Daughter accepted to UofMD for grad school. She has a pit bull. (Berwyn Heights: wood floors, apartment complex)

[Harpaint]

It's really hard to find rentals that allow dogs everywhere. I'm a dog lover, but I don't allow dogs (or cats) in my rental property. It's just not worth the risk.

[lookingbutnotlost]

I think it's naive to assume it's a state issue and not a property owner issue.

[DaveinMtAiry]

Originally Posted by Teacher Terry

I hate when people say dump the dogs. I want to ask them if they dump their kids. We ended up with a 80 lb husky/shepherd mix and drove across the country to get him when my son’s circumstances changed. We had him 6 years and it was worth it. They are family.

I was thinking the same thing, anyone suggesting she dump the dogs must have never owned a dog. By the way what is this ban the OP referenced in the opening post?

As for housing I can attest to how difficult it is to rent with dogs, I would think a pit mix will be even more problematic. Those new (to me anyway) apartments along Route 1 look to be a terrible place to have a dog with very little green space for morning and evening walks. In speaking with my niece they are very very expensive. I would look just outside of the College Park area providing the daughter has a car. Perhaps try to find a house in nearby areas and pair with roommates? When I was in school there I lived in a group house in Silver Spring, it was maybe 20 minutes to campus.

[schmoove86]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

I was thinking the same thing, anyone suggesting she dump the dogs must have never owned a dog. By the way what is this ban the OP referenced in the opening post?

As for housing I can attest to how difficult it is to rent with dogs, I would think a pit mix will be even more problematic. Those new (to me anyway) apartments along Route 1 look to be a terrible place to have a dog with very little green space for morning and evening walks. In speaking with my niece they are very very expensive. I would look just outside of the College Park area providing the daughter has a car. Perhaps try to find a house in nearby areas and pair with roommates? When I was in school there I lived in a group house in Silver Spring, it was maybe 20 minutes to campus.

I'm assuming the ban refers to the Prince George's county wide ban on Pitbulls, which is loosely/ not enforced.

[DaveinMtAiry]

Originally Posted by schmoove86

I'm assuming the ban refers to the Prince George's county wide ban on Pitbulls, which is loosely/ not enforced.

Thanks, I was not aware of this ban.

I am so conflicted on this topic. To me a total ban is unfair, I've met a lot of pits and every one were great dogs. I have little doubt the dog owned by the OP's daughter fits that description. But then again we do read the stories, and I don't believe they are all a function of how they the dogs were raised. I believe there is something in the breed's makeup that makes some aggressive. This just does not happen with Golden Retrievers.

[DoughLow805]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

Thanks, I was not aware of this ban.

I am so conflicted on this topic. To me a total ban is unfair, I've met a lot of pits and every one were great dogs. I have little doubt the dog owned by the OP's daughter fits that description. But then again we do read the stories, and I don't believe they are all a function of how they the dogs were raised. I believe there is something in the breed's makeup that makes some aggressive. This just does not happen with Golden Retrievers.

The aggression may or may not be part of the makeup, but the outcome of an aggressive episode is certainly different due to makeup. A Golden Retriever or many similar common dogs that are aggressive, can want to bite and wrestle all day and night, but it simply doesn't have the tools (strength and locking jaw) to do the kind of damage that an aggressive pit can.

Then you break it down from there and any potential dog owner looking for a relative degree of guard dog is likely going to pass on the golden retriever and training will likely correspond to the owner's desire for the dog. Guard dog is going to be taught that aggression to some degree is ok under certain circumstance(s).

The easy entry point, frequently found in an animal shelter, guard dog is a pitbill or a pit bull mix or a dog that is frequently labeled a pit in common conversation like a staffordshire or american bully. The supply is significantly more than the demand. Varying levels of resources then may be available and/or allocated to training and care of the dog. Additionally, there is a relative lack of accountability for dog owners when their dog (of any breed) turns aggressive.

All of that aligns for a dog breed that should be banned, but not because the dog itself is inherently aggressive. When there are policy changes regarding the responsibility ownership for the dogs (ALL dogs to be fair) then I'd suggest lifting it.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

Thanks, I was not aware of this ban.

I am so conflicted on this topic. To me a total ban is unfair, I've met a lot of pits and every one were great dogs. I have little doubt the dog owned by the OP's daughter fits that description. But then again we do read the stories, and I don't believe they are all a function of how they the dogs were raised. I believe there is something in the breed's makeup that makes some aggressive. This just does not happen with Golden Retrievers.

It's a thing where a few bad apples spoil the bunch. There are countless articles on the ban and why it was enforced. Basically, people were using and training the dogs to be attack dogs (drug dealers in the 80s and 90s). I'm not sure if there were any dog fighting rings also. But a lot of residents still remember the dogs and how they used to attack other dogs and even people in the neighborhoods. So, they keep voting for the ban to stay in place.

Sadly, those people have to die off or leave, or there has to be such a ground swell of support from residents to remove the ban, that the ban is eliminated. Unfortunately, there are more people who want the ban that are vocal than those who don't want the ban.

[DaveinMtAiry]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

It's a thing where a few bad apples spoil the bunch. There are countless articles on the ban and why it was enforced. Basically, people were using and training the dogs to be attack dogs (drug dealers in the 80s and 90s). I'm not sure if there were any dog fighting rings also. But a lot of residents still remember the dogs and how they used to attack other dogs and even people in the neighborhoods. So, they keep voting for the ban to stay in place.

Sadly, those people have to die off or leave, or there has to be such a ground swell of support from residents to remove the ban, that the ban is eliminated. Unfortunately, there are more people who want the ban that are vocal than those who don't want the ban.

Oh there is no doubt about the first part. But I am questioning the section in bold. I don't think the fear is still there from the training and behavior learned and witnessed decades ago, we still see stories today and I have little doubt that is what is fueling the anxiety.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by G1..

1) BS on the crime, it's not Chicago but beware.

No. College Park is not Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, SE DC, or even District Heights. It's College Park and I have never felt unsafe. Neither has my wife. We live in the area and are in College Park every day. I ride my bike through College Park in the summer.

I used to live in SE, and other parts of PG bordering SE DC. Trust me. College Park might as well be Bowie.

Of course people must be aware in College Park as well as in Ann Arbor, Cambridge, or State College.

Here is a list of the 30 safest college towns. Take it for what it is worth. But guess who else is not on that list? Washington DC, home to American U. GWU, Georgetown, Catholic U., and Howard University. NoVa isn't on that list either for George Mason. Cambridge, home to Harvard, didn't show up on the safest college towns list either along with other top 50 universities and the towns they are located in.

https://www.safewise.com/blog/safest...towns-america/

Let's all use some perspective. Be vigilant but don't have unreasonable trepidation.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry

Oh there is no doubt about the first part. But I am questioning the section in bold. I don't think the fear is still there from the training and behavior learned and witnessed decades ago, we still see stories today and I have little doubt that is what is fueling the anxiety.

I was drawing form the articles I read where some of the people recalled what happened years ago when asked do they still favor the ban. With the ban being loosely enforced, I agree that there are still incidents that happen today that influences peoples' attitudes toward the breed. But I would argue that there are other breeds as well who may be ill-trained and have bitten other dogs or people. Not just pitbulls.

The question is, now that those dark days are over for pitbulls that triggered the ban, should we continue to vilify one particular breed over the other since there are other breeds that are capable of being just as unpredictably violent?

This article mentions a sharp decrease in pitbull attacks, but don't give any numbers.

"I've talked to a lot of residents. The overwhelming majority of them feel safer with the ban in place. Between 1996 and 2010 there was about a 45 percent reduction in dog bites, including a significant reduction in pit bull bites," Franklin said, citing statistic from the Prince George's County Health Department.

Council Member Daneille Glaros argued that any dog can be a threat.

"We might see more animal bites." Glaros said. "For instance, if there are more pit bulls in our community, that could happen. But the reality is, there are also other dangerous dogs out there, and it's not necessarily specific to a particular breed."

Many pit bull owners say the dogs are sweet, loyal and gentle pets when properly raised and trained.

But medical studies conclude pit bulls are involved in more attacks than other breeds, and when they do bite, they do more damage.

"There are at least 10 peer-reviewed dog bite studies published in medical science journals since 2009 that show a higher frequency of pit bull injuries than all other breeds of dogs in retrospective reviews of level I trauma centers," concludes a review of studies by DogsBite.org

"Pit bull bites were implicated in half of all surgeries performed and over 2.5 times as likely to bite in multiple anatomic locations as compared to other breeds," reported a group of Southeastern US doctors who studied more than 1600 dog bite cases in 2016.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/l...1-c15f4e23998b