Hey, there! Log in / Register
A ticket for walking her dog
By adamg on Sat, 04/17/2010 - 6:51pm
The outlaw Joyce Linehan reports she got a ticket (which refers to her as "suspect") today for walking her "pit bull" (who in fact is not a pit bull) without a muzzle through Ashmont. Linehan vows now to give in to Boston's pit-bull muzzle law:
... So, we will be driving to Milton or Quincy twice a day now to walk. And if you asked me right this minute, I'd say we might also start looking for a house outside of the city limits. How messed up would that be? I'm not making him wear a muzzle.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
UH
How unfortunate for the owner and her dog.
I'm sure Milton will be
I'm sure Milton will be thrilled.
Milton SHOULD be thrilled.
Milton SHOULD be thrilled. Any responsible citizen, like me, out walking a dog, is a great deterrent to unwanted activity. And Milton's animal control people are much more reasonable than Boston's in my experience.
my idea of unwanted activity
my idea of unwanted activity is your dog's shit and piss all over everything.
That's not really fair.
Most dog owners pick up after their dogs, it's just those that don't that ruin it for the rest of them (I am not a dog owner). And I know that it's probably a bit much for most control freaks to grasp, but dog pee will be gone with the next rain, and if it doesn't rain for a while, just learn to deal with it. You probably won't even know it's there after it dries.
Dog urine causes dead patches
Dog urine causes dead patches and lawn burn due to the high levels of nitrogen that is released into the lawn through the urine.
True
That's true, but I don't let my dog pee on other peoples' lawns, and as far as I've seen it does no lasting harm to curbstones and gutters.
You might want to think a minute.
How would you feel if a neighbor let his/her dog piss or crap all over your lawn? Just because most people pick up after their dogs and keep them under control in that respect doesn't mean that the few who don't should get off the hook.
As A pitbull owner, I must
As A pitbull owner, I must say that they are a highly stereotyped and misjudged breed. My dog has the most calm, friendly demeanor and has never, ever been violent towards a person or another dog. In fact, he is so docile that he didn't even fight back when he was bit by a tiny puffball terrier at the dog park. This is why I refuse to muzzle my dog and ultimately moved out of Boston. I urge all other dog owners who muzzle their dogs in the city to move out and stop doing it- it's cruel and unnecessary. There are plenty of loud and obnoxious people and children that I walk by in the city everyday that I'd like to muzzle, but I can't and I deal with it.
As for the grass argument- get over it. You live in a CITY. If you are so concerned with the grass that surrounds you, move to the suburbs and get yourself a nice fenced in lawn that no one can touch (until the raccoons and skunks start peeing on it, which I'm sure you'll blame on your poor neighbor's dog). Big cities are generally dirty and pretty smelly. It's not because of dog pee. I've seen just as many homeless people and drunk meatheads pee all over the streets of Boston as I have dogs- and that really isn't an exaggeration.
People have dogs as pets because they are loving, affectionate, loyal animals that bring joy to their owners' lives. People who don't like dogs are just miserable people.
I'm confused. In the same
I'm confused. In the same breath, you claim to have moved out of the city because you refused to muzzle your dog and then suggest someone else "get over" the grass issue? What planet is this? Not all people are perfect, and not all dogs are friendly. Many people have scars that bear the story of a dog with the "most calm, friendly demeanor" who "has never, ever been violent towards a person" until that one time...
Agreed
Well said. My dog has dominant and enthusiastic tendencies, but I want all my neighbors to know that I AM IN CONTROL OF MY DOG. I am a responsible adult, and I deserve to be treated like one until I give someone a reason to think otherwise.
Most owners DON'T pickup
From my experience I'd have to question the claim that most owners clean up after their dogs.
I'd also question the big problem with muzzling a dog that is still out for a walk and getting fresh air.
Bet he's still happy as a clam and all the taxpaying, top of the food chain HUMANS are happy too.
It's not all about your dog.
BTW, I'm not so anti-dog to be against them urinating but some streets in the south End stink to high heaven from dog urine.
It's nasty.
well, Milton doesn't have a
well, Milton doesn't have a moronic dog ordinance, so I'm sure they won't care.
Boston Animal Control
Is not very smart about the animals they are expected to control. I had an unpleasant run in with one officer who was positive my keeshound was a wolf. I admit he looks a tiny bit like a wolf, if it's dark out and your a moron.
That would be the New Jersey state trooper who pulled his gun on him.
Sadly because of a few people who should not even own stuffed dogs, an entire breed is being punished.
Linehan vows now[not] to give
Linehan vows
now[not] to give in to Boston's pit-bull muzzle lawInspectional Services judgment / ticketing policy
Let's face-it Inspectional Services personnel and Animal Control personnel cannot be trusted to show good judgment in when to ticket and when not to ticket. You can bet that Menino has them out giving tickets hand over fist to generate revenue. He doesn't care if it's warranted or not. He doesn't mind people are forced to cough up real dough for specious warrants. He doesn't mind wasting the time and creating inconvenience for city residents. He doesn't care if the City of Boston becomes a less desirable place to live as long as Menino and his friends are harassed by these departments.
I got a ticket from Inspectional Services a few months ago for NOT shoveling my walk (after a 2" snow "storm") when I DID shovel my walk. Thank goodness my city councilor's aide knew somebody and believed me or I could have wanted more time than writing a letter of explanation, I could have spent hours in a hearing. What's the expression? Harassment by color of law?
For the record, I am not
For the record, I am not disputing that I was in violation of the existing law. I just think the law is completely unfair and ineffective. I will pay my fine and cross the city line now.
Actually, now is correct. I
Actually, now is correct. I give. I will be crossing the city limits to walk the dog, which I refuse to muzzle. That way, I will not be in violation of Boston's asinine ordinance.
Appeal to animal control
If she claims that her dog is not a pit bull, then she should appeal directly to Boston's animal control.
The city knew about the issue of how "pit bull" is not a well-defined breed, so they set it up to give the guy in animal control the ultimate say over determining whether or not a given dog is a pit bull.
So appeal to him, let him see the sickly dog, and I bet she'll get a ruling in her favor that it's not a pit bull.
It's the law!
Whether you agree with it or you don't, it's the law. If you violate that law you risk a citation. I hear all the stories about 'responsible' dog owners and their dogs being friendly. These laws wouldn't be necessary if people were responsible. Obey the law, it's that simple.
RTFA
If you RTFA, you'll see that the dog isn't a pit bull based on the DNA test she had done on him. Also, the law doesn't specify what a pit bull is. Is it based on DNA, the officer deciding it's a pit bull, or what?
(Also, why oh why did they fine someone for walking a trained dog on leash, but I couldn't ever get anyone to come when a neighbor of mine would let a pit bull run around the neighborhood unmuzzled and loose?)
Should be easy to fight the ticket
The ticket states she was walking a "pit bull dod." From the pics on her blog, this little guy is clearly not a dod! All she has to do is show up in court and make the officer prove that she had a dod in her possession.
Some people ARE sensible and responsible.
There's a guy in our building who owns a rather tough-looking, but friendly dog that, upon being asked, said that his dog was a combo of a pit-bull and a black lab. Although the dog is friendly, its owner keeps it on a leash, with a face muzzle strap so that the dog can't bite. As long as people act responsibly enough to keep their dogs, no matter what breed(s) they are, it doesn't matter to me.
Regarding the muzzling law in Boston; I agree with the poster who said that the law is necessary because not everybody's responsible. There's another guy in our building who has a regular pitbull, who keeps the dog on a leash, and a vinyl cone collar around the dog so that the dog can't bite. Again, as long as people display good, responsible sense, I don't care what kind of dog they keep.
The time to argue was when Charlie was licensed, not ticketed
Whether you think breed-specific legislation is a good or bad thing, if I read Joyce's comments correctly, Charlie had already been licensed by the city as a pit bull (she pays the $50 licensing fee not the regular $6 for any other dog breed). And so the time to argue about a violation is not after the ticket has been issued, but when the dog is licensed by the city. If a legitimate case can be made that Charlie is not a pit bull, as Joyce suggests she can with actual evidence, then why not do it and thereby eliminate any future problem? Bottom-line on the ticket: I'm afraid Joyce gave up her right to dispute it by registering/licensing the dog as a pit bull. People may opine differently about the effectiveness of a breed-specific muzzle ordinance, but no one can really dispute that it's a law and that it applies specifically to Charlie.
As a former dog owner (tragically lost my 17 month old pup to rare lymphoma)I see evidence of a lot of irresponsible dog owners in my part of the city (South End). But most dog owners I know get downright furious when they see another dog owner failing to be responsible, and are really the best check on that irresponsibility. My favorite story: a young 20 something, dressed to the nines--including stiletto-like heels--was observed letting her dog take care of business on the lawn of a local park while she stood, leash extended on the pavement. When she turned to walk away without picking up, two other dog owners rushed up to her to demand that she pick up. In her best valley-girl voice, she complained that she had no baggies. To which one of her accusers said: "Then use your teeth."
She was never seen again.
You are correct. As I have
You are correct. As I have said repeatedly, I was in violation of Boston's ordinance. I don't dispute that in any way and will pay the citation. I will continue to fight the ordinance though, as it is completely unfair and ineffective.
Charlie's DNA shows that his primarily breeds are Dalmatian/Corgi. It also shows what they say are "distant traces" of Belgian Sheep Dog, Bull Terrier (not considered pit bull in Boston) and American Staffordshire Terrier (pit bull). He absolutely LOOKS like a pit bull mix.
Charlie was identified as pit mix by the MSPCA, from where he was adopted, prior to passage of the Consalvo/Kelly ordinance. When I got the DNA test a couple of years later, reasoning that if he had been DNA tested prior to adoption, he would have been listed as Dalmation/cross on the adoption papers, I attempted to re-register. Unfortunately, probably because I'd been pretty outspoken in fighting the law, they saw me coming a mile away, and I was denied. The next year, having had all of his papers at the vet changed, I registered him as Dalmatian cross, and got a $6 license. The following year, I sent in his papers, and they were sent back, with a nasty note saying I had to register him as a put bull.
However, none of this actually matters, because the ordinance says that any dog that displays the physical characteristics of a pit bull (4 legs? a tail? not specified), in the opinion of the police (breed experts that they are) and animal control, is in fact, a pit bull. So Charlie doesn't stand a chance. Also, standing there with some guy who has the power to take your dog from you, you just don't argue. You act contrite and pray you'll get away with the dog.
As for muzzling him - not gonna happen. He's exhibited no behavior to warrant muzzling. He has three chronic diseases - symmetrical lupoid onochodystophy, hypothyroidism and pancreatitis. He eats prescription foods and takes a ton of medication. He's been through enough. We'll just leave the city.
But more important than all of that is the fact that I am a responsible owner, and the dog is leashed and in my control at all times when we're out. All I am asking is that I be subject to exactly the same rules and regulations as any other dog owner- no more, and no less. At the moment, this is not the case.
Twice ticketed...
... and I still won't muzzle my dogs. Muzzling a pit bull just reinforces the stigma that they are out of control, aggressive breeds, when they are anything but with proper training from a caring, responsible owner - as is the case with any other breed of dog. I will not respect nor obey this ordinance until it is fair and requires all dogs to be muzzled and leashed.
Unfortunately, this law
Unfortunately, this law exists because people are irresponsible with their pit bull-esque dogs. What on earth makes anyone think that irresponsible pit bull owners are going to follow this ordinance [if they can't be bothered to leash or control their dogs]?