in October 2023. Another Detroit Animal Control failure. Lovell’s family has retained Feiger Law for litigation against the City of Detroit.
Craig Sytsma was killed by two Cane Corso dogs in 2014 while jogging in Metamora, MI. His family has been trying to strengthen the dangerous dog law ever since. They are working with MI Senator Sean McCann, who introduced SB 683 in January 2024 which adds the category “Potentially Dangerous” to Michigan’s current Dangerous Animals Act . The definition of “potentially dangerous dog” in the bill is concerning. This bill would weaken our current Dangerous Animals Act as it is written now. Read the Bill Analysis here. The bill was referred to the Senate Natural Resources. Responsible Citizens for Public Safety objected to the wording of the bill and suggested amendments in a letter below.
Any law is only as good as its enforcement. Michigan currently has a strong Dangerous Dog Law which defines a dangerous dog as: “Dangerous animal” means a dog or other animal that bites or attacks a person, or a dog that bites or attacks and causes serious injury or death to another dog while the other dog is on the property or under the control of its owner.
That said, only Breed Specific Legislation PREVENTS dog attacks by regulating the ownership of dangerous breed types- those breeds responsible for the highest number of severe attacks and fatalities- pit bull type dogs, rottweilers, cane corsos, etc. Any other type of dangerous dog law is only reactive; there are no legal consequences until an attack occurs. Unfortunately for public safety, BSL preemption bills that would outlaw BSL, are being introduced in many states, including Michigan.
The promotion of the “No Kill” shelter philosophy is resulting in safety concerns. Michigan animal control officers are trained to leave dangerous dogs that have attacked people and pets to be quarantined at home, with the irresponsible owners that were not in control of their animal as required by law instead of shelter quarantine. Leaving dogs on the street leaves the public at risk. ACOs are instructed to leave biting dogs at their home or on the street because animal shelters are overcrowded – drowning in pit bulls which comprise up to 90% of shelter dogs. Some people get upset and protest if the shelter euthanizes dogs in their care. Shelters are pressured into adopting out 90% of shelter intakes. Bite histories are hidden and dogs that unstable are sent into homes that are unprepared to handle the dogs behavioral issues. That is how the “no kill’ philosophy negatively impacts public safety. Shelters cannot and should not “save them all” to include dangerous dogs. Making excuses for dogs that bite can end in tragedy.
Responsible Citizens for Public Safety entered the following letter into public comment during the MI Senate Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee hearing on the proposed SB 683 which adds the category “potentially dangerous dog” defined as a dog that bites unprovoked causing severe injury. This designation, if added will only serve to make it more difficult to report dangerous dogs and provide legal loopholes for dangerous dogs to avoid court ordered euthanasia. As written, this new bill would favor dangerous dogs over public safety. The bill was written and promoted by the pit bull lobby– Best Friends Animal Society, Animal Farm Foundation, HSUS and other big humane organizations who care only about donation dollars, not public safety.
Please contact legislators and request amendments to MI SB 683 as stated in the letter below.
Dear Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee Members:
Dog attacks causing severe injury and death to people, pets and livestock are escalating throughout our state. Michigan laws need to protect public safety.
In review of SB 683, as a retired animal control officer and dog attack victims advocate, I am very concerned about the addition of the term and designation of “potentially dangerous dog” as defined in the bill. As the representative of Responsible Citizens for Public Safety, a dog attack victim’s advocacy organization we request that this bill be amended to add clear, definitive wording, as well as the addition of a publicly searchable statewide dangerous dog registry so that people can know where dangerous dogs are located.
SB 683 introduces the term “potentially dangerous” in Sec. 1 with the definition of:
(m) “Potentially dangerous dog” means 1 or more of the following, subject to subdivision (f):
(i) A dog that has a known propensity or disposition, as indicated by sworn statements from at least 2 adults and an investigation by an appropriate authority to attack without provocation and in a menacing fashion or to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals.
(ii) A dog that has inflicted severe injury on a domestic animal, and that domestic animal was on or chased from the owner’s real property or was otherwise under the control of its owner, if the dog inflicted the injury while on property other than its owner’s real property.
(iii) A dog that bites an individual without provocation and inflicts a severe injury upon that individual.
“Severe injury” defined in the bill means “physical injury that results in broken bones, muscle tears, multiple bite wounds, or disfiguring lacerations and requires multiple surgeries or corrective or cosmetic surgery”.
“Potential” is defined in the dictionary as: existing in possibility: capable of development into actuality.
Dogs that attack unprovoked causing severe injury are not “potentially dangerous”, they ARE dangerous.
Please remove the word severe in (ii) and (iii) from the definition of “Potentially Dangerous” in SB 683.
In place of (ii) and (iii) consider using the well-respected Dr. Ian Dunbar Bite Scale to define “potentially dangerous” to include levels 1-3. This scale is used by veterinarians, dog behaviorists and animal control agencies to determine the level of danger a dog presents by the severity of the bite injury inflicted.
Level 1. Obnoxious or aggressive behavior but no skin-contact by teeth.
Level 2. Skin-contact by teeth but no skin-puncture. However, may be skin nicks (less than one tenth of an inch deep) and slight bleeding caused by forward or lateral movement of teeth against skin, but no vertical punctures.
Level 3. One to four punctures from a single bite with no puncture deeper than half the length of the dog’s canine teeth. Maybe lacerations in a single direction, caused by victim pulling hand away, owner pulling dog away, or gravity (little dog jumps, bites and drops to floor).
Level 4. One to four punctures from a single bite with at least one puncture deeper than half the length of the dog’s canine teeth. May also have deep bruising around the wound (dog held on for N seconds and bore down) or lacerations in both directions (dog held on and shook its head from side to side).
Level 5. Multiple-bite incident with at least two Level 4 bites or multiple-attack incident with at least one Level 4 bite in each.
Level 6. Victim dead.
Levels 1 and 2 comprise well over 99% of dog incidents. The dog is certainly not dangerous and more likely to be fearful, rambunctious, or out of control. Wonderful prognosis. Quickly resolve the problem with basic training (control) — especially oodles of Classical Conditioning, numerous repetitive Retreat n’ Treat, Come/Sit/Food Reward and Back[1]up/Approach/Food Reward sequences, progressive desensitization handling exercises, plus numerous bite-inhibition exercises and games. Hand feed only until resolved; do NOT waste potential food rewards by feeding from a bowl.
Level 3: Prognosis is fair to good, provided that you have owner compliance. However, treatment is both time-consuming and not without danger. Rigorous bite-inhibition exercises are essential.
Levels 4: The dog has insufficient bite inhibition and is very dangerous. Prognosis is poor because of the difficulty and danger of trying to teach bite inhibition to an adult hard-biting dog and because absolute owner-compliance is rare. Only work with the dog in exceptional circumstances, e.g., the owner is a dog professional and has sworn 100% compliance. Make sure the owner signs a form in triplicate stating that they understand and take full responsibility that: 1. The dog is a Level 4 biter and is likely to cause an equivalent amount of damage WHEN it bites again (which it most probably will) and should therefore, be confined to the home at all times and only allowed contact with adult owners. 2. Whenever, children or guests visit the house, the dog should be confined to a single locked[1]room or roofed, chain-link run with the only keys kept on a chain around the neck of each adult owner (to prevent children or guests entering the dog’s confinement area.) 3. The dog is muzzled before leaving the house and only leaves the house for visits to a veterinary clinic. 4. The incidents have all been reported to the relevant authorities — animal control or police. Give the owners one copy, keep one copy for your files and give one copy to the dog’s veterinarian.
Level 5 and 6: The dog is extremely dangerous and mutilates. The dog is simply not safe around people. I recommend euthanasia because the quality of life is so poor for dogs that have to live out their lives in solitary confinement.
Another concern: under SB 683 definition of “potentially dangerous” Sec.1 (m), (i), requires a sworn affidavit by “at least two adults” and an investigation by an appropriate authority….
What if the person making the complaint is single, lives alone or is the only adult witness to the aggressive behavior by the dog? It should not take two adult individuals to swear out a complaint if there is an issue when there is also an investigation by an appropriate authority. This appears to be a discriminatory requirement in the bill as currently presented.
As written, SB 683 creates a legal outlet so that irresponsible owners of dogs that have caused severe injury are able to keep to their dogs at home with little consequence. This bill favors the dangerous dogs, NOT VICTIMS. It does not help to prevent attacks.
The wording in SB 683 needs clarification, including the term “immediate threat” in Sec. 2A (b).
Case in point: Warren, MI April 2023 – a repeat offender Rottweiler strayed from it’s yard through a hole in its fence and attacked causing severe injury to a beloved pet being walked on a public street by teen girl. The victim dog was euthanized due to its injuries. The teen suffered extreme emotional trauma and has PTSD. This Rottweiler had previously attacked and severely injured another dog being walked as well as biting the owner of that dog. All incidents were reported to animal control. Despite Animal Control being aware of the first attack on dog and owner, the agency knew the attacking dog owner’s fence was in disrepair allowing it to escape, never followed up to ensure the fence was repaired. That this dog would attack again was both foreseeable and preventable. After the attack in April 2023, animal control did not remove the dog for quarantine at the shelter as it was not deemed an “immediate threat”. It was quarantined at its home until the victim dog owner contacted the Mayor to demand its confiscation as it was a threat to public safety. “Immediate threat” needs to be defined in the bill.
After the hearing, the judge in this case ordered that the dangerous dog be removed from the county, not euthanized, not sterilized, not microchipped. Its record will not follow with the dog. It could kill again.
The outcome of this case and many similar cases warrant the creation of a statewide dangerous dog registry so the court records stay with the dangerous dog and the public knows where they live.
Michigan needs a statewide searchable Dangerous Dog Registry as an addition to this bill to help protect public safety.
Due to the escalation of unprovoked dog attacks on people and animals causing severe injury or death, several states have implemented searchable Dangerous Dog Registries for public safety while many states are working toward implementing these databases. A database such as this could save lives and PREVENT attacks.
Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry
Registration information shall include the name of the animal, a photograph, sex, age, weight, primary breed, secondary breed, color and markings, whether spayed or neutered, the acts that resulted in the dog being designated as dangerous and associated trial docket information, microchip or tattoo number, address where the animal is maintained, name of the owner, address of the owner, telephone numbers of the owner, and a statement that the owner has complied with the provisions of the dangerous dog order. The address of the owner along with the name and breed of the dangerous dog, the acts that resulted in the dog being found dangerous, and information necessary to access court records of the adjudication shall be available to the general public. If the dangerous dog is moved to a different location or contact information for the owner changes in any way at any time, the owner shall submit a renewal containing the address of the new location or other updated information within 10 days of such move or change to an animal control officer or other such official for the new location. There shall be no charge for any updated information provided between renewals.
Florida SB 1156 passed favorably out of their Agriculture Committee on January 23, 2024.
The Legislature found that “dangerous dogs are an increasingly serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of the people of this state because of unprovoked attacks which cause injury to persons and domestic animals; that such attacks are in part attributable to the failure of the owners to confine and properly train and control their dogs; that existing laws inadequately address this growing problem; and that it is appropriate and necessary to impose uniform requirements on the owners of dangerous dogs.”
Section 6 creates s. 767.125, F.S., to establish the Statewide Dangerous Dog Registry. The bill authorizes the department to create a searchable online database of dogs throughout this state which have been declared dangerous by local authorities. The following information, at a minimum, should be provided in the registry:
· A current certificate of rabies vaccination for the dog.
· Evidence of a proper enclosure within which the dangerous dog will be confined and of the posting of the premises with a clearly visible warning sign at all entry points which informs both children and adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on the property.
· Evidence of permanent identification of the dog, such as a tattoo on the inside thigh or an implantation of a microchip.
· Evidence of the dog having been spayed or neutered.
· Evidence that the owner has obtained the required liability insurance.
· The dog’s name and a photograph of the dog. Dangerous
· The county in which the dog is located.
· The owner’s name and address.
Pennsylvania has a Dangerous Dog Registry requirement. The public can access the list: (https://prdagriculture.pwpca.pa.gov/Animals/DogLaw/Dangerous%20Dogs/Documents/Dangerous%20Dog%20-%20November%202023.pdf)
Our Michigan laws need to be clear to be enforceable. They need to reflect legislators priority to protect public safety.
Thank you for your efforts to protect Michigan communities.
Responsible Citizens for Public Safety
