• DVM360_Conference_Charlotte,NC_banner
  • ACVCACVC
  • DVM 360
  • Fetch DVM 360Fetch DVM 360
DVM 360
dvm360 | Veterinary News, Veterinarian Insights, Medicine, Pet Care
dvm360 | Veterinary News, Veterinarian Insights, Medicine, Pet Care
By Role
AssociatesOwnersPractice ManagerStudentsTechnicians
Subscriptions
dvm360 Newsletterdvm360 Magazine
News
All News
Association
Breaking News
Conference Coverage
Education
Equine
FDA
Law & Ethics
Market Trends
Medical
Politics
Products
Recalls
Regulatory
Digital Media
dvm360 LIVE!™
Expert Interviews
The Vet Blast Podcast
Medical World News
Pet Connections
The Dilemma Live
Vet Perspectives™
Weekly Newscast
dvm360 Insights™
Publications
All Publications
dvm360
Firstline
Supplements
Vetted
Clinical
All Clinical
Anesthesia
Animal Welfare
Behavior
Cardiology
CBD in Pets
Dentistry
Dermatology
Diabetes
Emergency & Critical Care
Endocrinology
Equine Medicine
Exotic Animal Medicine
Feline Medicine
Gastroenterology
Imaging
Infectious Diseases
Integrative Medicine
Nutrition
Oncology
Ophthalmology
Orthopedics
Pain Management
Parasitology
Pharmacy
Surgery
Toxicology
Urology & Nephrology
Virtual Care
Business
All Business
Business & Personal Finance
Hospital Design
Personnel Management
Practice Finances
Practice Operations
Wellbeing & Lifestyle
Continuing Education
Conferences
Conference Listing
Conference Proceedings
Resources
CBD in Pets
CE Requirements by State
Contests
Veterinary Heroes
Partners
Spotlight Series
Team Meeting in a Box
Toolkit
Top Recommended Veterinary Products
Vet to Vet
  • Contact Us
  • Fetch DVM360 Conference
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy
  • Do Not Sell My Information
  • About Us

© 2023 MJH Life Sciences and dvm360 | Veterinary News, Veterinarian Insights, Medicine, Pet Care. All rights reserved.

Advertisement
By Role
  • Associates
  • Owners
  • Practice Manager
  • Students
  • Technicians
Subscriptions
  • dvm360 Newsletter
  • dvm360 Magazine
  • Contact Us
  • Fetch DVM360 Conference
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy
  • Do Not Sell My Information
  • About Us
  • MJHLS Brand Logo

© 2023 MJH Life Sciences™ and dvm360 | Veterinary News, Veterinarian Insights, Medicine, Pet Care. All rights reserved.

OVMA readies to weigh in on dangerous dog law

January 1, 2005
Jennifer Fiala

The law fails to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue.

COLUMBUS, OHIO-An Ohio Supreme Court decision deeming the state's dangerous dog law unconstitutional has veterinary leaders and dog wardens on high alert.

In a 4-3 decision, justices stripped wardens of their authority to determine whether dogs are vicious and/or dangerous - a move critics claim impacts public protection. At the same time, the ruling leaves the injured law vulnerable to attempted rewrites from stakeholders on both sides of the issue.

At presstime, the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association's (OVMA) Legislative Committee awaits lawmakers' attempts to open Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 955.22 in an effort to rework the dangerous dog directive that, among other things, claims Pit Bulls are a dangerous breed. For that reason, the public will be best served if veterinarians have their hands in the review, OVMA Executive Director Jack Advent says.

"The biggest issue in this, quite honestly, is the one that deals with breed specific mention in Ohio law," he says. "Once the law's opened, people are going to argue whether it's fundamentally flawed because it discriminates against a specific breed. We'll be that scientific voice of reason in the middle of what I'm sure will be an emotional debate. There's no question in my mind that we have an important role to play."

Advertisement

Taking a stance

While OVMA has no formal position on breed specific language, Advent surmises the group will mirror the American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) stance, which supports dangerous animal legislation provided it does not refer to specific breeds or classes of animals.

"My instinct is that OVMA will say clearly, breed specific legislation is the wrong way to go," he says. "We're going to review the decision as well as the current law as it pertains to vicious dogs and look at it in the context of what modifications might be beneficial to the existing statute. We're trying to anticipate what might be proposed and how we should react. I hope that as lawmakers look at this issue, they ask for our opinions."

Protecting society

Tom Skeldon, of Lucas County, wants lawmakers to consider dog wardens' views, too. While breed specifics don't weigh heavily on Skeldon's mind, the dogcatcher who covers the Toledo area claims the Supreme Court erred on the side of dogs, not constituents, and the decision bars him from doing his job.

"Because of this ruling, if a dog went out and attacked somebody and then went out running around, I couldn't write the owner up for violating any vicious dog law," he says. "I have analysis from my county prosecutor that allows me to continue to enforce the law where Pitt Bulls are concerned, but not where dogs that have mauled people.

"I don't understand this decision. I can read it, but to me, it's not a logical and thoughtful opinion written by the majority."

State v. Cowan

Grasping the court's ruling means understanding the case behind it. In the Supreme Court's review State v. Cowan, Portage County resident Janice Cowan challenges the classification of her two dogs as dangerous-a label that laid the groundwork for her trial court conviction, which called for five days in jail, a $500 fine and an order that she surrender her animals.

According to court documents, Cowan's two dogs attacked a neighbor in October 2001. Following the incident, a dog warden deemed the animals vicious, requiring Cowan to carry additional liability insurance and confine the dogs in a manner compliant with Ohio code. When Cowan reportedly failed to comply with the vicious-dog law, she was charged with a series of misdemeanors.

In her motion to dismiss, Cowan challenges the ruling on grounds the law violates due process by granting dog wardens "unfettered discretion" to label animals as vicious. There was no means for Cowan to appeal the determination and, apparently, the high court agreed.

"R.C. 955.22 violates the constitutional right to procedural due process insofar as it fails to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether a dog is 'vicious' or 'dangerous,' " the ruling states. "Even assuming that R.C. 955.22 provides a meaningful opportunity to be heard on a dog's classification, it is certainly unconstitutional as applied here."

Related Content:

Association
ABVS approves full recognition for shelter medicine practice
ABVS approves full recognition for shelter medicine practice
Pet Advocacy Network honors outstanding contributions to the pet care community
Pet Advocacy Network honors outstanding contributions to the pet care community
Q&A with AVMA treasurer Dr Arnold L. Goldman
Q&A with AVMA treasurer Dr Arnold L. Goldman

Advertisement

Latest News

3 Must-reads from Fetch Charlotte 2023

A practical approach to a fever of unknown origin

Bridge Club aims to bring groomers and veterinarians together

ABVS approves full recognition for shelter medicine practice

View More Latest News
Advertisement