e081122394 DogFighting

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

1/40

CourtesyofRespectABull,LeslieHallberg&MichelleGodecke

DOGFIGHTINGA GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY ACTION

501(C)(3) NON-PROFITS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS

Addressing Dogfghtingin Your Community

Randall Lockwood, Ph.D.,Senior Vice President, Forensic Sciences

and Anti-Cruelty Projects ASPCA

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

2/40

2 Dogfghting: A Guide or Community Action

This project was supported by Grant Number

2007-CK-WX-0059 awarded by the Oce o Community

Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department o Justice.

The opinions contained herein are those o the author(s)

and do not necessarily represent the ocial position or

policies o the U.S. Department o Justice. Reerences to

specic agencies, companies, products, or services should

not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the

U.S. Department o Justice. Rather, the reerences are

illustrations to supplement discussion o the issues.

The Internet reerences cited in this publication were

valid as o the date o this publication. Given that URLs

and websites are in constant fux, neither the author(s)

nor the COPS Oce can vouch or their current validity.

e11126522

ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8

November 2012

Acknowledgments

Principal Author: Randall Lockwood, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Forensic Sciences and

Anti-Cruelty Projects, American Society or the Prevention o Cruelty to Animals.

We would like to thank Laurel Matthews, Supervisory Program Manager, Management Ser-

vices Division, at the COPS Oce or her guidance in this project. The ollowing current and

past ASPCA sta provided considerable content and review o inormation in this document:Stacy Wol, Laura Maloney, Dr. Robert Reisman, Dr. Lila Miller, Dr. Melinda Merck, Tim

Rickey, Terry Mills, Dr. Steven Zawistowski, and Valerie Sheppard. Several outside consul-

tants provided their insights to the problem o dogghting, including Sandy Christiansen,

Jim Knorr, and several anonymous reviewers.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

3/40

ADDRESSINGDOGFIGHTING

IN YOURCOMMUNITY

During the last ten years, owners o fghting dogs have had to arrange theirmatches privately, owing to the Society or the Prevention o Cruelty to Ani-mals, whose vigilant ofcers continually keep under surveillance and pros-ecute all those who engage in matching and fghting dogs. Nevertheless, agreat match is made nearly every week in some section o the country.

Richard K. Fox. The Dog Pit or How to Select, Breed, Train and Manage Fighting

Dogs, with Points as to Their Care in Health and Disease (1888)

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

4/40


Dogfghting is a sport which has historically thrived on its ability to convince soci-ety that it does not exist. Through surreptitious meetings and hidden locations,the participants in this sport have or the most part succeeded in avoiding theattention o both the general public and those agencies whose job it is to com-bat them. When told about dogfghting, most people express a sincere disbe-

lie that this activity still occurs. Most unortunately, this attitude is all too otenshared by both police departments and, to a lesser extent, humane societies.

It is hoped that by alerting those in positions o public responsibility to thedimensions o this activity and to ways in which they can see evidence o it

within their own communities, dogfghting will lose its invisibility and becomethe subject o eective law enorcement.

Christopher P. Ho, General Counsel, American Society or the Preventiono Cruelty to Animals, inDogfghting in America: A National Overview (1981)

Introduction

Dogghting has presented a challenge to law en-

orcement in America or nearly 150 years. In

the quarter century that ollowed Hos remarks,

remarkably little changed in the public and proes-

sional perception o dogghting in America. Despite

the continuing eorts o animal protection organi-

zations and a handul o law enorcement agenciesthat actively addressed the crime o dogghting, the

activities remained underground and the partici-

pants rarely were held accountable. Laws addressing

animal cruelty in general and dogghting in particu-

lar were usually weak and/or poorly enorced.

In the last decade that has begun to change dramatically. Legislators, law enorcement agen-

cies, and the general public have awakened to the reality that crimes against animals do not

occur in a vacuum. Animal cruelty and dogghting oten involve participants who have been

or will be involved in many other serious crimes, including interpersonal violence. Today,

dogghting is almost inseparable rom drugs, illegal weapons, illegal gambling, and many

other activities that the public demands be addressed by police. In the last decade, agencieshave been given better tools to address these crimes. Dogghting, once a misdemeanor in

many states, can now carry elony penalties in all states and at the ederal level. Attending

a dogght is now a serious crime in most states. Animal cruelty, always a component o dog-

ght enterprises, can also result in elony penalties in nearly every state.

A major actor in raising awareness o dogghting was the arrest and conviction o NFL quar-

terback Michael Vick on ederal and state charges related to dogghting in 2007. The world-

wide publicity surrounding the activities o this celebrity, as well as other dogghting cases

involving high prole individuals in the sports and entertainment industries, created growing

public pressure on law enorcement to respond. The importance o coordinating the skills

and resources o many agencies in responding to dogghting was highlighted in 2009 by the

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

5/40

Addressing Dogfghting in Your Community 5

largest dogght raid in U.S. history. Nearly 400 dogs were seized during simultaneous opera-

tions at more than 20 locations in eight states, resulting in 26 arrests. The raids combined

the resources o ederal and state law enorcement agencies and local and national animal

protection groups.

Another actor that has caused authorities to take a closer look at dogghting is the recogni-

tion that dogghting and dogghters have changed in the last two decades. The large scale

proessional ghters investigated by Ho and his agents in the 1980s still exist, and in

some cases have been driven even deeper underground, but the population o street ght-

ers has escalated, changing the ace o dogghting rom an enterprise that was oten rural,

remote, and clandestine to one that is increasingly urban, open, and a daily concern to

citizens in many communities. It is appropriate, thereore, that we use the tools and tech-

niques that have proven eective in building community oriented responses to other crimes

to address dogghting in America today.

What is Dogfghting?

Every state, and the ederal government, has its own denition o the crime o dogghting,

as detailed below. In general, the crime consists o owning, possessing, keeping, or training

dogs with the intent to engage in an exhibition o ghting the dog with another animal or

amusement or gain, or permit such acts on premises under ones personal control. In most

states, dogghting is a unique oense, separate rom cockghting or other activities involving

dogs including bear-baiting, bull-baiting, badger-baiting, or other combat.A Brie History o

Dogghting

The history o any illegal activity, and the history o any long-established breed, are subject

to controversy. Dogghting and ghting dogs, particularly pit bulls, have an uncertain history

that continues to be debated.

The use o dogs against lions, wild boar, bulls, and humans dates back more than 3,000

years. Illustrations o war dogs used by Roman soldiers in 180 AD resemble modern day

ghting dogs. Large bulldogs were widely used in the Middle Ages to serve butchers in bring-ing bulls to market, as well as catching and bringing down animals on command. Bull-baiting

as entertainment traces its origins to England in the reign o King John (11991216). A

bull would be chased through village streets by hordes o citizens hoping to witness the kill.

Eventually, it would be baited by the dogs and killed either by them or by being blud-

geoned by local butchers.

Another ashionable pastime was bear-baiting, in which dogs related to the bulldogs were

pitted against tethered bears, with prizes and ame awarded to the most persistent or game

dogs. According to records o these events, the handlers o these dogs oten used long sticks

to pry the dogs o o the bear, not unlike the use o breaking sticks by todays dogghters.

During Henry VIIIs reign (15091547) a bear-garden was opened in London, where nearly a

thousand spectators at a time paid a penny or admission. Queen Elizabeth I (ruling 15581603) was also an enthusiastic an. She had her own Chie Master o the Bears, who could

impound any bear, bull, or dog he wanted to be used in this exhibition. Bear baiting persisted

into the early 1800s in England, while bull-baiting continued to be popular or a ew more

decades. At the same time, the smaller, nimble dogs popular in bear-baiting began to be used

more widely in ghts against one another. Some historians believe that these smaller ghting

dogs were developed by breeding larger bull and bear dogs with smaller terriers used in rat-

ting competitions, where dogs were judged by how rapidly they killed rats conned in a pit.

Although dogs o various breeds had been ought against each other or decades, the true

beginning o popular dogghting coincides with the prohibition o bull-baiting in England

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

6/40


under the Humane Act o 1835. That

year, London also outlawed dogght-

ing within a ve mile radius, but it

remained legal elsewhere. Those

who took pleasure in bull and bear-

baiting quickly ound dogghting to

be a suitable alternative, especiallysince dogghting is so adaptable to a

surreptitious existence. It is some-

what surprising to note that modern

dogghting rules are, judging by

descriptions o early ghts, virtu-

ally the same as those used rom the

beginning o the sports popularity.

Dogfghting Comes to America

Although there are historical accounts o dogghts involving mastis or other larger breeds

going back to the 1750s, widespread activity really emerged ater the Civil War, with proes-sional pits prolierating in the 1860s, mainly in the Northeast. Many o the animals were

brought rom England and Ireland, where dogghting had expanded in the 1830s. Ironically,

it was a common entertainment or police ocers and remen, many o them immigrants

rom England and Ireland. The Police Gazette, a popular tabloid reporting on crime and

police news that was published until 1932, served as a major source o inormation on dog-

ghting or many years and published a set o rules or the conduct o dogghts that is still in

use today.

One o the most notorious dogghting operations was Kit Burns Sportsmans Hall in New

York City, scene o dogghts, cockghts, ratting, and other events. In 1868 Burns establish-

ment was raided by ocers o the newly chartered American Society or the Prevention o

Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the rst law enorcement action against dogghters in Amer-ica. Burns was ned $800, but criminal charges were dismissed. Ultimately Burns leased

his property or prayer meetings and dogghting was driven into secret locations outside o

the city. Dogghting continued to prolierate in several major cities, including Philadelphia,

Boston, and Chicago.

In 1898 the United Kennel Club (UKC) was established as a registry exclusively or pit bulls,

designated American Pit Bull Terriers (APBT), to keep track o bloodlines. It established

standard rules or ghts to reduce euds and oul play. It eventually began registering a vari-

ety o other working dogs. Facing pressure rom the American Kennel Club (AKC), which

has always opposed dogghting, the UKC nally adopted policies against dogghting in the

1940s. The AKC reused to recognize the APBT until 1936, when it established conorma-

tion standards or what was eventually designated as the American Staordshire Terrier.

Dogghters and others more concerned about perormance than appearance avoided the

registry, although some ghters today reer to their dogs as American Staordshires when

seeking to avoid suspicion. An additional registry, the American Dog Breeders Association

(ADBA), was established in 1909 exclusively as a registry or pit bulls in order to preserve

the original gameness o the breed, with many o the studbooks provided by breeders o

amous ghting dogs. Like UKC, the ADBA adopted a policy statement (2006) that does not

condone or encourage the use o dogs or any illegal activity including dogghting. They

continue to sponsor weight pulling competitions that emphasize strength and stamina.

Although many laws were passed outlawing the activity, dogghting continued to expand

throughout the 20th century. The nations largest animal protection groups, including the

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

7/40

Addressing Dogfghting in Your Community 7

ASPCA and The Humane Society o

the United States (HSUS) worked

closely with police to investigate and

prosecute dogghting, but arrests

were relatively inrequent. In the last

decade increased attention rom law

enorcement and animal protectiongroups has exposed the brutality and

extent o dogghting to a much wider

audience, leading to stronger laws at

the state and ederal level and a grow-

ing number o arrests. However, as

we shall see, the practice o dogght-

ing has persisted and changed, with

much o the expansion due to the

prolieration o smaller scale activities, which are more dicult to investigate and respond to

without widespread cooperation o many agencies and community groups.

Why Investigate and Prosecute Dogfghting?

At a time when the resources o law enorcement agencies are oten spread thin, some may

question the importance o using these resources to respond to dogghting and other crimes

against animals. However, the reasons are clear:

Dogfghting is a Crime

Dogghting is illegal in all 50 states and the District o Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin

Islands. As o 2009, dogghting is a elony in all states. In most states, the possession o dogs

or the purpose o ghting is also a elony oense. Being a spectator at a dogght is currently

a elony in a growing number o states. Go to www.animallaw.ino/articles

/armpusanimalghting.htm or a current state-by-state review o state dogghting laws.

The ederal Animal Fighting Prohibition Enorcement Act (2007) provides or elony penal-

ties or interstate commerce, import and export relating to commerce in ghting dogs, ght-

ing cocks, and cock ghting paraphernalia. Each violation can result in up to 3 years in jail

and a $250,000 ne.

Dogfghting Can Be a Gateway Crime

Many communities report growing involvement o juvenile oenders in dogghting, oten as

a part o gang involvement. The sense o power and control gained rom having an aggressive

dog, as well as the potential nancial gain, can lure juveniles into an underground scene that

oten includes other criminal activities.

Dogfghting is Associated with Many Other Crimes

In addition to the animal cruelty and illegal gambling that are at the core o dogghting activ-

ity, virtually all dogght raids involve the discovery and seizure o illegal drugs, and about

two-thirds result in the seizure o illegal weapons. Such raids oten result in the arrest o

many oenders with outstanding warrants. Disputes over dogghts have also been associated

with serious assaults and several homicides.

Dogfghting Destabilizes Communities

Dogghting is a classic example o a broken-window crime. The evidence o its presence

in an area may be very visible, particularly in the case o street ghting, but the diculty

o mounting an eective law enorcement response may create the perception that no one

cares about the threats this crime presents to the community. By bringing together commu-

nity-oriented resources, this crime can oten be stopped.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

8/40


Who is Involved The People

Just as dogghting cuts across many regions o the country, participants and spectators at

dogghts are a diverse group. While some might typiy dogghting as a symptom o urban

decay, not every dogghter is economically disadvantaged. There are people who promote

or participate in dogghting rom every community and background. Audiences and par-

ticipants have been known to include lawyers, judges, police, and teachers, drawn in by the

excitement and thrill o the blood sport.

Although many people associate dogghting themes and images with hip-hop or rap cul-

ture, this is a relatively recent addition to an enterprise that has been active in America or

more than a century and hal. Ironically, some o this change is related to attempts to ban

pit bulls. Whenever pit bulls are outlawed, the ownership o the breed and association with

dogghting can become an outlaw status symbol.

Reasons or Involvement in Dogfghting

There are many reasons people are attracted to dogghting. The most basic is greed. Major

dogght raids have resulted in seizures o more than $500,000, and it is not unusual or

$20,000 $30,000 to change hands in a single ght. Stud ees and the sale o pups rompromising bloodlines can also bring in thousands o dollars. Young participants have oten

been convinced that they can breed and sell a ew ghting dogs and make a lot o money, yet

very ew succeed. The sales o publications and training tools such as treadmills and other

paraphernalia can be an additional source o income. For some, involvement in dogghting

helps dene their outlaw status and their rejection o the values o mainstream societygiv-

ing them credibility with a community that shares the same values. For others, the attrac-

tion lies in using the animals as an extension o themselves to ght their battles or them

and demonstrate their strength and prowess. However, when a dog loses, this can cause the

owner o the dog to lose not only money, but status, and may lead to brutal actions against

the dog. Finally, or many, the appeal simply seems to come rom the sadistic enjoyment o a

brutal spectacle.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

9/40

DOGFIGHTINGCOMMUNITY

ACTION GUIDEDogfghting: A Community Problem

Dogghting is a serious and violent crimebut it is more than thatit is acommunity prob-

lem. A typical week in the lie o an area where dogghting goes on can help to illustrate how

dogghting aects many parts o the community. In the course o the week we might see the

ollowing:

Concerned citizens call 911 to report a noisy gathering in an alley. By the time police

arrive they nd only beer cans, cigarette butts, and a weak, injured dog. No one on the

street in the area claims to have seen anything

The Sanitation Department reports nding two dead, scarred dogs in a ditch alongside

a road

The Housing Authority reports having to order the removal o several unauthorized dogsbeing kept at a public housing site ater complaints rom other residents about attacks on

other pets

Animal Control reports picking up a growing number o loose or abandoned pit bulls,

many o them apparently injured

The police Narcotics Unit reports nding several dogs and dogghting paraphernalia in

the course o investigating a house associated with drug sales

School resource ocers report a rise in incidence o high school students wearing clothing

with dogghting themes and rumors o involvement in ght activity

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

10/40


Child Protective Services, investigating a report o children at risk, nds a dozen pit bulls

chained to dog houses in the yard o a house in a rural area

These apparently isolated incidents add up to a PROBLEM, which demands a problem-

oriented solution. Problem Oriented Policing looks upon a problem as the basic element opolice work, as opposed to an isolated incident, crime, case, or report. Problems are usually

dened as something that concerns or causes harm to citizens, not just as a violation o a

law. Successully addressing problems means more than quick xes: it means dealing with

conditions that create problems.

Problems that aect the entire community are best addressed by approaches that involve

the resources o the entire community. A commonly used problem-solving method in police

work is the SARAmodel (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment). This Guide will

present suggestions or applying these methods to the problem o dogghting in your

community.

Who Will Start the Process?Recent studies in crime prevention have repeatedly demonstrated that strategic crime-con-

trol partnerships with a range o third parties are more eective in disrupting drug prob-

lems and other crimes than law enorcement-only approaches.1 Partnership programs that

address specic target populations, such as older adults, have also proven to be eective.2

The approach that has proven to be eective in a number o communities is to establish a

multi-agency Task Force to deal with animal cruelty issues in general or to specically ad-

dress dogghting. A Task Force approach is oten what is needed when several conditions

are present:

The problem involves multiple crimes that can be violations o laws at multiple levels

local, state, and ederal

Many dierent aspects o community lie are aected, including public saety, public

health, housing, schools, parks, etc.

Solutions will require the coordinated activity o agencies that may not have shared re

sources (e.g., police may have little animal handling experience and no resources or

animal housing), and animal control or humane groups usually lack arrest authority.

All o the above conditions are usually ound in communities where dogghting is present.

1. Mazerolle, Lorraine, David W. Soole and Sacha Roombouts. 2007. Crime Prevention Reviews No. 1: Disrupting Street-Level Drug

Markets. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department o Justice, Ofce o Community Oriented Policing Services.

2. A good example is the establishment o SALT (Seniors and Law Enorcement Together) Councils, as outlined by the National As-

sociation o Triads, a program established by the National Sheris Association (NSA), the International Association o Chies o Police

(IACP), and the American Association o Retired Persons (AARP). For more inormation go to www.sheris.org/Triad.asp

ASPCA

ASPCA

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

11/40

Dogfghting Community Action Guide 11

The process should begin at the highest possible level o authority to insure the greatest

impact and continuity. Successul task orces have been started by Governors, Attorneys

General, Mayors, and Chies o Police. Local groups have also been organized by animal care

and control or humane organizations, with the endorsement o higher authorities.

The objectives o the Task Force should include:

Providing a setting or direct, regular contact between agencies and a diverse set ostakeholders

Providing a orum or stakeholders and agencies to understand the competing needs and

requirements o the government and the aected communities

Providing a orum or discussing citizen issues and concerns, thus enabling the

development o a more complete and satisactory solution

Broadening consideration o issues to include diering values as well as acts;

Providing a system or generating collaborative responses

Providing a ramework or assessing outcomes and changing direction i necessary

Whoever initiates the process should know there are several key steps in building an eec-tive collaboration:

Step 1 Identiying the Stakeholders

The rst assignment or those responsible or organizing a Task Force should be to determine

the groups or individuals who should be invited to participate. Since dogghting aects so

many elements o the community, the list o potential stakeholders is likely to be very large.

Attempting to includeall interested parties in all the activities o the group can be counter-

productive. It is not necessary to include all stakeholders in all meetings and decision-making

as long as all have an opportunity to voice their interests and concerns and are kept inormed

about the activities o the group. In general, representatives to the Task Force should be

drawn rom the highest levels o the agencies or organizations represented to make sure thatthere is the strongest possible support or the mission o the group.3 As noted above, this pro-

cess should be initiated at the highest possible administrative level (Governor, Mayor, Chie o

Police) to underscore the importance o the process.

It is useul to structure the Task Force intoPrimary Stakeholders, who will serve as a steering

committee or the activities o the group and participate in all meetings, andAdvisory Stake-

holders whose inormation, opinions, and advice will be integrated into task orce planning.

The Primary Stakeholders are those agencies or organizations that have direct and requent

exposure to the problem or are responsible or responding to public concerns and reports.

SuggestedPrimary Stakeholders include:

A representative rom the agency that will have the primary authority or the Task Force,such as a representative rom the Governors Oce, the Oce o Attorney General, the

Mayors Oce, City Council or the Chie o Police

A representative rom law enorcement agencies responsible or responding to dogghting

or animal cruelty. Several agencies may be representedPolice Department, Sheris

Dept., State Police, etc.

A representative rom the local District Attorneys Oce as well as the area U.S.

Attorneys Oce

3. A good introduction to this process is provided inA Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder through Problem Solving Partnerships.

2006. U.S. Department o Justice, Ofce o Community Oriented Policing Services

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

12/40


A representative rom Probation, Parole, or Corrections

A representative rom Animal Care and Control or the local Humane Society/SPCA with

responsibility or enorcement o cruelty laws and/or enorcement o dangerous dog laws

A representative rom local government (Mayors Oce, City Council, Community Board,

etc.) i not already the primary organizer

A representative rom local organizations involved in local crime prevention and response

(Crimestoppers, Community Watch, etc.)

A representative rom the Health Department i it has responsibility or tracking dog bite

issues in the community

A representative rom the local Housing Authority

A representative o Code Enorcement

A representative rom the state or local Veterinary Medical Association, particularly i your

state mandates veterinarians to report animal abuse or dogghting

One or more members rom the community at large

It can be useul i the Task Force makes use o an outside acilitator to keep the process

moving smoothly. This person may be a representative rom a local academic institution

who may also identiy local university resources to assist in gathering and analyzing data

needed by the Task Force as well as assisting in the analysis o outcomes.

Advisory Stakeholders represent agencies or organizations with occasional or peripheral

exposure to the problem. They would also include groups that can play an important role in

prevention and community education and action. These members should be invited to par-

ticipate in one or more meetings specically intended to get their input and should be kept

inormed about Task Force activities through a regular newsletter, list-serve, or emails.

SuggestedAdvisory Stakeholders include:

A representative o school resource ocers rom area schools or a school administratorinvolved in gang or other problem issues in the schools in the community

A representative rom the Department o Sanitation and/or a representative rom the

Highway Department who may be aware o reports o disposals o dead dogs rom

ght situations

A representative rom the Fire Department who may have inormation on abandoned

buildings that have been the scene o gang or dogghting activity

A representative o the local Parks Department who may have inormation on ght activity

in public areas and who can also help identiy resources or activities that may serve as an

alternative to involvement in dogghting

A representative rom area Social Services (Child Protective Services, Adult ProtectiveServices) who may be aware o reports o concerns about animal cruelty or keeping o

possible ghting dogs as a result o home visits

Additional Advisory Stakeholders

An additional group o stakeholders should include agencies and individuals that can play

an important part in building community awareness o the problem or who can participate

in prevention activities aimed at some o the root causes o the problem. These additional

stakeholders can include:

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

13/40


Breed rescue groups that can help implement community programs or responsible pit

bull ownership and can advise agencies on meeting any special needs o animals that may

be conscated

Teachers or Humane Educators involved in violence or animal cruelty prevention

programs in the schools

Community groups involved in outreach to children potentially at risk or involvement ingang or dogghting activity (e.g., Big Brothers/Big Sisters)

Community religious leaders involved in anti-violence or anticrime eorts

Media, particularly those with an established interest in crime prevention and/or animal-

related issues

Other members o the community who may provide additional support to the eorts o the

Task Force include:

Representatives o local utilities that should instruct personnel to be alert to signs o

dogghting or animal cruelty on property to which they have access. This would include

phone companies, cable TV, gas, power, and water companies.

Representatives o delivery companies (e.g., U.S. Postal Service, UPS, FedEx) that may

also have knowledge o property with possible dogghting activity

Local Corporations and Foundations that might be interested in unding local community

violence prevention and intervention programs

A nal source o input can be a public hearing or inormation session where members o the

public can be given the opportunity to briefy describe any dogghting, dangerous dog, or

animal cruelty issues that have directly aected them or their community. It should be made

clear that the Task Force is seeking input only, and that this meeting should not be used as a

orum or debate or dialog with Task Force members. Such a meeting should be scheduled a-

ter at least two or three regular Task Force meetings have been held to clariy the ocus and

concerns o the group and the possible recommendations it might make.Task Force Logistics

Where to Meet

It is advantageous to have Task Force meetings at a single consistent location easily acces-

sible to the stakeholders, such as City Hall, a Court House, or other acility that can accom-

modate the group. Since some participants may not be able to attend all meetings, it is desir-

able to have a acility where there can be speaker phones and conerence calling capability.

There may be advantages to having the meeting place rotate among lead organizations so

that representatives can see the resources and acilities o each member, but this can lead to

conusion about where the next meeting is to be. It is helpul i at least one meeting is held

at the participating animal sheltering organization so that Task Force members can become

more amiliar with the resources that are available and the possible limitations o those

resources.

When to Meet

In the initial stages o ormation, the Task Force should meet monthly to work out any early

diculties that might arise. Once programs are underway, it may be sucient to meet every

other month or even quarterly.

Several successul Task Forces have ound it convenient to schedule meetings as a work-

ing lunch o 90 minutes to 2 hours maximum, with pizza, sandwiches, or other simple ood

brought in to help establish a spirit o community eort. Other Task Forces have ound early

evening meetings are less disruptive to the work schedules o participating members, but

require a greater time commitment.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

14/40


Who Pays for Task Force Activity?

The ormation o a Task Force need not have signicant costs since it will consist mainly o

people doing their existing jobs, but in a more cooperative and ecient way. I the group de-

cides to prepare fyers, brochures, posters, or other material, it may be possible to have the

costs o these projects covered by local businesses or oundations. Increased action against

dogghting in a community may lead to increased animal care and control costs associated

with care and housing o animals that are seized. These costs can be reduced through eortsto use court-ordered bonds. In addition, enorcement costs might be derayed through asset

oreitures ollowing successul conviction.

Step 2 Defning the Problem Scanning

The initial meeting o the Task Force should begin the process o SCANNING. Task Force

organizers should rst introduce the purpose o the group and review the basic process that

will be used to review and analyze the problem, suggest possible responses, and analyze the

results. Stakeholders should be introduced and allowed to identiy their interest in the is-

sues, the parts o the problem that aect them directly, and the resources they have that are

or could be used or a response.

The scanning process begins with a preliminary inquiry to determine i dogghting is a

problem in the community rom the perspective o the stakeholders. They should be asked

to identiy experiences with activities, locations, or individuals that have come to their

attention as issues. A useul tool or this process is making use o the Problem Solving

Planner4 Scanning Checklist. The group should review the attached checklist, with stake-

holders encouraged to take it back to their agency or organization or discussion and to

gather additional inormation available to them or analysis at the next meeting.

Step 3 - Understanding the Problem Analysis

The second meeting o the Task Force should ocus on analysis o the inormation gathered

in the initial scanning and the start o brainstorming possible responses. In the analysisprocess problems must be described precisely and accurately and broken down into specic

aspects. Individuals and groups o people are aected in dierent ways by a problem and

thus will have dierent ideas about what should be done about the problem.

The analysis should also review the way the problem is currently being handled. The limits

o the eectiveness o current approaches must be openly acknowledged in order to come up

with suggestions or a better response. As summarized in the Problem Solving Planner, the

groups analysis should include reviewing the ollowing questions:

What do we know about the problem?

Where is it occurring?

When is it happening?Who is involved?

What kind(s) o dogghting are taking place in the community?

How closely is it tied to gang, drug, or other criminal activity?

Are there other questions we need to answer beore moving against the problem? I so,

where can we get that inormation?

Does the problem need to be redened in some way?

4. This material is adapted rom the Problem Solving Plannerdeveloped by the Regional Institute or Community Policing, 2930 Mont-

vale Drive, Suite B, Springfeld, IL 62704.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

15/40


I additional inormation is needed, or i the group wants to solicit direct participation rom

Advisory Stakeholders, it may be advisable to hold a second Analysis meeting to review this

additional input. This should be done as quickly as possible so as not to lose momentum.

In preparation or the next critical planning stage, participants should be asked to begin

clariying their view o what should happen next. They should be prepared to discuss:

What do we want to stop happening?

What do we want to start happening?

What do we want to see change?

What resources and inormation can we provide to make this happen?

Step 4 Planning the Course o Action Response

Once the Task Force has identied the scope o the community problems associated with

dogghting, the stakeholders interested in changing the situation, and the desired changes, it

can set goals and proposed methods or reaching those short and long-term objectives. The

Problem Solving Plannersuggests a variety o possible Response Methods that have been

used in other communities. The Task Force should review these options and others that

might be suggested by the group and prioritize several possible short and long term respons-

es. In discussing these priorities, the group should consider:

Has a particular response been tried beore in the community and with what result?

What obstacles might exist to the chosen response (institutional, legal, nancial, etc.) and

how can they be overcome?

What other problems might be encountered (manpower, equipment, unding, space,

interagency communications, community resistance, etc.) and how might they be

overcome?

How rapidly can this response be instituted?

What measurable changes can be used to assess the eectiveness o the response?

It is unlikely that the resources will exist to implementall the suggested responses immedi-

ately. The Task Force should ocus on those that show the greatest promise or reducing the

occurrence o the problem in the community. It may be useul to designate several subcom-

mittees to develop details or the implementation and assessment o dierent proposed

responses. For example, one working group might develop plans or community outreach

and communication while a second ocuses on issues related to the organizational or policy

changes that might be needed to allow or a rapid coordinated response rom several agen-

cies when there are reports o dogghting activity.

Here are some suggested response methods that have been implemented in other communi-

ties:

Collaborations with Other Agencies

Establish memoranda o agreement between police and animal care and control or

humane law enorcement to coordinate rapid response to dog ght related calls

Establish a dedicated hotline or local reporting o dogghting activity

Establish and publicize a local reward und or inormation leading to dogghting arrests

in collaboration with Crimestoppers or other crime prevention groups

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

16/40

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

17/40


Step 5 Evaluating Program Eectiveness Assessment

Ater various responses have been devised and implemented, it is essential to assess how

well these responses are meeting the desired goals. Some changes may be visible immedi-

ately, while others can take longer to have noticeable results.

When to Assess

The assessment o some responses can begin as early as 36 months ater they have beenlaunched. This may provide enough time to see i there are unoreseen obstacles or unin-

tended consequences that might require changing the plan. A more detailed assessment

should be done ater 612 months. For long-term projects, scheduling an assessment every

612 months should be sucient.

Where to Assess

The original scanning process should have identied potential hot spots o dogghting activ-

ity, as well as areas at risk o becoming a problem. The assessment should look at various

measures that are linked to specic areas to see i some techniques are more or less eective

in some areas than in others. Certain measures (e.g., extent o media coverage) may apply to

the entire community.

How to AssessThe Problem Solving Plannersuggests several possible methods or assessing change and

impact, including community and sta surveys, crime statistics, community response, and

calls or service. The specic techniques you choose will depend on the goals you have set

and the measurements you have dened.

What to Assess

The planning process will have dened several specic measurable goals. For examplere-

ducing call response time on dogght complaints, increasing arrests or dogghting, deliv-

ering a certain number o trainings on dogghting to sta and partners, etc. For each goal,

you should attempt to determine i the target was met or not and, i not, what the obstacles

might have been and how they might be overcome in the uture.

Step 6 Keeping Things Going

The coordinated response o the Task Force should be an ongoing process, changing strategy

and direction as the community itsel changes. Should it succeed in its objective to eliminate

or signicantly reduce animal ghting in the community, it may ocus on other issues o

animal abuse and neglect.

The Task Force should periodically renew the process we have outlined here, by repeating

the SCANNING o the nature o the problems surrounding dogghting, by REANALYZING the

inormation that is gathered and RESPONDING in a dierent way i necessary. I successul,

the group should document and share its success with other communities so that they can

implement similar programs. I the Task Force has not ully achieved its goals, it can reach

out beyond the community or suggestions.

Dogghting has been part o the American scene or more than 150 years. It will not vanish

overnight. However, community concern has never been higher and the tools available to

law enorcement and other agencies to combat it have never been stronger. In ending this

violent crime, we move closer to a truly humane community.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

18/40


The Stop Snitching Phenomenon: Breaking the Code of Silence. Ofce o Community Oriented Policing Services/Police Executive

Research Forum. February 2009.

Addressing Stop-Snitching (SS) as an Obstacle to Responding to Dogfghting

Although the public is concerned about dogfghting in the community, it is oten difcult to ollow up on reports o

street fghting or other dogfght related activity due to the prevalence o community pressures against cooperation

with law enorcement. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) has noted, the stop snitching message

impedes investigations, arrests, and convictions and has seriously eroded the justice system in some jurisdictions.

The phenomenon is not just about attitudes toward policebut a very real ear people have o placing themselves

in danger. However, the PERF survey ound that threats o violence were more common than actual actsthe

majority o agencies reported ew isolated instances o actual retribution. We know that dogfghting is itsel a

violent crime, and that those involved are oten linked to other crimes o violence. Since one o the most eective

tools against Stop-Snitching is identiying violent oenders and getting them o the streets, a crackdown on

dogfghting can be an important part o this.

Several communities have instituted successul programs to address SS. These usually involve one or more o the

ollowing elements:

1. Involve the community through a Task Force, neighborhood organizations, youth groups, religious groups, crimevictim organizationsanyone that can spread the word that the community is taking back the streets.

2. Increase police presence in high crime areas where SS is a problem, without appearing to be an occupying orce.

3. Deal with ear o retaliation by acilitating anonymous tips and inorming the community o arrests and successul

prosecutions o dogfghters, gang members, or others propagating the SS message.

The PERF report highlights several community programs that have been eective in addressing the Stop Snitching

issue:

Rochester, NY launched a You Bet I Toldcampaign originally unded by area churches. The program uses the

311 system to arrange or where and when witnesses can speak confdentially with someone about the crime they

witnessed.

Baltimore, MD produced its own Keep Talkingvideo and t-shirts. The video noted the arrest o many o those

involved with widely-distributed SS videos.

Philadelphia, PA distributed Step Up, Speak Upbrochures about reporting crimes, and instituted a Live Operator

Tip Line Service.

Washington, DC instituted a Third Watchanonymous tip line. The city trains volunteers in sae methods o

intelligence gathering with a privileged level o confdentiality, modeled on the secrecy already aorded to confdential

inormants. Each volunteer has a personal handler and is trained separately.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

19/40


Here are a ew examples o communities and organizations that have taken a collaborative

approach to combating animal cruelty in general and/or dogghting in particular. Such coali-

tions are helping protect the health and saety o people and animals alike:

Mayors Anti-Animal Abuse Task Force

Baltimore, Maryland

On May 27, 2009, a young emale pit bull terrier was

doused with gasoline and set on re in broad daylight

in West Baltimore. A Baltimore City Police Ocer

observed the burning dog and extinguished the fames

with her sweater. The dog, who was subsequently

named Phoenix by her caretakers, suered severe

burns over ninety-ve percent o her body. Despite

extensive veterinary eorts to save her lie, Phoenix

succumbed to kidney ailure and was euthanized. This

crime and several others like it in Baltimore sparked a

public outcry and attracted national attention.In response, Mayor Sheila Dixon announced the cre-

ation o an Anti-Animal Abuse Task Force and charged

the group with making recommendations regarding the

ollowing:

Ways to eradicate animal abuse in the City o

Baltimore, including dogghting

Methods o increasing awareness o animal cruelty

laws

Legislation to protect animals and prosecute abusers

Training techniques or law enorcement ocials on how to handle animal cruelty caseshumanely and to ensure acquisition o the best evidence to prosecute animal abusers

Steps to oster improved responses to incidents o animal cruelty and

Methods to improve training or Animal Control Ocers or their protection as well as

that o the animals

Baltimore briefy had a dogghting task orce ormed in 2007 in the atermath o publicity

surrounding the Michael Vick case. Three police ocers were assigned to work with animal

control to assist in dogghting investigations. Although this entity was successul in procur-

ing a ew convictions or dogghting and animal cruelty, it was not designed to address the

more prevalent issues o street level dogghting and other animal abuse, nor did it involve a

broad cross-section o the community and the ocers were eventually reassigned to otherduties.

The new Task Force includes representatives rom city government, local and national

animal protection organizations, the Police Department, the Health Department, Animal

Control, the States Attorney, and citizens groups. It is an all-volunteer group, with no und-

ing provided by the City.

In its rst year o action, the Task Force has met monthly, held public hearings, addressed

the need or changes in the use o 911 and 311 systems to report and track animal cruelty

Dogfghting and Animal

Cruelty Task Forces

We have noted throughout this Guide that

animal cruelty and dogfghting are a growing

concern or communities across the country.

Along with this increased concern is the

recognition that these problems cannot be

addressed by law enorcement and animal

control alone. Eective solutions to animal-

related problems, including dogfghting,

require the involvement o representatives

rom many segments o the community,

including the public that may witness and

report abuse, police and humane agencies

that respond, prosecutors who will hold

oenders accountable, and others who

recognize the connections between animal

cruelty and other orms o violence.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

20/40


cases, and developed plans to make additional training and inormation on dogghting and

animal cruelty available to police ocers, Neighborhood Watch volunteers, and the general

public. It has made many suggestions or needed changes in state and local laws. In 2011 the

Baltimore City Council passed legislation elevating the status o the Task Force to a perma-

nent Commission.

South Carolina Anti-Dog Fighting Task Force

This Task Force was organized in 2004 by Attorney General Henry McMaster and Chie Rob-

ert Stewart o South Carolina Law Enorcement Division. It is a statewide coalition o law

enorcement agencies, state and local government agencies, and local, state, and national

animal welare groups. McMaster and the South Carolina animal cruelty task orce emerged

as national models o how to respond to dogghting. Law enorcement ocials also unveiled

a statewide hot line and billboard advertisement as weapons against dogghting and other

animal cruelty. The telephone hot line number appeared on 10 billboards and eatured an

image o a dog with a scarred ace and missing an eye. In its rst three years the South Caro-

lina task orce investigations brought in 42 dogghting arrests. According to McMaster, the

major obstacle to even more arrests is the logistical problem o housing the animals that areseized while cases move through the system.

Animal Cruelty Task Force o Southern Arizona (ACT), Tucson, Arizona

In August 1999, Arizona adopted an act amending Arizona Revised Statutes that changed

the penalties or those committing animal cruelty rom a Class One Misdemeanor to a Class

Six Felony. ACT was created to help law enorcement personnel understand and successully

use this new law. Additionally, ACT works as a public inormation and training organization

to raise community awareness and help prevent violent crimes toward animals.

The organization is one o the largest consortiums o local and national agencies united

around a common concern about the violence associated with animal cruelty and dogght-ing. More than 60 groups are represented, including: Arizona Child Protective Services,

Arizona Department o Agriculture, Arizona Department o Game and Fish, Arizona Depart-

ment o Health Services, Humane Society o Southern Arizona, Tucson City Attorneys O-

ce, Tucson Fire Department, United States Border Patrol, United States District Court, and

many local police, sheris, and animal control departments.

The group maintains an outstanding website (www.act-az.org/) with extensive resources as

well as its own anonymous reporting tip line and links to 88-CRIME. ACT will provide edu-

cational presentations to any neighborhood watch, homeowners association, school group,

church group, or other organization through the Humane Society o Southern Arizona i

Task Force members are available.

Animal Cruelty Task Force (ACTF), City o Los Angeles

The ACTF began in October o 2005, comprised o the Department o Animal Services o-

cers, Los Angeles Police Department detectives, and the Oce o the City Attorney. The

ACTF is composed o two Lieutenants, two Detectives, ve Police Ocers II, and ve Animal

Control Ocers. Its mission is to break the connection between animal abuse and human

violence and to educate the diverse communities within Los Angeles about the signicance

o animal cruelty, neglect, and abuse. Deputy Dist. Atty. Deborah Knaan oversees all o the

district attorneys prosecutions or animal abuse. A ormer manager in the citys Department

o Animal Services, Knaan oers advice to prosecutors about animal cases and organizes

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

21/40


training programs or prosecutors and police ocers on identiying signs o cruelty and

neglect. In 2009 the district attorneys oce led animal cruelty charges in 116 cases, nearly

50 percent more than in the previous year.

The ACTF has distributed fyers on animal cruelty in English and Spanish and oers a tip

line or inormation on dogghting, cockghting, or extreme cruelty to animals such as

beatings and poisonings. The website (www.lapdonline.org/act) reports on past and current

cases.

The Vermont Animal Cruelty Task Force (VACTF)

The Vermont Animal Cruelty Task Force (VACTF) was created in 2000 to help coordinate the

states response to animal cruelty complaints. This unique collaboration includes Vermont

Humane Federation, Vermont Veterinary Medical Association, Vermont Department o Agri-

culture, Vermont Sheris Association, Vermont Police Chies Association, Humane Society

o the United States, and Vermont Department o Social and Rehabilitation Services.

The task orce has been successul in creating a vehicle or member agencies to combat

animal cruelty by sharing knowledge and resources. Humane societies, rescue groups, animal

control ocers, and veterinarians provide animal care knowledge, while local, county, and

state law enorcement ocers oer expertise in criminal procedure. They provide up-to-date

inormation on state laws and investigative procedures consistent with those laws.

The group has been responsible or an innovative Animal Cruelty Reporting System that

allows the public to report complaints about animal cruelty by phone or online at

www.reportanimalcruelty.com.

The Anti-Animal Fighting Task Force o Monroe County, Rochester, New York

The Anti-Animal Fighting Task Force o Monroe County launched a Were Looking or a

Fight campaign in 2001, in the orm o billboards, bus cards, post cards, and posters to so-licit community reports o suspected animal ghting. The Task Force is comprised o proes-

sionals rom the Monroe County District Attorneys Oce; The Rochester Police Department

and Rochester Animal Services; Lollypop Farm, the Humane Society o Greater Rochester;

The Monroe County Sheris Oce; City NET; and the City Law Department. They provide

an animal cruelty hotline and rewards o up to $3,500 or inormation that leads to the arrest

and/or conviction o individuals involved in animal ghting.

In an eort to better amiliarize citizens in the Rochester community with the indicators and

types o animal ghting that take place in our area, the Monroe County Anti-Animal Fighting

Task Force developed a video that explains the origins o animal ghting, the tools used and

the signs that may indicate animal ghting. Ordering inormation is available at

www.lollypop.org.

Animals Subject to Family Violence: Early Detection = Prevention Task Force, Illinois

In Illinois, a coalition o public and private organizations has been assembled to create a

strategy to empower the community to recognize that in violent homes animals, children,

adults, and the elderly are all potential victims who are entitled to respect, saety, and protec-

tion. TheAnimals Subject to Family Violence: Early Detection = Prevention Task Force is

engaged in the development o progressive and standardized education and hands-on train-

ing about the connection between animal abuse and interpersonal violence to social service,

animal welare, and criminal justice proessionals as well as members o the community.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

22/40


This task orce is multidisciplinaryno unds are brought to this initiative, only mutual

interest and willingness to work together. Member organizations include: the University o

Illinois, Institute o Government and Public Aairs Center or Public Saety and Justice;

Prevent Child Abuse Illinois; the city o Chicago; Chicago Metropolitan Battered Womens

Network; the Oce o the Illinois Attorney General; the Illinois Family Violence Coordinat-

ing Councils; the Illinois Department o Human Services, Bureau o Domestic Violence and

Sexual Assault Prevention; Illinois Humane; Sae Passages; the Anti-Cruelty Society (Chi-cago); Best Friends Animal Society; Cook County Commissioners Oce; the Adler School o

Proessional Psychology; the Illinois Department o Children and Family Services; and Sae

Humane Chicago.

Animal Crimes Unit, Chicago, Illinois

Chicago has always been at the oreront o responding to animal ghting. As early as 1988,

the city distributed a publication, Illegal Animal Fighting Guide or Law Enorcement Per-

sonnel, to encourage enorcement o existing laws. In early 2007 the Cook County Sheris

Department ormed the Animal Crimes Unit dedicated to stopping dogghting rings, puppy

mills, and other animal cruelty. In August o 2008 the unit was moved to the OrganizedCrime Divisions Gang Investigations Section. This was, in part, in response to data that

showed that 60 percent o those arrested or animal crimes during 20002004 were admitted

gang members and 70 percent had previous drug-related arrests. The Animal Crimes Unit is

comprised o ocers rom the Cook County Sheris Police, the Chicago Police Department,

and agents rom the U.S. Department o Agriculture. It maintains partnerships with local and

national animal protection groups including the Humane Society o the United States, Best

Friends, and Sae Humane Chicago (see below). In 2009 the Unit made 26 elony arrests or

dogghting and other animal cruelty oenses, including busting a dogghting ring operating

out o a suburban daycare home.

Sae Humane Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

The Sae Humane model is an unprecedented community-wide alliance and collaboration

o non-traditional partners that has grown over the last decade to encompass a variety o

programs striving to create saer, more humane neighborhoods by combating violence and

promoting compassion and respect or animals as well as people. Comprehensive program-

ming targets neighborhoods most aected by violence and in need o resources by using

schools, churches, and community groups.

Partners in the eort include local government, community and animal advocates, humane

organizations, amily welare proessionals, aith-based organizations, and other community

stakeholders. The growing list includes the Chicago Police Department, the Mayors Oce,

Chicago Animal Care and Control, the Chicago Park District, the Chicago Veterinary Medi-

cal Association, the Chicago Animal Shelter Alliance, and aith-based leaders, among others.Best Friends Animal Society is the national partner.

Among the programs oered by Sae Humane Chicago are:

Kids, Animals, and Kindness oered to participating aith-based and community

organizations in targeted neighborhoods.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

23/40


Youth Leaders or Sae Humane Chicago a partnership with Chicago Public Schools.

High school students work with Sae Humane acilitators and dog handlers to develop the

messages o a sae humane curriculum or younger children. They traveled with their

partnersambassador dogs approved by Sae Humane Chicago trainersand their han-

dlers to elementary schools in at-risk neighborhoods.

The Lietime Bonds program ocused on older teens under the supervision o juvenile

probation ocers. They viewed both dogghting videos and videos o positive interactions

with companion animals; participated in sessions with Sae Humane ambassador dogs and

their handlers; and learned about laws governing animals in communities.

Court Advocacy Program in partnership with the Chicago Police Department.

Volunteers attend three scheduled training sessions to become court advocates. They learn

about animal laws, their successul prosecution, available remedies, and the ate o the

victim animals.

They maintain an excellent website at www.saehumanechicago.org.

Animal Cruelty Task Force, St. Louis, Missouri

The Animal Cruelty Task Force o the Humane Society o Missouri (HSMO) is made up o

Proessional Humane Ocers and Statewide Investigators who conduct investigations o al-

leged cases o abuse and neglect o animals. Investigators consult with local Sheris Depart-

ments and Prosecuting Attorneys to ensure animal cases are handled in an expedient and

proessional manner. In July o 2009, the Task Force participated in the largest dogghting

raid in U.S. history. Investigators rom the Humane Society o Missouri Animal Cruelty Task

Force provided the inormation that led to the investigation.

The HSMO worked in cooperation with the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the United States

Department o Agricultures Oce o the Inspector General, the Federal Bureau o Investiga-

tion, the U.S. Marshals Service, the United States Attorney, The ASPCA, the Humane Society

o the United States, and other groups. They coordinated the rescue and sheltering o dogsassociated with suspected organized dog ghting operations in eight states, resulting in the

seizure o nearly 500 dogs and over 20 arrests. This operation showed what can be accom-

plished through painstaking planning and collaboration between ederal, state, and local law

enorcement organizations and local and national animal protection groups.

www.hsmo.org/m_animalabuse/rescues.php

Attorney Generals Animal Cruelty Task Force, New Mexico

Under the leadership o Attorney General Gary King, the Attorney Generals Animal Cruelty

Task Force was created in June 2007 to ensure that New Mexicos newly enacted cockghting

law and other animal cruelty laws would be enorced. The Animal Cruelty Task Force (ACT)has 40 members, including the heads o every major law enorcement agency in the state,

the District Attorneys Association, cruelty investigators, and experts in the eld, as well as

ederal agencies, animal control agencies, a orensic veterinarian, and animal shelters.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

24/40


Since its inception the task orce has conducted more than 25 raids on animal ghting and

animal abuse situations. In the process, the ACT has stopped many operations in narcot-

ics and illegal rearms tracking, illegal gambling and alcohol sales, violent elons, and the

endangerment o minors. The ACT has also trained more than 300 law enorcement ocers

in the investigations o animal ghting and cruelty investigations. In 2009 the ACT was

involved in the investigation and prosecution o the rst dogghting case in the states his-

tory, which resulted in the states rst elony dogghting conviction since the passage o thedogghting law in 1981.

New Hampshire Animal Fighting Task Force

The New Hampshire Animal Fighting Task Force (NHAFTF) is a statewide coalition o law

enorcement ocers, humane investigators, animal care and control proessionals, veteri-

narians, and others. The Task Force oers workshops that are available to law enorcement

ocials and humane investigators who are interested in learning how to investigate and

prosecute animal ghting cases. The Task Force currently has representatives rom more

than a dozen city Police Departments, the Animal Rescue League o New Hampshire, several

local humane societies and SPCAs, the New Hampshire SPCA, the New England AnimalControl/Humane Academy, The Humane Society o the United States New England Regional

Oce, and the USDA Oce o Inspector General.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

25/40

PROBLEM SOLVINGPLANNER

FOR A DOGFIGHTINGTASK FORCE

Scanning

1. Scanning methods: What sources o inormation do you have available to you to help

dene the nature o the problem rom your perspective? (Check one or more)

Calls or Service Anecdotal Evidence Calls rom Other Agencies

Surveys/Questionnaires Media Reports Focus Groups

Calls rom Government Suspect Interviews Arrests

Citations Community Meetings Sta Meetings

Direct Observation Committee Meetings Other: ________________

In your own words, describe the problem in detail.

2. Nature of the problem: Which o the ollowing elements have you seen as part o the

problem? (Check one or more)

911 Calls Abandoned Buildings Alcohol Related Crimes

Injured Animals Abandoned Animals Dangerous Dogs/Animal bites

Assaults Breaking/Entering Non-emergencyCalls or Service

Child Abuse Code/Zone Violations Community Dissatisaction

Disturbances Domestic Violence Drugs/Narcotics

Gangs Gambling Grati

Health Hazards Homicide Juvenile Oenses

Larceny/Thet Littering Loitering

Noise Threats/Intimidation Sexual Assault

Trespassing Truancy Vandalism

Weapons Violations Other: __________________________________

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

26/40


3. Location of the problem:Where does the problem occur? (Check one or more)

Entertainment Facility Neighborhood Housing Development

Parking Lot Private Property Private Residence

Park/Recreation Area Bar/Club School

Shopping Center Street/Alley Trailer Park Vacant Building Warehouse Wooded Area/Field

Farm Other: ____________________________

4. Timing of the problem: When does the problem occur? (Check one or more)

Weekdays Weekends Any Day

Morning Aternoon Evening

Late Night Other: _________________________

Analysis

1. Who is aected and in what numbers?

People number o complainants, 911 callers, reports rom businesses, related

reports rom other agencies (e.g., dangerous dog or bite reports)

Animals number o cruelty complaints, investigations, animals impounded with

evidence o ghting, etc.

Oenders number o suspects; percentage o youth, adolescent, adult; number

associated with other arrests (drugs, weapons)

2. Where is the problem occurring?

Public vs. private property. How do these locations relate to areas with high incidence

o other crimes? What resources are currently deployed in these areas?

3. When is the problem occurring?

How long has it been going on? How long does the problem go on when it occurs?

Is it getting worse?

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

27/40

Problem Solving Planner or a Dogfghting Task Force 27

Response

Response Method: Describe the types o response methods to be used to

address the problem.

Response Method Strategies Resources/Partners

Collaborations withother agencies

Collaborations with

other proessionals

Provide Training / CrossTraining or Proessionals

Mobilize Other Proessionals

Changes in Local Ordinancesand/or State Laws

Educate Community

about the Problem

Mobilize the Communityto Respond

Target those Responsible

Target Aected Locations

Institute Community Prevention

Other

Assessment

Assessment Method: Check one or more:

Crime Analysis Anecdotal Evidence/Case Histories

Beore/Ater Analysis Committee Meetings

Focus Groups Resident Satisaction

Citations Stakeholder Surveys/Data

Sta Meetings Other ________________

Time Period for Evaluation:

23 Months 612 Months

36 Months 12 Years

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

28/40


Goals: Were specic goals accomplished during the assessment period?

Goal Reached? (Yes/No/Partially)

Changes: What should be done dierently in the uture?

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

29/40

DOGFIGHTING FAQ

FOR ANIMAL SHELTERS

What will be the role o the shelter or humane society

in a dogfght investigation or raid?

I your organization has enorcement authority or animal cruelty laws, it will likely be the

lead animal organization in assisting local, state, or ederal authorities in any actions against

suspected dogghters. Ideally, these responsibilities will have been clearly identied in ad-

vance through participation in a local task orce or through participation in the planning o

the operation and the establishment o an Incident Command Structure.

Animal control ocers usually have signicantly more experience in handling potentially

dangerous dogs than regular law enorcement, including K9 ocers, so they should have

responsibility or sae and humane capture and transport o any dogs that are to be seized.

Shelter veterinarians may have responsibility or on-site triage and emergency veterinary

care, as well as the documentation o the health o animals that are removed (see FAQ for

Veterinarians).

I space and circumstances permit, the local shelter may have responsibility or housing

animals until their disposition can be determined by court proceedings. I many dogs are in-

volved, the shelter may have responsibility or providing care at a temporary acility (ware-

house, airground, etc.) established by law enorcement.

What preparations or precautions should bemade or housing seized fghting dogs?

The saety and security o people and animals should be the rst concern in housing seized

ghting dogs. Animals with a ghting history oten have great value or illegal purposes and

they are potential targets or thet by their owners or others seeking to have such animals.Many shelters that have housed such animals have been the target o attempted break-ins.

Any acility housing seized ghting animals should have a secure perimeter ence, multiple

security cameras, and 24-hour security. I it is not possible to have someone on-site at all

times, the acility should be alarmed and a request should be made or increased police pa-

trols as long as the seized animals are being housed.

Seized animals should be housed in an isolated area, not accessible to the general public.

This is necessary both or security and or the control o disease that might be associated

with seized dogs. The number o sta caring or the animals should be limited, with all per-

sonnel working in the area required to display photo ID. I possible, access to the area

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

30/40


should be by key-card or some other system that records who has entered the acility. Any

authorized visitors should be logged in and out. Make note o specic requests rom the

public asking to see dogs involved in seizures. Remember that suspects in dogght cases are

oten ree on bail soon ater a raid and may make eorts to regain their animals.

In addition to identiying collars, all seized animals should be micro-chipped i possible.

Cage cards and other identiying material should be attached in such a way that the dogs

cannot damage them.

Fighting dogs can be powerul and destructive. I possible, walls o the cages should be cinder

block or cement. Cages should have wire roos. The doors should be sturdy with hinges and

locks in good condition. Doors should be double locked. Dogs should be housed individually

and there should be no opportunity or them to get at one another through adjoining cages.

They should be prevented rom line-o-sight with other dogs by obstructing their view with

sheet metal, plywood, or canvas as needed. Any damage to cages that might compromise

saety or security should be reported to the appropriate sta immediately.

What are the potential risks to sta?

Although most ghting dogs show little or no aggression to people, they may be highly ag-gressive to other animals and can cause injuries to people in attempt to get at other dogs.

Any eeding, handling, or care should always be done with at least two people present. Until

and unless the dog has been shown to be reliably handled on a lead, any handling should

make use o a control stick. In all cases, extreme caution should be exercised when moving

ghting dogs in the presence o other dogs.

The kennel area should also have a rst aid kit and tools or dealing with the possibility o an

attack. Some shelters keep a breaking stick handy, such as is used by dogghters to separate

animals in a ght. Fire extinguishers and pepper spray can be eective in stopping an attack

in extreme emergencies. It is desirable or the housing area to have internal alarms that can

be activated in an emergency since calls or assistance might not be heard over barking.

What other special needs do seized fghting dogs have?

As noted in the FAQ for Veterinarians, ghting dogs are subject to a higher incidence o cer-

tain parasites and inectious diseases as a result o poor husbandry and the stresses associ-

ated with ghting. Care should be taken to prevent exposing other shelter animals to these

problems. The protocol outlined in the FAQ for Veterinarians should be ollowed as animals

are received.

In general, ghting dogs do not require any special diet while in custody. However, those

that were accustomed to a heavy exercise regimen may be prone to gain weight with less

activity. Conscated ghting dogs requently destroy conventional metal ood bowls. They

should be ed rom cardboard containers. Likewise, they may be more likely to destroy

resting platorms or conventional bedding. They should be provided with towels as resting,

bedding material.

These dogs may be prone to boredom in the shelter, which can increase destructiveness and

other problem behaviors. They should be provided with heavy duty toys or diversions, in-

cluding large size Kong toys, bowling balls, or other indestructible play items. Dogs that can

be saely walked on a lead should be given opportunities or exercise outside o their pen,

with care not to allow access to other dogs or the public.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

31/40

Dogfghting FAQ or Animal Shelters 31

How long will the dogs likely need to be held?

That is dependent upon court proceedings. I the owner has surrendered the dogs or i they

have been declared abandoned (i.e., no one claimed ownership at the time they were seized),

then the court may grant the shelter authority to decide on the appropriate disposition soon

ater seizure. I they have not been surrendered they may be considered evidence and the

deense may delay proceedings as long as possible. Holds o 6090 days are typical, but much

longer periods are not unusual. Some courts are reluctant to release dogs to the shelter or

other agency until a suspect has been convicted, which can take a year or more rom the ini-

tial arrest. Other court actions such as custody or bond hearings can help avoid unnecessary

delays that potentially hurt the animals, the sheltering agency, and the community.

What is it likely to cost the shelter to house seized fghting dogs?

That o course depends on how many dogs and how long you will be expected to hold them.

The actual costs will not be much dierent rom those involved in housing other animals in

your care unless you have to make major modications to the acility or the sake o saety

and security or have overtime costs associated with the care. A typical raid may result in the

seizure o 225 animals, but this can vary widely. Shelters that have housed such animalsgenerally report expenses on the order o $10$20 per day per animal, plus any veterinary

expenses associated with vaccinations or special care. The greater cost to the shelter is the

loss o the use o those kennels or the duration o the hold period, which can impact the

ability to house potentially adoptable animals. This is one reason why it is desirable to plan

or a secondary, secure, o-site location or the temporary housing o such animals i at all

possible.

Who pays or the care and housing o the animals that are held?

Many states have provisions in their animal cruelty or dogghting laws that require or allow

or the posting o a bond or the care o animals that are the subject o a case. Such laws

are intended to protect the sheltering agency rom excessive costs, as well as to protect theowner rom unnecessary destruction or disposal o property in the event o an acquittal.

Usually such bonds are or reasonable costs o care per animal, payable 30 days in advance.

I such provisions are not available, it is reasonable or the prosecutor to request a disposi-

tion hearing within 30 days o seizure that could request surrender o the animals to the

shelter or the payment o such unds in advance as part o a suspects bond.

What is the eect o such housing on seized animals?

Dogs seized in dogght raids are individuals who might respond very dierently to shelter

connement. Some respond to exercise and proper care by becoming well-socialized to a

variety o people and even other animals. Others remain stressed and highly aroused by

proximity to other dogs and begin to deteriorate physically and behaviorally. In general, theless time the animals spend in the kind o isolation needed to hold them as evidence the bet-

ter. The medical and behavioral evidence that might support allegations that a dog has been

used in ghting can usually be determined in the rst week or two o connement. Usually

a determination o whether a dog can be considered a candidate or rehabilitation can be

made within 3060 days. Longer hold periods put unnecessary burdens on the shelter and

on the animals.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

32/40


What is likely to be the fnal disposition o seized fghting dogs?

In the past, nearly all dogs seized in dogghting raids were euthanized. Some state laws con-

sider ghting dogs to be contraband and require their euthanasia. The successul placement

o many o the dogs seized in the dogghting case involving NFL star Michael Vick has drawn

attention to the need to view such animals as victims and as individuals and greater eorts

have been made to evaluate and rehabilitate seized dogs. Few shelters have the resources

to responsibly evaluate, rehabilitate, and place more than a ew animals rom such circum-

stances. They oten do not have adequate resources to try to place pit bulls already in the

shelter that do not have a known ghting history. However, there has been growing public

pressure to make reasonable eort to try to assess animals when possible. Since 2008 sever-

al shelters that received ghting dogs have been able to conduct such evaluations and work

with local and national breed rescue groups to place signicant numbers o animals. Eorts

to assess and rehabilitate such dogs serve to reinorce the act that the dogs are victims and,

like other victims o abuse handled by the shelter, are deserving o extra eort. I euthanasia

is considered to be the only humane solution or many o the animals that were seized, the

blame must be ocused on the dogghters who created the problem and not the shelters and

law enorcement agencies that are attempting to respond to it.

Resources

Melinda D. Merck. 2007. Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations. Ames, Iowa:

Blackwell Publishing.

Lila Miller and Stephen Zawistowski (Editors). 2004.Shelter Medicine or Veterinarians

and Sta. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing.

Leslie Sinclair, Melinda D. Merck and Randall Lockwood. 2006.Forensic Investigation o

Animal Cruelty: A Guide or Veterinary and Law Enorcement Proessionals.

Washington, D.C.: Humane Society Press.

Dogghting: Sheltering the Victims.Animal Sheltering July-August 1997.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

33/40

DOGFIGHTING FAQFOR VETERINARIANS

What is my legal responsibility to report suspected dogfghting?

The American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Associa-

tion both recognize the importance o responding to suspicions o client involvement in

animal cruelty. Several states specically mandate that veterinarians report suspicions o an-

imal ghting, and others mandate reporting o suspicions o general animal cruelty. Roughly

hal o the states provide immunity or good aith reporting o suspected abuse. Check with

your state VMA or the current status o such regulations in your area. Even without a legal

mandate to report, veterinarians who knowingly assist clients that are suspected o dogght-

ing activity may be subject to criminal charges as accessories i they ail to report.

What is considered grounds or such suspicion?

As with other orms o animal abuse, the most signicant indicator that an animals condi-tion may be the result o dogghting is that its injuries are inconsistent with the account

provided by the owner, or that the account given by the owner changes in the course o the

examination. Some warning signs that you may be dealing with a dogghting client:

Fighting dogs usually show signs o multiple puncture wounds in various stages o

healingsuggesting several separate events. These wounds are oten most common on

the ace, chest, and orelimbs. The ront legs may show bite marks encircling the leg, or

degloving injuries. Radiographs may reveal recent as well as healed ractures. All wounds

should be photographed at mid-range (showing position on the body) and in close-up.

Wounds encircling the legs should be photographed in their entirety.

The most common explanations dogghters give or injuries to their dogs are that the

wounds are the result o a yard accident in which the dog got into a single ght with an-other dog, or that the injuries were the result o an attack by a wild boar during a pig hunt.

Make note o observations that would be inconsistent with such accounts, e.g., evidence o

multiple stages o healing, unusual location o injuries, wounds inconsistent with lacera-

tion and slashing injuries rom tusks o a boar.

Fighting dogs may have had ears and/or tails cropped by the owner or someone else who

did not use proper tools and procedures. Make note o croppings and dockings that are

irregular, inected, or otherwise suspicious. Dogs may also have had teeth led down or

extracted. This is sometimes done to emales to prevent injuries to males during breeding,

or to dogs used as bait animals to minimize injuries to ghting dogs during training.

7/29/2019 e081122394 DogFighting

34/40


Fighting dogs may have abrasions or even embedded collars or chains as a result o

prolonged chaining to keep them rom having access to other ghting animals on the

property.

Dogghters may request drugs or medical supplies or animals that have not been brought

to the clinic, potentially or use in treating other ghting animals.

Fighters may oer cash payment or arrange or third party payment so there is less o apaper trail linking them to the care provided.

How should I make a report o suspected dogfghting?

It is not your role to investigate possible illegal activity or to conront the suspect. Report

your suspicions to law enorcement or the animal control agency with jurisdiction to handle

these types o crimes. I you are concerned or the immediate saety o yoursel, your sta,

or others, dial 911 while the animal is separated rom the owner or examination and re-

quest immediate assistance.

Remember that everything you do, write, and say is likely to be disclosed to law enorce-

ment authorities and to the accused (who may be your client). I you are called to testiy

under oath or to give a statement, you may be asked about anything you have documented.

Be objective, honest, and thorough.

I possible have another veterinarian (or witness) document their observations and assess-

ments. Document what the client tells you when explaining the animals condition. Docu-

ment to whom you reported and when. Although agencies may accept anonymous calls, it is

likely that your testimony will be essential to any legal action that might be taken against a

dogghting suspect and you should not expect to remain anonymous.

The best time to discuss the reporting o possible cases o animal cruelty with your sta is

beore it becomes necessary. You should have a standard operating procedure in place or

such events that you have reviewed with all sta who may encounter evidence o cruelty.

I have been asked to assist law enorcement in adogfght raid/rescue. What will be my responsibil

Documents

e081122394 DogFighting