Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

More letters to the Editor – 1/11/13

I represented Dominic Solesky in the lawsuit that resulted from the pit-bull mauling that almost claimed his life. It continues to amaze me that if people repeat the same untruth repeatedly… that sooner or later the statement will come to be accepted by some as having merit and being truthful. When are the victims of fatal or near-fatal pit-bull attacks going to be given due consideration.

Recently, your paper published a letter to the editor asserting the Court of Appeals’ decision in Tracey v. Solesky had no scientific basis in concluding that pit-bulls were inherently dangerous. That statement is patently false and there is scientific information specifically rebutting such claims. Indeed, the Court of Appeals’ decision in Tracey v. Solesky contains specific reference to scientific articles that have been published regarding pit-bull attacks on humans and how those attacks far more often result in fatalities or requiring significant hospital treatment and hospitalization of the victims.

The Centers for Disease Control stopped keeping statistics on a breed-by-breed basis for dog maulings more than a decade ago. Why they did so is a curious and political decision. The are other observers who follow dog mauling and dog bite issues in the United States yet your writer from The Humane Society of the United States fails to recognize or apparently read those sources. Your readers would be well served to seek information about pit-bull attacks in the United States from two information sources — online at dogsbite.org and Animal People, which publishes a watchdog report on animal-related issues, including dog maulings.

Lastly, at least 20 children in the United States were killed by pit-bulls in 2012. Many other adults were mauled and killed, and thousands of others were seriously injured by pit-bull attacks in 2012. The Court of Appeals of Maryland took up the issue of pit-bull maulings in 1998 when it nearly reached the conclusion that pit-bulls were inherently dangerous in the Matthews case, where a two-year-old was mauled to death by a pit-bull in a Baltimore apartment building. Fourteen years later, the highest court in Maryland took the next step and declared that pit-bulls were inherently dangerous, because victims like Dominic Solesky had no protection from pit-bull owners or their landlords when this breed attacked and mauled or killed another innocent victim.

Every time an animal rights group speaks or writes that there is no scientific evidence that pit-bulls are not inherently dangerous they do a disservice to all responsible pet owners and to the next pit-bull victim who will end up in the hospital or the morgue.

Kevin A. Dunne