Posted on 04/26/2006 9:14:27 AM PDT by Wristpin
GLOVERSVILLE - Michael Ward, the owner of the 2-year-old pit bull that attacked a small bichon frise March 31, will be taking the dog back to its breeder Saturday to fulfill his court obligations to remove the dog from Gloversville without having to euthanize him.
"I called [the breeder] and he didn't want the dog to go to someone he didn't know and he wanted to make sure the dog had a safe home," Ward said. "Everybody thinks that he's a vicious dog because of the breed. Everybody is being discriminating against it. [The breeder] breeds them and he knows better than that." Ward said he plans to meet the breeder halfway between New York state and Virginia. Ward is giving the dog, named Blitz, back to his breeder, but is not charging the breeder any money.
"I had two years with the dog that I wouldn't want to trade for anything," Ward said.
On April 7, Gloversville City Court Judge Vincent DeSantis ordered Ward to study alternatives to euthanasia for his dog after the judge determined the dog was too dangerous.
Ward said the dog had been neutered prior to the incident and a microchip has been implanted in the dog.
There are millions of dogs owned by negligent owners yet they are not being consistently shot by law enforcement during SUSTAINED MAULINGS. It's a breed specific issue.
Take the dog that broke the chain to go after the 7 year old girl. WTF causes a dog to have such prey drive that it will break a chain and make a beeline straight for a neighbors kid? Should such a beast be a pet?
The conduct of the Pit Industry has been atrocious dealing with this problem. Like Sinkspur says..."They lie, lie, lie".
Instead of pushing for sensible restrictions on breeding and who can own such animals, they outright deny the problem. It's probably to shield themselves from liability. What other industry can sell an inherently dangerous product with no liability? Seems to me they've decided to crack a few eggs with the victims to keep the blood money rollin in.
>There are millions of dogs owned by negligent owners yet they are not being consistently shot by law enforcement during SUSTAINED MAULINGS. It's a breed specific issue.<
There are breeds, like the Tosa Inu, and the Jindo, and the Fila Brasiliera, who could do the same thing.
You MUST hold the owner responsible if a dog mauls, or kills a human being.
Agree. If someone knowingly becomes the owner of an inherently dangerous breed, they should be treated as if they performed the mauling with their own two hands.
This is the definition, as per the state of Virginia, of a dangerous or vicious dog:
"Dangerous dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal, or killed a companion animal; however, when a dog attacks or bites another dog, the attacking or biting dog shall not be deemed dangerous (i) if no serious physical injury as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the other dog as a result of the attack or bite or (ii) both dogs are owned by the same person. No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog as a result of biting, attacking or inflicting injury on another dog while engaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful hunting or participating in an organized, lawful dog handling event.
"Vicious dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has (i) killed a person; (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function; or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or an animal control officer as authorized by local ordinance pursuant to the provisions of subsection E, that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding.
Yep, another example of the dog lobby protecting itself from liability with the "one bite free" law.
The pit from the original article is illegal in VA due to being declared dangerous in another state.
. Any canine or canine crossbreed that has been found by any court to be dangerous or vicious in another jurisdiction within or without the Commonwealth of Virginia shall be considered dangerous or vicious throughout the Commonwealth. It shall be unlawful for any owner or other person to bring or cause to be brought into the Commonwealth of Virginia any canine or canine crossbreed that has been found by any court or administrative process to be dangerous or vicious in another state.
>Yep, another example of the dog lobby protecting itself from liability with the "one bite free" law.
The pit from the original article is illegal in VA due to being declared dangerous in another state. <
You are right, the dog in this article would not be allowed in the state. Virginia is where, last year, an elderly woman walking her dog, was killed by a dog pack. If you read the entire dangerous dog law, and note that numerous complaints had been made about the dog pack in question, you'll note that, this law should have been activated.
Had the shiftless, good for nothing state employees followed the law, and had they picked up these dogs, or made the owner comply with the dangerous dog requirements, the woman would be alive today.
Laws are not worth the paper they're printed on if they're not enforced. But, let a situation like this happen, just watch the politicians spring into action, WRITING MORE LAWS. Let's see what happens if we simply enforce one commonly seen law, the leash law. Overnight, dog bites would drop in number, all over the country.
§ 3.1-796.93:1. Authority to control dangerous or vicious dogs.
A. The governing body of any county, city or town may enact an ordinance regulating dangerous dogs and vicious dogs.
B. As used in this section:
"Dangerous dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal, or killed a companion animal; however, when a dog attacks or bites another dog, the attacking or biting dog shall not be deemed dangerous (i) if no serious physical injury as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the other dog as a result of the attack or bite or (ii) both dogs are owned by the same person. No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog as a result of biting, attacking or inflicting injury on another dog while engaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful hunting or participating in an organized, lawful dog handling event.
"Vicious dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has (i) killed a person; (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function; or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or an animal control officer as authorized by local ordinance pursuant to the provisions of subsection E, that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding.
C. Any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section shall prescribe the following provisions:
1. Any animal control officer who has reason to believe that a canine or canine crossbreed within his jurisdiction is a dangerous dog or vicious dog shall apply to a magistrate of the jurisdiction for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before a general district court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. The animal control officer shall confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. If the animal control officer determines that the owner or custodian can confine the animal in a manner that protects the public safety, he may permit the owner or custodian to confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian or harborer of the animal to produce the animal. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of the ordinance. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a vicious dog, the court shall order the animal euthanized in accordance with the provisions of § 3.1-796.119.
2. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor shall the local governing body prohibit the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who was (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, or (iii) provoking, tormenting, or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog. No animal which, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, or its owner or owner's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog.
3. The owner of any animal found to be a dangerous dog shall, within 10 days of such finding, obtain a dangerous dog registration certificate from the local animal control officer for a fee of $50 or an amount as set by local ordinance but not to exceed the costs incurred by the locality to administer this program, in addition to other fees that may be authorized by law. The local animal control officer shall also provide the owner with a uniformly designed tag that identifies the animal as a dangerous dog. The owner shall affix the tag to the animal's collar and ensure that the animal wears the collar and tag at all times. All certificates obtained pursuant to this subdivision shall be renewed annually for the same fee and in the same manner as the initial certificate was obtained.
4. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons 18 years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence (i) of the animal's current rabies vaccination, if applicable, and (ii) that the animal is and will be confined in a proper enclosure or is and will be confined inside the owner's residence or is and will be muzzled and confined in the owner's fenced-in yard until the proper enclosure is constructed. In addition, owners who apply for certificates or renewals thereof under this section shall not be issued a certificate or renewal thereof unless they present satisfactory evidence that (i) their residence is and will continue to be posted with clearly visible signs warning both minors and adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on the property and (ii) the animal has been permanently identified by means of a tattoo on the inside thigh or by electronic implantation.
5. While on the property of its owner, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked structure of sufficient height and design to prevent its escape or direct contact with or entry by minors, adults, or other animals. The structure shall be designed to provide the animal with shelter from the elements of nature. When off its owner's property, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be kept on a leash and muzzled in such a manner as not to cause injury to the animal or interfere with the animal's vision or respiration, but so as to prevent it from biting a person or another animal.
6. If the owner of an animal found to be a dangerous dog is a minor, the custodial parent or legal guardian shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of this section.
7. After an animal has been found to be a dangerous dog, the animal's owner shall immediately, upon learning of same, notify the local animal control authority if the animal (i) is loose or unconfined; (ii) bites a person or attacks another animal; (iii) is sold, given away, or dies; or (iv) has been moved to a different address.
8. The owner of any animal that has been found to be a dangerous dog who willfully fails to comply with the requirements of the ordinance shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
9. All fees collected pursuant to the ordinance, less the costs incurred by the animal control authority in producing and distributing the certificates and tags required by the ordinance, shall be paid into a special dedicated fund in the treasury of the locality for the purpose of paying the expenses of any training course required under § 3.1-796.104:1.
D. Any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section may prescribe the following provisions:
1. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons 18 years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence that the animal has been neutered or spayed.
2. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons who present satisfactory evidence that the owner has liability insurance coverage, to the value of at least $100,000, that covers animal bites.
E. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision C 1, any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section may provide that an animal control officer may determine, after investigation, whether a dog is a dangerous dog. If the animal control officer determines that a dog is a dangerous dog, he may order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of the ordinance. If the animal's owner disagrees with the animal control officer's determination, he may appeal the determination to the general district court for a trial on the merits.
Motorcyclists knowlingly assume the increased risk when they get on the bike. And quite frankly, I have no problem when a pit mauls it's own family, except for the young kids of course. That's an assumed risk and Darwinism to a certain extent.... To me it's not a law enforcement/public safety issue.
The problem is the number of folks getting mauled NOT knowingly assuming any risks.
If it were just Pit owners being mauled, the motorcycle comparison would be apples to apples. Otherwise it is another childlike argument which pisses off the potential jury pool.
A good opportunity for the Pit Community to police their own ranks here and report this illegal transfer to the authorites in VA. The danger of a human aggressive pit bull doesn't need explaining...
I've been hit by an idiot on a motorcycle. In my estimation, it is apples to apples.
You're lucky it wasn't a car!
>A good opportunity for the Pit Community to police their own ranks here and report this illegal transfer to the authorites in VA. The danger of a human aggressive pit bull doesn't need explaining...<
I'm not sure who you are labeling the "Pit Community" here. When trying to access the original story to see where in Virginia the breeder is, I found the link dead.
Do you have the article saved? You hit the nail on the head, the New York owner AND the breeder in Virginia are in the wrong to send a dog with court ordered dangerous dog ruling to our commonwealth.
While searching for the original article, I found this letter to the editor. I agree with this woman. Virginia doesn't need another state's problem dangerous dog:
Dog poses danger in Virginia
Pit bull to return to breeder?
I cannot believe this dog is being sent to Virginia. My mother was also 82 years old (the same age as Anita Walker). She too took her little dog, Buttons, out on a leash in her own yard. My mother's dog was also attacked by pit bulls. The only difference being was my mother and her little dog were both killed.
My question now is will this dog be registered in the state of Virginia as a dangerous dog or will another dog or maybe a child have to be attacked or killed before it will be considered dangerous? All I can say is Anita Walker is lucky. I wish my mother had been as lucky. It's nice to know you can be so forgiving as long as the dog is no longer a threat to this neighborhood, but what about the people who live in the next state? What a great way to handle a dangerous situation.
BETTY GREENE
Partlow, Virginia
>The pit from the original article is illegal in VA due to being declared dangerous in another state.
. Any canine or canine crossbreed that has been found by any court to be dangerous or vicious in another jurisdiction within or without the Commonwealth of Virginia shall be considered dangerous or vicious throughout the Commonwealth. It shall be unlawful for any owner or other person to bring or cause to be brought into the Commonwealth of Virginia any canine or canine crossbreed that has been found by any court or administrative process to be dangerous or vicious in another state.<
I hate to nitpick, here, but do you mind citing where you found the above paragraph? I just checked with a person I know in Animal Control, and sad to say, he thinks that, as long as the breeder complies with the regulations for registering and confining this dog, it would be allowed in the state. He used the code I posted to this thread.
I am with you, I don't want a New York dangerous dog dumped on the citizens of Virginia, regardless of breed.
The link is dead...I found a post that had the Judge's Name
Judge Vincent DeSantis Gloversville City courthouse, NY
You know what ...I found this which is a draft of the new law which was just legislated recently.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+ful+HB340S1
I can't tell if this actually made the bill, or if they haven't updated their websites yet. The law on the website looks vastly different.
I can't tell...It looks like it was "chopped"
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?061+sum+HB340
What has to be banned is the abuse to the dogs. Most pit bulls (Staffordshire Terriers) are not as agressive as people think they are. Tying a pit bull out doors, beating him and having others come in to beat the dogs will make them aggressive and dangerous. Then starving the dog and putting a small dog in with him only makes that dog more dangerous.
I won't stand for it when I see a dog abused. I do something about it. By the way, I rescue Standard Schnauzers.
Yeah and all Vette owners have a little d!ck. get a life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.