My pit bull loves to chase the birds away from the bird feeders in our backyard when i let her out. last friday she went running out but stopped dead in her tracks as she got close to a bush and wouldn't move, she laid down and close to the ground as she could and started acting like she was playing, half barking wagging her tail. I walked out to see what she was doing and she had found a baby robin and was trying to play with, poking it with her nose very gentle and slightly jumping around just wanting to have fun.

I have had "Angel" 6 years now, my two kids have been around her, countless other kids, many other dogs and she has never hurt anyone or anything, nor would she ever. It isn't the breed, its the owners. Dogs in many ways are like children, they only know what they are taught and just like humans, killers aren't born, they are created.

Totally agree that this is unfair. These laws that discriminate against certain breeds are ridiculous. It is all on how the dogs are raised.

I have a friend with a pit bull and he is the biggest baby and wouldn't hurt anyone. I have another friend with a miniature pinscher and he has bitten me a few times.

Unfair??? This should be a law for all dogs. I am a dog lover and have had quite a few. But animals will be animals whether you give them tons of love or none. Sometimes they just snap into being an animal. At least the law is starting somewhere...

Completely agree with RWEvans. Unfortunately, it seems a large portion of pit-bull owners are not good dog owners and have them because of their "bad" dog image which they exploit. The same problem has existed for German Shepards and Rottweilers at times. However, because of these bad owners and the certain traits in pit bulls which can be dangerous in the wrong hands, I think this law may help to prevent some misuse of the breed.

There is a big difference between an attack by a miniature pincher and a pit bull. Highly unlikely you are going to die or have permanent injuries from a miniature pincher.

In the 3-year period from 2006 to 2008, pit bulls killed 52 Americans and accounted for 59% of all fatal attacks. Combined, pit bulls and Rottweiler’s accounted for 73% of these deaths.

31 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2011. Pit Bulls led these attacks accounting for 71% (22). Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population, yet have the highest death count among all dog breeds in the U.S. Regardless of the owner, they are deadly when they do attack. It’s not about what dog bits more, but which is inherently aggressive and well more likely cause death or permanent injury when it attacks. Yes, we all know that poodles bit more, blah, blah, blah, but a poodle isn’t going to rip your face off and lock its jaw on you.

Pit Bull and Rottweiler’s are listed as the number 1 and number 2 most lethal dog breeds in the U.S. Thsi is a fact.

In 2012 there are already 4 out of the 6 dog attack deaths related to Pit Bull (3) and Rottweiler (1).

Mable McCallister

84-years old | Cleveland, TN

Jace Valdez

16-months old Magnolia, TX

Diane Jansen

59-years old Escondido, CA

Dylan Andres

17-months old Jacksonville, FL

Oh, but they're not an aggressive breed of dog. You just keep telling yourself that.

You can find thousands of stories concerning once docile pits turning lethal because of a burglar, or thunder, or your child poking the dog in the eye.

Im sure Siegfried and Roy wouldve sworn up and down that their lions are as tame as little kittens.

This is what is wrong with America. You know what you are doing is wrong but you demand the right to keep on doing it and then complain when your held accountable. The law says you are liable if your pitbull attacks another person. It was the author that suggested that this would cause people to not adopt pits. Why would they do that if this is just a stupid law and pits are wonderfully safe pets?

At the end of the day you have a bunch of "adults" who dont want to be held liable if/when their animal "accidentally" bites someone.

The new law doesnt state that owning a pit is illegal. It says you are liable when your killer dog attacks someone. Spin baby spin.

Typical ignorant Americans.

I came to the comment section prepared to just scroll to the bottom and leave my comment. I was sure the comments would upset me, make me angry, and get me involved in a pointless comment board arguement. I am NOT scrolling further, but I SO gladdened to see the first comments generally saying that the law is stupid! Dogs grow up to be the product of whoever trains and owns and loves them. Pitties are large and powerful. So are Rotties! This law should apply, if passed at all, to EVERY BREED! Not just pits. I'm so disappointed with MD. This sets a dangerous precedent. The laws that are in place to stop dog fighting need to be ENFORCED! Or they need to be rewritten so that they work! Punishing the breed and not punishing the stinking humans is just plain wrong!

LOL - Of course while I was writing, two of those comments were posted that I knew would tick me off! I'm FAR from ignorant, sir! C'est la vie. Not going there!

This ruling makes me sick. Our neighbor has a Pit Bull named "Honey" and she lives up to the name. She waits for the school kids to get out each day and wags her tail walking them home and they love this dog. The young girls mimick her tail going back and forth laughing. The threat is the owners and abusers of animals in general like Michael Vick types. I think these people should never see the light of day.

As for Maryland they just showed their ignorance...........

Daisy,

The only stupidity is that the "stewards" of Maryland thought the taxpayer money should be spent on this crud.

Dog bites used to be handled on People's Court. Now our government is getting involved. Wait until our government instructs you on how many Twinkies you can consume per day...

OK, so the law does not outlaw pit bulls. But it does make it so no landlord will rent to a pit bull owner. And my guess is you'll see homeowner's insurance companies jump on the bandwagon and charge increased premiums to pit bull owners. So it's a back door way to get rid of the breed. And once you do, then the dog with the most attack statistics will be what? Rottweiler? German Shepherd? Then you pass laws making those owners liable.

Why not just pass a non-breed specific law saying that if your dog attacks someone, you are legally liable? Why single out one breed? So if you're attacked by a pit bull you win the legal lottery, but if it's a different breed, too bad? Makes no sense.

I'm really disappointed in Maryland. This is a death sentence for pit bulls; it will not affect dog fighting, the true source of the problem, only make it harder for rescuers to save these dogs and adopt them out. Spend our money on ending dog fighting, not enforcing this ridiculous prejudice!

Did none of you learn anything from the triumph of Vick's pit bulls? Most fully rehabilitated, some certified as therapy dogs. They showed the true nature of the pit bull, they proved it is the owner, not the dog!

"In the ’70s they blamed Dobermans. In the ’80s they blamed German Shepherds. In the ’90s they blamed the Rottweiler. Now they blame the Pitbull. When will they blame the humans?” - Cesar Millan.

"News at 11."

"Maryland courts rule that your neighbor is liable if he burns your house down!"

"And now sports."

This ruling is GREAT news. The owners get to see their gentle side. The rest of us get to see the other side of a pit bull . . . .

I love dogs. All dogs. I don't believe there is a bad breed as much as bad breeders and bad owners.

But the bottom line is: Any dog can be dangerous.

A Jack Russell killed a baby in 2008. Golden Retrievers, Huskies, even Labs have all caused human deaths.

Some will say that pit bulls & rotties are far more often the culprit. I would ask if that's because so many 'sickos' (yep, I just called Michael Vick a sicko), breed and train those dogs to encourage aggressive behavior.

PocketClam- that's out of about 5 million pit bulls in the country. I think you'd have better odds at having someone purposely run you over with their car.

http://defendpitbulls.com/pit-bull-population-information/

Princessbride,

Show me a law that states an animal owner isnt liable when their pet attacks someone.

You cant.

This is a waste of your time, tax payer money, and is an indictment on the state of our country.

Marie,

When will they blame the owners? The ASPCA has lobbied for many, MANY, laws that harshly deal with those that hurt animals. In Georgia its almost as penal as the laws against child molestation. Granted in Georgia they also put down animals that attack people, the owner goes to jail, and the owner is most certainly held liable for damages.

It figures that many dog owners would defend their right to have a dog - even if history shows that, as a breed, they tend to be more vicious than other dogs, mostly because people who get these dogs want a mean dog and train them to be so. I agree with those who wrote that all dog owners should be responsible for the actions of their pets. Human safety is always more important than an owner who believes that their dogs are placed at the same level as a person. Ain't so, and should never be.

@America Today-Anthony

I don't think a twinkie ever ripped a baby to pieces

ALL dog owners should be strictly liable for their dogs behavior, not just pit bull owners.

Thomas Blue,

No, but Twinkies cause diabetes that can be as lethal as having your face ripped off.

Nice attempt at humor.

gun manufacturers want to be shielded from ALL lawsuits, even when it is brought about by their own negligence and defective products. A very unreasonable position, in my view. I see a dog owner of ANY dog that can shred a person and who wants immunity from lawsuits as much the same. I get so sick of irresponsible dog owners letting their animals run loose and not wanting to be accountable for the damage they do. Where my daughter lives, quite rural, she owns chickens and other farm animals, most people let their dogs run loose and when you confront the owner after their dog goes on a killing spree they want to say crap like," there's no leash law here". That may be true but if your dog steps foot on my property, I can legally introduce it to Lassie with a gun. Do you really want that to be the solution to your dog running loose? Don't want trouble with your dog? Keep it inside or in a STRONG fence or chained. That simple. It's unreasonable for someone to think their dogs' rights outweigh my right to protect myself and family. Good fences make good neighbors.

@America Today-Anthony

Yes, Anthony. But YOUR twinkie won't cause ME to develop diabetes. If it did, you should be responsible for that as well when you choose to buy a twinkie.

I do NOT believe they are inherently dangerous but i strongly believe people should be fully accountable for their dogs actions. The problem with a lot of pit owners is they are ghetto delinquents that have no idea how to train a very strong animal, or people that just neglect training the animal because they want it to be a tough dog... If you train and treat your dog well, regardless the breed, it will protect you and your family. Personally i believe adoption centers and breeders should also be accountable for the actions of the families they adopt to. The accountability would be full circle and adoption centers and breeders would stop giving dogs to families/individuals that are not qualified to train/raise a pup.

In 2011 Akron took this breed and two others off the dangerous animal list. It seems the owners are the dangerous animals who either mistreated the animals or taught them to be more agressive or allowed them to be agressive.

I just rescued 2 Pitt bulls and they are the most loving and prtective dogs. I think we need to make the owner more responsible for the dogs. Why were they out just running around where was the owner that's the problem NOT THE DOGS.

I dunno,tron. Maybe I'm a bleeding heart. If the dog is PROPERLY RESTRAINED, I'm okay with it. But there have been many cases where the dog seemed restrained and escaped to attack. the owner should be responsible. And I'd go a step farther and say that if neighbors are concerned that a dog's restraints are inadequate, they should be able to call animal control or sheriffs and if the authorities agree, the animal should be confiscated for a period of time until complaints are satisfied, at the cost of the owner. It's like leaving loaded guns lying around your yard. Do you have the right? Maybe...Should you be held accountable if a child comes into your yard and shoots himself with one of your guns? Absolutely. But you're right that they are dangerous and should be treated as such.

Any dog can become vicious if it's not raised or trained correctly. I've had a chihuahua go after my rottweiler who nearly climbed into my arms and all my dog was doing was walking on the sidewalk. Some of the toy breeds are known for biting and can do a lot of damage to an elderly person or small child. A well trained dog that has been properly socialized, and that goes for all breeds, is not dangerous.

America Today-Anthony

Thomas Blue,

No, but Twinkies cause diabetes that can be as lethal as having your face ripped off.

Nice attempt at humor.

A person chooses to eat a twinkie.

A person doesnt choose to be bitten and mangled by a dog.

Your post is ridiculious.

@ DB Akron and Lady Cat...

I don't think it's that simple. Elephants are incredible, gentle giants but they have been known to go rogue and attack. Of course, they must then be hunted down and killed. Almost always, it winds up in such cases that the animal is sick and/or in pain. Therein lies the problem with a pit or a rottweiler. It may be as gentle as a baby but if it ever does go berserk for any reason-even medical- it could be catastrophic. My daughter wanted a big dog to help on her farm and adopted a mastiff, I think it was. It was massive. It had been abandoned and hadn't ever attacked but had shown signs of aggression. One day, she had it in the house and my son, a 24 y.o. Marine was in the den with it. I was 5 or 6 feet away standing on some stairs with a gate between me and the dog and my son(- babies, you know?) For no apparent reason, the dog turned to my son and started growling and bared his teeth. This dog weighed almost 150 pounds, maybe more. I thought it was about to attack and I was ready to dive over the gate and onto the dog. It would have been bad. We're both good sized guys who know how to fight but that dog would have hurt us severely and neither of us were close to a gun. My son backed away and the dog froze and let him go.The dog went back and it winds up, he had a brain disease and was put down. They are usually gentle giants but this one wasn't. Some dogs are just so big and strong that they can't be treated like a pet duck. A pet duck can't kill you.

1. All owners should be responsible for their pets harming someone - if you have a 10 foot python and it attacks someone, then YOU are responsible. If your gerbil bites someone and they get a lethal infection, YOU are responsible. Same goes for ANY pet that you have in your home...

2. I have volunteered at many animal shelters and NEVER had an incident with the Pit Bulls, even those in quarantine who were euthanized because they had been used for fighting.

3. Yes, there are irresponsible owners who own "dangerous" breeds because they think it's cool & the animals are used for fighting, intimidation, protection from drug dealers/gun dealers... You cannot judge ALL dogs because of the people who are abusing them for their own amusement.

4. I personally know 4 different people who were attacked by German Shepherds (4 different dogs). Does that mean ALL German Shepherds are "BAD"? should military & police stop using them for service? Of course not.

I have had many dogs in my life, Golden Retrievers, Dobermans, Jack Russell Terrier & currently a English Bulldog. I spent a lot of time on training and sociailization and they have all been wonderful companions. Guess who had the best temperment of all my dogs? The Doberman. That was the dog people were most afraid of, but the dog who was least likely to attack unprovoked. Wake up and stop being so judgmental!

PS - The dog from The Little Rascals: a Pitbull Terrier

LadyCat I was thinking the exact same thing about little dogs. Often little dogs nip because they dont know how else to defend themselves against bigger animals or people. I had a friend in college who had a Pit and Jenny (the pit) was one of the sweetest dogs I've ever been around, she loved everyone and everyone loved her. While I think, due to physical size, a pit could cause more harm than a chihuahua that doesnt mean a pit is inherantly aggressive or dangerous. I think the owners need to be held accountable because a well trained dog does not behave in a dangerous manner. But blanket rules like this could cause people (especially those who rent) to shy away from adopting pits which would be sad because they can be wonderful dogs.

The sad thing is most of you are missing the most important part of the article: The place where you live, apartment/housing community is going to be held responsible for allowing you to own a pit-bull. Good luck finding a renter that will allow them now. Holding an owner responsible is a good thing, the rest is complete B.S.

I just have to agree with Seven2Seven. And I feel the need to expand on it. First I feel that all dog owners should be responsible if their dog bites someone regardless of breed. However, why is no one outraged when people like Michael Vick get a slap on the wrist for making some of these dogs become what they are and then they get to go out and continue making their millions of dollars and everybody just lets it go. Why don't we hold more of these people responsible and lock them away for their atrocities. When a dog bites someone (it is awful don't get me wrong) but it is how they were raised. When a human is deliberately cruel, it is because they get a sick joy out of it. Human beings are the only animal that are mean and vicious for enjoyment. Hold the owners responsible, I am behind that. Just don't blame one breed for something that humans have created with their heinous actions.

America today- LOL!!!

For every story told about gentle pitbulls there is another of them attacking a child. I think sometimes they mistake little children as prey or a possible threat. I'm not for a massive culling of pitbulls but I do think the breeding of them should be discouraged. Yes, there are other breeds that bite but don't have the bite radius to actually kill a child. Pitbulls, Dobermanns and German Shepherds can actually kill a child. Landlords don't want them around and neither do insurance companies so if you do have one of these dogs, you are going to have a hard time finding a place to live.

I had a friend who had a pitbull. The dog was very affectionate and sweet. However, he and a dobermann buddy would take out small livestock, my friend was shocked to discover. It's not such a reach to envision these same sweet dogs mistaking a small child for livestock.

Another friend had two pitbulls come after his son while walking in the neighborhood. Luckily he picked the child up before the dogs could get him. A near miss.

Cassandra said:

Innocent animals will die because of this ridiculous ruling.

They already are.

In this article the SPCA has three. What they aren't telling you is that the SPCA RARELY ever adopts out pits, they don't usually even take them as a rule. I volunteer for an inner-city shelter close to our local SPCA, and I'll tell you that we get more pits in than any other breed; we are probably 65% -70% pits. The SPCA will pull from our shelter when theirs is low and they rarely ever take pits, it's Labs and other breeds. Pits are high-energy and need constant training and care , particularly one who has issues after being abandoned and the shelter simply doesn't have enough personnel or volunteers to ensure that each one gets the kind of care and attention it needs. And if you keep a dog like that in a kennel for too long they develop behavior problems and that is neither good for the dog nor for the potential owner. We end up euthanizing a lot of dogs, because people don't want to adopt our pits.

As a longtime volunteer in a mostly-pit shelter, I will tell you tell you that while it's not entirely the dog's fault for aggression, it's not entirely the owner's fault either. Dogs are like humans, they have personalities and likes, dislikes and characters, and some dogs just seem to be born with a chip on their shoulder. it's not just pits either. For every Jeffrey Dahmer or Charlie Manson in the human world, there is a Mother Theresa or a Mahatma Ghandi also, and the same is true for the dog's world as well, and here is no way to tell when either child or a puppy is born, who or what they will tun out to be.

That being said, yes, the owner of a dog should be the responsibility of its owner. Dogs may have personalities like humans, but they don't have the judgment and intelligence and if we humans want to have dogs as pets we have to make sure that we are doing it for the right reasons and with the right controls. The following common sense rules should be followed by ALL dog owners:

Never EVER leave a pet in the same room as a child alone/unsupervised no matter how old the child or how long you have had the dog.

Never EVER allow your dog off leash in a public area no matte how well you have trained the dog to follow your commands. The SOLE exception to this would be dog parks where the dogs are in a confined space and EVERY OWNER who takes a dog to he park should be aware of how your dog reacts to others.

Get a dog you can handle. Know your limits. You should not be an eighty year old trying to control Marmaduke; if your dog can run after a squirrel and drag you after it, that's a clear sign you can't handle the dog and you'll have to find someone who can. Before you get that puppy research the breed of dog it is and how large it will likely get.

Your dog is your child. Think a hyperactive perpetual two year old. Treat it like one. Set rules and boundaries. Don't deviate. Think about the intellectual capabilities of said two year old--there's the intellectual capability of a dog.

DON'T HAVE A DOG/CAT IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO FEED IT, CARE FOR IT, GET IT SHOTS AND SPAY/NEUTER IT!

Now, is one breed of dog more likely to be aggressive than any other? Personally I don't think so. All dogs are dangerous because they have teeth and claws. The difference is the amount of damage a larger dog can do over a smaller one, but as anyone who has had both small and large dogs or has a neighbor with both small and large ones, it's the little ankle-biters that get you EVERY TIME! I've been snapped at more often at the shelter by small dogs with Napoleon complexes than pits!!!

Genetics, upbringing and poor ownership (or a combination of all three) are responsible for most of the dog attacks in the news. Not all of them, but many/most. There was a story last week about a Lab who dismembered a 2 month old baby who was sleeping in a swing while the father was sleeping in the next room. That dog should never have been left alone with the child, especially as it was new dog just introduced to the household; the child shouldn't have been left sleeping where the animal could get at it; and why didn't the father wake up when the baby started screaming because the dog was biting it?

Pit bulls and Rotties are aggressive dogs. Yeah, you're absolutely right there. Which is why people who don't have a clue as to how to handle them properly shouldn't be allowed to own those dogs. Much like required gun training courses before purchasing a firearm, people should be PROPERLY taught how to handle the aggressive "fighting" breeds before they are ever purchased. You can't get rid of all of their aggression instincts, but if the dog considers itself to be submissive and non-dominant towards anyone outside its pack and even more so does not consider itself the alpha of its pack, it will be much less likely to be aggressive towards anyone. Being the protector or the aggressor is the responsibility of the alpha, the pack simply responds in kind.

I do support this law, but I don't like nor support, the discriminating it does. This law should apply to ALL breeds of dogs, regardless of size, not just to pit bulls. If you own a dog, you are 100% responsible for the proper teaching, discipline, and upbringing of that dog. If that dog injures another dog, other animal, or a human, then you are 100% liable for any compensation. ALL dogs are inherently dangerous. They are a predator species that hunts in packs. Just because we domesticated them does not mean they don't have those instincts still imbedded.

I own one of those dangerous breeds, a Doberman. This is my fifth one. Over the years while walking my dog legally (following all town ordinances) we have been charged at or even attacked by many breeds. A Weimaraner, Bloodhound, Miniature Schnauzer (2 attacked simultaneously), St. Bernard, Golden Retriever, a shepard,and a couple of mixed breeds all have done this in the last couple of years. I follow all town ordinances as I said previously. My yard has a six foot chain link fence, I also have a 10 x10 kennel inside the fence (not used much), I always curb my dog, and when the dog is out of the yard the dog is always leashed (on a six ft. long leash). I always bring plastic bags to pick up any waste my dog makes. Now if everyone else followed the LAWS as well as I do there would be no problem. When charged or attacked I always allow my dog to defend itself. I do that because I will not be bit by either dog trying to break it up. The owners of the other dogs don't like that AND THAT IS TO DAMN BAD!!!! Try following the LAWS! I do

This issue hits hard for me because i have two pits at home right now keeping an eye on the house while I'm at work. One male at 95 lbs (red) and a female at 65 (blue), both pull weighted sleds in my backyard to the tune of hundreds of pounds so they are insanely muscular without a strip of fat on either.

My backyard could also rival a min security prison with redundant high fencing and pavers around the entire perimeter to prevent dig outs. I over built my yard because i don't want my dogs getting out and not because i think they would hurt anyone, but because i dont want them to get hurt.

Me and my huge pits take regular trips to the dog park and dog beach (they can both dive to the bottom of a 6 ft pool and get a ball) where they have never EVER been in any type of scuffle w other dogs. Ive had labs, rots, dobs, huskies, Shepard's and goldens but the best dogs on earth are pits, they are wayyyyyyyy smarter, loyal, and obedient than any other.

Pit bulls are hardwired to fight and kill, period. The ones that are gentle and kind have been taught love, but they are a ticking time bomb. A .22lr to the head and let them go the way of the T-rex, they have no purpose.

All the people making comments about if other dogs did this or other dogs did that blah blah blah. When pit bulls attack the outcome is much different than most breeds. I own a german shepherd, far superior breed, and have owned mastiffs, much more far superior breed, and when those type of dogs get into a fight or an attack it does not usually end in death. Pit bulls, when they attack, do not stop. They are hard wired to lock on and not let go. Don't believe me, look up the stats for yourself, they are ridiculous. Many good breeds out there, pick another one. Another problem is you get these idiots who get these dogs for the "cool" or "badass" or "gangsta" feel. You can always tell who they are because they will tell you how big, or strong their dogs are, so we can all be in awe of their "badass" pit. Give me a break. Bullet to the head. 'Nuff said.

I have a pittbull. A hampster could kick his ass. He is 14 yrs old and has always been gentle. I know a family that has always had vicious dogs. Didn't matter what breed. Poodles, Cockers, Pomeranians. They raised them cruely so they ended up mean.

Something, your dogs are probably not pure pit. Pits are much smaller, weighing only 35-55 lbs. Find out what they're mixed with and if anyone asks, that what you tell them. Pit bull attacks are way over-reported, so it's the only breed they're concerned with. It'll save you from these ridiculous laws and insurance regs.

My only personal experience with a Pitbull was being attacked by one when my dog and I were taking our daily walk. The dog came out of nowhere, and went right after my sheltie who could nothing to defend herself. I screamed and beat at the pitbull who finally went away. I never found out who owned the dog. My own dog was shaken, not seriously hurt but was terribly frightened.

I have been scared of them ever since. I would not own one, and would not allow one in any home that I would rent out.

An owner of such an animal should be held responsible for any injury to others and if that means higher homeowners insurance, so be it.

Only the dogs of bad dog owners make the news. The vast majority of pit bull owners are responsible and have well-behaved pets. But well-behaved pets don't make the news.

If Colt made a handgun, and 1 of every 100 would just "go off", should we listen to the other 99 gun owners who tell us how their gun never had a mischarge? Should Colt continue to produce the gun? Even if the stats are skewed, they can't be skewed enough to prove pit bulls are not inherently dangerous.

I'm in the middle here. I think there are a lot of pit bulls that have been bred for aggressive behavior, and those lines will always pose a danger. A lot of people who have pit bulls have no idea about the bloodline of their pet.

My sister owned a pit bull, and she was a sweetie when in her own backyard or on walks with her family. But when we had to watch her, she went out of her way, pulling a Houdini, to get to and attack our dog. I finally got her dog (she was 9 months old) off of my dog, and was terrified for my own life.

A friend of mine who had a pit bull, who was also "totally innocent", nearly lost control of the dog when they were out walking. Her pit bull wanted to go chomp on some small children, which is odd since he was sweet with her kids. They couldn't let the dog leave the house after that. It's sad.

I've never seen another dog that is so insanely bipolar. It's literally like flipping a switch.

Pittbulls were bred for one reason and one reason only. The way their jaw and teeth lock. The huge majority of people own them for one reason and one reason only and it's not because they are such cuddly animals. Finally a county coming to it's senses. You want to own one??? Then carry and pay for thousands and thousands of dollars worth of insurance. The only problem with that is that most people who own them don't have the money to pay those kind of premiums so don't own them if you can't be that kind of responsible.

Rico == idiot. Their jaws and teeth don't lock, nor does any other dog's. If you don't know what you're talking about, kindly keep your fingers away from the keyboard.

I was out walking my dog the other day when 2 pits came charging up to us. I thought for sure we were in trouble, because my dog was barking and growling, trying to "fend off" the other dogs. But they seemed to just want to play. The owner came running up - apparently someone has left a door open, which allowed them to escape. She seemed pretty freaked out that the dogs had gotten out, but even as scared as I was, I could see that they didn't seem like they wanted to attack. While the owner was calling for her son to help her get the dogs, they decided to go exploring around, so we took the opportunity to get out of there.

My daughter is a vet tech and also volunteers at an animal shelter and with a spay/neuter clinic. She is a staunch defender of pits and other "agressive" breeds, because she has seen first hand that it is the owners of the dogs, not the dogs themselves that determine how the dogs will turn out. As someone else mentioned, many of the dogs Michael Vick used for fighting have been rehabilited and are now therapy dogs or have been placed in loving homes. We used to have a pomeranian who would chase big dogs and children down the street. She could be vicious.

I think the word "lock" is being misinterpreted. Pit bulls bite and "lock" on. There jaws don't "lock" per say, but a pit will bite and not let go. So lets not use "lock", lets just say "hold their bite", either way, its not good for small children's flesh.

Our four pound Yorkie probably would have killed us over a piece of steak we dropped on the floor - but he was a four pound Yorkie. Even at his most insanely vicious, the hardest part about alpha-ing him was to stop giggling. THAT'S the difference between breeds.

Everyone who is drawing a parallel between dogs and guns - because it's all about responsible ownership - should consider that the threat here exponentially greater: it's like someone who, rationally speaking, isn't responsible enough to own a gun in the first place owning a volatile, angry gun that will shoot people when he's not even around.

I agree that owners of dogs of any breed need to be held responsible for bite injuries caused by their pets. However, the fact of the matter is, in 2011, pit bulls accounted for over half of the dog bite fatalities during that year (source - dogsbite.org), making them "inherently dangerous", regardless of how they are raised. They have aggressive tendencies . All it could take is one little thing to make that dog angry or upset, and then what will happen? I think the Maryland ruling was a good decision. Now go ahead and collapse my comment.

Just to let you know the Twinkies don't cause diabetes in anyone, the pancreas don't produce insulin (type 1/juvenile diabetes) or the pancreas can't produce enough insulin to control the glucose (type 2) you can eat Twinkies all day and never get onset diabetes and then they're the possibility you can be vegetarian and still get it. Now about the pits, I watch the Michael Vick story on the Animal Planet and they made the statement that a pit is a more docile dog than a beagle, I myself will stick with my Shih-Tzu.

Here's a childs death from a dog just the other day....

Thsi is like trons 15th banning.... Why don't you just delete his account?

Terrible terrible RULING. Innocent, sweet, lovable, adoptable dogs will die.

31 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2011. Pit Bulls led these attacks accounting for 71% (22)

That's because "Pit Bull" isn't a breed. They throw anything that looks "bully" into that category. They call Dobermans what they are, Huskys and Rottweilers, too... but since there is not AKA Pit Bull breed, it's the catch-all.

David B said:

Only the dogs of bad dog owners make the news. The vast majority of pit bull owners are responsible and have well-behaved pets. But well-behaved pets don't make the news.

Every so often one does.

There was something o the news last week where a guy answered the door for someone he thought was a FedEX guy. He ended up being an imposter and tried to break in at gunpoint.The guy's purebred Pit Bull went after the intruder and got shot. The imposter ran away and the dog was labeled a hero for trying to save its owner.

Ddotherightthingsaid:

A .22lr to the head and let them go the way of the T-rex, they have no purpose.

The guy in the news story above would probably beg to differ with you. And the couple in this one:

A deaf couple came into the shelter that I volunteer at to adopt a dog. Despite their initial assertion that they were looking for an older smaller dog, they ended up picking out a 6 month old Pibble who had been brought on a euthanasia request because the owner claimed he couldn't teach it anything (he had no idea the dog was STONE DEAF even after six months of living with it.) Knowing that we are a high-mortality shelter, that we euthanize most of the pits that come in because few people want to adopt them, and feeling an extra bond because the dog was deaf, they signed a waiver absolving us of any liability and took the dog home with them.

About a year later Animal Control fielded a request from the police to help with an animal. Thought it odd the cops didn't call it an aggressive animal. Got to the address and it was this deaf dog. A burglar was casing the place, thought that with the owners deaf and the dog deaf it was easy pickings. The dog disabused him of the notion by greeting him at the back door, escorting him into the kitchen, encouraging him to climb up on the kitchen counter and then sat and kept an eye on him until the hapless would-be burglar picked up the telephone on the counter and called the police to turn himself in. The problem was that when the cops showed up the dog wouldn't let them in and he wouldn't let the burglar out. Fortunately the AEO (Animal enforcement officer) was acquainted with the deaf dog, was able to call the shelter and find out what hand signals were needed to tell the dog to stand down.

The burglar got out with nothing more than a bitten ankle. the dog got a t-bone steak tartare. And that couple has never been robbed again. I would say the dog served its purpose, wouldn't you?

My wife has been the lead vet-tech and manager at an animal hospital for over 20 years, and has only had to muzzle a "couple" pit bulls and that was for drawing blood, and has never been bitin' by a pitbull terrior........."THE BAD DOGS HAVE OWNERS THAT ARE IDIOTS"..........now on the other hand, she has been bitten by the "oh my dog never bites" types like chihuahuas, min pins, shi-tzus, maltese, you name it....."A BAD OWNER WILL HAVE A BAD DOG AND usually BAD KIDS"........as mentioned above.....PITBULL...is not a breed of dog....and yes alot of dogs look like the "pitbull stereotype"..

you know what is 'inherently dangerous' ? Stupid people!

Back East said:

Here's a childs death from a dog just the other day....

And this is in the same state in which two boys who doused a pit bull with gasoline and set it on fire got off with no jail time for animal cruelty. Where's the laws protecting dogs from humans?

you know what is 'inherently dangerous' ? Stupid people!

Yep.....Stupid people are inherently dangerous......irresponsible dog training by irresponsible owners.

As a dog lover and dog owner, here is my opinion on the subject:

Dog owners SHOULD be held liable if their dog harms someone.

However, placing the blame on a particular breed is short-sighted and discriminatory.

Finally, holding a landlord personally liable for the actions of a tenant goes far beyond all logic and reason.

In reality, the only reason this law exists, is because lawmakers can't figure out how to effectively punish the negligent and abusive dog owners. Instead, they decide to punish everyone, including good dog owners, by creating a back-door ban that cannot be directly challenged in court.

I am glad to see this ruling and think every one of those killer "Pit Bulls" and their bastard mixes should be exterminated. These dogs were bread for ONE reason. To be vicious "fighting dog" pit fight killing machines.

I have personally witnessed 3 of your "Gentle Pit Bull Zealots" "Babies" suddenly and unprovoked turn and attack people for no reason. These were all "pure bread", "Family Pets", raised in the "loving" homes from puppies, with the children they attacked and maimed or killed. The worst of which was the one where it Killer Pit Bull, sleeping on bed in parents room, got up in middle of night, quietly slink-ed upstairs, passed the open bedroom doors of two other children, then broke through the closed nursery room door, jumped in crib and ripped 18 month old to pieces before parents could get there.

What Stephen said! @nikkinala, I think the breed you are talking about is the stratfordshire terrier, where pit bulls are bred from.......

David B., Gulf Vet

Rico == idiot. Their jaws and teeth don't lock, nor does any other dog's. If you don't know what you're talking about, kindly keep your fingers away from the keyboard.

Whatever David B. just have thousands and thousands of dollars of insurance if you own one because I'm going to sue you for every dollar you have or will ever have if your sweet little baby attacks me.

Amanda wrote

"The burglar got out with nothing more than a bitten ankle. the dog got a t-bone steak tartare. And that couple has never been robbed again. I would say the dog served its purpose, wouldn't you?"

No, I wouldn't. If I find some story about how a Bengal Tiger stopped an intruder, should we all get those too? Of course you will find good stories about pit bulls, what did you think I am surprised? Now, tell you what, find all the good deeds done by pit bulls, all of them, then find all the bad deeds, then write something that has at least some substance. I am not in 2nd grade, a couple of feel goods stories is not going to erase the hundred of thousands bad ones.

just have thousands and thousands of dollars of insurance if you own one

If you own a house, and your honest your supposed to disclose any dogs on your insurance policy.........

http://www.floridaanimallaw.com/2009/03/court-rules-miami-dade-pit-bull-ban-is.html

Dade County Florida tried to outlaw the breed here..........simple, you just have your vet call it a mixed breed, which they are, and you go on your way.........loophole 101.......... :)

One of my daughters has rescued 14 pit bulls. She has no trainng whatsoever with dogs other than owning a husky that got loose from her home, got run over on the street next to my house, I took the knock on the door, scraping up the husky still alive, Vet would not put down dog with half a head until the owner, my daughter got their to sign off and give dog last hug. So with this training she has taken in 14 pits and found them homes......She has one for herself, that makes 15. Cooped up all day by itself in a small townhome. The dog is a sweetheart. She brought home a pit mixed/english bulldog. Within sevearal days just attacked her while driving in the car. With a beagle, poodle, small dog, you get to say...naughty naughty....With a pit or pit mix...you don't get that chance. I have a friend who has a sweet Irish Wolfhound. Same thing, attacked by 2 pits, the dog defended itself just fine. If bitten by that dog, you don't have little puncture or scratches. You don't get a second chance with Rotts, Dobermans etc. Small dogs bite more often, but the bark is usually worse than the bite. Match the type of dog to owner capabilities and surroundings.

The ignorance of the American people is simply astounding. Pitbulls are not the problem, people are. If you're going to stick your hand out to a dog you don't know without asking the owner if it is ok first, you DESERVE to be bitten. If you're going to come play in my yard without my permission and threaten my dog's territory then you DESERVE to be bitten.

The disgusting and utterly crippling sense of entitlement of people these days is directly responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened in the last 60 years.

We should be embarrassed. Instead, you'll be outraged, that anyone would even suggest YOU'RE the problem. You're not conceited or entitled though. Really, you're not....

Just last night, a Facebook friend and sheep enthusiast and I were chatting about our sheep. He's got a very nice, prize ram, but the devil is mean as heck. His sons are starting to mature with herds of their own and sure enough, they are mean and nasty tempered too.

I've milked cows and it's kind of funny, you have a crazy heifer that you have to sell because she's too mean to have around...a couple years later after you've long forgotten about the mom, you find another mean heifer you want to cull, you look her up and sure enough she came from the mean one you sold a couple years prior.

Many horse breeders will tell you that if you have a mean mom, you're going to have a mean baby.

Why is it so hard for people to believe that temperament isn't genetic when it comes to these dogs. In their breeding line, they have bull baiting, hog wrestling, guarding and unfortunately dog fighting. That's what they were bred for. What makes people think that you can breed this stuff into them, but they don't have nothing to do with the personality when these things are no longer valued?

In all, we can thank the culture for making these dogs more popular, allowing poorly planned breedings that allowed bad genes to prosper and placing these dogs in inappropriate homes. The only way to fix it is going to be making them very unpopular so only a few that REALLY love the breed can breed them and improve the pit bull breed.

Ddotherightthing said:

"The burglar got out with nothing more than a bitten ankle. the dog got a t-bone steak tartare. And that couple has never been robbed again. I would say the dog served its purpose, wouldn't you?"

No, I wouldn't. If I find some story about how a Bengal Tiger stopped an intruder, should we all get those too?

The purpose to that couple getting that dog was for companionship, affection, compatibility protection and compassion. In return the dog protected its owners. Yes, in this specific instance, this dog did serve its purpose.

Of course you will find good stories about pit bulls, what did you think I am surprised? Now, tell you what, find all the good deeds done by pit bulls, all of them, then find all the bad deeds, then write something that has at least some substance. I am not in 2nd grade, a couple of feel goods stories is not going to erase the hundred of thousands bad ones.

I haven't read 'hundreds of thousand' of stories about the 'bad ones'. I have read many stories abut good ones and as a volunteer for a shelter that is 70% pits, I have personally seen LOTS of good ones and we've had many, many successful adoptions. Ben Franklin said "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see.' So on that note if you want me to say something of substance, I'll recapitulate what I said in post 1.37 above:

As a longtime volunteer in a mostly-pit shelter, I will tell you tell you that while it's not entirely the dog's fault for aggression, it's not entirely the owner's fault either. Dogs are like humans, they have personalities and likes, dislikes and characters, and some dogs just seem to be born with a chip on their shoulder. it's not just pits either. For every Jeffrey Dahmer or Charlie Manson in the human world, there is a Mother Theresa or a Mahatma Ghandi also, and the same is true for the dog's world as well, and there is no way to tell when either child or a puppy is born, who or what they will tun out to be.

Genetics, upbringing and poor ownership (or a combination of all three) are responsible for most of the dog attacks in the news. Not all of them, but many/most. There was a story last week about a Labrador who dismembered a 2 month old baby who was sleeping in a swing while the father was sleeping in the next room. That dog should never have been left alone with the child, especially as it was new dog just introduced to the household; the child shouldn't have been left sleeping where the animal could get at it; and why didn't the father wake up when the baby started screaming because the dog was biting it?

Ddotherighrthing, you do not know your dogs at all.I have living with me my sons 17 year old Pit Bulll Here name is tilly. We use to live together but he moved and tilly didn't want to go, took her up there and left her and Louis said she sat at the door and cried all night so brought her home and just take her up to visit him.She is a happy camper now. She thinks she is a lap dog, sleeps in the bed. She loves people goes out to meet any one coming. she wants to lick everyone and wants to be petted. her only fault is when she doesn't want to do something she just sits down. At 57 lbs. can't move her.

She is getting old 17 be 18 in a few months. Getting hard of hearing and eye sight not what it use to be. She was raised with my granddaughter who could put her hand in her mouth and take out a cookie she had given to her.If a dog any dog is trained or not socialized can be mean. So it is the owner that should be put in jail or put down not the dog. I was raised with a police dog, lived with my Grandparents This dog when I was 4 years old would take me by my hand or skirt and take me to the store to get candy, If someone started for me the dog would growel warning them, The store keeper would tell them not to touch me or the dog would take them. I can remember being in the yard , which had a fence around it about 4 ft, high and a man started over the fence and Ringo went after him he broke a knife blade in the dog but ran. my Grandfather took the dog to the vet and had him taken care of and brought him home. We had this dog till he was 20 and started having seizures they got so bad my Grand father had to have him put to sleep. This broke all of our hearts. he was a wonderful dog.Training and love is all they need. I have a terrier mix he is hyper, he also would bite if someone was hurting him, I tell children to be very careful around him and not hurt him as he would bite them. He thinks he is boss and is alpha male.But the long and the short of it is yes dogs are different so are people , but you can train a dog with love but for sure some people never change just plain mean A dog can tell you which ones to trust real quick.

Rico said:

David B. said:

Rico == idiot. Their jaws and teeth don't lock, nor does any other dog's. If you don't know what you're talking about, kindly keep your fingers away from the keyboard.

Whatever David B. just have thousands and thousands of dollars of insurance if you own one because I'm going to sue you for every dollar you have or will ever have if your sweet little baby attacks me.

Okay, so does this mean if David B's dog is NOT a Pit Bull--if he has, say, a Labrador Retriever or an American Bulldog or an American Staffordshire Terrier--that you will not sue him for 'every dollar he has or ever will have?' And if you are caught trying to break into David B's house and his dog (no matter what the breed) attacks you, I will eat my cover if you ever get a single dime.

Tron said:

count this as the 16th then. let sally live in her little bubble. this is probably the only place a woman with a face like hers has say. real talk.

That has to be one of the most outright rudest, most disrespectful things I have ever had the misfortune of hearing anyone say on Newsvine.

I'm willing to bet you're no centerfold either. That was a really cheap shot and it says a lot about you as a person.

Goddess bless, apparently you hadn't learned anything from the first 15 times you were banned.

I'm sorry but if you or your "child" trespasses and is bit or god forbid killed then it is your fault and not my dogs, you or your child should not have been there. You want us owners to be responsible for ours how about you be responsible for yours?

We have a 120lbs+ class at the sled pull. 55lbs is far from the the max weight of American Pit bull terriers.

In addition to fighting the dogs have been used as catch dogs for hog hunting. My fam is huge into this (not fighting) and spend thosands on cut vest to protect the pits from the hogs, the dogs love every second of it. This is why i have pits to this day, easy to train, very loyal, and keeps people out of your yard.

You think I'm a thug because i have pits? I also wear camo, drive a 4wd, and have quite a gun collection. This is America damn it, my dog is my responsibility, we have enough laws.

Thank you for the statistics, pocket clam.

While I agree that ALL dog owners should be held responsible for the behavior of their pets, it is just a fact that an attack by a Pit Bull or Rottweiler is far more likely to result in death than that of other breeds. They simply do more damage when they bite, or even when they only nip someone.

A female TV newscaster in Denver, Kyle Dyer, was nipped on the face by a dog that had been recently rescued. Granted, she went too close to the dog and touched it inappropriately. But the nip that dog gave her ripped her face open and sent her to the hospital.

After a dog has hurt or killed someone is a little late to decide it's dangerous.

Read the stories of those 31 Americans who were killed by dogs in 2011 before you get a dog. It's often the family pet that kills its owner or a child in the family. It's a horrible death, being mauled by a dog and having your arms chewed off.

I know this won't be popular but the court is, unfortunately correct. I am a dog owner, dog lover, volunteer at at dog shelter and often feel sorry for pits but the facts are what they are. Most of you won't listen or believe it but I did a lot of researching and pit bulls because of their 1) upper body force which exceeds that of a large jaguar and is how they attack (stand up and push person or animal down with forearms is incredible-meaning they are extremely strong in this position-stronger than other dogs and unfortunately, humans. 2) Unlike a shephard or similiar their jaws are capable of locking-meaning once they bite-well, you figure it out...3)Because of the strong jaws, their bite strength is off the charts. Like I said, I have nothing against them and realize no one will probably listen but I believe this is a dog best for an owner that is trained, knows how to handle them and can keep them away from others when needed-not a family pet..as I see it, they may never bite-the problem is if they do...it's not going to be a wash with peroxide and go-your-way wound...and I KNOW from what I've read it is NOT only due to abuse which can turn any dog into an attacker..it is certain physical traits that CAN potentially make them more dangerous.....

Pocket Clam-

Where on earth do you get your information? dogbite.org? Youre missing a few - like the 2mo old baby that was dismembered/mauled to death by a golden retriever 2 weeks ago in SC. The 1yr old boy boy who was killed by their family Mastiff in Nevada? Pit Bull's bad reputations are largely because of people like you who throw out "fact" and "stats" that are not true. like the elusive locking jaw - people should keep their mouths shut on issues they are ignorant to.

Read The Lost Dogs and then tell me your view on them. Interact with some and then state your view on them. I guarantee you it will change.

My head tells me that the law targeting pit bulls is not fair and generally not indicative of the breed itself, but more a result of the training, or lack of training, and the care and conditions the dog lives in. Breeding can also play a part, as it is not uncommon that bad traits can exist in either parent and some of those can be passed to offspring. I have known pit bulls who were very nice dogs- sweet and loving- and not dogs I feared. I also have seen the other extreme, like my neighbors, who are just plain bad owners. Anytime you allow any dog(s) to run loose through a neighborhood, you can be asking for trouble. They allowed numerous pits allowed to run unsupervised. These people had at least three pits who were dangerous and caused fear. Three of them broke into our yard one morning and they attacked him and shredded my little Chihuahua in our fenced yard. When I went out and saw him laying in the snow, I grabbed a board and ran out to get him. I had to use it to beat the dogs off as they came after me. I had to walk backwards all the way to to safety- swinging the board in front of me, just to keep them from attacking me. My board connected with all three of them as they tried to dart in and get me. Had I not grabbed the board or had I slipped and fell, I would have been seriously injured or killed too. Those dogs were covered in his blood and had no qualms about coming after me. There is no animal control or laws where we live and other than threatening them and their landlord with a lawsuit if they didn't pay the vet bill and get rid of the culprits- I had no other recourse. They were not responsible enough owners to expect them to keep the dogs confined and not endanger the neighborhood. There had been complaints about them before this incident and nothing changed so I was not going to allow them an out. I was angry and heartbroken and frankly- frightened. I could not trust that we, our grandchild or other pets would be safe in my own fenced back yard. These people were not responsible owners and have no business having dogs they allow to run free. They did get rid of the dogs, although I have no way of knowing if they indeed put them down or simply passed the problem on to someone else. They have other pits now and they too run loose but I now have an even larger dog who does not take kindly to them coming on our property and he let them know that. His bark is evidently sufficient to scare them away since they run even though he can't get to them. He is a very friendly dog except to the uninvited. And did I mention- very big? (We did not get him as a deterrent to the pits, but because we love the breed and have experience with the breed. We had no idea he would react to them as he did, but we do appreciate that added bonus!)

So as stated, while my brain knows it is not always the fault of the breed, my heart has a problem with them and with those who should probably not own the breed or perhaps any dog large enough to do that kind of damage to a person. I know full well any dog can bite and do damage, but it is less likely they can kill when they are small dogs or a breed that is frequently easier for less able trainer/owners. (As in knowledge- not physical abilities.) We have adopted a variety of sizes of pets, all who have been rescued from bad situations or born into situations where they were not wanted or couldn't be cared for. One great dog is a lab/pit mix. Generally we end up with them because someone is irresponsible enough to not have their pets spayed and neutered and end up having unwanted puppies they can't care for and don't want. Or those who don't have the ability to maintain some breeds adequately- as in good fences and/or space and time to put into them. We love our critters and we feed them well, spend time with them and make sure they have enough activity to keep them happy. All our animals are house pets and not expected to be outdoors unless they choose to be out- no matter their size, and they do have a huge fenced backyard to run and play and they get regular walks on a leash. We put the time and effort into being responsible owners and that is where we differ from many of those who have pits or any dog that is able to get to innocent people who are severely injured or killed by someone elses dog. So while I certainly sympathize with responsible owners of pit bulls and other dogs that are targeted by such laws, I can understand the public wanting to be safe from harm. Perhaps we need to require those who own such dogs to receive certification that they have the ability to care for and train the so-called "bully breeds" and the ability to properly house and contain them? Until we do something, fair or not, laws will continue to be passed that will penalize those who have these type dogs and because some of these dogs have created very real victims, the financial liability will continue to grow.

Take away my RIGHT to rent to whom I choose to rent to? Hmm sounds like something Hitler would do! Are people in Maryland allowed to still think for themsleves? Political figures should be tossed out of office for this one. Vacation dollars generate a lot of money into the system..BAN VACATIONS IN MARYLANd where communism reigns supreme. This is not about dog bites, anyone bitten by a dog already has a right to sue this is about CONTROL.

I read comments here that show more concern for dangerous dogs than for children.

This is not about dog bites, anyone bitten by a dog already has a right to sue this is about CONTROL.

No, this is about dog bites. Changing the subject does not change the facts. After a child is killed or maimed by a dog, what is the point in suing? The damage has been done. Many dog owners won't even put their dogs down after they have killed someone unless they are forced to.

There are obviously some people who are far more concerned about their dogs and their property than they are about the safety of innocent children.

It is epidemic in America that rights are given far greater priority than responsibilities. That's one of the main problems in this country, and an attitude like yours is a prime example of this.

Amen, something racist! I too have pits and I am not a thug....43 year old single mom whose kid goes to private Catholic school, self employed and successful. I have a 7 year old female and a 2 year old male, both rescues. I have had pits for years because I got sick of the inbreeding/poor breeding of the "good" dogs....Labs and Goldens. I have to say, once you have owned a pit, it is hard to go on to another breed. Loyal, sweet, smart and trust worthy. That said, they are also very strong and high energy. Definitely not the dog for someone who doesn't have dog experience, or is not a dedicated owner. I believe that applies for all dogs, if you want a pet you can feed and watch TV with, that doesn't require a lot of your time, get a cat!

Some of the toy breeds are known for biting

They will bite a lot quicker than a pit.

The dog was very affectionate and sweet. However, he and a dobermann buddy would take out small livestock, my friend was shocked to discover. It's not such a reach to envision these same sweet dogs mistaking a small child for livestock.

That is not because they are a certain breed, it is because they are dogs. Dogs do that. And they are not likely to mistake a child, or any human, for livestock. They smell them long before they are in attack range.

Another friend had two pitbulls come after his son while walking in the neighborhood. Luckily he picked the child up before the dogs could get him. A near miss.

Were they growling or giving any sign of aggression, or just approaching the child? If they were not threatening, they were probably looking for attention; pits are very fond of children.

Pit bulls are hardwired to fight and kill, period. The ones that are gentle and kind have been taught love, but they are a ticking time bomb. A .22lr to the head and let them go the way of the T-rex, they have no purpose.

No, they are not, and people with that mindset are a big part of the problem. Do you have any idea what they do to dogs to make them fight? Starvation, beatings, shock with cattle prods... and that is just to start. Even then a lot of them won't fight, so they get used as bait. That means they have their teeth pulled or their jaws wired shut, sometimes both. Then they are put on a short tether and torn apart by the ones that have been brutalized into fighting. If other people treated you the way fighters are treated, you would hate and fear people to the point of attacking them.

Pits are not used in fighting because they are the meanest or the most aggressive. They are used because they are the strongest.

You can always tell who they are because they will tell you how big, or strong their dogs are, so we can all be in awe of their "badass" pit.

And they are also incapable of understanding that a dog is going to be be far more protective of an owner that treats them with love and kindness, not cruelty and neglect.

'Nuff said

But not known.

That's because "Pit Bull" isn't a breed.

The breed name is Staffordshire Terrier; they aren't really bulldogs. I think it is obvious how 'pit bull' came to be used.

The threat is the owners and abusers of animals in general like Michael Vick types. I think these people should never see the light of day.

Can we agree to leave Micheal Vick out of this for once? Regardless of you point of view, he has done his time and has not been involved in anything... since then. I think its stupid to think he was the only one that should have been prosecuted in his case. It seems obvious that if there were regular "Dog Fighting bouts" or rings of Dog fighting stable - there must have been and likely still are 100's or 1,000's of dogs and dog kennels involved in the contests. Obviously its not Michael Vick, cause the is being closely watched.

On to the real lssue; I am more concerned by the 90lb, droopy drawer-ed, idiots walking these mis-shapen monsters (raised on steroids) that pass for Pit bulls. Most of them can't control those dogs if they tried, they have not trained them to respond to voice commands or leash control ... and are walking the streets with them.

I'm a dog lover and I am afraid of those misbred freak dogs. Staffordshire Terriers ... are pit bulls, they are base line which migrated from England, were bred to American tasted and eventually were given a separate breed listing as American Staffordshire terriers, The American Bull dog is often mistaken identified as either a Pit Bull too.

What is commonly identified as a Pit Bull / Pit Bull mix could be any malignant combination of breeds. Yet - that image is the phenotype which defines the whole popular designation for the true breed.

Funny thing - I breed Dobermanns, who used to be the poster child for out of control, insane dogs. But the are playful, trusted additions to many households. Seems the fears are generated more by Hollywood than anything the dog does or doesn't do.

My take on the so called "dangerous dog breeds" is - if you breed them you own them for life. Doesn't matter who you sell them to, give them to, or whatever happens to them... the breeder has culpatblity for whatever the dog does. I'll bet that'll stop the sell of decent dogs to idiot owners , who abuse them to make up for defiecenies in their on character.

Same with sweet 16 girls who get these dogs and never take the time to either train or socialize dogs bigger, heavier than they can control.

Call me Irate dog lover ; Bottom line ... its not the dogs fault that he is saddled with a stupid owner. But the dog is the one that gets the death sentence. The idiot owner, just goes out an buys another victim.

... Another friend had two pitbulls come after his son while walking in the neighborhood. Luckily he picked the child up before the dogs could get him. A near miss ...

Seriously ... If a pit bull was after your child with bad intentions, you picking him up would not deter the attack. Either the dog was merely curious or it was not interested in your child.

Not an excuse, the owner should have had the dog on a leash or behind a fence or under voice control. No way should the public ever have to deal with stray, un managed Pit.

You as a parent should teach your kids how to act around dogs. I've had mothers tell their kids to go over and pet my dogs with out even a excuse me, do you mind if my kid pets your dog or acknowledgement that I'm even there. Some dogs (and dog owners) don't trust kids around their pets. Just because you allow your kids to beat on the family pet, pull their tail or poke them in the eye - doesn't mean that all dogs will tolerate that.

Always ask the owner first.... Always. I don't make friends with stray children, no telling what the parent might do ... same goes with pets.

As a long time pit bull owner, I am sickened by the ignorance in some of these comments and the idea that our government somehow can attest to a breed being more dangerous than other breeds. First of all, Maryland just ruined any chance I will be able to move there because no one will rent to me. What I can't understand is---at least in my mind---yes, any damage my dog does I am responsible for. Would that not be the same if I owned a lab or a golden? I think so...but this law suggests otherwise and that is ridiculous. The German Shepherd up the street shows animal and people aggression on a daily basis---that owner won't be liable when it rips someone to pieces?

Secondly, pit bulls are not inherently dangerous animals. People get them for their perceived tough gimmick only to realize the dogs are big teddy bears with people. They were bred specifically to not attack people so then they are beaten or just outright mistreated until the dogs are mean and are aggressive toward other people. It is these people that are the issue and a law like this will not stop them. Period.

Thirdly, a properly trained and cared for dog---loved, socialized, handled with their pack mentality in mind, etc---will never just snap unless the dog has an underlying, often sudden health issue. Again, this is where owner responsibility plays a role. So many owners of all kinds of animals seem to think their animals are totally safe regardless. Guess what? I believe mine is safe but I am not going to get complacent. Once I do that, something will surely go wrong. I watch him every second I can when I am around others he may not know or around other animals because I know, even if another animal bites him first, he'll be blamed.

Fourth, maybe I am a dreamer and this would be hard to implement...but since owners are always the issue and never just a specific breed, why not make it mandatory for anyone who wants to own a so called dangerous dog go through a exams and testing phases like when we get our car licenses? I would be up for that if it was cost effective because then people would see how great these animals are and keep the dogs out of the hands of the people that are causing the problem. But again, it would be hard to convince people this would work because the owners are already the issue but we are banning breeds.

And lastly, human lives are more important than dog lives. But car accidents, guns, drugs, etc etc etc...all kill more people every single day that the millions of dogs in this country...yet we get so passionate about something that happens to a select few by a certain breed AND if our animal control officers and police would enforce the laws that already exist, the only pit bulls you would ever meet would be the ones that love people no matter what, who often become therapy dogs, agility champions, etc. It just amazes me that so many of you have prejudices toward a breed you likely have never met---meeting the one down the street with the no good owner means nothing. Pit bull, a lab, a Jack Russell, that dog will always be dangerous with a no good owner.

Well written, Apache Rose! Until I read your post, I had no intention to post myself since the thread is from last week. You raised many points that I would have so I'll just add a few of my own.

My first pit spent eight years with me and was a rescue dog. Yogi was loved and completely socialized by his continual exposure to the numerous friends, kids and family of the original owner as a pup. When the owner moved to an apartment from the enclave of country houses on a heavily forested 13 acre lot, he left the 18 mos pit mix with me because he knew that he would have a better life with me and the forest. My son was 8 yrs. old, so he and his numerous friends grew into teenagers loving Yogi. Their families and younger siblings followed suit.

He was smart and agile enough to climb the property's front wall that was 5' high X 6" thick. Then, he would sit there as his dog buds looked up and barked as if they're asking "Howja do that?? . At times, he'd walk along the top to extend their barking game. Yogi was a lovable character dog. Both he and our human neighbors knew it. No leash law meant Yogi and his buds could roam the neighborhood as long as they caused no problems. I never heard a complaint. He went back to his first owner when I moved.

When my son followed me to where I had relocated, he brought along a cute pit mix puppy that then spent his first year at my house with a local female pit acquired to be his mate. With no leash law in place, I took these lucky dogs for walks along a nature trail next to a river. Over their first year, they met numerous walkers and occasional other lucky dogs being brought by their masters to enjoy a healthy run in the forest. Each meeting they had with strangers along that trail served as another socialization exercise. Not once did the pair have any problems with man nor beast.

At 4 years old, the female had three male puppies that stayed with me when my son and family moved upstate for job purposes. It took me longer to train them to obey at first due to the third wheel concept but their love and respect was secured from the beginning.

Once I felt comfortable with their response to my "come to me" whistle, I took them to the same trail. Like their parents, they instantly loved our walks in the forest along a river. Their tails never stop wagging while we are there because they can have a few quick dunks to cool off, bark at squirrels and snjff to their noses' content.

As they approach 2 years old, they are still very playful and lovable pups that have been completely socialized. They have never been aggressive towards other dogs. Once, a 20 lb. hairball on a leash snarled and snapped at the largest (80 lbs) who then proceeded to run away from his attacker.

But, because they look like pits, ignorant jerks threaten to call animal control at first sight.

I do find this ruling troubling, but your analogy is off. If a dacshund or beagle bites someone, no one ends up maimed or dead usually.

When pits and rottweilers cause more than half of all dog bite fatalities every year they ARE inherently dangerous. You can't argue with the statistics and it isn't "just how they are raised." There have been too many cases where a dog suddenly attacked and killed someone and the owner is left in shock saying but they never bit anyone before, he is gentle and loves kids... until he killed one.

But I'm wondering - according to this ruling, this makes pit bull owners legally liable for attacks. So if you get attacked by another breed, you don't have legal recourse? What if it's a pit bull mix - is the owner only 50% at fault? Maybe the dog is only 25% pit - what then? The owner of ANY dog that attacks a human should be liable. Not just pit bulls.

F Walsh - You should realize your "statistics" are skewed. Bad owners are more likely to go out of their way to attain these breeds for reputation or status, and these dogs are more common.

While I'm sure there are plenty of nice pit bulls, as a breed they attack more than any other.

And what many people don't consider is unneutered males account for over 80% of dog bites. Macho men owning pit bulls to beef up their butch image are unlikely to fix their dogs. The two statistics come together to damn the breed as a whole.

prince . . . . I think this falls into the category of "hate crime" legislation. Dog attacks are bad but there is another level of bad if it's a pit bull. This is very much like "hate crime" legislation as the crime itself does not define the punishment but the "special circumstances" require special punishment . . .

Princess,

As stated before, show me a law that states a pet owner isnt liable for damages caused by their pet.

Maybe in the more liberal parts of California but I doubt it.

In GA if your dog attacks someone your dog is put down, the owner is arrested, and the owner is liable for all damages. Where is this magical part of America where a dog owner can get away with their animal attacking people? Maybe if its a rich connected person's pet but that is another debate.

At the end of the day, this law and this story is one large waste of time.

F Walsh - did you do the research for the statistics yourself? Doubtful.

Here's a statistic for you, less than 30% of people can correctly identify a Pit Bull. Less than that can tell you the difference between a Staffordshire Terrier and a Pit Bull. Even less than that are being truthful when they say "it just attacked me out of the blue". Oh, and even less than that know what kind of dog attacked them - that's scientific fact. Why? Because most people also can't give a remotely clear description of a human attacker when asked.

Oh statistics. Don't you just love them. Have a great day F Walsh :)

Marie Haughey--had this to say:

F Walsh - You should realize your "statistics" are skewed. Bad owners are more likely to go out of their way to attain these breeds for reputation or status, and these dogs are more common.

But, this is the point. It would be very hard to train a little Maltese to be a deadly killer. It is, however, pretty easy to train certain breeds to be both dog-aggressive and people-aggressive. Some breeds have certain traits--loyalty, stoicism in the face of pain, protectiveness--that make them inherently dangerous. These are the traits that make such dogs attractive to "bad owners."

Pit bulls can be lovely dogs--if they have a very well-trained owner, if they have an owner with a fairly powerful personality, and if they are well supervised. This is a little like saying that wolf-hybrids can be lovely dogs. They can be--but they are still inherently dangerous as a breed because it takes a particularly well-trained and responsible owner to take care of them.

I intensely dislike pit bulls--but, then, I intensely dislike all medium to large dogs (with increasing dislike as the dogs get more muscular and/or larger) which are people-aggressive OR dog-aggressive. I only like medium to toy dogs, myself, as that's about all I can control. I won't go near a pit bull unless it is with its owner. I feel bad about it sometimes--a pit bull who was probably a sweet creature tried to come in my house one day because it was lost. I did check for a collar (found one) and a tag (didn't find one). Not knowing if the pit bull would tear my other dogs to pieces, I did not let it all the way in or put it in my back yard. I still feel bad and hope that someone else helped it. I had to push it back out of my house and shut the door.

I think that this law will help to decrease the pit bull population. That population needs to be decreased (preferably by spaying and neutering). I think that the law ought to cover all "dangerous dogs," rather than specifying just the one breed--I think it ought to have some clauses which make it easier to own a pit bull (if it is neutered, if the family has a fence that is four feet into the ground and eight feet into the air, if it is always kept in a muzzle if outside that yard). But, yes, I would agree that pit bulls--like several other types of dogs including Belgian Malinois and Presa Carnarios and dobermans and german shepherds--are inherently dangerous in a way that a Maltese is not.

Seriously--this is just common sense. A bucket of water can drown a small child, but it is not "inherently dangerous" like a swimming pool is (and there are laws that regulate swimming pools for this reason). All dogs represent a certain amount of danger (even a Maltese can kill an infant), but some represent more danger than others (and there should be laws that regulate such breeds).

The law may be too specific to a single breed, but it is not a bad law in total.

FWalsh - it has been proved time and time again that it is the training or lack of training that is the problem. The targets for aggressive dogs in the 70's was Dobermans and German Shepherds. Both when trained properly are great dogs.

I have two pitbulls registered as labs for this reason and I have never seen a smarter breed of dog. I also have a thirteen year old daughter that was attacked by a yorkie and had soft tissue hanging out of the three holes in her legs the yorkie tore into her. People stereo type people, why not do it to animals too? Everything with a brain is capable of a bad deed and people should use caution with ALL dogs. In my opinion, it is all about how the animal is treated and what they are exposed to.

Some breeds have certain traits--loyalty, stoicism in the face of pain, protectiveness--that make them inherently dangerous. These are the traits that make such dogs attractive to "bad owners."

These traits also make these breeds attractive to 'good owners' who want a dog that will actually offer their family some protection.

The only thing this law will do is:

- Cause people to abandon their dogs - making normally docile dogs dangerous.

- Push owners of existing dogs to stop from registering their dogs and/or going to the vet (as the vets will now be 'asked' to be police officers and report any pit bull owners)

- Push vets (and breeders) to 'change' the breed of the dog to get around these stupid laws.

Just a reason not to move to MD - if they don't want my dog, I don't want them.

Ever hear of a beagle or dachund killing a child?

marinmom - actually yes, I have. Among a multitude of other breeds. Ever heard of thinking for yourself and not giving into media hype?

It is a matter of the owner. I have seen way too many worthless, aggressive, or generally out of control dogs because people think they are toys for their kids or a status symbol of some sort. No discipline=bad dog. This law should cover all owners and if they violate, then no more dogs for them. I also don't understand why they are attacking landlords, unless this is just a backdoor to take from the haves and give to the have nots.

I am a professional dog groomer and also work in a veterinary clinic. I have worked with every imaginable breed of dog, there are vicious dogs in every breed. In fact, there are far more vicious small dogs than large dogs by far. I have a tremendous number of scars and did in fact have a life threatening bite at one time, which was not due to any large breed of dog, but was in fact from a Lhasa Apso. There was great concern that I would lose my hand and even my life from this bite. I still have nerve damage from it to this day. I have never ever been bitten by a Pit Bull, and believe me almost no dog enjoys being groomed. I am also incredibly tired of seeing people spout incorrect information about the breed. PIT BULLS' JAWS DO NOT LOCK WHEN THEY BITE!! It is physically impossible for their jaws to lock. Please read some real facts and not sensationalized crap and do a little research before you assume something is true and start passing said information as fact. All dogs have the capacity to grab, hold on and shake when they bite someone or something, and frequently do. Poor ownership is at fault in any dog's behavior issues. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what breed they are. It is no different than children, if you don't teach your child right from wrong, and pay attention to them, they will get up to no good. Same with dogs. Only a small portion of pit bull owners get them because they want a "tough guy" dog. Most have found them to be lovely dogs and just like their loving nature. They are unfortunately a breed of dog that is very eager to please their owners, sometimes to their detriment and the detriment of others in the wrong hands. I believe that all dog owners should be held equally liable for any injury their dog causes to another, regardless of breed.

I have to agree with your evaluation.

The funny thing about real Pit Bull breeders... they tend to put down (or sell) people-aggressive Pit Bulls.

The fighting dogs are handled by people, usually not the owner. Having a dog that will attack a handler is not good. Fighting Pits are dog aggressive but not people aggressive. If they do go that way, they are barred from fighting. A "game dog" isn't that way out of fear or abuse.

Fighting dogs seldom growl, bark or bare their teeth as a warning. They are not trying to scare the the other dog, they are just going to work, like pulling a cart, chasing a ball or running down a varmint.

I don't care if a Maltese is less likely to do serious damage....the responsibilities always lie with the owner of any given dog as to how that dog acts/doesn't act. As owners, we tell them when to eat, sleep, and poop for crap's sake.

As someone stated above, very few people can actually identify a pit bull. Even less than that can tell the difference between a American Staff and an American Pit Bull Terrier. And Beoweolf above me is 100% right on. Fighting dogs who show any people aggression are always put down. Pit bulls by nature can be dog aggressive but people aggressive is a no-no. People train them to be people aggressive because they want tough dogs...mine looks tough but he is a baby...and it is these people that are the issue.

Back to the statistics...they very much are skewed because the people picking up these dogs are far less likely to be responsible pet owners. They see a cute puppy or they just want a pit bull for a status symbol. In reality, the two pit bull breeds---Am Staffs and APBTs---are highly intelligent, work driven dogs. They will assume the alpha dog position if you let them and can cause so many issues. In the wrong hands, especially untrained, they are a disaster waiting to happen. Not because they are monsters or people aggressive like so many believe, but because they are strong for the relative size and have a high tolerance for pain. They are also fiercely loyal so even when an owner beats them, they just take it because all the breed wants to do is please us. That often ends up badly for the people who live around said owner...which again brings me back to what so many have thankfully said...the owners are solely to blame.

Not in Maryland, evidently.

This law doesn't say this. If you are attacked by another breed of dog, you have to prove that the owner was negligent or some other legal theory that the owner knew or should have known about the dog's propensity towards violence. So, if my little maltese bit 2 people in the last year and this dog bites a third, I'm going to be liable to victim #3. However, victim #1 will have a harder time holding me liable. Under strict liability, there is an automatice presumtion of liability against me. So the first time my pit injures someone, I'm liable even if I had no reasonable belief that my pit was violent. And, this is extended to Landlord's so liability will imputed to them regardless whether an attack is the first or fifth one. Therefore, as a landlord, you can't risk renting to someone who owns a pit bull. Plain and simple.

True, Dida, the landlord being held liable is the provision that really stuck out with me. As a landlord, this automatic liability will really make one stop and think about renting to just anyone with a dog. I don't live in Maryland, but I can see where this is going around the nation.

I have a pit bull and she has NEVER bitten anybody. She's the biggest baby. She's very gentle. I also have a jack russell/beagle mix and he's very agressive. So you want to tell me that pit bulls are horrible dogs?!?!?!? I got my pit when she was 6 weeks old. My son was 1 at the time. He used to pull on her tail and drag her around by it and NOT ONCE did she ever become agressive. Pit bulls being inherently agressive is complete bull@!$%#!!

I have had two pit bull mixes - one mixed with Springer Spaniel, the one I have now mixed with Boxer. I've also had Doberman mixes, and I have a Chow/Rotweiller mix. Never got a "script from a seller", most likely because all of my dogs have been rescues. And guess what, not one of them has ever attacked or bitten anyone. But then again, I am a responsible dog owner. I train my animals. I show them love and affection. I also teach them that humans are the leader of their pack. Take any breed and subject them to the kind of horrible conditions many pit bulls are subjected to and guess what - they'll end up vicious. Vilifying an entire breed shows a lack of understanding of canines and a lack of compassion. Don't go after the dogs - go after the dog owners who mistreat their animals.

you would think with "reason" in your name, you would be one to seek the truth and looking at the stats that are readily available in regards to dogs and attacks, but since humans are inherently violent, lets ban them...

I know a number of families with pit bulls and I have to say that at first I was a bit taken back by them but I soon learned that they were nothing more than big babies! The problem is that they look mean and if they have an owner that treats it mean and shows it how to be mean the pit will become mean. The problem is not the breed but the owner!

Letusreason,

I am a Maryland resident and a pit bull owner. I have known for the last 20 years that I have had pit bulls that I am responsible for their behavior; I do not need breed specific legislation and breed profiling to tell me that. I do not care what breed the dog is the owner is responsible for the behavior of the dog. The problem with pit bulls is that they got a bad rap when 20 something drug dealing thugs started using them as status symbols. I bet if you saw me, a 30 something white woman with a college degree and a responsible job, walking down the street in my rural neighborhood with my JRT/pit bull mix you would never stop to think, "Wow, that dog is dangerous", but she could be because she is a dog and dogs will defend themselves the only way they know how when threatened.

BSL (breed specific legislation) is the same as racial profiling. Saying that some pit bulls are dangerous therefore all pit bulls are dangerous is like saying most rapes are committed by men between the ages of 16-27 therefore all men between the ages of 16-27 are rapists. Why not try learning something about this highly intelligent breed of very loyal and loving pups before you run off at the mouth. Banning the intelligence to actually use critical thinking skills to make your own educated opinion instead of eating up everything the media feeds you, sod off.

Certain breeds are involved involved in more serious dog attacks than others breeds. That's the real world, and if you own such a breed, you need to accept responsibility for the risk you are subjecting other to.

That is exactly it, Bob. They are not banning the dog, but adding accountability for the type of breed. This is not just a willy-nilly legislation, but based on statistics and facts.

@PocketClam-20 - so if you were to be attacked by a German Shepherd, it would be OK to NOT have this additional legal recourse, because statistically a German Shepherd is less likely to attack? The law should not be about the breed - it should be about the behavior. All dog owners should be held accountable for the actions of their pets. You shouldn't win or lose the legal lottery based on the breed of the dog that misbehaves.

According to the CDC, over a 20 year period pit bulls accounted for 23% of deaths resulting from dog attacks. Other breeds of note are German Sheppards, Labrador Retrievers, Mastiffs, Rottweilers. Also, a good percentage occurred in owners back yard or by chained dogs. No dog should be chained or confined to the back yard. Dogs are pack animals and in desperate need of belonging to a family. Pit Bulls were breed to have a high level of attachment to their family or owner and suffer from seperation anxiety.

Here is a quick history lesson on Pit Bulls:

-Considered the first true "American" breed

-Helped settle the frontier.

-Was the family dog in the book series "Little House on the Prairie"

-Little Rascal's Petey was a Pit Bull

-Were used in pit fights because they were breed to not bite humans; a handler could stick their hand into the middle of two of them fighting and not be bitten.

Who let's a kid pull on a dog's tail and drag them around by it?? AN idiot asking for trouble that's who...

justme (#4.1)

Interesting name. You gave one example and laws need to be decided on a larger sample size of data. It is good that your pit bull is kind and your son is not dead, that is great news. Unfortunately, laws have to cover the rest of us and statistics are needed for that.

BTW, keep that beagle away from any children . . . .

Pit Bull profiling?

Geez!

Give it a rest!

Letusreason

I can't believe they collapsed you! You nailed it right on the head . . .

Ed.... I've been licked almost to death by pit bulls, but never has one taken a bite.

Poodles and Chihuahuas on the other hand have drawn blood numerous times. Are they inherently dangerous?

The dog of choice for most drug dealers is a pit bull. Why pit bulls and not a collie for example? And while poodles and chihuahuas are disagreeable dogs, they are small and incapable of inflicting serious damage to most humans.

Pits and Rottweilers combined cause over 60% of dog bite fatalities every year. Poodles and Chihuahuas 0% so any reasonable person would say no, they are not.

First of all, poodles are not small and they can and do give nasty bites. Pits are chosen because they are cheap, have an intimidating stature, can inflict damage, and most importantly because of their history of use for illicit activities. Drug dealers don't use collies because they aren't busy trying to herd animals.... But every thug knows his daddy or uncle so-and-so down the block who has a pit bull and people don't mess with him, so they want one to make themselves tough. Never mind the fight training they are exposed to (the dogs, that is) and the savage beatings they get to make them aggressive toward humans.

If anything, dogs should be classified by their ability to inflict damage (ie by body weight and jaw muscling). Their temperament is largely a product of environment and owners. If I was a dick to my large labrador since we got it at birth, and trained it to fight and attack humans, it would be just as dangerous. All those whose dogs attack people have the story of it being sweet and never having attacked before, so that is irrelevant. (And if they don't make that statement it is likely because they are bad owners or criminals not wanting to get in trouble with the law).

And don't even try the "locking jaw" argument. It is bull. I have been involved in many necropsies and I can assure you that there is nothing in the pitbull's jaw that locks. They just have strong jaws (as do german shepherds, mastiffs, ovcharkas, and many more).

Ed,

Do some research; it used to be German Shepards that the drug dealers prefered and they were the ones subject to bans, BSL and breed profiling. Then Dobermans became the druggie dog of choice and now German Shepards are off the hook but Dobies are persecuted, then Rottwielers got the dealers attention and suddenly they were the big, scary dog that had to be banned from every community. Now it is Pit Bulls. It is not because pit bulls are inherently more dangerous than any other type of dog. It is because pit bulls are currently more numerous in situations that are likely to end in a dog attacking. Next year if thugs decide Labs are the dog to have they will start training labs to attack and we'll start hearing about how inherently dangerous labs are when they start attacking people because they are trained to do so. I am not saying pit bulls are not powerful dogs, but if you have spent any time around a pit bull that has not been subject to abuse and trained to be mean you would know that they are some of the biggest babies out there.

Ed, so if we ban and get rid of all pits, I guess you think the drug dealers and bad guys won't pick a different breed to exploit.

For those that are so quick to quote statistics of dogs that kill or attack, possibly the same statistics should be accumulated on the owners and the inhumane treatment of these animals. These animals are the animals of choice right now for fighting and protection dogs (though not through service agencies). Any animal can turn vicious and attack, however, those that are subject to cruel treatment or training are going to be quicker to turn. These laws are bred of ignorance and are a seemingly (in the State's eyes) a (quick fix) solution to a much more involved problem no one is willing to confront.

I love the stupid analogies comparing vicious 7 pound chihuahua's with vicious 100 pound pit bulls. keep them coming.

APBTs average 45 - 60 lbs, a 100 lb pit bull is not a pit bull.

JS, Baltimore

APBTs average 45 - 60 lbs, a 100 lb pit bull is not a pit bull.

Key word being "average"

English lab's arent supposed to be that big either but my in laws have one approaching 100 pounds. My wifes old lab/collie mutt was over 100 pounds.

To categorically say that if a dog is 100 pounds its not a pitbull is silly.

True poodles (not the minis or the toys) can get pretty big. I knew a very sweet chocolate poodle named Abby who was the friendliest dog, but she was MASSIVE. It seemded to me she was a bit big for her breed (but I have very little exposure to that breed so I'm not 100% sure), cause when she reared up, she was eye to eye with me, and I'm 6'1". A dog that size, regardless of temperment is capable of inflicting tremendous damage to anyone if she became aggressive.

It is true though, Pits get bad raps cause of low-life humans who use them for the wrong reasons. But seriously, ban pit bulls, and they'll just get another big dog. I seriously just got a mental image of a thug with a St. Bernard by his side. Banning pits won't work. Great Danes, Mastiffs, Bernards, Shephards, and other large breeds can be taught to be just as aggressive as pit bulls. What the gov'ts of varying states have been doing is quite literally giving a patient penicillin when the only problem is a broken ankle. Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge, VA hasn't followed in MD's footsteps... yet. I don't like crossing the river into MD if I can help it anyways.

why has nobody ever mentioned how dangerous Dalmatians are??

Pit Bull breeds have become famous for their roles as soldiers, police dogs, search and rescue dogs, actors, television personalities, seeing eye dogs and celebrity pets. Historically, the bull terrier mix Nipper and Petey from the Little Rascals, are the most well known. Lesser known, but still historically notable pit bulls include Helen Keller's family dog "Sir Thomas",Buster Brown's dog "Tige",Horatio Jackson's dog "Bud", President Theodore Roosevelt's Pit Bull terrier "Pete", "Jack Brutus" who served for Company K, the First Connecticut Volunteer Infantry during the civil war and Sir Walter Scott's beloved "Wasp".

The American Pit Bull Terrier is the product of interbreeding between pit terriers and a breed of bulldogs. According to the American Temperament Test Society in their February 19, 2012 results, the American Pit Bull Terrier has an 86.8% passing rate as compared to a 82.8% rate for all breeds.

Pits and Rottweilers combined cause over 60% of dog bite fatalities every year. Poodles and Chihuahuas 0% so any reasonable person would say no, they are not.

The only reason there aren't as many reports as there are bites, attack incidents Poodles, dachshunds and Chihuahuas is their owner are mostly women and the people that attack are men. No guy wants to report the dog of his girlfriend ... or even admit he was attacked by or that he is afraid of a a 14 oz, chihuahua. So the extent of the attacks is artificially low, under reported. Dachshunds are vicious... no one who owns one is l willing to admit it, but you will hardly ever see one on the street with out it being on a leash. They have a reputation of getting out of control more than most other dogs and they will bite.

APBTs average 45 - 60 lbs, a 100 lb pit bull is not a pit bull.

correct! ... yet the APBT still gets the blame (or ABD, most folks wouldn't know an American Bull dog if they saw one).

Sure. And there are tigers raised in captivity that are big fluffy teddy bears with their trainers... but do you want that tiger living next door? Pit bulls are no different. Some animals are just more dangerous than others and no amount of denial will change that.

exactly. My pit is sweet and kind. Like I said before though, my jack russell/beagle mix is just mean at times. He's the one that has bitten me not my pit bull.

Tigers? Really? You want to compare a Dog to a Big Cat...ok...apples and oranges. The blame is on the owners and i'm sorry what breed was that dismembered the 2 year old not long ago?...no amount of denial will change the responsibility of the owners, killers are made, not born.

How about that Colorado news anchor that was in the news recently? She was covering a story on a rescued pit pull who had fallen through ice in a lake. The pit was on camera with her and its owner, she bent down to pet it and it bit her in the face. She had to have multiple plastic surgeries with her jaw wired shut so she could heal properly. The owner of that pit said it had never done anything like that before. I still believe the Maryland ruling is a good one, regardless of how well a pit owner has trained it.

If you stick your face in any scared dogs face(and don't tell me it wasn't afraid, bright lights, camera crews, being in an unfamiliar place) you're probably going to get bit, its common sense, don't screw with a scared animal, its going to protect itself

That argument is ridiculous. (@smlfry2) Watch the video again and notice the many signs the dog displays that signify an impending bite. She got in its face (dogs don't like that) and the dog was on a strange news set with dozens of news anchors/cameramen and tons of electronic equipment and televisions (a scary environment for any dog). She and everyone else in that room put the dog into a situation where it felt it couldn't flee (the man was holding it in place, and notice its attempt to turn away and avoid her), and it gave her a defense bite. If that dog wanted to attack her, it would have ripped her throat out before anyone knew what happened. This was a case of ignorant people placing the dog in an unfair position.

Lastly, it was an Argentine Mastiff. (Not a dog grouped with the slang term "pit bull").

Smlfry2- Thank you for lending credence to one of the biggest reasons breed specific legislation is wrong. Many people cannot correctly identify breeds. The dog that bit the news anchor was an Argentine Mastiff.

. I still believe the Maryland ruling is a good one, regardless of how well a pit owner has trained it.

I'm allergic to cheap perfume too. Some folks shouldn't be around dogs.... heavily scented people or folks that get into a dominate position over dogs shouldn't be around them. I can tell what you had for lunch - if it had onioins, garlic, or sasage in it.

I dog (some preeds) can tell you what your child at home had for dinner last night, from the smell on your clothes if you walked through the kitchen to get in the car this morning.

. I still believe the Maryland ruling is a good one, regardless of how well a pit owner has trained it.

I'm allergic to cheap perfume too. Some folks shouldn't be around dogs.... heavily scented people or folks that get into a dominate position over dogs shouldn't be around them. I can tell what you had for lunch - if it had onioins, garlic, or sasage in it.

I dog (some preeds) can tell you what your child at home had for dinner last night, from the smell on your clothes if you walked through the kitchen to get in the car this morning.

How many children murder other children? Pits cause 67% of all dog bite fatalities and are 5% of the dog population. Use a better argument, that one fell flat.

And humans cause 100% of the of the murders on other humans. Seems like we're inherently dangerous as well. I'm thinking there have been more than 59 murders in the last year...

F Walsh - Courtesy of FBI crime statistics: 1 out of every 5 juvenile murders is caused by another juvenile. That is a 20% fatality rate compared to 5% for pitbulls.... Sounds like Scudo's argument isn't all that flat you meathead....

In 1993 alone 3,790 juveniles were arrested for murder and 2005 1,260 were arrested for murder. Statistics can be slanted to prove any point. I work in the field of statistics for insurance and believe me I can make them show what ever point is the flavor of the week. Most all animals/humans are a product of their environment. Most can be rehabilitated some cannot. Zero tolerance fails for both humans and animals.

you have a point SCUD but kids fight but most times Pit Bulls maim and kill. Your comparison is not a valid one.

Still way less fatalities than handguns...maybe we should get our priorities straight before we start blaming an entire breed for 66 dogs over 30 years.

Correlation /= causation. "A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years. It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill." www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html

That same chart shows a lower incidence of attacks by wolf/dog hybrids than by pit bulls. Is that due to a wolf/dog hybrid being less likely to attack, or there being fewer owners of wolf/dog hybrids? Whatever breed is the dog of choice of drug dealers and dog fighters is going to be the most severely mistreated, and therefore the most likely to be aggressive. Outlaw pit bulls, and drug dealers will move on to Rottweilers (next on the list). Outlaw those, and then German Shepherds are next. Outlaw those, and then what? Oh yeah, mixed breeds. Good luck outlawing all of those. Let's just eradicate the canine species and force everyone to have only cats as pets.

Only cats? Sounds good to me!

Although, we have almost always had a dog or two (hubby's idea); I'm not a big dog fan. Our dogs have always been very well-trained. However, my dislike of dogs has a lot to do with the owners, i.e. the ones who don't train them at all, or bring them everywhere and just assume everyone is happy to smell stinky dog breath and get slobbered on. I'm also allergic to dogs, which doesn't help.
We have two neighbors with completely untrained dogs. One just lunges at cars, bikes or whatever is going by, not aggressively, but a challenge to avoid at times; and another viciously charges everyone and everything.

These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten.

Totally off topic, but these percentages are about the same for people getting certain kinds of cancers - and we make laws that require kids to be vaccinated against them.

When are we going to learn that making laws to protect this small of the population are useless and a waste of time and money.

How in the name of heaven can you turn this into a racial issue?

Those of us fighting BSL and breed profiling have been comparing it with racial discrimination and racial profiling for years. Our government is saying that based on nothing more than being born a certain breed a particular type of dog is more likely to be a criminal; they are not basing this on individual animals, only the breed as a whole. Racist policies state that being born black makes a person more likely to be a criminal, they are not basing this on individual people, only the race as a whole. Both types of policies are wrong. Not all men rape, not all blacks are thugs, not all pit bulls attack people, not all women are sluts, not all children wet the bed. You cannot not say "All XXX does XXX" about anything because not all anything does anything, some do some don't.

The correct wording though is Canine Breedism and there is a very high contigency of middle class white women that have pit bulls.

am full agree with you ,my pitbul has rais ed with three little girl and he slep with them in the room till now i don't have problem with my ,it's a pinknose pitbull .thank you bye

If pit bull = tiger, don't you think at least ONE of these kids would have been mauled? Huh. Maybe that's because dogs who maul almost exclusively are 1. unaltered, 2. live outside, 3. are not socialized, trained, and treated as family members. No altered, family pit bull has ever killed anyone

That's what I worry about. One of my dogs I believe is a cross between a boxer and an American Staffordshire. But I don't know for sure, and really don't plan on DNA testing her. She's marked like boxer, but has the body type of the AmStaff. If such a law was passed, would I be forced to move rather than give her up? Yet my neighbor with a mastiff would be allowed to remain in his house with his dog (both my boxer and his mastiff are cuddly teddy bears).

It took away my links! vimeo.com/41361917 and nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/publications/230603563_Pit%20Bull%20Placebo.pdf

Good point about drug dealers and low lifes going for other dogs. Pit bulls are a type of dog not a breed. I did however see a program on Animal Planet called gang dogs. It seems that Cane Corsos and Presa Canarios will be the next dog victimized by irresponsible owners.

First it was the German Shepard, then the Dobermans, then the Rotties and now it is the pit bulls. When will the responsibility fall on the real animal.. Human beings ?

Absolutly Meghan.

It's so sad that they have to point out problems with only the pit bulls. It should be all dog types.

Any dog can attack!!!!!!

I happen to have as friends more than one "dog rescuer". One has Greyhounds, saved for obvious reasons, one has (3 of their 4 dogs) part or wholly pitbulls. And several others. All these people are the dearest, most peaceable and equally child loving people you'll ever meet. All of them, especially the potentially lethal breed of dog owners, will tell you over and over stories like the "playing with the baby robin" story above, or sweet "like an infant" tales about their dog. Also, if a news item comes up about a killer-digression, IT'S NOT THEIR [the dog's] FAULT takes over and they get vehament and defensive. Please people, nobody said it was their fault. We, the vulnerable human public, know that. The truth remains, however, that all animal interraction with us is "behaviours". Nothing more. Whatever affection they could experience with their litter mother (mimic'd to some degree by the handlers at the kennel, supported by feeling safe with and being dependent on us), and friendly horsing around with siblings, non hurting play (in preparation for hunting in the wild, folks) is simply converted in bonding with us. At my son's house, the Doberman, a completely affectionate moron, clearly has a Mommy, my daughter-in-law, and a BIGGER DOG: my son - -kind to the dog, of course, an affectionate handler: but the dog's commander and handler, all the same. A doberman let wander around 3 babies, now grown, has to be well trained, influenced toward safety and affection and watched. The poor pit bull, due to whatever: unfortunate combination of traits, lots of generations of evil owners who breed for nasty, whatever, has some surviving brainspace that occasionally for no reason lights up and make him, quite singularly among dogs. latch onto and rip to shreds (like a bear attack) human persons who didn't menace them. (That's probably why, that particular Jack Russel Terrier - mentioned above did the deed. It's a ratter: and that's how they roll. Throwback.)There's a dog trainer on cable TV who once described how multiple dog owners need to acknowledge and join "group behaviours" with a "pack" to the expectations and training of their dogs. People try to "humanize" their dogs actions instinctively and interpret - -above the heads of some dogs: e.g. pitbulls. I think, until some more docile breeding can be done professionally, if we must, they belong in the category of at least, Dingo's and Wolves. Only by exception, permit-holders who don't breed them, they should be on preserves/freerange zoos. Yes there are other offender dogs, but go online, gather some data. Pitbulls are still doing it too often and too unpredictably. I loved my dogs and my cats, but one must measure ones available time, environment, with or without kids, etc. for the kind of dog one will pick. Unfortunately, that pretty much excludes pitbulls right now until the breed is as dependable as the wolf-turned-sheepdog: after centuries, their instinctive behaviour.

Any dog can attack not just pit bulls. My old neighbor had a pit bull. I had my dog out on my front lawn and he let his pit out. He charged at my dog and had her down in a second biting at her throat. Thank God he was able to get the dog off mine. All I heard was my do crying and yelping. But it didn't have to be a pit bull to do that. Any dog can attack.

Yeah Lucy1, true any dog can attack. We need to face the truth that Pit bulls were bred for fighting and gambling. I know of many occasions were a Pitt or a Pitt mix practically chewed the faces off of children. One in particular was my Uncle's dog. He was very surprised because the dog had never hurt anybody ever. Witnesses to the attach said the dog, for unknown reasons, sprinted and attached the four year old little girl, who was my Uncle's Grand Daughter. Well, the dog quickly met his doom at the end of an 870, and rightfully so. I warned him the previous Summer, that Pits are not to be trusted, and also I told him that in my line of work (Law Enforcement) that I had seen my share of Pitt attacks. It was always the same shocked look of the owners, and the statement I just can't believe he or she would bite somebody like that. Well, like I said earlier, they were originally bred for fighting, and some for hunting, but deep in their DNA so to speak there is a killer instinct. I tell you right now these dogs can not be trusted overall. Even if some have never harmed anybody or anything their entire life, there are so many others that have that I think they should not be allowed in certain areas. Why the heck would somebody want an animal like that anyway? With the known natural tendency of aggression. It seems that some people buy these dogs because back in their twisted minds they either like playing with fire, or that their is a slim possibility that it may attack somebody or something someday. I know that may sound silly, but why do people really watch sports where there is a possibility of death. Lets say, car or motorcycle racing. People deep down need that kind of excitement, and I believe that in a Pitt owners mind there is that same possibility of possible doom that makes them want to own such an animal.

Melissa, you only emphasize what you're ignoring. There's no law against chihuahuas, spoiled nippy little poodles and the other smaller dogs who are likely to bite in my experience. They're easy enough to throw off, scold and get rid of. Try that with the errant pit. There are also probably fewer lawsuits instituted, or even mention made in social groups of the offenses of these little critters: absolutely none about puppies, all of whom CHEW, including people. It's not the "biting" it's the "hurting" Meliss! And so it goes on up the line in size order. People are still a little suspicious of Rottweilers who occasionally have demonstrated at least ruffianism, and not everyone will have one. Most pits aren't even that large. NOBODY SAID THAT YOURS WASN'T AN ABSOLUTE ANGEL. However, the lethal and disfiguring attacks are very often completely unprovoked and sudden. Read Donna Raitanen, directly below. There's only one thing that can explain that unprovoked thing: they're not reliably bred yet. We also don't know whether it is the preponderance of bad owner/breeders who like to show off the nastiness that's responsible or going back to some ancient prompt in the brain or brains of the parent breeds of dog that combines badly and signals these animals for reasons we can't see. The results in terms of death and disfigurement are like sharks or bears, and more numerous than other "pet" dogs. Grow up lady. We're not talking about yours: but if you could buy one, the others can multiply and get sold or given too. That's the purpose of laws.

Fun Mom- don't scold her like she is one of your children, and I will actually hold validity to anything you say ever, if you can tell me how a shark attack and a pit bull attack are similar and can even be in the same ballpark... please humor me

Your choice of wording tells me everything I need to know about how much I should respect your opinion. Oh, and it's spayed, not spade. Perhaps we would be better off if your parents had chosen that route?

you su-k this is fortravis

i'll do the "mentally challenged" people a favor and not drag them down by relating them to you. people, golden retrievers, chihuahuas, poorly parented kids, etc., can also snap at any moment--should we outlaw all of them also? how about muslims?--they're dangerous too. the easy thing to do, which is ANY politicians default move, is a move like this. nevermind the actual circumstances or judging each case on its own--it must be the breed that's bad. using this logic, there's certain "breeds" of humans that should be outlawed also...namely politicians and idiots. at a minimum you clearly fall into the second category...and if you're a politician also, that just cements my claim. all this does is make it easier for people to sue, which is another type of law that politicians almost always seem to find a way to pass.

Travis, you ignorant, self absorbed and most definitley offensive person....pits, like other animals give what they get. hit them they bite. hug them they are kind. just like the dobermans and other "ferocious beasts" that were blamed before them. just because a bunch of low life's decided to fight these poor innocent creatues and use them in their drug trade does not mean they are to blame. throw the true offenders in jail-people. felons should not be allowed to adopt a pit. give them a good home, you will get a great friend for life.

Well said Princess, Travis you are a uneducated @!$%#.

Totally

Travis is correct. Your the idiots. You mean to tell me that the stats are lying? You guys keep blaming the owners for these dog attacks, and there is merit to that. BUT what about the dogs that came from loving homes? Don't be stupid, next thing your going to tell me is no pit that came from a good home ever attacked anyone. BS. Get it through you heads THEY ARE MORE PRONE TO ATTACK THAN OTHER BREEDS, PERIOD!!!! REGARDLESS OF RAISING!! Raising helps, but it is not, NOT, a surefire prevention, there is none with this breed. Bullets for bulls.

Travis - you are an uneducated A**hole! and YOUR parents should have been spayed and neutered.

dear dummy "Ddotherightthing": zip your pants up--your stupidity is showing, again.

and "your", in this context, should actually be "you're"

travis and Ddotherightthing you guys are only looking at statistics. look at it from any pet owners point of view that actually cares about their animals and DOESNT fight them. they are just like our kids. i have 3 of them one bred for fighting but we got her when she was 6 weeks old and now she is the biggest baby in the world. and whoever said hit them and they will bite generally you are right but i also have one that if he wouldve stayed with the family he was he wouldve died in a week from not being fed and beat he doesnt have a mean bone in his body and i also have one that we had a part in his life since he was born and again depends on how you raise them cause he doesnt have a mean bone in his body either.

Travis, they obviously din't read my post about my Uncle and his loving Pitt that was never mistreated for reasons unknown practically chewed the face off his Granddaughter. They also didn't read about the other times I responded as a cop to Pitt attacks, before the base I was stationed at outlawed them. Why the hell would so many towns and cities outlaw ownership of this particular breed? Rotties look much more intimidating than Pitts do, however I don't see them being outlawed anywhere. What about German shepherds? The bottom line is that Pitts are or have potential to be extremely dangerous. Somebody will say, so are cars, guns, or even smoking. Well there is a reason that most towns and cities have ordinances about owning animals such as lions, tigers, bears, or the many other animals that have potential to kill you. Because even though they may never hurt anybody, there is always that potential, and there are way too many cases of Pitts, regardless of how they are loved and taken care of, attacking for no reason. That is why thousands of cities have outlawed ownership of these animals. What do you think the last thoughts running through the mind of the idiot and his girlfriend who used to go and live with the Brown Bears in Alaska were. As you know he was killed by the same Browies that he had been around for years and years filming close ups. It is in a way the same as the Pitt owners who are always so shocked their dog bit for no apparent reason.

All dog owners, no matter what the breed/type, should be held responsible for their dog's actions. Continually calling pit bulls or pit bull type dogs vicious is like saying all blondes are stupid. Every dog is an individual. And, to a point, it is the type of owner, and how a dog is raised. My dogs are both rescues, both over a year old when I adopted them. It took a lot of training and working with them to get their manners and disposition where it is. That is a combination of me, and their natural disposition. Both had hard lives before rescue.

The truth is, pit bull type dogs make great pets. You have to rely on shelters, rescues and fosters to identify the dogs that can be rehabilitated, or rehomed. Any dog can be bad, aggressive, or dog-aggressive. A dog is a dog is a dog. Animal, then species, then type. I've met some mean cocker spaniels, and I've met some mean pit bull type dogs. Just like some people are just naturally jerks, it is the same for dogs.

All owners should be held responsible for their dog - no matter the breed. In Maryland, they are now saying if a retriever bites, it and its owner are not held to the same standards because this ridiculous law is not specific to dogs in general - just pit bulls. And the simple fact of the matter is - most dogs identified as pit bulls are not- they are mixes, or dogs that are similar in appearance. Ive seen news reports that called a boxer a vicious pit bull.

This is a case of media hysteria, general lack of knowledge on the public's part, and discrimination of owners of pit bull type dogs.

This law in Maryland will result in good, loving dogs losing their homes, more left in kill shelters, and less being adopted. All result in a high kill rate of good dogs that deserve homes. It is not a responsible law, and the Maryland should re-think how they deal with dog owners in their state. The cost will go much higher in shelters. BSL does not work.

And to all of you that spew the same crap about pit bulls - do a little research before spewing. KC Dog Blog, Bad Rap, The Unexpected Pit Bull, Best Friends Society. What you learn might surprise you.

I can guarantee you this law will not be overturned, and makes complete sense to the majority of people with common sense. Some, like my uncle (read my posts!), who was a former Pitt owner will agree. I mean ten people witnessed this dog just lose it for absolutely no reason. This dog had never been mistreated, abused, starved, and never had to want for anything. It was even a house dog for crying out loud. Just come to your senses and realize this happens way too many times for no reason whatsoever, except they have a killer instinct somewhere in their DNA.

Half right Veg...I'd add, or roughhouse play with a medium size or bigger dog not your own pet or at least very very familiar, make sudden moves, handle their food, etc etc. So it doesn't have to be aggression, it can be just plain stupid or lack of judgment. I've seen really good house dogs with kids start barking when a visitor kid was just playing chasing one of the children, or a male hug the Mother of the house. However, ..........you're completely forgetting that the really ugly accounts, really documented, including a girl named Donna Rait... on this page describe completely unprovoked pit bull sudden attacks, no previous contact, often adult women, not a kid with a stick, just out of nowhere. That's the pit bull thing that comes up from time to time and the reason they could justify a law. A signal that goes on that we can't detect, therefore can't prevent. That breaks your "that's your own damn fault" rule and that's why pits are getting heat. Take them out of civilization temporarily, zoo/preserve specimens, treat them well and breed them well. No private having/licensing/selling them without neuter/spaying, arrest - -confiscation as a penalty, until they've died out in free circulation. Someday, they may be reliable enough to have as pets, or might be regulated like wolves/special permits.

My bet is that even if raised and bred in a zoo, they will still have potential to be dangerous. That killer instinct will still be in their DNA. Just like an exotic pet such as a python or a lion or even a bear. How many times do innocent people have to be attacked to get the point across? Look at Sigfried and Roy, and they are perfect examples of WTF over. This cat raised by them, and trained by them since birth, just totally tripped out. They said it was because they were protecting them from the lady in the front row with a weird hairdo. Lol, You and I know that somewhere in the DNA of that cat, even though it was raised by them and never hurt a fly, was a killer instinct or the willingness to hurt.

Yes, let's ban a whole breed simply because some people are irresponsible. While we are at it, let's ban baseball bats because some people use them to hurt other people. Let's ban blunt objects altogether, including all tools like screwdrivers and hammers. Let's ban children because people don't know how to raise them and they grow up to be criminals and a drain on the welfare system. Let's ban everything that can be used in an irresponsible manner. I guess you would really hate to know that I have a dog that has double the bite strength of any pit, weighs about 100lbs more than most and is about 3x as powerful all together. You can take your kindergarten logic and shove it. Little Johnny colors on the wall so let's take away everybody's crayons? People like you are the source of all the world's problems.

Well, thanks to the "inner city trash" who starve these poor dogs and teach them to attack, , , , it just makes me so sick. Remember people, all dogs can attack . . . pit bulls have a very strong jaw and granted, their bite can be a lot more dangerous, but come on, you need to wake up and smell the roses, how many times are people attacked by non-pit bulls, but you never, ever hear about it in the news or elsewhere . . . I love my pit

it's not the breed, it's the capacity for damage.

you can own a cat, not a lion.

you can own a dog, not a wolf.

you can't own bears or tigers either. in terms of capacity for damage, a pit bull is more like any of these banned animals. sure some tigers, lions bears and wolves might be tame enough, but we wisely don't take the chance in our communities. the court has decided the pit bull has often enough proven to do mayhem at the level of these other animals.

people own lions, tigers, bears, wolves so that's not a good comparison. while i don't agree with the ruling's reasoning i do agree with the ruling itself to an extent. pit bulls are not inhrerently dangerous and learn to be in some cases but that's irrelevant. if your pit bull atttacks someone it should be easy for them to sue you. if your pit bull attacks someone it was dangerous. if you treat your pit right then you should have nothing to fear as when they are loved it's what they give you back.

"people own lions, tigers, bears, wolves so that's not a good comparison" huh?

people own pit bulls too. you think that if the parallel isn't perfect you can throw out the argument? how about focusing on the basic concepts?

of course it's a good comparison. more communities than not already BAN lions, tigers and bears. the people who have them are in areas that are unregulated, usually rural, not urban. now they want to add pit bulls to the list and it's perfectly logical.

pit bull agressiveness is part genetic and part handling. it's on a continuum. some pit bulls genetics alone would never allow them to be a family pet and no amount of proper training would make it safe. some pit bulls genetics make them resistive to becoming agressive even if they have no special training.

what is always present in a pit bull is the equipment: powerful jaws probably beyond any other breed. a powerful, low slung body structure bred for fighting. a killing capacity built in unlike any other breed. just like a lion, bear, wolf, tiger.

no one says "run for your life, it's a raccoon! no one says "run for your life, it's a golden retriever!"

a bear? yup.

a pit bull? i'm not taking any chances, on or off a leash.

I have to agree with JS, I am from the UK, we have a law called the "Dangerous dogs Act", and Pit Bulls come under this law. They must be registered, neutered, kept on a leash and muzzled while in public and of course the only people who will suffer because of this are the law abiding citizens who register their dogs, while those who do not register will always get away with their actions and these are the ones who use and train their animals to be aggressive.