When Annual Town Meeting gets to Warrant Article 38 on revising the dog laws, the discussion about man’s best friend could become less than friendly. Sometimes talking about peoples’ pets provokes as strong a reaction as talking about their children.
The changes proposed in Article 38 would bring Harvard’s dog bylaw into closer accord with state law. If the article is adopted, Harvard’s definition of key terms such as “nuisance” and “dangerous” would match the state’s. The article also sets fines that are much higher than those under the present bylaw.
The Board of Selectmen took up Article 38 at Tuesday’s meeting, having been unable to agree on whether to recommend it at an earlier meeting. After considerable discussion, they remained divided, voting 3-2 in support of the proposed changes, with Selectmen Leo Blair and Stu Sklar opposed.
Blair, who had agreed at a previous meeting to bring back some recommendations that might help the board reach unanimity, said he thought the best idea was to incorporate the entire set of state laws on dogs into Harvard’s bylaws. He liked that solution, he said, because the state laws provide a set of processes for complaints, hearings, appeals, and such. But Blair said Town Counsel Mark Lanza had told him that such sweeping changes were “beyond the scope” of changes that could be made on the floor of Town Meeting.
Town Administrator Tim Bragan said the state law already applies in Harvard and that the selectmen could just set a new fine structure, if they wished.
Selectwoman Lucy Wallace and Selectman Ron Ricci both said they support Article 38 as it is now written because it gives more authority to the town’s dog officer to handle problems as they arise and also to impose substantial fines if needed.
Ricci went so far as to say the measure “puts some teeth in the dog officer.”
Defining ‘dangerous’ and ‘nuisance’
As it stands now, Harvard’s bylaw does not distinguish between a dog that is a nuisance and one that is dangerous. The bylaw refers only to a dog that is a “public nuisance.”
Under state law, a dog is considered dangerous if it attacks a person or a domestic animal without justification, or if a reasonable person would think the dog is about to do so.
A dog can be called a nuisance, under state law, in several circumstances: if it creates a disturbance that annoys a sick person who lives nearby; if it disrupts a reasonable person’s idea of peace and quiet; if it attacks a person or a domestic animal, as long as the attack was not “grossly disproportionate” in the situation.
At last month’s hearing about chicken-killing dogs, selectmen differed on just what should get a dog labeled either “dangerous” or a “nuisance.” Selectman Blair, at the time, suggested that only being a threat to humans should put a dog in the dangerous category. Selectman Ricci said he was less concerned with the labels than with making sure that the offending dogs were securely confined.
State law prevails
In some circumstances, such as dog licensing fees and fines, the state allows towns to set their own amounts. But in other situations, such as the chicken-killing case, the only question for local authorities is how to apply state law. Once the selectmen had voted 3-2 at the dog hearing (along the same split over Article 38) that the dogs were dangerous within the meaning of state law, all the state regulations about how those dogs should be confined took effect.
Asked about the relation between Harvard’s local dog bylaw and state law, Town Counsel Mark Lanza said that the sections of Harvard’s law that must be revised are those that directly conflict with state law. As an example, he cited Harvard’s fines for owners whose dogs are deemed either dangerous or a nuisance. Harvard’s fines now are much lower than those set by the state.
Raising fines for violations
The changes proposed in Warrant Article 38 would set a new schedule of fines and bring Harvard in line with state law.
The town bylaw currently provides no fine for a first offense, $10 for a second offense, $25 for a third, and $50 for each offense thereafter. And on January 1 each year, every dog has a clean slate, no matter how many attacks it might have made in the past.
Under Article 38, the scale of fines ranges from $50 for a first offense to $300 for a fourth. The record of offenses carries over from year to year, rather than starting afresh every January.
Additional fines would apply if a dog owner violates a town order to restrain or confine a dog. In line with state law, those fines could be up to $500 for the first offense and $1,000 for the second. (State law also allows for jail time in such cases, but Article 38 does not.)
What Article 38 does not do
Article 38 clarifies definitions and increases fines for violations. It does not make any reference to a leash law. It does not require dog owners to clean up after their dogs on the Common or the sports fields. Nor does it protect roaming dogs from the dangers of automobiles, thin ice on the pond, or coyotes.
More than two decades ago, in the 1990 Town Report, then-Dog Officer Sharon Lozier wrote in her yearly report, “The Town is growing too rapidly to allow dogs to wander unsupervised. People need to put themselves in their neighbors’ position and realize that dogs get into trouble when left loose all day.”
