[Judy]

Lawmakers Mull Pit Bull Ban

Tougher Restrictions On Agenda At State House


POSTED: 6:40 am EDT May 3, 2007
UPDATED: 7:18 am EDT May 3, 2007
BOSTON -- Is your safety at risk or are lawmakers barking up the wrong tree?

A debate is set to begin on Beacon Hill Thursday over a series of new crackdowns on dogs and their owners.


NewsCenter 5's Steve Lacy reported that proposals under consideration pit people who want new restrictions on certain types of dogs, such as pit bulls, against those who think irresponsible owners are the ones who need to be leashed.


Supporters of a statewide ban on pit bull ownership have said a law is necessary to cut down on violent dog attacks.


If the state were to pass such a ban, lawmakers would be following the lead of many Massachusetts cities and towns that have already passed bans limiting pit bull ownership. This week, Canton became the latest local community to push through tough new restrictions.


Opponents of the ban argue that it is a handful of irresponsible owners who are the real problem. They said pit bulls actually make great pets.

Legislators on the committee that will decide what -- if any -- new dog control laws may go into effect. They are said to be split on a statewide pit bull ban, but according to the Boston Herald they are considering a number of other new restrictions that appear to enjoy widespread support, including stricter license requirements for certain breeds, a requirement that owners of certain breeds undergo training, new fines for owners of noisy dogs and tightening up leash laws.


The proposed requirements are scheduled for debate at the State House on May 14.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/poli...66/detail.html

[Turner]

Wonderful Another one to fight off!!!

[Judy]

Please help us!

[BSL-UPDATES] MASSACHUSETTS STATEWIDE - Heads up!

Committee member E-mail quick list:
James.Timilty@ state.ma. us,Patricia.Jehlen@ state.ma. us,Steven.Baddour@ state.ma. us,
Jarrett.Barrios@ state.ma. us,Susan.Fargo@ state.ma. us,Richard.Tisei@ state.ma. us,
Rep.VincentPedone@ hou.state. ma.us,Rep.MartinWalsh@ hou.state. ma.us,
Rep.JamesMarzilli@ hou.state. ma.us,Rep.DouglasPetersen @hou.state. ma.us,
Rep.MatthewPatrick@ hou.state. ma.us,repmattp@cape. com,Rep.StephenCanessa@ Hou.State. MA.US,
Rep.DenisGuyer@ Hou.State. MA.US,Rep.ToddSmola@ Hou.State. MA.US



Here's the committee page from ma.gov:

http://www.mass. gov/legis/ comm/j10. htm


LAWMAKERS LOOKING AT BAN ON DANGEROUS DOGS

By Jim O'Sullivan
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, MAY 1, 2007..Beacon Hill lawmakers are exploring
whether to ban lethal dogs and planning to hear testimony later this month on prohibitions based on breeds and training techniques.

Worried by recurring stories of dogs' violent attacks on children, legislators say they are considering different versions of a ban, which opponents insist lands on the wrong wide of the "nature versus nurture" debate, and violates owners' rights.

A committee bill could emerge from a May 14 hearing where the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government will hear testimony on related bills, and question advocates about banning pit bulls and other breeds, and dogs schooled to fight, said House chair Rep. Vincent

Pedone (D-Worcester) and House vice-chair Rep. Martin Walsh (D-Dorchester) .
"We see, firsthand, problems that exist with dogs that were bred to fight, bred as nothing more than weapons, and he and I are both interested in hearing testimony on the matter," Pedone told the News Service Tuesday.

Opponents of banning certain breeds, including animal rights activists and
veterinarians, argue that owners should be held to tougher standards and
that restricting specific canines is counterproductive and violates ownership rights.

"It doesn't really work," said Scott Giacoppo, spokesman for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Properly raised pit bulls can be "wonderful companion animals," he said.

Regulations on how owners train their dogs, or placing an outright ban on certain breeds, could prove difficult to enforce, Pedone admitted. And, he said, the Senate side of the committee would likely have problems with the legislation.

Sen. James Timily, Senate chair of the municipalities panel, said any breed-specific bans were "not good public policy" that would result in "a pretty wild hearing."

Pedone said lawmakers have been frustrated by perennial stories of toddlers being mauled by out-of-control dogs. A strict in-town crackdown on pit bulls won approval at Canton town meeting Monday night. A bill (H 1993) filed by Rep. Robert Spellane (D-Worcester) allowing municipalities to impound dogs deemed dangerous during owners' appeals could be strengthened to include the ban, Pedone said.

"We very well could, if testimony goes a certain way, amend his bill to include a ban on certain dogs," he said.

Opponents of the bill said lawmakers should emphasize more responsible ownership over targeting specific types of dogs. Timilty said, "It's good that we're starting it now in that there hasn't been a tragedy, so we're not being reactive."

Giacoppo said the state needs to conduct a more comprehensive review of animal control laws, and should pursue legislation (S 512) proposed by Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville) . "Basically, these laws haven't been rewritten for years and years and years, and it updates those laws," he said of Jehlen's measure.

Walsh said the problem of violent dogs particularly plagues urban centers like the ones he and Pedone represent: "You see young kids walking around with dogs they can't handle . I don't see where a 15-year-old kid who barely can take care of himself and is out there owning a pit bull - I don't know how we can impose training there."

-crossposted from bsl updates

[Turner]

Yeah Ill send some stuff and tell my buds to do the same. I dont get how some people can look at a dog who is DA and say that he will turn and kill a human?!?!!?

[Suki]

Please, also, click onto that Survey and vote in the poll.
Tx!.
currently:

Do You think Pit Bulls Should Be Banned In Massachusetts?Choice Votes Percentage of 3750 Votes Yes 1491 40% No 2186 58% Not Sure 732% close window

[SisMorphine]

Is anyone going to the meeting on the 14th at the State House?

[Suki]

Originally Posted by SisMorphine Is anyone going to the meeting on the 14th at the State House?

i have a surgery scheduled that i've rescheduled 2X already, but hey, 3's a charm=gunna try to reschedule again so i can go. if so, want me to call yah and we can go together?
the radiator's new, and we won't breakdown on the highway, again, (hopefully!!!! )
lemme know, ....

[Turner]

Wish I could go and help ya guys out Im over on the west coast Lolol Good Luck though!!!!

[Suki]

Hearing is at 1:00 Monday, May14, 2,007 at the State House in Boston, Ma.

[SisMorphine]

Originally Posted by Suki Hearing is at 1:00 Monday, May14, 2,007 at the State House in Boston, Ma.

Ugh it's at 1?! I definitely can't get out of work early enough to go. That blows.

[Judy]

I may have to go represent.

[Cheeky]

I am crossposting some info that was posted on Pitbulltalk.com. I know some of our members are going to the meeting. Best of luck guys!

I'm sending this same message to many animal rescues to make sure they are aware that on Monday, May 14th, there will be a hearing at the MA State House to determine whether or not a state-wide ban of Pit Bulls should be created. Please make sure that volunteers with all of your rescues are aware of this, and ask them to attend the hearing to lend their support! Here are articles for those of you who haven't heard of this yet: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/13248866/detail.html http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/...n/?p1=MEWell_Pos2 http://www.townonline.com/somerville/homepage/x301605245 If you would like to contact legislators and let them know how you feel, you can get contact information here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/comm/j10.htm Please remind anybody you forward this to to keep their emails logical and fact-filled, rather than emotional and/or opinionated! THANK YOU!

The below information is for the May 14th meeting. At this meeting, all dog bills are going to be discussed. People will have an opportunity to show their support or opposition on said bills. The Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs is heavily pushing Brad Hills HB 1948 - this is a statewide Dangerous Dog bill that is 100 % non breed specific and is a very good bill. Worcester rep. Pedone ( House Chair ), the one who initiated this proposal, feels that a ban on certain dogs could be written into one of the dog laws ( NOT Hills ) - he is quoted as saying that pitbulls have no place in civilized society. He has already been contacted by rep. Hill, and Rep. Hill is going to be working overtime promoting his bill up until the May 14th meeting. We definitely need people to attend, we do not want to push the NO BSL issue, but we do want to push Hills bill for an overall Dangerous Dog bill that will be enforceable in the commonwealth. After the May 14th meeting, the reps will discuss and move bills agreed upon from there. If anyone has any questions please feel free to reach to me. May 14, ALL the dangerous dog bills plus one of the cat bills will be heard by the Municipalities committee 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. in room A-1. Plan to be there! Oppose SB 1167 Sen. Joyce ˆ Mandatory spaying and neutering of cats SUPPORT HB 1948 (Rep. Hill) ˆ Dangerous Dogs Oppose HB 1919 (Rep. Callahan) ˆ Canine Rehabilitation Center No Opinion HB 1993 (Rep. Spellane) Condemned Dogs Oppose HB 1917 (Rep. Callahan) ˆ Destruction of dogs Oppose HB 2000 ( Rep. Vallee) Vicious Dogs SUPPORT HB 1940 (Rep. Gobi) Dangerous Dogs Oppose HB 1941 Pet Stores ( medical condition not defined well enough ) Attached is a summary list of dangerous dog bills. Most we ( Mass federation of Dog Clubs ) want to oppose. Brad Hill’s bill is the same one we have been supporting for the past two legislative sessions. We need to push even harder this time to get it passed. It defines dangerous and potentially dangerous by behavior and it prevents towns from enacting BSL. Please pass along to anyone you think might be able to attend. Writing to the committee is an alternative if you absolutely can not make it it to hearings. We really really need people to attend hearing as this is our only chance to impress with numbers of supporters / opposition! http://www.mass.gov/legis/comm/j10.htm JOINT COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT Room 134 State House Boston, MA 02133 Telephone: (617) 722-2400 It shall be the duty of the committee on Municipalities and Regional Government to consider matters seeking the enactment of special laws for a city or town, the establishment of economic, district and local planning commissions, rent control and zoning, and matters concerning the various counties, former counties and regional government entities, including the salaries and tenure of employees, registers of deeds and sheriffs (but excluding the retirement of such employees) and such other matters as may be referred Members appointed to the committee: Timilty of Bristol and Norfolk - Chair Jehlen of Second Middlesex - Vice-Chair Baddour of First Essex Barrios of Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex Fargo of Third Middlesex Tisei of Middlesex and Essex Pedone of Worcester - Chair Walsh of Boston - Vice-Chair Marzilli of Arlington Petersen of Marblehead Patrick of Falmouth Canessa of New Bedford Guyer of Dalton Peake of Provincetown Barrows of Mansfield Smola of Palmer

[Cheeky]

This is the bill we would like to see passed instead, it is a Dangerous Dog bill & not breed specific

No. 1948 HOUSE . . . . . . . The Commonwealth of Massachusetts —————— PETITION OF: Bradford Hill —————— In the Year Two Thousand and Seven. —————— AN ACT RELATIVE TO DOGS. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: Chapter 140 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 157 the following four sections: Section 157A. “Potentially dangerous dog” means any of the following: -- Any dog, regardless of breed, breeding, type or appearance, which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36 month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by a domestic animal to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog. Any dog, regardless of breed, breeding, type or appearance, which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior 36 month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted serious injury upon, or attacked a domestic animal off the property of the owner or keeper of the dog. “Vicious dog” means any of the following: -- Any dog, regardless of breed, breeding, type or appearance, which, when unprovoked, in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury on or kills a human being. Any dog previously determined to be and currently listed as a potentially dangerous dog which, after its owner or keeper has been notified of this determination, continues the behavior described in paragraph (a) of section 157B or is maintained in violation of paragraph (b) of said section 157B. Section 157B. (a) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if any injury or damage is sustained by a person who, at the time the injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort HOUSE – No. 1948 2 upon, premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog, or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the dog was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified attack or assault. No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if an injury or damage was sustained by a domestic animal which at the time the injury or damage was sustained was teasing, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog. (b) No dog may be declared potentially dangerous or vicious if the injury or damage to a domestic animal was sustained while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of, or under the control of, its owner or keeper, and the damage or injury was to a species or type of domestic animal appropriate to the work of the dog. Section 157C. If there are no additional instances of the behavior described in section 157A within a 36 month period from the date of designation as a potentially dangerous dog, the dog shall be removed from the list of potentially dangerous dogs. The dog may, but is not required to be, removed from the list of potentially dangerous dogs prior to the expiration of the 36 month period if the owner or keeper of the dog demonstrates to the animal control department that changes in circumstances or measures taken by the owner or keeper, such as training of the dog, have mitigated the risk to the public safety. Section 157D. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious dogs, provided that no program shall regulate these dogs in a manner that is specific as to breed.

[Suki]

nice post, Cheeky. Thanks!

[Suki]

curious tho, as to why this statement:

"we do not want to push the NO BSL issue",....

isn't this the reason why we're even fighting this fight, so NO breed specific legislation DOES get passed?
not sure i understand this?....

[Cheeky]

We definitely need people to attend, we do not want to push the NO BSL issue, but we do want to push Hills bill for an overall Dangerous Dog bill that will be enforceable in the commonwealth

.


I *think what she is saying is they want to show support for a bill that has already been written & put the focus on that bill rather than have the focus on BSL. Something is going to have to change & I guess they want to say "look, we already have something in the works. let's look at it instead." I will ask for clarification.

[Suki]

TY.

It IS more cost effective to work with already existing laws and just "tweek" them abit, as the burden of proof will ultimately fall onto L.E. officials and AC officers, and even shelter attendants, as to what specifically is and is not a 'pit bull" and i imagine they all have enough on their plates already, without this added "task"....
hmmm, we'll all see, i guess, ....
fingers crossed for a good outcome.
tx, again.

[Judy]

Thanks for the info! Does anyone know if Mass APBT club will be sending a rep?

[shadyridgekennel]

Originally Posted by Judy Thanks for the info! Does anyone know if Mass APBT club will be sending a rep?

there really is kind of no more mass club seems to have fallen apart.its just me and suki really lol

[PittyChick]

Well, I'll be sure to get there somehow. I'll have to get a babysitter. I hope to see you all there!! I'm glad to hear of a bill being proposed that is actually going to be effective (hopefully).