A bill chock full of controversy has been reported out of the Joint  Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government of the Massachusetts General Court or legislature. H.B. 5092 would:

(1) allow local governments to regulate or ban particular breeds of dogs, and if they do so, the local governments must set up a 3 member board consisting of 2 members of the public and animal control, apparently to implement and administer the law.

(2) ban tethering or chaining of dogs for more than 3 hours a day with a possible fine of $250-$1000 but seems to exempt those dogs tied to a "running line, pulley, or trolley system" or in camping or other recreational areas.

(3) mandate spay/neuter for all dogs over 12 months of age with a possible fine of $250-$1000 except in cases where the owner has an intact permit for breeding, assistance, service and competition dogs or where a veterinarian has issued a certificate stating the dog's health would be jeopardized by a spay/neuter procedure.  Dogs over 6 months must be licensed; owners of dogs will not be issued a license without proof of spay/neuter unless exempt.

(4) allow only member of "pure bred dog clubs" to obtain intact permits for a fee of up to $500 and who must follow a "a code of ethics for breeding that includes restrictions on breeding of dog with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that are common to a breed". The new law purports to restrict breeding to once a  year but allows both the state and local government to increase that number. So not much of a restriction on breeding though there are some protections for the dogs: they can only be sold at 8 weeks of age or older, provide the intact permit number and all information to purchasers about the dog's health, vaccination history, registration and spay/neuter requirements; and advise local officials of the purchaser's identity and contact information. No requirements for inspections or providing particular care and treatment, but local governments can set further restrictions.

(5) defines as "dangerous" basically any dog that bites a human or another domestic animal unless it was defending itself or a person in the vicinity, reacting to teasing, tormenting, abuse or assault; the victim was trespassing or committing another crime, or the dog was involved in hunting, herding or predator control.  Animal control makes the determination of whether the dog should be declared "dangerous" and any disposition including a warning, fine, spay/neuter or impoundment and destruction though there is an appeals process. If an owner loses appeal of a decision to impound, he can be ordered to pay the full cost of care of the dog during the process.

(6) imposes increasing fines and even jail time on owners whose dogs are declared nuisances for running at large, barking incessantly for more than ½ hour or at night "so as to disturb the peace and quiet", and digging, scratch or defecating on someone else's property. Unfortunately, the law gives unfettered discretion to animal control to banish or order destruction of the dogs as well and really fails to provide ways to improve owner responsibility through dog training and owner responsibility classes. 

The for profit breeders and dog fighters don't like this bill so that's a good sign. Anything that makes it harder for them to operate, even if it increases administrative and enforcement costs for animal control, is all to the good. But this bill also penalizes responsible owners and friendly, family pets with potential breed bans or regulation and will impose a burden on the poor and already financially burdened with spay/neuter requirements, making it difficult for many to keep their dogs. The bill will also increase animal control enforcement costs, particularly with breed bans or regulation, mandatory spay/neuter and a broad "dangerous" dog law that will result in unnecessary surrenders or impoundment of dogs with little done to improve owner responsibility.   

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Read the entire bill. 

Write or call House members and tell them:

Drop the provision that allows local governments to regulate or ban certain breeds of dogs.

Provide free or low cost spay/neuter.

The dangerous dog provisions give too much discretion to local animal control to impound and destroy dogs for only one bite that may not have caused serious injury and does nothing to encourage responsible dog ownership. Adopt a potentially dangerous dog law that helps identify situations that may cause injury to someone or another animal and requires owners to learn to manage, care for and train their dogs properly before an injury or death occurs.  

Pass the nuisance provisions with more emphasis on increasing owner responsibility through fines and dog training and owner responsiblity classes and less on banishing or destroying the dogs.  

Pass the anti-tethering provision.