Pit Bulls are breed for sustained aggression by breeding dogs who won't quit in a fight ring even thought they are mortally wounded. All normal breed domestic dogs will submit and roll over or refuse to fight at all. You must breed for gameness and it is done by saving a lossing dog that won't quit to a champion that can fight. This is completely dangerous and a breeding like no other. The court saw much you don;t know about. These dog where never meant ot be pets and that is why untill 35 years ago you never really heard of them before. They made their way on sceen by animal rescue trying to make fighting dogs pets when they were confiscated in Police raids and unwittingly the dog advocates thought they could be well rounded pets. They are not, if they were you wouldn't have this problem. The issue itself is self evident to the problem.

It should say by saving a dog that won't quit and breeding it to a dog that can fight. This is the same reason the Spartans died off because they fought to no surrender. In nature any animal that fights to the death becomes extinct. Fighting traits that are trully a defect and would die off in nature are preserved in breeding. Does anyone here no know that the word breed actually means the the physical and mantal difference between dogs of the same species. A breed is not an act of nature because a bred dog does not inherite a instinct to mate only to others of their own breed. Breeding is precisely what makes a dog what it is. It is what the word means and why a dog is described and preceived different one from the other period.

"Pit Bulls are breed for sustained aggression by breeding dogs who won't quit in a fight ring even thought they are mortally wounded."

Correct. APBTs display higher than usual levels of aggression toward other dogs. Please note that that does not mean higher than usual levels of aggression toward people, which is ~not~ something displayed or bred into them.

"All normal breed domestic dogs will submit and roll over or refuse to fight at all."

Incorrect. First, there is no "normal" breed; each breed is different and there a variety of breed categories. Second, APBTs are not the only fighting breed, which includes Bull Terriers, Mastiffs, and the Shar Pei (to name a few). Third, a variety of guard breeds are also known for a lack of submission to anyone but the owner, including Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, and German Shepherds.

"You must breed for gameness and it is done by saving a lossing dog that won't quit to a champion that can fight."

Applicable to dog fights only; you cannot apply dog aggression to people aggression.

"These dog where never meant ot be pets and that is why untill 35 years ago you never really heard of them before."

Incorrect. APBTs were created during Victorian times and a recognized breed by the turn of the century. The dog was well-known and popular among families in the early part of the 20th century. You could find them in movies, on magazine covers, and on posters. Popularity simply declined during the mid-20th century when new breeds became more popular because of appearance and availability.

"They made their way on sceen by animal rescue trying to make fighting dogs pets when they were confiscated in Police raids and unwittingly the dog advocates thought they could be well rounded pets."

Partially true. APBTs entered mainstream media because of their use in dog fighting. However, the breed itself was not the target to be "saved"; the animal advocate groups were saving the individual animals being used in dog fighting.

"They are not, if they were you wouldn't have this problem. The issue itself is self evident to the problem."

Fallacy; round logic based on false statement.

"This is the same reason the Spartans died off because they fought to no surrender."

Incorrect. Spartan civilization did not decline because of their aggressive behavior, anymore than the rest of Greece during that period. Sparta, like all of Greece, was eventually conquered by the Roman Republic... hundreds of years after the famed Battle of Thermopylae.

"In nature any animal that fights to the death becomes extinct."

Incorrect. Many species fight to the death, especially if they have an alpha hierarchy. This is how the strongest survive to breed on.

"Fighting traits that are trully a defect and would die off in nature are preserved in breeding."

Many unnatural traits continue through breeding programs, including extremely large or small sizes, misshapen faces, elongated bodies, etc. Dog aggression and tenacity are actually far closer to the species' origins than any of these other characteristics. Theoretical Situation: If a St. Bernard, Miniature Poodle, Bulldog, Dachshund, and APBT were to be left in the wild and to their breed characterstics... which breed has the higher likelihood of survival?

"Does anyone here no know that the word breed actually means the the physical and mantal difference between dogs of the same species."

Correct. What are the breed differences between APBTs and the rest of the recognized breeds, according to Kennel Clubs and other authorized breeding organizations?

I'm sure this isnt over, it'll go higher

Traits/characteristics are selectively bred into purebred animals. Humans have been doing it for thousands of years. It's true that any dog can be turned into a dangerous animal but to deny that certain breeds are more predisposed to certain behaviors is denying genetics. Research the Presa Canario, any responsible breeder will tell you straight away what you should expect in regards to temperment and personality.

And what do breeding organizations say what to expect from the American Pit Bull Terrier?

"The essential characteristics of the American Pit Bull Terrier are strength, confidence, and zest for life. This breed is eager to please and brimming over with enthusiasm. APBTs make excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children. Because most APBTs exhibit some level of dog aggression and because of its powerful physique, the APBT requires an owner who will carefully socialize and obedience train the dog. The breed’s natural agility makes it one of the most capable canine climbers so good fencing is a must for this breed. The APBT is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable. This breed does very well in performance events because of its high level of intelligence and its willingness to work."

http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/Terrier/AmericanPitBullTerrier

@Tracy. You are Incorrect! Pit Bulls have been bred to be aggressive guard dogs. These inherent traits (meaning a trait which is bred into a species for a particular use or benefit to the owners needs) are in all pit bulls and mixes. Many other breeds of dogs have similar inherent dangers; HOWEVER, when breeding a species the potential outcome for the species is not always 100% perfect or beneficial. Other species of dogs bred to have aggressive traits are also bred to have a higher intelligence or temperance; which equals, aggressive dog traits which are succumbed by an owners training and the ability of the dog to understand its position in the family and when in society at large. Smart dogs with inbred aggression traits understand when there is a true threat and to show great temperance at times.

Pitt bulls unfortunately weren't dealt the intelligence and temperance traits. Often you will read things which attempt to buff up the species like: spunky, energetic, loving, ect. these are not real great terms if you lack the brains and temperance. In fact, AKC ranks Bull Terrier breeds among the top 10 dumbest dogs. There ability to learn and listen (constantly) is very low. This is the reason why they snap for no reason. They cannot always disseminate a threat as a true threat or not (they simply can't always understand the situation).

Bull Terrier breeds should only be reserved for the best or responsible owners!

Niether D or R, You are so correct if you look at the next most deadly dogs combined. they do not kill as frequently as Pit Bulls. It is no coincidence that Shepards, Rotts and Doberman are in the top 7 smaterst breeds. the Geramns well understood to balance formidability with high inteligence. Pit Bulls are one demensional with smarts if any a unnecessary and unintended bi- product. Many will tell you they (WHERE) "nanny dogs " but then say never leave any dog alone with a child. Some will tell you they score higher then Goldens in temprament test yet that shows a flaw in the test since we do not have a killing issue with pure breed goldens. and did the test use DNA to prove that the dogs where real Pit bulls and Goldens. What a obstructionist crook that the court saw through. Then ther all the Photos of pit bulls as family dogs. simply they were not. They where kept as are foxhounds and nay other purpose built livestock. Had it not been for criminals and animal rescue no one would have ever sought these dogs. Who can say if thise breed didn't exist they would be for creating it? Only a Fool. PETA actually has the most rational view on the issue I have read. Here is a great idea. just stop breeding them. Oh but the money that the AVMA, ASPCA< HUMANE SOCIETY and all of the pet supply stores would lose. Yeah they really want the dog population to to decrease. WHY hasn't the animal lobby been more sucessfull with mandatory spay/ neuteur. Because somebody doen't make money?????

"Pit Bulls have been bred to be aggressive guard dogs."

Incorrect. They were originally bred for baiting, followed by "pit fighting" often with rodents or other dogs. They were never bred to be guard dogs even though they have been used in that role. In addition, no Kennel Club or breeding organization recognizes them as a "guard breed".

"There ability to learn and listen (constantly) is very low. This is the reason why they snap for no reason."

Fallacy. There is no known correlation, let alone causation, between low intelligence and instable temperament.

"You are so correct if you look at the next most deadly dogs combined. they do not kill as frequently as Pit Bulls."

Partialy true. The only peer-reviewed studies show that ~when~ a fatal dog bite occurs, majority of the time it is by Pit Bulls or Rottweilers. That does not equate to "killing more often", which is an emotionally-tainted statement that can be construed as misleading vividness. A more sound statement would be that "Pit Bull bites more frequently lead to death than the other breeds."

"Many will tell you they (WHERE) "nanny dogs " but then say never leave any dog alone with a child."

Partially true. Most experts in child raising as well as dog breeding recommend not leaving ~any~ dog alone with an infant, toddler, or young child.

"Some will tell you they score higher then Goldens in temprament test yet that shows a flaw in the test since we do not have a killing issue with pure breed goldens."

Fallacy. A lack of sociopolitical issue with Golden Retrievers does not negate the peer-reviewed facts that APBTs have better temperament than Golden Retrievers. The fact that this temperament issue occurs and yet APBTs bites result in more fatality suggests that there are other factors to look at than temperament.

"Then ther all the Photos of pit bulls as family dogs. simply they were not. They where kept as are foxhounds and nay other purpose built livestock. Had it not been for criminals and animal rescue no one would have ever sought these dogs."

Incorrect. As previously mentioned, the APBT was popular with society all the way through the 1940s. You can find evidence of this through any search of historical documents, finding them in positive portrayals in movies ("The Little Rascals"), photographs, propaganda posters, magazine covers (including Time magazine), etc. Famous individuals involved with Pit Bulls were Theodore Roosevelt, Hellen Keller, and the entire cast of "The Little Rascals".*

* = See later post for photographic evidence.

"Oh but the money that the AVMA, ASPCA< HUMANE SOCIETY and all of the pet supply stores would lose."

Please provide evidence that this breed is continued to be bred because of a conspiracy by the ASPCA, HSUS, and pet stores, particularly considering this breed predates these organizations by at least 50 years. The problem with conspiracy is that theories abound, but they are neither valid nor sound and often tainted by personal bias.

Same old arguments that were used in the past for other breeds labeled dangerous.

Read up on your history of the breed. They were family pets....Helen Keller, General Patton, Jimmy Carter, just to name a few owned this breed and extolled it's virtues. I'll repeat myself - the breed itself in not "inherently dangerous"...... those choosing to exploit, damage and harm a dog are the causes of dangerous dogs.

Tracey I agree completely. The pit bulls are not bred to be fighters they are trained to be fighters......It is the human element that creates the problem and it is not breed specific. What do these Pit Haters think about the Labrador Retriever that dismembered and killed the infant.....or the jack russell terrier....or the husky....are they bred to kill??? It is the human element ....it is the human adult that doesn't understand.

Take Responsibility! You lose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Annapolis Resident 21401,

Wow! You can copy and paste! Bully for you!

I think that "Take Responsibility"'s comment is appropriate. I also think that people who use Google and Wikipedia as evidence of intellectual superiority are complete idiots.

Colleen, It was intended as a joke. I understand this is a serious topic, but the link I sent is amusing. Did you read it? (For those that didn't have time, Godwin's Law is a silly/funny theory that the longer a conversation goes on the internet, the higher the likelihood that someone will call another person a Nazi (or reference Nazi Germany). The theory goes on to state that, unless you are actually discussing Nazi Germany or the Fuehrer, your argument becomes weak.)

There's a lot of ugliness being thrown around in this conversation. I didn't mean to add to it, but rather try to lighten it and give people and chance to calm down and maybe have a chuckle about an unrelated topic. I hope you have a better day that you seem to be having.

Mary Beth, I agree that this legislation needs it's own hearing but it won't happen because there are not enough lobbyists willing to fork over CA$H to our elected officials> It seems that the only thing our elected officials understand is "HOW MUCH CA$H CAN YOU THROW MY WAY". It is unfortunate that this issue will force many conscientious dog owners to abandon or even have to destroy pets, the key word being "conscientious". Just saying.

Armistead Gardens complex orders pit bulls out; Shelters expect onslaught

Read more: http://www.wbaltv.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/Armistead-Gardens-complex-orders-pit-bulls-out-Shelters-expect-onslaught/-
/10131532/16238176/-/yomxx3/-/index.html#ixzz24QyAJxXr

Thank you Mr S!!! you are the one to blame for this...hope you can sleep at night.

The problem is that he isnt just blaming it on the dog or the dog owner. He want to blame it on the landlord.That is the problem. Why not find strict liability against all the neighbors who knew of the dog too.

The child was 10 years old. When you were 10 did you ever play outside? Were your parents with you everytime you went out to play? A dog that escapes it's yard and then attacks a kid doing what kids do... play outside has nothing to do with bad parenting and everything to do with people raising or owning viscious animals. Bottom line- kids should not have to hide inside. Owners need to COMPLETELY have control of their pets otherwise deal with the consequences when their pets horrifically maime someone.

What Tracey Jay said. Victim Blaming is terrible, always.

exactly Tracey Jay owners need to deal with the consequences, NOT THE LANDLORD!!

This case has made victims of every dog in Maryland. I am a dog owner; I am now a VICTIM!

Correction. The cases involve claims of pit bulls and pit bull mixes. The latter term in particular is difficult to define and even more difficult to determine. Additionally, there are quite a few breeds of dogs that are often mistaken for pit bulls further skewing any statistics on the matter. Dezinformatsia at it's finest.

By your posting though, you've essentially admitted that you believe whatever you see/hear on TV.

You are using The People's Court as a scientific research? Really?

I'll tell you what. Read the CDC/American Veterinary Medical Association study done by people with veterinary degrees and doctorates who conclude that, "neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on the contents of this report."

I have a "pit bull" type dog that I rescued. I also have a master's degree. I also read scientific reports for a living, and I have NEVER seen even ONE episode of The People's Court in MY LIFE.

Right on target! There are laws against dog fighting, but how well are they enforced? Obviously, not too well at all... What positive outcome can be expected from this ruling? Not one! The Appeals Court totally missed the mark!!!

How about you wake up and stop buying into the media hype? Your post is based on pure ignorance and nothing more.

Can you even point out to me what dogs are "pit bull mixes" and what dogs are not? If you can, well then you've got more skill than most dog experts. Just because a dog "looks" a certain way, doesn't mean that it is. Try researching the facts instead of regurgitating the same tired arguments propagated by the ignorant and further spread by media only concerned with their ratings as opposed to actually informing people.

Anyone with ANY PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE whatsoever in veterinary medicine or animal behavior agrees with you.

The only people who disagree with you do not have so much as an educated opinion.

That is sorely obvious.

It is quite obvious that in this situation, you are the one who knows nothing of dogs. Further, you haven't the slightest clue what a pit bull terrier's instincts even are. While many pit bulls have been bred for fighting, they are not a "fighting dog". That is probably one of the most ridiculous assertions out there and has absolutely zero factual basis. Why don't you try doing actual research on the subject, instead of regurgitating the same ignorant rhetoric.

if you could research rather than talk nonsense you find out the origin of the 'pit bull'. In England when they were over run with rats, the gentlemen of the time, took a bull dog for its strength and a terrier, for its fierceness, and bred them. Then they put the resulting dog in a pit with rats and bet on the one that could kill the most rats.. That was a long time ago and now it is the rats with 2 legs that use a wonderful animal to kill others by beatings, burning, feeding it hot peppers and rolling, amongst other tortures. Sorry Tony, but you think you know but you dont. Fear and ignorance produce some really stupid ideas..

Mr. Solesky your ignorance is showing. Tell me then why did the gentle all loving labrador dismember and kill an infant....why did the husky attack and maul and kill the toddler.....why did the JACK RUSSELL TERRIER kill the child??? You are listening to the likes of Colleen Lynn and her dogsbite.org group way too much.

Mr. S .....I take nothing that the media says as truth or fact....it is only fact until more information becomes available.......therefore....even all the pit attacks....are probably not pit attacks.....the animal is not identified by any expert.....and no verification of breed is ever done....which by the way is why the CDC won't report on breeds....that data is flawed by human interpretation...not fact. Please don't use your colleen lynn and Mellie and Tammy Rhetoric on me....i have heard the babble and seen how they really care about the victim..they exploit the VICTIMS...in fact...had your son been mauled by a german shephard or a Lab...they wouldn't even talk to you or invite you to the political walk..guess they can't exploit your child any more than you already have.

Tony, YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DOGS!

You have no veterinary degree. You have no training in animal behavior. You have ZERO experience in any veterinary or animal-related field.

An ACCIDENT does not make you an EXPERT. Sorry, but you can write all of the ebooks you want, but you do not have the education, training, or the experience to represent yourself as an expert, OR to tell someone else they know nothing about dogs. How do you know? Based on YOUR expertise (which is ZERO), simply owning a dog is more than you have.

Dear Tommy,

You are truly a credit to the uniformed armed services. Is this how you respond to those you work with? You can make your point with being offensive about it. Take off the hat and classes and 'get a clue'.

To the Editor of this Blog: Why are you allowing these personal attacks?

Tony, I'm truly sick & tired of you telling people they know nothing about dogs, especially people with years of experience. I have 15 years of living with, rescuing, and fostering "Pit Bulls". How much do you have with them ? You know NOTHING about bully breeds unless it's the fetid slop dogsbite.org feeds you. You are their perfect puppet, just swallow everything whole & never bother with an irritating little thing called facts.

Either you know nothing of dogs as Tommy says, or you have already provoked a dog into aggressive behavior maybe?? You have no doubts and that makes me think you must have done this already

I have made neither insults nor personal attacks. Pointing out someone's lack of knowledge on an issue is not an insult. Your claim of my "insults" is nothing more than a diversionary tactic to hide your lack of any credible argument.

I've been down this road before and someone, whose mind is closed, is only going to believe what they want to believe. No posting of information by me is going to change that. I've already seen the same tired links and statistics (that only tell part of the truth) posted in response when I have. Besides, I'm of the belief in teaching people to feed themselves, instead of hand feeding them. The information is out there, if you're not too lazy to actually learn for yourself. It's your right if you choose to be the opposite, but it's also my right to point out that fact.

I too, used to be one of the ignorant masses in regards to pit bull type dogs. Then I actually met and interacted with one in person when my mom adopted one. That's right…real, actual interaction and experience. Not what I heard from others or read in the media (I refuse to put the word "news" in front of that anymore). Then I began to see just how much misinformation and ignorance there really is out there. Further still, I then adopted one of my own and she shows me everyday just how wrong I was about them when I was younger.

"The information is out there, if you're not too lazy to actually learn for yourself. It's your right if you choose to be the opposite, but it's also my right to point out that fact."

Sorry, I'm interested in dog breed legislation, but it doesn't make me lazy to say I have other things to do with my day besides research on a topic I only care so much about. You're setting up a false dichotomy. Failure to do research does not imply laziness, and for you to set it up as such is insulting.

"I've been down this road before and someone, whose mind is closed, is only going to believe what they want to believe. No posting of information by me is going to change that."

You're not having a two way conversation. Other people that are more open minded may read your comments and agree with you.

@Corbin Dallas Multipass

"Sorry, I'm interested in dog breed legislation, but it doesn't make me lazy to say I have other things to do with my day besides research on a topic I only care so much about.", so you are lazy and really don't care since you just said you are interested in dog breed legislation, but don't care to really figure out what its really about.

"Failure to do research does not imply laziness, and for you to set it up as such is insulting." it does when you try to talk about something you're "interested in" but have no clue and you make it worse by trying to post on a subject you don't know anything about other than try and "insult" someone else. I'm not promoting you learn anything, I'm promoting that maybe you shouldn't post a comment on something you really don't care about.

"it does when you try to talk about something you're "interested in" but have no clue and you make it worse by trying to post on a subject you don't know anything about other than try and "insult" someone else."

I wasn't trying to insult TWIII, I was pointing out his logic isn't helping him. He assumes he's only posting for people with closed minds and anyone with open minds should find out the information themselves. He could easily help the second group do that with a simple hyperlink or two.

"so you are lazy and really don't care since you just said you are interested in dog breed legislation, but don't care to really figure out what its really about. "

I care enough to follow this thread and read arguments that people post (see Brook, who is always a heavyweight in these threads). Your "lazy" is my "managing my time."

Actually, what I really meant to say was we can both play this game.

If you really cared about pit bulls you would post hyperlinks all over the internet about how they're the best, most loving dogs. Clearly you don't do that so you don't actually care about pit bulls. The chance to post hyperlinks is out there, if you're not too lazy to actually do it. It's your right if you choose to be the opposite, but it's also my right to point out that fact.

Love false dichotomies.

When I was in graduate school, we were not allowed to use "Google" as a research tool. Therefore, hyperlinks are not valid in any intelligent argument. Google is set up to prioritize based on who PAYS them the most. That's why dogbite.org is always on the tops of lists. They pay a lot of money for the privilege. I could start a website called "theworldisflat.org" and pay Google tons of money, and you would think the world is flat.

Now REAL RESEARCH: How about a report by the federal government and the American Veterinary Medical Association that clearly states, "neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on the contents of this report." Not much gray area there, and no hyperlinks needed.

Thank you Jenn. Ditto to everything you wrote. We have two "pit bulls", whatever THAT means, and they're wonderful loving friendly dogs. (Sometimes they are a total pain, but sweet as can be). Every day I'm reminded why I like animals so much more than people. I'm so angry about this legislation, and I'm heart broken that this family had a child who was injured by a dog. And that dog, by the way, was owned by irresponsible idiots. No one ever brings that up, do they. Just saying.

It's beyond me that the Judges cannot see this! Why are judges appointed and not elected in the exact same manner as member of Congress or State House of Delegates? I read the opinion and it's hard to believe an intelligent individual wrote it! They missed the goal or the point in every imaginable way!

Amen, Brian.

Victoria, I totally agree that this case was wrongly decided. But I don't think that election of judges is the solution. If judges had to run for election and re-election, they'd be MORE prone to bias, because they'd be deciding things based on popular opinion rather than on the law. Appointment of judges is supposed to insulate them from the need to consider how a particular opinion or ruling might affect their re-election chances.

http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/methods/removal_of_judges.cfm?state=

I believe that these judges violated our Constitution by creating, rather than interpreting law. I plan on writing a letter to the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities and asking for them to be investigated and removed.
http://www.mdcourts.gov/cjd/index.html

If they get enough letter, maybe they will actually DO IT!

Landlords have a certain amount of control over their property, but they don't have control over what their tenants do or don't do in that property. That's why strict liability for LANDLORDS makes no sense at all. In your example of parties or loud noises, yes, people can complain to the landlord, and the landlord can (depending on the terms of the lease) threaten eviction if the noise complaints continue. But the landlord can't (and shouldn't be) sued for his tenants' violation of noise ordinances (let's say someone has hearing loss because of noise), unless the plaintiff can prove actual negligence on the part of the landlord.

In the dog situation, strict liability means that a landlord can take EVERY possible precaution -- special fencing, locks on the doors, dog kennels, etc. -- and if the tenant fails to use those measures and a dog injures someone, the landlord (who, remember, took EVERY possible precaution) would still be financially liable. Completely unfair, and the fact that you are pushing for this proves that you're just looking for who has the deepest pockets, not who is actually responsible for your son's tragic injuries.

Landlords are being held accountable so that you can sue them and get funds. That is the only reason.

It's patently false to suggest that "everyone who defends pit bulls has little doubt that they own one." I do not, nor have I ever, owned a pit bull type dog. I happen to own (and work to rescue) Australian Cattle Dogs, which could never been mistaken for pit bull type dogs. I oppose breed specific legislation (and strict liability for landlords) because it is wrong. I do support strict liability for dog owners -- ALL dog owners, not limited to any breed -- because that will actually address the real problem, which is irresponsible dog ownership.

Actually Tony my laziness has nothing to do with my ability or need to read the about the case. I read and reread the ruling. The fact that you go to personal attacks is shameful.
It seems to me that you or the courts cant define what a "PitBull" breed is. Until this is done the ruling carries as much weight a gnat with a bad back. As usual landlords across the state have had knee jerk reaction to a bad ruling.

If I am a landlord, and my tenant has a dog, then that dog bites someone, I challenge you or anyone to try to use this ruling to hold me strictly liable. This ruling has entirely too many holes. The first thing you have to prove is the dog in question is a "PITBULL". Good luck with that. The court specifically calls out for a pitbull breed, of which none exist. Just one example how this ruling is flawed.
Now for this one case, in which the plaintiff is trying to get compensated monetarily, this ruling may open up the ability for the plaintiff to now go after the landlord. At this point if the landlord has a lawyer who has half a brain the landlord will prevail. IMO

but for the court to rule they way they did was wrong. The case wasnt about what kind of dog was it, it should have been about who pays for what. We dont use, at least anymore (legally), that all whites are bad so therefore, they should get a harsher sentence, we shouldnt do it to anything else. And its not just about this court but why did it go here to begin with. The laws are clear as is, the owner is responsble when the dog bites in public or when the owner allows you on their property.

You made it all about the breed.

"So what you have is a animal lobby who forced the CDC to stop tracking breed in bite cases since !998..."

Proof of this claimed conspiracy?

"How can anyone dispute that the number of all mistreated animals and breeds combined dwarfs the numbers of Pit Bulls alone that are mistreated and abused."

Please provide numbers from a peer-reviewed source comparing these two groups.

Colleen Lynn rhetoric again spews from the keys.

Someone else is writing for Tony Solesky, and I agree that it's most likely a dogbite.org person. While everyone in this crowd is dumber than pocket lint, Tony Solesky is intellectually wanting even among them, and he has the literacy equivalent of a 2nd grader (actually, I've known second graders with better spelling and grammar skills).

If you are addressing him from here on in, I would suggest you start your post with, "Colleen Lynn et al.".

Tony: Do you even know what breed the "pitbull" is? Of course not, because a pitbull IS NOT a breed of dog -- a pitbull is an American Staffordshire Terrier. Though it is very tragic what happened to your son, it is NOT the dogs who should have to pay with their lives -- it is the IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS who should pay -- NOT THE LANDLORDS, BUT THE OWNERS. Every "pitbull" I have known are very loving & loyal to the families they live with -- if anything, they would lick you to death -- they are well-mannered and loving -- I guess that is because their owners don't beat them or torture them in any way. If you treat something with love, love is what you get in return. It is SENSELESS to destroy so many animals because of irresponsible human owners -- perhaps tougher animal cruelty laws in Maryland would help hinder the problem of abused, neglected & tortured animals -- longer jail sentences for those that are cruel to their pets and making sure that they never own an animal again -- this should cut down on "aggressive" dogs since the prior owners would not be allowed to own, maim & torture them again. I can remember when Dobies, Rotties & German Shepherds were the "violent & aggressive" dogs, but you don't see them being destroyed for who they were.

@AC Is a "PitBull" owner an irresponsible person?
"PitBull" type dogs are not large animals. The courts should make the owner responsible but not the landlord. The dog owner has direct control over the dog. The landlord does not. Do you hold the landlord responsible for a tenant that goes out and assault someone? NO you dont. Do hold a landlord responsible for a tenants cat that uses the neighbors flower bed for a bathroom? NO you dont. You deal with the owner of the animal not the landlord.

The above links are photographic evidence of the popularity of Pit Bulls during the early part of the 20th century.

Note that these photographs were found through a simple Google Image search. The unbiased nature of the websites that hosted them cannot be confirmed, but these photographs ~are~ actual historical photographs. Only twenty were posted because of lack of space, but many more can be found.

I am a dog lover, though not a pit bull owner. I appreciate that people are passionate about this issue, but I wish people would stop trying to compare this to human race/heritage/ethnicity issues. People are able to make decisions at a higher level (at least one hopes). Dogs are trained and bred. I agree that they are a part of our families, but they are not people.

Hi Jenn, I'm sorry if I missed a comment or response, but I didn't understand your statement: "...because this dog didn't do anything to that little boy." Can you please clarify? Which little boy? Thanks.

I agree.

This is aggression toward animals which is different from aggression humans.

hehehe. Thats funny. Aggression is aggression and animals do not discriminate. How many of these dogs went after toddlers the same way?

Joe you sound like you have no clue about animals. Dogs have many different levels/types of aggression. Dont be so quick to dismiss something that you disagree with. Do some research and you will find that statement I made has merit.

What...you must be kidding...Where was the owner? Where was the mini van? Were the dogs loose? If yes, why? Was it a cat, rat, coyote,martian???? What a bunch of non-sense....

Illness, Pain, Fear, Predatory, Territorial, Protection, Possession, Redirected/Frustration, Dominance, Maternal, and Play
Many people dont know how dogs behave in each of these levels of aggression.
One of these was in play in the Minivan attack ...

Any animal can display aggression toward other animals and human beings, depending on how they were raised and socialized.

Generalizing based on "Google evidence" and cherry-picked stories is not research. If you want research, read the CDC/AVMA report, which clearly states, "neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on the contents of this report."

Very interesting analysis of this "pit bulls attack kitten" story, and what a perfect example that this is of media bias, and the stupid people who are sucked in by it.

http://dogsbyte.org/2012/08/27/media-bias-study/

Troll Joe and you got your animal psychology degree from where? Your virtual insults dont push my buttons like they do others on this forum. LOL you are a funny dude. LOL

Btw my animal pychology degree came from the ovaltine ad in a mag. I have from 1960s. LOL

I LOVE all of the idiots with GEDs or high school diplomas waxing intellectual on dog behavior and veterinary medicine.

What a bunch of morons!

Your understanding is incorrect.

http://www.badrap.org/monster-myths

There are all kinds of anecdotal story about someone who knows someone who got attacked by a "pit bull". Chances are, it either was NOT a pit bull (a pit bull is actually not a breed, and "pit bull" tends to get dumped on any dog that shows aggression), it was a fake story, OR the owners were not so nice as they would have it seem.

Pitbulls make up less than 5% of the US dog population.... LOL 78.2 million dogs as pets in the US. That means there are 3.9 million pitbull in the US and only 22 of them were involved in fatal attacks. hmm.... odds to seem too bad now. Thanks for the info

Sorry BRay, I posted before I read your post. I will never trust them, especially around kids.

DogsBite.org is a biased opinion website created by the victim of a Pit Bull attack. The creator, Colleen Lynn, has been criticized by a number of organizations and media outlets for posting fallacious statistics. Some of her posts have included statistics taken out of context, regurgitating statistics that unverified sources posted, and even making some up. Despite the biased, fallacious, and unverified information she puts up, and her lack of expertise in the field, people and some news sources post her information as if she was a reliable source.

I'm sorry, but anything posted by DogsBite.org cannot be taken as credible because of the nature of the author and the repeat complaints regarding the validity of their information.

@Brook it is cool they can use those stats from dogbite.org as I have shown there were 3.9 MILLIONS Pitbulls as pets last year. ONLY 22 total fatal pitbull attacks. THis was using their numbers. .00005% chance of being killed by a pitbull using THEIR STATS. :-)

DO NOT bring dogbite.org information here. Every intelligent human being on the planet KNOWS that this is sham website that has not professional affiliation, and is not staffed with anyone with an academic degree or professional certification in animal-related field -- actually, no one related to this site as any academic degree whatsoever. The information on this cite is 100% false, as in THEY MAKE IT UP!!!!! The website is run by a woman named Colleen Lynn, who is online psychic who goes by the name of Divine Goddess or something like that.

The CDC can only confirm that TWO of the 31 fatalities last year were pit bull type dogs. TWO. TWO OUT OF 31 IS NOT 71%! And as for pit bulls making up 5% of the population, that number is actually pulled from the number of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers (the full breed dogs most commonly linked to "pit bull type") registered with the AKC. NONE OF THESE REGISTERED DOGS, WITHIN THAT 5% NUMBER, HAVE EVER HAVE EVERY BEEN INVOLVED IN AN INCIDENT OF RECORDED AGGRESSION!

I'm sorry, but it you quote information from that website, you are ASKING to be shot down. It is like shooting a fish in a barrel. The information is at direct odds with that documented by the federal government AND the American Veterinary Medical Association. Sorry, but dogbite.org = BIG FAIL!

dogbite.org does not conduct studies or do research. It is a sham website. Not one person involved with this site has any education higher than a high school diploma, and no one has any credentials or academic degrees in research or in animal behavior.

The information on their website is completely fabricated, or it poorly manipulated in ways that are obviously misleading. According the CDC, at MOST 11 of the 31 dog involved in fatalities in 2011 were "pit bull type". Let's be clear that "pit bull type" is just a mixed breed dog of any one of 10+ combinations, and this accounts for over 30 million dogs in the U.S. The CDC will only absolutely confirm that 2 of these 11 were definitely pit bull types; the rest were eye-witness accounts (an Ohio DNA study concluded that visual identification of "pit bull" was incorrect over 50% of time). But even with 11 out of 31, that's 11 dogs out of over 30 million dogs.

Secondly, the 5% number that you quoted was for AKC-registered Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers, the two ACK-recognized breeds most commonly identified as "pit bull type" (fyi: the same aforementioned Ohio study concluded that less than 50% of "pit bulls" actually have DNA from these 2 breeds). Guess how many of these registered, full-breed dogs have EVER been involved in an aggression incident? ZERO. NADA. ZILCH.

So, how is the 5% statistic relevant to the 31 attack incidents? Why don't we ask the dogbite.org "researchers?

LOL Joe 78.2 million dogs as pets in the US and only 31 fatal attacks. Pitbulls make up 5%, 3.9 MILLION dogs and of that 3.9 MILLION pits 22 fatal attacks of which 8 where under a year old. 3.9 MILLION pitbulls and 22 fatal attacks in a year

3900000 pitbulls and 22 fatal attacks in a year. You are more likely to get killed crossing the street than be killed by a PITBULL. How wonderful stats are when you use them correctly.

I didn't comment on the stats just posted them. I will leave it up to the readers to make an informed decision to leave their toddlers around known killers.

And those 2 young girls more likely would have been killed by a group of pit bulls before they were crushed by a derailed train load. See how that works?

actually Joe you are wrong. Statistically they were more likely to be killed by the train than be killed by a pitbull. actually 22 times as likely.
Last year 473 deaths were a result of trespassing on railroad rights-of-way and property.
Come on man. I know you are better than that.

Brian, you cannot, if your life depended on it, calculate the odds of 2 people sitting near a train track and being crushed by a load of coal from a derailed train. I challenge you to find even one more time it EVER happened. Train accident statistics do not include this type of freak occurrence. Your incorrect use of stats is standard fare.

The AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) and the CDC (the federal government) lists leaving small children alone with a dog as one of the leading causes of dog-related death and injury (the other two are failure to spay/neuter, and raising dogs to be aggressive as in the case of fighting or guard dogs). They do single out any breed, and actually SPECIFICALLY STATE that pit bulls are no more dangerous or likely to be aggressive than any other breed.

For the record, small children have been killed this year BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS LEFT THEM ALONE WITH A DOG, by boxers, golden retrievers, german shepherds labs, and even a Jack Russell! Very sad, and all easily avoided if you take the advice of the federal government and the largest veterinary association in the world and make sure to supervise your small children around your dog.

Actually, the 5% is the number of AKC-registered Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers. For the record, NONE OF THESE 3 million or so full-bred dogs have any documented cases of aggression. So, that 5% number has no affiliation whatsoever with the 31 people killed by dogs in 2011 (OR any other year). This is typical dogbite.org lying and manipulation of facts.

Most of the 31 dogs involved in the death statistics were mutts. The CDC recorded these number, and referred to 11 (NOT 22 -- another blatant dogbite.org LIE) as "pit bull type dogs". They won't stand behind this statistic because they clearly state that they cannot verify breed of mixed breed dogs, but DNA studies have proven that mixed breed dogs identified as "pit bull" are comprised of up to 10 different breeds, and most have no breed commonality. They can just as easily be a Bulldog/mastiff mix as an Akita/Boxer mix. With THIS definition of "pit bull type dog", most experts believe that "pit bull type dogs" make up closer to 40% of the U.S. dog population. That is more like 35 million dogs, NOT 3 million.

So we are talking about 11 mixed breed dogs that are short-haired, weigh over 40 pound, and are a mix of up to 10 breeds that can be subjectively referred to as "pit bull type" that killed humans. Sorry, but those are the ACTUAL facts. Dogbite.org is a nothing but a load of cyberspace horse manure.

And just for the record, 32 people died in elevator accidents last year. Elevators are more deadly than pit bulls.

@Joe actually my use of stats is no different the the use of the stats that you posted. LOL dont be mad because I shoot holes in your attempts to underhandedly insult me and others. Your lack of ability to draw logical conclusions from the stats that you provide does not make other as unintelligent as the provider of the stats themselves.
BTW where did you get your statical degree?

Add Brian to the list of Supremacists. So much smarter and better than the average bear he believes in his own mind.

True! I know people in denial will deny these truthful facts and stats! The proof is in the numbers, what else is there to prove people?

Frank, don;t you have some child to molest?

Neither (D) or (R), this data is neither truthful nor fact. "Dogsbite.org" has been proven to misinterpret and falsify its data by a number of fact checking sites and investigative reporters. It is a biased website run by a dog-bite victim with no expertise in the field of animals or medicine.

No one is denying truth or fact. However, in the case of these statistics, neither has been posted.

lol Joe again you resort to personal attacks because someone has used the stats you presented and turn them against you. You are truly a funny dude. Dont be mad Bro!!

@Neither (D) or (R) I took the stats that were presented here and broke them down further. I cant help that the stats provided showed the opposite of what they intended to show. :-)

@ Tony you are correct I do disagree with one aspect of the ruling. I really have a problem with the strict liability for landlords. The landlord can take every precaution available to man, yet they can still be sued. The ruling will force landlords to discriminate against all dog owners unless the landlord is an expert in identifying dogs.

Mr. Dog Expert, you have no clue what "game" is. Good Lord, such verbal vomit.

Why do people survive Russian Roulette?

I have no doubt jenn. But you included the operative word. "yet". How many owners of the dog who had the dog attack their child said how wonderful they were....until the attack and how out of character it was? Many would never let their kids around firearms and I would never let my kids around pits. To each his own. In 4 generation in America, and all 4 generations with firearms i the homes with children, never an accident. If some here used the same statistical attributes to firearms in the home, then those with firearms are safer than with pit bulls.

"AVMA report agreed that dog bites happen a 5 million a year and that it is a public health threat number one to children 76%."

Could you provide a link to this report?

"Pit Bulls are to those photos what Smokey the Bear is to firefighting. Mascotts for the times."

"Federal housing and England where they are storied just like Smokey the Bear or Sgt Stubby to be PR dogs of the time nothing more,."

Fallacy. The United Kingdom's opinion of a breed they have banned since 1991 is no more relevant to American law than their opinion on firearms, alcohol, etc. is to our own legislation.

"In regards to the AVMA they are a animal medical institution whose involvement in a case regarding what Marylanders can and can’t own is over the top."

"Against the ASPCA who had the nerve to spend food and shelter money on a Premisises liability case."

Fallacy. Your opinion on what these private non-profit organizations should be doing with their money is irrelevant. You have no more right to dictate their behavior than they do to dictate yours. You have an agenda and so do the members of these groups.

all that is fine and dandy owner of dog should be held responsible for their dogs actions. The landlord should not.

more dogbite.org stuff and nonsense....

YES, more will come of this. When our state assembly finally decides to put the welfare of citizens in front of gambling, they will address and overturn this debacle. It should have happened last week, but gambling lobbyists buy more steak dinners and send more Ravens tickets to the State Assembly than dog owners, so we got thrown under the bus TWICE -- once by 4 idiot judges, and then by a self-serving State Assembly, but there is NO QUESTION where the majority of Marylanders stand on this issue, and there is NO QUESTION (based on the UNANIMOUS vote in the House to overturn to ruling) that it will not stand.

Brook, the AVMA/CDC report listed leaving children alone with a dog as one of the leading causes of dog-related fatalities and injuries. The other most common causes were no neutering/spaying, and using dogs for purposes other than pets (fighting, guard dogs, etc.). So, Tony (for once) got one thing right.

What he did NOT get correct is that the CDC CLEARLY STATES that this is NOT breed related (a Jack Russell killed an infant earlier this year), and that public education is the suggested approach to lowering these incidents. The Draconian science fiction that Tony is spouting is a little hysterical and overly-dramatic, to say the least.

"Then I guess if you did your research that you also know that the only recorded dog bite in the white House was Roosovelts dog on the french priminister and that it near caused a international incident."

Incorrect. "Barney", the dog of George Bush, bit both a reporter and a sports PR director.

Also, the dog that bit the French Ambassador (not Prime Minister) was a Bull Terrier... not an APBT. The Bull Terrier is not the same breed nor has the same characteristics as an APBT. This is doubly so, considering at the time the "Bull Terrier" was a different animal (physically and mentally) from modern Bull Terriers and APBTs.

"they are banned in all Us and overseas Military bases."

Half true. They are among a number of breeds (and species) banned from ~all~ Army bases (not just overseas). According to a memorandum sent in January of 2009, aggressive or potentially aggressive breeds are restricted from residing on base unless a certified military working dog. Included are "Pit Bulls" (defined as Staffordshire Bull Terriers, both American and English), Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, Chows, and wolf hybrids. In addition, any dog that has demonstrated a propensity for said behavior (regardless of breed) is also subject to this restriction.

It is important to note that this memorandum also restricts base residents from exotic animals including, but not limited to, reptiels, rodents (other than hamsters and guinea pigs), ferrets, hedgehogs, skunks, rats, raccoons, squirrels, pot bellied pigs, monkeys, arachnids, or any farm animal. To state these military restrictions target Pit Bulls solely is fallacy at best.

Absolutely, Brook, and there is a movement to have the DoD address these restrictions by soldiers and their families, and these restrictions will most likely be lifted.

These restrictions went into place when base housing was turned over to private management, and those in charge were a more than a little EXTREME (as your list proves) in order to make it easier on them.

jenn, 51 dogs were taken form Vick and only 18 have been given to families with much re-training and those families were also well screened.

18 dogs that were trained to fight and kill out of 51 now living with families is pretty damn good in my book. Show me 18 Dobermans or German Shepherds who were trained to fight and kill that could be rehabilitated to that point.

A "pit bull" according to the only national organization that registers them is a relatively small dog, not exceeding 60 pounds (most are around 45 pounds).

A 500 pound llama was fatally injured by a dog that small? Most likely, the dog was a mix that included cane corso, American Bulldog, or some other large breed -- but of course, because it attacked a llama, it had to be a "pit bull".

Another example of subjective (and most likely WRONG) breed identification and irresponsible journalism.

Thank you for bringing up a PERFECT EXAMPLE of this continuing problem, and how it impacts the opinion of "pit bull type dogs" by people with low IQs.

@Tony my issue is not with the dog or the breed. My issue is the strict liability part of the ruling. I know that dogs are typically only as bad as their owners allow them to be. Bad(Non alpha) owners make for bad dogs. To single out any one breed is wrong. To hold a property owner financially responsible for the actions of the tenant is wrong unless you can prove negligence.

No, Tony, YOU are the one who created this issue & the blood is on YOUR hands.

I have no clue what you are talking about re : placing dogs & bringing them back. Can't make any sense out of half of your post.

These 4 judges were MORONS. This has been established. The Baltimore Sun wrote a story on what a bunch of idiots these appeals court judges are. On the SAME DAY, these morons decided that DNA tests can't be done on convicted criminals in this state of Maryland. EVERY OTHER STATE IN THE U.S. AND THE FBI do DNA test on convicted criminals so they can possibly connect them to other crimes. But those same 4 moron judges in Maryland are the only people in black robes in the entire United States that believe that rapists and murderers have a Constitutional right to not go to jail for prior crimes. The attorney general's office was speechless. Gansler looked like a deer in the headlights when it was announced. I actually felt sorry for the guy. He had to stay professional, and you could tell her just wanted to blurt out, "What a bunch of F#$#ing morons!" The Supreme Court of the United States just issued a stay on this decision.

NEWSFLASH: These judges are complete and absolute IDIOTS!!!! Your case is not the only one they have screwed up. Hell, it wasn't even the only one they screwed up THAT DAY!

You got lucky. After years of going through appeals courts with judges who were NOT idiots and rejected you, you hit the IDIOT JACKPOT. Two morons, and two senile old retired farts. Congratulations! Your case is in good company, with every other STUPID DECISION these morons have made.

Because they are doing the classic CYA due to our culture of law suit happy people & greedy ambulance chasers.

I'm not making sense ??? YOU SUED THE LANDLORDS. You caused this.
Is that simple enough for you ?

WHO'S not making sense?

Do you READ what you WRITE?

@Tony you know why landlord are banning them. Landlords dont want to be held financially liable for the irresponsible dog owner. For a dog owner they have NO CONTROL over. It is fiscally responsible to do what they have done. If one bad dog owner has one dog that bites someone, they stand to lose Millions of dollars. This whole strictly liability stuff for the landlord goes against the spirit of our laws of the land.
Seriously, could the State then be held strictly liable because they allow the landlord to own property in the state? The ruling makes no sense.

Quick answer: Because of your idiot lawsuit, every landlord in the state is paranoid.

Jenn, it's breaking my heart. I look at my dogs & I can't imagine how horrible it is for those families.

Fallacy. Equating limitation of marine vehicles to dog breeds does not work; vehicles of any kind are not living creatures. If a marine accident occurs with the vehicle, the vehicle is not destroyed because it is "inherently dangerous". The person is fined and/or sued and goes about their business. If there are repeat occurrences, they may lose their license or be restricted from the use of said vehicle.

"Brook, I think you make many relative points but many are semantic..."

Please point out which points are semantic. You have made statements that are false, half-true, or indicative of a logical fallacy. I have highlighted the errors in your statements for others to see. I am unsure how any of this is based on word play or misunderstanding of meanings.

My great-grandfather had a commercial fishing boat, my grandfather worked for the largest marine motor manufacturing company in the country, my father has worked in the marine manufacturing for 48 years, and both of my brothers work in the marine industry. It is a family business, and one of which I know MUCH more than you do.

Equating a boat to a dog is complete idiocy. First, there have been NO DEATHS in Maryland by ANY BREED of dog in over 6 years. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH.

25 people died in boating accidents in Maryland in 2011. Wanna know WHY most of them died? Because they were DRINKING or they were victims of someone who are DRINKING!

People who are negligent deserve to be held accountable. But the act of simply owning a dog is NOT NEGLIGENCE!!!!

Let's repeat this, so you can TRY to understand. OWNING A DOG IS NOT NEGLIGENT. You can BE a negligent owner, or you can be a really crappy boater, but the ACT of owning a dog OR a boat is not, in itself, NEGLIGENT.

It's NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND!!!! (for most people, anyway)

@Tony you are correct you cant just magically sue someone. You could not sue the landlord because your lawyer could not prove the landlord did anything wrong. In fact the landlord acknowledge that the dogs were there. She took what she thought at the time was the proper legal precautions in order to protect herself. What you and your lawyers have done is changed the law by using the scare tactics of vicious "Pitbull" argument to pull at the heart strings of the judges in this case. Great strategy by your lawyers. You have succeeded in getting the law changed so that the protections that were in place for landlords is now gone. Now the door is open for anybody to sue the landlord for anything the tenant does that causes harm. You and your lawyers wanted to win so bad that you failed to look at the big picture.
Now when a tenant beat the crap out of his neighbor the neighbor's lawyer can bring suit against the landlord. Most lawsuits are resolved out of court just because the defendant does want the expense of going through the courts. This was nothing but a legal move to open up the pockets of the landlords.

No one fell asleep at the wheel. Every court in Maryland turned you down, and no one actually thought that these judges could possibly be this STUPID and IRRESPONSIBLE. This case was so ridiculous that any intelligent person is DUMBFOUNDED that 4 judges could be this DUMB. Considering the fact that 2 of them were retired, and probably half-senile, probably had something to do with it. Personally, I'm writing letters to the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities asking for the 2 sitting judges who ruled in your favor to be investigated. They overstepped and defied the state constitution by creating new law, and their decision was based on absolutely incorrect information. They do not deserve to be judges.

The House must have found something compelling.They voted unanimously to overturn this court ruling.

The Senate didn't reject it; they just tabled it.

YES, the court got it completely and absolutely wrong. Four people in black robes with the heads completely up their bums. No doubt. The reason we have balance of power in a democracy is to ensure that people like these judges are kept in check. And they will be. I just wish it was sooner.

Colleen, Where you been I mosed your wisdom.

Keep telling yourself that, Tony.

By the way, you are the ONLY ONE WHO BELIEVES IT!

Tony & his ambulance chaser should have to do it.

Tina, I have reread your post and I am praying that in the January session you and the people that agree with you will get up and speak and by all means please phne your delegates and Senators. They need to hear your many and varied points of view. I am cetain with these insights arguments and behaviors by time the session is done they will extend the ruling to mix breeds as well. None of you are doing your breeds image or it's plight any justice in fact it is the reverse so go ahead rave on rav on. Hitler Holocaust are you insane??

I think that Tony Solesky and the Dunne lawyer of his are the most hated men in Maryland right now.

"2/3 of America that doesn't even own a dog"

Partially true. As of the last statistics (August 2011), 39% of households own at least one dog.

"60% of dog owners who do not own a Pit bull or any of the various mixes."

Please provide a credible source for this statistic.

Brook I cannot provide a crediable source I got the 40% thing from Colleen Carter on the other blog that my attorney was on and I just trusted her numbers. She said that between the various mixes that some type of Pit Bull is in at least 40 % of all dogs. Brook the answer actually isn't in the ststistics it is in the problem that people use atatistics to sheild themselves from a conslusion they don't wish to make. The simple fact is that all dog breeds are what they are by their hereidty and become the best they can be within the limitations of their heredity. Meaning a beagle not used to hunt is no less a beagle then one that is used to hunt. OK all I will pick it up in the morning God Bless

Yes Tina I do know how dumb I sound

If the source cannot be proven credible, the statistic is not reliable and should not be used to prove a point.

As you say, the problem is "that people use statistics to shield themselves from a conclusion they don't wish to make". This applies to both sides of an issue.

Tony, you don't seem to understand the American concept of the dog.

Let me explain it to you as someone who's family landed on the shore of this country about 80 miles up the road (in Virginia) in 1665.

Most of the founding fathers had dogs. Dogs came over on the Mayflower. Every single president has had a dog, dating back to George Washington. There has ALWAYS been a dog in the White House. Dogs have always served in the military, and as part of police forces. Dogs are as American as apple pie and baseball. Dogs are a part of the American way of life, and they have been since the very beginning.

Brook is right, just under 40% of U.S. households have dogs. That's an awful lot of people, and an awful lot of dogs. Put in perspective, 46% of American households have children under 18. Very close to the same number.

Dog owners are not a fringe group. Dog advocacy organizations do not have secret agendas. There is no "dog owners vs. non-dog owners" struggle going on in the U.S. Many people who don't have dogs still like dogs. I only became a dog owner about 12 years ago, a few years after I bought my 1st house. Before that, I was single, lived in apt., and worked full-time and was in grad school full-time. I looked forward to having a house and a dog, and I looked forward to the opportunity to rescue a shelter dog and cat. It's a value I grew up with. It's an AMERICAN value of which I am a participant.

Rescuing a dog is not a "plight". It is AMERICAN!

Brook, what I quoted was a statistic that said that based on the most common definition of "pit bull type dog" (a mixed breed dog comprised 10+ breed with little-to-no breed commonality), that some animal advocacy/veterinary groups estimate this demographic at around 40% of dogs in America. I was responding to the dogbite.org B.S. about "pit bulls" making up 5% of the dog population, when in fact that number is only REGISTERED Amstaffs, Staffies, and APBTs (esp. since NONE of this 5% number has EVER been involved in any recorded aggression incident).
Since the definition is so subjective, and is based purely on visual identification (since DNA tests have proven that dogs visually identified as "pit bull" don't share any breed commonality in many cases and can be a boxer/bulldog as easily as a mastiff /husky), there is only educated conjecture on how many dogs could be subjectively identified as pit bull, but the educated conjecture of some veterinary groups is up to 40%. The CDC couldn't verify this, but could not disprove it either, because of the subjectivity in identifying mixed breed dogs.

Jenn, Yes I have always thought Pits are dangerous and I also think the guns I own are dangerous and the car I drive and the boat I Captain. Calling something dangerous does not equal banning it it equals measures equal to the harm that the particular object can cause. The idea that people fight that Pit Bulls are dangerous is obsurd, now that because they are dangerous means you should not have it well there you have a different arguement entirerly. Yes I have a background with field trail dogs and Akitas and yes I have always thought that Pit Bulls and several others are dangerous.

The Baltimore Sun has called them out on their idiotic decisions, Tony.

And it is not a violation of contract law to allow dogs in a lease. This case, and these judges, are an embarrassment to our state.

Considering the fact that there are 80 million dogs in the U.S. and less than 8,000 serious but non-fatal incidents, and 31 fatal incidents, I think you are being a bit overly dramatic about the issue.

Gun homicides are a far bigger issue than dogs ever will be, and Maryland is one of the leading states in gun homicides.

The legislature will change it. There is ZERO doubt about that. However, by January, a lot of people will be impacted by this piss poor judge and their irresponsibility. Innocent people should not suffer because of your need to collect money.

"Well I guess that is the example over and over how Pitt Bulls DO SNAP, even to "good" owners."

Fallacy. Anecdotal evidence is not valid when determining scientific probability. What three Pit Bulls (or was it one three times?) did does not determine the behavior of the entire breed.

In addition, Pit Bulls ~are~ known for higher than usual dog aggression. This does bring into question the capability of the owners when they bring them to a dog part. It does not indicate that the breed is known for higher than usual ~human~ aggression, which is the topic at hand and the reason for BSL.

Brook. I am a Doctor in the biological and ecology field. You know Nothing about scientific probability and wildlife behavior in general. It is quite obvious you love Google searching topics then re-iterating what you read to make a sarcastic point written in an extremely passive aggressive way. I can bet that you were or are a student of English or the Classical Literary sciences. You know how to play words off of what you read to prove a point which is obviously predisposed to be credulous to support your topic. Doesn't play here pal.

"I had 3 examples" there are 1000's more. Did anyone ever say only my stories account for the whole breed? NO. If you want, go to a dog park locally. 1. Ask all the owners there how many aggressive dogs have they seen go after another dog for no reason. 2. Ask then what breed were they?

I have heard dozens of stories from just the three parks I frequent from owners over and over discussing their dogs being attacks by bulls or other dogs they saw getting attacked by bulls.

And YES, if it is overwhelmingly one breed dominating the stats... the breed should be regulated or should be restricted to very limited breeding licenses to reduce the great over population of the breed. Its called being responsible stewards to help the breed and better the breed's odds in the future.

Also Brook. What are your feelings about wolf hybrids? You do realize that they are 100% banned in many states including this state? Why are they banned when they account for the less attacks on humans then bulls, rotts, shepherds, dobbies, ect... Did you stand up and defend the rights to own a wolf hybrid when they were fully banned in Maryland many years ago?

Your entire argument is one giant ad hominem attack, hoping to discredit me based solely on your perception of who I am. Unfortunately, this will not work as anyone with intelligence recognizes this sort of logical fallacy... not to mention, you are completely ignorant of who I am.

You can claim you are a "doctor" in whatever, but seeing as you use a false name it is hard to take that claim seriously. Just like you would probably not accept my claim that I do indeed have expertise in scientific method and statistics. My style of writing has nothing to do with English or Classical Literature, neither of which is a "bad" focus. Instead, I was trained to type in APA format because of my education and field. Everything I say is normal for scientific debate, where critical thinking, logical reasoning, and peer-reviewed data are important.

Unless you can reveal who you really are, this is nothing more than the use of internet anonymity to discredit the opposition because you cannot prove your point through simple logic. If you want to have a legitimate discussion over actual facts from credible sources... I am game.

You stated the following...

"He has been aggressively attacked (or attempted) 3 times the past year in dog parks, when my dog wasn't even playing near the Pitt Bull. Each time it was a PITT BULL and each time I heard the same BS, "My dog has never done that before. He is so well trained and loving." Well I guess that is the example over and over how Pitt Bulls DO SNAP, even to "good" owners."

This section suggest that three incidences in the last year are indication of why a breed is unstable. Three incidences is a poor argument for determining the behavior and disposition of anything but an individual animal, let alone an entire breed. That is the fallacy I pointed out; anecdotes are not admissable in critical thought. That goes for either side, especially since for every anecdote about how a dog snapped there is an equal anecdote for how a dog never did.

There is no evidence of "1000" Pit Bull bites in a year. Even the singular study by the CDC (which admittedly only covers data found up to 1998) revealed a total of 238 dog bite related fatalities where breed was known.... over 20 years. Therefore, the suggestion that thousands of anecdotes are out there is likely only true in that there are thousands of incidences over years (or even decades). Regardless, as mentioned above, anecdotes are not admissable as supporting evidence. Only raw data from legitimate studies can be used.

The only statistic that "Pit Bulls" dominate is that, over a 20 year period, they were more responsible for dog bite fatalities. A total of 66 dog bite fatalities were caused by "Pit Bull-types" over 20 years. This does not indicate that Pit Bulls bite more; only that their bites are more lethal. In addition, this data does not confirm what percentage of these dog bite fatalities were caused by animals "snapping"; fatal dog bites could be caused by territoriality, provokation, etc.

Without any further information, that number (66/238) is the only statistically significant data we can look at. How you use it is up to you:

1) You can claim that "Pit Bull-types" are responsible for ~28% of all dog bite fatalities, which is true.

2) You can claim that your chances of dying from a "Pit Bull" bite are 1 in ~708,000, which is true.

Up to you how you wish to interpret the data.

I would also note that everything about your anecdote focuses on dog versus dog aggression. I am not sure how many times this has to be reiterated, but that is ~not~ indicative of dog versus human aggression. They are two different characteristics.

"What are your feelings about wolf hybrids?"

Wolf hybrids are banned because one parent is not a domesticated animal. Non-hybrid dogs ~are~ domesticated animals who have been bred for many generations for their characteristics. Wolf hybrids are far more likely to display "wild" behavior than non-hybrid dogs.

You cannot compare restrictions of a hybrid wild animal to those of a domesticated breed.

Again, I cannot speak with someone that reads and bends words. You again did not address my questions or comments. I said, "pitt bull attacks" you quoted pitt bull 'fatalities". You bend words wonderfully; but those of us see right through your sad attempts, while you play off of a passive aggressive writing style with twisted comments and facts. Now go back to writing your English paper... (JK on that).

Neither (D) or (R)
You are obviously in a pointless discussion with an unemployed researcher (AKA Book) who feels the uncontrollable need to condemn or approve every comment made to this post. She will certainly get my vote for "Pitnutter of the Year"

Brook. You think your smart, but you are the fool actually. You try to entice people with passive aggressive twisted word comments to solicit an aggravated response so you can ambulance chase the person responding. It makes you look very non-credible to the wise reader.

Google <click> dog attacks <click> read.... review.... write about only that which pertains to support my view. Write savy (yet passively aggressive) response to make "me" look so smart and make the "reader" look like they are way below me. Just saying it is obvious.

There is no peer-reviewed data of how many Pit Bull attacks occur each year. I have looked through research databases and government studies and found no information. Do you have some to support your own statements?

Also, declaring me as "twisting words", "passive aggressive", and someone "anyone can see through" is not conducive to intelligent discussion. It is a weak attempt to deny my points through your own claims without any logical reasoning to support it. If you wish to end it, feel free; I will remain to refute any false or partly true claims.

"You are obviously in a pointless discussion with an unemployed researcher.."

I am most definitely employed, but thank you for the ad hominem attack based on ignorance.

"She will certainly get my vote for "Pitnutter of the Year""

I am not a "she" as can be seen by my profile. I also do not own a Pit Bull and never would because of the work required for such a dog. However, if you feel the need to label anyone who disagrees with you and refutes misinformation regarding the issue as a "nutter" that is your choice.

"Again, I cannot speak with someone that reads and bends words."

Translation: You are smarter than I am, and you express yourself more logically and your points are valid, whereas my angry jibberish cannot be cited or validated, so instead I will issue personal attacks and insults, as do all people who feel intimated when confronted with their intellectual inferiority.

And, I'm editor, by the way. I don't write English papers. But I CAN write proper English, which is more than I can say for you and your cohorts.

Here is a link to the National Canine Research Council's page on dog bites and fatalities recorded in Maryland since 1953. (Note that it concludes, "Nothing in the available public record in Maryland – or anywhere else in Europe or North America – supports the designation of “pit bull” dogs as “inherently dangerous.”

Knock yourself out.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/blog/marylands-experience-the-public-record-the-tracey-v-solesky-ruling/

"Google <click> dog attacks <click> read.... review.... write about only that which pertains to support my view. Write savy (yet passively aggressive) response to make "me" look so smart and make the "reader" look like they are way below me. Just saying it is obvious."

And this is different from those relying on Dogsbite.org and similar websites how?

Also, so you know, my previous research was made through EBSCOhost and ProQuest, both databases for libraries and colleges. That is where I found information from the CDC, AVMA, NCRC, and NSC as well as several studies on the topic of dog bites.

Neither (D) or (R),

As a scientific journal editor who DOES fact check and deal with statistics and studies every day, if you are a doctor in ANYTHING I'll eat my shoe. You can't even spell "pit bull". You have no English grammar skills whatsoever, and despite your posturing, you are unable to cite any of your statements.

Do you know the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence? If you had a Ph.D. in ANYTHING, you sure would. I "only" have a master's degree, and I can tell the difference.

YOU have anecdotal evidence. WE have scientific evidence -- from the CDC, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and scores of animal advocacy organizations.

Here's the summary of the CDC/AVMA report on dog aggression by breed, "neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on the contents of this report." There is ZERO evidence that any breed of dog is more aggressive than any other. You WILL NOT provide any evidence to the contrary because you CAN NOT. All you are capable of doing is making up false credentials and giving an uneducated opinion. That's NOT evidence.

Not all gun owners are reckless. But if we bann all guns we can do away with problem. Right or wrong????? Just get rid of all pit bulls and the problem goes away. Please don't hold the owners responsible.

You may hate posting sites, but as you refuse to do so your statistics cannot be found credible. My research into the issue found no professional organization or Federal department that had data on the amount of dog bites each year, let alone by breed. The only data is from the CDC study and it was on dog bite fatalities... this is not the same as reported dog bites and breed prevalence within that scope.

Please provide the source for your own statistics.

"But if we bann all guns we can do away with problem. Right or wrong????? "

WRONG!!!!!! Banning all guns is as easy as banning all murder.

Nope, not even close. First, "pit bulls and mixes" account for up to 40% of the dog population in America. But even with this number of "pit bull" type dogs in America, they do not account for 40% of aggressive incidents. Less than 1,000 serious injuries out of about 30 million dogs, actually.

Second, a Toledo, Ohio DNA study proved that most shelter dogs identified as "pit mix" had no breed DNA in common. Some were husky/bulldog mixes, and some were lab/mastiff mixes, and some were boxer/retriever mixes. "Full-breed pit bulls" do no exist. The "full-breed" dogs most commonly related to "pit bull", American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers have documented aggression incidents. NONE. ZILCH. NADA.

Now, if I had a Ph.D. in any biology-related field, I would know that if there is no common ancestry, there cannot be any common ancestral inherent traits. AND, if I had Ph.D. in any biology-related field, I would know that if inherent traits DID exist (such as "snapping" or aggression), these traits could be traced back to the full-bred dog. AND if I had a Ph.D. at all, I would know that a .00003% chance of ANYTHING is called "statistically insignificant".

The only federal agency that has ever tracked dog aggression by breed is the CDC. They concluded in their last report, "neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on the contents of this report."

I'll sue your landlond if it ends up going thru my window!!!

But this case isnt about Pit bulls. It is about Strict liability. Pitbulls just happen to be the the device used to facilitate the ruling to make landlord Strictly liable. The "PitBull" (AM Staff) is just a casualty.

"Pit bull" is not a breed. It is a catch-all term that describes mixed breed dogs of up to 10 different breeds, and DNA studies have proven that most don't even share any common breed DNA.

So, essentially, you are saying that mixed breed dogs over 40 pounds that might contain DNA of several different breeds (mastiff, bulldog, AmStaff, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, boxer, boston terrier, husky, cane corso, cane presario.....) are not suitable pets. That's an awful lot of dogs; over 30 million in some estimates. If dogs that could be identified as "pit bull" were REALLY inherently dangerous, don't you think more than a handful a year out of that 30 million would be snapping or turning or their owners?

What makes you an expert on canine behavior? I'm sorry your son was attacked, but that did not automatically convey a DVM onto you. You have ZERO expertise, and your statements are in DIRECT OPPOSITION with those who do. To quote a CDC/American Veterinary Medical Association report on canine aggression, "neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based...." That is the opinion of people who have things like "DVM" and "Ph.D" after their names, and who spent 10 years conducting the study that concluded with this information. So, unless you have education, professional experience, or you are aware of some study that no one else seems to know about, your personal opinion should not be represented as expertise.

That is the point in simplest terms. PB lovers not willing to take responsibility for their naturally aggressive dogs?

The majority of people in this state, AND the majority of members in our General Assembly agree with US, not YOU. These judges made a mistake. I spoke to my delegate's office, and I was assured that the majority of lawmakers in Annapolis are still shaking their heads over this decision. This court has a long history of bad ruling, and this is one in a very long line of bad rulings.

It has nothing to do with pit bull ownership. The law cannot define "pit bull" (actually, no one can, because it is not a breed), and holding a landlord liable for the criminal actions of a tenant is absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, the judges overstepped their Constitutional authority by creating law. This is BAD LAW and a BAD DECISION, not because of "pit bulls", but because these judges created a law (when they are not allowed to create law) that has no way of being evenly enforced, and created a precedent that turns landlords into nannies.

Did either of you even READ the decision?

No you know how we 2nd Amendment supporters and gun owners feel jenn.
Passing law after law that will only affect law abiding gun owners and not those shooting others for looking at them wrong! Welcome to the Peoples Republic of Martyland.

For once, I agree with Joe. I have had this same argument when debating strict gun control advocates. Unfortunately, the arguments usually end up the same...

Good point

The VAST majority of the 88 million dogs in the U.S. are NOT "dangerous monsters". Considering the VERY LOW statistics of dog aggression in this country (you have the same odds of dying in an elevator accident than in a dog attack), it's hardly an epidemic. The problem is, this ruling labels EVERY dog that could possibly be identified as a "pit bull type" as a "dangerous monster" -- which is unfair and will results in tens of thousands of innocent animals who have never caused harm to another human being to be euthanized. So, I DO worry about it, because that is unacceptable to me (and most people in this state).

Colleen,
If you are a parent with a child and one of these monsters attacks your child, how would you feel then? These statistics are signficant if you are the victim. These dogs have the potential to snap without provocation. It is unfortunate that they also have the physical ability to maim or kill children when they do snap. These dogs run free in the city and attack very frequently. I know because I treat the victims in an inner city emergency department. Not a week goes by that I don't see one or two pit bull attack victims.
In addition, I live next door to a vicious pit bull. He has three attacks so far verified by Animal Control and he still is allowed (illegally) to walk around without a leash and without the required muzzle. He has ran away at times also. Do you have children in my neighborhood? You may be exposed to this dangerous dog and not even know it. This may not seem important for you, but as a parent I fear for the safety of my child (every time this dog lunges at her) and every other child on the this street that unknowingly is exposed to this dangerous dog while he is running free "playing". Three attacks so far, IT WILL ATTACK AGAIN without a doubt. Where do you live?? The people of this state should be the priority for protection, not these dogs that attack our citizens.

If they ever start selling dangerous monsters I'm getting a couple of them! That would be so cool.

k,

If you are worried about your children, and you live Maryland (especially Baltimore) why don't you take a look at gun homicides in this state of children?

How many children died from a dog over the past 6 years in Maryland? NONE.

How many children have died from guns JUST LAST YEAR in Maryland? 40

More people died just in 2011 from gun violence in Maryland than have died from dog bite-related injuries in the previous 48 years. And you are worried about DOGS? If you were a good mother, you'd worry about something that actually DOES kill and harm children on a regular basis. The same number of people died in elevator accidents as dog bite-related deaths last year. Do you let your children ride in elevators?

Additionally, serious injuries are EXTREMELY rare, and are evenly divided over several breeds of dog. No single breed statistically stands out as causing more injuries than any other.

People are afraid of "pit bulls" as they used to be afraid of Rottweilers and Dobermans a generation and two generations ago. But like these breeds, this is related to more to conjecture and hysteria than fact or reason, and my guess is that many of dogs that you see as "pit bulls" when they act aggressively are, in fact, NOT pit bulls. As an ASPCA study put it, "every dog that bites is a pit bull, even when it's not." An Ohio study proved that over 50% of dogs in shelters identified as "pit bull" by shelter workers DNA tested as other breeds.

"a wolf will not attackand kill it's own kind or fight to the death."

Incorrect. Wolves will not kill their own pack or fight them to the death. Wolves have and do kill stray wolves that wander into their territory.

"The word domesticated means of the family of man and yet a pit Bull will fight to the death a man or it's own kind."

Incorrect. Domesticated is not the same as tame. Domestication is nature; taming is nurture. Farm animals are domesticated; no one considers them part of "The family of man".

"Otherwise you talk as if any DBRF is acceptable which is obsurd."

To declare that 0% is the only acceptable number is delusional. 0% should be the ~ideal~ number, but we have to understand the reality. 0% DBRF is no more likely than 0% guns on the planet (or even in the US). The best we can do is keep finding reasonable ways to reduce the number... but these need to be reasonable and not based on emotion or misperceptions.

Wrong again dog expert, imagine that.

The same number of people died in elevator accidents as they did from dog bite-related injuries.

Let's ban elevators. Anything other than 0% is unacceptable.

While we are at it, let's ban airplane travel (over 500 people died in plane accidents), and cars (MILLIONS die every year in car accidents), restaurant food (almost 300 people died from foodbourne illness last year), and let's remove the "hot" tap from every household in America because 43 people died last year from hot water right out of the tap. That's 25% more than died from DOG ATTACKS, but it must be an EPIDEMIC!

And for the record, "semantics" is not the same things as "facts". When someone give you facts and statistics that can be cited and verified, it is not the same thing as "semantics".

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/October/k9.xml
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6625698
http://www.lawofficer.com/video/news/pit-bull-police-dog-meet-shaka

Tony, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. No Pit Bulls used in government agencies ?? Did Coleen the psychic queen tell you that ?

Brook, you BEAT ME TO IT.

That one was too easy!

Tony, how many ways can we tell you that you do NOT know what you are talking about? I guess you'll figure it out when you stop taking "information" from your friends at dogbite.org and repeating it as if it had anything whatsoever to do with truth or reality.

I will write Governor O'Malley and ask him how he would feel as a father if one of his children were to be attacked by a pit bull. How would he feel about then having to PROVE the dog was dangerous after it attacked his child. His job is to protect the citizens of this state, not prioritize dogs over human life and safety.

k,

When you can substantiate your claim with research, facts, and statistics, please do so. Well, you can express your opinion to the governor whether it is complete conjecture and B.S. or not. That's your First Amendment right.

But my letter had cites and statistics from the federal government, the AVMA, and the Maryland state attorney office.

But please feel free. The more hysterical letters from people like you he gets, the better it is for reasonable people like myself.

ROTFLMAO AHHAHAHA dogsbite.org ? Really? They can't even correctly identify a "Pit Bull" This dog killed an infant so Colleen the psychic queen with her infinite wisdom & expertise declared it a "Pit Bull" http://whoiscolleenlynn.com/3/post/2012/08/what-about-the-victim.html

This is a fake site, and no one involved in dogbite.org has anything to do with Maryland government. As a matter of fact, no one involved with this website has anything to do with any government.

Tony Solesky thinks that everyone is as stupid as he is.

Here is my petition. If you do not believe that Tony Solesky and some online psychic from Texas who goes by the moniker "Divine Goddess" should be able to cause thousands of dog owners to go homeless or kill their pets, please sign.

https://www.change.org/petitions/the-md-state-senate-use-executive-privilege-to-place-a-moratium-on-the-tracy-v-solesly-ruling

Who doesn't like my points? So far it is you and two other accounts directly responding to my posts... not exactly the majority in this particular discussion.

Jenn, your comment will make to much sense to be comprehended.

What is there to prove wrong? This is someone's opinion piece in the format of a Letter to the Editor. This is all subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" about it to disprove.

Opinion pieces are just that: opinion. There is no facts to prove in them and they should hold no bearing on logical debate.

Brook, SO now you make my point. The most comphrensive study group of multidisipline vocations was gathered in 2001 in the AVMA report and the first sentence said it is a Public Health issue. If you look at the Human public health charter of any municiplkity in our contry they all say the health welfare and safety of the public. All of the arguements pro and con for Pit bulls and all of your statistics and my pontificating support sylogism Pit Bulls are inherently dangerous. See you all in the am God Bless

Could you please explain your train of logic?

I said the letter you gave was an opinion. It has nothing to do with facts and therefore is irrelevant to the debate. What point is that statement supposed to prove?

Also, how does a sentence stating, "dog bites are a serious public health problem" infer that Pit Bulls are inherently dangerous?

Again, I'm lmao. My husband of 28 years is certainly a "beauty" to me but not quite the one in the article. He's the one who brought home our 1st Pit almost 14 years ago. I do agree that Pit Bulls (and their owners) most certainly been victimized by people with zero facts. Prove it wrong ? It's an opinion. You know what they say about that don't you ? They are like buttholes, everybody has one. BTW, Pits are not ugly & are VERY cuddly & most certainly NOT beasts. I would consider a person who has potentially cause the MASS SLAUGHTER of INNOCENT dogs to be a beast. Hmmm....who could that be ?

Brook, I understand the imbalance is in this conversation. I make statements and you ask for proof. I realize now, you are under the impression that I am under the burden to prove it to you and that the degree to which you remain unconvinced is proof I have not made my case. What I am telling you has been argued in the court and the opposing sides and views posted here already. Those statistics have been before the court and the courts decision is based on what I am telling you, they agreed with my argument. I am not here trying to retry my case I am here to tell you if you want things to change you not me needs to refine your argument The court is not going to respond with a change by the same old argument. The Legislature is a different matter but be sure many of your legislators are attorneys who completely understand that this is a Public Health issue and what our charter is as it pertains to public health. The AVMA did not formulate a plan of public safety in response to it’s own declaration. Rather with vocational prejudice it tried to preserve the pet industry. It is not for you to assume I must now prove even this statement to you. As it stands now it is for you to be aware that your arguments have been made and not compelled the court. Three times once in the special court of appeals once in the highest court and then again in the highest court under reconsideration. That is 14 judges 7 each court. I am not debating you I am telling you how it went.

Tony,

The AVMA study you are citing concludes, "In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data contained within this report CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on the contents of this report)."

It's not over yet, Tony! The General Assembly and the Governor have yet to weigh in.

And Jenn the more idiots push the "inherently dangerous" bada$$ landshark portrayal of Pits the more the wrong people want them. Then when they turn out to be just dogs & not 4 legged chainsaws they are dumped or much worse.

Uhm, the law is created by the legislative branch of government. Courts INTERPRET law; they do not CREATE law. These judges CREATED law. If they did not, then why is the General Assembly addressing this case in January?

Sorry Tony, you have the wrong people. We were not speakers in Balt. Co. (we were there however). You are right about 1 thing. We are nice people, until you mess with our family.

What is HSS ? The only HSS I know is the sound my snakes make.

It is obvious you are neither willing nor capable of having a logical debate on this issue. Each time you have presented a number of false or half-true statements that have been countered by evidence proving the contrary. After a number of these statements were proven false, you resorted to a variety of ad hominem attacks on the poster(s). When this did not work, you then resorted to a number of logically fallacious statements.

Your behavior and style of typing suggests that you are too emotionally tied to this issue. Reasonable discussion is impossible to do with an individual like that. I can only conclude that your purpose here was not to hold a critical discussion but to find sociopsychological support from others. Unfortunately, as you have found out, you are not in the majority here.

Seeing as there is no way to have a logical debate with you there is no point in responding further. If you wish to discuss this in a proper fashion at a later date, through another medium, I am perfectly happy to do so.

Tony, you won in court..Happy? If you r , why do u need to keep defending it? There r a lot of people that dont agree w/ the courts decision and r not happy. All the people who have dogs r not happy..All the dogs r not happy..So enjoy the moment and shut up already...

You won on sympathy & lack of education in those making the decision. In Balt. Co. you were handily defeated.

Well, I called this one. It has just been reported in the North Baltimore Patch that a Rottweiller just mauled a woman going to the Waverly Farmers' Market. Singling out breeds one at a time is stupid, time, money and energy wasting.
I am not trying to obstruct progress.
The smaller breeds are probably just as apt to bite, but can't do the damage of a larger, stronger breed.
In this case, some irresponsible dog owner had the dog tied up. It was lunging at passers-by, and the tether broke. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a dog such as that should never be let outside, unsupervised.
And I say this as the owner of a Pit Bull who is docile but is NEVER left unsupervised. He is great with children, adults, and other animals, but we do realize that one small mistake could hurt somebody. Thus we are careful. He is never let out alone, and is always on a leash. That is what responsible owners of ANY breed of dog should do.

That is very sad. I hate it when any dog-aggression incident occurs. It is almost ALWAYS the fault of negligent owners, and it is always tragic.

Using dogbite.org in a post is surefire way to be certain that no one will take what you say seriously. It is a personal site run by an online psychic of Divine Goddess, and pulls statistics and facts from her crystal ball.

Actual statistics from the CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association studies paint a very different picture. The CDC study concludes, "neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on the contents of this report." NO credible professional animal advocacy or veterinary organization upholds any claim that pit bull type dogs are inherently dangerous.

Again dogsbite.org ? Really ? Run by a cheap online psychic who has absolutely no canine education. They make up stories, change stats, and even try to convince people that dogs such as retrievers are "long-haired Pit Bulls" because they have a red nose. The trolls at dogsbite are also filthy & foul. They like to call Pit owners baby rapers & accuse us of bestiality. This is the group you quote as a source for your argument ?

Nope. Law enforcement agencies are almost ALWAYS unanimously opposed to BSL. Were you not paying attention when the head of PG County Animal Control testified in front of the General Assembly and stated that the PG County pit bull ban was a waste of time and money, and didn't accomplish a thing for public safety, and should be abolished? The man got a standing ovation.

I suppose we should take the word of an illiterate house painter and an online psychic over millions of veterinarians, a federal government agency, and the three oldest and largest animal advocacy institutions in the entire world, because all of these people with Ph.D.s and DVM's have a personal agenda, and can personally financially gain from manipulating data and statistics. That's quite a conspiracy theory. I wonder if they all get together and have lunch to plot how they will dupe the American public into thinking that their family pets won't suddenly turn on them in the night and rip their throats out. Because, of course, that's what every wants to happen.

There are only two examples I can think of in which manipulating data and statistics would satisfy a personal agenda, and would result in financial gain. That would be scam artists involved with dogbite.org, and YOU! The next time you accuse the AVMA, the CDC, and the HSUS of duplicitous behavior look in the mirror, and then call your buddy Colleen Lynn.

Umm....Derrik Valcourt (sic) is NOT the head of anything at JHH. He is a reporter.

Actually, in January, the police identified 4 dogs in Texas that mauled a child as "pit bulls", until the pictures came out, and the dogs ended up being full-bred, AKC-registered boxers. And in June, a deputy in West Virginia identified 2 dogs that mauled a child as "pit bulls", and he was publicly reprimanded by the sheriff, who stated that the were German Shepherd/Lab mixes. Dogbite.org still lists both of these incidents as "pit bull attacks". Additionally, they list a Golden Retriever that mauled a child in South Carolina as a "pit bull" because it had a red nose, and therefore had to have some "pit bull DNA" (even though "pit DNA" does not exist).

I could embarrass you more, but it's too easy and I'm too busy. Go back to doodling and staring out the window.

Tony, I challenge you to research Colleen Lynn, dogsbites.org, craven desires, etc. with a completely open & unbiased mind. You & your family are being used. I truly wish you would realize that.

Tony, you really need some help. I can't BELIEVE that you accuse reasonable people who do not embrace hysteria and ignorance as being mentally ill. I can understand that you might have some sort of emotional trauma because of what happened to your son. But what happened is very rare, and it will (unfortunately) happen again. We live on this planet with dogs, and although the risk is negligible, occasionally bad things happen. When bad things happen, it can almost ALWAYS be traced back to some sort of human negligence or error.

But until we all live a bubble, some people will get hurt -- car accidents, sports accidents, accidents involving household appliances, natural disasters, homicides, power tool accidents, falling space debris, falling coconuts, drowning, shark attacks, accidental poisoning....

No one has been able to prove that any breed of dog, or dogs in general, are any greater risk than getting in an elevator (33 people died in elevator accidents last year). We still have elevators. Home Depot still sells chain saws, even though occasionally some moron cuts off his leg using one. People still drive cars, even though millions of people die in car accidents. It sucks if you, or someone you love, is unlucky enough to be one of the freak incidents that only happens to one out of hundreds of millions of people. But if that kind of "luck" ended with you winning the lottery instead of going to hospital, then you'd feel differently.

Bad things happen over the course of the lives of most people. I was in a terrible childhood accident. I almost died. I had to go through YEARS of surgery and skin grafts. Do I sit around playing a violin? Of course not! The choice to embrace being a victim or embrace life has to be made by most every person on this planet at some point in their lives, unless they truly live a charmed life.

You not only embraced being a victim, but in your race to profit from it, you turned tens of thousands of your fellow Marylanders into victims. Every dog that has been unfairly euthanized because of you is a victim. An 81-year-old woman in Armistead Gardens, who sat crying to a B-More Dog volunteer who was trying to help her keep her dog because she is a widow and that 12-year-old dog is her only companion is a victim -- OF YOU and this idiotic court.

You lost your victim card when you used it as a weapon to hurt thousands of innocent people and dogs. I'll save my sympathy for them. Frankly, you can go to hell.

You're welcome Jenn.
Our Pit is 110 lbs, neutered and thinks he's a lap dog. When company comes over, he spends his time bringing them slobberry presents. Pieces of chewed sticks from the wod pile, balls, chew toys and rocks.
It's not the animal, it's the owner. Make ALL owners responsible for their dogs, regardless of the breed.
Solesky, who has monopolized this thread, wanted his pound of flesh, and didn't care how he got it. The ruling will be adjusted, and landlords will not be held responsible. That's what he was after, in the end - the $$$.
From what I heard, his legal team brought a sympathetic judge out of retirement to handle the case.

Sadly, in most shelters, owner surrenders are killed 1st, because they are not covered by the stray hold.

Your focus on insurance rather than preventative measures that would actually STOP injuries from happening in the first place shows that you are really more interested in "Who's going to pay for this" than you are about public safety. Similarly, your suggestion that "any and all entities who could have done something to see that it never happened" should be liable shows exactly what is WRONG with the outcome in your case as it pertains to landlords. What if if the landlord files bankruptcy? Who will you go after next? The shelter or breeder where the dog came from? The pet store where the owners bought dog food? The zoning board that allowed the home to be a rental property? Perhaps some wealthy neighbors who "should have" warned the neighborhood that there was a potentially dangerous dog with an irresponsible owner living there?

The American tort system was designed to ensure that victims are compensated for their injuries by persons who were actually responsible for causing those injuries. Your lawsuit, which just looked for the next person with deep pockets rather than anyone actually RESPONSIBLE for your son's injuries, is a perversion of that system. I am certain that the legislature will eventually step in and correct this unjust result, but how many innocent dogs will die before that happens?

And I agree that a landlord should be held liable if it can be proven that they were actually negligent in some way (e.g., that they were also partially responsible). The problem with the ruling in this case is that it holds landlords strictly liable, which means they are "per se" liable without the plaintiff needing to prove that there was any negligence/responsibility on their part. So even a landlord who does "everything right" is still financially liable -- which means that the only recourse for landlords is to stop renting to people with pit bull type dogs. Providing fencing, dog crates, special locks, rules about keeping the dog contained/leashed would still not be enough to insulate them from liability if their tenant failed to follow through with these measures and their dog injured someone.

Like it or not, we are all responsible for our actions, or inaction. Consider these two situations:

1. The owner of a 500 unit appartment building requires renters with Pit Bulls (or other dogs) to carry insurance. There are 5 Pit Bull owners renting from him. One Pit Bull attacks another resident. Doesthe landlord share in the blame? If so how much?

2. Another landlord with a 500 unit appartment building does not require insurance. His building has 150 Pit Bulls. One Pit Bull attacks another resident. Does the landlord share in the blame? If so how much?

Chris W,
Do you see any value in reposting your example replacing the word "blame" with responsibility. What I see wrong is Pit Bull apologist positions in posted, many of these folks see responsibility taking as punishment and the tag inherently dangerous as blame. Example - blame the deed not the breed. Forget blame what and understand is when a human is injured the first rule is to ask what can I do (Not what will they force me to do) to stop this? I will wear a seatbelt, investigate a safer car, try to understand what landlords may be unwittingly foster compared to mortgage holderswhere, muzle my dog. What do we Pit Bull owners and animal advocates unwittingly do to foster the harm? Instead people talk about blame and Stigma and I must tell you with all genuine intent there is a imbalance of white female influence on this issue that has unfortunely lead some women who may suffer from a higher degree of vulnerability and react less proactively and more as if threatened by what otherwise should be seen in incidents like my sons and many other human and animal victims as a call to mitigating actions not protest. If the ASPCA,HSS, BARC's and many other animal advocacy organizations really believe that the anwser will be found in court rather then making victims whole by proactive measures to avoid all of this in the first place. If they do not see this outcome as the net effect of their own flawed directives, then this is not about dog welfare or dog ownership at all.

@Tony with all due respect you walked around Chris W. questions. Why not just answer the questions?

"I must tell you with all genuine intent there is a imbalance of white female influence on this issue that has unfortunely lead some women who may suffer from a higher degree of vulnerability and react less proactively and more as if threatened by what otherwise should be seen in incidents like my sons and many other human and animal victims as a call to mitigating actions not protest."

This is not a response to Tony, who I believe to be so emotionally invested in this topic to be beyond reasonable thought or discussion.

This is simply a quote to highlight the mode of thinking in his posts where ignorant and prejudiced remarks are used as examples for his train of thought.

Are you talking about women like myself -- who have advanced degrees from prestigious schools, own their own business, and own a nice home in a nice neighborhood? Are you SERIOUS? You actually think that because I have female genitalia that I am less capable of reasoning than you are? Have you READ the illiterate, rambling, emotional, diarrhea of the mouth that you try to pass off as intellect? You can't even get your facts straight, much less communicate in a logical manner. Have you read MY posts, and those of reasonable "females" who also communicate with facts and data? How on God's green earth can you possibly think that you have ANY intellectual or emotional superiority to us? You fall under the category of too stupid to even realize that you are stupid.

You are a misogynist jerk. You are truly one of the nastiest, dumbest, most bigoted jerks I have ever encountered in my life. Sometimes, bad things happen to good people, and that is always sad. But you are living proof that bad things happen to bad people as well.

There have been no dog-related deaths in Maryland in over 6 years. There have been only a handful of serious attacks -- a VERY rare occurrence. There is NO PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE concerning dogs in Maryland. Absolutely none. I'm sorry your son got hurt, but there is not a trend of children being seriously injured by dogs of any breed in this state. There are ZERO statistics to support this claim. You are angry that you couldn't make money off of it, but let's not play games and pretend that this has anything to do with "public safety". Forty children were killed by guns in Maryland in 2011 -- that's more people than dogs have been responsible for killing in Maryland since 1965. SIX TIMES MORE PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY GUNS IN 2011 THAN HAVE BEEN KILLED BY DOGS IN 48 YEARS!!!

What's the public safety issue, Tony? You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Dogs are no more of a public safety issue than elevators or restaurant food - actually, nationwide, 9x more people died from foodbourne illness last year after eating in restaurants than died from a dog-related incident. RESTAURANT FOOD is more dangerous than dogs.

And, for the record, Armistead Gardens is a community of OWNERS, not renters. And, according to your buddies on the appeals court, they don't own "full bred pit bulls" so none of these dogs are "inherently dangerous". There is no "blame" in simply owning a dog -- of ANY breed.

The same people who abuse dogs, also abuse children. Law enforcement considers animal abuse as a sign that the abuser will graduate to children. Serial killers almost always have a former history of animal abuse and outright torture. What kind of person would do this? The same person who would beat abuse a kid, or rape and kill a woman.

Now "most" will not end up end mauling children. Let's see, out of 78 million dogs in the U.S., less than 1% were involved in any biting incident that required a hospital admittance. You sound like some old, hysterical fish wife.

If you are going to continue to post your expert opinion on dog behavior, that is in direct contradiction to that of professional veterinary association and the federal government, would you at least do us the favor of telling everyone where YOU got YOUR DVM and Ph.D.? And, of course, links to your studies would also be helpful, since your studies obviously contradict those performed by vets and federal agencies.

You don't think that anyone who rents should be able to own a dog?

Why? Because then you won't be able to sue them and make money?

I'm starting to read your posts for nothing but the comic value. Why don't you go back to Annapolis and suggest a law that only homeowners can have dogs in Maryland. I would pay money to see you tell the General Assembly your "plan".

So can any person be trained to be a world class artist, concert pianist, or NBA all star?

Hogwash. The behavior and abilities of both humans and other animals can be attributed to both genetics and life experience.

First of all any breed cannot be trained to fight or be vicious - there are many breeds with little if any aggression. The problem with these dogs is they can easily be trained towards aggression, plus they exhibit physical traits that can make them deadly in an attack. I believe Jack Russells might be trained to fight but they aren't that big and could easily be pulled off...that's why the tail is docked and physically thick to allow for humans to pull them by the tail from holes. It is a breed thing...it's been proven to be a breed thing by statistics. To any pit bull owner who absolutely wants to convince yourself that your animals is no different than a laborador I'd say you are part of the problem because you won't take any extra precautions with your animals because you're in denial regarding it's dangerous potential - you shouldn't even own a pit.

I think you missed my point. I agree that pit bulls are bred to bring out these aggressive qualities. My point is not that you can train a Labrador to be a fighting dog. It's that all dogs have inherent traits that are affected by the way they are trained.

Aggression toward humans is not an inherent trait in APBTs. In fact, aggression toward humans is the exact opposite and APBTs are considered a poor choice to train as guard dogs.

So, why create legislation on the premise that APBTs are inherently aggressive toward humans and/or more easily trained to be so, when that is the exact opposite of the breed's temperament?

Judging the dog on the several I've seen and come in contact with - dog parks, neighbors, etc. See Jenn your problem is you want to assume that dog that wags it's tail and appears happy to see you has no ability to harm. 99% of the time I'm sure that's true however, most often after these pit bull tragedies the owners will say they're shocked and dismayed; that the animal never exhibited aggression, raised from a pup, around the kids...blah, blah, blah. What is wrong with pits is a carefully genetically selected tendency toward sustained aggression which just as a beagle wants to follow it's nose when presented with the opportunity a pit gets the right queues and it goes off...pit bulls will snap into a fight with very little warning otherwise they wouldn't be the dog of choice for pit organizers.

Karl, dog aggression does not equal human aggression.

Are you kidding? What moron equates human race and pit bulls. I would suggest you take your completely ridiculous talking points and move them to an area we won't mention. As far as your gun reference...ouy vey...yikes.

4 judges, two of whom were retired old bags, agreed with you.

I don't consider a unanimous vote in the House to overturn this ruling a good boding for this law standing. One person in the Senate who was in charge of introducing new bills (Frosh) made a personal choice to not introduce the bill, most likely because MGM Grand and Caesar's Palace buy him nicer 3 martini lunches than dog owners. But this will go back, and it will be overturned. It's a ridiculous ruling by, as I stated before, a court that has a long history of irresponsible and bad rulings. But keep rolling in your vat of victory like a big old pig in mud. You seem to enjoy it. I'll keep being a decent and honest human being while I attempting to help your victims.

But meanwhile it's the law...deal with it and get yourself additional insurance. You lost in court and you're losing in the court of public opinion.

Your welcome. Consider it a free education, especially since you already said that you didn't pay much attention in your GED classes.

I don't need your sympathy, and I was not asking for it. I am not a loser who falls back on "victimhood" for personal gain.

THAT is the difference between me and you -- as well a few IQ points, and honor and person integrity (lack thereof on your part).

And I sure as HELL don't need a complete idiot to "help me understand" ANYTHING.

Not banned ? So what do you call what you caused to happen in Armistead Gardens & thousans of other communities ?

Colleen Lynn get her info from her own twisted imagination & since she's a psychic, probably a crystal ball, tarot cards or perhaps channeling the dead. My info comes from 15 years of hands on experience.

Fully vetted how & by whom ? Colleen ? You mean the way she "vetted" the news story I posted above about the fatal dog attack on an infant ? Colleen proclaimed a dog that is clearly a retriever mix as a Pit Bull because it has a red nose !

They are spending trying to keep innocent dogs from being murdered because of YOU. That's money well spent in my book.

The information that Colleen Lynn submitted to the court was hogwash, and the court has been publicly humiliated for accepting it. It cannot be vetted, it is not cited, and it does not agree with any studies or statistics published by REAL veterinary and animal welfare organizations. She is a sham. I don't know her. I don't want to know her. I know that she has no academic degree. I know that prior to her website, she made her living as an online psychic called "Divine" something-or-other. I know that she makes her living off of her Paypal button, and uses people like you as PR. AND, finally, I know that the ONLY people who believe her and follow her are people without a lot of intelligence. THAT is a fact. She does have a knack for attracting for the IQ-deficient. If you choose to be counted among their ranks, good for you. You are in appropriate company.

Yup. But he won't.

First, Armistead Gardens is not a rental community. It is a coop of owners. Second, pit bulls are not a breed. We have established this. If one-third of the dogs in Armistead Gardens are short-haired mutts over 40 pounds, then they might subjectively be called "pit bull", but chances are pretty high that few of them share any breed DNA. Most are probably bulldog mixes or boxer mixes.

No one cares about your books, your posts, or your plans for comprehensive rescue. You don't have a DVM, or ANY degree in any animal related field. You have ZERO experience in animal related field. Additionally, with ZERO dog-related fatalities in Maryland in over 6 years, and VERY FEW serious attack incidents (that are spread evenly across 18 breeds), the is no public safety issue. Occasionally, bad things happen. Addressing the causes behind the bad thing, rather than reacting with hysteria and melodrama, is a much more "common sense" way of approaching any situation. But this is not even a "situation". The only situation here is 4 judges who continued their long history of head-shaking, "what the eff were they thinking" rulings, and a General Assembly that is more interested in campaign donations from MGM Grand than they are in protecting their constituents. It is a sad reflection on our state government, but no one has "lost". This hasn't even gotten started yet.

Again you cloud the issue here. It isnt about the dog. It is about Strict liability for the landlord. Without this ruling, there was no way that you or your lawyers could have a chance at collect any money. You could have solved the public safety issue without going after the strict liability for the landlord. wouldnt you agree Tony?

Landlords dont have the ability to control own or have custody of this breed of dog. The strict liability for landlords seems to be a reach. Doesnt the shelter have control over who they give the dog? Why yes, yes they do. SO WHY NOT THROW THE SHELTERS IN THE SUIT TOO? Let me answer for you. ....because the shelter does NOT have deep pockets and it would be a PR nightmare for your cause.
I am all for holding the right people liable for the action of their dog. I am not for a witch hunt. By tossing in the strict liability for the landlord, you and your lawyers all but guaranteed yourselves a pay day. With out it you just spend a lot of time an money on your cause. It is funny to me how you deny that it isnt about the money yet all the moves I have seen from this case involve the recover of money from as many sources as you can.

I am a phony ? Why because I can counter argue everything you say with facts ? You are a dogsbite.org puppet & pawn. You really need to wise up.

Well well. after one or more of us bring up what the fact about the smoke screen you decide you have had enough. I get it. My questioning is just trying to justify your side of the story. I understand all your stands accept the one with the landlord. If the landlord provides the fence and the landlord allows the tenant to put up what ever safety measures deemed necessary, then how do you see that the landlord could be strictly liable. The courts have this part of the ruling wrong.
You keep saying that the arguments at others have made are bad and wont hold in court. You have a great legal team and it took stacking the court for you to get a "win". I see this ruling being overturned when the new session comes about.
BTW Tony I read you ebook. Your son is lucky to be alive. You said that all the stars were aligned for an attack to occur. One thing I saw that was missing is that your son Challenged the dog with out even knowing what he did. By standing his ground and staring at the dog for that 5 secs or so, he said to that dog this is my territory and I am not backing down. I am sorry for you an your family for having to go through this but I think your anger is misplaced.

I hope you find true peace.

"You have no clue what you are talking about anyone who would not own a Pit Bull after such a law as strict Liability is a balless poser"

The law will lead to landlords making pitbulls a big no-no, meaning people that do not own their own home won't have a choice when it comes to keeping their dogs, doesn't make them "balless".

Good. People lacking a permanent address ought not have big dogs in the first place. That's one of the big reasons these dogs get dumped in overwhelming numbers at shelters across the country.

Well Tony we will just agree to disagree. I get what you are saying..i really do. But to hold another man strictly liable for another mans action is NOT American. To hold those liable who are at fault is American. What is right is right. To go after the landlord, who pays taxes, provides shelter, and is otherwise a model citizen, strictly liable(you don have to prove he did anything wrong) is just self serving on your part. To hold the owner of the dog financially and criminally responsible makes perfect sense and is ALL AMERICAN.
Your rational seems to say since the landlord let the tenant rent his property knowing that he has a dog, that may bite someone, is irresponsible. I say the responsibility doesnt fall on the landlord but on the tenant. If the landlord so chooses to rent to a dog owner, that landlord should take the proper measures to ensure that the tenant has the proper means to secure the dog. If the landlord does not provide the means then the landlord may be held liable. The strict liability means it doesnt matter what the landlord does he can not rent to dog owners because there is no burden to prove that the landlord did anything wrong to hold him responsible. That is very UNamerican. I
Strict Liability just adds another victim to the list.

First let me say the landlord can not make one get rid of the dog. The landlord can only make the tenant move if the tenant does not remove the dog from the residence if the tenant is in violation of the terms of the lease.
Tony, my statement about the eye contact is surely truthful. The fact that you are unaware or choose not to believe may be part of the problem. The fact that your ten year or you dont know this is not the fault of the dog. By the way I was not saying that the dog should not have been secure. I was just saying you left that out of your perfect storm situation. Just as you teach your child not to touch a hot stove or to play with guns. We have the responsibility as parents to prepare our children for the challenges of living in our society. We as humans share our environment with all types of animals and thus need to educate ourselves and our children about them to the best of our ability. We as humans are the ones that have the ability to reason. Thus it is up to us to be smarter than the animals in our environment.
You also have me pegged all wrong. I believe dog owners have the responsibility to secure their dogs in order to keep society safe. I believe that the owner of the dog bares all of the responsibility of the actions of the pet.
If this is truly about public safety then let make it about public safety and lay the blame on the appropriate party not on one who owns the property.

Tony, I think most here dont know what Strict liability is. They dont realize that you dont have to prove anything. The landlord doesnt even have to know the tenant has a dog. If that dog bites, then the landlord can be held criminally and financially responsible. You and I both know that is wrong but to admit it would be detrimental to your future case. I dont expect you to admit it.
As much as I dislike your stand on this issue it has made me more aware of this type of situation. I thank you for that. Your story is a touching one and I cant honestly say that given the same situation that I would not be doing the same thing as you

Again the only issues I have is it isnt all dogs and the landlord portion of the ruling.

There are 3 general types of pit bull owners.

Group 1 ~ People that know the breed is dangerous, take all necessary steps to keep them from harming the public, never take them to off leash dog parks keep them in the house and never let them get out. These are typically responsible scared single women and good samaritans that take on the risk and responsibility to keep a dog from being put down.

Group 2 ~ People that know the breed is dangerous and own them for that reason. They want a dog with a natural instinct to fight and kill. They want a dog that is both aggressive and capable of doing harm. These are typically dog fighters thugs and criminals.

Group 3 ~ People who don't admit that the breed was bread to kill, they don't admit that the breed is genetically aggressive, unpredictable and capable of doing great harm. They do not do everything they are not responsible they are often short tempered, angry and unreasonably. These people are the most dangerous dog owners ever. The put all of our pets and people in danger every day. After serious injury and death they still refuse to accept their dogs are dangerous, they say that the dog has never been aggressive before. Either we have to get rid of pits or we have to get rid of group 3 pit owners.

We put down 9 out of every 10 pits before its 2nd birthday. Every over a million pit or pit like dogs are born and are put down. Lets put down 10 out of 10 pits this year and have a safer world.

First, generalizing "types" of anything is ignorant, unrealistic, and generally a sign of personal bias.

Second, your "Group 3" is completely unproven and actually countered by any professional organization.

"Breed was [bred] to kill" - Half True... it was originally bred to kill ~wild animals~.

"Genetically Aggressive" - Half True... the only "aggressive" trait that is common in the breed is aggression toward other dogs.

"Unpredictable" - False... there is no evidence in any study that APBTs or any similar breed are more or less unpredictable than any other breed.

"Capable of Doing Great Harm" - Mostly True... ~When~ an APBT bites, that bite has been proven to be more dangerous. However, that does not indicate APBTs are more likely to bite nor does it negate the danger of other dog bites.

You throw out a lot of statistics on how many "Pits" are killed each year. Do you have evidence of this? In addition, ~if~ this is happening, does your evidence reveal the cause... or are you simply speculating?

Good lord I thought you people would tire of this. I think pit bulls should be banned completely...wouldn't bother me one bit if they euthanized every last one of them at the various shelters where they make up 80% or more of all the strays. Between the sketchy dogs and even more sketchy owners we have a problem with them. The only way to get rid of it is to get rid of the dogs.

This statement is false. "Not possible the only dog they can call off of a attack with any success are German Shepard’s. This is why they are the only dog the Police will use for actual suspect engagement."
I am sure if you do a little research on it you will find out the truth.

Tony, I long ago refused to acknowledge you. You have proven yourself to be delusional and illogical, an unreasonable individual on a witch hunt for whatever happened to you or your family. I have presented direct facts from government agencies, professional organizations, and scientific journals; you have presented the same rehashed and unreviewed from Dogsbite.org. I have refuted claims of yours with direct links proving what you said was 100% false. Despite any of this, you still claim that YOU are right and WE are wrong. There is a term for this... delusional. That is why I mostly left this conversation, because there was no way to have an intelligent discussion with someone as insane as you are.

However, in the spirit of keeping others from following you down the rabbit hole...

"Then we have the other expert who acknowledges that Pits where bred to fight other animals and then suggest that that is the limit of their danger to humans and again this limit is set by breeding in your analogy. So a Pit can modulate its attack by adversary human or dog. Not possible..."

Dog breeds bred for aggression are bred to target a given animal type. There is no proof that this aggression is regularly misplaced against other animal types. For example, most terrier types were bred to hunt small rodents; they are so aggressive, that keeping a terrier as a pet ~and~ a rodent as a pet is a bad idea, because of the likelihood of the former killing the latter. Despite this, we don't state that terriers are "inherently aggressive" and will be aggressive toward people, do we? No... because that was not the purpose of the breed. Similarly, fighting dogs were originally bred to fight wild animals and (later) dogs; they are inherently aggressive towards these targets and breeding organizations note that aggression toward other targets is ~not~ part of the natural temperament.

Your claim directly contradicts basic knowledge of domestication ~and~ the claims of professional breeding organizations. Are you saying you are more knowledgable on the subject than they are?

"Not possible the only dog they can call off of a attack with any success are German Shepard’s. This is why they are the only dog the Police will use for actual suspect engagement. You can’t train that in Pit Bulls or any other breed to date. If they could they would use them period!"

This is completely false and can be proven by anyone who just looks up police dogs. Police across the world have used more than German Shepherds, including a variety of other Shepherds (Dutch, Australian, Belgian Malinois, etc.), Dobermans, Rotts, Akitas, and so on...

http://dpca.org/vers/vers_police.htm
http://www.myrottweiler.net/information/rottweilers-at-work-police-dogs

Also among police dogs are that "oh so unstable" American Pit Bull Terrier. I already provided links above proving this, but here they are again since you completely ignored them...

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/October/k9.xml
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6625698
http://www.lawofficer.com/video/news/pit-bull-police-dog-meet-shaka

So, again, you make a claim that anyone with half a brain and some quick research can directly disprove.

"Not only do you both not know what you are talking about, you don’t even know what you said."

Again, you are proving that you have no grasp of reality. We provide direct links to FACTS, and yet you claim WE are the ones who don't know what we're talking about?

"The fact is, it is breed that has the biggest influence on why all of the other and so many breeds are not in this quandary."

That is OPINION, not FACT. As a wise man said, "You are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts."

Once more, I'm done talking with you. You have proven time and again that you are not interested in reality or reason. You are completely delusional and on a personal witchhunt, whether for blood or money I don't know. Regardless, there are two places for a person like you: 17th century Salem or the mental hospital.

Here's some recent deaths as well... from non-"pit bulls".

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-30/news/31503166_1_mauled-animal-control-officers-onion <-- Mastiff/Rhodesian Mix

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/infant-killed-by-family-dog-in-hertford <-- Lab/Bulldog Mix

So, should we start targeting those breeds for "population control" because dogs with their genes killed infants?