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

Brian Frosh wasn't the reason pit bull bill failed

Marta Mossburg's recent column about pit bull legislation ("Pit bull compromise fails, trial lawyers win," April 9) was full of inaccuracies. As a dog lover, and as someone who witnessed the proceedings first hand, I hope you will correct these errors in print.

Sen. Brian Frosh has led the effort to craft a rational state policy on dog attacks in the wake of the Court of Appeals decision in the Solesky case. He brokered several compromises, all of which were fair to victims, pet owners and landlords.

Senator Frosh was instrumental in passing the compromise in the Senate, only to have the bill later killed by the House. Ms. Mossburg is incorrect that Senator Frosh reneged on any compromise deal. In fact, Senator Frosh voted against the very amendment with which she apparently disagreed.

Ms. Mossburg is wrong to assert that Senator Frosh's position on the pit bull compromise has anything to do with sympathy for trial lawyers. The trial lawyers opposed Senator Frosh's position on the bill.

So please, Ms. Mossburg, call off your attack dogs and check your facts. Senator Frosh deserves nothing but praise for his efforts to resolve these complex issues.

Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, Baltimore

The writer, a Democrat, represents northwest Baltimore in the state Senate.

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...

Comments
Loading
84°