COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, October 19, 2000 2:05 p.m. - - - Bill 000537 - an Ordinance amending Chapters 10-100 and 10-600 of the Philadelphia Code relating to animals, individual conduct, and the use of public and property by adding to Sections 10-101, 105, 603 and 10-606, the prohibition of dog fighting. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ, CHAIRMAN COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X BILL NO. 000537 GREG FOX, ------------------------------ 6 LYNNETTE SCHAEFFER --------------------- 16 7 STEPHANIE AAMES ------------------------ 26 8 OFFICER JOSEPH HULMES ------------------ 34 9 OFFICER PAUL BRYANT -------------------- 52 10 RANDALL HIRSCHHORN, Health Dept. ------- 60 ERIK HENDRICKS, SPCA ------------------- 64 - - - 3 P R O C E E D I N G S
The hearing on Bill 3 000537 of the Public Safety Committee, having a quorum present, will now begin. Councilman Darrell Clarke, Councilman Cohen, Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell, myself, the Chair of the Committee, Angel Ortiz. Could you please read the title of the bill?
Amending Chapters 10-100 and 10-600 of the Philadelphia Code relating to animals, individual conduct, and the use of public and property by adding to Sections 10-101, 105, 603 and 10-606, the prohibition of dog fighting.
Very good. The main sponsor of the bill, Jannie Blackwell, has an opening statement, plus we have some amendments that we will consider later on. Jannie.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. A few weeks ago we introduced Bill No. 000537 in response to growing frustrations by my constituents over the seemingly rise in attacks on innocent people by vicious dogs by the police who are in harm's way when responding 4 BILL NO. 000537 to complaints and by the SPCA who wrote us last spring and complained about the issue and asked for help in dealing with this problem. We note by way of background that on October 15th, a Sunday evening, two men in Maple Shade, New Jersey, tried to help a 12-year-old being bitten by four dogs. The boy suffered several puncture wounds to his legs and dogs bites. On 9/22 pitbulls attacked Tarika Lindsay and her 10-year-old in Tacony in their own yard. The woman and her 10-year-old daughter had severe bites. Police had to shoot and kill two dogs. On 7/25 two pitbulls ended up in surgery, and the two Philadelphia men who owned them were charged with cruelty to animals after officers broke up a dog fight in Overbrook. When police responded, five people were gathered around two fighting dogs. One had the other in its jaws. The dogs continued to fight after the arrest. On 7/17 a letter carrier, Margarite Ashley was delivering mail to a house in Southwest Philadelphia when two pitbulls burst through the screen in the front door and attacked her. And on 7/13 scars never go away for 5 BILL NO. 000537 little Greg Fox. We thank his mother, Mrs. Schaeffer, who is here today because of this 12-year-old who was mauled by two pitbulls and he faces years of pain and humiliation, not to even mention medical bills. Three days after the dog fight was raided where two officers made arrests, the SPCA raided an abandoned house on Cosgrove Street near Belfield and Germantown where they found chains dangling from a ceiling from which animal baits were being used and hung to try promote dog fighting. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 1979 and 1996 pitbulls have been involved in 60 fatal attacks. In preparation for dog fights, animals even suffer tremendous torture. They are dehydrated, starved, beaten, forced to walk and run while leashed to weights, constantly provoked and encouraged to attack other dogs. Dog fights take place in residential neighborhoods, in alleys, playgrounds, and even school grounds after dark. As part of an urban youth culture, some have even been promoted in a movie, a movie called 6 BILL NO. 000537 "Fresh," and by gangsta rap artists, and these fights are even attended by children. Since preparing for this legislation, we have heard from victims of dog attacks and neighbors of illegal dog fight venues where they have to hear growls, tearing of flesh, whelping, and final silence night after night, afraid to call the police often for fear or retaliation. Pitbulls have been the primary focus of media and general public because of recent attacks and the fact that they are bred for fighting. Many individuals, unfortunately, train their dogs to be vicious as a form of protection, particularly among drug dealers during the '80s and '90s during crack deals in our neighborhoods. Mr. Hendricks from the SPCA and others would like us to ban pitbulls by 2020, and maybe so; but today, the State law prevents us from doing so. To ban pitbulls would mean that we would have to ban all dogs. This is unreasonable and fails to address the larger issues which is that current animal laws are vague, can be misinterpreted, and are difficult to enforce and absolutely fail to specify humane standards of animal treatment and care. 7 BILL NO. 000537 My colleague, Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller who couldn't be here this afternoon, through her vicious dog task force and myself for the introduction of this law, are attempting to establish precedence for the type of laws that need to be added to increase public safety and to protect dogs also from mistreatment.
Finally, Bill 000537 clearly states that dog fighting is illegal in the City of Philadelphia and owners caught participating will be penalized. It is my hope that through raising the consciousness of many that dog fighters will think twice and that we will see the incidence of dog fights and attacks on humans decrease. Specifically, Bill 000537 will create a new subsection in the law to define the issue, dog fighting. It will make dog fighting illegal within City limits. It will give the police the authority to issue tickets, $150, to suspected dog owners and property owners on dog fighting calls. If the ticket is not paid within 10 days, a $300 fine will be levied. The bill also addresses dog fighting as part of gambling rings, of gambling competitions. 8 BILL NO. 000537 Even when a person tries to intimidate another person through threatening to have his dog attack, the bill will apply. We have tried hard to try to come up with legitimate ways to protect those who are caring owners and certainly to penalize those who want to use their dogs for fighting and for attacking others. We think that Bill 000537 is a fair bill 10 and that it will make a difference. Our hope is that Mr. Hendricks and the SPCA will be willing to work with the City to try to enforce this legislation. We look forward to hearing from him, as we have heard concerns in the press about his ideas in terms of enforcing and his ideas in terms of remaining with the City on a contract basis to deal with this issue. Finally, we want to thank Councilman Ortiz and the Public Safety Committee for sponsoring this legislation and look forward to a positive dialog.
Let me say that we've been joined by Councilwoman Reynolds-Brown, member of the Public Safety Committee. Dogs are very important in the lives of every family. We have a 9 BILL NO. 000537 dog in my house. His name is Nacho, and my children love that little dog. It's a terrier. But dogs can only act and behave according to the owners. And dogs are trained to behave violently. It's like a child. It's a song in South Pacific that says that you have to be taught to hate. A dog has to be taught to fight and be violent and attack. And that is not the dog's fault. That is a human being's attempt -- and he is the one that actually at one point in time we have to be going after, because we cannot -- pitbulls are like any other animal. They can be gentle and caring, but they also can be very vicious. If you treat Nacho, a little dog, a terrier, in a vicious manner, I have seen the way that little dog acts when he is attacked and he can be vicious. But I think this legislation is a beginning and I would hope that we continue -- and I'm only sorry because the press gave a lot of publicity to dog fighting when they caught this ring in North Philadelphia in Councilman Clarke's neighborhood, and we would hope that the attempts at bringing and putting some sort of limits to this can also be given the same amount of notice and publicity and that we are looking at it in a very 10 BILL NO. 000537 serious manner. Ms. Lynnette Schaeffer, can you come forward as a witness?
Councilman Rizzo has also joined us. Are you going to bring your son up also? (Witnesses come forward.)
Please identify yourself. You have to pull the microphone right close to you and speak directly into it. Could you identify yourself for the record, please.
I was in my backyard July 8th when two pitbulls came in my backyard and bit me. And I started to run and I jumped over two gates to get away, and they got me anyway because I ran back.
Yes. When they came into my 11 BILL NO. 000537 backyard, I ran out in the alley and ran back into a fence and I was going to climb it but there was barb wire up on top. So I got back down and walked slowly over to go back, and that's when they got me.
You were going back, that's when they got you? You have to talk into the microphone, Greg, so I can hear you. Go ahead.
And I tried to get in my house, but the one dog was up on the step growling at me so that's when I ran.
Because I went to run and I fell behind these bushes and they thought I went up the alley.
Who pulled the dogs away from you? Did anybody help you?
Some people were trying to. 12 BILL NO. 000537 They were hitting them with sticks.
And who is the guy in the back of the alley? What happened to him?
They dropped all the charges against him and they let him go Scot-free.
Well, the one -- they were both tied up, but they chewed through the nylon leash and got out.
Something else should happen to this guy, don't you think?
They just dropped all the 14 BILL NO. 000537 charges against him and let him go.
You're back to school and everything and you're not too afraid? We really, really want to thank you and thank your mom and even being willing to come out and tell us about it. We're really trying to do our part to help so that this doesn't happen to any other little boy or girl anyplace.
You're afraid to walk to school? How far do you have to go, how many blocks?
We're really, really sorry this had to happen, so we're trying to do our part to make life better. Thank you again and thank you, Mom, for bringing him.
Would you like to 15 BILL NO. 000537 have a dog but you're afraid of dogs now?
Yes, Nacho sleeps with my daughter. Nacho growls at me every time I go near my daughter.
I have the same thing with one of my puppies who turned on when he came out of the hospital. She was his defender. You can't go near him; she growls at you.
Yes, they do tend to be very possessive of kids. 16 BILL NO. 000537
And I don't care what kind of dog it is, it's the way they were treated and they were raised. If they're treated bad, they'll act bad.
Mr. Chairman, my remarks are more in line of a statement and not directed to these witnesses.
Okay. Ms. Schaeffer, do you have anything to add to your son's testimony?
I know you can't ban pitbulls; that's against the law. But isn't there something that you can do with the restrictions on the raising of these dogs, the upkeep of these dogs? And the reason why I'm asking this is, here you have two dogs. They jumped in my yard and mauled my kid, 80 stitches, 12 staples, a fractured arm. Then after they got through mauling him and they got the dogs off of him, they turned on each other; they came back around the alley, turned on each other. At that point, the officers came and then they turned on the officers. Isn't there some sort of a law? I mean, we went into court Friday. They 17 BILL NO. 000537 acquitted this man of all charges. Why? His statement was he didn't own the dogs.
That's exactly what was stated. The burden of proof was not there. He didn't owned the dogs.
Who owned the dogs? He had him in his house, didn't he?
These are the same dogs that bit a PECO meter-reading man the 8th of June.
You know, the tragedy is that probably this individual doesn't have any assets so that the fact -- you probably cannot even sue this person for any assets because he probably doesn't own anything. And you can't recover from him any monetary damages that he may have caused. And at the present time, as Greg says, I don't know what laws -- we cannot put him away for mistreating 18 BILL NO. 000537 the dogs. Because I think if you train a dog to fight, you should be able to -- there should be some law, it should be a felony that you're training a dog to fight. And if that dog attacks, you should be able to be charged with assault if you have trained and mistreated that dog and you have really made that dog into a vicious animal.
But unfortunately, all those charges that they had him on originally were all dropped.
The sad thing about this is I have a little boy here, he's going to have surgery again next year. His whole life, I mean, how do you -- it doesn't make sense. You're a 12-year-old boy that spent the whole entire summer in because he couldn't go out. You know, emotional scars, the mental scars will never go away.
They never go away. What I don't understand is how can two dogs destroy a family the way it did this year and the owner, quote unquote, walks Scot-free. 19 BILL NO. 000537
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to -- first of all, I'm pleased that I am able to participate in this conversation today. I'd like to talk about or discuss a conversation that I had with the SPCA because you said something that was very interesting about the state law not being able to ban particular breeds of animals, specifically, the pitbull. You might be aware, you might not be aware, there's been some media coverage that presently the SPCA manages the dog population and other problems that are referred to them by the Health Department and the SPCA is to the point where they're just about ready not to renew the contract with the City because of the problem, the pitbull problem in the City of Philadelphia based on the fact that the SPCA has become an incinerator for pitbulls where every pitbull that is brought there is basically killed and that's not what the SPCA believes that they should be doing, just killing animals. I think all of us at this table have friends in Harrisburg. I don't think we should be 20 BILL NO. 000537 discouraged because there's a state law suggesting that we can't ban a particular breed of animal. The approach that the SPCA has is, I think, a realistic approach where they're not suggesting that every pitbull that is living in Philadelphia be banned, that they want to work it in in four or five or more years that this breed be prohibited in the City, in the County of Philadelphia. And I think that all of us here at the table have enough of a relationship with our legislators to do what we need to do. If this is a crisis, then we need to do something and consider banning pitbulls in the City of Philadelphia because, again, the SPCA has had it up to here because they just don't want to continue killing every animal, every pitbull that is brought in there whether it be one that's not aggressive. And some of them are. I told a story where a neighbor of mine had this cute little dog and I, every time she walked by the house, reached down to pet the dog and I didn't know what kind of dog it was. About three or four months later, I got into a conversation and asked what kind of dog it was and she said it was a pitbull and I kind of pulled back quickly. And I 21 BILL NO. 000537 realized not every pitbull, not every breed of dog are bad. But at this point I think the majority of the pitbulls that are out there are aggressive, are dangerous, so I think we need to do something drastic. And I think just because there's a prohibition at the state level to ban these that maybe we should get together and reach out to our friends in Harrisburg and figure a way to deal with issue. I can understand this young man and how he feels and the visible scars and the internal scars. It's a very, very serious situation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I actually had a couple of questions to ask, not necessarily of this particular witness, but it was questions relating both to this case. I'm being told that there is no one here from District Attorney's Office to discuss the possibility of re-filing the charges, so at some point I would like to have discussion or something come from this Committee to request that 22 BILL NO. 000537 information.
I'd like that. I think, actually, what we should do, Jannie, is write a letter from the Committee signed by the members of the Committee asking Lynne Abraham to re-look at the case and reinstate charges against the individual owner of this. I think this should not be allowed. I believe a letter from us to her asking for this to happen should go forward, if that is -- do I have a unanimous vote from the committee?
And maybe somewhere during the course of the testimony there may be witnesses that can speak to both the Boston legislation and I believe the Wilmington legislation that actually banned pitbulls. And I don't know where that is any appellate process, but I'd like to also have someone speak to that.
I think the one -- pitbulls look dangerous and they are, but you do that and then rottweilers. And I like rottweilers. When we were looking at dogs, because my kids were asking for a dog, I really like that type of dog. 23 BILL NO. 000537 And then somebody said, Well, they're dangerous and they're vicious and they can do this. So we've got to be very careful. If you ban one dog, then you start telling other aspects and other dogs to be banned and prohibited. I think the owners of dogs have to be held responsible, directly responsible, and either civilly or criminally. And this is why I think your idea about the DA and we have to ask the DA as to where we're at in terms of criminal penalties for individuals that own dogs that become vicious or they allow them to become vicious and so to be criminally charged for the dog's action.
Can I just respond to that? I don't necessarily think that we should duplicate that particular law that was passed in Wilmington, but I would like at some point for the record to find what process was used in the event that we may ultimately have to get that drastic.
We will do that. I think we will not recess. We may pass this bill out of the Committee, but I think we will keep the agenda on it so that we can bring the people from Boston maybe to give us details in those areas and 24 BILL NO. 000537 so on.
Because it is a problem. And the thing is that now it's becoming a sport. In many of our neighborhoods, in the Latino community, the African-American community, these dogs are being trained for sport and for fighting. And the case in point we have in North Philadelphia that was uncovered the other day is not the only one. These things are happening probably every weekend across Philadelphia, and we need to be able to get the police on it and to be able to deal with it.
Mr. Chairman, can I please follow-up on what you just said?
I think we also have to be realistic and look at statistics. You mentioned that German shepherds, rottweilers, other breeds, but from what I understand, the pitbull is responsible for the majority of dog bites, animal to animal, dog to human being, so I think that we have to really face the facts that this is an exceptional 25 BILL NO. 000537 breed; and if down the road another breed would take its place, then you deal with it. But right now the information I've reviewed, I just see overwhelming --
Pitbulls are the dog of choice of drug dealers and other criminals. I know that when I walk through certain parts of North Philadelphia, all I see is individuals with these couple of pitbulls by the hand and walking them and you walk through and you look into backyards and you see pitbulls. I mean, pitbulls have become, because of ferocity if you train them, they have become the dog of choice in terms of -- and it came out of that drug dealer culture that we have that has created here and so we have that. I think we've got to look at everything, as Darrell said, from the very drastic to what we can do. But as a body here, just because we cannot do something because we don't have the powers of the state doesn't mean that we have sit immobile with our arms crossed and not do anything. We have to at least begin the process of doing something, and I think this legislation is part of that. I think it's a first step. I don't think it's the last step BILL NO. 000537 that this Council can take.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say for the record, North Philadelphia doesn't have a monopoly on all drug dealers or the pitbulls.
It's like you walk around and you see them and sometimes it's frightening.
I understand. I didn't want it reported that way tomorrow in the Daily News.
No. But it is the dog of preference of that type of individual, and you see them in Southwest Philly, you see them North Philly, and so on. And they get them for a specific reason. Thank you, Ms. Schaeffer. Thank you very much. And thank you, young man. You're a 27 BILL NO. 000537 brave, brave, brave kid. And don't -- you've got to overcome, and I know that you will. Take care of your dogs. Thank you. Stephanie Aames. (Witness comes forward.)
I made a few notes about a few things I wanted to talk about, a number of which have already been broached by the Councilmembers. I have very mixed feelings on the breed-specific laws. But one of the issue that I think a number of people have failed to take into consideration is that the pitbull isn't actually a breed, so it would be difficult to enforced because of that. It's a mixture of a number of dogs that have certain characteristics that they sort of lump together and call a pitbull, but there is no such breed as a pitbull so that in itself would make it very difficult to enforce something breed-specific. And, in fact, all you really want to enforce anyway are 28 BILL NO. 000537 vicious dog laws. Unfortunately, most pitbulls are vicious or a very large majority of them. But I wanted to talk a little bit about what you're proposing, and I think it's wonderful and I think the most important thing. These people do this for money. I mean, that's why they engage in dog fighting because they're horrible people and I think the only way -- if criminal penalties can't be enforced or can't be enforced in a meaningful way, civil penalties to the extent that you are allowed to enforce civil penalties should be as harsh as possible because this is done for money, it's done for gambling. I think that the fines should be very substantial and I think they should be progressive. If it's going to be $300 for the first time someone does it, it should be $1,000 for the next time they do it, and five after that. I don't know how that's possible. I just think that the penalties need to be --
We're limited to $300. So it has to be $300 every time they do it repeatedly. So I think -- we would hope to have a stronger, but we don't have the capacity, the legal authority to be able to do that. 29 BILL NO. 000537
Okay. I don't know what other legal capacity you have as far as enforcing it. I know that with drug dealers and even with people with unregistered motor vehicles, the police are able to seize them. They find somebody driving without insurance or with a vehicle that's not registered, they can take it away. Can they do the same thing for dogs; and if they're able to, why aren't they doing that? That, again, hits them where they put a lot of -- unfortunately, they put a lot of time and training and money into buying these animals. They're very expensive; you can't go pick them up for a hundred bucks. And taking away these animals, first of all, removes them from the situation, the abuse that they're undergoing on a daily basis that they've been undergoing since the beginning of their lives probably. It also saves a tremendous number of other lives, the animals that are used to train them to be vicious because, again, you do have to train them to be vicious; they're not born that way.
And a German shepherd can -- if you train a German shepherd, he can be a very vicious animal, can't he?
Absolutely. Any animal, any animal. Poodles can be trained to be vicious. I mean, they're very small so they'd have to be vicious against smaller dogs, but any animal can be trained to be vicious. That is the purpose of this. I just think that the civil penalties need to be enforced to the extent that you're able to uniformly and as harshly as possible to make it more expensive for them to do business in the same way they do for uninsured drivers and drug dealers.
Great. Mr. 31 BILL NO. 000537 Chairman, I hear the discussion about different types of dogs being able to be trained, but my understanding is that one of the reason why the pitbull, prior to that the Doberman pinscher and to some degree the rottweiler, had something to do with the physical characteristics of the dog why they were chosen, the jaws, the lack of long hair apparently was one of the reason why these dogs were chosen. So I think that that in itself lends itself to that particular dog being the ones that were trained for these vicious types of acts. I think we should take that into account when we talk about some drastic measures.
The jaw strength of a rottweiler and a pitbull are supposed to be much greater than other breeds of dogs. I'm not an animal expert, but I guess the SPCA is here and we'll ask them that type of question when they come on.
And it is in fact true. And they also anatomically they're different in ways than normal dogs. Their jaws do have the capacity to lock which is not something that most animals can do. For instance, a poodle couldn't do that even 32 BILL NO. 000537 though you could still train a poodle to be vicious, he couldn't lock his jaws in the same way that those animals can.
They don't let go and they don't have to let go ever unless they faint from not being able to breath because it locks; it's like locking a door.
So that's what makes them different. And when they lock, the stay there.
Yeah, they don't ever have to let go. And believe me, I don't think people should have them as pets because I don't think most people do have them as pets. I think they have them for reasons other than having somebody to sleep at the foot of the bed or somebody to jump and give you kisses when they come home. I mean, most people have them for a specific reason.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I come from working for a utility company for a lot of years, and one of the bigger problems we had, and the young man mentioned about -- or the 33 BILL NO. 000537 mom had mentioned about one of the PECO utility meter readers being bitten by a dog. One of the things we realized was that our employees didn't really understand how to deal with an aggressive animal, that many of them would run. And the worst thing you can do is run from a dog because they win all the time. Do you think that there's something in the interim we can do, an educational program on teaching people when they are approached by an aggressive dog how to respond, how to protect yourself? I know that after we introduced a safety program and instructed our personnel how to deal with that situation that the number of dog bites went really, really low because they dealt better with the situation. They realized that running is not the thing to do, you're doing exactly what the dog wants you to do, run and be that rabbit. Do you think there's something that we can do, the media could do in reference to educating people on how to respond and how to take care of themselves?
I'm sure that that would be very valuable because I know that most people don't 34 BILL NO. 000537 know that. I'm constantly surprised by the things that people don't know about animals. I don't think it is common knowledge that the worst thing, the absolute worst thing you can do is run when a dog is behaving aggressively.
Matter of fact, I learned that probably the best defense is to stay absolutely still. Thy lose interest almost immediately when you don't respond to them being aggressive and protecting your vital organs and just not reacting in a way that makes the dog more aggressive. So I would encourage the media maybe to get the word out there because if we save just a few people from being injured in the interim until we deal with this issue, I think that would be very helpful. Like you just mentioned, you're confident, and so am I, that people just really don't know how to respond and how to protect themselves. Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Aames. Officer Joseph Hulmes. I hope that I pronounced it correctly. My name is frequently 35 BILL NO. 000537 mispronounced. Could you please identify yourself for the record, officer? (Witness comes forward.) OFFICER HULMES: Good afternoon. Officer James Hulmes. I'm assigned to the 27th District in North Philadelphia. I was also attacked by a pitbull, and in short, I'll give you a summary surrounding the events.
Speak into the microphone, sir. OFFICER HULMES: I was also attacked by a pitbull on duty and I'll give you a summary of the events surrounding that incident. We had a call that an officer was chasing somebody with a gun. Myself, Sergeant Walsh, and Officer McKeaver (ph) responded to that area in the alley where this person was last seen, so the three of us were relatively close together. I just happened to take the alley, Sergeant Walsh took Myrtlewood, and Officer McKeaver took Hollywood. While I was pulling up in my patrol vehicle to the alley, I noticed a dog climbing over a fence the second house down. Now, I didn't think much of it. I'm very comfortable around dogs. I 36 BILL NO. 000537 have owned several large dogs of my own. And this dog was not very large. So I got out of my vehicle. Of course, my attention is primary focussed down the alley for a possible person with a gun, so when the dog approached me, I disregarded it, not feeling it to be much of a threat. It wasn't running at me, it wasn't growling, wasn't giving any of the signs that most dogs would do to indicate that they're going to attack or to indicate that you're in their space or indicate that you're doing something that they don't like you to do. So it began to smell or sniff my belly, which again, is what dogs do. So I just stood there. I let it do it. And without warning, without provocation of anything from myself, it just began to tear into my sweater, my vest, and my abdomen as a whole. Now, of course, that grabbed my attention.
I would hope so. OFFICER HULMES: Luckily, it had a collar, not a leash, but a collar, and I grabbed it with my right hand and pulled it away from my body which then it began attacking my right arm. At this point, I yelled for help and luckily Officer McKeaver and Sergeant Walsh were close by. A few 37 BILL NO. 000537 seconds later, they're at my side. I'm still struggling with the dog to keep it away from my body, away from my neck, what have you. Officer McKeaver was able to shoot the dog once in the side. It immediately let go of my right arm and latched onto my left thumb, breaking it in half and causing severe damage. I was then able with my right arm free I was able to draw my own weapon, fire an additional three shots which took the dog down, thankfully. Responding to, I believe, Rizzo's comments about dogs and running away and not doing the wrong things, with these dogs I feel who are trained to fight, no matter what you do, if they have it in their mind-set they're going to attack you, you don't know what's going to trigger that. It may not be running, it may not be anything; just something might snap and then they're in attack mode. Normal dogs, I agree, you run away, they want to chase. But I feel as though with dogs such as these and trained to fight, I disagree with that. I don't think there is anything you can do unless you can get inside their head and find out what's going to trigger that particular dog to attack. 38 BILL NO. 000537 And this dog that attacked me, Officer McKeaver took a report three weeks earlier that this dog attacked a roofer unprovoked and severely damaged his foot. Luckily, this dog is not going to attack anyone anymore.
Officer, was the dog loose without a leash? OFFICER HULMES: It did not have a leash. When I pulled up, I observed it climbing over a fence, a fence about as tall as I am, about six foot chain link fence. I've never seen anything like that, but since my attention was more down the alley, I just -- it took hindsight. It wasn't my primary focus.
I imagine that the perpetrator with the gun got away? OFFICER HULMES: No, he was caught. It just so happens that he had passed through the alley just moments before we got there and he was caught about a block down the street, luckily.
That's good news at least. OFFICER HULMES: That's another story entirely different. However, this dog, like I said, 39 BILL NO. 000537 attacked someone three weeks or four weeks prior, had gone through the SPCA and stayed there for three days.
This dog? OFFICER HULMES: Yes, the dog that attacked me.
What happened to the owner, if anything? OFFICER HULMES: Nothing. No charges were filed against the owner.
No charges were filed? OFFICER HULMES: No charges were filed against the owner of the dog.
The dog had a rap sheet of sort, right? OFFICER HULMES: Yes.
So the dog had attacked other individuals before? OFFICER HULMES: Yes, it did. And Officer McKeaver was able to say that's the same dog because he's the one that initially took the report the first time. The dog was apparently known in the area. 40 BILL NO. 000537 I talked to the SPCA, and I forget the gentleman's name. He had given me some information that said the dog was there for three days as part of a quarantine. I think it's usually a little longer. The person paid all cash all up front, paid for a rabies shot, was able to get the dog out within three days and never took the dog back for the rabies shot. I have since gone back to this area, being in my district.
And the guy has another dog. OFFICER HULMES: The guy has two dogs. One is a female dog. You can tell it just had puppies or is about to have puppies, and a very, very large pitbull with a chain, a thick chain around its neck. Both of them are tied down within the yard. I have gone past there several times, and it's usually filthy. He's not having it as pets, and that's part of the training --
And it's nothing you can do as a police officer? OFFICER HULMES: Not that I know of.
Knowing that these are very dangerous animals right there and that you 41 BILL NO. 000537 know they're not there for pets. OFFICER HULMES: Exactly. There's nothing I can do unless I see him physically assault the dog of some sort or do something that's maybe it's cruelty to animals, but we see where that goes. People in the neighborhood -- I started, as part of a possible civil, suit filming the area and neighbors were approaching me and saying, Yes, please do something about these dogs; he fights them. They couldn't give me any direct information nor are they inclined to give me their name, understandably. But it's known that this guy fights the dogs. And during my routine patrol going down alleys, dogs will bark when you go down an alley, that's normal. But some of these dogs will attack you for no reason, without going into their space or, you know, the typical going to their puppies or blocking their puppies or something like that. They will attack you for no reason.
But this individual had a vicious dog that attacked people which you and your partner shot and killed when he attacked you, and then he went back and got the same type of dog 42 BILL NO. 000537 to train along the same lines and there's nothing that you as a law enforcement and the DA we can do along these lines to be able to do something about a known danger to community and to neighbors? OFFICER HULMES: Not that I know of. I've talked to my supervisors about it, and nothing has come of it.
Even though there's testimony that these dogs are vicious? OFFICER HULMES: Uh-huh.
And there can be witnesses that these dogs are not pets? OFFICER HULMES: Again, as far as I know, there's nothing I can do. I wish if somebody had information of something that I could do, that that would be relief to me and the rest of the officers out there so that we are informed as to other alternatives.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Officer, how you feeling? OFFICER HULMES: It took me a few months, a little bit of therapy, but I'm back to 43 BILL NO. 000537 work full duty.
I'm sure that you're a police officer six feet and you have probably have the same concerns as a that little boy behind you when you see a pitbull or an aggressive animal, so I can understand that. As I sit here I think back about some of the experiences and I can remember them like they were yesterday when I walked out on the street. I'd like to go back to the rap sheet on the dog that bit you. He attacked a roofer. OFFICER HULMES: That's correct.
This is the part that I'm interested in. When the dog was taken to the SPCA and kept there for three days, if that pitbull had been picked up just by the normal process, it would have been killed? OFFICER HULMES: I presume so. I can not answer for the SPCA, but I believe that is their practice.
If I may, Councilman, because -- Stan, one of our trainees, just gave me a legislation and I think -- the Philadelphia Code and 44 BILL NO. 000537 it's Section 10-104. Section No. 2 says "Any animal which is vicious," and I would imagine that you would have to evidence of the this viciousness that this animal has expressed, "may be seized by any police officer or any authorized animal control officer and may be humanely destroyed at the discretion of the Department of Public Health after a reasonable effort has been made to notify the owner." Now, that means that if guy has a dog that we can classify as vicious that has exhibited that viciousness and has attacked other individuals, does this then give the authorities, Stanley, to the police officer to enter into property and seize the animal? STANLEY: I understand that there is state law on the subject so there may be some limitations based on state law. But apparently, there is at least some thought that's being given to whatever local law and it may be that there needs to be some contact with the state legislature to remove whatever barriers there are to enforcement. Something that we can research.
What about the next 45 BILL NO. 000537 section which is "animals committing nuisance," can we begin looking at that? OFFICER HULMES: I think the problem with that might be the dog that I observed being vicious is now dead. The dogs that this male now has in his backyard, all that I have seen is barking and growling. I have not seen them attack anything yet. I think that is the problem. So how do you define vicious? Barking? Well, that would be every dog. And how do you define reasonable effort as part of the other part of the statute?
Thank you, sir. So I guess I need to understand the process why if that pitbull was brought in after its involvement in an attack, apparently a significant attack -- OFFICER HULMES: Yeah, he needed to go to the hospital for his treatment.
Why it was allowed to leave? I assume because there was an owner associated with the animal, but from what I understand, pitbulls that are brought into the SPCA now aren't considered for adoption, they are just put down. 46 BILL NO. 000537 OFFICER HULMES: I believe that to be the case, but I cannot speak on behalf of the SPCA.
But I don't understand what the difference would be even though this one has an owner associated with it. If it's a pitbull and it's brought in after an attack, why the owner wouldn't be told that this dog is as eligible as one that was caught with a net out on the street? So that part I think we need to hear the policies of the SPCA because that dog would have been taken care of the way the others are. Your thumb, you know, you'd be able do that. So I guess -- I don't know if we have anyone here. Do we have anyone here representing the SPCA? Oh, yes, I see him in the back there. When they testify I'd appreciate that issue being addressed. Thank you.
Officer, Councilman Clarke has some comments and questions.
How you doing, Officer? You're in the 22nd? 47 BILL NO. 000537 OFFICER HULMES: Yes.
One of our fine officers in the Fifth District. Officer, during the past several years, actually decades ago, you spoke of a situation where people in the communities were afraid to talk about who the dog owners were, some of the activities of the owners, what other things they were involved with, and over the course of years we've had a similar situation as it related to the drug trade. OFFICER HULMES: Certainly. They have to live there; we do not.
Same situation with some of the gun running activities, because they were afraid of reprisals from those individuals. OFFICER HULMES: Certainly.
We are not quite there yet on the pitbull vicious dog situation. But, I mean, if we don't do something about it, then it will get there. My question is, what we did with those particular instances, we started using undercover officers and started implanting them into the particular drug rings and into the gun-running rings, and I'm wondering do we or should we in fact 48 BILL NO. 000537 have undercover officers involved with this pitbull and vicious dog industry? Because these people, they interact -- I mean, this is not just some random type of thing. They sell the dogs, there's this undercover -- they know where the dog fights are. Do we have undercover officers involved in this type of activity? OFFICER HULMES: As far as I know, we do not. But if we're going to do anything about it, we're going to need to. It would be the equivalent to of the uniformed officer to try to buy drugs from a drug dealer to make an arrest for drug sales. In order to catch the people who are fighting these dogs, we have to go in there not obviously as uniformed officers. The other alternative would be to have plain clothes units out there.
With the pitbulls. OFFICER HULMES: With pitbulls, right. Or even just go as a spectator. Not everyone goes to these fights as an owner. They go as a spectator to make money based on bets. And that's the only way I feel as though we can do it. As a uniformed officer, I have not seen any pitbulls fighting in a ring-like setting because 49 BILL NO. 000537 they're done behind closed doors, they're done knowing that the police are looking especially now it's in the public's eye and they're smart. They find ways to keep it quiet. Nineteenth and Arch did it inside of a garage. I'd been watching that garage previously for what I thought was other illegal activity, i.e., chopping of cars. I had no idea that that garage was being used for a pitbull ring.
I'm very familiar with that garage, and I agree, I probably knew that there was some chopping up of vehicles, but I had no 14 idea. OFFICER HULMES: Yeah, late at night, grinding and whatnot you hear.
They went into diversity. OFFICER HULMES: Yeah, they're using their property to the fullest extent.
So is it your recommendation that maybe we should -- OFFICER HULMES: I think that would be the only way. I do not know whether we have any units out there doing such a thing, but that would 50 BILL NO. 000537 be the only way we can put a stop at the core. However, I think back to the other issue about banning pitbulls, I think that would be a problem. I'm no expert, by any means, but common sense, if pitbulls are banned, they're not the only nasty dog out there. There are much larger dogs. This pitbull that bit me was small compared to dogs I'm used to. I mean, my dog was 120 pounds, and that's what I consider a good sized dog. There are other dogs out there that are much larger, maybe not with the same physical attributes as far as their jaw is concerned, but they can be just as deadly. So if we were to outlaw pitbulls or have a problem with pitbulls, they would just use other dogs. Do you follow me? I don't know what her name was, unfortunately, but she says there's no such breed as a pitbull. Well, that would be another problem. How do you classify what a pitbull is?
It's a problem. Anytime you go into that type of thing, it creates more problems. We need to set up a system in which really the owners, we have to be able to have some people accountable and some degree of criminality 51 BILL NO. 000537 that goes into anyone owning a type of dog of this so it's not just civilly liable, but that there's also some criminal liability involved. I think that needs to be included in there. OFFICER HULMES: I don't know what Licenses and Inspections can do, but in sake of that garage, is there anything that Licenses and Inspections might be able to do as far as that building being used for illegal dog fighting?
I think License and Inspection or the Health Department can look into that house with these two dogs or the other dogs that are there and I think we might be able to ask those departments to look into what violations. It could be a health question. OFFICER HULMES: It certainly is.
It could be a health question. It's something that we have to look into as another tool to use.
I've learned in the last hearing that the Health Department is pretty much out of the loop on the control and the 52 BILL NO. 000537 enforcement. They contracted it out to the SPCA, so I'm not sure what the health department --
Well, I understand that, but if there's any health violations, I mean, you know, dog doo-doo and all of that other stuff creates all sorts of health problems.
But the day-to-day enforcement, I believe, just as it pertains to the dog --
We have to bring them all into the loop. We can't leave anyone outside the loop. We've got to bring them all into the loop. Thank you, officer. OFFICER HULMES: Thank you.
Thank you, again, Officer, for coming. Let me also note that this bill does try not only to deal with the owner, but also the venue. Thank you again.
We thank both our officers from Philadelphia's finest for being here. Thank you. 53 BILL NO. 000537
You're badge has a couple of words on it, right? OFFICER BRYANT: Yes.
My daughter asked me yesterday whether I knew what those words were, I didn't have the answer; she does. What are those words? I've got to go home and answer this question. OFFICER BRYANT: The top of our badge says Police Department Philadelphia, that's it.
Is there something else? OFFICER BRYANT: The emblem we have says "Honor, integrity and service." That's maybe what you're thinking about.
Is that on the badge? OFFICER BRYANT: No, it's not on the badge. OFFICER HULMES: There's also latin above and below.
Is it Latin? OFFICER HULMES: I believe so. It's not very clear.
What is the Latin 54 BILL NO. 000537 word, do you know? I'll look at afterwards because my daughter asked me last night. She came home and she said, "If you don't know the words, you have to give me $5." I don't want to give her $5, so I've got to find out what those words are. She knows what they are. (Laughter.)
Officer, go ahead. I'm sorry. OFFICER BRYANT: My name is Paul Bryant, Philadelphia Police Officer, assigned to the K9 Unit. I'm currently one the trainers at the K9 Unit. I was called to talk about the training of these dogs. I've heard that word used several times, "training." The thing we have to remember, these dogs are trained to be vicious. Once they're trained to be vicious, that's it; they stay that way. They don't make good pets. They serve no 21 other purpose.
You cannot retrain them? OFFICER BRYANT: My opinion, I've never seen one retrained to be nice. They continue to be 55 BILL NO. 000537 dog aggressive around other dogs and things of that nature. You heard the young man who was chased. The officer was bit by a dog when he was remaining still. He wasn't running from the dog. That was a dog that was trained to be vicious. He wasn't running. His testimony was he was standing still as he had been taught to do. The dog started to sniff him, and what happened? The dog attacked him. There's an instance where that dog was trained. The dog didn't learn that from nature. That was taught to him by human beings how to be vicious towards other animals and other human beings. When these dogs are trained that way, there's nothing we can do with these dogs. Once that happens, all these cases we're hearing about, these dogs do it. They don't need a human to tell them to do it anymore. They'll just do it. You take a dog, and I guess they call them they retire them from fighting, but what happens when that dog gets loose? He'll attack other dogs out there on the street or other human beings.
You heard Councilman Clarke state about the certain physical 56 BILL NO. 000537 characteristics. Just for the record -- OFFICER BRYANT: What it is, is a German shepherd which the Philadelphia Police Department use has about to 800 pounds of pressure in his 6 mouth. A rottweiler has about a thousand.
How much? OFFICER BRYANT: Six to 800 for a German shepherd. A rottweiler has about a thousand. A pitbull has 1200 or more. So that's what we keep talking about the physical makeup of a pitbull. That's what they're trained for.
How much is a rottweiler again? OFFICER BRYANT: A rottweiler has about a thousand. A pitbull is bout 1200 or more. So that's why we keep using the term "lock on." The dog actually has that much jaw pressure. They'll hold and they'll hold until they can't hold anymore. The way they separate these dogs is they stick a metal bar in the dog's mouth and pry the jaw open. You don't train them to let go or anything like that.
Even after you shot them, they won't -- 57 BILL NO. 000537 OFFICER BRYANT: He'll let go once he's dead, Councilman, but during an attack or something like that, you hear people say the dog actually locked his jaw on, what it is is the pressure from the dog's jaw. He's just holding on. When they're fighting, the way they separate these dogs, they take a metal bar and actually stick it in the dog's mouth to separate or open his jaws.
A thousand pounds of pressure or more? OFFICER BRYANT: Yes, sir.
That's incredible OFFICER BRYANT: Yes. Those dogs do a lot of damage.
It can just break bones easily. OFFICER BRYANT: Yes, I think the young man testified his arm was broken by the dog, which happens. And people ask me about them in law enforcement. We did a survey. We couldn't find one use for these dogs in law enforcement, not one.
So you cannot -- in terms of the K9, it's not usable? 58 BILL NO. 000537 OFFICER BRYANT: We have rottweilers in other departments, but a pitbull we've never trained.
When you have your K9 person with you, the German shepherd or whatever, if you order him to stop, that dog will stop. OFFICER BRYANT: Yes, absolutely.
But you cannot do the same thing with a pitbull? OFFICER BRYANT: No. 12
He will just keep on attacking? OFFICER BRYANT: Councilman, when they fight these dogs, they just fight until the end or submission when they pry them open. I mean, if you listen to both stories about being attacked, like the officer, the dog just kept biting him, went back bit him again, bit him again. He didn't bite and leave. The young man, they ran by him. That's the only reason they stopped. And if you read most of these attacks, they're an ongoing attack. They're not a quick bite and the dog leaves. They're ongoing where there are multiple injuries from these dogs. 59 BILL NO. 000537
Officer, what I'm hearing from you is that -- and I know people say that you can't ban them, but if there are no other basis for having these dogs other than fighting them, why do we allow these dogs to be a part of our society? OFFICER BRYANT: Some people have them as pets, but the majority of them that are out there are used by people in the drug trade and the crime trade. My opinion. There's some people, as anything else, you'll find nice ones out there. But the majority of the ones that we encounter are used for illegal purposes. And those dogs, they're used for illegal purposes. There's no reason to have one of those dogs, none.
If you get one of these dogs as a little puppy and you treat them nice and treat them as a pet, will he be like other dogs? OFFICER BRYANT: It's a chance that he will.
There's chance he won't? OFFICER BRYANT: There's a chance that 60 BILL NO. 000537 he will. But on the same hand, they have a propensity to be more aggressive. And once it's started, and we're talking the training aspect of it, once people start training that dog for that reason, that's what the dog is for.
That's interesting. Officer, it's frightening. I can tell you that every time I see one of those dogs on the street and I'm walking, I cross the street. I'm scared. Even Nacho scares me at times. But what you just said 1500 pounds of pressure. OFFICER BRYANT: Twelve hundred or more.
That's quite a lot of pressure to be put on. It's very much dangerous. It's very enlightening. I'm learning more about these things in one hour here than I've ever wished to know about it. Thank you. Any other questions?
Thank you, Officer Bryant. 61 BILL NO. 000537 OFFICER BRYANT: You're welcome.
Thank you. And I've got to get that latin word before you leave. Randall Hirschhorn. Why don't we have Randall Hirschhorn, Director of Environmental Health; and Erik Hendricks at the same time, the SPCA. (Witnesses come forward.)
Mr. Hirschhorn, please identify yourself for the record.
Randall Hirschhorn, H-I-R-S-C-H-H-O-R-N, Director of Environmental Health Services for the Philadelphia Department of Public Health.
My name is Erik Hendricks, I'm the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania SPCA.
I have copies here of my testimony for the members of the Committee if they would like.
What I have are copies, 62 BILL NO. 000537 I have for the entire Council, of the ordinance 3 from Denver dealing with pitbulls as well as the 4 legal challenges and the results of those legal 5 challenges to the Denver ordinance which I hope 6 everyone will read because I think that's sort of a 7 model ordinance for Philadelphia. 8
I think that's what 9 Councilman Clarke was talking about before. 10
Well, he mentioned 11 Boston. I'm not familiar with a Boston one, but the 12 Denver one not only works well, it's withstood the 13 legal challenge which everybody's afraid of for some 14 reason. I also have copies for the Committee of 15 some numbers of stray dogs and cats taken in last 16 year by our shelter as well as unowned dogs and cats 17 turned in to give you a scope of --
We would like to have that. Mr. Hirschhorn, why don't you begin. And then Mr. Hendricks I'd like to discuss a little bit about the Denver ordinance because we might go that way. Yes, sir.
Good afternoon, Mr. 63 BILL NO. 000537 Chairperson and members of the Committee on Public Safety. My name is Randall Hirschhorn, Director of Environmental Health Services. I'm here to testify in favor of Bill No. 000537. The department supports all of the proposed revisions to Chapters 10-100 and 10-600. The addition of Sections 10-101, 105, 603 and 606 prohibiting dog fighting and providing sanctions for those engaging in or allowing dog fighting to occur is an important step toward ending the abuse of animals and protecting people from dogs which are by nature vicious or have been made that way by their owners. Although not specifically mentioned, this bill to eliminate dog fighting will have the added benefit of protecting the innocent tame animals used to train fighting animals to kill or maim their opponents. These dogs and cats are even more victimized than the fighting dogs since, unlike the animals they are used to train, they have not the slightest chance of survival. As a representative of one of the City's agencies involved in animal management and protection of the public, I am very much in favor of the provisions of this bill. Adding to the 64 BILL NO. 000537 sanctions against those engaged in or allowing dog fighting is a good start, but more will be needed. More resources will be needed to control and then eliminate this problem. One suggestion I would like to make is to have any fines collected as a result of violations of this bill or other animal nuisance codes be paid to the Animal Control Fund established by City Council in 1986 in. In this way, those who violate animal protection and management codes would help pay for the animal control expenses now being borne solely by the public. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
I don't have a formal statement, but my general comment on the particular bill that we're discussing today is that it is a step in a right direction, but a real baby step, unfortunately. And I think until the City of Philadelphia and the powers that be, which is you, really address this problem with a seriousness that 65 BILL NO. 000537 it really needs and look at it from the standpoint of --
If you are serious, you wouldn't say "Let's not ban pitbulls."
I don't say let's not ban pitbulls. I just don't have all of the information to just make a blanket statement such as that. I think that's what Councilman Clarke also said. We want to be able -- and I think, yes, this is a step, but it's a step in the direction of a problem that we have seen come about in the City of Philadelphia. And we're a deliberative body. That's what it says, we're a deliberative body. We look at a problem and we have to look at all of the issues that are involved. We are very serious about this problem. In our neighborhoods, especially in the Latino community and other poor communities in this City, this is a huge problem. People who own pitbulls and the drug dealers that reside in different poor neighborhoods across the City, this is the dog of choice that they have attained for the protection of their deals, their dealings that they 66 BILL NO. 000537 have and for threatening the neighborhood that they live in. So we are serious about this. Do not underestimate the seriousness or even question it, the seriousness of this body to be able to deal with this problem. We will take whatever steps are necessary and we deem necessary to be able to deal with it. If going the Denver route is the way that we might be see it, that may be it. But we're serious about this. And what you may look at as a baby step I look as a step in which we have to take in order to reach the definite area where we ought to be.
I think you should address the problem the way you addressed the gun problem a couple years ago where you realized that there was mayhem on the streets of Philadelphia because we had weapons of mass destruction in the hand of Philadelphians and you saw no purpose in having these weapons. You said Let's not try to take away the guns because Constitutional allows citizens to have guns, but let's limit the kinds of guns that are our citizens can have.
Exactly. That's the step we might take, but if you looked at that law, 67 BILL NO. 000537 because I wrote that, we were preempted by the State. I don't want to take any steps -- if we take a step forward, I want to be able to take a step that is going to hold and is not going subject to preemption; because different from other states of the nation and cities, it seems like we have a state legislature that tries to prevent us from self-governing. There is violence going on in our streets, not just from pitbulls. But right now we are almost preempted taking some actions that we deem responsible and needed. So if we're going to take an action on pitbulls or any other danger, I can tell you because I spent seven years trying to deal with that gun issue, five years trying to pass a bill, trying to gather the courage of Councilpeople enough to buck the interest that were against it. And we were successful, but we were not successful at the state level.
You have a parallel situation here, I think. Instead of the NRA behind state legislation that prohibits certain activity by your part, you've got another private organization with three initials, the AKC, the American Kennel Club, which is nothing more than a private dog 68 BILL NO. 000537 registry in New York City, putting in a provision in state law in 1996 that is this prohibition against breeds.
Mr. Hendricks, if know anything about me, you know that if I believe something needs to be done, I don't care who it is, the AKC, the NRA, whatever it is, we take it on.
I hope so. Now, getting back to what I was going to say about this particular --
Thank you very much. Might I also say that my colleague who did fight this gun battle and many of us supported him, all the members at this table who were in Council at that time did. We not only attended hearings here, but he took trips to Harrisburg to try to fight this gun lobby. My question to you, Mr. Hendricks, is we responded to your request to us to try to deal with this issue. As the Chairman has said, we are a 69 BILL NO. 000537 deliberative body. We have to conduct hearings in order to try to do what it is we have to do to understand the issue and to get certainly to formally do what our jobs are. Is the problem that you're frustrated with trying to do your job in enforcement? Is the problem that you have budget issue? Certainly, we reached out to you initially this summer and you were not in town and when you came back, we said we wanted to deal with the issue and enlisted your support. All that we have heard about you has been, for the most part, in the press that you don't want to do the job, that you think the SPCA needs to do other things or maybe it takes too much of your time, maybe it's that you don't think you're getting paid adequately. But obviously, we hear -- I hear the undercurrent in your tone and in your response to this body about what we should do. You know as well as everybody in this room that we can't ban pitbulls, per se, you know that. You knew that when you came here. You've seen it in the press and you have continued to indirectly criticize this Council. 70 BILL NO. 000537 Now, what I'm saying to you is, back up. We're serious about what we do. We're a serious body. We're trying to do the right thing. We are entrusted with the public trust. We want to do something about this issue. Did you think we have a young man years old, Greg, that we don't want to 8 try to make life better for him? He shouldn't be 9 afraid. He should not have been attacked. You've 10 heard the officers testify. We're trying to be part 11 of the solution. 12 But I, for one, resent your attitude that we're not serious, that we're not trying to do the right thing and we're not going about it in the right way in order to help resolve this problem. And I resent the fact that you have a contract with the City and that you would, in fact, come here to criticize this body when we're trying to deal with the issue. So keep that in mind when you testify.
We ask the questions here. This is our hearing. We ask questions and we ask that you keep in mind that we are trying to do the right thing to resolve this 71 BILL NO. 000537 problem. We ask that you do the same because you have a contract with us.
At the moment. The question I'm asking is, what does this ordinance do that is not already done by state law?
Well, apparently, you haven't been listening or don't choose to listen. I made a very long opening statement. I have repeated it several times. You've been in touch with my office, and I'm sure you know. You just choose not to respect this body. And we won't take that from you, Mr. Hendricks, or anyone else who comes before us.
I think this bill -- you're taking this far too personally. I think the bill is redundant based on existing state law that makes animal fighting a felony.
Excuse me, sir. It is clear in all of your responses to the press, I've talked to many stations, I've been interviewed several times about the things that you have said criticizing this legislation. You know we are not the State. You know we're doing what we need to do, but yet you've decided that you don't support it. 72 BILL NO. 000537 That's your right as a private individual, but we're saying to you as a person who has a contract with the City that you have no right to come in here -- and certainly deal with your own personal feelings about this legislation. If you don't want to do the job, that's fine. We don't pay and beg you to do your job, too; we don't do both.
Mr. Hendricks, look, we don't need -- I want to paraphrase George Bush. Let us end the bickering. I don't want bickering on this. I want us to be successful in fighting the powers that be in terms of us being able to do our job and putting forward legislation that would withstand any challenge. That's what I'm interested in. And I don't want to just to go through the process. I want to be able -- if we need to challenge the State, let's challenge the State. I'm not afraid of doing that or the interest that are available and around to protect certain things. But we are going to do something about this. This is a first step. I don't think it's redundant. I think it is very -- it's clarifying and putting into the Philadelphia Code a very specific aspect in terms of dog fighting, and I don't think it's redundant and I 73 BILL NO. 000537 think it serves two purposes: One, it goes directly to the activity of dog fighting. But also it begins -- and as you can see that by the lack of people that are around here, although in a lot of communities this is a big problem, I expected to see more people here to talk about the subject. It also educates people. It begins putting forward the support mechanisms that we need to be able to have laws that are sustainable. So what I seek from you is assistance, and you did some of that by bringing this Denver legislation. And my staff and I and Jannie's staff and I know that the rest of the committees are going to study this. And if we can do the Denver legislation or some reasonable facsimile of it, that's what the next step will be. But we do it a step at a time and with all deliberative speed that we can and we want to do it successfully. If you want to be part of the solution to that and helpful in that endeavor, we welcome that. Just as Mr. Hirschhorn's help we will welcome along the same lines. Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds-Brown, please.
Good 74 BILL NO. 000537 afternoon, sir. I'm Blondell Reynolds-Brown. I do want to echo Councilman Angel Ortiz's comment that it is helpful to have a sense of what other cities are doing across the nation on issues that we're currently dealing with. Recognizing, however, that we do have limitations, recognizing that, as you say, we're taking a baby step, have there been any conversation, any dialog, with members of the Statehouse or the State Senate on this particular issue by you or --
Have you had an opportunity to discuss this matter with members of the Statehouse or the State Senate since they are in the position to best enact what you would prefer to see, which is a complete ban on pitbulls since really the horse starts there?
If you permit me to say something, what you have here is a state law that usurps the power of local municipalities, but I do not see why the State has put that into the law. 75 BILL NO. 000537 You would think that if they were going to say "You can't ban breeds specifically because we, the State, are going to ban them," that's not what they're saying. There is no purpose for that section of the law other than because some Harrisburg lobbyists got them to put that in. So why can't the City of Philadelphia challenge such a bogus section of the law because the City of Philadelphia does have a very easily proven public health reason for having such a ban.
And we will go that way as we see it. That's why these hearings are being held. These are the first hearings we've had on this issue. We've had discussions. But we need to be able to go where we need to go. We need to be able to have every member of this Council or at least a two-thirds majority of this Council along the same lines so that when we do pass something, we are sure that it's going to be the Philadelphia law. And the way we do that is by getting as much information and data as possible so that every member of this Council understands the law that we're trying to pass. Yes, today we were discussing, you heard 76 BILL NO. 000537 and if you go home this evening, Act 46. The State, again, usurping legislative authority away from us, taking authority away from the City of Philadelphia so that the City of Philadelphia cannot legally manage itself in terms of issues dealing with schools' union and the schools of the City of Philadelphia. We have the gun legislation. We've got to look at where it is we're going to go and how we're going to challenge it. Because if we challenge it, I also want to successful. Okay?
Mr. Chairman, may I also state that had we had our bill in effect that we would not have had to wait for a criminal law to certainly protect young Greg based on our legislation would have provided that the dog be seized temporarily right away and that we would have been able to deal with the dog owner immediately. So our legislation gives us another handle where we don't have to wait for prosecution but we can deal with it immediately. So that might have made a difference even in Greg Fox's case.
Mr. Hendricks, with no disrespect to my colleagues, I personally appreciate you letting us know exactly how you feel because this hearing is to gather information. If you don't think -- if you disagree with what we do, I think that's important to me that we know that you disagree. And again, you deal with this issue every day, and I think this is turning into a very critical situation because I know I had a conversation with you --
Excuse me. I am not questioning disagreements. I want witnesses who come in and disagree. What I questioned was the aspect of Mr. Hendricks saying in essence that this was useless what we were doing.
I heard him say that. And if you want, you can read the record. And 78 BILL NO. 000537 that's what bothers me. I don't mind criticism of legislative attempts. If it is too short or too little, fine. We understand that we're limited. This is not an encompassing legislation that will take care of this problem. We all know that. And we know that there are other steps that need to be taken. What I want is help in ways in which we proceed to be able to take those steps as we go forward and information, information as you gave today. Very helpful. I am appreciative that you brought this Denver legislation. We will look at it. I will look at it. If it is adaptable to our circumstances, we will do it. If we need to challenge Harrisburg, we will do it because we have challenged Harrisburg before and I want to challenge Harrisburg again. We will do it. And I don't care what interests are involved. But when you come to this body, talk to it as if we are trying to deal seriously with a situation. And I got the feeling and he made the statement that we were not serious about the situation; and we are. When you question the seriousness, then that's a problem. That's a problem.
I think that Mr. Hendricks has a real vested interest in this because in a conversation that I had with you, and you might want it for the record rather than media reports, you're to the point where this legislation on banning this breed of dog has gotten to the point where you are about to consider not renewing the contract which would then convert to maybe a million, two million dollars in funds being required to do the same job that the Pennsylvania SPCA does. And again, I think it's so important that we resolve this issue that you've told me that what you're doing now is you're basically killing every pitbull that comes in the door and that's not what you want to do. Are you serious -- again, are you still in a position where you might say you're out of the business?
Does the Health Department -- could you comment, sir, on the 80 BILL NO. 000537 ramification. If the SPCA does not renew this contract, I don't know any other organizations that will be bidding on this. This is not like an abandoned car issue. What I'd like to know, what does this convert to dollars? What would it require the City of Philadelphia, the Health Department to pick up what the SPCA does presently?
Sir, three times in the past ten years I have been asked by my department that very question. It would involve a capital expenditure because right now what the SPCA provides us is a physical building in which to bring in animals. In -- or the last fiscal year that 15 closed out this June 30th, the SPCA processed 46,000 16 animals as a result of the City's contract. So 17 that's a lot of animals. 18
Could you associate a 19 dollar amount with that if inherited and were required to do that? You said it would involve capital expenditure. Could you tell us how much?
Well, we'd have to build a building, that's the first thing, a building that could house enough Kennels to be able to hold 46,000 animals coming through it in the course of a 81 BILL NO. 000537 year. And then there's at veterinary suites that have to be associated with that building, the staffing of a veterinarian for rabies control which the SPCA veterinarians now do for us as part of the contract. Then there are the ambulance trucks that go out not only pick up injured animals, but also bring in the strays that they capture, so we would have to have two, three or four vehicles.
And we're talking also about other than dogs, we're talking -- and I know they just handled some raccoons that needed to be dealt with, so we're talking more than just dogs. We're talking about cats. We're talking raccoons rabbits, snakes, you name it.
Since you've done this so many times, could you update your figures to present dollars?
For us to operate without the physical facility would be over a million dollars.
And then you need the building and all the things that make it work.
If I can give a comparison. New York City it was reported in the papers, I can't verify the accuracy myself, but one of the things I read several weeks ago is that New York City, for example, had processed 60,000 dogs on behalf of their contract and they were getting $8.5 million.
According to what the press reported. Now, I can't attest to that accuracy myself --
I can say that that sounds like a reasonable figure considering the five 83 BILL NO. 000537 boroughs and the present shelter system that they have.
I did not hear your answer, but just let me remind you that you are not powerless. There is some value in you or your board, whatever your organizational structure is, to state your case as well with those at the state level since they are the frontline folk who can act or amend the current state law.
But we -- even if we would get them to change that part of the state law, we then cannot be the body that puts in the City ordinance. That's what I'm saying. We can sit there and watch what happens. We really don't have political clout. One of the reasons I think the City of Philadelphia will be better served by it doing its own animal control as all other big cities do is, number 1, they would really see the scope of the problem. I don't think the City of Philadelphia officials realize this. Nobody alive today was around the last time the City of Philadelphia had it 84 BILL NO. 000537 its on animal control department. Many, many decades ago, maybe 60 years. That's number 1. Once you understand the scope of a problem, then I think you would really put the animal control and pitbulls specifically high up in the priority list because I don't think it's even on the list now, much less have a low priority. I think it's just not even regarded. It's just recently that you've taken an interest in it, but it's been a problem for quite a while. And I think if you had to do the work, you would then understand how important it is and how many lives of Philadelphians it affects every single day. I look at our work over the last years as 15 being something like an enabler who allows the 16 alcoholic to keep going year after year because they 17 refuse to really do what has to be done. That's the 18 way I think the SPCA has been used almost. 19
Let me tell you 20 something. I am not disingenuous about the scope of 21 the problem. I think the scope of the problem is 22 huge, as you just stated. I'm interested right now in finding a solution to it. And I think this is the beginning of that trek. So I don't think any one of us remember those remember those days. I 85 BILL NO. 000537 don't think anyone was alive when those days were around, but I don't think we want to go back to those days. Whatever it is, the solution that needs to be done, I think this Committee and the people that you see around here are committed to finding it. I think Councilman Clarke knows what the problem is in his district. I think Jannie Blackwell knows what the problem is in her district. I think Donna Miller knows what the problem is in her district, and so on down the line. I do not, I do not fool myself that we're disingenuous about what is going on right now. I think we absolutely know what the scope of problem is. What we're trying to do is find the right solution to it, one that available and doable for us to be able to do it to get on with it. So any help you can give us on those issues will be deeply appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, I do have to leave the Chambers, but I would like to be recorded --
Could you wait a few seconds. I think we are almost finished with the meeting and I want to do the amendment and then get a vote. 86 BILL NO. 000537
I'd like to follow-up. Mr. Hendricks, you said something very significant a minute ago, that -- and I'm going to appeal to you. You indicated that next week -- and if I'm not accurate, please correct me. You said something that next week you may be recommending to your board or to whoever you report to that you do not want to renew the contract with the City of Philadelphia; is that correct?
Would you please consider -- would you reconsider that until we have an opportunity to work a little further, because I could see a very serious --
I'm always open to every suggestion, but, as I said, I don't see how the City is really going to react to this problem the way it should be addressed unless they see the scope of it and the seriousness of the problem and I don't think they'll ever see it as long as they can send every complaint to us and just put it aside and not even give it a second thought. And that's what's been happening for decades.
Mr. Hendricks, could 87 BILL NO. 000537 you please describe if you make this recommendation to your board will they immediately -- what is the process? Will it take them some time to approve your recommendation? What will occur; and is that reversible? Or next week are we without, after next June, I believe --
The end of next June is the end of the current contract. I'm not going to say we're going to say so long it's been nice to know you. I'm suggesting that if we decide not to renew the contract that we do whatever we can to assist the City in the transition to whoever is going to do the animal control and it would not necessarily occur on July 1, 2001. It might occur a year later or might occur at some point between then and some relatively near point in the future. So if this decision is made by us next week, that would give you anywhere from eight months to, say, 20 months to come up with an alternative to our doing it.
Other than the City of Philadelphia -- and I guess I shouldn't be asking you this, but we're here to learn. Is there an alternative, if you do not want to renegotiate this 88 BILL NO. 000537 contract, is there an alternative other than the Health Department taking back this process?
I don't see any other agency at present, a private agency doing it. Nobody else has the size building you need to house the animals, but that doesn't mean somebody couldn't decide to start their own private business if they wanted to and you could have a contract with somebody who is doing it for profit.
This isn't a good business for a pet store to start. I can tell you that.
No. And I don't see anything on the horizon other than the City itself building the facility and staffing ther building and the vehicles.
What percentage of your budget is the City's contract?
We're a state-wide organization, and right now our budget is about 6.8 million. 89 BILL NO. 000537
For the City of Philadelphia? What percentage of your contract is the City's --
It's all. The only contract we have is with the City of Philadelphia. It has nothing to do with our other operations. So it's 790,000 out of a $6.8 million budget. So you no longer exist in Philadelphia --
That's what I'm asking you. What percentage of your budget in Philadelphia -- I'm assuming that there's a budget related to the City of Philadelphia.
I'd make a guess right now. But I would say most of our expenses are in this area, so I would say out Philadelphia area budget is approximately 4.5 to $5 million.
There's an amendment to 000537. Could the clerk read the amendment, please. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming.
The proposed amendment to Bill No. 000537, the first amendment in Section 1 of the bill, amend the definition of dog fighting in Section 10-101(2) as follows: Dog fighting. Engaging in physical violence with another dog or animal. Striking "shall include any description of provoking a ... or dogs to engage." Number 2, delete Sections 2 through 6 of the bill in its entirety. Third amendment, add a new Section 2 that reads as follows: Section 2, Chapter 10-100 of the Philadelphia Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Dog fighting. Section 10-104.1. (1) no 23 person shall intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently allow a dog to engage in dog fighting on public or private property. 91 BILL NO. 000537 (2) No owner of private property shall be allowed to use their real estate for the purposes of dog fighting. (3) The penalty for violation of this section shall be a fine of $300 per violation. (4) The amount required to be remitted in response to a notice of violation issued pursuant to Section 1-112 of the Code to enforce this section 10 is $150. (5) If it is determined by a police officer or an animal control officer that a dog has engaged in dog fighting, the dog shall be temporarily seized and examined by the appropriate agency for injuries, and to ascertain whether the dog has rabies and/or is licensed. The dog shall be immediately returned to the owner upon showing of a license and verification of rabies vaccination. Number 4, renumber Section 7 as Section 3.
Do I hear a motion for the acceptance of the amendment?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the amendments offered Bill No. 000536 be moved. 92 BILL NO. 000537 (Duly seconded.)
The bill has been amended. - - - 93 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Thursday, October 19, 2000 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Public Safety, held in Room 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL 000537 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ, Chairman COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - 94 P R O C E E D I N G S
Now we move to our meeting of the public safety Committee on Bill 4 000537. Do I hear a motion on Bill 000537, as amended, Councilman Clarke?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that Bill 000537, as amended, be reported out favorably of the Committee of Public Safety with a request for suspension of the Rules as to be read on the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Bill 000537, as amended, has been moved with a suspension of the rule. All those in favor, say aye. (Aye.)
Hearing no nays Bill 21 000537 will be reported out of the Public Safety Committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to have first reading in the next session of City Council. 95 PUBLIC MEETING This session of the Public Safety Committee stands adjourned. (Adjourned at 3:55 p.m.) 96 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of October 19, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public