If you come across a relevant alert - please send the quote or better still the website page to the webmaster for reposting.

For the following articles regarding the Reading Dog Ordinance, send your comments to the newspaper & municipal government.

To contact the newspaper via regular mail: Letters Editor, Reading Eagle, PO Box 582, Reading PA 19603-0582 e-mail:
letters@readingeagle.com Letters should be 200 words or less and must include writer's full name, address, and day & evening phone numbers; e-mails must include e-mail & street addresses & phone number within the letter.

For contacting the municipal government: Mayor is Thomas McMahon, City Solicitor is Charles Younger, City Council President is Vaughn Spencer. Address is City Hall, 815 Washington St., Reading PA 19601, e-mail: mayor@readingpa.org.

From the Reading Eagle Newspaper, May 01, 2008

City chasing its tail with dog ordinance

The Issue: Reading opts to appeal the Commonwealth Court’s ruling on the city’s aggressive breed dog ordinance.

Our Opinion: The city could save money and get a more-effective law that focuses on dogs that have not been sterilized. Reminiscent of a dog running in circles chasing his tail, Reading officials seem to be chasing after the unattainable: approval of its aggressive breed ordinance.

After a three-judge panel from the Commonwealth Court tossed out the 1998 law because it violated state law preventing municipalities from targeting specific breeds, city Solicitor Charles D. Younger asked the court to reconsider.

When the court refused to do so last week, city officials opted to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

As we said after the first Commonwealth Court ruling, one might be able to understand the move if Reading were so flush with cash that City Council was considering a reduction in the real estate tax or if there were no alternatives.

But Reading is not contemplating a tax reduction anytime soon. In fact, Mayor Tom McMahon has warned of the potential for layoffs and an increase in the property tax.

And there is an alternative. Karel I. Minor, director of the Humane Society of Berks County Inc., has urged council to rewrite the ordinance and focus on animals that have not been sterilized rather than which breeds are responsible for how many attacks on people.

According to Minor, in dog-bite cases where the sterilization of the animal is known, 88 percent were not spayed or neutered. And two-thirds of that 88 percent came from male dogs.
Under the ordinance declared illegal by the Commonwealth Court, a breed was declared aggressive if it was responsible for 40 percent or more of the bites in a single year.

It would be far cheaper for the taxpayers of Reading if the city followed Minor’s advice and revised the law.

It also would do a better job reducing dog bites, whether they come from a pit bull or a mutt.

Posted by readingeagle at May 1, 2008 07:19 AM

Reading dog ordinance appeal denied Commonwealth Court refuses to reconsider the overturning of the aggressive breed restrictions. A new appeal is planned. By Don Spatz Reading Eagle

Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court has turned down Reading’s request to reconsider its February order throwing out the so-called aggressive breed ordinance.

City officials said Tuesday that they will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The new appeal, as with the former, has no immediate effect.

The overturned ordinance imposed severe restrictions on owners of dogs considered aggressive, but no breeds have been put on the aggressive list since 2003.

In a 2-1 decision Feb. 26, a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel had thrown out the 1998 ordinance, ruling that it violates state law banning municipalities from prohibiting or otherwise limiting a specific breed of dog.

On March 11, city Solicitor Charles D. Younger asked the panel to reconsider, claiming it had misunderstood the differences between the city’s efforts to regulate a dog breed and the state’s long-time ban on limiting a breed.

But in a one-line order issued Monday, the panel said it wouldn’t reconsider.

Younger said he was surprised it took the court more than a month to deny the appeal.

City Council was trying to curb a rash of dog bites in the late 1990s when it adopted the ordinance that considers a breed aggressive if it accounts for more than 40 percent of all dog bites in any calendar year with more than 30 bites.

Pit bulls were on the aggressive list from 1999 to 2003, and their owners were subject to severe restrictions — such as $500 annual permits for nonsterilized dogs and the use of muzzles and heavy leashes on dogs in public.

The city claims the ordinance worked, because both the total number of bites and the bites by pit bulls dropped.

But the Humane Society of Berks County that had enforced the city’s dog ordinance at the time claimed the bites dropped because of the focus on nonsterilized dogs, not the focus on breeds.

Two pit bull owners — city residents Stacie Stankiewicz and Kenneth Steeves Sr. — sued the city in 2000 but lost in Berks County Court.

They appealed to Commonwealth Court and won in February.

•Contact reporter Don Spatz at 610-371-5027 or dspatz@readingeagle.com.

Reading challenges decision on city dog law

by The Associated Press

READING -- Reading officials are asking a state appeals court to reconsider the rejection of an ordinance that put restrictions on aggressive dog breeds.

Commonwealth Court threw out the ordinance in February. It classified dogs according to dog-bite statistics for the latest year in Reading. Officials gave it credit for helping reduce dog bites from 130 in 1999 to 33 in 2006.
 

But an attorney for two pit bull owners argued that the ordinance is unfair because the breeds considered aggressive can change from year to year. They also say they shouldn't have to face restrictions if their individual dog has shown no signs of aggression.

The Reading Eagle reports that the city solicitor told the court that the judges did not understand the differences between the city's efforts to regulate a dog breed and the state's longtime ban on limiting a breed

The court ruled that the Reading ordinance ran counter to state law. State law classifies as dangerous only individual dogs that have behaved aggressively.