Animal Advocacy Groups Oppose Maryland's Pit Bull Judgment
The judiciary's opinion that pit bulls are violent should go through the legislature, says U.S. Humane Society.
Photos
The Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling declaring pit bulls inherently dangerous and holding their owners liable in the event of attack is opposed by the Humane Society, regional rescue groups and state lawmakers.
“We believe that the court overstepped its authority,” said Betsy McFarland of the Humane Society of the United States.
The court ruled last week that in a 2007 pit bull attack on a boy in Towson, the owner was liable on the grounds that pit bulls and pit bull mixes are inherently dangerous.
By common law, persons trying to file suit against a dog owner would have to prove the dog in question had a history of violence. Now, if the owner or landlord has knowledge that the dog is pit bull or part pit bull, the owner or landlord is accountable.
"A seismic shift in Maryland law of this nature should be undertaken by the legislature, not judges," McFarland said. "The legislature should conduct appropriate fact-finding and hearings, consider the available science, and make a measured, non-emotional decision on this important policy issue.”
The Baltimore Humane Society, based in Reisterstown, said it has already experienced fallout since the ruling last week, reported The Baltimore Sun.
"We're getting calls from people who are getting calls from their landlords telling them to move out," Jen Swanson, executive director at the Baltimore Humane Society, told The Baltimore Sun.
The Maryland SPCA is also opposed to the ruling, stating that animals should be judged on behavior rather than breed.
“This determination should be made based on evidence on an individual animal's temperament and behavior, not breed,” wrote the Maryland SPCA on its Facebook page.
Complicating the matter is the fact that "pit bull" is not a breed, according to the American Kennel Club.
The temperament of American pit bulls, American Staffordshire terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers—commonly referred to as "pit bulls"—is on par with that of Yorkshire terriers and Basset hounds, according to the American Temperament Test Society.
“We feel that pet owners are the solution to preventing dog bites and attacks,” said the Maryland SPCA. “We are worried that this ruling could result in more dog abandonments and fewer adoptions at area shelters and rescue groups."
Maryland's recent ruling on pit bulls is getting national attention; it made the CBS This Morning broadcast Thursday in a segment entitled "Pit Bull Controversy."
The state's ruling could be challenged if the Lutherville defendants who owned the dog in the Towson case from 2007 appeal it in a federal court. Their lawyer was not immediately available for comment.
In the meantime, Maryland lawmakers are planning to take action as well, according to Delegate Frank Turner, D-Howard County.
"I do believe that legislation will be introduced in January 2013 that will modify the Maryland Court of Appeals decision," wrote Turner in a letter to constituents. "Until then we have to live by the ruling of the court."
In This article
-
-
Baltimore Humane Society
1601 Nicodemus Rd, Reisterstown, MD -
Maryland SPCA
3300 Falls Rd, Baltimore, MD
Lucy Muir
9:03 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
The humane society cannot reject behavioral genetics with regards to dog breeding and then claim it favors "science based" decisions.
The humane society is the body resorting to baseless emotional pleas. It needs to review the principle of "common law" in American jurisprudence.
Tom Sharp
1:50 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
Pit bulls, dangerous? Who would have thunk it?
This is just law catching up with common sense. Many insurance companies for years have not allowed landlords to lease to tenants with a variety of dogs, including pit bulls. Comparing pit bulls to just about any other dog is just preposterous. Any dog can snap, but pit bulls are one of the few that can take down their adult owners. Could other dogs fit this category, sure, but those other dogs are no where near as popular and, hence, there are fewer documented cases of deaths and maulings, like the nine that the Court of Appeals noted in their opinion. If other dangerous breeds become popular, then they deserve it too. This is not a "ban" on pit bulls, and if they are such good dogs as their owners claim, then they should have no fear of being sued when their dog mauls a child in their neighborhood. This just finally makes them responsible for it when it inevitably does happen. Pit bull owners finally have to put their money where their mouth has been for so long.
Clay Hund
2:48 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
All pet owners should be responsible for their pets actions, including all breeds. This singles out a few different breeds and does more harm then good. If you understood BSL, you would know that this law does more ham then good. Although not a ban, it still targets certain breeds, and cause people to fear it more, making the breed more attractive to thugs. It is a difficult and sensitive issue that many do not understand the side effects, and increases public fear. And with pit bulls, there are easily 20 other breeds, including mastiffs, german shepherds, huskies, chows, and many other that are restricted from certain insurance agencies. There are well known insurance companies out there that do not discriminate, and because my original insurance company discriminated, not only did they loose me as customer for my homeowners insurance, but they lost me with auto and life insurance as well. Guess what, I saved money and they lost me forever, or until they change their ways. I give it 6 months until it is repealed, after the states courts are tied up and millions of dollars later.
MsCanine
11:36 am on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Amen Tom. Adopt a dog from a breed that doesn't have a rap sheet a mile long like Pits. No drama, just a nice dog that your family and neighborhood will enjoy.
Clay Hund
2:42 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
Pit bulls are not dangerous dogs at all. It is bad owners that make pit bulls mean, just as they could do with any other breed, especially a dog of size and power. Use and abuse anything the wrong way, and the circumstances will no be good. And by the courts making pit bulls inherently dangerous, it just markets pit bulls to the very people we wouldn't want owning them. No such thing as an inherently dangerous dog, and anyone that knows dogs well and has been around pit bulls, knows that they are not dangerous under responsible ownership. Just as the article states, pit bulls have the same temperments as very popular family friendly dogs. Anyone that buys into all the myths and hype, is willing to spread these rumors, isn't too intelligent, because it increases the pit bull population with bad people, or makes owning a pit bull an inconvenience, to where now they just move on to a much larger, stronger breeds, such as mastiffs or rottweilers. This punishes all pit bulls and owners, when most pit bulls will live life without incidence. Labs are actually the breed for the most attacks in the US. The last three dogs to have killed people were a lab, a lab mix, and a husky. And besides that, fatalities by dogs are extremely rare and you would be much more likely to die by falling coconuts of a stray bullet from a hunter. This is discrimination, and it's too bad the people that make these laws don't have any experience with pit bulls, otherwise the ruling would have been differnt
Tom Sharp
6:34 pm on Monday, May 7, 2012
I apologize for being not "too intelligent" and spreading the supposed misconception that they are dangerous. Hopefully your post will dissuade thugs from buying these gentle beasts or maybe even trick a few into putting them up for adoption in favor of a killer labradoodle.