Diner Not Like Cheers after Customer Gets a Service Dog, but Is This Discrimination?

Cheryl Krist suffers from hereditary essential tremor, arthritis, and asthma, and has been disabled since at least 2003, when she began to use walking aids and a wheelchair.  She acquired a service dog in 2008.

Krist had been a customer of the Coopertown Diner in New York City for 20 years, beginning about 1988, where she went nearly every day for breakfast and lunch.  She often remained in the restaurant for over five hours, and it became her primary social community.  She knew other customers, the employees, and its owners, Michael Kolombos and Fotios Batas.  She encountered no discrimination when she came with a cane, crutches, or in a wheelchair. 

She was prescribed a service dog in 2008. Before she received the dog, she informed the restaurant owners that she would be getting it and that she would be bringing it to the restaurant.  Fotios Batas told her that this was okay as long as the dog was licensed and was truly a service dog, but if it were not, it would be excluded so that the restaurant would not be in violation of health codes. (Actually no licensing could be required, but there was never any issue that the dog was in fact a service dog.)

Krist testified that when she began to bring the dog to the restaurant in December 2008, her treatment by restaurant employees and regular customers changed radically.  The employees became �very cool,� with no more interaction than was necessary to serve her.  An employee that regularly had lunch with her stopped doing so.  Pleasantries with other customers ceased.  Another customer who used to sit with her every day stopped doing so, and even refused to speak with her. 

The owners sometimes yelled at her, Krist alleged.  Batas, �from behind the counter on the opposite side of the restaurant, started at the dog and made growling sounds.� When the dog responded with a sound that Krist described as �boof,� she testified that Batas ordered her to leave the restaurant.  On another occasion, when she took the dog out from under the table to show it to another customer, Batas complained that she was playing with the dog.

Kolombos told Krist that she should sit in the front of the store with the dog, and that after she had her breakfast, she should leave.  Krist began going less frequently, tried to sit near the front, but then went back to her favorite booth.  Twice in 2009, once in February and once in the summer, Krist testified that the owners yelled at her for having the dog lie beside her chair or her booth, rather than under the table, because they said that the dog was potentially imperiling customers and waiters. The owners acknowledged in their testimony that they had asked Krist to keep the dog out of the aisle. 

Lawsuit Filed Against Diner 

Finally, in September 2009, Krist stopped going to the Coopertown Diner.  In December 2009 she filed a lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, alleging violations of federal, state, and city anti-discrimination laws.  The complaint said that the actions of the owners of the restaurant had driven Krist to tears. 

The trial court found that the restaurant owners and employees had had friction with Krist but, rejecting some of Krist's testimony, concluded that neither of the owners had ever ordered her to leave the restaurant.  Krist had not proven that the owners �did not attempt to reasonably accommodate� her use of her service dog. It also found no proof that the restaurant or its employees treated Krist any differently because she was disabled or that they �made her feel that she was not welcome because she had a disability.� 

The court did accept that Krist�s friends were no longer as friendly after she began bringing the dog, that her circle of friends changed, and also accepted that the owners had yelled at her about the dog, her handling of it, and its conduct. The court said that Krist may have thought of the restaurant as being like the one in Cheers, �but the ADA does not guarantee that kind of atmosphere.�

Although the owners had yelled at Krist a few times, these incidents were isolated, not �outrageous� or �demeaning� and did not constitute a �constructive denial of access.�  The ADA, according to the trial court, does not require that owners of a public restaurant �not complain, not ask the dog�s owner to control the dog�s behavior in a way that is not inconsistent with everyone else�s use of the restaurant.�  There was, in sum, �no evidence of any discriminatory intent� on the part of the restaurant�s owners and employees.

Second Circuit Finds No Requirement of Civility

On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said that Krist was contending that Title III of the ADA imposes a requirement of civility. The circuit court rejected this contention. Citing the ADA (42 U.S.C. 12181-2), the court said that discrimination does include �a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford � services to individuals with disabilities, unless � such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such � services.�  Regulations issued under the ADA require reasonable accommodations for service animals. 

The circuit court agreed that Krist did not need to prove that discrimination, if present, was intended.  Congress, in passing the ADA, noted its findings in 42 U.S.C. 12101(a)(5), that �individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination,� well beyond �outright intentional exclusion.�  The court referred to Krist�s testimony concerning Batas growling at her dog in a manner perhaps calculated to bait the dog into barking, but noted that the trial court�s finding that �Krist failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she was excluded from Coopertown after she acquired her service dog � or that the service dog was excluded; or that her access to Coopertown, with or without the dog, was restricted.�

The Second Circuit continued to summarize the trial court�s determinations:

�The court's contrary finding that Krist frequented the restaurant with the dog in a manner that was �not significantly different� from her prior custom was supported by its findings that, over a period of some 10 months, Krist went to the restaurant with the dog �dozens and dozens� of times. This finding was supported by the testimony of Batas and Michael Kolombos that Krist had come to the restaurant with her dog some 90�100 times � and by the testimony of Krist herself that during that 10�month period, except in January, March, and April, she went to Coopertown every other day�. The district court's finding that Krist was neither ordered to leave Coopertown nor asked not to return cannot, on this record, be termed clearly erroneous.�

Krist argued that there had been a �constructive exclusion� from the restaurant. To this the Second Circuit responded:

�Nor was the court required to accept Krist's assertion that shouted criticisms of her handling of the dog or its conduct were unjustified or any suggestion that they were designed to drive her from the premises. For example, the last two �yelling� incidents described by Krist occurred in February and September 2009 when Batas and Michael Kolombos, respectively, yelled at her across the restaurant for having put the dog in the aisle, potentially impeding customer traffic and waiter movements. One was an occasion when Krist was sitting at a table under which the dog could not comfortably lie because of the configuration of the base of the table. Krist had sat at the table despite the availability of seven booths (i.e., all but her favorite) at which she could have sat and put the dog under a booth table. The other occasion was one in which she was sitting in her favorite booth but put the dog in the aisle because of a previous incident in which the dog had found and eaten some indigestible food on the floor under the booth's table; Krist offered no evidence that there was still�or again�food under the table. Thus, with respect to two of the four occasions as to which she complained of yelling, Krist's own testimony supported an inference that she had placed the dog in the aisle unnecessarily and that the shouted requests concerned her creation of a safety hazard, because someone passing by could trip on the dog either as it lay there or because it might suddenly move.�

The Second Circuit saw �no basis for overturning the district court�s findings that Krist was neither actually nor constructively excluded.�  

As to the civility code argument, the circuit court cited Camarillo v. Carrols Corp., 518 F.3d 153 (2^nd Cir. 2008), that �legislation such as the ADA cannot regulate individuals� conduct so as to ensure that they will never be rude or insensitive to persons with disabilities.�  The circuit court also cited the Eighth Circuit, which had held in Cannice v. Norwest Bank Iowa N.A., 189 F.3d 723 (8^th Cir. 1999), that insensitivity alone does not amount to harassment and neither the ADA nor the Civil Rights Act impose a �general civility code.� 

The circuit court affirmed the federal district court�s dismissal of the discrimination claims.

Significance of the Case 

This is a difficult case, and slightly different facts, or perhaps even a slightly different perspective by the trial or appellate courts involved, could have resulted in a very different decision.  If an owner of a restaurant regularly began barking at a service dog in hopes of baiting it into responsive barking so he could exclude the customer and the dog, I have little doubt that a discrimination claim could succeed.  If the owner decided that the service dog had to sit near the front of a restaurant because the seating was not as nice there and regular customers would not have to see or interact with the dog, there would be discrimination.  Although both these things may have happened on a few occasions, Krist was apparently permitted to sit where she wanted, and keep the dog where she wanted so long as she did not block an aisle, a reasonable request in granting an accommodation and one that could be made of person with a walker or a wheelchair. 

If it could have been shown that the employee who stopped eating with Krist did so at the direction of the owners, her case would have been stronger.  Similarly, if other customers stopped socializing with her because of rumors spread by the owners, this would be a level of discrimination a court could not ignore.  The service became cool, but how much did it change?  Bringing the check sooner after Krist finished eating is a rather subjective assessment, and the diner had the right to be business-like, even if it was not always so.  If the owners did not believe the dog was really a service dog, they had recourse to verify its status, but they do not seem to have had such doubts. Resenting the law that compels a business to admit a service dog may be petulant, but if an attitude does not really alter the accommodation being given, it is not actionable.  

Discrimination is often subtle, but sometimes too subtle to lead to damages or an injunction. The fact an employee no longer sat with Krist after she got the dog may have been annoying and unkind on his part, but it was a decision he could make without elevating the matter to a violation of the ADA.  Krist�s friends were not obligated to stay friends if they do not like dogs. Leaving a dog in an aisle where it might trip other customers or waiters can be a source of frustration, and yelling in frustration must be tolerated on occasion.  Life is often uncivil, both for those with disabilities and those without disabilities. 

Could It Have Been Different?

A friend of mine in Manhattan has a service dog, a calm but aloof Shiba Inu, that he takes just about everywhere.  The dog sits or lies, always alert, head up, ears cocked forward, with eyes that look inside you more than at you.  He finds that the dog makes friends for him even when he explains that Hiro works best without being treated as a pet.  He rarely senses any discrimination and has been told by one restaurant that he is always welcome to bring the dog, which has become a minor attraction to the other patrons. 

I spend winters in Arizona, where a musician in the Phoenix symphony has a service dog, a yellow Labrador, that comes on stage and lies beside her as she plays the violin.  When I first saw this I paid more attention to the dog than the music, wondering if some note might get the Lab to moan if he fell asleep.  After a while I no longer thought about it, but it took me some time to adjust to the idea that a service dog could belong in this environment.   

It is hard to say how human dynamics affects what happens when a service dog comes into a room.  The hostility of one controlling figure might turn the rest of those present against the person with the dog.  The welcoming attitude of others might reverse any hostility.  Such things can never be fully accounted for.  There is a thin line between what is discriminatory and what is not.  Each situation is different, and the complexities of human nature often make the law�s decisions seem arbitrary.  I cannot say the courts here were wrong, and I might not have reached a different result, even with my biases, had I been sitting on such an uncomfortable bench.   

Krist v. Kolombos Restaurant, 2012 WL 3002598 (2^nd Cir. 2012)

Long-Term Psychological Benefits from Companion, Therapy and Service Dogs Questioned in Recent Scientific Papers

Research on the psychological benefits animals provide to us can be assigned to studies of (1) pets, (2) therapy animals, and (3) service animals.  Most of the studies involve dogs, though the second category in particular has some serious equine studies. 

Studies of pets usually refer to them as companion animals.  In some cases a distinction is being made or implied to suggest that the study is of animals to which the owners have an emotional connection, though I often think �companion� is preferred so that scientific papers can have a multisyllabic adjective in the title. 

Therapy animals�as I say, usually therapy dogs�may involve studies of relatively casual interactions with therapy dogs that visit patient or resident populations, often at institutions such as mental health facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, etc.  More often, however, therapy dogs have been studied when their participation in a treatment regimen involves relatively specific time frames and objectives with a specific patient or patient group, which is often called animal-assisted therapy. 

Service animals�again primarily service dogs�have been studied less than the first two groups for their psychological benefits, partly because many of the more traditional service dog categories (guide dogs, hearing dogs) are not designed to have psychological benefits.  With the rapid growth of dogs trained for patients, particularly military patients with PTSD, and with autism service dogs appealing to many parents of autistic children, this category is growing rapidly and is beginning to be the subject of intense scientific analysis. 

Some recent review articles covering these three categories of dogs sound a note of caution, even concern, in that some have found that dogs are not always beneficial psychologically or even physically, despite the fact they are trained or introduced to patients in contexts where they are supposed to be, and in some studies the dogs have even been found to work against treatment objectives.  The review articles also discuss recent research that has taken on some of the long-standing assumptions about dogs, e.g., that people with pets recover more quickly after heart attacks than people without pets.  Particularly disturbing is that much prior research is now being criticized for faulty design and overly subjective interpretation of results.

The review papers discussed below, however, are not against the use of dogs, and do not insist that there are no psychological benefits to dogs. They do suggest that to provide scientific support for certain arguments that have been made�e.g., that soldiers and veterans with PTSD need dogs to reduce psychiatric symptomatology�more rigorous research needs to be conducted. 

Negative Psychological Effects of Pets Noted in Australian Study

Studying companion animal relationships in Australia is made easy by the fact that 40% of the country�s households include a dog and 26% a cat.  A recent paper by Jasmin Peacock, Anna Chur-Hansen, and Helen Winefield (2012), though not a review paper, included a lengthy analysis of prior research on companion animals and mental health and concluded that much of it was characterized by methodological weakness:

�[F]ew controlled studies have been conducted to provide empirical support for positive physical or mental health outcomes gained from interacting with companion animals. Previous research has been largely descriptive and conducted with specific populations of convenience such as the aged.� 

These authors note that some prior studies indicate that companion animals may actually exacerbate psychological symptoms, cause higher levels of depression, and increase emotional distress and psychoticism (a personality pattern typified by aggressiveness and interpersonal hostility).  Threat of separation from a companion animal may lead to rejection of medical advice and failure to move out of inappropriate housing situations.   Both from prior studies and the part of the paper that includes original research, the authors conclude that �strong attachment bonds to a companion animal might not necessarily be beneficial and, in some circumstances, might potentially lead to poor health outcomes.� 

They also make an observation relevant to the issue of the psychological effect of service animals:

�The level of attachment between service animals (such as guide dogs for the vision impaired) has attracted little attention in the scientific literature. Given the important role service animals play, a better understanding of the working animal-human bond would be instructive.�

�Pet Effect� Called an Uncorroborated Hypothesis

Harold Herzog (2011), a professor at Western Carolina University, argues that �a generalized �pet effect� on human mental and physical health is at present not a fact but an unsubstantiated hypothesis.�  Herzog says that in modern America, �the public has come to accept as fact the idea that pets can also serve as substitutes for physicians and clinical psychologists.�  This can be called �the pet effect,� a term Karen Allen (2003) used to describe the popular idea that living with an animal improves human health, psychological well-being, and longevity. 

Herzog makes a crucial observation that has largely escaped other researchers, which is that there has been a strong media bias.  People like to read stories about how good their pets are for them, but �studies in which pet ownership has been found to have no impact or even negative effects on human physical or mental health rarely make headlines.�  He notes a study (Parker et al., 2010) which looked at 425 heart-attack victims and �found pet owners were more likely than non-pet owners to die or suffer remissions within a year of suffering their heart attack (22% vs. 14%).�  This throws into doubt Friedmann et al. (1980), a study on which I made much in Service and Therapy Dogs in American Society (pp. 8, 95). 

The lack of media attention may also explain part of another phenomenon, which Herzog calls the �file drawer effect.�  This is a tendency of researchers not to publish results that are not positive towards animal ownership:

�At a session at a 2009 conference on human�animal interactions, for example, one researcher reported that separation from their pets had no effect on the psychological adjustment of college students, another found that interacting with animals did not reduce depression in psychiatric nursing home residents, and a third found no differences in the loneliness of adult pet owners and non-owners. So far, none of these studies have appeared in print.�

Herzog cites studies finding that pet owners are just as lonely as non-pet owners as determined by a standardized �loneliness scale,� were no happier than non-pet owners, and might even be more depressed if they were highly attached to a dog.  One longitudinal study of nearly 12,000 American adults (Gillum and Obisesan, 2010) found that cat or dog ownership was unrelated to mortality rates. 

Herzog also discusses methodological problems with human-animal interaction studies, noting that self-reporting approaches may not be valid.  One study of people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome (Wells, 2009) found that pet owners described numerous psychological and physical benefits to having pets, yet their scores on standardized measures �indicated that they were just as tired, depressed, worried, and stressed as chronic fatigue sufferers who did not get a pet.� 

Pet Therapy with Children Shows Positive Results, but Broad Conclusions Are Premature

A paper by Layla Esposito, James A. Griffin, and Valerie Maholmes (2011), begins with a statement on the need for more research �on the physical and psychological health benefits that can accrue to children through their interactions with pets, both in daily life and in therapeutic settings.�  They note that as far back as a 1987 National Institutes of Health conference, there has been a belief that more needs to be done, and that this is still true today. 

�To delve into the mechanisms of HAI [human-animal interaction] effects on health and determine who benefits from pet interaction and under what circumstances, larger, more focused studies that include crossover designs (in which subjects receive a sequence of different treatments) and look at environmental variables and a variety of pet species are needed. Well-controlled experiments and research that extends beyond studies of short-term physiological responses are also needed to provide more conclusive evidence of effects on health. Studies aiming to more precisely detect physiological changes that occur in people in the presence of pets could be more powerful if researchers would agree to use a common model and then conduct path analyses to show causal connections among the variables. The fact that studies have been done independently without common data elements limits the extent to which contradictions in findings can be explained.�

Need for Better Research Methods to Study Benefits of Service Animals

Melissa Winkle, Terry Crowe, and Ingrid Hendrix (2012) begin their recent paper with the observation that �few rigorous studies� exist regarding the utility of dogs as an �assistive technology option.�  The authors searched the literature for service animal studies using keywords and found 432 papers that might have been relevant.  After eliminating studies that were anecdotal, reviews, primarily qualitative, and dissertations, they were left with only 23, and 11 more were eliminated for focusing on issues the authors were not concerned with, leaving only 12. 

Unfortunately, in the opinion of the authors of this overview study, all 12 papers they looked at closely �had research design quality concerns including small participant sizes, poor description of the interventions, outcome measures with minimal psychometrics and lack of power calculations.�  The authors acknowledge that some of the weaknesses in prior studies are difficult to overcome, saying, for instance, that it �is difficult to conduct a blind investigation of the benefits of service dogs, so it is impossible to rule out the contribution of participant expectations.� 

There was also a lack of uniformity in the training of the dogs, making comparisons across studies essentially impossible.  �Without knowing the length and quality of the specialized training of the service dog, criteria for dog or person placement readiness or the content, length and quality of the training for dog or person, it is impossible to replicate these studies.�

The authors concede that service dogs were perceived by users as allowing them to decrease their reliance on other people. The studies reaching such conclusions, however, did not look at the opinions of caregivers independently of users. 

As for psychological benefits, studies reported �significant increases in self-esteem, internal locus of control, well-being, and positive affect.�  Persons with progressive conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson�s disease demonstrated significantly higher positive affect scores, with service dogs moderating the effects of depression.  Psychosocial characteristics did not differ significantly between those partnered with service dogs and those without.

The authors conclude that in order for occupational therapists to make recommendations for the use of service dogs, �the evidence to support such decisions must be strengthened.�  They note that this is particularly critical because of the limited availability of dogs:

�Given the extreme shortage of trained dogs and the potential cost of the dog/person partnership training and care, predicting positive outcomes based on person and dog characteristics are vital. Finally, if we are to recommend service dogs (or any kind of assistance dog) as an assistive technology option, we must study the dog-person evaluation and matching process, training and placement procedures and content, and outcomes for both the person and the dog, across assistance dog training organizations.�

Conclusions

The authors of these overviews do not say that there are no long-term psychological benefits to dogs, but they do say that claims of such benefits need more scientific support than they have received so far.  It is to be hoped that future research, such as that being conducted by NEADS, a service dog training organization, to determine the benefits of service dogs for veterans with PTSD, will have the sort of scientific objectivity that will withstand the criticisms of the authors of the papers discussed here. 

These studies will not stay in ivory towers.  Lawyers will scrutinize them for arguments about whether a tenant who wants to keep his assistance animal can really establish that the animal is providing him with psychological benefits such that a landlord must make a reasonable accommodation to a no-pets policy.  People wanting to take their service dogs to work will have to be more careful about the benefits they claim to receive from the dog, because if the matter goes to trial the lawyer for the employer is likely to bring up such studies in cross-examining the service dog user�s psychologist or doctor. 

The research should also be reviewed closely by mental health and medical professionals who are asked to sign letters for patients who want to live with service animals or take such them onto airplanes.  Professionals should be particularly careful about adopting draft language for such letters when the language is reverse engineered from regulations or legal decisions in order to convince an airline or a landlord that a service animal is providing concrete psychological benefits.  A letter that says the patient is getting better by having the service animal is more than an airline or a landlord will need and may not be supportable by the research.  Given that airlines are now being given the ability to contact a professional�s licensing authority regarding a service dog support letter, medical and psychological professionals must be increasingly cognizant of what they sign. 

Sources:

1. Allen, K. (2003).  Are Pets a Healthy Pleasure: The Influence of Pets on Blood Pressure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 236-9.
2. Esposito, L., McCune, S., Griffin, J.A., and Maholmes, V. (2011). Directions in Human-Animal Interaction Research: Child Development, Health, and Therapeutic Interventions.  Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 205-211.
3. Friedmann, E., Katcher, A. H., Lynch, J. J., and Thomas, S. A. (1980). Animal Companions and One-Year Survival of Patients after Discharge from a Coronary Care Unit. Public Health Reports, 95(4), 307.
4. Gillum, R.F., and Obisesan, T.O. (2010). Living with Companion Animals, Physical Activity and Mortality in a US National Cohort.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7, 2452-9.
5. Herzog, H. (2011). The Impact of Pets on Human Health and Psychological Well-Being: Fact, Fiction, or Hypothesis?  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 236-239.
6. Parker, G., Gayed, A., Owen, C., Hyett, M., Hilton, T., and Heruc, G. (2010). Survival Following an Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Pet Theory Put to the Test. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 121, 65�70.
7. Peacock, J., Chur-Hansen, A., and Winefield, H. (2012). Mental Health Implications of Human Attachment to Companion Animals. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 292-303 (March 2012).
8. Wells, D.L. (2009). Associations between Pet Ownership and Self-Reported Health Status in People Suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 15, 407-413.
9. Winkle, M., Crowe, T.K., and Hendrix, I. (2012). Service Dogs and People with Physical Disabilities Partnerships: A Systematic Review.  Occupational Therapy International, 19(1), 54-66.

Airlines Get More Tools to Stop Bogus Service Animals from Flying in Cabins

Additional Notes: In the Federal Register of Monday, December 7, 2015, the Department of Transportation published a notice of intent, indicating that it "is exploring the feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking (Reg Neg) concerning accommodations for air travelers with disabilities addressing ... service animals."  Among other interested parties that DOT wants to hear from are "service animal training organizations."

The release notes that both "airlines and disability organizations have raised concerns with the Department of passengers falsely claiming that their pets are service animals." The difference between the Department of Justice definition of "service animal" and DOT's definition has been brought to the DOT's attention, and DOT may, in the "Reg Neg," determine the appropriate definition of service animal...."  Additional safeguards may be instituted "to reduce the likelihood that passengers wishing to travel with their pets will be able to falsely claim that their pets are service animals...."

DOT also notes that bulkhead seating is sometimes not available to individuals with service animals because "bulkhead seats are now primarily located in what has been designated by airlines as the premium economy section."  Comments on these issues may, according to the release, be submitted on the www.regulations.gov website by typing in DOT-OST-2015-0246.  Department of Transportation, RIN 2105-AE12, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel; Consideration of Negotiated Rulemaking Process.  80 Fed. Reg. 75953 (December 7, 2015).

Regulations issued in August 2015 by the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding animal access to VA facilities will affect letters that psychologists and mental health professionals may be asked to write for veterans with service dogs. As those regulations apply to visitors to and employees of VA facilities who may not themselves be veterans, people in these categories may also ask that letters be written on their behalf.  

The article I wrote with Dr. Thomas, which discusses letters that may be requested by airlines, landlords and others appears in the March 2013 issue of the Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice is substantially more comprehensive than the following treatment.  

Writing Letters about Service Dogs 

Dr. J. Lawrence Thomas and I have submitted comments to the Department of Transportation regarding the Draft Technical Assistance Manual. The American Psychiatric Association and Anne Wicklund have also submitted insightful comments. To view comments online go to the regulations.gov website for this item and click on the box left of "Public Submission" below Document Type on the left. 

The Department of Transportation is updating its Technical Assistance Manual, What Airline Employees, Airline Contractors, and Air Travelers With Disabilities Need To Know About Access to Air Travel for Persons With Disabilities. The Manual, which is a guide to the Air Carrier Access Act, is being revised to cover changes that have been made to ACAA regulations since 2005, when the previous edition of the Manual was released.  The 2012 revision follows the pattern of the 2005 Manual in breaking down a trip from the point a person with a disability makes a reservation through the completion of travel. 

Although there is little new in the revised Manual, it is important that individuals traveling with service animals�particularly those traveling with emotional support or psychiatric service animals�be familiar with its contents since airline personnel will refer to it, rather than the regulations, in trying to resolve disputes involving passengers who are insisting on bringing animals aboard planes.

Letters from Mental Health Professionals 

Psychologists, other mental health professionals, and medical doctors should also be aware that the Manual contains requirements regarding letters that they may provide to patients who have service animals.  A support letter must now be on the professional�s office stationery and must provide information about the professional�s license.  DOT is clearly concerned that medical professionals are signing letters written for them by patients without really knowing anything about the supposed service animal or its benefits for a patient.  Also, veterinarians should be aware that they are likely to be asked to write letters saying an animal will not need to relieve itself for eight hours.

DOT is issuing the Manual in draft form in order that those affected or interested may have a chance to comment on the revision.  Comments must be sent to DOT by October 3, 2012, though late submission will be considered �to the extent practicable.�  As the 2005 Manual was covered extensively in Service and Therapy Animals in American Society, I will focus here primarily on how DOT plans to change the Manual.

Comments on the draft Manual may be submitted at www.regulations.gov, which is a user friendly website hosted by the federal government.  In the search box on the first page I typed in �airline disability service animal,� and the first hit was the one about which I am writing here. To submit a comment, just hit the �Comment Now� box in the upper right, and a comment box with submitter information appears.  Comments submitted will be available on the site to the general public.   

Definition of Service Animal

In 2005, the Manual�s initial description of a service animal was: �Any animal that is individually trained or able to provide assistance to a qualified person with a disability or any animal shown by documentation to be necessary for the emotional wellbeing of a passenger.�

The proposed revision (77 Fed. Reg. 39800, July 5, 2012) would state that a service animal is: �Any animal that is individually trained or able to provide assistance to a qualified person with a disability or any animal shown by documentation to be necessary to support a passenger with an emotional or mental disability.� The difference is significant in that the earlier definition implied that a person without an emotional or mental disability could have a service animal for his or her emotional wellbeing.

How Service Animals May Assist

The 2005 Manual provided that a service animal may assist �persons with mobility impairments with balance.�  The revision is more specific, stating that a service animal may assist �persons with mobility impairments to open and close doors, retrieve objects, transfer from one seat to another, and maintain balance.�  This more correctly describes some of the tasks a mobility impairment animal may perform. People with mobility impairment dogs that perform other tasks for them, but not one of the listed ones, should consider letting DOT know in the comment period.  DOT will probably not resist expanding such a list. 

The revision would add a new task to the assistance list: �Carrying items a passenger cannot readily carry while using his or her wheelchair.� 

Consistent with the change in the basic definition of �service animal� in the preceding section, the revision says that a service animal may provide �support for persons with emotional or mental disabilities.�  In 2005, the Manual had stated that a service animal may provide �emotional support for persons with disabilities.�  Again, the change effectively states that a person with a physical but not a mental or emotional disability cannot have a dog only for his or her emotional wellbeing.

Advance Notice of Intent to Fly with Service Animal

The 2012 revision states that an air carrier my require up to 48 hours� advance notice from a passenger who will travel with an emotional support or psychiatric service animal in the cabin, or with �any service animal on a flight segment scheduled to take 8 hours or more.�

Further, the revision states that for a flight scheduled for eight hours or more, �you may require documentation that the service animal will not need to relieve itself on the flight or can do so in a way that will not create a health or sanitation issue on the flight.�  Veterinarians can expect to be asked to write some rather silly letters because of this provision.  Presumably a letter could state something like the following:

�If Passenger A is able to take his Service Dog a relief area before a flight, and if Service Dog B relieves himself [herself] at that time, Service Dog B would ordinarily be able to make an 8 hour flight (including time at the gate and on the tarmac) without relieving himself [herself].  If a flight has several segments and Passenger A can take Service Dog B to relief areas at intermediary airports, Service Dog B would ordinarily be able to make a multi-stage flight without relieving himself [herself] in flight. These statements assume that Service Dog B does not become sick before or during a flight and does not eat food not standardly provided to him [her]."

A source advises me that one airline was actually considering a requirement that users of service animals carry doggy diapers.  From what I saw on a recent trip to Ireland, airlines might better spend their energy requiring that some passengers wear diapers, if not HAZMAT suits. 

Verification of Psychiatric Service or Emotional Support Animal Status

A carrier�s ability to check service animal status has changed from the prior Manual.  For passengers traveling with emotional support or psychiatric service animals, carriers may require documentation, not less than a year old, on the letterhead of a licensed mental health profession or medical doctor who is treating the passenger�s mental or emotional disability, stating:

1. The passenger has a recognized mental or emotional disability (under DSM IV); 
2. The passenger needs the service animal as an accommodation for air travel and/or activity at the passenger�s destination; 
3. The provider of the letter is a licensed mental health professional, or a licensed medical professional treating the individual for the recognized mental or emotional disability, and the passenger is under the individual�s professional care; and 
4. The date and type of mental health professional�s license and the state or other jurisdiction in which the license was issued.

The specific DSM condition need not be stated.  The letter may be written by a psychologist, psychiatrist, licensed clinical social worker, including a medical doctor specifically treating the passenger�s mental or emotional disability.  The items are cumulative and can all be required.  The italicized language contains new elements of what a carrier may require. 

Previously there was no mention of the documentation being on the professional�s letterhead (except in regulations).  Presumably this is a way of avoiding passengers asking their doctors to sign boiler plate documents downloaded and printed from websites.  The date and type of professional license is also a new requirement that will assure that professionals realize that airlines may want to contact them or their professional licensing boards. 

When an airline might contact a licensing board is not clear.  If a psychologist recommends that a patient obtain a service animal, it is not the psychologist�s fault if the animal obtained is not actually a service animal.  If, on the other hand, the psychologist says things about the animal that are inconsistent with what airline personnel observe, the airline may wonder if the psychologist is acting professionally or really wrote the letter.  Also, if the airline keeps records about professionals who recommend service animals, the airline may notice that a particular medical professional is recommending a great number of service animals.  The airline might contact the licensing authority to ask if this is typical of members of the profession they license. 

Determination that an Animal is Not a Service Animal

The revised Manual states that if a carrier decides not to accept an animal as a service animal, it must explain the reason to the passenger and document its decision in writing.  A copy of the explanation is to be provided to the passenger at the airport, or within ten calendar days of the event. 

Changing Seats if a Service Animal Does Not Fit

The 2005 Manual said that switching seats in the same class of service must be explored as an alternative before requiring that the service animal travel in the cargo compartment.� The revision gives more detailed advice to flight personnel:

�You should speak with other passengers to find a passenger�(1) Seated in an adjacent seat who is willing to share foot space with the animal, or (2) Who is willing to exchange seats with the passenger accompanying the service animal and is seated in a seat adjacent to�(a) A location where the service animal can be accommodated (for example, in the space behind the last row of seats) or (b) An empty seat. You must not deny a passenger with a disability transportation on the basis that the service animal may offend or annoy persons traveling on the aircraft.�

The italicized language is particularly important and reflects the fact that fines have been levied against airlines that have excluded legitimate service animals because airline gate personnel or flight attendants became overly accommodating to passengers with cultural or religious biases against animals.  There is an entire appendix to the Manual concerning placement of service animals in airline cabins. 

Relief Areas

The 2005 Manual made no mention of relief areas for service animals.  The revised Manual summarizes requirements on carriers with regard to relief areas.  This has been summarized in a prior blog. 

Conclusion

The Manual in general reflects an increasing recognition that people wanting to fly with their pets are trying to create evidence that those pets are psychiatric service or emotional support animals, getting bogus documents from online sites that sell paraphernalia purporting to establish a dog as a bona fide service animal.  Also, psychologists and doctors must pay more attention to the letters they put on their stationery regarding their patients� animals, since DOT may actually complain to licensing authorities when animals turn out to be out-of-control house pets that passengers just don�t want to put in steerage.  Professionals should be able to back up what they are signing for their patients.

Users of psychiatric service animals have argued to DOT officials that psychiatric service animals should be treated the same as other service animals, and distinguished from emotional support animals, but DOT has not accepted this argument.  The distinction is an important one in Department of Justice regulations, but DOT feels that the advance notice requirement should apply to both psychiatric service and emotional support animals.  The airlines should at least have enough advance notice that they can advise passengers who will be bringing psychiatric service animals on flights of the documentation they should have when they get to the gate.

What is a Therapy Dog? Listen to a Poem by Diana Edelman

In April 2010, Diana Edelman, a retired teacher and poet who lived in Woodstock, met Chloe and me at Benedictine Hospital in Kingston, New York.  She asked me how she could contact me, and the next day she sent an email with a poem attached.  I found it so moving that I asked her if I could find a publisher, to which she agreed.  I sent the poem to several dog magazines but none expressed interest. 

Diana died on December 3, 2011.  She stopped taking infusions at Benedictine Hospital (in a room called 4SMC) and though I called her several times after that, and we talked about getting together, I did not make the effort that I should have made to bring Chloe to her house.  That was a failing on my part.  A serious one.

I continue to believe that Diana�s poem is the most precise statement I have ever read of what a therapy dog is and does.  To this day I cannot read it without tears.  The first picture is of Chloe wearing the bandana mentioned in the poem.  The second shows Diana with two of her grandchildren in Alaska in March 2011.  Her daughter, Susan Houlihan, tells me that even months before her death, Diana was able to hike up to eight miles. 

TO CHLOE

You padded into the infusion room on 4SMC on four short feet.

Their anatomy was so concealed by your thick carpet of curls that they looked to be mere horizontal bends at the ends of your long legs like a minimalist stick figure.

Your curly coat, the color of brown sugar melting into oatmeal, covered every inch of you.

You stopped at my chair, my pole, my suspended plastic bags and tubing�my unit.

"Poodle!" I exclaimed.

"Labradoodle," explained your human. "This is Chloe."

My fingers burrowed into your warm swirls.

There were enough of them to make a curly cap for every chemo skinhead who frequents 4SMC.

But you didn't appear to flaunt your profusion of furry adornment among us�the monastic order of bare naked skulls.

Instead�in a gesture of solidarity�you appeared in a turquoise bandana neckerchief, a Caribbean lagoon in your expanse of whirling sands.

The simple, square, 99 cent bandana. The oldest, most basic chemo accessory.

As you know, Chloe, advanced cancer treatment is a harsh world, which compassionate, skillful humans struggle to soften, using blunt tools.

"Advanced" refers to the disease, not the treatments.

Most of these are the medical equivalent of aerial crop spraying.

Every gain extracts its price.

A patient counts her bonus days of life on one hand and her losses on the other.

The two, inseparable, are a package deal.

It's a tough contract to sign.

But when push comes to shove, the contractee makes her trades one by one.

How many days can she buy with her hair?

How many with the tender flesh of her mouth?

How many with the feeling in her hands and feet?

Her settled stomach?

Her functioning gut?

Her memory?

How many days does a white cell fetch, or a red?

Those tiny protectors and energizers that once rafted exuberantly in her river of life.

What is the barcode on 24 hours and 24 more and 24 more?

Well, in this particular 24, Chloe, I was in the right place at the right time.

Both my bands devouring your luscious curls, your solid form, I already felt a heave in my chest and water channeling toward my eyes.

Then I glanced up from your flanks and noticed your labradoodle face close to mine.

Your eyes, the exact same color as your everywhere curls, were the softest, most inviting, pure and honest I'd ever seen.

They asked in the simplest, wordless way, "How are you today?"

It was out of the question to lie to such eyes�even a teeny, tiny bit.

I burst out crying.

Soft as they looked, Chloe, your eyes bored like diamond bits down through the endless strata of solid facts and hopeful strategies that I'd futilely attempted to assemble over the three years since diagnosis .... from mountains of information, misinformation, conflicting information, laughable confusion, the relentless pressure to be positive, and just plain pipe dreams.

You knew that deep below all those ever shifting mirage layers was a simple clear pond that was actually there.

When its waters surfaced I knew it was there, too.

After only a few minutes your human led you away to another lucky person at the end of a tube.

I was so sorry to see you go, Chloe.

You brought me more peace than I've known in a good while.

Now there's a photograph of your brown sugar and oatmeal labradoodle self in my brain.

I can look in your open vessel eyes whenever I want and dip into that clear, honest pool.

Revived for another 24.

And I had thought that brief encounters with total strangers where you gaze into each other's eyes and you are never the same again only happened in the movies.

Diana Edelman, 2010

Army Medical Journal Describes Service and Therapy Dog Programs For Wounded Warriors

Sixteen articles on various canine-related activities that involve wounded soldiers and veterans appear in The United States Army Medical Department Journal for the second quarter of 2012. At least one article might satisfy the rigorous requirements of a refereed journal, but most are interesting and there is a wealth of data to prove that there are people in the military who see the benefits of service and therapy dogs for those wounded in foreign wars. 

No Opinion Expressed on Army Medical Command Policy

Given the policies adopted by Forts Bliss and Campbell following a January 30 memorandum issued by the Army Medical Command at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, it must be asked whether the authors of the papers in the Army�s medical journal are in agreement with Herbert A. Coley, Chief of the Clinical Services Division, and his decision to apply a very restrictive definition to the term �service dog� in Army contexts.  I could find only two references to Coley�s memorandum throughout the entire issue of the Journal, both of which acknowledged its existence but neither of which elaborated on it.  One paper refers to �proponents of much less training,� which may be a reference to soldiers and veterans who have trained or are trying to train their own service dogs in contravention of Coley�s memorandum, but even if that is the intent, it is not clear that any of the authors in the medical journal are happy with Coley�s policy. 

Need for Additional Service Dogs

One of the papers, citing earlier research (American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1651-1658) says that �approximately 40% of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans treated at American health centers during the previous 6 years [2002-2008] were diagnosed with PTSD, depression, or other mental health issues�. In 2007, Brashear and Rintala [SCI Psychosocial Process, 20(1)] reported that 30% of Veterans with spinal cord injuries indicated at least some interest in obtaining a service dog, and 42% desired information concerning service dogs.� 

If 40% of returning soldiers seeking any kind of medical help suffer from psychological or neurological traumas, many of whom are interested in getting service dogs, the need for dogs runs to the thousands, probably tens of thousands.  If there is an overall weakness to this dedicated issue of the Army�s medical journal, it is that it makes no further effort to quantify the number of dogs required to satisfy this need.  While the programs described are all excellent, the excellence often concerns relatively small numbers of dogs for relatively small populations of soldiers and veterans. 

Programs Described in Army Medical Command Journal

Still, credit must be given where credit is due, and many of the articles in the Army Medical Department Journal are worth a close read by all segments of the medical community as well as by service and therapy dog trainers.   The major findings of the dedicated issue of the Journal are the following:

1. Learning to give commands to therapy dogs was determined to be beneficial to wounded soldiers under self-assessment measures of psychological function, work performance, and quality of interaction.  However, no difference was detected in a comparison with wounded soldiers who did not work with dogs as to mood state, stress level, resilience, and fatigue. "Several Soldiers informed the Warrior Family Support Center Director that they enjoyed the dog sessions, looked forward to seeing the dogs again and regretted the conclusion of the study." Despite the generally nonsignificant results of the study, the researchers felt that the anecdotal evidence supporting the program argued for continued development. 
2. Eight combat and operational stress control dogs (�COSC dogs�) have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan after training to be therapy dogs, with specific modifications for the war theater environment, such as learning to tolerate extreme noise and get on and off of helicopters.  The dogs were found to help communications between occupational therapists, who became handlers of the dogs, and a wide range of personnel in war zones.
3. Occupational therapists who became handlers of COSC dogs have to live with the dogs virtually all the time, unlike military working dogs in theater (e.g. dogs to detect IEDs), which presents problems because of the extreme heat and sand storms in the Middle East, and because some dining facilities will not admit dogs, but the therapists all felt the experience was extremely rewarding.
4. NEADS, a service dog training program in Princeton, Massachusetts, has been training dogs for wounded warriors at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.  Some wounded soldiers are learning to train service dogs for other soldiers.  NEADS has developed a special fitted harness that can be used by veterans with prosthetics.  Dogs are trained to pick up dropped items, even credit cards and coins.  NEADS has undertaken a pilot study on use of service dogs by veterans with PTSD.
5. The Washington Humane Society�s Dog Tags Behavior and Grooming Training Program allows participants to learn skills in working with dogs, skills that may lead to post-discharge employment. Certain staff at the Walter Reed Warrior Transition Brigade can bring pets to work if the dogs are certified by Therapy Dogs International.

Although the scientific results are minor, the anecdotal information on the value of service and therapy dogs is considerable.  The most important result of the material is that it provides strong evidence that the rank and file Army and medical staff working with wounded soldiers and veterans is extremely positive to continued use and expansion of service and therapy dog programs. 

Conclusion

Critics of the January 30 Army Medical Command policy, including me, are concerned that it is designed to guarantee that numbers of soldiers and veterans receiving service and support dogs will remain low and that the need will continue to far outstrip the number of dogs and programs available.  Implementation of the restrictive service dog policy at Forts Bliss and Campbell has had disastrous results in morale, and the successes of those programs that have been implemented at other locations cannot pave over the failure to provide dogs to a large segment of wounded soldiers and veterans. 

Nevertheless, it is not surprising that medical personnel in the Army would not take on the establishment above them, and the research and descriptive articles included in this issue of The United States Army Medical Department Journal are a welcome addition to the professional literature on service and therapy dogs.

The Sordid History of Pit Bull Fighting in 19th Century England

Additional Note: The following blog was cited in a paper, History of Dog Fighting in the World, which appeared in the April 2015 issue of the Journal of Animal Science Advances, 5(4), 1234-1237, by Professor Orhan Yilmaz of Ardahan University, Turkey, and two of his colleagues.    

I have been critical of anti-pit bull legislation on a number of occasions, and have mentioned my opposition in at least five blogs here.  This has led to unpleasant�mostly anonymous�emails addressing me as or equating me to the orifice on my backside. (I do not post these accusations, not because I can�t accept criticism or don�t tolerate cussing, but because I hope that I am encouraging reasonably intelligent discourse and such emails vastly disappoint this expectation.)  In describing dog attacks involving pit bulls, I have also been accused of supporting breed-specific legislation by shining too much of a light on which breed of dogs is responsible for attacks.  

Recently I received an email arguing that because the pit bull was created to fight, and with a temperament and physical characteristics appropriate for this activity, it is inherently much more dangerous than other dogs.  That difference justifies, in the commenter�s mind, a certain legal separation of pit bulls from other breeds. It was recommended that I look into the history to satisfy myself that pit bulls are in a class by themselves and should be kept �on a shorter leash� than other dogs. 

This criticism is fair up to a point.  While occasionally adding bits and pieces concerning the history of pit bulls in pieces I write, I have largely remained focused on recent legal decisions and research on dog bites.  It is time to say something about the early history of pit bulls, which transpired not that long ago, and in England. 

Invention of the Pit Bull Terrier  

To understand the origin of the pit bull, one must go back two hundred years to a time when two dogs fighting to the death in an arena was as acceptable as two prize fighters punching each other in Las Vegas is today.  It was considered an advancement when dogs were no longer allowed to bait bears and bulls, though enforcement of the laws criminalizing these contests was probably lax even at the beginning of the 19^th century. 

Phil Drabble, writing a history of Staffordshire Terriers and baiting sports in 1948, says that when bull baiting was outlawed, fighting between bulldogs was used to replace it.  While bulldogs had the necessary aggressiveness, they lacked an appropriate level of agility, so various crosses were tried, the most successful being with terriers, eventually producing a group of bull terriers. 

Lt. Col. Clyn (1948), in his brief description of the Bull Terrier, elaborates:

�Bulldogs, though more active than the modern type, proved too slow in the fighting pit and breeders were concerned with increasing the Bulldog�s speed and agility without sacrificing his power to bite.  To achieve this end Terrier blood was introduced and the resulting cross-breeds were called Bull-and-Terriers or Bulldog Terriers.  These when bred together eventually produced a distinctive type which, early in the 19^th Century, became known as Bull Terriers.�

John Henry Walsh, writing as "Stonehenge," says in The Dogs of the British Islands:  

"The Bull Terrier, like his chief progenitor, the bulldog, is now without a vocation, dog fights being prohibited by law, and rat pits being equally out of the question. But, unlike the bulldog, he is an excellent companion for the male sex, being a little too violent in his quarrels to make him desirable as a ladies' pet. Careful crossing�said to be with the terrier, but also alleged to be with the greyhound or foxhound, or both-has produced a handsome, symmetrical animal, without a vestige of the repugnant and brutal expression of the bulldog, and with the elegant lines of the greyhound, though considerably thickened in their proportions."

The first plate depicts two show dogs that Walsh saw as excellent examples of the breed. As to the dog's behavior, Walsh states:

 

"The bull terrier is still judged by the fighting standard�that is to say, he must have all the points, mental as well as bodily, which are necessary to the fighting dog. If of pure bull parentage or nearly so, he is unfitted for the office; for, instead of laying hold and shaking his adversary for a time with great force, and then changing to a fresh place of attack, as the fighting dog should do, he keeps his hold tenaciously, and never changes it but on compulsion. The infusion of terrier, greyhound, or foxhound, or whatever may be the cross, gives activity of body in addition to the above mental peculiarity, and thus is created an animal calculated to take his own part in any combat, whether with one of his own kind or with any of our native larger vermin, or even with the smaller felidae of other lands. His temper is sufficiently under control to prevent his intentionally injuring his master, under the severest provocation, and he is admitted to be, of all dogs, the most efficient protector against attack in proportion to his size and muscular powers. He is a very cleanly animal in the house, and many years ago I had one which, being by accident confined in my bedroom surreptitiously for four days, under the care of a person who fed him, but neglected to let him out as directed, for fear of discovery, never once relieved himself of any of his secretions, by which he very nearly lost his life."

Genome research has put the Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Miniature Bull Terrier in the same group as the Bulldog.  See vonHoldt et al. (2010). A recent study (Larson et al., 2012), in a supplemental table S1, stated that the Bull Terrier was created "by crossing English Bulldogs with several breeds including Black and Tan Terriers, Spanish Pointers, English White Terriers, Dalmations, Greyhounds and Whippets in order to create a dog breed that would fight other dogs."

A Show Dog Has to Fight

Pit Bull Terriers were of various colors but a show dog, Puss, entered in a show at Cremorne Gardens near Chelsea was all white and was a big hit.  Part of Puss�s history is given by Clyn:

�On the day of the show there could be no question that Puss was much smarter and more graceful than her old fashioned rivals, but the old breeders were convinced she could never hold her own in the pit; tempers frayed, and heavy wagers were offered at odds against Puss till Mr. Hinks could bear it no longer.  Refusing to profit by his rivals� ignorance, Mr. Hinks backed Puss at even for �5 and a case of champagne against the best known fighting dog present in the show.  The challenge was accepted and the contest took place immediately in an improvised pit just outside the show. Tradition says that within 30 minutes the old fashioned champion was being laid to rest while Puss, almost unmarked, was back in the show, where she received First Prize.�

Dog shows have apparently changed somewhat in the last century.

The older type of dog was re-crossed with the newer type in the earlier 20^th century because the white variety was prone to deafness.  The second plate shows a father and son, which Ash (1927) describes as �of the famous Paddington strain, never beaten.�  The caption says that the father had killed two dogs.  Ash relates an account that when a famous fighting dog gave birth to a litter, church bells were rung in Wednesbury. 

Dog Fighting in the 19^th Century

By 1860, according to Drabble, there were two preferred types of fighting dogs, the English Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but the former was developed more for show than courage.  The Staffordshire Bull Terrier continued to be bred for the pit.  At the Westminster Pit, fights were held between dogs, cocks, dogs and monkeys, dogs and lions, and dogs that were required to kill large masses of rats. 

Drabble goes into detail:

�The pit itself was roughly 12-18 feet across, with a boarded surround about three feet high, over which the spectators could watch.  Each dog was handled by his second and, after the preliminary formalities concerning the stakes had been completed, each dog was weighed in the pit.  It is common for owners of bull terriers which develop a taste for fighting, to boast that their dogs will 'kill anything' and that this dog or that �killed an Alsatian� (or something equally big) �in ten minutes.��

Watching a dog being torn to pieces for ten minutes was apparently something some dog fanciers were then excited by watching and, unfortunately, some still are. Drabble says that in fights before spectators, dogs were usually required to be within a pound of each other. As to timing. Drabble says that �two dogs would sometimes take as much as two hours to decide which was the better and rarely less than 25 or 30 minutes.�

Trickery practiced by dog owners included rubbing a dog �with acid or pickle or pepper or anything to discourage his opponent from biting him.�  To prevent this, both dogs were often washed before the fight began, sometimes with milk, which was supposed to neutralize acid.  Also, �each setter was allowed to �taste� (or lick) his opponent�s dog both before and after fighting.�  Clyn says that the taster was sometimes a third party who was given a shilling to assure that �no corrosive chemical or other poison had been rubbed into the coats of the contestants.�

The beginning of the fight was rather formal:

�When the preliminaries had been completed a coin was tossed to decide which dog should �scratch� first.  They were taken to opposite corners of the pit where each second held his dog between his knees so that the other dog got a fair unobstructed view of his opponent�s head.  On a word from the referee, the dog wich had to �scratch� first was liberated and had to go across the pit to attack his opponent.  A line was drawn cross the centre of the pit, which was known as the Scratch, and the opposing dog could not be loosed until the attacker had crossed this line.  When he crossed the scratch the other setter could loose his dog when ever he liked and it was judgment here that won or lost many battles.� 

Being held put a dog at a disadvantage, but Drabble says that if the setter kept holding and the dog that had been released did not attack the dog being held, the match was forfeited to the dog being held. 

Once the dogs began to fight, the setters could leave the pit.  They could encourage their own dogs but could not speak to the opponent�s dog.  Neither dog could be touched again until both stopped fighting.  If the dogs stopped fighting, a setter could pick up his dog and the round was counted as expired.  �One minute was allowed for sponging down and making ready for the next round, and the referee gave warning after 50 seconds so that both should be ready when the minute was up.� 

Rounds were not set times but were ended when both dogs �faulted,� i.e., ceased to be engaged in fighting, so a round might go for 20 minutes or more.  �A battle of an hour or more might have twenty scratches, or one dog might be killed in the first scratch.�  Drabble notes that in old prize ring rules, fighters fought until one fell. 

A dog that failed to scratch in his turn lost.  �If a dog was killed in the pit the other had to stay at him for ten minutes at least and he could still not be handled by his setter till he faulted.� Thus, dogs were encouraged to continue to maul a dead opponent for the entertainment of the watchers.  Once the mauling dog finally faulted, he was taken to his corner.  The scratch rules had a curious result at this point:

�If it was the dead dog�s turn to scratch the battle was automatically lost.  If it was the live dog�s turn and he did not scratch, he lost the battle although he had killed his opponent.� 

Since the live dog would know by smell that his opponent was dead, it must have been a matter of training to get the dog to fake an attack at that point.  

Writing in 1948, Drabble says that the sport was rare in Britain after the turn of the century, �but game terriers are still bred and exported to America where the sport is still perfectly legal in some States.�  This, of course, was true even at the time Michael Vick was arrested. We have the British to blame for the preferred dog fighting breed in America.  

To get a dog in fighting trim, Drabble has a number of recommendations:

�The first considerations in getting a dog fighting fit are therefore his wind and the removal of all surplus fat.  He must be given constant hard exercise to get him muscled up and in dead hard condition, this can be best achieved by giving small quantities of highly nutritious food with an absence of starchy food during training.  The jelly from cows� feet and an adequate supply of fresh green food forms a good basis. Plenty of hard walking on a lead with a wide collar so that he can lay himself down and pull helps to strengthen his back and loin muscles.  An old motor tyre or other piece of rubber hung up so that he can jump up, catch hold and shake himself about on it is simply vital.  The damage a fighting dog does is not so much by the sheer force of his bite as by shaking when he has got hold.  And his neck and back muscles are essential for this.  Plenty of running and jumping for a ball that bounces well strengthens all the muscles he uses in turning and twisting, and produces the required agility.� 

The advice rings a little too true.  One must wonder how Drabble came by it.  He describes the proclivities of the breed:

�Puppies will fight to kill at three months and bitches are as keen as dogs.  Yet some strains are remarkably friendly to other dogs and will put up with unusual insults before being goaded into fighting.  When once they get a taste for it, they would rather fight than do anything in the world.�

That untrained pit bulls will readily attack other dogs is demonstrated by a recent incident in Florida.  

As to those who participate in dog fighting, Drabble says they are general of �a low parentage� and �are usually as willing to fight each other as to watch their dogs.� 

Drabble recounts that efforts to ban dog fighting at first met little success:

�There was little initial interference from the law, since it was possible to fight two dogs in any hollow or shed without attracting much attention, for fighting dogs fight silently.  They were easy to get away afterwards, as they could always be carried in a sack if their condition was likely to draw suspicion. And dog-fighting had the advantage over bull- or bear-baiting in that at least both animals wanted to fight instead of the victim having to be fastened with a rope or chain with no chance of escape.�

Bull Baiting

Drabble says that Bulldogs �were developed for no other purpose� than baiting bulls.  See also R. and W. Livingston (1885).  This activity did not begin as a sport, but rather because of the belief that beef was more tender when cattle were excited by dogs before being killed.  The dogs were thus, at first, the same dogs used for driving cattle.  The sport�for it soon came to be one�was long popular in England and Drabble describes the devotion of Queen Elizabeth I to watching it as �anything but spinsterish.� 

The tide began to change with James I, who in 1620 refused to license houses for bull-baiting and it was forbidden altogether on Sundays.  Cromwell forbade the sport altogether, though this may have been because he saw the gatherings as having the risk of turning political in a way that would not favor his control.  The Restoration brought it back. 

Bulldogs used in baiting weighed under 50 pounds, and Drabble discusses the importance of their jaws.

�The object in bull-baiting was to grip the bull in a tender enough part of the face to hold him still or throw him.  Tremendous power of jaw was necessary for this and nostrils set far enough back to allow normal breathing without letting go.� 

As to the fight itself, Drabble states:

�When all was ready the bull was tethered to the stake by a rope about 15 yards long attached to the base of his horns�. [The dog] would not rush madly at the quarry but creep on his belly, stealthily, as close as possible.  If the bull was a �green� bull, which had never been halted before, he would bellow and lower his head towards the dog but do little else, for he didn�t know what he�d got coming to him.  If, on the other hand, he was a �game� bull, which had been baited before and proved his mettle in the ring, he would not get at the extremity of his rope but would leave himself enough slack to charge when necessary.  He would lower his head and keep his forelegs close to prevent the dog slipping between them and getting hold.  The aim of the dog would be to creep along and wait for an opening, when he would dart in and �pin� the bull by laying hold of his tongue, eyepiece, lip or nose.  The bull would not try to impale him but slip his horn under his belly and toss him high enough into the air to suffer damage when he fell.  The dog�s owner was well aware of this and he would be ready to try and break his fall by catching him in his apron or deftly slide a light pole under him, in mid-air, down which he could slide in comparative immunity.  If the bull was successful and the dog not much hurt he was let go again since he was expected to be game enough to go back so long as he had still the strength to crawl.�

Some dogs were killed by the bull�s toss, and some dragged their entrails behind as they tried to find safety.  If the dog got a good grip, the flesh of the bull might be torn away by the dog as the bull shook to free himself. If the bull gave up, the dog�s jaws might have to be pried apart with a tool to get him off the bull. 

Drabble says that the last bull-bait took place about 1838. 

Although bulldogs were still a popular breed when Drabble wrote in the mid-twentieth century, he cautions against imagining �that the monstrosities wheezing at modern dog shows in the classes for bulldogs are like the animals� that baited bulls.  �Instead of being disproportionately squat and broad, like some great toad, the bulldogs which were used in the ring were finely proportioned dogs, little heavier in build than a modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and taller for their size.�

This is one case where breeding for show had the advantage of taking a dog away from its violent past.

Bear Baiting

Next to bull baiting in popularity was bear baiting, but Drabble says that �bears did not provide such good sport as the bulls.  For one thing too much manipulation was necessary to prevent the dog from being killed.�  The bears were �usually a mass of festering fly-blown sores which had resulted from the lacerations of earlier �baits�. They were led by a chain and ring in the nose and their muzzles were scarred or raw from the chafing of their chains.�

By about 1750, the sport had largely disappeared. Nevertheless it seems not to have gone away completely because, a depiction in Real Life in London from about 1821 shows men in the audience dressed in nineteenth century coats and leggings.

There is no end to the ingenuity of cruelty and we have only touched the surface. Drabble describes fights between groups of bulldogs and lions, dogs and monkeys, and many other horrors. When the contest was between a dog and rats, the sport was how many rats the dog could kill in a specified time. 

Guarding Function

Clyn relates a story that perhaps demonstrates there are occasions when a dog with the skills of a bull terrier might provide a legitimate defense function:

�The breed has a reputation for fighting which it does not really deserve; I think this is founded partly on the breed�s history as a fighting dog and also partly on the shocking efficiency of the few savage Bull Terriers about; the modern dog is but little less powerful than his ancestors, and a nice tempered White Bull Terrier bitch, well known on the bench, created something of a sensation in Burma some years before the War while defending her master who was attacked by an armed dacoit [bandit].  Within a few moments the dacoit was dead and the dog�s owner was paid a substantial reward that had been offered for the dacoit dead or alive.�

Conclusion

Bulldogs were able to escape their history as dogs used to bait bulls because the practice came to an end and no netherworld of gambling on fights between dogs and cattle lasted very long after the official ban.  Bears became too rare, and too protected, and, as described above, fights between bears and dogs were too difficult to manage in any case.  Unfortunately, dog fighting was only gradually outlawed in England and the United States and often not enforced when it was outlawed.  The sport had time to move underground, to develop a culture and venues where the morons that engage in it could meet with fellow enthusiasts.

Many of the potentially more dangerous breeds descend from war dogs, which probably means they descended from types of dogs that guarded the flocks. Outlawing a breed only means that other breeds including large dogs with powerful jaws will soon be preferred by those sick strains of humanity who feel that the suffering of animals is amusing.

The Michael Vick case brought public attention to the amount of dog fighting that occurs in the United States, and demonstrated that those who participate are often not gang members.  It also brought to everyone�s attention the frequent lack of enforcement of laws prohibiting dog fighting, and significantly changed enforcement patterns in most of the country. 

Despite the specific and violent purpose that explains pit bull origins, this is human history more than canine history, and I continue to believe that breed specific legislation will do little to diminish dog fighting or pit bull attacks.  It is serious enforcement of anti-dog fighting and dog bite laws that will accomplish that.  And despite the fact that this is already a trend, more effort is needed both in arresting and punishing those responsible for such inhumanity and stupidity.

Sources:

1. Alken, H. (1903). The National Sports of Great Britain. D. Appleton & Co., New York.
2. Ash, E.C. (1927). Dogs: Their History and Development.  Ernest Benn Ltd., London.
3. Clyn, S.H. (1948). Bull Terrier.  In The Book of the Dog (Vesey-Fitzgerald, B., ed.). Nicholson & Watson, London.
4. Drabble, P. (1948). Staffords and Baiting Sports. In The Book of the Dog (Vesey-Fitzgerald, B., ed.). Nicholson & Watson, London.
5. Egan, P. [writing as Anonymous] (1821). Real Life in London.  Methuen & Co., London.
6. Evans, R.D., and Forsyth, C.J. (1997).  Entertainment to Outrage: A Social Historical View of Dogfighting.  International Review of Modern Sociology, 27(2), 59-71. 
7. Jesse, G.R. (1866). Researches into the History of the British Dog.  Robert Hardwicke, London (in the final chapter of Volume II, discussing the rise of the pit bull terrier in the early 19^th century).
8. Larson, G., Karlsson, E.K., Perri, A., et al. (2012). Rethinking Dog Domestication by Integrating Genetics, Archeology, and Biogeography. PNAS (doi/10.1073/pnas.1203005109).
9. Livingston, R., and Livingston, W. (1885). The Bull-Dog. In The Century Magazine, May 1885, 3.
10. Walsh, J.H. ("Stonehenge") (1859). The Dog in Health and Disease. Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, London. 
11. vonHoldt et al. (2010). Genome-Wide SNP and Haplotype Analyses Reval a Rich History Underlying Dog Domestication.  Nature, 464, 898.
12. Walsh, J.H. (1882). The Dogs of the British Islands (4th ed.). Horace Cox, London.  

Thanks to L.E. Papet for comments and corrections.  

1.