Woman Attacked by Rottweiler at Waverly Farmer’s Market

Share the News

Just as landlords, pet owners, and animal shelters are learning to deal with the Maryland Court of Appeals’ recent ruling, which determined pit bulls (and only pit bulls) to be “inherently dangerous,” a woman at the Waverly farmer’s market on Saturday was attacked by a dog, which had been tethered to a parking meter but broke loose. The woman, who has not been identified as of 7:30 a.m. Monday morning, was taken to Union Memorial Hospital with “bites to her left arm and leg and a scrape on her face.”

I’m sure you will be shocked to learn that the dog in question is a Rottweiler, a breed we know — thanks to the Court of Appeals — is not “inherently dangerous.” I know it’s hard to understand why one of the inherently safe breeds would attack someone unprovoked, but my advice to you is to just sit tight and wait for breed experts over at the Maryland Court of Appeals to sort out this troubling and confusing paradox. I’m sure they’ll come up with an explanation that will allow us to go on discriminating against the dog we love to hate.

Share the News


  1. What an incredibly offensive post. Not.a.single.word.of.concern about the innocent woman who was mauled in a public market.

    Hopefully you’ll stop moaning about the rights of dogs and dog owners long enough to consider, and write about, the rights of citizens to go into public without fear of mauling. What if that was a small child instead of an adult woman?

    Maybe the ban on a specific breed of dog isn’t the best idea. Here’s an alternative: felony charges and civil liability for dog owners who cause harm to members of the public. Regardless of breed.

  2. Totally agree with the previous poster. Also, what about the kid attacked by a pit bull just last week in Maryland or the pit bull activist mauled to death by hers earlier this month? There are reasoned arguments on both sides of this issue.

  3. I’m certainly sorry to have come off flip about something so serious as an attack by a dog. My point was not to make light of this woman’s situation.

    I believe the incident is relevant to the court’s ruling and points up the absurdity of it. Yes, we should all have the right to “go into public without fear of mauling.” And the court’s ruling (coupled with the General Assembly’s subsequent inaction) does little to nothing to protect that right.

  4. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As someone who was planning to go to the Waverly market with my wife and young children that day, the story certainly struck a nerve.

    Restated, your perspective on the outcome of breed-ban legislation is one that I hope you pursue further in you

  5. While I feel for the victim and hope she will be OK, I WON’T stop moaning about millions of animals being murdered because of ignorance. While the owner of this dogs is at fault innocent family pets that are being taken away and murdered because of ignorance aren’t. That is offensive to me.

Comments are closed.