Dog Community

Interesting legislation

Posted : 8/18/2006 2:26:21 PM

I just read an article in the Tacoma paper about some legislation they're trying to pass here. The new law will require anyone who does not have their dog or cat spayed/neutered to register for a breeder's license. The article didn't say how much this license would be or what the fine would be for not having a license. I just thought it was a really interesting idea. Has anyone else heard of something like this in their area?

The other law they are trying to pass here is a ban on dangerous dogs. They define dangerous dogs to be dogs who have bitten 2 or more people/animals. So instead of BSL, they are working to ban only dogs who have a history of violence. I was just wondering how people on this board feel about this.

miranadobe

Posted : 8/18/2006 2:32:27 PM

I'd have to see the specific legislation, but when talking about the "biting" dogs... how do they address dogs who do bite work for training -ie, Schutzhund dogs. They need to be sure if they ban things, that they word it properly... Although I'm still not sure they're working in the right vein on this one.

I think the spay/neuter mandate came up on this board recently, too, and making breeders jump through more hoops didn't go over too well.

cyclefiend2000

Posted : 8/18/2006 2:37:05 PM

re: spay/neuter law: i was just reading about this being in effect in another western state (it was either new mexico or california). it sounds like a good idea. i wonder how effectively it would be enforced though?

i dont have a problem with a dangerous dog law. at least it isnt condenming an entire breed(s). i think the idea of a dangerous dog law is the same as leaving a dangerous person loose in society. if someone is harming other people, they are usually put into some type of correction facility, and if the offense is harsh enough they face the death penalty (in many states). i think it is ok to have a similar action taken against dogs who have harmed people.[sm=2cents.gif]

sillysally

Posted : 8/18/2006 2:40:31 PM

I think the dangorous dog law is a good one. There NEED to be more across the board laws like that--my hope is that it is properly inforced. I wonder how someone whose dog has biten even once is even able to keep homeowners insurance? My company says they'll cover any breed, but one bite and you're out.

While I like the speuter law, I just wonder how it well it will be inforced...

rwbeagles

Posted : 8/18/2006 3:03:40 PM

"The other law they are trying to pass here is a ban on dangerous dogs. They define dangerous dogs to be dogs who have bitten 2 or more people/animals."

Think about the effects on dog parks...if your dog bites another or is bitten....during a squabble, or on a walk when the two dogs seem friendly then a fight breaks out (how often has that happened to people here?)...is that dog dangerous enough to have that be it's one strike out of two? Think about predatory dogs that kill rats, possums and squirrels, or loose cats that wander the neighborhood...if you lived next door to someone who didn't like your dog...this sounds like a vendetta waiting to happen.

A dog can attack other animals without being a danger to people, ever.

What exactly happens to these "dangerous dogs"?

S/N laws are not my cup of tea because they then are faced with enforcement. You cannot tell if a bitch is fixed by looking at her..might be a c section scar...I do not want people thnking they can knock on MY door and examine MY animals for testicles and ovaries any time they want to...no thank you. Breeder licensing when you are actually BREEDING is one thing...but if you are simply an exhibitor, someone who believes in waiting until your dog is older to fix them, or someone who does not do it for religious reasons....what right do they have to force you? And again...only people willing to OBEY such laws...will be affected. thugs and idiots will still do whatever the heck they want with their dogs...

miranadobe

Posted : 8/18/2006 3:09:41 PM

Right on point, Gina, IMO. If they're going to go down this road, they really have to be REALLY detailed in what they qualify as "dangerous dog" and how a dog comes to that title.

Again I'm glad I live in the "Live Free or Die" state.

cakana

Posted : 8/18/2006 3:20:10 PM

Gina - I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure any law about dangerous dogs would specify a "human bite" and not include all those other things.

As for the spay/neuter issue, it might be a little tough to enforce, but here you have to provide proof of spay/neuter to get your discounted county license. Why not make it a law like that? Maybe not everywhere requires animals to be licensed, but for the ones who do, it could be handled that way. If you can't show proof of spay/neuter, then you must provide proof of being a registered breeder.

No change is going to be easy or cheap, but while we wait for the perfect answer, lots of dogs and cats are dying in shelters and another city's working on BSL.

cyclefiend2000

Posted : 8/18/2006 3:21:31 PM

i guess i missed the "people/animals" part of the dangerous breed law. i think of dangerous dogs as being human aggressive. it doesnt affect my feelings one way or the other towards a dog that kills rodents (squirrels included).

i would be sad if one of our cats was killed by a dog, but if someone's cat is killed by a dog i would ask the cat's owner why wasnt the cat sufficiently contained. i think in cases like this both the dog and cat owner share in the responsibility for what has happened. if it is a feral cat, then i would think the same about a dog killing it as i would the dog killing any other wild animal... "sh!t happens!"

sillysally

Posted : 8/18/2006 3:22:21 PM

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

"The other law they are trying to pass here is a ban on dangerous dogs. They define dangerous dogs to be dogs who have bitten 2 or more people/animals."

Think about the effects on dog parks...if your dog bites another or is bitten....during a squabble, or on a walk when the two dogs seem friendly then a fight breaks out (how often has that happened to people here?)...is that dog dangerous enough to have that be it's one strike out of two? Think about predatory dogs that kill rats, possums and squirrels, or loose cats that wander the neighborhood...if you lived next door to someone who didn't like your dog...this sounds like a vendetta waiting to happen.

A dog can attack other animals without being a danger to people, ever.

What exactly happens to these "dangerous dogs"?

S/N laws are not my cup of tea because they then are faced with enforcement. You cannot tell if a bitch is fixed by looking at her..might be a c section scar...I do not want people thnking they can knock on MY door and examine MY animals for testicles and ovaries any time they want to...no thank you. Breeder licensing when you are actually BREEDING is one thing...but if you are simply an exhibitor, someone who believes in waiting until your dog is older to fix them, or someone who does not do it for religious reasons....what right do they have to force you? And again...only people willing to OBEY such laws...will be affected. thugs and idiots will still do whatever the heck they want with their dogs...

Good point on the animals, perhaps they do need to define it more clearly. However, I do think that as far as people go, I agree with it. How SHOULD a community deal with a dog that is allowed to repeatedly go after other dogs? Should it depend on the severity of the attack? The circumstances?

sillysally

Posted : 8/18/2006 3:24:12 PM

ORIGINAL: cakana

Gina - I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure any law about dangerous dogs would specify a "human bite" and not include all those other things.

As for the spay/neuter issue, it might be a little tough to enforce, but here you have to provide proof of spay/neuter to get your discounted county license. Why not make it a law like that? Maybe not everywhere requires animals to be licensed, but for the ones who do, it could be handled that way. If you can't show proof of spay/neuter, then you must provide proof of being a registered breeder.

No change is going to be easy or cheap, but while we wait for the perfect answer, lots of dogs and cats are dying in shelters and another city's working on BSL.

[sm=wink2.gif]

rwbeagles

Posted : 8/18/2006 3:57:18 PM

No, actually most dog statutes declare a vicious or dangerous dog as one that attacks or attempts to attack any person OR OTHER ANIMAL. This can include menacing such as "straining at the leash and barking, growling, raising of hackles"...person or other animal...the one we're discussing here includes ANIMALS. Not even specified down to domestic animals...

"As for the spay/neuter issue, it might be a little tough to enforce, but here you have to provide proof of spay/neuter to get your discounted county license. Why not make it a law like that? Maybe not everywhere requires animals to be licensed, but for the ones who do, it could be handled that way. If you can't show proof of spay/neuter, then you must provide proof of being a registered breeder. "

Again...this does nothing to address the problem of people who do NOT wish to s/n prior to 1 year of age...most statutes have either 6 months or 4 MONTHS as the timeframe it must be done in. Many folks...esp in large breeds would not be comfortable with that. Bottom line is, I do not wish some outside authority forcing me to do some medical procedure on my dog that carries risk...that is a choice for ME to make, because "I" am paying the bill. If and when my dogs become a problem in the neighborhood I live in then it should be addressed...I live and abide by responsible dog ownership rules...and I resent it being assumed that I am irresponsible simply because someone else is. Bottom line, is if they ENFORCED the laws they already have they'd have much less of a problem.

It's also my opinion that the majority of dogs in shelters, dying, are there because people are not ready for a pet to be a long haul commitment and when something comes up they dump it. S/N does not help with "we're moving"..."we've got a new baby"..."he barks too much"..."we don't have time for him anymore"....etc. Those dogs will still die and the only thing mandatory S/N will do is increase business for the big box breeders (WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM SUCH LAWS) like Hunte Corp by regulating the hobby breeder OUT OF BUSINESS.

rwbeagles

Posted : 8/18/2006 4:02:14 PM

For SillySally,

From what I saw on that one SanFran animal cops...they have a dangerous dog "hearing" where all sides are allowed to present witnesses for character, their account of the events leading up to the bite, and the dog is actually evaluated by some kind of behaviourist....this seems pretty fair to me...depending on the knowledge and impartiality of the behaviorist doing the eval. That would be key...ex if the behaviourist had abias against your breed you'd kinda be screwed from the git-go....which would suck because you likely wouldn't know util afterwards!

Most include wording such as "unprovoked" attack or bite....now what constitues provocation is up for BIG debate! is approaching a strange dog with it's owner, leaning over it making kissy faces right into the dogs face provocation and could you prove that? Many a dog might think about defensively or disciplinarily nipping in this case...it'd be scary for them or offensive to them.

fuzzy_dogs_mom

Posted : 8/18/2006 4:09:16 PM

I would hope that breeders and people with show dogs or working dogs that they would like to breed would be able to get exemptions from the *mandatory S/N* law, if such a law were to be enacted. These aren't the people who would have dogs running around breeding willy nilly anyway. And no dog would have to be examined physically - everyone who has spayed or neutered an animal has a vet certificate stating this. As Cathy said, that's how we get our reduced rates on county registration. As soon as the dog is registered with the county for the first time, you don't have to worry about it any more. As for the viscious dog law, there are a lot of bugs that have to be worked out but I think it's a lot more fair than blanket BSL.

Joyce

sillysally

Posted : 8/18/2006 4:18:27 PM

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

For SillySally,

From what I saw on that one SanFran animal cops...they have a dangerous dog "hearing" where all sides are allowed to present witnesses for character, their account of the events leading up to the bite, and the dog is actually evaluated by some kind of behaviourist....this seems pretty fair to me...depending on the knowledge and impartiality of the behaviorist doing the eval. That would be key...ex if the behaviourist had abias against your breed you'd kinda be screwed from the git-go....which would suck because you likely wouldn't know util afterwards!

Most include wording such as "unprovoked" attack or bite....now what constitues provocation is up for BIG debate! is approaching a strange dog with it's owner, leaning over it making kissy faces right into the dogs face provocation and could you prove that? Many a dog might think about defensively or disciplinarily nipping in this case...it'd be scary for them or offensive to them.

The hearing idea does seem fair. But would a small town be able to pull something like that off?

I guess my definition of a provoked attack is one in which the dog is defending it's human or property from a threat--you could probobly have a whole hearing on that as well. The problem is that what a dog OWNER sees as provokation and what the visctim sees as provokation are 2 different things. I'm sure that my idea of this would differ with other people on this board even--then again I have a very low tolerance for human aggression.

However, I do think that the fact that this community is trying to enact an across the board dangorous dog law should be seen as a positive thing. JMHO.

miranadobe

Posted : 8/18/2006 4:20:32 PM

It's also my opinion that the majority of dogs in shelters, dying, are there because people are not ready for a pet to be a long haul commitment and when something comes up they dump it. S/N does not help with "we're moving"..."we've got a new baby"..."he barks too much"..."we don't have time for him anymore"....etc.

[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]