Boston's Responsible Pit Bull Ownership law

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/03/20/pet_profiling_law_under_attack/

Pet profiling: law under attack

By Monica Collins | March 20, 2005

On an otherwise tranquil summer morning, an American Staffordshire
terrier, baring its incisors, bounded up and tried to pounce on my smaller
terrier as we walked on Boston Common. A slight woman, screaming ''come"
and ''stop" while waving a leash, chased after the Staffordshire. In the
blur of the moment, I hollered, too, but I don't remember what. My dog
darted away from me, bobbing and weaving to elude the bigger dog. In a few
seconds, the frenzy ended as quickly as it began. Inexplicably, both
animals suddenly froze in place. The woman seized the Staffordshire by its
collar, snapped on a leash, and walked away without a word.

The attack was sudden, surprising, and caused me to suspect all foreign
bull terriers with lantern jaw lines of warmongering.

The city of Boston's Responsible Pit Bull Ownership law (Ordinance
16-1.9E), which singles out American Pit Bull Terriers, American
Staffordshires, and Staffordshires, which are all closely related,
basically does the same. A pit bull's potentially lethal lock-on jaw sets
it apart in the attack pack. These dogs were bred to be warriors. However,
some pit bulls are well trained, docile, and make happy house pets.

The profiling of pits is more emotional than rational, as anyone who has
tangled with an aggressive dog knows. The wolf can sneak up in sheep's
clothing, disguised as a handsome golden retriever, a comic Cairn terrier,
a pedigreed poodle, or any mutt mix in between. Pit bulls are not the only
offenders.

''Breed-specific legislation does not solve the problem," says Maura
Hennigan, a mayoral candidate and a Boston city councilor who voted
against the pit bull ordinance when it came before the City Council last
June and was passed by a vote of 7 to 4, with two abstentions. She calls
it ''feel-good legislation that's really useless," useless because
irresponsible people allow their animals to go out of control. Ultimately,
any animal law comes down to human compliance.

April 1 marks the beginning of the legal dog year, when state law requires
licensing and the new Boston pit bull rules take effect. Starting Saturday
and continuing until June 11, the city and the Animal Rescue League of
Boston will sponsor licensing and rabies vaccination clinics in most
neighborhoods. (Call 617-426-9170 or 617-635-5348 to find out when and
where.) A spokeswoman in the City Hall press office estimates there are
40,000 dogs in Boston; 10,000 of them are licensed, which means that a
whole bunch of dogs need to be brought up to code. There are no statistics
yet on pit bulls.

License applications recently went out to those who had previously
registered their animals. Included in the mailings was a separate
''application for a pit bull license." Pit bull owners must pay $50 and
provide pictures of them and their dogs. Those who do not own a pit bull
need not send mugshots. They pay $6 if their animal is spayed or neutered;
$17 if not. Pit bull keepers are limited to two sterilized dogs. They are
required to post a ''beware" sign on their property. The new law also
orders the muzzling of all pit bulls.
Hennigan believes the muzzles will give innocent dogs a frightening
demeanor and ''will make people afraid."

Councilor Rob Consalvo, who sponsored the bill, calls the mandatory muzzle
the ''most controversial piece," but he points out that ''you don't need
to put this Hannibal Lecter thing on your dog." Boston Animal Control
recommends a ''basket muzzle," which allows the dog to pant. A picture
posted on the city's website
(www.cityofboston.gov/animalcontrol/petpeeves.asp) shows a weimaraner
wearing the mask as if in a macabre William Wegman portrait.

We could see a few of these Hannibal hounds. The ordinance applies not
only to pit bull and Staffordshire terriers, but extends to any
mixed-breed dog having any genetic pattern of pit bull. Chihuapit? It's up
to the owner to decide what DNA stew prevails in a pet.

''You must muzzle any dog that has a portion of pit bull in it," said
Hennigan, who adds with a wry twist: ''I don't know whether we can expect
Animal Control officers to do DNA testing out on the streets."

Nicholas Gilman, chief executive of the Animal Rescue League, lays out the
canine conundrum: ''Who's to say it's a pit bull? Who's to say it's not a
boxer?"

Consalvo concedes that he's unclear how this provision will be enforced.
''I will admit I'm not an animal control expert," he said. ''We would
leave it up to Animal Control to determine whether a dog is a pit bull or
really isn't a pit bull." He adds that an owner ''certainly can appeal the
determination of Animal Control" or pay a $100 fine.

Consalvo represents Hyde Park, Roslindale, and Mattapan. He says he was
prompted to file the pit bull bill after a series of high-profile attacks
in the city, with six skirmishes in his own district.

''We took a common-sense approach," he says. ''We didn't ban the dog
outright, because we respect the right of people to own dogs in the city."
He says the legislation was ''modeled on bits and pieces of certain
ordinances" from other cities. He and his staff spent more than eight
months researching and crafting the bill.

But the law seems toothless by targeting a single breed, instead of meting
out penalties for all canine misbehavior.

''I don't think the Animal Rescue League accepts that there is any such
thing as an unacceptable breed," says Gilman. ''However, we agree that
there is unacceptable behavior from dogs.

''What the citizens of Boston want is something effective instead of
something that legislates against a breed," says Gilman.

He suggests a better route: Behavior training and testing for belligerent
dogs, as well as a strict spay-and-neuter program. ''We have seen studies
indicating dogs that bite are dogs that are fertile," says Gilman. ''We
should require sterilization of any dogs displaying significant aggressive
behavior."

Hennigan wants a spay-and-neuter policy.

''How many people living in the city really breed their dogs?" she asks.
She also calls for enforcement of the leash law.

Consalvo concedes that his Responsible Pit Bull Ownership law might not
stop the problem of dog violence.

''I don't claim to have all the answers," he says. ''If it's not working,
I'm a big man. I'm willing to admit it's not the answer." The ordinance
has a sunset clause, which opens it up for review in five years.
''Hopefully, I'll still be a city councilor by then," says Consalvo.

In the meantime, his office is putting together a task force of animal
activists and other interested parties to review the pit bull ordinance
during this initial year and to ''raise awareness of all dog laws," which
could be an important marketing campaign to reach out to neglectful dog
owners.

Acknowledging that Boston has a ''loud and vibrant dog constituency,"
Consalvo sticks to his guns about pit bulls. ''I do believe breed-specific
legislation is important and can work," he said.

E-mail Monica Collins at mcollins@globe.com.