LA PLATA — Two English bulldogs that attacked a 17-year-old girl inside her family’s Charles County home were declared dangerous Oct. 21, a ruling that puts the dogs under strict county confinement and leash rules.
The Charles County Animal Matters Hearing Board voted unanimously on two citations, one for each dog. The board found the owner in violation of the county’s dangerous-animal law and its licensing law, and ordered six restrictions, known as abatements, that govern how the dogs must be confined, leashed, muzzled and identified.
The case is unusual because the people most at risk live with the dogs. The girl testified that she helped pick the dogs from their litter and has raised them for about two years. Animal control said she required stitches for a laceration that exposed fatty tissue.
The Southern Maryland Chronicle does not name minors who are victims of attacks. Because naming the dogs’ owner would identify the girl, the owner is also not named.
What happened Sept. 1
Charles County Animal Control Officer Myra Taimin testified that she responded at about 2:42 p.m. on Sept. 1 to a report of a 17-year-old bitten on the leg. She found the girl on the home’s back deck being treated by EMTs.
Taimin described an open wound about 4 inches long on the girl’s left leg, with fatty tissue exposed, and puncture wounds to her left hand, wrist and forearm and her right hand.
The girl told the board she was getting ready for cheer practice and walking down a hallway when the larger dog, a black merle male, began barking at her as if she were playing. She kept walking, she said, and the dog jumped up, bit her upper thigh and pulled her to the ground. The second dog, a gray merle male, joined in and bit her arm. The attack ended when she got outside.
Her father and sister were home but not in the house at the time, she said.
Taimin said the girl’s father told her that day that the larger dog had grown increasingly aggressive toward his two daughters over the previous month and had earlier bitten the girl’s sister on the foot. The father said the second dog becomes excited when the first one turns aggressive. Both dogs had been neutered a few days before the attack in hopes of calming them, and both were current on rabies shots. Animal control placed them in quarantine.
Taimin said she cited both dogs as dangerous because of the severity of the injuries, even though the attack happened inside the home to someone who lives there. “My concern is for the safety of other children and citizens in the community should these dogs get loose one day,” she told the board. She said she had spoken with the family about surrendering the larger dog, but the family wanted time to see whether neutering and training would change his behavior.
The family’s response
The girl said she believes the dog was playing and does not understand that biting hurts people. She said the dogs do not bite visitors, only her and her sister, and that the family is looking for a trainer. Her wound has closed, she said, and left a scar.
The owner, the girl’s mother, testified that these are the family’s fifth set of bulldogs but the first time they had two males from the same litter that were not neutered. She said the dogs play rough with each other and grew more aggressive as they matured, which is why the family had already scheduled the surgery.
Since the neutering, she said, the dogs are calmer and listen better. The family now separates them, keeps the larger dog crated when the girls are home alone, and uses gates inside the house. She said the family has met with one trainer, plans to talk with another, and bought training collars. The family lives on about 4 acres with a fenced back yard, she said, and the dogs ignore delivery drivers.
Dr. Michelle Quigley, a practicing veterinarian who sits on the board, said rough play between dogs is normal but that dogs need to learn how hard is too hard. She suggested the family also consider a veterinary behaviorist. Another board member called the wound significant.
The ruling and what it requires
For each dog, the board imposed a $50 fine for having no county license and a $250 fine under the dangerous-animal section of the county’s animal control law, Chapter 230. The $250 fines, $500 in all, are held in abeyance for 12 months, meaning they go away if neither dog comes back before the board in that time. The owner has 30 days to pay the $100 in licensing fines.
The board ordered six of the eight abatements the law allows. Under the county code, they require that:
- The dogs may not be tied to a tree, post or building outside an enclosure (E1).
- Outside their enclosure on the property, the dogs must be attended and restrained on a secure collar and leash (E3).
- “Dangerous dog” signs must be posted at the property and at each entrance to the confinement area (E4).
- Off the property, the dogs must be attended, on a leash no longer than 6 feet, and muzzled (E5).
- The dogs must be microchipped, with the numbers given to animal control (E7).
- Ownership cannot be transferred without the county’s written approval (E8).
The two abatements the board left out cover a locked outdoor pen and mandatory neutering. The owner told the board the dogs are already neutered, chipped and vaccinated, and that they live in the house and use a fenced back yard.
The law gives the board a wide range. Fines for a dangerous-animal finding can run from $50 to $1,000, and failing to follow the keeping requirements carries fines of $200 to $1,000. Repeat violations within 12 months are doubled.
What comes next
The Chronicle reported last week on another of the board’s rulings, in which it found a Cane Corso dangerous after an attack on a Maltese.
The board’s members include a Humane Society of Charles County representative, a sheriff’s office sergeant and a veterinarian. Its decisions are final but may be reviewed in court if an appeal is filed within 30 days under Maryland’s rules of procedure, according to the statement read at the start of the hearing.
Animal control will walk the owner through the abatements, the board said. If either dog is cited again within a year, the held fines can be imposed and the case returns to the board.
