I find this ruling completely unfair. Nothing or one should be judged as a whole. This ruling is judging a dog based on his/her looks not his/her actions. Yes if my dog bites at fault, regardless of the breed, I as its owner I should take responsibility.

Pit bull type dogs get a bad rap due to irresponsible ownership and media misperception. Take note, that when a beagle, lap or a golden retriever bites... The media does not list the breed in the headline. The headline will only say "dog bite or dog attack". When a pit bull bites your hear "Pit Bull attack." Let's also not forget that when the media reports on a dog bite, we only hear one side of the story... the human side. Dogs do not even have the means to speak for themselves. So why are creating laws based on a voiceless creature?

Pit bull type dogs are not biting more, we as society just hear it more. Do the research, APBT score 86.6%!

breed-statistics/statistics-page1/

They out number many of their competitors. If you look back in history many APBT were used as military dogs due to their strength and loyalty. They were used as "Nanny Dogs" because of their love for their family. APBT have been used in many TV shows and commercials, as therapy dogs, search and rescue, etc. because of this breeds wonderful characteristcs, loyalty, strength and eager to learn mind frame.

It makes no sense why the media targets this breed from such an ignorance stand point when the facts are in their favor.

I have worked with many Pit Bull type dogs in my lifetime and have not met one who was people aggressive or that I feared. (I cannot say the same for other breeds.)

If you opened your heart and mind to this breed you would be amazed at what you could learn from them. Discrimination is ignorance.

I also want to add many breeds are misidentified, take the test: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html.

We should all be judged by actions not our looks.

never mind dangerous. Pit bulls are stupid and ugly.

There are many issues with this law and the rationale used behind it that is not correct. The CDC even supports this:

"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 ). 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.

Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites. For prevention ideas and model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please see the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions: A community approach to dog bite prevention "

It seems that many people go back to these studies, or studies like this that stress they are not to be used for policy making decisions, and yet that is what they are using to create these rulings and laws. That, in itself, is the most disturbing aspect of Maryland's state ruling.

Both my boyfriend and I work in the medical field in an inner city hospital, and spend a lot of time in the ER. We have seen a number of dog bites and heard the stories behind them. Many come in saying it was a "pitbull", but often it is a mix breed, some a mix that most likely doesn't even include pit. Many dogs can have a pit bull like appearance and not have a drop of pit in them. You can't always judge a book by it's cover. My boyfriend was against getting a pit mix from dealing with all the dog bites we both see, until he met the dog we currently have (which is most likely lab boxer mix and not pit). Neither of us would trade him for the world. All dogs have the potential to do harm. I was part of those statistics, had my nose lacerated open by a dog bite to the face when I was a kid. This was done by a very small cocker spaniel (think Lady from Lady and the Tramp). If I had been smaller, or closer to the dog, the outcome could have been much worse. This was a very well trained dog, it just happened that he had a stroke just before the incidence and we didn't realize. All dogs can do harm, it just happens the bigger the dog, the more potential to do greater harm. That doesn't mean they are inherently evil. If that is the case, then every dg should be considered inherently evil until proven otherwise and this ruling should be against all dogs, purebred, mixed breed, all of them, not singling out one specific type that many breeds actually resemble.

Responsile pit parents far outnumber irresponsible 'owners'. Maryland's claim of 'inherent danger' is ignorant to the core.

And those of you commenting that pits can't be trusted- who says YOU are any more trustworthy?! LOl my dogs would die for me, and I for them. But, people like the trolls on this board, (ahem, dothrightthing) I'd not even give you the human decency to make eye contact- you're lower than low- not to mention glorifying violence with your hateful comments.

:) peace 8itches!!

Any way you try to spin it, I do not have to allow your dog to aproach me snarling and assaulting me. I don't need to waste time worrying about breed when I should be killing a dog.

How about a law holding an owner accountable for how their Dog behaves period. Regardless of breed.

Pit bulls are to dangerous. I agree with the court. Every one wants to look cool owning the biggest baddest dog. Gangbanger favorites.

Pit Bulls are a pimps and thug status symbols.

And I have no respect for either.

I have no use for these creatures.

The legislation has a number of issues. For starters, the very organization that has gathered a lot of the dog bite research is against legislation such as the one Maryland is proposing. This organization is a very highly respected organization across the world for it's strong epidemiological data. The CDC states:

"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 ). 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.

Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites. For prevention ideas and model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please see the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions: A community approach to dog bite prevention ."

The other issue involves that you cannot assume a dog is a pit bull just by sight. There are many other breeds that can be mistaken for a pit. Mix breeds can appear to be a pit bull and not have any pit in them. For example, a lab boxer mix can easily look like a taller pit bull. Any mix that may have any type of mastiff in it may also appear to look like a pit. You cannot judge a book by it's cover. (haven't we learned that with humans and racism?).

From personal experience, both my boyfriend and I work in a busy inner city hospital, myself in the ER, and he in surgery. We have both seen the multitude of damage that a dog bite can do. I am part of the statistics of the dog bite study that CDC had. As a child I was biten in the face by our family cocker spaniel and had my nose torn open. This was a dog that had never shown any aggression and had been great with kids, and well trained. Had I been smaller and closer to my dog when he bit me, the end results could have been far worse then it was. And this is a SMALL dog. It turns out that the poor thing had just had a stroke and was not himself or really knew what was going on when I went to pet him. Many of the bite stories we have seen have supposedly been pit bulls. I say supposedly since some of the bites were not by the family dog that they knew what it was. Others, it turns out when animal control found the animals, some were lab mixes. Some were pits that were being trained to fight and were being starved as part of the method to make them mean enough to fight and they escaped (and I am NOT saying all pit bulls that are being trained this way will be vicious...look at the Michael Vick dogs as proof. THat would be like saying every child who is abused will abuse, which we know isn't true). We currently have a what is believed to be a lab/boxer mix (though most people think he is a pit). My boyfriend believed the stereotype around pits and did not want anything to do with them until he met our dog. It has completely changed his view of pit/pit mixes. He is the best dog both of us have ever had, and we both have had some incredible dogs in our lives.

If there needs to be legislation that is harsher on dog bites, that may not be a bad thing. But, it cannot be breed specific. All dogs have the potential to do harm, the larger the dog, the more potential. There are multiple factors which lead up to dog bite events. Maryland legislation needs to take CDC's recommendations into consideration.

This really seems rather simple. Pit bulls were bred to fight and kill other dogs. People in the dog fighting business select pit bulls for that reason. If you're not in that business there's no reason to have a pit bull, especially when there are so many less dangerous breeds available,......except at animal shelters where they are overrun with pit bulls. Guess why.

Absolutely agree with the new law. Get sick of people defending these vicious dogs. I am the ultimate animal lover 10 cats, 3 dogs, 2 rabbits, and a gerbil but I would not have a pitbull for any reason, I have seen with my own eyes how dangerous they can be even after being well cared for by kind owners.

Worked at a vet hospital many years and cannot count how many times a mangled dog was brought in after being attacked by a pitbull....1 instance a pit jumps the fence and attacks the small dog living there,the owner tries to intervene and is also attacked. Another instance....Pitbull is brought in for treatment after an officer is forced to shoot it to stop it from attacking an elderly gentleman! The stories go on and on.

I even tried once to have a pitbull, sweetest dog in the world and of course me being an animal lover I thought surely she would never show aggression as I was the one giving her the ultimate loving care but once she became comfortable in my home the story changed....She began showing aggression towards my cats, I suppose I could of tried to train her but I was not going to chance losing one of my cats in the process of trying (By the way, the pit I had was under a year old).

After all I have seen I do believe it's in their blood and they are very prone to attacking, especially other animals!

I have two pure bred pit bulls a male and female my dogs are loyal loving dogs it's not the breed its the deed. I read a week ago on MSN about a lab/retriever mix that killed and dismemebers a two month old so Maryland and Prince George County you need to ban them and help protect us against labs and retrievers they are vicious dogs also

Two Pit bulls attack man and 81-year-old woman.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/news/Pit-bulls-attack-man-81-year-old-woman-on-Detroit-s-east-side/-/4714498/12286978/-/lcysak/-/index.html

This is what happen when you don't secure your dog properly.

Oh yea viewer_ready I am not a gangster or a thug. I am however a responsible pit bull owner my female is spayed and my male is neutered they are never allowed to run wild in the streets they are always on a leash in public the worst thing my pits will do is lick you to death. Before you start running your mouth about pits have the facts, learn the truth about them.

2006-2008--pit bulls responsible for 59% of fatal dog attacks--81% of off-property fatal attacks.

Politicians and judges are FAR more dangerous than pitbulls. Where's the law protecting us from THEM?

Pitbulls/dogs are not "inherently dangerous,"...people are. Usually anything a human touches/controls has a high possibility it will go to hell. And comparing pitbulls to obvious wild animals isn't a good comparison or even a good argument. These dogs only become a problem because of the owners. Just tired of ignorant so called animal lovers calling these dogs dangerous. If raised properly these dogs are not dangerous.

There are Far too many cases of Pit Bulls attacking people, especially kids. I have personal knowledge of one case where a little 3 year old girl was playing in her back yard and the neighbors Pit bull burrowed under the fence separating the yards and attacked this little girl for No Good Reason! The girls grandmother managed to fight off the dog somehow. The little girl spent Six Months in the hospital and had to have several operations. Pit Bull dogs are DANGEROUS-Period! They are mentally unstable at best. Good for the court! I hope it is just the beginning of Pit Bulls being Outlawed in this country! The fine should be $10,000 and FIVE years in prison for having one! Sure, other dogs also attack once in a Blue moon if provoked. Pit Bulls attack simply because they are Deranged! About the only thing they are good for is Target practice!

IMO, the reason that these dogs are getting a 'hard' rap is because of the hard arses that own them. They put spiked collars on these dogs and teach them to be hard animals; idiot dog owners are attracted to this breed. As a result pit bulls have gotten a bad name.

That said, this doesn't mean that these dogs aren't a little 'off'. Our neighbor is a kind and gentle dog owner and his pit bull is a sweetheart. But you have to wonder about an animal that will literally hang by the jaws from a tree branch, four feet off of the ground, for fifteen minutes or more at a time..... Seriously, I've never seen a dog this duff.

This is just another fine example of the judical system making laws when the politicans are out of touch with today's society. While they are at it , they should make it illegal to own a motor vehicle since they are known to be driven by drunks that kill innocent people. Make all alcohol illegal too! Sounds ridiculous right? Any dog can be aggressive. It's how their owners train and treat the animal is what should be regulated. Just as any car can be deadly when misused so as it is with animals. Why can't the politicains of Maryland get that? I am the proud owner of two American Pitbull Terriers that I had adopted, legally through a shelter. Although, they can be intimidating towards unwanted or univited guest of my home, they are very loving members of my family. They have never showed aggression to myself nor my wife and children. They love to run around my backyard, chase the occasional bird ot stray cat that wonders into their territory but other then that you can find them either on my sofa or lazy boy. LOL

The reason pit bulls have gotten this bad repuation as an aggressive bred of dog is from sick and twisted people that use the

dog's extreme sense of loyality and train them to fight other dogs. A pitbull's loyality can be so great that if trained to exploit this, the animal would willing puts it's own life in danger to please it's master. Sadly, many that had been train for these activites die early in their lives. Maryland, WAKE UP !

Oh btw I drive a Hyndai .