More on Marylands Pitt Bull law
Marian Meyers here - legislative aide to Delegate Sophocleus Please note the following information: Delegate SUPPORTS Delegate Cardin's Legislation which is House Bill: HB 1804, entitled: Courts - Dangerous Dog Presumption - Specific Breed Prohibition Delegate Jon Cardin Introduces Emergency Bill to Overturn Pit Bull Ruling ANNAPOLIS (5/11/12) - Delegate Jon S. Cardin (11th District, Baltimore County) has worked with the Humane Society to draft an appropriate legislative response to the recent Maryland Court of Appeals decision deeming pit bulls inherently dangerous, Tracey v. Solesky. This overbroad ruling will have terrible consequences: far-reaching presumptive liability for owners and non-owners (property owners) will create great expense and keep dogs with no prior history of misbehavior in already overcrowded shelters. The ruling also applies to pit bull mixes - without any legal definition - resulting in great uncertainty and potential abuse of the vague, overbroad, new legal standard. Waiting to rectify this decision until the January 2013 session could be disastrous. Cardin hopes the bill will be taken up as soon as possible as an emergency measure: either during special session next week or a potential second special session later this summer. Meanwhile, the real possibility of liability for potential incidents is causing landlords to force these dog owners out of their properties, and keeping current and potential dog owners from adopting dogs with pit bull bloodlines. This ruling will further exasperate overcrowding in shelters. Last month's Court of Appeals ruling no longer requires a victim of a pit bull attack to show that a dog's owner knew it had a history of being dangerous to make a civil claim in court; the victim must show only that the owner or landlord knew a dog was part pit bull. Opponents of the ruling argue that it unfairly targets pit bull owners and the landlords who rent to them. They say legislation should be based on a dog's behavior, not the dog's breed. The ruling will discourage landlords from renting to pit bull owners and diminish chances that the dogs will be adopted because of liability concerns. The ruling may also unfairly target other dog owners whose dogs are misidentified. On April 26, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case Tracey v. Solesky designating all dogs identified as pit bulls and pit bull mixes inherently dangerous, holding their owners or anyone with the right to control their presence on the premises liable for damages, without any showing that such individuals knew - or should have realized -- that the dog was dangerous. This breed-specific rule is a massive shift in Maryland law, based on little more than fear-based speculation. It is also unprecedented. While many states have strict liability rules for dog owners, none of these states single out a specific breed, and none extend this liability so far beyond owners as did the Court in this case. While it's obvious that an owner should be responsible for the actions of his or her dog, this principle has never been extended to landlords, veterinarians, kennel owners, and other non-owners who simply failed to "exclude" a dog from certain premises. Moreover, laws dealing with dangerous dogs are typically established by the legislatures, after proper fact finding and hearings, not by the courts. Families with dogs are already being torn apart because of this ruling, in instances when landlords tell tenants that they must choose between their dog(s) or their home. Thousands more will be harmed as knowledge of the ruling spreads, and as eviction processes take place over the coming weeks and months. Once dogs are removed from people's homes, moreover, they will inevitably land at the steps of an already over-stressed animal shelter system where many of them will likely be euthanized. This tragic cycle will not end until the ruling is overturned. According to the Humane Society, the list of people who could be liable under this ruling is nearly endless and includes municipal and private animal care and control agencies, landlords and property owners, veterinary clinics, boarding facilities, groomers, doggie day care centers, transportation companies, restaurants, animal rescue organizations, and more. The animal sheltering community in Maryland is bracing for a major hit, and their resources - including taxpayer dollars that fund municipal agencies - will be drained as they are forced to deal with the backlash from this case. Likewise, small business owners who provide services for pets and their owners are already reporting a substantial loss in their business because they are no longer able to accept dogs that could be described as pit bulls or pit bull mixes. In addition to a loss in business, liability insurance may now be more difficult to obtain for business owners who have the authority to control the presence of any dog potentially resembling pit bulls or pit bull mixes on their property. Said Delegate Cardin regarding the urgency of this measure, "The agenda for the special session will be limited and the General Assembly has many pressing issues that must be addressed, but this decision will have sweeping and immediate effects on huge numbers of Maryland residents, small business owners, and municipal and private animal control and sheltering agencies. Clarifying the scope of liability is imperative, and waiting until January could result in tragic outcomes - for people and dogs." The decision resulted from an incident in 2007, when 10-year-old Dominic Solesky of Towson was attacked by a pit bull. It is not that I don't believe that many of this breed have seriously harmed children and adults but I have seen huskeys, mixed breeds mastiffs etc do damage. I think when a pitt attacks (and I hate that term they are am staff's!!) it makes 10 news channels but another breed not so. I am so afraid they will go crazy and attack my beloved breed the german shepherd dog I had to break a fight up between atticus and a deaf foster dog (she went after him) and he bit me!! Trying to defend himself I did have to go to an urgent care (the next day) and get antibiotics and an updated teatnus I was not there 10 min when the local police showed up I was so mad and told them it was stupid stupid. So now does my sweet baby have a dog bite record?? I have to check It was not turned into animal controll. Here are some facts Dog bite statistics •An estimated 4.7 million dog bites occur in the U.S. each year2,3 •Nearly 800,000 dog bites require medical care2 •Approximately 92% of fatal dog attacks involved male dogs, 94% of which were not neutered1 •Approximately 25% of fatal dog attacks involved chained dogs1 •Approximately 71% of bites occur to the extremities (arms, legs, hands, feet)2 •Approximately two-thirds of bites occurred on or near the victim’s property, and most victims knew the dog •The insurance industry pays more than $1 billion in dog-bite claims each year3 •At least 25 different breeds of dogs have been involved in the 238 dog-bite-related fatalities in the U.S.4 •Approximately 24% of human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off of their owners’ property4 •Approximately 58% of human deaths involved unrestrained dogs on their owners’ property4 Look at the huge number of fatal dog attacks that involve male, non-neutered dogs. The most effective law that Maryland could pass would be one stating that "owners of male, non-neutered dogs should be assumed to know (i.e for legal purposes) that their dogs present the most potential danger." Then the landlords and the fundraisers and the shelters etc. could significantly reduce risk by banning this group. Statistically, owners of dogs who let them run unrestrained on their own property should also know (legally) that this is a large risk, representing over half of fatal dog attacks. So get them boys wacked (owners too) and get these dogs off of chains!!! This is just FYI so people know what is going on in my state  |
|
|
| Poor pits... Next they will be blamed for the black hole in the middle of our galaxy... |
| Imagine if you replaced Pitbull with OES? >>Marianne |
| You should not go into a garden with a dog without meeting it with the owner. Dog thinks who are you & what are you doing here so its protecting its owners & the land. Even its a family pet it will protect so that is one issue. Other should be to the owners & not down to the dog. In the UK a new law has come out that the owners will get a 18 month jail sentence. This has put the issue into the owners hands & not the dogs or type of dog. As I said in recent post its the morons who buy & sell these type of dogs ( status symbol ) so the 25% of the breed is not managed very well so the other 75% will suffer but these do gooders don't take this in account. All dogs will bite you if not looked after and trained . Maybe be if you are under 21 you are not allowed to own this type of dog also you need a license to own this type of dog so if you have a crim record/under aged also when your puppy is born & you are the new owners you have to take your dog too classes |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|