text:
Pit Bull Bill Moves Forward, Passes Senate Committee
A bill that would overturn the state's Court of Appeals decision declaring pit bulls "inherently dangerous" overcame its first hurdle Thursday by passing a Senate committee hearing 7-2.
Maryland's Senate Judicial Services Committee voted 7-2 in favor of a bill that would overturn the state's Court of Appeals decision declaring pit bulls "inherently dangerous."
Senators Joseph Getty (R-District 5) and Nancy Jacobs (R- District 34) made up the minority.
Despite more than two hours of testimony before the committee, Senate Bill 2 passed without amendment.
The legislation would overturn the breed distinction created by April's Tracey v. Solesky ruling, which stated that "when an attack involves pit bulls, it is no longer necessary to prove that the particular pit bull or pit bulls are dangerous."
Instead, the bill's language tightens down regulations on all dog owners by making them legally responsible for a first bite even if a pet has never been violent. But Senate Bill 2 loosens the requirements for landlords by removing the strict liability they have faced since the court's decision.
Sen. Robert Zirkin (D-District 11) tried to offer an amendment that would make landlords liable for bites that happen on their properties if they did not require renters to purchase insurance for their animals, but he ended up being the only vote in support of it.
Several members supported Zirkin's amendment in theory, but said it was too late in the game and there was too little time during special session to debate the pros and cons of requiring dog owners to purchase insurance.
"This has got to go to the House," Sen. Victor Ramirez (D-District 47) said. "We've all dealt with the House for years, it's a nightmare to get anything done."
The House Judicary Committee will take up the bill Friday at 1:30 p.m.
Correction: This article originally included Sen. Norman Stone (D-District 6) in the minority when he voted in favor of Senate Bill 2. Patch regrets the error.
Annapolis Resident 21401
5:35 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
I hope everyone reads Kevin Dunne's letter to the Editor. It is very well written and clearly frames the issues at hand. As a dog owner, I am saddened at the thought of a breed being singled out. As a parent, I know that the safety of my child comes first. I am disappointed that the bill that is moving forward has removed the obligations for the landlords. This is an important protection that the Court of Appeals decision put in place. I would be most interested in an analysis of the dog bites in a given year, the breed of dog and severity of injuries caused. I think you would see a pattern based on breed. Perhaps the answer is to require some level of insurance for pet owners, based on these statistics. As I said, I am a dog lover through and through. I am generally appalled when I hear "It's JUST a DOG". No, it's my friend and companion. However, we need to be responsible and protect citizens as well. They too should be our friends and companions.
Anna Staver
5:39 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Thanks for the comment. Readers interested in reading Kevin Dunne's letter can follow the link below. He is the attorney for the Solesky family who is at the center of legislation. The court case revolved around their son being mauled by a pit bull.
Brook Hubbard
7:29 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Annapolis Resident, major organizations and departments have tried to do studies. Unfortunately, this form of research has been found to be highly improbable because many bites go unreported and exact breeds involved is almost always unknown.
The only data that could be verified is that, ~when~ a bite occurs, dogs like the American Pit Bull Terrier and Rottweiler tend to cause deadlier wounds. However, that does not mean either breed is more likely to bite or more responsible for reported dog bites. For more information, please check out the following studies:
Brittney Nicole
8:12 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
That all sounds well and good, if statistics actually meant anything. For one, pit bulls are a group of dogs based on appearance, not breed. Already you have an inflated number. Second, a lot of pit bull type dogs are being owned. When a certain type of dog is owned in high numbers, the more things you are going to hear about. To show this in another way, take car insurance for instance. Insurance companies keep record of makes and models of cars and the accidents they are in. If you, say, own a red Camry, and red Camrys have just so happened to be in more accidents, you are going to be charged more. It doesn't matter that you're a responsible driver and are likely not going to get into an accident with your Camry. It's going off of these raw statistics. Now, the statistics don't show that many of those accidents were caused by speeding, texting, etc, all things that could have been prevented. All of those things are human error, but the car is seen as being more dangerous just because it so happened to be red Camrys involved. Now, apply that to pit bulls. They are owned in large numbers, many people are being irresponsible with them, abusing/neglecting them, or fighting them. These things don't show in those raw numbers, and same as the red Camry, it doesn't mean these dogs are more dangerous. If anything is dangerous, it's passing laws over statistics that don't show the whole picture. And it's not fair to responsible owners and innocent dogs to suffer because of it.
3:15 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I hope everyone reads Kevin Dunne's letter and recognizes the central note of garbage it hides. Dunne essentially states that his primary concern is getting damages covered, regardless of whether those damages are paid by the responsible parties, or by someone else. For all his moral bankruptcy, I appreciate the candor with which he makes his abhorrent point.
It is like saying, "I don't care if some poor schlep in Iceland has to pay for the victim's medical bills, so long as the victim is compensated." This is advocating for the CREATION of yet a new victim, not the just punishment of the guilty.
Sue the guilty, sue the innocent, I don't care just make sure my clients and I get paid!!! Utterly disgusting. Any value in his letter is more than compensated by this complete abdication of morality.
Colleen Carter
7:46 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I agree with Mike. He called the landlord "self-serving". He needs to look in the mirror.
Karl Schuub
7:52 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Go to a local shelter; this is as much about irresponsible owners as it is pit bulls - what do you see there? Guess...it's not poodles, it's not even rat terrier mixed breeds; 90% of shelter dogs today or whole or part pit bull. Anybody that checks stats knows pit bulls bite more often and when they bite cause more injury, but besides that we need a way to decentivize pit bull ownership since clearly the group tends to concentrate people that shouldn't own animals in the first place. If you gave two craps about these animals you'd support any measure to limit ownership. Besides, if you think your dog is 100% safe you shouldn't care...do I detect another example of typical pit bull owners - they accept no responsiblity, want no responsibility.
Brittney Nicole
8:26 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Excuse me? It's about pit bull owners not wanting to accept responsibility? No, what this is about is people being threatened with EVICTION because of the type of dog that they own. It doesn't matter how safe they believe their dog to be, or the fact that their dog has never done anything, they don't have a say in the matter. The other problem is the fact that there is different language in the bite law when it comes to pit bulls, when many other dogs can just as easily kill and mutilate. It's discrimination, plain and simple. And no, people should care. If you are a responsible dog owner, you should get the same treatment as everyone else, regardless of what you dog looks like. And FYI, no dog, of any breed, is 100% safe.
Oh, and btw, most dogs in shelters are pit bulls because of the sheer over breeding and the fact that adoptions are low. This law also sharply increased the number of pit bulls in shelters, and also severely dropped adoption rates. Their numbers in shelters have nothing to do with their 'dangerousness'.
And are you really that ignorant to believe that irresponsible owners of pit bulls won't simply be irresponsible with another breed when they can no longer own a pit bull? That just basic logic. Irresponsible is irresponsible. You are still going to have the same problems. The difference is, innocent families and dogs will have already suffered. That can't be undone.
7:53 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
I thought it was against the law to discriminate against specific pets? Is the next rulings by the courts going to discriminate against the types of children allowed? No mexicans, no blacks, no muslims, no mentally ill children? Discrimination is discrimination and I hope the house sees this come debate time and amends the law to force ALL renters and homeowners to have liability insurance added to their renter's policies. Parents are responsible for their minor children - why not their pets?
8:02 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Actually, the reasons why there are more pit bull breeds in shelters are (1) there are more of these dogs than other dogs in the general population so their proportion to the overall adoptable population in shelters is higher, (2) they have a bad reputation, and (3) because of this reputation, people are reticent to adopting bull breeds so there are more of them left behind in shelters. This is why there are more bulls in shelters than other dogs. Remember, all dogs in shelters are adoptable. Shelters go through many checks and highlight the temperament of the dog. If a dog is deemed not adoptable, they are euthanized. So all the dogs you see in shelters are ready to go home with the right family.
8:30 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Sorry, let me clarify. Pit bulls are not the most common in the U.S., they are just very common in this area. They are, however, left behind at shelters at a higher rate which accounts for their larger numbers in shelters.
Brook Hubbard
8:43 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
(My original post has been Pending Approval for 12 hours now)
"Anybody that checks stats knows pit bulls bite more often..."
That is false, though. As I mentioned in the studies above, there is no conclusive evidence that American Pit Bull Terriers or any mix of that breed is more likely to bite humans. In fact, according to the United Kennel Club, "Pit Bulls" are bred specifically to be friendly and loyal to humans and aggression toward them is considered uncharacteristic.
As noted above, the only conclusive study showed that bites from "Pit Bulls" and Rottweilers was more likely to result in a fatality. No evidence showed that these breeds (or mixes of them) were more likely to bite, only that (when they did) they were more deadly.
Karl Schuub
8:43 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
I see you spent 20 minutes researching your first claim that pit bull related injuries were the highest because there were more of them and found out your dead wrong about that too. Pit bull populations are way down the list...think labs have been the #1 breed for over a decade, but still pit bulls (according to the CDC) have the highest rate of injury related attacks usually on children, vs. the lab which doesn't even make the list.
9:36 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Brook: Usually hitting F5 on the screen after it updated with your pending message clears that out. Or logging out/relogging in.
Brook Hubbard
9:49 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
"..pit bulls (according to the CDC) have the highest rate of injury related attacks usually on children"
Please show me where in the CDC study it states that? The only mention of children is a line that states that 70% of the total dog bite fatalities in 1997-1998 were children (no mention of Pit Bulls) and that children are more likely to interact with unsupervised dogs when municipalities outlaw fencing or restrict fence heights.
There is nothing in any study that says that Pit Bulls are more likely to kill children or that the 17 child deaths in that study year were majority caused by Pit Bulls.
9:54 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
I don't believe that Pit Bulls necessarily bite more often than other dog breeds - it ALL comes down to the owners! Unfortunately, they are quite often owned by horrible, irresponsible people who don't give a rat's a** about their dog's welfare and actually encourage them to be aggressive! I work at a Vet Hospital and we have LOADS of pit bulls / pit mixes as patients. They are, every single one of them, extremely lovely and charming dogs who are super loyal to their (nice) owners. We don't have any problems with them at all - they don't even need muzzling like some other dogs do!! I personally distrust German Shepherds a lot more...
Please do NOT condemn dogs just based on bad reputation!!!!
12:26 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
My family went to a local shelter in Virginia and chose to adopt a Shepard/Pit Bull mix almost 20 years ago. He was the most pleasant mannered, sweetest, friendly animal I have ever been around. He lived for almost 14 years in our home as a member of our family. My wife does daycare and "Gilbert" was her daycare mascot. He was wonderful with children and their parents alike. It all comes down to how the animal is trained (and treated) when they are young. Even at 120 lbs, when standing on his hind legs stood 6 foot, all that met him were enamored with his demeanor.
3:34 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Karl Schaub said: "Anybody that checks stats knows pit bulls bite more often..."
I just went over a study by the ATTS which suggests just the opposite. It suggests pit bulls are somewhere between typical and appreciably less likely to bite than the "average" breed or mix.
What I think is significant about "pit bull" breeds and mixes is the increased severity of damage they are able to inflict if they do bite. While you mentioned this, correctly I believe, your first claim about the certainty of probability of biting appears to be completely incorrect.
As for your statement advocating that the LAW "limit ownership," I suspect you are incorrect there as well. Dogfighting is almost certainly illegal nearly everywhere, yet whom does that stop? Only the law-abiding. Somehow, I don't think restrictions on possession of pit bulls will change anything more than restrictions on possession of drugs.
The law-abiding who care well for their pit bulls will surrender them, or avoid them in the first place. The scumbags will continue as they do today. Your law will only punish the innocent, and euthanize a lot of pit bulls rendered un-adoptable to the law-abiding.
debbie bell
5:04 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Excellent post Karl. I volunteer with a multibreed rescue. We no longer accept/place pits, because we learned the hard way. The only puppies we placed that matured to kill their good friends/housemate dogs were tragic pit puppies. They simply couldn't help themselves. They simply did what they were created to do: kill other dogs. They only dogs who tried to kill the foster family resident dogs were pits, pits who we introduced slowly, and played well with others right up to the time they began killing the foster home's dog. So we are taking fewer large mixed breeds, because MOST have pit heritage, it seems. That's because most pits are not spayed/neutered.
Tragically pit mongers do not care about pit welfare. They tell use every time they post that they only care about themselves, their egos, their ability to breed and own pits. The disproportionate suffering and deaths both caused by and suffered by pits is perfectly acceptable to them. This cannot be stressed enough. They care only about themselves. You will notice they do not offer any solutions.
Most pits are not spayed/neutered. That's because pit welfare is not of importance to most pit owners, since their pits are weapons, objects for power and aggression. Our suggestion for Mandatory spay/neuter is rejected by pit mongers. The result: pits breeding and dying like flies. They fill our pounds and die by the ton, from coast to coast. You will find this is all perfectly acceptable to the pit mongers.
Colleen Carter
7:56 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I've adopted two pit bulls type dogs from shelters. I have a master's degree. I own my business and a home in Montgomery County. I'm a pretty responsible person, and my dogs are very nice dogs.
First, the reason you "see" mostly pit bulls in shelters is because "pit bull type dogs" are actually a mix of up to 10 different breeds. DNA tests have proven that in 80% dogs visually identified as "pit bulls", there is no breed commonality whatsoever.
The CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association both concluded that breed is not a factor in dog aggression in a 10-year study of dog bites. There are no statistics that prove "pit bulls" bite more often. If you read dog bite reports, they list "pit bull type dogs", which includes up to 10 different breeds and mixes (American Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldogs, Bullmastiffs, and several others that often include Boxers and Huskies). This demographic makes up almost 50% of the U.S. dog population (although, as the CDC points out, a precise number is impossible to quantify because of the subjective nature the definition of "pit bull" because a "pit bull" is really just a mixed breed, short-haired dog), and they are responsible for between 20 ad 30% of dog bites. Break that down, and they have a pretty low occurrence of dog aggression.
Erin W
8:35 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
"Anyone that checks stats" would actually learn that pitbulls do NOT bite more often or cause anymore severe bodily injury than any other dog. The severity of a dog bite is all circumstantial, a Labrador can cause just as much damage as a pitbull. In fact, Labs and Collies have more reported bites every year than pitbulls do. Any creature (dog, cat, bird, snake, human, etc) are not born inherently evil, they are TAUGHT to be that way
Karl Schuub
8:35 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
That's a complete fabrication...check the CDC which keeps stats. Between Pits and Rotts you have about 60% of the total serious attacks on humans. It doesn't matter to me or anybody else at risk why these dogs end up being less trustworthy - it doesn't change the risk.
8:58 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
@Karl according to your sources Rotts only account for 14% of the fatal bits so please dont lump them in to the same category as other dogs. It has taken years to try to clean up their rep. as it did to clean up Dobermans and German Shepard's reps too.
Brook Hubbard
9:44 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
And this is evidence of taking statistics out of context. The CDC does not say that "Pits and Rotts [cause] 60% of the total serious attacks on humans".
The CDC report is about fatal dog bits. There were 238 over the course of the 20 year study. That amounts to 11.9 fatal dog bites per year.
The CDC that says off those fatal dog bites, more ~32% were caused by Pit Bulls (76/238 divided by 20). That is ~3.8 fatal dog bites per year.
That is the only data that is conclusive. In a 20 year study, ~when~ a fatal dog bite occurs (which is 50% less likely to occur than being struck by lightning), 32% of the time it is by a Pit Bull.
Now is the time to use critical thinking instead of just throwing around statistics. If only 3.8 dog bite fatalities each year were caused by Pit Bulls, what is that out of the entire population of Pit Bulls? Pit Bulls account between 5 and 9.6% of the US dog population... which comes to about 5.3 million Pit Bulls. Out of those, ~4 of them killed someone.
Are you willing to condemn a breed of millions based on 4 bad apples?
Brittney Nicole
12:53 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Wow, that is brilliant Brook! I've never seen anyone break the statistics down like that, thank you!
3:39 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Karl Schaub said: "It doesn't matter to me or anybody else at risk why these dogs end up being less trustworthy - it doesn't change the risk."
Look at the percentages of people who commit violent crimes. I guess maybe we should lock up all the men, Karl? Are you for that? You shouldn't care why, only that men are FAR more likely to be violent than women.
This is where the insanity leads when people view everything through group labels rather than individual actions.
Colleen Carter
8:01 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Considering the fact that a "pit bull" is a mixed breed dog of up to 10 different breeds that can only be identified through subjective visual assessment of physical traits, and is thought to make up between 40% and 60% of the U.S. dog population, the "breed" (which can be a boxer/bulldog mix as easily as a mastiff/husky mix) would therefore be responsible for a statistically appropriate number of bites and aggression incidents. Does that mean mean that they are more dangerous, or more likely to bite, than any other breed? Of course not. There are simply A LOT MORE OF THEM!
Tim Montoya
9:25 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Breeding dogs, any dogs, should need a permit or certificate and certain facilities. Right now any schmuck can breed a dog and make money on the puppies. Sometimes these people are interested in the improvement of the breed and other times they are just looking to make a buck. Inbreeding and over breeding are leading to poor quality dogs, which is leading to illness, behavior problems and over populated shelters. Dogs are too easy and inexpensive to get. If the price for buying a non-altered dog were much higher, than only die hard breeders would pay. Right now the penalty for not spaying or neutering your pet is roughly a $50 deposit if you adopt and usually $0 if you buy from a breeder. These things could curb the issues we are having.
Buck Harmon
7:51 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
What is a schmuck Tim? Bad law is bad law, no matter how you attempt to sell it.
3:46 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Tim said: "Breeding dogs, any dogs, should need a permit or certificate..."
Right. Because the state knows everything, including how to ensure people behave well, so long as they apply for a permit.
The answer to this, like most issues, is NOT new law. The answer is for PEOPLE WHO DON'T APPROVE OF BAD BREEDERS to STOP buying from those breeders. Want a dog? Go adopt from a shelter. Breeders only exist because there is demand. Kill the demand by way of the willing actions of free people, not by force of guns. Permitting will only raise the cost of dogs bought from bad-breeders and good ones alike, it will not get rid of the bad-breeder problem.
Colleen Carter
8:05 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I'm with Tim. You should need a license to breed and sell puppies. It should be an expensive license. Getting caught selling dogs without a license should carry an outrageous penalty.
Unfortunately, most people don't give much thought to what harm comes from buying a dog from an irresponsible breeder. Dogs are treated HORRIFICALLY when used for breeding. And rampant and irresponsible breeding is why our shelters are full. NO MORE BACKYARD BREEDING! If you are a responsible breeder, and you get a license, and you run a responsible facility, then FINE. But this attitude that you can make enough money for a vacation off of your dog's puppies is sickening.
9:49 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Are there any rules against having tigers? Cause I plan on being nice to it - and afterall, "Any creature (dog, cat, bird, snake, human, etc) are not born inherently evil, they are TAUGHT to be that way"
Brittney Nicole
10:08 pm on Thursday, August 9, 2012
Tigers are wild animals. Pit bulls are dogs. I can't stand it when people go there, because there's absolutely no comparing the two. But yes, you have a point. You can't simply 'be nice' to a tiger so that it never attacks. Nor does it completely apply to dogs either. All animals are potentially dangerous (not 'evil'). Wild animals far more so than domesticated. With dogs, it's not so much all about 'raising them with kindness' (though, obviously, this is important) as it is about being responsible with the dog you have. Any dog, of any breed, can potentially be dangerous despite a kind upbringing. It's about knowing your dog and not setting them up to fail. Again, this is all regardless of breed!
9:01 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Brittney, dogs were/still are wild animals (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/wilddogs.html) at one point too. If you left that dog out in the wild it would revert back to it's natural instincts to survive. So yes, you can compare the two in this instance. I do believe the owner has much to do with the animals demeanor, but if something were to happen to the owner and the animal was forced to survive on it's own it would fall back on it's natural instincts as an animal. Some things are just in their nature. An animal will always be an animal, domesticated or not.
Brook Hubbard
9:21 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Ashley, you just posted an article that has nothing to do with (let alone supports) your point. Your article is a discussion of Lycaon pictus, the Painted Wolf. It is not even in the same Genus as Canis and is no more related to dogs and wolves than a fox is. Therefore it is complete fallacy to say that "dogs were/still are wild animals" and post an article that's not even about a true dog.
Brook Hubbard
9:25 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
In rebuttal to your second half, Ashley, you are right... "if left... out in the wild it would revert back to it's natural instincts to survive". Of course, this can be said about ~every~ animal on the planet, including humans. Again, this is fallacy as this is a blanket statement that does not support a specific case.
Domesticated animals are species that have been inherently changed through generations of breeding. They are not just "temporarily" tamed, their behavior has been altered at the genetic level. They are distinctly different from animals that are wild, raised in captivity, or even raised commercially. Domesticated animals have had their genetics changed to the point that their diet is changed, they grow faster, they breed successfully in captivity, they are less aggressive toward humans, and have a social hierarchy that can contain humans.
Dogs are domesticated animals, along with cats, goldfish, guinea pigs, canaries, and most farm animals. Certainly any domesticated animal can revert to instincts when necessary, but they are far enough from their progenitors that these instincts will be partially different than the original wildlife. Thus, we cannot claim that a dog is inherently a wolf in "dog's" clothing; most dogs have been bred for generations to be different from wolves.
3:58 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Ashley said that dogs are still "wild animals." While incorrect, she raises a good point.
Dogs are not "wild animals" at all. They are distinctly different, and contrary to common belief. It's not easy to know this, but the studies I have seen have been very clear on this.
Dogs are domesticated, and yes, dogs come from wolves. But you can't take wolves and domesticate them. You can only domesticate a TINY subset (less than 5%, a good bit less as I recall) of wolves that are genetically different from the rest.
To create dogs from wolves you must find a small subset of "broken" wolves that don't grow up, retaining their wolf pup behavior and instinct thoughout their adult lives. Dogs are the genetic decendants of these rare, perpetual wolf puppies. No amount of training of a normal wolf will EVER produce a dog.
The studies on this are fascinating if you ever get the chance to scope them out.
Patricia Cantler
7:42 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
As an Animal Control officer for the last 5 years and 8 months, I have picked up and dealt with over a hundred Pit Bulls. In this time frame I have NEVER been bitten by one, however, I have been bitten by a boxer, chihuahua, cocker spaniel mix and by a dachshund. Pit Bulls are not the number one dog in biting cases. If I am not mistaken they are number 6.
9:57 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Thanks for the clarification!!! This reflects my experience working at a Vet Hospital
10:19 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
The only dog I have ever been bitten by was a chihuahua. Jus' sayin'...
Karl Schuub
12:21 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Please link the list or tell us where that information comes from.
Karl Schuub
12:34 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
And I'd add Patricia shame on you for helping mislead this discussion - as an animal control officer you should know better. Because a chihuahua might be a bitey little dog doesn't mean it poses any threat to anybody; humans or other animals. I think dachaunds can be pertty yappy and bitey too, but the same goes there. The truth is that attacks by pits, rotts and mixes of same account for:
77% of bodily injuries
73% of attacks on children
81% of attacks on adults
68% of attacks that result in fatality (many of those children)
76% of attacks that main (result in permanent disfigurement)
If we're talking about dog bites it's important that we center on dogs that can actually injure or maim and not overblow the discussion using examples of dogs that are about the size of a knat.
Buck Harmon
7:50 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
I'd like to know why Joe Getty was in the minority vote on this one....please explain Joe.
What was your vote based on?
7:55 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Maybe your just nicer to pit bull and mean to the other dogs that bit you. Don't believe all lists you read.
8:15 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Nobody's fooling anyone with all this discussion about pit bulls. We all know why there are a lot of pit bulls in this county.....BECAUSE of their reputation as a dangerous animal. Our neighbors were very vocal about their "guard dog." They acquired and kept their pit bull in spite of the law against owning them in PG County. When it comes to an animal like this, I don't think we should roll the dice. They can be very dangerous and unpredictable
Brook Hubbard
8:41 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
A reputation that was earned through false portrayal by the media and perpetuated through the ignorant masses.
Anecdotal evidence aside, every reputable organization, from Kennel Clubs to Veterinary Associations... from the Humane Society and the CDC... has stated very clearly the following:
1) Studies have shown no there is no conclusive evidence that "Pit Bulls" are more dangerous than any other breed.
2) Breeding associations have declared the temperament of the American Pit Bull Terrier, long before any of this controversy, to be one of the most friendly and calm with humans, including children and strangers.
So far, all statistics claiming that Pit Bulls are more likely to bite, more likely to be unpredictable, etc. have been proven to be misinformation, data taken out of context, or complete lies. No credible source has ever presented any data showing "Pit Bulls" to be inherently dangerous and these same sources have stated that breed-specific legislation is fallacy at best.
9:58 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Maybe you should take a closer look at your neighbours before passing judgement on certain dogs!! What does it tell you if a person gets a dog "for protection" rather than as a pet?? What do you think that says about their relationship and the chances of that dog living in a loving environment??
2:55 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
ANY dog, ANY breed can be "dangerous and unpredictable." That's why we need to focus on responsible ownership (and breeding, IMO), and not on discriminatory breed specific legislation.
4:03 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Bckarn said: "I don't think we should roll the dice. They can be very dangerous and unpredictable"
Nearly all homicides are committed by people. I don't think we should roll the dice. They can be very dangerous and unpredictable.
This is where the insanity leads folks, when you treat individuals with the clumsiness of group labels and statistics but still with all the lethal force of law..
Carol B
8:31 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
No dog is inherently evil, but any dog can be taught to be civilian by depraved, brutal, or irresponsible owners, and any dog can be goaded into bad behavior by children who have not been taught that tormenting an animal is not acceptable. The most docile creature responds to perceived threats and persistent abuse or neglect. Pit bull owners who want attack dogs raise them that way. Left to their own nature, without human corruption, They are sweet and affectionate animals. Ban bad owners--not their mistreated dogs.
10:00 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Couldn't agree more!! We really need to penalize bad dog owners more than we do - at the moment, they virtually get away with murder!!! It's despicable what some people do to their animals - and they're facing no / very little punishment at all!!!
Chet Brewer
2:11 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Can't ban them but it would sure be nice to see liability pinned on them. I've owned GSD's for a long time and spend a lot of time and money socializing and training them. I've handled working dogs and pets and have had very few incidents, usually involving other dogs that are loose. Its pretty hard to raise a bad dog if you train them properly unless the genetics just stink
Carol B
8:34 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Civilian should be vicious--blame my Android! (Don't ask--it thinks it's helping me.)
9:48 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
I was sitting behind Solesky in the hearing on Thursday. When a dog trainer brought up the excellent point that landlords are not trained to identify a pit bull, she asked "how do you identify a pit bull". Solesky leaned over to his lawyer, Kevin Dunne and said, "That's easy, it's the one with the kid in its mouth" and had a laugh about it.
Clearly Solesky has no regards for the severity of this unprecedented court case and thinks that a dog mauling is funny. This judgement should be overturned especially if we want to protect society. PG county has a ban in place for pit bulls and their own study shows that not only does it cost the county $250k per year, but "public safety is not improved as a result of the ban". What this court case did is that they couldn't get money from the dog owner because the person filed bankruptcy, so the lawyer went after the landlord so that they can collect. That's all they care about is ensuring that they can get money. Public safety is clearly not their concern.
10:13 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Wow there must be something to a name. "Truthsayer" . LOL
In no way should a landlord be held responsible the action of a tenants dog.
4:08 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Truthsayer said: "What this court case did is that they couldn't get money from the dog owner because the person filed bankruptcy, so the lawyer went after the landlord so that they can collect. That's all they care about is ensuring that they can get money. Public safety is clearly not their concern."
YES, YES, 1000-times YES!! You nailed it.
Kevin Dunne, the lawyer comes right out and says it in his letter to the editor. His primary concern is that the damages might go unpaid. He doesn't care WHO pays, just that SOMEONE pays. He'd be happy if somebody on Easter Island was forced to pay, so long as the victim got compensated.
This is the CREATION of a new victim, and it is FINE with him.
10:34 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
When an evil person uses a weapon to harm someone, does the legal system punish the weapon? No way. Does it hold accountable the landlord for renting a home to the weapon owner? Not typically. After all what sense does that make? It punishes the person who uses the weapon. In the same way, we should be focused on punishing those who weaponize the breed, and not the breed itself or the person who rents to someone with that breed. Obviously there are limits to that argument, but I certainly feel, as a responsible pit-mix owner, nobody should be responsible for my dog and any damage she might cause but me. I have liability insurance just for this purpose, and will accept any charges that I could possibly face if my negligence ever results in a dog bite. I love my dog to death, and I would rather live under a bridge with her than under a roof without her. I take this as a step in the right direction!
9:34 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
When an evil person uses a weapon to harm someone, does the legal system punish the weapon?
Umm, yes see gun control in MD, an AR is regulated because it looks mean.
Karl Schuub
10:35 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
There's no talking to the pit bull crowd - according to them and in the face of reams of hard evidence they put their fingers in their ears and keep chanting nonsense. As I stated before and stand by the fact that the shelters a packed full of unwanted pit bulls and mixes is prima facie evidence of the types of people pit bulls attract. They're apparently the last people that should ever own them and that alone is reason enough to try to find a disincentive.
Brook Hubbard
11:46 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Karl, you have not prevented an ounce of hard evidence. So far you have only stated opinion and misquoted statistics. In contrast, I have presented the original studies performed by the CDC and their conclusions.
Can you quote me an exact passage from any peer-reviewed credible study that supports your statements?
Brook Hubbard
11:49 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Also, "prima facie" means "at first glance"... which is the opposite of an in-depth study. Correlation does not equal causation. Certainly, in legal parlance, you are declaring a causation and legally the opposition must provide evidence. Except they have, in their reasons for the amount of Pit Bulls in shelters.
1) Pit Bulls are being overbred
2) Poor owners give up their dogs when they are no longer usable
3) Legislation scares owners from keeping animals (regardless of history) into giving them up
Critical thinking shows that there are several factors that can cause the high amounts of Pit Bulls in shelters... none of which is because of an "inherently dangerous" nature.
Karl Schuub
11:52 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
I don't play these games with you pit people because it doesn't matter what I link...how many studies, statistics, articles of multiple pit attacks on children, articles explaining why dogs more often attack children, etc. You'll read none of it with any honesty or fairness and then want to argue all day - in otherwords it's a waste of my time. Kinda like the old adage - don't mud wrestle a pig; the pig likes it and you'll only get dirty.
Karl Schuub
12:00 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
In legal terms...and directly from a law review treatise:
"Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted." In simple terms it means "the thing speaks for itself" so for the thick or otherwise lacking comprehension that means we need not argue about it because it's so obvious on it's face."
Brook Hubbard
1:18 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
"I don't play these games with you pit people because it doesn't matter what I link...how many studies, statistics, articles of multiple pit attacks on children, articles explaining why dogs more often attack children, etc. You'll read none of it with any honesty or fairness "
This is so full of fallacy I don't even know where to begin.
You make a claim... but refuse to provide evidence.
You refuse to provide evidence... because ~you~ claim no one will analyze it fairly.
You believe no one will analyze it fairly... because everyone who disagrees with ~you~ is one of those "pit people".
Karl, you obviously have no concept of reasonable debate or critical thinking. As you said, it is a waste of time to even talk to you.
2:59 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
How on earth do the numbers of pit bull-type dogs in shelters equate to "evidence of the types of people pit bulls attract"?? This is simply nonsensical.
3:02 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Karl, what legal treatise are you citing that says that prima facie means "the thing speaks for itself"? Because that's flat wrong. "Res ipsa loquitur" means "the thing speaks for itself," and it's a separate legal concept than "prima facie."
3:19 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
What exactly is the pit bull crowd? I own two pits bulls, have two children, a loving husband and a great job. That is one awesome crowd if you ask me....
Colleen Carter
8:15 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I have a master's degree and I work as a technical editor. I don't understand why YOU keep repeating the same misguided information, and accuse others of not understanding the facts.
1. There are a HUGE number of dogs that can identified as pit bull in the U.S. Up to 40-60% of the 88 million dogs in this country, by many estimates. That's a minimum of 35 million dogs. There are back yard breeders all over this state who are trying to make a buck by breeding their "pit bull" with their neighbor's "pit bull" and selling the puppies for $100 a piece. It is a RAMPANT problem that needs to STOP. It is a reflection of this irresponsible behavior, not of the nature of any breed of dog.
2. "Pit bull" is not a breed. Some dogs visually identified as "pit bull" DNA test as a boxer/bulldog mix. Others may DNA test as a bullmastiff/bull terrier mix. A "pit bull" is a mutt of up to 10 different breeds, and is only identifiable by subject visual assessment.
3. Because of the sheer number of dogs that can be identified as "pit bull", there is a relative number of aggression incidents related to the number of dogs. Although the CDC stated clearly that a baseline is impossible to reach (because of the subjective nature of identification AND because this makes it impossible to quantify the number "pit bull" type dogs), it is impossible to track. But it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that 40% of all dogs = 40% of dog-related incidents.
Colleen Carter
8:20 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I agree, MJ. I have a master's degree, own my business, celebrated my 12th anniversary this week, and share my cozy 1930's bungalow in Takoma Park with my two pit bull rescues and the love of my life (for the last 12 years).
I guess us "pit bull people" are too smart, happy, successful, and well-adjusted is too much for Karl to take.
10:52 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
This whole "Pit Bull" argument is the same argument that has been happening for years. In my life time I have heard this same argument about German Sheppard, Dobermans, and Rottweilers. When are we going to stop blaming the dog and start blaming the trainer/owner.
Karl Schuub
10:57 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
This bill does blame the owner - it provides for an easier route to financial compensation - the dogs don't pay it; the owners do. You don't see people dumping the dogs you mentioned in horrific numbers at shelters across the country. Something about a pit bull that attract irresponsible people to it and it's a darn shame for the animals.
11:52 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Actually, Karl, the bill that has been introduced puts the liability back onto dog owners. The Tracy v Solesky case made it so that landlords would be responsible for the actions of their tenants' dogs. Many people are unwilling landlords due to the economy and that they can't sell their home. Making them pay for another person's actions is an unprecedented ruling that no other state or country has.
And what attracts both good and bad people about pit bulls is that they are highly intelligent dogs that are easily trainable, incredibly loyal and if given the proper training and exercise are always ready to move or just chill next to you on the couch.
Finally, the reason why they are dumping dogs in shelters right now is because landlords are saying that people need to get rid of their dogs or be evicted. Unfortunately there's no financial compensation for those that are afflicted by the court's decision. But the tricky part is that those people are the responsible dog owner who register their dog and don't hide them that are being evicted. Sadly, even if there was a ban, it would have no effect on dog bite statistics. It actually would probably increase them because having a dog that the courts deem "inherently dangerous" makes the dog more attractive to the wrong people. It's simple psychology.
Karl Schuub
12:04 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Truthsayer...this shelter full of pits is not a recent developement - it's been that way every since ganstas decided pit bulls made them some sorta tough guy. It has NOTHING to do with any recent law. You guys are such liars.
Brittney Nicole
12:40 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Karl, Truthsayer never said the shelter was full of pit bulls JUST because of this legislation. What they are saying is that many dogs are being dumped RIGHT NOW because of the legislation, and it's true. I volunteer at an animal shelter and the number of dogs that have been surrendered because of this new law is heartbreaking.
And no, the previous and current high volume of pit bulls in shelters doesn't have to do with all pit bull owners being 'gangstas'. It has to do with sheer volume from backyard breeding scum that think they can make big money, or anyone with 2 pit bulls with the necessary parts who want 'cute puppies' or are simply irresponsible with them. They pass these dogs off to homes without any consideration of how responsible the home is, whether they are prepared for the dog or are even knowledgeable about them, and sure enough, a year or two down the road they are dropped of at the shelter. That's the reality.
Karl Schuub
12:50 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
You people at so aggravatingly thick. It doesn't matter who or why...I could care less how we got to a point where we had tens of thousands of unwanted animals languishing in shelters and a bunch of dogs many of whom are poorly socialized and more likely to bite and maim. It's about safety...it's not about boo hoo and having a big pity party. I bet there are some really nice pits...but there's too many of them and they tend towards aggression. Bottom line is we need to get these dogs away from the people that seem to want them and are causing this problem. If that means making them a liability to own then fine let's go there.
1:14 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
@KS you dont see people dumping these dogs today because the hysteria has gone away. (been replaced by "Pit Bulls". In the 80s Dobermans were said to lose their minds and attack their owners at age 7. So they were dumped in shelter. Rotts had the same type of rep and were dumped in shelters in the 90s. So they were dumped back then just not now because the press isnt all over them now.
debbie bell
5:34 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
When GSDs, Dobes, Rotties were the 'bad" dog, they never killed other dogs in the numbers that pits/pit mixes are now kllling. Not all attacks make the news. How do I know this? The pit owners call our rescue to give up their dogs. "Gotta get rid of my pit, he dug into my landlord's yard and killed his dog on the porch." Ah, yes, a "good" gamebred pit. Non pit dogs never broke into yards, cars, homes to kill their victims They never killed cattle and horses in the numbers that pits are now. Other dogs simply are not as "good" at killing. Most normal dogs have a sense of self preservation. This was removed in the creation of the pit bull. Check out youtube video "pit bull vs cavalo" Excellent gamebred dog, not giving up.
liveleak.com "2 pit bulls attack smaller dog" Excellent video. Should be required viewing of all pit owners, shown at every pit bull awareness daze, every BULLY adoptathon.
I never blame the dog. I do blame the breeders, the dog fighters, the pit mongers,who cause the infestation of these tragically handicapped mutants in our communites and cause their deaths by the TON in pounds. You cannot adopt your way out of killing pits, as long as 8 litters of pits a week are being produced in your community!
its are different. Proof is that,with countless combinations available, pits are the choice of essentially ALL US dog fighters. Pits are victims of these man-made handicapps. Stop making more victims. Ban pit breeding now.
11:15 am on Friday, August 10, 2012
Also I think I like this Brook character, he's one cool cat.
1:17 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Look I had a pitbull, she was the most friendliest dog, she'd greet you and play like other dogs, mind you she was a part of my family all while raising three children.
I mentioned all that to say, owners of
pitbulls have the responsibilty to have their dogs trained. Everyone marvelled at our dog because of her friendly nature. Our dog was registered and taken care of in a loving environment. I believe if owners have good intention and love their pet and not raise them to be aggressive or mis-handle the nature of their dogs, which I believe is not necessarily an inherited trait to bite or being aggressive but a learned behavior.
My pitbull was lured from our home and stolen due to her friendly nature. It should be mandatory to have pitbulls trained and certified, maybe owner insurance should be made a necessay evil for dog owner.
debbie bell
5:56 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Did you look for her, post signs, distribute fliers?. When our rescue hears "my dog was stolen" , we encourage them to look for their LOST dog. Sometimes the dog has escaped and needs their owners to come save it!
I'm glad you never had a problem with your pit harming anyone you knew. But you couldn't keep her safe/at home. What happened to her? Did she get trained to fight, was she abused?
I do agree that there should be insurance for all dogs. However, as other things, how would it be enforced? I have insurance for my dog, even tho she is a non pit.
I recommend mandatory spay/neuter microchipping. Any lost dog would be MSNM before return. Any dogs suspected of being fought would get MSNM. Immediately there would be fewer attacks, fewer puppies being born. It would be more difficult to sell pit puppies if breeding was illegal. Everyone sane and compassionate wins.
1:21 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
The "Pit Bull" has even won at Westminster dog show, the elite of the dog shows. I guess the unpredictability of this breed is excepted by this organization. The fact that a "PIT BULL" can win and almost win this event goes to show it is not the breed it is the owner.
debbie bell
6:05 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Did you know that when the UKC was founded in 1898, the registration # 1 was given to the pit bull, Bennett's Ring, owned by the founder? Did you know that UKC was expressly created to register pits, the American Pit Bull Terrier and then added coonhounds, bird dogs, etc?
Did you know that the UKC, says "form AND function". Dogs must have proper conformation, but also perform the "job" of their breed to be declared a Champion.. Setters had to show they could hunt birds by winnig field dog trials, coonhounds had to hunt coons and win.
Pit bulls, did they have to win "nanny dog" contests? Nope, since that nickname wasn't created until the 1980's. No, in order to have your pit bull become a Champoin it had to win three dog fights, ones where a UKC referee was present and reported the results to the UKC.
Pits were created to kill other dogs. That is their history and their instinct. That is their handicap too. When the instinct to tug and shred sparks in the pit bull mind and a sleeping neighbor dog is avalable, a "good" pit will kill. If no dog is available, a dog-sized human may dog (child).
Stop making more handicapped, sometimes deadly dogs.
Colleen Carter
8:30 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Debbie, you do understand that the Westminster Kennel Club is affiliated with the AKC (American Kennel Club) and is not the same thing as the United Kennel Club?
Or do you?
"Pit bull" is NOT an AKC-registered breed, therefore there is no "pit bull" category at Westminster. Staffordshire Bull Terriers (which are, in fact, the dog referred to as the "nanny dog" and has been since the 19th century in England) has won Westminster, but SBTs are NOT pit bulls. I have an AKC-registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and I have 2 rescued "pit bulls".
Good job on the copy and paste from the UKC website, though.
1:31 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
I know what you'll all say, and what the article say and that people have been bitten, but I still say obedience training, certification, registration and insurance may be the solution. The dogs are not necessarily a bad breed, it's the bad, irresponsible owners that are.
Brittney Nicole
3:51 pm on Friday, August 10, 2012
Then it should be required for all breeds. You can't start singling people out, and lumping responsible owners with those that are irresponsible with their dogs.
4:17 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
Angel said: "obedience training, certification, registration and insurance may be the solution."
I think you are thinking well. However, certification and registration have nothing to do with it. Some faceless bureacrat won't know how to assess or guide people to care for a dog. However, if the law stayed completely out of the whole business, in the long run, a private insurance market would get it right, as I think you correctly allude in your post. The private market would get the actuarial risk right, free from the lawmakers.
There is no magical truth in votes, just tyranny of the majority. (Just ask Galileo.)
4:28 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
BTW, let me be clear. This is NOT to say the law has no place here, it certainly does. The law's place is to correctly use collective force to collect damages FROM THE NEGLIGENT, RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS and deliver them TO THE VICTIMS. There's nothing special needed in the law about dogs, much less specific breeds. Your animal, not properly managed and not acting in self-defense, is your responsibility.
Buck Harmon
7:30 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I'm still waiting to hear why Joe Getty made a dumb vote here....I thought he had more brains... disappointing.
8:28 am on Saturday, August 11, 2012
I have been a dog groomer for over 20 years. It's unfair to single out a one breed of dog. Yes pit bulls will inflict a lot of damage when the bite. That's all you hear about on the news when it happens. There are many "cute" dogs that can and have cause damage when they bite.(I know firsthand) You don't ever hear about them. Take the chow, cocker spaniels, labs, terriers, chihuahua and husky's. They are cute but can be nasty. And inflict serious injury also or the owner who is scared of their dogs, because they will bite them or others. And do nothing to correct the issue.
If you chose to have a dog, especially a "dominate "breed. It boils down to owner responsibly- socialize, train and purchase from a respectable breeder not some back yard breeder. Yes they are part of the family and you love them. Just remember they are dogs not your "child'.
debbie bell
4:47 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
I am a pit monger. You will NOT tell ME that I can't own and breed the dog that all US dog fighters choose.
I will call my dog a BULLY, I will let my dog BULLY you/ your pets and I will blame you if my BULLY maims or kills you. I will call you a 'drama queen" if you complain about your child spending 17 days in the hospital. I will laugh at your little dog's dead body when my BULLY plays too hard! After all, your dog probably "dissed" my dog, so he had to kill your dog in your yard. Hey, if you don't want your dog to be killed inside your yard or inside your house, don't have a dog!
I am a pit monger. I will permit a million pits too many to be born (pit suffering is fine with me too) but I will fit tooth and nail when one pit bull makes the news and is in danger. You see, I love fights! Communication? Problem solving? Not so much.
I will say antisocial things and get away with it. See how easily I say, "my pit may not start the fight but she will finish it." I would love to follow all those who cut me off in traffic and kill them in their driveway, but I would be punished for that. So instead, I acquire THE best dog for killing other dogs and then treat my dog like a normal dog, let it kill..
I am a pit monger. so I will pretend to be upset by dog fighing, but I will secretly think "pits do look magnificent when fighting". I even posted that once, but the anti-dog-killers called me out for that, so I won't post that again. signed: the pit monger
debbie bell
5:20 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Someone mentioned the ATTS test. Pit mongers use it to mislead the public, either by deception or ignorance. They indicate that this test results mean that pits are safe. 84-90% of pits do pass the test.
However, read the test. No where does it say that it is a prediction of safety. It was created to weed out dogs not brave enough for police work. The test doesn't have any child, for example, one wheeling by in a stroller. It doesn't include a elderly dog, like one, sleeping nearby on a lawn chair. No elderly woman walking to the mailbox is part of the test. Too bad, because all these examples of vicitms of pits doing exactly what they were created to do: attack and do damage. The child was pulled from the stroller and essentially "scalped". Both the sleeping dog and the elderly woman were killed.
Oh, the test does have weird wire on the ground for the dog to walk over, and an umbrella! Wow! The part that is the most telling, a part that many dogs I know and love would fail, is #4. A starter pistol is suddenly fired behind the dog, 3 x. Dogs that panic and fail to recover quickly, fail the test. This part tells a thinking person, that if a pit is attacking, and you have a gun, warning shots won't stop 84-90% of the pits, so you will have to shoot to kill. And actually, that's what happens too. Every year, more pits/pit mixes are killed by neighbors or police, trying to stop the pit's attack to save the victim, ,than pass this misleading test!
debbie bell
5:47 pm on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Pits are not more mean or angry than other dogs. The problem is that they don't have to be mean or angry to act on instinct and begin tugging, sometimes tugging something to death. A beagle isn't mean or angry when on a rabbit, altho the rabbit runs for his life.
The tugging is the instinct. Check out youtube.com "bullseye hang time" All four paws off the ground, and still tugging more. Imagine that dog tugging on your breast, or testicles? Your child's jaw? Your elderly mother's thigh?
The comment says it all. One pit monger happily writes; "True apbt god couldn't even created. It took men." I do agree, God had nothing to do with these extreme mauling, tugging, crushing instincts of the pits. Cruel humans caused their existance. That is not sufficient reason to continue making more of them.
Enact and Enforce Mandatory spay/neuter microchipping of all pits, pit mixes.
Melissa Wilson
8:39 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Someone can yell at me for being off topic on this one but I feel the need to point out that Pittbulls were originally bred to be "nanny" dogs, companion dogs, therapy dogs, search and rescue dogs, and even seeing eye dogs. There is even several photos floating around the internet somewhere of Helen Keller with her Pitbull who served as her seeing eye dog, companion, and therapy dog.
Karl Schuub
8:41 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Really? Nanny dogs...odd because another Pit Bull attack on a child in Harford County just this evening. It bit the child in the face and arms. Fortunately a deputy was in the area and shot the dog dead. Nanny dog? If you're mental and really have a death wish for your kids maybe.
Melissa Wilson
8:54 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Yes, in fact they are very protective of their families, especially children. In my personal experience our dog Tee was very loving, put up with plenty of ear tugging and tail pulling from my nephew and would even guard him away from sharp edges on furniture or stairs/balconies/edges of porches he may have tumbled down. Tee paid just as much attention to him and guarded and protected him as any adult or babysitter in the home.
Karl Schuub
9:01 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Care to comment on the situation in Harford this evening where this seemingly calm, Pit Bull pet attacked an 11 year old and mauled him in the face and arms?


text:
Community News Network
VIDEO: Women, toddler rescued from floodwaters
Two women and a toddler got stuck in rising floodwaters in Australia. The rescue effort was caught on tape.
Video |
- Community News Network
Boy Scouts: Yes to gay youths, no to adults
The Boy Scouts of America on Thursday ended its ban on openly gay youths but maintained a prohibition on gay adult leaders, a decision framed as a compromise but one that could lead to litigation and thousands of defections from one of America's largest youth organizations.
Expert: Schools need shelters
Ninety-four percent of Oklahoma schools do not have tornado shelters, according to Gov. Mary Fallin, even though at least one weather expert says they should be standard. With two Moore schools destroyed in Monday's EF-5 tornado — and ...
Siblings withstand storm in fridge
Brother and sister co-owners of a Chinese takeout restaurant huddled inside a refrigerator to survive Monday's deadly tornado that claimed 24 lives.
TIMELAPSE: Take a tour through the damage in Moore
Take a driving tour of the damage in Moore caused by Monday's tornado.
Mayor wants tornado shelters in new homes
Moore Mayor Glenn Lewis wants tornado shelters in all new homes in his city, where an EF-5 tornado damaged or destroyed more than 12,500 homes Monday afternoon. A proposed ordinance would require a shelter inside or outside each new residence.
AUDIO: Residents share their tornado experiences
Moore, Okla., residents talk about living through Monday's EF-5 tornado.
VIDEO: Orlando shootout tied to Boston bomb suspect
The FBI says it was involved in a fatal shooting near Universal Studios in Orlando, Fla. CBS News senior correspondent John Miller reports that the victim was a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older brother suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing.
Okla. officials vow not to quit looking until everyone is found
The tornado that killed 24 people and injured at least 100 others in the Moore and Oklahoma City area cut a 17-mile-long path that started in Newcastle and ended at Lake Stanley Draper. Nine of the dead are children.
- Photos: Aftermath of massive tornado in Moore Storm victims were pulled from the rubble and residents began surveying the damage late Monday and early Tuesday in the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore, where a powerful tornado destroyed entire neighborhoods and left dozens dead.
Where to get the best deal on beer, haircuts, movies
Looking for a good deal on a six-pack of beer? Try Charlotte. A haircut that won't burn a hole in your wallet? Harlingen, Texas, is your best bet. A trip to the movies? Hilo, Hawaii, is supposed to be nice this time of year.
- More Community News Network Headlines
Boy Scouts: Yes to gay youths, no to adults

subset: commoncrawl


text:
State and federal wildlife officials said in a news release that because of its injuries, the eagle could not have flown far from where it was shot. The eagle had multiple shot shell pellet wounds to its wings, leg and eye and was euthanized.
The eagle is believed to have been shot between Jan. 1-18.
Another eagle was shot in Neshoba County in early December 2012. That eagle had to be euthanized. It was found in the Nanih Waiya Wildlife Management Area.
A bald eagle was also shot and found in Stone County near Wiggins in mid-January. The eagle survived.
An investigation is underway in all three cases.
Officials said past cases have shown people believed they were shooting hawks or buzzards but others have said they could see the bird was an eagle by the shape of its head.
Bald eagles are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, both federal and state wildlife statutes. Violations of those acts carry maximum criminal penalties of up to $100,000 and a year in federal prison.


text:
Friday, 17 May 2013 00:00
Zap & Clear!Instant Spot Cleaning
With a name reminiscent of retro Super Heroes, Zap & Clear Serum is in fact Green People's new Hero product in its anti-acne collection, a sub-range of hard-hitting natural spot-zapping essentials.
Published in
Thursday, 20 December 2012 00:00
Sensuous Sugar Scrub For Dramatically Smooth, Polished And Energised Skin
Divinely soft skin can be yours with our deluxe body exfoliator designed for integration into your usual beauty routine. Use over the entire body to invigorate your body and awaken the senses whilst smoothingaway any rough spots. Sensuous Sugar Scrub cushions skin while it exfoliates leaving a super soft, healthy glow.
Published in
Bath and Body
Wednesday, 19 December 2012 00:00
Certified Organic Body Butter For Dry Skin By Green People
A great non-petroleum alternative to Vaseline. This powerful skin balm uses an exquisite formula which works by creating a protective barrier, allowing the skin to restore its own natural balance. Green People's Organic Body Butter melts on contact, just like butter, to smooth and deeply nourish dry skin.
Published in
Bath and Body
Wednesday, 31 October 2012 00:00
Tips for how to care for Babies Skin this Winter
Winter time means dry skin and this is not good for our precious babies. I personally try to avoid bathing Lola too much every 2 night at the max so that her skin is not in water too often.
Published in
Skin Care
Tuesday, 16 October 2012 03:00
Green People donating 20,000 samples of safe skincare for premature babies
I am so pleased to share this info with you. When I was pregnant, and in the NHS system, I was quite impressed with a few things and very unimpressed with several also. I was surprised at how much free stuff mums to be got, and until I saw what was inside the packs, I thought it was a great thing.
Published in
Skin Care
Thursday, 04 October 2012 01:00
Hello Baby - A Unique New Gifting Concept
This October Organic Babies will be adding a delightful gifting concept to their range. Announcing the New 'Hello Baby' gift, a trio of perfectly pure bath and skincare products that are expertly blended making them suitable for new arrivals, even those with sensitive skin and skin allergies such as eczema.
The concept allows you to truly personalise your gift by choosing from Baby Blue for Boys or Blush Pink for girls, plus a Unisex option for those with a surprise in store. 'Hello Baby' also makes the perfect Christening gift.
Published in
Skin Care
Saturday, 30 June 2012 01:00
Your Festival Favourite - Just for Kids!
Your organic 'must have' this festival seasonWhether braving the campsite, giving the kids the full Camp Bestival experience or dipping your toe gently into the festival waters by visiting 'Lollibop' in London there is one must-have that you can't forget to pack!
Published in
Skin Care
Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:32
Celebrating 15 Years Of Organic Lifestyle
Green People has been pioneering organic personal care products since 1997 and to celebrate our 15 year anniversary we are delighted to introduce new additions, improved formulations, handy travel sizes and stylish new packaging.
Published in
Thursday, 02 December 2010 19:03
Green People – Organic Christmas Gift packs for Men, Women and Teens!
Green People present an 'Organic Wonderland' of gorgeous, ethical and organic Christmas gifts packed with fairly traded ingredients – perfect for all your friends and family. Each natural festive treat inside is bursting with a luxurious blend of organic plant oils, herbal infusions and essential oils to indulge and pamper your loved ones skin.
Beautiful gifts for
Published in
Skin Care
Thursday, 22 April 2010 12:36
Green People – Oy! Organics for Teenagers
Oy! Organic Young Adds Three New Teen Treats!
First ever certified organic range for teens!
SLS Free
For guys and girls
Rock up to school smelling lush with three new treats from Oy! Organic Young, the first ever certified organic range for teenage skin!
Oy! Roll-On Deodorant £7.75 (75ml) The first ever certified organic deo for teens!
Forget anti-perspirants that use
Published in
Skin Care


text:
Earn as you learn with sports online betting
You could enjoy watching your edge-of-the-seat favorite sport, game or race, but if you truly want to include some serious green spice to your hobby then you can definitely start betting on them. You don't need to be considered a gambling pro because you can readily earn as you learn with sports online betting.
If you're a resident of any European country then you could simply go to GertGambell.net and search for the best online sportsbooks that provide you a chance to bet on sports or races including baseball, college and nfl football, college and nba basketball, golf, boxing, horse racing, and tennis among other casino and board games.
However, if you are in the USA then you will have to check if the site at which you intend to bet has the necessary clearances otherwise it might not be legal for you to bet at websites like these. Some sites provide the services of a middleman for US citizens but you will need to make sure that this move is not illegal or risky since all of your winnings will first have to be received by the middleman before they are transferred to your account.
You should first recognize that basketball and football are mainly based upon betting lines whereas horse racing, hockey and baseball, amongst others are based mostly on odds. Thus, it really is crucial for you to quickly discover how to correctly interpret each betting line and calculate odds if you wish to convert much of your bets into winning ones. It's also advisable to play just with the top sports betting sites so as to better your chances of winning higher amounts. These basic tips will allow you to start out smoothly and earn while you learn about the finer nuances of online gambling. There is a free sports betting system and also very honest tips at GertGambell.net – also concerning the back side of sports betting when bookmakers don't accept being drained and drained for cash by winners.
You can start out by placing straight bets before entering into the exciting realm of parimutuel betting with over/under, spreads, totals, parlays, teases, etc. This can turn each bet into an exciting one while helping you to win additional money too. In addition to accepting credit cards, each sportsbook which you play with must also feature an e-check facility to safely transfer money to your account.
It's also advisable to seek out sites that offer free or premium sports betting picks because these picks are based on the expertise of experienced handicapping managers and will enable you to place informed bets. You can even pick up rich tips from sites such as sportsline that is a goldmine in offering the latest news in sports and the betting world. It's also wise to utilize all of the freebies offered by various online betting sites so as to save on initial expenses whilst getting invaluable experience at the same time.
While betting in the old-fashioned way would entail searching for actual sports books and visiting them repeatedly to place your bets and to check on the list of winners, sports online betting alternatively will demand only a few clicks and a few minutes before you start betting. The best part is that you could earn while you learn whenever you employ betting picks from inside your gambling arsenal whilst you quickly turn into a betting pro yourself.


text:
William Dyer, music instructor at the College, conducts the community orchestra and encourages all interested musicians to contact him about joining the group. The orchestra�s website is www.ghc.edu/bishop/symphony.htm and Dyer can be reached at email@example.com, (360) 538-4171.
He also notes that the group�s Fall concert will take place on Sunday, November 18, beginning at 7 p.m. The program will feature an evening of symphonic dance selections and guest soloist, pianist and composer Mike Strickland. Tickets for this performance are available now online at www.ghc.edu/bishop or by calling (360) 539-4066.
Complete your FAFSA With help.
We're having a celebration to announce the new partnership between GHC and Brandman University. See also: "Early Advantage Program"
Entrance counseling is a requirement for first-time borrowers of the Federal Direct Loan. Location: Room 2104 (1st Floor of 2000 Building)Dates: Wednesdays Time: 2:00 � 3:30 pm
Dates of each Fall 2012 Session:September: 26th October: 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th, 31st November: 7th, 14th, 28th December: 5th, 12th **Arrive on time and bring a pen**
Bishop Center for Performing Arts Event:This musical follows two great friends, the cheerful and popular Frog and the rather grumpy Toad through four fun-filled seasons. Waking from hibernation in the spring, they proceed to plant gardens, swim, rake leaves and go sledding, learning life lessons along the way, including a most important one about friendship and rejoicing in the attributes that make each of us different and special.
$9 Adults, $5 Students Children 12 and under free w/adult ticket
Sponsored by Sandy Lloyd
GHC Student Events and Activities


text:
Atlanta Black Men Dating
Jump to: content or main navigation
I knew he was the one from the moment I read his profile. In fact I lost interest in other prospects. My heart just knew he was what I wanted and needed at this stage of my life. So, when I got an instant email message sent to me. It was almost a done deal. We exchanged number after a few emails. Then scheduled to meet in person cause we enjoyed the phone conversation. Meeting each other was s... read more
nisanubi23, Age 39, Georgia


text:
I was at the panel with BCRDuke and another .Orger. The info is mostly right ... just a few clarifications:
-Mini-Atom was stated to be an "accessory" for Giganta. (I guess it's just a way to get Mini-Atom into people's collections by packing him with one of the wave 8 figures)
-4-5 waves of DCUC in addition to the Walmart wave for 2009
-They're working on making flight stands right now, but there wasn't any guarantee that they'd be out this year.
-The army builder wave is for Infinite Heroes
"I look upon my powers as a gift, not mine alone but for anyone who needs them." (Superman: Peace on Earth)
GO FORWARD. Please support the Christopher Reeve Foundation by purchasing a set of Superman tags at www.ChristopherReeve.org
If nine hundred He-Man.Org members get eaten by Thundercats fans, but neither of them has a toyline, does it still count as a fan movement?
There is no confirmation that Zan and Gleek are authentic.
if they are, I hope they're a Matty twopack with Jayna.
but I really hope they're just customs, because if they're not, then Matty lied about this line being COMIC ONLY.
and I CERTAINLY don't want them in a C&C wave. I just don't want to have to buy any of this cartoon stuff.
They probably will just be a matty two pack if they are for real. It would be tough to fit those in a CnC line. Who would the monkey go with?
Anyways even if they do introduce them into the comic-line, it's a toyline after all. Don't take it so seriously. Life' s too short. This past week I had a friend almost die of heart failure. It really opens your eyes and makes you appreciate the more important things, Thanx Paul~
Thexxwatcherxx's Newly Chosen:
Batman1180~The Godbeast~TheFallen~
I can forgive it if it's just a twopack, or a con exclusive.
but Matty lied if that's the case.
I just hope it doesn't open the floodgates, as we were told it was COMIC ONLY.
as for taking things seriously, well, it's things like this, that take my mind off of things like heart failure, and other such horrors.
My dad had back surgery recently. As I spun into a period where I had no control over everything, it's always nice to have your hobby to escape to.
I see the no Vertigo characters clause, but is there a loophole for guys like Swamp Thing and Golden Age Sandman?
WANTED: Comic From SDCC Vykron!
Mini Comic want list:
Terror Claws Strike
Skeletor's Journey
And any and all PoP mini's.
GA Sandman: Yes
Swamp Thing: No. They specifically mentioned him.
But the Wonder Twins have appeared in comics. First in the Super Friends series, but they were brought into the DC Universe proper in the 90s in Extreme Justice and later in Young Justice.
Their costumes have gone through a few "updates", but they're the same characters in essence.
I wonder, did they change their powers any? Imean Zan always changing into a bucket of water? I can't wat to see what Jana looks like. It makes me think of the skit they did on Attack of the Show with Kevin and Olivia as the dynamic duo. It's very funny!
"I mark the hours every one, Nor have I yet outrun the Sun. My use & value unto you, are gauged by what you have to do."
Enscribed onto Hermione Granger's Time Turner from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Sorry to break the news to some of you guys, but the Wonder Twins are part of the DC Universe. They have been included in several DC storylines and have guest starred in a few issues of JLA, Teen Titans from the 80's, and most recently in Extreme Justice. I have the comic books stored up somewhere. Extreme Justice is part of the DC universe btw.
From the Wiki Page
Extreme Justice version
The new, revamped Wonder Twins. Art by Todd Nauck.
In the 1990s they were introduced into the main DC Universe in the series Extreme Justice. The series retconned their origin so that they are slaves of an alien villain, later rescued by the Justice League. In Extreme Justice #9 (Oct. 1995), unable to speak English, they accidentally attack some civilians and the Justice League. They join Captain Atom's team in issue #16.[1] They had far greater powers than their cartoon counterparts. During their fight with the JLA, Zan became an ice golem, a water monster, and a demonic-looking whirlpool; while Jayna became a griffin, a werewolf, and a sea serpent. Although rarely seen today, this version of the Wonder Twins is still part of the current DC Universe. Later they appeared in Young Justice #4951, wearing uniforms which resembled t-shirts and jeans, to help avenge the murder of Empress's parents. Apparently, the Wonder Twins enjoy the taste of CDs, as they ate several of Wonder Girl's favorite discs.
We survived the long night.... MOTU Forever!
Or Harley Quinn, another character who started out in the cartoons?
No offense intended toward anyone, but you guys might wanna save your breath - you cannot convince capitalzero otherwise. Look back several pages, this discussion already happened, with the same results.
Well, I for one hope that the Wonder Twins do get made. If they do, they will definately be a part of my collection!
Honestly speaking, I don't think it matters how much someone posts about how much they want or don't want something to happen, unless you work at mattel and have some major push. It's not a question of lying, but rather toy companies change direction all the time. Just look at Hasbro and their Q&A's. It's a feeling out process. Toy companies do not adhere to any strict rules and thinking so is setting yourself up for major disappointment.
Thexxwatcherxx's Newly Chosen:
Batman1180~The Godbeast~TheFallen~
They're real. Mattel confirmed it on another board. I like 'em. They're going to go with my DC Direct superfriends figures.
"Yep! And now I'm gonna blast ya!"
- Orko to Skeletor in "Lessons"
I don't see why people are surprised. They already announced Samurai, Apache Chief, and Black Vulcan for JLU. Its only a matter of time before they end up at DCUC.
I don't have any problems with them except that they are bland racial stereotypes of superheroes. Wonder Twins was about the only half decent attempt at superheroes.
We survived the long night.... MOTU Forever!
It doesn't work, Mattel lied, end of discussion.
And now I want Scooby Doo and David Cassidy.
they appeared in comics, I want them in DCUC.
I'm not gonna buy them. I just hope they don't include any of this cartoon garbage in a C&C wave.
I'm pretty set in my ways, I'm quite upset with Mattel for deceiving the real DC Fans. Those of us who READ COMICS.
There are plenty of Cartoon lines these could've shown up in, without taking up valuable slots in a COMIC ONLY line.
If they're gonna start infecting it with Cartoon Characters, then I want the Harlem Globetrotters, Mama Cass, and the Robo Stooges.
since they interacted with Scooby Doo, and he interacted with Batman.
If they wanted to do Superfriends, then they should've started a Superfriends line.
Last edited by capitalzero; February 10, 2009 at 06:17pm.
The only real DC fans are the ones who read comics? That's somewhat strained logic, isn't it...especially considering the tremendously low quality of much of what DC's put out in the comics lately. Just because you read whatever nonsense DC puts out doesn't make you a more "real" fan than anyone else.
You can complain all you want about cartoon characters, but Zan & Jayna are canonical DC characters, and have just as much validity as Harley Quinn does as characters, despite the infrequence of their appearances.
"That's very interesting...but silly." - Man-At-Arms
As others have pointed out, both Harley Quinn and Batman Beyond started out in cartoons. And Batman Beyond in particular was never really in comics (that I am aware of) with the exception of the Batman Beyond comics that were based straight off the cartoon (just like the Batman Adventures being based on the animated series). Harley did transition over to the regular comics, but still, she did originate in a cartoon.
I find it funny that you are complaing so much about the Wonder Twins because of their cartoon origins, but have no apparent beef with these other characters.
Obviously, your own arguement on this matter isn't very consistent. It seems as if the reality of the situation is that you don't necessarily have a problem with cartoon-based characters that you actually like or at least wouldn't mind having in your collection. But, the second any cartoon originated characters that you don't personally care for come into question, then suddenly you have something to complain about.
This seems to be the only logical explanation, since you never expressed any upsetness over Harley or Batman Beyond.
Besides, my guess would be that Mattel's original intention was to not include cartoon characters such as this, but there's probably since been a lot of requests and demand for them. Just because YOU don't like them, doesn't mean other people don't want them. And so, Mattel is listening to the fan base, and giving them what they want. Sorry if it goes against their original statement, but it doesn't make sense for them to 100% stick to that statement if it means upsetting and disappointing many fans who want these products. Mattel is not going to disapoint a bunch of people AND walk away from the money that they can make selling these figures just because it doesn't completely mesh with their original intention for the line, or because it happens to disapoint a handful of people along the way.
Just because YOU are set in YOUR ways, doesn't mean that the rest of the world should drop everything to adapt to your individual preferances.
There's a huge difference there. Scooby-Doo and the Harlem Globe Trotters are not DC owned characters. They may have crossed over with DC characters at one point, but they are not actually a direct part of the DC Universe.If they're gonna start infecting it with Cartoon Characters, then I want the Harlem Globetrotters, Mama Cass, and the Robo Stooges.
since they interacted with Scooby Doo, and he interacted with Batman.
If they wanted to do Superfriends, then they should've started a Superfriends line.
Regardless of their cartoon origins, the Wonder Twins are DC owned characters, and have also since appeared in comics. There's plenty of good reason why they should appear in the line.
Batman Beyond showed up in Countdown. He's on a separate earth in the multiverse. He also showed up in an issue of Superman/Batman with several versions of Batman.
"Yep! And now I'm gonna blast ya!"
- Orko to Skeletor in "Lessons"


text:
Asia Pacific Dental Congress
WORLD FEDERATION LASER DENTISTRY – Laser Symposium (Lectures and Hands-on workshop) Venue: MAHSA Dental Faculty, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Date: 8-9 May 2013
1st North American Division Congress
New Horizons in Laser Therapy in Clinical Dentistry In collaboration with the World Federation for Laser Dentistry Friday, May 10, 2013 Hilton Garden Inn Stony Brook University (Campus)
The essential journal
Photomedicine and Laser Surgery is the essential journal for cutting-edge advances and research in phototherapy, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), and laser medicine and surgery. The Journal delivers basic
Laser Certification Course
The World Federation for Laser Dentistry-Asian Pacific Divison (WFLD-APD) in 2011 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Basic Laser Certification Course (BLCC) was organized in conjunction with the


text:
Instantly watch TV episodes and movies via the Internet on your computer or TV. 1 month FREE!
Can a rough and tumble hockey player and a snooty ice dancer find love and a gold medal at the same time? That's the burning (or more appropriately freezing) question in this romantic drama.…Read More


text:
Model Height: 6'3 (190.5 cm)
Fabric: 99% Cotton, 1% Spandex
Color: Black
SKU: H126005Item ID: 1366347
resolutionaries classic denim shorts
$34.99 $59.00
The Resolutionaries Classic Denim Shorts by LRG features:
- US Sizing
- a Classic zipper and button closure
- a 5 pocket design w/ zipper closures
- Logo hardware on front
Model is wearing size 32
Tell a Friend
Copy and paste the following address to tell your friends:
Email a Friend
Sign Up!
Sign up for special offers, exclusive sales and discounts!
We recommend
Other customers also liked these...


text:
Except for a string of concepts, it's been relatively quiet on the new product front from Volvo, which was purchased from Ford by China's Geely automotive a few years back. But a report from Autocar says Volvo is readying a quartet of all-new models starting in 2014. First up will be a new XC90 crossover, followed by a new S80 sedan and V80 wagon as well as a 2+2 coupe dubbed C80. In the meantime, the existing models, like the S60 sedan, will get a facelift for 2014 that reflects a new design direction we'll see on the all-new Volvos.
Some things get better with age. Some don't. Marriages fall under either category. Vehicles, too. Rarity or desirability may increase the value of one... more »
For 2012, Volvo is pushing its interior design and materials upmarket. New trim designations combine with a new selection of materials and technological... more »


text:
- Text Size:
- ASmall Text
- AMedium Text
- ALarge Text
As Israel targeted Hamas military commanders and weaponry, Palestinian militants continued to fire rockets into Israel, battering the southern region and reaching Israel's two major cities -- Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Israel called up reservists and massed its forces on the Gaza border, threatening a ground invasion. Many feared a repeat of Israel's Operation Cast Lead offensive against Palestinian militants in late 2008, an operation that led to a bloody three-week war.
The fighting in November took its toll: More than 160 Palestinians, many of whom were civilians, were killed. Six Israelis died, including civilians and soldiers. Hundreds were wounded.
The fighting ended after Egypt and the United States helped broker the cease-fire that lasted until Tuesday.
A Palestinian official sent a warning Sunday to U.S. President Barack Obama, who plans to make his first trip to Israel as president next month.
"If President Obama wants to visit the region peacefully, he should exert pressure on Israel to release the prisoners -- especially the ones who are on hunger strike -- or else he will visit while Palestine is on fire," Minister of Prisoner Affairs Issa Qaraqe said.
Israeli officials Sunday called on the Palestinian Authority to calm the territories, where there have been large protests in recent days over the conditions of Palestinian prisoners.


text:
WEDNESDAY, January 28, 1863.Mr. DOUGLASS, from the select committee thereon, reported back the concurrent resolution (see page 60) authorizing a contract to be made with ARIEL & W. H. DRAPIER for 1500 copies of their Brevier Legislative Reports, recommending its passage with an amendment reducing the price to one-half cent per page,
Mr. CLAYPOOL I find at the extra session that these Brevier Reports made 281 pages and there will not be lens than 350 or 400 pages this session. At the price the committee proposes to allow, we would be paying $1,75 or 2$ for each book; and I take it that would be paying a pretty large price for so small a book. I am not prepared to say that I am not in favor of printing this work in book form at a reasonable and fair rate, but I cannot consent to it at that rate.
Mr. BROWN, of Wells. The explanation given by the Senator from Fayette (Mr. Claypool) will answer my purpose. I am in favor of continuing these Reports, but at the same time I feel like being cautions as to the amount of money we ex- page: 097[View Page 097] pend for them. I shall be willing to give the Reporters that which will be remunerative, but until I am satisfied we cannot get them for less than half a cent a page I shall have to vote against them.
Mr. BEARSS moved to lay the report on the table.
Mr. RAY demanded a division of the question.
The Senate refused to lay on the table the amendment proposed by the committee--yeas 10, nays 36.
The question recurring on laying the original resolution on the table, the yeas and nays were demanded by Messrs. Beeson and Claypool, and being ordered and taken resulted--yeas 25, nays 21as follows:
YEAS--Messrs. Bearss, Beeson, Berry, Blair, Browne, of Randolph, Brown, of Wells, Campbell, Claypool, Culver, Davis, of Parke, Dickinson, Downey, Fuller, Gifford, Grubb, Jenkins, Mansfield, March, Mellett, Moore, New, Pleak, Teegarden, White, and Wright--25.
NAYS--Messrs. Cobb, Corbin, Davis, of Cass, Douglass, Dunning, Ferguson, Finch, Gaff, Hartley, Hoagland, Hord, Johnston, Landers, McClurg, Marshall, Murray, Kay, Shields, Williams, Wilson, and Wolfe--21.
So the resolution was laid on the table.
Mr. BROWN, of Wells, offered the following, which was adopted:
WHEREAS, It is especially due to the people, while the burdens and sacrifices of a dire civil war are fearfully taxing their energies, that rigid investigations should be made of the official conduct of their public servants, to whom the control of public moneys may have been entrusted, and
WHEREAS, The people of the State of Indiana demand of this Legislature a faithful and fearless discharge of such duty; therefore
Resolved, That a special committee of five be appointed by the President of the Senate to investigate th expenditures in the State Quartermaster's Department, the purchase of arms by the State, and the management of the State Arsenal; and that said committee be authorized to send for persons and papers, and report the result of their investigations.
Addressed to appropriate committees were offered, read and severally adopted, to-wit:
By Mr. DOWNEY, "whether a general law can be enacted, under which the Circuit and Common Pleas Courts, in their respective circuits and districts, may fix the times of holding the regular as well as special terms of said Courts."
By Mr. WILLIAMS, "whether the one hundred thousand dollars appropriation to the Governor as a military contingent fund has been expended in accordance with the intent and meaning of the law waking said appropriation."
By Mr. MURRAY, "what additional legislation may be necessary to insure the support of destitute families at the public expense, of such volunteers as are now in the military service of the country."
Mr. MOORE. "as to amending the school law so as to compel the directors of each school house to take the enumeration of the children within their respective districts in the place of the township trustee; " so that it shall be the duty of the Boards of County Commissioners of the several counties to appoint a school examiner at the county seat, and also to inquire into the expediency of reducing his pay not to exceed twenty-five dollars.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, of Wells, it was--
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate enquire of ARIEL & W. H. DRAPIER, Reporters, at what price they will furnish, ready for binding, 5 copies of their Brevier Legislative reports to each member of the Senate, and report as early us possible.
Mr. CORBIN offered the following,which was adopted:
WHEREAS, All Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the people governed, and no people can give that consent, without a just knowledge of their acts of their agents.
AND WHEREAS, an over taxed and heavily burdened people every where, are demanding earnestly o their representatives-and agents in every department, an observance of that rigid economy, which alone can preserve the integrity, vigor and life of any government, or the liberties of her people; therefore, in order to further the accomplishment of said objects,
Be it Resolved, by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring) that a committee of five, two from the Senate and three from the House, be appointed, to wait upon his Excellency Governor Morton, and request him to fix a time at as early a day as possible, when he will report to this Legislature, how much of the one million appropriation, approved May 31, 1861, came to his hands; also, how much of the one hundred thousand dollars appropriated as a contingent for the Governor came into his hands, and what amount, if any, of Bonds were issued by him, under an act approved May 13,1861 to authorize the Governor to issue Bonds &c. And for him to give a detailed statement of the disbursement of said funds; also, for him to report to this Legislature whether the Federal Government has not paid to him for the benefit of the State an amount sufficient to cover all or nearly all advances made by the State on account of the war. Also, to report to this Legislature, what, officers and employees growing out of the present war are now being paid by the Stale, the salaries and other expenditures of said employees and officers charged to the State, and what other expenditures, if any growing out of the same cause is being charged against the State.
Mr. NEW introduced a joint resolution [5] to instruct our Senators and request our Representatives in Congress to vote for a law to allow bounty to soldiers discharged for disability before the expiration of the term of their enlistment which as passed to the second reading.
The following bills were introduced, read the first time and severally passed to the second reading:
By Mr. RAY, [60] to detect and prevent the circulation of counterfeits, altered and worthless paper currency, and prescribing the duties of banks in relation thereto,
page: 98[View Page 98]By Mr. MELLETT, [61] repealing an act in relation to witnesses, and to repeal section 238 of article 13 of the practice act.
By Mr. NEW, [62] to amend the first section of an act for the incorporation and continuance of banking, fund and savings associations, approved March 5, 1857.
By Mr. CORBIN, [63] to amend section 5 of an act to provide for the uniform mode of doing township business, approved February 18, 1859.
By Mr. BERRY, [64] amending section 16 of the act providing for the election of Justices of the Peace, and defining their jurisdiction in civil cases.
By Mr. CORBIN, [65] to amend section 322 of the practice act.
By Mr. WOLFE, [66] to amend section 134 of an act providing for the settlement of decedents' estates, approved June 17, 1862.
By Mr. CORBIN, [671 the better to secure the free passage of fish in the streams and water courses of this State, and to provide a penalty for a violation thereof.
By Mr. CULVER, [68] for the relief of Perry Burgett.
The unfinished business of yesterday coming up in regular order The pending motion to lay the amendment on the table was agreed to by yeas 27, nays 18.
Mr. COBB made an ineffectual motion--yeas 16, nays 30--to lay the amendment proposed by the committee on the table.
Mr. LANDERS moved to amend so as to favor the reduction of Chaplains' pay fifty per cent.
Mr. MARCH thought the committee's amendment covered the whole ground embraced in the last amendment offered.
Mr. LANDERS thought a greater reduction should be made in the pay of Chaplains than in that of other officers. Many thought this useless officer ought to be dispensed with.
Mr. BROWNE, of Randolph, said if the mover would change the amendment so as to favor the abolition of the office of Chaplain, he would vote for it.
On motion by Mr. MARCH the amendment to the amendment was laid on the table--yeas 27, nays 18.
On motion by Mr. DOWNEY the amendment was amended so as to favor the passage of an act to secure the payment of all dues to soldiers and more prompt payments hereafter.
Mr. WOLFE made an ineffectual motion--yeas 12, nays 34--to lay on the table the amendment as amended.
The amendment of the committee as amended, was then concurred in, and the resolution adopted by consent.
The hour for dinner having arrived--
The Senate took a recess till 2 o'clock
Senate bills numbered 48 to 59 inclusive (for a description of which see [page 92 of these Reports) were read the second time and severally referred to appropriate committees.
The joint resolution [S. 3] printed at length in pages 91 and 92 of these Reports, was read the second time and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations; alter an ineffectual motion to print--yeas 18, nays 27.
Mr. DUNNING (Mr. Ray in the chair) while discussing the motion to print, said he thought these resolutions contained the most important matter that has boon or would be presented to this body. The Democracy, as a party, should not shrink from an expression of its views, and would not.
The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a Communication from ARIEL & W.H. DRAPIER. in answer to a resolution of inquiry passed in the morning session, hav- reference to the continuation of their Brevier Reports.