Online registries treat dog owners like rapists.
Fasten your seat belts, boys and girls. You, your dog, and your privacy could be thrown under the bus in the mad scramble to cope with screaming headlines and "dangerous" dogs.
Electronically shunning wrong-doers: perpetual purgatory
The State of Virginia's press release on their brand spanking-new online database of personal information on dog owners is explicit:
http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/news/releases-b/070307dangerousdog.shtml
The registry, which is similar in concept to the Sex Offenders Registry, enables people to check to see if dangerous dogs reside in their area. . . Users may search by locality or by zip code to determine the presence of dogs deemed dangerous by the courts or local officials. . .
The publicly accessible section of the Virginia registry will ultimately include the name of each "dangerous" dog's owner and their address, along with photos, the name and the breed of the dog, the acts that resulted in the dog being deemed dangerous, and information necessary to access court records of the adjudication.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+3.1-796.93C3
A little bit "dangerous"
In Virginia, "dangerous dog" means a dog 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."
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+3.1-796.93C1
Dogs that bit other dogs are in the online registry.
Dogs that killed cats are in the online registry.
75 -100 dogs per year are typically found "dangerous" in the State of Virginia, and the owners of those dogs will have to update their address and other private information for the database each January. They also must comply with a long list of automatic sanctions including muzzling in public, "dangerous dog" signs for their homes, and special "dangerous dog" tags and orange "dangerous dog" collars.
How could neighbors be unaware of such dogs, even without an online registry?
Cost to taxpayers in the Old Dominion? News reports indicate $200,147 to set up the registry, plus $78,302 a year to operate it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072101225_pf.html
New York politicians just itching to sell out dog owners
Not to be out done, Westchester County, New York, under County Executive Andrew Spano, took the
initiative to establish its very own online dangerous dog registry to publicize the home addresses of dog owners. Westchester Cty. is busy pressuring local municipalities in the county to contribute home addresses to its public listing.
Even though state law doesn't require them to do it.
So far, they've snared one dog for the Westchester registry.
Sex offender, or dog owner. . .what's the diff to vigilantes?
In his piece titled "Virginia Bureaucracy is Foaming at the Mouth over Dogs", Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher wonders if there's much of a connection between people whose dogs bite other dogs and sex offenders.
But is a registry the right tool for the government to wield against this particular social ill? A sex offenders' registry shines light on something that people try to keep secret -- their disgusting and dangerous criminal records. The problem with dangerous dogs is not finding out where they are, but getting something done about them, and the registry isn't of much help there.
Fisher is right, of course. But treating dog owners like sex offenders could have far more serious repercussions.
Bad dog, bad dog! Whatcha gonna do?
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
In the opinion of John LaFond, a retired University of Missouri law professor and leading expert on sex offenders and the U. S. penal system, online registries are an open invitation to vigilantism but there is no evidence to indicate that they enhance public safety.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...p;amp;amp;amp;amp;ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/laws/06apr19_kesich.htm
Vigilantes have used online registries to hunt down, and murder, individuals whose information appeared on them. The killings have provoked debate and criticism, particularly in "progressive" circles. States like Idaho have added a warning to their registry's home page, warning against the use of the information to criminally harass or intimidate.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/18/970/08730
http://www.isp.state.id.us/identification/sex_offender/public_access.html
Murder, arson and assault get a free ride. Not owning a dog.
So tell me: Is this any way to treat the owners of a dog that bit a cat?
Does anyone out there really think its reasonable to treat dog owners like rapists?
Why do politicians think its okay to treat our private information like a public commodity? Do drunk drivers have a greater right to privacy than dog owners? How does that work?
Nationally, dog owners represent a healthy chunk of the electorate--an estimated 43% of residences include a dog, and in many places that percentage is much, much higher.
Why are we permitting these useless laws this crap? My Dog Votes, and he sure won't vote for politicians that cannot distinguish between the owners of a dog that gets into a scuffle with another dog, and a sex offender.
Yeesh.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I had to remove some of the images. There were 3 too many. You can see the blog in its entirety here: http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/
Fasten your seat belts, boys and girls. You, your dog, and your privacy could be thrown under the bus in the mad scramble to cope with screaming headlines and "dangerous" dogs.
Electronically shunning wrong-doers: perpetual purgatory
The State of Virginia's press release on their brand spanking-new online database of personal information on dog owners is explicit:
http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/news/releases-b/070307dangerousdog.shtml
The registry, which is similar in concept to the Sex Offenders Registry, enables people to check to see if dangerous dogs reside in their area. . . Users may search by locality or by zip code to determine the presence of dogs deemed dangerous by the courts or local officials. . .
The publicly accessible section of the Virginia registry will ultimately include the name of each "dangerous" dog's owner and their address, along with photos, the name and the breed of the dog, the acts that resulted in the dog being deemed dangerous, and information necessary to access court records of the adjudication.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+3.1-796.93C3
A little bit "dangerous"
In Virginia, "dangerous dog" means a dog 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."
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+3.1-796.93C1
Dogs that bit other dogs are in the online registry.
Dogs that killed cats are in the online registry.
75 -100 dogs per year are typically found "dangerous" in the State of Virginia, and the owners of those dogs will have to update their address and other private information for the database each January. They also must comply with a long list of automatic sanctions including muzzling in public, "dangerous dog" signs for their homes, and special "dangerous dog" tags and orange "dangerous dog" collars.
How could neighbors be unaware of such dogs, even without an online registry?
Cost to taxpayers in the Old Dominion? News reports indicate $200,147 to set up the registry, plus $78,302 a year to operate it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/21/AR2007072101225_pf.html
New York politicians just itching to sell out dog owners
Not to be out done, Westchester County, New York, under County Executive Andrew Spano, took the
initiative to establish its very own online dangerous dog registry to publicize the home addresses of dog owners. Westchester Cty. is busy pressuring local municipalities in the county to contribute home addresses to its public listing.
Even though state law doesn't require them to do it.
So far, they've snared one dog for the Westchester registry.
Sex offender, or dog owner. . .what's the diff to vigilantes?
In his piece titled "Virginia Bureaucracy is Foaming at the Mouth over Dogs", Washington Post columnist Marc Fisher wonders if there's much of a connection between people whose dogs bite other dogs and sex offenders.
But is a registry the right tool for the government to wield against this particular social ill? A sex offenders' registry shines light on something that people try to keep secret -- their disgusting and dangerous criminal records. The problem with dangerous dogs is not finding out where they are, but getting something done about them, and the registry isn't of much help there.
Fisher is right, of course. But treating dog owners like sex offenders could have far more serious repercussions.
Bad dog, bad dog! Whatcha gonna do?
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
In the opinion of John LaFond, a retired University of Missouri law professor and leading expert on sex offenders and the U. S. penal system, online registries are an open invitation to vigilantism but there is no evidence to indicate that they enhance public safety.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...p;amp;amp;amp;amp;ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/laws/06apr19_kesich.htm
Vigilantes have used online registries to hunt down, and murder, individuals whose information appeared on them. The killings have provoked debate and criticism, particularly in "progressive" circles. States like Idaho have added a warning to their registry's home page, warning against the use of the information to criminally harass or intimidate.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/18/970/08730
http://www.isp.state.id.us/identification/sex_offender/public_access.html
Murder, arson and assault get a free ride. Not owning a dog.
So tell me: Is this any way to treat the owners of a dog that bit a cat?
Does anyone out there really think its reasonable to treat dog owners like rapists?
Why do politicians think its okay to treat our private information like a public commodity? Do drunk drivers have a greater right to privacy than dog owners? How does that work?
Nationally, dog owners represent a healthy chunk of the electorate--an estimated 43% of residences include a dog, and in many places that percentage is much, much higher.
Why are we permitting these useless laws this crap? My Dog Votes, and he sure won't vote for politicians that cannot distinguish between the owners of a dog that gets into a scuffle with another dog, and a sex offender.
Yeesh.
~~~~~~~~~~~
I had to remove some of the images. There were 3 too many. You can see the blog in its entirety here: http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/
