These dog attacks have gotten a lot of press lately and well they should. An animal is an animal and every owner of one is not Ceasar Milan. I think we do need requlations and steps put in place to protect humans from canines deemed dangerous. So...I thinks I agrees wid my guvnah on this one. Bankrupt, pandering to the people during an election year, fool that he is. Sorry Sebe...got off topic a little bit...been watching too much Meet The Press, Face the Nation, FNC, CNN. Turning the channel to basketball now.
Good panel on Face the Nation this a.m. I like The McLaughlin Group, too - so much so that I watch it twice on Sundays on GA and SC Public Broadcasting.
Speaking of basketball - it looks like my Chicago team is going to tank after losing their "mvp" and that center from FL. Oh, well - it wouldn't have been much of a series against Miami anyway. It will be interesting to see whether the South Beach Dynasty begins this year (or not).
Wait, am I reading this incorrectly? Does the dog have to attack someone first before a fine is imposed? Or does the courts just have to deam the animal "dangerous or vicious" than a fine will follow? I assume it's NOT the later, correct?
Yes - from the AJC piece:
"A dangerous dog is one that causes a substantial puncture wound to a person, or aggressively attacks and poses an imminent threat of serious injury to a person, or while off the owner’s property kills a pet. Once classified, a dangerous dog cannot be off the owner’s property unless it’s under the physical control of a person who can prevent, when necessary, the dog from engaging any other human or animal, or is in a locked cage or crate. Some exemptions were made for working, hunting and predator control dogs."
"A vicious dog is one that seriously injures or kills a person. In some cases, a judge can order euthanasia for a vicious dog. A vicious dog cannot be off the owner’s property unless he is muzzled and under the physical control of a person capable of preventing the dog from engaging any other human or animal when necessary, or is in a locked cage or crate. The owner must maintain a minimum of $50,000 in insurance. No person may own more than one vicious dog, and no person convicted of certain felonies may own a vicious dog."
So first - under the new law - there has to be an incident or incidents which result in the "classification" of a dog as dangerous or vicious. It's my understanding from reading the article that only after classification do the fines/penalties kick in.
So apparently for the "first offense/offenses" prior to classification, the new law doesn't apply.
Georgia state law does NOT allow for (what some people had hoped for) Breed Specific Legislation BSL. BSL says that only dogs of certain breeds are capable of inflicting injurious bites which is patentedly untrue.
The bill that the govenernor signed though not perfect is a starting point to some & a slippery slope to others, the hard part is that most if not all dog owners best acquire a minimun of $100,000.00 of "dog bite public liability" and not allow anyone under the age of 18 to walk or care for their dogs to be in compliance with the law.
To paraphrase LBJ; never examine new legislation for its perceived benefits but rather for it's for potential for abuse...
That is so true. It's amazing how our society has "progressed" over the years. I never heard of "dog bite insurance" when I was growing up.
I'm employed by a couple of lobbyists that haunt the halls & corridors of Atlanta & Washington doing research into certain "specific" areas of the law. The original bill proposed & what was signed are 2 different animals, if the original bill had become law shelter populations would have gone through the roof overnight.
We (and I mean the collective we)currently have USDA proposed rule changes that will have such long reaching effects on the acquiring of pets from shelters, rescues, pet stores & breeders that 4th & 14th amendment questions are already being drawn up.
You've gotta love big government and those who wish to grow it bigger ;)