Rottweilerlvr
03-01-2007, 04:53 AM
Bill seeks to deal with ‘dangerous dogs’
Mannix Porterfield
Register-Herald Reporter
CHARLESTON — A toddler’s horrific death a few summers ago in the jaws of a pit bull has inspired Greenbrier County’s delegation to push for a new law to deal with “dangerous dogs.”
What separates a canine of that bent from the lovable pet or hunting companion?
By the definition in the bill by Delegates Tom Campbell, a Democrat, and Ray Canterbury, a Republican, a “dangerous dog” is one that inflicts a serious hurt on a human or domestic animal, or has displayed a behavior that suggests a menace.
That would exclude the run-of-the-mill pet or the lovable strays in a classic “Andy Griffith Show” episode, titled “Dogs, dogs, dogs.”
“I’m a dog owner,” Campbell says. “We don’t want to do anything to restrict dog ownership. Hopefully, the legislation will just help people to be responsible with their pets.”
Any investigation of a dog threat must be launched within five days after a county warden has been advised of a problem.
His job is to decide if a dog is “potentially dangerous,” meaning the mutt can be presumed to pose a threat to public safety.
That is determined by the animal injuring a human or domestic animal, chasing either without provocation or running at large, or if the owner has been cited two or more times within a 12-month span.
Another element that factors in is when the dog acts in a “highly aggressively manner” and seems capable of jumping over a fence.
A dog warden may obtain a search warrant and can impound the animal until the owner has met his obligations for keeping it away from the public.
If a dog is considered actually dangerous, the warden must give the owner a written notice and again can seize the animal. The owner is allowed to appeal to circuit court.
Law enforcement officers are exempt from the bill. Nor would it apply if the threat, injury or damage came when the offended person was trespassing, provoking, assaulting or abusing the dog. And no owner could be cited if the injured person was engaged in any crime at the time.
Moreover, the dog cannot be blamed if it was responding to pain or injury or protecting itself or its pups, or protecting or defending a human being in its immediate area.
No “dangerous or potentially dangerous” dog could be kept without a valid certificate or registration. Such canines must be kept on a 4-foot leash in a proper enclosure.
Owners of such pets must report any escapes to the dog warden immediately.
Any owner of such a dog that inflicts serious injury or death to a human being or domestic animal without provocation could face a fine of up to $10,000.
Campbell said he and Canterbury were asked to co-sponsor the legislation by the uncle of a Huntington child killed in a pit bull attack that gained widespread media attention.
Not only was that an inspiration, but Campbell pointed to a couple of attacks along the Greenbrier River Trail in his district.
“The constituent in Greenbrier County is very concerned about what happened to his niece,” Campbell said.
“He felt there needed to be some legislation enacted to help deal particularly with dangerous dogs that are identified very clearly.”
— E-mail:
mannix@register-herald.com
http://www.register-herald.com/local/local_story_056183956.html
Mannix Porterfield
Register-Herald Reporter
CHARLESTON — A toddler’s horrific death a few summers ago in the jaws of a pit bull has inspired Greenbrier County’s delegation to push for a new law to deal with “dangerous dogs.”
What separates a canine of that bent from the lovable pet or hunting companion?
By the definition in the bill by Delegates Tom Campbell, a Democrat, and Ray Canterbury, a Republican, a “dangerous dog” is one that inflicts a serious hurt on a human or domestic animal, or has displayed a behavior that suggests a menace.
That would exclude the run-of-the-mill pet or the lovable strays in a classic “Andy Griffith Show” episode, titled “Dogs, dogs, dogs.”
“I’m a dog owner,” Campbell says. “We don’t want to do anything to restrict dog ownership. Hopefully, the legislation will just help people to be responsible with their pets.”
Any investigation of a dog threat must be launched within five days after a county warden has been advised of a problem.
His job is to decide if a dog is “potentially dangerous,” meaning the mutt can be presumed to pose a threat to public safety.
That is determined by the animal injuring a human or domestic animal, chasing either without provocation or running at large, or if the owner has been cited two or more times within a 12-month span.
Another element that factors in is when the dog acts in a “highly aggressively manner” and seems capable of jumping over a fence.
A dog warden may obtain a search warrant and can impound the animal until the owner has met his obligations for keeping it away from the public.
If a dog is considered actually dangerous, the warden must give the owner a written notice and again can seize the animal. The owner is allowed to appeal to circuit court.
Law enforcement officers are exempt from the bill. Nor would it apply if the threat, injury or damage came when the offended person was trespassing, provoking, assaulting or abusing the dog. And no owner could be cited if the injured person was engaged in any crime at the time.
Moreover, the dog cannot be blamed if it was responding to pain or injury or protecting itself or its pups, or protecting or defending a human being in its immediate area.
No “dangerous or potentially dangerous” dog could be kept without a valid certificate or registration. Such canines must be kept on a 4-foot leash in a proper enclosure.
Owners of such pets must report any escapes to the dog warden immediately.
Any owner of such a dog that inflicts serious injury or death to a human being or domestic animal without provocation could face a fine of up to $10,000.
Campbell said he and Canterbury were asked to co-sponsor the legislation by the uncle of a Huntington child killed in a pit bull attack that gained widespread media attention.
Not only was that an inspiration, but Campbell pointed to a couple of attacks along the Greenbrier River Trail in his district.
“The constituent in Greenbrier County is very concerned about what happened to his niece,” Campbell said.
“He felt there needed to be some legislation enacted to help deal particularly with dangerous dogs that are identified very clearly.”
— E-mail:
mannix@register-herald.com
http://www.register-herald.com/local/local_story_056183956.html