Clamp down on pit bulls?: Defenders call for focus on owners, not breed

News

Discussion

Welcome to our online comments feature. To join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address. Once you do, your comments will post automatically. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean. We reserve the right to remove comments that are obscene, racist or abusive and statements that are false or unverifiable. Repeat offenders will be blocked. You may flag objectionable comments for review by a moderator.

comments powered by Disqus

May 20, 2010

By Neil Fater Staff Writer

If Andover residents want to enact a pit bull ban, there are longstanding bans in other communities they could copy. But local animal rights lawyers and a veterinarian argue breed-specific laws are not the answer.

"I can't just pick a breed and say they are the problem. If I had to pick a breed that had to be banned, pit bulls would not be on my list," said River Road Veterinary Hospital owner Tracie Fountas. "I wouldn't ban any breed. I would ban the backyard breeders who breed (fighters and dangerous dogs intentionally)."

Some residents are talking about banning pit bulls after a pit bull that a man had owned for just a few weeks jumped out of his truck, bit Fosters Pond Road resident Sandy Moulden on the legs, could not be pulled off and had to be stabbed to death by Moulden's husband, Michael. Days after the incident, with his wife still recovering, Michael Moulden told the Townsman last week he was considering a pit bull ban for Andover.

Animal Law professors Holly Vietzke and Diane Sullivan, of the Massachusetts School of Law in Andover, said they would rather see legislation aimed at enforcing more responsible pet guardianship, than at banning entire breeds.

"I worry about who's next if we say "No pit bulls.' You're not coming after my chow," said Sullivan. "I see our job as animal rights lawyers as 'You have to stand up before they come for your pet.' But no one wants to see anyone harmed, so we have to look at what changes need to be made for safety. {Requiring] spaying and neutering is a good start."

The lawyers, who describe themselves as avid animal rights activists, said research shows that 90 percent of the pit bulls involved in fatal attacks had not been spayed or neutered. (Fountas said spaying and neutering has positive health results for dogs.)

Although they don't necessarily agree on the exact solution, the lawyers offer alternative ideas for bylaws they believe would encourage more responsible pet ownership without punishing all pit bull owners (see sidebar, at right).

Creating a new bylaw

Pit bull bans have been around for a long time in some communities and are constitutional if worded specifically enough, acknowledged Sullivan. Denver, Colo., has had a pit bull ban since 1989 and it has withstood several legal challenges.

If a ban or responsible-ownership law is to be created in Andover, it seems most likely to happen at Annual or a Special Town Meeting.

"The Board of Selectmen can ban a dog if it's a nuisance," says Town Clerk Randy Hanson. But a ban of an entire type of dog would require a change of the town's dog bylaw, and previous changes, such as the addition of "pooper scooper" rules have come at Town Meeting. Residents must get 10 signatures supporting an article to have it considered for a Town Meeting warrant.

Owner or dog?

While some people point to life-threatening attacks as proof that pit bulls need to be banned - a Lowell man was reported to have saved his neighbor who was being attacked by his own two dogs just Tuesday - Vietzke says pit bulls have a higher pass rate in temperament tests than many other dogs.

Vietzke believes pit bulls receive negative attention "because when there is an incident it is often more dangerous. Cocker spaniels are the No. 1 for dog bites and rottweilers and German shepherds cause more deaths, but no one is talking about banning those breeds."

Fountas has been a veterinarian for 12 years and has seen six or seven dog bites on humans, one by a pit bull that did not break the skin, she said. Many of the problems she sees are with smaller dogs, because people sometimes think its cute when a little dog growls and they do not train it to behave properly. Bigger dogs more often get the attention when they growl and bite, because they can do more harm.

After the recent Andover incident, pit bull owner Howard MacMillan was issued a town bylaw violation because his dog was unlicensed and unrestrained, according to police.

"It comes down to the whole community. We should enforce our leash laws. As veterinarians and pet store owners, if we see a young pet with a problem...those are the guys we can really work with so we don't have problems later on," Fountas said.

"Sometimes [the issue] is people who have bad pit bulls are people who are looking to have bad dogs. Any pet can be bad and any pet can be good."

Andover's pit bulls

Their names are Honey, Zeus, Happy, Tyson, Bebe and Rocky. They are Andover pit bulls, dogs that some residents are talking about banning following the attack by a pit bull this month on a Fosters Pond Road mother.

There were 2,309 dogs licensed in Andover as of Tuesday, May 18. Thirteen were identified by "breed" as being a pit bull or pit bull mix, but there are others in town. The type of dog considered a pit bull includes American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers, so other Andover dogs that would be considered pit bulls are licensed as bull terriers. Still more could potentially be listed as just "terrier" or "mix."

Animal Law professor Holly Vietzke argues that enforcing a breed-specific ban can be difficult in part because of difficulties with accurately identifying a dog's breed.