This is strange. I've been reading on this site that understanding the difference in breed characteristics is akin to bigotry. Could it be that someone chooses a breed of dog because of the difference in breed characteristics? Hmmm.

Could it be that there are lots of reasons people choose a breed of dog and an either/or is a false dilemma? Hmmm...

"This is why I tend to think we have a lot of dog owners out there that just should own dogs." for whatever reason. the result us ,,,,, what got people concerened. sure you can manipulate statistics,,,,,,,,,,,,, (some one questions tose taking the surveys, so there for dont believe any survey, even if s its giving you a proportion not an exact number,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that what we;ll go by.,.......... you can question it . but some of us will still take stock in it.......... the handlews do make a difference. somne people get pits for the prestige ( or is in style ) maybe they odnt bite mmore than other breeds .maybe they do........... but when they do they dont let go,,,,,,,,,, they have more pressure than other breeds ( not a random survey , fact)

It's sad that you, as a Boxer owner, are ending up the dupe of the pit bull and 'humane' society deceptions. Do a simple search for 'adoptable dogs' at shelters almost anywhere, you'll find dogs you (as a real Boxer owner) recognize as pit bulls being touted as 'Boxer' or 'Boxer mix'.

The solution to this isn't, I don't think, to advocate for pit bulls. Boxers are fine with other dogs if, as you say, like any other dog, they're socialized etc. If I were in your shoes, I'd be objecting to Boxers getting a truly bad rap because of how the pit-lobby / humane societies are abusing the Boxer look to convince people to adopt what are in fact pits and pit-mixes.

Sorry, but this walk-a-mile-first wasn't true before the pit fashion began. There's a huge scientific literature on how good the NORMAL domestic dog is in peacefully (ritually) avoiding and solving conflicts, a millennium-long history of having domestic dogs wandering around free among us and at our sides without being a threat to us or each other or our children and cattle. There's also a growing scientific lit on what is, indeed, genetically wrong with the pit-bull type dog (as a biological type, thus including all its mixes and derivatives). Boxers aren't pit-bull type dogs, it's just that a lot of shelters are passing pits (-mixes) off as Boxers.

Before she became a pit-advocate, Jean Donaldson pointed out that dogs have for millennia raised their young and regulated their relations without our help [The Culture Clash] . Alexandra Semyonova has expanded on this [ http://nonlilneardogs.com ] by explaining how the process works. Then there's Branwyne's comment [ http://blog.dogsbite.org/2012/01/saving-mans-best-friend.html ] that explains the shift in perceptions (not in real dog behavior) that's been going on since these KKK dogs became all the fashion.

It's sad (in my eyes) if dog trainers are adjusting their recommendations for normal dogs as if all dogs were pit bulls.

Guess next we'll be adjusting the entire way our society runs to what psychopaths do and need?

This is making me sooooo sad....

KKK dogs. Good lord, now I know you're unhinged.

Agree..

I agree! Of course a dog park on county property maintained by the county (your words) would invite some regulation, would it not? Either the government is involved or they are not. Hard to have to have it both ways...

I think you are missing the point! We are not talking about biting. We are talking about mauling. Big difference. Poodles bite, dangerous dogs maul to kill.

I agree. I find it funny that small dogs biting are treated as aggressive. Put them down for biting. Just because they are small doesn't mean that behavior isn't just as bad.

Thank yo, Momot2, for your tidbit common sense injected into this debate. When was the last time you heard about Chihuahuas mauling and killing. As a kid I was bitten a few times by a neighbor's Chihuahua. It was a bit easier as a 5 yr old to stay away from that dog than if he'd had an aggressive Pit sitting next to him. I wouldn't have been allowed near the home if that were the situation.

a poodle isnt going to clamp down with the force of a pit and then not let go, are there so many cases of poodle attacks that are covered up ? I wonder if those who think its unfair to band pit bulls had their child attacked iwould feel differently ? or you think that all these attacks are exaggerated? are'nt there statistics to support this ? again I have to point out they clamp down and do not let go,,,,,,,,,,, you can claim unfairness to the breed all you want , but most people are very intimidated by pits,,,,,,,,and again the numbers support their feelings too,
I dont trust them at all,,,,,,,,, I love dogs,,,,,,,,, I do not love pit bulls,,,,,,,,,, I got bit by one,,,,,,,,,,,,Ive never been bit by any other dog ever

William I guess you mean Chihuahuas. Being a pet groomer for many yrs I have to agree, the most aggressive dogs are usually the small ones under 30lbs. The major problem with Pit Bulls & other "Bully Breeds" is the strength of their jaws. It's pretty obvious that a big dog can cause more damage then a small one. We need laws to hold owners responsible for their pets! I have 2 mixed breeds and when I take them to a dog park I walk them around on leash to see if there is any dogs that may be a problem or if my dogs have a problem with the dogs there that day. It's about common sense but in this day & age there seems to be a lack of it. Pit Bulls and other bully breeds should not be banned but bad owners should be! People who rent their properties should know what animals are living on their properties! Again, common sense!

Any dog is capable of attacking/mauling other animals or people. It is not breed specific! There was a case several years ago in Perry Hall that a Golden Retriever attack a child in front of the dogs house. The dog busted out of the screen door and went after the child. The woman in England who was the first facial transplant was attacked by her Labrador Retriever. I think biting out your lips and nose would be considered a mauling, don't you? The media, as with everything else, will sensationalize anything for ratings. Any dog is capable doing extreme damage to humans and other animals. Don't just pin it on the Pitt Bulls.

Pit bulls don't have stronger jaws than any other dog of a similar size. Anyone who says differently is feeding you a line.

William, one of gov't's roles is to protect public health. You do realize that without gov't, there would be no sewer systems or trash collection? Do you understand that this gov't interference increased our longevity more than all the medical discoveries before and after that? By interfering in killer-dog breeds, our gov't *is* concentrating on people and human public health, no less than when it built our sewage systems.

I own a goofy-friendly, non-pit dog, but I carry half a million on insurance in case it runs in front of a car and someone gets hurt trying not to run it over. Why don't you already own insurance for your pit regardless of whether it's more dangerous than my dog?

And why shouldn't insurance companies ask what breed (type) of dog you own? Young male drivers pay more for insurance because they cause more accidents. Ie, they present more actuarial risk. They SHOULD pay for this themselves -- or would you like to pay for this for them? You know, forbid insurance companies to ask what sex and age a drive is?

Pit-bull type dogs represent 3000% higher actuarial risk than all other dogs. I'm not up for having my premiums hiked because of your choice, and I don't think that's 'descrimination'. It's just 'choose the behavior, choose the consequences.'

Please go buy insurance for your pit-type dog, now, before it's too late. I chose a non-pit dog, if your premiums are higher, well, you pay for your own choices.

@ Red Dolphin 11:08 pm on Friday, May 4, 2012: I love dogs,,,,,,,,, I do not love pit bulls,,,,,,,,,,""

Given the numbers of ordinary, not fighting / baiting bred dogs that are being killed every single day by pit-bull type dogs, anyone who loves dogs must be for legislating strong controls (if not bans) on the pit-bull type dogs (and all their mixes and derivatives).

Either you love pit bulls OR you love dogs. One or the other, both isn't possible.

It's completely true. Several times a year we catch dog-walkers not cleaning up after the dogs after they drop deuces on our property. If we see'em, we walk out and say "Hey, I notice your dog just took a dump in our yard - did you need a bag to pick that up?".

The looks on these irresponsible/self-entitled people is priceless.

HoCo is no better. Promise!!!! Besides BARC Park I only have one other park we go to where all dog owners are very respectful and attentive...it is our secret location that we don't even share with our friends. I don't want this sanctuary to become another crazy park. By the way, my favorite thing is when people at some of these dog parks bring toddlers (clearly not allowed) and let them walk around the large dog side and play. Bloody amazing!!!!

FastDog, you need to do some reading about normal mammalian (including dog) behavior. Never mind the Mexican dog-hairdresser who has come to fame, and who talks about women the same way he talks about dogs. There's a lot of science out there, maybe take a look at some of it?

BTW, I don't mean to say you're wrong to change direction rather than get anywhere near a pit with your dog. The various fighting-type dogs are in no way normal dogs. You're doing right by avoiding them with your normal dog.

Thanks for the response David,
I respect your decisions, and appreciate especially the fact that you make yourself available to these forums.
I am a life long Baltimore Co. resident that has seen many bad laws created out of emotion rather than legal reasoning. I'm glad not to be in your position with this decision, but do believe that it discriminates...and that's a bad thing.

Buck, I understand...thank you for sharing.

Mr Marks, if you are going to place restrictions on the dog park, please word them in a manner that pertains to all dogs. I’ve been around and owned dogs all my life and I can tell you that most of the aggressive dogs that I’ve seen are smaller breeds. For the most part, it’s not the large breeds that cause problems. Also, the large breed dogs that are aggressive are not normally taken to dog parks because the owners know not to even if they are not considered a good owner.

it appears that with dog parks enforcement will be needed, maybe the speed camera program should be expanded so big brother can watch and grab a little more revenue.

Maybe the state should have more strict laws concerning the owners. This might sound too simplistic but couldn't we have laws in place that anyone who owns a dog or wants to own a dog be evaluated much like is done when wanting to adopt a pet?
Some adoption places even come to the prospective owner's home. Even during ownership, there should be a way to report the dog's behavior, and not have it be ignored by the 'authorities'. This might even take care of constant dog barking issues as well. These should be able to be anonymous complaints, and by more than one neighbor to show it is legitimate. The person in question shouldn't be allowed to have a pet if they can't treat it right. jmo
ps I think the biting issue with the pit breed partially comes from their jawline, if you will, hence the mauling and not 'just' biting(?) Not sure, I've not investigated the issue :)

Thank you David Marks! [I'm a Maryland voter, BTW, not some outsider trying to tell Marylanders how to live.] By supporting the Maryland ruling, you are doing exactly what 'Buck Harmon' asks you to do -- focus on quality of life for the majority of human beings in your constituency. The pit fans are a very small, though very screaming, minority in your constituency. We, who do NOT want to run into pits either with our children or our normal family dogs, are in the vast majority.

Quality of life includes, IMO, not having to worry when my 10-y-o daughter walks our little muttsy-type dog (20 lbs) that she'll have the trauma of having some pit-type attack our dog and watch it die before her young eyes. Worse yet that she'll get mauled trying to help her little housemate and family member.

I (Maryland voter) would love it if we returned to the old days, the pre-pit days, when we could take our normal dogs and our children out without fearing an encounter with a genetically driven mauler / killer. I hope, but really hope, you won't mistake the tantrums and screamings of a small minority of irresponsible MD residents for what us voters really want. Thank you so far!

@ The Mom : 5:04 pm on Thursday, May 3, 2012 "Maybe the state should have more strict laws concerning the owners."

Hi Mom, this is what the Maryland ruling does. It says owners of a type of dog that shows a 3000% actuarial risk above all other dogs must buy insurance...otherwise the landlord is vulnerable (his own insurance policy) and might want to put them out.

@ The Mom: couldn't we have laws in place that anyone who owns a dog or wants to own a dog be evaluated much like is done when wanting to adopt a pet?""

It would be okay with me if, aside from what the MD ruling rightly imposes specifically on pit-bull fans, all shelters checked first whether an adopter has adequate liability insurance for owning a dog at all. Anyone who hasn't taken this step in advance is unfit to own a dog! How much are they going to spend on food and vet care if insurance is already too much for them?

I do agree with your comments about the failings of Animal Control. Thanks!

Yes, Buck and if we acted like a pitbull and attacked like them we would probably go to jail of a while.

Buck, will you please not project your own qualities onto the rest of us?

Sounds like your inner Bull pitting SweetPie...

Due to their irresponsible/ill trained/ill equipped owners. This is a British breed that has always been very loyal. Let's just say all dogs are banned from the US and only foxes and Coyotes are allowed. That sounds good. Being a dog owner (much like being a parent) is a privilege...not a right. So own it and treat it as this. If you do this you will have a wonderful companion.

Forgot one allowed..... North American Wolf...totally allowed. All other canines MUST BE EUTHANIZED per Sweetie Pie

Okay...I take it back...you are for it. I am so angry reading this I am getting confused. I need to move to Alaska where it doesn't matter. (My Bad)

Thank you, Sweetie. I'm glad someone here could inject some factual information into this discussion. Information similar to what the judges who issued the corresponding verdict. And I'm glad they weren't swayed by emotional pleas by people who own these dogs. There are, indeed, differences in breed. You can check the differences on any book or site dedicated to detailing dog breeds. Sure you can train dogs to be closer to what you would like them to be. You can train them to do tricks too, but certain dog breeds will perform better than others and a dog of a certain breed will always have come characteristics that are innate to their breed. As people here have complained, Chihuahua's are more apt to bite than many other breeds, and as Sweetie proves through her links, Pits have characteristics that cause them to maim, maul and kill not only more often than other dog breeds, but much more often.

You left these out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdG_Aad5CAM -Golden Retriever and Austrailian Shepard attack a woman killing her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK-6lL-Digk-cocker spainiel attacks guide dog
http://www.essfta.org/health_research/aggression.htm- dscription of "rage" syndromes in springer spaniels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States This not only list pitt and pitt mixes but several other breeds of dog. You see it's not just Pitt Bulls that maul people to death. This also states that where the dogs were and how they were kept. Lots of chained dogs, no socialization I am sure. Make the law across the board for all breeds and hold OWNERS accaountable, not landlords.

Great, here comes the tools of personal injury attorneys. Dog attacks are pretty rare, fatal attacks are rarer than being struck by lightning.

The "science" in that paper is terribly flawed.

1. Tiny sample size.
2. Significant difference in population of people injured vs. population where breed was identified.
3. No controls for breed identification.
4. No proof that the Glasgow Coma Scale is an appropriate measure for dog bite trauma.

In short, barely science. But you know, people make their decision and then gin up some "facts" to support it, so it's not really surprising. Can't expect a bunch of hysterical mothers and ambulance chasers to form a well considered opinion.

Any law pertaining to dog owners must apply EQUALLY to all dog owners...period.

Yes, it should be right there in the Constitution: There shall be no discrimination based on race, gender, religious practices, sexual preferences, or the type of dog you have.

Yes Evets, However I would re-word the end of your sentence to say..or the type of dog that you choose freely to own. Thank you..

Buck...And it shall, just not to all dogs! Because all dogs are not created equal, part by design of nature and part by nurture.

Sorry people that got bit by dogs other than pit bulls. Everyone else gets a free pass.

I'm back here after a couple of days, and am sorry Dave to see the ridiculous and belittling reactions you have (typically) got from the pit-fans. This Buck Harmon person is clearly worried that he'll have to pay for insurance whose premiums will reflect the real risk his chosen un-dog presents. As a dog owner, I object here again to having to share the risk this Buck Harmon is choosing, Buck pay your own premiums just like the juvenile male car driver!

Their selfishness abounds, these pit fans.

And their strange dummy-ness. Comes Buck back retorting to Evets with 'Yes, type of dog you freely chose to own'-- but all the same, dear Buck hopes us other dog owners will carry the consequences of this (as he says) free choice he made.

They continue to amaze in their weird Narcissism, these pit people. I am hoping and hoping that my legislators don't fall for this.

If your dog is as gentle as you say, then you should have no problem with it meeting the same standard as a pit bull.

" If they were aggressive " exactly............ lets look at the stats ? is it sensationalizing I ask ? sure seems like you hear of alot of cases involving pits. is it true that most other breeds will bite you and let go whereas a pit bullwil cmap down and hold on tight and jerk its head viciously until chunk s of flesh are ripped off its target?

Yes, lets look at the stats. The best "study" anti-pit bull crowd can come up with is a review of some newspaper articles, which we all know are highly accurate.

Yes, Dennis, and as you know I had a similar incident when I was taking care of as many a six Tigers at a time.

Geeze...

i was walkng my 34 lbs black lab when a pit bull broke loose from its owner an came after my dog I picked up a large rock and held it up i the air the pit could see he wasnt welcome to come over,,,,,,,,,,, did I over re-act ? I just didnt know what the pit was going to do,,,,,,, there were state cops there and they said to me "you odnt have to do that " I said well come get 'em then" if your dog comes at me in an agressive manner I dont care what breed he is Im gonna be ready!
usually you can "read a dogs" dispostion. do you all agree? but ive seen pits wag their tails and appear to be friendly and then WHAM! call me what you want Im going to protect my family and my pet from any dog that shows aggression ,,,,,,

Pete, you better cross your fingers that MD legislators DO NOT educate themselves about the true origin of the Ku Klux Klan fighting dog and its inherent characteristics. This would spell true disaster for you. Be careful what you wish for!

Again, I agree with you....over regulating animals is difficult to enforce...and kinda dumb...

ha ha love it! maybe I can walk my 45 lb tortosie there? he doesnt bite and he cant catch you any way, and his main diet is grass,

You were only lucky if it was pit-type dogs that stormed your border collie. Otherwise I recommend you read Semyonova's '100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs'-- it'll help you understand how normal dogs do things. I can't tell you how much that book changed my life...

Tony, this is why pit breeders have rape-racks. The mutant dogs are so aggressive that they can't even mate. When they get that excited, they just attack each other.

Dogsbite.org is run by a fanatic who has no expertise in either science or animal behavior. No reputable animal welfare, breeding or veterinary organization endorses breed specific legislation. Trial lawyers and PETA do.

Able, will you please leave the personal attacks out of it? Dogsbite org is a very reputable supplier of information, everything is checked and double-checked. Ditto AnimalPeopleNews. Every reputable scientist agrees that pit-bull type dogs are different. SPCAs aren't scientific organizations, and vets aren't behavior specialists.

Reputable scientists *don't* agree. Please show me where they do. Vet organizations don't support breed specific legislation. Why should we take the word of someone who has no scientific or animal related training and whose only qualification appears to be that she was once bitten by a dog?

He conveniently leaves out a lot of facts from his article. Breed specific legislation and bans have generally shown to be failure in preventing dog bite injuries and fatalities. In many cases, bite injuries went up after bans. The real solution to preventing bite injuries and improving animal welfare is a well-funded, well-run animal control service. Currently the model for this is Calgary, which has record high compliance with licensing and vaccination, and an extremely low incidience of dog bite injuries.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2007/09/canine-legisl-2.html

Able Baker 5:49 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012 "He conveniently leaves out a lot of facts..."

Able, you're lying again (consciously or not). Everywhere BSL had been introduced and enforced, it's been a huge success. Dog bite related fatalities drop dramatically (in Denver now zero for twenty years already), and -- you should care about this since you love pits -- euthanization of pit-bulls no one wants also drops dramatically.

The only places BSL fails are places that give in to the kennel clubs, thus write the laws to exclude so-called 'American Staff terriers'. These are original pit bulls, no less than the APBT is. So if you allow half the FACTUAL pits to stay on the streets, then because of this loophole every pit owner suddenly has a 'Staffie'-- well, yeah, BSL will fail. This was the problem in the UK and the Netherlands, but ya know despite this, DBRF stats did drop -- just not as much as when all pits had been banned.

Apparently it worked so well in the Netherlands that they're repealing it. You're employing the No True Scotsman fallacy. If Breed Specific Legislation fails, it's because it's not really Breed Specific Legislation, of course, not because BSL is fundamentally flawed.

http://dogtrainingireland.ie/blog/2008/08/03/netherlands-remove-their-ban-on-pit-bulls/

"On Monday the 9th of June Gerda Verburg the Dutch Minister of Agriculture lifted the ban on Pit Bulls in the Netherlands. The law had been in place for 15 years. The main reason for the lift was because it was found to be ineffective."

Dog bite related fatalities are zero PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE, because dog bite related fatalities are EXTREMELY RARE. More people are killed by lightning than dogs.

Dogsbite is run by a fanatic that has no training in science, animal care, law or anything else that qualifies her to be recognized as an authority on dogs or dog bites. It's just a lady with a webpage and an agenda. Her largest supporter is a personal injury attorney.

All statistics are only as good as the folks that create them..

Able Baker 6:01 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012 : "Dogsbite is run by a fanatic that has no training in science, animal care, law..."

Dogsbite so happens to be an authoritative and reliable source. Given the way you phrase your criticism, I'd like to know what scientific training, animal care experience (beyond owning your pit), law training, and other things you possess.

Colleen's largest supporters include (among many others) a number of well-known authorities on animal behavior, genetics, and the behavior of the domestic dog in particular. Shouting 'she'nobody!' is kind of a weak way of trying to win your point...

Says who? Says another anti-pitbull fanatic? She has a clear agenda, uses bad science and has no formal training in any animal-related field. Who are these "dog experts" that support her?

They're really not, no matter how often you say it. Pardon me if I trust the opinion of animal care experts and veterinarians over a crazy lady who got bit by a dog once.

sorta like guns I guess. seriously so ifthats a good analogy shouldnt we make sure that thse powerful potentially dangerous "weapons" dont get i toio the hands of the wrong people ? ( not an all out ban. but back ground checks silmilar to gun owner ship)

Not really. Pit bulls are relatively small dogs (60 lbs or less). There's plenty of large dogs that could much more easily overpower their owner.

I am not referring to their size. It is their viscous nature and desire to attack that causes them to overpower their owners and attack.

Able Baker 5:54 pm on Wednesday, May 9, 2012 "Not really. Pit bulls are relatively small dogs (60 lbs or less). There's plenty of large dogs that could much more easily overpower their owner."

Gads, this is getting ridiculous. Now comes Able, who will likely appear in all kinds of comments sections to tell us: The mauling / killing pit bull you just reported can't possibly really be a pit bull because it weighed more than 60 lbs. So it must have been a Labrador (etc, blah-blah).

I guess Able lives inside his living room behind his pc, is unaware of what's going on out here in the real world. Pits bred up to weigh as much as 125 lbs. So-called AmBulls that weigh even more (and pit-derivatives all the same).

It's looking like most of the pit lobby is like this...

American Pit Bull Terrier is a pretty well defined breed, like it or not. Check the UKC for the breed standard. Pits are relatively small dogs, not the big hulking brute you've created in your own mind. If someone told me they were bitten by a 200 lb Laborador, I wouldn't believe them either.

AmBulls stands for AMerican BULLdog. They top out about 120 lbs. (again, check the breed standard) American Bulldogs are not pitbulls. Have people crossbred other dogs with things like Mastiffs and Rottweillers to get bigger dogs, sure. But at some point you can't call a mastiff-sized dog (which top out around 200 lbs) a pitbull (which top out around 60).

I'm not really sure where the anti-pitbull fervor comes from. Most likely from an unfulfilling home life. Gotta have something to get your blood pumping, I guess.

Hear, hear Tony!

Same rules apply to all dog owners, or no rules at all.
Glad to see you on some sort of roll here today SweetPie, but you are rollin in the wrong direction again...bad law is bad law, I am not a pit bull proponent, but rather adamant about the creation of bad law by elected public servants.
The stats provided on this blog are only as accurate as the person that created them. Pit Bulls are lovely animals and if you fear them you would fear other large breed dogs as well.....same rules for all...it's the only fair thing to do.

So there's Buck stamping his feet 'same rules for all or no rules at all!'
I have no idea how old this Buck is, but he seems to have missed the point about juvenile male drivers of cars. Ah, I'm wrong! Buck got the point...but he's a socialist. He thinks all of us should pay for the statistically factual greater damage young male drivers cause. He's totally against people paying the price for their own choices and behavior.

Gads, sorry Buck! How long ago did you join the Socialist Party? And [SMILE] did you pay your dues, or did someone else pay them for you?

Glad to see that you agree with me sweet pie, same rules apply to all...
I'll take your last comment here as surrender rather than call you a silly name or something. When you result to label or name calling your argument is lost...you no longer exist...

Dear Buck, you're having problems with reading comprehension. I didn't say I was a socialist -- I do think both juvenile male drivers and pit bull owners should themselves pay the costs of the extra risks they represent (the p-b owners by completely voluntary consumer choice, whereas a young boy can't help it that his brain hasn't matured yet).

'Socialist' isn't pejorative, though apparently you think it is. And since you think it is, I'm surprised you would want the costs of your own choices to be paid by others. It's one of those things you can't have both ways. Either you pay for your own choices, or you think others should be compelled to contribute. If you think others should be compelled to contribute to paying for what you choose, well, that's socialist.

If you think others should pay for your choices, but you think socialist is a dirty word, so you shouldn't have to reciprocate by paying for what they choose, I don't know what the word for that is. Narcissistic, maybe? Egocentric?

You do realize this whole discussion is because pit bull owners are utterly indignant at the idea of having to insure themselves? That they apparently feel tax payers and victims' families should bear all the costs of the catastrophic injuries their pit bulls inflict? Okay, maybe it's not socialist. Maybe it's just third-generation welfare recipient mentality -- others pay my way or else I stamp my feet!

No sweetpie, You don't seem to get it, I could care less about the details of insurance or associated costs, they are greed driven corporate entities that thrive on dumb law that is perceived to protect the public. I believe that the real problems need to be addressed at the cause of the problem, city~ county puppy mill breeding operations that seem to be profitable. The insurance racket is just that....worse than the mill breeders in my opinion. The socialist mentality would force people into compliance by making it mandatory to purchase anything...
Once again ...I accept your surrender on this topic...

Of course not. Journalists would never sensationalize a story to sell more papers/get better ratings.

Resent it all you want. I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to sue, I just question the objectivity of people who make their money from suing people. Why wouldn't personal injury attorneys support this ruling? It opens up a whole new class of people with lots of money to sue.

Golden Retrievers don't do what now?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-22/news/31383925_1_police-officers-pooch-beautiful-dog

Again, there's no evidence to support this idea that pit bulls aren't "biddable". Terriers obey commands extremely well, and pit bulls, being part of the terrier group, are no exception to that.

Golden Retriever - Laborador mix, which you would know if you read the article. The point is that your "safe" dog isn't safe. Just like there are bad pit bulls, there are bad Goldens.

I'm having trouble making sense of what you're writing. No wonder you have to give away your book for free.

1. What is an "accredited police investigation"? How does that differ from a routine police investigation?

2. They looked into 15 dog bite cases, of which all were pit bulls. Are you making the claim that there have only been 15 dog bite cases since 1998 and all of them were pit bulls? Or were 15 chosen at random and all happened to be pit bulls? Or did they just select pit bull bite cases?

3. Agreed. Dog owners, regardless of breed, should be responsible for the actions of their dog. At the risk of making the personal injury attorneys even more gleeful at the prospect of an ever greater number of people to sue, the standard needs to be equal for all dogs.