Legislation was dealt a savage blow last week in an historic victory
  for American campaigners when the Supreme Court in Alabama ruled
  that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more
  dangerous than another, simply because of its breed.

  Around the world, anti-BSL campaigners are rejoicing at the ruling
  that drew on evidence provided by genuine canine experts, which was
  favoured by the judges over subjective evidence, put forward by
  veterinarians and politicians. The court ruling and the evidence
  used may now be legitimately used to fight BSL in other countries
  such as Germany and Australia, as well as other US States. In the
  UK, the Dangerous Dogs Act could possibly be open to a direct legal
  challenge in the same way.

  The action in Alabama was brought by the Washington Animal
  Foundation (WAF) against the city of Huntsville, which had claimed
  that American Pit Bull Terriers were `genetically dangerous'. The
  case centred on four Pit Bulls held in an animal shelter and adopted
  by three local women.

  The dogs were survivors of a group of over 50 Pit Bulls seized in a
  raid on a dog-fighting ring in April 2000. Half of the dogs died
  from injuries or disease, whilst the reminder -including four
  puppies - were held at the City pound and put up for adoption.
  Shelia Tack, an emergency room nurse at Crestwood Hospital, adopted
  two of the puppies that she named Justice and Elizabeth. Whilst they
  remained impounded, she visited them twice a week. The other
  puppies, David and Nellie, were adopted by Kay Nagel, a military
  officer's wife and resident of Redstone Arsenal, and Loyce Fisher, a
  civil service worker from Cullman. However, the City Council refused
  to release the dogs, stating that they were a potential danger to
  human beings, although none had apparently displayed any aggression.

  The matter was referred to court for a legal decision on the dogs'
  fate. During a hearing last year, lawyers representing the city,
  Michael Fees and Greg Burgess, told Madison County Circuit Judge Joe
  Battle the animals were vicious and should not be rehomed. The
  Women, who did not have a lawyer, argued the animals were never
  trained to fight and conditioning can suppress any vicious
  tendencies the dogs might have.
  Judge Battle agreed and on Nov 13 2001, declared the four young Pit
  Bulls were not dangerous because they were never trained to fight.
  The court allowed the city to destroy 21 adult Pit Bulls which had
  been used for fighting. However, the City appealed Battle's ruling
  to the Alabama Supreme Court and asked the court for an order
  preventing the women from taking custody of the dogs.

  At this point, Seattle-based WAF became involved in the case and
  appointed Huntsville lawyer Mike Seibert to fight their case, based
  on evidence they gathered to counter the City lawyer's claims that
  all Pit Bulls were `genetically dangerous'.


  The foundation hired veterinarian Dr. Alan Jones of Hazel Green to
  examine the dogs. But the officers at the shelter do not allow
  anyone to have physical contact with the pit bulls, even vet
  Jones. "They looked fat and happy," he said. "They seemed starved
  for attention and not aggressive at all" Glen Bui, spokesman for WAF
  told a local newspaper that the dogs should be released. "I believe
  that the City of Huntsville is wasting thousands of taxpayers'
  dollars attempting to destroy innocent dogs that were already given
  by the circuit court to the three women,' he said.

  WAF filed an Amicus (third party) submitting genetic proof that Pit
  Bulls are not dangerous. The city of Huntsville were backed by the
  extremist animal rights organisation PETA that Pit Bulls were
  genetically dangerous, with evidence provided by veterinarians, none
  of whom was an expert in any specific canine or genetical field.

  WAF cited case laws under Due Process of the law, and stated that it
  was unconstitutional to rule a specific breed of dog as `dangerous'
  in this way. They also claimed it was `genocide' to try to eradicate
  the Pit Bull breed.


  WAF submitted evidence to the Supreme Court that they were able to
  provide:

  Identification of expert treatises regarding the genetics of the
  breed in question
  Testing and studies regarding genetics verses environment as the
  catalyst for a specific dog breed's aggression
  Social contributions made by the American Pit Bull Terrier (i.e. as
  Assistance Dogs, Search and Rescue Dogs etc.)
  The associations brief assisted the court as it had substantial
  knowledge concerning the issue before the court
  The briefs filed by the City were insufficient to adequately address
  the far reaching issues involving genetic breed bias
  The Foundation read all briefs and believed that innocent pet owners
  and innocent pets were not represented by either brief.
  WAF co-founder Glen Bui told OUR DOGS this week: "The court granted
  WAF's petition and allowed us 7 days to file amicus curiae. Myself
  along with Attorney Mike Seibert worked on the amicus long hours
  into the night, while WAF members Kay Nagel and Sheila Tack
  proofread and added input. It was finished with less than one hour
  before the deadline to file and Shelia raced to the US post office
  and sent it certified mail.
  "Huntsville's entire case rested on affidavits from veterinarians
  claiming they examined the four Pit Bull pups and that were would
  pose a danger to the community because Pit Bulls are genetically
  dangerous. They also claimed the women had no legal right to adopt
  the pups, this was also addressed in the amicus brief."

  On Friday, August 30, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in WAF's favour
  and ordered that the dogs should be released for adoption, accepting
  the evidence but forward by WAF that no breed of dog is genetically
  dangerous.

  "This is fantastic news," said Bui. "The city could appeal against
  the ruling, but I'd like to think they'll give way and release the
  dogs to their new owners so that they can enjoy a good life. Two of
  them will be trained as Search and Rescue Dogs; the other two will
  become pets. The Pit Bulls have been evaluated and temperament
  tested before they are released, they are being spayed and neutered.
  The city did tell the media that the dogs would be released, so
  let's hope they keep their word."

  Bui also told OUR DOGS this week: "For years the American Pit Bull
  Terrier has been alleged to be dangerous because of its genetics.
  Never has WAF found any genetic research proving
  that. When we were asked by three Huntsville women for help, they
  told us nobody else would help them, they had contacted everyone who
  fights BSL. We knew the women had to face the Supreme Court and this
  was a very serious case. We knew we had the genetic proof that no
  breed of dog is dangerous.

  "We knew we also had statistics which proved the APBT has one of the
  best temperaments out of 185 dog breeds along with a strong legal
  defence. Being aware that never in the past had anyone ever argued
  the point, after contemplating the outcome if the women lost, I
  decided to bring WAF into the case, on the last day before the
  deadline for filing briefs in the Supreme Court WAF petitioned for
  Amicus Curiae.

  "This case set a standard for future cases concerning BSL and
  genetics. We put several years of research into genetics and due
  process. We will use the statistics in Ohio; we have received
  assistance from state agencies in Ohio to investigate the Lucas
  County Dog Warden rulings on BSL in that State, as Ohio is totally
  BSL-controlled. Dog owners in Ohio really could use support right
  now. "It was a long battle and now we have proved the American Pit
  Bull terrier is not genetically dangerous."