do you think

Do you think that there should be some kind of laws in reguards to reptiles. I think there probley needs to be something in place. But with that said there should be laws for all pets that are deamed dangereus. If I have to have insurance for a snake, should there not be the same requirement for some breed of dogs.

I think there should be SOMETHING, if that means we can keep our animals. It seems like this bill is heading in that direction. I don't think it's going to be out right killed, but I will be fighting ALL THE WAY, to see that done. I'm afraid there's going to be a compromise. I already hold liability insurance, city permits and state permits. I think if anything, maybe some sort of registration. Do I want it to be that way? NO, absolutely not. I think we should be free to own whatever reptiles we want to, as long as we're responsible with them and they're kept properly. But, unfortunately it's looking like we're going to have to concede in some way, shape or form.

I also think something going to come out of this. The way its wrote now is no way fare to us. Just like dog cat and other pet owners we only ever hear about the bad ones. never the good keeper.

I am a Libertarian by nature. I've done a considerable amount of reading about the founding fathers and the history of our country. Any time the government encroaches on the "pursuit of happiness", it is against the principals that this country was founded on.

Just to be clear, in the time of our founding fathers, happiness was synonymous with property. Our country was founded on protecting the property (and civil) rights of individuals from government encroachment. This is something that we have strayed far from and our founding fathers should be rolling in their graves to see how much the government (that is supposed to be by the people) restricts the rights of the citizens.

If reptile owners give one inch of their rights, we will end up with a mile of regulations. No, I do not believe that there should be some regulations on what property we can keep. If we are irresponsible with our property, then we should be subject to civil remedies. It is not the government's job to tell me or you what property that can be owned.

I like that answer Don and I truely wish for that kind of turn out. I put this up to see what people thought, to see if it would change my mind on some reguation or not. Your answer goes to the heart and makes me me think. maybe I dont want people to tell me what I can keep.

I completely agree with you Don, unfortunately this bill is not looking good for us. HSUS also just put up a bill essentially restricting what dogs you can and cannot own here in Virginia. Fortunately we have a few legislators on our side when it comes to this bill, but we need so much more support!

i agree with Don 110%.

gatorgalobx wrote:

I completely agree with you Don, unfortunately this bill is not looking good for us. HSUS also just put up a bill essentially restricting what dogs you can and cannot own here in Virginia. Fortunately we have a few legislators on our side when it comes to this bill, but we need so much more support!

I tried searching for the dog breed bill, but am not finding it, do you have more info on it?

The dangers of venomous snakes is well stated here: http://ufwildlife.ifas.ufl.edu/venomous_snake_faqs.shtml
Large constrictors, statically speaking are (or at least should be) a non-issue as well.

ladycrotalus wrote:

I tried searching for the dog breed bill, but am not finding it, do you have more info on it?

I would also like to read this bill.

Would this be the dog bill mentioned:

http://www.animallawcoalition.com/companion-animal-breeding/article/1926

No, jw.... This is the one. It deals with "dangerous" dogs. I was told that it had to do with specifically pit bulls, rottweilers, german shepherds, huskies, dobermans, etc. Check it out below....

HOUSE BILL NO. 537
Offered January 11, 2012
Prefiled January 10, 2012
A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 3.2-6540 and 3.2-6542 of the Code of Virginia, relating to the dangerous dog registry.
----------
Patron-- Orrock
----------
Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
----------
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That §§ 3.2-6540 and 3.2-6542 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 3.2-6540. Control of dangerous or vicious dogs; penalties.

A. As used in this section:

"Dangerous dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat, or killed a companion animal that is a dog or cat. When a dog attacks or bites a companion animal that is a dog or cat, the attacking or biting dog shall not be deemed dangerous: (i) if no serious physical injury as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the dog or cat as a result of the attack or bite; (ii) if both animals are owned by the same person; (iii) if such attack occurs on the property of the attacking or biting dog's owner or custodian; or (iv) for other good cause as determined by the court. No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog as a result of biting, attacking, or inflicting injury on a dog or cat while engaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful hunting or participating in an organized, lawful dog handling event. No dog that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person shall be found to be a dangerous dog if the court determines, based on the totality of the evidence before it, that the dog is not dangerous or a threat to the community.

"Vicious dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has: (i) killed a person; (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function; or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal control officer as authorized by ordinance, that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding.

B. Any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer who has reason to believe that a canine or canine crossbreed within his jurisdiction is a dangerous dog or vicious dog shall apply to a magistrate serving the jurisdiction for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before a general district court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. If a law-enforcement officer successfully makes an application for the issuance of a summons, he shall contact the local animal control officer and inform him of the location of the dog and the relevant facts pertaining to his belief that the dog is dangerous or vicious. The animal control officer shall confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. If the animal control officer determines that the owner or custodian can confine the animal in a manner that protects the public safety, he may permit the owner or custodian to confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian or harborer of the animal to produce the animal. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of this section. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a vicious dog, the court shall order the animal euthanized in accordance with the provisions of § 3.2-6562. The court, upon finding the animal to be a dangerous or vicious dog, may order the owner, custodian, or harborer thereof to pay restitution for actual damages to any person injured by the animal or whose companion animal was injured or killed by the animal. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. Trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4 (§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2. The Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

C. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who was: (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian; or (iii) provoking, tormenting, or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog. No animal that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog.

D. If the owner of an animal found to be a dangerous dog is a minor, the custodial parent or legal guardian shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of this section.

E. The owner of any animal found to be a dangerous dog shall, within 10 45 days of such finding, obtain a dangerous dog registration certificate from the local animal control officer or treasurer for a fee of $50 $150, in addition to other fees that may be authorized by law. The local animal control officer or treasurer shall also provide the owner with a uniformly designed tag that identifies the animal as a dangerous dog. The owner shall affix the tag to the animal's collar and ensure that the animal wears the collar and tag at all times. All By January 31 of each year, until such time as the dangerous dog is deceased, all certificates obtained pursuant to this subsection shall be updated and renewed annually for the same a fee of $85 and in the same manner as the initial certificate was obtained. The animal control officer shall provide a copy of the dangerous dog registration certificate and verification of compliance to the State Veterinarian post registration information on the Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry.

F. All dangerous dog registration certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons 18 years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence: (i) of the animal's current rabies vaccination, if applicable; (ii) that the animal has been neutered or spayed; and (iii) that the animal is and will be confined in a proper enclosure or is and will be confined inside the owner's residence or is and will be muzzled and confined in the owner's fenced-in yard until the proper enclosure is constructed. In addition, owners who apply for certificates or renewals thereof under this section shall not be issued a certificate or renewal thereof unless they present satisfactory evidence that: (i) their residence is and will continue to be posted with clearly visible signs warning both minors and adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on the property; and (ii) the animal has been permanently identified by means of a tattoo on the inside thigh or by electronic implantation. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons who present satisfactory evidence that the owner has liability insurance coverage, to the value of at least $100,000, that covers animal bites. The owner may obtain and maintain a bond in surety, in lieu of liability insurance, to the value of at least $100,000.

G. While on the property of its owner, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked structure of sufficient height and design to prevent its escape or direct contact with or entry by minors, adults, or other animals. The structure shall be designed to provide the animal with shelter from the elements of nature. When off its owner's property, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be kept on a leash and muzzled in such a manner as not to cause injury to the animal or interfere with the animal's vision or respiration, but so as to prevent it from biting a person or another animal.

H. The owner of any dog found to be dangerous shall register the animal with the Commonwealth of Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry, as established under § 3.2-6542, within 45 days of such a finding by any appropriate court.

The owner shall also cause the local animal control officer to be promptly notified of: (i) the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all owners; (ii) all of the means necessary to locate the owner and the dog at any time; (iii) any complaints or incidents of attack by the dog upon any person or cat or dog; (iv) any claims made or lawsuits brought as a result of any attack; (v) tattoo or chip identification information or both; (vi) proof of insurance or surety bond; and (vii) the death of the dog.

I. After an animal has been found to be a dangerous dog, the animal's owner shall immediately, upon learning of same, cause the local animal control authority to be notified if the animal: (i) is loose or unconfined; or (ii) bites a person or attacks another animal; or (iii) is sold, given away, or dies. Any owner of a dangerous dog who relocates to a new address shall, within 10 days of relocating, provide written notice to the appropriate local animal control authority for the old address from which the animal has moved and the new address to which the animal has been moved.

J. Any owner or custodian of a canine or canine crossbreed or other animal is guilty of a:

1. Class 2 misdemeanor if the canine or canine crossbreed previously declared a dangerous dog pursuant to this section, when such declaration arose out of a separate and distinct incident, attacks and injures or kills a cat or dog that is a companion animal belonging to another person;

2. Class 1 misdemeanor if the canine or canine crossbreed previously declared a dangerous dog pursuant to this section, when such declaration arose out of a separate and distinct incident, bites a human being or attacks a human being causing bodily injury; or

3. Class 6 felony if any owner or custodian whose willful act or omission in the care, control, or containment of a canine, canine crossbreed, or other animal is so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life, and is the proximate cause of such dog or other animal attacking and causing serious bodily injury to any person.

The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any animal that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, or when the animal is a police dog that is engaged in the performance of its duties at the time of the attack.

K. The owner of any animal that has been found to be a dangerous dog who willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

L. All fees collected pursuant to this section, less the costs incurred by the animal control authority in producing and distributing the certificates and tags required by this section and fees due to the State Veterinarian for maintenance of the Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry, shall be paid into a special dedicated fund in the treasury of the locality for the purpose of paying the expenses of any training course required under § 3.2-6556.

M. The governing body of any locality may enact an ordinance parallel to this statute regulating dangerous and vicious dogs. No locality may impose a felony penalty for violation of such ordinances.

§ 3.2-6542. Establishment of Dangerous Dog Registry.

The Commissioner shall establish the Commonwealth of Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry to be maintained by the Department, Office of Veterinary Services. Each owner of any canine or canine crossbreed found by any appropriate court to be a dangerous dog shall be required to register the animal as a dangerous dog within 45 days of such finding Animal Care and Health Policy. The State Veterinarian shall receive, post, and maintain the information provided and posted by the owner, animal control officers, and or other such officials statewide on a website. All information collected for the Dangerous Dog Registry shall be available to animal control officers via the website. Registration information shall include the name of the animal, a photograph, sex, age, weight, primary breed, secondary breed, color and markings, whether spayed or neutered, the acts that resulted in the dog being designated as dangerous and associated trial docket information, microchip or tattoo number, address where the animal is maintained, name of the owner, address of the owner, telephone numbers of the owner, and a statement that the owner has complied with the provisions of the dangerous dog order. The address of the owner along with the name and breed of the dangerous dog, the acts that resulted in the dog being deemed dangerous, and information necessary to access court records of the adjudication shall be available to the general public. By January 31 of each year, until such time as the dangerous dog is deceased, the owner shall submit to an animal control officer or other designated local official of the county or city in which he currently resides a renewal registration that shall include all information contained in the original registration and any updates. The owner shall verify the information is accurate by annual resubmissions. The owner shall submit to the State Veterinarian a $100 initial registration fee and a $35 renewal registration fee The animal control officer or other such official shall post any updates on the website. In the event that the dangerous dog is moved to a different location, or contact information for the owner changes in any way at any time, the owner shall submit a renewal containing the address of the new location or other updated information within 10 days of such move or change to an animal control officer or other such official for the new location. There shall be no charge for any updated information provided between renewals. Each county and city shall submit to the State Veterinarian by January 31 of each year $90 for each dangerous dog it initially registered and $25 for each dangerous dog for which it renewed registration within the previous calendar year. Any funds collected pursuant to this section shall be used by the State Veterinarian to maintain the registry and website. The website list shall be known as the Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry.

Actions of the Department relating to the establishment, operation, and maintenance of the Commonwealth of Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry under this section shall be exempt from the provisions of the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.).

Copies of all records, documents, and other papers pertaining to the Dangerous Dog Registry that are duly certified and authenticated in writing on the face of such documents to be true copies by the State Veterinarian or the Dangerous Dog Registry administrator shall be received as evidence with like effect as the original records, documents, or other papers in all courts of the Commonwealth.

Now my two shepards are dangerous, my snakes are iam gitting tired of this.

It's out of control and absolutely ridiculous. That's why it's so important for us to FIGHT!

Ok I started this poll and thought there should be some rules, now I say NO! Make no rule to control my pets if we have no say so.

as I understand this bill to amend dangerous animals they are lengthening the time period the owner of a dangerous dog has to register that animal from 10-45 days. And compiling a 100 dollar fee and a 50 dollar fee that would have before been filed separately, into one single $150 fee.

seems like nothing worth worrying about.

woohoo I have a danger white german shepherd running around my house as we speak...

she is literally the most well behaved obedient and loyal dog I have ever seen in my life... i am far from being a real "dog" person but she gives me the hope for other dogs and I think that those dumb laws are ridiculous

Quote :

If a law-enforcement officer successfully makes an application for the issuance of a summons, he shall contact the local animal control officer and inform him of the location of the dog and the relevant facts pertaining to his belief that the dog is dangerous or vicious. The animal control officer shall confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered.

Surely this is illegal and against unreasonable search and seizure. Essentially, all a law enforcement officer has to do is say, "I think that dog is dangerous" and they can break into your home without a warrant and seize your dog. Only after they seize your dog will evidence be heard at a trial.

This would be breaking and entering clear as day regardless of if the person has a badge or rap sheet. This makes me angrier than almost anything else I've heard in the news lately, even angrier than the exotic animals ban. The government has no legal right to enter your home and seize property without a warrant.

smd58 wrote:

If I have to have insurance for a snake, should there not be the same requirement for some breed of dogs.

I can speak from experience, most home insurance companies will not insure your house if you own certain breed of dog. I had to try many different companies until I just started refering to her as a mix (which technically she was many many generations ago ).

Wait....no where in that bill does it state that specific breeds of dog are to be deemed dangerous. A dog is only considered dangerous if it actually DOES something.

And the officer would have to submit an application before permission is granted to seize the animal. The application would have to give them some probable cause to enter the home and seize the animal. They can't just say "I think that animal is dangerous." They have to be able to say "I saw that animal attack another animal, therefore it should be deemed dangerous." Without an actual act of aggression from the dog, I don't think they will be granted permission to seize the animal.

And also, it states a dog is only considered dangerous or vicious if they cause serious harm to another companion animal or person, BUT it doesn't count if the animal was protecting its home, young, caregivers, itself, or reacting to provocation or teasing.

I actually agree with this bill because it does not state ANYWHERE that a particular breed of dog is to be considered dangerous and you are not prohibited from keeping any breeds. Its only when your dog actually does something that you have to apply for a permit to keep the animal.

I used to have a rottwieler. We think he was abused as a puppy (we found him) because he did grow up to have behavioral issues. He bit my cousin (only a small puncture wound on his hand) because he thought he was protecting my cousin. He bit me (because I scared him by accident. I bent down to pet him in a dark room and he didn't see me) And he bit my mother (she was chasing my brother around the yard playfully and he bit her ankle in play) We had to register him as a dangerous dog. Technically, according to this bill, we would not have to register him as a dangerous dog.

As far as laws for reptiles, I don't think there should be any kind of regulations that prohibit you from obtaining and keeping any kind of reptile. BUT there should be something in place that if your animals do escape or cause injury to someone (outside your facility) you are held accountable. If you own a burmese and he escapes into the neighborhood and kills someone's poodle, you should be responsible because you did not confine your animal properly. And if you continually make such mistakes, should be banned from owning these animals (just like they do with people with dogs. If you fight dogs, you are prohibited from owning dogs. If you abuse animals, you are prohibited from owning any other animals) It should work the same way with reptiles. If your animals get out and cause problems, you are to be held accountable.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This means, a judge (in some cases a magistrate) must sign a warrant, NOT a summons as in this bill, in order for police to enter your home and seize your property. A summons is not permission to enter citizen's house and seize their property, it is simply a requirement to appear in court on a certain date and has a much lower bar than a warrant. It also says nothing about the documentation required, just that the officer needs a reason. Since this reason is not spelled out, one can safely assume it is whatever reason the officer decides as enough. I trust most officers would exercise professional due diligence but it's easy enough to imagine a few who dislike dogs going too far but all in the name of public good. This is a very big deal and is a clear violation of the constitution.

Permit me a quick example:

You're walking your pit bull around your neighborhood, past a park. A small child runs playing and yelling past your dog which startles it. Your dog responds by ferociously barking. It scares the child who then falls and scratches himself. He runs to his mom, crying about the dog and points it out. The mothers sees the pitbull, heard the barking, sees the bloody scratch, and assumes the pitbull bit her child (everyone knows how vicious those animals are ). At 5 years old, the child is too young to contradict his mother and maybe even believes it himself. The mother tells her next door neighbor, who happens to be an officer about the incident, and he takes action, also not liking pitbulls and all too ready to believe the attack. The officer tells the magistrate about a vicious pitbull that attacked a small child in his neighborhood and your dog is seized (surely good enough reason). With a warrant, the mother's statement would be needed. In court, she could be questioned, "well, did you actually see the dog bite your child." I see, you didn't but everyone knows how dangerous they are so you assumed. Ahh, yes, your child was fine enough to not have to go to the hospital 5 minutes after the "attack". So since you didn't go to the hospital, a physician never examined the wound to see if it was in fact a dog bite and not just a scratch from falling down.

This is an easily believable case that would allow your dog to be taken by the above bill. Good reason by the police, an apparent attack, but no protections for the property owner preventing this.


Sorry, I got kind of sidetracked on the dog bill. Our dogs are our children (pending human ones) and it makes me sick to think how easily this bill allows them to be taken by bypassing property rights. I think there are already more than adequate laws regarding reptiles, mainly animal cruelty and involuntary manslaughter. Animal cruelty laws can be used to prosecute anyone and legally seize reptiles who are not properly being taken care of (and by properly, I mean cruelty, not quibbles in husbandry). If your large reptile gets out and injures or kills someone, you should be charged the same as if you accidently hurt someone with your car due to negligence. There's no need for further specific laws.

As a multiple dog owner, I am also in agreement with the bill.

Quote :

C. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed ...

This is an important statement as it does not punish the breed, just the deed.

As long as it stays that way I dont have a problem with it, My two shepards are so nice and they both went to obendence traing.

In the interest of Knowledge

Quote :

Dangerous dog registry.
Changes the procedure by which dangerous dogs are registered in Virginia. The bill requires an animal control officer, instead of the State Veterinarian, to post dangerous dog registration information on the registry website. It removes the requirement that an animal control officer provide a copy of the registration certificate and verification of compliance of the owner with the registration procedures to the State Veterinarian. The owner of an animal found to be a dangerous dog has to obtain a registration certificate from the local animal control officer or treasurer with 45 days. The current law requires the owner to obtain a certificate within 10 days. The fee for the certificate is increased from $50 to $150 and the $100 registration fee due to the State Veterinarian is eliminated. By January 31 of each year, the certificate has to be updated and renewed by the owner at a fee of $85. A portion of the fees collected shall go to the State Veterinarian to maintain the registry.

This bill does nothing more than change procedure for the way that dangerous dogs are registered, if you own a dangerous dog, this bill is actually good for you. This bill makes it easier to register your dangerous dog by:
1. Removing the need of the owner to make a yearly visit to a state veterinarian (and paying for such visit). This visit would have been made yearly and only after going to animal control and obtaining a registration certificate and verification of compliance (two documents that probably cost money too.
2. The length of time to acquire a registration certificate is now up to 45 days from 10 days
3. two fees totalling $150 are compiled into a single $150 fee.

And btw the definition of dangerous dog:

Quote :

"Dangerous dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat, or killed a companion animal that is a dog or cat. When a dog attacks or bites a companion animal that is a dog or cat, the attacking or biting dog shall not be deemed dangerous: (i) if no serious physical injury as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the dog or cat as a result of the attack or bite; (ii) if both animals are owned by the same person; (iii) if such attack occurs on the property of the attacking or biting dog's owner or custodian; or (iv) for other good cause as determined by the court. No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog as a result of biting, attacking, or inflicting injury on a dog or cat while engaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful hunting or participating in an organized, lawful dog handling event. No dog that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person shall be found to be a dangerous dog if the court determines, based on the totality of the evidence before it, that the dog is not dangerous or a threat to the community.

Nobody's german shepherd's, pit bulls, or rottweilers are dangerous dogs based on their breed.

About police officers confiscating animals:

Quote :

Any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer who has reason to believe that a canine or canine crossbreed within his jurisdiction is a dangerous dog or vicious dog shall apply to a magistrate serving the jurisdiction for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before a general district court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. If a law-enforcement officer successfully makes an application for the issuance of a summons, he shall contact the local animal control officer and inform him of the location of the dog and the relevant facts pertaining to his belief that the dog is dangerous or vicious. The animal control officer shall confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. If the animal control officer determines that the owner or custodian can confine the animal in a manner that protects the public safety, he may permit the owner or custodian to confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian or harborer of the animal to produce the animal. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of this section. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a vicious dog, the court shall order the animal euthanized in accordance with the provisions of § 3.2-6562. The court, upon finding the animal to be a dangerous or vicious dog, may order the owner, custodian, or harborer thereof to pay restitution for actual damages to any person injured by the animal or whose companion animal was injured or killed by the animal. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. Trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4 (§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2. The Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

This summons does not give the officer permission to enter your home or seize your property.

This law is completely sensible. I am behind it 100%

post deleted by myself (just pretend since it can't really be )

In the end, some regulation will likely happen. The question is what form will it take? Something we support/can live with or something we don't. I can tell you that we won only the one battle defeating the sb477&hb1242. Delegate Peace's legislative assistant and I met and she stated his bill would be back next year....maybe in a different forum, but would be back. I take her at her word. We would be wise to plan long term, not just to fight each bill each time it shows up in Richmond....and pray each time we never lose.
-Will

Will,
That's what the organization of SAVES (Saving All Virginia's Exotic Species) is trying to do... We're going to try to basically come up with a bill that all of us can live with. Check out the website www.wesaves.org, if you haven't already and you can learn more about it and become involved with the group.
Lori

Lori,
Already working with many of its key players! ....and have been lobbying my butt off.
Will

Now that I see your pic, I DO remember you there with us!

Yea, three trips to Richmond total....but, it was worth it to kill those bills!

Same here and AGREED!