Aug 11, 2010

The nutters came out to oppose bsl in Worcester

Lee Casini of Shrewsbury and Joan Thompson of Leominster demonstate their opposition to the muzzling requirement of the proposed ordinance.

Ayanna Mack 10 holds up a sign last night expressing support for properly trained pit bulls.

Pit bull regulations are focus of hearing

WORCESTER — Residents packed City Hall last night to give testimony on the City Council's proposed pit bull dog ordinance.

And while the council listened to about an hour of testimony, most of it in opposition to the ordinance, the council never voted on it because Councilor-at-Large Michael J. Germain put a hold on the item, in accordance with council rules.

Mayor Joseph C. O'Brien said the council will take the item up at its Sept. 7 meeting.

People packed the chamber, some with signs. One woman wore a dust mask, symbolizing the muzzling that would be required for pit bulls leaving an owner's premises.

Most in opposition to the proposed ordinance said the pit bull is not an inherently dangerous dog, and said it has a bad reputation because irresponsible dog owners gravitate toward it as a cultural symbol.

Resident Richard Abdella said he owns a $1,200 show dog. His dog is used for breeding. He said that if the council passes an ordinance requiring that pit bulls in the city be neutered, he will lose money that he makes from the breeding services.

Mr. Abdella said unleashed dogs in the hands of irresponsible owners are the real problem.

“The most effective laws can be controlled by this right here,” Mr. Abdella said, holding up a dog leash he had been wearing around his neck.

The ordinance, which had been requested by the council, is modeled after Boston's Responsible Pit Bull Ownership ordinance. While the local ordinance does not ban pit bulls or restrict them to private property, it establishes additional licensing and registration requirements.

It also requires pit bulls to be leashed and muzzled, or placed in a secure temporary enclosure, when taken off an owner's premises.

In addition, the ordinance requires pit bull owners to obtain the consent of their landlord to keep a pit bull on the premises, place a warning sign on their property informing the public that a pit bull lives there, and notify animal control officers or the police whenever their pit bull injures or threatens any person or animal.

Read the rest here --
Pit Bull owners, it's time to wise up and think about what pushing against regulations is doing to your dogs, and more importantly, PEOPLE!!!


  1. past pit bull ownerAugust 11, 2010 at 5:13 PM

    Okay, um, I must admit that the first photo of "muzzled" pit bull owners kinda got my hopes up. When does THAT legislation pass?

  2. i was just preparing a similar snarky comment. you beat me to it :)

  3. "I must admit that the first photo of "muzzled" pit bull owners kinda got my hopes up. When does THAT legislation pass?"

    hahaha Glad I read the comments before posting thought the same thing!

    The pit-tard drama queens were out in force!

  4. I'm pretty sure this is an anti-BSL rally because the drama and the screaming is the same.

  5. It's time for these groups to put up or shut up and indemnify the public against the costs of these attacks. All they do is whine while the problem gets worse.

  6. Oh for crying out loud! Ignore the crazy fools who show up and pay attention to the responsible people that have Pit Bulls that have NEVER attacked anyone. As I said before it’s the genetics I keep telling you that.

    You know what I find funny? I’m fifteen years old and even I came up with a non-lethal solution to the aggressive Pit Bull problem. Breed out the bad genetics but of course no one will care until Retrievers and Lab are on the top of the most dangerous dog and Pit Bulls are at the bottom.


For truthful information about Pit Bull dogs, go to these other sites --