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

Demonizing pit bulls doesn't make communities safer

I spent last Tuesday at the Maryland Senate listening to a variety of people talk about "pit bulls" and the Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling in Tracey vs. Solesky ("Parents of Towson pit bull attack victim testify in Annapolis," June 19).

During the proceedings. Mr. Solesky made it a point to say several times that he felt that the animal advocates were minimizing his feelings by attending the hearing. After leaving the committee meeting, his comment stayed with me.

As a dog owner and a parent, my heart goes out to the Solesky family. I cannot imagine what the Soleskys have been through. Yet although it seems that we are on opposite sides of this debate, Mr. Solesky and I both want the same thing: Safer communities.

Singling out one breed of dog, however, does not help make the community safer. Almost 90 percent of all dog bites are based on one of two factors: Either the dog is unaltered, or it has been tethered (tied up).

If we really wanted to make communities safer, we should focus on these two factors to reduce overall dog bites. To put strict liability on pit bulls does not deal with fact that there are many different breeds that bite.

According the National Canine Research Council, there were 33 cases of dog-related fatalities last year. Of these, only two cases involved pit bulls. The rest were Rottweiler (3), German Shepherd (1), Husky (1), American Bulldog (1), Wolf mix (1), Boxer (1), and unknown origin (21).

It's easy to have a knee jerk reaction for a quick fix. What is harder is to look at the root cause of a problem and address it.

My hope is that the "pit bull" task force will realize that just because a dog looks like a "pit bull" does not mean it is inherently dangerous, and that the panel will look instead to spay/neuter and anti-tethering laws that apply equally to all dogs.

Amanda Fitzgerald, Baltimore

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Another diatribe against pit bulls

    Another diatribe against pit bulls

    As a woman of a certain age and a pit bull adopter, I was dismayed to read another attack on pit bulls by columnist Dan Rodricks that this time seemed to question whether senior citizens are appropriate companions for such dogs ("In Frederick, a tragic reminder of pit bull ruling," Jan. 20).

  • 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...