[ SHOWGSD-L ] ALERT, Request Veto â New Mexico Dang...
- From: RihadinK9@xxxxxxx
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:06:21 EST
This has some good stats at the bottom. If I were writing the letter
the stats would be at the beginning, because they have (to me) the
greatest impact.
E-mail message
New Mexico Senate Bill 432, Dangerous Dog Act, now goes to Governor
Richardson for signature. Please contact Governor Richardson and ask him to
VETO this
bill.
The Most Honorable Bill Richardson
State of New Mexico
Office of the Governor
Room 400 State Capitol Building
Santa Fe, NM 87501
(505) 476-2200
Fax: (505) 476-2226
_www.governor.state.nm.us_ (http://www.governor.state.nm.us)
The website for the bill and a point paper are provided below. Your
support in stopping this legislation is needed. Thank you.
Ron Gustafson
505-864-3513
*********
Website to Senate Bill 432:
http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/_session.asp?year=05&chamber=S&number=432&type=
++&w=com
********
POINT PAPER
VETO - New Mexico SB432, Dangerous Dog Act
The provisions in SB432 for a "potentially dangerous dog" are vague and
could be used to target responsible owners. If a dog runs to a fence (that
appears too low) and barks menacingly at a stranger, the dog could be declared
"potentially dangerous" and seized. The definition and subsequent legal action
in
SB432 are based on "appearance." The potential for misapplication of this law
is high, and there is no appeal process before entering the court system. If
a "potentially dangerous dog" attacks a chicken, the owner could be
sentenced to 18 months in the state penitentiary. If the owner fails to report
the
death of a "potentially dangerous dog" in 5 business days, the penalty is one
year in the county jail and could be 18 months in the state penitentiary. The
penalty structure is illogical and needs major rework.
The definition of "dangerous dog" SHOULD be based on an UNPROVOKED attack on
a PERSON. However, this law DEFINES "dangerous dog" as a dog that causes
serious injury to a person OR domestic animal â?? REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES
(provoked or unprovoked). To add to the confusion, a dog can be DEFINED as
dangerous, but may not be DECLARED to be dangerous. Provisions in SB432 about
attacks on domestic animals conflict with existing state statues regarding
attacks
on livestock. Furthermore, this law does NOT ban breed specific laws. A ban
on breed specific laws should be part of any dangerous dog legislation. The
SB432
definition of "dangerous dog" is wrong. SB432 conflicts with existing state
law. As a matter of New Mexico State policy, laws based on breed should be
prohibited.
State statues currently impose a penalty of one year confinement and a $1000
fine for any person who keeps any animal known to be vicious and liable to
attack or injure a human being (unless the animal is securely kept to prevent
injury to a person). Dogs that attack or kill livestock are to be killed and
the owner held responsible for all damages. These, as well as other, existing
provisions of state statutes and administrative code, provide a good
starting point for dangerous dog legislation. Simple amendments to existing
state
statutes would be more
effective than SB432.
THE FACTS SHOW
1) The incidents of injuries from dog bites is SMALL in relation to
other risks for injury, including falls, motor vehicles, drug reactions,
sports, spider bites, bicycles, medical complications, intentional injuries,
poisonings, and knife injuries â?? dog bites rank below all of these
categories.
2) Within this small risk group, unfortunately a disproportionate number of
children are bitten and most of those dog bites are by the family dog or by a
dog familiar to the family â?? SB432 does not address the circumstances that
present the greatest risk to children.
3) US Fatalities/Year: 139 million autos â?? 42,000 fatalities; 5
million motorcycles â?? 3500 fatalities; 103 million bicycles â?? 700
fatalities; 63 million dogs â?? 12 dog-bite fatalities; 65 million
children â?? 1300 child abuse fatalities, 800 pedestrian fatalities, 17
playground fatalities, 10 dog-bite fatalities.
SB432 IS A BAD LAW THAT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE REALITY OF THE PROBLEM IT
INTENDS TO SOLVE â?? VETO THIS LEGISLATION
Ginger Cleary, Dallas, GA_ http://www.rihadin.com _
(http://www.rihadin.com/) (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pet-law/) "When your
response to everything
that is wrong with the world is to say, 'there ought to be a law,' you are
saying that you hold freedom very cheap." Dr Thomas Sowell
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GA-pet-law/_
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pet-law/)
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2005. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] ALERT, Request Veto â New Mexico Dang...
