Laws

As of July 1, 2020, the VA Code §3.2-6500 has been updated to include extra provisions for tethered/chained dogs.  Under the Adequate Shelter definition it now states that:

An animal cannot be chained/tethered under these 3 sets of conditions:

1. unless the animal is safe from predators and well suited and well equipped to tolerate its environment; or
2. during the effective period for a hurricane warning or tropical storm warning issued for the area by the National Weather Service; or
3. (c)(1) during a heat advisory issued by a local or state authority, (2) when the actual or effective outdoor temperature is 85 degrees Fahrenheit or higher or 32 degrees Fahrenheit or lower, or (3) during the effective period for a severe weather warning issued for the area by the National Weather Service, including winter storm, tornado, or severe thunderstorm warning.

While there are exceptions within the Code for an Animal Control Officer or LEO to certify “the animal is safe from predators and well suited and well equipped to tolerate its environments,” this certification could allow for the officer, their agency, and the jurisdiction to be held liable if the animal was injured or dies after certification is made.  Due to the potential for liability, it is our opinion that it would be extremely rare that this certification would be made. read more

Under H.B. 2482 it would be more difficult to seize animals trapped in inhumane conditions by breeders, dealers or pet stores. Under the bill animals could only be seized if they are “(i) under a direct and immediate threat or (ii) the owner or custodian is unable to or does not provide adequate impoundment.” Otherwise, the breeder, dealer or pet shop could be ordered to impound animals under a directive or order. Yes, the abuser would “impound” their own abused or neglected animals. Regardless, upon conviction, the breeder, dealer or pet shop could obtain return of the animals “at the discretion of the court.” read more

Municipal governments from New York City to Miami, and from Council Bluffs, Iowa to Denver, have responded to fear of pit bulls and similar breeds of dogs, by severely restricting their ownership or banning them entirely from their jurisdictions. Now, thanks to a rule issued recently by the U.S. Department of Justice, such actions are subject to being struck down. Jurisdictions now considering such overreactions, such as Douglasville, Georgia, would be well-advised to review the Justice Department’s opinion before proceeding. read more

Federal law leashes pit bull restrictions
6:00 am September 29, 2010, by Bob Barr
Municipal governments from New York City to Miami, and from Council Bluffs, Iowa to Denver, have responded to fear of pit bulls and similar breeds of dogs, by severely restricting their ownership or banning them entirely from their jurisdictions. Now, thanks to a rule issued recently by the U.S. Department of Justice, such actions are subject to being struck down. Jurisdictions now considering such overreactions, such as Douglasville, Georgia, would be well-advised to review the Justice Department’s opinion before proceeding.
Dog owners and humane societies have long-opposed such arbitrary and overly broad laws that penalize thousands of pit bull owners who maintain their canine companions properly and without incident, because of a small number who fail to properly train and control the dogs. Courts generally have permitted such ordinances to stand, based on deference to the so-called “police power” of local governments to protect the public “safety and welfare.”
The 20-year old, federal Americans With Disabilities Act (”ADA”), however, may put a stop to such “breed-specific legislation.” The ADA protects measures designed to help persons with disabilities, which includes dogs used by disabled persons for assistance. Laws that outlaw ownership of entire breeds, including those that might be used for assistive purposes, would limit the ability of persons with disabilities to use such pets, and would therefore violate the ADA and be deemed by the Justice Department to be unlawful.
In what some might consider a rare example of the federal government recognizing that laws can be overly broad and therefore harmful to individual liberty, the Justice Department’s opinion on breed-specific legislation noted that such laws sweep too broadly; and that it is inappropriate to outlaw an entire breed of dogs because a small number cause problems. Such problems are the result of owners not restraining their dogs properly or inadequately training them, rather than the result of a particular breed’s disposition, and can be addressed by more narrowly-crafted legislation.
Unfortunately, there are still those, like the mayor of Douglasville, Georgia, who favor overly restrictive measures. The mayor recently noted in support of the city’s proposed pit bull ordinance, that he had no problem singling out pit bulls, because he sees them “on TV” causing “incidents.” One would hope that local government officials might on their own possess some understanding of limited government and individual liberty; but if the Justice Department at least in this instance will ensure that they do so by way of a federal law, then the feds are serving as an important check on excessive government power. read more

A. 6287-B/S. 3926-A would make it a misdemeanor to attend an animal fight in New York State. The NY Senate passed its version of the bill, S. 3926-A, on June 22. Unfortunately, despite passing successfully through the Assembly Agriculture and Codes Committees, the Assembly companion bill, A. 6287-B, has not been scheduled for a floor vote by Assembly leadership.

By attending these barbaric spectacles, spectators make animal fighting a lucrative underground business. In addition, animal fights create environments that promote other hazardous acts, such as the sale of illegal drugs, weapons possession and gambling. Making attendance at animal fights a misdemeanor will give law enforcement an important tool with which to punish the spectators who drive the animal fighting market. read more