« Teen Charged With Murder On Bus | Main | Astronomers Discover "Second Earth" »

Saint Paul Passes New Dogs Ordinance to Curb Attacks

An article published in the Star Tribune reported that the St. Paul CIty Council today was expected to pass a dog ordinance intended to curb the abuse of the animals. The ordinance was passed, and though not directly linked to the recent string of dog attacks, will prohibit owners with a history of dangerous dogs from having dog liscenses. The ordinance was sponsored by council president Kathy Landry, who doesn't know if it would have prevented Tuesdays attack of a woman by two pit bulls, but says that it would stop people from owning dogs who have had two dangerous dogs in a five year span.

The lead in the article emphasizes how soon the ordinance is being passed after the recent dog attack, but doesn't really say what the ordinance is going to do. It then gives a more general description of what the ordinance would do, but again lacks details that aren't revealed until near the article in a paraphrased quote by the president of the saint paul city council. In the middle of it we get a description of Tuesday's incident, which the article even admits probably has nothing to do with the ordinance as the ordinance was being worked on awhile before the incident occurred, so I'm not sure why it's included. The article closes with the reason why Landry introduced the ordinance. It's a relatively short piece with no direct quotations used.

Coverage of the new law in the Pioneer Press is done in an article that is even shorter than the Star Tribune piece. However, it is much more detail oriented and actually gives specifics about the effects of the law. It gives a general description of the law in the lead and then gives specifics near the end, with only a sentence devoted to Tuesday's incident and how it did not trigger the law.

The Pioneer Press article is short and contains more information than the article in the Star Tribune. The news works best presented as a short piece like both of them did, but the Pioneer Press article just does a better job and actually gives specifics about the changes and outlines the current situation as far as dog ordinances go.