E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA new ruling makes it easier for anyone attacked by a pit bull or pit bull mix in Maryland to take legal action against the dog's owner.
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruling declares pit bulls as a breed are "inherently dangerous," and the owner of a pit bull or a cross-bred pit that attacks is strictly liable for damages, as is any landlord who rents to a pit bull owner.
The Maryland SPCA, which arranges adoptions for dogs that need homes, currently has three pit bulls under its care: a five-month-old Brutus is scheduled to be adopted this week, Ayoki is available and Valentina will be put up for adoption soon. But the SPCA is concerned that it may be harder to find adoptive homes and families may abandon pit bulls after the recent ruling.
“We believe that an animal’s behavior should be the determining factor in whether or not the animal is considered dangerous,” said Cheryl Bernard Smith, of SPCA. “We don't believe that a particular breed should be pinpointed for that."
For more, visit NBCWashington.com
"All dogs, if you don't train them and show them love, can turn out to be mean animals,” said Rodney Taylor, of Prince George’s County Animal Management. “It has a lot to do with the owner and how you raise the pet."
"I guess I'm just a fighter," said Alberta Phillips, 81, who used a bottle of hand sanitizer to help fend off a vicious pit bull. WDIV-TV's Hank Winchester reports.
The Maryland Court of Appeals decision dealt with the case of a young boy who suffered life-threatening injuries when he was attacked by a pit bull.
Pit bulls are banned in Prince George's County.
"Back in 1997 they passed a law saying you could not own or harbor a pit bull or a pit bull mix in Prince George's County,” Taylor said. “If you happen to have one or are caught with one you could be arrested. It does carry six months in prison and a $1,000 fine for having one."
Now the law finds pit bull owners throughout Maryland absolutely accountable for the behavior of their dogs.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Montana campus assaults prompt federal probe
- Video: Obama describes raid that killed bin Laden
- Band members to face charges in hazing death
- Wife of Edwards' accuser: Sleeping pills affected spouse's memory
- It's official: Auto industry firing on all cylinders
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
I am a cat person and am saddened everytime I hear about someone getting mauled by a dog. I was once mauled as a child by a dog, and although I don't remember the attack itself, I do remember the feelings. Even though I prefer cats, I used to have a dog, a german shepard who I think about often. He drove me crazy and definitely made my life more crazier, but I miss him sometimes. So I can understand how dog people can feel about their dogs. However there ought to be harsher laws about breeding dogs, having dogs, especially large dogs like pits, german shepard, labs, etc. Small & medium dogs are hardly ever attack to death.
*Edited due to posting in wrong area*
All dogs can be dangerous under certain circumstances.
To say certain breeds of dogs are dangerous is not a complete statement. All dogs can be dangerous if in the hands of an irresponsible owner. Be it a golden retriever, a standard poodle, a Labrador or a cocker spaniel – all dogs can bite! When the owner of the animal does not properly train and/or confine his/her animal, that animal poses a potential risk to human safety. ANY dog inadequately supervised can become a problem for the public. The key word here is responsibility.
Instead of breed specific legislation put in place a progressive responsible owner law.
There are several samples of existing non-breed specific legislation (for example the Ryan Armstrong Law in Illinois and the law in Olathe, KS) that deal with the source of the problem, the owner.
The irresponsible owners don't care what breed of dog they lose the right to own. Irresponsible owners will just find another dog breed to fit their needs. They already disobey the current laws and abuse their dogs. What dog will they pick next?
I deeply care, because breed specific legislation drains resources away from active enforcement of dangerous dogs of all types and also drains resources from the larger animal welfare issues, like pet overpopulation and cruelty.
Focus on the problem: Irresponsible Dog Owners!
"Focus on the problem: Irresponsible Dog Owners!".........Amen! Now, THIS is something that we can agree on.
I entered this debate with my own opinion and have TRIED to be objective, but I simply can't find any redeeming qualities about the Pit Bull breed. Even tho' "irresponsible" dog owners no doubt have amplified the problem, I still believe that there are inherently bad and potentially fatal qualities within the breed. (Will post more at the end of this thread of comments)
You're free to hold to your own opinion, but I'm reverting back to my original opinion.........that it's a problem involving "irresponsible" Pit owners AS WELL as a breed that inherently is the equivalent of a walking time bomb, regardless of responsible or irresponsible owner.
Simply put, the owners of a dog - REGARDLESS OF BREED - should be held accountable for the actions of their pet. Saying pit bulls are inherently dangerous becuase you always see them involved in negative stories on the news is as fair as saying that black people are inherently dangerous because they are always on the news and make up the majority of our prison population. Both boil down to the same thing - how were they raised?
Before it was Pits it was Rotties. Before Rotties it was German Shepherds. Chows Dobermans Malamutes Huskies ... at one time or another all these breeds were considered the most dangerous. And it isn't as though Pits are a new breed of dog.
The original Little Rascals had Petey the dog with the circle around his eye and he was a pit. Think about that. A television show began in the 1920's that not only was the first to have blacks and whites as equals or have females in lead roles, it also had a pit bull right in the middle of all the chaos along with all those young children. Pits were known as 'Nanny Dogs' because of how well they looked after children. Helen Keller had a pit. Couldn't see, couldn't hear yet felt the dog was safe with not only her but also around other people.
Repeated testing has shown that Pits have the least amount of PSI (pressure per square inch) with both German Shepherds and Rotties tested along with it. Pits highest was around 235 lbs PSI with the German Shepherd having a high of around 237 lbs PSI and the Rottweiler a high of over 300 lbs PSI.
Repeated testing has shown that not a single breed of dog has the ability to lock it's jaw. Dogs like for example police dogs are trained to bite hard and hold on until given the command to release. Repeated testing has shown that not a single breed of dog has a brain that keeps growing eventually making the dog crazy violent.
If a person researches it they will discover that all these myths associated with Pits were myths surrounding other breeds once considered the most dangerous dog.
Besides being a wonderful family dog or companion dog Pits compete in obedience and agility. Pits are therapy dogs, tracking dogs, search and rescue dogs, drug detection dogs. Not every breed of dog has the desire to please people. Pit Bulls as a whole are easily trained because they are so loving and eager to please their people.
I've seen a pit mother orphaned kittens. I've seen one laying in the middle of a room while a toddler was using it to try and stand. And when the baby finally stood... so did the pit. When she first started walking it was while holding onto the pit who stayed right with her. I've seen a pit puppy pull it's owner across a parking lot then seen the same pit being walked by a member of the family with brittle bone disease. When that family member walked the pit the puppy never pulled or walked too fast for the boy.
I once believed all the myths associated with pit bulls but then I met some. I discovered they are a breed that loves their people and easily learns. LOL I dog sat for a pit several times and at least once every time I'd get to the house only to discover the dog had carefully placed it's toys dog dishes and treats in a neat pile by the front door. The dog was trying to let her owner know she was ready to travel with her family instead of being left at home alone.
Every dog is capable of biting a person. Every breed has good as well as bad dogs. People who train their dogs to fight or be overly aggressive don't love their dogs no matter what they say. A real dog lover wouldn't be willing to watch their dog kill or be killed in a dog fight. A real dog lover would know the price of making their dog overly aggressive will be that dogs life if it ever bit or attacked somebody, and would be unwilling to pay that price.
A person shouldn't dislike a dog based on breed. A dog should be liked or disliked based on the dog itself.
The only thing that happens with my pit/boxer mix and kids is that they try to take him home to keep him. He's fantastic with kids.
Every person should be responsible for their pet, regardless of type or breed! Period.
All dogs come from wolves, who are dangerous. Where is the law against them?
Wolves aren't all that dangerous - left alone, they perfer to keep away from people. The only time they become dangeous is after people kill all the wildlife and fence in the land.
Dogs, on the other hand - decided to come in out of the cold and work with Mankind. They gave up freedom and independence for comfort and cooperation. The fact is, we bred the wild out of most dogs - except for the few breeds which had specific jobs which require a little primordial paranoia, Independence and a reserve of aggression... note - I said aggression, not viciousness.
The problem came when these specialized breeds, used for farming, hunting, hearing - become "fasionable". A dog who is breed to enhance loyalty to a person - one person or one family - is not going to be the best choice for living in a studio apartment and no where to run or play.
Someone is going to have to provide for their need to work off some of their energies.
Thats where responsible pet ownership comes in. If you live in the city... no matter how much you want a Borzoi, Irish wolfhound, Mastiff - its unlikely the dog will be happy without a lot of attention from its human. They were bred for a totally different life... a life which gave them freedom tp roam and run and decide who was friend or foe. In a city - they can make mistakes (even worse - there are a lot of idiots who do not understand that these dogs are not toys to be played with).
I'm not blaming the breed, I'm blaming those owners who want a lap dog which looks like a Dobermann, Alsatian, pit bull (if you want a loyal pit bull - try getting a Bull Terrier? ... same dog, but much less aggressive)...The Spuds McKenzie dog? They have nearly the same qualities, except they haven't been overbred or ruined by wanna-be gangsters. Warning; they are rare, specialize breeder and that makes them more expensive... its not likely you will find them in the window at the pet store... they are usually bred to the standards... not to the latest fads.
My friend owns a pit bull - sweetest dog ever! I have permanent scars on my face from a collie. The pit bull has never harmed me, but Lassie bit me twice. I can wholeheartedly and honestly say that the collie was completely unprovoked. Yes, if a pit bull has been raised to be violent they can bestow a far more serious injury, but they aren't intrinsically evil. They can be trained to be a guard dog, and become protective, or a fighter and become violent. However, I have been bit by smaller "nippy" breeds far more often than I have large breeds. It seems as though dogs partake in peacocking (showing they are brave to compensate for their small...stature) just as well as humans do.
All pet owner must be held accountable for their pets behavior but to declare one breed is "inherently dangerous" is stupid and ridiculous. It ranks up there with the Salem witch trials!
My black lab was viciously attacked by two pitbulls in a dog run. My dog is very docile and good natured. The smug owner didn't even attempt to apologize. JERK! It taught me a lesson, keep my dog and myself away from pit bulls. I'm just not going to risk her being attacked again.
What is it that makes a Pit Bull so vicious,as was mentioned earlier it was Rotties then the focus went to Dobermans(the old...to small cranium crap pushing on brain)well now I guess they need a new bad guy on the block.As the myth 1300 psi double hinged jaws,the story about a cop shooting one in he head 9 times, what they don't say is only one bullet hit .All dogs have the same jaw structure,in fact a grown German Shepard is almost the same at 300+or- psi.Yep the Pit is the new baddie in town.
Thank you Mr Obvious!...Pits are grenades that happen to eat dog food, and have the pin removed.
It is the stupped. We have so many "pitbulls" in the covermanent to rectric put no we do the real animals. You want to take my Ema way you better be ready for war. Stuped stuped and stuped.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Idiots,
What politically correct idiots. DOG EQUALITY?? Come on! 5% of dogs are pits. 70% of dog mauling deaths are from pits. If you don't get it, you're an idiot. The survivors of Pit maulings are horribly mutilated. You "Dog Equality" fools, just go to Google Images, look at a few dozen brutally mutilated babies and elderly, many mauled by "Loving Family Dogs" and then come back here. Damn, I can't believe how stupid some people are.
Out comes the parrots, who all repeat the same ridiculous theory. "It's not the dogs fault, it's the irresposible owners". So, though 5% of dogs and dog owners are pits, you claim that 70% of irresponsible dog owners, own pits?? Stupid. My friend Joe was fooled by you loons, and bought a Pit puppy. Dog was never ever abused, was treated like a loved baby. Joe and 3 others including his daughter were bitten by this "loved family dog" before they saw the light and had it euthanized. All along they I told them they were wrong, and the parrots were wrong. They got all defensive and said the same stupid comment you all use. Guess what. They admitted I was right all along after the 4 attacks.
I agree with you and have dropped my attempt to defend the breed based on "irresponsible" owners. While this debate continues, there's yet ANOTHER incident (actually 2 incidents) being discussed here:
usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11596559-family-pit-bulls-maul-2-california-toddlers-in-separate-incidents?pc=25&sp=350#discussion_nav
Have spoken with a gentleman that I've known for years now. He's 80-something years old, which means that the incident he told me about would have happened around 1932, the era of the so-called "Nanny dog" that so many apologists try to use as a defense. He was a young kid at the time and his family owned a Pit Bull and a Cocker Spaniel. He and his friends were sitting on the front porch with the two dogs. There was a tradesman doing some carpentry work outside at his home. WITHOUT provocation, the Pit attacked the Spaniel and after latching on, would not let go. The children were horrified. The tradesman grabbed a piece of lumber and hit the Pit repeatedly, but it refused to let go. He then grabbed a hammer and hit it in the head several times before the Pit finally released the Spaniel. When the father came home, the tradesman told him what had happened. The father got his shotgun, held it to the Pit Bull's forehead and pulled the trigger.
That Pit Bull, of the "Nanny dog" era, displayed some of the traits that we're seeing today:
Unprovoked attack
Tenacity = refusal to let go
High tolerance of pain
It's very possible that the original "Nanny dogs" were also known to be unpredictable and extremely aggressive since this could not have been an isolated incident. Difference being, there were fewer people back then, meaning fewer Pit Bull owners, fewer incidents relatively.........and probably fewer news stories to report. But the problem with Pits probably started slowly back then only to grow to the ridiculous proportions that we're now seeing and only further complicated by the idiots who have encouraged the worst behavioral traits of the breed.
I no longer offer any defense for 'em!
NEWS FLASH. Pit Bull pulls unconsious owner out from in front of on coming train (May9, 2012), loses leg and fractures hip in process. What a bunch of nutty clowns live in my home state. Judge an animal on its personality not a false image. Any dog has the capability of attacking, when I was young a pair of Great Danes killed a couple of kids, that happened in Maryland, where's the law ruling on Great Danes?
Just saw this one. I actually don't have a problem with registering pit bulls (mine is registered with my county, as are my other three dogs). If there was a legal assurance that my dog would be safe as long as he'd not been involved in any incidents, I could live with that but what I'd like to see is that be the case for every dog. I have one who can be a real butthead. He's 200 lbs (he's a Great Dane, not a pittie) and if he was of a mind to, he could do some bad mojo just because of his size. I think he should be registered just as my Lab and my other, afraid of his own shadow Dane should be. I guess since we know all dogs CAN attack, regardless of our thoughts on which attacks are "worse", if we agree all dogs CAN attack, why not register ALL dogs and then your dog, whatever type, is always covered with the right paperwork as long as you do the right thing as an owner and keep the dog out of trouble. I think what most closely represents what I'm trying to explain is a rabies certificate...every dog in my state MUST be vaccinated for rabies. If it isn't and its involved in ANY incident, you must provide proof or your dog could be quarantined or even killed to test for rabies. If something like that, across all dogs, was what the State wanted, I'd be first in line to fill out my paperwork. I'm that confident in ME...I mean I personally trust my dogs but the way I feel is that with all of them, the responsibility is mine. They are dogs...I'm the human, its my job (just like with my human kid) to keep them on the straight and narrow no matter what their instincts MIGHT tell them.
I understand and agree with EVERY point you've made here. Yes, the subject has been focused on Pit Bulls, but I fully agree that an equitable solution should be sought that includes ALL breeds.
The courts are under pressure from the public, but I see "bans" as being pre-emptive. It's like the powers-that-be are saying "That's it! We've had it! This or that breed is OUT!" It may stem the bad behavior of one breed while ignoring the bad behavior of other breeds and that's simply not equitable. Bans also allow the extremely unpleasant task of euthanizing dogs that haven't been a problem and might never be a problem and that's just plain wrong.
Registration, current shot records and responsibility placed on owners of ALL breeds, then basing decisions on an individual basis would seem the most appropriate way to address the situation.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbc-news/47355796/#47355796
Proof that all you people saying all pit bulls are bad are stereotyping and dumb
Yeah, some of us are "dumb" enough to at least entertain the possibility that this might be "Pit Bull propaganda".
The video proves nothing. It only shows the guy in a room with a recovering Pit. The guy mentions "eye witnesses", "other responders", the news article mentions a nameless "train conductor" who allegedly saw the rescue. A story of this magnitude and impressiveness would warrant more than a 52 second vid of one guy in a room with a dog. Let's see interviews with the eye witnesses, the other responders and the train conductor. Until then, I remain skeptical.
http://www.inquisitr.com/205846/stray-pit-pull-saves-mother-and-child-from-knife-wielding-attacker/
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-05/news/31296321_1_pit-bull-gunman-kilo
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/pit-bull-saves-his-owners-life-by-taking-a-bullet
I can keep going with stories of these pitbulls getting injured while saving people. So yeah you are just stereotyping again saying all are bad. There are enough stories to show these dogs saving people, but stay in your own little world believing they're all evil. Is it not pitbull propaganda when they only report pitbulls attacking people and not labs, golden retrievers, etc? And actually no it wouldn't be more than 52 seconds as there is not much more to the story. It wouldn't be a headline, just like the pitbull that took a bullet for his owner when they invaded his house. You are so quick to deny this and believe that all this stories are bull, so the word is ignorant not skeptical.
You call it "ignorant", some call it "skeptical", some call it "critical thinking". I've just read the 3 stories, actually 2 being of the same incident.
In the first a "knife wielding attacker" is "chased off". No one knows why he was threatening the people and guess we'll never know because he "ran off". No witness comments available. All we've got is what the woman "claims" happened.
In the second, shots were fired, the dog was hit. The would be home invader chose a house with a Pit Bull. Then the "coward ran off". No witnesses once again. No police report. All we've got is what the owners "claim".
Is anyone else seeing a pattern here ?
In the Pit Bull/train story we have the "train engineer, who did not want to give his name". The unconscious woman that the Pit saved was charged with "obstruction, walking on train tracks and ANIMAL CRUELTY" (after such an incredible event, why would anyone be charged with anything ?) The injured Pit was taken to Angell Animal Medical Center for treatment. Are you aware that the Angell Center is very PRO-Pit Bull ? And that they're asking for donation$ from the public to help pay for the medical bills ?
Please don't get me wrong. If the story is everything it claims to be, that would be GREAT! That Pit would be entitled to "Dog of the Year" award and I mean that. One can only hope that the story is everything it says it is.
If that woman was walking on train tracks that is trespassing and endangerment to an animal that cannot get away from her, so definitely animal cruelty! Many shelters are pro-pitbull and have to be as many will put them down right away. If the dog went to one that was not, they might have just put it down and not tried to save its life. That has nothing to do with the story of how the dog was saved.
For the home invasion- How could there be a witness when there were only a few people involved? There wasn't an audience in this guy's house. Of course the criminal ran off, who wouldn't? Do you really think he'd turn himself in for burglary? The only witness was the owner that the dog jumped in front of because he was the only other one involved. It makes no sense to say there should have been witnesses.
Dogs save peoples' lives all the time and there just has never been a pitbull doing it? That in itself is a ridiculous statistic. With all the hate against pitbull with the bans and now ridiculous taxing, I would not come forward if I had a pitbull and it saved my life. In my area they are trying to ban them completely, so why would I let anyone know that I had a pitbull, hero or not? I understand peoples' apprehension to give their name or any information if they were saved.
Here's another one and I can keep going, but I won't because you will just say how improbable it is. Just because there are not witnesses does not make it true. And even if one of these stories is true, then people are wrong to say put all pitbulls down. If you disagree with that statement, then I'm done talking with you as we'll never see eye to eye.
http://www.cbs19.tv/story/16768688/web-exclusive
We agree on some things, not on others, but that's O.K. The last story about "Moo Moo" ? Thumb's up! I'm with you there. There's no point in debating the other 3 stories.
There's good and bad in every breed. It wouldn't surprise me if there's been documented stories of a dog from each breed that's saved someone's life. Where you and I will differ is that my opinion is that a Pit might save someone's life one day and then maul them the following week.
Still, I'm NOT in favor of bans for any breed. I AM in favor of registration and responsible ownership for ALL breeds. Unfortunately, we don't get to decide that part and Pits in general are not endearing themselves to the public at large. If Pits were saving lives more frequently than the number of Pits that are mauling people out there, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm no fan of Pits, you obviously are. I won't own one, you're free to go adopt a whole house full of them if you want. The adoption agencies are packed with them and here's your chance to step up to the plate. Adopt them all, they'll love you for it.........LOL!
Sorry, "None of your business".........I didn't hit the "reply" and missed the string.
"Adopt them all, they'll love you for it"
One Pit says to the other....."mmmm........tastes like chicken!"...............Totally teasing with ya! ;)
I'm glad we agree on the banning and the registration. I just find it sad that these dogs were bred to be aggressive (protection or dog-fighting) and now people are trying to undo it by killing them. Basically, I just blame people. They are the ones that created their aggression and they are the ones that can't train them now. That's just the point I'm trying to get at with my first post is that you can't undo something you messed up on by destroying them all when they could be rehabilitated. Anyways, thanks for the back and forth. Glad to see you are not in favor of blatant euthanizing for all.
I Thank You as well for being patient and level-headed. Your insights, along with some other fine people on the other side of issue, help in the search for a balanced solution. The topic is no casual one and opinions run strong on each side, but overall, I feel that this dialogue is indeed positive.
Since entering these discussions, I've been doing a lot of thinking (am sure we all have). In the back of my mind I keep thinking "What about the victims and the families of victims ? Surely, they are entitled to a voice, their feelings deserve much consideration also".
My stance has been adjusted to try to include the concerns of the victims and their families as well. Will post more on this later when I have more time. I'm still not in favor of the "bans", but am trying to find a more appropriate middle ground to consider.
Enjoy the day! ;)