A few months ago, the state enacted a new law to modernize animal-control laws, which includes the first statewide rules for tethering canines. The bill signed into law by Governor Deval Patrick is especially aimed at those who are convicted of cruelty to animals.
The law also bans a person from keeping a dog chained or tethered to a tree, doghouse, pole of other structure for longer than 24 consecutive hours. Tethers must be designed for dogs, and no lines such as logging chains are allowed.
In addition, the law establishes restrictions for keeping dogs outside. Dogs must be in a secure enclosure, a fenced yard, or connected with a pulley cable. Dogs must have adequate exercise space, water and shelter.
In short, the new law protects pets.
But what about residents just out for a walk?
How are they to be protected?
Last weekend, Mayor Thomas Menino announced he may be considering a local ordinance requiring pit bull owners to muzzle their dogs if and when they are outside.
That statement by the mayor followed a bloody incident in East Boston, where two pit bulls ran wild around a local square without leashes, mauling a child and terrorizing residents.
Boston Police shot one of the pit bulls. A Boston Animal Control officer captured the second pit bull and took the dog into custody. The shot pit bull is expected to recover. The young child that was mauled will take months to recover and psychologically, the child will always be haunted by the memory.
Such attacks have happened in our city repeatedly and Mayor Judith Flanagan Kennedy should take some action.
The new canine rights law does not allow dogs to be treated by breed – rather – all breeds are treated as dogs and ostensibly are treated the same way in the eyes of the law.
The savagery in East Boston over the weekend and in Lynn is an oft-repeated story all over the city in nearly all of our neighborhoods.
Obviously, the laws we enact don’t physically protect dogs or human beings unless the people the laws are meant for pay attention to them.
Too many maulings by pit bulls running amuck has identified pit bulls as a very dangerous breed of dog.
Granted, not all pit bulls are bred to maul residents out for a walk. It is true that pit bulls were a gentle breed of dog and held widely by dog lovers all over the nation before the First World War.
Today, in the urban setting where they often run wild and maul innocents, pit bulls need to be restrained by the city government if their owners show an inability to do so.
We agree with Mayor Menino’s thoughts on muzzling pit bulls in order to protect the safety of the public. We should continue to demand that owners here do the same.
Too many pit bull owners treat and train their pets as attack dogs or use them as protection in the urban milieu.
Vicious pit bulls must either be permanently restrained or muzzled when being walked in public as the mayor is suggesting.
Police officers having to shoot dogs after they’ve mauled residents who must be taken to the hospital is the last thing we need.
The dogs we keep as pets must be as civilized as the city we live in.
View Comments (19)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 2 Next »"where two pit bulls ran wild around a local square without leashes"
I doubt they would have muzzles on, too, if this new order goes into effect. So, how would this new order keep the community any safer?
Educate yourself on actual pit bull attack statistics, would you? This is a bunch of drivel.
First of all, if people obeyed leash laws, this would be a moot point.
Second, dangerous DOGS, of ANY and ALL breeds should be muzzled in public, not just "pit bulls"! The new law addresses ALL of this, check it out.
The people that are going to obey a muzzle law are not the people that you need to worry about.
The problems that you are having with dogs is a reflection of how civilized your city is. "Pit Bulls" are popular pets in Minneapolis where BSL is illegal and we don't have a problem like what you describe.
This is a sensational and ignorant article.
"Too many pit bull owners treat and train their pets as attack dogs or use them as protection in the urban milieu"
Is that to say that the dogs permitted to run loose and injure a child were kept as attack or guard dogs? Or, were you just making a generalization about "those" people who own pit bulls? Or, are you making a value judgment on the residents who live in East Boston where the incident occurred? According to the Boston municipal site, East Boston is a community comprised mostly of immigrants. Is that to say that immigrants are to blame for keeping the dogs as attack/guard dogs or are you saying that the other residents of Boston are hostile toward the immigrants living in East Boston so these residents must protect themselves with dogs because the police won't protect them? Either way, that seems pretty uncivilized. And, no matter how you answer any of these questions, a muzzle law wouldn't have done anything to protect the injured child from the single, reckless owner who disregarded laws and allowed his dogs to run at large. What does help communities stay safe from reckless owners, you ask? Enforcement of the laws that govern responsible pet ownership. Enforcement of the laws that govern a civilized society (thus ending the need for attack/guard dogs). Journalists who are not too weak to hold their city leaders accountable for keeping all members of the community safe from reckless owners, including dog owners who get blamed (or stereotyped) in the newspaper for the acts of others - whether they were involved or not.
"Too many pit bull owners treat and train their pets as attack dogs or use them as protection in the urban milieu"
Is that to say that the dogs permitted to run loose and injure a child were kept as attack or guard dogs? Or, were you just making a generalization about "those" people who own pit bulls? Or, are you making a value judgment on the residents who live in East Boston where the incident occurred? According to the Boston municipal site, East Boston is a community comprised mostly of immigrants. Is that to say that immigrants are to blame for keeping the dogs as attack/guard dogs or are you saying that the other residents of Boston are hostile toward the immigrants living in East Boston so these residents must protect themselves with dogs because the police won't protect them? Either way, that seems pretty uncivilized. And, no matter how you answer any of these questions, a muzzle law wouldn't have done anything to protect the injured child from the single, reckless owner who disregarded laws and allowed his dogs to run at large. What does help communities stay safe from reckless owners, you ask? Enforcement of the laws that govern responsible pet ownership. Enforcement of the laws that govern a civilized society (thus ending the need for attack/guard dogs). Journalists who are not too weak to hold their city leaders accountable for keeping all members of the community safe from reckless owners, including dog owners who get blamed (or stereotyped) in the newspaper and in the law for the acts of others - whether they were involved or not.
Discriminatory, bigoted and uneducated story. You really must be put on a leash yourself....really. With your journalistic privilege, you have an obligation to produce factual information to report to the public. The fact is that a very small percentage of pitbull owners train their dogs to 'attack'. The majority are every day family dogs (just go look at the backlash on Kelly Ripa's site and tell me how many 'thugs' there are). And there is no 'were a gentle breed of dog..... before the First World War', they still are.
And there is an "oft-repeated story" because of the lack of integrity in the media for digging down to the truth instead of using the flashiest headline to sell a story. A very large number of attacks reported as pitbulls are false identifications and go unconfirmed by the media, so you can shove that 'oft-repeated story'. And pair it up with words like "mauling", just adds to the sensationalization. You don't see the headline "mauled by Standard Poodle", when they can and have bitten just as severely, and have a lower temperament rating than the APBT. More like "Child bitten by family pet".... biased reporting at it's best.
PItbulls are not a 'special' breed of dog that instinctually go around attacking people and animals, and they do not have any stronger bite than any other breed of dog. All dogs have the capability to bite. Why don't you put your focus on where it needs to be and hold humans accountable. Sickening that you would pass the blame to an animal, and one specific breed no less. Really.
Ridiculous article!
The dogs were running loose, not out for a walk so how does putting muzzles on dogs out for a walk have anything to do with this attack? People are so ignorant.
Do you really think that the people who train their dogs to attack or use them as guard dogs will keep them muzzled? Laws like these simply do not work because the people who obey the law are the people who are responsible owners in the first place, and the bad owners will just continue to ignore the laws. There is a leash law and a law against roaming free, but neither of these stopped that child from being mauled, do you think one more law is going to help?