After the devastating dog attack that seriously injured Avery Russell, Ohio lawmakers passed Avery's Law to strengthen the state's dangerous dog statutes and increase accountability for owners of designated dangerous dogs.

But does the new law accomplish its goal?

In this episode of The Animal Welfare Junction, Dr. G is joined by Dana Pannella, Esq., an Ohio attorney with extensive experience in dangerous dog law, to examine what Avery's Law actually says, how it changes liability for dog owners and professionals, and why some of its language may create unintended consequences.

• Together they discuss:
• The attack that inspired Avery's Law
• How Ohio's dangerous dog laws changed
• The new liability requirements for owners of designated dangerous dogs
• The requirement to carry at least $100,000 in liability insurance—and the challenges many owners face obtaining coverage
• Why the statutory definition of a "dangerous dog" may be broader than many people realize
• How incidents involving injury may be interpreted under the law, even when the dog's behavior or the surrounding circumstances are disputed
• What veterinarians, animal control officers, trainers, shelters, rescues, and dog owners need to know
• Practical recommendations for reducing risk and staying compliant

This episode explores both the strengths and potential shortcomings of Avery's Law, with a focus on helping listeners understand what the law requires, who it affects, and why the definition of a "dangerous dog" matters.

Whether you're a dog owner, veterinarian, attorney, animal control officer, trainer, rescue volunteer, or simply interested in animal law, this conversation provides important insight into one of Ohio's most significant recent changes to dangerous dog legislation.

Guest: Dana Pannella, Esq.

👍 If you found this episode helpful, please like, subscribe, and share to support evidence-based discussions on animal welfare, veterinary medicine, forensic science, and animal law.

*This podcast is for educational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Individuals with questions about their specific circumstances should consult a qualified attorney.*

Dr. G:

2

Hi, and welcome to The

Animal Welfare Junction.

3

This is your host, Dr.

4

G, and our music is written

and produced by Mike Sullivan.

5

Today's guest is a repeat

guest, Dana Pannella.

6

Welcome to the Junction again.

7

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

8

Thanks for having me again.

9

Dr. G:

10

In the last episode that we talked

about, we talked about legal things,

11

and we're here to talk about more

legal things, but more current.

12

We're gonna be talking about Avery's

Law and why things need to change and

13

kind of how, how things have changed.

14

Let's start in, with a definition

of what is a dangerous dog?

15

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

16

Yeah, so the definition of dangerous

dog has changed with Avery's

17

Law from what it originally was

prior to HB 274 being enacted.

18

So the new definition now says that a

dangerous dog is one that has committed

19

an act without provocation, and the acts

are causing injury by physical contact

20

other than killing or serious injury to

a person in either a menacing fashion

21

or an apparent attitude of attack.

22

Number two, causing serious injury

without making physical contact to any

23

person in either a menacing fashion

or an apparent attitude of attack.

24

Number three, killing another dog,

or number four, causing serious

25

injury to another dog that results

in the euthanasia of that other dog.

26

In addition to that, there are two

other categories that also existed

27

prior to 247, which are the nuisance

dog and vicious dog designations

28

that have different definitions.

29

Dr. G:

30

What are we talking about as

far as what defines the injury

31

to a person from these dogs?

32

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

33

An injury is exactly that.

34

It is any injury to a person.

35

It's not just a bite.

36

It could be a scratch, a bruise.

37

It could be knocking somebody over and

they nick their hip on a concrete curb.

38

And that's one of the major risks of

this language is it is not just a bite.

39

It is any injury to a person.

40

Dr. G:

41

So in essence, if I'm somebody that

is naturally afraid of dogs and I see

42

a dog coming at me and I go running

away and I trip and fall and crack my

43

head, then that dog can potentially

be considered a dangerous dog.

44

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

45

Correct.

46

And the risk of the language is that we

say it has to be in either a menacing

47

fashion or an apparent attitude of attack.

48

Well, typically, that's going to be

from the viewpoint of the person who is

49

affected, and that person may have an

unnatural fear of dogs that causes them to

50

run out into traffic and get hit by a car.

51

And we may have a very happy golden

retriever who just wants to say hi and

52

now they're declared a dangerous dog.

53

Um, this language is

extremely risky for dogs.

54

Dr. G:

55

What is it that started Avery's Law?

56

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

57

There was a dog attack in Reynoldsburg,

Ohio, um, a few years ago that

58

involved a child who was badly

mauled by dogs that were owned.

59

These were not stray dogs.

60

They were not dogs at large.

61

These were owned dogs.

62

And as a result, the legislature

felt that the existing dangerous

63

dog law did not sufficiently address

what had happened to Avery Russell.

64

Dr. G:

65

so in, in my experience and my and my

opinion is that, you know, there's,

66

there's been a, a long time where rescues

and shelters and even pet owners have had

67

dogs that would be considered dangerous

and have not done something about it.

68

And even though there were laws that,

that were made to make dogs be dangerous

69

dogs, if there were any instances or, and

things, those l- nothing was being done.

70

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

71

Yeah, and it's not that the law we

had before didn't necessarily work,

72

it's just that we didn't necessarily

have law enforcement applying it the

73

way they could have, in my experience.

74

So one thing we have to remember is that

in Ohio, dog wardens have absolutely

75

no training that is state mandated.

76

So sometimes when they get hired as a dog

warden, they go to the shelter, they get

77

a catch pole, and they get their uniform,

and they're out in the field the next day.

78

They have no training on dog behavior.

79

They have no training on dog handling.

80

They have no training on

how to enforce the laws.

81

Um, and that's a big miss.

82

Even today it's still a big

miss because they still have

83

no state mandated training.

84

Um, so the law we had prior to Avery's

Law wasn't necessarily a law that

85

didn't work, but it was a law that

was not being enforced properly.

86

We've heard a lot about how, you know,

Avery's Law has made some changes.

87

In reality, most of those

changes are not changes at all.

88

Prior to Avery's Law, dogs could

be euthanized for committing acts

89

through the existing criminal process.

90

Dogs could be seized if there was an act

that warranted them to be seized and taken

91

into a dog shelter and held in custody.

92

None of that really

changed with Avery's Law.

93

However, what Avery's Law did was it

tried to make the law more explicit.

94

In some ways it did, in some ways it

didn't, but it is a misconception that

95

the law we had before didn't work.

96

It did work, it just w-

it wasn't being enforced.

97

And, you know, that's something we

commonly see with a lot of laws,

98

including the animal cruelty laws.

99

We have people saying, "Oh,

our laws aren't strong enough.

100

They're not strong enough."

101

Well, actually they are, but it's

the way that they're being enforced

102

that may not be strong enough or

the way they're being interpreted.

103

So similar situation here, um, I

believe everybody can agree that we

104

don't want dangerous dogs out on our

streets or dangerous dogs in homes

105

harming people, but I think we've missed

the mark as far as actually creating

106

an effective system to address that.

107

Dr. G:

108

Yeah, I think that things like the

no-kill movement, for instance, right?

109

Like, a lot of people, places,

shelters, and, and even pounds are

110

afraid to euthanize dogs because

of the perception, the community

111

perception on, on what that means.

112

And then that has caused warehousing

of animals to where so many shelters

113

have a lot of animals that they can't

move because they can't get adopted,

114

but then those animals are taking up

space, so other animals cannot come in.

115

And the dog warden as a job is

supposed to be public safety, right?

116

So they, they're supposed to be taking

care of these aggressive animals, and

117

they have not been doing their job.

118

So I mean, it, it is,

like you say, a huge mess.

119

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

120

Yeah, as someone who works in this field,

we often see the fire that is brought

121

down upon dog wardens and municipal

animal shelters and even nonprofit

122

shelters when they euthanize a dog.

123

As a society, we have to begin accepting

that there are dogs who cannot safely

124

be put out into the public, and those

dogs are, in fact, probably suffering

125

in the conditions they are kept in

because mentally they are suffering.

126

Just because they're not physically

suffering does not mean they're not

127

mentally suffering, and we have to

begin to think about that when we think

128

about dogs, is that sometimes it is

compassionate to euthanize those dogs.

129

But also, there's a public safety aspect.

130

Um, keeping dangerous dogs around

and putting those dogs into homes or

131

keeping those dogs in the homes they're

in means that we'll continue to see

132

situations like Avery Russell's because

we are not addressing the problem.

133

No one wants to euthanize dogs, right?

134

Nobody likes doing that.

135

It's terrible.

136

It's sad.

137

But the bottom line is, for every dog

that we don't euthanize and we know

138

we should, and that dog goes on to

commit an attack, we are harming a

139

dog that will never do anything wrong,

because the effect is a ripple effect.

140

When people see that dogs are being

adopted out of dog warden facilities

141

and rescues and other shelters that are

dangerous, that has a ripple effect for

142

people who are thinking about adoption.

143

" Well, should I adopt a dog, or should

I go and get one from a breeder?

144

Should I go and get a, you know, a

quote, unquote, 'undamaged puppy' instead

145

of adopting one from the shelter?"

146

That's the ripple effect that a lot

of the times we don't think about

147

when we are considering should

we place a dog with this history?

148

Dr. G:

149

Yeah, and one of the things that I have

seen in some of the places that we travel

150

to is that there will be dogs that are

like, you know, are for adoption, but to a

151

specific family because there are certain

triggers, and the dog is doing okay in

152

the shelter under these circumstances,

and then the dog will get adopted and

153

something will happen at that home.

154

And then it gets returned, but

it's a, you know, it's a rescue

155

favorite, so then they, it just keeps

happening and happening and happening.

156

And living in a, in a shelter, living in

a run is just no life for dogs like these.

157

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

158

Yeah.

159

I mean, we're failing dogs

ultimately is what we're doing

160

by keeping them around like that.

161

Um, and we're failing people, too.

162

And, you know, everyone has their own risk

tolerance for, you know, whether or not

163

they believe a dog should be placed, but

I think most of us, if we've been around

164

dogs long enough, we know deep down inside

whether or not a dog should be placed.

165

Is it unreasonable to believe that

a dog who can't be around children,

166

can't be around other dogs, can't

be around cats, can't be around

167

other animals, um, female only home,

is that a reasonable dog to place?

168

Dr. G:

169

Right.

170

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

171

And who are we harming in the process?

172

Um, you know, we're harming all the

other dogs who don't have 15 restrictions

173

who are unlikely to perform an act

that will have them classified under

174

a law like this, or it will result

in a lawsuit and shut down your

175

shelter or shut down your rescue.

176

Um, because those are all very real risks.

177

Beyond the criminal penalties,

there are civil lawsuits, right?

178

And we've seen them across the state.

179

One wrong move, one wrong decision

can end your entire program.

180

We have to start being smarter

about the dogs we're placing.

181

Dr. G:

182

Yeah, I like to tell people as far as,

you know, be- behavioral euthanasia

183

is a pretty hot topic, especially

with veterinarians, because a lot of

184

veterinarians don't like to do it and

there are some veterinarians that,

185

you know, it's "you haven't tried hard

enough" or "you haven't done enough".

186

"You have not used the right medications",

or "you need to go to a behaviorist", and

187

we're putting that risk back on the owner.

188

Like, we have somebody that's making a

hard decision to euthanize their, their

189

animal who they probably love, but they

understand that there, there is a risk,

190

and placing them is just passing the buck

and giving that risk to, to somebody else.

191

And all…

192

Like me, for me personally, again, I

don't enjoy euthanizing dogs, but I

193

see cases like this case that I want to

discuss with Pickaway County, where dogs

194

could have been humanely euthanized,

but instead they were shot to death

195

because, as you said, humans failed them.

196

911 Call: And there's a pit bull attack.

197

It just attacked two dogs and it

started attacking a woman who ran

198

and, um, it, it killed one dog and

it's in, running, roaming in the

199

neighborhood behind the middle school.

200

Okay.

201

Did it attack anybody or just the dogs?

202

Did it att- it did, it, it started

attacking, um, a lady walked up to help.

203

I'm sorry

204

ABC6 Investigates: Tonight we're getting

new details surrounding a deadly attack

205

involving two Pickaway County pit bulls.

206

A 73-year-old was killed.

207

Now it turns out these dogs

had a history of problems.

208

On Your Side Investigator Litsa Roncallo

uncovered previous reports of the dogs

209

running loose while high on cocaine.

210

Litsa, this is a wild story.

211

Guys, we're looking into what took place

at the Ashton Village Condos before

212

73-year-old Joanne Eckelbarger was

killed outside of her home last week.

213

We want to know why after a judge

ordered those pit bulls be removed

214

weeks ago, that it never happened.

215

Dr. G:

216

This case happened here in Pickaway

County, where two dogs got loose and

217

killed another dog, and the HOA was sued

by the dog owner, and the HOA wanted

218

to get rid of these dogs, and the, the

system was just not moving fast enough.

219

But then finally the judge said, "Yes,

those dogs have to be removed," but the

220

dog warden didn't remove the dogs and

then the, the dogs ended up getting loose

221

again and killing the next door neighbor

lady who was just outside gardening,

222

like completely innocent bystander.

223

And then these dogs go running around

and end up getting shot and all

224

because the dog warden kind of didn't

do his job be- And as you say, he

225

may not have known how to do his job,

226

ABC6 Investigates: At the same time,

the Pickaway County dog warden tried

227

to file charges against Adam Withers

three times involving violations

228

to ordinances with dangerous dogs.

229

Some penalties of these

ordinances could mean euthanasia.

230

Each of his cases were dismissed,

the last one in August.

231

The current law director told me

today that the charges were filed

232

under the wrong subsection of the law.

233

This is what the dog

warden told us last week.

234

I think it is a learning thing.

235

Um, there's a lot of people that need

to learn if that's coming into the

236

job, if that's still into the job.

237

But I mean, we take every

case extremely seriously

238

Dr. G:

239

but some of these things are

just common sense, right?

240

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

241

Yeah.

242

I mean, it's a problem we're seeing

consistently, and it's not just

243

dangerous dogs, but it's dog wardens

who are generally refusing to pick

244

up stray dogs because they're full.

245

Um, well, some of those situations are

going to escalate into things like we've

246

seen in Pickaway County and elsewhere,

and they will have more, um, devastating

247

results than simply having taken those

two dogs to a veterinarian and having

248

them euthanized in the first instance.

249

Or Having them, uh, be taken to training,

a behaviorist, making any kind of attempt

250

to address the behavior of these dogs.

251

So there's a lot of failures, right?

252

There's the failure of the owners

who knew that those dogs got out and

253

killed another dog in their community.

254

And what did they do to address it?

255

We have the dog warden who could have,

under existing law, designated those dogs

256

as dangerous even prior to Avery's Law.

257

Didn't happen.

258

We have the HOA, who made some

efforts to remove the dogs, but

259

were ultimately unsuccessful.

260

So there's just a lot of failures

here, um, where the situation

261

could have been addressed and was

not, and it ultimately resulted

262

in the death of an innocent woman.

263

Um, that's exactly the kind of stuff

that we have to stop from happening,

264

and I still don't think we're there.

265

We're just not there.

266

Um, so, you know, I think unfortunately

we are going to continue to see

267

these attacks and not necessarily

be fixing the problem along the way.

268

Dr. G:

269

And I think that the whole issue of

just leaving dogs remain strays, we're

270

talking about, you know, allowing

community dogs, and that's, like, a

271

whole other topic, but it can be so

dangerous because some of the, some of

272

the people that are for this are like,

"Well, cats do it," and cats are not dogs.

273

Cats don't go out in packs and, you

know, try to kill another dog or,

274

you know, try to do other things.

275

Also, it's easier for

cats to find sustenance.

276

Like, you cannot expect these stray

dogs, especially if they start forming

277

packs, to find somewhere to eat,

to not be a nuisance, and to not be

278

dangerous to animals and to people.

279

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

280

Yeah.

281

So I mean, cats are a

different species altogether.

282

Um, they have different survival

instincts that dogs do not have.

283

Dogs are really scavengers.

284

Um, so to say that we can have

community dogs or to think it's

285

okay that we can leave dogs out

on the streets is an unacceptable

286

solution to me for a lot of reasons.

287

It's unacceptable from a

public safety perspective.

288

It's unacceptable from an

animal welfare perspective

289

because those dogs will suffer.

290

They will.

291

Um, so the question is, do we leave them

on the streets to suffer, or do we do what

292

is kindest and bring them into a shelter?

293

And maybe that results in euthanasia,

maybe it doesn't, but I don't

294

think the solution is to say

they're okay living on the streets.

295

Dr. G:

296

The mentality is other

countries have community dogs.

297

Well, I went to Mexico, and

they don't want community dogs.

298

They coexist with them, and

they deal with it because it's

299

everywhere, it's so prevalent, but

they don't want that to be a thing.

300

I was just recently in Romania,

and it's kind of the same thing.

301

They have dogs that are

in the street everywhere.

302

Everywhere that you drive,

you see these dogs, and they

303

don't want them to be outside.

304

They don't want them to be homeless.

305

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

306

Yeah.

307

I was in Morocco and, um, there

were street dogs there, and not

308

one of them looked good, and

the people were scared of them.

309

Um, and they also, of course, have a

lot of rabies, which they refer to as

310

rage, and that causes them to be scared

of the dogs and the community cats

311

for that matter, but the dogs more so

because they're actively biting people.

312

Um, it's just simply not a solution.

313

I wish it was as simple as saying,

you know, we can spay and neuter

314

them and leave them on the streets.

315

It's not reality.

316

Um, it's simply not reality.

317

And, you know, we have to

come up with other solutions.

318

Should there be high-volume spay/neuter?

319

Absolutely, right?

320

We should absolutely be doing

that to help these dogs not end

321

up on the streets to begin with.

322

But when they're there, the solution

is not to leave them on the streets.

323

Dr. G:

324

Yeah, in this case in Pickaway County,

you know, the, again, the dogs are killed,

325

the next-door neighbor lady is dead, and

then the owners ended up going to prison

326

for, I believe, involuntary manslaughter.

327

And everything could have been avoided if

people had done what they needed to do.

328

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

329

Yeah.

330

I mean, now they're in prison

when this could have been avoided.

331

Um, again, I understand they probably love

their dogs very much, but as dog owners,

332

we have responsibilities, especially

after we know that our dogs are capable

333

of committing acts that are dangerous.

334

You know, we have that

responsibility to say, "Okay, stop.

335

How do I address this?"

336

That's our responsibility.

337

It's also our responsibility to

acknowledge it before it happens, right?

338

Most dogs don't do these

things out of nowhere.

339

There's some buildup.

340

Um, they show signs.

341

They do all those things.

342

It's our responsibility to know our

dogs and to know those signs a- and

343

intervene before things get worse,

either by talking to trainers, our

344

veterinarian, or, you know, someone

else with experience with dog behavior

345

to try to address those issues.

346

Otherwise, you may find

yourself in jail or in prison.

347

Um, what Avery's Law did do is it

elevated some of those offenses

348

to higher degrees of crimes.

349

So you could see significant jail or

prison time as a result if your dog does

350

something, which on one hand is somewhat

unfair because the law does cover not

351

only people who are holding the leash

at the time the incident happens, but

352

it covers even people who aren't there.

353

So for example, if you leave your dog

with a dog sitter and you're in California

354

and your dog bites somebody, you can

be charged for what happened while your

355

dog sitter had possession of your dog.

356

Um, so stuff like that, I think, you

know, doesn't necessarily meet the

357

reality of being a dog owner, and it's

not necessarily fair to dog owners.

358

But regardless, you're

responsible for what your dog does

359

criminally as well as civilly.

360

So you do have to be careful with that.

361

And if not for your dog's sake, for

your own sake, I guess, you know,

362

because look what could happen if

you're not addressing this stuff.

363

Dr. G:

364

So before, from my understanding, if

my dog was aggressive and it got out

365

and it harmed another dog, then I

could be responsible for the medical

366

care of said dog, but nothing really

happened to me other than maybe

367

failure to confine or fail- failure to

control or maybe failure to license.

368

But there wasn't anything more.

369

So does Avery Law change that now?

370

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

371

It does change that because it now

covers any injury to another dog Um,

372

which I think was a big miss that we had

on the original law because of course,

373

okay, am I saying the dog should be,

you know, euthanized at that point?

374

Maybe not.

375

However, it's a big warning sign,

right, if your dog causes an injury

376

unprovoked, unprovoked, and I'm

talking about an actual injury here.

377

So not a scratch, I'm

talking about a bite.

378

Right.

379

You know, bites another

dog without provocation.

380

That's a red flag, something that we

should have been addressing, um, you

381

know, as a precautionary essentially

of now we must recognize this dog may

382

have an issue that we have to address.

383

You know, and one of the things

we're still kind of missing here

384

is no requirement for training

after your dog is designated.

385

Um, and there's no way to ever

get your dog declassified.

386

So really, the incentive for dog owners

is to euthanize the dog they have and

387

go and get a new one and probably do the

exact same thing, and they will never

388

learn how to do anything differently.

389

Whereas if we had a declassification

system, they could work towards

390

some goal of eventually having

their dog no longer be declared

391

dangerous, nuisance, or vicious.

392

That's fair.

393

Um, you know, they take their dog

to training, they have a trainer

394

sign off and say, "You know what?

395

This dog has done all the

things it needs to do.

396

The owner is an appropriate handler,"

and they go back to a court and

397

apply to have the designation lifted.

398

That gives them an incentive to

fix their knowledge and their

399

dog's behavior, whereas right

now that incentive doesn't exist.

400

It's simply maybe I keep the dog,

maybe I don't, maybe I just go get

401

a new one, but in the process I've

learned absolutely nothing about how

402

to address this issue going forward.

403

So that's, you know, certainly

an issue that, you know, we'll

404

continue to see happening.

405

Um, some other misses here as far

as, you know, effective restrictions.

406

We still have the six-foot chain link

leash as one of the requirements.

407

Well, Dr.

408

G, if you've ever handled a dog on a chain

link leash, you know that it's not very

409

easy, um, especially at six feet long.

410

It makes no sense.

411

Um, even with the original law,

I feel like they didn't have

412

anyone actually involved with

dogs involved in that process.

413

Dog trainers, veterinarians, anybody

who has experience with dogs.

414

Um, so we've missed that.

415

We've missed an effective way

to, you know, control the dog

416

once they're declared dangerous.

417

We've also missed certain,

you know, notifications.

418

I actually worked on a dangerous dog

law in a city in northeast Ohio after

419

they had an attack that occurred, and

they wanted to pass their own local

420

ordinance to better address the issue.

421

And one of the first things we did

was make sure that people in the

422

neighborhood knew the dog was dangerous.

423

And it wasn't just signs.

424

It was the dog had to wear a

fluorescent collar, harness, leash to

425

identify that dog when it's out on the

street as being a designated animal.

426

They a- also had a registry.

427

So all of the dogs who were dangerous

in their community went on a publicly

428

accessible list, so you knew which dogs in

your neighborhood you might want to avoid.

429

Um, so some common sense, um, steps

there that would help to make, you know,

430

a law like this more effective, um,

that we're still not quite there yet.

431

But, you know, the bottom line is there

are some increased criminal penalties

432

regardless of how effective the law

is or isn't that can really result in

433

significant jail time and prison time.

434

Now, I believe those owners

in Pickaway County were not

435

charged under the dog code.

436

I think they were charged with

manslaughter and some other offenses.

437

They could have potentially

been charged also under the dog

438

code even prior to Avery's Law.

439

But as you can see, in addition to

Avery's Law, there are other offenses

440

that still may hold dog owners accountable

441

Dr. G:

442

Would, would the owners also be

able to be charged with some form of

443

animal cruelty of n- or neglect if th-

something like this happens to their…

444

Like, the, the owner

of the aggressive dog.

445

Because in my eyes, if I have a dog and I

do not, you know, if I don't take care to

446

keep him from attacking someone or getting

loose or something like that and something

447

happens to it, I'm kind of responsible

for what happened to that dog, right?

448

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

449

Yeah, only in my fantasy world.

450

Dr. G:

451

So, um, so, you know, we've been talking

about kind of like how the, how this

452

affects the owners and then about the dog

wardens, but this law now involves a lot

453

of people that may or may not be related

to the dog, and that's one of the things

454

that I definitely want to talk about.

455

As a veterinarian, I see veterinary

clinics that are refusing to see dogs that

456

may bite or that may be dangerous because

of the liabilities that they may incur.

457

Us personally, we still, I mean,

our job is to spay and neuter and

458

do wellness care, so we figure out

ways to safely manage these dogs.

459

So what are the risks that

veterinarians are taking by seeing

460

dogs that have known r- uh, bite risk?

461

Let's start with that.

462

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

463

Yeah, so this is, again, I

think a language problem that

464

we have because, again, it says

any owner, keeper, or harborer.

465

It's not just the person who owns the dog.

466

It's not just the person

who's in control of the dog.

467

It's this whole list of people that

could be charged if a dog bites someone,

468

and that includes a veterinarian who

has taken a dog into their care that

469

they either know is dangerous or

that exhibits dangerous tendencies.

470

If there is a bite while that dog

is in the custody of a veterinarian,

471

the veterinarian could be charged.

472

So the fear there for

veterinarians is real.

473

Um, and it's not that it didn't

exist prior to Avery's Law.

474

It's just that Avery's Law has increased

some of those penalties and brought

475

more awareness to the existence

of some of those penalties, right?

476

Um, so there are veterinarians now

who are saying, you know, "As a matter

477

of risk, I'm choosing not to treat

those dogs," or, "I'm going to have

478

the owner apply a muzzle to the dog

before I even touch the dog", right?

479

Um, or they're using PPE or some other,

you know, method to result in a better

480

handling experience for that dog.

481

My hope is that we may see some

legislative modifications like we

482

have in the animal cruelty law that

provides an exemption for veterinarians

483

during treatment of an animal.

484

I think that would be fair.

485

And the same would apply for dog trainers

because we also now have dog trainers who

486

are afraid to take in dogs who have been

declared, even if the appeal is pending.

487

So even if the dog has not been finally

declared to be a dangerous, vicious,

488

or nuisance dog, they're saying, "I

don't feel safe having that dog because

489

if something happens, I'm going to get

sued or I might be criminally charged."

490

Well, again, that's not really

solving any of the problems we have

491

if dog trainers are now afraid to

touch dogs with potential histories.

492

So, um, that's a problem.

493

The other problem I've

heard is police canines.

494

Sometimes those dogs are boarded.

495

Well, of course, they've done things

um, that may, you know, cause them to

496

have a history or they may be slightly

more aggressive or whatever it is.

497

Boarding facilities are now

terrified to board police canines.

498

Um, so this kind of stuff, you know,

can be addressed through modifications

499

to the bill, and I hope that will

happen because while I understand the

500

intention here was good to fix some

of the language, it's caused some

501

unintended consequences along the way.

502

Dr. G:

503

Yeah, we had a, a dog a while back when,

back when we had the hospital that was

504

transferred to us from another facility,

and the dog came back and it had a

505

bite quarantine and all sorts of stuff.

506

Well, the dog had been hit by a car and

they were doing x-rays, and they're moving

507

this dog that is painful, and somebody

took the muzzle off and the dog bit them.

508

So, you know, that's a dog

that I personally would not

509

consider a dangerous dog.

510

I would consider that to be the,

the current state of the dog.

511

It was in pain, something

painful happened, the dog

512

reacted, and it bit someone.

513

Once that dog came to us, we were

careful about it, but once he was

514

medicated, then that dog was fine.

515

So, you know, there are, there are

some things like that that would

516

be a little bit concerning because

if it bites, you know, if it bites

517

somebody while it's at my clinic,

even though it's not a dangerous

518

dog, then there could be a problem.

519

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

520

Yeah, and that's the problem

with some of these definitions.

521

So, you know, we have the provocation

defense where the dog was teased

522

or abused in some way, but those

terms aren't further defined.

523

So I agree with you.

524

A dog in that situation, when we

take that situation from the dog's

525

perspective, is absolutely being

provoked, but the law is not that clear.

526

So that dog may be declared dangerous, and

then the owner finds themselves in court

527

fighting a designation, spending thousands

of dollars because these are cases where

528

you can't get a court-appointed attorney.

529

You have to hire private counsel

to defend your dog who bit in a

530

clear instance of provocation.

531

Um, the law just simply does not

clearly list out those circumstances

532

to say, "This dog is not dangerous."

533

So it just doesn't.

534

It puts, you know, dogs in bad

positions because is it simpler at that

535

point to have your dog euthanized or

spend thousands of dollars in court,

536

you know, fighting a designation?

537

Dr. G:

538

So veterinarians that want to take care of

these dogs and want to protect themselves,

539

is there anything that they can do, or

what should they be doing to legally

540

protect themselves if an incident happens?

541

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

542

Yeah.

543

So, um, we always suggest doing

liability waivers for situations like

544

this, which won't protect them from

criminal liability necessarily, but

545

from civil liability, it does provide

some insulation, as one approach.

546

And the other approach is just being

more conscious about what you're

547

handling and making sure you know

the dog's history when they come in.

548

So, um, you could ask the

questions that are in the statute.

549

You could ask other questions,

you know, about dog sensitivities,

550

things of that nature to try to

avoid these things from happening.

551

But the bottom line is the more

care you can exercise, the better

552

when you're handling any dog, um,

just to try to avoid the risk.

553

So you can use waivers

to avoid civil liability.

554

If you have a dog in your possession

and it bites your tech, okay, you know,

555

we have a waiver for that civilly.

556

Criminally, not so much.

557

Um, and then it'll be, you know, in

the discretion of law enforcement

558

and a prosecutor as to whether or

not, you know, that's an offense

559

that moves forward right now because

there is no exception in the law.

560

Dr. G:

561

And then moving over to the shelters

and the, and, and pounds, how has

562

this affected them and, you know,

what are, what are the increased

563

liabilities that they now have?

564

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

565

Yeah, I think the biggest way this

is affecting dogs across Ohio is

566

through shelters because they take

in the highest volume of dogs.

567

They take in so many dogs with

unknown histories most of the time.

568

Um, they also maybe take in

animals from cruelty cases, dogs

569

who have been previously abused.

570

So that is a really negative consequence

of the way Avery's Law is written, and

571

Avery's Law did try to provide some

limited protection for shelters who ask

572

a series of questions when they intake

a dog, which is fine, but it still

573

doesn't give them blanket protection.

574

It's not a complete immunity clause.

575

It's merely, now did you act

recklessly versus negligently?

576

Okay, so you got that little kick up

on your mens rea, on your mental state,

577

but it's not a complete protection.

578

So shelters are at the highest risk

here from facing potentially criminal

579

penalties in these cases for dogs that

they may not have any history on, and

580

that's where it gets really complicated.

581

Um, and I think, you know, there's also

probably some amendments that could be

582

made to that because it simply isn't

fair to hold shelters to that standard,

583

the same standard as a normal dog owner

would be, dog owners who know their dogs.

584

Now of course, that's not to say

there aren't situations where shelters

585

don't know that they have dogs who

are dangerous, because we know that

586

happens too, and I think that can

too be addressed through the law.

587

But what I'm talking about are the dogs

that they have no reason to believe would

588

ever bite a person without provocation.

589

Those dogs are the ones that I think there

should not be criminal liability for.

590

The other dogs where they know because of

prior bites or prior behavior history, you

591

know, absolutely that should be addressed.

592

But right now we have all of the dogs

in the same category, and I think

593

we need to create a, a disparaging

system here where some dogs go into

594

a different slot than other dogs do.

595

So that's where it, um, becomes difficult.

596

The other, you know, unintended

consequence we're seeing is that the way

597

the law is written, it affects large dogs

much more significantly than small dogs

598

because small dogs like Chihuahuas could

never reach the level of being a vicious

599

dog, um, based on the definition alone.

600

There is never a Chihuahua

who's going to cause serious

601

physical harm or kill a person.

602

It's not possible.

603

Um, whereas your larger breed dogs,

a serious physical injury for a

604

larger breed dog can be a simple

one-bite snap and they let go.

605

That could cause a serious physical

injury, and those dogs are now subject

606

to euthanasia, and those dogs are now

subject to being declared vicious and

607

all of these things for one bite that

may not truly completely encompass

608

the behavior that was occurring there.

609

Um, so, you know, large breed dogs

are really the most at risk from these

610

definitions, and I think we're gonna

see that more so than ever in the dogs

611

that are not leaving our shelters.

612

So less people adopting large breed dogs,

less large breed dogs making it out alive.

613

So that's an unfortunate

consequence of what we have here.

614

Um, and it's also an unfortunate

consequence that animals with behavioral

615

history that we know about, especially

from animal cruelty cases, won't

616

necessarily have the opportunity to be

rehabilitated because that's a risk now.

617

Um, so I think, you know, there should

be some leeway given for situations

618

like that that allow behavioral

modifications to occur without fear

619

of, you know, while this is in process

and we're working with a licensed

620

trainer or a licensed behaviorist…

621

I shouldn't say licensed.

622

Certified.

623

Um, 'cause there are no licenses

for trainers in Ohio, of course.

624

Um, you know, working with a trainer

that, you know, we have this process

625

underway, that they should be allowed to

do that, uh, within reason, of course.

626

So I think unfortunately we're going to

see a lot more of the dogs that are coming

627

in from cruelty cases not making it out of

the shelters alive, especially those dogs

628

who lack socialization, so the dogs who

are chained up outside, the dogs who are

629

living in hoarding situations who may bite

from fear or other, you know, non-contact.

630

I think that's going to negatively

affect those dogs who, you know,

631

in the past a lot more shelters and

rescues felt safer rehabilitating

632

those dogs and placing them in homes.

633

Now we're not willing to accept the risk.

634

So just some unfortunate consequences for

dogs who are not necessarily bad dogs.

635

Dr. G:

636

One of the ways for the shelters

and the pounds to protect themselves

637

is going to be common sense.

638

If a dog is very aggressive, if

it has a history or anything like

639

that, that is a dog that should

not make it into an adoption floor.

640

That is a dog that should

be humanely euthanized.

641

But what- is there anything that shelters

can do currently under the current law

642

to protect themselves or that they should

be doing outside of, you know, f- I

643

guess for the, for the dogs that they

don't know that they would be a concern?

644

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

645

Yeah.

646

So of course, you know, there are those

four questions that have to be asked,

647

you know, on intake if they want that

little bit of extra protection, but

648

they can ask additional questions,

too, you know, beyond that, of course.

649

They can have behavior policies within

their shelter about how they assess

650

dogs and their suitability for adoption.

651

They can have euthanasia policies

for how they decide things

652

like behavioral euthanasia.

653

They can work with trainers to have

expert assessments on dogs to help limit

654

their risk, especially in, you know,

situations where maybe they're not sure.

655

Maybe they have a dog

who's a little bit fearful.

656

They think, you know, maybe

this dog is capable of biting.

657

Have it assessed by a trainer.

658

See what they think.

659

Um, that protects the dog.

660

It protects you.

661

That's a good thing to do.

662

Of course, same with veterinarians,

liability waivers are very important,

663

making sure that, you know, those

waivers are in place and that all

664

of the, uh, behavior is disclosed.

665

Most often when we see lawsuits, um, with

big payouts, it's because someone didn't

666

disclose the dog's behavior and they

knew that dog had dangerous behavior.

667

So they knew there were prior

bites or prior incidents and they

668

weren't disclosed to an adopter.

669

That's where we most often see problems.

670

So that should never be done.

671

You should absolutely be transparent,

you know, with adopters, with foster

672

homes, with anybody who comes into

contact with a dog, and ultimately

673

it's going to be an assessment of risk.

674

You know, we've seen some shelters now

who say, "Well, we're no longer doing

675

doggy daycations," because these are

people coming in off the street taking

676

a dog out on a day trip, and we don't

know what's going to happen, right?

677

So we've seen those programs eliminated

in some situations because the shelter

678

is simply not willing to accept that

risk, and that's just an assessment

679

of what they're willing to accept.

680

I've heard from other shelters where

they've made the decision to euthanize

681

dogs who are leash biting playfully.

682

They're saying that's too much of a risk.

683

Um, so risk tolerance is an individual

decision for every single shelter.

684

You know, there's no right or wrong

answer, but I've seen both extremes now.

685

Um, I've seen, you know, it going

very, very extreme to, you know, any

686

dog who puts their mouth on any person

or any other animal is euthanized

687

no matter the circumstance, right?

688

And I've seen the converse where

people are still fighting and saying,

689

"I'm not euthanizing any dogs."

690

And I think that's going to be a, you

know, ticking time bomb unfortunately.

691

Dr. G:

692

Is there a timeframe, let's say,

you know, I go in and I, I adopt

693

a dog from the shelter, and three

years later it bites somebody.

694

Can that still come back at the

shelter, or is that now, you know, like,

695

considered I've had control of this dog?

696

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

697

You know, here's the problem.

698

People can sue anybody for anything.

699

Right.

700

It doesn't mean they will win.

701

Um, however, we have seen lawsuits,

uh, arise many years after a dog

702

is transferred, either privately

or through a shelter, where they

703

say, "Well, this is your fault.

704

You know, you adopted me this dog, and

now it bit somebody five years later."

705

And it's like, wait a minute,

we haven't had anything to do

706

with this dog for five years.

707

Um, probably not going to be

super successful, but that doesn't

708

mean it won't happen, right?

709

So the other thing, you know, that's

really important is making sure

710

you have insurance coverage, um,

because otherwise you're paying out

711

of pocket to defend those cases,

and that's never a good thing.

712

Insurance companies will

appoint an attorney to represent

713

you as part of your policy.

714

Dr. G:

715

So what are the, what are the

questions on Avery's Law that

716

everybody should be asking?

717

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

718

Okay.

719

So shelters, and I'm going to put my

asterisk after that, um, because the

720

law's also not clear whether or not this

applies to foster-based rescues or not.

721

So it may only apply to physical shelters.

722

However, shelters who harbor dogs

get limited protection from criminal

723

liability if they ask these questions.

724

The questions are whether the dog

has ever chased or attempted to

725

attack or bite a person, number one.

726

Number two, has the dog

ever bitten a person?

727

Number three, has the dog ever

seriously injured or killed a person?

728

And number four, has the dog

previously been designated a

729

nuisance, dangerous, or vicious dog?

730

And then you have to give

the details for all of those.

731

So those are the questions.

732

Now, what you'll notice is those questions

don't ask anything about provocation.

733

So they don't even necessarily

fit the designation categories.

734

Now the questions that are coming in

are, "Did your dog ever bite a person?"

735

So this doesn't ask necessarily about

the situation where you're a vet

736

treating a dog and the dog bites you.

737

Now the person has to disclose

that because it doesn't matter

738

whether or not the dog was provoked.

739

And then how does the shelter

decide what to do with that dog now?

740

The dog is not declared dangerous, but

the answer to the question was yes.

741

What now?

742

I don't know.

743

The law doesn't say.

744

So it's going to be a risk

tolerance question of do we still

745

accept this dog, and if we accept

this dog, what do we do with it?

746

Dr. G:

747

I guess one of the best examples

is gonna be the, the dogs that have

748

warnings on our computer system that

is like, "Hates nail trims," right?

749

So the dog is perfectly

fine for everything.

750

It licks your face, and you can give

it treats, and it's the best dog

751

ever, and as soon as they see the

nail trimmers, it becomes like Cujo.

752

Yeah.

753

And, you know, and but then we

know about this, and we, and

754

we manage, um, different ways.

755

But, but yeah, that's, you know, we,

we know that this is what makes the dog

756

not happy, so then we, we manage it.

757

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

758

Yeah.

759

So it doesn't make a lot of sense.

760

I mean, if anything, the question should

mirror the actual designation language,

761

um, that way it's clear, you know, what

they're accepting is a dog who maybe even

762

though it wasn't designated should have

been designated, and then that helps to

763

them to form a better risk assessment.

764

Because right now what we're seeing,

especially on the question of, "Has

765

your dog ever chased a person?"

766

Well

767

Dr. G:

768

Right.

769

Um,

770

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

771

what does that mean for me?

772

You know, what does that mean for my

dog if my dog has ever chased a person?

773

And it doesn't mean my dog chased a

person in an aggressive manner or a

774

menacing fashion, it just means, as it

says, has my dog ever chased a person.

775

Well, you know, does the shelter take that

dog in when I answer yes to that question?

776

Um, it's not really a fair assessment

of the dog's behavior, you know,

777

coming in at the onset, and it's

just, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

778

So, you know, there's certainly some

revision needed to the questions

779

to better capture the behavior we

are trying to reveal when we're

780

talking to a dog owner about whether

or not we're intaking those dogs.

781

Dr. G:

782

Well, and I guess as far as has the

dog ever caused an injury, dog's nails

783

were long, and it jumped on somebody

just to greet them and scratched

784

their arm, like, I wouldn't consider

that the dog causing an injury, but

785

literally the dog did cause an injury.

786

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

787

I mean, what dog has not

caused an injury, honestly?

788

Right.

789

Like, seriously.

790

I, I don't know of a dog who

hasn't at some point in their

791

life scratched a person.

792

Dr. G:

793

Right.

794

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

795

Either out of play because,

you know, they're so happy and

796

they're jumping up, or because

they're teething puppies, right?

797

Like- Right … I simply don't know a

dog who hasn't caused an injury, and

798

that is the inherent nature of dogs.

799

Like, they are animals.

800

Um, yes, they are companions, but they

are animals, and it seems like we may

801

have now forgotten that, uh, fact, uh,

that we need to accept that they have

802

a nature that is inherent of dogs.

803

Um, and that is something that we,

you know, as a society embrace and

804

bring into our lives that we are now

saying, uh, now you have to answer yes

805

on this questionnaire saying your dog

has injured a person if your dog has

806

ever jumped up to greet Aunt Sally and

accidentally nicked her leg because

807

you just freshly trimmed his nails,

and you left them a little too sharp.

808

Dr. G:

809

Right.

810

Or I have a toddler, and I have my big

dog, and the toddler got pushed by the

811

dog and fell then that dog injured my

toddler even though it was just walking

812

and not really doing anything to the kid.

813

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

814

Yeah, I mean, that definition is

the most dangerous definition.

815

Um, to not have that defined

as a bite is really dangerous.

816

I mean, we have cases right now

where there are scratches, and those

817

dogs have been declared dangerous.

818

They have to get $100,000 of insurance

on their dog, restrict their dog,

819

get a special tag, keep their dog

confined in certain ways because

820

their dog scratched somebody.

821

I mean, that can't be the

intention of this law.

822

It simply can't be.

823

Dr. G:

824

Well, and how easy is it

to get insurance anymore?

825

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

826

It's not.

827

So there are companies out there

that specifically offer, you know,

828

this insurance, but it's not cheap.

829

So you have to factor that in.

830

Now it's gonna cost you, you

know, maybe $1,000, maybe $2,000

831

extra a year to keep your dog.

832

So, you know, do you keep that dog?

833

I don't know.

834

You know, it's a personal decision

people have to make, but, you know,

835

to say that dogs who are doing things

like scratching people or, my absolute

836

favorite by the way, I had a, a dog

who had no teeth, it was like a senior

837

dog, and it gummed a lady in the hand.

838

Like, I'm not joking,

the dog had no teeth.

839

It left a bruise on her hand.

840

They declared the dog dangerous,

and I'm like, "Is that really the

841

dog who's gonna harm a person?"

842

Like, the dog with no teeth.

843

Um.

844

Dr. G:

845

Now, are the, the questions

that we discussed, are they

846

the same across the board?

847

Are they the same questions that,

like, veterinarians need to be asking?

848

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

849

So there's no exception for veterinarians,

even if they ask those questions, um,

850

unless perhaps they are veterinarians

who work in an animal shelter.

851

That's another thing that's not

clear is if veterinarians who work…

852

Like, if there's an animal clinic

at an animal shelter, do they have

853

to ask those questions in order

to get the heightened protections?

854

So that's not clear.

855

My recommendation is yes,

that they ask them anyway.

856

Um, veterinarians can

absolutely ask those questions.

857

It's not required.

858

Is it a good idea?

859

Probably, just so that they know what

they're dealing with, um, to help limit,

860

you know, their liability that way.

861

Dr. G:

862

In Ohio, veterinarians are mandatory

reporters, so does this change reporting?

863

Like, who is responsible for reporting

if a dog has bitten or scratched?

864

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

865

So there's, there's an interesting

issue when it comes to veterinarians

866

and language that was put into

Avery's Law, which is RC 955.61.

867

And what that says is that if a

licensed veterinarian has knowledge of

868

a person being bitten or injured as a

result of an attack by a dog or other

869

non-human mammal, the veterinarian has

to report the bite or injury not later

870

than 24 hours after obtaining such

knowledge, which is different language

871

than what exists for veterinarians

under the Ohio Administrative Code

872

So the question is, what are veterinarians

required to report under 955?

873

Dr. G:

874

Right.

875

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

876

Um, are they required to report an active

bite or are they required to report

877

if anybody comes in and says, "Yeah,

my dog bit somebody five years ago and

878

I'm here for a behavioral consult,"

is the vet required to report that?

879

That language is not clear.

880

What we've heard from, um, some of the

legislative drafters is that the intention

881

was not to create new duties, but the

language doesn't necessarily say that.

882

Um, and there's no reason

that the language in 955.61

883

is not identical to the

language in the OAC.

884

So the question remains, what are

veterinarians required to report?

885

You know, certainly it sounds like they're

required to report a bite that happens,

886

you know, in their presence for purposes

of rabies quarantine, not for purposes

887

of dangerous dog stuff, because it does

get reported to the health commissioner,

888

right, not to the dog warden.

889

Where the report goes from there,

you know, is another question.

890

Most likely it's going to the dog

warden, um, which means, you know,

891

it's getting reported that way.

892

But I have heard from veterinarians

who have said, "I'm not going to report

893

a dog who bites in my clinic that I'm

performing treatment on when I feel

894

as though that bite was provoked.

895

I'm not doing it."

896

I've heard that, and I understand how

difficult that is because, you know,

897

you don't wanna put your client's

dog at risk, um, of a designation

898

that it doesn't deserve, right?

899

So I'm hopeful that some legislative

changes will be made there to better

900

clarify what veterinarians are

required to report because right

901

now I think it leaves the door open.

902

Dr. G:

903

There is a difference between

the dog that is really happy and

904

jumped on me and scratched me.

905

I don't consider that a aggressive

behavior, and I was injured because

906

I have a scratch, but in my eyes,

that dog was not being aggressive.

907

That dog was not being a, a nuisance.

908

That dog was not being a problem.

909

So, like, where do you draw the line?

910

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

911

Yeah.

912

I mean, it doesn't make

a lot of sense to me.

913

Like, again, when we think

about legislation, you know,

914

legislation should be effective.

915

And I think having veterinarians

report every instance like you just

916

described is not effective legislation.

917

I mean, it just…

918

You know, what we're trying to

capture here are dogs who are not

919

safe to have in the public, but

we're capturing a lot of dogs beyond

920

that with the current language.

921

So, um, yes, veterinarians, you know,

may have questions about what they have

922

to report and don't have to report.

923

Obviously, you know, I encourage

veterinarians to err on the side

924

of caution because there could

be consequences for them if, you

925

know, there is no report made.

926

But right now what the law says is if

there is, um, an attack by a dog, whatever

927

that means, you're supposed to report it.

928

Dr. G:

929

So I guess if I don't

consider it an attack

930

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

931

Legislative interpretation.

932

Dr. G:

933

Right, I know.

934

So is there, is there any hope that

things are going to change, that this

935

law is going to become more common

sense, or is it likely that this is

936

gonna stay as is for a long time?

937

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

938

You know, I, unfortunately, one of my

major issues with the way the legislature

939

works in Ohio is that it doesn't really

allow for participation by people.

940

Um, notices of hearings

happen very quickly.

941

There's a very limited amount of time

to get down to Columbus and submit

942

testimony or do any of those things,

and if you're not carefully watching,

943

um, the legislative system, you're

going to miss those opportunities,

944

and that's largely what we saw here.

945

This bill flew through the legislature.

946

It went really fast.

947

Um, there wasn't a single opponent

testimony- So in their minds, they're

948

thinking, "Great, nobody opposes this."

949

But in reality, a lot of people

didn't know it was happening.

950

Right.

951

Dr. G:

952

Nobody had the opportunity to oppose it.

953

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

954

Yeah, or they didn't

understand the language itself.

955

I mean, this is a lengthy bill.

956

I have read it many, many times, and every

time I read it, I'm like, "Didn't see that

957

the first 72 times I read this," right?

958

Like, it's just so dense.

959

Um, so I don't think people's silence

was acceptance, and I think that

960

is now being heard loud and clear,

and I am hopeful that legislators

961

will hear that and realize that some

common sense changes need to be made.

962

Again, I don't think there's a single

person out there who is going to

963

say, "We think dangerous dogs should

remain on the streets unchecked."

964

I don't think those people

exist deep down inside.

965

Deep down inside.

966

Um, so I think, you know, that being the

case, if that's the position we start

967

from, is truly addressing dangerous

dogs, then we can come to a solution.

968

I just think at this point

we've missed the solution.

969

We just have to, you know, make some

changes and get there in an effective

970

manner that truly addresses the

problem, because, you know, serving

971

a bunch of papers that say, "Your dog

is dangerous, have a nice day," is

972

not going to have the intended effect.

973

Dr. G:

974

So as, you know, I mentioned in the

very beginning, it's kind of like good

975

idea but poor execution, because we,

we address the fact that dangerous…

976

There needs to be a consequence for

dangerous dogs, and dangerous dogs should

977

not be allowed to harm the public, but

the definition of what dangerous dog is is

978

just too inclusive of pretty much any dog.

979

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

980

Yeah.

981

It's just too broad.

982

And, you know, to be fair, the sponsors

of this legislation did try to narrow

983

it, so they included things like playful

behavior or non-aggressive behavior,

984

but it's still not specific enough.

985

Um, it's just still not there.

986

So, you know, we need to include

some other things to truly address,

987

you know, dogs with dangerous

behavior, and I think it's possible.

988

We just have to have, you know,

legislators who are willing to do it.

989

So of course, you know, people should

speak to their legislators about making

990

common sense changes to laws like this.

991

Absolutely.

992

Because if they don't hear it

from their constituents, they're

993

onto the next thing, right?

994

They're moving along,

passing the next bill.

995

So, you know, people really do have to

speak up when they see problems like this.

996

Dr. G:

997

If anybody that's listening, uh,

wants more information or has

998

issues concerning dangerous dogs,

where can, where can they go?

999

Dana Pannella, Esq.:

00:52:38,534 --> 00:52:38,793

Yeah.

00:52:38,793 --> 00:52:41,653

So of course we're always happy

to, you know, talk to people about,

00:52:41,773 --> 00:52:44,753

you know, what Avery's Law does

and what other laws do in Ohio.

00:52:44,763 --> 00:52:47,993

Another great resource is the

Ohio Animal Welfare Federation.

00:52:48,003 --> 00:52:52,093

In fact, I did a seminar on Avery's

Law with them that is recorded

00:52:52,103 --> 00:52:53,913

and in their library for members.

00:52:54,223 --> 00:52:55,583

So that also exists out there.

00:52:55,583 --> 00:52:58,033

That gives, you know, a broad

overview of what the law does.

00:52:58,403 --> 00:53:02,223

Um, but other than that, I mean, if you

know your dog has an issue, you need to

00:53:02,223 --> 00:53:04,083

get an attorney fast is the bottom line.

00:53:04,093 --> 00:53:08,313

Do not sleep when you get a notice

because you only have 10 days to

00:53:08,313 --> 00:53:11,773

appeal that designation, and if you

don't, the designation is permanent

00:53:12,341 --> 00:53:12,342

Dr. G:

00:53:12,342 --> 00:53:16,741

Well, thank you so much for being here

and for all this information, and to

00:53:16,741 --> 00:53:21,361

everybody listening, please be careful,

be smart, and thanks for listening