|
A day after her bill to track dangerous dogs was heard in committee in the Legislature, state Sen. Vickie McDonald of St. Paul was optimistic about the proposal's chances.
McDonald said Thursday that she plans to make the measure her priority bill, which would make it likely to end up being discussed by the entire Legislature.
The only concerns expressed at Wednesday's hearing were through a letter from the city of Lincoln, whose dog laws are more strict than McDonald's bill proposes.
McDonald said she plans to discuss Lincoln's concerns with city officials, but she didn't anticipate that the issue would be a major impediment.
"You can have stricter laws" under the bill, she said. "You just can't have more lenient laws."
The bill, LB1055, would require dogs designated as "dangerous" to be implanted with tracking chips. Also, under the bill, no dangerous dog could be taken temporarily to another county or municipality without a reasonable veterinary purpose.
In the case of a permanent move, owners would be required to get written permission from the animal control authorities in both the county the owner is leaving and the one into which he or she is moving.
No state laws currently govern the movement of dangerous dogs between municipalities or counties.
The bill also tightens the definition of what justifies a "dangerous dog" designation.
Under the existing law, the dog must cause a "severe" injury that must result in a broken bone, "disfiguring lacerations requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery" or a threat to the victim's life or health.
McDonald said she introduced the bill after finding that many rural animal control officials, often county sheriff's departments, were having a difficult time understanding and enforcing the current law. Chief among the sources of confusion was what defined a "severe" injury.
By the time a dog has caused that kind of injury, it can be too late, McDonald said.
"If we allow a dog to get to that point, it's become a danger to everyone around it," she said.
Instead, McDonald proposes that any kind of injury to a human would merit the "dangerous" label.
But she offered an amendment Wednesday that would allow counties the opportunity to set up an appeal process for dog owners. McDonald said she hoped the bill would still allow leeway for more negligible attacks.
"We're not saying that every bite is a dangerous bite," she said. "We're saying that the ones that are we need to deal with those."
After working last fall with the state's two largest humane societies, as well as other county and animal control officials, McDonald said, many potential snags over the bill's language and provisions have already been cleared up.
The bill will be discussed in executive session by the Legislature's Judiciary Committee later this session.
Want to comment on this article?
Register on our forums and post your thoughts.
It's free and easy to do!
independentforums.com
|
