Finally, Some SENSIBLE Proposed Dog Legislation! - Page 1

A bill in the Massachusetts Legislature seeks to amend the Commonwealth's animal control laws. The existing "dangerous dog" law can be found here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-157.htm The proposed changes are here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/185/st00/st00512.htm Of special interest are the following proposed sections: Section 60 (increased sanctions against owners of "dangerous dogs" who fail to comply with orders to restrain their dogs); Section 61 (setting forth limits on what behaviors and acts the authorities can consider in determining a dog to be "dangerous," and also stating that the breed of the dog is not to be considered in any hearing as to whether the dog is "dangerous"); and Section 62 (preventing any municipality from incorporating any breed-specific ordinances if the municipality opts to adopt a more restrictive scheme to regulate "dangerous" dogs). The net effect would be increased accountability for dog owners whose acts or omissions endanger others, while at the same time setting forth reasonable conditions under which a dog can attack to defend others, protect its property or its young. The bill also would increase the licensing fees for un-neutered dogs, but not excessively, and also would increase the minimum fines for unlicensed and loose dogs. I would suggest that this type of legislation should be rammed down the throats of any governmental body considering breed-specific or other types of "dangerous" dog legislation where the proposed legislation contains mass "solutions" that would negatively impact responsible dog owners.

This IS surprising and should be considered by any state.

Surprising because it's coming from the People's Republic of Massachusetts? :) We get a bad rap here for being goofy loony-tunes because of some of the excesses of our more liberal politicians on the national stage in Washington, but the prevailing local legal culture is generally pretty sensible. For example, you don't see Massachusetts juries awarding huge punitive damages verdicts very often - instead, they mostly come out of "conservative" Southern states.

Teddy Kennedy LAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOW, I live in MA and this is probably the first sensible piece of legislation to come out of BOSTON in the last twenty years. This is a State where idiots like Mike Dukakis (former governor and presidential candidate) told us if someone illegally entered your home with a gun, that you were supposed to exit by another means. You must remember his presidential commercial, the one where Mike the 3' tall mental Midget is riding in a tank with a helmut on. Can you picture yourself yelling here doggy doggy I know I spent a lot of money getting you protection trained but there is someone in the house with a gun that wants to harm us and Mikey D. says we have to leave by the back door. LoL

thats wicked awesome

One other thing about MA. About seven years ago my daughter was on the floor horsing around with our GSD (not the one we have now) anyway the dog quickley looked up as she quickley moved her head down. One of the dogs large bottom teeth hit her between the eye and the eyebrow. She bleed like a stuff pig. She was laughing and told me they were goofing around and bumped heads. I took her to the hospital for stitches. While giving my medical coverage information I was asked how she got cut. I explained that her and the dog were playing and bumped heads. I was immediately asked what breed of dog ""BIT HER"". To make a long story short I and my daughter argued for close to an hour with several people and we both refused to say what kind of dog it was. They wanted to pin a GSD with biting my daughter. Anyway I finally got a supervisor who somewhat reluctantly agreed with us and classified it as an accident. My point is this would have been a false report towards labeling the GSD as a dangerous breed.