VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123[4] ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:40:05 03/03/02 Sun
Author: Sue
Subject: Cranston, Rhode Island

Pit-bull proposal draws growls at hearing

BY MARK ARSENAULT
Journal Staff Writer



CRANSTON -- In his 30 years as a letter carrier, Kenneth Taylor has been attacked six times by dogs -- none of them a pit bull, he says.

He has two pit bulls -- gentle animals, he says, which his grandchildren like to play with. "Pit bulls don't even make good guard dogs because they love people," he says.

Taylor was among more than a dozen people who came before the City Council last night to oppose an ordinance that would require owners of pit bulls and certain other breeds to obtain liability insurance on their pets.

Under the proposal, sponsored by council President Joseph DeLorenzo Jr., owners of "any American pit bull dog, pit bull terrier dog or Staffordshire terrier dog" would have to provide proof of liability coverage of "not less than $25,000."

Last night's council meeting went late into the night. DeLorenzo said in a brief interview during the meeting that, after listening to the opponents, he decided to send the ordinance back to committee to be reworked.

"The people here will be asked to make their point in committee," DeLorenzo said. "But there will be people there who have [an] opposite point of view."

DeLorenzo maintained his position that pit bulls are vicious, an assertion that brought catcalls from the audience last night.

Opponents of the proposal argued that "breed-specific" dog legislation punishes responsible dog owners who raise well-adjusted pets. Those who keep vicious animals are likely to ignore the requirements of any new law, they said.

Opponents also doubted that the ordinance could be enforced, and suggested it would encourage people who cannot get insurance on their dogs to keep them hidden.

Some also questioned the need for the proposed law.

"The council has given no statistics warranting this ordinance," said Peter Carnevale, a long-time pit bull owner. "I haven't heard of a constituency clamoring for this ordinance. I'd like to hear that constituency. Why aren't they here tonight?"

Under DeLorenzo's ordinance, the owner of a dog that has been determined to be dangerous would be subject to a range of requirements. The owner would have to obtain $100,000 in liability insurance, have the dog's license number tattooed on its upper lip, maintain a fenced enclosure for the animal and post prominent signs on the property warning that there is vicious dog there. Also, the owner would have to notify the city within 24 hours if the dog got loose.

Failure to comply with any of those requirements could mean impoundment of the animal by the police. If a dog already deemed to be vicious actually attacks a person or another animal, it could be destroyed.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.