Shon
07-21-2004, 10:29 PM
RHODE ISLAND - Local legislators and advocates for the humane treatment of animals have worked together to take the bite out of crime and amend Rhode Island's vicious dog law.
The new law, which includes updates that help protect residents from dog attacks and allows the owner of a vicious dog more control over their pet, took effect July 5 and has already impacted the hearing process.
"We feel so much better now that we can impose a penalty in a fairer way and let the punishment fit the crime," said David Holden, assistant director of the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The original vicious dog law was written in 1985 and more amendments were added a year later. A dog can be declared vicious if, without provocation, it attacks a person or another animal, or approaches a person in a threatening manner.
Before the changes were made and if a dog was declared vicious by an informal three-judge panel, its owner only had two choices: euthanize the animal or keep it in a six-sided locked enclosure.
According to Holden, the requirements in the previous law were too stringent in some situations. The new law alleviates some of the burden on owners and gives the informal judge panel more leeway in issuing a penalty, he said.
"Our hands were tied in what we could do. We think this will allow us to respond better," he said.
Under the old law, the dog was allowed to be in the owner's home, but they had to post a sign stating there is a vicious dog on their property and have the animal branded with a tattoo. It was compulsory for the owner to maintain a $100,000 insurance policy on their pet.
If the dog were to leave its owner's property - and then only for the purpose of veterinary care, to sell or give away the animal, or to comply with orders of the animal control officer - it must have been kept muzzled and chained. The chain could not exceed three feet in length and must have a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds.
The legislation was sponsored by Representatives John Patrick Shanley Jr. (D - Dist. 35, South Kingstown) and Peter F. Kilmartin (D - Dist. 61, Pawtucket). Senator V. Susan Sosnowski (D - Dist. 37, South Kingstown, New Shoreham) sponsored a mirror bill in the Senate in January.
Prompted by two incidents in South Kingstown - one involving a German shepherd that bit a child and another involving a Siberian husky that maimed the ear of prize-winning calf - the SPCA formed a committee early last year to study the law.
Composed of members of the Humane Society of the United States, three pit bull rescue groups, animal control officers and a concerned resident from South Kingstown, the committee reviewed similar statutes in 28 other states, meeting once a month. The proposed changes were made by the committee with a priority placed on safety for the community and humane treatment of animals in mind.
Instead of requiring a vicious dog be kept in a six-sided locked pen, the new law allows its owner to use an enclosure when the animal is outside.
"If you were a renter, that might be a death sentence for the dog," Holden said, adding that a leash can be used instead of muzzle when they go off the property.
Another amendment allows the use of a surgically implanted microchip, which is recommended by veterinarians for identifying pets, rather than tattooing the animal.
With public protection as a priority of the committee, the law changes the length of time a vicious dog owner can wait before alerting the police or animal control officer if their pet escapes or becomes lost from 24 hours to two. It also requires that vicious dog owners inform an animal control officer about their pet if they move to a new town and prohibits anyone under the age of 16 from supervising a vicious dog.
There are no changes to the process of declaring a dog vicious, which takes place before an informal three-judge panel. If this occurs, the owner can appeal the decision to district court.
Holden highlighted another change, which gives municipalities some recourse if a vicious dog owner does not comply with the penalty and abandons their pet at the pound, accruing fees. If there is no compliance within 30 days, the town has the authority to euthanize the animal.
"I don't think it's good for dogs to stay in shelters for a long time," Holden said, "and a vicious dog is not adoptable."
The law does not target any specific breed.
"We want people to know it's not about pit bulls, it's about danger," said Patricia Hayes, a South Kingstown resident and member of the SPCA's review committee.
There have already been two vicious dog hearings since the new law took effect. Last week in Johnston Holden served on the panel for a case involving a pit bull that bit a child.
The panel determined that the dog's action was an anomaly uncharacteristic of his day-to-day behavior. And while they placed some restrictions on the dog owner, the panel did not require that he take out an insurance policy for his pet.
"We felt that protected the people and allows the owner a little more freedom," Holden said. "The law allowed us to be fairer in our determination."
For local legislators, the new law is a grand achievement with a wide-ranging effect that took months of preparation and collaboration with the SPCA, animal control officers and concerned residents.
"A lot of bills that pass don't get the big headlines, but they're very important," Sosnowski said, noting the vicious dog law is in that category.
One of her main concerns in working on the new law, in addition to "streamlining the process for animal control officers," was the victims of a dog attack, whether it is a person or livestock. An organic farmer in West Kingston who rears sheep, horses, pigs and chickens, Sosnowski has lost some of her animals to a dog attack in the past.
"I can't tell you how many chickens I've had killed from friendly little doggies," she said.
And while most dog owners have been cooperative in those situations, the fear of an attack is always in the back of her mind.
"I'm hoping this will not only help the animal control officers protect people and livestock, but also put pet owners on notice that they need to be responsible for their animals," Sosnowski said. "I think the law will help to educate the public."
Shanley said the law was something that needed to be changed and credits the SPCA for their efforts to compiling research.
"The big difference is the SPCA recognized that a vicious dog is not necessarily a large dog. It can be a small dog. It can be a dog that was abused as a pup," he said. "I think they wanted to convey that."
Kilmartin could not be reached for comment by press time. In an interview in January, the Pawtucket Police Department lieutenant said he had witnessed a number of dog attacks in the city over the past several years and labeled the old law "antiquated" and "restrictive." At the time, he was pleased the changes took into account degrees of viciousness, distinguishing an attack from a large dog to that of a small one nipping at an ankle.
Patricia Hayes was one of about a dozen members on the SPCA's committee and the only one not directly involved in a public safety or humane organization. In May 2002 her son James, then 7, was bitten on the arm by a German shepherd while walking down the street. He received a number of stitches at the emergency room.
It was the fourth time the dog had bitten someone. The German shepherd previously bit another child and twice bit a man in the neighborhood while he was walking to his mailbox.
The German shepherd was eventually impounded and euthanized less than a month later.
The incident involving her son began a crusade for Hayes, who inquired about the process and procedure for convening a vicious dog hearing. She contacted police, state and local government officials and the SPCA about her safety concerns with the law before working with Holden and the committee.
"The law will work as long as the animal control officer wants to use it," she said.
To this day James is fearful of dogs and while Hayes is pleased with the outcome of the law changes, there are many issues involving pet management that Rhode Island law needs to take a look at.
"It's just a beginning," she said.
Legislators have not had any feedback from the public on the new law since it took effect two weeks ago, but said they would be willing sponsor amendments should new issues arise.
In September, the SPCA committee plans to take a hard look at the separate issue of dog fighting in Rhode Island. They are also conducting a workshop for professionals, ranging from animal control officers to social workers, who come into contact with dogs to learn how to read the warning signs of a distressed dog.
If other issues involving vicious dogs surface, the committee will revisit the law to make changes.
"I suspect it's going to be an ongoing thing," Holden said.
The new law, which includes updates that help protect residents from dog attacks and allows the owner of a vicious dog more control over their pet, took effect July 5 and has already impacted the hearing process.
"We feel so much better now that we can impose a penalty in a fairer way and let the punishment fit the crime," said David Holden, assistant director of the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The original vicious dog law was written in 1985 and more amendments were added a year later. A dog can be declared vicious if, without provocation, it attacks a person or another animal, or approaches a person in a threatening manner.
Before the changes were made and if a dog was declared vicious by an informal three-judge panel, its owner only had two choices: euthanize the animal or keep it in a six-sided locked enclosure.
According to Holden, the requirements in the previous law were too stringent in some situations. The new law alleviates some of the burden on owners and gives the informal judge panel more leeway in issuing a penalty, he said.
"Our hands were tied in what we could do. We think this will allow us to respond better," he said.
Under the old law, the dog was allowed to be in the owner's home, but they had to post a sign stating there is a vicious dog on their property and have the animal branded with a tattoo. It was compulsory for the owner to maintain a $100,000 insurance policy on their pet.
If the dog were to leave its owner's property - and then only for the purpose of veterinary care, to sell or give away the animal, or to comply with orders of the animal control officer - it must have been kept muzzled and chained. The chain could not exceed three feet in length and must have a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds.
The legislation was sponsored by Representatives John Patrick Shanley Jr. (D - Dist. 35, South Kingstown) and Peter F. Kilmartin (D - Dist. 61, Pawtucket). Senator V. Susan Sosnowski (D - Dist. 37, South Kingstown, New Shoreham) sponsored a mirror bill in the Senate in January.
Prompted by two incidents in South Kingstown - one involving a German shepherd that bit a child and another involving a Siberian husky that maimed the ear of prize-winning calf - the SPCA formed a committee early last year to study the law.
Composed of members of the Humane Society of the United States, three pit bull rescue groups, animal control officers and a concerned resident from South Kingstown, the committee reviewed similar statutes in 28 other states, meeting once a month. The proposed changes were made by the committee with a priority placed on safety for the community and humane treatment of animals in mind.
Instead of requiring a vicious dog be kept in a six-sided locked pen, the new law allows its owner to use an enclosure when the animal is outside.
"If you were a renter, that might be a death sentence for the dog," Holden said, adding that a leash can be used instead of muzzle when they go off the property.
Another amendment allows the use of a surgically implanted microchip, which is recommended by veterinarians for identifying pets, rather than tattooing the animal.
With public protection as a priority of the committee, the law changes the length of time a vicious dog owner can wait before alerting the police or animal control officer if their pet escapes or becomes lost from 24 hours to two. It also requires that vicious dog owners inform an animal control officer about their pet if they move to a new town and prohibits anyone under the age of 16 from supervising a vicious dog.
There are no changes to the process of declaring a dog vicious, which takes place before an informal three-judge panel. If this occurs, the owner can appeal the decision to district court.
Holden highlighted another change, which gives municipalities some recourse if a vicious dog owner does not comply with the penalty and abandons their pet at the pound, accruing fees. If there is no compliance within 30 days, the town has the authority to euthanize the animal.
"I don't think it's good for dogs to stay in shelters for a long time," Holden said, "and a vicious dog is not adoptable."
The law does not target any specific breed.
"We want people to know it's not about pit bulls, it's about danger," said Patricia Hayes, a South Kingstown resident and member of the SPCA's review committee.
There have already been two vicious dog hearings since the new law took effect. Last week in Johnston Holden served on the panel for a case involving a pit bull that bit a child.
The panel determined that the dog's action was an anomaly uncharacteristic of his day-to-day behavior. And while they placed some restrictions on the dog owner, the panel did not require that he take out an insurance policy for his pet.
"We felt that protected the people and allows the owner a little more freedom," Holden said. "The law allowed us to be fairer in our determination."
For local legislators, the new law is a grand achievement with a wide-ranging effect that took months of preparation and collaboration with the SPCA, animal control officers and concerned residents.
"A lot of bills that pass don't get the big headlines, but they're very important," Sosnowski said, noting the vicious dog law is in that category.
One of her main concerns in working on the new law, in addition to "streamlining the process for animal control officers," was the victims of a dog attack, whether it is a person or livestock. An organic farmer in West Kingston who rears sheep, horses, pigs and chickens, Sosnowski has lost some of her animals to a dog attack in the past.
"I can't tell you how many chickens I've had killed from friendly little doggies," she said.
And while most dog owners have been cooperative in those situations, the fear of an attack is always in the back of her mind.
"I'm hoping this will not only help the animal control officers protect people and livestock, but also put pet owners on notice that they need to be responsible for their animals," Sosnowski said. "I think the law will help to educate the public."
Shanley said the law was something that needed to be changed and credits the SPCA for their efforts to compiling research.
"The big difference is the SPCA recognized that a vicious dog is not necessarily a large dog. It can be a small dog. It can be a dog that was abused as a pup," he said. "I think they wanted to convey that."
Kilmartin could not be reached for comment by press time. In an interview in January, the Pawtucket Police Department lieutenant said he had witnessed a number of dog attacks in the city over the past several years and labeled the old law "antiquated" and "restrictive." At the time, he was pleased the changes took into account degrees of viciousness, distinguishing an attack from a large dog to that of a small one nipping at an ankle.
Patricia Hayes was one of about a dozen members on the SPCA's committee and the only one not directly involved in a public safety or humane organization. In May 2002 her son James, then 7, was bitten on the arm by a German shepherd while walking down the street. He received a number of stitches at the emergency room.
It was the fourth time the dog had bitten someone. The German shepherd previously bit another child and twice bit a man in the neighborhood while he was walking to his mailbox.
The German shepherd was eventually impounded and euthanized less than a month later.
The incident involving her son began a crusade for Hayes, who inquired about the process and procedure for convening a vicious dog hearing. She contacted police, state and local government officials and the SPCA about her safety concerns with the law before working with Holden and the committee.
"The law will work as long as the animal control officer wants to use it," she said.
To this day James is fearful of dogs and while Hayes is pleased with the outcome of the law changes, there are many issues involving pet management that Rhode Island law needs to take a look at.
"It's just a beginning," she said.
Legislators have not had any feedback from the public on the new law since it took effect two weeks ago, but said they would be willing sponsor amendments should new issues arise.
In September, the SPCA committee plans to take a hard look at the separate issue of dog fighting in Rhode Island. They are also conducting a workshop for professionals, ranging from animal control officers to social workers, who come into contact with dogs to learn how to read the warning signs of a distressed dog.
If other issues involving vicious dogs surface, the committee will revisit the law to make changes.
"I suspect it's going to be an ongoing thing," Holden said.