DOG FIGHTING

First of all, I want to applaud you for writing an article that raises the public awareness of the plight of "fighting" dogs everywhere and the horrendous end that awaits most of them ["Fight club," September 8, 2000]. Your article was informative, factual, and stayed well away from emotionalism.

I live in Maine, in one of the larger cities, and I am the loving owner of two large dogs, a boxer and a pit bull. We rescued our pit from a most-likely sad end; he was passed from young macho male to macho male who wanted a "good-looking pit" to enhance their image. I keep a watchful eye on him and his boxer brother as I was aware many years back that dogmen from the south (Massachusetts) snatch both of the breeds we have for either fighting or for bait dogs.

The only part of your article I question is the wisdom of including specific Web addresses where potential and proven dogmen can find even more information on dog fighting. Why help them?? Was your intention to offer these addresses to the public in an effort to raise consciousness about the issue of dog fighting??

Most recently here in my city, Portland, another danger has been added to challenge the safety of pit bulls. Our city council has proposed a BSL (breed-specific legislation) that would effectively ban pits (how can they identify these dogs??) from the Old Port areas and Congress Street. The issue was to be addresses at a September council meeting but was postponed until October's meeting -- I think that the city lawyers must have informed the councilmen that Maine has a law on the books that preempts any BSL created by municipalities. Although no dog owners spoke at the council meeting as the issue had been postponed, there were easily 20 very concerned, caring, articulate "pit parents" gathered outside the council chambers, exchanging addresses, phone numbers, and stories about their dogs.

I was very pleased to see the reference in your article to the fact that we have very good dog laws here in Maine but need to enforce them, which is exactly the problem here in Portland -- great dangerous dog laws but insufficient means to enforce them.

Again, thanks for the clear, specific, non-inflammatory reporting. The dogs can't speak in defense of themselves and your article gives a "heads up" to the people of Maine.

With the arrival and expansion of dog fighting in our state, Maine citizens need to focus on the illegal and immoral acts of the dogmen who perpetuate this crime against these animals, and we must NOT single out certain breeds of dogs as the villains. Pit bulls were bred originally, yes, as fighting dogs, but as anyone who responsibly and lovingly owns one, they are beyond compare for their loyalty, love of people, courage, sensitivity, and just plain ole fun to be around.

Leslie Ross-Papkee
Portland

THE COOKED CLAM

I Liked your article on fried clams ["The cooked clam," September 1, 2000] and agree with your observations. Here are some of my own. Take a drive to Potts Harbor and check out the clams at the Dolphin Marina. Start with the Fish Chowda (a cup). Also please note, Holbrooks at Cundy's Harbor (which used to be terrific) is under new management (from away). The prices are unbelievable and the food is ordinary or worse. (If you noticed at The Falmouth Sea Grill, everything on that menu is up in the price stratosphere, but they do deliver.)

Jack Linnell
New Gloucester

Correction: In last week's issue we incorrectly reported that the involuntary commitment portion of the bill "An Act to Provide Services for Children in Need of Supervision" had passed into law. However, the commission studying youth in need of services is meeting, as we reported. We apologize for the error.

Dear Portland Phoenix:

I thank you for your interest in youth at risk and for your examination of this important policy issue. As a result of the story on youth at risk and in preparation for the upcoming meetings of the Youth in Need of Services Oversight Committee, I took some time to review the chain of events that led us to where we are today.

The bill presented a difficult issue, the question of how to provide assistance to youth who are homeless, who lack proper care, who are in imminent danger of serious physical, mental, or emotional injury, or who are at risk of prosecution for a juvenile offense.

A decision was made in the Appropriations Committee to reduce the funding for this bill to a one-time appropriation of $510,000 and to make the program a one-time, one-year program. The only money that was available within the state budget at that point was for expenses that would last for one year only. With one-year funding only, the program was changed to a one-year pilot program and the involuntary services for youth provision was removed.

I apologize for not knowing this earlier.

Michael Quint
State Representative, District 33

---

We welcome responses from our readers. Letters should be typed if possible, and must include the writer's name, address, and telephone number where he or she can be reached during business hours for verification. The writer's name and position or town will be published, but these may be withheld for good reason.

Letters may be mailed to the Portland Phoenix, 482 Congress Street, Suite 501, Portland, ME 04101; faxed to (207)773-8905; or e-mailed to portlandletters@phx.com or to a writer's e-mail address (e-mailed letters must include a telephone number for verification and a hometown). All letters are subject to editing for considerations of space, fairness, and clarity.

---