Virginia - Law Mandates Dangerous-Dog Database

[Rene Allegrini]

NewsAdvance.com | Law mandates dangerous-dog database

Law mandates dangerous-dog database


By Matt Busse
mbusse@newsadvance.com
June 29, 2006


State legislators are cracking down on Cujo.

Starting July 1, owners of dangerous dogs must register their pets to be included in a statewide Internet database.

They also could face harsher punishments if they fail to keep the canines in check.
A dog is labeled “dangerous” once it attacks a person, dog or cat, except in certain situations, such as when hunting or on its owner’s property.

The new law introduces an Internet “Virginia Dangerous Dogs Registry.”

It will include information such as the dog owner’s name, address and telephone number; the dog’s name, photograph, breed; and what the dog did to receive the “dangerous” designation.

Lynchburg Chief Animal Warden Louis Faust said some measures already exist to identify dangerous dogs, such as requiring special licenses.

The dogs also must wear a marked dog tag, which Faust said is “like anything else - you can take that off.”

Faust said the new law sounds good in theory, but only time will tell how effective it will be in tracking dangerous dogs.

“It’ll be nice to know where they are, but I don’t know how many dangerous dogs there are in the state of Virginia that have got their license,” he said.

The law also boosts criminal penalties for those who have dogs already declared dangerous that attack animals or people.

The most serious punishment makes it a felony if a dangerous-dog owner’s handling of a dog that attacks a person is found to be “so gross, wanton and culpable as to show reckless disregard for human life.”

The law was sponsored by Del. Robert Orrock, R-Spotsylvania, who has seen firsthand citizens’ strong feelings about vicious dogs.

Spotsylvania County citizens were outraged in March 2005 when three pit bulls fatally mauled an 82-year-old woman and her Shih Tzu.

The incident sparked a public outcry that led to the dangerous-dog legislation.

However, in Lynchburg there is only one animal registered as a dangerous dog, a pit bull, Faust said.

Few people choose to register their dogs as dangerous, Faust said. The requirements are strict.

The owner must take out a $100,000 liability insurance policy in case of bites.

The dog must be in a padlocked enclosure when on an owner’s property and muzzled and leashed when off it.

A more common scenario when a dog attacks someone and would be considered dangerous, Faust said, is the owner turns the dog over to city officials, who euthanize it.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[LavenderRott]

Well, I certainly don't know why one would list a phone number on the internet for someone who owns a dog with a bite history or a history of attacking other animals. Other then that, so long as the dog is considered dangerous based on DEED and not BREED - I honestly see no problem here.

If a parent is able to check the internet to see if a pedophile lives in their neighborhood, then they should be able to check and see if their children are in danger of being attacked or bitten by a dog while walking to the bus stop or playing outside with their friends.

[Rene Allegrini]

Originally Posted by LavenderRott

If a parent is able to check the internet to see if a pedophile lives in their neighborhood, then they should be able to check and see if their children are in danger of being attacked or bitten by a dog while walking to the bus stop or playing outside with their friends.

The problem with accessing this sort of information on the internet has already proven to be a serious problem. With the pedophies, someone has already taken the law into their own hands and actually killed a pedophile listed on the database in their neighborhood.

And, it was reported on the one of The Bully Breed lists, that after complying with registering their dogs, residents in one town found their home addresses published in the towns newspapers and almost immediately had the lives of their animals threatened or actually killed.

So, are you willing to list your dog (assuming you own one of the targeted breeds) listed on a Nationally accessable website with your home address and telephone number knowing there are people out there that would actually do you or your pets harm?

It doesn't matter to some people that you own a well trained, well socialized, wonderful companion. It only matters that it's one of THOSE dogs as we have all read about repeatedly.

[LavenderRott]

Oh, frack! I personally think the whole world has gone to heck in a handbasket.

I guess there really isn't any simple answer. I know that I saw a similar list online for a city in Florida. It makes sense to me - but then, I am not the type of person to take the law into my own hands.

I keep forgetting that not everyone is a law abiding, reasonable person.

[Rene Allegrini]

Originally Posted by LavenderRott

I keep forgetting that not everyone is a law abiding, reasonable person.

Don't worry. As long as we have BSL there will plenty of people to remind us. Just ask the Bully breed people.

[hokisteph5]

Originally Posted by Rene Allegrini

The law was sponsored by Del. Robert Orrock, R-Spotsylvania, who has seen firsthand citizens’ strong feelings about vicious dogs.

Spotsylvania County citizens were outraged in March 2005 when three pit bulls fatally mauled an 82-year-old woman and her Shih Tzu.

The incident sparked a public outcry that led to the dangerous-dog legislation.

I think Del. Orrock is from Caroline County, not Spotsylvania. This article also fails to mention a couple of things:

The family of Dorothy Sullivan, the 82 year old woman killed, was outraged when Del. Orrock sponsored his own vicious dog bill because it provided lighter penalties for irresponsible owners than the one sponsored by Sen. Edd Houck. Additionally, unlike Del. Orrock, Sen. Houck got input for his bill from a lot of different sources.

Del. Orrock also proposed another bill that sounds good in theory, but I fear about the repercussions. Basically, if you go to the vet and get your dog their rabies shot, the vets are then required to provide the county with that information to ensure the dogs' are properly licensed. It also creates a database that is open to everyone to search through, from companies that provide pet supplies to homeowners' insurance.

Overall, my opinion of Del. Orrock is that while he may have good intentions, in practice I see the dogs of VA being made to suffer.

Here are a couple of links:

Fredericksburg.com - Here's why we opposed Bobby Orrock's dangerous-dog bill
Fredericksburg.com - Snoopy, go home
Fredericksburg.com - Dog-attack bills finally conform
Fredericksburg.com - Kaine likes dog bills, wants tweaks

[fbkeays]

Originally Posted by hokisteph5

Del. Orrock also proposed another bill that sounds good in theory, but I fear about the repercussions. Basically, if you go to the vet and get your dog their rabies shot, the vets are then required to provide the county with that information to ensure the dogs' are properly licensed. It also creates a database that is open to everyone to search through, from companies that provide pet supplies to homeowners' insurance.

In California, most, but not all counties require that vets inform the county with owner/dog information when they give rabies vax. I didn't use to mind that until CA law changed and indivual localities can have mandatory spay and neuter of specified breeds. When Denver started their round up of pitbulls a couple of years ago they went through the licensing rolls to round up the dogs to kill them. I am not so in favor of such lists anymore.

[Gunsey'sMom]

Yes I also have a problem with that. Should I not take care of my dog, so he will not be on a hitlist? That is what is sure almost amounts to, doesn't it? It has not gotten quite that bad really around here, but then again I have not had the pleasure of trying to purchase homeowners insurance yet, because we currently rent.

Around here, it is accepted for your dog to be a roaming animal. I find the "on your property" thing to be a joke around here-because by the time the AC gets the stray dog down the street that could have bit your child (be it a mutt or BAD BREED) will be gone. Are you going to try to secure a dog that is violent for ID purposes? AC here has actually sugested to me that I secure dogs myself before. Out here no one knows who owns these dogs either, its just the black dog, or the tan dog. It is a joke.

I just keep my dog protected, he is never off leash. His kennel is padlocked with triple reinforced sides. And we are ordering a top for his kennel too for the elements, and because yes, kids are that stupid.

[hokisteph5]

Originally Posted by fbkeays

When Denver started their round up of pitbulls a couple of years ago they went through the licensing rolls to round up the dogs to kill them. I am not so in favor of such lists anymore.

I think that's awful and never even thought the list could be used in that way. Add another reason why this VA law is potentially so bad. Luckily, here in Spotsy most people seem to "get" that the dogs aren't bad, it's the irresponsible owners.

I just took Samson to the vet last Friday for his ears to be rechecked and while we were in the waiting room, I had him sitting, shaking, laying down, etc. I figured that 1) it would keep him occupied so he didn't want to visit so much with other people or dogs and 2) hopefully subconsciously prove to people that if my dog was so vicious (if they thought that), he wouldn't be obeying me so quickly.

[SuziHeaton]

Am I missing something? Do you have to register a dangerous breed, or a specific dog whose already committed an offense?

[hokisteph5]

Originally Posted by SuziHeaton

Am I missing something? Do you have to register a dangerous breed, or a specific dog whose already committed an offense?

I think owners are supposed to register their dog as dangerous if they're designated that by their county. Of course, I'm not sure what the penalties will be if someone doesn't register their dog.

[chivas]

If the dog is deemed dangerous by attacking ( 1 chance only) another animal or person then in order to keep your dog alive you must register it. this law is NOT breed specific. While I have no problem registering dangerous dogs, I do agree that the phone numbers and addresses of the owners should NOT be made public. In order for them to be able to register the dog, they must make precautions. But in theory, it will only probably protect dogs who are not REALLY dangerous but attack an ANIMAL for whatever reason, I seriously doubt dogs that attack people no matter what the extent of injuries (or not) will be allowed to live. The truely dangerous dogs will live under the radar like they always have. And here in Norfolk VA - fighting pits, while not usually PEOPLE aggressive, are a problem. Ive 2x been threatened by free roaming pit bulls while walking my dogs.