Local

MassFed letter to Worcester City Council re Pit bull Proposal

July 30, 2010

The Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners would like to commend Allie Simone and the Worcester Animal Rescue League, for their stance on the pending breed specific legislation that Worcester has drafted.

We fully support your effort to implement policy that protects residents from dangerous dogs. We do however strongly oppose all restrictions that are based on a dog’s phenotype (visible characteristics), on which much of your proposed policy is based.

Environment and training are the key factors in determining if a dog will become a threat to public safety – these factors are not considered in your approach.

Behavior-based dog laws coupled with tight enforcement will work when properly implemented. These laws are carefully drafted to be effective, enforceable and equitable. Laws meeting the above requirements do not target good dogs or responsible owners yet they provide protection from dogs that truly pose a risk.

Should you desire help in drafting such an ordinance for your community, please feel free to contact us. We would be happy to assist you in your efforts.

Thank you for your consideration,

Pit bull proposal goes astray

July 25, 2010

By Nick Kotsopoulos Politics and the City  

 Talk about having something come back to bite you — it looks like the proposed pit bull ordinance could do just that to the Worcester City Council.

If that does happen, the council may have no one to blame but itself.

Not only did it slightly deviate from the process usually followed in vetting proposed ordinances, but it doesn’t look like any member of the city administration or council talked to anyone ahead of time to learn what the ramifications of the pit bull ordinance might be. Also, no research or statistics were ever presented to justify or support the need for the ordinance.

Instead, seven city councilors suggested back in February that an ordinance be crafted that requires pit bull owners to harness and muzzle their pit bulls when taking them off their property, as well as impose more restrictions and licensing requirements for pit bulls. The case made for the ordinance was that pit bulls had become public safety threats because, it was said, that while only 2 percent of the dogs licensed in the city are pit bulls, 25 percent of all reported dog bites were caused by that breed.

The city administration came out last week with a proposed ordinance modeled after the Responsible Pit Bull Ownership ordinance in Boston. When no one showed up at Tuesday night’s council meeting to speak out against it, councilors saw that as a cue to give it preliminary approval by voting to advertise it.

Now, the ordinance will come up for a final vote at the next council meeting Aug. 10.

But that was a departure from the process the City Council usually follows on most ordinances. The council usually first refers an ordinance to an appropriate committee for a public hearing. The committee can then suggest changes, based on public comments, and makes its recommendation to the full council. The council then takes two votes on the ordinance, at which time the public has additional opportunities to weigh in on it.

But the council bypassed sending the pit bull ordinance to committee. Instead, it put the ordinance on the fast track by voting to advertise it the same night it received it from the city manager. At the same time, though, the council did agreed to hold a 30-minute public hearing on the pit bull ordinance Aug. 10 before taking a final vote on it that night.

So, it isn’t as if the council is trying to ram the pit bull ordinance through without giving the public an opportunity to speak on it. Had opponents showed up at last week’s meeting, it is likely that the process for this would have been different and the council likely would not have voted to advertise it right off the bat. But, again, no one showed up.

Likewise, none of the councilors seemed aware of the potential ramifications of the ordinance ahead of time simply because it doesn’t seem that anyone bothered to inquire about them.

“We are very concerned that the City Council has not thought through the ramifications of the passing of this ordinance,” Allie Simone, acting director of the Worcester Animal Rescue League said last week. “Animal control officers were not consulted. County shelter administrators were not conferred with.”

Ms. Simone added that if the ordinance passes, the WARL will no longer accept dogs from Worcester. She said while the WARL values the long-standing relationship it has built with the city over the years, it is not currently held by a contract to accept impounded dogs in Worcester.

“Where will they go?” she asked. “What will happen to the numerous pit bills, pit bull crosses and others mistakenly identified as pit bulls, all of which the city finds itself newly in possession of?”

Maybe that is something that should have been looked into before the pit bull ordinance was even introduced.

Click here for link to article http://www.telegram.com/article/20100725/COLUMN27/7250451/-1/COLUMN

Shelter Says It Won't Accept Worcester Dogs

July 22, 2010

By Linda Bock TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF  

 WORCESTER — The Worcester Animal Rescue League will no longer accept dogs from Worcester if a proposed city ordinance to impose more restrictions and requirements on pit bulls is adopted.

“The Worcester Animal Rescue League values the long-standing relationship it has built with the City of Worcester,” said Allie Simone, acting director of the Worcester Animal Rescue League in a news release. “However, it is not currently held by a contract to accept impounded dogs found in Worcester.”

The City Council — in a unanimous vote — gave preliminary approval Tuesday to the ordinance. It agreed to hold a 30-minute public hearing on the ordinance Aug. 10 before taking a final vote that night on the proposal.

While the ordinance does not ban pit bulls or restrict them to private property, it establishes additional licensing, duties and registration requirements for the owners of those dogs. It also requires pit bulls to be leashed and muzzled, or placed in a secure temporary enclosure, when taken off an owner's premises.

The Animal Rescue League said if the ordinance is adopted, countless dogs will be abandoned and consequently seized in record numbers.

“The dedicated staff and supporters have worked too hard and advanced the organization too far in the quality of care given to its animals to suddenly reverse our no-kill, limited intake policies. This ordinance would be asking us to take a giant step backwards, becoming once again a kill shelter,” Ms. Simone wrote. “We wish to be very clear: The Worcester Animal Rescue League will have no part in euthanizing dogs or any other animal due to breed discrimination.”

The ordinance also requires pit bull owners to obtain the consent of their landlord to keep a pit bull on the premises, place a warning sign on their property informing the public that a pit bull is on the premises, and notify animal control officers or the police whenever their pit bull injures or threatens any person or animal.

The Animal Rescue League has 96 kennels for dogs and 41 cages for cats and a limited number of foster home caregivers, the agency said. Adoption rates have dropped and surrender rates have risen because of the ailing economy, the agency said.

A simple majority vote of the 11-member council is needed for adoption.

If approved by the council, the ordinance would take effect 90 days after final adoption, or on April 1, whichever comes later.

The ordinance authorizes animal control officers or the police to impound pit bulls not in compliance with it, and it also provides owners with the right to a hearing for any violations or impoundment of their pit bull.

The public hearing will be held at 6 p.m. in the Esther Howland Chamber at City Hall.

Click here for link to article http://www.telegram.com/article/20100722/NEWS/100729905/-1/NEWS06

Worcester strengthens laws for pit bulls

July 21, 2010

The Associated Press 

 WORCESTER, Mass. — Another Massachusetts community is cracking down on pit bulls.

The Worcester City Council on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to an ordinance that imposes tighter restrictions on pit bull owners. A final decision will be made next month.

The law requires pit bulls to be leashed and muzzled when not on their owner's property.

It also requires pit bull owners to place a warning sign on their property and notify authorities if their dog injures or threatens a person or animal.

Councilor William Eddy tells The Telegram & Gazette that while 2 percent of the dogs licensed in the city are pit bulls, 25 percent of all reported dog bites were caused by the breed.

Lynn last week passed an ordinance requiring pit bulls to be muzzled in public.

Click here to read the entire article http://www.telegram.com/article/20100721/APN/307219872

Worcester Proposed rule would restrict pit bulls - Muzzles would be mandatory outside home

July 19, 2010

By Nick Kotsopoulos TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF 

 WORCESTER — Local pit bull owners are facing the prospects of greater restrictions, duties and licensing requirements for their dogs.

City Manager Michael V. O'Brien is recommending to the City Council an ordinance intended to deal with public safety concerns that have been raised by city councilors in recent months about pit bulls.

The ordinance, which was initially requested by the council in February, is modeled after the Responsible Pit Bull Ownership ordinance, which has existed in Boston the past five years.

While the ordinance would not ban pit bulls or restrict them to private property, it would impose supplementary licensing and registration requirements for those dogs, in addition to the regular annual dog license. The fee for the additional pit bull registration and license would be $50.

Click here to read the entire article http://www.telegram.com/article/20100719/NEWS/7190355

Lynn muzzle law OK'd

July 14, 2010

By David Liscio / The Daily Item 

 LYNN - A proposal to muzzle pit bull terriers in Lynn caused fur to fly at a heated public hearing Tuesday before the City Council.  The hearing allowed lengthy testimony from those on both sides of the issue. After nearly three hours of debate, councilors voted for an ordinance that requires pit bull owners to muzzle their animals when off their property. The councilors also agreed to ask Mayor Judith Flanagan Kennedy to increase the manpower of the city's animal control department, which currently has only one full-time officer. "I believe the ordinance will not do much good if it's not backed up by enforcement and education," said Lynn resident Tom Sheehan of Essex Street. "Many people say don't blame the dog for the sins of the owner, but these dogs have the potential to do damage and should not be left in the hands of just anybody."

Click here to read the entire article http://www.thedailyitemoflynn.com/articles/2010/07/14/news/news01.txt

Public’s turn to howl over pit bulls

July 12, 2010

By Thor Jourgensen / The Daily Item 

 LYNN - Pit bull owners and other residents get to tell City Council members Tuesday night how they feel about a council plan to single out the dogs for stricter city regulatory controls and other restrictions. The 8 p.m. hearing is aimed at 80 licensed pit bulls listed on city records as well as other American Pit Bull Terriers and Staffordshire Terriers living in the city. A proposed new ordinance defines the dogs as “dangerous animals” with “powerful instincts for dominance” and “unyielding aggressiveness.”

Click here to read the entire article http://www.thedailyitemoflynn.com/articles/2010/07/12/news/news02.txt

BSL Passes in Lynn

July 13, 2010

Holly Stump / MassFed Legislative Specialist 

 BSL passed City Council in Lynn tonight (7/13/10) by a vote of 11 to 0. It is very much a carbon copy of the Boston ordinance. One good amendment that passed is an exemption for those dogs that have a training certificate from a nationally accredited trainer.

Public’s turn to howl over pit bulls

July 12, 2010

By Thor Jourgensen / The Daily Item 

 LYNN - Pit bull owners and other residents get to tell City Council members Tuesday night how they feel about a council plan to single out the dogs for stricter city regulatory controls and other restrictions. The 8 p.m. hearing is aimed at 80 licensed pit bulls listed on city records as well as other American Pit Bull Terriers and Staffordshire Terriers living in the city. A proposed new ordinance defines the dogs as “dangerous animals” with “powerful instincts for dominance” and “unyielding aggressiveness.”

Click here to read the entire article http://www.thedailyitemoflynn.com/articles/2010/07/12/news/news02.txt

Lynn pit bull law proposal real ruff stuff

June 24, 2010

By Thor Jourgensen / The Daily Item 

 LYNN - "There are no bad dogs just bad owners" read the words painted on the outside of Barrett's Bull Pen and pet food store, but a new proposed ordinance takes exception to that sentiment.

Scheduled for a July 13 City Council public hearing, the proposed law defines American Pit Bull Terriers or Staffordshire Terriers as "dangerous animals" with "powerful instincts for dominance" and "unyielding aggressiveness." 

With those formidable characteristics in mind, councilors, led by Council President Timothy Phelan and Ward 1 Councilor Wayne Lozzi, have proposed a detailed registration requirement for pit bulls and punishment, including impoundment, for dogs whose owners ignore the requirement.

Click here to read the entire article http://www.thedailyitemoflynn.com/articles/2010/06/23/news/news02.txt

Lexington, MA Commission limits off-leash dogs to weekdays

June 23, 2010

By Sara Brown, Town Correspondent 

 Lexingtons Conservation Commission has voted in favor of a new regulation that would limit off-leash dogs in Willards Woods, a town-owned conservation land. Starting in September, off-leash dogs will not be allowed in the woods on weekends.

Citing conflicts among users reaching an unacceptable level, the commission voted 5-2 for the new regulation. A last minute amendment to the resolution added that the restrictions wont begin until September 1, giving the commission extra time to let people know about the changes through signs, word-of-mouth, and local media.

The solution is the best of the options on the table before us, said commission member Charlie Wyman. Other options would have allowed off-leash dogs at certain times of day or zoned the park into off-leash and on-leash areas. 

Click here to read the entire article http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/lexington/2010/06/conservation_commission_agrees.html

Lynn City Council Pres. Timothy Phelan, "We must muzzle Lynn Pitbulls"

June 14, 2010

By David Liscio/The Daily Item 

 LYNN - City Council President Timothy Phelan says a rash of unprovoked attacks by pit bulls in Lynn calls for amending the local dog ordinance so that the breed is muzzled when off the owner’s property. 

 Phelan has asked his council colleagues, particularly Ordinance Committee Chairman Darren Cyr and other committee members, to support setting down a public hearing on the matter as soon as possible. 

 The council president’s request was made Friday in the wake of two savage pit bull attacks that occurred over the Memorial Day holiday weekend.

Click here to read the entire article http://www.itemlive.com/articles/2010/06/07/news/news02.txt

Clamp down on pit bulls? Defenders call for focus on owners, not breed

May 20, 2010

By Neil Fater, Staff Writer Andover Townsman

If Andover residents want to enact a pit bull ban, there are longstanding bans in other communities they could copy. But local animal rights lawyers and a veterinarian argue breed-specific laws are not the answer.

"I can't just pick a breed and say they are the problem. If I had to pick a breed that had to be banned, pit bulls would not be on my list," said River Road Veterinary Hospital owner Tracie Fountas. "I wouldn't ban any breed. I would ban the backyard breeders who breed (fighters and dangerous dogs intentionally)."

Some residents are talking about banning pit bulls after a pit bull that a man had owned for just a few weeks jumped out of his truck, bit Fosters Pond Road resident Sandy Moulden on the legs, could not be pulled off and had to be stabbed to death by Moulden's husband, Michael. Days after the incident, with his wife still recovering, Michael Moulden told the Townsman last week he was considering a pit bull ban for Andover.

Animal Law professors Holly Vietzke and Diane Sullivan, of the Massachusetts School of Law in Andover, said they would rather see legislation aimed at enforcing more responsible pet guardianship, than at banning entire breeds.

"I worry about who's next if we say "No pit bulls.' You're not coming after my chow," said Sullivan. "I see our job as animal rights lawyers as 'You have to stand up before they come for your pet.' But no one wants to see anyone harmed, so we have to look at what changes need to be made for safety. {Requiring] spaying and neutering is a good start."

The lawyers, who describe themselves as avid animal rights activists, said research shows that 90 percent of the pit bulls involved in fatal attacks had not been spayed or neutered. (Fountas said spaying and neutering has positive health results for dogs.)

Although they don't necessarily agree on the exact solution, the lawyers offer alternative ideas for bylaws they believe would encourage more responsible pet ownership without punishing all pit bull owners (see sidebar, at right).

Creating a new bylaw
Pit bull bans have been around for a long time in some communities and are constitutional if worded specifically enough, acknowledged Sullivan. Denver, Colo., has had a pit bull ban since 1989 and it has withstood several legal challenges.

If a ban or responsible-ownership law is to be created in Andover, it seems most likely to happen at Annual or a Special Town Meeting.

"The Board of Selectmen can ban a dog if it's a nuisance," says Town Clerk Randy Hanson. But a ban of an entire type of dog would require a change of the town's dog bylaw, and previous changes, such as the addition of "pooper scooper" rules have come at Town Meeting. Residents must get 10 signatures supporting an article to have it considered for a Town Meeting warrant.

Owner or dog?
While some people point to life-threatening attacks as proof that pit bulls need to be banned - a Lowell man was reported to have saved his neighbor who was being attacked by his own two dogs just Tuesday - Vietzke says pit bulls have a higher pass rate in temperament tests than many other dogs.

Vietzke believes pit bulls receive negative attention "because when there is an incident it is often more dangerous. Cocker spaniels are the No. 1 for dog bites and rottweilers and German shepherds cause more deaths, but no one is talking about banning those breeds."

Fountas has been a veterinarian for 12 years and has seen six or seven dog bites on humans, one by a pit bull that did not break the skin, she said. Many of the problems she sees are with smaller dogs, because people sometimes think its cute when a little dog growls and they do not train it to behave properly. Bigger dogs more often get the attention when they growl and bite, because they can do more harm.

After the recent Andover incident, pit bull owner Howard MacMillan was issued a town bylaw violation because his dog was unlicensed and unrestrained, according to police.

"It comes down to the whole community. We should enforce our leash laws. As veterinarians and pet store owners, if we see a young pet with a problem...those are the guys we can really work with so we don't have problems later on," Fountas said.

"Sometimes [the issue] is people who have bad pit bulls are people who are looking to have bad dogs. Any pet can be bad and any pet can be good."

Andover's pit bulls
Their names are Honey, Zeus, Happy, Tyson, Bebe and Rocky. They are Andover pit bulls, dogs that some residents are talking about banning following the attack by a pit bull this month on a Fosters Pond Road mother.

There were 2,309 dogs licensed in Andover as of Tuesday, May 18. Thirteen were identified by "breed" as being a pit bull or pit bull mix, but there are others in town. The type of dog considered a pit bull includes American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers, so other Andover dogs that would be considered pit bulls are licensed as bull terriers. Still more could potentially be listed as just "terrier" or "mix."

Animal Law professor Holly Vietzke argues that enforcing a breed-specific ban can be difficult in part because of difficulties with accurately identifying a dog's breed.

Click here to read the entire article http://www.andovertownsman.com/local/x2023213907/Clamp-down-on-pit-bulls-Defenders-call-for-focus-on-owners-not-breed