Bad News: Charlie the AmStaff Could Be Euthanized as Early as New Year's Day

San Francisco refuses a rehab proposal for the dog who bit a police horse. David Gizzarelli, Charlie's owner, is fighting to save his beloved pet's life.

It's the end of the year -- but apparently not the end of stereotypes against certain breeds of dogs. The San Francisco City Attorney's Office is refusing the save the life of Charlie, the American Staffordshire Terrier who was sentenced to death after attacking a U.S. Park Service police horse in August. That means Charlie, who had no previous incidents of aggression, could be euthanized any time after New Year's Day.

AmStaffs, as they're known, resemble Pit Bulls, and we'd really hoped that the year after the death of Lennox -- a dog put to death in Northern Ireland only because he looked like a Pit Bull -- would bring a change in government's inability to look beyond breeds and to the individual dogs in question.

On Dec. 27, Deputy City Attorney Margaret Baumgartner rejected an offer from Charlie's owner, David Gizzarelli, to remove Charlie to his Los Gatos home and rehabilitate, train, and practice extreme caution with him. Baumgartner offered no specifics.

"The city will not return Charlie to Mr. Gizzarelli as it does not believe that there are any restrictions that would adequately protect the public safety," she wrote.

Baumgartner and all other city officials have refused for weeks to respond to media questions about the case. The rejection means that Charlie's life can be taken as early as Jan. 1. Gizzarelli and his attorney, John Mounier, will appeal the ruling at a hearing tentatively set for today. 

The case against Charlie is riddled with problems. San Francisco euthanizes only about 10 dogs a year, most of whom have a long history of aggression or have killed another dog or seriously injured a human. None of those standards applies to Charlie, who was 18 months old at the time of the attack, had no history of aggression, and had never seen a horse before. 

In addition, evidence suggests that U.S. Park Police Officer Eric Evans, who was riding Stoney the horse, misrepresented and exaggerated numerous facts during a hearing on the incident. And despite the weak and insufficient evidence submitted against Charlie, San Francisco Police Officer John Denny ordered Charlie's euthanasia without considering any options for restrictions such as "red tagging" the dog, a common requirement in San Francisco that would have required Gizzarelli to place a visible tag on Charlie and post warnings on his home. In addition, Charlie would be required to be leashed and muzzled in public for three years. 

According to Mounier, it is also problematic that Denny investigated the case, presided over the hearing, and ordered Charlie’s death.

“He’s wearing two hats in this case,” Mounier told the San Francisco Examiner. “In every other aspect of society, that’s wrong.” 

Unofficially, the city and county of San Francisco has offered to spare Charlie’s life if Gizzarelli agrees to give up ownership of his dog and pay for his rehabilitation. Charlie now requires behavioral rehab because he has been confined to a small kennel since Aug. 23, surrounded by kennels containing truly vicious dogs. But the city has offered no specific reasons for confiscating Charlie.

Gizzarelli has no history of mishandling or mistreating his pet. He has acknowledged his responsibility for the Aug. 6 attack and agreed to pay the $1,200 veterinary bill.  

The city has not only refused to explain its unprecedented harsh stance against Gizzarelli, but it has also launched a whispering campaign to besmirch his reputation. The city attorney’s office released documents to  reporters outlining an argument Gizzarelli had with his stepfather in July that resulted in mutual threats of violence. Gizzarelli was arrested, but no charges were filed. 

In addition, there are questions about an Animal Care and Control report that claims Charlie showed aggression toward an employee in July, the month before the attack. The report is extremely irregular in that it states in capital letters that Gizzarelli was not to be told of the incident.

If the city failed to warn Gizzarelli about the alleged aggressive behavior, they denied him the opportunity to exercise caution with Charlie -- and then the city might be responsible, to some degree, for the attack on Stoney. 

Gizzarelli said the city’s proceedings against Charlie have been unfairly biased.

“ACC and the city of San Francisco stack the deck against Charlie and any other dog or guardian they take a disliking to,” he wrote in a letter to Mayor Ed Lee and ACC Director Rebecca Katz. “The system is rigged and does not offer a fair and impartial chance to a dog or to a guardian.”

More than 109,000 people have  signed a petition calling for Charlie's life to be spared. Follow the Help Save Charlie Facebook page for up-to-date information; we hope to report back with good news for Charlie and Gizzarelli.

View the original article here

Terrible: Death Sentence Upheld for Charlie the AmStaff

The San Francisco dog attacked a police horse but had no history of violence. His appeal is rejected.

A San Francisco court has upheld a dog's death sentence, and we believe it's wrong. An American Staffordshire Terrier named Charlie had been sentenced to die because he attacked a mounted patrol horse named Stoney during the summer. The attack left Stoney with injuries to his leg and belly.

Still, Charlie had no history of aggression, and his owner promised to comply with any conditions the court put forth. But on Wednesday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Robertson II denied a writ that was filed by Charlie's owner, David Gizzarelli. That writ had triggered an automatic stay, giving Gizzarelli an opportunity to appeal the decision to put Charlie down.

The San Francisco City Attorney's Office, which represents San Francisco Animal Care and Control, is arguing for Charlie's immediate euthanasia, claiming his aggression is beyond reasonable intervention because of the Aug. 6 attack.

Gizzarelli says he and Charlie were in an off-leash area of Crissy Field and that his dog had never seen a horse before. He insists that Charlie had an unfortunate but typical reaction to charge and bark at Stoney, and he says it was a one-time mistake that could be easily corrected if the judge had given Charlie a chance.

At the time of the attack, Charlie was 18 months old and had no history of aggression. Most dog behaviorists contend that dogs, which are predators by nature, will have an aggressive reaction the first time they're confronted with prey animals such as cows, horses, and deer. This reaction, according to behaviorists, is common and quite within the boundaries of rehabilitation.

What has not been examined and certainly not explained by City Attorney Dennis Herrera is whether the U.S. Park Service had properly trained Stoney and whether Park Service Officer Eric Evan, who was riding Stoney at the time, had any experience in responding to the likelihood of a charge by a young dog such as Charlie.

What is certain is that Stoney, who was a retired thoroughbred racehorse, did not react in the way a trained police horse should have. A trained police horse would have stood its ground until the dog had exhausted its initial, excited reaction. This is a fact well known by the San Francisco Police Mounted Patrol, which has encountered similar situations in which dogs become excited by the presence of a horse.

But Stoney reacted by throwing her rider and fleeing, which further excited the dog to chase her. Park officials must admit Stoney's reaction could not have been unexpected given that racehorses are given to skittish behavior. The incident further raises the question of whether the U.S. Park Service selects patrol horses based on their policing skills or for their public relations showmanship.

There are other unanswered questions such as why Charlie was initially declared "not aggressive" by Animal Control Officer John Denny, who days later reversed his opinion and ordered the dog's death. The flip-flop suggests political influence, which might be easy to expose given the controversial political stance of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area against dogs. In January, U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier chastised the National Park Service after a park ranger was promoted after wrongfully Tasering a dog owner. Furthermore, the GGNRA has been criticized for moving to reduce the number of park areas that allow dogs.

All too often government officials order the euthanasia of dogs to expedite their own political agenda. If that is the case with Charlie, government officials could be facing a tremendous backlash. For example, more than 90,000 people have signed a petition calling for a second chance for Charlie, and many of them have contributed money to hire an attorney to represent Gizzarelli in his quest to save his beloved dog. If the city attorney's office is not absolutely sure of its argument, it could harm the ability of the city to protect residents from real threats.

To follow Charlie's case, follow the Help Save Charlie Facebook page. Look for follow-up stories in Dogster.

View the original article here