maryland state wants to ban pitbulls

[kokopelli]

hey guys i was just wondering where you guys stand on this new law maryland is proposing. it is sopoesed to be for viscious dogs and pit bulls, but seems to be almost only breed specific. it goes like this:

CRIMINAL LAW - PIT BULLS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS

FOR the purpose of including certain dogs defined as pit bulls within
the
definition of "dangerous dogs" in certain provisions of law that
apply to
owners of dangerous dogs; ......

10-619.
(a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings
indicated.

(2) "Dangerous dog" means a dog that:

(i) without provocation has killed or inflicted severe injury on a
person
(ii) is determined by the appropriate unit of a county or municipal
corporation under subsection (c) of this section to be a potentially
dangerous dog and after the determination is made:
1. Bites a person
2. when not on the owner's property, kills or inflicts severe injury
on a
domestic animal
3. attacks without provocation; OR

(III) IS A PIT BULL

(3) "PIT BULL" MEANS A DOG THAT:

(I) IS ONE OF THE FOLLOWING BREEDS:

1. BULL TERRIER
2. AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
3. STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER
4. AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER
5. AMERICAN BULLDOG ; OR

(II) IS OF MIXED BREED BUT PREDOMINANTLY POSSESSES THE APPEARANCE AND
CHARACTERISTICS OF ONE OF THE BREEDS SPECIFIED IN ITEM (I) OF THIS
PARAGRAPH..........


(d) A dog owner may not:
(1) leave a dangerous dog unattended on the owner's property
unless the
dog is:
(i) confined indoors
(ii) in a securely enclosed and locked pen; or
(iii) in another structure designed to restrain the dog; or

(2) allow a dangerous dog to leave the owner's real property unless
the dog
is leashed and muzzled or is otherwise restrained and muzzled.


alright here are my thoughts yes anyone that has a dangerous dog should take care of the problem, but a dog is not dangerous just because of what breed it is. the only dog that i am personally afriad of is my friends chow, but its not a pitbull. did you know that the chow is a pit fighting dog? did you know that a sharpeii is a pit figing dog? they are both perfectly legal. did you know that the labrador retriever breed all color combined has the highest bite incedence with humans? yet they are perfectly legal. ever heard of a dogo argintino? well they are bigger then pitbull and bred to bite people, but they are legal.

yes i realize that humans have ruined the pit bull breed, and that many people are afraid of them because of stereotypes, but that are not inherently evil dogs. breed specific legislation is wrong.

as a disclamer, i think that any kind of dog fighting for entertainment is gross and horrilbe, and do not condone it in any way.

[fivestring]

All laws are brought about because of the actions or gross in-actions of people.

ALL dogs can bite. Some breeds just do it better. Pit bulls are one of those breeds.

In 95% of the drug-infested neighborhoods we patrol, pit bulls or relatives are present. Why so many pit bulls?
Why don'y we see Lhasa Apsos, Weenie dogs, Pekinese, poodles, etc?

You are likely to see a few more breeds added to the dangerous list in the future.
It's a shame that dopers have adopted the pit bull as their mascot.
It's the same with the Confederate Battle flag. It's a shame it was adopted by the KKK as as it's symbol.

[Hank]

What's most interesting to me is that this law is being proposed at the state level. As far as I can tell, only one state (Ohio) has such a law. Animal control is almost univerally accomplished at the municipality level (county, city). Even this MD law defers to the municipalities for determining visciousness.

I have heard of lots of municpalities having regulations specific to certain breeds, typically pit bulls and not so often rottweillers.

I do know that already in Montgomery County MD (because my wife has been a police officer in that jurisdiction and had regular interactions with animal control) if a pit bull is picked up stray, that is a death sentence almost guaranteed. They will not return a stray pit bull to the owner without lots of justification and assurance it won't happen again.

I think you're right that bad owners have ruined the pit bull breed and that dogs should be judged on temperament and not breed (you didn't mention also akitas). However, the number of serious bite incidents involving pit bulls has dictated some sort of special scrutiny and regulation. Not an outright ban on ownership, but I think at the minimum complete and total owner control at all times should be required.

And yes I have met several gentle pit bulls, too, but the prospective owner of a pit bull should be prepared for this extra scrutiny and regulation going into the ownership. I think that's what the laws are intended for, and not to make a statement about current owners who have non-viscious pet dogs.

[Bird]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
where you guys stand on this new law maryland is proposing

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me. It doesn't ban you from having a pit bull; only requires that it be restrained from injuring or killing others.

[kokopelli]

you are right i didnt mention akitas, but i felt i was being long winded as it is. there are so many pit fighting breeds that people dont realize are pit fighting breeds. the akita, the tosa, the sharpei, the chow, the dogo argintino, the mastiffs (neopolitin, spainish, french, asian), the bulldogs(american, british, and bulldogge), the staffies(american and english), bull terriers, bandogs. and i am sure there are many that ihave missed.

i am okay with this law so long as they dont make it breed specific. if someones golden kills another dog it should be muzzled, if someones pit bull doesnt, it shouldnt be.

yes it is a travisty that drug dealers have made the pit bull their mascot. especially because pitt bulls are horrible gaurd dogs. they were never ment to be. they were ment to fight other dogs in a ring. they dont care about property or space the way a mastiff or doberman does.

as for someone having complete control of their, while a good idea, it will never happen. for that matter no human can have complete control over anydog. i feel that all dogs should be kept under control, and that you should know your dog well enough to know what situations you can put them in. for example i know that i cannot walk my hunting dog around a school in the afternoon, becuase she is afraid of sreaming running children. i know this is bad news, so for this reason i stay away from schools with her.

i blame most of it on stupid humans. we over breed animals, breed them for barbaric purposes, and then blame the animal for doing what we wanted them to do.

[JazzDad]

Hello Stephen.

The insurance company I work for maintains a list of dogs. If you own one of these dogs, we won't carry your insurance. Period. They don't want to hear that the dog is 20 years old and no longer has teeth, has never bitten anyone, and never goes outside. If it's on the company's list, you aren't on theirs. The Pit Bull is on the list, along with "vicious animals" and "animals with a bite history". Does the company do this for fun? No, they're out to make money. They have data that substantiates their rules.

Unfortunately, many folks are not responsible pet owners. This also goes beyond restraint of an animal that poses a threat to people and other animals, but that is the topic for another discussion.

I hate to see more laws put on the books.

[Handyman]

Insurer "Bad Breeds" Blacklist? Comments

Allstate Yes--pit bulls, Staffordshire Terriers, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers, Chows, Presa Canarios, Akitas, wolf-hybrids, and Huskies. No new policies will be written for owners of these breeds.

AIG Yes--pit bulls, Doberman Pinschers, Rottweilers.

Axa Yes

Clarenden Yes

Farmers Insurance Group No Prospective policyholders are asked to report whether they have a "vicious animal" on the premises. Once there is a claim, the pet is specifically excluded from coverage. The company also won't take new business from people who have had dog-bite claims in the last three years, even if the family no longer owns the pet.

Liberty Mutual Yes--Akitas, Alaskan Malamutes, Chows, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, pit bulls or Staffordshire Terriers, Rottweilers, Siberian Huskies, Presa Canarios.
Mixed-breed dogs have to be verified by a veterinarian to not be predominantly any of these breeds before policy will be issued.

Mercury Casualty Company No Offers 10% discount for families that don't own a dog or are willing to take their dog off their policy.

Nationwide Yes--Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, pit bulls, Presa Canarios, Chows or wolf-hybrids.

Prudential No May vary from state to state.

Qualsure Insurance Corp. Yes--Akitas, Chows, Doberman Pinschers, pit bulls, Presa Canarios and Rottweilers.

State Farm No If there has been a bite history, the company will ask that the offending dog be removed from the home.

[Slamfire]

I have noticed that the State of Maryland is one of those that has a legislature that believes everything possible under the sun needs regulation. You either change the politics of your state or you move away from there. Nevada seems to be the least likely to stick its nose into every little thing, but it is the fastest growing state, so that may not last.

[Pat]

How about a lesser of evils comment? Pet control laws in general and specifically dog regulations shouldn't be required in an ideal world. Is this an ideal world? Do we need any form of regulation?

Personally I'd rather see folks walking down the street with holstered pistols than certain breeds of dogs on leashes. Dogs "go off" for reasons that can easily be out of the range of understanding and control of their owners. In an age when people won't even make their children mind them why should we suppose that an animal bred to kill will behave better?

In a perfect world, I'd be happy to see responsible knowlegeable dog owner/handlers permitted to have the nastiest animals capable of being bred, if controlled and contained such that they don't end up in the insurance companies statistics. In the real world there is a distinct difference between ownership of something capable of being used in a harmful manner or causing harm and something which by design (breeding) has a demonstrated capability of causing harm when not intended.

Folks argue that we don't need private ownership of nuclear weapons, personal stockpiles of ricin, botulus or a collection of "war gasses" in operable cylinders. Maybe so, but these items don't have a mind of their own and don't "go off" on innocent victims due to some complex web of causality.

The "ALL FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE" types should consider what it would be like if there was a fad for people to go to a store and buy a time bomb with a blast radius of (whatever the average leash length is) and a detonation timer that is totally random so that it might never go off and or it might go of in the check out lline while buying it. These bomb cultists would then walk around carrying their bomb with them whenever and wherever they felt like it.

Owner/users of some bombs would argue that they had been carrying a bomb for years and years and it never went off or hurt anyone (it could even be a fake bomb for all we know.) How would a regular citizen know that it was safe to walk down the sidewalk if he saw someone coming who was wearing a bomb? What about the bomb toters who take their bomb off their waist and toss it down a hill at the park where it might roll past or up to an innocent family on picnic who have no way of preparing for a random "bomb attack?"

I could go on with this or any number of analogies but those whose ox is being gored won't agree with me and many others will. There is a point to this. There is a clear dividing line between types of risk. There is the risk that someone with a gun, knife, chucks, sword, throwing stars, or whatever will suddenly whip them out and try to hurt someone. This is an afirmative action on the part of the weapon carrying person. None of these weapons "go off" on innocent passers by by "accident." Dogs bred to kill or otherwise of poor "moral character" can "go off" irrespective of the intent of the owner and are the equivalent of carrying the bomb with a random timer.

Insurance statistics are compiled from ACTUAL REAL WORLD happenings and are not hypothetical. Dogs bite. Some dogs bite more. Some dogs are bred to bite. I think dogs can be great companions, excellent partners in stock handling, boost the well being of those who pet them and on and on and on. What is the purpose...what need is being fulfilled by owning and displaying a known dangerous breed? If you need a guard dog or a flock defender or any of a number of "legitimate" reasons to have a potantially aggressive dog, use it for its intended purpose. What is the big deal regarding dogs bred to kill? Why do we need them in a suburban or metropolitan setting. Why is there even a question of the correctness of purposely parading a randomly fused time bomb around in a public place?

What is it that "THIS" particular dog does for someone that a gentler breed can't do that needs to be done in a public setting? I think folks should be able to carry a gun and shoot it in a safe manner where it won't cause harm to others. I wouldn't condone folks whipping out their piece and taking a few random shots at the pidgeons in the park

Whether or not particular breeds should even exist or continue to exist is a different debate not unlike whether or not there should be private ownership of war gasses and A-bombs. Whether or not they should be allowed in public or controlled to prevent public contact is a different debate. At any rate a person would have to make a conscious decision to release a gas or detonate a bomb. Most owners of dangerous dogs don't make a conscious decision for their dog to bite someone but according to the best information available it happens enough to require legisation to protect the public from unwarranted attack.

You can't legislate common sense or morality. The best legislation is usually flawed but is the only recourse that society has to try to control events that would have better been controlled by common sense and morality.

Pat

[kokopelli]

pat well put. here is my only issue, this law in my opinion shouldbe to protect us from violent animals. if we are going to strictly go by the inurance numbers then labradors should be illigal because they bite more people then any other dog. alot of it has to do with perception and politics. any dog for any reason can attack a person, should they all be out lawed? we aleady have leash laws and control laws, so no dogs should be out running around able to freely attack things. so why not make the law to contain and muzzle dogs that we know are violent?

example. took my puppy to the vet last week. when we get there we are wisked into the "cat" room because and other patient is leaving, and the owner refuses to muzzle his dog that has bitten many other dogs and people. its a dalmation. according to what you wrote, if i read corectly, this dog is not a time bomb ready to go off because of its breed. make sense? not to me. breed specific laws dont work. some people like the way a breed looks. some people dont realize what their dog is ment to do. some people rescue dogs and dont know where they came from. any tortured dog is going to do what it had to do. to keep alive.