Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Some Boston Pit Bull Owners Dump Dogs Instead of Paying Fines

Back in 2004, the city of Boston required Pit Bulls to be muzzled in public.

Since then, nearly 518 fines have been issued and 80% of those people refused to pay the fines. Some even went on to dumping the dogs at animal control. Those dogs, if they are lucky, are placed up for adoption and rehomed.

"State data shows pit bull and pit bull breed attacks in Boston almost doubled between 2006 and 2008, from 25 to 46. But that trend reversed last year, when the city recorded just 30 attacks from pit bull and pit bull breeds."

I do not find this information useful.

How many American Pit Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers are there in Boston? What is a "Pit Bull breed"? Is 25, 30, 46 attacks indicate a higher rate per number of APBTs and ASTs? In a city of 630,000, is 30 attacks significant? Are the attacks minor, moderate, severe and is that severity different by comparably sized dogs?

I'd like to know why Boston thinks this is a good law when, after six years of its existence, there hasn't been a reduction in Pit Bull bites or the overall number of Pit Bulls (so far as this article indicates, of course)? If there hasn't been a reduction in overall dog bites, again, why does Boston maintain this is an effective law?

Too many questions, no good answers.

1 comment:

Liz said...

So even with a muzzle law intact, they STILL have recorded "attacks" or "bites"? How does that work if they're muzzled?!

Muzzling an entire breed of dog (or banning for that matter) is openly admitting guilt, that your "Pit Bull" is "vicious" and WILL bite/maul/attack if given the chance.

They are no better than Ontario and Denver. Bunch of morons.

I say, if a dog (any breed) bites/attacks, THAT dog should be required to be muzzled - Not EVERY dog of an ENTIRE breed!

These days, Pit Bulls are guilty until proven innocent, and even then we don't get the chance to do that. We don't get the chance to be innocent until proven guilty.