Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Pitt bulls: own them at your own risk
Anyone wanna have some fun on the baltimore sun's fb page? Should i xp this to the pets board?
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-rodricks-dogs-20120430,0,3345843.column
baltimoresun.com
Pit bulls: Own them at your own risk
The Maryland Court of Appeals declares what should have been obvious to all by now ? these dogs are inherently dangerous
Dan Rodricks
10:02 AM EDT, April 30, 2012
| advertisement |
The first entry in Sunday's costume contest at the 17th annual March for the Animals was a pit bull dressed as Batman. I was on a wooden stage with the other contest judges, about four feet off the ground at Druid Hill Park. That distance from the dog suited me. When I see pit bulls, even those in charming costume, I stay clear. They have a reputation for vicious mauling, and I'd rather avoid one.
Still, I awarded eight out of 10 possible points to the beefy pit bull in the Batman cape. I was generous in an effort to overcompensate for my bias: Until they are banned outright, pit bulls should not be allowed in public, and their ownership should bear heavy, legal responsibility. I was pleased to read last week's ruling by the Maryland Court of Appeals declaring them inherently dangerous.
I admire the Maryland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for all its efforts to rescue, train and find homes for dogs and cats that are abused or abandoned. The March for the Animals is a great event; the sight of hundreds of dog owners strolling with their pets around Druid Lake on a crisp spring morning is inspiring ? city life at its top. And the pet costume and pet tricks contests are amusing to watch and to judge, the entries often hilarious.
But the pit bulls make it weird; there are several of them at the March, among many families with small children.
Of course, the pit bulls are all tethered or chained to their owners, and, given the nature of the event, you generally assume that the men and women who participate are responsible and educated pet owners; altruistic, too. Many adopted these animals to provide them a home and train them toward good behavior. They believe mistreatment of the pit bull by ignorant humans is the problem, not the breed itself.
But the Maryland Court of Appeals holds quite a different view.
"When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous," the court ruled last week in a case stemming from a 2007 attack on a Towson boy. Previously, a plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit had to show that the attacking dog had a record of aggressive behavior. Now, it's sufficient to say that the attack was by a pit bull. It doesn't matter if the dog had no priors.
The opinion is bloody with examples of pit bull attacks, as far back as 1916, in Maryland and elsewhere. The evidence shows clearly that such attacks are disproportionate to the number of pit bulls in society, that they inflict far more damage than other dogs, and that their attacks are associated with a higher risk of death. Pit bull jaws are three times stronger than those of a German Shepard.
Among many reports cited in the opinion is one from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. It found that, from 1979 through 1996, dog attacks resulted in more than 300 fatalities in the U.S.; most of the victims were children. During part of that time, 1981 through 1992, "pit bull-type dogs" were involved in approximately a third of the deaths.
The court noted that 12 states already have taken some form of action to make owners and landlords responsible for pit bull attacks. Some jurisdictions, includingPrince George's County, banned the breed. The Albuquerque Humane Society in New Mexico does not take pit bulls "because of their potential for attacks on other animals and people."
Aileen Gabbey, its executive director, told me that the Maryland SPCA had no plans to stop accepting, training, neutering and adopting out pit bulls, though she acknowledged that "everyone is talking to their lawyers" about the Court of Appeals ruling. She disagreed with it, saying the court had painted pit bulls with too broad a brush. The pits bulls she sees are "victims ? abused, forced to fight, given up."
That's admirable altruism ? the desire to be humane to mistreated animals, even those associated with vicious mauling. But the SPCA and all others inclined to rescue pit bulls ought to read the court ruling. It makes clear, if it wasn't already, that pit bulls are four-legged time bombs. You live with them, you live with risk ? and, as it should be, you take on serious liability for the suffering of others.
Dan Rodricks' column appears each Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. He is the host of Midday on WYPR-FM. His email isdan.rodricks@baltsun.com.
Re: Pitt bulls: own them at your own risk
I *just* read this one. I like Dan Rodricks as much as the next guy. He came to my school when I was in 3rd grade. And I know he writes an opinion column. But fcuk if he isn't completely ignorant of facts, statistics, studies, reality, etc.
Any breed has individuals who have been aggressive and attacked. I love that he completely ignores this and writes this column as if no other breed has ever attacked another dog or a person.
My Lunch Blog
I'm terrified.
This 65-lb dog is afraid of my 15-lb baby and gets bossed around by my 40-lb Aussie shepherd.
Well, if the Sun is going to publish garbage like this then no wonder nobody reads it. Also - what exactly is a 'pit bull-type' dog?
My Pit is soooo dangerous he allows my nephew to boss him around.
Among many reports cited in the opinion is one from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. It found that, from 1979 through 1996, dog attacks resulted in more than 300 fatalities in the U.S.; most of the victims were children. During part of that time, 1981 through 1992, "pit bull-type dogs" were involved in approximately a third of the deaths.
Pit bull type dogs-i.e. someone called a dog a pit bull, whether it was that breed of terrier or not. There are something like 20 different breeds of dogs that the "general public" would reference as a pit bull (including labradors, dogos, mastiffs, etc....). The studies are flawed because the reporting is flawed.
A presenter for the National Canine Research Council, Don Cleary, said three dozen.
Probably one of any of these many breeds:
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
So... 25+ kinds of dogs. All of them medium to large in size. Who committed 1/3 of attacks. Hmm. Sounds... pretty normal to me.
40/112
My neighbor's boxer ran out and killed a dog that was being walked on the sidewalk in front of its house.
I call shenanigans on labs. I knew a lot of labs with aggression/anxiety issues when I worked at the clinic. I'd like an investigation into the true % of pet-worthy labs in terms of being good around small children and stressful situations.
Plus, don't pittbull type dogs make up a third of dog breeds people generally own?
It's like that stat about how most accidents happen within 10 miles of home, yanno, because most of us tend to drive 10 miles of our home anyway.
Click me, click me!
Regarding this court decision - I don't have any problem making dog bite a strict liability offense. Singling out one particular breed and saying dog bite by that breed only is a strict liability offense is just ridiculous.
As a side, my DH actually believes that pit bulls are undeniably more dangerous than other dogs. I've tried for years to convince him otherwise by showing him things that have been pointed out here (esp. the "pit-bull type dog" comments), but he just won't have it. He swears he's never had a bad experience with one but I'm skeptical.
My Cooking Blog
I completely agree with this.
Isn't every dog "own at your own risk?" Our Border Collie could go crazy tomorrow and bite our kid. That's the chance that we take being a parent and a dog owner.
actually, I think that's true of pretty much any "purebred" dog... there are a lot of bad qualities that get magnified by the breeding process.
Lab mixes, OTOH, are a whole other can of worms.
I am the 99%.
What annoys me is that it's a bad decision in itself and Rodricks takes it like its the Bible. "people should read the decision.". I did read it and it made me want to throw things.
Strict liability for dog bites I'm okay with, but singling out any one breed is just dumb, if for no other reason than everyone starts throwing out other breeds that they "know" are just as dangerous which misses the whole point. It's not really about the breeds. It's the dog and the owner.
Reputable breeders look for and breed the best examples of their breeds both in form and temperament. I can't stress enough here the word "reputable." the byb who may love the breed but really has no idea what the best qualities are could be putting out not so great health or temperament qualities.
Mixed dogs have just as good of a chance of picking up bad genetic traits as bad.