http://www.dangerousdoglaw.com

Sign Our Petition to Change Florida's Dangerous Dog Law

Sign our Petition to Change Florida's Dangerous Dog Law.  It is the first step in showing Florida Legislators that there are votes to be gained from support of this issue.  We need thousands of signatures from Florida residents.  If you have any pet or companion animal, this issue effects you.  You just won't know it until animal control shows up at your door and seizes your pet.  The two dogs above illustrate the absurdity of the law as it now exists.  Brandie and Gigi are on death row in Broward for an offense that would not even get them classifed "dangerous" in neighboring Dade County. Never in trouble before. We can't let this go on. Act now!  Solicit your friends.  Talk to your friends, co-workers and anyone who has an interest. Educate them.  We live in a democracy.  Let's use it for something that matters to us.

Think about ways that we can start a grassroots movement. I can write the law, and I can talk to the legislators.  But it won't make any difference if they don't see it's important. Give me whatever ideas you have and let's get started.

Proposed Changes to Florida's Dangerous Dog Law

An 18 Point Plan

Here is an eighteen point plan to change Florida's Dangerous Dog Law. Please remember that this is legislation. It is unlikely we will be able to get all these changes.  We need to prioritize the changes.  I will discuss each of these points in the coming days so that we all understand what they mean and why they are needed.

1.  The dangerous dog definition needs to be the same state wide;

2.  The dangerous dog definition needs to require two kills of a domestic animal before a dog can be declared dangerous;

3.  The dog's act must be coupled to an attack or aggression-right now if you are injured by accident, the dog can be declared dangerous;

4.  There has to be a statute of limitations for charges to be filed-right now it is unlimited;

5.  A dog may not be impounded by animal control unless it seriously injures a human-otherwise the dog stays home pending classification;

6.  The first hearing must be conducted by either a board with members with dog experience or a hearing with rules of evidence-any such hearing would put the burden of going forward and burden of proof on the government;

7.  In cases where euthanasia is the penalty, the burden of proof would be clear and convincing;

8.  If the first hearing is not conducted like a trial, then there must be a de novo hearing in county court;

9.  The appeals process needs to be clarified-either do novo or if the hearing is with rules of evidence record review;

10. Provocation would be a defense in all cases-including animal on animal altercations, not just human interactions;

11. Provocation would be defined broadly so that little dogs can't provoke a big dog and then be blamed when a fatality occurs;

12. Boarding fees would not be payable if the owner wins; 

13. The law needs to be clear that the owner is allowed visitation and medical information about his or her dog during classification;

14. Notice of the first hearing needs to be set forth to comply with due process;

15. Different rules are needed for dog park incidents;

16. Seizure of a dog at the scene of the incident needs to comply with the concept of "probable cause" and two affidavits from people living at separate addresses must be required;

17. If the "menacing attitude of attack" language is kept for people who are scared without injury, there must be a "reasonable person" standard applied.

18. When considering the "penalty" phase, the trier of fact must consider lesser restrictive alternatives to euthanasia, such as obedience training, muzzling, confinement or banishment for the city or county;