# New York: Assemblyman and senator announce Dangerous Dog Owner Deterrent Act



## Lesya Zaichenko (Dec 10, 2011)

Assemblyman and senator announce Dangerous Dog Owner Deterrent Act | News | Schenectady City News









Submitted by Emma Levine, Web Producer
Wednesday, December 28th, 2011, 10:46am











A New York assemblyman and senator have announced new legislation to help keep residents safe from dangerous dog attacks.

Assemblyman Jim Tedisco (R,C,I-Schenectady-Saratoga) and Senator Hugh Farley (R,C,I-Niskayuna) have announced the Dangerous Dog Owner Deterrent Act. According to a statement, the act will help charge irresponsible dog owners up to a felony if their dog seriously injures someone. This could carry a penalty of up to two years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine. The law also gives judges the discretion to impose the most serious sentences for the most severe cases.

“The Dangerous Dog Owner Deterrent Act targets criminally irresponsible dog owners who raise their dogs to be vicious weapons and is not limited to any one breed of dog because any dog can have a bad day,” said Tedisco in a statement. “Owning a companion animal is not a right but a privilege and it’s up to dog owners to be responsible for their pets. Dogs should be raised as companion pets, not trained to be killers.” 

Senator Farley also remarked on the new legislation and how harder penalties could be a better deterrent.

“Some dog owners create an environment that jeopardizes the safety of others. Recent incidents have demonstrated the need to strengthen the existing penalty levels in order to create a more effective deterrent and improve public safety,” said Farley.

For more information on the act click here.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

“Owning a companion animal is not a right but a privilege and it’s up to dog owners to be responsible for their pets. Dogs should be raised as companion pets, not trained to be killers.” 

First it is my right, and my freedom to own a ****ing dog. Second, Keep your ****ing morales to yourself.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Lesya Zaichenko said:


> Assemblyman and senator announce Dangerous Dog Owner Deterrent Act | News | Schenectady City News
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't read it all but it looks to me like they are finally going to hold to account irresponsible owners rather than a breed of dog. That is a slippery slope too.


----------



## Melissa Thom (Jun 21, 2011)

> S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K ________________________________________________________________________ S. 6059 A. 8842 S E N A T E - A S S E M B L Y (PREFILED) January 4, 2012 ___________ IN SENATE -- Introduced by Sen. FARLEY -- read twice and ordered print- ed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Agriculture IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of A. TEDISCO -- read once and referred to the Committee on Agriculture AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to increas- ing penalties for the owners of dangerous dogs THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 1 Section 1. Subdivisions 6, 7 and 8 of section 123 of the agriculture 2 and markets law, as amended by chapter 392 of the laws of 2004, subdivi- 3 sions 7 and 8 as amended by chapter 526 of the laws of 2005, and such 4 section as renumbered by section 18 of part T of chapter 59 of the laws 5 of 2010, are amended and a new subdivision 15 is added to read as 6 follows: 7 6. The owner of a dog who, through any act or omission, negligently 8 permits his or her dog to bite a person, service dog, guide dog or hear- 9 ing dog causing physical injury shall be subject to a civil penalty not 10 to exceed [four hundred] ONE THOUSAND dollars in addition to any other 11 applicable penalties. 12 7. The owner of a dog who, through any act or omission, negligently 13 permits his or her dog to bite a person causing serious physical injury 14 shall be subject to a civil penalty UP TO A CLASS E FELONY PUNISHABLE BY 15 A FINE OF not to exceed [one] FIVE thousand [five hundred] dollars in 16 addition to any other applicable penalties. Any such penalty may be 17 reduced by any amount which is paid as restitution by the owner of the 18 dog to the person or persons suffering serious physical injury as 19 compensation for unreimbursed medical expenses, lost earnings and other 20 damages resulting from such injury. 21 8. The owner of a dog who, through any act or omission, negligently 22 permits his or her dog, which had previously been determined to be 23 dangerous pursuant to this article, to bite a person causing serious 24 physical injury, shall be guilty of a [misdemeanor] CLASS E FELONY EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD13487-03-1 S. 6059 2 A. 8842 1 punishable by a fine of not more than [three] FIVE thousand dollars, or 2 by a period of imprisonment not to exceed [ninety days] TWO YEARS, or by 3 both such fine and imprisonment in addition to any other applicable 4 penalties. Any such fine may be reduced by any amount which is paid as 5 restitution by the owner of the dog to the person or persons suffering 6 serious physical injury as compensation for unreimbursed medical 7 expenses, lost earnings and other damages resulting from such injury. 8 15. ANY PERSON FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION SIX, SEVEN OR 9 EIGHT OF THIS SECTION AND WHO HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY FELONY 10 OFFENSE UNDER TITLE H OF PART THREE OF THE PENAL LAW SHALL BE SUBJECT TO 11 FURTHER INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO A SEARCH OF SUCH 12 PERSON'S PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY AND THE SEIZURE OF ANY ILLEGAL MATE- 13 RIALS. 14 S 2. This act shall take effect on the sixtieth day after it shall 15 have become a law.</pre>


It's interesting reading.


----------



## Lesya Zaichenko (Dec 10, 2011)

James Downey said:


> “Owning a companion animal is not a right but a privilege and it’s up to dog owners to be responsible for their pets. Dogs should be raised as companion pets, not trained to be killers.”
> 
> First it is my right, and my freedom to own a ****ing dog. Second, Keep your ****ing morales to yourself.


That part had me bristling, too. My dog is my property, and I have a right to own it and do with it as I see fit (within reason). Another thing that really gets me is, from my limited experience, dogs involved in dog bites/attacks have hardly ever (if at all) trained in bite sports, PP, hillbilly backyard PP, or otherwise been "trained to be killers." Dogs involved in biting incidents are usually genetically unstable and should have been dispatched a long time ago, or are completely out of control and in the wrong, inexperienced hands.

It's difficult to get too excited or optimistic about these kinds of laws making it onto the books, because as Brian Anderson said, it is a slippery slope. On the one hand it is great to see legislature being considered that takes the punishment to the owner of the dog not properly containing/training their dogs (or not euthanizing a known unstable animal). However, what kind of other maneuvers are the lobbyists and legislators going to try to make if something like this does pass?

This Act came about because of a handful of recent dog attacks in my town in which people were injured. We have a decent community of anti-BSL advocates in our area, which I believe is why something like this was written up.


----------



## Jackie Lockard (Oct 20, 2009)

Lesya Zaichenko said:


> Another thing that really gets me is, from my limited experience, dogs involved in dog bites/attacks have hardly ever (if at all) trained in bite sports, PP, hillbilly backyard PP, or otherwise been "trained to be killers."


Sounds like a bunch of law makers buying into the 'it's all in how you raise them' hype instead of 'these breeds are vicious' hype.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I don't really understand the arguement. Any time there is a discussion of BSL's there is an uproar about holding owners accountable, not a whole breed. Here, a law proposes to: "The owner of a dog who, through any act or omission, negligently 8 permits his or her dog to bite a person, service dog, guide dog or hear- 9 ing dog causing physical injury shall be subject to..................." hold the guilty party accountable and it's a bad law. What is the fix?

DFrost


----------



## Jackie Lockard (Oct 20, 2009)

Fix the language about "raising dogs to be killers" and I'd be happier. How about "knowing the temperament of your dog and act responsibly, in a manner that should prevent your dog from becoming such a liability" or something. As, in general, the prevention of putting your dog in poor situations and being aware that hey, your dog might not be the perfect lovable dog you project him to be in your mind!!! Also protecting dog owners from the irresponsibility of others (breaking and entering, touching property (a dog) that isn't yours (or you were told not to), ect).

It's NOT the breed and it's NOT always that people "raised their dog to be a killer".


----------

