Eight years on-Looking back at Hurricane Katrina

My drive in to work today here in Nassau was past placid turquoise seas, under an outrageous blue sky broken by morning tropical thunderheads. The golden light off the edges of the clouds reminds me of a different sunrise overlooking the levees of East New Orleans. The water that morning was equally placid, but the context was far different from my current assignment.

Eight years ago today Hurricane Katrina swept ashore into New Orleans, changing not only lives but the physical map of Louisiana. I arrived a short time later, sent in by the inimitable-and formidable-Diane Albers of the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs. Diane faced off against the devastation of two horrors called Katrina and Rita, and was more than equal to the task. I will never forget her cigarette-graveled voice on the phone; "Jim, get your ass in there and tell me what the hell is going on!"

And so I went, mini-van loaded with supplies.  To give an idea of what I found, here is an excerpt from my notes and the written account I have been working at for eight years:

Watching the news reports as Hurricane Katrina churned north and west across the Gulf of Mexico was like watching a train wreck.  You knew it was going to be really bad when it hit.  You knew the damage was going to be something awesome to behold.  And for those of us in North Florida, although we wished no ill towards any of our Gulf Coast brethren, we were praying it tracked west instead of making a curve back into the armpit of our state.

When she blasted ashore along the Louisiana coast, punching New Orleans right in the face on August 29, 2005, our prayers were sort of answered.  We ducked out of this one, and we hoped maybe New Orleans had ducked The Big One they had been ducking for years.  After all, the initial reports were good.  Governor Blanco and President Bush said everything was fine.  They had no idea.

Reality painted an ugly picture.  The bullet-proof armor that New Orleans wore was made of Kleenex, not Kevlar.  Katrina’s impact brought the city to its knees, and the levees’ failure to hold their own administered the killing blow.  Later, by the time Rita hit, recoil had become redundancy, and as some wags put it at the time, the Big Easy had gotten the Big Flush, followed by the Big Rinse.

Bad humor aside, the city was not flush.  Before Rita ever hit, the situation was beyond critical and the call went out far and wide-HELP SAVE NEW ORLEANS.  Homes gone, people dead.  Infrastructure was invisible and salvation nowhere to be seen.

I sat by and watched, and waited.  As a retired Police Lieutenant, I hadn’t kicked any butt in almost six years, and I was itching to do…SOMETHING.  Jump into the fray, get involved, put on my Superman undies and ride in with the cavalry. When Diane Albers of the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs called and asked if I could run a load of supplies in to New Orleans, I jumped at the chance...

Driving in to New Orleans actually had me thinking, "This isn't too bad.”  For a few minutes anyway.  It was well after dark, and I had to go around the long way because the bridges over Lake Ponchartrain were out.  The electricity had been out since Alabama.  Darkness softened everything outside the glow of the headlights, and only the faintest hint of damage leaked through.  A road sign here, a bit of tree debris there.  Nothing major, nothing worrisome.

Until I had to swerve around the house.  I rounded a curve on I-10 to find a house sitting in the two left lanes.  It wasn't a big house, and it had suffered from the trip, but it was undeniably a house in the middle of a major interstate.

From there on the highway was increasingly littered with debris.  The first concentrations of junk on the road were items carried by wind and waters; furniture, boxes, assorted trash and bits people had left unsecured in yards.  But closer to the center of the city the character of the detritus changed.  Bags of clothing, assortments of bundled belongings, objects and orts dropped by refugees.  The tattered trail of things abandoned by people stumbling into an uncertain future.

And the darkness.  Although there had been no electric service since before Mississippi, I entered New Orleans and the darkness seemed to get thicker, heightened by looming unlit buildings, the shadow of a city.  Occasionally the faces of the buildings were broken by darker spaces, jagged black on black of broken windows.

The first security checkpoint materialized under an overcast of light.  Police cars and humvees blocked entry into the city proper, manned by haggard officers and Guardsmen.  The tiny amount of traffic did not linger long, and with a quick check of credentials and destination I was cleared through.

Exit off the highway on what I hoped was Crowder.  One twisted sign alongside the ramp, maybe in the right place.  Onto the surface streets, no lights, lines down all over, into the mouth of the beast. I had never before seen cars parked on the tops of houses, or boats in trees.  Flicker of images just beyond the spread of my headlights.  Gap-toothed windows and an over-layer of dirt on cars, homes, rubble.  Delay while it sank in – this dirt was sediment, not the dirt of neglect.  Settled out of water above, not just the product of poor upkeep.

Crowder ends at the Ponchartrain levee.  A huge earthen wall, behind which the lake stewed quietly.  Stairs led up and over, walkway at the apex.

Facing the levee were two camps.  On the left an unfinished office complex had become Field HQ for two companies of National Guardsmen.  The Guard camp was circled by free standing floodlights, tall on their generator bases, towers of light ringing an armed camp.

Across the street, in the complex that had been the Lake Castle School, was Muttshack.

Muttshack

Muttshack was an immediate response shelter and triage area that had been set up by two wonderful people from the Los Angeles area, Amanda and Marty St. John. Although they had never done anything of this magnitude before, they likewise could not just stand by. And as the Zen parable says, "Jump and the net will appear." These two jumped, made a net on the way down, and we fell into it.

Although there were tons of challenges, there were success stories. Animals were recovered and reunited with owners like the "pissed-off Pekingese" that needed just a bath and a warm place to stay until Mom and Dad could come get him.

The "Pissed off Peke"

Thousands of animals were rescued and treated so they could move on to new homes. Dogs like Pugsley, who spent 49 days on top of the freezer he had been washed onto after the flood, before we entered the house and rescued him. Kris and I brought him out and then handed him to Sue, who wrapped him in a towel while we drove like mad back to the Vet.

Kris and Pugsley

After the initial response was the follow up and clean up. I tried to escape in October-and wound up back three more times before I could finally get the swamp water out of my shoes. The last time was both sad and glorious: an airlift, arranged by the FAKC and coordinated by the unbelievable Jennifer Rowan, when we carted 77 dogs north through the sky to Indiana and Wisconsin aboard a World War Two vintage cargo plane. On our return south we watched sundogs chase us off the wing, escorting us safely home.

There were the tragic cases. Animals left behind by those who thought they would only be gone for a day or so died, in kennels and crates, in living rooms and attics. Animals found inside homes with their caretakers who refused to leave their companions, with both animal and human perishing in the flood. In the aftermath of the storm, the response, and the clean up, there were those humans who could not carry the burden of what they had seen and ended their lives prematurely.


Today we look back through a filter of eight years. Time allegedly heals all wounds, and many of the wounds of Katrina have at least long scabbed over. But the echoes of that time and that place linger on. Some have been good echoes; progress in disaster response planning, networks of shelters and activists that are ready and willing to step in (for example: the response of the Alabama Animal Control Association and the area shelters after the tornado in Birmingham and the massive response of activists and animal rescue organizations after the Joplin, Missouri tornadoes). Some of the echoes, such as who was really responsible for the levees and why so many people and animals died, still have us scratching our heads. And some echoes, like those of the people that died in the disaster, the animals that we found dead and dying, and those who have died since of varying associated causes, still haunt us. A friend still has dreams of the "Hell House" wherein 72 animals drowned. I still look up when I hear helicopters, and some days I catch a whiff of death on the breeze off the ocean. To hear Sonny Landreth, a Louisiana native, sing his rendition of "Louisiana 1927" still brings back the heat and the silence of New Orleans, 2005.

So eight years on we look back and remember, and just for a moment we who were there see and hear the ghosts of the bayou, the spirits that hover faintly above the waters of Ponchartrain, and we remember.

"Some people got lost in the flood, some made it out all right.
Busted through clear down to Plaquemine.
Six feet of water in the streets of Evangeline."

"Louisiana, 1927"  written by Randy Newman.

           

LIVE! From Nassau, The Bahamas. A day of life in paradise. Right.

Those of you who are in regular touch know that I have spent the last six weeks or so here in Nassau, The Bahamas (yes, it is capitalized) working with the super folks at the Bahamas Humane Society (not capitalized in this instance. Yeah, grammer makes weird sense). As I have been here longer I have learned a lot about this tiny island nation, and have seen quite a bit that is, well, different than we see at home. So I am going to share my day with you today.

After settling in the first crisis was a German Shepherd brought into the clinic near death. This boy was severely overheated and unresponsive. The poor guy died almost immediately on arrival, too far gone and too damaged to be revived. The young police officer who brought him in was clearly distraught. He did his best when he found the dog and rushed him in to our clinic. Trouble was, he found the poor dog in a crate in the back of a police van. In the police lot. Under the supervision and control of the Bahamas Police.

I was out on the road when the dog came in, but when I returned I had the body pulled from the cooler to make sure all details were documented. The dog, weight 54 pounds, had an internal body temperature, 35 minutes after death and after being in the cooler, of 110.4 degrees F. Normal body temperature for a dog hovers around 102 degrees. This poor guy had been cooked and died of a combination of the heat and asphyxia.

The initial police account was that the dog had been turned over to the police for training. The dog was placed in the back of the van, probably on Sunday, left closed up in the heat and forgotten. An investigation is underway as the Police Superintendent has been notified. We will see what, if anything, happens next.

The next call was to a residence where neighbors reported two dogs in poor condition and a third dog dead in the yard. Ventoi and I rolled on that one in the Bahamas Humane Society Animal Ambulance.

We found a fenced yard in the suburbs of Nassau with a huge chain link fence. Two German Shepherd dogs came barking to the fence. The residence was empty.

One neighbor pointed out the dead dog laying, bloated, in the side yard. His two buddies look a bit lost.

Why you not get up?

We did contact a person in the area who had been trying to feed the dogs when she could. She related that the owner had been gone for a long time, whereabouts unknown. She had not heard from the property owner in some time, and the details of where the owner was and why were a bit cloudy.

The conditions in the area the dogs lived in were less than ideal.

Once they settled down the live dogs seemed to be ready for some company.

A relative of the owner came up to us and we discussed the best option for the two live dogs. They decided to surrender these two pups to the BHS, and Ventoi made a friend.

We also loaded up their departed friend to arrange proper and respectful disposal of his remains. The relative will be in touch with us (we hope). Until then we will be trying to nurse these guys back from poor nutrition and a severe infestation of ticks.


Next call-a report that kids were hanging and torturing dogs in an old hotel in downtown Nassau. I rolled on that case with BHS Animal Care Manager Kirk Duncombe. We met our source near the hotel and hiked on in. This is what we found-and no, this is not Aleppo or Beirut. This is downtown Nassau, in easy sight of the fun-in-the-sun of Atlantis and Paradise Island.

We entered the building and found what looked remarkably like a war damaged husk of a building. The dog we were seeking was on the second floor. She is a Potcake, a couple of years old. For those of you who have never met a Potcake, they are the indigenous dogs of the Bahamas, having resulted from generations of dogs imported from around the world and then marooned here to interbreed. They are the Caribbean version of the dogs found world wide living on the edges of, and often in the middle of, human civilization, making their way the best that they can. Although many live on the streets, programs like Operation Potcake and the Bahamas Humane Society have worked to spay/neuter and vaccinate a large number of these animals. For instance, during ten days in January, 2013, Operation Potcake sterilized 2315 animals in just ten days!

Here is our little girl.

A bit shy at first, she has not had great experiences with people before. She did warm up to Kirk after a few minutes of attention though.

We gathered up our little friend and prepared to leave.

Being the old cop that I am, and having been through similar buildings after Hurricane Katrina, I couldn't go without a sweep of the rest of the building. No taking chances that another friend in need might be hiding somewhere above.  And on the upper floors I met Celine (not her real name).

Celine is a refugee and is living in the shell of this crumbling wreck. She is making her way the best she can, along with her boyfriend. They have very little, and are not only struggling to feed themselves, but are caring for another of the resident dogs, a Potcake they have named Sheba. Sheba is one of the animals that were sterilized by Operation Potcake. Celine does her best to scrounge food for Sheba and give her company. Celine and Sheba also have a mutually protective relationship-Celine tries to protect Sheba from being victimized by humans, and Sheba gives Celine a warning system to alert her when strangers enter what passes for home.

Chella, an animal advocate and rescuer in the area, left some food with Celine and Sheba. Although I did not find any clear evidence of animal abuse in the building, I did find some disturbing graffiti on the walls.

Yes, that says "Hang "Em High" over the window. And yes, out that window we can clearly see the spires of Paradise Island's feature resort, Atlantis. This building is less than half a mile from the glitz and glamor of the largest tourist attraction in The Bahamas, and barely half a mile further from the high end shopping of Bay Street with its cruise ship crowds and Gucci storefronts.

We left with our new friend and headed back to the BHS. There she got a nice clean crate, vaccines, a thorough Vet checkup, fresh water and a good meal. Correction: This poor girl is named Bridgett and was an Operation Potcake dog. She has already been spayed. She does have a leg deformity that has been revealed by the BHS's new digital x-ray machine, donated through the generosity of Lindsey Panning and Tony Hull. Treatment options are currently being discussed. The deformity is not life threatening (a bone grown off kilter) so she should be moving along to her foster family soon.

By this time it was the end of the day and time to call it quits. The drive back to my quarters on the west end of the island passes by some of the most beautiful shoreline you would ever want to see, and I took the drive slowly to decompress a bit. Paradise it may be, but just under the surface are the same problems we face all over the world-animals in need, humans living on the edge, and conflict between those who place their own well being behind that of the animals they live with and those who would victimize both human and animal. We can only address so much at once. There have always been those who care and those who do not-or are even actively evil. The only thing we can do is try to affect our little corner of the world for the time we are there. This, for the moment, is my little corner. I will continue to work with the Bahamas Humane Society to address the many problems here, and if I am lucky I might leave this little corner just a little bit better than I found it.

The Phineas case in Missouri: my report and analysis

Lots of folks have been following the case of Phineas, the Labrador in Missouri accused of biting a child and sentenced to death by the local Mayor. Full details can be found on the 'Net, including the dramatic allegations regarding his treatment and alleged confinement in a Fire Station basement.

However all of that played out, I did an analysis of the "bite" wounds on the child involved and compared them to the documented photographic measurements of Phineas' jaw and dental structure. An associate of mine, Dr. Ken Cohrn (who is a forensic odontologist with long experience dealing with human remains identification) also did an analysis. And guess what? We both agree that Phineas is not responsible for the alleged bite injury-in fact, we both independently exclude Phineas!

Ken's report is with the legal team (as is mine), but since the reports have now been submitted and are a matter of record I am posting mine here for all to read.

Enjoy!

James W. Crosby CBCC-KA Certified Behavior Consultant-Canine * Jacksonville, Florida * 904-476-7655 * canineaggression@gmail.com

30 June 2013

Joseph Simon, Esq.

720 S Ballas Rd

Kirkwood, MO 63122

Dear Mr. Simon:

At your request I have reviewed materials regarding the alleged bite to a 7 year old female by a dog known as Phineas, described as a yellow Labrador type male dog. The alleged bite injury reportedly occurred on 22 June 2012.

The materials I have reviewed include color photographs of the alleged bite injury, color photographs examined and analyzed by Mr. Richard Quindry, color photographs taken of reference materials such as shirt buttons, shirt details, a hospital bracelet, and a series of color photographs taken by you of the dentition and jaw details of the dog known as Phineas on 4 June 2013.

Based on these photographs I have been able to make the following observations, and reach the following conclusions regarding this incident.

 OBSERVATIONS OF THE ACCUSED DOG:

Based on the photographs supplied of the dog Phineas, I can make the following observations;

Phineas’ jaws and teeth appear consistent with an adult, healthy Labrador Retriever-type dog. He possesses full dentition: he shows four full-length canine teeth (two upper, two lower), twelve incisors (six upper, six lower), and at least twelve pre-molars (visible in photographs - six upper-three to a side, six lower, three to a side). This is common dentition for domestic dogs. The canine teeth are unbroken and in common configuration-uppers falling slightly outside of alignment with the lowers. The tips of the canine teeth protrude no less than twice the length of the incisors past the overall level of the incisor tips. The tips of all four canine teeth are slightly splayed, the lower canines more pronounced than the uppers.

Phineas’ incisors are slightly irregular. The central lower incisors show tips only slightly above the line of the gum. The second pair of lower incisors are clearly slightly longer than the first or third incisors. In the upper jaw the incisors are clearly defined and separate, with clear points. Phineas is not missing any of the front teeth.

The alignment of Phineas’ lower incisors is nearly straight across with minimal visible bow to the arch of the bite. His upper incisors are only slightly more bowed.

The line of premolars is, in both jaws, set within a line stretching from the canines to the molars. This gives a dog a slightly “hourglass” shape to the palate and the line of the bite. The front three pre-molars are distinct in the side view photographs. The front-most of the upper pre-molars are located approximately 17 millimeters posterior to the upper canine teeth; the second upper pre-molar is approximately 12 mm to the rear of the first pre-molar; the third upper pre-molar is approximately 16 mm behind the second upper pre-molar. The rear pre-molars are spaced approximately 74 mm apart across the width of the mouth. The lower pre-molars are similarly located at distances of 28, 12, and 13 mm respectively posterior to the lower canines.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE ALLEGED BITE INJURY PHOTOGRAPH:

The photograph provided is a color photo of what appears to be the side and front of a human child. If we orient the photograph so that the visible size tag of the red shirt worn by the pictured person is to the upper right-hand corner of the photograph, the alleged bite injury is oriented to the viewer’s upper right to lower left. The marks visible appear to be clear bruising on human flesh, mostly reddish to purple in color. The shape of the marking is an elongated oval, with clear curvature to both ends of the oval. No bruises or marks appear to be outside the general line of the oval. There appear to be only minor breaks in the surface of the skin, particularly along the upper longer side of the oval, all of which seem to be near the center of the long side. No corresponding breaks in the skin are found on the lower side of the oval.

Exact measurements of the injury are unavailable at this time since no scale was included in the photo. Color photographs of identifiable items that are identified as close or exact copies of the items in the original photos were obtained by your office. The items that I have used to establish my measurements of the alleged bite are: 1: the hospital wrist band worn by the victim in several of the photographs and 2: the large pearl-colored button at the top of the victim’s aqua-colored shirt, as seen in the photographs. Both of these items have been measured and documented and both of these items appear to be parallel to the camera plane in the victim photographs presented, allowing their use as a measuring standard.

MEASURING PROCEDURE:

As above noted, I used the pearl-colored button and the hospital wrist band as constant measuring standards in order to extrapolate the measurements of the alleged bite wound. In other photographs provided by your office I was able to determine that the diameter of the button was 8 mm. Although the button is positioned slightly behind the plane of the alleged bite in the photograph, this difference is minimal and would have the effect of making the alleged bite slightly smaller than the comparison dimensions. The width of the white markable section of the hospital wrist band is 19 mm, top to bottom. These were used as standards for comparison.

I then proceeded to open the photos of the alleged bite, including the photo provided of the victim showing both the button and the hospital band clearly. Using that photo I measured the button and the white band area in the photo viewing software Gimp. In Gimp I measured the button and the band in pixels. Pixel size is consistent within a single photograph, and as such the number of pixels across a measured section of a photograph in the same plane and at the same approximate distance from the focal plane of the camera will be the same. The button measured 28 pixels across the diameter. The white section of the hospital band measured 66 pixels across. Giving the known, measured size of the button and band, we can establish a scale of millimeters that is consistent within 0.5 pixels.

Using this as a comparison scale, I then measured the distance between the first and third clearly visible apparent breaks in the victim’s skin that are angles lower left to upper right in the photo. These marks are clearly delineated and are in the same plane, and same distance from the camera focal plane, as both the button and the wrist band. This should provide a solid measurement with minimal distortion.

The measurement across the centers of the three apparent skin breaks was found to be 9.03 mm (31.4 pixels). I then used this distance to measure the identifying marks and dimensions of the alleged bite in other close-up photos as the distance between these clear marks was within the alleged bite, in the same plane as the alleged bite image, and constant in all photos provided. These measurements were then compared to the photographically documented measurements of the accused dog Phineas’ jaw and dentition.

Description                                                            “Bite”           Phineas

Distance across upper canine teeth	29.9mm	50.0mm
Distance across lower canine teeth	18.63mm	43.0mm
Widest point upper jaw	29.9mm	74.0mm
Widest point lower jaw	31.6mm	not taken
Upper left incisors #1 to 3	10.16mm	16.0mm
Pre-molars left upper #1 to 3	9.03mm	29.0mm

CONCLUSIONS:

After comparing the photo of the alleged bite injury and the photos of the teeth identified as belonging to Phineas, I can render the following opinion:

1)   The alleged bite injury is significantly smaller, both in length and in depth, than the bite likely to be caused by a dog jaw most closely resembling that of Phineas. The bite measures a maximum width of 31.6mm (lower jaw engagement on victim). Phineas’ jaw shows a maximum width of 74.0mm, more than twice the size of the exhibited bite. Phineas’ upper canine teeth are distinct and span a distance of 50.0mm, nearly two times the span of the most likely canine tooth contact points on the exhibited bite. The small puncture wound visible in the photograph (at approximately the one o’clock position on the bite if the bite, oriented vertically, is regarded as similar to a clock face) was used as a measuring point in this analysis and helps confirm the fact that the alleged bite injury is smaller than the verified measurements of Phineas’ bite profile.

2)   The spacing between the skin break marks that could have been caused by Phineas’ pre-molars are too closely spaced together (9.03mm in the exhibited bite vs. 29.0mm for Phineas) and are located too close to the front of the bite (approximately 2cm to the front of the “bite” arch vs. approximately 3 cm to the canines, which are significantly posterior to the front arch of the jaw) to have been made by Phineas.

3)   If the alleged injury had indeed been caused by Phineas, the force necessary to cause the clear, distinct bruising would have definitely caused full impact with, and penetration by, Phineas’ canine teeth, leaving clear and unmistakable puncture wounds corresponding to the location of Phineas’ canine teeth. These canine puncture wounds are not evidenced in the photographs. The location of the single apparent puncture visible in the photographs located towards the upper-right of the photo image is not consistent with the dental structure of Phineas.

4)   The arch of the alleged bite injury does not match that of Phineas: Phineas’ lower incisors are almost in a straight line. Both front lines of the alleged bite are clearly arched. The contour of the alleged bite shown is not consistent with Phineas’ dental structure. In the thousands of known dog bites I have personally examined the curvature of a typical dog bite is not consistent with the images shown. If indeed this is a photo of a dog bite it must certainly be from a jaw of different shape from that of Phineas.

5)   The clear spacing between the Phineas’ canine teeth and his premolars is missing in the alleged bite injury bruising.

Although the alleged bite bruising is not clear enough, or distinct enough, to make a positive identification as to the cause of the alleged bite injury, there is sufficient conflict in the measured evidence and physical appearance of the alleged bite bruising and the jaw of the dog Phineas that I can reasonably exclude Phineas, to a degree of scientific certainty, as having been the source of this bruising injury.

Respectfully submitted.

James W. Crosby

With love and training, group hopes former fighting pit bulls can become adoptable pets | jacksonville.com

A quick side trip here.....working with former fighting dogs to try and give them a second chance at life. Maybe we, as humans, can re-earn their trust and faith. Click here for the link to the Jacksonville Times Union article.

Join me in Smerillo, Fermo, Italy June 15th and 16th, 2013 for my two day seminar on dog bites, dog aggression. behavior, and fatal bite investigations. Buon Giorno Italy!

Dog evaluations-a quick side step

Currently I have several cases where I have been asked to come in as an independant evaluator and investigate dog related incidents. My cases usually center around a dog that is alleged to be Dangerous or involved in a bite. In the past these have included the Philadelphia Four, Helo the Husky, and Memphis in New Jersey. Some of these involved dogs from serious and/or fatal attacks; some dogs have just been judged on their appearence, like poor Lennox in Belfast.

I want to clarify what I do and what is involved, since most people really have no idea. The most common category of investigations I do involve bites or attacks, often with fatal results. I do not go into a situation to "save the dog"-or to condemn the dog. I go in with the intention of fairly and objectively examining the dog(s) and giving back a report as to the behavior I observe, both good and bad. I look at the reported situation that precipitated the action, whatever it is, and look with (hopefully) clear eyes at the whole incident-statements, injuries, physical evidence-the whole banana. I then try and use my experience and knowledge of dog behavior to look for contributing causes and how the situation got so bad. It is my experience that almost every bite or dangerous encounter, in some way, makes sense to the dog. That sense is what I am looking for, and that is what I try and represent to the humans. I make recommendations based on the individual dog, the individual incident, and whether the dog's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Helo the Husky was a prime example of this. My investigation raised serious questions as to whether Helo participated at all in the attack, and disclosed that other dogs present and (based on statements by persons at the scene) more likely to have committed the offense were never examined.

I apply the same procedure in civil consultation cases, cases where either the dog owner or the bite victim (yes, I do work for either side) retain me to give an opinion in the case.

Other cases I get called on involve general evaluation of a dog or group of dogs that have been labelled and are at risk simply due to the kind of dog they are, or what people think they might do.

Might is the key word here.

What a dog might do and evaluations of behavior outside a critical incident is a bigger subject I want to get into on another day. Prediction, whether it is from behavior evaluation, personality testing, or Tarot cards is a whole 'nother set of problems. Today I want to focus on a basic investigation, a response to a specific incident.

Let's use an example (people love examples) of a common kind of case that I get called on. This is not any particular case-the identities and details have been changed to protect...whomever. This is a composite of typical cases, so don't get excited that I am blaming, or insulting, or anything, any particular person or situation.

I get called because little toddler Rodney has been bitten in the face. Media reports are all over this, because Rodney is a cute little kid and has what appear to be massive facial injuries. We see him in the hospital with Mom, stitches where there aren't bandages, sadly sucking on a Popsicle while Mom describes the horrors.  Rodney is bona fidely injured-no question.

With me so far?

I get called-maybe Rodney's parents, maybe the agency investigating, maybe interested advocates, maybe an attorney. I am tasked to see what happened, why it happened, if the vicious dog should be destroyed, how much Rodney should collect from the dog's owner (if it wasn't Mom and Dad's dog). Whatever the human purpose, I am investigating.

The investigation starts with an account of what happened. Typically, we start somewhere around "Rodney was playing quietly and the dog snapped!" Sorry, that is not enough information. I need to know exactly whatt happened in the absolute seconds before the incident, not just a general account.

So I dig, and prod, and back up, and dig some more and a more detailed story comes out. "Rodney, who is a toddler, crawled up to the dog, a dog familiar to Rodney and typically well behaved and calm. Rodney reached out to the left side of the dog's head to pat the dog. Suddenly the dog swung sharply towards Rodney and bit him one time in the face. The dog pulled back, Rodney's Mom grabbed the baby and pulled him away, the family yelled at the dog and sent him running outside into the yard, and when Animal Control got there they put the dog on a pole and put him in the truck. Meanwhile, everyone freaked out since there was so much blood."

Now we have some information. My next stop is to check the actual wounds based on the medical reports and, if I am luck, some closeup photos taken before treatment was started at the hospital. First, I have to look past the treatment plan; I don't care how the doctors fix Rodney's face, how many sutures, how much surgery there is to come. I want quantifiable information-how many bites, how many holes, how deep, is there tearing of skin and in which direction? I want the specifics.

What I find is that there are three clear punctures, under Rodney's eye and on his cheek. Two are relatively deep, and there is significant tearing of the facial flesh, all in the same direction, which gave little Rodney two open lacerations extending from just below eye level to nearly his chin. Tough injury for a cute little guy!

Now comes the fun. I go meet Buck, the evil mauler. Buck is sitting in a cage at Animal Control, with a big label on the cage saying DANGER BITE CASE!. I have to sign a bunch of releases that say if I get mauled and turned into Buck's next dinner I absolve anyone and everyone from everything ranging from bite injuries to metereorite explosion over a Russian city. And Buck and I begin to talk. We have a conversation. No, I don't start whispering to him. No, I don't care if my spirit is centered or if my Wa is composed. We simply talk-in dog terms. I watch his responses, and he watches mine.

Buck has probably spent a few days at least in the kennel with strangers acting strangely. They are tense, keep well away from him; sometimes they haven't even been allowed to touch the "vicious dog" and have kind of pushed his food and water through the kennel fence. Maybe they have had to operate completely behind separating guillotine doors. In any case Buck is a little freaked.

We build a temporary working relationship and I get hands on Buck. We move around a bit and I put him through my evaluation. In the course of the evaluation I notice that when I approach Buck's head with my hand gently, he shies slightly away and gives me disengagement signals. He tells me he is not comfortable with me touching his head, particularly the left side. This is the side little Rodney went to pet. I look as closely as I can and see--a small amount of crusty blood just inside the ear. I approach the ear closer and Buck gives me signs "Don't Touch My Ear!".

I talk to the Vet. We, together, sedate Buck a bit, muzzle him for all of our protection, and find he has a raging ear infection. His inner ear is red, tissue is swollen, and IT HURTS!

Now we have a picture that makes sense. Little Rodney came up to Buck, nothing unusual. Buck had a severe, painful ear infection that little Rodney could not either know about or understand. Rodney reached up and grabbed, in all innocence, Buck's painful ear. Buck responded like a dog in pain-he bit the closest target (Rodney's face) that was involved in causing him pain to make the pain stop. He only bit once because his bite made the hurting thing (Rodney) pull back. Buck is a big dog, so his canine teeth are relatively long. Rodney is a little kid, so his facial tissue is relatively shallow. When Buck engaged-bit-Rodney's face, both he and Rodney pulled away from each other. The two bodies pulling apart while teeth were still partially engaged with flesh caused the fragile flesh to rip. Rodney gets a pair of big tears across his face. Buck gets sent to the pound.

Buck's behavior was not vicious-it was appropriate for a dog in pain.

Is my investigation here condemning-or apologising for-Buck?

No.

Buck acted like a dog. Rodney acted like a toddler. No more, no less. Both behaved appropriately, based on the facts of the situation.

I looked at the situation, dug into the sequence of events, and found out what happened. Someone is probably going to be unhappy with my findings-perhaps Rodney's parents, perhaps Animal Services, almost certainly a significant portion of the public who want revenge for the "horrible mauling" of the poor innocent child. But that is the nature of what I do. I am not there to make anyone, much less everyone, happy.

So back to the initial question-what do I do? What is my (granted self-defined) job description? I investigate dog-related injuries and attacks to find out three things: what happened; if possible, why; and how did the incident make sense to the dog based on my examination of the event, evaluation of the dog, and understanding of how a dog works. If in my investigation I find behavioral conditions that have gone unaddressed, or maybe encouraged, by humans, then so much the better for making someone responsible.  But understanding a dog, how they perceive the world, and how they react is not apology. Or condemnation. It is assessing and describing what is.

Dogs, Police, and Use of Force-part 2 of 4

As I mentioned last time I have broken up my posts on conflicts between Police Officers and dogs into three parts. Last time we talked about a very limited set of circumstances, primarily high-risk raids where there are potentially-or for sure-armed bad guys that probably have not been the most responsible dog owners. These cases are rare, and no one should think that procedures used in these radical situations to protect human lives should be the norm in day to day encounters. They are worst case scenarios. I'm not going to dissect all the potential causes of such actions (Are all drug dealers really violent? Is the "war on  drugs" effective?) as these questions are far bigger than this column and deserve long, hard discussion.

That post was an overview of the minority of cases. Most of the negative encounters we hear about, most of the cases involving use of deadly force by Law Enforcement these days, are centered around much lower risk, day in and day out encounters. Here is where positive intervention, training, and prevention strategies can make the most difference.

Public Safety and Low Risk Encounters are probably the most common cases where Police Officers and pets come into conflict. Let's break these two down into their components first.

Public Safety cases are, obviously, cases where the Police have been called because someone sees an animal, most likely a dog, and most likely running at large, that they perceive is a threat to themselves or others. There are two keys here that we need to note: the animal is at large and the reporting person perceives the animal to be at risk.

Low Risk Encounters are those where Police Officers come across dogs in the course of doing something else. These animals are most often not at large but are on their own property. There is no reporting person here-the Officer is the person directly involved in the contact-and the Officer is the one directly perceiving the dog's behavior.

Now, there are significant differences in the two kinds of cases, but there are several commonalities that we need to recognize. The first common quantity is this: WHY ARE YOU THERE?  What is the reason the officer is coming in contact with the dog, and what is the ultimate purpose of the contact?

In Public Safety encounters it seems to be pretty clear-the officer has been called to "protect the public". But protect who from exactly what? Is it to keep a charging dog from ravaging a schoolyard of kindergarten students, or is the goal a bit fuzzy? Is this a frightened dog trying to get home? Is this an injured dog that is reacting from the pain and fear of being hit by a car? Sure, the dog is at large-and that is a human failure. The human(s) responsible for the dog being uncontrolled should be held responsible for their actions-or lack of action. But is the dog really a threat-and as perceived by whom? Perhaps the goal here is really to stop the dog from running at large, and in doing so keep the public, and the dog safe.

Let's set the stage with an example. A police officer is dispatched to a dog running at large that is alleged to be "vicious". The officer gets on scene and indeed sees a dog running loose. Say it's even a big dog. The complainant comes up and tells the officer "The dog charged at me! Get rid of it!" The person continues to make excited statements that the dog is a danger, might bite someone, could kill all the children in the town...you get the picture.

So our faithful officer chases after the dog. The dog gets backed up against a corner. The officer approaches and the dog growls, baring its teeth. The officer now perceives a threat to himself, and with the excited allegations of the original complainant, draws his weapon, carefully checks for a safe backdrop, and when the dog again lunges towards him he fires once and kills the dog.

Simple, right? Wrong. Lets look at this from the dog's point of view.

The dog is a pet, licensed and tagged, that has escaped from his back yard because his owners have failed to secure the gate-or maybe the cable TV guy left it ajar. The dog follows his nose, meanders around the neighborhood, and looses track of where he is. He comes around a corner and sees something attractive (Squirrel!) and runs for it. Unfortunately, this dog has no experience with traffic and gets clipped by a car going past. The dog is now mildly hurt and frightened. He runs blindly. Running he rounds a corner and is confronted by a stranger (our trusty complainant). The dog startles, barks, and backs off from the scary person. Our complainant, not an experienced dog person, interprets the dog's sudden approach and bark as a "vicious attack" and calls it in.

The officer gets there, spots the dog, and gives chase. Now the dog is being chased by a new stranger, probably yelling, and freaking him out. So he runs, and tries to find-refuge, home, anywhere but where he is. The officer follows and the dog winds up cornered by this stranger. So the dog does the only thing he is hardwired to do-he backs up and gives clear signals in dog terms "You are scaring me! I am hurt and want to go home! Back off! I don't want to fight but I will if you push me!" The officer pushes forward again and the dog lunges, looking for a way out. He just wants to escape to safety and go home. A shot is fired and the dog is dead.

You may say "Well, that is all good but you set this up to make the cop the bad guy." Sorry, but no. This sort of conflict happens all of the time. And I am not saying the police officer was bad-he just didn't see the situation the same way the dog did. He probably didn't have the training to recognize the signals the dog was giving, and didn't have enough knowledge of dog behavior to understand what was really happening. He saw exactly what he had been prepared-even briefly-by the complainant to see.

This is a situation that we, as police officers, have to face every day with human subjects. We are told by one party that the other person is bad, evil, violent, etc. They want us to proceed on their information, and often that information is deliberately slanted to favor their position. We are trained extensively to be cautious of this-we are told "There are three sides to every case: person 1's story, person 2's story, and the truth."

In alleged public safety conflicts we have to bear the same in mind. We don't know if our complainant was bitten badly as a child and has emotional aftereffects of that incident. The person may just not like dogs. The person may have what they feel are valid concerns because they may not have extensive experience with dogs. Or the dog may in fact be nasty.

But we have to return to the question: why is the officer there? To protect the public, right? So what strategies are available, and how many did the officer try before proceeding to lethal force?

In this case there were numerous possibilities, none of which the officer took advantage of. Protecting others means isolating the danger from potential victims, in this case the loose dog. How can we do that?

First, use situational awareness. What is that? Look around. Pay attention to details. In this sort of case, what does the dog look like? Is he relatively clean? Does he have a collar and tags? Maybe this is a pet rather than a long-term stray. If so, the dog is likely to have a positive relationship with at least some people. Try letting the conflict de-escalate. If the dog is in an area where there is room to back off, do so. Stop chasing. Slow down. There is no hurry.

If the dog looks like a pet, try getting the dog to come up. Relax your posture, present a less threatening demeanor, and for crying out loud STOP YELLING.

Pets often like riding in the car. If you are driving a patrol car you likely have a cage in the back. Try opening the back door and then get away from the car to let the dog have a clear path to the open door. Try saying "Let's go for a ride!" Lots of dogs love rides. Once the dog is in the back seat the conflict is over-you now have a controlled situation where you-or Animal Control, or a Vet, or even the owner, can safely remove the dog.

Try an open can of dog food to attract, and calm the dog. Even better a can of cat food. Dogs love cat food. Stinky, nasty cat food. Toss the food near the dog to make friends. Maybe even into your car. Just remember to get the little cans with the pull tabs on top-this is no time to look for a can opener.

If the dog is backed into an enclosed area, use that to your advantage. Pull you car across the opening (and then maybe open the back door). Is there a sidewalk table, or maybe one of those sign twirlers? Temporarily appropriate the table or sign to contain the dog, keeping only minimum pressure on him. Improvise with what you have. Let the dog retreat and calm down. Is the dog in front of an open garage? THEN CLOSE THE GARAGE DOOR!  Even if the dog doesn't live there you have him contained. You can then safely contact the property owner or resident at your leisure. If the dog damages something in the garage, so what? Dog owners are responsible, in most jurisdictions, for any damage their dog causes. The report for chewing up someone's bicycle is a lot easier than the paperwork-and extended drama-of using deadly force.

Sure, someone is always going to come up with a "But I did that and it didn't work..." There's always one in every crowd. And honestly, every situation is different, and I can't give "What if" responses for everything.

But I can give you solid strategies to apply across the board:

1) Try and look at what is really happening-don't proceed with only one account of the situation. Pay attention-use your eyes and ears-use situational awareness.
2) Try and understand from the dog's point of view what he may be seeing and use that in your favor. Information is strength. Try and reduce the stress the dog may be feeling and allow him to deescalate his responses to threats he perceives.
3) Remember the mantra of the military special units: IMPROVISE, ADAPT, OVERCOME. You probably don't have access to the perfect tools when you need them, but you do have access to the most important tool you can have-your brain. Use it.
4) Remember why you are there. Your assignment is probably not search and destroy. Your job is to contain the dog while keeping others safe. Look to handle the real problem. Remember you are there to drain the swamp.
5) Work with your Animal Control or shelter personnel. Your immediate job is containment and separation of the public and the dog. Let Animal Control deal with the capture. That is what they are trained to do, and they honestly probably do it better than you. Most Animal Control Officer are unarmed, so they have learned ways to take in far more difficult animals in more circumstances without resorting to deadly force. Let them do their jobs.

You may have noticed I changed the title of this to part 2 of 4 instead of 3. This has run longer than I expected, so I am going to break here. I'll be back-quicker this time-with Low Risk Encounters next time.