Please note that Mashpee, MA will vote on a possible pit bull ban during their town meeting on Monday, October 19, 2009.
Mashpee bylaw targets pit bull owners
By MATTHEW M. BURKE
mburke@capecodonline.com
October 18, 2009
MASHPEE — Across the country, pit bull bylaws are as controversial as the breed itself. That may be daunting news for Mashpee, where a hotly contested article restricting pit bull ownership is on tomorrow night's town meeting warrant.
The bylaw, modeled after one already in effect in Canton, allows residents only one pit bull or mixed breed dog that shows a majority of pit bull characteristics.
"(The Mashpee proposed bylaw) is completely unconstitutional," said Jennifer Edwards, founder of Colorado's Animal Law Center. "It's a pretty scary law to be put in place. These are parts of people's families, not a chair in someone's living room."
A Colorado man scored a victory in court earlier this year when he challenged a similar ordinance in Denver after an animal control officer decided to impound his mixed breed dog because he determined it to have a majority of pit bull characteristics.
The decision was upheld by city officials after an examination by a second animal control officer and a veterinary technician revealed the dog was not a pit bull and did not have a majority of pit bull characteristics.
In Mashpee, if voters approve the article, pet owners who don't comply with the bylaw will face fines, court action, impounding of their animals, and the possible euthanization of their dogs.
And that's bad news for the town's 45 pit bull dog owners, and for 356 mixed breed owners who would have to prove their dog's lineage through documentation or DNA testing to be exempt.
"I really wish that it was something that would address vicious dogs, because there are vicious dogs of every breed," said Mashpee town clerk Deborah Dami. "Why would you single out three breeds (American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or mixed breed dogs who show a majority of pit bull characteristics)? I have a problem with having to contact 356 (registered mixed breed) dog owners and saying, 'You have to show me paperwork saying your dog isn't a pit bull.' I'd be devastated if I had to get rid of my dog."
Selectmen and the finance committee oppose the article, and say they worry about having to defend such a bylaw if challenged in court.
The bylaw was submitted by a Mashpee couple who had six pit bulls move in next door to their Ashumet Road home and the backyard where their two small children play.
The dog's owner went through a lengthy licensing process and agreed to several town-imposed conditions, but now is in danger of losing all but one of his dogs.
Hard to enforce
Mashpee's proposed bylaw was modeled after one approved by Canton voters in 2007, Canton town clerk Tracy Kenney said.
Canton's bylaw was proposed after residents became fed up with a family's multiple pit bulls constantly getting loose and "terrorizing the neighborhood," Canton animal control officer Paul Bastable added.
The added work created by Canton's bylaw is "a pain in the neck," Kenney said, adding she has spent more time dealing with the 12 pit bull owners in town than the other 1,700 dog owners.
It's been two years since the bylaw passed, and only two of the 12 pit bull owners are in compliance this year. Kenney said only one of the pit bulls has a history of aggressive behavior.
Bastable is working with several of the dog owners to get them to comply. Others simply refuse, he said, even though he has the authority to impound their dogs, he has instead chosen to take the owners to court rather than remove the dogs from their homes.
"It has been difficult (to enforce)," Bastable said.
Legal Issues
The major difference between the two bylaws is that Canton's bylaw requires a $200,000 liability insurance policy, which equates to about $300 per year for pet owners, Bastable said. Mashpee's proposed bylaw requires a $1 million to $2 million policy.
This will put an "excessive" financial strain on pet owners in town, said Gary Bruno, office manager at the Paul Peters Insurance Agency Inc. in Mashpee.
Hopeful pit bull license holders would most likely have two options for obtaining the liability insurance, either obtaining additional coverage under their pre-existing homeowner's insurance policy, or by obtaining a commercial policy. Either option would cost $250 per year at a minimum, and could cost well over $500 per year, Bruno said.
There are legal issues with the wording of Mashpee's proposed bylaw, and in the authority it places in the hands of animal control officers.
Mashpee's animal control officer, Ben Perry, declined to comment for this story and referred all questions to police chief Rodney Collins. If the bylaw is approved, it will be enforced but the department is not taking a position on it, Collins said.
Canton's bylaw has yet to be challenged in court, according to town officials, even though owners have threatened legal action. The bylaw was drafted with the help of Canton's legal counsel and was approved by the state attorney general's office after its passage, Kenney said.
Pit bull ordinances exist worldwide, including in Canada and England, Edwards said. After reading Mashpee's proposed bylaw, she said it gives too much control to people with little expertise. She said that the first section of the bylaw, defining pit bulls as "aggressive," was "fiction at best."
"Any breed specific legislation is, on its face, pretty discriminatory and arbitrary," Edwards said. "It's a people problem, not an animal problem."
Bastable said he likes the Canton bylaw, and even had a chunk of flesh ripped off of his knee while arguing with a pit bull owner over the merits of it.
"At first, I was really a fan of dangerous dog ordinances," Bastable said. "Not every pit bull is bad, and it might not be fair to all pit bulls, but I've been seeing more and more of a need for this type of bylaw because you need to protect the people in town."
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091018/NEWS/910180325/-1/NEWSMAP
