Local News

Lawmakers Seek to Take Bite Out of Dangerous Dogs

Posted May 10, 2007
Updated May 11, 2007

— The state Senate approved a bill Wednesday that would make the owners of aggressive dogs financially responsible if their pets attack someone.

The bill would require the owners of aggressive dogs to submit $5,000 to the local clerk of court, get a bond of a similar amount or get liability insurance on their pets. The measure also would require animal control offices statewide to establish a Dangerous Dog Board, which would determine the individual dogs considered to be a threat to society.

If a dog is deemed dangerous and the owner fails to provide proof of financial responsibility, the legislation would give local animal control officers the right to seize and euthanize the dog.


Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • mwaite May 10, 2007

    Several previous posts were correct, it DOES NOT pertain to certain breeds. The following was copied directly from The North Carolina General Assembly website:

    SENATE BILL 92-Dangerous dog. – A dog to which one or more of the following applies:
    a.A dog that:
    1. The dog without provocation has killed or inflicted severe injury on a person.
    b. The dog is owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting, or any dog trained for dog fighting.
    c. A dangerous dog board has determined that the dog is a dangerous dog because the dog has inflicted severe injury on a person.
    (b) The provisions of this Article do not apply to any of the following:
    (1) A dog being used by a law enforcement officer to carry out the law enforcement officer's official. (2) A dog being used in a lawful hunt. (3) A dog where the injury or damage inflicted by the dog was sustained by a domestic animal while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog

  • GWALLY May 10, 2007

    Dangerous Dog Board......only a politician could come up with something so hilarious !!
    ....would cats then come under the jurisdiction of the Clawing and Catty Cat Board....?

  • Professor Studley May 10, 2007

    all dogs have the potential to be dangerous... breed specific legislation is a BAD thing. Agressive dogs are often the result of poor training or the lack there of. Sure alot of people think of the "pitbull" when you meantion dangerous breeds, however, in several states, breeds concidered to be rather benign are the most danerous breeds. For example, for years, the most dangeous breed in Florida was determined to be the Golden Retriever, due to the high incident of dog related injuries. Dangerous dogs should be determined on the basis of the individual dog. Labelling a particular breed as dangerous is akin to stating "all blacks are criminals". I for one, think poodles are one of the "most dangerous breeds" as well as several other toy breeds, somehow I don't think they will be held to the same level of resposiblity as larger dogs... This is a BAD idea, hold the owner responsible for their lack of control, not the dog.

  • grayboomerang May 10, 2007

    Okay, so it ISN'T breeds???

    Come on WRAL, you guys misprint so many facts in your articles...please double check!

  • grayboomerang May 10, 2007

    Last time I checked, all dogs have teeth, therefore any of them could potentially be dangerous....this is absolutely absurd.

  • Michael Kenyon May 10, 2007

    "Glad to know it is NOT breeds, just certain dogs! "

    Well, I'm not sure, and I don't trust them people up there. That's why I was hoping a person with legal experience (but not on the receiving end) could read it and comment.

  • All child molesters should die May 10, 2007

    I, too, was going by the article above, and that's what I had a problem with, when I read BREEDS. Glad to know it is NOT breeds, just certain dogs! The article does say the word breeds, though!


  • WhatEver May 10, 2007

    If the teeth marks don't fit, they must aquitt.

  • Michael Kenyon May 10, 2007

    Further, I think the dog has to misbehave before they can declare it a "dangerous dog". I'm still against the bill, but my main objection was the part of the story where "breeds" were to be determined dangerous.

  • Michael Kenyon May 10, 2007

    Right - they are talking about "a dog" not "a breed". What I think WRAL got wrong is the "breed" part.