Why Pit Bulls are More Dangerous and Breed-Specific Legislation is Justified

/Home/Bites/Breed Specific Bans

12 Municipal Lawyer
In April 2005, the latest litigation
over breed-specific legislation
(BSL) concluded in Denver, Colorado.
The state Legislature had previously
passed H.B. 04-1279, which prohibited
local governments from regulating
dangerous dogs by specific breeds.1
The City and County of Denver filed a
civil action2 seeking a ruling that the
State Constitution’s provisions for municipal
home rule authority3 allowed
Denver’s pit bull ban ordinance4 to supercede
H.B. 04-1279. In late 2004,
Denver District Court Judge Martin
Egelhoff, ruling on cross-motions for
summary judgment, held that the regulation
of dangerous dogs was a matter of
purely local concern, and that, pursuant
to the Colorado Constitution,
Denver’s home rule authority superceded
H.B. 04-1279.5 However, the
court allowed the State’s affirmative
defense6 to continue to trial, allowing
the Colorado Attorney General’s Office
to argue that the ordinance no longer
had a rational relationship to its legitimate
government interest in public
safety, and asking the trial court to reverse
the Colorado Supreme Court’s
One City’s
Why Pit Bulls
Are More
Dangerous and
Breed-Specific
Legislation
is Justified
Experience
— by Kory A. Nelson —
1991 ruling in Colorado Dog Fanciers,
Inc. v. City and County of Denver.7 On
April 7, 2005, Judge Egelhoff issued an
oral ruling from the bench on the State’s
affirmative defense, finding that the
State failed to provide any new evidence
to undermine the original findings in
Colorado Dog Fan-ciers; that the city had
provided new evidence to provide additional
support for Judge Rothenberg’s
findings; and upholding the ordinance
as constitutional.8 This article will provide
a review of the developments in
the field of ethology—the study of animal
behavior—in relation to pit bull
dogs, review the 1990 factual findings
of the trial court in Colorado Dog Fanciers,
and outline the evidence relied on
by the city in the most recent case.
Colorado Dog Fanciers
Between 1984 and 1989, pit bulls attacked
and seriously injured more than
20 people in Colorado. The victims included
three-year-old Fernando Salazar,
fatally mauled in 1986, and 58-yearold
Reverend Wilber Billingsley, attacked
by a pit bull in the alley behind
his home.9 As a result, the local community
called for increased regulations
and bans on pit bulls.10 Accordingly, in
1989, the Denver City Council enacted
an ordinance making it unlawful to own,
possess, keep, exercise control over,
maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any
pit bull within the city.11 Several organizations
and individual dog owners
immediately filed suit challenging the
ordinance as unconstitutional.12 The
litigation concluded in 1991 with the
Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in
Colorado Dog Fanciers, upholding the
trial court’s ruling that Denver’s ordinance
was constitutional.13 While
the decision followed prior decisions
by other state courts reviewing similar
ordinances,14 the decision focused on
procedural issues and glossed over the
noteworthy and extensive factual findings
made by the trial court as to the
differences between pit bulls and other
dogs, which provided a rational relationship
between the differential treatJuly/
August 2005 Vol. 46, No. 6 13
continued on page 14
ment of pit bulls and the legitimate
interest of protecting public safety.
Not Like Other Dogs
To fully appreciate pit bulls as being different
than other breeds, one must examine
the history and purposes of the
intentional selective breeding of dogs
and why the unique pit bull breed
was developed. The phenotypes of
dogs that share the common definition
of “pit bull” derive their heritage
from “the Butcher’s Dog”15 developed
through the sport of bull-baiting in
England.16 These dogs were intentionally
bred to result in better, stronger,
and bolder dogs, more inclined to engage
in the dangerous behaviors likely
to win in the ring. By 1835, bullbaiting
was banned. Rather than give
up their gambling and dog-fighting
exploits, the owners took their
dog fighting underground—literally.
The coal-mining communities in
Staffordshire County, England, brought
their dogs to coal pits to fight. The breed
was manipulated to be better at fighting
other dogs than bulls; the dogs
needed to be quicker and more agile,
and not signal their intentions through
their body posture, as most dogs do.17
This eventually resulted in smaller, tenacious
terriers—the similar phenotypes
known as the American Pit Bull
Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier,
and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.18
The most significant point about
the justification for bans or restrictions
of pit bulls is that these are not dependent
upon a claim that every pit bull
has a higher than average propensity for
attacking humans. The justification is
based on the clear evidence that, as a
group, pit bulls, compared to other
breeds, generally have a higher propensity
to exhibit unique behavioral traits
during an attack. These behaviors have
a higher likelihood of causing more severe
injuries or death. The Colorado
Dog Fanciers trial court made this clear,
stating that, while it could not be
proven that pit bulls bite more than
other dogs, there was “credible evidence
that Pit Bull dog attacks are more severe
and more likely to result in fatalities.”
19 The court, in great detail, noted
fourteen separate areas of differences,
including: 20
• Strength. Pit bulls are extremely muscular
and unusually strong for their
size, generally stronger than many
other dogs.
• Manageability and temperament.
While pit bulls are one of many aggressive
types of dogs, their temperament
varies in the same manner as
other dogs and they can make gentle
pets. Proper handling, including early
socialization to humans, is very important.
Even their most ardent admirers,
however, agree that these
dogs are not for everyone and they
require special attention and discipline.
The court cited one study
which reported that over thirteen
percent of pit bulls attacked their
owners, as compared with just over
two percent of other dogs.21
• Unpredictability of Aggression. Pit
bull dogs, unlike other dogs, often
give no warning signals before they
attack.
• Tenacity. Pit bulls trained for fighting
are valued for “gameness”—the
tenacious refusal to give up a fight.
The court found that pit bulls trained
for fighting had this attribute, and
that credible testimony also proved
that, when a pit bull began to fight,
it would often not retreat.
• Pain tolerance. Although there was
no scientific evidence that pit bulls
had a greater tolerance of pain than
other dogs, the evidence showed
that, when a pit bull attacked,
it would not retreat, even when considerable
pain was inflicted on
the dog.
• Manner of attack. The city proved
that pit bulls inflicted more serious
wounds than other breeds because
they tend to attack the deep muscles,
to hold on, to shake, and to cause ripping
of tissues. Pit bull attacks were
compared to shark attacks.
Recent Developments
in Ethology
Since 1990, there have been few developments
in ethology that directly relate
to the behavior of pit bulls and the justification
for BSL, but one updated study
and one new article published by a recognized
expert in the field were thoroughly
discussed before Judge Egelhoff
in the most recent case.
A study published in 2000 by Sacks,
Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab, and Lockwood
involved a statistical review of dog
bites resulting in fatalities (DBRF), broken
down by the breed reported to have
been involved.22 (A previous version of
the study was introduced into evidence
before the Colorado Dog Fanciers trial
court; the updated 2000 study provided
an additional ten years of data.) The
State of Colorado thought this study was
significant because, during the last six
years studied, there were more DBRF
involving dogs reported to be Rottweilers
than involving dogs reported to be
pit bulls. The State argued that because
pit bulls were no longer the national
leader in DBRF, there was no longer a
rational basis for Denver’s pit bull ban.
Judge Egelhoff disagreed and accepted
the city’s argument on this issue—
namely, that the Colorado Dog Fanciers
decision was clearly not based on a
Kory A. Nelson is a Senior Assistant City Attorney in the Prosecution
Section for the City & County of Denver, Colorado. He has
prosecuted a variety of cases in Denver County Court for over
15 years. He is an instructor with the Denver Sheriff’s Training
Academy and various municipal inspection agencies. He is a graduate
of Arizona State University’s College of Law, has a B.S. in Criminal
Justice from A.S.U., and is a U.S. Army veteran. He is the owner of
Heidi, a German Shepherd.
The justification is based on
the clear evidence that, as
a group, pit bulls, compared to
other breeds, generally have
a higher propensity to exhibit
unique behavioral traits
during an attack.
14 Municipal Lawyer
determination that pit bulls were more
likely to bite or attack than other breeds,
so the ten years of additional data did
not undermine the original findings.23
In fact, Judge Egelhoff specifically
found problems with the use of the
DBRF statistics, similar to those noted
by the original trial court.24 These included
that: (a) the accuracy of the “reported
breed” of dog involved was unknown;
(b) the study included only reported
cases resulting in fatalities, but
not injury short of death; (c) the impossibility
of determining a bite/attack
ratio for each breed because the number
of dogs in the U.S. as a total and
per breed was unknown; and (d) the
last six years was too short and too
speculative a time frame on which to
base a conclusion.25 However, over the
entire 20 years of the study, pit bulls
were still involved in 67 percent of the
DBRF, while Rottweilers accounted
for only 16 percent.26
The second development is an
article by Randall Lockwood.27 Although
the article should be read by
anyone interested in this issue, given
Lockwood’s connection to the Humane
Society of the United States, many of
his conclusions appear to be softened,
as the implications of his findings could
be written in much more straightforward
conclusions. For example, in his terms,
Lockwood affirms that fighting dogs
have a more exaggerated “decrease in
the latency to show intra-specific aggression,”
a much higher tolerance of
pain, suppressed or eliminated accurate
communication of aggressive motivation
or intent through postural and facial
signals, and reduced termination or
withdrawal from combat upon either
the opponent’s withdrawal or display of
submissive behavior.28 This can be more
clearly summarized as: A pit bull will be
more likely not to display its aggressive
intent, be more likely to initiate an attack,
and continue on with a furious
attack with its great strength, regardless
of what behavior the victim exhibits,
and despite having great levels of pain
or injury inflicted on it. Moreover, it
can’t be predicted which individual pit
bull will engage in this behavior. To
quote Lockwood:
part of the problem with the ‘Pit
Bull’ controversy is that the lineages
of fighting and non-fighting
animals [within] the fighting
breeds have been separated
for many generations, but have
shown relatively little physical
divergence. As a result, an
American Pit Bull terrier from
recent fighting stock may be
physically indistinguishable
from an American or English
Staffordshire (bull) terrier 50
generations removed from the
fighting pits, yet the two animals
could be behaviorally very
different.29
Expert Testimony
During the 2004 trial, the City of Denver
presented the expert testimony of
Dr. Peter L. Borchelt, a certified applied
animal behaviorist,30 who testified on a
number of relevant subtopics, summarized
here.
Aggressiveness Towards Humans: Dr.
Borchelt rebutted the oft-cited argument
that pit bulls were bred to not be
aggressive to humans. While breeding
to suppress the behavioral tendencies for
“diverted aggression” towards humans
may have occurred in the distant past,
the increased demand for the breed
means some breeders no longer have the
incentive to cull “human-aggressive”
dogs. Such dogs may, instead, be sold to
the unwary public and bred, further diluting
the suppression of this behavior.31
Shifted Higher Frequency Distribution
Patterns of Dangerous Behavior. Fighting
dog breeders artificially selected and
bred towards dangerous behaviors in
order to intensify the frequency of the
behavior. This caused these breeds to
have the frequency of these dangerous
behavioral traits still represented statistically
in a distribution pattern similar
to the traditional bell curve, but shifted
towards higher levels of the dangerous
behavior, compared to other breeds.
Moreover, these behavioral traits cannot
be artificially shifted back to lower,
normal frequency distribution pattern
levels. Although the actual tendencies
of an individual dog of these fighting
breeds could be anywhere along the
frequency distribution curve, the problem
is that any specific dog’s location
on the curve cannot be determined
merely by looking at it, since it shares
the same phenotype or physical characteristics
as other, more dangerous pit
bulls. However, as the entire breed’s
selective breeding has caused its frequency
distribution curve to be shifted
higher, creating a reliable higher probability
of higher frequencies of such dangerous
behavior (such as the bite, hold,
and shake behavior despite the infliction
of greater levels of injury and pain),
Dr. Borchelt testified there is a rational
basis to differentiate pit bulls from
other breeds of dogs.32
Effect of Multiple Pit Bulls. Dr. Borchelt
has unique qualifications on this issue,
having co-authored the only expert
paper on “pack attacks” on humans
and having conducted several reviews
of individual cases of multiple dog
maulings resulting in death and nearfatal
injuries.33 This included meeting
with crime-scene investigators dealing
with the gruesome death, from a sustained
mauling by three pit bulls, of 30-
year-old Jennifer Brooke.34 On the effect
of increasing the number of pit
bulls involved in an attack upon a
human and the likelihood of serious injuries
or death, Dr. Borchelt testified
that, rather than a simple multiplying
effect (i.e., the mathematical pattern of
x, x + x = 2x, 2x + x = 3x) present with
other breeds, the effect would be closer
to an exponential effect (i.e., 1 = x1, 2
= x2, 3 = x3).35
Judge Egelhoff’s Ruling
At the conclusion of the evidence,
Judge Egelhoff, in an oral ruling, found
that the State had failed to provide
new evidence to undermine Judge
Rothenberg’s original 1990 findings regarding
the differences between pit bulls
and other dogs; moreover, he ruled the
city had shown additional evidence in
support of Judge Rothenberg’s findings.
Since Judge Rothenberg’s 1990 decision
was not based upon the claim that pit
bulls had a higher propensity to bite or
attack humans, the new Sacks study and
Lockwood article were not relevant on
the narrow issues presented in that decision.
The State had failed to establish
PIT BULLS continued from page 13
July/August 2005 Vol. 46, No. 6 15
that no rational basis for the ordinance’s
pit bull ban existed; accordingly, pursuant
to the rule of stare decisis, the Colorado
Supreme Court’s ruling in Colorado
Dog Fanciers—that Denver’s ordinance
was constitutional—remained
valid and, therefore, the current ordinance
was still constitutional.36
Conclusion
A municipality that is experiencing a
problem with pit bull attacks needs to
consider for itself the best course of action
to protect its citizens, especially
those most likely to be unable to defend
themselves from the tenacious and sustained
attack of a pit bull, who will likely
bite, hold, and tear at its victim despite
efforts to stop it. However, given the
clear rational evidence, breed-specific
legislation is still a legally viable option.
There is no new evidence that undermines
the holdings of Colorado Dog Fanciers,
only new relevant evidence that
adds additional support for BSL, as the
differential treatment of pit bulls is
based upon logical, rational evidence
from the scientific field of ethology.
Notes
1. H.B. 04-1279, concerning liability regarding
the behavior of dogs, was codified as COLO.
REV. STAT. § 18-9-204.5 (2004) and became
effective on April 21, 2004.
2. The city’s complaint was filed on May 13,
2004 in the matter of City and County of Denver,
et al. v. State of Colorado, Denver District
Court Case No. 04CV3756.
3. The Colorado Constitution grants home rule
status to municipalities with a population over
2,000 that adopt home rule charters. COLO.
REV. STAT. Const. Art. XX, § 6 (West 2004).
4. DENVER, COLO. REV. CODE § 8-55 (1989)
prohibits pit bull dogs.
5. Order in City and County of Denver v. State
of Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct.,
Dec. 9, 2004) (Re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Defendant’s Cross-Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment). “The Court
concludes that the issue of which dog breeds
are permitted, prohibited, or restricted within
a city is a matter of purely local concern. The
State has not articulated, and the Court cannot
conceive, a need for statewide uniformity.
In fact, there seems to be a need for local control
in this area. Each community has its own
attitudes and preferences with respect to dogs.
In each community, depending on culture and
demographics, dogs occupy a different role. It
would not make sense for the owners of mountain
dogs in Telluride, farm dogs in Lamar, and
urban dogs in Denver to be subject to the same
kinds of laws and restrictions…local control
of breeds means flexibility in crafting locallyacceptable
solutions to the problems created
by dogs. As the largest and most populous
metropolitan area in Colorado, Denver faces
unique challenges in ensuring that dogs enhance
the lives of citizens rather than threaten
their safety.” The court did grant the State’s
motion for partial summary judgment, finding
that the interjurisdictional transportation of a
pit bull through Denver was a matter of mixed
local and state concern, and struck the language
of Denver’s ordinance that required a
pre-approved travel permit for such transportation.
Id. at 4.
6. The court never made clear the legal authority
for an affirmative defense of unconstitutionality
due to a lack of a rational relationship
in an action for declaratory judgment
on a home rule issue.
7. 820 P. 2d 644 (Colo. 1991).
8. City and County of Denver, et al. v. State of
Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct.,
April 7, 2005).
9. Jim Kirskey, Pit Bull mauls Denver man, 58:
Neighbor kills dog after 70 bites, 100 stitches, 2
broken legs, DENVER POST, May 9, 1989 at page
1B. The dog’s attack was sustained over a long
period and a neighbor, Norman Cable, attempted
to stop the dog by hitting it with a 2
x 4. This had no effect and Cable was able to
stop the dog only by shooting it. The victim
suffered serious injuries from over 70 bites,
with both of his legs being broken.
10. Editorial, Let’s outlaw killer dogs, DENVER
POST, June 12, 1989, at page 4B; Editorial,
Tougher rules and stronger enforcement on Pit
Bulls, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, May 12, 1989
at page 82.
11. DENVER, COLO. REV. CODE § 8-55 (a) (2)
(1989). A “Pit Bull” is defined as an American
Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire
Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog
displaying the majority of physical traits of
any one or more of the above breeds, or any
dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics
which substantially conform to the
standards established by the American Kennel
Club or United Kennel Club for any of
the above breeds. The A.K.C. and U.K.C.
standards for the above breeds are on file in
the office of the clerk and recorder, ex officio
clerk of the City and County of Denver, at
City Clerk Filing No. 89457.
12. Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc., et al. v.
City and County of Denver, No. 89CV11714,
consolidated with Colorado Humane Society,
Inc., et al. v. City and County of Denver,
No. 89CV12348 (Denver District Court
June 28, 1990) (Rothenberg, J.).
13. 820 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1991).
14. See, e.g., Hearn v. City of Overland Park,
772 P.2d 758 (Kan. 1989); Garcia v. Village of
Tijeras, 767 P.2d 355 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988).
15. A subtype of Molossian dogs known as
“Bullenbeissers” were valued for their ability
to control unruly cattle, earning their keep as
butcher’s dogs. These dogs had to catch and
grip escaping or uncooperative bulls on their
way to market. The dog would hang on the
bull’s nose without letting go until the butcher
could regain control. As with all people who
depend upon their dogs, butchers were proud
of their best “bulldogs” and anxious to prove
them better than the neighboring village’s
butcher’s dog. D. CAROLINE COILE, PIT BULLS
FOR DUMMIES 9 (Wiley Publishing, Inc. 2001).
16. The British placed high value on contests
that featured animals fighting to the death.
The spectacle of a dog killing a bull was the
highest entertainment that most small villages
could offer their poor inhabitants. Id. at 8.
17. Dogs exhibit characteristic postures that
reveal their states of mind. Fighting dogs were
bred and trained not to display behavioral signals
of their intentions, to give these dogs an
advantage in the ring. The pit bull dog is frequently
known to attack “without warning”
for this reason. Lockwood, Randall, The ethology
and epidemiology of canine aggression, THE
DOMESTIC DOG: ITS EVOLUTION, BEHAVIOUR, AND
INTERACTIONS WITH PEOPLE, at 133 (James
Serpell, ed. Cambridge University Press, 1995);
republished in ANIMAL LAW AND DOG BEHAVIOR
at 289 (David Favre and Peter L. Borchelt,
Ph.D., eds. 1999) (hereinafter “Lockwood”).
18. PIT BULLS FOR DUMMIES, supra note 15 at
7-12.
19. Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City and
County of Denver, No. 89CV12348 at Para.
27 (Denver Dist. Ct., June 28, 1990)
(Rothenberg, J.).
20. Aggressiveness, athletic ability, biting,
catch instinct, destructiveness, fighting ability
and killing instinct, frenzy, gameness, health
status, manageability, strength, temperament,
tolerance to pain, unpredictability. Id. at
Para. 28.
21. Id. at para. 28(j), p. 7.
22. Sacks, Sinclair, Gilchrist, Golab, and
Lockwood, Breeds of dogs involved in fatal
human attacks In the United States between
1979 and 1998, JAVMA, Vol. 217, No. 6 (Sept.
15, 2000).
23. Judge Egelhoff determined the parameters
of the trial to be that the State Attorney
General’s Office had the burden of proof to
establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that,
since the time of Judge Rothenberg’s original
1990 ruling, there had been sufficient changes
in the facts or ethology (the study of
animal behavior) to prove that there was
currently no rational basis to justify the pit
continued on page 29
16 Municipal Lawyer
very basis of Congress’s power to enact
RLUIPA has been deferred. Justice Thomas,
in a concurrence, makes it clear
that there are serious reasons to doubt
whether Congress had the power to enact
RLUIPA. The federal government
is a government of enumerated powers,
and RLUIPA’s proponents must explain
how this law, a law governing state and
local governments for the sake of religious
entities, is a valid exercise of federal
power under the Spending or Commerce
Clauses, or Section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
On this issue, we’ll hear from the
Sixth Circuit on the prison context before
we hear from the Supreme Court.
On the land use side, this question is an
especially weighty one: Federalism concerns
are at their height when a federal
law interferes with what is the most inherently
state and local issue: local land
use. So stay tuned, because there is
much left to be decided with respect to
RLUIPA.
Editor’s Note: Marci Hamilton, at
hamilton02@aol.com, is the Paul R.
Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin
N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva
University, where she specializes
in church/state issues. She wrote an
amicus brief on behalf of IMLA and others
in the Cutter case, in order to bring
to the Court’s attention the issues involving
Congress’s power to enact
RLUIPA. Her most recent publication
is God vs. the Gavel: Religion and
the Rule of Law (Cambridge 2005). A
longer version of this column first
appeared on June 2, 2005 in Marci
Hamilton’s bimonthly constitutional
law column posted at the Findlaw site,
www.findlaw.com.
SUPREME COURT
continued from page 21
ML
In Our
Next
Issue:
In the September/October issue of Municipal
Lawyer—The First Amendment and Recent
Issues for Local Governments. Articles include
a review of solicitation ordinances; First
Amendment and adult business—evidentiary
issues; airports and the First Amendment;
and an update on regulating signs.
Get the latest news
in municipal law on
our Web site at
www.imla.org
bull ban, requiring the court to reverse the Colorado Dog Fanciers decision. City and County of
Denver, et al. v. State of Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7, 2005).
24. Id. The 1990 trial court noted: “It is difficult to accurately determine the breeds which
cause the most bites for several reasons: (a) It is difficult to identify a particular breed of dog,
especially with mixed breeds; (b) There is a tendency to over report dog bites attributed to a
particular breed; (c) Certain dog breeds are owned by a population of dog owners who are
more likely to be irresponsible; and (d) There is inaccurate reporting of the total population of
particular breeds. Defendants’ Exhibit LLL, Lockwood Report.” Colorado Dog Fanciers,
J. Rothenberg, supra note 19 at Para. 26.
25. City and County of Denver, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7, 2005).
26. Id.
27. Lockwood, supra note 17 at 133 and 289.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 133.
30. Dr. Borchelt had previously testified as an expert witness on the behavior of pit bulls in
litigation over Toledo, Ohio’s pit bull ordinance, and had published several articles on dangerous
dogs, including the only published book on this legal topic, Basic Behavioral Principles and
Misunderstood Words, ANIMAL LAW AND DOG BEHAVIOR (David Favre and Peter L. Borchelt,
eds., 1999).
31. Testimony of Dr. Peter L. Borchelt, Denver v. Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct.,
April 7, 2005). Lockwood also notes, “Dog fighters and advocates of fighting breeds note
that, historically, fighting animals that showed aggression to people were generally removed
from the gene pool, either by being destroyed or being deemed unsuitable for breeding.…
However, there is no indication that the same selective pressures are in operation since there
is currently a market for even the most intractable animals in the guard dog trade.” Lockwood,
supra note 17 at 133.
32. Testimony of Dr. Borchelt, Denver v. Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7,
2005).
33. Dr. Borchelt co-authored the only known article in the field of ethology on the attack of
packs of dogs on humans: Borchelt, Peter L., Ph.D., Lockwood, Randall, Ph.D., Beck, Alan M.,
Sc.D., Voith, Victoria L., D.V.M., Ph.D., Attacks by Packs of Dogs Involving Predation on Human
Beings, ANIMAL LAW AND DOG BEHAVIOR (David Favre and Peter L. Borchelt, eds., 1999).
34. Hector Gutierrez, Owner of Pit Bulls Headed for Prison: Woman takes plea deal in fatal attack
in Elbert County, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Sept. 25, 2004 at http://www.rockymountainnews.com/
drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3208879,00.html. See also, The DenverChannel.com, Pit
Bull Owner Sentenced For Mauling Death, at http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3999446/
detail.html (“Many deputies said that Brooke’s mauled body was one of the most gruesome things
they had ever seen. Eight firemen had to be counseled after they responded to the scene”).
35. Testimony of Dr. Borchelt, Denver v. Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct., April 7,
2005).
36. City and County of Denver, et al. v. State of Colorado, No. 04CV3756 (Denver Dist. Ct.,
April 7, 2005). On Monday, May 9, 2005, the City and County resumed enforcement of its
Pit Bull ordinance.
PIT BULLS continued from page 15
ML
July/August 2005 Vol. 46, No. 6 29