Left In Lowell

Another dog fight!

by Mimi at 9:30 pm.

Tomorrow night’s City Council meeting has a light agenda; well, if you can call introduction of the FY 2010 Budget light. But there is a Sub-Committee meeting scheduled; it is the Public Safety Sub-Committee (J. Milinazzo, Chair; R. Elliott; A. Kazanjian) meeting and the topic: Dangerous and Vicious Dogs. It will be held at 5:30 p.m. I am not sure why 5:30 and not 6:00 p.m. but I guess they think it will last a good hour.

This Sub-Committee meeting was triggered by the recent attack of a little girl by a pit bull.

The full City Council had taken up this issue this past January. Back then I wrote back then that “The 1-hour long public hearing and vote was the result of a September 23rd motion that was passed by the CC “Request the City Manager to have Animal Control and the Police Department to enforce the existing Leash Law and investigate instituting possible restrictions on Pit Bulls” As well all know the first part passed; the second one was postponed because dog lovers throughout the City came out and spoke against it.

Mark at mrmillcity wants those of you who own dogs to come down to City Hall again to “remind Bud who really runs the City.” He was there back in January; he was the one who closed his remarks by telling the Councilors that election time is coming and he will remember how they all voted on this issue.

I do not own a dog and I will never own one but it seems that the problem is lack of resources to enforce existing laws. I am not sure how extending the existing ordinance is going to prevent an idiot from training his dog to be vicious.

[Filed under City Council] [link]

23 Responses to “Another dog fight!”

K-R-S Says:
June 8th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
First of all: there is ONE dog officer for the entire city AND he responds to calls for various wildlife that find their way out of the hinterlands AND he is called to patrol various parks on “poo” patrol.
Secondly, I like Mr. Mill…however, if I had a penny for every time someone said..”I’ll remember that (such and such) come election time!”..I’d be wealthy. (Mark, we do appreciate you!)
Unfortunately, the government cannot enact laws to protect people from their stupidity, government can only enact law that leaves them (gov) blameless, for its citizens stupidity.
K-R-S Says:
June 8th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
BTW, if I were the parent or caretaker of that child that was attacked by the pit bull, that dog would not have made it onto the animal control officers wagon. I’m also predisposed to small, friendly and fluffy dogs.
Big dogs not my thing…however, when campaigning…
big dog in yard = I’m not knockin’.
How cool is that: a big dog not only goes after thieves (burglar) but they repel politicians!
Will def. have to get a bigger dog…
The Mark Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 9:15 am
KRS,

First- Hell hath frozen over as I’m getting some love on this site. Second- The difference between other people and me when I say I’m taking notes and will remember come election time is this- I have what is called “Irish Alzhiemer’s” because I forget about everything EXCEPT my grudges. So whenever a vote is taken on this measure, I will write down who votes what, post it on mrmillcity.com and remind all our readers come elction day about it.

As far as a bigger dog goes you strike me as a “responsible owner” that picks up their dog’s poop. Bigger dog….
lowellgal411 Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I won’t be voting for any Councilor that DOESN’T support stricter regulations on pit bulls. They’re a menace to society. I love the mrmillcity website. But on this case I think Mark is taking this a bit too personally. To compare elderly drivers that get into accidents to putting down a pit bill is an insult to people. A pit bull is not a person. We can pass a law to test elderly drivers. I can’t imagine there will ever be a test to predict what pit bull will attack. How many children have to be ripped apart before something is done. Everyone pretty much agrees that many many pit bill owners are not going to control their animals. In an urban setting such as Lowell there are too many people, too close together, to do nothing. What about people who want to own tigers and alligators and other unpredictable animals? I put pit bulls in the same category as any other wild animal. That’s just what they are. For whatever reason that breed has been only partially domesticated. All dogs are unpredictable but pit bulls are notoriously unpredictable. I would never let my child near one. The problem I see is what do I do with my child if some idiot doesn’t have his pit bull on a leash. I hope the city council has the guts to ban the beasts. Do whats best for everyone. There are plenty of other breeds to own. Why someone has to have a pit bull is beyond me.
The Mark Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Fogive me Lowell Gal but I’ll side with experts on dogs such as the Humane Society or the MSPCA rather then a fear based stance on an entire breed of dog.

As far as me taking it personally- it’s kinda hard not to when I own a dog that has been labeled (incorrectly mind you) as an APBT. This effects me and other law abiding citizens. You think people who don’t already register their dog or leash it will follow this new law?

Also why is it that the Lab Mix that bit a kid in Lowell last week didn’t make the paper? Because that doesn’t sell them, Vicious Pitbulls do.

How should you deal with an unleashed PB? Same way you would any other large dog. Don’t go near it and call the Police or Animal Control.

Vote how you feel. I’ll do the same.
The Mark Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Oh and another thing-
Enforcing this will be near impossible, as if it’s my dog I’d sue. One law suit that goes against the city could be six figures. Moreover, how do you for certain tell what type of dog is taken- DNA testing. How do you propose the city proforms those tests? Didn’t it just lay off 48 people? We need to be rational and not get caught up in the heat of the moment here.

As far as preventing- double all fines on the books as far as dogs go and follow the dangerous dog law to the letter (as last time I checked APBT we’re dogs so they are covered under that law no?)
Eleanor Rigby Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
As I see it the arguments really have not changed because of this latest attack.

The animal behavior experts that went before the city council last time were right and the facts haven’t changed.

Unfortunately what also hasn’t changed is the knee jerk reaction by some CCs to issues like this.

So if it’s approved and takes effect and another person is bitten, what then?

Then we get into the whole enforcement issue. With ONE animal control officer how is anything like this going to be enforced and how will the CC pay for it?
For all dogs.... Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am
lowellgal411, you are entitled to your opinion about pitbulls and you have made it clear you want them banned. But my question to you is this, if a girl was bitten by a maltipoo so badly that she needed to receive medical attention, would you want that breed banned as well? What if that maltipoo bit 5 kids, what would happen then? I am going to guess you would say no. Dogs bite, it’s a fact of life and we don’t know why they do it because they can’t speak. The nicest dog in the world could turn around and bite you but you can’t explain it because you don’t know what that dog was just thinking at that moment it decided to take a chunck out of your arm. But yet only pitbulls are considered to be “vicious”. If you ban one breed where does it end? Do we go after rottweilers next because they are big scary dogs to a lot of kids? It’s more than just banning a breed here, it’s about enforcing the leash law and watching your dog as a responsible owner and not letting this happen.
K-R-S Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 11:53 am
MarK: yup, always cleaning up the messes..
lowellgal411 Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
So I’m just supposed to walk away from a large pit bull. Are you smokin’ something? What happens when it charges and attacks? Do I just walk faster? How is a five year old supposed to walk away from an unprovoked attack? Your reaction to this issue is as strong as a parents is to a child. A dog is not a child. It’s an animal. I’m sure you’re an excellent pet owner. You would have to agree that the reality is most pit bull owners aren’t. We don’t hear about maltese attacks because they’re rare and the damage is probably isolated to someones ankles, not their face. There are numerous pit bull attacks. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I have a small dog and she would be no match for your pit bull. I always keep her on a leash. What do I do when an unleashed pit bull attacks her? Are you going to pay the vet bills or explain to my child why her dog is dead? I’ve already had an unleashed dog charge at her. I had to pick her up to protect her. I’m lucky the dog didn’t take me out. It looked like a pit bull but I’m not expert. If you’re so concerned about the dog officer why don’t you volunteer some time as community service to help. I’m sure after a few calls from irate residents with pit bull issues you might see the other side.
The Mark Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Right so ignore all of the valid points I and others have listed here and answer us with your account of an encounter with an off leash APBT type dog. News flash- ANY Off leash dog is a menace. Pitbull or otherwise.

Again- I don’t own a APBT are you reading these posts before responding? Talk about “strong reactions”!
Lynne Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I think you charge the owners with some sort of assault and major fine for having a dog that does this, regardless of breed. If the dog is off a leash, it’s out of your control. If you are out with your dog off a leash (outside of places where it’s allowed like dog parks) and your dog attacks a five year old, you should be held seriously accountable.

As to banning this or that breed, well, the line is arbitrary to some extent. This breed and not that breed. Many laws have to draw an arbitrary line. (Like, for instance, when is it too late in a pregnancy for an abortion? I think we can all agree that you can’t argue for a hard and fast line there, but that there should be SOME sort of upper limit).

There ARE more dangerous breeds than just pit bulls. I can think of several in my old neighborhood, huge dogs that if they did turn, would do a LOT of damage…

To that end, banning this breed and not another seems cruel. However, this breed does do a lot of damage when it does attack (that other breeds prone to turning more than others don’t). I can see why people would react the way they are…but I think it might be a bit knee jerk. I’d like to see the stats on the percentage of pit bulls there are owned in the city compared to attacks, versus any other breed.

Nail the owners, regardless, and I think we’d all agree that’d be fair. After all, a big non pit bull dog attacking something smaller than it (like another dog or child) can do a lot of damage too. You should always have control over your animals.
Prince Charming Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Some of these folks who raise (train) pitbulls have a problem with following any laws at all. You can pass as many laws as you wish, all this does is absolve the city of any liability. This dog law has no teeth. Sorry.
Eleanor Rigby Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“I think you charge the owners with some sort of assault and major fine for having a dog that does this, regardless of breed.”…

Unless I am mistaken the CC passed an ordinance that basically says the above just prior to the last time they wanted to ban pitbulls. So if that’s the case I ask was the dog owner charged in compliance with that ordinance?

If the owner was not charged or summoned before a court magistrate then how is a new ordinance going to change anything?

Ohhh…it will let the CCs give people who don’t like pitbulls and other large dogs a false sense of security and aid in their re-election campagin…I get it!
Mimi Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
I am watching the sub-committee meeting; the MSCPCA people turned me off. The people speaking to the CC are not from Lowell and they do not understand Lowell “culture.” Do not come in front of the CC, tell people you do not live here, in a condesending voice lecture the CC. It was ineffective.
Mimi Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Finally, the Mark up to the podium. Quoting Court Desision.

I think the CC let him speak because he is THE MARK. Bloggers do have power.
The Mark Says:
June 9th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I didn’t think they were going to let me speak, but CC R. Mercier asked on my behalf. So I thank her and so do the other dog owners who were sitting near me. I don’t think it was because of who I am…. entirely:) We’ll see how this plays out. I’m just glad the CC didn’t act in a rash manner and hammer anything through. Hopefully after the Animal Advisory Board meets and listens to all sides of this a good, fair, and just for all parties involved. But as was stated time and again tonight. No matter what law is on the books some people won’t follow it. Sad for the dog and what or whomever it winds up hurting.
-b Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:30 am
“I am not sure how extending the existing ordinance is going to prevent an idiot from training his dog to be vicious.”

Right on target Lynn.

I’m not a big fan of dogs, but it’s not the dogs that are the issue here, it’s the owners.
lowellgal411 Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 11:33 am
So we shouldn’t have any drag racing laws because basically idiots drag race and they’re just going to do it anyway. That’s just a ridiculous argument. Why have any laws because eventually someone will break them. We may have some enforcement laws on the books but maybe something else is needed. If the right laws had been on the books at the time maybe Cardinal Law would be sitting in a jail cell right now instead of living la vida loca in Rome. At least something would be on the books for some type of enforcement if the officals need it. With nothing on the books you can do…nothing. The ordinance proposed does not ban pit bulls as Marc would like to mislead you to think. It allows for only 2 pit bulls per residence (unless there is a litter of pups and the pups can be with their mom for 8 weeks); a sign on your property indicating that there is a pit bull in residence (I’m sure postal workers would appreciate that); dog must be leashed and muzzled when off owners property; windows must be kept shut to avoid animal from getting loose. I muzzle my dog when she’s barking to much so she doesn’t annoy my neighbors. She seems just fine after. It actually calms her down in about 5 minutes. None of these requirements seem overboard to me. There is no plan to ban pit bulls from what I’ve read or saw last night on tv. I thought the CC was trying to be as thoughtful on the issue as possible. But ultimately they’ll get the calls when nothing is done and their is another unprovoked attack. Not you Marc. They’re trying to deal with an issue that is very difficult to solve with the only tool they have available to them. This type of ordinance gives the police and dog officer a way to get bad dogs off the street. They’re not going to hassle the good owners keeping their dogs under control. They can barely keep up with the calls they get now. I am glad the CC is looking at doing this. But honestly, this is so low on my priority list of how I’m going to decide to vote this coming fall. It’s just not a deal breaker for me. I may feel differently if it were to happen to my child.
The Mark Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
We’re at the round and round point now on final thought though-
If you watched or were there last night you’d know that the city dropped the ball in forming the AAB. Now that will happen.

I ask you this one question in closing- how do you propose the City is going to find a way to enforce a law that FEDERAL court has deemed unconstitional as it violates the dog owners right to due process? Federal presidence trumps local ordinance every time.
lowellgal411 Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
That’s what we pay in house City Solicitors for. I’m not an attorney and I don’t think you are either. Until it makes its way to the Supreme court or they refuse to hear it the final judgement on that hasn’t taken place. Federal court decisions have been overturned. Maybe our new Supreme Court justice will rule on her feelings and we’ll be all set. Due process is defined as “the guaranty that no accused is punished without an orderly and adequate procedure that is applicable uniformly in all cases. Under a due process, every accused gets an advance notice of trial, and an opportunity to be present, to be heard, and to defend himself or herself.” Dogs should not be afforded due process. I know you’re opinion that their owners should. When the dog can ask for due process on its own I’ll be all for it.
The Mark Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
The dogs don’t have to, only the owners do who can then sue the city for a whole stack of money. Can Lowell afford that kind of suit? Something needs to be done no doubt- and something will. But it sounds like no matter what it is you won’t be happy. Everyone has stated it. No matter what does get put on the books someone will break it and no law will keep an idiot owner from letting their dog hurt someone or another dog.
Ned Says:
June 10th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Don’t be afraid to give paragraphs a shot Lowellgal.

June 8, 2009

Another dog fight!

23 Responses to “Another dog fight!”

Leave a Reply

Find us on Facebook

LeftinLowell Tweets LIVE

Pages:

Recent Posts

Search

Categories:

Archives:

Other:

Email us!

LiL Fundraising for Elizabeth Warren!

Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums

Lowell Politics

Mass Bloggers

Media in Lowell

Media in MA

Other Daily Reads

Politics Online

Progressive Local Orgs

Snark and politics

The Arts in Lowell

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« May				Jul »
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30