Quoted Text

Council mulls pit bull issue
Schenectady officials discuss attacks and consider what to do
By LAUREN STANFORTH Staff writer
Published 12:00 a.m., Wednesday, September 7, 2011


SCHENECTADY -- City Council members at their Tuesday night meeting discussed two recent pit bull attacks and came to one conclusion -- they don't know what tack to take to eliminate dangerous dogs roaming city streets.

The discussion comes on the heels of an attack on Hulett Street on Aug. 22 in which a woman's ears were ripped off and her face and body were mauled after three pit bulls dragged her down a street.

On Aug. 30, a pit bull bit a postal worker on Bluff Avenue. Another pit bull bit a child in the Woodlawn neighborhood recently, but it was not considered a serious wound.

Public Safety Commissioner Wayne Bennett said the police department will come out this week with recommendations on how to curb unlicensed and loose dogs, particularly males that aren't neutered. He said simply hiring more animal control officers -- there are two -- won't address the issue.

The nonprofit organization Animal Protective Foundation in Glenville, which takes animals brought in by the city animal control officers, does not have enough room to take more. Members attended the meeting Tuesday night to urge the city to look into building its own municipal shelter.

"It's a big problem, you can't just look at it from one perspective," Bennett said after the meeting...............................>>>>...................................>>>>...........................Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Council-mulls-pit-bull-issue-2158290.php#ixzz1XGRz6hUu

This is exactly why all incumbents should be voted out - no one has an original idea? After 2 attacks no one has anything to offer?? Seriously?

This is a major reason why the City is in the toilet, the leaders ignore problems and pawn off a solution to others.

Chumps.

How about restricting ONE dog per house hold..............licensed...............that would be a start. And since it is the role of government to guarantee a safe and healthy environment for their residents....the next person who gets bit by a pit bull should sue the city government for neglect.

Quoted from rachel72

This is exactly why all incumbents should be voted out - no one has an original idea? After 2 attacks no one has anything to offer?? Seriously?

This is a major reason why the City is in the toilet, the leaders ignore problems and pawn off a solution to others. Chumps.

Why should this be any different? Except for Joe Allen who gets it, a group of do nothing rubber stamps. Beef up animal control with increased fines from loose and impounded dogs. Animal Control must be 24X7. Before someone is killed.

good idea. hire more city workers, so your taxes will increase. good solution from the peanut gallery.

It isn't a solution, it is an idea that will help and it is a good idea because people who actually work over there will tell you more animal control officers are necessary. The city takes in plenty of money, the problem is misplaced priorities, they are SUPPOSED to spend tax revenues for the good of the residents.

You know in some states, felons are not allowed to have pit bulls. Landlords are also legally responsible for their tenants pit bulls in many states as well.

What is the City so afraid of? Making gang members mad?

Take a stand, take your streets back and put safety the first priority in this City for once. Stop padding your pensions, stop paying your Plex friends off and stop buying votes. Start earning the respect of the taxpayers you triple dip from.

Quoted from Madam X

It isn't a solution, it is an idea that will help and it is a good idea because people who actually work over there will tell you more animal control officers are necessary. The city takes in plenty of money, the problem is misplaced priorities, they are SUPPOSED to spend tax revenues for the good of the residents.

It's a good idea that is long overdue. Only total idiots would oppose it. The increased fines pay for the increased animal control officers. No increase in taxes-more coverage-more fines generated.

Obviously the animal control officers are impotent. Those are two jobs that can and should be done away with. Hold the owners and landlords responsible. And best yet.....sue the city for not provide a safe and healthy environment for their residents..........and of course............VOTE EM OUT!

rachel72 - they do seem afraid to address the issue, don't they? The fact is, I believe the property owners already are responsible for vicious animals kept on their property, whether or not city council wants to pass a law. Do we really believe a jury in a civil lawsuit would not make the owner of the building, where the dumbbell young woman was harboring three neglected animals, pay for the mauling victim's medical bills? If the tenant say, put in a swimming pool with no fence or something like that, the landlord would be held legally responsible for a dangerous condition on their property that they allowed to exist, for sure.
Bennett has no idea what will or won't help because he doesn't live in an area where this kind of thing occurs. I agree with him that simply hiring more animal control officers won't solve the problem, but it being an animals-out-of-control issue, we definitely need more animal CONTROL officers.
Maybe the problem is, the city doesn't want to upset the absentee slumlords. They pay taxes on that property, without making any demands for services.
How many of these slobs abusing these animals (and they are abused, they aren't cherished pets) own the buildings where they keep them? I am willing to bet, NONE of them do. If you can't force people to take responsibility for their animals, you can take away their choice of whether or not to have the animals in the first place, by making the property owner responsible. Or, we could just do nothing, pass some regulations that only punish responsible dog owners perhaps, whatever.

Here's another idea. How about, in the city, you can't leave your dogs in the yard all night? I don't know any responsible dog owners in my neighborhood that don't bring their dogs in. I do know some people with some hunting breeds that stay outside, but that is out in the country, and their dogs have proper shelter. In the city, it seems to me it is only the neglectors who leave animals out 24/7, possibly because the landlord has told them no animals in the apartment, they don't want THEIR property damaged, but the hell with the well-being of the animal or the rest of the neighborhood. You need more animal control officers to enforce this, in any case. When was the last time the city did a dog census, anyway?

Quoted from Madam X

Here's another idea. How about, in the city, you can't leave your dogs in the yard all night?

Great idea of pure common sense. How about this, with all the recent attacks (and these dogs off their leashes), triple the fine for disobeying the leash laws. The City could make a killing going to Central Park!

WOW!!!!! atleast it's brought up.....GET IT-----atleast......

SCHENECTADY — The city’s answer to reining in aggressive pit bulls may be to step up licensing and penalty fees levied against their owners, according to acting Mayor Gary McCarthy.
“We will review what is on the books and what we can do to deter people from having these dogs and creating these problems that exist,” he said.
McCarthy offered his proposal Tuesday night during a City Council committee meeting. The council is reviewing the issue following separate attacks on Aug. 22 and Aug. 30 by pit bulls. In the first incident, three pit bulls mauled city resident Shirleen Lucas as she was running errands on Hulett Street. Lucas required nearly 200 stitches to close injuries that ran nearly from head to toe. In the second, two pit bulls attacked a mail carrier in the area of 623 Bluff Ave. The carrier sustained puncture wounds.
McCarthy said any changes to licensing and penalty fees will require a public hearing, and he does not expect any action until late September or early October. He added any increase in fees may require a review of how to enforce them.
Corporation Counsel L. John Van Norden said he would recommend the city ban all dogs deemed too aggressive by insurance companies. Companies that provide homeowner’s insurance will often deny coverage to homeowners or require they purchase high-risk insurance if they own certain breeds. According to insurance industry representatives, the breeds include pit bulls, Doberman pinschers, German shepherds, bull mastiffs, Akitas and Rottweilers. These breeds are known for aggressive attitudes and for causing severe wounds when they attack.

It's really telling that when McCarthy wants to ban people from becoming a Commissioner of Deeds or wants to transfer power from the Mayor to the Council, that happens immediately.

For some reason, keeping our streets safe doesn't seem to occur in the same record-fast time.