The dangerous dog ordinance: confusing folks since 2010

Posted by Jeremy Shulkin

Last September the city council passed Worcester’s “Responsible Pit Bull Ordinance,” a piece of legislation that increased fees for owning pit bulls and forces owners to alert the public that they’re walking around with or have pit bulls/dangerous dogs.

As we’ve reported before,the applications have been sent out and the ordinance goes into effect on April 1 but there’s still confusion surrounding what’s exactly in it.

First of all, there hasn’t yet been any establishment of, or plans to establish, any ad-hoc group or subcommittee to look at providing exemptions to the ordinance for pit bulls that show good temperament, an idea that was provided to the City Manager’s office as the ordinance was voted in last September.

The latest question regarded the increased fees for owning a pit bull — two weeks ago Billy Eddy (with agreement from the rest of the council) brought up that maybe owners of pit bulls working as service dogs weren’t exempted from the fee increase (an additional $50 annually). In response the council unanimously expressed that this should be amended.

In a legal brief from City Solicitor David Moore to the city council, however, he says they’ve already got it:

Such an ordinance amendment is not necessary because section (j) of the ordinance was amended prior to final adoption to include the following exemption:

No dog that is trained and relied upon as a service dog or assistance dog by a person with a disability shall be subject to 12A, nor shall a dog which has successfully completed a dog or canine training program from a facility or instructor possessing a nationally accredited certification in dog training unless otherwise deemed a dangerous dog under section 12 of this chapter.

It looks like any service pit bull is exempt from all aspects of the ordinance, as do pit bulls with training certifications. But this still doesn’t incorporate City Councilor Kate Toomey’s idea to have a local body create guidelines for dogs that show “good temperament” but haven’t been through formal training. It’s close to what Toomey proposed, but not there yet. Those of you with very friendly pit bulls but without the accreditation papers to vouch for them, you’re still on the hook.



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “The dangerous dog ordinance: confusing folks since 2010

  1. -Q

    D5 CouncilorBill Eddy trying to deflect from his vote on increasing the homeowners property tax rate in our District 5 to the highest proportion paid out of every other council district is shameful and understandable why Eddy is trying to change the subject.
    Sorry Billy, you are going to have to answer why you were the only District City Councilor to throw the very people you purport to represent under the city’s tax bus…………Billy remember when you stood up on the Council floor last year and claimed the kids in the Beaver Brook and Piedmont/Chandler streets neighborhoods did not need a pool but you voted for a pool ($2m) miles away from the very kids and families YOU are supposed to support and represent.
    If you show up to opening day at TWLL this year, I will personally make sure that the families and kids are well aware of your lack of support for our children and families. Your actions certainly speak volumns!

  2. Ceasar Milan

    Bill Eddy has asked me to train his pit bull, which by the way, is registered in Barnstable in order to avoid Worcesters dangerous dog ordinance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s