Your rational that identifies blacks in Baltimore as the core of the pit bull problem appears to be very casually arrived at. In the 1830s when dogfighting became popular in Europe and North American blacks were themselves pitted against each other by white slave owners. The pit bull is what he is because of selective aggression breeding by white dog owners. It matters not who owns a pittbull at this point they are genetically maligned and the blacks in Baltimore are not the culprits. Oddly enough bigotry and racism are also a form of selective social breeding. The symtoms are simlar: Unprovoked unsubstantiated attacks against the object of one's stereotypical bias. The legal designation as 'dangerous' is one we would do well to apply with a broader brush.

I guess ignorance is bliss........very sad and uneducated opinion.

Donna, educate me using facts and not emotion and opinion. I might take a second look. Until then, the Court of Appeals used facts to decide this case that Pit Bull owners don't like and couldn't be swayed by opinion and emotion on their side. "I think pit bulls capacity to do damage is no greater than a chihuahua,"????

Those who are in protest of the Court of Appeals decision substantiate their arguments with unfounded and emotional stories. The pit bull versus the chihuahua analogy is just another example of this.

Chris is very apparent that you have never met a pit bull and are getting all your "facts" from what you see on the TV. Almost every bite report gets their stats from the media which has been shown to be biased towards this breed by many independent research groups.

I am a white, middle class woman with a child and masters degree and I have a pit bull. So your wrong.

There are MILLIONS of pit bulls that are out there right now who will never bite a person.90% of ALL dog bites come from dogs that are tethered and unaltered. Instead of talking about something you know nothing about, why not listen to people who have actual experience with this breed and educate yourself.

I for one would rather get bit by a chihuahua than a pit bull. The bill is not banning the breed, it just makes the owner have to acknowledge and take precautions for owning a pit. I 100% agree with ChrisB.

You are severly misinformed and a bigot yourself. There are tens of thousans of wonderful pitbulls and owners...Doctors, nurses, lawyers, blue collar and white collar owners. "Pitbulls", which is not even a breed, but a category which encompassed several breeds and mixes, are no more aggressive than any other dog. All nationally recognized organizations back that FACT...ASPCA, Humane Society of America, American Veterinary Association, National Canine Research Council and many more independent groups. Get a clue and stop the fear and hate.

You obviously did not see photos of the people attending the rally all of whom are pit bull owners. Based upon my visual the people there were overwhelmingly white, and I bet middle class. In the Maryland rule, basically muscular dogs with short fur and square heads are affected, pit bull or not. Historically pits have been charged with taking care of children (Victorian England). They were chosen for tv and movie roles as they interact well with kids. The first decorated military dog was a pit bull, and Helen Keller owned them. The pit bull is the only dog to grace the cover of Life Magazine 3 times. It is true that these dogs are used for fighting, but they are also service and military dogs. Prior to 1975 there is only one documented death of a pit bite resulting in a fatality (DBRF). After the pit bull became targe of choice, there were more. According to the CDC, Great Danes, between 1975 and 1980 caused the most DBRF. Since 1975 more than 30 breeds of dogs have caused DBRF including doxies, labs, and a yorkie. You have a greater chance of being killed by lightning or by a falling coconut than being by any dog let alone a pit bull. The greatest corrolation between dog bites and dog types is whether the dog is neutered or not. The corrolation between dog bites and intact dogs is about 96%. I could go on. I am a graduate school educated, employed, rational pit bull owner. I look at facts not media-generated sensationalism.

Lynn...anybody that owns a pit and a rottweiler has other issues. Why the need for basically what amounts to attack type dogs? You do realize you have according to CDC studies the two dogs most often cited for fatal and severe attacks on humanes - and it's most often children that are killed by these dogs. Statistics don't back up what you might observe in your neighborhood. There's a reason they don't use beagles in dogfights - beagles won't fight like that. To the idiot from the little demonstration who stated she's more afraid of chihuahuas...sheesh one more example of the why these dogs seem to attract the very people either too stupid or irresponsible to own them in the first place.

The statistics are clear about the number of pit bull related deaths of children AND adult victims. From http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-dog-attacks-and-maimings-merritt-clifton.php
In the 3-year period from 2006 to 2008, pit bull type dogs killed 52 Americans and accounted for 59% of all fatal attacks. Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 73% of these deaths.

I have a masters degree and am a educator and I own a pit bull. No not just thugs like pitts. Educate yourself!

Why did you choose to own a pit bull and a rottweiler?

I use to be scared of pit bulls like everyone else on here. I then started volunteering at a local animal shelter that has almost all, pit bulls. I have been volunteering there for over 5 years and have NEVER had one aggressive interaction with a pit bull. I had actual experience with this breed and found that all my fears were untrue. Then I started to educate myself about why this is.

What I found out is that the media has used this breed to sell their stories so the general public will tune in. There is a true story of a man who got attacked by a lab and who called the news. Not one news person would come. He called back the news and said it was a pit bull. Within 5 minutes 4 news vans were there.

Like most people my ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with this breed made me want to get one and my pit bull is the BEST DOG I have ever owned and is amazing with my three year old. The reason that pit bull owners are so mad about this is because of people who rely on what they see on TV to trump what pit bull owners ACTUAL EXPERIENCE is. I would never own another type of dog after owning a pit bull.

Momof2: the key phrase to pay attention to in the link you provided is the one that says "By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts". That study is not a valid statistical representation of dog bites overall, but rather shows which dog bite stories the press chooses to pick up on. BIG difference.

And, if you open up any of the reports linked at the bottom of the page that you provided, you'll see the following statement: "Due to the exclusion of dogs whose breed type may be uncertain, this is by no means a complete list of fatal and otherwise serious dog attacks." By the report's own admission, this is not a a comprehensive or complete list representative of the the true stats of dog attacks.

These are bad stats (they are taken from media reports only, and exclude a significant portion of attacks that have occurred). They do not properly represent all the attacks that have occurred, and do not tell us anything valid about how more or less likely pit bulls are to be vicious.

The talking point all the pitties have adopted seems to be "it's the people, not the dogs". Think about that...you might want to change that talking point because as should be obvious regardless of where you focus, the danger to your neighbors is the same. I could care little why the dog is dangerous if it presents a danger - it needs to be removed.

The point, Karl, is that any dog can be made to be vicious by an irresponsible owner. Banning pit bulls isn't going to magically make dog attacks on humans go away - other dogs can and will be substituted in the role. Going after pit bulls is a case of treating the symptoms, not the disease.

And the rest of us who agree with him choose to ignore the anecdotal "evidence" and emotional arguments that continue to blur the difference between dog bites and vicious dog attacks.

Hope you live out in the country or somewhere other than Harford because to have 4 dogs normally requires a special license...like a shelter or kennel and then there are requirements for cleanliness and inspections.

Thanks, Karl

Denver has had a ban since 1989. The following is a website in Australia which handles the problem. Warning it has awful pictures of pit bull victims-
http://www.sittingbull.com.au/

Momof 2. Have you ever met a pit bull? Where are you getting your information from?

Momof2: Ohio had a ban on pit bulls since 1987, and recently repealed it. Why? Because it didn't fix the problem.
http://www.animallawcoalition.com/breed-bans/article/1495

Mastiffs are actually the dogs used to in Roman pit fights. Not "pit bulls" and the reality is that there is no such breed as a "pit bull terrier". Dogs identified as such are usually a mix and often contain no traditionally regarded aggressive breed mix. In the Maryland court ruling a dog with a square head, short fur is considered a pit bull. My "pit bull" is actually a genetic mix of Corgi, Duck Tolling Retreiver, Labrador Retriever and Beagle, however if you saw her, you would call her a "pit bull" and under the Maryland ruling she is "inherently dangerous".

What about the jack russell that maim an infant so bad he needed 40 stitches? Or the American Bulldog who killed his families infant? Or the Ridgeback that killed an infant? All of these stories are stories you can look up and see. ALL DOGS CAN BITE! Focus on anti tethering laws and mandatory spay/neuter deals with the PROBLEM.

Really check out this story about a JACK RUSSELL
http://www.examiner.com/article/infant-mauled-by-small-dog-virginia

Because it's not just about liability to the owner. People are being forced to give up or put down their non-violent dogs because landlords who previously allowed these pets on their properties are now are restricting people from having them. Owners now have to make the choice of losing their current home, or losing their family member/pet. This also means that people will be forced to muzzle their dogs, regardless of the the dog's temperament, when taking them out into public places, and this severely restricts the public places owners will be allowed to take the dog, again, regardless of the dogs temperament. This decision has a ripple affect.

Because under the ruling, landlords are responsible for the dog too, now. As a result people are being served with eviction notices - get rid of your dog or move. BARCS is now euthanizing dogs, and if you look at the kennel card it read "Maryland Pit Bull Rule". I know of two people are ready to sleep in their cars June 1 because no one wants the liability of their so-called inherently dangerous dogs and they don't want their cherished family pets to die.

M. Sullivan,
Thank you for the support to the pit bull "cheerleaders". It is the owner's responsibility. A chihuahua, a pit bull - it make no difference - it's the owner not the breed. So with your own support we can keep whining now!

Cyndy,
Did you actually read all my words here, or just the ones that seemed to agree with you?

"All of you pit bull cheerleaders can whine until you are blue in the face."
- I will agree to that and I will.

The well documented statistics show that these dogs are dangerous.
- I disagree. Show me true statistics that show both sides of the story. That means you have to show the good and the bad NOT just what is printed in the media.

Sure, it may be the owner's fault. But this same person can raise a chihuahua to be vicious without anywhere near the consequences. There is a reason that private citizens are not allowed to buy dynamite without a permit. That dynamite may be perfectly safe while stored in the closet for just that "special occasion". But misuse or accidents with dynamite can cause serious problems.
- I agree and as I responded: It is the owner's responsibility. A chihuahua, a pit bull - it make no difference - it's the owner not the breed.

Show us the stats. The only ones I've seen don't back up your statements. See my comments to Momof2's link above.

The CDC dog bite stats state IN THEIR REPORT
"Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises con- stitutional and practical issues."

They also state that they get their information from the media

Great points!

Where are you getting your "well documented" statistics? Mine come from the CDC and (Center for Disease Control) which tracks dog bites, maiming and death and their stats do not back you up at all.

Karl keep you lions but if they become aggressive or you throw them into an abusive situation you should held accountable not the rest of the lions in this world. They say pit bulls were bred to be viscous (though they were herders, working, and hunting dogs when the colonies were being formed). When did human accountability get bred out of our race?

Cyndy,
"They say pit bulls were bred to be viscous"? They were bred to have a thick, stick consistency?

Thanks M. That darn spell check! v-i-c-i-o-u-s.
And again thank y-o-u for your support!

William,
I've gone through that process as well and it is effective. However, the laws on the books now concerning dog licensing are not enforced. Why would any pit bull in a fight group be licensed? Their owners are already criminal, anti-social people. Again, it is the responsible people that will suffer most with this government interference and lack of control.

Many home insurance companies have already had exclusions or higher rates for homes with certain breeds, including pit bulls, for many years. This is because, once again, of the documented statistics regarding pit bull attacks and the severity of the injuries involved. This is not new news.

Unless statistics show both sides of the analysis they are faulty no matter who publishes them. High school statistics courses teach that. I don't need to show statistics on that by the way - I took the course.

If it ends up costing more to own a pit it's the price you pay for the added risk - I'd think an incentive to reduce pit populations is the right thing to do..25 of the 52 dogs currently at the Fallston Shelter are pit bulls. What would cause that? Could it possibly be that there's something about the people that want to keep pit bulls that make them far less likely to be responsible for their dogs. Facts don't lie - it would sure seem that way - how else would you explain that 50% of abandoned dogs are pits while they only make up 3% of the pet population? Pit bulls seem to concentrate crappy owners.

I do agree with you Karl. The population needs to be reduced. My own pit mix was a rescue who was abandoned at the local grocery store. The enforcement of the requirements to own any dog needs to be maintained better.

But .... Giving your pet to a shelter does not mean you are a 'crappy owner'. Responsible people make those hard truly crappy decisions. They don't dump their dogs off on the side of the road or worse. People are losing their homes and cannot care for their pets. All shelters I support have seen an increase in the number of pets given up. Pit bulls tend to be harder to get adopted though because of the bad press they receive so their numbers remain high within the shelters. Look deeper to see when each of those pits were placed up for adoption and you will see what I mean.

The intake date of the dog doesn't matter; if they aren't being adopted it means there are too many pit bulls out there. I would also vehemently disagree with your belief that dumping your pet at a shelter isn't an indication of a lack of responsibility. There are unusual instances of dogs being uncontrollable or losing your home...but that's the exception. Most people that that deliberately drop their dogs at a shelter or fail to follow up at the local shelter once the dog is unaccounted for are nothing but irresponsible and crappy pet owners.

M Sullivan- These "well document" facts you talk about come from the media which has shown to have a negative bias towards pit bulls.

Another "well documented" bite report is run by a victim of a dog bite. Would you trust rape stats from a rape victim or rapist? Or course not, because they are not going to be biased. Yet you talk about "well documented" facts from a completely biased person.

Seriously you're going to compare pit bull legal liability legislation to sanctioned racism? The word tool comes to mind.

Actually Karl that was in response to Chuck's remark about banning humans. The government has done that already and it too was in response to a lack of understanding, empathy, and true human accountability as well.

Perhaps...but tool still comes to mind.

The court has made this issue a big emergency for many people - maybe not equal to the fiscal emergency the state is experiencing, but tell that to the dog owners.

Chihuahuas are not good news stories. 18 years ago our cocker spaniel attacked my 2-year old son and left him with the 4 inch scar on his face. The dog bite was reported to animal control by the hospital and I did receive a citation. I had the dog removed from our home to a home where there were no children. No one directed me to do this though. I did it primarily for my son's safety and secondly I had responsibility for the dog. If no good home could be found he would have been taken to the shelter or put down.

There is a reason you do not hear about the other breeds in the news.

No science to that comment, just opinion. And if true...then ipso facto all large breeds are "inherently dangerous". So...where do you stop? Welcome to the slippery slope of emotional rulings.

A man in California got attacked by a lab. He called the news and NONE would come out to do a story. He called back saying it was a pit bull and 5 news vans showed up at his house.

Do YOU think there might be a media biased? ALL Dogs can bite, but the media choses with ones to report. SO if you are getting your information on my dog from the media, your wrong

Something about that story doesn't ring true. You expect us to believe that media, print, online and television news sources have some sort of arranged conspiracy regarding these dogs. Get some new talking points...if it sounds like who shot John, it's most likely who shot John.

Karl, it's not about media conspiracy. It's about media sensationalism, and confirmation bias.

See the 09:45 post above to Karl and his lions. The same should apply to your tiger. Be a good owner, do what is right, and accept responsibility if you fail.

If a pit bull had bitten your face you probably would have lost half your face, if you had lived. Did those tiny dogs that bit you do any major damage?

M. Sullivan - these pitties don't want to admit the obvious. It's not just the nature of the dog, it's the dogs ability to inflict damage. These references to chihuahuas and beagles are nothing but nonsense. When's the last time you saw a beagle with a studded metal collar trot into the ring for a vicious go round with another beagle? It's ludicrous...the entire argument is ludicrous.

OH MY GOD, what about the children???? It is a FACT that children are more likely to be killed at the hands on their own PARENTS then a pit bull. Lets ban parents, or anything with teeth!

If you are so concerned with the children you MIGHT WANT TO FOCUS ON DOG BITES instead of demonizing one breed of dog.

Amanda...spare the drama; the dogs aren't being banned. The only thing this law does is allow for additional and more absolute liability if they attack and injure. If you're willing to risk your own personal property because you're sure your pit bull is gentle nothing changes for you.

Please explain to me why owners of any other dog shouldn't be subject to the same liability.

Pit bulls were bred NOT to be aggressive towards humans so if a human had to reach into the pit to pull out a fighting dog they would not get bit. thats a FACT.

All dog owners need to be cautious around other dogs and children. Do I let my dog and child play without me there? Of course not. I have to watch my child when he pulls the dogs ears and hits him to teach him that is not the right way to do things.

This bill punishes ALL pit bull owners, including me. We need to focus on irresponsible pit bull owners and anti tethering and mandatory spay/neuter . Almost 90% of ALL dogs bites are by dogs that are unaltered and chained.

Any animal can be dangerous in some situation. I was once attacked by my mother's Siamese tom, when I interrupted his investigation of the spoor of some enemy tom on a bush - it left over 20 scratches and bites on my leg, some severe, and ruined my pants. He was the most abject cat I've ever seen, afterward, knowing he'd made a mistake. Otherwise, he was a wonderful pet. That's one reason I advise spaying or neutering for all non-breeding pets - it can improve their attitudes. Pit owners - and others - take heed.

Chuck- I agree that focusing on mandatory spay/neuter anti tethering laws are what will help with the problem of dog bites.

The problem with APBT'S is when they do attack they will cause major damage and thats why we hear about them.

Uh Ann, humans and dogs are different. Animals are not people. People are not animals (well, some are).

Do you know where they get their stats from? The media. Does that seem like a "clear stat?" NO

Interested what happened when you met the pit what happened?

Amanda...not true. Check the CDC stats regarding fatal dog maulings - those stats are not media reports. Trust me when there's a fatality the police are involved - reports and interviews would indicate the dog breed so the suggestion that these reports are media speculation only are specious. The saddest thing, the part none of your pitties want to discuss is many if not most of the fatalities involve children, and those being children in the home where the dog lives...so it sure isn't like the people don't know what sort of dog they own.

The CDC gets its reports from the media. IF you read the top box its states

"Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises con- stitutional and practical issues. "

And if there's a fatality involving a child with a straight face you'll try to tell me that after interviewing the owners of the dogs who kill they just make up stuff - that people aren't aware of the breed of dog they own; full or mixed pit? Just because the media reports something doesn't mean it's not on a police report. You might keep telling me the sky is green, but you won't convince me.

Karl, I am a mother. DO you think for an instant that I think that a dog that attacks a child is OK? The problem with your argument is that you are talking about an entire breed of dog being responsible for all dog bites and not focusing on dog bites period. If you look at the flip side you are saying that unless you are attacked by a pit bull you dont matter and your injuries dont count. So when you want to have a logic conversation about how to prevent dog bites instead of demonizing an entire breed of dog let me know

If one breed (actually two if you include Rottweilers) is responsible for over 70% of fatalities it should be of no surprise to anyone that the breed(s) should be under some additional scrutiny. If your dog is gentle you have nothing to worry about, if not, and you have some doubts perhaps you need to come up with a plan B.

What a phoney pit bull website. They sure hit all your talking points though and they sort of do a very good job at masking an agenda...you have to look at the studies they produce to see it's not about any actual science but assuming a result they like and working backwards from there. When your trying to create studies based upon science you don't assume the answer you hope to get first as the driver for the study.

Karl- if you go to the CDC website they stats in their own document. That isnt an phoney pit bull website and they say it IN THEIR OWN REPORT! YOu can read the report and see for yourself.

"Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises con- stitutional and practical issues. "

Amanda..you still don't get it. Measuring aggression needs to have some relation to a potential to injure; half the dogs on that list couldn't injure anybody regardless of their behavior because their about the size of a hamster. Keep shoveling that crap out though but it won't change the truth.

You just can't understand the problem. It's not how aggressive the dog is, or how well trained or not. It's simply the capability of the dog to do physical harm due to its physiology. One of the little dogs in this list, like a Dachshund can bit you with all the rage in its little body and still not cause major injury. However, a Pit Bull, just playing, can tear your arm off. It's the difference between giving your kid a BB gun and a 45 cal. handgun to play with. They both can shoot projectiles but, the 45 will do a lot more damage. How is this so hard to understand? Apparently the courts understand, and the insurance companies.

You guys dont get the truth. National Geographic did a test to see which breed had the most bite pressure. So lets talk about the truth, if you are saying that the pit bull is the breed that can do the most damage then they would have the worst bite.

"Strongest Jaw.To answer the question regarding which dog breed has the strongest jaw is difficult because there are so many variables. Of the dogs that have been scientifically tested and recorded, the Rottweiler appears to have the strongest jaw. Remember, this will vary from bite to bite and animal to animal.
If the rumors are true, however, the Doberman has the strongest jaw of all of the domesticated breeds."

Karl and M Sullivan

I own a pit bull, I have volunteered with them for 5 years. I have had much personal experience and have research this breed extensively. I have a three year old at home and as a mother I trust my dog. I have researches this breed to make sure I have a good family pet and yet you tell me that that its "crap" and I "dont understand the problem.

I am confused on what your expertise is and how many pit bulls have you met with amd interacted with. Because it sounds to me you know nothing about "the problem" have never met a pit bull and have believed everything the media has fed you.

Tell us, Amanda, if pit bulls are so wonderful, why are they the dog of choice for dog fighting? Why not German Shepherds or even Rottweilers? If this aggressive, tenacious, killer tendency is something that is trained in the dog then, why not other breeds? I think that a dog fighting match between teacup Yorkies might be rather fun to watch.
I don't need to own an alligator to know they are dangerous. Same goes for Pitts.

M Sullivan,

When turned into aggressive dogs, German Shepherds tend to be more human aggressive than dog aggressive (not exactly the ideal candidate for dog fights, and the reason they're used more as guard dogs), while pit bulls are the other way around.

And there are a ton of other breeds that are indeed used as fighting dogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_fighting_breeds
Its just become chic in American dog fighting rings to use pit bulls - they've become a status symbol.

It had to take you quite a bit of searching to find this list, and what makes you think that just because Pitbulls are listed last it was no. 15? I found lots of lists of dangerous dogs, this list was one of the ones with the least information accompanying this list. Amanda, you're not doing very good research here. F! And avoiding the numbers of maimings and killings, man, do those words mean anything to you at all??? Personally, when looking for a dog I'm looking for one that I would have lots of fun with, trust around my children and other folks, and it would be a great companion. I'm not looking for any of these dogs.

Karl- That is only PART of the ruling and there are so many more problems that this ruling did not even consider. I am not crying, I am trying to get the other side of the story shown to people like you, who have refused every argument that I have presented because you have already made up your mind. Also on the flip side it also states that unless you are bitten by a pit bull you are not entitled to the same compensation and are not as important. I dont worry about my dog biting anyone because I have had her for 8 years and I am a responsible pit bull owner.

Here's an informative website:
http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs.php

DogsBite.org is a national dog bite victims' group dedicated to reducing serious dog attacks. some might say "Biased "

Regarding dogsbite.org, they are not exactly an expert site, nor unbiased. Thier research is shoddy, and they use cherry picked data.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/03/the-truth-behind-dogsbiteorg.html

Show us some data that has good scientific methodology behind it.

Karl, you're incorrect, there is far more to the ruling than what you've stated here. As I said above: people are being forced to give up or put down their innocent, non-violent dogs because landlords who previously allowed these pets on their properties are now are restricting people from having them. Owners now have to make the choice of losing their current home, or losing their family member/pet. This also means that people will be forced to muzzle their dogs, regardless of the the dog's temperament, when taking them out into public places, and this severely restricts the public places owners will be allowed to take the dog, again, regardless of the dogs temperament. This decision has a much bigger ripple affect than you've portrayed in your statement..

Dogsbite is run by a lady whose only expertise is that she was bitten by a dog once.

First you have to define an "aggressive breed". All breeds of dogs can be aggressive, and there's zero science based evidence to show any one breed is more aggressive than another. Dog owners are already required to license their dogs, so I don't see the benefit or point of going that route.

Just what we need, MORE Government control.

You're aware that all dogs *do* have to be registered and vaccinated on an annual basis, right? Most people just choose not to do it, and the government isn't interested in making people comply.

South River Parent: I agree.This community is a microcosm of the entire nation these days.

This nation's population is mentally and emotionally digressing over the past few years - rapidly.

As much as we like to deride other countries that are more socially repressed, the irony is that this country has been heading in that direction in recent history. The teapot/kettle argument from other countries population is gaining steam - and quickly.

Common sense??? If you drive a corvette your insurance is much higher than if you drive a camry. Why do you think that is? Let's call your pit bull a corvette and the lady's beagle down the street a camry. If you want to keep your costs down you're free to buy a camry, but don't expect those that made that more wise camry choice to subsidize the corvette for you. Apparently statistically those that drive corvette's are much more likely to have an accident. Your example lacks exactly what you accuse other of lacking...that would be common sense.

Price isn't the only driver for insurance premiums...all cars under the "sportscar" category will end up costing you more by way of insurance. Volvos cost more than Corvettes, but the insurance rate for those cars is very, very low by comparison. Why do you think that is? You pitties just don't get it. Go ahead and keep your pit bull; just be ready to pay out some big bucks if it bites somebody...it's not a ban and yet you link to a report that estimates costs for a ban. That's a waste of time...plus a statement from the humane society that has nothing to do with injuries from dog bites but the frequency of bites themselves as if that's a driver of danger to children. You can't with a straight face declare a nippy little yorkie more vicious than a pit bull because they bite your ankles but yet that's what you're trying to get others to believe.

Volvos cost more than Corvettes? What planet do you live on? The lowest end Corvette retails for about twice that of a Volvo.

You do realize that yahoo voices is basically a blog where anyone can post an "article". The rest of the articles that particular author has written are Dancing With the Stars recaps. But hey, you seem to be a fan of bad information, so knock yourself out.

Psychopaths: proven to have no empathy for animals. Thanks for the head's up Sam - now we know who to keep an eye on in this community.

I have plenty of empathy for animals. I have 3 of my own. What I don't have empathy for is people that put animals above humans. You are right about one thing though - you should keep an eye on me if you own a pit bull that gets lose and attacks one of my children. That will be the last thing it ever does.

Ugh, false dilemma. "No one can care about anything until this important issue that I care about is solved". How many people could have a hot meal or health care with the money you spend on your pets? People priortize plenty of things over other people. Every time you make a purchase that isn't food or shelter you're putting personal comfort over some more worthy cause.