# Pit Bull discrimination in Maryland Court



## Mr & Mrs Kirkley (Mar 9, 2012)

*For Pit Bulls, No More Freebies*

April 27, 2012
By Edward Ericson Jr. 
In a little-noticed rul*ing, (link to pdf) the Mary*land Court of Appeals has changed a long-standing “one free bite” rule regard*ing dog bite vic*tims’ rights to receive com*pen*sa*tion for their injuries:
_We are mod*i*fy*ing the Mary*land com*mon law of lia*bil*ity as it relates to attacks by pit bull and cross-bred pit bull dogs against humans. With the stan*dard we estab*lish today (which is to be applied in this case on remand), when an owner or a land*lord is proven to have knowl*edge of the pres*ence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull (as both the owner and land*lord did in this case) or should have had such knowl*edge, a prima facie case is estab*lished. It is not nec*es*sary that the land*lord (or the pit bull’s owner) have actual knowl*edge that the spe*cific pit bull involved is dan*ger*ous. Because of its aggres*sive and vicious nature and its capa*bil*ity to inflict seri*ous and some*times fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inher*ently dangerous._​ The deci*sion, pub*lished April 26 in the case cap*tioned Dorothy M. Tracey v. Anthony K. Solesky, sends the case back to the Cir*cuit Court for retrial under the new stan*dard. In the past, a bite vic*tim would have to show that the per*son who had con*trol of the dog knew the dog was vicious and failed to take ade*quate mea*sures to pre*vent the bite. Prov*ing that usu*ally required the vic*tim to find evi*dence that the dog had bit*ten some*one before—and that the defen*dant knew that.​ The law now says: “When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer nec*es*sary to prove that the par*tic*u*lar pit bull or pit bulls are dan*ger*ous.” It applies not only to the dogs’ own*ers, but to any per*son who “had the right to con*trol the pit bull’s presence”—i.e., the land lord.
This could have pro*found impli*ca*tions not just for slum*lords, but also for ani*mal shel*ters, res*cue vol*un*teers (and their land*lords), ani*mal hos*pi*tals and veterinarians.


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

Ontario has had it's breed ban in place for years, it's sad when the law sees a breed before they see a dog

I'm not for or against pit bulls, I've met great ones and not so great ones.


----------



## Mr & Mrs Kirkley (Mar 9, 2012)

To the Moderators:

I didn't realize articles couldn't be posted even if the author's name is included. I tried to edit my post but got a message saying the time limit for editing had expired.


----------



## Mr & Mrs Kirkley (Mar 9, 2012)

I think this will cause a lot of conflict between landlords and tenants that already have Pit Bulls. Landlords will want tenants to get rid of their Pit Bulls because of the law. Tenants will say they're protected by the grandfather clause. Since landlords can be held liable, will banks be next? It's always been my understanding that a home isn't owned free and clear until it's paid off. I wonder how many innocent Pit Bulls will be euthanized because of this. What a terrible tragedy.


----------



## ShenzisMom (Apr 27, 2010)

In Ontario 1100 dog and puppies were PTS due to BSL. The vast majority had no strikes against them and no HA issues. They are just now figuring out the bite statistics haven't changed and thugs have corso and dogo now...*headdesk*


----------



## Dragonwyke (Jul 21, 2011)

it's pretty sad alright. when are they coming for german sheps? our dogs are on that dangerous dogs list too. this has got me worried as all h.e.l.l.!

dw~


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Dragonwyke said:


> it's pretty sad alright. when are they coming for german sheps? our dogs are on that dangerous dogs list too. this has got me worried as all h.e.l.l.!
> 
> dw~


Oddly enough GSD's are still one of the top 10 dogs in peoples homes, but Pit Bulls aren't and that is all I see in the shelters where I live Some towns here have banned pit bulls. If Chicago did this, there would be more problems, I don't even think they will try it. They might make stricter laws if you own one. I pray that this day never comes for GSD's, they are a wonderful breed and I would have serious issues if someone told me I had to get rid of my girl


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

Yes, they will be coming for Shepherds next. There are people out there just waiting for the next breed to come institute a breed ban for no reason. Once they're done with GSD's, they'll come after... rotties... probably min-pins next. These people just come after the next breed so we'll end up with a dog-less planet. It just makes no sense at all. After the dogs, they'll come after the kitties. Then it'll be the turtles. What will we do then?


----------



## Knave (Apr 29, 2012)

As someone who has grown up in MD, the ruling sadly comes as no surprise. I know of at least one county that euthanizes all pit bulls and pit mixes that come into the shelter. I volunteered there for a time.

I don't think GSD's are likely to be next. Although, they are perceived as dangerous (in a similar way pits are), they are still prominent in police work as well as other law enforcement agencies. They are looked upon as dogs with a useful purpose vs. pits which are generally seen as dogs solely used for fighting and therefore have no other purpose other than to be aggressive.

But this is, of course, only my perception on the matter...


----------



## GSDkid (Apr 19, 2011)

I just found this on a blog. Amazing how fast news travels.



Knave said:


> I don't think GSD's are likely to be next. Although, they are perceived as dangerous (in a similar way pits are), they are still prominent in police work as well as other law enforcement agencies. They are looked upon as dogs with a useful purpose vs. pits which are generally seen as dogs solely used for fighting and therefore have no other purpose other than to be aggressive.


I do agree with this. However, you just never really know. All it takes is one poorly raised GSD for something like this to happen. Ridiculously, it's the dog's that suffer the most and not the handler.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

Knave said:


> I don't think GSD's are likely to be next. Although, they are perceived as dangerous (in a similar way pits are), they are still prominent in police work as well as other law enforcement agencies. They are looked upon as dogs with a useful purpose vs. pits which are generally seen as dogs solely used for fighting and therefore have no other purpose other than to be aggressive.
> 
> But this is, of course, only my perception on the matter...


I can't help but notice where I come from how breeds noted for human aggression tend to be far better managed than dog aggressive breeds by their owners. I remember when GSDs, Dobes, and Rotties were popular breeds, but their owners did not normally let them run loose and unsurpervised.

Pits are not noted for human aggression. Maybe this is why so many carelessly manage them. Where I live and in surrounding areas, you see them loose and unsupervised and their owners view any animal aggression as a minor nuisance.

In my neighborhood there are no lists, but if there were, I find it unlikely that GSDs or other breeds thought of as human aggressive would be on it, as they are well managed and kept under control.


----------



## Knave (Apr 29, 2012)

Falkosmom said:


> In my neighborhood there are no lists, but if there were, I find it unlikely that GSDs or other breeds thought of as human aggressive would be on it, as they are well managed and kept under control.


You're quite lucky. Such things are rare to see these days. I've been in too many neighborhoods and apartment complexes where 'lists' have included GSDs, Huskies, Dalmatians, Mastiffs (Presa Canarios, Dogos, Fila Brasiliero, etc.), Akitas, Dobermans, Rotties, and that's just to name a few.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

Knave said:


> You're quite lucky. Such things are rare to see these days. I've been in too many neighborhoods and apartment complexes where 'lists' have included GSDs, Huskies, Dalmatians, Mastiffs (Presa Canarios, Dogos, Fila Brasiliero, etc.), Akitas, Dobermans, Rotties, and that's just to name a few.


Lucky? Maybe. Do you feel safe walking your neighborhood with or without your dogs? Not here. The ill contained, poorly managed and frequently loose dogs (vast majority are pits) are quite the danger and severely restrict what one can and cannot do and be safe, even in your own yard, especially if you are a dog owner.


----------



## Mr & Mrs Kirkley (Mar 9, 2012)

Knave said:


> You're quite lucky. Such things are rare to see these days. I've been in too many neighborhoods and apartment complexes where 'lists' have included GSDs, Huskies, Dalmatians, Mastiffs (Presa Canarios, Dogos, Fila Brasiliero, etc.), Akitas, Dobermans, Rotties, and that's just to name a few.


Huskies? They're so non-aggressive and friendly toward people they aren't even capable of being guard dogs. The only way I can picture a Husky attacking someone is if it has rabies. But any animal with rabies will attack.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

here is a list of the commonly banned dogs in the US

RDOWS on Animal Rights

1.AIREDALE TERRIER 
2.AKBASH 
3.AKITA 
4.ALAPAHA BLUE BLOOD BULLDOG 
5,ALASKAN MALAMUTE 
6.ALSATIAN SHEPHERD 
7.AMERICAN BULLDOG
8.AMERICAN HUSKY 
9.AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 
10.AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER 
11.AMERICAN WOLFDOG 
12.ANATOLIAN SHEPHERD 
13.ARIKARA DOG 
14.AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG 
15.AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD 
16.BELGIAN MALINOIS 
17.BELGIAN SHEEPDOG 
18.BELGIAN TURVUREN 
19.BLUE HEELER 
20.BOERBUL 
21.BORZOI 
22.BOSTON TERRIER 
23.BOUVIER DES FLANDRES 
24.BOXER 
25.BULLDOG 
26.BULL TERRIER
27.BULL MASTIFF 
28.CANE CORSO 
29.CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG 
30.CAUCASIAN SHEPHERD 
31.CHINESE SHAR PEI 
32.CHOW-CHOW 
33.COLORADO DOG 
34.DOBERMAN PINSCHER 
35.DOGO DE ARGENTINO 
36.DOGUE DE BORDEAUX 
37.ENGLISH MASTIFFS 
38.ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL 
39.ESKIMO DOG 
40.ESTRELA MOUNTAIN DOG 
41.FILA BRASILIERO 
42.FOX TERRIER 
43.FRENCH BULLDOG 
44.GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG 
45.GOLDEN RETRIEVER 
46.GREENLAND HUSKY 
47.GREAT DANE 
48.GREAT PYRENEES 
49.ITALIAN MASTIFF 
50.KANGAL DOG 
51.KEESHOND 
52.KOMONDOR 
53.KOTEZEBUE HUSKY 
54.KUVAZ 
55.LABRADOR RETRIEVER 
56.LEONBERGER 
57.MASTIFF 
58.NEOPOLITAN MASTIFF 
59.NEWFOUNDLAND 
60.OTTERHOUND 
61.PRESA DE CANARIO 
62.PRESA DE MALLORQUIN 
63.PUG 
64.ROTTWEILER 
65.SAARLOOS WOLFHOND 
66.SAINT BERNARD 
67.SAMOYED 
68.SCOTTISH DEERHOUND 
69.SIBERIAN HUSKY 
70.SPANISH MASTIFF 
71.STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER 
72.TIMBER SHEPHERD 
73.TOSA INU 
74.TUNDRA SHEPHERD 
75.WOLF SPITZ

ETA: I'm not sure which is more surprising - the borzoi? or the pug?


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Do they have a link or reference to where these breeds are not allowed? Are they towns, cities, neighborhoods, senior housing, military bases, where? 

Hard to tell - unless I didn't see it on the site elsewhere.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

no, just a general list of the most commonly banned breeds across the country.


----------



## Dragonwyke (Jul 21, 2011)

this list isn't a specific place in the country. it's a list provided as a general recommendation by insurance companies to banks and different listings as to whom to insure and how much to charge for insurance coverage determined by breed, bite histories per breed and by statistics in specific areas per state or city. 

that's why some owners of bull breeds, or others on the lists, can't get insurance on their homes. or if they can it's so outrageous that they end having to release their dogs to rescues or shelters. 

dw~


----------



## Knave (Apr 29, 2012)

Falkosmom said:


> Lucky? Maybe. Do you feel safe walking your neighborhood with or without your dogs? Not here. The ill contained, poorly managed and frequently loose dogs (vast majority are pits) are quite the danger and severely restrict what one can and cannot do and be safe, even in your own yard, especially if you are a dog owner.


Ah. Forgive me, I interpreted your previous post incorrectly. I assumed you said that 'aggressive' labeled dogs were actually well managed in your area. 
Loose, ill-managed dogs are certainly *not* a good sign.




Mr & Mrs Kirkley said:


> Huskies? They're so non-aggressive and friendly toward people they aren't even capable of being guard dogs. The only way I can picture a Husky attacking someone is if it has rabies. But any animal with rabies will attack.


I've actually met a few huskies that I'd rather not be around even with protective gear. Of course, they're not indicative of the entire breed. I believe insurance companies have seen far too many bite incidents involving badly-trained huskies, hence why they're on the list. Don't quote me on that though. I don't have any exact figures to really back that up.


----------



## Witz (Feb 28, 2011)

I live in MD and cannot tell you what a disappointment this State has become over the last 35years that I have lived here. It is a State that believes that Government is the answer to everyone's problems and that they need to tax us to support their agenda's. 

This legislation is not a surprise, but if they had to go there, it should not be Breed specific. An owner of a dog is responsible for it's actions no matter the breed. The idiots in Annapolis seem to believe that they should enact Laws to solve everything that a few deem an issue. I am exhausted by Government and it's never ending arrogance that they know what is right for everyone. These are career politicians who live in a box and yet have all the answers.

Check out today's Baltimore Sun Opinion section where one of the supporting idiots has written his thoughts based on his own fear based assumptions with misguided and incorrect "facts". If family were not an issue, I would be so gone from this Nanny State.


----------



## Sunflowers (Feb 17, 2012)

Wow, that covers most breeds, doesn't it?  And they would ban Labs and Goldens in some places? Really?



Dainerra said:


> here is a list of the commonly banned dogs in the US
> 
> RDOWS on Animal Rights
> 
> ...


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

Witz said:


> I live in MD and cannot tell you what a disappointment this State has become over the last 35years that I have lived here. It is a State that believes that Government is the answer to everyone's problems and that they need to tax us to support their agenda's.
> 
> This legislation is not a surprise, but if they had to go there, it should not be Breed specific. An owner of a dog is responsible for it's actions no matter the breed. The idiots in Annapolis seem to believe that they should enact Laws to solve everything that a few deem an issue. I am exhausted by Government and it's never ending arrogance that they know what is right for everyone. These are career politicians who live in a box and yet have all the answers.
> 
> Check out today's Baltimore Sun Opinion section where one of the supporting idiots has written his thoughts based on his own fear based assumptions with misguided and incorrect "facts". If family were not an issue, I would be so gone from this Nanny State.


Another Marylander in TOTAL agreement!

What the heck?? Did anyone else see Dan Rodricks column in the The Baltimore Sun today? Here are a few facts according to Dan:

1. There are bloody examples of Pit Bull attacks in MD and elsewhere, going back to 1916.

2. Pit bull jaws are three times stronger than those of a German Shepard. (That's right, apparently Shepherd is actually spelled Shepard.) Dan should know.

3. From 1979 - 1996, there were 300 dog attack fatalities in the US. During part of that time 1981-1992 "pit bull-type dogs" were involved in approximately a third of those deaths. (HUH? Those aren't even the same years. Of course we're only talking about "pit bull-type dogs.")

4. The court ruling makes clear the pit bulls are four-legged time bombs.

Disgusting. Just totally, absolutely disgusting!


----------



## Knave (Apr 29, 2012)

Sunflowers said:


> Wow, that covers most breeds, doesn't it?  And they would ban Labs and Goldens in some places? Really?


Yep. Because they're such a popular breed, a lot of people have them and have left them untrained with the assumption that 'nature' (breed personality) will prevail.


----------



## Witz (Feb 28, 2011)

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Another Marylander in TOTAL agreement!
> 
> What the heck?? Did anyone else see Dan Rodricks column in the The Baltimore Sun today? Here are a few facts according to Dan:
> 
> ...


 
You should check out the comments and a great letter to the editor just posted.

I should note that although I am a GSD fanatic and have had them all my life, I have a big place in my heart for the bully breed. My son who lives in the City found a little brindle Pit puppy that was abandon in a tough neighborhood. He took her in and she has shared our home (which is another story) and his and has turned out to be a wonderful dog. She was there when I got my GSD pup last year and they are the best of friends, loves people and although a busy girl we think she is a great addition to our family on a part time basis. 

I realize that this is a GSD forum but it rags like the Baltimore Sun and the idiot they call a opinion writer, who choose to fabricate details to support an unfounded fear.


----------

