Arizona: Child attacked by 'emotional therapy' dog that was allowed on Southwest Airlines flight

ARIZONA -- A child was injured by an emotional support dog on a Southwest Airlines flight from Phoenix to Portland, Oregon Wednesday night, fueling the debate over regulations regarding animals on airplanes.

The dog’s teeth scraped the child’s forehead after the passenger approached the animal during the boarding process, according to a spokesperson for Southwest.

The child received minor injuries and was examined by an EMT before continuing on the flight, which departed 20 minutes behind schedule. The dog and its owner did not stay on the plane and instead remained in Phoenix, the spokesperson said.

Another passenger on the same flight, Todd R., took a photo of the support animal and shared it on Twitter in a post that’s since been deleted, arguing that dogs should not be on planes and he would no longer be flying Southwest.

In another tweet, the passenger wrote: “When dogs are biting 6 year old kids on planes, it may be time to reconsider rewriting your 'safety' policy and procedure manual,'' AZ Central reported.

Reactions to the incident were mixed on social media. While some agreed with Todd, arguing that Southwest should create stricter regulations for emotional support animals, as other airlines have done recently.

Others felt the dog was not at fault and that the child should never have been allowed to approach the animal.

This dog is NOT a service dog. It is an 'emotional therapy' pet. Anyone who wants to need only go online pay a fee, answer a questionnaire and have a 'doctor' mail them a letter saying they need this animal for whatever reason. It's no different than the prescription pill mill doctors who write prescriptions all day long to drug addicts. They do it for the money.

That being said, ESA (emotional support animal) animals do NOT perform any task. They merely exist so that the owner can drag them everywhere so there is NO reason that said animal shouldn't be muzzled when taken out in public. They're not picking up items for this disabled owner. They're just sitting there. Or in this case, biting children on airplanes. 

Southwest notes on its website that service and emotional support animals are allowed on both domestic and international flights, but the animal must be trained to behave in a public setting and can be denied boarding if it fails to do so.

“Southwest Airlines welcomes fully trained service animals and emotional support animals accompanying a Customer with a disability on our flights. As our requirements for transporting each type of animal are different, our Employees are trained to ask some fact-finding questions to determine which classification applies to a Customer’s animal,” the website reads.

The airline does note, however, that it will not allow “unusual or exotic” animals to act as support pets, including but not limited to the following: rodents, ferrets, insects, spiders, reptiles, hedgehogs, rabbits or sugar gliders.

In regards to the incident of the dog injuring the child, Southwest said: “As always, the safety of our Customers is our highest priority.”

Two other major airlines have introduced stricter regulations for service and support animals this year. Last month, Delta Air Lines announced new strict guidelines for bringing service and support animals on board, citing customer abuse of the policy and a rise in animal-related incidents.

After an emotional support peacock was denied entry on a United Airlines flight, the company followed in Delta’s footsteps, issuing similar new regulations for those who wish to bring animals on board.

United cited an 84 percent increase in poor animal behavior by so-called 'emotional therapy animals' (ESA) such as urinating, defecating, biting and attacking people on flights as impetus for the change.

Anita Roman Fox 10 @ANITAROMANFOX10 posted on Twitter

This photo was taken by @SouthwestAir passenger who says this service dog bit a child as it boarded.  Airline says paramedics checked the child out and everything was ok that safety is priority.  The dog and owner got off the plane.  Man who took pic says no dogs on planes.

(Fox News - February 22, 2018)

Texas: Pit bull that owner claims is a "service dog" will be euthanized after gruesome attack of San Angelo boy

TEXAS -- Seven-year-old Israel Costilla stood beside his mother and grandmother as a judge ordered a pit bull named Trouble to be euthanized.

The verdict was a sad sigh of relief for the Costilla family.

On Dec. 9, the dog mauled Israel Costilla after the boy entered a home shared by his great aunt, Lisa Peden, and her then-roommate, Rayetta Trigg — the pit bull’s owner.

Fresh from a Saturday evening shopping trip, Peden, Israel and Israel’s brother and mother “walked in the door. (Israel) started petting Trouble, and Trouble attacked him,” Peden said. “It happened in two minutes.”

Trigg, who was in New Mexico visiting her father, did not witness the attack.

At the hearing Thursday, Peden said she pulled the dog off Israel and dragged it outside. Then she and Israel’s mother, Andi Costilla, frantically called 911.

Officer Green of the San Angelo Police Department saw Israel lying on a stretcher when he arrived.

“It looked like part of the child’s face had been chewed off completely,” Green told the court. 

After calling Animal Control Services, Green entered the residence and made a second gruesome discovery:

“I saw what looked like part of a child’s face in a pool of blood.”

Officer Green checked on the pit bull outside, testifying in court that he kept one hand on his gun for safety, afraid the pit bull might attack again.

Israel was taken by ambulance to Shannon Medical Center, where he underwent emergency surgery.

“He ended up getting 300 stitches,” said Ana Costilla, Israel’s grandmother. “He didn’t get out of surgery until around 2:30, maybe almost 4 o’clock in the morning.”

An Animal Control officer collected the pit bull, which spent the next 10 days under quarantine before being released to Trigg.

Israel will spend a considerable time healing physically, emotionally and mentally, family members said.

 

“He’s had two surgeries since, and he’s going to have to have more facial reconstruction done and dental work,” said Ana.

In the meantime, Israel Costilla hides his face from others — and himself.

“He wears a mask out in public,” Ana said. “You know, he doesn’t even like seeing himself in the mirror, so every time he goes to take a shower, we have to take the mirror down in the bathroom.”

 

 

Even eating has become a challenge for Israel.

“He has to eat with a baby fork and spoon. He has to drink out of sippy cup or use a straw because (the pit bull) took most of his bottom lip.”

Trigg represented herself during the hearing. Her closing statement was an emotional and tearful plea to Presiding Municipal Court Judge Allen Gilbert to save her pit bull.

“He’s all I got,” she sobbed.

The state prosecutor argued the pit bull is dangerous and should be released to Animal Control [to be euthanized].

After private deliberation, Gilbert returned to the courtroom and delivered his verdict.

“These decisions are always difficult because there’s a lot of emotions on both sides,” Gilbert said.

 

 

He then pronounced that Trigg was harboring an animal “declared to be a nuisance,” in line with Chapter 3 of the city’s animal control ordinance, which states If the court determines an animal is “vicious or dangerous” or “has bitten or attacked any person,” the court may order the dog be delivered to the animal services director and be destroyed.

Gilbert then ruled the pit bull would be taken from its owner and given to animal services. Trigg was fined and further ordered to pay restitution to the Costilla family for Israel’s medical expenses.

Outside the courtroom, the Costilla family appeared relieved but solemn.

On the other side of the closed doors, Trigg could be heard sobbing loudly.

This is the mentality of Rayetta Trigg

“It’s a sad day all around,” said Israel’s mother.

How to help
A gofundme.com page has been set up to help with Israel's medical expenses

(Standard Times - January 12, 2018)

Earlier:

• Texas: Little boy's face ripped open by Pit Bull that owner claims is a service dog

Texas: Little boy's face ripped open by Pit Bull that owner claims is a service dog

TEXAS -- On December 9th in San Angelo, Texas there was a vicious dog attack. The owner of the dog Rayetta Trigg left town for a week and left her "Service Dog" with her roommate.

The dog has had no "Official Service Dog Training" only a doctors letter she requested around 6 months ago so she would not have to pay the pet deposit at her apartment before she moved into her trailer where she lives now.

To date the dog is 1-1/2 years old and still has never had any official training. The dog did have all of its shots and tags because when she moved in with us we forced her to do it for the safety of our own animals and so it would also be legal.

She left for her trip to see her dad and the roommate had no idea what her dog was capable of. The roommate invited her niece over to visit and when she did she brought her two small children. The Aunt along with the Mother and the two children walked into the house. As they walked to the living room the 7 year old boy Israel started petting the Pit Bull named TROUBLE on the head.

The Aunt and Mother witnessed the dog attack Israel in the face for no apparent eason. They ran to Israel's defense and pulled TROUBLE away from the child but it was too late. 911 was called and the child was carried by ambulance to Shannon Hospital.

I wrote the entire story on my Facebook page because it has yet to make news in San Angelo, Texas. Rayetta Trigg the owner of the dog refuses to turn the dog back over to Animal Control to be put to sleep because it is not "IF" the dog will bite again it is "WHEN" the dog will bite again. The dog did stay 11 days in the Animal Control Facility but it caught Kennel Cough, lost approximately 25 pounds and was throwing up. Rayetta said they called her to pick him up a day early because he was so sick. The people at the Animal Control were all new and had not dealt with a vicious dog attack of this nature yet. There was one woman there that said it was the worst attack that she had ever seen in San Angelo since she had been there.

I personally spoke to Rayetta for 2 days and she never showed compassion towards the innocent child Israel. All she talked about was her dog and how it was mistreated. She has come up with every excuse under the sun and even blamed the child for abusing her dog when that never happened.

Rayetta even downplayed Israels injuries until I asked her to show me the picture she had on her I-phone because she would not offer to show me on her own. When she let me see the picture I literally almost fell off of my stool. I showed the picture to my husband and friend Adam and they were shocked as well because she downplayed the entire situation.

I posted all of this on my Facebook Page and thus far the responses have been overwhelming. There have been literally hundreds of responses saying she should have the dog put down so it never happenes to another individual and she absolutely refuses. Only 2 people have defended her on her page because she lied to them and they believe her even though she was not even present.

Rayetta still lets the dog out in her yard without her to use the restroom and the fence is delapidated with no locks on the gates. The Pit Bull "TROUBLE" could easily escape and anyone could have access to the unlocked backyard. I fear for the safety of the neighborhood and I am doing everything in my power to make the story public and also get funding for the child's medical Bills now and in the future.

Last year my husband and Igot a call from Rayetta and asked for our help. When I found out she had a Pit Bull I almost refused and she assured me she would be responsible at all times. It was then that I found out he had never been vaccinated and I requested it immediately. Years ago I was a Police Officer and I also went to Animal Control School and became Certified. I watched the dog carefully and many times I talked to Rayetta about her dog TROUBLE.

I personally witnessed Trouble when he became smitten with my Border Collie named Melania. At that point he would not let her Brother Border Collie named Trump go anywhere near his sister or he would growl at him. I also witnessed TROUBLE go after a dog at the new Dog Park and the two dogs had to be seperated with the enclosed fence. If TROUBLE wanted something he pulled Rayetta with him by the dog leash and she could not control him.

I told her to go purchase a muzzle and also a special dog leash but he broke it the same week and she never bought another one nor did she purchase a muzzle as I requested her to do for the safety of everyone. My husband and I BOTH warned her many times that he could not be trusted and to never let him around children but she would just look at us and tell us "I know my dog TROUBLE would never bite anyone!"

When Rayetta moved in with us she told me personally that TROUBLE had just been in a huge fight with another Pit Bull and 3 men to include herself could not stop the fight. I was at the Vet with her and she came out laughing and told me that when the Vet stuck his finger in the backside of TROUBLE he started growling and almost bit the Vet.

When she lived in a small camper trailer with the dog if she heard a noise she would tell TROUBLE "Listen TROUBLE, who is it? Get 'em TROUBLE, Watch'em" and the dog would immediately get excited. She also admitted if she got upset the dog would immediately do the same and she knew if anyone messed with her TROUBLE would attack them.

Well, unfortunately it did happen and not only was she gone but nobody caused harm to TROUBLE in order for him to go on attack.

Israel will face a lifetime of challenges now and thus far has had to have 2 surgeries with many more to come in the future. I will post all the pictures we have thus far and I will continue to update everyone on Israel's progress.

Israel will not go outside unless he is wearing a mask because he says he is "UGLY" now. The mental and physical damages he will have to face are surmountable but with GOD and LOADS of LOVE I know he can survive this attack and GOD will use him for HIS GLORY!

I set up this GoFundMe page to help with the Medical Bills, Counceling and I would like to purchase toys so he can be showered with LOVE!!!!! I will make sure all DONATONS go directly to HIS WELLBEING and help the parents with any extra costs they may have due to this trajic event. I will keep a log of all funds and how they were dispersed on this page as well so EVERYONE knows where, when and why it was used. The ENTIRE amount will go directly to Israel's wellbeing!

I know it is right after Christmas and people's budgets are tight but I beg of you to donate even $1.00 to help Isreal and bring some joy to his life. My gut hurts right now and I will be testifying in court this next Thursday if the Judge wants to here from me. 

Currently the Aunt just told me he is now terrified of big dogs and he does not like being in public at all due to his scars. An appointment has already been set up for counceling as well.

Once we go to court this next Thursday I will update this page immediately.

Myself, Israel, his Aunt, Mother and Grandmother want to thank everyone in advance for your prayers and your generosity.

GOD BLESS you and PLEASE make this go VIRAL because it just might save another child from having to go through this horrific event.

Sincerely,

~ Shannon J. Carpenter

GoFundMe: Israel's Pit Bull Attack! HELP!
Created January 6, 2018

Shannon JoLeen Carpenter 

  Medical

  SAN ANGELO, TX

(December 2017) Connecticut: Owner of aggressive American Bulldog ordered to wear muzzle when in public claims it's too stressful for his autistic son

CONNECTICUT -- Tensions are running high after a resident on Friday took to Facebook to question the muzzling of a dog that its owner CLAIMS "comforts his autistic son".

Steven Frischling’s post on the Niantic Beach Bums page details a May incident in which an American Bulldog named Sally got loose from 5 Wildwood Drive, where Frischling’s ex-girlfriend Susannah Seefeldt lives. The post has garnered more than 200 comments.

The post fails to describe an earlier April event in which Sally allegedly left a dog walker and another dog with moderate to serious injuries.

Because the May incident was the second time Sally had been cited as a nuisance dog, the animal control officer issued a muzzle order for Sally. The officer additionally charged Frischling’s ex-partner, Susannah Seefeldt, with misdemeanor owning a nuisance dog.

Frischling, the subject of an ongoing civil suit regarding the April case, is calling on the town to overturn its order to muzzle Sally. He said the dog used to comfort his son on walks along the beach or even from the house to the bus. Now his son has horrific fits at the sight of Sally in a muzzle.

“I’m not asking for anything hard here,” Frischling said Wednesday. “Just basic common sense.”

Police Chief Mike Finkelstein, who was not the chief when either incident occurred, said the town is working with the State’s Attorney’s Office and the court on the case.

While the court nolled, or opted not to prosecute, Seefeldt’s charge, the judge also warned removal of the muzzle could lead to arrest.

The key, Finkelstein said, is to determine whether the judge issued a new order or simply reminded the defendants of the animal control officer’s order. Town officials would be reticent to overstep a judge’s order, he explained.

The town has asked for a transcript of the appearance.

April 6, 2017

According to a police document, a UPS driver on April 6 reported one dog had attacked a woman and another dog near 26 Old Black Point Road. On arrival, police said they spoke with three witnesses, two of whom said they fought off a black-and-white pit bull and watched it run to 5 Wildwood Drive.

Police said the black-and-white dog had dragged the woman, injuring her shoulder and leaving cuts on her elbow and hand. The aggressor also tore a large chunk of skin from the neck area of the victim dog, they said. Photos of the small dog show extensive amounts of blood.

Frischling said he was using the restroom that day when his son opened the door, allowing the dog to slip out. He was issued infractions for allowing a dog to roam and owning a nuisance dog. The dog additionally was quarantined for 14 days.

Frischling said Wednesday he believes Sally wasn’t involved in the attack — he took photos of her shortly after it occurred and saw no blood on her white face.

He also said he doesn’t know why he was issued the infractions when it’s his ex-wife’s dog.

Records list Sally as a black-and-white American Bulldog that was licensed to Frischling at the time of the incident. The breed is sometimes considered to be of the pit bull type, though that’s the subject of much debate [mostly from people who claim "there is no such thing as a pit bull!" All bully breeds are Pit Bulls and they all have been bred to have a propensity for sudden, unprovoked violence].

According to the town clerk’s office, Sally is no longer licensed; the dog was put in Seefeldt’s name in October, but the check bounced and another never was provided.

Civil suit

Two women in June launched a civil suit against Frischling in response to the April incident: Anne Rudge-Pinkham, the 91-year-old owner of the attacked dog, and Tammie Schenking, who was walking the dog that day.

The suit alleges Schenking sustained injuries to her neck, shoulders, ribs, left leg, right elbow and vocal cords, all of which required medical care. It further states Rudge-Pinkham’s dog had to undergo surgery because of its injuries.

The suit seeks $15,000 in damages.

Can you imagine this dog running towards you, barking, 

growling and trying to attack you and your pets?

Records show Frischling in September asked the court to dismiss the case because he doesn’t own Sally or live at 5 Wildwood Drive. The judge denied Frischling’s motion.

In November, the plaintiffs moved to have Seefeldt added as a defendant. The judge granted that motion.

The case is ongoing.

Click here to read the document filed regarding the lawsuit.

May 3, 2017

Police on May 3 returned to 5 Wildwood Drive, this time because Sally had pulled the spiral stake she was tethered to out of the ground.

Why is a known-to-be-aggressive large American Bulldog being 'staked' in the ground in the yard and left unatttended? The very fact that they thought this was a good idea -- right after the first attack -- tells you a lot about them.

According to a police report, Sally ran toward a woman walking her dog in front of the home, causing the woman to fall. Seefeldt, outside at the time, ran over and regained control of Sally.

According to the report, the woman initially said she didn’t believe her dog was hurt in the incident, but later reported having found a small laceration under its collar.

The police file shows Seefeldt in the past had spoken to the woman "about Sally and her issues with small dogs."

Frischling on Wednesday took issue with the photos police had on file for the incident, which were not taken by officers. There’s no timestamp, no frame of reference and, Frischling said, no way to know for sure the mark came from Sally.

Finkelstein said his department has since changed policies to ensure officers take quality photos at each incident.

All they had to do was document who claims to have taken the photo and when they received it. That person would be required to come to court to be sworn in as a witness to testify that they are the one who took the photo on X date. This person is opening themselves up to perjury charges if they are lying. Frischling is grasping at straws, thinking this is some conspiracy with doctored photos.

Frischling also said he’s wondering why his dog got a muzzle for its second nuisance incident when no bite occurred.

According to state statutes, a dog can be a nuisance “by reason of vicious disposition or excessive barking or other disturbance.” In other words, a biting incident isn’t a prerequisite.

The response

Hundreds of people reacted to Frischling’s Facebook post. Many called on the town to revoke the muzzle order so Frischling's child could find some peace. Some of those commenters didn’t appear to be aware of the April incident that preceded May’s.

Others questioned Frischling’s use of a community forum for a personal issue, especially when his civil suit is ongoing.

Frischling said he tried to seek mediation with the town through a third party, but was denied the option. The town attorney, without the paperwork at his disposal, declined to comment on the reason mediation was denied.

First Selectman Mark Nickerson also declined to comment on the case.

"We go through these processes to make sure we're doing everything we can to keep everybody safe," Finkelstein said.

Frischling stressed he has no ill will toward the town and doesn’t intend to sue it.

“I just want what’s best for my kid,” he said.

In this case, Steven Frischling has been ordered to keep his vicious American Bulldog muzzled whenever it's out in public. Steven Frischling claims his autistic son has tantrums, outbursts and pokes his own ears until they bleed --- simply at the sight of their dog wearing this muzzle.

People with autism do have challenges. However, change is a part of life. 

Steven Frischling's son will have to deal with change when they move homes, when one of his parents change jobs and time schedules, if his parents have a new baby, when they purchase a new car and swap out the old one, when he has to change schools, when they go to a new restaurant, when they go to a new city/state on vacation, when someone passes away. He'll certainly have to adjust to change when this American Bulldog eventually dies. 

So Steven Frischling's argument about this dog being muzzled is not winning me over. The dog is not required to have a muzzle on when its inside its own home with the family. 

The muzzle protects everyone else from Steven Frischling's dog, which has shown itself to be unpredictable, aggressive and willing to attack - not just other animals but human beings as well.

 

(The Day - December 28, 2017)

Washington: Woman upset that city wants her to prove her claims that her Pit Bull is a Lab mix and also a Service Dog

WASHINGTON -- Danika Denton lives in Yakima and had her service dog Romeo for over a year before he was force to move outside city limits, after the city discovered he was a pit bull.

Denton is now suing the city.

"Romeo has an innate ability to really aid Danika and that makes him an emotional support animal, but he is also a service dog because of the individualized training," said attorney Adam Karp who is representing Denton.

According to the case report, Denton didn't have anywhere to take Romeo, so the city impounded him until she found someone outside the city who was willing to take him. When family members agreed to take the Pit Bull, the shelter released the dog to them.

The city of Yakima implemented a pit bull ban back in 1987 that bans four specific pit bull breeds; American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire pit bull terriers, American bulldogs and American Staffordshire pit terriers.

Yakima Communications and Public Affairs Director Randy Beehler said the council implemented the ban after a few pit bulls attacked people.

KILLED BY A PIT BULL

"The case that really drew a lot of attention was an older gentleman, a senior citizen, who was in a wheelchair and got attacked by a pit bull," said Beehler. "His injuries were so severe that he passed away." 

The city could not discuss Denton's case but Beehler said the ban excludes service dogs if they are certified in the city.

"So if somebody has a pit bull that does meet the criteria, the DNA criteria, they have to come to the city, go through a process of certifying that that dog is in fact a service animal," he said. "Otherwise no, it can't be allowed in the city." 

Although it's not clear why Romeo was forced to move outside the city if he is a service dog. However, according to the case report, Denton doesn't even think Romeo is a Pit Bull, she said he is a Labrador Retriever mix.

The author of this article is clearly biased towards the dog owner. The city official told them why the dog was banished -- they say Denton hasn't met the criteria for allowing the dog to stay. Get the DNA test done, get the proof that it is a true service dog as defined by the ADA and not just her claiming it's a therapy dog slash service dog.

According to the case file, an animal control officer determined Romeo was a pit bull simply by looking at him.

"If they're basing it purely on eyeballing by an officer who may have done a number of evaluations, but there really is no scientific foundation," Karp said.

Beehler said the city is not out actively looking for pit bulls in Yakima but if they receive a complaint, they have to investigate it.

He said the city receives between 80 and 90 complaints about pit bulls a year.

KIMA VIDEO NEWS CLIP:

(KIMA - Dec 9, 2017)

California: Ace of Hearts Rescue Loses Right to Keep Dogs in LA After Pit Bull Attacks

CALIFORNIA -- Two Pit Bulls owned Ace of Hearts Dog Rescue, a West Hollywood group, recently attacked innocent victims in separate incidents while in the care of fosters in the city of Los Angeles. Both were declared Dangerous Dogs by LA Animal Services' GM Brenda Barnette.

This means the dogs must be removed from the city or euthanized and that the owner cannot license or keep another dog within the city limits for the next three years.

*  *  *  *  *  *

 
An appeal to the declaration on the first Pit Bull, named Aspen, was heard by the Animal Services' Commission on August 22, 2017, when the Dangerous Dog declaration was upheld.

At a November 14, 2017, hearing, Kari Whitman, founder of Ace of Hearts, appealed to overturn the decision regarding the second Pit Bull, Daytona, which had attacked two children. 

General Manager Brenda Barnette's Dangerous Dog declaration was not overturned and, therefore, her decision stands.

Dog bites and attacks in the city of LA go largely unreported to the public. However, the number of appeals to the Board of Commissioners by owners whose dogs have seriously harmed a child, adult, or maimed/killed a beloved pet are increasingly becoming a lengthy part of its meetings. In this case, Ace of Hearts is a high-profile rescue organization, which claims to “specialize in bully breeds.”

KARI WHITMAN / ACE OF HEARTS DOG RESCUE  

Kari Whiteman told the Huffington Post in 2011 that Ace of Hearts Dog Rescue began in 2001 as a non-profit devoted to rescuing dogs and providing them with loving homes. She said the inspiration was her Bulldog Ace, whom she had rescued from death row at a shelter. "When he died, I channeled my grief and frustration into trying to save other shelter dogs like Ace and find them loving homes."

During that interview, Whitman remarked, “since we specialize in ‘bully breeds,’ we’re often called upon to take in dogs from all over the country that others are reluctant to rescue because of their breed, size or need for rehabilitation.”

Kari Whitman is described on another website as, "a celebrity interior designer and television personality, and is the founder of Kari Whitman Interiors." 

Both her business, Kari Whitman Interiors, and Ace of Hearts Dog Rescue publicly share the address, 1201 Larabee St., #303, West Hollywood, CA 90069 -- a high-end luxury condo building, where a 3 bed/3 bath, 1,793 sq/ft unit was recently valued by Zillow at $1,325,801.

OK so where are all these Pit Bulls because they're definitely not all being housed at her condo.

Possible Dangerous Animal Case (Appeal): DA 172055 EV  (August 22, 2017) 

Respondent Kari Whitman was not present but was represented by legal counsel Anne McKenzie.

Attorney McKenzie argued that the foster guardians were responsible for the dog rather than Kari Whitman because they signed an agreement. She alleged that the fosters mishandled the dog, and stated that Ace of Hearts wants to rehabilitate and retrain the Pit Bull named Aspen.

Commissioner Roger Wolfson stated for the record that the General Manager confirmed the hearing officer's findings that the dog is a Dangerous Animal. Commissioner Garcia remarked that Ms. McKenzie’s arguments focused on placing responsibility for the dog on the fosters. However, the focus of the case is whether the dog is a Dangerous Animal.

Attorney McKenzie repeated an earlier argument that the "fosters" should be considered the "owners" of the dog while it is in their possession. She stated that her client is concerned that a determination of Dangerous Animal will cause Ace of Hearts to close its shelter because the Department prohibits the "owner" from owning any dogs for a period of three years.

Complaining witness Mirsita Avelarde stated that she lived in the building where a girl was caring for the dog and it suddenly attacked her on January 6 when she walked in the door, biting her leg and hip. According to Avelarde, the girl needed 80 stitches for her injuries; she believes the dog is dangerous because her own children also live in the building. 

Commissioner Wolfson inquired whether it is possible to take the dog out of circulation and hold Ace of Hearts harmless so it can continue its work with animals in the city of Los Angeles. Assistant City Attorney (ACA) Dov Lesel explained that the Board may make a strong recommendation to the General Manager to favorably look at reinstating the license opportunities for the respondent or Ace of Hearts, but that decision is at the discretion of the General Manager.

Commissioner Dicker commented that Ace of Hearts handled the matter poorly and set the dog up to fail. However, he feels that it is in everyone’s best interest to mitigate the impact on Ace of Hearts. Ms. McKenzie replied that there seemed to be unfortunate circumstances in this case that led to the group reevaluating and changing its policies regarding the selection and training of fosters.

ACA Lesel said Ace of Hearts has been around for a long time and should have been better prepared. He advised that, if the dog is deemed dangerous and its license is revoked, the group can request a discussion with the General Manager.

Commissioner Wolfson made a motion to uphold the decision of the General Manager with the strong recommendation that Ace of Hearts be restored to good standing as quickly as possible.

Attorney McKenzie asked the Board to consider license revocation without euthanizing the dog and added that Ace of Hearts is willing to sign an affidavit stating that they’ll have their most experienced foster transport the dog to a training facility for rehabilitation.

Commissioner Wolfson commended Ace of Hearts for its willingness to save the dog at their own expense.

Commissioners Gross, Garcia, Finsten and Wolfson voted to uphold the General Manager's decision. Commissioner Dicker voted "no" but then changed to an abstention.

Possible Dangerous Animal Case: DA 171306 NC (November 14, 2017).

Kari Whitman and Ace of Hearts Dog Rescue were represented by attorney Anne Brendel. (Kari Whitman arrived later.)

Commission President Gross asked Assistant City Attorney (ACA) Dov Lesel to explain the Board’s jurisdiction when the respondent’s address is in West Hollywood. ACA Lesel stated that this can be treated as any regular case in the city of Los Angeles; the fact that the owner is domiciled or incorporated in a different city should not make a difference.

FAKE SERVICE DOG

Attorney Brendel added that the police were advised Daytona was AN ALLEGED "service dog", after the attacks on two children had occurred.  

Commissioner Gross said, "There is a difference between a service animal and an emotional support animal; from what I can see, this was not a service dog." 

Attorney Brendel responded that her clients thought therapy dogs have the same protections as service dogs; she has since explained the difference.

The Pit Bull Daytona was described by Brendel as having been with a prior foster for six months with no problems, but this foster was called away suddenly for an emergency. Thus, Daytona had to be placed with a new foster -- blatantly violating the foster agreement and acting with gross negligence by throwing a party for neighbors in the apartment complex and allowing the Pit Bull to be around children and off-leash in a public area.

She contended that Ace of Hearts should not be held responsible and Daytona should not be put down because of the recklessness of the foster. She further asserted that the incident could have been avoided had the parents and the foster been more responsible.

Kari Whitman, founder of Ace of Hearts Dog Rescue, arrived and testified that she had informed the foster the dog was not good with children and had posted that information, which was also provided by San Diego Animal Control, where they adopted the Pit Bull.

However, the complaining witness, Sabrina Panal, a neighbor of the woman fostering the dog, testified it was her understanding that Daytona was okay with children and she had even checked the Ace of Hearts website, where it said, "Daytona is good with children."

Panal stated an alarming thing: the dog was not growling or showing aggression when he suddenly lunged at her 8-year-old son, grabbing him by the face and dragging him some feet before someone pulled the dog off her child. She cried as she said, looking at her child and the stitches and scars on his face, that she had had a really bad year.  

She also described an earlier incident that day involving a younger child, during which Daytona allegedly grabbed a two-year-old girl's arm in his teeth. When they heard the child screaming, the father came and took the child.

Panal said that none of the adults present saw this happen and disregarded the issue, believing the child could just have overreacted out of a fear of dogs. She stated that was the reason she agreed to the foster's request to bring the dog back to the party, where he attacked her son.

Ms. Whitman and Attorney Berne argued that the foster set the dog up to fail. Commissioner Gross expressed concern that Ms. Whitman appeared to not be taking any responsibility and would put all blame on the foster. He noted that the foster's testimony at the original hearing indicated that she made Ace of Hearts aware she was intimidated by the dog and had no experience with them.

Commissioner Gross further admonished Ms. Whitman that she has a responsibility and obligation for and to the foster, yet she is "throwing her under the bus." Whitman disagreed.

Gross added that there were texts in evidence [provided to the Board] that were also of concern, adding that the foster's testimony and the texts from an unidentified source, "show that she was being told to hide the Pit Bull and deceive the police and animal control." Kari Whitman denied knowledge of the texts.

Commissioner Dicker commented that he finds this to be "unconscionable." He opined that the dog has sensitivity around children, but he believes that "triggers can be managed." He agreed with license revocation and moving the dog outside the city of Los Angeles, rather than destroying the dog.

This is called NIMBY = not in my backyard. It's when officials, such as Commissioner Dicker, bans the vicious dog from its jurisdiction -- dumping it into your community. The vicious dog has no restrictions and they're not required to tell anyone (police, animal control) that this vicious dog is moving to their community. It could live next door to you and you would never know.

He stated that the rescue group was irresponsible and should be barred from pulling dogs from LAAS shelters or having dogs in the City of Los Angeles for three years.

Commissioner Olivia Garcia agreed that the rescue group "was irresponsible and failed the dog."

Commissioner Gross asserted that the dog has demonstrated aggression and attacked two children, and the Board has a responsibility to ensure that other children are not attacked. He stated that there is no guarantee that the dog will be trained. He therefore made a motion to uphold the decision of the General Manager to declare Daytona to be a Dangerous Animal.

Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, but it failed by a vote of 2-1, with Commissioner Dicker voting against it.  (On a five-member Commission, three "aye" votes are required for any action regardless of number present.) The result was that, without a majority vote, the General Manager’s decision stands.

Thus, the Pit Bull Daytona must either be moved out of the City or euthanized. This also means that Kari Whitman or Ace of Hearts Dog Rescue may not own or license a dog in the city of Los Angeles for three years.

(It was not clear at the meeting or from the minutes whether Ace of Hearts will be allowed to "pull" dogs from LA City shelters.)

ACE OF HEARTS RESCUE "QUARRELS" WITH ANIMAL SHELTER 

Another serious issue involving Ace of Hearts was revealed in a February 7, 2016 article in the Victorville Daily Press.  It describes a “quarrel” between Ace of Hearts Dog Rescue in Beverly Hills [Ace of Hearts lists a P.O. Box in Beverly Hills] and the Apple Valley Municipal Animal Shelter, resulting from the General Manager of Animal Services having posts of 11 of its shelter dogs removed from the Ace of Hearts’ website. (The photos had been uploaded by the rescue from Adoptapet.com and Petfinders.com, according to the article.)

Kari Whitman of Ace of Hearts, responded that her rescue “routinely posts animals from anywhere between 60 and 90 shelters across California, providing adoption information to the website’s more than 100,000 monthly visitors,” the Daily Press reports.

However, Animal Services Manager Gina Whiteside countered that Ace of Hearts’ posts, “did more harm than good because the posts contained misinformation.” She pointed to wording that the dogs are “in danger in Apple Valley,” and, “I’m being cared for by Ace of Hearts Rescue" appearing under the photos.

"The dogs were never in the rescue’s care,” Whiteside said, adding that Ace of Hearts was “changing the description and removing the shelter’s contact information.”  

“A comparison of posts provided by Whiteside showed that Ace of Hearts also removed the shelter’s adoption process in lieu of its own, which included filling out an application on the rescue’s website, submitting to a house check and donating $400,” the report confirms. 

Whitman said that donation is only a requirement for dogs at Ace of Hearts’ facility in Beverly Hills. "We only charge a fee on our dogs, not Apple Valley’s.”

Dog adoptions at the shelter start at $85. Whiteside responded, “They’re not helping us. They’re confusing the adopters and delaying the placement of animals.”

One “confused adopter” who was fearful an animal was “in danger of euthanasia” told the Daily Press she started the Ace of Hearts adoption process but became "leery" and called the shelter, where she learned “the dog had not been in danger and had already been adopted from the shelter.”

Whiteside told reporter Matt Cabe that the shelter does not plan to disassociate itself from Ace of Hearts but said, “the rescue’s criticism doesn’t help anyone. It pulls us away from our focus, which is saving animals lives.”

DOES "RESCUING" ANIMALS JUSTIFY ALL CONSEQUENCES? 

Ace of Hearts was made publicly accountable by Apple Valley Animal Services for disregarding the need for total transparency, honesty and mutual support between rescues and municipal shelters.

The L.A. Animal Services' Commission rightfully determined that Ace of Hearts must be held to the same -- or higher -- standard than the average owner whose pet suddenly (or repeatedly) exhibits aggressive behavior.

But there was no discussion about the origin of the animals which are being given to Ace of Hearts and other “rescues” by various shelters, including Los Angeles Animal Services.

There are several decisions made by governmental agencies to permit "animal rescues," i.e., the State of California and the Internal Revenue Service officially approve a non-profit corporation to which the public can donate for that purpose, with no consideration of the agencies capability of performing this serious and risky task.

And there is the complicity by those shelters which allow unmonitored "rescues" to take dogs that have been deemed too aggressive/dangerous/vicious to be adopted directly to the public -- in other words, too unpredictable and/or uncontrollable for the city/county to take the risk. 

There is no question that Ace of Hearts (or any rescue) must be held responsible for its actions, its fosters, and for harm done by any animal it its care in LA. Failure to do so must result in restrictions by the City.

But, at some point we must also look at the accountability of the "no kill" movement -- promoted vigorously by the very Commissioners making this decision -- and the guilt it irresponsibly imposes on both shelters and rescues, regardless of the consequences. 

ARTICLE COMMENTS:

Miranda • a day ago
This article is not even based on facts, the dog that nipped the child was not even a pit bull you ignorant idiots, get your facts straight. The dog was a american Bulldog that was put with a foster that was aware that the dog was nippy and not good with children. She decided it was a good idea to let the dog loose in a courtyard unsupervised during a party with a bunch of children, the child did not suffer life threatening injuries, i had more stitches then the child falling off my bike.

This is clearly written by someone that has no interest in any facts and is prejudice against a certain breed of dog that was not even involved in the incident. And its pathetic that you have nothing better to write about rather then an Innocent that isn't even factually correct. You should really reevaluate your career choice. Ace of hearts has saved over 2500 innocent dogs lives, all different breeds, and just because of one bad foster does not make this a bad organization. No one is 100% perfect, no one was killed or will be affected the rest of their lives from the incident that happened. If anything its sad that the dog will be killed because of some ignorant idiot put kids at risk by taking in an abused dog that was hurt and damaged and allowing him to be around kids knowing his problems, its a dog that does not know better the person that allowed it to happen on the other hand did..

The dog in the photo isn't even a pit bull....... ha that is how put together your article is.

   

  

  

According to the website amandamillsla.com:
Ace of Hearts is dog rescue foundation dedicated to rescuing big dogs that are to be euthanized, from various Los Angeles shelters and placing them in loving homes.

The Ace of Hearts Foundation is in memory of “Ace”, a wonderful American Bull dog who was rescued from death, and touched the lives of many! (Especially founder the beautiful Kari Whitman!) They  rescue all breeds…and don’t discriminate against any but they are experts in the big babies!

Could they be any more slobbering in their description of "the beautiful Kari Whitman!"? Also, what makes Ace of Hearts "experts" in dealing with large dogs? We all know they mean Pit Bulls. 

Rarely do rescues have issues with extra-large breeds such as Newfoundlands, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Irish Wolfhounds, St. Bernards, etc. attacking and killing other pets, attacking children, attacking adults, attacking fosters.

Just because you've owned a large bully breed dog doesn't mean you're an 'expert'. 

This woman's petition alleges that Kari Whitman and Ace of Hearts had her foster a sick puppy that they ended up adopting - only for the puppy to be taken back and refusing to reimburse them.

YELP REVIEWS:

(City Watch LA - Nov 27, 2017)