| Who is telling the truth? |
| Kory Nelson, Assistant City Attorney or Paula Terifaj, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine: Who is telling the truth? |
Job well done Mr. Nelson! In 2004, Denver filed suit against the state of Colorado to secure its independence from state law —
which prohibits breed specific laws — bulldozing the court while boasting Home Rule privilege. Did Denver’s all out breed ban
deliver responsible effective legislation? Not if you are a dog owner of a breed you justified killing. Not if you had to move or
smuggle your dog outside of city limits to save its life. Not if police stormed onto your personal property to confiscate your beloved
pet, violating your rights under due process — remember the 14th amendment?
Your assertion that Denver had the legal right to inflict a discriminatory breed ban on its citizens has slapped the city with a civil
lawsuit. Yep — now Denver is back in court again and taxpayers will foot more legal bills as you continue your pit bull propaganda
from the sidelines. Kudos to The American Kennel Club (AKC) which has joined Karen R. Breslin of the Progressive Law Center,
LLC, of Lakewood, Colorado and the Washington D.C., office of Kaye Scholer, LLP. Together they are representing dog-owning
plaintiffs Sonya Dias and others who assert that the Denver ordinance banning pit bulls – their family pets — within the city limits
is unconstitutional.
Put another notch in your belt, but please don’t have us believe that Denver is now safe from dog attacks. It’s no surprise that
your skewed research — used to back up your claim that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dog breeds — ignores this
recent statistical study by the National Canine Research Council reporting: “Denver has not seen any appreciable difference in
the number or severity of dog attacks compared to cities without breed bans”.
Closer to home is the Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs — a Colorado group of animal care professionals that includes the
Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and the Colorado Association of Animal Control Officers reporting Why Breed Bans Are
Not a Solution.
Perhaps you might respect the opinion of the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) who made this statement:
“Although media reports and rumors often give the impression that certain breeds of dog are more likely to bite, there is little
scientific evidence to support those claims.” This prestigious organization of veterinarians offers valuable instruction on how to
prevent dog bites without reference to their breed.
Lastly, I refer you to a Special Report published in Vet Med Today: Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United
States between 1979 and 1998 referenced in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6,
September 15, 2000). In conclusion the researchers, credentialed MD’s, DVM’s and phD’s stated:
which prohibits breed specific laws — bulldozing the court while boasting Home Rule privilege. Did Denver’s all out breed ban
deliver responsible effective legislation? Not if you are a dog owner of a breed you justified killing. Not if you had to move or
smuggle your dog outside of city limits to save its life. Not if police stormed onto your personal property to confiscate your beloved
pet, violating your rights under due process — remember the 14th amendment?
Your assertion that Denver had the legal right to inflict a discriminatory breed ban on its citizens has slapped the city with a civil
lawsuit. Yep — now Denver is back in court again and taxpayers will foot more legal bills as you continue your pit bull propaganda
from the sidelines. Kudos to The American Kennel Club (AKC) which has joined Karen R. Breslin of the Progressive Law Center,
LLC, of Lakewood, Colorado and the Washington D.C., office of Kaye Scholer, LLP. Together they are representing dog-owning
plaintiffs Sonya Dias and others who assert that the Denver ordinance banning pit bulls – their family pets — within the city limits
is unconstitutional.
Put another notch in your belt, but please don’t have us believe that Denver is now safe from dog attacks. It’s no surprise that
your skewed research — used to back up your claim that pit bulls are more dangerous than other dog breeds — ignores this
recent statistical study by the National Canine Research Council reporting: “Denver has not seen any appreciable difference in
the number or severity of dog attacks compared to cities without breed bans”.
Closer to home is the Coalition for Living Safely with Dogs — a Colorado group of animal care professionals that includes the
Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and the Colorado Association of Animal Control Officers reporting Why Breed Bans Are
Not a Solution.
Perhaps you might respect the opinion of the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) who made this statement:
“Although media reports and rumors often give the impression that certain breeds of dog are more likely to bite, there is little
scientific evidence to support those claims.” This prestigious organization of veterinarians offers valuable instruction on how to
prevent dog bites without reference to their breed.
Lastly, I refer you to a Special Report published in Vet Med Today: Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United
States between 1979 and 1998 referenced in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6,
September 15, 2000). In conclusion the researchers, credentialed MD’s, DVM’s and phD’s stated:
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for your comments regarding Denver’s pit bull ordinance. However, you apparently wrongfully assumed that I have
some authority in the areas of the administration of Denver’s pit bull ordinance or the legislative decision to enact it or maintain it.
This is not true. I am not involved in the day-to-day operation of the Denver Animal Care & Control Agency, and have no
authority over the application of Denver’s pit bull ordinance. My involvement, as one attorney amongst dozens for the City &
County of Denver, was limited to being assigned to litigate a matter involving home rule legal issues in the confines of the
Colorado Constitution during the 2004-2005 timeframe, which happened to involve Denver’s pit bull ordinance. That ordinance
was originally upheld as constitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1991, and that ruling was reconfirmed with consideration
of the latest scientific evidence by the Denver District Court in 2005. That litigation with the State of Colorado has been
completed, and the American Canine Foundation’s attempt to appeal the final determination to the Colorado Supreme Court was
rejected on January 2nd, 2007. So my involvement in that matter has been concluded.
If you are interested in learning more about Denver’s home rule litigation, the scientific evidence regarding pit bulls, and the legal
basis for breed specific legislation, I can recommend the following materials:
Even recently in the Denver metro-area, evidence of the dangers of these tenacious dogs can be seen clearly. A Fort Collins
woman and her bichon frise dog are recovering after being bit by a pit bull Wednesday at an office park. Pit-Bull Attack Caught
On Camera; Woman, Dog Recovering From Attack POSTED: 10:52 am MDT April 11, 2009. http://www.thedenverchannel.
com/news/19156367/detail.html
You may like to read a story the typifies the under-reported incidents of real animal cruelty involving pit bulls, such as this story of
8/9/2006 out of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia Canada: Dog Owner Traumatized by Pit Bull Attack <http://web.bcnewsgroup.
com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=74&cat=23&id=&more=> .
Finally, you may be interested in seeing the human side of the equation in the excellent series of articles regarding Nick Foley
published in the Chicago Tribune on August 13-15, 2006. Open wounds: The tattered lives of a pit bull rampage | Chicago
Tribune <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-gu12bm9bk.269aug13,0,3828721.story?page=6> The failure of the pit
bulls’ owner to have adequate home owner’s insurance coverage to pay Nick’s medical bills point of the reality that irresponsible
pit bull owners who are “judgment proof” can not make their victims whole.
As my job duties no longer involve this area of litigation that is now completed, the pressing demands of my current job duties do
not allow me the opportunity to engage in extended conversations or debates over these issues, so this will be the full extent of
my response. Thank you again for your interest. Have a great day!
Kory A. Nelson
Assistant City Attorney - Senior
Prosecution and Code Enforcement (PACE) Section
Denver City Attorney's Office
Thank you for your comments regarding Denver’s pit bull ordinance. However, you apparently wrongfully assumed that I have
some authority in the areas of the administration of Denver’s pit bull ordinance or the legislative decision to enact it or maintain it.
This is not true. I am not involved in the day-to-day operation of the Denver Animal Care & Control Agency, and have no
authority over the application of Denver’s pit bull ordinance. My involvement, as one attorney amongst dozens for the City &
County of Denver, was limited to being assigned to litigate a matter involving home rule legal issues in the confines of the
Colorado Constitution during the 2004-2005 timeframe, which happened to involve Denver’s pit bull ordinance. That ordinance
was originally upheld as constitutional by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1991, and that ruling was reconfirmed with consideration
of the latest scientific evidence by the Denver District Court in 2005. That litigation with the State of Colorado has been
completed, and the American Canine Foundation’s attempt to appeal the final determination to the Colorado Supreme Court was
rejected on January 2nd, 2007. So my involvement in that matter has been concluded.
If you are interested in learning more about Denver’s home rule litigation, the scientific evidence regarding pit bulls, and the legal
basis for breed specific legislation, I can recommend the following materials:
- "One City’s Experience: Why Pit Bulls are More Dangerous & Breed Specific Legislation is Justified", Kory A. Nelson, Esq.,
Municipal Lawyer, July/August 2005. - “Pit Bull Case Report Nurture Review”, Steven F. Vegas, M.D., Jason H. Calhoun, M.D., M. Eng., John Mader, M.D., Texas
Medicine Vol. 84, November 1988. [This is clearly one of the most important scholarly articles on the topic of the rational
basis for differential treatment of pit bulls. This is the first known medical review article that reviews the differences in the
pathology of injuries inflicted upon victims of pit bull attacks as compared to other breeds. The photographs are extremely
graphic and shocking. The authors, all medical doctors, analogize injuries caused by pit bull attacks with injuries caused by
shark attacks.] - “Pitbull Maulings Deaths in Detroit” , Cheryl L. Loewe, MD, Francisco J. Diaz, MD, and John Bechinski DO, The American
Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Vol. 28, No. 4, December 2007. [This is the latest scientific article that reviews
the pathology of injuries inflicted upon human victims of pit bull attacks. WARNING: The photographs are EXTREMELY
GRAPHIC, and show scenes only available through autopsy examinations, including photos of injuries on corpses of young
children. - The History of the Pit Bull, excerpts from ”Pit Bulls for Dummies” D. Caroline Coile, Ph.D., Wiley Publishing Co., 2001, ISBN:
0764552910. - Pit bull Dogs- Invited testimony, Alan M. Beck, Sc.D., Professor and Director Center for the Human-Animal Bond, School of
Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University. February 3, 2005. [This report was submitted to the Canadian courts in the
Cochrane case there]. - Dogsbite.org – This website is the only objective website on the topic, as it is not operated by a pit bull owner, pit bull
breeder, or an organization with a financial interest in the topic, but by a victim of a pit bull attack. The most up-to-date
record of pit bull attacks are available here.
Even recently in the Denver metro-area, evidence of the dangers of these tenacious dogs can be seen clearly. A Fort Collins
woman and her bichon frise dog are recovering after being bit by a pit bull Wednesday at an office park. Pit-Bull Attack Caught
On Camera; Woman, Dog Recovering From Attack POSTED: 10:52 am MDT April 11, 2009. http://www.thedenverchannel.
com/news/19156367/detail.html
You may like to read a story the typifies the under-reported incidents of real animal cruelty involving pit bulls, such as this story of
8/9/2006 out of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia Canada: Dog Owner Traumatized by Pit Bull Attack <http://web.bcnewsgroup.
com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=74&cat=23&id=&more=> .
Finally, you may be interested in seeing the human side of the equation in the excellent series of articles regarding Nick Foley
published in the Chicago Tribune on August 13-15, 2006. Open wounds: The tattered lives of a pit bull rampage | Chicago
Tribune <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-gu12bm9bk.269aug13,0,3828721.story?page=6> The failure of the pit
bulls’ owner to have adequate home owner’s insurance coverage to pay Nick’s medical bills point of the reality that irresponsible
pit bull owners who are “judgment proof” can not make their victims whole.
As my job duties no longer involve this area of litigation that is now completed, the pressing demands of my current job duties do
not allow me the opportunity to engage in extended conversations or debates over these issues, so this will be the full extent of
my response. Thank you again for your interest. Have a great day!
Kory A. Nelson
Assistant City Attorney - Senior
Prosecution and Code Enforcement (PACE) Section
Denver City Attorney's Office
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| xyz |
| xyz |
“Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and
Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in
determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional
and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical
alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”
Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in
determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional
and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,
therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical
alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.”
Any dog can bite and cause serious injuries — did we not learn that by third grade? Why single out pit bull-type dogs —to
include any dog that may be crossed with one of three named dog breeds? A crossbred is difficult to identify even by veterinary
standards. Technically, a crossbred is referred to as a mongrel or fondly “a mutt” by the general populace and even President
Obama. Based on the vagueness of Section 8-55 of Denver’s Municipal Code and the physical description of dogs that have
been killed under its sanction, it can be estimated that 25% of the general dog population is at risk.
Strangely, you neglect pointing your finger at any other dog breed —notably German Shepherds, the breed you own. In your
research did you not uncover the fact that German Shepherds have been cited in fatal dog attacks along with Rottweilers,
Malamutes, Doberman Pinschers, Chow Chows, Great Danes and Saint Bernards? Do you advise banning these breeds next?
For every sour news story you dig up, I can present heroic accounts of “killer” breeds protecting humans from assault crimes,
saving lives in search and rescue missions, and comforting the elderly and sick as therapy dogs. The idea that you would have
everyone believe that a breed of dog is inherently dangerous, when most have proven to be devoted companions, shows a
disturbing witch-hunt mentality. As any respected animal behaviorist would testify, you are simply prosecuting the wrong end of
the leash.
Every day I am blessed by the devoted companionship of two such dogs that Denver has singled out for extermination: Rover Girl
and Brad Pitt. It sickens me that you believe and want others to believe that my dogs — and thousands more — should all be
gassed. But then again, millions of people once suffered under the dictatorship of a madman in Germany. How tragic that this
type of lethal discrimination – now aimed at dogs – has been and still is your agenda.
For me and many others, it has been a welcomed relief to find that you have been replaced as the city attorney and that your
new job duties under Prosecution and Code Enforcement (PACE) Section include the prosecution of municipal ordinance matters
such as traffic and arraignment, domestic violence cases, nuisance abatement, juvenile matters, and drug and alcohol
commitments.
Perhaps now that you have an opportunity to inflict punishment on the real problem-makers in society, you can stop people from
harming other people and accomplish something positive with your law degree. Otherwise, your legacy will be the bloodshed of
innocent family dogs murdered by the fearful ignorance of a city council and your failure of duty to discern fact from opinion.
Your strongly held convictions may successfully convince warm bodies occupying seats at city council meetings and those people
that fail to visit libraries. To the educated, you have shamefully twisted the truth and violated rights guaranteed by Constitutional
amendments for your personal gain. I trust that America – our proud Statue of Liberty - will rise again to the challenge of
defending our civil liberties.
Paula Terifaj, DVM
PS: Here is a book sadly missing from your bookcase: The Pit Bull Placebo by researcher Karen Delise, a noted expert on dog
attacks, explains why breed bans do not protect the public.
include any dog that may be crossed with one of three named dog breeds? A crossbred is difficult to identify even by veterinary
standards. Technically, a crossbred is referred to as a mongrel or fondly “a mutt” by the general populace and even President
Obama. Based on the vagueness of Section 8-55 of Denver’s Municipal Code and the physical description of dogs that have
been killed under its sanction, it can be estimated that 25% of the general dog population is at risk.
Strangely, you neglect pointing your finger at any other dog breed —notably German Shepherds, the breed you own. In your
research did you not uncover the fact that German Shepherds have been cited in fatal dog attacks along with Rottweilers,
Malamutes, Doberman Pinschers, Chow Chows, Great Danes and Saint Bernards? Do you advise banning these breeds next?
For every sour news story you dig up, I can present heroic accounts of “killer” breeds protecting humans from assault crimes,
saving lives in search and rescue missions, and comforting the elderly and sick as therapy dogs. The idea that you would have
everyone believe that a breed of dog is inherently dangerous, when most have proven to be devoted companions, shows a
disturbing witch-hunt mentality. As any respected animal behaviorist would testify, you are simply prosecuting the wrong end of
the leash.
Every day I am blessed by the devoted companionship of two such dogs that Denver has singled out for extermination: Rover Girl
and Brad Pitt. It sickens me that you believe and want others to believe that my dogs — and thousands more — should all be
gassed. But then again, millions of people once suffered under the dictatorship of a madman in Germany. How tragic that this
type of lethal discrimination – now aimed at dogs – has been and still is your agenda.
For me and many others, it has been a welcomed relief to find that you have been replaced as the city attorney and that your
new job duties under Prosecution and Code Enforcement (PACE) Section include the prosecution of municipal ordinance matters
such as traffic and arraignment, domestic violence cases, nuisance abatement, juvenile matters, and drug and alcohol
commitments.
Perhaps now that you have an opportunity to inflict punishment on the real problem-makers in society, you can stop people from
harming other people and accomplish something positive with your law degree. Otherwise, your legacy will be the bloodshed of
innocent family dogs murdered by the fearful ignorance of a city council and your failure of duty to discern fact from opinion.
Your strongly held convictions may successfully convince warm bodies occupying seats at city council meetings and those people
that fail to visit libraries. To the educated, you have shamefully twisted the truth and violated rights guaranteed by Constitutional
amendments for your personal gain. I trust that America – our proud Statue of Liberty - will rise again to the challenge of
defending our civil liberties.
Paula Terifaj, DVM
PS: Here is a book sadly missing from your bookcase: The Pit Bull Placebo by researcher Karen Delise, a noted expert on dog
attacks, explains why breed bans do not protect the public.