Proposed new animal regulations for Charles County include stricter controls on pit bulls, bulldogs and other “pit bull terrier-type” breeds, deeming them “potentially dangerous,” a label previously reserved for animals that had attacked or threatened a person or animal.
The proposed change aims at reducing the general public’s contact with these dogs, according to a presentation compiled by county staff members.
The impetus behind considering the new rules was a fatal mauling of a housecat by two at-large pit bulls, Chief of Animal Control Services Ed Tucker told the Charles County commissioners Tuesday.
The rules, backed by hefty fines for violations, would apply to the American pit bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American Staffordshire bull terrier and American bulldog as well as “dogs which have the appearance of being predominantly of the breeds of dog listed above,” including any dog listed as one of these breeds on any kind of official paperwork.
As potentially dangerous animals under the law, owners of pit bull-type dogs would have to have the dogs microchipped and report the microchip number to Charles County Animal Control.
Also, any owner who keeps or lets the dog outside would have to fence off all or part of his yard, then create a smaller, locked and secure enclosure for the dog that does not touch the outer fence. If outside the secure kennel, the owner would have to leash and accompany the dog, even inside the outer fence.
The owner also would have to hang a prominent sign warning “dangerous dog” at every entrance to the area and notify animal control if the dog runs at large.
Violations of rules governing potentially dangerous animals would carry fines ranging from $50 to $500, while flouting rules for pit bull-type dogs would carry the risk of an additional fine of between $200 and $1,000, to be determined by the Animal Matters Hearing Board.
The proposal has been discussed on websites dedicated to pit bulls, including GoPitBull.com, where someone identifying herself as an Austin, Texas, woman posted the names and email addresses of the county commissioners and urged readers on Monday to “voice your polite, respectful and informative opposition to breed specific legislation.”
Charles County showed up on at least two similar message boards as well.
Commissioner Ken Robinson (D) said he has received “hundreds” of emails on the subject, most apparently sent by nonresidents.
After Tucker’s presentation, commissioners’ President Candice Quinn Kelly (D) said the board needed time to consider the changes and that another work session would be held in September.
Opposition
Dozens of local residents turned out for the commissioners’ Tuesday work session to oppose the proposal.
Rachel Richards of Lexington Park showed up with one of her five pit bulls, Kari, in tow. She said she feared that if other jurisdictions start restricting the dogs, St. Mary’s County could be next.
Kari, a brown and white female wearing a bandana printed with the words “good dog,” lolled quietly at Richards’ feet or nuzzled her leg during the meeting. The 2-year-old was allowed in because she is a service dog providing psychological support, Richards said.
Richards compared rules targeting pit bulls to racial discrimination.
“It’s just like saying, ‘You’re black, you can’t come in.’ It’s discrimination. Obviously she’s not aggressive,” Richards said of Kari.
Tom Miles of Waldorf agreed.
“It’s a form of profiling. We don’t do that with two-legged people, do we?” he said.
Dogs might instinctively attack babies if their cries sound like those of a wounded animal, and no dog should be left unattended with children, Richards said.
“Every dog has the potential to be dangerous or vicious,” Miles said.
“All dogs can bite,” Richards agreed.
Jessie Rice, a dog trainer from Waldorf, said restrictions are unfair to well-behaved dogs and their owners, and ineffective anyway. She cited her experiences working in Prince George’s County, which has banned the dogs outright.
“To me, the fact is Prince George’s County tried banning pit bulls and they switched to bigger and more dangerous dogs,” like mastiffs, Rice said of people who wanted to own aggressive dogs. Others, in her experience, keep pit bulls anyway, and replace them if authorities confiscate them.
These objectors are joined by the Charles County Humane Society, said Director Anita Marsh. The group has given animal control and the commissioner a statement that “Our stand is … that the Humane Society of Charles County does not support the singling out of any breed for special or unique treatment for any reason. Suitable safety measures must be taken for the handling of individual dogs that have been shown to be dangerous.”
The society opposes other proposed changes also, but will not release a statement until it has reviewed the entire document, Marsh said.
Tucker presented statistics about county “exposures” involving pit bulls, meaning any reported animal aggression involving a bite or scratch of any degree of severity to a person or another animal. The proportion of exposures involving pit bull-type dogs is creeping upwards, from 14 percent in 2008 to 19 percent so far this year. By comparison, “lab-type” exposures have dropped from 11 to 9 percent and “shepherd-type” from 8 to 6 percent.
“What the issue is is the irresponsible pet owners that keep their animals in such a fashion that they get at large and they become public safety problems or a public nuisance. We want to keep these animals from becoming at-large” with the new confinement requirements, Tucker said.
A study on the website of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta examined reports of dog bites involving human deaths between 1979 and 1998 and found that the greatest number, 238 of 492, almost half, were attributed to dogs of unknown breed. However, “pit bull-type” purebred or mixed breed dogs were involved in 76 of 254, or 30 percent, of fatal attacks by dogs of known pedigree, more than any other dog type.
But an accompanying fact sheet warned that the statistics were not to be used to draft policy, and that any dog could bite.
Local opposition is matched by the policies of national animal organizations.
“Breed-specific legislation” is “akin to racial profiling” for dogs, said Lisa Peterson, communications director for the American Kennel Club. Instead, counties should impose and enforce laws that affect all breeds equally, she said, because “no breed is inherently dangerous.”
Adam Goldfarb of the Humane Society of the United States reacted similarly, saying it seems to be the pit bull’s turn to be demonized as a breed.
“When you go back through the decades, there’s always one or a couple of dog breeds that are, quote, dangerous dogs for that period of time. In the ’60s and ’70s, Dobermans and German shepherds were the ones. What’s really neat is if you go back to the 1800s, you see bloodhounds and Newfoundlands [being feared], dogs we would never think of as being dangerous dogs. It’s trendy and I think eventually pit bulls will go out of style and something new will come in,” said Goldfarb, who directs the charity’s Pets at Risk program.
Other changes
The treatment of outdoor animals in general would be regulated more tightly, with new requirements for space, shelter and shade, a restriction limiting outdoor tethering to four hours at a time, and a prohibition on tethering with a collar or harness primarily made of metal.
“Tethered dogs are an interesting subject,” Tucker said. “When an animal is tethered, you’re taking away their ability for the fight-or-flight instinct. They have no way to run away so they’re more likely to be aggressive.”
The proposal also would maintain a “dangerous animal” designation imposed by another jurisdiction if the animal moved to Charles County, prompting a murmur of disapproval from the audience.
“There was a reason whatever board determined the animal to be dangerous or vicious. We should go with that,” Tucker said.
Lying to an animal control officer or hiding an animal under investigation from the authorities would become offenses, while increases to a raft of animal-related fees is also suggested, including raising the fine for interfering with an animal control officer from $50 to $250 and the maximum fine for animal cruelty from $500 to $1,000.
It also would introduce what Tucker deemed an anti-hoarding measure, an annual license for an “animal fancier,” defined as someone who keeps at least 10 animals in a location for purposes other than breeding, boarding or livestock husbandry. An annual inspection would be required.
The license would cost between $62.50 to $212.50 for neutered and $250 to $850 for unneutered animals, depending on the number. Failure to obtain a license would carry a $150 fine.
Four Maryland counties Baltimore, Prince George’s, Washington and Carroll already have fancier license requirements, the presentation states.
The proposal also raises the price of a dog license and introduces licensing requirements for cats, following the lead of 10 other Maryland counties that require owners to register their felines. Staff proposes raising the cost of a license from $2 to $5 for sterilized and from $15 to $25 for unsterilized dogs and cats. The other counties’ fees range from free to $12 for neutered cats and from free to $25 for unneutered.
The licensing, which comes with microchipping, will help reunite lost cats with owners, Tucker said.
“The community at large often thinks you let the cat out, it goes away for a day or two days and then comes back. And sometimes it does, but sometimes it’s sitting at the shelter wondering where its owner is. … Even if they come to us four or five days later, that animal often is no longer with us,” having been adopted out or put down, Tucker said.
Other revisions would ban the sale or possession exotic animals including poisonous snakes, monkeys and apes, wolves and wolf-dog hybrids, wildcats weighing more than 30 pounds, and wild animals including skunks, raccoons and bears, bringing county regulations in line with state law, the presentation states.
emitrano@somdnews.com
