Summer Sale! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Readers Respond
News Opinion Readers Respond

Legislature must protect victims of dog attacks [Letter]

Dog bites are tracked by the health department because they are injurious and can cause death. Dog bites and mauling by law are a public welfare concern that has nothing to with dog owners' rights and everything to do with dog owners' responsibilities. When a bite or mauling incident occurs, humans instinctively seek help from first responders and physicians, not humane groups and veterinary doctors.

The standards pertaining to dog bites are set forth by law in Maryland Health General Article 18-217. It is not the place of animal advocates to be the architects of public safety policy but rather to apply their vocation for animal welfare, to establish and guide dog owners on how best to meet their responsibilities as required by public safety officials.

Legislation needs to address the concerns raised in the previous legislative sessions within these following public health factors:

1. How will dog owners pay for catastrophic injuries caused by their dogs? Homeowners insurance is not required by law, it is required of homeowners by mortgage lenders. Renters can go uninsured.

2. The animal advocates say the largest portion of their shelter space is pit bulls and the greater share of their placement in foster homes are to renters. Any new law must consider the feasibility of a victim being able to gain a recovery.

3. Returning to common law with pit bulls and other dogs means a dog bite victim must prove negligence. The animal lobby says dog behavior is the dog owner's fault, so then a dog bite itself should be evidence of negligence. Like them or not, muzzles are always available to dog owners, or they can choose a less dangerous breed to mitigate the risk of bites.

That addressing these public safety factors affects dog owners who take the choice to own a dog or not is nothing more then their being accountable to a responsibility that is inherently their own and certainly not a dog bite victim's.

Irene Solesky, Towson

The writer is the mother of Dominic Solesky, a Towson boy who was attacked by a pit bull in 2007 and whose case led to a Court of Appeals decision that pit bulls are inherently dangerous.

To respond to this letter, send an email to Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Justice for man's best friend

    Justice for man's best friend

    Judge Richard E. Jordan should be praised for the one-year sentence he handed down in the Alec Taylor animal cruelty case ("Man's best friend," Oct. 12).

  • Violence against pets must be taken seriously

    Violence against pets must be taken seriously

    In response to the editorial "Man's best friend" (Oct. 13), I am disappointed that The Baltimore Sun turned people's reactions to reported abuse into a competition as to which victims of violent crimes are more worthy of sympathy or outrage. Violence is violence, and none of it is good for our...

  • Tougher minimum sentences needed for animal cruelty [Letter]

    Tougher minimum sentences needed for animal cruelty [Letter]

    Animal cruelty is a violent crime that is often an indicator crime and a predictor crime as well. Animals, however, are property under the law, and while we have seen an increase in the number of prosecutions, most judges continue to treat these crimes as minor property crimes ("Man's best friend,"...

  • People who abuse animals are likely to abuse humans, too [Letter]

    People who abuse animals are likely to abuse humans, too [Letter]

    Is it too much to ask for The Sun's editorial board to consider both animal abuse and violence against humans as deserving of stiff sentencing ("Man's best friend," Oct. 12)?

  • Pit bulls still dangerous [Letter]

    Pit bulls still dangerous [Letter]

    I want to thank journalist Dan Rodricks for his informative column about pit bulls ("Two years after Maryland court ruling, pit bulls on attack," April 26). It helps me understand more about the pit bull lover uproar and their jargon about it being "the owner, not the breed." However, nothing will...

  • Rodricks feeds into pit bull hysteria [Letter]

    Rodricks feeds into pit bull hysteria [Letter]

    I was disturbed on multiple levels after reading Dan Rodricks' recent article, "Two years after Maryland court ruling, pit bulls on attack" (April 26). Not only does Mr. Rodricks feed into anti-pit bull hysteria for the sake of sensationalizing a hot-button issue, but his piece can hardly be called...