Maryland pit bull ruling, cont’d

by Walter Olson on May 17, 2012

It’s presumably an intended effect of the recent court ruling that landlords will threaten families with eviction unless they stop keeping the dogs as pets, and that skittish insurers will hike rates on such households sharply or refuse to insure them entirely. But there is much uncertainty as to exactly which dogs count as “pit bulls”; will Maryland pet owners need to shell out for DNA testing, at $120 a pop? And is it also an intended effect of the ruling that unoffending, well-trained dogs end up being euthanized in droves? “Ohio recently repealed its statewide breed-specific legislation because it was ineffective and inequitable,” notes my Cato Institute colleague Nita Ghei. [Daily Caller, earlier]

{ 2 comments }

1 Failed Scientist 05.17.12 at 5:55 pm

DNA testing of dogs fails.The amazing diversity of canine sizes shapes behavior tendencies and colors derives from 78 chromosomes(humans 46)I doubt that anyone could give a definitive answer in cases of mutts a goodly portion of the time. And do the behavior traits segregate with(associate with) the appearance traits? Or stated another way does bad behavior =pit bull muzzle?
Personally the little dogs are always nastier than the big, and littler.

2 Ledy Vankavage 05.22.12 at 5:33 pm

Best Friends had an economist figure out the cost to Taxpayers. Judicial activism at its worst.

http://www.bestfriends.org/pdfs/MarylandImpactTraceyvSolesky5-18-2012second.pdf

Comments on this entry are closed.