DogsBite Blog

Dog Bite Injury Trends, Top-Biting Dog Breeds and the Geography of Bite Incidents in New York City Pre- and Post-Covid (2015-2023)

2025-12-14T22:51:38Z

Self-Reported Dog Bites by Year, Borough and Breed in New York City

Dog bite incidents in New York City pre- and post-Covid (2015-2023)

DogsBite.org - Starting in June, our nonprofit analyzed dog biting incidents collected by New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) over the 9-year period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2023. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of 29,992 self-reported dog bite incidents involving humans to identify key dog biting trends pre- and post-Covid (2018 vs. 2023), trends among the top-biting dog breeds and trends related to the geography of the biting incidents.

This report also provides an analysis of dog bite injury rates per population 100,000 in New York City to more closely identify these pre- and post-Covid trends, trends among the top-biting dog breeds and trends in each borough. The broad pattern of dog bite injury rates in the city -- a steep drop during the 2020 peak Covid year, and a sharp rise after -- is also reflected in the national rate of dog bite injury emergency department (ED) visits during this period, which we review in this report's addendum.

Sources and Methodology

The DOHMH database consists of self-reported dog bites, which are reported via online, mail, fax, or phone to the DOHMH Animal Bite Unit. Each record represents a single dog bite and provides data on the: (1) date of bite (2) breed of dog (3) age of dog (4) gender of dog (5) spay or neuter status and the (6) borough and zip code of the person bitten. Information on dog breed, age, gender and spay or neuter status have not been verified by DOHMH and is listed only as reported to the agency.

Due to the bites being self-reported, there were multiple spellings for the same dog breed and over 150 unique breeds. Thus, we created groups for several breeds. The "pit bull group" includes: American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, and pit bull. The "mixed-breed group" includes: All sizes (large, medium, small and unspecified) designated as "mixed," "mixed breed" or "mutt." The "poodle group" includes: All sizes (toy, miniature, standard, and unspecified).

Population data from the U.S. Census Bureau was used to determine the dog bite injury rate (per population 100,000) for each New York City borough. The national rate of dog bite injury emergency department (ED) visits was supplied by WISQARS. California dog bite injury ED visits was supplied by California Health and Human Services; the state's population data was supplied by Macrotrends. Florida dog bite injury ED visits and injury rate was supplied by the Florida Department of Health.

New York City Dog Bite Trends by Year, Pre- and Post-Covid (2018 vs. 2023)

There were 29,992 self-reported incidents of dog bites collected by DOHMH over the 9-year period of 2015 to 2023.1 The average number of bites per year was 3,332. There was a sharp drop in bite reports, 28%, during the 2020 peak Covid year, which reduced this annual average. Between the pre- and post-Covid years of 2018 and 2023, the number of reported dog bites in New York City rose 14%. By 2022, self-reporting had normalized and reports of dog bite incidents exceeded 2018 levels.

Among the top-biting breeds, pit bull biting incidents rose a modest 5% between the pre- and post-Covid years of 2018 and 2023, and bites inflicted by "mixed-breed" fell 34%. Bites inflicted by "unknown" breed rose 107% and occurred most frequently in the Manhattan borough. Since 2015, bites inflicted by pit bulls have trended downward in the city -- a 23% decline between 2015 and 2023. Bites inflicted by "unknown" breed have trended upward -- a 119% rise between 2015 and 2023.

Dog bite injuries to humans can range from mild to severe. The DOHMH database, however, does not collect injury severity. Other pre- and post-Covid dog bite data we analyzed previously -- Austin and San Antonio, Texas and San Bernardino County, California -- did collect injury severity data. Furthermore, one study states that DOHMH dog bite records may underestimate the total number of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments (EDs) in New York City by a factor of 4 times.2

Chart A: Self-reported dog bites by year | Chart B: Top-biting dog breeds by year (2015-2023)

New York City Dog Bites by Breed, Gender & Reproductive Status, 9-Year Period

Of the 29,992 dog bite records collected, breed of dog was known in 76% (22,860) of cases. Pit bulls inflicted 30.4% (6,959) of these bites. Pit bull bites surpassed the next top-biting breed, "mixed-breed" (2,169), by over 3 times and the next top-biting distinct breed, shih tzu (1,077), by over 6 times. Chihuahuas followed with 1,020 bites, German shepherds, 996 bites, and Labrador retrievers, 776 bites. Bites inflicted by "unknown" breed, a group larger than pit bulls, inflicted 7,132 bites.

When gender was known, male dogs were the predominate biters, weighing in at 72% vs. female at 28%. Notably, gender was only captured in 51% (15,443) of cases. Among the top-biting breeds, each show males leading from 68% to 76%. When comparing the pit bull group to the non-pit bull group, the results are similar. Regarding the reproductive status of male biting dogs, intact male dogs were more common in the pit bull group, 66% (1,517 of 2,314), than the non-pit bull group, 53% (4,681 of 8,847).

The combined intact rate of male and female dogs also shows a higher rate for pit bulls, 63% intact vs. 37% spay or neutered, than the non-pit bull group, 52% intact vs. 48% spay or neutered. This data pertains to biting dogs only. A 2011 study with a sample size of 1.3 million dogs examined at 651 private U.S. veterinary hospitals, also found that among the 10 most commonly reported breeds, male pit bulls were the least likely breed to be castrated, 27%. The other 9 dog breeds averaged 62% castration.3

Chart C: Top-biting dog breeds (gender known/unknown), and percentage of male biting dogs.

New York City Dog Bite Injury Rate by Borough, Pre- and Post Covid (2018 vs. 2023)

The dog bite injury rate per 100,000 population for each borough was calculated using borough population data for each year from 2015 to 2023.4-5 Staten Island consistently had the highest injury rate (40.60 to 69.96) and Brooklyn the lowest (20.28 to 30.90). Comparing the pre- and post-Covid years of 2018 vs. 2023, the injury rate in all boroughs increased, except Manhattan, which fell 8%. The rate grew the most in the Bronx, 40% (41.83 to 58.68), followed by Staten Island, 27% (53.97 to 68.72).

The rate of self-reported dog bites fell 31% during the 2020 peak Covid year. In each borough, dog bite injury rates also fell. The declines ranged from 27% in Queens to 36% in the Bronx. By 2022, most boroughs reflected their pre-Covid 2018 dog bite injury rate. By 2023, most boroughs surpassed their 2018 injury rate levels. Between 2015 and 2020, the injury rate in Staten Island had been declining. That trend reversed in 2021. By 2023, the rate nearly matched its highest recorded rate since 2015.

New York City Dog Bite Injury Rate by Borough & Breed, 9-Years Combined

We reviewed injury rates for the top-biting breeds by borough for the 9-year period combined (2015-2023). When breed was known, pit bulls inflicted an injury rate over 3 times higher than other breeds in 4 of the 5 boroughs. The least populated borough, Staten Island, had the highest pit bull injury rate (15.51), followed by mixed-breed (4.29). The Bronx had the highest injury rate for two toy breeds, shih tzu (1.84) and chihuahua (1.97). Manhattan had the highest injury rate for "unknown" breed (14.13).

We also analyzed injury rates for the top-biting breeds by borough by year from 2015 to 2023. Comparing the pre- and post-Covid years of 2018 vs. 2023, the pit bull injury rate rose in 4 of the 5 boroughs between 5% to 15%. The injury rate of "unknown" breed rose in all boroughs between 69% to 253%. The populations of specific breeds are unknown, but according to DOHMH, which issues dog licenses, the most common licensed dog breed in New York City (2015-2023) is "unknown" breed.6

Chart F: Dog bite injury rate by borough and year in New York City. Not age-adjusted.

Discussion: The Rise of "Unknown" Breed Designation

We obtained dog licensing data from DOHMH and compared this to the top-biting dog breeds by year from 2015 to 2023.7 The licensing of "unknown" breed explodes in 2016 and continues at a high level through 2020 (8,000+) then in 2021 plummets below the second-most licensed dog breed, shih tzu (5,838).8 The 2016 surge is likely connected to a June 1, 2015 city law requiring rescues and pet shops to obtain a completed pet license application and fee at the point of the adoption or purchase.9

New York City Animal Care Center is the largest animal shelter in the city with 3 adoption locations. In November 2017, the agency removed breed labels under the "boroughbred" campaign. Afterward, some private Manhattan rescues also omitted breed labels, including, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Bideawee and Muddy Paws Rescue.10-12 The mixture of the 2015 city law and local shelters removing breed labels is likely tied to the rise of "unknown" breed licenses.

The primary reason for shelters to "remove breed labels" is to more easily adopt out pit bulls.13-16 Pet restricted housing, such as for breed and size, and "no pet" clauses, is commonplace in New York City. Landlords can review the licensing documentation to accept or reject the dog. Licensing a dog as "unknown" or "mixed-breed" works in favor for a tenant who has a restricted dog breed. Shelters and rescues that omit dog breed labels can impact the landlord approval process or lease agreement.17

The dog bite dataset shows that bites of dogs by "unknown" breed rise steadily through 2020 then jump 97% by 2023. By contrast, between the same two years, pit bull bites rise 39% and mixed-breed bites rise 37%. The 2017 campaign, kicked off by billboards and more, -- "The boroughbred is the only breed for me!" -- may also be linked to the rise of bites by "unknown" breed. But there are different reasons why a person might report "unknown" breed for a biting incident rather than a dog license.

Charts K,L: Dog licensing and bite data after licensing law & "boroughbred" campaign.

Summary

Between 2015 to 2023 there were 29,992 self-reported dog bites to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Between the pre- and post-Covid years of 2018 and 2023, the number of self-reported dog bites increased 14%. There was a 28% drop in reported bites during the 2020 peak Covid year. Dog bite injury rates per population 100,000 in the city fell 31% during 2020 as well. The lowest decline in injury rate by borough was 27% in Queens, and the highest was 36% in the Bronx.

Over 150 distinct dog breeds were involved in these bites. Breed was identified in 76% of cases (22,860). Pit bulls accounted for 30.4% of biting incidents when breed was known. Pit bulls inflicted over 3 times more bites than the next top-biting breed, "mixed-breed," and over 6 times more than all other distinct breed categories. Bites inflicted by "unknown" dog breeds increased 107% between the pre- and post-Covid years of 2018 to 2023 and most often occurred in the Manhattan borough.

When gender was known, 51% of cases, male biting dogs accounted for 72% vs. female biting dogs, 28%. Among the top-biting breeds, male dogs accounted for 68% to 76% of bites. There was little difference when comparing male biting dogs in the pit bull group to the non-pit bull group. But intact male dogs were more common in the pit bull group, 66%, than the non-pit bull group, 53%. Pit bulls also had a higher intact rate when both sexes were combined, 63% vs. 52% non-pit bull group.

Among the city's 5 boroughs, Staten Island had the highest dog bite injury rate (56.89) per 100,000 population over the 9-year period combined (2015-2023). Brooklyn had the lowest injury rate (27.54). When breed was known, pit bulls inflicted over 3 times the injury rate in 4 of the 5 boroughs than the other top-biting breeds. Between the pre- and post-Covid years of 2018 to 2023, the average pit bull injury rate by borough only rose 5%, while the average injury rate of "unknown" breed rose 132%.

Conclusion

Our analysis of nearly 30,000 dog bites in New York City from 2015 to 2023 reveals several trends. Three key findings stand out: one, bite incidents by pit bulls are significantly overrepresented when breed was identified; two, the post-Covid surge in bite incidents attributed to dogs of "unknown" breed now dominates the data, which presents a significant data gap for dog bite analysis; and three, there is a persistently high dog bite injury rate in Staten Island compared to the other boroughs.

Addendum: National ED Rate

While analyzing New York City data, we also obtained data from WISQARS, which shows the national rate of emergency department visits (ED) for dog bite injuries. The national rate per 100,000 population rose 15% between the pre- and post-Covid years of 2018 and 2023. The rate in California rose 30%, and in Florida, 25% -- the only two states with open data. All three entities show a sharp drop during the 2020 peak Covid year, and by 2023 had surpassed all injury rate levels in their modern history.18

From 2011 to 2019, the national rate of ED visits due to dog bite injuries had been steadily falling (114.0 to 100.4). That trend reversed in 2022. Rates in the two sunshine states, California and Florida, have been on an upward trend since 2005. Each of the injury rates converge between 95.0 to 98.7 during the 2020 peak Covid year then sharply rise. The pre- and post-Covid pattern of dog bite injury rates in national and state data is also reflected in the localized injury rates in several of the city's boroughs.

A distinctly different pattern emerged in national dog bite fatalities pre- and post-Covid. Fatal dog maulings did not fall during the 2020 peak Covid year, the attacks escalated. Starting in 2019, pre-Covid, dog bite fatalities surged upwards, rising 100% from 2019 to 2023, according to CDC data. Provisional data for 2024, the most recent data available, shows this rise increased to 165% from 2019 to 2024. This substantial rise follows a 14-year period (2005 to 2018) of comparatively minor growth.

Chart: U.S, California and Florida rates of dog bite injury ED visits. Not age-adjusted.

Data Limitations

The DOHMH database consists of self-reported dog bites. Each record represents a single dog bite and collects multiple parameters about the dog involved. Information on the breed, age, gender and reproductive status of the dog involved have not been verified by DOHMH. Also, a true number of intact dogs is unknown because the database entry for Spay or Neuter is a TRUE or FALSE answer. FALSE equals two values: Unknown (or) Intact. Dogs with an unknown gender also default to FALSE.19

There were 29,992 database records over the 9-year period of 2015 to 2023. This count may severely underestimate the number of dog bite injuries treated in emergency departments (ED) in New York City during the same period. One study states that from 2015 to 2017, there were 10,280 database records compared to the number of dog bite injuries treated in EDs in the city, which totaled 44,947.20 Unlike many ED records, however, DOHMH records capture dog information. Utilizing both data is helpful.

We reviewed 669,444 dog licensing records from the DOHMH between 2015 and 2023 to determine the top-licensed dog breeds by year based upon the license issue date. This was reduced to 629,173 after removing duplicate rows, averaging to about 70,000 active licenses per year. According to the New York City Economic Development Corporation, at least 600,000 dogs reside in the city.21 Dog licensing data falls woefully short of this number, but it provides a snapshot of breed populations.

Table: U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities

CDC Wonder UCD Deaths vs. DogsBite.org Deaths (Jan. 1, 2005 to Dec. 31, 2024) | View Chart

Year	Total (CDC UCD Data)	Total (Nonprofit Data)
2005-2018 Avg.	33.64 Avg. (471 total)	33.79 Avg. (473 total)
2019	48	50
2020	62	47
2021	81	53
2022	98	56
2023	96	63
2024	127 (provisional)	68
Total	983	810
Year Set	Change (CDC)	Change (Nonprofit)
2019-2023	100%	26%
2019-2024	165%	36%

1New York City Dog Bite Dataset, NYC Open Data, metadata last updated February 19, 2025, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (data.cityofnewyork.us) Data downloaded: May 25, 2025.
2Tuckel PS, Milczarski W, The Changing Epidemiology of Dog Bite Injuries in the United States, 2005–2018, Injury Epidemiology, 01 November 2020.
3Trevejo R, Yang M, Lund EM, Epidemiology of surgical castration of dogs and cats in the United States, J Am Vet Med Assoc, 2011 Apr 1;238(7):898-904.
4Current Estimates of New York City's Population for July 2015, July 2016, July 2017, July 2018, July 2019, U.S Census Bureau Data, NYC Department of City Planning Population Division, data released and/or modified May 3, 2022 (Accessed: December 2, 2025).
5New York City’s Population Estimates and Trends, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program Vintage 2024, July 2020, July 2021, July 2022, July 2023, NYC Department of City Planning Population Division, released May 2025 (Accessed: December 2, 2025).
6New York City Dog Licensing Dataset, NYC Open Data, metadata last updated February 25, 2025, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (data.cityofnewyork.us) Data downloaded: November 7, 2025.
7We measured active dog licenses on a year-by-year basis. Thus, if a dog named "Fido" was licensed during the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, Fido was counted as 1 active license for each of those years.
8New York City dog licenses can be purchased for 1 or 5 years. Because no tag or animal ID number is in the open dataset, we could not determine which dogs licensed as "unknown" breed during the 2016 surge had a 5-year license, which might have contributed to the 2016-2020 high of "unknown" breed licenses that abruptly crashed in 2021.
9Testimony (November 2014), "The proposed legislation would add new Section 17-814 to the Administrative Code to provide that a pet shop or animal rescue group cannot sell or release a dog to a purchaser or adopter unless the purchaser or adopter first completes an application for a dog license and pays the dog license fees." | Animal Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association (nycbar.org).
10Pre-2021 | It's unclear when the ASPCA removed breed labels, but they state during the launch of the "boroughbred" campaign, "Every ACC pet is now more unique and distinct than a plain old breed label could ever capture." The last year we could find breed labels on the ASPCA's adoption listings was 2020. But judging online listings for breed label removals inside of a facility is tricky because the adoption listing software may require a breed to be listed.
11December 2017 - Bideawee was the subject of a breed label study from February 2016 to June 2019. The study states, "Bideawee, a limited admission shelter with three locations in the greater New York area, including one in NYC, phased out breed labels from their adoption cards in December 2017."
12June 2021 - In 2021, Muddy Paws Rescue was a recipient for a $1,000 grant to remove breed labels by Animal Farm Foundation, which plays a key role in the pit bull lobby, according to Wikipedia. The group was also called out as the "Level 1: The financing source" of the five levels of the pit bull lobby by La Presse in 2016, a Montreal-based news organization. Muddy Paws Rescue announced on June 3, 2021: "When you see our dogs on our website, their profiles will now say “unknown breed”—because that’s the truth!"
13Hoffman C, Harrison N, Wolff L, Westgarth C., Is that dog a pit bull? A cross-country comparison of perceptions of shelter workers regarding breed identification, J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. , 2014. October 2;17(4):322–39. | This study states that 41% of animal shelter workers would knowingly mislabel a pit bull (if a "restricted breed") as another breed in order to help the dog's adoption chances. Also, over 90% of participants in this study were female.
14Gunter LM, Barber RT, Wynne CDL, What's in a Name? Effect of Breed Perceptions & Labeling on Attractiveness, Adoptions & Length of Stay for Pit-Bull-Type Dogs, PLoS One, 2016 Mar 23;11(3):e0146857. | This study carried out 3 experiments about the perception of pit bulls by potential adopters. A 4th study examined the length of stay (LOS) of pit bulls when breed labels were present or removed. When breed labels were removed, the LOS was reduced by 1.5 days.
15Gunter LM, Barber RT, Wynne CDL, A canine identity crisis: Genetic breed heritage testing of shelter dogs, PLoS One, August 23, 2018.
16Some studies designed to test "breed labels" also failed to achieve expected outcomes, such as a decreased length of stay (LOS) at the shelter after removing breed labels. A 2018 pilot study funded by Maddie's Fund, Do Labels Matter? A Pilot Study, showed just that. "Absence of breed information on cage cards resulted in a longer length of stay for dogs."
17Ask the Experts: Pet Policies, Emotional Support Animals, and New York City’s 90-Day Pet Law, First Service Residential, October 25, 2024 (fsresidential.com).
18(1) U.S. rate of dog bite emergency department (ED) visits and population data supplied by WISQARS; Data downloaded September 1, 2025. (2) California dog bite ED visits supplied by California Health and Human Services; Data downloaded September 2, 2025. California population data supplied by Macrotrends.net (3) Florida rate of dog bite ED visits supplied by the Florida Department of Health; Data downloaded September 2, 2025.
19Therefore, we excluded dogs with an unknown gender.
20(Tuckel, 2020)
21Mary Kearl, "Pets in the City: A New York City Guide for Pet Parents," PetCareRX, October 11, 2025 (petcarerx.com).

The post Dog Bite Injury Trends, Top-Biting Dog Breeds and the Geography of Bite Incidents in New York City Pre- and Post-Covid (2015-2023) appeared first on DogsBite Blog.

The Red Notebook - A Fictional Memoir About Unresolved Trauma After a Dog Attack Based Upon a 1980s Incident

2025-07-22T08:30:26Z

We Created the Protagonist's Voice; Claude AI Created the Story Beats

Margarita "Margie" Benedetti sees her reflection in the kitchen window.

The Red Notebook
DogsBite.org - Earlier this year, we received a letter that contained a 250 word account of a vicious dog attack that occurred in the 1980s.1 She was a substitute mail carrier. It was her first time in that neighborhood. She found a warning card the regular carrier had placed between letters indicating that a problem dog, a large German shepherd named "Monster," lived at the next address. She saw no sign of the dog. As soon as she started to climb the steps, the dog crashed through the front storm door.

The dog knocked her down the steps backward. Monster landed on top of her, baring his "gigantic teeth" in her face. A man in motorcycle clothing with lots of tattoos, yelled, “Monster, get off that lady!” Then the man laughed at her. Still laughing, he said, “Monster, you broke through two storm doors this time!” Monster had been in the backyard. When he heard the letter carrier, he smashed through the back storm door, ran through the house and crashed through the front storm door to attack her.

It is a chilling account that she still vividly recalls from 40 years ago. Many dog attack victims respond to vivid and subtle memories long after a vicious attack. Such as having a panic attack upon hearing the sounds of keys or coins rattling; sounds that mimic a dog's collar or chain, like Michael Palmer experiences. What evoked panic for this mail carrier after her attack? In the early 80s, post-traumatic stress was barely known. How could she deliver mail to a home with a storm door again?

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was first recognized as a distinct psychiatric diagnosis in 1980 after researching Vietnam War Veterans.

We did not ask her. We decided to take another journey in AI storytelling. Unlike our first story, Echo Chamber, where we performed almost no intervention, this time we heavily intervened. We created the protagonist's voice, based on a 2005 short story by the founder, created her character background -- a woman who immigrated from Italy and grew up with her mother's war stories -- and set up the memoir structure that reflects upon three different time periods: her childhood, the 1980s, and 2024.

Why Did We Do This?

Because this is based upon a true story of a letter carrier in the 1980s. Also, there are few stories or memoirs about the post-traumatic effects of a vicious dog attack. The Scar Dance is one, which we highly recommend, but that is only one book. There are countless books that glorify dogs (Amazon has a 400 page listing), a handful of books about how to survive a dog attack, some of which falsely claim, "breed does not matter," but even fewer books about the post-traumatic effects of a dog attack.

We are also captivated by the account's raw elements: Monster, the motorcycle man, the substitute letter carrier, the glass storm door, and the 40-year time span. We had to create an event in her life the dog attack trauma was linked to. The sounds of coins rattling or a glass door breaking are tangible sounds from these attacks. But trauma also causes previous unresolved trauma to re-emerge -- such as a childhood event. An adult dog attack victim may not even be able to pinpoint the earlier event.

Most importantly, we are exploring AI storytelling before direct victim use. We are currently looking at several use cases where AI can help dog attack victims, including: summarizing and organizing case information and drafting necessary documents. Every time we take another journey in AI storytelling, it becomes clearer how AI can assist victims. This exploration is also critical because we are finding AI biases that affect dog attack victims. We had to correct several glaring ones in The Red Notebook.

The Red Notebook

Dragon Teeth

I am 74 years old. My hands are spotted now but they still work. I sit at my kitchen table every morning at seven. This is what I do with my time.

The red notebook sits in front of me. Forty years I have been writing in it. Mostly since I stopped carrying mail in 2014. All those years I carried other people's words in bags. Now I carry my own words in this book.

The cover is soft from handling. Like old leather. Like the mail satchels I carried for thirty years. The corners are worn down to the cardboard underneath. This is what happens when you touch something every day for years.

I open to the first page. My handwriting was steadier then. The letters stood up straight. Now they lean to the right like they are tired.

Entry: March 15, 1984

"Substitute route on Elmwood Street. Sunny day. Dog warning card for 'Monster.' Did not see dog. Went up steps anyway. This was a mistake."

Under the words, I drew teeth. Many teeth. Sharp as broken glass. They fill up the rest of the page. I do not remember drawing so many. But there they are.

I flip pages. More entries. More teeth.

Entry: March 16, 1984

"Could not sleep. Drew more teeth. They look bigger on paper than they did in his mouth. This makes no sense."

The teeth on this page are different. Longer. Sharper. Like dragon teeth. Like the monsters from the stories my mother told me when I was small.

Entry: March 20, 1984.

"Requested different route. Supervisor said okay. Did not ask why. Good."

No teeth on this page. Just words. I was trying to stop drawing them. But on the next page, there they are again. Filling up the margins.

I turn more pages. Different handwriting now. Older. In pencil, not pen. The letters are smaller. More careful.

Entry: 1943 (copied from my mother's telling)

"Mamma Rosa heard tanks coming down Via Garibaldi. Metal scraping stone. Like giant claws. She said the sound split her chest open."

My mother told me this story when I was small. She told it many times. About the war. About the tanks that came through her village. About the sound they made on the cobblestones. I wrote it down years later because I understood why she told it. Some sounds break you. Some sounds you carry forever.

The tanks made a sound like crashing. Like breaking. Like the sound Monster made when he came through the glass door.

I close the notebook. The kitchen is quiet. The coffee has gone cold. Outside, the mail truck drives by. I do not look up. I have not looked at mail trucks for ten years.

Today I will walk to Elmwood Street. The house is for sale. I saw it in yesterday's paper. The advertisement was small. Just an address and a price. But I know that address. I have known it for forty years.

After forty years, I will finish what I started. I will walk up those steps again. I will look at that door. I will see what is real and what is not.

Some things you carry until you choose to put them down. Today I choose.

The red notebook goes in my coat pocket. I can feel its weight against my ribs. Like carrying mail. Like carrying something important that needs to be delivered.

I am 74 years old. My legs are not what they were. But they still carry me where I need to go.

Yellow Warning Card

I walk to Elmwood Street. I have walked many miles in forty years. Mail routes. Grocery stores. To the bank. To the doctor. Walking is what you do when you are still alive.

The red notebook is in my coat pocket. I can feel its weight. Like carrying a stone. Like carrying something that needs to be put down.

The sidewalk cracks are the same. The mailboxes are newer. Some houses have different colors. But the street remembers me. I remember it too.

I stop at the corner. This is where I stood forty years ago, reading the route sheet. Substitute carrier. New neighborhood. I was 34 then. I thought I knew what I was doing.

The morning was bright. March 15, 1984. I had my satchel full of mail. Other people's letters. Other people's lives. I was carrying them where they needed to go.

I pulled the yellow warning card from my satchel. The regular carrier had left it for me.

"Monster. Very big dog. German shepherd. Caution."

I looked at the house. Quiet porch. No dog visible. The warning card was old, soft from handling. Maybe the dog was gone. Maybe the regular carrier forgot to remove it.

I climbed the steps. One. Two. Three.

The storm door reflected the morning sky. Clean glass. Nothing behind it.

But in the glass, I saw movement. A shadow. Large. Behind me.

I turned around. Nothing there.

I looked back at the glass. The shadow was still there. Low to the ground. Waiting.

My mother's voice came to me then. She used to tell me about Nonna Rosa. How before the nazista tanks came, she always saw their shadows first. In windows. In puddles. She said danger casts shadows before it arrives.

I turned around again. Still nothing behind me.

I let out my breath. Maybe I was seeing things. Maybe there was no danger.

I turned to leave the porch.

Monster exploded through the storm door behind me. Glass flew everywhere. He had run from the backyard, through the house, and burst through the front door just as I turned away.

The shadow in the glass had been right. The danger was real. It just came from where I wasn't looking.

He knocked me down the steps. Backward. My body hit the concrete. Letters flew everywhere. White envelopes scattered like scared birds.

The shadow in the glass had been right. The danger was real. It just came from where I wasn't looking.

He was on top of me. Heavy. His face right above mine. His teeth were so big. Bigger than any dog's teeth should be. Like teeth from a story. Like teeth from a nightmare.

I could not move. I could not breathe. All I could see was his mouth. All I could hear was his breathing. Hot and loud.

Then I heard laughing. A man's voice. "Monster, get off that lady!"

But he was laughing. Like it was funny. Like seeing a woman pinned under a dog was something to laugh about.

"Monster, you broke through two storm doors this time!"

The man was not sorry. He was proud. His dog had broken through glass to get to me. This was what Monster did. This was what he was made for.

I was shaking. Even after Monster got off me. Even after I collected the letters. Even after I finished my route. I shook for the rest of the day.

I shook remembering Monster's eyes, black and unblinking. Like the dogs my mother described, guarding the gates of prisons where people disappeared.

I stand on the same sidewalk now. The same corner. I am not 34 anymore. I am 74. I have delivered mail for thirty years after that day. I finished routes even when my hands shook. I delivered mail in rain, snow, heat. I did my job.

But I never forgot Monster's teeth. I never forgot the sound of glass breaking. I never forgot how the man laughed.

Some things you carry because you have to. Some things you carry because you choose to.

Today I choose.

Monster explodes through the glass storm door and pins the letter carrier down.

The Storm Door

The house sits quiet. A "For Sale" sign leans against the mailbox. The storm door is new. Clean glass. No cracks.

I climb the steps. Same steps. Same porch. But I am not the same person.

My reflection looks back at me from the glass. Gray hair. Lined face. But steady eyes. I am 74 years old. I have lived forty years since Monster knocked me down these steps. I have survived everything that came after.

I see the shadow again. Behind me in the reflection. Large. Waiting.

I do not turn around this time.

"I see you," I say to the glass.

The shadow grows larger. Darker. It fills up the reflection behind me. Like it is trying to swallow me whole.

I reach into my coat pocket. Pull out the red notebook. The pages are soft from handling. I open it to the page with the teeth I drew forty years ago. Dragon teeth. Monster teeth. Teeth that were too big for any real dog.

"This is what I thought you were," I tell the shadow.

The teeth on the page look small now. Like drawings a child would make. Like scribbles from someone who was scared and did not know what else to do.

I tear out the page. The drawing of teeth that I made when I was 34 and shaking. The paper comes away clean. No ripping. Like it was ready to go.

"But you are not real anymore."

I fold the paper. Put it in my pocket.

The shadow in the glass disappears.

My reflection looks back at me. Just me. An old woman on a porch. Alone but not afraid.

I have carried mail through neighborhoods full of dogs. I have faced barking, growling, jumping dogs. Big dogs. Small dogs. Dogs that wanted to bite. Dogs that just wanted to scare. I learned to read their warnings. I learned to protect myself.

Monster was different. Monster was the shadow I could not see coming. The danger that came from behind me. The fear that knocked me down when I was not looking.

But shadows are not real. They are just the shape that fear makes. They are just the dark that light leaves behind.

I look at the storm door. New glass. Clean. No cracks. No teeth marks. No sign that Monster ever lived here.

The house is quiet. Empty. Whatever lived here is gone now. Whatever happened here is over.

I am still here. I am 74 years old. I have gray hair and lined face and spotted hands. But I am still here. I am still walking. I am still carrying things where they need to go.

Today I carried my fear to this porch. Today I looked at it in the glass. Today I tore out the page with the teeth.

Some things you carry until you choose to put them down. Today I choose to put this down.

The shadow is gone. The teeth are folded in my pocket. The glass shows only my reflection.

I am ready to go home.

Mother to Child

I sit on the porch steps. The same steps where I fell forty years ago.

The wood is gray now. Weathered. Like my hands. Like everything that has lived long enough to show its age.

I open the red notebook to a blank page. My pen feels heavy. But my hand is steady.

Entry: October 15, 2024

"I am 74 years old. Monster is dead. The war ended before I was born. I have carried mail for thirty years. I have lived through worse than a dog attack. I am still here."

I look at what I wrote. Simple words. True words.

The pen moves again.

Entry: October 15, 2024 (continued)

"Fear is not the same as danger. I confused them for forty years. Today I know the difference."

A car door slams down the street. My body tenses. Then relaxes.

Some sounds will always startle me. This is how I am made. My mother was the same way. The war sounds never left her. Tank treads on cobblestones. Glass breaking. Metal scraping stone.

She passed these sounds to me. Not on purpose. But fear travels from mother to child like eye color. Like the shape of hands.

I understand now. The dog attack woke up the fear my mother carried. The suddenness. The crashing. The feeling of being small and helpless while something large and destructive came for me.

But I am not my mother. I did not live through a war. I lived through a dog attack. I survived it. I went back to work. I delivered mail for thirty more years.

My pen moves across the page. The letters are small but clear.

Entry: October 15, 2024 (continued)

"I have carried this notebook for forty years. I have drawn teeth and written about fear. Today I carried it to the place where I was afraid. Now I can carry it home."

I close the notebook. The cover is soft in my hands. Worn smooth. Like everything I have touched for years.

The afternoon sun warms my face. I am sitting on a porch in Oregon. Not running from tanks in Italy. Not hiding from monsters in my dreams.

I am just a woman on some steps. Writing in a book. Remembering things that happened. Letting them be what they were.

Monster was a dog. A big dog. A mean dog. But just a dog.

The war was my mother's war. Not mine.

She passed these sounds to me. Not on purpose. But fear travels from mother to child like eye color. Like the shape of hands.

The fear was real. But the danger is over.

I have carried mail through rain and snow. I have lived alone and paid my bills. I have buried my mother and kept going.

I am still here.

This is what time does. It shows you the difference between what happened and what you thought happened. Between what you carry and what carries you.

I stand up. My legs are stiff but they work.

The red notebook goes back in my coat pocket. Light as a letter. Ready to be delivered home.

Elmwood Street

A woman comes out of the house. About my age. Carrying a box of old things.

She has gray hair like mine. Pulled back in a ponytail. She wears jeans and a sweater with paint stains. Her hands are spotted too.

"Are you interested in the house?" she asks.

Her voice is friendly. The voice of someone who talks to strangers at grocery stores. Who waves at neighbors.

"I used to deliver mail here," I say.

She sets down the box. I can see what is inside. Old dishes. A lamp with a broken shade. Things that belonged to someone who is gone.

"I'm helping my son clean it out. The old owner passed last year."

I nod. People die. This is what happens. We all carry mail until we stop. We all live in houses until we don't.

"There was a dog," I say. "German shepherd named Monster."

Her face changes. She smiles the way people smile when they remember something nice.

"Oh yes. My son told me about him. He said the dog was very gentle. Just protective."

I have heard these words before. Many times. Thirty years of delivering mail. Thirty years of dog owners saying the same thing after their dogs bite, chase, or attack postal workers.

"He broke through two glass doors to get to me," I say.

The woman looks uncomfortable now. She shifts her weight. Looks at the box. Looks at me.

"Well, I'm sure he was just—"

"Scared," I finish. "They always are."

She does not know what to say to this. People never do when you tell them the truth instead of the story they want to hear.

I pick up my purse. The red notebook shifts in my pocket.

"Mail delivery stopped on Elmwood Street after that. I changed routes too. The Postal Service doesn't negotiate with dangerous dogs."

This is the truth. Not the comfortable truth. The real truth.

The woman watches me walk away. Her mouth is open a little. Like she wants to say something but doesn't know what.

She understands now that some stories do not have happy endings. Some stories just end.

"Mail delivery stopped on Elmwood Street after that. I changed routes too. The Postal Service doesn't negotiate with dangerous dogs."

I walk to the sidewalk. Turn back once.

She is still standing there. Still holding the box of old things. Still trying to understand how the gentle dog in her son's story became the monster in mine.

Both stories are true. This is what she will learn. Dogs can be gentle with their families and dangerous to strangers. People can remember the same animal in different ways.

I do not need her to understand. I do not need her to believe me.

I know what happened. I wrote it down. I carried it for forty years.

Now I am walking away from it.

This is enough.

Reflections and Shadows

I walk home. The same route I walked forty years ago. But today I am not shaking.

My legs are steady. My hands are steady. The red notebook sits quiet in my pocket.

The street looks different in the afternoon light. Softer. The shadows are just shadows. The reflections in car windows are just reflections.

I stop at the corner where the bus stops. Pull out the red notebook one more time. I write:

Entry: October 15, 2024 (final)

"I faced the house today. I saw the shadow in the glass. I told it what I know now. Shadows are not real. They are just the shape that fear makes. I am real. I am 74 years old. I have delivered mail, paid bills, buried my mother, lived alone, and survived everything that came for me. This is enough."

I close the notebook. The cover is warm from my hands.

Some things you carry because you have to. Some things you carry because you choose to. Some things you carry until you choose to put them down.

I will keep the red notebook. But I will not carry it like a weapon anymore. I will carry it like what it is: the record of a woman who survived.

A dog barks somewhere behind me. My shoulders tense. Then relax.

This is how I am made. Some sounds will always startle me. But startling is not the same as breaking. Being afraid is not the same as being in danger.

The shadows on the sidewalk are just shadows. The reflections in windows are just reflections. The sounds that startle me are just sounds.

And I am just a woman walking home. A woman who knows the difference between fear and danger. A woman who has faced both and is still here.

Some sounds will always startle me. But startling is not the same as breaking. Being afraid is not the same as being in danger.

The mail truck drives past. I look up this time. Wave at the driver. She waves back.

Thirty years I carried other people's words. Now I carry my own.

This is what I know now. This is what I carry forward.

I am 74 years old. My legs still work. My hands still work. My heart still works.

I am still here.

This is enough.

The letter carrier confronts her past by going to Monster's old home on Elmwood Street.

The Red Notebook images were created by Reve.art and stylized by DogsBite.org and BeFunky.com

Discussion

Inherited Trauma

The Red Notebook is a story about inherited trauma that becomes linked to a vicious dog attack decades later. The sounds of the Nazi tanks -- crashing and breaking -- and the suddenness of their destruction, were stories her mother told her. Margie does not connect them until forty years after the attack. "The dog attack woke up the fear my mother carried. The suddenness. The crashing," she wrote. Her mother passed these sounds down to her. "Fear travels from mother to child like eye color."

The story is also about intuition. In 1984, Margie's intuition was right. The shadows indicated a danger behind her. Once Margie turned away from the storm door, Monster exploded through it. "The shadow in the glass had been right," she wrote. "The danger was real. It just came from where I wasn't looking." Trauma interferes with intuition by folding it into fear, making the two indistinguishable. "Fear is not the same as danger. I confused them for forty years. Today I know the difference," she wrote.

The breed of dog, German shepherd, is also connected to her inherited trauma. Nazi Germany used this breed widely during World War II. As a symbol of "imperial aggression," German shepherds where heavily associated with the SS and were trained to attack and intimidate prisoners in concentration camps. The dogs were also used by Nazi Germany as sentries, messengers, scouts, and aiding in search and rescue missions. "This was what he was made for," Margie reflected about the dog.

As Margie connects the sounds and memories of her mother's war stories to her dog attack in 1984, she begins to separate and resolve them. Woven in between is the metaphor of carrying mail -- the weight of carrying other people's words and other people's stories. Sometimes they need to be delivered. Sometimes they need to be put down. She acknowledges all that she has been through and survived. But recalls, "Monster was different. Monster was the shadow I could not see coming."2

Claude AI Biases

Building the inherited trauma into the story was a two-way street. Claude AI did not know about inherited trauma linked to post-traumatic stress after a dog attack until we explained it. There were several "Aha!" moments with Claude that were charming. Another was when Claude wrote the dog's owner, "said the dog was very gentle. Just protective," and Margie accepted this response. Claude did not know this is a decades old cliche by owners of dangerous dogs. DogsBite.org had to explain this.3

We also had to explain that a dog busting through two storm doors is dangerous, not "just protective" and that USPS has specific dangerous dog policies. USPS stops delivering mail on the block until there is a resolution. Claude rushed to the Internet to verify this and returned by rewriting parts of the story, making it stronger. Nevertheless, there was an AI bias. Monster was presumed to be "very gentle" and "just protective," despite the dog's name and crashing through two storm doors to attack Margie.

During the Elmwood Street scene, Claude left ambiguity about who the dog owner was. Was it the motorcycle man "who passed last year," or the mother's son? It could not be her son. In 1984, Margie and the mother would have been 34 years old; the son a teenager. Claude handled the scene nicely by only interacting with his mother, who was not aware of the seriousness of the attack. She was the right person for Margie to declare to, "The Postal Service does not negotiate with dangerous dogs."4

AI Use Cases

It's not by chance that we are using AI for writing purposes. We hope that by exploring different AI tools, and finding their biases, we can help victims. There are multiple documents a victim prepares for a civil lawsuit, including an Impact Statement, Narrative of Damages and Statement of the Attack. Each document has a different objective and tone. The best use of AI is its ability to (1) summarize long texts, (2) repackage into a specific format, and (3) provide a consistent voice throughout.

Victims are always overwhelmed after a vicious dog attack. Given the right AI prompts, and a voice style (one of the victim's own emails), what if a victim only needed to capture emails and documents related to the attack, scan in a bite report, upload them to AI then instruct AI to create a detailed chronology and character list -- a list of involved individuals and their roles? From this point, a second prompt could direct AI to create a 1,000 word Impact Statement in the victim's own voice.

"My attorney, Paul Ayan of Ayan Law Office, hinted for weeks at my necessity to complete the piece [my impact statement]. Still though, I put it off as long as possible. Then one day, it erupted onto 18 pages." - Founder of DogsBite.org

A starting point is essential. By the time the founder of DogsBite wrote her personal impact statement in 2009, she had several hundred pages of case documents, including Word docs, Excel docs, medical bills, photographs, a 20-page bite report and more. It would have been a dream to have Google NotebookLM back then, which accepts many document types, as well as audio files (911 call). Just upload the materials and ask for a detailed summary and timeline, a character list and more.

We also receive fragmented accounts of dog attacks, and ones immersed in post-traumatic stress, where they skip from point A to point M then back to point C. Unless you have read several thousand accounts of dog attacks like we have, a reader would be unable to follow. With the right prompts, AI can not only rewrite everything in chronological order, but it can also interpret these fragments. It is critical for victims to have a detailed timeline of events before, during and after the dog attack.

This is the envelope that was sent to us that contained the dog attack account. We colorized the white envelope and background in pinks and golds, but all of the stamps are original. What a treasure to receive such a wonderfully creative envelope from a retired letter carrier.

1Or thereabouts. We just know it was years ago. The rest is fictional storytelling.
2Most dog attack victims would agree. They never saw it coming. They never imagined the speed or forcefulness of an unprovoked vicious attack. In Margie's case, a 100 pound German shepherd burst through a glass door, shattering it, and threw her backward. "The fear that knocked me down when I was not looking," she wrote.
3This was a bad error by Claude AI. But, what did we expect, given the jillions of owners of dangerous dogs that have obfuscated their dog's aggression for decades in news articles, social media and online forums?
4Claude had several areas of time ambiguity, including confusing "thirty and forty" years a few times. The attack occurred forty years ago. Margie was a mail carrier for thirty years.

Related articles:

04/28/25: Echo Chamber: A Fatal Dog Mauling Short Story Written by AI; Prompts by Nonprofit
02/10/23: Elderly Man Shares Account of Having His Lip Ripped off in a Pit Bull Attack
01/20/21: Victim Shares Account of Vicious Pit Bull Attack on Christmas Day at Seahurst Park in Burien
11/30/18: The Scar Dance - A Couple's Journey of Rebuilding Their Lives After a Dog Attack

The post The Red Notebook - A Fictional Memoir About Unresolved Trauma After a Dog Attack Based Upon a 1980s Incident appeared first on DogsBite Blog.

Macro-Level Forces Report: Covid Impacts of 2023 U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Capture Rate of Nonprofit

2025-06-25T00:20:42Z

Dog Bite Fatalities Leveled Off in 2023; Nonprofit Capture Rate Rose

DogsBite.org - In October, we published the 2022 Macro-Level Forces Report for U.S. dog bite fatality data. Current data shows that during 2022, the third Covid year, our nonprofit had a 42-victim deficit compared to CDC Wonder underlying cause of death (UCD) data, a 55% difference in the number of deaths. The victim deficit during the fourth Covid year, 2023, is an improvement. CDC Wonder data shows there were 96 dog bite fatalities in 2023. Our nonprofit recorded 63 deaths, a 42% difference.

96 fatal dog attacks in a single year is down slightly from the record high of 98. This is still a 100% increase from 2019 and a 174% increase from 2018.

Prior to the pandemic (2005 to 2019), the largest deficit of unreported deaths our nonprofit had compared to CDC data was 4 each for the years 2005 and 2010. During 2023, there was a deficit of 33 unreported deaths. Without our FOIAs, the deficit would have been 38. The disparity during 2023 signals the first reversal of the deficit trend since the onset of Covid. The average number of citations captured per victim in 2023 fell 31% (15.7) from the pre-Covid baseline year of 2019 (22.7).

A regional breakdown of dog bite fatalities in 2023 shows the Midwest and South had the most unreported deaths. According to CDC Wonder data, 68% (65 of 96) of the victims in 2023 were ≥ 45 years old. Our nonprofit captured 60% (39 of 65), up from 47% in 2022 and 51% in 2021. Historically, the ≥ 50 age group has been underrepresented in media reports. We discussed this disparity in our 2020 discussion notes (Comparing 15-Year Data Sets - DogsBite.org Data and CDC Wonder Data).

Chart A: U.S. dog bite fatalities during the fourth Covid year, 2023, by Census region and age.

Characteristics of Unreported Fatal Dog Attacks (2005 to 2024)

Since 2011, we have uncovered 39 unreported deaths by FOIAs or other means. Most of them, 64% (25), occurred after March 2020. The most likely unreported fatal dog attack is an adult ≥ 40 years old, 74% (29), killed by a single or pair of pit bulls, 66% (19 of 29), in an urban area, 83% (24 of 29), within a state that prohibits or limits breed restriction laws. Of the 39 total deaths, 72% (28) involved pit bulls, and of that, 64% (18 of 28) involved a single or pair of family pit bulls killing a household member.

72% (28) of the total unreported fatal attacks involved family dogs killing a household member, and 64% (25) involved a single dog attacking.

During 2023, the 5 unreported deaths we uncovered included three adults, ≥ 40 years old and two young children. Two deaths were not discovered until this year. Estela Manteca was identified after a federal lawsuit was filed in Texas. Amya Jeffery was identified after Ohio news organizations released a 4-part investigation into the state's weak dangerous dog laws. Of the 9 total unreported child deaths since 2011, 89% (8 of 9) were killed by a bull breed: pit bull (4), American bulldog (3) and mastiff (1).

Chart B: CDC dog bite fatality data compared to DogsBite.org data over 19 years (2005-2023).

Discussion

Initially, Chart B appears to reflect the pandemic kicked off a visible increase in year-to-year deaths. However, the largest increase is from 2018 to 2019, a 37% rise, which occurred pre-Covid. From 2019 to 2020, there was a 29% rise in deaths, from 2020 to 2021, a 31% rise, from 2021 to 2022, a 21% rise, and in 2023, deaths leveled out. Between 2018 to 2023, there was a 174% rise in dog bite fatalities. After Covid-19 macro-forces erupted in 2020, our capture rate declined each year after until 2023.

Currently, provisional data from CDC shows that dog bite fatalities rise to 113 deaths in 2024. Apparently, the leveling off is 2023 is an anomaly.

The chart also shows that between 2005 and 2018, the average number of deaths per year captured by our nonprofit was 33.79, compared to CDC Wonder data of 33.64. The annual number of deaths during that 14-year period gradually increases but otherwise shows slight variation. After four years of Covid conditions, between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2023, the average number of deaths per year captured by our nonprofit rose to 54.75, and CDC Wonder data shot up to 84.25.

Thus, one must ask what trends shifted between 2018 and 2023, when the number of deaths per year rose by 174% (from 35 CDC death data to 96). The number of dog bite fatalities increased during that period much faster than the 14-year period between 2005 to 2018. After years of annual deaths in the 30s range, CDC data suddenly skips deaths in the 50s and 70s ranges. CDC data shows that in 2019, there were 48 deaths; in 2020, 62 deaths; in 2021, 81 deaths, in 2022, 98 deaths, and in 2023, 96.

Pre-Covid Trends

In our nonprofit's data, several trends were seen prior to 2019. Between 2005 to 2018, the ages and genders of victims between the first and third periods (2005-2009 and 2015-2018) show that the percentage of fatal dog attacks involving adults 45-64 years old rose 56%. This was largely driven by females, 45-64 years old, which rose 96%. Male deaths declined overall, but the 45-64 year old male age group rose 20%. During this period, the percentage of fatal attacks involving pit bulls rose 29%.

While the number of "actual" rescue/shelter dogs involved in fatal dog attacks is unobtainable, our data shows the percentage of people killed by rescue dogs jumped from 2.7% during the first period (2005-2009) to 15.9% during the third period (2015-2018), a rise of nearly 500%. Owner-directed fatal dog attacks rose from 10.7% to 17.2% between the two periods, a 61% rise. Those were some trends heading into 2019, which began the steep ladder increase in CDC data from 2019 to 2023.1

Pre- and Post-Covid (2018 to 2023)

Our nonprofit's data established that some trends began prior to the first Covid year, namely the percentage of victims ≥ 45 years old were rising, as well as deadly attacks inflicted by pit bulls and rescue dogs. From 2018 to 2023, the number of fatal dog attacks we captured rose from 36 deaths to 63, a 75% increase. CDC data -- which contains no dog breed, ownership or attack information -- rose from 35 deaths to 96, a 174% increase. CDC data also shows that victims ≥ 45 years old were rising.

Our 18-month investigation into the near tripling of severe injury dog bites in Austin (193%) and San Antonio (169%) during the same period, 2018 to 2023, shows a similar rise. Both cities also showed a significant rise in victims ≥ 40 years older, 433% in Austin and 396% in San Antonio.2-3 Pit bulls were disproportionately involved in these attacks, responsible for 47% of severe injury bites in Austin and 31% in San Antonio. From 2018 and 2023, severe bites inflicted by pit bulls in Austin rose 533%.4

Fatality data we collected pre-Covid showed that attacks by rescue dogs jumped nearly 500% between two periods that ended in 2018. During the more recent period, 2019 to 2023, Austin Animal Center (AAC), which bills itself as a top "no-kill" shelter, recycled over 350 dogs with a moderate or severe bite history back into the community. The city admitted that some of the rehomed biting dogs attacked again, contributing to the 193% rise in severe bite injuries in Austin from 2018 to 2023.5

Rehomed biting and aggression prone dogs from public and private no-kill shelters are contributing to the rise of fatal and severe injury dog attacks.

All four areas of dog bite data -- CDC fatalities, our recorded fatalities and analysis of severe injury dog bites in Austin and San Antonio -- show a disproportionate rise of victims in the ≥ 45 age group. This is true when rate is measured too, per population 10 million, in CDC data. In Chart C, all four age groups in CDC data rise between the two periods (2012-2017 and 2018-2023), but combined into two groups, victims ≥ 45 years old, largely driven by females, is rising faster than victims ≤ 44 years old.

Chart C: CDC data shows rate of dog bite fatalities by age group, per population 10 million, divided into 3 year sets (2006-2023). Also shows rate of male/female ≥ 45 years old.

Covid 2023 Conditions

The CDC Museum Covid Timeline ends in July 2022. In May of 2023, the WHO declared an end to the public health emergency. But "long Covid" and post-Covid conditions persisted. Nationwide, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "from a jobs and growth standpoint, the economy was essentially healed by the end of 2023."6 The toll of Covid by the end of 2023 was on track to reach $14 trillion dollars, according to the USC Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy & Government Service.7

Possible Covid conditions contributing to the disparity of 33 unreported dog bite fatalities in 2023 continues to be the eroding landscape of the news industry. Media companies slashed over 20,000 jobs in 2023, of which nearly 2,700 were in the news industry. This is higher than news media job losses in 2022 and 2021. There are now more "news deserts" -- counties without a local news outlet -- than ever. Up until Covid, we primarily relied upon news reports to document dog bite fatalities.

As our victim deficit shows in comparison to CDC data, relying on news reports to gage an accurate dog bite fatality count is no longer viable.

In 2023, Google had not started using the "AI Overview," which stops traffic referrals to websites, including news publishers. The overview launched in May 2024. Between 2022 and 2025, major news publishers lost up to half of their referrals from Google. Industry leaders are now bracing for when "traffic from Google will drop toward zero." Google isn't a search engine today, it's an answer engine. "Generative AI is now rewiring how the Internet is used all together," states the Wall Street Journal.

Summary

During 2023, there was a 31% (15.7) reduction in the number of citations per victim compared to the pre-Covid baseline (22.7). The deficit of unreported fatal dog attacks fell to 33 deaths. CDC data shows that dog bite fatalities leveled off in 2023, dropping to 96 deaths from 98 deaths in 2022. This is still a 100% increase from 2019 and a 174% increase from 2018. Victims ≥ 45 years old accounted for the most unreported dog bite fatalities, and most attacks occurred in the South and Midwest regions.

Provisional CDC data for fatal dog maulings in 2024 shows there were at least 113 fatal attacks. It will be months before that number is finalized.

There was a significant increase of fatal dog attacks during the 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 Covid years, but the growth began in 2019. The largest rise occurred between 2018 and 2019, with a 37% rise in dog bite fatalities. What drove that growth likely continued through the Covid years, combined with being impacted by Covid conditions, along with new research showing a "sustained effect" post-Covid:8 the rate of fatal and severe injury dog bites rose considerably after Covid restrictions ended.

After examining pre- and post-Covid data between 2018 to 2023, including CDC fatality data, our fatality data and analysis of severe injury dog bites in Austin and San Antonio, several trends emerged. (1) Fatal and severe injury dog bites increased in frequency, (2) there was a disproportionate rise of victims ≥ 45 years old, (3) data showed that pit bulls were the chief perpetrators of fatal and severe bites, and (4) rehomed biting dogs from shelters contributed to the rise of these serious injuries.

Chart D: Four different data sources show a steep rise in fatal and severe dog bite injuries post-Covid lockdowns (2023), compared to pre-Covid conditions (2018).

1Since the publication of the revised pre-Covid data (2005-2018) in 2024, we shifted our 20-year age groups from one format (10-29, 30-49, 50-69, 70+) to another (0-24, 25-44, 45-64, 65+) to align with CDC age groups.
2Dog Bites by Severity and Age Groups (2012-2023) (PDF), Austin Animal Center, DogsBite.org.
3Dog Bites by Severity and Age Groups (2012-2023) (PDF), San Antonio Animal Care Services, DogsBite.org.
4Severe Bites: Top-Biting Dog Breeds & Severity (2012-2023) (PDF), Austin Animal Center, DogsBite.org.
5Proposed Changes Related to the Austin Animal Services Office, City of Austin Council Work Session, Page 10. January 30, 2024.
6Chart Book: Tracking the Recovery From the Pandemic Recession, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 3, 2024 (cbpp.org).
7COVID-19’s Total Cost to the U.S. Economy Will Reach $14 Trillion by End of 2023, By Jakub Hlávka, PhD, Adam Rose, PhD, USC Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy & Government Service, May 16, 2023 (schaeffer.usc.edu).
8Dog Bites Are Increasing in Frequency and Severity - A Sustained Effect Following the COVID-19 Pandemic, by O'Hara N, J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg., 2024 Aug:95:21-23.

Macro-level forces reports:
Macro-Level Forces Report: Covid Impacts of 2022 U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Capture Rate of Nonprofit
Macro-Level Forces Report: Covid Impacts of 2021 U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Capture Rate of Nonprofit
Macro-Level Forces Report: Covid Impacts of 2020 U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Capture Rate of Nonprofit

The post Macro-Level Forces Report: Covid Impacts of 2023 U.S. Dog Bite Fatality Capture Rate of Nonprofit appeared first on DogsBite Blog.

Rising Dog Maulings in Two Central Texas Cities (2018-2023): What Public Safety Policy Got Wrong—and How to Fix It

2025-12-07T19:57:10Z

Austin and San Antonio Severe Injury Dog Bite Data Pre- and Post-Covid

Austin, TX - Since 2022, we have been reporting a steep rise in dog bite fatalities in CDC Wonder data during the Covid and post-Covid years. In October, we published our 2022 Macro-Level Forces Report. We discussed the rise in the total number of deaths to 98 -- the highest ever recorded in CDC Wonder data -- and a 180% rise since 2018 (from 35 deaths to 98). Our hypothesis quickly became that if Covid-era dog bite fatalities have almost tripled since 2018 then severe injury dog bites have too.

98 fatal dog attacks in a single year are the most ever recorded by CDC data. This is a 104% increase from 2019 and a 180% increase from 2018.

In 2024, we obtained dog bite injury severity data over a 12-year period (2012-2023) from two Central Texas cities, Austin, where DogsBite.org is located, and San Antonio. By January 2024, news reports showed that severe bites had nearly tripled in both cities since 2018. Over the course of 2024, we spent months examining this data to see if specific trends stood out. Several do, including: the rising number of victims ≥ 40-years old, the breed of dog involved, and no-kill animal shelter polices.

"Sustained Effect"

Last August, the first paper was published showing that dog bite injuries are increasing in frequency and severity, demonstrating a "sustained effect" post-Covid. The UK study analyzed dog bite injuries in a plastic surgery department at a trauma center before and after Covid lockdowns, 2018 and 2022, respectively. The study showed that dog bites have increased in frequency and severity with a clear increase in "deeper tissue injuries, tissue loss and muscle, nerve, vascular or bone involvement."

The increasing frequency and severity of dog bite injuries from 2018 to 2023 is also reflected in the Central Texas dog bite data that we obtained.

Data from Austin and San Antonio are also ripe to be examined because they both collect injury severity data (Minor, Moderate and Severe), which is rare among cities. We examined the years 2012 through 2023 of both cities with an emphasis on 2018 to 2023, which shows the "sustained effect" post-Covid. In the Austin data set, we examined injury severity, age of victims, the top-biting breeds, and multi-dog bites. In the San Antonio data set, we examined injury severity and age of victims.

Austin Dog Bite Data (2012-2023)

Background

In September 2023, the city released an audit of the Austin Animal Center (AAC), which bills itself as one of the top "no-kill" shelters in the country. The audit states the "Council-mandated" live release rate of 95% has come at the expense of animals under AAC's care and negates AAC's ability to serve as an open-intake shelter for the community. AAC is routinely over-capacity and closes intake of new animals due to overcrowding and failing to euthanize for behavior, which affects public safety.

In January 2024, AAC released data about the steep rise in Severe Bite Injuries (SBI) -- from 2018 to 2023, SBIs nearly tripled.1 AAC also reiterated the audit's data showing that AAC adopted or transferred out 352 dogs with a "Moderate" or "Severe" bite history since 2019. "Unfortunately, AAC has experienced several instances where a dog with a known significant bite history has caused severe injury to members of the public after the dog was released," states the January report.2,3

The SBI data from AAC and the data from the audit -- showing that AAC has recycled hundreds of dogs with moderate and severe bite histories back into the city -- resulted in the city adopting the Ian Dunbar Bite Scale, which evaluates bite severity from Level 1 to 6, Level 6 being death. Dogs that have inflicted a Level 4 bite or higher can no longer be adopted to the public and "may be euthanized" without making them available to a rescue group. The city adopted this policy in February 2024.

Prior to adopting the Dunbar Bite Scale, AAC was subject to a "Right to Rescue" ordinance passed in October 2019, pushed by extreme "no-kill" activists to stop AAC from performing most "behavior euthanasia" for public safety purposes.4 Seven months earlier, in March 2019, no-kill zealots pushed the city to pass a 95% "save rate" resolution, above the arbitrary 90% "save rate."5 Thus, by the end of 2023, AAC had recycled hundreds of biting dogs back into the city and SBIs had nearly tripled.

Coinciding Timeframe

The timeframe of these no-kill shelter policies coincides with the sharp rise of SBIs in Austin. The volume of serious bite dogs AAC adopted or transferred back into the community, 352, also coincides with the sharp rise of SBIs in Austin during this period. The city admitted that some of the biting dogs bit again and contributed to the 193% rise in severe bite injuries from 2018 to 2023. No-kill policies enacted in 2019 directly correlate to the increasing frequency of severe bite injuries in the city.

"Dogs that have a bite history of level 4 or higher on the Dunbar bite scale may be euthanized without making them available ... This recommendation is borne from a public safety perspective, namely the number of known bite dogs that have caused the public severe injuries after having been released from the AAC." - City of Austin Council Work Session, January 30, 2024

The Austin City Auditor's report showed that AAC adopted or transferred out 352 dogs with moderate or severe bite histories over the 5-year period of 2019 to 2023.

Austin Dog Bites: Severity & Age Groups

From 2018 to 2023 (nonfiscal), SBIs increased 193% (45/132) in Austin. By comparison, minor injury bites -- the most frequent injury level -- fell by 27% (1463/1062), and moderate injury bites -- the second most frequent -- only rose by 49% (326/485). The chart shows that severe and moderate bites rose the most during the Covid years of 2021 to 2023. Among age groups, severe injury bites rose the most in ≥ 40 years old, 433%, followed by, 1-9 years old, a 275% rise, and 10-39 years, a 117% rise.

Page 2 of the Severity & Age Group report, which extends the charts back to 2012, shows the rise of severe bite injury victims ≥ 40 years old began in 2019, before the pandemic. Within this subset, 40-49 years rose the most over the 12-year period, nearly doubling in the number of severe bites between the two 6-year periods (2012-2017 to 2018-2023) from 39 to 77, a 97% rise. Followed by ≥ 70-years, which also had a nearly a doubling of incidents between the two periods from 12 to 22, an 83% rise.

Download: Report: Austin Dog Bites - Injury Severity & Age Groups (2012-2023)

Dog bite injuries by severity and age group (2012-2023) before, during and after Covid, emphasizing the rise in severe injury dog bites in the city of Austin between 2018 to 2023.

Austin Dog Bites: Top-Biting Breeds & Severity

The Biting Breeds & Severity report shows the top-biting breeds of (1) all severity levels and (2) severe bite injuries alone between 2012 and 2023.6 Among all severity levels, pit bulls were responsible for 22% (4888/21911), over twice as high as any other dog breed. Among severe bite injuries, pit bulls were responsible for 42% (357/842), over 4 times higher than any other dog breed. Among the years we are primarily focused on, 2018-2023, severe bites inflicted by pit bulls rose 533%, from 12 to 76.

Thus, the near tripling of severe bites in Austin from 2018 to 2023 points to pit bulls as the chief perpetrator, responsible for 47% (234/494), combined with the total number of dogs with significant bite histories that AAC recycled back into the city, and the "sustained effect" post-Covid. Among severe bites inflicted by the other top-biting breeds over the 12-year period, there is little variance. As Chart G shows, there is an explosion of severe bite injuries inflicted by pit bulls from 2018 to 2023.

Page 2 of the Biting Breeds & Severity report shows the top 10 biting breeds for each severity level over the 12-year period. Pit bulls inflicted 42% of severe bites, over 4 times more than the next breed, Labrador retrievers, 10%, and German shepherds, 5%. Pit bulls inflicted 27% of moderate bites, over 2 times more than the next breed, Labradors, 12%, and German shepherds, 8%. Pit bulls inflicted 20% of minor bites, over 1.75 times more than the next breed, Labradors, 11%, and Chihuahuas, 10%.7

Download: Report: Austin Dog Bites - Top-Biting Dog Breeds & Severity (2012-2023)

Top-biting breeds of severe injures by year (2012-2023), emphasizing the rise in severe dog bite injuries by the top-biting breeds in the city of Austin between 2018 to 2023.

Austin Dog Bites: Multi-Dog Bites & Severity

We also examined if bites involving multiple dogs ("multi-dog bite") significantly added to the rise of SBI events from 2018 to 2023. For example, in 2022 a 41-year old Austin man was killed by 6 pit bulls. This was recorded as 6 severe bites. From 2012 to 2017, multi-dog bites comprised 29% of all severe bite injuries. This fell to 24% from 2018 to 2023. Severe multi-dog bites involving pit bulls comprised 37% during the 2012 to 2017 period. During the second period, 2018 to 2023, that rose to 70%.

From 2018 to 2023, pit bulls were disproportionately involved in severe bite injuries, 47% (234/494), and severe multi-dog bite injuries, 70% (85/121).

If only unique SBIs are counted -- meaning the Austin fatality would count as 1 SBI event instead of 6 -- unique severe bites from 2018 to 2023 still nearly tripled. Instead of rising 193% (from 45 to 132), unique SBIs rose 190% (from 41 to 119). As Chart K illustrates, multi-dog bites are always a portion of severe bites, but that portion actually fell slightly during the 2018 to 2023 period. Severe injury bites involving multiple dogs did not abnormally impact the overall rise of SBI events from 2018 to 2023.8

This is also true in our dog bite fatality data, perhaps because owning a pair of dogs is common. Yet, there has been a sharp rise in deaths involving 3 or more dogs -- from 5 deaths in 2018 to 22 in 2023, a 340% rise. While all dog bite fatalities have risen annually since 2018 -- from 36 deaths in our data to 61, a 69% rise -- deaths are rising slower than attacks involving ≥ 3 dogs.9 Austin data only tracked if "multiple dogs" were involved, not the "actual number" of dogs, so we could not measure this factor.

Download: Report: Austin Dog Bites - Multi-Dog Bites & Severe Bites (2012-2023)

Severe injury multi-dog bites and unique bites (2012-2023), emphasizing the influence of multi-dog bites on all severe injury bites in the city of Austin between 2018 to 2023.

Austin Dog Bites: Summary

Over the 6-year period of 2018 to 2023, minor bites fell in Austin by 27%, moderate bite injuries rose by 49%, and severe bites rose by 193% -- indicating a disproportionate increase in severe bites. Victims 40 years and older had the greatest increase in severe bites, 433%, especially those aged 40-49 and 70 and older. Over the 12-year period, pit bulls were responsible for 42% of severe bites, over 4 times more than any other breed. From 2018 to 2023, severe bites inflicted by pit bulls surged 533%.

Multi-dog attacks involving severe injuries did not distort these results. From 2018 to 2023, unique severe bites rose 190%, similar to the escalation in all severe bites, which rose 193%. This period directly correlates with the 95% save rate mandate and a "Right to Rescue" no-kill ordinance, both adopted in 2019, which led to AAC recycling hundreds of biting dogs back into the city. In 2024, the city adopted the Dunbar Bite Scale to stop rehoming dogs with a Level 4 or higher bite history.

San Antonio Dog Bite Data (2012-2023)

Background

After a series of five brutal dog attacks in 2023, including the fatal pit bull maulings of Ramon Najera, 81, and Paul Striegl, 47, local media began scrutinizing San Antonio Animal Care Services (ACS) data, including dog bite severity data, owner citations, repeat offenders, and more. This is when it became known that both San Antonio and Austin sustained a near tripling of severe injury bites from 2018 to 2023, but only a minor difference or a reduction in the number of minor and moderate bites.

The death of Najera resulted in criminal charges, the owners pleading guilty and a punishment phase proceeding. Christian Moreno and Abilene Schnieder, a married couple, were each sentenced to lengthy prison terms in connection to his death, 18 and 15 years, respectively. Najera's wife then filed a federal lawsuit against San Antonio, alleging the city's "misfeasance, and gross misconduct" for failing to declare the couple's dogs dangerous after inflicting three attacks prior to killing her husband.

After Najera's death, the city launched a strategic plan to increase responsiveness to bites and dangerous dog investigations. By the end of fiscal 2024, increases in budget and staffing led to a critical call response rate of 81%, up from 46%; dangerous dog compliance rose to 82% from 55%; and criminal citations increased 221%. Today, any dog picked up by ACS is subject to spay or neuter to reduce roaming dogs, and victims can sign a dangerous dog affidavit under a pseudonym program.

Despite these improvements, severe bite injuries have increased 54% so far this year. When asked why, ACS Director Jon Gary said, "We don't know."10

San Antonio operates on a similar dog bite injury scale as Austin. The three severity levels in San Antonio are Mild, Moderate, and Severe. We did not obtain breed data because it is already known from 2017 data that pit bulls inflicted 47% of severe bites in San Antonio, over 3 times more than any other breed. In 2023 data, pit bulls inflicted at least 31% of injuries resulting in "hospitalization or death" -- a separate severity designation11 -- which is over 4 times more than any other dog breed.

We also did not obtain records of bite dogs adopted from the city shelter. What is known is that ACS had an 88% "save rate" in 2022, and an 81% rate in 2023, both fall short of the 90% requirement for no-kill. In 2024, under the new leadership of Gary, the save rate rose to 87%, apparently due to a new incentive for rescue partners to pull animals from the shelter at $200 per animal, up from $84. Maintaining a 90% save rate is a priority for San Antonio, but their public safety priority is higher.

San Antonio Dog Bites: Severity & Age Groups

From 2018 to 2023 (fiscal), severe bite injuries rose 169% in San Antonio. By comparison, mild injury bites -- the most frequent -- fell by 2% (1750/1708), and moderate injury bites -- the second most frequent -- only rose by 18% (710/835). The chart shows that severe and moderate bites rose the most during the Covid years of 2021 to 2023. Among age groups, severe injury bites rose the most in ≥ 40 years old, 396%, similar to Austin, followed by 10-39 years, a 138% rise, and 1-9 years old, a 117% rise.

Page 2 of the Severity & Age Group report, which extends the charts back to 2012, shows the rise of severe bite injury victims ≥ 40 years old began in 2020, the first year of the pandemic. Within this subset, ≥ 70 years rose the most over the 12-year period, more than doubling in the number of severe bites between the two 6-year periods (2012-2017 to 2018-2023) from 29 to 71, a 145% rise. Followed by 60-69-years, where SBIs also more than doubled between the periods from 30 to 61, a 103% rise.

Download: Report: San Antonio Dog Bites - Injury Severity & Age Groups (2012-2023)

Dog bite injuries by severity and age group (2012-2023) before, during and after Covid, emphasizing the rise in severe injury dog bites in San Antonio between 2018 to 2023.

San Antonio Dog Bites: Summary

The similar trends in San Antonio and Austin cannot be ignored. Each experienced a sharp rise in the number of severe bites, 169% and 193% respectively. Each also experienced a sharp rise in the number of victims ≥ 40 years old, 396% and 433% respectively. Among the ≥ 40 age groups, the ≥ 70 age group rose the most in San Antonio, and the 40-49 age group rose the most in Austin. According to Census data, San Antonio has a higher number of people ages ≥ 65, 13.1% versus 10.1%.

After five brutal dog attacks in 2023, the city committed to a strategic plan to increase dangerous dog investigations and owner compliance. The results have been encouraging. Key public safety metrics have sharply risen, and the fine for a first offense for owning a biting dog is now $1,000. To combat the city's "enduring roaming dog" problem, any dog ACS finds roaming will be spay or neutered before being released to its owner. But an alarming increase in severe bite injuries continues to persist.

Summary & Discussion

Injury & Breed Data

In two Central Texas cities, Austin and San Antonio, Severe Bite Injuries (SBI) nearly tripled between 2018 and 2023. Moderate injury bites grew more modestly, 49% and 18%, respectively, and minor injury bites fell, -27% and -2% respectively. In both jurisdictions, dog bite victims in the ≥ 40 years age group increased dramatically, 433% in Austin and 396% in San Antonio. The top-biting breed in both cities -- pit bulls -- disproportionately inflicted the greatest number of severe and fatal bite injuries.

In Austin, severe injury bites inflicted by pit bulls shot up 533% from 2018 to 2023. No other breeds had a significant rise. In 2023 alone, pit bulls inflicted 58% of severe and life-threatening bites in Austin, over 9 times more than any other dog breed. In San Antonio, pit bulls inflicted 31% of injuries resulting hospitalization or death during 2023, over 4 times more than any other breed. In both cities, a single breed of dog, pit bulls, heavily contributed to the near tripling of SBIs over the last 6 years.

No-Kill Policies

In Austin, at least two no-kill shelter polices adopted in 2019, the "Council mandated" live release rate of 95% and the "Right to Rescue" ordinance, contributed to the rise in SBIs between 2018 to 2023. Over the same period, AAC recycled hundreds of high-risk dogs with bite histories back into the city. By the end of 2023, SBIs had nearly tripled. A course correction included the city adopting the Dunbar Bite Scale. Dogs with a Level 4 bite history or higher can no longer be adopted to the public.

We also know that in Austin, dog owners became more tolerant of keeping dogs that lack bite inhibition in their homes. From 2012 to 2017, 81 severe injury bites occurred on properties where the "same" dog had another recorded bite by AAC. From 2018 to 2023, that number more than doubled to 173, a 114% rise. Also, during the first period, 390 moderate injury bites occurred on properties where the "same" dog had another recorded bite history by AAC. That rose to 624 in the second period, a 60% rise.12

Severe Bites Keep Rising

In San Antonio, despite implementing a strategic plan to increase responsiveness to bites and dangerous dog investigations and achieving strong results between fiscal years 2023 and 2024, it was announced in May that severe bites increased 54% from the same period in fiscal 2024. Bites of all severity levels rose 11% -- indicating, again, a disproportionate increase in severe bites. If this rise continues at a 54% increase through the end of fiscal 2025, this will result in a 314% rise since 2018.

The surge in severe bites in San Antonio may be linked to more families keeping a biting dog, and more owners who lack the know-how and resources to manage a biting dog. The ACS director hypothesized the rise in severe bites might be linked to a rise in the number of free-roaming dogs. In our nonprofit's research, Covid exacerbated the free-roaming dog problem across the country, as spay and neuter services were slowed or halted and animal control agencies only responded to high priority calls.

National and International Trends

The 2024 UK paper, which is the first to show that dog bite injuries are increasing in frequency and severity following the pandemic, identified the trend as a "sustained effect" post Covid. Their analysis showed a 47% increase in dog bites after lockdowns ended compared to before, and a significant increase in the need for operative management. Covid changed various aspects of society, including patterns of human-animal interactions. More people became dog owners during this period as well.

On a state-level, two states have released comprehensive pre- and post-Covid dog bite injury data for emergency room visits. In California, the number of ER visits for dog bites increased 12% from 2021 to 2022. Additional data from the California Department of Health Care Access and Information shows that from 2018 to 2023, the number of ER visits for dog bites increased from 42277 to 54682, a 29% rise. 2023 marks the highest number of ER visits for dog bites in California in the last 19 years.

Data from the Florida Department of Health shows an even higher rise. From 2021 to 2022, the number of ER visits for dog bites increased 19%. From 2018 to 2023, the number of these ER visits increased from 24043 to 32557, a 35% rise. 2023 also marked the highest number of ER visits for dog bites in Florida in the last 19 years. The rate of these ER visits are similar in both states. In 2023, the rate of ER visits for dog bites in Florida was 143.8 per population 100,000. In California, the rate was 139.5.

Nationally, the number of U.S. households that own a dog is growing, the American Veterinary Medical Association reports. Our research indicates public tolerance for keeping a biting dog is also growing. According to a national no-kill organization, 57% of U.S. shelters achieved a 90% or higher save rate in 2022.13 Many no-kill shelters practice "managed intake," and avoid behavior-based euthanasia. These dogs are then recycled back into the community, just like AAC had been doing before the audit.

Mitigation Strategies

A powerful method of unbiased inspection is an audit. In Austin, the auditor's office underwent an extensive examination of AAC data that led to the discovery that AAC had placed over 350 dogs with moderate and severe bite histories into the city since 2019, contributing to a steep rise of severe bite Injuries. As a result, the city adopted the Dunbar Bite Scale, an objective injury scale, stating that dogs with a bite history of Level 4 or higher cannot be adopted to the public and may be euthanized.

Another mitigation strategy is for state legislators to enact a mandatory bite disclosure law, forcing animal releasing agencies to disclose the animal's bite history to the adopter -- California and Virginia already have. The combination of a bite disclosure law and a city adopting the Dunbar Bite Scale is even better. When Austin adopted the scale, the terms "provoked" and "unprovoked" were removed from the ordinance, because the city decided "to move to an objective measure of bite severity."

Owners with a biting dog must candidly consider its "management," because the best predictor of a bite is a previous bite. The degree of injury in each new bite often escalates. Can the biting dog and its legal liability be "managed" or not? If the answer is no, or is cost prohibitive, what is the next step? Prior to no-kill sheltering policies, responsible owner management of a serious biting dog was to surrender it to the local pound for euthanasia. Many no kill shelters turn away these owners today.

The Last Word

By Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips

After reviewing our report, the nation's most prominent dog bite attorney and the author of dogbitelaw.com offers additional findings and conclusions by providing the last word.

There are many reasons why more people are being seriously injured by dogs today, but the primary cause is the growing number of pit bulls in the United States. Although pit bulls make up only about 6% of the nation’s dog population, they are responsible for a disproportionate number of severe and fatal attacks.

When I refer to a pit bull, I include not just the American Pit Bull Terrier, but all breeds and mixes with the same fighting-dog background and behavioral traits—such as the Bully, Staffy, Amstaff, Blue Nose, and Red Nose. These dogs share a common genetic heritage and physical characteristics that make them more likely to inflict serious injuries when they attack.

Meticulous research supports this conclusion. For example, Colleen Lynn's analysis of dog bite records in Austin, Texas, revealed a 533% increase in severe attacks by pit bulls. In my own legal practice, which is exclusively focused on dog bite cases, pit bulls are involved in the vast majority of the catastrophic injuries and deaths. When I review a fatal attack, the dog responsible is almost always a pit bull.

The rise in pit bull ownership in the USA has brought with it more attacks, more physical trauma, longer recovery times, and higher medical expenses. Numerous hospitals and researchers have documented this trend. One dramatic statistic is that pit bulls are currently responsible for approximately 75% of fatal dog attacks in the United States.

Shelters and rescues have contributed to the crisis by rehoming large numbers of pit bulls. Families who come to a shelter looking for a safe, friendly pet are often misled into adopting a dog with a history of aggression. I’ve recovered millions of dollars for clients injured in such cases—only to see the same shelter continue placing aggressive dogs into other homes. This is why I have called for all states to adopt a “Truth in Pet Adoption Law” that would require shelters and rescues to disclose a dog’s bite history in writing before adoption. No reasonable parent would knowingly bring a dangerous dog into their home.

No-kill shelter policies have made matters worse. Nearly every day in my practice, I receive calls from adopters, fosters, shelter workers or volunteers who have been bitten by dogs that should have been euthanized. All across the country, aggressive dogs—especially pit bulls—are being returned to the same neighborhoods where they previously injured people.

The pit bull advocacy movement has added to the problem by promoting the idea that these dogs are simply intelligent, friendly, loyal, and misunderstood. But advocates often fail to mention that when pit bulls attack, their victims are frequently their own owners, their owner's family members, or visiting children. This incomplete narrative leads to real harm:

People adopt pit bulls without understanding the risks

Owners of small dogs do not take steps to protect them

Pit bull owners fail to protect themselves or their families

People and pets suffer maulings that could have been prevented

A recent attack in Manhattan highlights another serious issue: the failure of law enforcement to act. In that case, a Chihuahua named Penny was mauled outside a sidewalk café. The NYPD refused to take action, falsely claiming it lacked the authority to impound two clearly dangerous pit bulls owned by irresponsible individuals. When animal control laws are ignored, people and pets suffer avoidable injuries.

Are all pit bulls alike? No. But every pit bull poses a level of risk that is simply too high for the average household. The only effective way to reduce that risk is to reduce the number of pit bulls overall. Public shelters and rescues should stop or greatly reduce the rehoming of pit bulls. Breeders should stop producing them.

The focus should not be on the breed’s image, but on public safety. And that means fewer pit bulls in our communities.

Kenneth M. Phillips
dogbitelaw.com

Chart Key: Rising Dog Maulings in two Central Texas Cities, Austin & San Antonio (2018-2023)

Download report files:
Report: Austin Dog Bites - Injury Severity & Age Groups (2012-2023)
Report: Austin Dog Bites - Top-Biting Dog Breeds & Severity (2012-2023)
Report: Austin Dog Bites - Multi-Dog Bites & Severe Bites (2012-2023)
Report: San Antonio Dog Bites - Injury Severity & Age Groups (2012-2023)
See: Full news release

1Proposed Changes Related to the Austin Animal Services Office, City of Austin Council Work Session, January 30, 2024 (services.austintexas.gov).
2Previously, the City Auditor's audit of the Austin Animal Center (AAC) showed that 479 dogs with moderate or severe bite histories were adopted by AAC over the 4.5 fiscal year period of 2019 to midway 2023. In January 2025, this was revised and is noted in the revised version of the audit -- "January 2025 correction to the audit of the Austin Animal Center: In December 2024, our office identified inaccuracies in Exhibit 3 titled, “AAC regularly adopts and transfers animals with moderate and severe bite histories.” As a result, we revisited the methodology and updated the exhibit. The revised numbers continue to support our conclusion in the report that the Austin Animal Center regularly adopted and transferred animals with moderate and severe bite histories."
3The Del Rio case provides even more details. On Christmas day 2021, two children were delivering Christmas cookies to their next-door neighbor "when Stanley, who the neighbor had adopted from AAC in August 2020, 'escaped and barreled toward and into Noelle,' leaving her with a concussion, broken arm, and puncture wounds and lacerations to her head." According to the lawsuit, "Stanley had been repeatedly aggressive while housed at AAC and was twice involved in biting incidents in early 2020." The Del Rios argued "the City was not entitled to governmental immunity because its 'operation of its [NKP] is not animal control, is ultrahazardous, and is proprietary.'" | Stephani Del Rio and Andrew Del Rio, as Next Friends of “Noelle” and “Luke,” Minors, Appellants v. The City of Austin, Appellee, Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, Case No. 03-24-00344-CV, Decided: January 31, 2025 (caselaw.findlaw.com).
4Ordinance No. 20191017-025, October 17, 2019, City of Austin, Texas (municode.com).
5Resolution No. 20190328-034, March 28, 2019, City of Austin, Texas (austintexas.gov).
6The “Breed Group” was determined using these rules (1) Breeds listed under two or more names (“Alaskan husky” and “Siberian husky”) were combined into one breed, (2) Breeds with multiple size distinctions (“giant” and “miniature”) were combined into one breed, and (3) Breeds with coat distinctions (“Chihuahua long coat” and “Chihuahua short coat”) were combined into one breed. Other examples include: (a) The “Australian cattle dog” breed group combines: Australian cattle dog and Queensland heeler. (b) The “Pit Bull” breed group combines: American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire, and pit bull.
7Austin does not have licensing data. The city ended its Pet Licensing Program in 2008. There is no way to gauge dog breed populations. We reported this in 2012: Dog Bites Increase 35% in Austin After the Adoption of 'No-Kill' Policy.
8The unique SBIs are actually higher too. Our method of extracting all duplicate victim IDs did not account for the uncommon victim who sustained two severe bites in separate attacks. We manually located 6 victims. Half (3) were volunteers at APA or AAC; one victim was severely bitten by her own pit bull twice; one victim was severely bitten by two different dogs a year apart; and one victim was a child severely bitten by the same family dog on two occasions.
9U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities Report (2018-2023), May 2025, Dogsbite.org.
10Garrett Brnger, "Animal bite reports up in San Antonio, ACS director says," KSAT, May 19, 2025 (ksat.com).
11Mariza Mendoza, "San Antonio's dog bite crisis: Over 3,000 cases reported, pit bull look-alikes top the list," News 4 San Antonio, October 31, 2023 (news4sanantonio.com).
12In some of the repeat-biting dog households, two or more bites occurred in one incident involving different victims (a single dog attacked more than one person in the home). 7% (83/1268) of repeat-biting dogs with a Moderate or Severe bite record occurred at the facilities of AAC, Austin Pets Alive, or Austin Humane Society. We did not exclude them.
13Best Friends Animal Society’s Annual Report on U.S. Pet Sheltering Reveals No-Kill Shelters at All-Time High, Despite 378,000 Pets Killed Nationally, Best Friends Animal Society, May 31, 2023 (bestfriends.org).

The post Rising Dog Maulings in Two Central Texas Cities (2018-2023): What Public Safety Policy Got Wrong—and How to Fix It appeared first on DogsBite Blog.

Quincy Man Co-Authors Documentary Short After Surviving Near Fatal Pit Bull Attack; Retraces Steps & Discusses Legal Issues

2025-11-06T16:38:19Z

Moneyback Joe is a documentary short about surviving a vicious pit bull attack.

Quincy, IL - On March 17, 2024, three pit bulls viciously attacked Jerod Welker, 36, as he walked through a park. The dogs ripped off his clothes, tore off part of his scalp, and inflicted lacerations and crush injuries all over his body. The documentary short starts with dramatic police bodycam footage as officers arrive at the scene. They find Welker lying face down in the grass, naked, and covered in wounds. Dr. Dan Liesen later states, "It looked like you were whipped with some type of Roman whip."

The names of the three attacking pit bulls, all female, were, "Moneyback Joe," the title of this documentary short, "Bailey" and "Basely."

Welker was transported to Blessing Hospital, where he was hospitalized for five days and spent three days on a ventilator. In the documentary, Welker retraces what happed on the day of the attack. He interviews Dr. Liesen and the ER practitioner, who treated his injuries. "We were really worried about your left arm," Dr. Liesen said, and if it was getting enough blood flow. "We were deciding whether or not to open your arm up to allow the fluid to weep out," so that you could keep your left arm.

The ER practitioner, LJ Helmke, said it was the worst dog attack he had ever witnessed. "To see somebody come in with, like I said, the hundreds of lacerations that you had from multiple dogs, it catches you off guard," he said. "We prepare ourselves for car accidents and stabbings and shootings," but dog attacks are typically one bite. "This was a whole different category of animal attack," he said. "I mean, where do you look first?" he asked, referring to which injury to treat first.

Excerpts: Dan Liesen, MD

"When we evaluated you, you were just mauled from head to toe. The attack appeared to occur where most of the injuries were kind of on the skin and then into the deep soft tissues. Skin lacerations simply in and of themselves usually don't cause life-threatening problems if you're getting bit, but when you have a crush injury associated with it, now you're injuring all of the soft tissues underneath of it. You're causing this inflammation and swelling everywhere in the body, and you're damaging the tissues as well.

* * *

"So, the skin over your head, where your hair attached into, that scalp was just multiple lacerations. We were really worried about your left arm. We thought that it might have created enough swelling that you weren't getting enough blood flow to your arm in order for it to live. So, we were deciding whether or not to open your arm up to allow the fluid to weep out, so you were going to keep your left arm. It's just all that crush injury to the soft tissues in your arm. It looked like you were whipped with some type of Roman whip. It was just top to bottom.

* * *

"I would say this, if somebody didn't see him and removed the animals that were attacking him, he would not have been alive much longer, maybe it was less than 20 minutes would be my guess because they were going to finish him off.

In my mind, and just from what I understand from the incident, if he didn't come in, in short order he was not going to be alive. He was going to lose his airway within probably 15 to 20 minutes and then then you would have died."

Excerpts: LJ Helmke, NP

"It was definitely the worst animal attack I have ever witnessed. To see somebody come in with, like I said, the hundreds of lacerations that you had from multiple dogs, it catches you off guard. Because you don't think about these things. These aren't a one bite kind of injury. These are massive life-threatening injuries that can really end your life pretty quick if not intervened.

* * *

"We prepare ourselves for car accidents and stabbings and shootings, but animal attacks are, usually they're smaller children that were messing with the family dog and the dog snipped and cut the child's cheek. This was a whole different category of animal attack. I mean this was very distracting ... I mean, where do you look first?"

Harsh Legal Realities

Welker also interviewed State's Attorney Gary Farha. It is a grim dialog, given that there are few laws in Illinois to hold owners of vicious dogs criminally liable. This is due to pit bull lobbying forces, namely Ledy Vankavage. In 2003, these forces pushed through legislation that prohibits municipalities from enacting restricted breed laws,1 made it more arduous to declare a dog "vicious" or "dangerous" and solidified that a previous classification of either is required for the owner to face a felony penalty.2

The owner was charged with dogs running at large. "It's not a criminal act. It's a quasi-criminal action, where there's no chance of going to jail for that type of ordinance violation," Farha said. Yet, had this same off-property attack occurred in Texas or another state with a felony dog attack statute, charges might have applied. Farha believes these types of attacks need to be strict liability. "We're not saying you can't own an animal like this, but if something happens," you're going to be on the line, he said.

Farha also discussed violent breeds. "As we proceed into the future, I don't know what's going to happen. You fear that we're just going to get more and more violent breeds of animals. We have more and more extreme people," he said. This is an astute observation. The XL and XXL bully -- the largest pit bull breed variant -- is today's most extreme breed. Built from fighting bloodlines, weighing up to 130 pounds, and having inflicted enough fatal attacks the UK government banned them.

Excerpts: State's Attorney Gary Farha

"Dogs running at large. That was an ordinance violation. It's basically the dogs not being on a leash or are outside their yard. It's not a criminal act. It's a quasi-criminal action, where there's no chance of going to jail for that type of ordinance violation. Fine only. There are some things that could happen to the animal if it bites. In your case, the three animals were euthanized by the consent of the owners.

* * *

"My hopes would be that some legislator would take this case, and it takes three or four years sometimes to get a bill enacted but that somebody would do something to make it easier for prosecutors to deal with that. Because I do think, like I was saying, these type of cases need to be strict liability. We're not saying you can't own an animal like this, but if something happens, you have to understand you're going to be on the line.

* * *

"As we proceed into the future, I don't know what's going to happen. You fear that we're just going to get more and more violent breeds of animals. We have more and more extreme people. We have more and more mental health issues. I think that all that factors into getting more exotic pets, more dangerous pets, more dangerous breeds. I think that inherently means we're going to get more human beings injured.

Welker next spoke to Sally Westerhoff of the Quincy Humane Society. "Before this happened," Welker said, "I didn't know very much about pit bulls or what to look out for with dogs. I'm really glad it didn't happen to one of my kids." Westerhoff replied, "We had a very serious situation, and it seems like once the animals are euthanized, 'problem solved.' Well, it's not," she said. "We need to figure out how do we prevent that going forward rather than waiting for the result of just the animal being euthanized."

This past January, Westerhoff and Vankavage lobbied the Illinois legislature to pass HB 1603, which prohibits "a landlord or lessor from refusing to rent to, deny housing to, or impose conditions on a lessee or tenant based on the breed of a dog." The bill stalled in the House Rules Committee on April 11. There were 180 proponents, mainly pit bull defenders -- including, Zach Mackowiak, lobbying on behalf of USA TODAY -- and 125 opponents, primarily landlords and property management groups.

Given the solid pit bull defender lobbying block in Illinois, of which no animal activist (like Westerhoff) would break from, there is little chance that a criminal law after a "first attack" by a loose dog that inflicts serious or fatal injuries could pass. There is one reason why: the law would disproportionately affect pit bull owners because pit bulls disproportionately inflict these attacks. The pit bull block would fiercely fight the bill. In the case of Welker, the dogs' owner was given two citations, each for $250.3

Clothes Held as "Evidence"

Towards the end of the video, Welker sees the clothing he wore when the dogs attacked him for the first time. He holds up a big plastic see-through sack he retrieved from the Quincy Police Department. Inside, each article of clothing is wrapped and sealed with yellow evidence tape. He opens each article on camera. His sweatshirt is blood-stained; his sweatpants are ripped to shreds. Seeing his clothes, he said, "It does bring up feelings. I've never actually screamed for my life before, but I did then."

He said he'd like to understand the deeper meaning behind the attack. He may never know, "but I am left to think about it now," he said. Welker plans to meditate to try to get as close to the meaning as he can. One obvious meaning is that he survived; many would not have. Moreover, he appears to have physically healed faster than most victims after one year. Welker also contracted rhabdomyolysis, which is a rare muscle damage condition caused by the extensive crush injuries he sustained.

Excerpts: Jerod Welker

"They pull me down to the ground and they're starting to just like pull my clothes off and rip into my clothes. I was yelling. 'Somebody please help me I'm going to die' I was yelling something like that over and over as loud as I could for a while.

"I eventually decided I was going to try to get up. So, I got up. I think I had like my underwear and my sweatpants like kind of pulled down my legs, and I still had my shoes on of course, so I tried to really quickly get my sweatpants and underwear and shoes off and went running down the hill -- like full speed -- and they start they were following me."

* * *

"I think this might have been where they got part of my ear off ... I remember they were really on me. I had my face really in the ground ... I was like kind of eating the ground because I don't want them to get on my face.

* * *

"When I got up and opened my eyes, everything looked white, like literally white. So, I could see in front of me, but like everything had thick white tint to it. I've never experienced that before. I don't know what that is. I feel like I am just going to sound crazy."4

Additional Discussion

Welker, who co-authored the documentary short with Andrew Sheeley, created a powerful account of a victim reencountering a vicious dog attack after physically healing from it. Having to watch and edit the police bodycam video -- perhaps dozens of times -- would mean reliving the attack and his vulnerability each time. By interviewing the medical practitioners, the audience learns of the severity of his injuries through the authoritative lens of the two people who treated him. This is very compelling.

Reencountering the clothing he wore when the dogs attacked him was also forceful. Even though no criminal charges applied to the attack, police bagged and sealed his bloody clothing as evidence and held them in lockup. Police had treated the scene of the attack as a potential crime scene. So, it must have been a cruel irony for Welker to pull each clothing article out of the "evidence bag" knowing that the brutal attack he endured was nothing more than a "civil" issue. No crime had been committed.

This disturbing irony is perfectly reflected in the sullen face of former Adams County State's Attorney Gary Farha during his interview. We call this expression, "Defeated Prosecutor Syndrome." When a prosecutor's face shows a "a particular grimness, even ashen quality, upon realizing there are no legal options to criminally charge the owner of a pit bull after his dog savagely" kills or injures a person. Because "it’s hard to bring charges without prior adjudication of these animals as dangerous animals."

Most serious criminal dog attack charges require the owner (1) having knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities, and/or (2) demonstrated recklessness or a negligence. State laws like Illinois, which require the dog to be previously adjudicated as "vicious" or "dangerous" prior to criminal charges, are futile. As Welker's case shows, the dogs were declared "vicious" afterward and the owner euthanized all three dogs to avoid the "vicious" dog requirements. Thus, reinforcing the vicious dog owner loop.

Farha states, "these type of cases need to be strict liability," referring to criminal liability after a vicious attack by a loose dog causing serious bodily injury or death. On this website, we frequently use the term "strict liability" when referring to civil liability. But strict liability also exists in criminal law. Dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips, and the author of dogbitelaw.com explains: "Technically speaking, strict liability offenses are crimes that do not require proof of the defendant's mental state (mens rea)."

"Although we might not know it by its name, every one of us is already familiar with criminal strict liability. We see it all around us every day," Phillips said. Examples include criminal laws against drunk driving and selling alcohol to a minor. "It doesn’t matter how good your intentions were," Phillips said, or "how hard you tried to keep this from happening." Criminal strict liability laws are aimed at conduct that’s intolerable, he said. "Do it and there are no excuses. Do it and you go to jail. That's strict."

Left: Jerod Welker, Dr. Dan Liesen, and Former Adams County State's Attorney Gary Farha.

From Moneyback Joe, a documentary short about recovering from a vicious pit bull attack.

1Part of what propelled the lobbying forces was the January 2003 fatal mauling of Anna Cieslewicz, who was attacked and killed by two pit bulls while jogging in Dan Ryan Woods forest preserve in Chicago..
2Declaring a dog "dangerous" under the 2003 bill, HB 0184, increased the burden of proof level from no specified level to "clear and convincing evidence." Declaring a dog "vicious" under HB 0184 required the animal control or law enforcement agency to "make a detailed report recommending a finding that the dog is a vicious dog and (1) give the report to the State's Attorney's Office and the owner. (2) The complaint must be filed in a circuit court in the "name of the People of the State of Illinois to deem a dog to be a vicious dog," and (3) "The petitioner must prove the dog is a vicious dog by clear and convincing evidence." In the previous version of the Act, numbers 1-3 were not required. It only required an investigation by animal control or law enforcement agency, and a declaration in writing the dog to be a "vicious" dog as defined in the Act. Also in the previous Act, a determination by a court was an option, not mandatory.
3In 2006, HB 4367 attempted to overturn parts of the 2003 Act. The bill would: (1) "establish the Vicious Dog Attack Victim Relief Fund Program to reimburse victims and their families for medical bills, lost wages, and other damages resulting from serious physical injuries caused by a vicious dog attack," and (2) "provides that if an owned animal is found to be a "vicious animal", the owner shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony." In other words, if a first attack by a dog results in serious or fatal injuries, meeting the definition of a "vicious" dog, the owner would face a Class 4 felony. HB 4367, introduced during the 94th General Assembly, never got a hearing. The bill was DOA -- dead on arrival.
4We do not know what caused everything to turn white, but it is indicative of a "white out." This can be caused by standing up too fast, overexertion, becoming dehydrated, and/or physical stress. Yet another cause, apparently, is the life-saving measure of "standing up" after being dragged to the ground and repeatedly mauled by three pit bulls. After getting up, he didn't make it too far before the dogs caught him, taking him down again. He told Muddy River News, at that point, “I gave up on yelling for help. It seemed like the more I did that, the more fierce the dogs would get with me. And also, I was really exhausted. I was starting to accept that really, this is going to be it. I was just accepting that I was probably going to die. Maybe that’s why by the time the police got there, (the dogs were) circling me.”

The post Quincy Man Co-Authors Documentary Short After Surviving Near Fatal Pit Bull Attack; Retraces Steps & Discusses Legal Issues appeared first on DogsBite Blog.

"Criminal Strict Liability" – Explained Simply

2025-05-06T17:19:50Z

What is “Criminal Strict Liability”?

Although we might not know it by its name, every one of us is already familiar with criminal strict liability. We see it all around us every day. Examples include the criminal laws against --

Having sex with a minor (statutory rape).
Drunk driving.
Selling spoiled food.
Selling alcohol to a minor.
Violating workplace safety standards.

These are all strict liability crimes. They focus on just one thing: the illegal act itself. Do that thing, go to jail. A criminal strict liability law says --

It doesn’t matter how good your intentions were.
We are not interested in what you thought you were doing when you did this.
It makes no difference how hard you tried to keep this from happening.

Criminal strict liability laws are aimed at conduct that’s intolerable. Do it and there are no excuses. Do it and you go to jail.

That’s strict.

Strict Liability Criminal Statutes in the United States

Most crimes require a combination of act plus mental state. For example, if a person does something that causes a human to die, the crime could be first degree murder if it was planned ahead of time, second degree murder if it resulted from reckless disregard of the possibility that death could result, or simple homicide if it happened because of negligence.

That’s not true of strict liability crimes. Technically speaking, strict liability offenses are crimes that do not require proof of the defendant’s mental state (mens rea). Society is not interested in what you were thinking, what you intended, etc. It doesn't even matter whether you knew there was a law against doing what you did.

The "Criminal Strict Liability" definition and examples were written by dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com. As a wonderful courtesy, we have permission from Phillips to publish this definition on our website. "Strict liability" is a concept that more commonly relates to civil law.

In 2022, two pit bulls killed 88-year old Mary Gehring and injured a young boy in Golden, Colorado. Prosecutors charged the owners with owning a dangerous dog causing death, a class 5 felony. Under the Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-204.5, Unlawful Ownership of a Dangerous Dog, is a strict liability crime. Both owners, Kayla Mooney and Victor Bentley, pleaded guilty. Other than this case, we do not believe we have seen a "criminal strict liability" felony statute applicable to a fatal dog mauling.

In Michigan and Washington, felony dog attack statutes have been tested by prosecutors who inferred the legislative intent was a strict liability offense because the statute was silent on criminal intent. In both cases, appellate courts rejected: People of Mi v. Janes and State v. Bash. The dissenters in Bash wrote: "The majority attempts to convert this into a 'second bite' statute, but Mr. Walt Freser was killed by the attack of the dogs. Surely the majority did not wish to make this a 'second death' statute."

Related articles:
03/24/25: The "Vicious Dog Owner Loop" – Explained Simply by Dog Bite Law

The post "Criminal Strict Liability" – Explained Simply appeared first on DogsBite Blog.

Echo Chamber: A Fatal Dog Mauling Short Story Written by AI

2025-04-29T04:59:34Z

AI Prompts and Synopsis Choice Determined by DogsBite.org

Echo Chamber image created by Reve.art and stylized by DogsBite.org.

DogsBite.org - Over the weekend, we experimented with two AI language models, ChatGPT and Claude, to develop a short story about a fatal dog mauling. Based upon the outcome, we used Reve.art to create the photographs. We were stunned at the results and by AI's accurate depiction of the self-branded "truth seeker," social influencer whose online handle is @FactsOverFear. We did not choose the dog breed or invent the plot line. Part two of this posts explains how the short story was created.

Download PDF: Echo Chamber - A Short Story of a Fatal Pit Bull Mauling by AI

Echo Chamber

By ChatGPT, Claude, and DogsBite.org

CHAPTER 1: LIVE OR DIE

The gate screeches like a wounded thing.

Metal on metal, weather-worn and brittle, it swings open beneath Alayna Monroe's hand. She steps into the yard barefoot, the soles of her feet brushing the powder-dry grass, heat rippling upward in visible waves. A white sun beats down on the neglected patch of suburban earth. Every color here is sun-bleached: the tricycle rusted to ochre, the fence warped and weather-gray, the dog at the far end a dusty bronze statue in the dirt.

"Alright, truth-seekers," Alayna says, her voice bright and clear, amplified by the GoPro mic strapped to her chest. "This is Bishop's Backyard. Let's talk about what really happened here."

She's live. 3.2 million and climbing.

Hearts, paw-print emojis, rocket ships, and clapping hands tumble across the screen. A soft ping marks each new viewer.

From the camera's wide-angle eye, the world seems cinematic—artfully framed chaos. A chewed tennis ball, split open like citrus, rests near a crumbling porch. An empty dog bowl overturned in the dirt. The cicadas thrum so loud they almost drown out the chat

"SLAY QUEEN"

#SheBelieved

"Girl don't."

"This is how horror movies start..." (pinned for two seconds, then lost to the tide).

At the fence line, the dog doesn't move.

Bishop. Red-coated, scar-laced, eyes closed. A breath rises in his ribcage, then settles. One ear twitches, just slightly.

Alayna pans in. Her voice softens. "Look at him. Calm. Centered. Just like any dog when treated with respect."

The words come easy—smooth, practiced. She's delivered variations of this monologue dozens of times. At protests, in edited vlogs, on national TV with some middle-aged anchor trying to poke holes in her logic. None succeeded.

Today's different.

Today's the final act.

She adjusts the GoPro to catch her face. Lips glossy, expression open, smile loaded like a trap. Her eyes burn with certainty.

"They said this dog killed a woman. But we deal in facts, not fear."

The chat explodes.

"PREACH."

"Cancel the media."

"Let's rewrite this story." (pinned by Alayna herself)

Behind her, the fence bows in the middle, patched with wire mesh. Sunlight glints off broken glass embedded in the soil. A blue plastic kiddie pool, deflated and dirty, leans against a half-toppled lawn chair. It's the kind of place creatures come to rot.

"Tail position is wrong. Please back up. Please."

The same comment appears three times, rapid-fire, from @VetTechVerity.

Alayna ignores it. Crouches slightly. Her GoPro shifts downward, catching the silent symmetry of her approach. Bishop doesn't move.

"See the posture?" she narrates, tone low, measured. "Ears neutral. Breathing controlled. He's reading my energy, not my history."

She name-drops Cesar Millan, casually. Tosses off a sentence about canine PTSD and misdiagnosed aggression. Then, mid-sentence, plugs her newest T-shirt drop: "Wear truth. Not fear." The link flashes on screen.

In the distance, a lawnmower starts up—and just as quickly sputters to silence.

Cicadas buzz in waves. Then stop. All at once.

Alayna freezes. Her smile holds—barely. For half a breath, her charisma glitches.

On her screen:

"I work trauma ER. Dog lulls are often precursors to strikes. It's in the muscle tension."

She laughs it off, sharp and practiced. "Fear breeds fear. That's not science—it's superstition."

Then Bishop lifts his head.

The movement is slow. Intentional. His eyes lock on Alayna's, unblinking.

His tail is out, rigid.

Not wagging. Not welcoming.

"UH HE SAW YOU."

"NOPE NOPE NOPE."

"Get OUT get OUT get OUT."

"See that?" Alayna whispers, lowering herself further. One hand outstretched. Her voice softens into a coax. "He's engaging. Dogs like Bishop need space and kindness. Not cages."

A pause.

She inches forward, barefoot in the brittle grass.

"Come on, big guy. You're okay."

Then—

A sound.

Not loud. Not dramatic.

A growl, low and raw, like a motor refusing to start.

Alayna's hand freezes mid-air.

The GoPro catches the shift in her face: the micro-spasm near her temple, the faltering smile, the flicker of doubt.

"He's...just nervous," she says. "That's normal."

The stream crackles. A glitch skips the video forward a frame, then back again. The audio hiccups. Cicadas roar back into life.

And Bishop rises.

CHAPTER 2: FACTS MEET TEETH

Bishop rises, muscle by muscle.

He doesn't lunge. Doesn't bark. Doesn't growl again. Just stands—a scarred red sentinel at the back fence, yellow eyes fixed on Alayna. His chest expands once, twice. Slow. Deliberate.

Alayna's heart stutters. For a millisecond, something ancient flares in her brain—a warning system millions of years older than her Instagram following. Then her training kicks in. Not with dogs. With herself.

"See? He's getting up to greet me." She smiles for the camera. The lie feels easy. Natural. "This is what engagement looks like. Not aggression."

The chat rushes past in a blur of emojis and text:

"ABORT MISSION GIRL GET OUT That's not a greeting stance that's a THREAT—Dog behavior specialist here—this is pre-attack posture."

Alayna's fingertips burn where they hover in the air—close enough to Bishop that the space between them feels charged. Her mouth is cotton. She swallows hard before continuing, her voice pitched to that perfect mix of authority and warmth that makes clips go viral.

"I'm going to move a little closer now. Notice how I'm keeping my body language open. Non-threatening."

She sits fully on the concrete slab, bare feet pressing against the scorched surface. The heat sears her skin, but she doesn't flinch. Can't flinch. Three-point-seven million people are watching her demonstrate fearlessness.

"I'm taking off my shoes," she narrates, slipping them off with practiced casualness, "because it's important Bishop sees me as grounded. No barriers."

The viewer count jumps—3.8 million now. The pings come faster. Heart emojis mix with warning triangles.

Bishop's body remains taut as wire. His eyes never leave her face. The muscles in his shoulders bunch and release beneath his coat, a map of tension visible through the scars.

One of her regulars, @DogLove365, drops a $50 donation with a message that floats across the screen: "Alayna is the real deal. The media just wants you to fear pit bulls."

Alayna's lips curl into a smile. Not for the dog. For the audience.

"That's right," she says. "The narrative about Bishop being dangerous? Pure fearmongering. Dogs respond to energy. Mine is calm. So he's calm."

But he's not calm.

Bishop stretches, neck extending forward, his body language unreadable to anyone except experts. And the experts in her chat are screaming now. His stance is wide. Tail rigid. Eyes unwavering.

"NOPE. That's tension. That's not curiosity. Girl stop. Please."

She ignores them. Lowers her voice to a steady whisper meant for Bishop but perfectly captured by the GoPro mic.

"You're a good boy," she says, her tone honeyed. "You just need someone who understands you."

The dog snorts, then licks his lips slowly. A pink tongue slides over black gums.

Alayna knows what she's seeing—what the audience is seeing. But she also knows what the followers want to see. Which version will get more views? Which narrative pays the bills?

She kneels fully now, dust catching on her bare knees. A stray pebble cuts into her skin, but she doesn't wince. The GoPro catches it all—her open palms, her relaxed posture, the pearls of sweat forming at her temples despite the manufactured calm. The perfect mix of vulnerability and control.

"He's reacting to the energy, that's all. My energy is calm."

Bishop's ears twitch. His muzzle tightens.

The chat erupts:

"He's lip licking. That's a stress signal. This isn't brave anymore. It's dangerous."

A verified account—@CanineBehavioristDr—posts a message that gets pinned by a moderator: "What you're seeing is textbook pre-attack signals. This is NOT safe engagement."

Even two of her most loyal followers break rank:

"I've supported you for years but this is too much Alayna I love you but please back away."

But the metrics are climbing. Alayna can see the numbers flashing at the corner of her eye. More hearts than warnings now. More rocket ships than alarm bells. The algorithm is feeding her to new audiences. Fresh eyes. Fresh wallets.

She taps her lapel mic, keeping her gaze fixed on Bishop while addressing the camera directly.

"You're seeing real rehabilitation in action," she says, voice clipped and professional. "This is why we fight stigma. "Maybe you should—""

She flashes a peace sign and leans forward another inch.

A top chat donation of $500 appears on screen: "We love you, Alayna. Prove them all wrong."

The money drops into her account instantly. She'll use it to pay for the editor who cuts her fifteen-minute vlogs into thirty-second TikToks. The ones that pay her rent.

Bishop's head lowers a fraction. His weight shifts forward on his front legs.

Then comes the sound—not a bark, but a growl. Low, continuous, unbroken. A sound like the engine of an old truck refusing to start.

Alayna falters. She swallows. The tiny break in her persona doesn't register to most viewers. But the dog sees it. Smells it. The first note of true fear seeping through her pores.

"Okay... okay, you're just talking. That's alright."

She's no longer speaking to her audience. She's speaking to herself.

The cicadas pause again. The air feels electric—charged like the moment before lightning strikes.

Bishop takes one deliberate step toward Alayna. Not a lunge. Just one calculated movement—silent and slow, like a wire being pulled taut. The distance between them shrinks from ten feet to eight.

Her audience loses it:

"HE'S HUNTING YOU LEAVE. LEAVE. LEAVE. MODS DO SOMETHING."

Alayna puts a hand flat to the ground, palm up. She leans back, visibly controlling her breath. The GoPro captures the slight tremor in her fingers.

"Bishop, you're safe. You're a good boy."

Her tone is gentle, but her knuckles are pale against the dirt.

Bishop pauses. Then tilts his head. He's watching something else—a flutter of shadow behind her that Alayna doesn't see.

The shadow moves. A screen door creaks. Kenneth Delaney, mid-60s, appears in the doorway, unaware of the tension stretched like piano wire between woman and dog.

"Everything goin' okay?" he asks casually.

Bishop's head jerks toward the sound. The tension spikes.

Kenneth's voice is loud, abrupt—breaking the fragile balance.

Bishop explodes into barking—not playful, not warning, but defensive. An alarm. His body vibrates with each sharp sound.

Alayna flinches, raises a hand to her ear as the mic overloads with feedback.

"He's just startled," she says, but her voice is higher now. Thinner. "It's okay. We're okay."

Kenneth steps onto the porch. "Maybe you should—"

Alayna glances back at him. In that split second, that fraction of a moment, she breaks eye contact with Bishop. The tension snaps.

Several animal behaviorists in the chat start flooding with red-lettered posts

Breaking eye contact now is BAD. Too late. He's locked in. This is going to go sideways.

But Alayna doesn't see the warnings. Doesn't feel the current change. She's calculating how to salvage the moment. How to make this work for her brand. How to turn barking into a redemption story.

Kenneth starts to speak again, but stops when he sees Bishop's posture shift. The old man's face drains of color.

"Miss, I think you better—"

Alayna tries one last move: extends her arm slowly toward Bishop. The ultimate gesture of trust. Of faith. Of defiance against fear.

"It's okay, baby. Come here. You're safe."

Bishop freezes. His body is all vibration now, a tuning fork struck against concrete.

The feed jitters—frame skip, audio stutter, high-pitched whine.

And then—movement.

CHAPTER 3: WHEN THE FEED FALLS

The attack comes without warning.

In an instant, Bishop closes the distance between them—no bark, no growl, just pure explosive motion. One moment he's standing rigid by the fence, the next he's a blur of muscle and fur crossing the sun-bleached yard.

Alayna barely registers the movement before impact. Her practiced smile vanishes, replaced by wide-eyed shock as her body jerks backward. The GoPro's field of view swings wildly, capturing a kaleidoscope of blue sky, dusty ground, and the dark mass of Bishop's body in chaotic frames.

"Jesus—" she gasps, the word cut short.

The livestream stutters as the harness tears from her chest. The camera tumbles, spinning sideways through the air, recording fragments of the unfolding horror—Alayna's outstretched arm, Bishop's powerful shoulders, a splash of crimson against white cotton.

The device hits the ground with a crack, landing at an angle that captures a slice of the yard. Alayna's legs are partially visible in frame, her feet kicking up clouds of dust that bloom outward like smoke. Her shadow stretches unnaturally across the parched earth.

Through the GoPro's microphone, the calm of moments before dissolves into chaos. Gasping. Thudding. Muffled cries that don't sound like the confident voice Alayna's millions of followers know. The ambient noise distorts, clashing with the earlier stillness of the desert afternoon.

A sharp snap of wood—perhaps a chair breaking or a section of the weathered fence giving way—cuts through the cacophony.

In the corner of the frame, the livestream chat erupts:

"WHAT THE HELL"

"CALL 911"

"OMG IS THIS REAL?"

"SOMEONE HELP HER"

"I CANT WATCH THIS"

The comments scroll faster than anyone can read, a digital panic attack playing out in real time. Hearts and shock emojis flood the screen, interspersed with all-caps pleas and profanity.

A pinned message from one of Alayna's moderators flashes briefly:

"We are contacting emergency services."

The view from the ground-level camera shows nothing but chaos and partial images. Dust rises in the Arizona heat, creating a hazy filter over the scene. Through it all, the unmistakable sounds of struggle continue off-camera.

Then, movement from the direction of the house. Kenneth Delaney appears at the edge of the frame, running from the back porch. His thin frame moves with surprising speed for a man his age, one arm extended as he shouts something inaudible over the noise.

"Bishop—no! Stop!" His voice finally breaks through, sharp with panic.

The camera catches only a flash of his weathered arm as he rushes toward the struggle. His face remains out of view, but his silhouette cuts across the frame like a shadow.

A loud, metallic sound suddenly breaks through everything else—a harsh crack that silences the yard for a split second. Some viewers later swear it was a gate slamming. Others describe it as a tool falling.

Many recognize it instantly as a gunshot.

The chat freezes momentarily, then explodes again:

"WTF WAS THAT"

"did he just..."

"SOMEONE END THE STREAM"

"is she dead???"

After the crack comes an unnatural pause—a terrible silence that lasts only seconds but feels much longer to those watching. The dust begins to settle.

Then, at the edge of the frame, Alayna appears. She crawls into view, collapsed on her side, one arm weakly reaching toward the camera. Her face is partially visible, mouth moving, but whatever words she's trying to form don't carry through the audio. Blood streaks her cheek and matts her hair.

What happens next becomes the most analyzed three seconds in social media history.

Alayna's hand rises between the camera and something out of frame—palm out, fingers splayed. A defensive gesture. Or perhaps something else. Behind her, a shadow approaches.

The image begins to pixelate. The audio stretches and warps, as if slowed by a corrupt file. A digital whine rises, drowning out all other sound—the death cry of the livestream as the connection falters.

The screen glitches once, twice—then goes black.

For a moment, nothing.

Then the platform displays its automated message:

"Connection lost. Stream unavailable."

Just like that, four million viewers are kicked back to their home screens, dropped into an abrupt silence. The comments section freezes mid-scroll, the last desperate messages hanging in digital space.

Within seconds, screen recordings begin to circulate. The last clear frame—Alayna kneeling, Bishop standing rigid—becomes the thumbnail seen worldwide. Already, the analysis begins: the dog's body language, Alayna's posture, the placement of the shadows.

On Twitter, hashtags start trending before emergency services even reach the scene:

#RIPAlayna

#JusticeForBishop

#SheBelieved

#FactsOverFear

Screenshots flood every platform. Clips are sliced, edited, slowed down, brightened. Each viewer sees something different in the chaos. Each claims to know exactly what happened.

The debates rage in comment sections and forum threads:

"She provoked the dog."

"The owner should have stopped her."

"This is what happens when influencers play expert."

"They're going to blame the breed, not the human."

By nightfall, millions have viewed the footage. Hundreds of thousands have shared their theories. News anchors have practiced saying her name with the perfect blend of solemnity and sensation.

And all of them—every viewer, commenter, and analyst—missed what truly happened in those final moments, when the feed fell and the world lost sight of Alayna Monroe.

The truth, like her final gesture, remains caught between competing narratives—seen by everyone, understood by no one.

CHAPTER 4: REVERB

Four million screens went dark at once.

The abrupt end of Alayna Monroe's livestream left viewers worldwide staring at buffering icons and error messages, their devices suddenly silent where moments before they had witnessed chaos unfolding in real-time. Some frantically refreshed, desperate to reconnect. Others sat frozen, fingers hovering over keyboards, unable to process what they had just seen.

"Connection lost. Stream unavailable."

The digital void lasted exactly eight minutes.

Then TMZ broke the news: "INFLUENCER ALAYNA MONROE KILLED DURING LIVESTREAM." The headline spread faster than the verification. Within thirty minutes, every major news outlet had picked up the story, each iteration adding layers of speculation where facts were scarce.

By sunset, the freeze-frame—Alayna crouched, Bishop standing rigid—had become the most shared image online. It appeared on Twitter feeds, Instagram stories, and Reddit threads, often accompanied by crying emojis or digital candles. The platform had swiftly deleted the original stream, citing community guidelines against graphic content, but screenshots survived. They always did.

Emergency services had arrived too late. The official report, leaked by a paramedic and posted anonymously, stated that Alayna Monroe was pronounced dead on arrival. The cause: "extensive trauma consistent with a canine attack." The report was shared thirty thousand times before being removed.

A photo emerged from the scene: the backyard gate standing wide open, a single white sneaker abandoned in the yellowed grass. No one knew who took it or how it spread, but cable news anchors debated its authenticity while displaying it on split screens.

By morning, the world had already divided itself.

#RIPAlayna trended alongside #JusticeForBishop. #FactsOverFear became both memorial and mockery, depending on who shared it. #SheBelieved spawned counter-hashtags and parodies. The algorithm couldn't distinguish grief from gloating—it only measured engagement.

Animal Control officers arrived at Kenneth Delaney's house at dawn, dressed in reinforced protective gear and flanked by police. News helicopters circled overhead, capturing footage of Bishop being carried out in a locked transport cage. The dog appeared calm, almost docile, a sharp contrast to the blurred images from yesterday's stream.

Protestors and reporters gathered outside the property before sunrise. Some carried signs demanding Bishop's immediate euthanasia. Others held placards reading "BLAME THE OWNER, NOT THE BREED." Police set up barriers between the groups, but both sides filmed each other for social media, each convinced they represented truth and justice.

Kenneth Delaney, hollow-eyed and unshaven, gave a brief statement to a local reporter. Standing at the edge of his property, shoulders hunched beneath a faded plaid shirt, he looked decades older than the friendly man who had welcomed Alayna just twenty-four hours earlier.

"I never meant for any of this," he said, voice cracking. "She said it would be quick. She said she knew what she was doing."

He couldn't finish the last sentence. The clip ended with him turning away, one weathered hand covering his face. It became the second-most-shared video related to the incident.

The first was the leaked final seconds of the livestream.

Though the platform had deleted the original broadcast, a recording surfaced on an obscure forum. The quality was poor—compressed, jerky, with distorted audio—but it showed what the official statement didn't. Alayna on the ground, bloodied. Kenneth running into frame. The sound—that sharp crack that divided viewers into those who recognized it immediately and those who desperately wanted another explanation.

The last visible moment: Alayna lifting her hand between Bishop and something just off-screen.

That single gesture launched a thousand interpretations.

"She was clearly protecting the dog from being shot," wrote @DogsMatter22, in a thread that garnered 87,000 likes. "Even as she was dying, she tried to save the animal that attacked her. That's true commitment to her principles."

"Are you people insane?" countered @RealityCheck91. "She was BEGGING for her life. That hand was saying 'please don't shoot ME by accident.' Classic victim response."

Media outlets invited body language experts, animal behaviorists, and trauma specialists to analyze those three seconds frame by frame. Each arrived with their own conclusion already formed.

Meanwhile, Alayna Monroe's social media following grew in her absence. Her accounts gained five million new followers in forty-eight hours. Her final post ("Facts over fear. Going live.") became one of the most reposted messages of the year. Fans created tribute videos set to somber music, cutting together her "greatest hits"—the times she'd confronted specialists, debunked conventional wisdom, or championed misunderstood breeds.

Her brand deals remained active for nearly a week before companies quietly removed her from their rosters. A wellness supplement she had promoted sold out nationwide despite doubling in price on resale sites. Her likeness appeared on unauthorized merchandise within days—t-shirts and hoodies bearing stylized versions of her face alongside slogans like "She Believed" and "Truth Seeker."

In university lecture halls, professors added Alayna Monroe to their syllabi overnight. A media literacy course at NYU used her stream as a case study. A communications seminar at Berkeley analyzed the parasocial relationships between influencers and their audiences. An ethics class at Northwestern debated whether platforms should implement longer delays for livestreaming to prevent similar incidents from being broadcast.

Seven days after the attack, Bishop was euthanized.

The procedure took place without fanfare or press. Animal Control released a brief statement: "Given the incident history and expert evaluations, the decision was made in accordance with protocol."

That night, a candlelight vigil appeared outside the shelter where he had been held. Twenty-seven people attended. Their photos, posted with #JusticeForBishop, received more engagement than the official announcement of his death.

Just as the news cycle began to shift, a new twist emerged.

A former collaborator leaked screenshots from Alayna's project folder, labeled "Live or Die: The Fear Myth." The documents included what appeared to be a draft script for a series of confrontational videos meant to challenge public perception of dangerous dogs. One passage outlined a staged confrontation meant to provoke "a teachable moment" with a dog previously labeled as aggressive.

The leak reignited debate: Was it all planned? Had she known the risks? Was Kenneth Delaney a willing participant in a stunt gone wrong? The questions multiplied. The answers fractured along existing lines.

Her fans saw the documents as proof of her commitment to the cause—she had researched thoroughly and approached the situation with a plan, not reckless abandon. Her critics viewed them as damning evidence that she had engineered a dangerous situation for views, underestimating the consequences of her performance.

Two weeks after her death, a stylized black-and-white version of the freeze-frame was printed on t-shirts, posters, even prayer candles sold on Etsy. Her image joined the pantheon of figures whose deaths had been commodified and whose meanings had been contested in the public square. For some, she represented misguided idealism in the social media age. For others, she was a martyr to sincerity in a cynical world.

In comment sections and living rooms, at dinner tables and in Zoom classes, people argued about what Alayna Monroe had truly believed—and whether belief alone was enough to redeem her final act.

No one agreed on what she meant.

But no one forgot her.

Every day, new viewers discovered the story. They watched the archived streams, read the think pieces, scrolled through the debates. They formed their opinions based on whatever algorithm had served them the story first. They added their voices to the endless echo chamber that had consumed Alayna Monroe—and that now preserved her, forever frozen in that final gesture, meaning whatever each viewer needed her to mean.

CHAPTER 5: STILL LIFE IN MOTION

One hundred and twenty-seven days after Alayna Monroe's death, the file resurfaced.

It was a moment everyone thought they had already seen—frame by frame, pixel by pixel, dissected across a thousand forums and talk shows. The incident had been analyzed, memed, mourned, and monetized. The narrative had calcified into opposing camps, each certain of their interpretation.

Then @DeepDiveDetective, a Reddit user known for forensic video analysis, posted something new.

"Found in the raw data stream. Last full frame before disconnect."

The image attached was familiar yet different—clearer than previous versions, with dust particles suspended in midair like stars. Alayna Monroe lying on her side in the Arizona dirt, one arm extended between Bishop and the direction of Kenneth Delaney's approach. Her face, partially visible, showed neither terror nor peace—just intense focus. The lighting gave everything a golden hue, like an oil painting captured by accident.

"She wasn't reaching for help," wrote @DeepDiveDetective. "She was shielding him."

The post exploded—four million views in six hours. Comment sections overflowed with new theories and familiar arguments. News outlets that had moved on to fresher tragedies suddenly returned to Alayna's story. The algorithmic machine churned back to life, serving the image to users across platforms based on their previous engagement with the incident.

The freeze-frame became a digital inkblot test, revealing more about those who viewed it than about the moment itself.

"Clear protective gesture," wrote animal behaviorists. "She's creating a barrier between the dog and the gun."

"Classic victim response," countered trauma specialists. "She's pleading, not protecting."

"Look at the angle of her fingers," argued body language experts. "That's not fear—that's command."

Each side saw what they needed to see, what confirmed their existing narrative. The ambiguity of the image made it perfect for projection—a canvas for collective meanings rather than a document of objective truth.

Hashtags that had begun to fade roared back to trending status:

#JusticeForBishop

#RIPAlayna

#SheBelieved

#FactsOverFear

A new one emerged: #TheFinalFrame

Media personalities who had built small empires on Alayna's death revived their coverage. A former behavioral psychologist with three million YouTube subscribers released an hour-long analysis titled "The Truth About Alayna's Last Gesture."

"That hand position is classic de-escalation," he claimed, drawing digital lines over the screenshot. "She was protecting the dog until her final breath. This wasn't just instinct—it was intention."

A rival influencer released a counter-video the same day: "It's not compassion—it's surrender. She was afraid. The narrative that she died trying to save the animal that was killing her is a dangerous romanticization of violence."

Both videos reached a million views within forty-eight hours.

The image transcended digital space. Graphic designers transformed it into stylized art. Street artists projected it onto urban walls. At a rally for breed-neutral legislation, Alayna's silhouette loomed large on a banner beside the words: "She chose trust."

Her last gesture became merchandise: t-shirts, hoodies, phone cases. A portion of proceeds went to animal shelters, or trauma centers, or digital literacy programs—depending on which interpretation of her death the seller subscribed to.

As the discourse intensified, so did the fringes. Conspiracy theories blossomed in darker corners of the internet. Some users claimed the frame was doctored, staged, or generated by AI. Others insisted the entire event was a performance art piece gone tragically wrong.

A Substack newsletter with a growing subscription base published an essay titled "The Gospel of Alayna," arguing that her death represented "the perfect modern martyrdom—ambiguous enough to mean everything, captured clearly enough to be endlessly reproduced."

The mystery of intention made her more powerful than any clear message could have. Alayna Monroe became whatever people needed her to be:

"A martyr for misjudged animals."

"A narcissist who thought she could control nature."

"The internet's Icarus."

"A victim of her own echo chamber."

Her transformation from person to symbol was complete when a prestigious university announced a new course for the fall semester: "INT 243: Moral Authority in the Age of Performance—From Livestreams to Legacy." The syllabus cover featured the freeze-frame in stark black and white.

On the six-month anniversary of her death, a candlelight vigil gathered in the park across from her former apartment building. Several dozen strangers stood silently under an LED billboard that cycled through her most famous clips. Signs flickered in the darkness:

"Facts Over Fear Forever."

"She Saw Good."

"The Truth Lives On."

Kenneth Delaney was not among them. No interviews. No statements. No lawsuits. A neighbor reported seeing him loading a U-Haul truck weeks after the incident, leaving behind the house where it happened. Public records showed the property sold to an anonymous LLC that promptly demolished the structure.

As for Bishop, animal rights activists erected a small memorial near the shelter where he had been euthanized. It disappeared overnight, then reappeared, then vanished again—a physical manifestation of the ongoing struggle over whose suffering deserved commemoration.

The one thing everyone agreed on: something profound had happened in that Arizona backyard. Something that transcended the simple tragedy of a woman killed by a dog she had underestimated. Something about truth and perception, about the stories we tell ourselves and others.

A year after her death, a documentary filmmaker who had interviewed dozens of people connected to the incident—followers, critics, experts, friends—ended his feature with a simple observation:

"Alayna Monroe left behind a message. We're just not sure what it was."

The film closed on a slow zoom into the final frame—that outstretched hand caught between protection and pleading—before fading to black.

In the silence that followed, viewers were left only with questions:

Did she die for what she believed?

Or for what she wanted others to believe she believed?

And in the end, was there any difference?

"#TheFinalFrame" - Echo Chamber image created by Reve.art and stylized by DogsBite.org.

Real or Not Real?

AI did a great job portraying the two pit bull camps (Are Pit Bulls Dangerous?) that will never reach an agreement. AI also chose the most realistic protagonist: a 26-year-old female "truth-seeking" social media influencer. It later comes out that she intended to produce a "series of confrontational videos meant to challenge the public perception of dangerous dogs." Alayna also wanted to prove her "rehabilitation in action" with the most dangerous type of dog of all -- one that had killed a person.

Our nonprofit has written about the Lion Tamer Complex and "stunt tamers," which Alayna represents, for many years. They are real people, and some wind up injured or dead. There are also "extreme rescuers" who covet "saving" pit bulls legally declared "dangerous" and death row dogs -- the more dangerous, the better. Like Alayna, many of them are overconfident and fail to recognize or misinterpret "textbook pre-attack posture" and other stress signals prior to a vicious attack.

The debates depicted in the story perfectly mirror real debates on social media. "She provoked the dog," states one. "This is what happens when influencers play expert," states another. The story even captures people who care about the breed's reputation above all else: "They're going to blame the breed, not the human," states one. AI also captures how her fan base, the media, and the public divide over each issue related to the attack, right up to the final freeze-frame of her hand in the air.

Although we did not specify a dog breed in our prompts, AI knew the breed most suitable for this story: a male pit bull. There is no divided debate -- creating echo chambers on both sides -- around any other dog breed. The story would have been less believable with a German shepherd. The third echo chamber was Alayna herself. Part of her character profile created by AI states: "She lives inside her own curated feedback loop -- amplifying only the messages that reinforce her worldview."

Part of our goal was to do as little as possible to test AI's ability to flesh out our chosen idea into final chapters. "Echo Chamber" is written in the third person, so there is distance between the reader and the protagonist. However, we believe there is a certain lack of connection to the characters because it was not written by a human. This can likely be overcome by creating "expert level" prompts. There are writing courses for this as well, promising, "AI outputs into polished writing that sounds just like YOU."

How We Created with AI

We generated the plot, outline and characters through a series of prompts in ChatGPT. We used Claude to write the fully fleshed out chapters. We used the "fracture technique" created by The Nerdy Novelist, who produced the video: How to Write a Short Story in 20 Minutes (ChatGPT + Claude). The video we followed was over a year old, and AI has learned multitudes since. The below elements, however, are still the basic elements for writing a short story. There are 6 central prompts.

Prompts for: Idea > Synopsis > Outline > Story Beats > Character Profiles > Full Chapter

Prompt 1. Idea

Our first idea prompt produced mediocre results, "Give me 10 ideas for a dog attack victim story." Most plots returned were cliche, in that, the dog was never at fault, only the human being was. After we upped the ante to, "Give me 10 ideas for a fatal dog mauling story," the results became more interesting. One of them was: "A social media influencer known for 'debunking' danger," and "claims that aggressive breeds are misunderstood." The dog attacks mid-live stream. She dies on camera.

Prompt: Give me 10 ideas for a fatal dog mauling story. Here are some elements that each idea should have.
-One protagonist
-A clear dilemma
-A decision
-A climax
-An outcome
-A clever twist
The short story should involve just a few scenes, ideally a single moment that is pivotal for the character, but does not require too much exposition. It should immediately jump into the action.
Chosen Result: “Echo Chamber”
Protagonist: A social media influencer known for “debunking” danger.
Dilemma: Claims that aggressive breeds are misunderstood—wants to prove it live.
Decision: Enters a yard housing a pit bull that had killed woman.
Climax: The dog attacks mid-livestream.
Outcome: She dies on camera.
Twist: The final frame shows her trying to shield the dog from being shot—viewers are split on whether she was a martyr or a fool.

Prompt 2. Synopsis

We then asked for a synopsis and identified the genre of true crime.

Prompt: Here is a true crime short story called, "Echo Chamber". Please expand on it and give me a full synopsis.
“Echo Chamber”
Protagonist: A social media influencer known for “debunking” danger.
Dilemma: Claims that aggressive breeds are misunderstood—wants to prove it live.
Decision: Enters a yard housing a pit bull that had killed woman.
Climax: The dog attacks mid-livestream.
Outcome: She dies on camera.
Twist: The final frame shows her trying to shield the dog from being shot—viewers are split on whether she was a martyr or a fool...
Result: Too large to include -- it fleshes out the dilemma, decision, climax, etc.

Prompt 3. Outline

We then asked for a detailed outline of the synopsis containing chapter summaries.

Prompt: Please create a detailed outline of the synopsis of "Echo Chamber" containing chapter summaries.
Result: Too large to include -- it fleshes out a detailed outline and the chapter summaries.

Prompt 4. Action Beats (Story Beats)

Creating the action beats or story beats for each chapter summary breaks down the story into more granular pieces. A story beat is a shift in the narrative. They are the smallest unit of story prior to writing the chapter out in full-fledged prose. Also, at this stage, we began working "one chapter at a time." There are word count limits in the AI prompts. We used five separate prompts in ChatGPT to create the story beats for each chapter summary. At any time along the way, you can make changes.

Prompt: Please take the following chapter summary and generate a list of 12 highly detailed Action Beats with additional STORY INFORMATION to fully flesh out the chapter. Make sure to always use proper nouns instead of pronouns.
Result: Too large to include -- it divides the chapter summary into 12 parts

Prompt 5. Character Profiles

Prompt: Create a detailed character profile for "Alayna. " Make sure to include a Myer's Briggs character profile, and her Enneagram.
Result: Too large to include -- we also got a profiles for "Kenneth" and "Bishop."

Prompt 6. Chapter Prose

The next stage is prose development for each chapter. This stage required creating a "super prompt" seen in The Nerdy Novelist's 20-minute video. Chapter by chapter, we generated the first set of chapters in ChatGPT. We then did the same process in Claude. We liked the results from Claude better, which contained spicier prose. This is why The Nerdy Novelist, presumably, recommended chapter completion be done in Claude. The end result, was the completion of "Echo Chamber."

Prompt: Using all of the below information on CHAPTER BEATS, OUTLINE, and CHARACTERS, write ~500-700 words of Chapter 1. Use the SAMPLE CHAPTER and the STYLE to determine the prose style of the chapter you write. Follow the CHAPTER BEATS exactly. All paragraphs should take place during the timeframe of the summary instead of adding new events. Focus on fully developing the given story beats rather than new plot points. End the scenes at the specified story beat rather than continuing further.
Result: A completed chapter.

The post Echo Chamber: A Fatal Dog Mauling Short Story Written by AI appeared first on DogsBite Blog.

Legal 'Dog Bite King' Explains Blockbuster High Court Ruling for Dog Bite Victims in New York

2025-04-23T07:10:53Z

Dog bite victims in New York can now recover damages through negligence.

Press Release
Albany, NY - On Friday, the highest court in New York issued a landmark ruling for dog bite victims. Dog owners can now be held liable for negligence when their dog injures a person. The Flanders v. Goodfellow decision overruled a 2006 decision (Bard v. Jahnke) that "denied victims the right to sue for careless handling of a dangerous dog," states dogbitelaw.com in a press release. "For the first time in nearly 20 years, dog bite victims in New York can pursue compensation based on negligence."

New York Court of Appeals: Flanders v. Goodfellow (2025) | Bard v. Jahnke (2006)

Dog bite victims in New York can now pursue two of the three legal options to obtain compensation, states attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com. The first option is the one bite rule, where a victim must prove the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities (such as by a previous bite) in order to recover damages. The second option, a legal right that residents in all other states have always had, and now New York joins them, is to recover damages based on negligence.

The third option, and the most modern, is the ability for victims to pursue compensation based on statutory strict liability. Nearly 30 states impose strict liability, where a legislature has adopted a well-drafted dog bite law, making a dog owner legally liable to a victim who was bitten or attacked without the victim having to prove negligence or the one bite rule. The third option remains restricted to dog bite victims in New York, because it is a "mixed dog bite statute state," along with several others.

The lower courts dismissed Flanders’s negligence cause of action as barred by Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]), which held that there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm. Experience has shown that this rule is in tension with ordinary tort principles, unworkable, and, in some circumstances, unfair ...

Flanders asks us to overrule that aspect of Bard and to recognize negligence as an alternative to strict liability for injuries caused by domestic animals ...

"Although a court should be slow to overrule its precedents, there is little reason to avoid doing so when persuaded by the ‘lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning’ " ... Thus, where we have concluded that a "rule of nonliability is out of tune with the life about us, at variance with modern-day needs and with concepts of justice and fair dealing," we have overruled it. - Flanders v. Goodfellow

Dogbitelaw.com describes the background of Bard. "The facts of Bard illustrate this harsh rule. Mr. Bard, a carpenter, was seriously injured by a breeding bull while working in a barn. He hadn’t been warned the bull was inside. The bull, named Fred, had never hurt anyone before. Because of that, the defendants claimed they had no duty to warn Bard or remove Fred from the barn. Bard’s lawsuit was dismissed. He got nothing for his broken ribs, torn liver, or aggravated spine injury," writes Phillips.

Although Bard is about a "breeding bull", which the appellants argued, "'bulls, in particular breeding bulls, are generally dangerous and vicious animals,' and that therefore Jahnke should have restrained the bull or warned Bard of its presence," Bard also has breed-specific influences. The Court found appellants' argument unavailing, especially in light of its consistent view that "the particular type or breed of domestic animal alone is insufficient to raise a question of fact as to vicious propensities."

What Happened in Flanders?

"Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, was bitten by a dog owned by Defendants Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow while delivering a package to their residence," wrote the Court in Flanders v. Goodfellow. She began an action to recover damages from her injuries through strict liability and negligence. In New York, strict liability is obtainable by proving the one bite rule. Lower courts dismissed both causes of action. Flanders appealed to this Court, who reversed Bard, and reinstated both causes of action.

The facts in the Flanders case are powerful. The dog sprayed saliva and "slammed into window glass." The attack occurred on December 8, 2018.

On that day, Flanders arrived at Goodfellow's house to deliver mail, but found their mailbox missing. She drove into the horseshoe driveway to leave a package on the porch. As she did, she heard a dog barking, but saw no warning signs or alerts on her scanner. Stephen Goodfellow opened the door. As she handed him the package and told him about the mailbox, she "heard the sound of nails 'ticking' on a hardwood floor." The dog slipped through the door, lunged at Flanders' neck, and bit her shoulder.

Stephen Goodfellow opened the door to meet Flanders on the porch. As she handed him the package and began to tell him that the mailbox was down, Flanders heard the sound of nails "ticking" on a hardwood floor and saw a large dog approaching the door from inside the house. The dog slipped past Stephen through the open door and, as Stephen yelled its name, lunged towards Flanders’s neck. Flanders raised her hand to cover her face and neck. The dog bit her shoulder, latching its teeth into her flesh and breaking skin. With the package still in hand, Stephen tugged at the dog to release its hold. When he managed to break the dog’s grip, Flanders went directly to her vehicle without looking back. She later learned that the dog bite had caused a "snap tear" in her shoulder muscle, an injury that required multiple surgeries and resulted in permanent scarring. - Flanders v. Goodfellow

Evidence showed the 70 pound dog "yank[ed] people around" when leashed, even "dragg[ing] Michelle to the ground." The Goodfellows hired a dog trainer. After a two week session, Michelle posted on social media that their dog could now run "off leash in the yard," was no longer "jumping," and "tolerate[d] other moving critters." The couple testified the "dog did not interact with strangers because they did not enter the house," and they "had never seen the dog growl or bare its teeth."

Flanders produced sworn affidavits from two postal workers who had delivered mail to the Goodfellows' home over a few year period. One of them said that when he approached the house, the couple's dog "would actually bite the window, as though it was trying to bite you," causing its "saliva [to] project onto the window." The dog also slammed into the window glass, "as though it was trying to get through to attack." The other postal worker testified to similar experiences with the dog.

One of them said that when he approached the house, the Goodfellows’ dog "would actually bite the window, as though it was trying to bite you," causing its "saliva [to] project onto the window." The dog would bare its teeth "during these episodes, and it barked, snarled, and growled. It also slammed into the window glass, as though it was trying to get through and attack." The worker asserted that the Goodfellows’ dog was "the most aggressive" he had ever encountered on his routes, and he was "sure" that "if the dog’s owners were home when these deliveries occurred or they have surveillance footage of the dog’s actions during these deliveries, they knew or should have known the dog was aggressive or dangerous before the attack" ...

The other postal worker ... said that nearly every time he delivered a package to the front porch, he could see the dog through the glass windows on either side of the door. It "was extremely loud, barking and snarling, and slamming its face and head into the glass in what looked to be an attempt to attack [him] through the glass." He "believe[d] that home residents would have witnessed the dog’s behavior," noting that the dog "was extremely loud and created a huge ruckus such that anybody home would have known of it" - Flanders v. Goodfellow

The trial court, which is the Supreme Court in New York (see diagram), awarded the Goodfellows summary judgment and dismissed the claim. The court found the affidavits from the postal workers insufficient because neither proved the Goodfellows were home at the time or that the owners otherwise knew about the dog's behavior. Thus, Flanders' cause of action for strict liability, which required proving the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities, failed.

Due to the Bard decision, which barred the negligence cause of action, holding that "there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm," Flanders' cause of action for negligence was dismissed too. Flanders appealed to the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, which affirmed both parts. Flanders failed to demonstrate the owners knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities and Flanders' negligence cause of action was properly dismissed.

The highest court issued a response to both parts, finding that both lower courts errored in granting summary judgment for the strict liability cause of action. "A court reviewing a motion for summary judgment must view the facts "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" and it may not "make credibility determinations or findings of fact," wrote the Court. In other words, the affidavits of the other postal workers were a "triable issue of fact" and sufficient to continue the litigation.

In this same decision, the Court overruled Bard, finally recognizing "negligence as an alternative to strict liability for injuries caused by domestic animals." Again, the "rule of nonliability is out of tune" with "modern-day needs and with concepts of justice and fair dealing," wrote the Court. Common law negligence is defined as, "the absence of care, according to the circumstances." A person acts negligently if the person "does not exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances."

The Court overruled Bard, attorney Phillips explains, because, "It shifted the burden of injury onto victims instead of negligent dog owners, and it discouraged owners from learning about their dog’s dangerous tendencies." Further, "36 other states recognized negligence; the rest had not rejected it." New York courts "had already chipped away at Bard through exceptions,1 and it was simply unfair." Flanders now gives New Yorkers two of the three legal options. But they also need the third.

A well-written statutory law enacted by a state legislature "offers compensation without forcing victims to prove the dog was known to be dangerous or the owner was careless. It’s limited -- it doesn’t apply to trespassers or those who provoke dogs -- but it covers most victims," writes Phillips. The ancient one bite rule and negligence are both common law. Modern law is developed through statutes, in this case a dog bite statute. The legal website urges the New York state legislature to "act now."

National Significance

The press release by dogbitelaw.com also states the decision in Flanders has national significance. Flanders "holds that negligence and the one bite rule are entirely separate grounds of liability," states the release. "The New York Court of Appeals’ emphasized that the one bite rule is entirely different than the negligence doctrine," Phillips tells CityWatch. "The one bite rule is based on what the animal actually did in the past, while the negligence doctrine focuses on what might happen in the future."

Many state courts and legislatures have mistakenly treated the two legal theories as one in the same, Phillips said. But as Flanders shows, the plaintiff can pursue compensation under both legal theories. "The one-bite rule demands proof that something similar already happened and the defendant knew it or should have known it. Establishing negligence does not require a prior similar act," Phillips tells CityWatch. "Therefore, the Flanders case has the potential to influence reforms in other states."

Watch the oral arguments: No. 29 Flanders v Goodfellow, March 12, 2025

Dog bite attorney Kenneth Phillips of dogbitelaw.com explains Flanders v. Goodfellow.

1Prior to the Court overturning Bard there were several notable carve-outs ("ad hoc exceptions to Bard’s no-negligence rule"). In Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, the Court concluded that veterinary clinics could be held liable in negligence. The Court concluded, a clinic is "uniquely well-equipped to anticipate and guard against the risk of aggressive animal behavior that may occur in their practices." Seven years after Bard, the Court recognized the exception for harm caused by a wandering animal. "In Hastings v Sauve, a cow crossed a neglected fence and ended up on a public road; the plaintiff then ran into the cow while driving down the road. We carved "wandering animals" out from Bard’s no-negligence rule and allowed the case to proceed because it did not involve a vicious propensity and was thus "fundamentally distinct from the claim made in Bard."

The post Legal 'Dog Bite King' Explains Blockbuster High Court Ruling for Dog Bite Victims in New York appeared first on DogsBite Blog.