August 20, 2017
Politics & Opinion
77° Clear

Vicious Animal Law

Derek Fink
Derek Fink's picture
View Bio
June 14, 2017

In mid-April, my office received an email about a vicious dog attack that occurred in the Chesterfield neighborhood. A dog had escaped from its owner’s home and went after a lady walking a dog on the sidewalk. This dog, according to witnesses, was completely unprovoked and had no reason to charge and attack the woman or the dog that was killed. I was horrified to hear about this attack and immediately tried to find out what Animal Control was going to do to make the people of this community feel safe again.

My office was flooded with calls and emails about the incident and about the fact that the dog was going to be returned to its owners. The dog was returned to its owners only after they had complied with the conditions that are mandated by Animal Control in instances like this. Animal Control, in this instance, did not have the authority to impound or destroy the attacking animal. I have worked with our county attorneys and Animal Control to come up with some commonsense changes to the law so that they have the option to impound or destroy an animal if it is deemed necessary.

Bill 59-17, which will be heard and voted on July 3, makes significant additions to the authority of Animal Control in cases where an animal attacks a human or a domesticated animal. The main goal of this bill is to allow Animal Control to designate an animal as dangerous or vicious and to be able to take appropriate action to prevent that animal being returned to its owner, whether the animal is impounded or destroyed. An animal will be designated as vicious if the animal kills or inflicts serious injury to a person or domesticated animal, but the vicious designation does not include an animal who bites or attacks as a response to pain or injury or while defending a human, itself or its litter. An animal will also not be deemed vicious if it attacks during a willful trespass on the premises of the owner. The animal will basically be considered vicious only if it attacks and causes harm without being provoked.

The bill also establishes a dangerous-animal registry in the county. To have more transparency in county government and to allow county residents to feel safe in their own homes, this bill, if passed, instructs Animal Control to establish and maintain a dangerous-animal registry for the county to include all animals determined to be dangerous or (according to the old law) potentially dangerous. The animal registry will include the following information about the animal if available: name, sex, age, weight, primary and secondary breed, color/markings, whether the animal is spayed or neutered, address where the animal is maintained, name of owner and the address of the owner. This registry will be made available to the public through the county website.

While I would prefer not to have to pass laws that give the government the ability to destroy an animal, I understand the need for Animal Control to have the authority to do so in certain circumstances. When an animal is unprovoked and attacks a human or another animal, Animal Control must have the authority to do what is necessary to keep the community safe. I believe that these are some commonsense changes to our animal control laws that make Anne Arundel County a safe place to live and raise children.

Comments

Posted 12/31/1969 07:00 PM

So, I've watched the video of the commissioners' meeting and read the bill. While I feel for the people involved in this situation we are about to make a law based off of one instance of this occurring and have it be enacted across the entire county. There is nothing in this bill that explains how to prove that the attack was provoked or unprovoked. It turns into a he said she said and since this bill is being enacted because of an emotional incident then I'm afraid that animal control will side on the side of the person bit every time. There is also nothing in here that says what should happen to the dog owner if the dog does attack someone other than force them to pay an annual fee. BTW, that annual fee is more than the cost of adopting a dog from the AASPCA. The bill basically encourages owners to have the dog euthanized rather than pay $250 every single year. That's $1000 after 4 years. This bill needs more work.

Sidebar Ad

Faces of the Voice

  • Zach Sparks
    Assistant Editor
    @Sparks907
    @Sparks907
    @Sparks907
  • Dylan Roche
    Editor
    @dylroche
    @dylroche
    @dylroche
  • Dianna Lancione
    Publisher
    parkiewoman
  • Lonnie Lancione
    Publisher
  • William Nauman
    Creative Director
  • Colin Murphy
    Sports Editor
    @ArVoiceSports / @ColinAJMurphy
    @SPVoiceSports / @ColinAJMurphy
    @PVoiceSports / @ColinAJMurphy
  • Larry Sells
    Vice President, Sales and Development
    @LarrySells1
    @LarrySells1
    @LarrySells1
  • Brian Lancione
    V.P., Operations

Latest Tweets

Events Calendar

Request an Advertising Quote

Please do not add dashes. (ex: 4106479400)
Do not enter anything here.
Search Articles
Search Authors
Search Blog