I don't live in MD but go there to train several times a week

[wrknapbt]

MD Court of Appeals does and end-run around the legistlative process :(



All pit bulls to be considered dangerous under court ruling
Previously, victims had to show dogs owners knew dogs had violent history
April 27, 2012|By Jessica Anderson, The Baltimore Sun

Pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals, the state's highest court has ruled, a decision that could lead to stiff penalties for people found responsible in attacks — even if the dogs have never been violent before.

A decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals, issued this week, distinguishes pit bulls and mixed breeds from other kinds of dogs. In the past, a victim intending to file a lawsuit after a dog attack had to prove that a dog's owner knew it had a history of being dangerous. Now, showing that the owner or landlord knew a dog is part pit bull would be sufficient for a claim.

"It is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous," the court ruled Thursday.

The case stems from a 2007 attack on a child in Towson that led several local governments to reconsider the laws governing pit bulls. The animals are banned in Prince George's County.

But some who oppose the ruling argue that a dog's breed is not a reliable way to predict whether the animal might become violent. They worry that the decision will make it more difficult for pit bull owners to find housing, and discourage others from adopting the dogs.

In a dissenting opinion, one justice said the decision establishes a troublesome precedent.

"Now, it appears, the issue of whether a dog is harmless, or the owner or landlord has any reason to know that the dog is dangerous, is irrelevant to the standard of strict liability," wrote Judge Clayton Greene Jr.

The decision is in response to a Baltimore County Circuit Court decision in the case of 10-year-old Dominic Solesky, who was attacked by a neighbor's pit bill in 2007.

After the attack, Dominic's family sued the dog owner's landlord, Dorothy M. Tracey. The Circuit Court judge threw out the claim, ruling there was no evidence that Tracey had been negligent.

The Court of Special Appeals overturned the judge's decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling Thursday. The case will now head back to trial.

Pauline Houliaras, president of B-More Dog, which formed in 2007 to fight anti-pit bull legislation in Baltimore County, said the group is "extremely disappointed" with the court's decision.

"This will not make a community safer," said Houliaras, who is also a certified professional dog trainer and behavior consultant.

Instead, she said, the ruling will lead to discrimination against pit bull owners and will discourage landlords from renting to all kinds of dog owners across the state because dog breeds are often misidentified.

"You can't identify breed based on appearance," she said.

Kevin A. Dunne, attorney for the Solesky family, said Friday that "the Court of Appeals decision will likely cause there to be fewer pit bull maulings of the citizens of the state of Maryland."

Dunne said the high court's decision "didn't say pit bulls are banned. It makes the owner of the dog financially responsible for the injuries caused. It affects you if your dog hurts somebody else."

But Houliaras said she fears the ruling will prompt shelters to re-evaluate their adoption policies, possibly restricting pit bull breed adoptions, as well as causing more owners to relinquish their pets, and potentially causing higher euthanization rates of pit bulls and pit bull mixes.

"We agree that dog owners should be held liable for injuries caused when their dogs bite people, but this should be regardless of the breed," she said.

[Officially Retired]

I hate to say it, but there is some truth to the idea "pit bulls are inherently more dangerous" than other dogs, insofar as IF a pit bull bites he will take an attack to a whole new level that most dogs will never get to.

Think about it: why else are ONLY pit bulls used in money dogfights? Because of how game and relentless they are in their attack, that's why.

Keep in mind, I am not talking about temperament! I completely understand that "temperament" is a separate issue from "ability," and I completely understand that plenty of pit bulls have never (and would never) attack a person. But the fact remains that pit bulls are potentially more dangerous! Because if they do attack, they will take that attack to a whole other level.

I don't agree that any dog should be "banned" on account of its breed type, but I DO agree that pit bulls are potentially more dangerous than any other breed type, and that is because of their game relentless genetic background. So it's a slippery slope to walk. We can't say that, "A pit bull can do anything any other dog can do, and then whip him," and then not acknowledge that these extreme fighting abilities, and extreme gameness, don't carry with them the potential to do more damage and harm than a regular dog.

Jack

[wrknapbt]

I hate to say it, but there is some truth to the idea "pit bulls are inherently more dangerous" than other dogs, insofar as IF a pit bull bites he will take an attack to a whole new level that most dogs will never get to.

Think about it: why else are ONLY pit bulls used in money dogfights? Because of how game and relentless they are in their attack, that's why.

Keep in mind, I am not talking about temperament! I completely understand that "temperament" is a separate issue from "ability," and I completely understand that plenty of pit bulls have never (and would never) attack a person. But the fact remains that pit bulls are potentially more dangerous! Because if they do attack, they will take that attack to a whole other level.

I don't agree that any dog should be "banned" on account of its breed type, but I DO agree that pit bulls are potentially more dangerous than any other breed type, and that is because of their game relentless genetic background. So it's a slippery slope to walk. We can't say that, "A pit bull can do anything any other dog can do, and then whip him," and then not acknowledge that these extreme fighting abilities, and extreme gameness, don't carry with them the potential to do more damage and harm than a regular dog.

Jack

Jack while I agree I just do not agree with this law/bill. It will make life for resposible owners hard

[R2L]

An accident can happen to anyone, so in that case it sucks... but maybe this well encourage people to be more responsible.


They worry that the decision will make it more difficult for pit bull owners to find housing, and discourage others from adopting the dogs.

Good, if it discourages people then they are smart enough to realize this breed is not for them

[skipper]

Think about it: why else are ONLY pit bulls used in money dogfights? Because of how game and relentless they are in their attack, that's why.

That is not entirely true. The APBT are the superior breed overall in money dogfights. In Europe there are still some fanciers working with Staffordshire bullterriers. Ch Moses, CH Redbull, are just two examples. They both won against highly regarded apbts. I could name several more, but as their owners are low key doggers I won't. There are also some well known dogs down from the psycho strain of staffords. Ch Milo, 2XW Judas, 2XW beanie. And the list goes on. http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=230949 Just an examlpe of a psycho bred stafford that beat a Pitbull.

[Officially Retired]

Skip, I understand what you're saying, but a Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a hair away from a pit bull.
I actually consider the Tosa an even more dangerous breed, potentially, because they are bred for fighting and are pretty game ... and weight 150 lb.
The point isn't to digress about splitting hairs on similar breed types, the point is ANY "game fighting dog" has the potential to be "more dangerous" than an average dog, otherwise it isn't a fighting dog.

I think ANY breed of dog that is regularly and consistently used for dogfighting IS potentially much more dangerous than any "common breed type."

Again, this does not mean I think fighting dogs have worse temperaments, because I surely do not think this. It means the potential to do greater harm exists within a fighting dog, by its very definition of being a fighting dog.

It is like having a Ferrari versus having a Yugo. The owner of the Ferrari may never exceed the posted speed limit, but the potential to "go faster" is always there, and so you can best believe that the insurance companies are going to charge you more to insure a Ferrari than they are going to charge for insuring a Yugo.

Jack

[skipper]

I understand what you mean. And I agree that fighting dogs have the potential to be more dangerous then other breeds. Thank god most cull manbiters. I just wanted to educate the members on this board. As I'm sure not everyone on here knew there were any other truly gamebred breeds out there.

[Officially Retired]

That is actually a subject worthy of an entire thread unto itself, other fighting breeds. My own Missy for example (Poncho's sister/Silverback's mother) could have passed for a Staffordshire Bull Terrier :D

[skipper]

If there is a genuine interest on here that would be interesting for sure. That Missy bitch of yours were incredible beautiful.

[Officially Retired]

I don't see why it wouldn't be ... and thank you :)

[AmberLamps]

I'd go as far as saying that law is a step in the right direction, more emphasis should be placed on the owner to be responsible, it's much better than outright banning dogs just because it's a certain breed. All the US has to do is look to western Europe to see that passing laws that outright ban certain breeds of dogs just doesn't work.

For instance the UK passed the DDA (http://dangerousdogsact.com/35/dangerous-dogs-act-commentary/dangerous-dogs-in-the-media/) act over 20 years ago that banned a number of breeds including the APBT, this has had no effect on either dog bites or the amount of "Pitbull type" dogs on the streets of the UK. Only 3 years ago there was a fatal attack by an APBT on a four year old boy, Jon-Paul Massey (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/30/boy-killed-dog-attack) and a few years before that, Ellie Lawrenson (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6222319.stm). Proof enough the DDA act doesn't work ?

Shortly after the DDA act was passed the majority of western Europe passed BSL type laws that banned the APBT, including the Netherlands, who I believe passed their laws around the same time as the UK, only the Netherlands have been the only country so far to scrap their BSL laws:appl:, stating they don't work.. :appl::appl:

The point i'm trying to make is that the US is doing nothing but wasting it's time in introducing laws to ban the APBT, the only people to suffer from these laws are the responsible law abiding pet owners. Instead of wasting time passing laws to ban the breed, they should be focusing on passing laws that affect the irresponsible owner that this breed attracts, like the original post in this thread.. If someone wants to own an APBT, then they sure as hell should be responsible for that dogs actions. Holding people accountable and fully responsible for the actions of their dog and giving them stiff penalties, might just make the retards think twice about either; owning this breed in the first place or taking the responsible steps to make sure their dog isn't a threat to the public.

[JUG]

i think the laws on owning any dog should be strick ! i wish they passed a law where you and you dog would be put down for attacking some one who was in no way wrong , by means of Treaspassing , tring to harm you , walking in front of your yard ECT. .. i've had 2 bad experences with my PetBulls . first was when Kristal from the beganing of the road drove to our house with her Shitsue following her barking .. i was cleaning water buckets and Rascal was playing with my son on the flirt pole .. i didn't see or hear Snookie coming , but Rascal did .. before i could get a handle on him he was shaking like a ragdoll .. i broke him off and Snookie ran back home hollaring .. Kristal was crying and the kids where upset for what he did ..

i explained to her that my dog was in my yard playing with my kids , her dog came running through barking .. Rascal was protecting my kids from what he thought was a threat .. but , i said since i shouldn't have had him running loose , i'll pay & bring the dog to the vet .. Cost me $400.00 bucks to patch Snookie up , but my neighbor was very understanding ..


Second , was when a grand son to Rascal bit a friend of mine while he was walking through his chain spot .. my son kept Boss and played with him alot , he was Trevor's "Ole Yeller" .. well trevor thought it was cool to have a dog that was so protective over him , he made him human agg. .. i never said anything because i believe we must learn on our own until we submit to taking advise .. well Trevor was in Boss' dog house when my friends drove up and figured it would be funny to scare them .. before they came to the house to introduce themselves they started their way into the yard .. as Brain pass by the dog house of Boss' he seen Trevor and went after him playing .. well he made it to the end of the chain before Boss latched on to his pants and ripped them .. Brain only had a scratch but Trevor knew what he had to do .. he cryied like a baby as he took Boss on his last walk down the headland , only to return with the collar .. from that point on Trevor has made every dog he handles very honest to people , going as far as to asking everyone who comes over to pass by and pet his new pup Turner ..

IMO
guess what im getting at is if it's not worth the Work , Time , Stress or Money , most irresponsible APBT owners won't bother with the breed because of their laziness and lack of love for the breed ..

[Officially Retired]

I put in my own book that I think people should have to get a license for a pit bull, and take a basic competency test to own one.

You have to have a license to drive a car (because of potentially deadly accidents), you have to have a permit to carry a gun, and IMO an owner should have to prove some pretty good canine competence before he owns a bulldog.

The way it is now, any idiot with no understanding of the breed (and no knowledge of how to confine one) can get a bulldog and have it in the neighborhood. Banning is (was and always will be) wrong, but I think having to get a license to own a pit dog should be mandatory.

And, as you said, only the lazy (or non-serious) would balk at that.

Jack