Boks comes back swinging, but Phillips throws strikes
Animal Politics blogger Ed Boks lost little time in responding on June 11, 2024 to the June 10, 2024 ANIMALS 24-7 face-off between himself and Dog Bite Law attorney and blogger Kenneth Phillips, Liability for dog attacks: Ed Boks for shelters, Kenneth Phillips for victims.
The face-off began with Boks’ own June 9, 2024 Animal Politics blog Protecting Shelter Animals Amid Soaring Insurance Costs and Legal Battles.
Boks argued against “strict liability” laws
Boks, after a previous blog entitled Rising Insurance Costs and Overcrowding Imperil Shelter Animals, in his June 9, 2024 blog argued against “strict liability” legislation.
“Approximately 36 states have strict liability laws regarding dog bites, ” Boks said, “making dog owners strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs, regardless of prior knowledge of aggression or the severity of the bite.”
Along the way, Boks cited incorrect and flagrantly outdated dog attack data, to which ANIMALS 24-7 responded, and inaccurately alleged––without citing a single case in point––that “These laws prevent insurance companies from contesting dog bite claims, sometimes leading them to refuse to insure an animal shelter altogether.”
Phillips responded to that in depth and detail.
Boks has euthanized more pit bulls than anyone else, ever
Boks, in his reply to ANIMALS 24-7 and Phillips, opened by stating that ANIMALS 24-7 “acknowledges my safely re-homing thousands of pit bulls and bully breeds over thirty years.”
Indeed we do. But ANIMALS 24-7 also acknowledges––as Boks neglected to mention––that Boks signed off on euthanizing more pit bulls, bully breeds, and other dangerous dogs than any other shelter director ever, during his tenures heading the animal control departments in Maricopa County, Arizona; New York City; Los Angeles; and Yavapai County, Arizona, plus the Spokane Humane Society.
Also of note is that no shelter Boks headed achieved the 90% “live release rate” during his tenure that most shelters today compete to achieve, at frequent cost of rehoming highly dangerous dogs, especially pit bulls, who are as much as 80% of shelter intake in some U.S. cities.
Boks recommends what has already long been done
“With my extensive experience in animal welfare,” Boks wrote, “I offer several recommendations to help safeguard both the public and the animals.”
Boks’ recommendations begin with “Comprehensive behavioral evaluations to identify potentially dangerous dogs before they are rehomed.”
This was standard shelter procedure for decades even before publication of the first National Animal Control Association Training Manual in 1989.
Second, Boks recommends “Implementing robust training programs for shelter staff and volunteers,” also covered in the first National Animal Control Association Training Manual.
Third, Boks advocates “for legal considerations for shelters that demonstrate adherence to best practices in evaluating and rehoming dogs,” but the real test of “best practices” is encapsulated in the admonition “Safety is no accident.”
(Beth Clifton collage)
Boks recommends acknowledging pit bull risk
If people––or other animals––are killed or injured at a shelter or as result of adoption and fostering decisions, that shelter has not observed “best practices,” no matter how many boxes the director ticks off on a checklist.
Boks’ one recommendation of real-life significance is that shelters must “Acknowledge the overpopulation of certain breeds, such as pit bulls, which are often associated with higher risks. Shelters should be cautious in rehoming these breeds and consider breed-specific strategies to manage their populations.”
Boks evidently did this, for instance having had no fatal or disfiguring attacks on his watch in Los Angeles, to our knowledge, while his successors have had at least 21 disfiguring attacks, 18 of them actually in the Los Angeles shelters, just since 2018.
Why should the cop-shop be sued but not the animal shelter?
“While it is true that strict liability laws primarily target dog owners,” Boks wrote in response to Phillips, “the legal landscape is evolving, and some jurisdictions are beginning to hold shelters accountable under certain conditions,” as well they should.
No other public service sector, for example not police, not fire departments, not building inspectors, and not road maintenance departments, claims a total exemption from strict liability when an action or inaction by the agency causes an innocent person to be killed or maimed.
Which shelters, where, have insurance issues?
While strict liability laws may “not necessarily lead to insurance companies refusing to insure shelters,” Boks wrote, “there are shelters struggling to obtain or retain liability insurance.”
But which shelters, where?
Very likely they are among the more than 300 U.S. animal shelters whose bad decisions about dangerous dogs have resulted in excess of 520 fatal or disfiguring attacks by shelter dogs in the present century, up from just two on record in the preceding two centuries.
Calls for “safeguarding the rights of responsible pit bull owners”
“Since at least 2018,” Boks said, “I have consistently and publicly acknowledged the significant role that pit bulls play in the liability crisis. Data indicates that pit bull-type dogs are disproportionately involved in severe dog bite incidents.
“I have called for a range of strategies to address the pit bull overpopulation crisis, including responsible breeding practices, enhanced socialization and training programs, and targeted spay/neuter initiatives,” Boks continued.
Then came a blizzard of buzzwords concluding with, “while safeguarding the rights of responsible pit bull owners.”
Responsible people do not choose dogs who put others at risk
There are no responsible pit bull owners.
Responsible people do not choose dogs who have been selectively bred for more than 500 years to accentuate the traits that have resulted in pit bulls, less than 6% of the U.S. dog population now and historically under 1%, accounting for 60% of the dog attack fatalities on record going back to 1837, 70% of the dog attack disfigurements since ANIMALS 24-7 began logging the data in 1982, and 90% of the fatal dog attacks on pets and livestock since ANIMALS 24-7 began logging that data in 2013.
There are lucky pit bull owners who claim their pit bulls have not yet attacked another person or animal, just as there are lucky people who speed, drink and drive, and do not wear seat belts.
But “lucky” and “responsible” are two entirely different concepts.
(www.suesternbergtruth.com)
“Best practices”
Boks concluded his response to ANIMALS 24-7 and Kenneth Phillips by reiterating three recommendations which, in light of animal sheltering history, amount to swinging strikes one, two, and three.
“Developing and sharing best practices for behavioral assessments and training programs,” Boks asserted, “can help standardize safety measures across shelters.”
This appears to have begun with the Assess-A-Pet protocol developed in the mid-1990s by Sue Sternberg, a shelter management professional since 1981.
Within a few years Sternberg’s Assess-A-Pet protocol caught on among other shelter professionals and became the default standard dog behavioral screening method.
(See How behavior testing fails adopters, dogs, volunteers & shelter staff.)
How the SAFER test replaced Assess-A-Pet
But pit bull advocates howled that too many pit bulls failed the Assess-A-Pet protocol, so animal behaviorist Emily Weiss developed and introduced the SAFER test in 1999-2000.
The ASPCA hired Weiss as senior director of shelter behavior programs in 2005, and on May 5, 2007 began promoting the SAFER test as an ASPCA program.
The ASPCA and Best Friends Animal Society were at the time scrambling to save 66 pit bulls impounded ten days earlier from football player and now convicted dogfighter Michael Vick, after the Humane Society of the U.S. had recommended them for euthanasia as too risky to rehome.
While about a third of the Vick dogs were eventually rehomed after extensive remedial training, most were not.
When the SAFER test debuted, only two U.S. shelter dogs––wolf hybrids rehomed in 1988 and 1989––had ever killed anyone.
The current known body count from shelter dog includes 61 fatalities involving 93 adopted dogs, 68 of them pit bulls.
ASPCA baled on SAFER certification
The ASPCA on December 2, 2015 discontinued “the certification process for SAFER (Safety Assessment to Evaluate Re-homing),” announced the ASPCApro blog distributed to shelter workers, apparently to avoid liability for multiple catastrophic SAFER test failures.
(See Did ASPCA discover certifying SAFER dog screening might be dangerous?)
Strike one!
There is no “balanced approach” to “killed”
Boks’ second reiterated recommendation was “Advocating for laws that protect both the public and shelters can create a more balanced approach to liability.”
There is no “balanced approach” to being killed or disfigured or losing one’s animals to a vicious dog who should never have been rehomed, or have been allowed to have contact with shelter workers and volunteers beyond the bare minimum necessary to effect prompt euthanasia.
Advocating for a “balanced approach” is simply advocating for shelters to be exempt from the consequences of irresponsible behavior.
Strike two!
“Dog Bite Prevention Weak”
Boks’ third reiterated recommendation was “Educating the public about responsible pet ownership, liability, and the importance of adopting from shelters that follow best practices.”
Nothing has had less success over the years.
Then-U.S. postmaster general Arthur J. Satterfield introduced “Dog Bite Prevention Week” to do just as Boks recommends in 1956. The American Humane Association, ASPCA, American Kennel Club, and Popular Dogs magazine were actively involved right from the start.
Five years later, in 1961, dog attacks requiring hospital treatment had more than doubled, to 611,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.
The U.S. had since 1930 averaged less than one fatal dog attack per year.
(Beth Clifton collage)
“Education” has produced a 50-fold increase in fatalities
“Dog Bite Prevention Week” funding and humane society participation escalated.
Forty-five years later, again according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, dog attacks requiring hospital treatment were up to 4.5 million per year, with about 10 fatalities.
“Dog Bite Prevention Week” continues, along with countless other programs directed at educating the public to prevent dog attacks.
The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention has not updated the estimate of dog attacks requiring hospital treatment, but the U.S. over the past five years has averaged more than 50 dog attack fatalities per year.
Strike three!
Back to the bench
And time for the animal sheltering community to head back to the bench.
What can be said for Boks, as self-designated hitter for legions of shelter directors with none of his own credentials, is that he has at least acknowledged part of the shelter problem with rising insurance costs, liability, and overcrowding.
It translates into “pit bulls, pit bulls, and more pit bulls,” combined with the failed Best Friends Animal Society mantra that “We can save them all.”
The solution, though, does not lie in negotiated compromises and “balanced approaches.”
The solution begins, in part, with judges and juries throwing the book at the management of public animal shelters that release or refuse intake of dangerous dogs.
Phillips: “Boks should focus on reducing risk”
“Boks claims his proposals aim to reduce risk and improve public safety and animal welfare,” responded Kenneth Phillips to Boks’ recommendations.
“If that’s true, he should focus on reducing risk, not reducing victims’ remedies after bites. His article” Protecting Shelter Animals Amid Soaring Insurance Costs and Legal Battle” unfairly criticized strict liability laws.
“These laws hold dog owners liable for dog bites in almost all cases. However, they usually do not apply to public shelters.
“Shelters have the advantage because their employees, fosters, and adopters cannot normally sue them. ‘Governmental tort laws’ also make it hard for anyone else to sue shelters.”
“First, eliminate ‘no-kill shelters'”
Phillips offered his own ideas to mitigate risk.
“First, eliminate ‘no-kill shelters,’” Phillips said. “Make them illegal. The ‘no-kill philosophy’ leads to more and worse dog attacks on shelter workers, fosters, and adopters.
“Best Friends Animal Society’s ‘90% benchmark’ for live releases corrupts the ‘no kill’ philosophy. Releasing nine out of 10 dogs means some dangerous dogs will end up in homes.
“This has harmed many well-meaning adopters who wanted a safe, friendly family dog.
“’No-kill’ shelters also tend to be overcrowded and inhumane,” Phillips mentioned, “increasing bite injuries among workers.
“Humanely euthanize 90% of long-stay pit bulls”
“Second,” Phillips recommended, “humanely euthanize 90% of long-stay pit bulls in shelters,” a recommendation parallel to a recommendation from Assess-A-Pet developer Sue Sternberg issued more than 20 years ago.
“Pit bulls are over-bred and unpopular,” Phillips continued. “Many people won’t adopt them, leading to overcrowded shelters. Shelters should meet the demand for pit bulls, not strive to increase the demand. The public wants shelters to stop promoting pit bulls and wasting resources on them. Overcrowded shelters often become inhumane, causing further issues.
(Facebook photo)
“Be honest with fosters and adopters”
“Third,” Phillips said, “be honest with fosters and adopters. Victims sue not just because they got bit, but also because they got angry. Shelters anger people by hiding a dog’s breed or bite history. The public deserves honesty from shelters.
“Since 2005,” Phillips explained, “I have advised shelters to disclose a dog’s bite history and have fosters or adopters sign off on it. Only California and Virginia have enacted laws based on this advice, but it is a ‘best practice’ for fairness and transparency.
“Boks’ recommendations are not inconsistent with mine,” Phillips finished. “Solutions come from considering different views. But we must prioritize victims’ rights. People come first.”
Inconsistent even if animals come first
But even if to some animal advocates people do not come first, it is flagrantly inconsistent for animal shelters to prioritize saving pit bulls over saving the lives of the at least 27,000 other animals killed by pit bulls each and every year.
(See Yes, there is data on how many dogs, especially pit bulls, kill other animals.)
Regardless of whether animal shelters see as their first priority protecting the public, as taxpayer-funded animal control shelters should, or protecting animals, the traditional mission of a nonprofit humane society, putting saving pit bulls and other dangerous first is flagrantly inconsistent with the reasons why animal shelters exist and are given nonprofit status as public charities.
Please donate to support our work:
www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Discover more from Animals 24-7
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Respectfully disagreeing with Attorney Phillips: 100% of pitbulls should be destroyed. Imagine what our society, and presumably others, would look and feel like if every one of Vick’s purpose-bred killers had been destroyed without delay, as (un)common sense and logic would have dictated.
Sharing with gratitude and more.
Great article. The anger part – that is interesting.
“Third,” Phillips said, “be honest with fosters and adopters. Victims sue not just because they got bit, but also because they got angry. Shelters anger people by hiding a dog’s breed or bite history. The public deserves honesty from shelters.”
The public is becoming very angry. I criticize area rescues on local Facebook a lot because they do such irresponsible stuff, and it’s noticeable in just the past few years that it’s gone from me vs. a lot of people defending rescue to me vs. 2-3 people who are rescue junkies. Normal people have noped out of rescue, overall.
Which leads to a question – the result of some of this retreat from adoption seems to be a growing number of rescues that are offering mysteriously non-pit bull dogs for adoption. At very high prices. Mostly said to be “breeder surrenders” but some claimed to be long-distance transport from the RGV and large shelters that still see non-pits, like Arizona and Los Angeles.
There are a lot of these rescues suddenly, and they’re moving a lot of dogs. A LOT of dogs, when you start adding up the groups. Do you have any idea where they’re getting them?
I mean, I know the mill dog people have been doing this for a while, but these are rescue groups offering actual puppies, not broken-down adult dogs. I remember rumors years ago of people breeding FOR rescue, in the south, and at this point I’m starting to wonder if something like that is happening. It’s just a lot of dogs and I can’t see that that many breeders are suddenly going out of business and surrendering litters of 8-week-old Bernadoodles to rescue.
The ethics of it are frustrating – I absolutely think people are better off adopting/buying a dodgy doodle from a shifty rescue than a rescue pit bull. But this marketing of doodles and Labs and everything else as rescues is obscuring the real overpopulation issue, the pit bulls. And if that doesn’t get solved, everyone suffers.
Widespread breeding-for-rescue is hardly any secret. See Puppy mill foes win $3.9 million verdict but lose war for market share.
My husband and I had decided after much debate to purchase a rescue labradoodle instead of a rescue GSD, which we’d always had. We have three cats, whose safety is paramount, and I didn’t want to go through the worry process. I applied and did a phone interview w/a local rescue for one of the two they had.
But, when I arrived at the shelter to see the dogs, I was informed that they had this other dog that they thought would be a “fantastic fit” for us. It was part bull terrier and something else, maybe boxer. It had the dark brindle coat with white ears. I had told the rescue owner up front that I was not interested in anything that might show aggression toward cats – ever. And, I reiterated that stance along with the reminder that I didn’t want any pit-bull-type dog. She had the audacity to claim this dog had no bully breed in its DNA and loved cats – and talked to me like I was 16 and never had a pet. There were multiple ppl/dogs walking about and a few cats held the high ground on the counters, etc. I stared at her w/incredulity and asked, “Are you serious, rt now?” And she said that this dog got along with cats perfectly well and avoided my question. I replied that I take zero chances of injury to my cats, which was why I wanted a more naturally genial breed of dog, something like Golden Retriever type or doodle-type. We recently had had a Great Pyr female given to us by a friend who had 10 pups 😳 and I wanted no additional burden given the rather gargantuan job we had raising that wildebeest.
She denied my application for one of the labradoodles too. FYI: We are the perfect home for pets: 25 acres, plenty of room to run and no traffic. I heard they sent the labradoodles to a home in a larger city 2 hours away the next week. The dog she wanted me to take looked like the standard for Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I must have looked stupid that day. Maybe he got along with cats fine, but maybe not. We will never know.
I have enough to worry about with a neighbor who has a rabid pit bull. I don’t need another dog to worry about.