A veteran with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is suing the city of Lakewood and the animal warden after two ordeals and a court case last year for not muzzling and leashing his service dog, a pit bull, at the city’s dog park.
According to the lawsuit, Fairview Park-resident Patrick Boyd brought his pit bull to the Lakewood dog park last May, which caught the attention of animal warden Jack Crawford because it was unmuzzled and unleashed as non-service pit bulls are required to be in the city (Lakewood is not pit bull-friendly). But Boyd’s dog was a service dog and he gave a card to Crawford stating it was compliant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
After Boyd left the park, it says he called a Lakewood police lieutenant “in an effort to advise the City that as a service animal, his dog was exempt from the dog park’s breed-specific muzzle and leash rules.” But the lieutenant argued that the ADA only applies if he’s in a restaurant and that “you have no right to have your dog in my city,” it says.
He was summoned to the Lakewood Municipal Court on charges of “dogs and others at large” and “Park restriction,” court records show, and he had a trial in October. A judge ruled that the ADA allowed him to have his dog at the park unmuzzled and unleashed, and he was found not guilty.
In November, it says Crawford ordered him to leash and muzzle the dog, despite the judge’s ruling he was allowed to do so.
Boyd and his lawyer are suing in federal court on counts of discrimination based on disability, violation of the rehabilitation act, violation of the Ohio Civil Rights Act, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Read the suit here:
This article appears in Apr 8-14, 2015.
While I understand both sides my question is that is the dog wearing a service animal vest? I have a friend that has a seizure dog and is also a Pit Bull. Its an amazing dog and can sense the seizure 15 minutes before it happens. My point being is that the dog wears a vest that states that he is a service animal and that he has his owners emergency info on him if needed.
People amaze me on their stupidity about breeds of any animal…people need to understand its not the breed of any animal its the owner of said animal. Great example is Maslow’s hierarchy of need and having the dog trained to only eat at the sound of a bell. You do what you are trained to do as well just without the bell. The point being is an animal of any breed is what you teach it to be just like you are what you are taught to be.
If they just ask that the animal wears a service vest so that others in the park know that the Pit Bull is trained to take care of him in his time of need I think that people will be more receptive about the service Pit Bull. This would allow the man to take his service dog into the park and not have people freak out. Oh and I side with the man with PTSD because the city of Lakewood is violating the American’s with Disabilities Act. The city should ask that if he wishes to bring his dog into Lakewood that he wears a service vest so that others know that he is working service animal.People will be less likely to freak and be more interested in the service animal and the man that he help.
The problem with making the dog wear his service dog vest while at the dog park is that these dogs are trained that when the vest is on, the dog is working. When the vest is off, it’s okay to play. The dog would become really confused by being allowed to play with the vest on, and that could totally undermine all of the hard work and training that went into making him the great service dog that he is. He works every single day. He deserves to have “free time” to just play, like a dog. The ADA says that in cities with breed specific bans, they can not ban a service dog, not matter what the breed.
regardless. The warden doesn’t follow his own laws. You had a problem. He pulled out a card that states its a service dog. Then you still acted like an ass and cost the city money to try to prosecute the guy and lost! Then after you were till proven wrong you still harassed the guy, a veteran by the way. Now you are going to cost the city even more money because he’s an ass. Good for him. Vest or no vest he pulled the card then won the court hearing, now the tax payers are gonna pay over 1 person being an ass. good luck
I agree Angie but if he came in wearing it and then it was taken off to let him play showing that he is a service animal and not a vicious dog the people would see that and know. Also having the owner hold onto the vest while there shows that the dog is a service dog but is being allowed to play at the moment. Its all a double edged sword either way you look at it… I really wish there was a collar that stated service dog at play so that when approached people wouldn’t be such a$$hats. Its sad when people are more concerned about the breed then how its trained. People are so close minded now a days and just assume.
Also I know that Yellow collars are for dogs that are high anxiety and that when you see that…that they are not to be approached and to allow the owner to walk the dog around you instead. Is there a collar color for service dogs to be identified? If not there should be so that this doesn’t happen anymore…this is just crazy and Lakewood is just looking for a way to make money and make people not want to come there at all.
Sorry to disagree but as per ADA/American disabilities Act, there is no requirement to states that the sevice animals do not have to wear a vest or any type of equipment to specify that it is a service animal. Though it does lessen in SOME cases the apprehension for others. Though not all will even accept this. The warden is illegally and civilly violating this veterans rights.
Here is some info and not a judgement call on either partyand some further info re: different rolls of how these animals assist:
Be sure to read the American Disabilities Act/ADA or call the Department Of Jsutice/DOJ. THERE IS NO LICENSE, CERTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR A SERVICE DOG! An emotional support animal or ESA is only required proof of Dr.’s note for aprtment or dorm or rental, and for flying. An ESA is not allowed the same rights as a service animal, nor is therapy dogs which are used in Schools, courthouses, hospitals etc. Either one doesn not perform the same function as a service animal. They are not allowed to go where only service animals and guide dogs do, for example anywhere the public is served! If you do, then you risk committing a crime and only make it harder for the other service teams! A service animal perform duties mitigating a disabled persons disability ie. PTSD, diabetes, epileptic seizure, guide, etc. In the the US, ADA laws do not require a vest, patches but it these items only make it easier to identify a service animal. Be aware that if caught utilizing and faking a pet as a service animal, it is a crime and punishable by law.
The Good Canine Citizen/CGC, the PAT/Public Access Test,
Assistance Dog Internationalm/ADI only signifies that your dog has been extensively trained in his role as a service animal. Some service training programs use these tests for training their program service dog. If they are “certified” by the organization or program is because it met their standards. AGAIN, in the U.S.A., the American Disabilities Act/ADAdoes not have a licensing or certification requirement! It is up to each individual to obtain their vest and patches unles said organization or program may or may not provide your first vest, patches and their program/org patch.
Having these does not guarantee that you will not run into problems with businesses and anywhere the public is served. Only two questions can be asked: 1. Is it a service animal, and 2. What does it do to mitigate your disability. They can not ask for documentation, ie. Dr’s note, certification papers or identification or ID card. It is against the law and your civil rights. That being said, does not mean that you won run into problems of individuals and businesses who are not knowledgeable or familiar of ADA laws and your rights. It is up to each service team to educate and advocate for themselves. Carrying ID or showing proof of “certification” only makes it hard for other service teams.
Service Dogs in Training/SDiTs in some states will not also be allowed access as service animal and guide dogs are. There are some states that do, such as Texas and Florida. You must be aware of your city and states laws as well as the ADA laws. ADA laws are federal and will always trump city and state laws, codes and ordinances to the benefit of the disabled perform. In other words, which will assist the disabled person with the service animal to help that person most! KNOW YOUR RIGHTS and be informed.
Remember though only 2 questions can be asked, but that if the dog impedes the businesses, by being disruptive, poses a threat, also pees, throws up, starts a fight with another dog, attacks someone, the businesses have a right to also have a right to ask them to leave. They also request no riding in carts, paws on table. A true service team will try to be as invisible as possible, and the service dog should be nonreactive and concentrated on their owner. It is not to say that accidents don’t happen but each service owner is responsible for the actions of their service animal.
SD’s are not required to wear a vest so making him wear one is a violation of his rights. Also again SD’s who wear vests are trained to not play while wearing it and are trained to work, but thats a moot point anyways seeing a vest, collar, or leash identifying the dog as an SD is not required by federal law.
I work with Service Dogs & this is not a case in his favor. A Service Dog must be WORKING… unfortunately the dog was not working at the Dog Park but rather being a PET. So I have to side with the city of Lakewood. If the argument then becomes “well the dog was making me feel better”…then the dog becomes an Emotional Support Pet and not a Service Dog.
I am the executive director of wags 4 warriors, a non-profit service dog organization in Brecksville ohio. This Veteran entered the program with his pit bull Veronica in 2012 and did not complete his service dog training with wags 4 warriors. Patrick and his dog Veronica also did not take or pass the first part of the program which is the CGC or start any of his public access training with us. Our trainers felt that Veronica was not qualified.
dsafe
Theresa Kleppenger – I Wish to Thank You for The MOST Thorough and Complete Explanation of Exactly What is Meant by The Laws of ADA and The Trueness of a Service Dog.
I have Read Numerous Definitions of the Aforementioned and Never have I been so Well Informed as I have with Your Interpretation.
Again, I Thank You, and ask if You would mind if I may Copy this from you to Further Educate Others.
Whoever you are Wags for Warriors. You my friend have the audacity to say this regarding a Veteran who served our country? The nerve of you. This is from the wife of a Viet Nam Veteran and an Animal Control Officer. Perhaps you should retrain yourself and your staff to be a little more compassionate and stop the belittlement of our men and women that served to protect your ass. However I want people to know that I called you , emailed you , and messaged you on Facebook. You point out all the wrong that this man did and how worthless you found his dog to be. That takes a lot of nerve. Instead of helping you made a man who served our country feel like a nobody.
Sandy she is stating facts, get over yourself just because you’re a veteran doesn’t mean you get automatic respect. Scum bags come from all corners of the earth veterans included
Sandy maybe you need to reread the comment again. At no point did they belittle him. They simply stated that they tried for quite some time to train them as a team, however the dog was not deemed fit to be a service dog. Not every dog has the temperament to be a service dog. I’m also confused where you read they pointed out everything he did wrong? Are we reading the same comment?
Actually Sandy we DID try to help him, I am pointing out that THIS dog did not qualify by our standard to be a Service dog. We have several Pit Bulls in our program and I Never said the dog was worthless nor did i belittle the vetetan, just stating the facts. MY husband is also a combat Veteran with PTSD and a service dog and WE started wags 4 warriors to help other Veterans with PTSD. 90% of the dogs we use in wags 4 warriors are rescue animals. We do this at NO cost to the Veteran and WE are an ALL volunteer organization so please don’t say we are not compassionate. We do however know that not every dog can be a service dog Sandy! And IF the service dog was on duty it isn’t allowed to be off leash per ADI which are the Service Dog standards.
Sandy, I am a veteran with a Service Dog, thanks to Jen, Frank and Wags. Jerks that take their dogs everywhere, claiming Service Animal status when that is patently untrue while violating the rules as far as said animals goes, just makes it THAT MUCH HARDER for those of us who go by the rules and are trying to educate the public on these amazing dogs. You my friend have the audacity to say this regarding a Veteran’s efforts to aid fellow veterans who served our country? The nerve of you. How about you stop the belittlement of our men and women that are helping those who actually served to protect your ass. And in regards to your (allegedly) trying to reach out through Facebook? Put away some of that entitlement, sweetheart, busy people need not take time out for one-on-one to school you on things that are plainly written out right up there.
Hi Jen . I have a question , How does a person go about getting their dog into the program ? I’m also from Ohio and foster Bully breeds out of central Ohio . My son has type 1 diabetes . I have a foster Bully that the two of them hit it off from the beginning and he’s a very smart dog .
Thanks and keep up the great work .
Jen speaks as though Wags 4 Warriors is the only show in town. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Instead of supporting the guy they come out and try to torpedo his lawsuit. What happened in Lakewoood could have happened to anybody, regardless of where their animal received the training. There is no indication that the animal was not under this Marine’s control at all times or otherwise misbehaving. I fail to see the relevance of Jen’s opinions.
@ Devil’s Advocate
There is no evidence in this case – at least from what I can see in the Complaint – that the animal was playing or otherwise not working.
@ The Morrigan
I’m a veteran, you’re a veteran, Boyd is a veteran, Jen’s husband is a veteran. We’re all veterans – great. Now that we have that established let’s stow our hurt feelings and talk about the facts.
FACT – contrary to the artfully crafted and misleading suggestions posted by Jen there is no “certification” for service animals under the ADA. The “CGC” is a set of standards adopted by the American Kennel Club which stands for “Canine Good Citizen”.
(Comment: If Congress intended to adopt these standards when they drafted the ADA they easily could have done so. The fact that one may only ask 1) whether the animal is a service animal and 2) what tasks the animal performs precludes the possibility that a disabled person is required to establish certification. To the contrary, the law simply requires that the animal remains under the yser’s control. It doesn’t matter whether the dog received that training from Wags 4 Warriors or Ronald McDonald.)
FACT – Wags 4 Warriors is a non profit organization run by at least two individuals who collect income from said non profit organization. They do not provide the service for “free” – the money comes from somewhere and some of that money winds up in their pockets.
In summary, Jen from Wags 4 Warriors is going out of her way to try to harm this particular veteran by misleading the public and possibly violating HIPAA in the process.
Hmmm…that’s interesting. Me in particular, I would prefer loved ones and children being around a properly trained dog that demonstrates that it is well behaved to pass the CGC and has spent hours of training. Your perfectly fine with a dog that has not been tested for aggression and other behaviors to be around your family and loved ones. Go you! So Ronald McDonald knows how to determine if I dog is aggressive and teach it tasks (which if properly done take months or a year). That’s cool…I’ll make my a dog a service dog when I grab a coffee this morning. According to you I can call any dog, properly trained or, not a service dog. Ok makes sense. Have a lovely day!
I don’t know what “properly trained” means because there is no such standard under the ADA. If the dog performs tasks in furtherance of accommodating a disability its a service animal under the statute. Your fictitious “seal of approval” has no bearing upon the animal’s status. It’s on the owner to maintain control of the animal under the ADA. What training that animal receives is up to the owner. All that matters is whether the animal performs tasks and does so safely.
Judge Carrol’s opinion in the criminal trial, if you’ve read it, seems to indicate that the Plaintiff’s dog did precisely that, the absence of a little gold star from Wags 4 Warriors notwithstanding. You’re arguing over an issue that has already been decided.
Wags 4 warriors is a 501c3 non-profit and there are no paid salaries as of today 4-10-2015. Wags 4 Warriors is run solely by donations (yes, it does cost money to have a facility, pay for veterinary care, provide treats for training, provide collars, leashes, crates, to pay adoption fees of dogs etc.. All 5 of our trainers are volunteer) which all stays in the program 🙂 I have not made any violations HIPAA or otherwise. I’m simply stating the facts in that situation. What you choose to take out of that is up to you.
Sandy & Teufelhunden –
You both are putting words into Jen’s mouth. If you want to focus on the facts, then focus on the facts that Jen did not belittle the veteran, and she surely did not say the dog was worthless. She stated about Wags experience with the veteran and dog in question. And she stated by WAGS standards the dog did not qualify to be a service dog. She mentioned NOTHING about other programs. She mentioned NOTHING about being the only program in Ohio. She was giving a professional opinion on this situation. I think you both should read the facts before belittling an organization and putting claims out against them. Also, she stated that they are a non-profit organization that does these services at no cost to the veteran. Look up the definition of non-profit. Because the fact that her and her husband may or may not get income from the organization has nothing to do with the fact that they are non-profit or volunteer based. If every non-profit did not provide income for the people who run the programs, then we wouldn’t have great organizations such as Goodwill, Big Brother’s Big Sisters, or even the wonderful Cleveland Clinic. You two seem to have a personal grudge to hold against someone who was stating the facts of their experience with the individuals in question.
Whether she had the right to say anything is another story. No where in the court case or the article was Wags mentioned. Therefore, bringing in a comment that is attached to the organization’s name may not have been in Jen’s best interest. But at the same time, with the amount of situations where veterans and services dogs are in question, I can’t say I blame her. And I will say from the research I have done on Wags 4 Warriors, I am willing to bet that they do take the time to work with the veteran and the dog in training the veteran to train the dog.
Therefore, Sandy and Teufelhunden, I challenge you two to do your research a little better. I challenge you to attend a Wags event where you can see how the trainers work with the veterans and the service dogs in training. I bet you any money that once you see how they interact, that you will have a different opinion on the organization. Learn what you are talking about before you give your opinion. It is better to let someone assume you are dumb, than to open your mouth and prove them right with your uneducated opinions…..
I am confused as to where the Wags 4 Warriors organization belittled the veteran and his dog. Veterans who have service dogs for ptsd is still a touchy subject as there is not a lot of knowledge out there to the general public so when ill trained dogs and dogs not fit for service dogs, etc make their way into public and don’t act appropriately it makes it that much harder for others to take the legit trained dogs serious. If the dog was working at the time he should have been harnessed to the masters side, not running around. Dogs will act completely different during work and play and if he is playing he should have to abide by all standards a regular dog should. You wouldn’t want this dog just walking onto a playground unleashed that had several children running around. Wags 4 warriors helps nothing but veterans so why would they maliciously put down another??? I believe they were trying to raise awareness on how a poorly trained dog who who was never meant to be a service dog in the first place can give a negative stigma to service dogs for veterans with ptsd.
@ Teufelhunden
Yes, do let us stow our hurt feelings and talk about these “facts”.
FACT – contrary to your artfully crafted and misleading interpretations of Jen’s posts, this team “did not take or pass the first part of the program which is the CGC”. See that? “first part of the program.“ Please indicate where she said this was part of ‘ “certification” for service animals under the ADA’. The program can set whatever standards it feels is appropriate in order for the team to wear their vest and be associated with said program. Jen specified in the comment on the off-leash requirement of the ADA “per ADI which are the Service Dog standards”. Did you see that? “ADI”. Here, I’ve Googled that for you: http://www.assistancedogsinternational.org/standards/
FACT – “Wags 4 Warriors is a non profit organization run by at least two individuals who collect income from said non profit organization.” You mean like, the Cleveland Clinic’s CEO’s 6-figure income? Or, like the income of every employee of every non-profit? These are called “operating costs”, and are found at any website that tracks non-profits and the percentages they spend, so one can easily find the ratio of those admin/operating expenses to funds that go to the actual administration of what the organization does.
You wrote, “They do not provide the service for “free” – the money comes from somewhere and some of that money winds up in their pockets.” Jen said, as does the Wags Mission Statement, “We do this at NO cost to the Veteran and WE are an ALL volunteer organization”. I haven’t had to pay anything to participate in the program, and none of the instructors are paid. That fits my personal definition of “free”. Perhaps I’m being too generous, having a bias and all. I also believe that what you refer to as “the money (that) comes from somewhere” is called “donations”, which are an integral part of providing for operating costs to any non-profit. Your implication that the Wags founders are nefarious, sinister scammers of an unsuspecting public is maybe indicative of some hurt feelings? I mean, non-profits are required to submit all kinds of documentation on their finances, which is public record, anybody could research that (i.e.: Google).
In summary, you seem to be going out of your way to harm this particular non-profit organization by misleading the readers of this comment thread. The scare mongering of tossing in HIPPA at the end made me laugh. A lot. Thanks for that!
Ah, and now you are berating folks for hoping to be able to assume that a dog out with the general public is safe. Since intent is not magical, and as dogs are not allowed out with the general public, why would you imply that is unreasonable for folks to want some sort of third party certification of service dogs? The general public is under the assumption that there is some sort of certification process, correct or not. This “seal of approval” may be “fictitious” and may have no bearing upon the animal’s status, but that stance is of no comfort whatsoever should a dog cause harm/destruction/death because the training that animal received was “up to the owner”. Anyone can claim their dog is a Service Animal, because the ADA is so broadly written. “All that matters is whether the animal performs tasks and does so safely.” Yes, this is true. And if folks with disabilities choose to use the training and support of an organization such as Wags, they have that option. If folks with disabilities choose to slap a vest (or not) on their dog and venture out on their own, they also have that option. If folks with no disabilities whatsoever choose to call their dog a service animal and can answer those two questions with a straight face, they too have that option. I think well behaved dogs should be allowed out in the general public, and maybe with more of all these dogs popping up all over will drive a cultural change and dogs would be welcome everywhere. Like in Europe.
And Megan wasn’t “arguing over an issue that has already been decided”. She was simply pointing out that taking somebody’s word for their relative safety with a strange dog is not always a very good idea.
TLDR: Defending the actions of this one veteran is one issue, the broader implications of anyone calling any dog a Service Animal are kinda scary.
Isn’t there a current case where a Police dog is being questioned and is not allowed to currently work because while the dog was home (aka not working), he broke out of his house and bit someone. Because the dog was not on duty he is being charged as any other dog…..hmmm…interesting…..So if his “Service dog” was at the dog park to play, shouldn’t that dog also be considered a civilian dog, and should follow those rules as well? Just a thought….
Yes, Double Standard, that is the crux of the issue.
As a non-American, non-military observer, I’ll throw in my couple of cents.
Do service animals not need to be trained to any specified standards?
I get the impression this Pit Bull was rejected as unsuitable by Wags 4 Warriors – it was taken elsewhere for training and the owner is allowed to call it a service dog without any evidence or certification?
Surely it’s straight forward enough to add training & accreditation details to a dog’s microchip records?
…. Or do we have a lying fraudster on our hands, playing the system for his own ends?
Take your dissatisfaction with the ADA’s construction up with your congressman. The law says what it says.
And, by the way Jen – a service animal doesn’t have to be on a leash if the leash will interfere with its performance of its tasks. The caveat to that is that the handler must use verbal commands or gestures to keep the animal under control. The facts of this case demonstrated that the Plaintiff was able to do that.
Disneymom – there is no evidence that Boyd’s dog is not trained, only that he did not continue training with Wags 4 Warriors. Perhaps he did not share their opinion that the dog was “unqualified” and sought training elsewhere.
That would explain all of the sour grapes from Jen and W4W.
Further, VA regs categorize a service dog as a “prosthesis”. Hence, it is a part of the patient. As such, anything related to its training in that regard is confidential medical information protected by HIPAA – confidential information which Jen disclosed to the world.
Oops.
The HIPAA Privacy Rule regulates the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI) held by “covered entities” (generally, health care clearinghouses, employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain transactions.)[15] By regulation, the Department of Health and Human Services extended the HIPAA privacy rule to independent contractors of covered entities who fit within the definition of “business associates”.
Doesn’t apply. Ooops.
As far as I know the VA does not recognize PTSD service dogs yet.
What I don’t understand is why being greedy and going for a large amount of money is going to help. He won his case leave it at that.
Lakewood ban on Pitts is a shame fight that change that, not line your pockets with money.
Generally…..heh.
By the sounds of the TEU person..must be a lawyer using a veteran to make some unhonest cash. Also talking about the Wags program I am not sure if we are reading the same thing. HIPPA comments I guess looking for another pay out with those comments.
Nobody attack the veteran whose name and service dogs name is in the story and that it is a supposed ptsd service dog.
Also you made the comment that the dog needs to be off leash to preform her tasks that is BS. What task does that dog do that it needs to be off leash. Let me guess HIPPA right. My service dog is on leash at all times and she is WAIT for it…A PTSD service dog. Lying that the dog is trained will come out and the truth will be known.
Generally indeed. Do go on with crying foul, though. You are quite entertaining!
Cities are being sued for stupidity by government employees constantly. The rarely are government employees held accountable if the city loses or settles a lawsuit due to their ignorance. “But the lieutenant argued that the ADA only applies if he’s in a restaurant and that “you have no right to have your dog in my city,” I doubt the lieutenant lives in Lakewood due to the property tax rates and he better learn quickly that it’s not his city or any other employee in the city government. It it the citizens of Lakewood city and I suggest the police chief have his officers attend civics class they obviously missed when they dropped out of grade school.
Only when a government employee denying a citizen his civil rights becomes a criminal act will the deluded narcissists be weeded out of government.
Dogs, in general, are dangerous animals and should not be allowed near humans. I don’t understand what y’all are arguing about!
BAN DOGS!
I was at the Park one day with my dog when this man was there with his. The dog was just being a dog… playing with other dogs and causing no problem whatsoever! We gabbed about the dog a bit. I moved away to keep an eye on my dog and soon saw this city employee drive up from out of nowhere and get out of his truck and come into the fenced in area and approach the man I was talking with. The city employee and instigated a conversation with this man about the dog when the man didn’t een want to talk to him, The man told him to leave him alone as they went to court over this and the judge ruled in favor of him and his dog. It appeared that the city employee just wasn’t content to leave this man and his dog in peace after losing in court! After having a few words together the dog owner said he was planning on filing a lawsuit against him for bothering and that he will see him in court. He was as good as his word! It was disturbing to see a man and his dog doing nothing wrong being approached in a threatening manner by the city employee and causing much more unease than the dog in question. Veronica (the dog) did NOTHING wrong and it looks like a case of the city employee refusing to leave this man and his dog alone.
Anyone with a service dogs (Pit Bull)should contact Mr. Boyds lawyer and start a class action lawsuit .To bad the taxpayers of Lakewood are going to foot the bill because of animal warden Jack Crawford e inflated ego.
First of all… what does being a veteran have to do with anything? If the dog is playing at the park then the dog is simply a pet. People seem to think it’s not the dogs, it’s the owners. Wrong, it’s a combination of stupid people with aggressive breeds. I have yet to hear of a golden retriever mauling a kid.
I hope all of the people bringing their Pitt bulls to the “pitty party” are complying with the muzzle and leash laws.
My comment would be longer, but I’m busy training my thoroughbred (race horse) To pull a cart filled with children!
So I hope the owner of the pit bull is prepared to face a lawsuit when his dog kills a $50,000 guide dog for a blind man. Personally, if and extensively trained service animal is killed by a raging fight breed, the owner should be held criminally accountable. Why not? It’s like cigarettes now- everybody knows they’re dangerous.