When the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its disheartening ruling declaring pit bulls "inherently dangerous," I was pleased to see that there were those who thought the issue wasn't that simple. So you can imagine my consternation, disappointment and anger when I read Dan Rodricks' column on the subject ("Pit bulls: Own them at your own risk," May 1).
Mr. Rodricks' column is not only misguided and reductive but clearly shows a lack of good journalism in its failure to investigate the claims he makes.
I won't go into the statistics describing how a number of breeds have higher rates of attacks than pit bulls, or how pit bulls have had remarkable success not only as family pets but as therapy and service dogs, or how the category of pit bulls and their identification are highly speculative and subjective.
What is most disturbing about the article is that it feeds the hysteria about the breed and perpetuates antiquated notions that have little to do with reality.
These innocent dogs are voiceless, voteless and often nameless. It is our duty as those with voices, votes and names to speak up for them and fight to give them the chance they deserve.
Emily Yoon Perez