18-9-204.5.  Unlawful ownership of dangerous dog.

(1)  The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that dangerous dogs are a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens throughout the state because of the number and serious nature of attacks by such dogs.

(2)  As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a)  "Bodily injury" means any physical injury that results in severe bruising, muscle tears, skin lacerations requiring professional medical treatment, or fracture of any bone or injury that requires corrective or cosmetic surgery.
(b)  "Dangerous dog" means any dog that:
(I)  Has inflicted bodily or serious bodily injury upon or has caused the death of a person or domestic animal; or
(II)  Has demonstrated tendencies that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the dog may inflict injury upon or cause the death of any person or domestic animal; or
(III)  Has engaged in or been trained for animal fighting as described and prohibited in section 18-9-204.
(c)  "Dog" means any domesticated animal related to the fox, wolf, coyote, or jackal.
(d)  "Domestic animal" means any dog, cat, or livestock.
(e)  "Owner" or "owns" means any person, firm, corporation, or organization owning, possessing, harboring, keeping, having financial or property interest in, or having control or custody of a domestic animal, as the term is defined in paragraph (d) of this subsection (2), including a dangerous dog as the term is defined in paragraph (b) of this subsection (2).
(f)  "Serious bodily injury" has the same meaning as such term is defined in section 18-1-901 (3) (p).

(a)  A person commits ownership of a dangerous dog if such person owns, possesses, harbors, keeps, has a financial or property interest in, or has custody or control over a dangerous dog.
(b)  Any owner who violates paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) whose dog inflicts bodily injury upon any person commits a class 3 misdemeanor.  Any owner involved in a second or subsequent violation under this paragraph (b) commits a class 2 misdemeanor.
(c)  Any owner who violates paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) whose dog inflicts serious bodily injury to a person commits a class 1 misdemeanor.  Any owner involved in a second or subsequent violation under this paragraph (c) commits a class 6 felony.
(d)  Any owner who violates paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) whose dog causes the death of a person commits a class 5 felony.
(e)  Any owner who violates paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) whose dog injures or destroys any domestic animal commits a class 3 misdemeanor.  Any owner involved in a second or subsequent violation under this paragraph (e) commits a class 2 misdemeanor. The court shall order the convicted owner and any owner who enters into a deferred judgment or deferred prosecution to make restitution to the injured or dead domestic animal's owner pursuant to applicable provisions of title 16, C.R.S., governing restitution.  Restitution shall be equal to the  fair market value of the domestic animal on the date, but before the time, the animal was injured or destroyed plus any reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred in preserving the animal's life.
(f)  In addition to any other penalty set forth in this subsection (3), upon an owner's entry of a guilty plea or the return of a verdict of guilty by a judge or jury or a deferred judgment or deferred prosecution for a violation that results in bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or death to a person, the court, pursuant to applicable provisions of title 16, C.R.S., governing restitution, shall order the defendant to make restitution in accordance with said provisions.
(g)  In addition to the penalties set forth in paragraphs (b) to (e) of this subsection (3), upon an owner's entry of a guilty plea or the return of a verdict of guilty by a judge or jury or a deferred judgment or deferred prosecution for a violation that results in serious bodily injury to a person or death to a person or domestic animal or for a second or subsequent violation of said paragraph (b) or (e) resulting in a conviction or a deferred judgment or a deferred prosecution involving the same dog of the same owner, the court may order that the dangerous dog be immediately confiscated and placed in a public animal shelter and shall order that, upon exhaustion of any right an owner has to appeal a conviction based on a violation of this subsection (3), the owner's dangerous dog be destroyed by lethal injection administered by a licensed veterinarian.
(h)
(I)  An affirmative defense to the violation of this subsection (3) shall be:
(A)  That, at the time of the attack by the dangerous dog which causes injury to or the death of a domestic animal, the domestic animal was at large, was an estray, and entered upon the property of the owner and the attack began, but did not necessarily end, upon such property;
(B)  That, at the time of the attack by the dangerous dog which causes injury to or the death of a domestic animal, said animal was biting or otherwise attacking the dangerous dog or its owner;
(C)  That, at the time of the attack by the dangerous dog which causes injury to or the death of a person, the victim of the attack was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense, other than a petty offense, against the dog's owner, and the attack did not occur on the owner's property;
(D)  That, at the time of the attack by the dangerous dog which causes injury to or the death of a person, the victim of the attack was committing or attempting to commit a criminal offense, other than a petty offense, against a person on the owner's property or the property itself and the attack began, but did not necessarily end, upon such property; or
(E)  That the person who was the victim of the attack by the dangerous dog tormented, provoked, abused, or inflicted injury upon the dog in such an extreme manner which resulted in the attack.   (II)  The affirmative defenses set forth in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (h) shall not apply to any dog that has engaged in or been trained for animal fighting as said term is described in section 18-9-204.

(5)

(a)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a municipality from adopting any rule or law for the control of dangerous dogs.
(b)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate a county's authority under part 1 of article 15 of title 30, C.R.S., to adopt dog control and licensing resolutions and to impose the penalties set forth in section 30-15-102, C.R.S.

(a)  To any dog that is used by a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the performance of peace officer duties;
(b)  To any dog that inflicts bodily or serious bodily injury to any veterinary health care worker, dog groomer, humane agency personnel, professional dog handler, trainer, or dog show judge each acting in the performance of his or her respective duties; or
(c)  To any dog that inflicts injury upon or causes the death of a domestic animal while the dog was working as a hunting dog, herding dog, or predator control dog on the property of or under the control of the dog's owner and the injury or death was to a domestic animal naturally associated with the work of such dog.

35-40-107.  Bounty on coyote, wolf.
Any person who kills any wolf, coyote, or any number of such animals within this state, shall receive a premium of one dollar for each coyote killed, and for each wolf killed two dollars, to be paid as provided in sections 35-40-107 to 35-40-112.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Canine and Feline Hybrid Advisory Group met six times in day-long meetings beginning in June, 1997.  The Advisory Group limited its focus to the directives contained in S.B. 97-167.  The recommendations contained in this report were achieved by consensus; the entire group agreed upon all the recommendations found in this report.  Those issues the group could not agree upon are not presented here.  There are other peripheral issues outside the context of our study that were discussed, but not agreed upon.

The canine and feline hybrid advisory group has determined that identification of the wolf hybrid is the principal difficulty associated with this issue.  There are no scientifically proven methods that will withstand legal challenge to differentiate wolf hybrids (also called wolf-dogs) from other canines. The inability to scientifically isolate wolf hybrids makes breed specific regulations difficult, if not impossible, to administer effectively and equitably. Therefore, the study group recommends changes in the present Dangerous Dog Law ( found at C.R.S.18-9-204.5) to address the threat that wolf hybrids may pose. The Dangerous Dog Law applies to all canines, that is "any animal related to the fox, wolf, coyote, or jackal."  Unquestionably, this definition applies to wolf hybrids, as well.  The group recommends specific changes to the Dangerous Dog Law to provide greater protection to the public, livestock, and other animal life within the state.

To address the need for providing the public with adequate information, the advisory group also recommends the formation of a Colorado Wolf-dog Association. This association would provide a forum for ongoing educational efforts aimed toward potential buyers of wolf hybrids as well as a registry service for qualified breeders. The group strongly believes the association should inform potential owners of the type of environmental, training, and husbandry needs that are necessary to minimize the hazards that may be associated with wolf hybrids.  These educational efforts should result in expanded consumer awareness as well as improved welfare for the animals.

The advisory group does not recommend any additional regulation of feline hybrids due to the lack of reported incidents of human or animal attacks.
 
 

PURPOSE

Senate Bill 97-167 declared that:

a)  Hybrid canines and felines may pose a significant threat to other animals and humans because of their unpredictable nature;

b)  Wolf hybrids in particular may pose a threat to humans and have been declared responsible for killing two children each year in the United States;

c)  Ten states prohibit the breeding and maintenance of wolf hybrids; and

d)  Most hybrid canines and felines are abandoned or killed when they reach two to three years of age and exhibit their wild nature. Some are ultimately  contained in hybrid-animal refuges.

The General Assembly directed the establishment of the Canine and Feline Hybrid Advisory Group to study and report its findings on the following issues:

1.      The behavior of hybrid wolves and hybrid felines;

2.  The extent of the expected and existing problems resulting from or projected to result from hybrid canines, and hybrid felines in Colorado; and

3.  If regulation is necessary for the regulation of breeding, care and maintenance of hybrids to protect the health, welfare and safety of the residents, livestock, and other animal life of the state.

The Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture appointed and convened an advisory group to study these.  The advisory group consisted of:
 

Thomas A. Kourlis, Commissioner of Agriculture - facilitator
Dr. Kris Fattor, private practicing veterinarian
Katie Kinney, Colorado Division of Wildlife
Patricia Wendland, and Liz Carman, owners, Wolf-Dog Rescue
Cathy Schurr, Mark Johnson, Dr. Stephanie Porter, Jim Redmond, and
Jim Wilcox, canine wolf-dog breeders and feline hybrid breeders
Ilene Wical and Mark Milford, animal welfare agencies
Carl Hanson and John Bartman, agricultural community
Suzanne Core and Rob Edward, environmental community

John Pape, Colorado Department of Health and Environment
Senator Rob Hernandez, S.B. 97-167 sponsor
Robert Slagle, Eagle County animal control agent
Linda Hart, hobby dog breeder
Jean Nelson, President, Professional Licensed Dog Breeders
Jackie Sainsbury, canine trainer
Dr. Keith Roehr, Division of Animal Industry, Colorado Dept. of Agriculture
Dr. John Maulsby, Division of Animal Industry, Colorado Dept. of Agriculture

Dr. Nick Federoff, wildlife biologist
Dr. Ray Pierotti, geneticist, University of Kansas
Dr. Erick Klinghammer, ethologist, Wolf Park, Indiana
Monty Sloan, wildlife photographer
Lynne Dishong, Colorado feline hybrid breeder
Mace Loftus, breeder and owner, Wolf-Dog Cross
Kent Weber, Mission Wolf

ISSUES

The following is a summary of comments from Dr. Pierotti, Dr. Federoff, and Dr. Klinghammer.

IDENTIFICATION OF WOLF-DOGS
We learned from Dr. Federoff that the wolf-dog cross is not a true hybrid, as both animals are from the same species.  He went on to say that the domestic dog originated from the wolf, and he believes that a domestic dog is a wolf in an arrested stage of development. The only way to identify a wolf-dog cross is from an accurately documented pedigree.  This involves taking two known content parents and breeding them to produce a known offspring.  All forms of wolf-dog identification are problematic.  There is no genotype (the genetic constitution of an animal) or phenotype (the observable appearance of an animal) to distinguish between a dog, a wolf-dog cross and a wolf.  All DNA tests to differentiate wolf-hybrids from domestic dogs are subject to challenge. There are no known DNA markers uniquely distinguishable in the wolf that are not present in the dog. Blood tests, skull measurements, and skeletal measurements all have some merit but have not withstood legal challenge.

Dr. Ray Pierotti said the key point is that dogs and wolves are from the same species. The American Society of Mammalogists have reclassified the domestic dog as Canis lupus familiaris  (the wolf is classified as Canis lupus), although this taxonomic change has not been recognized by the International Taxonomy Classification. The German shepherd is thought to be a descendent of the European wolf, and the Alaskan malamute possibly from the Alaskan wolf.

Existing methods of identification that are currently available cannot distinguish wolf-dogs from other canines with a high degree of confidence. Combinations of criteria have been used to increase the probability to accurately identify an animal as either a wolf or a dog.  Physical characteristics that are currently being used to identify wolves are straight hind legs, no slope of back, prominent sagittal crest, no slope over face and nose, and skull measurements. Skeletal measurements, phenotypical studies, as well as other blood protein, microsatellite, nuclear and mitochondria DNA tests can be of value in wolf dog identification.  Dr. Pierotti indicated that even a combination of all these studies have not sustained legal scrutiny in courts of law.

Attached to this report are18 reproduced photographs of dogs, wolf-dogs, and wolves.  Each photograph is unlabeled.  This test may help to illustrate the difficulty in using phenotypic appearance in determining the genotype of a canine.

BEHAVIOR OF WOLF-DOGS
A wolf's behavior is typically more socially shy and timid toward humans than that of a dog. Whether a wolf-dog cross should be considered more dangerous than a dog depends on behavior specific to the individual. Implanted behavior can effect innate behavior. The socialization of each individual is affected by training methods. The risk to public safety is affected by the socialization of each individual wolf-dog cross.

There is no conclusive evidence to show that wolf-dogs are more aggressive toward humans than other big dogs (e.g., rottweilers, German shepherds, chows and pit bulls).  The behavior of a wolf-dog is not directly proportional to its percentage of wolf content, in that a high percentage wolf-dog cross may have behavior more typical of a dog. Conversely, a low percentage wolf-dog cross could behave more like a wolf.   The behavior of a wolf-dog is not totally determined by its genotype or phenotype. The innate behavior of a specific animal can be anywhere within the broad spectrum of its genetic background.

The behavior of a wolf-dog is typically different from that of a dog, and therefore, effective training techniques should also be different.  Wolf-dog crosses do not respond well to negative reinforcement. The wolf-dog cross may be more able to make up its mind and is therefore less influenced by human direction.  A wolf-dog is typically more independent than other domestic breeds. They do not usually fawn over humans, as might be expected, for instance, from a Labrador retriever.

Domestic dogs and wolf-dog crosses have shown aggression toward humans. The wolf-dog ranks sixth in fatal canine attacks according to the information gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and the Humane Society of the United States.  This information was extracted from various reports that were used to ascertain which breeds caused human fatalities. Although surveillance and reporting methods can affect this data, no information to the contrary was presented to the committee.  We were unable to find any scientific, peer reviewed statistical evidence that suggests wolf-dogs pose any greater threat to humans, animals, and property than other domestic breeds of the canine family.  We were unable to ascertain the percentages within a breed because it is uncertain how many animals of each breed exist in the United States.

Aggressive wolf-dog behavior may stem from hunting instinct as well as social aggression.  Hunting instinct and the presence of an injured animal or human could trigger aggressive behavior. This type of behavior however is not necessarily unique to wolf-dogs.  The varying degree of this social or dominance behavior is dependent upon the individual animal. The wolf is typically less territorial than domestic dogs and is recognized as being more timid, aloof, and less involved with humans.

There was consensus among the experts that a wolf-dog cross would have the same chance to survive hunting in the wild as a large breed feral dog. Some members of the advisory committee believe the wolf-dog cross would have a greater chance for survival in the wild than many breeds of domestic dogs, due to better hunting skills and a hair coat able to protect against cold temperatures.  Both wolves and dogs have a tendency to form packs and thereby hunt more effectively. Therefore, a single canine in the wild would have a limited ability to survive.

Most incidents of canine attacks involve irresponsible ownership, such as the lack of proper containment or the inability of a person to recognize potential signs of aggressive behavior.  Every canine owner should be aware of the need to properly house, restrain, exercise, socialize, and obedience train their canine companions.

When canines are surrendered to animal shelters and are identified by their owners as wolf-dog crosses, many shelters will not place them in new homes. The decision not to allow for the adoption of a wolf-dog cross is usually based upon liability issues, irrespective of the canine's behavior.  Any animal which is received in a shelter with the wolf-dog label is destined to be euthanized, as many of the current rescue groups have no room to take these animals.  The financial impact of euthanizing animals on animal shelters must be considered.  Certain members of the advisory group question the breeding of domestic dogs to wolves when the offspring seem to have a limited success as traditional pet animals, which ultimately results in more of them being euthanized.

Although little information has been reported regarding coyote-dog crosses, there was consensus among the experts advising the group that they make bad companions and do not possess the ability to socialize.
 

EXTENT OF PROBLEM OF WOLF-DOGS
The General Assembly directed the Colorado Department of Agriculture to initiate a canine and feline hybrid study to determine the extent of problems caused by the wolf-dog cross and feline hybrid in this state.  A questionnaire was distributed to sheriffs’ offices and animal control agencies across the state to assess the type and frequency of incidents involving hybrid canines and felines.  For the purposes of this study, a hybrid  was defined as "the animal produced by breeding a wild canine or feline with a domestic canine or feline, and that animal's progeny as well."  An incident would be any personal injury, property damage, or livestock damage, known to be caused by a canine or feline hybrid. There were 58 respondents to the survey.  The findings do not constitute a thorough statistical analysis by the Colorado Department of Agriculture.

The results of the state wide survey were:

1. Does your county or local municipality have any laws or regulations concerning canine or feline hybrids?
State-wide Totals:  50=No;  8= Yes.
Conclusion:  There are eight areas/municipalities in Colorado with some form of restrictions concerning hybrid animals.

2. Do you feel the Dangerous Dog Law is adequate in dealing with the hybrid animal situation in your area?
State wide Totals:  16= No;  33=Yes; 9= Unsure.
Conclusion:  The respondents (2:1) felt the Dangerous Dog Law was adequate in dealing with hybrid animal situations.

3. Estimate the number of wolf hybrids living in your area or county.
State-wide average: 110 per reply/area/county.
State-wide Total: 6,380.
Conclusion: The total number of wolf-dog crosses is based on responses to the questionnaire and is not the result of rigid statistical methods. This number is much lower than other sources estimated.

4. Estimate the number of feline hybrids living in your area or county?
State-wide Total:  5 confirmed.
Conclusion:  This low number is possibly due to zero reported incidents.  The feline hybrid seems to be a low profile animal.

5. Number of incidents of injury or damage involving wolf hybrids in your area or county.
State-wide Total: 4 per report. (average number of incidents per report)
Conclusion: The total reflects a historic number (total for all years records were kept) compiled from each county/area.  This number of 4 per area is very low compared to the number of incidents of canine reports as a whole.

6. Number of incidents of injury or damage involving hybrid felines in your area or county?  None was reported.
Conclusion: There is no reported impact of feline hybrids upon health, welfare and safety of residents of this state.

The survey reported incidents involving hybrid animals.  However, the extent of these incidents seems to be less than or equal to those caused by other domestic canines or felines. The survey did not disclose a disproportionate number of incidents involving hybrid animals. The identification problem inherent to canine hybrids could affect the accuracy of this study because the actual breed of a canine involved in an incident was difficult to accurately determine.

A consumer protection issue surfaced in the discussions of the Advisory Group. Since the average cost of a wolf-dog is higher than most purebred dogs, a situation could arise where some owners believe they own a wolf-dog when they actually own a purebred or crossbred dog.  There were a few reports of wolf-dogs involved in an incident where the authorities questioned whether the canine was in reality a domestic dog.  The Advisory Group believes it would be helpful to provide some protection to consumers, so they would not be misled when purchasing  a wolf-dog cross.
 

The following two tables give some perspective as to where frequency of
wolf-dog incidents rank in Colorado and in the U.S.
 

BREEDS INVOLVED IN DOG BITES IN JEFFERSON COUNTY 1989-1996

Breed  Reported          Total Bites
=================        ===========
German Shepherd           299
Labrador Retriever        282
Chow                      218
Cocker Spaniel             98
Australian Shepherd        87
Golden Retriever           78
Rottweiler                 77
Husky                      60
Akita                      46
Dalmation                  40
Malamute                   40
Cockapoo                   40
Sheltie                    35
Springer Spaniel           32
Collie                     28
Pitbull                    24
Beagle                     21
Chesapeake Bay Retriever   21
Pekinese                   19
Border Collie              18
Samoyed                    16
Schnauzer                  15
Spitz                      14
Saint Bernard              13
Bull Terrier               11
Scottish Terrier           11
Wolf Hybrid                10
 

BREEDS INVOLVED IN DOG BITE FATALITIES IN THE U.S.A., 1979-1996
The following information was compiled by the Humane Society of the
United States (H.S.U.S.) and the Centers for Disease Control (C.D.C.)

Breed                         Total Fatalities Reported
======================        =========================
Pit Bull and crosses          70
Rottweiler and crosses        32
Shepherd and crosses          30
Husky and crosses             20
Malamute and crosses          18
Wolf Hybrids                  14
Chows and crosses             11
Doberman and crosses           8
Great Dane and crosses         6
Saint Bernard and crosses      4
Akita and crosses              4
 

REGULATION OF WOLF-DOGS IN OTHER STATES
It was stated in the Legislative Declaration that 10 states prohibit the breeding and maintenance of wolf-dogs, and the committee requested that we review the states’ legislation.

In contacting officials who administer and enforce the statutes in other states concerning regulation of the wolf-dog cross, we found:

1.)  The states which have attempted to identify the wolf-dog cross have had difficulty in proving that identification in court.

2.)  Several states with statutes effecting the wolf-dog cross have found their programs unenforceable and ineffective due to the identification problem of the wolf-dog cross.

3.) Programs that use voluntary licensing or relied upon owner identification have realized varying degrees of success.

It should also be noted that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has also adopted a position statement opposing breed specific regulations pertaining to canines.
 

COLORADOUS DANGEROUS DOG LAW
There was consensus among the advisory group and supported by expert testimony, that "dangerous dog laws" are best able to address the public safety issue associated with wolf-dogs.

Colorado's current dangerous dog law (Section 18-9-204.5(III)(c), C.R.S.) defines "dog" as any domesticated animal related to the fox, wolf, coyote, or jackal.  This definition includes the wolf-dog cross.  A  "dangerous dog" is defined in the statute as "Any dog that has demonstrated tendencies that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the dog may inflict injury upon or cause the death of any person or domestic animal; or has inflicted bodily or serious bodily injury upon or has caused the death of a person or domestic animals." These definitions clearly suggest that we should address the wolf-dog concerns in this statute.

John Maulsby, DVM, Chief of the Bureau of Animal Protection, Colorado Department of Agriculture provided the study group with an overview of the Colorado’s Dangerous Dog Law:

If a dog or wolf-dog, in the current statute, should attack and/or bite a person or domestic animal and inflict "bodily injury," the owner(s) could be charged with a class three misdemeanor.  Any owner involved in a second or subsequent violation would be subject to a class two misdemeanor charge.

Any owner, under the current statute, whose dog or wolf-dog inflicts "serious bodily injury" to a person could be charged with a class one misdemeanor.  Any owner involved in a second or subsequent violation of "Serious bodily injury" violation is subject to a class six felony charge. Any owner whose dog or wolf-dog cross causes the death of a person could be charged with a class five felony.
 

COLORADO PRESUMPTIVE SENTENCING RANGES

CLASS          MINIMUM              MAXIMUM
============   ================     ===================
Misdemeanors
    1          6 mos./$500/both     24 mos./$5,000/both
    2          3 mos./$250/both     12 mos./$1,000/both
    3          $50.00                6 mos./$750/both

Felonies
    5          1 yr/$1,000/both      4 yrs./$100,000/both
    6          Fines same as Class 5 but no prison sentence
 

CONCLUSIONS

In our contacts with officials from other states which enforce breed specific  statutes involving wolf-dogs, we learned there has been a great deal of difficulty in enforcement due to the inability to effectively identify these canines. Since it is impossible to scientifically identify the wolf-dog cross to withstand legal scrutiny, there was consensus that breed-specific regulations are not feasible.

The advisory group was unable to reveal any incidents of public safety involving feline hybrids. The advisory group has determined that further regulation of feline hybrids unnecessary.

Due to the fact that wolf-dog identification is problematic, the Advisory Group decided that breed specific regulations could not be effectively administered or enforced. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has also adopted a position statement opposing breed specific regulations pertaining to canines. The Advisory Group has recognized there is potential harm to the public from wolf-dog crosses as well as many other breeds of domestic dogs.  Therefore the Advisory Group strongly believes there will be benefit in modifying the present Dangerous Dog Law to improve public health, welfare, and safety of the residents, livestock, and other animal life of this state.
 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The advisory group recommends the following modifications to the Dangerous Dog Law, C.R.S 18-9-204.5:

RECOMMENDATION ONE:

All owners of canines convicted of owning a dangerous dog be required to:

1. Provide for confinement for any convicted dangerous dog not destroyed pursuant to paragraph (g) of this subsection (3) of C.R.S.18-9-204.5 . The owner shall be required to confine the dangerous dog in an escape proof building or enclosure. The owner shall be further required to keep the dog under the owner’s control by a leash if the dog is outside of the building or enclosure.

In the event of a second conviction, the dangerous dog shall be destroyed by lethal injection administered by a licensed veterinarian or confined in a six-sided, escape-proof enclosure or building. The owner shall be further required to keep the dog muzzled and under the owner’s control by a leash if the dog is outside of the building or enclosure.

2. Restitution payments for destroyed livestock, domestic animals, or property shall be equal to the fair market value or replacement value whichever is greater, plus the costs incurred in replacing or attempting to replace said animals or property. In addition, any owner committing a second or subsequent violation of this section shall also be punished by a mandatory fine, equal to the minimum fine as specified in 18-1-106 for a class 2 misdemeanor.

3. The owner shall not transfer ownership of a dog found to be dangerous without the prior approval from the Bureau of Animal Protection except for the purpose of euthanasia.  Any change in the future disposition, (i.e., change of address, escape, death) shall be reported immediately to the Bureau of Animal Protection.  Any change not reported shall result in a $50 fine.

4. The owner shall be required to permanently identify the dog found to be dangerous by means of a tattoo or micro-chip and shall report to the Bureau of Animal Protection and local animal control agencies, within 30 days of the means by which the dog has been identified and the location of the animal.

5. The owner shall be required to post a sign, for the public, in clear view, that states, "Beware: Dangerous Dog on Premise S within 7 days.

If the owner of a dangerous dog violates the aforementioned recommendations, that person would be held in contempt of the court’s order or if ownership has been transferred for a purpose other than euthanasia, the violation shall constitute a class 3 misdemeanor.

The Advisory Committee further recommends that the judge be given guidance and be provided with the following options to consider for use for Dangerous Dog Law convictions.

1. The owner be required to attend dangerous dog education classes and the dog and owner attend rehabilitation training classes.

-The owners would be responsible for paying the costs incurred in this education.
-The education would be provided by a certified animal behaviorist.

2. The owner of a dangerous dog would be required to obtain and show proof of liability insurance, in the amount of $100,000 to cover the victim’s expenses incurred in the event of future bites.

3. The owner performs community service.
 

RECOMMENDATION TWO:

The advisory group made the following determinations concerning the present Dangerous Dog Law:

A. The current fines and penalties are adequate.

B. Wolf-dog crosses are presently included under the dangerous dog law.

C. The statute addresses the behavior of canines regardless of their breed.

D. The canine in question does not have to bite, but "has only to demonstrate tendencies that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the dog may inflict injury upon or cause the death of any person or domestic animals."

E. The victims of attacks from a dangerous dog already have the ability to recover losses by means of civil action.
 

RECOMMENDATION THREE :

The advisory group recommends creation of the Colorado Wolf-dog Association.

Due to the fact that wolf-dog identification is problematic, the Advisory Group decided that breed specific regulations were not feasible. Other states have had success in regulating the wolf-dog cross through voluntary programs.  The Advisory Group recommends the formation of the Colorado Wolf-dog Association.  This is not an endorsement of wolf-dog breeding; rather the recommendation is intended to create a vehicle by which education and consumer protection can be made available.  The association would not be a statutory requirement, but is an important part of our recommendation.  We went to the private sector to encourage participation of wolf-dog breeders to promote voluntary self-regulation as opposed to government regulation.

The advisory group recognized that a wolf-dog registry program would provide the platform for the following benefits:

1) Prospective buyers of wolf-dogs could be provided with an agreed upon educational program, when purchasing from Colorado Wolf-dog association breeders.  New buyers would be better informed as to the specific facility needed and unique training requirements of wolf-dogs, thereby improving the social and environmental well-being of the animals.

2) Licensed wolf-dog breeders, through involvement in a registry, would be better able to provide the public with proven progeny, thereby addressing the consumer protection issue.  The consumer protection issue alleges that a number of crossbred or purebred dogs are being sold to the public under the pretence of being a wolf-dog cross.  Since the average cost of a wolf-dog cross is higher than most purebred dogs, a situation could arise where some owners who believe they own a wolf-dog cross have actually purchased a purebred or crossbred dog. The registration program is envisioned to be a voluntary licensing program operated by  the association and incorporating the use of one or more wolf-dog registries. Two registries identified were Iowolfer and the National Wolf Hybrid Association.

3) Members of the Colorado Wolfdog Association would be able to self-regulate their membership, especially concerning matters involving disreputable breeders within their own group.  It is anticipated that the association would establish a code of ethics to which their members would subscribe.  This would promote the reputable breeding of the wolf-dog cross and provide a vehicle to discipline disreputable breeders.

The Advisory Group respectfully recommends the General Assembly fund a one-time, General Fund appropriation of up to $10,000 to develop a video informing prospective buyers of facility requirements, training, and proper husbandry of wolf-dogs.

RECOMMENDATION FOUR:

The advisory group does not  recommend any  further regulation of feline hybrids due to the lack of reported incidents of human or animal attacks.
 

If you want a copy of the committee findings on official letterhead please write to the following:

Return to Main Page