comments

City dog laws protect us all

Reader Input
-A +A
I disagree with Ms. Dawn Capp’s view (Reader Input, Jan. 28) that I have a “Big Brother mentality” when it comes to crafting a city ordinance that will help protect Auburn residents against pitbull dogs that have been either abused or trained in the attack mode by their irresponsible owners. Last September, when four pitbulls viciously attacked and nearly mauled to death an innocent 17-year-old who was walking in the Big O Tire parking lot, the judge noted, in his decision to order the four dogs to be euthanized, that the owner’s inadequate fencing allowed the dogs to escape while he was away. If a parolee moves into Auburn with his pitbull, should the city care if there is adequate fencing for the dog? Yes, we should care. I’ve studied quite a few other city ordinances related to animal regulations, and all of them require that dog owners maintain adequate fencing and enclosures for their dogs. Auburn’s old ordinance doesn’t meet the needs of today’s dog owners and residents. As I said at Monday night’s council session, the vast majority of dog owners in Auburn are very responsible with their pets. The city should not place additional burdens on them. I would never support “Big Brother” measures that harass people who have done nothing wrong. I’m not going to ignore the public safety problem either. There is a sensible middle ground that will benefit residents, dog owners and their dogs. Kevin Hanley, Auburn city councilman