Calif: Several Dog Maulings Prompt Tougher Laws
- From: Bo Raxo <crimenewscenter@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:57:09 -0000
And some counties are starting to prosecute the owners of the most
vicious dogs. It's about time. Forget the stereotypes: these aren't
animals used for dog fighting. They're not just of any random breed.
They're the largest and most aggressive breeds, owned by people who
just don't have the knowledge to properly care for, train, and
restrain them.
When I started posting these stories, I heard many posters say I was
just crazy, it wasn't a problem except for the dog fighting
operations, and it was silly to think the law had to get involved.
Anybody willing to admit they were wrong? Seems elected
representatives all over the U.S. have discovered this is a real
problem.
Bo Raxo
http://www.contracostatimes.com/animals/ci_7329220
PG&E meter reader Richard Aquino lay on a gurney with "penny-size
holes" in his cheek when the first animal control officer arrived at
the Washingtons' Pittsburg home, a place he had been to before.
Homeowner Sandra Jenkins-Washington was horrified. One year later, she
still cannot explain how her dogs Bella, a pit bull, and Cisco, a
German shepherd-Rotteweiler mix, got over the fence, which stands more
than 6 feet high. Jenkins-Washington said she and her husband, Edward
Washington, made every effort to secure their yard long before the
dogs were labeled "potentially dangerous" by Contra Costa County.
But on Sept. 1, 2006, they did get out, and Aquino suffered.
Edward Washington, 48, and Jenkins-Washington, 45, who have never been
arrested nor charged with a crime, await trial on felony charges that
could result in six years in prison if they are convicted. In civil
court, Aquino is suing the family for more than $5 million.
"It's mindboggling to us that we can be in so much trouble, that
something so innocent like having a dog would cause me so much grief
in my life," Jenkins-Washington said. "Financially and emotionally,
I'm at the breaking point."
As the Bay Area reacted to several horrific maulings in recent years,
laws governing vicious dogs have evolved to make owners more
responsible and at risk of stronger penalties when their animals
attack. The preventive nature of the laws puts owners whose dogs have
threatened, but never bitten, at risk of
euthanasia if the owner does not follow government-mandated
restrictions.
"The best way for owners to exercise more responsibility is to
identify potentially dangerous dogs before they've caused harm," said
County Costa County Supervisor John Gioia. "You will never know how
many bites will be prevented. Some people may be unhappy, but if the
overall effect is a benefit, ultimately, that's the price you pay for
protection."
Strengthening laws
Contra Costa County beefed up its "dangerous animal" ordinance in
2005, the same year a Concord boy was mauled by pit bulls running
loose and a San Francisco boy was killed by his family's pit bulls.
The law empowered Animal Services officers to bring civil and criminal
sanctions to owners of dogs who bite, bark or charge.
Jenkins-Washington said the two incidents that led Animal Services to
deem her dogs "potentially dangerous" were minor.
Animal Services said Bella jumped on a neighbor boy's chest, drawing a
small amount of blood with her nails or teeth when the Washington
children brought it to a park in June 2005. Jenkins-Washington said
her children argued that the boy lied -- he didn't want his mother to
know he ripped his new shirt climbing a fence.
Five months later, a police officer fired two shots at the dogs after
they slipped by the owners as they opened a door and ran in the
officer's direction.
The "potentially dangerous" designation laid the foundation for felony
prosecution in the 2006 attack for which the couple is charged with
owning a mischievous animal that causes serious injury. Because Bella
and Cisco had a record of aggressive behavior, the District Attorney's
Office can argue that the family knew there was a potential for harm.
To date, Contra Costa has designated 74 dogs "potentially dangerous."
It has designated six dogs "dangerous" and has euthanized 205 dogs in
accordance with the ordinance.
The number of reported dog attacks before and after the ordinance is
about the same -- 972 reported in 2003 and 929 last year -- which
officials say reflects increased reporting and enforcement.
Fewer repeat attacks
Proof the law is working, said Animal Services Deputy Director Dan
Barrett, is the decrease in repeat attacks involving the same animal.
"When people are put on notice, we don't have additional incidents, or
if we do, they are isolated," he said.
Not everyone is happy with the process that deems animals "potentially
dangerous," particularly owners whose pets receive the designation
based on incidents that they perceive as minor. Officials said that
few people fight the consequences after someone is seriously harmed.
Earlier this year, Richmond resident Wouter Meijer successfully fought
the "potentially dangerous" designation recommended for his two dogs
after they charged at a Fed Ex driver, the third person to complain.
Meijer said he spent countless hours and hundreds of dollars working
to clear his dogs. Ultimately, the county agreed not to make the
designation in a case, Barrett said, showing that the county's process
works for both sides.
Next month, a Contra Costa judge will hear arguments in the first
court challenge to the local law. A Walnut Creek couple is suing
Animal Services Director Glenn Howell over their dog's "potentially
dangerous" designation.
"There's always going to be a couple cases where people feel it's (the
ordinance) mistreating me and my animal," said Gioia. "But the goal is
to be preventative, and it's better to prevent the harm than deal with
injury after the fact."
Aftermath of slaying
In San Francisco, anyone who feels a threat from a dog is granted a
hearing, at which restrictions upon the animal are decided. But it
wasn't until after an attack by two 120-pound Presa Canarios killed
Diane Whipple, a lacrosse coach at St. Mary's College, in 2001 that
people "came out of the woodwork" to report aggressive behavior by
animals, said Carl Friedman, director of San Francisco Animal Care and
Control.
"We didn't know any of that," Friedman said. "Had people come forward
with their concerns beforehand, no matter how insignificant they may
have seemed at the time, we could have held a hearing and maybe that
tragedy could have been prevented."
Legal implications
The state Supreme Court in June ordered a San Francisco trial judge to
reconsider restoring a second-degree murder conviction for Marjorie
Knoller, co-owner of the dog that mauled Whipple.
Knoller served nearly four years in prison after the trial judge
reduced the jury's second-degree murder conviction to involuntary
manslaughter. She risks 15 years to life based on the state court's
decision, which said a murder conviction applies when a dog owner
knows an animal is capable of seriously injuring someone and still
puts the public at risk.
In an ideal world, lawmakers aiming to control aggressive dogs also
would have the money to promote education for dog owners and training
for dogs, said Mim Carlson, executive director of the Berkeley-East
Bay Humane Society. But they don't, she said, so nonprofit
organizations like hers must pick up the slack to educate the public.
"A good dog owner is one who sends their animal through a training
program," Carlson said. "Training does well for most dogs. Good dogs
are not lunging at people, not lunging at other dogs."
For Jenkins-Washington, her days as a pet owner are over.
"We took every precaution to keep the dogs in a safe place, not just
for ourselves but for others," she said. "I will never own any pet of
any kind again. I've crossed that bridge and somehow the bridge has
fallen on me and I'm trying to dig my way out."
Malaika Fraley covers crime and public safety. Reach her at
925-945-4782 or mfraley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Vicious-dog laws
Laws in the East Bay are virtually identical, with dogs at risk of
being declared "potentially dangerous" by a city or county after two
reported incidents of aggression in three years -- such as growling,
barking, chasing or lunging. Qualifying aggression also includes
injuring or killing another animal, inflicting a nonserious injury on
a person, or any action that causes a person to take a defensive
action.
Requirements for the owners of "potentially dangerous" animals include
annual permits, sterilization, obedience school, microchip
identification and muzzling when the animal is outside the owner's
property, liability insurance of as much as $100,000, posting warning
signs at the residence and keeping the animal in a secured yard
subject to government inspection.
"Potentially dangerous" designations are removed when no further
incidents are reported in three years. Penalties for violating
restrictions can include a misdemeanor charge for the owner and
euthanasia for the animal. In Contra Costa County, owners also can be
prohibited from keeping another dog for five years.
Animals can be deemed "dangerous" and are subject to euthanasia after
a serious attack or multiple attacks upon a person. In rare cases, an
owner can obtain a permit to keep a "dangerous" dog, but with strict
restrictions, including keeping the animal penned on the owner's
property at all times except for trips to a veterinarian.
Under state law, an owner risks felony prosecution when a dog with a
documented history of aggression causes serious injury.
Exceptions are made for service and government animals, and animals
who attack a person engaged in criminal activity, including animal
abuse.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Calif: Several Dog Maulings Prompt Tougher Laws
- From: OffshoreEddie
- Re: Calif: Several Dog Maulings Prompt Tougher Laws
- Prev by Date: Re: Dog saves girl from snake
- Next by Date: Re: Wife's kin: Stebic cut family ties
- Previous by thread: NZ: Proposed Law Would Require Castration For Menacing Dogs
- Next by thread: Re: Calif: Several Dog Maulings Prompt Tougher Laws
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
