Shon
07-10-2004, 09:34 PM
FITCHBURG -- Councilors who proposed restrictions on pit bull ownership last week may withdraw their proposed ordinance and try to toughen an existing law instead.
The city already has an ordinance aimed at protecting residents from "dangerous dogs."
But Ward 1 City Councilor Kevin P. Maynard and Ward 2 City Councilor David LeBlanc proposed a new ordinance last week, which called for muzzling and neutering pit bills.
Maynard backtracked from that proposal Wednesday, saying it might be better to work with the present ordinance than follow in the footsteps of a strict Boston ordinance passed last month.
"We'll refine the current ordinance," Maynard said. "We don't have to reinvent the wheel."
But Maynard does not believe Fitchburg's existing ordinance against dangerous dogs is strong enough.
He said by the time a vicious dog in Fitchburg is considered by the city to be "dangerous" under present law, it may already have done its damage.
"I think it needs to have already bitten somebody to be categorized as a dangerous dog. We're going to have to look at that and get some opinions," Maynard said.
Under the present-day ordinance, the city can get rid of a dangerous dog "after the second complaint, which could be after the dog bites somebody twice," said Ward 3 Councilor Joel Kaddy.
If a dog is deemed dangerous, it can also be muzzled, according to the ordinance.
Kaddy supports making changes to the law that don't specifically target pit bull ownership.
"We do have a good ordinance. If we tweak it a little bit, it will be better and protect everybody (against) any dangerous dog," Kaddy said. "We don't want to wait until somebody gets hurt to do something. It will be one strike and you're out, which is fair."
Kaddy read the ordinance this week and presented his opinions to Maynard and LeBlanc.
LeBlanc could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
The councilors proposed the ordinance after police in Leominster shot and killed a pit bull who they said tried to attack them as they were trying to arrest its owner.
City Councilor Stephen DiNatale said he was unaware of the city's "dangerous dog" ordinance and wants to examine the issue carefully before any new legislation is passed.
City Councilor Matt Straight echoed his remarks.
"Before we pass any new legislation, we certainly have to look at our existing legislation," said Straight. "Part of the problem might be we're just not enforcing our existing laws."
Other city leaders, however, still want any new law to reflect the particular danger posed by pit bulls.
"I don't think to go one step beyond for pit bulls right now would be a bad thing," said Ward 6 City Councilor Jody Joseph. "Right now I think because of the breed and because of the damage they do and the way they do it, and their popularity, then I think it's necessary (to regulate them)."
Joseph favors the part in the Boston ordinance that makes pit bull owners put up warning signs outside their home.
Maynard said it is unconstitutional to ban pit bulls from a city, but not to regulate their ownership.
"Apparently to regulate breed-specific dogs is OK and it's constitutional," he said.
Maynard, who proposed pit bull regulations five years ago, believes he and LeBlanc represent wards that are the most densely populated in the city and, therefore, more severely affected when vicious dogs run amuck.
"We see it firsthand," Maynard said. "This is mainly to raise the awareness that there is an issue there. There is a potential issue there that people need to sit up and notice."
The city already has an ordinance aimed at protecting residents from "dangerous dogs."
But Ward 1 City Councilor Kevin P. Maynard and Ward 2 City Councilor David LeBlanc proposed a new ordinance last week, which called for muzzling and neutering pit bills.
Maynard backtracked from that proposal Wednesday, saying it might be better to work with the present ordinance than follow in the footsteps of a strict Boston ordinance passed last month.
"We'll refine the current ordinance," Maynard said. "We don't have to reinvent the wheel."
But Maynard does not believe Fitchburg's existing ordinance against dangerous dogs is strong enough.
He said by the time a vicious dog in Fitchburg is considered by the city to be "dangerous" under present law, it may already have done its damage.
"I think it needs to have already bitten somebody to be categorized as a dangerous dog. We're going to have to look at that and get some opinions," Maynard said.
Under the present-day ordinance, the city can get rid of a dangerous dog "after the second complaint, which could be after the dog bites somebody twice," said Ward 3 Councilor Joel Kaddy.
If a dog is deemed dangerous, it can also be muzzled, according to the ordinance.
Kaddy supports making changes to the law that don't specifically target pit bull ownership.
"We do have a good ordinance. If we tweak it a little bit, it will be better and protect everybody (against) any dangerous dog," Kaddy said. "We don't want to wait until somebody gets hurt to do something. It will be one strike and you're out, which is fair."
Kaddy read the ordinance this week and presented his opinions to Maynard and LeBlanc.
LeBlanc could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
The councilors proposed the ordinance after police in Leominster shot and killed a pit bull who they said tried to attack them as they were trying to arrest its owner.
City Councilor Stephen DiNatale said he was unaware of the city's "dangerous dog" ordinance and wants to examine the issue carefully before any new legislation is passed.
City Councilor Matt Straight echoed his remarks.
"Before we pass any new legislation, we certainly have to look at our existing legislation," said Straight. "Part of the problem might be we're just not enforcing our existing laws."
Other city leaders, however, still want any new law to reflect the particular danger posed by pit bulls.
"I don't think to go one step beyond for pit bulls right now would be a bad thing," said Ward 6 City Councilor Jody Joseph. "Right now I think because of the breed and because of the damage they do and the way they do it, and their popularity, then I think it's necessary (to regulate them)."
Joseph favors the part in the Boston ordinance that makes pit bull owners put up warning signs outside their home.
Maynard said it is unconstitutional to ban pit bulls from a city, but not to regulate their ownership.
"Apparently to regulate breed-specific dogs is OK and it's constitutional," he said.
Maynard, who proposed pit bull regulations five years ago, believes he and LeBlanc represent wards that are the most densely populated in the city and, therefore, more severely affected when vicious dogs run amuck.
"We see it firsthand," Maynard said. "This is mainly to raise the awareness that there is an issue there. There is a potential issue there that people need to sit up and notice."