Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
727LOVER
Topic Author
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 7:54 pm

If you live in Maryland, and you have a pit bull, watch out! I wonder if this will spread to other states.


It's my understanding that you can be turned down for a rental if you have a pit bull, even if the landlord allows other dogs. That's what what I was hearing. Is that true?



The new ruling imposes strict liability onto Maryland owners whose pit bulls attack people. The decision makes it easier for victims to sue and recover against pit bull owners. The original case started when a 4-year-old Prince George's County boy was viciously mauled by a pit bull. The court's opinion applies to both pure and cross-bred pit bulls

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...2012-decided-idUS76249011720120504



Pit bulls are already outlawed in some parts of Maryland. The new ruling, however, makes ownership of a pit bull a liability risk anywhere in the state



http://www.inquisitr.com/229800/pit-...ly-dangerous-rules-maryland-court/
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
desertjets
Posts: 7693
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 8:02 pm

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
It's my understanding that you can be turned down for a rental if you have a pit bull, even if the landlord allows other dogs. That's what what I was hearing. Is that true?

If a landlord accepts dogs, you'll find many with a disclaimer that they will not accept certain breeds -- usually including Pits, Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds.



I understand the liability risk of aggressive dogs, but I don't particularly like singling out specific breeds. All breeds improperly bred, raised and trained are a risk. Unfortunately Pits/Staffies have been victims of some pretty bad breeding and some awful owners who buy the dogs for the image.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22204
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 8:13 pm

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 1):
I understand the liability risk of aggressive dogs, but I don't particularly like singling out specific breeds. All breeds improperly bred, raised and trained are a risk. Unfortunately Pits/Staffies have been victims of some pretty bad breeding and some awful owners who buy the dogs for the image.

Very true. Both the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Society of Veterinary Behavioral Medicine oppose breed-specific legislation. I wonder why lawmakers are uninterested in listening to the experts.

The pitbull was bred to be a nursemaid for little children, although it will guard the kids from a perceived theat. Certain unscrupulous breeders and owners have bred and trained some pits to be aggressive. It is not fair that good dogs and responsible owners should be made to suffer because of the actions of others.

One problem with breed-specific legislation is that some overzealous cop need only call a dog a "pitbull" and then the dog is put down. Doesn't matter if the dog isn't reallya pitbull. Because there is no one breed standard or definition of what is and isn't a pitbull, an unscrupulous animal control officer could simply take out a personal grudge against someone by declaring their dog to be a "pitbull" and removing/euthing it. Such a case recently happened in Ireland where a purebred Cattle Dog was called a "pitbull," forcibly removed from the family, and euthanized. There were no repercussions.

The proper solution to this problem is: 1) Ban the breeding of dogs except by certain licenses. 2) Mandate that all pitbulls be spayed/neutered. Dogs may be impounded until the spay/neuter surgery is done. 3) Aggressively investigate and prosecute those suspected of dog fighting or breeding dogs for fighting.

Every pitbull I've ever met has been an awesome dog, usually a loving goofball who would never hurt anyone. I used to be anti-pitbull, but I was educated and I've changed my mind.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22204
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 8:19 pm

-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11231
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 8:32 pm

Sorry, I have absolutely no problem with limiting certain breeds of dog. It's not just the owner, it's the dog itself.

Pits are just not as good/human-safe a dog as Labs. Period. Jaws that lock, jaw muscles that are as strong as they are, and a body that is evolved to attack and keep attacking, Pits and others that are similar are just more dangerous.

If you believe in the need for gun control you cannot seriously not support breed specific dog restrictions. Some dogs absolutely require more owner care and training but even then are more dangerous than other breeds. And statistics bear that out.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-05-04 13:44:56]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
Molykote
Posts: 1240
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 8:37 pm

Quoting 727LOVER (Thread starter):
The new ruling, however, makes ownership of a pit bull a liability risk anywhere in the state
Quoting DesertJets (Reply 1):
All breeds improperly bred, raised and trained are a risk.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Both the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Society of Veterinary Behavioral Medicine oppose breed-specific legislation.

Make all dogs (or even all pets) a liability risk. Problem solved. If a dog attacks anyone I don't know why the breed (rather than the severity of the attack) matters.

I think there's an odd parallel here with other issues of personal responsibility (gun ownership for example, much as I'm not trying to introduce a polarizing analog). I don't care what guns, dogs, or vehicles you own... so long as they don't unjustly injure me! If a certain gun, dog, or vehicle is of questionable societal value and high risk of danger, it's up to the owner to mitigate that risk (and to be held accountable if they can't).

Growing up my family had ~5 dogs between my ages of 0 and 20. Though I've seen the admirable qualities of dogs, I personally have no interest in owning one because I think they are disgusting and much like owning a perpetual 3 year old  
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11231
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 8:46 pm

Quoting Molykote (Reply 5):
I don't know why the breed (rather than the severity of the attack) matters.

If you have two dogs and one of the breeds is responsible for 90% percent of all attacks on people, which are you going to charge more to insure?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 8:47 pm

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 1):
Unfortunately Pits/Staffies have been victims of some pretty bad breeding and some awful owners who buy the dogs for the image.

Exactly. More Pit Bulls than you would believe end up in shelters where most are euthanized. These people who buy them to boost their manhood (or protect their drug stash) keep them for awhile to impress their friends then when they tire of them they usually just dump them somewhere. They aren't even decent enough to bring them to the shelter on their own.

You can find pit bulls usually out in the yard chained to a tree where they live their life. But most of these stupid people don't know about "barrier syndrome" where a dog gets so frustrated by seeing things in it's surroundings and not being able to go and investigate. Eventually they turn mean because of this and end up attacking anything that comes within the range of their chain.
Usually it's a neighbor young kid that gets to close and is severely bitten or klilled.

Working with dogs as much as I do, I believe the pit bull can be a good dog (but with risks) and the owner must be a strong person who knows how to properly train dogs. I have seen some very obedient and nice Pits, but I wouldn't have one around a young child.

I believe pit bulls should be banned not because of the aggressiveness, but because of the type of people who own them.
Mostly uneducated, low class types.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11231
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 8:49 pm

Quoting type-rated (Reply 7):
I believe pit bulls should be banned not because of the aggressiveness, but because of the type of people who own them.

  

It is truly the combination that is lethal. However a loaded gun is still always more dangerous and potentially deadly than an unloaded one. There is just no way around that fact.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
Molykote
Posts: 1240
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 8:51 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
Quoting Molykote (Reply 5):
I don't know why the breed (rather than the severity of the attack) matters.
Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
If you have two dogs and one of the breeds is responsible for 90% percent of all attacks on people, which are you going to charge more to insure?

Within my minimal education about dogs I am fairly certain that a pit bull would/should cost more to insure.

Should an owner choose to own a pit bull, he/she should be prepared to bite off (ha) all that such ownership entails (higher risk of ownership, elevated insurance premiums, etc).

However, I don't see how that is inconsistent with any of my previous comments.
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
WestJet747
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 8:58 pm

Very sad day in Maryland for dog owners.

When I was a kid I had my face bloodied by schnauzer that attacked me. I literally had a hole right through my lip that you could see through. But nobody was crying foul saying "ban schnauzers in Ontario!"  
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
Because there is no one breed standard or definition of what is and isn't a pitbull, an unscrupulous animal control officer could simply take out a personal grudge against someone by declaring their dog to be a "pitbull" and removing/euthing it. Such a case recently happened in Ireland where a purebred Cattle Dog was called a "pitbull," forcibly removed from the family, and euthanized. There were no repercussions.

A woman recently took on legislation against pitbull's and won (in Florida I think?). Because the definition of a "pitbull" is so loose, the burden of proof was on the state to prove the dog was a pitbull, rather than her having to prove it is not. Of course, the state was not able to do so, and she was able to keep her beloved companion who she described in court as her "best friend". This set a great precedent for other owners in my opinion.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
The proper solution to this problem is: 1) Ban the breeding of dogs except by certain licenses. 2) Mandate that all pitbulls be spayed/neutered. Dogs may be impounded until the spay/neuter surgery is done. 3) Aggressively investigate and prosecute those suspected of dog fighting or breeding dogs for fighting.

Numbers 1 and 3 are already on the books where I live, but unfortunately they are of low priority to the authorities, which is why they are terribly abused.

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
Sorry, I have absolutely no problem with limiting certain breeds of dog. It's not just the owner, it's the dog itself.

Totally false. There's a right way and a wrong way to raise a dog, no matter what the breed. I've been surrounded by dogs my whole life, and I can assure you it's nurture over nature.

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
Pits are just not as good/human-safe a dog as Labs. Period. Jaws that lock, jaw muscles that are as strong as they are, and a body that is evolved to attack and keep attacking, Pits and others that are similar are just more dangerous.

The same can be said about humans. But I doubt you're willing to make the argument that there are certain segments of the population who should have their breeding limited.
Flying refined.
 
Molykote
Posts: 1240
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 9:02 pm

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 10):
The same can be said about humans. But I doubt you're willing to make the argument that there are certain segments of the population who should have their breeding limited.

I think it's a stretch for anyone to equate the management of animal populations with human rights. I absolutely don't think that we as a society should tolerate animal abuse. However, I can't make the leap that is being insinuated above.
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22204
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 9:05 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):

Sorry, I have absolutely no problem with limiting certain breeds of dog. It's not just the owner, it's the dog itself.

So you know more than the AVMA and the ASVBM?

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
Pits are just not as good/human-safe a dog as Labs.

And yet in 2010 labs were #3 on the dog bite list.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 10):
The same can be said about humans. But I doubt you're willing to make the argument that there are certain segments of the population who should have their breeding limited.

Well, actually... but that's for a different thread.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
WestJet747
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 9:07 pm

Quoting Molykote (Reply 11):
I think it's a stretch for anyone to equate the management of animal populations with human rights. I absolutely don't think that we as a society should tolerate animal abuse. However, I can't make the leap that is being insinuated above.

By no means am I making that suggestion, it would be inhuman. I'm making the point that pitbulls are no more dangerous than a person, yet so many are quick to jump on the "ban pitbulls" bandwagon without any great knowledge of how to raise a dog. You can raise a "successful" dog all the same you can raise a successful child.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
And yet in 2010 labs were #3 on the dog bite list.

   Exactly. Labs are used by many for protection as well.
Flying refined.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11231
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 9:10 pm

Quoting Molykote (Reply 9):
Within my minimal education about dogs I am fairly certain that a pit bull would/should cost more to insure.

Should an owner choose to own a pit bull, he/she should be prepared to bite off (ha) all that such ownership entails (higher risk of ownership, elevated insurance premiums, etc).

However, I don't see how that is inconsistent with any of my previous comments.

I guess my only question is how do you enforce the increased cost requirement?

How do you force people that have a dangerous dog to have and keep up the insurance on having such and animal? How do you enforce owners getting training before getting the dog or properly training and managing the dog after they get it?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11231
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 9:14 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
So you know more than the AVMA and the ASVBM?

Yes, and it is simply because I am not conflicted by other obligations. They are as much a marketing group and are beholden to owners and those businesses that profit from dog ownership. Their policies and pronouncements are as conflicted as the NFL's are on the effects and causes of concussions.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
Molykote
Posts: 1240
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 9:15 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
Pits are just not as good/human-safe a dog as Labs.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
And yet in 2010 labs were #3 on the dog bite list.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 13):
  Exactly. Labs are used by many for protection as well.

I'd imagine the Lab population is relatively huge and is making that statistic misleading (unless your list was compiled by bite rate). I'd imagine more people died driving a Volvo than a Lotus Elise last year.

In any case, I noted above that dog attacks should simply be treated as "dog attacks" (and judged on severity) rather than being considered by breed. I have no dog in this hunt  
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
Molykote
Posts: 1240
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 9:21 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 14):
I guess my only question is how do you enforce the increased cost requirement?

How do you force people that have a dangerous dog to have and keep up the insurance on having such and animal? How do you enforce owners getting training before getting the dog or properly training and managing the dog after they get it?

Tugg

I was speaking more in principal than in practical terms, but a fair point. If dogs are licensed, I don't think it would be a unreasonable to insure a dog according to license number.

One could argue that insurance could/should be "optional" for dog ownership, but obviously the financial burden of being held accountable for one attack could bankrupt many people.

I should disclaim that I know relatively little about the legal nuts and bolts of owning a dog.
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11231
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 9:26 pm

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 10):
Totally false. There's a right way and a wrong way to raise a dog, no matter what the breed. I've been surrounded by dogs my whole life, and I can assure you it's nurture over nature.

Two dogs, a Pit and a Chihuahua, both are beaten everyday for the first three years of their life. You have to put one of them in a room with your parents or children, Which dog do you choose? And if you don't like the size differential then lets use a Terrier instead of the Chihuahua .

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 10):
The same can be said about humans. But I doubt you're willing to make the argument that there are certain segments of the population who should have their breeding limited.

So you are comparing humans to dogs? Really? I take it then that you follow PETA's line that pets should not really be allowed and that the pet, I'm sorry, "partner" has the same rights as the people?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
And yet in 2010 labs were #3 on the dog bite list.

And who normally complains about people skewing and not completely stating statistics?

OK, number three on the list.... Out of how many dogs? What is the percentage of problems?


And I agree with

Quoting type-rated (Reply 7):

But how do you enforce that only "the right type of owner" adopts a pitbull or other "dangerous class" dog. All dags can be trained to be aggressive but some have natural tendencies towards aggressiveness and have to be trained away from it. How do you control that?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22204
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 10:24 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 18):
And who normally complains about people skewing and not completely stating statistics?

OK, number three on the list.... Out of how many dogs? What is the percentage of problems?

Significantly lower than pitbulls, obviously. What I am pointing out, however, is that using numbers and statistics rather than wisdom and education is the wrong way to go.

Statistically, Daschunds are a big biting group, too. But because they're little, they tend to be ignored. Chihuahuas, too.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15147
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 10:24 pm

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 1):
I understand the liability risk of aggressive dogs, but I don't particularly like singling out specific breeds.

Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it logically.

Dogs were bread for a reason, and that makes different dogs behave differently. There is no PC way to wash that fact out.

Tiny dogs tend to yip and aggressive ones snap at your hand or bite your ankles (ankle biters). Retrievers love water and are obsessed with birds, and don't tend to attack people (as they were bread for companionship while hunting). If they are threatened, they do everything they can to look tough, but don't actively attack. Pit Bulls and similar breads were bread for aggression and their strength. That's reality.

The vast majority of severe dog attacks in the USA are by pit bulls. The vast majority of dog on dog attacks involve pit bulls. The vast majority of dog on other animal attacks involve pit bulls and similar breeds like ridge backs.

Heck, my sister and brother have a ridge back pit mix, and she is super, super, super sweet to people, but will kill ANY animal it sees. She was never trained for aggression, never treated as such, but still broke through a plate glass window one day to kill a raccoon. And she is tough to handle when walking her if she sees another dog, but not impossible because she wasn't trained to be aggressive. It's just her natural instinct. And it's why she was never, ever left alone with any baby, and once the babies were born, spent her time in the basement and outside, not with the family. The risk was too great.

You can argue that it isn't the breed's fault, but that doesn't really matter. If it's the owner's fault or the breeder's fault or whatever, it still comes down to the reality that owning a pit bull or similar breed should be a great liability because it will require owners to take the care they need to, above and beyond the care you'd have to give another breed, to prevent it from attacking. If you do so, raise it correctly, restrain it correctly when walking it, keep it secure when not supervised, etc. you will have no problem.

Here in LA, the pit bull is very popular, as is the Chihahua. I see owners walking both all the time around here. And a great number (not all, of course) of those pit bulls are walked by "thugs" or thug wannabees of all races and creeds. Dressing like a thug, or tattooed with aggressive/gang tats, muscled up, etc.. They buy the dogs to look tough, and they are very likely treating them in a manner to promote aggression, because they have an aggressive attitude themselves. And that is partly why they are banned in many places, because it's easier to discriminate against the dog a thug might want to live with than the thug themselves. Equal protection laws protect the thug, but not the pit bull. It's a proxy in some cases, and just good liability control.

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
If you have two dogs and one of the breeds is responsible for 90% percent of all attacks on people, which are you going to charge more to insure?

Or refuse to insure? Pit Bulls are a choice. There is no need to own one for most people. Plenty of less aggressive and less dangerous breeds provide the same or better companionship and still offer a level of protection above and beyond what most would be robbers or attackers are willing to deal with. They were considered junkyard dogs for a reason: they were bread to protect large properties with extreme prejudice, not to sit around the house with a baby.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22204
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 10:34 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 20):
They were considered junkyard dogs for a reason: they were bread to protect large properties with extreme prejudice, not to sit around the house with a baby.

Incorrect. They were bred to sit around the house with the baby and keep him safe.

-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22204
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 10:36 pm

A.net is glitching on the link, so here's the text from the AVMA website. Sorry, mods, but I can't give a "fair use" excerpt and a link because A.net won't post the link.

Quote:

A man is out for a stroll in his community with his Bull Terrier. He is stopped by the local animal control officer and told that "pit bulls" are restricted from his community. The man cannot prove that his dog is not a pit bull-type dog and that it is a well-trained, household pet. The dog is confiscated and euthanatized.

Think it could never happen in your community? Although only one state currently has a statewide breed restriction (Ohio), hundreds of communities within the United States are actively pursuing breed bans and breed-restrictive legislation.

When Robert Duffy, executive director of the American Dog Owners Association, learned that breed banning attempts in Germany during the past year included approximately 16 breeds, he worried that the spectrum of breed banning in the United States could increase as incidents characterize certain breeds as dangerous.

"We get involved in many of these issues," he said, "writing to legislators, asking how animal control officers can be charged with enforcing breed bans and restrictions when they have little or no training to identify specific breeds. Even if they could, there is really no way of defining what a 'pit bull' is and isn't."

In an ADOA letter he sends to legislators across the country, Duffy cites approximately 15 breeds that are similar in appearance to breeds that have been targeted as dangerous. "Owners of these dogs would not take kindly to their dogs being misidentified and something bad happening to them as a result," he said. "In a lot of cases the animal control officer is the final judge."

Duffy has identified cities all over the country that are attempting to ban or restrict pit bull-type dogs, and, increasingly, Rottweilers. In October, the village of Broadview, Ill, passed a breed-restrictive ordinance adding Doberman Pinscher to those two categories. According to Duffy, Broadview is not a home rule state, and is therefore bound by Illinois law that doesn't allow for breed-restrictive ordinances. He said that Broadview's passing the ordinance, therefore, may be in violation of Illinois law. Broadview is not unique, however. Duffy added that many communities disregard state laws when pursuing these ordinances, which could open the door for lawsuits if an owner's pet is treated unjustly. Duffy has been keeping a close watch on the kinds of breed that are being singled out.

"Pit bull-type dogs, Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Terrier are among other breeds being targeted of late," he said. "Rare and mixed breeds are also victims."

According to Dr. Randall Lockwood, vice president of research and educational outreach for the Humane Society of the United States, "Constitutional and practical issues are raised in the enforcement of breed-specific ordinances because of difficulty inherent in determining breed with certainty."

Data in a report published in the Sept 15, 2000 issue of the JAVMA indicate that breed-specific legislation is not the solution to dog bite prevention. The report revealed that, during the past 20 years, at least 25 breeds of dog have been involved in 238 human fatalities. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were identified as being involved in 66 and 39 fatalities, respectively, over that 20-year period; however, other purebreds and crossbreds caused the remainder of fatalities.

Twenty-four percent of deaths involved dogs that were not restrained and were not on their owners' property, 58 percent of deaths involved dogs that were not restrained but were on their owners' property, 17 percent involved restrained dogs on their owners' property, and one percent involved a restrained dog off its owners' property.

Dr. Gail C. Golab, co-author of the study and assistant director of the AVMA Education and Research Division, confirmed, "Breeds responsible for human fatalities have varied over time. Since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds—including Dachshunds, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, and a Yorkshire Terrier—have been responsible for fatal attacks on people."

The authors of the study say that, although fatal human attacks may appear to be a breed-related problem, dogs of other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates.

"A dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive," Dr. Jeffrey Sacks, epidemiologist for the CDC, said. "Fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of dog bite injuries and shouldn't be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dangerous dogs."

Duffy said that when a breed is restricted in a community, or if certain breeds are put on the "bad dog" list, insurance rates for owners of those dogs become exorbitant.

"It's really a kind of banning," he said, "because the liability rates imposed are so great that most people can't afford the insurance. In some places, you can't even get liability insurance because you own a [dog of a] certain breed."

Inevitably, he says, owners who have trained, well-behaved dogs become affected by the small percentage of owners whose dogs have been involved in aggressive incidents.

"All the responsible owners of the breed are put to financial hardship," Duffy said. "Their insurance is likely to go right out the window."

Duffy would prefer to see communities adopt a law that takes all breeds of dog into consideration and is focused on penalizing the owner of the dog with the objectionable behavior.

Dr. Golab agrees. She favors consistent enforcement of generic, non-breed-specific, dangerous-dog laws with an emphasis on chronically irresponsible owners. She recommends increased enforcement of animal control ordinances such as leash laws and fencing requirements, prohibition of dog fighting, and neutering. Dr. Golab also emphasizes the value of educational programs for adults and children that teach pet selection strategies, pet care and responsibility, and bite prevention.

Pediatrician and medical epidemiologist Dr. Julie Gilchrist from the CDC also promotes the idea of responsible pet ownership. "Dog bite reduction strategies are more likely to be effective if they focus on reducing inappropriate dog and dog owner behaviors, regardless of the dog's breed, instead of on banning specific breeds."

The AVMA's dog bite prevention campaign continues to inform the public about techniques for avoiding dog bites, and to promote responsible pet ownership. Breeds don't need to be banned, but dog owners' irresponsible behavior should be.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15147
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 11:13 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):
The AVMA's dog bite prevention campaign continues to inform the public about techniques for avoiding dog bites, and to promote responsible pet ownership. Breeds don't need to be banned, but dog owners' irresponsible behavior should be.

It's the same thing, Doc. It's easy to say "regulate owners" but honestly, it's only practical AFTER the dog attacks. The easiest way to regulate the owner is to regulate the breed in the first place.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 21):
Incorrect. They were bred to sit around the house with the baby and keep him safe.

No they weren't. Not the modern breed, not it's ancestors.

Could it be trained to do so? Yes. Was it bread for that? No.

It was breed for fighting off larger animals and for fighting other dogs, and for protecting people from other people. Guard dogs, property protection, etc.. Mastiffs too. Fighting off larger animals that might threaten it's owner or the property is noble, but it makes it a danger because it will attack larger animals, including humans, without fear or thought for it's own safety. It was BREAD to do so. Over hundreds of years.

The problem is that the dog is not that good at discerning who is a threat. Possibly because the modern breed is so damaged by it's breeding history, who knows really. But we live in the real world, not the ideal world. You can work really hard at making your pit bull safe, but you have to work at making it so, and still treat it as if it is a threat to others, because it is.

Pit Bulls should be treated like trained Chimps or Tigers or other potentially deadly animals. Sure, they are trained, but they are also deadly and needed to be treated as such. If I see someone walking a pit, I worry for my safety and the safety of my small dog. And when the pit sees my small dog, the reaction is often frightening. It's the same reaction we would see from Wilson, my sister's pit/ridge back. The pit WANTS to come destroy our dog.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...-goats-in-palmdale,0,7073740.story
They were pets that got loose but now that they killed 42 goats at once, nobody is claiming them.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2011.php
5% of US dogs are pit bulls. They accounted for 75% of mauling deaths in 2011. But it's not the breed, it's the owner, because the owners of all other breeds are wonderful, and it's only pit bull owners who suck? So maybe we should ban anyone who wants to get a pit bull from getting one because it's more likely that's a sucky owner?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22204
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 11:18 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 24):
It's the same thing, Doc. It's easy to say "regulate owners" but honestly, it's only practical AFTER the dog attacks. The easiest way to regulate the owner is to regulate the breed in the first place.

And your credentials and research to support this are...?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 11:43 pm

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 10):
When I was a kid I had my face bloodied by schnauzer that attacked me. I literally had a hole right through my lip that you could see through. But nobody was crying foul saying "ban schnauzers in Ontario!"

How many schnauzer attacks have you heard of?

IMO, place all dogs as a liability risk.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22204
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Fri May 04, 2012 11:52 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 26):
How many schnauzer attacks have you heard of?

A fair number. They can be aggressive, too. It's just that thugs don't like them, so they don't get the attention that pit bulls do.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2796
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 12:12 am

Interesting that this came up today. I was just reading about this incident of a fatal dog attack in Santa Fe. Guess what breed is involved.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Loc...oved-the-breed---he-loved-the-dog-
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
WestJet747
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 12:23 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 18):
So you are comparing humans to dogs? Really? I take it then that you follow PETA's line that pets should not really be allowed and that the pet, I'm sorry, "partner" has the same rights as the people?

First off, I'm not a fan of PETA whatsoever. Those whack-jobs take the animal rights cause way further than it needs to go. So long as steak continues to be delicious I'll never support them.

Back on topic: Of course I'm comparing humans to dogs. I guess you missed my post right after that. Here it is again for your reference:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 13):
I'm making the point that pitbulls are no more dangerous than a person, yet so many are quick to jump on the "ban pitbulls" bandwagon without any great knowledge of how to raise a dog. You can raise a "successful" dog all the same you can raise a successful child.

I repeat, there are similarities in raising children as there is in raising dogs. Constructive discipline, consistency, love, etc. Conversely, you can screw up a dog all the same you can screw up a kid, by lacking the aforementioned. It's amazing what you can do when you drop your pre-conceived notions about certain breeds. In fact, one of the nicest dogs I've ever met was a Rottweiler (a breed that has a really bad reputation) that used to go to the same leash-free park as my dog.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 26):
How many schnauzer attacks have you heard of?

I've heard of a few. Granted not as many as "protection" dogs (for obvious reasons). Schnauzers are a type of dog that you really need to pay attention to in the early stages, otherwise they can become pretty temperamental.
Flying refined.
 
Cadet985
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 12:28 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
Sorry, I have absolutely no problem with limiting certain breeds of dog. It's not just the owner, it's the dog itself.

There is no such thing as a dog that is inherently dangerous. Hell....take a poodle, treat it like crap, beat it, etc., and it will be vicious as hell. Likewise, treat a dog properly and there are no problems. If you have no problems limiting certain breeds of dogs because they are dangerous, then you'd probably be for stricter laws for certain groups of people who tend to commit more crimes?

Punish the deed, not the breed.

Marc
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 1:26 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
It's not just the owner, it's the dog itself.

Guess you've never watched the dog whisperer.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 24):
Not the modern breed, not it's ancestors.

Yea, like Pete from the little rascals.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 28):
Guess what breed is involved.

You are obviously singling out the pit bull. A simple google search supports it. Dog kills family member You need to go five or six links down before a Pit Bull is mentioned.

But to agree with what others have said, don't judge the breed, judge the owner. Are Pits completely innocent? No. But neither are other large breeds.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
vc10
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2001 4:13 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 9:15 am

Here in the UK certain breeds are banned all together These Include

Pit Bull Terrier----- Japanese Tosa------Dogo Argentina-----Fila Brailiero.

This law came about after a number of horrific attacks by some of these dogs and the dog breeds were banned, however the problem was also with the type of people who were attracted to own these types of dogs.

We have a Border Collie who is as soft as a brush with us, but because he lives in an adult household I am always very careful of him when young childen are around as he could get very excited and accidentally hurt them

I hope the link works

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndC...nYourHome/AnimalsAndPets/DG_180098

littlevc10
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6317
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 9:47 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 30):
If you have no problems limiting certain breeds of dogs because they are dangerous, then you'd probably be for stricter laws for certain groups of people who tend to commit more crimes?

That's just absurd parallel, see reply # 11.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
So you know more than the AVMA and the ASVBM?

I suppose the NRA should be then the ultimate authority when it comes to issues of gun ownership.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):
"Fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of dog bite injuries and shouldn't be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dangerous dogs."

How many children bitten to death because of these freaking "pet lovers" being totally out of control is too many? I'd say the first one.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 10:41 am

People who buy Pit Bulls are inherently dangerous.
As a result, I support outlawing this breed of dog. Yes we all know that they aren't inherently dangerous buta vast majority of people buy these dogs to make them dangerous.
The Pit Bull Terrier can be trained to be much more vicious than a Yorkshire Terrier.
Bring back the Concorde
 
NASCARAirforce
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:27 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 11:50 am

Ozell, they are banned in Miami.

My mom's timeshare in Florida bans: German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Pitbulls and a couple other "agressive" breeds. My mom's dog has never been attacked by any of those types at dog parks and such, usually always were quite friendly - most of the agressive types at my mom's place are those little foo foo type dogs like Shitzus and little poodles
 
smittyone
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:55 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 12:23 pm

 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23710
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 4:31 pm

Quoting Molykote (Reply 5):
Make all dogs (or even all pets) a liability risk. Problem solved. If a dog attacks anyone I don't know why the breed (rather than the severity of the attack) matters.

Thank you! I have been nipped at by Labs, German Shepherds, Mastiffs and even a Jack Russel Terrier and been chased by Retrievers. I have a very close with three different Pit Bulls. None have ever been aggressive.

Doc: Your meme in reply #3, my Pit Bull is tan and white but looks EXACTLY like the one in the Superman outfit. Same smile and everything!
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8603
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 5:14 pm

I am a dog person and grew up with dogs. Never a pitbull, but I have with Mastiffs, a mix Dobberman-Huskie, two German Shepherds and two Rottweilers (the Rottweilers belonged to a friend of mine). Among others. (not all at the same time)

Never been bit by any of the big dogs other than the German Sheppard when they were puppies. The other ones, one a small mix-breed and another a fox terrier, have left their teeth marks on me more times than I care to count (ok, at times I may have deserved the bite    but many times they were totally gratuitous).

However, none of those have caused me as much pain as my girlfriend's cat. Ok, sometimes I deserve it too... but most of the time I don't. I'm not the only target, either.

The problem is owners. Any owner should be responsible for their pet's actions, regardless of breed, species, etc
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
WestJet747
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sat May 05, 2012 6:30 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 34):
The Pit Bull Terrier can be trained to be much more vicious than a Yorkshire Terrier.

What I think you mean to say is "The Pit Bull Terrier can be trained to be much more dangerous than a Yorkshire Terrier." You can easily train a yorky to be far more vicious than a properly trained pitbull. But an undisciplined pitbull can be much more dangerous because of it's superior physical build. One is not genetically more vicious than the other, just ask the two shi-tzus that live next door to me...

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 38):
However, none of those have caused me as much pain as my girlfriend's cat. Ok, sometimes I deserve it too... but most of the time I don't. I'm not the only target, either.

I'll never understand what the joy of owning a cat is...



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 38):
The problem is owners. Any owner should be responsible for their pet's actions, regardless of breed, species, etc


  
Flying refined.
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 06, 2012 2:40 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
And yet in 2010 labs were #3 on the dog bite list.

Nope, Labs have never been on the "dogs most likely to bite" list. But they have been the most popular dog in America for the past 18 years. There has to be a reason for that.

Read this!

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...s-and-maimings-merritt-clifton.php
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23710
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 06, 2012 5:35 am

Quoting type-rated (Reply 40):
Read this!

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...n.php

Except I notice a lot of the citiations are from the 1980s and earlier. The "pit bull scare" is a recent thing. People have not been scared of dogs until recently. And, recently, it is pit bulls and rottwielers. My aunt's beagle nipped at me. Should she be put down? I mean, only vicious breeds take a bite at humans. Therefore, beagles are vicious. My cousin's bull mastiff beared it's teeth at me, therefore all bull mastiffs are vicious dogs and should be put down.

How many thousands of pit bulls are in this country and how many actually maul anyone? One is too many, but look at the per centages. I have a pit bull sleeping next to me as I type this and have no problem with him sleeping next to me.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Max Q
Posts: 8956
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 06, 2012 5:55 am

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):


Sorry, I have absolutely no problem with limiting certain breeds of dog. It's not just the owner, it's the dog itself.

Pits are just not as good/human-safe a dog as Labs. Period. Jaws that lock, jaw muscles that are as strong as they are, and a body that is evolved to attack and keep attacking, Pits and others that are similar are just more dangerous.

If you believe in the need for gun control you cannot seriously not support breed specific dog restrictions. Some dogs absolutely require more owner care and training but even then are more dangerous than other breeds. And statistics bear that out.

Well said, those who deny Pit Bulls are dangerous are severely deluded (and usually P Bull owners before an attack)
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15829
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 06, 2012 6:39 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
I wonder why lawmakers are uninterested in listening to the experts

Sadly, because experts don't elect lawmakers, paranoid voters do.

Remember Petey, the cute dog from the "Our Gang/Little Rascals" series?



Yeah, he was a pit bull too...
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
Max Q
Posts: 8956
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 06, 2012 6:41 am

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 43):

Sadly, because experts don't elect lawmakers, paranoid voters do.

Remember Petey, the cute dog from the "Our Gang/Little Rascals" series?


All that means is they were lucky.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
WestJet747
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:43 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 06, 2012 2:16 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 42):
Well said, those who deny Pit Bulls are dangerous are severely deluded (and usually P Bull owners before an attack)

So we're deluded because you don't understand how dog training works? Your expert opinion is duly noted  
Quoting Max Q (Reply 44):
All that means is they were lucky.

They weren't "lucky". Petey's handlers obviously trained him very well (not hard to do by the way if done properly).
Flying refined.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23710
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 06, 2012 3:58 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 44):
All that means is they were lucky.

Yes, they were! Pit bulls are very intelligent and caring dogs. When trained properly, they are harmless as a lab. How many pit bulls are in this country and how many attack? I live in the Bay Area and get news updates from Portland, and I have not heard of a pit bull attack in a few years. But, they are dangerous?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 06, 2012 5:52 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
My aunt's beagle nipped at me. Should she be put down? I mean, only vicious breeds take a bite at humans. Therefore, beagles are vicious

Your comparison is meaningless because a beagle doesn't bite with the ferocity a pit bull has when biting.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 41):
I have a pit bull sleeping next to me as I type this and have no problem with him sleeping next to me.

I thought so... and how many tattoos do you have?
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 06, 2012 7:05 pm

Quoting tugger (Reply 6):
If you have two dogs and one of the breeds is responsible for 90% percent of all attacks on people, which are you going to charge more to insure?

Where do you have the data to support that is the case.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 7):
I believe pit bulls should be banned not because of the aggressiveness, but because of the type of people who own them.

I think that is the wrong conclusions. I think you should need a "drivers licence" before owning a dog.

Not because some dogs are aggressive if not trained correctly. I want it because too many dogs are treated poorly and abandoned with no concern.

Quoting tugger (Reply 15):
Yes, and it is simply because I am not conflicted by other obligations.

  

Why should facts matter...
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 23710
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Maryland Court: "Pit Bulls Inherently Dangerous"

Sun May 06, 2012 7:11 pm

Quoting type-rated (Reply 47):
Your comparison is meaningless because a beagle doesn't bite with the ferocity a pit bull has when biting.

So it is okay for some breeds to bite?

Quoting type-rated (Reply 47):
and how many tattoos do you have?

Which has what to do with your argument? Since you hate pit bulls, you are also a tea person. One has nothing to do with the other, but I, like you, am assuming.

I don't need to tell you what happens when one assumes...
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: frmrCapCadet, GalaxyFlyer and 30 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos