Photo courtesy of Bartlett Image.
Over the last 6 years that Mutt Magic Training has been in operation, I have been fighting against the stigma of being a “pit bull trainer.” In order to do so, I try to highlight as many other breeds as possible, and try to keep the business out of situations that may align us as such. At Mutt Magic, we are “dog trainers” and work with dog behavior. We do not discriminate on breed, and we enjoy working with all breeds, big and small!
All of that said, the time is appropriate for a statement to be made in regard to the recent Tracey v. Solesky appeal ruling, a case that has brought attention to the breed since 2007 because of a violent attack on two young boys. Most of the responses I’ve read so far have been from breed owners and are kneejerk reactions along the lines of “my dear sweet baby pet would never. . .” which is probably true. However, I’m going to address this as an individual who has been in the breed for going on 12 years. I own the breed, and I personally train and compete on a national level with these dogs. I have been running Mutt Magic for the past 6 years, and we certainly have our share of pit bulls and mixes come through our classes. We work with approximately 50 dogs per week, which include breeds of all varieties. I sit on the Board of Directors for The Working Pit Bull Terrier Club of America (WPBTCA) which hosts events throughout the year to showcase the amazing working abilities of these animals. Additionally, I sit on what was formerly Baltimore City’s Vicious Dog Hearing board. (Now the Animal Matters Hearing Panel) In fact, it was because of this court case that I applied to be on the Panel, back in 2007. My experience has a wide variety and I can truly say that I have seen the entire spectrum in regard to the breed. I can also say that I don’t believe this ruling will ultimately result in justice for the parties involved, but will rather pose severe injustice to responsible dog owners in the State of Maryland.
If by chance you’ve missed the recent news, the Tracey v. Solesky case was a civil lawsuit involving Dorothy Tracey, the landlord of 27-year-old dog owner. The dog in question violently attacked two young boys, Dominic and Scotty. It’s true that their lives will never be the same as a result of this. It’s true that they deserve justice. Period. End of statement. This recent ruling did not come to existence in regard to the responsibility of the dog owner; while that aspect makes my blood boil, I won’t touch on it. Rather, this ruling changes common law to determine responsibility of the landlord. (Yes, it changes liability for owners, too.) In the past, under common law, a landlord was only determined to be liable if the dog in question had been previously deemed dangerous. The case has reached the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, which has the authority to revise common law. Under interpretations of the common law as it was previously written, there was no basis for the landlord to be responsible in this case. As a result of this ruling, the common law has now been modified to state that dogs of specific breeds (pit bull-type) are automatically deemed dangerous, and liability claims may be made against the landlord, provided that there was knowledge of the dog at the property, without the need for the individual dog to be previously deemed dangerous, as is still the case with all other breeds of dogs. Directly from the opinion written by the court: “Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.” (http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2012/53a11.pdf)
While reading through the opinion written by retired Judge Dale Cathell (specially assigned), it is very one-sided, and at times even paints a factually inaccurate picture of the breed. It states that “over the last thirteen years, there have been no less than seven instances,” involving pit bulls. It doesn’t state how many incidents have involved other dogs. I’m sad to make this statement, but certainly there have been more than seven serious dog attacks in the state in the past thirteen years. Additionally, it uses incidents involving “bull terriers” and “terriers” in general to vilify the pit bull and to support the claim that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. A “Bull Terrier” is a breed of its own, and while I don’t intend to malign another breed in defense, it’s also not appropriate to use an incident involving another breed to malign the pit bull. Knowing that such a broad use of the “pit bull” breed has been used to make this determination should ultimately make us question the validity of the original statement that the breed is “inherently dangerous.”
The dissenting opinion has clearly done more balanced research on the breed(s) involved, and on dogs, in general. Written by Judge Clayton Greene, Jr, I think that his early question/answer in his dissent says it all: “What expert testimony or factual predicate is contained within this record to support a factual finding that pit bulls and mixed-breed pit bulls are inherently dangerous? I have considered the record and found no such factual predicate.” Additionally, he notes: “Succumbing to the allure of bad facts leads inevitably to the development of bad law.” YES!
There is no apparent definition of a pit bull written by the court in this ruling. The court only references “pit bull, or pit bull crosses.” What does that mean? The dissenting opinion notes that “According to some experts, there are more than twenty-five breeds of dogs commonly mistaken for pit bulls.” (To test this, I encourage everybody to visit this site: http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html.) In an attempt to get a clarification regarding the breeds that may be effected by this decision, Judge Greene also writes that pit bull is typically known as a “generic category encompassing the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and the American Pit Bull Terrier” And that, “Neither the American Kennel Club nor the United Kennel Club recognizes all three breeds, and the breed descriptions and standards provided by the two organizations differ.” Very true.
This is a very sad day for responsible pit bull owners everywhere, and this change in common law has serious effects on our rights as dog owners; rights that are afforded to owners of all other breeds. I will end the interpretation of what I’ve read here, and will leave you all with this information: The American Temperament Test Society (http://atts.org) tests breeds of dogs to determine stability in temperament based on a standardized test that is the same for all breeds. The American Pit Bull Terrier passes the test with a rate of 86.8%. According to the AKC, the top three most popular dogs in America for 2011 were the Labrador Retriever (passing ATTS tests at 92.3%), the German Shepherd Dog (passing ATTS tests at 84.6%), and the Beagle (passing ATTS tests at 80%). According to this, the “pit bull” has just as stable a temperament as the most popular dogs in the country. In the past, pit bulls have been known as “Nanny Dogs” and even “War Heroes.” In the past, German Shepherd Dogs, Rottweilers, and Dobermans have been under the spotlight as inherently dangerous dogs. Right now it’s the pit bull’s turn to be vilified. What breed will be next?
Please visit Mutt Magic online, at: www.muttmagic.com
Although I specifically mention Pit Bulls, I also write for all breeds. They all need homes, leaders, guidance, socialization, training and responsible owners.
This is a book about the science of animal nutrition, as it has developed for over hundrds of throusands of years, but it is written for you and I. At this point, I’ve made it half way through, but have had several “ah-ha!” moments already, as they were described by another reader.