Dangerous Dog Database

[Guest WoobiesMom]

I just heard about this on the news and was wondering if other states have this type of thing. Virginia has a database of registered dangerous dogs and they have to wear an orange collar that says Dangerous Dog if they are out of their property. Some of the cases have specifics such as the homeowners policy, microchip #s, etc.

 

http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_dd/public/cgi-bin/public.cgi

 

Just randomly choose a county if you're not here in VA or want to browse. I kinda like this, especially since I've realized that most of the time if there's a problem at the dogpark, the owner's gone before any info can be exchanged. At least this is one way of possibly tracking down an attacking dog. One would hope that they wouldn't bring the dog to a park, but you know how some people can be..... dense.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

Ooops sorry. All counties are supposed to be online by October. It appears only my county, Chesterfield, has their records up and running right now.

[Guest TheRuffMuttGang]

Jesus! There are three sets of two dogs from the same addresses! What is wrong with people?!

[border_collie_crazy]

Lynchburg has 2 dogs up...one looks rather like a doodle of some kind lol

[SoloRiver]

I think this is a ridiculous idea. They publish owner names, addresses, phone numbers... these aren't sex offenders for god's sake. They're dog owners. In many areas dogs can be declared "dangerous" for relatively flimsy reasons. If your Border Collie chased a kid on a bike and nipped at his heels, it could be declared dangerous. I'm not saying that it's OK for dogs to chase kids on bikes, but does a mistake like that really justify putting your name, address, phone number, and photos of your dogs online in a publicly searchable database? Is it fair that such a database could lead to harassment from people who have never even met you or your dog, that you and your dog have done absolutely nothing to?

 

The kinds of dogs who would end up on that kind of database are probably relatively non-dangerous. Dogs that are really dangerous rarely get second chances because the dangerous things they do in the first place get them euthanized immediately.

 

Let's say someone brings a dog to some dog park and it causes problems (or "problems") but the owner leaves before anyone can do anything about it. But hey, it looks kinda like this Border Collie on this database that was reported for biting a kid on a bike, and look, the address is right there... see where this can end up?

[OurBoys]

WoobiesMom,

 

NC doesn't have anything like this. What criterias do they use to decide which dogs wear the collars and which ones get put down?

[sweet_ceana]

What if someone rescues a "dangerous dog" do they have to be registered? That wouldn't be very fair... (on top of what solo stated)

[bettilu]

I think this is a ridiculous idea. They publish owner names, addresses, phone numbers... these aren't sex offenders for god's sake. They're dog owners. In many areas dogs can be declared "dangerous" for relatively flimsy reasons. If your Border Collie chased a kid on a bike and nipped at his heels, it could be declared dangerous. I'm not saying that it's OK for dogs to chase kids on bikes, but does a mistake like that really justify putting your name, address, phone number, and photos of your dogs online in a publicly searchable database? Is it fair that such a database could lead to harassment from people who have never even met you or your dog, that you and your dog have done absolutely nothing to?

 

The kinds of dogs who would end up on that kind of database are probably relatively non-dangerous. Dogs that are really dangerous rarely get second chances because the dangerous things they do in the first place get them euthanized immediately.

 

Let's say someone brings a dog to some dog park and it causes problems (or "problems") but the owner leaves before anyone can do anything about it. But hey, it looks kinda like this Border Collie on this database that was reported for biting a kid on a bike, and look, the address is right there... see where this can end up?

 

I totally agree with you, I think this is probably a really bad idea....We had a German Shepherd, Betti, who was a wonderful and loving pet....our neighbors son ran through our yard with a planet of the apes mask, and she knocked him down and scratched his back....his parents were fine with everything, he was ok....but he went to the school nurse the next day and told her what happened, she deemed it a "bite" and called the authorities.....they quaranteened her at our house, and the next thing we know, we get a letter from the humane society telling us we have a "potentially vicious" dog....and all the things we had to do, should we breed her, or get rid of her, etc....it was really ridiculous, because she didn't have a vicious bone in her body...!

[WyoBC]

That's just stupid. I can't believe people have to put their names online and put special collars on their dogs because they might be dangerous. I sure hope Wy doesn't do that. I will be really mad

[OurBoys]

Right now, I'm in agreement with Melanie. I've been confronted by a truly dangerous dog before. IMO, that dog should have been, and was, put down.

 

We don't have 'papers' on either one of our boys but I still believe they are full-blooded bc's. JJ is mature enough to not to chase cars or anyone on bikes but Jake isn't. Why should either one of my dogs be labeled dangerous because of an instinct, something they were bred to do?

 

I realize dog parks are the only avenue some people have but after taking JJ only once to one, we will never do that again. It totally stressed him out having 10-12 dogs suddenly 'gang up' on him. The statement I have just above our boys picture isn't there for looks. It's something I truly believe in. Anytime a dog is labeled 'dangerous', if you trace the dogs history, you will probably find a human involved. If the dog is truly dangerous, I don't see anything wrong with posting the human's name. My question is, why do they think the dog is dangerous in the first place???

 

If a person has had that dog since he was a puppy, instead of labeling the dog dangerous, IMO, they should label the human 'idiot' and let him/her wear a collar stating just that.

 

I apologize for the rant but it really bothers me when a dog gets blamed for something a human does.

[Rosanne]

I know a "dangerous dog". (Dog A)

It was loose in its own backyard under direct supervision. The neighbors dog (dog B ) was also loose in its own backyard, and was 14 years old AND the owner had admitted it would probably be put down within 2 weeks. Well dog A saw dog B (old dog) come near its property and took off towards it. I didn't witness this event but supposedly dog A (who is a large GSD, btw) "attacked" dog B. Dog B died. Dog B's owners were furious and tried to bring all kinds of legal actions. Nevermind the fact that BOTH dogs were loose, AND Dog B was on its last legs anyway. Owners of Dog A volunteered to pay any/all vet bills, but Dog B's owners were not happy with that.

So Dog A's owners ended up settling in court by having their dog muzzled and leashed EVERY time it goes outside, for the REST OF ITS LIFE. It's only 4 years old. The worst part is, Dog A's owner runs a day care in her house, and this dog 200% reliable with small children falling/sleeping/playing/running ALL DAY LONG. This is a wonderful dog, and a crying shame.

 

The owner would be horrified to learn that everybody and his brother in her state could find out her dog was "dangerous", since I believe she ended up with that label.

 

I think maybe a less-publicized list might be appropriate, like you have to contact the police with a suspicion and then they'll tell if you if the dog in question is "dangerous" or not. . .

[BustopherJones]

Whereas I cannot improve on what Melanie (SoloRiver) had to say, I will simply second her sentiment.

[juliepoudrier]

Nevermind the fact that BOTH dogs were loose, AND Dog B was on its last legs anyway.

 

Rosanne,

I really hope you didn't mean this the way that it sounds. Even if Dog B was on its last legs and due to be PTS in two weeks, that's not an excuse for Dog A to have attacked it or for Dog A or Dog A's owners not to have suffered some consequence as a result of the attack. I'm not saying Dog B's owners responded appropriately, but do you really believe that the age or condition of the dog being attacked should somehow be considered a *mitigating factor* for the attacker? I find that unbelievable.

 

J.

[Rosanne]

Julie,

 

I typed out a long rambling response, but didn't like it, so what it comes down is this - I and another who knew of the situation and knew the dogs involved were of the opinion that Dog B's owners probably exaggerated the severity of the attack. Dog B was infirm and would not have survived what a normal, healthy dog could have survived. That was what I meant - that the attack was probably not as severe as it sounded. Perhaps Dog A didn't even break ths skin, but knocked Dog B over and the shock was a bit much for Dog B.

Dog A has not been known to attack any other dogs, nor has it EVER even so much as growled at a human.

Dog B's owners are well-known for irresponsible dog ownership, including letting their dogs roam about and breed randomly (resulting in Dog B, btw).

I know my first post didn't communicate this feeling well. but basically the owners were talking about putting the dog down one day, and then a few days claiming that it had been ripped from them prematurely.

 

And no, I don't think it was OK, but I also don't think the dog is dangerous. I think perhaps a FENCE or a LEASH would have been in order instead.

Rosanne

[kaos]

I have to agree with Melanie here, I think this is a really bad idea.... all it takes is one criminal type person to access the website, get another dog to bite them, wander over to a property listed on the site and "claim" that the dog labeled dangerous had bit them... poof lawsuits, dead dog etc..... I don't think humans have enough integrity to maintain self control in the face of such openess of information.

Sara

[juliepoudrier]

No, it makes no more sense. I'm sorry, but Dog B's age, infirmity, irresponsible owners (what on earth does the fact that Dog B was the result of an irresponsible breeding have to do with the attack?), or anything else you might choose to blame the attack on doesn't change the fact that Dog A went after Dog B. Did Dog A's owners deny the attack? You say Dog A was under direct supervision so they must have seen exactly what happened. Did they say a seizure triggered the attack? Or is that just wild speculation on your part? Does it really matter whether the dog was frightened to death or mauled to death? Or even that the dog might have been dead two weeks hence? By volunteering to pay the vet bills, Dog A's owners in effect "admitted" their culpability in the attack. Whether Dog B's owners exaggerated or really had no emotional attachment to the dog is something I don't think you can judge, unless you're very close to them.

 

I understand that your main premis is that Dog A is not really a vicious dog because it lives at a daycare and has been around numerous small children without any incidents, but there are certainly plenty of dogs that are perfectly fine with people but are still dog aggressive.

 

Anyway, I wouldn't have argued if you had just made a statement along the lines of "I know a dog that has been labeled dangerous for attacking another dog, but is perfectly fine around all the kids in the owner's daycare, and the owner would be mortified to find her name and address publicized...", but the fact that you would make a value judgment about the worth of Dog B (thereby implying that the dog's death didn't matter) on the basis of Dog B's health and the past or current behavior of his owners as a means for excusing the attack by Dog A just dumbfounds me.

 

ETA: I get the implication that Dog B's owners are trying to "milk" the situation for all it's worth, but that's not Dog B's fault and their behavior doesn't make his death any less awful.

 

JMO.

 

J.

[laurie etc]

I have to agree with Melanie here, I think this is a really bad idea.... all it takes is one criminal type person to access the website, get another dog to bite them, wander over to a property listed on the site and "claim" that the dog labeled dangerous had bit them... poof lawsuits, dead dog etc..... I don't think humans have enough integrity to maintain self control in the face of such openess of information.

Sara

Even worse, there are plenty of sick people out there with chips on their shoulders who could now "target" the owners or the dogs - I'm thinking stalking, poisoning, etc. And if the dogs were actually a legitimate threat to society, why are they even still alive? Laurie

[Rosanne]

the fact that you would make a value judgment about the worth of Dog B (thereby implying that the dog's death didn't matter) on the basis of Dog B's health and the past or current behavior of his owners as a means for excusing the attack by Dog A just dumbfounds me.

J.

 

It dumbfounds me that you would think that's what I meant. What I'm trying to say is that I believe the attack wasn't as bad as it sounds. Perhaps it was. In that case then I still think all that's required is a fence. No, I wasn't there. But I do know that many non-dog savvy people consider running, barking, and showing teeth as an aggressive and dangerous attack.

 

These two neighbors were decent friends until this incident, and B's owners basically turned around and attacked A's owners for this. It became a battlefield with lawyers etc. involved and was blown way out of proportion. I believe B's owners wanted A put down for being dangerous and wanted to battle it all out in court. A's owners did not want her clients thinking their children were in a house with a dangerous dog. This was a mess and I'm not going to post after this because I still don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

 

I expect if I ran up behind an older man and yelled "Hey get out of my yard" and he fell over dead, I wouldn't be labeled a murderer, I hope.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

In case anyone is interested, here's the statute:

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusvast3_1_796_93_1.htm

 

I want to know if I live in a neighborhood with a dog that has killed a domestic pet or bitten someone.

[painted_ponies]

I was surprised, clicking through counties yesterday, at how few dangerous dogs there were. Now I understand why:

 

E. 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 or treasurer for a fee of $50 <snip>

F. All dangerous dog registration 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, (ii) that the animal has been neutered or spayed, and (iii) 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. <snip> 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. The owner may obtain and maintain a bond in surety, in lieu of liability insurance, to the value of at least $100,000. emphasis added

 

Sounds like a fairly expensive animal to keep. I would imagine most are euthanized.

 

I'm kind of torn about this one. On one hand, I like that the bill provides for notice and a hearing, and that it doesn't apply if a dog injures another animal while on its owner's property. But I can imagine cases where a responsible owner just has an accident, dog slips out, neighbor's cat who wanders around at will gets bitten - seems like an awful stiff penalty in that case.

 

But then again, just this week a local lady called police because the neighbor's pit bull was on her back porch and she was afraid to come out of her house. She called the neighbor first, which I thought was darn nice of her, but he refused to come get the dog so she called police. The dog threatened the deputy, who tried firing a warning shot and using pepper spray. When the dog attacked anyway, the deputy had to shoot the dog. Owners like that one stir up the public will to have these kinds of laws enacted. Of course, the poor dog ends up dead either way. *crawls off mumbling cynical comments under breath*

[Guest WoobiesMom]

Yeah, I imagine the homeowner's insurance requirement and the type of locked enclosure that's required would probably be too expensive for an irresponsible owner to bother with. Not to mention the expenses that might go along with the court case. I think most of how this gets enforced depends on the bitee if you will. If a dog that I know well from the dog park has an off day and bites me or Woobie somewhat non-seriously, I would probably not report it if the owner covered my expenses. If it's an unknown dog that suddenly pounces and bites seriously I would report it. I'd probably report it also if the owner didn't want to be responsible for the expenses or was nonchalant about the whole thing.

 

I think this is in response to the woman who was killed in Spotsylvania County. Apparently those dogs were known to roam and had bitten before and the owner had been warned numerous times but there wasn't much else the authorities could do. Then the dogs kill the woman and her dog in her own front yard and the laws get some teeth.

 

I think it would be hard to "target" a person when the statute requires these dogs be muzzled in public and the law does not apply to dogs who bite or attack on their own property when someone is trespassing. Poisoning, yeah, that could happen if the dog is left unattended, but that can happen to any dog left out. Dogs get poisoned for barking too much quite a bit.

[Genie]

I just looked at the site. Chesterfield County has the most dogs listed and they have been listed as dangerous because they have either 1. attacked another dog or 2. attacked a cat. I don't consider that dangerous. To me, dangerous means that they pose a threat to people. Dog aggression and prey drive have nothing to do with aggression to people.

 

ETA: Another thing that bothers me about this is that the dogs are not all identified correctly. Two are listed as Lab mixes when they appear to have no lab in them. That skews the bite stats for that breed. Mixes should be listed simply as a mix. Insurance companies wouldn't like that, but the stats would be a whole lot more accurate.

[painted_ponies]

Chesterfield County has the most dogs listed and they have been listed as dangerous because they have either 1. attacked another dog or 2. attacked a cat. I don't consider that dangerous. To me, dangerous means that they pose a threat to people. Dog aggression and prey drive have nothing to do with aggression to people.

 

The statute defines a "dangerous" dog as one who has attacked or killed another dog or cat. A dog who attacks a human is defined by the statute as "vicious." Those are euthanized, not registered in the database.

[Guest WoobiesMom]

No. A bite on a person is still "dangerous" it's the seriousness of the bite that discriminates.

 

"Dangerous dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat, or killed a companion animal that is a dog or cat."

 

Vicious is defined as:

 

"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, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal control officer as authorized by local ordinance, that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding."

 

Chesterfield County has the most presently because our AC department jumped on the bandwagon and got in compliance well in advance of the October deadline. The other counties just haven't uploaded their stats yet. It'll be interesting to see how the classification varies among the counties. I also think that, at least in my county, the incidents where dogs have attacked people or children have resulted in voluntary owner-initiated euthanization of the dog. That may skew the results.

 

The vet info on one of them is sketch. It's a private residence 2 streets down from me and I've NEVER heard of a private practice housecall making vet in this area. 4 of the dogs are here in my subdivision. Think I'll be taking my walks with a cane or my pepper spray from now on.

 

Tundra and Kaya's owner was on the news and said "They were just following their instincts." I thought Huskies were sled dogs not cat eliminators. Silly me.

[Maralynn]

Tundra and Kaya's owner was on the news and said "They were just following their instincts." I thought Huskies were sled dogs not cat eliminators. Silly me.

 

It's called prey drive. Yes, the huskies were just following their instincts - small animal = prey = chase and catch. It's in a dogs genetic make-up. It's up to the owner to train and control their dogs so that they don't use that drive to go out and kill/harm someone else's pet.