Chief Animal Disease Prevention Division
District of Columbia Department of Health
Washington DC
Dear Chief:
I am writing to you concerning the matter of the case of the dog, Sidney, whose fate, I understand, will be decided at an administrative hearing on Thursday, July 26th, before Judge Jesse P. Goode, upon petition of your Department (DC-DOH v Belinda Blum, Respondent and owner of Sidney). I am writing strictly in my own personal capacity as someone who has had dogs for 34 years and who is concerned about animal welfare matters. I did not witness the events leading to the hearing, have nothing to do with the case and know none of the parties or dogs involved. This letter is totally unsolicited and deals only with my own concerns of the chilling effect that any ruling adverse to Sidney will have on all dogs and their owners in the District of Columbia. Although I did not witness the facts in the case, for purposes of my own limited concern the facts that I have learned through publicized sources (i.e., the internet and ABC7) and from the respondent are sufficient for me to express the main concern I do have about the case, especially since these facts are not in dispute between the two parties.
I am also writing as someone who is mindful of how painful this whole experience must be for Dr. Stillions and his dogs Emma and Molly, for Sidney's owners and Sidney himself. I cannot even imagine what they are going through and feel great compassion for all of them. However, I have to set those feeling aside for this letter to express thoughts that have been of concern to me for some time, thoughts that bear directly on certain elements of this case, which is why I must speak up.
I also must say that I do not envy you in your position of being required by law, upon the filing of a compliant, to petition the court in a hearing to declare an animal dangerous and, beyond that, at continued substantial risk to the community, meaning euthanasia. My only guess is that this is a no-win situation for you in most cases if not all. However these cases are decided, especially where euthanizing any animal is involved (especially one who is as beloved as Sidney is), an animal that but for certain unfortunate circumstances would not have warranted death as punishment for something that was not its fault. However, what little I do know about your involvement in animal welfare matters in the District of Columbia for improvement of our laws and regulations relating to animals leads me to believe that you take your responsibilities seriously and perform them fairly.
The single matter that is of concern to me in this case is the matter of what is involved in declaring a dog dangerous in the District of Columbia. Although I admit that from a legal standpoint I am not intimately familiar with how sound the laws or the application of those laws are in the District of Columbia, my concerns relate to facts and not the law. Again, as I understand the facts relevant to my concern, they appear to be undisputed by the two parties (although I also understand those facts are inconsistent with the report of the police officer on the scene who supposedly saw the whole incident from the start at some great distance away in the night as she sat in her cruiser). My understanding of the facts is this: Sidney was sitting by his handler's side on a short leash when suddenly, without any warning whatsoever, Dr. Stillions, with Emma and Molly's on two separate leashes, approached Sidney at very close distance from behind, startling Sidney, who then lunged at Emma and Molly and bit the two of them in the melee that followed.
My concern is this. From all that I have seen over 34 years of handling dogs, I am amazed that some people, owners of both large and small dogs of all breeds, have no concept at all of a unknown dog's space (i.e., territory), the likely consequences of trespassing onto that space, and the simple measures that can be taken to avoid the inevitable confrontations as dogs do what dogs do to defend their space with the only means they have, their barks and their mouths. This is what dogs do. Most dogs owners know that. Most people, whether they have large or small dogs, provide other dogs with a comfortable distance as they walk around or approach them. If a comfortable distance cannot be provided, most dogs owners (as I do) try to catch the other dog owners' attention by alerting them that another dog is coming so that they have a chance to secure their dogs. Most people can foresee the consequences to one dog or another if they do not. Most people realize that they are assuming a great risk if they walk nonchalantly past a dog they do not know. Most people know that when a melee breaks out between dogs, the bigger, stronger dogs will always come out ahead, although most people also know that dogs have no awareness of their own sizes relative to other dogs, although dogs do perceive bigger threats from multiple dogs of any size. Most people, especially those with the last clear chance --- if not the only chance --- to avoid a confrontation, do so to protect their own dogs and the dogs of the other parties. Finally, many people who walk two or more dogs on separate leashes know how hard it is to keep those dogs within their own space (just google "walking two dogs" to read about this). All of these things are common sense and most people I have encountered over 34 years know these things and take the necessary precautions. (Just walk down any street with dogs on it and you will see what I mean.) This is why there are far fewer confrontations between dogs than there otherwise would be. But most people is not all people, and it seems to me that that is precisely what happened on the evening of July 4th when Dr. Stillions approached Zomai who was handling Sidney. Whether Dr. Stillions acknowledged it or not, his dogs were invading Sidney's space, and by not warning Zomai that his dogs were approaching at close distance he assumed a great risk and provoked a startled Sidney into doing what dogs do, defend their space. If Dr. Stillions was unaware of Zomai's or Sidney's presence, than what took place was a terrible unavoidable accident and nothing more. If Dr. Stillions did know of Sidney's presence, especially with his obvious and well-publicized hard feelings about "pit bulls," he did the equivalent of putting his hand in a tiger's cage and, as sad as the events that unfolded next were, negligently contributed to those events, breached the standard of care he owed to his own dogs, or at least willingly assumed the risks. This is not the same thing as if Sidney spontaneously had bolted from his handler and ran some distance to attack Emma and Molly without having been spooked into doing so.
Incidentally, from all that I have read about the evacuation during Hurricane Katrina, this knowledge of how dogs react to each other when in close space is precisely what contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of dogs (and some of their owners, who refused to leave them), when the Red Cross and others did not want to bring dogs into such close contact with each other and people and, therefore, denied them access to buses and shelters.
It seems to me then, that because Zomai did not even know Emma and Molly were approaching, Dr. Stillions had the last clear chance to avoid the confrontation that ensued and failed to do anything about it. My concern, then, is that if Sidney is declared a dangerous dog or put to death because of something that Emma and Molly's handler had the last best chance to avoid, this will put a chilling effect on all those in the District of Columbia who own dogs, no matter what size dog we have or what their dispositions. I plead with you, therefore to factor all of this into the equation of whether or not there was constructive provocation here, or simply a terrible unavoidable accident. Anytime anyone walked up behind me and my dogs in close range without warning me, I considered that provocation because I know what dogs will do to defend their space. This obligation to warn falls on all dog owners, and not just owners of small dogs, who stand to be harmed the most in a melee. Just as owners of dangerous dogs have an obligation to provide warnings, so too do owners of all dogs have an obligation to warn other owners of their dogs' imminent intrusion upon another dog's space unless it is patently obvious, as it is in most cases. Dr. Stillions had an implied duty and standard of care to alert Zomai of his dogs' presence, which he did not fulfill. As sad as the consequences to his dogs were, he alone had the chance to avoid them.
That's my concern. I am concerned about the chilling effect an adverse ruling against Sidney will have on dog owners in the District of Columbia. It will give dog owners license to intrude another dog's space knowing that the law will relieve them of any duty of a last chance to avoid a confrontation or of any assumption of risk on their parts. (But why anyone would want to do this intentionally, I do not know.) Granted, these things cannot be written into law, but my hope is that they can be factored into decisions on whether a dog is dangerous or a continued substantial threat to the community in a way that reflects reality (at least from the dog's perspective, if that is possible) because the consequences of a wrong decision in favor of euthanizing a beloved --- or any --- dog would not be acceptable to most caring people.
There are other disturbing issues that I see involved with this case that will impact others of us in the District of Columbia too if the facts as I know them are correct, e.g., Emma and Molloy's handler using two leashes to walk two dogs when it is well known that it is difficult to control the movements of even small dogs that way, the apparent lack of a thorough investigation prior to Sidney's seizure, the police officer's failure to seek out impartial witnesses, the false reports of suspicious origin phoned into Animal Control about Sidney's past record, the documented one-sided media attention that came out on this (thereby putting great pressure on your office to resolve it in an unfair manner), the police officer's giving Sidney's handler a ticket for an unleashed dog after Zomai dropped the leash simply to stop the melee, putting himself at great danger in the process (after continuing to hold the leash would have been totally ineffective),the attempt by Dr. Stillions to characterize Sidney as a dangerous dog simply because of his mixed species background, and his vociferous calls for Sidney's death. These issues I do not get into here (but some are surely for the City Council to take up). Nor do I intend to purse the issue of the whether the police officer who filed the report had any training whatsoever in recognizing dog behavior, behavior that could very well bear on material facts in this case which she might have misinterpreted, but I can confidently conclude that she had none[1].
Again, please understand my concern in this case. To be sure, I am concerned for the dogs that were bitten by Sidney and for Sidney as well (especially Sidney whose breeds --- Greyhound and Pit Bull --- are getting a very bad deal these days from all of us and who was, from what I understand, miraculously rescued from the a less-than-fortunate life on the streets of the Bronx at a very young age and has been a model dog owned by caring people ever since, with a perfect behavioral record to boot). But I am especially concerned about the chilling effect that declaring Sidney a dangerous dog or euthanizing him will have on all of those who own dogs in DC. A terrible mistake was made by Dr. Stillions in approaching Sidney from behind at a close distance without any warning, provoking Sidney's attack. If it wasn't a mistake, it was a terrible accident. In either case, Sidney --- or his owners --- should not have to suffer the punishment simply because he was the bigger dog and in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I hope I have correctly reflected the facts and adequately expressed my concerns.
Sincerely,
[1] In 2005, I inquired with more than 40 police officers in the District about their training in dog behavior (i.e., "what dogs are trying to tell cops"). Not a single one reported any training whatsoever despite that fact that police officers are often called to work around dogs and numerous police jurisdictions are providing extensive training to their officers not only for the protection of the dogs but for the police officers own protection. I have written the mayor and city council members on this very issue pleading with them to provide officers adequate training and funding after two dogs were unnecessarily killed by police officers in the District in well-publicized cases in recent years, a fate that Sidney surely would have suffered had the police officer been five feet away and not 70.
