Shon
04-30-2004, 03:22 PM
Michele Cummings never imagined the front yard of her Hyde Park home was an unsafe place for her dog. But last summer, she hardly had time to react when a pit bull came barreling across the street and clamped its jaws around the neck of her Labrador mix.
Frantically kicking the attacker and hitting it with a shovel, she said there was little she could do to release the dog's grip. By the time her dog was freed, the pit bull's owners had fled. They would say later it had never attacked before.
"The victim could have been me. It could have been my infant," Cummings said. "That dog just snapped."
Calling the breed a danger, some city councilors are renewing a push for restrictions.
"This is an issue of moral and public safety responsibility," said City Councilor Rob Consalvo, whose Roslindale district has reported six pit bull attacks in the past year. "Statistics clearly show this is a dangerous dog. We need to stop being reactionary. We need to be proactive."
A measure sponsored by Consalvo would require that pit bulls wear a muzzle while on public property and limit to two the number of such dogs a person could own. Additionally, owners would have to post signs near all entrances to their property, warning anyone who enters that pit bulls reside on the premises.
Animal rights groups, which have fought past efforts to ban or impose restrictions on pit bulls, said the proposal wrongly punishes a breed for problems that should be blamed on owners who abuse dogs or train them to fight.
"We're opposed to ordinances or policies that focus on breeds," said Kara Holmquist, director of advocacy for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "We don't think they work. We don't think they're fair. We, too, want to prevent dog bites. But irresponsible dog owners won't follow this law. It's not an effective way to approach the problem."
In a City Council hearing yesterday, Sergeant Charles Rudack, Boston's animal control officer, called pit bulls "time bombs" and said Boston is "long overdue for a major tragedy" involving pit bulls.
"People say it's not the dog. I say it is the dog," Rudack said. "It's in the breed. They kill and will kill again."
Consalvo's proposed ordinance listed recent atacks, including one in September 2003 in which a Boston police officer shot a pit bull in self-defense in Roxbury. In August 2003, an unleashed pit bull in the South End mauled a dog owned by School Superintendent Thomas W. Payzant.
The Massachusetts Bureau of Health documented more bites from pit bulls (243) than any other breed of dog between 2002 and 2003. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says pit bull attacks on humans have resulted in more than twice as many human deaths than any other breed in the 27 years since data have been collected. The pit bull measure is slated for a council vote next month.
Frantically kicking the attacker and hitting it with a shovel, she said there was little she could do to release the dog's grip. By the time her dog was freed, the pit bull's owners had fled. They would say later it had never attacked before.
"The victim could have been me. It could have been my infant," Cummings said. "That dog just snapped."
Calling the breed a danger, some city councilors are renewing a push for restrictions.
"This is an issue of moral and public safety responsibility," said City Councilor Rob Consalvo, whose Roslindale district has reported six pit bull attacks in the past year. "Statistics clearly show this is a dangerous dog. We need to stop being reactionary. We need to be proactive."
A measure sponsored by Consalvo would require that pit bulls wear a muzzle while on public property and limit to two the number of such dogs a person could own. Additionally, owners would have to post signs near all entrances to their property, warning anyone who enters that pit bulls reside on the premises.
Animal rights groups, which have fought past efforts to ban or impose restrictions on pit bulls, said the proposal wrongly punishes a breed for problems that should be blamed on owners who abuse dogs or train them to fight.
"We're opposed to ordinances or policies that focus on breeds," said Kara Holmquist, director of advocacy for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "We don't think they work. We don't think they're fair. We, too, want to prevent dog bites. But irresponsible dog owners won't follow this law. It's not an effective way to approach the problem."
In a City Council hearing yesterday, Sergeant Charles Rudack, Boston's animal control officer, called pit bulls "time bombs" and said Boston is "long overdue for a major tragedy" involving pit bulls.
"People say it's not the dog. I say it is the dog," Rudack said. "It's in the breed. They kill and will kill again."
Consalvo's proposed ordinance listed recent atacks, including one in September 2003 in which a Boston police officer shot a pit bull in self-defense in Roxbury. In August 2003, an unleashed pit bull in the South End mauled a dog owned by School Superintendent Thomas W. Payzant.
The Massachusetts Bureau of Health documented more bites from pit bulls (243) than any other breed of dog between 2002 and 2003. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says pit bull attacks on humans have resulted in more than twice as many human deaths than any other breed in the 27 years since data have been collected. The pit bull measure is slated for a council vote next month.