Thursday, May 3, 2012
View the related CBS This Morning news article.
04/30/12: Maryland Court of Appeals Holds Pit Bull Owners and Landlords Accountable
06/20/11: Founder Colleen Lynn Reflects Upon Four Year Anniversary of Her Attack
| 5/03/2012 12:25 PM |
I think this court ruling is the best thing since sliced bread! This is wonderful! Finally, finally, the courts are seeing these dogs for what they are, inherently dangerous. I couldn't be happier for all of the victims out there that up till now have not been able to obtain any type of compensation or justice for what's happened to them. Finally, the voices of the victims are being heard!!! For far too long, no one seemed to care about the thousands of victims that have been mauled, maimed and even killed by these "inherently dangerous" dogs. Now, we need the same court ruling for other dogs that have been mauled, maimed and brutally killed by these "inherently dangerous pit bulls," so those people who have lost their beloved pets, and/or paid thousands in Vet bills to keep their beloved pets alive after a mauling by pit bull will also have compensation and justice once and for all. Thank you to Mr. Solesky for pushing this through, and to the Maryland courts, and to Colleen Lynn, for letting the voices of the victims be heard, finally. Now, all we need is some laws to keep these vicious dogs off the streets, and out of homes, so that we don't have to end up in a hospital bed fighting for our lives, or in court seeking compensation and justice. Let's work on preventing these court cases altogether.
| 5/03/2012 2:28 PM |
How can the shelter say they are not inherently dangerous with a straight face? And NOW they are concerned with pit bulls being put down? Pit bulls make up half of all dogs euthanized in the US. They have been put down in large numbers for years and pit bull advocates were not too concerned enough to do anything about it. Their policy of doing nothing has led to a great many pit bull deaths, and a cycle of death that sees no end. Perhaps a ruling like this one will further decrease demand and finally put a damper on breeding, irresponsible ownership and attacks.
| 5/03/2012 3:15 PM |
Well done Lynn!
People who love dogs bred to kill other peoples dogs are NOT dog lovers, they are pit bull lovers. Big difference. They don't give a hoot about the victims of their dogs, be they animal or human.
| 5/03/2012 4:20 PM |
as the mother of a young child who is a victim of a pit attack, this ruling helps me see the light at the end of tunnel being brighter. This ruling should help other townships, cities and districts bring in their own legislation with greater ease. Owning a pit comes with such great controversy, anyone who gets one knows it, and now the level of accountability if their "wiggly butts" hurts or kill someone is more than just a thought, it's reality. Victims have the right to restitution, and solace, this ruling helps greatly with that. Society also has the right to not fear what might move in next door to them, or to feel safe walking in their local parks, this ruling also helps with that. The vast majority of society sees the need to better manage this breed, and to hold owners accountable, this ruling should be applauded with thunderous celebrating.
| 5/03/2012 4:28 PM |
This is what happens when the pit bull advocacy FAILS to tell the truth about their beloved breed. They would serve this breed better to just to say what the courts did in this case: these are inherently dangerous dogs. Too many victims, too many times when owners failed to come to the table with responsibility. City Shelters have no business peddling these back to the public as "family pets", because they are not family pets. Instead, the advocacy is worried about "words"...pit bull, dangerous, instead of providing information about these dogs, and keeping them out of incapable hands. Well played, a victory for public safety!
| 5/03/2012 5:29 PM |
When the pit bull rescue people got suckered into supporting the breeders and dog fighters that hid behind the pit bull advocacy groups, they got suckered into hurting the dogs.
All they are doing is helping the breeders and dog fighters promote the dogs and breed more, and sell them to abusive people, and for pit bull overpopulation to increase so that more die. They also displace other needy dogs who then die because of the massive pit bull overbeeding.
The Animal Farm Foundation, Betsy Sauil Berkey, and all the others only help the breeders. They enhance breeder profits at the expense of the dogs.
That is what is so sick about this entire situation,. There is the carelessness about victims, the refusal to properly care for these dogs and prevent attacks, and helping the breeders beeed more and abuse more.
Anti BSL benefits the finances of breeders, but victimizes the dogs and opens them up to exploitation with regulation.
Breed specific legislation can not only prevent injury and death, but it can benefit the welfare of the pit bulls who are massively being exploited and mishandled.
| 5/03/2012 5:53 PM |
Incredibly poor timing and taste
| 5/03/2012 6:03 PM |
How much do you want to bet that idiot Peggy Weigle doesn't even know the context in which that topic matter came up? Rodricks was referring to a 1988 court case (Bah ha ha ha ha!)
| 5/03/2012 6:53 PM |
A suggestion was made in jest, I believe it was Vintage who made this suggestion. I find a great deal of merit in it.
The organizations defending pit bulls without concern for the suffering and losses of victims might consider forming a breed specific insurance plan, backed with the money raised from pit bull advocacy. The ASPCA, AVMA, HSUS, AKC, Best Friends, Animal Farm Foundation, BADRAP, and possibly some others, could join together and offer low cost insurance to the owners of pit bulls. These groups have loudly stated that pit bulls are just like any other dog for many years. It is time that they back up their statements so that victims can be compensated for their injuries and losses. Actuarial risk is a difficult concept for breed specific advocacy to comprehend but the payouts to the victims of pit bull violence should be a wake up call.
| 5/03/2012 7:45 PM |
Colleen, what was really good were the comments by Charlie and gang. They speak really for the vast majority of people. That's even without their knowing a great deal. I loved it one had a pit in the family and the other was big on animal rescue. There's nothing the other side can do because as I say the dog isn't going to stop killing and mauling. I'm so proud of you!!!!!!!! Thank you Colleen for standing up so grandly for the humans and also pets!!!!
| 5/03/2012 8:45 PM |
Another sick thing is that veterinarians are supporting the people and the dog abuse by opposing regulation, helping people to escape taking responsibility, and promoting the pit bulls so they can be exploited more.
It is the AVMA guilty of this and also the state veterinary associations. They only care about the money, I guess.
Well, they support puppy mills, too, so there you go.
| 5/03/2012 8:47 PM |
Don't forget the UKC which was formed as a registry for fighting dogs.
It is now owned by a former board member of the AKC.
They have had convicted dog fighters at some of their events, and no one bats an eyelash.
| 5/04/2012 6:41 AM |
So many intelligent people read this blog! All of y'alls comments are great! And after reading Colleen's blog for so long, it was nice to put a face to the person. And you are quite lovely :)
| 5/04/2012 10:23 AM |
Colleen this rulinig could save so many human and pet lives.
Thank you so much for all you do, for thig blog and for your tireless fight for the victims of these dogs.
| 5/04/2012 11:19 AM |
That was a relatively well balanced piece and the anchorpersons weren't afraid to speak their minds. I'm also very glad that they represented Colleen well and didn't try any weird editing tricks. Good job, Colleen! Of course, they had to show a harmless looking rescue pit with 3 legs and a nutttress arguing that all dogs are individuals. Aargh....I wish debate was possible on these news broadcasts. Aren't all individual things individuals? Aren't the nutters abusing the term individual? Every atom in the Universe is an individual atom, dontchaknow!!!!
| 5/05/2012 2:19 AM |
This was a *relatively* balanced piece. But it annoys the heck out of me that journalists interview (first-time) mutant owners as if they are some kind of experts.
Zimmerman is just a stupid kid. But the journalist isn't much better, asking 'Did Zelda seem inherently dangerous at first look?' Hey dummies: If we could tell at first glance which pit bulls were going to berserk one day, there wouldn't be a problem.
Then Gayle's sister, 'Diesel is just a big marshmallow, he won't hurt you.' At least, not until he suddenly scalps you, then we'll all be oh-so-surprised that he wasn't born with a warning tatooed on his forehead.
Colleen's bit was great, and I too am grateful they didn't do strange editing tricks.
DubV, yeah, atoms are individuals, but they all obey the laws of physics. Just as pit bulls obey the laws of biology...which it seems the pit-whore 'scientists' think they can establish by voting (you know, to throw out the laws of biology that violate their rules of Political Correctness). Hahaha, just like atoms, pits don't care who votes on it, they still obey the laws of(respectively) physics and biology.
| 5/06/2012 5:00 AM |
What the Humane kooks hath wrought on the American People:
Study: US Dog bite related hospitalizations increase 86.3 percent between 1993 and 2008. MEDICAID and MEDICAIRE pick up nearly 40 percent of the bill
The first CDC DBRF Study documented 5 DBRFs in 1974 across a population of 220 Million. By 2011, the US sustains 32 DBRFs across a population of 310 Million. A 445 percent increase