LETTER: Breed-specific laws not the solution | SouthCoastToday.com

LETTER: Breed-specific laws not the solution

July 02, 2010 12:00 AM

Breed-specific laws not the solution

The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is very disappointed by The Standard-Times' editorial support of New Bedford's proposed pit bull ordinance ("Doggone nuisance — It makes sense to adopt pit bull ordinance," June 22).

We all want to prevent dog bites. However, there is no evidence that demonstrates that breed-specific laws work to achieve this goal. This proposal offers nothing more than a "sound bite" provision to a complex issue that deserves a serious, lasting solution. Effective laws and consistent enforcement are needed to protect residents from all dangerous dogs. Support of animal control services by city officials and compliance with the existing laws by residents are necessary to prevent dog bites.

No dog breed is inherently vicious, and experts agree that banning breeds is not effective. Singling out breeds oversimplifies the problem and overlooks the dangerous and irresponsible behaviors of specific dog owners at the root of these problems.

In fact, your recent article ("Rampaging retriever attacks 81-year-old New Bedford woman," June 23) shows that any breed of dog can be dangerous. During the golden retriever attack, an elderly pedestrian was harmed, a grown man knocked down, and the dog required physical restraint from a trained officer before being removed from the scene. The proposed ordinance's narrow view does not provide measures that would have prevented this attack or similar incidents from occurring in the future.

A highly praised article from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, called "A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention," explains that "... singling out one or two breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community's citizens."

_____________________________________

No dog breed is inherently vicious, and experts agree that banning breeds is not effective. Singling out breeds oversimplifies the problem and overlooks the dangerous and irresponsible behaviors of specific dog owners at the root of these problems.

I think this is an excellent article and the above quote emphasizes the root of the “dog bite problem” so many people insist the country has-- IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS.

Time to leash pit bulls - and their owners

Time to leash pit bulls - and their owners

By Peter Gelzinis  |   Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Why do people want pit bulls? For the same reason they want machine guns.

Pit bulls have teeth that can shred beer cans, not to mention the cartilage and bone of enemy drug dealers.

But a city ordinance on the books for six years, designed to muzzle these lethal four-legged weapons - and fine their owners for noncompliance - has so far proved toothless.

The guy who wrote those pit bull sanctions, Hyde Park’s district councilor Rob Consalvo, plans to toughen them up.

But much like the beasts themselves, their owners are a particularly obstinate bunch. Failing to bind the jaws of their muscle-bound pooches, or display a “Beware of Dog” sign, doesn’t bother them much.

So far, these pit bullies have walked away from $140,000 in fines levied upon them and the thuggish dogs that invest them with such an ominous swagger.

To put some teeth into pit bull collections, Consalvo wants to attach liens to their owners’ property tax (assuming they own anything more valuable than the dog) or on their auto excise tax.

“Because,” as Consalvo put it yesterday, “just about everybody drives a car, right?”

Yesterday’s hearing to send a home-rule petition up to the State House consisted of five people: Consalvo; his Dorchester colleague, Councilor Maureen Feeney; Mark Giannangelo, assistant director of Boston Animal Control; his boss, Steve Crosby, deputy manager for property and construction . . . and me, the owner of a fierce Lhasa apso recently to laid to rest.

Among the more interesting factoids to emerge from yesterday’s brief seance was that a quarter of 2,100 registered pit bull owners in this city have been fined.

Maureen Feeney, who recently bid adieu to her golden retriever, asked Crosby and Giannangelo, about how they thought pit bulls were “utilized” by their owners.

“You just seem to see so many individuals strutting the street, pit bulls in tow, with an air of intimidation,” she said.

Later, Crosby and Giannangelo would tell Feeney the “intimidation” she described came from owners who used their pit bulls as weapons on a leash.

For Consalvo, pit bulls have become a lightning rod issue. “The hearings we held six years ago on the law went on for eight hours, longer than the firefighters contract,” he said. “Every Christmas, I get a pit bull calendar in the mail by an anonymous owner who signs it, ‘Happy Holidays, you jerk.’ ”

Just like their dogs, these creatures mean no harm . . . honest.

___________________________________________

Evidently, we are all part of a secret society that totes around machine guns and pit bulls in an attempt to daunt the public. Shucks we have been found out; time to change the secret password everyone! Gather your pits, machine guns, and beer cans everyone we have turf to protect... Geez… I bet the writer did a lot of research on this article.
This person is a complete moron and he should be sent to an island to live amongst other morons.

Rinalia over at “For the Pit Bulls” unveils the truth about us pit bull owners. I’d say it sums it up nicely. Thanks Rinalia!

Dog Euthanized After Alleged Misinformation

Dog euthanized after alleged misinformation

Amanda Gray agreed to have her giant Great Dane euthanized after it bit a woman earlier this month. However, she said she learned an hour after the dog died that she didn't need to go that far.

Gray, 30, said she is speaking out because she doesn't want another dog to needlessly die.

Gray said that after her dog Titus bit a woman earlier this month she was advised by an animal control officer at the Great Falls Animal Shelter that she either could be fined up to $1,000 under the city's animal ordinance or have the dog euthanized.

________________

Apparently, she couldn’t afford the fine at the time so she had him euthanized.

Gray states, "It was his first offense. He was not aggressive and he was tied up in a truck, and a lady put her hand back there to pet him and he bit her."

Please believe that if some woman or man stuck their hand in my truck and he or she was bit, I sure as hell wouldn’t have Kangol euthanized. That was their own fault for putting their hand in someone else’s vehicle.

I feel for Amanda Gray but this is a lesson for all dog owners to make sure they know their county’s animal ordinances so not to fall victim to dishonest AC workers! RIP Titus!!