ALABAMA LEADING THE WAY FOR BSL IN ALL STATES

BSL DEFATED IN HISTORIC COURT RULING Exclusive By Nick Mays

BREED SPECIFIC Legislation was dealt a savage blow last week in an historic victory for American campaigners when the Supreme Court in Alabama ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed.

Around the world, anti-BSL campaigners are rejoicing at the ruling that drew on evidence provided by genuine canine experts, which was favoured by the judges over subjective evidence, put forward by veterinarians and politicians. The court ruling and the evidence used may now be legitimately used to fight BSL in other countries such as Germany and Australia, as well as other US States. In the UK, the Dangerous Dogs Act could possibly be open to a direct legal challenge in the same way.

The action in Alabama was brought by the Washington Animal Foundation (WAF) against the city of Huntsville, which had claimed that American Pit Bull Terriers were ‘genetically dangerous’.

The case centred on four Pit Bulls held in an animal shelter and adopted by three local women.

The dogs were survivors of a group of over 50 Pit Bulls seized in a raid on a dog-fighting ring in April 2000. Half of the dogs died from injuries or disease, whilst the reminder –including four puppies - were held at the City pound and put up for adoption.

Shelia Tack, an emergency room nurse at Crestwood Hospital, adopted two of the puppies that she named Justice and Elizabeth. Whilst they remained impounded, she visited them twice a week.

The other puppies, David and Nellie, were adopted by Kay Nagel, a military officer’s wife and resident of Redstone Arsenal, and Loyce Fisher, a civil service worker from Cullman.

However, the City Council refused to release the dogs, stating that they were a potential danger to human beings, although none had apparently displayed any aggression.

The matter was referred to court for a legal decision on the dogs’ fate. During a hearing last year, lawyers representing the city, Michael Fees and Greg Burgess, told Madison County Circuit Judge Joe Battle the animals were vicious and should not be rehomed.
The Women, who did not have a lawyer, argued the animals were never trained to fight and conditioning can suppress any vicious tendencies the dogs might have.
Judge Battle agreed and on Nov 13 2001, declared the four young Pit Bulls were not dangerous because they were never trained to fight. The court allowed the city to destroy 21 adult Pit Bulls which had been used for fighting.
However, the City appealed Battle's ruling to the Alabama Supreme Court and asked the court for an order preventing the women from taking custody of the dogs.

At this point, Seattle-based WAF became involved in the case and appointed Huntsville lawyer Mike Seibert to fight their case, based on evidence they gathered to counter the City lawyer’s claims that all Pit Bulls were ‘genetically dangerous’.

The foundation hired veterinarian Dr. Alan Jones of Hazel Green to examine the dogs. But the officers at the shelter do not allow anyone to have physical contact with the pit bulls, even vet Jones.
"They looked fat and happy," he said. "They seemed starved for attention and not aggressive at all" Glen Bui, spokesman for WAF told a local newspaper that the dogs should be released.
"I believe that the City of Huntsville is wasting thousands of taxpayers' dollars attempting to destroy innocent dogs that were already given by the circuit court to the three women,' he said.

WAF filed an Amicus (third party) submitting genetic proof that Pit Bulls are not dangerous. The city of Huntsville were backed by the extremist animal rights organisation PETA that Pit Bulls were genetically dangerous, with evidence provided by veterinarians, none of whom was an expert in any specific canine or genetical field.

WAF cited case laws under Due Process of the law, and stated that it was unconstitutional to rule a specific breed of dog as ‘dangerous’ in this way. They also claimed it was ‘genocide’ to try to eradicate the Pit Bull breed.

WAF submitted evidence to the Supreme Court that they were able to provide:

Identification of expert treatises regarding the genetics of the breed in question

2. Testing and studies regarding genetics verses environment as the catalyst for a specific dog breed’s aggression

3. Social contributions made by the American Pit Bull Terrier (i.e. as Assistance Dogs, Search and Rescue Dogs etc.)

4. The associations brief assisted the court as it had substantial knowledge concerning the issue before the court

5.The briefs filed by the City were insufficient to adequately address the far reaching issues involving genetic breed bias

6. The Foundation read all briefs and believed that innocent pet owners and innocent pets were not represented by either brief.

WAF co-founder Glen Bui told OUR DOGS this week: “The court granted WAF's petition and allowed us 7 days to file amicus curiae. Myself along with Attorney Mike Seibert worked on the amicus long hours into the night, while WAF members Kay Nagel and Sheila Tack proofread and added input. It was finished with less than one hour before the deadline to file and Shelia raced to the US post office and sent it certified mail.

”Huntsville's entire case rested on affidavits from veterinarians claiming they examined the four Pit Bull pups and that were would pose a danger to the community because Pit Bulls are genetically dangerous. They also claimed the women had no legal right to adopt the pups, this was also addressed in the amicus brief.”

On Friday, August 30, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in WAF’s favour and ordered that the dogs should be released for adoption, accepting the evidence but forward by WAF that no breed of dog is genetically dangerous.

“This is fantastic news,” said Bui. “The city could appeal against the ruling, but I’d like to think they’ll give way and release the dogs to their new owners so that they can enjoy a good life. Two of them will be trained as Search and Rescue Dogs; the other two will become pets. The Pit Bulls have been evaluated and temperament tested before they are released, they are being spayed and neutered. The city did tell the media that the dogs would be released, so let’s hope they keep their word.”

Bui also told OUR DOGS this week: "For years the American Pit Bull Terrier has been alleged to be dangerous because of its genetics. Never has WAF found any genetic research proving
that. When we were asked by three Huntsville women for help, they told us nobody else would help them, they had contacted everyone who fights BSL. We knew the women had to face the Supreme Court and this was a very serious case. We knew we had the genetic proof that no breed of dog is dangerous.

“We knew we also had statistics which proved the APBT has one of the best temperaments out of 185 dog breeds along with a strong legal defence. Being aware that never in the past had anyone ever argued the point, after contemplating the outcome if the women lost, I decided to bring WAF into the case, on the last day before the deadline for filing briefs in the Supreme Court WAF petitioned for Amicus Curiae.

”This case set a standard for future cases concerning BSL and genetics. We put several years of research into genetics and due process. We will use the statistics in Ohio; we have received
assistance from state agencies in Ohio to investigate the Lucas County Dog Warden rulings on BSL in that State, as Ohio is totally BSL-controlled. Dog owners in Ohio really could use support right now.
”It was a long battle and now we have proved the American Pit Bull
terrier is not genetically dangerous.”

Justices proclaim pit bulls' appeal

Four pit bull dogs leave city shelter for new homes after nurse wins animals' release

08/31/02

By STEVE DOYLE
Times Staff Writer steved@htimes.com
Huntsville Times

The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday upheld a lower court's ruling that four pit bull dogs locked in the Huntsville animal shelter are not vicious, clearing them to be adopted.

Hours later, shelter workers turned the dogs over to Sheila Tack, a Crestwood Hospital emergency room nurse who's been fighting for their release.

She plans to keep two of the dogs on her Hazel Green farm and give the others to Kay Nagel and Loyce Fisher, who joined her nearly two-year-long crusade to save the dogs.

"These puppies were misrepresented from day one," Tack said outside the shelter on Triana Boulevard. "I just really feel the whole pit bull breed has been crucified."

City officials spent two years, and thousands of tax dollars, seeking a judge's order to destroy the dogs, named Justice, Nellie, David and Elizabeth.

Shelter workers say the 2-year-old pit bulls don't seem aggressive, but Mike Fees, an attorney for the city, argued the dogs are genetically predisposed to violence because their parents were trained fighting dogs seized by police in April 2000.

Many, including the Seattle-based Washington Animal Foundation, ques tioned the city's logic. The dogs released Friday were born at the shelter, Tack said, and weren't trained to fight.

When Tack opened Elizabeth's crate Friday afternoon and reached inside, the dog wagged its tail and licked Tack's fingers.

"Vicious killer," her lawyer, Mike Seibert, said sarcastically. "They do need a bath, though. Shoooo."

Fees' response: Animals can't deny their nature. Pit bulls that come from fighting stock aren't safe house pets, he said, regardless of whether they have ever fought.

"Just because a greyhound has never seen a racetrack doesn't mean it's not fast," he said.

Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices said Madison County Circuit Judge Joe Battle correctly ruled last November that the dogs were not dangerous and should be made available for adoption.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas Woodall said Battle never should have let Tack, Nagel and Fisher intervene in the case. The women, who got involved after reading about the dogs in The Times, did not have a "direct, substantial and legally protectable interest" in the outcome, he wrote. Chief Justice Roy Moore concurred.

Seibert called the court's decision a "hollow victory" because the justices sidestepped a broader question: whether the Huntsville animal shelter should be allowed to engage in "breed-specific genocide."

In court testimony late last year, Dr. Lisa Jackson, the city's former animal control director, said the shelter had a "firm policy" against letting people adopt pit bulls and other breeds it deemed vicious. Those dogs were routinely destroyed.

"They never adopt out pit bulls," Seibert said. "No matter how docile or how sweet, they get gassed. It's no more correct to have a genocide against people than against other species. To do it because you can is what Hitler did."

Fees said the city doesn't make a habit of confiscating and killing pit bulls. But in this case, he said, two veterinarians - Jackson and Dr. Lewis McCurdy - examined the dogs and felt they were a danger to humans.

"Part of the city's function is to promote the safety of its citizens, particularly its young people," Fees said. "I could not live with myself if we'd consented to the release of these animals and they ate up some 2-year-old girl."

The city spent thousands of dollars taking the case all the way to the state's high court.

Interim Huntsville Animal Control Director Mike Taylor said it costs roughly $7 a day to house an animal at the shelter.

So, keeping the four dogs locked up for approximately 29 months has cost taxpayers about $25,000. On top of that, the city paid Fees $125 an hour for his legal work. Fees said he didn't know how many hours he's put into the case but has tried to be "frugal."

BACK