H.B. 14

I guess I need some clarification on the section you highlighted in your blog entry.

© Except when a dog is lawfully engaged in hunting and accompanied by the owner, keeper, harborer, or handler of the dog, no owner, keeper, or harborer of any dog shall fail at any time to do either of the following:

(1) Keep the dog physically confined or restrained upon the premises of the owner, keeper, or harborer by a leash, tether, adequate fence, supervision, or secure enclosure to prevent escape;

(2) Keep the dog under the reasonable control of some person.

Maybe I misunderstand (if so, please tell me- these things are impossible to understand)- but it says restrained by leash, fence or supervision. If you have a dog running on your farm, and they are under your supervision (which they should be), what is the problem?

I read it the way Courtney has read it. Here is my break down.

If you are not hunting with your dog, you have TWO options:

1. Confined or restrained on the premises of an OKH by ANY of the following: leash, tether, fence, supervision, secure enclosure

2. Keep the dog under reasonable control by ANYONE

Adding the "reasonable control" option is probably why this section was modified. "Reasonable" is the key word that lets a member of the executive use their judgment as they see fit.

There are three problems. First of all, the dog may be perfectly friendly and well disposed to everyone, but because the dog was caught running loose it is now deemed to be a dangerous dog, which it is not. In order to get the label of dangerous dog removed the owner must go to court, which is an expense that he shouldn't have to endure.

Secondly, what is reasonable to me may be different than that of an "executive" who neither knows nor cares about the situation or hardships faced by the owner. It's easier to exert authority rather than restrain it.

Finally the law is open to abuse. If your neighbor doesn't like you or wants to make trouble, he (or she) need do nothing more than submit a false or falsely exaggerated report about your dog.

With one caveat (breed specific law) this legislation worked well for over 20 years. Why muddy the waters?

Sorry, but if your dog is caught running loose 3 times, that's a problem. It may not be a dangerous dog, but it is a dangerous situation. You have a dog, you keep it on your property or in your control in public. Dog owners need a punishment for letting dogs run loose- if this is it, so be it.

This is the closest we have gotten to getting pit bulls removed from the vicious dog law. I can't be against it just because the dog license fee has gone up to $5. The fact that people's pets are being discriminated against on a state basis is too important to me.

Sorry it may be a problem for you, but the rest of the world is not in lock step formation. Some of us, possibly increasingly few in number, are of a 'live and let live' philosophy.

By live and let live do you mean let your dog run free? I have no problem with making the "owner" have to appear in court to prove their dog is not dangerous. There is NO reason a dog should be off leash when you are just out and about on the public streets. I have a few idiots that walk theirs that way in Point Place and I wish their asses would have to go to court. Unfortunately it takes that for some feeble minded pet owners to get a clue. I will never understand what motivates them to do that anyway. Do they think they look cool? They wont look too cool after the dog runs in front of a car.

Technically, I think the proposal above wouldn't prohibit walking your dog off leash, as it contains a clause about "supervision."

(Other leash laws may apply, of course...I'm only referencing the stuff spelled out above.)