Baltimore County FAQs

home

1. Councilmember positions
2. Points of the bill
3. Baltimore County Animal Task Force
4. Thoughts to ponder
5. Where to go, what to do, on October 9th
6. Talking points

Councilmember positions

Councilman Gardina: Sponsor.  10/5:  Has proposed an amendment to 70-07 to remove the "muzzling" requirement.  All other restrictions, such as special/additional $100 licensing (or tax), hurtful signage, etc., remain. 

Councilman Oliver:  A co-sponsor.   

Councilman Bryan McIntire, a north county Republican, has publicly defended pit bulls, calling them the “nicest dogs I’ve ever known”. 

CM Kamenetz has stated, "Thank you for your email. A County report recently supported the position that the proper  approach is to focus on the owner, not the breed, in dealing with dangerous and menacing animals. I support that approach."

CM Olszewski:  10/4:  "Hello all, I just got out of a noon meeting with my Councilman, Johnny Olszewski. HE IS VOTING AGAINST THE LEGISLATION!!! He said all seven of them have been inundated with e-mails on the matter, most of them against."

Please pass along any feedback you receive from councilmembers here

Back to Top

Points of the Bill

If enacted, the bill would require

1. a home inspection
2. an annual $100 additional dog tax in addition to all other licensing provisions
3. be "exercised" in a small locked pen with a cement floor and top, or be constantly muzzled when in its own yard or even on a leash (muzzling amended out on 10/5)
4. a sign be displayed stating "beware of dog"
5. be subject to a $1000 fine if not

All these restrictions, even if it never harmed a person in its life, or even if it has peacefully existed with neighbors, children, and small pets

Back to Top

Baltimore County Animal Task Force

A July 30, 2007 report of the Baltimore County Dangerous Animal Task Force stated the following:

Dr. Pierre Vigilance, the county’s health officer, is quoted in local papers saying, “any dog can bite...The Baltimore County Department of Health is not in favor of breed-specific legislation as it may only serve to unfairly label certain breeds as ‘dangerous,’ ” Vigilance said. “Preventing bites by levying serious monetary penalties against irresponsible owners may have them pay more attention to how they raise or train their dogs.”

A source at Animal Control states that the bureau opposes this or any kind of breed specific legislation.  "We have the benefit of a two tiered dangerous dog code that addresses potentially dangerous or 'menacing' animals as well as actually dangerous dogs," said the source.  As a matter of fact, since 1998, there have only been 72 dogs deemed dangerous in Baltimore county (including fifteen victimized dogs seized and deemed dangerous as the result of a dog fighting ring bust).  Most (43) were euthanized, 15 were returned with restrictions, 6 were relocated out of the county, 5 cases were dismissed by the hearing board and 3 cases are pending.  Animal Control and the Health Department consider this two tiered system very flexible and "extremely effective", and the numbers bear this out.

Back to Top

Thoughts to Ponder...

While the recent flurry of well publicized incidents seem to indicate that there is a dog "problem", a study of the facts indicates otherwise...There actually seems to be a relatively low incidence of dangerous dogs in the county.  There are an estimated 180,000 dogs in Baltimore County.  It is further estimated that 30% of the dog in the county are "pit bulls" (a generic umbrella term encompassing four or  five breeds) or "pit bull" mixes, which translates to 50,000 dogs. 

Compare this to the number of dogs in last ten years that had dangerous animal charges leveled against them.  Seventy-two dogs.  In ten years.  An average of seven dogs a year.  In other words, even if each and every dangerous dog in the county was a "pit bull", that still means less than (0.001%) one-one thousandth of one percent of "pit bulls" in the county are dangerous. 

The proposed bill would be ineffective, tax-dollar wasteful, and divert precious animal control resources away from increasing public safety by focusing on benign dogs.  Has a fiscal impact study even been performed yet?  The impact is estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  ANNUALLY.  Take the money that would have been spent needlessly enforcing 70-07 and put that into neighborhood outreach, licensing compliance, encouraging spaying and neutering, and responding to community complaints about problem dogs.  Dogs don't just suddenly turn dangerous.  They are permitted by unwitting owners to get away with more and more naughtiness until it may in some cases escalate into a menacing, or dangerous situation.  Nipping those scenarios in the bud by an intervening Animal Control department will go much further to avert bites than muzzling benign dogs.  This service needs to be funded.

Muzzling a dog unnecessarily will lead to needless deaths of dogs due to heat stroke and dehydration.  Muzzled dogs will not be able to get adequate exercise and many will DEVELOP behavior problems it didn't have to begin with.

Muzzling a dog unnecessarily is simply ridiculous.

Have the sponsors of this bill considered the cost of all the home inspections, performed by Animal Control each and every year, for the tens of thousands of dogs, homes and owners (voters) that the law would require?

Have the sponsors of the bill also considered that there is little guarantee that an owner who would most need to muzzle their dog are the least likely to do so?  Just a thought.

Back to Top

Where to go, what to do, on October 9th

 Back to Top

Talking points, courtesy of Humane Society of Baltimore County

Additional talking points:

this law discriminates against low-income dog owners

This law would cost $200,000-$500,000 to enforce annually.

This law singles approximately 50,000 dog owners whose dogs have not been deemed dangerous and are not ever likely to.

Back to Top

contact Md Dog Fed            join the MDF e-lert list