OPINION: Kinnon Advocates For Muzzle Law
"If there were as many pit bulls in Malden as people, and bite incidents were classified as aggravated assaults, the average rate of aggravated assault by pit-bulls in the last three years would have been over 1,500 per year."
The following was submitted by councilor Neil Kinnon:
Dear Editor Malden Patch and Malden’s Citizens:
This past week the City Council passed a Pit-bull Ordinance which will take effect on May 1, 2012 (provided the Mayor signs it).
It will exempt current pit-bulls which are licensed by that time with some reasonable stipulations. Hopefully this letter might clarify what is in the Pit-bull Ordinance, the reasons for it and why some of the information opponents are spinning is simply misinformation or untrue.
1. There are currently 1,150 dogs licensed in the city of Malden including approximately 77 pit-bulls or 6.7% of the registered dogs. It is estimated that there are 3 times as many actual total dogs living in Malden. The city has no ability to economically fund 100% enforcement of licensing for this many actual dogs.
2. According to Animal Control fifty-seven dog bites were recorded from 2009-2011. Eighteen of the bites were committed by pit bulls. The next closest breeds, that bit, were German Shepherds, Bull Mastiffs and Dobermans which recorded only two bites each. The data broken down in its simplest terms means pit-bulls account for approximately 6.7% of our registered dogs and committed 31.6% of the dog bites.
3. Of the pit-bulls that were involved in incidents all were put down or removed from the city of Malden either by order or voluntarily before the order came. The reason is simple; the severity of the bites by pitbulls warranted euthanasia or removal.
This did not hold true with most of the other dog bites in Malden and is typical of National Averages where 60% of the attacks on humans that are fatal or disfiguring are committed by pitbulls and their close mixes. This when they make up only 5% of the dog population. (Animal People 12.26.2011)
4. The ordinance requires pit-bulls to be spayed or neutered in order to get an exemption from the muzzling law. The advocates who spoke to the Council also advocate spaying and neutering of pit-bulls as part of any plan.
5. The ordinance the Council passed requires a fence if one wishes to let their dog out in the yard without a muzzle. PittBullLovers.com states for those looking to own a pit-bull “you should have a six foot privacy fence, beware of dog signs, hot wiring at the top and bottom of the fence, out of door housing that keeps them out of the sun (even if they live indoors) …” Given the severity of pit-bull attacks the requirement seems reasonable.
6. The ordinance passed by the City Council will guarantee high license compliance for pit-bulls, which all advocates say is needed, as it exempts, from the muzzle ordinance, all current pit-bull owners who reside in Malden as long as they come in to register for a license and provide the proper spay and neutering documentation.
If one lives in an apartment a letter from the landlord providing their approval that the dog is on their property is also required. The reason for the latter is for insurance purposes. This ordinance will incent current owners to license and cost the taxpayer nothing.
7. The pit-bull advocates continue to claim that BSL (breed specific legislation) does not work and yet over 600 communities in America have adopted it. The Marine Corps and the Army have gone so far as to adopt total bans of pit-bulls and their close relatives on all their bases in the last few years. If there are fewer pit-bulls there will be fewer bites even the Doctor from Tufts advocating on behalf of the pit-bulls conceded on this.
8. The new ordinance defines the breed as “shall mean any pit bull, Amercian Staffordshire, Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier or mix of the aforementioned breeds.“ The Doctor promoting non BSL from Tufts, a Cambridge resident, who testified before the City Council stated the claim that you could not identify pit bulls based upon her study. She stated that her study testing DNA showed that these dogs were not pure bread Staffordshire Terriers and some did not have Staffordshire Terrier at all.
When the Doctor was asked how many dogs were in her study and how many had some American Staffordshire, her answer was her study included ten dogs and she didn’t know how many included some American Staffordshire. Her evidence lacked credibility, as no scientist would ever claim a sample size of ten was a real study and after stating that DNA didn’t contain Staffordshire in many instances, she didn’t know how many contained some Staffordshire in the sample.
9. The pit-bull advocates continue to state it will be impossible to enforce a muzzle law and that we should instead focus on licensing and strong leash law enforcement of all dogs. One can only conclude from all actual evidence that it would be just as easy for an animal control officer or other law enforcement officer to enforce a muzzle law as it is to enforce a leash law.
Is it harder for a dog officer to see if a dog is on a four foot leash or muzzle? A reasonable person can also only conclude that a dog is far less likely to bite if it had a muzzle on as well.
10. The angle some are now trying to spin is that none of these bites was by a dog on a leash and thus according to their reasoning if this ordinance had been in place it would not have prevented bites. First there is no proof that these dogs did not escape from a leash as no dog officer was there when the incident actually occurred. However if the dogs had been in a fenced in yard it is quite possible this would not have happened.
Also many of these dogs may not have been in the city at all, since more than half were renters in non owner occupied properties, with unregistered dogs, who may very well not have ever received the owner’s permission to be there and quite possibly would have been removed prior. The ordinance as written will almost guarantee that the city will have far fewer pit bulls in the future and thus by sheer law of averages there will and there would have been, fewer bites. Again the good Doctor who testified readily conceded that if there were fewer pit-bulls there indeed would be fewer bites.
So in closing, to illustrate how dangerous pit-bulls are: if there were as many pit bulls in Malden as people, and bite incidents were classified as aggravated assaults, the average rate of aggravated assault by pit-bulls in the last three years would have been over 1,500 per year. If one calculated the same math on all other dogs, during that span, the average aggravated assault level each year would have been approximately 220.
| Pitbull Aggravated Assault Equivalent Analysis | |||||
| Aggravated Assaults | Aggravated Assaults | Aggravated Assaults | |||
| Pitbulls | Other Dogs | People | |||
| 2009 | 6 | 13 | 186 | * | |
| 2010 | 6 | 13 | 184 | * | |
| 2011 | 6 | 13 | 137 | * | |
| Total over three years actuals * | 18 | 39 | 507 | ||
| Avg Aggregated Assaults/Year (3 years) | 6 | 13 | 169 | ||
| Population Registered | 77 | 1073 | 60000 | ||
| Population unregistered (Rx2) | 154 | 2146 | |||
| (provide by Animal Control and Experts) | |||||
| Total Population | 231 | 3219 | 60000 | ||
| Aggravated Assaults as % of specific Pop./year | 2.60% | 0.40% | 0.28% | ||
| How many assaults if everyone had a pit/year | 1,558 | 242 | 169 |
In the last three years the actual average number of aggravated assaults in Malden, by humans, has been 169. Therefore pit bulls per capita commit almost 10 times the aggravated assaults as do humans. The person who discriminates when seeing a pit-bull walking down the street does not do so out of an irrational fear but does so because they are 10 times as likely to be attacked by the pit-bull.
The pit-bull ordinance the City Council passed was done in a reasoned manner, accounting for current owners who do the right thing, yet weighing the safety of all our citizens first. It clearly is meant to lower the numbers of pit bulls over time by a significant amount and thus lower the great chance that more people and other animals will be disfigured, maimed or killed by these dogs. “Show me a neighborhood with a high concentration of pit bulls and I will show you a neighborhood that most people do not want to live in.”
Neil Kinnon
Ward Six City Councillor
Jenn
9:07 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
First off, BSL doesn't work and there are a list of city's that voted for it and then repealed it. Mr. Kinnon, it is obvious that you have a personal problem with this breed in particular. From all of the statements made by you at the council meetings, it seems evident that you are desperate to get this ordinance passed without actually listening and caring about what the rest of the citizens in Malden have to say. Hate to tell you that Ward 6 people are not any more important than the rest of the wards. Councilor Anderson noted that he is concerned about "Intimidating people with these dogs", If people want to try to intimidate, they don't need a dog to do so. Mr. Kinnon is doing his best to try and intimidate the people that are opposed to this ordinance... keep trying because it's not going to work. Facts are facts BSL is costly and ineffective. The speakers from ARL and MSPCA offered to help monetarily to get spaying and neutering assistance (which if you do your research you will see that it is effective), foolishly you refused to see and accept it.
They are professionals and yet you talked down to them like they were beneath you. Who wants a ward rep that has no respect for people that don't have the same opinions on this ordinance as he does. Respect goes a long way, and it is obvious that Mr. Kinnon has NONE for anyone that disagrees with him.
DannyBoy
4:23 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
I'm not surprised that Neal Anderson voted for this ordinance, he's another incumbent who's been on the council for too long, and has no clue whatsoever on this particular matter. I just wish there is someone capable from my ward that will run against him in the next round of elections. IMO, it's high time for Anderson to step down and retire!
david mokal
10:56 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
Hi Jenn tell us about it when you get a pitbull's teeth wrapped around your ankle.
Jenn
9:07 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
And by the way, Dr Amy Marder is the Director of the Center for Shelter dogs at the Animal Rescue League of Boston....not TUFTS! You should get all your info correct before throwing stats out there.
Raj
9:07 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
wow I wish Neil would be as thorough at over analyzing a situation of more importance like the city budget, funding schools, or crime in the streets of Malden.
With all the many problems Malden faces, pit bulls...really??? How about working on those aggravated assaults by humans instead, because despite the per capita ratio Neil created, those are the ones that really matter! I hope the Mayor does not sign this stupid waste of tax payer time and money bill!
howard mcgowan
9:32 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Move on to maore pressing issues in the city
Support and write your legislators on the Bill on Beacon Hill
"INVEST IN OUR COMMUNITIES"
Massachusetts House bill 2553 Massachusetts Senate Bill 1416
More Information www.OurCommunities.org-------- MassSeniorAction.org
whatsup
9:37 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Thank you for proposing the ordinance. The burden of responsibility would be on the pit bull owners and they will insist on not seeing how pit bulls are not dangerous even after seeing these statistics.
And then there is the other camp who would want to more important issues ranging from criminal activity to world peace. Yes they are important, but just because we cannot solve All problems with the city doesn't mean we should overlook the ones we can solve.
I suspect a lot of vocal crowd from the small group of pit bull and dangerous animal owners,but glad that this issue is being discussed. Even for this group, I don't understand how people want to risk their pet to be put down or removed rather than taking some precautionary measures that benefit all the citizens of Malden.
Jennifer
9:52 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
My problem is that although my dogs get grandfathered in, my future pitbulls automatically get labors as vicious dogs. My dogs are not vicious. I am responsible owner who has invested in evaluating them, training them, giving them the proper medical care, excercise, etc. Yes I recognize the damage they can do, they are powerful dogs but labeling every one of them as vicious without giving the dog and owner to prove otherwise is ridiculous. Give dogs and owners the opportunity to complete the Canine Good Citizen course and allow certified dogs an exemption. Require spaying/neutering (which should be across the board for all domestic animals). Do some research, listen to alternative ideas and for crying out loud, hire enough staff to enforce the laws already on the books. 57 dog bites by 57 unleashed dogs. There is no guarantee that having a dog on a leash would have eliminated the bites but surely the number would be greatly reduced. Anderson can't sit there and honestly say there is not a problem with off leash dogs when none of the reported bites were from leashed dogs.
Tommy Garrett
4:11 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
@ Jennifer
Your my hero ! You should run for Kinnons soon to be vacant seat because Malden residents need someone who will serve the need's of the community instead of wasting time on his own personal agenda. And Neil are you still saying if there are less pitbulls there would be less bites by pitbulls...LOL. yesterday all of Maldens pitbulls were a threat to the public & needed muzzles but now they have the magic green exemption tag so now there are no viscous pitbulls in Malden but if I bought a puppy tomorrow he would be dangerous ! What a crock..you could care less about the safety situation in Malden or you wouldnt be in favor of pulling Malden P.D off their patrol's to evaluate if this dog or that dog is a pitbull with the amount of crime there has been lately you just want no pitbulls in Malden you made that clear at the end of last week's meeting.
Jennifer
9:52 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
*labled as...
Susan Lawrence
9:59 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Mr. Kinnon,
I am happy to see this piece is classified as "opinion." An Op-Ed is a proper place to grandstand (as opposed to a City Council public meeting). You have been given plenty of space to say what you want to say. No fact-checking required.
An Opinion piece is a good place to provoke residents' legitimate safety concerns, and then aim them like a faucet, full stream, on a few dogs. You're darn right people in Malden have safety concerns! Many of us are frustrated and scared about real crimes committed by armed humans. I believe people here are too smart to think harrassing owners of a certain kind of dog is the best, most promising, creative violent crime prevention our City Council can come up with.
Did you know that two armed robberies at a mini-mart on Main Street in the past few weeks almost convinced the store owner to abandon his business? However, a neighborhood-watch kind of thing happened. Fellow shop owners and local tradespeople came forward to help this man change the shop around and connect with the local business community and take steps for prevention and protection against any future crime threats. Now, there's a Malden safety story worth lifting up.
Sincerely,
Susan Lawrence
Diana
10:07 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
"One can only conclude from all actual evidence that it would be just as easy for an animal control officer or other law enforcement officer to enforce a muzzle law as it is to enforce a leash law."
So virtually impossible, then?
Melissa
10:14 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Bingo!
Phe
11:30 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
While I'm intrigued that Mr. Kinnon knows what makes a valid scientific study and what doesn't, I'm confused regarding his statistics that don't show the following:
+ How many ESTIMATED unreported dog bites there were (and by what breeds). Given the numbers cited from 2009 - 2011, I have 2 bites to add to the mix, both from unleashed, non-Pit-Bull or mix animals. That reduces the percentage by 1.5% which, in the case of this study, is actually statistically significant. That's not many unreported bites at all to get that. At the outset, PBs carry the brunt of the percentage even with that reduction but it doesn't take a genius or even a professional number cruncher to see that if you added bites from even 12, non PB animals to this mix, it would reduce the percentage we're talking about here by 10% which makes the argument a little less firm.
+ How many estimated, unlicensed NON-Pit-Bulls there are in the city. In order for any set of statistics to be scientifically valid, it has to be *accurate*. That means a census has to be conducted, without fear of reprisal for those who have unlicensed animals, of all of the dogs in the city. Then, another census to determine how many un-reported dog bites have occurred, along with those reported.
So, Mr. Kinnon can't be bothered to strengthen the ordinances in place that would significantly reduce bites in the city. It's reprehensible. Stats show us whatever we want them to in the end and bullies do often get their way.
david mokal
11:00 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
I totally agree and further more they should be looking how many bites statewide than just in the city of Malden. You would be amazed. I also may add if you want these breeds insure them. A ripped and torn face can cost in the millions.
Matt O'Hara
10:24 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Mr Kinnon and his charts LOL. Why no pie chart this time? Mr Kinnon is always trying to force his will on the fine people of Malden and acts like a spoiled child when he doesn't get his way. It is clear what the people want and you need to do what you have been elected for, which you obviously forgotten. That is to request their wishes.
Melissa
10:41 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
From the National Canine Research Council: What is a dog bite?
The question seems simple enough. Most of us would describe a dog bite as an incident where a dog deliberately inflicts an injury to a person. Animal control and public health departments, however, consider any incident in which a dog's tooth or nail breaks a person's skin, regardless of the circumstances or any characterization of the dog's intention, to be an animal exposure that merits their notice. Therefore, animal control and public health departments classify all of the following animal exposures as dog bites:
• Nips from playful puppies
• Scratches from a dog's nail
• Scrapes from a dog's tooth
• Accidental bites by dogs
• Good Samaritans bitten trying to assist injured dogs (e.g. dogs hit by cars)
• Bites by working K-9 dogs in the performance of police duties
• Bites to canine professionals that may have occurred under extreme duress, such as when the dog was in pain or otherwise unable to control its behavior (e.g. a vet tech bitten while removing intubation tube from a dog's throat)
Melissa
10:43 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Continued:
Dog bite statistics (that is, animal exposure totals) do not give an accurate picture of which dogs bite, why dogs bite, or of the frequency of canine aggression.
A form used to record an animal exposure, probably called a bite report, will usually include space for a description of the circumstances. Did a dog scratch his owner during a playful romp? Did a dog chase and bite a child riding a bicycle?
Unfortunately, when animal exposures are tallied up, they are released to the public as simple bite numbers. The circumstances of the incidents have been stripped away. In consequence, bite numbers are not an accurate representation of canine aggression, which is, in itself, a general term that is applied to range of different behaviors.
Bite numbers become even more misleading when subdivided by breed descriptors. Recent research has confirmed that it is impossible to breed label dogs of unknown history and genetics solely on the basis of their appearance. And at least half of the dogs in the United States are mixed breed dogs. Nevertheless, animal controls and shelter workers continue to assign single breed descriptors to mixed breed dogs.
david mokal
11:04 am on Monday, May 7, 2012
Millissa Im a dog lover too but nips arent the issue its the rips and tears to the neck and face not to mention leg bites. You wouldnt want to be walkin around in a sundress with a gapping scar on your leg would you ..I sure wouldnt. Check out all the bites that happen in the State of Massachusetts and check with the insurance companies that pay out for these dog bites.
MicheleM
11:10 am on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Further to Diana's comment, the last two sentences from number 1 "It is estimated that there are 3 times as many actual total dogs living in Malden. The city has no ability to economically fund 100% enforcement of licensing for this many actual dogs." So how is the city going to economically fund this new law? Is Neil going to actually step up and do something instead of just running his mouth. I find a lot of faults with that statement. Why bother having any law if it can not be enforced? If it is such an issue why hasn't the animal control officer asked for more help/resources? Someone in Neil's position should not be making such blanket statements especially about how good or bad Malden is on enforcing existing laws.
coldwaterdiver
12:08 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
i love the imaginary stats, "If there were as many pit bulls as people" ... ha ha ha, you can apply that logic to anything. If there were as many animal control officers as city counsilors, there wouldnt be a biting problem. If there were as many movie theaters as CVS's Malden have a great downtown, and so on, and so on...
Meggle
12:43 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Sweet lord, how is this guy ignoring the 39 OTHER dog bites!? How does he suggest taking care of those dogs? Muzzling pits doesn't even address HALF of the problem. It's such a waste of time and resources. You even admit that you don't know how many dogs are in Malden or how many are actually pit bulls. It doesn't matter if you think they're aggressive as a % of population, you're STILL going to have those 1,073 registered non pit bull dogs around, waiting to bite the crap out of somebody.
Thus, this solves nothing, wastes time, resources. All the info you need to see that is right there. Targeting one breed isn't enough, you need to target all aggressive and off leash dogs.
Jenn
2:07 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Everyone should call Mayor Christenson's office and let them now what you think of this ordinance. He needs to know where the citizens stand on this. As for the city councilors that voted for it, they continue to respond to my emails stating that "we are not understanding the ordinance correctly". We know what it means, we are not stupid by any means. Bet you that if the councilors dogs (most own golden retirevers) were to bite someone they wouldn't be voting to pass an ordinance to muzzle all goldens!
DannyBoy
2:30 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Jenn, I've emailed the mayor, urging him to veto this ordinance. Let's hope he listens to the voices of the community and residents on this matter.
Phe
3:18 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Wow. I forgot that we have a mayor we can e-mail now! :D Thanks for the reminder, DB.
DannyBoy
3:20 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
You're welcome Phe. And he's responded to every email I sent him, so I give big props to Gary on that.
Stinkpit
2:57 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
This guy has his priorities in all the wrong places. With all of the issues, crime, budget etc he is full steam on this?
Phe
3:20 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
I have a question, actually. I like to think I'm pretty up on current events in Malden, but this just came out of the blue. Usually (of course, not always) when a community sees this sort of BSL come to the table, it's after a series of incidents within the community or one very tragic, high profile incident. But here we are, fresh from the Saugus Bank debacle and a series of home and business invasions...and THIS comes out of left field. I mean...WTF? What happened to bring this up out of nowhere in the first place?
Phe
3:21 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Or were those robberies committed by Pit Bulls and someone just failed to mention that detail?
DannyBoy
3:24 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Phe, this issue with muzzling Pit Bulls first came up last year in council session, but was tabled for later discussion, if my memory serves me right. We can all question the timing of it coming back to the attention of the councilors, but this is a well-known pet peeve of Kinnon.
Lori Sullivan
3:56 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Two incidents I know of. One involved a Pitt killing another small dog that lived in same house. The other more recent one was a pitt that attacked a young boy, hospitalizing him for a week. That dog was unleashed. And I believe (but am not sure of) does not live in this city.
Tommy Garrett
6:21 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Phe
Check out my picture posted on top of the page a pitbull was responsible for the robbery !
DannyBoy
8:26 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Hehehe... Very funny, Tommy... This is Kinnon's worst nightmare... Can you imagine a pitbull that can bite and rob people at the same time! LOL :-)
robert wilson
3:23 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
It seems the Councilor could far more pressing things to be doing for our City then trying to rid it of Pit Bulls, solving our rising crime rate comes to mind.
David Hart
5:37 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Mr. Kinnon,
As always you have to be the smartest guy in the room. However this time like every other time you were not. The gentleman who has been dealing with animals since 1975 and consulting to cities and towns on dog issues was the smartest on this issue and you treated him like a second class citizen. Par for the course for you. He said that the ordinance put forth by the council was not written correctly and not effective. But that was glossed over.
After your display on MATV the other night you sir are the one who should be muzzled.
AnnieOMalden
2:32 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
David: I could not agree more with your comment. As someone who has dealt with Neil for many years at the charter school and as my ward Councilor, I am happy that the rest of the city sees what a buffoon and embarrassment he is. So many well-educated professionals have been dismissed and disregarded at the school because "Neil knows best". How someone without any background in education can think they can properly run a school is beyond comprehension and common sense. But I digress. This ordinance is just another example of Neil putting his personal bias onto the rest of a population (this time the city) and demanding adherence to his will.
Neil made it clear in an email broadcast reply to the Highlands Association his true intent is to weed out those he considers "undesirable" from considering a move into Malden, as he does at the charter school. He makes it clear he considers those who own pit bulls not having those desired traits for living in this city as he believes the stereotype he has defined. I am hoping the Mayor can counsel Neil on the difference between being a divisive force or an inclusive force in the city. Especially when he does not nor has ever owned a dog!
kimx
6:01 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
This has to be one of the most ignorance-laden, contradictory, disgusting displays I've seen of anyone in a long while.
And "pure bread"? Dogs aren't made of flour, Councillor Kinnon.
Furthermore, I find it absolutely hilarious that you acknowledge "pit bull" as a catchall term for several breeds, and even recognize some of these distinct breeds by name in your proposed ordinance. However, you refuse to break down actual bites by breed and instead use the general term "pit bull".
I can almost guarantee that if the 18 "pit bull" bites were broken down by breed or some tossed in the mixed-breed category where they likely belong, Councillor Kinnon would be singing a different tune.
But gotta promote your agenda somehow, even if it means skewing the facts...
Meggle
7:50 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Bahaha..I missed the "pure bread" bit. I'm giggling myself silly over here!
Diana
2:49 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
I missed "pure-bread" too, and now I'm picturing pit bull shaped rolls. Mmmm.... tasty, tasty pit bulls.
Tommy Garrett
6:15 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Impressive stats along with some great examples of other community's that have passed Bsl types of restrictions , to bad it's meaningless because 1 you didnt provide any before or after stats for places who have passed Bsl & 2 you say German Shepards acounted for so many, this breed for this many & Pitbulls for 18 but you forget to point out that you are grouping 5 to 10 different breeds into a " Pitbull type dog " so thats 18 bites between all of those breeds .# 3 you mention our military has banned them but again fail to mention all the other animals they also banned you make it sound as if only Pit bulls were banned..."SENSATIONALISM " you tell half truths and present flashy statistics in a attempt to impose your will upon us ,sounds like tactics used by Dogsbite.org. Another example...... there were four cases concerning dogs who bit people and one even killed a dog, two of the bites only made their local paper the third(not the pitbull) killed a small dog it made local and three surrounding towns and the fourth the pitbull was run in 260 different areas tell me thats not media hype . How did six people buy into this flawed Ordinance I mean did any of them do their own research I saw 3 1/2 people that seemed genuine, the rest seemed to just follow Neil's lead at least the 1/2 person did ask some questions but didnt want to push it too far. By the way what,s that poll up to on top of the page ..... like 500 vs 70 ....wonder how many of the 70 were anonymous votes.
Joe Gray
7:29 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
Here we go again.... I was hoping this issue went away last year.
Jack b. Nimble
8:33 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012
The only thing missing in this ordinance is how to muzzle councillor's who waste city time and money on these ridiculous rules which are ineffective and unable to be enforced.
Diana
2:50 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
I think the important thing to take away from this is that Neil Kinnon kicks puppies.
(S'a joke, kids. Please don't email me.)
AnnieOMalden
11:48 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
This is a part of what Neil wrote on the Highlands Group newsblast:
"Finally find me a neighborhood with a high percentage of pitbulls and I will show you a neighborhood that most people would not wish to live. That does not mean that good people do not own them it just means that the dog was bread (sic) for hundreds of years to fight and kill and they have become the dog that drug dealers and criminals prefer. Stereotypes often times have truth to them. When it comes to pitbulls the stereotype is well earned.
My ultimate goal is to make people think twice about buying a pitbull if they are in the market for a dog and live in Malden and discourage those who do own them from coming here.
Respectfully,
Neil"
Yes, people, this is who we are dealing with. The man believes every stereotype that is out there. Why not? He is the poster boy of the politician who abuses his power and gives jobs out to his family and friends. The charter school is littered with Kinnons and their friends and family. I don't know about you, but I am offended by his characterization of pit bull owners and I don't even own a dog!
mats
9:18 am on Sunday, April 15, 2012
agree with kinnon - re: stereotypes - if the shoe fits wear it - muzzle the dogs or find another town more befitting your lifestyle -
AnnieOMalden
1:55 pm on Sunday, April 15, 2012
Can someone answer this question for me: Only pit bull un-neutered dogs moving into Malden AFTER May 1, 2012 will have to be muzzled? The ones already here will be "grandfathered" and not required to wear a muzzle while out of their yard yet only new dogs will be required to wear one once they leave their home?
Michael B Elvale
6:39 pm on Sunday, April 15, 2012
Mr Mayor, PLEASE put a muzzle on Neil Kinnon, he is representing your administration, and our fine City when he acts like an %$#&*%@!
betty geist
12:02 am on Monday, April 16, 2012
Please get this to everybody you know. I get this in my email
http://t.co/yPvnDn6h
Hi
Please take a moment if you can to take a very brief survey generated from the Malden mayor's office. It is about your opinion on the pit bull muzzle ordinance. If you can, please pass it on to any of your friends or neighbors in Malden. The proposed ordinance is on the mayor's desk. He has 10 days to veto it, sign it or send it back to the council for amendments. You can also find the survey on the boston.com/your town website.