|
Post by bob66 on May 2, 2012 10:14:13 GMT -4
usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11500617-maryland-court-finds-pit-bulls-are-inherently-dangerous?liteI'm thinking that the tables could be turned by putting the burden back on the state to prove that my dog is a Pitbull. I say she is a Boxer-Lab mix. This explains the muscular frame, the shortened snout and the coloring. Short of a DNA test, can you prove me wrong? Or would we be liable because of what our dog "looks" like? Who's to say definitively that my dog is even a Pitbull mix? Ever see a Beabull? It's a Beagle/Bulldog mix that "looks" just like a small "Pitbull". But not a drop of Pitbull blood in it. Pitbulls are easy targets. The ruling says they are automatically dangerous and it does not have to be proven. I say a dog bite is a dog bite, so ALL dog owners should be equally liable. I wouldn't own a Cocker Spaniel or a Dachshund, as I have had poor experiences with both. The vast majority of terrorist attacks are committed by a small minority of unstable zealots, but we are not allowed to profile them. Don't profile me or my dog. Let's face it, they are trying to put the screws to the owners of these "vicious" dogs because somebody has to take the blame, somebody has to pay. It's like when there is an accident where the person at fault does not survive, so they go after the family so somebody pays. Remember the breakdown of the word ASSUME. Don't assume my dog is dangerous. Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by markp on May 2, 2012 12:00:15 GMT -4
The whole ruling is asinine. There are quite a few people speaking out against it so I'm hoping it gets wiped off the books.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on May 2, 2012 14:26:35 GMT -4
I hear ya... there are other breeds out there who bite more and do more damage than pits..
There are some bad and mean dogs (pits) out there.... But same can be said about other breeds....
Of course you never hear about those or you do but instead of actually identifying the breed correctly people wanna believe it's a pit...cause how could "Shoo-Shoo" that little toy poodle pet of granny's harm any one? ask the next door neighbor whose kid needed 52 stitches in the face after "shoo-shoo attacked!"!!
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on May 2, 2012 17:24:56 GMT -4
Personally, no thanks... I'll assume it until I KNOW your dog. Until then, I'll keep away and you do the same with your dog. If you don't hold up your end of that deal... we'll have a problem.
|
|
|
Post by shorti on May 2, 2012 17:45:36 GMT -4
yea but that goes for ANY dog... not just pit bulls...
I was bitten by a small little mean poodle that was my aunt's when I was a kid... I've seen a dachshund attack... it's not the type of dog... that's crazy...
So what about chiuhuas (sp)?? known to be little vicious things... but because of their size... no deemed a threat?
ANY dog is capable of a vicious attack... sadly yes there are some demented folks out there that use pit bulls for fighting or that are just terrible owners who want a mean dog, until said dog turns on them...
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on May 2, 2012 18:46:45 GMT -4
Any dog is capable of biting. Few are capable of removing limbs.
|
|
|
Post by tomc on May 2, 2012 19:04:11 GMT -4
Many many breeds are capable of causing significant harm up to and including death. The "Inherently Dangerous" designation is ridiculous and a decision based on ignorance of dogs and canine behavior.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on May 2, 2012 19:19:09 GMT -4
Agreed. I just thought harmless breeds need not muddy the water.
I don't think this legislation would go anywhere if Pitts were a high class breed. As it is, they are a very popular dog for the lower class. I haven't seen any news stories about Dobermans lately.
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on May 2, 2012 20:04:15 GMT -4
Personally, no thanks... I'll assume it until I KNOW your dog. Until then, I'll keep away and you do the same with your dog. If you don't hold up your end of that deal... we'll have a problem. I don't take my dog out in public because there is too much of a misconception about her. My statement above is directed toward the state of Maryland for jumping on the breed-discrimination bandwagon that is so politically correct. As the law stands now there is no need to prove that my dog is vicious, she is automatically assumed to be by virtue of her breed. We can't profile people of Middle Eastern descent (yeah, I did say that), even though the vast majority of terrorist attacks originate with them. But we can say that ALL pitbulls are vicious? You want a mean dog? Train it, because they are not born that way. Terrorists are trained, not born.
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on May 2, 2012 20:23:17 GMT -4
Agreed. I just thought harmless breeds need not muddy the water. I don't think this legislation would go anywhere if Pitts were a high class breed. As it is, they are a very popular dog for the lower class. I haven't seen any news stories about Dobermans lately. Unfortunately you are correct: They are very popular with the lower class. But inroads have been made to raise them to a higher level of acceptance, and rulings like this just pound those efforts back down. Labs are good at retrieving, Bloodhounds are good at tracking, German Shepherds are good at Police work and Poodles are good at.......I dunno. Unfortunately Pitbulls are good at fighting to the bitter end and the lower class are attracted to that. But they are equally good at being couch potatoes, attention sleepers and playmates. Just like all of the other breeds above. In essence, they're dogs.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on May 2, 2012 20:26:18 GMT -4
Don't forget wrestling. They are good for that as well.
|
|
|
Post by AquaHolic on May 3, 2012 6:42:29 GMT -4
Breed specific legislation should not be allowed....Each Animal should be judged on its Past...I have a German Shepherd...And already because of this Breed Specific crap. My dog...who has NEVER bitten...and is ALWAYS under control is on some lists because of his Breed. Some home owners insurance companies will NOT insure us because of the breed. They are penalizing me because of what? I pay my bill ahead of time...and have an obedient dog...Some pits are dangerous...but These type of rules ONLY penalize the law abiding person who has a good dog.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on May 3, 2012 20:29:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on May 4, 2012 7:59:32 GMT -4
Thanks Funnel, I tried to get the link to work on Facebook, but somehow it didn't.
Folks, it only take a couple of minutes. If you edit out the "Dear Representative" from the letter, the form looks good.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by AquaHolic on May 4, 2012 8:33:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by bluecrabber on May 4, 2012 9:10:42 GMT -4
This knee jerk, almost class warfare type of legislation reminds me of the hand held cell phone ban while driving. The cell phone law should be just a general "driving while distracted" law. There are dozens of things that drivers do that are way more distracting than talking on the cell.
Legislation targeted at Pit Bulls is crazy. As pointed out above, how do you classify a "Pit Bull"? The breed was originally created by cross breeding American Bulldogs and Pit Terriers. What is the DNA?
Also reminds me of a friend who runs a big Veterinarian hospital in western PA. They have a standing rule that all German Shepherds and Chows must be muzzled before coming in to the hospital. No such restriction on any of the Bull Terriers.
In my opinion, almost any dog can be "trained" to be very aggressive. They take on the personality of the "pack" which is the environment they live in.
|
|
925ss
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by 925ss on May 10, 2012 13:36:58 GMT -4
This was just released from Queen Anne's County. It is absolutely absurd. Some of the best behaved dogs at the park are Pit Bull and Mixes. I know that my Holly will miss her buddies...
"Temporary Adoption Moratorium on Pit Bulls and Pit Bull Mix Dogs Posted on May 10, 2012 by qactv
QUEENSTOWN – Maryland’s Court of Appeals recent ruling that all pit-bulls are “inherently dangerous” has caused a stir amongst animal adoption agencies both private and public.
As a result the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners have placed a temporary adoption moratorium on all pit bull and pit bull mixed breeds from Animal Services. The moratorium will stay in place until all legal and liability issues can be thoroughly reviewed. Furthermore, pit bulls and pit bull mixes are, for now, banned from Island Dog Park in Stevensville.
In essence the court ruled by 4 to 3 that all pit bulls and pit bull mixes are inherently dangerous and victims of attacks no longer have to show that a dog’s owner knew it had a history of being dangerous to make a claim in court; the victim must show only that the owner or landlord knew a dog was part pit bull.
David MacGlashan, Director of Animal Services said about 50 percent of his adoptable dogs are pit bulls or pit bull mixes. “These dogs will not simply be destroyed as a result of the court’s decision,” said MacGlashan, although like others running shelters he is concerned that renters will be forced to give up their pets and the shelters will quickly reach capacity.
Sarah Bartlett, President of Friends of Kent Island Dog Park, “This breed specific ruling, which is based on ignorance and fear, will be devastating to dogs, owners and communities. There will be an increase in evictions when dog owners are forced to choose between a home and their family pet. There will be an increase in the rescue population and euthanization rates which will span all breeds, not just pits. The devastation of this law will expand socially and financially to reaches unimaginable at this point. My wish is that Governor O’Malley will support legislation to overturn this at special session later this month. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
MacGlashan said he hopes the ruling will eventually be over-turned through new, more encompassing legislation. Unfortunately, he said it is looking like this may not occur until the State’s 2013 General Assembly Session. Once all legal and liability issues have been reviewed and understood, the temporary adoption moratorium will be revisited by the County Commissioner’s.
“Many dog breeds can and do invoke injuries to humans and other animals, when not properly socialized or looked after”. MacGlashan went on to say that “the majority of incidents he has encountered, while Director of Animal Services have come as the result of irresponsible pet ownership”. “I would prefer to see a law that is not breed specific, but rather a law that lends itself to enforcing responsible pet ownership and holds irresponsible owners of all breeds accountable for their animals actions”.
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruling distinguishes pit bulls and pit bulls mixed breeds from other kinds of dogs. All pit bulls and Pit-Bull Mixed breeds are to be considered dangerous under this ruling, even if a dog of this breed has shown no prior signs of aggression or has never been involved in any previous incident. The ruling increases the liability that a pit bull or pit-bull mixed breed owner incurs. The ruling also increases liability on a landlord that has allowed a tenant to own a pit bull or pit bull mixed breed or who even has had knowledge of a tenant having a pit bull or pit bull mixed breed on a leased property. Although the ruling only stated increased liability on owners and landlords, it has been determined to have added additional liability to animal adoption organizations and potentially veterinarians and private kennel businesses. The premise for animal adoption organizations additional liability, is that per the court’s ruling, an adopting agency could be held liable for knowingly have placed in the community an animal that has, “by law”, been pre-determined as inherently dangerous. Many groups and individuals have lobbied for Governor O’Malley, State Senators and State Delegates to quickly introduce new legislation that would override the recent Maryland Court of Appeals decision, deeming all pit bulls dangerous. The request is being made for this new legislation to be introduced in the upcoming May 14th special session. The legislation being requested is to be based on a dog’s behavior, not the dog’s breed. However, the chance of getting new legislation introduced in the special session does not look promising, as Governor O’Malley has stated that the special session is for budget related purposes only."
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on May 10, 2012 13:54:16 GMT -4
"The legislation being requested is to be based on a dog’s behavior, not the dog’s breed. However, the chance of getting new legislation introduced in the special session does not look promising, as Governor O’Malley has stated that the special session is for budget related purposes only."
Meaning revenue generating purposes only. I also saw that all dogs listed as Pit Bulls on QAC Animal Services adoption website are already gone from the site. Way to cave, guys.
I did receive a reply from Del. Smigiel (sp?) regarding the proposed legislation mentioned above. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by AquaHolic on May 10, 2012 20:40:50 GMT -4
"The legislation being requested is to be based on a dog’s behavior, not the dog’s breed. However, the chance of getting new legislation introduced in the special session does not look promising, as Governor O’Malley has stated that the special session is for budget related purposes only." Meaning revenue generating purposes only. I also saw that all dogs listed as Pit Bulls on QAC Animal Services adoption website are already gone from the site. Way to cave, guys. I did receive a reply from Del. Smigiel (sp?) regarding the proposed legislation mentioned above. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I got a response from Del. Smigiel...he is great...The pits are still at Animal Control....they have explained on their face book page what is going on. They had no choice...
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on May 10, 2012 21:29:15 GMT -4
This is crazy. Those poor dogs and people who will suffer from this.
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on May 13, 2012 18:14:05 GMT -4
www.mnn.com/family/pets/stories/a-pit-bull-perception-problem-whats-a-dog-owner-to-do?hpt=hp_bn16Not sure if this link will work, as copy and paste seems to be an iffy way to do it for me. Anyway, great article. Take the quiz, you may be surprised. There is also an article in today's Capital newspaper about legislation being drafted to overturn this stupid ruling. Lastly, there is a rally Tuesday at the statehouse to protest this ruling. No dogs allowed, just people who support them. 2:30 to 4:30.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on May 13, 2012 21:23:47 GMT -4
Smart move not allowing dogs. All they need would be one bad example misbehaving to spoil the message.
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on Aug 10, 2012 11:50:57 GMT -4
Well, it looks like this ruling is about to be modified for the better. Several bills have been drafted to work this out, but the bill that is moving forward takes away the "1 bite rule" for all dogs and removes the strict landlord liability in favor of no bites allowed for any dog and landlords can only be liable if it is proven that the dog on their property is dangerous.
This works out better for Pit Bull owners, but does put the same liability on all dog owners, which, when you think about it, is fair anyways. For those that still feel special regulation should be attached to the breed, I probably can't change your mind. But fear and hysteria is no way to govern and I am thankful that our representatives have at least gotten that right this time. Let's hope it works it's way through to completion and doesn't get lost under some blackjack table.
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on Aug 15, 2012 8:27:11 GMT -4
And so it goes; another failure to reach an accord by the Maryland State Legislature. What started out as a simple bill to take an unfair label away from a certain breed of dogs has been "modified, massaged and twisted" into something no one could agree upon, therefore the bill died. It went from "all dog owners will have strict liability for the dog's actions" to "only dogs running at large will fall under the strict liability guidelines". It just got bigger, more complex and ultimately so convoluted that there was no time left to debate it and it was left to die.
Hopefully it can be resurrected from the bog it was left in during the regular session and we can put this stupid court ruling behind us and move forward to the other fruits of our legislature's endeavors: Gambling...my dog's not even dumb enough to feed a machine money.
|
|
|
Post by markp on Aug 15, 2012 10:31:25 GMT -4
We really need to evacuate those seats and put some people in office with some sense. They couldn't figure out a way to put money into their own pockets on that subject.
But hey, the casino bills passed easily... how's that work again?
|
|