« Who's Really Dangerous? | Main | Moose »

Retraction

In my recent blog entry about dangerous dog legislation, I mentioned a situation at a local shelter where a dog was thought to have been declared potentially dangerous, but had actually only had the words "potentially dangerous" written on her shelter intake card. I also stated that when asked if the dog had been formally declared, the animal control officer had dodged the question. I received a voice mail from the animal control officer a few days ago in which she stated that I needed to change the story, lest I "look foolish" - that the dog in question had in fact been declared, and that she had the paperwork to prove it. I made some calls of my own and verified that the story as I told it in my entry is not accurate - I was given false information by someone I trusted, and I did not do enough to verify that information before publishing it. While looking foolish is the least of my concerns, it is important to me to maintain accuracy with regard any information we relay via this website, so here is what I found out:

There is no evidence to support that the dog in question was not formally declared potentially dangerous. However, when the dog was brought to the shelter by the animal control officer, the shelter did not receive any paperwork to that effect, apart from the words "potentially dangerous" being written on the dog's intake card, or at the very least, that paperwork is not in the shelter's possession at this time. This is what caused confusion among some shelter staff and volunteers. The confusion continued when the county supplied a list of potentially dangerous dogs and the dog in question was not included on that list. A possible explanation is that she was removed when she was put into the custody of the shelter. The list contained only two dogs, both added in 2011. The animal control officer was never directly questioned about the dog - this part of the story, as far as I have been able to gather, was fabricated.

It also recently came to my attention that another dog mentioned in the entry, Midas, was never declared dangerous; I mentioned Midas as an example of a dog whose good looks afforded him a great deal of leniency despite multiple bite incidents, while a dog in the same shelter with fewer incidents was killed. As it turns out, animal control was even more inconsistent in that case than I first believed. It is important to note that this was a different animal control agency than the one discussed above; the entry I published was about dangerous dog laws in general, not specifically those in our county.

Some of the details have changed, but the main point remains the same. These confusing, vague, and arbitrary laws seldom accomplish their intended purpose. The fact that our own county currently has no dangerous dogs under its jurisdiction suggests that compliance with the law is such an overwhelming task for the average citizen that when faced with a dangerous dog declaration, people opt instead to have their animals killed. This is, of course, unless we are to believe that every dog that is declared dangerous belongs to an irresponsible or uncaring person, or that the people of our county are so vigilant in keeping their dogs from getting into trouble that these cases never arise in the first place.

Our county commissioners are considering changes to our dangerous dog regulations, some of which are justified and necessary, and others of which I oppose. Specifically, I oppose expanding the definition of a potentially dangerous dog to include dogs that chase game animals and free-roaming poultry, rabbits, and cats, and expanding the definition of dangerous dogs to include dogs that injure other animals.

I believe that the responsibility for keeping domestic animals safe in our communities is a shared one, that people are ethically obligated to keep their own animals safe from predators, traffic, poisons, and other hazards. I do not believe that it is appropriate to hold the owner of a dog responsible for the injury or death of an animal that could as easily have been killed or injured by wildlife, logging trucks, or a puddle of antifreeze. This does not excuse a dog that attacks animals on the property of the owner of those animals, nor does it excuse dogs that attack other dogs, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I believe it is being drawn in the wrong place. With reference to the expansion of the definition of dangerous dogs, I oppose it on the grounds that there are simply too many factors that come into play when it comes to animals injuring one another to warrant a permanent, irrevocable declaration. Sometimes dogs fight, and the dog that picks the fight does not always win. The severity of injuries depends more upon where the teeth happen to land than on the temperament of the animals involved, and to permanently and irrevocably declare a dog to be dangerous, requiring that it be kept in cruel confinement for the rest of its life, that it be insured at great expense, and that its owners pay an exorbitant annual license fee, is, in my opinion, outrageous. The state law, for all its flaws, draws the line at the killing of one animal by another, and I believe our county should, at least for now, do the same.

It would be unfair not to point out the elements of the proposed changes that I do support, however, and the most important of these is the creating of an inactive potentially dangerous dog status. Inactive status allows the owner of the dog, after two years with no violations, to apply for relief from the highest registration fees in the state. For responsible citizens who found themselves in a difficult situation due to a simple mistake, this new status is a well-deserved addition to the county code. Another wise change to the law specifies that electronic or 'invisible' fencing are not adequate methods of restraint for potentially dangerous dogs. I would like to see that expanded to include chains and tethers as well.

The county's Animal Issues Advisory Committee, of which I am a member, may never fully agree with me when it comes to legislation, but as I deal more with dangerous dog declarations than any resident of this county, including its law enforcement officers, I hope that my suggestions do not fall on deaf ears. To see the law with its proposed changes, as well as the changes I propose, click here.

Posted on June 15, 2011