Pit Bull Decision May Affect County Dog Parks

Councilman David Marks believes council will have to look at issue of aggressive dogs at the increasingly popular county amenity.

Following a recent Court of Appeals decision animals, one Baltimore County Councilman says the county may have to look at rules governing its dog parks.

Councilman David Marks said he believes he and his colleagues will eventually have to take up the issue of pit bulls or other aggressive dogs. One of those areas could be more stringent regulations on county dog parks.

"It's a good question," Marks said. "I don't see that there are a lot of standardized regulations to go along with these dog parks, which are becoming very popular in the county."

Marks was involved in working to get a . The Perry Hall Republican said he's also had requests for similar parks from the Loch Raven Village and Rodgers Forge communities.

The possibility of opening up another debate on breed specific legislation may not excite many on the council who remember the emotional debate that stemmed from then-Councilman Vince Gardina's attempts to regulate dogs that are determined to be aggressive.

In 2007, Gardina proposed legislation requiring that those dogs be muzzled in public and, when outside in a yard, be kept in a locked run that was covered. The proposed law came in the wake of a near fatal attack on Dominic Solesky.

Solesky, then 10, was nearly killed while playing in an alley near his Towson home, when a pit bull escaped from its yard and attacked him and friend. The dog ripped away a large portion of Solesky's thigh and severed his femoral artery.

The boy survived after undergoing five hours of surgery and 17 days in a pediatric care unit.

Gardina's bill did not pass.

The Court of Appeals decision last week was directly related to a lawsuit filed by the Solesky family against the owner of the dog and the landlord of the property where the owners lived.

Marks said efforts related to the dog parks might not focus specifically on a particular breed.

"It might not be pit bulls," Marks said. "It might be aggressive dogs in general."

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Able Baker June 06, 2012 at 04:17 PM
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.
Able Baker June 06, 2012 at 04:23 PM
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.
Able Baker June 06, 2012 at 04:31 PM
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.
Tony Solesky June 06, 2012 at 04:57 PM
You are correct I am a poor speller but I am otherwise quite articulate and very well versed on this issue. My e-book is free because it is a philanthropic pursuit. It has been professionally edited so you will have no problems. No what I am referring to is the fact that unlike a normal snap and release dog bite that may be investigated by animal control Mauling deploy multiple agencies and the injury level gets a full blown police investigation. In the last 15 years the only cases serious to make it before the court have been Pit Bull cases. As a result the breed has singled itself out and the court could only rule on what was before it. This means simply that the agreed acknowledgment that any dog can bite has nothing to do with mauling and obviously in the last 15 years the association of Pit Bulls to them. These investigations lead to law suits which lead to very accurate insurance actuaries. Regardless of using that information as a bridge to insurance it still shows the monetary impact of these breeds against all others in Maryland. This alos means the tax payer foots the bill for all of the responding agencies and further if they don’t have medical or homeowners the tax payer picks up that tab also.
Tony Solesky June 06, 2012 at 05:03 PM
What do you mean no evidence? Terrier is an Italian word and the reason these dogs where outcrossed with Terriers has everything to do with both the style of attack and the fact that the AKC breed standard for Terriers tells you they are not tolerant of other animals. Are you saying that somehow if triggered to attack they change their breed instinct to adjust for humans? Ever heard of friendly fire??????????


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »