Cleveland Animal Protective League

Written Testimony on Senate Bill 195
Senate Judiciary Committee

Sharon Harvey, President and CEO, Cleveland Animal Protective League
February 27, 2018
Chairman Bacon, Vice Chair Dolan, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide interested party testimony on
Senate Bill 195, legislation to amend Ohio’s dangerous and vicious dogs law.
I am the President & CEO of the Cleveland Animal Protective League (APL), which is the
humane society for Cuyahoga County and one of the largest animal shelters in Ohio. We are a
private, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization organized under Ohio Revised Code 1717, and as such,
are also authorized to appoint humane agents who enforce Ohio’s animal protection laws.
The Cleveland APL appreciates Senator Beagle’s attention to Ohio’s statute governing
dangerous dogs, and fully supports his intent to increase safety and accountability with
dangerous dog owners. While the Ohio Revised Code Section 955 is enforced by dog wardens,
there are elements of the proposed legislation that will have a direct impact on humane societies
and every dog owner in Ohio. We believe modifications to this section of the Revised Code are
needed, however, we have serious concerns with some of provisions that are currently in this bill.
There is broad usage of the term “injury” in the bill, which is not defined in the bill or in current
law. Line 168 designates a dog as vicious if it has caused injury to any person after being
designated a dangerous dog; line 192 designates a dog dangerous if it caused injury to any
person; line 195 states that a dog is dangerous if it caused injury to another dog. Does injury
include a large dog that may playfully jump on a person and cause them to fall and break a bone?
As currently written, if a neighbor’s dog makes its way to your yard and your dog bites them
they would be subject to a dangerous dog hearing even though the dog is in your yard without
permission. Dogs are animals, with animal instincts. They may cause accidental injury through
acts that are not a threat to public or animal safety, however, as written, these incidents
automatically would be subject to a hearing. This will create a significant burden on dog
wardens and the courts and pull valuable resources away from investigating and prosecuting the
owners of truly dangerous dogs. We suggest using the definition of “serious physical harm,”
which is already defined in the ORC and removing the term “injury” altogher.
Current law designates a dog as dangerous or vicious if “without provocation,” the dog causes
serious injury or death to a person. Sadly, we see cases every day where a person is abusing a
dog, sometimes beating it or stabbing it. In these cases, if a dog is defending itself and injures a
person, we do not believe they should automatically be subject to a dangerous dog hearing. As
drafted, this bill would shift the responsibility of proving that the dog was provoked to the
defendant as an affirmative defense. We ask that the bill be amended to retain “without
provocation” in the definitions of dangerous and vicious dogs.
Finally, we ask that references to humane societies as locations for court-ordered euthanasia be
removed from the bill. Humane societies enforce the animal protection laws. County dog
wardens enforce the dangersous dog laws. While individual humane societies may elect to assist
with court-orderred euthanasia, it is not the role of humane societies to do so.
Again, we understand the intent of this section is to address the serious challenge of regulating
potentially dangerous and vicious dogs. However, we fear that the bill as written is overly broad
and will overburden county dog warden and court resources investigating and conducting
hearings about dogs that are acting on their natural drvie, self-defense, or accidentally causing
minor injury to a person or another dog. These valuable resources need to be focused on dealing
with dogs that truly pose a risk to public safety.
We believe this bill is an improvement to the legislation that was introduced last year, but we ask
the committee to seriously consider additional amendments to SB 195 prior to passage.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this legislation. I appreciate thoughtful
consideration of this important issue.

Cleveland Animal Protective League

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Cleveland Animal Protective League

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Cleveland Animal Protective League

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Written Testimony on Senate Bill 195

Senate Judiciary Committee

You might also like