Thanks for the comment. Readers interested in reading Kevin Dunne's letter can follow the link below. He is the attorney for the Solesky family who is at the center of legislation. The court case revolved around their son being mauled by a pit bull.

http://patch.com/A-wN7K

Annapolis Resident, major organizations and departments have tried to do studies. Unfortunately, this form of research has been found to be highly improbable because many bites go unreported and exact breeds involved is almost always unknown.

The only data that could be verified is that, ~when~ a bite occurs, dogs like the American Pit Bull Terrier and Rottweiler tend to cause deadlier wounds. However, that does not mean either breed is more likely to bite or more responsible for reported dog bites. For more information, please check out the following studies:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf
https://www.avma.org/News/Journals/Collections/Documents/javma_217_6_836.pdf
http://www.fairdog.dk/elements/documents/research/comparison-of-golden-retrievers-and-bslbreeds.pdf

Thanks, Brook.

That all sounds well and good, if statistics actually meant anything. For one, pit bulls are a group of dogs based on appearance, not breed. Already you have an inflated number. Second, a lot of pit bull type dogs are being owned. When a certain type of dog is owned in high numbers, the more things you are going to hear about. To show this in another way, take car insurance for instance. Insurance companies keep record of makes and models of cars and the accidents they are in. If you, say, own a red Camry, and red Camrys have just so happened to be in more accidents, you are going to be charged more. It doesn't matter that you're a responsible driver and are likely not going to get into an accident with your Camry. It's going off of these raw statistics. Now, the statistics don't show that many of those accidents were caused by speeding, texting, etc, all things that could have been prevented. All of those things are human error, but the car is seen as being more dangerous just because it so happened to be red Camrys involved. Now, apply that to pit bulls. They are owned in large numbers, many people are being irresponsible with them, abusing/neglecting them, or fighting them. These things don't show in those raw numbers, and same as the red Camry, it doesn't mean these dogs are more dangerous. If anything is dangerous, it's passing laws over statistics that don't show the whole picture. And it's not fair to responsible owners and innocent dogs to suffer because of it.

I hope everyone reads Kevin Dunne's letter and recognizes the central note of garbage it hides. Dunne essentially states that his primary concern is getting damages covered, regardless of whether those damages are paid by the responsible parties, or by someone else. For all his moral bankruptcy, I appreciate the candor with which he makes his abhorrent point.

It is like saying, "I don't care if some poor schlep in Iceland has to pay for the victim's medical bills, so long as the victim is compensated." This is advocating for the CREATION of yet a new victim, not the just punishment of the guilty.

Sue the guilty, sue the innocent, I don't care just make sure my clients and I get paid!!! Utterly disgusting. Any value in his letter is more than compensated by this complete abdication of morality.

I agree with Mike. He called the landlord "self-serving". He needs to look in the mirror.

Excuse me? It's about pit bull owners not wanting to accept responsibility? No, what this is about is people being threatened with EVICTION because of the type of dog that they own. It doesn't matter how safe they believe their dog to be, or the fact that their dog has never done anything, they don't have a say in the matter. The other problem is the fact that there is different language in the bite law when it comes to pit bulls, when many other dogs can just as easily kill and mutilate. It's discrimination, plain and simple. And no, people should care. If you are a responsible dog owner, you should get the same treatment as everyone else, regardless of what you dog looks like. And FYI, no dog, of any breed, is 100% safe.

Oh, and btw, most dogs in shelters are pit bulls because of the sheer over breeding and the fact that adoptions are low. This law also sharply increased the number of pit bulls in shelters, and also severely dropped adoption rates. Their numbers in shelters have nothing to do with their 'dangerousness'.

And are you really that ignorant to believe that irresponsible owners of pit bulls won't simply be irresponsible with another breed when they can no longer own a pit bull? That just basic logic. Irresponsible is irresponsible. You are still going to have the same problems. The difference is, innocent families and dogs will have already suffered. That can't be undone.

I thought it was against the law to discriminate against specific pets? Is the next rulings by the courts going to discriminate against the types of children allowed? No mexicans, no blacks, no muslims, no mentally ill children? Discrimination is discrimination and I hope the house sees this come debate time and amends the law to force ALL renters and homeowners to have liability insurance added to their renter's policies. Parents are responsible for their minor children - why not their pets?

Actually, the reasons why there are more pit bull breeds in shelters are (1) there are more of these dogs than other dogs in the general population so their proportion to the overall adoptable population in shelters is higher, (2) they have a bad reputation, and (3) because of this reputation, people are reticent to adopting bull breeds so there are more of them left behind in shelters. This is why there are more bulls in shelters than other dogs. Remember, all dogs in shelters are adoptable. Shelters go through many checks and highlight the temperament of the dog. If a dog is deemed not adoptable, they are euthanized. So all the dogs you see in shelters are ready to go home with the right family.

Sorry, let me clarify. Pit bulls are not the most common in the U.S., they are just very common in this area. They are, however, left behind at shelters at a higher rate which accounts for their larger numbers in shelters.

(My original post has been Pending Approval for 12 hours now)

"Anybody that checks stats knows pit bulls bite more often..."

That is false, though. As I mentioned in the studies above, there is no conclusive evidence that American Pit Bull Terriers or any mix of that breed is more likely to bite humans. In fact, according to the United Kennel Club, "Pit Bulls" are bred specifically to be friendly and loyal to humans and aggression toward them is considered uncharacteristic.

As noted above, the only conclusive study showed that bites from "Pit Bulls" and Rottweilers was more likely to result in a fatality. No evidence showed that these breeds (or mixes of them) were more likely to bite, only that (when they did) they were more deadly.

I see you spent 20 minutes researching your first claim that pit bull related injuries were the highest because there were more of them and found out your dead wrong about that too. Pit bull populations are way down the list...think labs have been the #1 breed for over a decade, but still pit bulls (according to the CDC) have the highest rate of injury related attacks usually on children, vs. the lab which doesn't even make the list.

Brook: Usually hitting F5 on the screen after it updated with your pending message clears that out. Or logging out/relogging in.

"..pit bulls (according to the CDC) have the highest rate of injury related attacks usually on children"

Please show me where in the CDC study it states that? The only mention of children is a line that states that 70% of the total dog bite fatalities in 1997-1998 were children (no mention of Pit Bulls) and that children are more likely to interact with unsupervised dogs when municipalities outlaw fencing or restrict fence heights.

There is nothing in any study that says that Pit Bulls are more likely to kill children or that the 17 child deaths in that study year were majority caused by Pit Bulls.

I don't believe that Pit Bulls necessarily bite more often than other dog breeds - it ALL comes down to the owners! Unfortunately, they are quite often owned by horrible, irresponsible people who don't give a rat's a** about their dog's welfare and actually encourage them to be aggressive! I work at a Vet Hospital and we have LOADS of pit bulls / pit mixes as patients. They are, every single one of them, extremely lovely and charming dogs who are super loyal to their (nice) owners. We don't have any problems with them at all - they don't even need muzzling like some other dogs do!! I personally distrust German Shepherds a lot more...
Please do NOT condemn dogs just based on bad reputation!!!!

My family went to a local shelter in Virginia and chose to adopt a Shepard/Pit Bull mix almost 20 years ago. He was the most pleasant mannered, sweetest, friendly animal I have ever been around. He lived for almost 14 years in our home as a member of our family. My wife does daycare and "Gilbert" was her daycare mascot. He was wonderful with children and their parents alike. It all comes down to how the animal is trained (and treated) when they are young. Even at 120 lbs, when standing on his hind legs stood 6 foot, all that met him were enamored with his demeanor.

Karl Schaub said: "Anybody that checks stats knows pit bulls bite more often..."

I just went over a study by the ATTS which suggests just the opposite. It suggests pit bulls are somewhere between typical and appreciably less likely to bite than the "average" breed or mix.

http://einhorninsurance.com/california-insurance/pit-bulls-pass-atts-temperament-test/

What I think is significant about "pit bull" breeds and mixes is the increased severity of damage they are able to inflict if they do bite. While you mentioned this, correctly I believe, your first claim about the certainty of probability of biting appears to be completely incorrect.

As for your statement advocating that the LAW "limit ownership," I suspect you are incorrect there as well. Dogfighting is almost certainly illegal nearly everywhere, yet whom does that stop? Only the law-abiding. Somehow, I don't think restrictions on possession of pit bulls will change anything more than restrictions on possession of drugs.

The law-abiding who care well for their pit bulls will surrender them, or avoid them in the first place. The scumbags will continue as they do today. Your law will only punish the innocent, and euthanize a lot of pit bulls rendered un-adoptable to the law-abiding.

Excellent post Karl. I volunteer with a multibreed rescue. We no longer accept/place pits, because we learned the hard way. The only puppies we placed that matured to kill their good friends/housemate dogs were tragic pit puppies. They simply couldn't help themselves. They simply did what they were created to do: kill other dogs. They only dogs who tried to kill the foster family resident dogs were pits, pits who we introduced slowly, and played well with others right up to the time they began killing the foster home's dog. So we are taking fewer large mixed breeds, because MOST have pit heritage, it seems. That's because most pits are not spayed/neutered.

Tragically pit mongers do not care about pit welfare. They tell use every time they post that they only care about themselves, their egos, their ability to breed and own pits. The disproportionate suffering and deaths both caused by and suffered by pits is perfectly acceptable to them. This cannot be stressed enough. They care only about themselves. You will notice they do not offer any solutions.

Most pits are not spayed/neutered. That's because pit welfare is not of importance to most pit owners, since their pits are weapons, objects for power and aggression. Our suggestion for Mandatory spay/neuter is rejected by pit mongers. The result: pits breeding and dying like flies. They fill our pounds and die by the ton, from coast to coast. You will find this is all perfectly acceptable to the pit mongers.

I've adopted two pit bulls type dogs from shelters. I have a master's degree. I own my business and a home in Montgomery County. I'm a pretty responsible person, and my dogs are very nice dogs.

First, the reason you "see" mostly pit bulls in shelters is because "pit bull type dogs" are actually a mix of up to 10 different breeds. DNA tests have proven that in 80% dogs visually identified as "pit bulls", there is no breed commonality whatsoever.

The CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association both concluded that breed is not a factor in dog aggression in a 10-year study of dog bites. There are no statistics that prove "pit bulls" bite more often. If you read dog bite reports, they list "pit bull type dogs", which includes up to 10 different breeds and mixes (American Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldogs, Bullmastiffs, and several others that often include Boxers and Huskies). This demographic makes up almost 50% of the U.S. dog population (although, as the CDC points out, a precise number is impossible to quantify because of the subjective nature the definition of "pit bull" because a "pit bull" is really just a mixed breed, short-haired dog), and they are responsible for between 20 ad 30% of dog bites. Break that down, and they have a pretty low occurrence of dog aggression.

That's a complete fabrication...check the CDC which keeps stats. Between Pits and Rotts you have about 60% of the total serious attacks on humans. It doesn't matter to me or anybody else at risk why these dogs end up being less trustworthy - it doesn't change the risk.

@Karl according to your sources Rotts only account for 14% of the fatal bits so please dont lump them in to the same category as other dogs. It has taken years to try to clean up their rep. as it did to clean up Dobermans and German Shepard's reps too.

And this is evidence of taking statistics out of context. The CDC does not say that "Pits and Rotts [cause] 60% of the total serious attacks on humans".

The CDC report is about fatal dog bits. There were 238 over the course of the 20 year study. That amounts to 11.9 fatal dog bites per year.

The CDC that says off those fatal dog bites, more ~32% were caused by Pit Bulls (76/238 divided by 20). That is ~3.8 fatal dog bites per year.

That is the only data that is conclusive. In a 20 year study, ~when~ a fatal dog bite occurs (which is 50% less likely to occur than being struck by lightning), 32% of the time it is by a Pit Bull.

Now is the time to use critical thinking instead of just throwing around statistics. If only 3.8 dog bite fatalities each year were caused by Pit Bulls, what is that out of the entire population of Pit Bulls? Pit Bulls account between 5 and 9.6% of the US dog population... which comes to about 5.3 million Pit Bulls. Out of those, ~4 of them killed someone.

Are you willing to condemn a breed of millions based on 4 bad apples?

Wow, that is brilliant Brook! I've never seen anyone break the statistics down like that, thank you!

Karl Schaub said: "It doesn't matter to me or anybody else at risk why these dogs end up being less trustworthy - it doesn't change the risk."

Look at the percentages of people who commit violent crimes. I guess maybe we should lock up all the men, Karl? Are you for that? You shouldn't care why, only that men are FAR more likely to be violent than women.

This is where the insanity leads when people view everything through group labels rather than individual actions.

Considering the fact that a "pit bull" is a mixed breed dog of up to 10 different breeds that can only be identified through subjective visual assessment of physical traits, and is thought to make up between 40% and 60% of the U.S. dog population, the "breed" (which can be a boxer/bulldog mix as easily as a mastiff/husky mix) would therefore be responsible for a statistically appropriate number of bites and aggression incidents. Does that mean mean that they are more dangerous, or more likely to bite, than any other breed? Of course not. There are simply A LOT MORE OF THEM!

What is a schmuck Tim? Bad law is bad law, no matter how you attempt to sell it.

Tim said: "Breeding dogs, any dogs, should need a permit or certificate..."

Right. Because the state knows everything, including how to ensure people behave well, so long as they apply for a permit.

The answer to this, like most issues, is NOT new law. The answer is for PEOPLE WHO DON'T APPROVE OF BAD BREEDERS to STOP buying from those breeders. Want a dog? Go adopt from a shelter. Breeders only exist because there is demand. Kill the demand by way of the willing actions of free people, not by force of guns. Permitting will only raise the cost of dogs bought from bad-breeders and good ones alike, it will not get rid of the bad-breeder problem.

I'm with Tim. You should need a license to breed and sell puppies. It should be an expensive license. Getting caught selling dogs without a license should carry an outrageous penalty.

Unfortunately, most people don't give much thought to what harm comes from buying a dog from an irresponsible breeder. Dogs are treated HORRIFICALLY when used for breeding. And rampant and irresponsible breeding is why our shelters are full. NO MORE BACKYARD BREEDING! If you are a responsible breeder, and you get a license, and you run a responsible facility, then FINE. But this attitude that you can make enough money for a vacation off of your dog's puppies is sickening.

Tigers are wild animals. Pit bulls are dogs. I can't stand it when people go there, because there's absolutely no comparing the two. But yes, you have a point. You can't simply 'be nice' to a tiger so that it never attacks. Nor does it completely apply to dogs either. All animals are potentially dangerous (not 'evil'). Wild animals far more so than domesticated. With dogs, it's not so much all about 'raising them with kindness' (though, obviously, this is important) as it is about being responsible with the dog you have. Any dog, of any breed, can potentially be dangerous despite a kind upbringing. It's about knowing your dog and not setting them up to fail. Again, this is all regardless of breed!

Brittney, dogs were/still are wild animals (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wilddogs.html) at one point too. If you left that dog out in the wild it would revert back to it's natural instincts to survive. So yes, you can compare the two in this instance. I do believe the owner has much to do with the animals demeanor, but if something were to happen to the owner and the animal was forced to survive on it's own it would fall back on it's natural instincts as an animal. Some things are just in their nature. An animal will always be an animal, domesticated or not.

Ashley, you just posted an article that has nothing to do with (let alone supports) your point. Your article is a discussion of Lycaon pictus, the Painted Wolf. It is not even in the same Genus as Canis and is no more related to dogs and wolves than a fox is. Therefore it is complete fallacy to say that "dogs were/still are wild animals" and post an article that's not even about a true dog.

In rebuttal to your second half, Ashley, you are right... "if left... out in the wild it would revert back to it's natural instincts to survive". Of course, this can be said about ~every~ animal on the planet, including humans. Again, this is fallacy as this is a blanket statement that does not support a specific case.

Domesticated animals are species that have been inherently changed through generations of breeding. They are not just "temporarily" tamed, their behavior has been altered at the genetic level. They are distinctly different from animals that are wild, raised in captivity, or even raised commercially. Domesticated animals have had their genetics changed to the point that their diet is changed, they grow faster, they breed successfully in captivity, they are less aggressive toward humans, and have a social hierarchy that can contain humans.

Dogs are domesticated animals, along with cats, goldfish, guinea pigs, canaries, and most farm animals. Certainly any domesticated animal can revert to instincts when necessary, but they are far enough from their progenitors that these instincts will be partially different than the original wildlife. Thus, we cannot claim that a dog is inherently a wolf in "dog's" clothing; most dogs have been bred for generations to be different from wolves.

Ashley said that dogs are still "wild animals." While incorrect, she raises a good point.

Dogs are not "wild animals" at all. They are distinctly different, and contrary to common belief. It's not easy to know this, but the studies I have seen have been very clear on this.

Dogs are domesticated, and yes, dogs come from wolves. But you can't take wolves and domesticate them. You can only domesticate a TINY subset (less than 5%, a good bit less as I recall) of wolves that are genetically different from the rest.

To create dogs from wolves you must find a small subset of "broken" wolves that don't grow up, retaining their wolf pup behavior and instinct thoughout their adult lives. Dogs are the genetic decendants of these rare, perpetual wolf puppies. No amount of training of a normal wolf will EVER produce a dog.

The studies on this are fascinating if you ever get the chance to scope them out.

Thanks for the clarification!!! This reflects my experience working at a Vet Hospital

The only dog I have ever been bitten by was a chihuahua. Jus' sayin'...

Please link the list or tell us where that information comes from.

And I'd add Patricia shame on you for helping mislead this discussion - as an animal control officer you should know better. Because a chihuahua might be a bitey little dog doesn't mean it poses any threat to anybody; humans or other animals. I think dachaunds can be pertty yappy and bitey too, but the same goes there. The truth is that attacks by pits, rotts and mixes of same account for:
77% of bodily injuries
73% of attacks on children
81% of attacks on adults
68% of attacks that result in fatality (many of those children)
76% of attacks that main (result in permanent disfigurement)

If we're talking about dog bites it's important that we center on dogs that can actually injure or maim and not overblow the discussion using examples of dogs that are about the size of a knat.

Please provide the source of those statistics.

A reputation that was earned through false portrayal by the media and perpetuated through the ignorant masses.

Anecdotal evidence aside, every reputable organization, from Kennel Clubs to Veterinary Associations... from the Humane Society and the CDC... has stated very clearly the following:

1) Studies have shown no there is no conclusive evidence that "Pit Bulls" are more dangerous than any other breed.

2) Breeding associations have declared the temperament of the American Pit Bull Terrier, long before any of this controversy, to be one of the most friendly and calm with humans, including children and strangers.

So far, all statistics claiming that Pit Bulls are more likely to bite, more likely to be unpredictable, etc. have been proven to be misinformation, data taken out of context, or complete lies. No credible source has ever presented any data showing "Pit Bulls" to be inherently dangerous and these same sources have stated that breed-specific legislation is fallacy at best.

Maybe you should take a closer look at your neighbours before passing judgement on certain dogs!! What does it tell you if a person gets a dog "for protection" rather than as a pet?? What do you think that says about their relationship and the chances of that dog living in a loving environment??

ANY dog, ANY breed can be "dangerous and unpredictable." That's why we need to focus on responsible ownership (and breeding, IMO), and not on discriminatory breed specific legislation.

Bckarn said: "I don't think we should roll the dice. They can be very dangerous and unpredictable"

Nearly all homicides are committed by people. I don't think we should roll the dice. They can be very dangerous and unpredictable.

This is where the insanity leads folks, when you treat individuals with the clumsiness of group labels and statistics but still with all the lethal force of law..

Couldn't agree more!! We really need to penalize bad dog owners more than we do - at the moment, they virtually get away with murder!!! It's despicable what some people do to their animals - and they're facing no / very little punishment at all!!!

Can't ban them but it would sure be nice to see liability pinned on them. I've owned GSD's for a long time and spend a lot of time and money socializing and training them. I've handled working dogs and pets and have had very few incidents, usually involving other dogs that are loose. Its pretty hard to raise a bad dog if you train them properly unless the genetics just stink

Wow there must be something to a name. "Truthsayer" . LOL
In no way should a landlord be held responsible the action of a tenants dog.

Truthsayer said: "What this court case did is that they couldn't get money from the dog owner because the person filed bankruptcy, so the lawyer went after the landlord so that they can collect. That's all they care about is ensuring that they can get money. Public safety is clearly not their concern."

YES, YES, 1000-times YES!! You nailed it.

Kevin Dunne, the lawyer comes right out and says it in his letter to the editor. His primary concern is that the damages might go unpaid. He doesn't care WHO pays, just that SOMEONE pays. He'd be happy if somebody on Easter Island was forced to pay, so long as the victim got compensated.

This is the CREATION of a new victim, and it is FINE with him.

When an evil person uses a weapon to harm someone, does the legal system punish the weapon?

Umm, yes see gun control in MD, an AR is regulated because it looks mean.

Karl, you have not prevented an ounce of hard evidence. So far you have only stated opinion and misquoted statistics. In contrast, I have presented the original studies performed by the CDC and their conclusions.

Can you quote me an exact passage from any peer-reviewed credible study that supports your statements?

Also, "prima facie" means "at first glance"... which is the opposite of an in-depth study. Correlation does not equal causation. Certainly, in legal parlance, you are declaring a causation and legally the opposition must provide evidence. Except they have, in their reasons for the amount of Pit Bulls in shelters.

1) Pit Bulls are being overbred
2) Poor owners give up their dogs when they are no longer usable
3) Legislation scares owners from keeping animals (regardless of history) into giving them up

Critical thinking shows that there are several factors that can cause the high amounts of Pit Bulls in shelters... none of which is because of an "inherently dangerous" nature.

I don't play these games with you pit people because it doesn't matter what I link...how many studies, statistics, articles of multiple pit attacks on children, articles explaining why dogs more often attack children, etc. You'll read none of it with any honesty or fairness and then want to argue all day - in otherwords it's a waste of my time. Kinda like the old adage - don't mud wrestle a pig; the pig likes it and you'll only get dirty.

In legal terms...and directly from a law review treatise:

"Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted." In simple terms it means "the thing speaks for itself" so for the thick or otherwise lacking comprehension that means we need not argue about it because it's so obvious on it's face."

"I don't play these games with you pit people because it doesn't matter what I link...how many studies, statistics, articles of multiple pit attacks on children, articles explaining why dogs more often attack children, etc. You'll read none of it with any honesty or fairness "

This is so full of fallacy I don't even know where to begin.

You make a claim... but refuse to provide evidence.
You refuse to provide evidence... because ~you~ claim no one will analyze it fairly.
You believe no one will analyze it fairly... because everyone who disagrees with ~you~ is one of those "pit people".

Karl, you obviously have no concept of reasonable debate or critical thinking. As you said, it is a waste of time to even talk to you.

How on earth do the numbers of pit bull-type dogs in shelters equate to "evidence of the types of people pit bulls attract"?? This is simply nonsensical.

Karl, what legal treatise are you citing that says that prima facie means "the thing speaks for itself"? Because that's flat wrong. "Res ipsa loquitur" means "the thing speaks for itself," and it's a separate legal concept than "prima facie."

What exactly is the pit bull crowd? I own two pits bulls, have two children, a loving husband and a great job. That is one awesome crowd if you ask me....

I have a master's degree and I work as a technical editor. I don't understand why YOU keep repeating the same misguided information, and accuse others of not understanding the facts.

1. There are a HUGE number of dogs that can identified as pit bull in the U.S. Up to 40-60% of the 88 million dogs in this country, by many estimates. That's a minimum of 35 million dogs. There are back yard breeders all over this state who are trying to make a buck by breeding their "pit bull" with their neighbor's "pit bull" and selling the puppies for $100 a piece. It is a RAMPANT problem that needs to STOP. It is a reflection of this irresponsible behavior, not of the nature of any breed of dog.

2. "Pit bull" is not a breed. Some dogs visually identified as "pit bull" DNA test as a boxer/bulldog mix. Others may DNA test as a bullmastiff/bull terrier mix. A "pit bull" is a mutt of up to 10 different breeds, and is only identifiable by subject visual assessment.

3. Because of the sheer number of dogs that can be identified as "pit bull", there is a relative number of aggression incidents related to the number of dogs. Although the CDC stated clearly that a baseline is impossible to reach (because of the subjective nature of identification AND because this makes it impossible to quantify the number "pit bull" type dogs), it is impossible to track. But it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that 40% of all dogs = 40% of dog-related incidents.

I agree, MJ. I have a master's degree, own my business, celebrated my 12th anniversary this week, and share my cozy 1930's bungalow in Takoma Park with my two pit bull rescues and the love of my life (for the last 12 years).

I guess us "pit bull people" are too smart, happy, successful, and well-adjusted is too much for Karl to take.

Bingo, Brian.

This bill does blame the owner - it provides for an easier route to financial compensation - the dogs don't pay it; the owners do. You don't see people dumping the dogs you mentioned in horrific numbers at shelters across the country. Something about a pit bull that attract irresponsible people to it and it's a darn shame for the animals.

Actually, Karl, the bill that has been introduced puts the liability back onto dog owners. The Tracy v Solesky case made it so that landlords would be responsible for the actions of their tenants' dogs. Many people are unwilling landlords due to the economy and that they can't sell their home. Making them pay for another person's actions is an unprecedented ruling that no other state or country has.

And what attracts both good and bad people about pit bulls is that they are highly intelligent dogs that are easily trainable, incredibly loyal and if given the proper training and exercise are always ready to move or just chill next to you on the couch.

Finally, the reason why they are dumping dogs in shelters right now is because landlords are saying that people need to get rid of their dogs or be evicted. Unfortunately there's no financial compensation for those that are afflicted by the court's decision. But the tricky part is that those people are the responsible dog owner who register their dog and don't hide them that are being evicted. Sadly, even if there was a ban, it would have no effect on dog bite statistics. It actually would probably increase them because having a dog that the courts deem "inherently dangerous" makes the dog more attractive to the wrong people. It's simple psychology.

Truthsayer...this shelter full of pits is not a recent developement - it's been that way every since ganstas decided pit bulls made them some sorta tough guy. It has NOTHING to do with any recent law. You guys are such liars.

Karl, Truthsayer never said the shelter was full of pit bulls JUST because of this legislation. What they are saying is that many dogs are being dumped RIGHT NOW because of the legislation, and it's true. I volunteer at an animal shelter and the number of dogs that have been surrendered because of this new law is heartbreaking.

And no, the previous and current high volume of pit bulls in shelters doesn't have to do with all pit bull owners being 'gangstas'. It has to do with sheer volume from backyard breeding scum that think they can make big money, or anyone with 2 pit bulls with the necessary parts who want 'cute puppies' or are simply irresponsible with them. They pass these dogs off to homes without any consideration of how responsible the home is, whether they are prepared for the dog or are even knowledgeable about them, and sure enough, a year or two down the road they are dropped of at the shelter. That's the reality.

You people at so aggravatingly thick. It doesn't matter who or why...I could care less how we got to a point where we had tens of thousands of unwanted animals languishing in shelters and a bunch of dogs many of whom are poorly socialized and more likely to bite and maim. It's about safety...it's not about boo hoo and having a big pity party. I bet there are some really nice pits...but there's too many of them and they tend towards aggression. Bottom line is we need to get these dogs away from the people that seem to want them and are causing this problem. If that means making them a liability to own then fine let's go there.

@KS you dont see people dumping these dogs today because the hysteria has gone away. (been replaced by "Pit Bulls". In the 80s Dobermans were said to lose their minds and attack their owners at age 7. So they were dumped in shelter. Rotts had the same type of rep and were dumped in shelters in the 90s. So they were dumped back then just not now because the press isnt all over them now.

Amen, Brian.

When GSDs, Dobes, Rotties were the 'bad" dog, they never killed other dogs in the numbers that pits/pit mixes are now kllling. Not all attacks make the news. How do I know this? The pit owners call our rescue to give up their dogs. "Gotta get rid of my pit, he dug into my landlord's yard and killed his dog on the porch." Ah, yes, a "good" gamebred pit. Non pit dogs never broke into yards, cars, homes to kill their victims They never killed cattle and horses in the numbers that pits are now. Other dogs simply are not as "good" at killing. Most normal dogs have a sense of self preservation. This was removed in the creation of the pit bull. Check out youtube video "pit bull vs cavalo" Excellent gamebred dog, not giving up.

liveleak.com "2 pit bulls attack smaller dog" Excellent video. Should be required viewing of all pit owners, shown at every pit bull awareness daze, every BULLY adoptathon.

I never blame the dog. I do blame the breeders, the dog fighters, the pit mongers,who cause the infestation of these tragically handicapped mutants in our communites and cause their deaths by the TON in pounds. You cannot adopt your way out of killing pits, as long as 8 litters of pits a week are being produced in your community!

its are different. Proof is that,with countless combinations available, pits are the choice of essentially ALL US dog fighters. Pits are victims of these man-made handicapps. Stop making more victims. Ban pit breeding now.

Did you look for her, post signs, distribute fliers?. When our rescue hears "my dog was stolen" , we encourage them to look for their LOST dog. Sometimes the dog has escaped and needs their owners to come save it!

I'm glad you never had a problem with your pit harming anyone you knew. But you couldn't keep her safe/at home. What happened to her? Did she get trained to fight, was she abused?

I do agree that there should be insurance for all dogs. However, as other things, how would it be enforced? I have insurance for my dog, even tho she is a non pit.

I recommend mandatory spay/neuter microchipping. Any lost dog would be MSNM before return. Any dogs suspected of being fought would get MSNM. Immediately there would be fewer attacks, fewer puppies being born. It would be more difficult to sell pit puppies if breeding was illegal. Everyone sane and compassionate wins.

Did you know that when the UKC was founded in 1898, the registration # 1 was given to the pit bull, Bennett's Ring, owned by the founder? Did you know that UKC was expressly created to register pits, the American Pit Bull Terrier and then added coonhounds, bird dogs, etc?

Did you know that the UKC, says "form AND function". Dogs must have proper conformation, but also perform the "job" of their breed to be declared a Champion.. Setters had to show they could hunt birds by winnig field dog trials, coonhounds had to hunt coons and win.

Pit bulls, did they have to win "nanny dog" contests? Nope, since that nickname wasn't created until the 1980's. No, in order to have your pit bull become a Champoin it had to win three dog fights, ones where a UKC referee was present and reported the results to the UKC.

Pits were created to kill other dogs. That is their history and their instinct. That is their handicap too. When the instinct to tug and shred sparks in the pit bull mind and a sleeping neighbor dog is avalable, a "good" pit will kill. If no dog is available, a dog-sized human may dog (child).

Stop making more handicapped, sometimes deadly dogs.

Debbie, you do understand that the Westminster Kennel Club is affiliated with the AKC (American Kennel Club) and is not the same thing as the United Kennel Club?

Or do you?

"Pit bull" is NOT an AKC-registered breed, therefore there is no "pit bull" category at Westminster. Staffordshire Bull Terriers (which are, in fact, the dog referred to as the "nanny dog" and has been since the 19th century in England) has won Westminster, but SBTs are NOT pit bulls. I have an AKC-registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and I have 2 rescued "pit bulls".

Good job on the copy and paste from the UKC website, though.

Then it should be required for all breeds. You can't start singling people out, and lumping responsible owners with those that are irresponsible with their dogs.

BTW, let me be clear. This is NOT to say the law has no place here, it certainly does. The law's place is to correctly use collective force to collect damages FROM THE NEGLIGENT, RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS and deliver them TO THE VICTIMS. There's nothing special needed in the law about dogs, much less specific breeds. Your animal, not properly managed and not acting in self-defense, is your responsibility.

Good comments Mike...Thanks

Really? Nanny dogs...odd because another Pit Bull attack on a child in Harford County just this evening. It bit the child in the face and arms. Fortunately a deputy was in the area and shot the dog dead. Nanny dog? If you're mental and really have a death wish for your kids maybe.

Care to comment on the situation in Harford this evening where this seemingly calm, Pit Bull pet attacked an 11 year old and mauled him in the face and arms?