City Defies Maryland State Government, Refuses to Profile Dog Breeds

According to President Blaine Young of the Frederick Board of County Commissioners, “Frederick County will not profile pit bulls into extinction due to this unfortunate ruling.”

FREDERICK, MD – President Blaine Young of the Frederick Board of County Commissioners today expressed great displeasure over a recent court case of Tracey v. Solesky held by the Maryland Court of Appeals that targets pit bull and pit bull mixture dogs.

President Young said, “Frederick County will not profile pit bulls into extinction due to this unfortunate ruling. The ruling was 4 – 3, and I personally agree with the minority opinion in the case. We wholeheartedly support and are confident that our Animal Control Division has the proper policies in place to address aggressiveness in animals.”

“The board agrees with the recommendation of Director Harold Domer to abide by the process that is already in place at the shelter. The real focus should be on the way animals are raised, treated and trained, and no one breed should be the main focus of attention. I personally know several people who own pit bulls as family pets and they are very well behaved and friendly. Frederick County has not had the degree of incidents to merit this kind of extreme response.”

As a result of the ruling, the county temporarily stopped adoptions of pit bull and pit bull mixes. However, with the concurrence of the Board of County Commissioners and the County Attorney’s Office, the Animal Control Shelter will now reinstitute adoptions of these pets in accordance with long-established policies.

The shelter will inform all prospective adopters of pit bulls of the recent court case and will continue to assess dogs for temperament, assuring they are not people aggressive, dog aggressive or food aggressive. For additional information, contact Animal Control Division Director Harold Domer at 301-600-1546 or via e-mail at [email protected]

96 thoughts on “City Defies Maryland State Government, Refuses to Profile Dog Breeds

    1. I hope that the posters on this string never are attacked by a dog — no matter what the breed. You have NO idea what I’ve been through, trying to recover from a mauling . . . . notice I leave the breed out because not matter what the breed, owners should be responsible for a dog that they signed up to own. You are foolish to think this should be fought or repealed.

      1. You have been traumatized by an unfortunate and preventable event and I am very sorry that this happened to you.

        But to destroy all members of a breed is not the answer nor the solution. If you actually take the time to read the literature from all over the world on studies that were conducted to determine whether one breed is more aggressive than another you will learn that study after study found that no one breed is anymore aggressive than another. It is the individual and the environment for development and socialization that is key.

        For every bite or attack there are hundreds from the same breed that do not. If such reasoning were legitimate then every law enforcement dog trained to attack would be a danger to the public yet these dogs live in the homes of their partners often with children. Why? Because they were trained using consistent methods allowing the dog to “learn” how to behave under different conditions. In the cases in which certain individuals have become dangerous, perhaps in your case, the dog was allowed to develop and mature without structure and training and thus had no guidance from their owner on how to respond in different situations as in a stranger approaching etc. For rescue dogs with unknown origin it should be the responsibility of the new owners to provide their dog with an enriching environment for success, meaning, potential adoptive parents should be screened for their commitment to provide this type of environment.

        It is not reasonable or logical to “outlaw” motor vehicles simple because there have been so many fatalities. Instead, we regulate the driver handling those vehicles…….

        1. That is why I left BREED out of my initial posting. It does not matter what the breed.

          What I’m advocating is that ANY dog owner, REGARDLESS of the breed they choose to own — be responsible for the damages their dog causes to a victim of an unprovoked attack.

          I never said I agreed with singling out one breed — any breed can attack because although domesticated, they still have insticts that can be ignited for whatever reason.

          What I ask is that the State of MD create a law that after investigation, if the attack was unprovoked by the person getting injured, that the dog owners take responsibility and pay for the damamges caused.

          Just like the motor vehicle you reference — you are responsible for the damages in a car accident.

          I am not asking that one breed be singled out — more that the owners take responsibility for owning a DOG. . . period.

          1. Anonymous-What is offensive and ignorant is your last sentence “You are foolish to think this should be fought or repealed.”

            Of course this decision should be fought AND repealed ASAP! It should be better written to address irresponsible DOG owners, not pit bulls and pit bull mixes, or any specific breed.

            Until it is written with some intelligence and facts, it should be and WILL BE fought and repealed.

          2. @ RD. . . I whole heartedly agree with anonymous.

            The “foolish” statement is exactly what they needed to say

            Look at the emotional responsie it got out of you. . . people in the State of MD should show that much emotion in getting the law changed to a reasonable law to protect all.

            You Go Anonymous. . . . . ! ! !

        2. Well said! I have owned pitts and they r not called the “Nanny Dog” for no reason. Ban the owner not the breed! STOP BSL and be properly informed regarding ANY breed before adopting an animal. It is a life long obligation! Not awwwww isn’t this puppy cute? Then not train, socialize, abuse, neglect the breed cause YOU THE OWNER are irrisponsible!
          Personally I have been bite on several ocations by various breeds, through my ignorance of there body language, not the dogs fault, MINE and I take the reponsibility for my behavior. Does this inhibit me? NO, I have owned 6 dogs, all adopted not shopped for and have learned many valuable lessons from them. Such as loyalty, companionship, love, trust that I DO NOT find in humans! Just sayin!

      2. Believe me that everybody that owns dogs knows what it’s like to feel for people that are mauled by them, but from what you’re saying all dogs should be banned? You are absolutely right that owners should be held accountable for their dogs and I believe in most places they are.
        The objection here is singling out one breed when just like you have indicated, any breed can be dangerous. It’s all about owner responsibility.

        1. Unfortunately Teresa, MD dog law currently is “One Free Bite” — that means a dog can cause damage so severe to need a plastic surgeon or even death and the owners are not liable . . . .

          This needs to change for unprovoked attacks. . . . the owners are NOT held responsible in MD — I live with this every day and have no help in recovering other than family and friends. . . . . that does NOT include the owners of the dog.

          1. Maybe before people quote the “one bite law” they should understand what is is. It does NOT relieve the owner of all responsibility. Far from it.

            Dog-Bite Statutes
            More than half of U.S. states have laws that make dog owners liable almost any time their dogs injure someone. Although commonly called dog-bite statutes, many of these laws cover all kinds of dog-inflicted injuries, not just bites.
            Dog-bite statutes are “strict liability” statutes because they impose liability without fault. That is, an injured person does not have to prove that the dog owner did anything wrong, just that the dog caused the injury. Typically, dog owners are liable under a dog-bite statute only if the dog directly caused the injury.
            The One-Bite Rule
            This misleadingly named rule (dogs don’t necessarily get one “free” bite before the owner becomes liable, as discussed below) makes an owner legally responsible for an injury caused by a dog only if the owner knew the dog was likely to cause that type of injury — for example, that the dog would be likely to bite. The victim must prove that the owner knew the dog was dangerous.
            This rule, developed in court cases over many years, comes into play only if the state has no dog-bite statute or if the statute doesn’t apply — for example, if the statute covers only bites, and the dog caused the injury by knocking someone down.
            How does an owner know a dog is dangerous? The dog doesn’t have to have already bitten someone. Other indications that might lead a court to believe the owner knew the dog was dangerous include:
            The dog threatens people. The owner of a dog that often growls and snaps at people in public but hasn’t ever actually bitten someone is on notice that the dog might bite someone. If the dog does bite, the owner will be liable.
            The dog jumps on people. The owner of a friendly, playful, large dog which is in the habit of jumping on house guests will be liable if the exuberant dog injures someone. Keep in mind that the motivation of the dog is unimportant for legal purposes — it doesn’t matter that the dog who knocked you down a flight of stairs was just trying to be friendly. An owner who knew that the dog behaved this way and might injure someone because of its size will be liable.
            The dog frightens people. If a dog habitually runs along the fence between the yard and the sidewalk while barking furiously or chases pedestrians or bicyclists, the owner may be liable if the dog causes an injury.
            The dog has been trained to fight. If a dog has been trained to fight, a court will almost certainly conclude that the owner should have known that the dog was dangerous. (Not all fighting dogs are aggressive toward people. However, a dog that has been agitated and abused by someone who wants the dog to fight may well be dangerous.)
            There have been complaints about the dog. If neighbors or others complain to the owner that a dog has threatened or bitten someone, the owner would certainly be on notice that the dog is dangerous.

          2. @EC — rest assured EC, I do COMPLETELY understand. . . there has to be other complaints “on record” in order to negate the one bite rule. I have lived this law the last 2+ years.

            I don’t wish to discuss the details of my case. . . . however your premise of complaints negating the one bite rule. . . that solely depends on people reporting what has occurred with that dog.

            If the owner has “friends” who are willing to by pass a report. . . . but they have been jumped at, growled at, bitten. . . but are not willing to come forward. . . that does not help an individual.

            I still stand that strict liability is needed in MD — based on what happened to me, based on what I’ve lived through.

            Unless you know me, know what happened. . . . I deny you trying to preach to me and take away what I’ve been through and learned and have dealt with over the course of this.

          3. EC-unfortunately Maryland is kind of ass backwards in terms of ANY liability standards. We still operate under contributory negligence for auto accidents. Meaning, if you are found to be more than 1% negligent in your accident, you cannot collect against the other person. He said she said parking lot accidents are the worst. Often the damage does not prove who was at fault, so you each have to go to your own carriers for coverage. It sucks, I used to work for an insurance company. I don’t have a problem with strict liability, as long as its applied equitably. Right now, if you were to be bitten by a non pit bull type dog, you would STILL have to prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous. If you even THINK its a pit bull, strict liability. How fair is that? How much court time is going to be wasted “proving” a dog is a pit bull? How many more “pit bull attacks” are we going to see, simply because lawyers will make more money if they decide to call a dog a pit bull even if it isn’t?

            I am proud to be a resident of Frederick County. We have always been an extremely dog friendly community and I am glad to see that we are continuing that tradition. When I lived in downtown Frederick City, many of the dogs I saw on a regular basis were pit bulls and they were all wonderful sweet dogs. That is where I got such a positive view of the breed, and what led me to decide to get a bully breed myself. I think that FCAC does a great job in temperament testing and placing the right dog with the right owner, and many MANY of the dogs at FCAC are pit bull type dogs. I used to volunteer there and usually the best dogs there were the pits and pit mixes. I have never been afraid of them.

          4. I think we can agree unprovoked attacks are unacceptable, and only in the rarest cases is the owner not directly responsible. I could give leeway to someone who can prove that no one genuinely had any idea this could happen — no complaints, no prior problems, working with a trainer, ect. Those kinds of cases involve unhealthy animals, but they are the rarest of the rare. I have a friend (in Maryland, actually!) that had such an issue with a Golden Retriever that came from a pet store. He was taken to classes, and was a sweet dog until he turned 2 years old…..then suddenly became violent and aggressive. Thankfully, there were no serious injuries (only her husband bitten and he was strong enough to deal with the dog)….but it could have been very bad.

            Most of the time, it really is an epic failure of the owner and they SHOULD absolutely be held responsible. Regardless of breed. For example, from what I understand about the case that triggered this ruling, the owner did absolutely NOTHING to render aid to the victims of his dog. That says everything you need to know about the owner right there, as any decent human being would readily attempt to help another person in such a serious situation.

            Laws really need to focus more strongly on those kinds of owners, and on better preventing attacks by giving more attention to complaints and prior problems. If you’ve had a dog that attacked someone unprovoked, you should be banned from having another dog. Complaints should be better investigated and more strongly enforced. And ABSOLUTELY, if your dog injuries someone you should be responsible!

            …..unless, of course, it can be proven it was a justified and provoked attack. I don’t think a burglar or a rapist should be able to sue for damages, if their victim’s dog attacked them. But unless you beat the dog, or attacked the owner…..yeah. You deserve to be taken care of, and helped in any way possible by the owner.

      3. when I was young I was attacked by a pack of different breeds, luckliy the groundkeepers watchdog saved me. The collie protected me back and forth til the dogs left.
        Anonymous- you need counseling, you even said “no matter what the breed”.. You have backed those of us up by your statement. An attack can come from any breed, the owners are responsible..

      4. Emotions run high, but they also fog our logic. I was mugged by a young white guy, does that mean all young white guys should be jailed?

        I hope you continue to recover, and are in therapy to help you cope. I have not been mauled by a dog and can’t imagine how awful it was. Dogs of all breeds attack, and I blame the guardian. But lashing out with a broad generalization that this breed needs to be systematically destroyed based on your incident does sound rather irrational.

        I would direct you to: http://stubbydog.org/2012/05/pit-bulls-by-the-numbers/

        This article discusses how stats are gathered and they are atrocious. There are NO government data bases for tracking dog bites, attacks or fatalities. The CDC notes that their numbers are horribly off as they get most of the numbers from the media. And we must recognize that this decade the victim of the hour is the pit bull. So they make the headlines. Had this been 20 years ago it well could have been the rotties or dobes being sent to the gas chambers.

        I am sorry for your pain, but please don’t transfer it to innocent victims. It is the fault of the owners and only them. If you want to lash out try spending some of that energy in a positive way to help through early education so kids grow up knowing how to treat sentient beings of all shapes and sizes properly.

        Peace.

        1. Unfortunately, what you, Teresa, Brenda and many other dog lovers may not know is that MD is a “One Free Bite” state — which means a dog can cause enough damage to need a plastic surgeon (like my case) or even death — and the owners have no legal responsibility to helf the victim of the unprovoked attack.

          I’m not asking that legislation be passed to “penalize” any breed — but to hold dog owners responsible for any injuries their dogs cause in an unprovoked attack.

          You misunderstand my point. . . . no breed should be singled out. . . but there has to be a precident set and an uprising to get this old, andiquated law changed. It happens to be that this pit bull case may be the one to do that. . . . .but something needs to change.

          You that have never been attacked, never had nightmares where you were afraid to shut your eyes, were unable to even interact with your own dog because you were afraid. . . .you have no right to judge me or my stand on maintaining this legislation.

          My stand is start here and make it better, broader, more encompassing as it should be. . . . otherwise victims will continue to suffer without recourse. . . . . dog owners need to be the ones held accountable . . . . this is the vehicle in which to do just that.

          1. That is NOT what the one bite law means. (sigh).
            again:
            Dog-Bite Statutes
            More than half of U.S. states have laws that make dog owners liable almost any time their dogs injure someone. Although commonly called dog-bite statutes, many of these laws cover all kinds of dog-inflicted injuries, not just bites.
            Dog-bite statutes are “strict liability” statutes because they impose liability without fault. That is, an injured person does not have to prove that the dog owner did anything wrong, just that the dog caused the injury. Typically, dog owners are liable under a dog-bite statute only if the dog directly caused the injury.
            The One-Bite Rule
            This misleadingly named rule (dogs don’t necessarily get one “free” bite before the owner becomes liable, as discussed below) makes an owner legally responsible for an injury caused by a dog only if the owner knew the dog was likely to cause that type of injury — for example, that the dog would be likely to bite. The victim must prove that the owner knew the dog was dangerous.
            This rule, developed in court cases over many years, comes into play only if the state has no dog-bite statute or if the statute doesn’t apply — for example, if the statute covers only bites, and the dog caused the injury by knocking someone down.
            How does an owner know a dog is dangerous? The dog doesn’t have to have already bitten someone. Other indications that might lead a court to believe the owner knew the dog was dangerous include:
            The dog threatens people. The owner of a dog that often growls and snaps at people in public but hasn’t ever actually bitten someone is on notice that the dog might bite someone. If the dog does bite, the owner will be liable.
            The dog jumps on people. The owner of a friendly, playful, large dog which is in the habit of jumping on house guests will be liable if the exuberant dog injures someone. Keep in mind that the motivation of the dog is unimportant for legal purposes — it doesn’t matter that the dog who knocked you down a flight of stairs was just trying to be friendly. An owner who knew that the dog behaved this way and might injure someone because of its size will be liable.
            The dog frightens people. If a dog habitually runs along the fence between the yard and the sidewalk while barking furiously or chases pedestrians or bicyclists, the owner may be liable if the dog causes an injury.
            The dog has been trained to fight. If a dog has been trained to fight, a court will almost certainly conclude that the owner should have known that the dog was dangerous. (Not all fighting dogs are aggressive toward people. However, a dog that has been agitated and abused by someone who wants the dog to fight may well be dangerous.)
            There have been complaints about the dog. If neighbors or others complain to the owner that a dog has threatened or bitten someone, the owner would certainly be on notice that the dog is dangerous.

          2. I feel bad for the 1 time biters sometimes. In my neighborhood the kids tease these dogs through the fences sometimes poking them with sticks.

            I’ve been attacked. I got over it. I’ve been attacked by humans as a nurse.I got over it.

            Maybe we should put gray hoodies on dogs that look like pits.
            It is after all profiling.

          3. @ EC. . . . the MD law has been in effect since the 1800s. . . it has not recently been developed.

            MD law says unless prior complaints have been registered with local authorities, that the owners are not legally responsible for injuries of an UNPROVOKED attack.

            These are they attacks of which I’m speaking. My case was an unprovoked attack. If someone is committing a tort against the property, or teasing the dog, this rule does not come into play.

            I’m speaking of a dog that one minute is fine and the next minute turns on the human present with no provokation.

            Dogs are animals. . . no matter how long they have been domesticated, they are still animals. They have prey drive and instincts that remain to this day.

            Look at the woman in California that was killed in the hallway as she was trying to go to her apartment == there were multiple dogs that were acting as a pack. . . acting with instinct and killed her.

            She did nothing to provoke them, she was trying to enter her apartment.

            I was doing nothing but speaking with an individual and a dog turned on me and severely injured me.

            I’m asking in those types of cases the owners take responsibility and pay for the injuries their dogs caused.

            I am not singling out a breed — it should apply to any breed.

            I know of the law of which I speak — I have researched it, discussed it legally and lived it the past 2+ years.

            MD One Bite needs to be changed and I hope this law enables that to happen.

          4. I can’t imagine that anyone could rationally argue that owners should NOT be held responsible for the aggressive behavior of their dogs when they attack some one. That goes without saying, or should, I agree. It seems to me that existing legislation in most states already deals with the issue fairly well, as EC pointed out in detail. But there is no justification whatsoever for creating laws based on fear, rather than science, authority, and facts, that will only serve to exacerbate public anxiety over a specific breed, when there is absolutely nothing to substantiate it. The imposition of such discriminatory laws, which are just as biased against people as they are Pit Bulls, is no answer, and even less a precedent. There has to be another, far less draconian way, one that, just as you say, insures that owners who fail to raise, train, socialize and yes, even restrain their dogs properly should be held accountable for any harm they may do to others — to both people and other pets, too. Dog bites are painful, messy, and sometimes fatal, certainly, but they are also extraordinarily rare; one has a better chance of being struck by lightning or killed in a plane crash, or winning the Powerball Lottery three times in a row. And while the rarity of a serious dog bite does not reduce its gravity, or the agony suffered by a victim, it is perhaps even worse to draw political capital and make many millions of other people victims of such grossly unfair, and dare I say irresponsible legislation that would seek to outlaw and even annihilate an entire breed. Anyone who is old enough to remember will recall that in the early 1960s, German Shepherds were viewed as the most dangerous breed. Now it’s Pit Bulls. Who knows, tomorrow it may be Golden Retrievers. Whatever happens, we can only hope that lawmakers will not extol their ignorance as virtue and continue to set forth such unreasonable, to speak nothing of unfair laws in future.

      5. I have been attacked by a dog… German Shepard to the face. However, I am Anti-BSL and pro-pit bull!!!! I even LOVE LOVE LOVE German Shepards even with the scar on my face.

      6. “You are foolish to think this should be fought or repealed.”

        Perhaps you are foolish to think it should not be.

        I’m all for the law taking action against the dogs, that attack people and/or destroy property, etc., as well as their owners. However, not all dogs should not be punished for the wrong doings of some. It’s been proven the world over that BSL does not work as it was intended. It’s the equivalent in people terms of eliminating an ethnic or racial group and it’s wrong.

      7. Except in this case they are just going to make a scapegoat out of pitbulls and be done with it. What you want will not be accomplished if they are only going to target pits. Think of breed as “race”, if you will. The whole point of any “race” law is to find a scapegoat to blame all the problems on that one group. It will do nothing for your goals and will only punish those who own pitbulls, and also serve to run pits into extinction since shelters won’t hesitate to kill the breed.

        This law should absolutely be fought and repealed because it’s a) not fair, and b) lawmakers should really do their research (based on empirical data) before passing laws.

        I’m sorry you were mauled by a dog and suffering from some form of trauma, and can very much understand why you feel the way you do. I’m a dog owner and I agree that owners, no matter the breed, should always be held responsible for unprovoked-attacks. Even if the dog wasn’t a known aggressive dog and was first time offense, I agree that the owner should pay for expenses, much like how if kids commit wrongdoings, parents will be held responsible. However, to not fight this law is akin to saying “only parents of black children should be extra careful and pay more for rent/insurance because black kids are more likely to ‘snap'”. It makes very little sense.

        1. THANK YOU for finally saying what I’m pretty sure everyone who is against this ruling has been thinking. OF COURSE owners should be held liable when their dogs commit violent acts, but to demolish an entire breed of incredibly sweet, loving, loyal companion dogs due to blind fear and discrimination is disgusting and unbelieveably sad. I for one will be protecting my pitties to the very end, and fighting for all those others out there who are sitting in shelters fighting for their lives.

      8. I have been nearly attacked by a large dog and when i was walking my small dog. I was so fearful of his safety I didn’t really think of my own. The owner came running out laughing and said “don’t worry she won’t hurt you!” Well, how am I supposed to know that. The dog was after MY dog not me! What an idiot that person was to think I wouldn’t be afraid of a large dog running full force towards me. The bottom line is–the dog is not to blame the OWNER is!! I reported that person to the authorities and they said that all dogs must be on a leash. People need to be responsible for their actions and keep their dogs under control. Any dog can be mean and aggressive–we can’t ban all dogs and run them out to extinction. We need to be more serious about the criminals and abusers that own them. Steeper laws should be enforced! We need these poor animals to be able to be adopted by loving people. The breed should not be the issue!

      9. Ive been bitten by many dogs…comes with my job as a dog groomer. However….i would never say punish an entire breed for the acts of a few that were not trained or had other issues going on. I think its insane that these BSL pushers can get away with this crap….no their not saying get rid of your dog, and yes i do believe the owner should be liable for their dogs actions NO MATTER what breed they are…BUT, making these stupid prejudice laws are allowing LANDLORDS to threaten to kick their tenants out if they refuse to get rid of their beloved dogs, and THAT is not fair or humane!! Shelters are over crowded as it is exp with the Bully breeds all due to these BS laws…not everyone can just pick up and move to take their dog with them so some have to give them up…and these KILL shelters are MURDERING these breeds by the hundreds!!! is that fair or right??? How cruel is this world becoming when your well behaved best friend is taken off of you because of the people that are prejudice and hate a breed so much that they dont even understand them?? PUNISH THE DEED NOT THE BREED!!!!! Im so sick of these laws…..pisses me off everyday i see how many beautiful loving healthy dogs are destroyed because of some peoples ignorance,…THANK GOD a few cities are over turning their bans on the breed! Sorry you were attacked….but that was 1 dog that did that to you…theres MILLIONS of others dogs that do NOT bite!!! Im just wondering….to all the people that are scared of the breed and are for BSL…if your attacked by a black man, does that mean your afraid of all black people now and become prejudice to them all??? YES…its the same thing!!!!

  1. People like me will hurt them with this law. Show me the DNA test that proves my mutt is cross bred pit. Prove my dog breaks the law. Prove this in court. Do it for every dog. We will make you go blind doing paperwork and wear out your system. Stupid laws made my frightened and ignorant people will cost the taxpayers money and some loving dogs their lives.

  2. Frederick is a very dog friendly city (they host the biggest lab show in the world after all) so doesn’t surprise me. Good for them!

  3. That is wonderful news! I had my heart set on trying to move to MD and this is where I wanted to go.

  4. Thank you for sharing this, it’s an excellent story and I am glad to hear that Frederick is doing this and I hope that more cities follow suit

  5. When are people going to wake up and realize it is not the breed, but horrible people that mistreat these beautiful creatures.

  6. Stand up for your rights people! Any state that tells people they can’t have a certain dog breed needs to crack down on the people more! It’s always the owners!!

  7. Way to go, Frederick County!!! You show them how to do it the RIGHT way and that BSL does NOT work!

  8. finaly a goverment, though a small one, with some balls and some sense. congrats city of Fredrick, MD for doing the right thing. THIS IS A GOOD THING.

  9. Open letter I wrote this evening:Dear Mr. Young:

    Your opinion about pitbulls was broadcast on Life With Dogs today. Thank you!! I do not have a pitbull but know, like you, that it’s in the raising and environment rather than the breed in spite of what the State of Maryland says. Want you to know that you have gone more than nationwide. I know that other countries get Life With Dogs and that you are a champion. I am going to post this as an open letter on Life With Dogs. Glad you’re a commissioner in my County of Frederick.

    Antonia
    Mt. Airy, MD

  10. WAY TO GO, City of Frederick!!! BSL’s are not only useless; they’re also discriminatory and just plain unfair.

  11. As an old t-shirt of my husbands had said ” I will give up my guns when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it”. Well the same can be said about our Pit ROCKO.

  12. Refreshing to see not all of MD is ignorant, uneducated and stupid. Hopefully, the legislature will step up and make a law (like MA is trying to do) prohibiting BSL in the state.

  13. MD law is antiquated. . . . this is the first decision to push us into what needs to be done — a multi breed law to protect the victim of a vicious dog attack or mauling. If you’ve never had a 120 pound dog on the back of your head and wondered whether you’d survive — then one needs to leave well enough alone.

    I’ve lived with the aftermath for over 2 years now and have suffered because there is no law to make me whole again. Victims need not become millionaires over a dog attack, but their injuries, inside and out, should be taken care of by the owner of the attacking dog. For victims of unprovoked attacks, there is nothing to protect them.

    No matter how well trained or how domesticated, there is still instinct inside a dog that may kick in. . . . owners need to be responsible for their dog’s actions — NO MATTER WHAT THE BREED.

    1. That’s not true at all. We have a judicial system that already punishes the owners of dangerous dogs. That’s why legislation that is specifically geared towards one breed is not only discriminatory but non-sensical.

    2. “This is the first decision to push us into what needs to be done — a multi breed law to protect the victim of a vicious dog attack or mauling.”

      THIS THIS THIS. So much.

      Focusing upon a single breed fails utterly to address the larger issue and honestly ignores the suffering of victims of other breeds. The tendency to focus upon Pitbulls feels so much like a kneejerk reaction, and one that is done to create the appearance of action……without actually accomplishing a single thing.

      I’ve heard it stated that BSL is not intended to prevent attacks or lower the number of dog attacks. If that is true, then why bother? All victims deserve to be equally protected.

  14. All dog owners should be fully responsible for their pets, just like parents need to be responsible for their children. So if pet or child causes damage, legal action is
    warranted. If insurance is not available, then yes, monies for damage comes out of the wallet! Victims of unprovoked attacks are in their rights for compensation.
    But to produce a law to condemn all(hurting the rights of the innocent) is not the answer & is not productive. Appropriate dog ownership as parenting should be required with all parties and law enforced evidence, indicating liability coverage at all times. Good luck though, look how many “citizens” drive w/out auto insurance, etc.! It is difficult to “control” humanity who has no regard for their fellow human being!

  15. Congratulations on defying a stupid law! It IS the backyard breeders, people ignorant of the breed, and brutal owners who should be legislated against, NOT the dogs!

  16. How exactly does one determine that a dog is a pitbull or a pit mix? By looks? I’ve posted a link that i hope opens the eyes of a least some supporters of ‘the ban’ about visual identification of dogs.

    One of my dogs is half Rhodesian and half Dalmatian and she looks straight pit mix.

    In comparison to other parts of the country, I thought the adoption rules in Md are far more responsible than other places ( I am in Los Angeles and I have family in your county).

    1. While that test is sort of inaccurate (some of the dogs could never be mistaken as each other due to size), it does raise a good point.

      Especially when you’re dealing with mixed breeds, gauging their actual breed (or primary breed) is often not easy. I’m very familiar with Pitbulls, and yet have mistaken other dogs for Pit mixes. Many dogs and mixes have a stocky build and short coat, so those traits alone do not necessarily a Pitbull make.

  17. Whenever a sensational “pit bull attack” hits the front page, do a little independent fact checking to determine if the dog in question was an actual pit bull and I guarantee at least half the time you will discover the “pit bull” to be a stocky, smooth haired mutt being given your basic Hound of Hell-oplasty…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.