dogcrazyjen wrote:Why? If a dog has a bite history, it needs to be known. Quite frankly, I think we may see the real story...that cockers, daschunds and toy poodles bite just as often as any other dog.
Who says the dogs have a bite history? This is an assumption that a lot of people make, including Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano.
Here's how the definition of "dangerous dog" in the NYS law reads, in part:
"any dog which. . .behaves in a manner which a reasonable person would believe poses a serious and unjustified imminent threat of serious physical injury or death to one or more persons, companion animals, farm animals or domestic animals.”
In other words, dogs that have done no injury to human beings or domestic animals can [and are] found “dangerous” in New York State.
There are many, many dogs in NYS which have been declared dangerous because they chased cats, got into minor dog fights, got loose and startled the neighbors--all without biting or harming any people.
Why is it okay to make the owners of such dogs the targets of vigilantes who assume (wrongly) that their dogs really are a problem? Why is okay to value the privacy of dog owners less than the privacy of convicted felons?
Most importantly: WHY ARE WE ALLOWING POLITICIANS TO GET CHEAP PRESS COVERAGE WITHOUT ADDRESSING A REAL NEED: DOG BITE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.
Further penalizing the owners of "dangerous dogs" is too late. It will achieve very, very little. On the other hand, good dog bite prevention programs for kids have proven to be very effective.
Please, let's start calling our elected officials on this kind of crap. We don't need more down and dirty quick fixes. We need meaningful, non-discriminatory solutions.