Posted on April 30, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

Maryland Court of Appeals Holds Pit Bull Owners and Landlords Accountable After an Attack

Maryland's highest court declares pit bulls "inherently dangerous" in landmark ruling.

On April 8, 2014 the governor signed a bill abrogating this Court of Appeals decision.
On August 21, 2012 the high court narrowed this decision by excluding cross-bred pit bulls.

Tracey v. Solesky
Baltimore, MD - In January, DogsBite.org announced our filing of an amicus brief in a landmark Maryland appeals case, Tracey v. Solesky, in hopes of expanding more liability out to landlords when a tenant's pit bull attacks. The case involves the parents of a young boy seeking damages for injuries inflicted by a pit bull owned by a landlord's tenant. Also at issue is the "dangerousness" of pit bulls being "well-recognized," as determined in the 1998 case, Matthews v. Amberwood.

Read: The DogsBite.org amicus brief | Watch: Oral arguments 01-09-12

In Matthews, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled in a 4-3 vote that the landlord could have taken steps to abate the danger of a pit bull kept by a tenant when the landlord knew of the dog's presence and was aware of the dog's dangerousness. It was our hope that the Solesky opinion would expand Matthews further. On April 26, 2012, the Court of Appeals, in another 4-3 vote, did expand it and with great clarity by attaching strict liability when a pit bull or pit bull-cross attacks.

Tracey v. Solesky
No. 53, September Term 2012, Opinion by Cathell, J.
STRICT LIABILITY ADOPTED IN RESPECT TO ATTACKS ON HUMANS BY PIT BULL DOGS AND CROSS-BRED PIT BULL DOGS.

Upon a plaintiff's sufficient proof that a dog involved in an attack is a pit bull or a pit bull cross, and that the owner, or other person(s) who has the right to control the pit bull's presence on the subject premises (including a landlord who has a right to prohibit such dogs on leased premises) knows, or has reason to know, that the dog is a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull, that person is liable for the damages caused to a plaintiff who is attacked by the dog on or from the owner's or lessor's premises. In that case a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of negligence. When an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous.

Upon receiving the Court's opinion, attorney Kevin A. Dunne, a principal at the law firm Ober Kaler, who represented the Solesky family, told the Baltimore Sun, "the Court of Appeals decision will likely to cause there to be fewer pit bull maulings of the citizens of the State of Maryland." Dunne said the high court's decision "didn't say pit bulls are banned. It makes the owner of the dog financially responsible for the injuries caused. It affects you if your dog hurts somebody else."

The Opinion Broken Down

The Court's opinion opens with the 1916 mauling of a young child by a pit bull, demonstrating just how long this dog breed has been attacking Maryland children. Furthermore, the attack on 10-year old John L. Clark illustrates the manner in which pit bulls attack resulting in many high courts determining that pit bull-type dogs pose a grave danger to the public: "The pit bull refused to release the boy until a witness picked up a 'scantling' and struck the dog, killing it."

The writer of the Court's opinion, Judge Dale R. Cathell, then states:

Over the last thirteen years, there have been no less than seven instances of serious maulings by pit bulls upon Maryland residents resulting in either serious injuries or death that have reached the appellate courts of this State, including the two boys attacked by the pit bull in the present case. Five of the pit bull attacks in Maryland have been brought to the attention of this Court, and two have reached the Court of Special Appeals.

The Court next spells out the details of these cases, which combined led to the Solesky opinion. The most simple explanation of the Solesky opinion is located on page 8:

We are modifying the Maryland common law of liability as it relates to attacks by pit bull and cross-bred pit bull dogs against humans. With the standard we establish today (which is to be applied in this case on remand), when an owner or a landlord is proven to have knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull (as both the owner and landlord did in this case) or should have had such knowledge, a prima facie case is established. It is not necessary that the landlord (or the pit bull's owner) have actual knowledge that the specific pit bull involved is dangerous. Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.

Further into the opinion, the Court addresses Matthews in more detail and how the Court "began our modification of the old common-law rule with respect to dog attack cases with our strong dicta in Matthews, supra, highlighting the particular characteristics of pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls." And, "the language of that case clearly forecasted the direction the Court might take in the proper case. This is that case," the Court wrote, referring to Solesky. In Matthews, the Court stated:

The extreme dangerousness of this breed, as it has evolved today, is well recognized. "Pit bulls as a breed are known to be extremely aggressive and have been bred as attack animals." Giaculli v. Bright, 584 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla.App. 1991). Indeed, it has been judicially noted that pit bulls "bit[e] to kill without signal" (Starkey v. Township of Chester, 628 F. Supp. 196, 197 (E.D. Pa. 1986)), are selectively bred to have very powerful jaws, high insensitivity to pain, extreme aggressiveness, a natural tendency to refuse to terminate an attack, and a greater propensity to bite humans than other breeds ... ("pit bull dogs represent a unique public health hazard ... [possessing] both the capacity for extraordinarily savage behavior ... [a] capacity for uniquely vicious attacks ... coupled with an unpredictable nature" and that "[o]f the 32 known human deaths in the United States due to dog attacks ... [in the period between July 1983 and April 1989], 23 were caused by attacks by pit bull dogs"). Pit bull dogs have even been considered weapons.

The Court next compiles evidence of the breed's dangerousness, starting with the "special report" issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2000, and the recent medical injury study, "Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs," published in 2011. The Court points out that although the CDC did not recommend breed-specific regulation, it did state: "...laws for regulating dangerous or vicious dogs should be promulgated and enforced vigorously."

Assembling more evidence of the breed's dangerousness, the Court draws upon cases from other jurisdictions that address the inherent viciousness of pit bulls, including the high court rulings of City of Toledo v. Tellings, Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, The Florida Bar v. Pape, McNeely v. United States and finally, The Colorado Dog Fanciers v. The City and County of Denver. Many portions cited in the opinion can be found on the Appellate Court Decisions page.

Concerning arguments raised by pit bull owners in Colorado Dog Fanciers, the Court provides the following footnote: "Some are similar to the arguments made in the appellant or amicus' briefs filed in the present case by supporters of pit bulls. In light of Maryland's situation, we find those particular arguments unpersuasive. (Notably, in Solesky, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals wrote the brief in opposition of the young boy nearly killed by a pit bull.)

In this same footnote, the Court adds that the opposition to breed-specific laws has been present for years. But that the Court's opinion "does not ban pit bulls, but puts a greater responsibility for vicious dogs where pit bull advocates have long argued it should be - with the owners and others who have the power of control over such dogs. Our opinion imposes greater duties by reducing the standards necessary to hold owners and others liable for the attacks of their pit bulls."

Discussion

Given the misleading slogan of "punish the deed" by pit bull owners, advocates and national animal groups -- misleading in that victims often cannot pursue civil claims after a violent attack unless the owner knew the dog had the "propensity to be dangerous" and/or, as in the case of Solesky, the pit bull owner's debts were discharged after filing bankruptcy -- one can only imagine how many Maryland pit bull owners and landlords are extremely alarmed by the Court's opinion.

The fact is, "It's the owner not the breed," is a theme perpetuated by the owners of dangerous dog breeds, primarily pit bulls, to help maintain the existence of arcane "one free bite" rules and other obscene loopholes that often free these owners of any civil or criminal liability after their dog attacks once and even a second time! In a nutshell, such dog owners do not want their dogs blamed nor do they want to be on the hook from a financial or criminal liability standpoint.

Reading the Court's footnote in regards to this brings to mind two phrases, "Be careful what you ask for" and "payback is hell." Pit bull owners and "others who have the power of control over such dogs" (specifically landlords) in the State of Maryland are indeed going to be paying back to victims of violent pit bull maulings due to this opinion, which explicitly modified Maryland common law of liability as it relates to attacks by pit bulls and pit bull-crosses against humans.

The Dissent

There really is only one part of the dissent worth discussing, as parts about the "hysteria regarding pit bulls" and the "media has demonized pit bulls" are on par with the invalidity of the Nanny dog myth. That part is called judicial activism or as the author of the dissent, Judge Clayton Greene, Jr. wrote, "legislating from the bench." The Solesky opinion, however, was not shaped out of thin air. It was developed over many rulings and was specifically "forecasted" in Matthews.

We do expect national animal groups, particularly the ASPCA and Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, to bring their pro-pit bull propaganda to the Maryland General Assembly during its next session in an effort to derail the Solesky ruling. Yet, this effort may prove difficult. Their fight will not be to derail a statewide pit bull law, such as Ohio's former law, their fight will be to derail a liability law that holds the owners of pit bulls and landlords financially responsible after an attack.

Getting these votes is going to be a lot tougher than it was in Ohio. For instance, "Dear Maryland State Representative, it is cruel and unusual punishment that pit bull owners are automatically held financially responsible after their dog mauls a person causing permanent disfiguring injuries and sometimes even death. This type of singling out of pit bulls is discriminatory legislation similar to racial profiling. My pit bull would never snap, but even if it did, I should not be held liable."

Background:

The case of Matthews v. Amberwood involved a 2-year old boy and his mother, Shanita Matthews, visiting the leased apartment of Shelly Morton. Morton took care of her boyfriend's pit bull, named Rampage. Numerous complaints of the dog acting aggressively had been reported to Morton's landlord who took no action. The complex also had a "no pet" policy. While Matthews was visiting Morton inside her dwelling in February of 1994, Rampage savagely attacked her son, Tevin Williams. He later died at a hospital. Though the attack occurred inside Morton's unit -- not in a "common" area -- the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling and held the landlord liable. The Court wrote: "Under the present circumstances, however, where a landlord retained control over the matter of animals in the tenant's apartment, coupled with the knowledge of past vicious behavior by the animal, the extremely dangerous nature of pit bull dogs, and the foreseeability of harm to persons and property in the apartment complex, the jury was justified in finding that the landlord had a duty to the plaintiffs and that the duty was breached."

Judge Cathell, who wrote the Solesky opinion, dissented in Matthews. In the Matthews opinion, the Court of Appeals did not hold Morton, the dog's keeper, or the child's mother, Shanita Matthews, negligent. Specifically, the dissent states: "Thus, the negligence of the tenant Morton, and any possible negligence on the part of Matthews, were simply concurrent causes of the injuries and death of Tevin. They were not superseding causes." The dissenters in Matthews disagreed with the majority, which held that the superseding cause for the child's injuries and death was the landlord. Additionally, the dissent believed that Morton had sole control over the premise where the injury occurred (a private dwelling, as opposed to a "common" area) and sole control over
the dog, not the landlord.

So, how did Judge Cathell go from a dissent 14 years ago to a majority on this legal issue today? This is what is so beautiful about the development of the law. Sometimes one never knows. We would like to think that the continued carnage wrought by pit bulls over the past 14 years has something to do with it.

Posted on April 28, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: 1-Year Old Henderson Boy Killed by Family Dog

Fatally attacking dog depicted with the victim, Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan.

Saving Killer Dogs?
UPDATE 05/13/12: The Las Vegas Review-Journal published a follow up piece about animal activists who intervene to "save dogs" that have bitten and killed. The article refers to the February death of a 2-day old baby who was killed by his family's adopted Husky, named Nikko.1 On April 27, a Pennsylvania judge allowed Nikko to be sent to an out-of-state "sanctuary" instead of being put down. This is the same day that Onion viciously attacked Jeremiah, notes the article.

Even though a Las Vegas judge frustrated an intervention attempt by the Lexus Project on Friday to save Onion -- offering a similar out-of-state "sanctuary" arrangement -- the group says it will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court. Henderson officials have remained resolute throughout the Onion Ordeal calling it a public safety issue. Besides killing Jeremiah, officials said the dog attacked its kennel when a veterinarian tried to examine it at the city shelter.

05/11/12: Euthanization to Proceed
Clark County District Judge Joanna Kishner ruled on Friday that a New York-based group has no legal standing to intervene on behalf of a dog that killed a baby boy and stop Henderson animal control officials from putting the animal down. The scheduled euthanasia of Onion was halted earlier this week by a court challenge filed by the Lexus Project headed by attorney Richard Rosenthal, who claimed, among other things, "There is nothing vicious about the attack."2

04/30/12: Death Ruled Accidental
Having not seen the deceased boy's mother in any news stories, DogsBite.org was deeply concerned about yet another deadly "visiting child" scenario. Indeed, the two adults shared custody of the young boy. The particulars of this arrangement are unknown, but certainly the child was only living part-time with his father. In a devastating3 recent statement by the child's grandmother and owner of the dog, she sent "a message to Jeremiah's mother" in a news story:

"I am so sorry. If I had ever known that this would happen I would have gotten rid of Onion, even though I loved him very much," Keller said.

04/30/12: Insights from Behaviorists
Unenthusiastic, if not alarmed, by the imagery of the gentle giant coupled with an infant provided by the father, DogsBite.org reached out to animal behaviorists Gary Wilkes and Alexandra Semyonova about this fatal dog attack. As Semyonova highlights, this fatality is the result of a serious act of aggression. There are appropriate and inappropriate dog breeds to bring into a household with very young children. This child's parent and many others learn this the hard way.

Gary Wilkes
The disparity in size and potential for damage is so great between a toddler and a large dog that it is plainly dangerous and ultimately a questionable decision. It is no different than having haphazardly stacked crates in your house that could fall and crush the child, uncovered electrical outlets or unfenced swimming pools. It is ironic that they show the child in a car seat designed to make the child's life safer. The dog was obviously the more serious threat.

Gary Wilkes is an internationally acclaimed animal behaviorist, trainer, author, columnist and lecturer. View additional posts by Gary.

Alexandra Semyonova
Mastiff / Rhodesian Ridgeback mix kills one year old boy
Before the usual crowd gets into slandering the domestic dog as a species, let's be very clear about the truth on this: The behavior this Power Dog mix showed is completely and utterly abnormal in the domestic dog. Startled in its sleep, a normal dog might lash out. This might include a grab less inhibited than by full wakefulness. This might cause a more serious wound in an infant than it would in an adult – but that's not the same as a dog taking a child's head in its mouth, crushing the infant's face, shaking to kill, and not allowing its owner to make it release the child [see the video here].
What this incident does show is the result of breeding for both impulsive aggression and exaggerated body size. It shows the result of ignoring real information about the breed or type of dog you bring into your home. Some breeds / types of dogs do simply for real have much higher statistical records of mauling or killing than other breeds or types. Some have a statistical record of being particularly dangerous around infants (besides the pit-bull types, this includes the husky types).
Before the usual crowd starts quoting a certain dog hairdresser that appears often on television, let's be clear about the truth on this too: Dominance or some kind of imaginary ‘ranking order' has nothing to do with what happened. Dogs don't live in hierarchies, nor are relations influenced by who gets to sleep higher or share your spot. I often sit reading with three dogs on my lap, sleep with three or four on my bed. It would be sad if we allowed the weapon dog fashion to ruin this pleasure we share with our normal dogs.
What this incident does show is the result of allowing that kind of physical closeness with a dog that has an aggression problem. ‘Dogs with aggression problems' means not only dogs that have overtly shown touchiness, but also any dog of a breed or type that has impulsive aggression in its breed history. This means most of all the pit-bull types and the mastiff types, but also the others in which this trait has surfaced (even if it's a rare anomaly in those breeds).
When we talk about rational safety measures while guarding the interactions of dogs and children, we are – in normal cases – talking about preventing at most minor wounds, a child scared out of its wits but otherwise not damaged. We are also – in normal cases – talking about being on guard that a child doesn't inadvertently corner a dog such that the dog does feel like it needs to defend its very life and limb. But even then, a normal dog will use exactly as much aggression as it needs to open up a flight route, not a bit more, upon which it will flee.
It's a great tragedy that we are breeding dogs for impulsive aggression coupled with huge body mass, and at the same time hearing so much propaganda from pit fans, humane societies and various ‘experts' that love and a good upbringing will cure these. Neither love, dominance nor (thank you Jean Donaldson!) clicker training will cure the defective genes. They also won't reduce the body mass that makes a dog unstoppable when it – suddenly and impulsively – decides it's hell-bent on killing.
This doesn't mean we don't have to take rational safety measures everywhere children interact with dogs. It does mean that one of those safety measures is to reject the idea of bringing one of these ‘Power Breeds' into our homes.

Alexandra Semyonova is an internationally acclaimed animal behaviorist, behavioral biologist, anthropologist and author. View additional posts by Alexandra.

04/29/12: Baby's Father Speaks Out
Holding back tears, the boy's father describes the horrific scene. "He used the dog's fur to pull himself up on his feet because he wanted to walk," he said. "The dog turned around and grabbed his head ... it took me about 20 seconds to run downstairs and I got the dog off of the baby," he said. "The baby's face was torn off." The father added, "Now I don't have a baby and now I don't have a dog." The 120lb mastiff-Rhodesian mix, named Onion, is scheduled to be euthanized.

Red Flag Photos

The boy's family continues to provide disturbing red flag photos to the media to apparently show how gentle the dog was prior to killing the child. It seems the family is clueless to the fact that the images instead show: "What to never do with a baby and a dog." To make this very clear to our readers, we've marked the images as "100% unsafe." The person taking the boy's death the worst is the grandmother, seen in the photograph with the 120lb dog lying on top of her.

04/28/12: Birthday Ends in Tragedy
Henderson, NV - In a developing story, a 1-year old boy died early Saturday morning after being attacked by his family's dog while celebrating his first birthday. The boy was at his grandmother's home when he crawled over to pet the dog. The animal, described as a 120lb mastiff-Rhodesian mix, latched onto the boy's head and began shaking him, according to police. Henderson rescue workers rushed the boy to a local hospital where he was airlifted to UMC's Trauma Unit.

The young boy died from his injuries about 1:45 am. The boy's family, which owned the 6-year old dog since it was a puppy, voluntarily relinquished ownership to animal control officials. According to police, the boy had been around the dog since he was born. There were no signs of neglect and no previous calls reported about the dog in the past. Police continue to investigate why the dog attacked the boy. 8newsnow.com reports that the victim's name is Jeremiah Eskew-Shahan.

1Nikko's name was changed to Helo just days after being confiscated then inappropriately adopted out to William Uhring. This is exactly what happens when rescue groups "save" dangerous dogs. The dog's name is changed, shipped across county or state lines, and all records of previous biting incidents are erased. There is very little, if any, oversight of these groups.
2During the contentious hearing, where Clark County District Court Judge Joanna Kishner sided with Henderson city attorneys who argued the attack proved Onion is vicious, there were protestors outside, primarily in favor of "saving" Onion. But one man held a sign stating, "Let's Make Dog Tacos!" Brad Keith, an electrician said, "I think most of the people feel the same as me. That, I mean, if this dog killed a one year old baby, he's a human being. He should be put down." Photo/KTNV.com.
3As in devastatingly inappropriate.

Photos: Fox5 Vegas, KTNV.com

Posted on April 20, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

2012 Dog Bite Fatality: 2-Month Old Child Killed by Family Dog

Aiden McGrew was killed by his family's recently adopted golden retriever-mix.

Father Charged
UPDATE 05/02/12: The infant's father, Quintin H. McGrew, has been charged with unlawful neglect of a child. An affidavit accompanying his arrest warrant stated that McGrew "placed a 2-month-old infant at unreasonable risk by placing the infant in the living room by himself while the defendant slept in the bedroom. The infant was left in the separate room with a dog that was new to the residence for over an hour resulting in the disembowelment and death of the minor child."

04/23/12: 911 Call Released
A description of the 911 call made Friday morning offers new details about the tragic death of 2-month old Aiden McGrew. In the call, the baby's mother, Chantel McGrew, told the operator, "I believe my 2 and 1/2 year old got the baby out of the swing. I believe the dog went after my son, because the dog has blood all over him." She added about the attacking dog: "He's put in the bedroom away from the baby because he tried to go after the baby again when I got home."1

04/23/12: Death Ruled Homicide
Dorchester County Coroner Chris Nisbet ruled the death of 2-month old Aiden McGrew a homicide. He announced Monday that the child died from blood loss after being severely mauled by the family's dog. Nisbet said parental neglect contributed to the boy's death. Aiden was discovered Friday morning after being badly bitten and dismembered by his family's newly adopted dog. At the time of the incident, his father was sleeping in an adjoining room.

04/21/12: Killed While Father Slept
News agencies report that the family had two dogs. One was apparently asleep with the father at the time of the attack. The offending golden retriever-mix, named Lucky, had recently been adopted by the family. The dog's previous owner was not named. The deceased boy's parents, Quintin and Chantel McGrew were questioned Friday. The couple's other children, ages 7 and 3, were taken into protective custody by the state Department of Social Services.

Knight said Quintin McGrew was sleeping in a bed with the 3-year-old child and the family's other dog, and Chantel McGrew was taking the 7-year-old to a doctor's visit, when Aiden was attacked.
"The child was in a small swing and was asleep,” Knight said. "I'm not sure who put the child in the swing."
Knight said the family adopted Lucky a few weeks ago, but their other dog has been with them for years. He said the McGrews "dog sat" for Lucky previously and decided to keep the dog when its previous owners wanted to give it up.

The Death of Zane Alen Earles

In 2008, the mauling death of 2-month old Zane Alen Earles by the family's Labrador puppy horrified the American public. The boy's mother found him dead in an infant swing about 10:30 am that morning. Up until that point, she had been sleeping. The nature of the baby's injuries were "so sensitive" that Tulsa police did not release any details other than that the infant had been bitten to death. Months later, a police affidavit stated that the dog "ate the two-month-old victim."

Authorities charged the baby's mother with second-degree manslaughter.

04/20/12: Infant Killed by Family Dog
Ridgeville, SC - In a developing story, Dorchester County Coroner Chris Nesbit stated in a news release that a 2-month old child was bitten numerous times and dismembered by a dog in his family's home about 11 am Friday. Aiden McGrew's father was asleep at the time of the attack and his mother was not home. Two other children in the home were unharmed. An autopsy is scheduled for Saturday to determine if the boy was dead prior to the dog dismembering him.

The Daily Mail reports that the dog was a recently rescued retriever.

1Apparently, "Lucky" is the name of the family's other dog, not the offending animal.

Related articles:
11/04/08: 2008 Dog Bite Fatality: Tulsa Infant Killed by Labrador Puppy

Posted on April 13, 2012 by Colleen Lynn

Malden Councillor Clarifies Pit Bull Ordinance and Confirms 'Rational Fear'

Answers Critics
Malden, MA - Last week we reported on a pit bull ordinance passed by Malden City Council. Part of the blog post addressed Dr. Amy Marder who claimed that "a leash will prevent dog bites as well as a muzzle" when being quizzed by Councillor Neil C. Kinnon. The post also noted that the "hollering pit bull owners" attending the meeting failed to grasp the language of the ordinance, which grandfathered in existing pit bull owners if they registered their dog prior to May 1.

On Wednesday, Councillor Kinnon answered critics of the pit bull ordinance in a letter to the editor of the Malden Advocate. It is a fantastic letter that clarifies the pit bull ordinance, offers city dog bite statistical data, zings the "good Doctor" further by stating that her "evidence lacked credibility, as no scientist would ever claim a sample size of ten" and concludes with a statistical comparison that powerfully confirms the rational fear persons maintain about the pit bull breed.

Dear Editor, Malden Advocate, and Malden’s Citizens:
This past week the City Council passed a Pit Bull Ordinance which will take effect on May 1, 2012 (provided the Mayor signs it). It will exempt current pit bulls which are licensed by that time with some reasonable stipulations. Hopefully this letter might clarify what is in the Pit Bull Ordinance, the reasons for it and why some of the information opponents are spinning is simply misinformation or untrue.

Snippets taken by DogsBite.org:

"According to Animal Control fifty-seven dog bites were recorded from 2009-2011. Eighteen of the bites were committed by pit bulls. The next closest breeds that bit were German Shepherds, Bull Mastiffs and Dobermans, which recorded only two bites each. The data broken down in its simplest terms means pit bulls account for approximately 6.7% of our registered dogs and committed 31.6% of the dog bites."

"The ordinance requires pit bulls to be spayed or neutered in order to get an exemption from the muzzling law. The advocates who spoke to the Council also advocate spaying and neutering of pit bulls as part of any plan."

"The ordinance the Council passed requires a fence if one wishes to let their dog out in the yard without a muzzle. PittBullLovers.com states for those looking to own a pit bull "you should have a six foot privacy fence"

"The ordinance passed by the City Council will guarantee high license compliance for pit bulls, which all advocates say is needed, as it exempts, from the muzzle ordinance, all current pit bull owners who reside in Malden as long as they come in to register for a license and provide the proper spay and neutering documentation."

"The pit bull advocates continue to claim that BSL (breed specific legislation) does not work and yet over 600 communities in America have adopted it. The Marine Corps and the Army have gone so far as to adopt total bans of pit bulls and their close relatives on all their bases in the last few years."1

"When the Doctor was asked how many dogs were in her study and how many had some American Staffordshire, her answer was her study included ten dogs and she didn’t know how many included some American Staffordshire. Her evidence lacked credibility, as no scientist would ever claim a sample size of ten was a real study and after stating that DNA didn’t contain Staffordshire in many instances, she didn’t know how many contained some Staffordshire in the sample."2

"The pit bull advocates continue to state it will be impossible to enforce a muzzle law and that we should instead focus on licensing and strong leash law enforcement of all dogs. One can only conclude from all actual evidence that it would be just as easy for an animal control officer or other law enforcement officer to enforce a muzzle law as it is to enforce a leash law. Is it harder for a dog officer to see if a dog is on a four foot leash or muzzle?"

Councillor Kinnon saved the whopper comparison for his conclusion that illustrates just how dangerous pit bulls are and that fears about the breed are rational:

If there were as many pit bulls in Malden as people, and bite incidents were classified as aggravated assaults, the average rate of aggravated assault by pit bulls in the last three years would have been over 1,500 per year. If one calculated the same math on all other dogs, during that span, the average aggravated assault level each year would have been approximately 220. In the last three years the actual average number of aggravated assaults in Malden, by humans, has been 169. Therefore pit bulls per capita commit almost 10 times the aggravated assaults as do humans. The person who discriminates when seeing a pit bull walking down the street does not do so out of an irrational fear but does so because they are 10 times as likely to be attacked by the pit bull. (Neil Kinnon, Ward Six City Councillor, Malden Advocate, April 11, 2012)

Kudos Councillor Neil Kinnon!

1Underline and bold emphasis by Councilor Kinnon.
2Kinnon is presumably referring to a study by Dr. Amy Marder. Initially, we had thought Dr. Voith's study (Comparison of Adoption Agency Breed Identification and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs) to be the culprit, but it uses a sample pool of 20. We then found a short piece by Marder and Voith that references an "unnamed" study by Marder, "In a separate study, Amy Marder and colleagues analyzed DNA samples from dogs visually identified as "pit bull mixes." (The American Shelter Dog: Identification of Dogs By Personality). Marder's "unnamed" study is also referenced in a March 2009 blog post.

DogsBite blog ::