To the Editor:

I know that I won't get a lot of sympathy on this, and that I sound like a crazy pet person, but here goes. In this City Council election, I am a one-issue voter, and I am giving my vote to the dogs.

The eight at-large candidates seem like good people. They have important concerns about critical issues that affect my neighbors and me, like education, affordable housing, property taxes, job creation, substance abuse, crime, etc. I have no doubt that those elected to at-large seats will have their constituent's best interests at heart. Over the years, in my life as a Main Streets board member, president of the Dorchester Arts Collaborative, and community activist, city councillors have been a useful resource in navigating city government and bureaucracy, and I am grateful for any help I have received from any of them.

Last summer, the City Council passed a bill that requires me to muzzle my dog at all times when he's off my property, and pay a $50 licensing fee where everyone else pays $6 for a neutered dog. I have to provide photos of my dog and myself - something not required of other owners. It has other provisions too, like mandatory spaying/neutering, limits to the number of dogs one can have, etc., but those first few are the ones that make me feel like I've been betrayed by the city I've worked so hard to make a better place.

If caught walking my dog without a muzzle, I am subject to a $100 fine, and the dog can be taken, and disposed of in whatever way the police or animal control officer see fit. That means he can be euthanized.

My dog Charlie is a sweet, well-cared for, neutered, docile American Pit Bull Terrier. I adopted him from the MSPCA in 2003. This breed-specific legislation is an unenforceable, unfair, knee-jerk reaction to a real dog problem in Boston. It penalizes responsible owners, while doing nothing to protect people or abused dogs. My dog has done nothing to indicate that he should be muzzled. And this licensing fee is just a fine for having a breed that people who don't know anything about dogs have decided is inherently vicious. I wouldn't mind if my extra $44 was being spent on some noble cause, but it isn't.

Last week, I was walking Charlie on leash around 10 a.m. on a Sunday. Along the way, we encountered two off leash dogs with their owners, as well as another dog's owner pretending not to see that her dog was defecating on the sidewalk. We were approaching my street, when a police officer stopped us with lights and siren. I was admittedly breaking the law, and therefore don't have any argument. But it scared me, and after apologizing and taking some verbal abuse from the policeman, including a threat to take the dog, I resolved to drive to Quincy or Milton every day to walk him. I will also spend all of the money pertaining to his care - food, vet, boarding, etc. - outside of the City.

Felix Arroyo, John Connolly and Matt O'Malley have told me that they oppose the pit-bull ordinance. They all say that from experience or research, they know that breed-specific legislation is ineffective. I will be casting three of my four votes for them, and suggesting to all of my friends in Boston with dogs that they do the same. Steve Murphy and Michael Flaherty support the ordinance, and will therefore not get my vote. Sam Yoon was not unequivocal in his view on the ordinance, and therefore I will not vote for him. Ed Flynn told me, and Patricia White told another pit-bull owner, that they strongly support the ordinance, and therefore, I will not vote for them.

I feel strongly that the ordinance should be repealed, and will do what I can to see that happen. I offered to serve on the task force that that was mandated by law within a year of the ordinance's passing. Its purpose was to study the effectiveness of the ordinance. If it was mandated by the ordinance itself, why isn't it up and running yet?

In the meantime, with the help of Councillor Tobin, other dog owners and I have approached Councillor Consalvo, who co-sponsored the ordinance, about an exemption for dogs who have obedience training or have been temperament tested. But he won't budge. He has a stack of "research" that says the dogs are born aggressive, and though he's polite, he's not very interested in seeing my stack of research, three times as voluminous and including opinions from expert organizations like the MSPCA, Animal Rescue League, American Veterinary Medical Association. National Animal Control Association, American Dog Owners Association, American Kennel Club, etc, that says otherwise. I also wonder if he's been following the news lately, about the Springer Spaniel in Marstons Mills that bit a 4-year-old in the face, or the Husky in Hull that attacked an infant. All dog owners should take note; the Boston ordinance says that breeds can be added at the discretion of Boston Police and Animal Control. Your dog might be next.

All dogs can bite. All dogs can inflict damage. Breed-specific legislation makes no sense, and I am going to vote only for city councillors who are thoughtful enough to realize that. I take seriously my obligation to take good care of my adopted pet, and this is one way of doing that. Putting a muzzle on him when he shows no sign of being dangerous, and is always on a leash, is not taking good care. If any one of the five other candidates wants my vote, all they have to do is tell me that they will work with me to see this ordinance repealed, or at the very least, consider exemptions for dogs with responsible owners.

Joyce Linehan

Dorchester